epa region 5 records ctr. · epa region 5 records ctr. 366313 second five-year review report...
TRANSCRIPT
EPA Region 5 Records Ctr.
366313
SECOND FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT
LAKELAND DISPOSAL SERVICE INC. SUPERFUND SITE
Kosciusko County Claypool, Indiana
PREPARED BY:
United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 5
Chicago, Illinois
Approved by: Date:
^ - Zo - / o fcL^ C l/jL. Richard C. Karl, Director Superfand Division, Region 5
Table of Contents
List of Acronyms iv Executive Summary v Five-Year Review Summary Form vi 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 SITE CHRONOLOGY 2 3.0 BACKGROUND 2
3.1 Physical Characteristics 2 3.2 Land and Resource Use 3 3.3 History of Contamination 3 3.4 Initial Response 4 3.5 Basis for Taking Action 5
4.0 REMEDIAL ACTIONS 7 4.1 Remedy Selection 7 4.2 Remedy Implementation 8 4.3 System Operations/Operation and Maintenance 16 4.4 Institutional Controls 19
5.0 PROGRESS SINCE LAST FIVE-YEAR REVIEW 21 •) FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS 22 6.1 Administrative Components 22 ' 2 nmunity Notification and Involvement 22 OJ document Review 22 ' 4 Dura Review 22
* 'te Inspection 31 6.' rviews 31
7.0 TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT 31 7.1 Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents? 31 7.2 Question B: Are the assumptions used at the time of remedy selection still valid?.... 32 7.3 Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the
protectiveness of the remedy? 33 7.4 Technical Assessment Summary 33
8.0 ISSUES 33 9.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS 34 10.0 PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENT 35 11.0 NEXT REVIEW 35
Tables
Table 1 - Chronology of Site Events Table 2 - Institutional Controls Summary Table Table 3 - Issues, Recommendations and Follow-up Actions from 2005 Five-Year Review Table 4 - July 8, 2009, Groundwater Elevations Table 5 - September 29, 2009, Groundwater Elevations Table 6 - Performance Standards and Compliance Status of Wetland Mitigation Area Table 7 - Issues that Impact Protectiveness Table 8 - Recommendations and Follow-up Actions
Attachments
Attachment 1 Attachment 2 Attachment 3 Attachment 4 Attachjnent 5 Attachment 6 Attachment 7 Attachment 8
Lakeland Site Map List of Documents Reviewed IDEM Discharge Authorization Envirormiental Protection Easements Site Inspection Checklist Newspaper Ad Conservation Easement Agreement Tables 4 - 9
ni
List of Acronyms
1,2-DCE bgs CERCLA CFR cy EC EPA FS HDPE IC IDEM ISBH LEL LLDPE LTTD MCL mg/L NCP
; NPDES NPL O&M ppmv PRPs RA RCRA RD RD/RA RI RI/FS
: ROD Site SVOCs TCLP UAO UTL UU/UE VOCs
1,2-dichloroethene below ground surface Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act Code of Federal Regulations cubic yards Environmental covenant United States Environmental Protection Agency Feasibility Study High density polyethylene Institutional Control Indiana Department of Environmental Management Indiana State Board of Health Lower explosive limit Linear low-density polyethylene Low temperature thermal desorption Maximum Contaminant Level Milligrams per liter National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System National Priorities List Operation and Maintenance parts per million by volume Potentially Responsible Parties Remedial Action Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Remedial Design Remedial Design/Remedial Action Remedial Investigation Remedial Investigation/ Feasibility Study Record of Decision Lakeland Disposal Landfill Superfund Site Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure Unilateral Administrative Order Upper tolerance limit Unlimited use or unrestricted exposure Volatile Organic Compounds
IV
Executive Summary
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted the second five-year re\'iew of the Lakeland Disposal Service Inc. Superfund site (the site) in Claypool, Indiana. The remedy for the site includes a landfill cap/containment, access controls, institutional controls (K's). v/etland mitigation and a groundwater collection and treatment system. The landfill cap, slurrv v/all. groundwater collection and treatment system, and on-site treatment of Waste Disposal Area 2 control the source of contamination and have achieved the remedial objectives to minimize the migration of contaminants to groundwater and surface water and prevent direct contact with, or ingestion of, contaminants in soils and groundwater. Both the site Health and Safety Plan and the site Contingency Plan are in place, sufficient to control risks, and properly implemented.
The site is located approximately 3.5 miles northwest of Claypool, Indiana. The site is located in Section 12, Township 31 North, Range 5 East, Kosciusko County, Indiana and is bounded on the west b> County Road 450 West. The site consists of approximately 39 acres, and operated as a laiidfill from June 1974 to December 1978 by Lakeland Disposal Service, Inc. Prior to 1974, the site was used for agricultural purposes. The landfill contained general refuse (e.g., plastic, metal, wood, leaves, paper and cardboard) and certain industrial wastes such as paint sludges, h>droxides and solvents. The southern half of the landfill is surrounded by agricultural land. An agricultural drainage ditch, called Sloan Ditch, runs parallel to the eastern and northern edges of the site. Several wetland areas exist along Sloan Ditch. Wooded areas are located east of the landfill along Sloan Ditch and the adjacent wetlands.
Constniction of the selected remedy at the site was completed in September 2002. The Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM), in cooperation with EPA, completed oversight of all major construction activities for the site.
The assessment of this five-year review found that the remedy is protecUve of human health and the environment in the short term. The remedy was constructed in accordance with the requirements of the September 1993 Record of Decision (ROD) and the October 1998 ROD Amendment. There are no current exposure pathways and the remedy appears to be fiinctioning as designed. The landfill cap, slurry wall, groundwater collecfion and treatment system, and on-site treatment of Waste Disposal Area 2 control the source of contamination and have achieved the remedial objectives to minimize the migration of contaminants to groundwater and surface water and prevent direct contact with, or ingestion of, contaminants in soils and groundwater. Long-term protectiveness of the remedial action will be achieved when cleanup goals are met and when the one remaining institutional control is implemented. Compliance with effective ICs will be ensured through long-term stewardship by implementing, maintaining, monitoring and enforcing effective ICs as well as maintaining the site remedy components.
Five-Year Review Summary Form
SITL I D L N U I ICAfiON Site name (from WasteLAN): Lakeland Disposal Service, Inc. EPA ID (from WasteLAN): EPA 1D# IND064703200 Region: 5 SITL STATl fS
State: IN City/County: Claypool, Kosciusko County
NPL status: X Final Deleted Other (specify) Remediation status (choose all that apply): Under Construction X Operating Complete Mulfiple OUs? YES X,NO | Construction completion date: 9/28/02 Has site been put into reuse? YES X NO RFiVIEW Lead agency: _X EPA _ State _ Tribe _ Other Federal Agency Author name: Scott Hansen Author title: Remedial Project Manager | Author affiliation: U.S.EPA, Region 5 Review period: _iO / 01 / 2009 to May 2010 Date(s) of site inspection: [ Z I 16 / 2009 Type of review: _X Post-SARA _ Pre-SARA _ Non-NPL Remedial Action Site _ Regional Discretion
NPL-Removal only NPL State/Tribe-lead
Review number: _ 1 (first) X 2 (second) _ 3 (third) _ Other (specify) Triggering action: _ Actual RA Onsite Construction at OU # _ Construction Completion _ Other (specify)
Actual R.\ Start at 0U# NA X Previous Five-Year Review Report
Triggering action date (from WasteLAN): _08_/ 12 / 2005 Due date (five years after triggering action date): 08_ / _J2^ / _2010
VI
Five-Year Review Summary Form, cont'd.
Issues: • One required IC (Montel property) has not been implemented, and long-term stewardship must be
ensured. • Some holes from burrowing animals were observed in landfill cover. • Monitoring wells GMMW-I4 and GMMW-15 were last sampled in March 1995 and should be
resampled to provide additional assurance that groundwater contamination has not migrated off-site.
Recommendations and Foliow-up Actions: • Prepare and submit IC work plan to implement remaining IC, to review long-term stewardship
procedures and update if necessary, and to conduct additional IC evaluation activities; Research/assess legal authority for control over abandoned property and discuss with PRP.
• Fill burrowing animal holes with bentonite. • Sample monitoring wells GMMW-14 and GMMW-15.
I'rotectiveness Statement:
The assessment of this five-year review found that the remedy is protective of human health and the environment in the short term. The remedy was constructed in accordance with the requirements of the September 1993 ROD and the October 1998 ROD Amendment. There are no current exposure pathways and the remedy appears to be functioning as designed. The landfill cap, slurry wall, groundwater collection and treatment system, and on-site treatment of Waste Disposal Area 2 control the source of contamination and liave achieved the remedial objectives to minimize the migration of contaminants to groundwater and surface water and prevent direct contact with, or ingestion of, contaminants in soils and groundwater. Long-term protectiveness of the remedial action will be achieved when cleanup goals are met and when the one remaining institutional control is implemented. Compliance with effective ICs will be ensured through long-term stewardship by implementing, maintaining, monitoring and enforcing effective ICs as well as maintaining the site remedy components.
Other Comments:
y\s mentioned above, one of the institutional controls has not been implemented. The landfill site was owned by four different individuals. Three of the property owners have environmental covenants (see /Attachment 4) in place, but the Montel property does not have an environmental covenant implemented. Mr. Montel is deceased and his heirs have disclaimed the property, which has been effectively abandoned. There are extensive tax delinquencies, ahhough Kosciusko County has asserted ownership in the property. The Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) and EPA have both tried to get the most recent owners of the Montel property to sign an environmental covenant but at this time it is not complete. The environmental covenants v/ill prevent the use of the capped area of the site for any activity that interferes with the performance of the remedy, or which will result in the exposure of contaminants to humans or the environment. Such restrictions include, but are not limited to, drilling, digging, building, or the installation, construction, removal, or use of any buildings, wells, pipes, roads, ditches, or any other structures on the capped area.
Vll
Five-Year Review Summary Form, cont'd.
Fill in the Data Below:
Date of last regional review of Human Exposure Indicator (from WasteLAN); 6/4/2009 Human Exposure Survey Status (from WasteLAN): Human Exposure under control Date of last regional review of Groundwater Migration Indicator (from WasteLAN): 6/4/2009 Groundwater Migration Survey Status (from WasteLAN): Groundwater Migration under control
vin
1.0 INTRODUCTION
EPA Region 5 has conducted a five-year review of the remedial actions implemented at the Lakeland Disposal Service Inc. Superfund site in Kosciusko County, Indiana. The review was conducted between October 2009 and May 2010. This report documents the results of the five-year review. 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 the review are documented in five-year review reports. In addition, five-year review reports identify issues found during the review, if any, and make recommendations to address them.
This review is required by statute. EPA must implement five-year reviews consistent with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, CompensaUon, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollufion Confingency Plan (NCP). CERCLA 121(c), as amended, 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 of facilities for which such review is required, the results of all such reviews, and any actions taken as a result of such reviews.
EPA interpreted this requirement fiirther in the NCP; part 300.430(f)(4)(ii) of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 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.
This is the second five-year review for the Lakeland Disposal Service Inc. site. The first five-year review report was completed and signed in August 2005.
2.0 SITE CHRONOLOGY
Table L Chronology of Site Events
Date
1 1977
03/31/1989
1 09/28/1993
1 09/28/1993
04/25/1994
1 10/15/1998
1 09/14/2000
1 09/14/2000
1 09/19/2002
1 09/26/2002
09/27/2004
1 09/27/2004
1 08/12/2005
Event
Initial Discovery of Problem
Finalized on the National Priorities List (NPL)
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) completion (enfire site)
ROD
Unilateral Administrative Order (UAO) for Remedial Design/Remedial 1 Action (RD/RA)
ROD amendment
Remedial Action (RA) start
RA construction start
Remedial Design (RD) completion (entire site)
Preliminary Close Out Report
Final inspection of site
RA completed
First five-year review
3.0 BACKGROUND
3.1 Physical Characteristics
The site is located approximately 3.5 miles northwest of Claypool, Indiana, and consists of approximately 39 acres. The site is located in Section 12, Township 31 North, Range 5 East, Kosciusko County, Indiana, and is bounded on the west by County Road 450 West. The southern half of the landfill is surrounded by agricultural land. An agricultural drainage ditch, called Sloan Ditch, runs parallel to the eastern and northern edges of the site. Several wetland areas exist along Sloan Ditch. Wooded areas are located east of the landfill along Sloan Ditch and the adjacent wetlands. A map of the site is provided in Attachment 1.
The landfill site is fenced on all sides with locked access gates on the northwest, southeast and southwest sides of the site. The only structures on site are the groundwater treatment building located on the southeast side of the site, five (5) concrete manholes that contain the subsurface groundwater drain collection sumps for the groundwater treatment system, gas
vents, and groundwater monitoring wells. A gravel access road is located inside the fence on the southern portion of the site.
The near-surface geology underlying the site can be subdivided into two unconsolidated units. In the vicinity of Sloan Ditch, a brown silty sand loam with discontinuous lenses of silty .and fine coarse sand with occasional gravel occurs to a depth of approximately 15 feet below ground surface (bgs). The deposit is associated with the wetland that occupies the valley crossed by Sloan Ditch. Upland of the valley, a second near-surface unit consists of silt and clay loam with some sand and gravel. It extends 5 to 25 feet below the surface. This unit appears to have originated as a coarse till. The alluvial deposits and upland coarse till constitute the shallow unit (unconsolidated upper aquifer).
Underlying the shallow units is an unstratified mixture of gray inorganic silt, clay and sand with pebbles and occasional discontinuous lenses of silt and fine to coarse silty sand with variable amounts of gravel. This glacial till unit is continuous across the site. The top of the continuous till unit is found at depths of 4 to 30 feet bgs, and is the predominant unit to a depth of at least 100 feet bgs [the maximum depth of drilling activities during the Remedial Investigation (RI)].
Groundwater occurrence at the site is divided into two distinct hydrogeologic units: the shallow upper aquifer and the lower gravel aquifer. The lower aquifer is separated from the upper aquifer by a till unit which acts as an aquitard. The lower gravel aquifer is considered confined based on the artesian conditions found in some of the nearby regional wells. The till unit and the bedrock zone act as the upper and lower confining units to this aquifer. The groundwater flow direction at the landfill site is generally toward the east to northeast.
3.2 Land and Resource Use
Prior to 1974, the site was used for agricultural purposes. Subsequently, from 1974 to 1978, it v/as used as a landfill. There are approximately seven (7) residences within one-half mile of the site. Two residences are located south of the site, three residences are west of the site and two residences are north of the site. There is no development in the surrounding area.
3.3 History of Contamination
In .lanuary 1975, the Indiana Stream Pollufion Control Board issued a Solid Waste Management Permit for the operation of a sanitary landfill at the site. During its period of operation, the landfill accepted general refuse (e.g., plastic, metal, wood, leaves, paper, and cardboard) and certain specific industrial wastes. According to the Indiana State Board of Health (ISBH) records, the following known industrial wastes were disposed at the site:
- Various sludges containing mainly the hydroxides of aluminum, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, tin, selenium, and zinc;
- cyanide, zinc, and chrome plafing liquid;
- paint sludge;
- sugar contaminated with bromochloromethane;
- oil and oily waste water; and
- filter sand contaminated with hydroxides of lead, zinc, copper, and chrome.
According to ISBH records and other information, at least 18.000 drums of waste materials were disposed at the site. In addition, approximately 8,900 tons of plafing sludge and more than two million gallons of plating sludge containing various hydroxide sludges of aluminum, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, tin, selenium, and zinc were disposed at the site.
During the four years of the landfill's operation, the operator violated numerous Solid Waste Management Permit conditions by improperly accepting and disposing waste material at the landfill. These violadons included the following: disposal of sludges in trenches with very little or no cover; hazardous wastes not placed in trenches; barrels of waste deposited in water and not covered; run-off water contaminated with paint sludge; sludge running out of trenches to adjacent low areas and to the adjacent stream; refuse dumped in water; liquid waste dumped into general refuse area; unauthorized oil dumping causing pollution of the adjacent stream; open burning on site; and poor surface drainage.
3.4 Initial Response
On April 4, 1977, the Indiana Stream Pollution Control Board denied a renewal of the operating permit due to failure of the landfill to maintain a minimum of 50 percent acceptable inspections over the prior two-year period. The operator of the landfill appealed the denial and negotiated an Agreed Order with the State allowing the landfill to operate until May 1, 1978. After the landfill failed to close on May 1, 1978, the State initiated enforcement actions. A second Agreed Order was negotiated and the landfill closed in December 1978. The State required two groundwater monitoring wells to be installed at that time with monitoring to continue until 1983. During the period from 1978 to 1983, the State made several inspections and noted a number of leachate problems at the site. The State negotiated an amended Agreed Order in August 1981. The Order provided that the prior landfill owner was to continue groundwater monitoring at the site unfil September 1984, and seal any leachate seeps.
In January 1979, the site was being developed into a residential trailer park by the current owner. The State then notified the County Area Planning Commission that this was not a suitable use for the former landfill site. In November 1982. the State conducted a methane gas survey at the site and delected high methane concentrations beneath one of the mobile homes. The State filed an injunction with Kosciusko County requesfing residents move from the landfill property. In March 1983, the Kosciusko County Board of Zoning Appeals ordered residents to move from the site. No one currently resides on the property.
EPA proposed the site for inclusion on the NPL in June 1988 and placed the site on the NPL in March 1989. On May 22, 1989, a Consent Order for RI/FS became effective between EPA, IDEM and a group of PRPs. The RI/FS was completed in 1993.
The following is a summary of the major findings from the RI conducted at the site:
• Waste material was placed in a haphazard manner within what are assumed to be eight separate waste disposal areas positioned irregularly across the site.
• Buried waste material was found at depths of several inches to approximately 20 feet below gi-ade across the landfill. The water table for the unconfined upper aquifer beneath the site is relatively shallow, thus, buried waste material exists below the water table at multiple locations across the site.
• Groundwater in the unconfined upper aquifer flows eastward towards Sloan Ditch. A continuous clay fill layer, extending to depths of approximately 100 feet below grade, fiinctions as an aquitard between the unconfined upper aquifer and a confined lower sand and gravel aquifer.
• Constituents of concern at the site include monocyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons, ketones, tetrahydrofuran, carbon disulfide, benzoic acid, phthalate esters, naphthalene, phenols, and several metals.
• Constituents of concern associated with the buried waste material were found in subsurface soil, surface soil, shallow groundwater in the upper aquifer, leachate, and wetland sediment samples collected from the site.
• The results of the Baseline Risk Assessment indicated that the site, if not remediated, posed unacceptable risks to the public health.
3.5 Basis for Taking Action
Th(j risk pathways are direct contact with, or ingestion of, contaminants in soils, groundwater and sediments.
Soil Contaminafion
Soil samples were collected at various locations on the site. Volafile organic compounds (V(3Cs), semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), and inorganics were detected above background concentrations in the surface and subsurface soils.
Groundwater Contamination
1 hs shallow groundwater zone beneath and downgradient from the site was impacted by waste disposal pracfices from the landfill. VOCs, SVOCs, inorganics and general water quality parameters were detected above background concentrafions in the shallow groundwater. In the downgradient groundwater samples, concentrations of vinyl chloride.
trichloroethene, 1,2-dichloroethene (1,2-DCE), antimony, and lead exceeded their primary drinking water standards [Safe Drinking Water Act Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs)]. Methylene chloride was detected in one of the monitoring wells at concentrations exceeding the MCL. Several inorganics such as aluminum, iron, manganese, and chlorides exceeded the established secondary drinking water standards. These contaminants were detected in some of the downgradient wells installed at depths ranging from 15 to 40 feet bgs. No polychlorinated biphenyls or pesticides were detected in any of the monitoring wells on site. No contaminants were detected above MCLs in monitoring wells installed in the lower aquifer within the site. Several inorganics such as aluminum, iron and manganese, however, exceeded the secondary drinking water standards. In addition, the results of the drinking water samples obtained from the nearby residences did not indicate the presence of any of the contaminants above MCLs. However, iron and manganese concentrations exceeded the secondary drinking water standards.
Landfill Waste Contamination
The results of test pit samples at the site indicated the presence of VOCs, SVOCs and inorganics. The results of drummed waste sample analysis in the hot-spot area (Waste Disposal Area 2, shown on Attachment 1 - Site Map) indicated high concentrations of ethylbenzene, methylene chloride, toluene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, trichloroethene, and xylene.
Leachate Contaminants
The surface leachate seeps contained high concentrations of several VOCs, such as acetone, 2-butanone, ethylbenzene. 4-methyl-2-pentanone, tetrahydrofuran, toluene, vinyl chloride, and xylene. Significant among the SVOCs were benzoic acid, diethylphthalate, 4-methylphenol, and phenol. Also, several inorganics such as aluminum, chromium, copper, and lead were detected in the leachate which eventually discharges to Sloan Ditch.
Surface Water and Sediments in Sloan Ditch
Acetone and di-n-butylphthalate were detected at relatively low concentrations in the surface water samples downgradient of the site. Acetone, however, was detected in one of the upgradient surface water samples. Several inorganics were also detected in the surface water samples, including copper, lead and mercury. Concentrations of mercury in surface waters adjacent to the landfill exceeded the IDEM Chronic Aquatic Criteria. Iron exceeded the established EPA water quality criteria of 1000 micrograms per liter. These contaminants were also detected in the background surface water samples. Several inorganic constituents detected in the surface water samples, including cadmium, copper, and lead, were also detected in the surface leachate seeps which eventually discharge to Sloan Ditch.
Several VOCs, SVOCs, and inorganics were detected above background concentrations in the sediments of Sloan Ditch. Several of these constituents were also detected in the surface leachate seeps. Elevated levels of some of the inorganic contaminants detected adjacent to the landfill indicate that contaminants may have migrated from the landfill.
Wetland Sediment Samples
Several VOCs, SVOCs and inorganics were detected above background concentrations in the wetland sediment samples.
Basis for Taking Action
The potential risks at the site exceeded EPA's risk criteria for the reasonable maximum exposure scenarios, and thus presented unacceptable current and potential future risks to human health.
4.0 REMEDIAL ACTIONS
4.1 Remedy Selection
EPA issued a ROD for the Lakeland Disposal Service Inc. Superfund site on September 28, 1993, and later issued a ROD Amendment on October 15, 1998. The remedy selected in the 1993 ROD for the site consisted of a sanitary landfill cap for surface containment of the waste material and a soil-bentonite slurry wall for containment of the on-site groundwater in the upper aquifer. In addition, the ROD provided for the removal and off-site treatment and or disposal of any drimimed and non-containerized waste material from the hot-spot area which exhibits Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste characteristics. When EPA issued the ROD Amendment in 1998, many of the elements of the 1993 ROD did not change. Therefore, the findings made in the 1993 ROD remained the same except for the significant changes described in the ROD Amendment. The major differences between the 1993 ROD and the 1998 ROD Amendment are as follows:
1993 ROD Waste Disposal Area 2 excavated and shipped off-site for treatment/disposal
Extraction wells used to contain on-site groundwater in the upper aquifer Low permeability compacted clay layer for cover system design
1998 ROD Amendment Waste Disposal Area 2 excavated and treated on-site utilizing low temperature thermal desorption (LTTD) Subsurface drain to contain on-site groundwater in the upper aquifer Low-density polyethylene geomembrane to serve as a barrier layer in cover system design
The major components of the selected remedy included:
• Construction of an Indiana Sanitary Landfill Cap, in accordance with Indiana Solid Waste Management Regulafions contained in 329IAC 2-14-19 (updated 329IAC 10) and RCRA Subtitle D cover requirements for surface containment of the waste material;
• Construction of a soil-bentonite slurry wall and extraction wells for containment of the on-site groundwater in the upper aquifer;
• Storage, treatment, if necessary, to meet National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements, and discharge of recovered groundwater;
• Excavation of material contained within Waste Disposal Area 2 with on-site treatment using LTTD;
• Fencing to prevent access, groundwater advisories, and possible well abandormient and deed restricfions to prevent future development from interfering with remedial components, as provided for by Indiana regulations;
• Construction of an adjustable weir in Sloan Ditch, if necessary, to maintain proper water levels in the adjacent wetlands;
• Excavation and disposal off-site of any landfill wastes and debris encountered during excavation of the slurry wall which exhibit RCRA hazardous waste characteristics per Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) test;
• A wetlands assessment to determine the portions of the wetlands that are affected by the installation of the selected remedy. Based on the assessment, the RA will include a program to mitigate, replace and/or restore wetlands;
• Prevent or reduce the release of contaminants from the landfill into the various environmental media including air, groundwater, surface water and sediments in Sloan Ditch, and the adjacent wetlands;
• Ensure that chemical-specific applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements are not exceeded outside the boundaries of the landfill;
• Prevent or reduce off-site migration of contaminated groundwater;
• Prevent or reduce the potential risk to human health associated with exposure to contaminated groundwater and/or landfill waste at the site; and
• Minimize all future adverse affects to the adjacent weflands.
4.2 Remedy Implementation
On December 16, 1993, EPA issued special notice letters to 40 PRPs to initiate Consent Decree negotiations for the RJD/RA phase of the landfill cleanup. No good faith offer was received. On April 25, 1994. EPA issued a UAO to five PRPs to conduct RD/RA acUvities.
A pre-design study investigation was completed at the site during the period of January through March 1995 to support development of the final remedial design. The pre-design study investigation consisted of a perimeter soil boring program, a comprehensive groundwater monitoring event, short-term well yield pump tests, identification of existing
drain tiles, extent of waste invesfigation at Waste Disposal Area 2, landfill gas evaluation, borrow source investigation, wetlands delineation, air monitoring, and data validafion.
Because of the duration of the project, the remedial action was divided into two phases. Phase I covered only one major component of the selected remedy: the excavation of material contained within Waste Disposal Area 2 with on-site treatment using LTTD. The Phase I RA began on August 14, 2000, when EPA approved the LTTD portion of the design. Phase II included all the remaining tasks of the selected remedy. The Phase II RA began in October 2001 after EPA approved the design for the groundwater containment and landfill cover system. The groundwater containment and landfill cover system remedial activities were completed in two different construction seasons (Fall 2001 and Spring 2002).
The site achieved construction completion in September 2002. A Preliminary Close-Out Report was completed on September 26, 2002.
Low J^emperature Thermal Desorption
The LTTD required by the 1998 ROD Amendment began with the excavation, segregation, and treatment of contaminated soil and waste material from Waste Disposal Area 2. The purpose of the remediation activities was to treat VOC- and S VOC-impacted unsaturated soils within Waste Disposal Area 2, as well as residual waste material contained within partially intact drums present within the disposal area. This was done through excavation and on-site LTTD treatment of the impacted soils and waste materials. The remediation activities were conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Final Design Report.
The remediation of Waste Disposal Area 2 involved excavation to the base of the waste material, which generally was no greater than ten feet below initial grade. Excavation of the waste material and soil was completed using a backhoe and/or a tracked excavator. The excavated material was then segregated to remove drum fragments and other debris that could not be processed through the LTTD unit. A total of 1,509 partially intact drums were removed during the excavation. Following the segregation step, the VOC- and SVOC-contEiminated soils were processed through the LTTD unit. The LTTD process used heat (approximately 750-800 degrees Fahrenheit) to vaporize the organic constituents from the soils Following a quenching step to rehydrate and cool the soils and limit fiigitive dust generation, the treated soils were placed into temporary stockpiles. The temporary stockpiled soils were sampled to confirm that soil treatment performance standards were achieved prior to using the treated soils to backfill the excavation. Each stockpile consisted of approximately 150 to 200 tons of treated soil depending upon the feed rate and the number of hours the LTTD unit operated for each day. The organic vapors generated by the process were initially treated using two 20,000-pound carbon beds operated in parallel, but due to excessive carbon usage rates, a thermal oxidizer was installed and operated to treat the organic vapors for the second half of the project. An in-line bag house was used to remove particulates from the gas stream. Perimeter air monitoring was conducted throughout the remediation activities. Upon completion of backfilling and compaction activities, the site was graded (as necessary), and a final cover of topsoil was placed in a 6-inch la)'er across all ar<;as that were a potential source of erosion. The topsoil was hydro-seeded and mulched and
the silt fence was left in place to aid in the abatement of erosion. The asphalt pad used as a staging area for the LTTD unit was left in place, and was incorporated into the landfill cap. Approximately 194 cubic yards (cy) of granular fill material and 896 cy of topsoil were imported for use during restoration activities.
A total of 9,242 tons of waste and/or soil were processed through the LTTD unit during the remediation activities. Approximately 650 tons of treated soils not initially meeting performance standards were re-processed through the LTTD unit. In addition, approximately 10.84 tons of materials consisting of dnim fragments, solidified paint fragments, impacted soil, cloth rags, and plastic sheeting were disposed off-site as a hazardous waste at the Michigan Disposal Waste Treatment Plant in Belleville, Michigan.
Soil-Bentonite Slurrv Wall
After completion of the site preparation activities required for the fall 2001 remedial activities, the primary remediation contractor (ENTACT) constructed a work platform for the slurry wall installation subcontractor, who required a level work platform a minimum of 45 feet wide in order to excavate the slurry wall. In addition, the work platform was utilized to mix and backfill the slurry (trench spoils with bentonite and water) into the slurry trench. The subcontractor mobilized to the site on October 24, 2001. Approximately 97,500 square feet (2,820 linear feet) of soil-bentonite slurry wall was installed from October 31 to December 11, 2001, along the southern, eastern, and northern boundaries of the site. The slurry wall installation consisted of excavating a 30-inch wide trench to depths ranging from 20 to 40 feet below existing grade. The slurry trench was excavated approximately 5 to 15 feet into the glacial till (silty clay) layer underlying the shallow water-bearing aquifer to ensure containment of potentially impacted groundwater. When the top of the glacial till was encountered, a sample was collected from the excavator for verification by the Engineer. The glacial till samples were collected every 50 linear feet of slurry trenching.
As the slurry trench was excavated, liquid bentonite slurry was pumped from the mix plant through piping into the slurry trench. The level of liquid slurry in the trench was maintained within 2 feet of the proposed grade. The density of the liquid slurry prevented collapse of the trench walls prior to backfilling. The backfill material was blended with soil excavated from the trench, liquid slurry, and additional powdered bentonite (which was added from "super sacks" placed along the alignment of the slurry wall). Due to the eastward flowing hydraulic gradient, it was not necessary to install the slurry wall along the western (hydraulically upgradient) site boundary.
Subsurface Drain
The subsurface drain contractor mobilized to the site on October 17, 2001. The contractor set up the single pass trenching equipment, unloaded and staged the concrete collection sumps, and welded the four-inch diameter SDR 11 high density polyethylene (HDPE) perforated piping to the four-inch diameter HDPE clean outs. The single pass method of subsurface pipe installation consists of a custom trenching machine (resembling a large chain
10
saw) that excavates and utilizes a delivery system to place pipe and backfill the trench with filter gravel (bedding the pipe) at the same time.
The subsurface drain was installed to extract groundwater inside the alignment of the slurry wall. The alignment of the subsurface drain relative to the slurry wall facilitates the prevention of groundwater mounding against the slurry wall, which could potentially affect the integrity of the slurry wall. The five collection sumps along the subsurface drain are connected to individual force main pipes and electrical conduits which are routed to the groundwater treatment building. This necessitates the use of electric submersible pumps to dewater the collection sumps and transfer the recovered groundwater through the force mains to the treatment building. The subsurface drain and collection sumps were installed from October 23 to November 15, 2001.
Groundwater Treatment System
Groundwater Treatment Building
The groundwater treatment building was constructed from November 7, 2001, to January 21, 2002. The treatment building was built along the eastern edge of the property between the edge of the landfill and adjacent wetlands. The building is a 30' x 20' x 12' pre-engineered steel structure used to house equipment for the treatment of collected groundwater.
Groundwater Treatment Equipment
The groundwater treatment equipment was installed in the treatment building from February 5 to 8, 2002. The equipment consists of influent flow meters for each of the five collection sumps, a 1,500-gallon surge tank equipped with an air compressor for aeration and precipitation of solids, four bag filtration units for removal of suspended solids, an air stripper for primary treatment of VOCs, two granular activated carbon vessels, an effluent flow totalizer, an air flow meter (at air stripper discharge stack), and the associated transfer pumps, level switches, and controls for unsupervised operation of the system. The site is an NPL site, therefore, pursuant to 327 lAC 5-2-4(5), the groundwater treatment system needs to comply with the substantive requirements of the NPDES permit process, but an actual NPDES discharge permit is not required. Discharge under NPDES Permit Discharge Standards was authorized by IDEM in letters dated August 9, 2000, and March 28, 2001 (see Attachment 3). The treated groundwater is discharged to the adjacent wetiands.
Landfill Cap
The cover system extends from near the western property boundary to beyond the limits of the slurry wall along the northern, southern, and eastern boundaries. The purpose of the landfill cover system is to prevent exposure to buried waste and leachate seeps and to allow the dissipation of landfill gas that may be generated. The landfill cap system covers approximately 22 acres and consists of a foundation layer, 40-mil linear low-density polyethylene (LLDPE) geomembrane, drainage layer, protective cover layer, topsoil layer, vegetation layer, and passive gas venting system.
11
Prior to constructing the foundation layer, a survey of the existing topography was performed. The surveyor superimposed a coordinate grid system of 25' x 25' sections over the extent of the cover system for establishment of grades. The survey was also used to lay out the locations of the anchor trench and gas vents.
Geotechnical testing of the foundation layer materials was required at a frequency of one sample per 5,000 cy of imported soil per borrow source. Testing consisted of moisture content, USGS classification, particle size, Atterburg limits, and Modified Proctor analyses as indicated in the design documents. In addition, the foundation layer soils were required not to contain stones greater than 3 inches in diameter.
The foundation layer soils were placed in a manner to facilitate drainage and prevent surface water accumulation. The soils were placed in maximum loose lifts of 8 inches and compacted to 95 percent Modified Proctor, starting in the low-lying areas of the southern half of the landfill cover system and proceeding to the outlying southern boundaries. Placement of soils gradually moved to the northern half of the property after final foundation layer grades were confirmed at the southern half Approximately 88,256 cy of foundation layer soils were imported from the borrow source. In addition, as an alternate, cost effective source of borrow materials for the foundation layer, foundry sand from the Dalton Foundry located in Warsaw, Indiana, was imported to the site, as approved by EPA. Unloaded piles of foundry sand were generally graded on a daily basis along the northern perimeter of the former central wetland area. TCLP metals analysis of the foundry sand was conducted regularly during importation. Approximately 10,900 tons of foundry sand were imported and utilized in the lower portions of the foundation layer.
The geomembrane layer was installed on top of the foundation layer after final foundation layer grades were confirmed and all site appurtenances (monitoring wells, gas vents, collection sumps, cleanouts, etc.) had been installed. Rolls of 40-mil LLDPE were utilized for the geomembrane layer. Prior to geomembrane deployment, the foundation layer surface wan inspected to certify that the foundation layer was free of stones larger than 1 inch in diameter and other items that would damage the geomembrane. Any materials potentially damaging to the geomembrane on the surface of the foundation layer were manually removed prior to placement of the geomembrane. In addition, any areas of the foundation layer that did not meet the 95 percent Modified Proctor or moisture content specifications were reworked.
Installation of the geomembrane layer followed completion of the foundation layer, starting at the southern half of the landfill cover system and proceeding to the north. Fugitive dust emissions were closely monitored and dust suppression was implemented to ensure the cleanliness and integrity of the geomembrane seams. The initial placement of the geomembrane commenced at the southwest comer of the site, progressing to the north and east. Each installed panel was given a number for correlation to the resin batch or roll number. Panels were deployed in a manner that alleviated damage to the geomembrane and minimized fish mouths and wrinkles. Deployment was not done during precipitation, in areas of standing water, or during high winds. Crews generally installed panels from the
12
highest points in elevation at the site to the lowest, minimizing the possibility of water collecting under the leading edge of the LLDPE panels. In general, panels were placed so that the amount of seams were minimized and seams were oriented parallel to slopes. All panels were seamed as soon as possible after placement to minimize the number of unseamed panels exposed to potential adverse weather conditions. Seam preparation consisted of overlapping each panel 4 to 6 inches. All field seaming was done with fiasion or extrusion welding methods. The majority of the seams were fiision welded. Extrusion welding was used only for repairs and to seal appurtenance penetrations (monitoring wells, gas vents, etc.). Non-destructive air pressure testing was performed in the field by the installer on all fusion welds and vacuum testing was performed on all extrusion welds. Pipe penetrations such as gas vents, sumps and vaults, clean out risers and monitoring wells were booted with field fabricated pipe boots to ensure a proper seal into the geomembrane. Geomembrane installation was completed on September 10, 2002.
The specified drainage layer component of the landfill cover system consisted of a 16-oz. nonwoven geotextile cushion fabric, 6 inches of gravel, and an 8-oz. non-woven separation fabric. However, ENTACT requested to utilize a geocomposite drainage layer that consisted of an HDPE geonet with 8-oz. non-woven geotextile heat-laminated to both sides of the geonet. This request was approved by EPA. The geocomposite provides an equivalent or better drainage layer when compared to the gravel layer for the following reasons: it meets or exceeds the specified hydraulic conductivity; it provides a uniform drainage layer across the cap footprint; it reduces the possibility of damaging the underlying geosynthetics during installation; and installation can be completed in a shorter time frame.
