PB99-964101
EPA541-R99-049
1999
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Amoco Chemicals (Joliet Landfill)
Joliet, IL
7/15/1999
-------
-------
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
217/785-8729
1021 NORTH GRAND AVENUE EAST, P.O. Box 19276, SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 62794-9276
THOMAS V. SKINNER, DIRECTOR
July 27, 1999
Mr. Jon Peterson
Office of Superfund (S-6J)
USEPA Region 5
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Reference: Amoco Chemical Joliet Landfill
1978000001 Will County
People v. Amoco/Case No. 94C00869
Superfund Technical - ROD Transraittal
Dear Mr. Peterson:
Enclosed please find one copy of the July 1999, Record of Decision and the Declaration for the
Record of Decision regarding the above-referenced Superfund site.
Please contact me at the above-listed phone number c; address if you have questions.
Sincere!}
Rogers
Remedial Project Manager
Federal Site Remediation Section
Division of Remediation Management
Bureau of Land
cc:
Bureau File wo/enclosures
-------
-------
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
SITE NAME ANP LOCATION
Amoco Chemicals (Joliet Landfill)
Joliet, Illinois
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for the Amoco Chemicals (Joliet
Landfill) in Will County, Illinois, which was chosen in accordance with the Illinois
Environmental Protection Act, 415 ILCS 5/1 etseq.: the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601 et seq. by
the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986; and the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, 40 C.F.R. Part 300. This decision is based
on the Administrative Record for this site. The United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region V ("U.S. EPA") concurs with the selected remedy.
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this site, if not addressed by
implementing the response action selected in this Record of Decision, may present an imminent
and substantial endangerment to the public health, welfare, or the environment.
DESCRIPTION OF THE REMEDY
The remedial action addresses the Landfill Operable Unit of the two operable units identified for
this site. The Groundwater Operable Unit will be handled under a separate Record of Decision.
The remedial action focuses on a source of groundwater contamination by placing a Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA"), as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 6901 et seq., compliant
cap on the two landfills and installing a new leachate collection system. The function of this
action is to properly close the landfills, to control the migration of landfill contaminants to the
groundwater and other media, to reduce the risks associated with exposure to contaminated
materials, and to prevent untreated leachate from migrating off site.
The major components of the selected remedy include:
4 The construction RCRA compliant landfill cap conforming to the requirements in 35 111.
Adm. Code Part 724;
4 Installation of a gas venting system;
4 Installation of a new leachate collection system down gradient of the southern landfill and
a new leachate collection system down gradient of the southern portion of the north
landfill;
4 Installation of surface water management features to minimize erosion and infiltration;
-------
* Groundwater monitoring;
* Physical access restrictions will be maintained;
+ Real estate deed restrictions.
DECLARATION
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment, complies with the
Federal and State requirements that are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the
remedial action, and is cost effective. This remedy utilizes permanent solutions and alternative
treatment technologies to the maximum extent practicable and satisfies the statutory preference
for remedies that employ treatment that reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume as a principle
element. .
Because this remedy will result in hazardous substances remaining on site, the State is expected
to supply information such that the U.S. EPA can conduct a review within five years after
commencement of remedial action to ensure that the remedy continues to provide adequate
protection of human health and the environment.
Thomas V. Skinner, Director £>ate
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
for
AMOCO CHEMICALS (JOLIET LANDFILL)
SUPERFUND SITE
LANDFILL OPERABLE UNIT
-------
-------
Record of Decision Summary
Amoco Chemicals (Joliet Landfill) Superfund Site
Landfill Operable Unit
Will County, Illinois
I. Site Location and Description
A manufacturing facility owned by the Amoco Chemical Company a/k/a BP Amoco Chemical
Company ("BP Amoco") is located approximately one mile southeast of the intersection of
Illinois Route 6 and Interstate Highway 55 (See Figure 1). It is an active chemical
manufacturing facility located on approximately 750 acres of land in a semi-rural
industrial/agricultural area. The facility is near Joliet, Illinois in Will County on the west bank
of the Des Plaines River.
For the purpose of this document, the Amoco Chemicals (Joliet Landfill) Superfund Site and the
contiguous contamination will be referred to as the "site". References to the existing
manufacturing facility will be "facility".
The BP Amoco manufacturing facility has been in continuous operation since approximately
1958, manufacturing purified isophthalic acid ("PIA"), trimellitic anhydride ("TMA"), male'ic
anhydride ("MA"), and polystyrene (IT Corp., 1997). The manufacturing wastes generated by
the facility were contained in thin wall, rust away drums and disposed into two landfills (north
and south landfills) on the site which were closed in the mid-1970s. The closed landfill areas
cover approximately 26 acres. The former landfill areas, consisting of two parcels which are
roughly triangular in shape, are located in the southern portion of the property. A gravel road
along the bluff above the Des Plaines River forms the eastern and southern boundaries of the
landfills as shown in Figure 2. The landfills are located within 600 feet of the western bank of
the Des Plaines River. The landfills are sited on a bluff approximately 54 feet above the 100-
year flood plain. Land to the east of the northern part of the site drops off sharply to a level
bench which extends east for about 150 feet. This bench then drops again to the river flood
plain. The first bench below the landfills is about 24 to 36 feet above the 100-year flood plain.
Farther south, land drops rapidly to a lower bench, 12 to 18 feet above the 100-year flood plain.
The bench area is greater than 300 feet wide in places. The banks then drop steeply to the river.
The landfills are underlain by up to 30 feet of unconsolidated glacial deposits ranging from
clayey tills to sand and gravel drift deposits. The glacial deposits overlie Ordovician-aged
limestone of the Fort Atkinson Formation, which then gives way to Scales Shale. The latter is a
regional aquitard separating the shallow glacial and bedrock aquifers from the deeper regional
aquifers. The Sandwich Fault Zone strikes southeast to northwest under the landfill. The Scales
-------
aquifers. The Sandwich Fault Zone strikes southeast to northwest under the landfill. The Scales
Shale is disrupted by the faulting associated with the Sandwich Fault Zone in the site area.
Groundwater in the glacial deposits and shallow bedrock generally flows east toward the Des
Plaines River. However, south of the landfills, the river bends west and ground water may flow
in a more southerly direction.
Three leachate seeps were observed during an April 10. 1996, Illinois EPA facility inspection.
Two seeps were observed near the bluff east of the landfill and one seep was observed
approximately 150 feet from the river. All three seeps were located above the 100-year
floodplain. Wetland areas as defined by growth of cattails (Typha augustifolia}, occur in red-
orange stained soils located just upgradient of the present leachate collection system. At least
one seep area is located down gradient of the leachate collection system on the face of a slope
just above the river flood plain. The soil associated with this seep area is also stained red-
orange, suggesting that some impacted groundwater and leachate are bypassing current
containment.
II. Site Operational History
The contents of the landfill include approximately 5,900,000 cubic feet (218,518 cubic yards) of
wastes, some in 55-gallon drums, including organics, inorganics, heavy metals, acids, and
general plant refuse. The United States Environmental Protection Agency ("U S EP V')
suggested in 1983 that 135,000 tons of chemical wastes were probably contained in the landfills.
including plasticizers, resins, elastomers, ethers, esters, ketones, aldehydes, inoreanic chemicals
(salts and asbestos, acids and heavy metals).
Specifically, BP Amoco records indicate disposal of solid wastes containing isophthalic,
terephthalic, benzoic, toluic and trimellitic acids, aromatic aldehydes, cobalt and manganese
acetates, cobalt, manganese, cerium and "other metal" oxides, sodium bromide, zinc and "other
metal^salts, acetic acid, "tar and high boilers/' and polystyrene. Liquid slumes and "semi-
solid" wastes were also disposed which contained many of the above constituents as well as
dimethylterephthalate, styrene. mineral oil and rubber, chromium, iron, and copper. Records
also indicate that activated carbon (with associated isophthalic and terephthalic acids),
construction materials, insulation, and general refuse were placed in the landfills. Solid wastes
and liquid slurries were reported to have low pH, in the range of 2.5 to 4.8.
The northern or main landfill was operated by clearing the shallow soils associated with the
tormer farm land and leveling the areas for disposal of wastes. No liner or clay material was
placed beneath the wastes in the northern landfill. In some cases excavations or pits were used
lor disposal ot material. Historical BP Amoco records indicate that the average base elevation
-------
(bottom of fill material) of the landfilled wastes in the northern landfill is generally 3 to 20 feet
above the water table (see Figures 10 & 11). Potential exceptions where waste may intercept the
water table are observed in aerial photographs. One excavation (approximately 200 feet in
diameter) along the east side of the landfill appears to be over 30 feet in depth while the top of
the groundwater surface is approximately 20 feet in depth for that area.
In general, waste material, including drums, solids and some liquids, were placed on the ground
surface or in excavations and then covered with stockpiled dirt. The cover material for the
northern landfill was excavated from the area now occupied by the southern, smaller landfill
area. The excavated material and the remaining soils in the southern landfill are comprised of
predominantly silty clays. The bottom elevation of the southern landfill area (top of excavated
clays) is approximately seven feet below the water table at the north edge.
Historical aerial photographs indicate that landfilling operations did not extend to the bluff east
of the north landfill. Landfill operations at the south landfill, however, appear to have extended
beyond the former landfill road which runs along the bluff.
In 1972, a large portion of the landfill area was closed. This area was leveled, sloped toward the
river, covered with two feet of clayey soil, and covered with one to two feet of clay to reduce
infiltration. In 1973, the smaller southern landfill area began receiving process waste. The
clayey soil which was excavated in this smaller triangular area was eventually used as cover
material for the landfill to the north. Historical drawings provided by BP Amoco indicate a four
foot layer of clay remained in the southern landfill to act as a liner. Disposal into the south
landfill continued until 1975. No monitoring of landfill containment was performed subsequent
:u closure.
III. Site Enforcement Activities
There have been several historical documented releases associated with the site. On July 2.
1974, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency ("Illinois EPA") observed a reddish"
leachate discharging into the Des Plaines River and traced its origin to the landfill area. The
leachate apparently contained iron, manganese, ammonia, phosphorus and phenol. The plurne
extended 15 to 20 feet into a quiet backwater area of the river before the red staining was no
longer observed.
Two separate leachate sources were later identified, one from the closed, the other from the then
still active landfill. One of the sources was actually a natural stream, contaminated with seepage
from the landfills. This stream contained concentrations of several contaminants in excess of *"
Illinois effluent standards for biological oxygen demand, suspended solids, iron, manganese
phenolics and dissolved solids. Elevated levels of alkalinity, chemical oxygen demand total
-------
organic carbon, chlorides, and cobalt were also detected.
A leachate recovery system was installed by BP Amoco in March 1975. The system was
designed to intercept leachate moving laterally down gradient toward the Des Plaines River in
the shallow ground water. The system was upgraded in 1988. More recent visits (mid-1990s)
however, suggest that groundwater and leachate may be escaping containment as evidenced by
iron staining on the ground surface emanating from the south end of the collection system to 150
plus feet down gradient as well as iron staining on a small stream outcrop-down gradient of the
collection system near the backwater area east of the landfill.
In March 1987, the U.S. EPA scored the landfills using the hazard ranking system ("HRS") and
assigned the site a score of 39.44. A facility which receives a score of 28.5 or higher is a
candidate for the National Priorities List ("NPL"). In June 1988, the U.S. EPA nominated the
landfill for placement on the NPL. BP Amoco submitted a letter to the U.S. EPA in August
1988, in response to the listing. The response detailed reasons why the company believed the
site should not be on the NPL, and contended that the HRS score was inappropriate for the site
conditions. BP Amoco's position was not accepted and the site was added to the NPL on
February 21, 1990.
On April 7, 1994, a Consent Decree ("CD") requiring a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study ("RI/FS") was entered. BP Amoco initiated the RJ/FS as stipulated by the CD In early
1998, an agreement between the Illinois EPA and BP Amoco split the site into two operable
units: one for the landfills and the other for the contaminated groundwater. This decision
enabled the development of a Focused Feasibility Study ("FFS") concerning only capping the
landfills. Due to the dispute resolution of unreconcilable differences, the Illinois EPA exercised
its rights under the CD and relieved BP Amoco of the task of conducting the KITS The RJ was
completed on March 25, 1998, and the FFS on October 5, 1998.
The manufacturing facility north of the landfill is currently conducting remedial activities under
the Illinois EPA Site Remediation Program ("SRP"). The manufacturing plant portion of the
lacility entered into the Illinois EPA Pre-Notice program (now known as'the SRP) officially in
November of 1993, primarily in response to a xylene spill in the southeastern portion of the
plant area. Groundwater data for the plant area was collected in 1992/1993 and in 1994. This
information was used to prepare a Corrective Action Plan that was submitted to the Illinois
EPA. In 1998, BP Amoco installed a groundwater recovery trench located to the east of the
northern third of the north landfill. The trench is not part of the XPL site remedy.
-------
IV. Community Relations Activities
In 1991, BP Amoco convened a Citizens Advisory Panel to provide a channel for
communication between the company and nearby residents from Will County. The Illinois EPA
developed two repositories which are stocked with the investigatory information and the
decision documents concerning the site. The two repositories are the Joliet Public Library and
the Three Rivers Public Library in Channahon. In July 1995, a Community Relations Plan was
developed and implemented by the Illinois EPA.
In accordance with section 117 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation
and Liability Act of 1980 ("CERCLA"), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 ("SARA") (commonly and collectively known as "Superfund"), 42
U. S. C. § 9617 and pursuant to the Illinois EPA's "Procedures for Informational and Quasi-'
Legislative Public Hearings" 35 111. Adm. Code 164, the Illinois EPA held a public hearing on
January 12, 1999, and a public comment period from December 10, 1998, through February 11,
1999, to present the preferred remedy and the Proposed Plan ("PP") and to allow people the
opportunity to comment on the final remedy for the landfill operable unit at the Amoco
Chemicals (Joliet Landfill) Superfund Site. Questions and comments received during the public
comment period are listed and addressed in the Responsiveness Summary which is Appendix C
in this document.
V. Scope and Role of the Response Action
Two operable units have been identified at this site - one for the landfills and the other for the
contaminated groundwater. The remedial response objectives for the site are based on exposure
levels and associated risks posed by contamination within the landfills. The groundwater
operable unit will be evaluated under a separate feasibility study, PP, and Record of Decision
TROD").
Under the landfill operable unit, a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA") cap will
be placed on both landfills and a new leachate collection system will be installed along the down
gradient side of the south landfill and at the southern end of the north landfill in the location of
historical leachate seepage. Down gradient groundwater is contaminated by landfill
constituents. The purpose of the new low permeability cap and leachate collection system is to
control the landfills as a source of groundwater contamination by reducing infiltration of
precipitation through the landfill wastes and by reducing the amount of untreated leachate
migrating off site.
-------
The primary source of groundwater contamination is the landfill area. The potential exists for
groundwater migration from the shallow contaminated aquifer system downward into the lower
aquifer via fractures and faults in the landfill and plant area. Groundwater from these
hydrostratigraphic units ("HSU") flows toward the Des Plaines River to the east of the site (see
Figures 7, 8f & 9). There are currently no water supply wells between the landfill and the river,
so there is no potential for exposure to contaminated groundwater via a water supply well.
While there are some local groundwater hot spots for organic constituents in the plant area, the
contribution to the overall groundwater plume from these hot spots is small when compared to
the landfill contribution. The exception to this is for xylene contamination, which has been
documented to originate from the southeastern comer of the manufacturing area and flows under
the landfill area.
Plant wastes that were disposed in the landfill may migrate into the groundwater by various
means. Precipitation may infiltrate the landfill cover and mobilize contaminants as it percolates
downward into the shallow groundwater beneath the landfill. Wastes at the bottom of the
unlined landfill may come into contact with groundwater during high water table events or in
areas of deep excavation and dissolve into the groundwater continuously over time. Either way,
the landfill as it currently exists provides a continuing source of contamination to the
groundwater. Because no sampling of the landfill wastes was conducted during the RI and
because there is evidence that some hazardous wastes were disposed in the landfills, all landfill
contents were assumed to be hazardous wastes, as defined by RCRA.
The soil gas survey conducted during the RI detected low levels of volatile organics, primarily
xylene. under the landfill cover (see Figure 5). There is no gas collection svstem for the
landfills.
Soil borings were drilled adjacent to the landfill (see Figure 4) to determine the potential for
migration of landfill contaminants via windborne transport or surface water runoff. Surface soil
samples did exhibit elevated levels of several metals (lead, arsenic, chromium) which exceed
risk guidelines. Polychlorinated Biphenyls ("PCBs") were also detected at levels less than ten
milligrams per kilogram ("ms/kg") in surficial soils.
The subsurface soil samples collected at the boring locations showed an increase in the site
specihc organic acids with depth. Arsenic was present at concentrations similar to those found
in the surface soils. The concentrations of acids in the borings do not indicate that these soils
are a significant source of organic acid contamination for the groundwater. PCBs were detected
at less than one milligram per kilogram ("mg/kg") in the subsurface soils.
Several leachate seep locations were sampled. Liquids and surface sediments from the seep
locations were analyzed. The seep liquid samples contained low concentrations of benzene
(consistent with levels in HSU 1) and relatively low levels of organic acids. The metals present
m the liquid seep samples that are elevated above the 35 111. Adm. Code 620 Class 1
-------
groundwater standards are consistent with those that exceed the standard in HSU1 and HSU2.
The levels of metals detected in the seeps is typically less than the highest HSU1 values. The
seep sediments contained only low concentrations of organic acids and PCBs, however, several
of the metals were detected at levels two to ten times greater than those found in the surface soil
samples adjacent to the landfill.
VI. Site Characteristics
A. Land Use
The landfill is located on a bluff about 600 feet west and northwest and overlooking the
Des Plaines River about 60 feet below. Moving toward the east from the landfill there is a
25-30 foot steep drop in elevation and then the land slopes to the River. The River is generally
at about 500 feet mean sea level ("msl"), the 100 year flood plain is at 513 feet msl, and the
landfill is between 565 and 570 feet msl elevation.
The landfill is located within an industrial use area, currently zoned as intensive industrial with
adjacent farm fields and rural residential land use. The landfill has monitored access through the
manufacturing facility's security system, although there is the potential for access from the river
and the south gate (which borders private property).
B. Groundwater Quality
The shallow aquifer system beneath the site consists of two hydrostratigraphic units;
unconsolidated glacial deposits, denoted by HSU1 (see Figure 7). and shallow limestone and
dolomite bedrock formations, denoted by HSU2 (see Figure 9). Both are in hydraulic
communication under portions of the landfill. HSU1 has a groundwater divide on the western
edge of the landfill. The upper portion of the shallow dolomite/limestone hydrostratigraphic
unit (HSU2) beneath the site is highly fractured with dissolution and mineralization features
present at depth. A third hydrostratigraphic unit (HSU3, comprising the Scales Shale or
Brainard Shale formations) beneath the site forms a regional and local aquitard between the
shallow aquifer system and the deeper bedrock aquifers. These aquitards are disrupted by-
faulting associated with the Sandwich Fault Zone in the site area. Specifically, in the south area
of the landfill the aquitards are found at different elevations. Below HSU 3 is the regional deep
aquifer referred to as the Galena-Platteville-Glenwood-St. Peter Aquifer. BP Amoco's
manufacturing facility uses water supplied from production wells completed in this deep aquifer.
Portions of the landfill overlie the Sandwich Fault Zone. Faults within this zone have displaced
the shallow bedrock formations such that the shallow bedrock north of the fault zone comprises
Ordovician age limestone and to the south, the shallow bedrock comprises younger Silurian aae
-------
dolomite Bedrock formations are covered by unconsolidated glacial deposits. As a result of the
feu it. ,n the north portion of the site the Scales Shale is found at shallow depths Oess han
sandwirp ,T th; brm, ? the shaiiow aquifer- in the s°uth ^ ***^%
Sandwich Fault has displaced the Scales Shale, the Brainard Shale is found at depths of
120 feet- The Brainard Shale foiras the bottom
e
(see
bp C°ntaminated b>' ^dfill related contaminants
&. jb). Figure j contains the monitoring well locations. The depth of
fte grOUndwater belowthe "PPer-most weathered and fractured portions of the
dolomite formations is unknown due to lack of monitoring well data In genera" the
highest concentrations of contaminants are detected directly adjacent to the landfifl bo"es
by monitoring wells completed within the shallow glacial deposits of HSU 1 unaanes
iC C0ntaminants> Deluding iron, manganese, cobalt
Of t lUn ff aCen 0 * east -
of the landfill and near the bluff area. The source of these inorganic contaminants include
releases from the landfill, and potentially some localized hot spots withinTe pTaLt "ea
Concentrations of organic contaminants in samples collected from monitoring wells located
"
Concentrations of contaminants down gradient of the subsurface collection svstem in the
northern port.on of the site, as indicated by MW-63R-94, are senerallv reduced from
concentrations upgradient of the subsurface collection system? This groundwater quality data
mdicates that the subsurface collection svstem may be effective in reccing t£^S^s
of landfU related contaminants within the zone monitored as groundwater flows towage Des
^ BP Am°CO mau -nd/or the northern
Currently, there are seven residences using groundwater within one mile of the landfill Based
on groundwater flow direction, the wells are not expected to be affected bv the Ldfi Is One
Del -W " d I6S ^ ^ ^ ^'^ °f the landfi11 on ^ oppose side
C. Leachate Seep and Surface Soil Quality
Contaminants were detected in three seeps located down gradient of the landfill (see Table 5)
Tuo or the seeps are located upgradient of the subsurface collection system and one il located
-------
on the down gradient side of the system (see Figure 6). Water samples collected from the two
upgradient seeps indicated concentrations of inorganic contaminants similar to samples
collected in nearby monitoring wells completed in HSU1. Concentrations of organic
contaminants detected at the upgradient seeps were generally lower than those detected in the
nearby shallow monitoring wells located adjacent to and down gradient of the landfill.
Contaminants were detected in the seep located down gradient and east of the subsurface
collection system.
Surface soil samples collected at the seep locations detected the presence of inorganic
contaminants at levels greater than surface soil concentration. Concentrations of some inorganic
contaminants in the seep surface soil samples exceeded soil remediation objectives. Table I
contains the surface soil sampling results.
D. Soil Quality
Four soil borings were advanced and sampled along the east boundary of the landfill, one boring
was located between the landfill and the surface impoundments, and one was located at a remote
location. Inorganic contaminants detected in the remote location were found at concentrations
generally within the range of regional conditions for natural soils. However, this soil boring
location was affected by organic acid contamination and does not represent background for the
site. Soil samples collected from borings advanced near the landfill boundary indicated the
presence of inorganic contaminants in subsurface soils. The most frequently'detected inorganic
contaminants include arsenic, cobalt, and iron. The soil boring with the most detections of
inorganic contaminants at generally the highest concentrations'is located at the northeast corner
ot the landfill in an area where surface soils were observed to be stained and associated with
construction debris outside the landfill limits.
Soil samples collected from borings advanced near the landfill boundary contained detectable
concentrations of several contaminants (see Tables 2a & 2b). Organic acids were detected in
deeper samples collected at locations to the east of the landfill. PCBs at pans per million
concentrations were measured generally in the shallow soil samples collected along the east side
of the landfill where construction debris was located outside the landfill limits. The most
detections of organic contaminants were observed in the northeast area of the landfill in
generally the shallow (less than five feet) soil samples. The exception is the presence of organic
acids at depth in some areas, which may reflect groundwater contamination from historical high
water table conditions.
E. Landfill Soil Gas
Soil gas samples collected within the limits of the landfill detected benzene, toluene and other
volatile organic compounds beneath the landfill cover. The soil uas samples were collected
trom depths of three to four feet below grade and indicated a wide ranse of concentrations of
-------
individual compounds, from 0.001 parts per billion for chloroform to 890 parts per billion for
xylenes. Figure 5 has the soil gas sampling locations.
VII. Summary of Site Risks
The February 1998, Baseline Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment ("BRA") presents
human health and ecological baseline risk assessments for the site. Both assessments use site-
related chemical concentrations, exposure potential, and toxicity information to characterize
potential risks to human health and to local flora and fauna associated with releases of chemicals
in wastes disposed in the landfills. The BRA was performed by the Illinois EPA using the
methodology and techniques provided by the most current U.S. EPA risk assessment guidance
The risks are estimated assuming no further remedial actions at the site, and are intended to
assist the risk manager in determining the need for and extent of any additional site remediation
The following briefly summarizes the major findings of the risk assessment for the site. The
BRA should be consulted for a more detailed description of the assessment.
The BRA analyzes the toxicity and degree of hazard posed by substances related to the site and
describes the routes by which these substances could come into contact with humans and the
environment. Separate calculations are made for those compounds that can cause cancer and for
those that can have other health effects. For the compounds that can cause cancer (carcinogens)
risks are estimated as the additional possibility of developing cancer due to a lifetime of
exposure to the compounds. The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan ("NCP") establishes acceptable levels of risk for Superfund facilities ranging from 1 in
10.000 (IxlO-4) to 1 in 1.000,000(1x10-') excess cancer cases. "Excess" means the number of
cancer cases in addition to those that would ordinarily occur in a population of that size under
natural conditions. For the non-cancer causing compounds (non-carcinogens), a risk number
called the hazard index ("HI") is calculated. Typically, hazard indices less than or equal to one
(also referred to as unity) indicate no adverse health effects while indices greater than one are
indicative of p'ossible adverse health effects.
Contaminants of concern for the site are organic compounds of benzene, toluene, ethvlbenzene
xylene, phenol, TMA, terephthalic acid, benzoic acid, PIA, phthalic acid, MA, naphthalene and
inorganic compounds of arsenic, cadmium, lead, iron, zinc, cobalt, manganese and chromium
These contaminants have been detected in surface soils, groundwater, leachate seep soils
surtace water and in the subsurface collection system sump at the site. The contaminants'
detected at the site are consistent with those that were documented in disposal records and spill
reports for the facility.
Receptors could, in theory, be exposed to contaminants from the landfills via one or more of the
following complete exposure pathways: ingestion of contaminated groundwater. dermal contact
10
-------
with contaminated ground water, inhalation of volatile contaminants during the domestic use of
groundwater, incidental ingestion of contaminated surface water in seeps and the Des Plaines
River, and incidental ingestion of sediment in seeps and the Des Plaines River.
Tables 6, 7, 8, and 9 show the calculated incremental lifetime cancer risks and total hazard
indices for the scenarios listed above.
A. Ingestion of Groundwater
For groundwater, two groups of chemicals are evaluated separately, pesticides whose occurrence
is restricted to a relatively small area and other chemicals that have a more general, site-wide
distribution. Pesticides have only been detected along the northern boundary of the landfill in a
few wells. Exposure point concentrations for these chemicals were therefore calculated on a
well by well basis and risks are presented in the same manner. Adding risks associated with
pesticides to risks from other chemicals in groundwater is only appropriate for limited areas
where pesticides have been detected. Total risks are therefore presented without inclusion of
risks from pesticides.
A risk of 4.4x10° is estimated for ingestion of chemicals in groundwater, not including
pesticides. If pesticides are included, the total risk for the pathway might increase slightly to
4.5x 10'3. Such risks would be applicable to the areas near MW-43-88 where dieldrin risks are
estimated to be about 6xlO'5, and near MW-64-89 where delta-BHC risks are estimated to be
about 5.x 10'3. Neither of these wells is located in an area likely to be developed for residential
use, suggesting that risks due to exposure to pesticides might only be realized if contaminants
spread down gradient. For other wells where pesticides were detected, total cancer risks are less
that Ix 10'5. Cancer risks are, therefore, not increased significantly when pesticides in such wells
are included in the total.
Arsenic contributes more than 90 percent of risks due to ingestion of groundwater. Beryllium
related risks (K6xl O'4) also exceed the 10'6 to 10'4 risk range. According to BP Amoco', neither
arsenic nor beryllium were used in the chemical processes at the facility, and reports of materials
disposed in the landfill do not include either element.
All chemicals of potential concern ("COPCs") other than arsenic and beryllium, including the
pesticides, have associated risks below or within the acceptable range. In fact, the next highest
risk (6xlO-5) is associated with exposure to dieldrin at well MW-43-88. Arsenic and beryllium,
therefore, are the cancer risk drivers for groundwater at the site. The total risk from ingestion of
groundwater is 4x 10° without including the pesticides. Groundwater ingestion contributes
almost 100 percent to total carcinogenic risks. Total carcinogenic risks exceed U.S. EPA's
acceptable risk range by more than an order of magnitude. Table 4 contains preliminary
groundwater remediation aoals for the COPCs.
11
-------
For the groundwater ingestion pathway, the following His are estimated: 0 for cardiovascular
and hematopoietic toxicity, 1.4xl(T3 for neurotoxicity, 7.9x10'1 for immune system toxicity,
7,9x1 O*2 for renal toxicity, 5.6xlO'2 for gastrointestinal and hepatotoxicity, and 6.2x10'2 for'
reproductive toxicity. His for neural and renal toxicity exceed unity. The HI for neurotoxicity
is predominantly (89 percent) from exposure to manganese and the HI for renal toxicity is
almost 100 percent due to the carboxylic acids, with isophthalic and phthalic acids being the
greatest contributors.
B. Incidental Ingestion of Leachate Seep Surface Water
Several small wetland areas (average size about 1,000 square feet) are located along the eastern/
southeastern edge of the landfill at the bottom of a steep embankment which drops to the bench
areas. These wetlands are depressions where water collects during precipitation events, and
where some discharge of leachate and groundwater occurs. Wetland areas could be frequented
by recreational visitors, but they would be trespassing on BP Amoco property. The area is
likely to attract birds, insects and other type of animals. This may make the areas appealing to
visitors, including children. Currently, access to the wetland areas is limited, since all are
located on Amoco owned property. Significant access to. these areas is expected only in.the
future if the BP Amoco operations cease, and the land is released for other purposes.
Three carcinogens were selected as COPCs for surface water in the leachate seep areas: Aroclor
1248. benzene, and arsenic. Estimated carcinogenic risks for incidental ingestion of these
chemicals in surface water range from 1.7x10-'° for benzene to 1.7xlQ-7 for arsenic, and the total
cancer risk for the pathway is l.SxlO'7. Risks for individual chemicals and total pathway risks
are below the U.S. EPA's (1990) acceptable risk range.
The HUbr incidental ingestion of surface water in the wetlands areas by recreational visitors is
1.0.x 10°, a value two orders of magnitude less than the target HI of one'
Therefore, there are no excess cancer risks or adverse health effects expected from the incidental
ingestion of leachate seep surface water.
C. Incidental Ingestion of Sediment
For incidental ingestion of sediment in the wetland areas by recreational visitors, carcino°enic
risks of 3.2x lO'7 and 2.0xlO'6 have been estimated for Aroclor 1248 and arsenic, respectively.
The total carcinogenic risk for this pathway is 2.3x 10'6. This risk is at the bottom of the
acceptable range.
Total carcinogenic risk for recreational visitors from incidental insestion of surface water and
sediment in wetland areas near the site is 2.x 10". This risk is an upper range estimate based on
reasonable maximum exposure ("RME"). Best estimates of risks to recreational visitors to the
-------
wetland areas would be much lower. Approximately 93 percent of this risk is from incidental
ingestion of sediment and only seven percent is from ingestion of surface water Total
carcinogenic risks are at the low end of the U.S. EPA's acceptable range.
The HI for incidental ingestion of sediment (soils in the wetlands areas) by recreational visitors
is 1 .jxl 0". This low value again suggests no significant potential for non-cancer health effects
via exposures from this pathway. The HI for recreational visitors for combined exposures from
incidental ingestion of sediment and incidental ingestion of surface water is 1x10"' No adverse
health effects are suggested by this low estimate of HI. Since hazard quotients for individual
chemicals represent an upper range estimate of potential risks, remediation may not be necessary
to protect recreational visitors from exposure in wetlands areas.
D. Dermal Contact with Groundwater
Dermal contact with chemicals in groundwater is associated with a risk of 5 6x 10'7 This risk is
below the acceptable range.
For dermal contact with contaminated groundwater the following His have been estimated-
2.3x10- for neurotoxicity, 7.3x10'3 for renal toxicity, 9.0x10- for gastrointestinal and
hepatotoxicity, and 1.8x10'2 for reproductive toxicity. Dermal contact with groundwater is not
likely to have any effects on the cardiovascular, hematopoietic, and immune systems and
estimated His are zero. For dermal contact, none of the His exceed unity, suggesting that
adverse non-cancer health effects are not likely from dermal contact with groundwater It
should be noted that the HI for neurotoxicity is based on 1,2.4-trimethylbenzene which is a
tentatively identified compound.
The totai risk from dermal contact with groundwater, and inhalation of volatile chemicals during
domestic groundwater use is 4x10* without including the pesticides. In limited areas, risks from
pest.c.des may be approximately 1x10^, near wells where aldrin, dieldrin, and delta-BHC have
been detected. However, adding risks from exposure to pesticides does not significantly
increase total carcinogenic risks for future off-site residents. Groundwater ingestion contributes
almost 100 percent to total carcinogenic risks.
Since metals are poorly absorbed via the skin, dermal contact with groundwater is not evaluated
for toese chemicals. Dermal absorption may also be inefficient for some of the semi-volatile
LUPLs tor groundwater, especially the organic acids. These chemicals are therefore not
included in the quantitative analysis. Uncertainties associated with lack of evaluation of dermal
exposures for semi-volatile chemicals are discussed in the BRA
-------
V
E. Inhalation of Volatile Chemicals during Domestic Use of Groundwater
For this exposure pathway risks of 4.6x10'8 and 1.1 xl O'6 have been estimated for methylene
chloride and benzene, respectively. The pathway risk is 1.1 x 10-6. This risk is at the low end of *
the acceptable range.
Estimated His for inhalation of volatiles during domestic use of ground water are 1.8x10'' for
neurotoxicity. 6.0x10'2 for renal toxicity, 8.7xlO'2 for gastrointestinal and hepatotoxicity,
8.7x10'- for reproductive toxicity, and 2.4xIO'2 for respiratory toxicity. Non-carcinogenic health
effects on the cardiovascular, hematopoietic and immune systems are not expected for this
pathway and the estimated His are 0. All His for this pathway are therefore less than one.
Only volatile COPCs are included in quantitative evaluation of potential exposures from
inhalation of chemicals that may volatilize during domestic use of groundwater. For semi-
volatile COPCs, a quantitative evaluation was not conducted. The extent of semi-volatile
absorption into the skin in not well understood.
F. Risks Associated with Exposure to Lead
Risks from exposure to lead can not be assessed using standard methods, because toxicological
criteria for lead are not available. The U.S. EPA's position is that current data are insufficient to
determine a Reference Dose or Reference Concentration for lead. Further, the U.S. EPA feels
that the primary threat to human health from exposure to lead is subtle neurological effects in
young children. For this reason, the U.S. EPA has not derived a cancer slope factor for lead,
despite the chemical's Group B2 status as a probable human carcinogen.
The best available quantitative tool for evaluating health effects from exposure to lead is the
Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic ("IEUBK") model (U.S. EPA 1994b)- This model uses
current information on the uptake of lead following exposure from different routes, the
distribution of lead among various internal body compartments, and the excretion of lead, to
predict impacts of lead exposure on blood lead concentrations in young children. The predicted
blood lead concentrations can then be compared with target blood lead concentrations associated
with subtle neurological effects in children. Because children are thought to be most susceptible
to the adverse effects of lead, protection for this age group is assumed to also protect older
individuals. Protection of young children is considered achieved when the model predicts that
less than five percent of children will have blood lead levels greater than ten micrograms per
deciliter ("ug/dLM) (U.S. EPA 1994c).
The IEUBK model (Version 0.99d) was used to evaluate potential risks from exposure to lead
associated with the site. Young children who may live hydraulically down gradient from the
site in the future are evaluated for potential exposures to lead in groundwater. One- to 84-
month-old children were evaluated.
14
-------
The average exposure point concentration for lead in groundwater is used as input parameter for
the IEUBK model. Average exposure point concentrations are considered more appropriate for
use m the IEUBK model than RME exposure point concentrations. The average exposure point
concentration for lead in groundwater is 27.3 micrograms per liter ("ug/L"). The default
concentration for tap water in the IEUBK model is four ug/L.
A background concentration for lead in soil of 24 mg/kg was used for the site. This value is
thought appropriate since (1) lead was apparently not used in the chemical processes at the
Amoco facility, (2) new construction would not use lead-based paint or other materials with
high lead content and (3) areas of possible future residential development are not close to
highways which may have been an historical source of lead from leaded gasoline. All other
input parameters, including inputs for air, dietary intake, and maternal blood contribution, are
left as default values. The default values may be found in the BRA.
Using model input as described above, the IEUBK model predicts a eeometric mean blood lead
level of 3.6 ug/dL with 1.3 percent of children with blood lead levels above 10 ug/dL
Generally, the U.S. EPA (1994c) considers risks from exposure to lead unacceptable if more
than five percent of children have blood lead levels in excess often. Thus, risk from lead
exposure would be considered acceptable for future residents down gradient of the landfill.
G. Potential Ecological Impacts
The Ecological Risk Assessment ("ERA") is a required component of the RJ process. ERAs
evaluate the likelihood that adverse ecological effects may occur or are occurring at a site as a
result of exposure to single or multiple chemical or physical stressors (U.S. EPA 1992a). Risks
result from contact between ecological receptors and stressors that are of sufficiently long
duration and of sufficient intensity to elicit adverse effects (U.S. EPA I992a). The primary'
purpose of this ERA is to identify and describe actual or potential on-site conditions that can
result in adverse effects to present or future ecological receptors. Table 10 is a summary of
potential ecological risks associated with the site.
