5EPA
'
^
. > tlWiifl
:774—^••••'^Ti
: £,'4«y,_. .rv.;.; /s~3vVf
:|||||J:i
; !';Sft^
|;pojai!^|^i"|pi3
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region 5
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Illinois, Indiana,
Michigan, Minnesota,
Ohio, Wisconsin
Revised
Himco Dump Superfund Site
Elkhart, Ind.
April 2003
Introduction
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5, in consultation with
the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM), is propos-
ing to change the original cleanup plan, described in the 1993 Record of
Decision (ROD)1 for the Himco Dump Superfund Site (Site), located in
Elkhart, Indiana. For details on previous investigations and design reports,
including other pertinent documents, consult the Administrative Record or
the Information Repository.
EPA is issuing a Proposed Plan for an amendment to the 1993 Record of
Decision. This Proposed Plan is intended to be a short summary of EPA's
reasons for recommending a change in the Site's cleanup plan. For those
members of the public who wish to evaluate this proposal, EPA has placed
the detailed supporting documents in the local Information Repository at
the Elkhart Public Library, Pierre Moran Branch, 2400 Benham Ave. EPA
encourages any member of the public to review those documents for further
information. A file in the repository has been created to make the review of
the Proposed Plan easier. It includes evaluations of landfill cover systems
technology, guidance on monitored natural attenuation, and the analyses
of the ground water data, soil data, and soil gas data collected from the
Site. The repository also contains copies of the 1993 ROD, the original 1993
Remedial Investigation/Feasiblility Study (RI/FS) and the 1996 Remedial
Design. In addition to the local repository, all documents related to the Site
are available for review at EPA's regional office located at 77 W. Jackson
Blvd., Chicago, IL.
Your input on the proposed cleanup changes and supporting information
is valuable in the final remedy selection for the Site. EPA encourages the
public to participate in this remedy selection process by reviewing and
commenting on the proposed changes presented in this Proposed Plan.
The Proposed Plan is required by Section 117(a) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of
1980, as amended by Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Acts
(SARA) 1986. Before a final decision is made to amend the 1993 ROD, EPA
will hold a public meeting and a public comment period to accept comments
from residents and other individuals interested in the Site. As a result of
new information or comments received, EPA may modify the proposed ROD
amendment. Therefore, the public is encouraged to review and comment
on the proposed modifications to the original ROD. For more information
1 Words in bold are defined in the glossary section.
-------
and the Proposed Plan, see the Site documents that are
available in the Information Repository.
The 30-day public comment period begins April 11, 2003
and extends through May 12, 2003 (see section entitled
"Public Comment Invited").
Site Location and Background
Himco Dump is a closed landfill covering approximately
60 acres. The Site is located at County Road 10 and
the Nappanee Street Extension in the town of Elkhart,
Elkhart County, Ind. The Site was privately owned and
operated by Himco Waste-Away Services Inc., repre-
sented by Charles Himes, and was in operation between
1960 and 1976. The area was initially a mixture of marsh
and grassland. There was no liner, leachate collection, or
gas recovery system constructed as part of the landfill.
An estimated two-thirds of the waste in the landfill was
calcium sulfate from Miles Laboratories. As many as
360 tons per day were dumped over an unknown time
period. Other waste accepted included household and
commercial refuse, construction and demolition debris,
and industrial and medical waste. In 1976, the landfill
was closed and covered. The cover consisted of approxi-
mately 1-foot of sand overlying a calcium sulfate layer.
The area bordering the southern perimeter of the landfill
consists of construction rubble mixed with a non-native
soil and has been named the construction debris area.
The construction debris area boundaries were defined pri-
marily from 13 test trenches excavated in 1991 during the
second phase of the field studies conducted for the RI/FS
published in August 1992 (Donohue).
Previous Site Activities and Enforcement
• 1971 - Indiana State Board of Health (ISBH) first
identified the Site as an open dump.
• 1974 - ISBH analyzed samples from shallow residen-
tial wells located immediately south of the landfill
after receiving complaints about the color, taste, and
odor of the ground water from the shallow wells,
finished at a depth of approximately 22 feet below
ground surface (bgs). The analyses indicated the
presence of high levels of manganese and iron.
ISBH advised Mr. Himes to replace six shallow
water wells with deep wells for the residences imme-
diately south of the landfill on County Road 10. The
new wells were finished at depths ranging from 152
to 172 feet bgs. Well logs indicated that these wells
were finished below a clay confining layer. The
existence of a confining layer was not verified in
EPA's 1992 Remedial Investigation.
1975 - Charles Himes, Sr., owner and operator of
the Site, signed a consent agreement with the ISBH
Stream Pollution Control Board to close the dump by
September 1976 with the application of final cover
consisting of calcium sulfate overlain by sand.
