HAND OUT - PROJECT SUMMARY.pdf

INDIANA HARBOR AND CANAL

CONFINED DISPOSAL FACILITY

DREDGING AND FACILITY OPERATION SUMMARY

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Chicago District 111 N. Canal, Suite 600 Chicago, Illinois 60606

February 4, 2011

Indiana Harbor and Canal – Dredging & Facility Operation Overview January 27, 2010 ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction

1.1. Project History

1.2. Project Objectives

2. Confined Disposal Facility Layout and Features

2.1. Site Layout

2.2. Groundwater Protection System

2.3. Wastewater Treatment

3. Dredging and Placement

3.1. Dredging Operations

3.1.1. Sediment Quality and Characteristics

3.1.2. Dredging Equipment and Methods

3.1.3. Debris Handling

3.1.4. Monitoring Resuspension and Environmental Controls During Dredging

3.2. Sediment Placement

4. Operation and Management of the IHC CDF

4.1. Water Management

4.2. Air Monitoring

Appendix A: Sediment Characteristics Appendix B: Groundwater and Hydrocarbon Quality on the ECI Site Appendix C: Anticipated Water Quality in CDF

FIGURES

Figure 1: Indiana Harbor and Canal – Channel Reaches Figure 2: Estimated Groundwater Extraction Rates Assuming Placing Sediment in Cell 1 in Year 1 and in Cell 2 in Year 2

TABLES

Table 1: Air Monitoring Requirements

Abbreviations and Acronyms

BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand CAA Clean Air Act CDF Confined Disposal Facility CMP Comprehensive Management Plan CWA Clean Water Act DOD Department of Defense DDR Design Documentation Report EAP Emergency Action Plan ECI Energy Cooperative, Inc.

ERDC Engineering Research and Development Center FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement iii

GCR Grand Calumet River HAP Hazardous Air Pollutant HQUSACE Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers IAC Indiana Administrative Code IDEM Indiana Department of Environmental Management IDNR Indiana Department of Natural Resources IHC Indiana Harbor and Canal LWD Low Water Datum MOU Memorandum of Understanding NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Unit O&M Operations and Maintenance OAQ Office of Air Quality PAH Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyl PPE Personal Protective Equipment RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act SVOC Semi Volatile Organic Compound TSS Total Suspended Solids TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency VOC Volatile Organic Compound WWTP Waste Water Treatment Plant

1. INTRODUCTION

The Indiana Harbor and Canal (IHC) Dredging & Facility Operation Summary includes a review of pertinent background information, a description of various regulatory and dredging issues, assumptions and rationale for decisions and references project documentation. The purpose of this plan is to present an overview of the project requirements and major tasks. Plans, outline specifications, bid schedule and contractor evaluation criteria for the project can be found in the attached documents.

The IHC dredging project is not a typical federal navigational dredging project because it involves dredging heavily contaminated sediment and the placement of the dredged material into a confined disposal facility (CDF) located on a former industrial site. Moreover, this former industrial site currently has open Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) status and contains buried contaminants. Due to environmental issues, this project requires compliance with multiple regulations, including the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), RCRA, the Clean Air Act (CAA), and the Clean Water Act (CWA). Consequently, this overview will provide a general description of the project aspects to ensure site worker and public safety, the minimization of environmental impacts, regulatory compliance and sufficient coordination between the dredging and CDF operations.

This Overview is intended to notify and initiate feedback from the public and potential bidders about the project in order to award a biddable, operable, constructible and environmentally sound set of USACE contract plans and specifications. Prior to commencing work, the contractors will be required to prepare plans for quality control, health and safety, contingencies, environmental protection and other work plans as typical for USACE projects. USACE representatives will provide operation management and quality assurance of all dredging and facility operations.

1.1. Project History

Indiana Harbor is located in East Chicago, Lake County, Indiana. It is on the southwest shore of Lake Michigan, 4.5 miles east of the Indiana-Illinois state line and 17 miles from downtown Chicago. The Indiana Harbor and Canal (IHC) (Figure 1) has an entrance channel and outer harbor protected by breakwaters and an inner harbor. The inner harbor consists of the Indiana Harbor Canal and its two branches. The main channel extends from the lakeward E.J. & E.

Railway Bridge to “The Forks,” a distance of 7,400 ft. Near “The Forks,” there is a small turning basin located on the southeast side of the canal about 600 ft lakeward of Canal Street.

From “The Forks,” the Lake George Branch extends west for a distance of 6,800 ft, and the Calumet River Branch extends south for about 2 miles where it joins the Grand Calumet River.

In order to facilitate an investigation of sedimentation rates and patterns, the Federal navigation channel of the IHC was divided into thirteen reaches, as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Indiana Harbor and Canal – Channel Reaches

The Forks

EJ&E

Railway Bridge

CDF Site

Turning Basin #2

Lake George Branch

Calumet River Branch

1.2. Project Objectives

The objectives of the Indiana Harbor and Canal Navigation Maintenance Dredging and Confined Disposal Facility Operation are:

a. To restore and maintain the navigable depth of Indiana Harbor and its channels;

b. To ensure that dredging and disposal activities do not pose an unacceptable risk to the environment or human health during, between, and after implementation; and,

c. To execute the dredging and disposal activities in a cost-effective manner.

2. CONFINED DISPOSAL FACILITY LAYOUT AND FEATURES

The CDF consists of components that will both contain the contaminated dredged material and provide RCRA closure for the former ECI site. The containment area consists of dikes constructed of compacted clay, with an interior dike for water control and to facilitate sediment management, and collection of the water, groundwater in the CDF for treatment. The features of RCRA closure are the perimeter clay cap/erosion control, the slurry wall around the site perimeter, the groundwater gradient control system and treatment of groundwater (USACE and USEPA 1999). After the CDF operation ceases in the future, the entire site will be covered with a RCRA cap for final closure.

