United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
E PA/ROD/ROS-86/042
September 1986
Superfund
Record of Decision:
Byron Johnson Salvage Yard, IL
-------
1. FI,'OFIT NO.
EPA/ROD/ROS-86/042
.. TITLE ANO SU.TITLE
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Pl~. ,."d ["fINCI/O"f 011 th. ,tvtn. INfCN. CO'""'tl;1II)
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
I Z.
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Byron Johnson Salvage Yard, It
(Second Remedial Action)
7. AUTHOFl.SI
5. RE'O..T OATE
~~ntember 23 1986
e. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION COOE
"
8. PEA FORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
g. P,FI,rO..MING OFIGANIZATION NAME AND AOO..E55
10. PFIOGRAM ELEMENT NO..
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
;Z. SPONSO"'NG AGENCY NAME AND AOOAESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. TYPE OF AEPORT AND PERIOO COVEREO
1:'~...,., Rnn
1.. SPONSOAING AGENCY CODE
800/00
15. SU'PLEMINTAAY NOTES
18. A8sTRACT
The Byron Johnson Salvage Yard is an approximately 20-acre wooded parcel located in
Ogle County, Illinois. General rubble and domestic refuse, along with industria1.wastes.
including drums and plating materials, are scattered about this presently inactive
site. During the 1960s and early 1970s, the yard operated as a salvage yard and
unpermitted landfill. A March 1985 Record of Decision (ROD) implemented a remedial
action consisting of excavation and removal of containerized waste and contaminated
soil, and onsite treatment of soil containing excessive levels of cyanide. Ground water
under and downgradient from the site is contaminated with heavy metals~ cyanide ann
VOCs, including TCE and PCE. Because the material within the Salvage Yard has not yet
been removed, wastes still present, both on .the surface and buried, act as an onqoing
source for ground water contamination.
The_selected remedy for this second operable unit includes: installation of whole
house carbon filtration systems in affected year-round residences to provide an interim
alternate water supply: provision of an interim alternate water supply to residents
occupying s~asonal (summer-use) homes through distribution of bottled water: ongoinq
sampling and monitoring program to evaluate the effectiveness and lifetime of the carbon
filters: installation of replacement filters after breakthrough occurrence: and disposal
of spent filters in accordance with provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recoverv
(See Attached Sheet\
17.
a.
OESCA.'TOFIS
KEY WO"OS AND DOCUMENT ANALVSIS
b.IOENTIFIEAS/OPE"I ENDeD TERMS
C. COSATI Field/Group
Record of Decision
Byron Johnson Salvage Yard, It
(Second Remedial Action)
Contaminated Media: gw
Key contaminants: VOCs, TCE, PCE, cyanide,
heavy metals
18. 0ISTR.8UTION STATEMENT
Ig. SECURITY CLASS I Tills Rtporf/
None
20. SECURITY CLASS IT/lis Pllltl
Z1. NO. OF PAGES
123
22. PRICE
Non~
!,. ,- 2220-1 (II... .-77)
"".VIOUI &OITION II O.'O"'&T&
-------
EPA/ROD/R05-86/042
Byron Johnson Salvage Yard, It
(Second Remedial Action)
16.
ABSTRACT (continued)
Act of 1976, as amended. Th~ IEPA h~s advocated the selection of the water line
alternative and not the selected remedy even thouqh the u.S. EPA considered the water
line remedy to be inconsistent with the final ground water remediation program. Because
of the State's commitment to provid~ a permanent water supply, implementation of the ROD
recommended alternative is not required to alleviate the current health threat and will
not be funded unless the State of Illinois agrees to assume O&M costs and the 10 percent
funds match. Th~ estimated capital cost for this remedy is $115,500 with annual O&M
estimated to be $165,350.
~
-------
Record of Decision
Remedial Alternative Selection
SITE Byron Johnson Salvage Yard, Byron, Illinois
DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
The following documents which describe the various remedial alternatives
and analyze their cost-effectiveness have been reviewed by the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and form the basis for
this Record of Decision:
- Phased Feasibility Study for Byron Johnson Salvage Yard, June 1986
- Summary of the Remedial Alternative Selection, September 1986
- Community Relations Responsiveness Summary, September 1986
- Record of Decision, State of Illinois, July 1986
DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED REMEDY
The selected remedy consists of the following major components:
- Installation of whole house carbon filtration systems in affected
year-round residences to provide an interim alternate water supply
- Provision of an interim alternate water supply to residents occupying
seasonal (summer-use) homes through distribution of bottled water
- Ongoing sampling and monitoring program to evaluate the effectiveness
and lifetime of the carbon filters
- Installation of replacement filters after breakthrough occurrence
- Disposal of spent filters in accordance with provisions of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended
COST
The estimated cost of the above actions will not exceed a present worth
cost of $338,900 over a 5-year projected lifetime, as itemized in the
attached Summary of Remedial Alternative Selection.
-------
.
-2-
DECLARATION
Consistent with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) 43 U.S.C. 99601 et ill., and the',
National Contingency Plan (NCP) (40 CFR Part 300 et ~., 50 Federal
Register, November 20, 1985), I have detenmined thit 1nstallation of
carbon filtration systems, with bottled water provision, in affected
residences is a cost-effective remedy and provides adequate protection of
public health, welfare. and the environment.
I have also determined that the actions described herein are cost-effective,
when compared to other remedial actions reviewed in accordance with the
NCP. and are appropriate when balanced against the availability of Trust
Fund monies.
-
-
The State of Illinois has been consulted and disagrees with the approved
remedial action. The action. approved by this Record of Decision. would
require future operation and maintenance (O&M) activities which would be
funded by. and the responsibility of. the State of Illinois. The Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) will not accept liability for the
O&M required by this remedial action. and has refused to enter into a
cooperative agreement or provide the required 10 percent match for this
action. The IEPA has recommended that a municipal water supply be provided
to affected residents. U.S. EPA considers this action a permanent solution
which may be inconsistent with the final groundwater remedy. A'Record of
Decision obligating $920.000 in State funds has been signed by the IEPA
Director to implement the permanent water supply alternative. Because of
the State of Illinois' committment to provide a municipal water supply
within 1 year to the citizens affected by this Record of Decision. it is
not required that U.S. EPA obligate funds to provide an interim water
supply at this time.
bate
9 /z;; /$~
I f-
'"
-------
Sunmary of Remedial Alternative Selection
Byron Johnson Salvage Yard, Byron, Illinois
SITE LOCATION AN~ OESCR!PTION
The Byron Johnson Salvage Yard is an approxiMately 20 acre wooded parcel
located in Ogle County, about 4 ~iles southwest of Byron, Illinois, and
12 ~iles southwest of Rockford, Illinois. Rock River Terrace, an unincorp-
orated comnunity consisting of approxi~ately 110 residences, is about 1
~ile northwest of the site (Figure 1). General rubble and domestic
refuse" along with industrial wastes including drums and plating ~aterials,
are scattered about the site. The site is presently inactive and the
residence on the property is unoccupied.
The site is situated in a rural, pri~arily agricultural area. The acreage
is within the Woodland Creek drainage basin and consists of mostly uplands
dissected by several small ravines trending north and northeast. These
ravines feed into Woodland Creek, which in turn is a~ inte~ittant tributary
of the Rock River.' Surface elevations vary between 740 and 860 feet above
mean sea level. .
-
The Byron nuclear power plant is situated to the i~mediate southeast of
the site and ~uCh of ' the property surrounding the Salvage Yard is owned
by Com~onwealth Edison Company (CEC). The property 9irectly south of the
Salvage Yard is owned by Amos Blanchard, and land adjoining the Salvage
Yard to the east is a ~otorsport park owned by Joe Vincer. Other proper-
ties, including the Forest Preserve District north of the Salvage Yard,
are owned by CECa
GEOLOGY:
Unconsolidatert Pleistocene deposits c~posed of glacial, fluvio-glacial
and alluvial sands and sandy gravels, generally less than thirty feet
thick, rest upon either dolomite or sandstone bedrock. Alluvial cover is
varied hut generally increases in thickness in stream valleys and down
stream toward Rock River. These deposits are a permeable mixture of sand
and gravel which contain ground water at shallow depths, especially near
the Rock River. '
Two bedrock formations are of primary interest because they comprise the
principle drinking water aquifers in the study area. These are the upper
aquifer Galena-Platteville Group dolomite and the lower aquifer St. Peter
Formation sandstone, both of Ordovician age. They are separated in some
areas by the Harmony Hill member of the Glenwood Formation, a thin,
non-continuous shale which may act as an aquitard when present.
