May 1987 EPA-700 8-87 012
a
Hazardous Waste Ground-Water
Task Force
Evaluation of Peoria Disposal Co.
Peoria,IL
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
-------
MAY 1987
UPDATE OF THE HAZARDOUS WASTE GROUND-WATER
TASK FORCE EVALUATION OF PEORIA DISPOSAL COMPANY
The United States Environmental Protection Agency's Hazardous Waste Ground-water
Task Force ("Task Force"), in conjunction with the Illinois Environmental Pro-
tection Agency (IEPA), conducted an evaluation at the Peoria Disposal Company,
(PDC) hazardous waste disposal facility. Peoria Disposal was the 18th of 58
facilities to be evaluated by the Task Force. The Task Force effort is in re-
sponse to recent concerns as to whether owners and operators of hazardous waste
disposal facilities are complying with the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) ground-water monitoring regulations, and whether the ground-water
monitoring systems in place at the facilities are capable of detecting contam-
inant releases from waste management units. The PDC is located near Pottstown,
Illinois, which is just west of Peoria, Illinois. The on-site field inspection
was conducted over a one-week period from April 21 through April 25, 1986.
This update of the Task Force evaluation summarizes salient actions concerning
the facility subsequent to the field inspection.
Since the Task Force site visit, technical review of PDC's Part B permit appli-
cation has been ongoing. The ground-water monitoring system which was in place
during the Task Force evaluation is currently being modified in anticipation of
PDC receiving a finalized RCRA permit. When completed, the proposed well system
will approximately reduce by one-half the average downgradient well spacing
(i.e., to about 350 feet) which existed during the Task Force site visit. Also,
shallow perched-water zones are being addressed as possible contaminant trans-
port pathways by requiring additional shallow monitoring wells in such zones.
-------
Old upgradient and downgradient monitoring wells, originally constructed using
PVC pipe are being replaced. The new wells are to be constructed using inert ma-
terials (316 stainless steel) in the saturated zone to conform with the IEPA
policy. Six of the old PVC wells have already been replaced (G-109, G-110, G-
114, G-115, G-117, and R-118) and at least two more will be replaced before the
Part B permit is issued. These new wells will be designated G-129 through G-134.
The replacement wells for Wells G-109, G-110, and G-115 were also moved closer to
the point of compliance of the proposed permit.
Well G-120, which was the subject of ground-water quality assessment monitoring
during the Task Force inspection, has been returned to the indicator evaluation
program. Two shallow wells installed near Well G-120 after the Task Force inspec-
tion are in assessment. Samples from both these wells, designated G-120 F and
G-120 G, indicated the presence of low levels of vinyl chloride and chlorethane.
Wells G-123 and G-124 entered a program for ground-water quality assessment moni-
toring .in July 1986. The initial assessment revealed eight organic compounds in
Well G-123 and four of the same organic compounds in Well G-124. Additional
shallow and deep wells are being installed as part of the assessment monitoring
program for these wells.
The 1986 Ground Water Annual Report that PDC submitted on May 6, 1987, shows re-
visions to the 1986 potentiometric maps. At the time of the Task Force inspec-
tion, the presence of an apparent minor ground-water divide was evident in the
southwest corner of the site. This anomaly, evident in Figures 4 and 5 of this
report, resulted from the incorrect transposition of numbers from the land survey
data to maps. This transposition of numbers resulted in maps yielding a 3.7 foot
discrepancy in the ground-water surface at monitoring Well G-115. The following
map, revised May 5, 1987, eliminates the anomaly and indicates a less complicated
ground-water flow in an east-southeasterly direction.
-------
A closure plan for clean closure of the hazardous waste land treatment unit under
interim status was submitted to IEPA on July 13, 1987. The approximate location
of that unit is labeled "C-2" on Figure 2 of this report.
-------
A'^-^-'-AU
,.r;^i>
RtviudMiyb. IBH)
\
«4 75 Ml GfNEHALIZEO
POTENTIOMETHIC CONTOUH
MO MONITORING WELL
(J1 j7 LIB INUPPtflMOST AQUlFlEH
MONITOHING WELL
Q106^y IN (jl ACIAL OfllFT
••••••^ I'MijKOSEO POINT OF COMPLIANCE
t MANAGEMENT AHiA
t TOI'Oi.llAI'HY AND UOHING LOCAIIDNb
IAKIN I ItoM AEHO MtlRIC
f NCJNLt HlNO INC MAP RE VISE I) i/l Jilli,
J t'HOPObl U POINT OF COMPLIANCE BAbl I)
UN PLANNED LIMITS OF WAS1E, OIK I ANL>
[-- 3 WEI IS A BCD f, ANOG INSTALlf O IN
AUGUST 19/b t OH GI20 ASSESSMEN1
UII&fllUNIIOM
l G11OANO
VAHONi
HKJ ;iX) 3OO 4OO *J
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
HAZARDOUS WASTE GROUND-WATER TASK FORCE
GROUND-WATER MONITORING EVALUATION
PEORIA DISPOSAL COMPANY
POTTSTOWN. ILLINOIS
MAY 1987
JOHN J. McGUIRE
PROJECT COORDINATOR. REGION V
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
CENTRAL DISTRICT OFFICE
-------
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PAGE
INTRODUCTION 1
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 4
COMPLIANCE WITH INTERIM STATUS GROUND-WATER MONITORING - 4
35 ILLINOIS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE PART 725 SUBPART F (40 CFR
PART 265 SUBPART F)
§ 725.191 (§ 265.91) Ground-water Monitoring System 4
§ 725.192 (§ 265.92) Sampling and Analysis 5
§ 725.193 (§ 265.93) Preparation, Evaluation and Response 7
GROUND-WATER MONITORING PROGRAM PROPOSED FOR RCRA PERMIT 7
§ 703.185 (40 CFR 270.14(c)) HYDROGEOLOGIC CHARACTERIZATION 8
TASK FORCE SAMPLING AND MONITORING DATA ANALYSIS 8
CONFORMANCE WITH SUPERFUND OFF-SITE POLICY 8
TECHNICAL REPORT
INVESTIGATION METHODS 11
Records/Documents Review 11
Facility Inspection 12
Laboratory Evaluation 12
Ground-water Sampling And Analysis 12
WASTE MANAGEMENT UNITS AND FACILITY DESIGN 13
OPERATION 13
HAZARDOUS WASTE LANDFILL CELLS 13
Section A 13
Section B 18
Barrel Trench Area 18
Area C 19
WASTE TREATMENT AND STORAGE 19
PRE-RCRA UNITS 20
Landfill 20
Surface Impoundments 20
Above-Ground Storage Tanks 20
Container Storage Area 21
-------
CONTENTS (cont'd)
PAGE
HYDROGEOLOGY 22
6EOMORPHOLOGY 22
HYDROGEOLOGIC UNITS 22
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITIES 26
GROUND-WATER MONITORING 30
GROUND-WATER SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN 30
Water Level Measurements 30
Purging 31
Sample Collection, Handling, Preservation and 32
Field Measurements
Shipping and Chain-Of-Custody 33
Sample Analysis and Data Quality Evaluation 33
MONITORING WELLS 43
Well History 43
Well Locations 45
Well Construction 46
TASK FORCE SAMPLE COLLECTION. HANDLING PROCEDURES, AND ANALYTICAL 52
RESULTS
SAMPLE COLLECTION AND HANDLING 52
ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR TASK FORCE SAMPLES 56
Specific Organic Analytical Results 56
Metals Analytical Results 57
Inorganic And Indicator Parameters 59
APPENDIX
ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES AND TABULATED RESULTS FOR TASK FORCE SAMPLES
PEORIA DISPOSAL COMPANY
-------
FIGURES PAGE
1. SITE LOCATION MAP 3
2. LOCATION MAP SHOWING PAST OPERATIONS AT PDC 16
3. LOCATION MAP SHOWING PRESENT OPERATIONS AT PDC 17
4. POTENTIOMETRIC CONTOURS IN THE SHELBYVILLE OUTWASH NOVEMBER 1984 24
5. POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE OF THE SHELBYVILLE OUTWASH APRIL 1986 25
6. WELL LOCATION MAP 44
7. TYPICAL SKETCH OF MONITORING WELLS INSTALLED FROM 1980 - 1983 48
8. TYPICAL SKETCH OF MONITORING WELLS INSTALLED IN 1985 49
TABLES
1. HAZARDOUS WASTE STREAMS ACCEPTED BY PDC 14
2. LABORATORY PERMEABILITY OF THE TILL 27
3. LABORATORY PERMEABILITIES OF SHELBYVILLE OUTWASH 29
4. CROSS-CHECK AND PERFORMANCE (BLIND) SAMPLE RESULTS FOR RADIATION 37
SAMPLES AT CEP
5. CONSTRUCTION DATA FOR PDC's MONITORING WELLS 50
6. PREFERRED ORDER OF SAMPLE COLLECTION 54
A-l SAMPLE PREPARATION AND ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES AND METHODS Al
A-2 LIMITS OF QUANTITATION FOR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS A2
A-3 SUMMARY OF DATA COLLECTED DURING THE TASK FORCE SAMPLING OF A3
PDC's MONITORING WELLS
A-4 ORGANIC COMPOUNDS SHOWING POSITIVE RESULTS FOR WELLS SAMPLED AT A9
PDC
A-5 TOTAL METALS RESULTS FOR MONITORING WELLS SAMPLED AT PDC A10
A-6 FIELD MEASUREMENTS, INORGANIC AND INDICATOR PARAMETER RESULTS A12
FOR MONITORING WELLS AT PDC
A-7 COMPARISON OF PDC's SAMPLE RESULTS FOR OCTOBER 1984 TO JULY A13
1985 WITH TASK FORCE SAMPLES TAKEN DURING THE WEEK OF APRIL 21
- 25, 1986
-------
INTRODUCTION
Concerns have recently been raised as to whether the commercial hazardous waste
treatment, storage, and disposal facilities are in compliance with the ground-
water 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 these facilities. In response to these concerns, the Administrator of the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) established a Hazardous
Waste Ground-water Task Force (Task Force) to evaluate the level of compliance at
these facilities and address the cause(s) of noncompliance. The Task Force com-
prises personnel from EPA Headquarters, including the Offices of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (OSWER), National Enforcement Investigations Center, U.S. EPA
Regional Offices, and State regulatory agency personnel. To determine the status
of facility compliance, the Task Force is conducting in-depth facility investiga-
tions, including on-site inspections with the following objectives.
0 Determine compliance with interim status ground-water monitoring require-
ments 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 264 Subpart F, or the State equivalent (where the State has received
RCRA authorization).
0 Determine if the ground water at the facility contains hazardous constitj-
ents.
* Regulations promulgated under RCRA address hazardous waste management facil-
ities' operations, including ground-water monitoring, to ensure that hazard-
ous waste constituents are not released to the environment.
-------
'- 2 -
0 Provide information to assist the Agency in determining if the facility
meets U.S. EPA ground-water monitoring requirements for waste management
facilities receiving waste from response actions conducted under the Com-
prehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA,
Public Law 91-510).*
To address these objectives, each Task Force investigation will determine if:
0 The facility has developed and is following an adequate ground-water sam-
pling and analysis plan;
0 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 appropri-
ate) is adequate.
The eighteenth facility investigated by the Task Force was the Peoria Disposal
Company (PDC) facility, located near Pottstown and west of Peoria, Illinois
(FIGURE 1). The PDC facility is a multi-service, family-owned waste management
company that operates a liquid waste treatment service on-site in addition to
three active landfills. The on-site inspection was conducted from April 21
through April 25, 1986, and was coordinated by personnel from the U.S. EPA,
Region V, Central District Office. The investigation, in general, involved
review of State, Federal and facility records, facility inspection, laboratory
evaluation, and ground-water sampling and analysis.
* "Procedures for Planning and Implementing Off-Site Response Action"; Federal
Register, Vol. 50, No. 214, Page 459-463, November 5, 1985.
-------
- 3 -
FIGURE 1
SITE LOCATION MAP
CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET
NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929
-------
- 4 -
The PDC facility is located on a 152 acre site in a rural part of Peoria County.
The landfill is situated on a hill 150 to 200 feet above the surrounding area and
extends into Section 25, T.9N, R.7E and Section 36, T.9N, R.7E. Arcing around the
southwest base of the hill is a valley which contains Kickapoo Creek, Route 8,
and the Chicago and North Western Railroad. To the northwest of the PDC is Big
Hollow Creek and a residential condominium development. Another valley, con-
taining an intermittent unnamed tributary of Kickapoo Creek, curves from the
northeast to the southeast of the site. The only area zoned for industrial use
in the vicinity is the site itself.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The interim status program at Peoria Disposal Company began in November 1931,
when the applicable provisions of the RCRA regulations became effective. The
findings and conclusions presented below reflect conditions existing at the
facility during the period of the inspection conducted April 21 through April 25,
1986.