1981 - The United States Geologic Survey (USGS),
in cooperation with the Indiana Department of
Natural Resources and the Elkhart Water Works,
completed a three-year study to determine the extent
of the leachate plume potentially emanating from the
Site by using bromide concentration in the ground
water as an indicator. This study is detailed in the
Hydrologic and Chemical Evaluation of the Ground
Water Resources of Northwest Elkhart County,
Indiana, published in October 1981 (Imbrigotta and
Martin).
1984 - EPA Field Investigation Team (FIT) prepared
a Hazard Ranking System (HRS) scoring package for
the Site. Monitoring wells previously installed by
the USGS that were sampled and analyzed showed
that the ground water downgradient of the Site was
contaminated with inorganics, semivolatile organic
compounds (SVOCs), and volatile organic com-
pounds (VOCs). The inorganics included aluminum,
arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium,
cobalt, copper, lead, manganese, nickel, mercury,
selenium, and zinc. The organic compounds includ-
ed acetone, benzene, 2-butanone, chloroethane, trans-
1,2-dichloroethene, Freon, 4-methylphenol, phenol,
and pyrene.
June 1988 - The Site was proposed for the National
Priorities List (NPL).
1989 - A RI/FS was initiated by SEC Donohue,
under contract for EPA.
February 1990 - The Site was placed on the NPL.
April 1990 - Due to reports from community inter-
views indicating that residents with private wells
living south of the landfill were complaining about
the taste, odor, and the color of their water, EPA's
Emergency Response Branch sampled 27 residential
wells in late April 1990. The water quality analysis
indicated relatively high concentrations of iron, man-
ganese, and sodium. After review of the results, the
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR) recommended an alternative source of
potable water due to the high levels of sodium-3,600
parts per million (ppm) -had profound implications
for persons who suffered from hypertension, diabe-
tes, and heart ailments.
September 1991 - Test pits were excavated to char-
acterize the Site's constituents during the RI. During
one of the excavations, large quantities of leachate
were observed flowing from the landfill's fill material.
-------
The leachate was observed near the southern edge of
the landfill. The leachate was analyzed and found to
contain, among other hazardous substances, organic
solvents including ethylbenzene (6,400 ppm), 2-
hexanone (29,000 ppm), toluene (480,000 ppm), and
xylene (44,000 ppm). These contaminants all have
an inhalation and contact hazard to persons near the
hazards and have flash points ranging from 40 to 90
degrees Fahrenheit. The test pits where the hazard-
ous substances were found were located within 50
yards of the private residences.
November 1991 - Municipal water service was
provided to the residents living south of the land-
fill. Himco Waste-Away Services Inc., Miles
Laboratories, and the City of Elkhart paid for the
municipal water services extension to the residences.
May 19,1992 - Charles Himes, Jr., president
of Himco Waste-Away Services Inc., signed an
Administrative Order by Consent (AOC) to undertake
and complete emergency removal activities to abate
conditions that would present an imminent and sub-
stantial endangerment to the public. An additional
requirement of the AOC was to excavate near the test
pits identified (TL-5) in order to locate the buried
VOCs and their source, and also to conduct limited
extension of contamination surveys along the south-
east central periphery of the Site to assure that no
additional VOCs were encountered.
May 22,1992 - EPA initiated an emergency removal
action that located and removed 71 5 5-gallon drums
containing VOCs, including ethylbenzene and tolu-
ene.
1992 - The Himco Dump Remedial Investigation
and Feasibility Study (Donohue, 1992) report was
completed. The RI field work included geophysics,
surveying, trenching, soil sampling, monitoring well
installation, ground water leachate sampling, land-
fill waste mass sampling, residential basement gas
sampling, surface water and sediment sampling, and
wetland determination.
1992 - The results of the Baseline Risk Assessment
indicated that the potential excess lifetime cancer
risk for the Site exceeded the acceptable Superfund
carcinogenic risk range of IxlO'4 to IxlO'6, primar-
ily from the assumed use of on-site contaminated
ground water under the future use scenario. Risk
from ingestion of, dermal contact with, and inhala-
tion of volatiles from ground water presented carci-
nogenic risk in the range of 4 xlO~4 to IxlO'1. South
(downgradient) of the landfill, the estimated excess
cancer risks to a future adult resident described in the
RI report (Donohue, 1992), was 5x10~3. The method
for calculating risk included two assumptions:
1. Chemicals detected in the soil represented chemi-
cals leaching into the ground water, even though the
chemicals were not detected in any ground water
samples collected.
