United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROO/R05-88/071
September 1988
Superfund
Record of Decision:
Ninth Avenue Dump, IN
-------
50272 -un
REPORT DOCUMENTATION 11. REPORT NO. .
PAGE EPA/ROD/R05-88/07l
2.
3. R8Ctpient's Acc..8Ion No.
4. Title snd Subtitle
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Ninth Avenue Dump, IN
>t Remedial Action
50 Repo&9'}'~t / 88
6.
I--
-7. "__.'01(.)
- -
8. Performin8 O..anlzation Rept. No.
9. Perform'n8 O..aniZ8tl~n Name and Addre.s
10. Project/T..k/Worll Unit No.
"
-- --
-
11. Contract(C) or Grant(G) No.
(C)
(G)
12. Spon.orln- Orpnlutlon Name and Addre..
U.S. Environmental Protection
401 M street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
- -
13. Type of Report ... Period Covered
Agency
800/000
14.
15. Suppiementary Not..
1.. Abstract (Umlt: zoo -rda)
The Ninth Avenue Dump (NAD) is a 17-acre inactive chemical and industrial waste
disposal site located in Gary, Indiana. NAD is located in a low-lying area with poor
drainage. Prior to' filling, the site consisted of parallel ridges separated by wetlands
areas. Hazardous waste disposal activities occurred at the site from early to mid'
1970s with some filling continuing until 1980. The site accepted dry industrial, .
construction and demolition waste, oil, solvents, paint solvents and sludges, resins,
ds, and flammable, caustic and arsenic-contaminated materials. A small-scale auto
._~cking operation has reportediy been' observed at the property' in 1975 by the Indiana
State Board of Health (ISBH) which documented the presence of 10,000 55-gallon drums at
the site, many of which were empty. Additionally, the inspection estimated
approximately 500,000 gallons of liquid industrial waste and 1,000 buried drums present
at the site. Subsequent inspection revealed portions of discarded auto batteries,
drummed liquid wastes, and abandoned tanker trucks. In 1975 and 1980 EPA ordered the
site operator to initiate surface cleanups. Subsequently, he removed some barrels, junk
cars, and trucks. This first operable unit addresses remediation of an oil layer
floating on the ground water surface, the principal environmental threat at the site.
Tne quantity of oil under the site is estimated at 250,000 to 700,000 gallons, of which
(See Attached Sheet)
,17. Document Analysis a. Dascrlptors
Record of Decision
Ninth Avenue Dump, IN
J First Remedial Action
Contaminated Media:- gw
~.~e~~J1,.76m.~!W1.l~irm~e ta 1 s ,
organics (PCBS), PAHs, VOCs (benzene, toluene, xylenes)
c. COSATI Field/Group
II. ',bllity Statement
19. Security Cid$S (This Report)
None
21. No. of pats.
---
--
20. S8c:urlty Class (This Pa.e)
None
22. Price
(S.. ANSI-z39.18)
$.. 'n.tructlon. on Rever.e
OP'l'lONAL FORM 272 (4-77\
(Formerty NTI5-35)
Department of Commerce
-------
EPA/ROD/R05-88/071
~h Avenue Dump, IN
- ~ ~st Remedial Action
16.
ABSTRACT (continued)
100,000 to 500,000 gallons are estimated to be recoverable. Several organic and
inorganic contaminants have been detected in the oil in higher concentrations than in
other media. Oil seeps have been observed in onsite ponds leading to concerns that the
oil may be affecting aquatic life, and an oil sheen has been seen on several surface
water bodies. The second operable unit will address buried waste, contaminated soil,
and contaminated ground water. The primary contaminants in the oil layer include:
VOCs, benzene, toluene, xylene, PAHs, organics, PCBS, metals, and cyanides.
The selected remedial action for this site includes: construction of a
soil-bentonite slurry wall to completely surround the hydrocarbon layer; separate
extraction of oil and ground water through a series of central extraction wells,
followed by-storage of the recovered oil in an onsite storage tank and recharge of the
treated ground water through recharge wells; and ground water monitoring. Oil treatment
will be evaluated in the second operable unit. The estimated capital cost for this
remedial action is $1,960,000 with annual O&M of $190,000.
~
~
-------
~(B FCR 'JBE R&D
-------
o
fvbni toring groundwater inside and outside the slurry wall to
ensure its effectiveness; and
o
Installing an on-site oil storage tank.
'R1e selected rsnedy is protective of human health and the environment and
is cost-effective. 'nUs action attains Federal and State requirements
that are ~licable, or relevant and appropriate, to this action, and a
wai ver can be justified for tlDse rEqUirenents beyax:1 the scope of this
action. ~~11~ treatment of the principal threats at the site was not
found to be practicable within the limited scope of this operable unit,
this remedy does net satisfy the statutory preference for treatnent as a
prirx:ipal element of the remedy. '!he second operable unit will address
treatment of the extracted oil and will consider the statutory preference
for treat:IIent:.
t
~ef do ; /ffJ
Date
. ..strator
Valdas V.
Regional
Region V
-------
Page No.
01/,'/88
TITLE
Results fro. YIAR .n.lyses of
sa.ples.
-staDle results frol "ldco I
Prtll11nAry AssesSlent
~lntn Avenue uuap
SIte :nsO!ctlon Reoort
us v. ",rtell, et .1. Consent
. Juog.ent
~ubllC ""tIn; Agenaa
R!C08IIfndat Ion of olatelllnt of
8Onltorlng ~115
An Inventory of the 6round..ater
Use 1n tne Vic1n1ty of "la~ I,
Siry, Iff
~I/FS ~ase : NOr~ Plan
FInal ",.~unlty Aelatl0ns Plan
Plitll1c l'eetlng of 8/13/81)
Suoerfund Progril Fact Sheet
t:~o;. tnvlronMtnul News Release
SUl8iry of anAlytIcal results
TroG resalDl1ng wells near
"lOCO I anc ~10CO II, Gary, Ih,
1n July-August 1986
QAPP
,J
I'eIO re grounaMiter
class1f1catlons
~l/FS 3th A.-enue Pt'lase I I Work
Plan, Supplemental WOrk Plan and
Assoc1ated Plans.
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
9TH. AVENUE ~, INDI~
~OOR
RODert Gnaedlnger
Reg10n Y TAT to Beverly KuSh
GNueller - Ecology & Envrftlt
~'A
us Clst Ct, NW Dlst of Inc.
~ Region Y
QAiE
81/03/13
SZ/06/02
83/~/OC
83/08/08
8310'3/29
84/12/12
JStrec:ker Ind St Be. of Health 85/02/05
6eosc:1ences Researcn Assoc:.
Warzyn Engr. Inc.
c..p, UrlSser, & lIIer.ie :nc.
USEPA ~eg10n Y
USEPA RegIon Y
US£PA Reg10n V
R. B01ce-usEPA RP/II
Warzyn Engr. Inc.
CHSutf i n - £PA
Warzyn EngIneer1ng CG.
86/04/00 351
B';'/~/i>V ~i)~
f!i/vi !~'i.i
8~ioa/l.:
eb/OSiO(;
tit. 1 t)&1 0.,
8b/ll/0(1
Bt./::r'1/~1t 1t9C:
8" 101121
87/05/00 ,..)3
PAGES
21)
17
5
1-
i!O
s
~f,
"
c:
'::3
3
-------
~a~= N:,.
. (I, 2~.'~~,
r ~ ~:-;;I r ~HI"~ :'':';:5 DH.io~
TITL:
1 eeiO~/2~ "e~~ra of pnone ~onv. witn
Artnur Carter of ID~~ wno
aaoea to the list of lnalana
A~ARs the ~~ EsmlSSIOns
RegulatIons 1325 l~, 8-1.I-a
ar.'J 8-l.1-6 to be aaaea to °
tne lIst provloea In tne
c.',t./8~ letter.
, e~/05i~1 Letter reauestlng
reclisSlflcatlon of
tne Nlntne A~enue
Dump SIte.
~DAiE
AO~!NISTRATrvE REOD~O IN0~X
Ni~T~ AvE~~E DU~P :ii::
GArY, INDIAMI
AlJ7HOR
AllIson Hlltner-US~~
WOODrow "yers, Jr.-I~BH
, EfilO"/~O Letter retle~ung tne StitlJS &orCin Stoner-u.s.ilegt.
of Seeve "artell'. perfor=anc! Jus.lce
of tne rt:Ulr~entS of ene
PartIal Consent Juo;e.ento ana
nl. OD!1£itl0ns uroofr tne
la!4e.
~ 87/0~/,4 Letter to re510ent enloslng
tne results of 81111 Mater
tesn frorJ nlS hOlie.
" &i 11 1)1 05 r~,t1 hcat! on tnit a prompt
rere:lil iC.lon appears
necessary.
OtIS Welen
Dennis IversorHar:yn
EnglneerJrlg
REC!;ilE!IT
Valaas ~iilKU!~Ss:.H
OC:~r~~.i T,~::
Cc~munlC:t.or. ~~:~:
tcrrespom:eoc!!
of
A. Tl;ne-",.(:t51rllos6(l'9wle Corr!!oonaence
AllIson ~Iltner-US~
Jinft llie!-'J. 5. Hnty CtE
Vileas Hc~1WUS-J::;~
fI 86,.:jc;/2t. ~tite of lna1ini'. Hp:J!1ca~le Nancy
or Relevant and Apcroprlate Rlloley-in.Dept.ofEnYlr.ft~=t.
Rec:ulrefllentS (ARriils,.
<.
~ &~/0~/O~ General NotICe Letter Ana
Informitl~n Reauest
tI 8cn:''!/I)t, ~e,:Ur to reSlcer,,:; enclc,slng
re5u~ts of ina:yses of 5011
sa~g~es taren fron ner yare.
~d (~/~~/(~ ~I~tn~ A~en~e Dump ~coseo
Plan.
, &e/O~/oj ~iC~ ~'eet
c eSi.jU22 t(~OIft!IIeflCnl0n thit the SIte
"ary 6aae-U5E~
AllIson Hlltn~J:C;~
u:;£~
6iS1C~ & HIltner - USC;~
Rlcnard 801ce-U5EPA
~. ~li:~ ~lnley
~rtI Hlr.er;~-J$-A
~.rresDt.ncer.ce
CorreS;':'f;cer.::!
- ... -.. ... --
Corre5POflce~
C:,I're5 v:'n~ 2n:2
CvrreSp(flCefiCe
Fac': Sn::t
FiC':; Sneet
IiIy)ranalJM
-------
"
Pa~~ rj,:'.
. vt./2~/~:j
~
FICH~/F~~~: ~~i::~ L~i~
TilLE
be
receslgnatea as a category 1
sIte a an explanQ~lon of Nny
a~eptacle ll~lementalon of an
Rl/FS and reQedlal actIons 15
v'ry unlikely to be ootalntO
througn responsible party
idlens.
1 87/0e/24 ReYlew of reSIdentIal well
samples datea 6/1,167.
7 f:7/09/10 ACn~ Il!EII()RANL1JPI: Rl!IIf)val
Request for tne ~lntn Avenue
Dump SIte, 6ary, Ina I ana.
lJ!:'uHTE
AD~l~!STRH:IVE RECORD I~DE~
NiNTI1 HV£~juE tot..,.:. SiTE
GARy, IND1~~
AU'iHOi<
Loise FaClnskl-HTSDP.
