&EPA United State* Environmental Protection Agency Share your opinion EPA encourages you to comment on the proposed plan. The Agency will only select a final cleanup plan after reviewing comments received during the public comment period,1 which runs from May 16 - July 15,2016. There are several ways to submit written comments: • Orally or in writing at the public meeting (see below). • Fill out and mail the enclosed comment sheet to Susan Pastor. • Send an email to Susan Pastor at pastor.susan@epa.gov. • Fax your comments to Susan Pastor at 312-385-5344. Attend a public meeting There will be a public meeting Wednesday, June 8, at 6:30 p.m.: Clarion Hotel 5820 S. Franklin St. Michigan City If you need special accommodations, contact Susan Pastor by June 1. For more information Susan Pastor Community Involvement Coordinator 312-353-1325 pastor.susan@epa.gov Erik Hardin Remedial Project Manager 312-886-2402 hardin.erik@epa.gov Jacob Hassan On-Scene Coordinator 312-886-6864 hassan.jacob@epa.gov (Coal ash sampling & cleanup only) You may call EPA's Chicago office toll-free at 800-621-8431, ~ 8:30 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. weekdays. EPA Proposes Cleanup Plan For Soil, Groundwater Town of Pines Groundwater Plume Site Town of Pines, Indiana May 2016 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is proposing a cleanup plan for soil and groundwater at the Town of Pines Groundwater Plume site. Contamination is associated with coal ash. EPA reached a legal agreement with four companies determined to be responsible for the contamination. These companies, Northern Indiana Public Service Co., Brown, Inc., Ddalt Corp. and Bulk Transport Corp. and their contractors, conducted an investigation under the oversight of EPA and the Indiana Department of Environmental Management. The cleanup plan proposed is based on the findings of that investigation. The recommended cleanup would involve: • Excavating and disposing of contaminated soil off-site. • Implementing deed restrictions to prohibit digging into contaminated soil. • Using plants to absorb the groundwater contaminants as nutrients. • Monitoring groundwater. • Implementing deed restrictions to prohibit using or installing drinking water wells in certain areas. • Discontinuing the requirement to provide bottled water service to homes in areas not affected by groundwater contamination. • Requiring additional properties to be sampled at the request of property owners and cleaned up if contamination is found to be above naturally occurring levels. EPA expects that most, if not all, identified properties with contamination resulting from coal ash used as landscaping fill will be addressed by another EPA action under a different legal agreement with NIPSCO. The company is required to do this work separately from the cleanup plan outlined in this fact sheet. Background The Pines site is about 4 miles west of Michigan City and about 1 mile south of Lake Michigan in Porter County. EPA tested residential drinking water wells in the town of Pines in 2002, based on high levels of the metals boron and molybdenum found when Indiana Department of Environmental Management sampled them. The metals are from the ash generated from burning coal to make electricity. Fly ash, a specific type of the coal ash, was disposed of in a landfill near Pines called Yard 520. Continued on the next page... 1 Section 117(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERLCA) requires publication of a notice and a proposed cleanup plan. The proposed plan must also be made available to the public for comment. This fact sheet is a summary of information contained in the remedial investigation, feasibility stuck', and other documents in the administrative record for the Town of Pines Groundwater Plume site. Please consult those documents for more detailed information. All official site documents can be found at the repository at the Michigan City Public Library, 100 E. 4th St., or online at www.epa.gov/superfund/town-pines-groundwater. ------- A technician compares soil samples that show the contrast between sand and coal ash. The coal ash In this landfill is believed to be the primary source of the groundwater contamination. Other areas in the town also have these coal ash materials Fly ash was primarily used as fill in residential yards, and another type of ash, called bottom ash, was used as road surfaces and sub-surfaces in the town of Pines and surrounding areas. This is an important distinction because fly ash generally contains higher levels of the contaminants of concern than bottom ash. The full extent of coal ash fill materials in and around the town of Pines is still not known. This proposed cleanup plan includes provisions for sampling and, if needed, cleanup of additional properties. The companies provided municipal