2. For the ground water wells located south of the land-
fill, if chemicals were detected in at least one ground
water sample, those chemicals were evaluated at
one-half the detection limit, even if the chemicals
were not detected in a given exposure point (includ-
ing leachate samples). Therefore, approximately
80 percent of the estimated risk downgradient of the
landfill was attributable to "not detected" chemicals
in the ground water. If these chemicals were truly
absent, the total population cancer risk would have
been estimated at IxlO"3, due primarily to the pres-
ence of arsenic and beryllium in ground water and
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in soil
(representing leaching to ground water).
The Hazard Index for humans interacting with the
Site exceeded the acceptable Hazard Index of 1.0
(Hazard Index of 1.0 or less is desired). For future
use of the ground water beneath the landfill, the
Hazard Index values were 500 tol,000. Antimony
was the primary contributor to that risk. The other
chemicals contributing to risk included arsenic,
beryllium, cadmium, chromium, vanadium, alpha-
chlordane, and nitrate/nitrite. In addition to ground
water, there was an estimated excess cancer risk of
IxlO'1 to a future resident living south of the landfill
where PAHs were detected in the soil.
• September 1992 - The Proposed Cleanup Plan was
issued to the public for review and comment.
• September 30,1993 - EPA issued the ROD for the
Site. The purpose of the selected remedial action,
as specified in the ROD, was to eliminate or reduce
the migration of contaminants to ground water and to
reduce risks associated with exposure to the contami-
nated materials. The major elements of the remedial
action per the 1993 ROD were:
1. Construction of a composite barrier, landfill cover
(cap) consisting of the following components:
• An 18-inch-thick vegetative soil layer;
• A 6-inch-thick sand drainage layer;
• 40-mil high density polyethylene flexible
membrane liner;
• 2-foot-thick low permeability (1 xlO'7) clay
liner; and
• A soil buffer layer of variable thickness to
attain the State of Indiana grade requirements
(4 percent minimum).
2. Use of institutional controls on landfill property
to limit land and ground water use.
-------
3. Installation of an active landfill gas collection
system including a vapor phase carbon system to
treat the off-gas from the landfill.
4. Ground water monitoring to ensure effectiveness
of the remedial action and to evaluate the need for
future ground water treatment.
5. Mtigative measures to be taken during the
remedial construction activities to minimize
adverse impacts to wetlands.
Post-ROD Site Activities
The overall objectives of the post-ROD activities were
to gather additional data to supplement the existing data
such as a soil gas investigation needed to supplement the
Final Pre-Design Technical Memorandum, Himco Dump
Superfund Site (USAGE, 1996), and a supplemental
human health risk evaluation needed for the construc-
tion debris area to the south of the Site. The purpose of
the recent Supplemental Risk Assessment was to conduct
human health risk evaluations for the Site's off-property
areas that were not addressed in the 1992 Baseline Risk
Assessment for the construction debris area. Additional
ground water data was needed to ensure the effectiveness
of the 1993 remedial action and to evaluate the need for
future ground water treatment.
The supplemental investigations include the September
1995 sampling event (detailed in the Final Pre-Design
Technical Memorandum, Himco Dump Superfund Site,
USAGE, March 1996), and the 1996 Supplemental Site
Investigation, characterizing data involving the ground
water downgradient of the landfill. In the 1996 and the
1998 investigations, data was collected from the construc-
tion debris area soils, soil gas, and ground water (down
gradient) of the landfill. The investigations conducted
during April and May and November 2000 involved
characterizing ground water migrating east and southeast
(side-gradient) of the landfill. All the investigative and
risk evaluation data as collected in order to get additional
information to determine whether further remedial ele-
ments were necessary and warranted in the construction
debris area and the area surrounding the landfill affected
by the ground water migrating from the Site. A complete
list of contaminants and sampling results for the sampling
analysis of 1995 - 2000 may be found in the Himco Dump
Superfund Site Supplemental Site Investigation/Site
Characterization Report (USAGE, 2002).
Summary of Site Risk
The 1992 risk assessment estimated the risk from expo-
sure to ground water and the landfill proper but did not
address the construction debris area or the eastern off-site
residential area. The construction debris area is approxi-
mately 4 acres in size and is subdivided into seven
residential and one commercial property parcels. The
residential properties are occupied, but the commercial
parcel is vacant. The existing homes on the residential
parcels are connected to the local municipal water supply.
However, these homes also have operable water wells.
The 2002 Supplemental Risk Assessment identified the
construction debris area and the eastern residential area
as exposure pathways for the Site. The exposure routes
for these areas are dermal contact with the ground water
(showering or bathing); contact with the soil; inhaling
vapors from the ground water or the soil; drinking the
ground water; and ingesting the soil.