COMPLIANCE WITH INTERIM STATUS GROUND-WATER MONITORING - 35 ILLINOIS ADMINISTRA-
TIVE CODE PART 725 SUBPART F (40 CFR PART 265 SUBPART F)
§ 725.191 (§ 265.91) - GROUND-WATER MONITORING SYSTEM
At the time of the Task Force inspection, PDC had a RCRA monitoring well system
that was comprised of 18 monitoring wells, including 3 upgradient wells. In
November 1985, PDC certified that it was in compliance with RCRA interim status
ground-water monitoring requirements. In February 1986, PDC submitted a report on
a numerical ground-water model of its facility. After reviewing this model and its
report, the Task Force concluded that PDC's monitoring wells were widely spaced
-------
- 5 -
along the southern edge of Section B landfill (1100 ft), and along the north-
eastern edge of Section A landfill (750 feet between 6-126 and G-120, and 450 feet
between G-120 and G-121).
Some of the existing downgradient monitoring wells (G-109, G-110, R-113, and G-115)
are located along the southern and southeastern portion of the facility. With re-
gard to compliance with the minimum requirements of an interim status ground-water
monitoring system, the Task Force considers these wells to be extraneous. The wells
are located too far from the limit of the active waste management units to be cap-
able of immediate detection of any contaminant releases. These wells would be re-
quired for future expansion into Area C.
In addition to the RCRA ground-water monitoring system, PDC maintains a shallow
ground-water monitoring system under its Illinois solid waste disposal program
permit. This system monitors shallow, discontinuous, perched-water zones con-
tained within the Illinoian Drift. The Task Force concluded that this shallow
monitoring system is important because these perched-water zones may be the first
pathway for the release of contaminants from localized parts of the facility.
Furthermore, the Task Force recommends this shallow monitoring system be main-
tained and expanded under Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) super-
vision. This shallow monitoring system should be incorporated into the require-
ments for a RCRA permit at PDC.
§ 725.192 (§ 265.92) Sampling and Analysis
The Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP), onsite at the time of the inspection, was
dated February 1986, and contained the general procedures for collection and
analysis of samples from its ground-water monitoring system. In addition to a
-------
- 6 -
review of the SAP, the Task Force observed PDC's sampling crew while they sampled
Wells G-106 and R-113. Generally, POC followed its SAP in sampling the wells.
Listed below are the good points and deficiencies found in the Task Force evalu-
ation of PDC's plan.
The Task Force evaluation found that PDC not only meets the EPA-recommended purg-
ing requirements, but has added additional criteria. The plan requires that five
well volumes be removed from good-yielding wells, three to five well volumes from
poor-yielding wells, and that the pH and specific conductance measurements meet
specified stability requirements.
The SAP describes the methods used by PDC for taking water level measurements but
needs to include more specific information. The names of the two devices used
and a reference to the manufacturers' manual should be included. PDC also needs
to add the decontamination procedures used to clean the portable equipment
between wells and to add a procedure to recalibrate the static water level equip-
ment permanently installed in some wells.
A number of additional deficiencies were found and discussed with the facility
during the inspection. The deficiencies found include: (1) discrepancies within
the plan regarding chemicals used to preserve samples for analysis of total or-
ganic halogens (TOX), total organic carbon (TOC), and nitrate-nitrite (N); (2) no
clear listing of the order in which sample bottles are filled; (3) a discrepancy
as to what temperature samples are stored at; and (4) the lack of cleaning pro-
cedures for filtering equipment, nondedicated bailers, and Teflon® discharge
tubing used on pumps. PDC sent an addendum to the SAP to the Field Team Leader
correcting these problems the week after the inspection.
Five laboratories used by PDC were evaluated by Region V's Quality Assurance
Office. All five laboratories were found to be technically competent, but a
-------
- 7 -
number of problems were noted. The laboratory that performs the radiation analy-
sis and another laboratory which analyzes the TOX and TOC samples do not maintain
chain-of-custody on the samples received from PDC. The radiation laboratory and
the laboratory that analyzes pesticide samples had some difficulty with perform-
ance evalution samples. The on-site laboratory at PDC analyzes all the metals
samples. This laboratory needs to prepare a Quality Assurance Plan, to be included
in the SAP, to justify why they have modified six of the U.S. EPA methods for met-
als, and to improve daily instrument calibration procedures.
§ 725.193 (§ 265.93) PREPARATION, EVALUATION. AND RESPONSE
Well G-120 at PDC had indicated the presence of methylene chloride in the ground
water during the Spring of 1986. During the Task Force inspection, PDC was be-
ginning an lEPA-approved ground-water quality assessment program. Well G-120 was
sampled in duplicate by the Task Force and the sample did not contain methylene
chloride or any other contamination.
GROUND-WATER MONITORING PROPOSED FOR RCRA PERMIT
The present wide spacing between monitoring wells along the southern portion of
Section 8 landfill and the northeastern portion of Section A landfill should be
reduced through RCRA permit conditions based on the requirements of 35 111. Adm.
Code Part 724 (40 CFR Part 264). Secondly, the Task Force recommends that the
shallow ground-water monitoring system currently operated under the Illinois solid
waste disposal program be expanded and included in any future RCRA monitoring pro-
gram. Finally, the monitoring wells along the southern boundary of the facility
(G-109, G-110, G-115, G-127) are too far from the waste management areas currently
in use, or planned for use in the near future, to immediately detect hazardous
constituents escaping from a regulated unit.
-------
- 8 -
§ 703.185 (40 CFR §270.14(c)) HYDROGEOLOGIC CHARACTERIZATION
PDC has conducted a geologic boring program that consists of over 170 borings of
depths of up to 200 feet. The information gleaned from this program is adequate
to describe the Shelbyville Outwash below the PDC site. However, PDC's descrip-
tion of the overlying Illinoian Drift is very general and has overlooked the pres-
ence of some significant, although discontinuous, thicknesses of sand. The sand
zones may provide pathways for the release of contaminants from localized parts of
the facility and, therefore, affect the number, depths, and locations of required
monitoring wells.
TASK FORCE SAMPLING AND MONITORING DATA ANALYSIS
During the inspection, the Task Force personnel collected samples from 19 of PDC's
ground-water monitoring wells. The analytical results for these samples are tabu-
lated in Appendix A. The Task Force samples indicate that three wells may contain
hazardous waste constituents: Well G-123 contained 1,1-dichloroethane at 16 ug/1;
Well G-128 contained 32 ug/1 of methylene chloride; and Well G-124 contained lead
at a concentration above the level specified in 40 CFR Part 265 Appendix III.
Three other wells (G-114, G-124, and G-125) showed concentrations of methylene
chloride that were above the method detection limits, but were within two standard
deviations of the detection limit. Therefore, these data may be considered unre-
liable.
CONFORMANCE WITH SUPERFUND OFF-SITE POLICY
At the time of the Task Force evaluation, PDC was not required to meet the mini-
mum landfill technology standards of RCRA Section 3015(b) because the trench in
-------
- 9 -
use had received waste prior to May 8, 1985. However, the current U.S. EPA Super-
fund off-site policy requires wastes from EPA-financed Superfund cleanups must be
disposed of in units built with double liners, leak detection, and leachate col-
lection systems. Therefore, while the PDC landfill is not required to have these
new minimum technologies yet, U.S. EPA policy precludes EPA from disposing of
Superfund cleanup waste at PDC.
-------
- 11 -
INVESTIGATION METHODS
The Task Force investigation of the PDC facility consisted of:
0 Reviewing and evaluating records and documents from U.S. EPA, the Illinois
EPA, and PDC;
° conducting an on-site facility inspection April 21 through April 25, 1986;
0 evaluating off-site analytical laboratories used by PDC; and
0 sampling and subsequent analysis and data evaluation for selected
ground-water monitoring wells.
RECORDS/DOCUMENTS REVIEW
Records and documents from U.S. EPA Region V and the IEPA offices, compiled by a
U.S. EPA contractor, were reviewed prior to and during the on-site inspection.
On-site facility records were reviewed to verify and augment information current-
ly in government files. These records were reviewed to obtain information on
facility operations, construction details of waste management units, and the
ground-water monitoring program. The facility was requested to supply the U.S.
EPA with a copy of selected documents for in-depth evaluation.
Specific documents and records that were reviewed included the ground-water sam-
pling and analysis plan; outline of the facility ground-water quality assessment
program; analytical results from past ground-water sampling; monitoring well con-
struction data and logs; site geologic report; site operations plans; IEPA per-
mits; waste management unit design and operation reports; and operating records
showing the general types, quantities, and locations of wastes disposed of at the
faci1ity.
-------
- 12 -
FACILITY INSPECTION
The facility inspection conducted in April 1986, included identifying past and
present waste management units, identification and assessment of waste management
operations and pollution control practices, and the verification of the locations
of all ground-water monitoring wells and leachate monitoring systems.
PDC representatives were interviewed to identify records and documents of inter-
est, discuss the contents of the documents, and explain (1) past and present fa-
cility operations; (2) site hydrogeology; (3) the ground-water monitoring system;
(4) ground-water sampling and analysis plan; and (5) all laboratory procedures for
obtaining data on ground-water quality. Because PDC had ground-water samples
analyzed by offsite laboratories, personnel from these laboratories were also in-
terviewed regarding sample handling and analytical methods.
LABORATORY EVALUATION
The offsite laboratory facilities that analyze PDC's samples were evaluated re-
garding their respective responsibilities under the PDC ground-water sampling and
analysis plan. Analytical equipment and methods and quality assurance procedures
and records were examined for adequacy. Laboratory records were inspected for
completeness, accuracy, and compliance with State and Federal requirements. The
ability of each laboratory to produce quality data for the required analyses was
also evaluated. Later in this report, a detailed discussion of this evaluation is
presented under "Sample Analysis and Data Quality Evaluation."
GROUND-WATER SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
During the inspection, the Task Force contractor collected samples from 19 ground-
water monitoring wells at the facility. Wells were selected for sampling princi-
pally for their location relative to the waste management areas. Data from sam-
ple analyses were reviewed to further evaluate PDC's ground-water monitoring pro-
gram and to identify ground-water contaminants. Analytical results of the samples
collected by the Task Force are presented in Appendix A of this report.
-------
--13 -
WASTE MANAGEMENT UNITS AND FACILITY DESIGN
The present operation of PDC consists primarily of (1) the landfilling of both
hazardous and nonhazardous wastes, both in bulk and drum, and (2) the storage and
treatment of aqueous nonhazardous waste. A summary of the types of waste accepted
by PDC is given in Table 1. These wastes originated from a great number of gener-
ators, but primarily from earth-moving equipment manufacturers, agricultural chem-
ical industries, steel industries, and breweries.
OPERATION
RCRA-regulated activities at PDC included two hazardous waste landfills (Sections
A and B), a trench for the landfilling of barrels, a series of storage and treat-
ment tanks for treating liquid nonhazardous wastes, and a large tract of land for
future expansion (Area C). Types of hazardous waste currently accepted by PDC
are shown in Table 1. Pre-RCRA operations that may impact the ground water of the
site include a commercial co-disposal landfill, two surface impoundments (B-l and
B-2), and two land farm operations (C-l and C-2). The locations of past operations
are shown in Figure 2. The locations of units in operation during the inspection
are shown in Figure 3. The design and overall operation of these various compo-
nents of the facility are discussed in the following section.
HAZARDOUS WASTE LANDFILL CELLS
Section A
Section A (Figure 3) is located in the northeast portion of the site and was in
use between 1979 and 1984. This landfill is about 7 acres in size and is approx-
-------
- 14 -
IA1kl 1
HAZARDOUS WASTE STREAMS ACCEPTED BY PDC
WASTE EPA HAZARDOUS WASTE NUMBER
Ignitable D001
Corrosive D002
Reactive D003
EP Toxic (Metals) D004 - D011
EP Toxic(2,4-D) D016
Spent halogenated and non-halogenated F001, F005
solvents (Still bottoms)
Spent cyanide plating bath F007
solutions from electroplating
operations
Wastewater treatment sludges F019
from chemical conversion
coating of aluminum
Bottom sediment sludge from the K001
treatment of wastewater from
wood preserving processes using
creosote and/or pentachlorophenol
Oven residue from the production of K008
chrome oxide green pigments
Distillation side cuts from the pro- KOTO
duction of acetaldehyde from ethylene
Wastewater treatment sludges from the K037
production of disulfoton
Wastewater treatment sludges from the K044
manufacturing and processing of ex-
plosi ves
-------
- 15 -
1 A 1 i I 1 (cont'd)
HAZARDOUS WASTE STREAMS ACCEPTED BY PDC
WASTE EPA HAZARDOUS WASTE NUMBER
Wastewater treatment sludges from K046
the manufacturing, formulation and
loading of lead-based initiating
compounds
API separator sludge from petroleum K051
refining industry
Tank bottoms (leaded) from petroleum K052
refining industry
Ammonia still lime sludge from coking K060
operations
Emission control dust/sludge from K061
the primary production of steel in
electric furnaces.
