EPA Region 5 Records Ctr.
Hlillli
263804
Third Five-Year Review Report
for
Lake Sandy Jo Superfund Site
Gary, Lake County, Indiana
September 2006
PREPARED BY:
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5
Chicago, Illinois
Approved by:
Date:
q - z ~i - a b
Richard C. Karl, Director
Superfund Division
U.S. EPA - Region 5
-------
Five-Year Review Report
Table of Contents
List of Acronyms iv
Executive Summary v
Five-Year Review Summary Form vi
I. Introduction 1
II. Site Chronology 2
III. Background 2
Physical Characteristics 2
Land and Resource Use 3
History of Contamination 3
Initial Response 4
Basis for Taking Action 4
IV. Remedial Actions 4
Remedy Implementation 4
System Operation and Maintenance 6
V. Progress Since the Last Review 7
VI. Five-Year Review Process 8
Administrative Components 8
Community Involvement 8
Document Review 8
Data Review 9
Site Inspection 9
VII. Technical Assessment 10
Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents? 10
Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and
remedial action objectives (RAOs) used at the time of remedy selection still valid? 11
Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the
protectiveness of the remedy? 11
Technical Assessment Summary 11
VIII. Issues 12
IX. Recommendations and Follow-up Actions 12
X. Protectiveness Statement 13
XI. Next Review 13
ii
-------
Tables
Table 1 - Chronology of Site Events
Table 2 - Description of Required Institutional Controls
Table 3 - Annual System Operations/O&M Costs
Table 4 - Issues
Table 5 - Recommendations and Follow-up Actions
Attachments
Attachment 1
Attachment 2
Attachment 3
Site Maps: Site Location Map, Extent of Contamination-Groundwater, Site
Layout and Potentiometric Surface Map, Institutional Controls Review
Map
Compilation of Monitoring Data
Photographs Detailing Site Conditions
in
-------
List of Acronyms
ARARs
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
EPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
GHWC
Gary Hobart Water Company
IAC
Indiana Administrative Code
IC
Institutional Control
IDEM
Indiana Department of Environmental Management
LSJ
Lake Sandy Jo Superfund Site
MCL
Maximum Contaminant Level
MCLG
Maximum Contaminant Level Goal
NCP
National Contingency Plan
NPL
National Priorities List
O&M
Operation & Maintenance
OU
Operable Unit
PAH
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbon
PCOR
Preliminary Close Out Report
ppb
Parts per billion
RA
Remedial Action
RAO
Remedial Action Objectives
RCRA
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RD
Remedial Design
RI/FS
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
ROD
Record of Decision
RPM
Remedial Project Manager
SDMS
Superfund Documents Management System
SDWA
Safe Drinking Water Act
SVOC
Semi-Volatile Organic Compound
THF
Tetrahydrofuran
TIC
Tentatively Identified Compound
UU/UE
Unlimited Use or Unrestricted Exposure
VOC
Volatile Organic Compound
iv
-------
Executive Summary
The remedial actions conducted at Lake Sandy Jo Superfund Site, located in Gary, Indiana, are
protective of human health and the environment in the short term. However, because the required
institutional controls have not been implemented, the Site is not protective of human health and the
environment for the long term. The institutional controls must do the following: 1) restrict land use
such that it would not compromise the integrity of the remedial action and not allow for direct
exposure to contaminants; and 2) prohibit the use of groundwater at those residences that were
provided an alternative water supply under the remedial action and an area north of the Site.
The assessment conducted for this five-year review found that all other components of the remedy
were implemented in accordance with the requirements of the 1986 Record of Decision. The
remedy is comprised of an on-site disposal of excavated sediments, construction of a soil cover,
installation of a groundwater monitoring system, an alternative water supply to surrounding
residents and implementation of institutional controls to ensure that the other components remained
protective in the long term. The Site reached construction completion with the signing of the
Preliminary Close Out Report in September 1994.
This is the third five-year review for the Lake Sandy Jo Superfund Site. The first five-year review
was completed in January 1996 and the second five-year review was completed in September 2001.
The next five-year review will be required by September 2011, five years from the signature date
from this review.
v
-------
Five-Year Review Summary Form
SITE IDENTIFICATION
Site name (from WasteLAN): Lake Sandy Jo (M&M Landfill)
EPA ID (from WasteLAN): IND980500524
Region: 5
State: IN
City/County: Gary, Lake County
Lead agency: IE EPA ~ State ~ Tribe ~ Other Federal Agency
Author name: Erica Islas
Author title: Remedial Project Manager
Author affiliation: U.S. EPA, Region 5
Review period: 10/03/2005 to 07/28/2006
Date(s) of site inspection: 04 / 18 / 2006
Type of review:
~ Post-SARA 13 Pre-SARA ~ NPL-Removal only
~ Non-NPL Remedial Action Site ~ NPL State/Tribe-lead
~ Regional Discretion
Review number: ~ 1 (first) ~ 2 (second) 13 3 (third) ~ Other (specify)
Triggering action:
~ Actual RA Onsite Construction at OU # ~ Actual RA Start at OU#
~ Construction Completion IE! Previous Five-Year Review Report
~ Other (specify)
Triggering action date (from WasteLAN): 09 / 28 / 2001
Due date (five years after triggering action date): 09 / 28 / 2006
vi
-------
Five-Year Review Summary Form, cont'd.
Issues:
In order for the remedy to be protective in the long-term, effective institutional controls must be
implemented and maintained.
Recommendations:
Develop and implement an institutional controls action plan which will plan to do the following:
Evaluate and determine which restrictions are appropriate for each area of the Site
Ensure that deed restrictions are recorded for remaining properties at the Site
Request an additional groundwater ordinance to be put into place to restrict all groundwater use
in both on-site and off-site areas affected by the remedial action and as designated by ROD
Ensure effective procedures are in-place for long-term stewardship at the Site
Protectiveness Statement(s):
The remedial actions for OU-1 and OU-2 are protective of human health and the environment in
the short term. However, because the required institutional controls have not been implemented,
the Site is not protective of human health and the environment in the long term. The institutional
controls must do the following: 1) restrict land use such that it would not compromise the
integrity of the remedy and allow for direct exposure to contaminants; and 2) prohibit the use of
groundwater at those residences who were provided an alternative water supply under the
remedial action and an area north of the Site.
vii
-------
Five-Year Review Report
I. Introduction
The purpose of five-year reviews is to determine whether the remedy at a site is protective of
human health and the environment. The methods, findings, and conclusions of reviews are
documented in Five-Year Review reports. In addition, Five-Year Review reports identify issues
found during the review, if any, and recommendations to address them.
The Agency is preparing this five-year review pursuant to CERCLA §121 and the National
Contingency Plan (NCP). CERCLA § 121 states:
If the President selects a remedial action that results in any hazardous substances,
pollutants, or contaminants remaining at the site, the President shall review such remedial
action no less often than each five years after the initiation of such remedial action to assure
that human health and the environment are being protected by the remedial action being
implemented. In addition, if upon such review it is the judgment of the President that action
is appropriate at such site in accordance with section [104] or [106], the President shall
take or require such action. The President shall report to the Congress a list offacilities for
which such review is required, the results of all such reviews, and any actions taken as a
result of such reviews.
The Agency interpreted this requirement further in the NCP; 40 CFR § 300.430(f) (4) (ii) states:
If a remedial action is selected that results in hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants remaining at the site above levels that allow for unlimited use and
unrestricted exposure, the lead agency shall review such action no less often than every five
years after the initiation of the selected remedial action.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 5 has conducted a five-year
review of the remedial actions implemented at the Lake Sandy Jo Superfund Site ("LSI" or "the
Site"), located in Gary, Lake County, Indiana. This review was conducted by the Remedial Project
Manager (RPM) from October 1, 2005 to July 28, 2006. This report documents the results of the
review.
This review is the third five-year review for LSJ. The triggering action for this policy review is the
date of the signature of the second five-year review as shown in EPA's WasteLAN database:
September 28, 2001. This review is required because hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants are left onsite above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure
(UU/UE).
1
-------
II. Site Chronology
Table 1: Chronology of Site Events
Event
Date
Sand and gravel pit dug to support construction of adjacent expressway
1960s
Gemin Corporation obtained rights to fill pit
1971-1975
Pit operated M&M Landfill
1976-1980
Landfill operations ceased
May 1980
Proposed to NPL
December 30, 1982
Final Listing on NPL
September 8, 1983
Removal Action to erect security fence
April 1986
Combined Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
August 1986
Record of Decision
September 1986
Remedial Design Start OU#l - Soil Cover
July 10, 1990
Remedial Design Completed OU#l - Soil Cover
December 11, 1990
Remedial Design Start OU#2 - Alternate Water Supply
March 5, 1987
Remedial Design Completed OU#2 - Alternate Water Supply
July 29, 1988
Remedial Action OU#l Start
September 21, 1988
Remedial Action OU#l Complete
December 5, 1990
Remedial Action OU#2 Start
September 28, 1987
Remedial Action OU#2 Complete
September 15, 1994
Preliminary Close Out Report/Construction Complete
September 20, 1994
First Five-Year Review Complete
January 16, 1996
Second Five-Year Review Complete
September 28, 2001
III. Background
Physical Characteristics
LSI is located at 3615 West 25th Avenue in northern Lake County, Indiana. It encompasses 50
acres in a low-density residential area of Gary, Indiana and is bordered by Interstate-80/94 to the
south (see Attachment 1- Site Location Map).