EPA generally attempts to reduce the excess lifetime
cancer risk at Superfund sites to a range of 1 x 10'4 to
1 x 10'6, (1 in 10, 000 to 1 in one million). The excess
lifetime cancer risk levels are determined by multiplying
the intake levels by the cancer potency factor for each
contaminant of concern and summing across all relevant
chemicals and pathways. These risks are probabilities
expressed in scientific notation (e.g., 1 xlO'4). The haz-
ard index is an expression on non-carcinogenic toxic
effects that measures whether a person is being exposed
to adverse levels of non-carcinogens. The hazard index
for non-carcinogenic health risks is the sum of all con-
taminants for a given target organ. Any hazard index
value greater than 1.0 suggests that a non-carcinogen
potentially presents an unacceptable health risk. For
detailed information pertaining to the risks associated
with the Site, consult the Himco Dump Superfund Site
Supplemental Site Investigation/Site Characterization
Report (USAGE 2002).
Construction Debris Area
Although the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for
drinking water has not been exceeded recently (1998 -
2000) for any constituent in ground water samples from
the Construction debris area, the non-cancer hazard risk
for the child resident is unacceptable for ground water
in the Construction debris area. The total (across all
exposure routes) Hazard Index is 46.0 due to the metals
antimony, arsenic, iron, manganese, and thallium and the
organics 1,2-dichloropropane, benzene, and vinyl chlo-
ride.
For surface soils, EPA's Soil Screening Guidance: User's
Guide, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,
EPA/540/R-96/018. PB96-963505, April 1996 uses 400
mg/kg (same as 400 ppm) as a lead screening level for
-------
residential soil as an appropriate screening level for
inorganic lead. In the construction debris area, lead was
detected above the residential screening level in one of
the land parcels at the concentration of 695 mg/kg (695
ppm). Lead was also detected in other surface, near-
surface, and subsurface soil samples for several other
parcels. However the concentrations detected were
below the screening level, and the samples collected were
not sieved. It has been determined that lead is enriched
in the fine particle fraction from sieved soil samples.
Therefore, the soil concentrations measured may be an
underestimate of the actual concentration of lead found in
the other parcels.
The soil gas data collected in this investigation as not
included in the risk assessment. Some uncertainty in the
total media risk calculated for the land parcels is assumed
based on the extent of soil migration that is shown to have
occurred.
Eastern Residential Ground water
The MCL for 1,2-dichloropropane (5 ng/L or 5 ppb), a
suspected carcinogen, was exceeded in a private well in
this area. The estimated Site-related incremental lifetime
cancer risk for this area was 5.5 x 1O4, which exceeds
the 1 x 1O4 to 1 x 1O6 acceptable risk range for an adult
resident. Contributing to the adult risk level from ground
water is the potential for ingestion of arsenic and the
inhalation of benzene during household use. Due to the
high levels of sodium detected in the drinking water,
there is also concern for the adult resident who may have
hypertension, diabetes, and other heart ailments.
The hazard index value of 28.95 for the child resident is
unacceptable due to the metals arsenic, chromium, iron,
manganese, and thallium and the volatiles benzene and
1,2-dichloropropane for all exposure routes.
Changes to the Cleanup Remedy
for the Site
EPA proposes to amend the Site's ROD to modify the 1993
landfill composite cap design, and to establish a contin-
gency for further ground water containment and remedia-
tion. If during the long-term monitoring of ground water
a hazardous constituent exceeds the "trigger" number, a
contingency remedy will be implemented. The contin-
gency remedy will be developed at that time to meet the
performance standards of a remedial action implemented
to decrease the hazardous constituent's ground water con-
centration to below the trigger number within a 12-month
period of the initial exceedence. EPA's trigger levels
will be based on the multiple exposure routes for ground
water for the individual hazardous constituent; i.e.,
inhalation, dermal contact, and ingestion. For potential
human carcinogens, the trigger level corresponds to the 1
x 1O4 excess lifetime cancer risk level. This number also
corresponds with the comparison values from the ATSDR
risk category definition, where there is a low increased
risk from exposure to a particular carcinogen. For
example, the suggested trigger for 1,2-dichloropropane,
a carcinogen, would be 16 ppb. For non-carcinogens, the
trigger levels measured would be any Hazard Index value
greater than 10.0 for drinking water.
The rationale for modifying the 1993 cap is as follows:
• Since the landfill waste mass is in contact with the
water table, the effectiveness of the 1993 cap is mini-
mized and therefore not cost effective.
• The 1993 cap will not remove the potential threat to
the receptor. In this Proposed Plan, receptors (resi-
dents) will be connected to the local municipal water
supply; therefore, the increased cost of the 1993 cap
is not necessary.
• The architectural/structural requirement of 1993 to
protect the cap's integrity would have increased the
cost or prohibited potential redevelopment of the
Site. A brownfields grant has been recently awarded
to the City of Elkhart for the Site to ascertain the fea-
sibility of restoring the property to productive reuse.
