PB95-964118
                                 EPA/ROD/R05-95/293
                                 March 1996
EPA  Superfund
       Record of Decision:
       Southside Sanitary Landfill,
       Indianapolis, IN
       9/28/1995

-------
           DECLARATION FOR THE STATE RECORD OF DECISION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION

Southside Sanitary Landfill
Indianapolis, Indiana

STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE

This decision document presents the selected remedial action for the Southside Sanitary
Landfill (SSL) site, in Indianapolis, Indiana, developed in accordance with CERCLA, as
amended by SARA, 42 USC 9601 et.seq. and, to the extent practicable the National
Contingency Plan 40 CFR 300. This decision is based on the administrative record for
this site developed by Indiana Department of Environmental Management.

The US EPA concurs with the selected remedial action.

DESCRIPTION OF THE REMEDY

The results of the Remedial Investigation showed the previous remedial measures were
adequate to protect human health and the environment and no unacceptable risk remains
at the site. Therefore, the selected remedy for this site is a no further action. The
operators of SSL have undertaken specific remedial measures in an attempt to decrease
any threat of release of contaminants from the site. The measure included installation of a
hydraulic cut-off barrier and leachate collection system. These actions were undertaken
to comply with the requirements of an Agreed Order (AO) signed between the State and
Southside Sanitary Landfill, Inc., under Cause No. N-243, approved on November 25,
1986. The AO provided for^onstruction and installation of a hydraulic cut-off barrier
and leachate collection system. Additionally the AO prequired the following: a
performance monitoring system, cover and grading requirements, operating procedures,
closing and post-closing procedures and requirements and the establishment of both
closure and post-closure funds. This site is currently regulated under a State issued
Southside Sanitary Landfill Permit No. OPP 49-1. An evaluation of permit requirements
indicated that the SSL is in compliance with the ground water requirements of 329IAC 2-
16 and the site is subjected to regular inspections and monitoring schedules for a
minimum period of 30 years after the closure of the landfill.

Due to effective implementation of remedial measures, as described above in compliance
with the AO requirements, IDEM has determined that no further action is necessary at the
site under Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA) requirements.

-------
Record of Decision                                          Page 2 of  19
Southside Sanitary  Landfill
DECLARATION

The Remedial Investigation results and risk assessment evaluation established that
chemical contamination discovered at the site, with current remedial measures in place,
does not pose unacceptable risk to the environment and human health. However, as the
waste is in place and contained, IDEM recommends a 5-year review of site status which
includes physical inspection of the site and a review of monitoring data. The current
operating permit would serve as an effective monitoring tool to mitigate any unforeseen
actions at the site. Based on the RI analytical data available at this time, IDEM believes
that the existing remedial measures provide the best protection of human health and
environment, achieve compliance with Applicable, Relevant and Appropriate Regulations
(ARARs), eliminate long term risks, reduce toxicity and mobility. Therefore, no further
action under CERCLA is appropriate at this site.
COMMISSIONER     "                  DATE
Indiana Department of
Environmental Management

-------
 Record of  Decision                                          Page  3  of  19
 Southside  Sanitary Landfill

                      RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
                      SOUTHSIDE SANITARY LANDFILL
                           INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA
A.    SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

Southside Sanitary Landfill (SSL), an active sanitary landfill, occupies 312 acres in
Decatur Township, Marion County (Figure 1).  The landfill is located on the west bank of
the White River, where it joins with Eagle Creek, one-half mile south of intersection of
Kentucky Avenue and Warman Road. The site location is approximately 4.5 miles
southwest of downtown Indianapolis. The boundaries of the site include Eagle Creek and
White River to the east and south of the landfill and to the west are portions of the Martin
Marietta limestone mine and Strakis Lake.

B.    SITE HISTORY

Landfill operations at this site began in 1971. The initial operation was based on a cut
and fill procedure. A trench, approximately 100 feet wide and 8 feet deep, was
excavated, filled with solid waste, and then covered. After trenching was found to expose
sand and/or gravel pockets, a compacted soil liner was placed under the fill. In 1981,
operations switched to the area method of filling which consists of dumping, spreading,
and covering. Most of the waste disposed of at the landfill is believed to be typical
municipal solid waste. However, waste from industry and agriculture was also disposed
of at Southside Landfill over the years.

Groundwater monitoring for contamination at the landfill began in 1973 when the United
States Geological Survey installed 24 wells around the portion of the landfill permitted to
accept wastes.  The wells were part of a study to determine the nature and extent of
groundwater contamination in the vicinity of landfills in Marion County.

In 1981, as part of a national survey of industrial waste disposal practices prior to
implementation of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), four firms
listed Southside Sanitary Landfill as a disposal site for their wastes. Small quantities of
hazardous wastes were possibly sent to the landfill. This notification was sufficient to
initiate evaluation of Southside Landfill for inclusion on the National Priorities List
(NPL).

In 1984, U.S. EPA contractors conducted a site inspection at the facility to acquire the
data needed for Hazard Ranking System scoring.  On-site wells sampled indicated the

-------

                                 ^//-r^
                                 :4&i$/
SCALE:  1  INCH 2000 FEET
TOPOGRAPHY TAKEN FROM
      -.  1980
   MAYWOOD. INDIANA
 U.S.G.S. QUADRANGLES
IND
      FIGURE   «
SITE LOCATION
                 Marion County, Indiana

-------
Record of  Decision                                          Page 4  of  13
Southside  Sanitary Landfill

presence of heavy metals in the ground water at the facility. The site was scored and
nominated for the NPL in 1986, and finalized on the NPL in March 1989.

In 1985, the Southside Sanitary Landfill operator signed an Agreed Order with the
Indiana State  Board of Health to correct drainage problems identified on the landfill
surface. In 1986, the landfill operators signed an Agreed Order with IDEM to construct a
barrier (known as slurry wall) below the grade and a leachate collection system to prevent
potentially contaminated ground water from leaving the landfill and entering local
groundwater supplies. The Agreed Order, which also permitted vertical expansion of the
facility, currently serves as the operating permit for Southside Sanitary Landfill.

C.    COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION

Section 117 (a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act (SARA), requires that notice be published and a brief analysis of the
Proposed Plan for site remediation be made available to the public. The Proposed Plan
also outlines the public's role in helping IDEM as the lead Agency, and U.S. EPA as the
support Agency, made a final choice on the preferred alternative.

The Role of Community

The first public meeting was conducted at the beginning of the RI process in
September 1992, at the Indiana Government Center South, in Indianapolis.  IDEM
developed an Administrative Record and placed at the site information Repository of
public view. The final public meeting was conducted in June 1995, after the RI
completion and development of a Proposed Plan for Remedial Action at the site.  Before
the public meeting, IDEM prepared Fact Sheets describing site activtiites and mailed to
the local residents, officials and media for information.  The IDEM believed that the
preferred method of cleanup at this site should meet the local community needs, in
addition to being an effective solution to the existing problems. Therefore, IDEM as the
lead Agency in consultation with U.S. EPA set a public comment period from June 19, to
July 19, 1995, to encourage public participation in the remedy selection process.

This comment period included a public meeting where U.S. EPA and IDEM discussed the
RI report findings, the Proposed Plan, answered any questions and received formal
comments.  Comments were solicited on the Proposed Plan and the RI report.

The RI report and numerous other documents regarding the site are available at the
Information Repository. The repository is located at Indianapolis Public Library, 40 East

-------
Record  of Decision                                          Page 5  of 19
Southside—Sanitary Landfill

St. Clair Street, Indianapolis, IN 46204. These documents comprise the administrative
record for the site.

The proposed plan is the preliminary choice to remediate the contamination problems at
the site. IDEM made the final selection only after consideration of all written and oral
comments received on the remedial action described in the Proposed Plan.  The IDEM
encouraged the public to review and comment on both the RI report and the proposed
plan.

Comments received during the public comment period were responded to in the
Responsiveness Summary Section of the Record of Decision (ROD). This decision
document presents the selected remedial action for the SSL site in Indianapolis chosen in
accordance with CERCLA, as amended by SARA, and to the extent practicable, the
National Contingency Plan.

D.    SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTIONS AT THE SITE

Hydraulic Cut-off Barrier (Slurry Wain

As part of an Agreed Order with IDEM dated November 25, 1986, the Southside Sanitary
Landfill agreed to install a hydraulic cut-off barrier (Slurry Wall) and a leachate control
system in order to isolate groundwater beneath the landfill from surrounding
groundwater. The hydraulic cut-off barrier was completed on September 29, 1988, and
surrounds the fill for a total length of 17,000 linear feet approximately.  The average
depth of cut-off is 91 feet and ranges between 43 and 105 feet.