Leachate from the landfills has discharged to the Des Plaines River in the past. A leachate
collection system currently operates to partially prevent such discharse. However, evidence
exists that the leachate system is not entirely efficient, and past experience indicates that the
migration pathway is complete for some inorganic constituents and phenol. Groundwater which
discharges to the Des Plaines River could impact the local aquatic community The large
volume ot the river is expected to rapidly dilute such discharges and limit the geographic extent
of impacts. However, non-degradable contaminants (e.g., metals) miaht gradually accumulate
m sediments m areas ot discharge, making these sediments unsuitable for benthic'organisms and
bottom feeders. " ..
Local impacts may also occur in areas of current leachate seeps. Small wetlands immediately
15
-------
upgradient of the leachate collection system, and at least one small seep on the bench slope
above the river, could impact the limited communities in these areas.
Potential ecological receptors for this study are defined as plants and animals (i.e..
macroinvertebrates, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals) that inhabit or use, or have
potential to inhabit or use, the aquatic, riparian/wetland, and terrestrial habitats on or near the
site. Although other organisms such as bacteria, protozoans, and fungi are essential components
of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, potential impacts to these organisms are not fully assessed
in this ERA because, in general, adequate data are unavailable for such an assessment.
Field surveys conducted by Camp Dresser and McKee and others revealed relatively diverse
plant communities in the wetland areas and nearby deciduous woods. Plant diversity was
limited on the landfill surface and other developed areas on-site. A fairly wide variety of animal
species appear to be utilizing available habitats in the study area. For ERA purposes, the study
area consists of the landfills and areas immediately adjacent to the site, especially those to the
south and east that are not developed. Studies were not conducted specifically to evaluate the
relative abundance or diversity of plant and animal species resident to or using the site. In
general, however, observations of plants and animals on the site are used to provide a
perspective of site use by potential receptors and for assessing signs of ecological stress.
No plant or animal species of special concern, including threatened, endangered, or sensitive
species are likely to routinely use or exist in the study area. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
confirmed that there are no federally-listed threatened or endangered species in the site area (IT
1996a). In addition, the Illinois Department of Conservation indicated (based on pre-1992 data)
that there are no state-listed threatened or endangered species in the region (IT 1996a). The plant
and animal species listed by the Illinois Endangered Species Protection Board 0'IESPB") as
endangered or threatened in Will County include 46 species of plants (IESPB 1991) and 29
species of animals (IESPB 1992). State-listed animals include 14 birds, one reptile, five fish,
two insects, and seven freshwater mussels.
Two fish species listed as threatened or endangered in Illinois by IESPB (1992) — river
redhorse (Moxostoma carinaium) and greater redhorse (Moxostoma valenciennesi) — were
collected in the Upper Illinois River Waterway in 1993-1994 (Cochran 1996). The Des Plaines
River is included in the Upper Illinois River Waterway. River redhorse is listed as threatened in
Illinois, and its range includes Will County (IESPB 1992). Greater redhorse is listed as
endangered in Illinois, and is not listed as occurring in Will County (IESPB 1992). The recent
occurrence of these two species in the Upper Illinois River Waterway suggests that they may in
fact occur in the Des Plaines River, possibly near the site. Available data do not, however. "
confirm the occurrence of these two species of concern in the Des Plaines River in this vicinity.
For the aquatic receptors, the potential toxicity of seep water is of most concern if these waters
exist undiluted in wetland areas for extended periods of time. For sump water, the primary
16
-------
concern is containment and prevention of migration to existing surface water bodies or into
wetland areas via overflow or leakage. Aquatic biota such as sensitive aquatic plants (algae),
daphnids, invertebrates, and fish may be adversely affected by direct contact and, for
invertebrates and fish, ingestion of bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate ("BEHP"), copper, and zinc in
surface water of the Des Plaines River. BEHP-related effects are unlikely because maximum
detected concentrations are equal to or only very slightly above the lowest EC20 (the
concentration of a COPC in water that adversely affects 20 percent of exposed test organisms)
for daphnids, which are very sensitive to BEHP. Most other aquatic organisms, which are
expected to be less sensitive to BEHP, are unlikely to be affected by exposures to BEHP at
detected concentrations.
Copper and zinc exposure concentrations were most elevated in the downstream river sample,
ST5. The limited number of samples precludes highly certain conclusions, but this finding
suggests that copper- or zinc-related effects to aquatic biota may not be site-related. Effects, if
they occur, are expected to be minimized by the reduced bioavailability of copper and zinc in
surface water due to binding with dissolved organic carbon and calcium. If dissolved metals
persist at potentially harmful concentrations, the resulting effects are likely to include mortality,
reproductive effects, and growth effects for sensitive species. It is expected that the site
contributes minimally to the overall impairment of the Des Plaines River water quality.
Potential sediment-related impacts will be assessed in the forthcoming supplemental ERA. Site-
related effects to the Des Plaines River or local aquatic biota are not expected to be ecologically
significant based on limited surface water sampling.
For terrestrial receptors, sump and leachate seep water contains contaminants that may be toxic
to terrestrial or semi-aquatic biota that ingest such water. This pathway is, however, considered
insignificant for most terrestrial receptors because of the availability of other sources of drinking
water, such as the Des Plaines River. These other relatively less contaminated waters are more ~
likely to be preferentially consumed by terrestrial biota.
Sensitive terrestrial plants are at risk from direct contact with surface soil at soil bonne location
SB01 due to elevated (phytotoxic) concentrations of cadmium, chromium, cobalt, mercury,
nickel, and zinc. Sensitive terrestrial plants are at risk from direct contact with surface soil at
soil boring location SB02 due to elevated (phytotoxic) concentrations of chromium, cobalt, lead.
and zinc. Sensitive terrestrial plants are at risk from direct contact with surface soil at soil
boring locations SB03, SB04, and SB05 due to elevated (phytotoxic) concentrations of
chromium, cobalt, and zinc.
Effects to sensitive plants would probably include reduced growth, germination, or reproductive
success. Such effects are expected to be very localized and unlikely to result in community-
level effects or other ecologically significant effects,
Terrestrialsoil-dwelling animals (e.g.. soil invertebrates) are at risk from direct contact with
17
-------
surface soils at soil boring locations SB01-SB06 due to elevated concentrations of chromium.
These risks are probably not site-related and may be lower than suggested because the
earthworm benchmark concentration is less than background concentrations. Terrestrial soil-
dwelling animals (e.g., soil invertebrates) are at risk from direct contact with surface soils at soil
boring location SB02 due to elevated concentrations of lead. Such effects may include those
affecting survival, growth, or reproduction.
Terrestrial plants are at risk from direct contact with metals-contaminated surface soils at
leachate seep locations 1 (Cd, Cr, Co, Se, Ti, Zn), 2 (As, Ba, Cd, Cr, Co, Hg, Ni, Se, Ti, Zn),
and 3 (As, Cr, Hg, Se, Ti, Zn). Effects to sensitive plants would probably include reduced
growth, germination, or reproductive success. Such effects are expected to be very localized and
unlikely to result in community-level effects or other ecologically significant effects.
Terrestrial soil-dwelling animals (e.g., soil invertebrates) are at risk from direct contact with
metals-contaminated surface soils at leachate seep locations 1 (Cr, Co), 2 (As, Ba, Cr, Co, Zn),
and 3 (Cr). Such effects would probably include those affecting survival, growth,' or '
reproduction. Other terrestrial animals (including reptiles, small burrowing mammals,
songbirds, and carnivorous birds and mammals) may be at risk from direct contact with surface
soils at soil boring location SB01 because of high PCB concentrations. The exposure potential
is low, however, because of the small discrete areas apparently contaminated with PCBs Risks
are therefore expected to be quite low except for relatively immobile organisms that inhabit the
localized area of contamination. Food web effects or population- or community-level effects are
not expected because of the isolated area of serious PCB contamination. Other terrestrial
animals (including reptiles, small burrowing mammals, songbirds, and carnivorous birds and
mammals) are expected to be at low risk from direct contact with surface soils at soil bonne
locations SB02, SB03, SB04, SB05, and SB06 and leachate seeps 1. 2, and 3. Any risks
experienced by these types of animals would be location-dependent, and would be influenced by
variables such as diet, season, foraging area, and mobility of consumers and by the level of
contamination of surface soil and food items. Ecologically significant exposure through
mgestion of contaminated food items is considered to be unlikely because the primary~COPCs
detected in surface soil, with the exception of mercury and PCBs, do not bioaccumulate to a
great degree.
Containment of site-related contaminants is critical to preventing ecologically significant
adverse effects to local receptors. Finally, risks to aquatic receptors in the Des Plaines River
from site-related contaminants (which appear non-existent or very low) must be viewed aoainst
risks from other sources because most or all of the Des Plaines River is considered ecoiookallv
impaired. =
The Des Plaines River is currently considered impaired but improvins with records to water
quality. Surface water data collected from the Des Plaines River in support of this ERA surest
that there are low but detectable levels of chemical contamination in the river. For example."
18
-------
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthaiate, copper and zinc were detected in river water at concentrations
exceeding appropriate ecological benchmarks.
For protection of ecological resources, control of (1) site runoff, (2) ieachate discharges to the
surface (via Ieachate seeps), (3) sediment transport to the Des Plaines River and its associated
backwaters, and (4) groundwater discharges to surface water bodies are most critical. For
surface soils, exposures of vegetation to elevated COPCs should be decreased by eliminating
contact with COPC-contaminated soils. The selection of the most appropriate methods for °
achieving remediation goals is not a risk assessment issue but is a risk management issue to be
addressed in the FFS, PP, and ROD for this site.
Although the site is not listed as a historical or archeological site in Illinois, the recent discovery
of more than twenty archaeological sites within and surrounding the facility requires further
review by the Illinois Historic Preservation Society.
VIII. Remedial Action Objectives
The remedial response objectives for the site are based on exposure levels and associated risks
posed by contamination within the landfill and by contamination that may migrate from the
landfill. The results of the BRA identified the potential contaminants of concern and the
affected media at the site which pose an unacceptable risk to human health and the environment.
The remedial response objectives consider:
* Site characteristics that delineate the fate and transport of contaminants and
pathways of exposure;
* Human and environmental receptors; and
+ The associated short and long-term human health and environmental effects.
The remedial response objectives are as follows:
* Prevent the public from incidental ingestion of and direct contact with soil/waste
containing contamination in excess of federal and state soil standards or criteria,
or which pose a threat to human health;
+ Prevent the public from inhalation of airborne contaminants (from disturbed
soil; waste) in excess of federal and state air standards or criteria/or which pose a
threat to human health: and
19
-------
t Prevent the further migration of contamination from the landfill that would result
in degradation of groundwater or surface water to levels in excess of federal and
state drinking water or water quality standards or criteria, or which poses a threat
to human health or the environment, to the extent feasible and practical.
Preliminary remediation goals ("PRGs") were calculated from the results of the BRA to
establish site-specific cleanup targets for use in evaluation of remedial options in the feasibility
Study and/or establishing criteria for monitoring and compliance since remedial options for the
landfill are generally based on presumptive remedies.
PRGs are calculated for all chemicals with associated cancer risks of IxlO'6 or greater, or a
hazard quotient of 1 or greater. PRGs for aldrin, delta-BHC and dieldrin are developed
independently from those for other carcinogens. These chlorinated pesticides are found in low
concentrations in only two or three wells at the site. Further, these chemicals are highly
insoluble and are unlikely to move substantial distances from their current locations. Thus,
wells in the bench area where residential development is considered possible are unlikely to be
contaminated with pesticides in the future.
As summarized above, potentially unacceptable risks associated with chemicals released from
the site are estimated only for the future use of groundwater by residents using lands between
the site and the Des Plaines River. Further, only a subset of known site-related chemicals
(COPCs) detected in groundwater at the site contribute significantly to estimated risks,
including several organic acids, manganese, and cobalt. PRGs are calculated for all of these
chemicals. Arsenic, and ben mum contribute significantly to baseline cancer risks, but the
source of these constituents is not known. PRGs are, however, calculated for these chemicals
based on ingestion of groundwater used as drinking water.
Cancer risks are assumed to be additive when exposure to more than one carcinogen occurs.
However. PRGs do not consider co-exposure to carcinogens. Carcinogens that occur at the site
occur sporadically, decreasing the chance of co-exposure. Further, onFy a few carcinogenic
chemicals are present in groundwater at concentrations that imply cancer risks above I'xlO'6.
Risks associated with exposure to benzene do not contribute significantly to total cancer risks
but the risk does slightly exceed the minimum target risk of 1 xTo'6, and benzene is a known
human carcinogen. A site-specific PRG is calculated for benzene.
Pesticides are also found in groundwater in a few localized areas. These pesticides could
present a cancer risk above the minimum cancer target risk of 1 x 10'6. but the extent of such risk
is limited spatially. The BRA treats pesticides separately instead of combining pesticide risks
with those from other carcinogenic COPCs. Development of PRG for these chemicals follows a
parallel approach.
20
-------
Risks from exposure to organic acids, benzoic, isophthalic, phthalic, terephthalic and trimeilitic
acids, are due to potential renal toxicity and impacts to human health from co-exposure to these
COPCs could be additive. Further, the organic acids, a major constituent of wastes disposed in
the landfill, tend to occur together in groundwater and co-exposure is likely. PRGs for organic
acids therefore are estimated assuming co-exposure to all five constituents.
Risks from exposure to cobalt and manganese are due to potential impacts on the respirator)' and
central nervous systems, respectively. Co-exposure to cobalt and manganese, or to either metal
and the organic acids is not assumed to result in additive effects, and PRGs for cobalt and
manganese are calculated without regard to co-exposure to other COPCs.
PRGs for carcinogens are calculated using the same spreadsheets used to estimate baseline risks.
Using the "Goal Seek" function in EXCEL, cancer risk for exposure to individual carcinogens
(arsenic, beryllium, benzene, and chlorinated pesticides) is set to IxlO'6, and the corresponding
concentration of chemical in groundwater is estimated. Since all calculations for risks via
ingestion of groundwater are linear, the PRG for target risks of 1x10'5 and 1x1 CH are simply the
PRG at a target of 1 x 10'6 times 10 and 100 respectively.
Potential inhalation and dermal exposure to COPCs during showering is not taken into account
in the calculation of PRGs. Such exposures are expected to be minimal for arsenic, beryllium
and the chlorinated pesticides, all of which are non-volatile and poorly absorbed through the
skin. Inhalation and dermal exposure to benzene could be significant, however, the PRG
calculated based on ingestion only is less than the maximum contaminant level ("MCL") for
benzene. Generally, when PRGs are less than MCLs, MCLs are used as appropriate PRGs.
PRGs for noncarcinogens are calculated using the same spreadsheets used to estimate baseline
risks. Using the "Goal Seek" function in EXCEL, hazard quotients for exposure to individual
COPCs or groups of COPCs (arsenic, beryllium, benzene and chlorinated pesticides) are set to
one. and the corresponding concentration of chemical in groundwater is estimated.
The organic acids are assessed as a group to account for co-exposure. Since five organic acids
are included in the list of COPCs, the hazard quotient for each is set at 0.2. If all organic acids
were present in drinking water at a concentration equal to the PRG, the total hazardlndex would
therefore be one.
As discussed above. PRGs for cobalt and manganese are separately estimated assuming a target
hazard quotient of one.
PRGs based on noncancer effects are not calculated for chemicals which also are assessed as
carcinogens. PRGs based on a cancer risk of IxlO'6 are lower than those based on noncancer
endpoints for all relevant COPCs at the site.
21
-------
The PRGs for the site are presented in Table 4. The table also includes MCLs and 111 Adm
Code Part 620, Class I groundwater standards for those COPCs for which an MCL and/or Class
I standard has been developed. The Class I standard or MCL may be used in preference to
PRGs developed from the BRA when risk-based PRGs are lower than the MCL and/or the Class
Jl StHHOcU*Q*
«l
Note that the PRO for beryllium is based on a slope factor that has been withdrawn by the U S
EPA since the publication of the BRA for the site.
ingestion>
dt , ' > ™ mS
landfill contammants by placing a more effective barrier on the landfills thus decreasing
precipitation infiltration and decreasing the chance for exposure.
IX. Summary of Alternatives
Six remedial action alternatives were evaluated in the FFS for the landfill cap operable unit at
the site (see Table 1 1). The No Action alternative (Alternative SC-1) is a baseline for
^comparison to other alternatives. SARA mandates the inclusion of a No Action alternative
This section summarizes the performance of each of the remedial alternatives relative to the nine
Superfund evaluation criteria in the NCP.
Each of the four alternatives requiring a new cap on the landfill(s) contains two options for can
barrier layer components. The two options are differentiated by an "A" or "B». One of Se Z
options utilizes synthetic capping components and the second utilizes natural clays Due to *e
numerous choices, the final remedial design may differ in cap components from £e choLn
alternative as out ined in the PP and chosen in the ROD, but L final design Tal^t
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements ("ARARs") and perform equal to or
greater than the chosen alternative. p«iorm equal to or
Each of the alternatives is listed and discussed in greater detail below:
Alternative SC-1 : No Action
Alternative SC-2: Limited Action
Alternative SC-3: Single Barrier (Solid Waste) Cap/No Leachate Management
Alternative SC-4: Double Barrier (RCRA) Cap
Alternative SC-5: Double Barrier (RCRA) Cap/Relocate South Landfill
Alternative SC-6: Single Barrier (Solid Waste) Cap/Relocate All Waste/Leachate Collection
22
-------
A. Alternative SC-1: No Action
No actions would be performed under this alternative. This alternative would provide no
additional protection to human health or the environment for the landfill area. Infiltration rates
through the landfill cap will remain the same thus allowing contaminated groundwater within
the shallow water-bearing zone to continue to migrate away from the source area. Contaminant
concentrations will be potentially reduced to acceptable levels only through natural attenuation
and dispersion mechanisms.
It is expected that the groundwater contamination would persist under this alternative and
ARARs would not be met. Because there are no treatment options involved with this
alternative, there would be no reductions in toxicity, mobility, or volume of contaminants,
except through dispersion and natural attenuation mechanisms for groundwater. This alternative
would be easily implementable, with no associated costs to implement.
There are no costs to implement Alternative SC-1
B. Alternative SC-2: Limited Action
This alternative, which includes the maintenance of the existing soil cover and the monitoring of
surface water, groundwater, and leachate, would provide no additional protection to human
health and the environment for groundwater contaminants in the landfill area. Contaminated
groundwater within the shallow water-bearing zone would continue to migrate away from the
area until contaminant concentrations are reduced to acceptable levels through natural
attenuation and dispersion mechanisms. This alternative would not meet ARARs.
The total capital cost is estimated at $31,000.
The annual operation and maintenance ("O & M") costs are estimated to be
SI 07,000.
The net present worth is 51,519,000.
C. Alternative SC-3: Single Barrier (Solid Waste) Cap/No Leachate Management
This alternative will place a cap that is compliant with the standards for municipal solid waste
landfills over the current extent of the landfills. This alternative would not be fully protective of
human health and the environment for groundwater contaminants in the landfill area. The
reduction of infiltration is not sufficient for cleanup standards to be met.
Overall, this alternative would be relatively easy to implement. Costs would be lower than
those associated with the less permeable double barrier/RCRA cap. Compliance with ARARs
would not be attained. The cap would require a monitoring period of at least 30 years.
-------
The cap design for this alternative would meet the standards for municipal solid waste landfills
and would extend over the same area as the double barrier (RCRA) cap alternative (Alternative
SC-4). Two variations of cap design are discussed herein. Alternative SC-3A consists of a
synthetic cap formed of linear low density polyethylene ("LLDPE"). The barrier is comprised
of a single layer, in this case, a geomembrane made of LLDPE. This cap is more permeable
than a double barrier (RCRA) cap and would potentially permit more infiltration to occur at the
landfill. Alternative SC-3B consists of a low permeability compacted clay cap. The clay is
compacted to form a 36-inch thick barrier to infiltration.
The costs for construction, monitoring and maintenance associated with the Alternative SC-3 A
are:
The total capital costs are estimated at $3,484,000.
The annual O & M costs are estimated to be $96,000 excluding the costs for O & M
of the existing groundwater recovery and treatment system.
The net present worth of Alternative SC-3 A is $4,841,000.
The costs for construction, monitoring and maintenance associated with the Alternative SC-3B
are:
The total capital costs are estimated at $5,278,000.
The annual O & M costs are estimated to be $96,000 excluding the costs for O & M
of the existing groundwater recovery and treatment system.
The net present worth of Alternative SC-3B is $6,635,000.
D. Alternative SC-4: Double Barrier (RCRA) Cap
This alternative xvould place a cap that is compliant with the standards for hazardous waste
andfills on the existing landfills. SC-4A would include a composite barrier consisting of two
layers, a flexible membrane liner over a 24-inch layer of compacted clay. This alternative
would be protective of human health and the environment for groundwater contaminants in the
landfill area. The reduction of infiltration following construction of the RCRA cap would result
in less infiltration and less migration of contaminants than the current conditions and SC-^
municipal sohd waste cap. The infiltration reduction and subsequent reduction in the leachate
mobilization to the groundwater will eventually reduce contaminant concentrations to
acceptable levels through natural attenuation and dispersion mechanisms.
Overall, this alternative would be relatively easy to implement. Costs would be higher than
I n foSS°Ciated With Altemative SC-3' 'he solid waste cap. Compliance with landfill cap
ARARs would be attained. Groundwater ARARs will be addressed during the groundwater
project-The double barrier (RCRA) cap would require
24
-------
The costs for construction, monitoring and maintenance associated with the Alternative SC-4A
are:
The total capital costs are estimated at $5,349,000.
The annual O & M costs are estimated to be $96,000 excluding O & M costs for the
existing groundwater recovery and treatment system.
The net present worth of Alternative SC-4A is $6,705,000.
A design alternative (SC-4B) is also considered which includes construction of a double barrier
(RCRA) cap over the existing landfill area, similar to Alternative SC-4A, except that the 24-inch
clay layer in the composite barrier would be replaced by a geocomposite clay liner ("GCL").
This material functions in a similar manner as the clay layer, providing a low permeability
backup to greatly reduce potential leakage through holes in the geomembrane.
The costs for construction, monitoring and maintenance associated with the Alternative SC-4B
are
The total capital costs are estimated at $4,634,000.
The annual O & M costs are estimated to be $96,000 excluding O & M costs for the
existing groundwater recovery and treatment system.
The net present worth of Alternative SC-4B is $5,990,000.
E. Alternative SC-5: Double Barrier (RCRA) Cap/Relocate South Landfill
This alternative is the same as SC-4 except that the contents of the five acre southern landfill
would be incorporated into the north landfill with the new north landfill receiving a double
barrier (RCRA) cap. Alternative SC-5 would be protective of human health and the
environment. The reduction of infiltration following construction of the less permeable cap
would result in less migration of contaminants. Relocation of the south landfill to the north
landfill would potentially reduce the contact between waste and groundwater, further reducing
the mobility of contaminants. Waste in the north landfill would still be in contact with
groundwater. •
Overall, this alternative would be moderately difficult to implement. Waste relocation would
result in potential risks from the exposure of BP Amoco employees and nearby citizens to
landfill related contaminants during remediation. Costs would be higher than those associated
with Alternative SC-4 because the waste relocation cost is greater than the reduction in cost due
to less area being capped. Compliance with landfill cap ARARs would be attained.
Groundwater ARARs will be addressed during the groundwater operable unit portion of the
project. The double barrier (RCRA) cap would require a monitoring period of at least 30 years.
The cap design options for this alternative are the same as lor Alternative SC-4. two variations:
SC-5A for compacted clay and high density polyethylene ("HOPE"); and SC-5B for GCL and
HDPE. The additional component to this alternative is the excavation of the waste from the
-------
south landfill and relocation and disposal at the north landfill area. The base of the south
landfill is below the water table, at least on a seasonal basis. An existing drainage system
collects leachate from the south landfill and pumps it to the existing treatment facility at the BP
Amoco facility.
Eliminating the direct contact of waste in the south landfill with the groundwater, along with
capping of the north landfill, greatly reduces the mobility of contaminants. It does not fully
eliminate the issue since the north landfill is unlined and waste may be in contact with
groundwater. The excavated waste would be properly managed and covered during the
relocation process to minimize the potential for exposure. The additional fill would also be used
to provide more topographic relief for improved surface drainage. The area of cap to be
constructed would be reduced from 26 acres to 19.5 acres.
The costs for construction, monitoring and maintenance associated with the Alternative SC-5A
are-
The total capital costs are estimated at $8,228,000.
The annual O & M costs are estimated to be $89,000 excluding O & M for the existing
groundwater recovery and treatment system.
The net present worth of Alternative SC-5A is $9,437,000.
The costs for construction, monitoring and maintenance associated with the Alternative SC-5B
are:
The total capital costs are estimated at $7,693,000.
The annual O & M costs are estimated to be $89,000 excluding O & M for the existing
groundwater recovery and treatment system.
The net present worth of Alternative SC-5B is $8,902,000.
F. Alternative SC-6: Single Barrier (Solid Waste) Cap/Relocate AH Waste/Leach ate
Collection
This alternative consists of the removal of the wastes in both the north and south landfills and
the relocation of that waste into a Corrective Action Management Unit ("C AMU") The C AMU
is a new landfill that is expected to be located in the area of the abandoned wastewater treatment
lagoons. The lagoon area is already clay lined. A single barrier (solid waste) cap similar to that
m Alternative SC-3 would be placed on the CAMU. Leachate collection with treatment at the
BP Amoco wastewater treatment facility would be included. This alternative would provide a
high degree of protection to human health and the environment. The combination of reduction
of infiltration following construction of the single barrier (solid waste) cap and the presence of
the leachate collection below the waste would reduce infiltration and eliminate any contact
between waste and groundwater, thus reducing the mobility of contaminants.
Overall, this alternative would be moderately difficult to implement. Waste relocation would
26
-------
result in potential risks of exposure during construction. Costs would be higher than those
associated with previous alternatives because the waste relocation cost is greater than the
reduction in cost due to less area capped and the additional cost associated with leachate
collection system construction. Compliance with ARARs would be attained. The cap would
require a monitoring period of at least 30 years.
This alternative combines the single barrier (solid waste) cap variations of LLDPE (SC-6A) and
compacted clay (SC-6B) with the relocation of all waste from the north landfill and the south
landfill to a CAMU. The CAMU would situate the waste in a smaller footprint to reduce the
extent of capping (7.2 acres versus 26 acres) and place the waste above the groundwater table.
In addition, leachate collection for the entire landfill contents would be provided. This is unlike
any of the other alternatives under consideration.
The costs for construction, monitoring and maintenance associated with the Alternative SC-6A
are:
The total capital costs are estimated at $ 1 9,085,000.
The annual O & M costs are estimated to be $94,000.
The net present worth of Alternative SC-6 A is 520,636,000.
The costs for construction, monitoring and maintenance associated with the Alternative SC-6B
are:
The total capital costs are estimated at $19.553,000.
The annual O & M costs are estimated to be $93,000.
The net present worth of Alternative SC-6B is $20,887,000.
X. Summary of Comparative Analysis of Alternatives
The NCR requires the Illinois EPA to evaluate the alternatives based on nine criteria by which
technical, economic, and practical factors associated with each alternative must be judged. The
nine criteria are divided into three groups; threshold criteria, balancing criteria, and modifying
criteria.
A. Threshold Criteria:
The threshold criteria relate to statutory requirements that each alternative must satisfy in order
to be eligible for selection. The two threshold criteria are:
1. Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Alternatives will be assessed to determine whether they can adequately protect human health
-------
and the environment, in both the short-term and long-term, from unacceptable risks posed by
hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants present at the site, by eliminating, reducing,
or controlling exposures to levels established during development of remediation goals
consistent with 40 C.F.R. § 300.430(e)(2)(i). Assessment of an alternative's overall degree of
protection of human health and the environment draws on the assessments of other evaluation
criteria, especially long-term effectiveness and permanence, short-term effectiveness, and
compliance with ARARs.
The overall protectiveness of an alternative should be evaluated based on whether it achieves
adequate protection of human health and the environment, and should describe how site risks
posed through each pathway being addressed by the FFS will be eliminated, reduced, or
controlled through treatment, engineering, or institutional controls. The evaluation should also
consider whether an alternative poses any unacceptable short-term or cross-media impacts.
2. Compliance with ARARs
The alternatives will be assessed to determine whether they attain ARARs, including federal
environmental laws and state environmental or facility siting laws, or if they provide grounds for
invoking one of the waivers under 40 C.F.R. § 300.430(f)(l)(ii)(C).
For ease of analysis, the following three classifications of ARARs have been considered for the
detailed evaluation:
+ Chemical-Specific ARARs;
+ Location-Specific ARARs; and
+ Action-Specific ARARs.
In addition, other criteria, advisories, and guidance may be considered if appropriate to the
evaluation.
B. Balancing Criteria:
The balancing criteria are the technical criteria that are considered during the detailed analysis
The five balancing criteria are:
1. Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Alternatives will be assessed for the long-term effectiveness and permanence they afford and
for the degree of certainty that they will prove successful. Factors that will be considered as
appropriate, include the following:
28
-------
+ Magnitude of residual risk from untreated waste or treatment residuals remaining
at the conclusion of the remedial activities. The characteristics of the residuals
should be considered to the degree that they remain hazardous, taking into
account their volume, toxicity, mobility, and propensity to bioaccumulate.
* Adequacy and reliability of controls, such as containment systems and
institutional controls, that are necessary to manage treatment residuals and
untreated waste. This factor addresses in particular, the uncertainties associated
with land disposal, with respect to providing long-term protection from residuals;
the assessment of the potential need to replace technical components of the
alternative, such as a cap, extraction wells, or treatment system; and the potential
exposure pathways and risks posed should the remedial action need replacement.
2. Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment
The degree to which alternatives employ recycling or treatment that reduces the toxicity
mobility, or volume of contamination shall be assessed, including how treatment is used to
address the principle threats posed by the site. Factors that shall be considered, as appropriate
include the following:
* The treatment or recycling processes the alternatives employ and the materials
they will treat;
* The amount of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants that will be
destroyed, treated, or recycled;
* The degree of expected reduction in toxicity, mobility, or volume of the waste
due to treatment or recycling, and the specification of which reduction(s) are
occurring;
+ The degree to which the treatment is irreversible;
+ The type and quantity of residuals that will remain following treatment.
considering the persistence, toxicity, mobility, and propensity to bioaccumulate
of such hazardous substances and their constituents; and
«• The degree to which treatment reduces the inherent hazards posed by principle
threats at the site.
29
-------
3. Short-Term Effectiveness
The short-term impacts of alternatives shall be assessed considering the following:
4 Short-term risks that might be posed to the community and the facility during
implementation of an alternative;
* Potential impacts on workers during remedial action and the effectiveness and
reliability of protective measures;
4 Potential environmental impacts of the remedial action and the effectiveness and
reliability of mitigative measures during implementation; and
4 Time until protection is achieved.
4. Impletnentability
The ease or difficulty of implementing the alternatives shall be assessed by considering the
following types of factors as appropriate:
«• Technical feasibility, including technical difficulties and unknowns associated
with the construction and operation of the technology; the reliability of the
technology: the ease with which additional'remedial actions may be undertaken:
and the degree to which the effectiveness of the remedy may be'monitored:
4 Administrative feasibility, including activities needed to coordinate with other
offices and agencies; and the ability and time required to obtain any necessary
approvals and permits from other agencies (i.e. for off-site actions and wetland
impacts); and
* Availability of sen-ices and materials, including the availability of adequate off-
site treatment, storage capacity, and disposal capacity and services: the
availability of necessary equipment and specialists, and provisions to ensure any
necessary additional resources; the availability of sen-ices and materials; and the
availability of prospective technologies.
5. Cost
The types of costs that will be assessed include the following:
4 Capital costs, including both direct and indirect costs:
30
-------
4 Annual O & M costs;
f Cost of periodic replacement of system components; and
+ Net present value of capital and O&M costs based on the estimated time for the
remedial action to achieve ARARs.
Capital costs consist of direct (construction) and indirect (non-construction and overhead) costs.
Direct costs include expenditures for the equipment, labor, and materials necessary to install
remedial actions. Indirect costs include expenditures for engineering, financial, and other
services that are not part of actual installation activities, but are required to complete the
installation of remedial alternatives. A bid contingency of 15 percent, a scope contingency of 20
percent, and estimated costs of 15 percent for engineering and design for implementation'of the
alternative were included in these costs.
Annual O&M costs are post-construction costs necessary to ensure the continued effectiveness
of a remedial action. Periodic replacement costs are necessary when the anticipated duration of
the remediation exceeds the design life of the system component.
A present worth analysis is used to evaluate expenditures that occur over different time periods,
by discounting all future costs to a common base year, usually the current year. The U.S. EPA
FS guidance (U.S. EPA, 1988) suggests a maximum time frame of 30 years. Generally, the goal
is to achieve ARARs within this time frame. A discount rate of seven percent was used for the
present worth analysis. This allows the cost of remedial action alternatives to be compared on
the basis of a single figure representing the amount of money that, if invested in the base year
and disbursed as needed, would be sufficient to cover all costs associated with the remedial
action over its planned life.
The total present worth costs presented in this section are estimated. These costs are prepared
for comparative purposes only. The actual costs for each alternative may change upon detailed
design and implementation, but the overall cost difference of one alternative relative to another
should not vary significantly.
C. Modifying Criteria:
The modifying criteria are usually taken into account after public comment is received on the
feasibility study report and the PP. The two modifying criteria are:
I. U.S. EPA/Support Agency Acceptance
This criteria reflects the aspects of the preferred alternative and other alternatives that the
support agency favors or objects to. and any specific comments regarding State ARARs or the
-------
proposed use of waivers.
2. Community Acceptance
This criteria summarizes the public's general response to the alternatives described in the PP
and in the FFS Report based on the public comments received.
D. Evaluation of Alternatives
1. Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Alternatives SC-1, SC-2, and SC-3 are not fully protective of human health or the environment
Since they would not achieve ARARs for landfill closure nor provide a reliable means of
preventing exposure to site contaminants. The contamination originating from the landfill
would not be eliminated, reduced, or controlled, except through natural attenuation mechanisms.
Contaminants would continue to leach to groundwater and would constitute risks to off-site
human and environmental receptors at groundwater discharge locations. Human health risks
associated with direct contact with contaminated groundwater would not be reduced.
Alternative SC-4 would be protective of human health and the environment because it would
meet the remedial objectives of the landfill cap operable unit. While waste would be left in
place, the double barrier (RCRA) cap would reduce infiltration, reduce leachate, and provide a
reliable means of preventing on-site exposure to site contaminants and further eroundwater
contamination. The contamination itself would not be eliminated, or reduced, except throuah
natural attenuation mechanisms. °
Alternative SC-5 would be protective of human health and the environment because it would
meet the cleanup goals of the landfill cap operable unit and the less permeable cap would restrict
exposure to the waste material. The contamination itself would not be eliminated, or reduced
except through natural attenuation mechanisms. Waste would be in an unlined landfill and in'
contact with groundwater providing a continual source of contamination for perpetuity Less
\%-aste would be in contact with groundwater and a smaller leachate/groundwater remedial
system, if necessary, would be required.
Alternative SC-6 would be protective of human health and the environment because it would
meet the groundwater and landfill closure ARARs and it would provide a reliable means of
preventing exposure to site contaminants. This is the only remedial alternative that incorporates
leachate collection for the entire landfill wastes. Also, unlike any of the other alternatives under
SC-6 landfill wastes will be consolidated, placed on a liner, and out of contact with
groundwater.
-------
2. Compliance with ARARs
Alternative SC-1 would not comply with the ARARs for remediating the landfill until
contaminant concentrations are reduced to acceptable levels through natural attenuation
mechanisms. Alternative SC-2 would not comply with ARARs for groundwater and surface
water. Alternative SC-3 would not fully comply with the ARARs for remediating the landfill.
Capping would reduce the mobility and volume of contaminants leaching to the groundwater.
This alternative does not address areas where leachate is generated by waste in direct contact
with groundwater.
Alternative SC-4 would comply with the ARARs for the landfill cap. Capping would reduce the
volume of contaminants leaching to the groundwater. The natural attenuation would consist of
leaching from soils, degradation of organics in soil and groundwater, and dispersion of
inorganics in groundwater. However, the landfills would not fully be closed until the
groundwater operable unit remediation is complete. This alternative does not address areas
where ieachate is generated by waste in direct contact with groundwater. However, the
groundwater operable unit FFS will address these concerns.
Alternative SC-5 would comply with the ARARs for remediating the landfill cap. Contaminant
concentrations leaching to groundwater are reduced to acceptable levels through natural
attenuation mechanisms and placement of the double barrier (RCRA) cap. The natural
attenuation would consist of leaching from soils, degradation of organics in soil and
groundwater, and dispersion of inorganics in groundwater. However, the landfills would not
fully be closed until the groundwater operable unit remediation is complete. This alternative
does not fully address areas where leachate is generated by waste in direct contact with
groundwater.
Alternative SC-6 achieves ARARs for groundwater and the waste material. Full closure of the
landfills would be attained by this remedy.
Alternatives SC-1, SC-2, and SC-3 are not considered for further evaluation since the threshold
criteria are not fulfilled.
3. Long Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Alternative SC-4 would be protective of on-site human health and the environment since the cap
would provide a reliable means of preventing exposure to contaminants. Continued migration
ot contaminants leached to groundwater from the site should not constitute risks to off-site
human and environmental receptors at groundwater discharge locations. Lone-term
maintenance of the final cover system is required. including~mowina. repair of erosion damaoe
and reseedins.
