October 1986 EPA-700/8-87-003
c1 /
Hazardous Waste Ground-Water
Task Force
Evaluation of
CID
Calumet City, Illinois
U.S. Environment?! Protection Agency
Region V. library
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
*
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
October 1986
UPDATE OF THE HAZARDOUS WASTE GRODNO-WATER TASK FORCE EVALUATION
OF C1D FACILITY
The United States Environmental Protection Agency's (U.S. EPA) Hazardous
.Waste Ground-Water Task Force ("Task Force"), in conjunction with the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA), conducted an evaluation at the Cin
hazardous waste disposal facility. The Cin facility, operated hy Waste
Management of Illinois, Inc., was the seventh of 58 facilities to he evaluated
by the Task Force. The Task Force effort is in response to recent concerns
as to whether owners and operators of hazardous waste disposal facilities
are complying with the RCRA ground-water monitoring regulations, and whether
the ground-water monitoring systems in place at the facilities are capable
of detecting contaminant releases from waste management units. The CID
facility is located just south of the city of Chicago in Calumet City,
• Illinois. The onsite field inspection was conducted in November 1985. This
update of the Task Force evaluation summarizes salient actions concerning
the facility subsequent to the field inspection.
On September 22, 1986, an administrative complaint against the facility
was filed by U.S. EPA. The findings of the complaint relevant to the
Task Force evaluation are as follows:
a. In accordance with the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984
(HSWA), CIO certified to the U.S. EPA in a letter dated November 6,
1985, that Area 4 of the facility was in compliance with all applicable
State ground-water monitoring and financial responsibility require-
ments. CIO did not certify that Area 3 and the surface impoundments
-------
-2-
were in compliance with these requirements. Consequently, interim
status for landfill Area 3 anrl the surface impoundments terminated on
November 8, 1985. CID subsequently submitted to IEPA a partial closure
plan for landfill Area 3. A description of the procedures for decommis-
sioning the surface impoundments was included in the Part B permit
application submitted to U.S. EPA.
b. The CID facility was determined to be in violation of 35 111. Adm.
Code 725.190 through 725.194 for failure to implement the full RCRA
ground-water monitoring in the Oolton Sand aquifer, and for failure
to install a ground-water monitoring system specifically for sur-
face impoundments used to store hazardous wastes at the facility.
c. The CIO facility notified IEPA in March 1986 that the Area 3 landfill
may he affecting ground-water quality. As required by the above noti-
fication, the facility submitted to IEPA a ground-water quality assess-
ment plan for Area 3. IEPA subsequently informed Cin that the assessment
plan was deficient and in violation of Illinois requirements primarily
because the list of parameters for ground-water analyses did not include
all the hazardous waste constituents identified as having been placed
in the facility. This matter was resolved in August. 193fi.
Included in the complaint was a compliance order requiring that CID implement a
RCRA ground-water monitoring program that addresses the Dolton Sand aquifer and
the Silurian aquifer at Area 3 and Area 4, and that the spacing of wells be
such that it provides immediate detection of constituents migrating to ground
water. The compliance order also required that CID demonstrate that any remain-
ing waste residue, liner, or underlying soil from the surface impoundments are
not hazardous waste, and determine whether hazardous constituents from the
-------
-3-
Impoundments have entered the ground water. The complaint proposed a total
civil penalty of $39.500. Separate penalties were assessed for the Do!ton
Sand monitoring violation, the surface impoundment monitoring violation.
and the ground-water assessment violation. CID has initiated negotiations
with U.S. EPA to resolve the matter of the complaint. A request for a
formal hearing is anticipated.
Through the efforts of a contractor to U.S. EPA. a second technical review
has been performed on CID's Part B Permit Application. It is expected
that IEPA. authorized to issue or deny RCRA permits, will present to CID
the following review conclusions:
a. The installation of piezometers will be recommended in the glacial
till overlying the Silurian dolomite to determine the need to
monitor the till as a probable pathway of hazardous constituent
migration.
b. Inclusion of RCRA upgradient and downgradient wells in the Dolton
Sand unit will be required.
c. Considering site conditions, in particular are the location of
disposal cells, the ground-water flow path, and the proximity to
the river, additional downgradient monitoring well clusters will
be recommended to be installed at a horizontal spacing that provides
a higher probability of intercepting contaminants released to the
environment.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
HAZARDOUS WASTE GROUND-WATER TASK FORCE
GROUND-WATER MONITORING EVALUATION
CID
CALUMET CITY, ILLINOIS
OCTOBER 1986
JOHN J. McGUIRE
PROJECT COORDINATOR, REGION V
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
CENTRAL DISTRICT OFFICE
-------
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ' Page
INTRODUCTION 1
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 5
COMPLIANCE WITH INTERIM STATUS GROUND-WATER MONITORING -
40 CFR SUBPART F 5
§ 265.91 Ground-Water Monitoring System 5
§ 265.92 Sampling and Analysis 7
§ 265.93 Preparation, Evaluation and Response 9
GROUND-WATER MONITORING PROGRAM PROPOSED FOR RCRA PERMIT 9
TASK FORCE SAMPLING AND MONITORING DATA ANALYSIS 10
CONFORMANCE WITH SUPERFUND OFFSITE POLICY 10
TECHNICAL REPORT
INVESTIGATION METHODS 11
RECORDS/DOCUMENTS REVIEW 11
FACILITY INSPECTION 12
LABORATORY EVALUATION 13
GROUND-WATER SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS 13
WASTE MANAGEMENT UNITS AND FACILITY DESIGN 14
OPERATION 14
Landfills 16
Area 3 16
Area 4 20
Waste Treatment and Storage 20
Surface Impoundments 21
Pre-RCRA Units 21
Area 1 22
Area 2 22
-------
CONTENTS CONTINUED
Page
HYDROGEOLOGY 23
Stratigraphy 23
GROUND-WATER MONITORING 28
GROUND-WATER SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN 28
Water Level Measurements 29
Purging 30
Sample Collection, Handling, Preservation
and Field Measurements 31
Shipping and Chain-of-Custody 32
Sample Analysis 33
Monitoring Wells 35
Well Locations 35
Well Construction
39
SAMPLE COLLECTION AND HANDLING PROCEDURES
44
APPENDIX
ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES AND RESULTS FOR TASK FORCE SAMPLES
CID, CALUMET CITY, ILLINOIS A-l
Analytical Results for Water Samples A-l
Specific Organic Analytical Results A-l
Metals Analytical Results A-2
General Analysis Results A-3
-------
FIGURES Page
1 Site Location Map • 2
2 CID, Calumet City, Illinois 15
3 Water Elevations In Wells Screened in
The Dolton Sand At Area 4 In December 1982 25
4 Piezometric Elevations in Weathered Zone Area 3 26
5 Water Elevations In Wells Screened In The
Silurian Dolomite At Area 4 In May 1983 27
6 Well Location Map, Area 3 36
7 Well Location Map, Area 4 37
TABLES Page
1 Hazardous Waste Types Taken By CID 17
2 Zone Monitored by CID Monitoring Wells
3 Construction Data For CID's Monitoring Wells 41
4 Summary of Data Collected During the Collection of
the Task Force Samples for CID's Monitoring Wells 45
5 Preferred Order of Sample Collection 47
6 Location of Field Blanks 49
A-l Sample Preparation and Analysis Techniques and Methods A-4
A-2 Limits of Quantisation for Organic Compounds A-5
A-3 Dissolved and Total Metals Results for Monitoring Wells at CID A-6
A-4 Field Measurements and General Constituents Results
for Monitoring Wells at CID A-l4
-------
INTRODUCTION
Concerns have recently been raised as to whether the commercial hazardous
waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDF) are in compliance
with the groundwater monitoring requirements promulgated under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)*. Specifically, the concerns focus
on the ability of ground-water monitoring systems to detect contaminant
releases from waste management units at TSDF. In response to these con-
cerns, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
established a Hazardous Waste Ground-Water Task Force (Task Force) to •
evaluate the level of compliance at TSDF and address the cause(s) of non-
compliance. The Task Force comprises personnel from EPA Headquarters,
including the Offices of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER),
National Enforcement Investigations Center, EPA Regional Offices, and
State regulatory agency personnel. To determine the status of facility
compliance, the Task Force is conducting in-depth facility investigations,
including onsite inspections of TSDF. The objectives of these investiga-
tions are to:
0 Determine compliance with interim status ground-water monitoring
requirements of 40 CFR Part 265 as promulgated under RCRA or the
State equivalent (where the State has received RCRA authorization);
0 evaluate the ground-water monitoring program described in the
facilities' RCRA Part B permit applications for compliance with
40 CFR Part 270.14(c); and,
0 determine if the ground-water at the facility contains hazardous
waste constituents.
* Regulations promulgated under RCRA address hazardous waste management
facilities' operations, including ground-water monitoring, to ensure
that hazardous waste constituents are not released to the environment.
-------
-2-
^t •.iTi'Q? Ridncry 'J
li1 IS.14 '.,
iSMSBS J 4 « -
.» _;arjg;! ! \ '_ i riS
CHICAGO SOUTH SHQ#e—^ + AHO
u i r< 5M'nn*~
CWM \
»..»••
Thomas J O'Bntn
and Oam
sW^f Hegewi
jt ^ Scale: l"-2000f
'**.*•* Source: USGS Topographic
~" map, Lake Calumet
Quadrangle
as 1*1 i":s ii "iratrcj «
- p! ! lu1 :
*'
CALUMET CITY
•~ * t
'
. ^ •• —I
Figure 1 Site Location Map
-------
-3-
0 Provide information to assist the Agency in determining if the
TSDF meets EPA ground-water monitoring requirements for waste
management facilities receiving waste from response actions
conducted under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA, Public Law 91-510).*
To address these objectives, each Task Force investigation will determine
if:
o
The facility has developed and is following an adequate ground-
water sampling and analysis plan;
0 designated RCRA and/or State-required monitoring wells are
properly located and constructed;
0 required analyses have been conducted on samples from the
designated RCRA monitoring wells; and,
0 the ground-water quality assessment program outline (or plan,
as appropriate) is adequate.
The seventh TSDF investigated by the Task Force was the CID facility, a
Division of Waste Management of Illinois, Inc., located at 138th Street
and Interstate 94 in Calumet City, Illinois [Figure 1]. CID operates a
liquid waste solidification service onsite, along with its two active
landfills. The onsite inspection was conducted from November 11 through
November 25, 1985, and was coordinated by personnel from the EPA, Region
V, Central District Office. In general, the investigation involved re-
view of State, Federal, and facility records; facility inspection; labora-
tory evaluation; and, ground-water sampling and analysis.
* EPA policy, stated in the May 6, 1985 memorandum from Jack McGraw on
"Procedures for Planning and Implementing Offsite Response", requires
that TSDFs receiving CERCLA wastes be in compliance with applicable
RCRA ground-water monitoring requirements.
-------
-4-
The CID facility, which extends into both the city of Chicago and the
Village of Burnham, is located in a heavily urbanized area with light and
heavy industrial facilities to the north and south, and largely residential
neighborhoods to the east and south. Directly west of CID, across Inter-
state 94, is a wooded area owned by the Cook County Forest Preserve
District. The Facility has four major landfill units, Areas 1 through 4
and a physical/chemical treatment facility. Area 1 and Area 4 are located
in Section 1, T.36N., R.14E and Area 2 and Area 3 are located in Sections
35 and 36, T.37N, R.14E. in Cook County.
CID presently accepts RCRA hazardous waste, in bulk or containers, for
treatment and disposal in Area 4. Non-hazardous industrial and municipal
solid waste is disposed of in Area 3. In the past, Area 3 had been used
for the co-disposal of municipal refuse and hazardous waste. Area 1 and
2 were closed prior to the enactment of the RCRA regulations. Other RCRA
regulated activity onsite includes treatment and storage facilities for
currently treating aqueous waste and, four formerly operated surface im-
poundments, both located in Area 2.
