United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R05-89/097
June 1989
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision
Wedzeb Enterprises, IN
-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION
PAGE
1. REPORT N
-------
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 Reports,
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 multlvolume 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/
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. 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 organlzaton 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 hierachy. 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 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 applicatlon(s) will be cross-referenced with secondary Field/Group
assignments that will follow the primary posting(s).
18. Distribution Statement. Denote public releasabllity, 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.
•ft GPO I983 0 - 381-526(8393) OPTIONAL FORM 272 BACK
(4-77)
-------
EPA/ROD/R05-89/097
Wedzeb Enterprises, IN
First Remedial Action - Final
||6. Abstract (continued)
The selected remedial action for this site includes cleaning the sewer lines with
hydraulic jets and vacuum pumping to remove contaminants, followed by filtering the
resulting water and sediment to remove PCB-contaminated sediment, and discharging the
water to the POTW; offsite incineration and disposal of the estimated 2 drums of
sediment and 20 drums of remedial investigation generated waste if PCB levels are 50
mg/kg or greater, or offsite disposal only if PCB levels are below 50 mg/kg; and a
television inspection of the pipeline to ensure structural integrity. The estimated
present worth cost for this remedial action is $45,-000; there are no O&M costs.
-------
DBCXARKFICN FCR THE KduuHj OP CBCISICN
BHERE9HSB5
IEBMCN, HUIMA
STXCEMENT OP BASIS AND PURPOSE
•Oils decision document presents the selected remedial action for the
Vfedzeb Enterprises Site, developed in aocordance with CERCXA, as
by SARA, and, to the extent practicable, the National Contingency Plan.
This decision is based on the administrative record for this site. The
attached index identifies the items that comprise the administrative
record upon which the selection of the remedial action is based. The
State of Indiana has concurred on the selected remedy.
ASSESSMENT OP THE SITE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this site, if
not addressed by implementing the response action selected in this Record
of Decision (ROD), may present an imininent and substantial endangerment
to public health, welfare, or the environment.
DESCRIPTION OF THE KfcMEUY
This final remedy addresses the principal threat posed by the site by
removing contaminated sewer sediments and disposing of them off-site.
The Rpmeriial Investigation (PI) found that previous removal actions were
adequate to protect human health and the environment, and that potential
risk does not exceed U.S. EPA's acceptable health risk range at the site
for groundwater, soils, and warehouse surfaces. Therefore, no further
action will be taken for these media. Remediation of the sanitary sewer
sediments serves as a cautionary measure against potential future
releases from the contaminated sewer line to the Lebanon Treatment Plant.
The major components of the selected remedy include:
° Sower pipe cleaning via hydraulic jetting and vacuum pumping
to remove contaminants.
° Inspection of the sewer pipe.
0 Incineration of contaminated sediments.
° Filter sewer sediments and discharge clean water to Public
Owned Treatment Works (POTW).
° Remove and dispose of RI generated wastes.
-------
The golyf^l remedy is protective of human health and the environment,
attain* Federal and State requirements that are applicable or relevant
and appropriate for this remedial action, and is cost-effective. This
remedy satisfies the statutory preference for remedies that employ
treatment that reduces toxicity, nobility, or volume as a principal
element and utilizes permanent solutions and alternative treatment
technologies to the mavimim extent practicable.
this remedy will not result in hazardous substances remaining on-
site above health-based levels, the five-year facility review will not
apply to this action.
/s/
S « JJN i#f> valdas V. Adamkus
Date Valdas V. Adankus
Regional
Region V.
-------
UHLUKU GF IHILSUH
I. SEDR EB9CRZPEDGN
Tte Wodzoh 'enterprises site is located at 320 South Ballard Street in
Lebanon, Indiana (population approximately 12,500). Lebanon is
approximately 30 miles northwest of Indianapolis, as shown by the
Location Nap, Figure 1. The roughly 0.75 acre site currently contains a
warehouse on the western portion of the site.
As shown on Figure 2, the site is located in a mixed residential and
light industrial neighborhood near the downtown section of Lebanon.
Directly to the north are two residences, the nearest of which is
approximately 50 feet from the northern edge of the site and has its
adjacent to the site boundary. Railroad tracks and
piles of consolidated materials from Irving Materials, Inc. , a cement
production facility, lie directly to the south. Further south, less than
400 feet from the site, is a large mobile home park. A small industry
abuts the eastern edge of the site. The Wedzeb western warehouse is used
for storage by this small industry. A paved road along the northern
boundary of the site provides access to this facility. West, northwest,
southwest and northeast of the site is residential development. In
summary, about 300 houses and a greater number of mobile homes are
located within 500 feet of the site perimeter.
H. SITB HISTORY AMD OffCRCEMOfT ACTIVITIES
On May 2, 1981, one of two warehouses originally located on the property
was completed destroyed by a fire. The warehouse that was destroyed,
located on the east site of the property, had been used as a storage
facility for electrical capacitors and transformers containing
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). According to the company's inventory
cds, the warehouse contained seventy-seven tons of electrical
capacitors, some of which exploded during the fire. As a result of the
fire U.S. EPA was concerned that PCBs may have been released into the
environment and contaminants may have been washed to nearby ground
surfaces and the sanitary sewer system as the fire was being
extinguished. In addition, other organic compounds may have been created
in the burning of PCBs, particularly dicodn and furans, and released into
the environment as well.
A chronology of events resulting from the warehouse fire is summarized in
Table 1.
-------
KI'IV
May 2, 1981
May 4, 1981
May 1, 1981
July, 1981
July 8, 1981
August 28, 1981 and
September 25, 1981
October 8, 1981 and
April 30, 1982
May 18, 1982
August 27, 1982
'The eastern warehouse, which contained trans-
fanners with KB oil, was destroyed by fire.
The Indiana State Board of Health (ISEH)
collected sediment samples from Prairie
Creek, the receiving stream for the Lebanon
storm sewer and sewage treatment plant
discharge.
The Technical Assistance Team (TAT) collected
samples of onsite surface soil and debris,
off site surface soil, sediment from Prairie
Creek, soot from the fire-fighting equipment,
and primary clarif ier sludge from the Lebanon
wastewater treatment plant.
Mr. Daniels, the site owner, contracted
Haya-nrViig Materials Management, Inc. (Btf) to
investigate the site and provide a 'cleanup
plan. HW subsequently subcontracted O.A.
Laboratories to collect samples.
O.A. Laboratories collected residues from
onsite capacitors and debris, residue from
the wall of the west warehouse, and offsite
surface soil samples.
ISHB resampled primary clarif ier sludge from
the Lebanon municipal wastewater treatment
plant.
tntal Management Board
Daniels to submit a prop
Indiana Environa
(HMB) asked Mr.
for cleanup of the site.
A Complaint for Injunction was filed by the
State of Indiana in the Boone County Circuit
Court regarding the Wedzeb Enterprises site.
A State of Indiana Consent Decree was signed
to settle the complaint.
October 23, 1983
ISBH requested U.S. EPA to consider an
immediate removal action at the site.
-------
TABLE 1 (Gontirued)
Of E9BfE5 SEMMo!
**i*i*t
November 3, 1983 The TAT conducted a second site assessment.
One cnsite debris sample and several off site
soil samples were taken as part of the
assessment.
pp""-**"-; 1983 A Site Assessment and Emergency Action Plan
were submitted to U.S. EPA by the TAT. Site
finalized on National Priority List (NPL) of
abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous waste
sites. During the period between r*f*aH»r*>r
1983 and May 1985, U.S. EPA and the State of
Indiana conducted negotiations with Mr.
Daniels to perform response actions at the
site.
May 31, 1985 U.S. EPA requested that Mr. Pnnjpls enclose
the south side of the site with secure fenc-
ing and that temporary windbreaks be install-
Qfj[ to fti\i^mi^ Z^ ^F^PStiOt^£ O& ^fi^fc^iin ryi^Qg f^ij^fr
to off site locations.
July 2, 1985 Mr. Daniel notified the U.S. EPA that he
repaired the fences and installed windbreaks.
October 2, 1985 U.S. EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative
Order to Wedzeb Enterprises requiring site
cleanup. U.S. EPA approved an immediate
removal action to clean up the majority of
the onsite contaminated surface soil and
debris.
October 21, 1985 Wedzeb Enterprises submitted an operational
plan for site cleanup to U.S. EPA.
November 26, 1985 The Wedzeb Enterprises operational plan was
approved by the U.S. EPA.
13, 1985 Wedzeb Enterprises notified U.S. EPA that due
to financial hardship it could not perform
the cleanup.
-------
TABLE 1 (Cdntixue)
CSOKXDSt Of EQHII5 SDMAEY
SHE
October 1987 The TAT completed an immediate removal
action. The debris from the earlier fire at
the east warehouse and the contaminated soil
onsite were removed from the site and
replaced by clean fill. The contaminated
soil was sent to Bnelle, Alabama, and
of in the Emelle Landfill.
November 1987 The U.S. EPA began the Phase I RI.
January 13, 1989 The final Phase I RI report was completed and
submitted to U.S. EPA. Based on this report,
it was determined that a Phase n RI would
not be necessary.
February 9, 1989 U.S. EPA and Indiana Dept. of Environmental
Management (HEM) conducted a public meeting
to present the results of the final Phase I
RI report.
May 22, 1989 U.S. EPA issued the Technical Memorandum and
Proposed Plan for public comment.
-------
Lebanon
Figure 1 - Site Location Map
-------
Legend
Ground-water Monitoring
A Veil and Subsurface Soil
Sampling Locations
~ Surface Soil Sampling
Location! Nearest the Site
_ Building Surface Sampling
m Locations
Sewer Sediment Stapling
Locations * *
Buildings and Other ;
Structure*
Pearl Street
Sanitary Sewer with
Direction of Flow to Waste
water Treatment Plant
Enterprises Site
*.*.• •.».*. .••.*•••.• ••. ••*.••.
Figure 2
Site Detail Map 0th Sampling Locations
-------
The owner/operator has been identified as a potentially responsible
party (PRP) for the Wedzeb Enterprises site. In addition U.S. EPA is
currently evaluating the PRP status of the PCS oil filled capacitor and
transformer generators.
On May 30, 1989, Special Notice Letter pursuant to Section 122 (a)
of the Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986 was
sent to the owner/operator. Settlement procedures under Section 122 (a)
of SARA were not involved because U.S. EPA determined that negotiations
would not be cost-effective given the inexpensive and straightforward
nature of the remedy. U.S. EPA will pursue cost recovery at a later
date.
m. amnny RELATIONS HISTORY
Originally, citizens and local officials expressed concerns regarding;
schedule for cleanup; site appearance, potential health threats from
PCBs; site access and property values. The response actions that have
taken place to date have addressed many of these original concerns.
U.S. EPA published the Proposed Plan in accordance with CERCXA Section
117. This document was made available to the public on May 22, 1989, at
the beginning of the 30 day public comment period. A public meeting was
held on June 1, 1989. Thirteen people attended the public meeting and
expressed an interest in the technical aspects and the timeframe within
which the actual sewer cleaning would take place. In addition, members
of the public were also interested in who would pay for the cleanup. At
this time U.S. EPA will pay for the cleanup; however, as discussed in
Section H(B) of this Record of Decision (ROD), U.S. EPA intends to
pursue cost recovery against all potentially resonsible parties. After a
question and answer period, .formal comments were requested. No formal '
its were received at this public meeting. In addition, no formal
written comments were received by U.S. EPA regarding the Wedzeb
Enterprises site remedy.
IV. SCOPE AMD ROEE OP THE RESPONSE ACTTCN
In April 1987, a removal response action was conducted at this site.
Removal activities included removal of the razed warehouse debris and
contaminated soil. The contaminated material was replaced with clean
fill and the removal was completed on September 30, 1987.
This ROD addresses contaminated sediments in the sanitary sewer line
between Ballard and Ryan Streets in Lebanon, Indiana. This area is a
principal threat to human health and the environment because of the
possibility of contaminants migrating to the POTW. This response is a
cautionary measure against potential future releases from the
contaminated sewer line to the Lebanon POTW. This is the second and
final response action for this site.
-------
V.
The RZ WMI conducted to determine the presence and extent of any
remaining contamination on and near the site. Field activities,
conducted by the U.S. EPA, took place between October 1987 and January
1989. During that time, three groundwater wells were installed. Results
of the geologic investigations indicated the existence of seven distinct
stratigraphic units in the area. The upper most glacial outwash deposit
is a water bearing unit. Based on data available it could not be
determined if this deposit is confined or unconfined. Groundwater
elevations show that the flow directions for this aquifer is towards the
northwest.
