United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R07-89/025
September 1989
Superfund
Record of Decision
John's Sludge Pond, KS
-------
50272-101
I REPORT DOCUMENTATION
PAGE
1. REPORT NO.
EPA/ROD/R07-89/025
3. Recipient'* Accession No.
4. Title and Subtitle
.SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Johns' Sludge Pond, KS
First Remedial Action - Final
5. Report Data
09/22/89
7. Author(a)
8. Performing Organization Rept No.
». Performing Organization Name and Addraaa
10. Pro|ecl/Taelc/Work Unit No.
11. Contract(C) or Grant(G) No.
(C)
(0
12. Sponaoring Organization Name and Addreaa
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. Type of Report & Period Covered
800/000
14.
15. Supplementary Note*
I
16. Abstract (Umlt: 200 worda)
The Johns' Sludge Pond site is in a relatively undeveloped area in the city of
Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas. The 0.5-acre site, which lies within the 500-year
floodplain of the nearby Little Arkansas River, neighbors a large rail yard, an
interstate highway, a large borrow pit, and farm land. The city of Wichita owns
(approximately 1/3 of the site as a result of condemnation for highway drainage. During
the 1950s and 1960s the Super Refined Oil Company used the sludge pond for the disposal
of waste oil and up to 15,000 cubic yards of oily sludge generated by the oil recycling
and reclamation operation. Because sulfuric acid was used to refine waste oil for
recycling, the wastes dumped into the pond were very acidic. Additionally, high lead
concentrations and low PCS concentrations (less than 50 ppm) were also detected in the
sludge. As surface water flowed into the pond, an extremely acidic layer of water
formed on top of the sludge which often overflowed into nearby surface waters. The
city subsequently built berms to prevent further surface runoff. In 1983 EPA ordered
the city to undertake interim cleanup activities which consisted of excavating and
solidifying the sludge using cement kiln dust with redeposition of the treated sludge
into a compacted clay-lined cell followed by capping using a compacted clay cap.
Surface and ground water monitoring following the interim action have not detected any
contaminant levels that would require further action. (See Attached Sheet)
17. Document Analyaia a. Descriptor*
Record of Decision - Johns' Sludge Pond, KS
First Remedial Action - Final
Contaminated Media: none
Key Contaminants: none
b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terma
c. COSATI Held/Group
18. Availability Statement
It. Security Claaa (Thia Report)
None
20. Security daaa (Thia Page)
None
21. No. of Pages
13
22. Price
(See ANS4-Z39.18)
See Instruction* on Oemne
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
(Formerly NTIS-3S)
Department o< Commerce
-------
DO NOT PRINT THESE INSTRUCTIONS AS A PAGE IN A REPORT
INSTRUCTIONS
Optional Form 272, Report Documentation Page la based on Guidelines for Format and Production of Scientific and Technical Reports,
ANSI 239.18-1974 available from American National Standards Institute, 1430 Broadway, New York, New York 10018. Each separately
bound reportfor example, each volume in a multlvolume setshall have Its unique Report Documentation Page.
1. Report Number. Each Individually bound report shall carry a unique alphanumeric designation assigned by the performing orga-
nization or provided by the sponsoring organization In accordance with American National Standard ANSI 239.23-1974, Technical
Report Number (STRN). For registration of report code, contact NT1S Report Number Clearinghouse, Springfield, VA 22161. Use
uppercase letters, Arabic numerals, slashes, and hyphens only, as in the following examples: FASEB/NS-75/87 and FAA/
RD-75/09.
2. Leave blank.
3. Recipient's Accession Number. Reserved for use by each report recipient.
4. Title and Subtitle. Title should Indicate clearly and briefly the subject coverage of the report, subordinate subtitle to the main
title. When a report is prepared in more than one volume, repeat the primary title, add volume number and Include subtitle for
the specific volume:
5. Report Date. Each report shall carry a date Indicating at least month and year. Indicate the basis on which it was selected (e.g.,
date of issue, date of approval, date of preparation, date published).
6. Sponsoring Agency Code. Leave blank.
7. Authors). Give name(s) in conventional order (e.g., John R. Doe, or J. Robert Doe). List author's affiliation if it differs from
the performing organization.
8. Performing organization Report Number. Insert If performing organizaton wishes to assign this number.
9. Performing Organization Name and Mailing Address. Give name, street, city, state, and ZIP code. Ust no more than two levels of
an organizational hlerachy. Display the name of the organization exactly as It should appear In Government Indexes such as
Government Reports Announcements & Index (GRA & I).
10. Project/Task/Work Unit Number. Use the project, task and work unit numbers under which the report was prepared.
11. Contract/Grant Number. Insert contract or grant number under which report was prepared.
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Mailing Address. Include ZIP code. Cite main sponsors.
13. Type of Report and Period Covered. State interim, final, etc., and, If applicable, inclusive dates.
14. Performing Organization Code. Leave blank.
15. Supplementary Notes. Enter Information not Included elsewhere but useful, such as: Prepared in cooperation with ... Translation
of... Presented at conference of... To be published In ... When a report is revised, Include a statement whether the new
report supersedes or supplements the older report
16. Abstract Include a brief (200 words or less) factual summary of the most significant Information contained in the report. If the
report contains a significant bibliography or literature survey, mention It here.
17. Document Analysis, (a). Descriptors. Select from the Thesaurus of Engineering and Scientific Terms the proper authorized terms
that Identify the major concept of the research and are sufficiently specific and precise to be used as Index entries for cataloging.
(b). Identifiers and Open-Ended Terms. Use Identifiers for project names, code names, equipment designators, etc. Use open-
ended terms written in descriptor form for those subjects for which no descriptor exists.
(c). COSATI Field/Group. Field and Group assignments are to be taken form the 1964 COSATI Subject Category Ust. Since the
majority of documents are multldlsclpllnary in nature, the primary Field/Group assignment(s) will be the specific discipline,
area of human endeavor, or type of physical object. The applications) will be cross-referenced with secondary Field/Group
assignments that will follow the primary postlng(s).
18. Distribution Statement. Denote public releasabillty, for example "Release unlimited", or limitation for reasons other than
security. Cite any availability to the public, with address, order number and price, If known.
19. & 20. Security Classification. Enter U.S. Security Classification In accordance with U. S. Security Regulations (I.e., UNCLASSIFIED).
21. Number of pages. Insert the total number of pages, including introductory pages, but excluding distribution list, if any.
22. Price. Enter price In paper copy (PC) and/or microfiche (MF) if known.
T* GPO 19830-381-526(8393) OPTIONAL FORM 272 BACK
(4-77)
-------
EPA/ROD/R07-89/025
Johns' Sludge Pond, KS
First Remedial Action - Final
i!6. Abstract (continued)
The selected remedial action for this site includes a no further action scenario.
Previous interim remedial activities were adequate to protect human health and the
environment. There are no costs associated with this no"action remedy. The city will
continue to provide post-closure maintenance. The county will continue to provide
post-closure monitoring.
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
DECLARATION
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Johns' Sludge Pond
Wichita, Kansas
STATEMENT fif BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the remedial actions
selected for the Johns' Sludge Pond site in Wichita, Kansas. The
final site remedy was selected in accordance with the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability
Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) 42 U.S.C. §9601 et sea, and
with the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution v
Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 C.F.R. Part 300. This decision is
based upon the documents and information contained in the
Administrative Record for the site. A copy of the Administrative
Record is available for public review in the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Region VII Docket Room in Kansas City,
Kansas, at the Department of Public Works in Wichita, Kansas and
at the City-County Health Department in Wichita, Kansas.
The State of Kansas was consulted with and concurs on the
remedy selected for this site, provided that periodic reviews and
post-closure maintenance and monitoring are conducted at the site.
DESCRIPTION 0£ THE SELECTED REMEDY
In consultation with the State of Kansas, EPA has determined
that no further remedial actions are required for the Johns'
Sludge Pond at this time. The EPA finds that the cleanup already
conducted at the site by the City of Wichita under EPA's over-
sight satisfies the criteria established in Section 121 of SARA
for the selection of remedial actions and is protective of human
health and the environment.
In 1986 the City of Wichita completed an interim site
cleanup which consisted of the following:
- Acidic, contaminated sludge was removed from the dis-
posal cell and stockpiled on the adjacent ground sur-
face. A compacted clay liner was constructed on the
bottom of the disposal cell.
-------
- Stockpiled sludge was solidified with cement kiln dust
to raise the pH of the sludge so that it was no longer
acidic and did not pose a threat of direct contact
exposures. Solidification also reduced the solubility
of lead, the principal chemical contaminant in the
sludge, and reduced the potential for continuing
ground water contamination by the site. Finally,
solidification allowed a cap and cover to be
constructed over the solidified sludge to further
reduce the potential for direct contact exposures.
- Solidified sludge was then redeposited back in the
lined disposal cell. A compacted clay cap was con-
structed on top of the sludge and on the sidewalls of
the disposal cell.
- A soil cover was installed above the clay cap. The
site was then seeded with vegetation and fenced.
- Deed restrictions were placed on the property
preventing land uses which would interfere with the
effectiveness of the remedy implemented. ^
- Post-closure environmental monitoring for site contam-
inants is being conducted by the City-County Health
Department. Postclosure maintenance of the site is
being provided by the City Public Works Department.
DECLARATION
The selected remedial alternative is protective of human
health and the environment and attains federal, state and local
requirements that are applicable, or relevant and appropriate, to
the remedial actions and is cost effective. This remedy satisfies
the statutory preference in CERCLA/SARA for remedies which employ
treatment technologies that reduce the toxicity, mobility or
volume of the hazardous substances present at the site.