Snerry KamKe - ue~
~l 8h!O~/Oi LISt of IndivIDUals receivIng US~~
notlce/lnforlatlon reauests.
8 8~/08/,~ CoeDlaInt in the cas! ot
united ~tates v. Ste~e
Kart,ll, ,t al., tH&O-i7~,
u.S.D.C., No. DISt. of
Incaana-rim'oIOno DI v.
21 84/08/08 Oraer for enuy of Parual
Consent De:ree at enterea
IS of Decemcer7, 1ge~ anD
tnat it be further tnat
aefer~ants IrvIn Clark,
Donala Clark, Charles O.
Clark, BernIe! J. Clark,
Homer Clar~ '"0 Oorotny
Clark be ais8Issec wltn
pr!jud~C! witn PartIal
Cor.sent Decree attaChed
in tne case of UnlteG Stiles
v. Steve Kartell. et al.,
tH90-473, U.S. D.C. , No.
DISt. of InClana-Mimm~nO
Dlv.
BarDara ~agei-U3e;~. et a1.
Juc;e Janes T. ~y
tt e2!07/2~ ~i%aro RankIng ~ystel:corln; ~nc:-~=B~
~'iCKa~e
~ 8J/O~/~ Prellmlnary Assessment
l~ 63/Q8/06 Site Inspection Reoort
Don I':IJeller-£c:ol. & E.'IVIr.
RE:l.,rENT
Allise,n Hiltne1~SE;'A
Yilaas AaamKus - USiPA
Steve tUr<:elr, ,~ ale
~e,'er l '! Kusn - USE~f.I
USE-UN hle
Lisa P'ren~nIo-£c:ol. & Envlr. ~~
OC~~~::li7 TY~'E
""',randu:n
RerIoranoull
Otner
PleiQ:n~3!C~e~
Ple!cin;~;Qrce~
Re:Jc,rtsi St 'l012:
Re~6rn:~tuc:~
Re!)?ra/StuoIes
-------
P.!£I? N".
Ot:,/2?;~.8
3
FlCI':~.'~~~it;E ~'i-I::fS t',riE
TITLE
-1t.. 86/C3/00 Mana~er!!en~ Plan
~lntn A~enue Du~o Site.
~3 87/1,/00 R~ealal Inves~igatlon Of
"llOwest Solvent Recovery,
Ire.
("lOCO II Gary, Inalana:
Punllc ~ent Draft -
AppenDices J Through P.
j24 87/12/00 Reneelal Investigation Of
Mldwest Solvent Recovery,
(,I1=co II 6ary, IrlC!iar,a:
PUDIIC ComIent Draft-
Apper~lces 6 Througn I.
4'~ 87/12/00 fteMeCli1 Invesci;atlon Of
"lC~st Solvent Recover,!
(~lGCO I) 6ary, Inolana:
PUDhc ComIIen~
Dri~t-hG~enaices
A Throug:t F.
~~~ ei/l~/OO ~~lal Inveitlgi~10n Of
MlaMest Solvent ~eccvery,
Ire. UI1C~ 1) &ary,
InClina - PuellC Coccent Draft
Ibb 87/1c/16 Request for ADcllcaDle, or
Relevane and Approprlate
P.equlre!l!nu (AAAR).
171 88/01/00 Aooenaul No. 2 QualIty
Assurance ProJect Plan
(Q~":'I.
374 88/01;13 Tecnnlcal ~mvranoWl:
6rour~ .a:er use lnventory
nortneast of "ldco 1.
330 8&/03/13 Work ~lan for Laboratory
Treataoilley Testing
Plan.
ei ~B:(~iOZ Wor~ Plan for ~terlals
CompatlDlllty Testlng
UH:':'T:
A~~INI5TRA;IVE RECO~ INDEA
,. HIT H AVE N\:~ Dli~.r;' 5 IT:
bt=4~1, INCoIk'.:A
AUTr1Jfi
U.S.Army CorDS of
Englneers-OMana
Geosciences and EF.M
6e~cle~ces ana E~
Inc.
6eos::lences 11'10 E~
Inc.
G~S::lenteS anc E~~
D. Iverson - Warzyn
Erlglneerlng
War:yn Englneering
Rocer~ Aten-6~)SC:enC!5
Resear:n
RE::IPIENT
OC'C..;~!;T T'f~'E
USEPA
Re~,)rt 51St uc 1 es
Mideo Trus~ees
Re;»rts/Studies
IhOc:o Trustees
Re~:;lrts/Stuales
IhC:o Tr\ls~e!S
Re~r";s/Stucles
'hac:o Trusues
Re:-or.si5tlJc:es
s. Zeorowslu "';:Or;!s of £ng. Re~(rt5,.:t '.i: 1 e5
. US~~
Recc,ro;s/Stuoies
fc.hll-::~JI! No:'r";~ Cerltral Ret":'r~s/S~U:l~
6reg Aso1Jry-War:yn EngHerlng S.l!tI~MSKI-tor;lS of £ng. Re~:'r,;s/Stucies
Greg HSDury-war:yn En;lnee~lng H.Hlltne~_~~A
Re~ro;s:Stu::Ues
-------
Pag~ ~.
vt./':'~i88
. 4
Fl't1tJ~r'£ ~'~::S D~;~
TI TLE
U'3.88/I)b/OCt Pnasec Review Draft -
Phasec FeasaDl11ty Stuay
Nlnt~ Avenue D~~p
RI/F'S, 6a,'y, Inch aria,
~~ 88/06/00 PUOllC Review Draft -
Remedial Investigation
Reoort Nlntn Avenue
DWllp RlIFS Sary, Inchana:
Volu~e 2 Taoles Ana Figures.
JOb 88/06/00 PUOllC Revie. Draft -
Remeaial InvestIgatIon
Recort Hlnth Avenue Dump
RIfFS Sary,lndiana:
Volume I.
~t~ 88/06/00 Public Review Draft -
R~i~l Jnve$t:gatl~n Reoort
Nlntn Avenue Du~c kl/F5
6iry, InGUIna: Volume 3
Appenc1X Part 1.
5b5 8&/06/00 Public RevieM Draft -
Remedial InvestIgation
Reoort Ninth Avenue RI/FS
6ary, Inalana: VOlume .
Appenolx Part 2.
c.
~'DATE
ADM!NIST~ATiVE RECORD INDEX
NI~1H AVEr~E DUr~' S11E
!JAIU, HiD !~'iA
AUT:'iQR
War:yn En~lneerlng Inc.
Warzyn EngIneering, Int.
War:yn EngIneering, Inc.
War:yn EngIneering, Int.
Warzyn EngIneering, Inc.
RECliJIENT
teE for tne US&"'A
COE for tne USEPA
CCE for tne IF~~'A
COE for the l.6EPH
CC£ for the USEAA
OOC~IP'~NT TY~'E
Reports/5:uCles
Rel)(ll"ts/Stullies
Reports/St udl es
Re~rts/StIJd:e5
Re!)Orts/StUdies
-------
UPS 14560743643
INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
NANCY A MALOLEY. Commissioner
105 South Meridian Street
P.O. Box 6015
Indianapolis 46206.6015
Telephone 317.232.8603
September 19. 1988
Mr. Valdus V. Adamkus
Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region V
230 S. Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60604
0: WMD .
CC: RF
~ t::LK -
. Re:
Record of Decision
Ninth Avenue Dump
Gary, Indiana
Dear Mr. Adamkus:
The Department of Enviroumental Management (DEM) bas reviewed the
U.S. Enviromnenta1 Protection Agency's draft Record of Dec,1sion. The DEM
is in full concurrence with the selected interim remedy which includes:
~
,
~
C «:':
W CC: '
~ s:,
:> - (,'" .]
L.:...
- C) ~:-,!
LU C"W <:5
c.. '-
o ~ u..;<.:1
'-'
L..LJ .e;:
L.. en CI)~
.0
C :)w
y
it
Q
Constructing a soil bentonite slurry wall completely surrounding
the site to contain the hydrocarbon layer; ,
Installing a hydrocarbon/groundwater eztraction and separation
unit with oil recovery;
Installing an on-site groundwater reinjection system;
Moni to ring groundwater inside and outside the slurry wall to
ensure its effectiveness; and
Installing an on-site oil storage tank.
We agree that this action attains Federal and State requirements that
are applicable, or relevant and appropriate to this interim remedy.
Because treatment of the principle threats at this site is not
practicable within the limited scope of this operable unit, this remedy
does not fully satisfy the statutory preference for treatment as a
principle element of the remedy. ,The second operable unit will address
treatment of the aztracted hydrocarbons and offer all other needed
recommendations for full site remedy. .
DEM staff has been working closely with Region V staff in the
selection of an appropriate interim site remedy at Ninth Avenue Dump and
is satisfied the selected alternative adequately addresses the highest
concentrations of contaminants.
An Equal Opportunity Employer
-------
Mr. Valdas V. Adamkus
Page Two
Please be assured that DEM is committed to accomplish cleanup of all
Indiana sites on the NPL and intends to fulfill all obligations required
by law to achieve that goal. .
Sincerely,
fl~t[;l~;naJ.J.ivj
Commissioner
cc: Larry Kane, OLC
-------
I.
KtJ.J..asal site located at 7537 Ninth Avenue in Gary, IIXiiana (see
Figure 1). 'Ihe site is a. seventeen acre percel in an area. of mixed
in:mstrial, carmercial, and residential use approxiJrately' 1/8 mi Ie
east of Cline AveIUle.
ID1nediately surrounding the site are vacant, privately owned
properties. '!he property' to the west is a lot where ha.zardcus wastes
were allegedly bJried. '!his property, referred to as the Ninth and
Cline site, was scored b.1t nJt placed on the National Priorities List
(R'L). ~ximately 1/4 mile south of the site is an NPI,. site, MIIX:O
I, and an IIXiiana Department. of Highways (IIXJI) maintenance facility.
A Ranedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RIfFS) is ongoinJ at
MIIXD I.
'lt1e nearest residential area. is ~tely 1/8 mile west of the
site, on the west side of Cline Avem1e. '!he site is approximately
1 1/4 mile south of the Gram. calumet River am. 1 3/4 mile rorth of
the Little ca.lURet River.
Ninth Averne nmp is located in a. lOW-lying area with poor drainage.
Prior to filling, the site consisted of parallel ridges sep!rated by
wetlanis areas. currently, the site is relatively flat with snall
depressions and IIIJU11ds remaining fran waste disposal or clearn.1p
activities. Interconnected ponds surround waste disposal areas in the
rorth, west and south. Figure 2 is a map SOOwi.ng existing' site
conditions. '!he only structures currently en the site are a fence.
S\J.I'l"OlJD:lin} the contaminated area. ani a fenced deccntamina.tion area
in::luding t\WO 5,000 gallon water storage tanks b.1ilt during the RI/FS.
SI'IE HI5'lmY ~I~ ~
Hazardous waste disp:>sal occurred at the site fran the early to mid
1970s, with sate filling, believed to be associated with cleanup
activities, continuing until 1980. 'Ihe site operator accepted dry
industrial, construction and dem:>li tion waste such as ashes, broken
concrete, bricks, trees, MXXi, tires, cardl::oard, paper and car
batteries. 'nle site also received liquid irXiustrial waste including
oil, paint solvents and Sludges, resins, acids and other chemical
wastes incltDing flanmable, caustic and arSE!1ic - contaminated
materials. A snall-scale auto wrecking operation. had reportedly been
observed at the property.