• An extensive ground water monitoring system will
be implemented to ensure the protectiveness of all
potential receptors.
A modified soil cover will be constructed over the "foot-
print" of the entire 60-acre landfill, which will consist of
the following:
• Contour and grade the existing cover;
• Add 30 inches of vegetated soil cover, of which
6 inches must be topsoil, seeded, if possible, with
the current on-site plant species to preserve the
Site's prairie plant community;
• An erosion layer of at least 6 inches of soil
capable of sustaining the growth of native plants;
• A barrier layer consisting of at least 24 inches of
compacted low permeability (1 x 10 -5 cm/sec)
soil cover. The rationale for the 30-inch soil
cover had to do with that area of Indiana having a
24-inch freeze/thaw depth. Therefore, the bottom
6 inches of soil will not be impacted by the
potential freeze/thaw phenomenon;
• Random fill/existing waste;
• Institutional controls on landfill property will limit
the land reuse to industrial, recreational, or commer-
cial.
-------
• Construction of the cover will be implemented to
avoid or minimize adverse effects on the wetland,
• Final grading of the total cover to no less than a 2
percent slope, after an accounting for the anticipated
settlement.
• Install an active landfill gas collection system to
remove the gas generated in the landfill waste mass,
and vent the gas to the atmosphere after treatment
with vapor-phase activated carbon to remove VOCs
and control odors. If necessary, a thermal oxida-
tion process with a flare stack will be constructed as
required by Indiana Administrative Code (IAC) 326,
• Quarterly monitoring of the soil gas to assure that the
performance standards of the active gas collection
system are functioning properly for a duration of one
year; semiannually for the next four years; and then
re-evaluated to determine the monitoring schedule
for the next 25 years.
• Periodic inspections. A complete inspection of the
landfill cover system, drainage structures, landfill gas
(LFG) collection and treatment system, and ground
water wells. LFG monitoring probes will be con-
ducted periodically during the post-closure period.
Periodic inspections will be performed on a quar-
terly basis during the first two years post-closure.
Following this period, periodic inspections will be
conducted semiannually.
• Operation and maintenance (O&M) of the vegetative
cover for 30 years.
For the construction debris area:
• Excavate the lead from the parcel that exceeded the
screening level of 400 ppm and backfill with clean
soil. Excavated soil will be disposed of per land dis-
posal requirements.
• Remove all construction debris and rubble from the
construction debris area, and backfill with clean soil.
• Abandon the 10 private wells in the construction
debris area. Residential wells must be abandoned
after municipal water is provided to the resident
according to the Indiana Department of Natural
Resources'requirements listed in 312 IAC 13-10-2.
Once the private wells are abandoned at a residence,
a deed restriction will be applied to that property to
prohibit future private well installation and future
ground water use.
For the residential area east and southeast of the
SandfiSS:
• Connect select residents (including a buffer zone)
living on the east and southeast side of the landfill
to the local municipal water supply (20 select and 15
buffer zone residents for a total of 35 residents).
• Abandon all residential private wells once the munic-
ipal water supply has been established. An appurte-
nant deed restriction will be applied to each property
to prohibit future private well installation and future
ground water use.
• Complete a ground water investigation on the south
and east sides of the Site to determine the extent
of detected contaminants. The investigation will
involve vertical characterization of the contaminants
to optimize placement of additional long-term moni-
toring wells.
• Establish a long-term ground water monitoring pro-
gram to monitor the future ground water conditions
from all the monitoring wells associated with the
landfill, including the newly installed monitoring
wells. The purpose is to determine if the ground
water threshold trigger has been initiated or to deter-
mine if a municipal water supply should be extended
past the buffer zone.
• The trigger for extending municipal water to the
residential properties is reached when a monitoring
well sample from the buffer zone meets or exceeds
the MCL for four consecutive sampling events. This
is to ensure that the elevated level is representa-
tive of ground water conditions. Nested monitoring
wells will be installed in the buffer zone, not in the
area where the residents are still using private wells.
The purpose of the monitoring wells is to find a
potential problem before it can impact the receptors.
Residential wells must be abandoned once municipal
water is provided to the resident according to the
requirements listed in 312 IAC 13-10-2.
Long-Term Ground water monitoring at the Landfill
• Monitor all ground water monitoring wells associ-
ated with the landfill for a minimum of 10 years;
quarterly for the first two years. Based on the
results, ground water monitoring may be decreased
to semiannually for the next three years. The moni-
toring results will be evaluated to aid in predicting
contaminant trends, and evaluate seasonal effects. At
the five-year review periods (Superfund requirement
for all sites where waste remain onsite), the ground
water long-term monitoring requirements will be
reassessed to determine the continued frequency and
duration at that time.