Because this remedy results in hazardous substances,
pollutants or contaminants being left at the site above health-
based levels, a review of the continued adequacy of the site
remedy shall be conducted no less than once every five years as
required by Section 121 of SARA. Available analytical data and
information from the post-closure monitoring and maintenance will
be used in these reviews.
Date ^Morris Kay
Regional Administrator
-------
RECORD OF DECISION (ROD)
Johns * Sludge Pond
Wichita. Kansas
Prepared by:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION VII
726 MINNESOTA AVENUE
KANSAS CITY, KANSAS 66101
September 1989
-------
TABLE 2£ CONTENTS
DECLARATION
TITLE PAGE
Decision Summary:
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1, SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
SECTION 2, SITE HISTORY
SECTION 3, DESCRIPTION OF THE REMEDY
SECTION 4, APPLICABLE, OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS
SECTION 5, CURRENT SITE RISKS
SECTION 6, GROUND WATER ALTERNATIVES .
SECTION 7, DETAILED EVALUATION OF THE GROUND WATER ALTERNATIVE
SECTION 8, SELECTED ALTERNATIVE
SECTION 9, STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
SECTION 10, IMPLEMENTATION
FIGURE 1, AREA MAP
FIGURE 2, SITE MAP
TABLE I, USDA/SCS WEATHER DATA
TABLE II, SLUDGE CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATIONS
TABLE III, GROUND WATER CONTAMINANT LEVELS
For information purposes the following abbreviations for
units of measurement used in text are provided:
Liquids: Milligrams per liter (mg/l)=parts per million (ppm).
Micrograms per liter (ug/1)-parts per billion (ppb).
Solids: Milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg)=parts per million (ppm).
Micrograms per kilogram (ug/kg)=parts per billion (ppb).
-------
DECISION SUMMARY
SECTION 1, SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
1.1. Site Location
Johns* Sludge Pond is located at 29th and Hydraulic Streets
in the northern portion of Wichita in Sedgwick County, Kansas.
The site is approximately \ acre in size and is located in a
relatively undeveloped part of the city, north of an indus-
trialized section of Wichita. To date, very little development
has occurred north of the site (Refer to Figure 1, Area Map).
Land uses immediately surrounding the site include: a large
rail yard south and southwest of the site; an interstate highway
to the west; a large borrow pit to the north (dug for the
construction of the adjacent highway and now filled with water);
and farm fields to the east and southeast of the rail yard. The
nearest residences are approximately % mile south-southeast of .
the site, on the other side of a farm field. Much of the land in
the vicinity of the site is industrialized and includes several \
large grain elevators, the rail yard, an oil refinery, and a
variety of other industrial operations. Remaining land near the
site is vacant or undeveloped.
The City of Wichita owns slightly more than half of the
property on which Johns' Sludge Pond is located. The remainder
of the site is owned by the Estate of Ava Johns, the owner-
operator of the site when it was used for waste disposal (Refer
to Section 2 discussion on site history).
1.2. Topography
Before the construction of the adjacent highway, which is
elevated some 20 feet above the surrounding terrain, the area
landscape was quite flat. The site is located in the 500-year
floodplain of the Little Arkansas River and is about 1,100 feet
east of the river. Surface water runoff from the site drains
into the East Fork of Chisholm Creek, just south of the site, and
then into Chisholm Creek. Chisholm Creek then drains into a
concrete-lined ditch or canal approximately 6,000 feet south of
the site. This ditch parallels the highway, and receives runoff
from the highway before discharging into the Arkansas River in
the southern part of the city, about 7.0 miles south of the site.
When the site was used for the disposal of liquid wastes by
the Johns' Refinery, it was an open pit into which surface water
runoff from the surrounding land would drain. However, as a
result of the City's cleanup actions the site now has a clay cap
and soil cover which are some 15 feet above grade (nearly as high
as the overpass of the adjacent highway). Consequently, surface
-------
water runoff now drains off of the site onto surrounding land and
into the East Fork of Chisholm Creek. A dirt road, which is
elevated above existing grade, separates the site from the borrow
pit and prevents any runoff from the site reaching the borrow
pit.
1.3. Hydroaeoloay
The Arkansas River Valley consists of unconsolidated
alluvium and terrace deposits of Upper Pleistocene age
(Wisconsin-Recent). These surficial deposits are composed of
fine to coarse-grained sands and fine to coarse-grained gravels
with clayey silt in the upper portions of the sequence. In the
western part of the county, these deposits are an important
ground water source with the sands and gravels providing adequate
water production rates. The rates decrease eastwardly as the
percentage of clays and silts increase toward the eastern edge of
the floodplain.
The alluvial deposits are underlain by the Wellington
Formation which consists of calcareous shales, interbedded gypsum
and anhydrite, and salt. In some western portions of the county, V
the salt thickness can reach as much as 300 feet.
Local ground water flow direction has been calculated to be
toward the south-southeast, using the monitoring wells around the
site. The Wellington formation southeast of the site yields less
water than the alluvium found closer to the river.
The alluvium thickness is generally about 50 feet thick at
the site and consists of silty clay with sand intervals ranging
from 5 to 15 feet in thickness. Eastwardly, the alluvium thins
and eventually is erosionally truncated, outcropping at the
surface. The Wellington Formation also outcrops at the extreme
eastern edge of the floodplain. Typically any wells finished in
the Wellington would be completed between 40 and 50 feet, large
in diameter (providing for adequate storage volumes), and used
for limited domestic and livestock supplies or as process water.
In general, the production rates in wells near the site are low.
Within the bedrock, water occurs in solution cavities, crevices,
and openings in the weathered upper portions of the Wellington
Shale formation and in the void spaces of the overlying alluvial
soils, where present.
Two municipal wells exist in the area but are located
considerably upgradient (3*j and 4^ miles) and are not at risk of
contamination by the site. The EPA completed a ground water use
survey in 1989 and identified 13 private wells within 1^ miles of
the site. Of these 13 wells only three were used for drinking
and all three of these were upgradient, and were, therefore, at
little or no risk of contamination by any contaminant releases
from the site. All three of these wells appear to be above
-------
thicker alluvial deposits than are found downgradient of Johns'
Sludge Pond. The alluvial deposits yield more water and are more
productive than the underlying shale found near the surface in
the absence of alluvium.
Ground water at the site is hard with levels between 500 and
700 mg/1 total solids. Naturally occurring chloride
concentrations also tend to be high and ranged between 38 and 227
mg/1. Although high, the chloride values are still less than the
250 mg/1 Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL) established
by the EPA. (See Section 4 for definitions of SMCL and Maximum
Contaminant Level, or MCL.) The distribution of dissolved solids
in the ground water is closely related to the geology and hydro-
geology of the area. The high concentrations of dissolved solids
in the water are attributable to the Wellington Formation, where
the shale contains large amounts of gypsum, anhydrite and locally
thin seams of salt. A zone of highly mineralized ground water is
found adjacent to the river. This zone is the result of movement
of mineralized water from the river into the aquifer. Conductiv-
ity measurements taken in June 1987 and September 1987 indicate
total dissolved solids concentrations ranging from 458 to 786
mg/1 and from 449 to 1079 mg/1, respectively. \
Onsite ground water from monitoring wells tends to be very
turbid, containing a large amount of suspended or particulate
matter. The EPA analyzed ground water for nephelometric
turbidity units (NTUs) and reported a value of 101. The EPA has
established an MCL for surface water supplies of 1.0 NTU. This
turbidity measure of 101 NTU in the onsite monitoring well water
is an indication of the unsuitability of the ground water as a
drinking water source. Alternately, the silty water may be a
function of the differences in construction and development of
monitoring wells as compared to drinking water wells. A greater
degree of care is taken to exclude suspended solids from drinking
water wells.
1.4. Climate
The site is located in the city of Wichita, which is in
south-central Kansas. Wichita has a continental climate with a
wide range of temperature extremes. The hottest month of the
year, on average, is July with an average high temperature of 90
degrees Farenheit. The coldest month of the year is January with
an average low temperature of 20 degrees Farenheit.
Table I, taken from a U.S. Department of Agriculture/Soil
Conservation Service publication on Sedgwick County, summarizes
monthly averages for temperature and precipitation. Most of the
precipitation in Sedgwick County falls in the months of December
through March with the remainder of the year being quite dry.
-------
Wichita is often very windy. The prevailing wind direction
is from the west, with winters tending to have winds from the
northwest and summers having winds from the southwest. Sustained
winds speeds of 15-25 miles per hour are quite common, with gusts
even higher. South-central Kansas has many-tornadoes and
thunderstorms, most of which occur from April through September.
SECTION 2, SITE HISTORY
2.1. Waste Disposal
Primarily in the 1950s and 1960s, Johns1 Sludge Pond was
used by. the Super Refined Oil Company for the disposal of waste
oil and oily sludge generated in its recycling/reclamation of
motor oil and other oils at the Johns' Refinery in Wichita,
Kansas. At the time, the site was used for disposal it was owned
by Ava Johns. Ava Johns was the owner-operator of the Super
Refined Oil Company, which was commonly known as the Johns'
Refinery. Johns' Refinery was located on 21st Street, approxi-
mately I3* mile southwest of the Johns' Sludge Pond.
Johns' Sludge Pond was originally a depression near the East\
Fork of Chisholm Creek. Johns used the property for disposal of
liquid wastes from his refinery. In order to be able to dispose
larger quantities of wastes, the original depression was enlarged
by excavation into what eventually became the disposal cell of
Johns' Sludge Pond. Johns' Sludge Pond eventually covered about
S acre and contained an estimated 15,000 cubic yards of oily
sludge prior to cleanup. It is believed that the pit was
excavated as deep as 15 feet below grade, down near the highest
level of the water table. The average depth of the pit was eight
feet.