Because the elimination of the gravel drainage layer reduced the overall thickness of the cap by six inches, an additional six inches of soil was added to the protective cover layer. This ensured a final cap thickness of two feet as required by federal and state regulations. Installation of the drainage layer began when an adequate amount of the geomembrane was installed and all seams had been non-destructively and destructively tested and determined to meet seaming requirements. The drainage layer was unrolled in a similar fashion as the geomembrane. Geocomposite panels were overlapped a minimum of 4 inches and continuously sewn together. The geocomposite installation was completed on September 11, 2002.
The installation of the protective cover layer started when an adequate amount of geocomposite drainage layer was installed. Protective cover soils were required to contain material no larger than three inches in diameter. A network of haul routes was developed starting from the western site boundary and branching in several directions to eventually proN'ide access to all areas of the property. A low ground pressure bulldozer with less than 5 pounds per square inch ground pressure displacement was used to construct the haul routes and place the soils. The haul routes were a minimum of three (3) feet thick over the surface of the drainage layer. The soils were placed in 12-inch loose lifts and compacted to 85 percent of Modified Proctor maximum density. An independent firm tested the in-place soil density and moisture at a frequency of once per 5,000 square feet per lift installed. Construction of the protective cover layer was completed on September 27, 2002.
13
Approximately 66,532 cy of protective cover layer soils were imported from the borrow source.
Topsoil capable of supporting vegetation was imported from an offsite borrow source and placed in a minimum loose thickness of 6 inches. Topsoil material was required to contain rocks no greater than one-half inch and to be free of debris. Prior to the placement of topsoil, the protective cover layer surface was scarified to a minimum depth of 3 inches to achieve bonding between the topsoil and subsoil. The same equipment and techniques were used to haul, place, grade, and compact the topsoil that were used during the protective cover layer soils installation.
Seeding of the topsoil layer was performed after completion of the final grading of the topsoil layer. Seeding activities included topsoil preparation and application of seed mix. Topsoil was tilled to a minimum depth of 3 inches by disking to prepare the seedbed. The seed consisted of a mixture of tall fescue, perennial ryegrass, and ladino clover. The seed and fertilizer were mixed and applied with hydroseeding equipment. Straw mulch and tackifier were applied the same day as seed placement.
Final grading of the landfill cover system was done to facilitate the flow of stormwater. The landfill cap, as designed and constructed, is divided into four drainage areas that direct stormwater as a sheet flow toward the perimeter drainage swales. The perimeter drainage swales were constructed by cutting a "V" trench with 2:1 slopes around the perimeter of the landfill. Stormwater on the northeast and southeast sides of the landfill flows toward the drainage swales and is directed to one of five discharge aprons. The aprons were constructed with 5-foot wide bases with 2:1 side slopes. The aprons are sloped to promote drainage from the landfill perimeter drainage swale to the adjacent wetlands. Stormwater in the northwest and southwest portions of the landfill flows toward a perimeter stormwater ditch along County Road 450W. This stormwater eventually drains to a 36-inch diameter pre-cast concrete catch basin installed on the east side of County Road 450W. The purpose of the drainage swales is to manage surface water infiltration into the landfill, minimize landfill surface erosion, and direct infiltration away from known waste disposal areas.
A passive gas venting system was installed as placement of the foundation layer progressed. Eleven (11) gas vents consisting of 8-inch HDPE risers with four (4) 4-inch HDPE perforated gas collection pipes were fabricated. The 4-inch HDPE perforated collection pipes were embedded in one foot of geotextile-wrapped gravel. The 8-inch HDPE capped risers extend a minimum of one foot into any encountered waste. A turbine ventilator was placed at the top of the risers to vent off gas that is generated. Gas vent penetrations through the 40-mil LLDPE geomembrane were fitted with field fabricated pipe boots and extrusion welded in the geomembrane.
Wetland Mitigation
Installation of the landfill cap resulted in filling of three existing wetland areas at the site. Approximately 1.6 acres of palustrine emergent wetlands and 1 acre of palustrine scrub/shrub
14
wetlands were filled in to facilitate the required landfill cap. As required under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, wetlands mitigation was necessary to replace impacted wetlands. EPA, IDEM, and the Respondents agreed to mitigation ratios (mitigated to impacted) of 1.5 to 1.0 for the palustrine emergent wetlands and 4.0 to 1.0 for the palustrine scrub/shrub wetlands. Based upon these ratios, 2.4 acres of palustrine emergent wetlands and 4.0 acres of palustrine scrub/shrub wetlands were required to satisfy the mitigation requirements.
The area for construction of the mitigation wetlands was located approximately 0.5 miles north of the site, alongside a small stream (Adams Ditch). The wetlands design incorporated open water pools and concentrated channels, as well as inundated, saturated, and dry shelves to assist in the development of all plant communities. Five 36-inch diameter corrugated metal pipes were specified for installation along Adams Ditch to divert flow into and out of the v/etland. The palustrine emergent and scrub/shrub plants were specified in conjunction with the design grades to ensure vegetative survivability in dry, saturated, and inundated conditions. Due to the native topography of the selected wetlands mitigation area relative to the water levels in Adams Ditch, a significant volume of soil was removed in order to facilitate the low-lying 6.4 acre wetlands mitigation area.
ENTACT performed the wetlands mitigation bulk soil removal and grading activities in October 2002. ENTACT installed the specified water supply culverts, shaped the wetland islands, and excavated most of the trickle channels within the wetlands basin. A wetlands construction hiatus occurred in 2003 due to contractual issues. In spring 2004, the wetlands planting and finish grading was performed by Davey Resource Group. A Conservation Easement was entered into between Kosciusko County and the Respondents on December 17, 2002 (see Attachment 7). The Conservation Easement prohibits the Grantor (County), their assigns and successors from utilizing the land for any purpose which is inconsistent with its use as a wetland.
Other Issues
Slurry Wall Modifications
On November 20, 2001, a loss of slurry occurred during trench excavation activities. Therefore, instead of having a turn in the slurry wall, the section of slurry wall was straightened. In addition, the southern alignment of the slurry wall was shifted 10 feet to the north to accommodate the permanent access road to the groundwater treatment building.
Steel Sheet Piling
On November 28, 2001, a second slurry loss occurred during slurry wall excavation. The next day the slurry wall subcontractor noted that the area to the east of the slurry wall was uplifted. Subsequent analysis of the situation indicated that the slurry loss and additional backfill was caused by compression and uplift of the peat stratum. Due to the high compressibility and low strength of peat, EPA agreed to the Respondents' proposal to install a sheet pile wall to mitigate movement of the slurry wall in this area. The sheet piling was in.'italled using a vibratory hammer. The sheet piling was driven a minimum of three (3) feet
15
into the underlying slurry wall key material (glacial till) to ensure stability. Installation of the sheet pile wall was completed on August 14, 2002.
Groundwater Monitoring Wells
During the spring/summer 2002 remedial activities, nine groundwater monitoring wells were installed, thirteen existing monitoring wells were extended, and ten existing monitoring wells were abandoned. The groundwater monitoring well network to be used for assessing groundwater quality (i.e., to be sampled for chemical analyses) consists of 11 to 18 shallow and intermediate monitoring wells. The monitoring well network used for monitoring groundwater elevation and demonstrating inward gradients consists of shallow, intermediate and deep wells (38 wells and 5 collection sumps). The groundwater containment system monitoring program is designed to detect leaks, breaches, or degradation in the permeability of the slurry wall that could allow contaminants to migrate through the wall to surrounding groundwater at levels exceeding groundwater performance standards. Each well selected for either water level measurement or chemical sampling (or both) will be monitored according to the Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Manual.
Fencing
The remedy also includes physical access restriction with a six-foot high galvanized steel chain link fence with three strands of barbed wire on top. Two locking double swing gates were installed in the perimeter fence. The fence is posted with warning signs at 200-foot intervals to inform the public of potential site hazards.
4.3 System Operations/Operation and Maintenance
The O&M Manual provides comprehensive instructions to ensure that the following critical performance standards are verified:
• Monitoring and maintaining the required hydraulic gradients across the groundwater containment system • Monitoring the effectiveness of the slurry wall and subsurface drain • Monitoring and maintaining an effective and efficient groundwater treatment system • Monitoring and maintaining the landfill cover system and stormwater management system • Monitoring and maintaining the wetlands mitigation area • Monitoring and assessing the quality assurance of applicable laboratory analytical data
The O&M Manual provides for inspection and repair of the physical components of the site after closure. Maintenance activities for the final cap include: mowing; earthwork activities to correct erosion and sedimentation problems; revegetation of disturbed or distressed areas; regrading in settlement areas as determined necessary; and localized repairs due to intrusion, vandalism, etc. The final cap is inspected quarterly for signs of damage. The O&M activities are planned to occur for 30 years after construction completion.
16
The O&M Manual provides the mechanism to ensure that the RA meets the long-term performance standards set forth in the ROD. Sampling and chemical analysis of groundwater and the measurement of groundwater elevations are conducted as part of the O&M activities at the site. Currently, O&M and monitoring activities are performed by ARCADIS, a contractor for the Respondents. The ROD Amendment estimated that the annual O&M costs would be $142,200. Since O&M activities are conducted by the PRPs, EPA does not have access to the actual expenditures.
A description of the ongoing field activities is provided below.
Groundwater Elevation Monitoring
Groundwater elevations at the site have been measured on a quarterly basis since December 2002, following completion of the remedial action. These measurements are taken to evaluate the effectiveness of the groundwater gradient control system. An electronic water-level indicator is used to collect static water-level measurements in the monitoring wells, piezometers, deep wells, and collection sumps during each event.
As required by the Scope of Work in the UAO, the groundwater containment and collection system must ftinction such that a hydraulic gradient is maintained toward the interior of the landfill, with a minimum one-foot head differential across the slurry wall. To ensure compliance with this standard, groundwater elevations from five specified pairs of monitoring wells and collection sumps located along the alignment of the slurry wall are used. The five pairs of wells and sumps were selected due to their spacing along the slurry wall. Each pair consists of one well or sump located inside the perimeter of the slurry wall and one well located in close proximity, but outside of the slurry wall. Historic groundwater elevation data indicates that the minimum one-foot hydraulic gradient has been maintained toward the interior of the landfill at these monitoring locations.
Groundwater Quality Monitoring
Groundwater quality is evaluated at the site on a semi-annual basis, and groundwater elevation monitoring is conducted quarterly. Groundwater samples have been collected from the monitoring wells on a quarterly or semi-annual basis since December 2002. The sampling network includes wells both inside the containment system and hydraulically do\vngradient of the containment system. Prior to sampling, a peristaltic pump is used to low-flow purge each well until the groundwater field measured parameters (pH, temperature, and specific conductivity) have stabilized. Following stabilization of the parameters, VOCs, metals, mercury, cyanide, and chloride samples are collected.
As required by the Scope of Work in the UAO, the groundwater performance standards are the cleanup standards specified by Federal MCLs. Because of the impacts within the landfill, the point of compliance for determining if the standards are being met is along the downgradient edge of the slurry wall. Groundwater data collected is compared to MCLs and National Secondary Standards.
17
Groundwater Treatment System
The groundwater treatment system has treated and discharged approximately 24 million gallons of recovered groundwater since its startup in August 2002. Discharge under NPDES Permit Discharge Standards was authorized by IDEM in letters dated August 9, 2000, and March 28, 2001 (see Attachment 3). Discharge samples are collected from the system outfall on a monthly basis for the following parameters:
- Benzene - Trichloroethene - Cis-l,2-dichloroethene - Metals (cadmium, copper, iron, lead, nickel, zinc) - Cyanide - pH (field measured)
The IDEM site discharge standards include limits for constituent daily maximum concentrations and monthly average concentrations.
Quality assurance samples are collected on a semi-annual basis to assess groundwater recovered from the collection sumps and following primary treatment by the air stripper. Vapor samples are also collected from the air stripper and influent surge tank exhaust stacks and analyzed for VOCs on an annual basis, in accordance with the O&M Manual.
Landfill Gas and Air Monitoring
During groundwater sampling events, a Multi-RAE combination air monitor is used to check for any organic vapors or methane emanating from the sampled monitoring wells. To date, there have been no detectable photoionizable vapors or methane lower explosive limit (LEL) readings above background levels observed at the monitoring wells.
Perimeter air monitoring is also conducted during each groundwater sampling event using visual inspection and a Multi-RAE. The Multi-RAE is calibrated to monitor for methane and photoionizable vapors. No photoionizable vapors have been detected during the monitoring with the Multi-RAE. The methane readings have been consistentiy at background levels (5 -6% of the LEL) during the perimeter monitoring walk, which is less than the contingency plan trigger level of 10% of the LEL as identified in the O&M Manual.
Landfill Cover System Inspections
Inspections are conducted regularly at the site to monitor the landfill cover system, perimeter fence and gates, and groundwater treatment and containment system. Since completion of the RA, there have been a few areas of minor erosion and ponding along the perimeter of the cover system and in the perimeter drainage swales. In addition, a few small animal holes have been noted. The minor problems were repaired shortly after they were discovered.
18
4.4 Institutional Controls
Institutional controls are non-engineered instruments, such as administrative and legal controls, that help to minimize the potential for exposure to contamination and that protect the integrity of the remedy. ICs are required to assure long-term protectiveness for any areas which do not allow for unlimited use or unrestricted exposure (UU/UE). ICs are also required to maintain the integrity of the remedy.
The ROD and ROD Amendment included the imposition of proprietary restrictions and other institutional controls to prevent the fijture development of the site and assure the integrity of the remedial action and prohibit the potable use of site groundwater. The ROD states that the deeiJ restrictions will protect the remedial components from fiiture on-site development, in addition to restrictions on water wells in the area of contamination, which would effectively minimize the potential for accidental human exposure to buried waste material and to the contaminated on-site groundwater in the shallow aquifer. The UAO states that ICs such as deed restrictions will supplement the selected remedy by limiting the land and groundwater usage at the site.
Table 2 below summarizes ICs for the areas of the site that do not allow for UU/UE.
Table 2. Institutional Controls Summary Table Media, Engiaeered
C^ontrols & Areas that Currently Do Not Support
UU/UE RA components such as wells and groundwater collection/treatment system Montel Estate Property
Landfill Cap
Groundwater - Area that exceeds cleanup levels
IC Objective
Prohibit use of land underlying the site and assure integrity of remedy components Prohibit use of surface water and groundwater until standards are met Prohibits use of land and assures integrity of landfill
Prohibit use of groundwater
IC Instrument Implemented
Environmental covenant
Under review, IC not yet implemented On April 12 and May 19, 2005, environmental covenants for the site were signed by three of the four site owners and were recorded in Kosciusko County (see Attachment 4) On April 12 and May 19, 2005, environmental covenants for the site were signed by three of the 1 four site owners and were recorded in Kosciusko County (see Attachment 4) \
Status and Analysis of Existing ICs and Follow-ups Required: At this time, initial IC evaluation activities have determined that three ICs have been implemented at the site for the non-UU/UE areas except as described further below. The ICs consist of enviromnental coN'enants (ECs) titled "'Environmental Protection Easement and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants." On April 12 and May 19, 2005, environmental covenants for the site were
19
signed by three of the four site owners and were recorded in Kosciusko County (see Attachment 4). The environmental covenants are designed to implement the ROD requirements. Additional IC evaluation activities are required, including reviewing the long-term stewardship procedures, to ensure long-term protectiveness and compliance with the existing ICs. The non-ULf/LfE area that still requires an IC is the Montel Estate property which is discussed fiirther below.
The environmental covenants were intended to prevent the development and use of land within the site boundary, to assure the integrity of the landfill cap and other components of the remedial action, and to prevent the potable use of site groundwater. The existing ECs run with the land and are enforceable. To further ensure long-term protectiveness, maps should be created to verify the property which is subject to the ECs and comparing those areas to the areas subject to ICs, the objectives listed in the ECs should be examined to verify that they cover all the required objectives listed in the RODs, and title work must be examined to demonstrate that the owner signed the ICs and to determine if any recorded encumbrances might interfere with the existing ICs and if so, to address those encumbrances. Those actions should be conducted by the PRPs and submitted to EPA and IDEM in a work plan including the long-term stewardship plan discussed below.
The remaining IC not yet implemented includes an environmental covenant on property formerly owned by Montel, and currently part of his estate. The PRPs and EPA have both tried to get the current owner of the Montel estate property to sign an environmental covenant but as this time it is not complete. It appears that the property has been abandoned by the heirs to the estate, and local government has refused to assume ownership despite outstanding tax delinquencies. This issue needs to be resolved. Proposals to resolve this issue shall be part of the IC Work Plan developed and submitted by the PRPs. Additionally, EPA needs to establish whether additional ICs are needed for the groundwater.
Current compliance: Based on site inspections and interviews, EPA finds there is no evidence of a cap breach and the existing use is consistent with the objectives of the landfill cap and land use restrictions. The perimeter fence serves as an access control to prevent trespassing and ensure no unintended exposures occur at the landfill. As mentioned above, one remaining IC has not been implemented. The remaining IC includes an environmental covenant on property formerly owned by Montel, and currently part of his estate. The Montel Estate property is located on the southern half of the landfill.
Long-Term Stewardship: Long-term protectiveness at the site requires compliance with use restrictions to assure the remedy continues to function as intended. Regular inspections are provided for in the O&M Manual, and constitute long-term stewardship at the site. However, the O&M Manual does not provide for an annual certification to EPA that there is no existing land or resource use at the site that is inconsistent with the implemented environmental covenant. To assure proper maintenance and monitoring of effective ICs, long-term stewardship procedures will be reviewed and the O&M Manual revised if needed. Additionally, use of a communications plan and use of a one-call system should be explored for long-term stewardship.
20
5.0 PROGRESS SINCE LAST FIVE-YEAR REVIEW
This is the second five-year review for the Lakeland Disposal Landfill Site. The first five-year review was completed and signed in August 2005. The first five-year review protectiveness statement concluded the following: that the remedy is protective of human health and the environment in the short term; that there are no current exposure pathways and the remedy appears to be functioning as designed; that the landfill cap, the groundwater collection and treatment system, and groundwater monitoring have achieved the remedial objectives to minimize the migration of contaminants to groundwater and surface water and prevent direct contact with, or ingestion of, contaminants in soils, groundwater and sediments; and that long-term protectiveness of the remedial action will be achieved when cleanup goals are met and when the one remaining IC is implemented. Issues identified during the 2005 review included the following:
• IC needs to be implemented • Holes in landfill cap • Dead trees on side slopes of constructed wetland
The follow-up work to address the issues prior to the 2010 five-year review included:
• EPA and PRP tried to get a signed agreement with current property owner • Holes were filled with bentonite • Trees were replaced
Table 3 summarizes the issues, recommendations and follow-up actions from the 2005 five-year review as described above.
Table 3. Issues, Recommendations and Foilow-up ^
Is.su es from 2005 Review
Institutional control needs to be implemented
Holes in landfill cap
Dead trees on wetland side slopes
Recommendations/ Follow-up Actions
Implement IC
Fill holes with bentonite
Replace trees
Party Responsible
PRPs and/or EPA
PRPs
PRPs
Lctions from 2005 Five-Year Review |
Milestone Date
February 2006
Summer 2005
Summer 2005
Action Taken and Outcome
PRP and EPA have attempted to get an agreement but current property owner did not cooperate
Holes filled with bentonite
Trees replaced
Date of Action
Not yet achieved
Fall 2005
Fall 2006
As identified in Table 3 above, there is an IC at the site that has not yet been implemented. In 2010, EPA and IDEM have been in discussions regarding the legal implications of the abandoned Montel property parcel and how to implement the required IC for that property. The alternatives include sources of legal authority for potential ownership and control of the
21
parcel by either the local government authority or by the Court administering the probate of the Montel Estate. Recommendations and follow-up actions to address this outstanding issue are identified in Section 10 of this report.
6.0 FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS
6.1 Administrative Components
The Lakeland Disposal five-year review was prepared by Scott Hansen, EPA Remedial Project Manager for the site. Resa Ramsey, State Project Manager with IDEM, also assisted in the review. This five-year review consisted of the following activities: a review of relevant documents (see Attachment 2); discussions with the State Project Manager and the PRP O&M contractor; and a site inspection. The completed report will be available to the public in the site information repository.
6.2 Community Notification and Involvement
The completed second five-year review report and background data will be available to the public in the site information repository (Koscuisko County Health Department) and on the EPA website. An advertisement notice regarding the five year-review process was placed in the local newspaper (Warsaw Times Union) for public review on February 4, 2010 (see Attachment 6). EPA received no public comments or questions regarding the five-year review.
6.3 Document Review
EPA personnel reviewed relevant site documents in preparing this five-year review report. They include the following:
•
•
•
First Five-Year Review Report (March 2005)
Record of Decision (September 1993) and ROD Amendment (October 1998)
Lakeland Disposal Semi-Annual Progress Reports for groundwater containment and landfill cover (2005-2009)
•
Biermial Status reports - Wetland Mitigation
Quarteriy Progress Reports (2005-2009)
• Discharge reports (2005-2009)
6.4 Data Review
Groundwater monitoring has been occurring at this site since August 2002. EPA reviewed the comprehensive semi-annual progress reports, September 2005 - September 2009, as part of this five-year review. All of the site groundwater monitoring wells and the groundwater
22
treatment discharge have been sampled and the groundwater elevations measured on a regular basis. The results are discussed below.
Groundwater Elevation Data
Using the water level data measured at five pairs of monitoring wells and/or collection sumps located along the inside and outside of the slurry wall, the effectiveness of the groundwater containment system was evaluated. Tables 4 and 5 below present the groundwater elevation data for the five pairs of wells and sumps and the corresponding hydraulic gradient between each pair during the July 8, 2009, and September 29, 2009 events, respectively.
Table 4. July 8,2009, Groundwater Elevations
Wells Inside Sluny Wall
GMMW-24 GMMW-25 CS-3 CS-4 GMMW-27
Groundwater Elevation at Wells Inside Sluny Wall 983.88' 983.91' 990.97' 989.94' 988.12'
Wells Outside Sluny Wall
GMMW-6 GMMW-20 GMMW-21 GMMW-22 GMMW-23
Groundwater Elevation at Wells Outside Sluny Wall 987.73' 988.44' 993.53' 996.76' 991.45'
Hydraulic Gradient Across Sluny Wall
3.85' 4.53' 2.56' 6.82' 3.33'
Table 5. September 29,2009, Groundwater Elevations
Wells Inside. Sluny Wall
GMMW-24 GMMW-25 CS-3 CS-4 GMMW-27
Groundwater Elevation at Wells Inside Sluny Wall 984.61' 984.04' 991.36' 982.96' 988.15'
Wells Outside Slurry Wall
GMMW-6 GMMW-20 GMMW-21 GMMW-22 GMMW-23
Groundwater Elevation at Wells Outside Slurry Wall 986.69' 988.28' 993.59' 996.57' 992.36'
Hydraulic Gradient Across Sluny Wall
2.08' 4.24' 2.23' 13.61' 4.21'
Based upon the information presented in the tables above and the groundwater elevations in the collection sumps and along the subsurface drain, the slurry wall and subsurface drain are effectively functioning such that the minimum required one-foot hydraulic gradient is maintained toward the interior of the landfill.
23
Groundwater Quality Data
Statistical Evaluation of Historic Groundwater Data
A total of eleven wells were sampled for VOCs and inorganic compounds, including metals, chloride and cyanide. The well network includes sample locations hydraulically upgradient and downgradient of the containment system.
Upgradient well GMMW-13 and cross-gradient wells GMMW-18 and GMPZ-18 have previously been considered to be representative of background water quality. As indicated in the October 2008 - March 2009 semi-annual progress report, an adequate data set has been obtained to enable GMMW-13 to be used as the single background location in the statistical model. Therefore, the cross-gradient wells GMMW-18 and GMPZ-18 will be no longer be used as part of the background data set and GMMW-13 will serve as the sole background well.
The wells located hydraulically downgradient of the containment system are primarily used to monitor the effectiveness of the containment system in preventing the offsite migration of impacts. As previously indicated, the wells located downgradient are also used for water level comparison with those located inside the landfill to ensure a hydraulic differential across the slurry wall is maintained. As the wells and piezometers located inside of the containment system are monitored mainly for water levels across the containment barrier and contaminant changes within the landfill area, these sample points were not included in the following statistical evaluation summary.
Nonparametric statistical analysis To establish a baseline for comparison, the groundwater quality outside the limits of the containment system was determined from past and present sampling events. These data were statistically evaluated to establish background groundwater concentrations. Protocols identified in the previously submitted O&M Manual were followed in tabulating and validating the data. All non-detect values were replaced with half the respective detection limits. Statistical tests based on upper tolerance limits (UTLs) and Kruskal-Wallis Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests were conducted to compare the background data with constituents detected in the downgradient (i.e., compliance) wells.
24
Tolerance Limit Analysis The constituent concentrations in the background (upgradient) well GMMW-13 were used to establish UTLs. The UTLs were then compared with the constituent concentrations in the downgradient wells to evaluate the effectiveness of the containment system. UTLs are derived based on two statistical parameters: the confidence level and the coverage. The coverage expresses the percentage of the background population that can be expected to fall at or below the UTL at the specified confidence level. A coverage of 95 percent for the UTL indicates that the 95" percentile of the site concentration data should be less than or equal to the UTL if the site data are equivalent to background.
Organics Table 4 in Attachment 8 presents a summary of the VOC data for background well GMMW-13. A review of the background VOC data indicates that no VOCs have been detected in the background well. Since there have been no VOC detections, calculation of UTLs was not appropriate for the VOCs.
Inorganics Table 5 in Attachment 8 presents a summary of the inorganics data for background well GMMW-13. Distribution testing and UTL calculation were performed on the inorganics data using EPA (2007) ProUCL Version 4.0 software. The 95% UTL values were selected based upon the results of the distribution tests.
Table 6 in Attachment 8 shows the results of the UTL derivations for the inorganic constituents. The UTLs are based on an average coverage of 95 percent (meaning 95 percent of the site-related concentrations should be at or below that UTL concentration if the site data are equivalent to background) at a confidence level of 95 percent. Table 6 presents minimum and expected coverage levels for the nonparametric UTLs based on use of the maximum detected concentration. The minimum coverage is a tabulated value from EPA (1989) guidance, and the expected coverage is calculated as N/(N+1) (EPA 1992).
Table 7 in Attachment 8 presents the analytical data for inorganics in the downgradient wells and compares those results to the background UTLs derived in Table 6. Data sets in which at least one sample in the downgradient well data exceed the upgradient UTL are indicated in Table 7 and are listed below:
Downgradient wells • GMMW-6 exceeds the UTLs for aluminum, antimony, arsenic, barium, calcium,
magnesium, sodium, and chloride; • GMPZ-6 exceeds the UTLs for aluminum, arsenic, barium, magnesium,
potassium, sodium, and chloride; • GMMW-7 exceeds the UTLs for aluminum; • GMPZ-7 exceeds only the UTLs for antimony and sodium after the 1995
sampling event, but in 1995 this well exceeded the UTLs for aluminum, arsenic, barium, calcium, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, magnesium, nickel, potassium, sodium, vanadium, and zinc;
• GMMW-12 exceeds the UTLs for aluminum, arsenic, copper, iron, manganese, nickel and vanadium;
25
• GMPZ-12 exceeds only the UTL for barium and sodium after the 1995 sampling event, but in 1995 this well exceeded the UTLs for aluminum, arsenic, barium, calcium, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, lead, magnesium, manganese, nickel, potassium, sodium, vanadium, and zinc;
• GMMW-19 exceeds the UTLs for arsenic, barium, potassium, sodium, and chloride; and
• GMMW-20 exceeds the UTLs for antimony, magnesium, potassium, and sodium.
Please note that the 1995 groundwater sampling event was completed prior to installation of the groundwater containment system in Fall 2001.
As shown above, there are several wells in which at least one sample exceeded a UTL. However, limited UTL exceedances in a downgradient well do not necessarily imply that the downgradient well data set is significantly different than the background data set. Therefore, the Kruskal-Wallis Test was used for each of the wells and constituents listed above to compare the downgradient well data set to the background data set to determine if there were significant differences between the two populations.
Kruskal-Wallis Wilcoxon Rank Sum Tests Comparison of the analytical data obtained from the downgradient wells with that of the background wells was conducted using the Kruskal-Wallis test, which is a nonparametric version of analysis of variance (ANOVA). The Kruskal-Wallis test simultaneously evaluates the constituent data in all of the downgradient wells and compares them to the background data set. It also compares the mean of each of the downgradient wells. Thus, a significant Kruskal-Wallis P value alone does not necessarily indicate at least one downgradient well is different from the background data set. It does not indicate which well is significantly different and the direction of the significant difference (i.e., greater than or less than background data). Therefore, if the Kruskall-Wallis Test indicated a significant difference among downgradient wells and background wells, the Dunn's multiple comparison test was used to identify the well (or wells) with a significant difference compared to background and the direction of the difference. The level of significance used in the Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn's multiple comparison tests was 0.05.
Results of the Kruskal-Wallis test and Dunn's multiple comparison test are summarized below and presented in Table 8 of Attachment 8. The results indicate downgradient data are greater than background data for the following data sets:
• GMMW-6 data is greater than background data with respect to barium, benzene, chloroethane, iron, manganese, potassium, and sodium;
• GMPZ-6 data is greater than background data with respect to potassium and sodium;
• GMPZ-7 data is greater than background data with respect to barium; • GMMW-19 data is greater than background data with respect to benzene,
chloroethane, 1,1-dichloroethane, 1,2-dichloroethane, 1,2-DCE, arsenic, barium, iron, nickel, potassium, and sodium;
• GMMW-20 data is greater than background data with respect to calcium, magnesium, manganese, potassium, and sodium.
26
The data sets listed above appear to be greater than background data. Therefore, these data sets were evaluated for potential trends to determine if concentrations in the downgradient wells are increasing, decreasing, or remaining constant. The Kruskal-Wallis P value for aluminum was below 0.05. However, results of Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test showed that no downgradient wells were significantly different from the background data set for this constituent. The nonparametric Mann-Whitney Test was also used to compare the combined downgradient well data to the background data set. The Mann-Whitney P value was 0.7928, indicating no significant differences. As discussed below, the nonparametric Mann-Kendall test for trend was used to determine if significant trends are present in the data sets.
Trend Analyses A trend analysis was applied to each data set in which a statistically significant difference (above) compared to the background groundwater quality was identified. In accordance with the O&M Manual, the Marm-Kendall test was used to identify the presence of a significant trend.
Table 9 in Attachment 8 summarizes the results of the Mann-Kendall test for all data sets listed above. With the exception of GMMW-6, GMPZ-7 and GMMW-20, all wells showed either no trends or decreasing trends for all constituents evaluated. The only increasing trends were observed in GMMW-06 and GMPZ-7 for barium and GMMW-20 for manganese and sodium. Although an increasing statistical trend is shown for these constituents, no Federal MCLs have been exceeded and no signs of a containment breach have been evident. The PRPs will closely monitor these statistical trends with fiiture groundwater sampling data.
The upgradient well GMMW-13 was also analyzed for trends in those inorganic constituents for which an increasing or decreasing trend was noted in the tests sunmiarized in Table 9 in Attachment 8: barium, iron, manganese, and potassium, sodium and chloride. With the exception of an increasing trend in sodium, no trend was noted for these constituents in GMMW-13.
Summary of Groundwater Quality
None of the monitoring wells downgradient of the slurry wall exhibited constituent concentrations above MCLs in the recent sampling event, with the exception of arsenic which was detected in the sample collected from GMMW-19. Arsenic was detected in the groundwater sample collected from GMMW-19 at 0.012 milligrams per liter (mg/L) (arsenic MCL = 0.010 mg/L). Although the concentration of arsenic in the groundwater sample collected from GMMW-19 was above the MCL, arsenic has been previously detected in background groundwater samples at similar concentrations. From this, it can be concluded that arsenic is naturally occurring at the site.
Summary of Groundwater Treatment System Performance
The treatment system has effectively treated recovered groundwater since startup, enabling th(j groundwater gradient control system to function. The monthly treated water discharge samples indicate that the system has met the IDEM discharge limitations during this time
27
period, with the exception of iron (exceeded discharge limits in December 2005, April 2006, November 2006, May 2007 and June 2007), nickel (exceeded discharge limits in January 2009' and March 2009). and zinc (exceeded discharge limits in May - June 2007).
ARCADIS uses a variety of field test kits for routine evaluations of treatment system performance. ARCADIS collected additional quality assurance samples of the treated water and untreated influent during February and March 2009 to determine if there is an increasing trend in groundwater nickel concentrations. The February and March 2009 quality assurance sample results were not conclusive, therefore additional laboratory and field tests have been performed at several locations throughout the treatment process since that time to verify the source of nickel. In order to field monitor nickel concentrations in the treated water, a test kit was purchased in March 2009 that has been used for performiuice verification screening during all site visits. Since March 2009, all treated water samples have exhibited nickel concentrations below the discharge standard. The PRPs will continue to closely monitor this situation, notify EPA and IDEM of any additional findings, and take appropriate contingency measures, as necessary.
Air emission samples were collected from the treatment system on December 30, 2008. Samples were collected from the exhaust of both the influent surge tank (STEP-1208 and blind duplicate sample DUP-1208) and air stripper (ASEF-1208).
Prior to collecting the vapor samples, exhaust air flow readings were measured at the influent surge tank (20 cubic feet per minute) and air stripper (250 cubic feet per minute) exhaust stacks using an anemometer.
Samples were collected from the surge tank and air stripper in accordance with the O&M Manual. The surge tank was nearly full of water, at least one collection sump was actively pumping to the tank, and the air compressor was aerating the surge tank at the time that samples STEP-1208 and DUP-1208 were collected. The pre-air stripper transfer pump (TP-1) and the air stripper blower were operating at the time that sample ASEF-1208 was collected.^
The only constituents detected in the vapor samples were cis-l,2-dichloroethene and trichloroethene in sample STEP-1208. Due to the low levels of cis-l,2-dichloroethene and trichoroethene detected in the sample (0.0715 parts per million by volume (ppmv) and 0.0181 ppmv, respectively), vapor phase VOC emissions are considered insignificant by IDEM Office of Air Quality standards (less than 0.01 pounds per day).
' Prior to January 2009, nickel had never been observed in the treated water samples at concentrations above discharge standards during the 6+ years of system operation. " Due to electrical malfunction, the effluent transfer pump (TP-2) was not operational at the time the vapor samples were collected, however the fiinction of TP-2 does not affect vapor mass removal by the treatment system.
28
Surmnary of Landfill Gas Evaluation
A perimeter air monitoring event was conducted on September 28, 2009, using visual inspection and a Multi-RAE combination air monitor. The Multi-RAE was calibrated to monitor the LEL for methane, carbon monoxide, oxygen, and photoionizable vapors. No photoionizable vapors were detected during monitoring with the Multi-RAE. The LEL for methane was consistently at 1 - 4% during the perimeter monitoring walks, which is less than the contingency plan trigger level of 10% as indicated in Section 7.1.1 of the O&M Manual.
Summary of Landfill Cover System Inspections
Inspections of the Site have been periodically conducted to monitor the landfill cover system, perimeter fence and gates, groundwater treatment system, and groundwater containment system. The monthly site inspection reports have noted minor settlement around some wells/vents, the quantity of aggregate is marginal, and there are some ruts and/or erosion. However, the landfill cap and constructed wetland were found to be in good condition. The groundwater containment and treatment systeni was found to he operating and fiinctioning properly. All monitoring well covers are intact and locked and show no signs of damage. Some of the gas vents have been replaced.
Summary of Wetland Mitigation
In order to evaluate the success of the mitigated wetland, performance standards were de\'eloped by EPA. These performance standards are detailed in Section 2.4 of the O&M Manual. Table 6 summarizes the performance standards and the compliance status of the mitigation area, based upon 2008 calendar year inspections.
29
Table 6. Performance Standards and Compliance Status of Wetland Mitigation Area
Parameter
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation / Invasive Species
Vegetation / Invasive Species
Soils
Soils
Performance Standard
368 healthy shrubs
80% plant coverage
No more than 10% non-native plants within emergent and scrub/shrub
communities
No more than 5% reed canary grass or
field thistle
Evidence of soil reduction
Wetlands soil samples submitted for agronomic lab analyses during
monitoring years 1 -4 and soil
amendments, as necessary
2008 Compliance Status
384 healthy shrubs within six transect
plots
Greater than 80% plant coverage within
the wetland Less than 10% non-
native plants
Less than 5% reed canary grass or field
thistle
Reducing conditions are present within the
wetland basin
Soil samples submitted annually for agronomic lab
analyses during the first four years of the monitoring program
Comments
Performance standard has been met (without
extrapolation for total wetlands area)
Planted/seeded wetland herbs and volunteer herb species
thriving Hydrology restricts
migration of non-native plants into wetland basin
Periodic herbicide applications and wetland
hydrology have controlled reed canary grass
populations, although common and persistent
upstream of the mitigation area along Adams Drain
Hydrology within wetland basin has contributed to
reducing conditions of hydric soils
Based upon lab results during the first four years of monitoring program, no soil
amendments have been necessary
30
6.5 Site Inspection
A site inspection was conducted on December 16, 2009, by Scott Hansen of EPA, Resa Ramsey of IDEM, and Jon Akin and Edward Copeland of ARCADIS. The purpose of the ins]3ection was to assess the protectiveness of the remedy, including the presence of fencing to restrict access, the integrity of the landfill cap, and the general conditions of the groundwater collection and treatment system and monitoring wells.
