vvEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency Share your opinion EPA encourages you to comment on the proposed cleanup plan. The Agency will only select a final cleanup plan after reviewing comments received during the public comment period, which runs from April 11 to May 11. There are several ways to submit written comments: • Orally or in writing at the public meeting. • Fill out and mail the enclosed comment fonn, or submit it at the meeting. • Send an email to Leslie Blake at blake.leslie@epa.gov. • Fax to 312-385-5428. Read the proposed plan More details are available on our website and at the local information repositories (see back page). Attend a public meeting EPA encourages you to attend the public meeting, Wednesday, April 20, 6:30 p.m, Eastwood Elementary School, 2605 County Road 15 North, Elkhart. If you need special accommodations, contact Janet Pope by Friday, April 15. Contact EPA For more information about the Lane Street Superfund site contact one of these team members: Janet Pope Community Involvement Coordinator 312-353-0628 pope ,j anet@epa.gov Leslie Blake Remedial Project Manager 312-353-7921 blake .leslietglepa.gov You may call EPA's Chicago office toll-free at 800-621-8431, 9:30 a.m. - 5:30 p.m. weekdays. EPA Proposes Cleanup Plan for Groundwater Pollution Lane Street Superfund Site Elkhart, Indiana April 2016 An EPA contmctor takes groundwater samples. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, working with the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, is proposing a cleanup plan for groundwater pollution at the Lane Street Groundwater Contamination Superfund site.1 (See site location map, Page 2.) Groundwater is a term for underground supplies of drinking water. The site includes contaminated groundwater that extends southwest from an industrial park to an area of homes on Lane Street. (See groundwater contamination map, Page 3.) The underground water is contaminated with volatile organic compounds, or VOCs. The VGCs have names like trichloroethene, or TCE; tetrachloroethene, or PCE; 1,1- dichloroethane, or 1,1-DCA; and cis-l,2-dichloroethene, or cis-l,2-DCE. These chemicals were found at levels considered unsafe by federal drinking water standards. The environmental problem was first discovered in August 2007 when a resident reported contamination in a private well water sample tested after unrelated pollution had been discovered under a nearby street. The recommended cleanup would involve: • Monitoring and restricting the use of groundwater for drinking or other purposes until safe levels are reached. • Injecting chemicals and microorganisms into the groundwater to help break down the contamination. continued on next page ... 1Section 117(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability'Act, orCERLCA, requires publication of a notice and a proposed plan for the site cleanup. 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 study, and other documents in the administrative record for the Lane Street site. Please consult those documents for more detailed infowiation. ------- Proposed cleanup alternatives Common elements to all alternatives Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 all include implementing institutional controls such as access, land-use and deed restrictions to limit the exposure of future landowners or users of the property and/or groundwater on the property. Alternative 1 - No-action Under Alternative 1, EPA would take no further actions to clean up the groundwater. The no-action alternative is used as a baseline for comparison to the other cleanup alternatives. Estimated cost: $0 Alternative 2 - Minimal action with Institutional Controls and Monitored Natural Attenuation Under Alternative 2, EPA would use the access, land-use and deed restrictions described under common elements above and monitored natural attenuation to limit potential exposure to site contamination and unacceptable site risks. Monitored natural attenuation relies on natural means to prompt a variety of physical, chemical or biological processes to reduce the contaminants in groundwater. EPA would also monitor the groundwater to determine if cleanup levels will be reached within a reasonable amount of time. Additional action would be required if specific cleanup levels are not met. Estimated cost: $1.3 million Alternative 3 - In-situ (in-place) Groundwater Treatment: Enhanced Bioremediation Under Alternative 3, EPA would use in-place treatment of groundwater with bioremediation to clean up the contaminated groundwater. The access, land-use and deed restrictions described under common elements above and groundwater monitoring described in Alternative 2 would also be used, but would not be needed as long. Bioremediation involves the treatment of groundwater using naturally occurring organisms. EPA would inject a substance such as molasses or corn syrup into the groundwater providing food for naturally occurring microbes to break down the contamination into less toxic or non-toxic substances. Microorganisms could also be injected into the groundwater to speed up the process if needed. Estimated cost: $3.6 million Alternative 4 - Ex-situ (out of place) Groundwater Treatment: Extraction, Treatment, and Discharge Under Alternative 4, EPA would pump the contaminated water out of the ground, treat it using air stripping and carbon filters in a treatment plant built on-site, and then discharge the clean water to Puterbaugh Creek. Air strippers work by exposing the chemicals in the water to air allowing the chemicals to evaporate. The vapors are captured using carbon filters and filtered (cleaned) before being released into the air. Extraction wells used to pump out the groundwater would also help prevent the contamination from moving. The access, land-use and deed restrictions described under common elements and groundwater monitoring described in Alternative 2 would be used, but would not be needed as long as Alternative 2. Estimated cost: $11.4 million EPA's recommended alternative 2 ------- ------- Evaluation of alternatives EPA is required by law to evaluate these options against nine criteria (see box below). These criteria are used to help compare how the alternatives will meet cleanup 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. goals. The table below compares each alternative against the nine criteria. 