The method of disposal was to truck the semi-liquid, oily
sludge to the site and dump it into the pit. Sulfuric acid was
used by Johns in refining waste oil for recycling. As a result,
the waste dumped into the site was often quite acidic. The
inflow of surface water into the disposal cell resulted in an
extremely acidic layer of water on top of the sludge.
Originally, the site lacked berms or other measures to
prevent the overflow and release of contaminated water or liquids
into nearby surface waters. During heavy rains the site would
release contaminated water or liquid to the drainage of Chisholm
Creek and the Arkansas River. Prior to EPA's involvement with
the site, the City built a berm around the site which prevented
any additional contamination of surface waters by the site.
8
-------
When used for disposal by Johns, the cell was unlined and
had no leachate collection or other engineering or design
controls to prevent or control contaminant releases to the
environment. Based upon available information, all of the wastes
disposed at the site appear to be from the'Johns' Refinery.
The principal hazard associated with the wastes disposed in
the cell was the acidity of the sludge and of the water on top of
the sludge. The water had a pH as low as 1.0 (pH scale of 1.0 to
14.0). However, the sludge also contained potentially toxic
concentrations of lead and low levels of polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), other metals and other organics (see Table II).
Some of the wastes disposed at the site were flammable, as evi-
denced by the occasional fires which reportedly occurred several
years before EPA's involvement with the site.
2.2. Contaminant Releases
Ground and surface water samples have been collected at and
near the site by EPA and by the City-County Health Department for
chemical analysis. Surface and ground water samples are
collected and analyzed by the Health Department pursuant to a *
post-closure monitoring plan approved by EPA. No releases of
hazardous substances from the site via surface water have been
found.
Ground water samples are collected and analyzed for lead,
the principal chemical contaminant, and also PCBs as part of the
post-closure monitoring for the site. A series of six shallow,
alluvial shallow monitoring wells surround the site and are used
for ground water sample collection. Table III summarizes ground
water contaminant levels noted in these monitoring wells.
No PCBs have been found in the ground water during post-
closure monitoring. In the inner ring of three monitoring wells
nearest the site, elevated levels of total lead, attributable to
releases from the site, have been noted. (Total lead analyses
include dissolved lead, which could be expected to be carried
with normal ground water flow as well as lead adsorbed onto
suspended solids in the ground water samples collected. Ground
water flow would not transport suspended solids offsite, except
in unusual circumstances such as in karst geology, which is not
found at this site.) Drinking water wells are constructed and
developed to provide nonturbid (clear) water, generally free of
suspended solids or particulate matter, in which the lead found
in post-closure ground water samples has been associated. In the
outer ring of three monitoring wells, elevated levels of total
lead, exceeding the maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 50 ug/1
for public drinking water supplies, have been recorded in one of
three samples collected from each well. Analyses of ground water
samples for dissolved lead have not exceeded the MCL of 50 ug/1
for drinking water supplies.
-------
SECTION 3, DESCRIPTION OF THE REMEDY
3.1. Interim Site Remediation
In November 1983, the EPA issued a Consent Order under
Section 106 of CERCLA to the City of Wichita, as the owner of the
site, requiring that an interim cleanup action be conducted at
the site. Subsequently, the City submitted a work plan to EPA
for this work, which EPA approved and the City implemented.
Because the sludge contained low levels of PCBs, with an
average concentration of 44 mg/kg, the reconstructed disposal
cell was designed to meet the technical requirements of the Toxic
Substances and Control Act (TSCA) for a chemical waste landfill.
Two of the technical requirements of a chemical waste landfill
could not be achieved because of the setting of the site:
- The 50-foot separation between the bottom of the
disposal cell and the water table could not be
achieved. (The shallow water table at the site,
approximately 20 feet below ground surface, would have
required a regional lowering of the water table, which y
is impractical. In addition, the lack of viable
disposal options for any ground water extracted to
lower the water table made this impractical.)
- A leachate collection system could not be installed.
The land space necessary for leachate collection was
not available because of surrounding land uses, e.g.,
the highway, the railroad, and the road between the
site and the borrow pit to the north. (Sludge
treatment, with cement kiln dust, increased waste
volume to the point that all available onsite land was
used for the reconstructed disposal cell. The clay
cap, the clay liner, and the sludge treatment with
cement kiln dust preclude the formation of significant
quantities of leachate. Leachate collection was,
therefore, not necessary. No leachate seeps have ever
been noted at the site.)
Site cleanup was completed by the City in 1986 under EPA
oversight and consisted of the following:
- Sludge was removed from the existing disposal cell and
stockpiled on the adjacent ground surface.
- A compacted clay liner was constructed on the bottom
of the disposal cell using clay soils of suitable
density, plasticity, particle size, moisture content
and compaction. A permeability no greater than 10-7
cm/second was achieved for the compacted clay liner.
10
-------
Stockpiled sludge was solidified with cement kiln
dust. A ratio of 2^:1 (cement kiln dust to sludge)
was initially selected for treatment of the upper
sludge and h:l for the lower sludge. During remedy
implementation it was evident that portions of the
sludge required additional quantities of cement kiln
dust, which were used. Solidification of the sludge
with cement kiln dust accomplished the following
objectives:
1. It tied up the lead in the mixture of cement
kiln dust and sludge and reduced the potential
for lead to be released and contaminate ground
water;
2. It raised the pH of the sludge mixture and
further reduced the potential for lead to be
released and contaminate ground water. (As
the pH is raised, the solubility of lead in
water is reduced); and,
3. It improved the structural stability of the
sludge-cement kiln dust mixture to support a
low permeability cap and cover, which reduced
the potential for direct contact exposures and
contaminant releases from the site.
The sludge-cement kiln dust mixture was then
redeposited back into the lined disposal cell. To
further reduce the potential for direct contact
exposures and to reduce the potential for water to
percolate through the fixed sludge, a compacted clay
cap over the top and on the sidewalls was installed.
As with the clay liner, a permeability no greater than
10-7 cm/second was achieved.
To improve long-term stability and ensure continued
encapsulation of the treated sludge, a soil and
vegetative cover was installed above the clay cap.
The soil cover consisted of a silty loam topsoil. A
mixture of buffalo grasses was used as the vegetative
cover.
As the final step in the remedy, after the
installation of the cap and cover was completed, a
four foot woven wire fence was installed around the
perimeter of the site. Warning signs were posted at
various locations on the fence. The fence prevents
dirt-bike riding and other activities which could
damage the cap and cover. The fence also excludes
unauthorized personnel from entering the site. A deed
restriction has been obtained for the property and
11
-------
prevents, or controls, changes in land uses which
could interfere with the effectiveness of the cleanup
conducted, or which would have the potential to
release contaminants into the environment.
Pursuant to an EPA-approved post-closure monitoring and
maintenance plan, the City-County Health Department monitors
ground and surface water at the site for lead and PCB
contamination. The City's Public Works Department provides
post-closure maintenance at the.site on the cap, covers and
fence.
SECTION 4, APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS
Section 121 (d) of CERCLA, as amended by SARA, requires that
remedial actions comply with applicable, or relevant and
appropriate, requirements or standards (ARARs) under federal or
state environmental statutes or regulations. Several ARARs have
been considered for this site.
4.1 The Safe Drinking Water Act
The Safe Drinking Water Act's Maximum Contaminant Level
(MCL) of 50 ug/1 for lead was considered as a potential ground
water ARAR for this site. However, the MCL is not applicable to
ground water at this site. MCLs are enforceable, and, thus,
applicable, only for public drinking water supplies, as defined
below. PCBs have not been found in the ground water in post-
closure monitoring.
Definitions: Primary drinking water standards
are established by EPA under the Safe Drinking
Water Act and are referred to as Maximum
Contaminant Levels, or MCLs. The MCLs are
enforceable standards for public drinking
water systems, serving at least 25 people, or
having 15 or more service connections, and are
based upon concentrations of regulated
contaminants at the tap. The MCLs are
often used for private drinking water supplies
as nonenforceable, advisory levels. Secondary
Maximum Contaminant Levels, or SMCLs, are also
established by EPA under the Safe Drinking
Water Act. SMCLs set maximum levels for
contaminants in water which could discourage
or limit water use, when present at sufficient
concentrations. The SMCLs deal with taste,
odor, color and corrosivity of water. SMCLs
are advisory and not legally enforceable.
12
-------
The MCL for lead is not applicable at this site, because the
site has not contaminated public drinking water supplies as
defined above. The MCL for lead might still be relevant and
appropriate as an ARAR for ground water, even if not applicable.
The EPA generally considers MCLs relevant to ground water at
Superfund sites. However, for the following reasons, the MCL for
lead is not considered appropriate for the ground water at this
site:
a.Suspended Solids
Lead found above the MCL in onsite ground water in the
post-closure monitoring is associated with the
suspended solids or particulate matter in the water
samples. Lead has not been found in the supernatant
(sediment-free) portion of ground water samples.
Because of the large amount of suspended solids in the
water (more than 500 mg/1), the lead being measured
could be due to natural conditions. In any event,
drinking water wells are constructed and developed to
provide sediment-free water, which has not contained
lead above the MCL. \
b.Low yield
The aquifer beneath the site yields very small
quantities of water. Bailing the well to collect
samples has shown that wells completed in the vicinity
of the site would yield less than two gallons of water
per minute. This is insufficient for use as a public
water supply, for most process water uses, or as a
supply of drinking water for most single family wells
or homes.
c.Turbidity
While sampling the wells, EPA has noted that the water
collected is extremely silty, containing an inordinate
amount of naturally occurring suspended solids or
particulate matter. Water containing this much silt,
which exceeds the MCL for surface water supplies, is
generally considered undrinkable. Alternately, it is
possible that the silty water from the monitoring
wells could be due to the differences in construction,
e.g., screen slot size, and development of monitoring
wells as compared to drinking water wells.
