United States Office of
Environmental Protection Emergency and
Agency Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R05-93/238
September 1993
SEPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Adams County Quincy
-------
Q
150272.101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION 11. REPORT NO.
PAGE EPA/ROD/R05-93/238
4. TItle 8nd SUbtIU8
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Adams County Quincy Landfill Site 12 & 13, IL
First Remedial Action - Final
2.
3. R8c:lpI8nt's A_slon No.
5.
Report Data
09/30/93
6.
7.
Whor(s)
8.
P8rfannlng Organization R8pL No.
9.
Pwfonnlng Organization Name and Add-
10 Project TulllWork Unh No.
11. Contr8ct(C) or G.8N(G) No.
R
A
12. SponsorIng Organization Name and Adctr.s
U.S. Environmental Protection
401 M Street; S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. Typa of Report. Period Co¥8r'8d
Agency
800/800
14.
15. SUpplementary Not..
PB94-964123
16. Ab8tract (Umlt: 2100 words)
The 56-acre Adams County Quincy Landfill 12 and 13 site is a former municipal landfill
in Quincy, Adams County, Illinois. Land use in the area is predominantly agricultural,
with a residential area located one mile north of the site. The site is boun~ed by
pastureland to.the east, a wooded tract to the south, private land to the west, and Old
Broadway Road to the north. Although the area is generally rural, there are residences
across Old Broadway Road located to the north and within one hundred yards of the site.
From 1967 to 1972, the site was used for the stabling and pasturage of livestock.
Later in 1972, the City of Quincy leased the landfill and redesignated the site as
Quincy Municipal Landfill 12. Prior to 1974, records of the types of materials received
were not maintained, although liquids disposal and unsupervised dumping was known to
occur. In 1974, EPA granted a permit for the development of 15 contiguous acres to be
called Quincy Municipal Landfill 13. In 1978, the site was closed and a final cover
was applied. From 1967 to 1978, the site received solid, hazardous, and liquid waste.
In 1981, the City of Quincy acknowledged that the landfill had accepted unknown
quantities of inorganics, solvents, heavy metals, mixed municipal wastes, and unknown
wastes, and in 1982, the City of Quincy purchased the site. In 1983, EPA completed a
(See Attached'Page)
17. Documenl Analysis L Descriptors
Record of Decision - Adams County
First Remedial Action - Final
Contaminated Media: gw, leachate
Key Contaminants: VOCs (benzene,
(PAH)
Quincy Landfill Site 12 & 13, IL
toluene), metals (arsenic, lead), other organics
b.
"ntlli8r8lOp8n-End8d Terms
c.
COSAT1 FI8kUGroup
18. AvallabilhyStat_nt
19. Security Class (ThIs Report)
None
20. Security Class (This Page)
None
21. No. of Pages
64
22. Price
. (See ANSI-Z3I1.18)
SHlnstlUCtions on Relf8fS8
OPTIONAL FORlim (4-77)
-------
"
EPA/ROD/R05-93/238
Adams County Quincy Landfill Site #2 & #3, IL
First Remedial Action - Final
Abstract (Continued)
preliminary assessment of the site that estimated that approximately 3,000 people were
potentially affected by ground water contamination resulting from landfill contaminants
migrating from the site. In 1984, EPA completed a site inspection that estimated that the
site received approximately 343,000 gallons of sludge, 2,800,000 gallons of oily waste,
312,000 gallons of solvents, 343,200 gallons of organic and 180,000 gallons of inorganic
chemicals, and 180,000 gallons of bases. A detailed topographic survey was performed by
the City of Quincy, which included placement of an additional clay cap over leachate
seeps, installation of new ground water monitoring wells, and approval of the City's
erosion control proposal. In 1985, the State identified contamination in several adjacent
residential wells and ordered the wells closed; and in,1986, the city extended the public
water supply to the two affected residents. This ROD addresses a first and final remedy
for 'the source contamination. The primary contaminants of concern affecting the ground
water and leachate are VOCs, including benzene and toluene; other organics, including
PARs; and metals, including arsenic and lead.
The selected remedial .action for this site includes improving the landfill cap; collecting
and treating leachate onsite using neutralization, metals precipitation, gravity
separation, air stripping, and/or carbon adsorption, as determined during the RD phase;
discharging of the treated leachate either onsite or offsite; providing a contingency for
installation of a ground water pump and treat system to minimize contaminant migration;
providing a public water supply for nearby affected residences, if ground water monitoring
indicates that contamination exceeds compliance levels; monitoring leachate and ground
water; installing surface engineering controls, including berms, lined ditches, and catch
basins to direct surface infiltration away from known disposal areas; and implementing
institutional controls, including deed restrictions, and site access restrictions,
including fencing. The estimated present worth cost for this remedial action is
$3,040,611, which includes an estimated annual O&M cost of $216,702.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS:
Chemical-specific leachate cleanup goals are based on SDWA MCLs, and include benzene 0.005
-------
'"
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
,0
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Adams county Quincy Landfills 2 & 3
Quincy, Illinois
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document serves as United States Environmental
Protection Aqency (USEPA) concurrence with and adoption of the
remedial action decision for the Adams County Quincy Landfills 2 &
3 site, as approved by the Illinois Environmental Protection Aqency
(IEPA), 'and pursuant to sections 104(d) and 117 of the
comprehensive Environmental Response, compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amendea by the superfund Amenctments and
Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986, and to the extent practicable,
the National Oil and Hazardous substances Pollution continqency
Plan (NCP). The IEPA selected this remedial action in accordance
with the Illinois Environmental Protection Act and has provided
USEPA with documentation to demonstrate that the state I s selection
of the remedy conforms with the requirements of CERCLA ana the NCP
to the extent practicable.
The state has souqht USEPA concurrence in selection of the remedy
based on the attached documents and the adequacy and completeness
of those documents as represented by the state.
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this
site, if not addressed by implementing the response action selected
in this Record of Decision, may present an imminent and substantial
endangerment to p\11:)lic health, welfare, or the environment.
DESCRIPTION OF THE REMEDY
The remedial action addresses two areas of concern--leachate and
groundwater. The leachate remedial action addresses the source of.
the contamination by collecting and treating on-site waste. The
function of this acti.on is to control the landfill site as a source
of groundwater contamination, to reduce the risks associated with
exposure to contaminated materials, and to prevent untreated
leachate from ,:mminq oft site. The groundwater remedial action
involves . long-term monitorinq with cleanup levels. Failure to meet-
those cleanup levels will triqger remediaL action.
The major components of the selected remedy include:
.
.
Installation of a security fence around the landfill site;
Deed restrictions to prohibit qrounawater use anci building
-------
.
.
Leachate collection, treatment, and monitorinq;
Installation of surface controls to reduce erosion;
Landfill cap improvements to provide a minimum three feet of
cover on the landfill;
Provision of a public water supply to nearby residents;
Groundwater monitorinq;
Groundwater containment and treatment if qroundwater cleanup
levels are not met and maintained.
c- ~
.
.
.
.
DECIARATION
The selected remedy is protective of human heal th and the
environment, complies with Federal and State requirements that are
leqally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the remedial
action, and is cost effective. This remedy utilizes permanent
solutions and al ternati ve treatment technoloqies to the maximum
extent practicable and satisfies the statutory preference for
remedies that employ ~reatment that reduces toxicity, mobility, or
volume as a principal element.
Because this remedy will result in hazardous substances remaininq
on site, the state is expected to supply information such that the
USEPA can conduct a review within five years after commencement of
remedial action to ensure that the remedy continues to provide
adequate protection of human health and the environment.
Based on the information described above, USEPA concurs with the
decision the IEPA has made in the exercise of the state's authority
in selectinq this remedy under an agreement between USEPA and IEPA
pursuant to section 104 (d) of CERCLA for implementation of the
remedy.
&/I!.I//~
f- Valdas V. Adamkus
Reqional Administrator
0~43
Da e
Attachments
-------
I>
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Adams County Quincy Landfills 2 & 3
Quincy, Illinois
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for
the Adams County Quincy Landfills 2 & 3 in Adams County, Illinois,
which was chosen in accordance with the Illinois Environmental
Protection Act, Ill. Rev. stat. 1983, ch. 111 1/2, pars. 1001 et.
seq., the comprehensive Environmental Response, compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended by the superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986 and to the extent
practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
contingency Plan (NCP). This decision is based on the
administrative record for this site. The united States
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Region V concurs with the
selected remedy.
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this
site, if not addressed by implementing the response action selected
in this Record of Decision, may present an imminent and substantial
endangerment to public health, welfare, or the environment.
DESCRIPTION OF THE REMEDY
The remedial action addres~es two areas of concern--leachate and
groundwater. The leachate remedial action addresses the source of
the contamination by cOllecting and treating on-site waste. The
function of this action is to control the landfill site as a source
of groundwater contamination, to reduce the risks associated with
exposure to contaminated materials, and to prevent untreated
leachate from running off site. The groundwater response action
involves long-term monitoring with cleanup levels. Failure to meet
those cleanup levels will trigger further remedial action.
The major components of the selected remedy include:
.
.
.
Installation of a security fence around the landfill site;
Deed restrictions to prohibit groundwater use and building
construction on the site;
Leachate collection, treatment, and monitoring;
Installation of surface controls to reduce erosion;
Landfill cap improvements to provide a minimum three feet of
cover on the landfill;
Provision of a public water supply to nearby residents;
.
.
-------
.
.
Groundwater monitoring;
Groundwater containment and treatment if groundwater cleanup
levels are not met and maintained.
DECLARATION
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the
environment, complies with Federal and State requirements that are
legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the remedial
action, and is cost effective. This remedy utilizes permanent
solutions and alternative treatment technologies to the maximum
extent practicable and satisfies the statutory preference for
remedies that employ treatment that reduces toxicity, mobility, or
volume as a principal element.
Because this remedy will result in hazardous substances remaining
on site above health-based levels, a review will be conducted
within five years after commencement of remedial action to ensure
that the remedy continues to provide adequate protection of human
health and the environment.
~a~, ~
Illinois Environmental
, /zf/,3
Date
Protection Agency
-------
p
'"
SUMMARY FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
Site Name. Location. and Description
The Adams County Quincy Landfills 2 & 3 site is located in a rural
area on Old Broadway Road south of Illinois Route 104 approximately
5 miles east of the City of Quincy within the eastern 1/2 of
Section 1, Township 2 South, Range 8 West in Melrose Township,
Adams County in west-central Illinois (Figure 1). The site's
northern limit is bounded by Old Broadway Road, the eastern
boundary is adjacent to pastureland, the southern limit is bounded
by a wooded tract, and the western boundary is bordered by a
private lane (Figure 2) .
The fifty-six acre site is wire fenced on all sides with a locked
access gate on the northern boundary. The wire fence is in
disrepair in some areas, particularly the western boundary, and
allows easy access to anyone wishing to walk on site. The only
structure on site is a metal storage building located near the
north entrance gate. The remnants of an unmaintained gravel
roadway cross the middle of the site from the entrance gate on the
north to the southwestern side of the site.
The landfill is located on an upland of the Mississippi River and
the topography of the area is generally hilly, sloping from the
north to the south and southwest. Surface drainage on the site
flows to the south and southwest to an unnamed stream tributary to
Mill Creek. A drainage ditch on the western boundary of the site
collects surface runoff and discharges to the stream.
No leachate collection or containment system was ever installed on
site. Numerous leachate seeps occur throughout the landfill. Most
seeps are located on the southwestern side of the site, although
several have been seen in the old roadway and a large seepage area
occurs in a low-lying area in the middle of the site. Leachate
collects in low areas and drainages, then runs off site primarily
in two locations--along the western boundary fence and on the
southwest to the nearby stream.
The site overlies Mississippian-Age limestone. Site investigative
borings found fracturing in the uppermost bedrock, with slope to
the west northwest. The area is generally overlain with pre-
Illinoisan glacial drift containing mostly till with some outwash
sands and gravels, silt and clay, and pebbles with occasional
cobbles. Silty clay and wind-blown loess overlay the till.
Site groundwater movement is influenced by limestone bedrock,-
glacial till, and relic channel sands. The Keokuk-Burlington
-------
most area municipal and domestic wells
unit. Groundwater flow in the unit
northwest direction across the site
topography (Figures 3 and 4) .
obtaining water from this
is generally in a west
consistent with bedrock
The glacial till deposits across the site are heterogeneous and
variable with small discontinuous sand zones. The silty clay
matrix has low permeability and restricts vertical infiltration of
precipitation into the till aquifer and restricts flow between sand
lenses. The predominant groundwater flow direction in the till is
west southwest, generally corresponding to topography. Glacial
deposits at the site vary in thickness from thirty-five feet to
over two hundred feet. Deposits of relic channel sands often
underlay the till in the area.
A 72-hour pump test was performed on the deep channel sand aquifer
as part of the Supplemental Remedial Investigation. . No leakage
from the till units into the deep channel sand aquifer formation
was observed; test results indicated that the deep channel sand and
underlying bedrock are interconnected.
The northern part (approximately two-thirds) of the landfill, which
was the area of landfill operation, is vegetated with herbaceous
plants though some woody shrubs and small trees occur throughout
the area. Woody vegetation, including large deciduous trees, with
an herbaceous understory occurs in the drainage along the stream
and on the southern part of the site where no disposal activities
occurred. No wetlands have been identified on or near the site.
The site is located in a semi-rural setting where agriculture is
the most common land use. Pastureland and a small wooded tract
immediately adjoin the site. Cattle, hogs, sheep, and goats are
raised in the vicinity and corn and beans are the primary crops.
A rock quarry is located approximately one-half mi.le west of the
landfill.
Though the area is generally rural, there are numerous houses
nearby. Residences occur just across Old Broadway Road to the
north within one hundred yards of the site. A small subdivision is
located approximately one mile north of the site and the Village of
Burton is the closest community, located to the northeast within
approximately one and one-half miles of the site.