The inspectors walked around the surface of the landfill, and conducted a brief inspection of the mitigated wetland. Site access is available through locked gates which enclose the site landfill and other components of the remedy (groundwater treatment building, monitoring wells and gas vents). The Site Inspection Checklist is included as Attachment 5.
The only issue found during the five-year review site inspection was that a few small animal holes were noted.
6.6 Interviews
The following individuals were contacted by telephone as part of the five-year review:
• Jon Akin, PRP contractor (interviewed December 2009) • Ed Copeland, PRP contractor (interviewed December 2009) • Resa Ramsey, IDEM project manager (interviewed December 2009)
Mr. .Akin, Mr. Copeland, and Ms. Ramsey stated that there are no serious issues related to the site. However, it was noted that it may be appropriate to evaluate what preventative maintenance may need to be conducted to ensure the landfill cap remains structurally sound and for the groundwater treatment system to fiinction without disruptions. The interviewees also stated that community interest about the site remains low. Mr. Akin confirmed that no changes in land use are planned for the site.
7.0 TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
7.1 Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents?
Yes. The remedy is functioning as intended, as discussed below.
RA Performance: The remedies selected in the ROD and ROD Amendment have been implemented and remain functional, operational and effective. The landfill cap has been completed, and the groundwater containment and treatment system is in place, and these factors have achieved the remedial objectives to minimize the migration of contaminants to groundwater and surface water and prevent direct contact with, or ingestion of, contaminants in soils, groundwater and sediments.
Cost of System Operations/O&M: Current annual O&M costs are not available since the PFPs conduct the O&M. EPA does not have access to their actual expenditures.
31
Opportunities for Optimization: Given the adequate performance of the remedy at the site, this five-year review does not identify a need for optimization at this time.
Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Failure: No early indicators of potential remedy failure were noted during the review. Based on the semi-annual sample results (October 2005 -September 2009), the majority of monitoring indicates that the target compounds (see Attachment 8) have declined or remained stable. Maintenance activities have been consistent with expectations.
Implementation of Institutional Controls and Other Measures: The fence needs to be maintained. As previously discussed, at least one remaining IC has not been implemented. The remaining IC includes an environmental covenant on the Montel property. The PRPs and EPA have both tried to get the cunent owner of the Montel property to sign an environmental covenant but the owner has not been willing to cooperate. This issue needs to be resolved. There are three environmental covenants in place which will prevent the use of the capped area of the site for any activity that interferes with the performance of the remedy, or which will result in the exposure of contaminants to humans or the environment. Such restrictions include, but are not limited to, drilling, digging, building, or the installation, construction, removal, or use of any buildings, wells, pipes, roads, ditches, or any other structures on the capped area. On April 12 and May 19, 2005, environmental covenants for the site were signed by three of the four site owners and were recorded in Kosciusko County (see Attachment 4). The environmental covenants implement the ROD requirements. Additional IC evaluation activities are required including reviewing the long-term stewardship procedures to ensure long-term protectiveness and compliance with the existing ICs.
7.2 Question B: Are the assumptions used at the time of remedy selection still valid? Yes
Yes. As discussed below, the assumptions used at the time of remedy selection are still valid.
Changes in Standards and To-Be-Considereds: Requirements contained in environmental laws and regulations, which were outlined in the ROD and ROD Amendment and the 2005 Five-Year Review Report, are still valid for the Lakeland Disposal Landfill site.
Changes in Exposure Pathways: No changes in the site conditions that affect human or environmental exposure to contaminants were identified as part of the five-year review. There are no current or known planned changes in the site land use.
Changes in Risk Assessment Methodologies: Changes in risk assessment methodologies since the first five-year review are not significant and do not call into question the protectiveness of the remedy.
32
7.3 Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy? No
No. As discussed below, no other information has come to light that would call into question the protectiveness of the remedy.
A recent trend analysis shows statistically increasing trends in barium concentrations at wells GMMW-6 and GMPZ-7, manganese and sodium concentrations at well GMMW-20, and sodium concentrations at well GMMW-13. However, the barium concentration is less than the Federal MCL and has been observed at similar concentrations in background wells. Manganese and sodium do not have established Federal MCLs or IDEM risk-derived screening criteria and have also been observed at similar concentrations in background wells. Other compounds have had increasing statistical trends at some well locations, but the detected concentrations are less than the Federal MCLs. The PRPs will continue to monitor the trends.
No other events have affected the protectiveness of the remedy and there is no other information that calls into question the protectiveness of the remedy.
7.4 Technical Assessment Summary
According to the data reviewed, the site inspection, and recorded site environmental covenants, the remedy appears to be functioning as intended. There have been no significant changes in the physical conditions of the site, cleanup standards, contaminant toxicity or exposure pathways that would affect the protectiveness of the remedy.
However, IDEM has commented to the PRPs that low levels of metals continue to be detected in the method, initial calibration, and continuing calibration blanks. This ongoing problem has been noted in progress reports submitted over the course of several years, and appears to be a laboratory quality control issue. Even though the detected low levels of metals probably are not affecting the sample results, there should not be metals in any of the blanlcs. The laboratory has taken corrective actions. In addition, inspection reports have detailed numerous malfunctions in the last couple of years with the groundwater containment and treatment system (e.g., pumps not working, electrical problems causing the system to shut down). The system may need to be upgraded to make sure the system stays online. The PRPs have already replaced one of the pumps and will follow up on the electrical issues.
No additional information has been identified that would call into question the protectiveness of i:he remedy.
8.0 ISSUES
The issues identified during the five-year review process that could impact the protectiveness of the remedy are identified in Table 7.
33
T a b l e 7. Issues t ha t I m p a c t Protect iveness
Issue
1. One required IC (Montel property) has not been implemented, and long-term stewardship must be ensured 2. Some holes from burrowing animals were observed in landfill cover 3. Monitoring wells GMMW-14 and GMMW-15 were last sampled in March 1995 and should be resampled to provide additional assurance that groundwater contamination has not migrated off-site
Currently Affects Protectiveness
No
No
No
Affects Future Protectiveness
Yes
Yes
Yes
9.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS
Table 8 lists the recommendations and follow-up actions for each item identified above.
T a b l e 8. R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s a n d Fol low-up Actions
Issue
1. One required IC (Montel property) has not been implemented, and long-term stewardship must be ensured.
2. Some holes from burrowing animals were observed in landfill cover. 3. Monitoring wells GMMW-14 & GMMW-15 were last sampled in March 1995 and should be resampled to provide additional assurance that groundwater contamination has not migrated off-site.
Recommendations/ Follow-up Actions
(a) Prepare and submit IC work plan to implement remaining IC, to review long-term stewardship procedures and update if necessary, and to conduct additional IC evaluation activities; (b) Research/assess legal authority for control over abandoned property and discuss with PRP. Fill burrowing animal holes with bentonite.
Sample monitoring wells GMMW-14 and GMMW-15.
Party Responsible
PRPs
EPA/ IDEM
Oversight Agency
EPA
EPA/ IDEM
PRPs EPA
PRPs EPA
Milestone Date
October 2010
October 2010
June 2010
Fall 2010
Affects Protectiveness
Current No
No
No
Future Yes
Yes
Yes
Note that the "additional IC evaluation activities" for Issue #1 include examining titles to ensure they were properly executed by the owners to ensure no inconsistent encumbrances
34
exist on any of the properties, and to ensure the required objectives in the environmental covenants align with the required ROD objectives.
10.0 PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENT
The assessment of this five-year review found that the remedy is protective of human health and the environment in the short term. The remedy was constructed in accordance with the requirements of the September 1993 ROD and the October 1998 ROD Amendment. There are no current exposure pathways and the remedy appears to be fiinctioning as designed. The landfill cap, slurry wall, groundwater collection and treatment system, and on-site treatment of Waste Disposal Area 2 control the source of contamination and have achieved the remedial objectives to minimize the migration of contaminants to groundwater and surface water and prevent direct contact with, or ingestion of, contaminants in soils and groundwater. Long-term protectiveness of the remedial action will be achieved when cleanup goals are met and when the one remaining institutional control is implemented. Compliance with effective ICs will be ensured through long-term stewardship by implementing, maintaining, monitoring and enforcing effective ICs as well as maintaining the site remedy components.
11.0 NEXT REVIEW
The next five-year review is due within five years of the signature date of this review.
35
ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT 1
01 o o o
LEGEND
PIPING aerwEEN C A T C H B A S I N :
SIECIDUOUS TREE
E.LECTRIC PANEL OR TRANSFORMER
COLLECTION SUMP
' L E A N OUT
DEEP W6a
FIEZOUETER
: A ' i VENT
MONITOR * E L L
CATCH BASIN
EDGE O F PAVEMENT
EDfJE OF GRAVEL
CULVERT
UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC UNE
UNDERGROUND FORCEMAIN/ELECTRIC LINE
( H A I N LINK FENCE
ANCHOR TRENCH (OUTSIDE EDGE)
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE UNE
SHEET PIUNG
OVERHEAD UNE
' LURRY WALL (AS LOCATED PER PLAN)
PERIMETER DRAINAGE SWALE AND FLOW DIRECTION
F'OWERPOLE
PORTUND CEMENT CONCRETE
GRAVEL LANE
f^ lP-RAP
UNED CHANNa
SCAUE 1" = 6 0 '
LAKELAND LANDFILL SITEMAP
^ 1 0 - 2 2 -
TERRITORIAL ENGINEERING, LLC
INDIANA
1 of 3
wALgroraSI I JOfl I jl HLE;
0 1 - 1 8 6 SECTION
ATTACHMENT 2
Lakeland Disposal Landfill Site Documents Reviewed for Five-Year Review Report
• First Five-Year Review Report, March 2005
• Record of Decision, September 1993 and ROD Amendment, October 1998
• Lakeland Disposal Semi-Armual Progress reports for groundwater containment and landfill cover, 2005-2009
• Biermial Status reports - Wetland Mitigation
• Quarterly Progress Reports, 2005-2009.
• Discharge reports, 2005-2009
ATTACHMENT 3
04/2X/00 MOW ©•;0« FAX 414S7t7«03 QXUOmtMlLLMM *•** iiwoAiiArui^a wwu^
rrr?m INDIANA D E P A R T M S - " " ^ - R N V I P ' - ^ AT MANAGEMENT »^e JWflAr Indiana a cltansr. haaithierplaet to ttvt
r ' FwrA CBovton l>.O.taiM15
pi7)Zn4iH)3
VIA CHk.'n ' i<i> Mv^p. 7o»9 aaao 0003 254s 75»a
Mr. Richaid Stadcbaker ARCADIS Gcnghty & iMfilkf. loa ] 26 Nofib Jcilbnon Street, Ste 400 Mihraukm^WT 53202
Daar Kfr. StodabakeR
Re: NPDES PennttDiscbnBsSmdards Lokoland Disposal LandfilhS^Mrflttd Site QjQipool, b d i n a
Thb letter w written in iwpooiB to your coneqwudeaeo dated M«ylOt 2000. Aocording to yom- letter. ARCADIS Genitfity ft Miller. Jao^ on behalf of the Lakeland Dlaposal Roipoiideiits, is roquettizig NPDES pcnnit diacharge standanb fcr the piopoaed grooDdwatar treatinenl system af the Lakeland Disposal Landfill Superfbnd Site in Claypool, ladiaoa. Tho Laksdand DIsposd site b a National Prioontioa XJst (NPL) Bite, thcraioM; p i ^ ^ 327 lAC 5-2-4(5), the poondwater treatment system will need to eomp^ with the adtstantive Teqdrenwnts of tbo NPDES pennJt process, bM an actual NPDES disdiar^c pennil win net be Issued. A site location map of the T .akeland Disposal LandfiB SiyeriUnd Site is impended a« AltacbmcniL
Qroundwatar samploa collected at tiie Lakeland Dtqpoeal Landfill Superfiind Site contain low levels of volatile organic conqwunds and total metals. ARCADIS Gcraghty ft Itidkr, fiic is proposing to install a srouodwater treatment system to ien>ediate die gnnindwater at the aita The groimdwiter trawtmcnt system "will consist of a 1^00 gallon influem surge tank, dual seta of particulate bag filter units, a low pnille air stripper, and carbon filters. If needed for polishins. The discharge ihxm tibe groundwater treamwat system is expected to be 36^000 gallons per day and will be discharged to Sloan Ditch.
Pursuant to 327 lAC 8-12-2(b), the groundwater treatment system Is classified as a Class B wastewater treatment plant The wastewater treatment plant shall be under the tap<!ivisi<m of an operator certified by the Commissioner as required by IC 13-18«11 and 327 lAC 8-12-3. A process flow diagram of the groundwater treatment system is appended as Attachment IL
c ,».„,•< ftrr- ® AW K4M:a ()pp«»nMhi«jt N»i)»U«j«i nwiu„i,\>
••/21/M MH ••:•• PAi uasTtTtes csBAiOBnaiUB *** n v u m n u s Qtaa
#
3Z71AC3-a-1 rtaiaa*«MpcaoBifeillcflHSf
HEBwe««;327 IAC3-2-4(|>Mln*ita
toobtanaitarf
" " to riwBd fioB 327 lAC 2 sad S sod ai
327lAC5^Sa<^)(3)u Tin m i i l i l ' i lHi i > i i tiinlngj l i m l i i i i i w i a l i i n M i w i i a s w i ^ li l a r w i l i j isi i l i a i i iw iM i i i i i l i i a i 40B(» )O)a f f t cCWA. te iw« l ^ lh lg iU
The beat amallible to beak
I k—c aa unasHnnB if ! • i l i i ^ diis I 017)2324107.
« . > ^ K t « T ^ c ; ^ ^ i ^ T
^- /^U
OffioeofWsasr
CTLM cc: JesricnH0hoU,OLQ.]DEM
Sco« llaiii an. Rn^km V, EPA
o
08/21/00 Wm 09:06 FAX 414S7S7S03 «8MCBnuizum
Attadaneotl
iNDimaraLis 14004
P**. I-3
# LA.
m
Dsiy
JdOD — — — MoaMIr MOrToal OuOIS w ^ 0005 m ^ am m^
[II — — — OJXa OHM mtfl Ctappi41J — — — a m 0009 a«fl b o ^ l L7 4J0 ii«fl: Uerilll — OJOOP 0.02 mffl ' MasMy 24B-4
(1) — 007 016 • • • HI — 0L2t OOl aiA
c
t yec available. Tberefbm. i
[Z] CyenidB MMI be mcasosed sad reported as |QH|,Q3BidB> The I <Q0 » 24 hoBBi whca aaUkk is pRsent aid 14 days
; to40CHtI3&3.TabielB. nveBforcCNistobe l it wiiliia 24
idle
13] •IlKnMoAiyswcnfcwuerqBdity baaed eflloemliinh(WQBEUiBrryBidB it leas tfaaa I OXXDtt defined below, riaaiilia IE In i l i i i w a i i i i l i f HH tkvel is leas than the LOQ. Daily efflaentvahMsAaiaakss
thaa the LOQ, oaed to dsnoaiae the nnnthly avenge effloeai levds l e n t h n A B LOQ, aMjr beaasipMdavalaeof 100(0) , nwlrsSi afkercoMideriiigi
rihoa the Kmilof deiBCiwa (LOD),; , a vatoe other dioa xevo (0) is ^
[4] IbedaRyaaaimBmWQBELfiarcyaaidBisgresierlhMoreqBalto dnadKLOQ specified bekar. Conylisnce win be deniwutisitJ if the
KlatodMBiheLOQ.
1
fl«/tl/0O aoK 08:07 FAX 414trt7«04 OBRAORmMILUOl **-» *lu#i*i««rMi.*o
# Pap^meter T«a^ Method I,QD LQQ. Cyanide 3?SJ 0.005 ngfl 0.016 rngfl
The penniUeo maty detcmine a caae^pecific LOD or LOQ using the aiialyiical inetfiod ^jedfied abova^ or 8iqr other test method wbidt ia ffpnived by the Conmiasioaar poor to
use. The LOD ribaU be derived by tho prDcedi0BS'*°M<''* fa" °"'^''***<^'**'^ contained hi 40 CFR Pan 13d, Appendix B, and the LOQ shan be set equal to 3.18 times die LOD. OdtermethodsmaybcuaodifftstqipravafbytheConnnissiciid-.
C
c
a. IhopH shall not be leas thaa 6.0 nor grea«eriiun 9.0 standard units (S.V.). The pH sbaD bemottitoved as foOowi; byamomUyscabssrapla
b. The discharge diaD not Gonseexoasshrelbam in the TCoeJyinswnncf. The dischargo a ^ be essentially fiee of floating and settleabia aoHda.
c The diadunge shall not contaai oil or ether snbstaocaa in amoontsenfficieot to creata a visible film or sheen on the lecdvingwatan.
d. ThodisdiargediallbefteeofaubstancestbatarelnamountaaiifBcienttobe unsitfitly or ddeterieiis or Much produce color, odor, or otfiar cooditkins to snoh « d^giae as to create a nuisanoe.
e. The dischergashaP be ftee of substances that sie in amounts sufflciem to be acutely toxio to, or to otherwise severely hv'are or kin squatie lift, other animals, plants or faumsns.
C Hie discharge dial] jwtcontaio any substance ereooahination of subetaoecs in .amooots that will cause or oontribme to Ibo growth of aquatic planta or algae to such degree aa to create a nuisance^ be unsightly or otlierwise impair tfie designated uae.
g. Sanq>les taken hi oompliaocewidi the uoaJtoringrequiiemeBti above dial] be taleaa at a point ropresentativd of die diachsrBe bitt prior to entry into Sloan Ditch.
l /SA/1 «e:*T rax •ttxrmjwn
m B. MONrronNGANDSEPOKTIKG
C
tntaakav (WqpELa) bokiw the L0<^ drily k(LOQ!)kaMdto
t « M * e L 0 a « q r b e MOMberof
tea Aa Harit of detootkai (U3D).
a«4Kor
m. fP)i»^
bi Rra l< toorgn
(of daily vataHB (bodi I. Whaoa Ibeandfcr
_«f M)dhaOi ttiljOQ,
to
LOO. Pet of 0.1
LOQ akall be fcpened tf 1
LOD
valDaM<lLl«[g^
er eqiaal to ika LCD and IM1 toj
aB<CkaslfaaiO ata
ithB ttthe
tMHthaaiho vahtoof Aa Emit afdetoctraoshnllbaicpQiiBd as lem than
•RMB
tha Emit of dMoction shaO bo reported vane.
OS/ll/OO MON OS:07 PAZ 4i4XT«7«oa GBKAfiBTZIiaua ' * ^ INDXAKArouS ifloo* V • ' . . ' . ' • • "
- • i i • .-•• • * > /
^ 3. J2cflmifsai * ^^ :
a. Montfiiy Average
(!) ]£sigtiLBiai-The''nKMdfalyavaatB"diacfaBriemetMdwtolil discharge during a caica*» month divided by Ibo mmbor'of datys in die month fliat the prodactloa or commercial ftdliiy was dfaehargfng. When lea fiiaa daily annpiipgia required by flds letter, the moafldy avenge dladurga rfidl be deteiminod fay the smnmatiaii of fhemoasined daily djatliargaa by wai||il drwdod by
.. the nnmbff <tf diiy^jlialitg dK cahndarnoiodi w l ^
(2) '^"TnTHT*~*inn ft TBi - ' " - " ^ " ^ ^ h r •™—TIT" * dto aritfamatio avenge (prapofdooal to flow) of all dnly detemnnatiana of conceotoation made dnioE * riendar month. Daily detflnninatKNis of oonceatratioa'niade nsing a composite sanyloshaUbathecoMCsniraiiQnofttiatguiposlteaample. When gnb samplea are use^ dK daily detemiinadoii ofcnncenttniioa sfaafl be the BKiOmetic avengc<weighfed by flow valne) of all the samples collected during (h^ calendar d ^ .
b. IMIyMaxiinnBrDtMdiaiss
(1) JSEsisbLfiiiil'Ihe "daily n^aximnm*dlaoharg0meanf the total discharge by «re i | ^ during any oalendar day.
(2) Cumxi^liatii^i pa^lg - The daily nunomimi concenUatien meena die daily deteoninaijbn of conoanlcadkm Ibr any caleadar day.
c. A 24-hour oompoaite sanqtle consists of at hwat 3 individaal flow-propordoned aanqflea of wastewater, taken by the g n b samplo method or
^L^ by on antomatie sampler, which are taken It qsproximately equally 4Mced U ^ thne intervals ibr Ibednntibnofthe discharge within a 24-hour period and
N ^ 0 ^ ^g— which are combined prior to analyaia A flow pcopostioiMdooinposito <<.'5b^ ^ ^ " " " " ^ sample is obtained by:
L v J S t ^ - o J " ^^ roccwding die discharge flow n t e t t die time each individual Vcy(«^ ' 0 ^ sanqilo is taken,
• < ^ | . ^ (2) adding together the discharBBfloiw rates recorded fifom each - ^^K ' individoalssanipUng time to fiirmulato the "total flow" value.
c
09/ti/— wm ••:0S m SISZTSTMS Dtoiaittfous a 010
# (3)
W
by the total Bow vafaw to deaermina its
to whjeh wis be
orKqai± rf»nbe in uiiBignBS per Btar Oait/D.
Use U.S.EPA.
IS
at 77 West
lOONaoASMaaAv 1400(4015.
P . a Boar 6015.
40CPR.Partl36. Ike jpiMOvodmaiheds may be hichidBllaibe tests r, difwTDt bet oqiavaleaa methods are
I VS.
l9diBdMoa.l99S,i V«UnaB«.D.C 20OQ5.
Jaae 197*. Revised. Mareh 1983. Water QnaH^ OfBec, Analytical QoaKiy Oooml l014BffMhny.CiDciiBali.0H 4520Z.
0 1 / 2 1 / 0 0 MON oa:OS FAX 414*707003 QBMkCBfVOUJSaL •»•»* IMPIAIUMLIS »«01l
B For each measurement or sample taken pursuant td (herequiiemenn of diit letter, tho Lakeland Di^osal Heqwndents shall reconi the IbUowing infonnarioo:
a. Tho exact place, date, and tima of saitqiling;
b. The por8on(a) who performed die sampling or meaaurcmonlB;
c The dates the analyses ware perlbrmed:
d. The penonCs) who podbimed the analyses;
e. The analytical leefamqnae or madtods used; and
f. The results ofalliequiiadanafyaes and measurements.
A^mfyptial MnnitHriiig
If the Lakeland Disposal Respondents mom'tflr any poUutsnt sc the locatiaD(s) dcsignatedhereinniorefiequiMiflytfaaniequnadby this letter, using apptuved analytical methods as specified above, the xesuha of this mooitoring slMU be includMi in the calculadon and rqwfilingofdie values requred in diis letter. Such incBoaaedfiequeoqr shall also be indicated Other monitoring datenot specifically required in diia letter(sudi as internal process or intcraal waste stream data) which is collected by or for the Lakdand Diqwaal Raapondents need not be submitted unless requested by the commissioner.
All raccrds and inibmation resnltii^ ftom the monitoring activities required by dds lehsr, includms aH records of analyses peslbnned and califantion and maintenance of instnmentaiioQ end recording fiom continuous monitoiiiig iosmunentation. shall be retained ibr a minimum ofthrce (3) years, fncascs where the original reconls arelcqit at another locadoo. a copy of all soch records shall be kepi at the site. The dneo-years shall be extended:
(1) automadcally during Otc course afuaiy unresolved litigadoo regarding the dis^arge of pollutants by Qic Lakeland Disposal Respondents or regarding ptonoulgaied eCSuem guidelines applicable to the Lakeland Disposal Respondents; or
as/ai/oo mmmi— n r u4ayrroaa -*** xitouuurakis laiiiz
<2) «"
ILA. QSNERAL CONDITIONS
I.
iACya^y. Aay Water Act and C U sod IR
ttolC 13-301 aaiyiinaon who vliihir a a| t301.302,30C307.3l8.«
cfvfl paaal^ aoi to< svflUtaQyori 302.30«w307.er 301 a r t e CloMWatv Act iBi
PaaILBJ..and I to
PMtKBJ.. chilar
to dds pcnak rinD be tar
tto327IACS-»JC'X iGpsto
to 327 lAC 5-2-«(4XA). this letter ony be aMMEfied, icvoked i
a. Vjolatioa ottny tenns or coaditwps of this
OS/l l /OO HON 08:0S ^AA •l«Z/«fowi»
b. Obtahungdiis letter by misiqwesentatlon or Mure to diacloaefiillysll lelevant Acts; or
c. A change in sny condition dist requires either a temporary or permanent reduction or elcmrnatioB of dw aitdmrind d i fdui ia
5. ppty to ftovide Jn^^ymintion
Puisaatt to 327 lAC 5.2-8(4)(B) and 40 CFR 122.41(bX the Latodand Disposal Rcspondciitt AaE fhriadi to the Coinmlsnooec; withhi a veaaoiiBble tfana, aay hiCbrnuliaa which the Commisaiooer laqr requeat to detennine iwbedier caiise exists formodilyinfe revnkiiig and reisswing, or haniinaiing thia louar ccte detaminc oompfiance. Pursuant to 327 IAC5-2>S(7)CB), the Lakeland Diqiosal Reqiondents ahaU also fianish to the Commissioner, opon request, copies of Tocoids reqidrod to ba kspt by this letter.
6. TffyinPollgUMi
Nutwitlistanifiag Part ttA.4.. if a taxie affluent standard orprohibftloa (including any sdiodule of oonpliance specified in such effluent standisd or piahlbitioa) is estsUiritad undar Section 307(a) of die Clean Water Act ibr a toxic pellutam which is picMut in the disehsrgc and such stsodwd or prohibition is more soingant than any Hmiiation for soch pollutant in diis letter, this latter dul l be modified orrsvokad and reissued to uonfam to tha toxic eflluaat standard or prohibition in accotdanoe witti 327 lAC S-2>8(5>.
7. GBBtamnsaLEKOitisi
When cyanide or eyanogcn compounds are used in any of tha pnooeases at dda Odlity, the Laieeland Disposal Rsapondenls diall provide approved ftcilities for dia coatainnKnt of aiqr losses of these coo^KHrnds in acconfanc* widi thp requireineote oC Water PoHulion Control Board Regplation 327 lAC 2-2-1.
8.
The Taknland Disponl RetpooOctta shall have Uie waste trsatment ftcilitws under tho supervlsloa of an operator certified by Hie Commissioaer n requred by fC 13-18-11 and 327 lAC ff-I2-3.
C-'
oa/zi/ov warn «•:•» «*•* «A««t«i»<>«
m to EabJHiaea, or
is or BBsy be sriijecc to Water Act
10.
11.
i f j
itlfds. anr) ta327]AC5-2-<(€).
1327 lAC M-3, the provisions offhia
12.
to 327 lAC 54-1(7X1
3 l lo r the
I aaay be leqeiied by nw, MK
IR« in w y or aeovy ts
efdda
b. Bavai kept 11
itoandcepy.j of this
any
timca, aRfyiaeoBds AstaaHlba
d ^
anthorizBd by the Clean Water Act. aqr •tamrloeatian.
oa /ZJ i /uo sun u v : u v r A * «&«Af« iw««
# 13. CpattvptiggEanii
hi accoidanee widi IC 13-14^11.6, a discharger is pot raqwred to obtain a state pennit for the modificattoa or constroctian of a wafer poflotKn treamiont or control fadKty if die discharger has an aflbdive NPDES pemiit.
If the dtsahaiger inodiilos therr sadsling water polliilion trsatiiient or control fiteiliQf or conBtrnctt a new water poUotioa treaimeait or control fidlity for dio traahnent or control of aoy new influam polluiani or mereMod lavels of any existing pollutant, dien. witfrin tfahty (30) days after nwnmimcaniant of epeiadon, the dbchargar shall file with tha Department of Bnvnoarnental ^4hnagBmsat a notice of iiMtallatioa for the additbonl poOotaBt oonlRd eqmpaant anil a design suiiHiivy of any modificatkma.
The notice and design sununaiy shall be scat to the Offlce of Wator Management, hidusttial NPDES Forauta Section. P.O. Box 601S, Ihrffaaapolfs. IK 4^206^15 .
MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS
The Lakaland Diapoaal Rcspomdcnte Shan at all timee maintefai to 0ood working order and efflcfaitly operate all ftdlitiea and syitsms for wastewater collection and treatment which are uiBtalled or used by dte Lakeland DispoMI Reipondentt and which are necessary for achieving complianoe with die tenns and cQi«ditions of dds letter in aocmdaDce widi 327 TAC 54-8.
2. Bvoass o fTwmiar t FkdHti-
Pursuant to 327 XAC 5-2-S(l 1):
a. Bypasses, aa defined below, are prohibited, and the CamnriaBener may tdce enforcamcm acdoo against the Lakeland Dispoaal Respondent* for bypass, unless:
(1) Bypatt was unavoidable to prevem (on ofliforpcoond injury, or severe iKoperty damage^ M defined below;
10
C
• • / a i / « « awn * • < • • rma, •««
#
C2) aakasfoaaaaof
h w i K ilaiaBiiiii Una
orprBVcntrva
(3) andte Part ILBL2JI4 or
(4) T1iecoteli*mnBi4arPart]LBXd.belowisi
(O
bydast
of foe need fore bypeaa (atedefpaaed byfanX k a U l rwittaaaotka. IfposaWn.eachnntirriMIha
sa Mast tan iteys befen the date of ifea iQpMi for appraval
(2) 24
•apart wUda fiva(5) days of'
a litei
ifdte itiscaqieotedto
orpbonodto rofdia
c The ite
isaedshewniaPanILB.2JL Thai tobeneceaBBrrtoi
11
oa/21/OO mtf OS:00 PAX 4l4a7e7S0a aBKAua^eaiuAa
[^ d. The LakeiaadDiqMsalReapoiidente any allow any bg tess to occur dtet does not oaose a violadoB o f fiw efilueot fimJtsdons in diis letter, bnt only I f i t also is ibr easemial mainianancc to aswiic ofllcient opentfon. This provision win be strictly construed. These bjpasaaa « n not antgect to die provisions o f 1 n:B2 A and b.
"Bypass" mens dm fntendoaal dtvetakia o f a waste stream ftom any portioft o f a tiaaiocnt JhciUiy.
"Sevoia property damage" moans sobstanrial pl^^ical dantegn to property, damage to the treatmeot ftcihtiei wlucik woidd cauae daaoi to beutene iaoperabla, or substantial and pamaaent I o n o f naiiital reaowccs which oaa reasonably be expected to oocar In Che absence o f a bypaaa. Severe property damage does not mean ecoiiomie I o n oaiteBd by ddays in prodndioB.
rCnnriltfmii
Pursnantto 327 lAC 54-802) :
"Upset" mesas sn exceptional inddent in which dien is imintentiaosl and temporsty nonoomplianoc widi tadmology4iaaed eStaeat Hw i«tw^ff« becanao o f focton bayond the roasonsble control o f (he Lakeland Disposal Respondents. An opeet does not include nonoompliaoce to the extent caused by opentianal etxM; improperly designed treatment fittilitiee, inadaquate tneatmant fiwiKties^ laofc efprevemivamaioteaanec^ orcarelesB
Aniqisetaban constitute an affirmattvadefenae to an actioobroutfit for noncoinpHanoe with such tecfaaology^4>ascd eOhient limitatioiis i f dw rBqiurementt of Paragraph c o f das aeelioai, a n met.
LakelanI Disposal Respondents who wish to establish the afSimative defkasc o f upset diall demonstrate^ tleough properly signed. contemponnooiB operating logs or odier relevant ovideacct thai:
(1) An upset oocnred tad the Lakeland Disposal Respondents have Mentified tho specific caase(s) o f the upset, i f possible:
(2) The she was St the time beins operated in oofflpttanee with proper opetadon and maintenance proosdures; and
12
•s/ t i /oa wm oe:io FAX 4i4t7aTeo3 lUHsrous laoia
cn P B R E A J .
i * in24 of foe
alio ptovida a wrUea ofthaascad. T in
to 327 u c 5-2-i00)CP). • cfawiEraoalthi bcicposaedby win not
tothe flas Istter msy be modwed to
OBdter to specif and Haait
or.ifaadi in iWa
I of a
t to 327 lAC S-2<8(9) an! 327 lAC 5-2-13, resorted at the
13
08/21/00 aow UI»:J.U ^A*. *i%xi9t9a9 *•«*«««*««"«fc**»
#
3. ^ ^ n m " " ^ i * ^ - * ^ ' n
RtiportM of compliance or noncompKanee with Jnien'm and final requircmenta r*w* ii>wl In aqy compliance schedule of this letter shall be submitted ao later than 14 days following each schedule datei Any reports of noncompKanee shall Include the cause of noocompUanoe; sny remedial actfons tadcso. and the probability of meeting IhOnexl sbhaduled requirement
4. TwaBm-Ponr ftaar Rfanrtinff
Punnaat to 327 lAC 54-8(10)(Q. the Lakeland Di^Msal Reqpondteite Shan cnMyrqport to dte Commissioner inftrmatinn on the feltowing types of ixmcompfiance widiin 24 hours fton die time dM Ldeeland Disposal Rcapondeatt becomes aware of aucn noDoompUance.
a. Any unanticipated bypanwUdi exceeds sny effluent limitation in this tetter;
b. Any nonconyliance that nnypoae a significsBt danger to human health or the cavironmeot. Reports under tUs item ahaU ba made as soon as the . Lakeland Disposal Reapondems becomn awara of Uw noncoanplying
c. Any iqwet diat causes snexceedanccof any eflhient limitation in tMs letter.
The Lakdand Diaposal Respondente can make the oral raports by calling (317) 232-8795 during regular business hows or by calliiig^(317) 233-7745 ((888) 233-7745 loll fine in hidiaiui) during non-business hooca. A wxitten sidmiissien shall siso be provided wjdiin 5 di^s of the tinw tha Lakeland Disposal Respondente become aware of the ciccurastaneee. Ibe written sobmission diall oontaia a description of (he noocompiianee and ite cause; die period of noncompliance, including exact datn and times, and. if the noncompliance has not been mnected. the antidpatod time it is expected to oontintte; and steps taloon or planned to reduce and eKminate die noocompiianee and prevent its rocnnenoe. Tho Commissioner may waive the written report on a case-by-^sse baste if die oral rq>octhasbeanreocivodwidiin24lioura. AlUraativdy die Lakeland Diaposal Respondente may submit a "Bypan Fax Rqiort" to IDEM at (317) 232-8<S37. Ifa complete floe submittel is sent within 24 hours of the time (hat the Lakeland Disposal Respondente became sware of the occqgcncc, then the fox report will satisfy both the oral and written rqMXting requirements.
14
00/u/ea aaw aa;ia PAX 4i«xrs7aaa
# ttol27IACS-2-80C9(l>X ly ntaoee of neaaoqiliMKa imt repeated nder tat II.C3. or Ptet
I.C4.. at Art tiaw flte d te is sabaiiaal Tha tepoit AaO ceritaitete liaP«tILC4.
to 327 lAC 54.«(1<9(B)L wfo^ lbs •wan of a Aikn to asfaoii aqy VBlewani flhete oi
apcBteitappfioadeoflrisaaQfmpoft, n e 11
7.
to 327 lAC 5 4 4 . i n Lakalni
ai IhnaoaraelivlqrhnoccmadQrwiii dteefcigeof aurii iiBnial iilitini J as teade>iisaiiian to Seeaett301l(a»af foa Oeaa Wsier Act whsch ii Mt Ha wiD riigoil foe highfst of the folWwiog " wOflealMm I
(1) OtaeJandMnderogneaspar Iter (100 MKOE
(2) T>MDhuBdmdaBiero0anspvHate(2OOe«/Ofi)r> five temhed macngnne per filer (500 m for 2.4.
rateB^)!
(3) Ftva(5)tnnlhemarinaB> poMaatntti 40CFR1222](|X7>:te^
(4) A itetlBrtaai tevai astsbUHaod by foe 'te his own matisiiyo or
I thte kvds specified hi sabdivisiana (IX (2X or p} b « may
hassdirBateMMrfaairernCTititemlifieHe^<**«iK«writi«^«aMl»d» CWA (see 327 lAC 5-5-2).
IS
u * / i c i / v u auR uw:xu ruA. «A«4i»r»u.» ^nnn'^ai i r a i i i U i w '^ ' '^ «t«wAju'u»««M'A.>
6^L
b. Tbteithaabeguaoregqiactetobefin.touseorinaanfoctnrevasan DitenMdiate or final pcoduct or byproduct, any toxto polhitant which was not rqtorted in foo permit apfdication under 40 CFR 122.21(eX9>.
Punuant to 327 lAC 5-2-22 and 327 lAC 5-2-8(14):
a All reports required by this letter and ofoerinfoimadonToqueaied by die Coannrissioner shall be sigicdsnd certified by a person described betow or by a duly auihoiiaad lepiaaeutetive of diat poraon;
(1) For a corporation: by a pdndpadexecntive defined as a piesideot, iMcietaty, treasurer, aay vice pmiiitent of the tioipiaatim m charge of a principal businen Amctico. or asy other perscm who peiiuuis
^ ^ aitnilarpoHcyinakragflmctions for the coipcraiioai or tho manager ^ ^ of one or more maaefocoirlng, piuhiiiion^ or operating fadlitica
^ ' employing more than two hmalndfiily (250) persopa or having r ^ / gross annual sales or CKpcndihirescKcaedingfwamy-ffvamillieai
dollais (25.000,000) On seoood quailcr 1980 doDaisX if suUioriiy to sign docninente has been aaaigncd or dcLegated to dia manager in accordance wifii coipuiate procedures.