2.1. Site Layout

The CDF has two disposal cells separated by an interior cross dike that runs north-south. Each cell has a weir box that will be used to decant water during dredging and dewatering. The south side of the site contains support facilities, including a parking lot, an administration building, a pad for a portable wastewater treatment plant, a decontamination station, a material storage area and a crane pad. The groundwater gradient control system is a system of pumps/extraction wells located around the perimeter of the dikes that pumps groundwater into the east cell of the CDF.

Ditches are located on the perimeter of the site to carry clean precipitation runoff from outside of the containment area to the canal. The site has perimeter security fencing, motorized cantilever access gates with electronic key cards, high-mast site lighting, surveillance closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras and an intrusion detection system along the southern border of the site (for motion detection of intruders accessing the site from the canal). Refer to the attached plan drawings for the IHC CDF site layout.

2.2. Groundwater Protection System

The purpose of the groundwater protection system is to prevent contaminants from migrating outside the CDF property. Contaminant migration is prevented by establishing a 2 ft inward groundwater gradient. The gradient control system is made up of two elements, a slurry cutoff wall and a groundwater gradient control system. The cutoff wall has a hydraulic conductivity of approximately 10-7 cm/s, and it is tied into the existing clay layer that is 30-35 ft below the ground surface. The gradient control system consists of groundwater extraction wells inside the cutoff wall. Pumping groundwater from the wells will cause an inward gradient that draws down the water table by 2 ft inside the cutoff wall when compared to the water table outside the cutoff wall. The pumped groundwater will sent to the CDF for holding, and subsequently to the WWTP for treatment prior to discharge. Figure 2 shows the estimated groundwater pumping rates. The groundwater drawdown is underway, with water being pumped, treated, and discharged to the canal under an NPDES industrial permit.

The gradient control system consists of 88 vertical wells around the perimeter. These wells are grouped in banks of 4, with one set of monitoring wells controlling each bank. For each set of monitoring wells, one monitoring well is located outside the slurry wall perimeter and one within. The wells and extraction system have been designed to keep free product out of the well screens. The wells are linked to a collection header which runs near the ground surface and drains via gravity to two collection sumps. One sump is located in the southeast corner, the other in the southwest corner. Water from the collection sumps is pumped to the CDF for storage prior to treatment and discharge. Two force mains connect the sumps to the CDF; both mains discharge into the east cell of the CDF.

Figure 2: Estimated Groundwater Extraction Rates Assuming Placing Sediment in Cell 1 in Year 1 and in Cell 2 in Year 2.

2.3. Wastewater Treatment

Based on a ponded CDF operation, water will be held for a period of time in the CDF allowing some water to evaporate. In addition, natural physical, chemical and biological processes would result in better quality water in the CDF requiring different treatment processes.

The primary pollutants of concern (POCs) in the water to be treated in the WWTP include, but are not limited to, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), ammonia, metals, total suspended solids (TSS), and oil and grease. The anticipated concentrations of these constituents are included in Appendix C. Because the WWTP will be a package plant, the exact processes needed to meet the effluent quality required in the NPDES permit will be determined by the contractor. There are multiple processes that could be used. In general, it is anticipated that the treatment train will include: a solids removal process, an ammonia removal process and an activated carbon filter for removal of trace bioaccumulative compounds and for final polishing.

The flowrate for the treatment plant may also vary, but the average annual volume of water to be treated is expected to be approximately 61 MG, dependent on precipitation and air temperature.

This volume to be treated will be adjusted in the field as needed, to maintain a pond while removing excess water from the CDF. The CDF operation contractor must maintain the pond covering the entire sediment surface, while also maintaining a minimum 2 ft freeboard inside the CDF. The amount of water will be managed by varying the treated quantity.

The facilities provided for wastewater treatment include electrical connections, a material storage pad and a pad for placing a package plant. The wastewater treatment plant pad is located on the south side of the facility (see plan drawings). Water to be treated will be drawn from either cell and will be pumped to the wastewater treatment plant. After treatment, the water will be discharged to the Lake George Branch of the canal. A permit to discharge will be acquired by USACE prior to project award.

It is anticipated that the WWTP will include instrumentation, controls and alarms to automate the majority of the operation of the treatment plant, as is typical for treatment operations. The exact nature of the instrumentation will be determined by the facility operation contractor.

3. DREDGING AND PLACEMENT

Coordination with stakeholders and regulators will be required to ensure dredging operations are performed in accordance with permits and do not interfere with shipping operations. A notice to navigation needs to be provided prior to dredging. Currently, IHC does not have a port authority, although the East Chicago Waterways Management District performs some of the functions of a port authority.

3.1. Dredging Operations

Prior to dredging hydrographic surveys will be required to provide bathymetry and to evaluate shoaling. Dredging will be conducted throughout the IHC Federal navigation channel to authorized depths and widths. Dredging will also be performed in cooperation with private industries in their respective berthing areas outside the authorized Federal channel to depths commensurate with depths in the Federal channel.

Dredged material quantities (per year) were estimated based on dredging the entire Federal navigation project to authorized depths and dredging the listed berthing areas to commensurate depths. Bathymetry gathered in 2008 was used for the quantities presented. Authorized depths range from -22 ft Low Water Datum (LWD) in the upper canal reaches to -29 ft LWD in the entrance channel. The current estimate includes 2 ft of over-depth dredging. The total backlog dredging volume is estimated to be approximately 1.8 million cubic yards.