-------
Alternative SC-5 would be protective of human health and the environment since it would
provide a reliable means of preventing exposure to contaminants. Continued migration of
contaminants leached to groundwater from the site should not constitute risks to off-site human
and environmental receptors. The mobility of contaminants in waste deposited below the
seasonal high water table would be greatly reduced by excavating the south landfill and placing
the waste on top of the north landfill. Long-term maintenance of the final cover system is
required, including mowing, repair of erosion damage and reseeding.
Alternative SC-6 would be protective of human health and the environment since it would
provide a reliable means of preventing exposure to contaminants. Migration of contaminants
leached to groundwater from the site would be minimized by collection in appropriate areas
Leaching of contaminants outside the zone of influence of the pumping system would decrease
to acceptable levels with the reduction of infiltration related to the final cover. Additional
contamination from the plant area would be diverted from the landfill source area. Long-term
maintenance of the final cover system is required, including mowing, repair of erosion damage
and reseeding, and operations and maintenance of the pumping system.
4. Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment
Alternative SC-4 would reduce the toxicity and volume of contaminants at the site through the
leachate collection system at the south landfill and by the existing groundwater recovery and
treatment system on the northern third of the north landfill. The double barrier (RCRA) cap
would reduce the mobility of the contaminants due to the decrease in infiltration of precipitation
into the waste. This double barrier (RCRA) cap alternative reduces infiltration by
approximately 99 percent compared to the existing cap, as determined by the Hvdroloaic
Evaluation of Landfill Performance ("HELP") model.
Because Alternative SC-5 does not include any treatment, it would not reduce the toxicity or
volume of contaminants at the site, other than through natural attenuation mechanisms orby the
existing groundwater recovery and treatment system on the northern third of the landfill The
mobility of the contaminants would be reduced due to the decrease in infiltration of precipitation
into the waste, and greatly reduced contact with the groundwater for the south landfill This
alternative reduces infiltration by approximately 99 percent as compared with the existing cap.
Because Alternative SC-6 does include leachate collection and treatment, it would therefore
reduce the toxicity and volume of contaminants at the site. The mobility of the contaminants
would be reduced due to the decrease in infiltration of precipitation into the waste, contact with
the groundwater being eliminated and a leachate collection system beneath the waste
established. This alternative reduces infiltration by approximately 99.9 percent as compared
with the existing cap. '
34
-------
5. Short-Term Effectiveness
In Alternative SC-4, construction of the final cover system has the potential for exposure of
waste and direct contact by construction workers on-site. While only surficial regrading of the
existing cover soils is intended, waste excavation is necessary for the installation of the sas
vents. There is also a possibility of encountering waste during the installation of monitoring
wells. The duration of exposure would be over a construction season, though the chance of"
direct contact by workers is minor since these issues can be adequately addressed through the
contractor's health and safety procedures. The short-term effectiveness is high for this "
alternative since only a small amount of waste excavation is expected and the exposure duration
is short. Waste exposure activities should be minimal in this alternative thus decreasing the
potential exposure duration.
In Alternative SC-5, excavation of waste carries the potential for exposure to construction and
manufacturing facility workers on-site, including releases to the atmosphere, which could also
affect downwind residences. Waste would be excavated and relocated creating the potential for
a release of landfill contaminants. Construction of the final cover system and monitoring
system carries the potential for exposure of waste and direct contact by construction workers on-
site. Waste excavation is necessary for the installation of the gas vents. These issues can be
addressed through contractor health and safety procedures, dust control, and proper air
monitoring during excavation and placement of waste from the south landfill. The potential for
exposure to landfill contaminants in the short-term is moderate due to the amount of waste to be
relocated.
For Alternative SC-6. excavation of waste carries the potential for exposure to workers on-site,
including releases to the atmosphere, which could also affect downwind residences. Alternative
SC-6 would present more risk to on-site workers than Alternative SC-5 since a greater volume
of contaminated soil would be excavated as part of this alternative. Construction of the final
cover system and monitoring system carries the potential for exposure of waste and direct
contact by construction workers on-site. These issues can be addressed through contractor health
and safety procedures, dust control, and proper air monitoring during excavation and relocation
of waste. This alternative requires the most waste relocation. The potential for exposure to
landfill contaminants in the short-term for Alternative SC-6 is greater than any of the other
alternatives.
6. Implementability
Implementing Alternatives SC-4, SC-5, and SC-6 involves commonly used materials and
construction techniques. Alternatives SC-5 and SC-6 require specialized equipment and
personnel for the waste excavation process. Alternative SC-6 would prove more difficult to
implement than Alternative SC-5 given the greater volume of waste to be relocated.
-------
7. Cost
The net present worth costs range from $5,990,000 for Alternative SC-4B to 520,887 000 for
Alternative SC-6B The net present worth costs for each of the three alternatives will van' upon
the final design and the potential use of synthetic cap materials versus natural cap materials (the
A and B designations relate to the use of natural and synthetic capping materials).
8. U.S. EPA/Support Agency Acceptance
The U.S_ EPA Region V as the designated support agency for the project, concurs with the
lUmois EPA s recommendation of Alternative SC-4 as the selected remedy for the Amoco
Chemicals (Johet Landfill) Superfund Site. ^"u<.u
9. Community Acceptance
OPPortunity to review and comment on the RI Report, the FFS
we e h M ™ Slt£ remediation' Both a Public c°n™t period and a formal public
f t, J ''T111^ mterest in the a* and the remedy was minimal 4h three
dv H h 1 T^r nT^ ^ hearing' N° 0pP°Sin§ "Uestions or co<»™nts were
received by the Illinois EPA during the comment period.
BP Amoco generally supports the selected remedy.
is eT, 0rhqUeft0nS an COmmentS are addressed » ^e Responsiveness Summarv
is attached to this decision nummary as Appendix C.
XI. The Selected Remedy
Based on consideration of the requirements of CERCLA. the detailed analysis of the
alternatives, and the public comments, both the Illinois EPA and U.S. EPA Region V have
H? SC" 4' d°KUble barri£r (RCRA) Cap' i5 the m°St app^opnate remedy
^ *C Am°C° Chemicals (J°Het Landfill> SuP^"d Site in
aUoHet i s °et an uP"d Site in
rural Johet, Illinois. Alternative SC-4 is a RCRA type double barrier cap. Pre-design post PP
mvesugations exposed the existing leachate collection system at the sou'h the landfiH ' T?e
ys item is deteriorated and filled with silt. To combat these problems and to further
:r2:i
the esumated costs provtded in the FFS and earlier in this document". New ro
groundvvater
-------
monitoring wells will be installed around the perimeter of the landfills to complement the
existing monitoring wells and replace the wells that are abandoned during cap placement. Plus,
restrictions regarding the usage of the capped area will be placed on the property deed.
The selected remedial alternative is the same as the preferred alternative presented in the PP
developed and issued by the Illinois EPA with the addition of the new leachate collection
system. Details of the components of the remedy may be altered as a result of the remedial
design and field conditions encountered during pre-design field activities or during construction.
The Illinois EPA will continue to provide direct oversight of the design, construction, and lonsj-
term remedial action phases and any modifications.
The selected alternative is believed to provide the best balance of trade-offs among alternatives
with respect to the Superfund criteria used to evaluate remedies. Based on the information
available at this time, the Illinois EPA believes the alternative will protect human health and the
environment, will comply with ARARs, will be cost effective, and will utilize permanent
solutions and alternate treatment technologies or resource recovery technologies to the
maximum extent practicable. The waste wili not be excavated to allow for treatment, but
instead capped in place mostly because of the uncertainties with the landfill contents and the
potential risks associated with waste handling. In-situ treatment was not considered in the FFS
because of the apparent lack of mobility of the landfill wastes.
The chosen alternative includes the construction of an improved and more stringent cap over the
existing landfill area. Specifically, the cap will conform to the RCRA landfill requirements in
To 111. Adm. Code 724. The cap profile will include a composite barrier consisting of two
layers: a flexible membrane liner at least 40 millin.it.ers in thickness over a 24-inch layer of clay
compacted to IxlO'7 centimeters per second permeability. The low permeability clay layer may
be replaced by a GCL that exhibits performance characteristics equal to or greater than the
compacted clay layer. The layers above the barrier layers (topsoil, rooting layer, drainage
layer) and below (subgrade layer) may consist of common landfill cap components and may
vary based on cost, workability, and availability. At a minimum, these materials must be
equivalent to the capping components as defined by the most stringent ARARs.
A generic schematic layout for a potential RCRA cap alternative is shown on Figure 12.
A system of passive vents to allow the release of vapors from the landfill waste will be installed.
These vapors, produced by volatilization and/or decomposition of materials in the waste, may
tend to migrate laterally after a low permeability cap is constructed. The quality of the eas
emitted from the vents will be monitored semi-annually for a period of two years. If deemed
necessary to protect human health and the environment, an active gas collection and treatment
system will be designed and implemented.
37
-------
During the first phase of the pre-design field activities (February 1999), it was determined that
the existing leachate collection system in the southern landfill is shallow along the down
gradient sides (approximately 18 inches deep) and partially filled with silt. And areas of
ponded leachate and surface seeps were observed on the first bench east of the south end of the
north landfill. In order to alleviate these issues, a new leachate collection system will be
designed and installed down gradient of the southern landfill at a sufficient lateral extent and
depth to ensure the capture of the majority of the leachate escaping the landfill and a new
eachate collection system will be installed down gradient of the southern portion of the north
m11^ «T15?8 CUlV6rt eXtending ^thC r°ad t0 CaPtoe to historical lea<*ate ^eps
in that area Both collection systems will be designed to allow the monitoring of the qualitv and
quantity of leachate being collected. The collection systems will discharge to the BP Amoco
wastewater facility for treatment prior to discharge provided the facility is in compliance.
The pre-design field activities (February 1999) also discovered waste in a few small areas
fU?rn P^^ boundajy of tolandfills- Waste extends into the roadway along the
landfills and in the southern end of the north landfill. The small amounts of wastes associated
with these discoveries do not constitute a principle threat. Provisions will be included in the
design documents to relocate the waste beneath the cap within the designed landfill boundaries.
The cap design will include surface water management features (e.g. berms, ditches, catch
basins, etc.) to direct runoff away from the landfill while minimizing erosion and infiltration
Storm water management and erosion control are critical to infiltration reduction. A program
for long-term maintenance and monitoring will be implemented as part of this alternative
Mamtenance will include regular inspections of the landfill area, repair of any damage to'
structures or the soil cover, removal of excessive sediment from ditches and other areas and
mnwino ' "Ji"
mowing
Following the completion of the landfill cap operable unit remedial action, groundwater will be
monitored quarterly for a minimum of one year to determine the effectiveness of the cap Prior
S^^^
=;s^
bearing zones (shallow, intermediate, and deep).
R265 n H monitonng requirements
m -n ^ i ^ conducted following closure of the landfills. At a minimum the O
Plan will include the monitoring of the groundwater wells as part of the post-dos^ cte
^analytical parameters for testing, the monitoring frequency, the contaminant triggerTeve"
and the contingencies to be implemented if trigger levels are exceeded or any other problem
anses. In order to avoid mobilization and additional costs, the aroundwater modtoring
conducted as part of the groundwater operable unit investigation mav also satisrTto tnl extent
38
-------
post-closure groundwater monitoring requirements for the landfills. Pursuant to the
requirements of 35 111. Adm. Code 724.195, a groundwater point of compliance may be
established for the site.
Physical access restrictions must be maintained so that trespassing will be minimized. Signs
will be placed in strategic locations to warn anyone nearing the iandfilled areas about potential
site hazards.
The real estate deed will be amended to include prohibition of on-site groundwater use, on-site
building construction, and on-site drilling except for the purpose of remedial design, sampling,
monitoring, and remedial action.
In addition, a program for monitoring the leachate seeps in the slope down gradient of the
landfill will be included in the O & M plan. The surficial seeps should be eliminated as a result
of the installation of the new cap and leachate collection system. However, if leachate seeps
persist after the completion of the remedial action, the program should contain necessary steps
to characterize the nature and extent of the seepage and should contain remedial alternatives that
will curtail the seepage.
The costs for construction, monitoring and maintenance associated with the Alternative SC-4A
are shown in Table 12. The costs for construction, monitoring and maintenance associated with
the Alternative SC-4B are shown in Table 13. These costs do not include the upgrade of the
leachate collection system at the south landfill and the addition of leachate collection at the
southern end of the north landfill.
XII. Statutory Determinations
The selected remedy must satisfy the requirements of Section 121 of CERCLA to protect human
health and the environment; comply with ARARs, be cost effective, utilize permanent solutions
and alternate treatment technologies to the maximum extent practicable; and satisfy the
preference for treatment as a principle element of the remedy.
A. Overall Protection of Human Heatth and the Environment
Implementation of the selected remedy will reduce and control potential risk to human health
from exposure to contaminated groundwater and soils through institutional controls and
monitoring. The remedy will reduce risk to within the acceptable range of IxlO'4 to IxlO'6
excess cancer risk and the hazard indices for non-carcinogens will be less than one. The
selected remedy will also provide environmental protection from potential risks posed by
contaminants discharging to groundwater, surface water, and the ambient air.
39
-------
No unacceptable short-term risk or cross-media impacts will be caused by implementation of the
selected remedy. The implementation Alternative SC-4 will be fully protective of human health
and the environment because it will meet the cleanup goals.
B. Compliance with ARARs
Alternative SC-4 will comply with the capping ARARs for remediating the landfill cap operable
unit. Capping will reduce the volume of contaminants leaching to the groundwater Natural
attenuation will consist of leaching from soils, degradation of organics in soil and groundwater
and dispersion of inorganics in groundwater. Groundwater ARARs will be addressed during the
groundwater operable unit portion of the project.
01 ov^n^rhaZard°US substances> I»««tants, or contaminants that will remain, Section
1^J(2XA) of CERCLA requires the selection of a remedial action which complies with legally
applicable or relevant and appropriate standards, requirements, criteria or limitations The '
selected remedy will comply with Federal ARARs or State ARARs where State ARARs are
more stnngent, as determined by U.S. EPA. No ARAR waivers will be invoked. The remedy
will be implemented in compliance with applicable provisions of CERCLA and the NCP.
Only the substantive requirements of ARARs apply to on-site activities. Federal program
requirements which are implemented under a delegated State program are ARARs only to the
rim rementS "* fnC°rp°rated mt° State "P^ons; the State regulations
1. Chemical Specific Requirements
Chemical-specific ARARs regulate the release to the environment of specific substances having
certain chemical characteristics. Chemical-specific ARARs typically define the extent of
a. Federal
° ) p'^JP5 ^? been used on to facility ™d «ay be present in the landfill, 40 C F R
Farts 750 and 761, recently amended at Federal Register Vol. 63 No 124 June ?9
1998, are applicable or relevant and appropriate. In this Rule, the U.S. EPA amended its
rules under the Toxic Substances Control Act ("TSCA") which address the manufacture
use, cleanup, storage and disposal of PCBs.
For more ARAR information regarding the Federal programs delegated to the State of Illinois
see the October 1998. Focused Feasibility Study. ^ oj minois
40
-------
b. State
(2) Air - Pollution Control Board, Illinois Administrative Code, Title 35 ("Title 35"),
Subtitle B - Subchapter A, Part 201: Permits and General Provisions [Lists general
provisions for new sources requiring permitting and provides exemptions from permit
requirements. Delegated program in Illinois.] (Specifically, but not limited to: Part 201,
Air Pollution: Prohibits air pollution in Illinois through discharge or emission of
contaminants into the environment. No person shall allow modification or operation of
an existing emission source without appropriate permits. Also discusses the design of
effluent exhaust systems. Emission monitoring may be required. These requirements
are applicable or relevant and appropriate.)
(3) Air - Pollution Control Board (Title 35), Subtitle B - Subchapter F, Part 232: Toxic Air
Contaminants [Sets provisions and procedures for identifying and evaluating toxic air
contaminants; exceptions are also given here. Applicable to air emissions. Delegated
program in Illinois.]
(4) Air - Pollution Control Board (Title 35), Subtitle B - Subchapter L, Part 243: Air Quality
Standards [Sets applicable or relevant and appropriate air quality standards and
measurement methods for PM-10, particulates, sulfur oxides, carbon monoxide, nitrogen
oxides, ozone and lead. Delegated program in Illinois.]
(5) Water Pollution Control Board (Title 35), Subtitle C - Part 302: Water Quality Standards
[Applicable or relevant and appropriate provisions and water quality standards for
general use, public and food processing water supply, secondary contact and indigenous
aquatic life and Lake Michigan. Procedures for determining Water Quality Criteria are
also in this Part. This is a delegated program in Illinois.]
(6) Water Pollution Control Board (Title 35), Subtitle C - Part 304: Effluent Standards
[Applicable or relevant and appropriate general and temporary effluent standards
including some NPDES effluent standards. This is a delegated program in Illinois.]
(7) Water Pollution Control Board (Title 35), Subtitle C - Part 309: Permits [The water
quality standards and NPDES requirements are applicable or relevant and appropriate to
surface discharges including, but not limited to storm water, treated leachate, and
groundwater during the remedial action. This is a delegated program in Illinois.]
(8) Public Water Supplies - Pollution Control Board (Title 35), Subtitle F - Part 611:
Primary Drinking Water Standards [Includes applicable or relevant and appropriate
provisions of the primary drinking water standards as well as maximum contaminant
levels (MCLs)/goals, and analytical requirements.]
41
-------
(9) Public Water Supplies - Pollution Control Board (Title 35), Subtitle F - Part 620:
Groundwater Quality [Applicable or relevant and appropriate groundwater quality
standards, methods for the classification of groundwater, non-degradation provisions
and various procedures and protocols for the management and protection of
groundwater.]
(10) Waste Disposal - Pollution Control Board (Title 35), Subtitle G - Subchapter C•
Hazardous Waste Operating Requirements, Part 721: Identification of Listing of
Hazardous Waste [This is applicable for defining, disposing, identifying, and listing
hazardous waste and lists of hazardous waste. Delegated program in Illinois.]
(11) Waste Disposal - Pollution Control Board (Title 35), Subtitle G - Subchapter C-
Hazardous Waste Operating Requirements, Part 728: Land Disposal Restrictions [This is
applicable for soil excavation and treatment residuals if soils test TCLP hazardous and
are to be moved or placed outside an area of contamination and/or are to be disposed off-
site. This is a delegated program in Illinois.]
(12) Waste Disposal - Pollution Control Board (Title 35), Subtitle G - Subchapter C-
Hazardous Waste Operating Requirements, Part 729: Prohibited Hazardous Wastes in
Land Disposal Units [Describes applicable or relevant and appropriate general hazardous
waste restrictions and restrictions on halogenated solvents and liquid hazardous wastes in
landfills. This is a delegated program in Illinois.]
(13) Waste Disposal - Pollution Control Board (Title 35), Subtitle G - Subchapter I- Solid
Waste and Special Waste Hauling, Part 808: Special Waste Classifications [Includes
applicable or relevant and appropriate information on special waste classifications.]
2. Location-Specific Requirements
rcoao?n;S?eC!flC ^^ ** th°Se re£luirements ** relate to the geographic location of a
CERCLA facility.
a. Federal
(14) National Environmental Policy Act, (42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 sLssgJ, 40 C.F.R. § 6 Subpart
* ™?°!!"dmf °n,wth other Environmental Review and Consultation Requirements Part
: 6.301: Landmarks, Historical, and Archeological Sites [Applicable or relevant and
appropnate requirements regarding compliance with all applicable regulations outside of
NEPA for any EPA undertaking that affects a property with historic, archeological or
cultura value that is listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic
Places.]
42
-------
For more ARAR information regarding the Federal programs delegated to the State of Illinois
see the October 1998, Focused Feasibility Study.
b. State
none
3. Action-specific Requirements
Action-specific ARARs are requirements that define acceptable treatment and disposal
procedures for hazardous substances.
a. Federal
(15) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, (42 U.S.C. §§ 6901 et seq.l 40 C.F.R. § 264,
Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and
Disposal Facilities [The final site cover and access restrictions must be consistent with
hazardous waste landfill closure requirements of the RCRA (Specifically, but not limited
to: 40 C.F.R. §§ 264.111,264.116, 264.117, and 264.310).]
(16) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, (42 U.S.C. §§ 6901 et seq.). 40 C.F.R. § 268,
Land Disposal Restrictions [Prohibits land disposal restrictions for specific wastes,
treatment standards, and prohibitions on storage.]
For more ARAR information regarding the Federal programs delegated to the State of Illinois
see the October 1998, Focused Feasibility Study.
b. State
(17) Air - Pollution Control Board (Title 35), Subtitle B - Subchapter C Emission Standards
and Limitations for Stationary Sources, Part 211: Definitions and General Provisions
[Applicable or relevant and appropriate definitions for emission sources and related
items. Delegated program in Illinois.]
(18) Air - Pollution Control Board (Title 35), Subtitle B - Subchapter C Emission Standards
and Limitations for Stationary Sources, Part 212: Visible and Paniculate Matter
Emissions [Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements stating: no person shall
cause or allow the emission of fugitive paniculate matter from any process, including
material handling, and for a variety of operations, e.g., incinerators or waste storage
piles. Delegated program in Illinois.]
43
-------
(19) Water Pollution Control Board (Title 35), Subtitle C - Part 304: Effluent Standards
[Applicable or relevant and appropriate general and temporary effluent standards
including some NPDES effluent standards. This is a delegated program in Illinois.]
(20) Public Water Supplies - Pollution Control Board (Title 35), Subtitle F - Part 620:
Groundwater Quality [Applicable or relevant and appropriate groundwater quality
standards, methods for the classification of groundwater, non-degradation provisions,
and various procedures and protocols for the management and protection of
groundwater.]
(21) Waste Disposal - Pollution Control Board (Title 35), Subtitle G - Subchapter C:
Hazardous Waste Operating Requirements, Part 720: Hazardous Waste Management
System: General [Applicable or relevant and appropriate definitions for terms used in
hazardous waste rules and is included for purposes of clarity. This is a delegated
program in Illinois.]
(22) Waste Disposal - Pollution Control Board (Title 35), Subtitle G - Subchapter C:
Hazardous Waste Operating Requirements, Part 722 [Includes applicable or relevant and
appropriate standards for generators of hazardous waste. This is a delegated program in
Illinois.]
(23) Waste Disposal - Pollution Control Board (Title 35), Subtitle G - Subchapter C:
Hazardous Waste Operating Requirements, Part 723 [Includes applicable or relevant and
appropriate standards for transporters of hazardous waste. This is a delegated program in
Illinois.]
(24) Waste Disposal - Pollution Control Board (Title 35), Subtitle G - Subchapter C:
Hazardous Waste Operating Requirements, Part 724 [Includes applicable or relevant and
appropriate standards for owners and operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage
and disposal facilities. This is a delegated program in Illinois.] (Specifically,'but not
limited to: 35 111. Adm. Code 724.114, Security: Contains applicable requirements to
prevent unauthorized site access through an artificial or natural barrier which completely
surrounds the active portion of the facility and through controlled entry points. Signage
requirements are also specified.; 724.410, Closure and Post Closure Care: Applicable
final cover requirements for the landfills.)
(25) Waste Disposal - Pollution Control Board (Title 35), Subtitle G - Subchapter C:
Hazardous Waste Operating Requirements, Part 725 [Includes applicable or relevant and
appropriate standards for owners and operators of interim hazardous waste treatment,
storage and disposal facilities. This is a delegated program in Illinois.]
44
-------
(26) Waste Disposal - Pollution Control Board (Title 35), Subtitle G - Subchapter C:
Hazardous Waste Operating Requirements, Part 728: Land Disposal Restrictions
[Applicable or relevant and appropriate land disposal restrictions for wastes, waste
specific prohibitions, treatment standards and prohibitions on storage. This is a
delegated program in Illinois.]
(27) Waste Disposal - Pollution Control Board (Title 35), Subtitle G - Subchapter C:
Hazardous Waste Operating Requirements, Part 729: Prohibited Hazardous Wastes in
Land Disposal Units [Applicable or relevant and appropriate hazardous waste restrictions
and restrictions on halogenated solvents and liquid hazardous wastes in landfills. This is
a delegated program in Illinois.]
(28) Waste Disposal - Pollution Control Board (Title 35), Subtitle G - Subchapter I: Solid
Waste and Special Waste Hauling, Part 807 [Applicable or relevant and appropriate
information on solid waste permitting, sanitary landfills and closure and post-closure
care.]
(29) Waste Disposal - Pollution Control Board (Tide 35), Subtitle G - Subchapter I: Solid
Waste and Special Waste Hauling, Part 808 [Applicable or relevant and appropriate
information on special waste classifications.]
(30) Waste Disposal - Pollution Control Board (Title 35), Standards for New Solid Waste
Landfills, Subtitle C - Putrescible and Chemical Waste Landfills, Final Cover System,
Part 811 [Relevant and appropriate requirements of the final cover system at a new solid
waste landfill.] (Specifically, but not limited to: 811.103, Surface Water Drainage:
Runoff from disturbed areas resulting from precipitation events less than or equal to the
25-year, 24-hour precipitation event that is discharged to waters of the State shall meet
the requirements for discharge by code. All surface water facilities shall be operated
until final cover is placed and erosional stability is provided. Discharge structures shall
be designed to have flow velocities that will not cause scoring of the natural or
constructed lining of the receiving channel. Runoff from disturbed areas shall be diverted
from disturbed areas, unless determined to be impractical. Diversion facilities shall be
designed to prevent runoff from the 25-year, 24-hour precipitation event from entering
the disturbed areas. Runoff from the undisturbed areas which becomes commingled with
runoff from the disturbed areas shall be handled as runoff from the disturbed areas.
Diversion structures shall be properly designed to handle flow velocities and shall be
operated until final cover is placed and erosional stability is provided.; 811.109,
Boundary Control: Relevant and appropriate requirements for restricted facility
boundaries to prevent unauthorized site entry at all times. Signage is required at site
entry.; 811.110, Closure and Written Closure Plan: A notation shall be made to notify-
any potential purchaser that the land has been used as a landfill and that post closure use
can not disturb the final cover, liner, any other components of the containment system, or
45
-------
the function of the monitoring system unless specified by post closure requirements.
The final grading of the site shall be designed to compliment the surrounding topography
of the proposed final land use of the area. The final configuration shall be designed to
minimize the need for future maintenance. All drainage ways and swales shall be
designed to pass runoff from the 100-year, 24-hour precipitation event without scoring or
erosion.; 811.304, Foundation and Mass Stability Analysis: The waste disposal unit
shall be designed to achieve a factor of safety against slope failure of at least: 1.5 for
static conditions and 1.3 under seismic conditions. The potential for earthquake or blast
induced liquefaction must be considered in the stability of the facility.; 811.307
Leachate Drainage System: The drainage system shall be designed in conjunction with
the leachate collection system to operate for the design period to: Maintain a maximum
head of one foot above the liner, maintain laminar flow, include a grade filter or
geotextile as necessary to minimize clogging and prevent intrusion of fine material, and
contain materials which are chemically resistant to the wastes and leachate expected to
be produced.; 811.308, Leachate Collection System: The collection system shall be
designed for the entire design period. Collection pipes shall be designed for open
channel flow under specified conditions for the drainage system and with a cross-section
that allows cleaning. Materials used will be chemically resistant to the leachate to be
handled. The collection pipe and bedding shall be designed for the structural loads to be
imposed. Collection pipes shall be constructed within a coarse gravel envelope using
graded filter or geotextile as necessary to minimize clogging. The system shall contain a
sufficient number of manholes and clean out risers to allow cleaning and maintenance of
all pipes throughout the design period. Leachate shall be able to drain freely from the
collection pipes. Sump collection is specified.; 811.309, Leachate Treatment and
Dispel System: Systems must allow for the management of leachate during routine
maintenance and repairs. The leachate drainage and collection system shall not be used
for the purpose of storing leachate. Leachate may be discharged^ an off site treatment
works that meets the following requirements: all discharges of effluent must meet the
requirements of 35 111. Adm. Code Part 309, the treatment system shall be operated by an
operator certified under the requirements of 35 111. Adm. Code Part 312, and no more
than DO percent of the average daily influent flow can be attributed to leachate from a
waste disposal facility. All discharges to a treatment works shall meet the requirements
of 35 111. Adm. Code Part 310. Storage for five days of leachate generation shall be
provided. This section also includes information regarding leachate monitoring and time
of system operation.; 811.310, Landfill Gas Monitoring: Contains relevant and
appropriate landfill gas monitoring requirements.; 811.311, Landfill Gas Management
System: Contains relevant and appropriate landfill gas management requirements •
811.312, Landfill Gas Processing and Disposal System: Contains relevant and
appropriate landfill gas processing and disposal requirements.; 811.314, Final Cover
System: Requirements for the final cover system.; 8.11.322. Final Slope and
Stabilization: All slopes shall be designed to drain runoff away from the cover and
prevent ponding. No standing water shall be allowed anvwhere in or around the unit
46
-------
These are relevant and appropriate requirements.)
(31) Waste Disposal - Pollution Control Board (Title 35), Standards for Existing Landfills
and Units, Part 814 [Relevant and appropriate requirements for disposal, expansion, and
closure standards for existing landfill facilities.]
4. Other Requirements to be Considered
To Be Considered criteria ("TBCs") are included in the discussion of ARARs. However,
TBCs are not ARARs, but they may be used to design a remedy or set cleanup levels if
no ARARs address the site, or if existing ARARs do not ensure protectiveness. TBCs
may include advisories and guidance.
a. Federal
(32) Occupational Safety and Health Administration ("OSHA") Standards Record keeping
Reporting and Related Regulations, 29 C.F.R. § 1904 [Establishes Record keeping and
reporting requirements for an employer under OSHA.]
(33) Occupational Safety and Health Administration Standards, 29 C.F.R. § 1910 [Sets
worker exposure limits to toxic and hazardous substances and prescribes the methods for
determination of concentrations. Sets limits of worker exposure to noise during the
performance of their duties. Sets the standards for workers conducting hazardous waste
operations and emergency response.]
(34) Occupational Safety and Health Administration Standards, 29 C.F.R. Part 1926:
[Specifies the type of safety equipment and procedures to be followed during
remediation.]
(35) Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U. S, C. §§ 300f et seq.V Subpart F, Maximum
Containment Level Goals, 40 C.F.R. §§ 141.50 - 141.51 [Establishes unenforceable
clean-up goals for drinking water based on technology and health risk.]
(36) Threshold Limit Values [Consensus standards for controlling air quality in work place
environments; used to assess inhalation risks for soil removal operations.]
(37) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, RCRA Guidance Manual for Subpart G Closure
and Post-Closure Standards and Subpart H Cost Estimating Requirements, January 1987
[Provides guidance on closure and post-closure standards and cost estimating
requirements for hazardous waste management units.]
(38) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Soil Screening Guidance, December 1994
47
-------
>
[Provides generic risk-based soil screening values for Superfund sites.]
(39) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region III, Risk - Based Concentration Table,
Smith R., 1995 [Provides risk-based screening values for groundwater and soil ' "*
concentrations.]
(40) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS),
1995 - 1996 [Provides reference doses and cancer potency slopes for calculating the
hazard index or incremental cancer risk for specific site contaminants.]
(41) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Interim Policy for Planning and Implementing
CERCLA Off-Site Response Actions, November 5, 1995 [Specifies appropriate method
of off-site treatment on disposed of waste from a Superfund site.]
(42) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Summary Quality Criteria for Water, Office of
Science and Technology, 1992 [Provides ambient water quality criteria.]
(43) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Quality Criteria for Water, Office of Water
Regulation and Standards, U.S. EPA 440/5-86-001, 1986 [Provides ambient water
quality criteria.] jflk
(44) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ambient Water Quality Criteria for
PolychJorinated Biphenyls, U.S. EPA 440/5-80-068, 1980 [Provides ambient water
quality criteria for PCBs.]
(45) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund:
Environmental Evaluation Manual, Volume II, Final Report, EPA/540/1-89/002, 1989
[Provides guidance for conducting ecological risk assessments.]
(46) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund.
Volume I. Human Health Evaluation Manual Supplemental Guidance. Standard Default
Exposure Factors, Interim Final, March, 1991. OSWER Directive #9285.6-03, 1991
[Provides exposure factors for estimating hazard or risk in human health risk
assessments.]
V
(47) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund.
Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part A, December, 1989. U.S. EPA
540/1-89/002. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response [Provides guidance on ,.
preparing a baseline human health risk assessment using the four steps, data evaluation
exposure assessment, toxicity assessment, risk characterization.]
(48) National Park Service, 48 Fed. Reg. 44716 [Provides published technical standards and
48
-------
guidelines regarding archeological preservation activities and methods.]
(49) The area of remediation must comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
b. State
(50) Illinois Historic Preservation Act, (20 ILCS 3410/1 et seq.) [Provides definitions, criteria
for evaluation, and procedures for adding archeological sites to the National Register of
Historic Places. Details the responsibilities of and procedures to be implemented by
state and local governments regarding location, identification and nomination of
archeological sites for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.]
(51) Illinois Water Well Construction Code (77 111. Adm. Code 920) [Provides for the
construction and abandonment of monitoring wells.]
(52) 35 111. Adm. Code 807.314(c), Solid Waste, Sanitary Landfills - Standard Requirements:
Relevant and appropriate requirements for means to control site access through fencing
and gates.
(53) 8 111. Adm. Code 650, Soil and Water Conservation Districts Act.
C. Cost Effectiveness
Cost effectiveness is determined by evaluating the overall effectiveness proportionate to costs,
such that the selected remedy represents a reasonable value for the money to be spent. The
estimated net present worth value of the selected remedy, Alternative SC-4, is almost three
million dollars less than Alternative SC-5 which is the closest (in cost) alternative that is more
expensive than SC-4. Alternative SC-4 is one third of the cost of Alternative SC-6, the most
expensive Alternative SC-6. Both Alternatives SC-5 and SC-6 involve waste relocation as a
major component of the remedial action which increases the potential for contaminant exposure
and release. Alternative SC-4 provides a high degree of certainty that hazards posed by
contamination at the site will be eliminated or reduced to within acceptable levels in a cost
effective manner.
D. Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment Technologies or
Resource Recovery Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable
The selected remedies meet the statutory requirement to utilize permanent solutions and
treatment technologies to the maximum extent practicable in a cost-effective manner. Of those
alternatives that are protective of human health and the environment and comply with ARARs
the Illinois EPA and the U.S. EPA have determined that this selected remedy provides the best
balance of tradeoffs in terms of long-term effectiveness and permanence; reduction in toxicity,
49
-------
mobility, or volume achieved through excavation and removal; short term effectiveness;
implementability; and cost while considering the statutory preference for treatment as a
principle element and considering U.S. EPA and community acceptance.
The selected remedy provides a high degree of long-term effectiveness and permanence while
minimizing the potential for exposure to site contaminants when compared to the waste
relocation alternatives. The less permeable landfill cap and new leachate collection system
provide contaminant containment with leachate treatment resulting in the reduced contaminant
mobility and toxicity.
E. Preference for Treatment as a Principle Element
The selected remedy for the landfill cap operable unit uses treatment as a principle element of
the remedy. Alternative SC-4 does include leachate collection with treatment, if necessary, at
the BP Amoco wastewater treatment facility which will reduce the toxicity and volume of '
contaminants at the site. The mobility of the contaminants would be reduced due to the decrease
in infiltration of precipitation from the double barrier (RCRA) cap into the waste. This double
barrier (RCRA) cap alternative reduces infiltration by approximately 99 percent compared to the
existing cap, as determined by the HELP model. The existing groundwater recovery and
treatment system on the northern third of the north landfill will aid in leachate collection and
treatment.
XIII. Documentation of Significant Changes
The PP for the Amoco Chemicals (Joliet Landfill) Superfund Site was issued for public
comment on December 10, 1998. The PP identified Alternative SC-4 as the preferred
alternative for the landfill cap operable unit. The public comment period ended February 11,
The Agency reviewed all public questions and comments presented at the January 12 1999
public hearing and all written comments received during the public comment period (see the
Responsiveness Summary in Appendix C). The Illinois EPA and the U.S. EPA determined that
no significant changes to the selected remedy, as identified in the PP are necessary due to public
comment. However, the pre-design field activities have determined a need for a new leachate
collection system in certain areas down gradient of the landfills, as well as the need for waste
relocation for a few areas adjacent to the existing perceived landfill boundaries. These pre-
design discoveries did not significantly alter the remedy as explained in the PP but instead will
increase the effectiveness and protection afforded by the preferred and selected remedy
Alternative SC-4.
50
-------
List of Appendices
Appendix A. Figures
Appendix B. Tables
Appendix C. Responsiveness Summary
Appendix D. Administrative Record Index
Appendix E. References
-------
-------
APPENDIX A
FIGURES
-------
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1,
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
Figure 5.
Figure 6.
Figure 7.
Figure 8.
Figure 9.
Figure 10.
Figure 11.
Figure 12.
Site Location.
Landfill Locations
Monitoring Well Location
Soil Boring Location
Soil Gas Sampling Point Location
Seep Sampling Location
HSU 1 Potentiometric Surface
Transition Potentiometric Surface
HSU2 Potentiometric Surface
Oct. 1997, Groundwater Elevations Exceeding Landfill Base
May 1989, Groundwater Elevations Exceeding Landfill Base
Cap Component Schematic
-------
si jifc ^fjm
?t^te;Sr^3;
.-«n
Amoco Road
ftf
BP-Amoco Chemical II - \ .-' -.-
Manufacturing '^ \ \
Facility & \
11-55 "
A • -V •, ,• • i * - •- .\ \ ^ / -v-.~i.w-
:•'( -^vr^ V-fe^??^:
•• • '4'--,:' V ^ M^'^^. i "•"
*'• -tor - *>o-r-'r
U-l '*- ^v-^i
i •> ' •. . • i-si k--._cr==ii<..