water to more than 250 homes and business in and near the town of Pines. About 50 more homes received bottled water pending the results of the investigation. Proposed cleanup alternatives Soil Cleanup Alternatives Soil Alternative 1 - No Action Under the no-action alternative, EPA would take no further actions to clean up the contamination. The no-action alternative is used as a baseline for comparison to the other cleanup alternatives. Estimated cost: $0 Soil Alternative 2 - Land-Use Controls This alternative includes putting deed restrictions on properties to prohibit digging or other soil disturbances where coal ash contaminants are above EPA's cleanup goals. This alternative would not be appropriate for private properties where the contamination exceeds cleanup goals in soil close to the surface (except under specific conditions that do not allow for direct-contact, such as under pavement). Estimated cost: $13,000 per property Soil Alternative 3 - Excavation and Off-Site Disposal This alternative includes excavation and off-site disposal of coal ash-contaminated soil found above EPA's cleanup goals. Excavated soil would be replaced with clean soil and graded to match the surrounding area. If the soil contamination above the cleanup goals is deeper than the depth EPA requires, the soil cover would help technicians visually identify where to limit digging. Deed restrictions would also then be put in place to prohibit digging into the deeper contaminated soil to eliminate any potential exposure. This option proposes to continue the soil sampling and cleanup described on Page 7. Estimated cost: S5.6-S11.9 million Groundwater Cleanup Alternatives GW Alternative 1 - No Action Under the no-action alternative, EPA would take no further actions to clean up the contamination. The no-action alternative is used as a baseline for comparison to the other cleanup alternatives. Estimated cost: $0 GW Alternative 2 - Land Use Controls This alternative involves implementing deed restrictions east and north of Yard 520 to prohibit the use or installation of private drinking water wells on specific properties or within a designated groundwater management area. Groundwater is currently not used as a source of drinking water in these areas, but these restrictions could prevent future use of the groundwater in this area. Estimated cost: $900,000 GW Alternative 3 - Long-Term Monitoring This alternative includes the deed restrictions described in Groundwater Alternative 2, but adds long-term groundwater monitoring that would help to evaluate how protective previous cleanup actions continue to be over time. Estimated cost: $2.5 million EPA's recommended alternative 2 ------- GW Alternative 4 - Phytoremediation This alternative includes the deed restrictions and long- term monitoring described in Groundwater Alternatives 2 and 3, but adds EPA 'v recommended alternative phytoremediation. Phytoremediation is a technology that uses specific plants to remove the contaminants through natural processes. Plants that are efficient in absorbing boron, such as poplar trees, would be used. Plants or leaves would be recovered and disposed of to maintain ""normal" levels of naturally occurring metals. Long-term monitoring would also be done to evaluate the effectiveness of the cleanup and continue to monitor site conditions. Estimated Cost: S3.7 million GW Alternative 5 - Barrier Wall This alternative includes the deed restrictions and long- term monitoring described in Groundwater Alternatives 2 and 3. It also includes installing an underground barrier wall along the east side of the North Area of Yard 520. The new barrier wall would be connected with the existing barrier wall in the South Area of Yard 520 to prevent groundwater flow. The wall would be placed deep into the clay to control potential flow of water under the wall. Groundwater in the walled area would be collected and treated. The treated water would then be discharged to groundwater or the surface/wetland under the appropriate permits. Long-term groundwater monitoring would also be done to evaluate the effectiveness of the cleanup and continue to monitor site conditions. Estimated Cost: $14.7 million What is phytoremediation? Phytoremediation is a commonly used cleanup option for Superfund sites with contamination at relatively low concentrations. It involves the cultivation of specialized plants or trees that absorb specific contaminations from the soil through their roots or foliage. This reduces the levels of contaminants in the soil. All or part of a plant is harvested and disposed of to prevent contamination from being released back into the environment. EPA has used phytoremediation at several of its Superfund sites including Chanute Air Force Base, Illinois; Sangamo Electric Dump/Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge, Illinois