Emission control dust/sludge from K069
secondary lead smelting
Brine purification muds from mercury K071
cell process in chlorine production,
where separately prepurified brine
is not used
Decanter tank tar sludge from coking K087
operations
Discarded commercial chemical products, P021, P030, P039, P059, P092,
off-specification species, container re- P120, U007, U013, U019, U036,
sidues, and spill residues U051, U052, U061, U070, U080,
U122, U128, U159, U188, U189,
U220, U239, U242
-------
- 16 -
Secure Trench
Disposal Area
Holding Pond
Process Area And
Building
Land Farm &
Trenches
Treatment and
Storage Area
Quality Control And
Laboratory Building
Gate
Site Boundary
FIGURE 2
LOCATION MAP SHOWING PAST OPERATIONS AT PDC
Scale: 1"=400
-------
- 17 -
BARREL TRENCH AREA
Runoff Basin
SECTION B Berm
Treatment
Building
AREA C
(FUTURE EXPANSION AREA)
FIGURE 3
LOCATION MAP SHOWING
PRESENT OPERATIONS AT PDC
-------
imately 50 feet deep. This landfill contains about 15% RCRA hazardous waste and
about 85% municipal waste or nonhazardous industrial wastes. The landfill was
operated using the area-fill method. At the time of the inspection, this area
was nearing completion and a final cap was being laid down.
Section B
Section B is located along the eastern boundary, just south of Section A, and was
in use at the time of the Task Force inspection. This landfill is about 50 feet
deep and has a 100 ft. X 400 ft. floor (almost 7 acres at ground surface). This
disposal unit has a compacted clay liner, a synthetic liner, and a leachate col-
lection system. This landfill cell contains only RCRA hazardous wastes and non-
hazardous "special wastes" in solid bulk form or in drums.
Barrel Trench Area
The Barrel Trench Area is located along the northern boundary of the facility,
just west of Sections A and B. This unit was used for disposal from the late-1970s
to 1985 and is about 13 acres in size. This disposal trench is about 70 feet deep.
Barrels were stacked up to 15 high in glacial till sediments. A runoff containment
basin (Figure 3) and a leachate collection sump were installed during 1984/1985 at
the request of the IEPA. The leachate sump has been collecting fluids, but it
should be noted that the sump does not have a lined bottom.
-------
- 19 -
Area C
Area C encompasses the entire southern portion of the PDC facility. This area is
bigger than the three aforementioned sections combined (over 60 acres). This
area is bigger than the future expansion and a number of disposal trenches are
planned. During the Task Force inspection, cover materials were being excavated
from this area and rainwater and nonhazardous precipitation run-on from Section B
were ponded there. At one time, portions of Area C were used as land treatment
units for RCRA hazardous wastes and nonhazardous wastes. Beginning in the
mid-1970s and until November 1981, three or four areas covering 20 acres were used
to stabilize nonhazardous liquid wastes, including wastewater treatment liquids,
cutting oils, and coolants. The soils and wastes from these land treatment units
were removed and landfilled in 1982. One area, covering 2 acres and designated C-2
on Figure 2, was used to stabilize neutralized stripper solutions (a RCRA hazardous
waste). This land treatment unit was addressed in 1982 by a Consent Decree
between PDC, the IEPA, and the Illinois Attorney General. The unit was decom-
missioned and hazardous waste removal was observed by IEPA staff. Soil samples
were taken and analytical data indicated most hazardous waste and hazardous waste
constituents were removed.
WASTE TREATMENT AND STORAGE
The liquid waste treatment plant, using a proprietary process, treats nonhazard-
ous bulk liquids, such as cutting oils and coolants. Bulk wastes are stored in
two 150,000-gallon receiving tanks for later treatment in batches of 100,000 to
120,000 gallons. Free oils are separated and the remaining liquid is treated and
sent to holding tanks, tested, and then discharged to the Peoria Sanitary Dis-
trict. In addition, commercial waste, other nonhazardous waste, and rainwater
run-off from the barrel trench area are also treated.
-------
- 20 -
PRE-RCRA UNITS
Landfill
The area west of the PDC facility is a 40-acre landfill that was operated by PDC
prior to 1980. This landfill accepted municipal and industrial wastes and was
operated using the area-fill method. This unit was closed prior to 1980 and
never received interim status. PDC has legally separated this parcel of land
from its present disposal facility, but it remains under the physical and eco-
nomic control of PDC.
Surface Impoundments
PDC operated two surface impoundments (labeled B-l on Figure 2) near the center of
the facility. During the mid-1970s these ponds accepted aqueous oily liquid wastes
and industrial liquid wastewaters. These impoundments covered approximately three
acres and were unlined. The units were eliminated in the 1970s.
PDC operated another unlined surface impoundment from the late-1970s until
November 1981. This unit was 250 feet by 250 feet in area and approximately 18
feet deep and could hold over 8 million gallons. This pond was used for disposal
of oily liquid wastes, industrial 1iquid wastes, and "special wastes", but no RCRA
hazardous wastes are recorded as being disposed of there. This pond was located
in the Barrel Trench Area and is labeled B-2 on Figure 2. This unit was eliminat-
ed in 1982/1983.
Above-Ground Storage Tanks
During the mid-1970s to the early-1980s, nine 20,000-gallon above-ground storage
tanks were located near the center of the PDC facility. It is unknown exactly
what types of liquid wastes were stored in these tanks.
-------
- 21 -
Container Storage Area
A temporary barrel storage area was used during construction of the barrel trench
in the late-1970s. This area was located in the north central portion of the site.
The storage was discontinued upon the opening of the barrel trench prior to
November 19, 1980.
-------
- 22 -
HYDROGEOLOGY
GEOMQRPHOLOGY
The region surrounding Peoria, Illinois has been affected by four periods of
Pleistocene glaciation. The PDC facility is located on top of a small hill that
is part of a northeasterly-trending glacial moraine system. This hill rises
approximately 150 feet above the nearby confluence of Kickapoo Creek and Big
Hollow Creek. This topographic high has been enhanced vertically and expanded
laterally by landfilling. The Section A landfill is the new topographic high and
Area C, which is unaffected by landfilling but partially excavated, is the topo-
graphic low.
There are three streams that flow near the PDC property: Kickapoo Creek to the
west, Big Hollow Creek to the north, and a small unnamed stream to the south.
The latter two flow into Kickapoo Creek, which in turn flows into the Illinois
River near Peoria.
Surface runoff on the PDC facility drains from the elevated, landfilled portions
of the property and is trapped in one of two drainage control basins. One basin is
in the Barrel Trench Area and the other is in Section A (Figure 3). The water
collected is tested and pumped to the low-lying Area C, where it can evaporate or
percolate into the ground.
HYDROGEOLOGIC UNITS
The Task Force studied the stratigraphy and hydrogeology of the PDC facility by
reviewing more than 170 boring logs, a geologic map of the area, and reports by
consultants to PDC. Task Force geologists also made a number of geologic in-
terpretations and cross-sections using PDC boring logs.
-------
- 23 -
There are two unconsolidated glacial units beneath the PDC facility: the
Illinoian Drift and the Shelbyvilie Outwash. The first bedrock unit encountered
is the Pennsylvanian Age Carbondale Formation at a depth of less than 200 feet.
The deepest unit penetrated by boring at PDC is the Pennsylvanian Carbondale
Formation. It is a soft, grey shale with interbedded coal, sandstones, and lime-
stones. The shale is at an elevation of 430 feet above sea level near the center
of the PDC site and dips generally towards the southeast. This formation yields
some ground water, but its usage is minimal because shallower water sources are
often available or the bedrock waters are poor quality and the bedrock is low-
yielding.
Above the bedrock under the PDC facility is the Shelbyvilie Outwash. The Shelby-
vi lie Outwash is an unconsolidated unit consisting of dense, poorly-graded brown
sand with some gravel and silt. The top of the unit is 90 to 105 feet below the
ground surface at the site. The Shelbyvilie is a maximum of 95 feet thick and
has a saturated thickness of between 25 and 40 feet. It is an unconfined aquifer
and is present beneath the entire site. The Shelbyville is believed to be in
lateral hydraulic communication with Kickapoo Creek and with the regional Sankoty
Sand aquifer system, which is heavily used as a municipal water source in central
Illinois.
PDC and its consultants state that ground-water flow within the Shelbyville Out-
wash is from west to east based upon static water levels measured in RCRA monitor-
ing wells on site (See Figure 4). Evident in the southwest corner of the facility
is a minor ground-water divide.
Water levels measured during the Task Force evaluation are shown as a potentio-
metric map on Figure 5. The two maps are based upon water levels from different
seasons and years, yet they are very similar. Because of this similarity, the
Task Force agrees with PDC that ground-water flow in the Shelbyville Outwash is
west to east.
-------
- 24 -
s T: ooo
MONITORI
w
FIGURE 4
_L POTENTIOMETRIC CONTOURS IN THE
SHELBYVILLE OUTWASH - NOVEMBER 1,
1984 BY PDC
500 £ = =•
-------
465.70
. 465.S
464.70
CM
FIGURE 5
PDTENT10METR1C SURFACE OF THE SHELBWILLE OUTWASH
APRIL 1986 U.S. EPA
PEOR1A DISPOSAL CO. LANDFILL
PEOIUA, ILLINOIS
47EWO
NORTH
SCALE
0 300 FEET
CUNTUUR INTERVAL « fi FEET
-------
- 26 -
Above the Shelbyville Outwash sand and extending 90 to TOO feet to the surface is
the Illinoian Drift. This is a silty-clay till with bedded sands and gravels.
Regionally, these sands are saturated and are sometimes used for domestic water
supplies. At PDC, these bedded sands do not appear to be laterally continous
under the site, but some borings, particularly at the northern end of the site,
reveal significant thicknesses of sand (10 to 25 feet). The silty-clay till is
unsaturated, although some of the sand lenses contain perched water and have mon-
itoring wells screened in them. The sands in the Illinoian Drift are recharged
primarily by infiltration of precipitation and they discharge to the Shelbyville
Outwash below or to the surface through springs.
The Task Force has concluded that the general hydrogeology of the Peoria Disposal
Company facility has been fairly well described, but there are some weaknesses in
the specific description of the Illinoian Drift. PDC has relied upon spaced sam-
ples from borings and regional descriptions from various publications, rather than
using continuous sampling .techniques during drilling to better define the occur-
rences and impact of sand seams and lenses beneath its site.
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITIES
Laboratory permeability tests were performed by PDC on samples of till from var-
ious intervals in different boreholes. The tests indicated permeabilities in the
till ranging from 6.6 X 10'6 to 1.3 X 10'9 cm/sec (Table 2). PDC estimates the
effective porosity of the till to be 0.05 with a flow velocity of 0.0128 feet/
day (assuming 0.5 feet water head and a permeability of 5 X 10"? cm/sec).
The permeability of the Shelbyville Outwash beneath the PDC site was estimated to
range from about 1.1 X 10~4 to 5.3 X 10~5 cm/sec, based upon laboratory permeabil-
ity tests (Table 3) and from 2 X 10~2 to 6 X lO'3 cm/sec from grain-size analyses.
-------
- 27 -
TABLE 2
Laboratory Permeability of the Till
Boring
Number
B-43
B-43
B-50
B-51
B-53
B-60
B-61
B-63
B-108
B-108
B-109
B-109
B-110
B-lll
B-115
B-116
B-117
B-118
B-123
B-153
B-153
B-153
B-154
B-154
B-154
Soil Type
Clay
Clay
Silty Clay Till
Clay Loam
Silty Clay Till
Silty Clay Till
Silty Clay Till
Silty Clay Till
Silty Clay Till
Silty Clay Till
Silty Clay Till
Silty Clay Till
Silty Clay Till
Silty Clay Till
Silty Clay Till
Silty Clay Till
Silty Clay Till
Silty Clay Till
Silty Clay Till
Silty Clay Till
Silty Clay Till
Silty Clay Till
Silty Clay Till
Silty Clay Till
Silty Clay Till
Sample Depth
(ft)
10-12
20-22
35-37
35-37
50.0-52.5
65-67
26-28
45-46.5
5- 6.5
10-11
5- 6
10-11.5
30-32
45-47
10-11.5
70-71.5
60-61.5
85-86.5
10-13
10-11
15-16
35-36
5- 6
10-11
15-16
Coefficient of
Permeability (cm/sec)
2.53 x 10'8
5.38 x 10"9
1 x 10'8
5.60 x 10"8
9.06 x 10"9
5.54 x 10"8
7.68 x 10"7
4.09 x 10"8
8.6 x 10'9
9.2 x 10'9
3.7 x 10"9
7.8 x 10'9
2.8 x 10'7
2.6 x 10'7
8.5 x 10-9
4.6 x 10"9
9.4 x 10"9
1.3 x 10"9
3.8 x 10"9
1.4 x 10"7
6.6 x 10"
8.8 x ID"8
1.8 x 10"6
5.8 x 10'7
1.8 x 10'7
-------
_ 28 .
TABLE 2 (cont'd)
Laboratory Permeability of the Till
Boring
Number
B-158
B-159
B-160
B-161
B-162
B-163
B-171
B-179
B-179
Soil Tree
Silty Clay Till
Silty Clay Till
Silty Clay Till
Silty Clay Till
Silty Clay Till
Silty Clay Till
Gray Clayey Silt
Gray Silty Clay
Gray Silty Clay
Sample Depth
(ft)
10-11.5
10-12
20-22
10-11.5
27.5-30
17-20
55-57
31-32.5
51-53
Coefficient of
Permeabilitv (cm/sec)
4.9 x 10"8
1.4 x 10"8
1.2 x 10"8
6.2 x 10'7
3.1 x 10"7
1.4 x 10'7
2.5 x 10'6
3.0 x 10"7
7.0 x 10"7
Taken from Peoria Disposal Co.'s RCRA Part B Application revision of 8/23/85
-------
-29 -
TABLE 3
Laboratory Permeabilities of Shelbyville
Outwash (Whitney and Associates, 1983)
Sample
Number
1
2
3
Sample
Location
G-114
G-114
G-114
Moist Density*
(o.c.f.1
121.8
118,4
126.5
Permeability
(cm/sec)
2.2 x 10"4
1.1 x 10"4
5.3 x 10'5
* Remolded samples compacted to Standard Proctor Density (ASTM D-698).