From 1983 to the time of the inspection, the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency (IEPA) had cited CID for eighteen instances of non-
compliance with 35 Illinois Administrative Code Part 725.1 Subpart F,
which is the same as 40 CFR 265 Subpart F. Twelve of these citations
were issued in 1983, for failure to properly report difference from
background and exceeding maximum concentrations; inadequate water level
measurement; inadequate monitoring system (upgradient well impacted by
a waste management unit); and failure to evaluate, at least annually,
water level data to determine if well system is properly located. In
1984 and 1985 a number of citations were issued for failure to adequate-
ly meet the requirements of assessment monitoring programs. The IEPA
also cited CID in 1985 for failure to comply with 725.191 (265.91) for
installing a number of new wells containing PVC instead of an inert
material. In addition to these subpart F requirements, IEPA in December
1983 required CID to monitor the Dolton Sand as well as the Silurian
Dolomite aquifer.
-------
-5-
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The Task Force investigation of CIO's interim status ground-water monitor-
ing program was conducted during the period of November 11 through November
25, 1985. This interim status program began in November 1981, when the
applicable provisions of the RCRA regulations became effective. The find-
ings and conclusions presented below reflect conditions existing at the
Facility during this period.
The present ground-water monitoring system is not in full compliance with
the requirements of either 40 CFR § 265 or § 270.14(c). The monitoring
system must include both the Dolton Sand as well as the Silurian Dolomite.
CID needs to assess the impact the four surface impoundments may have had
on the ground-water. Improvements need to be made in the facility's
sampling and analysis plan.
In the past samples collected from the ground-water monitoring system have
resulted in CID performing assessment monitoring. Samples collected by
the IEPA in April 1984 indicated two wells contained organic constituents.
The Task Force samples collected during the inspection period showed three
wells contained organic compounds.
COMPLIANCE WITH INTERIM STATUS GROUND-WATER MONITORING - 40 CFR 265 SUB-
PART F
§265.91 Ground-Water Monitoring System
At the time of the inspection, the facility's ground-water monitoring
system was monitoring two zones, the Oolton Sand and the Silurian Dolomite.
-------
-6-
CID considered only the latter zone for RCRA monitoring. From the infor-
mation provided, the Task Force has concluded that both zones must be
monitored. The Dolton Sand is the upper most zone adjacent to the waste
units and the Silurian Dolomite is the upper most zone underneath the
waste units. The Task Force considers these zones as hydrostraticgraphic
units of the uppermost aquifer, since Cin has not shown that these zones
are not hydrogeologically connected.
Between November 1980 and July 1983 CID operated four surface impound-
ments for storage of hazardous waste at the treatment facility. These
impoundments were backfilled by CID but, at the time of the inspection,
a partial closure plan had not been submitted. Therefore, these impound-
ments must be considered active portions of RCRA regulated waste units
subject to the requirements of ground-water monitoring. At the time of
the inspection, CID did not have a ground-water monitoring system at the
limit of the impoundment area.
The location of the limit of the hazardous waste management area in Area 3
(therefore the point of compliance) was questioned due to the uncertain
adequacy of the leachate barrier wall. The barrier wall is constructed
of in-situ clay below grade and recompacted clay above grade. This wall
was never inspected by either IEPA or the U.S. EPA before it was covered.
Therefore, all of Area 3 must be considered a RCRA regulated unit.
A number of upgradient wells in Area 4 may be impacted by a release from
Area 1.
-------
-7-
The number of downgradient RCRA monitoring wells in the system are deemed
insufficient based on vertical spacing. As noted above both zones needed
to be monitored for vertical spacing. Due to the complex geology of the
site the horizontal spacing, (up to 1000 feet in Area 3 and 700 feet in
Area 4) is too great to meet the needs of a detection monitoring system
to fully comply with 40 CFR Part 270 and Part 264.
CID installed additional wells in 1984 in response to an IEPA permit
request. The request required those wells to contain inert materials
such as Teflon® or stainless steel, but the Facility installed wells
containing PVC. A review of the facility's records indicate that CID has
taken compounds listed in 40 CFR Part 261, Appendix VII and Appendix VIII.
If CID were required to analyze constituents found in either appendix the
present well system may interfere with low level concentrations of organic
compounds. The Task Force, therefore, recommends use of an inert material
for any future replacement wells.
§265.92 Sampling and Analysis
CID has developed a Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP), as required, and
keeps it onsite. The SAP, onsite at the time of the inspection, was
dated June 1985, and contained the general procedures required for collec-
tion and analysis of samples from its ground-water monitoring system but
lacks detail in a number of areas. The SAP needs to be more specific in
describing the procedures used for taking water level measurements and
should include decontamination procedures for portable equipment, a con-
tingency plan for using the portable equipment in wells containing per-
manently installed static water level indicators, and a recalibration
procedure for the static water level indicators.
-------
-8-
The discrepancy within the SAP concerning what parameters are to be fil-
tered mist be corrected. Purge procedures for slow recovery wells need
to be clarified. The maximum allowed interval between purging and sampl-
ing must be specified. Also CID needs to include a procedure to periodi-
cally remeasure all wells to check for siltation.
The sample plan requires that either three well volumes or three isolated
well volumes be removed before sampling. Twenty of CID's monitoring wells
contain two pumps, a sample pump (1 to 2 feet off the bottom) and a high
speed purge pump (8 feet off the bottom). After pumping the water column
down to the level of the high speed pump CID then considers the remaining
water to be isolated. Three well volumes are then calculated for this
much smaller volume. The Task Force does not agree with this method of
isolating the water column and required three well volumes, based on the
entire water column, be removed before EPA samples were taken.
The Task Force review of CID's contract laboratories indicated that, with
only two exceptions, the analytical methods used are sufficient to meet
the requirements of RCRA ground-water monitoring. Improvements are
needed in the methods used to perform chloride analyses and the digestion
method used for preparing metals samples for analysis.
The evaluation of one of the analytical laboratories used by CID showed
that improvements are needed in in-lah chain-of-custody procedures. At
the time of the inspection this laboratory did not have procedures for
tracking CID's samples through the laboratory. Procedures are needed to
track samples from arrival at the laboratory through analysis and ending
at the time the samples are destroyed.
-------
-9-
Sampling equipment and internal and external tubing in the pumps and bail-
ers should be made of inert materials. During the inspection the CID con-
tractor attached non-inert plastic tubing to the external fitting of the
wells with pumps and used PVC bailers at wells that Hid not have pumps
installed.
When CID updates the SAP, the old information that is replaced is de-
stroyed. This makes it more difficult to compare data from one sampling
period to the next. CID needs to add a section to the SAP which will
briefly describe these changes.
§265.93 Preparation, Evaluation and Response
In the past, CID has been in assessment monitoring. Statistically signi-
ficant changes for pH and specific conductance have been found for four
wells in Area 3, (wells G12DR, G14DR, G15DR and G22DR). The facility
developed an assessment plan to determine the cause of these changes and
at the time of the inspection had returned to an indicator evaluation
program required under 40 CFR 265.93(d)(6). Also, wells G14DR and G11D
have shown organic contamination. On April 18, 1984 the IEPA and CID
split samples and the IEPA analyses showed 27 ug/1 of tetrahydrofuran and
unquantified amounts of aliphatic hydrocarbons in well G14DR and 5 ug/1
of tetrahydrofuran in well G11D. However, these compounds were not in-
cluded as part of the Task Force sampling program.
GROUND-WATER MONITORING PROGRAM PROPOSED FOR RCRA PERMIT
The present RCRA ground-water monitoring system is inadequate to meet the
requirements for full compliance with 40 CFR Part 270. As stated above
both the Silurian Dolomite and the Dolton Sand zones need to be monitored
in Area 3 and Area 4, including a decrease in well spacing and a nesting
of wells.
-------
-10-
TASK FORCE SAMPLING AND MONITORING DATA ANALYSIS
During the inspection, Task Force personnel collected samples from 26 of
CID's 37 ground-water monitoring wells. The wells were purged and samples
were brought to the surface by CID personnel. The analytical results for
these samples are given in Appendix A.
Monitoring data from the Task Force samples show that three wells (G201,
6213, G107R) contained organic hazardous waste constituents. All three
results were near the method detection limit. The data also indicated
that four metals were found above the concentration limits of 40 CFR 265
Appendix III for three wells (G213, G217, G14DR). With the exception of
three pH values below 6.0, in wells G10S, G12DR, G12S, the Task Force
samples did not contain any unusual amounts of the indicator parameters.
CONFORMANCE WITH SIJPERFUND OFFSITE POLICY
Under current EPA policy, if an offsite TSOF must be used for land dis-
posal of waste from a Superfund cleanup of a CERCLA site, that site must
be in compliance with the applicable technical requirements of RCRA.
Interim status facilities must have adequate ground-water monitoring data
to assess whether the facility poses a threat to ground water. The Task
Force found a number of problems with the ground-water monitoring system
at CID. The facility is not fully in compliance with sampling, analysis,
evaluation, and response requirements.
-------
-11-
INVESTIGATION METHODS
The Task Force investigation of the CID facility consisted of:
0 Reviewing and evaluating records and documents from EPA Region V,
the Illinois EPA, and CID
0 Conducting an onsite facility inspection November 12 through
November 22, 1985.
0 Evaluation of offsite analytical laboratories used by CID, and
0 Sampling and subsequent analysis and data evaluation for selected
ground-water monitoring wells
RECORDS/DOCUMENTS REVIEW
Records and documents from EPA Region V and the IEPA offices, compiled by
an EPA contractor, were reviewed prior to and during the onsite inspection.
On-site facility records were reviewed to verify and augment information
currently in Government files. These records were reviewed to obtain in-
formation on Facility operations, construction details of waste management
units, and the ground-water monitoring program. The Facility was request-
ed to supply U.S. EPA with a copy of selected documents for in-depth eval-
uation.
-------
-12-
Specific documents and records that were reviewed included the ground-
water Sampling and Analysis plan, outline of the facility ground-water
quality assessment program, analytical results from past ground-water
sampling, monitoring well construction data and logs, site geologic re-
ports, site operations plans, facility permits, waste management unit
design and operation reports, and operating records showing the general
types, quantities, and locations of wastes disposed of at the facility.
FACILITY INSPECTION
The facility inspection conducted in November 1985 included identifying
past and present waste management units; identification and assessment of
waste management operations and pollution control practices; the verifi-
cation of the locations of all ground-water monitoring wells and leachate
monitoring systems.
CID representatives were interviewed to identify records and documents of
interest, discuss the contents of the documents, and explain (1) past and
present facility operations, (2) the site hydrogeology, (3) the ground-
water monitoring system, (4) the ground-water sampling and analysis plan,
and (5) all laboratory procedures for obtaining data on ground-water
quality. Because ground-water samples were analyzed by offsite labora-
tories, personnel from these facilities were also interviewed regarding
sample handling and analytical methods.
-------
-13-
LABORATORY EVALUATION
The offsite laboratory facilities that analyse CID's samples were eval-
uated regarding their respective responsibilities under the CID ground-
water sampling and analysis plan. Analytical equipment and methods,
quality assurance procedures and records were examined for adequacy.
Laboratory records were inspected for completeness, accuracy, and com-
pliance with State and Federal requirements. The ability of each labora-
tory to produce quality data for the required analyses was also evaluated.
A detailed discussion of this evaluation is presented under "Sample
Analysis and Data Quality Evaluation" later in this report.