and Aberdeen Pesticide Dumps, North Carolina. Evaluation of alternatives EPA is required by law to evaluate these alternatives against nine criteria (see box below). These criteria are used to help compare how the alternatives will meet cleanup goals. The tables on Pages 4 and 7 compare each alternative against the nine criteria. Explanation of evaluation criteria EPA compares each cleanup option or alternative with these nine criteria established by federal law: 1. Overall protection of human health and the environment examines whether an option protects living things. This standard can be met by reducing or removing pollution or by reducing exposure to it. 2. Compliance with applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements, or ARARs, ensures options comply with federal, state and local laws. 3. Long-term effectiveness and permanence evaluates how well an option will work over the long- term, including how safely remaining contamination can be managed. 4. Reduction of toxicity, mobility or volume through treatment determines how well the option reduces the toxicity, movement and amount of pollution. 5. Short-term effectiveness compares how quickly an option can help the situation and how much risk exists while the option is under construction. 6. Implementability evaluates how feasible the option is and whether materials and services are available in the area. 7. Cost includes not only buildings, equipment, materials and labor but also the cost of maintaining the option for the life of the cleanup. 8. State acceptance determines whether the state environmental agency accepts an option. EPA evaluates this criterion after receiving public comments. 9. Community acceptance considers the opinions of nearby residents and other stakeholders about the proposed cleanup plan. EPA evaluates this standard after a public comment period. 3 ------- Green and Sustainable Remediation EPA has added a secondary criteria when evaluating the cleanup options. The Superfund Green and Sustainable Remediation Strategy looks at how the alternatives reduce negative environmental impacts that may occur when cleaning up a site. These considerations were also looked at during the analysis of the cleanup options for this site. Factors include five core elements: energy efficiency, air and atmospheric emissions (including greenhouse gases), water use, land and ecosystems effects and materials and waste use/generation. EPA's recommended cleanup plan for soil is Soil Alternative 3 - Excavation and Off-Site Disposal (detailed in the table below). The recommended cleanup protects people and the environment by removing contaminated dirt and putting in a soil cover to eliminate direct contact and restrictions to prevent digging into the deeper contaminated soil. It is also effective in the short and long term. Implementing this option may be more difficult because of the need to get access agreements from property owners and the potential that digging on some properties could be restricted because of mature trees, septic systems, shallow utilities and other structures. The estimated cost for this alternative is between $5.6 and $11.9 million. The range is due to not yet knowing the full extent of contamination or number of properties to be cleaned up. Though this cleanup option is not considered green and sustainable during implementation, it is considered green and sustainable in the long-term because no significant energy- or resource- intensive actions will be needed after cleanup. Soil Alternatives Evaluation Criteria Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment ~ ~ ¦ Compliance with ARARs ~ ~ ¦ Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence ~ ~ ¦ Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume through Treatment ~ ~ ~ Short-Term Effectiveness ~ ~ ¦ Implementability ¦ ¦ ¦ Cost $0 $13,000 per property $5.6-$ 11.9 million State Acceptance Will be evaluated after comment period Community Acceptance Will be evaluated after comment period B - Meets criterion ~ - Does not meet criterion EPA's recommended cleanup plan for groundwater is Groundwater Alternative 4 - Phytoremediation (detailed in the table on Page 7). This alternative also includes the deed restrictions and long-term monitoring described in Groundwater Alternatives 2 and 3 (see Page 2). Long- term monitoring would also be done to evaluate the protectiveness of the previous cleanup actions and the phytoremediation system. The recommended groundwater cleanup alternative protects people and the environment by using deed restrictions to eliminate direct contact with the contaminated groundwater and using specific plants to absorb and remove the contaminants from the water. By removing contamination from the groundwater, this cleanup alternative will, in time, meet all applicable laws and is ~~~ - Partially meets criterion N/A - Not applicable effective in the short and long term. This alternative reduces the toxicity, mobility or volume of the contamination by using plants to remove contaminants from the groundwater. Because this alternative requires access to properties and passing local ordinances or deed restriction, it may be a little more difficult to implement. This alternative is considered green and sustainable. The estimated cost for this option is $3.7 million. 