In addition, laboratory analyses were conducted on groundwater samples,
residential surface soils, on-site subsurface soil, dust samples from
interior and exterior walls of the warehouse, and sewer sediment samples
(Figure 2). Samples were analyzed for PCBs, Polychlorinated
dibenzodioxin (PCDD), polychlorinated dibenzofuran (PCDF), and a wide
variety of other organic substances. Results of these analyses are
presented in Tables 2 through 5.
Since PCDD and PCDF are present at the site, a discussion on these
compounds is warranted* The actual laboratory results for PCDD and PCDF
are not presented in Tables 2, 3, 4, or 5. Instead, toxicity equivalence
values (TEVs) are presented for PCDD and PCDF, in order to be consistent
with the risk assessment calculations and the Centers for Disease
Control's IK * iiniHnriV»rl action level for PCDD and PCDF which are based on
TEVs. TEVs are used because PCDDs and PCDFs comprise a" family of 75 and
135, respectively, related organic compounds (congeners) that contain
between one and eight chlorine atoms. Within each family (congener)
there are:
°Isomers - members of the family which possess the same
number of chlorine atoms but with different
arrangements» and
°Bomologues - groups of isomers with the same number
of chlorine atoms.
A representation of the chemical structures is presented in Figure 3.
PCDD and PCDF congeners with 4 to 7 chlorine substitutions are often
divided into two subclasses, comprising those congeners with and without
chlorine substitutions in the 2,3,7 and 8 positions. W.lth the exception
of octachlorodibenzodioxin (OCDD), congeners with this pattern are
recognized as being more toxic and bioaccumulatable than other congeners.
Therefore, these congeners if present, would produce higher risk to human
health and the environment. Most information in the literature with
respect to environmental fate and transport of PCDDs/PCDFs pertains to
the 2,3,7,8-TCDD congener, since it is this species that is considered to
be most biologically active. Limited information is available on the
-------
7
other dirwJJi congeners, and chemical properties are for the most part
Procedure* ueed to calculate a 2,3,7,8-TCED ToocLcity Equivalent Value
(TEV) naenrl Html with reported concentrations of POD and POF congeners
involved the use of ToocLcity Equivalence Factors (TEFs) (Figure 3). In
rnnm where the concentration was reported as non-detected, one-half the
detection limit was used as the analytical sample concentration to
calculate the TEV. Wien the analytical results for a congener did not
distinguish between isoners with 2,3,7,8 substitutions and others, two
Toodcity Equivalent Concentrations were calailntad far that congener and
therefore, two ToocLcity Equivalent Values were mlcnl atari. One asisamps
that no 2,3,7,8-isomers were present, and the other nnfflimpq that only
2,3,7,8-isomers were presented. The actual concentration (in
equivalencies) nay lie somewhere between these two tcodcity equivalent
vali
Results of soil, groundwater, structural surfaces and sewer sediment
sampling are shown in Tables 2 through 5.
VI. SOMARY OF SZEB RISKS
A Public Health and Environmental Risk Assessment was conducted to assess
the potential impacts to human health or the environment'of residual
contamination in soils at the site and in nearby residential areas,
contaminants in site groundwater, sewer sediments, and on the remaining
warehouse surf a
Chemicals of potential concern for each medium sampled were identified
based on their relation to operations at the site and detection in
sufficient frequency and magnitude over background. PCXES and PCTFs were
identified as contaminants of potential oLnumn for the surface soils.
PCBs, PCCCs, PCCPs, tetrachlorcethane, trichloroethene, ethylbenzene, and
xylene were identified as chemicals of potential concern in subsurface
soils. PODs and PCEPs were detected at low levels in groundwater and
were selected as chemicals of potential concern in groundwater. PCBs
were detected on surfaces in the existing warehouse at the site and were
selected for evaluation. Sediment samples taken from the sanitary sewer
showed contamination with PCBs and PCEOs/PCEFs which were all assumed to
be site-related contaminants and, therefore, contaminants of concern.
Potential pathways by which human populations could be exposed to
chemicals of potential concern under current or hypothetical land-use
conditions were identified and selected for evaluation. Under current
land use conditions, exposure of residents to soils in their yards were
evaluated as well as exposure of workers frequenting the warehouse at the
site. Under future land use conditions, it was asfaimpd that groundwater
at the site could be used for drinking and that exposure to contaminants
in subsurface soils might occur at the site during activities such as
constructing a building. Exposures were evaluated under both average and
plausible maximum exposure scenarios to obtain a range of possible
exposures. It should be noted that the exposures assumed under the
-------
7A3.LE ' 2
SUBSURFACE SOIL SAMPLING DATA
" WZDZE3 ENTERPRISES SITE
SAMPLE NO. DEPTH- PCS Pesticide:
(feet) (ug/g) (ug/kg)
TCDD
Volatile
SOvoani f* c
EQUIVALENCE VALUE
(ug/kg)
(ug/kg) non-2.3.7.8
WZ-SU01-01 02^0-04.0 0.59 210 B-BHC ND 5.
WZ-SU01-02 04.0-06.0 0.54 17 B-BHC
WZ-SU01-03 06.0-08.0 NA ND
WZ-SU01-06 28.0-30.0 ND ND
WZ-SU02-01 05.5-07.5 ND ND
WZ-SU02-02 07.5-09.5 ND ND
WZ-SU02-03 10.0-12.0 NA ND
WZ-SU02-06 26.0-28.0 ND ND
WZ-SU03-01 10.5-12.5 ND - ND
WZ-SU03-02 13.0-15.0 ND ND
WZ-SU03-03 15.0-17.0 NA ND
WZ-SU03-06 28.0-30.0 ND ND
NA: Not applicable.
ND: Not detected.
B-BHC: Beta-hexachlorocyclohexane
EB: Ethyl benzene
PCS: Tetrachloroethylene
TCE: Trichloroethylene
Note: TCDD Equivalence Values are
furan concentrations using
ND
NA
7 TCE, 5 PCE
ND
4 TCE, 6 PCE 7.
NA
1 Xylene 5.
ND *
3 EB, 12 Xylene-
NA
5 EB, 12 Xylene
06E-06
ND
NA
ND
ND
60E-03
ND
25E-07
*
*
NA
ND
2.3.7,8
2.39E-04
ND
NA
ND
ND
7.60E-03
ND
3.99E-06.
*
*
NA.
ND
calculated from dioxin and
Toxicity Equivalence Factors.
Octa aioxins and/or furans were present; however, the TCDD
Equivalent Value was essentially zero due to the use of zero
as the Toxicity Equivalence Factor for OCDD and OCDF.
-------
GROUNDWATER SAMPLING DATA
. WEDZEB ENTERPRISES SITE'
SAMPLE NO.
1 -
1 -
2 -
2 -
3 -
3 -
Total
Filtered
Total
Filtered
Total
Filtered
PCB
(ug/g)
ND
ND
ND .
ND
ND
ND .
TCDD EQUIVALENCE
VALUE (ppb)
4. 63E-08 -
4.60E-10 UJ
1.60E-08 UJ
*
1.74E-08 UJ
1.36E-05
JJD: Not Detected.
Sample value was <5X greater than the value detected in the blank.
Detection limit is considered to be the value of the positive result
in the blank. .
*:. Octa dioxins and/or furans were present; however, the TCDD Equivalent
Value was essentially zero due to the use of zero as the Toxicity
Equivalence Factor for OCDD and OCDF.
Note: TCDD Equivalence Values are calculated from dioxin and furan
concentrations, using Toxicity Equivalence Factors.
-------
TABLE -
STRUCTURES SAMPLING DATA
WEDZEB ENTERPRISES SITE
(A) : STRUCTURAL SURFACE
SAMPLE NO. LOCATION
PCS 2
(ug/.100cm )
TCDD EQUIVALENCE
VALUE (ug/kg)
WIPE
07
08
.09
10
East Exterior Wall
East Exterior Wall
Interior Wall
Interior Rafter
ND
ND .
1.3J
0.6J
ND
ND
ND
*
(B): SANITARY SEWER
SAMPLE NO. LOCATION
PCS Pesticides
(mg/kg) (ug/kg)
TCDD Equivalence
Value (ug/kg)
SEDIMENT
14
i_5
Downstream
Upstream
0.92
370
95J Dieldrin
ND
1.95E-04
5.33E-02
J
J
WIPE
14 Downstream
15 Upstream
ND
ND
NA: Not applicable.
ND: Not detected. '
J: Estimated Value.
NOTE: TCDD Equivalence Values are calculated from dioxin and furan
concentrations using Toxicity Equivalence Factors.
*: Octa dioxins and/or furnas were present; however, the TCDD Equivalent
Value was essentially zero due to the use of zero as the Toxicity
Equivalence Factor for OCDD and OCDF.
-------
B & V
SAMPLE NO.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
• 33
34
35
36
37
38
40
41
42
43
44
46
47
48
50
— nE'jZEl
; c..'nr
DEPTH FC3
(feet) (ug/g)
00.0-00.5
OO.S-01.0
00.0-00.5
00.5-01.0
00.0-00.5
00.5-01.0
00. 0-00. 5
00.5-01.0
.. 00.0-00.5
00.5-01.0
00.0-00.5
00.5-01.0
00.0-00.5
00.5-01.0
00.0-00.5
00.5-01.0
00.0-00.5
00.5-01.0
00.0-00.5
00.5-01.0
00.0-00.5
00.5-01.0
00.0-00.5
00.5-01.0 :
00. 0-00. S
00.5-01.0
00.0-00.5
00.5-01.0
00.0-00.5
00.5-01.0
00.0-00.5
00.5-01.0
00.0-00.5
00.5-01.0
.00.0-00.5
00.5-01.0
00.0-00.5
00.5-01.0
00.0-00.5
00.5-01.0
00.0-00.5
00.5-01.0
00.0-00.5
OO.S-01.0
00.0-00.5
00.5-01.0
00.0-00.5
00.5-01.0
00.0-00.5
00.5-01.0
00.0-00.5
00.5-01.0
00.0-00.5
00.5-01.0
00.0-00.5
00.5-01.0
00.0-00.5
00.5-01.0
HO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
•NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
HO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
^ r -, IJC.- -MC
Pesticide TCCO EQUIVALENCE VALUED::}
(ug/kg) non-2.3,7.8 2.1.1.1
190J Chlordane
1100J Chlordane
. HO
HO
• 48J DOE
90J OOE
NO'
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
87 OOE. 170 DOT
51 OOE. 81 DOT
8.2J OOE
230J OOE
NO
NO
-. NO
NO
NO
580 DOE. 320 DOT
. 140 DOT
14.000 Dieldrin
3.100 Oieldrin
320 Oieldrin
200 Oieldrin
420 Oieldrin
630J Oieldrin
390J Oieldrin
290J Oieldrin
" 750J Oieldrin
100J Oieldrin
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
350 J Chlordane
150 Chlordane
120000 Chlordane
89000 Chlordane
NO
NO .
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
2.50E-04
8.85E-05
6.31E-OS
2.10E-05
3.03E-04
9.44E-06
4.29E-04
1.19E-03
8.34E-05
3.82E-04
1.46E-04
2.58E-05
2.49E-06
3.95E-06
1.22E-05
2.25E-05
6.76E-06
5.20E-06
•
1.21E-06
1.85E-04
1.36E-04
1.76E-05
•
2.44E-04
5.59E-04
6.82E-04
2.22E-04
6.14E-05
2.43E-06
4.46E-OS
7.10E-06
2.78E-OS
2.13E-06
1.92E-05
2.52E-05
7.06E-06
6.20E-06
4.30E-06
•
3.74E-05
4.77E-06
9.40E-06
2.00E-06
1.96E-05
7.80E-06
8.70E-05
9.64E-05
2.62E-03
1.07E-02
3.22E-04
5.35E-04
1.77E-05
4.44E-05
HO
HO
1.30E-07
NO
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J.
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
S.70E-C2
3.1CE-C2
4.92E-C2
1. OOE -02
1.17E-02
4.5SE-0-;
3.19E-03
1.26E-02
4.71E-03
9.44E-03
7.17E-03
1.49E-03
2.49E-04
3.95E-04
1.22E-03
9.63E-04
6.76E-04
5.20E-04
*
1.21E-04
1.84E-02
1.36E-02
1.76E-03
*
2.44E-02
5.59E-03
6.82E-02
2.22E-02
6.14E-03
2.43E-04
4.46E-03
7.10E-04
2.78E-03
2.13E-04-
1.92E-03
2.52E-03
7.06E-04
6.20E-04
4.30E-04
' •
3.74E-03
4.77E-04
9.40E-04
2.00E-04
1.96E-03
7.80E-04
8.70E-03
9.64E-03
2.63E-01
3.20E-01
3.22E-02
S.35E-02
1.77E-03
4.44E-03
NO .