-------
~
;:
r
SITE
LOCATION
~
.
2
!
~
o
S DNN SJP
APP'9.JM
OATEG,..,. ~~
C12912-AS
WARZVN
~
-------
--.-..-- .... -....... "'..'
V1 t-
0
'-J":'
~~
_J . . '.
, if
~
6tOOE
J
.
:J .
I .
~,) Ci \. I
'(q~~ . I
. .
I I -
.
.
4tOOE
I
: .,
;:~ &J
1~
t-i\
~~II i: ;.
. ~ f
~ 11 ! !I
i Z
:, ...
\~ ~I ca
f;' ,'i ~' :,
~~~ !
. ,
...
COftCREJ[ I
OECONTf"INATIOIt PAD
...
j
OtOOE
--
c =: - fQIIO\ AIIO \IAIIOIIIIii "'(I
= = = = Wt\-' 1((0 &((US DO
OOTES
I. 11\1'" (OIS'IUCJIO '... IQIi"OGUI'8II[ ,., PIOt,.1 II
u;ouu-n IIU-. IS~,lln 111[,. alDtl8iiIOi.
1l1li''''. .11 rI ,~, II .." It. 1.\.
...
...
~!
:Ai
"" ::.S
!:t -...
:5 .....
E =~
:: :;:;!~i
s 2m~i
~ e~:-:
.... ",ex:.... ~
.,. caz-
E l~;~
.. -.-...
\. '
,-.~'~~ :
,I
'I
If .-..J
I /
I
~, ,,I
o
\.
~ I.:',
LEGEND
--- ArhQI''''l ,1(Wf1" IO.IIOU'
CJ
o
lunDI8C\
r. nlll[ll. ."JlII U.S-c 4. [(aIU ,.I(h.. 11-.
fODI.
), "".Olllillil ,...." ...... \11M 11 PUD CII . It"
III"''' "'1" (811111(1 -c...~, IDw8\11I'. . Ill.
- 1/'. U( U. 1M. .,... I' ,.. \I"'U ["181'.
FIGURE 2
13232 B
-
~
--.- ,JIII.lI" rutl
'111\ 08 llU\M
~"alIO Dllrle
-------
-4-
In 1975, the Irxliana State Board of Health (I58H) inspected the site.
'n1e inspection documented the existence of at:Proxinately 10,000 55-
gallon druIrs at the surface, many of which were E!I1pty. D.ti.dence was
also found that liquid wastes had been d1.1rlp:rl on-site. A State
inspector estimated that aI=PI'oximately 500,000 gallCB1S of liquid
industrial waste had been d1.1rrped and 1,000 drums had been hIried on-
site. SUbsequent inspectiCB1S revealed portions of discarded auto
batteries, drumned liquid. wastes and abandcned tanker trucks..
In 1975 and 1980, the site operator, Mr. Steve Martell, was ordered by
ISEH and the United States EnviroxBlerrt..al Protection ~ency (EPA),
respectively, to initiate surface cleanups. SUbsequently, he raroved
sorre barrels, junk cars and trucks fran the site. In 1983, the site
was placed al the National Priorities List and a Partial CCB1Sent
JUdgement was signed between EPA and Mr. Martell. 'nle consent
. . Judgemmt required Mr. Martell to evaluate surface and subsurface
conditions and sutlnit a plan for rE!rEdial action.
In early 1985, when Mr. Martell ~red to have insufficient funds to
perfonn these tasks, EPA took over performan:e of the RI/FS.
In early 1988, Mr. Martell provided information on generators at the
Ninth Averue site. Based on this information, General N:7tice Letters
were sent to approximately 240 P'tentially responsible parties (PBPs)
on March 9, 1988. Special R)tic~ Letters for perfoI1'lan:e of rerre:lial
design,lreredial action (RDfRA) were sent to approxiJrate1y 170 PRPs an
J'Uly 9, 1988. '!he deadline for receipt of a "good faith proposal"
fran the PRPs is september 13, 1988.
:rn. CDHm"1'Y RnAT.I(N) HISImY
Public neetings have been held on ~ 13, 1986 am JUly 13, 1988 to
discuss RI/FS activities. '1he proposed plan and administrative record
were made available to the pJb1ic on JUly' 5, 1988, which marked the
start of a 3o-day' pJblic CulllenL period. Public CUIIIent.s and
resp:mses to those COUIllents are contained. in the Resp:msi veness
SUImary (~ A).
~ NIl) IU.E (F CPmABrE tmT'
IV.
'Ibis operable unit aCdresses rerediation of an oil layer floating on
the groundwater surface. It is the first of two operable units, the
second of which- will aDdress buried waste, contaminated soi 15, and
contaminated groun:lwater.
-------
v.
-5-
Rene:tiation of the oil layer will adjress the prircipal enviromental
threat at the site. several organic am inorganic contaminants have
been detected in the oil in higher concentrations than in Other media.
'l11e oil is thought to be the principal source of gramdwater
contamination. Oil s~ have been seen in on-site ponds leading to
concerns that the oil may' be affecting aquatic life, am may pose a
direct contact threat to trespassers.
'JJ1:is action is carpatible with alternatives urxler consideration for
final renediation of the site. 'l11e proposed slurry wall will encircle
waste areas am contaminated gramdwater as well as the oil layer, and
will make it easier to excavate waste urx:Jer the water table if
r8:lUired Ul'1CIer the. final remedy.
SI'lE ~5'r.ICS
'l11e oil layer is floating on the gramdwater surface approximately
fi ve feet below the ground. Oil layer thickness varies fran 0.25 to
3.8 feet as measured in five on-si te m:mi toring wells. 'l11e lateral
extent of the oil layer covers approximately 30 to 50 percent of the
site area am enconpasses the central am satth central p:>rtions of
the site (see Figure 3). ~ quantity of oil urx:Jer the site is
estimated. at 250,000 to 700,000 gallons, of which 100 ,000 to 500,000
gallcms is estimated to be recoverable.
1malyses Of floating oil layer samples indicate the presence of
benzene, ethylDenzene, toluene, xylene, chlorinated hyCrocarbans, am
p:>lyrnx:lear aranatic hydrocarbons (PARs). ~ am cyanides were
also detected. Polychlorinated biJ;:henyls (R:Bs) bave also been
detected up to a maximJm concentration of 1500 ppI\I. 1malytical
results are sunmarized in Table 1.
Five oil semples were collected in February 1988 and were analyzed for
chlorinated di.benzodiaxins (em) and dibenzofurans (CDF). Results
indicate that hepta- am cx:ta-(Ill were present in all sanples, in .
corcentratialS ranging from 5.3 to 437 Ri>.. M:>st sanples contained
low levels of CDF cClTpJlJOOs. in concentratians rang in; frcm 3.4 to 15.8
~.
'l11e location of the oil layer roughly coircides with the waste
disposal area in the southern p:>rtion of the site, bIt it has migrated
to the north, in the direction of gramdwater flow. Ca1parison of
logs of test pit excavations conducted in 1984 by 1\rrlrews Ehgineerin;
with those conducted in 1986 by Warzyn Fngineering shows that the oil
layer has spread to the north am east between 1984 am 1986. Except
for a small area to the east, the oil layer ~s to be confined to
the site at this time. .
-------
4fOOE
.. -- -.- .-- ....
on
o
o
+
o
...
"
(
"
--
. I
6+00E
,~
"- ."
t.
" ;.
.111
.:) ,
. Z t
III .
. ~ ~ )
. I
, I'
:!-
.-!!.-
..
'"\PI'P.QA IIt\T[ IOCAf!IJN
OF OfWiUioMlNiUIGH
F~(lll ft:
. )
'.
t,
; :{ I
p.op~i.J . (. ..11
CON~~INME T.
BARR'ER ~p.CA ION I
.A .ESTIMATED..! MJ;i - ~ I
('.. (bF OIL LAYER \. ) '.
. '. \ . C> ). \
, I
~.' " G .--/ !
~..- i,'.
i i
~ml
Nq
D: -I
~I
.
I
2ftJOE
-;"..-
t} : III
. % .
, ....
I .. «It .
~., ,I I
" '. I.
oJ " .
., ., . I.
\ I ~
/1
I
.1
! .
~
!i
ii ...
:i ...,
! gtl
i ~~
- ..
.. ....-&
! ~~2
;;:~i
.... coz-
~ ~=~~
- cc-
a 2M,",-
= ~~';:c
;i f~z:i
./
O.OOE
--
-
--
0..
..-'.:.--~
.", \
'-
..~ -_.- .
.-~_. .
'.-'" ""-
i "
.. .. -'-..--
: \
I \
. -- '.'."
o
10
: +
o
.on
'0
?
'"
J;
...
o
~
\0
on
o
?
'"
- - - 'UGUI ((8'..".' """111 ..Gum.
,. .f.1 II "CUll I. _n I ,. ""'11 YIIIOI
.'111.
.c
~
~
o
c
o LEGEND
---- IIIt.'tD UK." .. au. 8.1"1
NOTES
I. lUll II"". IIU'-II .. -nftM. .,n
-uy.
FIGURE 3
---
13232 83
--nOlI
.....
-------
- -'E 1
RISK E\ nON DATA
COHPARISON OF ROUND 2 HYDROCARBON In,tR RESULTS TO SURFACE VATER, SEDIHENT
AND GROUNDVATER, AND SELECTED AVAILABLE CRITERIA AND TOXICITY INDICES
NINTH AVENUE DUHP, GARY, INDIANA
HYDROCARBON LAYER SURFACE VATER CONCENTRATION SEDIHENT CONCENTRATION(I) GROUNDWATER CONCENTRATION
FD(2) (ug/kg) FD(2) (ug/L) FD(2) (ug/kg) FD(2) (ug/l)
Chellical (t-6) Haxhlll. Hean jt-14l Haxi8U8 Hean (t-20) HaxillU. Hean (t-74) Hax i mUll Hean
VOLATILES
1,I-utchloroethane 1 160,000 160,000 1 2 2 1 23 23 17 2,400 187
Trans-l,2-dichloroethene 6 940,000 64,539 1 4 4 16 49,000 1,026
2-Butanone 1 16,000 16,000 25 2,100,000 4,659
1,I,I-Trichloroethane 1 1,000,000 1,000,000 7 2,800 180
Benzene 3 390,000 290,560 28 16,000 109
4-Heth~'-2-pentanone 3 540,000 87,533 2 630 172
Tetrac loroethene 1 120,000 120,000 2 130 11
Toluene 6 15,000,000 1,108,573 11 1,900 156 35 90,000 768
Ethyl benzene 6 8,800,000 421,908 26 6,900 1,003
Styrene 1 530,000 530,000
Total Xylenes .6 63,000,000 1,918,905 1 5 5 23 39,000 3,353
SEHI-VOLATILES
l,l-uichlorobenzene 2 52,000 50,990
4-Hethylphenol 1 5,700 5,700 1 640 640 16 11,000 380
Naphthalene 4 3,100,000 368,039 22 77 ,000 158
4-Ch 10roant1 tne 1 220,000 220,000 I
.....