; ••>: • ; ••fiS'l > .:-yCr ~
/'-i;T^"?T! ^;/°.^
-
^/"'\ S W'J ' V:<~?r>7:x Pivi="- ^ ,".'"'• -•* •'?*'
•J^f. X''H'- s V^> _-* , -7"^>' Tv"5' / • 4 ' : '.' £
>• -*"..S—
-Jolietl
^ *.
rlllinois
\,
5?-Amoco Chemical Corrpany
•Jofet,'liincis
s y
-------
Approximate /
NPL and Cap /
Boundaries
BP-Amoco
Property
Boundary
r
Des Plaines River
" = 400'
FIGURE 2 - Landfill Locations
BP-Amoco Chemical Company
•Joliet, Illinois
-------
-------
SOIL BORING LOCATION MA?
AJJCCQ .
-------
;ss^is^rsiiiisss:£^^
''' '''
•wvm^^^
&£ii<£'i1^w'iiV',"=•" -v-- .;,:". ••• '^^!^'^^^^'^l;^^'i^'l: ::'''^''^0^ff^^
^-Vx>"~ " "X^#''(r~ Um'i~'"'^;:---,''''t'"'"^V^::'V'.v'V'^^ ''="' ''';'V^V-'l
"^'^j- ^3Sy'r^-7iT-^\- '" ld"! • -, - ,'r" 'v <""<"" '!?"''"'i'-4''-;!;-''"V^!'l'
''}.'.;''.:.V'V!!'A' *"
-------
mill/ j
• i'///// x
-------
h'
V
3
85
^sr^Sf yf^S/k^ K
Jps^f {cr^lL-^*
!l
-------
cw:
rACE Wr. i=UEE '357
-------
:5ci SSHLSS VWI 3DWSS 3rd
\
-------
""ifcifilaSlP^-
(ft
1
1
1
1
f
1
i/
' 1
1 1
1 1
II
"1
II
II
!/
ii
ii
(i
\\
t,
<\
\\
\>
u
\>
K
\\
i
i
i
..!..
fer-.£l
i
P
1
1
1
1 .»
>— -— _
— ?i- —--—*,, _ _
I "•'-
i
|
. 3
1
'!-! OO
; II
\ i? »•*
v.. i f..
./
/'
/
/'
Itf
llll
-------
- ':
"*&$^Z
.-'
J
./
hi
-
-!(JI
i
| i
! !
i ii
tt
1 1 1
,„
n
\\ 1 j;
M
\\
1 i
1 \
'. r
1 *
1
•* ' !
f v
5 M
$
\ k
'
//
/ *
/
»-
J 0
jl
^
x>
(
\
'
!
i
•t ~" •
7 <.
,'f'
/ •'
i i
i ,'
/'/;,/
'' ,/.?^y
^•/
i ,
j i
• .
/ *
rf.'--- j-^
If/ ( l '
1 I'
1 1'
\ 1 f' '
' ' i r'" ' ' ,
s*
>'.<
?i
M
)>.|FJ
jlrj
••*
-------
inch topsoil layer
draina9e laYer
0 pjCrnay be sand, gravel, synthetic, or equiv)
vrtthgic barrier laver foolvelhvienel
- . ~. ~"• .4-i --^C/««Vt>^*.'
24 inch compacted ciay barrier layer
(this may be replaced toy a GCL with
'" performance characteristics equal toy
;:fl^ greater than the compacted clay) •
.-. «L
^'^ -,.
WASTE
FIGURE-12
Cap Component Schematic
Arr.oco Chemicals (Jsiisi Landfills)
-------
-------
APPENDIX B
TABLES
-------
4»
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.
Table 2a.
Table 2b.
Table 3a.
Table 3b.
Table 4.
Table 5.
Table 6.
Table 7.
Table S.
Table 9.
Table 10.
Table 11.
Table 12.
Table 13.
Summary of Seep and Surface Soil Analyses
Subsurface Soil Organic Analyses
Subsurface Soil Inorganic Analyses
Groundwater Organic Analyses
Groundwater Inorganic Analyses
Preliminary Remediation Goals for COPCs
Summary of Seep Groundwater and Leachate Samples
Carcinogenic Risks for Residential Scenario
Non-carcinogenic Risks for Residential Scenario
Carcinogenic Risks for Recreational Scenario
Non-carcinogenic Risks for Recreational Scenario
Summary of Ecological Risks
List of Alternatives
SC-4a Estimated Cost
SC-4b Estimated Cost
-------
-------
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF SEEP AND SURFACE SOIL ANALYSES
AMOCO JOLIET LANDFILL R1T5
PAGE 1 OF 12
FkUID:
Simple ID:
Dt(« Collecltd :
Pinmtltr
VOLATILE (CU"?i)
ChlotoraduiK
Brsmornelhi/w
VmylCNofidc
Qiloroclhue
Mtfhybu Chiorid*
Attio«
Ctiinn Oisulftde
IJ-DicMxoei.'KK
1,1-Dichlonxthtt
U-DkMonxtlwK (Tt"»i)
Chlonrforro
U-Didilixwi'itij
1-Buuimt
1,1.1-TridiloradxK
C«rl»nTanciiori;}{
9ronwdichlor3ncd««
IJ-Oichloropra^iic
cii-l.]-Dichl«opropcx
Tricilcraotrx
Dibnmodilofomet'u.it
1.1^-TriciuwoeJu.x
SCUOK
MM- 1 .3-Dichifew
Sronofora
•l-Mshyl-2-PnUnore
J-fitUJVXK
TsncWonx'.Haj
IJJi.2-TcticrJoroet.Mr*
Tc!«cx
Chiaroixr^nt
£Kyi3«rr^
S^mt
XvlcK'loJii!
l,3-Dic)iia(o«cu:r«
1.4-DicMoigbc-j::*
l.2-Dichi3:oorj=-«
UaJU
ugA.
ug/l
\tgt\.
U5/L
utfl
^l
ug/l
ug/L
ugA.
ug/L
mA,
ugA.
ugA.
ugA.
ug,l
ngrt.
ug^l
utf.
ugA,
•J5,l
ug«l
ugd
agA.
ug/l
ugfl.
ag,l
«yl
•utf.
ugil-
ugd
ug/l
wjl
upl
ug/l
•JS.I
Jtl
JL-SMI-I
11004)02
J-M»/-K
NO
NO
ND
2
ND
5X
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
71
ND
ND
ND
SD
SD
ND
ND
ND
4
ND
ND
HD
SD
ND
SD
SD
SD
ND
SD
ND
HD
- ND
S7)
JWMM
1IWWQJ
»-Miy-«
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
TO
ND
ND
5R
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
SD
SD
. ND
SD
JLSWJ.1
HMMO;
9-Mir-H
ND
SD
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
SD
ND
ND
5R
ND
NO
NO
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
on
SD
ND
NO
ND
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
'•'D
SD
SD
S3
S'j
JWP52-1
IIKUXM
J-Mij-K
ND
ND
ND
ND
SD
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5R
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
SD
ND
SD
ND
ND
ND
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
VD
SD
SD
SD
SD
R5&4I
IIOiMOl
J-Mij-W
SD
ND
ND
ND
ND
U
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
JR
ND . :
ND
ND
HO
SD
SD
ND
SD
ND
SD
SD
SD
SD
ND
SD
35 r :
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
ND
SD
-------
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF SEEP AND SURFACE SOIL ANALYSES
AMOCO JOLIET LANDFILL RI/F5
PAGE 2 OF 12
FMJID:
Sinpk ID:
Pinsxlir
VOLATILE (OP-SO)
ChKHMKlkx
Bronwnduae
Vinyl Owriifc
ChfcwJiitt
Mdfyfex QloivJe
Aeciwe
Cuban Dinlfl^
l,!-DidilofoeA«
IJ'Di&'ondiitt
l.J-Drcii'ofoc'JKK (Toul)
OJorofom
1.2-Dtcltteofllutt
2-B«uaf4
U.I-Tnchlwxiut
CubosTttichlotvfc
aianodyJonxneJaae
U-IkMocojiMpoe
:3-lJ-Diwto«pnptte
TritVofijeiicrc
Diioi!WC.-.KXoari-4.x
I.U-Tricfilororiux
5«»c
nfti-LJ-Dtt-Jorapopcx
3ra!w;orai
*.M««l-2.?sKi(Ki«
J-Katwe
"sicionehe.v
I.I^JcsuhioflxtAirc
"3ia«
CNonbeasie
£Av!S«s~!{
iyne
Xtsx.'&'jj]
Utiti
ug/Kg
ug,Kg
ug«g
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
u^Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug-Xg
tg/Kg
ug«g
ug«g
ug/Xg
ug«g
ug-Kg
ug/Kg
u^Kg
»*«!
ug«g
ug/Kg
ug,Kg
ug.'Kg
-jg.'Xj
ug.Xg
JL-SS01-I
ND
ND
ND
ND
KD
190 /
HD
NO
HO
ND
ND
ND
52 J
HD
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
HD
HD
!2J
ND
ND
ND
ND
SD
ND
4}
ND
ND
ND
SD
JWSOM
J-Mijr-K
HD
ND
ND
ND
KD
WJ
ND
KD
KD
KD
ND
ND
3N
ND
KD
KD
ND
ND
KD
KD
KD
KD
ND
KD
ND
KD
NT)
KD
KD
KD
KD
KD
KD
JL-SSDJ-I
1JO&OOJ
J-Miy-«
HD
KD
ND
ND
ND
MI
ND
ND
ND
ND
HD
SD
22 J
SD
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
SD
ND
ND
ND
SD
SD
SD
KD
SD
SD
M)
SD
ND
JL-SS.'2-I
1I06W05
ND
ND
ND
ND
KD
100 J
KD
HD
SO
KD
ND
ND
33 J
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
SD
SD
ND
KD
ND
ND
ND
S3
SD
ND
ND
KD
SD
SD
-------
3
I
—)
>
IT
.-* «=>
°
u o
ID t_)
(». O
o y:
il
11
*k
111
Z 5- Z 5-
g § g g g
z. a-, a- 3; £ a; E z z v: -j-. -jr. z ar. ar. sr!
f
t M -s i f I
a o «•? cs « s
a -A h -^. a? -^.
•U.
3
-------
TABLE 1
SUMMARYOFSEEPANDSURFACESOIL ANALYSES
AMOCOJOUETtANDFILLRI/FS
PAGE40F1J
ftuiih
SuplelD:
Dlkftlkclcd:
Pinixitr
SlMI-VOLffltESpM]
frNittMod^.ttjiwiac
{•BrawpSayti^Eiitf
UeucMoobcKx
foadlwptaj!
PieiaiJirax
Ante*
Di-6-BiKvipita
rtottiite*
Pyrnt
HavISwzyiPJiaiftt
WAnteafiK
SatrfijAfiilinaic
Cwywx
bii(2-5hyfeiy!{PMii'W
ftlMtte
StfifflVfwoaiihav!
3eia1[tfiwnihex
3tt»j;PYR«
IfidcwI^-CDlte
&barfi
-------
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF SEEP AND SURFACE SOIL ANALYSES
AMOCO JOLIET LANDFILL RI/TS
PAGE 5 OF 11
FWd ID:
Srapk ID:
DilfCollwffd:
Pinm«tr
SEMl-VOLATIUS
N-NJowodinwhylMiiee
Phenol
bijtf-ChiflrediylJ<tr
2-CVaropfienoJ
U-DichfawbesKW
l.tDichlorobeasw
U-Didilonte=«
2,r-oxybu(l-QlwD(in)pM4)
K-flttrwo-dHVpropyiimiK
Heuchforaeitac
Niniencae
[|0$Aorc«
2-Nimij)tavoJ
2,tDimettylphao!
oUc2-CnK)n)C!hoTYtMcyufl<
2,4-u1CuJlXT)p(IOIX
U,4-Tridiloni)e!2r«
KijIuMien*
HeuchloraduUdicK
«-CWo»-J-MethYl;>tawl
KcuchioroqdopaadicM
J.i.i-Trkhlonjphccl
i-CWoro«cDiniO(Xoiu£«
A^rjphifltx
:,*-OiniosphB«
t-Nmoptewi
2,<-Dinitr5iai«!)«
Diefwipiienitt
iOiii«i)n«!-Phe>;E!Mr
flJCRM
<>Din«;o-:.Me?.y'-?te«l
UIU
ug-Xg
ug/Kg
ug/Xg
ug/Kg
ug/Xg
ug/Xg
ug/Kg
upXg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
uj/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Xg
u^Kg
ug«g
ug/Kg
ug«3
ug/Kg
ug/Xg
ug/Kg
ug/Xg
aq/X;
ug/Xg
uq-'Kj
ug/Kj
jg,X{
U5,r.g
afr-Kj
ug/Xg
•jg/Xg
JL-SSOI-I
ND
«OJ
KD
KD
KD
KD
KD
KD
ND
KD
ND
KD
KD
KD
KD
KD
ND
SD
ND
ND
KD
KD
KD
SD
KD
ND
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
JWMM
IIMHQ7
Mty-K
SD
ND
KD
KD
KD
KD
ND
KD
KD
KD
KD
KD
ND
KD
KD
KD
ND
KD
KD
KD
KD
KD
KD
KD
KD
ND
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
JbSSOM
II&WCJ
ND
KD
KD
KD
KD
SD
ND
ND
ND
ND
KD
ND
ND
KD
ND
ND
KD
ND
SD
HD
HO
KD
KD
SD
KD
SD
'•D
SD
SC
KD
SO
SD
SD
SD
SD
JWSSM
1W6MW
KD
NO
KD
ND
ND
ND
KD
ND
KD
KD
KD
KD
ND
ND
KD
ND
KD
KD
KD
KD
KD
SD
KD
KD
SD
SD
SD
KD
SD
ND
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
-------
TABLE 1
5UMMARW5EEP AND SURfACESOIL ANALYSES
AMOCO JOL1ET LANDFILL KITS
PAGE 6 OF P.
JWSOM JWSOM JWSOW JUSSM
SiopkiD; IIKUXK
DiteMteled: Mty-tt
Pnmtltr Uaio
SEMI-VOUTILKICOST)
(hKitraodlpf^biK ugflg ND
tikoffl
-------
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF SEEP AND SURFACE SOIL ANALYSES
AMOCO JOUET LANDFILL W/FS
PACE 7 OF 12
WdlDi
OtltCtfktlcd:
JWfGI-l
Hb;.K
JL5TO-I
Wj«
JWWJ-I
9-M,r-«
JWP52-I
f-Mir-K
RSMI
Ubr.N
UaiU
ORGANIC ACIDS
MttocAcid
Tiindlitic Acid
FliilulieA:id
TBtjWuJicAcid
IwpfcWicAcid
Beanie Acid
oj'ml
qfril
H'ml
Bf/'d
uj/mi
si/ml
NO
ND
NO
0.66
42.4!
55.W
NO
NO
NO
0.1
o.a
0.71
ND
NO
NO
0.25
1.J
20.04
NO
ND
NO
0.11
1
o.a
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
M)
DtltCtlltdd:
OUGAMC ACIDS
Mu'eicAcid
TrJndliik Acid
«Tu)u!icA:id
lu^iJiiiicAcid
Beuaic Acid
JWS01-I
JL5SU-I
Uilb
sjfel
of/ml
4.14 J
NO
NO
C.5JJ
513
5.92
ND
0.1
1.51
0.4flJ
4.9
11
!.07 J
NO
NO
0.! J
NO
1.4
-------
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF SEEP AND SURFACE SOIL ANALYSES
AMOCO JOL1ET LANDFILL R1/7S
PAGE 8 OF II
FVWID:
Staple ID:
DilcCelkdcd:
finixltr
fESTIClDESTCBS
iJpfu-BHC
tei-BHC
ilu-BHC
(inmt-BHC(li.i&x)
Hcpudta
Aldr.1
Hq*idi!«tpoHO
RSS42
II2SMO!
W«-«
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
N'D
ND
SD
SD
SD
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
N'D
SD
SO
SD
tote TV railu (or uispy SP57 (Ike duplkilt of SPC2) tad SPOJ ippar is bt rmrvi
H< wirii »jHWM(ru ipik< jioikiit unfit Uku n batki SP02 «i8nn Awhr 1241 b pnxt I li tic umpk
RailO ifttiited fnm (k« unpb nllttttd Jiie 3, IW ttiAn Anxfcr 1H4 OKI prtxtl it lit tea
-------
TABLE i
SUMMARY OF SEEP AND SURFACE SOIL ANALYSES
AMOCO JOL1ET LANDFILL Rl/FS
PAGE 9 OF 12
FttMlD:
SiapklD:
Dili C«ll«ld :
Pinndtr
PESTICIDES/TOS
dpkt-BHC
bet-BHC
ddu-BHC
gttnu-BKC (Undue)
Kepticiiw
Aldrin
Hqxdil«£i»ii
-------
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OFSEEPANDSORfACESOlL ANALYSES
AMOCO JOLIET LANDFILL Rl/FS
FACE ID OF 11
FWEh
SiifklO:
JWWM JWNM JUNM JUWM JUfjJ.| JUpoj.] JWBM Jwm
I!«W02 IWUn INfMJ 1I9W03 ||«MOj \mm IWMM IIKMM
mij-H
Uilti Triil
Tin!
Otwlrd
Titil Dfaulrtd
mams
fcamy
took
BOTH
Bayita
Odun
Ortoca
C^
&9(«
tm
bd
Mtf{taa<
Mesaj
Nidd
Sdoun
K*
Tiillin
Zk
Cyoidi
ug^.
uji
ngi
i^.
uji
UJ/l
qlL
ujfl.
ug/L
tgl
m
t^A.
1^1
ql
ug,l
qil
U}/1
ugA
ND
11.9
491
ND
ND
lie
51.3
ND
{3400
NO
131
0.52
un
ND
ND
ND
47.6
ND
ND
ill
II1B
ND
NO
(JB
IW B
ND
11X00
ND
311
OJJ
ND
NO
ND
ND
23,i
ND
in
920
ND
6.7
123
'iOW
ND
I5KOO
1.3
1303
0.13 B
200
ND
ND
WO
402
ND
ND
(.OB
NIB
ND
NO
ND
3070
ND
ND
ND
302
ND
561
NO
ND
<.5B
II.6B
ND
101
1(66
ND
NT)
MB
11.0 B
KD
13500
in
239
OJi
948
ND
KD
ND
52.<
KD
ND
. 19 B
102 B
ND
ND
ND
UJB
ND
973
ND
no
OI5B
ND .
ND
ND
NO .
9.0 B
ND
102
904
ND
7J
107
m
ND
IttOOO
ND
1100
0.14 B
176
ND
ND
224
330
IJJ
ND
9JB
142 B
ND
ND
ND
3120
KD
ND
ND
304
ND
ND
ND
«.4B
13.1 B
-------
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF SEEP AM) SURFACE SOIL ANALYSES
AMOCO JOLIET LANDFILL Rl/TS
PACE II OF 11
FWdlD: RSWI 8SMI
SMfklD: llttHOI IIMUH!
DiltOOeclal: f.Mif-« Miiy-M
Uiib TiUl DWrei
INORGANICS
AAliiwny ugA. 310 B ND
Anoiic ' ug/l ND ND
Swura ugl 2JB 2.0 B
BqilJOT ujil OJ1B ND
Ctinhn ug/l ND ND
LflnMMH UQA. nU nU
CoWl og/l ND ND
Cofpr ugA. 6.18 ND
ITM u>l ROB 39,68
Ltti ug/l 0.19 B ND
Metwex ug/l LIB ND
Many ug/l ND ND
Nttd ugA, ND ND
Sdam ug/l ND ND
Site ujil ND ND
Mm ug-'l ND ND
Zix ugil 908 m
Cyui« ug/l 1.2 6
-------
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF SEEP AND SURFACE SOIL ANALYSES
AMOCO JOLIET LANDFILL Rl-TS
PAGE 12 OF 12
RtHID:
Su^tlCh
DifeGteW:
INORGANICS
AKBWB/
Aneuc
Ekm
Bqflria
C«fcso
CITN&SQ
CoWt
Cipptf
ten
lad
Hmiiatx
Mertay
KkU
Sddwn
SBwf
lUtim
ItK
Cyuidc
Utiti
mg/Xg
ng/Xj
mg/Xg
mg/Xg
mg/Xg
mg/Xg
mg/Kg
ng/Kg
mg/Xg
mg/Kg
mg/Xg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Xg
n»)(Kg
mj-Kj
mg/Xg
mg/Kj
Jl^SSOl-!
IIMU06
9-M1J-96
Tib!
ND
9.3
275
0.778
3.5
15.1
261
ND
72200
23J
2670
ND
ND
1.6 B
ND
458
107
0.75 J
JWSOM
II«M07
WHir-«
Tibl
ND
66.5
1110
OJ!B
II.OB
421
(000
ND
21)000
!U
1710.
0.11 B
70.9
3.1
ND
113
525
I.OB
JWS03-I
noiMd
9-Mir-96
r
T«U! .
ND
US
161
0.598
ND
M
10.9 B
25J
11900
30.9
314
0.11 B
16.48
1.7 B
ND
2J3
5)9
0.40 J
JlrSSSM
imm
WHir-9<
Tilil
ND
616
1310
0.436
9J
271
J920
ND
194000
14.6
1690
ND
65J
2.4 B
ND
163 B
319
C.77 I
-------
TABLE 2a
SUMMARY OF SOIL SAMPLES ORGANIC ANALYSES
AMOCO JOLIET LANDFILL Rl/FS
PAGE I OF 11
fkMID:
Staple ID:
DtltC«ll«lcd:
Finmeltr
VOU71LES
OiloroiwJane
Brenoadhine
Vinyl Chloride
Chloroethine
Mfitybc Chlorid:
Action*
Cutan Disulfide
U-Oktonwhax
IJ-OidilorofJuK
U-DidilOTdlwe (total)
CWorofcrm
U-DicfilowesJiine
2-ButiflOK
l.l.t-TriehioreeifciM
CtraaA Treiciiiof ids
Bnxn*ikfilo(o
-------
TABLE 2a
SUMMARY OF SOIL SAMPLES ORGANIC ANALYSES
AMOCO JOLIET LANDFILL RI/FS
PAGE 2 OF II
Reid ID:
Simple ID:
Dile Collected :
SB04-2-<
97IM-OW
JI-0<(-95
SB05-0-!
967WW5
ISJkl-H
SBOi-7-10
9704-005
31-0ct-9i
Sft&O-l
%70-OM
25-Oct-W
SB05-7-10
9704-007
31-Oct-W
Nnmtter U*lts
VOUT1LES
Chloromeshme
Brotnomethine
Vinyl Chloride
Chloroethue
Melhylene Chloride
Acetone
CutotJ Daulfide
l.l-DJditefoeihm
1,1-DkhloroetJune
U-DJchloroethene (touJ)
CHorofonn
1,2-DtdtJoroethine
2>ButinoM
1,1,1-TrichIoroethine
CubonTetnchloride
BronwdicMororoetJiine
U-DichlotoproptM
d j- 1 ,3-DtcMoropropene
Trichloroethene
Dibromochloromethine
1.1.2-TridJoroethine
Benzene
trvu- 1 ,3-Didiloropcopene
Bromofotm
•i-Me*Jiyl-2-PenUnonc
2-Hexiflone
Tctrechlofoeikne
1,1 ,2,2-TetnchiofoethiM
Toluene
Qilotobciuene
BhylBenzew
Styrcne
Xylene(!oUl)
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
of/kg
ug/kg
uj/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
UgAg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
"8^2
ug/kg
ugftg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ugAg
ug/kg
ugftg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ugAg
ugAg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
u|/kg
ugAg
ug/^g
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
4J
ND
2J
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
IN
3/
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND '
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
54 J
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5100 J
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2SJ
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
400 J
ND
7J
ND
2J
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
in
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
6J
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
540J
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
510
ND
ND
ND
ND
-------
TABLE 2a
SUMMARY OF SOIL SAMPLES ORGANIC ANALYSES
AMOCO JOLIET LANDFILL RI/FS
PACE 3 OF 11
Field ID:
Simple ID:
Dtfe Collecltd :
Pinmtter
VOUTILES
Chloromethane
Bromomethine
Vinyl Chloride
Chloroethine
Melhylene Chloride
Acetone
Cvbon Disalfide
l.l-DichloroeiJtefle
1,1-Dichloroethine
l,2-Dichlorodhene(tou!)
Chloroform
U-Dichloroethine
2-Butiflone
1,1,1-Trichloroelhine
C«rf»n Tetrachloride
Bramodichloromethtne
1,2-Dichloroproptnc
cis- 1 >D«:h)orapn>peiK
Tridiloroediene
DibromochhKomethane
1,1,2-Trichlofodhtne
Benzene
trtni- 1 ,3-Dichlor opcopenc
Bromoform
4-Methyl-2-PenUnone
2-Hexinone
Tetrchlofoethene
1 . 1 ,2,2-Tttnchloroeihine
Toluene
ChloTobenone
EthyiBenrene
Styrene
Xylene (ton!)
SBS4-0-1
9670-007
Units
«|Ag 10 J
ug/ig ND
u|/k| ND
ug/k| ND
ug^j ND
ug/kf 30 1
ug/kg 4 J
ug/kg ND
ug/kg ND
ug/kg ND
ug/k| ND
ug/kg ND
ug/kg ND
ug/kg ND
ug/kg ND
ug/kg ND
ug/kg ND
ug/kg ND
ug/kg ND
ug/kg ND
ug/kg ND
ug/kg ND
ug/kg ND
tig/kg ND
tig/kg ND
ug/kg ND
us/kg ND
ug/kg ND
ug/kg 27 J
ug/kg ND
ug/kg ND
ug/kg ND
ug/kg SD
SB55-7-10
9704-006
31-Ocl-tt
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
4000 J
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
4201
ND
2J
ND
ND
-------
TABLE 2a
SUMMARY OF SOIL SAMPLES ORGANIC ANALYSES
AMOCO JOLIET LANDFILL RJ/FS
PAGE 4 OF II
FxMIO:
SiapfelD:
Dtl(C«(lKitd:
SB014-I
25-Oct-H
SBOI4-IU
J70MOI
l-N«T-«
SB01JM
WMCJ
SB024-12
mum
Jl-OcWi
580341
WMOJ
2J4XI-H
SBOJ-MO
nouxu
3l-0cl-9i
SBW4I
M7MU
ISOrt-K
SBM-2-6
5100W
Uilii
SEMI-YOUTIUS
NtfmMdbatyniM
?ke»l
^•QlwoelJiylpw
2-OIwipteicl
l>Didfarobcuflv:
U-Dkikoteusv:
27-oxjtiX!-CW«o!Wf«.')i:)
N4iSMfrdHVffO{!jllffli«
Haxifatoetoe
MCoane*
Iwpfaax
Mferejfcnol
2,4-DHtdtypksol
K<2-ai«iw}i«yl>fatae
J^Ddilonyiaol
m-TciciixsiaaK
NijMtfsx
KeudJonbe'dbe
J-QloraO-Afc.Vffpiiaol
KeudtecKlopaadia
2,<>7ncil«oj«sol
IQltmouflOuleK
DnaetyfWuIw
AoieUCK
Aawpfctybc
2,v"Dn&tnjw!u?ii£
Accuo&dtoc
2.4-Difittn}ph6')ol
**Nisrop>GwJ
2,4-Dwuololaex
DWijfpWute
KWorapttayl-FieylEiIw
Fha«
<>Dbn.;.M«Jiyl3fie-,cl
«S/tcj ND
ujAj SO
aj/l{ ND
ajftj ND
utA( ND
ifA( ND
001 NO
Uf4| ND
»tA[ ND
«0| ND
o^i( ND
«l/l| NO
«|A| ND
tffrtj ND
t^j ND
«{/t{ ND
c0( ND
ajty ND
«t/l| ND
«0j ND
it/H ND
afrij ND
vyll ND
ufrliS ND
u0( ND
aj'ij ND
u^I ND
8^1 ND
o0 { ND
«{;l:j ND
i$(2 ND
^J ND
ej'ij ND
u^| 130 1
«jlj ND
NO
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
SD
SD
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1K1
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
SD
ND
SD
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
.ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
SD
ND
ND
SD
NO
ND
ND •
ND
ND
ND
, M
ND
ND
ND
ND
SD
SD
ND
ND
SD
ND
NO
ND
SD
ND
ND
SD
ND
ND
SD
ND
SD
ND
ND
SD
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
SD
ND
ND
ND
•NO
NO
ND
ND
NO
ND
SD
ND
SD
SD
ND
SD
SD
ND
SD
sb
so
ND
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
ND
ND
ND :
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
SD
SD
SD
ND
SD '
ND
ND
ND
ND
SD
ND
SD
ND
ND
SD
ND
SD
SD
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
un
nu
NO
un
nu
ND
nu
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
SD
ND
• 'W
wn
t*U
ND
ND
SD
ND
SD
ND
SD
un
nu
ND
ND
SD
SD
-------
£2
,55 «=> S
c-j £3 -«e
S
3
.S
S. S@SSEff-SG?S
^r-. :»-. MS. :J-- '-^-
« «- - ^- - -- -• * •» •^
sf sr sf ir ^ ^' «• sr «• sr sr
§ "1
5.^1
=£
i* U
S
• ^3% ?"-•« ft _5™"" ~^v" '^I1" i? if Sj ~^5 vJ*-^ tj
-------
TABLE 2a
SUMMARY OF SOIL SAMPLES ORGANIC ANALYSES
AMOCO JOLIET LANDFILL RI/FS
PAGE 6 OF 11
FWdlD:
DileC«UKl(d:
SB05-0-I
967M05
SB05-7-IO
970MOS
Jl-Ocl-95
SBW-G-I
9670-OM
25-Otl-tt
S 806-7-10
97WW
JI-Ocl-H
SBS44!
25-Ocl-«
SSJ5-7-10
3!-Oct-«
UalU
SLMI-VOUT1LES
N-HitrotodimcthyluniiM
Phenol
biX2-Chlofoethyl)&lier
2-Chlonpfatol
1,3-DkMwobeaane
1 ,4-Dkh[Dinitro-2-Methylphenol
«|Ag ND
ugrtig ND
ug/lg ND
oj/lj ND
ff/V| ND
«t/k( ND
ug/tj ND
u(/kf ND
U(A| ND
ujAj ND
ufkg ND
ug/k{ ND
ut/lj ND
u|Ag ND
ut^t ND
u|/Vf ND
u{Aj ND
u|A| ND
ug/1i| ND
uS/kf ND
u(/k( ND
ug/k! ND
uj/il ND
ufr'tj ND
«t/kg ND
uj/k| ND
u|fk{ ND
Uf/k{ ND
u&'lg ND
ug/kg ND
u«/kj ND
«|A| ND
ug/lg ND
uj-'ig ND
ujAg ND
*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
, ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
SD
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND'
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
' ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
KD
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
-------
TABLE 2a
SUMMARY OF SOIL SAMPLES ORGANIC ANALYSES
AMOCO JOUCT LANDFILL W/FS
PAGE70F1!
FkldID:
Simple ID;
DittCoHtcftd:
SBOW-1
%7P«
15*1-95
SBOS-I.I6
970W«
3I*J.J5
SB064I
%7M«
25-Oct-Ji
SB&7-IO
970WD7
3!*{-»
SB544I
«7
-------
TABLE h
SUMMARYOFSOILSAMPLESORGANICANALYSES
AMOCO JOLIET LANDFILL Rl/FS
PAGE?OF I!
fkWID;
DifeOflccftd:
5BOI4I
OtI-95
SBOI4-IO
Ort-tt
5B0241
OcWS
m*\
Dl?
Od-«
SB024-12
Ocl-H
SB034-I
Ocl-«
SBQJ-MQ
Oc<-«
toils
ORCANICAODS
MtitkAcid
TikllitkAcid
Me Acid
TttpiMcAcid
IwpttActd
Bock Acid
u|fe! ND
uj/nil 02
tij/ral ND
fij'rol O.IJ
ci/inl ND
in/nil 0.25
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NT)
ND
0.29
IJ
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5.9
0.63
7.0J
MID-,
mw
0*« -Od-95 Ort-M Oct-M
Wb
ORGAMCACIDS
Mi^icAcKJ
TrirodliiicAcid
PhdulkAcU
TcKpfcL'st'kAcid
I^thilkAcid
BcuskAcid
ug-bl
uj/nl
u§/nil
li^'oil
U^flll
uj'ml
S'D
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.41
0.6
193
ND
KD
ND
0.5
0.6
205
ND
N'D
KD
KD
KD
ND
KD
KD
KD
KD
KD
SD
ND
KD
KD
ND
ND
KD
ND
035
KD
ND
KD
SD
ND
-------
TABLE 2a
SlWMARYOFSOILSAMPLES ORGANIC ANALYSES
AMOCO JOLIET LANDFILL RI/FS
PAGE 9 OF II
flddllh RSWM-1 RSBOM-1 SBSW-i
DUP
Drie atari: QtMJ Od-« Oct-K Ori-«
Oalu
ORGANIC ACIDS
MiIticAcid ottel ND ND ND NO
TrendlidcAcid uj« KD ND ND ND
PddulicAcid qtal ND ND ND ND
TotptafelicAcid qM ND ND ND ND
IwpteWicAcid tij/mi ND ND ND ND
BouokAcid ^ ND ND ND ND
-------
TABLE 2a
SUMMARY OF SOIL SAMPLES ORGANIC ANALYSES
AMOCO JOUET LANDFILL W/FS
PAGE 10 OF 11
FkUlD:
StmpkID:
DiKColkdtd:
Pinndtr
PESTICIDES/FCBS
I'ph-BHC
beU-BHC
-------
E3
UO
-<
-<
PC pb
C5 f^^
3 rs
^ fs
o o
to c_>
t»» O
o ^
==>
era
to
1-3 »
ir = sc
z at a: z:
aiZscsestaiZiataiaiiesr
^
5- 3- ^-
-5 -
-------
TABLE 2b
SUMMARY OF SOIL SAMPLES INORGANIC ANALYSES
AMOCO JOLIET LANDFILL RI/FS
PAGEIOF4
FJddID:
SiipkID:
SBOWM
WMOI
SB014-IO
nw»l
SB02-0-I
' WO-002
58024-1!
3I-Ort-«
SB03-0-1
WINX13
SBC3-7-10
31-Ori-JS
Units
INORGANIC (TOTAL)
Anaic
Bum
Boyllbm
Cidratwi
Qronnun
CoUlt
Cbpptf
IflXI
Lad
MingLiest
Manny
ffickd
Wabn
SSrtf
Zinc
Cytnifc
njfy I.J
B|Aj 60J
of^I 1.0 B
i>!/1c{ 11
-------
TABLE 21)
SUMMARY OF SOIL SAMPLES INORGANIC ANALYSIS
AMOCO JOLIET LANDFILL RI/FS
FACE 2 OF 4
FWdiD:
Staple ID:
MeGdedtd:
SBM4I
«7(M)W
•ttOd-M
SBM-l-i
TOWW
Jl-Ort-95
. S80S4!
«70J»5
2WkHJ
SKS-MI
9104JS05
31-Od-W
5BO&4-!
WM06
25^)d.Ji
SB06-7-10
9704JW7
31^c(-?5
Kills
INORGANIC (TOTAL)
Anenic
Btfftfli
ferfllitmi
doraiuni
utfttfil&B]
GiUt
Con*
Iron
W
MttjiKtt
Manny
Nidcl
Sdcnwn
SHw
Zinc
Cywide
«H*I
*fll
m^I
Bjft|
R(/S[|
•1*1
«J*I
•1*1
•1*1
•1*1
•1*1
BtA{
'B«Al
ra|/k|
ajdj
«H*t
7.1
310 B
0.778
0.13 B
l«
100
13.4
20100]
m
<93
0.57 B
.23.7
HD
ND
66J
KD
9.5
M!
0.7
-------
TABLE 2b
SUMMARY OF SOIL SAMPLES INORGANIC ANALYSES
AMOCO JOLIET LANDFILL RI/FS
PAGE 3 OF4
FWdHh
Simple ID:
DtleCeK«Id:
SBS44-1
9J70407
SB3S-7-10
1Mb
INORGANIC(TOTAL)
Anoiic
Birim
Boylliwn
CidmiBm
Ckramwn
CoWt
Copper
im
lad
Mtfljtneu
Moony
Wdtl
Sdcnnm
Silw
Zinc
Cyir.Kfc
rojAj 9.4
raptj 34.1 B
ngA{ 0.12 B
ra(ftt 0-7& B
ng^i II J
of/if 141
mgftf 26J
n|A| 23000 J
ffl|/il 13.7
mptg 561
ni|/ij ND
mt^l 25.1
(n&4g 1.1 B
fli^l( ND
otf/tg 64.0
m(,4{ ND
16.1
142
1.5
ND
27.1
10.58
21.6 .
31600 J
19.1
972
0.12 B
JIJ
ND
ND
103
ND
-------
TABLE 2b
SUMMARYOFSGILSAMPLES INORGANIC ANALYSES
AMOCQJQUnUNDFlLLRI/FS
PAGE40F4
fU 10; SK141
INORGAMCfTCLf)
st(/l
-------
TABLE3a
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ORGANIC RESULTS
AMOCO JOLIET LANDFILL RI/FS
I'ACili I OK27
SAMPLE LOCATION
Parameter
VOLATILE*
('liliiriiinclkmc
CIllllllKlluilC
AoMiiitc
C.nliDi] Disullide
CIllciKllilllll
2-llul:iiume
Ciiilmn Tttltiiiltloiiilc
llioiiiiidicMoMHiietliane
Hen/cue
•1 Mctlivl-2-l'iMilmuine
'luluene
I'lliyllicn/ciic
Xrlune (total )
1 2-!)iliiiiiini 1 i-liluioprnpmu!