GROUND-WATER SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
During the inspection, the Task Force contractor collected samples from
26 of the 37 ground-water monitoring wells at the Facility. Wells were
selected for sampling principally for their location relative to one of
the four waste management areas. Data from sample analyses were reviewed
to further evaluate CID's ground-water monitoring program and to identify
ground-water contaminants. Analytical results of the samples collected
by the Task Force are presented in Appendix A of this report.
-------
-14-
WASTE MANAGEMENT UNITS AND FACILITY DESIGN
RCRA-regulated activities at CID include two hazardous waste management
units (Area 3 and Area 4), a waste treatment facility, a storage facility
for both container and bulk materials, and four surface impoundments.
There are also two pre-RCRA waste management units (Area 1 and Area 2)
that may impact the local ground-water quality. The location of these
different operations is shown in Figure 2. The design and operation of
these various components of the CID facility, the overall operational
procedures at this site, and land uses are discussed in the following
sections. This discussion is presented here to provide a framework for
assessing waste disposal unit integrity, explain the types and placement
of wastes disposed of at CID, and serve as a reference to assist in eval-
uating the potential for ground-water contamination in the event that
leakage occurs and threatens to degrade ground-water quality.
OPERATION
The present operation at the CID facility consists primarily of (1) the
landfill ing of both hazardous and non-hazardous solid waste and (2) the
container and bulk storage and treatment of aqueous hazardous and non-
hazardous waste. The aqueous wastes are solidified at either the pug
mill or at the physical chemical treatment facility. After treatment the
solidified waste is temporarily stored on a concrete pad before disposal
in Area 4. Other operations on the site include a solid waste transpor-
tation company and the landfill gas recovery systems operated by Getty
Synthetic Fuels, Inc.
-------
-15-
FIGURE 2
Physical/Cheriire!
Treataer.t Facility
Ketfiane Bas Pr-ocessirig Caci2ity
-------
-16-
Landfills
Area 3
When Area 3 began operation on the west side of the unit, CIO used the
trench method of co-disposal of both hazardous and non-hazardous waste.
The types of hazardous waste disposed of in Area 3 is given in Table 1.
The facility has subsequently changed to the area-fill method of disposal
and as of January 26, 1983 accepts only non-hazardous waste. A four foot
leachate barrier wall has been constructed to separate the western co-
disposal units (approximately 83 acres in size) from the active solid
waste units to the east. This wall was constructed of in-situ clay below
grade and recompacted clay above grade. The approximate location of the
leachate barrier wall is shown in Figure 2. Presently, Cin is depositing
nonhazardous waste along the barrier wall to bring it to grade and has
placed a four foot clay cover over the western portion of Area 3.
Area 3 has a leachate collection system above an in-situ clay liner. The
westernmost trenches have leachate collection pipes, circling the peri-
meter of a group of several trenches with risers at one end of the system,
to remove leachate. Eastward, the system changes to a single pipe in the
center of the trench with risers on one end. The leachate collection
system allows up to 30 feet of head in parts of the fill.
The original Part A application indicates that all of Area 3 would receive
hazardous waste. Cin has not submitted either (1) a closure plan for the
western portion of Area 3, or (2) a modification to the Part A applica-
tion. Therefore, all of Area 3 remains both an active and a regulated RCRA
unit.
-------
-17-
TABLE 1
HAZARDOUS WASTES TYPES
TAKEN BY CID
11/80 THROUGH 1/83
Waste by*
RCRA Code
D001
D002
D004
D005
D006
D007
0008
OOMX*
F001
F002
F003
F006
F007
F008
F011
F012
FOMX*
HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENT
(Basis for Listing)
Ignitable
Corrosive
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
DOMX* are Waste Mixtures containing
hazardous waste constituents from the
"D" codes listed above. Trace amounts
of the following constituents (D011)
may also be present: silver
Tetrachloroethylene, methylene
chloride, trichlorethylene,
1,1,1-trichloroethane, carbon
tetrachloride, chlorinated
fluorocarbons
Tetrachloroethylene, methylene
chloride, trichloroetylene,
1,1,1-tn'chloroethane, chlorobenzene,
1,1,2-tichloro-l,2,2-trifluoroethane,
ortho-dichlorobenzene, trichloro-
fluoromethane
Ignitable
Cadmium, hexavalent chromium, nickel,
cyanide (complexed)
Cyanide (salts)
Cyanide (salts)
Cyanide (salts)
Cyanide (complexed)
FOMX are Waste Mixtures containing
hazardous waste constituents from the
"F" codes listed above. Trace amounts
of the following constituents (F005
and F010) may also be present: toluene,
methyl ethyl ketone, carbon disulfide,
isobutanol, pyridine, and cyanide (salts)
-------
-18-
TABLE 1 (cont'd)
HAZARDOUS WASTES TYPES
TAKEN BY CID
11/80 THROUGH 1/83
Waste by
RCRA Code
K048
K051
K052
K060
K061
K062
K086
K087
KOMX*
**P009
**P031
**U002
**U008
**U028
**U052
**U062
**U189
**UOMX*
Hazardous Constituent
(Basis for Listing)
phenolic
lead, cadmium
Hexavalent chromium, lead
Hexavalent chromium, lead
Lead
Cyanide, napthalene,
compounds, arsenic
Hexavalent chromium,
Hexavalent chromium, lead
Lead, hexavalent chromium
Phenol, naphthalene
Mixtures of K048, K049, K050, K051
Hexavalent chromium, lead
Ammonium pi crate
Cyanogen
Acetone
Acrylic acid, ignitable
1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid,
Cbis(2-ethyl-hexyl)] ester
Cresols
Dial!ate
Phosphorous sulfide
Mixtures containing trace amounts of two or more
of the following hazardous waste constituents
U044, U083, U113, IJ122, U188, U211 Chloroform,
1,2-Dichloropropane, Ethyl acrylate, Formal-
dehyde, Benzene, hydroxy-, Carbon tetrachloride
-------
-19-
TABLE 1
HAZARDOUS WASTE TYPES
TAKEN BY CIO
11/80 THROUGH 1/83
Waste by Hazardous Constituent
RCRA Code (Basis for Listing)
MOMX* Mixtures containing two or more of
any of the hazardous waste consti-
tuents listed above. Additionally
trace amounts of he following may
be present P053 (currently not listed),
U154, P090 (now known as F027), U031,
U080, U123, U159, U161, U169, U220,
U222, U226 Ethylenediamine, Methanol,
Pentachlorophenol, n-Butyl alcohol,
Dichloromethane, Formic acid, Methyl
ethyl ketone, Methyl isobutyl ketone,
Nitrobenzene, Toluene, 0-Toluidine
hydrochl ori de, 1,1,1-Tri chl oroethane
* MX is a facility designation, not a RCRA designation.
** "U" and "P" wastes have generally been from tank clean-outs and spill resv
dues. Generally these wastes contained only trace amounts of these consti-
tuents in large amounts of inert material such as soil or water.
-------
-20-
Area 4
Area 4, which occupies approximately 24 acres on the south end of the
site, has been divided into three phases of development for the disposal
of hazardous waste only by the area-fill method. Phase 1 was started in
the north-central section of the unit. The initial areas were developed
using two feet of compacted clay as a liner below the fill material. The
present active area, along the south-central part of the unit, utilizes a
synthetic liner of high density polyethylene and protective geotextile
fabric atop four feet of recompacted clay. Future development to the
east (Phase 2), and eventually to the west (Phase 3), will include the
construction of a liner system to meet the Minimum Techological Require-
ments of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984.
Waste Treatment and Storage
The CID site also contains drum and tank storage facilities and operates
a number of treatment processes. The container storage includes a capa-
city of over 600,000 gallons of liquids and sludges and 850 cubic yards
of bulk solids.
The acid neutralization/solidification process is designed to neutralize
strong acids and to convert liquid and sludge wastes into a solid form
suitable for landfill disposal. The process mixes sludge and liquid
wastes with absorbents such as fly ash, lime, kiln dust or other sorbent
material in a pug mill to absorb all free liquids, neutralize acidic
wastes, and produce a bulk waste which is subsequently transported to the
Area 4 landfill for disposal.
-------
-21-
Filtering units are used as part of the dewatering process to treat aqueous
wastes that are generated off-site as well as aqueous wastes generated on-
site. Among those wastes generated on-site that are treatable in the
dewatering plant are leachate/run-off/run-on, from both hazardous and non-
hazardous landfill areas; condensate from the landfill gas recovery pro-
cess; and aqueous hazardous wastes originated at the facility's pug mill.
Following treatment, the water is discharged to the Publicly-Owned Treat-
ment Works (POTW). The filter cake is landfilled in a hazardous waste
disposal cell of Area 4.
Surface Impoundments
The four surface impoundments, of approximately 250,000 gallons each, were
used to store acid waste, prior to neutralization/solidification. In
January 1983, these impoundments were decomissioned and backfilled by
CID. These impoundments were located in Area 2, see Figure 2, near the
treatment facility. At the time of the inspection, Cin had not submitted
partial closure plans to either the IEPA or the U.S. EPA, and therefore
these units remain active portions and regulated RCRA waste management
units.
Pre-RCRA Units
There are two pre-RCRA waste management units at the CID facility, which
could impact the ground-water quality in the area. Unit design, including
cell liners, leachate collection and possible ground-water impact, are
discussed below.
-------
-22-
Area 1
Area 1 was a co-disposal unit using the trench method of disposal and was
the only unit permitted to dispose of organic hazardous waste. The only
liner for this unit is the 20 to 30 feet of in-situ clay fill. The
leachate collection system is located along the perimeter of the trenches.
The leachate is removed at manhole risers for treatment at the on-site
facility. This area stopped accepting waste in early 1980, and received
its final clay cover on October 10, 1984.
The ground-water flow direction for both zones in the vicinity of Area 1
is to the south toward Area 4. Therefore, any release to the ground-water
from Area 1 could impact the upgradient wells of Area 4.
Area 2
This area was fi.lled with non-hazardous demolition debris and trash and
has never received State or Federal permits to receive hazardous waste.
The unit utilized the trench method of disposal. The trenches were not
lined and no leachate collection system was installed. Though waste was
not disposed of in this unit after October 22, 1980, CID did operate a
number of sludge drying beds and the four surface impoundments in the
area. The final cover was inspected by the State and found to be at
least four feet thick on May 13, 1985.
-------
-23-
HYDROGEOLOGY
Stratigraphy
The site is mantled with Pleistocene age glacial deposits ranging in
thickness from 45 to 80 feet. The Dolton member of the Equality Forma-
tion is the uppermost unit in the area and consists of shallow-water and
near-shore lacustrine sands with minor silt lenses. The fine to medium
grained sand range from 7 to 12 feet in thickness over the site.
The Wadsworth member of the Wedron Formation is the lowermost Pleistocene
unit and consists of tills deposited during the Woodfordian Substage of
the Wisconsin Stage. The Wadsworth ranges from 50 to 60 feet thick. The
Wadsworth has been divided into three units which have different textural
characteristics reflecting successive pulses of glacial ice. The highest
Wadsworth unit is a firm pebbly-silty-clay; the middle unit is a stiff to
hard pebbly-silty-clay; and the lowest unit, which overlays the bedrock,
is a very hard pebbly-sitly-clay that is called hardpan.
The uppermost bedrock unit is the Racine Formation, a Silurian Dolomite,
characterized by a blue-gray to greenish-gray argillaceous dolomite that
averages about 165 feet in thickness. This rock unit is underlain by a
gray, massive, thick-bedded fossiliferous dolomite which averages about
85 feet in thickness at the site vicinity. These bedrock formations are
nearly flat lying with dips generally less than one degree. Several
faults have been identified in the area. These faults range from two to
nine miles in length, and offsets of the faults appear to range from 15-
30 feet.