Taken from Peoria Disposal Co.'s RCRA Part B Application revision of 8/23/85,
-------
- 30 -
GROUND-WATER MONITORING
GROUND-WATER SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN
The Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) presented to the Task Force was dated March
28, 1986, and included PDC's procedures for collecting, preserving, handling, and
shipping samples.
Water Level Measurements
The sampling team for PDC uses two methods of taking water level measurements.
Eight of the twenty-one wells contain the QED Environmental System pneumatic
static water level finder. The remaining wells are measured with an electronic
water level indicator, the Johnson Water Marker. During the installation of the
QED pump and water level indicator in Well G-119, the water level tubing became
jammed between the pump and the well casing. This resulted in damage to the QED
water level indicator and requires that the water level in Well G-119 must be
taken with the Johnson Water Marker.
The Johnson Water Marker consists of a sensor, a cable (marked off in one-foot
increments), a control panel (containing a buzzer) and a reel. To take the water
level measurement, the cable is lowered into the well until the sensor reaches the
water and the buzzer is activated. The cable is then slowly raised and lowered
until the precise location of the water surface is found. The sampling personnel
then pinch the cable at a point near the top of the PVC well casing. The dis-
tance between the sampler's finger and the nearest cable marker is measured with
a tape and either added or subtracted from the cable marker.
-------
- 31 -
To measure the water level in a well containing the QED system, the control box
is connected to a tube permanently installed in the well. The system is then
pressurized. The dial on the control box then indicates the number of inches
above or below a reference level that was measured when the water level indicator
was initially installed. The reading, taken from the control box dial, is then
added or subtracted from the reference point depending on whether the level is
below or above the reference point. PDC's Sampling and Analysis Plan, describes
methods of water level measurement (Page III-4, III-5). This description, al-
though detailed, needs to include additional information. The plan should (1)
reference by name the two water level measuring devices used by PDC; (2) include
a decontamination procedure for cleaning the sensor and cable of the electronic
water level indicator after each use; and (3) a specific procedure for period-
ically recalibrating the QED static water level indicators used in a number of
its wells. This last procedure is especially important when a pump is removed
from a well for repair or replacement.
Purging
PDC uses bailers or QED Well Wizard® pumps for purging and sampling the wells in
the ground-water monitoring system. PDC has two criteria for purging a well. For
good-yielding wells, a minimum of five well volumes are removed before sampling.
For the slow-yielding welIs, three to five well volumes are removed. In addition,
the sampling personnel measure pH and specific conductance after every quarter well
volume and do not sample (even if five well volumes have been removed) until six
consecutive readings show a stable pH and specific conductance. The pH must re-
main within +Q.] pH units. The specific conductance must be _+100 umhos/cm and
exhibit neither an increasing nor decreasing trend.
-------
- 32 -
Sample Collection, Handling, Preservation and Field Measurements
PDC uses two types of equipment for sampling its wells. Ten of the wells use de-
dicated stainless steel and Teflon® Well Wizard® bladder pumps driven by a gaso-
line power compressor, which is regulated by a high pressure control box. The
sample is discharged from a Teflon® discharge tube. The remaining eleven wells
are sampled using a Teflon® bailer.
During the inspection, the following discrepancies were found and discussed with
PDC. An addendum to the Sampling and Analysis Plan addressing these problems was
sent to the Field Team Leader by PDC the week after the inspection.
(1) The plan was not clear on the order that sample bottles are to be filled
after the pH and specific conductance samples are taken.
(2) In both the text and on the Table on Page IV-6, it should be stated that
all samples, not just pesticides/herbicides, need to be stored at 4°C.
(3) Page IV-3 of the text gives the preservative for TOC/TOX as nitric acfd,
whereas, Table 4-1 lists the preservative for TOC as hydrochloric acid
and TOX as sodium sulfide.
(4) On Page IV-4, nitrate-nitrite (N) is listed as being included in the un-
preserved sample bottle. This is incorrect. If the facility is to ana-
lyze nitrate-nitrite (N), the sample should be taken from a bottle pre-
served with H2S04 and analyzed within 28 days. If nitrite is to be ana-
lyzed, then the sample should be taken from the unpreserved bottle
® Well Wizard and Teflon are trademarks and will appear hereafter without the
-------
- 33 -
and analyzed within 48 hours.
(5) The cleaning procedure that is used between samples to clean the filter-
ing equipment needs to be included with the filtration procedures on Page
IV-7.
The plan needs to include the procedure used by PDC to clean the nondedicated bail-
er between wells. For wells with the Well Wizard® pumps, the plan needs to state
clearly if the Teflon discharge tubing is dedicated to each well or if there is
only one tube used on each well. If PDC uses only one tube, then the decontamina-
tion procedures used to clean the tubing between wells needs to be added to the
plan.
Shipping and Chain-of-Custody
Two of the contract laboratories used by PDC do not maintain chain-of-custody on
the samples they receive. Controls for Environmental Pollution (CEP) labora-
tories in Santa Fe, New Mexico analyze PDC's radiation samples. CEP does not
handle samples under chain-of-custody since PDC has not requested that samples
remain under custody. Residuals Management Technology (RMT) of Madison,
Wisconsin analyzes PDC's TOX and TOC samples. Although RMT has an adequate
tracking system, the receiving room and laboratories are open and may be left un-
attended during business hours.
Sample Analysis and Data Quality Evaluation
The following laboratories, which were being used by PDC at the time of the Task
-------
- 34 -
Force inspection, were evaluated by various members of the U.S. EPA Region V
Quality Assurance Office.
1. Controls for Environmental Pollution (CEP), Inc., Santa Fe, New Mexico.
Parameters - Gross Alpha, Gross Beta, Radium.
2. Hazelton Laboratories, Madison, Wisconsin. Parameters requiring analy-
sis by mass spectroscopy.
3. Residuals Management Technology (RMT), Madison, Wisconsin. Parameters
- TOC and TOX.
4. Daily Analytical Laboratories, Peoria, Illinois. Parameters - Drinking
water, pesticides, herbicides, fecal coliforms, nitrates, TOC and TOX.
5. PDC site laboratory, Pottstown, Illinois. Parameters - Metals.
Controls for Environmental Pollution, Inc.
On April 22, 1986, the Task Force conducted an on-site evaluation of Controls for
Environmental Pollution (CEP), Inc., Santa Fe, New Mexico pursuant to the Task
Force ground-water monitoring activities at PDC. The purpose of this evaluation
was to evaluate the laboratory's facilities, personnel, equipment, chain-of-
custody, analytical methodology, recordkeeping, and quality control program for
the measurement of gross alpha, gross beta, radium-226 and radium-228 in ground-
water samples from PDC.
The facility is divided into the main space categories of office, shipping and
receiving, wet chemistry laboratory and counting rooms. Lighting, ventilation,
-------
- 35 -
bench space, electrical hoods, etc. are adequate. Building security is adequate.
The facility has a warning system in place which will detect undesirable levels
of radioactivity in the laboratory.
The laboratory staff is adequate and competent to perform the gross alpha, gross
beta, radium-226 and radium-228 analysis of ground-water samples from hazardous
waste sites.
The laboratory has adequate general equipment (e.g., analytical balances, pH
meters, drying ovens, desiccators, hotplates, glassware, furnaces and centrifuges)
for sample preparation steps for which it was used. The laboratory uses gas-flow
proportional counting systems for the measurement of gross alpha and gross beta
activities, radium-226 and radium-228. The laboratory has five gas-flow propor-
tional counting systems. The sensitivity of these systems meets the requirements
of 40 CFR § 141.25 of the National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations.
All five counters were in good working condition.
Samples do not arrive at the laboratory under custody. Custody is not maintained
for samples, since PDC has not requested custody.
The laboratory has documented analytical methodology for gross alpha, gross beta,
radium-226 and radium-228. Sample preparation protocol is essentially the same
as depicted in Standard Methods (15th Edition) for gross alpha and gross beta.
Sample preparation protocol is essentially the same as depicted in EPA 600/4-80-
032 for radium-226 and radium-228. Written protocols were being followed by the
bench analyst.
-------
- 36 -
The laboratory has a formal paper trail for each sample. Log books 'are main-
tained at the receiving room, preparation bench, and the counting instruments. A
final data file is maintained for each client. The file was reviewed for trace-
ability of paper trail. The file was found to be complete. Analysts do not ini-
tial bench sheets for loading and unloading counting instruments, nor do they
initial bench sheets when recording activity counts.
The laboratory has a documented quality assurance plan. A Quality Assurance Office
is also in place. Quality control records were also available for review. The
laboratory participates in the U.S. EPA radiochemistry cross-check and performance
(blind) sample program. Results of last performance of record at time of the
on-site inspection are listed in Table 4.
The laboratory had unacceptable performance for radium-228 in the August 9, 1985,
performance study. The laboratory also had unacceptable performance in the radium-
226 for the December 12, 1985, cross-check study.
Hazelton Laboratories
On August 21, 1986, the Task Force conducted an on-site inspection of Hazelton
Laboratories America, Inc., Madison, Wisconsin. The purpose of the brief visit
was to determine whether the laboratory has technical capabilities to analyze
water samples for volatile organics and to determine whether the laboratory data
are of acceptable quality.
Based on the observations made during the on-site evaluation the Task Force con-
cluded that the Hazelton Laboratories America, Incorporated, was technically
competent to analyze water samples for volatile organics listed in the Hazardous
Substances List (HSL) of U.S. EPA Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) protocol and
data were of good quality.
-------
- 37 -
IAlkl 1
CROSS-CHECK AND PERFORMANCE (BLIND) SAMPLE RESULTS
FOR RADIATION SAMPLES AT CEP
Gross Alpha
Gross Beta
Gross Alpha
Gross Beta
Radium-226
Radium-228
Radium-226
Radium-228
DATE
08/09/85
08/09/85
11/22/85
11/22/85
08/09/85
08/09/85
12/13/85
12/13/85
RESULT
(pCi/1)
31
64.33
9
14
3.56
3.16
10.63
5.8
KNOWN
VALUE
(pCi/1)
32
72
10
13
4.1
6.2
7.10
7.3
DEVIA-
TION
- .34
- 2.65
- .34
+ .34
- 1.54
- 5.84
+ 5
- 2.36
PERFORM-
ANCE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
UNACCEPTABLE
UNACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
TYPE
STUDY
PERFORMANCE
PERFORMANCE
CROSS CHECK
CROSS CHECK
PERFORMANCE
PERFORMANCE
CROSS CHECK
CROSS CHECK
-------
- 38 -
Comments on the On-Site Evaluation
1. The Hazelton Laboratory has extensive experience in analyzing U.S. EPA
Superfund site samples for volatile and semi-volatile organics by Gas
Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS) techniques, pesticides and poly-
chlorinated biphenyls by GC-Electron Capture Detector techniques, and
dioxins by GC/MS selected ion monitoring techniques using the U.S. EPA
CLP protocols. Each year the laboratory analyzes several hundreds of
water samples for HSL volatile organics.
2. The laboratory analyzed a total of about 20 water samples from PDC for
HSL volatile organics.
3. The laboratory facilities are adequate. It is equipped with sophis-
ticated GC/MS instruments, several GC instruments, and several data
acquisition and processing units.
4. The laboratory has a computer to keep track of all samples and all pro-
jects."
5. The laboratory chain-of-custody, data collection, reduction validation
and reporting procedures are acceptable.
-------
- 39 -
Residuals Management Technology
On August 22, 1986, the Task Force performed an on-site evaluation of the Resi-
duals Management Technology, Inc. (RMT), Madison, Wisconsin.
The purpose of the evaluation was to establish whether or not RMT's standard oper-
ating procedures produce data of acceptable quality. The laboratory was evaluated
for Total Organic Carbon (TOC) and Total Organic Halides (TOX).
The overall performance of the laboratory is acceptable for TOC and TOX parameters.
The laboratory data are usable for the client's self-monitoring activities. The
following observations were made during the brief on-site visit:
1. The laboratory TOC test procedures and quality control practices are ac-
ceptable.
2. The laboratory TOX test procedures and quality control practices are ac-
ceptable.
3. The laboratory instruments are suitable for the analysis of TOC and TOX.
4. The laboratory has an adequate sample tracking system but had no chain-
of-custody protocol. The sample receiving room is open during business
hours and may be left unattended. Occasionally, laboratory doors do not
appear to be locked during business hours. This is partly due to the
physical lay-out of the laboratory, since the rooms open on a hall rather
than being interconnected. This problem was discussed with the labora-
tory manager.
-------
- 40 -
Dally Analytical Laboratories
On April 29, 1986, the Task Force performed an on-site evaluation of the Daily
Analytical Laboratories (DAL), Peoria, Illinois.