3.1.1. Sediment Quality and Characteristics

Sediment in the Indiana Harbor and Canal contains a wide variety of pollutants that originated in past, unregulated, industrial waste handling and discharge practices. Although the material is not characteristically hazardous and is not corrosive, ignitable or reactive, the sediment should still be considered contaminated and potentially dangerous for direct human contact. The sediment contains variable concentrations of heavy metals, organic compounds (including petroleum based compounds, chlorinated organics, and pesticides), and nutrients (ammonia and phosphorus). Appendix A contains a summary of the compounds found in the sediment. Two areas of the canal have small volumes of sediment containing Total PCB concentrations greater than 50 mg/kg and those areas of sediment are regulated under TSCA, although the average PCB concentration is much less than this. Except for the sediment regulated under TSCA, the sediment in the Indiana Harbor and Canal is not regulated as hazardous material. The IHC sediment is predominately (65%) silts and clays. The sediment is similar to a highly plastic clay.

3.1.2. Dredging Equipment and Methods

Dredging of the sediments will be performed using mechanical dredging equipment. This will consist of a crane mounted on a barge equipped with an appropriate mechanical and modified environmental type bucket. The mechanical dredging equipment will be designed and operated to minimize turbidity from the resuspension of sediment to the water column, to minimize the spillage of dredged material and to minimize the quantity of water removed with the dredged material. Activities that can exacerbate resuspension, such as free-falling or dropping the bucket, dragging the bucket along the bottom and dropping the material from a large height above the scow, will be prohibited in the Indiana Harbor and Canal dredging. Spillage will be minimized during dredging and rehandling operations. The volume of dredged material placed into the transport barges shall not exceed the barge’s capacity to hold the material without over-flowing or spilling while in motion or at rest.

3.1.3. Debris Handling

Any material that cannot be hydraulically off-loaded will be considered debris. Debris may be separated from the dredged material at the dredging site or adjacent to the CDF—contractor’s separation process must be compliant with the terms of the project documents. Debris will be unloaded from the barges using a government-furnished crane. Debris will either be hauled off-site for recycle or will be placed in the west cell of the CDF where it will be covered with dredged sediment. Debris to be placed within the CDF will be hauled to the top of the dikes via truck and will be off-loaded into the west cell by a government furnished crane.

3.1.4. Monitoring Resuspension and Environmental Controls During Dredging

The contractor will monitor turbidity upstream and downstream of the dredging operation, using real time turbidity meters. Turbidity will be measured 600 ft upstream and downstream of the dredging operation, and at 50% and 80% of the water depth. A value of 50 NTU above background was selected as representing a downstream impact. This value is consistent with what has been done at other dredging projects across the country; there are no general dredging constraints or turbidity requirements for dredging operations.

The Indiana Harbor and Canal sediment is generally very oily. Historically, a number of bank areas have experienced uncontrolled oil seeps due to the presence of free-phase oil on the groundwater. It is anticipated that some oil will be released into the water column during dredging. This oil would be visible as sheen on the water surface. To control oil, oil booms will be deployed downstream of the dredging operation. The booms will be inspected frequently (at least every two hours during dredging) and excess oil will be removed using sorbent materials.

The booms will be changed as needed. For both turbidity monitoring and oil boom maintenance, the dredging contractor will need to have an approved work plan that lays out the dredging area specific details of the monitoring and reporting for these activities.

3.2. Sediment Placement

The dredged material will be placed hydraulically into the IHC CDF. Loaded hopper barges will be pushed by a tugboat up the Lake George Canal to the ECI site. The bridge at Indianapolis Boulevard will be raised to allow the barges to pass. The bridge is controlled by the Indiana Department of Transportation and bridge openings will need to be coordinated with that agency.

A hydraulic off-loader mounted on a barge will be anchored in the Lake George Canal. Water recycled from the CDF through a pipeline will be injected into the dredged material to produce slurry that will be pumped from the barge through a pipeline to the CDF. Barge-level filling controls will be implemented to prevent dredged material from spilling into the canal.

Dredged material will be pumped through the pipeline from the off-loader to one or both cells in the CDF. Once in the CDF, the solids will settle out and the water will be returned by pumping back to the off-loader for use in slurrying additional dredged material. After dredging is completed, the water will be left in the CDF cells to allow additional settlement and other processes to improve the water quality prior to treatment. The accumulated water plus subsequent precipitation will also form the pond to cover the sediment and for the next dredge event hydraulic off-loading operation.

To facilitate ponding with a practical minimal ponded depth of 2 - 3 ft, attention must be provided to the uniform distribution of fine-grained dredged material in the CDF cells. The dredged material should be pumped into the CDF at multiple points throughout the length of the CDF at spacing approximately 600 ft to limit differences in the dredged material height to about 1 ft along the length of the cells. Sediment will be placed in even layers to the extent possible.

All debris will be placed in the west cell (and it is noted that the presence of debris will likely impede placement of the sediment in an even layer in that cell).

To minimize volatile emissions, sediment being placed in the CDF may not be “sprayed” into the open air or broadcast across a wide area. Rather, the sediment placement location must be as low as possible within the CDF, and ideally at or below the water level. The exact design of the placement system piping, valving and other features will be the responsibility of the contractor.

4. OPERATION AND MANAGEMENT OF THE IHC CDF

The IHC CDF will require year-round operation and management since some activities will occur regardless of season or dredging. The following sections describe the minimum activities needed at various times. These descriptions are not necessarily all inclusive. Routine site maintenance activities such as mowing, snow removal and building maintenance are not a part of this project.

4.1. Water Management

The gradient control system for the site is described in section 2.2. This system will pump continuously (year round) to maintain an inward 2 ft groundwater gradient at the site. It is anticipated that pump maintenance will be needed year round.

Rinsing water and run-off from the crane pad, debris pad and decontamination pad drains via gravity to the groundwater gradient system where it is pumped to the east cell of the CDF with the groundwater. To prevent sediment from clogging the gradient piping system, shut-off valves and catch basins have been installed along the decontamination and debris pad drainage lines.

Depending on the amount of usage, these systems will need periodic maintenance.