-------
-24-
The uppermost water-bearing unit around the site is the Dolton Sand. The
saturation thickness ranges from one to eight feet. This, zone appears as
a perched waterbearing zone that lies above the less permeable Wadsworth
Till. The Wadsworth Till, which is a clay-rich till, lies between the
Dolton Sand and the lower Silurian Dolomite aquifer. Much of the Dolton
Sand has been excavated causing a disturbance of the natural groundwater
gradients. The average ground-water gradient is reported to be 0.005 or
about 25 feet per mile with an average flow velocity of 1.3 x 10-4 cm/sec.
The gradient of the Dolton Sand in Area 4 is southerly across the site and
towards the Little Calumet River, see Figure 3.
The Silurian Dolomite that underlays the glacial deposits forms a major
regional aquifer and has been mapped as 400 feet thick in the site vici-
nity. The primary permeability of the Dolomite is low with secondary
permeability, from fractions and bedding planes, giving the rock unit its
storage and transmission characteristics. The hydraulic conductivities
for the aquifer average 1 x 10-5 cm/sec.
The ground-water flow in the Silurian Dolomite is affected by a ground-
water divide near the south end of Area 3. The flow across the western
portion of Area 3 is to the northwest and to the southeast in the eastern
portion (see Figure 4). In Areas 1, 2, and 4 it is to the generally
south or southwest (see Figure 5). This divide appears to be caused by a
deep bore hole (north of CID near 130th street) drilled through the
Dolomite by the Metropolitian Sanitary District of Greater Chicago (MSDGC)
This bore hole was drilled to reduce accumulation of ground-water in a
portion of the tunnel and reservoir system being constructed to control
storm water runoff.
Ground-water elevation contours of the Silurian Dolomite indicate grad-
ients of 10 to 30 feet per mile. Calculations of ground-water flow rates
indicate an average flow rate in the Silurian aquifer of 6 feet per year.
-------
m
8 5
ro
m
m
a
o
o
ci
Calumet Expressway 1-94
LEGEND
201 Well Number
585.7 Water Elevation
O Well Location
NOTE: Well locations provided by WMI;
water elevations measured by WCC
200 0 20Q 4QQ 6QQ
Scale 1"- 400'
-------
LEGgNP*
• tm»m*K* mix*
MM a mttaMTmc tLtwria«tiiiM.I
tiiMTRM CMTM*t
$*) itrummm a»«MCiiT IMKIMU
I • \ MMMIM CMTAIMICftr MCA
UACIMU •WHICH
i conTouia OCMLOK* no*
MCASktCMtNTt TWtH M U-H
. 00 VOUMWUI IKMTIMM MU UUTVH
•I tanncm loMcnM CO . ll» . OCT.
MWDT. I»M. UMill HO C0-4t
• Ml fWOTO TO*0<«MI«IC M* f* t-
fum.0 If WRI IHMMWlrt «C
PEZOMETRtC ELEVATIONS N
WEATHERED ZONE
AREA 3
CIO COMPLEX
mEP«HCD FOft
V/ASTE MANAGEMENT INC.
CanonleEngineers
5CAI.I 'AS
M-07T-O
-------
Calumet Expressway 1-94
m
o
LEGEND
202 Well Number
564.2 Water-Level Elevation
« Hell Location
200 0 200 400 600
Scale T- 400'
NOTE: Well location and water elevations
provided by WMI.
-------
-28-
GROUND-WATER MONITORING
During the investigation, the Task Force inspection team evaluated CID's
groundwater monitoring program. The Task Force findings are discussed in
this section. It should be noted that these findings are based on infor-
mation available in November 1985.
GROUND-MATER SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN
The evaluation of the ground-water Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP), dated
June 1985, was limited to the plan used during the inspection. When the
plan was modified, CID destroyed the old sections. This makes the evalu-
ation and comparison of past sample data more difficult, since changes in
sample collection, sample handling, and analytical technique may affect
the sample results. In addition, the inability of the Facility to docu-
ment their past sampling and analytical method is not in compliance with
RCRA ground-water requirements. During the inspection, CID's contractor
operated the pump equipment and bailed wells without pumps, but did not
take any samples. Therefore, the Task Force evaluation of sample collec-
tion and handling, field measurements, and Chain-Of-Custody was limited
to the portions observed and those documented in the Sampling and Analysis
Plan.
Included in the Sampling and Analysis Plan are CID's procedures of collec-
tion, preservation, handling, shipping, and documentation of samples. In
addition, the plan describes the collection of field measurements for
water level, pH, temperature, and specific conductance. Although the plan
is quite comprehensive in many areas, it lacks detail in others. The Task
Force assessment of the plan follows.
-------
-29-
Water Level' Measurements
When the sample team arrived at a well, CIO's contractor would measure
the depth to water using either (1) a QED Environmental System static
water level indicator (Model 16010) installed with the Well Wizard®
pumps or (2) an electronic water level indicator from Slope Indicator®
Company, Model 51453. During the inspection, the Slope Indicator had
to be used at the two wells that required bailing (G104, 6105) and at
three of the wells with QED equipment (G105, 6135R, G220). At the
latter three wells, the QED static water level indicators either did
not give a reading (G105), or the reading was off scale. The remain-
ing 21 water measurements were taken, using the QED systems.
The Slope Indicator consisted of a sensor, a cable (marked off in one
foot increments), a control panel (containing a buzzer and a red light),
and a reel. The cable was lowered into the well until the sensor
reached the water. The CID contractor then would slowly raise and
lower the cable until a precise location of the water surface was lo-
cated. The contractor would then pinch the cable at a point near the
top of the well casing. The distance between his finger and the
nearest marker on the cable was measured. This length was then either
added or subtracted to the cable marker. After the cable was reeled
up, the sensor was rinsed with distilled water. Periodically the cable
and the inside of the reel were also rinsed with distilled water.
To measure the water level in a well containing the QED system, the
static water level indicator was connected to a tube permanently in-
stalled in the well. The system is then pressurized. The dial then
indicates the number of inches above or below a reference level that
® Well Wizard and Slope Indicator are registered
trademarks and will appear hereafter without the ®.
-------
-30-
was measured when the tubing was initially installed. This amount is
then added or subtracted from the reference level depending on whether
the water level is below or above the reference point.
Although the CIO sample contractor performed the above measurements,
the Sampling and Analysis Plan addresses water level measurements only
generally. The plan does not reference, by name or specification,
either of the two water level measuring devices in use at the time of
the inspection. Nor does the plan include the contingency requirements
for using the Slope Indicator in wells containing the QED system (as
was required for wells G105, G15R, and G220). Also, not included in
the plan were the decontamination procedures used to clean the Slope
Indicator after each use.
The Task Force also is concerned that CID does not have procedures for
periodically recalibrating the QED static water level indicator. This
would be especially important when equipment is removed from a well to
repair or replace either of the two pumps.
Purging
Page IIIi-2 of the Sampling and Analysis Plan requires the removal of
3 well volumes or 3 isolated well volumes. For 20 of its wells, CID
has installed 2 pumps and routinely calculates the volume of purge
water for the isolated section between the two pumps. The lower of
these pumps, 1 to 2 ft off the bottom, is the Well Wizard bladder pump
used for sampling and, at times, purging. The second pump, installed
eight feet from the bottom, is a high speed air displacement pump used
only for purging. The Task Force does not agree with this method of
-------
-31-
using the isolated section for calculating the well volume. Therefore,
purge volumes calculated for the Task Force Investigation were made
using the entire water column. The Task Force recommends that CID use
this method for its RCRA sampling.
The Sampling and Analysis Plan is not clear on purge procedures for
wells that are slow to recover. The plan does not specify (1) the
volume of water to remove if a well is purged dry before three well
volumes are removed or (2) the amount of time allowed for well recovery
before sampling. The Task Force therefore, recommends that the Plan
be updated to clarify CID's procedures on slow recharge wells.
Sample Collection, Handling, Preservation and Field Measurements
For all but five of its wells, CID uses Well Wizard bladder pumps driven
by a gasoline powered compressor which is regulated by a high pressure
control box. The sample is discharged from dedicated polypropylene
tubing. The remaining five wells are sampled using PVC bailers. The
Task Force recommends that the pump tubing and bailers be replaced by
an inert material that is less likely to react with organic compounds.
There is some discrepency within the Sampling and Analysis Plan con-
cerning which parameters are to be filtered. Table 5 specifies filtra-
tion for only orthophosphate, whereas the text requires that all para-
meters, except TOX, Total Coliform, and VOC's, are to be filtered.
The plan needs to he consistent and should include a listing of para-
meters that are to be filtered. This listing should also include the
reason for filtering certain parameters, such as a state permit or RCRA
requirement.
-------
-32-
The plan does not provide any procedures for periodically measuring
wells for total depth. This measurement is important to check for
silting problems, especially for a number of wells exhibiting high
turbidity.
SHIPPING AND CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY
During the inspection, the CID sample contractor did not collect any
samples. Therefore, the Task Force evaluation of the facility's
Chain-of-Custody procedures were limited to observations made during
the laboratory evaluation.
The Gulf Coast Laboratory (GCL) handling procedures do not address all
the concerns of proper Chain-of-Custody. GCL and CID need to determine
how extensive an in-lab Chain-of-Custody program will be required to
track CID's ground-water samples. The Task Force recommends that CID
and GCL update their sample control procedures to include tracking of
samples from receipt of samples at the laboratory through the time the
sample is discarded. A custody logbook should show the movement of each
sample within the laboratory, who removed the sample from the custody
area, when it was removed, when it was returned, and when it was de-
stroyed. Procedures should be established for the auditing of sample
control information. Records should be examined to determine trace-
ability, completeness, and accuracy.
-------
-33-
SAMPLE ANALYSIS
The Task Force evaluated two laboratories used by CID to analyze sam-
ples taken from the facility ground-water monitoring system. First,
on November 18, 1985, a visit was made to Gulf Coast Laboratories,
Inc. This laboratory collects all samples, conducts field measure-
ments, and analyzes the inorganic samples. The second laboratory,
visited on April 17 and 18, 1986, was Environmental Testing and Certi-
fication (ETC) Corporation, Edison New Jersey. This is Waste Manage-
ment's (WMI) primary laboratory which is responsible for supplying
many of the WMI facilities with sample containers and preservatives,
as well as analyzing CID's organic samples.
The laboratory evaluation team observed many excellent aspects of lab-
oratory procedures at ETC, including a well qualified staff, adequate
equipment, and standard operating procedures based on SW-846. The
laboratory staff is competent to perform the complex analyses required
for the characterization of Appendix VIII constituents using analytical
instruments such as GC, GC/MS and High Performance Liquid Chromato-
graphy. ETC has a well documented quality assurance plan. With each
batch of samples the laboratory analyzes, it obtains data on method
detection limits and on method precision and accuracy. In addition,
the laboratory spikes samples that require GC/MS analysis with surro-
gate spike compounds to monitor the matrix effects and performance of
analytical systems. The laboratory also frequently participates, with
acceptable results, in interlaboratory comparison studies and in the
system (onsite) evaluations conducted by several program offices such
as EPA/EMSL-LV, and the New York Department of Public Health.
-------
-34-
During the evaluation, Gulf Coast Laboratories was in the process of
revising their standard operating procedures. The 'procedures were
later provided to the Task Force and the following deficiencies were
found:
1. Chloride (Titrimetric Mercuric Nitrate Method)
a. The chloride method failed to address the usage of Xylene
cyanole FF solution as a pH indicator and endpoint enhancer.
b. The chloride method failed to address specific corrective
actions for elimination of chromate, ferric ion, and sulfite
ion interferences.
c. The mixed indicator reagent #R47-2 should be store in a brown
bottle and discarded after 6 months and not kept in a dropper
bottle for 2 years as was the labs normal practice.