The purpose of the evaluation was to establish whether or not DAL's standard
operating procedures produce data of acceptable quality for the following para-
meters: nitrates, total organic carbon, total organic halides, pesticides, and
herbicides. DAL routinely analyzes U.S. EPA water pollution performance evalu-
ation samples to demonstrate its analytical capabilities.
Based on the system audit, the Task Force determined that DAL had an acceptable
quality assurance/quality control program and it produced data of acceptable
quality. The laboratory has adequate facilities and qualified personnel. It has
methodology which is appropriate for the parameters of interest. It has partici-
pated in one performance evaluation series WP (water pollution) and two WS (drink-
ing water) series provided by U.S. EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Support
Laboratory in Cincinnati, Ohio. Results have been variable for pesticides and
acceptable for herbicides. The Task Force had data for only three sets of perfor-
mance samples and all the parameters were not done on each set. It is, therefore,
difficult to determine whether the variable pesticide results are indicative of
poor analytical performance, or simply the laboratory's unfamiliarity with analyz-
ing performance samples.
The laboratory has been certified by the Illinois Department of Public Health for
microbiological parameters. This certification program has been approved by
Region V of U.S. EPA.
-------
- 41 -
Peorla Disposal Company On-Slte Laboratory
On April 28 and 29, 1986, the Task Force performed an evaluation of PDC's on-site
laboratory.
The purpose of the evaluation was to establish whether or not PDC's standard op-
erating procedures produce data of acceptable quality. The parameters of interest
were silver, cadmium, chromium, lead, iron, manganese, copper, nickel, zinc, sodi-
um, calcium, magnesium, potassium, barium, mercury, arsenic, and selenium. PDC
was requested to analyze U.S. EPA water pollution performance evaluation samples
from U.S. EPA Region V to demonstrate its analytical capabilities.
U.S. EPA provided PDC with one set of performance samples, but PDC did not return
the data. They were also provided Environmental Monitoring and Support Labora-
tory-Cincinnati (EMSL-CI) performance samples but those data were not available.
The Task Force makes the following observations:
Observation 1 : The construction of the instrument calibration curve for each
parameter, which consisted of a blank and three or more stan-
dards, was generated on a quarterly basis by atomic absorption
technique.
Recommendation: The construction of the instrument calibration curve for a para-
meter, which consists of a blank and three or more standards,
should be generated when that parameter is to be analyzed by
atomic absorption technique.
-------
- 42 -
Observation 2 : The daily instrument calibration curve for each parameter by atom-
ic absorption technique consisted of a blank and two standards.
Recommendation
Modify the present procedure for construction of instrument cal-
ibration curves used for the quantisation of metals parameters
by atomic absorption technique. The instrument calibration curve
should consist of a blank and three to five standards.
The laboratory should have a systematic acceptance crite-rion
for the linearity of the standard calibration curve for metals
by atomic absorption. The correlation coefficient should be cal-
culated and documented after calibration. The correlation co-
efficient should meet a specific criterion (e.g., _> 0.995). The
laboratory should establish this specific criterion based on
their past standard calibration data.
Observation 3 : The laboratory did not have a written quality assurance plan.
Recommendation : The laboratory should prepare and follow a written quality assur-
ance plan.
Observation 4 : The laboratory has made modification in the following methods:
EPA 206.2
EPA 218.1
EPA 258.1
EPA 273.1
EPA 239.1
EPA 270.2
Arsenic
Chromium
Potassium
Sodium
Lead
Selenium
-------
- 43 -
Recommendation : PDC should justify these modifications of methods and provide
references relevant in the scientific literature.
MONITORING WELLS
At the time of the inspection, PDC had 18 wells in its RCRA ground-water monitor-
ing network, plus 3 more in its Illinois solid waste disposal program. All wells
except for G-123 and G-124 (Figure 6) were located around the perimeter of the
site near PDC's property line. In November 1985, PDC certified that this system
was in compliance with RCRA interim status ground-water monitoring requirements.
Well History
PDC began installing its ground-water monitoring system in June 1980 (Figure 6).
These first wells were completed in the shallow till of the Illinoian Drift and
most did not yield water reliably. The three wells that did yield water were
G-106, G-107, and G-108. These three have been incorporated into the Illinois
solid waste disposal permit and are still being used. The other wells were
destroyed.
Additional deeper wells were completed in the Shelbyville Outwash during 1981
(G-109, G-110, G-113), 1982 (R-113, a replacement for the damaged 6-113), 1983
(G-114 through G-120), and 1985 (G-121 through G-128). Only these deeper,
Shelbyville wells are included in the RCRA program.
Wells G-114, R-118, and G-117 have been designated upgradient wells by PDC. Well
G-127 is used only for water level measurements due to a bent casing. All other
wells are designated as downgradient wells by PDC.
-------
- 44 -
> : / J3-/ . ' \ \ \c- * —.
••"^ '/•/-/ f - • C 1 . li=-*» -" ->"^^- - -
'5+.-';/'#??%. \
x-*\ \ li T-. ~'*«—i"^^^^^ !_ »^ "^\. 'X3---V >-- _^~^~—• — J ^^ j —
,\^m^r^
\A V^VAl-7 •J^S-J -. _—-^
-------
- 45 -
Well Locations
PDC defines its waste management area as including the Barrel Trench Area, Section
A landfill, Section B landfill, and Area C. However, Area C is being reserved for
future expansion and does not contain hazardous waste. Therefore, it is the Task
Force's view that the waste management boundary should only circumscribe the Barrel
Trench Area, Section A, and Section B. It follows, then, that the downgradient
limit of the present waste management area should be from the southwest corner of
Section B to the eastern facility boundary, north to the northeastern facility
corner, then west to the northwestern facility corner (Figure 6). Along this pro-
posed point-of-compliance line, there are several lengthy segments between moni-
toring wells:
1. Between Wells 6-124 and G-125 there is an 1100 ft. gap
2. Between Wells G-126 and G-120 there is a 750 ft. gap
3. Between Wells G-120 and G-121 there is a 450 ft. gap
4. Between Wells G-128 and G-122 there is a 400 ft. gap
Because of the significant net thickness of the noncontinuous permeable sand iden-
tified in the Illinoian Drift on boring logs, there is a high probability that nar-
row downward migration pathways exist through the Illinoian Drift to the Shelby-
vine Outwash. Therefore, the Task Force recommends reducing the spacing between
wells by installing additional monitoring wells in these four segments along the
downgradient limit of the waste management area.
PDC also has a number of superfluous wells near the perimeter of Area C (G-108,
G-109, G-110, R-113, and G-115). Whereas these wells are valuable for piezome-
tric information, they are too far from the current waste management boundary to
be of use in the interim status indicator evaluation program (G-108 is 500 feet
-------
- 46 -
from the closest regulated unit (Section B), G-109 is 1300 feet away, G-110 is
2500 feet away, R-113 is 660 feet away, and G-115 is 2100 feet away). When Area
C is developed, wells should be placed at the point of compliance for each unit
as it is brought online.
Based upon earlier work by PDC consultants, IEPA, U.S. EPA, Region V, and its own
geological review of the PDC site, the Task Force contends that perched water
table zones exist beneath the PDC site in discontinuous or interfingering sand
bodies that are part of the Illino'ian Drift. These shallow water-bearing sands
could be a conduit for contaminants to migrate, and monitoring of these sands is
necessary in an attempt to immediately detect any contaminant releases from dis-
posal units. Some of this sand at PDC is presently being monitored by three shal-
low wells which are sampled as a condition of PDC's Illinois solid waste disposal
permit. The Task Force strongly recommends that other shallow waterbearing sand
zones in the Illinoian Drift be monitored as they are discovered. For the present,
monitoring could continue under the solid waste permit, but eventually should be
replaced with RCRA monitoring.
Well Construction
At PDC, ground-water monitoring wells were installed at five different times be-
tween 1980 and 1985. However, despite the lapses of time, PDC records indicate
that the well construction techniques remained the same over the five years, ex-
cept that well casing and screen materials in pre-1984 wells were PVC and in post-
1984 wells were galvanized steel and stainless steel.
-------
- 47 -
Each well in the ground-water monitoring system at PDC was bored, using the rotary
drill method, to a depth corresponding to the bottom of the well screen or lower.
The borehole was flushed with water and then the screen, with a bottom cap, and
the well casing were installed. Coarse-grained filter material (pea gravel) was
then placed around and above the screen. A foot of soil backfill was placed
above the gravel, followed by a foot of bentonite pellets. Above the bentonite
pellets, a mixture of cement and bentonite grout was added to the annular space
to a point three feet below the surface. In this three-foot space, a metal well-
protection pipe was placed over the well casing stick-up and held in place by a
bentonite/soil seal. A typical sketch of a well installation is shown in Figures 7
and 8. Construction data are summarized in Table 5.
When completed, the wells were flushed to remove fine-grained material and then
further developed as follows:
(1) Wells were pumped for several hours to remove as much water as possible.
(2) The well was allowed to recover taking from 1/2 day to two days.
(3) The well was again evacuated and measurements for pH and conductivity
were taken at one-gallon intervals.
(4) When the pH and specific conductivity values were stable, the well was
considered developed.
-------
- 48 -
FIGURE 7
TYPICAL SKETCH OF MONITORING WELLS
INSTALLED FROM 1980 to 1983 (Wells G-106 - G-120)
?O*I 1171 913:
»«*<.»«!"!
IN*!T"f (; rtON
CON4UI 'ATIQN
WHITNEY ^ASSOCIATES
2«OG Won Noliroika Avenue
PEORIA, ILLINOIS 61G04
CO"'
AOOnfr.A
rniM ;
nnr 1 «»C
i IAI.ITV rriN mot
TYPICAL SKETCH OF MONITORING WELL INSTALLATION
PEORIA DISPOSAL LANDFILL FACILITY
PEORIA COUNTY, ILLINOIS
Existing Ground Surface
2" Oucside Diameter
PVC Pipe
SoCuom of Well
tl/8" Diamecer Relief
Hole
Threaded Cap
A /'
minimum
Bentonite/Soil (Auger
Cuttihgs) Seal
CemenC
Grout
\
Bentonite Pellets
71"
d Bentonite
fl
Soil Backfill
Slotted
Section of
Pipe
pea gravel
backrill
-------
- 49 -
JENVIRONMENTAL SOYICES, INC.
FIGURE 8
TYPICAL SKETCH OF MONITORING WELLS
INSTALLED IN 1985 (Wells G-121 THROUGH G-128)
Varies
u-i
CM
{/?//&/<
^ ,
Varies
CN
Varies
LO
0
^
f
^~
'
l\
_ l~1 -..
Sand
<;
1
F
NOT TO SCALE
NOTE: Final well construction detail:
to be based on subsurface cond
•
I
&
7
(>•
•>'•?
^
' . * ,
/-
f
•w
Jl
>'V"^
1
%
1
/s
/x
%
' X
^fH
W/<
' ~ t
. i^ r
•:-'-
M'.':-
wich cap and lock
r Ground surface
y£-//=y/^
rotary boring
—
-Stainless steel riser
10 slot stainless steel
well screen
^^-Plug
icions.
-------
- 50 -
CONSTRUCTION DATA FOR PDC'S MONITORING WELLS (a)
ELEVATIONS (FEET) (b)
Well
I.D.
6-106
6-107
6-108
G-109
6-110
R-113
6-114
6-115
6-116
6-117
R-118
6-119
6-120
6-121
6-122
6-123
6-124
6-125
G-126
6-127
6-128
DATE
COMPLETED
6/23/80
6/23/80
6/30/80
6/30/81
6/29/81
5/07/82
5/27/83
3/17/83
3/28/83
/83
/83
/83
/83
7/16/85
6/18/85
7/24/85
7/18/85
7/08/85
7/12/85
7/22/85
7/19/85
TOP OF
PLASTIC
PIPE
614.6
620.3
618.0
518.4
492.1
611.5
522.4
508.2
512.4
581.4
590.2
620.2
613.9
609.0
607.1
632.7
650.8
615.8
611.7
554.8
594.0
GROUND
BASE
611.3
617.4
615.2
515.1
489.1
608.2
518.0
504.8
509.5
579.2
588.0
617.2
611.3
605.7
604.8
630.3
648.3
613.4
609.2
552.4
591.4
WELL
BOTTOM
590.2
577.6
573.7
446.4
451.6
416.0
463.9
449.6
464.3
431.5
439.5
423.8
427.3 '
463.2
466.1
462.8
463.6
461.3
451.1
451.8
463.6
SCREEN
LENGTH
(FEET)
5
5
5
7
3
20
5
5
5
20
20
20
20
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
CONST.
MAT.
(c)
PVC
PVC
PVC
PVC
PVC
PVC
PVC
PVC
PVC
PVC
PVC
PVC
PVC
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
Dedica-
ted QED
PUMP
(d)
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
. N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
Y
QED
LEVEL
SENSOR
(e)
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
Y
-------
- 51 -
TABLE 5 (cont'd)
* NOTE: (a) Source: PDC's Sampling and Analysis Plan and other infor-
mation supplied by PDC.
(b) Elevations are given relative to mean sea level
(c) Construction material of screen: PVC - polyvinyl chloride
SS - stainless steel. All well casings are 2 inches inner
diameter
(d) QED Model T-2000 Pump (stainless steel with Teflon bladder)
(e) QED Static water level sensor
NOTE: Wells G-106, 6-107, and 6-108 are in the till. All remaining
wells are in the Shelbyville Outwash.