4 ------- Public Comment Sheet Use this space to write your comments EPA is interested in your comments on the proposed cleanup plan for the Town of Pines Groundwater Plume site. You may use the space below to write your comments and hand it in at the public meeting on June 8, 2016, or detach, fold, stamp and mail to EPA Community Involvement Coordinator Susan Pastor. Comments must be postmarked by July 15, 2016. If you have questions, contact Susan at 312-353-1325, or toll-free at 800-621-8431, Ext. 31325, 8:30 a.m. - 4:30 p.m., weekdays. Comments may also be emailed to pastor.susan@epa.gov or faxed to Susan at 312-385-5344. Name: Affiliation: Address: City: State: Zip: ------- Town of Pines Groundwater Plume site - Comment Sheet Fold on dashed lines, seal, stamp, and mail Name Address City State Zip Susan Pastor Community Involvement Coordinator U.S. EPA Region 5 Superfund Division (SI-7J) 77 W. Jackson Blvd. Chicago, IL 60604-3590 ------- Groundwater Alternatives Evaluation Criteria Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment ~ ~ ~ ¦ ¦ Compliance with ARARs ~ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence ~ ~ ~ ¦ ¦ Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume through Treatment ~ ~ ~ ¦ ~ Short-Term Effectiveness ~ ¦ ¦ ¦ ~ Implementability ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ~ Cost $0 $900,000 $2.5 million $3.7 million $14.7 million State Acceptance Will be evaluated after the comment period. Community Acceptance Will be evaluated after the comment period. B - Meets criterion ~ - Does not meet criterion ~~~ - Partially meets criterion N/A - Not applicable Next steps Before making a final decision, EPA will review comments received during the public comment period. If new information is presented, EPA may modify the proposed plan or select another option. EPA encourages you to review and comment on the proposed cleanup plan. More detailed information on all of the cleanup alternatives is available in the official documents on file at the information repository or EPA's website listed in the box to the right. EPA will respond to the comments in a document called a "responsiveness summary." This will be part of another document called the "record of decision" that describes the final cleanup plan. EPA will announce the selected cleanup plan in the local newspaper, place a copy in the information repository and post it on the Web. Coal ash residential soil sampling, cleanup Pines residents can still request that their properties be sampled and analyzed for soil contamination related to coal ash by contacting one of the EPA team members on Page 1 of this fact sheet. If sampling results indicate that a residential cleanup is warranted: • The condition of the property will be documented before work starts. • Soil would be excavated and transported for off- site disposal. • A permanent barrier such as landscape fabric or orange construction fencing would be installed, if necessary. • The area would be backfilled and covered with clean soil. • The property would be restored as closely as possible to its original condition. • New trees, shrubs, vegetation, etc., would be planted, if necessary. • Concrete or pavement would be repaired or replaced, if necessary. In March, EPA and NIPSCO signed a legal agreement, called an administrative order on consent. It outlines the cleanup that the company will be responsible for. This cleanup, which so far affects about a dozen homes as well as the town hall playground area, is expected to begin this spring. 7 ------- For more information Save the date You may review the proposed plan and other EPA is hosting a public meeting to talk about site-related documents at: the cleanup plans for the Pines site. Michigan City Public Library Wednesday, June 8, at 6:30 p.m. 100 E. 4th St." Clarion Hotel 5820 S. Franklin St. On the Web: Michigan City www.epa.gov/superfund/town-pines- groundwater An administrative record, which contains detailed information that will be used in the selection of the cleanup plan, is also located at the Michigan City Public Library. jeiBMpunojo 'l!°S J°d ueid dnueeio sesodcxid Vd3 :31IS 3IAinid d31VMQNnOd9 S3Nld dO NMOl jjJrtj pip 1JJ)f Wl ^ 069£->09091( o6e3!t|3 PAIS uos>per M LL (pi-lS) uoiS(aiq punjjsdn^ 9 uojBoa foustiv LiOlpSJOjJ |B|UaiilLIQjlAU3 seieis p#l|un Vd3'£ ------- |