Because the groundwater gradient system always discharges into the East Cell of the CDF, that cell will tend to accumulate more water than the west cell. To maintain sufficient freeboard, prevent overtopping of the center dike, and maintain the center dike stability, the facility operations contractor may need to pump water from the east cell to the west cell, for storage. In addition, water treatment and discharge will be needed to maintain the pond. Water treatment and discharge may be needed at any time of the year, dependent on precipitation, groundwater flows and the dredging operation.

4.2. Air Monitoring

The air surrounding the CDF will be monitored for number of pollutants, including PCBs, PAHs, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and particulate matter (including total metals). Sampling stations for ambient air monitoring will be located around the CDF exterior dike. Ambient air monitoring will follow the National Ambient Air Monitoring Program schedule of one 24 hour sample taken every 6 days. Real time monitoring for naphthalene and particulates will also occur. The air monitoring requirements are summarized in Table 1. The action levels presented in Table 1 will require response actions by the dredging Contractor. A range of responses are possible; the Contractor must propose response actions for government approval prior to the start of dredging.

Air monitoring data will be reported on a website. The website will developed and maintained by the facility operation contractor. Real time air monitoring data will be available to the public in near real time reporting. Ambient air monitoring will be posted after analysis and data quality control activities are completed. The Contractor will also report on the website, any response actions taken if action levels are exceeded. The website that the contractor maintains will be accessible by a link on the USACE IHC project webpage, but the website operated by the contractor will not be a “USACE” website.

Table 1: Air Monitoring Requirements

Short-Term Air Monitoring Parameter Frequency Action Level Possible Response

Actions Reporting Elements Example

Equipment Detection Limit

Initial 15 minute exceedance of 50 µg/m3

Investigate source of emissions

Particulate Emissions

Continuous, 15 minute average

Second 15 minute exceedance of 50 µg/m3

Activate control measures

Thermo-Scientific Model 5030

0.5 ug/m3

150 ug/m3 (24 hour average) over 24 hour period

Monitor emissions to confirm that emissions don’t approach 5 day action level

300 ug/m3 (24 hour average) for 5 consecutive days

Implement emissions control measures

Naphthalene Emissions

Continuous, 1 hour and 24 hour averages

5,000 ug/m3 (1 hour Maximum)

Cease CDF disposal activities

Quarterly reports submitted to IDEM within 30 days of the end of the quarter.

Submit copies of all records within 20 days of a written request.

UV-Sentry Gas Analyzer ppbV (1 ppbV = 5.24 ug/m3)

Long-Term Air Monitoring Parameter Frequency Action Level Possible

Response Actions

Reporting Elements Example Equipment

Detection Limit

PAHs

BTEX

PCBs Particulate Emissions

Standard 1 in 6 day calendar, 24 hour sample

Compliance with the IDEM registration limits will be demonstrated with the Thibodeaux emissions model.

NA The actual in-situ dredged volumes of sediments placed in the CDF will be reported within thirty (30) days of the end of each calendar quarter in which dredging and placement took place.

High Volume Sampler

Dependent on Volume of Air Sampled

APPENDIX A: SEDIMENT CHARACTERISTICS

The Indiana Harbor and Canal sediment contains a wide range of organic compounds, metals, and nutrients due to many years of pre-Clean Water Act discharges. The canal has been sampled numerous times for various purposes. Concentrations found along the canal vary and may have decreased over time, however it is difficult if not impossible to demonstrate any clear trends in concentration either spatially or temporally.

Table A-1 gives a summary of concentrations of some parameters measured in the sediment.

More detailed information is available, and confirms the range of compounds found in the sediment. Physical characteristics of the sediment were also measured. The physical characteristics are summarized in Table A-2.

Table A- 1. Summary of Historic Sediment Data

Chemical

USACE

20041

(mg/kg)

MWH

20032

(mg/kg)

WES

20033

(mg/kg)

USEPA

1992-934 (mg/kg)

USEPA

19895

(mg/kg)

USACE

19876

(mg/kg)

Range (mg/kg) min - max PAHs Acenaphthene 2.8 1.6 1.740 21.7 - 110 1.2 110 Acenaphthylene 0.38 - 0.333 27 - 22 0.333 27 Anthracene 1.8 - 2.280 26 3.45 64 1.4 64 Benzo(a)anthracene 5.9 4.4 6.690 39.6 11.65 110 2.6 110 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 11 6.4 7.520 39.6 - 165 3.9 165 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 4.7 - 4.600 12.8 131 115 4.6 131 Benzo(a)pyrene 2.5 4.0 7.320 26.6 15.5 165 2.5 165 Benzo(ghi)perylene 5.5 - 5.190 11.2 125 42 5.19 125 Chrysene 3.8 4.9 9.490 62.1 16.7 98 3.3 98 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 0.63 - 1.260 11.8 - 4.67 0.63 11.8 Fluoranthene 6.8 7.3 10.60 69.8 11.8 175 4.8 175 Fluorene 1.8 1.3 2.190 36.9 3.2 83 0.79 83 Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene 2.4 - 4.840 53.9 95 60 2.4 95 Naphthalene 1.5 1.6 2.650 478.4 6.2 2050 1.2 2050 Phenanthrene 4.6 3.5 6.930 192.4 11.45 210 2.4 210 Pyrene 6.4 8.6 16.00 91 27.0 145 5.2 145

BTEX

Benzene 0.076 0.039 0.072 3.09 - 1.26 0.072 77 Ethylbenzene 0.076 0.020 0.072 0.739 - 0.986 0.072 22 Toluene 0.076 0.031 0.030 4.94 - 0.476 0.03 42 Xylenes, Total 0.500 0.060 0.015 0.782 - 1.41 0.015 66 PCBs PCB(Aroclor-1248) 0.13 4.4 - 10.98 - 29.4 0.13 29.4 PCB Total - - 35.6 12.0 4 35.6 Other Organic Compounds Dibenzofuran 3.1 1.2 - - - 10.2 1.2 10.2 Vinyl Chloride .076 - 0.072 - - - 0.072 0.076

Notes: 1. Except as otherwise noted, values are averages for each sampling event.