-------
- 52 -
The Task Force concludes that the records kept at PDC indicate that good well con-
struction techniques were used in constructing these wells. The newer wells (6-
121 through 128) have followed the recommendations of U.S. EPA's RCRA Ground-Water
Monitoring Technical Enforcement Guidance Document and have incorporated chemical-
ly inert stainless steel in the sample-contact portions of the wells. The Task
Force recommends PDC continue using inert materials in its new or replacement
wells since PDC has historically accepted and disposed of large quantities of
halogenated organic wastes.
TASK FORCE SAMPLE COLLECTION, HANDLING PROCEDURES, AND ANALYTICAL RESULTS
During the inspection, samples were collected by a U.S. EPA contractor to determine
if the ground water contains hazardous waste constituents or other indicators of
contamination. Water was collected from 19 of PDC's 21 ground-water monitoring
wells. Well G-127 is used by PDC only for water level measurement, and Well G-116
is south of a ground-water divide and thus is not impacted by the landfill op-
erations.
SAMPLE COLLECTION AND HANDLING
Ten of the wells were equipped with Well Wizard pumps, while the remaining wells
were sampled with Teflon bailers cleaned at U.S. EPA contractor's laboratory. The
following procedures were used to collect samples:
1. U.S. EPA sampling contractor monitored open well head for chemical va-
pors and radiation.
2. The U.S. EPA contractor measured depth to ground water using either a
stainless steel tape or the Well Wizard static water level indicator.
-------
- 53 -
3. U.S. EPA's field team member then calculated the height of the water col-
umn from the depth-to-water measurement and well depth (from well con-
struction information).
4. The field team member then calculated water volume using the height of
water column and well radius.
5. Wells were then either purged to dryness or purged until at least three
well volumes were removed.
6. Wells were sampled immediately after three volumes were removed or allowed
to recover overnight if purged dry.
7. U.S. EPA's contractor collected sample aliquots for field measurements
(pH, water temperature, specific conductance).
8. After collecting field measurements, sample containers were filled in
the order shown on Table 6. The volatile organic samples were collected
by filling the sample container directly from the bailer. At wells with
QED pumps, a small beaker was filled first, and then the sample contain-
ers were filled.
9. Four wells, G-106, G-107, G-122, and G-123, were poorly-recharging wells
and required that the sampling team return on more than one day to ob-
tain sufficient water to fill all bottles. Wells G-106 and G-123 were
purged and sampled over a three-day period and Wells G-107 and G-122
were purged and sampled over a four-day period (Table A-3).
10. Samples were placed in insulated containers filled with ice.
-------
- 54 -
PREFERRED ORDER OF SAMPLE COLLECTION
BOTTLE-TYPE. AND PRESERVATIVE LIST
PARAMETER
BOTTLE-TYPE
PRESERVATIVE
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. Total Organic Carbon
(TOC)
7. Dioxin
8. Total Organic Halogens
(TOX)
9. Phenols
10.. Cyanide
11. Sulfate, chloride, and
nitrate
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
4 oz. glass
1 - 1 qt. amber glass
1 qt. amber glass
1 qt. amber glass
1 qt. plastic
1 qt. plastic
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, Cool 4°C
H2S04 Cool 4°C
Cook 4°C
Cool 4°C
No nead space
H2S04 Cool 4°C
NaOH Cool 4°C
Cool 4°C
12. Nitrate and ammonia
1 qt. plastic
H2S04 Cool 4°C
-------
- 55 -
11. The U.S. EPA contractor took the samples to a staging area, within two
hours after sampling, where measurements were taken for turbidity. In
addition, phenols, cyanide, nitrate, TOC, total metals, and ammonia sam-
ples were preserved as shown in Table 6.
12. PDC requested and was given split samples from seven of the nineteen
wells that the Task Force sampled. These wells were G-113, G-114, G-117,
R-118, G-120, G-121, and G-123. Duplicate volatile organic analysis
(VOA) samples and split samples were then collected by the U.S. EPA con-
tractor and given to PDC.
13. All samples were collected from wells by the U.S. EPA contractor, with
the exception of the parameters taken from Wells G-106 and R-113 on
April 23. These samples were taken by PDC as a demonstration of PDC's
sampling technique. The U.S. EPA contractor's Teflon bailer was used,
instead of PDC's equipment.
The U.S. EPA contractor also prepared and submitted to the contract laboratories
three types of blanks during the inspection period. These blanks were submitted
with no distinguishing labels or markings. A field blank was prepared on April 22,
1986, by pouring high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) water into the
appropriate containers near R-118 after the well was sampled. One set of sample
containers was filled with HPLC water at the U.S. EPA contractor's laboratory,
brought to the site but not opened, and submitted for analysis for each parameter
as a trip blank. The trip blank was shipped with samples collected on April 24,
1986. On April 22, a Teflon bailer was rinsed with HPLC water and the water col-
lected in the appropriate containers for submittal to the laboratory as an equip-
ment blank. This rinsing procedure was conducted near the U.S. EPA contractor's
supply truck, which was parked near the landfill office/laboratory building.
-------
- 56 -
ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR TASK FORCE SAMPLES
Field measurements were made by the U.S. EPA contractor at the time of sampling
for pH, specific conductance, and turbidity. Laboratory analysis results were ob-
tained from two U.S. EPA contractor laboratories participating in the Contract
Laboratory Program. Specified organic compounds were analyzed at Compuchem Lab-
oratories, Inc., and metals and other parameters at Centec Laboratories. Table
A-l gives a summary of analytical techniques and reference methods, by parameter,
for sample analyses and Table A-2 gives the detection limits for all organic com-
pounds.
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 to estimate accuracy,
(3) analysis of both laboratory and field duplicates to estimate precision, and
(4) the review and interpretation of the results of these control measures.
Specific Organic Analytical Results
Of the 19 wells sampled during the inspection, five samples contained organic
compounds above the method detection limit. These data are summarized in Table
A-4. One well, G-123, contained 1,1-dichloroethane at 16.0 ug/1. The other four
wells all contained methylene chloride. These were Wells G-114 (5.1 ug/1), G-124
(Dup) (5.0 ug/1), G-125 (7.1 ug/1), and G-128 (32.0 ug/1). Methylene chloride
was found above the detection limit in only one of the two samples taken from
Well G-124.
-------
- 57 -
The U.S. EPA contractor took duplicate samples from well G-120. Neither sample
contained methylene chloride above the detection limit. A number of historical
samples taken by PDC have contained methylene chloride for this well.
Methylene chloride was detected in two laboratory blanks at 2.05 ug/1 and 2.65
ug/1 (which is better than the 5.0 ug/1 that the laboratory is required to meet).
Four laboratory blanks contained acetone at concentrations of 2.35 ug/1 to 10.2
ug/1. This raises questions about acetone and methylene chloride contamination
in the laboratory and makes low-level positive results for these compounds unre-
liable. Quality control on the remaining volatile compounds was acceptable, in-
cluding 1,1-dichloroethane, and data are considered semi-qualitative.
None of the other organic compounds shown in Table A-2 were positively identified
in any of the samples. Overall, the semi-volatile (including Acids and Base/
Neutrals) data are acceptable and should be considered semi-quantitative, except
for two samples. Sample spikes for Wells G-123 and G-120 (Dup) recoveries were low
and unacceptable for two phenol compounds. The pesticide quality control results
show that the data should be considered unreliable with an unknown probability of
false negatives. The laboratory performed well on quality control measures for
herbicides and the data should be considered qualitative with acceptable proba-
bility of false negatives. The dioxin data should be considered unreliable. The
laboratory has had significant problems in the analysis of performance evaluation
samples. Also, the extraction of these samples (Wells G-106, G-108, and 6-115)
was performed after the 15-day holding time.
Metals Analytical Results
With the exception of lead in well (6-124), the only metals found in high concen-
trations were those that are commonly found in ground water (aluminum, calcium,
-------
- 58 -
iron, magnesium, potassium, and sodium). For Well G-124, which was sampled in
duplicate, both results for lead were slightly above the limit of 50 ug/1 given in
35 111. Adm. Code Part 725 Appendix C (40 CFR Part 265, Appendix III). Metals re-
sults are summarized in Table A-5 of Appendix A.
With only a few exceptions, the laboratory analysis of the metals data quality ob-
jectives and detection limits set by the Task Force were met. Therefore, for all
samples except those listed below, the metals results are acceptable and quantita-
tive. The laboratory had a number of problems with matrix spike recovery on three
of the four furnace metals (thallium, antimony, and chromium). This resulted in
a low bias and higher detection limits for antimony (Well G-106), cadmium (Well
G-106), and thallium (G-119). Cadmium analysis for samples from Wells G-108 and
6-107, as well as lead analysis for Wells G-108, G-115, G-122, and 6-128, which
were performed by the method of standard addition, were below an acceptable cor-
relation coefficient. These data are therefore considered unreliable and the iden-
tification of cadmium and lead in these wells is uncertain. The chromium and man-
ganese recoveries for low-level linearity range checks were very low. Chromium
data below 261 ug/1 (Wells G-106 (21 ug/1), 6-107 (8.0 ug/1), G-108 (13.0 ug/1),
6-110 (12.0 ug/1), R-113 (15.0 ug/1), 6-115 (25.0 ug/1), G-120 (Dup) (13.0 ug/1),
6-123 (41.0 ug/1), G-124 (22 ug/1), G-124 (Dup)(26.0 ug/1), 6-128 (1.0 ug/1))
should be considered to be biased low with unacceptable probability of false
negatives. Manganese data below 348 ug/1 (Wells G-108 (189 ug/1), G-109 (22.0
ug/1), 6-110 (49.0 ug/1), R-113 (4.0 ug/1), G-115 (287 ug/1), 6-117 (3.0 ug/1),
6-118 (7.0 ug/1), G-119 (152 ug/1), 6-121 (89 ug/1), G-122 (59 ug/1), G-124 (169
ug/1), G-124 (Dup) (163 ug/1), 6-125 (38 ug/1), G-126 (134 ug/1), and field blanks
(5.0 ug/1)) should be considered to be biased low by about 30 percent.
No contamination was reported for laboratory blanks. The trip, equipment, and
field blanks showed metal contamination involving one or more of the following:
aluminum, calcium, iron, manganese, and sodium.
-------
- 59 -
Inorganic And Indicator Parameters
Field measurements were conducted by U.S. EPA's sample contractor for pH, specific
conductance, temperature, and turbidity. The first three parameters were taken at
the well location, whereas, the turbidity sample was taken back to the contractor's
sample preparation area. Data for the field parameters and the remaining inorganic
compounds are given in Table A-6. For four wells (G-106, G-114, G-122, and G-123)
the turbidity results were not recorded in field log books supplied by the U.S. EPA
contractors.
A comparison of the Task Force sample results for Wells G-106 through G-120 (Table
A-7) and the facility data collected for pH, TOC, TOX, and specific conductance is
given in Table A-7. The results compare very well for pH, but for TOC, the U.S.
EPA data are all lower than the facility's results. The specific conductance data
compared well with only a few exceptions in which the PDC data were higher. Both
PDC's and U.S. EPA's TOX data varied from well to well.
Nine samples could not be analyzed for POC and POX because the sample containers
were broken in shipment. These were POC samples for Wells G-107, G-108, G-110,
G-115, G-119, and G-122. Also, POX bottles broken were from Wells G-107, G-115,
and G-123.
No laboratory blank contamination was reported for any inorganic or indicator
parameters. TOX contamination (7.4 ug/1) was found in the field blank, while sul-
fate contamination (200 ug/1) was found in the equipment blank. All reported de-
tection limits are those required by the contract or lower except for nitrate-
nitrogen in the sample from Well G-124 (167 times the detection limit) and cyanide
in Well R-113 and G-125 (twice the detection limit). There are no required con-
tract detection limits for bromide and nitrite-nitrogen.
-------
- 60 -
Analyses of POC and nitrite samples were performed after the contract required
holding time. POC samples were analyzed 12 to 14 days after they were taken. The
contract required holding time is 7 days. Four nitrite-nitrogen samples were ana-
lyzed 24 to 27 days after collection instead of the required 48 hours.
The inorganic and indicator parameter data should be considered acceptable and
quantitative for cyanide, ammonia-nitrogen, total phenols, and TOC. POX results
for Wells G-108, G-110, R-113, G-119, G-122, G-125, G-126, the equipment blank
and the trip blank should be considered semi-quantitative because of improper
calibration procedures. The remaining POX results are acceptable and qualitative.
The data should be considered acceptable and semi-quantitative for nitrate-nitro-
gen, chloride, sulfate, TOX, bromide, and nitrite-nitrogen. The POC data should
be considered to be unreliable due to the lack of a performance evaluation
sample or any other independent calibration verification. The nitrate-nitrogen,
chloride, sulfate, bromide, and nitrite-nitrogen data (all ion chromatography
data) should be considered acceptable, but unreliable for enforcement uses because
of the inability to verify the analytical laboratory's claim that QC analyses
were performed daily in conjunction with the ion chromatography analyses.