Site ODerational Historv
Prior to initiation of landfill operations, the site was used for
the stabling and pasturage of livestock. On January 11, 1967, the
Adams County Health Department approved an application permit
submitted by Ronald Thomas to develop an 11.75 acre landfill at the
site. On March 8, 1971 the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(IEPA or Agency) approved Permit #1971-3, submitted by Ronald
Thomas and Marion Neill, to operate 11. 75 acres at the site as "R&M
-------
Landfill". Marion Neill's association with the landfill ceased on
October 16, 1971. On February 16, 1972 the Agency granted Permit
#1972-1 to Ronald and Sarah Thomas to operate 11.75 acres at the
site as "Ron's Landfill". The City of Quincy leased the landfill
from Ronald Thomas on September 25, 1972 and redesignated the site
as "Quincy Municipal Landfill #2". On January 17, 1973 the Agency
granted Permit #1973-7 to the City of Quincy for operation of the
landfill. On July 24, 1974 the Agency granted Permit #1974-192 to
the City of Quincy for a 5.7 acre expansion of the landfill. The
Agency granted Permit 1975-45-DE to the City of Quincy for the
development of 15 contiguous acres to be called "Quincy Municipal
Landfill #3". The site was closed to receipts on August 8, 1978
and final cover was applied in the fall of 1978 and the spring of
1979. On April 29, 1982 the City of Quincy purchased the site from
Ronald and Sarah Thomas.
Records of the types of materials received at the site were not
maintained prior to 1974. However, it is known from Agency files
that on May 25, 1971 the Agency revised Permit #1971-3 to allow the
receipt of liquid wastes at the site. During Thomas' operation of
the landfill, access was not always restricted and dumping was not
always supervised.
Under operation by the City of Quincy, the landfill received liquid
wastes which were retained in holding pits located on the north and
west portions of the site near completed landfill trenches. Liquid
wastes were pumped into the completed trenches by well point
injectors and covered with fill. The site's permit was revised on
August 22, 1974 to allow the use of a perforated pipe to inject
liquid wastes into the filled portion of the landfill.
The Adams County Quincy Landfills 2 & 3 site was the only operating
landfill in Adams County from January 1967 to August 1978 and thus
received the majority of the solid waste generated in the county,
as well as large amounts of hazardous waste from the City of
Quincy's industrial sector. Agency file records document the
disposal at the site of liquid industrial wastes including
solvents, acids, sludges containing heavy metals, spent non-
halogenated solvents, spent halogenated solvents used in
degreasing, wastewater treatment sludges from electroplating
operations, hydraulic oil, machine coolants, thinners, paint
solvents, methylchloroform, selenium, toluene, methylene chloride,
acetone, and chloroethene. All disposals at the landfill predate
the Agency's January 1979 manifesting requirements. It is also
important to note that the landfills operated only prior to the
November 19, 1980 effective date of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act.
Site Enforcement Activities
On May 19, 1981 the City of Quincy completed a Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act .(CERCLA)
-------
Notification of Hazardous Waste Site form for the Adams County
Quincy Landfills 2 & 3 site. The notification acknowledged the
landfill disposal of unknown quantities of inorganics, solvents,
heavy metals, mixed municipal wastes, and unknown wastes.
Additional notices were received from generators of wastes disposed
at the site.
On July 1, 1983 a preliminary assessment of the site was completed
by Ecology and Environment, Inc., as field investigative team
contractor for the. United States Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA). The preliminary assessment estimated that approximately
3000 people were potentially affected by groundwater contamination
from spent halogenated sol vents used in degreasing, wastewater
treatment sludge from electroplating operations, and 1,1,1-
trichloro~thane accepted at the site.
On March 7, 1984 the same USEPA contractor completed a site
inspection. It was estimated that the site had received 343,000
gallons of sludge containing paint and toluene; 2,800,000 gallons
of oily waste; 312,000 gallons of solvents; 343,200 gallons of
other organic chemicals; 180,000 gallons of inorganic chemicals;
180,000 gallons of bases. Estimates were based on IEPA
supplemental permits for disposal at the site.
On March 12, 1984 USEPA's contractor prepared a preliminary score
for the site in accordance with the Hazard Ranking System model.
The site scored 12.48 which is insufficient for consideration for
the National Priorities List (NPL), but above the score of 10
necessary for consideration for the IEPA's State Remedial Action
Priorities List (SRAPL). On December 14, 1984 the site was
proposed Eor inclusion on the SRAPL and was included on July 24,
1985.
In response to the proposed SRAPL listing, the City of Quincy
proposed, in a letter dated February 15, 1985, to perform
corrective measures at the site to consist of a detailed
topographic survey, follow-up construction to correct drainage
problems, placement of additional clay cap material over leachate
seeps, and installation of new groundwater monitoring wells. In
June 1985 the IEPA collected twelve residential water well samples
from homes in the vicinity of the landfill. On July 24, 1985 the
IEPA approved the City of Quincy's groundwater monitoring program
and on September 13, 1985 the IEPA approved the City's erosion
control proposal. Analysis of the residential well samples was
completed in August 1985 and found contamination in two nearby
wells--the Allen and Jacobs wells. The contaminants detected were
methylene chloride; I, I-dichloroethane; dichloroethylene;
chloroform; 1, 1, I-trichloroethane; dichlorobromomethane;
tetrachloroethylene; vinyl chloride; and benzene. The two wells
were resampled in October 1985 and the contamination was confirmed.
In March 1986, the IEPA sent letters to the owners of the two
contaminated wells and recommended that use of the wells be
-------
. D
"
discontinued. In April 1986 the City of Quincy extended Mill Creek
Water District service to the two affected residences. The two
wells were taken out of service but have not been plugged and
abandoned.
Because of the apparent release of landfill wastes into
groundwater that migrated off site, the IEPA, pursuant to
provisions of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act, issued a
Section 4(q) Notice to the City of Quincy and eight other
potentially responsible parties (PRPs). The June 12, 1986 notice
required a .remedial investigation and a feasibility study at the
site. The IEPA issued a subsequent notice on December 14, 1986
which named eight additional parties.
The parties named in the June 1986 notice are City of Quincy;
Harris Corp.; Huck Fixture Co.; Moorman Manufacturing Co.; Master
Tank and Welding, Inc.; Gardner-Denver Co.; Colt Industries
Operating Corp.; Motorola, Inc.; and Firestone Tire and Rubber Co.
The eight additional parties are E.L. Smith and Sons Co.; Quincy
Soybean Co.; Brower Manufacturing Co.; Litteral Manufacturing-
Speedrack, Inc.; Browning-Ferris Industries of Quincy; Woodworth
Cesspool Service; Blickhan Trucking Co.; and The Celotex Corp.
In August 1986, only those nine parties named in the June 12, 1986
notice formed the Quincy Landfill Participating Respondent Group
(PRG) and proposed to the Agency that under the terms of the 4(q)
Notice and without a consent order, a remedial investigation and
feasibility study would be conducted at the site. The PRG's
contractor completed a preliminary report in February 1987.
The IEPA prepared a preliminary score for the site in accordance
with the Hazard Ranking System with consideration given to an
observed release to groundwater, and in September 1987 the site
received a score of 34.21 making it eligible for consideration for
the NPL. In July 1988 the site was proposed for addition to the
NPL and was placed on the NPL on August 30, 1990. Through an
agreement between the Agency and USEPA, the site was designated a
"State Lead" enforcement case with USEPA in the "Support Agency"
role.
International Technology Corp. (IT), the PRG's contractor,
performed remedial investigation activities in 1987 and 1988 and
submitted a revised final remedial investigation report to the
Agency in May 1989. In July 1989, IT drafted a work plan for a
supplemental remedial investigation (SRI). The SRI and a risk
assessment were performed in 1990 and a focused feasibility study
for the site was completed in 1992 by John Mathes & Associates,
Inc., also known as Burlington Environmental.
Community Relations Activities
The Agency began conducting community relations activities on an ad
-------
hoc basis at this site soon after the residential well
contamination was found. In April 1986 a public meeting was held
to discuss groundwater contamination near the site. State and
local government representatives were available to respond to
citizens' questions and to discuss the results of private well
monitoring. Several informal "living room" question and answer
sessions were also held at residents' homes with Agency staff
available to answer questions and address concerns.
In September 1988 a press release issued by the Agency announced
the availability of the Remedial Investigation report. The Focused
Feasibility Study report and the Proposed Plan were made available
to the public in March 1993 in both the administrative record and
an information repository maintained at the Quincy Public Library.
The notice of availability of the Focused Feasibility Study report
and the Proposed Plan was published in the Quincy Herald-Whig on
March 29, 1993; April 5, 1993; and April 12, 1993. The notice
included the announcement of a scheduled public hearing and a
public comment period from March 29, 1993 through May 28, 1993.
The public hearing was held on April 28, 1993 pursuant to the
provisions of the Agency's "Procedures for Informational and Quasi-
Legislative Public Hearings" at 35 Illinois Administrative Code
164. Representatives of the Agency and USEPA responded to
questions and accepted comments on the proposed remedial action
plan. A response to comments is included in the Responsiveness
Summary which is part of this Record of Decision.
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for
the Adams County Quincy Landfills 2 & 3 site in rural Quincy,
Illinois, chosen in accordance with CERCLA, as amended by the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986 and, to
the extent practicable, the National Contingency Plan (NCP). The
decision for this site is based on the administrative record.
Scope and Role of Response Action
Remedial action at this site addresses two areas of concern--
leachate and groundwater. The leachate remedial action addresses
the source of the contamination by treating on-site waste. "The
function of this remedial action is to control the landfill site as
a source of groundwater contamination and to prevent untreated
leachate from running off site.
The groundwater remedy initially involves long-term monitoring to
determine if groundwater contamination exceeds cleanup levels.
Monitoring addresses the threat that on-site contamination may have
migrated, and may continue to migrate, off site into groundwater
which is a potential source of drinking water for nearby residents.
If monitoring shows that groundwater contamination exceeds the
cleanup levels, remedial action will be triggered and groundwater
-------
will be treated in order to minimize contaminant migration and to
prevent exposure to contaminants in groundwater.
Summary of Site Characteristics
The Adams County Quincy Landfills 2 & 3 site, as the only operating
landfill in Adams County from 1967-1978, received solid waste
generated in the county and large amounts of hazardous waste from
the City of Quincy's industrial sector. Based on IEPA supplemental
permi ts for disposal at the site, in 1984 a USEPA contractor
estimated site receipts of materials for disposal; those estimates
are listed in the Site Enforcement Activities section. of this
document. The trench and fill method of operation at the landfill
resulted in direct contact of site environmental media with the
disposal materials which are the only known sources of site
contamination.
The site investigative work was performed in four phases: the IT
Preliminary Activities, the IT Phase I Investigation, the IT Phase
II Investigation, and the Mathes Supplemental RI (see Figures 5 and
6 for monitoring locations). Remedial Investigation analytical
resul ts for subsurface soils, groundwater, surface water, sediment,
and leachate are reprinted in Tables 2-1 through 2-5.
Summary statistics of on-site subsurface soil analytical results
are shown in Table 2 -1. Ethylbenzene, xylenes, Aroclor 1254,
mercury, and zinc were considered chemicals of potential concern
for further evaluation in the risk assessment.
Summary statistics of groundwater analytical results for both on-
site monitoring wells and nearby residential wells are shown in
Table 2--2.. All positively detected organic compounds were
considered chemicals of potential concern for evaluation. Included
were chloroethane; 1,1-dichloroethane; 1,1-dichloroethene;
tetrachloroethene; trichloroethylene; I, I, I-trichloroethane; vinyl
chloride; benzene; ethylbenzene; toluene; and xylene. Other
parameters selected for further evaluation in the risk assessment
were manganese, mercury, and zinc.
Summary statistics of surface water analytical results are shown in
Table 2-3. Manganese, mercury, nickel, and silver were considered
chemicals of potential concern.
Summary statistics of sediment analytical results are shown in
Table 2-4. The presence of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons was
attributed to an upstream source and no inorganic chemicals were
considered to be of potential concern.
Summary statistics of leachate analytical results are shown in
Table 2-5. All detected organic constituents and arsenic, barium,
lead, manganese, mercury, silver, and zinc were considered
chemicals of concern for further evaluation in the risk assessment.
-------
The Remedial Investigation, the Supplemental Remedial
Investigation, and the Risk Assessment reports should be consulted
for a detailed description of the sampling methods and analytical
procedures utilized in site investigation and data evaluation.
The ambient air medium was eliminated from further consideration
based on the absence of e.levated HNU readings from soil boreholes,
the relatively low concentrations of volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) detected in subsurface soils, and the presence of clayey
soils which are expected to minimize the upward migration of VOCs.
L.
A groundwater plume which connects the site groundwater to the off-
site groundwater wells has not been found. Contaminants and
concentration ranges for the off-site residential wells and for the
on-site monitoring wells are similar; however, bedrock and till
groundwater monitoring well clusters situated between the landfill
and the affected residential wells to intercept contaminant
migration did not demonstrate detectable contamination with any of
the observed contaminants. The scientific complexities of
contaminant fate and transport in highly fractured and channeled
karst limestone bedrock such as that underlying the site, could
obscure a transport route from the landfill as a source to off-site
groundwater. No other possible source of the off-site well
contamination has been identified, and the Agency has always taken
the position that on-site contamination is a continuing potential
threat to off-site receptors. Therefore, on-site leachate will be
addressed as a means of controlling a source of groundwater
contamination.
Summary of Site Risks
The 1991 Risk Assessment performed by John Mathes and Associates,
Inc. for the PRG, characterizes existing and future health risks
posed by residual contamination associated with site conditions.
The risk assessment was performed by the PRG using the current
methodology and techniques described in the USEPA's Risk Assessment
Guidance for Superfund-Human Health Evaluation Manual (1989) and
the Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund-Environmental Evaluation
Manual (1989). The Risk Assessment report should be consulted for
a detailed description of the assessment procedures.
The risk assessment analyzes the toxicity and degree of hazard
posed by substances related to the site and describes the routes by
which these substances could come into contact with humans and the
environment. Separate calculations are made for those compounds
that can cause cancer and for those that can have other health
effects. For the compounds that can cause cancer--carcinogens--
risks are estimated as the additional possibility of developing
cancer due to a lifetime of exposure to the compounds. The
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan (NCP)
establishes acceptable levels of risk for Superfund sites ranging
from 1 in 10,000 (1 x 10-4) to 1 in 1,000,000 (1 x 10-6) excess
-------
cancer cases. II Excess II means the number of cancer cases in
addition to those that would ordinarily occur in a population of
that size under natural conditions. For the non-cancer causing
compounds- -noncarcinogens- -a risk number called the hazard index is
calculated so that if the risk is less than or ecrual to 1, no
adverse health effects would be expected. If the risk is greater
than 1, adverse health effects are possible.