2
-------
Land and Resource Use
LSJ includes a former borrow pit lake that was filled between 1970 and 1981. In 1971, the Site was
first used as a landfill. During the following nine years, the lake was filled with mostly construction
and demolition debris. It is suspected that industrial wastes, municipal wastes, and drummed wastes
were also dumped at the Site. It is estimated that 80% of the wastes are located below the water
table in the shallow Calumet aquifer.
The Site is currently not in use. The land itself is currently fenced; the contaminated sediments are
contained within the fenced area under two-foot soil cover with a permanent vegetative cover of
prairie grass (see Attachment 3 - Photographs Detailing Site Conditions). Current monitoring well
sampling near the site show that high-level migration of contaminants in groundwater beyond the
site boundary has not occurred. The Record of Decision (ROD) requires institutional controls (ICs)
that would attempt to prevent future development of the land to protect against direct contact with,
or further migration of, contaminants due to site excavation. The ROD also requires ICs that would
prohibit installation of wells to prevent use of groundwater both onsite and in offsite areas.
The expansion of the 1-80/94 on the southern boundary has increased automobile traffic. The area
immediately surrounding the Site is not densely populated. However, there are moderately
populated neighborhoods to the northeast within a 1/4-mile of LSJ.
History of Contamination
LSJ was originally a sand and gravel borrow pit dug to support construction of the adjacent
expressway in the 1960s. The exact dimensions of the pit are not known, but the maximum depth of
the pit is thought to be 40 feet deep. The borrow pit gradually filled with groundwater and for a
short time was used by the surrounding community as a recreational lake. In 1971, Robert Breski
and Robert Nelson of the Gemin Corporation obtained rights to start filling the lake. Between 1971
and 1975 the lake was half filled and during these years there were numerous complaints about
odors at the Site.
Legal proceedings were initiated by the State of Indiana in 1975 against the owners for operating
without a permit, mismanagement of the landfill, and for contaminating and polluting the waters of
the site. In 1976, the charges were sustained, the owners fined $20,000 and ordered to pump the
lake dry and restrict future fill to demolition debris only.
Instead, the Gemin Corporation sold LSJ to Glen and Gordon Martin. From 1976 to 1980, LSJ was
known as the M&M Landfill. Although the landfill was never permitted, it was granted an operating
variance without a permit by the state. The operating variance restricted fill materials to wood,
stone, concrete, brick and other similar types of demolition debris. Industrial wastes, municipal
wastes, and garbage were not to be accepted. However, throughout M& M Landfill's operating
period, the operating variance was revoked and reinstated several times for violations including
inadequate site grading, failure to cover wastes, open dumping, and failure to meet the required fill
and cover objectives within the allotted timeframe. Reports by the Gary Fire Department indicate a
number of fires occurred on the landfill property that burned above and below ground. The Site has
remained inactive since 1980.
3
-------
Initial Response
Operations at the Site ceased in 1980. LSI has been under investigation by EPA since its discovery
in December 1979. EPA became more involved at the Site in 1981 when it conducted a site
investigation and developed a score under the Hazard Ranking System. The score qualified LSJ for
listing on the National Priorities List (NPL). The Site was placed on the NPL on September 8, 1983.
With no viable primary responsible parties, LSJ became a Fund-lead site. In 1986, immediate action
was deemed necessary to prevent direct contact with surface soils. Emergency action was taken in
April 1986 to erect a security fence around LSJ.
Basis for Taking Action
A combined Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) conducted by CH2M Hill for EPA
was completed in August 1986. The study revealed that the surface soils and sediments in the area
were contaminated with polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and heavy metals. The
sediment samples were collected from the drainage ditches south of the landfill. The study also
revealed low-level contamination in the shallow groundwater around LSJ (see attachment 1: Extent
of Contamination - Groundwater). High levels of iron, manganese, sodium, magnesium, potassium,
low levels of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) and
heavy metals were detected in groundwater. Benzene was the only chemical detected that exceeded
primary drinking water standards. No organic contaminants had been detected in residential wells
but the potential existed for groundwater users to be exposed to undetected contaminants or
increased levels of inorganic contaminants.
IV. Remedial Actions
The ROD for LSJ was signed on September 26, 1986. The final remedy for the Site included on-site
disposal of excavated sediments, a soil cover for the landfill, installation of a groundwater
monitoring system, institutional controls (ICs) and an alternative water supply for surrounding and
downgradient residents.
Remedy Implementation
For remedial design (RD) and remedial action (RA), the project was divided into two operable units
(OU). Soil cover construction, sediment excavation and onsite disposal, and monitoring well
installation were completed in December 1990 as part of the RA for OU-1. The construction
consisted of a 2-feet-thick soil cover over the landfill area. In order to maintain soil stability and
erosion control, a permanent vegetative cover with prairie grass was established and maintained.
The OU-2 RA included provision of an alternate water supply to residents likely to be affected by
groundwater contamination attributed to the Site. A total of 32 residences were connected to the
water supply system. Eighteen residences chose not to be connected to the water supply system but
were provided the equipment to make the connection. The OU-2 work was completed in September
1994.
4
-------
Institutional Controls
ICs are non-engineered instruments, such as administrative and legal controls, that help to minimize
the potential exposure to contamination, and protect the integrity of the remedy. ICs are required to
assure long-term protectiveness for any areas which do not allow for UU/UE. ICs are also required
to maintain the integrity of the remedy.
Table 2: Description of Required Institutional Controls (as described in 1986 ROD)
Areas
Institutional Control Objective
Landfill property (interpreted as the area
occupied by the former landfill, not the
current fenced boundary)
Would attempt to prevent future development of
the land to protect against direct contact with
contaminants or further migration of contaminants
that would result from site excavation
Residences provided municipal water
Prevent installation of wells into shallow aquifer
Prevent use of groundwater or installation of wells
into shallow aquifer
Area north of landfill (not specified)
Prevent use of groundwater or installation of wells
into shallow aquifer
Site perimeter (currently fenced boundary)
Control access to landfill property
A series of IC maps (paper and GIS versions) have been developed which depict areas subject to
use restrictions. These maps overlay the parcel information with areas requiring land and
groundwater use restrictions. These maps will be made available to the public on EPA's Superfund
Data Management System (SDMS) and will serve as an additional IC as an informational control.
(See Attachment 1 - Institutional Control (IC) Review Map)
The ROD described required ICs as placing deed restrictions to prevent future development of the
land, prohibiting the use of groundwater or installation of shallow wells onsite, in the area provided
municipal water and an area north of the Site, and restricting access to the Site by use of a fence.
The security fence was erected in 1986. On July 3, 2006, the City of Gary implemented a citywide
groundwater ordinance. This ordinance prohibits the installation of wells for potable water and
requires current potable-use well owners to connect to municipal water if available in their area. If
not available, the owners are required to draw from a deeper confined aquifer. All potable-use wells
have to be registered with the city. Wells for non-potable use are allowed and must also be
registered in the city. As the ordinance does not deny installation of non-potable use wells, some
additional regulation must be put into place to ensure the properties affected by the OU-2 RA and
the ROD are prohibited from any groundwater use.
As of 2001, the LSI landfill site covered property owned by 14 different parties including the City
of Gary. Three landowners, including the City of Gary, recorded restrictive covenants on their
properties, in at least one case because of litigation by IDEM.
5
-------
On August 21, 2001, IDEM received a default judgment against the 11 landowners who did not file
restrictive covenants. The Court entered a declaratory judgment against the 11 landowners:
1. prohibiting residential use of the LS J.
2. prohibiting the use of groundwater underlying the LSJ in any manner which would
endanger human health or the environment.
3. prohibiting excavation, installation, construction, removal or use of any buildings,
wells, pipes, roads, or ditches without written permission of EPA and IDEM.
The trial court further compelled each Defendant to execute and record a restrictive covenant which
will prohibit activities which might expose humans to the hazardous substances still remaining
beneath the LSJ within 60 days. If the landowner failed to record the required restrictions, IDEM
was authorized to file the restrictions on behalf of the landowners. None of the landowners have
filed the necessary restrictive covenants. IDEM did not file any restrictive covenants on behalf of
the landowners because it was waiting for the results of a redevelopment study, discussed below,
conducted by EPA.