1 1 liese values represent stuudiiids
in shallow youndwiiier or low y
AM1 A2-I1
A7-1'
62UMaitdardi —
Unili Clan I1
ug/l
llg/l
ng/l
ug/l
iig/1
"B/1
ug/l
ug/l
iig/l
"K/l
Hg/l
llg/l
UB/I
iig/l
UB/I
UB/I
«g/i
5
5
5
100(1
100
701)
. 10000
lor Class I gioundwuter und
icld conditions, i.e. MW-63I
ND
ND
ND
39 J
0.5 J
ND
5R
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
50 R
ND
ND
50 R
ND
ND
36
ND
ND
ND
ND
250
1200
ND
—
ND
ND
ND
50 R
ND
ND
50 R
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
230 J
ND
A8A-I1
ND
ND
37 J
ND
ND
ND
250 R
ND
ND
18 J
ND
ND
20 J
ND
fiOO
64 J
ND
er 35 IAC 620.4 10. Wells completed in areas north and east of I
(.. may IK more representative of Class 11 ( 35 [AC 610 4?m 11,,.
A!M*
ND
ND
ND
78 J
0.4 J
ND
5R
ND
ND
4
ND
ND
ND
ND
3
8
ND
he landfill,
-
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
All-l
ND
ND
ND
5R
ND
ND
5R
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
in.il ii»l lie .ipphcabli: (o immitnimg wolls within Ihe boundary of any future Groandwuter Mmi;,ni.m,.nt •/ mr/ i«'i")T7 ~"™° ' i"""u<"u!i
^^
HlerS Jindieu,eScS,in,iacdva,ueJUndicu,esd,,ll,,ejee,edlc$\.SUM2\ubIc -t-5
-------
TABLE3a
SUMMARY Olr GROUNDWATER ORGANIC RESULTS
AMOCO JOLIET LANDFILL Rl/FS
l>AGi;2OF27
SAMPLE LOCATION
I'aiainctiT
VOLATILE!*
C'lilniMincthane
Chli'iucllimie
MeIli>leneClilondi:
AccUmc
Ciiilnw Disultidc
nihiioliiim
2-IHil;inone
I'.iilmnTclrucliluruli!
1 d iwiodichloiomctliane
Ik-n/aie
•l-Mclliyl-2-l'enlanone
2-IIC.\iUllllli:
'lulucne
(.')iloii)heii/.eue
!:lliylKeiiA:nc
Xvlcne (total)
l,M)ibroino-3-eliloiopropani:
620 Standards
Unit!! Class l'
ug/1
ug/l
UB/I 5
us/i
UB/I
UB/I
UB/I
iiij/l 5
UB/I
UB/I , 5
UB/I
ug/l
UB/I icon
»B/I 100
iig/l 700
ug/l 10000
UB/I
AI2-1
MD
NI'J
,NU
5 R
ND
Nl)
511
Nl)
NO
Nl)
NO
Nl>
ND
ND
Nl)
Nl)
NO
D2-1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Nl)
5 R
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
04 J
ND
ND
ND
ND
D3-1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5 R
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
EG3D7-12 MW-ll-87-t MVV-I2-87-!
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.2 J
ND
5R
ND
ND
0.4 J
5 J
S J
ND
0.5 J
340
9
ND
ND
ND
ND
5 R
ND
ND
5 l<
ND
ND
ND
ND
Nl)
ND
0.7 J
ND
ND
ND
ND
15 J
ND
ND
ND
NU
ND
ND
ND
5
ND
ND
0.3 J
ND
19 J
96
ND
Tin-si: vuluts rcpresenl stuudiirds fur Class 1 ^loimdwalei under 35 IAC 621) 20.
-------
TABLE3a
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ORGANIC RESULTS
AMOCO JOLIET LANDFILL RI/FS
I>AOB30F27
.SAMPLE LOCATION
I'nnimclcr
VOUTILES
t'liliHiiincllune
( hluiDclli.nic
Mdhvlene (.'him ide
Acetone
('.ilium Disnllide
C'liluioluim
2-Hukiiionc
(.'ailionTeliachloride
HtiiiiUKlnMoioiiielhiiite
llen/enc
•l-MrlhvlO-l'enlniione
2-1 le\.tmme
Toluene
t'hloiolien/ene
I'.tlivlllen/ene
.Xvlene (lolal )
I.J Dihioinii .1-dilorupiopmie
MW-I3.S7-I MW-I3-S87-I MW.30^7-1
Units
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/I
ug/l
ug/l
ug/i
ug/l
ug/i
ug/l
Clan i1
5
5
5
KHII)
100
700
10000
Nl)
Nl)
Nl)
50000 R
ND
Nl)
50000 R
Nl)
Nl)
Nl)
Nl)
Nl)
Nl)
Nl)
Nl)
8600(1 i
Nl)
ND
ND
ND
25000 R
ND
ND
25000 R
Nl)
ND
Nl)
ND
ND
Nl)
ND
ND
91000 J
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MW-3I4I7-1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5 R
ND
ND
ND
ND
5 R
ND
Mn
INLJ
wn
1NLJ
0.5 J
ND
I hoc valua represent standards lor Una I g.ouadwater under 35 IAC 620 410. Wells completed in areas north and east of the landfill
m shallow gioundwater or low y.eld umdUmus, ,.e. MW-63R, may be more representative of Class II (35 IAC 620 420) '[tee Class 1 standards
"pnomlh "(he EPA '" ")l>""°""g WL'"S W1"""n ^ h°U"tll">' Ol'""y futun; Groi»'tlw«t'-T Management Zone (GM2,35 IAC 620.250) to be
Coiniiiiikuii lo Class I (35 IAC 620.410) may nut be applicable lo these wells completed within the landiilled areas
Class IV (.15 IAC 620 440) may lie appiopriiile.
I )a.a yuuhfia,: J indicates estimated value, K indicates data rejected during vdiddio*. Refer .to Appendix J for a Summary of Data Validation
' iiti|>ttit'.ljli}cV.SI 'M2V uMc 4-5
-------
TABLE 3a
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ORGANIC RESULTS
AMOCO .IOLIET LANDFILL RI/FS
PAGE 4 01' 27
.SAMI'I.K LOCATION
Parameter
VOI.ATII.ES
I'liluiiiinelkiiH:
('him uutliaih:
Mdlivienc Chloride
Aculonc
( ai Inm 1 )isuliiilc,
("liluml'dim
J-HlllillllHH!
CaiUm Tutiuchloride
Kliiinodichlimmicllumc
llen/eiic
•l-ML'ihyl-2-l'entanone
Mlexanone
'loluone
Oilmolieii/.ene
Klhsllicii.'L'iiL'
.V.kiicd'tlal)
] ,1 DibHWio-3-chloropropane
MW-IO-88-11 M\V-ll-88-lz MW-«-88-l! MW-43-88-12 MW-43-W8-I1 MW-M-88-I1
620 Standards
Units Clats I1
UB/I
UB/I
UB/I s
us/I .
ug/l
MB/I
ug/i
ue/i 5
UB/I
«y/l 5
UB/I
"g/i
us/1 1000
ug/l 100
ug/l 700
ug/l 10000
UB/I
ND
ND
NO
120 R
ND
NU
12(1 R
ND
NO
6 J
ND
ND
5 J
ND
350
»3
N!)
ND
ND
ND
5R
ND
ND
5R
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5R
ND
ND
5 R
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
50 R
ND
ND
50 R
ND
ND
5 J
ND
ND
ND
ND
97
ii lo Class! (35 IAC 620.4111) may not be applicable to these wells completed within the lancllilled areas.
Class IV (35 IAC 62(1440) may be appropriate.
i D.il.i (.iiiahliors: J indicates estimated value, K indiciiles data rejected dining validation. Refer to Appendix J for a Summary ot'Daln Validalioii
-------
TABLE3a
SUMMARY 01 GROUNDWATER ORGANIC RESULTS
AMOCO JOLIET LANDFILL RI/FS
I'A(;ii30I-'27
.S 'AMPLE LOCATION
I'.iriimck-r
VOI.ATII.KS
('him ninelhiiiie
C'liliiinclliaite
Mcthyli'iie Chlniide
Aietniie
t'.iilnin Uisiillide
Cliloioliiim
2 Hutantme
l";ii hon 'leli.idilunde
l!inimnliili)immielluiiu:
1 leu/cue
•l-MirllivlO-I'diuimini!
J 1 IcNitllUMC
1 iilueiic
Clilniohen/ene
1-thyIIicn/eiic
Xyk'iie(lnlid)
U-niliiumo-l-ehloiopiopanc
MW-1S-88-I1 MW-l M«/_CI «., 1
Unlli
Hg/l
llg/l
llg/l
HE/I
Hg/l
Ug/l
Ug/l
Ug/l
llg/l
uy/l
UK/I
: iig/l
120 .Staniiurdt
Clan I1
5
5
5
IUOO
ICIII
70(1
IOOUO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.4 J
ND
ND
NU
ND
NU
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.4 J
ND
ND
ND
8
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
79 J
ND
ND
10 J
NU
ND
ND
ND
NU
7
ND
NU
ND
ND
ND
ND
NU
ND
ND
ND
5R
NU
ND
2 J
ND
ND
NU
NU
NU
7J
NU
NU
ND
1 j
5R
ND
NU
5 R
NU
ND
ND
NU
NU
NU
NU
NU
NU
NU
ND
1
3
5R
ND
ND
5 R
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2 J
5R
ND
ND
« n
J 1\
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
HICM: values rcpresuil standards lor Class I giuumlwiiter under 35 IAC 620.411). Wdls compleled in areas north and east of the landfill
in .hallow gioundwalcr or low yield ecmditions, i e MW-63R, may be moie represenlative of Class U (35 IAC 620.l he iippheable to inoniloriuy wells wiiliin the Iwundaiy ol'iiny liiture Groundwaler Management Zone (GMZ 351AC 620 250) to be
iip|imveil hy Ihu lEI'A.
C'(iiii|nuiMin to Class I (35 IAC 620.410) may not he applicable to these wells eompleted within the landlilled areas
Class IV (35 IAC 620 <)4U) may be iipprtipriale
1 kil.i. (.luulifiers: J nulicalcs estimated value, R indicates data rejected duitng validation. Refer to Appendix J for a Summary of Data Validation
-------
TABLE 3a
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ORGANIC RESULTS
AMOCO JOL1ET LANDFILL RI/FS
1'AGI; 6 OF 27
SAMPLE LOCATION
I'si ra meter
VOLATILES
Chloiomethane
ChliiuKllimie
MdliylcneCliloiide
Au'luiic
Cai him Iteulfide
I'liloiolmtn
2-Htit:iiumir
C'.iilmii Teiiachloride
Bhiinodidiloiomelhane
Men/ene
•1 Molliyl-2-l'cnliimme
2-i lexanone
Toluene
nitorubeii/ene
KlllVllieii/.ene
X\U'iie(lol.d:)
1 . J -1 )i hi uinu- J-chloropropane
MW-5241'J-I1 MW-53-8!M MW-S4-89-12 MW-54-58D-12 MW-SS-8M! MW-S6-89-1* MW-S7-89-I
WO Standards
Units Class I1
us/I
ug/1
UB/I 5
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
UB/I
UB/I 5
ue/i
lig/l 5
us/1
UB/I
ug/i 1000
UB/I 100
UB/I 700
UB/I iixjoo
UB/I
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
50 K
ND
ND
3 J
ND
ND
ND
ND
170
•42 J
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
O.'l J
ND
ND
ND
8
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5R
0.3 J
ND
5 K
ND
ND
0.2 J
ND
5 K
ND
ND
ND
4
ND
ND
ND
ND
5R
ND
ND
5 R
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
'1
ND
ND
ND
ND
64 1
ND
ND
100 R
ND
ND
8 J
ND
ND
5 J
ND
360
1W J
ND
ND
ND
2 R
ND
0.4 J
ND
5 R
ND
ND
1
ND
ND
ND
ND
06 J
0.8 J
ND
ND
ND
ND
25 J
ND
ND
5 R
ND
ND
02 J
ND
ND
ND
13
ND
ND
ND
1 These values represent standards ior Class I Bimindwater under 35 IAC (j20 -110. Wells completed in areas north aid east of the landfill,
in shallow gioundwaler or linv yield conditions, i e MW-63R, may be more representative of Class II ( 35 IAC 620.420). These Class I standards
may not he applicable to numilorin£ wells within the boundary of any future Utoundwater Management Zone (OMZ, 35 IAC 620.250) to be
nppioved by die IEPA
J Cimipiirisi>n to Class I (35 IAC 620.410) may not be applicable to these wells completed within the landlilled ureas.
(.'lass IV (35 IAC 620.440) may be appropriate.
l I liilu Uiiiihtieis: J indicates estimated value, K indicates data rejected during validation. Refer to Appendix J for a Summary of Data Validation.
M'--Mu|iiirnuibK%vSl'M2\ Ij
-------
TABLE3a
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ORGANIC RESULTS
AMOCO JOLIET LANDFILL RI/FS
l'A(il-70F27
SAMPLE LOCATION
1'jramckT
VOLATILES
Chloioiiiellume
t'lilornelluine
Melliylcne Chloride
Acetone ,
C.iilnin Disullitli:
Cliloiulnrm
2*llnl.iuone
CmhnnTetiiicliloridu
Mliiinodlcllloinilielliane
Hon/ene
•1 Metlwl 2-l'enliiiione
2-lle\;tmwe
'lulueiie
L'liliuuhi:n/cnc
I'lhvlllcnyeiii:
.\\laic (lolnl)
1,J l)il]itiinn-3-cliloropiopaiie
MW-58-89-11 MW-S'J-S'J-l1 MW-dO-8!)-!1 MW-fil-8!)-!1 MW-C2.SD.I MW.fiin.HJ.i
(120 Standard! ~~
Unili Class I1
ug/1
us/1
us/1
UE/I
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
us/1
ug/l
UE/I
UB/I
UB/I
ug/l
UB/I
UB/I
UB/I
UE/I
5
5
5
IUUO
IOU
7011
10000
NI)
NO
NI)
511
ND
ND
5U
NI)
NU
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NI)
NI)
5 R
ND
ND
5R
05 J
ND
ND
NI)
NI)
NI)
ND
ND
NI)
NI)
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.6 J
ND
5 R
ND
ND
0.6 J
ND
NI)
ND
55
ND
ND
NI)
ND
NI)
ND
ND
0.5 J
ND
5 R
ND
ND
1
NI)
NI)
ND
0.4 J
ND
ND
NI)
NI)
Nf)
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
NI)
ND
1
NI)
ND
ND
0.8 J
6
45
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5 R
wn
iiiy
ND
ND
ND
ND
Mn
liW
xjn
riu
Nn
nu
ND
NO
I. I hose values represent standards Im Class I gimuidwuler under 35 IAC 620.410. Wells completed in areas north uud east of the landfill
in shulluw groundwaler or low yield cinnliliuns, i.e MW-63R, may be more representative of Class II (35 IAC 620.420). These Class I standards
may nut lie applicable lu monitoring wells within the boundary of any future Oroundwatcr Management Zone (OMZ 35 IAC 620 250) to be
.i|i[ilQveil liv Hie 1EPA
2 Comparison to Clnss I (35 IAC 620 410) may not be applicable to these wells completed within Die landlilled areas
fl.tss IV (<5 IAC 620.440) may be appiopriale.
.1 Data Qualifiers: J indicates estimated value, R indicates data rejected dining validation. Refer lo Appendix J for a Summary ofDala Validation
l.\Cjnc|TOiHuWcs«l,'M2\ uhlc 4-5
-------
TABLE 3a
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ORGANIC RESULTS
AMOCO JOLIET LANDFILL Rl/FS
I'ACil: 8 OF 27
SAMI'l.K LOCATION
MW-(ij-8!M MW-fi-l-58!M MW-65-8!)-] MW-66-8'J-l MW-67-89-1 MW-(.8-8il-l M\V-68-589-l
62(1 Standards
PaiiiMK-lcr Units Class I1
VOLATILES
Chliiii'inellimic
Chlul oellunii!
Mrth>laieClllonde
Acetone
C'dtlion Disultide
Clilm olin m
2 llntanone
CailxiiiTutiucliloruk
lti(ii)uidiclili)U)inethane
1 ten/cue
•1 Mellivl-2 I'ciiliinunc
2 1 lc\,ini»ne
Toluene
Chlombeii/ene
l-'thyllleii/eile
X\K'IK- (total)
1,2 DiUumn 3-chloiopiopane
•UB/I
UB/I
UB/I s
"B/l
UB/I
UB/I
UB/I
UB/I 5
UB/I
UB/I 5
UB/I
UB/I
UB/I 1000
UB/I 100
UB/I 700
UB/I i oooii
UB/I
ND
ND
ND
Nl)
Nl)
Nl)
5 R
Nl)
Nl)
0.3 J
,ND
'ND
Nl)
Nl)
ND
Nl)
Nl)
ND
ND
ND
Nl)
ND
ND
5R
ND
ND
0.3 J
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Nl)
ND
ND
ND
ND
1
ND
3 J
Nl)
ND
NO
ND
ND
0.4 J
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5R
Nl)
Nl)
Nl)
Nl)
ND
ND
ND
ND
Nl)
Nl)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5 R
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Nl)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5 R
ND
Nl)
ND
ND
ND
ND
Nl)
ND
Nl)
Nl)
ND
ND
ND
Nl)
ND
ND
5 R
ND
Nl)
Nl.)
Nl)
Nl)
ND
ND
ND
ND
Nl)
I lieso values represent .standards I'm Class I giouiulwiilcr under 351AC 620.410 Wells completed in areas north and east ofthe landfill,
in .shallow Bioiindxvater or low yield ciimlitions, i.e. MW-63R, Miiiy be more representative of Class 11 ( 35 IAC 620.420). These Class I standaids
may not lie applicable to monitoring wells within the Imninhiiy of any I'uture (iroundwater Management Zone (GM7., 35 [AC 620.250) to lie
nppioved by the IEPA
(.'iiinpaiison to Class I (35 IAC 620.'! Id) may not he applicable to these wells completed within the luiidfilled areas.
Class IV (35 IAC 620.440) may be iipptopriale
I )ala Qualifiers; J indicates estimated value, It indicates dala icjeeted duriiiB validation Rel'er to Appendix J lor a Sununaiy of Data Validation
-------
TABLE3a
SUMMARY OK GROUNDWATER ORGANIC RESULTS
AMOCO JOLIET LANDFILL RI/FS
PAGE » OF 27
SAMPLE LOCATION
I'.inililctlT
VOLATILES
Clilnioincllumc
Clilornelluine
Mi'lli\lcne Chloride
Acetone
Caibon Di'tnllide
Cliluroloim
2-llutiinoiie
CuihouTeliachloiidc
linmmdicliloioinclliaiic
liui/ene
•l-Melliyl-2-l'eiiumoiie
2-llc\aiumc
Toluene
Uihiiobai/cnc
lilhyllien/ene
Xyleiie (total)
l.:-Dil>ioiiio.3-clilnro|)rtip:i!ic
MW-d'J-UD-l MW-7MO-1
62B MnnUardi ~~~~ ~~" ~~~ "~~ ~~ ^ ~~ ^_^_____
Unlti Class I1
ug/l
UK/I
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
tigfl
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
5
5
5
1000
100
700
10000
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
03 J
ND
. ND
ND
ND
The* values represent stmidaids for Clnsa I giounilwulcr under 351AC 620.4 II). Wells completed in areas north and east of Ihe landfill
in slmllmv gioimdwnler or low yield conditions, i.e. MW-63R, may lie more representative of Class U ( 35 IAC 620.420). These Class I standards
may mil \K applicable to monitoring wells within the boundary of any future Groundwater Management Zone (GMZ 35 tAC 620 2501 to be
iippiovu! liy the El'A '
(.'omnanson to Class I (35 IAC 620-410) may not be applicable lo these wells completed within the liuidfilled areas.
Class IV (35 IAC 620 440) may be apptopriate
I )atn (Jualiliers- J indicates eslimiiled value. II indicates data rejected during validation. Refer to Appendix J for a Summary ofData Validation
>'SI IM2\ uldc -4-5
-------
SAMPLE LOCATION
TABLE 3a
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ORGANIC RESULTS
AMOCO JOLIET LANDFILL Rl/FS
I'AGli 10 OF 27
Al-l'
A2-!1
A7-I2
A8A-l!
AIM'
620 Standards
Units Class I1
SEMI-VOI.ATILES
I'heniil
2-Cliluiophi:iiol
2-Nituiphenol
2,4-1 hinclliylplicnol
2,'l-Dichl-Trichlnioplienol
A/oheMiMMi:
AL-eiuiphtliene
2,-I-l)miliopIiemil
4-Niluipliciiiil
Diclhylphllialalc
l-'hifiiene
4,ii-l >i!niio-2-Metliylphenol
IVlllildlluinpllellol
I'hciiiiiilhjcMi.*
Dl-ii-Hiilylphllinliite
liisiM-JlhvlhexyOI'lithalale
dt-N'-Dclyll'liUiiiliilu
l)en/ii(h}|-T:|iiii»iillii!iie
Ik'ti/o(k)l''lu
-------
TABLE3a
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ORGANIC RESULTS
AMOCO JOL1ET LANDFILL RI/FS
I'AGEI10F27
.SAMI'I.K 1.0CA I ION
AIO-I
AIM
AI2-1
--„ ,. — — — ; — _^1;:_. —--• i/j-i EUJU/-I ftiw-u-Hf-1
fi2l) .Standards -
Units Clan I1
SKMI.VQLA1ILES
I'llfllol
2 (.'liliiiiiplienol
2-Nitn>|ilK'iiol
2,>l-l)nnelliylplienol
2t.|-l)icliluiuphennl
N:i]>ltllialene
•I't'hliiin-.l-Melhylplumil
2.-I (i-'l'iiclilmuplieiuil
A/olien/ene
Aicnaplitlicne
•I.-l-Dimtiuphcnol
•l-Niliupliciiul
1 lielliylplilhalale
Hmiiene
•IJi-Dinilni-2-Melliylplienol
I'lieiKinllnciic
Di-n-limvlplilhalale
liitfj-hfhvllicxvljl'lithalale
di N < Uyiriillinlnle
Ik-iiAUbJI-'limiaiillienc
Ucn/oOOI'liioiunlhcne
Hcn/iJfrOI'vicni;
lndeiuj( 1 ,1, l-CDJI'vrene
1 )>lu.'M/(aji)Anlluacciic
IU-11/iilisAOI'eiyli.-iie
ug/1 100
ug/1
ug/I
ug'l
ug/I
ug/I
ug/I
ug/i
ug/I
ug/I
ug/1
ug/I
ug/1
ug/1 1
ug/1
UB/I
ug/1 6
ug/1
ug/i
ug/I
UK/I
ug/I
llj',/1
llf/l
Nl)
ND
NT)
Nl)
ND
Nl)
ND
Nl)
ND
Nl)
Nl)
Nl)
ND
ND
Nl)
Nl)
Nl)
Nl)
I J
Nl)
ND
Nl)
ND
ND
Nl)
Nl)
NU
Nl)
Nl)
Nl)
Nl)
ND
Nl)
ND
ND
Nl)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Nl)
Nl)
ND
ND
ND
NL)
NL)
Nl)
Nl)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Nl)
ND
ND
Nl)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NL)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Nl)
Nl)
2 J
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Nl)
ID R
ion
10 R
10 R
10 R
ND
10 R
10 R
ND
ND
25 R
25 R
ND
ND
25 R
25 K
ND
ND
ii j
ND
ND
ND
ND
Nl)
Nl)
ND
i<
ij
ND
ND
ND
ND
10
i y
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Nl)
ND
Nl)
Nl)
ND
Nl)
ND
Nl)
ND
Mn
INU
ND
ND
Nl)
Nl)
Nl)
These values represent standards lor Class I groundwaler under 35 IAC 620.410. Wells completed in areas north and east of the landfill
in shallow tii-oiiiiilwuler or low yield umditi.ms, i.e. MW.fi.1R, may be mule representative ol'Class II ( 35 IAC 620.420) These Class 1 stand
may not he applicable to monitoring wells within the boundary ol'miy future Ciroundwaler Management Zone (C,MZ, 35 IAC620 250) to'be
appioved tiy Hie IF.I'A
Ciiinp.iii.son to Class I (35 IAC 62(1.41(1) may nut lie applicable to Uiese wells completed within the landlilled areas
Class IV (IS IAC 620 4-10) imiy bo appioprinle
I >ula Unahlieis J indicates estimated value, It indicates data rejected during validation Iteler to Appendix J lor a Suinmaiy ufDala Validation
-------
TABLE3n
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ORGANIC RESULTS
AMOCO JOL1ET LANDFILL RI/FS
1'AOli 12 OF 27
SAMPLE LOCATION
MW-12-87-1 MW-13-87-1 MW-13-S87-1 MW-30-87-1 MW-31-87-1 MW-40-88-1' MW-41-88-1'
620 Standards
Units Chiis I1
SKMI-VOLATILES
I'llCIUll
2-('lil(ili>plieni>l
2-Nilinphi:lu)l
2.-l-l)iiiielliylplicn»l
2.-t-l)ichliuuplienol
N.iplitli.ilcnc
•U'lilnio-l-Nklhylpliiiiiol
2,-l.fi- rncliloiopiienol
A/olK-n/ene
Accnaplitlicne
2.-I-I liinlii'phcnol
•l-Niliiiphciiul
1 liellivlplilluiliile
(•'lllllliMIO
•I <)-l)nniio-2-Me[hylplienol
IVittai'hluniiiliciiol
I'lii-nanlhienc
ni-n-lluUlplillialute
lnilM-:iliylliexyl)l'hlhalale
ill •N-OclylPlilliiilale
,lk-M/o(l!)l"linu;inllieiie
lii'ii/o(k)l'liii>ianllieile
Hi'ii/i)(a)llviene
link-nod, 2,1-<'l))l'yrene
|)ilK'M/ta,li)Aiitliiacene
]tciiA>(B.li>,i)l'ciykne
UB/| 100
UB/I
UB/I
UE/I
UB/I
UB/I
•ug/l
UB/I
UB/I
UB/I
UB/I
UB/I
UB/I
UB/I
ug/l
UB/l 1
UB/l
UB/I
UB/l 6
UB/I
UB/I
UB/I
UB/I
UB/I
MB/I
UB/I
Nl)
ND
ND
ND
ND
610
ND
Nl)
Nl)
Nl)
Nl)
Nl)
Nl)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Nl)
ND
Nl)
Nl)
ND
Nl)
ND
ND
Nl)
61
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Nl)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Nl)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND .
ND
47
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NU
ND
NU
NU
ND
NU
NU
NU
NU
NU
NU
NU
NU
ND
NU
Nl)
NU
NU
NU
NU
NU
NU
NU
ND
ND
NU
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Nl)
Nl)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2 J
5 J
I j
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
480
ND
ND
ND
ND
21 J
ND
ND
NU
ND
ND
NU
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1 J
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Nl)
10
NU
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
NU
'I licse values represent slambuls 'fur Cluss 1 gioundwalcr under 35 lAC 620.410. Wells completed in areas north mid east of the landfill,
in shallow BumiuKviiier «i low yielil cuiulilinns, i e. MW-63R, iimy'te inuiu icpiesenlnlivc ol'Cluss II ( 35 1AC 620.420). 'Hiesc Class I standards
may mil' lie applicable to monitoring wells within the Ininndaiy of any fnlnie Groundwaler MunaBemuil Zone (OMZ, 35 IAC 620.250) to he
appiuveil hylhe II'I'A.
(.'iimpmi.Min to Class I (35 IAC (>2ll 4111) may not he applicable lo lliese wells completed within the landlilled areas.
floss IV (35 IAC WO.'l4(l)inaylKiip|iiiipriiile.
I KIM (Ju.ililkis j indienles estimated v.iliif. K indicates data lejected dining validation. Refer to Appendix I for a Summary of Data Validation
-------
TABLE 3a
SUMMARY OF GKOUNDWATER ORGANIC RESULTS
AMOCO JOLIET LANDFILL RI/FS
PAGU130F27
.SAMPLE LOCATION
MW-tt-88-l'
MO .Standard!
Units Clan I1
SKMI-VOI.ATILES
I'hennl
2-Cliliiioplieiuil
2-Nillup!iei»il
2,l-l>imelh\lplii:mil
2,-l-Didiluropheiiol
Niiplilliiitaie
•1 Clilnm-l Mclhylphuuol
.'.-l.d "liichlniophcnol
A/ohen/ene
Acentiplilliene
2 •!-l)iuiti»|>lieiKil
•l-Niliiiplicnul
l)idli\lplilluilale
Muoicne
•l.(.-l)iuitn>-2-Mi:tliylplienol
lY-ntaeliloioplienol
I'hciuiiiUiiL'iu'
l)i-n-l!ulylplilbalale
bisl2-l'Ihylbevyl)l'lithalate
di-N-Uclyiriillialale
l!en/i>(b)l;liioiantliene
Hai/o(k)Muorantliene
llen/i^ajl'yieni:
lndi;iiii(l,2,3-CL))l1yrene
1 )ibciy
-------
TABLE 3a
SUMMARY OP GROUNDWATER ORGANIC RESULTS
AMOCO JOLIET LANDFILL Rl/FS
1'ACJE 14 OF 27
SAMPLE LOCATION
MW-JS-88-l' MW--I6-88-1 M\V-J7-88-l' MVMS-88-l' MW-4!)-88-l MW-50-88-11
.SKMI-VOI.AT1LES
I'lliMlol
2 niloiupllL-nul
2-NitiupliL-iiti!
2,44>imclliylphenol
2.4-Dichloroplumul
N.iplllll-.ilulu:
4.('hluiii-l-Melliylphenol
2,4 ii-rncliliiioplicnol
A/iilvn/ene
Aifiiiiphllienc
2.4 DmilKiplii-nol
4 Niliiiplti-iuil
[lii-lhvlplillialale
Fluraaii:
4 ,|b)Hm>uiiillieue
IK'ii.'ufkiMiiiiNiiilhcnc
lli-ltA>(.ii)l'yii-;uc
liiiU'iioi 1 ,2.t ('nyyiene
1 )]beii/(a,h lAnllliacene
(,2U Stan'ilards
Units Class I1
ug/l 100
ug/l
ug/i
ug/l
UB/I
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
us/1
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
HB/I
ug/i i
ug/l
ug/i
ug/l 6
UB/I
UB/I
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
U"/l
llj^/l
ND
Nl)
Nl)
Nl)
Nl)
Nl)
Nl)
Nl)
Nl)
Nl)
ND
ND
Nl)
Nl)
ND
ND
Nl)
Nl)
Nl)
Nl)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Nl)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Nl)
1 I
2]
ND
Nl)
ND
Nl)
Nl)
ND
Kin
1NIJ
390
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
vrrx
JNlJ
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NL)
ND
ND
ND
Nl)
Nl)
Nl)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NID
ND
Nl)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Nl)
Nl)
ND
' ND
Nl)
ND
ND
Nl)
Nl>
Nl)
ND
8 J
ND
ND
NT)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Nl)
Nl)
ND
'Ilicsc values icprewnt stnndnnls Ira Class I i-tuunclwiitur under 35 IAC 62UA10 Wells completed in ureas north and east of the landfill,
in shallow nioiimlwalei or low yield uoudilions, i.e. MW-6.1R, may he more representative d'Class II ( 35 IAC 620.420). These Class I standards
limy nut he iipplicablc lo monitoring wells willnn the boiuidar)' of any luluie Oroluidwater Managenknt ?,one (UM7. 35 IAC 620 25(1) to be
appioval l.y the llil'A
C.'uinp.iii I.SDI1 lu Class I (35 IAC o2U 41(1) may not be applicable lo Ihese wells completed within the landlilled areas.
Class IV ( H IAC 62(1 440) limy lie appmpiiulc
Diila' Ouidil'ieis 1 uulKales estimated value, l< imlicalcs data tujceled duimg validalion. Rell-r to Appendix ) fur a Summary of Data Validation
-------
TABLE 3a
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ORGANIC RESULTS
AMOCO JOLIET LANDFILL RIAFS
I'AOI£150F27
SAMPLE LOCATION
MW.SI-8!M MW-52-89-1'
(120 SliindnriJi ~ —
Units Uas> I1
Sl-MI-VOLATILES
riKiml
2 Clilnruphenol
2-N'iliiipheiuil
2,4-l)iinellivlpheitoI
2,-l-Dii.hliiiopheiiol
Naphthalene
4-ChkiMi.l-Melliylplienol
2.4.(r-'liiL-hliiioplienol
A/oheit/eiie
Aicnaphthciic
2.'l-l>uiilii>]iheiu)l
•1-NllmpllL'llol
Didhvl|)hthalate
I;liU)lene
4,ii-l )imlio-2-Mclhy!pheno!
IVniachliiioplienol
I'heiKinlhrene
l>Hi-l!ul\lph!iialale
hi'.(M-:ihvlhexyl)l'lilhable
ill N-I Itlyll'lilhalate
Biwo[b)l-'liii>i.iiilheiie
lilicn/(a.h)Anth[acene
Hrii/ofg.h.iilVrylene
UB/I loo
UB/I
UB/I
ng/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/i
ug/l
ug/l
UB/I
ug/l
UB/I
ug/l
ug/l
UB/I i
UB/I
ug/l
ug/l 6
ug/l
ug/l
«g/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/i
ug/i
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ft J
ND
ND
ND
NI3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
21
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
8 J
ND
ND
ND
21
ND
ND
ND
ND
4 J
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Ml)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
730
ND
Mn
itu
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
wn
PfU
ND
ND
wn
1NLJ
wn
JNL/
ND
KJT\
IV U
ND
ND
wn
PUJ
ND
ND
1 Thcs: values icpiesral slimihirds for Class 1 gioundwatur under 35 1AC 620.4IU. Wells completed in areas north and east of the lundllll
ui shallow gioiindwnler 01 low yield cuiulitkiiis. i e M VV-63R, may lie inure representative of Class II ( 35 IAC 620.420). These Class I standard*
may not be tipplienlrfe to moniloring wells within the boimdniy ol'any luluie Grouiidwaler Management Zone (GM7,, 35 IAC 620.25U) io'be'
iippiovcd liy Hie IF'll'A
2 Cniiinnnsim to Class I (35 IAC 620 410) may mil be applicable to these wells completed within the landfilled areas
Class IV (15 IAC 621144U) may be appiupitiilc.
.1 I )ala yiinlilieis J indicates estimated value, K indicates data rejected duiing vulidiilion. Refer tu Appendix J Ibr a Summary Dl'Data Validation.
-------
SAMPLE LOCATION
TABLE3a
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ORGANIC RESULTS
AMOCO JOLIET LANDFILL RI/FS
PAGE 16 OF 27
MW-56-8!)-!' MW-57-8!)-! MW-58-B'J-l' MW-59-8M1
MW-61-8!)-l'
620 .Standards
Units Class I1
SEMI-VOLATILES
riicnoi
2 rhloroplienol
2-Nilroplienivl
2.-l-i)imclli)lplii:nul
2,-l-|)>cliliiioplieiiiil
Naphthalene
•1 riiloio-.l-Melhylphcnol
2.-l/i-Tin:hl-l)imli<>-2-Mdhylplienol
IVnlatliloiophenol
I'liL'iiaiilhiL'iie
Di-n-Hutvlphtlmlale
lii-i(2-i;ilivlli<.'xyl)l'lithalale
di-N-Octviriilli'ilaltt
Hcii/o(li)l'luoriuilheiie
IVn/o(k)l'liioianllicne
llcnyuOOI'yrciie
Imkni.fl.f.l-CDJI'yreiie
1 >ilten/(a,h)Autliracene
Hen/.o(|:,h,i)l'ciylene
] Thest; V:]|MCS tenreseilt skindl
ug/1 1(10
"B/l
UB/I
Ug/l
ug/l
UB/I
UB/I
UB/I
ufi/i
ue/i
ng/i
ug/i
UK/1
ug/l
llg/l
llg/l 1
UB/I
ug/i
UB/I f>
UB/I
UB/I
UB/I
»K/1
ug/l
"g/i
Llg/l
;ilds lt)l Class 1 urmmdwatLT
ND
ND
Nl)
ND
N1J
ND
NU
Nl)
Nl)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Nl)
Nl)
Nl)
Nl)
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
uadi:r 35 IAC 620
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Nl)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
41(1 W,.]krnr
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Nl)
ND
Nl)
ND
ND
ND
ND
Nl)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
imlftivl in iinvio r
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NU
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Nl)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Nl)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
.. l.i.t.ll^ll
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Nl)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
in .iluilluw giuuiiilwalui in low yield conditions, i.e. MW-63K, limy be mini! ruprescmiilive ol'Cliiss I! ( 35 IAC 620.420). These Class I standards
may not lie applicable to mnnitui ing wells within the boumlaiy of any future Grouiidwater Management Zone (C,MZ, 35 IAC 620.250) lo be
approved by the 11-PA.
Comparison to Class I (35 IAC 620.410) may not be applicable lo these wells completed within the landfilled areas.
Class IV (35 IAC 620 440) nuiy he appinpriale.