The Galena-Platteville dolomite is susceptible to solutional weathering,
and in, stream channels or along joint-controlled lineations the rock may
be heavily fractured and vuggy. Secondary features increase the permea-
bility of the dolomite so that localized ground water flow is joint or
-------
-70
. ~~
PROJEC .
L JION
3)
...
",
~o~"WCICIn
To ~-- ,.go ,
$;181
-
lit..... '
To~
.
ROCK RIVER TERRACE
, 12 I 1
South Branda
Wood1and Creek
G8wIM
.
,.
1
.
.
.
,.
17
BYRON NUCLEAR POWER PlNfT
DIRK'S FARM I
I
Z3
24
,t
20
"
-
2!1 j
3) 21
1
-
~
2 3 ~ ~1 32
:c oS I
\~ :: .
I ... I
~ ¥ I
\ . ii
i I
~
north
c: - - - :.'. a 45CC'
... ..."_Co:
" .,
-------
-2-
fracture controlled. Joints and fractures also provide conduits for
contaminant transport. Surface water flow appears .to be preferentially
controlled by joint orientations. The Galena-Platteville outcrops in
some lower stream valleys and channel cuts.
The St. Peter sandstone underlies the Galena-Platteville dolomite and may
be separated from it by the Harmony Hill shale. This sandstone is the
major aquifer within the region; it supplies most of the municipalities
and industries, although the Galena-Platteville is probably more widely
used by residential wells in the study area. The St. Peter does not
outcrop in the study area but is a fine to medium grained, poorly sorted
quartz sandstone, with a thickness of 100 to 200 feet.
SITE HISTORY
The Byron Johnson Salvage Yard, formerly called the Johnson Salvage Yard,
operated during the 1960's and early 1970's as a salvage yard and unper-
mitted landfill. Wilford Johnson purchased the property in the mid-1960's
and used 10 acres for a salvage yard/dump and leased the rest for motorcycle
racing.
In 1970, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) began investi-
gating the site and another dump area across Razorvi11e Road on the Dirk
Farm (presently owned by CEC) as part of its campaign to close and cover
illegal dumps. Johnson followed IEPA instructions to cover the Byron
Johnson Salvage Yard but he also all egedly conti nued to accept and dump.
barrels of liquid wastes. .
.
In 1974, cattle were found dead on the former Dirk Fanm property, attributed
to cyanide poisoning incurred by drinking from a nearby stream. Shortly
afterward, an 111inois Department of Public Health (IDPH) investigation
found dangerous levels of mercury and lead in 30 private water wells in the
area, 23 of which were used for drinking water. Residents were advised
not t~ drink the contaminated water.
Subsequently, the CEC retained Dames and Moore (OM), a consulting firm,
to determine the extent of contamination and to recommend remedial actions
to remove industrial wastes and soils contaminated with heavy metals and
cyanides from the Dirk Farm. DMls study indicated that drums containing
lethal concentrations of cyanide, arsenic, cadmium, chromium and other
heavy metals may have been dumped and/or buried in containers on and
adjacent to the Dirk Farm. The report also noted that materials found
on Di rk' s Farm were simil ar to material s found on the Byron Johnson
Salvage Yard. .
,
Dames and Moore also inspected areas around the Salvage Yard and identified
a gully adjacent to the Salvage Yard as a major contaminant source. This
gully drained into Woodland Creek, which contained excessive concentrations
of cyanide and other toxic chemicals. Additionally, it was reported by COM
that plating wastes containing cyanides were sprayed onto Razorville Road
and roads in and around the Byron Salvage Yard as a dust inhibitor.
Liquid cyanide wastes and barrels were allegedly dumped into ravines on
the north and east parts of the yard.
,. .
-------
-3-
In December of 1982 the Byron Johnson Salvage Yard was placed on the
National Priorities List. In 1983 a State-lead cooperative agreement was
signed, and IEPA contracted with D1Appolonia to conduct a Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS). A Record of Decision (ROD) was
signed in March 1985, to imple~ent a remedial action consisting of ..
excavation and removal of containerized waste and contaminated soil, and
on-site treatment of soil containing excessive levels of cyanide.
Ground water sampling in areas around the Salvage Yard revealed high
concentrations (up to 710 parts per billion) of trichloroethylene (TCE)
in some drinking water wells. In July 1984, residents of ten homes were
. placed on a U.S. EPA funded bottled water program under an immediate
removal action. The source of the TCE has not been confirmed, but most
of the affected residents are northwest of the salvage yard, hydrologically
downgradient from the site. Because of the probable ground water contami- .
nation emanating from the site, a Fund-lead supplemental RI/FS was contracted
to Camp Dresser & McKee (COM) and initiated in June 1985. The purpose of
the RI/FS is to detect and evaluate ground water contamination emanating
from the Salvage Yard, and to recommend aquifer remediation measures.
This supplemental RI/FS is expected to be completed by March 1987.
Also in June 1985, a fence was erected around the Salvage Yard under an
immediate removal action.
8a
Because of the potential for ground water contamination further down-
gradient from the Salvage Yard,. the U.S. EPA conducted a sampling of
private drinking water wells in the Rock River Terrace community in July
1985. Results fron th1S first sampling effort indicated that some wells
were contaminated with concentrations of TCE as high as 48 parts per
billion (ppb). The sampling effort was expanded with assistance from
IEPA and IDPH, and subsequent analyses showed that approximately half of
the tested wells had excessive levels (>2.8 ppb) of TCE and other related
volatile organic chemicals. ~ Phased Feasibility Study (PFS) was begun
to address the drinking water contamination in September 1985. The PFS
was ~nitiated as a fast-track operable unit to evaluate the public health
risks created by the gr6und water cont~mination in an area bordered by.
Spring Creek Road on the south, Razorville Road on the east, and the Rock
River on the north and west (see Figure 1). The purpose of the PFS was
to recommend an interim water supply for all potentially affected resirlents
within this geographic area. This interim remedy should provide a reliable,
environmentally safe water alternative until implementation and completion
of the final, permanent ground water remediation alternative to be .
recommended by the RI/FS currently in progress. .
~
In May 1986, U.s. EPA purchased and installed whole-house carbon filtration
systems in nine of the ten residences previously receiving bottled water
because of TCE concentratiqns. (The 10th home is presently unoccupied
and has no internal plumbing fixtures to accomodate c~rbon filters).
These filters were installed to alleviate the inconvenience of bottled
water and to provide protection against contaminant exposure due to
inhalation and/or skin absorption.
-------
-4-
CURRENT SITE STATUS
The approximately 20 acre site is presently inactive. General rubble and
domestic refuse such as refrigerators, old cars and car parts are scattered
throughout the site. Interspersed are collections of waste drums and
plating materials such as buffing wheels. According to D'Appolonia's
June 1984 report, there are 504 surface drums and an estimated 11,400
buried drums. Contaminants found in some of the surface drums are lead,
arsenic, cyanide, halogenated organics and low level PCBs. Some surface
drums are considered RCRA ignitable according to the closed-cup flash
test. The estimate of excessively contaminated soil slated for removal
is approximately 3,600 cubic yards. Soils are contaminated with lead,
nickel, zinc, cyanide and organic halogens. IEPA has announced that the
source removal approved by the March 1985, Record of Decision will be
conducted before the end of calendar year 1986. Bids are currently being
solicited and IEPA expects construction to begin in October 1986.
Ground water under the site and, to some extent, down-gradient is contam- .
inated with heavy metals, cyanide and volatile organics. Because the
material within the Salvage Yard has not yet been removed, wastes still
present, both on the surface and buried, act as an ongoing source for
ground water contamination. The underlying Galena-P1attevi11e is the
receptor aquifer for the mobile volatile organic contaminants and because
of it's highly fractured nature provides an easy pathway to the lower 'St
Peter sandstone aquifer. Even relatively immobile contaminants such as
heavy metals have been found in high concentrations in monitoring wells
on-si~e. Contaminant loading is predicted to continue until a source
removal is accomplished.
-
TCE contamination at a level as high as 710 ppb has been found in a
residential well on Razorvi11e Road near the Salvage Yard. All residences
on Acorn and Razorvi1le Roads with wells containing TCE at concentrations
greater than 200 ppb have received whole-house carbon filtration systems
as a temporary remedy. The supplemental RIfFS addressing ground water
contamination is nearing completion of the RI phase, but additional invest-
igative work may be requi red on the Di rk I s Fann property. .
ENFORCEMENT STATUS. (See Attachment 1)
PUBLIC HEALTH THREAT
Some private wells in the vicinity of Rock River Terrace have been found
to contain one or more of five different volatile organic compounds
(VOCs). Four of the five compounds, including trichloroethylene (TCE),
l,l,l-trichloroethane (l,l,l-TCA), tetrachloroethylene (PCE), and carbon
tetrachloride (TETRA), have been identified as suspected human carcinogens.