13
-------
d.Hardness
Due to hardness, the ground water beneath the site has
limited potential uses, unrelated to the existence of
Johns' Sludge Pond. Hardness in water is caused
primarily by calcium and magnesium cations, existing
as bicarbonates, carbonates and sulfates. Water over
180 mg/1 hardness is generally classified as very hard
and is generally "softened" prior to use. Water above
200 mg/1 hardness is generally considered too hard to
effectively soften, and for that reason, often
unsuitable for domestic or commercial uses. Historic
data from the Kansas Geologic Survey indicates that
ground water in the area has hardness of 700 mg/1 or
more.
e.Iron
The concentrations of iron in ground water further
limit the potential uses of the water. The iron
content of water is important due to staining of
clothes and utensils, disagreeable taste, encrusted
well screens, clogged pipes, and because the growth of
certain bacteria using iron is promoted. The EPA has
established an SMCL of 0.3 mg/1 for iron. The iron
concentrations in samples from Johns' Sludge Pond
range from 0.1 to 55.8 mg/1.
4.2. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act fRCRAl
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) was
evaluated as a potential ARAR on the site. However, the sludge
was neither a RCRA-listed nor a characteristic hazardous waste.
RCRA is thus not an ARAR for this site.
4.3. The Toxic Substances and Control Act fTSCA)
Region VII considers the regulations on chemical waste
landfills under the TSCA regulations to be ARARs for this site.
The average concentration of PCBs in the sludge was 44 mg/kg,
which is less than the 50 mg/kg level at which TSCA regulates
current disposal. (Past PCB waste disposal is regulated under
TSCA at concentrations above 500 mg/kg.) Therefore, the TSCA
regulations for chemical waste landfills are not applicable to
this site. Nevertheless, the TSCA regulations do appear to be
relevant and appropriate. For that reason the reconstructed
disposal cell was designed and constructed to meet the technical
requirements of a TSCA chemical waste landfill, to the extent
practical, given the setting of the site.
14
-------
SECTION 5, CURRENT SITE RISKS
Direct Contact
Before the City's interim cleanup, the principal hazard
posed by Johns* Sludge Pond was from potential direct contact
exposure to people who might enter the site. Although the site
was located in a relatively undeveloped portion of the City,
where many of the surrounding land uses were industrial and did
not have the potential to result in pedestrian traffic on the
site, such exposures were still possible.
Prior to cleanup, the sludge and water on top of the sludge
was very acidic, with a water pH as low as 1.0. The acidity of
the water and the sludge could have burned tissue if contacted
for a sufficient period of time. The sludge also contained
relatively high concentrations of lead, other metals, and some
organic contaminants, including PCBs (Refer to Table II).
The levels of lead in the sludge may have been high enough
to result in adverse health effects if the sludge were
inadvertently consumed often enough and in large enough .
quantities. The consumption of sufficient quantities of lead can
result in adverse health effects on the human central nervous
system (including dullness, restlessness, irritation, muscular
tremors, ataxia, memory loss, convulsions and coma), the
peripheral nervous system (including hyperaesthesia, analgesia
and impaired neural function), and the kidneys (including damage
to proximal tubules and generally impaired kidney function). The
most serious human health effect from oral lead exposures is the
impaired mental development of children. Symptoms similar to
retardation are commonly reported from serious or long-term
exposures of children to environmental lead.
Other than exposure via water or sludge consumption, the
lead did not pose a threat to human health, i.e., via direct
contact or skin exposures. The other metals present in the
sludge (Refer to Table II) presented similar risks of human
exposure from the ingestion of sufficient quantities of sludge or
water, although the specific symptoms or health effects would be
different, and the risks from the other metals were lower than
for lead.
The PCBs and some of the other organics found in the sludge
are potential human carcinogens. The consumption of sludge or
water containing carcinogenic organics carried some increased
lifetime risk of cancer. However, the incremental increase in
cancer risk was minimal, because the amount of sludge or water
consumed would have been small and would have occurred very
infrequently.
15
-------
The PCBs and some of the other organics in the sludge would
have posed an additional direct contact risk. Chloracne, which
is similar to a severe skin rash, could have resulted from the
exposure to materials containing PCBs and some of the other
organics in the sludge.
All of the above risks have been effectively eliminated by
the City's cleanup. Such risks will continue to be effectively
abated so long as the sludge and cement kiln dust remain mixed,
or so long as the sludge remains beneath the cap and cover.
5.2. Air
Prior to cleanup, the site posed only a marginal threat of
contaminant releases to the air. In the early 1970s, not long
after the site was still used for sludge disposal, fires report-
edly occurred at the site. During the fires smoke, containing
hazardous substances may have been released into the air and
resulted in some human exposures at that time. However, prior to
the City's cleanup, the site did not appear to represent a sig-
nificant threat to. health or environment via the air pathway.
V
5.3. Surface Water
Sampling and analyses of surface water and sediments in the
creek into which runoff water from the site discharges has not
found contamination attributable to the site. Prior to cleanup,
the site was a marginal threat to contaminate surface water.
However, the berm built by the City around the site appeared to
have effectively reduced the threat of releases to surface water.
5.4. Ground Water
The pathway in which some potential endangerment remained
after the City's interim cleanup was ground water. Although
there are no known drinking water wells at risk of contamination
by the site, there is some potential for additional ground water
uses to develop. These potential uses may be limited by the
hydrogeologic setting of the site (Refer to discussion in
Sections 2.2 and 4.1). In EPA's opinion, in order for human
health to be endangered via the ground water pathway, additional
drinking water wells at risk of contamination would have to be
drilled or found near the site. Alternately, exposure might also
result if water from some of the existing lawn watering or
process water wells were to be used for drinking.
In consideration of the potential endangerment via the
ground water route that might exist after the City's cleanup, EPA
evaluated additional alternatives regarding ground water
remediation.
16
-------
SECTION 6, GROUND WATER ALTERNATIVES
The interim remedial measures were implemented primarily to
prevent direct contact exposures to the acidic, lead-contaminated
sludge and water in the sludge pond. A secondary objective was
to mitigate the site as a source of ground water contamination.
Active restoration, or cleanup, of ground water was not a short-
term objective of the interim remedial actions implemented.
However, EPA has now evaluated the adequacy of the interim
remedial actions as the final remedial actions, along with the
post-closure maintenance and monitoring and the land-use
restrictions. The EPA has also identified and evaluated
additional alternatives to address ground water quality
restoration as the final site remedy.
6.1. Ground Water Extraction for Treatment or Disposal
Treatment of ground water was identified as a possible ground
water remedy at this site. Lead is the principal site
contaminant and has been found in ground water above the MCL only
as total lead. Dissolved lead has not b~?en found in ground water
at concentrations exceeding the MCL. At sites where cleanup of ^
ground water containing such low levels cf lead is necessary, the
collected water would generally be disposed as hazardous waste.
Alternatively, extracted ground water might be disposed as solid
waste if tested and determined to be nonhazardous. Treatment of
ground water to further reduce lead levels would not be reliable
at these low concentrations.
Ground water collection for disposal is not a viable
alternative, since only total lead has been found above the MCL.
It is not possible to remove all solids from an aquifer.
Moreover, sediment-free ground water has not contained lead above
the MCL.
6.2. Complete Removal of All Wastes and Residual Soils
The interim remedial measures have reduced, but would not
completely eliminate, the site as a source of contaminants to
ground water. Although the cap and the liner are relatively
impermeable, they will allow the movement of small quantities of
water, which may contain very low levels of contaminants, into
the underlying ground water.
Only by completely removing the treated sludge and any
residual contaminated soils can the potential for ground water
contamination be completely eliminated. However, complete
removal would require a number of preliminary steps, such as
removal of the soil and vegetative cover, removal of the cap and
the liner, and breaking up the treated sludge in order that it
17
-------
could be handled. Such activities nay lead to contaminant
releases into the environment and increase the threat to human
health and the environment.
In addition, complete removal would not immediately or
quickly restore ground water to an uncontaminated condition.
Complete removal would allow natural flushing to reduce (lead)
contaminant levels to background levels more quickly, but this
would still take many years. For these reasons, complete removal
would not effectively protect health and environment.
6.3^ No Further Action
The Superfund program requires that the "No Action"
alternative be evaluated at every site to establish a baseline
for comparison to other alternatives. Under this alternative,
EPA would take no further action at the site to mitigate the site
as a source of possible ground water contamination.
In the absence of any contamination in sediment-free ground
water, coupled with the lack of current use of ground water at
risk of contamination, the No-Further Action alternative was \
considered further.
Under this alternative the City would continue post-closure
maintenance, and the City-County Health Department would continue
post-closure monitoring. If ground water contaminant levels were
to increase and/or if additional ground water uses that were at
risk of contamination by the site were to be identified, EPA
would reassess the need for ground water cleanup as appropriate.
SECTION 7, DETAILED EVALUATION OF THE GROUND WATER ALTERNATIVE
The EPA has identified the "No Further Action11 alternative
as the preferred alternative based upon the following criteria.
7.1. Protection of Human Health and the Environment
This criterion addresses whether or not a remedy provides
adequate protection of human health and the environment and
describes how risks are eliminated, reduced or controlled through
waste treatment, engineering controls, or institutional controls.
In the absence of any current ground water at risk of
contamination, and with only limited potential uses, human health
and the environment would be effectively protected by the
"No Further Action" alternative.
7.2. Compliance with ARARs
This criterion addresses whether or not a remedy complies
with (ARARs). The "No Further Action" alternative would meet the
ARARs established for the site, as discussed in Section 4.
18
-------
7.3. Lona-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
This criterion addresses the long-term effectiveness of a
remedy to maintain protection of human health and the environment
after the cleanup is completed. Long-term, effectiveness of the
interim cleanup already completed appears satisfactory. Direct
contact exposures continue to be prevented by the interim
cleanup. Post-closure monitoring has not shown contaminant
releases in surface water or in sediment-free ground water.