In 2002, EPA funded a grant to assist the City of Gary with reuse planning at four NPL sites under
the Superfund Redevelopment Initiative. LSJ was one of the sites chosen for a redevelopment study.
Preliminary results concluded that LSJ had the greatest reuse potential of the four sites due to its
location. The redevelopment study mentioned a few broad descriptions for recreational and
commercial use. EPA and IDEM will evaluate whether these uses could be allowed in certain
portions of the Site. Results of this evaluation will determine the restrictiveness of the required
restrictive covenants.
An internal review of ICs was conducted at the Site in 2005. The review showed IC corrective
measures needed to be taken. Therefore, an Institutional Controls Action Plan (ICAP) will be
developed by March 31, 2007. EPA, in cooperation with IDEM, has conducted a title search on all
parcels on the Site not belonging to the City of Gary. EPA has requested that the City of Gary
provide title information for the parcels it owns. These actions are a necessary component of the
ICAP.
System Operation and Maintenance
The Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) began operation and maintenance
(O&M) activities for OU-1 in February 1994 under the Revised Operation and Maintenance Manual
dated August 1990. O&M activities included quarterly groundwater well sampling, cover
maintenance and site security. For OU-2, a private utility company in the area, Gary Hobart Water
Company (GHWC), agreed to assume ownership and provide O&M for the water supply lines
constructed as part of the project.
Currently, IDEM conducts all O&M activities under the Final O&M Manual dated April 1996. The
O&M manual prescribed quarterly sampling of the groundwater monitoring wells with the ability to
change the frequency of the sampling as needed. IDEM evaluated 10 years of quarterly data
6
-------
conducted at LSI. Based on the analysis, the sampling frequency was reduced from quarterly to
semiannually in September 2004. With the stabilizing of benzene levels in the majority of the wells
and the other contaminants remaining below action levels, the decrease in monitoring frequency
was acceptable to EPA provided that wells of concern were sampled during each event. Monitoring
wells of concern are located along the southeast perimeter of the site.
It was estimated during the FS that annual O&M costs would be approximately $944,000. This
value represented an order-of-magnitude level with an expected accuracy of +50/-30 percent. It was
only presented in the O&M Manual as information. Present costs for LSI O&M are shown below.
Table 3: Annual System Operations/O&M Costs
Dates
Total Cost rounded to nearest $1,000
From
To
January 2001
June 2006
$136,000 - Personnel
January 2001
June 2006
$122,000 - Contracts/Other Costs
V. Progress Since the Last Review
This is the third five-year review for the Lake Sandy Jo Superfund Site. The second five-year
review report was completed and signed in September 2001. Recommendations during the 2001
review included the following:
1. IDEM staff will continue to monitor benzene levels in the groundwater which appear
to be either decreasing or stabilizing.
IDEM continues to monitor benzene levels in the groundwater. The primary wells of
concern, located on LSJ's southeast perimeter are included in every sampling event.
The benzene levels continue to decrease for MW-005 and MW-015 (see Attachment
1- Site Layout and Potentiometric Surface Map). Benzene levels in MW-006 are
decreasing but remain significantly above the other wells of concern. Only MW-005
has seen benzene levels drop below the MCL of 5 parts per billion (ppb).
2. After the next round of sampling, scheduled this fall 2001, tetrahydrofuran (THF)
concentration will be further reviewed or a future course of action will be
determined.
In 2004, THF showed up in one well as a tentatively identified compound (TIC).
IDEM will continue to monitor for THF.
3. IDEM will follow up and ensure that deed restrictions are recordedfor the
remaining properties at the site.
EPA, in cooperation with IDEM, has conducted a title search on all the parcels that
are on the Site not owned by the City of Gary. EPA has requested that the City of
Gary provide title information for the parcels it owns. Once the title search is
completed, the deed restrictions will be put into place.
7
-------
4. The data collected during the teasel inspection survey will be analyzed and
appropriate steps will be taken to contain teasel growth and spread at the site.
Based on the survey conclusions, IDEM decided against using any chemicals to
contain the teasel growth. Instead, IDEM increased the mowing frequency to 2-3
times a year, depending on weather conditions. IDEM will continue to monitor teasel
growth on the site and take appropriate steps to contain the growth and spread if
necessary.
VI. Five-Year Review Process
Administrative Components
The LSI five-year review was prepared by Erica Islas, EPA RPM for the site. Prabhakar
Kasarabada, IDEM Project Manager and Stephen Thorn, EPA Office of Regional Counsel assignee
for LSJ, also assisted with the review. The five-year review consisted of a site inspection and a
review of relevant documents.
Community Involvement
Activities to involve the community in the five-year review process were initiated in 2006 between
the EPA RPM and the IDEM Project Manager. An advertisement notice regarding the five-year
review process was placed in the Gary Post Tribune on February 4, 2006, and invited the public to
submit any comments to IDEM. No comments were received. The completed report will be made
available at the site information repository.
Document Review
Documents reviewed in preparation of this five-year review report include the following:
Common Council of the City of Gary, Ordinance No. 7930 - Amended Ground
Water Ordinance Restricting Usage, dated July 3, 2006
Default Judgment, Commissioner of IDEM vs. Beulah Berry, et al., Lake County
Superior Court Cause No. 45D049904CP00293, dated August 21, 2001
Operation & Maintenance Reports, dated November 2004, April 2005 and October
2005
Five-Year Reports, dated January 1996 and September 2001
Final Operation and Maintenance Manual, dated April 1996
Final Record of Decision dated September 1986
Final Remedial Investigation Report, dated August 1986
The remedial action objectives (RAOs) for LSJ are to ensure continued protection of human health
and the environment near and downgradient of the Site. The ROD also identified the following
general response actions necessary to address problems at LSJ.
Prevention of inhalation, absorption or ingestion of surface soils and sediments.
Prevention of ingestion of contaminated drinking water from existing and future
releases to the Calumet aquifer.
8
-------
Prevention of future releases of sediments to east-west and southeast drainage
ditches from on-site surface soil erosion.
The following standards were identified as applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
(ARARs) in the ROD or previous five-year reviews for LSI, and were reviewed for changes that
could affect protectiveness:
Safe Drinking Water Act (SOWA), 40 CFR Parts 141 and 143. Part 141 establishes
National Primary Drinking Water Standards. Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs)
are applicable and non-zero MCL Goals (MCLGs) are to be considered. Part 143
establishes National Secondary Drinking Water Standards.
Clean Water Act, 40 CFR Part 131. Water Quality Criteria for the discharge of
contaminants to the drainage ditch.
327 Indiana Administrative Code (IAC) 2. State of Indiana Water Quality Standards
water quality standards for the discharge of contaminants to the drainage ditch.
327 IAC 2-11. State of Indiana Ground Water Standards
327 IAC 8-2. State of Indiana Public Water Supply Drinking Water Standards
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA).
Data Review
The LSJ O&M plan has been completed and reported semiannually since the last five-year review.
The exception to this occurred in 2004 when the Site was only sampled once in November.
Groundwater monitoring wells are sampled and analyzed for VOCs during the semiannual program.
Recent monitoring results have shown that VOC concentrations levels, with the exception of
benzene, remain below action levels as prescribed in the O&M Manual.
Concentrations of benzene greater than MCLs continue to persist in the following perimeter wells:
MW-005, MW-006, MW-015 and MW-023. However, it appears that the benzene levels are
stabilizing. Results from upgradient well MW-021 and downgradient well MW-027 show that no
migration of the contaminants of concern.
The contaminant levels of these wells will continue to be monitored on a semi-annual basis. Surface
water sampling only occurred during the November 2004 sampling event. No contaminants of
concern were detected from these samples. IDEM discontinued the metal analysis after the February
1999 sampling round.
Site Inspection
The LSJ site inspection for this review was conducted on April 18, 2006. Erica Islas and Denise
Boone of EPA and Prabhakar Kasarabada of IDEM were present during this inspection. The
five-year review site inspection checklist was used as a guideline for the LSJ site inspection. The
inspection was concurrent with the spring sampling event for the Site.
A walk was taken around the surface of the Site to observe the conditions at the site surface. A
drive was also taken to observe those wells not located around the immediate site boundary and to
note conditions of the surrounding neighborhood.
9
-------
LSI was found to be in good condition. No breaches to the landfill cap were observed and the cap
remained predominantly vegetated. The access fence was properly in place with the gates locked. It
was also noted that a construction and demolition debris area is located to the immediate east of the
Site. The area houses MW-003, MW-004, MW-005 and MW-006.
Issues found during the five-year review inspection included:
1. MW-017 and MW-022, located on the south side of the interstate were not found. It
is assumed that the wells were sheared to the ground during interstate expansion
construction. This observation was also noted in the November 2004 O&M report.
