United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R05-88/079
September 1988
&EPA
Superfund
Record of Decision
Poer Farm, IN
-------
50273-IQ1
REPORT DOCUMENTATION
PAGE
; 1. REPORT NO.
i EPA/ROD/R05-88/079
4. Title and Subtitle
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Poer Farm, IN
First Remedial Action - Final
7. Authors)
3. Recipient's Accession No.
S. Report 0«te
09/29/88
8. Performing Organization Rept. No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
10. Project/Tisk/Work Unit No.
11. Contract(C) or Grant(G) No.
(C)
(G)
12. Sponsoring Qrganization Name and Address
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. Type of Report & Period Covered
800/000
14.
IS. Supplementary Notes
• *W5ct4L.i'5-a2c^e'0Wer Farm site is located about 4 miles north of Charlottesville, in
Hancock County, Indiana. The site is an abandoned tract of land with a. collapsed house
and barn and an old, inactive well that lies southeast of the house. The surrounding.
area is open farmland. The nearest house is about 0.25 mile from the site and the
nearby residents rely on private wells for their water supply. There are about 270
homes with a population of about 2,400 within 3 miles of the site. In 1973,
approximately 260 drums of offgrade solvents and paint resins were stockpiled on the
Poer property. in 1981 and 1983, the drums and an onsite well were tested and found to
contain elevated levels of arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury. Emergency cleanup
activities were conducted in the summer of 1983. All wastes were removed from the site
and six to eight inches of soil were removed from the drum storage areas. Subsequent
sampling showed significantly decreased levels of the heavy metals. The site was fenced
and warning signs were posted. An investigation in 1988 indicated that contaminant
levels were below Federal and State Health Standards and that there was no threat to
human health or the environment.
(See Attached Sheet)
Poer Farm, IN
First Remedial Action - Final
Contaminated Media: none
Key contaminants: none
b. Identifiers/Open.Ended Terms
c. COSATI Field/Group
18. Availability Statement
{ 19. Security Class (This Report)
None
20. Security Class (This Page)
None
21. No. of Pages
26
22. Price
(See ANSI-Z39.18)
See Instructions on Reverse
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
(Formerly NTIS-35)
Department of Commerce
-------
DO NOT PRINT THESE INSTRUCTIONS AS A PAGE IN A REPORT
INSTRUCTIONS
Optional Form 272, Report Documentation Page is based on Guidelines for Format and Production of Scientific and Technical Rep!
ANSI 239.18-1974 available from American National Standards Institute. 1430 Broadway, New York. New York 10018. Each separately
bound report—for example, each volume in a multivolume set—shall 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 Z39.23-1974, Technical
Report Number (STRN). For registration of report code, contact NTIS 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/
ftD-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
tne 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. Author(s). 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 organization wishes to assign this number.
9. Performing Organization Name and Mailing Address. Give name, street, city, state, and ZIP code. List no more than two levels of
an organizational hierarchy. 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 it 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 from the 1964 COSATI Subject Category List. Since the
majority of documents are multidisciplinary in nature, the primary Field/Group assignment(s) will be the specific discipline,
area of human endeavor, or type of physical object. The application(s) will be cross-referenced with secondary Field/Group
assignments that will follow the primary posting(s).
13. Distribution Statement. Denote public reusability, 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.
OPTIONAL FORM 272 BACK <
-------
EPA/ROD/R05-8,8/079
Poer Farm, IN
First Remedial Action - Final
16. ABSTRACT (continued)
The selected remedial action for this site is no further action one-; monitoring wells
have been successfully abandoned. Previous removal actions were adequate to protect
human health and the environment. There are no costs associated with this no action
remedy.
-------
NCRfWPOR FARM SITE
HANCOCK CCXNiy, IIUNDIS
SUM-ftR* OF REMEDIAL ALTHaftUVE SELECTION
1988
Site Description and Local; i
-------
INDIANA
POER
FARM
10
SCALE IN MILES
FIGURE 1
SITE LOCATION MAP
NORvtAN POER PAPM CITC
-------
4000
2000
SCALE IN FEET
FIGURE 2
SITE VICINITY MAP
NORMAN POER FARM SITE
-------
-2-
been due to vandalism. Paint cans were found in the well and the well was
not purged before sampling. Consequently, initial sampling results may
not have been representative of the ground water under the site.