^ ^
( .
(2) For a partnership or sole propriekKship: by a general partner or the proprietor, reqpecttvciy; or
(3) For a Federal, States or local governmental body or any agen^ or political sobdivisioa diereof: by dlha-a principal execadve officer or ranking elected oificisiL
A person is a duly autborixed z^resentative only if:
(1) The authorization b made in writing by a person described above.
(2) TheanthoriationspoeifiMQttharsalodhridualorapofiitioii having reqioasibilfty for die overall operation of the regulated foctlity or activity, such u the position of plant manager, operator of a vieU or a weh field, auperintendont, or positica of equivalent responsibility. (A duly authoriaed representative may ihiia be either anamedmdividua] or any individuBl occapyinganamed posituxL); and
(3) The autliOEiziitian is submhted to the Commissioner.
16
c
« « r A A # * « m ^ n w s A A r a j k « A « « < « I » « « WWXX
#
Csrdflcaiiiat. PtetDX18,riMn
^ eartny Midar pcMlQraf law
the foOowaagoeih:
Ihaiibia
on
r
l a
w 1C1S.30 aid 327 lAC 5.24(14) peoivide* diat
decMMBt sahntflad orreqened to be moBnomg reports or rcpotta oeaiviGtioa, be poniaind by a foaa SlOUOOOpeririaiatfaa. or by
17
INDIANA DEPARTMENTOF E N V I R O N M E N T A L M A N A G E M B N T
Wt mala Atrftena a eltamr. htaltUtrplaet to Ih*
100llui*5— r.0.1*4015
40OMOI5
YTA OTFrnPf" "^^ff ' " • • W20 0023 5050 2034
Mr.BdwtedOopeiaad
2S1R Ohio Sued Indlan^ialte,IN4da04
DearM-.Copetend:
Sa: NnUESPeonftDiacbaiaaStaadank
: TTitelatioris written iona^poose to yofcorieapoiideBce dated Match 9.2001. Yo l<Btter antes dial demeatt of IDEhTs August 9.2000 letter, whkrb contains NPESS penidt dlischaige sundarda for LakelanI Diaposal Landfin Snpmfond She. maftflirdierdiaensskm or Glaiific:atiaiL You mention ta your letter diet dm offluenHmiudona for aluminum hi foa August 9,2D0() tetter dilfa from Innite contained fa a draft water quality cakadstion sheet provkied by IDBI4, dated May 19.2IM»i
The water quafity hned almnhami Umfaa ocotafaMd in foe dmft water quality cdenlatton sheet, dtecd Mey 19.2000. warn cakotated based on tei acute aqoatfc: criteria (AAQ of 991 ngfi and a chrome aquadc criteria (CAQ of 243 ugfi. The eriieria were devekiped nsfaig foe procadorecoatthied fa 327 lAC 2-1-8.2 aad 8 3 . OnAucD8t8,2000.dietoxioolo8iatliorfoa Ofltee of Water Qurifty recalculated dwCAC for ahmdnnm hi aouuidancewflh dm proceduwa fa 327lAC2-l-8JenddetenarineddteappnpiiattvahBtobel74ngA. UsfagdwiervisedCACor 1741«/| and dte AACof 991 ugfi. water quafity based effiuent fa'mite for ahnmnum wen detennbaed to be a monddy avesage of 120 ugA and a dally msxinaan of 290 ugfi.
Based on d » dan provMed fa yon letter, it la appvent diat dte coocenuarioo of namtaQy occuniag alaardnum m dw area for cxoeeda die wator quality baaed fimite for ahmdnmn. There<iaro.ahmBnumBmitsikMs have been removed ftom die NPDES permit <fisdiaigB standtedk for Lakeland Disposal Landfill SupoAmd Site. EhctosedisareviaedPegBlof AttachmealllL
#
~ 1,111
BanaM
Tia C K ^ ^
dvpn •
Land
McW
2te
Q ^ d e
AnalytkalHrfond
EPA 608
EPAOl
BPA21U
9 A 22012
V A Z K 2
EPA 239.2
BPA 3481.2
EPA2Bi^
EPA 3313
LCD
O^lgi
0 L 1 2 ^
OLli^
lagfi
i<ii>
latfi
l a ^
OLdSi«fl
5iti^
LOQ
OMilff
0 3 8 ^
0L32i«fi'
3.2aifi
3L2mfi
3.2 mfi
X2agfl
OiMiVfi
!•«•«
a) C9
taCnaiimei
O) kof Aaaoeal
i
Mi^CopelaBd
('^ tfaeaianltipiytfae wuJuiueQfthetotalCinniuaiteaaiBfiebycediiialiVideal" aaaqpin pesoenagB to deienntae tha vohmia of diat indivtdnal aampla whidi win
mduoBO m ma mm conposuB sanqaBL
Your letter staan diat a tfiscfaaigo hw not yet b e | ^ fion iha gmnndwaiart system at LafcaJandDlyissiTanrlfinSiyertmdShaL AwndbOenghyAhfllla^oBbehalfof Lakeland Di^pood LaodflU Stverfinid Site, win ptovkb 30 dq« notioB to IDEM and USBPA prior to iuMatfngdbdaaiB. B shoiJd be noted thet once dtedtechatge ftom TakriaadPiipood LaaadiniSapeilhnd Site cemnteaew, the dischsrgemoeitodngiapoattaliooldbasahnitied directly to Ma. Jessica Aixhokl of dte OfBea of LamI QnaBqr of IDEM nd.to Mc Scott Rsaaea ef dm USEPA. Bagka V.
Arcadia Genuity & Miller leqnestt coafirmsiiOB foat the fiva parameters of Section n.C7jL(2}of AtiaclmntindonotiaqnimspeellkmoBiintingofanyftequeiiey.ifoienthB Lakalaad Dhpoaad Sespoodentt know or have xeaam to beBeva them to ba pnaeaL ft is ooueRt diatthefivaparamBiewofSectioolLC7A(2)ofAttichmeitfindonotreqifoespeciflc BMBitnriitg of any flaqDen>y,MBlendte Lakeland Disposal BespwideMte know or hswaraasoii to
gyoahan any qoeatioiiaregardhigdds tetter. pieaoeceBtactniristineLofwiy at (317) 2324707.
Sliioerely»
Steven K. Xoiteh
IhdPHrld N H J B S ftmiite Scciim OffioB of Viler Qnatty
ciiycti
oc: loailri Hut hnM. tSiSj, IDEM Soott Banaen, Region V. BPA
I h a '
MONTHLY REPORT FOR I K t A I K U WAILK IIIS< HAKr.E SI AIVLIARUS
Lakeland Disposal Landfill
" c j * 5 ^-lu f i
Ef f tuvnt C h i r a c l H t i U c i
. 1 lm l« .1 lnn .
F
C i l t
—
-
—
1
1
3
5
6
r
a
9
1Q
11
12
IS
'-17
18
IS
M
21
22
2 ]
2<
25
28
2f
29
29
~ 3.
U n l l i
~
.
„-,... ......^ D»'V U w i T v r
S i m p l t T y p i :
r t q i i «ney of A n i l y i l f l
pH U i .
6 . 0 - 9 . 0
&» Uorlhly
lo h
Msnt t ly F i n Total (MO)
Flow
« ' •
N/A
2<*f I01»
OWy
UCO
- —
0.00000
l * ^ . m
Benzene
r.z-.^
oms
Giab
Uof iMr
"^
—
1
, ' • ' • ' • • ' • • - : ••• • o u M i r « i #
001
Tnchloroelhene
"-p. ; . " ;
O K I
C r «
MortK,
m /
-
ca1.2l>chloroalheiw
?-?; .• :
0 ( 7
Gr i l l
UonNf
m»1
Cadniium
:::: 0 M 4
2 4 l i r n ( w
Codvovla
t b i M y
mjA
Coppei
::: IDS
24!» Flow
CoTflOUtt
I t o W r
r V L
Iron
;: . 1
2 4 l < n o »
CoTflOGta
Uoony
mVL
Lead
:::: on
24 he F l o .
Corpo i l la
U o x H ,
irgH.
Nickel
::: e . i i
2 4 l » F t o .
Compmila
UonWy
« * L
Z inc
: i - .
o i l
24 r< Flow
CoTvoala
Mon»t ,
01*1.
Cyanide I
. . i w .
I . H I
C i i b
Mcxny
m * l .
Slgnsturs of CtrtJUsd Opsfstor Cartfflcatten Number
Tflfsphont Number
ATTACHMENT 4
OFFICIAL CERTIFIED COPY T B U E A N D COMPLETE
\Mi7^^^ ^i^-^f^*- -1 200500006894 — SliSi^nrnaraJN / ^ Z ^ ""' led for Record in
.^r^oL^ijri^JT)^ KOSCIUSKO COUNTY IHOIAHA LaSh«5Jl B ™ " 2 x S r r f ^ V LASHAMN BRUriFIELD
Kosciusko County Recoraer 05-19-2005 Ab 11:29 o.». State of Indiana EASEMENT 26.00
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION BASEMENT AND DECXARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS
1. This Bnvinnunental Protection Basement and Declaration of Restrictive CJoveaante is made this .iSLday of HtXy . 2005 by and between CHRISTOPHER DAWSON, C'Grantxw"), having an address at 3218 Bast GUI Road 30. Waissw, Indiana, and DANA CORPORATION, DA-LITE SCREEN COMPANY, INC., GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, MORTON INTERNATIONAL, INC, OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC., and ROBERTSHAW CONTROLS COMPANY AS INDEMNTTOR OF EATON CORPORATION ("Grantees").
•
2. WHERBAS, Grantor is die owner of parcels of land located in du County of Kosciusko, State of Indiana, more particularly described on Attachment A attached hereto and made a part hereof (the Ileal Property'');
3. WHERBAS the Real Property is part of die Lakeland Diqrasal Service, Inc. Landfill Superiimd Site CLalceland Site" or "flie Site"), which flic U.S. Enviromnental Protection Agency ("U.S. EPA"), pursuant to Section 105 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9605, placed on die National Priorities list, set forth at 40 C.F J t Part 300, Appendix B, by publication in the Federal Register on March 31,1989, (54 Fed. Rea. 13302);
4. WHEREAS, in a Record of Decision dated September 28,1993 (the "ROD"), Ifae U.S. EPA Region 5 Regional Administrator selected a "remedial action" for the Site, with flie concurrence of the State of Indiana, >A4iich provides, in part, for flie following remedial actions: construction of an Indiana Sanitary T.andfin Cap, construction of a soil-bentonite slmry wall and extraction wells for containment of the on-site groundwater in the i^per aquifer, storage, Ireahnent if necessary, and discharge of recovered groundwater, construction of a landfill gas collection, extraction and treatments system; removal and ofEsite treatment and/or disposal of drummed wastes in the hot-spot area of the Site; excavation and removal of landfill wastes and debris encountered during shmy wall constniction; construction of an adjustable weir in Sloan Ditch, if necessary, to maintain water levels in a^'accnt wetlands; a weflands assessment to determine wetlands tbat may be impacted by the remedy, and placement of land use and groundwater use restiictions in the Kosciuskx) County proporty records;
5. ^^TIEREAS, a Unilateral Administrative Order issued by EPA on April 25,1994 ("UAO") requires five potentially responsible parties ("the UAO Group") to implement the activities set fortii in the Scope of Work for the Remedial Design and Remedial Action work Plan;
OFHCUL CERTIFIED COPY TmJE AND COMPLETE
nMX)nl8rar0apufy LaShMwiBrunMd
J)^
OouniyRei lofintteia
6. WHEREAS, die paitiei hereto have speed 1) to gnmt a permanent nilit of aocea over theHeelPttiporty totte Gnmteee fin putpoeee of implementing, ftcffiMnig and nnnta i ig te icoiedii] actJoo; IIMI 2) to impose oo flie Property use lealiietiaai ac MifBDanlelliitirinnm with tiie lend ibr flieppipoeeofpcDtBCtmgliinnanheaMi end flie euvacuuMM;
7. WHEREAS, Gnnlar wiahes to ooopentfB M y wifli the Qcanlaec in fte iinidanBrtrtin of aO raa|Mne actions at flie Sit^ and
8. WHEREAS, Obanteea of tins eaaeaent alnn pay to Mr. DawioafliB aoBOint of $1.00 (one
of the AihiiiuiaUMiye Cider on Oonaent (BPA Dodcet No. V-W-97-C-397).
NOWTHERBFORB
9. J3At{£: Gkantar. on bdudf of itaeli^ ill naxxnois and anigns, in oonaadention of tlie fimgnmH laeuaaes, doea hereby oovepaiii and declaie that flie Real Pimietty Aall be atAject to fl» lealriciions on use set fivfli bdoar, and does give, grant and convey to flie Grantees and ftciraaaigps.wifli general wamniies of tide, l)fl)eperpetnalii^toenfi»oesaidiBe testiictioiB, aid 2) an eaviiouuieaialprotectiom easement offlieiiaanre and diatacler, and tor die pmpoaes heieinafker set fiafli. wifli respect to die Real Property.
10. Q I B P Q ^ It is dwpnrpoaeofdiis instrument to convey to die Gmdnea real property n^Os wUdi win ran with die land, to ficilitate die remediation of past euvirouuiental waniiiitifln and to protect human heaMi and the eaviioument by redncing die risk of
ito(
11. RESTRICTIONS ON USB: The following covenants, conditions, and restrictions aoolv to the me of die Real Property, ran widi the land and are binding on die Graitfar
a) There afaaB be no aae o^ or activity at, the Site that may inlnfticwifli, damage, or odierwise inqiair die effectiveness of any response action (or component dwreoQ selected and/or undertaken by U.S. EPA or any party acting as agent for U.S. EPA.pnisoant to Section 104 of CERCLA, caccqitwifli^mttBnqipaovalof i m . FPA, «Bid cnwrirtMit whh all aftnfnTy »w%A irjmhhtwy iHnniiwiiwrtK;
h) l i n e Shan be no conson^tive, extractive, or odicr use of die gtoandwate underlying the Site that could cause exposure of hmnans or animals to die ponndwaternndertyingdie Site.
c) There diall be no residential, commercial, or agricultural use of dw Site,
including, but not limited to, any on-site excavation, land fflli^g, mining invasive construction, drilHng, and installation of drinking water production wells, exc^t as qiproved in writing by U.S. EPA;
d) There shall be no installation, removal, constniction or use of any buildings, wells, pipes, roads, ditches or any other strtictures or materials at the Site except as qiproved in writing by U.S. EPA;
e) There shall be no tampering widi, or removal oC die containment or numitoiing systems diat remain on the Site as a result of inq)lemeatalion of any response action by U.S. BPA, or any party acting as agent for U.S. EPA, and which is selected and/or undertaken by U.S. EPA pursuant to Section 104 of CERCLA;
f) TTiere shall be no activities diat cause destruction ofon-sitevegi^ation or otherwise could result in degradation of the remedial components; and
g) There shall be no ignition sources on site cxc^ t as spprovod in writing by U.S. EPA.
12. MODIFICATIONS OF RESTRICTIONS: The above restrictions may be modified, or tenninated in whole or in part, in writing, by the Grantee. If requested by flie Grantor, such writing will be executed by Grantee in recordable fixm.
13. E>fVIRONMBNTAL PROTECTION BASEMENT: Grantor hereby grants to flic Grantees and U.S. EPA an irrevocable, permanent and continuing right of access at all reasonable times to the Real Property for purposes oft
a) Inq>lementing the response actions in the ROD, including but not limited to soil removal; placement, replacement, modification and maintenance of the surfoce cap and other remedial components specified in the ROD; placement, replacement, modification, operation and maintenance of the ground-water extraction system; monitoring contamination levels in flie air, in plants and in animals found on the Real Property, in soil, ground wat«r, sur&ce water, wastewater, or sediments;
b) Verifying any data or infomiation submitted to US . EPA;
c) Verifying that no action is being taken on the Real Property in violation of the temos of this instrument or of any federal or state environmental laws or regulations;
d) Monitoring response actions on the Site and conductmg investigations relating to contamination on or near the Site, including, without limitation, sampling of air, wator, sediments, soils, and specifically, without limitation, obtaining split or duplicate samples;
OFFICIAL CERTfRED COPY TRUE AND COMPLETE
0>l Recorder or Deputy LaShawn Brumfield
Kosciusko County Recorder State of Indiana
e) Conducting pedodk review ofdie remedial action, indndiqg hot not finrited to, review reqinred by applicdile statotBs and/or r^mbtion^ aid
1) TmplHf Kwiif^ yAtifinn*! e r naw TBywMC irf ioM if the Oanfrm^ ni flieir aole
diacretian, detaoniiie i) dot aach actions are neceaaary to protect die eanrirannient becanae eidier the original remedial action has proven to he ineflbctiva or hecanaa new tedawlogy has been developed wittGii win acconplidi die putpoaeB of die remedial action in a sigiifiiwilly moro efficient or coat eflaetive manner; and iO diat die additional or new leyoBiae actions win not inipoae any aignifican^ gteater borden on die Seal Property or mdnty intwfHie widi die dien *»i«*nig aees of die Real Property.
14. RBSBRVEDRHffiTS OF GRANTOR: Grantor hereby reeervea onto itaei£ila anoceaaora aiMl aaiBgiH, aO zi^iti and privilegea in and to die nae of die Real Property " " r h fi^iarf iiif^iipatiMf with dtP TBtfiii'lHHff i. iff^i*' and i' aai iiaiJa gpntwd herern.
IS. Nolking in this doeoBMBt shaD Unit or odwrwiae affect U.S. BPA% lighti of otfiy and aooeas or U.S. EPA% andiority to take Rsponse actions under CERCLA, the NCP, orodiBrfedenllaw.
^^ WTIWUC ACCESS AND USB: No riaht of acceaa or nae by die general BwMic to any portion of dK Real Property is conveyed by diia inatramenL
17. NOnCB RBOUIRBMENTr Giantor afreei to inchide m any instramentoonvi^ing any interest in any portion of die Real Property, inchiding but not limited to deeds, leases and mcrtgages, a iwtioe which is substantially die foQowmg form:
NOTICE: THE 1NTEBB8T CONVEYED HEBUY IS SUBJECT TO AN ENVIRONMENTAL PROlSCnON EASEMENT AND DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS, DATED >1«*-y <R. 20C5, RECORDED IN THE PUBUC LAND RECORDS ON Ho?^ i ^ . 200S, IN BOOK 2POZ-PAGB IZI30IIN FAVOR OF, AND ENFORCEABLE BY, THE UNTTED STATES OF AMERICA.
WJftin ftiity pO) dayi nfHw. <fate m y mnh niKtmiiMfrf nfciwvmymnt^. ^ *«ffm!wl. GnmtiQr
itnat provide QmnlBes widi a certified tiiie copy of said instraiiient aial, if it has been lecorded m die {RdMic land records, itBieGordngrefBrence.
18. ADMBngTRATlVE yi[yyygn|m9M- TII*> feHi^mi «p«irYi,«im.p «*«k.;oh*K«. juriadkaion over die JiilneslsacqnirBd by Grantees and die UnitadStatEKhythigfratipiiq^ is the EPA.
OFFICML CERTIFIEO COPY TRUE AND COMPLETE
Racorder or Deputy LaSha«vn Brumfield
KbscMsko County Recorder State of Incfiana
19. ENFORCEMENT: Grantees shall be entifled to enforce the terms of tins insfaument by resort to specific perfoimance or legal process. All remedies available hereonder shall be in addition to any and all oflier remedies at lav or in equity, inchiding CERCLA. Bofotcanent of the tenns of tliis instrument shall be at die discretion of (he Grantees, and any forbearance, delay or omission to exexcise their rig^its under tins instrument in the event of a toeadi of any tenn of diis instrument shall not be deemed to be a waiver by the Granteea of such term or of an]^ subsequent breach of the same or any other term, or of any of die r i g ^ of the Grantees under dus instrumenL
20. DAMAGES: Grantees shaU be entitled to recover damages for violations of the temos of tfaifiinstrmneni; Of for any injury to die remedial action, to the public or to die anvironmeat protected by diis instrumenL
21. WAIVER OF CERTAIN DEFENSES: Grantor hereby waives any defense of laches, estoppel, or presotqrtioiL
22. COVENANTS: Grantor hereby covenants to and widi foe United States audits assigns, that flie Giantor is lawfully seized in fee shnple of die Real Property, fliat the Giantor has a good and lawful light and power to sell and convey it, and that the Grantor will forever wairant and defend the tifle thereto and the quiet possession diereof
23. NOTICES: Any notice, demand, request, consent, qiproval, or conunumcation fliat eitho' party desires or is required to give to flie other shall be in writing and shall either be senred posonally or sent by first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
To Grantor To Grantee:
Christopher Dawson Lakeland Disposal Respondents 3218 East Old Road 30 c/o ARCADIS Geraghty & Miller, Inc. Waisaw, IN 46580 251 East Ohio Street, Suite 800
Indianapolis, IN 46204
24. GENERAL PROVISIONS:
a) rnntmtlinp law: The interpretation and perfonnance of this instrument shall be governed by the laws of the United States or, if fliere are no qiplicable federal laws, by flie law of Indiana.
b) T jheral construction: Any general rule of construction to the contrary notwithstanding, this instrument shall be liberally construed in &vor of fl» grant to e£fect the purpose of this instrument and flie policy and purpose of CERCLA. If any provision of this instrument is found to be ambiguous, an interpretation consistent with the purpose of this instrument fliat would render the provision valid shall be fiivored over any interpretation fliat would rraider it invalid. OFRCIAL CERTl PI ED COPY
TRUE AND COMPLETE
rrr^ Recorder or Deputy LaShawn Baimfield
Koscrusko County Recorder State of Indiana
c)ScwnMity: If any provision ofthiamsttmnenL or die appKcalioncfit to any peeaon or carcamaCanoe, ia foood to be invalid, die remaiiider of die pioviaiaaa of flns anliiniMm; or die application of sncfa provisions to peraons or dmnmlaarwi oflierdianflioee to irtiidi it ia foond to be invafidl. aa d» caee may be, diaU not be aflbded flMnby.
d)2iJj|Kj^gBgBg^ TUa inaliuniBnt aels forfli die entire apcenent of dtopartiBa widileapect to dm rif^ and nrtrictionB created herdiy, and ssperaedea aEpriar
, or agroements relating dieaetai, an of idndi are
e) IJLfil^^lSB: I*loddag ooBitained herein win resntt in a forfiifiKe or efGuutor^ tide in any respect
Q Sncceaaora; The covenants, terms, conditions, and leatridiona of dda iiialiiMiicnt nen be hauling tVtn, and i m e to die Iwir.lil oi the pattiea hereto and dhcv respective personal re|auBn<ativea,heiti,siicceawBS, and assigns rod shanoontimieaa a aarvitnde
[ in peipelaitywifli die Real Plopeity. The tenn "Grantor*, wliuuvu naedhereni, and I in pboe dtereoC dudl indnde the persons and/or entiliea named at die
hngjiiningof daadw-wiiant, ideHified aa "Oiaului" and dieirperacnal ma lanilalivua, heirs,
in pJarT' flinwit AaH inclade die pnitan audfar entities named at die beginning of due ,MW<iliwlaB'Gha<eeB*anddiBirperaonaliei|aiMaitatives;hgrs!,siK4xaBUii,and
, The l i j ^ of the Gtantees arai Grantor under this mstinment are fiedyasaiffiahlB, subject to die notice proviaiana heieoL
iiiiliiaiMnt triniiiiale upon tiansfer of die party's interest in die Basement or Real R.uperty, eaoept dot liability for acts or oniiaaiona oocmring prior to tranafer dun siBrvive tranafer.
h)Caplioiir The captions in dnsinstrnmeiit have bem inserted solety for cggvemence ofre&Rnceandareiiotapartofdusinstiument and shall have no effect iqxm comtractian or interpretation.
OFFICiAL CEITTIFiED COPY TRUE AND COMPLETE
-^t Recorder or Deputy LaShawn BnanfiekJ
Kosciusko CourHy Rectxder Slats or Indiana
•. ^ -
- J
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor has caused diis Agreement to be signed in his nsme.
Executed fliis 1 5 . day of POf iV 2005.
By: Dawson
STATE OF INDIANA ) ) s s "
COUNTY OF KOSCIUSKO )
Ond i i s / ^davo f >y7ix<^ . 2005. before me. die undendflaed. a Notary Public m and for foe State oflhdiani^ duty ctemnissianed and sworn, perB(malty appeared Christopher Dawson, and executed die fineS(>i^ i^iatrument, and acbiowledged the ssid ixutrmnent to be his fie^ and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes tfaeriam mentioned, and on oath stated that
he is authorized to execute said instrument
Witness my hand and ofticial seal hereto afSxed die day and year written above.
Notary Ptiolic in and for die \ State of Indiana. • •
\ My Commission Expires: •>'• .. >
MARGARET L UWRANCE. NOTARY PUBUC RES. KOSCIUSKO COUNTY,
STATE OF INDIANA MY COMWSSION EXPIRES: FEBRUARY 8,2012
OFFICIAL CERTIFIED COPY TRUE AND COMPLETE
c?>y Recorder or Deputy LaShawn Baimfield
Kosciusko County Recorder State of Indiana
ATTACHMENT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF RESPONDENT LANDOWNER'S PROPgRTY
AIBACTOF LAND LOCATED IN ITE NORmWESrr QUARIBl OFTHE . SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SBCrnON 12. TOWNSHIP 31 NORTH RANGE 5 EAST OF THE SECOND PRINCIPAL MBUDIAN. SEWARD TC^VNSHP. KOSCIUSKO COUNTY MDIANA BBN6 MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED ASFOLL0W8:
COIAOICMG AT A RAiUIOAO SPIKE MONUMBTT AT THE SOJinHWECT CORNBl OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 12; THBiCE NORTH (MB OOr OOP WEST (BASIS OF BEARINGS) ON THE WEST UNEOF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTB^ OF SECTION 12. A DISTANCE OF 1322.66 R S r TO THE SOUTHWI^T CORNBl OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARIER OF SECTION 12; THBICE NORTH 88B 46" ST EAST ON THE SOUIH LINE OF THE N0R1HWEBT QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 1% A DISTANCE OF 6SB>f3 FIST TO THE PONT OF BEGINNING: THENCE NORTH OOB OOr OOr WEST ON THE EAST LME OF THE WEST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARIBl OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 12, A DISTANCE OF 485J7FSr:THBiCE SOUTH 40828" 43-EAST A DISTANCE OF 104.00 FEET; • THENCE SOUTH dOB 24" S r EAST. A DISTANCE OF 4 0 5 i 2 7 F ^ TO THE SOUTH UNE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTBl OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 12, THENCE SOUTH 88E 46* S r WEST ON SAID SOUTH UNE. A DISTANCE OF 70.44 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
OFFICIAL CERTiRED COPY TRUE AND COMPLETE
jn. Recorder or Deputy LaShaMnBrunMd
Kosciusko County Recorder State of Indiana
' J f j . . : . •-.' ''<• \ I i « * i ') TRUE AND COMPLETE
OFFICIAL CERTIFIED COPY filed for Record in KOSCIUSKO COU fV IHOlAHrt
APK20 2005yV\ Recorder or Deput/' ^ m LaShawn Brumfield '
Kosciusko County Recorder State of Indiana
!H-2r'-2005 At i?:?7 P H . . SEMF.NT 26. on
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION EASEMENT AND DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS
1. This Environmental Protection Easement and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants is made this i'^^day o f Q ^ ^ £ i _ > 2005 by and between HOMER DOVE, ("Grantor"), having an address at 5504 S. 450 West, Claypool, Indianaand DANA CORPORATION, DA-LFTE SCREEN COMPANY, INC., GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, MORTON INTERNATIONAL, INC., OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC., and ROBERTSHAW CONTROLS COMPANY AS INDEMNITOR OF EATON CORPORATION ("Grantees").
2. WHEREAS, Grantor is the owner of parcels of land located in the County of Kosciusko, State of Indiana, more particularly described on Attachment A attached hereto and made a part hereof (the "Real Property");
3. WHEREAS the Real Property is part of the Lakeland Disposal Service, Inc. Landfill Superfund Site ("Lakeland Site" or "the Site"), which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("U.S. EPA"), pursuant to Section 105 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9605, placed on the National Priorities List, set forth at 40 C.F.R. Part 300, Appendix B, by publication in the Federal Register on March 31,1989, (54 Fed. Rea. 13302);
4. WHEREAS, in a Record of Decision dated September 28, 1993 (the "ROD"), the U.S. EPA Region 5 Regional Administrator selected a "remedial action" for the Site, with the concurrence of the State of Indiana, which provides, in part, for the following remedial actions: construction of an Indiana Sanitary Landfill Cap, construction of a soil-bentonite slurry wall and extraction wells for containment of the on-site groundwater in the upper aquifer; storage, treatment if necessary, and discharge of recovered groundwater, construction of a landfill gas collection, extraction and treatments system; removal and offsite treatment and/or disposal of drummed wasti^ in the hot-spot area of the Site; excavation and removal of landfill wastes and debris encountered during slurry wall constmction; construction of an adjustable weir in Sloan Ditch, if necessary, to maintain water levels in adjacent wetlands; a wetlands assessment to determine wetlands that may be impacted by the remedy; and placement of land use and groundwater use restrictions in the Kosciusko County property records;
5. WHEREAS, a Unilateral Administrative Order issued by EPA on April 25,1994 ("UAO") requires five potentially responsible parties ("the UAO Group") to implement the activities set forth in the Scope uf Woric for the Remedial Design and Remedial Action work Plan;
OFFICIAL CEFnnFD COPY TRUE AND COMPLETE
Recorder or Deputy LaShawn Brunfield
Kosciusko County Recorder Stare or Koana
6. WHEREAS, die parties hereto have agreed 1) to grant a petmaiient right of access over the Real Property to the Grantees for purposes of implementing, ftcilitaling and monitDriiig die rensedial action; and 2) to impose on the Property use restrictions as cuveu l s that will ran with the land for the purpose of protecting human healtti and the fmrnieiwirt,
7. WHEREAS, Grantor wishes to cooperate fiilly with the Grantees in the implementatimi of all response actions at the Site; and
8. WHEREAS. Grantees of this easement shall pay to Mr. Dove die amount of SLOG ((Hie dollar) in consideration for this environmental easement, as provided in Sect YD, Para. 8(B) of the Admiiiiaaative Order on Consent (EPA Docket No. V-W-97-C-397)-
NOW THEREFORE
9. GRANT: Granlor, on behalf of itseIC its successors and assigns, in consideration of Ae forgoing premises, does hereby covenant and declare that the Real Property shall be subject to the lestrictioas on use set forth below, and does give, grant and convey to the Grantees and their assigns, with general warranties of title, 1) the perpetual r i ^ t to enforce said use restrictions, and 2) an environmental protection easement of the nature and character, and for the purposes hereinafter set forth, wiUi respect to the Real Property.
10. PURPOSE: It is the puqx>se of this instrument to convey to the Grantees real property rights which will ran with the land, to facilitate the remediation of past enviromnental contamination and to protect human health and the enviroimient by reducing the risk of exposure to contaminants.
11. RES \ RICI lONS ON USE: The following covenants, conditions, and restrictions apply to the use of the Real Property, run with the land and are binding on the Grantor
a) There shall be no use of, or activity at, the Site that may interfere with, damage, or otherwise impair the effectiveness of any response actitm (or component diereof)selected and/or undertaken by U.S. EPA. or any party acting as a^nt for U.S. EPA, pursuant to Section 104 of CERCLA, except widi written approval of U.S. EPA, and consistent with all statutory and regulatory requirements;
b) There shall be no consumptive, extractive, or other use of the groundwater underlying the Site that could cause exposure of humans or animals to the groundwater underlying the Site. Existing drinking water wells on Respondent's off-site property are not included in this restriction.
c) There shall be no residential, commercial, or agricultural use of the Site,
'• '• • • •
including, but not limited to, any onxis^terexcavation, land filling, mining, invasive construction, drilling, and installation of drinking water production wells, except as approved in writingliy U.S. EPA;
d) There shall be no installation, removal, construction or use of any buildings, wells, pipes, roads, ditches or any oAer structures or materials at the Site except as approved in writing by U.S. EPA;
e) There shall be no tampering with, or removal of the containment or monitoring systems that mnain on the Site as a result of implementation of any response action by U.S. EPA, or any party acting as agent for U.S. EPA, and which is selected and/or undertaken by U.S. EPA pursuant to Section 104 of CERCLA;
* «
f) There shall be no activities that cause destruction of on-site vegetation or otherwise could result in degradation qf the remedial components; and
g) There shall be no ignition sources on site except as approved in writing by U.S. EPA. ;
12. MODIFICATIONS OF RESTRICTIONS: The above restrictions may be modified, or terminated in whole or in part, in writing, by the Grantee. If requested by the Grantor, such writing will be executed by Grantee in recordable form.
13. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION EASEMENT: Grantor hereby grants to the Grantees and U.S. EPA an irrevocable, permanent and continuing.right of access at all reasonable times to the Real Property for purposes of:
a) Implementing the response actions in the ROD, including but not limited to soil removal; placement, replacement, modification and maintenance of the surface cap and other remedial components specified in the ROD; placement, replacement, modification, operation and maintenance of the ground-water extraction system; monitoring contamination levels in the air, in plants and in animals found on the Real Property, in soil, ground water, sur&ce water, wastewater, or sediments;
b) Verifying any data or information submitted to U.S. EPA;
c) Verifying that no action is being taken on the Real Property in violation of the terms of this instrument or of any federal or state environmental laws or regulations;
d) Monitoring response actions on the Site and conducting investigations relating to contamination on or near the Site, including, without limitation, sampling of air, water, sediments, soils, and specifically, without limitation, obtaining split or duplicate samples;
OFFICIAL CERTIFIED COPY TRUE AND COMPLETE
jn? Recorder or Deputy LaShawn Brumfield
Kosciusko Countv Recorder
e) Conducting periodic review of the remedial action, inchiding but not limited to, review required by applicable statutes and/or r^nlations; and
0 Implementing additional or new response actiixis if the Grantees, in their sole discretion, determine 0 that such actions are necessary to protect the environment because either the origtoal remedial actkn has proven to be inefiective or because new technology has been developed wtnch will accomplish the pmpoaes of the remedial action in a significantly moce eflScient orooct effective manner; and ii) tfiat the additional or new response actions will not impose any significantly greater burden on the Real Property or unduly niterfere with the then existing uses of the Real Property.
14. RESERVED RIGHTS OF GRANTOR: Grantor hereby reservesnnto itselL its successors, and assigns, all rights and privileges in and to the use df flie Real Property which are not incompatible with the restrictions, rights and easements granted hoein.
15. Nothing in this document shall limit or otherwise afRect U.S. EPA's rights of entry and accen or U.S. EPA's authority to take response actions under CERCLA, the NCP, or other federal law.
16. NO PUBLIC ACCESS AND USE: No right of access or use by the general public to any portion of the Real Property is conveyed by this instrument.
17. NOTICE REQUIREMENT: Grantor agrees to include in any instrument conveying any interest in any portion of the Real Property, including but not limited to deeds, leases and mortgages, a notice which is substantially the following form:
NOTICE: THE INTEREST CONVEYED HEREBY IS SUBJECT TO AN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION EASEMENT AND DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS, DATED/»<g»i-^ 'Z . 2005, RECORDED IN THE PUBLIC LAND RECORDS ON AWrlt^ Z g »200S, IN BOOK \ ^ PAGE # ^ IN FAVOR OF, AND ENFORCEABLE BY, THE l"NrrED STATES OF AMERICA.
Within thirty (30) days of the date any such instrament of conveyance is executed. Grantor must provide Grantees with a certified trae copy of said instrument and, if it lias been recorded in the public hmd records, its reconhng reference.
18. ADMINISTRATIVE JURISDICTION: The federal agency having administrative jurisdiction over the interests acquired by Grantees and the United States by this instrument is die EPA.
OFHCIAL CERTIRED COPY TRUE AND COMPLETE
• "eoorder or Deputy LaShawn Bnanfield
K0SClll!HrnOn..n>. -
J i^
19. ENFORCEMENT: Grantees shall be entitled to enforce the terms of tiiis instrument by resort to specific performance or legal process. All remedies available hereunder shall be in addition to any and all other remedies at law or in equity, including CERCLA. Enforcement of the terms of this instrument shall be at the discretion of the Grantees, and any forbearance, delay or omission to exercise their rights under this instrument in the event of a breach of any tenn of this instrument shall not be deemed to be a waiver by the Grantees of such torn or of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, or of any of the rights of the Grantees under this instrument.
20. DAMAGES: Grantees shall be entitled to recover damages for violations of the terms of this instrument, or for any injury to the remedial action, to the public or to the environment protected by this instrument.