The purpose of the cut-off wall is to provide essentially an impermeable barrier to
groundwater movement between the inside and outside of the wall, while an interior
leachate control drain collects leachate from any rainfall percolation. The groundwater
levels inside the wall are maintained at a minimum of six inches below groundwater
levels outside the wall, so that there is always an inward hydraulic gradient to insure that
leakage through or beneath the wall is always into the landfill. Thus, there is two fold
protection of surrounding groundwater: an effective impermeable cut-off wall  and
maintenance of an inward hydraulic gradient to insure that no inside groundwater escapes
the landfill.

Effect of Hydraulic Cut-Off Barrier on Groundwater

As part of the cut-off barrier design, an interior lateral drain maintains groundwater levels
inside the wall lower than groundwater levels outside, thus constantly maintaining and

-------
Record  of Decision                                           Page 6  of 19
Southside-Sanitary  Landfill

inward hydraulic potential. Since April 1989, groundwater levels inside the wall have
averaged approximately 9 feet lower than levels outside the wall in both shallow and deep
aquifers.

The effect of the perimeter cut-off wall on outside groundwater flow east of the landfill is
to remove the pathway of groundwater movement from Eagle Creek and White River
westward under the landfill. Groundwater originating from Eagle Creek and White River
now either flows due westward along the northern boundary of the landfill or southward
along a narrow strip of aquifer between the cut-off barrier and the streams. Similarly,
groundwater flow in the deep aquifer which, prior to the slurry wall moved from
northeast to southwest and south through the landfill are shunted off more southward.

Along the western side of the landfill, flow between the upper aquifer beneath the landfill
and Strakis Lake is no longer occurring.  Based on groundwater levels from wells outside
the wall on the west side, groundwater in the shallow aquifer is converging toward the
area near the northeast portion of Strakis Lake from the south and north. This is similar
to the pattern seen in groundwater levels prior to construction of the slurry wall with the
exception that there is no longer flow from the east. The flow from the upper aquifer is
likely draining downward to the deep aquifer where the till is absent and also where there
is a consistent downward hydraulic potential. In the deep aquifer, groundwater appears to
be consistently moving southward parallel to the cut-off wall boundary.

In summary, the cut-off barrier practically isolates the aquifer beneath the landfill from
the outside groundwater regime and forces outside groundwater movement to skirt its
boundaries. Thus, contaminated groundwater is prevented from leaving the site and
potential threat to the surrounding media has been eliminated.

E. SUMMARY OF THE SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Geology

The Southside Sanitary Landfill is situated at the confluence of White River and Eagle
Creek and lies within the center of the outwash deposit. The Phase I investigation has
revealed that the glacial till has been found to be a substantial deposit throughout the site.
Beneath the landfill waste is a thin silty clay layer that is either a natural deposit or a
compacted liner constructed from locally excavated surficial soils. The next layer down
is the sand and gravel of the shallow aquifer. This layer is 5 to 37 feet thick. Beneath the
shallow aquifer is a dense glacial till, the thickness ranging from 4 to 6 feet. Beneath the
till is a thicker sand and gravel layer that forms the deeper aquifer beneath this site. This
unit thickness ranges from 10 to 40 feet.  Underlying this sand  and gravel is the Black

-------
Record of  Decision                                            Page  7 of 19
Southsicte  Sanitary  Landfill

New Albany shale as bedrock.

Hydrogeology and Hydrology

The site is situated in an outwash valley aquifer. The outwash aquifer is divided into two
distinct hydrogeologic units, the shallow upper and a deep lower aquifer, separated by a
glacial till that has an average permeability of 2X10'7 cm/sec. The general ground water
flow direction in the upper and lower aquifer is from east to west during most of the year.
The investigation revealed that the ground water levels in the upper outwash valley
aquifer are impacted by industry existing in the vicinity of site, such as GM Allison and
American Aggregate, and other surface water bodies like Eagle Creek, White River and
numerous surrounding ponds and lakes created by sand and gravel quarry operations.

Groundwater and surface water users to the southeast of the site have less of an effect on
groundwater flow directions on-site, because White River serves as a major divide. Tn
addition, the bedrock high in the southeast portion of the landfill has the effect of
inhibiting hydraulic communication in the lower aquifer between the southeast and
northwest areas of the site. There are existing high capacity wells that extend into the
lower aquifer and draw groundwater from  both the upper and lower aquifers.

There is an IPL check dam existing southeast of the site constructed across White River.
This dam caused a buildup of head in White River to levels higher than adjacent aquifer
heads. There is considerable flow of surface water from the major surface water bodies
Eagle Creek and White River into the upper aquifer. Flow from these streams has
occurred throughout the landfill's history based on the fact that IPL check dam has been
existing at this location and has been a significant contributing factor for over 40 years.

Groundwater was also entering the northwest portion of the site from north and northeast.
The groundwater flow velocities beneath the site range between 7 to 29 feet per day.  A
portion of water entering the upper aquifer from streams re-entered White River down
stream of the IPL dam. Some entered other existing water bodies such as South Pond and
Strakis Lake.

Groundwater:

Ground water in the upper and lower aquifers has generally flowed east to west for most
of the operational life of the landfill. Eagle Creek and White River above the (IPL) check
dam are upgradient of the site.  The major receptor locations for groundwater flowing
beneath the landfill prior to the construction of the hydraulic cut off barrier (slurry wall)
included surface water bodies like South Pond, Strakis Lake, and White River (below

-------
                               Table  1
            Contaminants  Detected in Grouncivater Samples
            Southside  Landfill Site,  Indianapolis,  IN
Contaminants
VOCs
Chloroform
Benzene
Toluene
Acetone
Methylene chloride
2-butanone
SVOCs
Bis (2-ethyl-hexyl) Phthalate
Inoraanics
Aluminum
Arsenic
Ant imony
Ammonia
Barium
Beryllium
Cadimum
Calcium
Chromium
Chloride
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Maganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide
Maximum
Concentration
Levels (mg/1)

0.028 BJ
0.002 J
0.001 J
0.013
0.001
0.010 U

0.039 J

0.269
0.004 J
0.035 U
0.110 J
0.149 B
0.001 U
0.003 U
68.80
0.007 B
100.0
0.236 B
1.680 B
0.005
23.70
0.113
ND
0.015
6.070 U
0.002
0.007 B
45.80
0.002
0.003 U
0.090 U
0.010 U
Allowable
MCLs
(mg/1)


0.005
1.000

0.005


0.006


0.050
0.006

2.000
0.004
0.005

0.100



0.005


0.002

0.050
0.050


0.002


0.200
All concentration in milligrams per liter.
U * the compound was not detected

a'! "V^aYuV^fess than the Contract Required detection limit but; greater-than ^
detection limit.   when  used as   subqualifer. it means  the  valu^ is qualifed  due  to
contamination problems.

-------
Record of  Decision                                           Page 8  of  19
Southside~Sanitary  Landfill

IPL's check dam). The ground water analysis generally showed no discernible
contaminant plume or pattern of contamination that can be attributed directly to the
landfill. The compounds detected were at low levels below Maximum Contaminant
Level (MCL), and occurred primarily in upgradient river side wells.  For on-site wells
there was very little difference in overall ground water quality between upgradient and
downgradient wells leading to the conclusion that the ground water contamination is
intact and contained within the site.   The ground water sampling conducted at this site
can be divided into two major categories for the purpose of ground water quality
analyses: 1. The routine parameter analysis  conducted from 1973-1984.  The analyses
included only a few inorganic and organic parameters: and 2. The routine parameters,
expanded by the State agency monitoring programs to include additional inorganic and
organic parameters. These monitoring programs (with expanded parameters) served as  an
independent check on the landfill's quarterly ground water data.  The State agencies
(IDOH and IDEM) conducted sampling in 1984, 1985, 1989 and 1993 with expanded
parameter analyses.

The metals results from all wells (1984) were below MCLs.  Only the iron and
manganese exceeded  secondary MCLs in both upgradient and downgradient wells. In
1985 sampling chromium exceeded MCLs.  Silver concentrations exceeding MCL levels
were detected in river side wells. All of the detections being on the river side, it was
concluded that the source of silver and chromium contamination was from further east to
northeast off-site.

In 1985, the ISBH conducted the first on-site sampling which included the priority
pollutant compounds  for analytical purposes. Six (6) Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOCs) were detected at levels ranging from 3 to 15 ug/1 (parts per billion) in a
downgradient deep well (MW22).

In 1989, following completion of the hydraulic cut-off barrier, IDEM conducted another
sampling event. The analyses showed an increase in sulphate and chloride concentrations
compared to 1985, while most metallic compounds were lower.  The previously detected
(1985) silver and chromium were not detected in the 1989 sampling event. Five (5)
VOCs were detected including the most prominent compound tetrachlorethene (TCE).
Two detections were in upgradient river side wells and three were in wells which are
considered downgradient of the landfill prior to the construction of the hydraulic cut off
barrier. Tetrahydrofuran (THF) was detected in one downgradient well (MW-27) which
was determined to be  an isolated detection possibly due to well construction.