2-Heth~'na~htha'ene 6 11,000,000 424,604 20 220,000 129 I
Acenap thy ene 2 500,000 463,681 2 1,600 80
Acenaphthene 1 550,000 550,000 1 2 2 11 13,000 43
'Dibenzofuran 2 630,000 404,722 6 52 16
Fluorene 3 1,000,000 255,300 10 20,000 46
N-nitrosodtphenylalltne 4 35,000 15 751
Phenanthrene 4 3,300,000 433:930 5 4,300 1,105 18 56,000 54
Anthracene 2 1,600,000 669,328 1 1,500 1,500 13 5,700 18
Di-n-but~'Phtha'ate 3 51,000 48,952 4 130 515 6 16 7
Fluorant ene 4 960,000 101,186 6 4,300 1,123 8 12,000 103
Pyrene 4 500,000 75,936 1 9 9 6 3,700 1,376 12 8,900 26
Benzo(a) anthracene 2 240,000 132,363 I 1 1 900 1,900 4 1,200 57
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 4 520,000 297,975 1 'I 4 3 14 25:000 3,601 23 86 9
Chrysene 3 230,000 85,631 5 2,300 1,188 5 3,100 115
Di-n-octylphthalate l ' 54,000 54,000 4 11,000 2,608 13 62 9
Be~zolbJfluoranthene 2 180,000 140,712 4 2,400 1,070 2 890 171
Denzo a p~rene 2 210,000 122,963 2 2,700 1,488 2 970 143
Indenoll, t3-Cd)pyrene 2 160,000 78,994 2 1,500 693 1 7 7
Dibenz ahh anthracene 1 42,000 42,000 1 290 290 1 4 4
Benzo(g, ~ lperylene 2 170,000 72,595 1 1,400 1,400 3 610 34
Aroc1or 1 4 4 1,500,000 61,799
Aroclor 1254 2 79,600 21,854 2 7,400 1,720
Aroc1or 1260 2 5,700 5,392
HETALS
IOUiiITnulI 1 410 410 8 551 234 20 33,852 3,773 17 1,290 '249
Cadmium 1 17 17 2 6.3 5 19 20 8
Calcium 1 1,560 1,560 14 219,000 70,619 20 121,250 13,481 74 1,060,000 260,976
Chromium 7 920 156 8 55 10 48 558 23
Iron 2 514 350 14 16,100 1,399 20 64,593 9,553 69 178,000 7,764
Nickel 2 70 57 8 114 32 55 12,500 121
SUver 1 66 66 6 570 103 20 100 38
Zinc 3 543 189 11 106 59 20 790 260 73 23,300 1,110
-------
TABLE 1
Page 2 of 3
POSSIBLE CHE"ICAl-SPECIFIC ARAk~ . SELECTED TOXICITY INDICES FOR
RCRA HCt<3) SDWA HCt< 4) CWA AWQC(S) (freshwater) AQUATIC SPECIES
(Source: Versehueren, 1983)
(IIQ/l) (IIQ/L) acute chrontc
Chemtca1 (llg/l) (lI9/l) Sped es Index
VOLATILES
1,l-u1chloroethane Ptnperch T~(24 hr): 160 mg/l
Trans-l,2-dtchloroethene
2-Butanone B1uegt 11 . T~24-96 hr): S640-1690 mg/l
1,I,l-Trtch1oroethane 0.2 fathead HtnnoW 96 r LCSe: S2.8 l19/l
Benzene O.OOS S.3 Blueyt 11 24-48 hr DSO: 20 ~/L
4-Heth~1-2-pentanone Gold ish 24 hr LDSO: 460 mg/
Tetrae 10roethen. 5.2 0.84 fathead Htnnow 96 hr LCSO: 18.4 mg/L
Toluene 17 Bass 96 hr LC~O: 7.3 ~pm
Ethyl benzene 32 Bluegt 11 T~t2S-9 hr): 3 .1-32.0 mg/L
Styrene Bluegt 11 Tl. 96 hr): 2S.1 l19/l
Tota1 Xylenes Ratn ow Trout 96 hr lCSO: 13.5 mg/l
SEHI-VOLATIlES
l,l-Otchlorobenzene 24 hr LC59: 21 ~/L
4-Hethylphenol Carp
Naphthalene Hosqut to Fish 24-96 hr l.: 22 -ISO mgfL
4-Ch10roant1tne 48 hr LC50: 8.4 mgfL
2-Heth~'na~htha'ene Brown Trout
Acenap thy ene
Acenaphthene . 1.7 0.5 I
Dibenzofuran 00
I
Fluorene
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
Phenanthrene no effect leve1 - 5 mg/L, 24 hr
Anthracene Trout
Dt-n-but~'Phtha1ate 0.94 0.003
F1uorant ene 3.9
Pyrene Hosqulto Fish 24 hr T~: 2.6 ug/L
Benzo(a)anthraeene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phtha1ate
Chrysene
Di-n-octy1phtha1ate
Benzolblfluoranthene
Benzo a p rene
1.4e.ol ,II3.C4IPyre.e
Dibenz a,h anthracene B1uegt11 96 hr Ttr: 78 ug/L
Benzo(g,h~ lpery1ene
Aroclor 1 4 0.002 0.000014 B1uegt11 30 day l SO: o. 7S I119/L
Aroc 10r 1254 0.002 0.000014 B1uegtll 30 day LC50: 0.177 mgfL
Aroc1or 1260
HETALS
IOITiiiTnum
Cadlltu8 0.01 0.01 0.0039 0.0011
Ca lctull
Chrollium 0.05 O.OS 0.016 0.011
Iron
Hickel 0.013 1.8 0.096
S i her 0.05 0.05 0.0041 0.00012
Zinc 0.32 0.047
-------
TABLE 1
Page 3 of 3
NOTES
(1)
(2)
(3)
Sediment samples were only collected during Round 1.
FD - Frequency of detect ton.
Resource Conservatton and Recovery Act Haxi8U8 Conta.tnant level. 40 CFR 257. Used to indicate release to groundwater fro. regulated
sold waste management units. HCls lUst be aet at factlity boundary, in general.
Safe Drtnktng Water Act Haxiau. Conta.inant level. 40 CFR 141. For protection of huaan health. Concentration li.its apply to public
and community water supplies.
Clean Water Act Ambient Water Quality Criteria. For protection of aquatic life. levels are established based on evtdence of toxic
effects to organisms. These are non-enforceable numbers, typically used to establish li.its for discharges to surface water.
(4)
(5)
pp. part per 8tllion
lC50 (lethal concentration ftfty) a calculated concentration which, when ad.inistered by the respiratory route, is expected to ktll 50\ of
the population of expertmental ani.als. Ambient concentration is exp~essed in .illigra.s per liter.
'I
lD50 (lethal dose fifty) a calculated dose of a che.ical substance which is expected to kill 50\ of .a population of experimental animals
exposed through i route other than respiration. Dose concentration is expressed in milligrams per kilograa of body wetght.
Tl. (medtan tolerance ltmtt) thts tenl has been accepted by 80st biologists to designate the concentratton of toxicant or substance at
which 50\ of the test organtsms survtve.
I
~
I
13232.12
KJD/sss/SGV
[kam-400-64]
. .
-------
VI.
-10-
'!he oil layer cq:pears to be a major source of groundwater
contamination. '!he groundwater tmder the site is contaminated with
approximately 100 organic am. inorganic cOltp)Ul'X1s, iocluding many of
the catp:>UI1ds fotmd in the oil layer (see Table 1).
'!he shallow aquifer under the site is part of the calumet ~fer,
which consists of 30 feet of coarse sand and extends fran the Little
calumet River to Lake Michigan. '!his is underlain by a 90 - 100 foot .
clay aquiclude. At the site, groundwater is typiCally found within
five feet of the surface. Grou:ndw'a.ter flow velocities are very slow,
ranging fran 0.27 ft/dayat the southern }X)rtion of the site to 0.02
ft/day near Ninth Avenue. Grou:ndw'a.ter flow is generally to the north,
with ponds at the northwest and northeast corners acting as local
grourxlwater discharge areas. Bec;l11~ of the low gradients,
grourxlwater contamination. has not, for the. IIDst part, migrated beyorxl
the site bourJjaries.
Grourxlwater contamination cn-si te is canp.licated by a pltme of high
dissolved solids at the bottan of the aquifer frem an off-site source.
Chloride ccn::entrations were as high as 16,000 Am :im'nediately
~ent (south) of the site and decreased to cq:proximately 100 I=PT\
to the north of the site. Based on this finding, a limited off-site
groundwater investigation was done at the IIXII facility to the south
of the site, where'.chloride ccn:entratians as high as 46,000 IPT\ were
fourx:l.
..
-.
SUrface water samples showed that 1o.nbient Water ()Jality criteria
(~) were exceeded for sane metals and pesticides in a feM locations
around the site (see Table l). Oi 1 seep; have been observed in a
small p:md CI1 the \WeSt side of the site, and an oil sheen has been
noted on several surface water bodies. '!his suggests that failure to
renenate the oil layer may lead to future degradation of surface
water quality.
SlMotARY' CF Sl'1E. RISKS
'!he oil layer is releasing contaminants to the enviluulleIrt. through the
fOllowing pithwa.ys: volatilization of cantami.nants through the soil
cover to the air; release of materials to the groundwater; and
discharge of oil to surface water. 'lhese releases provide p.:>tential
for ex}X)sure to hurrans as well as terrestrial and aquatic life.
Potmtial risks.due to inhalation of volatiles and drinking and
nondrinking uses of grOlIl1dwater were evaluated in the Endangennent
Assessment and are sumnarized in Table 2. Inhalation of ro1ati1es by
trespassers resulted in a. carcinogE!1ic risk exceeding 10-6 for the
present use scenario, while a future residential use scenario showed a
carcinogenic risk exceeding 10-5.
-------
-11-
~le 2
NIRIH AVEBE ID!P
IIJman Health Risks due to Hyarocartxn Iayer am. GroorDrcIter
lIb1ium Pat1Jway Cm:iI~eui.c Risk * ~t'C~rl.c Risk *
(Olra1ic Hazard Imex)
peak II&Dl peak mean.
nil L eart.. USe
HyCrocaroon Inhalation 5.9xlO-6 3.2xl0-6 <.01 <.01
Layer
Fnhtrp Use (Resit'lA'lt-;al)
HyCrocaroon Inhalation 5.2xl0-5 3.2xl0-5 0.04 0.01
layer
GrO\mdwater Ingestion 1.7 1.6xlO-l 2998 62
.- -
.. 1.6xlO-l
Groundwater Dennal 1.6 29.2 1
Groundwater Inhalation 2xl0-2 2.1x10-4 1.8
* Risk calculations are based on the following indicator chemicals: Benzene ,
toluene, trichloroethylene, cresols, PAHs, bis (2-ethylhexyl )}:ilthalate,
hept:.ac:hJ.or, FCBs, nickel, lead, salt.
-------
-12-
There is CUITently m e>qX)sure to groundwater contaminants because of
the limited migration of the contaminant plume, and because there is
little use of the aquifer. under a residential future use scenario,
carcinogenic risk due.to ingestion or dennal absorbtion (through
sho\¥ering) of groundwater exceeds 1.
Potential for exposure through surface water seeps was not evaluated
in the En::iangennent Assessnett because analytical data for oil at seep
locations was not available. Based on the high cOntaminant concen-
trations in the oil, direct contact with the oil at a seep IX'ses a
potentially significant ~e rout~. 1tquatic and terrestrial
wildlife are the mst likely receptors. A canparison of concen-
trations of contaminants in the oil layer to ~ for the protection
of aquatic life imicates that contact with even snall quantities of
oil would be harmful to aquatic life (see Table l).