2. The metals digestion procedures given in the standard operating
procedures is the same for both the inductively coupled plasma
and atomic absorption methods. There should be distinct metals
digestion procedures for each of these methods, especially for
certain metals (e.g. antimony, arsenic, mercury and selenium).
The GCL, as noted in the section on Shipping and Chain-of-Custody,
needs to improve the in-lab sample handling procedures.
-------
-35-
MONITORING WELLS
The well monitoring network at CID has been installed in stages. At the
time of the inspection, CID had 37 monitoring wells located around the
property. Five of these wells were for monitoring Areas 1 and 2, 14 for
monitoring Area 3, and 18 for Area 4. There were no wells at the limit
of the decomissioned, but not closed, surface impoundments.
Well Locations
In 1980, or earlier, a ground-water monitoring system was installed to
monitor Area 3 consisting of five wells screened in the Oolton Sand, and
six wells screened in the Silurian Dolomite. The present monitoring sys-
tem consists of 14 wells, six in the Dolton Sand and 8 in the Silurian
Dolomite. Table 2 shows the CID well network, and zone monitored.
The locations of monitoring wells in Area 3 are shown in Figure 4. Three
of these wells (G20D, 610S, and 621D) have been installed on Cook County
Forest Preserve property to the west of Area 3. Wells 620D, G21D and
G10S have been designated by CID as the upgradient wells.
A separate ground-water monitoring system (see Figure 5) is in place in
Area 4, the most recent waste management area. This ground-water monitor-
ing system originally consisted of eight wells screened in the Dolton
Sand and seven wells screened in the Silurian Dolomite. The original
system has since been changed and there are presently 18 wells, 10 in the
Dolton Sand and eight in the Silurian Dolomite. CID has designated nine
wells as upgradient (G201, G203R, 6204, G205, G206, G213, G215, G220,
-------
\o
NU3J.SV3 ONtT NOUDNISN3J<
-------
-37-
CIO 2 AREA 2
MSD PROPERTY
CIO I AREA I
FIGURE 7
-------
-38-
G221) and the remaining nine wells as downgradient (G202, G207, G208, G209,
G210, G216, G217, G218 and G219). Hue to the southerly'gradient of the
ground-water on the south end of the site, Area 1 may have an impact on
the upgradient wells of Area 4.
Although the wells screened in the Dolton Sand in both Area 3 and Area
4 have been sampled and analyzed periodically by CID, only the wells
screened in the Silurian Dolomite have been used to yield sample analyses
in response to requirements in Subpart F of either 40 CFR, Part 265 or 35
111 Adm. Code Part 725.
Upon reviewing documents submitted by CID during the inspection as well
as information on file with the IEPA and the USEPA, the Task Force has
determined that both the Dolton Sand and the Silurian Dolomite zones need
to be monitored in both Area 3 and Area 4 under 35 111. Adm. Code Part
725 Subpart F and 40 CFR Part 264 Subpart F. The quarterly reports
submitted to IEPA since 1983 verify that the Dolton Sand, underlying both
Area 3 and Area 4, is a water bearing zone capable of yielding water.
Other documents state that the material in the Dolton Sand is removed to
construct the landfill cells. Consequently, the upper Silurian Dolomite
is the uppermost aquifer beneath the excavated landfill cells and the
Dolton Sand is the uppermost aquifer adjacent to the cell walls.
The Task Force reviewed a number of documents concerning the spacing of
monitoring wells along the downgradient portion of Area 3 and Area 4.
Monitoring walls in Area 3 are approximately 1000 feet apart, whereas
certain wells in Area 4 are 700 feet apart. Due to the geology of the
site, the waste disposal practices in Area 3 and the proximity of Area 4
to the Little Calumet River, the Task Force has concluded that this is
not an adequate spacing for a ground-water monitoring system to provide
immediate detection of hazardous waste constituents migrating to the
ground-water.
-------
-39-
The Task Force also was concerned with the location of wells along the
east side of Area 3. This area contains a leachate barrier wall, designed
to divide the hazardous waste cells from non-hazardous' waste disposal
cells. It is the conclusion of the Task Force that all of Area 3 must be
considered to contain hazardous waste for RCRA groundwater monitoring pur-
poses.
Between November 1980 and July 1983, CID placed hazardous waste in four
surface impoundments. The impoundments were located 1000 feet south of
Area 3 and 2000 feet north of Area 4. CID has documented that Area 3 and
Area 4 define separate ground-water monitoring systems. The Task Force,
therefore, has concluded that since CID had not submitted formal closure
plans for the surface impoundments, they remain active RCRA units subject
to ground-water monitoring to determine if there is an impact on ground-
water quality.
Well Construction
From information supplied by CID, it was determined that the well casings
and screens were constructed of polyvinyl chloride. The screens and cas-
ing sections were connected with flush joints. The annular space of the
wells contains a sandpack surrounding the screen followed by a bentonite
seal, varying in length of 0.5 feet to over two feet, and finished off
with a bentonite cement grout. Construction details for CID's wells are
listed in Table 3.
-------
-40-
The Task Force is concerned with CID's choice of PVC for the casing and
screen material for the newer wells installed in 1984. the IEPA had re-
quested that these wells be constructed of an inert material, either
Teflon or stainless steel, but the facility installed wells with PVC cas-
ings. The Task Force concurs with the IEPA and, therefore, recommends
that any new wells be installed using inert materials. If CID has to
analyze 40 CFR 261 Appendix VII or Appendix VIII constituents the PVC in
the present monitoring well network would interfere with the collection
and analyses of low level concentrations of organic compounds included in
these Appendices.
-------
-41-
TABLE 2
Zone Monitored by CID Monitoring Wells '
Well
6101
G102
G104
G105
G107R
G10S
G12S
G12DR
G13SR
G13DR
G14S
G14DR
G15S
G15DR
G16S
616D
6200
G21D
G22DR
Zone Monitored
Dolton Sand
Dolton Sand
Dolton Sand
Oolton Sand
Dolton Sand
Dolton Sand
Dolton Sand
Silurian Dolomite
Dolton Sand
Silurian Dolomite
Dolton Sand
Silurian Dolomite
Dolton Sand
Silurian Dolomite
Dolton Sand
Silurian Dolomite
Silurian Dolomite
Silurian Dolomite
Silurian Dolomite
Well
G201
G202
G203R
G204
G205
G206
G207
G208
G209
G210
G213
6215
G216
G217
G218
G219
6220
6221
Zone Monitored
Dolton Sand
Silurian Dolomite
Silurian Dolomite
Dolton Sand
Dolton Sand
Silurian Dolomite
Dolton Sand
Silurian Dolomite
Dolton Sand
Silurian Dolomite
Dolton Sand
Dolton Sand
Silurian Dolomite
Dolton Sand
Silurian Dolomite
Dolton Sand
Silurian Dolomite
Dolton Sand
-------
-42-
TABLE 2
Construction Data For CID's Monitoring Wells3
Well
6201
G202
6203R
G204
6205
G206
6207
6208
6209
6210
6213
6215
6216
6217
6218
6219
6220
6221
610S
612S
G12DR
613SR
613DR
614S
614DR
615S
615DR
616S
Date
completed
11/24/82
11/22/82
04/18/83
11/12/82
11/24/82
11/15/82
11/16/82
11/15/82
Jan. 1984
11/4/82
04/15/83
06/02/83
Jan. 1984
1/12/85
Jan. 1984
1/12/84
Jan. 1984
1/18/84
1980
1980
June 1983
1980
June 1983
1980
1980
Total
Depthb
(feet)
12.3
69.48
84.46
18.94
15.98
74.92
14.96
69.24
No Data
74.36
21.45
19.43
69.24
13.45
79.40
13.96
76.57
12.23
9.80
8.75
53.92
10.29
84.36
19.83
90.52
19.89
98.98
14.90
Top of Well
Elevation
(MSL)C
AREA 4
589.63
590.02
593.71
594.00
593.38
593.12
598.55
589.51
587.94
587.55
594.51
592.60
586.52
587.55
588.06
587.92
587.74
588.27
AREA 3
589.28
585.88
585.61
591.31
589.34
590.10
590.62
587.86
588.48
587.95
Screen
Length
(feet)
4.0
9.3
9.1
4.2
4.2
9.3
4.2
9.3
No Data
9.3
9.1
5.0
8.9
4.7
8.9
8.9
8.9
4.7
5.0
1.0"
1.0h
5.0
9.5
1.0"
9.5
l.Oh
5.0
l.Oh
Casi
Diameter
(inch)
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
No Data
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
4
2
4
2
2
2
ng
Material
PVCd
PVCe
PVCe
PVCe
PVCd
PVCe
PVCd
PVCe
pvcf
PVCe
PVCe
PVCe
PVCe
PVCd
PVCe
PVCd
PVCe
PVCd
PVCd
PVCd
PVCe
PVCd
PVCe
PVCd
PVCe
PVCd
PVC9
PVCd
-------
-43-
TABLE 2 Con't.
Well
61 6D
G20D
G21D
G22DR
6101
6102
G104
6105
G107R
Date
completed
1980
Pre 1980
Pre 1980
Pre 1980
Pre 1980
June 1983
Total
Depthb
(feet)
79.43
91.45
62.26
85.58
42.96
42.48
84.75
Top of Well
Elevation
(MSL)C
588.39
590.64
590.45
592.46
Areas 1 and
590.23
Screen
Length
(feet)
1.0n
5.0
5.0
5.0
2
10
Casi
Diameter
(inch)
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
"9
Material
pvcq
pvcq
pvcq
pvcq
PVCf
PVCf
pvcf
PVCf
PVCe
a) Source: Boring logs and Well Wizard Installion Data Sheets supplied by
CID.
b) Total depth of well, for wells 6209, 6101, 6102, 6104, and 6105 this is
measured from top of outside cap. For all other wells this is mea-
sured from top of Well Wizard Cap.
c) Elevation are either of top outside cap or top of Well Wizard cap.
d) Sample pump 1 ft. off bottom, no purge pump.
e) Sample pump 2 ft. off bottom, purge pump 8 ft. off bottom.
f) Well is purged and sampled with a bailer.
g) Sample pump 2 ft. off bottom, no information available for purge pump.
h) Length of screen is supplied by CID and may be incorrect.
Whether these wells have been installed properly could not be determined
from the information provided. The Task Force is concerned about the
choice of PVC for the casing and screen material for the wells installed
in 1984. The IEPA had requested that these wells use inert materials
(i.e. Teflon® or stainless steel). The Task Force thus recommends that
any new or replacement wells be installed using inert materials.
-------
_44-
SAMPLE COLLECTION AND HANDLING PROCEDURES
During the inspection, samples were collected by an EPA contractor to de-
termine if the ground-water contains hazardous waste constituents or other
indicators of contamination. Water was collected from 26 of CID's 37
ground-water monitoring wells (Table 4).
CID's sample contractor, Gulf Coast Laboratories, operated pumps and hand-
led all bailers during both the purging and sampling of all wells. Fifteen
of the wells equipped with well Wizard® pump also contained a QED purge
pump used to lower well water levels quickly. The following procedures
were used to collect samples:
1. EPA sampling contractor monitored open well head for chemical
vapors and radiation.
2. CID's contractor measured depth to ground-water using either a
Slope Indicator* or the Well Wizard* static water level indica-
tor.
3. CID's contractor then calculated the height of the water column
from the depth to water measurement and well depth (from well
construction records).
4. CID's contractor and EPA's field team member calculated water
volume using the height of water column and well radius.
5. CID's contractor then either purged well to dryness or purged at
least three well volumes.
6. Wells were sampled immediately if three volumes were removed or
allowed to recover over night if purged dry.