Based on the analyses of priority pollutants  sampling, no direct impact from the landfill is
evident. The elevated levels of metals and organic compounds were detected in

-------
 Record of Decision                                            Page  9  of  19
 Southside Sanitary Landfill

 upgradient wells for which the source of contamination is not the landfill.  A list of
 contaminants present in groundwater with maximum concentration are presented in Table
 1 of this document.

 Surface Water

 The surface water samples were collected from major water bodies in the vicinity of the
 site. They included Eagle Creek, White River, Strakis Lake and South Pond. The sample
 analyses included priority pollutants, inorganic and organic parameters.  The results from
 Eagle Creek samples indicated a general decrease in concentrations with time for most
 parameters with the exception of chlorides. Chlorides showed significant increase in
 trenches ranging between 40 to 140 milligrams per liter (parts per million). The priority
 pollutant analysis indicated tetrachlorethane concentration at 36 to 38 ug/l (parts per
 billion).
                                                                           *

 The historic sampling from White River and Eagle Creek indicated that there is no impact
 from the landfill. None of the metals tested for were detected at levels which exceeded
 MCLs.  The water quality in Strakis Lake and South Pond was also similar to White
 River quality except that total dissolved solids for the ponds were slightly higher than that
 of White River. Also, dissolved iron in South Pond was lower than Strakis Lake and
 White River by a one-forth to one-tenth. Following the completion of the cut-orTbarrier
 (slurry wall), infiltration from Eagle Creek is divided between a westerly flow north of
 the landfill and a southerly flow along with White River infiltration along the narrow strip
 of aquifer east of the landfill. Also, as a result of the cut-off barrier, Strakis Lake no
 longer flows into, nor receives water from beneath the landfill. South Pond is also
 currently cut-off from the landfill and receives input from  Strakis Lake. A list of
 contaminants with maximum concentrations present in surface water are presented in
 Table 2 of this document.

 Landfill Waste

The wastes accepted at  Southside Sanitary Landfill have been general municipal and solid
waste. There is no evidence of any hazardous waste. The historic information revealed
that a large amount of special wastes consist of industrial sludge and wastes from
manufacturing operations, the most common of which is metal grinding. Overall, the
 inorganic waste streams appear to have been more prevalent than organic waste with the
 exception of mycelia waste. There is no evidence in support of PCBs or dioxin
contaminated waste.

Leaehate

-------
                                     Table  2
             Contaminants  Detected in  Surface Water Samples
             Southside Landfill Site,  Indianaoolis,  IN
Contaminant
VOCs
Acetone
Toluene
SVOCs

Bis (2 -ethyl hexyl)
phthalate
Inoraanics
Aluminum
Arsenic
Ant imony
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Maganese
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide
Maximum
Concentration
mg/1

0.014 J
0.004 J

0.001 J



0.486 B
0.003 B
0.046 U
0.092 B
0.001
0.003 U
539.0
0.003 U
0.007 J
0.009
0.779
0.005
26.10
0.059
7.290
0.002
0.003
54.10
0.002 U
0.014 B
0.022 J
0.010 U
Allowable
MCLs




0.006




0.050
0.006
2.000
0.004
0.004

0.100



0.005


0.050
0.050


0.002


0.200
All concencration in milligrams per liter.
U = che compound was noc detected
J = estimated value
B = The value is less than the Contract Required detection limit but greater than the instrument
detection limit, when used as subqualifer. it means the value is qualifed due to blank contamination
problems.

-------
 Record of  Decision                                          Page  10 of  13
 SouthsideT Sanitary  Landfill

 Four (4) Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) were detected in a full strength leachate
 sample collected from inside of the slurry wall. The leachate collection system monitored
 since the construction of the hydraulic cut-off barrier (slurry wall) indicated one detection
 of benzene.  No acid extractable compounds were detected, but two base/neutral
 extractable compounds - naphthalene and bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate were detected in
 leachate samples. The leachate sampling indicated presence of three pesticide
 compounds - heptachlor, the beta and delta isomers of benzene and hexachloride which
 are attributable to background soils in the area.

 A comparison of the results for leachate samples with the data published by the U.S. EPA
 for municipal landfill leachates indicated that the Southside Sanitary Landfill leachate is a
 relatively weak-strength leachate.  The relative weakness of the Southside Sanitary
 Landfill leachate sample is further highlighted by a comparison with the Maximum
 Contaminant Levels (MCL) established by the U.S. EPA for drinking water.  The
 concentrations of nearly all of the parameters in the leachate sample for which MCLs
 have been set are close to or lower than those MCLs.  A list of contaminants found in
 leachate samples are found in Table 3 of this proposed plan.

 Sediment

 Compounds detected in the sediment samples included metals, polynuclear aromatic and
 pesticides. The metal concentrations found in general showed Jow values with the
 exception of antimony and cadmium.  Neither of these compounds were detected in the
 landfill so their presence in the neighboring environment is concluded to be unrelated to
 the landfill. The polynuclear aromatic (PNA) compounds detected included two
 naphthalene and 2-methylnapthalene from upstream locations of White River and Eagle
 Creek.  The presence of naphthalene and 2-methylnapthalene in the upstream white River
 and Eagle Creek samples is concluded to be not site related. The concentration of total
 PNA detected range from zero to 6.76 parts per million.  The last category of compounds
 detected in sediments are two kinds of pesticide compounds, heptachlor and delta
 benzene hexachloride. The concentrations indicated similar to background concentration
 surrounding the landfill. A list of contaminants with maximum concentrations found in
 sediments are presented hi Table 4 of this proposed plan.
VI. SUMMARY OF STTE RISKS:

As Southside Sanitary Landfill site has a long history of accepting a variety of wastes, an
analysis was conducted to estimate potential health and environmental problems that
could result if appropriate remedial action is not taken. This analysis is referred to as a

-------
                             TABLE 3
                       SOUTH SIDE LANDFILL
               LANDFILL LEACEATE COMPOUNDS DETECTED
GROUNDWATER SURFACE WATER
COMPOUND
ARSENIC
ARSENIC
CHROMIUM
CHROMIUM
COPPER
COPPER
IRON
IRON
LEAD
LEAD
NICKEL
NICKEL
SILVER
SILVER
ZINC
ZINC
BENZENE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
NAPHTHALENE
2 -METHYLNAPHTHALENE
BIS-2 -ETHYLYHEXYL
PHTHALATE
DELTA- BHC
HEPTACHLOR
CONCENTRA
TION
RANGE
ug/1
<3-4.2
<3-3.4
<4-12.3
<3-7.3
<4-23.6
<4-5.6
282-3640
<25-2290
<2-5.3
<2-11.4
<30
<15
<4
<3-7.l
<14. 2-127
<6.8-58.2
2
<10
<10
<10
<10
<0.055
<0.055
ALLOWABLE
MCL

50

100

1300'

3001

15l

100

100'

5000'
5
5
NS
NS
6
0.2
0.4
	 	 ._ _
CONCENTRATION RANG^B
ug/1 ^^
<2-3.6
<2.0
<4.0
<4.0
<9.2
<4.6
<87. 0-779
44.7-47.4
<2.-5.4
<2.0
<6-9.2
<15.0
<3.0 ^P
<4.0
<4.8-21.2
<5.0-6.2
<10
<10
<10
<10
1
<0.054
<0.054
Notes:
NS = No standard available
1  = These are  action  levels for drinking water supplies and are
acceptable if more than 10% of water supply samples during a
monitoring period exceed these values.
2  = Secondary  standards based primarily on aesthetics; not
enforceable under federal statutes.
< = Means this compound may be present but it is below detectior
level.

-------
Record of  Decision                                          Page 11  of  19
Southside~Sanitary  Landfill

Baseline Risk Assessment (RA). The RA has mainly focused on human health and the
environment.

The contaminant database used for risk assessment analysis consists of groundwater,
surface water, soil, surface drainage sediment near the landfill.  The RA study included
identification of exposure pathways and migration of contaminants from the site.
Exposure pathways are assumed to be complete if there is a mechanism by which humans
may come into contact with site-related media.  All of the media at the Southside Sanitary
Landfill (except leachate) may potentially be contacted by humans.  The following
pathways are found to be theoretically complete:

       Residential groundwater use pathways: ingestion, dermal contact and inhalation of
       volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in indoor air (the nearest residential well is
       approximately 1/2 mile from the site).
                                                                            t

       Surface water use pathways (primarily Strakis Lake and South Pond, but possibly
       also the White River): dermal contact, incidental ingestion and ingestion offish
       which have bioaccumulated contaminants from water.