2. “-” indicates that samples were not analyzed for that parameter.

1 IHC CDF Wastewater Treatability Study, October 2004. Sediment samples were collected and composited September 13-18, 2004 from four locations in the IHC (two samples within the anchorage and maneuvering basin, one sample in the canal main stem near river station 70, and one sample in the Calumet River Branch).

2 IHC CDF Wastewater Treatment, Wastewater Stream Generation, Characterization and Electro-coagulation Study Report – Final, Table 4. Dec 2003. Average of four samples from Lake George Branch.

3 Waterways Experiment Station (WES) July 2003. Samples from Outer Harbor only.

4 Averages from EPA Region V Core Sampling in 1992 and USACE Chicago District Sediment Depth Probing and Sediment Sampling conducted in 1993, as documented in 2008 USACE Ponded Operations Decision Memorandum.

5 EPA collected seven bulk sediment grab samples from Indiana Harbor in August 1989 and thirty-seven bulk core samples from Indiana Harbor in November 1990; results are summarized in the July 1996 Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments (ARCS) report. Median data provided.

6 1987. "Disposal Alternatives for PCB-Contaminated Sediments from Indiana Harbor, Indiana, Volume II, Appendix F, Table B, Miscellaneous Paper EL-87-9, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/mpel87-9-V2.pdf

Table A-2: IHC Sediment Physical Characteristics

Parameter Canal Branch and Lake George - Composite

Grain size:

Gravel % 0 Sand % 35 silt + clay % 65 Moisture content 51 Soil classification highly plastic clay (CH) Specific Gravity 2.71 Unit Weight, pcf (dry) 71 Unit Weight, pcf (sat) 107 Organic content (Total organic carbon) %

Liquid Limit 60 Plasticity Index 33 Undrained shear strength, su, tsf Not Available Drained shear strength phi’ Not Available Modulus of Compressibility, tsf Not Available Compression Index, Cc Not Available Permeability, cm/s 8.66 x 10-8 Thickness, ft varies

APPENDIX B: GROUNDWATER AND HYDROCARBON QUALITY ON

THE ECI SITE

The following is a summary of the ECI site history as it pertains to groundwater conditions.

Groundwater on the site is historically high, with the water table within a few feet of the ground surface. The existing ground surface is fill and rubble, or “urban land” as it is locally referred to.

Extensive boring data are available for the site, but are not included in this document.

Former owners of the project site include Sinclair from 1918 to 1968, Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO) from 1968 to 1976, and Energy Cooperative, Incorporated (ECI) from 1976 to 1981. In 1981, ECI filed for bankruptcy, and in the late 1980s, all buildings and above ground structures were razed in response to a court order. Several inches of clean topsoil were graded to cover the site. In 1989, the City of East Chicago became the owner of the site as payment for back taxes owed by ECI. The site has open Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) status because the court-approved closure of the facility was not comparable to a RCRA approved closure. In addition, the site requires RCRA corrective action, due to the contamination of soil and groundwater on site from past industrial activities.

A hydrocarbon layer has been intermittently encountered during groundwater monitoring activities since the beginning of the site investigations in 1991. Measurements taken approximately every two weeks from November 1991 through March 1992 indicated that the hydrocarbon layer is not continuous throughout the site. The measured layer thickness varied from 0 to 7.9 ft thick. During groundwater sampling activities conducted in November 1995, free product was only present in a few wells. The thickness of free product varied from less than

0.1 ft to over 3 ft. In 1991, oil was discovered to be seeping into the canal. An oil recovery system was installed along the north bank of the canal (the south edge of the main refinery parcel), and operated on the site until 2005. In addition to the oil recovery system, oil booms are maintained in the canal to control any continued seepage (including from adjacent parcels).

Several groundwater sampling events have occurred at the ECI site. Wells located on the main refinery parcel were sampled in 1991, 1993 through 1994, and 1995. Groundwater samples collected in June and November of 1991 were analyzed for volatiles, semi-volatiles, dissolved and total metals. Pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were also analyzed in the November, 1991 sampling event. The highest concentration of volatiles was detected at the north end of the site; this well also contained free product. The highest concentration of pesticides was also found at the north end of the site. The only PCB detected was Aroclor 1254, which was found in a concentration of 0.004 mg/L. The range of detected contaminants is summarized in Table B-1.

Table B-1: Groundwater Sampling and Analysis Results from 1991.

Compound Range Benzene 0.02 - 57 mg/L Chlorobenzene 0.002 - 0.02 mg/L Chloroform ND - 0.04 mg/L 1,2-dichloroethane ND - 0.06 mg/L α-chlordane 0.01 - 1.2 µg/L (estimated)1 γ-chlordane 0.0064 - 3.3 µg/L (estimated) Endrine 0.013 - 0.06 µg/L (estimated) Heptachlor 0.013 - 0.055 (estimated) Heptachlor epoxide 0.0085 - 1.6 µg/L (estimated) Methoxychlor 0.025 - 0.32 µg/L (estimated) Arsenic 0.004 - 0.1 mg/L (estimated) Barium 0.09 - 1.5 mg/L Chromium 0.007 - 0.2 mg/L (estimated) Lead 0.01 - 2 mg/L (estimated) Mercury 0.0005 - 0.004 mg/L (estimated) Aroclor 1254 0.004 mg/L Pesticides 15.2 µg/L (estimated)

1The concentration ranges followed by the notation "estimated" means the laboratory provided a quantitative estimate.

Groundwater samples were collected from the four recovery wells along the north bank of the canal in 1993 and 1994. The samples were collected quarterly and analyzed for metals and volatiles. This water was being injected into the subsurface through a re-infiltration trench on site. Table B-2 gives a summary of the results.