21. WAIVER OF CERTAIN DEFENSES: Grantor hereby waives any defense of laches, estoppel, or prescription.
22. COVENANTS: Grantor hereby covenants to and with the United States and its assigns, that the Grantor is lawfully seized in fee simple of the Real Property, that the Grantor has a good and lawful right and power to sell and convey it, and that the Grantor will forever warrant and defend the title thereto and the quiet possession thereof
23. NOTICES: Any notice, demand, request, consent, approval, or communication that either party desires or is-required to give to the other shall be in writing and shall either be served personally or sent by first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
To Grantor: To Grantee:
Homer Dove Lakeland Disposal Respondents 5504 S. 450 West c/o ARCADIS Geraghty & Miller, tac. Claypool, IN 46510 251 East Ohio Street, Suite 800
Indianapolis, IN 46204
24. GENERAL PROVISIONS:
a) Controlling law: The interpretation and performance of this instrument shall be governed by the laws of the United States or, if there are no applicable federal laws, by the law of Indiana.
b) Liberal constmction: Any general rule of construction to the contrary notwithstanding, this instrument shall be liberally construed in favor of the grant to effect thi; purpose of this instrument and the policy and purpose of CERCLA. If any provision of this instrument is found to be ambiguous, an interpretation consistent with the purpose of this instrument that would render the provision valid shall be favored over any interpretation that would render it invalid. OFFICiAL CERTIFIED COPY
TRUE AND COMPLETE
<JW Recorder or Deputy LaShawn Brumfield
Kosciusko County Recorder State of Indiana
c) Severability: If any provision of tfiis instrument, or the qiplication of it to any penxm or ciiaanstance, is found to be invaUd, die remainder of the provisions of this instrament, or die application of such provisions to persons or circumstances oflier ttian those to which it is fiNmd to be invahd, as the case may be, shall not be aflected thereby.
<f)fii t^ Afipeement This instTument sets foitii die entire aweement of the parties with reapect to die ri^ds and restrictions created hereby, and supersedes aO prior diacnssioos, negpliations, understandings, or agreements relating fliereto. all of whidi are uieiged hfcrem.
e) Noforfeituie: Nothing contained herein will result in a fmleitue or reversion of Grantor^ title m any respect
0 Sfucceaors: The covenants, terms, conditions, and restrictions of this instrument shall be binding upon, and inure to the benefit oC die parties hereto and flieir respective personal upreacatotives, heirs, successois. and assigns and shall contiime as a servitude ranning in papetuity with the Real Property. The term "Grantor", wherever used herein, and any pronouns used in place thereoC dul l include the persons andAir entities named at flie b^hming of flus document, identified as "Giantor" and their personal representatives, heirs, successois, and assigns. The term "Grantees", wherever used herein, and any pronouns used in place thereof dudi include the persons and/or entities named at the b^jmnng of this document, identified as "Grantees" and their personal representatives, heiis. successors, and assigns. The rights of the Grantees and Grantor under this instrument are fieely assignable, subject to the notice provisions hereof
g) Termination of Riyhts and Obligations: A party's rights and obligations under this instnunent terminate upon transfer of the party's interest in the Easement or Real Property, except that liability for acts or omissions occurring prior to transfer shall survive transfer.
h) Qfitions: The captions in this instrament have been inserted solely for convenience of reference and are not a part of this instrument and shall have no effect upon constmction or inleipieta&on.
OFFieiALCERTinED COPY TRUE AND COMPLETE
A2a Recorder or Deputy LaStVNMi Brumfiekl
Kosciusko County Recorder State of indena
IN ^\T^NESS WHEREOF, Grantor has caused diis Agreement to be signed in his name.
Executed this j A t e y of ^ y \ / ^ . 2005
By: Homor Dove
/ -i :.. ./>'y \
STATE OF INDIANA ) \<^/^--- -:*"" )ss • ' X . ^ ' ''"
COUNTY OF KOSCIUSKO )
On this i r l l ay of CLprtX. . 2005, before me, die undersigned, a Notary PubUc m and for the State of Indiana, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared Homer Dove, and executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be his free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he is authorized to execute said instrament.
Witness my hand and official seal hereto affixed the^ayand year written
5otary Public in and for the State of Indiana.
My Commission Expires: «Jy ^A?^c ^
DET02\1.16878.2 ID\WRS
OFRCIAL CERTIFIEO COPY TRUE AND COMPLETE
jjR Recorder or Deputy LaShawn Baimfield
Kosciusko County Recorder State of Indiana
ATTACHMENT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF RESPONDENT LANDOWNER'S PROPERTY
Tract I:
A tnKt of land in flie West half of flie NoiOwest Quarter of flie Souflwast (Quarter of Section 12, Towmiiip 31 Norfli. Range 5 East, more particulariy described as fi>llows: B^inning at the Northwest oomer of flie West half of flie Northwest Quarter of flie Souflieast Quarter of Section 12, Township 31 Nortfi. Range 5 East, and running flience East on flie North fine of said (Quarter (Quarter Section 612 fiMt fin-a trae place of beginning; thence ranning East on flie Norfli line of said (Quarter (Quarter Section for 48 feet to a point; thence running Sonfli fiir 330 fixt to a point; thence running West fiir 660 feet to the West line of said Quarter Quarter Section; thence Norfli on flie West line ofsaid Quarter Quarter Section for 130 feet to a point; flience East fiir 612 feet to a point; flience North for 200 feet to flie Place of Beginning.
A tract of land in flie West half of tfie Northwest Quarter of tfie Souflieast Quarter of Section 12, Township 31 North, Range 5 East, more particulariy descnlied as follows: Beginning at the Norfliwest corner of flie West half of flie Northwest Quarter of flie Souflieast Quarter of Section 12, Township 31 North, RangeS East, and ranning dience South on the West line of the Quarter Quarter Section a distance of 330 feet to the trae place of begiiuiing; thence running East 660 feet to a point; thence ranning South 165 feet to a point; thence ruiuiing West 660 feet to the West line ofsaid Quarter Quarter Section; thence mnning North on the West line ofsaid (Quarter (Quarter Section 165 feet lo the Place of Beginning.
DEniM56(7U tawHS
OFFICIAL CERTIRED COPY TRUE AND COMPLETE
^2L Recorder or Deploy LaShawn Brumfield
Kosciusko County Recorder State of Indiana
CK <W05 l\hb
JVf- • V - • • .... ^
^*zielL^ AMnt f ' •«: -«•''!'i»l'P I-ri'lK'TY
OFFICIAL CERTIFIED COPY TRUE AND COMPLETE
Recorder or Depuf^ Tyy LaShawn Brumfield
Kosciusko County Recorder State of Indiana
20050131)0.5405 Filed for Record in KOSCIUSKO COUNT/ INDIANA LABHAWN BRUMFIELD 04-20-2005 At 12:27 P « . FASEHENT 25.00
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION EASEMENT AND DECLARATION OF RESTRICTTVE COVENANTS
1. This Environmental Protection Easement and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants is made this at^day of f+pAuX . 2005 by and between DAVID POAGE, ("Grantor"), having an address at 3700 S. Tinkey Road, Mentone, Indiana, and DANA CORPORATION, DA-LFTE SCREEN COMPANY, INC., GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, MORTON INTERNATIONAL, INC., OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC., and ROBERTSHAW CONTROLS COMPANY AS INDEMNITOR OF EATON CORPORATION ("Grantees").
2. WHEREAS, Grantor is the owner of parcels of land located in the County of Kosciusko, State of Indiana, more particularly described on Attachment A attached hereto and made a part hereof (the "Real Property");
3. WHEREAS the Real Property is part of the Lakeland Disposal Service, Inc. Landfill SuperlUnd Site ("Lakeland Site" or "the Site"), which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("U.S. EPA"), pursuant to Section 105 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9605, placed on the National Priorities List, set forth at 40 C.F.R. Part 300, Appendix B, by publication in the Federal Register on March 31, 1989, (54 Fed. Rea. 13302);
4. WHEREAS, in a Record of Decision dated September 28, 1993 (the "ROD"), the U.S. EPA Region 5 Regional Administrator selected a "remedial action" for the Site, with the concurrence of the State of Indiana, which provides, in part, for the following remedial actions: construction of an Indiana Sanitary Landfill Cap, constmction of a soil-bentonite slurry wall and extraction wells for containment of the on-site groundwater in the upper aquifer; storage, treatment if necessary, and discharge of recovered groundwater; constmction of a landfill gas collection, extraction and treatments system; removal and offsite treatment and/or disposal of drammed wastes in the hot-spot area of the Site; excavation and removal of landfill wastes and debris encountered during slurry wall constmction; constmction of an adjustable weir in Sloan Ditch, if necessary, to maintain water levels in adjacent wetlands; a wetlands assessment to determine wetlands that may be impacted by the remedy; and placement of land use and groundwater use restrictions in the Kosciusko County property records;
5. V^HEREAS, a Unilateral Administrative Order issued by EPA on April 25,1994 ("UAO") requires five potentially responsible parties ("the UAO Group") to implement the activities set forth in the Scope of Work for the Remedial Design and Remedial Action work Plan;
OFFICIAL CERTIFIED COPY TRUE AND C n v ^ " ^ ^
ReOTfderoTBSDuiv^ i^«J:^5^8'«nSld •^•"cuslco Cota«v Recorder County Rec
'oflndbia
6. WHEREAS, flie parties hereto have agreed 1) to grant a permanent right of access over flie Real Property to the Grantees for purposes of implementing, ficilitatuig and nionitoriiig die reniedial action; and 2) to impose on the Property use restrictions as covenants that will run with the land for the purpose of protecting human health and the environment;
7. WHEREAS, Grantor wishes to cooperate fully with Uie Grantees in flie implementatimi of all response actions at the Site; and
8. WHEREAS. Grantees of fliis easement shall pay to Mr. Poage flie amount of $1.00 (one dollar) in consideration for this enviromnental easement, as provided in Sect VII, Para. 8(B) of die Administrative Order on Consent (EPA Docket No. V-W-97-C-397).
NOW THEREFORE
9. GRANT: Granlor, on behalf of itsdf, its successors and assigns, in consideration of flie forgoing premises, does hereby covenant and declare that the Real Property sfaaU be subject to the restrictions on use set forth below, and docs give, grant and convey to the Grantees and their assigns, with general warranties of title, 1) the perpetual right to enforce said use restrictions, and 2) an environmental protection easement of the nature and character, and for the purposes hereinafter set forth, with respect to the Real Property.
10. PURPOSE: It is the purpose of this instrament to convey to the Grantees real property rights which will ran with the land, to facilitate the remediation of past environmental contamination and to protect human health and the environment by reducing the risk of exposure to contaminants.
11. RESTRICTIONS ON USE: The following covenants, conditions, and restrictions apply to the use of the Real Property, run with the land and are binding on die Grantor
a) There shall be no use of, or activity at, the Site that may interfere with, damage, or otherwise impair the effectiveness of any response actimi (or component thereoO selected and/or undertaken by U.S. EPA or any party acting as agem for U.S. EPA, pursuant to Section 104 of C E R C I J \ , except with written approval of U.S. EPA, and consistent with all stamiory and regultfoiy requirements;
b) There shall be no consumptive, extractive, or other use of the groundwater underlying the Site that could cause exposure of humans or an««n*lg to the groundwater underiying the Site.
c) There shall be no residential, commercial, or agricultural use of the Site,
" Recorder or Deputy LaShawn Brumfield
Kosciusko County Recorder State of Indiana
O LU • I ^
13 I LL I3
;r; 0
111. t -' L i .
o
including, but not limited to, any on-site excavation, land filling, mining, w invasive constraction, drilling, and installation of drinking water production •g wells, except as approved in writing by U.S. EPA;
:3 o S d 1^1 OC ^ d) Tliere shall be no installation, removal, constraction or use of any bm'Idtngs, ^- ^ c 1! wells, pipes, roads, ditches or any other stractures or materials at the Site except !? c 8 B as approved in writing by U.S. EPA\ 1-« o •§ ocow^ e) Thereshallbenotanq)eringwith, or ranoval of, the containment or monitoring cc .3 -Q systems that ranain on the Site as a result of implementation of any response
^ action by U.S. EPA, or aily party acting as agent for U.S. EPA, and which is selected and/or undertaken by U.S. E^^ pursuant to Section 104 of CERCLA;
0 There shall be no activities that cause 'de^traction of on-site vegetation or otherwise could result in degradation of the remedial components; and
g) There shall be no ignition sources on site except as approved in writing by U.S. EPA.
12. MODIFICATIONS OF RESTRICTIONS: The above restrictions may be modified, or terminated in whole or in part, in writing, by the Grantee. If requested by the Grantor, such writing will be executed by Grantee in recordable form.
13. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION EASEMENT: Grantor hereby grants to the Grantees and U.S. EPA an irrevocable, permanent and continuing right of access at all reasonable times to the Real Property for purposes of:
a) Implementing the response actions in the ROD, including but not limited to soil removal; placement, replacemenL modification and maintenance of the surface cap and other remedial components specified in the ROD; placement, replacement, modification, operation and maintenance of the ground-water extraction system; monitoring contamination levels in the air, in plants and in animals found on the Real Property, in soil, ground water, surface water, wastewater, or sediments;
b) Verifying any data or information submitted to U.S. EPA;
c) Verifying that no action is being taken on the Real Property in violation of the terms of this instrament or of any federal or state environmental laws or regulations;
d) Monitoring response actions on the Site and conducting investigations relating to contamination on or near the Site, including, without limitation, sampling of air, water, sediments, soils, and specifically, without limitation, obtaining split or duplicate samples;
e) Conducting periodic review ofthe remedial action, including but not linoited to, review required by applicable statutes and/or regulations; and
0 bnplenienting additional or new response actions ifflic Grantees, in their sole discretion, detemune i) that such actions are necessary to protect flie enviranmeni because either the original remedial action has proven to he ine£Rxtive or because new technology has been devdoped ^dnch will •'•'^'•"r"'*' the purposes of the remedial action in a significantly more effident or cost efiRsctive manner, and ii) fluU flie additional or new response acticms will not impose any significantly greater burden on the Real Property or unduly interfere with the then existing uses of the Real Property.
14. RESERVED RIGHTS OF GRANTOR: Grantor hereby reserves'unto itself its successors, and assigns, all rights and privileges in and to the use of the Real Property which are not incompatible with the restrictions, rights and easements granted hoetn.
15. Noflnng in flns document shall limit or ottierwise affect U.S. EPA*s rigjhts of eartry and access or U.S. EPA's autfiority to take response actions under CERCLA, flie NCP, or other federal law.
16. NO PUBLIC ACCESS AND USE: No ri^t of access or use by ttie general public to any portion of the Real Property is conveyed by this instrument
17. NOTICE REOUIREMENT: Grantor agrees lo include in any instrument conveying any interest in any portion of the Real Property, including but not limited to deeds, leases and mortgages, a notice which is substantially the following form:
NOTICE: THE INTEREST CONVEYED HEREBY IS SUBJECT TO AN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION EASEMENT AND DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS, DATED ^<i i> t^ . 2005, RECORDED IN THE PUBLIC LAND RECORDS ON ^ W a u ZQ ,2005, IN BOOK qiOS" PAGE l\fat» IN FAVOR OF, AND ENFORCEABLE BY, THE UNTTED STATES OF AMERICA.
Within thirty (30) days of the date any such instrament of conveyance is executed. Grantor must provide Grantees with a certified trae copy ofsaid instrument and, if it has been recorded in the public land records, its reconling reference.
18. ADMINISTRATIVE AJRISDICTION: The federal agency having administrative jurisdiction over flie interests acquired by Gt^tees and the United States by this instrument is die EPA.
OFRCIAL CERTIRED COPY TRUE AND COMPLETE
J2^ Recorder or Deputy LaShawn Brumfield
Kosckoko County Recorder State of Indiana
19. ENFORCEMENT: Grantees stall be entitled to enforce the tarns of this insbiunent by resort to specific performance or legal process. All remedies available hereunder shall be in addition to any and all other remedies at law or in equity, including CERCLA. Enforcanoit of the terms of this instrument shall be at the discretion of the Grantees, and any forbearance, delay or omission to exercise their ri^ts under this instrument in the event of a breach of any temi of this instrument shall not be deraned to be a waiver by the (Srantees of such term or of any subsequent breach of the same or any other tom, or of any of the ri^ts of die Grantees under diis instrument
20. DAMAGES: Grantees shall be entitled to recovn* damages for violations of the terms of this instrument. Or for any injury to the remedial action, to the public or to the environment protected by this instrument.
21. WAIVER OF CERTAIN DEFENSES: Grantor hereby waives any defense of laches, estoppel, or prescription.
22. COVENANTS: Grantor hereby covenants to and with the United States and its assigns, that the Grantor is lawfully seized in fee simple of the Real Property, that the Grantor has a good and lawful right and power to sell and convey it, and that the Grantor will forever warrant and defend the title thereto and the quiet possession thereof.
23. NOTICES: Any notice, demand, request, consent, approval, or commimication that either party desires or is required to give to the other shall be in writing and shall either be serve<l personally or sent by first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
To Grantor: To Grantee:
David Poage Lakeland Disposal Respondents 3700 S. Tinkey Road c/o ARCADIS Geraghty & Miller, hic. Mentone, IN 46539 251 East Ohio Street, Suite 800
Indianapolis, IN 46204
24. GENERAL PROVISIONS:
a) Controlling law: The interpretation and performance of this instrament shall be governed by the laws of the United States or, if there are no applicable federal laws, by the law of Indiana.
b) Liberal constmction: Any general rale of constmction to the contrary notwithstanding, this instnunent shall be liberally constmed in favor of the grant to effect the purpose of this instrument and the policy and purpose of CERCLA. If any provision of this instrument is found to be ambiguous, an interpretation consistent with the purpose of this instrament that would render the provision valid shall be favored over any interiJretation that would render it invalid. OFRCIAL CERTiriED COPY
TRUE AND COM PLLTt
C ^ Recorder or Deputy LaShawn Brumfield
Kosciusko County Recorder Stats of Inrliflna
c) Severability: If any provision of this instrument, or tfie application of it to any person or arcumstance, is found to he invalid, the remainder of the provisions of this instrument, or the qipiication of such provisions to persons or ciiuumstances other than those to wfaicfa it is found to be invahd, as the case may be, shall not be aflected thereby.
rf) pnfir^ ABTT**""**' '^^* "***' ™»' ^ **** fo^ *bii witire agBecment nf the partieg with reqiect to the rights and restrictions created hereby, and sopemdes all prior diacassiaas, negotiations, understandings, or agreements rebtting thereto, all of which are merged hercuL
e)N6forfeitiire: Nothing contained herein will resuh in a forfeiture or reversion of Gnmor^ title in any respect
0 Successois: The covenants, terms, conditions, and restrictions of flns instrament dnU be binding upon, arid inure to the benefit oC the parties hereto and flieir respective personal representatives, heirs, successois, and assigns and shall contimie as a servitude nnaiing in perpetuity with the Real Property. The term "Grantor*, wherever used herein, and any pranoons naed in place thereof shall include the persons and/or entities named at the beghningof this dociiinent, identified as "Grantor' and their personal rqvesentatives, heirs, succcsaors. and assigns. The term "Grantees", wherever used herein, and any pronoons used in place thereof shall include the persons and/or entities named at the b^imiiig of this document, identified as "Grantees" and their personal representatives, heiis, successors, and assigns. The rights of flie Grantees and Grantor under this instrument are freely assignable, subject to the notice provisions hereof
g) Termination of Rights and ObUeations: A party's rights and obligations under this instfumenl terminate upon transfer of the party's interest in the Easement or Real Property, except that liability for acts or omissions occurring prior to transfer shall survive tiansfer.
h) Caotioiis: The captions in this instrument have been inserted solely for convenience of reference and are not a part of this instrament and shall have no effect upon constraction or interpretation.
OFFICIAL CERTIRED COPY TRUE AND COMPLETE
..2^ Recorder or Deputy LaShawn Brumfiekl
Kosciusko County Recorder State of Indiara
IN V/ITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor has caused diis Agreement to be signed in his name.
Executedtiiis/2-dayof A P f ^ l ^ - ^ .2005.
By: J^AU^^=Jj^! jrb\ ^ David Poage . . , ^ ' " ,
•• • '
STATE OF INDLWA ) V V : J l . ^ : f ^ : )ss
COUNTY OF KOSCIUSKO ) '.^ V—.-.v
On this Ijniay of _ r t £ £ M _ _ , 2005, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Indiana, duly commissioned and swom,]p<rsonally iqipeared David Poage, and excx:uted the foregoing instnunent, and acknowledged die said instrument to be his fiee and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he is authorized to execute said instrument - . • ,
Witness my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year written above. he day and year written above.
Nptary Public in ana for the lary State of Indiana.
My Commission Expires •.^Ml9l'-^
DET02\IS7749.I ID\WRS
OFRCIAL CERTIRED COPY TRUE AND COMPLETE
on/ Recorder or Deputy LaShawn Brumfield
Kosciusko County Recorder State of Indiana
ATTACHMENT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF RESPONDENT LANDOWNER'S PROPERTY
Panxll: A tract of land in die West half of die Northwest Quarter of die SoudiBast Quarter of Section 12,Townsfaip31 North, Range 5 East, more particulariy described as follows:
Beginning at die Northwest coniEr of flic West half of flie Northwest Qnarter of flie Souflieast Quarter of Sectioo 12, Township 31 North, Range S East, and running flience Sonfli on the West fine of the Quarter (Quarter Section a distance of 660 feet for a trae Place of B^imnng; tfaenoe inaiing East for 660 feet to a point; thence running South for 330 feet to a poini; thence ranning West for 660 feet to the West line ofsaid Quarter Quarter Section; thence ranmng North on the West line of said Quarter Quarter Section for 330 feet to the Place of Be^mnng. and containing five acres, more or less.
Parcel2: A tiact of bndm flie West half of flie Northwest Quarter of flie Souttwast Qnarter of Section 12. Township 31 North, Range S East, more particulariy described as follows:
Beginmng at the Northwest comer of flie West half of flie Northwest (Quarter of flie Souflieast Quarter of Section 12, Township 31 North, Range 5 East, and running flience Soufli on tfie West line oftfae (Quarter (Quarter Section a distance of 495 feet to ttie trae Place of B^nmiog; thence lunning East 660 feet to a point; thence running South 165 feet to a point; flience ranning West 660 feet to the West line of said Quarter Quarter Section; thence running North on the West line ofsaid Quarter Quarter Section 165 feet to the Place of Beginning.
0ETS1U5TM9.I
mnnis
OFFICIAL CERTIRED COPY TRUE AND COMPLETE
^M Recorder or Deputy LaShawn BrumfieM
Koscusfco County Recorder State of Indiana
ATTACHMENT 5
Site Inspection Checklist
\. SITE INFORMATION
Site name: J^^ Kc I A > ^ JSrj^i^tJ. U A I J M Date ofinspection: 2)?C li^, i ' ^ ^ l
Location and Region: ^ ^ j . r ^ ^ Cl'i 'if^ilj J T / / EPA ID; SM{)OLHy02l .O^ .Agency, office, or company leading the five-year
review:
Weather/temperature; J<M*t/;« C i m J J ^
L
Remedy Includes: (Check all that apply) gT^andfill cover/containment fl^ccess controls IMhstitutional controls Q^roundwater pump and treatment n Surface water collection and treatment another r/L.Y»>l l / ^ ^ ^
D Monitored natural attenuation [3<iroundwater containment D Vertical barrier walls
Attachments: D Inspection team roster attached D Site map attached
II. INTERVIEWS (Check all that apply)
O&M site manager X*^/^ A i^Jt*. P'TljuJ t^A^Ji^t'i'ff Name Title
Interviewed IS^t site D at office D by phone Phone no. • ' 'V '2^36 -S~2.in Problems, suggestions; D Report attached
Date
2. O&M staff uSgy,,' <y c l i o j c Name Title
Interviewed D at site D at office D by phone Phone no. Problems, suggestions; O Report attached
Date
Local regulatory authorities and response agencies (i.e.. State and Tribal offices, emergency response office, police department, office of public health or environmental health, zoning office, recorder of deeds, or other city and county offices, etc.) Fill in all that apply.
Agency - T ^ r / ^ Contact ^Vj<!^ / <»aM-;>'t <^
Name Problems; suggestions; D Report attached
Title ' Date Phone no.
Agency Contact
Name Problems; suggestions; D Report attached
Title Date Phone no.
Agency Contact
Name Problems; suggestions; D Report attached
Title Date Phone no.
Agency Contact
Name Problems; suggestions; D Report attached
Title Date Phone no.
Other interviews (optional) D Report attached.
III. ON-SITE DOCUMENTS & RECORDS VERIFIED (Check all that apply)
1.
')
- • ' •
A.
5.
6.
7.
8
9
10.
O&M Documents D O&M manual n As-built drawings D Maintenance logs Remarks
D Readily available D Up to date S ^ / A D Readily available D Up to date D Readily available D Up to date
Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan D Readily available D Contingency plan/emergency response plan D Readily available Remarks
O&M and OSHA Training Records Remarks
Permits and Service Agreements a Air discharge permit I^Effiuent discharge H Waste disposal, POTW G Other permits Remarks
Gas Generation Records Remarks
Settlement Monument Records Remarks
a
D
Groundwater Monitoring Records Remarks
Leachate Extraction Records Remarks
Discharge Compliance Records a Air [3^Water (effluent) Remarks
Daily Access/Security Logs Flemarks
D Readily available
n Up to date n Up to date
D Up to date
D Readily available D Up to date n Readily available D Up to date
Readily available D Up to date D N/A D Readily available D Up to date
Readily available D Up to date B'N/A
n Readily available
D Readily available
D Readily available
D Readily available D Readily available
D Readily available
D Up to date
D Up to date
n Up to date
D Up to date n Up to date
n Up to date
C3l^/A Q^/A
H ^ /A a^N/A
0 ^ / A
DN/A a^/A
DN/A
a^/A
Q^/A
•^ /A
DN/A [ / N / A
an^/A
IV. O&M COSTS
\. O&M Organization D State in-house D Contractor for State a PR? in-house Q^Contractor for PRP D Federal Facility in-house D Contractor for Federal Facility n Other
O&M Cost Records D Readily available D Up to date D Funding mechanism/agreement in place Original O&M cost estimate D Breakdown attached
Total annual cost by year for review period if available
D Breakdown attached
D Breakdown attached
D Breakdown attached
D Breakdown attached
D Breakdown attached
From
From
From
From
From
Date
Date
Date
Date
Date
_To__
To
_ T o _
_ T o _
_ T o _
Date
Date
Date
Date
Date
Total cost
Total cost
Total cost
Total cost
Total cost
3. Unanticipated or Unusually High O&M Costs During Review Period Describe costs and reasons:
V. ACCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS 0 Applicable DN/A a Applic
A. Fencing
1.
B.
1 '•
Fencing damaged Remarks
Other Access Restrictions
Signs and other security Remarks i \ ^^
•4
0 Location shown on site map
measures
a<}ates
D Location shown on site
/
secured
map
DN/A
DN/A
C. Institutional Controls (ICs)
I. Implementation and enforcement Site conditions imply ICs not properly implemented D Yes CB^o D N/A Site conditions imply ICs not being fiilly enforced D Yes C34Jo D N/A
Type of monitoring (e.g., self-reporting, drive by) S f iL •- f H ^ v'vf^V^ Frequency S i ^ i - M ^ r ^ j ^ 1 ' ~ Responsible party/agency j ^ A t Contact ,Tf\^ d t l u ^ ' ' " f ^« yy ^ / I < . . M ^ ^ ^ *? y i - ^ . I ^ T t t j
Name Title"' Date Phone no.
Reporting is up-to-date QTes D No D N/A Reports are verified by the lead agency C^Yes D No D N/A
Specific requirements in deed or decision documents have been met Ca^es D No D N/A Violations have been reported D Yes CM^o D N/A Other problems or suggestions: D Report attached
2. Adequacy D ICs are adequate HTCs are inadequate D N/A Remarks ^ j^ j j / 'PsA^ki^ I^C- i&JX/j: h h ^ ' W ^ ' ^ y ^ W ^
D. General
1. Vandalism/trespassing D Location shown on site map B ^ o vandalism evident Remarks
2. Land use changes on site QT^/A Remarks
3. Land use changes off site Q^^/A Remarks
VL GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS
A, Roads H Applicable DN/A
Q^o i 1. Roads damaged D Location shown on site map QT? oads adequate DN/A FLemarks
B. Other Site Conditions
Remarks
VIL LANDFILL COVERS S^pplicable DN/A
A.
1 '•
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Landfill Surface
Settlement (Low spots) D Location shown on site map Areal extent Depth Remarks
Cracks D Location shown on site map Lengths Widths Depths Remarks
Erosion n Location shown on site map Areal extent Depth Remarks A^iVi/i^ f^-.'W.'a/- CfiA ^ . ^ u t h ^ • « ' ' ' '
Holes D Location shown on site map Areal extent Depth
Remarks jf> M v A''t*-'vI'--\ <f-^iW-^^6
(i>Settlement not evident
(B^racking not evident
n Erosion not evident
D Holes not evident
Vegetative Cover D Grass B<*over properly established S»<o signs of stress D Trees/Shrubs (indicate size and locations on a diagram) Remarks
Alternative Cover (armored rock, concrete, etc.) C?^/A Remarks
Bulges D Location shown on site map Areal extent Height Remarks
Wet Areas/Water Damage C3wet areas/water damage not ev D Wet areas D Location shown on site map n Ponding D Location shown on site map D Seeps D Location shown on site map D Soft subgrade D Location shown on site map Remarks
W Bulges not evident
idem Areal extent Areal extent Areal extent Areal extent
<).
B.
1.
2.
3.
c:.
1.
2
3.
Slope Instability Areal extent Remarks
U Slides n Location shown on site map CJ^oevidenceof slope instability
Benches cApplicable D N/A (Horizontally constructed mounds of earth placed across a steep landfill side slope to interrupt the slope in order to slow down the velocity of surface runoff and intercept and convey the runoff to a lined channel.)
Flows Bypass Bench Remarks
Bench Breached Remarks
Bench Overtopped Remarks
D Location shown on site map Om/A or okay
D Location shown on site map Q^/A or okay
n Location shown on site map D ^ /A or okay
Letdown Channels inapplicable D N/A (Channel lined with erosion control mats, riprap, grout bags, or gabions that descend down the steep side slope of the cover and will allow the runoff water collected by the benches to move off of the landfill cover without creating erosion gullies.)
Settlement Areal extent Remarks
Material Degradation Material type Remarks
Erosion Areal extent Remarks
D Location shown on site map U No evidence of settlement Depth
D Location shown on site map D-No evidence of degradation Areal extent
D Location shown on site map • No evidence of erosion Depth
Undercutting Areal extent Remarks
D Location shown on site map Depth
SyNoe vidence of undercutting
5. Obstructions Type D Location shown on site map Size Remarks
Gmo obstructions Areal extent
6. Type_ Excessive Vegetative Growth 0 N o evidence of excessive growth D Vegetation in channels does not obstruct flow D Location shown on site map Remarks
Areal extent
D. Cover Penetrations H'Applicable D N/A
Gas Vents D Active n Properly secured/lockedD Functioning n Evidence of leakage at penetration DN/A Remarks
B^assive D Routinely sampled D Good condition
D Needs Maintenance
Gas Monitoring Probes D Properly secured/lockedD Functioning D Evidence of leakage at penetration Remarks
n Routinely sampled D Good condition n Needs Maintenance D N/A
MojMtoring Wells (within surface area of landfUl) ^ CJ^roperly secured/lockedQTunctioning Q'Routinely sampled CTOood condition n Evidence of leakage at penetration • Needs Maintenance • N/A Remarks
Leachate Extraction Wells n Properly secured/lockedD Functioning n Evidence of leakage at penetration Remarks
D Routinely sampled D Good condition n Needs Maintenance IS^/A
Settlement Monuments Remarks
D Located D Roufinely surveyed O ^ / /A
E.
1.
2.
1 1
3.
F.
1.
2.
G.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Gas Collection and Treatment • Applicable
Gas Treatment Facilities • Flaring D Thermal destruction EJuood condition D Needs Maintenance Remarks
(las Collection Wells, Manifolds and Piping E3 Good condition D Needs Maintenance Remarks
DN/A
n Collection for reuse
Cilas Monitoring Facilities (e.g., gas monitoring of adjacent homes or buildings) n Good condition D Needs Maintenance HN/A Remarks
Cover Drainage Layer Q^pplicable
Outlet Pipes Inspected D Functioning Remarks
Outlet Rock Inspected BTunctioning Remarks
Detention/Sedimentation Ponds D Applicable
Siltation Areal extent Depth D Siltation not evident Remarks
DN/A
Q^/A
• N/A
B ^ / A
• N/A
Erosion Areal extent Depth n Erosion not evident Remarks
Outlet Works D Functioning D N/A Remarks
Dam D Functioning D N/A Remarks
H. Retaining Walls • Applicable [^N/A
I. Deformations • Location shown on site map • Deformation not evident Horizontal displacement Vertical displacement Rotational displacement Remarks
2. Degradation • Location shown on site map • Degradation not evident Remarks
I. Perimeter Ditches/Off-Site Discharge 0 Applicable • N/A
1. Siltation • Location shown on site map Q^iltation not evident Areal extent Depth Remarks
2. Vegetative Growth • Location shown on site map • N/A •Vegetation does not impede flow Areal extent Type Remarks
3. Erosion • Locafion shown on site map Q^rosion not evident Areal extent Depth Remarks
QTui 4. Discharge Structure QTunctioning • N/A Remarks
VHL VERTICAL BARRIER WALLS CS^pplicable DN/A
1. Settlement • Location shown on site map Q^SettJement not evident Areal extent Depth Remarks
2. Performance Monitoring Type of monitoring jW jA "^cO i!>V s, • Performance not monitored ' Frequency \ 1/ M, ] •' <v>vt» tAejl • Evidence of breaching Head differential Remarks
OSIVER No. 9355.7-03B-P
WK^ IX. GROUNDWATER/SURFACE WATER REMEDIES r Applicable G N/A
A. tjroundwater Extraction Wells, Pumps, and Pipelines ^^Xpplicable G N/A
I Piutips, Wellhead Plumbing, and Electrical •fcr Good condition G All required wells properly operating G Needs Maintenance G N/A Remarks XV^A-g T ' i ie^cc (>\e)i^^ yVuit^tV,/g-»i <-»<<r
2. Extraction System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances ^ ^ o o d condition G Needs Maintenance Remarks ;
3 Spare Parts and Equipment^,.^^ G Readily available , Cj^ood condition G Requires upgrade G Needs to be provided , . Remarks ^^*WC y^f^j t j 6^ / / ^ / . A J ^ VVMA' /f^»«^ fo hiMt
\ j ^ /A B. Surface Water Collection Structures, Pumps, and Pipelines G Applicable grN/A
I. Collection Structures, Pumps, and Electrical G Good condition G Needs Maintenance Remarks
2. Surface Water Collection System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances G Good condition G Needs Maintenance Remarks
Spare Parts and Equipment G Readily available G Good condition G Requires upgrade G Needs to be provided Remarks
D-17
C. Treatment System S/Applicable • N/A S/Applic
Treatment Train (Check components that apply) [H Metals removal • Oil/water separation • Bioremediation j^Air stripping Q^arbon adsorbers [/filters • Additive (e.g., chelation agent, flocculent)_ [H Others [IJ'Good condition • Needs Maintenance [i>^ampling ports properly marked and fiinctional [B^ampling/maintenance log displayed and up to date [9'Equipment properly identified IS^uantity of groundwater treated annually J /vt ) t i ^ <V l l s y ^ J iUtt^ O Quantity of surface water treated annually ^ Remarks
2. Electrical Enclosure^nd Panels (properly rated and functional) • N/A Q^ood condition • Needs Maintenance Remarks
3. Tanks, Vaults, Storage^Vessels • N/A CS'Good condition • Proper secondary containment • Needs Maintenance Remarks
4. Discharge StructuiVand Appurtenances • N/A H Good condition • Needs Maintenance Remarks
5. Treatment Buildingps) H N/A BXiood condition (esp. roof and doorways) • Needs repair • Chemicals and equipment properly stored Remarks
6. Monitoring Wells (pump and treatment remedy) y H Properly secured/lockedDl/Functioning 0/Routinely sampled Q^ood condition • All required wells located • Needs Maintenance • N/A Remarks
D. Monitoring Data
1. Monitoring Data ^ S^s routinely submitted on time QHs of acceptable quality
2. Monitoring data suggests: 0uroundwater plume is effectively contained • Contaminant concentrations are declining
D. Monitored Natural Attenuation
Monitoring Wells (natural attenuation remedy) • Properly secured/locked • Functioning • Routinely sampled • Good condition • All required wells located • Needs Maintenance H^ /A Remarks
X. OTHER REMEDIES
If there are remedies applied at the site which are not covered above, attach an inspection sheet describing the physical nature and condition of any facility associated with the remedy. An example would be soil vapor extraction.
XI. OVERALL OBSERVATIONS
A. Implementation of the Remedy
Describe issues and observations relating to whether the remedy is effective and functioning as designed. Begin with a brief statement of what the remedy is to accomplish (i.e., to contain contaminant plume, minimize infiltration and gas emission, etc.). _, , , i i
B. Adeq uacy of 0 & M
Describe issues and observations related to the implementation and scope of O&M procedures, fn particular, discuss their relationship to the current and long-term protectiveness of the remedy.
C. Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Problems
Describe issues and observations such as unexpected changes in the cost or scope of O&M or a high frequency of unscheduled repairs, that suggest that the protectiveness of the remedy may be compromised in the future.
D. Opportunities for Optimization
Describe possible opportimities for optimization in monitoring tasks or the operation of the remedy.
ATTACHMENT 6
LEISURE •j fbJty. Fobaujr^ -;. JOiO 5 C
lU Is A Destination For Famous Art Collections m<- V^"! '-^lul i ^nnd m J f r c^ i lni- rk I r K i ^ i - t n
. i i i ^ * [ g i l t i ^ l l i s - . t | j i> 1 ii.Hiric 1 hf ! r K
rii] Lik'- ind >ji \ ' - s iy1- in
T h i i week s qnea t io i i Hjv, b i i, aoes I i j k " \ - . . "
n p l f ' t 4 ^Tl l 11? \ T - s i t i 1 )\ JT-*. Ir
D u 1 « i A n s w e r Ihrri- i n - i m i \i i -. i i --.ii- [} \-.