-------
APPENDIX A
ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES AND TABULATED RESULTS
OF TASK FORCE SAMPLES
PEORIA DISPOSAL COMPANY. POTTSTOWN. ILLINOIS
-------
- Al -
Table A-l
Sample Preparation and Analysis techniques and Methods
Parameter
Preparation Technique
Analysis Technique
Method Reference
Conductance
PH
Turbidity
POX
I OK
POC
IIPUC
Ammonia
Chloride
Ilitrate
Sulfate
Cyanide
Phenol
Mercury
As, Pb, Se and Tl
Other Elements
Volatlles
Scml-volatlles
Peitlcldes/PCB
Herbicides
None
None
None
None
Carbon absorption
None
Acidify and purge
Partlculates settled
Partlculates settled
Partlculates settled
PartlcuUtei settled
Manual distillation
Manual distillation
Wet digestion for dissolved and total
Acid digestion for total
Acid digestion for total
Purge and trap
Direct Injection
HethyTene chloride extraction
Hethylene chlorlde/hexane extraction
Dlethy lether extract Ion/methyl at Ion
ElectrometrIc, Uheatstone Bridge
Potentlometry
Nephelometrlc
Purgable combusted, Hlcrocoulometry
Carbon combusted, Hlcrocoulometry
Purgable combusted, Non-dlsperslve Infrared
Liquid combusted, Non-dlsperslve Infrared
Phenolate Colorlmetry of supernatant
Mercuric Precipitation Tltratlon of supernatant
Uructne Sulfate Colorlmetry of supernatant
Barium Sulfate Turbldlmetry of supernatant
Pyrldlne Barbituric Add Colorlmetry
Ferrlcyanlde 4-AmlnoantIpyrlne Colorlmetry
Cold Vapor Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy
Furnace Atonic Absorption Spectroscopy
Inductively Coupled Plasma Emission Spectroscopy
Gas Chromatography with Electron Capture Detection
Gas Chromatography - Mass Spectroscopy or
Gas Chromatography with Flame lonttatlon Detection
Gas Chromatography - Mass Spectroscopy
Gas Chromatography with Electron Capture Detection
Gas Chromatography with Electron Capture Detection
Method 120.1 (a)
Method ISO.I (a)
No reference
EPA 600/4-84-008
Method 9020 (b)
No reference
Method 415.I (a)
Method 350.1 (a)
Method 9262 (b)
Method 9200 (b)
Method 901B (b)
CLP Method (c)
Method 420.1 (a)
CLP Method
CLP Method
CLP Method
CLP Method
CLP Method
CLP Method
CLP Method
CLP Method
Hi'thod HISO (D)
a) Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes, EPA-600/4-79-020.
b) Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Wastes, SU-846.
c) Contract Laboratory Program, IFB methods.
-------
- A2 -
T«ol< A-2.
LIMITS Of quMTITATION FOi OMMtC COMTCUMOS
Unit of
Ue>1t of
LlBIt at
Quant) tat Ion Quantfutton Quanmatian
8a«e/Heutra1 Caoaauna*
Acanapntnene
1.2.4-tplcnlepabenjen*
Hexacn 1 orqMnien*
Hexacft 1 ere* tnana
b<»(2-CnlePeattiyl )»tn»r
2-Chl oponapntna 1 en»
l.2-01cnloroa«nz«rv«
1, J-OfcMoroB»njtr»»
l.4-01ehlarebenzen«
2,*"0nzyl aleanol
p-Cniopeanillne
Olbenzafupan
2-Metny 1 naenthal en«
4-oitPoanlHna1
Pentaen 1 opobenzane
1 .2 . 4 , S- Tatracn lopooanzan*
1.2.3.A-r«tPacnlapee«nztn«
PotaenlBpeni troe«nz>ne
2-*««tny 1 naantna 1 ane
2-N4t,Poanilfne
3-<«tPO«niJ1n«
• ••«Mir«d 4a Axea«nx«n«
* •••iur«d •« a^pA«nyl<«iT
* *o£ An*lu**4
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
NA-
10
10
10
10
10
10
20
10
10
10
MA
40
20
40
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
.
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
KA
100
10
10
20
100
10
10
ICO
10
10
10
10
10
100
100
,.
• Acid Csaoounas
2 . 4 . 6-Tp< en ) ereonvne )
P»r«cnloPo«»t»cr»»a(
2*Cnlapq«n«na 1
2,*-0^cnlopoprmno)
2.4-0
Toluene
l.l.l-Tp'tcnleraethane
1.1.2-Tpienlapaetnane
TPT effl epo«tft«ne
Vinyl enlepioe
Acttona
2-3utanon« <*€H)'
l.2-Q1bpaiwetnane (EOB)
2-Hexanane
Xylenet
l.4-01axan«
l.2-Q1Pre«w-2-cnlapeBPaBan«
Pypiaine
Acpoleln
AerylanltPlle
CAPBen aliul riae
tpan»- 1.3-01 en loroeroo«n«
cf i-1.3-01en!epepP8sace
Z'CMaPBetnylvtnyletneP
Slyp»o«
vinyl acatata
*-«««tnyl-2-p»ntanan« (M18R)
•
10
20
10
10
10
10
SO
50
SO
SO
10
SO
10
10
so
s
5
S
10
3
5
10
S
10
s
s
s
s
s
5
5
S
S
5
S
5
5
S
10
SO
20
20
20
S
500
100
100
500
500
5
5
S
40
S
40
20
P**t1c1a«t/Pei.
AldHn
alpna-SHC
b«t*-8MC
gaMM-BHC
0m I ta-9HC
Chloraarx
4.4--000
4. 4- -OQE
4. 4' -DOT
01elQp1n
Endasulfan I
£naa»ulf»n II
Endasulfan sulfata
Endnn
Endrln aldehyde
Hee Caen lap
Heetacttlep apaxiae
Taxagnene
Hetnaiyenlop
Endrin ketsn*
PCB-101S
PCS- 1221
PCS-L232
PCB-1242
PCB-12*«
PCH-US4
PCS- 1260
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.35
0.1
0.1
0. I
0.1
o.os
.0.05
1
o.s
0.1
.5
1
1
O.S
0.5
1
1
-------
- A3 -
I A JLkl A-3
SUMMARY OF DATA COLLECTED DURING THE COLLECTION
OF TASK FORCE SAMPLES
FROM PEORIA DISPOSAL COMPANY'S MONITORING WELLS
WELL NO.
DATE/TIME
REMARKS
G-106
4/21/86 1625-1640
4/22/86 1545-1620
4/23/86 1005-1025
4/23/86 1505-1515
Well purged dry, using a Teflon bailer
after 2 gallons (0.4 well volumes)
removed.
are
Facility demonstration of its sampling
technique, using the same Teflon bailer
that was used to purge well. Bailer
supplied by EPA contractor. Sufficient
water in well to collect only pH, speci-
fic conductance, temperature, turbidity,
Volatile Organic Analysis (VOA), Purge-
able Organic Halogens (POX), Purgeable
Organic Carbon (POC), Acid, Base/Neutral
Organics (ABN), and Pesticide Herbicide
Samples.
Remainder of samples from this well and
all other wells, except Well R113, taken
by EPA contractors. Collected dioxin,
total metals, Total Organic Carbon (TOC),
Total Organic Halogens (TOX), and phenols.
Remaining samples collected (Cyanide, sul-
fate, chloride, ammonia, and nitrate).
Turbidity not recorded in field log book.
G-107
4/22/86 1640-1710
4/23/86 1050-1105
Well purged to dryness with a Teflon bai-
ler after 3.75 gallons (0.4 well volumes)
are removed.
Samples collected for pH, specific conduc-
tance, temperature, turbidity, VOA, POX,
POC, and ABN.
-------
- A4 -
TABLE A-3 (cont'd)
WELL NO.
DATE/TIME
REMARKS
4/24/86 0830-0855
4/24/86 1620-1630
4/25/86 0827-0922
G-108
4/24/86 0835-0907
4/24/86 0928-1003
G-109
4/23/86 1340-1410
4/23/86 1400-1445
G-110
4/24/86 1115-1140
4/24/86 1140-1210
R-113
4/23/86 1102-1332
4/23/86 1332-1526
Samples collected for pesticide/herbicide
and dioxin.
Samples collected for total metals and TOC.
Samples collected for TOX, phenolics, cya-
nides, sulfate, chloride, ammonia, and ni-
trate. The POX and POC bottles broke in
shipment, and could not be analyzed.
Well purged with a bailer, 7 gallons (3.3
well volumes) removed.
All samples and field measurements taken.
POC bottle broken in shipment and not
analyzed.
Well purged with bailer, 9 gallons (3.5
well volumes) removed.
All samples and field measurements taken.
Well purged with bailer, 8 gallons (3 well
volumes) removed.
All samples and field measurements taken.
POC bottle broken in shipment, sample not
analyzed.
PDC demonstrated their technique for sam-
pling wells with QED pumps. Well purged
with pump until 24.6 gallons (3.2 well
volumes) removed.
All samples and field measurements taken.
Facility took a split of all samples. VOA
vials filled directly from pump tubing.
-------
WELL NO.
DATE/TIME
- A5 -
I A 1 L I A-3 (cont'd)
REMARKS
6-114
4/21/86 1430-1502
4/21/86 1510-1545
6-115
4/24/86 1000-1020
Well purged with QED pump, 3.7 gallons
(3.33 well volumes) removed.
All samples and field measurements taken.
Facility given a split of all samples.
Due to high pumping rate, VOA, POX, and
POC samples collected in amber glass jar
and then transferred to sample containers.
Turbidity measurement not recorded in log
book.
Well purged with bailer, 6 gallons (3.1
well volumes) removed.
4/24/86 1025-1055
6-117
4/22/86 0906-1008
4/22/86 1015-1105
R-118
4/22/86 1151-1245
4/22/86 1300-1325
All samples and field measurements taken.
The POX and POC bottles were broken in
shipment and not analyzed.
Well purged with QED Well Wizard, 20 gal-
lons (3.2 well volumes) removed.
All samples and field measurements taken.
Split given to facility. Due to high pump
rate VOA, POX, and POC samples collected
in amber glass jar and then transferred
to sample containers.
Well purged with QED pump, 15.35 gallons
(3.1 well volumes) removed.
All samples and field measurements taken.
Split given to facility. Due to high pump
rate VOA, POX, and POC samples collected
in amber glass jar and then transferred
to sample containers.
-------
- A6 -
TABLE A-3 (cont'd)
WELL NO.
DATE/TIME
REMARKS
G-119
4/24/86 1138-1344
4/24/86 1345-1614
G-120
4/23/86 0829-0932
4/23/86 0940-1030
6-121
4/23/86 1120-1128
4/23/86 1140-1226
G-122
4/21/86 1417-1435
4/22/86 0900
4/22/86 1136
4/23/86 0830-0835
Well purged with QED pump, 20.5 gallons
(3 well volumes) removed. Top of well
does not have cap and was covered with
plastic garbage bags.
All samples and field measurements taken.
POC bottle broken in shipment, sample not
analyzed.
Well purged with QED pump, 18 gallons
(3.1 well volumes) removed.
All samples including a duplicate and
field measurements taken. Split sample
given to facility. Due to high pump rate,
VOA, POC, and POX samples collected in an
amber glass jar and then transferred to
sample containers.
Well purged with QEO pump, 1.22 gallons
(3 well volumes) removed.
All samples and field measurements taken.
Due to high pump rate VOA, POC, and POX
samples collected in an amber glass jar
and then transferred to sample containers.
Well bailed dry after removal of 0.75
gallons (0.8 well volumes). Field mea-
surements taken.
Collected VOA, POX, and POC samples.
Collected ABN samples.
Collected pesticide/herbicide and dioxin
samples.
-------
- A7 -
TABLE A-3 (cont'd)
WELL NO.
DATE/TIME
REMARKS
G-122
4/23/86 1610-1620
4/24/86 0910-0920
G-123
4/21/86 1455-1540
4/22/86 0950-1055
4/23/86 0910-0935
4/23/86 1215-1245
4/23/86 1525-1555
G-124
4/22/86 1215-1250
4/22/86 1315-1505
6-125
4/24/86 1034-1056
Collected phenols and cyanide samples.
Collected sulfate, chloride, ammonia, and
nitrate samples. POC sample broken in ship-
ment, sample not analyzed. Turbidity mea-
surement not recorded in log book.
Well bailed dry after removal of 2 gallons
(1.6 well volumes). Field measurements
taken.
Collected VOA, POX, POC, and ABN samples.
Collected pest./herb, and dioxin samples.
Collected total metals, TOC, TOX, phenols,
and cyanide samples.
Collected sulfate, chloride, ammonia, and
nitrate samples. POX sample broken in ship-
ment, sample not analyzed. Sample split
given to facility. Turbidity measurement
not recorded in log book.
Well purged with bailer, 2 gallons (3.2 well
volumes) removed.
All samples, including a duplicate, and field
measurements taken. Split sample given to
facility.
Well purged with QED pump, 3 gallons (3 well
volumes) removed.
4/24/86 1100-1130
All samples and field measurements taken.
-------
- A8 -
TABLE A-3 (cont'd)
WELL NO.
