HRS DOCUMENTATION RECORD--REVIEW COVER SHEET

Name of Site: Keystone Corridor Ground Water Contamination 

U.S. EPA ID No.: INN000510399

Date Prepared: May 2013

Contact Persons

Site Investigation: Mark Jaworski, Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM), 

 Site Investigation Program, (317) 233-2407

Documentation Record: Nuria Muniz, United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 

 Region V, (312) 886-4439

 Mark Jaworski, Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM), 

 Site Investigation Program, (317) 233-2407

Pathways, Components, or Threats Not Scored

Surface Water Migration Pathway, Soil Exposure Pathway, and Air Migration Pathway

The Surface Water Migration Pathway, Soil Exposure Pathway, and Air Migration Pathways were not 

scored as part of this Hazard Ranking System (HRS) evaluation. These pathways were not included

because a release to this media does not significantly affect the overall site score and because the ground 

water pathway produces an overall site score above the minimum required for the site to qualify for 

inclusion on the National Priorities List (NPL).
1 

HRS DOCUMENTATION RECORD

Name of Site: Keystone Corridor Ground Water Contamination 

EPA Identification No.: INN000510399

U. S. EPA Region: 5 

Date Prepared: May 2013

Street Address of Site: The address of the site is at the intersection of N. Keystone Ave. and E. Fall Creek 

Pkwy N. Drive

 Indianapolis, Marion County, Indiana 46205 (Ref. 136, p. 2) 

General Location in the State: Central Indiana (Figure 1-1 of this HRS documentation record; Ref. 122, p. 1; 130, 

p. 1) 

Topographic Map: Indianapolis East, Indiana Quad (7.5’) (Ref. 3, p. 1)

Latitude: 39°50'05" N (Ref. 78, p. 41; 137, p. 2) 

Longitude: -86°07'18" W (Ref. 78, p. 41; 137, p. 2) 

Site Reference Point: Approximate center of the ground water plume 

Congressional District: 07

*Note: The street addresses, coordinates, and contaminant locations presented in this HRS documentation 

record identify the general area the site is located. They represent one or more locations that U. S. EPA (EPA) 

considers to be part of the site based on the screening information EPA used to evaluate the site for NPL 

listing. EPA lists national priorities among the known “releases or threatened releases" of hazardous 

substances; thus, the focus is on the release, not precisely delineated boundaries. A site is defined as where a 

hazardous substance has been “deposited, stored, placed, or disposed, or has otherwise come to be located." 

Generally, HRS scoring and the subsequent listing of a release merely represent the initial determination that a 

certain area may need to be addressed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act (CERCLA). Accordingly, EPA contemplates that the preliminary description of facility 

boundaries at the time of scoring will be refined as more information is developed as to where the 

contamination has come to be located. 

 SITE SCORING SUMMARY

Pathway Scores: 

Air Pathway Not Scored

Ground Water Pathway 100.00

Soil Exposure Pathway Not Scored

Surface Water Pathway Not Scored

HRS SITE SCORE 50.00
2 

WORKSHEET FOR COMPUTING HRS SITE SCORE

 S S2

1. Ground Water Migration Pathway Score (Sgw) 

(from Table 3-1, line 13) 100.00 10,000.00

 

2a. Surface Water Overland/Flood Migration Component NS

(from Table 4-1, line 30)

 

2b. Ground Water to Surface Water Migration Component NS

 

2c. Surface Water Migration Pathway Score (Ssw) NS

Enter the larger of lines 2a and 2b as the pathway score.

 

3. Soil Exposure Pathway Score (Ss) NS

 

4. Air Migration Pathway Score (Sa) NS

 

5. Total of Sgw2+ Ssw2 + Ss2 + Sa2 10,000.00

 

6. HRS Site Score 50.00 

Divide the value on line 5 by 4 and take the square root 

NS Not Scored
3 

TABLE 4-1

GROUND WATER MIGRATION COMPONENT SCORESHEET

Factor Categories and Factors Maximum Value Value Assigned

Ground Water

Likelihood of Release to an Aquifer

1. Observed Release 550 550

2. Potential to Release

2a. Containment 10 NS

2b. Net Precipitation 10 NS

2c. Depth to Aquifer 5 NS

2d. Travel Time 35 NS

2e. Potential to Release [lines 2a(2b + 2c + 2d)] 500 NS

3. Likelihood of Release (higher of lines 1 and 2e) 550 550

Waste Characteristics

4. Toxicity/Mobility a 10,000

5. Hazardous Waste Quantity a 100

6. Waste Characteristics 100 32

Targets

7. Nearest Well b 50

8. Population

8a. Level I Concentrations b 9100

8b. Level II Concentrations b NS

8c. Potential Contamination b 1008

8d. (Population (lines 8a + 8b + 8c) b 10108

9. Resources 5 0

10. Wellhead Protection Area 20 20

11. Targets (lines 7 + 8d + 9 + 10) b 10178

Factor Categories and Factors Maximum Value Value Assigned

Ground Water Migration Score for an Aquifer

12. Aquifer Score [(Lines 3 x 6 x 11 )/82,500] c 100 100.00

Ground Water Migration Pathway Score

13. Pathway Score (Sgw) (highest value from line 12 for 

all aquifers evaluated) c 

100 100.00

a Maximum value applies to waste characteristics category. 

b Maximum value not applicable. 

c Do not round to nearest integer 

NS Not Scored
Plume Location - State of Indiana

Keystone Corridor Ground Water Contamination

Indianapolis, Marion County, Indiana

Mapped By: Mike Hill, Office of Land Quality

Date: February 26, 2013

Sources:

Non Orthophotography Data

- Obtained from the State of Indiana Geographic Information

Office (GIO) Data Library

Map Projection: UTM Zone 16 N Map Datum: NAD83

Keystone Corridor Ground Water Contamination

State Boundary

County Boundary

Interstate

μ Lake Michigan

0 25 50 Miles

0 25 50 Kilometers

Figure 1-1
2 Mile Radius

1 Mile Radius

1/4 Mile Radius

1/2 Mile Radius

FC2

FC5

FC7

FC8

FC21

FC11

FC17

FC18

FC19 FC20

Ground Water Plume Centroid

Ground Water Plume Centroid

Fall Creek Wellfield Wells

Radius Buffer

WHPA 1yr

WHPA 5yr

Keystone Corridor Ground Water Contamination

Distance from Ground Water Plume Centroid to Municipal Wells

μ

Marion County Project Area

Marion County

0 0.5 1 Miles

0 0.5 1 Kilometers Figure 1-2

Mapped By: Mike Hill, IDEM, Office of Land Quality, Science Services Branch, 

Engineering & GIS Services, February 28, 2013 

Sources: -Non-orthophotography data obtained from the State of Indiana 

Geographic Information Officer’s (GIO) data library. 

Orthophotgraphy: 2009 Marion County Orthophotography Project (6 inch resolution) 

Map Projection Info: UTM Zone 16N, meters, NAD83 

The source documentation for the location of the following wells in the Fall Creek Wellfield; 

FC2, FC5, FC7, FC8, FC11, FC17, FC18, FC19, FC20, and FC21 is based on the GIS layer 

GIO.WaterWithdraw_DNR_Water_IN. The state agency responsible for the creation and 

maintenance of this layer is the Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water. 

WELL DISTANCE FROM PLUME CENTROID

FC2 1318’ 

FC5 519’ 

FC7 1471’ 

FC8 611’ 

FC11 3329’ 

FC17 1045’ 

FC18 3802’ 

FC19 4564’ 

FC20 5184’ 

FC21 5734’ 
44TH ST

45TH ST

Fall Creek

E2SG3

(FC-7)

E2SF9

(FC-11)

FC-21

E2R30

(FC-17)

FC-18

FC-19

FC-20

E2SJ8

E2SJ6

E2SJ4

E2SH7

E2SH9

E2SJ1

E2SG7

E2SH5

E2SG4

E2SG1DL

E2SG2

E2R05

(FC-2)

E2QZ2

E2R00

E2QZ1

E2QZ3

E2R08

E2R09

E2SK0

E2R01

E2R26

E2QZ4DL

E2R12

E2R13

46TH ST

KEYSTONE AV

36TH ST

FALL CREEK PKWY S DR

42ND ST RALSTON AV

EVANSTON AV

NOR

WALDO AV

RURAL ST

HILLSIDE AV

OLNEY ST

PARKER AV

LASALLE ST

ERIE

AV

SUTHERLAND AV

38TH ST

Fall Creek

Ground Water Plume Centroid

Ground Water Sample Location

Ground Water Plume Centroid

Ground Water Plume Boundary

Ground Water Plume Boundary - Keystone Corridor Ground Water Contamination

Indianapolis, Marion County, Indiana

μ

Marion County Project Area

Marion County

0 750 1,500 Feet

0 250 500 Meters Figure 1-3

Mapped By: Lorraine Wright and Mike Hill, IDEM, Office of Land Quality, Science Services Branch, 

Engineering & GIS Services, March 5, 2013 

Sources: -Non-orthophotography data obtained from the State of Indiana 

Geographic Information Office (GIO) data library. 

-The Ground Water Plume Boundary was digitized by connecting 

The ground water sample locations that meet observed release criteria. 

-Background samples are shown in a purple text. callout. 

Orthophotgraphy: 2009 Marion County Orthophotography Project (6 inch resolution) 

Map Projection: UTM Zone 16N, meters 

Map Datum: NAD83 

References: Obtained from Keystone Corridor Ground Water Contamination HRS Documentation Record 

-Background Ground Water Sample Table (Obtained from two established monitoring wells) 

-Background Ground Water Monitoring Well Sample Table (Obtained via a Direct Push Method) 

-Background Ground Water Well Sample Table (Obtained from operating Municipal Wells) 

-Contaminated Ground Water (Obtained by Direct Push) Sample Table 

-Contaminated Ground Water Obtained From Established Monitoring Wells Sample Table 1 

-Fall Creek Municipal Well FC17 

-Contaminated Ground Water Sample Table 2 (Municipal Well FC2) 

-Level I Samples (Fall Creek Municipal Well FC2) Table 
!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

Howall Products Inc

13359

UST

(BP Connect)

Commercial Building

24347

UST/L

(Walker Cleaners)

Charles L Walker Inc

22638

UST/L

Orman O Mckinley Co Inc

5587

UST

(Central Indiana Redi Strip, Inc.)

REDI STRIP INC

IND981002520

RCRA

CARSON MFG CO INC

IND006413561

RCRA

BOWERS ENVELOPE CO

IND006415277

RCRA

TONY RAY LAUNDRY INC

IN0001884667

RCRA

The Nickel Plate Improvement Co

18260

UST

Thomas Caterers of Distinction

4040044

BNFD

MERIDIAN HEIGHTS CLEANERS

IND057527293

RCRA

Tuchman Cleaners Inc

199102503

STATE CLEANUP SITE

(The Works)

Former Kmart/Zayres

22386

UST/L

(JP Equipment, Inc.)

Lumberman's Wholesale Supply

6030101

VRP

Morellis One Hour Dry Cleaners

6070401

VRP

PURTEE PLATING

200606154

STATE CLEANUP SITE

(Brite Laundry & Dry Cleaners)

Former Vantage Point Cleaners

000000186

STATE CLEANUP SITE

H&R Block

Parking Lot

Custom Welding

Kenro Printing

Vacant Property

2-For-1 Cleaners

Drewmont Graphics

Elite Printing, Inc.

Sixty-Minute Cleaners

Quick (Kwick) Stop Cleaners

Sign Co

Serigraphic

SPARKLE CLEANERS

IN0001200450

RCRA

Van Westrum Corp.

Bane-Clene Systems

Schouten Metal Craft

Service Technologies

Mortgage Center, Inc.

International Furniture

Clean Scene Drycleaners

Broad Ripple Fitness Center

Keystone 40 Minute Cleaners, Inc.

KEYSTONE AV

!( Potential Source

Ground Water Plume Boundary

WHPA 1yr

WHPA 5yr

Potential Sources - Keystone Corridor Ground Water Contamination

Indianapolis, Marion County, Indiana

μ

Marion County Project Area

Marion County

0 1,500 3,000 Feet

0 500 1,000 Meters Figure 1-4

Mapped By: Mike Hill and Lorraine Wright, IDEM, Office of Land Quality, Science Services Branch,

 Engineering and GIS Services, March 4, 2013

Sources: -Non-orthophotography data obtained from the State of Indiana Geographic Information 

 Office (GIO) data library. 

 -Potential Source locations obtained from "Phase I - Revised Indianapolis

 Water Wellhead Protection Plan, dated March 2007, revised September 2007, 

 prepared for Indianapolis Water, Table 3-9 Potential Source Inventory - Fall Creek

 Wellhead Protection Area" (Ref. 116, pp. 47 to 57): Ref 129, pp. 2,3

 -Potentail Source locations for IDEM regulated facilites from GIO data layer

 "GIO.OLQ_All_DATA".

 -Ulrich Chemical, 3111 North Post Road, from the above list is not in the WHPA.

 -Ground Water Plume Boundary copied from "Ground Water Plume Boundary Map,

 Keystone Corridor Ground Water Contamination" dated 1-29-13, 

 Figure 1-3 of the HRS documentaion record.

Potential Source Label: (Site Name) - from Indianapolis Water Wellhead Protection Plan

 IDEM Facility Name

 IDEM Facility Number

 IDEM Regulatory Program

Orthophotography: 2009 Marion County Orthophotography Project (6 inch resolution)

Map info: UTM Zone 16N, NAD83, meters
8 

REFERENCES

Reference

Number Description of the Reference

1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Hazard Ranking System, Final Rule 40 CFR Part 300, Vol. 55, No. 241, 

December 14, 1990. 138 pages. An electronic copy of the HRS is available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/hrsres/index.htm#HRS Rule

2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Superfund Chemical Data Matrix (SCDM), March 31, 2012, 

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/hrsres/tools/scdm.htm.12 pages, excerpt. 

3. U.S.G.S., Indianapolis East Quadrangle Topographic Map. 1998. 1 page.

4. Dames & Moore, Remediation Assessment and Ground Water Assessment Report, October 3, 1995. 23 pages. 

5. Alt & Witzig Engineering, Inc., Environmental Investigation of Tuchman Cleaners Facility, August 22, 1989. 61 

pages. 

6. Sagamore Environmental Services, Inc. Ground Water Sampling, December 3, 1996. 64 pages. 

7. Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Memo from Juliet Port, Indiana Department of Environmental 

Management Licensed Professional Geologist, to Mark Jaworski, Subject: Keystone/Fall Creek Wellfield, May 12, 2012. 

39 pages. 

8. Dames & Moore, Draft Report Phase 2 Investigation/Remediation, Tuchman Cleaners, January 16, 1996. 48 pages. 

9. Reference Number Reserved. 

10. Alt & Witzig Engineering, Inc., Soil Gas Survey, Tuchman Cleaners Facility, December 6, 1989. 29 pages. 

11. Alt & Witzig Engineering, Inc., Subsurface Investigation, Tuchman Cleaners, May 11, 1989. 14 pages. 

12. Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest, Vantage Point Cleaners, 

April 18, 1991. 2 pages. 

13. Dames & Moore, Draft Summary Report, Ground Water Remediation Monitoring, March 27, 1998. 186 pages.

14. Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Inspection Summary Letter to Mr. Michael 

Overton, Owner/Operator Former Purtee Plating, from Rosemary Cantwell, Section Chief, June 26, 2006. 40 pages. 

15. Alt & Witzig Engineering, Inc., Bi-Annual Report, Tuchman Cleaners Facility, September 4, 1991. 168 pages. 

16. Dames & Moore, Summary Report Ground Water Remediation Monitoring, December 1995 through December 1999, 

Tuchman Cleaners, April 11, 2000. 190 pages. 

17. URS, Summary Report Ground Water Remediation Monitoring, December 1995 through December 2000, Tuchman 

Cleaners, May 22, 2001. 153 pages. 

18. URS, Analytical Results Second Quarter 2002 Ground Water Sampling, July 30, 2002. 47 pages. 

19. University of Minnesota, Lynda Ellis and Sean Anderson, Tetrachloroethene Pathway Map (Anaerobic), August 15, 

2011. 5 pages. 