7.4. Short-Term Effectiveness
This criterion examines the effectiveness of alternatives to
achieve protection from any adverse impacts on human health and
the environment, during the construction and implementation of
the remedy, until cleanup is completed. It has now been several
years since the interim cleanup, which has proven effective in
preventing direct contact exposures to site contaminants.
7.5. Reduction of (Waste) Toxicitv. Mobility or Volume
This criterion addresses the anticipated performance of a \
remedy in reducing the toxicity, mobility or volume of the wastes
at the site. CERCLA as amended by SARA, established a preference
for remedies which reduce waste toxicity, mobility or volume.
The EPA notes that the sludge fixation with cement kiln dust,
implemented as the interim cleanup, substantially reduced
contaminant mobility. The potential for direct contact exposures
with the acid sludge and water was also eliminated.
7.6. Impleraentability
This criterion evaluates the technical and administrative
feasibility of a remedy, including the availability of materials
and services needed for implementation. By definition, the
"No Further Action" alternative is fully implementable.
7.7. Cost
This criterion evaluates the capital and operation and
maintenance costs of an alternative. The "No Further Action"
alternative would not involve any additional costs for remedial
actions. The City and the County have already committed to
conducting the necessary maintenance and monitoring for the site.
The EPA has agreed to install one or two additional monitoring
wells downgradient (southeast) of the site. The Health
Department has agreed to add these wells to the post-closure
monitoring for the site and to add aluminum to the analyses of
19
-------
ground water samples collected. The EPA estimates that its costs
for the installation of the additional monitoring wells will be
less than $50,000, including contractor procurement and
management.
7.8. State Acceptance
This criterion addressed preferences or concerns of the
supporting agency, KDHE, about the site alternatives. The EPA
has been the lead agency on this site since 1981 and has
coordinated management of this site with KDHE. The KDHE has
stated that it agrees with the acceptability of the "No Further
Action" alternative at this time as the final site remedy. The
KDHE has recommended that one or two additional monitoring wells
to the southeast be added and that ground water samples collected
also be analyzed for aluminum. The EPA and the City-County
Health Department have agreed to make these changes in the post-
closure monitoring plan.
7.9. Community Acceptance
This criterion reflects EPA's perception of the community's
preferences or concerns about the site alternatives. The EPA
received three extensive written comments when it released a
draft Enforcement Decision Document (EDD) for public review and
comment in March 1987. This EDD was never finalized by EPA. The
comments on the draft EDD and EPA's responses thereto are
presented in the attached Responsiveness Summary.
The EPA also received two letters (one from the City's
Public Works Department and another from the City-County Health
Department) when the Proposed Plan was released for public review
and comment in August 1989. These two comment letters support
the alternative of "No Further Action" preferred by EPA as the
final site remedy in the Proposed Plan and selected in this
Record of Decision. These comments and EPA's responses thereto
are also presented in the attached Responsiveness Summary. The
EPA did not receive any negative written comments on the
alternative preferred as the final site remedy in the 1989
Proposed Plan.
SECTION 8, SELECTED ALTERNATIVE
The interim remedial measures implemented by the City have
already abated potential direct contact exposures posed by the
site. Such measures have also mitigated the site as a continuing
source of surface and ground water contamination.
Therefore, EPA is selecting the the "No Further Action"
alternative as the final remedy for this site. The post-closure
maintenance and monitoring for the site will continue. The EPA
will install one or two additional monitoring wells and the
20
-------
City-County Health Department will add these wells to the post-
closure monitoring plan and analyze the samples collected for
aluminum. The deed restrictions will remain in effect and EPA
will continue to evaluate the effectiveness and adequacy of the
remedy implemented no less than once every -five years. The EPA
believes the "No Further Action11 alternative is protective of
human health and the environment and has selected it for the
reasons outlined in Sections 6 and 7.
SECTION 9, STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The selected remedial alternative is protective of human
health .and the environment and attains federal, state and local
requirements that are applicable, or relevant and appropriate,
and is cost effective. The remedy selected satisfies the
CERCLA/SARA statutory preference for remedies which employ
treatment technologies that reduce the toxicity, mobility or
volume of the hazardous substances present at the site.
Because this remedy results in hazardous substances,
pollutants or contaminants being left at the site above health-
based levels, a review will be conducted no less than once every \
five years to ensure that the remedy continues to provide
adequate protection of human health and the environment, as
required by Section 121 of SARA. Available analytical data and
information from the post-closure monitoring and maintenance will
be used in these reviews.
SECTION 10, IMPLEMENTATION
The interim remedial actions for the site were implemented
by the City of Wichita through its Public Works Department. The
Public Works Department is continuing to provide post-closure
maintenance for the site. The EPA will install two additional
monitoring wells at the site. The City-County Health Department
is providing post-closure monitoring.
The Regional Administrator retains the authority to make
decisions regarding the need for further actions at this site.
If new information or additional data is received by EPA,
additional response or remedial actions may be considered as
necessary to protect human health and the environment.
21
-------
Figure 1
John's Nude* Pond ttta Location Map
Wichita, Kanaaa
Wist* 8Jt» Tracking 9 KS0014
Ecology and Environment PIT March 1988
Sourca: USOS 7.B Eait Wichita Quad 1*61
SCALE t24000
.5
1 MILE
1 KILOMETER
-------
Ffeur*
A !
»*!
* I
I
*/
*« t »/
*
«
**»»%
* »
*»
/»*»*»»«?
*
»*»
* t* %'
John'i Sludgt Pond, Wichita, Kansas
Sarrplt Location Map with Monitoring Wall Locations
Wast* SJta Tracking 0KS0014 Sarrpls Svln «TQ735
Sourer USGS 7.5 Minutt Stria* East Wichita Quad (Photo Rsvistd In 1975)
Praparad by John K. Cook E I E/FIT. January 1988
-------
SOU. SURVEY
TABLE 1 TEMPERATURE HUD PRECIPITATION DATA
Temperature1
1
f
Month
January
February
March... ...
April-
May.
June-.--.
July--
August
September
October
lloveaber
December
Tear
Average
daily
MllBUm
O£
0.6
6.5
5».9
69.0
78.0
86.1
92.6
91.1
81. «
70.9
55.9
1.7
67.7
1
! ! 2 years in
! ! 10 will have-
Average! Average! i
daily ,' daily
Minimum!
J
f
0£ j 0£
Maiinum ; Minimum
temperature ! tempera ture
higher ! lower
than..
£
1 !
20.2 ! 30. «
2«.7 j 35.6
31.5 j «3.2
»5.*2 1 57.1
I
1
55.6 ! 66.8
6».6 | 75.5
70.2 I 81. «
t
68.1 ! 79.6
1
59.5 j 70.5
1
7.7 I 59.3
33.7 ! m.B
t
1
2«.» | 30.6
1
»5.« ! 56.6
!
69
77
86
92
98
102
106
1C7
101
92
77
68
1C7
than
£
- 5
2
4
26
35
7
55
52
02
29
11
- 2
5
Precipitation1
12 yeara in 10!
1 will have.. ! Averate
Average
ID
0.53
0.79
1.55
?.06
3.80
H.3B
3-30
3-05
*.0«
?.77
1.15
0.89
i {number of
Leas I More ,'dajra with
than jthan 10.10 inch
I I or core
j r
In I in i
I I
0.17 { 0.91
0.21
0.53
1.15
1 .*1
2.37
1.59
1.02
1.79
0.98
o.ou
0.37
a
« * *
2.6*
3-11
5.96
6.76
6.81
5.39
5-99
«.93
2.«2
1 . "9
?8.»3 M9.88 136-93
1 ! !
2
2
3
*
6
7
6
a
6
t
2
2
a?
Average
snowfall
ID
3.9
3-2
3.7
C.I
0
0
0
^ .
0
0
c
0 . ' |
3-?
15.*
Recorded in the period 195«>70 at Wichita, Kansas.
-------
Table II Johns' Sludge Pond
Sludae Inorganic Contaminant Concentrations
Sample No. 1
barium
cadmium 7.6
chromium 70
copper
lead
ercury .05
nickel 87
selenium ND
silver
vanadium ND
zinc
(ing/kg, or ppm)
1 2
iOO 349
.6 67
0 67
62 214
20 3180
05 .04
7 10
0 ND
D .79
D ND
40 2040
3
1290
13
64
261
13,500
.46
10
.08
ND
ND
3280
4
523
10
70
181
5980
.18
16
ND
ND
ND
2280
5
71
12
64
245
8740
.40
7.7
NA
ND
ND
1810
6
*
9.8
12
65
301
1210
.03
16
NA
12
ND
1590
'Samples collected by the County and analyzed by Wilson
Laboratories of Salina, Kansas.
ND- Not detected.
NA« Not analyzed.
(Page 1 of 2)
-------
(page 2 pf 2)
Table II Johns' Sludge Pond
Sludoe Contaminant Concentrations. Oroanics
Sample No. 1
benzene ...041
chloro- .042
ethane
1,2-di- ND
chloroe thane
ethyl- ND
benzene
methyl .171
bromide
methyl ND
chloride
nethylene ND
chloride
tetra- .087
chloroe thylene
toluene .307
trichloro-. 100
ethylene
PCB 1254 14
PCB 1260 15
PCB 1016 16
m
2
.036
.056
ND
.193
.115
ND
ND
.081
.689
.077
12
21
14
g/fcg (PP»)
3
.051
ND
.032
ND
1.10
.140
.025
.093
.280
.083
10
10
15
4
.060
.240
.043
.110
1.05
1.400
ND
.036
.230
.110
15
15 -
24
5 6
.057
.100
ND
.820
.570
.700
ND
.050
.540
.110
17
ND
ND
.070
.160
.037
.160
.760
.110
ND
.062
ND
.130
10
17
12
^Samples collected July 1983 by the County and analyzed by Wilson
Laboratories of Salina, Kansas.