VII. ms::RIPl'IaJ CF ~
Four alternatives were developed to meet the response objective of
minimizing the envhouuental and tunnan health threat IX'sed by the
hydrocarbon layer am associated haza.rdous consti tUSltS. 'Ihese
ioclude no action, contaiI11tB1t, oil extraction, and oil extraction
with containnent, as described below.
A1~p~; ve 1: R> k:t1.cn
under this alternative, action to prevent fUrther degradatiOn of
grO\Jl'KiWater and surface water by the oil layer would be delayed until
implanent:ation of the final remedial action. F\Jrt:her migration of the
oil layer WOlld result in iocreased contamination of these Ireclia and
may escalate the cost of final remedial action.
Total COst:
Time to Implanent
rxme
ncme
Alten1ati ve 2: n-nt-;:!i; T'WIIFInI-,
urner this alternative, a, soil-bentonite slurry wall would be
constructed to carpletely surroun:i the oil layer. (see Figure 3),
It would extend fran the gI'OlD1d surface to 30 feet below the surface,
where it woul.a key into the natural clay confining' layer. '!he wall
would prevent migration of the oil layer and further contamination of
groundwater and surface water. COnstruction of the wall wuula require
filling of areas Were seep; have been seen, thereby preventing
contact with existing seep areas. After construction, gro\.IrX1Water
levels and water quality wuula be checked periodically via ncni toring
wells on either side of the wall. A p.nnping system would be used to
prevent bui ldup of water wi thin the wall. An average flow rate of
less than one gallon per miIUIte (gpn) sl'x>uld be adequate to c~te
for infiltration inside the wall.
-------
-13-
Plmped grourx:iwater ~d be stored in an on-site tank, periodiCally
treated am discharged to the aquifer. An an-site treatIre1.t system
would be used to treat grourx:iwater to the r-mcinum contaminant Levels
(M:Ls) set by the Safe Drinking Water Act, or 10-6 carcinogenic risk.
'Ibta! dissolved solids would not be treated tmless backgrounj levels
were exceeded.
'Ibtal COst (in present net worth
capital Cost:
Mnual Operation and Maintenance
Time to Implement:
(FN-l) ) :
(O&.M) :
$ 1,730,000
$ 1,520,000
$ 83,000
l~
Alternative 3: Oil Ex:t:ractian
'l11is alternative involves extractian of oil and groundwater via a
series of peripheral extraction wells, separation of oil fran
groundwater, and reinjection of only the gramdwater at the center of
the oil layer. Altrough periP1eral extraction wells are net as
efficient as a central extraction systan bec0l1se oil would be ex-
tracted fran the thinnest, rather than the thickest, part of the oil
layer, they provide rore assurarce that reinjected cantam:i.r1ated
groundwater will net migrate beyorn the recapture area. EXtracted oil
would be stored on-site (Alternative JA) or irx:inerated (Alternative
3B.) .
.-
Operation and maintenance would in:lude IrDnitoring discharge rates and
water levels, periodic tank inspections, ucni toring oi 1 levels,
collection of oil sarrples for characterization, am general
iIrplanentation of a spill prevention, countermeasure, and. control
(SFa:) plan as re:pired under the Resource conservation and Recovery
Act (RC:RA).
Alternative 3A utilizes an an-site tank to store the extracted oil.
'!be tank woula be constructed and. J1'CI'li tored consistent with RCRA and
'Ibxic SUbstances Control Act (TSCA) requirE!'lEI1tS. 'Ihe decision on .
treatment of the oi 1 would be made after Catpletion of the final
Feasibility Study, allowing evaluation of treat:rrent technologies that
would address waste and cantam:i.r1ated soils, as well as oil. 'Ihe
ertraction systen. coo.ld be constructed in less than one year, rot
conplete extraction of free flowing oil will take 3 years or rore to
conplete.
'Ibta! COst (FH-l):
capital COst:
Annual 0 and M:
Tine to Implement:
$ 704,000
$ 435,000
$ 108,000
1 year
Alternative 3B consists of COllecting extracted oil in an an-site
storage tank, then treating it through incineration at a RC:RA/l'SCA
conpliant facility. ']he choice of an-site incineration with a nobile
-------
-14-
incinerator or off-site cOl111ercial incineration would be determined by
availability and cost. Preliminary conversations with incinerator
~ators inlicate it may be difficult to find a carmercial
incinerator willing to accept oil with low levels of dioxins and
furans. '!he cost estimate below is based an on-si te incineration.
'Ibis alternative wculo re:pire approximately 3 years to implenent,
since incineration would not be initiated, until a large portion of the
oil has been recovered.
Total COst (FN-l):
capital COst:
Ammal a and M:
Tine to Implerett:
$ 2,780,000
$ 2,400,000
$ 153,000
3 years
Alternative 4: ~;tinnP!l'1t"- and Oil EKt.racticn
Alternative 4 is a cx:rnbination of Alternatives 2 and 3. Oil and
cont.aminated grournwater woulo be extracted fran a series of cent:ral
extraction wells. Oil would be sepn-ated, fran grouIXlwater and water
'NOUld be reinjected via a, trench located inside a, ccnta.irmv:!nt wa.m at
the perilTeter of the oil layer. Figure 4 is a schsratic diagram TiIf
this alternative in cross section. canbinin.;J a contai.nment barriEr
with an oil extraction systan would alIa,,{' efficient hydrocarbon
extraction and give greater assurance that the reinjected. grourXiwilter
would not. spread the groun:iwater ccntaminatian plune.
..
~ discussed for Alternative 2, the slurry wall would extend 30 eet.
belOW' the surface to the underlying clay layer. GroorXlwater leve1lS
and water quality \wQl1d be m:mi tored periodically', and a small
quantity of groun:iwater would be treated and discharged to the
aquifer . ~raximatelY one gpn is estimated to be' adequate to aVDid
excessive water bJ.i ldup inside the slurry wall.
~ discussed for Alternative 3, oil storage would be consistent w!ith
RCRA and ~ regulations. Operaticn and, naintenance would be t:l'E
sane as for Alternative 3.
Alternative 4A utilizes an cn-site storage tank to store extracteCi
oil. Oil treatment would be evaluated with waste and contaminate:!.
soil treatmerit in the final Feasibility Study~ '!he slurry wall aDd
extraction systan could be constructed in one year, tut oil extraction
will take 3 or ~re years to carplete.
Total COst (FN-l):
capi tal COst:
Annual a and M:
Tine to Implenent:
$ 2,430,000
$ 1,960,000
$ 190,000
1 year
-------
ALTERNATIVE.4A
-
CONTAINMENT AND EXTRACTION OF OIL LAYER
HOLDING TANK
;:~!f~);{~~:~:~~{~~~~~)~~(;/}#:;~}{;.
~~ ::.:::i.~::~:..:::.::::'" :~::: ':.:::/. .;'~" :
:.:... :,::,:::":;: :'::~':':''':':. '.':':" :.:: ~~~::. "
':(:X:;;Wj\:rER TABL.E :::
".: :'." . I.,t'" ',',' ......~...'.:: :.', ',:":: ...!;
'.:...:~\::; :':.:,::: ;.:.:.::..:~:.:..:::: :.: :::.:. .:.
.~,~1~~.~.).~.~,1t~~,~.lfi~Jf.f~@}.:.;il.~
",:':'..., .:.:...;;SANO.:::...:.:....
"!I~~~tJI~J~i(m~~f~~1
~
.LAY\\
\\\\\\\\\
HYDROCARBON LAYER
EXTRACTION WELL
GROUND SURFACE
FIGURE 4
SURFACE WATER
:~}{~)t~{{{\:.. .
..,'...."'., ;.~.:...'..::. ND
." "" " ,'...: "" '.~..- ,,'.- """ "
"," , '..,', '" '.. ,...
-------
-16-
Alternati \i'e 4B consists of collecti]')J extracted oil in an an-si te
storage tank, then treating by incineration. 1\5 discussed for
Alternative 3B, on- and off-site incineration would be considered.
'!be cost estimate belC7W is based on on-site incineration. 'Ihis
alternath-e would re::p:ire awroxiIIately 3 years to iIrplement, since
incineration would rot be initiated until a large ~rtion of the oil
has been recovered.
'lbtal COst (FH-l):
capi tal COst:
1mnual 0 and M:
Tine to IDplanent:
$ 4,450,000
$ 3,870,000
$ 235,000
3 years
VIII. ~. CF 'mE CXM'ARATIVE ~s
'!be nine criteria used by EPA to evaluate ratEdial alternatives
'. include: overall protection of human health and the envirchleat;
conpliance with cq:plicable, or relevant and appropriate, requirements
(MMs); ltn3-term: effectiveness; reduction of toxicity, ndJility, or
velure; short-term: effectiveness; iIr'plerentability; cost, state
acceptaoce; and CCIJ1IIUI'li ty acceptanCe. Based on evaluation of the
alternatives with respect to the nine criteria, EPA has selected
Alternative 4A - CCI'lt.ainrIe1t, Oil EKtracticn, and. Storage - as the
preferred. altemati ve for the Ninth Averme n.mp interim renedy.
Prnt-A""t:im of RtmRn HA:llth and t"J1e &IviU".I~rt.
Alternative 4 is the IIDst protective of the alternatives evaluated.
It provides tw imJ;ortant f'Url:tions: 1) it raooves III.1Ch of the free-
flowing oil and long-tem canfinarent Of the renaining contam:i.nants, .
ani 2) it reduces qp:>rtunities for contact by covering existing oil
seeps and preventing future seepage into~. 1\11 alternatives,
except lb 1tCtion, W1a1ld protect human health and the envirat.lent..
Alternatives 2 am 4 are considered IIDre protecti~-e than 1\1ternative
3, because the con.taiI1ment barrier is considered IIDre reliable in
preventing migration of contaminated oil and grouOOwater than the
extraction and recharge system provided in 1\1tema.tive 3.
catDli~ with ~
1\11 action alternatives shcu1Ci attain ~ specific to the oil
cleanup. 'Ihese include: EKecuth-e Order 11990 for protection of
wetlarDs; section 404 of the Clean water 1tCt, pertaining to dredge and
fill activities in wetlands; RCRA. Tank, Incinerator, and Transporter
requirements; TSCA PCB storage and diSIXJSal regulations; underground
Injection control regulations; National 1\mbient Air ()1ali ty Standards;
0Sf@. hazardous waste safety regulations; Hazardous mat~rials
transportation regulations; and Indiana fuqi ti ve dust and vu::
emissions standards.
-------
-17-
contaminant specific surface water and groundwater MMs such as M:Ls
and ~ W'OUla. not be met by any alternative due to the limited nature
of this operable unit. However, gI"01JIXiwater extracted for the p.lrp)Se
of maintaining water levels inside the slurry wall will be treated to
meet M:J:.s prior to discharge to the aquifer. Similarly, cleanup
levels specified in the TSC:1\ R:B spill cleanup p)licy may not be met
because PCB contaminated oi 1 adsorbeD. to soi Is would not be addressed
under arrj alternative. All of these MMs will be addressed in the
final Feasibility' Study. 'Ibis will require invoking the interim
renEdy waiver under section 121 of ~.