20. URS, Interim Summary Report Stage 1 Field Activities Ground Water Investigation, Tuchman Cleaners Facility, 

November 1, 2002. 289 pages. 
9 

21. URS, Analytical Results Fourth Quarter 2002 Ground Water Sampling, January 30, 2003. 39 pages. 

22. URS, Summary Report Ground Water Remediation Monitoring Through 2002, February 21, 2003. 114 

pages. 

23. URS, Report Remedial Investigation, Tuchman Cleaners, April 4, 2003. 569 pages. 

24. URS, Analytical Results Second Quarter 2003 Ground Water Sampling, July 30, 2003. 11 pages. 

25. URS, Interim Summary Report Stage I Field Activities, Remedial Investigation (RI) Phase II, Tuchman Cleaners Facility, 

June 9, 2004. 54 pages. 

26. URS, Report Remedial Investigation – Phase II, Tuchman Cleaners, November 24, 2004. 135 pages. 

27. Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Letter from Dawn M. Groves, State Cleanup Section, Office of 

Land Quality, to Mr. Randy Jackson and Mr. Gilbert Zemansky Re: Remedial Investigation Report Tuchman 

Cleaners, June 18, 2003. 4 pages. 

28. URS, Analytical Results First Quarter 2005 Ground Water Monitoring, Tuchman Cleaners Facility, April 29, 2005. 11 

pages. 

29. Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Email from James Sullivan, Chief, IDEM Ground Water 

Section, to Mark Jaworski Regarding Well Head Protection Area for the Fall Creek Station Wells, June 26, 2012. 2 

pages. 

30. URS, Analytical Results Third Quarter 2005 Investigation Activities Tuchman Cleaners Facility, October 31, 2005. 

26 pages. 

31. URS, Analytical Results First Quarter 2006 Ground Water Monitoring Tuchman Cleaners Facility, April 24, 2006. 

12 pages. 

32. URS, Analytical Results Fourth Quarter 2005 Ground Water Monitoring Tuchman Cleaners Facility, January 26, 

2006. 11 pages. 

33. URS, Analytical Results Second Quarter 2006 Ground Water Monitoring Tuchman Cleaners Facility, July 31, 2006. 

12 pages. 

34. URS, Analytical Results Third Quarter 2006 Ground Water Monitoring Tuchman Cleaners Facility, October 31, 

2006. 11 pages. 

35. URS, Analytical Results Fourth Quarter 2006 Ground Water Monitoring Tuchman Cleaners Facility, January 9, 

2007. 10 pages. 

36. URS, Analytical Results First Quarter 2007 Ground Water Monitoring Tuchman Cleaners Facility, April 30, 2007. 

10 pages. 

37. URS, Analytical Results Second Quarter 2007 Ground Water Monitoring Tuchman Cleaners Facility, July 31, 2007. 

10 pages. 

38. URS, Analytical Results Third Quarter 2007 Ground Water Monitoring Tuchman Cleaners Facility, October 31, 

2007. 12 pages. 

39. URS, Analytical Results Fourth Quarter 2007 Ground Water Monitoring Tuchman Cleaners Facility, January 31, 

2008. 11 pages. 

40. URS, Analytical Results First Quarter 2008 Ground Water Monitoring Tuchman Cleaners Facility, April 30, 2008. 11 

pages. 
10

41. URS, Analytical Results August 2008 Ground Water Monitoring Tuchman Cleaners Facility, October 21, 2008. 11 

pages. 

42. Indiana State Board of Health, Division of Land Pollution Control, Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest, December

10, 1986 through February 11, 1997. 68 pages. 

43. Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest, April 18, 1991 through 

May 12, 1995. 21 pages. 

44. Sees Equipment & Supply Company, Inc., Invoices to Vantage Cleaners, December 11, 1992 through November 27, 

1996. 47 pages. 

45. Alt & Witzig Engineering, Inc., Phase I Environmental Assessment with Monitoring Wells, May 9, 1996. 4 pages. 

46. Sagamore Environmental Services, Inc., Ground Water Sampling Report for 4405 Allisonville Road, undated. 65 

pages. 

47. Reference Number Reserved. 

48. State of Indiana, County of Marion, Ramsey Development Corp. and T & N Partnership, Plaintiffs, vs. Tuchman 

Cleaners Inc., and P.J. L. Inc. d/b/a Vantage Point Cleaners, Defendants, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Memorandum in Support of Defendant P. J. L., Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment, May 21, 1999. 12 pages. 

49. Indiana Department of Environmental Management, letter to The Estate of Mr. George Pulos & Ms. Katherine 

Theofanis Re: Follow-up Request for Information Concerning the Property Located at 4449 Allisonville Rd., 

Indianapolis, Indiana, January 6, 2004. 3 pages. 

50. SeaBreeze Technologies, LLC, Site Investigation Report Allisonville Road Site, June 21, 2004. 54 pages. 

51. St. John-Mittelhauser & Associates, Phase II Investigation Report for the former dry cleaning operations at 4449 

Allisonville Road, Indianapolis, IN, January 4, 2008. 78 pages. 

52. Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Special Notice of Liability, Former Vantage Point Cleaners,

July 9, 2010. 4 pages. 

53. Pinnacle Environmental, Vapor Intrusion Investigation Work Plan Former Vantage Point Cleaners, January 28, 2011. 

2 pages. 

54. Indiana Department of Environmental Management, letter to Mr. Travis May, Registered Agent, February 16, 2012. 

27 pages. 

55. Marion Superior Court, Ramsey Development Corp. and T & N Partnership, Plaintiffs, vs. Tuchman Cleaners, Inc., 

Raouf Hanna d/b/a Brite Laundry & Drycleaning, Brite Laundry, Inc. and P.J.L. Inc. d/b/a Vantage Point Cleaners, 

Defendant. May 15, 1998. 15 pages. 

56. Marion Superior Court, Ramsey Development Corp. and T & N Partnership, Plaintiffs, vs. Tuchman Cleaners Inc., 

Raouf Hanna d/b/a Brite Laundry & Drycleaning, Brite Laundry, Inc., and P.J.L. Inc. d/b/a Vantage Point Cleaners, 

Defendants, Answers to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories, September 17, 1998. 16 pages. 

57. Marion Superior Court, Ramsey Development Corp. and T & N Partnership, Plaintiffs, vs. Tuchman Cleaners Inc., 

Raouf Hanna d/b/a Brite Laundry & Dry Cleaning, Brite Laundry, Inc. and P.J.L. Inc. d/b/a Vantage Point Cleaners, 

Defendants, Answers to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories, October 28, 1998. 18 pages. 

58. Marion Superior Court, T & N Partnership, Plaintiff, vs. Tuchman Cleaners Inc., and P.J.L. Inc. d/b/a Vantage Point 

Cleaners, Defendants, Plaintiff’s Brief in Opposition to Defendant P. J. L., Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment,

August16, 1999. 23 pages. 
11

59. URS, Analytical Results Third Quarter 2002 Ground Water Sampling, Tuchman Cleaners Facility, October 21, 2002. 

44 pages. 

60. Marion Superior Court, Ramsey Development Corp., et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Tuchman Cleaners Inc., Raouf Hanna 

d/b/a Brite Laundry & Drycleaning, Brite Laundry, Inc., and P.J.L. Inc. d/b/a Vantage Point Cleaners, Defendants, 

Defendant Tuchman’s Responses to Plaintiffs T & N Partnership and Ramsey Development Corp.’s First Set of 

Interrogatories, July 30, 1998. 24 pages. 

61. Marion Superior Court, Ramsey Development Corp. and T & N Partnership, Plaintiffs, vs. Tuchman Cleaners Inc., 

Raouf Hanna d/b/a Brite Laundry & Drycleaning, Brite Laundry, Inc. and P.J.L. Inc. d/b/a Vantage Point Cleaners, 

Defendants, Defendants’ Brief In Support Of Their Motion For Summary Judgment, January 26, 1999. 35 pages. 

62. Reference Number Reserved. 

63. Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Office Memorandum, from Sarah Finley Johanson, Geologist, 

to Dawn Groves, State Cleanup, Re: Proposal Update Additional Phase II Investigation April 23, 2009 Thomas 

Caterers Indianapolis, Marion County, Site #0000211 (CZ05V), June 19, 2009. 3 pages. 

64. Alt & Witzig Engineering, Inc., Phase II Investigation: Thomas Caterers of Distinction, April 15, 2010. 70 pages.

65. Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Office Memorandum from Sarah Finley Johanson, Geologist, 

to Dawn Groves, State Cleanup, Re: Phase II Investigation April 15, 2010 Thomas Caterers Indianapolis, Marion 

County, Site #0000211 (CZ05V), May 19, 2010. 3 pages. 

66. Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Letter from Dawn Groves, State Cleanup Program Office of Land 

Quality, to Ms. Susann A. Thomas-Crannell, S & F Land Development LLC, and Ms. Kelly Early, Thomas Caterers 

of Distinction, Re: Phase II Investigation Thomas Caterers of Distinction, June 30, 2010. 4 pages. 

67. URS, Summary Report: Groundwater Remediation Monitoring, Tuchman Cleaners, April 12, 2002. 65 pages. 

68. Reference Number Reserved. 

69. Alt & Witzig Engineering, Inc., Remedial Design for Tuchman Cleaners, July 2, 1990. 30 pages.

70. Reference Number Reserved. 

71. Reference Number Reserved. 

72. Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Letter from Harry E. Atkinson, Chief State Cleanup Section Office 

of Land Quality, to Guy Ramsey, T&N Partnership L.P., Re: Request for information concerning the property located at

4405 Allisonville Rd., September 10, 2004. 2 pages. 

73. URS, Summary Report Groundwater Remediation Monitoring through 2002, February 21, 2003. 102 pages. 

74. Alt & Witzig Engineering, Inc., Feasibility Study: Tuchman Cleaners Facility, December 7, 1989. 13 pages. 

75. Indianapolis Water, Letter from Dale M. Pershing, Water Quality and Compliance Specialist, to IDEM State Cleanup 

Program Attn: Dawn Groves, Re: Requested VOC Data, July 11, 2005. 8 pages. 

76. URS, Letter from William R. Eckhoff, Geologist, and Dennis P. Connair, Principal, to IDEM Attn: Ms. Dawn Groves, 

State Cleanup Program Office of Land Quality, Re: Analytical Results Second Quarter 2005 Groundwater Monitoring

Tuchman Cleaners Facility, July 22, 2005. 11 pages. 

77. Reference Number Reserved. 
12

78. Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Letter (Memorandum of Decision) from Steve McIntire, IDEM 

Project Manager Site Investigation Section Office of Land Quality, to Pat Hamblin, EPA Region 5, with attached Site

Inspection Report, Keystone Corridor Ground Water Contamination Site, January 31, 2010. 289 pages. 

79. Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Expanded Site Inspection Report, Keystone Corridor Ground 

Water Contamination Site, March 28, 2012. 263 pages. 

80. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Chemistry Data Package, December 2011. 179 pages. 

81. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Chemistry Data Package, December 2011. 184 pages. 

82. Burns Environmental Engineering, Inc., Subsurface Investigation Report, Former Purtee Plating, January 23, 2012. 

266 pages. 

83. Troy Risk Inc., Subsurface Investigation Report: Former Purtee Plating Facility, November 14, 2007. 185 pages. 

84. Keramida, Subsurface Investigation Report: Former Purtee Plating, January 22, 2010. 684 pages. 

85. Reference Number Reserved. 

86. Indianapolis Water, Letter from Dale M. Pershing, Manager of Quality and Compliance, Veolia Water Indianapolis LLC, 

to IDEM Attn: Dawn Groves, Re: Requested Historical Raw Fall Creek Wells VOC Data, September 15, 2004. 

62 pages. 

87. IWC Services, Inc., VOC Laboratory Analysis for FC Wells 2, 5 and 11, November 16, 2001. 3 pages. 

88. IWC Services, Inc., Organic Laboratory Analysis for FC Wells 2, 8, 11 and 17, August 5-6, 1998. 4 pages. 

89. IWC Services, Inc., VOC Laboratory Analysis for FC Wells 2, 5, 7, 8, 11 and 17, October 8, 2001. 6 pages. 

90. Beranek, Bill, Draft Notes of TAG Ground Water Working Group Meeting, July 12, 2005. 10 pages. 

91. Reference Number Reserved. 

92. Reference Number Reserved. 

93. Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Email from Nuria Muniz (EPA Region 5 Superfund Division 

NPL Coordinator) regarding planned EPA removal activities at Tuchman Cleaners, July 16, 2012. 1 page. 

94. Reference Number Reserved. 

95. IDEM, Email from Eric Johnson to Mark Jaworski, August 20, 2012. 2 pages. 

96. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Review of Data, Keystone Corridor GW Contamination (IN), 

February 24, 2010. 190 pages. 

97. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Review of Data, Keystone Corridor GW Contamination (IN), 

February 4, 2010. 74 pages. 

98. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Review of Data, Keystone Corridor GW Site (IN), April 15, 2010. 

89 pages. 

99. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Review of Data, Keystone Corridor GW Contamination (IN), 

March 22, 2010. 78 pages. 

100. Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Email from Travis Cole, IDEM Geologist, to Steven McIntire, 

Re: Fall Creek Well Field, January 17, 2012. 4 pages. 
13

101. Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Ground Water Sample Location and Analytical Map, Keystone 

Corridor Groundwater Contamination, mapped by Mike Hill, August 14, 2012. 1 page. 

102. Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Email from Steven McIntire to Mark Jaworski, Fall Creek

Information, May 29, 2012. 24 pages. 

103. Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Email from Eric Johnson, IDEM Environmental Chemist 2, to 

Mark Jaworski, Updated Keystone Soil Table, May 31, 2012. 2 pages. 

104. Reference Number Reserved. 

105. Reference Number Reserved. 

106. Citizens Energy Group. Email from Alan Wiseman, Environmental Engineer, Citizens Energy Group, to Mark Jaworski,

Re: Fall Creek Treatment Plant Population Equivalent plus Fall Creek Well Withdraws [sic], June 7, 2012. 4 

pages. 

107. Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Email from Dawn Groves to Mark Jaworski, Re: Site Referral: 

Former Tuchman Cleaners, June 14, 2012. 5 pages. 

108. Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Email from Harry Atkinson to Mark Jaworski, Re: Site Referral: 

Former Tuchman Cleaners, June 15, 2012. 3 pages. 

109. McIntire, Steve, Affidavit of Steve McIntire regarding City Directory Search for Dry Cleaning Operations in the City 

of Indianapolis, July 19, 2012. 1 page. 

110. Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Email from Dawn Groves, State Cleanup Program Office of 

Land Quality, to Mark Jaworski regarding 4401 N. Keystone, August 1, 2012. 3 pages. 

111. A4 Scientific, Inc., Chain of Custody Records, November 18, 2011. 6 pages. 

112. Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Email from Eric Johnson, IDEM Environmental Chemist 2, to 

Mark Jaworski, Re: Keystone Corridor Data Tables, August 9, 2012. 11 pages. 

113. Reference Number Reserved. 

114. Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Email from Dawn Groves to Mark Jaworski, Re: Tuchman 

Cleaners’ parent files for bankruptcy, September 7, 2012. 3 pages.

115. Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Email from Dawn Groves to Mark Jaworski, Re: Former 

Tuchman Cleaners, September 7, 2012. 3 pages.

116. Veolia Water, Indianapolis Water Wellhead Protection Plan, Phase I Revised, March 30, 2007, September 2007 

Revision. 304 pages.

117. Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Email from Ann McIver to Mark Jaworski, Re: DNR 

Significant Withdrawal Reports for Fall Creek (Calendar Year 2011), January11, 2013. 3 pages.

118. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Using Qualified Data To Document an Observed Release and Observed 

Contamination, EPA 540-F-94-0.28, OSWER 9285.1-14FS, PB94-963311. November 1996. 18 pages.

119. US Environmental Protection Agency, Contract Laboratory Program, Statement of Work for Organic Analysis, 

Multi-Media, Multi-Concentration SOM01.1. May 2005. 206 pages.

120. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), Trichloroethylene Fact Sheet, CAS #79-01-6, July, 

2003. 2 pages. 
14

121 ATSDR, Tetrachloroethylene Fact Sheet, CAS #127-18-4, September 1997. 2 pages. 

122. Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Email from Shane Moore to Mark Jaworski, Re: GPS Accuracy 

Standards, January 16, 2013. 1 page.

123 Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Email from Dawn Groves to Mark Jaworski, Tuchman 

Cleaners/4401 N, Keystone/Indianapolis, January 16, 2013. 3 pages. 

124. Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Record of Site Closure, Walker Cleaners, March 6, 2012. 140 

pages.

125. Environmental Forensic Investigations, Inc., Site Investigation Report, College 60 Minute Cleaners, July 26, 2012. 

628 pages.

126. Astbury Environmental Engineering, Further Site Investigation, Former Quick Stop Cleaners, August 20, 2008. 118 

pages.

127. Patriot Engineering and Environmental, Inc., Voluntary Remediation Program (VRP) Application, Morellis Dry 

Cleaners Project Site, April 5, 2007. 28 pages.

128. Indiana Department of Environmental Management, File Review Further Site Investigation Request, Former 

Commercial Building, May 23, 2011. 5 pages.

129. Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Email from Juliet Port to Mark Jaworski, Keystone Project – 

Ref. 129, January 22, 2013. 3 pages.

130. Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Email from Michael Hill to Mark Jaworski, State of Indiana 

Geographic Information Officer’s Spatial Database Engine, January 22, 2013. 2 pages. 

131. Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Email from Juliet Port to Mark Jaworski, Keystone Reference, 

January 23, 2013. 7 pages. 

132 United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Survey of Marion County, Indiana, September 1978. Excerpt 8 pages.

133. Indiana Geological Survey, The Hydrogeologic Framework of Marion County, Indiana, Open-file Report 93-5. 

Excerpt 7 pages. 

134 United States Department of the Interior, U. S. Geological Survey, Indianapolis West, Indiana Quadrangle, 1998. 1 

page. 

135. Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Email from Juliet Port to Mark Jaworski, Keystone DNR Well 

Logs, January 23, 2013. 26 pages. 

136. U.S. EPA, Email from Mark Jaworski to Tonya Randolph with attachment (Superfund Site Information), 

http://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?ld=0510399, January 24, 2013. 2 pages. 

137. Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Email from Michael Hill to Mark Jaworski, Re: Keystone 

Corridor Ground Water Contamination Latitude and Longitude Documentation, January 22, 2013. 2 pages.

138. Reference Number Reserved. 

139. Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Letter from Bruce Palin (Assistant Commissioner) Regarding 

Keystone Corridor Ground Water Contamination HRS Documentation Record Confidential and Draft Reports, 

January 31, 2013. 1 page.
15

140. Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Email from Michael Hill, GISP, Senior Environmental 

Manager, to Mark Jaworski, Plume Measurement Documentation, January 31, 2013. 2 pages.

141. Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Email from Michael Hill, GISP, Senior Environmental 

Manager, to Mark Jaworski, Plume Centroid to Municipal Wells Measurement, February 4, 2013. 2 pages.

142. Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Email from Dan Chesterson to Mark Jaworski, Keystone 

Corridor municipal water samples (Nov. 2011), February, 6, 2013. 1 page.

143. Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Email from Steve McIntire, Geologist, to Mark Jaworski, 

Keystone Corridor Field Sampling Event, February, 6, 2013. 1 page. 

144. Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Affidavit of Mark Jaworski, Regarding Water Distribution 

from Citizens Energy Group, March 6, 2013. 1 page. 

145. Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Project Note Keystone Corridor HRS Documentation Record, 

Regarding Bias of Qualified Data, Prepared by Eric Johnson, Environmental Chemist 2, March 11, 2013. 1 page. 
16

SITE SUMMARY

Keystone Corridor Ground Water Contamination

The Keystone Corridor Ground Water Contamination is a ground water plume with commingled contamination that 

has released to the water in one (1) municipal water well, FC2 (Ref. 101, p. 1; 122, p. 1; 130, p. 1; Figure 1-3 and 

Section 3.1.1 of this HRS documentation record). The aquifer in which the plume is located is a combined aquifer 

consisting of an outwash aquifer and a karst aquifer. Although the aquifers have different physical properties, they 

can be considered a single combined aquifer due to their clear connectivity (Ref. 102, p. 24 and Section 3.0.1 of this 

HRS documentation record). Eight other active municipal wells (FC5, FC7, FC8, FC11, FC18, FC19, FC20, and 

FC21) that are located in the immediate area have a potential to become contaminated (see Section 3.3.2.4 and Figure 

1-2 of this HRS documentation record). The plume consists of chlorinated solvents, specifically tetrachloroethene 

(PCE), trichloroethene (TCE), vinyl chloride (VC), and cis-1, 2-dichloroethene (cis-1, 2 DCE) (see Contaminated 

Ground Water (Obtained by Direct Push) Sample Table of this HRS documentation record; Contaminated Ground 

Water Obtained From Established Monitoring Wells Sample Table 1 of this HRS documentation record; Fall Creek

Municipal Well FC17 Table of this HRS documentation record; Contaminated Ground Water Sample Table 2 

(Municipal Well FC2) of this HRS documentation record).

TCE, VC, and cis-1,2 DCE are degradation products of PCE (Ref. 19, pp. 1–5). The extent of the ground water 

plume is depicted by municipal wells and monitoring wells known to contain volatile organic compounds at 

concentrations meeting observed release criteria (Ref. 1, Table 2-3, Figure 1-3 and Section 3.1.1 of this HRS 

documentation record; 122, p. 1; 130, p. 1). The plume currently measures approximately 4500 feet long (north to 

south) and approximately 1500 feet wide (east to west) (Ref. 122, p. 1; 130, p. 1; Figure 1-3 of this HRS 

documentation record). The plume and wells are located in the same combined aquifer (Sections 3.0.1 and 3.1.1 of 

this HRS documentation record). 

Over forty known users or handlers of solvents have been identified by name as possible sources in this HRS 

documentation record (Ref. 129, pp. 1-3; 116, pp. 48-57; Figure 1-4 of this HRS documentation record; 122, p. 1; 

130, p. 1). Due to the complex geology and high number of known and potential sources of chlorinated volatile 

organic compounds in the project area, it is not feasible to directly link any source to the contaminants encountered 

in the plume (Ref. 7, pp. 3, 5; Figure 1-4 of this HRS documentation record; 122, p. 1; 130, p. 1; Description of 

Other Possible Sources Section and Section 3.0.1 of this HRS documentation record).

Fall Creek Municipal Wells 

Citizens Water utility operates nine (9) active municipal wells in the Fall Creek well field of Indianapolis, Indiana, as

part of the Citizens Water system (Ref. 106, p. 4). The well field is located in the northeast sector of the city and 

supplies water to approximately 122,744 people (Ref. 3, p. 1; 106, p. 3; 102, p. 21; 122, p. 1; 130, p. 1; Figure 1-2 of 

this HRS documentation record). Two (2) of the nine (9) active municipal ground water supply wells (FC2 and FC5), 

have had historical detections of various volatile organic compounds (VOCs), notably chlorinated solvents (Ref. 75, 

p. 4; 78, pp. 124, 125, 203-205; 75, pp. 3, 4; 86, pp. 1, 4, 7, 8, 10, 19, 20, 22, 23, 28, 29, 31, 32, 34-45, 49, 51, 60; 87, 

pp. 1, 2; 88, p. 1; 89, pp. 1, 2, 5; 102, pp. 12–18, 23). Municipal well FC2 (E2SG1) contained concentrations of vinyl 

chloride above the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 2 μg/l set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(U.S. EPA) (Ref. 2, p. 12; 79, p. 205; 80 pp. 5, 7, 56-57; 111, p. 2; 112, p. 10). FC5 contained levels of TCE below 

the MCL (Ref. 78, pp. 205; 96, pp. 1, 5, 6, 17, 18, 39, 113-115). The use of municipal well FC17 was restricted

because the well’s location was in the path of a ground water plume (Ref. 90, p. 10; 102, p. 23; 139, p. 1). 

Investigating Potential Ground Water Plume Sources 

Assessing potential ground water plume sources began with investigating the former Tuchman Cleaners facility, 

located at 4401 North Keystone Avenue, Indianapolis, Indiana, which operated from 1952 through 2008 (Ref. 4, p. 

4; 8. p. 5; 10, p. 5; 20, p. 2; 23 p. 10; 60, p. 2; 110, pp. 1, 2; 123, pp. 1, 2; 139, p. 1). The facility used PCE, 

generated PCE waste, and had several PCE spills on the property (Ref. 10, pp. 10, 11; 12, p. 1). In May 1989, 

elevated levels of VOCs were detected in two soil borings collected near an underground tank as part of a subsurface 

investigation (Ref. 6, p. 5; 11, pp. 2, 3, 4, 6). In 1989, a soil gas survey was conducted on the property as a means to 

survey the extent of subsurface contamination at the facility (Ref. 10, p. 1). The investigation concluded that it was 

possible that the plume has migrated off the property to the south/southeast (Ref. 10, pp. 1, 9). Four (4) monitoring 

wells were subsequently installed on the property, which detected elevated levels of TCE (1,330 μg/l), vinyl chloride 

(21,900 μg/l), and PCE (6,500 μg/l) in the ground water (Ref. 5, pp. 12, 20, 21, 23-26, 31, 36). Another Phase II 

Investigation/Remediation report was completed in January of 1996 to evaluate the nature of the source area and 

how best to remediate VOCs (Ref. 8, pp. 2, 5; 123, pp. 1, 2; 139, p. 1). Elevated levels of vinyl chloride, TCE, PCE, 
17

and other breakdown products were detected in the water from most of the wells (Ref. 8, pp. 19, 20; 19, pp. 2, 3; 

123, pp. 1, 2; 139, p. 1). Water samples were also collected in the drycleaner’s wash-water containment pits to 

pinpoint any sources of contamination. Analysis revealed elevated levels of PCE in the pits (Ref. 16, pp. 7, 12, 25). 

Elevated levels of TCE and PCE were detected in soils and elevated levels of PCE were detected in ground water as 

part of a Stage I investigation, which comprised twenty-six (26) direct push borings and nineteen (19) discrete 

ground water samples (Ref. 20, pp. 2, 3; 123, pp. 1, 2;). The target potentially susceptible to the ground water 

contamination at Tuchman Cleaners was identified as the Indianapolis Fall Creek Well Field, specifically municipal

wells FC2, FC5, FC7, FC8, FC11, FC17, FC18, FC19 (Ref. 26, p. 15; 123, pp. 1, 2). 

A feasibility study to remediate the contaminant plumes underneath the Tuchman Cleaners facility was conducted

and recommended soil venting and pump and treatment of ground water (Ref. 74, p. 1). A Corrective Action Plan to 

remediate the contamination at the Tuchman facility was proposed to IDEM on July 2, 1990 (Ref. 69, pp. 1–30). A 

soil vapor extraction system and a pump and treat system were installed in October 1990 (Ref. 15, pp. 1, 3). By 2003, 

twenty-two (22) monitoring wells had been installed on the property (Ref. 23, pp. 68, 69, 85-96; 123, pp. 1, 2). 

Monitoring of the wells on the property revealed continuous detections of PCE (Ref. 21, pp. 1-3, 6-7; 24, pp. 1-3, 6-9; 

28, pp. 1-3, 7; 30, pp. 1-4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11,13, 15; 31, pp. 1-3, 6, 8; 32, pp. 1-3, 5, 7; 33, pp. 1-4, 6, 8; 34, pp. 1-8; 35, 

pp. 1-3, 6-7; 36, pp. 1-3, 6; 37, pp. 1-4, 5-7; 38, pp. 1-4, 8; 39, pp. 1-8; 40, pp. 1-3, 6-7; 41, pp. 1-3, 6-8; 67, pp. 6-10, 

24-25; 73, pp. 9-15; 76, pp. 1-7). A Remedial Investigation Report indicated that there has been migration of PCE 

and its associated degradation products from the Tuchman Property (Ref. 27, p. 1; 19, pp. 1-5). As a result, IDEM 

required that a Remedial Investigation Work Plan addressing the migration from the property be submitted (Ref. 27, p. 

1). Contaminated soils were also detected in the upper few feet under the western two-thirds of the plant building and 

in the outside waste storage area (Ref. 23, p. 59; 123, pp. 1, 2). 

In September 2004, IDEM issued a request for information notice to Tuchman Cleaners to identify the activities, 

materials, and parties that may have contributed to the contamination on the property (Ref. 72, pp. 1, 2). On July 7, 

2008, the parent company of Tuchman Cleaners declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy (Ref. 107, p. 5).

In 1996, a Phase I Environmental Assessment was conducted at a vacant lot located northeast of the Tuchman 

Cleaners (Ref. 45, p. 1; 46, pp. 5, 7, 10, 65). Ground water monitoring wells were installed on the property, and 

elevated levels of PCE were detected in some of these wells (Ref. 45, p. 3; 46, p. 4). 

Vantage Point Cleaners operated a dry cleaner from December 1986 through February 1997, using and disposing of 

PCE waste (Ref. 12, p. 1; 42, pp. 1-68; 43, pp. 1-21; 44, pp. 1-47). In 2007, a Phase II Site Investigation was 

conducted on the property to determine if there was any contribution to PCE ground water impacts to the vacant lot 

located between Vantage Point Cleaners and Tuchman Cleaners (Ref. 51, pp. 2, 3, 15). The investigation determined 

that elevated levels of PCE were detected on the Vantage Point Cleaners property (Ref. 51, pp. 10, 11). 

From October 19 through 29, 2009, IDEM Site Investigation staff conducted a Site Inspection (SI) (Ref. 78, p. 18). 

A total of nine (9) subsurface soils and twenty-eight (28) ground water samples were collected for the SI (Ref. 78, 

pp. 18, 22). Elevated levels of PCE and TCE were detected in soil and ground water samples collected on the 

Tuchman Cleaners and the Thomas Caterers properties (Ref. 78, pp. 56, 57, 58, 62, 116-121, 124-127, 162-167; 101, 

p. 1). Elevated levels of vinyl chloride (above the MCL) were detected in municipal well FC2 (Ref. 78, p. 59). 

On July 9, 2010, IDEM’s State Cleanup Section issued a Special Notice of Liability letter to the registered agent of 

Mayco Holdings LLC, Vantage Point Cleaners, stating that a release of hazardous substances was documented from 

the Vantage Point Cleaners property and that the facility was responsible to perform a response action (Ref. 52, pp. 

1-4). On January 28, 2011, a consultant for Mayco Holdings, LLC, began investigating the vapor intrusion pathway 

at a nearby church at the request of IDEM’s State Cleanup Section (Ref. 53, pp. 1, 2). On February 16, 2012, IDEM 

issued a Commissioners Order to Vantage Point Cleaners’ responsible parties to conduct necessary response actions 

in order to address the ground water contamination (Ref. 54, pp. 1, 3). 

Thomas Caterers of Distinction, located northwest of Tuchman Cleaners, housed a former rug cleaner operation 

prior to 1970 (Ref. 63, p. 1; 64, p. 7; 139, p. 1). A Phase 2 was conducted on the property in January 2010 (Ref. 64, 

pp. 2, 5). Analyses indicated elevated levels of PCE and associated breakdown products in the ground water from all 

monitoring wells and soil samples (Ref. 64, pp. 23, 24, 26-30; 19, pp. 1, 2). 

Purtee Plating, 2300 East 44th Street, Indianapolis, Indiana, historically operated as both metal plating and 

automotive repair/restoration businesses (Ref. 82, p. 6). Elevated levels of PCE, TCE, VC, and various metals were 

detected in the surface soils (Ref. 82, p. 22, 36-39). Elevated levels of PCE and TCE were also detected in the 
18

ground water in an up-gradient well (MW2), indicating that ground water underlying the property was being 

impacted by up-gradient sources (Ref. 82, p. 9). 

On November 15 and 16, 2011, IDEM SI staff conducted an Expanded Site Inspection (ESI) (Ref. 79, pp. 5, 11). A 

total of ten (10) subsurface soils and ten (10) ground water samples were collected for the ESI (Ref. 79, pp. 11, 15). 