I )ala Uu.ililicis J indicates estimated value, K indicates data rejected duimg validation. Refer lo Appendix J for a Suimimiy oI'Dalii Validation
«l>..ivi.il.|ts,sUNUMjl)M-5
-------
TABLE3a
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ORGANIC RESULTS
AMOCO JOLIET LANDFILL RI/FS
PAGE 17 OF 27
.VAMI'LK LOCATION
MW-JJ2-1BM MW.QR-9-M MW-M-OT-l MVM4.58!M
(1211 Standard) ~ ~~ ——————— ^—~
Unili Cha ]'
•SKMI-VOUTILES
riicmil
2 Clilwipliciinl
2 Nitrnpheniil
2.-l.|)mielh>l|>lienol
2,-l-niLlll(!iu|l]|L'IH)I
Naphthalene
•! Cliluio-3-Methylplrenol
2/1/1- I't iclilui nplieunl
A/nlwu/ciic
AceiKi|ihllicnc
2.-l-l)iinlii>phem>l
•1 Nitiophciinl
Didhylphllndale
Humeac
•) (i*ninitiii-.!-Melhy]p]ieiu>l
IVnlaLliloiuphcnol
rilCll.lllllllene
I'l-n-liatylplillialale
liis(2.|:ihylhosvl)]'lllhalate
ill. N-Oelyll'lilhalati:
Hai/iilbjKliioiaiitliene
IliWodOi-'luniaiitliene
Hcir«t(a)lJYieiie
[iidenu(1.2.U'l)jt'yrene
|}ihem(ti.li)Aiillmicene
lien/i^gjijll'civliine
UB/I 100
ug/i
»6/i
H8/1
UK/I
US/1
UB/I
iifi/l
UB/I
"g'l
MB/I
ug/l
«B/I
US/I
UK/I
ug/i i
U1-/I
ug/l
ug/l G
"B/l
ug/i
»B/I
ug/i
UB/I
UB/I
ug/i
Nl)
Nl)
Nl)
Nl)
Nl)
Nt)
Nl)
Nl)
Nl)
Nl)
Nl)
ND
Nl)
ND
Nl)
NB
ND
ND
NK
Nl)
Nl)
Nl)
Nl)
Nl)
Nl)
Nl)
NU
ND
NO
Nl)
Nl)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Nl)
ND
ND
. ND
ND
ND
ND
Nl)
ND
Nl)
Nl)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Nl)
ND
ND
ND
ND
Nl)
Nl)
ND
ND
ND
Nl.)
ND
ND
Nl)
ND
ND
ND
1 J
ND
Nl)
NL)
ND
ND
Nl)
Nl)
ND
ND
ND
Nl)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Nl)
ND
ND
ND
Nl)
ND
Nl)
3 J
Nl)
ND
Nl)
Nl)
Nl)
ND
Nl)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Nl)
ND
ND
ND
Nl)
Nl)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
| J
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Nl)
ND
Nl)
Nl)
ND
Nl)
Nl)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Nl)
ND
ND
Nl)
ND
NT)
Nl)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
I I'licse values represent standards I'm Class I gruundwaler under 35 (AC 620.410. Wells completed in UKIS north and east of the landfill,
in shallow giouiulwukT or low yield umdilions, i e MW-f>3K, may !•.. more representative ol'Class II ( 35 IAC -SI 'M.!\ ultk -I-.1)
-------
TABLE 3a
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ORGANIC RESULTS
AMOCO JOLIET LANDFILL Rl/FS
PAGE 18 OF 27
SAMPLE LOCATION
MW-68-S'M MW-68-58!)-! MW-fJiMMI-1 MW-70-90-1
SKMI-VOKATILES
IViml
2 t.'llloIUplieiKll
2-Niliophenol
2,-l-Dimelhvlphcnul
J.-l-Dicllliiiophcnol
Naphthalene
•1 Chloro-3-Mcthy!plienol
J •l.h-l'iii.liluiuphcnol
.'\LCnaphthene
X-'-Diiiilioplienol
•l-Nltlnphalol
1 (iclhylplilliiilate
riiioK'iic
•l.(i-j>iiiilro-2-Melhylplienol
I'fiiUicliloropheiKil
rinmiinlliieiie
111 i|.Hiil)lipli(halalc
liis(2-l-lliylliL-xyl)l'hlhalalt:
ih-N-lMvfl'liliiiiliile
!>i:ii/o{h)I;liioianthene
, lteii/o(k)riiioianthene
lli-]l/o(a)l'YICIlC
liiili:iiiHl,2.3.CI))l'>Tciii:
1 libcn/tii.hJAntluaceni:
Hcii™(-;,li,i)l'i.Ty!ene
fill) Standards
Units Cliiis I1
ug/l 100
ug/l
UB/I
UB/I
UB/I
ug/i
UB/I
ug/l
ug/l
llg/l
ug/l
UB/I
ug/l
UB/I
US/I
ug/l 1
UB/I
us/I
ug/1 6
UB/I
UB/I
UB/I
ug/l
'•B/1 ,
ug/l
ug/l
Nl)
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Nl)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Nl)
Nl)
Nl)
ND
ND
Nl)
Nl)
Nl)
Nl)
Nl)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NB
NU
NU
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Nl)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
•ND
4 J
ND
ND
ND
Nl)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Nl)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
• ND
ND
ND
Nl)
ND
Nl)
I These values represent standards lor Class 1 jjiuuiulwater under 351AC 620 410. Wells completed in ureas north and east of the landfill,
in shallow [jrouiulwatei ur low yield conditions, i e. MW-63R, may lie more representative of Class II ( 35 IAC 620.420). These Class 1 slandards
may not lie applicable to monitoring wells within thu boundary ol'uiiy future Groundwaler Management Zone (OMZ, 35 IAC 620.250) to be
"iippiovial by tile Ilil'A.
: Comparison la Class 1 (35 IAC 620.411)) may nol be applicable to these wells completed within the landtilled ureas.
Class IV (T> IAC MO 440) may be ii|ipiupiiii(e
1 i D.ilii yualificis. 1 indicates estimated value, R indicates daln rejected dm ing validation. Refer lo Appendix 1 for it Summury of Data Validation.
I'.I ni.p.HIUlikjlSUMMjW«4-5
-------
TABLE3a
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ORGANIC RESULTS
AMOCO JOLIET LANDFILL RI/FS
PACE 19 OF 27
SAMPI.K LOCATION
AM1
A2-I
Uitllj Class I1
MKUANIC ACIDS
TnmcllilicAud
I'hllialicAcid
'Icreplithahc And
l.snphlhiilk Acid
HiwnicAciil
.SAMPLE LOCATION
ORGANIC ACIDS
'liiinellilie Acid
I'hlhiilic Acid
Taephllialic Acid
iMiplillialu. Acid
llai/ulc Acid
ug/ml
ug/ml
ug/ml
UK/HI!
ug/ml
Units Chisi I1
ug/ml
ug/ml
ug/ml
ug/ml
ND ND 0.24
106 214,3 272
189 1.79 ND
ND ND 66
11.6 1.01 ND
All-l All-1 A12-1
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND 1.01
ND 272.8 266
27.3 11812 530 X
ND 727.3 273
ND 279.8 ND
02-1 D3-1 EG307-11
ND ND 12.13
ND ND 261.8
ND ND 11.34
ND ND 96.9
15.2 ND ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MW-11-87-I
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.07
1 I hcse values icprescnt standards lor Class 1 puundwater under 35 1AC 620.410. Wells completed in iireas north and east of the hndlill
in .shallow groundwiitcr or low yield cunJiticais. i.e. MW-63R, may he more representative of Class U (35 IAC 620 420) These Class I standards
may mil he applicable to monitoring wells williiu the boundary of any future Oroundwaler Management Zone (GM7, 35 IAC 620 250) to IK
npplovcd by the EPA. ' '
2 Ciiiiipaiisun to Class 1 (35 IAC 62(1410} may not be applicable to these wells completed within the landfilled ureas
Class IV (35 IAC 620.440) inuy he appiopriale
i Dala Qualifiers. J indicates estimated value. K indicates data rejected du, ing validation. Refer to Appendix J for a Summary of Data Validation
IAC illr|i(H«j|il«'.SUMJ\l3Mc J-5
-------
SAMPLE LOCATION
TABLE3a
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ORGANIC RESULTS
AMOCO JOLIET LANDFILL RJ/FS
l'AGU200F27
W-12-B7-I MW-13-87-1 MW-13-587-1 MW-30-87-1 MW-30-87-1 MW-4U-88-1' MW-41-88-12
6211 Standards
Units Class I1
UKCANIC ACIDS
Tnincllilic Acid
1'lilhidic Acid
'Icienhthalic Acid
iMiphlhalk Acid
Ik-M/ilic Acid
SAMI'LK LOCATION
ORGANIC ACIDS
'1 Minelhlic Acid
riilhahc Acid
'1 cicphlhiilic Acid
Iwphlhillic Acid
Ucli/liic Acid
ug/inl
tig/ml
ug/ml
ug/inl
ug/ml
I
Units
iig/ml
ng/ml
ug/nil
OU/Htl
ug/ml
ND
ND
1.27
1.9
ND
MW-42-S8-12
fi20 Standards
Class I'
ND
ND
ND
NI)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.08
MW-42-588-12
ND
1099
3.44
ND
176.4
ND
ND
ND
ND
1
MW-43-88-1'
ND
1065
3.29
74
169.6
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MW-44-88-11
54.1
. 1972
2.81
258.2
197.5
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MW-4S-88-I2
ND
ND
ND
0.29
1.59
934
2292
150.2
247.8
108.7
W-46-88-1
ND
ND
ND
0.49
ND
0.99
166.1
10.8
220.1
92.7
MW-47-88-12
958.8
9328
474.7
1430
990
I ! hoc values represent standards liir CLi^ 1 gioundwuler under 35 1AC 620.410. Wells completed in areas north und east of Hie landfill,
in shallow Biouiidwiiler or low yield conditions, i <-• MW-63R, may be more representative of Class II ( 35 IAC 620.420)- These Class I standards
may nut l>c applicable lo inunitui ing wells witlmi Hie boundary of any fuline (irmmdwuler Munagement /.one (GMZ, 35 IAC 620.250) to be
iippiovcd liy the IEPA.
2 Comparison to Class I (35 IAC 620.411]) may not be applicable to these wells completed within the Imullilled areas.
'Clitss IV (35 IAC 620.440) may be appiopriale
3 D.ilu Uiiiililieis: J indicates eslimalfd value, K indicates data rejected during validation. Refer to Appendix J for a Summary of Data Validation.
I •!' n^lniliulilci MJMJVUblc 4-5
-------
TABLE3a
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ORGANIC RESULTS
AMOCO JOLIET LANDFILL RJ/FS
I'AGE2IOF27
SAMPLE LOCATION
ORGANIC ACIDS
Tmiwllilii: Add
I'lillmlic Acid
'Icieplitlinlii-Acid
Isuphlhalii: Acid
HVIKOK Arid
SAMPLE LOCATION
ORGANIC ACIDS
Tiimcllilic Acid
I'litlialic Add
'lucplitliahg Acid
Kuplillmlii; Add
Ili-n/oii- Acnl
Unfti
Ug/llll
ug/ml
ug/ml
ug/nil
ug/ml
Units
ug/ml
UB/nil
ug/ml
ug/ml
ug/ml
620.S'tiindurJi
Clan I1
ND
ND
ND
15.76
ND
MW-SJ-Sy-l1
620 Slandardi
Clan I'
49.4
2486
NO
2008
31.2
ND
026
ND
ND
1.2
MW-5.|-58!M!
49.2
2498
3.5
239.4
32.1
97.9
2870
88.9
237.5
16.7
MW-55-8IM1
64.2
2727
255.4
430.9
ND
ftiwov-iiv-r
102,4
2993
92.7
248.9
202
MW-S6-8D-I'
ND
ND
ND
7
ND
MW-5I-BJ-I
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MW-57-89-1
ND
ND
ND
0.18
1.28
MW-SI-W-I1
ND
495.2
3.11
57.2
73
_MW-S8-8!)-l'
— -ii
ND
ND
ND
ND
1 1)2
MW.53-8iM
ND
ND
ND
0.14
ND
JV1W-58-89-1'
•-
ND
ND
ND
ND
105
to Cla,s fiiouiidwater un er 35 [AC 620.410. Wells completed in areas north and east rflhe lundlill
•eld c,,nd,l,o,,s, ,.e MW-6.1R. may be more rq.resi-nlative of Class II ( 35 1AC 620.420) These Class I standard,
appmved by Hie IEPA "& ^'^ "''""y '"'"^ l!rOUntlwatcr Mul"'S™':iit Zone (OMZ. 35IAC 620.250) to be '
2 Campmison to Class I (35 lAC 620.410) may not be applicable to these wells completed within the landfilled areas
Class IV (3 5 IAC 620.440) may be appi oprialc,
1 IM* Qualilids: J indicates estimated value, R indicates data rejected dm ,ng validation. Refer to Appendix J for a Summary ofData Validation
-------
TABLE 3a
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ORGANIC RESULTS
AMOCO JOHET LANDFILL Rl/FS
I'AGE22OF27
SAMPLE LOCATION
MW.59-8!)-!' MW-60-89-11 MW-Cl-89-l' MW-62-8!)-! MW-C3R.-J4-1 MW-63R-W-I
OKGANIC ACIDS
Tiundlitit. Ai.id
I'lllliallC AUd
Ti'ieplilhalic Acid
I.Miplilliahi: Ackl
lii-n/oic Acitl
SAMPLE LOCATION
ORGANIC ACIDS
'1 iimcllilic Aud
I'lithnlit Ami
'1 I'leplilhaln. Acid
Isupliihalic Acid
lii-ii/iiic Acid
Units
ug/ml
ng/ml
ug/ml
iig/ml
iig/ml
Unils
Ug/ml
Ug/ml
Ug/IIll
ug/inl
tij^inl
(i2() Standards
Chiss I1
ND
Nl)
NO
ND
1
MW-B4-8!)-!
fi2f) Standards
Class ['
ND
ND
ND
ND
24.1
ND
ND
ND
0 19
1 31
MW-65-8!)-!
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.46
0.51
1390
36.3
307.7
33.4
MW-66-89-1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.02
MW-67-8U-1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.77
1.05
61.69
M\V-67-58!M
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.34
0.81
254
62.75
MW-68-8!)-!
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
24.23
MW-fiMO-l
ND
ND
ND
ND
11.07
1 I IKM; virtues rcpresunl sbindards lor Class I groundwutcr under 35 IAC 620 410. Wells completed in areas north and east of the landfill,
in .-.lialliiw gimindwalei HI Itiw yield cwidiliotis, i.e MW-63K, may be mure representutive of Class 11 ( 35 IAC 620.420). These Class I standards
may not lie applicable to inuniloi ing wells williin Hie buundary ol'iiny luluic Groundwaler Management Zone (GMZ, 35IAC 620.250) (o be
appiuvnllivlhelEPA
2 C'uiii|Kiiisiiii t» Class I (35 IAC 62().'l Id) may mil be applicable in Uie.se wells completed within the landftlled areas.
Class IV,(35 IAC 620.440) may be appiopiiiile
' I )iil» Oiiaiillers- J indicates estimated value, R indicates data rejected during validation. Refer to Appendix J for a Summary of Data Validation.
I '.<' niqnill.uWc:,-St!M2\ ublc 4-5
-------
TABLE3a
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ORGANIC RESULTS
AMOCO JOLIET LANDFILL RI/FS
PAGE 23 OF a?
SARIIM.K LOCATION
MW-7IM)I)-1
62U Standards
Units dim I1
OKUANIf ACIDS
Tiiindlitie Acid
I'lillralit Acitl
'IcieplilluilicAcid
Istiphllulic Acid
llen/nic Add
ug/ml
ug/inl
ug/ml
ug/inl
ug/ml
Nl)
Ml)
NI)
ND
14.12
I I hi-sc valu
hi-sc values repiesent standaids fur Class I t;ioumlw»ter under 15 IAC 620.4 1 U. Wells completed it, areas north and cost of the landfill
in shallmv gioundwaler or low yield conditions, i.e. MW-63R, nii.y IK mure representative of Class H ( 35 IAC 620 420) These Class 1 standards
imiy licit lie applicable to monitoring wells within the boundary of any futuie Groundwaler Management Zone (GMZ 35 IAC 620 250) to be
.'ipjiiiivcil liy the Hil'A ' '
CtniiiniiMiii lei I 'hiss I (35 IAC 620.41(1) may not lie nppliciitile to these wells cuinplulcd williin the laudlilled ureus
Class IV (35 IAC 620 410) may lie iipprupriale
Dam (Jualilieis J iiulicHtes estimated value, R indicates data rejected during validation. Refer to Appendix J for a Summary of Data Validation.
-------
TABLE 3a
SUMMARY OF GROUNDVVATER ORGANIC RESULTS
AMOCO JOLIET LANDFILL Rl/FS
PACK 24 OF 27
SAMPLE LOCATION
Parameter
PICSTICIDI'S/PCBS
belli HI 1C
ddla-llllt'
giiiimia-Hi 1C (l.mdane)
I kplachlnr
Alilrin
Dieklnn
1 jidosullim II
T Chlordane
SAMPLE LOCATION
Para meter
PKSTICIDKS/PCUS
Lela-llllC
ilcltii-llliC
uainiiia-Hl K! (l.mdane)
Hqiladilui
Aidim
Dieliliiii
Hrulosiillau II
T ChhiiUane
620 Standards
Units Class I1
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1 02
ug/1 0.4
ug/i
ug/1
ug/1
us/1
6211 Standards
Units Class I1
UK/I
UB/I
UB/I 0.2
ug/l 0.4
UK/I
ug/i
UB/I
"8/1
Al-l'
Nl)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.07 J
A12-I
ND
ND
Nl)
ND
Nl)
Nl)
Nl)
Nl)
A2-12
0.03 R
0.045 It
0.02 R
0.02 J
0.02 R
0.01 R
0.02 R
0.07 R
D2-1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Nl)
Nl)
ND
A7-IJ
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
D3-1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Nl)
0.03
ND
A8A-12
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
EG307-I1
003 R
0045 R
0.02 R
0.01 5 R
002R
0.01 R
0.02 R
0.07 R
A'J-12
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MW-11-87-1
0.03 R
0.045 R
0.02 R
0.015 R
0.02 R
0.01 R
0.02 R
0.07 R
A10-1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MW-12-87-1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
AU-1
0.03 R
0.045 R
0.02 R
0015 R
0.02 R
0.01 R
0.02 R
0.07 R
MVV-13-S7-1
ND
ND
Nl)
ND
Nl)
ND
ND
ND
The*: v.ilues represent standards lor Class I gioumlwiitu- under 35 IAC 620.410. Wells completed in ureas north and east of the landfill.
ill .shallow grotmdwater or low yield conditions, i.e. MW-63R, may lie moie representative ot'Class H ( 35 IAC M0.420). These Class I standards
may not he applicable to monitoring wells within the boundary of any future Groundwater Management Zone (OMZ, 35 IAC 620.250) to he
iippuivtd by the II-1'A
(.'oinpui isun to Class I (35 IAC 620.4 Ml) may not be applicable to these wells completed within the landlilled areas.
Class IV (35 IAC 620.440) may be appropriate
1 Jala Qualifiers: J indicates estimated value, R indicates data rejected during validation. Refer lo Appendix J for a Summary of Data Validation.
-------
TABLE3a
SUMMARY OF CROUNDWATER ORGANIC RESULTS
AMOCO JOLIET LANDFILL RI/FS
KAGB2SOK27
SAMI'LR LOCATION
I'.irjmclcr
PE.STICIDK5VPCBS
beM-UHC
ifellii-lllic:
y.illillr.i-lillC (Lllld.mc)
llcplatlilui
AWrin
Dicldlin
Kiiilosullaii II
'1 Chlmdam;
SAMPLE LOCATION
I'aliilni'dT
I'KSriC'IDKS/l'CliS
beu-IIIIC
iii-iiii-niir
g.iitnna-Ill 1C (i.indane)
! Icplatlilnr
/Mill in
Dieldini
l-iidiisiillnn II
'1 ('hlradane
Unit!
ujj/l
llg/1
ug/l
ug/l
ug/i
tig/i
llg/l
UK/1
Units
ug/t
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
MW-I3-S87-I
620S'lurfdurJi
dim 1'
ND
NU
(1.2 ND
0.4 ND
NL>
ND
ND
ND
MW-43-S88-12
(120 Standards
Clais I1
NO
NU
0.2 NO
0.4 ND
ND
0.36 1
ND
ND
MWJB-87-l
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MW..H-88-12
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MW-31-87
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MW-45-88-11
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MW-I0-88-11
ND
0.07 J
ND
0.09 J
ND
ND
ND
ND
MW-4fi-8S-l
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MW-ll-88-l'
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MW-47-88-11
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MW-1Z^8-1Z
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MW-48-88-11
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND.
ND
ND
ND
MW-13-88-11
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.37 J
ND
ND
MW-1D-88-1
ND
ND
ND
N!)
ND
ND
ND
ND
I These values represent standards I'or Class 1 gmundwaler under 35 IAC 620.410. Wells completed in areas north and east of the landfill,
in shallow grainulwiiter ar law yield conditions, i.e. MW-MR. may lie more representative of Class H ( 35 IAC 620.420). These Class I standards
limy mil lie applicable to inuiiiluring wells within Uie boundary ut'imy liiliire OrounUwater Management Zone (GM7., 35 !AC 620.250) to be
approved by the llil'A.
2 C'lniHMiisnii to Class I (35 IAC 6211.4 Ml) may not be applicable to these wells compleled within the Inndiilled ureas
Class IV (.15 IAC 62(1
-------
TABLE 3a
SUMMARY OK GROUNDWATER ORGANIC RESULTS
AMOCO JOLIET LANDFILL RI/FS
PAGE 26 OF 27
SAMPLE LOCATION
Parameter
I'liSTICIDKS/l'CHS
l>ela-IHIC
dclta-llilC
gaiiMiia-IIIIC (Uiulane)
1 Irptadilnj
Alilnn
Did, Inn
1-iidn.sulliin II
T Chlottlaiie
.SAMI'LK LOCATION
PanmiL'UT
IMCSTICIDKSYI'CBS
dcMii-Ullr '
)J.ii!iliKi-!lllr (l.llldalic)
Aldiin
IWlilrin
'1 Chli>! danc
MW-5U-88-!1
MW-SI-8!)-!
MW-52-8!>-l2
MW-53-8!M
MW-54-89-12
MW-54-58!M!
120 Standards " '
Units ('lavs I1
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l 0.2
ug/l 0.4
"B/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
(120 Slant
Units Class
ug/l
MB/I
ug/l 1)2
ug/l 0.4
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
"g/1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MW-5C.-8!)-!'
ariis
'
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MW-57-89-1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MW-58-89-l!
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
M\V-5!)-8'J-l*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MW-«0-89-l!
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MW-f.l-8!M'
ND
ND
ND
Ml)
ND
ND
ND
ND
MW-S5-89-l!
0.03 i
0.08 J
0.06 J
0.15 J
0.05 J
ND
ND
ND
MW-f.2-«!M
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
I 'I IICM: values represent skiiulunU for Cl.iss I giuundwiiicr iindut 351AC 620 410. Wells completed in areas noilh and east of the landlill
in .shulliiw giumidwiiter or low yield emtditiuns. i.e. MW-63R, may lie more representative of Class II (35 1AC 620.420). These Class I standards
may mil he applicable to (.Monitoring wells wilhin Uie boundary of any future Oroundwaler Management Zone (GMZ, 351AC 620.250) to be
approval by Uie IKIW
'1 C»iii|KiiiMin In (.'Inss I (.15 IAC 6211 •l|(l) limy not be applicable lo.lhesc wells completed within the landlilled areas
I'lass IV (35 IAC 620.4411) may be «|)piopiiu(e.
3 Data Qualiliers: J indicates cstiniiitcd value, K indicales data rejected during validation. Refer to Appendix J for a Summary of Data Validation.
-------
TABLE3a
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ORGANIC RESULTS
AMOCO JOLIET LANDFILL RJ/FS
PAGE270K27
SAMPLE LOCATION
Parameter
PESTICIDES/PCUS
bcla-IIIIC
dcHu-IIIIC
gaitiina-ltllt'd iiulane)
1 fcplathlol
/Mill in
DieUliin
I'lltltlSllltilll II
'(' Cliluitliiiic
SAMPLE LOCATION
Parameter
PKSTICIUES/PCUS
beta-Ill 1C
dcllii.UIIC
j'...mma-Hl K' (l.iiulane)
l!i-|>lauhloi
Aliliin
IJieUlim
riit!i)siill:iii ![
T Clllnuume
Units
HE/I
UB/I
ug/l
«g/i
llg/1
UB/I
ug/1
Hg/l
Unils
ug/1
UB/l
UB/I
ug/i
UB/I
"B/l
UB/I
UB/I
MW-63IW-I-1
d20.S'lnndnrdi
Chin I1
NU
005'J
0.2 NU
0.4 ND
NU
ND
NU
Nl)
MW-C8-58D-1
f,2l! .Slnnilards
Class I1
NU
0248
0.2 ND
0.4 NO
NO
ND
ND
ND
MW-64-89-1
ND
0251
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MW-«9-'JU-1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MW-fi-l-SS!"-! MW-<5-8».|
ND
0.084
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MW-70-!)®-!
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.131
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MW-66.8M M\V.«7-8!M
ND
023
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MW-S8-89-I
ND
OIKf,
ND
Nl)
ND
ND
ND
ND
Those virtues represent standards I'or Class I groundwaler under 35 1AC 620.410. Wells completed in areas north and east of the landfill,
in shallow groundwuler or low yield cumlilmiis, us. MW-63R, muy be more representative of Class D (35 [AC 620.420). 'lliese Class 1 sliuidaids
niiiy not \K applicable to monitoring wells within Hie boundary ol'any future Groimilwater Management Zone (OM7., 35 1AC 620.250) to be
approved by the IliPA.
C»iii|iiUiM)ii to Class I (35 1AC 620.41II) may not be applitable to these wells tomplcled within the landfilled ureas.
Clnss IV (35 IAC 62(1.4-1(1) muy be iippinprinlu
D.ila Quiililieis. J indiciiles estimated value. R indicates data rejected during validation. Refer to Appendix J for a Suinmaiy of Dula Validation.
c«
-------
TABLE3b
SUMMARY OK GROUNDWATER INORGANIC RESULTS
AMOCO JOLIET LANDFILL RI/FS
SAM 1M.K LOCATION Al-l!
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
X.inc
Cyanide
Units
ug/l
llg/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
llg/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
llg/l
620 Slumlards
Class 1 (1)
50
2000
4
5
100
1000
650
500(1
7.5
ISO
2
100
50
50
5000
200
Total
80.8
409
6.1
ND
131
680
171
169000
92.8
2790
ND
172
7.0
ND
542
ND
PAGE
A2-I'
Total
253
1310
15.3 B
ND
389
615
398
511000
422
8860
0.52
518
7.0
ND
1220
ND
1 OF 9
A7-1'
Totnl
40.8
445
ND
ND
20.4
335
73.9
58700
30.5 J
2410
0.45 J
36.6 B
2.7 B
ND
165 J
ND
A8A-11
Total
114
2050
ND
ND
31.8 B
22700
ND
959000 J
ND
1 1 1000
2.4
ND
17.9
ND
139
ND
A9-11
Totnl
730
2250
18.7 B
27.4
369
8510
1390
1020000
733 J
37300
3.0 J
801
ND
ND
3250 J
ND
A10-1
Total
25.5
510
1.6 B
ND
19.5
26.2 B
ND
41800
28.1
1210
ND
35.7 B
5.3
ND
152
ND
I. These values represent standards lur Class I groundwater under 35 1AC 620.410. Wells completed in areas north and east ofthe landfill,
in shallow groundwaler or low yield conditions, i.e. MW-63R, may be more representative ofClass II (35IAC 620.420). These Class I standards
may not be applicable lo monitoring wells within Ilie boundary of any future Groundwater Management Zone (GMZ, 35 IAC 620.250) to be
approved by the lEI'A.
2. Comparison lo Class 1 (35 IAC 020.410) may not be applicable to these wells completed within the landfilled areus.
Class i V (35 IAC 620.440) .may be appropriate.
.5. Data Qualifiers: J indicates estimated value, R indicates data rejected during validation, B indicates the result is below the contract required quanlitation limit.
but above the instrument detection limit. Refer to Appendix J for a Summary of Data Validation. Refer to Appendix J for a Summary of Data Validation.
MOiiii'|mil\l.iMra\SUM«slie!!l I
-------
TABLE3b
SUMMARY OK GROUNDWATER INORGANIC RESULTS
AMOCO JOLIET LANDFILL RI/FS
I'AGE20F9
SAMPLE LOCAl'ION
A i son ic
Barium
lieryllinni
Cadmium
Cliroiniuin
Cobalt
C'uppvi
hull
Lead
Man Lamest:
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
X.ine
Cyanide
Units
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/i
ug/l
ug/i
ii!i/l
UB/I
ug/l
ug/l
UB/I
ug/l
ug/l
620 .Standards
Class 1 (1)
50
2000
4
5
100
1000
650
5000
7.5
150
2
100
50
51)
5000
200
AIM
Total
5.6 B
82.8 13
1.0 B
ND
12.5
118
ND
61)70
12.5
815
0.10 B
155 13
ND
ND
53.6
ND
A12-1
Total
3.9 B
137 B
1.1 B
ND
5.2 B
17.3 B
56.1
3100
8.7
1030
ND
27.0 B
ND
ND
40.4
ND
DM
Totol
22.6
123 B
ND
ND
23.1
ND
ND
18000 1
25.8
2160
0.10 B
ND
ND
ND
62.1
ND
D3-I
Total
12.4
55.1 B
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
9020 1
10.7
280
0.14 B
19.9 B
ND
ND
.46.6
ND
EG3B7-11
Total
1440
787
1.8 B
ND
33.6
26900
ND
217000
ND
15000
1.0
346
ND
ND
4000
ND
MW-1 1-87-1
To al
69.0
526
3.7 B
ND
66.2
63.8
149
127000
101
3530
0.24
96.1
5.7
ND
386
ND
1. These values represent standards for Class I groundwaler under 35 1AC 620.410. Wells completed in areas north and east of the landfill
MI shallow groundwaler or low yield conditions, i.e. MW-63R, may be more representative of Class II (35 I AC 620.420). These Class /standards
nray nut be applicable to monitoring wells within the boundary of any future Groundwater Management Zone (GMZ, 35 IAC 620 250) to be
approved by the IKI'A.
2. Cumparison to Class I (35 IAC (.20.410) may not be applicable to these wells completed within the landfilled areas
Class IV (35 IAC 620.440) may he appropriate.
3. Data Qualifiers: J indicates estimated value, R indicates data rejected during validation, B indicates the result is below the contract required quantilation limit
but above the instrument detection limit. Refer to Appendix J for a Summary of Data Validalion. Refer to Appendix J for a Summary of Data Validation.
I \ONi<:|ioinialili:>\SIIMItell«l I
-------
SAMPLE LOCATION
TABLE3b
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER INORGANIC RESULTS
AMOCO JOLIET LANDFILL RI/FS
PAGE 3 OF 9
MW-n-81-l MW-13-87-1 MW-13-5&7-1 MW-30-87-1 MW-3I-S7 MW-40-88-11
Arsenic
Barium
Heryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
/hie
Cyanide
Units
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
620 Standards
Class 1(1)
50
2000
4
5
100
1000
650
5000
7.5
150
2
100
50
50
5000
200
Total
126
448
I.I B
ND
8.2 1)
7.6 B
ND
32700
19.9
435
0.13 B
19.7 »
ND
ND
74.2
ND
Total
205
618 B
U.OB
I8.9B
417
179 B
539
477000
300 J
8920
0.44 J
403
ND
ND
1280 J
ND
Total
239
676
12.5 B
ND
528
216 B
618
574000
350 J
10800
0.51 J
516
ND
ND
1490 J
ND
Total
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
318
ND
6.8 B
ND
ND
3.9 B
ND
11.6 B
ND
Total
4.4 B
19.5 B
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
225
ND
14.3 B
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Total
68.5
875
1.6 B
ND
24.1
19500
ND
351000
3.0
84400
1.3
151
ND
13.3
105
ND
These values represent standards for Class I gronndvvaler under 35 IAC 620.410. Wells completed in areas north and east of the landfill,
in shallow groundwater or low yield conditions, i.e. MW-63R, may be more representative of Class 11(35 IAC 620.420). These Class I standards
may not be applicable to monitoring wells within Ihe bound,; •/ of any future Groundwater Management Zone (OMZ, 35 I AC 620.250) to be
approved by the 1EPA.
Comparison to Class 1 (35 I AC 620.410) may not be applicable to these wells completed within the landfilled areas.
Class IV (35 1 AC 620.440) may be appropriate.
Data Qualifiers: J indicates estimated value, R indicates data rejected during validation, B indicates the result is below the contract required quantitation limit.
but above the instrument detection limit. Refer to Appendix J for a Summary of Data Validation. Refer to Appendix J for a Summary of Data Validation.
-------
SAMPLE LOCATION
TABLE3b
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER INORGANIC RESULTS
AMOCO JOLIET LANDFILL RI/FS
PAGE 4 OF 9
MW-41-88-11 MW~t2.au' MW-43-88.11 MW-43-S8g-la MW.44-88-11 MW-4S-88-I2
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Cliromiuin
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Miinganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
y.ini:
Cyanide
Unils
ug/l
ug/l
"E'l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
"g/l
ug/l
ug/l
620 Standards
Class 1(1) Total
50
2000
'1
5
100
1000
650
5000
7.5
150
2
100
50
50
5000
200
129
515
ND
6.6
78.9
402
117
101000
51.3 J
2070
2.5 1
112
4:5 U
ND
287 J
ND
Total
7.6 B
31.6 B
ND
ND
13.9
13.4 B
ND
ND
11.1 J
343
1.6 J
14.0 B
ND
ND
59.3 J
ND
Total
127
634
ND
2.8 U
18.4
86.2
81.1
94400
37.1 J
1680
1.8 J
32.4 U
ND
ND
159 J
ND
Total
130
644
ND
6.7
18.3
88.1
93.7
96700
42.2 J
1710
1.8 J
23.50
4.7 B
ND
169 J
ND
Total
19.5
911
ND
5.9
19.3
1540
ND
168000
ND
2520
2.8 J
25.7 U
ND
ND
41.6 J
ND
Total
5.5 B
162 B
2.1 B
ND
4.3 B
II.3B
ND
12700
24.8
884
ND
12.7 B
ND
Nil
40.2
ND
I. These values rcprescnl standard! for Class I groundwater under 35 IAC 620.410. Wells completed in areas north and east of the landfill,
in shallow groundwater or low yield conditions, i.e. MW-63R. may be more representative of Class II {35 IAC 620.420). These Class ['standards
may not be applicable to monitoring wells within Ilic boundary of any future Oroundwaler Management Zone (GMZ, 35 IAC 620.250) to be
appioved by the IF.I'A.
2. Comparison to Class I (35 IAC 620.410) may not be applicable to these wells completed within the landfilled areas
Class IV (35 IAC 620.440) may he appropriate.
.1. Data Qualifiers: J indicates estimated value. It indicates data rejected during validation, B indicates the result is below the contract required quaiilitation limit
but above the instrument detection limit. Refer to Appendix J for a Summary of Data Validation. Refer to Appendix J for a Summary of Data Validation.
r\ani<:|iuntailiU.-.\SUMJ\sll«l
•IV
-------
.SAMI'I.K LOCATION
TABLE 3b
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER INORGANIC RESULTS
AMOCO JOLIET LANDFILL RI/FS
PAGB 5 OF 9
MW-46-88-1 MW-47-88-11 MW-48-88-11 MW-49-88-1 MW-SO-88-12 MW-SI-89-I
Arsenic
H. 11 Hill)
Itcrylliimi
Cadmium
Cliuiiiiiuin
Cobalt
("upper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
/hie
Cyanide
Units
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
UB/I
UB/I
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
UB/I
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
620 Standards
Class 1(1)
SI)
2000
.1
5
IOU
1000
650
500(1
7.5
150
•1
100
50
. 50
5000
200
Total
20.3
231
1.1 B
ND
13.7
16.0 11
ND
19800
14.1
419
O.U 13
27.8 1)
3.2 1!
ND
56.5
ND
Total
7.0 B
1990
5.7 B
15.5 B
60.9
34800
ND
868000 .
ND
74600
4.4 J
127 B
ND
38.5 B
170 J
ND
Tola!
287
499
ND
2.3 B
33.4
649
143
105000
80.2 J
2660
1.9 J
73
4.7 B
ND
367 J
ND
Total
8.2 B
47.1 B
ND
ND
12.7
34.7 B
ND
11300
282 J
248
1.6 J
41.9
ND
ND
48.9 J
ND
Total
. 24.2
754
ND
7.5
47.0
17500
ND
227000
14.8 J
23900
2.1 J
260
ND
ND
116 J
ND
Total
10.3
105 B
ND
ND
14.6
19.3 B
ND
32300
13.9 J
278
1,701
ND
5.6
ND
67.4 J
ND
I. These values represent standards for Class I groundwaler under 35 I AC 620.410. Wells completed in areas north and east of the landfill,
in shallow groiindwatcr or low yield conditions, i.e. M W-63R, may be more representative ofClass II (35 IAC 620.420). These Class ('standards
may not be applicable to monitoring wells within the boundary of any future Groundwater Management Zone (GMZ, 35 IAC 620.250) to be
approved by the IEPA.