T~nn Effecti~~ and ~1I""'a::Ice
Alt1'x>ugh Alternative 4A (and 3A) provide only for oil storage, the
intent is to provide for easy irrplenentation of permanent destruction
of contaminated oil during the final renedy. Alternatives 3B and 4B
provide for destruction of the oiL '!he 1IDre efficient extraction
systen in. Mternati ve 4 is considered mre effective because it
provides for mre oil collection than Alternative 3. Alternative 2.
provides only for ccnta..iment, and Alternative 1 provides no
effectiveness.
RA'IIrt-icn in 'lbxicitv. lIJbilitv. or VblnllP
All action alternatives reduce n"Obility of the contaminated oil
thra.1gh contairment, extraction, or 00th. Mtema.tives 3B. and 4B
provide for treatJIEnt tecbnologies which recuce toxicity, IrDbility, or
volUte (TMIJ) of hazardous subStances. '!he intent of Alternatives 3A
ani 4A is that rEd1ction in 'IMV would be provided in the final retedy.
Alternati ves 1 and 2 provide no red1.rtion in 'IMV through trea.trrent.
StDrt-Term. Effecti~~
All action alternatives are mre effective in reducing risks to the
local camunity ani the envirorment than the N:> k:tion alternative.,
Potential effects en the carm.mity during iIrplemmtation of the
alternatives would be related to generation of dust or emissions of
volatiles during construction, however, the off-site effects should be
minimal. All actien alternatives DaY p:>se sane risk to on-site
workers, however, conventional persormel protection measures wi 11 be
adequate to protect on-site workers.
Alternatives 2 ani 4 provide the 1ID5t inTnediate protection because the
containment barrier can be constructed in less than one year. Both of
these alternatives will involve sone environmental inpact., since 0.5
to 1 acre of the wetlands will be filled to construct the slurry wo.ll.
The environnental benefit' of rEm3diating present and preventing future
oi1 seeps into wetlands is considered to outweigh the iIrpact of
filling.
-------
IX.
-18-
Tmnl~~hilitv
Alternative 4A and all other alternatives use conventional and
available technologies. Alternative 3 has the greatest technical
uncertainty because of reliance on the extraction an::i recharge systan
instead of a contaiment barrier to contain the contaminated
groundwater plume. Alternatives 3B and 4B. may present sane difficult
engineering solutions because it may be difficult to firxi a CCJlm3rcial
incinerator willing to accept dioxin contaminated waste, and a nobile
incinerator may not be cost-effective for the relatively small
quantity of waste to be incinerated.
Alternative 4A is the nost canpatible with. future rate:lial action at
the site. Oil extraction is a necessary carp:ment of all finaJ. reITB:1y
alternatives, except conta.iment. Also, the slurry wall will enclose
waste, contaminated soils, and contaminated gI"OlJOOwater, as well as
oil. '!his will sinplify inplenentation of rate:lial action for these
media, since it will allow for groun:1water treat:nent within an
enclosed area, am lowering of the. water table for soil and waste
excavation.
aa
AI ternati ve 4A, at $ 2,430,000 in total cost, is intermediate in cost.
'!he alternatives involving oil treat:merit, 3B and 4B, are the nost
expensive at $ 2,780,000 and $ 4,450,000, respectively. Alternative
2, contaimrent, is intennediate in cost at $ 1,730,000, ani
Alternative JA, oil extraction and storage, is the least expensive
(otl1er than ~ ~ia1), at $ 704,000.
State ~.
'!he Indiana Depa.rt:me!'1t of D'lVirounenta.l Manag'E!tBtt. (IDEM) has been
involved throughout the RI/FS and. ccn:urs with Alternative 4A as the
selected remedy.
camunit;v ~
COImunity' involvarent at the site has been ncderate. ']he primary
concerns expressed dLiring the pJblic neeting and in pJblic C;Ulllllents
were: a desire to see the ranedial action carpleted quickly, and a
preference for pernanent destruction, rather than storage, of oil. A
conplete list of pJblic CuJIIllents and responses to those COI111'eI1ts are
provided in Appendix A.
~ .rol ~.1:t.V1 REMEDY"
..
'As discussed in the previous section, EPA has selected Alternative 4A
- canta.:i11ment, Oil Extraction and Storage - as the ITDst at:Propriate
interim raredy for the Ninth Avenue nmp. site. '!his alternative was
-------
-19-
selected because it is the nest protective remedy', other than 48, am
it is the IT'CSt CCltiBtible with the final remedial alternatives under
consideration. '!he oil layer is the nest highly cattami.na.ted ne:lium
at the site and is the prinary source of groundwater and surface water
contamination, thus, oil extraction is a necessary C<:&1~jlent of all
final reretial alternatives, except cantairment. Since oil extraction
will take at least 3 years to cCl'lplete, early inplementation of oil
extraction will allow for earlier irrplenent.ation of other probable
conp:ments of the final renedy, such as waste excavation. Storage of
oil was selected over treatment because of the lD1Certainties
associated with off-site camercial incineration described previously.
Also, deferring the decision on oil treatne1t to the final Feasibility
Study allows consideration Of tecl'mologies and design of a systen that
will treat J:oth the oil ani the waste.
As discussed previously, a contairarent barrier is also coapatible with
the final cleanup. because it erx::loses cattami.na.ted soils and waste
areas and, prevents migration of the contaminated groundwater, as well
as containing the oil PlaSe. 'Ibis will ease implenentation of
rerredial action for all of these nena. Carponents of the selected
renedy are described below.
(".nnt"~inment: A soil-bentonite slurry wall will be canstroct:.ed to
conpletely surround the hytlrocarbon layer. It will be keyed into the
umerlying.clay layer 30 feet below the surface. Sl~ wall
constnJCtion,will require filling 0.5 to 1 acre of wetlands.
Groundwater levels and water quality will be m:mitored on a periodic
basis via, IrCr1i toring wells C8'l ,either side of the wall. A srrall
quantity of water (awroximately 1 gpn) will be diverted fran the
extraction and recharge systen described below to avoid tuildup of
water within the slurry wall. 'Ibis water will be treated with an err
site treatment systen to M:Ls or 10-6 card.IDgenic risk. Because salt
concentrations upgradient exceed those on-site, total dissolved solids
will be treated only if concentraticns excea1 background levels.
Oil Extraction: Oil and groundwater will be extracted through a
series of central extraction wells. A two-p..mp system will be
installed, in each well to re=over oil and, groundwater separately. It
is estimated that 100,000 to 500,000 gallons of oil will be
recoverable, of which 90,000 to 340,000 gallons would be recoverable
in 3 years. '!he groundwater will be piped to a recharge systen
consisting' of recharge wells connected by' shallow gravel filled
tren:hes. Discharge rates and water table elevations will be
noni tored.
-------
-20-
Oil Storaqe: Oil will be p.Jmped to an on-site storage tank located
wi thin a secondary contaimrent structure as required urXier TSCA
regulations. SUbstantive ~ and TSCA tank storage requirE!lelts will
be mat.
Operation and maintenance of the tank system will in:lude periOOic
tank inspections, ITCl1i toring oil levels, COllecting sanples for
characterization, periOOic rem:>val of rainwater fran the tank and
~lenentation of an SPeC plan. Security neasures such as naintenan::e
of the fence and frequent inspections will be taken to ensure the tank
is rot varoalized.
x.
~~cm
EPA and IDEM believe the selected ranedy satisfies the statutOry
requirements specified in Section 121 of S1\RA to protect luman health
'. ani the enviIoulleat.; attain ARMs (or provide grounds for invoking a
wai ver); utilize permanent solutions and alternate treatnent
techrx>logies to the maxiJrurn extent practiCable.
Prnt-~;cn of Hl1IIAn ~1M1 and the EhviLUl8.Slt.
'lt1e selected ranedy, Alternative 4A, provides protection Of 1mman
health and the enviLOIalieat through ext:.ractial of free-flowing
contaminated oil~ AltbJugh this operable unit was primarily inten:ierl
to address the oil layer, the containment barrier will also encircle
ani prevent migratial 'of contaminants in waste, soils an:l gI"OUIXlwater.
1\n assessoent of the current and future risks posed by the oil layer
is presented in section VI. 'n1e selected. Iene:ly will significantly
redLre migration of contaminants to surface water and cover existing
oil seep;, thereby reducing risks to aquatic life an::!1mman receptors.
As discussed in section VIII, short tenn iIrpacts to off-si te residents
during construction are expected to be mininal. 'lt1e enviroulleatal
i.upact of filling a small p:>rtion of the on-site pJOOs is believed to
be ootWeighed by the envirOJJnental benefit of pre\r"el1ting degradation
of a ITIJCh larger wetlands area on- and off-site.
At~~hm.edt. of 1\I:olit""ithle. or Relevant ;ww'I ~J.UUl.iate Ra::urlIE!l1Al11~
'!his action meets Federal an::! rore stringent State MARs specific to
the oil cleanup. DJe' to the limited nature of the operable tmi t ,
chanical specific ~ for groumwater ani surface water will not be
addressed., except that grOl1I)jwater treated and discharged to maintain
inward gradients in the slurry wall will meet M:Ls. CleamIp levels
s~ified in the T&:A PCB Spill Cleanup Policy may rot be mat because
PCB contaminated oil adsorbed to soils would rot be addressed under
-------
-21-
this operable tmit. ~ section 121(d) (4) (A) allows for selection of
a ranedy rot meeting MARs when the remedial action selected is only
part of a total rene:tial action that will attain ARMs when canpleted.
ARARs specific to the selected ranedy are listed belC7N. .
0BniC/' 1 scecific ARARs
40 CFR Part 141 (r-mdmum. Contaminant Levels): 'lhese are considered
relE!\TaI1t and appropriate for water to be treated and discharged to the
aq.rifer outside the slurry wall.
Ia:atian scecific ARARs
Executive Order 11990: At=Plicable to Federal actions in wtlarm.
1\geocies are required to avoid engaging in new construction in a
wetland unless there is no practicable alternative.
Fish an:i Wildlife coordination 1tct: Applicable to Federal actions
resulting in Control or l'IDdification of a. natural stream or body of
water. Regulated. activities m:lude potential inadvertent discharges
of p:>llutants.
Clean Water 1tct (section 404): A penni t is required prior to
discharge of dredged or fill material into a wetland, bIt cmaA
exarptS on-site actions fran pennit requirements. Discharge of
dredged or fill material is prohibited unless there is no practicable
alternative an:i every attenpt is made to mitigate adverse iIrpacts.
'!he intent of the filling of wetlands urxler this action is to preserve
an:i .protect a larger wetlands area fran contaminaticn.
lcticn scecific MARs
40 CFR Part 264, SU1:.p!rt J (RCRA Tank rEqUiI'E!TlelltS) : SUbstantive
permit reqpirements are cq:plicable to on-si te storage tanks.
40 CFR Part 761, SU1:.p!rt Do (TSCA PCB storage an:i disposal
regulations): SUbstantive TSCA storage restrictions m:luding marking
tanks with PCB warning labels are applicabile to on-si te storage of FCB
contaminated oil. 'lhese regulations also irclude a one year limit on
storage of PCB contaminated materials, which will be exceeded for this
rE!Ifedial action. '!his is not considered a substantive permit
reqpirE!'lE1.t.