Elevated levels of PCE were detected in soil and ground water samples that were collected on the property of the 

former S&K Dry Cleaner which had been located at 2321 E. 38th Street (Ref. 79, p. 39, 40, 41; 109, p. 1; 101, p. 1). 

Elevated levels of vinyl chloride above MCL at 12 μg/l (ground water sample E2SG1DL) were detected in

municipal well FC2 (Ref. 2, p. 12; 79, pp. 43, 44, 205; 101, p.1; 112, p. 10). 

2.2 SOURCE CHARACTERIZATION

Municipal wells FC17, FC11, FC7, and FC2, lie along a portion of Fall Creek in Indianapolis, Indiana (Ref. Figures 

1-2 and 1-3 of this HRS documentation record; 122, p. 1; 130, p. 1). The source(s) of the Keystone Corridor Ground 

Water Contamination ground water plume are undetermined because too many facilities are located nearby the 

municipal wells to attribute the ground water plume to any one source or sources (Ref. 129, pp. 1-3; Description of Other 

Possible Sources Section and Figure 1-4 of this HRS documentation record). Due to the complex geology and high 

number of known and potential sources of chlorinated volatile organic compounds in the project area and because 

the contamination is commingled, it is not feasible to directly link any source to the contaminants encountered in the 

plume (Ref. 7, pp. 3, 5; 85, p. 36; 101, p. 1; Figures 1-3 and 1-4 of this HRS documentation record; Description of 

Other Possible Sources Section and Section 3.0.1 of this HRS documentation record; 122, p. 1; 130, p. 1). Other 

potential sources known to have TCE, PCE, VC, etc., can be found in Description of Other Possible Sources Section 

of this HRS documentation record.

2.2.1 SOURCE IDENTIFICATION

Source Number: 1

HRS Source Type: Other (ground water plume with no identifiable single source)

The source is considered a ground water plume with commingled contamination due to the complex geology and

high number of known and potential sources of chlorinated volatile organic compounds in the project area. It is not 

feasible to directly link any one source to the contaminants encountered in the plume (Ref. 17, p. 8; 16, p. 12; 78, pp. 

32, 33; 79, pp. 32, 33; 82, p. 36; 101, p. 1; 116, pp. 48-57; 129, pp. 2, 3; Figure 1-4 of this HRS documentation 

record). The ground water samples used to delineate the outline of the plume were collected from the combined 

aquifer covering an approximately 101.2 acre area (Ref. 140, p. 2; 122, p. 1; 130, p. 1; Figure 1-3 of this HRS 

documentation record; Sections 3.0.1 and 3.1.1 of this HRS documentation record). The area of the ground water 

plume is based on available samples that meet the criteria for an observed release and the target distance limit is 

measured from the center of the area of observed ground water contamination (Ref. 1, pp. 45, 46; Section 3.1.1 of 

this HRS documentation record).

Description and Location of the Source:

The Keystone Corridor Ground Water Contamination consists of a ground water plume along Fall Creek in 

Indianapolis, Indiana at the intersection of N. Keystone Avenue and E. Fall Creek Parkway N. Drive (aerial

representation of the ground water plume can be seen in Figure 1-3 of this HRS documentation record; 122, p. 1; 

130, p. 1; 136, p. 2). While sampling was able to identify some contaminated soils, there are many businesses that 

may also be possible sources contributing to the ground water plume (Ref. 116, pp. 448-57; 129, pp. 1-3). Per the 

HRS, the plume itself will be considered the source (Ref. 1, Section 1.1, p. 61). The extent of this plume has not been

completely delineated at this time but has been characterized by data from monitoring wells, municipal wells and 

samples obtained using the direct-push boring device (See Section 3.1.1 of this HRS documentation record). 

Level of Effort by IDEM: 

IDEM staff have been attempting to address soil and ground water contamination along Keystone Avenue since 

1989 when elevated levels of VOCs were detected in two soil borings collected near an underground tank on the 

former Tuchman Cleaners property (Ref. 11, pp. 2, 3, 4, 6). The contamination lies within the Well Head Protection 

Area for the Fall Creek Well Field (Ref. 122, p. 1; 130, p. 1; Figure 1-4 of this HRS documentation record). 
19

In 2009, the Keystone Corridor and Tuchman Cleaners were referred to the IDEM Site Investigation Section by the 

IDEM State Cleanup Program (Ref. 107, pp. 1-5; 108, p.1; Site Summary Section and Description of Other Possible 

Sources Section of this HRS documentation record, for summaries of investigations related to these facilities.) On 

June 19, 2009, IDEM Site Investigation staff visited the office of Veolia Water, formerly known as Indianapolis

Water (IWC), to obtain any information regarding the Fall Creek well field (Ref. 78, p. 17). Site Investigation staff 

conducted a reconnaissance visit at the Fall Creek well field area on September 13, 2009, to determine strategic 

sampling locations for a site inspection (Ref. 78, p. 17). On October 19, 20, 21, 22, and 29, 2009, Site Investigation 

staff conducted an SI of the Keystone Corridor (Ref. 78, pp. 1, 11, 18-23). Elevated levels of PCE were detected in 

the ground water and soil samples collected from the Tuchman Cleaners and Thomas Caterers properties (Ref. 78, 

pp. 46, 48, 51, 117, 121, 165, 167, 177, 179, 211, 220, 221, 228, 229, 232- 234; 112, pp. 2-4, 6-8, 10, 11).

On November 15 and 16, 2011, IDEM Site Investigation staff conducted an ESI for the Keystone Corridor (Ref. 79, 

pp. 5, 11). A total of ten (10) subsurface soils and ten (10) ground water samples were collected for the ESI (Ref. 79, 

pp. 11, 15). Elevated levels of PCE were detected in soil and ground water samples collected on the property of a 

former dry cleaner located on East 38th Street (Ref. 79, pp. 12, 13, 17; 112, pp. 1- 4, 6-8, 10, 11). Elevated levels of 

vinyl chloride above the MCL (12 μg/l in E2SG1) in drinking water were also detected in well FC2 (Ref. 2, p. 12; 79, 

pp. 43, 44, 149; 112, p. 10). 

Additionally, the 2007 Wellhead Protection Plan (Ref. 116) identified approximately 129 properties as possible 

sources of solvents in the 5-year time of travel for the Fall Creek Wellfield (Ref. 116, pp. 48-57; 129, p. 1). Of these, 

40 properties were identified as known sources of chlorinated volatile organic compounds, and/or those properties 

where dry cleaning, commercial laundry, printing, metals manufacturing, or chemical distributors are/were located 

(Ref. 129, pp. 1-3).

2.2.2 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES ASSOCIATED WITH THE SOURCE

Refer to Section 3.1.1 of this HRS documentation record for a list of ground water samples that were found to be 

contaminated. The hazardous substances include cis-1,2-DCE, trans-1,2-DCE, 1,1,1-TCA, PCE, TCE, and vinyl 

chloride.

2.2.3 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AVAILABLE TO A PATHWAY 

Containment Description Containment

Factor Value

References

Gasrelease to air: Not Scored

Particulate release to air: Not Scored

Release to ground water: Because there is an observed release of a

hazardous substance to ground water a containment value of 10 has 

been assigned (See Section 3.1.1 of this HRS documentation record 

showing elevated levels of volatile organic compounds that were 

detected in ground water in the Keystone Ground Water Contamination, 

an observed release of hazardous substances by chemical analysis). 

10 Ref. 1, Table 3-2, p. 70

Containment Description Containment

Factor Value

References

Release via overland migration and/or flood: Not scored

Notes: The Containment Factor Value for the ground water migration pathway was evaluated for “All Sources” for 

evidence of hazardous substance migration from source area (i.e., source area includes source and any associated 

containment structures). The applicable containment factor value was determined based on existing analytical 

evidence of hazardous substances in ground water samples (Ref. Section 3.1.1 of this HRS documentation record). 

Based on an observed release of a hazardous substance to ground water a containment value of 10 has been

assigned (Ref. 1, Table 3-2, p. 70; Section 3.1.1 of this HRS documentation record). 
20

2.4.2 HAZARDOUS WASTE QUANTITY

2.4.2.1.1 Hazardous Constituent Quantity (Tier A)

Description 

The information available is not sufficient to evaluate Tier A source hazardous waste quantity; a sufficient number of 

samples were not collected that would statistically represent the range of contaminant concentrations throughout the 

source, therefore, hazardous constituent quantity is not scored (NS). As a result, the evaluation of hazardous waste

quantity proceeds to the evaluation of Tier B, hazardous wastestream quantity (Ref. 1, Section 2.4.2.1.1, pp. 64, 65). 

Hazardous Constituent Quantity Assigned Value: NS

2.4.2.1.2 Hazardous Wastestream Quantity (Tier B)

Description 

The information available is not sufficient to evaluate Tier B source hazardous wastestream quantity. There are 

insufficient historical and current data (manifests, PRP records, State records, permits, etc.) available to adequately 

calculate the total mass of all hazardous wastestreams and CERCLA pollutants and contaminants in the source. As a 

result, the evaluation of Hazardous Waste Quantity proceeds to the evaluation of Tier C, Volume (Ref. 1, Section 

2.4.2.1.2, p. 65). 

Hazardous Wastestream Quantity Assigned Value: NS

2.4.2.1.3 Volume (Tier C)

Description 

Horizontal and vertical extent of the plume cannot be determined based on available sampling data; a sufficient 

number of samples are not available to statistically represent the range of contaminant concentrations throughout the 

source. Therefore, the source volume is unknown, but greater than 0. 

Volume Assigned Value: unknown, but >0

2.4.2.1.4 Area (Tier D)

Description 

Area, Tier D, is not scored (NS) for source type “other” (Ref. 1, Table 2-5, p. 65). 

Area Assigned Value: 0 

2.4.2.1.5 Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value

The source hazardous waste quantity value for Source 1 is unknown, but > 0 (Ref. 1, Section 2.4.2.1.5, p. 65).

Volume of ground water plume: unknown, but >0

Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value: unknown, but >0

SUMMARY OF SOURCE DESCRIPTIONS

Source 

No.

Source 

Hazardous 

Waste 

Quantity 

Value

Source 

Hazardous 

Constituent 

Quantity 

Complete? 

(Y/N)

Containment Factor Value by Pathway

Ground 

Water 

(GW) 

(Ref. 1, 

Table 3-2)

Surface Water (SW) Air

Overload/flood 

(Ref. 1, Table 

4-2)

GW to SW 

(Ref. 1, 

Table 3-2)

Gas (Ref. 

1, Table 

6-3)

Particulate 

(Ref 1, 

Table 6-8)

1 Unknown, 

but >0 N 10 NS NS NS NS

NS Not Scored
21

Description of Other Possible Sources:

There are several other possible sources of chlorinated solvents in the area. The names and descriptions of the possible

sources are as follows: 

Tuchman Cleaners

The former Tuchman Cleaners was located at 4401 Keystone Avenue, Indianapolis, Indiana (Ref. 4, p. 4; 8, p. 5; 20, 

p. 2; 23, p. 10; 10, p. 5; 110, p. 1; 123, pp. 1, 2; 139, p. 1; Figure 1-4 of this HRS documentation record). The facility 

used PCE, generated PCE waste, and had several PCE spills on-site (Ref. 10, pp. 10, 11; 12, p. 1). In May 1989, 

elevated levels of VOCs were detected in two (2) soil borings that were collected near an underground tank as part of a 

subsurface investigation (Ref. 11, pp. 2-4, 6). In 1989, a soil gas survey was conducted on the property to determine 

the extent of subsurface contamination at the facility (Ref. 10, p. 1). The investigation concluded that it was possible

that the majority of the plume had migrated with the ground water to the south/southeast and had traveled off of the 

property (Ref. 10, pp. 1, 9). Exploratory borings performed in 1989 as part of a Phase II Investigation indicated that 

the subsurface soils and ground water on the property were contaminated with volatile organic compounds (Ref. 5, pp. 

1, 5, 12, 13, 14). Four (4) monitoring wells were subsequently installed on the property, which detected elevated levels

of TCE (1,330 μg/l), vinyl chloride (21,900 μg/l), and PCE (6,500 μg/l) in the ground water (Ref. 5, pp. 12, 20, 21, 23-

26, 31). Another Phase II Investigation/Remediation report was completed in January of 1996 to evaluate the nature of 

the source area and to evaluate how best to remediate the VOCs (Ref. 8, pp. 2, 5; 123, pp. 1, 2; 139, p. 1). Elevated

levels of vinyl chloride, TCE, PCE, and other breakdown products were detected in the water (Ref. 8, p. 20; 19, pp. 1, 

2; 123, pp. 1, 2; 139, p. 1). Water samples were also collected in the wash-water containment pits of the drycleaner’s 

operations in 1999 to pinpoint any sources of contamination, and analysis revealed elevated levels of PCE in the pits 

(Ref. 16, pp. 7, 12, 25). An additional Stage I investigation in July and August of 2000, which collected direct push 

borings and discrete ground water samples, also detected elevated levels of PCE in soils and ground water (Ref. 20, 

pp. 2, 8-14, 16-19). 

Approximately 217.4 kilograms of VOCs have been removed from the shallow ground water zone via 82 months of 

pumping (no pumping in May 1996, January 1998, and February 1998) (Ref. 22. p. 7). According to another ground 

water monitoring report dated April 11, 2000, approximately 162 kg of VOCs have been removed from the aquifer (Ref. 

16, pp. 1, 12). The report also stated that the remediation system was effective at blocking impacted ground water from 

flowing off of the property-site, but did not mention if any contaminated ground water left the facility prior to the 

installation of the remediation system (Ref. 16, p. 12). VOC concentrations decreased during the remediation activities, 

but data from monitoring well MW6 indicated that PCE had migrated onto the property (Ref. 17, pp. 9, 26; 18, p. 2). 

Information contained in a Remedial Investigation Report prepared for National Drycleaners, INC. indicated increased 

concentrations of PCE at monitoring well MW-6 which is located upgradient of the property (Ref. 23, p. 9; 123, pp. 1, 

2). It was noted that this monitoring well was located immediately downgradient of a neighboring laundry facility on 

Allisonville Road that included dry cleaning operations that may have resulted in releases to the subsurface (Ref. 23, 

p. 9; 123, pp. 1, 2). In general, ground water flow was documented in a southwesterly direction (Ref. 13, p. 21; 123, 

pp. 1, 2). Localized variations in ground water flow direction have been documented (Ref. 24, p. 11; 28, p. 9, 10; 30, p. 18, 

19, 20; 31, p. 10, 11, 12; 32, p. 9, 10. 11; 33, pp. 10, 11, 12; 34, p. 9, 10, 11; 35, p. 8, 9, 10; 36, p. 8, 9, 10; 37, p. 9, 

10; 38, p. 10, 11, 12; 39, p. 9, 10, 11; 40, p. 9, 10, 11; 41, p. 9, 10, 11). Monitoring of the wells on the property from 

2002 and 2003 and 2005 to 2008 revealed continuous detections of PCE, although VOC concentrations fluctuated in 

some of the wells (Ref. 21, pp. 1-3, 5-11; 22, pp. 4, 9-15; 24, pp. 1-3, 5-9; 28, pp. 1-7; 30, pp. 1-4, 6, 7, 9-16; 31, pp. 

1-3, 5-9; 32, pp. 1-8; 33, pp. 1-9; 34, pp. 1-3, 5-8; 35, pp. 1-3, 5-7; 36, pp. 1-3, 5, 6; 37, pp. 1-3, 5, 6; 38, pp. 1-4, 6-8; 

39, pp. 1-7; 40, pp. 1-3, 5-7; 41, pp. 1-3, 5-7; 59, pp. 5, 6; 18, pp. 5, 6). The RI Report indicated that there has been

migration of PCE and its associated degradation products off of the Tuchman Property (Ref. 27, p. 1; 19, pp. 1-5). 

In 2009, IDEM conducted a Site Inspection (Ref. 78, pp. 1, 11, 18-23). Levels of PCE as high as 18 μg/kg and TCE 

as high as 1.4 (J) μg/kg were also detected in many subsurface soils on the Tuchman Cleaners (Ref. 78, pp. 48, 51, 

162, 163; 99, pp. 5, 8, 9, 36, 39, 42, 45). 