The fifth comp~und, 1,2-dichloroethylene (1,2-DCE), is not a suspected
carcinogen. The maximum concentration found in the Rock River Terrace of
anyone contaminant was 48 ppb of TCE. TCE was found most frequently and
... ,
-------
..
"
-5-
at the highest concentrations. A Public Health Assessment (PHA) was
prepared for the PFS to evaluate health risKs associated with consumption
of water from RocK River Terrace wells.
The PHA eva 1 uated ri sKs associ ated with three di fferent exposure periods-:
(1) A 1 to 2-year period required to complete the IEPA source removal and
the U.So EPA ground water RIfFS. (2) An indefinite or lifetime ingestion
period and (3) A ten-year exposure period. The latter (10-year) period
was chosen because it is considered possible the residents in the RocK
River Terrace area have been exposed to TCE and other isomers since 1974.
During that year, a sampling effort identified cyanide in wells near RocK
River Terrace, and although VOCs were not analyzed for, they may have been
present. VOCs are as or more mobile than cyanide and, assuming a common
source such as the Byron Salvage Yard, they may have been transported
in a similar fashion away from the site. Therefore it was assumed for
the purpose of the PHA that ground water in this area has been contaminated
in the past at the same levels currently seen, and that these concentrations
will persist in the near future.
The U.S. EPA Cancer Assessment Group (CAG) has established cancer risk
levels for the suspected carcinogens found in Rock River Terrace wells.
The 1 x 10-6 cancer risk level is the estimated contaminant concentration
in drinking water which would result in one additional incident of cancer
per one million people. This estimation is based on a lifetime exposure
of 2 liters per day ingestion over a periOd of 70 years. U.S. EPA considers
drinking water to be acceptable for consumption if-it does not exceed the
10-6 cancer risk level. .
Table 1 illustrates the criteria used to assess public health risK in the
Rock River Terrace area. Because concentrations of TeE exceed the 10-6
cancer riSK level in many of the wells sampled in the study area there is
an established public health threat. There is also a potential health
threat to those residents whose wells were not tested because they may
have concentrations which meet or even ~xceed the values found in t~e
s amp 1 ed well s .
Table 2 expresses the results of calculations used to determine cumulative
cancer risks in the study area created by the ingestion of water contaminated
with maximum and minimum concentrations over 1 to 2 year, 10 year, and -
lifetime exposures. These results indicate that there is an excess (greater
than 10-6) cancer risk associated with both lifetime and 10 year exposures.
However, the shorter term, 1 to 2 year exposure period does not create an
unacceptable risk. Long-term ingestion of water contaminated with chlori-
nated organics at concentrations found in Rock River Terrace samples
clearly creates an unacceptable health risk. This health assessment is
based on ingestion modeling alone and does not take into.account the
potentially greater cumulative exposure risks posed by inhalation and
skin absorption processes combined with ingestion.
b
.. -
-------
,TABLE 1
SUGGESTED CRITERIA FOR PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH USED IN THE
BYRON JOHNSON SALVAGE YARD PHASED FEASIBILITY STUDY
(All concentrations in ppb)
High Concentration
Found in Rock
Contaminant 2 years 10 years Lifetime River Terrace
Trichloroethylene (TCE) 98 19.6 2.8 48
Carbon Tetrachloride (TETRA) 10.5 2.1 0.4 0.3
l,I,I-Trichloroethane (1,I,I-TCA) 21.7 3.2
Tetrachloroethylene (PCE) 24.5 4.9 1.0 0.9
-
-
This table illustrates those drinking water concentrations associated with
, a projected upper 95~ confidence limit excess cancer risk of 10-6. In other
words, these are the values determined to be the minimum concentrations
necessary to cause one excess cancer per ~ne million ingestors. The suggested
2 and 10 year "criteria" for carcinogenic effects presented in this table
have not been developed by U.S. EPA but have been calculated by Clement
Associates, Inc., using procedures recommended by U.S. EPA, in the Phased
Feasibility Study in order to give an indication of the relative risk associated
with exposure for less than a full lifetime. For a detailed explanation see
the Public Health Assessment, Appendix 1 of the Phased Feasibility Study for
the Byron Johnson Salvage Yard, June 1986.
, .
-------
TABLE 2
*TOTAL CANCER RISK ASSOCIATED WITH INGESTION OF GROUND WATER
CONTAMINATED WITH TRICHLOROETHYLENE, TETRACHLOROETHYLENE, AND CARBON
TETRACHLORIDE FOR VARIOUS EXPOSURE PERIODS
Concentration in Ground Water
Risk Associated
with 1-2 year
Ingestion
Risk Associated
with 10 year
Ingestion
Risk Associated
with Lifetime
Ingestion
Maximum Reported
Cumulative Concentrations
6 x 10-7
2 x 10-6
2 x 10-5
Minimum Reported
Cumulative Concentrations
5 x 10-8
3 x 10-7
2 x 10- 6
-
-
*Cumulative doses received ~ver 2 or 10 year exposures were expressed as average daily
exposures prorated over a70-year lifetime, and the corresponding lifetime risks were
ca1 cu1 ated accordi ng1y. The suggested 2 and 10 year "criteri a- for carci nogeni c
effects presented in this table have not been developed by U.S. EPA but have been
calculated by Clement Associates, Inc., using procedures recommended by U.S. EPA, in
the Phased Feasibility Study in order to give an indication of the relative risk
associated with exposure for less than a full lifetime. For more information,
refer to the Public Health Assessment, Appendix 1 of the Phased Feasibility
for the Byron Johnson Sa1 vage Yard, June 1986. .
"
,. ,
-------
-6-
"
u. s. ~PA ~ESPONSE OBJEC'[~VES
The Phased Feasibility Study was co~ducted to evaluate the public health
impact associated with exposure to contaminants found in private drinking
water well s in the area of the Rock River Terrace subdivision, and to.
identify and evaluate'alternative water supplies which could be provided
to the affected population. The response objectives to be met by the
operable unit remedial action proposed by this ROD for the Byron Johnson
Salvage Yard site are:
1. Provide a source of drinking water which meets appropriate Federal
drinking water criteria to those residents who have excessive levels
of TCE present in their private wells.
2. Provide a source of drinking water which meets appropriate Federal
drinking water criteria to those residents residing hydrologically
down-gradient from the Byron Johnson Salvage Yard who do not at
the present time have contaminated private wells but are potential
future receptors. .
3.
If possible, to provide a remedy which will lower the overall costs
and/or inconvenience to those residents residing on Acorn and
Razorville Roads who currently have carbon filtration systems
installed on their plumbing systems.
4. Provide an i~terim water supply alternative to all affected and
potentially affected residents which will be consistent with final
remedial actions arising from the ground water RIfFS.
-
-
5.
Implement an interim remedy designed to provide a reliable,
environmentally safe water supply until implementation and completion
of the final, permanent ground water remedial alternative.
, To meet these fi~e response objectives a variety of remedial alternatives
were irwestigated as part of an' initial screening. These alternatives
have been developed in accordance with the relevant guidance provided in
40 CFR Part 300.68(f)(ii) & (iii). No-action alternative has been evaluated
in accordance with Section (v). Alternatives remaining after the initial
screening were subjected to a more rigorous evaluation. The initial
screening and detailed evaluation processes are consistent with 40 CFR
Part 300.68 (9), (h), and (j).
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
A number of remedial alternatives were addressed as part of an initial
evaluation. The preliminary screening process used to isolate alterna-
tives needing a more thorough investigation is outljned in Table 3.
This chart lists the seven alternative technologies considered and the
criteria used for screening processes. Each technology is given a
relative rating as to it's ability to fullfill the particular screening
criteria. Additionally, a seventh criterion is added, 'Time to Implemen-
tation.' This criterion is considered critical to the evaluation based on
-------
,e
TABLE 3
. .
Abi lity to Relative Relative Abl1 Hy
Protect InH ial' 0 & M Relat he Time to Community to Meet
A lternat he ~ub1ic Health Cost Cost Complexity Implement Impact Oemand
No Action Poor None ' None low 0 Years High None
Pump and Treat Fair-Good High High High 2-3 Years Moderate High
Surface Water,
Rock Ri ver
Oevelop an r;ooci High High JUgh 2-3 Years Moderate High.
A lternat i ve
Grounci Water
Supply
Connection to Good High low low 1-2 Years Moderate High
an Existing
Ci ty System
Bott 1 ed Wa ter Fair-Good None Moderate low 0 Years Moderate High
. Res ident ial Good low Moderate low 4 Months low High
Treatment
Units
Installation Good High High High 1-2 Years low High
of Interceptor
We 11 s
-------
-7 -
the objectives of the project; i.e., tl ilT.~lement an interim remedy until
a final, permanent ground water remediation recommendation is made. A
brief discussion of the seven initial alternatives follows the table.
1. NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE - The no-action alternative would require continued
use of residential supply wells in Rock River Terrace and the surroundi~g
area. The source r~oval remedial action planned for the Byron Johnson
Salvage Yard has not yet begun and it is presumed that source materials
are still conta~inating the aquifers. Although little information is
available regarding contaminan~ ~igration pa~hways between the Byron
Johnson Salvage Yard and the Rock River Terrace. it is esti~ated that
positive effects of the source r~oval would not be evident in the Rock
River Terrace area until approximately three years after remedial action
completion. Because TCE levels in some wells in the Rock River Terrace
area are greater than the 10-n lifetime ingestion value of 2.8 ppb, the
no-action alternative is considered an unacceptable long-term solution.
However. no-action may be an acceptable short-term remedial measure based
on the results presented in the risk analysis. The no-action alternative
is considered through the detailed evaluation as required by the National
Contingency Plan.
-
-
2. PUt1P AND TREAT SlIRFACE WATER FROM THE ROCK RIVER - The Rock River
flows by Rock River Terrace and could potentially serve as an alternate
water supply for the subdivision and the surrounding area. The river
appears to have sufficient capacity to meet water supply requirements of
the area in question. Storage facilities could be constructed if necessary
to ensure capacity .during drought flow conditions. Water quality consider-
ations pose a significant problem with this alternative. Sp.veral parameters
are likely to exceed ~axi~um cont~inant levels specified in the Safe
Drinking Water Act; suspended solids levels are high. and there is evidence
of fecal contamination. A sophisticated water treatment facility would
be required to remove contaminants already present in the Rock River
before the water could be supplied to consumers. Additionally. extensive
studies would be required to define the concentrations of potential
contaminants for which there is no available data. Impl~entation of
this alternative would require an extended amount of time. Prior to
design and construction of a treatment plant it would be necessary to
complete treatability studies and acquire property titles and easements.
It is predicted that a complex physicoch~ical treatment system would be
required to ensure adequate public health protection. Such a syste~
would probably be costly to operate and maintain. Due to the extended
implementation time and high initial and operating costs, this alternative
was el iminated fro~ further consideration as an operable unit remedial
action.
3. DEVELOP AN ALTERNATIVE GROUND WATER SUPPLY - It is possible that an
alternate water supply could be developed for residential usage in the
Rock Ri ver Terrace area. Thi s alternate supply woul dideally emanate
-------
-8-
"
from a lower, as yet uncontaminated, aquifer or from an upper aquifer in
an area not yet contaminated. There is presently lva:lable little of the
data necessary to evaluate tnis alternative. Detailed studies would be
required to investigate the feasibility of constructing a new community
water supply. Information regarding aquifer yields, ground water quality,
geologic conditions and treatment requirements would have to be collected
and evaluated prior to design. An extended amount of time would be
required to complete hydrogeologic studie$, acquire titles and ea~ements,
perform treatment studies, and design and construct a community water
supply well, storage. facilities, treatment facilities and a distribution
system. Because of the long implementation time, high costs,. and implement-
ation uncertainties, this alternative was eliminated from further consider-
ation as an operable unit remedial action.
-
e
4. CONNECTION TO AN EXISTING CITY SYSTEM - The nearest municipal water
supply to the Rock River Terrace area is located in the City of Byron
approximately 3 miles away. The Ryron system is composed of three wells
finished in de~p sandstone at depths ranging from 670 to 2,000 feet. The
current average water usage or pumping rate for the Byron supply is
455,000 gallons per day (gpd); municipal officials estimate a systeM
capacity of 2,600,000 gpd. The water is 'treated by chlorination and
fluoridation prior to distribution. The Byron system appears to have
sufficient capacity to meet the needs of the residents of the Rock River
Terrace area. Connection to an existing water supply would provide
protection from further contaminant migration regardless of concentration
and type. Implementation of this 'alternative would result in some external
inconvenience to residents during construction but there would be very
little internal inconvenience because existing household plumbing fixtures
can be used. This alternative would take approximately 1 to 2 years to
implement. Sufficient lead time would be required to allow for preparation
of contract documents, followed by bidding and construction. Finally,
this alternative may be considered a long-term solution to the residential
use water supply in the area of the Rock River Terrace because it is
anticipated that once installed the system would not be removed, regardless
of the quality of water in the aquifers. Based on the considerations
stated a~ove, this alternative was advanced for further detailed consideration.
5. ROTTLEn WATE~ - This alternative would provide bottled water to all
residents in the affected area. Bottled water would provide a safe
drinking water supply. This alternative is easy to implement. There are
no capital expenditures, merely an implementation of an operation and
maintenance procedure wherehy shipments of bottled water would be transported
to. residences. Bottled water would cause some inconvenience to the
resident because of the use of separate drinking water, frequent water
deliveries and bottled water storage. Additionally, bottled water would
only protect the user from contaminant reception through ingestion; it
offers no protection from skin absorption and/or inhalation exposure.
Because of the ease of implementation and the relatively low associated
expenditures this alternative was advanced for a more d~tailed evaluation.
-------
,
-9-
6. RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT UNITS - Carbon filter units, inst~lled within
the residence, can be used to remove volatile organic contaminants from
the water. These units may be either relatively large, whole-house
carbon filtration systems which treat all of the water entering the -
household, or smaller, in-line units which treat water at an individual.
high use tap. Whple-house units would be more protective of hu~an health
because all of the water entering the household would be treated and
there would be-no concern of exposure through inhalation or skin absorption.
This alternative has a relatively low initial capital expenditure and'
could be i~plemented- rapidly due to the si~plicity of design and ease of
installation. A ~onitoring program would need to be initiated under this
alternative because the carbon filters have a finite lifetime. Monitoring
would consist of analyzing untreated and treated water at a representative
sampling of households to assure carbon effectiveness. Once the carbon
~dia is spent, replacement filters would need to be installed and used
carbon disposed of. Because of the proven ability to protect human
health, and low i~plementation costs, this alternat-ive was carried forward
for further evaluation.
~
7. INSTALLATION OF INTERCEPTOR WELLS - Interceptor wells installed between
the suspected source of ground water conta~ination and the affected
residences would interrupt the flow of contaminants. The intercepted
ground water would be treated until free of contamination and then dis-
charged either onto the surface or injected back into the aquifer(s).
This alternative could be very protective of human health, but in order
to provide an immediate solution to already affected residences, the
wells would need to be placed near the homes. Because existing data on
ground water movement in the area is not complete, aquifer tests would be
required, thus increasing the implementation time. Capital and operation
and ~aintenance costs are predicted to be high for this alternative.
Additionally, installing purging wells away fro~ the source may actually
increase contaminant loading fr~ the site into the aquifer since the
source material is still present on the surface and in the soils. Because
of the high costs and -uncert~inties associated with this alternative, it
was eliminated from further consideration as a viable operable unit
remedial action.
DETAILED,EVALUATION OF REMAINING ALTERNATIVES
Seven initial remedial alternatives were evaluated to determine their
ability to protect public health, relative initial cost, relative operation
and maintenance cost, relative complexity, time to implementation, community
i~pact and ability to meet user demand. Three of the seven alternatives
(connection to an existing ~unicipal system, bottled water and residential
treatment units) were found to represent viable alternatives worthy of
further consideration and a fourth, no action, was carried forward for
detailed evaluation in accordance with the NCP.
y -
-------
. -10-
Because of the uncertainties inherent in
a final aquifer remediation, and because
Salvage Yard has not been initiated, the
and canpared for three different project
are:
selection and implementation of
the source removal at the Byron
four alternatives were evaluated
durations. These project durations
0.
1). 5 years - The project would continue until canpletion of the sour:'ce
removal (assumed two years) and through completion of a three year
ground water remediation program.
2)
7 . years - The project would continue until canp1etion of the source
removal and through canp1etion of an estimated five year ground water
remediation program. .
3) 20 years - The project would continue indefinitely.
..
Following a detailed description of each Qf the four alternatives isa
table presenting life cycle costs as.present worth costs. A present worth
cost is the dollar amount needed to be set aside at the present time to
fund the project for it's determined lifetime. All estimates include
capital costs which are the initial costs associated with implementing
the alternative, such as design and construction, and O&M costs which are
estimates of annual operation and maintenance costs. Following the
detailed descriptions and cost evaluations is a summary table comparing
the cost analysis of each alternative. .
1. NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE - Several of the wells in the Rock River Terrace
area contain trichloroethylene at concentrations above the Cancer Assessment
Group 1 i fetime 10-6 ri sic 1 eve1 of 2.8 ppb. It was assumed that if no
action were taken the TCE concentrations would remain high and possibly
increase in the future. Long-term consumption of this water therefore
represents an unacceptable health risk to the residents in the Rock River
Terrace area. It is unknown how long residents in this area haie been
consuming, and have been exposed to, TCE contaminated water. Sampling
effor1;s.prior to the U.S. EPA investigation which began in July, 1985, did
not attempt to identify volatile organic contaminants in residential well
water in Rock River Terrace. Contamination from the Salvage Yard in the
form of cyanide and inorganics was in the Rock River Terrace area as long
ago as the early to mid-1970s and TCE may also have been present. Because
of the uncertainties regarding duration and concentration of contaminant
exposure, and the probability that the ground water will not be cleaned
within the next few years, the no-action alternative is not considered to
be acceptable.
2. CONNECTION TO THE BYRON MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM - A new water
main extension from an existing acceptable water supply was advanced for
further consideration. Preliminary assessment of t~is alternative suggests
that an a-inch water main would be connected to the Byron water distribution
system to carry water to the Rock River Terrace area. As already discussed,
the Byron system appears to have the capacity to supply the Rock River
Terrace area, but the system would probably require design modification
-------
-11-
and st rengtheni ng to supply suffi c i ent water pressure.' Strengtheni ng
would include an increased pUMping capacity and larger in-system pipe
sizes. The transmission main would have to leave the Byron system and
cross the Rock River at some point. The line couln either cross immedi-
ately south in the area of the existing bridge along German Church Road,
or travel west along Rock River and cross in t~e vicinity of the Terrace.
A storage tank and pump station would be needed to ensure an adequate
quanti~y of water at sufficient pressure.
The distribution system within Rock River Terrace was evaluated based on
. 3.5 persons per residence" 49 ga110ns per capita per ,day average consump-
tion. The total amount was increased by 180~ to estimate maximum use
requirements. The distribution system within the Terrace would consist
of 6-inch Mains with fire hydrants at dead end mains for flushing.
Housing connections at each residence were assumed to be 5/8 inch copper
with 5/8 inch meters. It was assumed the minimum burial depth for all
water mains and services would be 5 feet.
.
This alternative would provide a high degree of public health protection.
Residents would receive municipal water which is monitored in accordance
with State water quality regulations. There would be no TCE exposure
hazards associated with ingestion, inhalation or skin absorption because
all water entering the household would be treated. Some local wells are
installed near household septic tanks, and the water line would eliminate
concerns of bacterial contamination. The water supply provided by the
, City of Byron should be very reliable and independent of local ground,
water level fluctuations. Resirlential costs appear to be minimal. The
annual cost of'water for each residence,'based on the current Byron water'
rate of $7.50 per 5,000 gallons, would be approximately $94. The annual
cost of paying for city water would probably be offset by the present
pumping and maintenance costs associated with a private well.
-
-
This alternative would be the most expensive and time consuming to implement
of the viable alternatives. Capital costs are estimated to be $908,050.
Several factors could increase this estimate. It is possible that extensive
water distribution'modeling studies would be required. Easements would
need to be acquired. Implementation of this alternative would create
some cOMmunity and environmental disruption during construction. Addition-
ally, while the focus of this study is on the Rock River Terrace area, it
has been stated that if the alternative chosen would help to alleviate
the residential water situation on Acorn and Razorville Roads, where TCE
concentrations are an order of magnitude higher that most of Rock River
Terrace, then those residents would also be included in the remediation
process. Providing municipal water to those homes would certainly alleviate
their current situation but it may also significantly increase costs. All
of the above factors can seriously increase implementation time.
Y ,
-------
AL TERNATIVE 2
CONNECTION TO BYRON SYSTEM
.~i_t_a1-Cost s
Site Work and Excavation
$ 115.000
430,000
Mechanical, Piping. Valves
Services, etc.
Pump Station and Storage Tank
Contingency (30%)
90.000
1"90 .500
Construction Engineering (5%)
Engineering Design Costs (8%)
Total Capital Costs
31,750
50.800
S 908,050
. Annua 1 Cost s
------
Watera (110 residences)
Total Annual Cost
$ 10.300
400
30.600
S 41,300
.
Power
Operation and Maintenance
Total Present Worth of
.!_156,500b 1-1Q.~"'!'~Q.c 1- 351.500d
S1,065,Ooob SI,109.000C SI,260.000d
Present Worth of Annual Costs
Alternative
a Not including water for lawn sprinkling.
b Based on 5 year life~ 10 percent discount rate, no escalation, start
date Spring 1986.
c Based on 7 year life, 10 percent. discount rate, no escalation, start
date February 1987.
d Based on 20 year life, 10 percent discount rate, no escalation, start
date Spring 1986.
-------
,
-12-
Finally, the municipal water supply option is not consistent with the
stated criteria of the PFS. One important objective is to provide an
interim alternate water supply to area residents until implementation of
the final, permanent ground water remedial alternative. An interim"
remedy is desired because it is not clear at this time what final remedi-
ation actions will be taken. For instance, it is anticipated that the
source removal RA will significantly reduce contaminant loading into the
aquifers. The ground water contamination RI/FS will evaluate methods
which can be used to cleanse'the ground water and restore the environmental
quality of the aquifers. Extension of a municipal water supply system is
a final remedy option which is considered premature until completion of
other on-going investigations. While it is possible that this alternative
will need to be considered upon completion of RI/FS activities, the high
costs and extended implementation time can not be justified at the present
time.
~
3. BOTTLED WATER - Bottled water would provide a safe drinking water
supply to residents. This alternative is the least costly to implement
and there is virtually no design or ~onstruction time consideration so
that the project could be initiated almost immediately upon approval.
Under this consideration residents would need to be canvassed to determine
water use needs, such as the number of people residing in the home, their
ages and how much time is spent in the household. Shipments of bottled
water would be delivered on a regular basis, probably monthly, to all
residences. Based on average consumption rates, 15 cases of 6 one gallQn
bottles would be supplied to each household per month. Cost of the water
is estimated to be $4.25 per case. Management costs are assumed to be
low and include approximately 8 man-hours per month for project adminis-
tration. Almost the entire scope of this project could be contracted.
Although there are no capital costs associated with the implementation of
this alternative, 0&r1 expenses are relatively high, approximately $91,150
per year. Bottled water would be an inconvenience to users and require
storage ~pace. The supply of bottled water, while relatively reliable,
is subject to potential delivery schedule disruption. Finally, and most
importantly, this alternative would not eliminate the potential exposure
hazards associated with washing and bathing.
Approximately 20 homes in the Rock River Terrace area are occupied on a
seasonal basis during the months May through September. Individuals
living in these homes have a decreased exposure potential" because of the
short annual residency. Because of a reduced exposure risk, and because
carbon filters are not effective under intermittant use conditions,
bottled water is the most cost-effective alternative which is also protec-
tive of " public health for seasonal residents.
4. RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT UNITS - Activated carbon ~as been very successful
in removing volatile organic contaminants from drinking water supplies on
a municipal and point-of-use scale. Research indicates that carbon
~ "
-------
"
ALTERNATIVE 3
SUPPLYING BOTTLED WATER
Item
Cost
Capital Cost
Annual Cost (O&M)
$
o
Bottl ed Water
Project Administration
84 , 150
7,000
Total Annual Cost
$ 91,150 .
-
o
Present Worth of Annual Cost*
(Also total present worth project cost)
5 Year Project Duration
7 Year Project Duration
20 Year Project Duration
$345,500
443,900
775,700
*10% discount rate, no escalation.
-------
-
-13-
filtration ,an ~e >99% effective at.removing TCE fro~ water. Two types
of ,arbon filters were considered in this study, point-of-use or single
tap,- and whole-house residential systems. Because point-of-use filters
treat water only at a single drinking water tap they were not carried
beyond preliminary screening. Hence, this evaluation will focus on the
whole-house units.
A typical whole-house treatment syst~m ,onsists of two carbon filters, an
in-line flow meter, particulate filter, and, potentially, a bacterial
treatment unit. Units are installed such that water passes through a
particulate filter and flow meter prior to entering the carbon filter.
If the influent water carries bacterial contamination, possibly from a
septic tank~ a bacterial treatment unit can be installed prior to the
carbon filters to prevent bacteria from entering the media. The water
will then pass through both c~rbon filters before entering the household
distribution system. Two carbon filters are installed, one a.s a primary
and one as a backup or secondary. The carbon media lifetime is finite
and at some point will beco~e saturated with contaminants and experience
breakthrough. The second filter is insurance against potential breakthrough.
Once breakthrough has occurred, a replacement filter will be installed. .