. HO
1.30E-05
HO
J:Estimated value
HA: Hot applicable; HO: Hot detected;
OOE:dichlorodiphenyld1chloroethylene
OOE:dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
Hote: TCDO Equivalence Values are calculated from dioxin and
furan concentrations using Toxicity Equivalence Factors.
•: Octa dioxins and/or furnns were present; however, the TCDO
Equivalent Value was essentially zero due to the use of zero
as the Toxicity Equivalence Factor fcr OCDO and OCOF.
-------
PCPPs
135 congeners(a)
oosi-icr.s
are 2.2,7
ar.d 5
75 congeners(a)
HotnologueCa)
Monochlorinated dibenzofuran
Dichlocinated dibenzofuran
Trichlorinated dibenzofuran
Tetrachlorinated dibenzofuran
Pentachlorirxated dibenzofuran
Hexachlorinated dibenzofuran
Heptachlorinated dibenzofuran
Octachlorinated dibenzofuran
Monochlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin
Dichlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin
Trichlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin
Tetrachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin
Pentachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin
Hexachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin
Heptachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin
Octachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin
Abbreviation
M CDF
D,CDF
T,CDF
I'CDF
P*CDF
H^CDF
H!CDF
°8CDF
M.C3D
D,CDD
TCDD
P,CDD
HCDD
O'CDD
o
Number of(aV
Isomers
4
16
28
38 .
• 28
16
4
1
2
10
14
22
14
10
2
1
(a)Congener denotes any isomer of any homologue. Homologue defines a group
of isomers vitb the same number of chlorine atoms. An isomer is defined
by the arrangement of chlorine atoms virhin the homologue.
PCDO/PCDF
Congener
Toxicity Equivalence Factor
non-2,3,7,8 isomers 2,3,7,8 isomers
TCDD
PCDD
HCDD
H7CDD
OCDD
TCOF
PCDF
HCDF
H7CDF
OCDF
0.01
0.005
0.0004
0.00001
0
0.001
0.001
0.0001
0.00001
0
1
0.5
0.04
0.001
0
0.1
0.1
0.01
0.001
0
Figure 3 - Numbering, Nomenclature and Toxicity Equivalence
Factors for PCDF and PCDD Congeners
-------
plausible mnarimm case are likely to apply to few members of the
population.
The assumptions uaod for estimating exposure under the current use
scenario for Workers and Residential are provided in Tables 6 and 7,
respectively. The future use scenario Residential and Worker exposure
assumptions are presented in Tables 8 and 9, respectively. In addition,
Table 10 outlines chemical specific toxicity information utilized in the
risk assessment calculations.
The major results of the public health evaluation for the Wedzeb
Enterprises site for the exposure scenarios rllsniBRpri are shown in
Table U and «amff"a't"i7*:r!l below. The *vr?*&s?' cancer risks calculated are
primarily due to the presence of PCEOs/PCEfB. Since the risk data
available is for TCED and TCDF, dioxin equivalents were calculated which
convert the concentrations of the more chlorinated dioxin and furans to
the tetrachloroform. It should be noted that when calculating the
tetrachloro-dioxin and furan equivalents, an assumption had to be made
regarding the position of the chlorine atoms. No analyses were made to
determine the concentration of the 2,3,7,8 form of the penta-through oct-
dioxin and furans. Two scenarios were calculated: a mav-imm where it was
asmimpd all dioxin and furans were in the 2,3,7,8 form, and a minimum
where it was assumed that none of the dioxin and furans were in the
2,3,7,8 form. This provides an upper and lower bound of the possible
risks due to exposure to PCDOs and PCDFs found at the site. It is highly
unlikely that all the dioxin and furans are in the 2,3,7,8 form. The
true risks lie therefore, closer to the average case (i.e., the middle of
the risk range). ,
The findings of the PI and the Public Health Evaluation (PHE) are
summarized below for each media.
(SCCNDHMIER
There were no PCBs in the groundwater, and very low levels of dioxins and
furans. There are no specific drinking water standards for these
compounds. In addition, the PHE found that risk due to hypothetical
exposure to groundwater fell within the risk range of 10~* to 10"7 which
the U.S. EPA considers protective of human health and the environment.
SURFACE AND SDBSQRFBCE SOIL
No PCBs were detected in any surface soil samples. Dioxin and furan TEVs
were found at very low levels, well below the Agency's generally accepted
cleanup level of 1 ppb. In subsurface soil samples, low levels of PCBs,
dioxins, furan, and other organic compounds were detected. However, the
levels detected in the samples were also found to be below the state and
federal standards that apply to these compounds. The PHE also found that
risk due to exposure to these contaminated soils fell within the risk
range of 10""4 to 10~7 which the Agency considers protective of human
health and the environment with one exception. The "ingestion of
homegrown produce" scenario generated an extreme worse-case risk of
-------
TABLE 6: CURRENT USE SCEIJARIO" FOR WORKERS
.ASSUMPTIONS FOR ESTIMATING WORKER EXPOSURE. VTA DERMAL
ABSORPTION OF DUST EST EAST WAREHOUSE
Parameter • Value
Frequency of Exposure 50 days/year
Duration of Exposure 20 years
Average Body Weight 70 kef
Dermal Absorption Factor 7%
Dermal Contact Area 200 on2
Lifetime 70 years
TABLE 7: CURRENT USE SCENARIO FOR RESIDENTIAL
EXPOSURE: PARAMETERS' USED' TO CALCULATE INTAKES ASSOCIATED-
WITH INHALATION OF CCNIJMDKEED AIRBORNE DUST NEAR SITE
Parameter Value
Breathing rate 20'm3/day
Inhalation Retention Factor 75%
Frequency of Exposure 365 days/year
Duration of Exposure 70 years
Body Weicflit 70kg
Lifetime 70 years
-------
TABLE 7: 'CURRENT USE SCENARIO FOR RESIDENTIAL CONTINUED'
ASSUMPTIONS FOR ESTIMATING AVERAGE DAILY TJMTAKE VTA DERMAL CONTACT
AND INCIDENTAL IN3STION OF SOIL AT RESIDENCES SCMOJNDIMG THE SITE
Parameter"
Average Exposure
Maximum Exposure
Frequency of Exposure(a)
Duration of Exposure
Average Body Weight(b)
Incidental Ingestion Rate(c)
Ingestion Absorption Factor
Dermal Contact Rate(d)
Dermal Absorption Factor
64 days/year
30 years
70 kg
54 mg/day
15 Z
670 mg/day
160 days/year
70 years
70 kg
145 mg/day
50Z
5400 mg/day
- PCBs(e)
- PCDD/PCDFs(f)
Lifetime (b)
7Z
0.3Z
70 years
7Z
• . 3Z
70 years
a Based on climatological data for Indianapolis, Indiana (NOAA 1979)
b EPA (1985b).
c Based on Lagoy (1987).
d Based on Schaum (1984) and EPA (1985b); weighted average over age
periods.
e Based on the work of Wester et al. (1987).
f Based on Poiger and Schlatter (1980).
ASSUMPTIONS FOR ESTIMATING AVERAGE EAILY INTAKE VIA
U3GESTION OF HCI"E3RCWN" Vfc.*jhrM'AHr.FS AT RESIDENCES
Parameter
Average Exposure Maximum Exposure
Soil-Root Crop Uptake Factor(a)
Root Crop Ingestion Rate(b)
Frequency of Exposure(c)
Duration of Exposure(c)
Body Weight(d)
Lifetime(d)
0.0037
0.368 kg/day
15 days/year
30 years
70 kg
70 years
0.0246
0.582 kg/day
30 days/year
70 years
70 kg
70 years
a Based on Briggs et al. (1982)
b Based on USDA (1982)
-------
TABLE 8: FUTURE USE SCENARIO FOR RESIDENTIAL
ASSUMPTIONS FOR ESTIMATING THE. RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH
FUTURE INGESTTONT OF CCNTAPCNATED GROUNDWATER
Parameter
Years of Ingestion
Water Ingestion Rate (I/day)
Average Body Height (kg)
Lifetime (years)
Average Exposure
30
2
70
70
Maximjm Exposure
70
2
70
70 :
TABLE 9: FUTURE USE. SCENARIO FOR WORKERS
ASSUMPTIONS FOR ESTIMATING THE. SHORT-TERM RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH
DERMAL CONTACT AND INZDDENTIAL INGESTION OF ONSCTE SUBSURFACE SOIL
Parameter
Average Exposure
Maximum Exposure
Frequency of Exposure
Duration of Exposure
Body Weight
Incidental Ingestion Rate
Ingestion Absorption Factor
PCBs & PCDDs/PCDFs
Volatile Organics
Dermal Contact Rate
Dermal Absorption Factor
PCBs
PCDDs/PCDFs
Volatile Organics(a)
Lifetime
60 days /year
1 year
70 kg
25 mg/day
15Z
100Z .
990 mg/day
7Z
0. 3Z
4Z
70 years
60 days/year
1 year
70 kg
100 mg/day
50Z
100Z
2970 mg/day
7Z
3Z
4Z
70 years
a Based on Feldcar. and Maibach (1974).
-------
• - TABLE 10 . ' -
HEALTH EFFECTS CRITERIA FOR EXPOSURE TO
CHEMICALS OF CCNCERN
Reference Dose
(RfD)
(me. /kg /day)
Chemical Oral Inhalation
PCBs
PCDDs/PCDFs lxlO~9 (c)
-2
Tetrachloroethylene 1x10 (d.)
Trichloroethylene
EPA/CAG Cancer weignt ot
Potency Factor Evidence(a)
(mg/kg/day)~
Oral Inhalation
7.7 (b)
1.56xl05 1.56xl05-
S.lxlO"2(e) 3.3xlO"3(d)
l.lxlO'2 1.3xlO"2
B2
B2
B2
B2
a Weight of evidence classification scheme for carcinogens:
"A—Human Carcinogen, sufficient evidence from human epidemiological
studies; Bl—Probable Human Carcinogen, limited evidence from
epidemiological studies and adequate evidence from animal studies;
B2--Probable Human Carcinogen, inadequate evidence from epidemiological
studies and adequate evidence from animal studies; C—Possible Human
Carcinogen, limited evidence in animals in the absence of human data;
D—Not Classified as to human carcinogenicity; and E—Evidence of
Noncarcinogenicity.
b Source: John Barney memo re: CAG potency factor for PCBs
c Source: Health Advisory (EPA 1987b)
d Source: IRIS (EPA 1988b)
e Source: Superfund Public Health Evaluation Manual EPA (1986a)
-------
TABLE 11
SUMMARY OF EXPOSURE SCENARIOS AND CORRESPONDING RISKS
Current Use Scenarios:
Residential
Dermal Contact and Incidental
Ingestion of Surface Soil
Inhalation of Airborne Dust*
Ingestion of Homegrown Produce
Workers
Dermal Contact and Incidental
Ingestion of Warehouse Dust
Average Case (a)
Minimum Maximum
4x10
-13
2x10
-13
1x10
-11
NC
3x10
-8
2x10
-8
1x10
-6
NC
Maximum Case (a)
Minimum Maximun
5x10
-9
6x10
1x10
-4
2X10"11 6xlO"7
2x10
-3
4xlO~5 8xlO"5
Future Use Scenarios:
Residential
Ingestion of Onsite Groundwater
Worker
Short-term Contact and
Incidental Ingestion of
Subsurface Soil During Onsite
Construction Activities
NC
5x10
-10
NC
2x10
-8
3x10
-7
1x10
-8
1x10
8x10
-4
-8
NC - Not calculated
* As discussed in the text, only one set of exposure assumptions are analyzed
for inhalation of airborne dust; here-the only difference between values
presented under 'average case- and 'maximum case" is the use of non-2,3,7,8
TEVs (minimum arid maximum presented under 'average case' heading) or 2,3,7,8-
TEVs (minimum and maximum presented under 'maximum case' heading).
(a) The average case refers to the use of non-2,3,7.8-TEVs; the maximum case head-
ing refers to the use of 2,3,7,8-TEVs.
-------
2x10"-*. However, as the above discussion on risk calculation assumptions
pointed out, the true risk for this scenario would fall in between the
risk range of IxlO"11 and 2xlO~3. Therefore, given that contamination is
below U.S. EPA's cleanup level and the risk levels are expected to be
less than IxlO"4, U.S. EPA considers the soils to be protective of human
health and the environment.