DATE/TIME
REMARKS
6-126
4/24/86 1437-1454
4/23/86 1610-1620
4/24/86 0910-0920
4/24/86 1455-1513
G-128
4/22/86 1450-1503
4/22/86 1515-1535
Well purged with QED pump, 3 gallons (4
well volumes) removed.
Collected phenols and cyanide samples.
Collected sulfate, chloride, ammonia, and
nitrate samples. POC sample broken in ship-
ment, sample not analyzed. Turbidity
measurement not recorded in log book.
All samples and field measurements taken.
Due to high pump rate, VOA, POC, and POX
samples collected in an amber glass jar
and then transferred to sample containers.
Well purged with QED pump,
well volumes) removed.
5 gallons (3.4
All samples and field measurements taken,
Due to high pump rate, VOA, POC, and POX
samples collected in amber glass jar and
then transferred to sample containers.
-------
WELL #
6-114
G-124
G-125
G-128
G-123
- A9 -
TABLE A-4
ORGANIC COMPOUNDS SHOWING
POSITIVE RESULTS FOR WELLS SAMPLED AT
PEORIA DISPOSAL CO.
PARAMETER CONCENTRATION
Methylene Chloride 5.1 ug/1
Methylene Chloride 5.0 ug/1
Methylene Chloride 7.1 ug/1
Methylene Chloride 32.0 ug/1
1 , 1-Dichloroethane 16.0 ug/1
DETECTION
LIMIT
5.0 ug/1
5.0 ug/1
5.0 ug/1
5.0 ug/1
5.0 ug/1
-------
- A10 -
TflBLE A-5
TOTflL METALS RESULTS FDR MONITORING WELLS
SAMPLED AT PEORIfl DISPOSAL COMPANY
PARAMETER
(ug/1)
ALUMINUM
ANTIMONY
ARSENIC
BARIUM
BERYLLIUM
CADMIUM
CALCIUM
CHROMIUM
COBALT
COPPER
IRON
LEAD
MAGNESIUM
MOMCQW
riivumcwC
MERCURY
NICKEL
POTASSIUM
SELENIUM
SILVER
SODIUM
THALLIUM
TIN
VANADIUM
ZINC
WELL
6106
TOTAL
13600
ND
ND
152
ND
i.a
159000
21
ND
16
16900
33.5
75600
658
ND
26
6220
ND
ND
10500
ND
ND
24
133
WELL
S107
TOTAL
5280
ND
ND
193
ND
2.3
139000
a
ND
ND
6820
38.8
65900
1160
ND
25
4740
ND
ND
13500
ND
ND
ND
295
WELL
6108
TOTAL
3890
ND
ND
58
ND
8
115000
13
ND
ND
4700
7.8
54800
189
ND
27
2970
ND
ND
7930
ND
ND
ND
40
WELL
8109
TOTAL
236
ND
ND
112
ND
ND
126000
ND
ND
ND
419
3.1
53000
22
ND
ND
2310
ND
ND
14500
ND
ND
ND
24
WELL
SI 10
TOTAL
1580
ND
ND
85
ND
ND
119000
12
ND
ND
. 1800
4.3
50300
49
ND
22
2470
ND
ND
36700
ND
ND
ND
23
WELL
R113
TOTAL
185
ND
ND
84
ND
ND
91300
15
ND
ND
64
ND
39400
4
ND
ND
4160
ND
ND
441000
ND
ND
ND
ND
WELL
6114
TOTAL
326
ND
ND
134
ND
ND
156000
ND
ND
ND
2490
ND
61200
1270
ND
24
7300
ND
ND
58500
ND
ND
ND
ND
WELL
6115
TOTAL
10300
ND
ND
133
ND
2
125000
25
ND
ND
10100
16.4
61300
287
ND
29
3850
ND
ND
10000
ND
66
ND
NO
WELL
G117
TOTAL
ND
ND
ND
66
ND
ND
94800
ND
ND
ND
61
13.4
37300
3
ND
ND
2520
ND
ND
37000
ND
ND
ND
ND
WELL
R118
TOTflL
177
ND
ND
74
ND
ND
122000
ND
ND
ND
73
ND
41300
7
ND
ND
2730
ND
ND
23500
ND
ND
ND
ND
WELL
G119
TOTAL
118
ND
ND
146
ND
ND
123000
ND
ND
ND
85
ND
59400
152
ND
24
7130
ND
ND
50900
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND-NOT DETECTED ABOVE THE METHOD DETECTION LIMIT.
-------
- fill -
TflBLE fl-5(coritimied)
TQTftL METftLS RESULTS FDR MONITORING WELLS
SRMPLED flT PEORIfl DISPOSAL COMPflNY
PflRflMETER
(ug/1)
ALUMINUM
flNTIHONY
flRSENIC
BflRIUM
BERYLLIUM
CflDMItM
CflLCIUM
CHRtt^IUM
COBflLT
COPPER
IRON
LEflD
XfiGNESIUM
MftNGANESE
MERCURY
NICKEL
POTflSSIUM
SELENIUM
SILVER
SODIUM
TBfiLLIUM
TIN
VflNflDIUW
ZINC
WELL
G120
TOTflL
633
ND
ND
373
ND
ND
105000
ND
ND
ND
6760
ND
56300
1190
ND
ND
9600
ND
ND
51000
ND
ND
ND
ND
WELL
6120 (DUP)
TOTflL
£02
ND
ND
37E
ND
ND
106000
13
ND
ND
6850
ND
56400
1200
ND
ND
9350
ND
ND
50500
ND
ND
ND
ND
WELL
G121
TOTflL
ND
NO
ND
116
ND
ND
130000
ND
ND
ND
301
ND
61500
83
ND
ND
5420
ND
ND
16800
ND
ND
ND
72
WELL
G122
TOTflL
205
ND
ND
212
ND
ND
155000
ND
ND
ND
75
6.6
69600
53
ND
24
5220
ND
ND
42900
ND
ND
ND
1850
WELL
G123
TOTflL
12200
ND
ND
183
ND
2.1
202000
41
29
13
15900
30.8
106000
2440
ND
100
8030
ND
ND
30300
ND
ND
ND
689
WELL
G124
TOTflL
3570
ND
ND
116
ND
2.1
146000
22
ND
ND
4740
75.5
117000
169
ND
41
5530
ND
ND
52700
ND
ND
ND
8140
WELL
G124(DUP)
TOTflL
3730
ND
ND
119
ND
1
144000
26
ND
ND
4350
53.5
113000
163
ND
36
5160
ND
ND
52500
ND
ND
ND
6170
WELL
8125
TOTflL
ND
ND
ND
159
ND
ND
162000
ND
ND
ND
255
ND
87800
38
ND
£9
2600
ND
ND
25000
ND
ND
ND
62
WELL
G126
TOTflL
ND
ND
ND
120
ND
ND
110000
ND
ND
ND
304
ND
59600
134
ND
20
2320
ND
ND
44500
ND
ND
ND
587
WELL
G128
TOTflL
1920
ND
ND
204
ND
ND
139000
16
ND
ND
2860
15.5
60500
1140
ND
ND
10900
ND
ND
30900
ND
ND
ND
603
ND-NOT DETECTED flBOVE THE METHOD DETECTION LIMIT.
-------
-fl!2 -
TflBLE A-6
FIELD MEASUREMENTS, INORGANIC AND INDICflTOR PARAMETER RESULTS
FOR MONITORING WELLS AT PEDRIfl DISPOSfL COMPflNY
PARAMETER
pH
Specific Conductivity
Temperature (C)
Turbidity (NTU)
POX (ug/1)
POC (ug/1)
TOX (ug/1)
TOC (ug/1)
TOTAL PHENOL (ug/1)
AMMONIA NITROGEN (ug/1)
NITRATE NITROGEN (ug/1)
NITRITE NITROGEN (ug/1)
SULFATE (ug/1)
CHLORIDE (ug/1)
BROMIDE (ug/1)
CYANIDE (ug/1)
PARAMETER
pH
Specific Conductivity
Temperature (C)
Turbidity (NTU)
POX (ug/1)
POC (ug/1)
TOX (ug/1)
TDC (ug/1)
TOTAL PHENOL (ug/1)
AMMONIA NITROGEN (ug/1)
NITRATE NITROGEN (ug/1)
NITRITE NITROGEN (ug/1)
SULFATE (ug/1)
CHLORIDE (ug/1)
BROMIDE (ug/1)
CYANIDE (ug/1)
UELL
6106
7
640
9.4
*
18
ND
12
1300
ND
ND
1850
ND
110000
12000
ND
ND
UELL
6119
6.9
725
14.1
0.41
5
BB
35
2600
ND
6600
ND
ND
100000
151000
ND
ND
UELL
6107
7.2
740
13.8
1.4
BB
BB
ND
1600
80
150
210
ND
70000
32000
90
ND
UELL
6120
7
600
12.2
0.5
13
ND
47
5500
14
7900
ND
ND
126000
41000
350
ND
UELL UELL
BIOS 6109
7.2 7.5
480 825
12 12.7
29 6.3
ND ND
BB ND
5.8 64
ND 1300
101 ND
ND ND
1500 1300
100 ND
85000 11000
24000 60000
ND 100
ND ND
UELL
6110
7
810
12.7
12
7
BB
16
1300
ND
ND
1500
ND
112000
51000
70
ND
WELL UELL UELL
6120 (DUP) 6121 6122
7.1
550
13.1
1.1
5 10
ND ND
44 16
5300 2000
ND ND
8200 13100
ND 250
ND ND
7.2
1225
12
*
5
BB
5.3
5000
ND
4200
880
ND
85000 76000 100000
133000 42000
350 100
ND ND
56000
260
ND
UELL
R113
7.1
890
13.8
0.8
ND
ND
8.2
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
100000
70000
100
ND
UELL
6123
6.7
1250
12.5
*
BB
ND
13
2200
172
180
ND
ND
110000
80000
300
ND
WELL WELL WELL WELL
6114 5115 6117 R118
6.7
775
11.3
*
ND
ND
38
5800
ND
8400
5000
ND
19000
7
BOO
12.3
8.3
BB
BB
6.5
1000
ND
ND
770
ND
85000
87000 190000
260
ND
UELL UELL
6124 6124 (DUP)
7.2
1480
13
82
61 ND
ND ND
23 20
2300 2200
36 48
ND ND
ND 90
ND ND
100000 85000
160000 183000
ND 610
ND ND
100
ND
WELL
6125
6.5
750
13.8
1.2
7
ND
20
2700
48
ND
600
50
100000
158000
650
ND
7
560
11.3
13
ND
ND
14
1400
ND
ND
730
ND
76000
72000
350
ND
UELL
6126
7
600
14.3
1.4
16
ND
23
2000
ND
ND
750
ND
70000
50000
350
ND
6.3
600
12
13
ND
ND
a
1200
ND
ND
2460
ND
76000
56000
60
ND
WELL
61 2B
6.7
725
13.3
18
2S
ND
36
3800
ND
22000
180
ND
70000
54000
250
NO
*DATA NOT RECORDED IN FIELD LOG.
BB-BOTTLE BROKEN IN SHIPMENT, SAMPLE NOT ANALYZED.
ND-NOT DETECTED ABOVE THE METHOD DETECTION LIMIT.
-------
TABLE A-7
COMPARISON OF PDC's SAMPLE RESULTS FOR OCTOBER 1984 - JULY 1985
WITH TASK FORCE SAMPLES TAKEN DURING THE WEEK OF APRIL 21
Specific Cond. (umoh/cm)
Well
No.
G109
G110
R113
G114
G115
G116
6117
R118
G119
G120*
PDC
N
16
16
4
16
4
16
16
16
4
16
's Data
Mean
820
760
900
1170
880
1110
890
950
1080
1160
Stand.
Dev.
105
81.6
77.7
84.8
42.4
65.5
39.0
58.8
90.7
129.8
EPA
Data
825
810
890
775
800
NS
560
600
725
600
pH
PDC's Data
Mean
7.06
6.98
7.16
6.73
7.27
7.38
7.12
6.94
6.94
6.90
Stand.
Dev.
0.22
0.16
0.25
0.25
0.22
0.20
0.12
0.06
0.18
0.14
EPA
Data
7.5
7.0
7.1
6.7
7.0
NS
7.0
6.9
6.9
7.0
TOX (mg/1)
PDC's Data
Mean
9.0
10.1
4.4
15.1
4.9
6.3
6.6
4.6
11.5
15.3
Stand.
Dev.
8.7
9.1
3.3
7.0
3.0
5.7
4.5
3.8
6.4
7.0
EPA
Data
1.3
1.3
ND
5.8
1.0
NS
1.4
1.2
2.6
5.5(5
- 25, 1986
TOX (ug/1)
PDC's Data
Mean
9
6
19
41
11
27
11
23
22
.3) 50
Stand.
Dev.
4.1
3.4
14.6
7.0
12.2
22.8
7.5
17.4
2.9
10.1
EPA
DATA
64
16
8.2
38
6.5
NS
14
8
35
47(44)
N - Is the number of observations obtained during a one-year period. In calculation of the mean, PDC used
one-half of the detection limit for samples that were reported as "less than" the detection limit.
ND - For EPA samples - Not detected above method detection limit.
NS - Not sampled by EPA during the Task Force inspection.
* - For Well G120 EPA's contractor took duplicate samples for TOC and TOX.
- A13 -
------- |