       Surface soil/sediment pathways: dermal contact and incidental ingestion on-site
       drainage  ditches.

       Air pathways: inhalation of VOCs or dust particles in areas downwind of the
       landfill.

There is, in general, no basis for assuming that on-site areas may become residential or
publicly accessible in the future as long as the site is regulated under a State issued permit
and through the  post-closure period (at least 30 years after the closure of the site).
However, when leachate from the landfill is pumped directly to the City of Indianapolis
sewer system the sewer maintenance crew might come in contact with leachate.

In order to assess the groundwater pathway, analytical data from potential receptor well
locations was used. Monitoring wells MW-1B,  R-l  and WP-19 are lower aquifer
downgradient wells which are identified as potential receptors for any contamination
release from the landfill. The constituents identified in these wells are mostly laboratory
contaminants. There was  only one exceedence of MCLs reported for Bis-(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate at concentrations 360 ug/1 from Monitoring Well-1 (MW-1). But the duplicate
sample from the same well had no detection of Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate. The
analytical data suggested that the compound was introduced either during sampling event
or during ethylhexyl) phthalate is a known lab artifact. The concentrations of the

-------
                                   Table 4
               Concaminancs  Detected  in  Sedimencs  Samples
                 Southside  Landfill Site,  Indianapolis,  IN
Contaminants
VOCs
Acetone
2-Butone
Methylene Chloride
Toluene
SVOCs
Anthracene
Acenaphthylene
Acephthene
Benzo (b) Fluoranthene
Benzo (k) Fluoranthene
Benzo (a) Pyrene
Benzo (g,h, i) Perylene
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Bis (2-ethyl-Hexyl) Phthalate
Chrysene
4 Chloro-Aniline
Carbozole
Dibenz ( a, h) Anthracene
Dibenzo furan
Di-n-octyl Phthalate
Fluor Anthrene
Indeno (l,2,3-(d) Pyrene
Naphthalene
Pyrene
Inoraanics
Aluminum
Ant imony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Pot'asium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide
Maximum

0.016
0.013
0.012
0.013

0.470
0.250
0.140
1.500
0.900
1.500
0.800
0.069
1.100
1.800
0.100
0.320
0.310
0.071
0.053
2.700
0.910
0.055
2.500

5680
9.10
5.400
39.30
0.290
0.780
110,000
10.10
4.00
11.90
11,700
13.50
33,900
313.0
0.140
6.500
870.0
0.520
1.000
189.0
0.052
11.800
28.00
0.570
Concentration mg/k^|
^1

U
U
U

J
J
J
U
J
J
J
J
J

J •
J
J
J
J


J



UJ
J
UJ
U
U

J

J
J
J
J
J
U
B
B
U
UJ
UJ
U
B

UJ
U • mmm* not d>t*ctM. v«iu»  (noun i« mm d«c*ct liatt.
NO » NMIW CM Mt*ri*i vu •ntlyiM tor. Due v*» net o*t*ct«d.
J • M*n* «n ••tiB4tM ««IIM
B . ••«•«  el<» Mlu* i« !••• th«B ck» concr*et **quind detection lisit but gr>at*r th«n th« »"»•«—--- -  „„,_.-......	.	
    «r than th. trutnMt d.t«ction liait.  *»• uMrt u •uMMtiUr. th» ««!IM i« qu*iif*d du« to t>l«n« cont«.»o*t»on pnel«M.
o)*t*ecion limit ictBbl buc

-------
 Record of  Decision                                          Page 12  of  19
 Southside  Sanitary  Landfill

 compounds present did not exceed the Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) which are
 promulgated based on protection of human health.  For Inorganics, the only
 contraventions noted are for manganese and iron. A relative comparison of analytical
 data was performed using sampling results prior to cut-off wall construction and
 following the completion of cut-off wall construction. The purpose of this study was to
 analyze the chemical pattern of compounds.

 The patterns of concentrations in the sampling events do not show significant differences
 between upgradient wells along Eagle Creek and downgradient wells on the west side of
 the landfill. From the analysis no impact from the landfill was discernable. No plume or
 pattern of contamination was evident.  In addition, the elevated levels for metals and
 organic compounds were detected in upgradient wells only.  This led to the conclusion
 that the source of contamination identified is either from the river or industries lying to
 the north or east of the site.  The detailed analysis of the pattern of these compounds did
 not indicate the site as a source. Manganese showed highest concentration in upgradient
 well (MW-2).  Antimony was identified in several groundwater samples from the Phase II
 investigation. For confirmation of results, the groundwater and surface water locations
 were resampled for antimony in the Supplemental Investigations. No antimony was
 detected in this second sampling.  This contaminant has therefore, been confirmed to be
 absent down to the instrument detection levels used in this investigation (35-40 ug/1).
 Despite its common presence as a laboratory contaminant, the possibility existed that
 bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate is a site-related constituent. It was not found in any of the
 associated blanks, nor in upgradient wells but has been reported in landfill leachate.
 However, the concentrations are extremely low. It was not detected above the method
 quantitation limits, with the maximum reported value being an estimated 9 ug/1 (parts per
 billion). These results indicate the absence of groundwater contamination that would
present a risk to human health at the site,  and no impact on human health through the use
 of groundwater is anticipated.

 Surface water locations which potentially receive drainage from the site are, Strakis Lake
(samples SW13, SW14 and SW16), South Pond (samples SW10 through SW12) and the
 White River downstream of the check dam (sample SW6). No site-related contamination
was observed in the downstream surface water locations.  Traces of organic constituents
are  typical laboratory contaminants, with the possible exception of toluene. Toluene,
however, has not been found in landfill leachate and demonstrated no concentration
 gradient relative to the site. Furthermore,  detected concentrations are below Indiana
Surface Water Quality Standards.  The only inorganics found in surface water that have
also been detected in leachate were lead and zinc. These metals were also found in the
upstream White River sample (SW13) at similar concentrations. In general,
contamination of surface water with landfill  derived constituents was not found.

-------
Record  of_Decision                                         Page 13  of  19
Southside  Sanitary  Landfill

Sediments in surface water locations which potentially receive run-off from the site are
Strakis Lake (samples SD13, SDH and SD16), South Pond (samples SD10 through
SD12) and the White River downstream of the check dam (samples SD5 and SD7). A
variety of pesticides were found at estimated concentrations in these locations.  However,
when compared with upstream locations in the White River and Eagle Creek (SD1
through SD4), no pattern of pesticide loading emerges. PCBs were almost entirely
confined to these upstream locations. VOCs in downstream locations were limited to
laboratory contaminants and are, therefore, considered to be artifacts.  Inorganics
concentrations were consistent with normal ranges and did not show elevations in
downstream locations when compared with upstream. In fact, the maximum
concentrations of several metals, including iron, manganese, lead and zinc, were found
only in upstream samples.

A variety of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PNAs) were detected in surface
sediments in the study area.  PNAs bind to organic carbon in sediments, and are therefore,
frequently normalized for organic carbon and expressed as ug PNAs/gOC (or parts per
million).

The data analyzed  confirmed that PNA results for sediment sample SD6 (180 ug/gOC)
were within the range of results for other downstream samples (which ranged from 107 to
320 ug/gOC). The results also confirm that the high concentrations of PNAs (880 to 1100
ug/gOC) are found at the location most upstream of the site. The other PNA locations
SD2 and SD3 (at concentrations 330 and 700 ug/gOC) reported are also upstream of the
site.  In addition, the PNA concentrations are within the range of both typical urban and
local sediment PNA background concentrations. These findings indicate that the site is
not contributing to PNA loading to downstream sediments. As PNAs were found on-site
in the two surface drainage ditches, a theoretically complete exposure pathway exists for
on-site workers through dermal contact. The location with maximum PNAs (6.7 ppm in
SD9) was used as the most conservative value for risk assessment purposes.  Since the
area in which the on-site  surface sediment samples were collected is not part of the active
landfilling operations, worker exposure is limited to frequency and type of activities
performed in this area.  The major activity involves mowing vegetation. Worker exposure
was therefore assumed to occur on average of twice a month for 25 years. Half daily
incidental ingestion was assumed to occur in this area.  Dermal contact was assumed to
occur with upper extremities.

Inhalation of VOCs was identified as a potentially complete exposure pathway.
However, there is no conclusive data to confirm the presence of this pathway. Landfill
gas sampling was conducted to evaluate the potential for landfill gas utilization.  A
variety of halogenated hydrocarbons typically associated with landfill gas were identified,

-------
Record of_ Decision                                          Page 14  of 19
Southside  Sanitary Landfill

at below 10 parts per million.  Because of low concentrations, even if gas is released to
the atmosphere, the constituents dissipate so rapidly that ambient air concentrations are
not detectable. For this reason, risks associated with ambient air contamination at
landfills are generally very low and are not subject to critical evaluation. At the
Southside Landfill contamination is limited to the subsurface and the exposed waste is
capped. This eliminates the potential for dust particles from the landfill, and makes VOC
emissions very unlikely. In addition, there is a landfill gas collection system. Ambient
air contamination is therefore highly improbable.