Table B-2: Groundwater Sampling and Analysis Results from 1993-1994.

Arsenic ND - 0.06 Lead ND - 0.02 mg/L Acetone ND - 0.05 mg/L Benzene ND - 0.25 mg/L Ethylbenzene ND - 0.03 mg/L Methyl tert butyl ether ND - 0.43 mg/L Total Xylene ND - 0.15 mg/L

In 1995, groundwater samples were taken from four existing wells and four new wells. Samples were analyzed for volatile organics, semi-volatile organics, PCBs, total metals, phenolics, oil and grease, cyanide, and general water quality parameters. The detected compounds are summarized in Table B-3. All metal concentrations were low (< 0.5 mg/L for all metals) and are not reported.

Table B-3: Groundwater Sampling and Analysis Results from 1995.

Benzene ND - 19 µg/L Naphthalene ND - 7 µg/L Total Xylene ND - 9 µg/L Cyanide ND - 0.032 mg/L Phenolics ND - 0.13 mg/L Oil and grease ND - 371 mg/L

The free product from four wells was sampled in July 1991 and in January 1992. The hydrocarbon samples were analyzed for volatiles, RCRA metals, PCBs, and physical characteristics. Table B-4 summarizes the results of detected compounds for all tests except the physical characteristics. The sample with the PCB concentration of 850 mg/kg was collected from a well located by the canal at the southern end of the property.

Table B-4: Hydrocarbon Layer Analytical Results, 1991 - 1992.

Parameter Range of detected concentrations Number of samples collected

Number of samples with detected values

Benzene 51 – 920 mg/kg 4 4 Ethylbenzene 230 – 670 mg/kg 4 4 Toluene 51 – 920 mg/kg 4 4 Xylene 470 – 2300 mg/kg 4 4 Arsenic 0.5 – 2.3 mg/kg 4 3 Barium 0.2 – 0.5 4 2 Chromium 0.5 – 1.8 mg/kg 4 2 Lead 2.5 – 6 mg/kg 4 3 PCBs (Total) 3 – 850 mg/kg 4 1

The high PCB concentration detected in July of 1991 led to a more extensive investigation of PCBs in the hydrocarbon layer. A total of 25 samples were collected from 13 wells and 5 piezometers over a time period from October, 1991 to February, 1992. Seven out of the 25 samples collected contained detectable concentrations of PCBs. All of the detected concentrations were from wells or piezometers by the canal at the southern edge of the main refinery parcel. The detected PCB concentration ranged from 3 to 63 mg/kg.

The site groundwater and soil is presumed to contain the types and concentrations of constituents described above. Additional site groundwater and soil sampling was not conducted after CDF construction activities started in 2001, and is not planned. The amount of free-phase hydrocarbons left on site is unknown, but it is presumed that oil is still present on the groundwater table since oil seeps appear on the site in areas of high groundwater.

APPENDIX C: ANTICIPATED WATER QUALITY IN CDF

Operating the CDF as a ponded facility impacts the influent characteristics and the volume of water to be treated. The anticipated water characteristics of the WWTP influent are summarized in Table C-1. For comparison, Table C-1 also shows the influent characteristics used in the original WWTP design. Much of the difference in water quality is impacted by a significant change in the CDF operation: during the ponded operation, water will be held for several months in the ‘pond’ prior to treatment, as opposed to the traditional CDF operation during which water is decanted from the dredged sediment and treated immediately after dredging. The concentration ranges for the ponded operation take into account dilution from precipitation, settling, volatilization, and biological conversion of various dissolved constituents. A comparison of key water quality parameters shows that concentrations are significantly lower for ponded operation, including TSS, BOD, COD, TOC, and ammonia.

The anticipated volume of water to be treated for the ponded operation is also lower, since the extended holding time will allow for higher evaporation losses. The assumed treatment volume may range from 25 – 75 million gallons per year, depending on weather conditions and dredge volumes (as well as on the groundwater pumping rates, which are expected to decrease over time). The flowrate assumed for the package treatment plant is 250 gallons per minute, based on the 99th percentile net precipitation volume of 61 million gallons per year and a 6 month treatment period.

Table C - 1 Estimated IHC CDF WWTP Influent Concentration Ranges

Analyte Name

Previous Estimated

WWTP

Influent Conc.

Estimated

WWTP

Influent Conc.

(Avg..)

Estimated

WWTP

Influent Conc.

(Max.)

General Chemistry (mg/L)

Color, color unit color unit 150 120 120 pH, pH unit pH unit 7.93 7.93 7.93

Total Volatile Solids mg/L 280 2.8 6.3

Total Dissolved Solids mg/L 220 176 398

Total Suspended Solids mg/L 180 1.8 30

Bromide mg/L 0.28 0.224 0.36

Chloride (As Cl) mg/L 10 U 8 18

Fluoride mg/L 1 0.8 2

Nitrogen, Nitrate (As N) mg/L 0.015 U 16 36

Nitrogen, Nitrite (As N) mg/L 0.015 U 55 124

Sulfate (As SO4) mg/L 5.9 4.72 11

Cyanide, Amenable To Chlorination mg/L 0.017 0.0017 0.004

Nitrogen, Ammonia (As N) mg/L 81 8.1 16.2

Phosphorus, Total (As P) mg/L 0.82 0.41 0.93

Sulfide mg/L 0.1 U 0.001 0.002

Sulfite (As SO3) mg/L 2 U 0.02 0.05

Biologic Oxygen Demand mg/L 12 J 1.2 2.7

Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen Demand mg/L 9.6 0.96 2.17

COD ‐ Chemical Oxygen Demand mg/L 110 33 74.54

Oil & Grease mg/L 18 1.8 2.88

Total Organic Carbon mg/L 38 11.4 22

Surfactants mg/L 0.12 0.012 0.03

Hardness (As CaCO3) mg/L 150 120 192

Metals (ug/L)

Aluminum ug/L 2000 400 1280

Antimony ug/L 9.5 U 7.6 30.4

Arsenic ug/L 16 12.8 40.96

Barium ug/L 55 44 140.8

Beryllium ug/L 0.95 U 0.76 2.43

Boron ug/L 130 104 332.8

Cadmium ug/L 1.1 0.88 2.82

Chromium ug/L 59 47.2 151.04

Analyte Name

Previous Estimated

WWTP

Influent Conc.