To evaluate potential current and future threats to human health
and the environment, risk estimates were developed for the
following exposure scenarios: domestic use of groundwater from
hypothetical wells downgradient of the site (includes both
ingestion of drinking water and inhalation of VOCs during
showering); domestic use of water from the Allen and Jacobs wells
at some time in the future, assuming the public water supply is not
used (includes both ingestion of drinking water and inhalation of
VOCs during showering); and dermal contact with leachate by local
children.
Table 2-6 shows the calculated incremental lifetime cancer risks
and total hazard indices for the scenarios listed above.
The estimated incremental cancer risk level (CRL) and the hazard
index (HI) for domestic use of groundwater in the hypothetical
downgradient well under reasonable maximum exposure (RME)
conditions are 1.86 x 10-6 and 0.108, respectively. The CRL under
RME conditions exceeds the point-of-departure risk level. The
calculated hazard index is less than one.
The estimated incremental CRL and HI for domestic use of
groundwater in the Allen well under average exposure (AE)
conditions are 2.47 x 10-5 and 0.176, respectively. Under RME
conditions the CRL is 7.34 x 10-5 and the HI is 0.281. The
estimated CRLs exceed the point-of-departure risk level. The
calculated hazard indices under both exposure conditions are less
than one.
The estimated incremental CRL and HI for domestic use of
groundwater in the Jacobs well under AE conditions are 4.11 x 10-5
and 0.173, respectively. Under RME conditions the CRL is 2.34 x
10-4 and the HI is 0.268. The estimated CRLs exceed the point-of-
departure risk level. The contaminant that was the primary
contributor to this risk is vinyl chloride. The calculated hazard
indices under both exposure conditions are less than one.
It should be noted that in 1986 a public water supply through the
Mill Creek Water District was made available to nearby residents
whose drinking water wells were contaminated, including the Allen
and Jacobs residences. The Allen and Jacobs wells are reported to
be abandoned and no longer used for domestic purposes.
-------
The estimated incremental CRL and the HI for dermal contact with
leachate are 9.40 x 10-9 and 0.0000203, respectively, under RME
conditions. The estimated CRL is below USEPA's point-of-deoarture
risk level of 1 x 10-6 and the calculated HI is less than one,
which indicate that adverse health effects are not anticipated.
Although the data used in the risk assessment resulted in the
determination that no excess risk exists from dermal contact with
leachate, the Agency has taken the position that if it were to
conduct a risk assessment at this time, the evaluation would result
in the presence of excess risk from dermal contact with leachate.
Also, on-site leachate is considered a source of groundwater
contamination and the potential exists for degradation in leachate
quality.
Risk associated with future use of the landfill site was also
evaluated, although continued landfill maintenance is the only
anticipated future land use at the site. Residential or commercial
development is unlikely due to the topography and remote location
of the site. Dermal contact with leachate during a future
hypothetical recreational use was considered and would only
slightly increase the associated risk to the 10-7 risk level at the
RME if exposure were to occur on a daily basis.
When the site investigation and risk assessment activities were
performed, the procedures for addressing environmental risk were
not so standardized as they are for human health risk assessment.
No critical habitats, endangered species, or habitats of endangered
species were identified or evaluated in tpe RI/FS or risk
assessment process. However, the u.s. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service has identified two Federally endangered
species which may be present in the vicinity of the site. The
Indiana bat (Mvotis sodalis) and the bald eagle (Haliaeetus
leucoceohalus) may be indirectly impacted by contamination
associated with the site.
Previous surveys conducted by the Illinois Natural History Survey
have docume~ted the presence of Indiana bats at a cave near Burton,
Illinois, which is near the site. Since bats feed on flying
insects along stream corridors and have been known to forage as far
as one and one-half miles from a given roost or cave site, it is
likely that bats from the Burton cave site may be foraging along
Mill Creek. The contaminants identified in landfill materials may
bioaccumulate in aquatic invertebrates in surface waters; therefore
the landfill may be a source of contaminants to foraging Indiana
bats in that vicinity.
The bald eagle breeds and winters in Adams County, Illinois,
primarily along the Mississippi River, and in the winter this
species feeds on fish in open water areas. It roosts at night in
large trees adjacent to the river. This species may be impacted
indirectly through bioaccumulation of contaminants in the food
-------
chain. However, there is no critical habitat designated for this
species in Illinois.
.u
Based on data gathered in the Remedial Investigation and risks
identified in the Risk Assessment, actual or threatened releases of
hazardous substances from this site, if not addressed by
implementing the response action selected in this Record of
Decision, may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to
public health, welfare, or the environment.
Description of Alternatives
Nine remedial action alternatives were considered in the Focused
Feasibility Study for the cleanup of leachate and groundwater at
the Adams County Quincy Landfills 2 & 3 site (see Table 5-1). The
No Action alternative--Alternative 1A--is a baseline for comparison
to other alternatives; its inclusion is mandated by the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA). The
alternatives are described below.
ALTERNATIVE 1A: NO ACTION. The Superfund program requires that
the "no action" alternative be evaluated at every site to establish
a baseline for comparison. No remedial activities would be
implemented with this alternative and the site would remain in its
present 'condition. However, leachate and groundwater would be
monitored.
Construction Costs: $0
Annual O&M Costs: $82,000
Present Worth: $773,007
ALTERNATIVE 1B: INSTITUTIONAL AND SURFACE CONTROLS. This
al ternati ve includes access restrictions, deed restrictions to
prohibit groundwater usage, providing a public water supply to
replace current groundwater usage, leachate and groundwater
monitoring to track the potential impact of site constituents,
surface controls to reduce infiltration into and through the former
waste disposal areas, and continued maintenance of site cover.
Physical access restrictions include upgrade and continued
maintenance of a security fence around the site with warning signs
to inform the public of potential site hazards.
Land use restrictions included in the property deed would prohibit
groundwater usage on site and building construction and drilling on
site except for purposes of continued site remediation or
groundwater investigation.
Six nearby residences northwest of the site would be provided a
public water supply to replace use of groundwater wells.
A groundwater monitoring program would be implemented to track the
-------
changes in impact of site constituents on groundwater, which would
then be used to determine if additional actions are triggered by
concentrations exceeding pre-established levels pursuant to the
Illinois Groundwater Quality Standards at 35 Illinois
Administrative Code 620. The monitoring program would be
consistent with 35 Illinois Administrative Code 620.505 and
620.510. A groundwater management zone as described at 35 Illinois
Administrative Code 620 must be established for areas undergoing
effective corrective. action.
Monitoring would continue for a minimum of five years with duration
of monitoring dependent on results of the statistical evaluation of
groundwater data. Moni toring may cease after standards at 35
Illinois Administrative Code 620.410 have been complied with for a
minimum of one year.
Pursuant to the requirements of 35 Illinois Administrative Code
724.195 a groundwater point of compliance must be established at
the site boundary, which is also the source boundary. Compliance
shall be determined by analysis for the parameters in Appendix I at
35 Illinois Administrative Code 724.
A leachate monitoring program would be implemented that tests
leachate for five-day biochemical oxygen demand, chemical oxygen
demand, total suspended solids, dissolved iron, pH, and any other
parameters known present based on analytical data or believed
present at the point of leachate discharge into surface waters of
the State of Illinois. The discharge would be subject to the NPDES
program at 40 CFR 122, which in Illinois is implemented pursuant to
35 Illinois Administrative Code 309. The discharge would be
subject to the standards at 35 Illinois Administrative Code 302 and
304.
Surface controls including berms, lined ditches, and catch basins
would be installed to manage surface water infiltration into the
landfill. Some portions of the landfill would be hydraulically
isolated from current surface water input by the construction of
surface water diversion and collection structures to direct
infiltration away from known disposal areas.
Construction Costs: $646,880
Annual O&M: $135,600
Present Worth: $1,925,170
ALTERNATIVE 2A: LEACHATE CONTAINMENT WITH RECIRCULATION. This
alternative includes access restrictions, deed restrictions to
prohibit groundwater usage, providing a public water supply to
replace current groundwater usage, leachate and groundwater
monitoring to track the potential impact of site constituents,
surface controls to reduce infiltration into and through the former
waste disposal areas, continued maintenance of site cover,
containment of leachate on site via a network of subsurface drains
-------
with a collection system, and recirculation on site of collected
leachate.
Physical access restrictions include upgrade and continued
maintenance of a security fence around the site with warning signs
to inform the public of potential site hazards.
Land use restrictions included in the property deed would prohibit
groundwater usage on site and building construction and drilling on
site except for purposes of continued site remediation or
groundwater investigation.
Six nearby residences northwest of the site would be provided a
public water supply to replace use of groundwater wells.
A groundwater monitoring program would be implemented to track the
changes in impact of site constituents on groundwater, which would
then be used to determine if additional actions are triggered by
concentrations exceeding pre-established levels pursuant to the
Illinois Groundwater Quality Standards at 35 Illinois
Administrative Code 620. The monitoring program would be
consistent with 35 Illinois Administrative Code 620.505 and
620.510. A groundwater management zone as described at 35 Illinois
Administrative Code 620 must be established for areas undergoing
effective corrective action.
Monitoring would continue for a minimum of five years with duration
of monitoring dependent on results of the statistical evaluation of
groundwater data. Monitoring may cease after standards at 35
Illinois Administrative Code 620.410 have been complied with for a
minimum of one year.
Pursuant to the requirements of 35 Illinois Administrative Code
724.195 a groundwater point of compliance must be established at
the site boundary, which is also the source boundary. Compliance
shall be determined by analysis for the parameters in Appendix I at
3'5 Illinois Administrative Code 724.
A leachate monitoring program would be implemented that tests
leachate for five-day biochemical oxygen demand, chemical oxygen
demand, total suspended solids, dissolved iron, pH, and any other
parameters known present based on analytical data or believed
present at the point of leachate discharge into surface waters of
the State of Illinois. The discharge would be subject to the NPDES
program at 40 CFR 122, which in Illinois is implemented pursuant to
35 Illinois Administrative Code 309. The discharge would be
subject to the standards at 35 Illinois Administrative Code 302 and
304.
Surface controls including berms, lined ditches, and catch basins
would be installed to manage surface water infiltration into the
landfill. Some portions of the landfill would be hydraulically
-------
isolated from current surface water input by the construction of
surface water diversion and collection structures to direct
infiltration away from known disposal areas.
Leachate would be collected and contained on site via a network of
subsurface drains located south and west of the landfill disposal
area which would recirculate the collected leachate back into the
landfill cells.
construction Costs: $812,510
Annual O&M: $147,250
Present Worth: $2,200,623
ALTERNATIVE 2B: LEACHATE CONTAINMENT WITH DISCHARGE TO A POTW
(Publicly Owned Treatment Works). This alternative includes access
restrictions, deed restrictions to prohibit groundwater usage,
providing a public water supply to replace current groundwater
usage, leachate and groundwater monitoring to track the potential
impact of site constituents, surface controls to reduce
infiltration into and through the former waste disposal areas,
continued maintenance of site cover, containment of leachate on
site via a network of subsurface drains with a collection system
and discharge to a POTW.
Physical access restrictions include upgrade and continued
maintenance of a security fence around the site with warning signs
to inform the public of potential site hazards.
Land use restrictions included in the property deed would prohibit
groundwater usage on site and building construction and drilling on
site except for purposes of continued site remediation or
groundwater investigation.
Six nearby residences northwest of the site would be provided a
public water supply to replace use of groundwater wells.
A groundwater monitoring program would be implemented to track the
changes in impact of site constituents on groundwater, which would
then be used to determine if additional actions are triggered by
concentrations exceeding pre-established levels pursuant to the
Illinois Groundwater Quality Standards at 35 Illinois
Administrative Code 620. The monitoring program would be
consistent with 35 Illinois Administrative Code 620.505 and
620.510. A groundwater management zone as described at 35 Illinois
Administrative Code 620 must be established for areas undergoing
effective corrective action.
Monitoring would continue for a minimum of five years with duration
of monitoring dependent on results of the statistical evaluation of
groundwater data. Monitoring may cease after standards at 35
Illinois Administrative Code 620.410 have been complied with for a
minimum of one year.
-------
'.
Pursuant to the requirements of 35 Illinois Administrative Code
724.195 a groundwater point of compliance must be established at
the site boundary, which is also the source boundary. Compliance
shall be determined by analysis for the parameters in Appendix I at
35 Illinois Administrative Code 724.
A leachate monitoring program would be implemented that tests
leachate for five-day biochemical oxygen demand, chemical 'oxygen
demand, total suspended solids, dissolved iron, pH, and any other
parameters known present based on analytical data or believed
present at the point of leachate discharge into surface waters of
the State of Illinois. The discharge would be subject to the NPDES
program at 40 CFR 122, which in Illinois is implemented pursuant to
35 Illinois Administrative Code 309. The discharge would be
subject to the standards at 35 Illinois Administrative Code 302 and
304.
Surface controls including berms, lined ditches, and catch basins
would be installed to manage surface water infiltration into the
landfill. Some portions of the landfill would be hydraulically
isolated from current surface water input by the construction of
surface water diversion and collection structures to direct
infiltration away from known disposal areas.
Leachate would be collected and contained on site via a network of
subsurface drains. The collected leachate would be transported via
tank truck to the City of Quincy POTW. Transport of leachate off
site would require waste stream authorization pursuant to 3S
Illinois Administrative Code 809. Discharge to the POTW, would
require a sewer connection permit pursuant to 3S Illinois
Administrative Code 309. The discharge is also subject to the
General Pretreatment Regulations for Existing and New Sources of
Pollution at 40 CFR 403 and 35 Illinois Administrative Code 307,
including the POTW's general and specific discharge limitations and
permitting requirements and State indirect discharge standards for
mercury and cyanide.
Construction Cos~s: $1,018,410
Annual O&M: $233,716
Present Worth: $3,221,631
ALTERNATIVE 2C: LEACHATE CONTAINMENT WITH TREATMENT AND NPDES
(National pollutant Discharge Elimination System) DISCHARGE. This
alternative includes access restrictions, deed restrictions to
prohibit groundwater usage, providing a public water supply to
replace current groundwater usage, leachate and groundwater
monitoring to track the potential impact of site constituents,
surface controls to reduce infiltration into and through the former
waste disposal areas, cap improvements, continued maintenance of
site cover, containment of leachate on site via a network of
subsurface drains with a collection system, on-site treatment of
leachate with discharge to surface water.