Risks at Superfund sites are typically assessed hi relation to both carcinogenic and non-
carcinogenic effects, taking into consideration the maximum contaminant level of
chemical identified. For groundwater risk evaluation the maximum concentration level of
9 ug/1 (for Bis-2-ethyl hexyl) reported in well WP-20 was used. The carcinogenic risk
was estimated at 1  X 10 •*, and the hazard quotient at 0.01. For on-site workers exposed to
PNAs in surface sediments, the carcinogenic risk for incidental ingestion and dermal
contact were estimated at 9 X 10 * and 8 X 10-* and hazard quotient were calculated to 2 X
10-' through each pathway. Risk assessment methodology requires that risks through
pathways likely to be experienced by the same individual should be summed to produce
multi pathway risk and hazard estimates.  Summing the risk for the worker exposure
pathways results in a total carcinogenic risk of 2X10* and a hazard index of 4 X 10-*.
As the groundwater consumption scenario is based on a future theoretical residential
population, it would be  inappropriate to add these to the worker exposure pathways. The
first scenario (worker contact with surface sediments) is theoretically complete at present,
and involves a limited occupational target population. The latter scenario (consumption
of site groundwater) is strictly hypothetical, as it assumes that homeowners are using on-
site groundwater as a potable supply. EPA guidelines specify that risk through different
pathways be added where there is a possibility that the same receptors may be exposed
through multiple pathways.  In this case, the pathways were not added because 1) they
involve unrelated populations, and 2) one of the pathways is potentially complete at
present, and the other is a future hypothetical one.

Following human health risk evaluation an environmental assessment was also performed
to study the impact of site contamination on the quality of environment. The environment
assessment included an  ecological and contaminant assessment.
The Ecological Assessment, consisting of vegetation/habitat mapping and a wildlife
survey, was performed to evaluate terrestrial and aquatic resources in the area. The
assessment concluded that the presence of the landfill is not associated with general
habitat impairment. Possible mechanisms by which wildlife could be exposed to landfill-
related materials are as follows:

-------
Record of  Decision                                         Page  15 of 19
Southside- Sanitary Landfill

•      Ingestion of small mammals
•      Direct contact with surface water by aquatic species
•      Direct contact with sediment by aquatic species
•      Ingestion of grit, seed or ground insects while feeding or burrowing.

Since there is no mechanism by which wildlife can contact groundwater, groundwater is
not a medium of concern from an environmental risk perspective. The contaminant
assessment indicated that down stream water and sediment samples in surface water
bodies are not associated with landfill contamination.  No seeps or other surficial
contamination sources were observed at the landfill.  Previous investigations (during
Phase I) have shown cadmium to be nondetect in landfill leachate liquid and groundwater
inside the containment system.  Cadmium has also found to be nondetect in the vast
majority of groundwater samples taken at the site. There is a substantial historical
database demonstrating that Cadmium is not a contaminant of concern at the landfill.  A
variety of PNAs were detected in the ditches (SD8 and SD9). No specific landfill waste
sampling was done in order to avoid the inherent risks such as exposure and dermal
contact involved in the process. For this reason surfacial sediment sampling was
conducted in adjacent ditches near the landfill. The upstream White River and Eagle
Creek PNA concentrations were generally higher, ranging up to 1100 ug/kg. The PNA
concentrations are below the range of typical urban background soils.  The slight
elevations of inorganics and PNAs  in the ditches compared to background surface
sediments indicates these are unrelated to the landfill.  Drainage swales tend to
accumulate fine-grained material, which encourages adherence of chemicals. Overall,
there is no evidence of landfill related contamination in surface materials.

An evaluation of the chemical database for the Southside Sanitary Landfill site indicated
that there is no detectable site-related contamination in areas which present an
opportunity for human or wildlife contact. Based on this, it is concluded that there are no
human health or environmental risks associated with groundwater and surface
water/sediment quality at the site. The site is not releasing significant levels of
contaminants to the surrounding environment. To be conservative, risks to future
residential population consuming on-site groundwater containing Bis(2-ethyl hexyl)
phthalate were assessed. Risks associated with direct contact with surface sediments
containing PNAs were also assessed for on-site workers and ecological receptors.
Overall, no unacceptable risks or hazards were identified.

SUMMARY OR ALTERNATIVES

Based on the results of RI only two (2) alternatives were considered to address the site
remedial objectives and ensure compliance with  requirements of National Contingency

-------
 Record of  Decision                                          Page  16 of  19
 Southside  Sanitary  Landfill

 Plan (NCP).
Alternative: NO ACTION

Alternative 1 is the 'No Action' alternative and serves as basis against the preferred
alternative for comparison purposes.  Under this alternative, no remedial action or
institutional controls would be taken at the site.  According to the National Contingency
Plan (NCP) the "No Action1 alternative must be carried through to the detailed analysis
over the preferred alternative.

Estimated Capitol Cost                $ -0-
Estimated Annual O&M Cost           $ -0-
Estimated Present Worth               $ -0-
Estimated time to implement           None

Alternative 2: No Further Action

This alternative is considered because a specific response action has been implemented at
the site under an Agreed Order signed between the State and the owners of the landfill in
1986. The Agreed Order also set up long term monitoring schedules for a minimum
period of 30 years from the date of official closure of the landfill as required under State
solid waste regulations. The Agreed Order also includes landfill inspection schedules and
corrective action implementation in the event of exceedence of MCLs for chemicals
specified under the monitoring program. Because of the implementation of the above
stated response measures no further action is justified at this site.

As this alternative appears to be more appropriate for the site conditions it is described in
detail as the preferred remedy.

Evaluation of Alternatives

The NCP requires that the alternatives selected be evaluated against nine evaluation
criteria. This section summarizes the relative performance of the alternatives by
discussing the key differences among the alternatives in relation to these criteria.  The
nine evaluation criteria are grouped into three categories as:  (1) Threshold Criteria; (2)
Primary Balancing Criteria; and  (3) Modifying Criteria. Each of these terms is described
as follows:

Threshold Criteria

-------
Record of Decision                       '                  Page 17  of  19
Southside" Sanitary Landfill

1) Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment addresses whether a
remedy provides adequate protection of human health and the environment and describes
how risks posed through each exposure pathway are eliminated, reduced or controlled
through treatment, engineering, or institutional controls. The selected remedy must meet
this criteria.

2) Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
(ARARS) addresses whether a remedy will meet applicable or revelant and appropriate
federal and state environmental laws and/or justifies a waiver from such requirements.
The selected remedy must meet this criteria or waiver of the AFAR must be obtained.

Primary Balancing Criteria

3) Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence refers to expected residual risk and the
ability of a remedy to maintain reliable protection of human health and the environment
over time, once cleanup goals have been met.

4) Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume through Treatment addresses the
statutory preference for selecting remedial actions that employ treatment technologies that
permanently and significantly reduce toxicity, mobility, or volume of the hazardous
substances as their principal element. This preference is satisfied when treatment is used
to reduce the principal threats at the site through destruction of toxic contaminants,
reduction of the total mass of toxic contaminants, irreversible reduction in contaminant
mobility, or reduction of total volume of contaminated media.

5) Short-term effectiveness addresses the period of time needed to achieve protection
and any adverse impacts on human health and the environment that may be posed, until
remedial action goals.

6) Implementability is the technical and administrative feasibility of a remedy,
including the availability of materials and services needed to implement a particular
option.

7) Cost includes estimated dollar amount associated with selected remedial alternative.

Modifying Criteria

8) Support Agency (USEPA) acceptance reflects aspects of the preferred alternative and
other alternatives the EPA favor or object to, and any specific comments regarding
federal and state ARARS or the use of waivers.

-------
Record of  Decision                                          Page  18  of 19
SouthsideT Sanitary Landfill

9) Community acceptance summarizes the public's general response to the alternatives
described in the proposed plan and the RI report based on public comments received.

The assessment of support agency and community acceptance were completed after the
public comment period was completed. The Record of Decision (ROD) documents
support agency acceptance and the Responsiveness Summary attached to the ROD
documents the community's reaction to the proposed remedy and the Agency's response
to the community's comments.

A summary of the evaluation of the preferred remedy against the applicable nine point
criteria is provided below.