A site assessment was conducted in May of 1983, by the U.S. EPA Region V
Technical Assistance Team, ISBH, and the HCHD. They found approximately
260 55-gallon drums staged in three major groups along the north, south,
and east fence lines. Scene of the drums showed signs of leakage. The
flammability of the materials and the threat of direct contact caused
concern by U.S. EPA., ISBH, and HCHD.
Emergency cleanup activities were initiated in June 1983 and were con-
cluded in July 1983. All wastes were removed from the site and 6 to 8
inches of soil were removed from drum- storage areas on site. The onsite
well was sampled and results showed significantly decreased levels of
arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury. The site was fenced and warning
signs were posted. All solidified materials taken from the drums were
disposed of at Fondessey Enterprises in Oregon, Ohio. Approximately 4,000
gallons of liquid waste from the drums were disposed of at Systec in
Paulding, Ohio. The empty drums were first crushed by Brunsold Trucking,
Inc. of Fort Wayne, Indiana and then disposed of at Adams Center Landfill
in Fort Wayne, Indiana.
In September 1983 the Norman Poer Farm Site was listed on the National
Priorities List.
Before commencing the removal action in 1983, U.S. EPA offered the
opportunity to conduct a removal action to two potentially responsible
parties: Norman Poer, the owner of the site, and Inmont Corporation, the
generator whose wastes had been found at the site. Both parties declined
to conduct the removal. In 1985, however, Inmont signed a consent order
with the U.S. EPA and the Indiana Department of Environmental Management
(IDEM), successor to ISBH, under which Inmont. agreed to reimburse U.S. EPA
for costs and to conduct a Remedial Investigation (RI), and if necessary,
to conduct a Feasibility Study (FS). To date, Inmont has abided by the
terms of the consent order.
Geosciences Research Associates, Inc. was retained by Inmont to conduct
the RI/FS activities. Field investigations took place between August 1986
and November 1987. A final RI report was completed in August 1988 which
indicated that contaminant levels were below state and Federal Health
Standards and the past removal action adequately removed the threat of
contamination to human health and environment. U.S. EPA concurred with
the RI report and determined that a FS was unnecessary.
This Record of Decision recommends no further remedial action at the
Norman Poer Farm Site.
-------
-3-
Ocro
In June 1985, a press release provided general background about the
Superfund program, the location of the information repository. A
Community Relations Plan was developed by U.S. EPA and was placed in the
information repository at the HCHD in Greenfield. Hie plan described the
proposed activities and schedule of the RI/FS.
Cn August 27 , 1988 , the Proposed Plan was distributed and placed in the
repository following publication of a brief analysis of the Proposed Plan.
This publication also provided notice of an Availability Session to be
held on September 8, 1988, and the period for submission of comments. The
Availability Session was held at the HCHD. A response to significant
comments received during the cctment period, is included in the
Responsiveness Summary.
POT No Further itetion
Inis Record of Decision concludes that no further action is appropriate at
the Poer Farm site. This conclusion is based upon a thorough RI showing
no public health or environmental concern present at the Poer Farm site.
Under Section 300.68(e)(3) of the National Contingency Plan, the U.S. EPA
has the authority to modifi' ar : i/FS project if, after assessing a number
of factors related to the degree of environmental impact, the U.S. EPA
concludes modifications are appropriate. In this case, the results of the
RI have shown that the previous removal action removed the threat of
contamination to human health and environment, and, therefore, the Agency
has concluded that a FS is unnecessary. After closure of the monitoring
wells no further remedial action needs to be taken at this site.
Site t?v?T?cteri sties
Geology
The site is underlain with glacial deposits of late Wisconsian age. The
deposits are composed of glacial till and lenses of outwash, sand and
gravel. The total thickness of the till deposits at the site is unknown;
however, the depth to bedrock in the general area ranges from about 100 to
150 feet. The bedrock consists of Devonian and Silurian carbonate units.
The top 10 to 12 feet of the loamy till is generally brown to yellowish
brown in color. At 10 to 12 feet the till grades into gray to dark gray-
brown, dense, hard till. Ground water has been encountered in thin sand
and gravel stringers or very sandy and gravelly till above the gray dense
till. Although it is not known if other water bearing sand and gravel
units exist deeper in the glacial till unit below the site, water well
records for the general area indicate that they may exist in places.