ND- Not detected.
NA- Not analyzed.
-------
TABLE III Lead Concentrations in Ground Water. Johns' Sludge Pond
All data in ug/1 or parts per billion (ppb)
MWl MW2 MW4 MW5_ MW6 MW7
inner ring inner ring inner ring outer ring outer ring outer ring
NE of North of SW of West of SW of SE of
site site site site site site
1982 (EPA, total)
ND NO
1984 (EPA, total)
NO 56
May 1987 (County, total)
94 4.0
November 1987 (County, total)
40 39 81 KS
January 1988 (EPA total/dissolved)
180/ND 11/5 NS/NS ND/ND
June 1988 (EPA total/dissolved)
20/ND 11/6.5 360, 210*/9 74/15
May 1988 (County, total)
6.0 7.0 133 7.0
November 1988 (County, total)
45 43 352 24
July 1989 (County, total)
68 38 1290 17
655
121
34
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
8.0
17
10
NS
260/ND ND/ND
14/ND 28/ND
6.0
19
7.0
ND-not detected
NS-not sampled
* duplicate sample analysis
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
Johns' Sludge Pond
Wichita. Kansas
This Responsiveness Summary (RS) presents the responses of
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to public comments
received regarding the proposed-actions for the Johns' Sludge
Pond site in Wichita, Kansas.
The EPA released a Proposed Plan and related documents on
the site, for twenty-one (21) days of public review and comment.
The public comment period ran from the date of EPA's public
notice in the Wichita Eagle Beacon on August 9, 1989 until
August 30, 1989. The public notice indicated that a public
meeting would be considered if a request for one was received by
EPA. No requests for a public meeting were received by EPA.
However, the EPA did brief the City of Wichita, Sedgwick County,
and members of the Sierra Club on the Proposed Plan, on August 7,
1989. These parties had previously expressed their interests or ,
concerns about the site to EPA.
In March 1987, EPA released a draft Enforcement Decision
Document (EDD) for public review and comment. Substantial
written comments were received by EPA from three individuals or
groups in response to the draft EDD. This Responsiveness Summary
sets forth the comments received on the draft EDD dated
March 1987, as well as the Proposed Plan dated August 1989, and
presents EPA's responses to these comments and concerns.
COMMENTS OH THE ENFORCEMENT DECISION DOCUMENT fEDDl
The following comments were received from the Kansas Chapter
of the Sierra Club in 1987 on the draft EDD:
1. Comment; "This law (The Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act, SARA), which went into effect October 17,
1986, requires to the maximum extent practicable remedial actions
that use permanent solutions and alternative treatment techno-
logies or resource recovery techniques. The evaluation process
is to assess alternatives that will result in a permanent and
significant decrease in the toxicity, mobility, or volume of
hazardous substances. The long-term effectiveness of each alter-
native is to be evaluated, taking into consideration persistence,
toxicity, mobility and bioaccumulation; the short and long-term
potential for adverse human health effects; the potential for
future remedial action costs if the remedy fails; and, other
factors.
-------
Responsei The draft EDO and the Proposed Plan were both
developed with the intention of addressing the reduction of
contaminant mobility, toxicity or volume, although the site
cleanup was implemented before the effective date of SARA. An
innovative treatment technology was used and the remedy does
reduce contaminant mobility, toxicity and volume as follows:
- By raising the pH of the sludge and reducing the
acidity, the potential for direct contact exposures
("toxicity") was reduced or eliminated;
- Raising the pH of the sludge above neutral will reduce
the solubility of lead in the water and, thus, the
potential for lead to be released from the site via
either ground or surface water;
- The treatment is permanent in that as long as the
sludge and cement kiln dust remain mixed, the pH
adjustment will remain effective; and,
- The mobility of the lead in ground water, as well as
any other contaminants present in the sludge, is \
reduced because the percolation of water through the
sludge is reduced by both the cap above and the liner
below the sludge.
2. Comment: The EDO has noted several times that the cleanup was
initiated and approved by EPA as an interim remedy, with the
understanding that additional actions might be required at the
site. The EDD contains no discussion of the permanence of
cleanup activities undertaken at the site to date. We believe
that SARA requires EPA to review the interim cleanup plan and add
the most permanent technologies to its cleanup procedures for the
type of hazardous substances found at Johns' Sludge Pond.
Response; It is true that the remedy implemented was
initially approved as an interim remedial measure. However,
after review, EPA determined that it is also acceptable as a
long-term remedy for the site. The permanence of the remedy is
discussed in more detail in the Proposed Plan, which was
completed after this comment was received in 1987.
The Wichita-Sedgwick County Health Department conducts post-
closure monitoring of the site under a plan approved by EPA. The
City of Wichita's Department of Public Works provides post-
closure maintenance for the site. Pursuant to the requirements
of SARA, EPA will reevaluate the effectiveness and adequacy of
the site remedy at least once every five years.
-------
3. comment; We note that Section 121(b) of SARA states that
the new cleanup standards do not apply to any remedial action for
which the ROD was signed or for the Consent Decree already in
place before SARA's enactment. The EDD on this site does not
contain a ROD or a Consent Decree. It only" contains an Order on
Consent dated December 9, 1983. We believe, therefore, that all
of the cleanup standards in SARA apply to Johns' Sludge Pond.
Response; EPA agrees that no ROD or Consent Decree on remedy
selection was in effect prior to the effective date of SARA.
Therefore, EPA has satisfied the provisions of SARA relevant to
this site in the Proposed Plan and the Record of Decision.
4. Comment: The National Contingency Plan (NCP) requires
that a community relations (CRP) plan be developed and
implemented for public comment on the alternatives developed
through a remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS).
Response; EPA selected the interim cleanup before policy and
guidance for community relations was developed. However, EPA
later developed and implemented a CRP on the site in 1986. A
copy of the CRP is in the Administrative Record for the site. '
Twice, the EPA has formally offered the public the opportunity to
comment on the alternatives considered and recommended for the
site, first with the draft EDD in 1987 and then again with the
Proposed Plan from August 9 to August 30, 1989. EPA has consid-
ered all of the information it has received in these comments and
is presenting its responses to these comments in this
Responsiveness Summary.
5. Comment; The EDD contains no information concerning an
RI/FS. The EDD contains no information concerning public com-
ments received. We believe that both an RI and FS, and a public
participation process are required for this site.
Response; No formal RI was completed for the site. However,
the site was sufficiently characterized, and the equivalent of a
RI was achieved through investigations conducted by EPA
(Environmental Services Division's Report of August 1982) and the
City (Wilson Laboratories' Report of October 1983). Furthermore,
the EPA completed a study on ground water alternatives for the
site which is memorialized in the memorandum of August 3, 1989.
A copy of this document is found in the Administrative Record for
the site. EPA invited public review and comment on these
documents during the August 1989 public comment period. The
State of Kansas (Department of Health and Environment, KDHE)
suggested certain changes to the Memorandum of August 3, 1989
which have been incorporated by EPA.
-------
6. Comment; Clause 18 of the Consent Order states: "All
actions undertaken pursuant to this Order by the city or its duly
authorized representatives shall be so done in accordance with
all applicable federal, state and local regulations of the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Toxic
Substances and Control Act (TSCA)." Title 40 CFR Parts 161, 164
and 165 under RCRA require a permit and various prerequisites
such as: detailed chemical analyses; double liners to protect
ground water; runoff control; and, leachate removal. The EDD
does not mention the existence of a RCRA permit, which we believe
is required, for this site.
Response; In evaluating which regulations were applicable,
relevant or appropriate for the site, EPA determined that TSCA
requirements were relevant and appropriate but not applicable;
because, the average concentration of PCB's in the sludge was
44 mg/kg. TSCA regulates current disposal at levels above
50 mg/kg. Accordingly, EPA constructed the disposal cell to
comply with the technical requirements of TSCA to the maximum
extent practicable. RCRA requirements are not applicable,
relevant or appropriate because the sludge is neither a listed or
characteristic RCRA hazardous waste. Nevertheless, the disposal
cell cap and liner were designed to satisfy RCRA land disposal
facility standards to the maximum extent practical. No permit
was required under either program as EPA is not required to
obtain permits for remedies conducted onsite pursuant to
CERCLA/SARA.
7. Comment; RCRA also allows the use of EP toxicity procedures
as one factor in addition to other characteristics and listing.
RCRA regulations do not allow sequential dilution in order to
"pass" the EP toxicity test. We do not believe the EP toxicity
procedures used for Johns' Sludge Pond comply with the RCRA
regulations. He also note that EP toxicity does not reflect
long-term hazards from leaching (of contaminants from the waste
into the environment).
Response; The principal purpose of mixing the sludge with
cement kiln dust was not dilution, although the mixing resulted
in some dilution. More significantly, the mixing of the sludge
with cement kiln dust raised the pH which reduced the direct
contact hazard of the sludge. Furthermore, raising the pH
reduced the potential for lead to be leached into ground water,
since the solubility of lead in water is reduced by raising the
pH. Mixing sludge with cement kiln dust also resulted in a more
structurally sound mixture which allowed a cap and cover to be
installed above the treated sludge.
i
EPA did, in fact, design the EP toxicity test to predict the
leaching of contaminants from wastes into the environment.