Estimated

WWTP

Influent Conc.

(Avg..)

Estimated

WWTP

Influent Conc.

(Max.)

Chromium, III ug/L 59 47.2 151.04

Chromium, VI ug/L 5 U 4 12.8

Cobalt ug/L 6.4 U 5.12 16.38

Metals (ug/L) (continued)

Copper ug/L 48 38.4 122.88

Iron ug/L 17000 13600 43520

Lead ug/L 150 120 384

Magnesium ug/L 17000 13600 43520

Manganese ug/L 260 208 665.6

Mercury ug/L 0.17 0.085 0.27

Molybdenum ug/L 19 15.2 48.64

Nickel ug/L 18 14.4 46.08

Selenium ug/L 6.4 U 5.12 16.38

Silver ug/L 0.64 U 0.512 1.64

Strontium ug/L 120 96 307.2

Thallium ug/L 3.2 U 2.56 8.19

Tin ug/L 55 44 140.8

Titanium ug/L 41 32.8 104.96

Vanadium ug/L 9.5 U 7.6 25.6

Zinc ug/L 730 584 1868.8

PCBs (ug/L)

Arochlor 1016 ug/L 0.1 U 0.02 0.53

Arochlor 1221 ug/L 0.1 U 0.02 0.53

Arochlor 1232 ug/L 0.1 U 0.02 0.53

Arochlor 1242 ug/L 0.1 U 0.02 0.53

Arochlor 1248 ug/L 0.36 0.072 1.92

Arochlor 1254 ug/L 0.1 U 0.02 0.53

Arochlor 1260 ug/L 0.1 U 0.02 0.53

Total PCBs ug/L 0.36 J 0.072 1.92

Pesticides (ug/L)

Aldrin ug/L 0.05 U 0.02 0.059 alpha‐BHC ug/L 0.05 U 0.02 0.03 alpha‐Endosulfan ug/L 0.05 U 0.02 0.03 beta‐BHC ug/L 0.05 U 0.02 0.03 beta‐Endosulfan ug/L 0.05 U 0.02 0.03

Chlordane ug/L 0.13 U 0.052 0.23 delta‐BHC ug/L 0.05 U 0.02 0.03

Dieldrin ug/L 0.025 U 0.01 0.015

Analyte Name

Previous Estimated

WWTP

Influent Conc.

Estimated

WWTP

Influent Conc.

(Avg..)

Estimated

WWTP

Influent Conc.

(Max.)

Endosulfan sulfate ug/L 0.05 U 0.02 0.03

Endrin ug/L 0.05 U 0.02 0.03

Endrin aldehyde ug/L 0.05 U 0.02 0.03

Heptachlor ug/L 0.05 U 0.02 0.059

Heptachlor epoxide ug/L 0.05 U 0.02 0.03

Lindane ug/L 0.05 U 0.02 0.03

Methoxychlor ug/L 0.05 U 0.02 0.03

Pesticides (ug/L) (continued)

Mirex ug/L 0.05 U 0.02 0.03 p,p'‐DDD ug/L 0.05 U 0.02 0.03 p,p'‐DDE ug/L 0.05 U 0.02 0.03 p,p'‐DDT ug/L 0.05 U 0.02 0.03

Toxaphene ug/L 2.5 U 1 1.5

PAHs (ug/L)

2‐Methylnaphthalene ug/L 5 U 1 16.69

Acenaphthene ug/L 5 U 1 16.69

Acenaphthylene ug/L 5 UJ 1 16.69

Anthracene ug/L 1 UJ 0.2 12.28

Benzo(a)anthracene ug/L 0.54 0.108 6.63

Benzo(a)pyrene ug/L 1.4 0.28 3.8

Benzo(b)fluoranthene ug/L 2.2 J 0.44 1.5

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene ug/L 1.1 J 0.22 0.26

Benzo(k)fluoranthene ug/L 0.74 0.148 0.8

Chrysene ug/L 0.94 0.188 1.9

Dibenz(a,h)Anthracene ug/L 0.12 UJ 0.024 0.67

Fluoranthene ug/L 0.73 J 0.146 2.43

Fluorene ug/L 0.7 U 0.14 2.34

Indeno(1,2,3‐cd)pyrene ug/L 0.89 0.178 0.53

Naphthalene ug/L 5 UJ 1 16.69

Phenanthrene ug/L 0.36 J 0.072 1.2

Pyrene ug/L 1 0.2 3.34

VOCs (ug/L)

1,1,1‐Trichloroethane ug/L 1 U 0.1 0.15

1,1,2,2‐Tetrachloroethane ug/L 1 U 0.1 0.15

1,1,2‐Trichloroethane ug/L 1 U 0.1 0.15

1,1‐Dichloroethane ug/L 1 U 0.1 0.15

1,1‐Dichloroethene ug/L 1 U 0.1 0.15

1,2,4‐Trimethylbenzene ug/L 1 U 0.1 0.75

Analyte Name

Previous Estimated

WWTP

Influent Conc.

Estimated

WWTP

Influent Conc.

(Avg..)

Estimated

WWTP

Influent Conc.

(Max.)