"i"9< 'I h a s j\V.cn r t all r v I k ici r&n p k i c v w - ' j n
i "xv j i j s c I ' \ ii r \ I k I vjx l rnr*s \i*nrs of i L ' J T
'•» r h r « huiirs if <jl! tiJ*s n v i h \
wi j tkf l ,1 rl ir-l l l f h t ^1 Ii
(.•-uttiwlup rt.wd - j rp r r -L ' -4
me on i - i ' ^ paUi ORS m t,ei i~c
>ir 'u )* 111 j s s i i i i h h 1 III j j i - i f
I - i ,pei)rT r r piittM tn j s l^lr
j'-l-'ni.. Tnd ' ) IKI p j n i l IJH ir*-
iLHir J.il Itf jL'^fn r r h "* It 1M) /^nisi nri i i inrkiM .^j^jln - i i i i l l H
b j \ p ""flvlfir 4iL ' jsi iiid shrir^ J \fin<*" il 'IHVL i j -^r a >.fi,
an N. J l i r i s l M I " U rr-\kl"i. ' ' urRC ni .cs l i->i 1 i Acnr iJ( n j i
n i l I b r I
1 . . n r a f
rUsi n) I -ill 4*-> n n g \ I' b t ^ 7 p ii I < .J** il m i i r n i e \ Je^crvc in(,rf
^ ] ^ I"-? vj<.kr> Jl l^ffxeitn H \iU he ^n ( -n lnabi f p n ir^jii - u i a GUI's lun i r cuninif i for D a r l j ' ' SiPi . ii \ - hla
(,,(, V lb l""!-n '^res- i rc- i '^ j - d (;i>jd " ^ ' o . ift->,n|)rr r i ni il u M.,- , ( I sCo i t i i ^ - K s^rc ,, i n s il
l b 17 oil M li i; ii'-A I II M I \ i i l "p ' l i \t i h r - . n l n o I rir H t ij ii'-iuii)
, [)-|p i kc JiKi \ i A• .^ i -u[ l ^jlrr% i l k i i n In- •'I'li T i l - -L - i r l ^ r . , \ . l A v i i a i i o r i C--Dfrv i-; d! _ n r L - . i S
ciTlLTip" br iVj^ ra . " ' Si i lo r ij\\)i-r *U h^ r a i i T r c E i r J h f C J " ^ 1:, "pf- o iht p ^ U k J i i ' r « ; o '
r^i m; .1 i^-anv j - i -aa u'' " r s i hj j id oppuHun H 1 , ""ni. i - - s .turk ^^^ na c T C I U T S " C p^n I TUT K ^ 1/
.uok . r l u t h l r j " • - • ' 3 ' - Hfd r " , - n J i n i n s j l i h i i ( j ik l i s.-ik h - t K i i - . d •• i n i ui-s r^ Wrt rif-,-! iv liainof ^ i i i u n \ fniiii
•" '-" _ Jl-*-'., -t" fl •- *» j-p f r j - f r c - a l ^ n I r r v i ' r - 1 ( t t >"-J ' il M - f fl i Jii I ' u < »• r- r ( r J > ^i -t » ^ i- t o p r ' 'ur tn rf J '-^r- irj n T
1 '^ ' t s r-\ UP -• fii J UK 1. i t i n - u - i - v U r lb s r ^ j i - i . "TJ ATU be dole m c v ^ ) i h he crl.,lji«. a.'-1 f ..al r-s l i l l "" ' t j l t ' > 9 ' S 0 -> j n - c s s ihe Ui-b St i J i
" I I I [ ) ^ n 1- it * " i l l im t t t 1 r'-f TVIIU US H ( sii L •• n t i:l ( x ^nd - n K » .. I,L' ionr'oiaiij/T. j i
February Is Library Lover's Month - Visit Today!
"•S JF- Ulhl
.n 1 •
1 b 1 1
b s n L - . r* \ ' u - \ i - J l v \ a r s o - f
f, <r '
^ r 5 J m n h nnfi .t. cbr j i - - J i-^
.14 1 ' TL-rS M i l i sy t ^ Its •( 1 I
rci-vtn., iht j-'vi'-'.a.'-i k i b JT-CS i
f _ i [ - ( I ^11" ITd'l f
• *Yr hntt II S..T1 T t „
I d 1 "^u ~penuinft •'
H-h - - x - d I ii.'Tit
Eiiir* [he r r ^ A l i J ^.r .* M M pUyi- H n r h r "iif- HH
[ ^rn lor n T V u J i o lx>ok t u i h t t K nui *iid I s r n >
I A, I* Tiun ti 1 PKjruirv T^ifs<^ are i ^ .
i i - M f . . ) p JHi..'cf c nt t o u k s iiiii I b u r i e s in uiic
"•-Hrc*- 1 trouufT vom ('•'Id L" I ^-i. ' l b - i r \ k *•<.-)
( * p u - r h r ^C r o m p ' i r n i ' r>~\ Ircn a u r n iiK H h i
i - m i-" ih l ^re-^s events Mich J S
W L P - a s T v,i.fk.v r o L m n L - r k i 0.- t h k h l u v r r s
i t j r p<—'odH prc-5 n k ^ ^ " Jiid o^ ^ua.ipr 'v iii-*s.f icrs
1 ir \V<-h M " i(( (If •• (difir 1 1/ Tii I <! s<< <"
Intj t^p lis a d Tiuri t u i Livo-vt-d i n d ^ni-cu . ^ c
I n ) t r s j i nc
I I" 11 kl .p o ftn I'y a i ' ' lil" lan b ^ r ' vn^ < t p r I
H* J LI) a r / Mdrr --iiu iiri;** u " t r ^ j a.i.e J iKr ' ' [a i ; f
• " " ' " ' " ' Il I f ' n r i i n J o r n - d ,1 n,; ij)..'-dVT,lTik T U iL
"• - ! /) \c mci-lJn^ p e n p e V o L r i i ^ r j h t lira.'V We r"ui
J "^mL/a n
I f f ' f l um-v \^ in I ' n 1 111 ( iii'.lilfr i i >.
d i d o d l b c y t lu ih t li^^rarY W r P L h a s •npir .oi j i pro
ell \ s J l ^ i s n - a i b o r ., m ^ i a
' 1 '•i-i.-.i ^ ^ \ - 2 ,
• u i r n - v . i M j p Jl W i M ^ c r u ^ f w n o l - ' " " " ' ^ H ^rr-^^ events Mich j s o . r s n r v - o u « ^^^^.^^^ c;nJnu,n-^r is aiid i i^ ier '^ppo-i . -ni r s u si pp.iii
b,bi s c l n f i ' - o u k s "-M c - s M u r v h r u r ^ - L^^f ^ . ; - r llHr^.n, r a r e u t '1 Ust IL Explo c i - c tj ^Utv t h n r v s t n l f s H b v n ' V U I - h - - r ln lui u »
p icr^ ' . . he n e " i e ! h r re ^.i- n .u iv " " ^ V dUlcren Aa\-5 in „ s c \nLr ilf^raiy l a i d "TieT arc y ,^, ^ j . n ^ ^ ^ r , c , r i r^mcni^ r Wf PL L- v n u r r , j i c ^lan
A "1^1 •- nu In i I K I h i n 1 u s r i o th - da iabas i" ' p r a tU ic ie«i3 I k c M T - f a n d L VW"? and n n l - c i,f
hf \ pa r i r c t iK i i roum re«T-aUuns jv-ii able ^^llh ihe usc of \ u u r - ^ nmrc In o m a i l a n aboot L Lirarv Lnv t r s Munih or
i J HI s r PI n p i-iitr ^i.il ii J rd ^}x i ud pr « , ^ u, im^ vt ir j ili li 1 trnry i*.!! i le
- j T i j d *->ndi a r d e n d s " - b 2 ' j i v r - n v i n ^ I i r irtl ^^rK h r n il npns[u|KT*. ijbrarv o i c W^b sue i i t i a u u,fi.scii.iiortify en)
Library Expansion Is In Full Swing
•n'l lie j f r i ^ ' - j -* uniU •*'~a
e ' - i d v '<JT iP t n ^ . e
/ , , r \ T P Is lyi'kinfi foru'vTd
ifly sli 'p r I;-
• rKien-.ii p n t j ? ' . ?
-•.•iraa.^ oTjlns
•^•n;h fur •"-.irs .
i h - I
C i rd MakLrq CL PC f T iciziav Is f 111 v.o-.ik! t-tf Liipff
•.lir.iri k-ic-w.
r i i T c arc tour . i thrr ihrw
j s s ^ s b«ln^ "i lcred ili^s
ix:.n;h.
A FatcSiynk f.ia-is 5s
b"c-J(. i-- ). or J
CjykjriR on 3 ShoesirUn; Uucuyt Ko l l e r rd u n r . : h 1
i j l l i r r proftrams UIT
hedijlrd for ihr llrsl p a n
Fpt-pjtiry i!.s upil.
Hunk Buddies *•))] nn-Pi
n Morday i t 6 p.m. Gican
I 9 j - m
Slory Time *1:l con l inue
NATr
rl m. -ii;n 1
•ilini^i I
a : i ) NI .
• .)r0iuyrrH
icftflay
r«iLi:nwt. ajid ih-^ cC'St •»! •lis.-* i.H.SSdur ;<l -iigi; -.:]
A lif-aS'inlnc C.f:;paJ i.la3S will lake place "eb . j ; J JU p m . a':d jfiaJn Fet-. l'^ m 3 jO p in.
TtiJsi,-las3lsfr*r. bu- ) lii-.ot ii^.n 11(1. VUkp Si
•.1>1) li:kP a ' V a : ! l i ^ •!( \i-pndf'•fij! r l Lssri oiftn.'t
I rODER
iCOKSTRttaiON ft MOniK, I K : T«a' Ofti & N*w Rooft • R*moct«llng
D«ck( • Pot* Suiiomot Rubb*r I I 5t«»l Rcofi • B w m Addmoni
Bonded & Insured P h o n o : 57A-773-67J7 •
FREE ESPMATES C«l l 57^-457-6475
) J O p r r Jur-T smn '.jp j n d .iduii ij- 'u^rcmmlnj ai i h r
Story Time Winter Session Has Started
i r .>s-i '>tO 10 is en
••) -J n. -i^orv il nr l^
1 ih i ldn-n i i .M : ic- •>
•irr ilii iVe ^^^e lii Kf:'Is
•*lr;rr\ ' 'ui ri.inrrcd :'nr
• i W iiurip* l l i^ - r p u v s
T-! ; •T.ih ••'•j • w -i:!!
I .n i p J-- f:ic .• h;|.-^re; ti
Lr;fil"j; arou" d l o ^ ^ .n he
: r^-i IVin'; he .i lriid. we
' V n * Ulr iL-ip :y^S:-nc
,• h::i.i ai UP J : , r . r>
i i ivvu i M d i u l-<-b v i : ;
i - . > r ' j > i^tisv fp m^> 1^ =1
^ 11 l i d .:P' ''I'lp DP i-.<-T
i - iT ip frxir h-urd i i id r rn
!lif '^t-r
j i i p t r i;l_;c. m i r k c r b n r
- . - n i s j i p a-ii-;:!!.* i>i
Pi.;' Vl,;-;-rd Pu -lir
.i'lrnrv Aili jp iiosini; a :
-. T.) , . m 1 -ps.il y ;<. .1
i i ifl n s t n t r - ; . •' -.r -ib^arv
> il re opi^n AC.JI .PMJS> ; I ;
r- r-i hiK-rt supiKirt
V^., A:iPnK-_>Ti i.iili ii:.;
1 5 - •:•:•.•,..) PIT:
. 'IP E^PT:'ni! k r l i ir i i
V availsb.ie \r. iJw
. Ihr ^rder i:;'l:w.i_V nrii; :•: ihe ikmr
J b l i le -j-T rriTcriiii; i V idLilt ^ f i io r . .
KOSCroSKO COUNTY^ SOCCER LEAGUE
, - , J ^ S P R I N G Z O I O <L<-^w7 R E G I S T R A T I O N R E G I S n U T I O N DATES:
SAT., JAN. 30 - 9:00 a m - 2:00 p m SAT., FEB. 6 - 9:00 a m - 2:00 p m SAT., FEB. 13 - 9:00 a m - N o o n S23 Soa th B n S a l o St ree t , WJursow M i n e r & L e m o n L a w Ot&cea Across fit>m M a r s h (Old R E M Q T b e t r g i J t n t i e a S o m a n »1M b . i o c i t e d a o d
p r i n t e d from o o r w e i w f f e . ' k c s l M c c e r . o r ^ ; H b w i U
j t c e t p t r e g i M t n t i c n a b f n u i l l i iToag i r t b j v u j I S a l
K C S L , P . O . B a x l l l 3 , W a n u a r , i m e 5 t I
COST: '85 per player. AGE DIVISIONS:
U6 throngh UI6 boys and girls
SEASON: April IZ" - June S" HT.whrr p^rmiWirnj
Yon must h ive ih.e chiJd* bii th ccrvficaie and tnalh-ir i ddi# ol birtti At n g u B A Q c n foi any pM^vr vrlw DID MOT
pSny in KCSL d a n n g the r,CVf9 • c a i o n . Child croLsi b e boiT: ifter Aagoai 1,1933 u i d
oefoiw/ajyai . jycW i U e - U l b i
Coaches a n d s p o a s o n a i« needed ! Fbr m o r e m f o r m a t i o r , p t e a a e s e e o a r m i b a i t e iit
k c s i s o c c e r . o r g . , o r e m u l T r a c e r R o s e ^ '
k c s l p r e u d e r . i @ c o m c a s t . n e i o r D a n Blue at V b l u e s t a x s e r m c e s i ' ^ h o t i n a U . c o m ,
EPA Begins Review of Lakeland Landfill Superfund Site
Claypool. Indiana V S tnvironmemal Protection Agency is conducting a five-year rcv'icvF' ot'the Lskdand r>i5po««l I..andfill Inc Superiund »itc locfitcd on •d 3< -aav ftarcel about .1 ^ miles northwest oTCIayptMd SupeifunJ law lequiren re^lar checkups of ite^ that have been cleaned up " with wa.str manaijcd on-«ite - to make Mjrc the clcantip continues to pmiect people and the en\'ironmenr This is the second five-year review of tlw site
EPA's cleanup included a landAII cap. an underground slurry wall, a ground water collection aiKl trcaunent syslem. on-site ircaunent ot' Waste Diaposal Area 2, and construction of"a wetland. The ground water colleciiofl and treatment wbiem vtill continue to upervte at the Lakeland tiite until monitonng dcnioniirTate& the ground water cleanup siandardi have hecn met The five-vear review !»hou]d be cmnpleled this March.
More inrormation i<t available ai ihe Koscuisko Cixinty Mealth Department, lUO W Center St., Warsaw. Ind. 1>as review is an oppoTlunuy for y4.>u to tell HP.A abcHit site conditions and any concerns vou have. tPA tvill be accepting comments and rnlormation until Feb 26.2010 You may contact-
Scott Hans«B Remedial Project Manager ("cxjrdinaior .it 2-886-1999 Hansen, scotcoicpa gov
Mike Joyce Community invotvemcnt
J J : - J 5 3 - 5 5 - I 6
j oy cc.mi kc-i/-epa. gov
You may call Region 5 foil-frccai N00-621-a4.J|,';:30a.m. to5\10 p m. weekdays.
EPA KtJtiott 5 77 W. Jackson Blvd. Chicago. JL 60604
ATTACHMENT 7
LMWMN BRUnFULO > tnlwrwJKjrlaxaiieMV KOSCIUSKO COUItrir
' :MKI >:> F'>noi AcoploncK F20e»i2133 Pi9ilef4 DM 0»U M/M/aan T I M 1 S : M I 3 7 RKtWDINS F i l l IT.M
Want f t t l i i i -
JAN Z3 2003
•o»ofKo:x:it.sicoco.>r- CONSERVATION EASEMENT ACREEMENT
This Conservation Easement Agreemeot (the "Agreemeaf 0 is entered into as of the n day of December, 2002. between the COUNTY OF KOSCIUSKO ('XSranior") whose
address is 100 West Center Street. Warsaw, Indiana, and DANA CORPORATION. DA-LITE SCREEN COMPANY, INC-, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, MORTON INTERNATIONAL, INC., OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC. und ROBERTSHAW CONTROLS COMPANY as indemnitor of EATON CORPORATION (collectively refeired to herein as the "Grantee") whose address is c/o ARCAOIS Geraghty & Miller, Tnc, 251 East Ohio Street, Suite 800, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204.
The circumstances underlying the execution of this Agreement are as follows:
A. The Grantor ifi the owner oF ail right, title and interest in and to certain land located in Claypool, Indiana, as more particularly described on attached Exhibit A (the "Land'*).
B. The Grantor desires to grant lo Grantee a perpetual exclusive easement on the Land for the sole purpose of constructing and maintaining a wetlands, subject to the tenns and conditions contained herein, including access to the Land suitable for pedestrian and vehicular ingress and ftgress from and to the public roadway adjacent to the Land known as County Highway 450 South.
NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration in the amount of SI.00, the receipt and sufHciency of which are hereby acknowledged. Grantor and Grantee agree as follows:
1. Qrant of Conservation Easement. The Grantor hereby grants and conveys to the Grantee a peipetual, excliuive easement to and for the benefit or the Grantee, Grantee's licensees, invitees, employees, agents, contractors, successors and assigns, on, over and across the Land for the sole purpose of constructing and maintaining a wetlands in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations and to meet the requiiements and approval of the United States En>'ironmental Protection Agency and the Indiana Dcpaitnient of Environmental Management and their successors and assigns. Such easement shall include the right to access the Land for pedestrian and vehicular ingress and egress from and to the pubhc roadway adjacent to the Land
I
20.3,3yj 8S9989SE1X£T6:Q1 69t.aaLCbiSX AiNnOD CWSniOSCDCWOiU 90:11 C0 S0-a3d
Coonly Higliway 450 South, including, but not limited to, ttie l i ^ to use any I Sfipuitanant to the Land.
2. Uifli. Grindon, didr a a i y u aod successors, are and shall be praliihited fiorp udlbdnf tiw Land lor any puipoae which is irxnnsistent with its use as wcdandi or inierfaa with any of Gnaiee*! activities on the Land in cotioection with ttiis Agiuuinjit, inclodiiiglnit not
rily limited to filling, drainiog, hunting or any activity that disrapts or damagea fbe flora, I or oOier ooological ekmcmi of the wedands.
3. *Tfl ^ I f l l f l l i The easements, lemu and other coodiliaiis in ius riMll be icd oovenms which dull run witti die land ai J be binding upon and imne to die benefit of thepatici and their icapeciive aupctasow Hid assigns.
4. Onwemww Lawa: Seyanbihty. This Agreemenl diall be conatraed by md fowcmed in aoooidance with the laws of the State of Indiana. If any pioviacB oflhit Ageemani or pottiaa heraof ia determined to be invalid or onenfoiceable. the remainder of diis Agreement shall not be afliBcied thereby « d eedi provisioii of this Agreement shall be vaKd and enfinceable 10 die fiiltai onam pennitied by law.
S. M^fififfMMi- No modificadon or amendment to thia Ageemcut shall be valid tttdesi dw same is in writing and executed by the parties hereto.
6. tJQiiESL All fiodccs shall be sent in writing to the pxties at their •4(*«**«*T in the first paragiph humf^ sent by certified mail, postage prepaid, retwn reecipc leqiKsted.
7. Nna-Dedicetion. Nothing contained in this Agreenwnt dwU be deemed to be a gift or dedication of sny portion of either party's property to the general public or fbr any public use or purpose whatsoever, it being the intention or Ihe parties hereto arid dieir successois and assigns that nothing in this Agresmenl, express or implied, shall cooftr iqioo any other person, other than the parties hoeto and their successors and assigns, any rights or remedies under or by
I of this AfpeemenL
8. No Waiver ff* »* ' tn* ***" '• ' '*" This Agreement only deals with die ffuA and convcyanceofaoooaervatiooeaaemeni as set fiirth herein. This Agieenient does not afiGect, or in any way oorafmmiae or rdcase any right, claim or cause of action which the parties may have with f^aid to sny other matter.
[SIGNATURE PAGE TO FOLLOW)
CB:39Ud aS99B9SETgT6:0i 69t>aa2.gt>^T AJLNTVD (SGniaSQDIsUSU 9 0 : 1 1 E» SB-S3d
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto hfiv£ caused this Agreement to be executed as of the day and year first above written.
WrFNESSES: GRANfOR:
COUNTY OP KOSCIUSKO
By: { 7 f ^ ^ ^ ^ y ^ ^ i i A ^ Name: Mitim. A C i f n * ^ Its: Ctmm'tsrfiSmm - fltfwttrii^r
Narner^j'f A^j , m ^ A ^ y y
Name: 'C^hy /V. T^ rJK^
STATE OF INDIANA ) ,' )ss. ' . '
COUNTY OF . j t o s c n i S K o )
The.Xoregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this i7«:h day of nAf»i»mhoT-. 2002..byv^Ay^!» B, G u n t e r . the Pres. Board of of the County of Kosciusko.
Cornrdasibn&rs
u • O
/ • . • •• ' [ t--..
' • ' O I A V -
i2C^/£ ranet'te ' L . NeWlanj (Notary Public, KOsclua)^
m^dMj{^ ity. IN
My Commission Expires: 10/21/08
l70:3E«d aS998ge£:T£:T6:01 sgbaaLgbzsT AiNflOD CCilSniDSO5l!W0yj 9 0 : T T £0 SB-EBd
EXHIBIT A
A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE EAST ONE-HALF OP SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 3t NORTH. RANGE 5 EAST OF THE SECOND PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN. SEWARD TOWNSHIP. KOSCIUSKO COUNTY. INDIANA. MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE SOiriHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 12, AS EVIDENCED BY A PK NAIL; THENCE NORTH 89t)6*3r EAST (BASIS OF BEARINGS) ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER QF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECHON12. A DISTANCE OF 1315.64 FEET TO A RAILROAD RAIL POST AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 12 BEING THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 3r4«'33" WEST A DISTANCE OF 619.09 FEET TO A 5 « " X 3<r LONG IRON REINFORCING ROD; THENCE NORTH 18*34'S4" EAST. A DISTANCE OF 111.14 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE CENTER LINE OF THE JERIMIAH ADAMS DITCH; (THE FOLLOWTNO SEVEN CALLINGS ARE ON THE CENTERUNE OF THE lERIMIAH ADAMS DTFCH AND THE DISTANCES ARE MORE OR LESS); THENCE SOUTH TTl 1 '48" EAST A DISTANCE OF 334.88 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 74^36'16" EAST. A DBTANCB OF 204.32 FEET; THENCE SOUTH T7^3'35" EAST. A DISTANCE OF 197.07 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 7r46*41" EAST. A DISTANCE OF 394.11 FEET; THENCE SOUTH irOn'Al" EAST. A DISTANCE OF 214.67 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 53»43*0r EAST. A DISTANCE OF 196.41 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 5r iS '30" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 219.48 FEET TO THE SOUTH UNE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 12; THENCIE SOUTH 8 9 W 5 3 " WEST ON SAID SOUTH UNE. A DISTANCE OF 1284.82 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
TRACT CONTAINS 12J4 ACRES MORE OR LESS.
oCTaMmwj
S : 3 t k J aSB9B96ETET6iOi 69l»3aift»ASl XlUPCa CDGniOSQDItUtSU 98:11 E0 SB-aad
ATTACHMENT 8
Tiibi« 4.
Well ID Sample Date
CuiUkiiluuiii
Acetone
Benzene
iBromodichloromethane Bromoform
Bromomethane
|2-Butanone (MEK)
Cartion Disulfide
Cartwn Tetrachloride Chlorobanzene
Chloroethane Chloroform
Chkvomelhane
DlbromocNoromethane 1,1-DlcNoroathane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dlchloroethene
1,2-Olchloroethene (total)
1,2-DlcNoropropana
cis-1,3-Dlchloropropene
trans-1,3-Diclnloropropene Ethyltwnzene
2-Hexanone
Methylene Chloride 4-Methyl-2-Pemanone (lullBK)
Styrene
1,1,2.2-Tetrachloroethane TetracNoroethene
Toluene
|1,1.1-Trichloroethane
1,1,2-TrlchtoroethanB
Trichloroethene
Vinyl CNorlde
Xylenes (total)
Groundwaiei
GMMW-13 2/20/95
* 2 5
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
»10.0
<25
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<10
<5.0
<10
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0 <5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0 <5.0
<25
<5.0
<25
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<10
<5.0
voiaiiia Organic Compounds Analytical Kasults, BacKground Wells
GMMW-13 3/30/05
<5.0
<1.0 <1.0
<1.0
<• 1.0
<5.0
<5.0
<1.0
>:1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
< 5 . 0 J <1.0
< 5 . 0 J
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
>:1.0
<1.0
<1.0
< 1 0
<1.0
<2.0
GMMW-13 3/29/06
<5.0
< 1 0
<1.0
<1.0
< 1 0
<5.0
<5.0 <1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1,0
<1.0
<1,0
<1,0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1,0
<1,0
<1,0
<1.0 <5.0
<1.0
<5.0
<1.0
< 1 0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0 <2.0
GMMW-13 9/21/06
< 5 . 0 J
<1.0
< 1 0
< 1 0
< 1.0 J
< 5 . 0 J
<5.0
<1.0
<1.0
< 1 . 0 J
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0 <5.0
<1.0
<5.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0 <2.0
GMMW-13 3/20/07
<5.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<5.0
<5.0
<1.0 <1.0
<1.0
<10
<1.0 <1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0 <1.0
<1.0
<5.0
<1.0
<5.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<V0
<1.0
«1.0
<1.0
<2.0
Lakeland Disposal Landfil l, Claypool, Indiana.
GMMW-13 GMMW-13 GMMW-13 9/13/07 3/14/08 9/23/08
<5.0 <5.0J <5.0R
<:1.0 <10 <1.0 <10 <10 <1.0
<1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0J <1.0
<5.0J <5.0 <5.0
<5.0 <5.0 <5.0
<1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
<1.0 <1.0 <1.0
<1.0 <1,0 t l .O
<1.0J <10 <1.0
<1.0 <1.0 <1.0
<1.0 <1.0 <1.0
<1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
<1.0 «:1.0 <1.0
<1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
<1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
<5.0J <5.0 <5.0
<1.0 <1.0 «:1.0
<5.0J •:5.0 <5.0
<1.0 <1.0 <1.0
<1.0 <1.0 <1.0
<1.0 <1.0 <1.0
<1.0 <1.0 <1.0
<V0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <:1.0 <1.0
<1.0 <1.0 <1.0
<1.0 <1.0 <1.0
<2.0 <2.0 <2.0
GMMW-13 3/3/09
<5.0J
<1.0
<10
<1.0 <1.0
<b.OJ <5.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0 <1.0
<2.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0 <10
<5.0
<2.0 <5,0
<1.0 <1.0
<1.0 <1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<2.0
GMMW-13 9/28/09
<5.0J
<10 <10
<1.0
<1.0
<5.0
<5.0
<1.0
<10
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<2.0
<1.0
<1.0 <1.0
<1.0
<5.0
<2.0 <5.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<2.0
All analytical results are given in units of micrograms per liter (pg/L)
Data qualifiers: J - Result Is an estimated value below the reporting limit. R - Result is unusaUe/rejecled due to average relative response factors t>elow the control limit
G VKPROJECTU-aheiand^roundwater unipling\SQptember 2009\Stat Tables (Sep 2009).xla{VOC, (BkQd)] - l/13;2010 Page 1 o f \
Table 5.
Well in
Sdlliplu Ddlu Constituent
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Chloride
Cyanide, Total Turbidity
Analytical Results for Inorganics in Groundwater, Background Wells, Lakeland Disposal Landfill, Claypool, Indiana.
GMMW-13
2/20/85
3.2
<0.050
0.015
0.39
<0.0050
<0.0050
280
0.066
0.032
0.042
55
0.046
78
1.3
<0.00020
0.051
8.9
<0.010
<0.010
5.1
<0.010
0.061
0.17
NA
<0.010 NA
ttMMW-13 3/30/05
0.17 8
<0.0060
<0.010
0.062
<0.0040
<0.0020
120
0.0015 B
<0.0050
<0.010 <0.13
<0.0050
32
0.011
<0.00020
0.0018 B
1.5
<0.010
<0.0050
4.9
<0.0020
<0.0050
<0.020
16
<0.010 NA
GMMW-13 3/28/06
<0.20
0.0025 B
<0.010
0.041
<0.0040
<0.0020
110
0.0015 B
<0.0050
<0.010
<0.050
<0.0050
27
<0.010
<0.00020
<0.010
0.58
<0.010
<0.0050
4.1
<0.0020
<0.0050
<0.020
45
<0.01Q NA
GMMW-13 8/21/06
<0.20
<0.0060
<0.010
0.045
<0.0040
<0.0020
120
<0.010
<0.0050
<0.010
0.043 B
<0.0050
29
<0.010 <0.00020
<0.010
0.92
<0.010
<0.0050
5.2
<0.0020
<0.0050
0.013 B
33
<0.010 NA
GMMW-13 3/20/07
0.023 J
<0.001
0.00041 J
0.03
<0.001
<0.0005
110
0.00099 J
<0.001
<0.002
<0.1
<0.001
28
0.00033 J
<0.00020
<0.001
0.57
<0.0025
<0.0005
8.9
<0.0020
<0.0050
0.0034 J
38
<0.010 NA
GMMW-13
3/13/07
0.073
<0.001
<0.0010
0.069
<0.001
<0.0005
150 J
<0.005Q
<0.001
<0.002B
0.03
<0.0010B
35
0.0022
<0.00020
0.0011
1.8
<0.0025
<0.00050
6.4
<0.0020
<0.0050
<0.010
35
<0.010 NA
GMMW-13 3/14/08
<1.0
<0.002
<0.010
0.027
<0.01
<0.005
100
<0.05
<0.01
<0.020
<1.0
<0.0050
28
0.02J
<0.00020
<0.02
<5.0
<0.025
<0.0050
6.9
<0.0020
<0.05
<0.2
42
<0.010 NA
GMMW-13 9/23/08
0.069J
<0.002B
0.0033
0.083
<0.001
0.0013J
140 J
<0.005
0.0082
0.012
5.5
0.0005J 37
1.4
<0.00020
0.012
1.8
<0.0025
<0.00050
6.8
<0.002B
<0.005
<0.020B
35
<0.010 NA
GMMW-13 3/3/03
<0.100
<0.002
0.00021J
0.027
<0.001
<0.0005
87
<0.005J
<0.001J
0.0015J
0.058J
<0.0005B
19
0.0027J
<0.00020
0.0032J
0.74
<0.0025
<0.00050
9.7
<0.0020
<0.0050
<0.020B
25
<0.010 NA
GMMW-13
3/26/09
0.15
<0.002B
0.00051J
0.055
<0.001
<0.0005
130
<0.005
0.00047J
0.00082J
0.33
<0.00055B
30
0.085
<0.00020
0.0028
1.4
<0.0025
<0.00050
7.3
<0.0020
<0.0050
<0.020
24
<0.010 NA
All analytical results are given in units of milligrams per liter (mg/L)
Data qualifiers: B - Result is less than reporting limit, but greater than method detection limit. J - Result is an estimated value {J+ = estimated high; J- = estimated low).
NA- Not analyzed.
G:\APROJECT\Lakeland\groundwater sampling\September 2009\Stat Tables (Sep 2009).xls[lnorgank:s (Bkgd)) -1/13/2010 Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 2
Table 6. Upper Tolerance Limits for Naturally-Occurring Concentrations of Inorganics in Upgradient Groundwater, Lakeland Disposal
Landfiii, Ciaypooi, inuiana.
Constituent
Metals, Upqradient Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese
Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium
Zinc Chloride Cyanide, Total
Frequency
Detects / Total
6 / 10 1 / 10 5 / 10
10 / 10 0 / 10 1 / 10
10 / 10 4 / 10 3 / 10 4 / 10 6 / 10 2 / 10
10 / 10 8 / 10
0 / 10 6 / 10 9 / 10 0 / 10 0 / 10
10 / 10 0 / 10 1 / 10 3 / 10 9 / 9 0 / 10
Percent
NDs
40% 90% 50% 0 %
-
90% 0 %
60% 70% 60% 40% 80% 0 %
20%
-40% 10%
--
0 % -
90% 70% 0 %
-
[a]
mad hi hi lo
hi lo hi hi hi med hi lo med
med lo
lo
hi hi lo
Range of Detects Min - Max
(MQ/L)
0.023 - 3.2 0.0025
0.00021 -0 .015 0.027 - 0.39
0.0013 87 - 280
0.00099 - 0.066 0.00047 - 0.032 0.00082 - 0.042
0.03 - 55 0.0005 - 0.046
19 - 7 8 0.00033 - 1 . 4
0.0011 -0.051 0.57 - 8.9
4.1 - 9 . 7
0.061 0.0034 -0 .17
16 - 4 5
Data Distn
[bl
In NP N
NP NP NP NP NP NP N
NP NP NP NP
NP NP In NP NP N
NP NP N N
NP
95% UTL
(ng/L)
2.6 0.0025 0.0126
0.39 -
0.0013 280
0.066 0.032 0.042 44.7 0.046
78 1.54
-0.0426
7.5 --
9.7 -
0.061 0.17 45 -
Cove 95% 1
Min
74.1 74.1 74.1 74.1 — —
74.1 74.1 74.1 74.1 74.1 74.1 74.1 74.1
— 74.1 74.1 — —
74.1 —
74.1 74.1 71.7 —
rage of UTL Ic]
Expected
90.9 90.9 90.9 90.9 — —
90.9 90.9 90.9 90.9 90.9 90.9 90.9 90.9
— 90.9 90.9 — —
90.9 —
90.9 90.9 90.0 —
Footnotes appear on the last page.
G:\APROJECT\Lakeland\groundwater sampling\September 2009\Stat Tables (Sep 2009).xls[lnorganic UTLs (GMMW-13)] -1/13/2010
Page 2 of 2
Table 6. Upper Tolerance L imi ts for Natural ly-Occurr ing Concentrat ions of Inorganics in Upgradient Groundwater, Lakeland Disposal
Landf i l l , Claypool , Indiana.
[a] Percent of non-detect results, indicated as low ("lo") (<15%), medium ("med") (15% to 50%), or high ("hi") (>50%). Non-parametric methods should be used by default
when the percent NDs is high.
[b] Data distribution testing performed using the Shapiro-Wilk test and the USEPA (2003) ProUCL Version 4 software.
[c] The coverage expresses the proportion of the site data (if similar to background) that should be less than or equal to the UTL, at a confidence level of 95%.
The minimum coverage is from Table A-6 of USEPA (1992) guidance, and the expected coverage was calculated as N/(N+1), where N is the number of data points.
Data Distn Results of data distribution testing.
mg/L Milligrams per liter.
In Lognormal.
N Normal.
ND Non-detect.
NP Non-parametric; neither normally or lognormally distributed.
UCL The 95 percent one-tailed upper confidence limit on the arithmetic mean using USEPA (2003, 2002) recommended methods.
UTL The 95 percent one-tailed upper tolerence limit for the background data set using non-parametric methods (maximum detected concentration).
G:\APROJECT\Lakeland\groundw/ater sampiingVSeptember 2009\Stat Tables (Sep 2009).xls[lnorganic UTLs (GMMW-13)] -1/13/2010
Table 7. Analytical Results for Inorganics in Downgradient Wells and Comparison to the Nonparametric Upper Tolerance Limits,
ConsUtuent
Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron
Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nlcl(el Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Chloride Cyanide, Total
Well ID: Samole Date:
UTL
2.6 0.0025 U.U126
0.39 ND
0.0013 280
0.066 0.032 0.042 44,7
0.046 78
1.54 ND
0.0426 7.5 ND ND 9.7 ND
0.061 0.17 45 ND
L-aKoidNu uia
GMMW-6 3/2/95
9.3 < 0.050 0.018 0.18
< 0.0050 <• 0.0050
170 0.013
< 0.010 0.035
23
0.024 37
0.67 < 0.00020
< 0.040 2.7
< 0.010 < 0.010
6.5 < 0.010 0.031 0.082
NA < 0.010
posal Landfiii,
GMMW-6 12/18/02
2 0.027 B < 0.020
2 < 0.010 0.14
< 0.0040 < 0.0020
1 300 < 0.010 < 0.0050 < 0.010
1.4
< 0.0050 75
0.90 < 0.00020 < 0.010
5.0 < 0.010
< 0.0050 i 70
< 0.010 < 0.0050 0.018 B
1 270 < 0.010
Claypool, Indiana.