• Implement institutional controls with deed restric-
tions limiting future ground water use, prohibiting
the installation of new private ground water wells in
the Site's vicinity, and no drilling or digging into the
landfill cover.
-------
• The land use restriction in the 1993 ROD is no
longer applicable. However, a future land use
feasability study must be conducted by the entity
responsible for the redevelopment of the property to
determine the property's suitability for a particular
reuse scenario. For example, any anticipated build-
ing constructed on the Site will have to be evaluated
to determine the soil gas interaction/impact on any
structures on the landfill, as well as the displacement
of contaminated soils, wastes, etc.
• Install a perimeter fence around the entire Site for
security.
At each five-year review, or earlier if necessary, EPA
in consultation with IDEM will evaluate the following
criteria to determine the need for more or less remedial
measures:
• Ground water data collected during the previous
monitoring period years to determine trends in con-
taminant concentrations, if any;
• Effectiveness of the source control measures to pre-
vent contaminant migration beyond the downgradient
boundary; and
• Potential for the contaminants in the ground water to
meet or exceed trigger levels.
Additional measures may be necessary if an evaluation of
the above criteria indicates:
• Concentrations in the ground water have not
decreased; and
• Source control measures do not meet their remedial
objectives.
IDE1 Concurrence
IDEM concurs with the recommendation for the Site.
Next
EPA will accept written comments on its recom-
mendation during a public comment period from
April 11 through May 12, 2003. EPA will evaluate com-
ments received during the public comment period before
selecting a cleanup plan for the Site. The cleanup plan
will be described in the ROD amendment. After the
remedial action is chosen, EPA will meet with the par-
ties believed responsible for the Site. If the parties are
unable to reach an agreement with EPA or are unwilling
to perform the cleanup activities, Superfund monies may
be used to pay for the cleanup action. EPA would then
seek to recover these costs in federal court.
Glossary of Terms
Administrative Record - A compilation of all pertinent
documents associated with any Superfund site used to
make a cleanup decision for that site.
Carcinogenic Risk - Risk that is obtained by an expo-
sure event, condition or effect that produces cancer.
Cancer Potency Factor (CPFs) - have been derived by
EPA using the upper 95 percent confidence limit on the
slope of a given dose-response curve for carcinogenic
responses. CPFs are used to estimate potential incremen-
tal lifetime cancer risks by the appropriate route of expo-
sure and are chemical-specific.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compen-
sation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) - More com-
monly know as Superfund, a federal law passed in 1980,
and revised in 1986 by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act (SARA). CERCLA created a spe-
cial tax that goes into a trust fund, commonly known as
the Superfund, to investigate and clean up abandoned or
uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.
Ground water - Underground water that fills pores in
soil or openings in rocks to the point of saturation. Where
ground water occurs in significant quantity, it can be used
as a water supply.
Exposure Pathway - The course a chemical takes from
the source to the exposed individual. An exposure path-
way analysis links the sources, locations, and types of
environmental releases with population locations and
activity patterns to determine the significant pathways of
human exposure.
Exposure Route - The way a chemical comes into con-
tact with a person (e.g., by ingestion, inhalation, dermal
contact).
Information Repository - A file containing current
information, technical reports, and reference documents
regarding a Superfund site. The information repository is
usually located in a public building convenient to local
residents, such as a library, public school, or city hall.
In order to provide better public access, there is often
more than one information repository for a particular
Superfund site.
Leachate - A liquid, usually water from rain or snow,
that has percolated through landfill wastes and contains
contaminants from those wastes, that subsequently con-
taminate the ground water.
Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) - The maximum
concentration of specific contaminants allowed under the
federal Safe Drinking Water Act.
-------
Monitored Natural Attenuation - The use of natural
processes, within the context of a carefully controlled and
monitored site cleanup approach, to reduce contaminant
concentrations to levels protective of human health and
the environment within a reasonable time period.
Nested - A group (usually three) of monitoring wells
screened at different sampling depths near each other in
order to identify what depth the contaminants are located
in the ground water.
Parts per Million (ppm) - A common basis for reporting
water analysis. One ppm equals one unit of measurement
per million units of the same measurement.
Proposed Plan - A document that describes the remedial
alternative analyzed for a Superfund site and identifies
the preferred alternative and the rationale for the prefer-
ence.
Record of Decision (ROD) - A document outlining the
selected remedy for a Superfund Site. The ROD includes
the Responsiveness Summary, which addresses concerns
Table 1. 2003 PROPOSED PLAN COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
presented to EPA during the public comment period. The
ROD is signed by the director of EPA Region 5 Superfund
Division.