WAREHOUSE SURFACES
No dioxins, furans, or other organic compounds were detected on the
warehouse surfaces. PCBs were found only in the interior warehouse
surface samples. Potential exposure to PCBs found on the warehouse
surfaces would be protective of human health and the environment.
SANITARY SENER SEDIMENTS
The levels of PCBs, dioxins, and furans found in the sanitary sewer
sediments are of concern to U.S. EPA because the sanitary sewer system
leads to the municipal wastewater treatment plant, where sludge is
produced and available for agricultural use. It should be noted that
although sludge from the Lebanon Treatment Plant was found to be
contaminated immediately after the fire in 1981, subsequent analyses of
the sludge did not detect any contamination.
A PHE was not performed for potential exposure to contaminated sewer
sediments. In addition, there are no specific state or federal standards
for PCBs, dioxins, or furans found in sewer sediments. However, as a
cautionary measure against potential future releases from the
contaminated sewer line to the Lebanon Treatment Plant, remediation of
the contaminated sewer line is recommended.
VH. CESCRLPnCN OF ALTERNATIVES
GROUNDWATER, SOUS, AND WAREHOUSE SURFACES
The findings of the RI show that the previous removal actions were
adequate to protect human health and the environment, and that no
unacceptable risk remains at the site for these media. Therefore, no
further action will be taken at the Wedzeb site for the groundwater,
soils and warehouse surfaces.
The selection of the no further action alternative is based on the
following statutory requirements, as required in CERCIA;
U.S. EPA and IDEM concur with the assessment that the groundwater,
soils, and warehouse surface associated with the site pose no
unacceptable risks to human health and the environment.
2. Compliance with Applicable.or Relevant and Appropriate. State
and Federal Requirements (ARARs); No Federal or State environ-
mental standards are exceeded at the site.
-------
10
The other evaluation criteria, cost effectiveness and utilization
of permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies,
are not applicable to the no further action alternative.
SENER SHlLMQfES
on the results of the RI, U.S. EPA conrtiirfopri a study to identify
remedial action alternatives to address the contaminated sewer sediments
associated with the site. This study resulted in a Technical Memorandum
which identified the cleanup objective for the site:
0 Prevent contaminants present in the sanitary sewer
sediments from migrating to the public owned treatment
works (PCTEW) .
The following four remedial action alternatives which meet the cleanup
objective were considered for remedial- action at the site: All costs are
capital cost since no operation and maintenance will be necessary for any
of the Alternatives.
Alternative 1; ND ACTION
Capital Cost: $11,000
Under the "No Action11 alternative U.S. EPA would take no further action
to reduce contamination levels in the sanitary sower system. The
potential for migration of PCS contaminated sewer sediments to the
Lebanon treatment plant would continue to exist. The alternative would
not reduce risk to human health and the environment. The no action
alternative is always evaluated as a baseline for comparison with other
alternatives. Also included in this alternative are provisions for
disposal of the wastes which were generated during RI field work.
Although no funds would be expended for no action on the sewer sediments,
disposal of RI generated waste will cost $11,000.
2: PXPE Ct??^'*?^ AND INSPECTION
Capital Cost: $24,500
This alternative involves cleaning 600 feet of the Sanitary Sewer
pipeline by hydraulic jetting of the sewer line to scour contaminated
sediments from the pipe walls followed by vacuum pumping to remove water
and sediments from the sewer line. The water and sediments collected
during the cleaning process will be filtered and analyzed for PCBs prior
to disposal . If analysis of the water collected during the cleaning
process indicates that PCS levels are below the local limits the water
would be discharged to the sanitary sewer system. Any water shown to
contain elevated levels of contamination would undergo a filtering
treatment to remove contamination before being discharged to the sanitary
-------
11
sewer. The filtered sediment would be disposed of along with the RI
generated wastes, at an off site EPA approved landfill or incineration
facility. Cnoe the pipeline has been cleaned, a television inspection
will be conducted. The television inspection will provide data on the
structural integrity of the sewer pipeline and establish if the pipe
cleaning was successful.
There are no specif ic state or federal requirements (ARARs) for PCBs,
dioxins,or furans found in sewer sediments. However, a policy to be
considered for PCBs in sewer sediments is the TSCA PCB Spill Policy (40
CFR Part 761.120) established by EPA in April 1987. The spill policy
established health bas^d requirements for the cleanup of PCB spills of
a. containing 50 ppm or greater. The TSCA policy specifically
excludes existing sites and spills directly to surface water, drinking
water sewers, grazing lands, or vegetable gardens, and recommends site-
specific determinations for these areas.
This alternative eliminates the existing potential for PCB contaminated
sewer sediments to migrate to the Lebanon Treatment Plant. This
alternative would be protective of public health and environment, by
removing the contaminated sediment and mooting the TSCA spill policy
guidance cleanup level of 10 ppm or less of PCBs. If all of the sediment
is successfully removed from the sewer line, PCB levels are expected to
be well below 10 ppm, and possibly nondetectable. The total cost for
the alternative would be $24,500 (including disposal of RI generated
wastes) . ;
3; PIPE fTFA^rrnG. INSPECTION AND SEWER
Capital Cost: $68,800
This Alternative provides all of the components of Alternative 2. In
addition, if the television inspection indicates that sediments were not
removed during hydraulic jetting, slip-lining of the sewer pipe may be
implemented. Sewer line rehabilitation will not occur solely for normal
maintenance problems. The total cost of Alternative 3 is $68,800
(including rijgpngai of RI generated waste) .
Alterative 4t PIPE CTF^JTNG. INSPECTION. AND PIPTT.TNE
Capital Cost: $99,400
This alternative includes all the components of Remedial Alternative 2,
with the addition of sewer pipeline replacement. If during the
television inspection of the sanitary sewer pipeline, U.S. EPA determines
that the condition of the pipeline is poor', 'and would allow contaminants
to migrate into the soil and groundwater, the affected portions of the
pipeline would be replaced. This would not occur solely for normal
maintenance problems identified in the sewer system pipeline. The total
costs of Alternative 4 is $99,400 (including disposal of RI generated
waste) .
-------
12
vrn. SOMKV CF OMEARATIVE ANALYSIS OF AIHERNATIVES
The nine criteria used for evaluating the remedial alternatives listed
above include: overall protection of human health and the environment;
compliance with ARARs; long-term effectiveness; reduction of toxicity,
mobility, or volume; short-term effectiveness; isplementability; costs;
and State of Indiana and Community of Lebanon acceptance. Based on these
nine criteria, and Agencies believe that the preferred alternative for
remedial action at the Wedzeb Enterprises Site is Alternative 2-Pipe
cleaning and inspection. The evaluation of the alternatives against the
nine criteria are provided below:
Protection of H|Ti^an H^ith and the
Alternative 2 would provide overall protection of human health and the
environment through removal and disposal of PCS contaminated sewer
sediments. This action would eliminate the potential for migration of
contaminated sediments to the Lebanon Treatment Plant sludge. These
sludges are typically spread on agricultural lands.
Alternative 3 and 4 are also protective. However, Alternative 1 would
not be adequately protective of human health and the environment and is
therefore not eligible for selection. As a result alternative 1 will not
be evaluated against the remaining criteria.
Compliance with ARARs
No federal or state standards, criteria, or guidelines have been
identified for PCBs in sewer sediments. However, the TSCA spill policy
provides cleanup values for PCBs which may be considered for sewer
sediments. Alternative 2 will provide for the removal of contaminated
sewer sediment resulting in residual levels, if any, being below the TSCA.
Spill Policy guidance levels. Therefore, this alternative will be in
compliance with the TSCA Spill Policy. Alternative 3 and 4 will also
result in the reduction of contamination below the TSCA Spill Policy
Guidance levels. In addition, the sewer cleaning water will be filtered
to ensure that PCS levels will be below the local limit (PCS detection
limit) of 0.1 ppb prior to it being discharged to the sewer.
Kf f everv^*? an
Alternative 2 will provide long-term effectiveness and a high level of
permanence by removing contaminated sediments. Residual risk will be
minimal to non-salstent. The extent of residual risk will be determined
during the television inspection. Alternative 3 would provide a higher
level of effectiveness and permanence if the television inspection
indicated that all the sediments couldn't be removed, thus requiring
slip-lining. Alternative 4 would provide a similar level of
effectiveness and permanence if the television inspection indicated that
the sewer line was in poor conditions causing contaminated sediment to
migrated beyond the sewer line into the surrounding soil.
-------
13
p«*3iytion in Toocicitv. yrfrdlitv Volume
Alternatives 2 and 3 are expected to produce approximately two barrels of
contaminated sediment. The pnpT*=«d water/sediment will be filtered and
sampled to ensure the liquid portion is below local POIW limits, thus
allowing discharge back to the sanitary sewer system. The PCS
contaminated sediment will be Higpnc^ri at an off -site incinerator, thus
ensuring reduction of toxicity, mobility and volume. Alternative 4 would
achieve the same level of reduction as Alternative 2 and 3; however it
would generate an additional 2000 cubic yards of soil and debris.
Short—
Alternative 2 would cause no measurable effects to the ooimunity during
implementation. Respiratory and dermal protection (level C and D) may be
required during pipeline cleaning. Temporary set-up of jetting equipment
should have minimal environmental impact. In addition to worker
protection, Alternative 3 and 4 would also pose the i«aiai hazards
associated with trenching and cause some inconvenience to the
neighborhood. All alternatives would be completed within 3 to 6 months.
Alternative 2 would take significantly less time than Alternatives
3 and 4.
it '
None of the Alternatives utilize unusual technologies. All aspects of
these Alternatives are proven reliable. The television inspection will
provide means to monitor the effectiveness the remedial action. All
alternatives require coordination with the State regarding disposal
regulations, permits, and sewer remediation requirements. In addition,
coordination will be necessary with the local wastewater authorities
regarding the oq^abiisiTmCTfc of discharge limits and permission to
discharge to the POIW. Based on our most recent comunications with the
Lebanon POIW authorities, discharge of water with undetectable levels of
PCBs will be allowed.
Post
None of the Alternatives require operation and maintenance (O&M)
therefore, there are no present worth values.
Alternative 2 has an estimated cost of $24,500, whereas Alternatives 3
and 4 have an estimated cost of $68,800 and $99,400, respectively.
The Indiana Department of Environmental Management (ITEM) concurs with
the selected remedy. IESM also recognizes their 10% cost share. There
are no O&M responsibilities associated with this site.
-------
14
This site has not seen a significant amount of conrounity involvement.
Although the citizens and local officials expressed some concern over the
implementation of this remedy, their concerns were atfrtressed at the June
1, 1989 public meeting and as a result no formal ccmnents were received
on the remedy for the Wedzeb Enterprises site.
IX. THE «HIJ*?11«a) KEMtUf
Based upon current knowledge and the comparative analysis of the
Alternatives, both U.S, EPA and IDEM have determined that Alternative 2:
Sewer pipeline cleaning and inspection, off-site disposal of RI generated
waste and off site disposal/ incineration of PCB contaminated sediment is
the most appropriate remedy for the Wedzeb Enterprises site in Lebanon,
Indiana.
Because the sewer line reportedly is in good condition, it is assumed
that sewer rehabilitation (alternative 3) or replacement (alternative 4)
will not be necessary. However, if inspection of the sewer line
indicates that all of the sediment was not removed, then Alternative 3,
sewer rehabilitation, will need to be implemented. Conversely, if the
television inspection indicates that the pipeline was in poor condition
and has allowed contaminants to migrate beyond the sewerline, then
Alternative 4, sewerline replacement, would need to be implemented.
Approximately 600 feet of sanitary sewer pipeline (between Ryan and
Ballard Streets, Figure 4) will be hydraulically jetted and vacuum pumped
to remove the resulting water and sediment loosened from the pipeline
walls. The water will be filtered to remove the PCS contaminated
sediment. The water will then be analyzed and, if necessary, filtered
again to ensure there are no detectable levels of PCBs prior to it being
discharged to the POIW. The estimated two barrels of sediment and
twenty barrels of RI generated waste will be analyzed to determine the
level of PCBs. If PCB levels are 50 ppm or greater, the contaminated
material will be incinerated off-site in accordance with the TSCA Spill
Policy. If PCB levels are below 50 ppro, disposal will occur at a U.S.
EPA approved facility.
The estimated cost for the selected remedy is $24,500. A breakdown of
the cost is presented in Table 12.
THE STATUTORY DEl&aCENATTCKS
Both U.S. EPA and IDEM believe that Alternative 2 will satisfy the
statutory requirements of Section 121 of CERdA to protect human health
and the environment, conply with ARARs, be cost-effective, and utilize
permanent solutions and alternate treatment or resource recovery
technologies to the maximum extent practicable.