-------
8. Comment; Title 40 CFR Part 761, Subpart D under TSCA con-
cerns the storage and disposal of PCBs. Sludge contaminated with
more than 50 ing/kg PCBs nay only be deposited in a landfill that
has been approved for such use prior to disposal. Federal regu-
lations specifically prohibit dilution to achieve lower concen-
trations. Section 761.75(b) lists technical requirements for
which chemical waste landfills are allowed to accept PCBs. The
soils at the landfill site are to be thick, relatively imperme-
able formations with high clay and silt content. Synthetic
membrane liners "shall be used when, in the judgment of the
Regional Administrator, the hydrologic or geologic conditions at
the landfill require such a liner in order to provide at least a
permeability equivalent to the soils requirement." The liner is
to be chemically compatible with PCBs so the integrity of the
liner is maintained. The EDO does not contain discussion of how
these requirements were or were not met at Johns' Sludge Pond.
Response; As explained in the response to comment No. 6, EPA
determined that the TSCA regulations were relevant and appro-
priate to the site. The liner was specifically designed and
constructed to meet, to the maximum extent practicable, the
technical requirements of a TSCA chemical waste landfill.
9. Comment; Section 761.75 also states: "The bottom of the
landfill shall be above the historical high ground water as
provided below floodplains. Shorelines and ground water recharge
areas shall be avoided. The site shall have monitoring wells and
leachate collection. The bottom of the landfill liner system or
natural in-place soil barrier shall be at least fifty feet from
the historical high water table." The EDO gives conflicting
information about the distance between the surface of the soil,
the bottom of the sludge pond, and the ground water table. At
one point the EDD states that the ground water table averages
14 feet below ground surface, and the sludge pond is assumed to
be 8 to 10 feet deep, leaving a separation of four to six feet,
which is inadequate to meet the regulations.
A November 1981 memorandum in the EDD says: "Records
suggest the pond may be as deep as 15 feet in some parts," which
means the pond may actually penetrate the ground water table at
its deepest points. We believe Johns' Sludge Pond violates
regulations under TSCA. The EDD does not discuss the pond's
proximity to the ground water table in relation to TSCA.
Response: A 50-foot separation and the water table is a
practical impossibility at this site. EPA has concluded that the
sludge fixation, the clay liner, the clay cap and the soil and
vegetation covers above the site preclude the formation of
measurable quantities of leachate and any continuing, significant
release of contaminants to ground water. The various references
to the assumed depth of the sludge and the depth to the water
table reflect some early assumptions made about the site.
-------
Current information indicates that the sludge pond was on
average 8 to 10 feet deep, but as deep as 15 feet in some
places. Depth to ground water varies but is generally 20-25 feet
below ground surface. Current information further suggests that
sludge disposal approached but probably did not enter the water
table.
10. Comment; Section 761.75 also discusses flood protection
requirements, and states: "If the landfill site is below the
100-year floodwater elevation, the operation shall provide
surface water diversion dikes around the perimeter of the land-
fill site with a minimum height equal to two feet above the
100-year floodwater elevation. If the landfill site is above the
100-year floodwater elevation, the operators shall provide diver-
sion structures capable of diverting all of the surface water
runoff from a 24-hour, 25-year storm." The EDO notes that on
June 8, 1972, and on May 1, 1973, the sludge pond flooded and
overflowed into Chisholm Creek. This indicates that Johns'
Sludge Pond is below the 100-year floodwater elevation. The EDO
mentions a three-foot dike was constructed around the pond, which
has prevented overflow since its construction. The EDO does not
discuss whether this dike is at least two feet above the 100-year,
floodwater elevation as required by the regulations. In the '
absence of complete information, we believe the dike is not high
enough to comply with the regulations.
Response; Before the City's cleanup, the site was below the
100-year floodplain. However, the remedy implemented included
the addition of large quantities of cement kiln dust and the
installation of a clay liner, a clay cap and a soil cover. The
net result of this remedy was a finished disposal cell some
20 feet above the original grade of the site, well above the
100-year floodplain. The steep grade of the sidewalls of the
finished disposal cell effectively divert any surface water from
entering the site.
11. Comment: Kansas Statutes Annotated 1986 Supplement
65-3458 prohibits the underground burial of hazardous waste
produced by persons generating quantities of such waste greater
than those specified in KSA 65-3451, except as provided by order
of the Secretary of Health and Environment (KDHE), issued
pursuant to KSA 65-3458. The EDD does not discuss an order of
the Secretary of the KDHE approving Johns' Sludge Pond as a
landfill for hazardous wastes. In the absence of complete
information, we believe the use of this site as a landfill for
hazardous wastes violates Kansas laws.
Response; EPA consulted with KDHE officials about the impact
of Kansas statutes on the remedy implemented at the site. EPA
and KDHE determined that depositing treated sludge back into the
disposal cell was the disposal of solid, not hazardous waste, and
-------
was not precluded by Kansas statutes. The sludge had been tested
before treatment and was not found to be EP toxic or to otherwise
be a hazardous waste. Also, no new wastes were generated during
the implementation of the remedy.
12. Comment The proximity of this site to the Arkansas
River, 1^ mile away via Chisholm Creek, which flows into Cheyenne
Bottoms National Wildlife Refuge, makes it even more important
that the hazardous substances found at the site be prevented from
overflow and/or ground water contamination. Only by complying
with all applicable laws and regulations can this be accom-
plished. The EDO did not discuss the effects of the 1972 and
1973 overflows on Cheyenne Bottoms or migratory waterfowl. It
did note that evidence of the 1973 overflow is still visible on
the banks of the creek.
Response; EPA notes that the Cheyenne Bottoms are located near
Great Bend, Kansas, which is approximately 115 miles upriver from
Wichita and the site. EPA, therefore, sees no potential impact
from Johns' Sludge Pond on the Cheyenne Bottoms. EPA assumes
that the commenter thought the Cheyenne Bottoms is downriver not
upriver from Wichita. The EPA further notes that the con- \
taminant levels in surface water and sediments in the creek, into
which .runoff from the site discharges, were no higher downstream
than upstream of the site. Finally, EPA is not aware of any
data, information, or current observations indicating that the
banks of the creek still appear to be contaminated by previous
releases from the site.
13. Comment; The EDD noted that a fire occurred at Johns'
Sludge Pond, which could have formed polychlorinated dibenzo-
furans (PCDFs) from the incomplete combustion of PCBs. Personnel
implementing the cleanup were required to wear protective gear to
prevent exposure to PCDFs, because they are extremely toxic,
bioaccumulative and persistent compounds. The EDD states that no
analyses were done to determine concentration levels of PCDFs in
the sludge, because PCDFs were not, and apparently still are not,
priority pollutant list analytes. We are extremely concerned
about possible migration of the PCDFs and PCBs from the site and
do not believe they have been dealt with in a way that complies
with SARA. The EPA Water Quality Criteria Documents recommend an
ambient water concentration of zero for PCBs, and we assume the
same concentration would be recommended for PCDFs. We believe
that the release or threat of release of hazardous substances
from this facility still presents an imminent and substantial
endangerment to public health and welfare and the environment
within the meaning of Section 106(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C.
9606(a).
-------
Response; EPA has not analyzed samples for the potential
presence of PCDFs. The commenter is correct in that the reported
fires at the site could have formed PCDFs from the incomplete
combustion of PCBs. EPA did not analyze sludge samples from the
site for PCDFs in part, because when the samples were collected
and analyzed, PCDFs were not commonly recognized to be potential
contaminants at sites, and were, thus, not on EPA's list of
priority pollutants.
However, if PCDFs exist at-the site, they would coexist with
PCBs from which they would have been formed. Since all materials
potentially contaminated with either PCDFs or PCBs were mixed
with cement kiln dust and encapsulated, there is a very low
potential for PCDFs to be released from the site. The post-
closure monitoring for PCBs serves as a sufficient early warning
of the potential release of either PCBs or PCDFs, which would
exist only with PCBs but in much lower concentrations than PCBs
if at all.
14. Comment; The Order on Consent issued in 1983 noted that
hazardous organics were found in monitoring wells. Cleanup
efforts at the site, to date, have concentrated on the lead \
contamination and the acidity of the water on top of the sludge
pond, ignoring requirements pertaining to PCBs. The laws and
regulations referred to in this comment are not arbitrary hurdles
but requirements found to be generally necessary to protect human
health and the environment. When they are not followed, public
alarm results.
Response; The EPA believes it was appropriate to concentrate
on the most immediate hazards present at the site, namely the
acidity of the sludge, water on top of the sludge and the lead
content of the sludge. Nevertheless, the remedy implemented at
the site was also designed to remove the site as a continuing
source of contaminants released to ground water.
The following comments were received from the Southwind
Group of the Kansas Chapter of the Sierra Club:
15. Comment; The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act of October 17, 1986 requires, to the maximum extent
practicable, "remedial actions" that use permanent solutions
and alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery
techniques. The long-term effectiveness of each alternative is
to be evaluated, taking into consideration persistence, toxicity,
mobility and bioaccumulation; the short-term and long-term poten-
tial for adverse human health effects; the potential for future
remedial action costs if the remedy fails; and, other factors.
8
-------
Response; EPA believes the remedy implemented was quite
innovative. At the time the cleanup plan was approved, EPA found
very few successful sludge solidification processes. EPA also
believes the remedy is permanent as long as the sludge and the
cement kiln dust mixture remains intact. The long-term effec-
tiveness of the technology was discussed in more detail in the
memorandum of August 3, 1989 and in the Proposed Plan.
16. Commentt The EDO on Johns' Sludge Pond notes several times
that the cleanup "was initiated -and approved by EPA as an interim
remedy, with the understanding that additional actions might be
required at the site." The EDD contains no discussion of the
permanence of the cleanup activities undertaken at this site to
date. It is clear that SARA requires the EPA to provide
permanent technologies. The monitoring plan, which will be used
over the next 20 years at this site, does not meet the standards
required by SARA. This monitoring will simply tell us, after the
fact, when we have a real situation that already has placed the
public in danger. This is not only irresponsible but more
expensive in the long run.