Vantage Point Cleaners

Former Vantage Point Cleaners operated from approximately 1979 until 1997 (Ref. 54. p. 6). In 1996, Aldi, Inc. 

contracted an environmental consultant to conduct a Phase I Environmental Assessment at a vacant lot (Ref. 45, pp. 

1-4) located at 4405 Allisonville Road, Indianapolis, Indiana, northeast of Tuchman Cleaners and was the former

location of Vantage Point Cleaners (Ref. 61, p. 2; Figure 1-4 of this HRS documentation record). Elevated levels of 

PCE were detected in the ground water from two of three (3) monitoring wells that were installed on the property

(Ref. 45, pp. 3, 4). The owner of the vacant lot, T&N Partnership, filed a lawsuit against Tuchman Cleaners and 
22

Vantage Point Cleaners (a dry cleaner) (Ref. 48, pp. 1- 12; 55, pp. 1-15; 56, pp. 1-16; 57, pp. 1-18). According to the 

Summary Judgment, it was determined that the contamination found on the vacant lot did migrate from both Vantage 

Point Cleaners and Tuchman Cleaners (Ref. 58, pp. 5, 10). IDEM sent an Information Request Notice to the owners 

of the Vantage Point Cleaners property in January 2004 (Ref. 49, pp. 1-3). Vantage Point Cleaners operated as a dry 

cleaner, using and disposing of PCE waste (Ref. 12, p. 1; 42, pp. 1-68; 43, pp. 1-21; 44, pp. 1-47). 

A Phase II Environmental Investigation was conducted on the Vantage Point property and four (4) monitoring wells

were installed (Ref. 50, pp. 2, 6). Naphthalene was the only compound detected in the ground water at the Vantage 

Point Cleaners (Ref. 50, p. 9). In 2007, a Phase II Site Investigation was conducted by St. John-Mittelhauser & 

Associates, Inc. to determine if there was any contribution to PCE ground water impacts to the vacant lot located

between Vantage Point Cleaners and Tuchman Cleaners (Ref. 51, pp. 1, 3). The investigation determined that

elevated levels of PCE were detected on the Vantage Point Cleaners property (Ref. 51, pp. 10, 11). However the 

report indicated that a relation between the PCE at Vantage Point Cleaners and the vacant lot could not be made (Ref. 

51, p. 12). 

On July 9, 2010, IDEM State Cleanup Section issued a Special Notice of Liability letter to the registered agent of 

Mayco Holdings, LLC, former Vantage Point Cleaners (Ref. 52, pp. 1-4). The Special Notice of Liability stated that

a release of hazardous substances was documented from the former Vantage Point Cleaners property and that the 

facility was responsible to perform a response action that was deemed necessary by IDEM (Ref. 52, p. 1). On 

January 28, 2011, a consultant for Mayco Holdings, LLC, prepared a work plan to investigate the vapor intrusion 

pathway at a nearby church at the request of IDEM State Cleanup Section (Ref. 53, pp. 1, 2). On February 16, 2012, 

IDEM issued a Commissioners Order to Vantage Point Cleaners’ responsible parties to conduct necessary response 

actions in order to address the ground water contamination (Ref. 54, pp. 1-27). According to an investigation on an 

adjacent property located at 4405 Keystone, Vantage Point Cleaners was listed as a potential source of 

contamination (Ref. 6, pp. 1, 5).

Thomas Caterers of Distinction

The property located northwest of Tuchman Cleaners houses a former rug cleaner and dry cleaner prior to 1970 and 

currently operates as a catering facility (Ref. 63, p. 1; 139, p. 1; Figure 1-4 of this HRS documentation record). The 

facility is located at 4440 North Keystone Avenue, Indianapolis (Ref. 64, p. 1). In January 2010, Thomas Caterers of 

Distinction contracted an environmental consultant to conduct a Phase II Environmental Investigation on their

property (Ref. 64, pp. 1, 5; 66, p. 1). Analysis of the ground water collected from all monitoring wells indicated

elevated levels of PCE and TCE in the wells; all soil samples contained PCE (Ref. 65, pp. 1, 2; 66, p. 1, 2; 78, pp. 51, 

82, 83, 148, 149, 164-167, 208, 209, 234; 139, p. 1). Soil samples that were obtained on the property during the 

Keystone Corridor Ground Water SI revealed elevated levels of PCE (0.046 mg/kg PCE for sample E2R21 and 0.160 

mg/kg of PCE for sample E2R23) (Ref. 78, pp. 48, 51, 164-167, 232, 233). Soil samples obtained on the Thomas

Caterers property were also found to contain elevated levels of chlorinated solvents (PCE as high as 160μg/kg in

E2R23 and TCE as high 8.3 μg/kg) (Ref. 78, pp. 48, 51, 100-102, 164-167, 232-234; 99, pp. 5, 8-13, 17, 19, 57-59, 

63-65). 

Purtee Plating

The property located northwest of the ground water plume is located at 2300-2306 East 44th Street, Indianapolis, 

Indiana (Ref. 84, p. 4; Figure 1-4 of this HRS documentation record). The property has historically operated as both

metal plating and automotive repair/restoration businesses (Ref. 84, p. 5). On March 24, 2006, IDEM staff conducted

an inspection at the facility in response to a complaint alleging that nine (9) drums of nickel plating wastes were 

abandoned at the property (Ref. 14, p. 3). The inspection revealed that the drums were present and the owner was 

required to dispose of them (Ref. 14, pp. 3, 4). A series of subsurface investigations were conducted on the property 

showing elevated levels of PCE, cis-1, 2 DCE, and various metals in the surface soils (Ref. 83, p. 6, 7; 84, pp. 7-15, 

28). The concentrations of PCE and TCE detected in the ground water indicate that the ground water on the property 

was being impacted by up-gradient sources because the concentrations were higher in wells upgradient of the property and 

downgradient of a known source of PCE and TCE (Tuchman Cleaners) (Ref. 83, pp. 7, 11; 84, pp. 13-15, 27). 

S&K Laundry

The property is located at 2321 East 38th Street (Ref. 109, p. 1; Figure 1-4 of this HRS documentation record). The 

property has formerly housed several dry cleaning/laundromat facilities (Ref. 109, p. 1). From 1962-1974, the 

property was occupied by various names that included: B&B Norge Coin, Norge Clean and Laundry, and Smiths 

Norge (Ref. 109, p.1). From 1978 through 1979, the facility was operated under the name of Rain Barrel Laundry 
23

(Ref. 109, p. 1). From 1981 to 1999, the facility operated under several variations of the S&K name; S&K 

Laundromat and Dry Cleaning, S&K Laundromat, and S&K Cleaning & Laundromat (Ref. 109, p. 1). Specific

details regarding these cleaning operations are unknown. 

On November 15 and 16, 2011, IDEM Site Investigation staff conducted an ESI (Ref. 79, pp. 5, 11, 12). A total of ten 

(10) subsurface soils and ten (10) ground water samples were collected for the ESI (Ref. 79, pp. 11, 15). Elevated

levels of PCE were detected in soil samples E2SJ0 (25 μg/kg) and E2SH6 (810 μg/kg) that were obtained from the 

property at 2321 East 38th Street (Ref. 79, pp. 12, 93, 97; 81, pp. 9, 10, 15, 16, 40, 41; 103, p. 2). Additionally, elevated 

levels of PCE were detected in the ground water during the ESI on the S&K property (Ref. 79, pp. 210, 211, 212; 80, 

pp. 28, 29, 32, 33, 34, 63, 65; 111, pp. 3, 4; 112, p. 10). 

Quick Stop Cleaners

The property is located at 2306 East 34th Street and is IDEM active State Cleanup project #0000-00-295 (Ref. 126, 

p. 1; Figure 1-4 of this HRS documentation record). A dry cleaning business operated on the property from 1967 to 

1994 (Ref. 126, p. 3). The property is adjacent to a Marathon gas station (Ref. 126, p. 22). PCE was detected in 

subsurface soil samples collected from the property as high as 2,580 ug/mg and as high as 4,610 ug/mg on the 

adjacent Marathon property (Ref. 126, p. 4). PCE in groundwater samples were as high as 480 ug/l (Ref. 126, p. 7). 

Walkers Cleaners

The property is located at 1841 East 46th Street (Ref. 124, p. 1; Figure 1-4 of this HRS documentation record) and 

was historically a dry cleaner (Ref. 124, p. 2). Reportedly, the cleaners used “a specialty blend of mineral spirits in 

its dry cleaning operations” and “never used chlorinated solvents” (Ref. 124, p. 2). The property is the location of 

IDEM Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) incident #199812591 for a release of mineral spirits from 

regulated underground storage tanks (USTs) (Ref. 124, pp. 1, 2). Concentrations of PCE have also been detected in 

groundwater samples collected from this property as high as 86 ug/l (Ref. 124, pp. 2 and 18). Additionally, PCE 

was detected as high as 79.0 ug/l in wells located off and to the north of the property in grab samples collected in 

August 2011 (Ref. 124, pp. 38, 49). An unidentified source is attributed as the source of PCE in groundwater at the 

property (Ref. 124, pp. 2 and 3).

College 60 Minute Cleaners

The property is located at 4838 North College Avenue and is IDEM State Cleanup site 2010-04-202 (Ref. 125, p. 

1; Figure 1-4 of this HRS documentation record). A release of dry cleaning solvent PCE has been documented 

(Ref. 124, p. 5). The property has been a dry cleaner since 1974 (Ref. 125, p. 7). Concentrations of PCE in 

subsurface soil samples and grab groundwater samples collected from the property were as high as 133,000 ug/mg 

(Ref. 125, p. 24) and 485 ug/l (Ref. 125, p. 25), respectively.

Morellis Dry Cleaners

The property is located at 5367 North Keystone Avenue and is IDEM Voluntary Remediation Site #6070401 (Ref. 

127, p. 1; Figure 1-4 of this HRS documentation record). The facility has been a dry cleaner since at least 1955 

(Ref. 127, p. 7). A ground water plume containing primarily PCE has been documented on and off of the property 

(Ref. 127, p. 7).

BP Connect 

The property is located at 2450 East 52nd Street and is IDEM LUST incident #200007519 (Ref. 128, p. 1; Figure 1-

4 of this HRS documentation record). The facility is a convenience store and gasoline station that encompasses 

combined parcels (Ref. 128, p. 1) where historical operations included a waste oil tank and an oil/water separator 

(Ref. 128, p. 2). Ground water samples collected from soil borings were contaminated with TCE, cis-1, 2-DCE, and 

VC above applicable default closure levels (Ref. 128, p. 2).

There are at least 40 different possible sources of the ground water plume that have been identified within less than 

2 miles of the boundary of the plume (Ref. 129, pp. 2, 3; 116, pp. 48-57; Figure 1-4 of this HRS documentation 

record; 122, p. 1; 130, p. 1). A table that summarizes these 40 possible sources can be found on pages 2 and 3 in 

Reference 129. 
24

3.0 GROUND WATER MIGRATION PATHWAY

3.0.1 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

Regional Geology/Aquifer Description

Most of the soils in the project area are part of the Genesee-Sloam association of deep, well drained and very poorly 

drained, nearly level soils formed in loamy alluvium (Ref. 132, pp. 3-4). The majority of the surface soil consists of 

Urban Land that is so altered and obscured by development that identification of the soils is not feasible (Ref. 132, pp. 

5-8).

- Aquifer/Stratum 1 (uppermost): Outwash

Description

Three generalized types of glacial terrain are present in the area (Ref. 131, p. 3). Along Fall Creek, sand and gravel outwash is 

primarily encountered, which formed by meltwater routes formed in, on, or under the ice during deglaciation (Ref. 131, pp. 3-

4; Ref. 133, p. 6). Thin discontinuoustill units are present within the sand and gravel (Ref. 131, p. 4). North and south of Fall 

Creek, mixed sequences of outwash bodies and fans overlie and are intercalated with multiple till units (Ref. 131, pp. 3-4). 

Along the edges of the project area, loam till with locally small and medium-sized sand and gravel units, is present (Ref. 131, 

pp. 3-4). 

Subsurface environmental investigations conducted in area of the ground water plume confirm the stratigraphy and geology 

in the area of the plume as discussed in the above paragraph (Ref. 23, pp. 33 to 37, 84, 88, 89; 82, pp. 24, 27; 83, pp. 13, 15; 

125, pp. 27, 33, 34). These investigations also determined that the hydraulic conductivity of the sand and gravel aquifer is 

between 1.7 × 10-4 and 5.1 × 10-4 centimeters per second (Ref. 23, pp. 39, 136, 138).

- Aquifer/Stratum (deepest): Karst 

Description

Below the unconsolidated materials, the bedrock consists of the Devonian-aged Muscatatuck Group of limestone and 

dolomite (Ref. 131, pp. 5-6). The carbonate rock gently dips to the southwest (Ref. 133, p. 5). Prior to glaciation, the top of 

the bedrock surface was exposed to weathering and underwent karst development (Ref. 133, p. 5). Therefore, the carbonate

surface is characterized as relict karst, marked by sinkholes, small caves, and other solution features (Ref. 133, p. 5). The

carbonate extends more than 200 feet deep (below an elevation of 500 feet msl) and is present throughout the entire project

area (Ref. 131, pp. 5-6; 133, p. 5). A well log for a municipal test well in the project area displays evidence of karst, as it 

reports “crevice lost all fluid” at a depth of 139.5 to 140 feet below grade (Ref. 135, pp. 21-22). Geologic cross-sections 

prepared for the Wellhead Protection Plan delineation depict the generalized geology of the project area (Ref. 7, pp. 3, 34, 

35).

Subsurface environmental investigations conducted in area of the ground plume confirm the stratigraphy and geology in the 

area of the plume as discussed in the above paragraph (Ref. 23, pp. 33 to 37, 84, 88, 89; 82, pp. 24, 27; 83, pp. 13, 15; 125, 

pp. 27, 33, 34). The hydraulic conductivity of the karst aquifer is estimated to be 10-2 centimeters per second (Ref. 1, Table 3-

6).

- Aquifer Interconnection

Description

Ground water in the Keystone Corridor is present within the unconsolidated sand and gravel outwash as well as the 

carbonate bedrock (Ref. 116, pp. 24-25; 7, p. 3; 23, pp. 38–41). Static water levels are generally 20 to 50 feet below 

ground surface (Ref. 116, p. 23). As shown on the potentiometric surface map, the shallow ground water generally flows 

towards Fall Creek, so that north of Fall Creek ground water flows towards the south-southwest and south of Fall Creek 

water flows towards the west (Ref. 131, p. 7).

The outwash and carbonate bedrock (karst) aquifer are evaluated as a combined aquifer. Pump test data performed on the 

Tuchman Cleaners facility in 2004 demonstrated interconnection, i.e., when nearby municipal well FC 11, completed 
25

351 feet below grade in the karst aquifer (Ref. 7, pp. 2, 31), was turned off, water levels rebounded close to 6 feet in both 

intermediate and deep wells in the outwash aquifer (Ref. 25, pp. 8, 23; 123, pp. 1, 2). Several well logs for the area show 

no continuous layer of clay or sandy/gravelly clay above the carbonate bedrock within two miles of the center of the 

ground water plume (Ref. 7, pp. 34, 35; 23, p. 15; 102, pp. 22, 24; 116, pp. 22, 24; 135, pp. 4, 5, 11, 16, 17, 26; Figures 

1-3 and 1-4 of this HRS documentation record). All of the interconnected sand and gravel units act as a single, unified 

aquifer system (Ref. 133, p. 7). The carbonate rocks (karst aquifer) are recharged through the outwash (Ref. 116, p. 23). 

Therefore, the ground water in the project area is considered to be from the same, combined interconnected aquifer (Ref 

7, pp. 5, 6).

Various concentrations of PCE, TCE, vinyl chloride, and cis-1, 2 DCE have been identified in municipal wells FC-2, FC-7, 

FC-8, and FC-11 of the City of Indianapolis’ Fall Creek municipal well field (Ref. 82, pp. 2-62; Background Ground Water 

Well Sample Table and the Contaminated Ground Water Sample Table 2 (Municipal Well FC2) of this HRS documentation 

record). These wells are screened within the karst portion of the combined aquifer (Ref. 7, pp. 2, 3, 31, 32, 34, 35). Monitoring 

wells within the ground water plume and completed in both the outwash and karst aquifers contain concentrations of VOCs 

indicating that the clay lenses do not provide a hydraulic barrier to ground water flow between the outwash and karst aquifers 

(Ref. 20, pp. 15, 17, 18; 23, pp. 82, 84, 88, 89; 26, pp. 70, 72, 73; 125, pp. 27, 33, 34). 