-------
15
Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The selected remedy protects human health and the environment through
hydraulic jetting and removal of PCB contaminated sewer sediment, and
disposal of contaminated sediment at a U.S. EPA approved disposal or
incineration facility. As long as the sewerline is definable,
Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 are equally protective of human health and the
environment. However, if the sewer cleaning is impaired by design
constraints, then Alternatives 3 and 4 would be more protective than
Alternative 2.
Sewer pipeline cleaning will be performed as a cautionary measure to
prevent potential future release from the contaminated sewer line to the
Lebanon FOIW. Although no risk assessment was performed for the sewer
sediments and no specific state or federal ARARs exist for PCBs found in
sewer sediments, health-based guidance clean-up levels set forth in the
TSCA Spill Policy will be met. There are no short-term threats
associated with the selected remedy that cannot be readily controlled.
In addition, no adverse cross-media impacts are expected from the remedy.
Cost—
The selected remedy is cost-effective because it will provide overall
protectiveness relative to its cost of $24,500 based on the assumption
that the sewer line is intact. In addition the selected remedy provides
a cost-efficient method of reducing potential hazards posed by the
contaminated sewer sediments.
Compliance with ARARs
Presently, there are no chemical-specific action levels for PCBs in
soils, groundwater, or sanitary sewer sediments. No federal or state
standards, criteria, or guidelines have been identified for PCBs in
sediments. However, there are ARARs which address how PCB contaminated
materials are to be disposed. The applicable diposal requirements are
found at 40 CFR 761. 60 (a) (4) and require that materials disturbed or
excavated which contain 50 pom or greater PCBs be d|gpng*ari at a landfill
authorized under 40 CFR 761.75 or an incinerator authorized under 40 CFR'
761.70. In addition, guidance values for PCBs in sewer sediments which
may be considered are available and these are discussed below.
In addition to ARARs, many Federal and State environmental and public
health programs also develop criteria, policies, guidance, and proposed
standards that are not legally applicable, but that may provide useful
information or recommended procedures (referred to as "To Be Considered"
criteria (TBC)). These guidance or policy documents may be considered
and used as appropriate, where necessary to ensure protectiveness. If no
ARARs address a particular situation, to-be-considered policies, criteria
or guidelines should be used to set cleanup targets.
In the absence of ARARs, U.S. EPA and IDEM have decided to utilize the
-------
Indiana Route 32
Legend
Sanitary Sewer
Pipeline
Sanitary Sewer
Pipeline Proposed
for Cleanup
Railroad
Superior Avenue ,_--
Elm Street
Figure A
Proposed Remedial Action
-------
TABLE 12 - DETAILED COST ESTIMATE
ALTERNATIVE 2: PIPE CLEANING/INSPECTION
:OST COMPONENT
COST ELEMENT
•QUANTITY UNIT
UNIT
COST (S)
CAPITAL
COST ($)
ANNUAL O&M
COST (S)
PRESENT WORTH
COST (S)
emedial Investigation
derived Waste
lydraullc Jetting
'ortable Hastewater Filter
Mobilization i LS 1840 1.840
Sanple Analysis , '5 EA 500 2.500
Disposal . 20 EA 1ZO 2.400
Subtotal 6740
Jetting 14 Hr 70 945
Vacuum Pump • 14 Hr 70 980
Container Drums 2 EA 20 40
Sample Analysis 5 EA 250 1.250
Sediment Disposal 2 EA 120 240
Storage Tank 1 LS 2000 2.000
Subtotal 5.455
Filter and Stand 1 LS 2000 2000
Filter Bag 5 Ea 12 60
Subtotal 2060
Inspection Television Inspection 1 LS 650 650
Mternative 2 Subtotal 14,905
-totalization. Bonds, and 828
Insurance (5*)
Health and Safety (5%) 828
CONSTRUCTION COST SUBTOTAL 16.561
Bid Contingencies (10%) 1.656
Scope Contingencies (10%) 1.656
rONSTRUCTION TOTAL 19.873
Permitting and Legal (5%) " 994
Services During Construction (8%) 1,590
TOTAL IMPLEMENTATION COST 22,457
Engineering Design Cost (5%) 1,987
TOTAL CAPITAL COST 24.444
Total Present Worth Capital Cost 24.444
Total Annual O&M Cost 0
Present Worth 0&M Cost 0
?RESENT WORTH COST 24.414
EST. J24.500
-------
16
TSCA PCS Spill Policy (40 CFR Part 761.120) established by EPA in April
1987. The spill policy established health based requirements for the
cleanup of PCS spill of material containing 50 ppm or greater. The TSCA
policy specifically excludes existing sites and spills directly to
surface water, drinking water, sewers, grazing lands, and vegetable
gardens, and recommends site-specific determinations for these areas.
The TSCA policy requires that contaminated soil in restricted access
areas be cleaned to 25 ppm PCBs by weight; soil in non-restricted access
areas (defined as those areas less than 0.1 kilometer away from a
residential/commercial area) should be cleaned to 10 ppm provided that
soil is excavated to a minimum depth of 10 inches and is replaced with
clean soil. These cleanup levels are health based and can be applied to
contaminated sewer sediments. If all of the sediment is successfully
removed from the sewer line, PCS levels are expected to be well below 10
ppm, and possibly nondetectable .
In addition, the sewer cleaning water will be filtered to ensure that PCB
levels will be below the local limit (PCB detection limit) of 0.1 ppb
prior to it being discharged to the sewer.
Utilization of PPCT^nent Solutions to the tfa^OTnum Extent
U.S. .EPA and ITEM have determined that the selected remedy represents
the maximum extent to which permanent solutions and treatment can be
practically utilized in a cost efficient manner. Among those
alternatives that provide overall protectiveness of human health and the
environment and comply with the TSCA spill policy, the selected remedy
offers the best balance of trade of fs among long-term effectiveness and
permanence, reduction in toxicity, mobility and volume through treatment,
short-term effectiveness, implementability and cost.
The selected remedy can be implemented more quickly, with less community
impact and at a lower cost than the other treatment alternatives.
Therefore, it is determined to be the most appropriate solution for the
contaminated sewer sediments at the Vfedzeb Enterprises site.
-------
APPENDIX A
WEDZEB ENTERPRISES
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
as of June 23, 1989
-------
•99/3?
W/fRAHS PAGES DATS
Tins
Adiiniatritiv* R«cotd Ind«t
USE.FA Reiedial Action Sup«rfund site
»ed:eb Bnt!rptij»s, Inc.
Lebanon, Indiana
AUTHOR ' RSCIPISHT
DOCUKSHT TIPS
DOCRUMBgR
:AI 9 81/99/91
2 81/19/98
2A13 5 82/93/94
Letter transiitting
analysis
of ledzeb fire saiples
Doyle, III St. Bd. of Health
Letter re: proposal for Pickard,
cleanup and disposal at
ledzeb
. Kgt.
Letter in response to IN Knvitoniental Ngt.
ledzeb Atty.'s 12-28-81
letter re: ledzeb's
proposal to deal vita
site
Bgone County Health Correspondence
Dept.
Daniels, Vedzeb Correspondence
Sat.Inc.
Rogers, ledzeb Correspondence
Atty.
82/93/19 Letter re: The reioval
of PCB contaminated
fire debris
Rogers, Hedz«b Atty.
Savironiental Hgt. Correspondence
2-BS *
2B6
82/94/39
82/95/97
2B7 J 12/IC/IT
2C2 1 83/11/93
2C3 3 84/91/U
5 34/91/39
Letter re: Progress of
PCB
reioval by ledzeb Bnt.
Inc.
Letter re: Potential
storage, disposal and
labeling
probleis »ith stall PCB
capacitors
Letter requesting a one
year ereiptioo to
continue distribution
of capacitors
Letter re: ledzeb's
listing for eiergency
cleanup by USSPA
Letter forvardiog
foriallzed
reiedial action plan
Letter inforiing PRP
Daniels
of ledzeb of his status
III Knrironiental Kgt. Board R
-------
limn PACKS DATE
A-liinisttativ? Record Inder
OSEPA Rei!dial Action Superfuod sit!
Vi>dzeb Snteiprises. Inc.
Lebanon, Indiana
AOTHOR
RECIPIEHT
;11 4 84/03/05
4 84/03/05
15 3 84/04/8S
TITLI
onder
CERCLA and other laws
Letter subletting info. Daniels, ledzeb Sot.-lac.
aboot the ledzeb site
letter as follo»-up lestoo-Sper
to 2-27-84 leeting
between OSEPA and
lestoa-Spe'r
Letter couenting on the III Bnrironiental Kgt. Bd. Rogers, ledzeb
proposal for cleanup by Ally.
Cecos
DOCONEHT TYPE
Coostantelos, OSEPA
Street, OSEPA
Correspoadeace
Correspondence
Correspondence
>8 i 84/04/19 Letter ret Request by the Scbaefer, Deputy Atty. General Rollins, Jard Co. Correspondence
3 84/87/11
38 84/«8/«l
,9 1 84/98/21
state of II for Jard to
coneoce a cleanup action
Letter re: aiended
cleanup proposal
Letter in response to
cleanup proposal
Letter ret cleanup
proposal
by CECOS Enrironiental,
Inc.
Rogers, ledzeb Atty.
Constantelos, (1SEPA
Butts, CECOS EOT., Inc.
Kinikl's, CECOS
Ear,loc.
Daniels, ledzeb
Eat.,lac.
Street, OSEPA
Correspondence
Correspondence
Correspondence
DOCRUKB8R
11
12
13
14
15
17
•10 7 84/t8/31 Letter rei cleanup of the Rogers, ledzeb Atty.
ledzeb site
.4 2 85/06/13 Letter ret fencing in of Rogers, ledzeb Atty.
ledzeb site area
Constantelos, OSEPA Correspondence 18
Correspondence 19
3 85/89/25
2 85/18/92
Letter transiitting
copies of docuients
OSEPA requested
Letters to Daniels of
ledzeb
and Hameriale of III
State
Bd. of H-alth re:
Issuance
Rogers, ledzeb Atty.
OSEPA
Berian, OSEPA Correspondence 21
see title field Correspondence 21
-------
:• Ho. 3
93*3-5
Hg/FRAHl PACKS OATS
A11 1 85/l»/21
!A12 3 85/12A13
Adiinisttati?* Record Index
USEPA Reiedial Action Superfuod site
Hedzeb Bnt'.rprises, Inc.
Lebanon, Indiana
rim
of Oailateral CERCLA 196
Adiinistratite Order
letter ret PCS and
dioiln eoataiination at
Vedreb
Letter intoning OSEPA
that Vedzeb Eot. cannot
coiply «ith the tern
outlined in CECOS*
proposed cleanup plan
AUTHOR
Real, Ceco) International,
Inc.
Rogers, Kedzeb Atty.
RECIPIHT
DOCUHEDT TTPE
Constantelos, USEPA Correspondence
Beriao, USEPA
Correspondence
DOCROHBSR
22
23
22 86/«9/39
C8
C13
01
D7
87/19/22
85/12/11
87/94/99
89/92/99
013 1 99/99/99
D14 ' 1 86/91/98
E1 " 1 81/95/97
Letter forwarding info.
»n preliiinary
inrestigation ,
done by leston-Sper
(Attachient B deleted-
coatractor cost info.)
Letter ret Erecting a
fence
to surround the ledzeb
site
fact Sheet on Vedzeb
Sunary of Vedzeb site
fact Sheet on Vedzeb site OSSPA
Fact Sheet on Vedzeb OSEPA
site
Fact Sheett Study of OSEPA
Cootailaatioo at Vedzeb
lot. Ssperfund Site
Coipleted
Agenda for Public Meeting USEPA
Veston-Sper and USEPA
Striiba, OSEPA Correspondence
24
Atvood, Black & Veatch
Neio re; Meeting notes
froi 12-18-85 public
leeting
Neio re: Analysis of
saiples froi led:eb
Co. Varehouse
famo, OSEPA
Sanders, USEPA
Daniels, CH2K Rill Correspondence
fact Sheet
. Meeting Dotes
Dieftobach, OSKPK Reetlag Dotes
Lee, OSEPA
Heioraadui
25
fact Sheet
fact Sheet
fact Sheet
Fact Sheet
2$
27
28
- 2J
31
32
33
-------
v' ?.«cnd lnd«i
USBPA R*i«dial Action Superfund sit*
HHzeb Enterprises, Inc.
Lebanon, Indiana
/FRAHU PAGJS OATS
6 81/95/98
1 81/96/22
2 81/97/96
4 81/12/28
TITIS
He10 ret Saipling it
ledzeb .