2. The widening of the interstate has also undercut soils proximal to some of the wells
located on the southern boundary of the site. Erosion has occurred resulting in the
falling of sidewalls near MW-007 and MW-008 and near MW-009 and MW-010.
3. The presence of teasel and woody vegetation is still present on the site surface. The
periodic mowing has been effective in containing growth and spread of teasel and
woody vegetation on the surface.
VII. Technical Assessment
The following questions address the protection of human health and the environment of the remedy
at LSI.
Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents?
Answer: Yes, except for ICs.
Remedial action performance
The remedial action selected in the ROD has been implemented and remains functional, operational
and effective. With continued maintenance and monitoring of the soil cover and groundwater
system, the remedy should contain the soil contamination and ensure that no migration of
contaminants to groundwater will occur. The soil cover and site security fence ensure that source
area contamination is contained and a permanent barrier exists to prevent human contact.
System Operations/O&M
O&M of the soil cover and drainage structure has been effective. Groundwater data has shown that
contaminant concentrations continue to drop and natural attenuation may be effectively controlling
contaminant concentration within the aquifer beneath the site and off-site. Current costs at LSJ are
primarily attributable to operation, maintenance and management of the Site and groundwater
monitoring systems.
When ICs are implemented, EPA will explore if modification of the O&M Manual will be
necessary to include mechanisms to ensure routine inspections of ICs and routine certification to
EPA that ICs are in place and effective. EPA will also explore whether development and inclusion
of a communications plan to the O&M Manual is necessary to inform the community and local and
state governments.
10
-------
Opportunities for Optimization
There were no opportunities for system optimization observed during this review. The groundwater
monitoring system provides sufficient data to assess the progress of natural attenuation within the
plume and maintenance on the cap is sufficient to maintain its integrity.
Implementation of Institutional Controls and Other Measures
Since all ICs are not in-place, the remedy is not functioning as intended. As described earlier, an
ICAP is required to assure affective ICs are implemented and monitored.
Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial
action objectives (RAOs) used at the time of remedy selection still valid?
Answer: Yes.
Changes in Standards
Standards outlined in the 1986 ROD are still valid at LSJ. There have been no changes in remedial
action objectives affecting the protectiveness of the remedy.
Changes in Toxicity and Other Contaminant Characteristics
Toxicity and other factors for contaminants of concern have not changed since the last five-year
review in 2001.
Changes in Risk Assessment Methodologies
Risk assessment methodologies used at the LSJ Site since the last five-year review in 2001 have not
changed and do not call into question the protectiveness of the remedy.
Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the
protectiveness of the remedy?
Answer: No.
No other information has become available that could question the remedy at LSJ. The site remedy
remains protective of human health and the environment.
Technical Assessment Summary
The physical aspect of the remedy is functioning as intended by the ROD. However, the required
ICs have not been put into place, affecting the overall protectiveness of the remedy in the long term.
The standards, exposure pathways, toxicity factors for contaminants of concern, and risk assessment
methodologies remain unchanged since the last five-year review. There is no other information that
calls into question the protectiveness of the remedy.
11
-------
VIII. Issues
Table 4: Issues
Issues
Affects Protectiveness
(Y/N)
Current
Future
In order must be for remedy to be protective in the long-term,
effective ICs implemented and maintained
N
Y
Issues Not Affecting Protectiveness of Remedy
Other issues at LSJ were noted but it was determined that they do not affect the protectiveness of
the remedy in the long term. These issues include the following:
1. monitoring wells MW-017 and MW-022 were missing
2. fallen sidewalls at the southern perimeters wells
3. continued teasel growth on the site surface
4. benzene concentration levels remain above MCLs
IX. Recommendations and Follow-up Actions
Table 5: Recommendations and Follow-up Actions
Issue
Recommendations and Follow-up
Actions
Party
Responsible
Oversight
Agency
Milestone Date
Affects
Protectiveness
(Y/N) Current,
Future
In order for the
remedy to be
protective in the
long-term,
effective ICs
must be
implemented
and maintained.
Develop and implement an ICAP that
will do the following:
Evaluate and determine which
restrictions are appropriate for each
area of the Site
Ensure that deed restrictions are
recorded for remaining properties at
the Site
Request an additional groundwater
ordinance to be put into place to
restrict all groundwater use in both
on-site and off-site areas affected by
the remedial action and as designated
by ROD
Ensure effective procedures are
in-place for long-term stewardship at
the Site
IDEM/EPA
EPA/IDEM
Development
3/31/2007
Implementation
Ongoing
N, Y
12
-------
Recommendations and Follow-Up Actions Not Affecting Protectiveness of Remedy
For those issues noted but determined as not affecting the protectiveness of the remedy, the
recommendations and follow-up actions include the following:
1. a check of whether missing wells were properly abandoned, replacement of wells or
modification of O&M figures should be conducted as needed
2. replacement of fallen sidewalls on southern perimeter wells
3. continuance with semiannual mowing and reseeding the site surface, if necessary
4. continuance with semiannual monitoring of wells of concern
EDEM will be responsible for addressing those issues not affecting the protectiveness of the
remedy before the beginning of the next five-year review of this site.
X. Protectiveness Statement
The remedial actions for OU-1 and OU-2 are protective of human health and the environment in the
short term. However, because the required ICs have not been implemented, the Site is not protective
of human health and the environment in the long term. The ICs must do the following: 1) restrict
land use such that it would not compromise the integrity of the remedy and allow for direct
exposure to contaminants; and 2) prohibit the use of groundwater at those residences that were
provided an alternative water supply under the remedial action and an area north of the Site.
XI. Next Review
The next five-year review for the Lake Sandy Jo Site is required by September 2011, five years
from the signature date of this review.
13
-------
Attachment 1
Site Maps
Site Location Map, Extent of Contamination
Groundwater Map, Site Layout and Potentiometric
Surface Map, Institutional Controls Review Map
-------
Site Location Superfund
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(A;
«ra^"
Lake Sandy Jo iM&M Landfill)
Lake County, IN IND980500524
County
State
m*
"1
fAy# '• »
V*£7«T>Pr
Vt Ave
Legend
Lake Sand,1 Jo Boundary
It Swih
US EFARtOKnSORtftiMX
| Mao Me6
-------
HOMO
APPROXIMATt LOCATION OP MONlTORINO
WILL OR WfLLPAM IN CALUMfT AQUIPfft
APPNOXIMATt LOCATION 0# 3AMPVJ0
flUIOCNTlAL WCLL IN CALUMIT AQUI'IR
_ A**OXIMATI LOCATION Of OfUINAOl
0 ITCH IS
///// AHCA Of CALUMIT A QlJtPIRS PftUtNTLY
///// AMICTIO tV CONTAMINANT* WOM
LANDFILL. TMC lOUNOANV INCOMPASSU
WILLS P"OM WHICH SAMPUM WITH CON*
CINTRATIONS ONCATtR THAN SACK*
OROUNOWWI OITAINIQ.
EXTENT OF CONTAMM
GROUNDWATER
-------
-------
Institutional Control (IC) Review Superfund
Areas Depicting Required U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Institutional Controls
Lake Sandy Jo {M&M Landfill)
Lake County, IN IND98050Q524
Legend
• m m m
I m * •
Silts 8oijiidary/F«nce - Access Control
Deed Restrictions - Required IC
-DovKWmtttn ml u» pftjh*>ta3
Groundwater Area - Required IC
-£*C*rnJ* iJtia i um lLaiiuljiii, dnmiutira muIbk *opyi|r |*nnic'J
a
( «, .
Landfill Cap - Requtrec IC
•DonpUsni o' cap potiitJitoi
rs.4
Soli/Waste Ares - Squired IC
-IryJuisria irtd onif
400
800
~ Fset
J
gJBs
EPA DtKlamr Plaaie M nut nai
-------
Attachment 2
Compilation of Monitoring Data
-------
TABLE 4 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE REPORT
SUMMARY OF VOCs RESULTS LAKE SANDY JO SUPERFUND SITE #7500077
FEBRUARY 1994 TO PAGE 1 OF 14
OCTOBER 2005
Sample Location
Date
IDEM No.
MCL
SF-01
11/04/04
LQ1871
SF-02
11/04/04
LQ1872
SF-03
11/04/04
LQ1873
hpUssiife
MW-003
04/14/05
LXD-2177
WW-003DUI
04/14/05
LO-2179
MW-003
11/03/04
LQ1863
MW-003
Mar-03
LQ0153
MW-003
RI Phase I
MW-003
May-96
RO 2508
MW-003
May-97
RO 3224
MW-003
May-98
RO 4307
MW-003
Feb-99
RO 5305
is
MW-004
04/14/05
LO-2178
MW-004
11/03/04
LQ1864
Volatile Organic Compounds Cug/T)
1,1 dichloroethane
NA
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
' 1
1,1,1 -tri chloroethane
200
r. .I.,-:.