The Fall Creek municipal wells (targets for this HRS documentation record) are screened in the same combined aquifer (Ref. 

116, pp. 24-25; 7, pp. 2; 135, pp. 2–5; 102, pp. 22, 23, 24). This aquifer is contaminated with elevated levels of PCE (Ref. 

78, p. 203; 96, pp. 17-18, 39, 106-108; 79, p. 205, 206; 80 pp. 5-8, 9-12 56-59). This aquifer is utilized by the Indianapolis

municipal well system (Ref. 116, pp. 24-25; 7, p. 2; 102, pp. 23, 24). Refer to the Fall Creek Municipal Well FC17 Table 

and Level I Samples (Fall Creek Municipal Well FC2) Table found in Section 3.1.1 of this HRS documentation record. 

- Aquifer Discontinuities within Target Distance Limit

Description

There are no aquifer boundaries, or discontinuities, such as a mountain range, ocean (Ref. 3, p. 1; 134, p. 1), bedrock 

faults or fractures, (Ref. 131, p. 5; 7, pp. 3, 34, 35), etc., within 4-miles of the project area (Ref. 7, p. 3, 34, 35). 

SUMMARY OF AQUIFER(S) BEING EVALUATED

Aquifer

No.

Aquifer Name Is Aquifer Interconnected

with Upper Aquifer within 2 

miles? (Y/N/NA)

Is Aquifer Continuous

within 4-mile T DL? 

(Y/N)

Is Aquifer Karst?

(Y/N)

1 Outwash NA Y N

2 Karst Y Y Y

The combined (outwash and karst) aquifer is the aquifer being evaluated. The municipal wells in the study area are 

screened in this aquifer (Ref. 7, p. 2; 102, pp. 22-23; 135, pp. 2-5; Sections 2.2.2 and 3.1.1 of this HRS documentation 

record). 
26

3.1 LIKELIHOOD OF RELEASE 

3.1.1 OBSERVED RELEASE 

Aquifer Being Evaluated: 1 Combined

Chemical Analysis: 

Establishing an observed release by chemical analysis requires analytical evidence of a hazardous substance in the 

media significantly above background level (Ref. 1, Section 2.3, p. 63). If the background concentration is not

detected (or is less than the detection limit), an observed release is established when the sample measurement equals 

or exceeds its own sample quantitation limit (SQL) and that of the background sample (Ref.1, Table 2-3, Section 2.3, 

p. 63). If the SQL cannot be established, the EPA contract- required quantitation limit (CRQL) is used in place of the 

SQL (Ref. 1, Section 2.3, Table 2-3, p. 63).

Contaminated Samples: 

The extent of the ground water plume is depicted by samples from direct-push wells, municipal wells and 

monitoring wells known to contain volatile organic compounds at concentrations that meet observed release criteria 

(Ref. Figure 1-3 of this HRS documentation record; 122, p. 1; 130, p. 1). The plume currently measures 

approximately 4500 feet long (north to south) and approximately 1500 feet wide (east to west) (Ref. 122, p. 1; 130, 

p. 1; Figure 1-3 of this HRS documentation record). 

The area of the ground water plume is based on available samples that meet the criteria for an observed release (Ref. 

Contaminated Ground Water (Obtained by Direct Push) Sample Table of this HRS documentation record; 

Contaminated Ground Water Obtained From Established Monitoring Wells Sample Table 1 of this HRS 

documentation record; Fall Creek Municipal Well FC17 Table of this HRS documentation record; Contaminated

Ground Water Sample Table 2 (Municipal Well FC2) of this HRS documentation record; Section 3.1.1 of this HRS 

Documentation Record). The plume boundary was digitized by connecting wells that met observed release criteria 

(Ref. 122, p. 1; 130, p. 1; Figure 1-3 of this HRS documentation record). 

Background wells were identified outside the boundaries of the plume (Ref. 131, p. 7; 139, p. 1; Background Ground

Water Sample Tables found in Section 3.1.1 of this HRS documentation record; Figure 1-3 of this HRS 

documentation record; 122, p. 1; 130, p. 1). 

In 2009 and 2011, IDEM’s Site Investigation Section conducted SI and ESI activities at the Keystone Corridor (Ref. 

78, pp. 1, 11, 18-23; 79, pp. 5, 11). The ground water obtained from monitoring wells and municipal wells was found

to be contaminated with chlorinated VOCs (Ref. Sections 3.1.1, 3.3.2.2, and the Contaminated Ground Water

(Obtained by Direct Push) Sample Table, Contaminated Ground Water Obtained From Established Monitoring Wells

Sample Table 1, Contaminated Ground Water Sample Table 2 (Municipal Well FC2) found in Section 3.1.1 of this 

HRS documentation record). IDEM utilized the EPA Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) for sample analysis (Ref. 

78, p. 18; 79, p. 11). Sample results showed that the concentrations of vinyl chloride were above background and 

above the EPA maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 2 μg/L in ground water samples obtained from FC2 (Ref. 2, p. 

12; 78, p. 203; 96, pp. 17-18, 39, 106-108; 79, p. 205; 80 pp. 5, 7, 56-57). Concentrations of PCE were found to be

as high as 210,000 μg/L, TCE as high as 1,300 μg/L, and vinyl chloride as high as 480 J μg/L (Ref. 78, pp. 46, 117, 

118; Contaminated Ground Water Obtained From Established Monitoring Wells Sample Table 1).

The extent of this plume has not been completely delineated at this time but has been characterized by data from 

monitoring wells, grab samples obtained by direct-push methods, and municipal wells (Ref. Section 3.1.1of this HRS 

documentation record; Figure 1-3 of this HRS documentation record; 122, p. 1; 130, p. 1).

The following set of tables depicts the samples that meet the observed release criteria (Ref. 1, Table 2-3, p. 63). 

These tables list the organic hazardous substances with their concentrations and SQLs for each sample.

These samples were qualified as “releases” based on the criteria in the HRS (Ref. 1, Table 2-3, p. 63). The well 

locations are depicted on Figure 1-3 of this HRS documentation record (Ref. 78, pp. 46, 48; 79, pp. 32, 33). 

The Contaminated Ground Water (Obtained by Direct Push) Sample Table lists ground water samples that were obtained

from a direct push method that were found to be contaminated with elevated levels of chlorinated compounds meeting the 
27

observed release criteria (Ref. 1, Table 2-3, p 63). All direct push instrument water samples in the area were collected in the 

shallow sands and gravels of the combined aquifer. During 2011 ESI, a soil boring log was completed for each direct push 

ground water sampling location. The soil sample number on the boring log corresponds to ground water sample number (Ref. 

7, pp. 4, 5; 78, pp. 236-247; 79, pp. 15, 32, 33, 233-250).

Background Ground Water Samples:

On October 19, 20, 21, 22, and 29, 2009, IDEM SI staff conducted an SI at for the Keystone Corridor site (Ref. 78, 

pp. 1, 11, 18). On November 15 and 16, 2011, IDEM SI staff conducted an ESI (Ref. 79, p. 11). The background 

water samples were obtained from established monitoring wells, direct push methods, and municipal wells (Ref. 78, 

pp. 19, 53; 79, pp. 16, 18). The project area is underlain by a combined aquifer (Ref. 7, pp. 3, 5; 131, pp. 3-65).

Background ground water samples that were obtained from monitoring wells were obtained from a shallow (43 feet below 

ground surface) portion and a deeper portion of sand and gravel deposits (68.5 feet below ground surface) of the combined 

aquifer (Ref. 7, pp. 3, 5; 78, pp. 19, 53, 64, 65, 261; Background Ground Water Sample Table (Obtained from two 

established monitoring wells) of this HRS documentation record). Background ground water samples that were obtained 

from direct push methods were also obtained from the shallow horizon (19.5-24 feet below ground surface) containing the 

sand and gravel deposits of the combined aquifer (Ref. 7, pp. 3, 5; 79, pp. 35, 248, 250; Background Ground Water 

Sample Table (Obtained via a Direct Push Method) of this HRS documentation record). The background ground water 

samples that were obtained from municipal wells FC 7 and FC11 were obtained from limestone bedrock, from which the 

wells are screened in the combined aquifer (Ref. 7, p. 2, 31, 32; 78, p. 255). Background ground water samples collected 

from the sand and gravel portion of the aquifer are compared to release ground water samples collected from the sand and 

gravel aquifer. Background samples collected from the karst portion of the aquifer are compared to release samples 

collected from the karst portion of the aquifer (see the tables in this section of the HRS documentation record documenting 

the depths of the background and release samples). The table on the following pages depicts the results of those 

background ground water samples. 

The ground water samples obtained from the monitoring wells listed below were collected in three (3) 40-milliliter 

vials preserved with hydrochloric acid (HCL) (Ref. 78, p. 19). Nitrile gloves were worn and discarded between the 

collection of each sample (Ref. 78, p. 19). Monitoring wells were purged three (3) well volumes before sampling. 

Ground water was obtained from the monitoring by using bailers (Ref. 78, p. 19). Ground water was poured from the 

top of the bailer into the vials being careful so that no air bubbles were present in the sample (Ref. 78, p. 19). The 

vials were then labeled and placed in a cooler with ice (Ref. 78, p. 19). 

Background Ground Water Sample Table

(Obtained from two established monitoring wells)

EPA 

CLP # 

IDEM

# 

Control 

# 

Sample 

Date Location Hazardous Substance 

Sample 

Concentration 

Contract 

Required 

Quantitation 

Limit

Depth (Feet) Below 

Ground Surface Reference

E2QZ1 GW2 MW6i 10/19/09

Northeast side of 

Tuchman Cleaners; 

MW6i 

Vinyl Chloride 

Cis-1,2-DCE 

Trans-1,2-DCE 

TCE 

PCE 

0.5 U μg/L

0.5 U μg/L

0.5 U μg/L

0.5 U μg/L

0.5 U μg/L

0.5 U μg/L

0.5 μg/L

0.5 μg/L

0.5 μg/L

0.5 μg/L

0.5 μg/L

0.5 μg/L

43 feet deep

Ref. 23, pp. 85, 138-139; 

78, pp. 46, 195; 96, pp. 13-

14, 37, 75-77; 119, p. 199

E2QZ2 GW3 MW6d 10/19/09

Northeast side of 

Tuchman Cleaners; 

MW6d 

Vinyl Chloride 

Cis-1,2-DCE 

Trans-1,2-DCE 

TCE 

PCE 

0.5 U μg/L 

0.5 U μg/L

0.5 U μg/L

0.5 U μg/L

0.5 U μg/L

0.5 U μg/L

0.5 μg/L

0.5 μg/L

0.5 μg/L

0.5 μg/L

0.5 μg/L

0.5 μg/L

68.5 feet deep

Ref. 23, pp. 85, 188-189; 

78, pp. 46, 196; 96, pp. 13-

14, 37, 82-84; 119, p. 199
28

The table below provides a summary of the background ground water samples that were obtained via a direct push 

method. The referenced samples in the following table were collected from the sand and gravel interval of combined 

aquifer (Ref. 7, pp. 5, 34, 35; 23, pp. 88, 89; 78, pp. 261, 262). The following describes how ground water was 

obtained from a direct push method. A stainless steel screen was utilized on the direct push method to obtain ground 

water. The stainless steel screen was attached to the drill pipe and pushed to a position below the water table as 

identified in the soil boring log and at the same location of the soil boring. When the desired depth was reached, 

water was allowed to flow through the stainless steel screen from the surrounding soil media. A plastic tube 

connected to a peristaltic pump was inserted down the drill pipe to a depth at the midpoint of the screen in order to 

bring the ground water up to the surface. Pumping of the water continued until the water became clear. After the 

water became clear, the water was allowed to flow directly into three (3) 40 ml vials that contained hydrochloric 

acid as a preservative. The vials were then labeled and placed in a cooler with ice (Ref. 143, p. 1). 

Background Ground Water Sample Table

(Obtained via a Direct Push Method)

EPA CLP # IDEM # Control # Sample 

Date Location Hazardous Substance

Sample 

Concentration 

(μg/L) 

Contract 

Required 

Quantitation

Limit

Depth (feet)

Below 

Ground 

Surface

Reference

E2SH5 GW10 NA 11/15/11

Connies 

backlot, 

southeast 

corner of 

parking lot

PCE

TCE

Cis-1,2-

DCE

1,1,1-TCA

VC

0.5 U μg/L

0.5 U μg/L

0.5 U μg/L

0.5 U μg/L

0.5 U μg/L

0.5 U μg/L

0.5 μg/L

0.5 μg/L

0.5 μg/L

0.5 μg/L

0.5 μg/L

0.5 μg/L

21-24 feet 

Ref. 79, pp. 

32, 217, 248; 

Ref. 80, pp. 

21-22, 60-61; 

Ref. 111, p. 3; 

Ref. 119, p. 

199

E2SG7 GW11 NA 11/16/11

Church lot; 

41st St. & 

Sherman

PCE

TCE

Cis-1,2-

DCE

1,1,1-TCA

VC

0.5 U μg/L

0.5 U μg/L

0.5 U μg/L

0.5 U μg/L

0.5 U μg/L

0.5 U μg/L

0.5 μg/L

0.5 μg/L

0.5 μg/L

0.5 μg/L

0.5 μg/L

0.5 μg/L

19.5-23.5

feet 

Ref. 79, pp. 

32, 218, 

250; Ref. 

80, pp. 17-

18, 60-61; 

Ref. 111, p. 

5; Ref. 119, 

p. 199
29

The table below provides a summary of the background ground water samples that were obtained from municipal wells. All of 

these wells listed are completed in the karst interval of the combined aquifer (Ref. 7, pp. 2, 31, 32). Municipal well water 

samples obtained during the Keystone Corridor sampling in November 2011 were obtained from spigots located on the 

municipal well pump. Wells were purged for a short period (10-15 minutes) as all active wells that were sampled had been 

running continuously (from 3 hours to several days) prior to taking the sample. Samples were obtained by direct pour into 

three (3) 40-ml glass vials containing hydrochloric acid preservative. Samples were collected in a manner so that no air 

bubbles were present in the vial after securely closing the lid. Nitrile gloves were worn during the collection of all samples 

and the samples were placed directly into an ice-filled cooler (Ref. 142, p. 1).

Background Ground Water Well Sample Table

(Obtained from operating Municipal Wells)

EPA CLP # IDEM # Control # Sample Date Location Hazardous 

Substance 

Sample

Concentration

(μg/L) 

Contract

Required

Quantitation

Limit

Depth (Feet)

Below Ground 

Surface

Reference

E2SG3 FC7 NA 11/15/11

Fall Creek

Municipal 

Well FC7

VC

Cis-1,2-DCE

0.50 μg/L

0.20 (J) μg/L

0.50 μg/L

0.5 μg/L 280

Ref. 79, pp. 

32, 207; 80, 

pp. 13-14, 58;

7, pp. 2, 32; 

111, p. 2; 112

p. 5; 119, p. 

199

E2R31 FC11 NA 10/29/09

Fall Creek

Municipal 

Well FC11 

VC

Cis-1,2-DCE

0.38 J μg/L

0.27 J μg/L

0.5 μg/L

0.5 μg/L 351 

Ref. 78, pp. 

59, 215; 95, p. 

2; 98, pp. 6, 

11, 12, 28, 65;

7, pp. 2, 31; 

119, pp. 199-

205
30

The table below provides a summary of the contaminated ground water samples that were obtained via a direct push 

method. The referenced samples in the following table were collected from the sand and gravel interval of the 

combined aquifer (Ref. 7, pp. 5, 34, 35; 79, pp. 236-246, 261, 262; 23, pp. 88, 89). The following describes how 

ground water was obtained from a direct push method. A stainless steel screen was utilized on the direct push 

method to obtain ground water. The stainless steel screen was attached to the drill pipe and pushed to a position 

below the water table as identified in the soil boring log and at the same location of the soil boring. When the desired 

depth was reached, water was allowed to flow through the stainless steel screen from the surrounding soil media. A 

plastic tube connected to a peristaltic pump was inserted down the drill pipe to a depth at the midpoint of the screen 

in order to bring the ground water up to the surface. Pumping of the water continued until the water became clear. 