GMMW-6 3/26/03
NA < 0.020
NA NA NA NA
] NA NA NA NA NA
< 0.0050 NA NA
< 0.00020 NA NA NA NA
U NA [ NA NA NA
1 270 1 < 0.010 J
GMMW-6 6/17/03
0.87 < 0.020 < 0.010
0.16 < 0.0040 < 0.0020
250 0.0015 B < 0.0050 0.0031 B
8.3
< 0.0050 61
0.85 < 0.00020
< 0.010 4.3
< 0.010 < 0.0050
70 < 0.010 < 0.0050 < 0.022 350 J+ < 0.010
GMMW-6 9/24/03
1.6 < 0.0030 0.0078 B
0.20 < 0.0040 < 0.0020
260 0.0022 B < 0.0050
0.013 9.9
0.0038 B 64
0.89 < 0.00020 0.0022 B
5.5 J < 0.010 < 0.0050
76 < 0.010
0.0043 B < 0.021
350 < 0.010
GMMW-6 12/9/03
3.4 < 0.0060 0.0066 B
0.23 0.00026 B < 0.0020
260 0.0048 B 0.0021 B 0.0085 B
10
0.0047 B 66
0.92 < 0.00020 0.0049 B
6.5 < 0.010 < 0.0050
76 < 0.0020 0.0089 0.022 360
«: 0.010
GMMW-6 3/16/04
3.2 1 < 0.0060 < U.U10
0.18 < 0.0040 < 0.0020
240 0.0041 B < 0.0050 0.0074 B
8.9
0.0039 B 64
0.80 < 0.00020 0.0051 B
5.5 < 0.010 < 0.0050
68 1 < 0.0020 J
0.0071 0.023 290 1
< 0.010
GMMW-6 6/16/04
1.2 < 0.0060 < 0.010
0.13 < 0.0040 < 0.0020
220 0.0024 B < 0.0050 < 0.010
6.4
< 0.0050 61
0.78 0.000075 B
0.0023 B 5.1
< 0.010 < 0.0050
60 < 0.0020 0.0023 B < 0.020
260 < 0.010
GMMW-6 9/14/04
0.031 B < 0.0060 < 0.010
0.11 < 0.0040 < 0.0020
200 < 0.010 < 0.0050 < 0.010
2.6
< 0.0050 58
0.58 0.00017 B
< 0.010 5.9
< 0.010 < 0.0050
77 < 0.0020 < 0.0050 < 0.020
320 < 0.010
GMMW-6 12/15/04
0.12 B < 0.0060 < 0.010
0.19 < 0.0040 < 0.0020
220 < 0.010 < 0.0050 0.0034 B
3.5
< 0.0050 60
0.61 < 0,00020
< 0.010 5 J
< 0.010 < 0.0050
77 < 0.0020 J < 0.0050 < 0.020
290 < 0.010
GMMW-6 3/30/05
2.1 0.0035 B 1 0.0024 B
0.17 < 0.0040 < 0.0020
250 0.0041 B 0.0016 B 0.0045 B
6.7 J
< 0.0050 70
0.70 < 0.00020 0.0040 B
5.8 J < 0.010 < 0.0050
91 1 < 0.0020 0.0073 0.015 8
280 1 < 0.010
All analytical results are given In units of milligrams per liter (mg/L)
ND Not detected in the background (upgradient) wells. UTL Nonparametric upper tolerance limit based on the background (upgradient) data; maximum detected concentration.
Data qualifiers:
J Concentration exceeds the UTL value
B - Result is less than reporting limit, but greater than method detection limit. J - Result is an estimated value (J+ = estimated high; J- = estimated low),
NA - Not analyzed.
G:\APROJECT\Lak8land\groundwater s3mpling\Si!ptember 20O9\Stat Tables (Sep 2009).xlsllnorganics (Down)) -1/13/2010 Page 1 of 14
Table 7. Analytical Results for inorganics in Downgradient Wells and Comparison to the Nonparametric Upper Tolerance Limits, Lakeland Disposal Landfiii, Ciaypooi, Indiana.
Constituent
Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron
Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Chloride Cyanide, Total
Well ID: Sample Date:
UTL
2.6 0.0025 0.0126 0.39 ND
0.0013 280
0.066 0.032 0.042
44.7
0.046 78
1.54 ND
0.0426 7.5 ND ND 9.7 ND
0.061 0.17 45 ND
GMMW-6 6/22/05
1.0 < 0.0060 0.0048 B
0.26 < 0.0040 < 0.0020
290 0.0025 B 0.0029 B 0.0029 B
4.5
< 0.0050 70
0.65 < 0.00020 0.0050 B
4.5 J < 0.010 < 0.0050
80 < 0.0020 < 0.0074 0.0091 B
350 < 0.010
GMMW-6 9/13/05
3.1 < 0.0060 0.012 J
0.24 < 0.0040 < 0.0020
200 J 0.0059 B 0.0031 B
0.020
7.1J
0.0042 B S3 J
0.57 J < 0.00020 0.0063 B
6.5 J < 0.010 < 0.0050
82 < 0.0020
0.013 0.034 440
0.0031 B
GMMW-6 3/29/06
1.4 0.0043 B < 0.010
0.35 < 0.0040 < 0.0020
310 0.0023 B < 0.0050 < 0.010
3.6
0.0028 B 82
0.74 < 0.00020 0.0020 B
5.5 J 0.0060 B < 0.0050
67 < 0.0020 < 0.0050 < 0.020
210 < 0.010
GMMW-6 9/21/06
<0.20 < 0.0060 < 0.010
0.27 < 0.0040 < 0.0020
250 < 0.010 < 0.0050 < 0.010
1.3
< 0.0050 68
0.45 < 0.00020 < 0.010
5.1J < 0.010 < 0.0050
66 < 0.0020 < 0.0050 < 0.020
230 < 0.010
GMMW-6 3/20/07
0.022 J <0.001
0.00094 J 0.092
<0.001 0.000051 J
21B 0.00074 J
<0.001 <0.002 0.27
0.00021 J 14
0.0027 <0.00020 <0.001
4.2 <0.0025 <0.0005
37 -=0.0020 <0.0050 0.012 8.4
cO.OlO
GMMW-6 9/12/07
0.7 <0.001 0.001 0.11
<0.001 0.000058
23J 0.0014 0.00038 <0.002B
1.2
<0.001B 14
0.03 <0.0002B
0.001 3.9
<0.0025 <0.0005
34 <0.0020 0.0016 <0.01B
5.9J <0.010
GMMW-6 3/13/08
1.4 <0.002 0.0047J
0.89 <0.005 <0.0025
190 <0.025 <0.005 0.0043J
5.2
<0.0025B 76
0.55 <0.00020 0.0033J
5.3 <0.013 <0.0025
64 <0.Q020 0.0047J <0.1B
61 <0.010
GMMW-6 9/24/08
1.3 <0.002 0.0026
0.7 <0.001 <0.0005
230J 0.002J
0.00088J 0.0028
3.6
0.002J 76
0.64 <0.00020 0.0024
5.5 0.0007J <0.0005
54 <0.020 C.004J <0.02B
41 -0.0 lU
GMMW-6 3/3/09
0.16 <0.002
0.00069J 0.32
<0.001 <0.0005
220 <0.005J <0.001J 0.00061J
1.9
0.00058J 68
0.620J <0.00020 <0.002B
3.7 <0.002S <0.0005
34 <0.0020 C.00088J <0.02B
32 -0.010
GMMW-6 9/28/09
0.85 <0.002B
0.004 1.1
<0.001 <0.0005
200 0.0018J D.00086J 0.0022
5.3
0.0016 78
0.66 <0.00020
0.0023 6.1
<0.002S <0.0005
64 <0.0020 O.OO."}.! 0.013J
28 •:0.010
GMPZ-6 3/2/95
9.3 < 0.050 0.018 0.18
< 0.0050 < 0.0050
170 0.013
< 0.010 0.035
23
0.024 37
0.67 < 0.00020 < 0.040
2.7 < 0.010 < 0.010
6.5 < 0.010 0.031 0.082
NA < 0.010
GMPZ-6 12/18/02
0.037 B < 0.020 < 0.010
0.20 < 0.0040 < 0.0020
40 < 0.010 < 0.0050 < 0.010
0.16
< 0.0050 28
0.052 < 0.00020 < 0.010
12 <0.010 < 0.0050
38 < 0.010 < 0.0050
0.044 82
<0.010
GMPZ-6 3/26/03
NA < 0.020
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
< 0.0050 NA NA
< 0 00020 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 72 1
< 0.010 J
All analytical results are given in units of miliigrams per liter (mg/L)
ND Not detected in the background (upgradient) wells. UTL Nonparametric upper tolerance limit based on the background (upgradient) data: maximum detected concentration.
Data qualifiers:
J Concentration exceeds the UTL value
B - Result Is less than reporting limit, but greater than method detection limit. J - Result Is an estimated value (J+ = estimated high; J- = estimated low).
NA- Not analyzed.
G;\APROJECT\Lal^elan(l\groundwaler sampling\September 2009\Stat Tables (Sep 2009).xlsllnorganics (Down)J - 1/13/2010 Pagc2on4
Table 7. Analytical Results for inorganics in Downgradient Wells and Comparison to the Nonparametric Upper Tolerance Limits, Lakeland Disposal Landlill, Claypool, Indiana.
Constituent
Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron
Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Chloride Cyanide, Total
Well ID-Sample Date:
UTL
2.6 0.0025 0.0126
0.39 ND
0.0013 280
0.066 0.032 0.042 44.7
0,046 78
1.54 ND
0.0426 7.5 ND ND 9.7 ND
0.061 0.17 45 ND
GMPZ-6 6/1?.'Q3
0.062 B < 0.020 < 0.010
0.15 < 0.0040 < 0.0020
28 < 0.010 < 0.0050 < 0.010
0.48
< 0.0050 21
0.031 < 0.00020 < 0.010
8.4 < 0.010 < 0.0050
38 < 0.010
< 0.0050 < 0.020
64 < 0.010
GMPZ-6 9,'2'!,'Q3
0.12 B < 0.003 < 0.010
0.14 < 0.0040 < 0.0020
27 < 0.010 < 0,0050 < 0,010
0.65
< 0,0050 19
0.026 < 0,00020 < 0.010 8.3 J
< 0.010 < 0.0050
39 < 0.010 < 0.0050 < 0.020
56J •<: 0.010
GMPZ-6 12'9/03
0.029 B < 0.0060 < 0.010
0.12 < 0.0040 < 0.0020
24 < 0.010 < 0.0050 < 0.010
0.24
< 0.0050 17
0.022 < 0.00020 < 0.010
7.9 < 0.010 < 0.0050
34 < 0.0020 < 0.0050 < 0.020
55 < 0.010
GMPZ-6 a/ie.'oi
<0.20 < 0.0060 < 0.010
0.12 < 0.0040 < 0.0020
24 < 0.010 < 0.0050 < 0.010
0.45
< 0.0050 16
0.028 0.000049 B
< 0.010 6.8 J
< 0.010 < 0.0050
1 35 i < 0.0020 J < 0.0050 < 0.020
] ** < 0.010
GMP7-fi 6/16/04
<0.20 < 0.0060 < 0.010
0.11 < 0.0040 < 0.0020
20 < 0.010 < 0.0050 < 0.010
0.59
< 0.0050 14
0.020 < 0.00020 < 0.010
6.2 < 0.010 < 0.0050
34 < 0.0020 < 0.0050 < 0.020
35 < 0.010
RMP7-fi 0/14,'04
<0.20 < 0.0060 < 0.010
0.11 < 0.0040 < 0.0020
20 < 0.010 < 0.0050 < 0.010
0.38
< 0.0050 14
0.012 0.000083 B
< 0.010 5.9
< 0.010 < 0.0050
1 34 < 0.0020 < 0.0050 < 0.020
37 < 0.010
GMPZ-6 12,'15/04
0.064 B < 0.0060 < 0.010
0.11 < 0.0040 < 0.0020
21 < 0.010 < 0.0050 < 0.010 0.41J
< 0.0050 14
0.020 < 0.00020 < 0.010
5.9 J < 0.010 < 0.0050
33 < 0.0020 <• 0.0050 0.0058 B
26 < 0.010
GMPZ-6 3/30/05
<0.20 < 0.0060 < 0.010
0.10 < 0.0040 < 0.0020
22 < 0.010 < 0.0050 < 0.010 0.51J
< 0,0050 14
0.020 < 0.00020 < 0.010
5.4 J < 0.010 < 0.0050
33 < 0.0020 < 0.0050 < 0.020
23 < 0.010
GMPZ-6 6/22/'Q0
<0.20 < 0.0060 J
<0 010 0.11
< 0.0040 < 0.0020
21 < 0.010 < 0.0050 < 0.010
0.60
< 0.0050 14
< 0.019 < 0.00020 •c 0.010 4.8 J
< 0.010 < 0.0050
33 < 0.0020 < 0.0050 < 0.020
20 < 0.010
GMPZ-6 9/13/05
<0.20 < 0.0060 < 0.010
0.10 < 0.0040 < 0.0020
20 J < 0.010 < 0.0050 < 0.010
0.36
< 0.0050 14 J
0.013 < 0.00020 < 0.010
5.0 J < 0.010
< 0.0050 34
< 0.0020 < 0.0050 < 0.020
17 < 0.010
QMp7 a
3/29/06
<0.20 < 0.0060 < 0.010 0.095
< 0.0040 < 0.0020
20 < 0.010 < 0.0050 < 0.010 < 0.050
< 0.0050 13
< 0.010 < 0.00020 < 0.010 4.6 J
< 0.010 < 0.0050
32 1 < 0.0020 < 0.0050 < 0.020
14 < 0.010
All analytical results are given In units of milligrams per liter (mg/L)
ND Not detected In the background (upgradient) wells. UTL Nonparametric upper tolerance limit based on the background (upgradient) data; maximum detected concentration.
Data qualifiers:
n Concentration exceeds the UTL value
B - Result Is less than reporting limit, but greater than method detection limit. J - Result is an estimated value (J+ = estimated high; J- = estimated low).
NA- Not analyzed.
G:\APROJECT\Lakeland\aroundwaler samplingNSeptember 2009\Sut Tables (Sep 2009).xlsllnoiganics (Down)] - 1/13/2010 Page 3 of 14
Table 7. Analytical Results for inorganics in Downgradient Wells and Comparison to the Nonparametric Upper Tolerance Limits, Lakeland Disposal l.andfiii, Claypool, Indiana.
ND UTL
All analytical results are given in units of milligrams per liter (mg/L)
Not detected in the background (upgradient) wells. Nonparametric upper tolerance limit based on the background (upgradient) data; maximum detected concentration.
J Concentration exceeds the UTL value
Data qualifiers: B - Result is less than reporting limit, but greater than method detection limit J - Result Is an estimated value (J-i- = estimated high; J- = estimated low).
NA- Not analyzed.
Constituent
Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron
Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Chlonde Cyanide, Total
Well ID: Sample Date:
UTL
2.6 0.0025 0.0126
0.39 ND
0.0013 280
0.066 0.032 0.042 44.7
0.046 78
1.54 ND
0.0426 7.5 ND ND 9.7 ND
0.061 0.17 45 ND
GMPZ-6 9/21/06
<0.20 < 0.0060 < 0.010
0.10 < 0.0040 < 0.0020
20 < 0.010 < 0.0050 < 0.010
0.28 < 0.0050
13 < 0.010
< 0.00020 < 0.010 4.5 J
< 0.010 < 0.0050
33 < 0.0020 < 0.0050 < 0.020
10 < 0.010
GMPZ-6 3/20/07
0.15 <0.001 0.0025
0.53 <0.001 <0.0005 240 B
0.00083 J 0.00046 J
<0.002 2.6
0.00026 J 75
0.45 <0.00020 <0.001
4.6 <0.0025 <0.0005
77 B <0.0020 <0.0050 0.0037 J
160 0.0030 J
GMPZ-6 9/12/07
0.7 <0.001 0.0027 0.81
<0.001 0.00026
160J 0.0016 0.00062 0.0022J
2.4
0.0014J 57
0.35 <0.00020B
0.0019 5.5
0.00052 <0.00050
77 <0.0020 0 0019 0.01 U
130 <0.010
GMPZ-6 3/13/08
<0.5 <0.002 <0.005
0.11 <0.005 <0.0025
24 <0.025 <0.005 ^0.010 0.25J
<0.0025 14
<0.013B <0.00020 ^0.010
4.3 <0.013
<0.0025 36
<0.0020 <0.025 <0.1B
5.7 <0.010
GMPZ-6 9/24/08
0.17 <0.002 0.0012
0.13 <0.001
<0.0005 22J
<0.005 <0.001
0.00057J 0.64
<0.0005B 16
0.022 <0.00020 0.00051J
3.6 <0.0025 <0.00050
39 <0.0020 n.00041J <0.020B
2.8 <0.0I0
GMPZ-6 3/3/09
0.035J 0.00051J 0.00073J
0.11 <0.001
0.0002SJ 10
0.00064J <0.001J 0.0017J
0.43
<0.0005B 13
0.013J <0.00020
0.03J 3.5
<0.0025 <0.00050
34 <0.0020 <0.0050 <0.020B
4 '0.010
GMPZ-6 9/28/09
<0.10 <0.002B 0.00062J
0.12 <0.001 <0.0005
25 <0.005
0.00017J 0.00063J 0.090J
<0.0005B 15
0.03 <0.00020 0.0004J
3.5 <0.0025 <0.00050
37 <0.0020 <0.0050 0.0079J
4.6 <U.010
GMMW-7 2/28/95
8.8 < 0.050 < 0.010 0.084
< 0.0050 < 0.0050
120 0.017
< 0.010 0.023
14
0.012 37
0.26 < 0.00020 < 0.040
2.3 < 0.010 < 0.010
7.7 < 0.010 0.029 0.059 NA
< 0.010
GMMW-7 12/17/02
0.030 B < 0.020 < 0.010 0.023
< 0.0040 < 0.0020
72 < 0.010 < 0.0050 < 0.010 < 0.050
< 0.0050 17
< 0.010 < 0.00020 < 0.010 <0.50 < 0.010
< 0.0050 4.1
< 0.010 < 0.0050 0.015 B
<2.0 < 0.010
GMMW-7 3/26/03
NA < 0.020
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
< 0.0050 NA NA
< 0.00020 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2.3
< 0.010 J
GMMW-7 6/17/03
3.3 < 0.020 < 0.010 0.046
< 0.0040 < 0.0020
90 0.0064 B < 0.0050 0,0072 B
3.7
< 0.0050 24
0.042 < 0.00020 0.0029 B
1.2 < 0.010 < 0.0050
5.4 < 0.010 0.0070 < 0.035
7.9 < 0.010
GMMW-7 9/24/03
0.52 0.0025 B < 0.010 0.036
< 0.0040 < 0.0020
110 0.0016 B < 0 0050 <0 010
0.47
< 0.0050 28
0.0079 B < 0.00020 < 0.010 0.47 BJ < 0.010 < 0.0050
6.1 < 0.010
< 0.0050 < 0.020
12J < 0.010
GMMW-7 12/9/03
0.27 < 0.0060 < 0.010 0.046
< 0.0040 < 0.0020
140 < 0.010 < 0.0050 0.0020 B
0.15
< 0.0050 38
0.0021 B < 0.00020 < 0.010 <0.53 < 0.010 < 0.0050
8.7 < 0.0020 < 0.0050 < 0.020
20 < 0.010
G:^APROJECT\Lakeland\groundwater saniptingVSeptember 2009\Stat Tables (Sep 2009}.xls[ln(xganics (Down)] - 1/13/2010 Page 4 o n 4
Table 7. Analytical Results for Inorganics in Downgradient Wells and Comparison to the Nonparametric Upper Tolerance Limits, Lakeland Disposal Landfiii, Ciaypooi, Indiana.
Constituent
Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron
Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Chloride Cyanide, Total
Well ID: Sample Date:
UTL
2.6 0.0025 0.0126
0.39 ND
0.0013 280
0.066 0.032 0.042 44.7
0.046 78
1,54 ND
0.0426 7.5 ND ND 9.7 ND
0.061 0.17 45 ND
GMMW-7 3/16/04
0.75 < 0.0060 < 0.010 0.052
< 0.0040 < 0.0020
160 < 0.010 < 0.0050 < 0.010
0.63
< 0.0050 42
0.013 < 0.00020 < 0.010 <0.50
0.0064 B < 0.0050
6.3 < 0.0020 J < 0.0050 < 0.020
22 < 0.010
GMMW-7 6/16/04
0.59 < 0.0060 < 0.010 0.054
< 0.0040 < 0.0020
170 0.0023 B < 0.0050 < 0.010
0.45
< 0.00.50 46
0.017 < 0.00020 < 0.010 <0.57 < 0.010 < 0.0050
6.4 < 0.0020 < 0.0050 < 0.020
21 < 0.010
GMMW-7 9/14/04
0.20 < 0.0060 < 0.010 0.047
< 0.0040 < 0.0020
160 < 0.010 < 0.0050 < 0.010 < 0.050
< 0.0050 41
0.0012 B 0.000089 B
< 0.010 0.37 B < 0.010 < 0.0050
5.3 < 0.0020 < 0.0050 < 0.020
22 < 0.010
GMMW-7 12/14/04
<0.20 < 0.0060 < 0.010 0.069
< 0.0040 < 0.0020
210 < 0.010 < 0.0050 < 0.010 <0.10
< 0.0050 64
0.0014 B < 0.00020 < 0.010 0.45 B < 0.010 < 0.0050
8.5 < 0.0020 < 0.0050 0.0041 B
25 < 0.010
GMMW-7 3/30/05
<0.20 < 0.0060 < 0.010 0.057
< 0.0040 < 0.0020
190 0.0025 B < 0.0050 < 0.010 <0.17
< 0.0050 58
0.016 < 0.00020 < 0.010 <0.56 < 0.010 < 0.0050
6.5 < 0.0020 0.0025 B < 0.020
25 < 0.010
GMMW-7 6.'21.'05
<0.20 < 0.0060 J
< 0.010 0.045
< 0.0040 < 0.0020
160 < 0.010 < 0.0050 < 0.010 <0.10
< 0.0050 41
< 0.010 < 0.00020 < 0.010 <0.50 < 0.010 < 0.0050
5.1 < 0.0020 < 0.0050 < 0.020
12 < 0.0023 B
GMMW-7 9/13/05
0.014 B < 0.0060 < 0.010 0.045
< 0.0040 < 0.0020
160 J 0.0031 B < 0.0050 < 0.010 <0.10
< 0.0050 40 J
< 0.010 < 0.00020 < 0.010 0.35 B < 0.010 < 0.0050
5.1 < 0.0020 < 0.0050 0.0068 B
9.2 0.0018 B
GMMW-7 3.'28,'Q6
<0.20 < 0,0060 < 0,010 0.048
< 0.0040 < 0.0020
160 0.0019 B < 0.0050 < 0.010 < 0.050
< 0.0050 46
0.0074 B 0.000089 B
< 0.010 <0.50 < 0.010 < 0.0050
5.7 < 0.0020 < 0.0050 < 0.020
9.6 < 0.010
GMMW-7 9/21.'Q6
<0.20 < 0.0060 < 0.010 0.038
< 0.0040 < 0.0020
120 < 0.010 < 0.0050 < 0.010 <0.10
< 0.0050 33
< 0.010 < 0.00020 < 0.010 0.23 B < 0.010
< 0.0050 4.8
< 0.0020 < 0.0050 < 0.020
4.0 < 0.010
GMMW-7 3.'20/07
<0.1 <0.001
0.00043 J 0.052 <0.001 <0.0005
180 0.00068 J
<0.001 <0.002 <0.10
<0.001 52
0.0016 <0.00020 <0.001 0.29 J
0.00064 J <0.0005
5.4 <0.0020 <0.0050 <0.010
6.6 0.005J
GMMW-7 9/12'07
0.026 <0.001 <0.001 0.049 <0.001 <0.0005
160J <0.005 <0.001
<0.002B <0.10
<0.001B 42
0.0012 <0.00020 0.00071
0.36 0.0028 <0.0005
5.4 <0.0020 <0.0050 <0.010B
6.4J <0.010
RMMW-7 3/13.'08
<05 <0.002 <0.005 0.056 <0.005
<0.0025 160
<0.025 <0.005 <0.01 <0.5
<0.0025 50
<0.013 <0.00020
<0.010 <2.5
<0.013 <0.0025
5.5 <0.0020 <0.025 <0.100
5.0 <0.010
RMMW-7 9/23/08
0.069 <0.002
0.00029J 0.04
<0.001 <0.0005
130J 0.00055J <0.001 0.0012J
0.14
<0.0005B 36
0.017 <0.00020 0.00068J
0.4J 0.0013J <0.0005
6 <0.0020 0.00056J <0.020B
2.3 <0.010
All analytical results are given In units of milligrams per liter (mg/L)
ND Not detected In the background (upgradient) wells. UTL Nonparametric upper tolerance limit based on the background (upgradient) data; maximum detected concentration.
Data qualifiers:
3 Concentration exceeds the UTL value
B - Result is less than reporting limit, but greater than method detection limit. J - Result Is an estimated value (J+ = estimated high; J- = estimated low).
NA- Not analyzed.
G:V^R0JECT\Lakeland\9roundwaler sampling\Seplember 20O9\Slat Tables (Sep 2009).xls(lnor9anics (Down)| • 1/13/2010 Page 5 of 14
Table 7. Analytical Results for inorganics in Downgradient Wells and Comparison to the Nonparametric Upper Tolerance Limits, Lakeland Disposal Landfill, Ciaypooi, Indiana.
Constituent
Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron
Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Chloride Cyanide, Total
Well ID Sample Date.
UTL
2.6 0.0025 0.0126 0.39 ND
0,0013 280
0,066 0,032 0.042
44.7
0.046 78
1.54 ND
0.0426 7.5 ND ND 9.7 ND
0.061 0.17 45 ND
GMMW-7 3/3/09
<0.100 <0.002
0.00018J 0.044 <0.001
<0.0005 140
0.00075J <0.001J 0.0009J
<0.100
<0.0005B 39
0.00057J <0.00020 <0.002B 0.310J
0.00084J <0.0005
5.1 <0.0020 '0.0050 <0.020B
2.5 <0.010
GMMW-7 9/26/09
0.062J <0.002B 0.00024J
0.048 <0.001 <0.0005
ISO <0.005
0.000085J 0.00077J 0.087J
<0.0005B 40
<0.0025B <0.00020 0.00084J
0.46J 0.00077J <0.0005
5.9 <0.0020 <0.0050 <0.020
1.1 '-U.OIO
GMPZ-7 2/26/95
35 < 0.050 0.035 0.46
< 0,0050 < 0.0050
400 0.073 0.037 0.080
69
0.029 190 1.5
< 0.00020 0.085
12 < 0.010 < 0.010
31 < 0.010 0.095 0.19 NA
< 0.010
GMPZ-7 12/17/02
0.029 B < 0.020 < 0.010
0.22 < 0.0040 < 0.0020
33 < 0.010 < 0.0050 < 0.010 < 0.050
< 0.0050 26
0.023 < 0.00020 < 0.010
1.6 < 0.010 < 0.0050
29 < 0.010
< 0.0050 0.021 <2.0
< 0.010
GMPZ-7 3/26/03
NA < 0.020
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
0.0044 B NA NA
< 0.00020 NA NA NA NA NA NA HA NA
<2.0 < 0.010 J
GMPZ-7 6/17/03
0.66 < 0.020 < 0.010
0.25 < 0.0040 < 0.0020
33 < 0.010 < 0.0050
0.041 2.1
< 0.0050 23
0.059 < 0.00020 < 0.010
1.6 < 0.010 < 0.0050
L 31 < 0.010
< 0.0050 < 0.052 <2.0
< 0.010
GMPZ-7 9/24/03
0.26 0.0031 < 0.010
0.26 < 0.0040 < 0.0020
33 < 0.010 < 0.0050 < 0.010
0.84
< 0.0050 22
0.041 < 0.00020 < 0.010
l . bJ < 0.010 < 0.0050
32 < 0.010 0.015
< 0.020 1.9 J
< 0.010
GMPZ-7 12/9/03
0.061 B < 0.0060 < 0.010
0.25 < 0.0040 < 0.0020
29 < 0.010 < 0.0050 < 0.010
0.44
< 0.0050 21
0.011 < 0.00020 < 0.010
1.6 < 0.010 < 0.0050
29 < 0.0020 < 0.0050 < 0.020 1.3 B
< 0.010
GMPZ-7 3/16/04
2.0 J < 0.0060 < 0.010
0.29 < 0.0040 < 0.0020
37 0.0030 B < 0.0050 < 0.010
3.5
< 0.0050 23
0.088 < 0.00020 0.0019 B
2.2 < 0.010 < 0.0050
31 < 0.0020 J 0.0037 B 0.012 B
1.3 B < 0.010
GMPZ-7 6/16/04
0.55 < 0.0060 < 0.010
0.27 < 0.0040 < 0.0020
31 0.0015 B < 0.0050 < 0.010
1.4
< 0.0050 21
0.077 < 0.00020 < 0.010
1.6 < 0.010
< 0.0050 31
< 0.0020 < 0.0050 < 0.020 1.4 B
< 0.010
GMPZ-7 9/14/04
<0.20 < 0.0060 < 0.010
0.27 < 0.0040 < 0.0020
28 < 0.010 < 0.0050 < 0.010
0.15
< 0.0050 19
0.026 0.000053 B
< 0.010 1.5
< 0.010 < 0.0050
1 31 < 0.0020 ^ 0.0050 < 0.020 1.7 B
< 0.010
GMPZ-7 12/14/04
0.12 B < 0.0060 < 0.010
0.31 < 0.0040 < 0.0020
30 < 0.010 < Q.0050 < 0.010 0.36 J
< 0.0050 21
0.023 < 0.00020
< 0.010 1.5
< 0.010 < 0.0050
30 1 < 0.0020 < 0.0050 0.0048 B
1.6 B < 0.010
.Ml analytical results aie given in units of milligrams per liter (mg/L)
ND Not detected in the background (upgradient) wells. UTL Nonparametric upper tolerance limit based on the background (upgradient) data; maximum detected concentration.
Data qualifiers:
J Concentration exceeds the UTL value
B - Result is less than reporting limit, but greater than method detection limit. J - Result Is an estimated value (J+ = estimated high; J- = estimated low).
NA - Not analyzed.
G:\/W>ROJECT\Lakeland\groundwater sampling\September 2009\Stat Tables (Sep 2009).xls[lnorganics (Down)) - 1/13/2010 Page 6 of 14
Table 7. Analytical Results for Inorganics in Downgradient Wells and Comparison to the Nonparametric Upper Tolerance Limits, Lakeland Disposal Landfiii, Ciaypooi, Indiana.
Constituent
Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron
Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Chloride Cyanide, Total
Well ID: Sample Date
UTL
2.6 0.0025 0.0126 0.39 ND
0.0013 280
0.066 0.032 0.042 44.7
0.046 78
1.54 NO
0.0426 7.5 ND ND 9.7 ND
0.061 0.17 45 ND
GMPZ-7 3/30/05
<0.20 < 0.0060 < 0.010
0.29 < 0.0040 < 0.0020
29 < 0.010 < 0.0050 < 0.010 0.26 J
< 0.0050 20
0.0072 B < 0.00020 < 0.010
1.5 < 0.010 < 0.0050
30 < 0.0020 < 0.0050 < 0.020 <2.0
< 0.010
GMPZ-7 6/21/05
<0.20 < 0.0060 J
< 0.010 0.30
< 0.0040 < 0.0020
29 < 0.010 < 0.0050 « 0.010
0.35
< 0.0050 20
0.097 < 0.00020 < 0.010
1.5 < 0.010 < 0.0050
31 < 0.0020 < 0.0050 < 0.020 <2.0
< 0.010
GMPZ-7 9/13./05
<0.20 < 0.0060 < 0.010
0.29 < 0.0040 < 0.0020
28 J < 0.010 < 0.0050 < 0.010
0.96
< 0.0050 20 J
0.050 J < 0.00020 < 0.010
1.4 < 0.010 < 0.0050
31 1 < 0.0020 < 0.0050 0.0076 B
<2.0 < 0.010
GMPZ-7 3.'28/06
<0.20 < 0.0060 < 0.010
0.29 < 0.0040 < 0.0020
28 < 0.010 < 0.0050 < 0.010 0.089 B
<onnf)0 20
< 0.010 < 0.00020 < 0.010
1.4 < 0.010 < 0.0050
31 < 0.0020 < 0.0050 < 0.020 <2.0
< 0.010
GMPZ-7 9.'21.'06
<0.20 < 0.0060 0.0085 B
0.31 < 0.0040 < 0.0020
25 < 0.010 < 0.0050 < 0.010
1.8
< 0.0050 19
0.038 < 0.00020 < 0.010
1.3 < 0.010 < 0.0050
29 < 0.0020 < 0.0050 < 0.020 <2.0
< 0.010
GMPZ-7 3/20.'Q7
0.089 J <0.001 0.0025 0.28
<0.001 0.0006 J
25 <0.005
0.00018 J <0.002
0.21
0.00017 J 19
0.0041 <0.00020 <0.001
1.3 <0.0025 <0.0005
32 <0.0020 <0.00.'i0 0.005 J
<2 <0.010
GMPZ-7 9/12'Q7
0.025 <0.001 0.0054 0.29
<0.001 0.000051
33J <0.005 0.00029 <0.002B
0.3
<0.001B 17
0.019 <0.0002B 0.00035
1.3 <0.0025 <0.0005
30 <0.002 <0.005 <0.01B
2.5J <0.010
GMPZ-7 3/13,'08
<0.5 <0.002 0.0048J
0.3 <0.005 <0.0025
18 <0.025 <0.005 <0.01 0.47J
<0.0025 20
<0.013B <0.00020 <0.010
1.4J <0.013 <0.0025
32 <0.0020 <0.025 <0.100
6.8 <0.010
GMPZ-7 9,'23,'08
<0.1 <0.002 0.0051 0.32
<0.001 <0.0005
54J <0.005 <0.001
0.00074J 0.41
<0.0005B 22
0.018 <0.00020 0.0004SJ
1.4 <0.0025 <0.0005
35 <0.0020 <0.0050 <0.020B
0.88J <0.010
RMP7-7
3/3/09
<01 <0.002 0.0034 0.31
<0.001 <o.noo5
27 <0.005J <0.001J 0.00071J
0.2
<0.0005B 19
0.0053J <0.00020 «:0.002B
1.4 <0.0025 <0.0005
32 <0.0020 <0.0050 <0.020B
0.72J <0.010
GMP7-7
0/28,'03
<0.1 <0.002B 0.0075 0.31
<0.001 <0.0005
43 <0.005
0.00023J <0.002 0.54
<0.0005B 20
0.021 <0.00020 <0.002
1.4 <0.0025 <0.0005
34 <0.0020 <0.0050 <0.020
<2 <0.010
GMMW-12
2,'28/95
20 1 < 0.050 0.034 1 0.18
< 0.0050 < 0.0050
220 0.033 0.022 0.063 1
45 1 0.031
72
1.7 1 < 0.00020
0.058 1 4.3
< 0.010 < 0.010
3.2 < 0.010 0.065 1 0.17 NA
< 0.010
r
All analytical results are given in units of milligrams per liter (mg/L)
ND Not detected in the background (upgradient) wells. UTL Nonparametric upper tolerance limit based on the background (upgradient) data; maximum detected concentration.
[Concentration exceeds the UTL value
Data qualifiers: B - Result Is less than reporting limit, but greater than method detection limit. J - Result Is an estimated value (J+ = estimated high; J- = estimated low).
NA - Not analyzed.
G:\APROJECT\Lakeland\groundwaler sampling\September 2009\Stal Tables (Sep 2009).xlsllnixganics (Down)l - 1/13/2010 Page 7 of 14
Table 7. Analytical Results for Inorganics in Downgradient Weils and Comparison to the Nonparametric Upper Tolerance Limits, Lakeland Disposal Landfiii, Claypool, Indiana.