-------
Physical access restrictions include upgrade and continued
maintenance of a security fence around the site with warning signs
to inform the public of potential site hazards.
Land use restrictions included in the property deed would prohibit
groundwater usage on site and building construction and dri-lling on
site except for purposes of continued site remediation or
groundwater investigation.
Six nearby residences northwest of the site would be provided a
public water supply to replace use of groundwater wells.
A groundwater monitoring program would be implemented to track the
changes in impact of site constituents on groundwater, which would
then be used to determine if additional actions are triggered by
concentrations exceeding pre-established levels pursuant to the
Illinois Groundwater Quality Standards at 35 Illinois
Administrative Code 620. The monitoring program would be
consistent with 35 Illinois Administrative Code 620.505 and
620.510. A groundwater management zone as described at 35 Illinois
Administrative Code 620 must be established for areas undergoing
effective corrective action.
Monitoring would continue for a minimum of five years with duration
of monitoring dependent on results of the statistical evaluation of
groundwater data. Monitoring may cease after standards at 35
Illinois Administrative Code 620.410 have been complied with for a
minimum of one year.
Pursuant to the requirements of 35 Illinois Administrative Code
724.195 a groundwater point of compliance must be established at
the site boundary, which is also the source boundary. Compliance
shall be determined by analysis for the parameters in Appendix I at
35 Illinois Administrative Code 724.
A leachate monitoring program would be implemented that tests
leachate for five-day biochemical oxygen demand, chemical oxygen
demand, total suspended solids, dissolved iron, pH, and any other
parameters known present based on analytical data or believed
present at the point of leachate discharge into surface waters of
the State of Illinois. The discharge would be subject to the NPDES
program at 40 CFR 122, which in Illinois is implemented pursuant to
35 Illinois Administrative Code 309. The discharge would be
subject to the standards at 35 Illinois Administrative Code 302 and
304.
Surface controls including berms, lined ditches, and catch basins
would be installed to manage surface water infiltration into the
landfill. Some portions of the landfill would be hydraulically
isolated from current surface water input by the construction of
surface water diversion and collection structures to direct
infiltration away from known disposal areas.
-------
o
".
Leachate would be collected on site via a network of subsurface
drains and treated on site by one or more of the following
processes: neutralization, metals precipitation, gravity
separation, air stripping, carbon adsorption. Treated leachate
would be discharged to a nearby stream. The discharge would be
subject to the NPDES program at 40 CFR 122, which in Illinois is
implemented pursuant to 3S Illinois Administrative Code 309. The
discharge would be subject to the standards at 3S Illinois
Administrative Code 302 and 304. The treatment works would have to
be operated under the supervision of a certified operator pursuant
to 3S Illinois Administrative Code 312. The air stripper would be
subject to 40 CFR 264, PartAA, under the authority of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), which limits organic material
emissions. Residues from treatment processes (if any are
generated), including precipitated metals and spent carbon, would
have to be Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) tested
to determine if they are RCRA hazardous pursuant to 40 CFR 261 in
order to determine the disposal method.
Construction Costs: $997,780
AnnualO&M: $216,702
Present Worth: $3,040,611
ALTERNATIVE 2D: MULTIMEDIA CAP, LEACHATE CONTAINMENT WITH
DISCHARGE TO A POTW (Publicly Owned Treatment Works). This
alternative includes access restrictions, deed restrictions to
prohibit groundwater usage, providing a public water supply to
replace current groundwater usage, leachate and groundwater
monitoring to track the potential impact of site constituents,
surface controls to reduce infiltration into and through the former
waste disposal areas, continued maintenance of site cover,
containment of leachate on site via a network of subsurface drains
with a collection system and discharge to a POTW, and the
installation of an improved cap over the approximately forty-two
acres of former landfill operational area.
Physical access restrictions include upgrade and continued
maintenance of a security fence around the site with warning signs
to inform the public of potential site hazards.
Land use restrictions included in the property deed would prohibit
groundwater usage on site and building construction and drilling on
site except for purposes of continued site remediation or
groundwater investigation.
Six nearby residences northwest of the site would be provided a
public water supply to replace use of groundwater wells.
A groundwater monitoring program would be implemented to track the
changes in impact of site constituents on groundwater, which would
then be used to determine if additional actions are triggered by
concentrations exceeding pre-established levels pursuant to the
-------
Illinois Groundwater Quality Standards at 35 Illinois
Administrative Code 620. The monitoring program would be
consistent with 35 Illinois Administrative Code 620.505 and
620.510. A groundwater management zone as described at 35 Illinois
Administrative Code 620 must be established for areas undergoing
corrective action.
Monitoring would continue for a minimum of five years with duration
of monitoring dependent on results of the statistical evaluation of
groundwater data. Monitoring may cease after standards at 3S
Illinois Ad~inistrative Code 620.410 have been complied with for a
minimum of one year.
Pursuant to the requirements of 35 Illinois Administrative Code
724.195 a groundwater point of compliance must be established at
the site boundary, which is also the source boundary. Compliance
shall be determined by analysis for the parameters in Appendix I at
35 Illinois Administrative Code 724.
A leachate monitoring program would be implemented that tests
leachate for five-day biochemical oxygen demand, chemical oxygen
demand, total suspended solids, dissolved iron, pH, and any other
parameters known present based on analytical data or believed
present at the point of leachate discharge into surface waters of
the State of Illinois. The discharge would be subject to the NPDES
program at 40 CFR 122, which in Illinois is implemented pursuant to
3S Illinois Administrative Code 309. The discharge would be
subject to the standards at 35 Illinois Administrative Code 302 and
304.
Surface controls including berms, lined ditches, and catch basins
would be installed to manage surface water infiltration into the
landfill. Some portions of the landfill would be hydraulically
isolated from current surface water input by the construction of
surface water diversion and collection structures to direct
infiltration away from known disposal areas.
Leachate would be collected and contained on site via a network of
subsurface drains. The collected leachate would be transported via
tank truck to the City of Quincy POTW. Transport of leachate off
site would require waste stream authorization pursuant to 35
Illinois Administrative Code 809. Discharge to the POTW would
. require a sewer connection permit pursuant to 35 Illinois
Administrative Code 309. The discharge is also subject to the
General Pretreatment Regulations for Existing and New Sources of
Pollution at 40 CFR 403 and 35 Illinois Administrative Code 307,
including the POTW's general and specific discharge limitations and
permitting requirements and State indirect discharge standards for
mercury and cyanide. .
The landfill cap would be designed to minimize the production of
leachate by reducing infiltration and directing surface water away
-------
o
'.
from subsurface waste materials. The cap would consist of an eight
inch layer of clay, a drainage layer, and a cover layer equal to
the average frost level of approximately three feet, above the clay
layer. . The cover layer would consist of two and one-half feet of
native soil and one-half foot of topsoil. Geotextile layers would
be placed on either side of the drainage net.
Construction Costs: $7,842,940
Annual O&M: $213,828
Present Worth: $9,858,678
Alternatives 3A, 3B, and 3C are included in the Focused Feasibility
Study as potential alternatives for groundwater remediation if
groundwater monitoring results as described in Alternatives lA, lB,
2A, 2B, and 2C trigger further groundwater remediation at the site.
However, a comparative analysis for the three alternatives was not
performed as it was considered beyond the scope of the Focused
Feasibility Study. The Agency and USEPA determined that
Alternative 3B would be implemented if groundwater monitoring data
indicate that further remedial action is warranted.
ALTERNATIVE 3A: GROUNDWATER CONTAINMENT, EXTRACTION, AND DISCHARGE
TO A POTW (Publicly Owned Treatment Works). This alternative
includes the extraction and collection of contaminated groundwater
and discharge of the groundwater to a POTW for treatment. The
extraction system would limit groundwater migration off site.
The groundwater extraction system would include extraction wells
and sufficient piping to connect to the City of Quincy's sanitary
sewer system. Discharge to the POTW would require a sewer
connection permit pursuant to 35 Illinois Administrative Code 309.
The discharge is also subject to the General Pretreatment
Regulations for Existing and New Sources of Pollution at 40 CFR 403
and 35 Illinois Administrative Code 307, including the POTW's
general and specific discharge limitations and permitting
requirements and State indirect discharge standards for mercury and
cyanide.
Construction Costs: $1,853,450
Annual O&M: $160,830
Present Worth: $3,369,581
ALTERNATIVE 3B: GROUNDWATER CONTAINMENT, EXTRACTION, TREATMENT,
AND NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System)
DISCHARGE. This alternative includes the extraction and collection
of contaminated groundwater. The extraction system would limit
groundwater migration off site. Collected groundwater would be
treated on site and discharged to surface water.
The groundwater extraction system would include extraction wells
and a collection system, Collected groundwater would be treated on
site with air stripping as the primary treatment technology and
-------
granular activated carbon, biological treatment or chemical
oxidation as the add-on secondary treatment technology to be
utilized if air emissions violate emissions standards. Treated
groundwater would be discharged to a nearby stream. The discharge
would be subject to the NPDES program at 40 CFR 122, which in
Illinois is implemented pursuant to 35 Illinois Administrative Code
309. The discharge would be subject to the standards at 35
Illinois Administrative Code 302 and 304. The treatment works
would have to be operated under the supervision of a certified
operator pursuant to 35 Illinois Administrative Code 312. The air
stripper would be subject to 40 CFR 264, Part AA, under the
authority of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),
which limits organic material emissions. Residues from treatment
processes (if any are generated), including precipitated metals and
spent carbon, would have to be Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure (TCLP) tested to determine if they are RCRA hazardous
pursuant to 40 CFR 261 in order to determine the disposal method.
g'
v.
Construction Costs: $454,090
Annual O&M: $201,972
Present Worth: $2,358,063
ALTERNATIVE 3C: GROUNDWATER CONTAINMENT WITH IN SITU BIOLOGICAL
TREATMENT. This alternative includes the extraction and collection
of contaminated groundwater with biological treatment and
reinjection of the treated groundwater on site.
The groundwater extraction system would include extraction wells
and a collection system. Collected groundwater would be treated on
site by air stripping to reduce the concentration of volatile
organic compounds, followed by the addition of hydrogen peroxide
and nutrients to stimulate the growth of micro-organisms which
degrade organic materials in groundwater, then reinjected on site.
The air stripper would be subject to 40 CFR 264, Part AA, under the
authority of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),
which limits organic material emissions. Reintroduction of the
treated groundwater on site would be subject to the operator
certification requirements of 35 Illinois Administrative Code 312
and the groundwater standards at 35 Illinois Administrative Code
620. Residues from treatment processes (if any are generated),
including precipitated metals and spent carbon, would have to be
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) tested to
determine if they are RCRA hazardous pursuant to 40 CFR 261 in
order to determine the disposal method.
Construction Costs: $447,120
Annual O&M: $351,212
Present Worth: $3,757,965
Summary of the Comparative Analvsis of Alternatives
The National Contingency Plan requires evaluation of alternatives
-------
D
. .
based on nine criteria by which technical, economic, and practical
factors associated with each remedial alternative must be judged.
The nine criteria are categorized into three groups: threshold
criteria, primary balancing criteria, and modifying criteria. The
nine evaluation criteria are summarized below.
Threshold Criteria must be satisfied in order for an alternative to
be eligible for selection. The two threshold criteria are:
1) Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
addresses whether a remedy provides adequate protection of human
health and the environment and describes how risks posed through
each exposure pathway are eliminated, reduced, or controlled
through treatment, engineering controls, or insti tutional controls.
2) Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and
Requirements (ARARs) addresses whether a remedy will
the ARARs of other Federal and State environmental
justifies a waiver.
Appropriate
meet all of
laws and/or
Primary Balancing Criteria are used to weigh major tradeoffs among
alternatives. These criteria are:
3) Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence refer to expected
residual risk and the ability of a remedy to maintain reliable
protection of human health and the environment over time, after
cleanup goals have been met.
4) Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume through Treatment
is the anticipated performance of the treatment technologies a
remedy may employ.
5) Short-term Effectiveness addresses the period of time needed
to achieve protection and any adverse impacts on human health and
the environment that may be posed during the construction and
implementation period until cleanup goals are achieved.
6) Implementability is the technical and administrative
feasibility of a remedy, including the availability of materials
and services needed to implement a particular option.
7) Cost includes estimated capital and O&M costs, also expressed
as net present worth costs.
Modifying Criteria are usually taken into account after public
comment is received on the Feasibility Study report and the
Proposed Plan. These criteria are:
8) State/Support Agency Acceptance reflects aspects of the
preferred alternative and other alternatives that the support
agency favors or objects to, and any specific comments regarding
State ARARs or the proposed use of waivers.
-------
9) Community Acceptance summarizes the public's general response
to the alternatives described in the Proposed Plan and in the
Feasibility Study report based on public comments received.
A detailed discussion of the evaluation of the alternatives based
on the nine criteria has been provided in the Focused Feasibility
Study report. However, the FFS did not include a comparative
analysis of Alternatives 3A, 3B, and 3C since one of these
alternatives would be implemented only if groundwater monitoring
data indicate that further groundwater remediation is necessary.
- .
The National Contingency Plan requires that the "No Action"
alternative be evalua~ed to establish a baseline against which all
other alternatives are measured.
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Alternatives 2A, 2B, 2C, and 2D 'all provide protection of human
health through leachate collection and leachate source control
which should reduce the risk associated with groundwater.
Alternative 2D provides protection through capping the landfill in
addition to providing a leachate collection system with off-site
treatment. Alternatives 2B and 2C provide protection by providing
a leachate collection system with treatment. Alternative 2B
provides off-site treatment, while Alternative 2C provides on-site
treatment. Alternative 2A provides protection by collection of
leachate. Alternative lB provides limited protection through
institutional controls including access restrictions. Alternative
lA provides essentially no protection.
Alternatives lB, 2A, 2B, 2C, and 2D all provide protection of human
health through the provision of an alternate drinking water supply
to prevent ingestion of contaminated groundwater. Exposure is
significantly reduced, therefore risk is also reduced. Alternative
lA provides no reduction in risk from exposure to contaminated
groundwater.