After the water became clear, the water was allowed to flow directly into three (3) 40 ml vials that contained 

hydrochloric acid as a preservative. The vials were then labeled and placed in a cooler with ice (Ref. 143, p. 1). 

Contaminated Ground Water (Obtained by Direct Push) Sample Table

EPA CLP # IDEM # Sample 

Date Location Hazardous Substance

Sample 

Concentration

Sample 

Quantitation 

Limit

Contract 

Required 

Quantitation 

Limit

Depth

Below 

Ground 

Surface

References

E2SG4 GW10/GW20 11/16/11 Dup. of 

E2SK0

1,1,1-

TCA 3.3 μg/L 0.5 μg/L 0.5 μg/L 26 1⁄2 to 

29 feet 

Ref. 79, pp. 

18, 32, 219, 

246; Ref. 80, 

pp. 15, 58; 

Ref. 111, p. 

5; Ref. 112, 

p. 10; Ref. 

119, p. 199

E2SH7 GW3 11/15/11

Southwest 

corner of the 

ACE Cash 

Express 

parking lot; 

approximately 

10 feet west 

of Ace 

Express bldg.

PCE 3.0 μg/L 0.5 μg/L 0.5 μg/L 21.5 to 

24 feet 

Ref. 79, pp. 

17, 32, 212, 

238; Ref. 80, 

pp. 27-28, 

63; Ref. 111, 

p. 3; Ref. 

112, p. 10; 

Ref. 119, p. 

199

E2SH9/E2SH9DL GW2 11/15/11

Ace Cash 

Express 

parking lot; 

75 feet north 

of alley; about 

8 feet east of 

west property

line.

PCE 23 μg/L 1.0 μg/L 0.5 μg/L 21.5 to 

24 feet 

Ref. 79, pp. 

17, 32, 211, 

236; Ref. 80, 

pp. 30, 32, 

62-63; Ref. 

111, p. 3; 

Ref. 112, p. 

10; Ref. 119, 

p. 199

E2SJ1 GW1 11/15/11

Ace Cash 

Express 

parking lot; 

30 feet south 

of 38th Street, 

15 feet west 

of bldg.

PCE,

TCE

5.8 μg/L

1.5 μg/L

0.5 μg/L

0.5 μg/L

0.5 μg/L

0.5 μg/L

21.5 

feet 

Ref. 79, pp. 

32, 210, 234; 

Ref. 80, pp. 

33-34, 65; 

Ref. 111, p. 

4; Ref. 112, 

p. 10; Ref. 

119, p. 199
31

EPA CLP # IDEM # Sample 

Date

Location Hazardous

Substance

Sample 

Concentration

Sample 

Quantitation 

Limit

Contract 

Required 

Quantitation 

Limit

Depth

Below 

Ground 

Surface

References

EDSJ4 GW4 11/16/11 Mosque; west 

side lot PCE 2.0 μg/L 0.5 μg/L 0.5 μg/L 21 to 

24 feet 

Ref. 79, pp. 

17, 32, 213, 

240; Ref. 80, 

pp. 37-38, 

65; Ref. 111, 

p. 5; Ref. 

112, p. 11; 

Ref. 119, p. 

19

E2SJ6 GW5 11/16/11

Mosque; 

northwest 

corner

PCE 8.4 μg/L 0.5 μg/L 0.5 μg/L 21.5 to 

24 feet

Ref. 79, pp. 

17, 32, 214, 

242; Ref. 80, 

pp. 39-40, 

65; Ref. 111, 

p. 5; Ref. 

112, p. 11; 

Ref. 119, p. 

199

E2SJ8 GW8 11/16/11

Rear of 

Thompson 

Contracting; 

east side by 

RR tracks

1,1,1-

TCA 7.1 μg/L 0.5 μg/L 0.5 μg/L 26.5 to 

29 feet 

Ref. 79, pp. 

17, 32, 215, 

244; Ref. 80, 

pp. 41, 66; 

111, p. 5; 

112, p. 11; 

Ref. 119, p. 

199

E2SK0 GW9 11/16/11

Thompson 

Contracting; 

south end of 

out bldg.

1,1,1-

TCA 3.3 μg/L 0.5 μg/L 0.5 μg/L 26 1⁄2 to 

29 feet 

Ref. 79, pp. 

32, 216, 246; 

Ref. 80, pp. 

43, 66; Ref. 

111, p. 6; 

Ref. 112, p. 

11; Ref. 119, 

p. 199
32

The following table lists ground water samples that were obtained from monitoring wells that meet the observed 

release criteria for chlorinated compounds (Ref. 1, Table 2-3). All monitoring well water samples in the area were 

collected in the combined aquifer (Ref. 7, pp. 3, 5; 78, p. 19, 20; 79, p. 15). The ground water samples obtained from 

the monitoring wells listed below were collected in three (3) 40-milliliter vials preserved with hydrochloric acid 

(HCL) (Ref. 78, p. 19). Nitrile gloves were worn and discarded between the collections of each sample (Ref. 78, p. 

19). Monitoring wells were purged three (3) well volumes before sampling. Ground water was obtained from the 

monitoring by using bailers (Ref. 78, p. 19). Ground water was poured from the top of the bailer into the vials being 

careful so that no air bubbles were present in the sample (Ref. 78, p. 19). The vials were then labeled and placed in a 

cooler with ice (Ref. 78, p. 19). 

Contaminated Ground Water Obtained From Established Monitoring Wells Sample Table 1

EPA CLP # IDEM # Sample 

Date Location Hazardous Substance Sample Concentration 

Sample 

Quantitation 

Limit

Contract 

Required 

Quantitation 

Limit

Depth 

Below 

Ground 

Surface

References

E2QZ3/ 

E2QZ3DL GW-4 10/19/09 

Monitoring 

well #2i; in 

front of 

Tuchman 

Cleaners;

northwest 

Cis-1,2-DCE 

PCE 

550 μg/L 

20000 μg/L 

25 μg/L 

1000 μg/L 

0.5 μg/L

0.5 μg/L 42 feet

Ref. 78, pp. 53, 

197; 96, pp. 6, 9-

10, 37, 160- 

165; 112, p. 8; 

119, p. 199; 23, p. 

121

E2QZ4DL GW-5 10/19/09 Duplicate of 

E2QZ3 PCE 210000 μg/L 10000 μg/L 0.5 μg/L 42 feet

Ref. 78, pp. 53, 

198; 96, pp. 6, 9-

10, 37; 112, p. 8; 

119, p. 199; 26, p. 

E2R00 GW-6 10/19/09 

Monitoring 

well PZ10d 

north of 

Tuchman

Cleaners on 

the side 

parking lot 

Cis-1,2-DCE 

TCE 

3.8 μg/L

3 μg/L

0.5 μg/L

0.5 μg/L

0.5 μg/L

0.5 μg/L 30 feet 

Ref. 78, pp. 53, 

199; 96, pp. 17-

18, 37, 100; 112,

p. 8; 119, p. 199; 

26, p. 107

E2R01/E2R01DL GW-7 10/19/09 

Monitoring 

well across

the street of 

the west of 

Tuchman 

Cleaners next 

to the 

Keystone pet 

Hospital @ 

W13 

Cis-1,2-DCE 

TCE 

PCE 

1300 μg/L 

240 μg/L 

3700 μg/L 

500 μg/L 

50 μg/L 

500 μg/L 

0.5 μg/L

0.5 μg/L

0.5 μg/L

45 feet 

Ref. 78, p. 200; 

96, pp. 6, 9-12, 

38, 172- 

177; 112, p. 8; 

119, p. 199; 23, p. 

176

E2R26/E2R26DL GW-37 10/29/09 

Tuchman 

Cleaners 

MW 8 

Vinyl 

Chloride 

Cis-1,2-DCE 

Trans-1,2-

DCE 

TCE 

260J μg/L (26 μg/L) 

600 μg/L 

1.6 μg/L

1.5 μg/L

25 μg/L 

25 μg/L 

0.5 μg/L

0.5 μg/L

0.5 μg/L

0.5 μg/L

0.5 μg/L

0.5 μg/L

23

Ref. 78, p. 221; 

98, pp. 4, 7, 9-10,

28, 31, 50-55; 

112, p. 2; 118, pp 

8, 12; 119, pp. 

199-205; 23, pp. 

87, 135

E2R12/E2R12DL GW15 10/21/09 

Northwest

corner of 

Thomas 

Catering 

Cis-1,2-DCE 

TCE 

PCE 

3.1 μg/L

7.3 μg/L

45 μg/L 

0.5 μg/L

0.5 μg/L

2.5 μg/L 

0.5 μg/L

0.5 μg/L

0.5 μg/L 19.25

Ref. 78, p. 208; 

97, pp. 6, 8-9, 18,

40-45; 112, p. 7; 

119, p. 199; 64, p. 

42
33

EPA CLP # IDEM # Sample 

Date Location Hazardous Substance Sample Concentration 

Sample 

Quantitation 

Limit

Contract 

Required 

Quantitation 

Limit

Depth 

Below 

Ground 

Surface

References

E2R13/E2R13DL GW-16 10/21/09 

MW3; 

Thomas 

Catering 

parking lot 

Cis-1,2-DCE 

TCE 

PCE 

3.6 μg/L

30 μg/L 

460 μg/L 

0.5 μg/L

0.5 μg/L

25 μg/L 

0.5 μg/L

0.5 μg/L

0.5 μg/L

19.95

Ref. 78, p. 209;

97, pp. 6, 8-9, 18,

46-51; 112, p. 7; 

119, p. 199; 64, p. 

42

E2R08 GW-14 10/20/09 

Indianapolis 

Water Company 

Well

PCE 0.68 μg/L 0.5 μg/L 0.5 μg/L 66 feet 

Ref. 78, p.207; 

96, pp. 19-20, 40-

41, 116-118; 95, p

2; 119, p. 199

E2R09/E2R09DL GW-13 10/20/09 Indianapolis 

Water Co. Well

Cis-1,2-DCE

Trans-1,2-

DCE 

TCE 

PCE

100 μg/L 

2.2 μg/L

12 μg/L 

540 μg/L 

25 μg/L

0.5 μg/L

0.5 μg/L

25 μg/L

0.5 μg/L

0.5 μg/L

0.5 μg/L

0.5 μg/L

36 feet 

Ref. 78, p. 206; 

96, pp. 7, 19-20, 

40-41, 119-121; 

112, p. 8; 119, p. 

199

J = E2R26 vinyl chloride result has an unknown bias due to an exceedance of the upper limit of the criteria window and adjusted

using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028, Using Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed

Contamination, November 1996 (Ref. 118, pp. 8, 12; 98, p. 4; 145). The adjusted concentration is in parenthesis. 

The following table lists the ground water sample that was obtained from Fall Creek Municipal Well FC17 that was found to 

contain elevated levels of VOCs. This well has not been in production for the past several years (Ref.106, p.4). The municipal

well water samples were collected from the sand and gravel interval of the combined aquifer (Ref. 7, pp. 2, 3, 34-36).

Municipal well water samples obtained from FC17 were obtained from a spigot located on the municipal well pump. Well 

FC17 was pumped for 30 minutes, then purged by removing 3 well volumes of water. Samples were obtained by direct pour 

into three (3) 40-ml glass vials containing hydrochloric acid preservative. Samples were collected in a manner so that no air 

bubbles were present in the vial after securely closing the lid. Nitrile gloves were worn during the collection of all samples 

and the samples were placed directly into an ice-filled cooler (Ref. 78, pp. 19, 20, 214).

Fall Creek Municipal Well FC17 Table

EPA CLP # IDEM # Control # Sample

Date Location Hazardous Substance 

Sample

Concentration 

Contract

Required

Quantitation 

Limit

Depth 

Below 

Ground 

Surface

References

E2R30 GW30 NA 10/29/09 Municipal Well FC17 TCE 0.98J (0.59) 

μg/L 0.5 μg/L 82 feet

Ref. 98, 

pp. 5-6, 

11-12, 28,

62-64;

95, p. 2; 

118, pp. 8, 12; 

119, pp. 199-

205; 7, p. 36

J = The analyte was positively identified; the associated numerical value is an approximate concentration of the 

analyte in the sample (Ref. 98, p. 8). The bias associated with the numerical value is unknown and adjusted using the 

procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028, Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed 

Contamination, November 1996 (Ref. 118, pp. 8, 12; 98, p. 5; 145). The adjusted concentration is in parenthesis.
34

The following table lists the ground water samples that were obtained from Fall Creek Municipal Well FC2 that was found to 

contain elevated levels of VOCs at level I concentrations. The municipal well water samples were collected in the karst 

portion of the combined aquifer (Ref. 7, pp. 2, 3). Municipal well water samples obtained during the Keystone Corridor 

sampling in November 2011 were obtained from spigots located on the municipal well pump. Wells were purged for a short 

period (10-15 minutes) as all active wells that were sampled had been running continuously (from 3 hours to several days) 

prior to our taking the sample. Samples were obtained by direct pour into three (3) 40-ml glass vials containing hydrochloric 

acid preservative. Samples were collected in a manner so that no air bubbles were present in the vial after securely closing 

the lid. Nitrile gloves were worn during the collection of all samples and the samples were placed directly into an ice-filled 

cooler (Ref. 142, p. 1).

Contaminated Ground Water Sample Table 2 (Municipal Well FC2)

EPA CLP # IDEM # Control # Sample 

Date Location Hazardous Substance 

Sample 

Concentration 

Sample 

Quantitation 

Limit

Contract 

Required 

Quantitation 

Limit

Depth

Below 

Ground 

Surface

References

E2SG1DL FC2 NA 11/15/11 Fall Creek Municipal 

Well FC2

Vinyl Chloride

Cis-1,2-DCE

12 μg /L

49 μg /L

0.5 μg /L

2.5 μg /L 

0.5 μg/L

0.5 μg/L 326

Ref. 79, p. 

205; 80 pp. 7, 

56; 111, p. 2; 

112, p. 10; 

119, p. 199; 7, 

p. 2, 32

E2SG2/ 

E2SG2DL FC2 NA 11/15/11 Duplicate of E2SG1 Vinyl Chloride

Cis-1,2-DCE

7.9 μg /L

41 μg /L

0.5 μg /L

2.5 μg /L 

0.5 μg/L

0.5 μg/L 326

Ref. 79, 206; 

80 pp. 9, 11, 

58; 111, p. 2;

112, p. 10; 

119, p. 199; 7, 

p. 2, 32

E2R05 GW-10 NA 10/20/09 Fall Creek Municipal 

Well FC2

Vinyl Chloride

Cis-1,2-DCE

3.9 μg/L

16 μg/L

0.5 μg/L

0.5 μg/L 326

Ref. 78, p. 

203; 96, pp. 

17, 39, 106; 

112, p. 8; 

119, p. 199; 

7, p. 2, 32

Level I Samples (Fall Creek Municipal Well FC2) Table

Sample ID Hazardous

Substance 

Hazardous Substance

Concentration (μg/L) 

Benchmark

Concentration (μg/L)

Benchmark Reference for Benchmark

E2SG1DL Vinyl Chloride 12 ug/L 0.017 ug/L Cancer Risk Ref. 2, p. 12; 80 pp. 7, 56

E2SG2 Vinyl Chloride 7.9 ug/L 0.017 ug/L Cancer Risk Ref. 2, p. 12; 80 pp. 9, 58

E2R05 Vinyl Chloride 3.9 μg/L 0.017 ug/L Cancer Risk Ref. 2, p. 12; 96, pp. 17, 39, 106

Since an observed release was determined by chemical analysis, a value of 550 is assigned. 