36
-
-
-
-
j'AS. .
Acrolein
NA
-
-
-
-
-
- .tfwftiSirjS
Acrylonitrile
NA
-
-
-
-
-
Benzene
S
-------
TABLE 4 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE REPORT
SUMMARY OF VOCs RESULTS LAKE SANDY JO SUPERFUND SITE #7500077
FEBRUARY 1994 TO PAGE 2 OF 14
OCTOBER 2005
Sample Location
Date
IDEM No.
MW-004
RI Phase I
MW-004
May-98
R04328
MW-004
Feb-99
KMW4I06--'
MW-005
04/14/05
LO-2180
MW-005
11/03/04
LQ1865
MW-005
Sep-03
LQ0761
V1W-005DUI
Sep-03
LQ0762
MW-005
Jun-03
LQ0472
MW-005DUP
Jun-03
LQ0473
MW-005
Dec-02
TK7149
MW-005*
Dec-02
TK7151
MW-005
Aug-02
RO9705
MW-005*
Aug-02
RO9706
MW-005
RI Phase 1
Volatile Organic Compounds (ng/1)
- ,'"r. -
1,1 dichloroethane
NA
NA
NA
, jHII'
-
-
-
NA
NA
-
-
NA
1,1,1 -tn chl oroethane
-
-
<1
-
-
-
NA
NA
-
-
-
1,2 dichloroethane
NA
NA
NA
¦ft1!;'1" r«i"n1. ¦'
<1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
1,2-Dichloroethene
<1
1,2,4-Trimethyl benzene
'.'Iff * ™fi". 'fth- (|<
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
2-butanone
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
8
2-hexanone
-
-
W .. ( ,
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
Acetone
18
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
35
Acrolein
-
- 'If-'
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
Acrylonitrile
-
-
-
' '"V" II, ,
-
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
Benzene
-
11
14
1.9
16
32
33
38
23
13
13
23.0
20
24
Bromoform
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
Carbon Disulfide
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
Chlorobenzene
-
<1
1.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
Chloroethane
-
-
4'H
<2
5.1
-
21
-
4.8
5.6
-
-
-
Chloroform
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
Ethyl benzene
-
-
,
<1
<1
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
Isopropylbenzene
-
-
-
1.4
-
-
-
2
2
NA
NA
-
m/p xylene
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
-
-
NA
Methylene Chloride
3 B
-
-
Wmmm.
-
-
-
NA
NA
23
5.9
29 B
methyl-T-butyl ether
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
-
-
NA
Tetrachlorofluoromethane
-
-
5.IN
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
Tetrahydrofuran
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
Toluene
-
-
-
<1
<1
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
-
Trichloroethene
-
-
-
<1
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
Total xylene(s)
-
-
-
"*-^2.7 ' ,
<1
2.5
-
-
-
-
1.5
1.5
NA
NA
-
Vinyl Acetate
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
Vinyl Chloride
-
-
-
WP#f*SS!
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Unknowns
-
-
-
.. .
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
-
Total of TICs
SftaQfrViv
50.7
Table is based on data provided by IDEM
Bold concentrations exceed screening criterion
Analyte below detection limit
NA= not applicable, not available, or not analyzed as appropriate
J = Concentrations estimated due to q.'c qualifier
R = Spike Sample recovery not within control limits - value not used in screening evaluation
UJ = Concentrations are below detection limit and estimated due to quality control qualifier
B = Blank contaminated
MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level
Printed 12/16/2005
-------
TABLE 4 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE REPORT
SUMMARY OF VOCs RESULTS LAKE SANDY JO SUPERFUND SITE #7500077
FEBRUARY 1994 TO PAGE 3 OF 14
OCTOBER 2005
Sample Location
MW-005
MW-005
MW-005
MW-005
MW-005
MW-005
MW-005 dup
MW-005
MW-005 dup
MW-005
MW-005 dup
MW-005
MW-005 dup
MW-005
Date
May-96
Aug-96
Dec-96
Feb-97
Feb-97
Feb-97
Feb-97
Aug-97
Aug-97
Dec-97
Dec-97
Feb-98
Feb-98
May-98
IDEM No.
RO 2509
RO 2731
R02882
R02976
R02977
R03225
R03226
RO3580
R03581
RO3806
R03817
RO4101
R03817
RO430S
Volatile Organic Compounds fMfi/1)
1,1 dichloroethane
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1,1,1-trichIoroethane
-
-
.
-
NA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,2 dichloroethane
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Na
NA
1,2-Dichloroethene
1,2,4 -T rimethy lbenzene
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
2-butanone
-
-
NA
NA
-
-
-
-
2-hexanone
-
-
.
NA
NA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Acetone
29
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
23
Acrolein
-
-
.
NA
NA
.
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
Acrylonitrile
-
-
NA
NA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Benzene
36
37
44
43
43
52
51
50
54
26
25
41
45
35
Bromoform
-
-
-
NA
NA
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
-
Carbon Disulfide
-
-
-
NA
NA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Chlorobenzene
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Chloroethane
-
6 J
-
NA
NA
12
13
-
12
11
12
15
-
Chloroform
-
-
-
NA
NA
-
-
-
-
-
Ethylbenzene
-
-
NA
NA
-
-
7
-
-
-
-
-
-
lsopropvlbenzene
-
-
-
-
NA
-
-
-
-
-
2.2
2.5
m/p xylene
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Methylene Chloride
-
6
7
NA
NA
9.9J
12J
.
-
-
.
-
-
-
methyl-T-butyl ether
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
na
NA
T etrachl orofl uoromethane
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
-
Tetrahydrofuran
160
92
170
180
190
.
.
-
-
.
-
.
140
Toluene
-
-
NA
NA
-
-
-
-
1
l.i
-
Trichloroethene
-
16
-
NA
NA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Total xylene(s)
6
7
-
NA
NA
-
-
M (m)
-
4.4
4.7
6
Vinyl Acetate
-
-
-
NA
NA
-
-
.
-
.
-
-
-
Vinyl Chloride
-
-
NA
NA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Unknowns
-
-
v
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Total of TICs
Table is based on data provided by IDEM
Bold concentrations exceed screening criterion
Analyte below detection limit
NA= not applicable, not available, or not analyzed as appropriate
J = Concentrations estimated due to q/c qualifier
R = Spike Sample recovery not within control limits - value not used in screening evaluation
UJ = Concentrations are below detection limit and estimated due to quality control qualifier
B = Blank contaminated
MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level
Printed 12/16/2005
-------
TABLE 4 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE REPORT
SUMMARY OF VOCs RESULTS LAKE SANDY JO SUPERFUND SITE #7500077
FEBRUARY 1994 TO PAGE 4 OF 14
OCTOBER 2005
Sample Location
MW-005dup
MW-005
MW-005
MW-005dup
MW-005
MW40S
MW-006
MW-006
VIW-006DUF
MW-006
MW-006
MW-006
MW-006
MW-006
MW-006
MW-006
MW-006
Date
May-98
Aug-98
Dec-98
Dec-98
Feb-99
1«(S!5»5'
04/14/05
11/03/04
11/03/04
Sep-03
Dec-02
Aug-02
RI Phase I
Feb-94
Aug-96
Aug-96
Aug-97
IDEM No.
RO4320
RO4570
R04837
R04843
RO5309
CQ2S96
LO-2181
LQ1866
LQ1867
LQ0766
TK7150
RO9707
RK8820
RO 2732
RO 2734
R03577
Volatile Organic Compounds (ue/J)
/»> '
1,1 dichloroethane
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
NA
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1,1,1 -trichloroethane
-
28
-
-
2' ¦¦
11
9.6
8.8
-
6.6
NA
-
2.2
6
6
-
Vinyl Acetate
-
-
-
-
If -i»j 'll'i
-
NA
NA
-
-
-
-
Vinyl Chloride
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Unknowns
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
-
-
-
-
-
Total ofTlCs
"¦¦¦ 87.7
163.2
162.2
Table is based on data provided by IDEM
Bold concentrations exceed screening criterion
Analyte below detection limit
NA= not applicable, not available, or not analyzed as appropriate
J = Concentrations estimated due to q/c qualifier
R = Spike Sample recovery not within control limits - value not used in screening evaluation
UJ = Concentrations are below detection limit and estimated due to quality control qualifier
B = Blank contaminated
MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level
Printed 12/16/2005
-------
TABLE 4 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE REPORT
SUMMARY OF VOCs RESULTS LAKE SANDY JO SUPERFUND SITE #7500077
FEBRUARY 1994 TO PAGE 5 OF 14
OCTOBER 2005
Sample Location
MW-006
MW-006
MW-006
MW-006
MW-006
MW-007R
MW-007R
MW-007
MW-007R
MW-007R
MW-007R
MW-007R
MW-007B
MW-007B
MW-007R
MW-007R
MW-007R
Date
Dec-97
Feb-98
May-98
Aug-98
Feb-99
Sep-03
Jun-03
Rl Phase I
Dec-02
May-95
May-95
Noiv-95
May-96
May-96
Aug-96
Dec-96
Dec-96
IDEM No.