Alternative 2D provides environmental protection by decreasing the
potential for infiltration into the landfill waste areas that may
cause contaminant transfer to groundwater and by preventing off-
site discharge of contaminated leachate. Alternatives 2B and 2C
provide protection by decreasing the potential for contaminant
transfer to groundwater by reducing and by preventing off-site
discharge of contaminated leachate. Alternative lB provides
protection by reducing groundwater contamination through surface
controls and site vegetative cover maintenance, but contaminated
leachate is likely to be discharged off site. Alternative lA
provides no protection because no leachate control or collection
system is provided, and lack of source control provides no
protection from groundwater contamination.
Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
-------
o
(ARARs)
. .
Alternatives 2B, 2C, and 2D would comply with chemical-specific,
location-specific, and action-specific ARARs for the leachate
response action. Alternative 2A may not comply with any of the
ARARs for the leachate response action. Alternatives lA and 1B do
not comply with action-specific ARARs for the leachate response
action. None of the alternatives complies with groundwater
standards beyond the site boundary. However, all alternatives
include a groundwater monitoring program pursuant to 35 Illinois
Administrative Code 620 to evaluate the effectiveness of the
selected remedy in helping achieve compliance with groundwater
standards and to trigger further groundwater remedial action, if
warranted.
Alternatives 1A and 1B are not further considered for evaluation
criteria because threshold criteria are not satisfied.
Long-term Effectiveness and Per.manence
Alternatives 2A, 2B, 2C, and 2D eliminate residual risk associated
with contaminated groundwater if residents discontinue use of their
groundwater wells.
Alternative 2B provides reliable protection through leachate
collection and off-site treatment. Alternative 2C provides
reliable protection through leachate collection and on-site
treatment. Alternative 2D is reliable if cap integrity is
maintained. Alternative 2A provides less than reliable protection
because leachate collection and recirculation are dependent on
seasonal climatic conditions.
Reduction of Mobility, Toxicity, or Volume through Treatment
None of the alternatives would reduce the toxicity or volume of the
in situ landfill wastes.
Alternatives 2B, 2C, and 2D provide treatment which reduces
leachate toxicity and volume. Alternative 2C provides reduction of
toxicity by on-si~e treatment of leachate, including air stripping
which is expected to remove 99% of the volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) . The carbon adsorption treatment necessary to minimize
transfer of VOCs to the air will generate spent carbon which is
typically regenerated and reused, while recovered organic materials
are reused or destroyed.
Alternatives 2B and 2D rely on treatment processes at the POTW for
an expected 80% removal of VOCs from leachate. Nonbiodegradable
VOCs will be transferreq to the air medium at the POTW without
further treatment. Sludges generated at the POTW are ultimately.
land applied.
-------
Alternative 2A provides no treatment.
Short-term Effectiveness
All alternatives result in a temporary increase in the generation
of dust during construction of the subsurface drain system.
Alternative 2D substantially increases the generation of dust
during cap construction. Alternatives 2B and 2D also result in
increased vehicle traffic and resulting dust due to leachate
transportation to the POTW.
As a precaution, on-site workers should be protected from exposure
to landfill debris; nuisance dust protection for on-site workers is
also recommended. Worker health and safety practices will be
instituted.
Alternatives 2A, 2B, and 2C are expected to require six months to
construct. Alternative 2D is expected to require twelve months to
construct, occurring over two construction seasons.
Implementability
Alternatives 2B and 2C would be easily implemented with the remedy
components readily available, simple to construct and operate,
easily monitored for effectiveness, and allowing for future
expansion of the proposed leachate. collection system. Alternative
2A would be simple to construct but somewhat difficult to operate
due to the recirculation system's seasonal dependence on
evapotranspiration rates. Alternative 2D would be difficult to
construct because a large volume of earth is required for
construction of the cap, and this material is not available on
site; however, cap technology is well established and
implementable. Future expansion of the proposed leachate
collection system would be difficult after the cap is installed.
Cost
The present worth costs for the alternatives range from $2,200,623
for Alternative 2A to $9,858,678 for Alternative 2D. The large
volume of earthwork included in Alternative 2D is responsible for
making Alternative 2D's estimated cost more than three times as
much as the other source control alternatives under consideration.
Alternative 2B has a present worth cost of $3,221,631. Alternative
2C has a present worth cost of $3,040,611.
State/Support Agency Acceptance
USEPA Region V, as the designated support agency for this site,
concurs with the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency's
recommendation of Alternative 2C as the selected remedy for the
Adams County Quincy Landfills 2 & 3 site.
-------
Community Acceptance
. .
The public has been given the opportunity to review and comment on
the Remedial Investigation report, the Focused Feasibility Study
report, and the Proposed Plan for site remediation. Both a public
comment period and a formal public hearing were held. The
community expressed interest in the proposed remedy via attendance
at the public hearing (approximately 4S persons attended) and with
verbal questions and comments, but generally did not oppose it.
The Participating Respondent Group (responsible parties for the
site) also generally supports the selected remedy.
Specific responses to questions and comments are addressed in the
Responsiveness Summary, which is attached to this decision summary
as Appendix B.
Evaluation of Alternatives 3A, 3B, and 3C
The Agency and USEPA have determined that Alternative 3B would be
implemented if monitoring data indicate that further groundwater
remediation is required. Alternative 3A requires installation of
approximately five miles of sewer connection pipe to discharge
untreated groundwater to the City of Quincy POTW, while Alternative
3C includes an unproven and therefore potentially unreliable
treatment technology. Alternative 3B could be easily implemented
through the use of the selected remedy's components by treating
collected groundwater in the existing on-site leachate treatment
system and discharging the treated groundwater via the same
discharge point as the treated leachate. Regulatory requirements
for groundwater treatment and discharge to surface waters would be
essentially the same as for the leachate treatment system and
discharge point. Alternative 3B is the least costly of the three
alternatives. Alternative 3B satisfies the NCP's nine evaluation
criteria.
The Selected Remedy
Based on consideration of the requirements of CERCLA, the detailed
analysis of the alternatives, and public comments, both IEPA and
USEPA Region V have determined that Alternative 2C is the most
appropriate remedy for the Adams County Quincy Landfills 2 & 3 site
in rural Quincy, Illinois. Alternative 2C is a leachate management
alternative including leachate collection, treatment, and discharge
to surface waters, in addition to implementation of a groundwater
monitoring program which may trigger the groundwater remedial
action described as Al ternati ve 3B. See Table 6 - 8 for a cost
estimate summary of the selected remedy.
The selected final remedy for this site is the same preferred
alternative presented in the Proposed Plan developed and issued by
the IEPA. Details of the components of the remedy may be altered
-------
as a result of the remedial design and field conditions encountered
during construction and facility startup. The IEPA will continue
to provide direct oversight of the design, construction, and long-
term remedial action phases and any modifications.
The remedy includes physical access restriction with upgrade of the
existing fence and/or installation of additional fencing so that
the site will have a six-foot high cyclone fence with barbed wire
at the top, around the entire site sufficient to prevent the public
from easily entering the site. The fence shall be posted with
numerous (at each of the four points of the compass and at other
obvious access areas, such as the entrance gate) visible warning
signs to inform the public of potential site hazards.
The site's real estate deed shall be amended to include prohibition
of on-site groundwater use; on-site building construction; and on-
site drilling except for the purposes of remedial design, sampling,
monitoring, and remedial action.
A public water supply shall be supplied to six nearby residences
located northwest of the site in order to eliminate the groundwater
exposure pathway to those persons consuming groundwater. This will
supplement the 1986 extension of the Mil~ Creek Water District to
nearby residences.
The remedy includes a groundwater monitoring program to track the
changes in impact of site constituents on groundwater, which would
then be used to determine if additional actions are triggered by
concentrations exceeding levels pursuant to the Illinois
Groundwater Quality Standards at 35 Illinois Administrative Code
620. It should be noted that a contaminated groundwater plume
migrating off site has not been scientifically identified and
located. However, no other source of off-site groundwater
contamination has been identified.
This Record of Decision does not require the immediate
implementation of an active groundwater remedy because existing
data indicate that relatively few sampling results show groundwater
contamination at levels of concern. The leachate source control
remedy should have a positive impact on groundwater quality, and
. effective source control combined with natural attenuation may
adequately address low level groundwater contamination. However,
if groundwater monitoring indicates that contamination exceeds
compliance levels, a groundwater pump and treat system will be
installed to minimize contaminant migration.
The monitoring program would be consistent with 35 Illinois
Administrative Code 620.505 and 620.510. A groundwater management
zone as described at 35 Illinois Administrative Code 620 must be
established for areas undergoing effective corrective action.
Monitoring would continue for a minimum of five years with duration
-------
of monitoring dependent on results of the statistical evaluation of
groundwater data. Monitoring may cease after standards at 35
Illinois Administrative Code 620.410 have been comDlied with for a
minimum of one year. ~
. v
Pursuant to the requirements of 35 Illinois Administrative Code
724.195 a groundwater point of compliance must be established at
the site boundary, which is also the source boundary. Compliance
shall be determined by analysis for the parameters in Appendix I at
35 Illinois Administrative Code 724.
A leachate monitoring program would be implemented that tests
leachate for five-day biochemical oxygen demand, chemical oxygen
demand, total suspended solids, dissolved iron, pH, and any other
parameters known present based on analytical data or believed
present at the point of leachate discharge into surface waters.
Any discharge to surface waters of the State would be subject to
the NPDES program at 40 CFR 122, which is implemented in Illinois
pursuant to 35 Illinois Administrative Code 309. The point of
wastewater discharge--either on site or off site--has not been
determined and will be established in the design phase of this
remedy. If the discharge point is located on site, no permits are
required, but the discharge standards at 35 Illinois Administrative
Code 302 and 304 are applicable. If the discharge point is located
off site, permits are required and those permits will include the
stated discharge standards.
Surface controls including berms, lined ditches, and catch basins
(refer to Figure 7) would be installed to manage surface water
infiltration into the landfill and to minimize landfill surface
erosion. The purpose of the controls is to direct infiltration
away from known disposal areas.
Components of the remedy will be constructed and maintained
pursuant to the requirements of 35 Illinois Administrative Code 807
and 811, Solid and Special Waste Management Regulations,
specifically regarding final cover and closure requirements. This
includes a minimum of three feet of clay cover over the landfill
surface, particularly in areas of cap erosion (see Figure 8), and
leachate management. Site vegetative cover will be maintained.
Site leachate would be collected through a network of subsurface
drains. Preliminary estimates have determined that approximately
i,ooo linear feet of three-foot-wide drains would be installed at
a depth of 11 feet.
Collected leachate shall be treated on site by one or more of the
following processes, to be determined by treatability testing
and/or pilot studies: neutralization, metals precipitation,
gravity separation, air stripping, carbon adsorption. The treated
leachate shall be discharged to a nearby unnamed stream tributary
to Mill Creek. The discharge is subject to the NPDES program at 40
-------
CFR 122, which is implemented in Illinois pursuant to Illinois
Administrative Code 309. The point of wastewater discharge--either
on site or off site--has not been determined and will be
established in the design phase of this remedy. If the discharge
point is located on site, no permits are required, but the
discharge standards at 35 Illinois Administrative Code 302 and 304
are applicable. If the discharge point is located off site,
permits are required and those permits will include the stated
discharge standards. The wastewater treatment works shall be
operated under the supervision of a certified operator pursuant to
35 Illinois Administrative Code 312. The air stripper is subject
to the RCRA requirements at 40 CFR 264, Part AA which limits
organic material emissions. Any residues generated from treatment
processes, including precipitated metals and spent carbon, shall be
disposed of pursuant to applicable solid waste disposal standards,
such as the RCRA requirements at 40 CFR 261.
Statutory Determinations
The selected remedy must satisfy the requirements of Section 121 of
CERCLA to protect human health and the environment; comply with
ARARs; be cost effective; utilize permanent solutions and alternate
treatment technologies to the maximum extent practicable; and
satisfy the preference for treatment as a principle element of the
remedy.
Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Implementation of the selected remedy will reduce and control
potential risk to human health from exposure to groundwater through
institutional controls, containment, and treatment technologies.
The remedy will reduce risk to within the acceptable range of 1 x
10-4 to 1 x 10-6 excess cancer risk and the hazard indices for non-
carcinogens will be less than one. To the extent groundwater
monitoring indicates that unacceptable risks remain or groundwater
cleanup levels are not met, further groundwater remediation will be
required. The selected remedy also provides environmental
protection from potential risks posed by contaminants discharging
to surface waters, soils, sediment, and the ambient air.
No unacceptable short - term risk or cross -media
caused by implementation of the selected remedy.
impacts will be
Compliance with ARARs
With respect to any hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants that will remain on site, Section 121 (2) (A) of CERCLA
requires the USEPA to select a remedial action which complies with
legally applicable or relevant and appropriate standards,
requirements, criteria or limitations (ARARs), or to justify a
waiver of ARARs. The selected remedy will comply with Federal
ARARs or State ARARs where State ARARs are more stringent, as
-------
determined by USEPA. USEPA has not identified any ARAR waivers
which are required at this time. The remedy will be imDlemented in
compliance with applicable provisions of CERCLA and the NCP.
To Be Considered Criteria (TBCs) are included in the discussion of
ARARs; however, TBCs are not ARARs, but they may be used to design.
a remedy or set cleanup levels if no ARARs address the site, or if
existing ARARs do not ensure protectiveness. TBCs may include
advisories and guidance.
'.
Chemical-Specific ARARs: Chemical-specific ARARs regulate the
release to the environment of specific substances having certain
chemical characteristics. Chemical-specific ARARs typically define
the extent of cleanup at a site.
.
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) National Primary Drinking
Water Standards (40 CFR 141), MCLs are applicable and
proposed MCLs are to be considered.
.
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
Drinking Water Standards (40 CFR 143)
applicable and non-zero proposed
considered.
National Primary
non-zero MCLGs are
MCLGs are to be
.
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (also known as the
Clean Water Act-':'CWA) (40 CFR 122, 125, 129, 131),
ambient water quality criteria and NPDES requirements are
applicable to direct discharge of treated leachate, storm
water runoff, and groundwater; delegated NPDES program in
Illinois is implemented at 35 Illinois Administrative
Code 302, 304, and 309.
.
Illinois Groundwater
Administrative Code
groundwater standards.
Quality Standards (35 Illinois
620.410) are applicable for
.