Soil Gas - The vapors occupying the pore spaces of
soils resulting from the decomposition of organic matter.
Methane is the most common type of soil gas.
COST
1. Present Worth Cost Estimates were based on a 7 per-
cent Multi-Year Discount Factor of 12.409.
a. Reference: A Guide To Developing and
Documenting Cost Estimates During Feasibility
Study, EPA 540-R-00-002; OSWER 9355.0-75;
July 2000.
b. Present Worth or Present Value cost estimate is
defined as the amount of funds that needs to be
set aside at the initial point in time (base year) to
assure that funds will be available in the future as
they are needed to fund annual costs.
2. The 1993 ROD costs were taken from 1993 ROD
Table 10 Cost Summary.
REMEDY COMPONENTS
Cover
Construction debris area Removal
Active Landfill Gas Collection and Treatment System
Monitoring Well Installation
South and East Side Ground water Investigation
Construction debris area Residential Well Abandonment
East Side Residential Well Abandonment
Real Estate Filing Fees
5 -Year Reviews (6)
Future Land Use FS
Residential Well Municipal Water Connections (35)
Total (Capital Cost)
COST ($)
3,833,200
194,400
1,430,300
80,300
192,500
4,600
331,200
13,900
165,000
110,000
355,000
6,710,400
LONG-TERM OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND MONITORING
Annual O&M Cost
30- Year Landfill Cap O&M
Present Worth Cost (Single Payment 30-Year O&M)
Total Present Worth Project Cost (Single Payment Capital = O&M Cost)
623,500
18,705,000
7,738,000
14,448,400
CONTINGENT REMEDY COMPONENTS
Ground water Treatment System
30-Year Ground water Treatment System O&M
Additional Residential Commections (30 properties)
1,658,700
17,003,800
323,100
-------
3. The 1993 ROD cost estimate did not contain detailed
information how the estimate was developed.
4. The 1993 Cost Estimate did not contain the follow-
ing cost items:
a. East Side Ground water Investigation
b. Construction debris area Residential Well
Abandonment
c. East Side Residential Well Abandonment
d. Real Estate Filing Fees
e. Five-Year Reviews (6)
Table 2. 1993 ROD REMEDY COST ESTIMATE
f Future Land Use FS
g. Residential Municipal Water Connections (35)
5. The 2003 Revised 1993 ROD cost estimate was
based on the 1993 cost with a 2 percent cost escala-
tion over a 10-year period.
6. The Draft Proposed Plan Cost Estimate Summary
was based on the "Recommended Changes to the
Cleanup Remedy for the Site" section of the Draft
Proposed Plan which included and outline of the
recommended remedy with assumptions and com-
ments.
1993 ROD REMEDY SUMMARY
1993 ROD Remedy
Consisting of:
Composite Barrier Solid Waste Cap
Active Landfill Gas Collection and Treatment System
Ground water Monitoring and Institutional Controls
TotuS (CupituS Cost)
COST ($)
8,931,000
8,931,000
LONG-TERM OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND MONITORING
Annual O&M Cost
30- Year Landfill Cap O&M
Total Present Worth Cost (1993)
210,000
2,890,000
11,821,000
CONTINGENT REMEDY COMPONENTS
Ground water Treatment System
30-Year Ground water Treatment System O&M
1,658,700
17,003,800
Table 3. 2003 REVISED 1993 ROD REMEDY COST ESTIMATE
2003 REVISED 1993 ROD REMEDY SUMMARY
2003 Revised ROD Remedy
Consisting of 1993 ROD Components:
Composite Barrier Solid Waste Cap
Active Landfill Gas Collection and Treatment System
Ground water Monitoring and Institutional Controls
TotuS (CupituS Cost)
COST ($)
10,889,000
10,889,000
LONG-TERM OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND MONITORING
Annual O&M Cost
3 0- Year LF Cap O&M
Present Worth Cost (SingSe Payment 30-Year O&M)
TotaS Present Worth Project Cost (SingSe Payment CapitaS = O&M Cost)
623,500
18,705,000
7,738,000
18,627,000
CONTINGENT REMEDY COMPONENTS
Ground water Treatment System
30-Year Ground water Treatment System O&M
1,658,700
17,003,800
-------
Evaluating the Alternatives Against the Nine Evaluation Criteria
EPA evaluated the alternatives against eight of the nine evaluation criteria (see the table below describing the nine crite-
ria EPA uses to evaluate an alternative). The community acceptance criterion will be evaluated after public comments
are received by EPA. The degree to which the alternatives meet the evaluation criteria, as determined by EPA, is shown
in the table below. EPA believes that the proposed plan ROD amendment meets the evaluation criteria better than the
September 1993 ROD remedy or the no further action alternative.