Ground Water Observed Release Factor Value: 550 
35

Attribution

The Keystone Corridor Ground Water Contamination is a documented release of PCE and degradation products TCE, 

cis-1,2-DCE, and VC to the ground water that has contaminated one (1) of the active Fall Creek municipal wells 

(FC2) (Ref. 19, pp. 1, 2; 78, p. 203; 96, pp. 17-18, 39, 106-108; 79, pp. 205, 206; 80, pp. 5, 7, 9, 11, 56-58; Figure 1-

3 of this HRS documentation record; 122, p. 1; 130, p. 1). 

The compounds found in the wells are manufactured chemicals, not thought to occur naturally, and non-detected

concentrations in some background wells show that they are not ubiquitous throughout the region (Ref. 120, p. 1; 

121, p. 1; Section 3.1.1, Background Ground Water Monitoring Well Sample Tables and Figure 1-3of this HRS 

documentation record). Chlorinated solvents (e.g., TCE, PCE, and carbon tetrachloride) are man-made compounds 

commonly used in commercial/industrial operations such as dry cleaning and metal degreasing, while other

contaminants such as cis-1,2-DCE are common breakdown products of PCE and TCE (Ref. 19, pp. 1-5; 120, p. 1; 

121, p. 1). The Keystone Corridor Ground Water Contamination is located in a heavily developed area consisting of 

industrial, commercial, and residential land, where a variety of past industrial and commercial activities could have 

resulted in the ground water contamination and where some contaminated properties have been identified (Ref. 129, 

pp. 1-3 and Figures 1-3 and 1-4 of this HRS documentation record). IDEM has made significant efforts to identify 

the specific source(s) of ground water contamination through CERCLA SI and ESI investigations (Ref. Section 

2.2.1, Level of Effort, of this HRS documentation record). Soils containing PCE and TCE contamination are present 

in some possible sources as discussed in the Description of Other Possible Sources Section of the HRS 

documentation record. A plume of chlorinated VOC contamination is illustrated in Figure 1-3 of the HRS 

documentation record. Due to the complex geology and high number of known and potential sources of chlorinated 

volatile organic compounds in the project area, it is not feasible to directly link any source to the contaminants 

encountered in the plume (Ref. 7, pp. 3, 5; Figure 1-4 of this HRS documentation record; Description of Other 

Possible Sources Section of this HRS documentation record). 

The following table lists the hazardous substances associated with the Keystone Corridor Ground Water 

Contamination. 

Hazardous Substance Table

Hazardous

Substances Quantity References

Tetrachloroethene (PCE) 

Trichloroethene (TCE) 

Cis-1,2-Dichloroethene (Cis1,2-DCE) 

Vinyl Chloride (VC) 

Unknown

Unknown 

(degradation product

of PCE) 

Unknown 

(degradation product

of PCE) 

Unknown 

(degradation product

of PCE) 

Ref. 19, pp. 1-5; 42, pp. 1-

69; 43, pp. 1-21; 121, p. 1; 

Section 3.1.1 of this 

HRS documentation record 
36

3.2 WASTE CHARACTERISTICS

3.2.1 TOXICITY/MOBILITY

The following toxicity, mobility and combined toxicity/mobility factor values have been assigned to those substances 

present in the observed release, which have a containment value greater than 0. 

Hazardous

Substance 

Source No.

(and/or Observed

Release) 

Toxicity

Factor Value 

Mobility

Factor Value 

Does Haz. Substance Meet

Observed Release by 

Chemical Analysis? (Y/N) 

Toxicity/

Mobility (Ref. 

1, Table 3-9) 

References

TCE Observed

Release

1,000 1 Y 1,000 Ref. 1, Section 3.2.1.3, p.

76; 2, p. 10 

Cis-1,2-DCE Observed

Release

 1,000 1 Y 1,000 Ref. 1, Section 3.2.1.3, p.

76; 2, p. 6 

PCE Observed

Released

100 1 Y 100 Ref. 1, Section 3.2.1.3, p. 

76; 2, p. 8 

Vinyl Chloride Observed

Release

10,000 1 Y 10,000 Ref. 1, Section 3.2.1.3, p. 

76; 2, p. 12 

All hazardous substances that meet the criteria for an observed release by chemical analysis to one or more aquifers 

underlying the source(s) at the site, regardless of the aquifer being evaluated, are assigned a mobility factor value of 1 

(Ref. 1, Section 3.2.1.2, p. 75). 

Contaminant characteristic values for hazardous substances found in an observed release to the combined aquifer

were derived from the Superfund Chemical Data Matrix (Ref. 2, pp. 5-12). The hazardous substance with the highest 

toxicity/mobility factor value available to the ground water migration pathway is vinyl chloride (10,000). 

Toxicity/Mobility Factor Value: 10,000 

(Ref. 1, Section 3.2.1.3, p. 76)

3.2.2 HAZARDOUS WASTE QUANTITY

Source No. Source Type Source Hazardous Waste Quantity

1 Other Unknown, but >0

The Keystone Corridor Ground Water Contamination site has been scored as a site consisting of a ground water

plume from commingled contamination with no identified source. According to Section 2.4.2.2 in the HRS (Ref. 1, p. 

66), if any target for the migration pathway is subject to Level I (or Level II) concentrations and the hazardous 

constituent quantity is not adequately determined, assign either the value from Table 2-6 (Ref. 1, p. 65) or a value of 

100, whichever is greater, as the hazardous waste quantity factor value for that pathway. Because Level I 

concentrations were present in a drinking water well (Ref. Section 3.3.2.2 of this HRS documentation record), a 

hazardous waste quantity factor value of 100 is assigned for the ground water pathway. 

Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: 100

(Ref. 1, Section 2.4.2.2, p. 66)
37

3.2.3 WASTE CHARACTERISTICS FACTOR CATEGORY VALUE

As specified in the HRS (Ref. 1, Section 3.2.3, p. 76), the Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value of 100 was 

multiplied by the highest Toxicity/Mobility Value of 10,000, resulting in a product of 1,000,000 (1.0E+06). Based on 

this product, a Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value of 32 was assigned from Table 2-7 of the HRS (Ref. 1, 

Section 2.4.3.1, p. 66). 

Utilizing vinyl chloride which has the highest Toxicity/Mobility Factor Value of the substances listed in Section 3.2.1 

of this HRS documentation record: 

Toxicity/Mobility Factor Value: 10,000

Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: 100

Toxicity/Mobility Factor Value (10,000) X Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value (100) = 1,000,000 = 1 X 106

Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value: 32 

(Ref. 1, Table 2-7, p. 66)

3.3 TARGETS

Ground water usage is high in the vicinity of the ground water plume (Ref. 106, p. 4; Figure 1-2 of this HRS 

documentation record). The City of Indianapolis’ Fall Creek municipal wells, as well as private wells in the area,

utilize ground water from the combined aquifer (Ref. 116, pp. 22-23; 135, pp. 1-26). The primary targets are 

Indianapolis’s Fall Creek municipal wells FC2, FC5, FC7, FC8, FC11, FC17, FC18, FC19, FC20 and FC21. 

Currently FC2 is subject to Level I contamination. The remaining municipal wells are subject to potential

contamination. There are 123,264 people known to be utilizing the water from these wells (Ref. 106, pp.1-3; Section 

3.3.2 of this HRS documentation record).

3.3.1 NEAREST WELL

Sample IDs: E2SG1 (Municipal well FC2)

Level of Contamination (I, II, or potential): Level I 

If potential contamination, distance from source in miles: Not Applicable

Samples E2SG1 and E2SG2 (duplicate of E2SG1) were obtained from Municipal Well FC2 on November 15, 

2011.The water in Municipal Well FC2 was found to contain vinyl chloride above the background level and above 

the cancer risk screening concentration (Ref. 2, pp. 7, 12). 

As specified in the HRS (Ref. 1, Table 3-11, p. 77), if one or more drinking water wells are subject to Level I 

concentrations a Nearest Well Factor Value of 50 is assigned. Level I concentrations have been documented in the 

ground water of FC2 (Ref. Section 3.3.2.2 of this HRS documentation record). 

Nearest Well Factor Value: 50 

(Ref. 1, Table 3-11, p. 77)
38

3.3.2 POPULATION

3.3.2.2 Level I Concentrations

One (1) municipal well (FC2) contains Level I concentrations of vinyl chloride. The well draws water from the 

combined aquifer (Ref 7, p. 2). The number of people served by this municipal well (910 people) is calculated 

below. 

The following facts were acquired to calculate the number of people served by the Fall Creek Well Field:

The annual pumpage of drinking water in gallons was obtained from Reference 100.

The Fall Creek Treatment Plant is a blended system (Ref. 117, p. 1). In 2011, the Fall Creek system pumped 

5,784,900,000 gallons (5784.9 million gallons) from the surface water intake and 1,559,800,000 gallons (1,559.8 

million gallons) from the municipal wells for a total of 7,344,700,600 gallons with standby water available from 

other treatment plants within the Citizens Energy Group service area (Ref. 102, pp. 21, 23; 117, pp. 1-3; 144).The 

percentage of population served by each source is calculated by dividing the annual pumpage of each source (as 

shown below) by the total annual pumpage (7,344,700,600) in gallons for the entire Fall Creek system. Note that the 

surface water intake supplies 78.75 percent of total gallons pumped in 2011. Two examples showing this calculation 

are shown in Reference 79, page 259 for FC2 and FC11. The percentage of drinking water supplied by each source 

is shown in the table below using the calculation mentioned above.

The number of people served by all of Citizens Water Treatment facilities is 873,590 (Ref. 106, pp. 1, 3). The Fall

Creek Treatment Plant supplies 14.11% of the people in 2011(Ref. 106, p. 3). According to Citizens Energy Group, 

99.61% of the connections are residential usage (Ref. 106, p. 3). Therefore the number of people served by the Fall 

Creek Municipal wells is calculated by the following equation: 873,590 x 0.1411 equals 123,264 (plus or minus 10%) 

people (Ref. 106, pp.1, 3).

Since FC17 has been taken out of production, there are only nine (9) ground water wells that supply water from the 

Fall Creek Treatment Plant because municipal well FC17 has been restricted/discontinued (Ref. 106, p. 4; 139, p. 1).

As discussed in HRS Section 3.3.2, Population, if no single well or intake contributes more than 40 percent of the 

system’s total water supply, the population served by a blended system is to be apportioned equally among the wells 

or intakes. Since the surface water intake, which is part of the Fall Creek System supplies over 40% (78.75%), a 

percentage of people was calculated for each source. 

The number of people supplied by each source was calculated by multiplying the population served by the Fall 

Creek Treatment Plant (123,264 people) by the percentage calculated for each source as shown above. By using this 

calculation, the following number of people was attributed to each source. 

People Served Table

Well ID Annual pumpage of 

drinking water in 

thousands of gallons 

(Ref. 106, p. 4)

Percentage of 

Population Served per 

Each Well

Number of People Served 

Per Each Well

Intake 5,784,900 78.746194 97,085

FC2 54,200 0.737779 910

FC5 91,100 1.240087 1,529

FC7 366,500 4.988933 6,151

FC8 52,300 0.711927 878

FC11 355,500 4.839197 5966

FC17 0 0 0

FC18 1,900 0.025864 32
39

Well ID Annual pumpage of 

drinking water in 

thousands of gallons 

(Ref. 106, p. 4)

Percentage of 

Population Served per 

Each Well

Number of People Served 

Per Each Well

FC19 48,700 0.662922 817

FC20 269,300 3.665811 4,520

FC21 320,400 4.361403 5,377

Total 7,344,800 gallons 100 123,264

Note: The number of persons served by each source was rounded to the nearest whole number.

FC2 Level I Table

Level I Samples Aquifer Population References

E2SG1DL, E2SG2,

E2R05

Combined 910 See calculation in 3.3.2.2 above

The sum of the population served by Municipal Well FC2 (910) was multiplied by 10 for a product of 9,100(Ref. 1, 

Section 3.3.2.2, p. 77). 

Level I Concentrations Factor Value: 9,100 

3.3.2.4 Potential Contamination

Potential contamination was calculated for this HRS documentation record. 

The following municipal wells (FC5, FC7, FC8, FC11, FC18, FC19, FC20 and FC21) are considered to be subject to 

potential contamination (Ref. Figure 1-2 of this HRS documentation record; 122, p. 1; 130, p. 1). These wells draw 

water from the combined aquifer; the same as FC2 (Ref. 7, p. 2, 31, 32, 34, 35). 

The center of the Keystone Corridor Ground Water Contamination is shown on Figure 1-2 of this HRS 

documentation record. From this point, the distance in feet to each municipal well was calculated (Figure 1-2; Ref. 

122, p. 1; 130, p. 1; 141, p. 2). The measurements listed below depict those distances. The distances to each

municipal well along with the corresponding number of people served was entered into Table 3-12 of 40 CFR, Part 

300 (Ref. 1, p. 78). The following values for each municipal well were derived from Table 3-12:

Potential Contamination Table

Distance 

Category 

(miles)

Municipal 

wells

Distance From 

Center of Plume 

to Municipal 

Well (feet) 

(Figure 1-3 of this

HRS 

documentation 

record)

Number 

of 

People 

Served 

Per 

Each 

Well 

Outwash 

aquifer

Number 

of 

People 

Served 

Per 

Each 

Well

Karst 

aquifer

DistanceWeighted 

Population 

Value: 

Karst 

aquifer

DistanceWeighted 

Population 

Value: 

Outwash 

aquifer

Ref.

0 to 1⁄4 FC5/FC8 

(Karst)

519/611 NA 1,529 

+ 878= 

2,407 

1,633 NA 7, pp. 

2, 3, 

31, 32, 

35; 

141, p. 

2 
40

Distance 

Category 

(miles)

Municipal 

wells

Distance From 

Center of Plume 

to Municipal 

Well (feet) 

(Figure 1-3 of this

HRS 

documentation 

record)

Number 

of 

People 

Served 

Per 

Each 

Well 

Outwash 

aquifer

Number 

of 

People 

Served 

Per 

Each 

Well

Karst 

aquifer

DistanceWeighted 

Population 

Value: 

Karst 

aquifer

DistanceWeighted 

Population 

Value: 

Outwash 

aquifer

Ref.

1⁄4 to 1⁄2 FC7 (Karst) 1,471 NA 6,151 3,233 NA 7, pp. 

2, 32, 

34; 

141, p. 

2

1⁄2 to 1 FC11(Karst) 3,329 NA 5,966 2,607 NA 7, pp. 

2, 3, 

31; 

141, p. 

2 

1⁄2 to 1 FC18, 

FC19, FC20 

(Outwash)

3,802/4,564/5,184 32 + 817 

+ 4,520 

= 5,369

NA NA 1669 7, pp. 

2, 32, 

35, 37, 

38; 

141, p. 

2

1 to 2 FC21 

(Outwash)

5,734 5,377 NA NA 939 7, pp. 

2, 31, 

35, 39; 

141, p. 

2

2 to 3 NA NA NA NA

3 to 4 NA NA NA NA

These values are added (1,633 +3,233 + 2,607 + 1,669 + 939 =10,081). The total of 10,081 is multiplied by 0.1 to 

obtain the distance-weighted population value (Ref. 1, Section 3.3.2.4, p. 78). 

The distance-weighted population value was calculated as follows: 

10,081 X 0.1 = 1,008.1

Potential Contamination Factor Value: 1,008

3.3.3 RESOURCES

Resource use of the combined aquifer within the target distance limit does not include any of the Resource Factors. 

Therefore, a Resource Factor value of 0 is assigned (Ref. 1, Section 3.3.3, p. 78). 

Resources Factor Value: 0
41

3.3.4 WELLHEAD PROTECTION AREA

The entire ground water plume lies within the Wellhead Protection Area of the City of Indianapolis’s Fall Creek Well 

Field (Ref. 116, p. 4; 122, p. 1; 130, p. 1; Figure 1-2 of this HRS documentation record). The wellhead protection 

area designation is in accordance with Section 1428 of the Safe Drinking Water Act and is consistent with the 

requirements of 327 IAC 8-4.1(the “Indiana Wellhead Protection Rule” (Ref. 116, p. 4; Ref. 29, p. 1, 2). Therefore, the 

Wellhead Protection Area Factor Value of 20 is assigned (Ref. 1, Section 3.3.4, p. 78; 29, pp. 1, 2; 122, p. 1; 130, p. 

1; Figure 1-3 of this HRS documentation record).

Wellhead Protection Area Value: 20