Clean Air Act National Ambient Air Quality Standards (40
CFR 50), are applicable to air emissions; delegated
program in Illinois is implemented at 35 Illinois
Administrative Code 201.
.
National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAPS) (40 CFR 61) are applicable to air emissions;
delegated program in Illinois is implemented at 35
Illinois Administrative Code 232.
.
IEPA COT/CROPA cleanup objectives based on a combination
of ARARs which are listed independently in other bullets
in this section, TBCs, or risk calculations to the 10-6
risk target levels were determined in August 1991 and are
included iri Table 8. They consist of a combination of
ARARs and TBCs for contaminants of concern in a Class I
-------
drinking water aquife~ and Class I soils.
Location-Specific ARARs: Location-specific ARARs are those
requirements that relate to the geographic location of a site.
."
.
Federal Endangered Species Act of
Endangered Species Act requires
performed to conserve endangered
located in and around the site.
destroy or adversely modify the
which endangered species depend.
1973, as amended. The
that actions must be
or threatened species
Activities must not
critical habitat upon
Action-Specific ARARs: Action-specific ARARs are requirements that
define acceptable treatment and disposal requirements for hazardous
substance~. The substantive requirements of the following may be
ARARs .
.
.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (40 CFR 264
Subparts AA & BB), is applicable to air stripper
emissions; delegated program in Illinois is implemented
at 35 Illinois Administrative Code 724 Subparts AA & BB.
.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (40 CPR
261) is applicable for definition and identification of
hazardous wastes for identifying proper disposal of
wastes and may be relevant and appropriate for sampling
activity; delegated program in Illinois is implemented at
35 Illinois Administrative Code 721.
.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (40 CPR
262) is applicable for generators of hazardous wastes if
such materials are disposed off site; delegated program
in Illinois is implemented at 35 Illinois
Administrative Code 722.
.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (40 CPR
263) is applicable for transporters of hazardous wastes;
delegated program in Illinois is implemented at 35
Illinois Administrative Code 723.
.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (40 CPR
268) is applicable for soil excavation and treatment
residuals if soils test TCLP hazardous (LDRs) if those
materials are to be moved or placed outside of an area of
contamination and/or are to be disposed off site;
delegated program in Illinois is implemented at 35
Illinois Administrative Code 728; 35 Illinois
Administrative Code 808 Solid and Special Waste
Management Regulations are applicable if soils test not-
TCLP hazardous.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (40 CFR 264
-------
. .
subpart B) is relevant and appropriate for general
facili ty standards; delegated program in Illinois is
implemented at 35 Illinois Administrative Code 724
Subpart B.
.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (40 CFR 264
Subpart D) is relevant and appropriate for contingency
planning; delegated program in Illinois is implemented at
35 Illinois Administrative Code 724 Subpart B.
Illinois Groundwater Quality Standards (35 Illinois
Administrative Code 620 Subpart E) are applicable for
the groundwater monitoring remedy component.
.
.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (40 CFR 264
Subpart F) is applicable for groundwater monitoring;
delegated program in Illinois is implemented at 35
Illinois Administrative Code 724 Subpart F.
.
Illinois Solid Waste and Special Waste Handling
Regulations (35 Illinois Administrative Code 807, 811,
812, 814, and 815) are applicable for the leachate
collection system, final cover, and closure requirements.
.
Illinois Solid Waste and Special Waste Handling
Regulations (35 Illinois Administrative Code 808 and 809)
are applicable for any off-site special waste hauling.
.
Treatment Plant Operator Certification (35 Illinois
Administrative Code 312) is applicable for certification
of the wastewater treatment works operator.
Cost Effectiveness
Cost effectiveness is determined by evaluating the overall
effectiveness proportionate to costs, such that the selected remedy
represents a reasonable value for the money to be spent. The
estimated net present worth value of the selected remedy is more
than three times less than. the costs associated with the most
expensive alternative, which includes installation of a multi-media
cap, yet the selected remedy will be effective in the long term due
to a significant reduction in the mobility and toxicity of on-site
contamination. The selected remedy, with provisions for further
monitoring and if necessary, further remediation of groundwater
contamination, provides a high degree of certainty that hazards
posed by contamination at the site will be eliminated or reduced to
within acceptable levels.
Utilization of Permanent
Technoloqies or Resource
Extent Practicable
Solutions and Alternative Treatment
Recoverv Technoloqies to the Maximum
-------
The selected remedy meets the statutory requirement to utilize
permanent solutions and treatment technologies to the maximum
extent practicable in a cost-effective manner. Of those
alternatives that are protective of human health and the
environment and comply with ARARs, IEPA and USEPA have determined
that this selected remedy provides the best balance of tradeoffs in
terms of long-term effectiveness and permanence; reduction in
toxicity, mobility, or volume achieved through treatment; short-
term effectiveness; implementabilitYi and cost while considering
the statutory preference for treatment as a principal element and
considering USEPA and community acceptance.
The selected remedy provides a high degree of long-term
effectiveness and permanence when compared to the leachate
recirculation and multi-media cap alternatives. The leachate
collection and treatment system provides contaminant containment
and on-site treatment, resulting in reduced contaminant mobility
and toxicity. The leachate recirculation alternative is less
reliable at providing source control due to some unreliability of
the technology, thereby increasing the possibility of contaminant
mobility, while the multi-media cap alternative is significantly
more costly when compared to the amount of risk reduction provided.
IEPA and USEPA have determined that the calculated site risks do
not justify the expense required to install and maintain the multi-
media cap.
The selected remedy treats the principal threat posed; by
contaminated leachate by removing an expected 99 percent of the
volatile organic materials (VOCs) from the leachate by air
stripping; additional removal will be provided if carbon treatment
is added on to the air stripper. The selected remedy also provides
a less costly treatment option than the off-site POTW treatment of
leachate. .
Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element
The selected remedy addresses one of the principal threats posed by
the site through the use of treatment technologies to reduce the
threat posed by contaminated leachate. By providing source control
through leachate collection and treatment, groundwater quality is
expected to improve, thereby providing reduction of risk.
Therefore, the statutory preference for remedies that employ
treatment as a principal element is satisfied.
Documentation of Significant Changes
The Proposed Plan for the Adams County Quincy Landfills 2 & 3 site
was issued for public comment on March 29, 1993. The Proposed Plan
identified Alternative 2C as the preferred alternative. The public
comment period ended on May 28, 1993.
The Agency reviewed all public questions and comments presented at
-------
the April 28, 1993 public hearing and all written comments received.
during the public comment period (see Responsiveness Summary in
Appendix B). The Agency determined that no significant changes to
the remedy as it was identified in the Proposed Plan are necessary.
. .
-------
APPEND:IX A
-------
..
Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
Figure 5.
Figure 6.
Figure 7.
Figure 8.
LIST OF FIGURES
site Location.
site Vicinity Map.
Bedrock Elevation.
Groundwater Flow Direction.
Monitoring Locations.
Monitoring Locations.
Surface Controls.
-------
FIGURE 1.
Site Location.
IWNOIS
AOAMS COUNTY
SCAU . lID
SCALE 15 VANABLE
(9
John.. Wathes " Associates. Inc.
...
SITE LOCATION MAP
Modified fr.. U.S. Geoto..." SurY8Y Ou..., a.l.
IIlIno... q...*-,.e. pftOl......ecI ,.11
QUINCT. .. ",-
1UO..
,.QUAI 2-1
-------
FIGURE 2.
. u
I }
q
4
l \ lIoovtt.
~
.
I
I
I
40
','
f
''"''
"'\..
. . . ....--
'--.,
.........
Site Vicinity Map.
\ ' \
., If ~ c)!,
"
" " \
" =====:,
" I:
I d
" IJ " I
11
~
"
/
"
I
"'""-) ., :
, I
",,- I
". ...;..
""
9
~~
U
,
,
~
'\
~.
4.
I '>
I )
I
\ ..."- "..-/" ...-", '-'" ..~
,,~ "-/
"H"''' t,- IT, 1....
EXPLANATION
''\
--...
"
\
--- 8OUllDAII'f' OP LM"ILL #2.-
I08MDU'f' OP ",..IU #3
MID aT.
.
o
<
o
«
"
%
o
BROADWAY
6
o
<
I~
.
.
z
. ,
(
\
\
.. \
(
"
'\
""'
II:
~
. \
~1-
..,~
,-~../
:--~ ~ '\ \ "--
NOT TO SCALE
o
John Mathes. Assoeiafes, Inc.
Vlea..TV MAP
~
-------
FIGURE 3.
Bedrock Elevation.
o
/;
"/ !
'y /1:11 ii 8
I / ~//ll 1 i ~
I / ~.. / / / I I 2.
/ ~ / .
/ Iff' I I I I ~
t / Ii, I I / tJi t
.. / / /, I I I, t= .
: i / / / I 1 I 'I / -:=
/ / I I ~ .:
/f~ / / - i 0 II I' I / I I -, -
/ / I / I I I "I eIs I
/ 1 // II / I / I I \-
;/ / / / / / ) I \\ \\
/ I / 1/ / I
/ / / / / /' 1 I \
/ ~J / / 0 / / " \ I
! ,/ / / I F1'1i I I
:. / / / a' I 1.1 O"!O, /
"/ ! I f - -
/ / i.l' I I af.J
/ ~7 I ~
I I ,I
I ~ : I'
! 1 ~'~~ ~
.
-!
L
- -
- -
L£CDfD
Q8
. ....- 118&. UICA-
.~ NOTo 10 SCALI
--- CIU8C'r ~ ..to..... _t. ...~ r
.- -.. -- a.&Va- --
r (81 '-"
(i) -....-
e
John Math.. a Associates. Inc.
--
...., ,... tI8&a ... -
-...-----
..... 1UWa_., r II j
cu.-. .... ~-
. ~ III I .-
..CIIOCK IUVATION
11_'" .... IT, ,....
GUI8CT. JUIIIIOIS
12«NO
IIICIURI 2-5
..
-------
FIGURE 4.
Groundwater Flow Direction.
. .
..
o
~.f) I-
. .. /
:. /
o ..
i /,
- / ,
I /
I
I I
/1. I
. ,,/ Or3
~ 3
o
,.-
I
..
.
Ii 0
/ ~ l
/ /
/
/
/
/
/
/
5!.
OJ;
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
I /
II /
I /
I /
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
: L r;
o O~::
.. o.
. ..!.:
a .
/
/
/
/
/
I
. I
..
..
.
~
",
,~
L
- -
- -
LEGENO
08
.
.. ~
.. .
. /. ~
/
/
/ :Is
i~
/
-
/ I a
?:"
I
1
1
I
I f
I I
I
I
I
r
boll rl ,..,. &AICA-
NOT TO SCALI
----
CIU8IC'I' ~.- -.... ..---
Jonn watn.. .t As.ociat... Inc.
POTINTIO-. --- "'ACE
.UIIUTD... MUfD
JANUARY 1-
QUINCY LM8DF1U.
QUIICT. JLUI8GII
t
.. ""-it_-.... '---
,." - <==.""'" t... ..-
~ -- '1--'" -.
-- ...., ,.. .u8 88DU8
.. ..... - -- . -.-
10... - "MIL
A&Y&-". - ""'11
II"'" r.- IT. 1.."
a
..
,.
-------
... --
/
/'~
,/ O~I#JO
o~s ell.
ONt
..
10'/40
-----~O~\- ------ --
1-----0
I
I
__..IU6
on,
UIU
tlU8D
'-'- -.. ~---
0/\ /u
. ..
. '
010 ~'
/
/
/
,
/'
,
/'
/
010/'
h
+ -011'
+ AlUM
( XPLANAIION
11l18li \81 -r- ""I IIX"I"'"
- ......
.010 81 _IOII!tOG ."1 IIX"''''''
--I
.u I
I'll( '. _'OIlING .,,,
lOC,,'.. - ........ I
+A&U8I ~~IA& "" IIX"I.....
.. - fIUIUIW 11M Snc.u1OM
SM-~.
o
400
....
e
108
SCAAj .. 'II r
Julu. Nult..s 6 A~~OCh.'.'. h...
""""UN'1t(; WI I 1 I tKA IIUH',
. --,,,,,,,,,',,.;;u,.e--:-
1111"" t. .IIHOI\
114...
--- ---- -. -
111.1111' / \
'Tj
H
c;)
c:::
~
VI
:J:
o
~
....
"
o
t1
....
r:s
()Q
r-'
o
n
PI
rt
....
o
:J
-------
,
,
~wu.u
SUllO.)
~o
oos.~. GIOI
8>LS-1 8>U-4
,_2 . WOOl
0&.1-1
\
,
,
OU-7
.
,
......... .... U. ....
Q60
-. '"18
10 Q65
o 0U-I
LS-s
IV
.
2U
Q1~ . . II
-Ui '/
I
su004
. .
tT1
H
c;)
c:
~
Q\
EXPLANATION
;3:
o
~
.....
"
o
t1
.....
~
OQ
r'
o
n
1\1
"
.....
o
~
1/1
,,)41
. "O""OI8NG .1;11 tOCAIiON
a....e. Utl'mo.u r_I'tM"
- - - 8OUNDU.
oneM
~wUo. A $UMI ACt wa'tR $.II....NG IOC."UN.
~IIIOI 110111.'" .....ru- UXA"""
''''10'. HACHAU --Pt..... .DCA",," 41"
Ot5-'
ttACHA'. ............ I.DCailUM .,8.
.
.
...~
.-.~
let .
S(:AU .. 1m
Juhn ""dlh.. . As,of.:IU'CS. 'Ut
----
-----.. -- .
I tACHA't, SUHtACt WAltH,
AHU SUIIMtN'
SAMPliNG tOCAIIONS
--WIHC' IANOIa.
UUIHI '. 'UIHOI\
114"..
-------
~ 1t5Tt'''' 1
".~Jt
Flu.
~ ..eM\S
MC088
~?'''e
.f
'.
E"",",MN'" :
.,W.'. ." 1~.1" ..~.
".... c.;1) 'eft ......~
TJ8... .....r....,.. I ~
. AU.£H
SOURU:
Ill~A & ASSOC. P.C. CO"SUUINCi UtCiIIIt£RS.
OUIICY. u--. OCI081A, .....
- 110"- T'1' 'SCA~-
fRDroSlO> -.:cA.rJAG£ TLft;n/
. "...
'T1
t-I
G)
~
......
.