Nine Evaluation Criteria
1 . Overall Protection of Human
Health and the Environment
2. Compliance with ARARs
3. Long-Term Effectiveness
and Permanence
4. Reduction of Toxi city,
Mobility, or Volume through
Treatment
5. Short-Term Effectiveness
6. Implementability
7. 2003 Total Present Worth
Cost (Single Capital Payment
with O&M Cost)
8. State Acceptance
9. Community Acceptance
No Further Action
1=1
I I
1=
a
1=
1 I
$0
1993 ROD Remedy:
Selection Composite
Cap with Line and
Gas Collection
System
•
^H
•
•H
$ 18,627,000
2003 Proposed Plan:
Soil Cover, Gas Collection
System, Soil Removal, New Water
Supply and Long-Term Ground
water Monitoring
M
••
••
•n
$ 14,448,400
Accepted by Indiana Department of Environmental Management
Will be evaluated after the public comment period.
Meets Criterion
Partially Meets Criterion
Does Not Meet Criterion
Explanation of the Nine Criteria
EPA uses the following nine criteria to evaluate the
cleanup alternatives. A table comparing the alternatives
against these criteria is provided.
1. Overall Protection of Human Health and the
Environment. Assessment of the degree to which the
cleanup alternative eliminates, reduces, or controls
threats to public health and the environment.
2. Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and
Appropriate Requirements. An evaluation of wheth-
er or not the alternative attains applicable or relevant
and appropriate requirements under federal environ-
mental laws and state environmental or facility siting
laws.
3. Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence. The
cleanup alternative is evaluated in terms of its ability
to maintain reliable protection of human health and
the environment over time.
4. Reduction of Toxi city, Mobility, or Volume Through
Treatment. An evaluation of how well a cleanup
alternative reduces the harmful nature of the contam-
ination at the site; the ability of the contamination to
move from the site into the surrounding area; and the
amount of contaminated material.
5. Short-Term Effectiveness. The length of time need-
ed to implement a cleanup alternative is considered.
EPA also assesses the risks that carrying out the
cleanup alternative may pose to workers and nearby
residents.
6. Implementability. An assessment of how difficult
the cleanup alternative will be to construct and oper-
ate, and whether the technology is readily available.
7. Cost. A comparison of the costs of each alternative.
Includes capital, operation, and maintenance costs.
8. State Acceptance. EPA takes into account whether
the state agrees with the recommended change, and
10
-------
considers comments from the state on the proposed
ROD amendment and Focused Feasibility Study.
9. Community Acceptance. EPA considers the com-
ments of local residents on the recommended amend-
ment to the cleanup plan presented in this fact sheet
and on the information in the Focused Feasibility
Study.
Information Repository
The repository is located at:
Elkhart Public Library
Pierre Moran Branch
2400 Benham Ave.
Elkhart, Ind. 46517
Contact Information
Comments provided by the residents and other interested people are valuable in helping EPA decide the best
course of action. You may send your comments to either person listed below:
Gwen Masseeburg (SR-6J) Stuart HISS (P19-J)
Remedial Project Manager Community Involvement Coordinator
U.S. EPA, Region 5 U.S. EPA, Region 5
77 W. Jackson Blvd. 77 W. Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604 Chicago, IL 60604
312-886-0983 312-886-0983
Public ieeting Information
Wednesday, April 23, 2003
7:00 to 9:00 P.M.
City Council Chambers
2nd Floor
Municipal Building
229 S. Second Street
Elkhart, IN 46516
-------
vxEPA
Office of Public Affairs (P-19J)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5
77 W Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604
FIRST
RETURN SERVICE REQUESTED
EPA Wants to Change Cleanup Plan for Himco Dump Site
Your Opinion Counts!
Public Comments Invited
Comments provided by residents and other interested individuals are valuable
in helping EPA decide whether and how to amend the remedy for the Site.
EPA encourages you to share your views about the proposed modifications to
the Site cleanup plan. There are two ways to express your opinions during the
public comment period:
• You may send your comments to Gwen Massenburg, Remedial Project
Manager or to Stuart Hill, Community Involvement Coordinator. The
contact information is provide on the last page of this document under the
"Contact Information" section. Comments must be postmarked by May
12, 2003.
• A public meeting will be held at the City Council Chambers, 2nd floor,
Municipal Building, 229 S. Second Street, Elkhart, IN, on Wednesday,
April 23, 2003, 7 to 9 p.m. You may submit oral comments or written
comments during that public meeting. A court reporter will be present to
record oral comments.
EPA will respond to all comments in a document called the Responsiveness
Summary. The Responsiveness Summary will be attached to the ROD amend-
ment and will be made available to the public in the information repository at
the library.
------- |