-------
-4-
The RI included collection of ground water, surface soils, soil borings,
and drainage area surface soils. This section suntnarizes a much more
detailed analysis presented in the PI report. '
The first round of soil and ground water sampling for the RI was taken in
August 1986. A second round of ground water sanpling took place in
November 1987. See Plate 1 for the sanpling locations. Sanpling revealed
several conpounds in the soil and water, all of which were detected at
very low concentrations. Analytical results are listed in Tables 1,2,
and 3 in the Appendix, and are summarized below.
AJ Ground water:
1) Ground water samples were analyzed for over 150 organic
and inorganic conpounds which make up~ the hazardous substance
list (HSL). Of the samples representative of drinking water, only
iron and manganese exceeded Federal Secondary Maxinon-:Contaminant
Levels (SPCLS). SMXS are developed for taste and odor and are
not health based levels. Sodium occcurred slightly above the
health recommendation of 20,000 ug/1. Manganese, sodium, and iron
are believed to be natural and not related to the paint stored on
site.
2) Methylene chloride and acetone were the only volatile compounds
detected in the ground water. Ihese compounds are most likely
related to some type of laboratory contamination, as they were
also detected in the field blank and/or the laboratory method
blanks.
3) One tentatively identified compound (TIC), 2-cyclohexen-l-one, was
detected at an estimated concentration of 2.0 ug/1 in the
monitoring well samples.
B) Surface Soils:
1) Inorganic materials such as aluminum, barium, chromium, lead,
arsenic, magnesium, vanadium and zinc exceeded background
levels, but none were significantly higher than background
and all were still within mean ambient background soil ranges
for the United states.
2) The volatile compounds methylene chloride and acetone were
detected in the surface soils and the laboratory method blank
and/or field blanks in all the soil samples. These compounds
are most likely related to some type of laboratory
contamination. Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) was
detected at 1290 ug/kg. DEHP is commonly used in plastics
manufacturing, and it is possible for DEHP to leach from the
plastic that was used as a wrap for the sampling equipment.
-------
3) Low levels of TICs were indicated in some of the soil samples
analyzed for semi volatile organic compounds. A quantitative
risk assessment was not conducted using these values because
the compounds are not known carcinogens, and there is no known
toxicity information for calculating reference doses for a risk
assessment. The presence of these TICs is not significant
because, at the levels found, they pose no threat to public
health and the environment.
C) Soil Borings:
1) The soil boring samples from the former drum storage areas
showed inorganic levels similar to the surface soil levels.
2) Methylene chloride and acetone were detected in the soil
borings and the method and/or field blanks. These compounds
are most likely related to laboratory contamination. DEHP
was detected and is most likely present from the plastic
sampling wrap, or sampling equipment.
3) TICs were indicated in the soil boring samples. The low levels
are similar to the surface soil levels.
D) Drainage Area Surface Soils and Background:
1) Surface soil samples were taken from the area receiving
drainage fron the site. For the majority of the
metals detected, levels found in the background sample were
higher than those found in the 'GRAB' sample. Arsenic and
manganese were detected in the drainage area in
concentrations slightly above the background levels.
2) As with the onsite surface soils, methylene chloride and
acetone were also detected in the surface soil sample from the
drainage area. Again, these compounds are most likely related
to some type of laboratory contamination, since these compounds
were also detected in laboratory and/or field blanks. No
semivolatiles were found.
3) Nb TICs were found in the surface soil from the drainage
area.
Based on the samples collected during the RI, the Norman Poer Farm site
currently shows no evidence of contamination resulting from storage of
paint and resin material. Concentrations of inorganics in soils were not
significantly different than those found in the background samples.
Volatile and semi volatile compounds reported as being detected in the
soils and ground water are most likely related to laboratory and field
equipment contamination because they were also found in laboratory and/or
field blanks. The levels of inorganics detected in the ground water were
below primary drinking water standards.