(/)
~
~
H\
1\1
n
ID
(")
o
::3
"
.~
o
I--'
I/)
-------
'Tj
H
G)
c::
~
OJ
~
11
(I)
1\1
en
o
H"t
.
a_IIIIAt.. MO.'CNII8U
Ott ........... ..u
(';
1\1
.ct
(TJ
11
o
en
......
o
::J
EXPlANATION
o
Maaa CH ~1IIO"o" 018
.. Mllfl&... (;U
. 4IU&II
.
~ .. - ..
...
4..~
..~
KAU 8J rm
John Nalh.. a. Anoclal.., loe
.,
Rt...., HC'
CI'. 0' UUlHCY. ... IIHUAH' ....
tJIOOE 0 AIlE AS
Of lANOfIU. CAP
-OO-oiic. U-NI
-------
Table 2-1.
Table 2-2.
Table 2-3.
Table 2-4.
Table 2-5.
Table 2-6.
Table 5-1.
Table 6-8.
Table 8.
LIST OF TABLES
Summary Statistics for Detected Analytes in
Subsurface Soil.
Summary Statistics for Detected Analytes in
Groundwater.
Summary Statistics for Detected Analytes in
Surface Water.
Summary Statistics for Detected Analytes in
Sediments.
Summary Statistics for Detected Analytes in
Leachate.
Calculated Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risks and
Total Hazard Indices.
Remedial Alternatives.
Alternative 2C Cost Estimate Summary.
-------
Table 2-)
SUHHARY STATISTICS FOR DETECTED ANALYTES IN SUBSURFACE SOIL
FOCUSED FEASIBILITY STUDY
QUINCY LANDFILL NUMBERS 2 AND 3
QUINCY, ILLINOIS
I.. o' S..I. I... o'
'r~, Clulnt Itot ion Detected Arlt'-' Ie 18Clllromd
.f U.I t. eoncentr.t ,- "eM teve"-
Por_a.r D,'ocllon <..'111)
-------
Table 2-1, continued
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR DETECTED ANALYTES IN SUBSURFACE SOIL
FOCUSED FEASIBILITY STUDY
QUINCY LANDFILL NUMBERS 2 AND)
QUINCY, ILLINOIS
..,_te,
fr8CJ.'mC)'
0'
Detection
.... of S8IIpt.
Ouwtt t t.t ion
lI.1 II
(..",)
.... 0'
O.tected
Contentr.t I ana
(..",)
",tt.ttc
lie..
(..",)
'.d,round
l8Wt..
(..",)
lIe.at.. CantlrMd
Sodh.
v8n8dh. .
line
J"
I"
"9
SOCI.O
4.0
. 500.0
4.0
HO.'
t.1
S.S
'50.0
16.0
460.0
5..8889
11. una
68. RIll
10.0 .
20.0 .
10.0 .
tGO.O
..0
)00.0
110..: .,,,...tlc... calculated ..I", l'Z _thod for &nII1_led c~. lnetudee 'Hul.. "...... ..
"'" Mlt' II'''' per klloe''',
KI.. ..Iydltorl..ted blpll.."..
lVOC. ...I..,.t". orpnlc cClllpClUndl.
voc. Vot..II. orllnlc cClllflO'Rll.
-------
1'able 2-2
SUKHARY STATISTICS FOR DETECTED ANALYTES IN GROUNDWATER
ON-SITE MONITORING AND RESIDENTIAL WELLS
PIIASE I RI, PHASE II RI, AND
OCTOBER 1990 SAMPLING ACTIVITIES
FOCUSED FEASIBILITY STUDY
QUINCY LANDFILL NUMBERS 2 AND 3
QUINCY, ILLINOIS
'''' o' 1..le '''' O'
rr....y Ck8nt It oU an Detected "rlt."e be..rOW1d
o' 1I81t8 Concentratl- ...... 'ewll
'.r_t.r Detection (.." ) (..,U e..,,) (88/')
DKt
bI8(2'lthylh.ayl) 4/20 0.0' . 0.02 0.002 ' o.n 0.011'95 III 0.102
pllthll.t.
..
Acetone 4/24 0.005 . 0.05 0.001 ' O.U O.O"US
IIN.. "'" 0.005 . 0.005 0.00" 0.006 O.OOZ64Z . O.ll
Chl.oeth.. 10'" O.OM . 0.01 O.oeM ' 0.025 O.OO62OS
thlorofonl '"0 0.005 . 0.01 O.OOS ' O.OOS O.OOl5S . . 0.0002
1."Dlchloroe.h.... 11/" 0.005 . 0.005 O.OJI ' 0.2S 0.020lZ5 . . 0.0005
I."8Ichloroethene "" O.OM . O.OM 0.001 . O.OM 0.'" . . 0.0026
I.2'8Ichloroetheno 1/10 O.OM . O.OM 0.01" 0.01' O.ooJ15 . . 0.0026
Uhylbena- S/" 0.005 . 0.01 0.00' . o.oor O.OOZSU . . o.OOOIr
....hYI- chlorl. 1/12 O.OM . O.OM O.02S ' o.on 0.004201 O.GOS. O.GOSS
'..rIChloroethen. 10/" O.OM . O.OM O.ooJ . 0.029 0.004'" . o.oenr
loluene S/S' O.OM O.OM 0.002 . o.on 0.0048" . 0.0029
trena'I.2'Dlehloroethone I/SO O.GOS . O.OM 0.002 . 0.011 0.00)42 . 0.0026
'rlchlor"'hyl- 12/60 O.GOS . O.OM 0.001 0.016 O.ooJ" . 0.0011
'.'.I.',lch'orOlth8ril S/S9 O.DOS . O.OM 0.008 . 0.026 0.001415 . O.OllS
vinyl ehlorl. 4/60 0.01 . 0.0' 0.002 o.oor O.OOSOll . 0.066
.ylene. (tot.l) 2/60 O.GOS 0.01 0.008 O.05S O.oon08 . 0.15
I!m1I
AIUlI... lJ/S4 0.2 0.2 o.on 0.15 0.161296 0.011, 0.290
Ant I...., I,S4 0.06 0.06 0.015 0.015 O.OJ08n
Araenle S,54 0~01 0.01 0.008 0.086 0 . 001944 III .O.OOS
"r h. n/S4 0.2 0.2 O.OJS 0.9 O. 176lS' III .0.2S
80ron 1/29 0.2 0.2 0.14 0.110 0.108216
[...1'-8 S/S4 O.DOS O.OOS O.ooc. 0.001 0.00215 110 .0.002
-------
Table 2-2, Continued
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR DETECTED ANALYTES IN GROUNDWATER
ON-SITE MONITORING AND RESIDENTIAL WELLS
PIIASE I ~I, PHASE II RI, AND
OCTOBER 1990 SAMPLING ACTIVITIES
FOCUSED FEASIBILITY STUDY
QUINCY LANDFILL NUMBERS 2 AND J
QUINCY, ILLINOIS
'.r_ter
fr..-nc~
0'
Detect Ion
.... 0' SaIIpI.
""'t It .tlon
lI.lt.
C../l)
.... 0'
'ttectld
Coneentr.tlona
C88/U
Arlt"'llc
lie..
C88/l )
leet.round
live I.
C../l)
"'1.11. Conl'raeed
tIIr.h.
Calt
C.,..,
c~..I.
Iron
ield
....,...1-
.....,....
IIIrcury
.Idol
'ot... h.
"8enl-
III..,
Iodl-
v......
Zinc
1n4 0.01 . 0.01 0.005 - 0.005 0.005 ID OoCK9
Jn4 0.05 . O.OS 0.01 0.16 0.01'"
'IM 0.1lS . t.OlS 0.. . O.U 0.01661 ID - O.U
5/ZZ 0-02 . 0.02 0.02 0.02 O.01Un
l'n4 0.1 - 0.1 0.011 . 86.0 S. JrMor 1.0 - 10.0
8111 O.GOS . 0.2 '.006 . 0.055 0.021"1 ID O.11l
UIM 5.0 . 5.0 '.t, . ISO.0 JJ. Mnl
40n4 0.015 - 0.015 0.001 . 7.2 0.5m" cl
"S) 0.0002' 0.. 1.0001 - 0.0009 o.ooozn ID - ~.oaz
'1M 0.04 . 0.04 1.00' , O.OU 0.01"'1 ID . 0.012
l1IM 5.0 - 28.0 0.1l . n.o 5.1""'
.IM 0.005 . 0.005 0.005 . 0.0l9 o.GOn" ID . 0.065
.IM 0.01 . 0.01 '.006 . O.U O.OOIOJr ID . O.CKeI
SOIM 5.0 5.0 5.0 . 4SO.0 16.605" ID - 402.0
lOn4 0.05 - 0.05 0.004 . 0.04 O. Ollt9l
54n4 O.Ol - 0.02 0.01l - 1.1 0.101l41
Sourc.. 0' Ioct",ound level: USf'A, 1990c C8i, Cut; IISI'A, 1985 CI. VI",I eIIlorlde); USf'A. 1985 CA.. I.. Cd. Cr. Pb. II. lb. AI. A.. .'. f. '. W);
end 11US. 1988 . eIIlorinetld Iydroclrbonl (1.1-Dichloroelh.... 1Ie'''r8- Chlori.. tr,,'I.'-'ie"lor08t""'. 1. "Dlc"lor08tll_. ChI oro fora. I. I. I.
friChaM08tll_. IFlelllor08thrl-. 'etreehIM08I".... Chlorabenztne).
lot.:
A,It"'lic -1f'I celeul.tld Uli", llZ ..thod for w*IHled eCllllfJCl'nil.
"1111"... per liler.
Includtl results 'hHed I.
../l
SIIOCI
S.lvol.t lie orllf'lie c:0IIIp0Unds.
VOC.
-------
1'able 2-]
.SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR DETECTED ANALYTES IN SURFACE WATER
PHASE II RI SAMPLING ACTIVITIES
FOCUSED FEASIBILITY STUDY
QUINCY LANDFILL NUMBERS 2 AND 3
QUINCY, ILLINOIS
'''' 0' SlIIIple ''''' 0'
fr..,ene, ....e".elan D.eeceed Ar""'elc leck,rCM1d
0' 1.1-". eancentr.'1- ...... . l.wl..
P.r_e., Detect Ian e88/U e88/l ) e88/U (II8IU
..
Cttlorofo1"'8 114 O.GOS . O.GOS 0.00l' 0.002 O.oolJlS
!11.111
AI...I... J/4 O.l 0.2 0.056' 0.046 0.0S675 0.016' 1.167
1.,1... J/4 0.2 0.2 0.'" 0.4 O.Z41~
[...:1... Zl4 5.0 ' 120.0 100.0 . 100.0 6~.6ZS '.J 38.0
COfIPer 1/4 o.on . o.on 0.01 ' 0.01 0.011875 11)- 0.J04
IrClrl Zl4 0.1 O. I O.OJ . 0.1 0.0575 0.02 0.06
....,..1... J/4 5.0 5.0 ".0 . 56.0 28.J75 J.n . 10.0
........... J/4 0.01~ . 0.015 O.OU. Z.J '.1m75 cl
"',cury Zl4 0.0002' 0.0G0l '.001' 0.0012 0.0006
.Ic'" Zl4 0.04 0.04 o.on. 0.02 0.01825 11). 0.008
'ot...1... 2/4 5.0 5.0 zr.o . SJ.o 21.n 1.) 1.9
'''"' J/4 0.01 0.01 O.DOS' 0.009 0.0065 11). 0.004
Sod". 1/4 5.0 5.0 '.0 . 150.0 62.'75 II) . 402.0
V8n8dI... J/4 0.05 0.05 0.011' 0.01' 0.0"5
line 1/4 0.02 0.02 o.on. O.otS 0.01075
Source. 0' leelll''''' I eve": USEPA. fe. Nt. Rn. r. ..).
Includes resultl ".nedl.
1990c e.l. Cu)i USlPA. 1~ eAI. At. ... "i ~s. 1985 (C.,
lIo.e: A,ithMtlc _en ulcul.ted using III _thod 'or Wldeeeeted e~.
..Il
we.
MIIII.,... per liter.
-------
Table 2-4
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR DETECTED ANALYTES IN SEDIMENTS
PHASE II RI SAMPLING ACTIVITIES
FOCUSED FEASIBILITY STUDY
QUINCY LANDFILL NUMBERS 2 AND )
QUINCY, ILLINOIS
...,.. 0' ""'Ie ...,.. 0'
fr8qUlfltr 8I8ntu.tlon Dltected Arith8ttlc ,.dlrCKnf
0' 1I.1t. Conclfttr.tlana "-en Levet.-
'.r_ter Delect Ion .l1li/111) (l1li/111) (l1li/") ("""
...
AntllrlClfte '1/1 O.J - O.J 0.1 0.1 O. lUlU
lenaoC.)enthrec8n8 1" O.J' O.J 0.4 0.4 0.11S"4 0.0 0.01
hnaoC..,.,- 1'1 ci.J - O.J O.J O.J 0.11142' 0.0 - 1.0
lenaoCb)fluoranlh8nl 1" O.J - O.J 0.1 0.7 o.,mn ... . '.OJ
hnaOCI.h.')peryl8nl 1" '.1' 0.1 0.' 0.2 O. lUlU 0." 0.1l
thrye8M 1'1 0.1. '.1 '.4 '.4 0.11S"4 5.0
fluor"'t""" J,1 '.J' '.J '.OS ' ... O.lll'" 0.0 . 0.04
fluor.. 1" '.1' '.1 0.06 ' 0.06 O.IJrlU
Ind8nGCI.l,J'c,d'Prrene 1'1 0.1' 0.1 0.1 '.1 O.IUIU 0.0' 0.015
,.......1I'8nI 1" '.1' 0.1 0.9 0.9 o. nnu
bl,-("I..,lhla,I) 1" '.1' 0.1 0.' 0.' O. lIS'" 150.0' 9Z5.o-8
phl"I...
flrr- J" O.J' O.J 0.05 - 0.1 0 .107IU
I!I1I1J
.1..1... ,,, IJO.O 9,670.0 4,JOO.00 10.000.0 . 500,000.0
.,.anle 6" 6.0 . 6.0 I.S 1.' 4.."4 I.' 40.0
I.rl.. '" 15.0 140.0 7O.UI" 100.0 ' ',500.0
lerrl I I.. 4/' 0.1 . 2.0. O.S I.S o.tSnl4 1.0 ' 10.0
C..I.. I" O.J . 2.0 0.4 0.4 O.SS71U 0.01 . '.0
C.leh. 711 J,no.o . 108,000.' J5,~S." 100.0 . '00.000.0
Chr-lua 7/7 I.' 16.0 8.114286 5.0 1,000.0
Cobalt 411 20.0 . 20.0 2.6 10.0 1.914286 . 1.0 40.0
c....r 411 2.0 . 10.0 J.2 22.0 6.6IU14 2.0 - 100.0
Iron 7/7 J,I60.0 . 121,000.0 ~,MO.O 7,000.0 . ~~O,OOO.O
hed 111 J.S 82.0 21.48511 2.0 200.0
Megnellua 111 '0.0 . 11,400.0 '.290.0 600.0 6,000.0
"~.. 7/7 220.0 2.020.0 802 .8~11 too.O 4,000.0
tterew., 7/1 0.0" . 0.~2 0.028143 0.01 - 0.08
Mlclc.I 6/1 20.0 . 20.0 2.' 20.0 10.0 5.0 1,000.0
-------
.