Constituent
Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron
Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Chloride Cyanide, Total
Well ID: Sample Date:
UTL
2.6 0.0025 0.0126 0.39 ND
0.0013 280
0.066 0.032 0.042 44.7
0.046 78
1.54 ND
0.0426 7.5 ND ND 9.7 ND
0.061 0.17 45 ND
GMMW-12 12/17/02
0.034 B < 0.020 < 0.010 0.053
< 0.0040 < 0.0020
140 < 0.010 < 0.0050 0.0022 B < 0.050
< 0.0050 28
< 0.010 < 0.00020 < 0.010
0.68 < 0.010
< 0.0050 5.4
< 0.010 < 0.0050
0.038 7.0
< 0.010
GMMW-12 3/26/03
NA < 0.020
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
0.0052 NA NA
0.000052 B NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 20
< 0.010 J
GMMW-12 6/17/03
3.2 < 0.020 < 0.010
0.10 < 0.0040 < 0.0020
180 0.0039 B 0.0013 B 0.0078 B
4.8
< 0.0050 39
0.43 < 0.00020
0.011 1.8
0.0084 B < 0.0050
5.2 < 0.010 0.0080 < 0.039
17 < 0.010
GMMW-12 9/24/03
0.42 < 0.003 < 0.010 0.094
< 0.0040 < 0.0020
190 < 0.010
< 0.0050 < 0.010
0.56
< 0.0050 38
0.071 < 0.00020 0.0059 B
2.0 < 0.010 < 0.0050
7.4 < 0.010
< 0.0050 < 0.020 13 J+
< 0.010
GMMW-12 12/9/03
0.45 < 0.0060 < 0.010 0.074
< 0.0040 < 0.0020
170 < 0.010 < 0.0050 0.0041 B
0.51
< 0.0050 35
0.079 < 0.00020 0.0051 B
1.3 < 0.010 < 0.0050
4.9 < 0.0020 < 0.0050 < 0.020
12 < 0.010
GMMW-12 3/16/04
1.4 J < 0.0060 < 0.010 0.062
< 0.0040 < 0.0020
130 < 0.010 < 0.0050 0.0032 B
1.8
< 0.0050 28
0.36 < 0.00020 0.0072 B
1.2 0.0067 B < 0.0050
4.6 < 0.0020 J 0.0031 B < 0.020
7.7 < 0.010
GMMW-12 6/16/04
<0.20 < 0.0060 < 0.010 0.075
< 0.0040 0.00044 B
140 < 0.010 < 0.0050 < 0.010
0.22
< 0.0050 25
0.42 < 0.00020 0.0072 B
1.5 < 0.010 < 0.0050
6.5 < 0.0020 * 0.0050 < 0.020
3.1 < 0.010
GMMW-12 9/14/04
<0.20 < 0.0060 < 0.010 0.056
< 0.0040 < 0.0020
140 < 0.010 < 0.0050 < 0.010 < 0.050
< 0.0050 29
0.037 0.000070 B 0.0023 B
0.82 < 0.010 < 0.0050
3.8 < 0.0020 ^ 0.0050 < 0.020
6.4 < 0.010
GMMW-12 12/14/04
0.080 B < 0.0060 < 0.010 0.052
< 0.0040 < 0.0020
140 < 0.010 < 0.0050 < 0.010 < 0.050
< 0.0050 30
0.13 < 0.00020 0.0018 B
0.71 0.0032 B < 0.0050
3.9 < 0.0020 < 0.0050 0.0031 B
8.B < 0.010
GMMW-12 3/30/05
<0.20 < 0.0060 < 0.010 0.035
< 0.0040 < 0.0020
110 0.0029 B < 0 0050 < 0.010 <0.12
< 0.0050 24
0.54 < 0.00020
0.0049 <0.61
0.0052 B < 0.0050
2.7 < 0.0020 0.0016 B < 0.020
2.4 < 0.010
GMMW-12 6/21/05
<0.20 < 0.0060 J
< 0.010 0.039
< 0.0040 0.00040 B
110 < 0.010 < 0.0050 0.0025 B
<0.12
< 0.0050 24
0.098 < 0.00020 0.0027 B
<0.60 0.0046 B < 0.0050
2.7 < 0.0020 < 0.0050 < 0.020
2.9 < 0.010
GMMW-12 9/13/05
0.13 B < 0.0060 < 0.010 0.039
< 0.0040 < 0.0020
120 J 0.0015 B < 0.0050 < 0.010
0.20
< 0.0050 25 J
0.35 J < 0.00020 0.0041 B
0.51 < 0.010
< 0.0050 2.9
< 0.0020 < 0.0050 0.011 B
6.7 < 0.010
GMMW-12 3/28/06
<0.20 < 0.0060 < 0.010 0.037
< 0.0040 < 0.0020
130 < 0.010 < 0.0050 < 0.010 < 0.050
< 0.0050 27
0.043 < 0.00020 < 0.010
0.51 < 0.010 < 0.0050
2.8 < 0.0020 < 0.0050 < 0.020
2.7 < 0.010
i: Data qualifiers:
All analytical results are given in units of milligrams per liter (mg/L)
ND Not detected in the background (upgradient) wells. UTL Nonparametric upper tolerance limit based on the background (upgradient) data; maximum detected concentration.
I Concentration exceeds the UTL value
B - Result is less than reporting limit, but greater than method detection limit. J - Result is an estimated value (J+ = estimated high; J- = estimated low).
NA - Not analyzed.
G:\APROJECT\Laheland\groundwaler sampling\September 2009\Stat Tables (Sep 2009).xls[lnorganics (Down)] - 1/13/2010 Page 8 of 14
Table 7. Analytical Results for Inorganics in Downgradient Wells and Comparison to the Nonparametric Upper Tolerance Limits, Lakeland Disposal Landfiii, Ciuypuui, indiana.
Constituent
Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron
Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Chloride Cyanide, Total
Well ID: Sample Date-
UTL
2.6 0.0025 0.0126
0.39 ND
0.0013 280
0.066 0.032 0.042 44.7
0.046 78
1.54 ND
0.0426 7.5 ND ND 9.7 ND
0.061 0,17 45 ND
GMMW-12 9/20/06
<0.20 < 0.0060 < 0.010 0.049
< 0.0040 < 0.0020
100 0.0014 B 0.0025 B 0.0034 B
<0.10
< 0.0050 23
0.17 < 0.00020 0.0040 B
0.63 < 0.010 < 0.0050
3.4 < 0.0020 < 0.0050 0.0065 B
<2.0 < 0.010
GMMW-12 3/20/07
0.028 J <0.001
0.00044 J 0.028 <0.001 <0.0005
110 0.00084 J 0.00016 J
<0.002 <0.10
<0.001 22
0.02 <0.00020 0.0016 J 0.34 J 0.0026 <0.0005
2.7 <0.0020 <0.0050 0.0039 J
<2 <0.010
GMMW-12 9/12/07
0.025 0.00034 <0.001 0.036 <0.001 0.00011
110J <0.005 0.0002J <0.002B
<0.1
<0.001B 21
0.089 <0.00020B
0.0026 0.51
0.0011 <0.0005
2.3 0.00038 <0.0050 <0.010B
<2B <0.010
GMMW-12 3/13/08
0.2J <0.002 <0.005 0.035 <0.005
<0.0025 98
<0.025 <0.005 0.0038J
0.31J
<0.0025B 20
0.68 <0.00020 <0.010 0.52J
<0.013 <0.0025
1.8 <0.0020 <0.025 <0.100 0.88J <0.010
GMMW-12 9/23/08
0.049J <0.002B 0.00024J
0.03 <0.001 <0.0005
95J 0.00059J <0.001 0.0016J
0.07J
<0.0005B 21
0.088 <0.00020 0.0018J
0.59 0.0004
<0.0005 2.3
<0.0020 0.00048J <0.020B
0.48J <0.010
GMMW-12 3/3/09
0.0S9J <0.002
0.00017 J 0.026 <0.001 0.0003J
85 <0.005J <0.001B 0.0023 0.071J
<0.0005B 17
0.200J <0.00020 0.0066J 0.350J 0.0027 <0.0005
1.7 <0.0020 0.00043J <0.020B
0.74J <0.010
GMMW-12 9/28/09
0.16 <0.002B 0.00037J
0.031 <0.001
0.00042J 87
<0.005 0.0012 0.0023 0.22
<0.0005B 17
0.53 <0.00020 0.0094 0.41J 0.0052
<0.0005 1.7
<0.0020 <0.0050 <0.020
<2 <0.010
GMPZ-12 2/?fi/95
52 <• 0.050 0.046 0.81
< 0.0050 < 0.0050
450 0.10 0.050 0.12 100
0.048 140 2.1
0.00020 0.13 15
< 0.020 < 0.010
23 < 0.010
0.13 0.29 NA
< 0.010
GMPZ-12 12/17/02
0.034 B < 0.020 < 0.010
0.11 < 0.0040 < 0.0020
14 < 0.010 < 0.0050 < 0.010 < 0.050
< 0.0050 8.7
< 0.010 < 0.00020 0.0083 B
3.4 < 0.010 < 0.0050
22 < 0.010 < 0.0050 0.017 B
<2.0 < 0.010
GMPZ-12 3/26./03
NA < 0.020
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
0.0032
NA NA
< 0.00020 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1.9
< 0.010 J
GMPZ-12 6/17/03
0.37 < 0.020 < 0.010
0.18 < 0.0040 < 0.0020
33 < 0.010 < 0.0050 0.0023 B
0.53
< 0.0050 12
0.034 < 0.00020 0.0038 8
2.5 < 0.010 < 0.0050
23 < 0.010 < 0.0050 < 0.020 1.4 B
< 0.010
GMPZ-12 9/24/03
0.14 B 0.0023 B < 0.010
0.20 < 0.0040 < 0.0020
45 < 0.010 < 0.0050 < 0.010
0.36
< 0.0050 9.9
0.025 < 0.00020 0.0053 B
3.1 J < 0.010 < 0.0050
24 < 0.010 < 0.0050 < 0.020 1.1 BJ < 0.010
GMPZ-12 12/9/03
0.042 B < 0.0060 < 0.010
0.11 < 0.0040 < 0,0020
16 < 0.010 < 0.0050 0.0016 B 0.042 B
< 0.0050 3.6
0.0030 B < 0.00020 0.0051 B
4.1 < 0.010 < 0.0050
23 1 < 0.0020 < 0.0050 < 0.020 1.3 B
< 0.010
ND UTL
Data qualifiers:
All analytical results are given in units of milligrams per liter (mg/L)
Not detected In the background (upgradient) wells. Nonparametric upper tolerance limit based on the background (upgradient) data; maximum detected concentration.
3Concentration exceeds the UTL value
B - Result is less than reporting limit, but greater than method detection limit. J - Result Is an estimated value (J+ = estimated high; J- = estimated low).
NA- Not analyzed.
G.W»ROJECTALalieland\aroundwater sampling\Seplember 2009\Stat Tables (Sep 2009).xlsllnoi^anics (Down)] -1/13/2010 Page 9 of 14
Table 7. Analytical Results for Inorganics in Downgradient Wells and Comparison to the Nonparametric Upper Tolerance Limits, Lakeland Disposal Landfiii, Ciaypooi, Indiana.
Constituent
Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron
Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Chloride Cyanide, Total
Well ID: Sample Date:
UTL
2.6 0.0025 0.0126 0.39 ND
0.0013 280
0.066 0.032 0.042 44.7
0.046 78
1,54 ND
0.0426 7.5 ND ND 9.7 ND
0.061 0.17 45 ND
GMPZ-12 3/16/04
<0.20 < 0.0060 < 0.010
0.20 < 0.0040 < 0.0020
42 < 0.010 < 0.0050 < 0.010
0.20
< 0.0050 8.0
0.012 < 0.00020 0.0058 B
3.8 < 0.010 < 0.0050
23 < 0.0020 J < 0.0050 < 0.020 2.0 B
< 0.010
GMPZ-12 6/16/04
<0.20 < 0.0060 < 0.010
0.16 < 0.0040 < 0.0020
26 0.0035 B < 0.0050 < 0.010
0.25
< 0.0050 10
0.018 < 0.00020 0.0039 B
3.6 < 0.010 < 0.0050
23 < 0.0020 < 0.0050 0.014 B
1.9 B < 0.010
GMPZ-12 9/14/04
<0.20 < 0.0060 < 0.010 0.095
< 0.0040 < 0.0020
22 < 0.010 < 0.0050 < 0.010 < 0.050
0.0035 B 1.2
< 0.010 0.000064 B 0.0060 B
4.1 < 0.010 < 0.0050
t 21 < 0.0020 < 0.0050 < 0.020
2.9 < 0.010
GMPZ-12 12/14/04
<0.20 < 0.0060 < 0.010
0.22 < 0.0040 < 0.0020
36 < 0.010 < 0.0050 < 0.010 < 0.050
0.0028 B 14
0.015 < 0.00020 0.0037 B
3.8 J < 0.010 < 0.0050
22 < 0.0020 < 0.0050 < 0.020
2.7 < 0.010
GMPZ-12 3/30/05
<0.20 < 0.0060 < 0.010
0.18 < 0.0040 < 0.0020
48 < 0.010 < 0.0050 < 0.010 < 0.050
< 0.0050 0.78
< 0.010 < 0.00020
0.012 4.7 J
< 0.010 < 0.0050
21 < 0.0020 < 0.0050 < 0.020
2.8 < 0.010
GMPZ-12 6/21/05
<0.20 < 0.0060 < 0.010
0.11 < 0.0040 < 0.0020
4.4 0.0014 B 0.0018 B 0.0026 B < 0.050
< 0.0050 1.8
0.0020 B < 0.00020
0.011 3.7
< 0.010 0.0010 B
22 < 0.0020 0.0025 B < 0.020
3.3 < 0.0034 B
GMPZ-12 9/13/05
«0.20 < 0.0060 < 0.010
0.13 < 0.0040 < 0.0020
31J 0.0016 B < 0.0050 < 0.010 < 0.050
< 0.0050 1.0 J
< 0.010 < 0.00020
0.010 3.8 J
< 0.010 < 0.0050
20 < 0.0020 < 0.0050 0.013 B
3.5 < 0.010
GMPZ-12 3/28/06
<0.20 < 0.0060 < 0.010 0.017
< 0.0040 < 0.0020
5.3 0.0015 B < 0.0050 < 0.010 < 0.050
< 0.0050 5.6
< 0.010 < 0.00020 0.0075 B
3.9 J < 0.010 < 0.0050
22 < 0.0020 -• 0.0050 < 0.020
2.3 < 0.010
GMPZ-12 9/20/06
<0.20 < 0.0060 J
< 0.010 0.013
< 0.0040 < 0.0020
5.6 < 0.010 < 0.0050 <0 010 <0.10
< 0.0050 20
< 0.010 < 0.00020
<0.010 3.0 J
< 0.010 < 0.0050
22 < 0.0020 < 0.0050 < 0.020 2.0 B
< 0.010
GMPZ-12 3/20/07
0.021 J <0.001 0.0065
0.25 <0.001 <0.0005
28 B <0.O05
0.00025 J <0.002
0.2
<0.001 27
0.043 <0.00020 0.0012 J
1.9 <0.0025 <0.0005
25 <0.0020 <0.0050 0.0051 J
<2 <0.010
GMPZ-12 9/12/07
<0.1 <0.001 0.0059 { 0.24
<0.001 0.00069
29J <0.005 0.00018 <0.002B
0.12
<0.001 24
0.032 <0.00020B
0.0009 2
<0.0025 <0.0005
24 <0.0020 <0.0050 <0.010 2.5J :.0.010
GMPZ-12 3/13/08
<0.5 <0.002 0.013 0.36
<0.005 <0.0025
36 <0.025 <0.005 <0.01 0.59
<0.0025 30
0.046 <0.00020 <0.010
2.2J <0.013 <0.0025
28 <0.0020 <0.025 vO.100 0.90J < 0.010
GMPZ-12 9/23/08
<0.1 <0.002 0.015 1 0.33
<0.001 <0.0005
36J <0.005
0.00034J <0.002 0.57J
<0.0005 29J
0.038 <0.00020 0.00044J
1.7 <0.0025 <0.0005
27J <0.0020 <0.0050 <0.020B
0.68J •iO.OlO
All analytical results are given in units of milligrams per liter (mg/L)
ND Not detected in the background (upgradient) wells. UTL Nonparametric upper tolerance limit based on the background (upgradient) data; maximum detected concentration.
Data qualifiers:
J Concentration exceeds the UTL value
B - Result is less than reporting limit, but greater than method detection limit. J - Result is an estimated value (J-i- = estimated high; J- = estimated low).
NA- Not analyzed.
G:\APROJECT\Lakeland\groundwater sdmpling\September 2009\Stat Tables (Sep 2009).xls[lnorganics (Down)] - 1/13/2010 Page l O o f U
Table 7. Analytical Results for Inorganics in Downgradient Wells and Comparison to the Nonparametric Upper Tolerance Limits, Lakeland Disposal Landfiii, Ciaypooi, indiana.
Constituent
Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron
Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Chloride Cyanide, Total
Well ID: Sample Date:
UTL
2.6 0.0025 0.0126
0.39 ND
0.0013 280
0.066 0.032 0.042 44.7
0.046 78
1.54 ND
0.0426 7.5 ND ND 9.7 ND
0.061 0.17 45 ND
GMPZ-12 3/3.'09
0.029J O.OOIJ 0.0021 0.021 <0.001 <0.0005
4 <0.005J <0.001J 0.00058J <0.100
<0.0005 9.2
0.00043J <0.00020 0.0043J
3.5 <0.0025 <0.0005
23 <0.0020 <0,0050 <0.020B
2.6 <0,01Q
GMPZ-12 9/28,'09
<0.1 <0.002B
0.004 0.023 <0.001 <0.0005
7.5 <0.005
o.ooou 0.00068J <0.100
<0.0005B 16
<0.0025B <0.00020
0.0023 2.9
<0.0025 <0.0005
25 <0.002B <0.0050 <0,020
1.8 <0.Q10
GMMW-19 12/18./02
0.029 B < 0.020 0.014 0.94
< 0.0040 < 0.0020
290 < 0.010 < 0.0050 < 0.010
14
< 0.0050 78
0.12 < 0.00020
0.012 41
< 0.010 < 0.0050
130 < 0.010 < 0.0050
0.016 240 J
< 0.010
GMMW-19 3./26./03
NA < 0.020
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
0.019 NA NA
0.000061 NA
1 NA NA NA
1 NA NA NA NA
1 270 < 0.010 J
GMMW-19 6/17/03
2.3 < 0.020 0.024 0.87
< 0.0040 < 0.0020
260 0.0047 B 0.0022 B 0.0079 B
25 0.0042 B
77 0.20
< 0.00020 0.019
32 < 0.010 < 0.0050
130 < 0.010 0.0050 < 0.037
230 < 0.010
GMMW-19 9/24/03
0.17 B < 0.003 0.021 0.86
< 0.0040 < 0.0020
230 < 0.010 < 0.0050 < 0.010
20
< 0.0050 76
0.13 < 0.00020
0.014 31 J
< 0.010 < 0.0050
140 < 0.010 < 0.0050 < 0.020
240 < 0.010
GMMW-19 12/9.'03
0.10 B < 0.0060
0.012 0.78
< 0.0040 < 0.0020
200 < 0.010 < 0.0050 0.0017 B
14
< 0.0050 72
0.11 < 0.00020
0.014 26
< 0.010 < 0.0050
120 < 0.0020 < 0.0050 < 0.020
220 < 0.010
GMMW-19 3/16.'04
2.4 J < 0.0060
0.013 0.86
< 0.0040 < 0.0020
220 0.0042 B 0.0021 B 0.0062 B
26
< 0.0050 76
0.18 < 0.00020
0.020 23 J
0.0069 B < 0.0050
120 < 0.0020 J
0.0060 0.020 B
240 < 0.010
GMMW-19 6/16.'04
0.99 < 0.0060
0.011 0.88
< 0.0040 < 0.0040
210 0.0022 B 0.0010 B < 0.010
21
< 0.0050 76
0.15 0.000072 B
0.017 24
< 0.010 < 0.0050
120 < 0.0020 < 0.0050 < 0.020
220 < 0.010
GMMW-19 9/14,/04
<0.20 < 0.0060
0.014 0.86
< 0.0040 < 0.0040
210 < 0.010 < 0.0050 < 0.010
19
< 0.0050 73
0.14 0.00025 0.014
25 < 0.010 < 0.0050
120 < 0.0020 < 0.0050 < 0.020
290 < 0.010
GMMW-19 12/15/04
<0.20 < 0.0060 < 0.010
0.83 < 0.0040
0.00031 B 210
< 0.010 0.0010 B < 0.010
15
< 0.0050 77
0.12 0.00074 J
0.014 24 J
< 0.010 < 0.0050
120 < 0.0020 J < 0.0050 < 0.020
230 < 0.010
GMMW-19 3/30./05
0.11 B < 0.0060
0.011 0.85
< 0.0040 < 0.0020
210 0.0017 B 0.0013 B < 0.010
27 J
< 0.0050 76
0.13 0.00067 J
0.018 22J
< 0.010 < 0.0050
120 < 0.0020 0.0022 B < 0.020
240 < 0.010
GMMW-19 6/21/05
<0.20 < 0.0060 < 0.010
0.78 1 < 0.0040 < 0.0020
200 < 0.010 < 0.0050 < 0.010
19
< 0.0050 73
0.12 0.00011 B
0.017 19J 1
< 0.010 < 0.0050
120 1 < 0.0020 -: 0.0050 < 0.020
220 1 < 0.010
Data qualifiers:
All analytical results are given in units of milligrams per liter (mg/L)
ND Not detected In the background (upgradient) wells. UTL Nonparametric upper tolerance limit based on the background (upgradient) data; maximum detected concentration.
I Concentration exceeds the UTL value
B - Result is less than reporting limit, but greater than method detection limit. J - Result is an estimated value (J+ = estmated high; J- = estimated low).
NA - Not analyzed.
G:\/VPROJECT\Lakeland\9roundwater sampllng\Seplember 2009\Stat Tables (Sep 2009).xls(lnorganics (Down)] - 1/13/2010 Page 11 of 14
Table 7. Analytical Results for Inorganics in Downgradient Weils and Comparison to the Nonparametric Upper Tolerance Limits, Lakeland Disposal Landfiii, Ciaypooi, indiana.
Constituent
Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron
Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Chloride Cyanide, Total
Well ID: Sample Dale-.
UTL
2.6 0,0025 0.0126 0.39 ND
0,0013 280
0,066 0,032 0,042 44.7
0.046 78
1.54
ND 0.0426
7.5 NP ND 9.7 ND
0.061 0.17 45 ND
GMMW-19 9/13/05
<0.20 < 0.0060 < 0.011
0.76 1 < 0.0040 < 0.0020
200 J < 0.010
< 0.0050 < 0.010
18 J
< 0.0050 71 J
0.13 J < 0.00020
0.013 21J 1
< 0.010 < 0.0050
110 1 < 0.0020 J < 0.0050 < 0.020
230 r 0.0044 B
GMMW-19 3/26/06
<0.20 < 0.0060 0.0096 B
0.87 < 0.0040 < 0.0020
230 < 0.010 < 0.0050 < 0.010
20
< 0.0050 76
0.10 0.00013 B
0.014 28 J
< 0.010 < 0.0050
130 < 0.0020 < 0.0050 < 0.020
280 < 0.010
GMMW-19 9/21/06
«:0.20 < 0.0060
0.012 0.80
< 0.0040 < 0.0020
180 < 0.010
0.0018 B < 0.010
18
< 0.0050 71
0.097 < 0.00020
0.013 21 J
< 0.010 < 0.0050
120 < 0.0020 < 0.0050
0.00096 B 220
< 0.010
GMMW-19 3/20/07
0.023 J <0.001 0.011 0.73
<0.001 <0.0005 200 B 0.0012 0.0011 <0.002
22
0.0001 J 73
0.094 <0.00020 0.017 B
15 <0.0025 <0.0005 120 B
<0.0020 <0.0050 0.0056 J
280 0.0018 J
GMMW-19 9/12/07
0.028 0.00019 0.011 0.83
•cO.OOl <0.0005
170J 0.0011 0.00095 <0.002B
17
<0.0010B 60
0.092 <0.00020B
0.013 18
<0.0025 <0.0005
110 <0.0020 <0.0050 <0.010B
250 <0.010
GMMW-19 3/13/06
<0.5 <0.002 0.016 0.86
<0.005 <0.0025
180 <0.025 <0.005 <0.01
27
<0.0025 73
0.099 <0.00020
0.017 16
<0.013 <0.0025
120 <0.0020 <0.025 <0.100
230 <aoio
GMMW-19 9/24/06
<0.1 <0.002 0.016 0.98
<0.001 <0.0005
21 OJ 0.00092J
0.0012 <0.002
23
<0.0050B 77
0.11 <0.00020
0.014 23.00
<0.0025 <0.0005 140.00
<0.0020 0.0011 J <0.020B 220.00 <0010
GMMW-19 3/3/09
0.038J <0.002 0.019 0.83
0.00048J <0.0005
170 0.0017 J O.OOIU <0.002
26
<0.0005B 66
0.089J <0.00020 0.017J 16.00
<0.0025 <0.0005 120.00
<0.0020J 0.0018J <0.020B 210.00 <0.010
GMMW-19 9/26/09
0.024J <0.002B
0.012 0.78
<0.001 <0.0005
180 <0.005 0.0012 <0.002
19
<0.0005B 66
0.099 <0.00020
0.014 18.00
<0,0025 <0,0005 110.00
<0,002B <0.005 <0.020 200.00 <0.010
GMMW-20 12/16/02
0.030 B < 0.020 < 0.010 0.095
< 0.0040 < 0.0020
260 < 0.010
0.0014 B < 0.010 < 0.050
< 0.0050 87
0.30 < 0.00020 < 0.010
9.7 < 0.010 < 0.0050
38 < 0.010 < 0.0050
0.015 27
< 0.010
GMMW-20 3/26/03
NA < 0.020
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
< 0.0050 NA NA
< 0.00020 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 23
< 0.010 J
GMMW-20 6/17/03
<0.20 < 0.020 < 0.010 0.050
< 0.0040 < 0.0020
240 < 0.010
0,0026 B < 0.010 < 0.050
< 0.0050 83
0.29 < 0.00020 0.0056 B
7.0 < 0.010
< 0.0050 55
< 0.010 < 0.0050 < 0.027
26 < 0.010
GMMW-20 9/24/03
0.029 B < 0.003 < 0.010 0.043
< 0.0040 < 0.0020
240 < 0.010
0.0032 B ^0.010
0.20
< 0.0050 80 1
0.30 < 0 00020 0.0038 B
7.8 J < 0.010
< 0.0050 49 1
0.0076 B < 0.0050 < 0.020
23 J < 0.010
ND UTL
Data qualifiers:
Ail anaiyiitai lesulis are given in units of miiligrams per liter (mg/L)
Not detected in the background (upgradient) wells. Nonparametric upper tolerance limit based on the background (upgradient) data; maximum detected concentration.
3 Concentration exceeds the UTL value
B - Result is less than reporting limit, but greater than method detection limit. J - Result is an estimated value (J+ = estimated high; J- = estimated low).
NA - Not analyzed.
G:\APROJECT\Lakeland\groundwalor sampling\September 2009\Slat Tables (Sep 2009).xls[lnoiganics (Down)] -1/13/2010 Page 12 of 14
Table 7. Analytical Results for inorganics in Downgradient Weils and Comparison to the Nonparametric Upper Tolerance Limits,
Constituent
Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper iron
Lead Magnesium Mariganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Chloride Cyanide, Total
Well ID: Sample Date:
UTL
2.6 0.0025 0.0126
0.39 ND
0,0013 280
0,066 0,032 0,042 44,7
0,046 78
1,54 ND
0,0426 7.5 ND ND 9.7 ND
0.061 0.17 45 ND
Lakeland Dis
GMMW-20 12/10/03
0.042 B < 0.0060 < U.OIO 0.037
< 0.0040 < 0.0020
240 < 0.010
< 0.0050 0.0034 B < 0.050
< 0.0050 80
0.084 < 0.00020 0.0035 B
6.5 < 0.010
< 0.0050 41
< 0,0020 < 0.0050 < 0.020
23 < 0.010
posal Landriil,
GMMW-20 3/16/04
<0.20 < 0.0060 < 0.010 0.034
< 0.0040 < 0.0020
250 < 0.010 < 0.0050 < 0.010 < 0.050
< 0.0050 1 82
0.034 0.000055 B 0.0036 B
5.2 < 0.010 < 0.0050
1 38 < 0.0020 J < 0.0050 < 0.020
22 < 0.010
Ciaypooi , indiana.
GMMW-20 6/16/04
<0.20 < 0.0060 < 0.010 0.036
< 0.0040 < 0.0020
270 < 0.010
0.0020 B < 0.010
0.58
<• 0.0050 1 86
0.34 < 0.00020 0.0052 B
5.5 < 0.010 '=0.0050
1 35 < 0.0020 < 0.0050 < 0.020
22 < 0.010
GMMW-20 9/14/04
<0.20 < 0.0060 < 0.010 0.037
< 0.0040 •c 0.0020
270 < 0.010 0.0081 < 0.010
2.3
«: 0.0050 1 84
0.75 0.000094 B 0.0053 B
5.4 < 0.010 < 0.0050
1 43 < 0.0020 < 0.0050 < 0.020
22 < 0.010
GMMW-20 12/1.5/04
0.037 B < 0.0060 < 0.010 0.030
< 0.0040 < 0.0020
280 •=0.010
0.0028 B < 0.010
0.53
< 0.0050 93
0.25 < 0.00020 0.0021 B
5.4 J < 0.010 < 0.0050
39 < 0.0020 J < 0.0050 0.017 B
20 < 0.010
GMMW-20 3/30./05
0.018 B < 0.0060 < 0.010 0.027
< 0.0040 < 0.0020
290 < 0.010 0.011
< 0.010 3.1 J
< 0.0050 96 1.6
< 0.00020 0.010 4.7 J
< 0.010 < 0.0050
52 < 0.0020 0.0018 B < 0.020
17 < 0.010
GMMW-20 6/22./05
<0.20 0.0030 J 0.0058 B
0.032 < 0.0040 < 0.0020
290 < 0.010
0.0034 B < 0.010
4.4
< 0.0050 94
0.49 < 0.00020 0.0054 B
4.8 J < 0.010 < 0.0050
46 < 0.0020 < 0.0050 < 0.020
17 < 0.010
GMMW-20 9/13./Q5
<0.20 ] < 0.0060
< 0.010 0.026
< 0.0040 0.00062 B
] 270 J < 0.010
0.0037 B < 0.011 2.1 J
< 0.0050 1 88J
0.42 J < 0.00020 0.0036 B
5.8 J < 0.010 < 0.0050
1 46 < 0.0020 < 0.0050
0.033 16
0.0038 B
GMMW-20 3,/29,/06
<0.20 0.0026 B < 0,010 0.016
< 0.0040 < 0.0020
320 < 0.010
0.0038 B < 0.010
4.5
< 0.0050 100 0.84
< 0.00020 0.0022 B
4.2 J 0.0046 B < 0.0050
63 < 0.0020 < 0.0050 < 0.020
14 < 0.010
GMMW-20 9,'21,'Oe
<0.20 < 0.0060
0.011 0.020
< 0.004O < 0.0020
310 1 < 0.010
0.0021 B < 0.010
8.6
< 0.0050 100 0.57
< 0.00020 < 0.010 5.7 J
< 0.010 < 0.0050
62 < 0.0020 J < 0.0050 < 0.020
12 < 0.010
RMMW-7n 3/20/07
<0.1 <0.001 0.0029 0.011 <0.001
<0.0005 310 B <0.005 0.0037 <0.002
2.7
0.000089 J 97
0.78 <0.00020 0.0051 B
3.5 <0.0025 <0.0005
86 B 0.0003 J <0.0050 0.0089 J
9.3 <0.010
GMMW-20 G/12'07
0.04 <0.001 0.0032 0.017 <0.001
0.000084 ] 250J
<0.005 0.0018
<0.0020B 5.3
<0.0010B
] ^ 0.35
<0.00020 0.003 4.2
<0.0025 0.000033
1 67 0.00046 <0.005
<0.010B 11
<0.010
a>iAM\M-?0
3/13/08
<0.5 <0.002 0.0058 0.017J <0.005 <0.0025
250 <0.025 0.0027J <0.01 6.3
<0.0025 84 1
0.37 <0.00020 0.0037J
3.2 <0.013 <0.0025
51 1 «:0.0020 <0.025 <0.100
6.3 <0.010
L Data qualifiers:
All analytical results are given In units of milligrams per liter (mg/L)
ND Not detected in the background (upgradient) wells. UTL Nonparametric upper tolerance limit based on the background (upgradient) data; maximum detected concentraUon.
[Concentration exceeds the UTL value
B - Result is less than reporting limit, but greater than method detection limit. J - Result is an estimated value (J+ = estimated high; J- = esUmated low).
NA- Not analyzed.
G.\APROJECT\Lakeiand\groundwale/ sampiingVSeptember 2009\Stat Tables (Sep 2009).xlsllnorganics (Down)] -1/13/2010 Page 13 of 14
Table 7. Analytical Results for Inorganics in Downgradient Weils and Comparison to the Nonparametric Upper Tolerance Limits, Lakeland Disposal Landfill, Ciaypooi, Indiana.
Constituent
Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron
Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium vanadium Zinc Chlonde Cyanide, Total
Well ID: Sample Date:
UTL
2.6 0.0025 0.0126 0.39 ND
0.0013 280
0,066 0,032 0,042 44.7
0.046 78
1.54 ND
0.0426 7.5 ND ND 9.7 ND
0.061 0.17 45 ND
GMMW-20 9/24/08
0.046J <0.002 0.012 0.019 <0.001 <0.0005
240J <0.005 0.0018 <0.002
7.6
<0.00050B 81
0.34 <0.00020 0.0031
4.2 <0.0025 <0.00050
52 <0.0020 <0.005 <0.020B
6.7 <0.010
GMMW-20 3/3/09
0.0032J 0.0013J 0.0031 0.016 <0.001 <:0.0005
230 0.00054J 0.0051J 0.00064J
1.9
<0.0005B 71
1.1J <0.00020 0.0051J
3 «:0.0025 <0.00050
39 <0.0020 <0.0050 <0.020B
4.6 <0.010
GMMW-20 9/28/09
0.030J <0.002B 0.0058 0.017 <0.001 <0.0005
250 <0.005 0.0015 <0.002
4.1
<0.0005B 75
0.31 <0.00020 0.0029
3.5 <0.0025 <0.00050
40 1 <0.0020 ^0.0050 <0.020
4 <0.010
Data qualifiers:
All analytical results are given in units of milligrams per liter (mg/L)
ND Not detected in the background (upgradient) wells. UTL Nonparametric upper tolerance limit based on the background (upgradient) data; maximum detected concentration.
I Concentration exceeds the UTL value
B - Result Is less than reporting limit, but greater than method detection limit. J - Result Is an estimated value (J+ = estimated high; J- = estimated low).
NA- Not analyzed.
G:\APROJECT\Lakeland\groundwater sampling^eptember 2009\Stat Tables (Sep 200g).xlsllnorganics (Down)] - 1/13/2010 Page 14 of 14
Tsute 8. "asut ts of KruSkaiS-WSiMS Tssts for COMipari5on of Downgrauieiit CoriCeiitrdUuns iu upgrauieni Cunceniraiions, Lakeland Disposal Landfil l, Ciaypooi, Indiana.
Kruskal-Wallis Sig? Downgradient Wells fb l : Constituent P Value [a] GMMW-6 GMPZ-6 GMMW-7 GMPZ-7 GMMW-12 GMPZ-i? G M M \ ^ . 1 9 GUMUU.2Q
Volatile Organic Compounds
Chloroethane 1,1-Dichloroethane 1,2-Dichloroethane 1,1-Dichloroethene 1,2-Dichloroethene Trichloroethene Vinyl Chloride
Inorganics Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Chloride Cyanide, Total
•- U.UUVJ 1
< 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0 0001 0.9661
< 0.0001 0.9897 0.8038
0.9650 [c] 0,8377
< 0.0001 < 0.0001 0.8746 0.9945
< 0.0001 0.5721 0.1961 0.9869
< 0.0001 0.8832
< 0.0001 < 0.0001 0.3437
< 0.0001 < 0.0001 0.5940 0.8066
< 0.0001 0.8752 0.4836 0.5664
< 0.0001 0.6934
YES YES YES YES no
YES no no
no no
YES YES no no
YES no no no
YES no
YES YES no
YES YES no no
YES no no no
YES no
> > >> ns ns — ns — —
— ns
>> — — ns — — — >> — ns
>> — ns
>> — — >> — — — ns —
IIS
ns ns ns
ns ns
ns ns
ns >>
ns ns ns ns
ns ns
ns
ns ns
ns ns
ns ns ns ns
ns >>
ns ns
ns ns
ns ns ns ns
ns ns
ns
ns ns
ns ns
ns ns ns ns
ns ns
ns ns
ns ns
> > > > > > > >
ns ns ns ns
> > >>
ns ns
ns ns
>> >>
ns
>> >>
ns > >
[a] One or more downgradient wells are significantly different from background if the Kruskal-Wallis p value is bekiw 0.05 (95% significance level). [b] Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test was used as the post test of Kurskal-Wallls Test to determine which well(s) had a significant difference compared to backgrounds wells. [c] The Knjskal-Wallls p value is betow 0.05. However, results of Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test showed no downgradient wells are significantly different from background. The Mann-Whitney test p values is 0,7928, indicating no significant difference between downgradient wells and background.
> > The data are significantly greater than tha upgradient data. < < The data are significantly less than the upgradient data.
ns - not significant
G:\APROJECr\Lakaiand\8roundwaier sampiinavsepiember 2009\Stal Tables (Sep 2009).xls(WRS] -1/13/2010 Page 1 of 1
Tdbiu 3. nHsuiiK ni miiMn-Knndall Trend Tests for L'ata 5ets indicated as Signiticantiy Migher Than upgradieni Conk;«>Miralions, Lakeland Disposal Landfill, Claypool, Indiana.
Consiiiuant Downgradient Wells: lal
GMiwW-6
Volatile Oraanic ComDOunds Benzene Chloroethane 1,1-Oichloroethane 1,2-Dichloroethane 1,1-Dichloroethene 1,2-Dichloroetfiene Trichloroethene Vinyl Cliloride
Inooranics Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Chloride Cyanide, Total
no trend decreasing
— — — — — —
— — —
, Jncawiinfl — — — — — —
decraasing
— —
decreasing
— —
no trend
— —
decreasing
— — — — —
GMP2-e
— — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
decreasing — —
no trend — — — — —
— „Jn6fM»tofl-
decreasing no trend
GMMW-19
decreasing decreasing decreasing
no trend
decreasing
no trend decreasing
no trend
—
no trend decreasing
decreasing
decreasing
—
GMMW-20
---
—
_
no trend
—
no trend JncfMiInn
.:_ decreasing
Incfatlnn
—
—
UDoradient Wells: GMMW-13
— — —
—
—
no trend
no trend
no trend
— no trend
. wwfina
no trend
—
[a] Tests for trend were applied to each downgradient data set for which a significant difference (above) background was noted in the Kruskall-Wallis Tests (Table 8).
Page 1 of 1