The primary or saturated filter is removed and the carbon is regenerated
or incinerated. The se,ondary filter is moved to the primary position
and a new filter is installed in the secondary pOSition. The entire
system can be installed in a basement or garage and probably would take
up about a s much room a sa water heater.
~hole-house carbon filter systems have a relatively low capital implement-
ation cost. These costs include equipment purchase and installation
fees. Design of the system would be relatively simple and it is predicted
that four ~onths would be required to design, purchase and install the
systems. Carbon filters are a proven technology; residents would not be
exposed to contaminants because all of the water entering the household
is treated prior to distribution. The filter systems could be easily
removed from the plumbing system once contaminants have been cleaned from
the aqui!ers or another source of water is supplied.
The cost of operation and maintenance is dependent upon the frequency of
filter changes required. The PFS considered, for cost purposes, the need
to change filters once every six months, resulting in an annual replacement
fee of $44,000. In fact, recent experiences with carbon filters at other
sites have shown that, with proper design, filters can last at least 18
months each before breakthrough. This would significantly reduce annual
operating costs. A sampling program will be required under this alternative.
This effort would be designed to sa~ple selected houses on a regular
basis to assure proper system operation. Analysis of untreated and
treated water for VOC's and bacteria would cost approximately 5220.00 per
sample. Because carbon is a medium which can be cond4cive to bacterial
growth if left stagnant (for instance if the water system is not used for
extended periods of time), installation of bacterial treatment systems
-------
ALTERNATIVE 4
WHOLE-HOUSE CARBON FILTRATION
ITEM
Cap i tal Cost
Carbon Filter, Chlorinator, Mixing Tank
($800/unit, 110 units)
.
Installation ($250/unit, 110 units)
Total Capital Cost
Annual Cost
Project Administration
Replacement Filters ($200 each, semi-annually)
Tota 1
-
-
Moni tori ng Program
5 year duration $23,200
7 year duration $17,000
20 year durati on - $6,800
Present Worth of Annual Costs* 281,300 331,000 492,100
Total Present Worth Cost $396,800 $446,500 $607,600
*lat Discount rate, no escalation.
,. .
$88,000
27,500
115, 500
$7,000
44,000
51,000
-------
COST SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
AL TERNA TIvE:
CAPITAL
COST
PRESENT WORTH O&M COST
5 YR 7 YR 20. YR
TOTAL PRESENT
WORTH COST
1. No Ac t ion
$0
. $0
so
$0
$0
$0
$0
..
2. Connection .to
Byron System
$908,100
$156,500
S351,500
$1 ,064,600
1,109,200
1,259,600
$201,100
3. Bottl ed Water $0 $345,500 $345,000
$443,900 443,900
$775,700 775,700
-.
4. .Who 1 e-House $115,500 S281,300 $396,800
Carbon Units $331,000 446,500
$492,100 607,600
... ,
-------
-14-
may be required. The filters would require minimal attention from the
homeowner. If there were no available space in the home for the systems
a weatherized containment structure would need to be constructed. Because
carbon filtration systems are not effective for intermittant use with
long domancy periods such as at seasonal homes. bottled water would be""
provided to the 20 homes that are seasonally occupied.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
'The National Oil and Haza~dous Substances Contingency Plan (NCP) [40 CFR .
Part 300.68(j)] states that the appropriate extent of remedy shall be
determined by the lead agency's selection of the remedial measure which
the agency determines is cost-effective. technologically feasible and
reliable. and which effectively mitigates and minimizes damage to and
provides adequate protection of public health. weifare and the environment.
Based on the evaluation of cost and effectiveness of each proposed altern-
ative. comments received from the public. and State and Federal environ-
mental require"1ents, installation of whole-house filtration systems has
been selected as the most viable alternative which is also consistent
with any future final remedy. This alternative would be supplied to all
homes inhabited year round in the Rock River Terrace area. Because
seasonal homes are occupied approximately five months of the year. resulting
in a reduced health risk to residents. and because of the inefficiency of
carbon filtration systems when operated under intermittant conditions,
bottled water .would be supplied to the 20 homes with seasonal residents.
~
The recommended alternative is considered an operable unit remedial
action. . This operable unit remedial action would provide a reliable
supply of safe. potable water until the final remedial measure(s) is
implemented. This remedial action is considered appropriate because of
the long-term health threat associated with ingestion of and contact with
contaminated water in the Rock River Terrace area.
Design. purchase and installation of carbon filtration systems to approxi-
mately lYO ho~s in the Rock River Terrace area would require an estimated
four months. O~sign of the systems should be relatively straight forward.
Because of the extensive data avai1able regarding water chemistry in the
study area. isotherms would be simple to calculate. These isotherms
would be necessary to determine the size of the carbon filters required.
how much granular carbon is needed for each tank. the necessary water
contact time, whether water softeners are needed to extend carbon lifetime.
and predicted carbon breakthroughs. Oesign would also involve a thorough
canvass of the affected area to determine the number of residents per
home. normal daily water usage and space availabile within the home for
placement of the filtration system. The canvass should also include
seasonal homes to determine the number of occupants who would be partici-
pating in the bottled water program.
-------
-15-
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Installation of carbon filtration systems would require an intensive
operation and ~aintenance program. Although breakthrough times can be
predicted using isothermal ~odels, a sampling program is necessary to --
insure product efficiency and modeling accuracy. It is anticipated that
a quarterly sampling of 11 homes (10~ of total impacted) would be justified.
Those ho~s with the highest historical concentrations of contaminant
and/or the greatest volume of normal water usage would be selected for
sampling. Sampling at each residence would consist of three separate
samples including a pre-filter or untreated water, between filter, and
post-filtration or point-of-use sample. At a minimum, samples would be
analyzed for a full scan of volatile organic compounds. Once breakthrough
has occurred, replacement filters would need to be installed. Although
installation is a relatively simple process a certified plumber would
probably still -be required to change filters. Spent carbon may be con-
sidered a hazardous waste and documentation and tracking procedures
would need to be instituted to assure proper regeneration or destruction
of the material.
-
Contaminants other than volatile organics, including cyanides and heavy
metals, have been detected in monitoring well samples taken on and near
the Byron Salvage Yarn. Periodic sampling at the residential wells
nearest the site has consistently revealed acceptable (according to Primary
Drinking Water Standards) levels of metals concentrations in the private
well water and cyanides have not been detected, although historically
cyanide has been found in ~eyer's Spring along the presumed Woodland
Creek fault trace. The U.S. EPA feels that if these contaminants were a
threat to the residential wells in the area they would have appeared in
previous sampling efforts. It is therefore as~umed that the cyanides and
heavy metals are not being transported downgradient within either aquifer
due to various physical reactions. The metals are probably insoluble in
these waters and relatively immobile. Cyanides may be adhering to soil
surfaces. However, because these contaminants are present at the Salvage
Yard both in the soils and well water, and because-of the potential for
future migration of these contaminants, it is recommended that monthly
sampl ing efforts include analysis for the parameters cyanide and metals.
Carbon filters may be effective at filtering some inorganics in the short
term, but if heavy metals and/or cyanide were to appear in residential
well water at significant concentrations, other drinking water alternatives
would need to be implemented.
The bottled water program instituted for seasonal residents can be contracted
entirely. Shipments of water would be delivered on a monthly basis.
Although the exact number of homes requiring this alternative is unknown,
best estimates from recent canvassing and community relations activities
indicate that 20 homes would be eligible for the program. Bottled water
used for this phase of the remedial action would need to be analyzed
periodically to assure purity for drinking water purposes.
..
-------
-16-
Because thi s is an operable unit for an interim rL,",edy the O&M time frame
is unknown at this time. However, the ground water RIfFS completion date
is scheduled for mid-1987, and five years of O&M requirements are predicted.
U.S. EPA would be responsible for funding 90~ of the implementation and
O&M costs for the remedial actions for one year. IEPA is the designated '.
State Agency that is responsible for 0&~1 for the duration of the remedial
action. The total O&M present worth cost for a five year project duration
is estimated to be $338,900 or $66,483 per year.
. COt1t1UNITY RELATIONS
..
..
Public interest in U.S. EPA actions at the Byron Johnson Salvage Yard has
been high since funds for a remedial action (source removal) were deobli-
gated in r1ay 1986, due to the lack of a CERCLA-compliant disposal facility
in Region V. U.S. EPA scheduled a public meeting on June 24, 1986, to
announce the co~pletion of the PFS and to discuss other ongoing issues
such as the status of the RA and the ground water RIfFS. Approximately
100 persons attended the pUblic meeting in the Rockvale Township Ha1l.