1,2‐Dibromoethane ug/L 1 U 0.1 0.15

1,2‐Dichlorobenzene ug/L 1 U 0.1 0.15

1,2‐Dichloroethane ug/L 1 U 0.1 0.15

1,2‐Dichloropropane ug/L 1 U 0.1 0.15

1,3,5‐Trimethylbenzene ug/L 1 U 0.1 0.75

1,3‐Dichlorobenzene ug/L 1 U 0.1 0.15

1,3‐Dichloropropene ug/L 1 U 0.1 0.15

1,4‐Dichlorobenzene ug/L 1 U 0.1 0.15

2‐Chloroethyl Vinyl Ether ug/L 5 U 0.5 0.75

4‐Methyl‐2‐Pentanone ug/L 10 U 1 1.5

Acetone ug/L 25 U 2.5 3.75

VOCs (ug/L) (continued)

Acrylonitrile ug/L 10 U 1 1.5

Benzene ug/L 1 U 0.1 0.31

Bromodichloromethane ug/L 1 U 0.1 0.15

Bromoform ug/L 1 U 0.1 0.15

Bromomethane ug/L 1 U 0.1 0.15

Carbon disulfide ug/L 5 U 0.5 0.75

Carbon tetrachloride ug/L 1 U 0.1 0.15

Chlorobenzene ug/L 1 U 0.1 0.15

Chloroethane ug/L 1 U 0.1 0.15

Chloroform ug/L 1 U 0.1 0.15

Chloromethane ug/L 1 U 0.1 0.15 cis‐1,2‐Dichloroethene ug/L 1 U 0.1 0.15

Dibromochloromethane ug/L 1 U 0.1 0.15

Ethylbenzene ug/L 1 U 0.1 0.15

Methyl ethyl ketone ug/L 10 U 1 1.5

Methyl tert‐butyl ether ug/L 5 U 0.5 0.75

Methylene chloride ug/L 5 U 0.5 0.75

Styrene ug/L 1 U 0.1 0.15

Tetrachloroethene ug/L 1 U 0.1 0.15

Toluene ug/L 1 U 0.1 0.17 trans‐1,2‐Dichloroethene ug/L 1 U 0.1 0.15

Trichloroethene ug/L 1 U 0.1 0.15

Vinyl chloride ug/L 1 U 0.1 0.15

Xylenes (total) ug/L 3 U 0.3 0.45

SVOCs (ug/L)

1,2,4‐Trichlorobenzene ug/L 5 U 1 1.5

Analyte Name

Previous Estimated

WWTP

Influent Conc.

Estimated

WWTP

Influent Conc.

(Avg..)

Estimated

WWTP

Influent Conc.

(Max.)

1,2‐Diphenylhydrazine ug/L 5 U 1 1.5

2,4,5‐Trichlorophenol ug/L 5 U 1 1.5

2,4,6‐Trichlorophenol ug/L 5 U 1 1.5

2,4‐Dichlorophenol ug/L 5 U 1 1.5

2,4‐Dimethylphenol ug/L 5 U 11 1.5

2,4‐Dinitrophenol ug/L 20 U 4 6

2,4‐Dinitrotoluene ug/L 5 U 1 1.5

2,6‐Dinitrotoluene ug/L 5 U 1 1.5

2‐Chloronaphthalene ug/L 5 U 1 1.5

2‐Chlorophenol ug/L 5 U 1 1.5

2‐Methylphenol ug/L 5 U 1 1.5

2‐Nitrophenol ug/L 5 U 1 1.5

3,3'‐Dichlorobenzidine ug/L 5 U 1 1.5

4,6‐Dinitro‐2‐methylphenol ug/L 20 U 4 6

4‐Bromophenyl Phenyl Ether ug/L 5 U 1 1.5

SVOCs (ug/L) (continued)

4‐Chloro‐3‐methylphenol ug/L 5 U 1 1.5

4‐Chlorophenyl Phenyl Ether ug/L 5 U 1 1.5

4‐Methylphenol ug/L 5 U 1 1.5

4‐Nitrophenol ug/L 20 U 4 6

Benzidine ug/L 100 U 20 30

Benzoic Acid ug/L 5 U 1 1.5

Benzyl Butyl Phthalate ug/L 5 U 1 1.5

Bis(2‐Chloroethoxy) Methane ug/L 5 U 1 1.5

Bis(2‐Chloroethyl) Ether ug/L 5 UJ 1 1.5

Bis(2‐Chloroisopropyl) Ether ug/L 5 U 1 1.5

Bis(2‐Ethylhexyl) Phthalate ug/L 5 U 1 1.5

Dibenzofuran ug/L 5 U 1 1.5

Diethyl Phthalate ug/L 5 U 1 1.5

Dimethyl Phthalate ug/L 5 U 1 1.5

Di‐N‐Butyl Phthalate ug/L 5 U 1 1.5

Di‐N‐Octylphthalate ug/L 5 U 1 1.5

Hexachlorobenzene ug/L 5 U 1 1.5

Hexachlorobutadiene ug/L 5 U 1 1.5

Analyte Name

Previous Estimated

WWTP

Influent Conc.

Estimated

WWTP

Influent Conc.

(Avg..)

Estimated

WWTP

Influent Conc.

(Max.)

Hexachlorocyclopentadiene ug/L 5 U 1 1.5

Hexachloroethane ug/L 5 U 1 1.5

Isophorone ug/L 5 U 1 1.5

Nitrobenzene ug/L 5 U 1 1.5

N‐Nitrosodiisopropylamine ug/L 5 U 1 1.5

N‐Nitrosodimethylamine ug/L 5 UJ 1 1.5

N‐Nitrosodiphenylamine ug/L 5 U 1 1.5

Pentachlorophenol ug/L 5 U 1 1.5

Phenol ug/L 5 U 1 1.5

Dioxins (ng/L)

2,3,7,8‐TCDD ug/L NA 0.01 0.012 Notes:

1. The concentration ranges presented here are estimated. Further evaluation is required to determine the actual concentrations.