-------
-6-
•Die contaminants identified by the RI were evaluated to determine if a
concern to public health and the environment existed. The following
exposure scenarios were evaluated:
1. Ingest ion of ground water by people.
2. Direct contact of ground water by people.
3. Inhalation of soil by people
4. Direct contact of soil by people.
In summary, the soil boring and surface soil sample analyses reported
levels of inorganics comparable to levels detected in bacJcground soil
samples. Although acetone, bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, and methylene
chloride were also reported as being detected in the soil, the presence of
these compounds is related to laboratory or field equipment contamination.
All of the levels of inorganics found in the ground water are below
primary drinking water standards. As with soil samples, the methylene
chloride and acetone detected in the ground water are not related to the
site.
Presence of these identified inorganic and organic compounds is not
significant because, at the levels found, they pose no threat to public
health and the environment. IDEM and the Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry concur with this assessment.
In accordance with OKCIA as amended, the Agency ror Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry conducted a Health Assessment of the site. The Health
Assessment concludes, "The investigations appear to have been conducted in
an appropriate manner and all possible means of contamination have been
explored. Based on available information, this site is considered to be
of no public health concern because of exposure to hazardous substances."
Alternative Evgiv«t"i and the Selected Remed
Generally, U.S. EPA develops several alternatives for dealing with,
contamination at a site. These alternatives range from no action to
various techniques for stabilizing or removing contamination. However, at
the Poer Farm site, there is no significant contamination present.
Consequently, there is no need to develop alternatives. The only
alternative possible is the "no further action11 alternative. The U.S. HA.
is therefore recommending that after monitoring wells have been
successfully abandoned, no further action be taken at the Norman Peer Farm
Site. Following the Record of Decision, the site should be deleted from
the National Priorities List. This recommendation is based on the RI for
the site which shows that the emergency activities conducted at the site
adequately removed the onsite contamination and there is no evidence of
offsite contamination.
-------
-7-
With no significant contamination detectable at or near the site, the "no
further action" remedy will be protective of human health and the
environment, attain Federal and State requirements that are applicable or
relevant and appropriate to this "no further remedial action," and will be
cost effective.
The statutory preference for remedies that employ treatment which reduces
toxicity, mobility, or volume as a principal element and utilizes
permanent solutions to the maximum extent practicable is not pertinent in
this case since there is not a contamination problem to be solved or
treated.
The State of Indiana has concurred with the "no further action" remedy.
-------
Attachment I
-------
I
10'GRAB SAMPLES TAKEN
AND COMPOSITED IN.ftREA
RECEIVING DRAINAGE FROM
SITE
FORMER DRUM STORAOI AREAS
IXISTINO WCLL '
COLLAPSING IUILDINO
• 9*.67
O
EXPLANATION
MONITORING WELL LOCATION AND GROUND WATER ELEVATION
(FEET ASL) (8-20-86)
BACKGROUND GRAB SAMPLE LOCATION
(1 BACKGROUND SAMPLE ALSO
TAKEN AT WELL +2)
SAMPLE TRANSECT ACROSS FORMER
DRUM STORAGE AREA
SITE SURVEY PANEL
BENCHMARK ELEVATION '997. on'
NORMAN POER FARM
WELL AND SAMPLE LOCATIONS
PLATE I
-------
U.I U.I
M.I
II.} U.t
C*.M
I.MI«M I.14I4I l.4«*4 I.IX«*1 I.2XM*
• Wlllllll
I.mil I.*C«IJ t.4H«MI I.M««I I.WMI l.m»4l l.44t«l I.MHI
I.MI*! I I.MCH1 I I.MM9 INCHI I I.MM J 2.7lf*«* I I.4N-4I J l.m«M J
ll.l iMflM lr« UMMCl I I4ta It * fc»U
•« 1.1 fm M i
»t t
•.I In! «rt
!•
MM OM« illlu t«4
I
In flttt I
lr«* till
l"*tl«*
I.IX««1U l.l«»«lll I.4M««| N
l.M>«IW I.MfXIU I.M*«I H
M S.IM4I «J M««M U l.Mf «4I M I.Mrtl U
W ».J4t««l U «.IK>*IW M«*«l W I.MC'41 U
IAH"
-------
MU 1
MB MM
MHO MR
M.I II.S (U.I •».» ll.l H.» ».l C*.l
!•••••
IK
il. Ult»>
IUM8J
LIB*} J
l-Clftrt-4-ll-wtkTl
-------
*« i .