U.S. EPA presented the PFS to the public by discussing the history of the
project, the need for an' operable unit, the ~thodologies involved in
preparing the docu~ent, and finally a su~mation and discussion of altern-
atives evaluated. U.S. EPA announced that whole-house carbon filters
were considered the most viable interim drinking water alternative evaluated
in the study. IEPA was then given time to present the alternative preferred
by the St~te of Illinois, connection of a municipal water line to the
Rock River Terrace area. Official public comment began at this time and
was to continue for three weeks. However, because of the extended public
corn~ent during the meeting, and to allow IEPA time to research details
associated with the water line alternative, public comment was extended
until the 5th of August. Another pub)ic meeting was scheduled to be held
before the end of the public comment period. Copies of the PFS were made
available to the public during the entire comment period.
U.S. EPA spent considerable time between the first and second (July 29th)
public meetings in the Rock River Terrace -area providing as much information
about the PFS and other investigations as possible to the residents.
U.S. EPA participated in two unscheduled meetings with local residents
during this period. Various State, Federal and local public officials
were present at some or all of the above meetings. Additionally, individual
interviews were arranged with local residents to discuss private wells,
results of water analyses and other issues. Fact sheets describing the
final alternatives were distributed during these publ~c meetings.
A final public meeting revolving around the PFS was held on July 29th at
the Byron Cultural Center. Approximately 100 individuals were in attendance
including State and local officials and media representatives. The
meeting was moderated by U.S. EPA and included IEPA presentations on its
proposals to remove the source material at Byron Johnson Salvage Yard and
a plan to connect a municip~l water line from the City of Byron to the
residents in Rock River Terrace. IEPA had previously announced these two
-------
-17-
actions at a press conference held the 24th of July at the Byron Johnson
Salvage Yard site. IEPA stated that the water line would be installed by
the end of next summer (1987) or approximately one year from the announcement
date. At the meeting. IEPA could not confirm exactly which affected
residents would be eligible for the water line but stated that Rock River
Terrace residents would receive municipal water if they so desired and so
would residents along the route of the installation line. IEPA stated
that its intent was also to hook up the residents of Acorn and Razorville
Roads because they were the most affected by ground water contamination.
Public reaction was overwhelmingly in favor of the State proposal to
install water mains in the affected area (see Responsiveness Summary.
Attachment 2). U.S. EPA believes that residents either did not understand
or did not accept U.S. EPA reasoning for recommending an interim solution.
Justificatfon for U.S. EPAls recommendation is that an RI/FS is currently
evaluating the ground water contamination in the area and that there is
potential for aquifer remediation. either naturally or by human intervention,
within the next five years. The municipal water supply is considered by
U.S. EPA to be a long term. final solution which can -not at this time be
justified.
STATE RESPONSE
.
The I11inois EPA expressed an unwillingness to assume responsibility for
the operation and maintenance requirements associated with the carbon
filter alternative. IEPA had advocated selection of the water line
alternative even though it was considered by U.S. EPA a permanent remedy
which may not be consistent with the final ground water remediation
program. After further discussions, IEPA announced that it would propose
the water line alternative at the first public meeting. Prior to the
meeting IEPA was informed that U.S. EPA could not support this decision
and Superfund money would not be available to fund the project. As a
result of the ensuing public comment IEPA has committed $920.000 to
implementing the water line alternative entirely with State funds. IEPA
has publicly committed to completion of the water line project within one
year from the August 1986. implementation date. Because of the State of
Illinois cammittment to provide a permanent water supply to the residents
of the Rock River Terrace area. implementation of the alternative recommended
in this Record of Decision is not required to alleviate the -health
threat posed by contaminated ground water in the Rock River Terrace area.
Additionally. future implementation of the alternative recommended in this
Reconj of Decision will not be possible unless the State of Illinois agrees
to assume O&M and 10~ funds match required by the NCP.
FUTURE ACTIONS
A Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) primarily addressing
contaminated ground water emanating from the Byron Johnson Salvage Yard
is underway. The FS is scheduled for completion in February 1987, but
may be delayed due to current funding inadequacies. Expansion of the
'" -
-------
-1 R-
study area may be required to incorporate the former Dirk's Farm property
across Razorville Road from the Byron Johnson Salvage Yard. Ground water
sampling data, and the detection of hydrogen cyanide gas while drilling
monitoring wells on this property, suggest that contamination probl~s
resulting from past dumping activities may still exist on Dirk's Farm and-
be a threat,to public health and the environment.
.
...
, .
-------
IEPA REC~D 'OF DECISION
.
REMOY AL ACTI ON
Site: . Byron/Sal vage Yard
Rock River Terrace/Water Supply
LPC Site Number: 148200003
SITUATION
The Byron Salvage Yard is located four miles southwest of Byron, Ill;no1s and
consists of 20 acres of woodlands in a rural, agricultural area. The site
operated during the 1960'5 and~early 1970's as a salvage yard and an
unpermitted landfill. The site is presently inactive and public access is
restricted by fencing.
TCE as hi~h as 710 ppb ~!S been found in some of the nearby ~esidential wells
on Acorn Road. The residents have been provided whole house treatment units
for their wells under a removal action by USEPA. A RIFS is being conducted by
USEPA to address the groundwater contamination in the area. During this work
lower levels of TCE was found in residential wells at Rock River Terrace which
is located west of the site along the Rock River. USEPAhas performed a
phased FS to address alternatives for these contaminated wells.
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED REMOVAL ACTION
-
Alternatives evaluated in the phased FS include providing bottled water,
installing home treatment units, and extending the watermain from the city of
Byron. IEPA's evaluation of the options shows the extending of the watermain
is preferred over other options because it is a permanent solution that would
provide a safe reliable drinking water source for the residents of Rock River
Terrace. In addition it may be feasible to connect the residents on Acorn
Road should they desire municipal water.
. This option has received initial public acceptance and in addition the city of
Byron has indicated a willingness to provide an extension to their municipal
system. Plans are to provide for funding this option with State funds through
a cooperative agreement with Byron. USEPA has indicated they would only
provide federal funds for the home treatment unit option.
-
ESTIMATED COSTS OF PROPOSED REMOVAL ACTION
Construction
Design and Oversight
Contingency -- 30\
Total
$635,000
95,000
190,000
'$920,000
" .
-------
Page 2
DECL-'RATIONS
I have reviewed the facts in this matter and in ~ opinion, planned removal
actions by lEPA are justified pursuant to 35 111. Ada. .Code 750.450. In
accordance with Section 750.4SO(b) . Phase V -- Planned ReIIOval, the factor that
IEPA utilized in determining that a planned removal is appropriate under this
Section include the contamination of drinking wlter at the tip. Furthet"lDOre,
consistent with the State Contingency Plln, I have detenlined that providing
an alternate water supply at Rock River Terrace ;s I cost effective removal
measure Ind mitigates immediate and significant risk of hlr8 to human health
Ind the environment.
7,11- !~
Date
RJC:JH:jk/sp/1632f
..
.. .
-------
Byron Johnson Salvage Yard, Byron
Phased Feasibility Study
Responsiveness Summary
September 1986
This community relations responsiveness sunwnary is divided into the follow-
ing sections:
Section I.
Section II.
Secti on II I.
Section IV.
Overview. This section discusses U.S. EPA's preferred alternative
for remedial action, and likely pUblic reaction to this alternative.
Background on Community Involvement and Concerns. This section
provides a brief history of community interest and concerns raised
during remedial pl anning activities for the Phased Feasibil ity
Study in the Rock River Terrace area.
summar~ of Public Comments Received During the ~ublic Comment Per-
iod an the EPA Responses to the Comments. 80th written and oral
comments are categorized by relevant topics. U.S. EPA responses to
these major comments are also provided.
Remainin Concerns. This section describes remaining community
concerns t at U. . EPA and the Illinois EPA should be aware of in
conduct i ng the remedial des i gn and remedi al act i on for the Rock
River Terrace area.
In addition to the above sections, Attachment A. included as part of this respon-
siveness summary, identifies the community relations activities conducted by. U.S.
EPA and IEPA during remedial response activities at Rock River Terrace.
Attachment B contains fact sheets and news releases distributed during the pro-
ject. Attachment C contains all written comments received. Attachment D 1 ists
all persons who submitted comments during the public comment period.
..
I .
OVERVIEW:
Duri ng the publ i c comment peri od, EPA presented three alternat ives as bei ng
suitable for resolving, on an interim basis, contamination in drinking water
well sin the Rock Ri ver Terrace area. (An RI IFS is underway to fi nd a per-
manent remedy). .
The three alternatives were:
1.
Providing bottled water to all area residents;
Providing in-home carbon filter units to all continually occupied
res i dences and bottl ed water to seasonall y occupi ed homes; and
2.
3.