"
Table 2-4, continued
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR DETECTED ANALYTES IN SEDIMENTS
PHASE II RI SAMPLING ACTIVITIES
FOCUSED FEASIBILITY STUDY
QUINCY LANDFILL NUMBERS 2 AND J
QUINCY, ILLINOIS
'o,-ter
,,~
0'
D.toetlon
'''' of S81pl.
""tIt.tIon
U.lt.
CIIII/III)
'''' of
htoeteel
Concont,ot 1-
Cll8lk,)
",It'-tlc
II88n
C..,.,)
toc..,oant
L..,.t..
C..,.,)
lit,.,.. ContilUld
. II ve,
S.O
......,-
line
1/1
711
711
0.6 . 4.0
4.0
6.0
S.O
4.0
Z9.0
190.0
1 .Z64Z86
11.114Z9
61.0
o. I
lO.O .
10.0 .
_.0
)00.0
'~to: "''''-tic.... ulcutoted wi", LIZ .thod for W1dItocted cCIIIpUIIII.
Incl... ,..ulU ".wed t.
","
WDic.
",,",,- per IIII00r..
.... volot II. ort8tllc cCllllpOUnda.
VOC.
Yototll. orfll'llc c....-.
.
0, 811ft, 1988.
..
Doto pr..onted .. "'" ort8tllc .U.r.
-------
Table 2-5
. SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR DETECTED ANALYTES IN LEACHATE SAMPLES
PHASE II RI AND OCTOBER 1990 SAMPLING ACTIVITIES
FOCUSED FEASIBILITY STUDY
QUINCY LANDFILL NUMBERS 2 AND)
QUINCY, ILLINOIS
'.r_t.r
fr~y
of
O.tectlon
-... 0' SMp'.
Clu8nt"..lon
U.h.
(../L)
Art..... Ie
_an
(..,L)
lack,round
Lewl..
(8IIIl )
-..... 0'
D.'ec'~
Concentr.tlons
C..,L)
...
1,4'Dlehlorobanlene
l''''~y'ftIph'h8'ene
,,,,,th.I-
..
Acetone
lena-
C:~I orall8nl-
'thylbeN-
Chloroe,""
1,"Dlchloroeth8n8
toluene
Iyl... (10,.1)
mt
Aroelor UU
Aroelor 1154
III1J1t
Arltnle
I.rl...
C..I...
blel...
Chr-I...
Iron
had
1t1lM.1...
Itenpne..
It.reury
'0....1...
5 i Iv.r
114 0.01 . O.GS 0.0l4 - 0.024 0.01975
1/4 0.0' . O.OS 0.01 0.01 o.OIm
214 O.OS . O.OS D.OM . D.054 O. OJIIS
," O.DOS . 0.01 0.052 . 0.052 0 .0lSZ86
SI' O.DOS . 0.001 '.00" 0.016 O. 0068It 10, 0.22
SI' D.ODS . 0.001 '.001 ' 0.0l6 O.DOtI11 10 . cO.OOOS
'" O.ODS - 0.001 0.001 . 0.11 O.OSI'" 10. 0.00017
J/' 0.001 . 0.01 '.on . 0.Z6 O. OUlU
J/' O.DOS . 0.001 1.001 . O.OOJ 0.0015
II' O.ODS . 0.001 '.oSt . o.on 0.001' 10- D.OOI61
1/9 O.DOS . 0.001 1.00I . 0.69 O.l71' 11- D.DOSl
ZI' O.ODDS . 0.0005 o.oon. 0.0014 O. 000S64 10- 0.0014
1/7 0.001 - 0.001 0.001 . 0.001 0.000571 10' 0.0014
,/9 O.OM . 0.01 0.006 ' 0.02 0.001889 10 - »O.OOS
"9 0.01 . 0.2 O.tS 0.1J O.ZRllZ 10 - »O.no
," 0.005 . 0.01 0.0067 - 0.0067 0.004)56 10 . cO.OI
114 5.0 ' 5.0 101.0 ' 101.0 zr.l25
Zl9 0.01 . 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 10' 0.025
JI4 O. I . 0.1 0.4 ' 59.0 14."75
1/9 0.005 . 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.017118 81). 0.OU5
'/4 5.0 - 5.0 25.0 ' 107.0 59.175
1/4 0.015 . 0.015 0.51 0.51 0.148125
lI9 0.0002 . O.DOS 0.0007. 0.0012 0.001622 81)- 0.002
'/4 5.0 ' 5.0 120.0 ' J60.0 IS). 125
-------
Table 2-5, continued
. SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR DETECTED ANALYTES IN LEACHATE SAMPLES
PHASE II RJ AND OCTOBER 1990 SAMPLING ACTIVITIES
FOCUSED FEASIBILITY STUDY
.QUINCY LANDFILL NUMBERS 2 AND 3
QUINCY, ILLINOIS
Per.....r
fr..-nc..
..
o.tectlon
'" 0' S8IIpi.
Ch8ntttetlon
ll.lt.
C..,l)
''''' 0'
Detected
Cancent,.t 1001
C../U
Artt"'t Ie
"""
C..,U
tecklrCMRI
lewl.-
C..,l)
118'111. Can' flUId
Sodh.
IInc
J/4
214
~.O
O.Ol
. ~.O
. 0.0l
27.0 - 280.0
0.051 . 0.084
99.en
o.onn
10'8: .r"...lIc _8ft cllcull.ed Ullrw \/2 _thod for undetect" cCllllpOUNll. Inchd.. r..uU. U88tecI t.
..,l
ma
"1111.,... per Ilt.r.
'.Iye"Iorlnst" b'~Ia.
SVOC. 188h,.1 et "e or..,,' c cCllllflO'8'dl.
-
Vol It lIe or..,..' e c08pCll8'd8.
",'A, 1985 CAa, .., Cd, Cr, Cu, MI, "8, I, Chlorob8nlene, KIa, 1, K).
-------
Table 2-6
CALCULATED INCREMENTAL LIFETIME CANCER RISKS
AND TO'l'AL HAZARD INDICES
~ '
FOCUSED FEASIBILITY STCDY
QtnNCY LANDFILL N1JMBERS 2 AND 3
QtnNCY, ILLINOIS
~ Toul
I8C8PCor ,,... ~ewt Carat' II at Lewl llaurd InOI&
Current PIt""YS
o....t Canuct wi tIt L88Cft8C. Af 1.01 It 10.- 1.11 II 10-.
lie 9.40 It 10.- Z.C13 II 10-6
pOC.ntill future ,.ttI...".
8",""IMCI_t WitU
lNI8l.ct., OWi", """'1", AI 6.17 It 10.- 3.38 JI 10.6
lie 1.14 . 10-- 1.13 JI 10-.
Ingestion of Drl..l", wacer Af 2.. . 10.7 2.80 JI 10-1
.. 1.71 . 10-. 1.08 JI 10.'
TOTAL AI 2.14 It 10.' 2.80 JI 10"
lie 1.16 It 10.. 1.08 a 10.'
AU. WitU
IM.t.clan Durl", -..1", AI 7.. . 10-7 1.40 II 10.'
- 5.54 . 10-. 5.37 II 10.'
~tlc .,..ctan AI 2.St & 10-1 1.74 II 10"
- 6.19 . 10-1 2.76 II 10"
TOTAL AI 2.47 . 10-' 1.76 JI 10.'
- 7.16 It 10-' 2.81 JI 10.-
...... Witt La
IrNl8Cion Duri", --'''' AI 1.51 . 10.. 6.63 It 10.'
.. 1.28 . 10-' 1.62 II 10.'
D_clc .lI888cian II 3.M & 10-1 1.66 . 10.-
- Z.Z1 a 10- 2.52 It 10--
TOTAL AI 4.n & ,.-- 1.n . 10.'
- Z.J6 It ,,- 2.68 . 10.-
lOt.: SCI8Mlflc lWI8Cten ......." - t.. It ,... _'8 J..,. .. o. m ~ ~,..
Af
-
A"..... .. .
-.
I... .l8 _1-
-------
RESPONse ACTIONS
Table 5-1
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
QUINCY
LANDFILL NUMBERS 2
QUINCY, ILLINOIS
At 11!RNAnves
AND)
LeACHATE
a- ........
... boo ........
.........
..... ~
~
....... ......
........ ...
"II~ . .,-
......... .....
.... ,- 8'OIW)
GROUNDWATER
---10M
.........
10--
-.... .......... eN"'"
fttJlul- I . ,-
011.... ,- IlOnt.
...... ,-
fA II
lie a-. ......... ...
....~
.
.
. .
.
I
I
.
LeAL1tA 11! II!MI!DIAL ALTlWfA fIVes
IA . II: III
1- ....... ....... ~.....(".
~... c---.... .. . ... --
".II &~ ....... ... T-. c--...
. fOfW -- ....... ...... ..
fOfW
I . . I
. . . .
. . . I
. . . I
I
.
I I . I
.
.
. I
II I I I
II I I I
---
QlOIfflDWA Tel afMI~IAL
AL11IINAnvl'''o
IA . N:
~ fl --'" &,1 fl . ...
.. . . .. . . (" . ..
......., ........, .... ........
~"o ,- ,-
fOfW
I I .
I
.
I
.
----
.
""10
IOIW
....-.. -.
"-I"'" ~ (-.....--
NIIIIIt ..... - ......
. A"'........ IA. ..,.. tr......-.. ...-... ~ 8f........... ----. In,.,.. ""''''I ........... """k8" t.....
-------
TIllIe..
AL1DNA11W2CU:AOiA1E CDlfAINNI!HrwrtHTREAncatr
CX)STEmWATE St I116WtY
QU1NC\' 1ANm1U.NUr.aERS 2 AND 3
QUINCY. JUJNOIS
r -'or... A8DIIIi I"ft8m . '
ea. r. a.a QD( CallI Wc:ntI
Ca8n8 S156.000 SW.400
SI8f88 c..:... SI90..000 $10.000
I..-... r. ' MiMO $&.070
L--.U .. NPCE!S ""-'-..... S14U31 m,m
r. ' SIII8rIIII SS3:.U91
Ii. .- ..... ---("'> S2.UIO
~.......,~> 131'-
Bid - , (1S1i) S8.Q5O
Saap8 - 1 (21115) SIQ6,7~
r. .u ("') S248D
r. ... SIlUClO
1:; ~"'(1_) $11.120
Lcp"("') S«UfO
sna..... --(ft> S64.taO
TCIIII CIIIpIiII8'" ~ .' - $99'7. '78D
A8IIA0AM- S216.7aZ
NII..--- S2.GCZ.S31
TCIIII..--- S3.040.611
-------
<:
o
'" ~
c'
Parameter
TABLE 8.
Draft Soil Cleanup Objectives
Quincy Municipal landfills
Chss 1
SoH
Objective
(mg/kg)
Class 1
Basis
AUl
(mg/kgl '
0.1
Acetone
0.1
RtO
Benzene
0.005
Mel
0.00009
Chloroethane
1,I-Oichloroethane
1,I-Oichloroethylene
NO
0.1
0.001
cis-l,2-0ichloroethylene
trans-l,2-0ichloroethylene
0.001
0.01
RfO
Mel
0.0007
0.0007
Mel
O.UOOI
0.1
Mel
0.0005
Ethyl benzene
Tetrachloroethylene
0.1
0.005
Mel
Mel
0.00005
Trichloroethylene
Methylene Chloride
0.005
0.005
Mel
0.0004
0.0001
PMel
0.0002
0.0001
Toluene
1,1,I-Trichloroethane
Xylenes (Total)
1.0
0.2
Mel
MeL
0.0003
10.0
MCl
0.0001
1.4-Dichlorobenzene
1.5
20 x Me l
0.0001
Vinyl Chloride
0.002
MCl
O.OOOl
.-
.'
-- ----- -- -- ---. _0. .-- ... -.-
-------
Draft Groundwater Cleanup Objectives
Quincy Municipal landfills
Class I
. Groundwater
Objective
0.0004
0.0001
0.0002
0.0001
0.0003
0.0001
0.0001
0.0002
----.-.---..-.-- --~._--------------.-
. .
;;
-------
<:
, '~
'" ~
NOTES:
NO: Not Oetenmined. Sufficient data were not available for which to base a cleanup objective
HCl: Maximum Contaminant level.
PHCL: Proposed Maximum Contaminant level. .
AOL: Acceptable Detection Limit; lowest Practical Quantitation limil from SWtl46.
RfD: Reference Dose.
recOI1lnenda t ion.
Mixture 1: In addition to meeting individual Class I objectives. the following equation must be satisfied
in order to protect Igainst liver toxicity.
11 ,1 ,l-Trichloroethanel i 1.0
o. fii971
Mixture 2: In addition to meeting individual Class I objectives. the following equation must be satisfied
1n order to protect Igainst liver tumors.
-------
APPENDIX B
-------
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Natlanal Technlc."n'arm.tlan Service
SJlflllgrl8ld. VB. 22.0.
AN EOUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYEn
orrlCIAl nUSINESS
I'nllolty for I'rlv8tO U98, 130U
POSTAGE AND FEES PAIl)
U.9. DEPARTMENT OF COMMEnCE
COM-211
FIRST CLASS
~ ""
~~
------- |