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

-------