aim
mia mi
CI.S CJ.I *MM.) iIMM IIM.S
MMIQ
*/H
MIM I.««M 1.01*4 UK*4 i.4»*4 I.SK*4 t.4IC*l I.M*I I
I I . N M U I I
I.M*I I.4K*I J.MfHI J U I.MC4I I l.l«*l I
1.111*1 l.4«*l I.«H1 I t.m^l I I.1II41 7.MC4I I I
i • i i <.mn« i •
ciiciM M i.2H««i i «.m*«i • }.m*«i i.iti*! ii
1.MHI l.«M*l I.MHI I l.M*l l.l«*l I
I.M*I I I.M4I l.M««l I.Mf*! l.MtHI I •
fl^^M % ft^tf^^tf 9 t^£ A^^ 1 Hff A^^ V VQB^AA % Biff A^^ 4 M^AA ft ^^tf ^Aft
•• W •* IW^^K •• *W^^ •• J«K^^^ ••4*WV •• W^*W •• *VK^^V v^^Vv^vl
UM l.m»*l I.M(*I I.1KHI I l.Mt«l
M«*«I I l.l«C*I 7.UI«»J I l.ta*] I
i.m*i i t.ix*i i i.m>n i.i«f*i i.m»n t.m*i •
krcvi I • T.Mf-t
-------
1MU
«u
»UIMU|llMirl)|*U«lt
, .«!»*«.•
• •lit
• ••II
1 • I • I
1 I I 1 I
• I I I I
• •III
I I • 1 1
I • 1 • 1
• I • 1 " I
I.NMIJ • 1 1 1
i.nttij • • • •
I I l.MIXIJ I 1
1 • «.ftl««l J I 1
I • 1 «.W«I 1 . 1
• •
• •
1 1
• •
• 1
1 •
1 •
1 •
I 1
1 •
• •
I •
• •
• 1
-------
(**•
lllt.l
* I I W
• I I I.I««MJ
III
I.ISH9J l.llfMI I.IHHtl
I I.IMHI I I.IH4I
(HIM ttM.I ISU.I 1SIIM JJO.I
«.7X«W
W W
W U
I I M«<«l I
i. mm i
I I
d*«i
i.m-n i.7M*«i i.m«i
I.Ht»«l I I.IH4I I I
I.M*M I.IH»M l.IX<«4 !.»•« |.|
7.WM i.tHXI J V I I.MHI
l.HI*M
I.7X41I 2.H42I MlltflJ M
I I I 7. MM) J M
I.WfHI II I l.M««l I 1.7
III J.NI4I M«»ll I
I.m»»l 7.MW S.HCHI «.MI««I 1.IHHI
U M N U U U U
Ml «M»|* IMw IfM !»«•«
It • **k •! «.» lw(
ONI Illlu tut
Mlutn UikMt
ourui
MUI
1.7g»W N 1.K4I M I.MH9« «.««»«l M 7.fN«l U S.NMI U I.MHI II
I.MI*«I N t.W««l U l.Mftl U 1.M4I M 1.M4I U 1.3«*«l U 7.W»»I •)
N
W
-------
IMU
Mil Mil
IMM imi.1 miM MI.» an.! . mn.t MM
I I I.2KH1I I l.M«2l I I
IIC
S.llf«t21 l.m«l J I.JH««2 J
«.<•«! I I.MC«2 J
lrM,trlcvt«rlU-<|kMrl- Mil*} I I.IWtfl.
I.IIIH1I
l.ltf«l 1
IHMkfltlM
l,t-lMlMM«UirkHfllc Mil,
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
I.2««I J
f.M*«l J
1
•
1
1
7.4»«J J
1
«.«)E»«2 J
2.T2I42 J
1
I
•
1
1
1
1
1
•
1
1
1
1
1
•
I
1
1
1
im mil mim
-------
mfM
•II MIM
itM.»
UMlM
MIMT U M N U
frMii l.l««l I M N I
!»!• ?.Mf«l III!