R03818
RO4106
R04321
R04572
ROSJ11
LQ0768
LQ0475
TK7146
RO 1564
RO 1566
RO 2086
RO 2510
RO 2511
RO 273S
R02881
R02886
Volatile Oreanlc Compounds (*ie/l)
1.1 dichloroethane
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1,1.1 -trichloroethane
-
20
-
-
-
NA
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,2 dichloroethane
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1,2-Dichloroethene
1,2.4-Tnmsthylbenzene
-
-
1.8 N
-
-
-
NA
-
-
-
-
-
-
2-butanone
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
-
-
-
-
-
-
2-hexanone
-
-
-
-
NA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Acetone
-
24
-
-
-
-
102
NA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Acrolein
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
-
-
-
-
-
Acrylonitrile
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
-
-
-
-
-
-
Benzene
100
99
81
99
98
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Bromofoim
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
-
-
-
-
-
-
Carbon Disulfide
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
-
-
-
-
-
-
Chlorobenzene
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Chloroethane
17
15
-
11
14
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Chloroform
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Ethylbenzene
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
-
-
-
-
-
-
Isopropylbenzune
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
m/p xylene
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Methylene Chloride
-
-
-
-
-
-
31 B
NA
-
-
-
-
-
-
9
9
methyl-T-butyl ether
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
T etrachl orofl uoromet hane
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Tetrahydrofuran
-
-
170
100
94
-
-
NA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Toluene
-
2.2
-
2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Trichloroethene
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
-
-
-
-
-
-
Total xyleneCs")
-
5.3
5
6.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Vinyl Acetate
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
-
-
-
-
-
-
Vinyl Chloride
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Unknowns
-
-
-
17
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
-
Total ofTICs
Table is based on data provided by IDEM
Bold concentrations exceed screening criterion
Analyte below detection limit
NA= not applicable, not available, or not analyzed as appropriate
J = Concentrations estimated due to q/c qualifier
R - Spike Sample recovery not within control limits - value not used in screening evaluation
UJ = Concentrations are below detection limit and estimated due to quality control qualifier
B = Blank contaminated
MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level
Printed 12/16/2005
-------
TABLE 4 OPERATION ANO MAINTENANCE REPORT
SUMMARY OF VOCs RESULTS LAKE SANDY JO SUPERFUND SITE #7500077
FEBRUARY 1994 TO PAGE 6 OF 14
OCTOBER 2005
Sample Location
MW-007R
MW-007R
MW-007R
MW-007R
MW-007R
MW-007R
MW-007R
MW-007R
MW-007R
MW-007R
MW-011
MW-014
MW-014
MW-014
MW-014
MW-014 du|
MW-014
Date
Dec-96
Feb-97
May-97
Aug-97
Dec-97
Feb-98
May-98
Aug-98
Dec-98
Feb-99
Mar-03
11/04/04
Dec-02
Aug-02
RI Phase 1
RI Phase I
Feb-94
IDEM No.
R028S6
R02975
R03227
R03585
R03819
RO4102
R04322
R04S75
R04575
RO5304
LQ01S2
LQ1869
TK7148
RO9702
RK8808
Volatile Organic Compounds (fifi/l)
1,1 dichloroethane
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
NA
-
-
-
-
1,1,1 -trichl oroethane
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
<1
NA
NA
NA
NA
1,2 dichloroethane
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
<1
1.2
-
NA
NA
NA
1,2-Dichloroethene
1,2,4-Trimethvlbenzene
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
-
-
-
2-butanone
-
-
.
-
.
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
-
-
-
2-hexanone
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
-
Acetone
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
14
-
-
Acrolein
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
-
-
-
Acrylonitrile
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
-
-
Benzene
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
26
48
38.0
5
5
20
Bromoform
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
-
-
-
Carbon Disulfide
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
-
-
-
Chlorobenzene
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
12
-
NA
-
-
Chloroethane
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
<2
13
10
-
5.7
Chloroform
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
-
-
-
Ethvlbenzene
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
<\
NA
NA
-
-
-
Isopropylbenzene
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
<1
-
NA
-
-
-
m/p xylene
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
NA
-
NA
NA
NA
Methylene Chlonde
9
-
10J
6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
8.8
2 B
-
-
methvl-T-butvl ether
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
NA
-
NA
NA
NA
Tetrachlorofluoromethane
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Tetrahydrofuran
-
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
-
-
-
Toluene
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
<1
-
NA
-
-
-
Trichl oroethene
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
-
-
-
Total xylene(s)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
<1
-
NA
-
-
-
Vinyl Acetate
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
-
-
Vinyl Chloride
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Unknowns
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
Total of TICs
159.3
Table is based on data provided by IDEM
Bold concentrations exceed screening criterion
Analyte below detection limit
NA= not applicable, not available, or not analyzed as appropriate
J = Concentrations estimated due to q/c qualifier
R = Spike Sample recoveiy not within control limits - value not used in screening evaluation
UJ = Concentrations are below detection limit and estimated due to quality control qualifier
B = Blank contaminated
MCL ~ Maximum Contaminant Level
Printed 12/16/2005
-------
TABLE 4 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE REPORT
SUMMARY OF VOCs RESULTS LAKE SANDY JO SUPERFUND SITE #7500077
FEBRUARY 1994 TO PAGE 7 OF 14
OCTOBER 2005
Sample Location
Date
IDEM No.
MW-014
Feb-94
RK 8813
MW-014
Aug-94
RK 9689
MW-014
Feb-95
RO 1314
MW-014
Aug-95
RO 1917
MW-014
Aug-95
RO 1918
MW-014
Nov-95
RO 2087
IfflMIS HW-015dU|
MW-015
MW-015
11/04/04
LQ1870
MW-015
Sep-03
LQ0767
MW-015
Jun-03
LQ0476
MW-015
Dec-02
TK7147
MW-015
Aug-02
RO9701
MW-015
RI Phase I
MW-015
Feb-94 |
RKS809
MW-015
Aug-94
RK9690
04/14/05
IX)-2182
Volatile Organic Compounds Cue/T)
1.1 dichloroethane
.
.
-
.
-
-
-
NA
-
NA
NA
NA
1,1,1 -trichloroethane
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
i,i ''i, ';,i i" 1
<1
-
-
NA
-
-
-
1,2 dichloroethane
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
dr-J
<1
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
NA
1,2-Dichloroethene
<1
1.2,4-T rimethvl benzene
-
-
-
-
-
-
,P
nil |i!||"i,lu i|
-
-
NA
NA
-
-
-
2-butanone
-
-
-
-
"i '"J
-
-
NA
NA
-
-
-
2-hexanone
-
-
-
-
-
1 'ii
-,
-
-
NA
na
2 B
-
-
Acetone
-
29
-
-
26
-
-
NA
NA
-
-
26
Acrolein
-
-
-
-
-
-
...
-
-
na
NA
-
-
-
Acrvlonitrile
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
-
-
-
Benzene
12
6
16
13
12
26
if ¦' ]$i
11
19
25
24
32
28.0
3
12
24
Bromoform
-
-
-
-
-
• i '
-
-
na
NA
-
-
-
Carbon Disulfide
-
-
-
-
-
-
,||H> 1', -'f 1
-
-
na
NA
-
-
-
Chiorobenzene
-
-
-
-
r~
-
¦:
-
-
na
NA
-
-
-
Tetrahydrofuran
-
450
4100
82J
97J
470
<1
-
-
na
NA
-
-
380
Toluene
-
-
-
-
-
-
<1
'.I- :
<1
<1
-
-
NA
-
-
-
Trichloroethene
-
-
-
-
¦
-
NA
NA
-
-
-
Total xylene(s)
-
-
I
-
<1
<1
<1
-
-
-
NA
-
-
Vinyl Acetate
-
-
-
-
-
-
..¦V
•i* ii1 1
-
NA
NA
-
-
Vinyl Chloride
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Unknowns
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
il' i"
-
-
-
NA
-
-
-
Total of TICs
i
30.6 i "
29 2
129.3
i
Table is based on data provided by IDEM
Bold concentrations exceed screening criterion
= Analyte below detection limit
NA= not applicable, not available, or not analyzed as appropriate
J = Concentrations estimated due to q/c qualifier
R = Spike Sample recovery not within control limits - value not used in screening evaluation
UJ = Concentrations are below detection limit and estimated due to quality control qualifier
B = Bianic contaminated
MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level
Printed 12/16/2005
-------
TABLE 4 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE REPORT
SUMMARY OF VOCs RESULTS LAKE SANDY JO SUPERFUND SITE #7500077
FEBRUARY 1994 TO PAGE 8 OF 14
OCTOBER 2005
Sample Location
MW-015
MW-015
MW-015
MW-015
MW-015
MW-015
MW-015
MW-015
MW-015
MW-015
MW-015
MW-015
MW-015
MW-015
MW-015
MW-015
MW-015
Date
Nov-94
Feb-95
Feb-95
May-95
Aug-95
Nov-95
Nov-95
May-96
Aug-96
Dec-96
Feb-97
May-97
Aug-97
Dec-97
Feb-98
May-98
Aug-98
IDEM No.