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. Evaluation Criteria Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 (preferred option) Alternative 4 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment ~ ¦ ¦ ¦ Compliance with ARARs N/A ¦ ¦ ¦ Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence ~ ¦ ¦ ¦ Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume through Treatment ~ ~ ¦ ¦ Short-Term Effectiveness ~ ¦ ¦ ¦ Implementability ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ Cost $0 $1.3 million $3.6 million $11.4 million State Acceptance No No Yes No Community Acceptance Will be evaluated after the comment period M - Meets criteria ~ - Does not meet criteria N/A - Not applicable 4 ------- Use this space to write your comments EPA is interested in your comments on the proposed cleanup plan for groundwater contamination at the Lane Street Groundwater Contamination Superfund site. You may use the space below to write your comments and detach, fold, stamp and mail to EPA Remedial Project Manager Leslie Blake. Comments must be postmarked by May 11. You may also submit this at the public meeting on April 20. If you have questions, contact Janet at 312-353-0628, or toll-free at 800-621-8431, Ext. 30628, 9:30 a.m. - 5:30 p.m., weekdays. Name: Affiliation: Address: City: State: Zip: ------- Lane Street Superfund Site - Comment Sheet Detach this page, fold on dashed lines, seal, stamp, and mail Name Address City State Zip Leslie Blake Remedial Project Manager U.S. EPA Region 5 Superfund Division (SR-6J) 77 W. Jackson Blvd. Chicago, IL 60604-3590 ------- Site investigations IDEM investigated well water in the area around the Lane Street site in 2007 and found TCE at unsafe levels in several wells. The Indiana agency initially provided bottled water to about 13 homes, including all those with unsafe water, and then contacted EPA to further investigate the issue. Later in 2007, EPA confirmed the findings of unsafe TCE levels in several wells. As a result, in November 2007 EPA installed water filtration systems to these 13 homes. Further testing in December 2007 showed the filters were effective in removing TCE from the well water. Additionally, in December 2007, EPA sampled indoor air at two homes within the residential area with unsafe TCE levels in well water. This was to assess the possibility of vapor intrusion in the area. Vapor intrusion occurs when VOCs like TCE evaporate from the groundwater and move through the soil and seep into cracks in basements, foundations, sewer lines and other openings. No TCE-related vapor was found in indoor air. In 2008, EPA connected 26 residences to the city of Elkhart's water supply system. Several additional residences that were unaffected by the contamination but were in the path of the flow of the groundwater were also connected to the city of Elkhart's water supply system. EPA placed the site on the National Priorities List in 2009. This is a list of Superfiind sites nationwide. In 2011, EPA sampled groundwater at 25 different locations within the Lane Street site. The goal of the sampling was to find out how far the contamination had moved over time and to identify potential sources of the contamination. EPA collected and analyzed approximately 170 groundwater samples and 14 soil samples. This included two private groundwater well samples from a residential and a commercial property. Site-related contaminants were not found in any of the soil samples. However, contamination was found in the groundwater. In 2013, EPA collected groundwater, soil vapor, and an additional soil sample to further investigate the source and extent of groundwater contamination at the site. EPA collected 135 groundwater samples and 11 soil vapor samples from within the industrial and residential areas of the site. The results showed contamination in the groundwater but not in the soil or soil vapor samples with the exception of PCE. PCE was found in one soil vapor sample within the industrial area. EPA conducted more sampling in 2014. The results of this sampling were consistent with previous findings. Prior to and during EPA's investigation, Flexsteel Industries Inc. conducted an independent environmental investigation at the 2503 Marina Drive and 3507 Cooper Drive properties. Between March 2011 and November 2015, Flexsteel collected groundwater and soil samples and installed numerous groundwater monitoring wells on and surrounding its properties. No VOCs were found in the soil. However, TCE was found in groundwater samples. The photo above shows equipment used to install monitoring wells to test for contamination in the groundwater. 1 ------- Next steps Before making a final decision on the proposed cleanup plan, EPA will review comments received during the public comment period. Based on the comments, EPA, working with IDEM, may modify its recommended alternative or choose another, so your opinion is important. EPA encourages you to review and comment on this proposed cleanup plan. More detailed information on the cleanup options is available in the official documents on file at the information repositories 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," or ROD, that describes the final cleanup plan. The Agency will announce the selected cleanup plan in a local newspaper, place a copy in the information repositories and post it on the Web. For more information You may review site-related documents at: Elkhart Public Library Reference Services 300 S. Second St. On the Web: www. epa.gov/superfund/lane-street-groundwater/. An Administrative Record, which contains detailed information that will be used in the selection of the cleanup plan, is also located at the Elkhart Public Library. Jddoj pdp\Dd}j uo p3.1npo.1dd}} uojieujiuejuoo jejeywpunojo joj ueid dnueeio sesodojd Vd3 :31IS QNndHBdnS 133U1S 3NV1 06SE-KI9091I 'oBeojiio PAIS uos>per M LI (rz-is) uojSjAjo punjjadns g uo|6ey AousBv uouoeiojd |B}U0ujuoj!au3 salens ps)iun Vd3'cv ------- |