CilclM I.i7l«ll I.WM8 I.I H •
OvMlM I.IK«I III
b*y«r l.tMitl I.HC*«I 7.ll»»«l I
Ir* l.MC*«4 1.4U**« I.MIKt t.M*«l
UK I.Mftl III!
j.in»n
tocvf N M U M
Ullil II I I
fMllM J.IHHI I l.l«*«l I I
HA* • UC^t 4 Mff*Al 4 Iflff^l •
(!•% ••*•%*»I rf«*^*wl 4t IK*VI •
I|«l«t I.MI-41 J N U M
•unin
Mvlft 1.IN4I M f.Mt«l M 2.T«««I N S.M4I
kttM l.Mt*«IM 2.INXIW I.MI4IM I.M*«I H
Ml MUIUD
II M . M M
-------
«1
•
•
«• Phase 1
•1
•I •»
| II
tolw
falclM
Irm
UK
Of
m
IN
I J.Nf«l I • I I
I.MM9 LMIH4 I.Ul*«t I
I.M«1 I.MX1 I
t.9M*M 2.Mf«M I
I.M*I t,m*«l 1.3MHI l.IK*fl I
II H M U N
«t m»A4 * ttf ft4A 9 MB^AA •
lafl'K*^^ ••4^KTW 4i4VK^^ V
l.ia*M ».7«HJ t.M*M I
J.WCHI 1.MC4I MN*«I I.WHI I
4.HCHJ
IMt- •
M»-k
M-k
!•«
•II M. I
M«lM« Ml*
•M, ••(•• tatMlMrt
c fetltk inmmiMmt tar
f»MM • • riitrlcM Mll
Mil
«.4KH2 I.MCH2
•I/I
M Gklvtte
!.««•«• U }.MC*« U I.MI*«« H «.MC*«* II I.M(«4* U
».««•«• M I.MC4I M I.M*tl M LMCrt*« I.Mf»«I W
lit
l-C|tt«kMM-1-«M
-------
IMU 2
NO MM
•awn
JSU.I Bill.*
nc
1
ItHMkflllf*
I.I,ll,l*-MfMttftjl»«l*
-------
TABLE 3
MO Nil
CKXJIO um - run 2
RU 1
RU i ttuicin
uotGUia
•f/i
iluliu 341 0
latiu 1 I
Calda 7(111 7S)II
Cipher 121 0
Icn 4(1 1(1
lead S.I S.S
lafiesiu 2(711 2(511
laijaiese SI 47
Ntasslu Hill 0
Sodlu SI 7211
XlK 0 9
MI or
TJJ (15/U 1141 1(31
TM (•!/!) 311 3(1
IK «t 25 C (iiftos) llll lilt
M I.I (.1
fOUTIUS
fettjlue aierlde 1 1
kttm 1 0
TllKM 0 0
RU 3
4)1
III
17411
0
(21
11
27311
114
47311
15411
21
(II
511
1411
(.1
II
1
II
IIUI
1511
1
0
0
141
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
< 21
-------
Community Relations Responsiveness Surenary
Norman Poer Farm Site
Char lottesvi lie, Indiana
September 1988
The purpose of this ccmnLinity relations response summary is to cbcument
connunity relations .activities along with citizen comments and questions
and Agency responses. Tne U.S. EPA, has been responsible for conducting a
coordinated community relations program for this site. Community
relations activities have been ongoing from the inception of the remedial
investigation to the announcement of a proposed plan. In accordance with
CERCLA Section 117, U.S. EPA published its proposed plan, provided a three
week public cement period, and held a public hearing.
The selected remedy of no further action was presented in the August, 1988
Proposed Plan and at the public hearing. There has been no negative
poblic reaction to the selected remedy before or during the ccntnent period
and State of Indiana officials have indicated their agreement with the
U.S. EPA's decision.
COMJNITY RELATIONS
Remedial Investigation (RI)
A ccmnunity relations plan was developed by the U.S. EPA in September,
1985. During the RI, local concern was low. There has been no expression
of public concern since the June 1983 removal action.
Ccomnunity relations activities conducted during the RI include:
- Developed a formal procedure for responding to citizen inquiries
- Held informal meetings with county officials
- Established and maintained an information repository
- Issued press releases and made media contacts
- Held public meetings
Public Meetings
The dates of the public conment period, the date and the location of a
public hearing and a summary of the Proposed Plan were announced through a
legal notice in the area newspaper.