RO 1045
RO 1316
RO 1317
RO 1568
RO1920
RO 2092
RO 2093
RO 2513
RO 2736
R02883
R02979
R03229
R03581
R03815
RO4103
R04318
R04577
Volatile Organic Compounds (Mfi/1)
1,1 dichloroethane
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1,1,1 -trichloroethane
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
11
-
26
1,2 dichloroethane
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1,2-Dichloroethene
1,2,4 -T rim ethyl benzene
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.3 N
2-butanone
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
-
-
-
2-hexanone
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Acetone
-
22
-
-
-
50
44
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Acrolein
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Acrylonitrile
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Benzene
24
IS
19
24
-
26
26
17
27
28
26
29
36
25
27
26
33
Bromoform
-
-
5 UJ
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Carbon Disulfide
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Chlorobenzene
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Chloroethane
-
-
-
-
-
10
12
-
-
-
-
9
S
14
13
12
13
Chloroform
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Ethylbenzene
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Isopropyl benzene
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
m/p xylene
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Methylene Chloride
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7
-
8J
-
-
-
-
methyl-T-butyl ether
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
T etrachl orofluoromethane
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Tetrahydrofuran
400
3400
2300
430
44J
310
260
360
160
300
390
-
-
-
-
270
133
Toluene
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Trichloroethene
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Total xylenefs)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Vinyl Acetate
-
-
-
10 UR
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Vinyl Chloride
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Unknowns
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Total of TICs
Table is based on data provided by IDEM
Bold concentrations exceed screening criterion
Analyte below detection limit
NA= not applicable, not available, or not analyzed as appropriate
J = Concentrations estimated due to q/c qualifier
R = Spike Sample recovery not within control limits - value not used in screening evaluation
U J = Concentrations are below detection limit and estimated due to quality control qualifier
B - Blank contaminated
MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level
Printed 12/16/2005
-------
TABLE 4 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE REPORT
SUMMARY OF VOCs RESULTS LAKE SANDY JO SUPERFUND SITE #7500077
FEBRUARY 1994 TO PAGE 9 OF 14
OCTOBER 2005
Sample Location
Date
IDEM No.
MW-015
Dec-98
R04841
MW-015
Feb-99
ROS303
MW-015dup
Feb-99
RO5310
MW-016
Sep-02
R09721
MW-017
Mar-fli
LQ0159
MW-020R
11103/04
LQ1862
MW-020R
Aug-02
R09711
MW-021
.'judftii ¦
' LQ2888
MW-021
04/14/05
LO-2175
MW-021
11/03/04
LQ1860
MW-021
Sep-03
LQ0760
MW-021
Jun-03
LQ0471
MW-021
Feb-95
RK1312
MW-021
May-95
RO 1562
MW-021
Nov-95
RO 2088
MW-021
May-96
RO 2S07
MW-021
Aug-96
RO 2727
Volatile Organic Compounds (ue/1)
Jr f I iW"
1,1 dichloroethane
NA
na
NA
-
0.79
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1,1,1 -trichloroethane
-
-
2.3
2.8
<1
-
-
-
-
-
1,2 dichloroethane
NA
na
NA
0.54
-
"'
<2
<2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Chloroform
-
-
-
NA
-
NA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Ethylbenzene
-
-
-
NA
-
<1
NA
MNMK*
<1
<1
-
-
-
-
-
-
I sopropyl benzene
-
-
-
NA
-
<1
NA
<1
<1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
m/p xylene
NA
NA
NA
0.084
-
-
- 1 K'l^i-Ff"1 •
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Methylene Chloride
-
-
-
1.8
-
0.83
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
methyl-T-butyl ether
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
T etrachlorofl uoromethane
-
-
-
NA
-
NA
vi:. "i
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Tetrahvdrofuran
-
160
150
NA
-
NA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Toluene
-
-
-
NA
-
<1
NA
.-.,41.. ¦
<1
<1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Trichloroethene
-
-
-
NA
-
NA
"'"I1B
-
-
-
-
-
-
Total xylene(s)
-
-
-
NA
<1
NA
<1
<1
<1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Vinyl Acetate
-
-
NA
-
NA
_ tr, i
-
-
-
-
-
Vinyl Chloride
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Unknowns
-
-
-
NA
NA
j - Hi 11
-
-
-
-
-
-
Total of TICs
Table is based on data provided by IDEM
Bold concentrations exceed screening criterion
Analyte below detection limit
NA= not applicable, not available, or not analyzed as appropriate
J = Concentrations estimated due to q/c qualifier
R = Spike Sample recovery not within control limits - value not used in screening evaluation
UJ - Concentrations are below detection limit and estimated due to quality control qualifier
B = Blank contaminated
MCL - Maximum Contaminant Level
Printed 12/16/2005
-------
TABLE 4 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE REPORT
SUMMARY OF VOCs RESULTS LAKE SANDY JO SUPERFUND SITE #7500077
FEBRUARY 1994 TO PAGE 10 OF 14
OCTOBER 2005
Sample Location
Date
IDEM No.
MW-021
Dec-96
RO28S0
MW-021
Feb-97
R02974
MW-021
May-97
R03231
MW-021
Aug-97
R03576
MW-021
Dec-97
R03812
MW-021
Feb-98
R04100
MW-021
May-98
R04315
MW-021dup
May-98
R04325
MW-021
Aug-98
R04574
MW-021
Dec-98
RO4840
MW-021
Feb-99
ROS313
MW-022
Dec-02
TK7155
MW-022
Sep-02
R09723
MW-022
Feb-94
RKSS18
MW-022
Nov-95
RO2091
s.
MW-023R
04/14/05
LO-2176
Volatile Organic Compounds (pg/I)
1,1 dichloroethane
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
NA
NA
1,1,1 -trichloroethane
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
-
-
-
1,2 dichloroethane
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
NA
NA
1,2-Dichloroethene
1,2,4-Trimethvlbenzene
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
-
-
2-butanone
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
-
2-hexanone
-
-
.
.
-
.
.
-
-
NA
NA
-
Acetone
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
-
25
Acrolein
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
-
AcrylonitriJe
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
-
Benzene
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4:9 -
3.3
Bromoform
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
-
Carbon Disulfide
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
-
j"1. 1 '
Chlorobenzene
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
-
<1
Chloroethane
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
5
-
-
<2
Chloroform
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
-
-
HllpiiHll;
Ethylbenzene
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
-
-
<1
Isopropylbenzene
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
NA
-
el'"
m/p xylene
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
NA
NA
Methylene Chloride
-
6J
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
0.54
-
-
methyl-T-butvl ether
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
NA
NA
Tetrachlorofluoromethane
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
1
1
T etrahydrofuran
-
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
NA
NA
-
-
$
I
Toluene
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
-
-
> V "
<1
Trichloroethene
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
-
-
Total xylene(s)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
-
-
<1
Vinyl Acetate
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
-
-
Vinyl Chloride
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.6
20
3.9
-
Unknowns
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
Total ofTlCs
Table is based on data provided by IDEM
Bold concentrations exceed screening criterion
Analyte below detection limit
NA= not applicable, not available, or not analyzed as appropriate
J = Concentrations estimated due to q/c qualifier
R = Spike Sample recovery not within control limits - value not used in screening evaluation
UJ = Concentrations are below detection limit and estimated due to quality control qualifier
B = Blank contaminated
MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level
Printed 12/16/2005
-------
TABLE 4 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE REPORT
SUMMARY OF VOCs RESULTS LAKE SANDY JO SUPERFUND SITE #7500077
FEBRUARY 1994 TO PAGE 11 OF 14
OCTOBER 2005
Sample Location
MW-023R
MW-023R
MW-023R
MW-023R
MW-023R*
MW-023R
MW-023R
MW-023R
MW-023R
MW-023R
MW-023R
MW-023R
MW-023R
MW-023R
MW-023R
MW-023R
Date
11/03/04
Sep-OJ
Jun-03
Mar-03
Mar-03
Aug-94
Aug-94
Aug-94
Nov-94
Feb-95
May-95
Nov-95
May-96
Aug-96
Dec-96
Feb-97
IDEM No.