-------
-45-
TABLE 4
Summary of Data Collected During the Collection of
the Tisk Force Samples from CID's Monitoring Wells
Well No,
Sampling
Date Time
Remarks
G10S
G12DR
G12S
G13DR
G13SR
G14DR
G14S
G15DR
G15S
G20D
G21D
G22R
G201
G202
G203R
G204
G205
G206
G207
G208
G209
6210
G213
G215
G216
11/18/85 15:05-15:50
11/18/85 14:07-14:16
11/18/85 14:32-14:46
11/20/85 07:47-08:02
11/19/85 13:54-14:25
11/22/85 08:58-09:15
11/21/85 13:11-13:28
11/20/85 11:54-12:08
11/20/85 12:52-13:05
11/18/85 09:52-10:02
11/18/85 11:45-12:57
11/19/85 10:18-10:44
11/14/85
11/12/85
14:17-14:34
14:01-14:14
11/12/85 16:02-16:31
Not Sampled
11/15/85 11:16-11:41
11/13/85 14:05-14:18
Not Sampled
Not Sampled
Not Sampled
Not Sampled
11/15/85 07:18-07:58
Not Sampled
Not Sampled
Used slope indicator for
water level, no reading
on Well Wizard water level
indicator when installed;
Containers Omitted-one ex-
tractable organic.
Well purged on 11/19/85; over-
night recovery.
Used slope indicator for water
level, Well Wizard water level
indicator was off scale.
Containers omitted-Dissolved
metals, cyanide, phenols, TOC,
Nitrate/ammonia, sulfate/
chloride.
Triplicate collected.
Water cloudy
Water cloudy; one VOA bottle
broken in shipment.
Duplicate collected.
Water cloudy
Water cloudy
Well purged on 11/14/85; over-
night recovery.
Bladder in sample pump failed
during well purging.
-------
-46-
TABLE 4 cont.
Well No.
Sampling
Date Time
Remarks
G217
6218
6219
G220
6221
6101
6102
G104
6105
11/15/85 13:59-14:55
11/14/85 09:27-09:41
11/14/85 15:06-15:55
11/13/85 09:55-10:07
11/15/85 12:07-12:24
Not Sampled
Not Sampled
11/22/85 10:32
11/22/85 10:23
Containers omitted - one ex-
tractable organics, sulfate/
chloride.
Water cloudy.
Containers omitted - one ex-
tractable organics, TOX, phenols,
cyanide, nitrate/ammonia, sulfate/
chloride.
Water level taken with a slope
indicator, Well Wizard water
level indicator was off scale.
Containers omitted - nitrate/
ammonia; sulfate/chloride.
Well purged 11/21/85, overnight
recovery; purged and sampled with
a bailer; sufficient water for
only four VGA's remaining para-
meters omitted; water level taken
with slope indicator.
Well purged 11/21/85, overnight
recovery; purged and sampled with
a boiler; sufficient sample for
only four VOA's POX, POC; remain-
ing samples omitted; water level
taken with slope indicator.
6107R
11/22/85 07:58-10:48
Duplicate collected.
-------
-47-
Parameter
TABLE 5
PREFERRED ORDER OF SAMPLE COLLECTION
BOTTLE TYPE, and PRESERVATIVE LIST '
Bottle-Type
1. Volatile organics
Purge and Trap
Direct Inject
2. Purgeable organic
carbon (POC)
3. Purgeable organic
halogens (POX)
4. Extractable organics
5. Total metals
6. Dissolved metals
7. Total organic carbon
(TOC)
8. Dioxin
9. Total organic halogens
(TOX)
10. Phenols
11. Cyanide
12. Sulfate and chloride
13. Nitrate and ammonia
2 - 60 ml VOA vials
2 - 60 ml VOA vials
1 - 60 ml VOA vial
1 - 60 ml VOA vial
4-1 qt. amber glass
1 qt. plastic
1 qt. plastic
4 oz. glass
1-1 qt. amber glass
1 qt. amber glass
1 qt. amber glass
1 qt. plastic
1 qt. plastic
1 qt. plastic
Preservative
Cool 4°C No head space
Cool 4°C No head space
Cool 4°C
No head space
Cool 4°C
No head space
Cool 4°C
HN03
HN03
H2S04 Cool 4°C
Cool 4°C
Cool 4°C
No headspace
H2S04 Cool 4°C
NaOH Cool 4°C
Cool 4°C
Cool 4°C
-------
-48-
7. CID's contractor operated the Well Wizard sample pump and EPA
contractor collected sample aliquots for 'ield measurements (pH,
water temperature, specific conductance).
8. EPA contractor filled sample containers in the order shown on
Table 5. The volatile organic samples were collected by filling
the sample container directly form the discharge line.
9. Samples were placed in insulated containers filled with ice.
*
10. The EPA contractor took the samples to a staging area, within 2
hours after sampling, for turbidity measurement, and filtering
of one of the metals samples. In addition, phenols, cyanide,
nitrate, TOC, total metals, dissolved metals and ammonia samples
were preserved as shown in Table 5.
Duplicate volatile organic samples, split samples of all other parameters,
and performance evaluation QC samples were offered to CID, but they de-
clined them.
-------
-49-
The EPA contractor also prepared and submitted to the contract laborator-
ies two types of blanks during the inspection period. These blanks were
submitted with no distinguishing labels or markings. The first type, a
field blank, was prepared each day by pouring distilled water into the
appropriate containers near one of the well sampled that day. Table 6
shows the location, date, and time these nine blanks were prepared. Also
one set of samples containers were filled with distilled water at the EPA
contractor's laboratory, brought to the site but not opened, and submitted
for analyses for each parameter group as a trip blank.
TABLE 6
Location of Field Blank
Date
11/12/85
11/13/85
11/14/85
11/15/85
11/18/85
11/19/85
11/20/85
11/21/85
11/22/85
Time
11:55
15:40
12:30
12:30
13:50
12:25
13:45
11:00
Location*
G 202
6 206
G 219
G 221
G 210
G 135R
G 15DR
G 145
G105
* Blank poured in field near well listed above.
-------
APPENDIX A
ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES AND RESULTS FOR TASK FORCE SAMPLES
CID, CALUMET CITY. ILLINOIS
-------
A-l
ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES AND RESULTS FOR TASK FORCE SAMPLES
CID CALUMET CITY, ILLINOIS
This appendix discusses the analytical techniques, methods, and results for the
water samples collected by the Ground-Water Task Force at CID, Calumet City,
Illinois. Field measurements were made by the EPA contractor at the time of
sampling for pH and specific conductance. Laboratory analysis results were
obtained from two EPA contractor laboratories (CL) participating in the Contract
Laboratory Program (CLP). Specified organic compounds were analysed at one CL
and metals and other parameters at the other CL. Table A-l gives a summary of
analytical techniques and reference methods, by parameter, for sample analyses.
Standard quality control measures were taken including: (1) the analysis of
field and laboratory blanks to allow distinction of possible contamination due
to sample handling, (2) analysis of laboratory spiked samples and performance
evaluation samples and comparison of the CL results with NEIC split sample
analyses to estimate accuracy, (3) analysis of laboratory duplicates and field
triplicates to estimate precision and (4) the review and interpretation of the
results of these control measures. The performance evaluation samples were
samples of known analyte concentrations prepared by the EPA Environmental
Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio.
ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR WATER SAMPLES
Specific Organic Analytical Results
Of the 26 wells sampled during the inspection only three samples contained
organic compounds above the detection limit. These compounds were:
1,2-Dichloroethane - 5.1 ug/1 at well G201
Acetone - 15 ug/1 at well G213
4,4' - DDT - 0.29 ug/1 at well G107R (Duplicate sample)
-------
A-2
The results are all just above the method detection limits for these para-
meters. The 4,4' - DDT was found in only one of the two samples taken at
Well G107R. Table A-2 shows the Limits of Quantitation for Organic Com-
pounds.
Metals Analytical Results
As can be seen from Table A-3 there are a number of wells where the analy-
tical results show dissolved metals to be higher than the total metals for
a given well. Sample differentiation is made in the field at the time the
EPA sample contractor filters and preserves the samples. The spiking solu-
tions used are different for dissolved and total metals. Quality control
checks by the CL and the use of different field spiking solutions indicate
that dissolved metals are generally biased high and must be considered
qualitative and not quantitative. Therefore, a comparison of total and
dissolved metals for a given well cannot be made.
The total metals results are reliable with the following limitations. Lead
values should only be considered reliable above 15 ug/1. Selenium results
are reliable only above 10 ug/1. The holding time on all mercury samples
was exceeded which is presumed to cause a negative bias. Also, the detec-
tion limit for mercury is considered to be at 4.0 ug/1. In the analysis
of some of the samples, the laboratory analyzed sodium at concentrations
above the linear calibration of their instrument. This would compromise
the value of the sodium data though it should be noted that sodium is not
of concern for ground-water samples. The laboratory also had a problem
in verifying calcium interference in the analysis of heavy metals. This
would result in unreliable data for heavy metals at low concentrations.
Laboratory spike recoveries indicate that aluminum, antimony and barium
are biased low, whereas, the silver recoveries are biased high.
-------
A-3
The following metals were found in three wells above concentration limits
given in 40 CFR 265 Appendix III:
Arsenic Cadmium Chromium Selenium
Well G213 100 ug/1 225 ug/1
Well G217 69.5 ug/1
Well G14DR 18 ug/1 114 ug/1
Appendix III Limit 50 ug/1 10 ug/1 50 ug/1 10 ug/1
General Analysis Results
Field measurements and the results of the other analytical results are
given in Table A-4. The reliability of these results is given below.
The contract laboratory encountered significant problems with four of the
ten indicator parameters in the performance evaluation samples submitted
along with the monitoring well samples. The laboratory was a factor of
five low on cyanide, which was reported as below detection limits for all
well samples. Also, the monitoring well samples were analyzed after the
required holding time for cyanide. The laboratory was a factor of three
high for nitrate nitrogen, a factor of two high for ammonia nitrogen, and
did not detect any POX. The results for these four parameters are there-
fore unreliable. The laboratory performed well in analyzing of the re-
maining indicator parameters, (sulfate, POC, TOX, TOC, total phenol, and
chloride) and the results are acceptable.
Field parameters were conducted by EPA's sample contractor for pH, speci-
fic conductance, temperature, and turbidity. The first three parameters
were taken at the well location, whereas the turbidity sample was taken
back to the contrators sample preparation area. The data for these para-
meters is given in Table A-4. For three wells, G104, G105 and G15S, the
turbidity results were not recorded in field log books supplied by EPA.
With the exception of low pH values found in wells G10S (5.9), G12DR
(5.4), and G12S (5.8) the Task Force samples did not contain any unusual
amounts of the indicator parameters.