2. Comparison to Class I (35 IAC 620.410) may not be applicable to these wells completed within the landfilled areas.
Class IV (35 IAC 620.440) may he appropriate.
1. Data Qualifiers: J indicates estimated value, It indicates data rejected during validation, B indicates the result is below the contract required quantilation limit
but above the instrument detection limit. Refer to Appendix J for a Summary ofDala Validation. Refer to Appendix J for a Summary ofData Validation.
-------
SAMPLE LOCATION
TABLE 3b
SUMMARY OF CdOUNDWATER INORGANIC RESULTS
AMOCO JOL1ET LANDFILL RI/FS
PAGE 6 OF 9
MW-52-89-11 MW-53-89.1 MW-54-8-J-11 MW.54.589-11 MW.SS-89-11 MW-56-89-12
£20 .Standards
Units Class 1(1)
Total
Tolal
Total
Total
Tola!
Total
Arsenic
llariiini
Beryllium
Cadmium
Cliioimiini
C'ubiill
( 'upper
lam
[.cad
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
X.inc
Cyanide
ug/1
ug/l
ug/l
UB/I
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
Hg/l
Ufi/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
50
2000
•1
5
100
1000
650
5000
7.5
150
2
100
50
50
5000
200
4.0 B
360
ND
3.2 I)
7.4 B
4280
ND
100000
ND
13COO
2.2 J
19.3 B
3.1 B
ND
25.3 J
ND
183
983
3.2 B
ND
39.4
51.7
170
128000
128
1850
0.49
122
3.8 B
6.4 B
502 B
ND
64.4
574
ND
ND
22.4
1400
61.7
123000
9.0
2350
0.95
58.0
5.8
ND
72.9
ND
80.2
597
ND
ND
29.2
1320
78.3
134000
12.3
2540
0.99
64.9
6.7
ND
89.7
ND
113
1260
14.5 B
19.1 B
125
28600
242
541000
122 J
104000
2.3 J
364
ND
45.3 B
1020 J
5.0 J
260
638
5.6
5.0
106
1830
320
213000
198 J
8750
2.0 J
226
ND
ND
712 J
ND
I. These values represent standards for Class I groundwaler under 35 I AC 620.410. Wells completed in areas north and east of the landfill,
in shallow groundwater or low yield conditions, i.e. MW-63R, may be more representative of Class 11 (35 IAC 620.420). These Class I standards
may not be applicable to monitoring wells within the boundary of any future Groundwater Management Zone (GMZ, 35 I AC 620.250) to be
approved by the 1EPA.
2. Comparison to Class 1 (35 IAC 620.410) may not be applicable to these wells completed within the landfilled areas.
Class IV (35 IAC 620.440) may be appropriate.
3. Data Qualifiers: J indicates estimated value, R indicates data rejected during validation, B indicates the result is below the contract required quanlitation limit.
but above the instrument detection limit. Refer to Appendix J for a Summary of Data Validation. Refer to Appendix J for a Summary of Data Validation.
1 \amqmil\labks\SUMJ\sliecl I
-------
SAMPLE LOCATION
TABLE 3b
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER INORGANIC RESULTS
AMOCO JOLIET LANDFILL RI/FS
PAGE 7 OF 9
MW-.57-89-I MW-58-89-1' MW-59-89-11 MW-60-89-11 MW-61-S9-I2 MW-62-89-1
Arsenic
Marium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
( 'upper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
'/'UK
Cyanide
Units
UK/I
ug/l
ug/l
ug/i
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/i
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/i
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
620 Standards
Class 1 (1)
50
2000
4
5
100
1000
650
5000
7.5
150
2
100
50
50
5000
200
Total
6.4 B
477
2.4 11
ND
8.3 B
32.8 B
ND
62000
17.3
2810
0.10 B
48.6
ND
ND
131
ND
Total
ND
66.6 B
ND
ND
6.3 B
6.9 B
ND
3610
1.4 J
439
1.6 J
ND
ND
7.1 B
23.4 J
ND
Total
ND
35.1 B
1.2 B
ND
ND
ND
ND
1180
16.6
31.4
ND
ND
ND
ND
10.6 B
2.2 J
Total
985
1220
19.1 B
38.3
377
303
1610
1440000
941 J
15400
3.1 J
870
ND
ND
5530 J
ND
Total
797
2080
18.4 B
25.6
310
4960
1190
959000
570 J
29700
3.5 J
95!
ND
ND
2960 1
ND
Total
6.3 B
63.6 B
ND
ND
ND
18.8 B
ND
1190
ND
413
ND
75.7
ND
ND
10.5 B
ND
I These values represent standards for Class 1 groundwater under 35 IAC 620.410. Wells completed in areas north and east ofthe landfill
in shallow groundwater or low yield conditions, i.e. MW-63R, may be more representative ofClass II ( 35 I AC 620.420). These Class /standards
may not be applicable to monitoring wells within the boundary of any future Groundwater Management Zone (GMZ, 35 1AC 620.250) to be
approved by the IEPA.
2. Comparison to Class I (35 IAC 620.410) may not be applicable to these wells completed within the landfllled areas.
Class IV (.15 IAC.' 620.440) may he appropriate.
3. Dula Qualifiers: J indicates estimated value, R indicates data rejected during validation, B indicates the result is below the contract required quantitation limit
but above the instrument detection limit. Refer to Appendix J for a Summary of Data Validation. Refer to Appendix J for a Summary of Data Validation.
I U'\mq>mi'.ialii«\Sl.lMlMlK.T! I
-------
TABLE3b
SUMMARY OF GROUNUWATER INORGANIC RESULTS
AMOt.O JOL1ET LANDFILL RI/FS
PAGE 8 OF 9
MW.63R-9J.1 M\V.5 1AC 620.440) may he appuipriiile.
.1. Data Qualifiers: J indicates estimated value, R indicates dala rejected during validation, B indicales the result is below the contract required quantitation limit
bin above the instrument detection limit. Refer to Appendix J for a Summary ofData Validation. Refer to Appendix J for a Summary of Data Validation.
rU'\iiit|Hm\l;ililn\.SUM3bh«t I
-------
SAMI'LK LOCATION
TABLE 3b
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER INORGANIC RESULTS
AMOCO JOLIET LANDFILL RI/FS
PAGE 9 OF 9
MW-68-89-1 MW-68-589-1 MW-69-90-1 MW-70-90-1
620 Standards
Units Class I (I)
Tola!
Total
Total
Total
Arsenic
Haiium
lieiylliinn
Cadmium
('liroii)iuni
Cobalt
t 'upper
lion
l.eml
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
/me
Cyanide
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
50
2000
4
5
100
1001)
650
5000
7.5
150
2
100
50
50
5000
200
3.3 U
41.1 U
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
2290 1
ND
59.3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Nl)
5.3 B
41.6 B
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2290 J
ND
57.9
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
33.6 H
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1710
ND
24.1
0.14 B
ND
ND
ND
10.5 B
ND
5.2 B
47.7 B
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
516
ND
23.3
0.19B
ND
ND
ND
9.6 B
ND
I. These values represent standards lor Class I groundwaicr under 35 IAC 620.410. Wells completed in areas north and east of the landfill,
in shallow groimdwaler or liiw yield conditions, i.e. MW-63R, may be more representative of Class II ( 35 IAC 620.420). These Class /standards
may not be applicable to monitoring wells within Ihe boundary of any future Groundwater Management Zone (GMZ, 35 I AC 620.250) to be
approved by Ihe IRPA.
2. Comparison to Class I (35 IAC 620.410) may not be applicable to these wells completed within Ihe landfilled areas.
< 'lass IV (35 IAC 620.440) may be appropriate.
.1. Diila Qualifiers: J indicate-, estimated value, R indicates data rejected during validation, B indicates the result is below the contract required quantitation limit.
bin above the instrument detection limit. Refer to Appendix J for a Summary of Data Validation
I \pMie|iiiiA1:ililc>\SUM.n>lKrl I
-------
Table 4
Preliminary Remediation Goals for COPCs for the Amoco Joliet Landfill Site
Based on Ingestion of Contaminated Groundwater by Future Residents
COPCs
ACIDS
Benzoic acid
Isophthalic acid
Phthalic Acid
Terephthalic Acid
Trimellitic Acid
VOCS
Benzene
INORGANICS
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cobalt
Manganese
PESTICIDES
Aldrin (Well
MW-4Q-38)
Dieldrin (Well
MW-40-88)
delta-8HC-max
detect
Calculated PRG
(ug/L)
Target Cancer Risk
1 xlO-*
1 xtO'5
1 x10J
Target HI
1
8343
1669
4171
2086
1460
3
29
294
0.06
0.02
0.57
0.20
6
2
626
52
5.0E-03
5.3E-03
4.7E-Q3
5.0E-02
5.3E-02
4.7E-02
5.0E-01
5.3E-01
4.7E-01
MCL
(ug/L)
5
50
4
50
Illinois 620
Class I
Standard
28,000
4,171
5
50
4
1,000
150
Proposed
PRG
28.000
1669
4.171
2086
1460
5
50
4
1,000
150
5.0E-01
5.3E-01
4.7E-01
Ji.
-------
TABLE 5
SUMMARY OF SEEP GROUNDWATER AND LEACHATE SAMPLES
AMOCO JOLIET LANDFILL RI/FS
PACJF, 1 OF 1
SAMPLE LOCATION
JL-SPOI-I
I'ESTICIDES/PCBS
Aioclot-12-IK
JL-SP02-1
JL-SP02
JL-SP03-1
JL-SP03
Piini in clcr
VOLATILKS
Cliloroc thane
Acetone
2-Hutanoiie
Hen/enc
ORGANIC ACIDS
Terephllialie Acid
Isophthalic Acid
Hcn/oic Acid
INORGANICS
Ai sci lie
Haimm
Cadmium
Chiimiuim
Cobalt
lion
Lead
Manganese
Mcicuiy
Nickel
1 li.illitiin
/.lite
Cyanide
Units
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
UB/I
Ug/llll
Ug/llll
ug/iiii
iig/i
ug/l
ug/i
UB/I
ug/I
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/1
ug/l
620 Standards
Class 11
5
50
2000
5
100
1000
5000
7.5
150
2
100
2
5000
200
2
5R
7 J
6
0.66
42.48
55.94
18.9
491
ND
7.1 D
. 58.3
63400
Nl)
831
052
ND
Nl)
47.6
ND
ND
ND
5R
ND
0.1
0.8
0.71
113
920
6.7
123
10600
155000
8.3
1300
0.13 13
200
24.0
402
ND
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
ND
ND
5 R
0.7 J
0.25
1.8
20.04
10.8
186 13
ND
6.6 B
11. OB
13500
11.4
239
0.35
9.8 B
ND
32.4
ND
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
ND
ND
5 R
ND
0.11
1
0.8
102
904
7.2
107
9490
150000
ND
1100
0.14 B
176
22.4
330
15.5
ug/l
ND
2.0
ND
2.3
ND
I C iioundwatei completed in areas noilh and east of the landfill, in sliallow groundw.iler or low yield conditions, i.e. MW-63R, may be more representative
ol Class 11 ( 35 1AC 620 420) These Class I standards may not be applicable to groundwater within the boundary of any future
(iroiuidwalcr Management Zone (GM7., 35 IAC 620.250) to be established by Amoco at the site area.
2 I lain Qualifiers: J indicates estimated value, R indicates data rejected during validation. Refer to Appendix J for a Summary of Data Validation.
ND
-------
Table 6
Carcinogenic Risks for the Residential Scenario "
Chemical
Aldrin (MW-40-88)
(MW-55-89)
delta-BHC (Sitewide)
(MW-64-89)
Dieldrin (MW-40-88)
(MW-43-88)
Heptachlor (MW-40-88)
(MW-43-88)
(MW-55-89)
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Benzene
Methylene chloride
Arsenic
Beryllium
Pathway Risk (without
Pesticides)
Ingestion of
Groundwater
7.98E-06
6.99E-06
1.1E-05
5.3E-05
5.2E-06
5.6E-05
7.1E-10
7.3E-11
5.0E-10
9.0E-07
1.6E-06
3.0E-07
4.3E-03
1.6E-04
4.4E-03
Dermal Contact
with
Groundwater
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
4.6E-07
9.1E-08
NC
NC
5.6E-07
Inhalation of Volatiles
during Use of
Groundwater
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
1.1E-06
4.7E-08
NC
NC
1.1E-06
Total Risk (without Pesticides) 4E-03
a Pathway and total carcinogenic risks have been rounded to the nearest tenth.
NC Not calculated. Metals and semivolatile COPCs are not included in the quantitative
analysis for these pathways. A qualitative evaluation of potential risks from semivolatile
chemicals in groundwater is provided in Section 4.3.5.
-------
Table 7
Hazard Quotients and Hazard Indices for the Residential Scenario "
Chemical
Oenzoic acid
Isophlhalic acid
Phthalic acid
Terephthalic acid
Trimcliitic acid
Aldrin (MW-40-88)
(MW-55-89)
delta-BHC (Sitewide)
(MW-64-89)
Dieldrin (MW-40-88)
(MW-43-88)
Heptachlor (MW-40-88)
(MW-43-88)
(MW-55-89)
bis(2-Ethylhexy!)phthalate
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
1,2,4-TrimcthyIbenzene
Methylcne chloride
Toluene
Xylene
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Pathway HI (without Pesticides)
Total HI (without Pesticides)
Ingestion of
Groundwater
RMEHQ
7.2E+00
I.8E+02
5.7E+02
2.2E+01
1.6E+01
1.3E-OI
l.lE-Qt
NA
5.3E-02
5.8E-01
2.6E-02
2.6E-03
1.8E-02
2.6E-02
NA
2.5E-02
7.7E-01 k
5.5E-03
2.4E-03
3.5E-02
7.7E+01
6.2E-02
6.5E-OI
5.6E+OI
5.8E-OI
NA
NA
1.3E+03
7.9E-01
2.3E+03
2E+03
Dermal Contact
with
Groundwater
RMEHQ
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NA
7.4E-03
2.3E-01 "
I.6E-03
7.3E-04
l.OE-02
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NA
2.3E-OI
Inhalation of Volatiles
during Use of
Groundwater
RMEHQ
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
1.8E-01
6.0E-02
NA
2.7E-04
3.0E-03
2.4E-02
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
2.66 E-0 1
H)s have been rounded to the nearest tenth.
1.2,4-Trimethyibenzcne was only detected as a TIC. HQ estimates for this compound are therefore highly uncertain.
NC Not calculated. Metals and semivolatile COPCs are not included in the quantitative analysis for these pathways. A qualitative
evaluation of potential risks from semivolatile chemicals in arounduater is provided in Section 4.3 5
NA RfD or RtC not available.
-------
Table 8
Carcinogenic Risks for the Recreational Scenario '
Pathway
Incidental Ingestion of Surface Water
Chemical
Aroclor 1248
Benzene
Arsenic
Pathway Risk
Incidental Ingestion of Sediment
Aroclor 1248
Arsenic
Pathway Risk
Total Carcinogenic Risk
RMERisk
1.7E-08
I.7E-10
1.7E-07
1.8E-07
3.2E-07
2.0E-06
2.3E-06
2E-06
* Risk estimates have been rounded to the nearest tenth.
-------
Table 9
Noncarcinogenic Hazard Quotients and Hazard Indices for the Recreational Scenario '
Pathway
Incidental Ingestion of Surface
Water
Pathway HI
Incidental Ingestion of Sediment
—
Chemical
Aroclor 1 248
Isophthalic acid
Benzene
m. —
Arsenic
Cobalt
Iron
Manganese
Thallium
Aroclor 1248
Arsenic
Manganese
Pathway HI
Total HI
RMEHQ
NC
4.6E-04
NC
3.2E-03
1.5E-03
NC
2.2E-03
2.6E-03
1.0E-02
NC
3.8E-02
9.2E-02
1.3E-01
1E-01
a His have been rounded to the nearest tenth.
NC Not calculated, an RfD is not available for this chemical.
-------
Table 10
Summary of Overall Ecological Risks
Receptor Group
SWRisk
Estimate
SS Risk
Estimate
Comments
Aquatic plants and
aquatic invertebrates
Low
NA
Aquatic exposures are limited in duration or
likelihood except in the Des Plainss River where
site-related contamination is not apparent.
risn
Low
NA
Aquatic exposures are unlikely except in the Des
Plaines River where site-related contamination is
not apparent.
Terrestrial plants.
invertebrates, and soil
microbes
NA
Low to Moderate
Most risk from exposure to metals in surface soils.
Only localized effects considered likely because of
discrete areas of soil contamination and limited
mobility of soil-dwelling animal receptors.
Small burrowing
omnivorous mammals
NA
Low
Direct contact with contaminated soils or ingestion
of contaminated water has lower risk than ingestion
of contaminated vegetation and invertebrate prey.
Except for PCB-contaminated soils at S301.
vegetation and prey not likely to be substantially
contaminated with site-related COPCs. Foraging
area unlikely to include or be predominately the
area of soil boring S301.
Omnivorous
Songbirds
NA
Low
Direct contact wfth contaminated soils or ingestion
of contaminated water has lower risk than ingestion
of contaminated vegetation and invertebrate prey.
Except' for PCB-contaminated soils at S301,
vegetation and prey not likely to be substantially
contaminated with site-related COPCs. Foraging
area uniikeiy to include or be predominately the
area of soil boring 5301.
! Top avian/rrtamrna.'ian
I arsdators
Low
Low
Direct contact wit.'i contaminated soils or ingesiion
of contaminated wster has lower risk than ingestion
of contaminated vegetation and invertebrate prey.
Except for PCB-contaminated soils at S301.
vegetation and prey net likely to be substantially
contaminatad with site-related COPCs. Foraging
area uniikeiy to include or 3-2 predominately the
area ci"so:! t)cr:r,a 5501 PJsks are further reduced
by srnail s:ze of s.te ccmparec :o large foraging
rarge tor —:cs! orecator
-------
Table 1 1
List of Alternatives
ALTERNATIVE
Alternative SC-1
Alternative SC-2
Alternative SC-3
(see note)
Alternative SC-4
Alternative SC-5
Alternative SC-S
COMPONENTS
No Action
Limited Action
Landfill cap
Landfill cap
Landfill cap
Waste Relocation
Landfill cap
Leachate Management
Waste Relocation
BRIEF DESCRIPTION
Cap maintenance, runoff/seep monitoring
Single 3arr;er/3oi:d Was;e (with LLDPE
ceomembrane or clay)
Double Barrier/RCRA comoosite (clay,
HDPEorGCL)
Double Barrier/RCRA composite (clay.
HDPEcrGCL)
Relocate south landfill to north landfill
Single Barrier/Solid waste (with LLDPE
geomembrane or clay)
Leachate collection in CAMU landfill j
Relocate all waste to clay-lined treatment
pond areas
-------
TABLE fi
AMCCC J3'-:~ '_AN2.r:U'_ 3~
-•C-_:=T. :L.:NG:S
.=OC-S£3 ==AS:5:L;TY STL';-
OfTCH MONiTCS:.SG / SHE? V.ONITOnlNC / GnO'JN'3WA7s3 MONITCniNG
CC5T 5!JMA!A.= r
CAPITAL COSTS
Gas Var :•.-;;
SU3TOTAL CCNSTa'JCTiOS COSTS "' S3.523.200
5c=?-5 Cs«ir.;a'.-.cy (20%)
=.-.:ir.«e.-:-; a.-.i 3as;=.-. .;;5'.'.i
Ov»rsi:.""H*a™-. 2.-.; 5a:ar;-
TOTAL CAPITAL CCSTS SS.SiS.MC
ANNUAL C?£SA7!SG AND WAINTENANCS COSTS
Ca; .v.a.r.:».-.2.-,ca
C-.-2i.-^:* Oi:i- Sz—.riirj a.-d Arjiysis
S-ii: 5e.-=;;.-.; =.-.i i.-^Jy^-s
G~---.-.c--a:2.- 3£~:j.-g a.-.c A.-.a:ys.:s
:STS
.-.i.a! Sa.^s^r.; - ;; ^-
:•!.-; • 30 v-sa-s
5:.. ;:.;•.•:•
s=~*:.-i es 'tsiir 7-5-;- "-•; -_—:•»• ;• >i— r .-•;-•! a ; :" r* "-: -^a' =-c -: r;.— r-.
-------
rA = _5 15
.7£.-..-:AT:v= 5C —= : QC'J:
: = = ~,~' -: 5L.-=?Ar? .v^.-
-A?i7AL_ COS7S
G^s Ve
..
SU37O7AL CONS7P.UC7JCN COS7S ™ 53.051.000
707AL CA?:7A', CC375 S-.53OOO
ANNUAL C?£SA7::-:G AN-D WA;r~HNANC= COS73
Ca? .Vai-.tar.e.-izs
0:z;.-.a;a ri:in Sa.-.::-.-; z.-i .Analysis
3*2: S«—:'.:r.- a.-; A.-.a:-.-s:s
A—^J: Sa
^ij s -s: :-s :- "--r-.-:'•: :i~: .-; -^ ; s -:' r * • •:. •; ;-:-:•
-------
-------
APPENDIX C
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
-------
-------
AMOCO CHEMICAL COMPANY
Joliet Landfills Superfund Site
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
for
PROPOSED REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE
LANDFILL OPERABLE UNIT
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
March 1999
-------
-------
Final, March 30, 1999
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Agency Decision ->
Who Is Amoco Chemical Company? •>
Background
Public Notice And Public Hearing 4
Responsiveness Summary 4
Future Activities 4
Illinois EPA Preferred Alternative 5
Agency Responses to Comments and Questions 5
Distribution of Responsiveness Summary 9
Bureau ot Land Staff Who Can Answer Your Questions 9
Hearing Record Availability 9
-------
o
-------
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
IN THE MATTER OF: )
AMOCO CHEMICAL COMPANY - )
JOLIET LANDFILLS SUPERFUND SITE ) File =#606-98
PROPOSED REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE - )
LANDFILL OPERABLE UNIT. >
AGENCY DECISION
The Illinois EPA prefers remedial alternative SC-4 which is detailed on page 5.
WHO IS AMOCO CHEMICAL COMPANY?
Amoco Chemical Company (Amoco) is a subsidiary of BP Amoco Corporation. A letter from
B? A.T.GCO :o Illinois EPA dated January 25. 1999, states:
"The British Petroleum Company, p.I.e. ("BP") and Amoco Corporation ("Amoco") have merged.
The transaction was closed on December 31, 1993. The new merged corporation is named BP=
Amoco p.i.e. The subsidiaries of both BP and Amoco (e.g., Amoco Oil Company), which hold U.S.
operating permits, have not been affected by the"merger. They continue in existence with no name
changes. Amoco Corporation (now renamed BP Amoco Corporation) continues as an Indiana
corporation and continues to guarantee financial responsibility for Amoco Production Company,
Amoco O'.i Company. Amoco Pipeline Company, Amoco Chemical Company, and Arnccc Polymers
Company."
-------
BACKGROUND
The Amoco facility is located southwest of Joliet in Will County on the west bank of the Des
Flames River approximately one mile southeast of the intersection of Illinois Route 6 and
Interstate Highway 55. It is an active manufacturing facility located on approximately 750 acres
or land m a semi-rural/mdustrial/ agricultural area. The landfill areas cover approximately ?6
acres and consist of two parcels on the southern portion of the facility. Unlike many landfills
which are in mounds, these two landfills are nearly level with the surrounding topography.
From 1958 through 1975, .Amoco placed approximately 5,900,000 cubic feet of wastes into the
two landfills. The wastes include organics, inorganics, heavy metals, acids, plasticizers resins
elastomers, ethers, esters, ketones, aldehydes, and general plant refuse.
In 1972, the northern landfill area was closed. The area was leveled, sloped towards the Des
Flames River, covered with two feet of clayey soil, then covered with one to two feet of siltv clav
to reduce infiltration. In 1973, the smaller triangular shaped southern landfill area be*an ' '
receiving process waste. Disposal into the southern landfill continued until 1975 These
landfills were placed on the National Priorities List (NPL) in February of 1990.
There is an historical documented leachate release into the Des Plaines River associated with the
landrills. Groundwater contamination has also occurred with the highest levels detected adjacent
to the landfill boundaries. This NPL project was divided into two operable units- the landfill
capping unit and the groundwater unit. The groundwater investigation is ongoin* and will
require a separate Focused Feasibility Study and public hearing. =
The January 12, 1999. hearing provided an opportunity for the public to make oral and written
comments on capping alternatives contained in the Focused Feasibility Study conducted bv the
Illinois EPA and .Amoco. The Illinois EPA preferred alterative landfill cap conforms with the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) as well as state landfill reflations and
includes a double barrier designed to prevent infiltration of precipitation into the buried wastes
Stormwaier management, operations and maintenance, groundwater monitoring leachate
collection and treatment, and passive gas venting are also included in the preferVed alternative
-------
PUBLIC NOTICE AND PUBLIC HEARING
Beginning December 10, 1998, the public hearing notice was published thrice (December 10, 17
and 24) in the Joliet Herald-News. The public hearing notice was published thrice (December 13,
20 and 27) in the Channahon Ckanooka Weekly. The public hearing notice was mailed on
December 8, 1998, to persons on a service list maintained by the hearing officer. The public
hearing notice was posted on the Illinois EPA Internet home page on December 7, 1998
(http://wvvw.epa.state.iLus). Notice of the hearing was sent to legislators, local officials,
neighbors and interested citizens on December 8, 1998.
In accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980 as amended (CERCLA) Section 117, 42 U.S.C. Section 9617 and pursuant to the
Illinois EPA's Procedures for Information and Quasi-Legislative Public Hearings 35 Illinois
Administrative Code (IAC) 164, the Illinois EPA held a public hearing on Tuesday, January 12,
1999. The public hearing began at 7 p.m. in the Channahon Park District Arrowhead
Community Center, 24856 West Eames Street, Channahon, Illinois. Fifteen persons representing
industry, consultants, citizens, and the office of the Illinois Attorney General attended the
hearing. A court-reporter prepared a transcript of the public hearing.
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
The hearing record opened on December 10, 1998, and closed on February 11, 1999. Comments
postmarked by midnight February 11, 1999, were included in the hearing record. This
responsiveness summary responds to questions and comments received from December 10, 1998,
through February 11 (postmark), 1999, and comments from the public hearing.
FUTURE ACTIVITIES
After the close of the hearing record, the Illinois EPA evaluated all comments received before
considering revisions to the proposed remedy. The remedy chosen by the Agency will be
described in a document called the Record of Decision (ROD). The ROD is expected to be
signed by both the Illinois EPA and the U.S. EPA. It is anticipated that ;he office of the Illinois
Attorney General will negotiate a written legal agreement called a consent order with .Amoco.
Besides requiring that Amoco implement the remedy as chosen in the ROD, the consent order
will address many of the legal issues and will specify the applicable state and federal regulations
Amoco will follow when capping the landfills.
-------
Illinois EPA Preferred Alternative
The landfill caps will conform to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
requirements which include a double barrier designed to prevent infiltration of precipitation into
tne waste. This cap consists of two barrier layers - a high-density polyethylene (HOPE)
gaomembrane layer over a 24-inch layer of compacted clay. The alternative also considers the
use ot different materials for construction of the barrier layers in the cap. The ''4-inch low
permeability compacted clay layer could be replaced by a'geosynthetic clay liner. This material
is equivalent 10 the clay layer, providing a low permeability backup to greatly reduce leakage
shrough potential holes in the geomembrane. The major differences between the use of clay or
synthetic materials are availability, installation and cost. Material above the double barrier'
(topsoil, rooting layer, drainage layer) and below (foundation layer) are common to all cappin*
alternatives. . ' 3
The components of stormwater management, operations and maintenance, monitorin^ and
passive gas venting are also included in the preferred alternative. The cap design would include
surface water management features (e.g. berms, ditches, etc.) to direct runoff away from the
landrill while minimizing erosion. The loss of soil overlying the barrier via erosion would
potentially result in increased infiltration over time. Maintenance of the cap primarily focuses on
repairing damage from erosion and cap settlement, and promoting an even growth of'vegetation
to stabilize the soil layers and prevent soil erosion. A program for long-term maintenance and
monitoring would be implemented as part of this alternative. Maintenance would include reeular
inspections of the landfill area, repair of any damage to structures or the soil vegetation cover,
and removal of sediment from ditches and other areas.
A s> stern of passive vents to allow the release of vapors from the landfill waste would be
constructed as a part of the landfill cap. These vapors, produced by volatilization and/or
Decomposition of materials in the waste, may tend to migrate laterally after a low permeability
cap is constructed.
Amoco has a leachate collection system in the southern landfill and a aroundwater interceptor
crer.ch along-the northern one-third of the north landfill. The effectiveness of the south landfill
.eacr.a:e collector has been evaluated and a new leachaie collection svstem aior.o the down-
gradient sides of the south landfill as well as near historic seep locations at the southern end of
Jne P°?h landflH wil1 be installed. Monitor wells will be placed down-gradient of the two
bridiUs :o monitor leachate that is not beins captured.
Th:* proposed remedial alternative is consistent with the National 0-1 and Hazardous Substances
. oi.utton Contingency Plan and the Comprehensive Environmental Response Corr.-er.sa-o-
ar.d L.!abi!!:v Ac:. '
-------
Comments in regular type.
Illinois EPA responses in bold.
1. At the hearing, Ron Schmirt stated that Amoco "will continue to monitor groundwater
conditions." Is Amoco also committed to installing and monitoring new wells at the site?
At this time, Amoco has not provided a written commitment to install and monitor
new wells at the site. However, Ron Schmirt (Amoco) responded at the hearing that
these issues would be discussed with the Illinois EPA, alternatives considered and an
agreement reached.
How deep are the monitoring wells?
Jeff Prewitt (Camp, Dresser and McKee) responded at the hearing that the
monitoring wells at the site range in depth from 10 feet to 80 feet.
3. I'm a neighbor there across the street from Amoco, and my concern is with the well water.
I know you have test monitor wells there on site. But what about the local wells in the area,
have you ever tested the weils of the neighbors there? Have they been tested?
The residential wells around the Amoco facility have not been tested as part of this
project. Monitoring well data indicates groundwater flow towards the DesPlaines
River. No residences exist to the south and east between the landfills and the river.
-. Have the monitoring well, detected any contaminants in the groundwater?
Yes, some groundwater monitoring wells on the Amoco facility have tested positive
for site contaminants. Volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds, inorganic
compounds (metals), organic acids, and pesticides have been detected in the
groundwater near the landfills. The Remedial Investigation Report (CDM, March
1998) contains tables of data showing the detected compounds and their
concentrations in the groundwater. A copy of the report may be found in the two
public information repositories.
Has the quarry pond (Vik's Pit ?) been tested?
The water at Vik's Pit has not been tested as part of this project. The surface water in
the stream to the west of the landfills, in between the landfills and Vik's Pit, has been
tested and does not exhibit any elevated levels of site contaminants. Consequently,
testing of Vik's Pit is not technicallv necessarv.
-------
The proposed plan (and the FFS) specify linear low-density polyethylene (LLDPE) for the
solid waste cap (Alternate SC-3) and high density polyethylene (HOPE) for the double-
barrier cap (Alternative SC-4). The selection of liner material should be made during the
design phase of the project since there is little difference in the infiltration values of these
two materials. The 40 mil LLDPE is easier to work with than the 60 mil HDPE and has a
similar performance.
The specific style and type of synthetic barrier layer used in the cap is optional and
will not be finalized until the remedial design of the cap. The Record of Decision will
be less specific than the Focused Feasibility Study and the Proposed Plan regarding
the material. The barrier layer must meet the performance and characteristic
requirements in the applicable or relevant and appropriate regulations.
The proposed plan states in several places that the existing leachate collection system
(LCS) at the South Landfill (EG-307 sump and collection system) is "inadequate since it
was not engineered to current landfill standards, little documentation as to the method of
construction is available, and no performance data for the system exists" (page 16). The
LCS at the South Landfill collects shallow leachate to prevent surface seeps from
occurring. The surface seep likely are caused by infiltration through the cap or directly into
the waste through the LCS catch basin. If the LCS is shut off, surface seeps will occur.
This confirms the effectiveness of the LCS to prevent such seepage. The existing LCS will
be evaluated during the design phase.
It was premature to state that the system is inadequate because of unknown
construction materials and methods. However, it was accurate to state that limited
information exists regarding the depth, extent, capacity, performance, and other
useful characteristics of the system. This information is necessary to determine the
effectiveness of the system. The purpose of a leachate collection system at any landfill
is to prevent leachate from migrating from the landfill both above and below the land
surface. The non-response by the landfill piezometers when the existing system was
shut off leads the Illinois EPA to believe that the existing system is not collecting the
majority of the leachate emanating from the landfill and therefore is probably not
adequate.
The second paragraph of Section 6.0 of the proposed plan stares that "A RCRA rvrje zzo
uiih two barrier layers and leak detection between the barrier layers will be installed across
both landfills." Although a leak detec:ion layer is required for bottom liners of RCRA
disposal ceils, there are no requirements for leak detection between the two barrier layers of
ihe rap. This is a significant design issue since any infiltration will be carried away by the
drainage layer above and is not allowed to accumulate in the liner.
The Illinois EPA agrees that a leak detection system is not required in the design of
the cup. =
-------
Amoco requests that Illinois EPA allow flexibility in specific details of the cap components
in the Record ot Decision. The exact material of construction and need for leak detection
shouta be decided based on a technical evaluation durina the detailed design phase of the
cap. In addition, .Amoco requests similar flexibility in the evaluation (and upgrades as
necessary) of the leachate collection system (LCS) during the design and construction
phases of the landfill cap.
Illinois EPA agrees to consider alternate components in the landfill caps and leachate
collection system. As stated in response £8, leak detection in the caps will not be
required.
Overall, Amoco is, in general agreement with the remedial alternatives presented in the
proposed plan for the landfill operable unit. The capping alternative (Alternate SC-4)
selected by the Illinois EPA, although overly protective as based upon technical
performance evaluations, does meet the criteria required under CERCLA. Amoco
disagrees that a double barrier (RCRA-type) cap is required to be more protective and
disagrees that waste characterization information available to the Illinois EPA at the time of
the proposed plan requires such a cap. Nevertheless, the general concept of the remedial
action (capping, gas venting and other components) for the landfill operable unit are
acceptable to Amoco based upon the conditions outlined in the December 14, 1998
proposed plan. ' '
The Illinois EPA hopes that the ongoing groundwater investigation will also come to a
mutually agreed resolution.
I :. Amoco is committed to consiructing the landfill cap and performing OLher remedial actions
outlined m the proposed plan this year (1999). As discussed with the Illinois EPA, .Amoco
nas set aside resources and developed schedules to complete construction of the landfill
caps in 1999.
The Illinois EPA will continue to work with Amoco in developing the Record of
Decision and consent order for capping of the landfills.
-------
*••-******
* * *
Distribution of Responsiveness Summary
Copies of this responsiveness summary were mailed in March 1999 to all who registered at the
January 12, 1999, hearing and to all who submitted written comments. Additional copies of this
responsiveness summary are available from Bill Hammel, Illinois EPA Office of Communitv
Relations, e-mail: epa8123@epa.state.il.us or phone (217) 785-3924.
Bureau of Land Staff Who Can Answer Your Questions
Technical Questions: .- Bob Rogers (217) 785-87^9
Legal Questions: Bruce Kugler .. . . (217) 782-5544
Hearing Record Availability
The following items are available from the Illinois EPA hearing officer for examination and
review:
I. Public hearing notice.
2. Transcript of the January 12, 1999, public hearing.
3, Public hearing attendance record and authors of exhibits.
4, Hearing record exhibit list of letters, documents and notices.
^ Letters, documents and notices contained in the hearin° record.
V&W &.
Signed: <&K^ £/. /frj//%^*yr- Date: ///c./^c^. ,-f/V 1999
• John D. Williams
Hearing Officer
217/782-5544
Hlinois Environmental Protection Agency
1021 North Grand Avenue East
?os: Office 3ox 19276
Springfield. Illinois 62794-9276
-------
APPENDIX D
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
-------
-------
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
FOR THE
AMOCO CHEMICAL (JOLIET LANDFILL)
SUPERFUND SITE
December 1998
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability' Act of 1980. as
amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 ("SARA"), requires
the establishment of an Administrative Record upon which the President shall base the selection
of a response action (SARA; Sec. 113(k)(l)).
The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency ("Agency") has compiled the following official
Administrative Record Index for the Amoco Chemicals NPL site located in Will County, Illinois.
This index and associated file will be updated by the Agency.
Please refer to information provided in the enclosed public notice/fact sheet for whom to contact
concerning this index.
No. DOCUMENT TITLE
1 Report on Sandwich Fault
Investigation
2 Memo to Tom Long:
Preliminary Health
Assessment Comments
3 Hydrogeologic Investigation
Report Phase II
4 NPDES Application: Form
2C
5 Hydrogeologic Investigation
Report Phase III
6 Site Analysis and Photos
7 Letter to Amoco: Special
Notice RI/FS
S Letter to W. Wiemerslage:
Response to Special Notice
g Letter to 5. Washbum:
Meeting Minutes
ISSUE DATE AUTHOR
September 1988 Patrick Engineering
December 21, 1989 J. O'Brien
February 1990
March 1, 1990
May 1990
June 1990
June 21, 1990
June 29: 1990
Patrick Engineering
Amoco
Patrick Engineering
L'SEPA
B. Child
C. Greco
PAGES
173
2
789
303
18
February 22. 1991 \V. Dewa:
-------
10 NPDES Application:
Schedule J
11 Letter to J. Yoshitani:
Community Relations SOW
12 Letter to J. Carter:
Transmittal of Project
Outline and Proposal Report
13 Preliminary Health
Assessment
14 Memo to Division File: Site
Visit Notes and Photos
15 Summary of Previous
Investigations and RI
Objectives
16 Letter to C. Morin:
Presumptive Remedy
Guidance
17 Letter to C. Morin: CDM's
Draft Comments on Patrick
Engineering Reports
IS Letter to E. Westfall: Draft
Comments on Patrick
Engineering Reports
19 Letter to C. Morin: Financial
Assurance
20 Memo to Division File
21 RI-PS Consent Decree
22 Leuer to G, Schafer: Risk
Assessment and Presumptive
Remedy
2? Letter to C. Morin:
Presumptive Remedv
May 8. 1991
July 17, 1991
October 14, 1991
April 27, 1992
June 7, 1993
September 1993
Amoco
J. Carter
W. Deu-ar
ATSDR
Ana Kewes
IT Corp.