Threshold Criteria

1) Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment

Alternative 1 (No Action^:  Based upon the detailed analysis* it was concluded that
Alternative 1 - No Action, would not satisfy the criterion of ensuring the overall
protection of human health and the environment. The RI has documented remedial
measures implemented at the site which had impact on overall protection of human health
and the environment and Alternative 1 does not meet this criterion because no remedial
measures would be taken to address the present and future conditions of the site and
contaminant migration from the site. Further, 'No Action1 alternative does not recognize
the remedial activities implemented at the site pursuant to the Agreed Order.  Therefore,
this alternative is not appropriate for this site.

Alternative 2 (No further Action*: The hydraulic cut-ofFbarrier (slurry wall)
constructed around the site and the installation of a leachate collection system at the site
would effectively minimize the potential for accidental human exposure to the
contaminated on-site groundwater and the leachate generated which are contained within
the site boundaries. Groundwater monitoring being conducted at the site under a state
issued operating permit would detect any trends in the quality of on-site groundwater and
would be effective in establishing whether off-site releases of contaminants via
groundwater migration, are occurring.  The ground water monitoring is required to
continue for 30 years after closure of the landfill.  There are specific daily cover, grading
and operating procedures stated in the Agreed Order. These measures prevent any direct
contact with landfill waste or surficial sods, the type of landfill cover material is
restricted to clay type soil specification which eliminates potential for dermal contact with
landfill waste or soil. Therefore, this alternative would provide the required degree of
over all protection of human health and the environment.

-------
Record  of  Decision                                          Page 19 of  19
Southside-  Sanitary  Landfill
2) Compliance with ARARS

Alternative 1: No Action:  Alternative 1 would not meet this criteria because it would
allow contaminated groundwater on-site to remain untreated and uncontrolled.

Since Alternative 1 does not satisfy a Threshold Criterion, no further evaluation against
the Primary Balancing or Modifying criteria is needed. Alternative 1 will not be chosen
for the site.

Alternative 2: fNo further Action):

The remedial measures, the hydraulic cut-off barrier wall (slurry wall) around the site and
the leachate control system established isolation of groundwater beneath the site and
ensured that chemical specific ARARS are not exceeded out-side the boundaries of the
landfill. Further the landfill current operating permit requires the landfill compliance
with the groundwater monitoring requirement under 329 IAC 2-16.

The State issued permit (opp.49-1) under 1C 13-7 also requires the landfill to comply with
provision of 330 IAC 4-5-13(C) and 330 IAC 4-9-5 concerning landfill closure
requirements. The remedial measures ensured compliance with state ARARS, as a result
no additional response or remedial measures are required at the site.

The preferred remedy is protective of human health and the environment and attains the
Federal and State requirements that are applicable to this site. The statutory preferences
for cost effectiveness, permanent solutions and alternate treatment technologies are not
applicable to a 'No Further Action' alternative.
G.    STATUTORY DETERMINATION

Protection of Human Health and the Environment:

The cut-off barrier (slurry wall) constructed around the site and the leachate collection
system at the site would effectively minimize potential for human exposure to
contaminated on-site ground water and the leachate generated, as both are contained
within the site. The ground water monitoring being conducted at the site under a State
issued operating permit would detect any trends in the ground water quality of on-site
ground water and would be effective in detecting off-site migration. The current
operating permit requires the operator to meet specific daily cover, grading, and operating

-------
 Record of Decision
 Souchside Sanitary  Landfill

 procedures. These measures eliminate direct exposure or contact threat with landfill
 waste. These remedial measures ensures the required degree of overall protection of
 human health and the environment.
COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE, RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE
REGULATIONS (ARARS)

The remedial measures, the hydraulic cut-off barrier wall (slurry wall) around the site and
the leachate control system established isolation of ground water beneath the site and
ensured that chemical specific ARARs are not exceeded outside the boundaries of the
landfill. Further the landfill current operating permit requires the landfill compliance
with the ground water monitoring requirement under 329 IAC 2-16.

The State issued permit (opp. 49-1) under 1C 13-7 also requires the landfill to comply
with provisions of 330 IAC 4-5-13 (C) and 330 IAC 4-9-5 concerning landfill closure
requirements.  The remedial measures ensured compliance with State ARARs, as a result
no additional response or remedial measures are required at the site.

The preferred remedy is protective of human health and the environment and attains the
Federal and State requirements that are applicable to this site. The statutory preferences
for cost effectiveness, permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies are not
applicable to a *No Further Action1 alternative.

Cost effectiveness and utilization of permanent solution and alternative treatment
technologies are not applicable to the T^o Further Action1 alternative.
H.    EXPLANTION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES

The selected remedy i.e., a no further action is the same as the preferred remedy identified
in the Proposed Plan that was released for public review and comment period June 19,
1995, through July 19,1995. No changes were made to the preferred remedy after the
comment period, as no signifiant comments were received that required any changes to
the Proposed Plan.
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY FOR SOI JTHSTDE SANITARY LANDFILL
SUPERFIJND SITE. INDIANAPOLIS. INDIANA JUNE 1995

-------
Record qj:  Decision
Souchside  Sanitary Landfill

The purpose of this response summary is to document milestone community relations
activities along with citizen comments and questions and agency responses.  The Indiana
Department of Environmental Management has been responsible for conducting a
coordinated community relations program for this site. Community relations activities
have been administered throughout the remedial investigation and the presentation of
selected alternatives. In accordance with CERCLA Section 117 (a) a 30-day public
comment period, and a public meeting were held to acquire public comment on the
proposed plan.

The selected remedy of no further action was presented in the June 1995 proposed Plan
and at the public meeting.  There has been no negative public reaction to the selected
remedy before or during the comment periods, except for one comment letter by a
concerned citizen to IDEM. The IDEM reviewed the comment and determined that the
comment did not warrant any specific  changes to the proposed plan. The citizens letter
and the agency's (IDEM) response are attached to this summary. The proceedings of the
public meeting conducted on June 29,  1995, is also attached to this summary.

-------
 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23
         BEFORE THE STATE OF INDIANA
   DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
        SOUTHSIDE SANITARY LANDFILL
               SUPERFUND SITE
               PUBLIC MEETING
                               ORIGINAL
                 PROCEEDINGS
in the above-captioned matter,  before

Moderator Susan Gross, under the  applicable

rules of Civil Procedure,  taken before me,

Llndy L. Meyer, Jr.,  a Notary Public in and

for the State of Indiana,  County  of Shelby, at

the Indiana Government Center South,

Conference Room C,  402 West  Washington Street,

Indianapolis, Indiana, on  Thursday, June 29,

1995  at 3:38 o'clock  p.m.
     William F.  Daniels,  RPR/CP CM d/b/a
        ACCURATE REPORTING  OF  INDIANA
            12922 Brighton  Avenue
           Carmel,  Indiana   46032
               (317)  848-0088

-------
 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23
APPEARANCES:

IDEM Staff:
      Susan Gross, Moderator
      Prabhakar Kasarabada
      Steve Poe
      Bill Crawford

-------
  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  6

  7

  8

  9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23
                            8:38 o'clock p.m.
                            June 29,  1995
              MS. GROSS:   Good  evening,  ladies

and gentlemen, and we'd  like  to welcome  you to

the Indiana Department of  Environmental

Management's public meeting concerning the

Southside Sanitary Landfill Superfund Site.

In this evening's meeting, the  purpose will  b-e

to inform you, the area  residents,  about  the

proposed plan and invite public comments  on

the proposed plan for the  Southside Sanitary

Landfill Superfund Site.

               As a part of the Superfund  Site

and community relations  aspect,  we  do have a

court reporter here tonight at  the  meeting.

This evening's meeting will become  part of the

public document and will be available for

public review.

               The agenda  for this  evening's

meeting -- I'm Susan Gross of IDEM,  serving  as

the moderator — will be to have  Prabhakar

Kasarabada — that's Prabhakar,

Kasarabada — IDEM project  manager,

-------
  1


  2


  3


  4


  5


  6


  7


  8


  9


10


11


12


13


14


IS


16


17


18


19


20


21


22


23
 Prabhaicar  will  give a presentation on the s


 background,  remedial investigations,  and


 preferred  remedial  alternatives.   Also


 assisting  us  tonight will  be  technical


 assistance  from Steve Foe,  IDEM  geologist,  and


 Bill Crawford,  IDEM chemist.   Bill will  be


 available  for any  type of  technical  comments.


                Following this  evening's


 presentation  by Prabhakar,  we  will open  the
                                        *

 program for a public comment period.   As  part


 of the Superfund Site,  we  invite  the  public to


 comment on  the  remedial work that  is  being


 undertaken, and that's  also part  of  tonight's


 program as having a  public  record.