-------
table A-I
Sample Preparation and Analysts Techniques and Methods
Parameter
Preparation Technique
Analysts Technique
Method Reference
Conductance
ptl
Turbidity
POX
101
POC
IIPOC
Amman Ia
Chloride
Nitrate
Sulfate
Cyanide
Phenol
Mercury
As, Pb, Se and Tl
Other Elements
Volatlles
Seml-volatiles
Pesttctdes/PCB
Herbicides
None
None
None
None
Carbon absorption
None
Acldtfy and purge
Partlculates settled
Parttcutates settled
Partlculates settled
Partlculates settled
Manual distillation
Manual distillation
Wet digestion for dissolved and total
Acid digestion for total
Acid digestion for total
Purge and trap
Direct Injection
Methylene chloride extraction
Hethylene chlortde/hexane extraction
Dtethylether extract ion/methyl at Ion
Electrometrlc, Uheatstone Bridge
Potenttometry
Nephelometric
Purgable combusted, Mlcrocoulometry
Carbon combusted, Microcoulometry
Purgable combusted. Non-dispersive Infrared
Liquid combusted, Non-dispersive Infrared
Phenolate Colortmetry of supernatant
Mercuric Precipitation Tltratlon of supernatant
Bructne Sulfate Colorimetry of supernatant
Barium Sulfate Turbldlmetry of supernatant
Pyrldtne Barbituric Acid Colortmetry
Ferrtcyantde 4-Amtnoantipyrtne Colorimetry
Cold Vapor Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy
Furnace Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy
Inductively Coupled Plasma Emission Spectroscopy
Gas Chromatography with Electron Capture Detection
Gas Chrumatography - Mass Spectroscopy or
Gas Chromatography with Flame lonlzatton Detection
Gas Chromatography - Mass Spectroscopy
Gas Chromatography with Electron Capture Detection
Gas Chromatography with Electron Capture Detection
\
Method 120.1 (a)
Method 150.1 (a)
No reference
EPA 600/4-84-008
Method 9020 (b)
No reference
Method 415.1 (a)
Method 350.1 (a)
Method 9252 (b)
Method 9200 |b)
Method 9038 (b)
CLP Method (c)
Method 420.1 (a)
'CLP Method
CLP Method
CLP Method
CLP Method
CLP Method
CLP Method
CLP Method
CLP Method
Method 8150 (bl
a) Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes, EPA-600/4-79-020.
b) Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Hastes, SU-846.
c) Contract Laboratory Program, IFB methods.
-------
A-5
LIMITS OF gUANTITATION FOR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
Limit of U«i1t af tieU of
Quant Hat ion Quant1Ut1on Quantitation
(MO/1)
Bate/Heutral Coaoound*
Acanaphtnene
1.2.4-tHcnlorobaiuen*,
Hexac h 1 orobenzene
HexacnloroethBfle
b«»(2-Chloroa«iy1 )etfier
2-Chl oronapntha 1 «ne
l.2-01cnlqrobenzen«
1.3-0ichloroben«ne
l.4-01ch1orobenz«ne
2. 4-Dtnitro toluene
2.6-Olnitrotp'uene
1.2-D1pheny1hruraz
Benze(a)pyrene
8enzo(b)fluorantnene and/or
Benza( k)f luorantnen*
Chryiene
Acenapntiiy 1 «ne
Anthracene
Benzo(g,n,i )pery1ene
Fluorene
PhenanCnrene
Olbenzo(a. h)antnracen«
Indeno(1.2.3-c,d)pyrene
Pyrene
Benzidlne
3.3'-01enlorob«nz1«
b *««sur*d as dzpneny 1 aaun*
* Mae Anmlammfi
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
NA-
10
10
10
10
10
10
20
10
10
10
NA
40 '
20
40
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
NA
100
10
10
20
100
10
10
100
10
10
10
10
10
100
100
•Ada Coacomxu
2.4,6-THcnloroanenol
Parachl oroe*t*cre*o 1
2-Cntoropnenat
2.4-OlcfiIorophenol
2.4-Otnetnylphenat
2-NUropnenol
4-Nitropnenol
2,4-Qlnttropnenol
4.6-D1«1tro-o-eresot
Ptntach 1 aropneno I
Pnenol
Benzoic acid
4-Methylpnenol (p-cresol)
2-Metnylpnenol (o-cr*sol)
2.4,5-Trlcnloropnenol
Volatile Conpounds
Benzene
Broxod 1 en 1 oroaetnane
Bromafora
Bromome thane
Carbon Tetracnlorfde
CMorobenjene
Ch> oroe thane
Chlorofore)
Chlorovethane
0 1 broooch) oro«e thane
1.1-Ofcnloroetnane
1.2-Oichloroe thane
l.l-0icn)oroetnene
tran*-X.2-01chloreethene
1. 2-01 eh'oropro pane
Ethyl benzene
Methyl ene chloride
1 . 1 .2 . 2- Tetracfl t oroeutane
Tetr ach 1 oroe then*
Toluene
1.1.1-Trlchloroethane
1.1. 2-TMehl oro» thane
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
Acetone
2-Sutanone (MEK)'
1.2-01bronoetnane (£08)
2-Hexanone
Xylenes
l.4-01oxane
1.2-Oibro«o-2-cnloropropane
Pyridine
Acrolein
Acrylonltrlle
Carbon dlsulfidei
trans- 1 . 3-01 chl oropropene
ci»-l.3-01chloropropene
2- Chl oroe thy Uiny lether
Styrene
vmyl acetate
4-««thyl-2-pentanone (MIBK)
(MO/t)
10
20
10
10
10
10
50
50
SO
SO
10
SO
10
10
50
S
S
S
10
S
S
10
S
10
S
S
5
5
S
S
5
S
S
s
S
S
S
S
10
50
20
20
20
S
SOD
100
100
500
500
5
S
5
40
5
40
20
Pesticldes/PCBa
AldHn
alpha-BMC
beta-SHC
gaiM-BHC
delta-BNC
Chlordane
4,4'-000
4.4--OOE
4. 4* -DOT
OleldHn
Endoaulfan I
Endosulfan II
Endosulfan sutfate
Endrin
Endrln aldehyde
Heptachlor
Kept ach lor epoxlde
Tqxephene
He thoxy en lor
Endrin Intone
PCS- 1016
PCS- 1221
PCS- 1232
PCS- 1242
PCS- 1248
PC8-1254
KB- 1260
.
(yg/i)
O.OS
0.05
0.05
0.05
O.OS
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.05
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.05
.0.05
1
0.5
0.1
.5
1
1
0.5
0.5
1
1
-------
A-6
TABLE A-3
DISSOLVED AND TOTAL METALS RESULTS
FOR MONITORING WELLS AT CID
PARAMETER
(ug/1)
ALUMINUM
ANTIMONY
ARSENIC
BARIUM
BERILIUM
CADMIUM
CALCIUM
CHROMIUM
COBALT
COPPER
IRON
LEAD
MAGNESIUM
MANGANESE
MERCURY
NICKEL
POTASSIUM
SELENIUM
SILVER
SODIUM
THALLIUM
TIN
VANADIUM
ZINC
HELL
6104
TOTAL
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
WELL HELL
6104 G105
DISSOLVED TOTAL
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
HELL WELL WELL WELL HELL
6105 6107R 6107R 6107R (DUP) 6107R (DUP)
DISSOLVED TOTAL DISSOLVED TOTAL DISSOLVED
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
1490
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
18600
ND
ND
ND
1030
ND
6740
70
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
90700
ND
ND
ND
7
584
ND
ND
NJ>
ND
ND
19800
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
6400
70
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
93100
ND
ND
ND
158
1310
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
18400
ND
ND
ND
1030
ND
6730
70
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
90400
ND
ND
ND
7
2960
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
19400
ND
ND
ND
245
ND
6720
75
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
89000
ND
ND
ND
29
NOTE: ALL DISSOLVED METALS DATA REPORTED ARE QUALITATIVE ONLY.
NS-NDT SAMPLED, INSUFFICENT UATER IN UELL.
ND-NDT DETECTED ABOVE THE METHOD DETECTION LIMIT.
-------
TABLE A-3(continued)
DISSOLVED AND TOTAL METALS RESULTS
FOR MONITORING HELLS AT CID
PARAMETER
(ug/1)
ALUMINUM
ANTIMONY
ARSENIC
BARIUM
GERILIUM
CADMIUM
CALCIUM
CHROMIUM
COBALT
COPPER
IRON
LEAD
MAGNESIUM
MANGANESE
MERCURY
NICKEL
POTASSIUM
SELENIUM
SILVER
SODIUM
THALLIUM
TIN
VANADIUM
ZINC
UELL NELL
6201 6201
TOTAL DISSOLVED
120
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
154000
ND
ND
ND
2B9
ND
56100
23
M>
ND
ND
ND
ND
101000
ND
ND
ND
13
ND
ND
ND
48
ND
ND
173000
15
ND
ND
ND
ND
£6700
27
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
116000
ND
44
ND
32
UELL UELL
6202 6202
TOTAL DISSOLVED
16600
ND
ND
88
ND
ND
35400
19
ND
ND
12000
8.9
17900
232
ND
ND
9540
ND
ND
77700
ND
ND
24
20
276
ND
ND
152
ND
ND
15100
ND
ND
ND
147
ND
5400
39
ND
ND
3360
ND
ND
81100
ND
36
ND
1B7
UELL UELL UELL UELL
6203R 6203R 6203R (DUP) 6203R (DUP)
TOTAL DISSOLVED TOTAL DISSOLVED
100
ND
ND
186
ND
ND
7B400
ND
ND
ND
4440
ND
29500
29
ND
ND
4090
2.2
ND
143000
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
88200
ND
ND
ND
4600
ND
35000
27
ND
ND
4850
ND
ND
163000
ND
ND
ND
11
238
ND
ND
183
ND
ND
74600
ND
ND
ND
4670
ND
29100
36
ND
ND
4190
ND
ND
141000
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
217
ND
ND
90400
ND
ND
ND
4760
ND
34100
27
ND
ND
4890
ND
ND
162000
ND
ND
ND
3B
NOTE: ALL DISSOLVED METALS DATA REPORTED ARE QUALITATIVE ONLY.
ND-NOT DETECTED ABOVE THE METHOD DETECTION LIMIT.
-------
A-8
TABLE A-3(continued)
DISSOLVED AND TOTAL METALS RESULTS
FOR MONITORING WELLS AT CID
PARAMETER
(ug/I)
ALUMINUM
ANTIMONY
ARSENIC
BARIUM
BERILIUM
CADMIUM
CALCIUM
CHROMIUM
COBALT
COPPER
IRON
LEAD
MAGNESIUM
MANGANESE
MERCURY •
NICKEL
POTASSIUM
SELENIUM
SILVER
SODIUM
THALLIUM
TIN
VANADIUM
ZINC
UELL
6205
TOTAL
187
107
ND
ND
ND
ND
496000
9
ND
16
1140
ND
68300
448
ND
ND
ND
3.7
17
56600
ND
ND
20
ND
UELL
6205
DISSOLVED
ND
138
ND
ND
ND
7
500000
13
ND
ND
1370
ND
106000
580
ND
ND
ND
4.6
ND
88800
ND
73
ND
76
UELL
6206
TOTAL
4760
ND
ND
56
ND
ND
38500
ND
ND
ND
6700
ND
19000
239
ND
ND
4400
ND
ND
76500
ND
ND
ND
9
UELL
6206
DISSOLVED
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
288000
ND
ND
ND
ND
UELL
6213
TOTAL
350
65
100
980
ND
3
104000
29
25
12
6490
ND
291000
97
ND
138
145000
225
10
2770000
ND
ND
38
ND
UELL
6213
DISSOLVED
45
83
8.2
906
ND
ND
104000
33
27
10
2050
ND
288000
81
ND
146
146000
154
10
2870000
ND
63
33
95
NDTE:ALL DISSOLVED METALS DATA REPORTED ARE QUALITATIVE ONLY.
ND-NOT DETECTED ABOVE THE METHOD DETECTION LIMIT.