Neio t«i R«ri«f of
saiplioq results of
the ledzeb (ire
Keio rei Analysis of
larehoase Fire Saiples
for
PCBs at ledzeb
Keio ret analysis of .
saiples
taken at ledzeb
AUTHOR
Jcology & Bntiroflient, Inc.
TAT
Doyle, III St. Bd. of Health
Dupuy.OSEPA Toxicant Analysis
Cntr.
Traylot. IK St. Bd. of Health
RICIFIHT
11 St. Bd. of
Health'
Illy, USKPA
ID St. Bd. of
Health
DOCUHm TIP!
Xeiorandui
Metoraodui
Netoraodui
Keioraodui
DOCSUKB8R
34
35
1 82/12/15
23 85/19/92
3 86/95/96
28 36/95/23
1 87/93/26
5 87/98/19
Neio ret Inspection of
ledzeb Eat. larehouse
in Lebanon, III
Keio ret laiediate
Reioral
Request for ledzeb
Oihnis, USEPA
Kadaor, U5KPA
Heio ret Chanqe in Scope Theiseo, US8PA
of fork for Vedzeb site,
Action He10
Neio ret Authorization to Constanrelos. USKPA
proceed lith a Reiedial
Investigation/feasibility
Study and Conuoity
Relations Activities at
ledzeb site
Constantelos, OS8PA
Heio ret Reqaest for
Authorization for
Sappleieatal Fundinq
to Continue Reiedial
Investiqation/feasiblity
Study at tbe ledzeb
site
Neio ret Ceiling Increase Theisen, USEPA
Request for tbe Reioral
at
Vedzeb, Action Neio
Breier, OSIPft
Adaikus, OSIPA
Heioraadni
Heioranddi
38
Adaikus, OSIPA Neioraadui
Adaikus, OSKPA Neioraodui
Adaikus, OSIPA Neiorandui
Adaikus, USIPA Neiorandui
49
41
42
43
-------
je Ho. 5
/W/89
CHE/FRAKS PAGES OATS
TITU
4C12 18 85/93/91 A«rial photographic
analysis suiiary
.Aduinistrativ* Record Index
USEPA R;i«dial Action Superfuod site
M«dz«b 8nt»rprij«s, Inc.
Lebanon, Indiana
AUTHOR • RSCIPI8HT
DOCUKEIT TIPS
Other
DOCHUKBBR
(4
4E9 1 81/9S/9S
4E10 1 81/97/91
4E12 8 81/97/31
4F8 3 82/96/17
4G1 2 82/9(/23
3 32/98/25
Direction III St. Bd. of Health
Docment, later Saiple
Chain of Custody Record USEPA
Intonation snuary of Laboratory in Indianapolis
Vedzeb analysis, etc.
Aiended Coiplaint,
Knvironiental Hqt.
Bd. rs. ledzeb lot.
Answer and Affiriative
Defense
Consent Decree, Enr.
Hgt. Bd. vs. ledzeb
Other
Other
Hazardous Materials Other
Hgt.
Pleadings/Orders
45
46
47
48
Pleadingi/Orderi ' 49
Pleadings/Orders 59
4G8 ) 82/98/26 Coiplaint for Injunction
4G14 42 82/10/26 Deposition of Daniels
5C14 3 8S/0J/23
503 ( 85/99/23
5D7 5 85/99/24
•
5D13 S 85/99/25
%
5E5 18 85/19/92
5F9 8 85/11/93
Affidam of Jaies Devey
Affidarit of Kerry Street Street, BSEPA
Affidavit of David
Farero
Affidarit of J.Hilton
Clark
Adilnlstrative Order
Third Party CoiplaUt,
Inrironiental Ngt.
Bd. rs. ledzeb Eat. rs.
Aetna Life & Casualty
Co., Clncinnatti
Insurance
Co., OSEPA
farero, OSEPA
OSEPA
Pleadings/Orders 51
Pleadings/Orders 52
Pleadings/Orden 53
Pleadings/Orders 54
Pleadings/Orders 55
Pleadings/Orders 56
Pleadings/Orders 57
Pleadings/Orders 58
-------
/FRAME PAGES DATE
TITLE
Adiinistrative P,?c«rd Ind«i
OSEPA Reudiil Action Superfuod sit;
Kedreb Enterprises, lac.
Lebanon, Indiana
AUTHOR RECIPim
DOCUHEXT TTPE
OOCXOflBER
111 2 81/05/96
513 2 85/12/99
5 81/95/94
1 83/96/21
27 83/12/90
37 25 85/98/99
36 17 88/99/39
214 29 36/19/14
ES 96 86/19/15
IX EorltoDttatal Health IH St. Bd. of Health
lets, Stateieot for the
Kedia
OSEFA EoTitoaieoUl Hews USEPA
Relsasei EPA Approves
Cleanup
Plan for Superfund site,
Lebanon, IX
Initial Report on Vedieb Ecology & Enmonient
Report on Inspection to DSEPA
Deteriine Coipliance vith
the PCB Disposal and
Kaikiaq Regulations
Site Ajsessieot and
Eiergeocy Action Plan
for Bedieb
Veston-Sper
57 84/94/99 Proposal subtitted to Cecos Environmental, Inc.
ledzeb Enterprises, Inc.
for Reiedial Action at
the
ledzeb site
Site Assessitat and Veston.-Sper
Biergency Action Plan
for ledzeb «itb
for»atding
letter
Technical Assistance Teat Veston-Sper
(TAT) report on the
ledieb site
Final Commit? Relations CH2N Hill
Plan for fedzeb
fork Plan for Phase I
Retedlal Investigation
at ledzeb
CH2K Hill
USIFA
Press Release
Press Release
ledzeb Enterprises, Reports/Studies
Inc.
DSEPA
OSEPA
osm
69
Reports/Studies 61
Reports/Studies 62
Reports/Stadlei (3
64
Reports/Studies 65
Striiba, OSEPA Reports/Stadles 66
Reports/Studies 67
Reports/Studies 68
570 87/02/13 Quality Assurance Project CH2H Hill
Plan for Phase I Reiedial
Investigation at Vedzeb-
USEPA
Reports/Studies 69
-------
i?i lo, 7
5/99/8?
PAG1S DAT!
15A13 1»2 89/91/13
TITtI
ReTision lo. 2
Phase I Reiedial
lorestigatlon
Report
Atiinistmiv f>«cord Ind-i
USEFA Rtitdial Action Sup'rfund site
Vedzeb 8nt!rpriJ»j, Inc.
Lebanon, Indiana
AUTHOR RECIPim
CH2N Hill USEPA
OOCUM8XT TTP8 DOCHUHB8R
Reports/Studlti 79
17 C8 27 89/«2/«* fS fork Plaa
CR2K Rill
USSPA
Reports/Studies 71
-------
Page Ho. 1
94/98/I?
DATS TITLI
AOMmSTRATIVR RRCORD SAHPUJG/DATA IRDKI
ledzeb Bnt»tpris«s. Inc. Lebanon, Indiana
Saipllnq/data docments available for tevi«» at USJPA
Region V, Chicago,II
AUTHOR
RKCIPISRT
OOCUHm TYPS
81/15/14 Initial report froi
saiplln? taken at
ledzeb
81/05/97 later saiple Identification
sheets
81/05/97 Analysis of saiples froi
ledzeb Co. tarehonse
narrative svnary
81/95/18 Saipling speelfiei for
ledrtb ilth narrathe
81/«(/l( Analytical report oo
saiples taken froi
ledzeb tlth oarratlre
81/JS/22 Neio rei RtTle* of saiplin?
results froi ledteb fire
saiplei
81/97/06 Analysis it varebouse
fire saiples for PCBs
81/97/31 Analysis reaalts fitb
narratiie
81/12/28 Analysis results flth
narrative
Scoloqy & Korironient
11 St.-8d. of Health
usm
Reology & Invlronient
USSPA
IH St. Bd. of Health
USKPA Saipllnq/Data
Saipllnq/Oata
USKPA Saiplln^/Data
usm Saiplloq/Data
Saipllng/Dati
IN St. Bd. of Health Saiplin?/Data
USEPA Saipllnq/DUl
Laboratory in Indianapolis Hazardous Nat. R?t. Inc. Saipllnq/Oataq
III State Bd. of Health IX St. Bd. of Health Saiplloq/Data
87/99/92 Lab results for residential IK D*pt. of gnvironiental Hqt.
soils near ledzeb Interprises
ilth quality assurance leio
87/12/21 Analysis results for
several paraieters
8B/91/97 DSm Central Regional USKFA
Lab Saiple/Data Report
for Inorganics/Organic*
88/92/99 Analysis results for USEFA
several paraieters
Laboratory
usm
Saiplloq/Data
Saiplln^/Dati
Saipllnq/Data
Saiplin^/Dsta
-------
94/08/8)
AOHUlSTmiVg RRCORD SAMPLING/DATA IKOEJ
ledi'b Enterprises, Inc. Lebanon, Indiana
Saiplinq/data docuunts available (or r«7le» at (IS&PA
Region V, Chicago,II
AUTHOR
OATS TITH
titb quality assurance
teio
88/92/22 Resalti of saiples taken (or USJPA
SAS dioxln/furan and PCI
analysis tith quality
assotance teio
88/92/2S Results of 15 USSPA
soil saiples taken (or
SAS dloiin analysis ilth
quality assurance leio
88/93/08 Desalts oj 18 toll saiples US8PA
taken (or SAS dioilo/furao
analysis with quality
assurance itio
88/93/98 Results of 19 soil saipl'S USKPA
taken for SAS dloiin/furao
analysis tith quality
assurance icios
88/94/96 Results of 1) laiplu USKPA
taken for SAS dioiin/foran
analysis tith narratlte
and quality assurance
leio
88/95/11 Results, of saiples taken Cheilcst
for total tetra through
oeta dloxlns and furans
uslnq OSIPA icthod 8291
vith narratire
88/95/27 Results of reanalysls of DSEPA
S soil saiples taken for
SAS dioiin/furan analysis
fith quality assurance
teio
88/99/23 Results of < toll saiplei DSKPK
taken for total tetra through
octa dloiin and furan analysis
vith quality control leio
88/10/95 gA/QC suiiary of PCOD/ Triangle Labs
PCDf analysis
RECIPIERT
DOCUMKRT TIPB
Saipllnq/Data
Saipllng/Data
Saiplloq/Data
Saipliug/Data
Saipling/Oata
OSIPA
Saipllnq/Oata
Saipllng/Data
Saiplinq/Data
USSPA
Saiplinq/Oata
-------
Page Do. j
M/98/S3
AOMIHISTRATIVB RSCORO SMPUM/Dm IHDH
•edzeb Rntttpris'S, Inc. Lebanon, Indiana
Saipllnq/data documents mihbl* (or t«7i?» at USSFK
V, Chicaqo.IL
OAT! TIILI AUTHOR RBClPim . DOCDK!IT TTP8
Results of 'ledieb IR St. Bd. of H
-------
94798/89-
- ADHHISTRATm RECORD 5UIOAHCI IIDKI
ledreb Jnlerprises, Inc. Lebanon, Indiana
Guidance docm«nts a»ailabl« for witi at
USIPA R»
-------
NufDUCAL 1MEC '1U StllTDRFUNU FWJUHAM DLRHCl'lVES
9012.10 Redelegation Of Author ity Ihider CTHCLA/SARA
And Super fund Uitetiial Delegation Uf AutJiority
9200.1-05 Quality Assurance*. Plan For Super fin id (Draft)
9200.3-01A Superfuiid Comprehensive Acconplislmentjs Plan
Manual (SCAP) FY-88
9200.3-02 Implanentation Strategy For Reautliorized
Super fm id: Slort-Tetm Priorities Bor Action
9200.3-04 Resource Distribution For T7CJ Program (Draft)
9200.3-05 Flexibility In 'Hie FY-88 Super fund Regional
Extraniiral (Operating Plan
9200.4-01 Guidelines For Producing Superfuiid Documents
9200.6-02 NTL Docket Guidance (Draft)
9200. 7-01 Catalog Of Superfuiid Program Directives
9221.0-02 CERCLJS Data Handling Support Policy Statement
9225.0-02 Forwarding Claims 1\D Headquarters
9225.0-03 Notification Of Restrictions On Reimbursement
Of Private Party Costs
9230.0-02 Superfuiid Comnmity Relations Policy
9230.0-03 Comiunity Relations Handbook
9230.0-03a Ccnnunity Relations Activities At Super fund
Deforcement Sites - Diterlin Guidance
9230.0-03B Ccmiiuiity Relations Di Superfuiid - A Handbook
Interim Guidance
9230.0-04 Caimniity Relations Qiidance For Evaluating
Citizen Concerns At Superfuiid Sites
9230.0-05 Camtmity Relations Requirauents For Operable
Units
9230.1-01 Interim Guidance On ITtl Grants For Pxiblic
Participation
9230.1-02
Program Activities Prior To Issuance Of
Interim Final Rule
16
42
16
16
42
16
17
42
17
17
17
18
18
18
18
19
19
19
19
19
July 31, 1988
OSWER Directive 9200.7-01
-------
9230.1-03 Citizens Guidance F'or 11 le Technical Assistance
Grants Program
9230.1-04 Regional Guidance Maininl For Hie Tecluiical
Assistance Grant Program
9234.1-01 CERCLA Compliance With OUier Laws Manual
Volume 1 (Draft)
9234.1-02 CERCLA Conpliance With Other Laws Manual
Volume 2 (Draft)
9234.1-03 CERCLA Compliance WiUi OUier Laws Manual
Volume 3 (Draft)
9234.0-04 Applicability Of RCRA Requirements To CERCLA
Mining Waste Sites
9234.0-05 Interim Qiidance On Cciipliance With Applicable
Or Relevant And Appropriate Requirements (A1V\R)
9240.0-01 User's Guide To TJie Contract Laboratory Program
9240.0-02 Analytical Support For Superfund
9240.0-03 Superfund Analytical Data Revision And
Oversight (Draft)
9242.2-01B Emergeiicy Response Cleanup Services (ERCS)
Users' Manual
9242.3-03 Procedures F'or Initiating Remedial Response
Services
9242.3-05 REM II Contract Award fee Performance
Evaluation Plan
9242.3-07 Implementation Of The Decentralized Contractor
Performance Evaluation And Award Fee Process
For Selected Ranedial Program Contracts
9242.4-01A TKT Contractor Users' Manual
9242.5-01 Procedures Manual For Superfund Con. Relations
Contractor Support (Draft)
9250.1-01 Policy On Cost-Sliaring at Publicly Owned Sites
9250.2-01 Policy On Cost-Sliaring Of Immediate Removals
At Publicly Owned Sites
9250.3-01 Waiver Of 101 Cost SJiare For Remedial Planning
Activities At Privately Owned Sites
20
20
42
42
42
20
20
20
21
42
21
21
21
22
22
42
22
22
22
July 31, 1988
- 2 -
OSWFR Directive 9200.7-01
-------
9250.3-02
9260.1-09
9260.3-00
• i\
9272.0-01
9^272.0-02
9272.0-03
9272.0-04
9272.0-05
9275.1-01
9275.2-01
9280.0-02
9283.1-01
9283.1-02
I ..