Response: The permanence and long-term effectiveness of the ;
remedy are more completely discussed in the Memorandum of
August 3, 1989 and the Proposed Plan. EPA agrees that since
hazardous substances have been left in place, post-closure moni-
toring and maintenance will be required for the site. The City
and County have submitted post-closure monitoring and maintenance
plans which are being implemented. The remedy implemented has
already removed the endangerment of health and environment the
site once posed. The post-closure monitoring will provide
adequate early warning of any additional contaminant releases
into the environment.
17. Commentt Clause 18 of the Order states: "All actions under-
taken pursuant to this Order by the City or its duly authorized
representatives shall be so done in accordance with all federal,
state and local statutes and regulations, including the OSHA,
RCRA, and TSCA." Title 40 CFR Parts 161, 164, and 165 under RCRA
requires a permit and various prerequisites such as a detailed
chemical analyses, double liners to protect ground water, runoff
control and leachate removal. The EDD does not mention the
existence of a RCRA permit, which we believe is required for this
site.
Response; See response to Comment No. 6.
18. Comment; There is no question that EPA is relying on a
partly clay soil as a substitute for double liners to protect
ground water. It is also clear from the fact that flooding has
occurred at the site in the past that the toxic substances found
at this site can be expected to drain into sources of water which
become part of the Wichita water supply.
-------
Response: EPA believes the solidification of the sludge with
cement kiln dust has precluded the formation of significant
quantities of leachate. It is, therefore, adequate to use com-
pacted clay as the material for the liner, as well as the cap, in
lieu of synthetic materials or double liners.
EPA sees no potential for the drinking water supplies for
the City of Wichita to be contaminated by this site. The City
obtains drinking water from two sources: 1) Equus beds (an
alluvial aquifer) approximately .25 miles northwest of Wichita and
2) Cheney Reservoir, fed by the north fork of the Ninnescah River
and about 25 miles west of Wichita. Neither water supply is
hydr©logically connected to Johns' Sludge Pond or at risk of
contamination by this site.
19. Comment; Also the EDO did not discuss the effects of the
1972 and 1973 overflows on Cheyenne Bottoms.
Response; See response to.Comment No. 12.
20. Comment; The EDD states that we still have no idea what
the concentration levels of PCDFs in the sludge are. The fact
that this site was subject to a fire at one time, thus creating
PCDFs, should lead you to address the probable existence of these
toxic substances, as well as the chance that a similar occurrence
will take place in the future.
When the public health is not protected by pinning down the
existence of dangerous substances, our future becomes more
uncertain. Would you please respond accordingly to the standards
set forth at Section 106(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9606(a).
Response; If PCDFs exist at the site, they coexist with PCBs.
Any soil or sludge, which may have contained PCDFs, has been
deposited in the reconstructed disposal cell. No endangerment to
human health or the environment exists as long as the disposal
cell and the sludge mixture remain intact. Since the sludge is
now mixed with cement kiln dust and is below a soil and vegeta-
tive cover, EPA sees no potential for additional fires to occur
at the site which could involve the sludge.
21. Comment; EPA is given the responsibility to protect the
public from toxic substances such as are found at the Johns1
Sludge Pond. The EPA should continue its efforts to establish
permanent solutions so that the public is protected in the
future. The monitoring plan set forth is insufficient in this
regard. Let us not wait until a threat to the public health
occurs. We must take action now to prevent such a possible
scenario.
10
-------
Response; EPA believes that the remedy implemented is
adequately protecting public health from the endangerments posed
by the site. The commenter maintained that the monitoring plan
was insufficient but made no specific comments on the plan. The
monitoring plan was reviewed by both EPA and the State of Kansas
before it was approved by EPA. The EPA found that it met the
relevant requirements of the TSCA regulations and was otherwise
sufficient. In response to recent comments received from the
State of Kansas, EPA has now agreed to install one or two addi-
tional monitoring wells to the southeast and to include aluminum
as an analyte in the post-closure monitoring for the site.
The following comments were received from Mr. Thomas R.
Kneil of Wichita on the draft EDO:
22. Comment; I am appalled that even though PCDFs are acknowl-
edged as being extremely toxic (EDO) page 13 and that a fire
occurred at the site that may have produced PCDFs, they were not
tested for apparently only because they are not on the priority
pollutant list. Does this mean that we should not be concerned
about PCDFs or similar compounds even where there is good evi-
dence that they may have been released into the environment just ^
because they are not listed as priority pollutants? Not only on
the basis of the acknowledged evidence of their presence, but
also as part of its charge to protect the environment, I believe
that under RCRA it (EPA) was obligated to do so.
Response; See response to comment No. 13. In reviewing the
effectiveness of the remedy implemented as a long-term solution
to the endangerments posed by the site, EPA has determined that
because all wastes, sludge, or soil, which may have contained
PCDFs, were placed in the reconstructed disposal cell, there is
no potential for direct contact exposures to PCDFs as long as the
disposal cell remains intact. Post-closure monitoring for PCBs,
with which PCDFs would coexist but in lower concentrations, will
provide early warning of any potential PCDF releases into the
environment.
23. Comment; The draft EDD expresses concern for lead in the
environment (with which I agree) but it shows little concern for
PCB/PCDF presence. The Environmental Health Division of the
Wichita-Sedgwick County Health Department will monitor surface
water, ground water, and pond sediments for PCBs according to the
Post-Closure Monitoring Plan dated October 10, 1986. Will there
be monitoring for PCDFs by whom, and who is doing the analyses?
Response; In EPA's opinion, the monitoring for PCBs is a
sufficient early warning of the potential for PCDF releases. If
PCBs are ever found in releases from the site, in sufficient
concentrations, then a decision would be made as to whether
monitoring for PCDFs should then be initiated.
11
-------
24. Comment; Kansas Senate Bill No. 1 (1985) bans the burial
of hazardous waste unless the Secretary of KDHE issues a permit
for such burial. Was this site granted such a permit?
Response; See response to Comment No. 11. EPA consulted
with Kansas officials as to how Kansas Senate Bill No. 1 applies
to Johns' Sludge Pond. KDHE ruled that the redeposit of the
treated sludge, which was not a hazardous waste when earlier
tested, was not disposal of hazardous waste prohibited by Kansas
law but rather the disposal of a solid waste. Accordingly, no
RCRA permit was required or sought.
25. Comment; As RCRA regulations apply to this site, were
detailed chemical analyses done that included testing for PCDFs?
Regarding the construction of a disposal cell, was a double liner
installed as called for by RCRA? Does the slope of the hill meet
RCRA specifications?
Response; See response to Comment No. 6. In response to the
specific questions, RCRA did not require that the sludge from the
site be tested for PCDFs. At the time the sludge was sampled and
analyzed, PCDFs were not recognized as a potential site contami-
nant. Consequently, the sludge and the soil were not tested for ^
PCDFs. The disposal cell does not have a double liner. However,
it does have a compacted clay liner as then required for RCRA
interim status land disposal facilities. There are no specific
requirements for sideslopes. EPA requested and received addi-
tional information from the City on the stability of the proposed
cover for the site before approving the cleanup plan. EPA
further notes that, in the three years after the completion of
the cover, the sideslopes have remained stable.
26. Commentt The draft EDD documents the fact that
additional cement kiln dust was added during the treatment
process in order to raise the pH and presumably reduce the
leachability and solubility of lead. At the same time this
appears to be a dilution process which is not permitted under
RCRA as a means of "passing11 the EP toxicity test.
Response; See response to Comment No. 7.
27. Comment; Was a community relations plan developed and
implemented as required under the National Contingency Plan? If
such a plan, providing for public comment on alternatives to the
selected cleanup process was in fact developed, I am not aware of
it. On a related note, was an RI/FS done?
Response; See responses to Comment Nos. 3 and 4.
12
-------
28. Comment; Lastly, I must comment that the statement in
the EDO that "Exposures to blowing cement kiln dust were reduced
and ultimately eliminated," I had personal contact with the
dust. On two occasions, when driving past the site on 1-135
while crews were mixing the cement kiln dust and the sludge, I
had to close my car windows because of dust blowing across the
highway (elevated at that point). I do not know if it was before
or after the attempt to reduce the blowing dust in the adjacent
railyard.
Response; Although railyard employees complained to EPA and
KDHE of blowing cement kiln dust, this is the only complaint EPA
has received regarding nonoccupational exposures. When blowing
cement kiln dust was recognized as a potential nuisance and
problem, measures were instituted to eliminate or reduce blowing
dust. These measures included not working during windy weather
and performing more of the dust-generating work down inside the
disposal cell, where dust was less likely to blow offsite. EPA
agrees that the blowing kiln dust was irritating. However, the
potential adverse health effects resulting from human exposure
are limited to irritation of the eyes and upper respiratory
tract. System toxic effects or long-term effects, resulting from*
human exposure to cement kiln dust, have not been reported in the
literature to the best of EPA's knowledge.
COMMENTS pJi THE PROPOSED PLAN
The EPA received two additional comments on the preferred
alternative in the Proposed PLan during the 1989 public comment
period.
1. An August 25, 1989 letter was received from Mr. Jack Brown,
Acting Director of the Environmental Health Division of the
Wichita-Sedgwick County Health Department. In the letter the
Health Department stated that it agreed with EPA's "No Further
Action" preferred alternative. The Health Department reaffirmed
its commitment to continuing post-closure monitoring at the site.
The Health Department recommended that EPA select the "No Further
Action" alternative as the final remedy in the Record of
Decision.
2. An August 28, 1989 letter was received from Mr. Steve Lackey,
Director of Public Works for the City of Wichita. The Department
of Public Works also supported the alternative of "No Further
Action" preferred by EPA in the Proposed Plan. The Department of
Public Works reaffirmed its commitment to provide post-closure
maintenance for the site.
13
------- |