-------
A-9
TABLE A-3(continued)
DISSOLVED AND TOTAL METALS RESULTS
FOR MONITORING HELLS AT CID
PARAMETER
(ug/1)
ALUMINUM
ANTIMONY
ARSENIC
BARIUM
BERILIUM
CADMIUM
CALCIUM
CHROMIUM
COBALT
COPPER
IRON
LEAD
NA6NESIUM
MANGANESE
MERCURY
NICKEL
POTASSIUM
SELENIUM
SILVER
SODIUM
THALLIUM
TIN
VANADIUM
ZINC
HELL WELL
6217 6217
TOTAL DISSOLVED
100
82
69.5
64
ND
3
553000
14
ND
ND
2430
ND
151000
14BO
ND
50
18800
22.4
ND
383000
ND
118
ND
IB
ND
114
ND
64
ND
8
534000
16
ND
ND
3510
ND
151000
1440
ND
54
18500
15.5
ND
370000
ND
73
ND
69
HELL UE1
6218 6218
TOTAL DISSOLVED
1070
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
14500
ND
ND
ND
1110
ND
6290
31
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
81200
ND
ND
ND
ND
1820
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
14000
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5500
14
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
91200
ND
ND
ND
34
HELL HELL
6219 6219
TOTAL DISSOLVED
401
121
ND
ND
ND
4
631000
7
ND
ND
289
ND
170000
1340
ND
36
47800
9.8
ND
405000
ND
87
ND
18
95
122
ND
51
ND
ND
615000
18
ND
ND
259
ND
20900
1510
ND
39
55100
39.2
ND
511000
ND
88
ND
20
HELL, HELL
6220 6220
TOTAL DISSOLVED
674
61
ND
ND
ND
ND
7070
ND
ND
ND
259
ND
ND
16
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
82200
ND
ND
ND
ND
91
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
7430
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
3340
9
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
104000
ND
ND
ND
ND
HELL HELL
6221 6221
TOTAL DISSOLVED
190
ND
30.4
409
ND
ND
363000
11
ND
ND
29500
ND
88700
1570
ND
ND
56100
23.4
ND
550000
ND
58
ND
8
ND
89
ND
435
ND
ND
368000
17
ND
ND
25100
ND
98700
1610
ND
ND
62500
73.7
ND
656000
ND
60
ND
9
NOTE: ALL DISSOLVED METALS DATA ARE REPORTED QUALITATIVE ONLY.
ND-NOT DETECTED ABOVE THE METHOD DETECTION LIMIT.
-------
A-10
TABLE A-3(continued)
DISSOLVED AND TOTAL METALS RESULTS
FDR MONITORING HELLS AT CID
PARAMETER
(ug/1)
ALUMINUM
ANTIMONY
ARSENIC
BARIUM
BERILIUM
CADMIUM
CALCIUM
CHROMIUM
COBALT
COPPER
IRON
LEAD
MAGNESIUM
MANGANESE
MERCURY
NICKEL
POTASSIUM
SELENIUM
SILVER
SODIUM
THALLIUM
TIN
VANADIUM
ZINC
NELL WELL
BIOS BIOS
TOTAL DISSOLVED
174
NO
ND
62
ND
ND
ND
7
ND
NO
ND
ND
107000
41
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
41100
ND
70
ND
26
ND
ND
ND
62
ND
5
202000
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
106000
34
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
41500
ND
49
ND
37
WELL UELL
B12DR 612DR
TOTAL DISSOLVED
512
ND
ND
102
ND
ND
37300
ND
ND
ND
1750
ND
24800
56
ND
ND
3680
ND
ND
102000
ND
ND
ND
11
ND
ND
ND
B4
ND
4
7B400
6
ND
ND
1010
ND
22000
46
ND
ND
3470
ND
ND
91500
ND
ND
ND
38
HELL UELL
612S 612S
TOTAL DISSOLVED
4540
ND
12.3
ND
ND
ND
114000
7
ND
ND
15200
12.4
41100
378
ND
ND
3930
ND
ND
95800
ND
59
ND
44
68
ND
ND
233
ND
ND
74800
21
ND
ND
656
ND
23900
183
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
88200
ND
ND
ND
224
NOTE: ALL DISStLVED METALS DATA ARE REPORTED QUALITATIVE ONLY.
ND-NOT DETECTED ABOVE THE METHOD DETECTION LIMIT.
-------
A-ll
TABLE ft-3(continued)
DISSOLVED AND TOTAL METALS RESULTS
FOR MONITORING WELLS AT CID
PARAMETER
(ug/1)
ALUMINUM
ANTIMONY
ARSENIC
BARIUM
BERILIUM
CADMIUM
CALCIUM
CHROMIUM
COBALT
COPPER
IRON
LEAD
MAGNESIUM
MQUCQUCCP
nrffwrvlLSC
MERCURY
NICKEL
POTASSIUM
SELENIUM
SILVER
SODIUM
THALLIUM
TIN
VANADIUM
ZINC
WELL WELL
613DR 613DR
TOTAL DISSOLVED
1830
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
11600
10
ND
ND
1040
9.5
ND
28
ND
ND
3960
ND
ND
80800
ND
ND
ND
7
163
ND
ND
ND
ND
3
9380
ND
ND
ND
401
ND
4920
23
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
72500
ND
ND
ND
20
HELL HELL
613SR 613SR
TOTAL DISSOLVED
2020
109
ND
ND
ND
4
673000
19
36
17
7080
ND
239000
2560
ND
49
25100
2.4
ND
2880000
ND
136
ND
51
130
79
ND
ND
ND
ND
700000
16
ND
ND
4910
ND
235000
2380
ND
41
21200
ND
ND
143000
ND
160
ND
157
UELL WELL
614DR 614DR
TOTAL DISSOLVED
78500
139
21.4
301
2
IB
476000
114
67
124
104000
46.5
217000
2620
ND
144
ND
ND
ND
125000
ND
124
160
272
888
ND
ND
724
ND
ND
43000
6
ND
ND
1850
ND
17700
132
ND
ND
4490
2.1
ND
136000
ND
ND
ND
427
NOTE: ALL DISSOLVED METALS DATA REPORTED ARE QUALITATIVE ONLY.
ND-NDT DETECTED ABOVE THE METHOD DETECTION LIMIT.
-------
TABLE A-3(continued)
DISSOLVED AND TOTAL METALS RESULTS
FOR NONITORIN6 WELLS AT CID
PARAMETER
(ug/1)
ALUMINUM
AHTIMONY
ARSENIC
BARIUM
BERILIUM
CADMIUM
CALCIUM
CHROMIUM
COBALT
COPPER
IRON
LEAD
MA6NESIUM
MANGANESE
MERCURY
NICKEL
POTASSIUM
SELENIUM
SILVER
SODIUM
THALLIUM
TIN
VANADIUM
ZINC
UELL UELL
615DR 615DR
TOTAL DISSOLVED
1690
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
11800
ND
ND
ND
1960
ND
6340
34
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
113000
ND
ND
ND
9
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
6990
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
3370
ND
ND
ND
ND
2.4
ND
114000
ND
ND
ND
69
UELL
G15S
TOTAL
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
UELL UELL UELL
6155 6200 6200
DISSOLVED TOTAL DISSOLVED
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
1960
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
14500
ND
ND
ND
1450
1.2
6400
35
ND
ND
3770
ND
ND
107000
ND
ND
ND
5
232
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
5620
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2490
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
10
8100
ND
ND
ND
50
NOTE: ALL DISSOLVED METALS DATA REPORTED ARE QUALITATIVE ONLY.
ND-NOT DETECTED ABOVE THE METHOD DETECTION LIMIT.
NS-flOT SAMPLED, INSUFFICENT HATER IN UELL
-------
A-13
TABLE A-3(continued)
DISSOLVED AND TOTAL NETALS RESULTS
FOR MONITORING WELLS AT CID
PARAMETER
(ug/1)
ALUMINUM
ANTIMONY
ARSENIC
BARIUM
BERILIUM
CADMIUM
CALCIUM
CHROMIUM
COBALT
COPPER
IRON
LEAD
MAGNESIUM
MANGANESE
MERCURY
NICKEL
POTASSIUM
SELENIUM
SILVER
SODIUM
THALLIUM
TIN
VANADIUM
ZINC
WELL HELL HELL WELL WELL HELL
621D 6210 6£1D (DUP) 621D (DUP) 621D (TRIP) 6210 (TRIP)
TOTAL DISSOLVED TOTAL DISSOLVED TOTAL DISSOLVED
335
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
11900
ND
ND
ND
363
ND
5070
7
ND
ND
3620
ND
ND
114000
ND
ND
ND
10
71
ND
ND
ND
ND
4
9180
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
3990
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
B8900
ND
ND
ND
ND
197
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
11800
ND
ND
ND
276
ND
5060
ND
ND
ND
3720
ND
ND
113000
ND
ND
ND
ND
499
ND
ND
ND
ND
4
9290
12
ND
11
ND
ND
3590
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
81700
ND
ND
ND
120
441
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
11700
ND
ND
ND
375
ND
5070
6
ND
ND
3450
ND
ND
113000
ND
ND
ND
10
71
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
9B20
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
4370
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
7
93800
ND
ND
ND
17
HELL HELL
622DR 622DR
TOTAL DISSOLVED
4830
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
15600
ND
ND
13
3400
8.4
9250
46
ND
ND
12100
ND
ND
291000
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
6930
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
3910
ND
ND
ND
10500
ND
ND
333000
ND
ND
ND
9
NOTE: ALL DISSOLVED METALS DATA REPORTED ARE QUALITATIVE ONLY.
ND-NDT DETECTED ABOVE THE METHOD DETECTION LIMIT.
-------
-------
A-15
TABLE A-4(continued)
FIELD MEASUREMENTS AND GENERAL CONSTITUENTS RESULTS
FOR MONITORING WELLS AT CID
PARAMETER
PH
Specific Conductivity
Tnperature (C)
Turbidity (NTU)
POX 1-Q/l)
POC («g/D
TDX (q/l)
TOC tag/I)
TOTAL PHENOL (ug/1)
AMMONIA NITROGEN («g/l)
NITRATE («g/l)
SULFATE (sg/l)
CHLORIDE ("S/D
CYANIDE (ug/1)
PARAMETER
PH
Specific Conductivity
Tnperature (C)
Turbidity (NTU)
POX («g/D
POC (»g/l)
TOX dg/1)
TOC («g/l)
TOTAL PHENOL (ug/1)
AMMONIA NITROGEN (ig/1)
NITRATE («g/l)
SULFATE («g/l)
CHLORIDE («g/l)
CYANIDE (ug/D
UELL
BIOS
5.9
1300
13
3.5
ND
ND
6
18
ND
ND
ND
520
95.1
ND
UELL
620D
6.9
360
12
26
ND
13
2.3
ND
10
ND
ND
ND
31.5
ND
UELL
612DR
5.4
700
13
7.6
ND
12
2.2
7.9
ND
0.39
ND
ND
25
ND
UELL
621D
7.7
410
14
4.6
ND
8.9
2.7
ND
ND
ND
ND
8.3
37.2
ND
UELL
G12S
5.8
BOO
14
31
ND
1.1
22
19
ND
2.05
0.2B
490
99.2
ND
UELL
UELL UELL
613DR G13SR
8.4 6.6
320 3000
8 13
20 26
ND ND
11 0.05
2.2 20
ND 41
13 10
0.3 2.65
ND 0.39
5.6 2100
40.3 126
ND ND
UELL UELL'
614DR G15DR
7.3 6.6
600 350
10 10
23 32
ND ND
12 13
9.6 2.3
24 ND
1.6 ND
107 0.44
1.4 ND
9 5.6
89.9 40.9
ND ND
UELL
615S
6.8
2150
11
NA
ND
0.07
NS
76
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
UELL UELL
621D (DUP) 621D (TRIP) G22DR
NS
MS
NS
ND
ND
ND
ND
NS
NS
NS
5.2 5.2
ND
8.4 7.6
2.6 2.4
ND
ND
2.3 0.36
ND
6.2 5.6
36.2 37.2
ND
ND
8.1
950
13
48
ND
12
2.5
7.7
ND
0.7
ND
5.6
28.1
ND
NA-NOT AVALIBLE, DATA NOT RECORDED IN FIELD LOG BOOK
NS-NOT SAMPLED,INSUFFICENT UATER IN UELL
ND-NOT DETECTED ABOVE THE METHOD DETECTION LIMIT
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region V, Library
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604 ,
------- |