9285.1-01B
9285.2-01
9285.2-02
9285.2-03
9285.2-04
9285.2-05
pr
9285.3-01
9285.3-02
Guidance Oil Iiipleuraiting Vtalver Of 10% Cost
"Etlr Kaied la 1 Planning u'-1;l''1 •»«'-< v*'*^
Delegations Of R'a'irxly SelectfoVi l>m"RegToiis::"';i
(Ultler Delegation II14:5) :'' 'L; ('/^ !!^:I.'VV^'M
FWPCA Delegations of Autlcrity - Conplete Set
or • ; if! • i*i:'.-..•'. '(i\ v'...«:r«ii:i>.:-,.::.'.i ,'.v<. /i.'Vi.'-i ir:-/v.ir^!-;.;;• i..1.::'j:'ivf^.ii ,(.- ,r-i.r.i:i;: l-::it ?!
Responsibilities E'or Federal Facilities '''5
Federal Facilities •->'•«:•.'.<> ''".i .•*.'»*..(j .:<•.::•:.i,
Responsibilities For Federal1 Facilities :V|IV:
•. : .. . : i.i. . i ..' ,:!.:.; . .:...:!(; :>; i
Ratoval Financial Maitaganent Instructions '•'"
.Ranediai 'Financial.Managanent Instnjctioiis ' ;'
Policy ,On Flood Plains And Wetlaiids Assessments
Recamiendatioiis For Gtomirlwater Ranediation At
Hie Millcreek, Pennsylvania Site. ,. . i ,
Guidance On Ranediai Ai:t ions For Contanunated
Groundwater At Surer fund Sites (Draft)
. ' - t ;r ..... •, '.:.•.-:''.•;•'.•" '.is. '<
Standard Operating Safety Guide Manual
' '' '
Field Standaid Operatiiig Procedures Manual tt4
Site'Ditry -" ' , ' ' ' : : ' - ' '
.•(. .1. •••< • .:•-. :••!.' U". '.• i:'j : : -.'. •• -.-. t.:\f : ;:.::.->,
Field Standard Operating Procedures Manual »7!
Decontaiaination of Response Personnel
;.-..•..:...>: .>. ..- . '.. •• •. . r^. ... ....... .:.-.' •<•:•..; ,\i.t
•'.•:.>-.••.-•«• •' !• ! .!-.,•• '.' ' ' • ?••••• .,: ,". '-.r'M
Field Standard Operating Procedures Manual. tt8,
Air Surveillaice " '" ' ' ' ;'" : •• ' ' • ''•
Field 'staiiiard Operating 'Procedures Manual « 6"
Wbrk Zones ,.,,,. .......
•™i j-jil irf) •• t •:.!•!.:.; i(-;iii:iij| -,«•, fiii.:.2i.'.
Field Standard Operating Procedures Manual »9,
Site Safety Plan1"'" •'" ^"-l»«-; ^i y-.aui3EA}
T II-'' .'*IJ :<1"' CJ f'1 ~|'-"«'--^ 'f ' •:••/>; f--.iri '•>. r/
Occupatioiiat And Health Tecluucal Assistance
And Diforcanent .Guidelines For. Super fund.
•.JL>i ,, ,- >v. .4 juq:> -5t .siiLLi.ot^/Tl
Employee Ocajpatioi\al health aid. Safety ,
C it '-•• r U < J; .1.1-1 ».t:'.il .JV-Tl '«-lT d-UU;f
24
24
25
43
25
.--:r.F.p
26
«-p,si)
Dlrec,^!^ ??£Vjf
-------
9285.4-01
9285. 4-O2
9285.4-03
9285.5-01
9285.6-01
9295.1-01
9295.2-02
9295.2-03
9295.5-01
9295.5-02
9318.0-04
9320.1-02
9320.1-05
9320.1-06
9320.1-07
9320.1-08
9320.1-09
9320.3-01
9320.3-02
9320.3-03
9320.3-04
Super fund Public Health Evaluation Manual
Guidance for Coordinating ASI1H Health
Assesaieiit Activities With Hie Super fund
Rtsiedial Process
Health Assessments Dy AS11II In FY-88
Super fund Exposure Assessneiit ttunial (Draft)
Super fund Risk Assessnent Information Directory
MGHoraiKhnn Of UiKJerstanding Between AS1U1 And
El'A •
Joint U HIPS/ETA G\iidaiK;e
Interayeiicy A
-------
9320.3-05 NFL Information Update »4
9320.3-06 Updating 'Uie NFL: Update tt6 Proposal
9320.4-01 Interim Information Release Policy
9330.1-01 Requirements For Selecting An Off-Site Option
In A Superfurtd Response Action
9330.1-02 Evaluation Of Program And Enforcement-Lead
RCDS For Consistency With RCPA Land Disposal
Restrictions
9330.2-04 Discharge Of Wastewater From CERCLA Sites Into
PO1WS
9330.2-05 CERCLA Off-Site Policy: Providing Notice Tto
Facilities
9330.2-06 CERCLA Off-Site Policy: Eligibility Of
Facilities In Assessment Manitorixig
9335.3-01 Guidance For Condticting Remedial Divestigations
And Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA (Draft)
9335.3-02 Guidance on Preparing Siiperfund Decision
Documents: Hie Proposed Plan And Record Of
Decision (Draft)
9340.1-01 Participation Of Potentially Responsible
Parties (PRPs) In Development Of Rls And FSs
9340.2-01 Preparation Of Decision Documents For
Approving Elmd-Financed And PRP Renedial
Actions Uirler CERCLA
9345.0-01 Preliminary Assessment Guidance, FY-88
9345.0-02 Guidance for Low And Medium cost Site
Discovery Activities (Draft)
9345.0-O3 Guidance For Special Study Activities (Draft)
9345.1-01 Draft Site Inspection Sampling To Support HRS
IKS Scoring (Draft)
9345.1-02 Expanded Site Inspection - Transitional
Guidance - FY-88
9345.2-01 Pre-Remedial Strategy For Implementing SARA
9347.0-01 Interim RCRA/CERCLA Guidance On Non-Contiguous
Sites And On-Site Mgmt Of Waste Residue
30
30
30
30
31
31
31
31
43
43
31
32
32
43
43
43
32
32
33
JUly 31, 1988
- 5 -
OSWEP Directive 9200.7-01
-------
9347.0-0"2 Inplaneiitation Guidance for-Solvent,. Dipxin,-.i{ ,--H". r. .ojU.'
And California List Wastes Subject to RCRA/HSWA
• '•£ Land Disposal Restrictip/is .? :.^,.\ .,-,^ pri.;.;-/-^? i'V-;-:.0'!'"(?
9355.0-03 Uncontrolled Hazardous.Waste 5ite Ranking. ,.:,|. /..;--...,-;-<33..
Systans (HRS) - A Users Manual
9355.0-04A Superfund Remedial. Design And RemedialT/y:t;ibn 33
Guidance (PD/RA) ...........
>.'•: -..-: .i :-.'••• •': r .-.- ••' .-•• -i •:••-! >:• •-.••• -:v;:.:;:,:-..,' ^r?---.:v> »
9355.0-05C Guidance) On Feasibility Studies. (ES) Under..;/ ( 33
CERCLA ' -... - "•...:.^.._,;..J~VT_.!.
9355.0-6B Giiidance On Raiedial Investigations; (RJ): Under ;.,'?-':.(;«3A"
CERCLA " .'.'-if.:.-;
9355.0-07B Data Ojiiality Ol^jectives Development Guidance i ;'.-:.;-;34
: For Ranedial Response Actions ji,/t;; .;'
9355.0-08 Modeling Raiedial Actions At Uncontrolled •••;-•, .,.;..,.34.
Hazardous Waste Sites . .: .• . . . . •:•. '•.-.'
9355.0-10 Remedial Action Costing Procedures Manual : , .,-.•. . •• 34;
9355.0-14 A Compendium Of Superfund Field Operations 35
9355.3-01 Guidance For, CondiJctingRJ/FS.-Under CERCLA ,^s-
(Draft) '"' : "
ft. .-2fjtr2
9355.0-19 Interim Qiidance On Superfund Selection Of .:: 35
Remedy
9355.0-20 RI/FS Iiiprovements. , .. :;. '•••':'< '-.••••: .- ;; 35
9355.0-21 Additional Interim Guidance For FY-87.RODS; \ . -;. '35:
9355.0-23 Interim Guidance On EXniding For.Ground And. : ^ 35
Surface Water Restoration Actions
'.:•' ' •;• •/'" '••• •••••.!.•:> . ;'..-.v.-.-r•.".••: .— •-;;•:.-:. •'.•••.•••%; j-1':-.?"•.;;'•.•;'?
9355.0-24 OSWER Strategy For Management Of Oversight Of 35
..;. Hie CERCLA Ranediai,Action Start Mandate:^v ;;.; : .,. ; j.,;/:
' ':. . ' .'. i.''"'': .. T. \ '.' :".'>' '-.j' '•". '.''. \
9355.1-01 Federal Lead Ranedial Project Management Manual 36
-.*. •':;;..' i :•.'•.: i , ;..>i 't.H.':: ' •:•-:,^-::: 10 ; .r.t;;«*.i;.'C' L'.0-'j.-.^?.3
9355.1-02 Hie RFM Primer 36
>'.':• ";•!:; . ;.. W. •.•.? .::i, • ",;• .- .:•••• :-/:i: or:" .1.1WI li>:.:1M-;«?
9355.1-03 Terminating Contracts For SPED fXmd-Lead ,-; .>.IH 44
Remedial Action Projects (Draft)
'^1" i .-r.-f M"r ; cT • -r:i'.J".'Of|-f y fi.:; ;;i'fv r/-p>'.:! :"'J-£ . 1988 ...-,...-i ...;.".:=') ~ 6 - OSWEH Directive 9200,7rPl
-------
9355.3-02
Ofr
9355.3-05
9360.0-02B
9360.0-03B
9360.06A
.":i.