                Public  input in the Superfund


 program is important,  and documents pertaining


 to the Southside Sanitary Landfill Superfund


 Site, Including the  proposed plan  and  fact


 sheets, which were  mailed to area  residents  --


and we also have fact  sheets available here


 this evening -- are  available to you  for


review at the public  information repository


 located at the  Indianapolis-Marion County

-------
  1


  2


  3


  4


  5


  6


  7


  8


  9


10


11


12


13


14


15


16


17


18


19


20


21


22


23
Public  Library,  the  Telephone  Room,  at  40  East


St.  Glair  Street  in  Indianapolis.


               The public  comment  period  for


the  Southside Landfill  Superfund Site is a


30-day  period running  from  June  19th through


July  19th,  1995.  During this  time,  the public


is invited  to offer  comments about the


proposed plan.  Following Prabhakar's


presentation, we  will open  this meeting for
                                        »

public  comment.


               At this  time, I'd like to


present Mr. Kasarabada.


              MR. KASARABADA:  Thank you,


Susan.


               As you all know, I'm Prabhakar


Kasarabada, and I'm here to present  to you or


explain to you the agency's recommendation for


remedial action at this site.


               To begin with, I would like to


give you some site background or history.  The


landfill operations began in 1971 under a


state-issued permit.   At that time,  it was the


Department of Natural Resources.   And after

-------
  1




  2




  3




  4




  5




  6




  7




  8




  9




10




11




12




13




14




15




16




17




18




19




20




21




22




23
 that,  in about  1980,  the Superfund law cane



 Into existence, effect.   I  Just wanted to




 explain to you  how  this  evolved.




                Because of  the growing  concerns



 to  the human health and  the environmental




 risk. Congress  came up with a trust  fund




 basically created from the  taxes  paid  by  the




 industries, especially petroleum  and the



 chemical industry.  This money was used,to




 clean up the sites, wherever  it is possible.



 In  some places, wherever they were done,  the



 cleanup actions were done through consent



 agreement and enforcement orders.



               At this site,  we have an agreed



 order.   That means we have  cooperation, that




 the respondent parties will cooperate  with  us



 and sign an agreed order.   During 1980's,




 Congress authorized the  U.S.  EPA  to administer



 the Superfund,  so the EPA was  looking  for



sites to create a National  Priorities  List.



               In 1981,  I think,  as part  of  a




national survey of industrial  waste disposal




practices,  four industries  indicated

-------
  1




  2




  3




  4




  5




  6




  7




  8




  9




10




11




12




13




14




15




16




17




18




19




20




21




22




23
Landfill  as  their  disposal  site  for their



waste.




                After  that,  in  1986,  the



Indiana State  Board of  Health  issued some



notices of violation  concerning  grading  and




drainage  requirements under  the  state-issued




permit.   To  correct these actions,  landfill




operators signed an agreed order  to  construct




a barrier wall  around the site,  and  also



installed a  leachate  collection  system and



continued ground water  monitoring.



                Then U.S. EPA also conducted



site Inspections,  sampled on-site wells, and



evaluated the  site or scored the  site, and



placed it into  the National Priorities List.



Because the  site is on  the National  Priorities



List, we have  to meet the requirements of



the — of the  Superfund law.  To do  so, IDEM



and the landfill owners have signed  another



agreed order in February 1990 to conduct the




remedial investigation.



               The purpose of the remedial



investigation was to meet the Superfund law

-------
  1




  2




  3




  4




  5




  6




  7




  8




  9




10




11




12




13




14




15




16




17




18




19




20




21'




22




23
 requirements and also  to evaluate the site




 determine the nature and extent of the



 contamination at the site.




               Now  let  me talk about  briefly



 the  remedial Investigations.   The remedial




 investigations were conducted in two  different




 phases.  The Phase  I activity was conducted




 within January of 1992  through November  of




 1994.  The Phase I was  focused mainly on




 collection and analysis  of  existing data,  and



 the Phase II was focused on the nature and



 extent of the -- the nature and extent of




 possible contaminants reaching the ground



water, surface water or  sediments  in  the



area.  The emphasis was  mostly on  the  ground



water, because that's being used  by the  -- by




 the public as a ground water  resource.



               This study concluded that the



ground water analysis really  did  not  show  any



kind of plume or pattern of contamination  that



can be attributed to the landfill that



consisted of the landfill waste.  Also,  the



compounds detected  were at  a  very -- at  low

-------
  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  6

  7

  8

  9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21 '

22

23
levels,  and  particularly they are less  than

the maximum  contaminant levels.

                At  this time,  I would  like  to

show you  the  contaminants we  have found  at the

site.  These  are  the  chemicals we found, and  I

will try  to  refer  to  the maximum contaminant

levels we observed during the order in  the

remedial  investigation phase.   As you can see,

I have shown  the  last  column,  the allowable
                                        t
MCL's, and you  can see those  --  when you

compare  these numbers  with these,  all of the

maximum  contaminant levels -- or the compounds

detected are  less  than the MCL's.  That means

that the contaminants  we found at the site

were within  the allowable MCL's.

                Also, the waste analysis

conducted at  the site  showed  no  evidence of

any hazardous waste, and the  only waste that

we found that was  prevalent at the site was

the inorganic waste, and there was really no

organic waste at the site.

                Basing  on these contamination

levels, a base  line risic assessment study was

-------
  1



  2



  3



  4



  5



  6



  7



  8



  9



10



11



12



13



14



15



16



17



18



19



20



21



22



23
conducted to evaluate any  risk to  human


or  the environment.  The evaluation  of


chemical database for this  site  indicated  that


there is no detectable site-related


contamination in the areas  which present an


opportunity for human contact.


               The risk calculations  have  been


made for compounds detected  in ground water, •


surface water and sediments.   All  these risk
                                        t

calculations showed that the maximum  risk


range is below the acceptable  range,  which is


ten to the minus four to ten to  the minus


So, the RI Study showed that the barrier wall


constructed is containing the  contaminants


within the site.


               I just would like to show you


the wall.   The dark,  thick line  is the barrier


wall constructed around the site.  I believe


it's about 17,000 feet in linear length, and


the depth  range varies from some 43 to 105


feet,  and  briefly I can turn to  this.


               Basing on the RI Study


conclusions,  we have  selected the two

-------
                                                        11
  1


  2


  3


  4


  5


  6


  7


  8


  9


10


11


12


13


14


15


16


17


18


19


20


21


22


23
 alternatives  for  consideration for our

 recommendation  for  remedial  action.   One is

 that  no  action  ought  to  be  made.   This is --

 by  Super fund  law, we  are  required,  we must

 consider  this as  one  of  the  alternatives, to

 get a  comparative study  of  the CERCLA

 alternatives.

                No action  means this

 alternative was made  for  the  scenario in which
                                        t
 you don't make  a — conduct  any actions  on

 site,  which is  not the case  at this  site.

 There  are some  actions conducted  at  the  site,

 so no  action is not appropriate for  this  site.

                So, the next  one we considered

 was no further  action.  We say no  further

action because  there are  some  actions

 conducted at the site.  The  actions  are

barrier wall on the site, leachate collection

system, and the ground water monitoring.   And

I would like to make a point at this  time,

because when we say no further  action, the no

further action is stated under  the Superfund

law.

-------
 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

IS

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23
                There  are  some  other  actions

going on under  site under  the  state-issued

permit.  So, no  further action is  really  in

relation to the  CERCLA action  at  this  site.

this doesn't --  no further  action  doesn't  mean

that we are walking away  from  the  site.   There

is going to be  a five-year  review  for  the  site

once the final  proposed plan is done.  At  that

time, we'll review all the  analytical  data and
                                        t
make a determination  about  the  final shape of

the site.

               And along with  this,  there

a -- there is a state-issued permit, which

serves as as tool to  monitor the site

conditions for at least 30  years after the

official closure of the landfill site.  So, we

are pretty confident,  even  though we conclude

this as no action,  we have  enough mechanism to

monitor the site and  take any  corrective

action if something down the road happens.

               So that's all about the site

Are there any questions?

                (No response.)

-------
  1


  2


  3


  4


  5


  6


  7


  8


  9


10


11


12


13


14


15


16


17


18


19


20


21


22


23
              MR.  KASARABADA:   Then I turn it

over to Susan.

              MS.  GROSS:   As I mentioned

earlier, we are  in the midst of the public

comment period for this Superfund  Site,  and we

have two ways that we  will be  taking comments

from the public.   The  first is from the  fact

sheet that was either  mailed to you or  that's

available here at  the  meeting.
                                        *
               There's a  tear-out  section in

the fact sheet for written comments.  These

can be mailed to Prabhakar Kasarabada at the

Indiana Department of  Environmental

Management.  It must be postmarked  by

July 19th. 1995.   If you  need  a fact  sheet,

they are available  where  you signed  in this

evening, and if you have  not signed  in at this

meeting on the sign-up sheet,  we please  ask

you to do so before you leave  this  meeting.