December 21, 1993 B. Westfall
January 31, 1994 S. Killip
Februarv 8, 1994 C. Morin
March 3, 1994
March 21, 1994
April?. 1994
April?. 1994
April 20. 1994
B. Westfall
C. Morin
C. Morin
G. Schafer
56
16
21
44
52
10
16
3
153
-------
•i.
24 Letter to S. Killip: USEPA
and Presumptive Remedy
Issue
25 Letter to G. Schafer: Risk
Assessment
26 Letter to C. Morin: Risk
Assessment
27 Letter to S. Killip: USEPA
and Risk Assessment Issue
28 Letter to E. Westfail: SAP
Comments
29 Letter to S. Killip and E.
Westfail: Cost Provisions
for Baseline Risk Assessment
30 Letter to E. Westfail:
Transmittal of RI/FS Work
Plan Documents
31 Letter to S. Killip:
Transmittal of RI/FS Work
Plan
32 Letter to G. Schafer: RI/FS
Work Plan Comments
33 Memo to J, Shaw: RI/FS
Work Plan Comments
34 Memo to M. Brirton: RI/TS
Work Plan Comments
35 Memo to R. Watson. T.
Homshaw, C. Ware: RI/FS
Work Plan Comments
36 Memo to G. Michaud:
Comments on Draft CRP
37 Memo to C. Morin: QAS
Ri;'FS Work Plan Comments
April 26, 1994
April 29, 1994
May 3, 1994
May 9, 1994
May 19, 1994
July 21, 1994
July 22, 1994
July 26, 1994
July 26, 1994
July 26. 1994
July 26, 1994
August 2. 1994
August 3. 1994
August 26, 1994
C. Morin
C. Morin
G. Schafer
C. Morin
C. Morin
C. Morin
M. Jank
C. Morin
C. Morin
C. Morin
C. Morin
C. Morin
C. Morin
J. Cruse
4
377
-------
38 Letter to C. Morin: USEPA's
RI/FS Work Plan Comments
39 Summary Sheet: ARAR
Review from DLPC Permit
Section
40 Memo to L. Eastep: OCS
RI/FS Work Plan Comments
41 Letter to C. Morin: CDM's
RI/FS Work Plan Comments
42 Letter to M. Roddy: 9/20/94
Meeting
43 Letter to M. Roddy: Request
for Review Extension
44 Letter to C. Morin: CDM's
Revised RI/FS Work Plan
Comments
45 Letter to M. Roddy: Illinois
EPA RI/FS Work Plan
Comments
46 Letter to G. Monti: CRP
Information
47 Fax to C. Morin: SOPs
48 Letter to C. Morin: Follow-
up to 11/4/94 Meeting
49 Letter to M. Roddy and M.
Jank: Responses to Issues
50 Letter to S. Killip:
Transmittal of Water Quality
Report
51 Letter to C. Morin: Request
or Extension
September 13, 1994 D. Heaton
September 20, 1994 R. Watson
October 4, 1994 J. O'Brien
October 11, 1994 S. Killip
October 19, 1994 C. Morin
October 20, 1994 C. Morin
October 20, 1994 S. Killip
October 21,1994 C. Morin
October 24, 1994 C. Monn
November 7, 1994 M.Roddy
November 10. 1994 S. Killip
November 10, 1994 C. Morin
November 17, 1994 C. Morin
November 17, 1994 D. Diks
1
10
28
*• /-»
j-ax to C
Nov !7t
Lab Ai:ci
Morin; Copy of November IS, 1994 J. Cruse
n Letter Requesting
-------
53 Letter to D. Diks:
Transminal of Lab Audit
Letter
54 Letter to D. Diks: Deadline
Extension
55 Letter to C. Morin: Landfill
Contents Data
56 Letter to D. Diks: Transmittal
of Revised RI/FS Work Plan
Documents and Response to
Comments
57 Letter to S. Killip:
Transmittal of Revised RI/FS
Work Reports Plan
Documents
58 Final RI/FS Data
Management Plan
59 Final RI/FS QAPP
60 Final RI/FS FSP
61 Final RI/FS HASP
62 Memo to J. Shaw:
Requesting Comments on
Revised RI/FS Work Plan
Documents
63 Memo to R. Watson:
Requesting Comments on
Revised RI/FS Work Plan
Documents
64 Memo to M. Crites:
Transmittal of D. Diks
12/13/94 Letter with Landfill
Contents Data
65 Memo to C. Morin: Amoco
Lab Audit Findinss
November 18, 1994 C. Morin
November 18, 1994
December 13, 1994
December 13, 1994
C. Morin
D. Diks
M. Jank
December 14, 1994 C. Morin
December 14, 1994 IT Corp.
December 14, 1994
December 14, 1994
December 14, 1994
December 16, 1994
IT Corp.
IT Corp.
IT Corp.
C. Morin
December 16, 1994 C. Morin
December 19. 199-i C. Morin
17
460
147
276
1
December 19. 1994 J. Cr.ise
-------
66 Letter to S. Killip:
Transmittal of D. Diks
12/13/94 Letter with Landfill
Contents Data
67 Letter to D. Heaton:
Transmittal of D. Diks
12'13/94 Letter with Landfill
Contents Data
68 Letter to D. Diks: Approval
of Amoco's Lab for Organic
Acids Analysis for RI/FS
Samples
69 Letter to C. Morin:
Supplemental Landfill
Contents Data
70 Letter to D. Diks Transmittal
of Draft Work Plan
Document
71 Letter to C. Morin: RI/FS
Work Plan Comments
72 Lener to S. Killip Transmittal
of Draft \VorkPlan
Documents
73 Letter to C. Morin: RI/FS
Work Plan Comments
7-1 Memo to C. Morin: RI/FS
Work Plan Comments from
R, Hewitt and M. Crites
75 Letter to C. Morin.
Sampi ing-'Analytical
Requirements
76 Letter to V. Moy: GMZ and
CAP Application
Letter to C. Morin: Draft
Work Plan Comments
December 19, 1994 C. Morin
December 29, 1994 C. Morin
December 29, 1994 C. Morin
January 6. 1995
January 6, 1995
January 10, 1995
January 11, 1995
January 11, 1995
January 16, 1995
January 17, 1995
Januarv !9. 1995
D. Diks
January 6, 1995 M. Jank
D. Heaton
C. Morin
S. Killip
R. Watson
S. Killip
D. Bodir.e
D. Heaton
82
-------
X..
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
S9
90
91
Letter to M. Roddy: RI/FS
Work Plan Comments
Letter to C. Morin:
Confirming 2/10/95 Meeting
Letter to C. Morin: Request
for Time Extension
Letter to M. Roddy: Deadline
Extension
Letter to G. Monti: Site Maps
forCRP
Letter to C. Morin: Request
for MCLs Review
Letter to D. Heaton: Requests
Pre-Notice/CERCLA Review
Fax to C. Morin: List of
Toxic Organics
Memo to C. Morin:
MCL/MDL Review
Letter to M. Roddy:
Transmittal of Revised FSP
and Response to Illinois EPA
Comments
Letter to M. Roddy:
MCL/MDL Information
Letter to S. Killip:
Transmittal of Revised FSP
Letter to D. Heaton: Pre-
Notice/CERCLA Position
Memo to R. Watson
January 27, 1995
February
February
March 2,
March 3,
March 3,
March 8,
March 9,
March 13
March 15
March 16
March 20
March 20
March 20
7, 1995
24, 1995
1995
1,995
1995
1995
1995
,1995
, 1995
, 1995
, 1995
. 1995
, 1995
C. Morin
M. Roddy
M. Roddy
C. Morin
C. Morin
M. Jank
M. Roddy
S. Killip
J. Cruse
M. Jank
C. Morin
C. Morin
C. Morin
C. Morin
8
1
1
1
3
2
2
2
?
21
i
176
2
i
Transmittal of Revised RI./FS
FSP
°- Memo to C. Morin: ARAR Apr:! 19.-• 995
Review
-------
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
10"
Letter to C. Morin: CDM's
Review Comments
Lener to M. Roddy: RI/FS
Work Plan Comments
Memo to B. Hammel:
USEPA's CRP Comments
Lener to D. Diks: Response
to Illinois EPA Comments
Letter to S. Killip:
Transmittal of Amoco 's
Comments
Letter to C. Morin: CDM's
Review Comments
Letter to D. Diks: Illinois
EPA Review Comments
Letter to S. Killip: OSWER
Directive on Land Use
Letter to D. Diks: Transmittal
of Revised RI/FS Work Plan
Documents
Letter to C. Morin: CDM's
Review Comments
Lener to D. Diks: Transmittal
of Revised RI/FS Work Plan
Documents and Pages
Lener to D. Diks: RJ/FS
Work Plan Approval
Letter to D. Diks: Transminal
of Revised RI/FS Work Plan
Document Pages
Lener to F Barker: Trade
Secret Information
Le::er to F Barker: Approval
May 4, 1995
May 9. 1995
May 10, 1995
May 26, 1995
May 30, 1995
June 16, 1995
June 22, 1995
August 3, 1995
Augusts, 1995
August 23, 1995
August 25, 1995
August 30. 1995
August 31. 1995
September 11, 1995
September 19. 1995
S. Killip
C. Morin
C. Morin
M. Jank
C. Morin
.
S. Killip
C. Morin
C. Morin
M. Jank
F. Barker
M. Jank
C. Morin
M. Jank
D Dik;
C. Mo::-
1.325
25
ofBR.A
-------
108 Letter to C. Almanza: Field
Oversight
109 Letter to D. Diks: Field Work
Kick-Off Meeting
110 Letter to D. Diks: Trade
Secret Information
111 Letter to C. Morin: Field
Oversight Scope for COM
112 Letter to F. Barker: Illinois
EPA Review of Field
Oversight Scope
113 Letter to F. Barker: Organic
Acids Information
114 Letter to C. Morin: Field
Sampling Schedule
115 Letter to F. Barker: Site
Access Information
116 Memo to Bureau File:
Documenting Access
Problem
1 17 Letter to D. Diks: CRP
I 18 Memo to Bureau File: Site
Photos
119 Site Review and Update
120 Letter to D. Diks: Variance
Logs
121 Memo to C. Morin:
Residential Well Locations
122 Shallow Soil Gas
Investigation
123 Letter to D. Diks: Residential
Well Information
September 19, 1995 C. Morin
September 21, 1995 M. Jank
September 25, 1995 F. Barker
September 25, 1995 F. Barker
September 29, 1995 C. Morin
October 3, 1995 C. Morin
October 3, 1995 D. Diks
October 6, 1995 C. Morin
October 6, 1995 C. Morin
October 10, 1995 C. Morin
October 13, 1995 P. Wells
October 24, 1995 ATSDR
October 25, 1995 M. Jank
October 25, 1995 C. Ware
November 3, 1995 Tracer Research
November 8. 1995 C. Morin
1 I
34
-------
124 Letter to F. Barker: November 28, 1995 C. Morin 39
Transmittal of Nov. 16th
Analytical Report
125 Letter to D. Diks: Transmittal December 4, 1995 M. Jank 4
of Variance Logs
126 Letter to F. Barker: December 6, 1995 C. Morin 71
Transmittal of Nov. 28th
Analytical Report
127 Letter to C. Morin: December 11, 1995 M. Jank 13,869
Transmittal of Progress
Report and Raw Data
Analytical Results
128 Letter to D. Diks: Transmittal December 13, 1995 C. Morin 92
of Illinois EPA Analytical
Reports for GrouncKvater,
Leachate, and Soil
129 Letter to C. Morin: Request December 18, 1995 D. Diks 2
for Schedule Extension
130 Certificate of Analysis to M. December 28, 1995 J.Powell 13
Jank: Water Sample Analysis
131 Memo to D. Ahlberg, J. January 11, 1996 C. Morin S4
Waligore, V. Moy, and E.
Osowski: Iransmina! o;
Analytical Report
132 Memo to M. Jank: Validated January 12, 1996 S. Killip 1
Data Requirements
133 Fax :o C. Morin: Memo to S. January 18, 1996 M. Jank 7
Killip - Validated Data
Requirements
134 Letter to C. Morin. January IS. 1996 D Diks 5
Modification of Sampling
Requirements
135 Letter To D. Diks: January 19, 1996 C. Morin " 2
Transmute; or'SO'A" for BRA
-------
136 Memo to C. Morin: CDM's
Comments on Amoco G\V
and Soil Sampling
137 Letter to D. Diks: Sampling
Modifications
138 Memo to C. Morin: Review
of Groundwater Data
139 Memo to C. Morin: COM
Oversight and Sample Splits
140 Memo to R. Mindock: Data
Format
141 Memo to File: Groundwater
Sampling Oversight w/photos
142 Letter to C. Morin: RI/FS
Schedule Extension Request
143 Letter to D. Diks: Response
to Request for RI/FS
Schedule Change
144 Letter to C. Morin:
Transminal of Analytical
Data on Soil Sample
! -5 Letter to F. Barker:
Transmirtal of Analytical
Data on Soil Sample
146 Letter to F. Barker:
Transminal of Analytical
Reports
147 Letter to D. Diks: Transminal
of Analytical Reports
148 Letter to D. Glosser:
Threatened or Endangered
Species Request
January 24, 1996 S. Kiliip
January 26, 1996
February 1, 1996
February 9, 1996
February 14, 1996
February 23, 1996
February 28, 1996
March 1, 1996
March 12, 1996
March 19, 1996
March 26, 1996
March 26, 1996
March 27, 1996
C. Morin
S. Killip
F. Barker
S. Killip
P. Wells
D. Diks
C. Morin
R. Mindock
C. Morin
C. Morin
C. Morin
C. Morin
95
-------
149 Letter to C. Morin:
Transmittal of USEPA Risk
Assessment Guidance
150 Letter to C. Morin:
Transmittal of Groundwater
Analytical Data
151 Letter to C. Morin:
Transmittal of March
Monthly Status Report and
Groundwater Sampling
Photos
152 Letter to C. Morin:
Transmittal of Groundwater
Analytical Results
153 Letter to D. Diks: Response
to April 3, 1996, Letter
Regarding Risk Assessment
154 Letter to F. Barker:
Transmittal of Analytical
Results
155 Letter to D. Diks: Sampling
Requests
156 Fax to C. Morin: Field
Sampling Plan
157 Letter to F. Barker and D.
Diks: Endangered Species
1 58 Letter to F. Barker: Des
Plaines River Dredging
! 59 Letter to C. Morin: Schedule
Change Request
160 Letter to D. Diks: Response
to Schedule Change Request
!6! Letter to C Morin-Response
:,-> April 15. 1996. Sampling
Request Letter
April 3, 1996
April 3, 1996
April3, 1996
April 5, 1996
April 5, 1996
April 9, 1996
April 15. 1996
April 16, 1996
April 17, 1996
April 19. 1996
April 24. 1996
April 30, 1996
Mav !. 1996
D, Diks
R. Mindock
F. Barker
247
R. Mindock
C. Morin
C. Morin
C. Morin
F. Barker
C. Morin
C. Morin
D. Diks
C. Morin
D, Diks
5.446
-------
162 Letter to C. Morin: May I, 1996
Addendum to Field Sampling
Plan
163 Letter to R. Mindock: May 6, 1996
Proposed IT Leachate
Sampling Event
R. Mindock
F. Barker
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
1 7^
i "6
Fax to C. Morin: CDM's RI
Report Comments
Letter to D. Diks: Transmittal
of Analytical for Leachate
and Soil Sample Splits
Letter to C. Morin:
Compounds of Concern
Letter to C. Morin: Schedule
Change Request
Letter to C. Morin: Request
to Eliminate Wells
Letter to D. Diks: Revised
Form 1
Letter to F. Barker:
Transmirtal of June 1 1, 1996
Letters
Letter to D. Diks: RI/FS
Disapproval
Letter to C. Morin: Seep
Characterization Tech. Memo
Letter to C. Morin: Soil
Sample Analytical
Letter to C. Morin: Trend
Analysis Chemicals
Letter to F. Barker: Risk
Assessment Contents
Fax to C. Morin: Revised
June 7, 1996
June 10, 1996
June 11, 1996
June 11, 1996
June 11, 1996
June 17, 1996
June 17, 1996
June 2 8. 1996
July I, 1996
July 1, 1996
July 2, 1996
July 9. 1996
July 27. !996
F. Barker
C. Morin
D. Diks
D. Diks
D. Diks
C. Morin
C. Morin
C. Morin
R. Mindock
R. Mindock
F. Barker
C. Morin
F. Barker
5
1
2
3
6
10
13
13
25
2,189
_£
-i
j
ji
Seeo Memo Comments
-------
177 Letter to D. Diks: Seep
Memo Comments
178 Letter to D. Diks: Follow-up
of July 23rd Meeting
179 Fax to C. Morin: Well
Abandonment Comments
! 80 Letter to D. Diks: Well
Abandonment Comments
181 Lener to C. Morin: Organic
Acid Information
182 Letter to D. Diks: Schedule
Modification
183 Lener to C. Morin: Water
Supply Well Information
184 Lener to F. Barker:
Transmittal of Water Supply
Well Information
185 Letter to D. Diks: Draft RI
Comments
186 Letter to C. Morin: Trend
Analysis
187 Letter to C. Morin: Request
for Risk Assessment
Information
188 Letter to C. Morin: RI
Comments
189 Lener to D, Diks: Risk
Assessment Request
190 Letter to D. Diks: RI
Comments
i91 Lener to C. Morin: Risk
Assessment Comments
July 30, 1996
July 31. 1996
July 31, 1996
C. Morin
C. Morin
S. Kiiiip
August 1,1996 C. Morin
Augusts, 1996 D. Diks
August 12, 1996 C. Morin
August 22, 1996 D. Diks
August 27, 1996 C. Morin
September 9, 1996 C. Morin
September 10, 1996 R. Mindock
September 11, 1996 D. Diks
September 16, 1996 F. Barker
September 16, 1996 C Morin
September 16. 1996 C. Morin
November 7, 1996 R. Mindock
46
-------
192 Letter to C. Morin: Response
to Amoco RA Comments
193 Letter to M. Osadjan: RI
Comments
194 Letter to S. Horn: Notice of
Dispute
195 Letter to M. Osadjan:
Meeting Agreements
196 Letter to F. Barker: BRA
Submittal
197 Fax to C. Morin, F. Barker,
P. Jagiello, S. Horn: Revised
Response to Comments
198 Letter to D. Diks: Draft BRA
199 Letter to D. Diks: Draft BRA
200 Letter to R. Mindock:
Redlined RI Report
201 Letter to C. Morin: Organic
Acid Toxicity
202 Letter to D. Diks: RI Review
Status
203 Letter to M. Osadjan: Dispute
Resolution
204 Fax to C. Morin: RI
Comments
205 Letter to S. Horn: Notice of
Dispute
206 Letter to S. Horn: Comments
on March 27, 1997. Letter
20" Letter to S. Horn and C.
Morin: Revised Section 3.4
November 26, 1996 J. LaVelle
December 19, 1996 S. Horn
January 17, 1997 M. Osadjan
February 6, 1997 S. Horn
February 7, 1997 C. Morin
February 14, 1997 R. Mindock
March 6, 1997 C. Morin
March 7, 1997 C. Morin
March 10, 1997 C. Morin
March 19, 1997 D. Diks
March 21,1997 C. Morin
March 27, 1997 S. Horr.
March 27, 1997 J. Prewitt
April 3, 1997
AoriU, 1997
April 10. 199:
M. Osadjan
M. Osadjan
D.Diks
2
12
13
1
9
2
6
1
17
-------
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
2'.9
220
Letter to S. Horn: Meeting
Request
Letter to M. Osadjan:
Response to April 17, 1997,
Letter
Letter to S. Horn: Transmittal
of Amoco's Statement of
Position
Letter to C. Morin: Dispute
Resolution Proceedings
Letter to S. Horn: Notice of
Dispute
Plaintiffs Responsive
Statement of Position
Letter to S. Horn: May 12,
1997, Meeting
Letter to P. Harvey:
Response to May 13, 1997,
Letter
Withheld = 28
Letter to R. Olian and M.
Osadjan: Response to
Redlined RJ
Letter to S. Horn: Notice of
Dispute
Fax to S. Horn and C. Morin:
Administrative Record
Detendant Amoco Chemical
April 17. 1997
April 18, 1997
April 22, 1997
July 24, 1997
April 2S: 1997
May 6. 1997
May 13, 1997
May 22, 1997
June 1!, 1997
June 13. !997
June 20, 1997
June 23. 1997
July 11. 1997
M. Osadjan
S. Horn
E. Kenney
S. Horn
E. Kenney
S. Horn
M. Osadjan
C. Morin
.S. Horn
R. Oiian
M. Osadjan
E. Kennev
221
Company's Statement of
Position
Plaintiffs Responsive
Statement of Position
Letter to S Horn: Response
:o Jul\ 2-. 1997. Letter
August 1. 1997
Auaust:. 1997
S. Horn
10
18
12
19
4ft
-------
223 Letter to C. Morin and V.
Moy: Property-Wide Water
Level Survey
224 Letter to P. Harvey:
Transmittal of Soil Report
and Aerial Photos
225 Letter to D. Diks: Organic
Acid Data Validity
226 Letter to W. Dewar:
Response to Questions
227 Letter to W. Dewar: Organic
Acid Data Review
228 Letter to S. Baloo: Next
Steps Answers
229 Baseline Human Health and
Ecological Risk Assessment
230 Letter to J. Peterson:
Transmittal of RI Report
231 Letter to M. Osadjan and W.
Ingersoll: Settlement
Agreement
232 Fax to C. Morin: Transmittal
of February- 11, 1998, Letter
233 Letter to R. French: FFS
Schedule
234 Letter to C. Morin: RI
Comments
235 Letter to R. French: List of
Data Gaps
236 Letter to R. French:
Presumptive Remedy
23" Letter to C. Morin: QA QC
Review
September 25, 1997 P. Harvey
November 5, 1997 J. Prewin
November 13, 1997 C. Morin
December 12, 1997 P. Harvey
December 17, 1997 P. Harvey
January 12, 1998 C. Morin
February 1998
March 5. 1998
March 11. 1998
March 12. 1998
March !3. 199S
COM
February 10, 1998 C. Morin
February 19, 1998 E. Wallace
Februarv 25, 1998 J. Prewitt
February 25, 1998 C. Morin
P. Harvev
C. Morin
C. Morin
320
-------
238 Memo and Packet to C.
Morin: Amoco Supply Well
Map
239 Letter to R. French: FFS
Schedule
March 16, 1998 J. Prewitt
March 17, 1998 C. Morin
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
24S
249
250
251
252
Letter to S. Baloo: Data Gaps
ARAR Review and Memo
Letter to C. Morin:
Comments on BRA
Letter to C. Morin: Data Gap
List
Final Remedial Investigation
Letter to S. Baloo:
Preliminary Remedial Action
Alternatives
Letter to R. Frehner: List of
Data Gaps
Archaeological Report
Letter to Illinois EPA:
Trench Application
Memo to C. Morin:
Minimum Technology
Letter to C. Morin:
Transmittal of FFS Work
Plan
Letter to R. Batch: Landfill
Closure Agreement
Letter to C. Morin:
March IS. 1998
March 19, 1998
March 20, 1998
March 23, 1998
March 25, 1998
March 26, 1998
March 31, 1998
April 1, 1998
April 1. 1998
April 2. 1998
April?, 1998
April:-. 1998
May 5. 1998
C. Morin 2
R. Watson 3
P. Harvey 6
R. French • 4
COM 1.112
C. Morin 5
C. Morin 4
Patrick Engineering 137
M. Voss 23
M. Crites and R. 4
Watson
R. French 28
L. Eastep 3
P.Harvey 215
Transmittal of Health and
Safety Plan
Letter to S. Baloo:
Piezometer WP Comments
Mav6. 1998
C. Morin
-------
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
Letter to S. Baioo: April 27,
1998, Meeting
Letter to C. Morin:
Transmittal of Work Plan for
Installation of Piezometers
Letter to S, Baloo: Sample
Collection
Letter to J. Johnston: Supp.
Archeological Report
Letter to R. French: Sampling
Work Plan
Letter to C. Morin:
Transmittal of Work Plan
Supplemental Groundwater
Investigations
Letter to S. Baloo: Sample
Collection
Letter to C. Morin: Sampling
Schedule
Letter to C. Morin: Resampie
Weils
Letter to R. Batch: Cap
Design Issues
Letter to S. Davis, V. Moy,
C. Morin: June 25, 1998
Meeting
Letter to C. Morin: June 24,
;99S, Letter
Letter to J. Peterson:
Transmittal of Draft FFS
Letter to S Davis: June 25.
May
May
May-
June
June
June
June
June
June
June
June
June
11, 1998
15, 1998
19, 1998
5, 1998
8, 1998
15, 1998
17, 1998
23, 1998
24, 1998
26, 1998
26, 1998
30, 1998
July 2. 1998
July '
7. 1998
C. Morin
P. Harvey
C. Morin
D. Kullen
C. Morin
P. Harvey
C. Morin
P. Harvey
S. Baloo/ck
L. Eastep
S. Baloo
S. Baloo
C. Morin
S. Baloo
3
28
2
8
2
419
2
5
1
-)
3
I
10
36
1998, Meeting and June 26,
199S, Letter
-------
268 Letter to S. Baloo:
Comments of Draft WP, .
Supp. GW. Investigations
269 Letter to M. Jewell:
Transmittal of June 25, 1998,
Illinois HPA Letter
270 Letter to S. Davis: US ACOE
Permit
271 Letter to R. Rogers:
Response to Comments on
WP, Supplemental GW.
Investigations
272 Letter to R. Rogers:
Response to Comments on
Quality Assurance Plan,
Supplemental GW
Investigations
273 Lener to R. Rogers:
Comments on Focused
Feasibility Study (FFS)
274 Lener to R. Rogers:
Transmittal of Results of the
Piezometer Installation
275 Memo to R. Rogers:
Summary- Sheet ARAR
Review
276 Letter to S. Davis: August 20.
1998. Conference Call
2~" Le:ter to S. Baloo: Response
to FFS Comments
278 FFS
Julv 15. 1998
July 29, 1998
August 3, 1998
August 4. 1998
August 28, 1998
C. Morin for R.
Rogers
J. Schuh
S. Baloo
P. Harvey
11
August 11, 1998 P. Harvey
August 12, 1998 S. Baloo
P. Harvev
September 29. 1998 R. Waison
September 23, 199S
October 6. 199S
Octobers. 1998
S. Baloo
R. Rogers
COM
S3
16
!7S
o
151
-------
C:
282 Hearing Notification Letters
(1 copy of 99 letters total)
283 Newspaper Notification
Invoices
284 Public Hearing Transcript
285 Pre-Design investigation
Work Plan
December 8, 1998 J. Williams
January 1999 None
January 1999
February 4, 1999
J. Heinemann
K. Kamm for P.
Harvey
286 Comments on Proposed Plan February 10, 1999. S. Baloo
11
5
Federal and Sate laws, regulations, and guidance followed for this project are available at the
Illinois EPA office at 1021 North Grand Avenue East, Springfield, Illinois for review and/or
copying.
-------
-------
APPENDIX E
REFERENCES
t
-------
-------
REFERENCES
A Anderson, Carl B., 1919, The Artesian Waters of Northeastern Illinois, Illinois State Geological Survey
Bulletin No. 34, p. 108.
Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. (COM). 199Sa. "Amoco Joliet Landfill NPL Site, Draft Final Baseline
Human Health and EcologicalRisk Assessment".
Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. (CDM). 1998b. "Final Remedial Investigation Report, Amoco Chemicals
(Joliet Landfill) National Priorities List Site Joliet, Illinois".
Collinson, C., M.L. Sargent, and J.R. Jennings, 1988, Illinois Basin Region, in Sedimentary Cover-North
American Craton. U.S., The Geology of North America, Volume D-2: The Geological Society of
America, p. 383-426.
Domenico, P.A., and Schwartz, F.W. 1990. "Physical and ChemicalHydrogeology".
Ferter, C.W. 1994. "Applied Hydrogeology". 3rd Edition..
Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment. EPA/630/R-92/001. Risk Assessment Forum.
EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)
• Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST), and EPA criteria
documents
• National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA)
• Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) Toxicologica!
Profiles
Howard, P.M., et.al. 1991. "Handbook of Environmental Degradation Razes".
Illinois Historic Preservation Act. 1989. (20 ILCS 3410 and Illinois Revised Statute 1989, Chapter 127,
paragraph 133d 1 etseq.).
IT Corporation, 1997, Final Remedial Investigation Report. Joliet Landfill, Amoco Chemical
Intermediate Group. Joliet. Illinois.
IT Corporation, 1995, Final Work Plan for the Remedial Investigation for Amoco Chemical Landfill,
Joltet. Illinois.
rs.ierer and Associates, inc. December 1976, Geotec'r.nicai Des-gr: Rspor:jbr ;he Caiitmet System of :'nz
Tur.ne! and Reser-.-n-.r Plan, prepared fo- the MSDGC.
.X" ?er.£. Ber.csr. x^ne 2nc Associates, .r.;.. June " 9~7. Des ?.'-.••:£:> R.'.-:•• 5/i.'?.'.1: Twists and 3r.~~:; •:;'
the Tunnel and Reservoir plan. Part I! Geotechr.:cz: Resort, prepared fo: :r.e MSDGC.
!
-------
Illinois State Geological Survey Circular 505, 26p.
Nelson, W.J., 1995, Structural Features in Illinois. Illinois State Geological Sumy. Bulletin 100, 144p. """"j_
Patrick Engineering, Inc., 1988, Report on the Sandwich Fault Geologic Investigation at the Amoco
Chemical Joliet Facility. Joliet, Illinois.
Patrick Engineering, Inc., 1989 Landfill History - Amoco Chemicals Joliz: Facilin.
Patrick Engineering, Inc., 1990a, Report on the Amoco Chemical Company Landfill, Hydrogeologic
Investigation. Phase II, Joliet, Illinois.
Patrick Engineering, Inc., 1990b, Report on the Amoco Chemical Company Joliet Landfill,
Hydrogeologic Investigation. Phase III. Joliet. Illinois.
Personal Communication to Camp. Dresser & McKee, Inc., Dennis R. Kolata, April 9, 1997, Illinois
Geological Survey.
Personal Communication to Camp, Dresser & McK.ee, Inc., Janice D. Treworgy, April 29, 1997, Illinois
Geological Survey.
Personal Communication to Camp, Dresser & McKee. Inc., W. John Nelson, May 7, 1997, Illinois
Geological Survey.
Personal Communication to Camp Dresser & McKee Inc., Adrian P. Visocky, February' 6, 1998, Illinois
State Water Survey.
Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A)
Interim Final. EPA/540/1-89/002. 1989.
Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual,
Supplemental Guidance. Standard Default Exposure Factors. OSWER Directive =9285.6-03.
Roadcap, G.S., Cravens, S.J. and Edwards, C.S., 1993, Meeting the Growing Demand for Water: An
Evaluation of the Shallow Ground-Water Resources in Will and Southern Cook Counties. Illinois. Illinois
State Water Survey Research Report 123.
R.S. Means Company, Inc. 1997. "Building Construction Cost Data 1997". 55th Edition.
Schacklette, H.T., J.C. Hamilton, J.G. Boerrgen and J.M. Bowles. 197!. Geological Survey Professional
Paper 579-0 Elemental Composition of Sunkiai Materials in the Contarrr.inocs United States.
Soil Conservation Service, 19SO, Will County Soils. Will Cour.r/. Illinois. U.S. Department of
Agr:cui:-re.
Sr:: Testing Ser.:ces Job =-i02~-H. Datec 10 19.":. P.zpor:-?-^^ !1A. ?'??3s~:."> P'<-.?. ;t !!-3.
£r.?'.>;2er:r.v !n\-es:igatior. R.elz:ivs :o Exis::r.j S::e fo<- D:spos~! of C'^n::zc.l --'zs:* - An:oco Chsmczit
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1988. "Guidance for Conducting Remedial
Investigations and Feasibility Studies under CERCLA". Office of Emergency and Remedial Response.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (U.S. EPA). 1987. RCRA Guidance Manual for
Subpart G Closure and Post-Closure Standards and Subpart H Cost Estimating Requirements.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (U.S. EPA). 1994a. Disposal of Polychoiorinated
Biphenyls, Proposed Rule.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (U.S. EPA). 1994b. Soil Screening Guidance.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (U.S. EPA). 1995. Risk - Based Concentration Table.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (U.S. EPA). 1995-1996. Integrated Risk Information
System (IRIS).
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (U.S. EPA). 1995. Interim Policy for Planning and
Implementing CERCLA Off-Site Response Actions.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (U.S. EPA). 1992. Summary Quality Criteria for Water,
Office of Science and Technology.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (U.S. EPA). 1986. Quality Criteria for Water, Office of
Water Regulation and Standards, U.S. EPA 440/5-86-001.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (U.S. EPA). 1988. Guidance on Remedial Actions for
Contaminated Groundwater at Superfund Sites, OSWER Directive #9283". 1-2.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (U.S. EPA). 1980. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for
Poiychlorinated Biphenyis, U.S. EPA 440/5-80-06S.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (U.S. EPA). 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for
Superfund: Environmental Evaluation Manual, Volume II, Final Report, EPA/540/1-S9/002.
United Slates Environmental Protection Agency. (U.S. EPA). 1991. Risk Assessment Guidance for
Suaerfund. Volume I. Human Health Evaluation Manual Supplemental Guidance. Standard Default
Exposure Factors, Interim Final, March, 1991. OSWER Directive =9285.6-03.
Un:ted States Environmental Protection Agency. (U.S. EPA). 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance^for
Superfund. Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual, Pan A. U.S. EPA 5-^0; '.-S9/002. Ofr:ce of
.7: , Emergency and Remedial Response.
Visocky. A.P., Shernll, M.G., Cartwright, K... 1985, Geology. Hydrology, and Water Quclirj: ofrhe
Cambrian and Ordovician Systems in >\'onhern Illinois. Cooperative Groundwater Report 10, Illinois
State Geological Sur.vev and Illinois State Water S'jp-ey.
k;., A.?,. :993: "<'z:-2r-U'->:. T't>*.d5 zr.d ?nr».?z-gz :r. ;••:,> J=?:>:?
r\. 1935-199: !l!:r.o:s 5:a'a Water Survey Circular 1~7.--p.
-------
Visocky, A.P., 1997, Water-Level Trends and Pumpage in the Deep Bedrock Aquifers in the Chicago
Region, 1991-1995. Illinois State Water Survey Circular 182, 45p.
Walton, W.C., I960, Leaky Artesian Aquifer Conditions in Illinois. Illinois State Water Survey Report of
Investigation, 39, 27p.
",
Willman, H.B. and Lineback, A.L., 1970, Surficial Geology of the Chicago Region. Illinois State < J
Geological Survey.
Willman. H.B., 1971, Summary of the Geology of the Chicago area. Illinois State Geological Survey
Circular 460, 77p.
Willman, H.B., Atherton E., Buschbach T.D., Collinson C., Frye J.C., Hopkins ME., Lineback J.A., and
Simon J.A., 1975, Handbook of Illinois Stratigraphy. Illinois State Geological Survey Bulletin 95, 261 p.
Willman, H.B., and Frye, John C., Pleistocene Stratigraphy of Illinois, Illinois State Geological Survey
Bulletin 94, 1970.
Woodward-Clyde Consultants, 1993, Field Sampling and Analysis Plan for Design Investigations in
Support of Corrective Action and a Groundwater Management Zone. Amoco Chemical Company, Joliet.
Illinois.
Woodward-Clyde Consultants, 1995a, Corrective Action Plan for Ground Water Remediation. Amoco
Chemicals Intermediates Business Group. Joliet. Illinois. jUt
Woodward-Clyde Consultants, 1995b, Groundwater Corrective Action Project. Joint Permit Application.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Amoco Chemical Company. Joliet Plant Area. Joliet. Illinois.
Zheng C., G.D. Bennec, and C.B. Andrews. "Analysis of Ground-Water Remedial Alternatives at a
Superfund Site." GROUNDWATER. Vol. 29, No. 6, pages 838-848.
15, '.6, 33, and ^2 United States Code (U.S.C.). 1998. [Specific Pan and Sections Noted in Text].
32, 36, and 29 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). 1998. [Specific Pan and Sections Noted in Tex;].
35 Illinois Administrative Code (I.AC) Pan 742, Appendix C. 1997. "Tiered Approach to Corrective
Action Objectives (TACO)".
35 Illinois Administrative Code (I.A.C.). 1998. [Specific Pan and Sections Noted in Text].
35 Illinois Administrative Code (IAC) Pan 620. 1994. "Groundwater Quality". ^
•10 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) !996c. (updated through May) (Specific Par: and Sec::o-s
Notated in Text)
-------
.
-------
------- |