9360.08
9360.0-10
9360.0-12
• :i
9360.0-13
9360.0-14
!.i
9360.0-15
9360.0-18
9360.1-01
9360.2-01
9375.0-01
9375.1-06
9375.1-09
9375.1-10
9375.1-11
9375.1-12
Guidance For Providing Alternative Water
Supplies ••/::.':"'£<.V>^.: ~n:..'^:u-[ <.••»•/..'-:< r.M r> '.r/J-
36
RI/FS Improvements Foilowup
Removal Cost Management Manual
v---;!'" yr.T.-i?.
Super fund Ranoval^ Procedures; Revision #3 ^r-iP-
• •.-•j:('.
RelationsJiip Of Hie Ranoval And Remedial
't Program Wider-The Revised NCP *'•••• • "-^ "'= •?-''• «:>- -"•••:'"
Provision . .-..••.--! •.. rr:-
Use Of ExpaiKJed Removal Authority To Address ;
NPL And Proposed NFL Sites
Role Of Expedited Response Action Under SARA •
Removal Program Priorities: •••" ;1
Interim Final Guidance on Removal Action
Levels At Contaminated Drinking Water Sites v
, . . r
. . . i - . * -
MDdel Program For Removal Site File Management
Guidance On Preparation Of Super fund MA ::'~:'("
(Draft)
Award Of Cooperative Agreements Tb Political
Subdivisions
Interim Guidance On State Participation In
Pre-remedial And Remedial Response
Involvement Of Indian Tribal Governments In
Super fin id Pre-Remedial and Remedial Program
(Draft)
State Procurement Uiider Super fund Remedial
Cooperative Agreements
State Access To EPA Contractors During Remedial
Process
36
i/.p
37
37
38
39-'
39
39
39
39
39
44
40
40
•JUly "31 / 1988
OSWER Directive
-------
9375.2-01 State Core Program Funding cooperative
Agreements
9380.0-02 Slurry Trench Construction For Pollution
Migration Controls
9380.0-03 Guidance For Cleanup Of Surface Tank And Drum
Sites
9380.0-04 Remedial Action At Waste Disposal Sites Handbook
9380.0-05 Leachate Plume Management
9380.0-06 Guidance Document For Cleanup Of Surface
Impoundment Sites
9380.1-02 Hazardous Waste BibliograpJiy
•
9380.2-01 Draft Alternative Treatment/Disposal
Technology Guidance For Removal And Expedited
Removal Actions
9380.2-02 Draft Site Operations Plan
9380.2-03 Superfund Innovative Teclmology Evaluation
(SITE) Program Strategy And Program Plan
9380.2-04 Draft Decision Criteria For Recycling Wastes
From Superfund Sites
9380.2-05 Draft Guidance On Differentiating Alternative
Tecimo logics .
40
40
40
40
41
41
41
44
44
41
44
44
Section III Documents in Final Draft Development
42
July 31, 1988
- 8 -
OSWER Directive 9200.7-01
-------
Pao? NO. I
i.i//11/68
HDDIllilMMt. C'UlL'iifi'l
PKUVII>:c v1 (HE '»"IC£ OF
UNITED STfiTEi E.lVlf'Ji'tfE.'ll'f'.L •''=•_: ifc'-Ti'j': tot'lf - fiEGIC.'l V.
TITLE.
FKJU between the flTSDR 4 EPft
Federal Lead Remedial
Project Management Manual.
Guidance Document for Providing
Alternative Mater Supplies
Standard Rl/FS Tasks Uraer
REfl Contracts
The Role of expitited rernonie
actions under SrtPfl
Interim Guidance on State
Pjrticiaation in Pr»-
ReMecial and remedial
response.
OWES Dir. 135S. l-vl
SEH Oir. Viib.i-01
86/1c/00
Dir. •iifei.'.O-lS
OWifci» Dir. .13/5. t-> j
96/U/I3
87,'JcVOO
Int9rii» S'jicance: b
tne CH^tLrt Settlenrent Decision
Preocess.
buioarce on
of the "Contribute to
Performance' Provision.
t'.1. V-l j
~ i'ii'.«*n'."<
Cluef of
CEh'CLrt Enforcement
New feasaoihty Study
'jtatewencs or" Morv.
97/v*/0*
Final Guidance for ins
Copperas ion of flfSOR
Health Assessment Activities
witn the Superfund flewedial
Process.
Dir. ^S5.-j-:i
Sucerfund Selection of
uoc-jMsniation on
Issues.
87-Uti/lc
Suparfuno ^>
E/aiuation
Mesitn
-rt-i Dir. '?ci;j. -i-.'!
InteriH Guiiarice or> Compliance
mtn rtpplicaale or fi«?l?v.in:
iE'^ Dir. ?<;;•».'.i-.'
67/v//1):)
-------
G7/.T3/83-
I'.uW.HiS : INDEX
PHijVlLilJ er FnE uKKitli UK teu'.LWL .COUNSEL
UN11 ED STfilEi ifWlWr^trifi'L ff-JitCTIL.'! HC-rNCY - RESIGN V.
TITLE
and Aoprcoiate Reouirements.
K FS 32*98 (8/27/87).
HUMOR
DUlc
Henry L. Longest
Listing FKimciDal LariOfills
on the NPL. Beflw from the
Director of the office of
Emergency arid Remedial
Response.
RI/FS Statements of
Work (SOW), derm from
Chief of CbS, HI/HI unit.
Inter in Guidance -on PRP's
participation in RI/FS.
Interim Final Guidance on
Rewwval fiction Levels at
Contaminated Drinking Water
Sites. -
Interns Guidance on ftdflinistrative OWiES Dir
ds for Decisions on Selection
f CcHCLfl Resoonse fictions.
0«SE?I Die.
Di
«2b. la
Keviseo Procedures for
Planning and Implementing
Off Site Response Actions.
FY '88 Region V ROD
Process Guidance.
flewo from Chief of
the Emergency t
Remedial Response Brarch-
Uas;e Plgmt. Oiv.
Draft Guidance on Preparing
Suoerfund Decision Docunerrt
The Prop-iseo Plan arid ROD.
Draft Guidance on PRP
Particioation in the rtl/F3.
OWcES Die.
ilary GaCe-L'i
«S L'ir.
It
OUSES Dir. ?fli=.. ift
87/08/21
87/03/c8
87/lD/Oc:
87/10/06
8//11/0?
67/11/lj
88/Ol/cO
83/0 i/Ov
Record of Decision Questions
flnswers - Draft.
-------
Pagj Ho. 1
94/8W89
mom oiniiTioi
AR Adiiniltratire Record
ATSDR Agency for Toxic
Substance tad Disease
Registry
CJRCLA Coiprehensire Jnrironiental
Response, Compensation and
liablity Act of 1)11
ACRONYM GUIDE POR TH8 ADHIKISTRATIVK RKCORD
Vedzeb 8nt«tpri!»J, Inc.
L*b)non, Indiana
CORFS Dnlted States Any Corp
of Sogineers
FT • fiscal Tear
HRS Hazard Ranking iystei
KOO Hetoraodui of Understanding
KPI national Priorities List
OSISR OSSPA Office of Solid
laste and Jiergency
Response
FCB Folychlorinated Biphenyl
FRF Potential Responsible
Farty
g.C. Quality Control
gAFF gnality Assurance Froject
Flan
RCRA Resource, Congelation
and Recorery Act
RI/FS Reiedial Inrestlgation/
Feasibility Study
ROD Record of Decision
SARA Superfund Aiendient and
Reauthorlzatlon Act of
-------
Ho,
sm
Aduaistmm Record Index ffpdats Ha. 1
faiedial Action Superfaod site
Ifedzen fotirpriscs, Inc.
Lebanon, It
tint
ttcimiT
socmur rm
89/05/00
44 39/05/15
2 89/05/30
31 89/0J/01
KIPA /act Sneet. redzeb
Enterprises Soperfund
site Proposed Plan
final Sever Reiedial
Action Fecnnical Jfeio
at redzeo
Certified letter re.
fork scneduled to
be undertaken
at redzeo site-
122fa) Special lotice
letter
redzeo Enterprises
Soperfand site
Public fleeting Transcript
Black i featcn
lieder^an;, VSfPA
Staitli, Vedzeb
tat. Inc.
fact Soeet
Reports/Studies
Correspondence
(teetinj fotes
-------
Pags Jo. 2
94/93/.J!
ACRONYM QUIDS FOR "THg AONIRI5TRATIV! RECORD
ledreb gnterprises, loc.
Ltbanoa, Indiana
ACROITI DKrillTIOl
TAG Ttehaieal Asiiitaaee Stint
TAT Technical Assistance
Ttai
'US DOJ United States Oepartient
of Justice
OSSPA United States laTiiooieotal
Protection Agency
-------
Paqt Ho.
Tin*
MCORO GUlOMCt
redreft foterprises, lac. Lebanon, IK
docuieots arailaole lor rerier at
0SJPJ flejiofl f Chicago, II
HTBOR
(KIN Suidance Ciedtlist
40 cm fart 7
-------
Page Ho.
QS/22/U
rim
muismrm stcoRO
tedteb Enterprises, lac. Ltbaooa, II
Guidance teeaieats amiable lor reriti at
UStPH Reyioo F Cbicaqo, II
Jnterii ffnidance on Soperfnnd
Selection at Sntdf
OSIU t JJ55 t~l9
Joterii toller tor tneisioi
Hliki ot 'Sioilai' Otier
TAao 2,3,J,S-TQDO
fioii Saiitaet for tie
Coordination of jrSDf
ITeiitA HntsBitat
Hctirltits with the
5oper/ond fntiiil Procesi
4-0;
fM'f Jipleientatioo of
toe Superfoocf Aiendient*
antf Reaotaoriration Act
of UtS
Porter,
fnoias, 75IPA
Porter,
Mom, USSPK
H/12/21
97/91/07
S7/OS/H
I7/05/2J
RI/f-5 Iiproreients
f 5J55 0-20
Land J?iiposaJ Seitrictions
tonge»t, ffSJPA 97/97/23
Longest, Lucero, VStPk 97/01/11
PCS Contaiination-
Rtqvlatotj and Policy
Bidkff.roand
Reitdial Action Co»tioj
Procedures
Sanson, 75IPA
97/99/19
till/US Unociittt 17/10/01
5aperfond fiposnre
ffannal
J285 S-l
Inforiation on 0rintin« rater
Action Lerels
fSecondarf Reference)
RJ/fS Iiproreientf folior-op
JJ5J J-0J
lielii,
Longeit, ff5(PA
aa/04/01
fI/04/25
Coiionltr Relation! in
Soperfondi A SandbooJt
(Interii Fersion/
05IPA
99/96/91
-------
Piqt la. J
9S/12/89
miniSTUTm mOlD GVlDMCt IH11
tattrpriits, loc. Ltbaaoa, II
iocnttatt arailabli for rtritr at
VSSPA Xtqioa 7 Chicago, II
tint MM* MH
OSIM / 9239 9-939
Coifliaact fitb USIPA ' 18/99/99
Othtr tan (Taooal
I )214 1-01
Cojde to tie U5JPA ja/12/01
Contract lib Projrai
OSHJt
-------
APPENDIX B
WEDZEB ENTERPRISES
STATE OF INDIANA LETTER OF CONCURRENCE
-------
INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
105 South Pridian Strwc
. P.O. Box 6015
Indianapolis 462C<*5015
Mr. Valdaa 7. Adamkus
Regional Administrator
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, U 60604
Re* Record of Decision
Vedzeb Enterprises, inc.
Lebanon, Indiana
Dear Mr. Adaakus:
The Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) has reviewed the
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency's draft Record of Decision. The IDEM it
in full concurrence with the selected remedial alternative presented in the
document.
The alternative includes cleaning 600 feet of the sanitary sewer system
pipeline, using a hydraulic jetting method to dislodge contaminated sediment
from the pipeline walls, and removing the water and sediments loosened from
the pipeline walls with a vacuum pumping system. After the cleaning, the
sewer pipeline would be inspected with a televisual method to assure that the
cleaning process has been successful. All waste generated during the Remedial
Action would be collected and removed from the site for proper diposal.
Our staff ha* been working closely with Region 7 staff in the selection of an
appropriate remedy and is satisfied that the selected alternative adequately
addresses the public health, welfare and the environment vith regard to the
Wedseb Enterprises, Inc., site.
Please be assured that IDEM is committed to accomplishing cleanup of all
Indiana sites on the NPL and intends to fulfill all obligations required by
lav to achieve that goal.
Sincerely,
^p JCathy Prosaer
^X/ Commissioner
An Equal Opport'--iity Employer
------- |