The Norman Poer Farm Proposed Plan, which includes a description of the
investigation findings and. conclusions, was mailed, to those on the
community relations mailing list and was available along with the
Administrative Record at the Hancock County Health Department.
-------
-2-
Tne public meeting was held at the Hancock County Building, Greenfield,
Indiana on September 8, 1988 to discuss the RI and the preferred
alternative. Eight citizens were at the hearing.
•Eie comment period was held from August 27, 1988 to September 16, 1988.
Comments raised during the public comment period that are relevant to the
Proposed Plan are summarized below.
OF PUHT.TC COMMENTS AND
Question: What is or will be the status of the Poer Farm site once U.S.
EPA has taken the remedial action proposed at the site?
As stated in the Proposed Plan, after the "No Further Action" remedy is
selected, the U.S. EPA will recommend that the site should be deleted from
the National Priorities List.
Question: After the site has been deleted, can the site be purchased and
can the buyer be assured that they will not be liable for any
present future environmental problems?
U.S. EPA knows of our reason why the site could not be prushased following
delisting. HOwever, the Agency Connot give any assurances regarding
liability for any reamining environmental problems. A proppective
purchaser must decide for him or herself the risk of potential liability.
He or she would be well advised to review Section 107 and 101(35) (A) (C) of
CERCLA.
-------
Chronological Index of All Administrative Record
Materials for Nbnnan Poer Farm site
Hancock County, Indiana
Rasor, Peter E., Octover 26, 1981, Memorandum-to file indicating abandoned
drums on site.
Hazard Ranking System, March 19, 1983, prepared by Jim Knoy, Indiana State
Board of Health.
Orr, Robert., May 16, 1983, Letter to Valdas V. Adamkus requesting a
planned removal at Poer Farm.
Simes, William, October 14, 1983, On Scene Coordinator's Report, Nbnnan
Poer.
Walker, Richard C., March 22, 1984, Demand. Letter to C.T. Corporation
System for Cost Recovery for Removal Action.
Adamkus, Valdas V., April 19, 1984, Demand Letter to C.T. Corporation
System for Cost Recovery for Removal Action.
Walker, Richard C., June 28, 1984, Superfund Site #E2 Supplemental Costs,
memorandum to Mary Gade.
CH2M Hill, July 12, 1984, Work Plan - Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study.
Pipking, Dottie, "October 5, 1984, Memorandum to Chris Grundler, Cost
Recovery Documentation for Superfund Site.
U.S. EPA Environmental News Release, June 3, 1985, Site Safery Plan.
Adamkus, Valdas V., July 16, 1985, Letter to Thomas T. Terp transmitting a
Consent Order of Section 106 of CERCLA which was issued on May 29, 1985.
Strecker, Jacqueline W., July 23, 1985, Letter to Neil Meldgin assigning
project coordinators.
O'Toole, M.M., July 1985 Aerial Photographic Analysis of Three Priority
CERCLA Hazardous Waste Sites - Indiana. Environmental Monitoring Systems
Laboratory, Las Vegas, Nevada.
CH2M Hill, September 1985, Community Relations Plan.
-------
-2-
MSldgin, Neil, July 14, 1986, Letter to Dale Webster finalizing the
Quality Assurance Project Plan.
Aten, Robert E., December 23, 1986, Letter to Dan Manefee enclosing Poer
Farm air photo.
Letter from Dale Webster, BADF Corporation, to Neil Meldgin, U.S. EPA,
Region V, October 23, 1987.
Technical Memorandum from Robert E. Aten, Geosciences Research Associates,
Inc., to Daniel Menefee, Indiana Department .of Environmental Management,
and Neil Meldgin, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, February 1, 1988.
Letter from Reginald 0. Baker, Indiana Department of Environmental
Management to Date Webster, EAST Corporation, Ma 6, 1988.
Geosiciences Research Associates, Inc., Remedial Investigation and
Feasibility Report, August 1988.
Proposed Plan for the Norman Poer Farm Site, August 27, 1988.
Suimary of Public Meeting, September 13, 1988.
Response to Public Comment - Responsiveness Sunmary, September 16, 1988.
Record of Decision (ROD), Septanber 1988.
Fi le ;RCD. myr ;M. Pearce ;RERB ;ZL/IMJnit3
------- |