LQ1861
LQ0764
LQ0474
LQ0154
LQ0I55
RKS818
RK 9693
RK9694
RO 1042
RO 1318
RO 1570
RO 2089
RO 2517
R0 2734
R02884
RO2980
Volatile Organic Compounds (Mfi/I)
1,1 dichloroethane
-
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1,1.1 -trichloroethane
<1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.2 dichloroethane
<1
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.2-Dichloroethene
1,2,4-Trimethvlbenzene
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2-butanone
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2-hexanone
-
.
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Acetone
.
.
-
-
-
-
-
46
-
-
23
-
-
-
Acrolein
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Acrylonitrile
.
.
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Benzene
8.1
-
.
4.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Bromoform
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
5 UJ
-
Carbon Disulfide
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
16
-
-
-
-
-
Chlorobenzene
38
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Chloroethane
<2
-
-
2.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Chloroform
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Ethylbenzene
<1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Isopropylbenzene
<1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
m/p xylene
-
.
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Methylene Chloride
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
8
-
methvl-T-butyl ether
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Tetrachlorofluorom ethane
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Tetrahvdrofuran
-
-
-
110
90
93
570
-
77
64
66
68
-
Toluene
<1
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Trichloroethene
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Total xyleneCs)
<1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Vinyl Acetate
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
-
Vinyl Chloride
-
-
-
3.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Unknowns
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Total of TICs
57.5
Table is based on data provided by IDEM
Bold concentrations exceed screening criterion
Analyte below detection limit
NA= not applicable, not available, or not analyzed as appropriate
J = Concentrations estimated due to q/c qualifier
R = Spike Sample recovery not within control limits - value not used in screening evaluation
U J = Concentrations are below detection limit and estimated due to quality control qualifier
B = Blank contaminated
MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level
Printed 12/16/2005
-------
TABLE 4 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE REPORT
SUMMARY OF VOCs RESULTS LAKE SANDY JO SUPERFUND SITE #7500077
FEBRUARY 1994 TO PAGE 12 OF 14
OCTOBER 2005
Sample Location
MW-023R
MW-023R
MW-023R
MW-023R
MW-023R
MW-023R
1W-023R du
MW-023R
MW-023R
MW-024
MW-024
MW-025
MW-025
MW-027
MW-027
MW-027
MW-027
MW-027
Date
May-97
Aug-97
Dec-97
Feb-98
May-98
Aug-98
Aug-98
Dec-98
Feb-99
1W24WS
Mar-03
Dec-02
Aug-02
04/14/05
11/03/04
Sep-OJ
Jun-03 '
Mar-03
IDEM No.
R03232
R03S78
RO3805
RO4104
R04326
R0457I
R04S78
R04842
RO5306
LQ209O
LQ0158
TK7153
R09718
LO-2183
LQ1868
LQ0765
LO0478
LQ0156
Volatile Organic Compounds
U dichloroethane
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
NA
-
-
-
1,1,1 -trichJoroethane
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
-
-------
TABLE 4 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE REPORT
SUMMARY OF VOCs RESULTS LAKE SANDY JO SUPERFUND SITE #7500077
FEBRUARY 1994 TO PAGE 13 OF 14
OCTOBER 2005
Sample Location
MW-027
MW-027
MW-027
MW-027
MW-027
MW-027
MW-027
MW-027
MW-027
MW-027
MW-027
MW-027
MW-027
MW-027
MW-027
MW-027
IW-023R E
gltnhlank
Trip Blank
Date
Aug-02
Feb-95
May-95
Nov-95
May-96
Aug-96
Dec-96
Feb-97
May-97
Aug-97
Dec-97
Feb-98
May-98
Aug-98
Dec-98
Feb-99
Sep-03
04/14/05
IDEM No.
R09712
R01319
R01572
R02090
R02519
R0272S
R02885
R02978
R03234
ROJ586
ROJ813
RO4105
R 04J16
R04573
R048J3
RO530S
LQ0763
.'MBoW'
LO-2184
Volatile Organic Compounds (ue/T)
1,1 dichloroethane
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
1,1,1 -trichloroethane
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
23
-
-
-
1,2 dichloroethane
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
- i i
1,2-Dichloroethene
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
NA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.1 N
-
-
.
raws
¦£2jU2iijj,a!i
2-butanone
NA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2-hexanone
NA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
MSB
Acetone
NA
23
-
21
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
Acrolein
NA
-
50 UJ
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
iiBiilmw
rc»saaft.;:
Acrylonitrile
NA
-
70 UJ
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Benzene
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
<1
Bromoform
NA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
Carbon Disulfide
NA
-
5 UJ
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
18
Chlorobenzene
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
<1
Chloroethane
7.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
n
<2
Chloroform
NA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Ethvlbenzene
NA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
<1
Isopropylbenzene
NA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
m/p xylene
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
Istfsf
Methylene Chloride
-
-
-
-
-
8
-
8J
-
-
-
-
1.2
-
-
-
EgSSgigS
methyl-T-butyl ether
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
T etrachlorofiuoromethane
NA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
]
Tetrahydrofuran
NA
-
-
-
-
-
62
-
-
-
-
61
37
-
71
.
Toluene
NA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
¦Oi
<1
Tnchloroethene
NA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
1
.
Total xylene(s)
NA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
<1
Vinyl Acetate
NA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
B5P?OT
Vinyl Chioride
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
Unknowns
1 NA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
tamm
Total of TICs
i
1
i
Table is based on data provided by IDEM
Bold concentrations exceed screening criterion
Analyte below detection limit
NA= not applicable, not available, or not analyzed as appropriate
J = Concentrations estimated due to q/c qualifier
R = Spike Sample recovery not within control limits - value not used in screening evaluation
UJ = Concentrations are below detection limit and estimated due to quality control qualifier
B = Blank contaminated
MCL - Maximum Contaminant Level
Printed 12/16/2005
-------
TABLE 4 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE REPORT
SUMMARY OF VOCs RESULTS LAKE SANDY JO SUPERFUND SITE #7500077
FEBRUARY 1994 TO PAGE 14 OF 14
OCTOBER 2005
Sample Location
trip blank*
Trip Blank
VIW-027EI
Trip Blank
MW-024EB
Trip Blank
Trip Blnk
Trip Blnk
Field Blnk
Trip Blnk
Field Blnk
T rip Blnk
Field Blnk
Trip Blnk
Field Blnk
Trip Blank
Trip Blank
Date
11/04/04
Sep-03
Jun-OJ
Mar-03
Mar-03
May-98
May-98
May-98
Aug-98
Aug-98
Dec-98
Dec-98
Feb-99
Feb-99
Sep-02
Dec-02
IDEM No.
LQ1874
LQ0769
LQ0477
LQ0479
LQ0157
LQ0160
RO4309
RO4310
R04314
R04S76
R04569
R04845
R04844
ROS314
R053I2
R09719
TK7154
Volatile Organic Compounds (Me/I)
1,1 dichloroethane
.
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
na
NA
-
NA
1,1.J -tnchloroethane
<1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
1,2 dichloroethane
<1
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
N'A
NA
NA
-
-
1,2-Dichloroethene
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
2-butanone
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
2-hexanone
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
Acetone
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
Acrolein
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
Acrylonitrile
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
Benzene
<1
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Bromoform
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
Carbon Disulfide
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
Chlorobenzene
<1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
-
Chloroethane
<2
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Chloroform
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
Ethylbenzene
<1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
Isopropylbenzene
<1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
-
m/p xylene
.
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
NA
Methylene Chioride
-
-
-
-
-
-
2
-
-
-
-
0.063
NA
methyl-T-butyl ether
.
-
.
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
NA
Tetrachlorofluoromethane
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
Tetrahydrofuran
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
Toluene
<1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
-
Trichloroethene
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
Total xylene(s)
<1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
-
Vinyl Acetate
-
.
-
-
-
.
-
-
.
-
NA
NA
Vinyl Chlonde
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Unknowns
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
-
Total of TICs
Table is based on data provided by IDEM
Bold concentrations exceed screening criterion
Analyte below detection limit
NA= not applicable, not available, or not analyzed as appropriate
J = Concentrations estimated due to q/c qualifier
R = Spike Sample recovery not within control limits - value not used in screening evaluation
UJ - Concentrations are below detection limit and estimated due to quality control qualifier
B = Blank contaminated
MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level
Printed 12/16/2005
-------
Attachment 3
Photos of Site Conditions
-------
Sile Entrance
Site surface-fating South
-------
Site surface-facing South
Site surface:-failing North
-------
Left to light. MW-008 and MW-007R
MW-009 and MW-010
------- |