               The  second way  that  IDEM  will

receive comments will  be  through oral comment'

that will be taken  at  tonight's meeting.   In

order to include the oral comments  in the

-------
  1




  2




  3




  4




  5




  6




  7




  8




  9




10




11




12




13




14




15




16




17




18




19




20




21




22




23
official record, we  ask  that  you  come  to  one




of the two floor microphones,  state  your  name




address, and affiliation,  if  any,  and  then



spell your first and last  names.   Then  please




state your comment slowly  and  clearly.  I hope




that you'll understand that for the  benefit  of




the court reporter, we may ask you to repeat
your comment.
               All comments will be considered
and incorporated into the responsiveness



summary of the record of decision, which  is



the final position of the agency regarding t



cleanup action at this site.  He would



appreciate you limiting your comment to three



minutes.
audience?
               Are there any comments from  the








               (No response.)



              MS. GROSS:  If there are no




comments -- this would serve as your



opportunity to make oral comments here at the



meeting.  Since there are no comments from  the



audience,  we ask that any further comments  be

-------
                                                        11
 1


 2

 3

 4

 5

 6


 7


 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23
in a written form and sent to the  Indiana

Department of Environmental Management.

               I'm going to ask Prabhakar  if

there's anything in addition that  you would

want to present at this meeting.

              MR. KASARABADA:  No.

              MS. GROSS:  Okay.  On behalf of

the Indiana Department of Environmental

management, those of us involved in the
                                        t
Southside Sanitary Landfill Superfund Site, we

thank you for coming to the meeting, and this

concludes the meeting on Thursday, June the

22nd — June the 29th, excuse me -- 1995.

                (Applause.)
      Thereupon,  the proceedings of June 29
1995 were concluded at 8:56 o'clock p.m.

-------
 i
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
                  CERTIFICATE
                I,  Lindy L.  Meyer,  Jr.,  the
undersigned Court  Reporter  and  Notary  Public
residing in the  City  of Shelbyville, Shelby
County, Indiana,  do hereby  certify that  the
foregoing is a  true and correct  transcript of
the proceedings  taken by me on  Thursday,
June 29, 1995 in  this matter and  transcribed
by me.
                                    a
                     Lindy LV Meyer, Jr.,
                     Notary Public  in and
                     for  the  State  of Indiana.

My Commission expires October 19,  1996.

-------
June 15, 1995

Mr. Prabhakar Kasarabada
Project Manager                                       ^ "(
Superfund Section                                   £  <%,
Office of Environmental Response                    ^  x
IDEM Room N-1255                                    \A -0
P.O. Box 6015                                         ^ ^
Indianapolis, In 46206-6015                             ^ **

Dear Mr. Kasarabada:

I'm writing in regards to the remedial  action  for the
Southside Sanitary Landfill under the CERCLA Act.

I have followed this process for some time and have been in
contact with some of your predecessors  during  this time
period of remedial investigation.

I have asked for them to look at the potential hazards  to
the residents of the Mars Hill Sub-Division  located west of
the site. The area in question is almost exclusively served
by well water which I believe is pulled from the identified ,
aquifers associated with this Superfund Site.  I  understand
the work that has been done at the  site in regards to the
slurry wall of bentonite clay to bedrock and the associated
leachate collection system. The problem with this sole
approach to prevent future hazards  to the residents that
rely on well water is that it has never been done on this
scale anywhere in the world to my knowledge. I have yet to
find anyone with your agency that will  guarantee this will
prevent future contamination of the aquifer  in question.

This is are sole opportunity to address future problems
associated with the Southside Sanitary  Landfill Superfund
Site. I had asked for them to look  at providing Mars Hill
with municipal water to avoid any potential  for trouble in
the future. I believe it has been said  an ounce of
prevention is worth a pound of cure. It would  appear that
the cost for this would not be overly burdensome to an
entity that serves as the sole sanitary landfill for Marion
County.

We rest our future health and welfare in the hands of the
IDEM.
Sincerely;
Donald R. Coleman
3121 S. Mars Hill Street
Indianapolis, In 46221
317/241-8136

-------
      INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MAN AGEMI
             make Indiana a cleaner, healthier place to Hue
      Euan Bayh                                     '00 North Senate Avenue
      Governor"                                      P.O. Box 60 15
      if  , n                                       Indianapolis. Indiana 46206-601.'
      KathyProsser                                   Telephone 3 17-232.8603
      Commissioner                                     Environmental Helpline 1 -800-45

                              August  3,  1995
Mr. Donald R. Coleman
3121 S. Mars Hill Street
Indianapolis, IN  46221

Dear Mr. Coleman:
                              Re:   Southside  Sanitary Landfill
                                    Indianapolis,  IN

     Thank you for your letter dated June 15,  1995  concerning
Southside Sanitary Landfill site and your keen interest  in •
keeping track of the field activities at the  site.

     Your letter mentioned a concern with ground  water
contamination from the landfill impacting your well.   This shou
not be a problem because:

1.   The contaminant levels of the  leachate and other chemicals,
     in relation to the site, were  below the  Maximum  Contaminant
     Levels;

2.   The landfill is being pumped to remove the leachate and to
     provide an inward flow if the  slurry wall should leak;

3.   The slurry wall has been tested and is providing an
     excellent barrier;

4.   There are monitoring wells outside  the landfill  and slurry
     wall which are periodically sampled and  tested.   Any leaks
     will be detected in these wells long before  the
     contamination could leave the  site,  and

5.   Your subdivision is located at a considerable  distance from
     the site, and is not in the direction of ground  water flow
     from the site.  Even if the remedial measure do  not function
     properly, it is highly unlikely your area would  be  impacted;
     by the contamination associated with the site.

                        An Equal Opportunity Employer
                          Prinud on Rtcycitd Paptr

-------
Mr. Donald R. Coleman
Page 2
August 3,  1995

     As stated in your letter, while I concede that there are no
guarantees associated with any technique, I can confidently state
that slurry wall techniques are proven, successful, cost
effective mechanisms commonly used at landfill sites throughout
the United States and the State of Indiana.  Examples are the 9th
Avenue Dump Superfund site, and landfills located in Gary and
Liberty in White County.  Several other Superfund sites have been
in the process of implementing slurry wall techniques as a
remedial alternative.  Slurry walls have also been used for many
years to repair leaky reservoirs.  IDEM believes that the
remedial measures at Southside Landfill are protective of human
health and the environment.

     Alternative water supplies are provided where there is
existing evidence of chemical contamination of the aquifer in
use.  There is no such evidence in relation to Southside
Landfill.   However,  as there are no guarantees that your ground
water will not be impacted by another source of contamination and
if you are concerned with your ground water, I would suggest
testing your water periodically.  Additionally, I suggest you
pursue the City or County administration in regards to a
water line  extension to your subdivision.

     Again,  thank you for your interest in this project, and
please feel free to contact me at (317) 233-6424 if you need more
information regarding this site.

                         Sincerely,
                                J
                         Prabhakar Kasarabada, Project Manager
                         Superfund Section
                         Office of Environmental Response
PK:fflg

-------
                UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                                 REGIONS
            _            77 WEST JACKSON BOULEVARD
         .                   CHICAGO. IL 60604-3590

        '£_                  CEP 2«"'995
                                                        REPLY TO THE ATTENTION OF:
OCf  51995
Ms. Cathy Prosser
Commissioner              .         ,  Mariarrament
Indiana Department of  Environmental Management
100 North Senate Avenue
Indianapolis, IN 46206-6015

Dear Ms. Prosser:

The united States  Environmental
reviewed the  loliana Department of mvironmentai
                                       hS
   (IDEM)  Record of  Decision £« ch*?££hS ^ s.  EPA fully concurs
   SirMS c^entsPof1Sthense?etted0rSe!nedy for this site.
   which includes:

             No Further Action
             1986.

             Long term performance
             cover and grading,  °P"a^9re!Sf re^ns .  establishnent
                                                             civil
               n            uar inspections  and
             groundwater monitoring will be performea uou
             Agreed Order
             continued operation under State issued operating permit
             No.  OPP-49-1
    We also agree that this action attains J^^optiate to
    retirements  that are Applicable, or  relevat ana  P*
                                                              and the
    continues to provide adequate protection
    environment.
    U.S. EPA has determined  that  ^•a
    complete and no further  action is pessary at c
    Therefore, the site now  qualifies for inciusio
    Construction Completion  List.
                                                               Prima on Recyetea Pic

-------
IDEM staff have been working closely with Region V staff in the
selection of an appropriate final remedy f°* ^J^lScwd
Sanitary Landfill site and are satisfied that the selected
alternative adequately addresses the risk to human health and tne
environment posed by the site.
Sincerely,
Valdas V. Adamkus
Regional Administrator

-------