40 CFR Part 761, SU1:.p!rt G (TSCA PCB Spill cleanup p:>licy) : t-bt
cq:plicable to spills occurring prior to May 4, 1987, the effective
date of the policy. Applicable to spills occurring during the
rerroval, transport, han:U.ing, or storage of PCB contaminated oil
-------
-22-
during implanentatian of this renedial action. CleamJp levels
specified, in SUbpart G are relevant and ~ropriate b.1t may not be met
due to the limited scope of this operable unit.
40 CFR Part 144 (underground Injection control): Shallow well
inje=tion of treated groumwater is allawed for c::ERCIA cl~.
20 CFR Part 1910 «(SiA Hazardous Waste Regulations): Personnel
protection measures for wrkers at hazardous waste sites are
~licable.
325 IN: 6-5 (Imiana Fugitive Dust control Plan): Requires every
available precaution be taken during constru=tion to minimize fugitive
dust anissions. SUbstanti ve rEqUiL Eilne.uts aJ;Ply to cn-si te actions.
COSt Effecti~~
Alternative 4A has been selected bec;111~e it is 1) protective of human
health and the enviLoulieuL, 2) consistent with alternatives being
considered for the final site renedy and 3) cost-effective. 'n1e less
expE!1Sive extraction system without a sluny wall was not selected
bec;::m~e the risk of migratial of contaminants outside the recapture
area and the less efficient oil eKtraction systan. were judqed to
outweigh the lower cost. Oil ~rage was dx>sen over oil iIx::ineration
at this time he(-<;I1)Se canbining oil treatIrS"d.. with waste and soil
tteaurent being considered for t.l'1E! final rE!rEdy was judged to have the
potential to save ITa1eY while not sacrificin1 protection to human
health and the envil011ueat.
Utilizatim of PelJI~!errt. SOlutions and Alt-P~p 'ft"eo:lu6tt.
~loaies to the MDrilll1m F.rt-A'tt: Practi~hle. ani Prefe.t.~L'e for
'!'r'EX.:1 ..A It- as a Princical ElE!lE!nt
'n1e intent of this operable unit is to provide effective rarediation
of the :inmadiate threat posed by oi 1 seepage into \w'etlands areas wt1i le
providing flexibility in developing a final rEm3dy for the site.
Utilization of penranent solutions am alternative treatIre'tt
techrx>logies was not considered practicable wi thin the limited scope
of this operable unit. Oil storage will allow for easy iIrplenentation
of a pennanent treatment technology in the final rE!!Tedy.
-------
M'PfH>IX A
NDmI AVEHIE IUo1P
G\RY, IND~
SI:IM\RY
I. ~ ~ alERVIJ!JI
In accordance with CER:IA section 117, a pJbilic carment period was held from
J\J.ly 5, 1988 to 1wguSt 4, 1988, to allow interested parties to carment on the
united States Emrirormenl.& Protection Agency's (EPA's) Phased Feasibility SttXlY
(PFS) and Prc:p:>sed Plan for an interim ranedy at the Ninth Ava1Ue nmp site. At
a JUly 13, 1988 pJblic meeting, EE'A presented the Prc:p:>sed Plan for the Ninth
Avenue nmp. site, answered questions and accepted COlt1lS1ts fran the pJblic.
'D1e p.1Ip:)se of this responsiveness sumnaIy is to dcx:tmEnt CUUlllel1lS receival
during the pJblic CClIIllent period and EPA's responses to these Cc.lllel1t.s. All
cYluelllS sumnarized. in this document were considered in EPA'S final decision for
an interim renedial action at the Ninth Averm.e n.mp site.
II. ~ m aHUn'lY IN\(LV!H'N1'
Ninth Avenue n.mtp (and another National Priorities List site, Midco I) is
located in Gary near its border with HarmDnd. A Hanm:md residential area called
Hessville is the closest residential area to the site, approximately 1/8 mile
west of the site. Gary and Hanm:md p.1blic officials and Hessville residents
have been actively involved. with toth of these sites.
CCJrmmity concern intensified in JUne 1981, when heavy rainfall resulted in
flooding fran the area ar01J1'D Ninth Averm.e nmp and Midco I to the Hessville
neighlx>rhood.. several residents carplained of chenical odors in flooded
basanents am chemical b1rns fran contact with flcxXl waters. EPA's Technical
1\ssistance Team sanpled flcxXl waters a few days after the flcxXl am analyzed for
volatile organics. N:me were detected.
Hessville residents constructed a dirt dike across Ninth Avenue" at the Cline
Avenue overpass. '!he dike is located at the coq:orate boundary between Gary and
Hanrrorx1 and obstructs traffic between the tW'O camunities. 'lhe dike rena.ins a
source of controversy betYJeen Gary and HaImDnd public officials and residents.
EPA has held several pJblic meetings since the initiation of a preliminary
investigation by the site operator in 1983. Approximately 50 residents and
pJblic officials attended the July 13, 1988 pJblic meeting. Residents were
concerned about" health risks to Hessville residents due" to past and future
flooding events. '!hey also expressed a desire to see carplete remsdiation of
the site as quickly as p:>ssible, and requested that EE'A pay for measures to
prevent future flooding in the Hessville neighlx>rhood.
-------
-2-
several oral Cuillents were accepted at the pJblic neeting. EE'A received only
one written sutmittal, prepared by pJtentially resp:msible parties (PRPs),
during the pJblic CUUIII=~ period. ()J.estions and CUllllel1LS are sumnarized and
addressed in the next section.
III.
StJ'oH\RY CF SICNlFIc::Nfi" CDHNl'S Htua. ~ rmux; 'IHE RJBLIC CDMNr
PEm:(J) 1R> ~ ~
'!he CUIIIent.s are organized into the following categories:
A.
SUmnary of Public Hearing CuillehLS
1. WlllStLS on the Ranedial Investigation and FnCangennent Assessrrent
2. wllle£lt.S on the Feasibi Ii ty Study and ~sed Plan
3. WlllenlS on Enforcanent Issues
4. Other CullleI~
B.
sumnary of CuluellLS by Potentially Resp::inSible Parties
'!he CUIllenlS are parapu-ased. in order to effectively sumnarize then in this
docunent. '!he reader is referred to the pJblic neeting trcmscript and written
C(AIU-=~ available at the pJblic re];X:)Sitory for further information.
A.
SI+NY CF PmLIC HEAROO CDHNl'S
.
1. CXJMNIS CII 'IHE RDEDI1\L INVESl'IGA.T.ICN »I).
~'
CXMBll':
What risks are there to children exposed to contaminants from the site
when. chenicals were originally diS};X)sed of at the site, at those times
when. flooding cx:curred?
~:
It is i.np:>ssible to assess risks due to exposure to ~ site
condi tions, for which we ha"~ IX) analytical data. surface cleaID.JI:S
have been implanented on .both the Ninth Averm.e and Midco I sites since
flooding cx:curred in 1981, so risks due to present site conditions are
ITUJCh less than in the past. In the Ermngerrrent Assessment, lifetime
exposure scenarios were considered for contact with contaminated
surface water given current site coodi tions. '!his scenario did not
indicate the presence of a significant risk to indi r"i.duals assumed to
cane in direct contact with contaminated surface water once every tW'O
weeks, eight ITCI1t.hs out" of the year for 70 years. rnle actual
exposures to children are anticipated to be intennittent and for a
shorter duration and lower fra:}Uer¥:Y than the assumed exposure
scenario used in the FnCangenrent Assessment, thus, actual risks
should be very low.
-------
-3-
CXM-mr:
WOUld residents be safe if flocxting occurred in the Hessville area
given current site ccn:titions? If the clay cant.airment barrier
prC>p)Sed by EPA were installed, would residents be safe fran health
risks due to flooding? Would it be safe enough to plant a garden ani
eat hanegrown vegetables?
~:
'!he large I1UITber of tanks ard barrels that were sittin3 on the surface
of the Ninth AverD.le n.mp site in the early 1980s have been raTCVed.
fran the property. By ratD"i.ng theSe tanks ani barrels, the largest
risk' for release of contamination fran surface water runoff during timas
of heavy rainfall has been reauced. Although surface soil ccntamination
dOes exist at the site aID may act as a minor cont:.amd.nant source to
surface water, it is anticipated that the chanical and P1YSical
properties of the contaminants would inhibit eKtensi ve contamination of
surface water runoff.
'n1e Dmngenrent Assessne1t am results of soil saI1pling in tl1e
Hessville neighborhood imicate that residents nearest the site who
have baCkyard gardens are at little to ro risk fran. eating haregrown
garden produce. .
rhood of 21st Street, have had every' other 1xme lose roe or two
people to cancer because well water was used. UP' until the 1970's.
~:
Groundwater flow in the area is rorth toward Iake Michigan, which is the
owesi te direction of the residential neighborhood referenced in the
CYII1ent... '!here is no eviderK::e to indicate that groundwater originatin;
near the Ninth Avenue Dmp. site could have caused health risks to
residentS of this neighborl'XXXl.
2. CIH-mrs CR 'IRE ~ S1UJY 1W) I:K.JrUjtJJ PIM
aH-mI':
Why was on-site storage of the oil selected as opposed to storage at an
existing nearby storage faCility?
-------
-4-
~:
On-site oil storage was used in the cost est:i1rates versus off-site
storage prinarily because current regulations prohibit storage of a RCRA
hazardous waste in a facility not in carplianc:e with !eRA and TSCA
requirarents for storage of soch a waste. It is unlikely that existing
storage facilities in the area are carpliant with theSe regulations, ror
is it likely that a. waiver to these regulaticms could be obtained.
Also, if on-site treatment is selected as a final rerrsdy, off-site
storage will require costly arx1 urmecessary transportation to and fran
the site. If a RCRA arxl ~ catpliant off-site facility is identifie;j
in the design ~e, the merits of this proposal will be considered.
0:IHNr:
What percentage of the oil woula likely be recovered with the proposed
extraction systan?
~:
1\1=Proximately 40 to 70 percent of the total oil volurre is estiJrated to
be recoverable. 'D1:is corr~ to an estimated recoverable volurre of
oil between 100,000 to 500,000 gallons.
aK-I!NI':
Oil shOuld be treated imned:iately instead of stored.
~:
EPA selected oil storage rather than treatnent as the preferred ratedy
because contacts with off-site ccmrercial iocinerators indicated they
would not be willing to accept dioxin contaminated oil. Sirce on-site
treatIrent will be considered for contaminated soilS arx1 waste, it is
ITDre cost-effective to iIrplerent a treatl1ent systan. wm.ch can treat all
contaminated media, rather than treating oil separately fran waste and
soilS.
a:JM!Nr:
Why does the selected alternative only consider oil raroval and not
raroval of the other contaminant source materials such as waste and
soi l, thereby allowing further release of contaminants to groundwater by
leaching? .
~:
'!he pJI'pOse of the Phased FS was to evaluate alternatives for the first
Ii1aSe of raredial resp:mse at the Ninth Averue site. It was .
-------
-5-
intended to address tl1e imnediate threat of migration and continued
release of contaminants to groundwater posed by the rrost nobi le of the
contaminant sources, Le., the oil layer. '!he selecterl alternative is
intended to reduce the :iJmeD.ate threat and is not intenderl to be the
final site ranedy. 'Ib include other contaminated media in the interim
ranedy would delay the start of CleaIUJI;:r of the :i1meii.ate threats at the
site.
CXMvml':
Why will the recovererl grourdwater be discharged back into the
groundwater as ~sed to surface water?
~:
Recharge of recovered groundwater inside the containment barrier is
necessary to increase flow gradients toward tl1e recovery wells, thereby
increasing the rate and efficiency of oil recovery.
A small quantity of water will be discharged into the aquifer outside of
the ccntaiIment barrier to catpmSate for infiltratioo. '!his water will
be diSCl1arged to the aquifer rather than surface water because salt will
not be raroved fran the water. 'Ibis may be barmful to aquatic life.
~:
What standards will be net for grourdwater treated and discharged into
the aquifer?
~:
Water discharged outside the containment barrier will be treated to
Maximmr ccntaminant levels (M:Ls) un:ier the safe Drinking water Act, or
10-6 carciu>genic risk. Salt will not be treated. Water discharged
inside the slurry wall will not be treaterl.
CXHtENr:
Will construction of the prop:>sed cont.ainn'ent barrier in a wetlands area
catply with Clean water Act (cw\) dredge and fill regulations?
v
~:
Regulations urXIer section 404 of the CW\ require a pannit for filling in
a wetlands area. cmaA exenptS an-site remedial actions fran all but
subStantive permit requirements. EE'A is coordinating with permit
reviewers to E'!1SUre that the proposed filling will carply with
substantive requirements. section X of this Record of Decision
further discusses these requirarent.s.
-------
-6-
qX)SUre to surface water present at
the site. In addition, there is reasal to believe that surface water
from the site, wen diluted during a heavy rainfall event, woula. not
p;>se a significant threat to the neighboring camu.mi ty . 'lherefore,
funding of the prop:>sed dikes along Ninth AveIU1e could not be justified
under SUperfund.
3. a:H1EN1'S Ql ~ T~~
CXMENl':
How many carpmies' wastes were disp:>sed of at the site?
~:
EPA. currently has a list of CJR'raximately 170 Fritentially resp:msible
parties (PRPs) for the site.
aH1ENl':
Have PRPs been notified of their potential liability with respect to the
site?
~:
u
Special l'btice Letters were sent to all identified PRPs in J\1ly 1988.
'lbese letters inforned PRPs of the up::aning interim cleanup. at the site
and allowed. them an qp::>rttnU. ty to participate in the cleanup.
aHENl':
J
What information about PRPs is available to the p..tblic?
~:
.
A copy of the Special ~ice Letter sent to PRPs and a list of cCl1p3Iries
recei ving the letters is avai !able in the Mninistrati ve
-------
-7-
Record fi le at Gary City Hall and EPA Region V offices. PRP caments on
the proposed interim remedy and notes fran a rreeting between EPA and
PRPs discussing the preferred remedy are alsO available in the
Mninistrative Record file.
a:MENl':
It is unlikely that negotiations with PRPs will be carpleted in four
IID11ths .
~:
section 122 of ~ requires a 120 day I1Oratorium before CUllUencanent of
rateliai action for negotiatians with PRPs. It is EPA's policy that
negotiations are exteOOed beyond the 120 day period. only in extrema or
urmsual circurrstaOCes. At this' tiIte, EPA has IX> plans to exten:l the
negotiation period.
4. UJIiI!H cx:amrs
ax.mI':
EPA did rot allO\li 30 days after the pmlic meeting for sutmission of
p.1blic c\.&Iuents.
RESPCHSE:
A 30 day pJblic Culuel..:l period started July 5, 1988, wi'1en EPA inforne:1
the pJblic that the Mninistrative Record was available in the pmlic
repository. 'n1e pJblic meeting was held 8 days after the start of the
p.mlic Cuillent period to allow interested citizens to becare familiar
with docurre1tS in the repository before attending the meeting.
CDMN.r:
Is it true that EPA rarely changes a proposed plan in resp::mse to pJblic
cUIIUe:nt.s?
~:
G
(.,
EPA selects the preferred rerredy after preparation of a detailed
technical study and. consideration of several selection criteria,
including c:ormunity acceptan:e. In only a ffM cases has there been
significant p.mlic response asking EPA to change a proposed remedy.
these cases, EPA has considered and Sanetimes changed the remedy
selected for a site.'
In
-------
-8-
aMt!Nl':
EPA should explain to residents tl1a.t Technical Assistarx:e Grants (~s)
are available to help the pJblic understa.IXl the RIfFS am prCJlX)sed plan.
~:
'Ihe 1986 AInel1dments to cmc:IA established the ~ program to allow
persons living near am affected by a SUperfund site to provide infornei
pJblic CC8lllent on SUperfund clearmps. Grants of up to $50,000 can be
provided to eligible groups to review EE'A records am provide technical
infonnation to the ccmra..mi ty . 'Ihose interested in obtaining a TAG grant
or in getting further infonnation should contact EE'A Region V offices.
roM!N1':
Will the citizens of Gary am HaImDr¥:1 have to pay for the clearmp?
~:
'Ihe clearmp at the Ninth AveIUlEr nmp site will be financed by
responsible puties, or by reverues collected through the ~fund tax.
'lhis tax is for the IrDSt part directed towards the oil and other
chanica! industries. 'Ihe cleamp will not affect taxes. of Gary am
Hc:uluOid residents.
aMENl':
Why' has it taken three years to canplete the RI am R1ased FS?
~:
J
'Ihe soil am grourXlwater contaminaticn at this site is canplex because
of the many different types of hazardous 'NaSte durrped at the site and
the canplex groundwater flow patterns. '!his is furtl1er canplicated by
the ID.Jrnerous p:rt:.ential sources of contamination outside of the site.
'lb canpletely characterize the site, over 300 soil, groundwater, surface
water, sediment and oil samples were taken anj analyzed for nore than
150 cCJ1iX)Ul1ds. A long period of time was needed to take these samples
using adequate safety precautions, analyze than, interpret the data and
wri te an RI report and develop an FS to determine appropriate methods of
clearmp.for the site.
CXHo1EN1':
HeM long will it take before remedial action is initiated at the site?
-------
-9-
~:
EPA anticipates that 12 to 18 m:mths will be rEqUired to c011Clude
negotiations with potentially responsible parties, carplete remedial
design, and initiate remedial action at the site.
cxx-mr:
Is EPA willing to buy hcJtes in Hessville?
~:
'l11e results of soil analyses am the Dmngennent Assessne1t shoW that
there is little to no health risk to residents in the Hessville area
fran: the Ninth Avenue site. 'l11erefore, EE'A has no justification for
tuying hares in the Hessville area.
~:
'l11ere is continued uricontrolled dlmpinJ in ssveral areas arourn the
site.
~:
EE'A erx:ourages citizens to inform us or the In:li"ana.. Department of
EnviLCaJIlieut..al Managenent (IDEM) of specific in:idents of urconLrolled
dunpin; in the area. "
CIMvnn':
'n1e gI'O\JI'¥iwa.ter under Ninth Averme nmp is part of an active. aquifer
Wich is being contaminated. fran several sources and is discharging to
Lake Michigan.
~:
v
'l11e grcn.n:iwater under Ninth Avemle nmp is part of the caltmet ~fer.
In. the vicinity of the site, this a:pifer flows north am discharges to
the Gram caluret River am take Michigan. It is true that this aquifer
has" been contaminated fran several sources. EP'A and IDEM are attanpting
to address as many sources of contamination as p:>ssible \.D1der the
SUperfurn program, as well as other State and Federal environnental
laws.
B. SM-MY CF CXJ+1ENlS BY FUI:nn'1MLY RESKNS:ma:E PARr.IES
cx:M-EN1':
cn-site storage of the recovered oil ~ld pose mmecessary risks to the
local carmmi ty . '!be Agency has also understated the time, effort and
costs associated with on-site oil storage.
-------
-10-
~:
IX1ring recovery operations, standard security measures will be taken to
prevent trespassers fran damaging or carpranising the integrity of the
storage tank. In aCIdi tion, there would likely be sufficient activity at
the site associated with iIrplanentation of the interim am final
ranedies during this time to deter vandalism. 'l\Io 5,000 gallon on-site
storage tanks have net been damaged since their installation t\¥O years
ago. For these reasons, it is anticipated that the presence of an on-
site storage tank for the recovered oil would oot pose urmecessary risks
to the local ccmrami ty. 'Ihe estimated costs for on-si te oi 1 storage
considered these factors anj were based, in part, up:m RCR1\ anj TSa\
requirements, anj veneer interviews.
aM-nlr:
It is oot necessary' to initiate collection of the oil 11O'W when it could
just as effectively' be initiated at the time the final rem:ny is
iIlplemented. by using a faster methcd of oil collectim such as a series
of well p:>ints.
~:
011 recovery will likely be part of the full site remedy, bec;l11~e the
oil layer is the primary source of cantarninatian at -the site arxi its
presence would likely himer the iIrplanentation of other renediation
actiVities. Alternative Dethods of oil collection interx1ed to increase
.the rate of oil recovery (Le., well points) could possibly Em1lsify the
oil, thereby increasing the volume of liquid to be treated, am would
also have the effect of dewatering the area within the containment
barrier. In aCklition, because of the viscous nature of the oil layer
anj the heterogeneous nature of the porous media, collection rates are,
at present, unJcrx7..1n. Design lilaSe studies will give a better inlication
of actual oil collection rates. It would therefore be advantageous to
initiate oil collection as soon as possible to accelerate the overall
ranediation process.
CXMDn':
<,
u
If the oil is collected 11O'W, it should be directly sent to an off-site
incinerator or to an off-site storage facility.
\/
~:
Based on contacts with several ccmnercial incineration facilities to
date, 1X> facility is willirig to make a finn. carmitJTent to accept the
PCB am dioxin cantarninated oil. Tenp:>rary oil storage would be
required prior to on-site incineration, because it would be necessary to
acamulate a volume large enough to justify DDbilization of an
incinerator. In aCdition, the actual sizing am systan configuration
-------
~
-11
c
"
will depend an design phase infonnatian and an getting a m:>re concrete
handle on off-site facility availability. FurtheI11Dre, the oil could
not be tarp:>rarily stored off-site at a nearby storage facility unless
facility carpliance with R.C:RA and TSCA regulations ~ng to storage
of a hazardous and toxic waste cOUld be found.
If aCditional infonnatian is gathered during the design phase indicating
that an off-site carmercial incinerator WOUld be willing to accept this
oil, off-site incineration will be reconsidered.
aM-EN1':
'Ihe excess water management requirenents and associated costs of the
selected alteznative are understated and a higher capacity (Le.,
greater than 1 gpn), m:>re Canplex treatment 5yStE!l1 would be required.
~:
'Ihe required capacity of the gTOl,JOOwater treatment systE!l1 was estimated
assuming a conservative estimate for average anmJ.al infiltratic.n.
Available soil storage capacity would be Utilized, and the systE!l1 WOUld
be operated over a relatively short period of time until the full-site
renedy could be inplemented. 'D1e prqnsed treatmant system would be
intenni ttently operated with an actual capacity larger than 1 gpn. The
average, long-term flow is anticipated to be appraxinately 1 gpn. '!he
differences in estimates qf excess water would only affect the operation
and maintenan::e costs and "WOUld not likely affect the systE!l1 capital
cost. In addition, the unit costs of treatnent stated in the Phased FS
are consistent with estimates fran recent studies arc are based in F8rt
up:m vendor interviews.
------- |