Extending the city of Byron's municipal water supply to the area.
". .
-------
- 2 -
u.s. EPA recommended the carbon fil ter units; I EPA recommended extendi ng the
municipal water supply. The final alternative specified in the Record of
Decision (ROD) would supply in-home carbon filter units to continually occupied
res i dents and bottl ed water to seasonall y occupi ed homes. However, the al ter-
native will not be implemented. because IEPA has committed $1 million of State
funds to entirely fund the extension of the City of Byron water supply to the
Rock River Terrace area.
Judgi ng from comments received duri ng the publ i c cORl11eF)t peri od, the res i dents
and local officials overwhelmingly favor the extension of the Byron water main
to the Terrace area. Many al so prefer that U.S. EPA supply carbon fil ter units
unt il the water 1 i ne is extended and hooked up. Many al so commented that the
water mai n shoul d be extended to Acorn and Razorvill e roads (where 9 homes
al ready have U.S. EPA suppl ied carbon filter units as part of an immediate
removal action).
Section C below provides a more detailed discussfon of individual preferences.
-
-
II. Background on Community Involvement and Concerns:
The Phased Feas i bil i ty Study for the Rock Ri ver Terrace area is one of
several remedial planning activities U.S. EPA and IEPA have undertaken in
regard to the Byron Johnson Sal vage Yard site. In March 1985, a ROD was
signed to implement removal of approximately 12,000 drums, and excavation
and treatment of soil containing excessive levels of cyanide. In June 1985.
a suppl emental RI/FS was i nit iated to determi ne the source of groundwater
contamination affecting 9 homes downgradient of the site. (EPA supplied
bottled water to those homes from July 1984 until May 1986, when the Agency
installed in-home carton filter units). This RIIFS has been since delayed
by 1 ack of fundi ng. Sampl i ng of pri vate dri nki ng water well sin Jul y 1985
in the Rock River Terrace area (further downgradient from the Salvage Yard)
led to the current PFS, which began in September 1985.
Interest in the project increased when U.S. EPA announced in May 1986 that
the S~vage Yard removal wo~d be delayed due to a lack of a disposal faci"-
lity in Region 5 meeting the Agency's off-site policy. There was consider-
able media coverage, particularly because the Ogle County Health Adminis-
trator held a news conference disputing U.S. EPA's position that no disposal
facilities were available. Residents living near the site were particularly
frustrated.
Interest and concern peaked during the publ ic comment period on the PFS.
Rock River Terrace residents who had previously expressed little interest in
the Sal vage Yard, showed great concern about the Sal vage Yard, the PFS, and
other possible sources of contamination in the area.
-------
- 3 -
Received Durin
Public Comment Period and
1 II .
Comments raised during the PFS public comment period are summarize~ below
The comment period was held from June 24 to August 5, 1986. The comment
period was originally scheduled to conclude July 14, but EPA extended the
period to August 5 to allow additional time for discussion and comments.
Two pub1 i c meet i ngs were he1 d to recei ve verbal comments, and wri tten
comments were accepted, postmarked on or before August 5.
In all, 14 verbal comments and 45 written comments were received by U.S.
EPA. Some peop1 e submitted both verbal and written coments. In addi-
tion' IEPA distributed to the affected area a survey/fact sheet on which
residents could state their preferred alternative. 134 of these survey
forms (out of 135 distributed) were submitted to IEPA. 115 preferred the
water main extension, 16 preferred the carbon filter units, 1 preferred
bottled water and 2 preferred a different remedy altogether.
Questions About The Recommended Alternatives
c
Numerous questions (as opposed to comments) were raised at the June 24,
1986 public meeting, and subsequently, regarding the carbon filter units,
the water main extension and EPA's well sampling. Who would maintain
the carbon units? How long do carbon filters remain effective? Are the
f11 ters effective for heavy metals or cyani de ?Wou1 d the water main be
extended to Acorn and Razorvi1l e roads? Who woul d pay to tap-i n the
homes? Coul d non-affected homes be hooked-up? Wou1 d more well s be
tested to determi ne more preci sel y whi ch well s are affected? What will
be done about wells that are not now affected, but might become contami-
nated? Why were some well s sampl ed ,but not others? .
EP~ Respon~e: U.S. EPA responded to questions about the carbon filter
un1ts at t e public meeting. IEPA would be responsible for maintaining
the units. The effective lifetime of carbon filter units varies depend-
ing on the water used in a particular home and on the concentration of
contaminants in the water. U.S. EPA explained how residents could in-
crease the longevity of the filters. Carbon filters are not particularly
effective in treating metals; however, no heavy metals or cyanide have
been found in recent years in any private wells in the area, including
residential wells immediately adjacent to the Salvage Yard site. Carbon
filters are very effective in removing organic chemicals, which have been
found in the area's wells. .
In order to give IEPA adequate time to research answers about the water
main extension and to allow more opportunity for discussion and comments,
U.S. EPA extended the public comment period and scheduled a second public
meeting for July 29, 1986. In addition, IEPA distributed a fact sheet
providing more information about each proposed remedy. IEPA had more
precise cost information and expressed its intention to provide water
hookup (at no cost) to all residents in the Terrace area, and on Acorn
and Razorv11le roads, and to make the line available to currently un-
affected residences between Byron and the Terrace.
.. .
-------
- 4 -
To respond to questions about individual well results, U.S. EPA offered to
make individual appointments with residents 0" July 9 "10. The Agency
offered" to meet both with residents whose wells had been tested and with
residents who were concerned that their wells had not been tested.
R~edial A1tp.rnative Preferences
1.
Virtually every commenter reco~ended that the City of Ryron water supply
be extended to the Rock River Terrace area.
EPA Response: Illinois EPA has committed $1 million to fund the extension
of the water main, and to hookup individual homes to the main line."
U.S. EPA did not choose the water main extension in the Record of Decision
because the PFS was intended to come up with an interim solution while the
" RIfFS is underway to identify the source of contamination. U.S. EPA expects
to choose a pef'Tl1anent remedy, based on the findings of the RIfFS within
two years. The Superfund regulations don't allow the Agency to choose an
interil'1 solution that might conflict with or affect a permanent remedy.
For example, it is possible the groundwater could be cleaned wthin 5 years,
rendering a water line extension unnecessary. !J.S. EPA could not justify
spending funds on a permanent remedy, such as the water line extension, in
light of the ongoing RIfFS. Also, the carbon filter~ could be installed
almost immediately, making them a more effective interim measure than the
water main extension.
-
2.
Approximately a dozen commenters requested that carbon filter units or "
bottled water be supplied until IEPA finishes extension and hookup of the
water main.
EPA Response: U.S. EPA appreciates residents' concern about possible ad-
verse health effects from drinking contaminated water while the extension
. is installed, 50 the Agency evaluated the health risk posed by consuming
the water in the Terrace during the construction period. IEPA has stated
that it will take one year to extend the line; to be conservative, U.S.
EPA evaluated the health risk if residents consumed the water for one to
two years. As the chart on Table 1 of the ROO shows, the level of TCE
that would pose an unacceptable health risk in two years is 98 ppb. The
highest level of TCE found in a Rock River Terrace well was 48 ppb. The
unacceptable level of TETRA is 10.5. The highest level found was 0.3 ppb.
Because there is not an unacceptable risk posed by consuming the water
while the water main is extended to the area, U.S. EPA. can not provide car-
bon filter units ,or bottled water in the interim as an emergency measure.
However, the signing of the Record of Decision means that U.S. EPA will
provide carbon filter units to the area as a remedial measure if the State
of 111 inois will pay 10% of the cost and assume responsibil ity for the
maintenance of the units. The Superfund law requires States to pay 10~ of
the costs and assume long term responsibility of remedial projects. The
State has declined to participate in providing carbon filter units to the
Terrace area.
y .
-------
- 5 -
U.S. EPA recognizes that not every well in the Rock River Terrace area has
been sampled. The Ogle County Health nepartment announced at the July 2q
public meeting that it had arranged with the Illinois Oepartment of Public
Health to sample wells of Rock River Terrace residents who request that a
sample be taken. U.S.EPA encourages residents whose wells have n~t been
sampled to contact the Ogle County Health Department.
3.
Eight commenters sent a form letter, or a handwritten version of the same
1 etter, requesti ng that EP~ "preauthori ze" Terrace res.i dents to purchase
purification systems, then reimburse the resi~ents upon completion of the
water main extension.
EPA Response: U.S. EPA will not preauthorize residents to buy filters with
a promise to reimburse them. As in Response 2, the risk from consuming the
water while the water main is extended does not justify the use of carbon
filters during the construction. If there were an unacceptable short term
risk, U.S. EPA would provide the filters or an alternate water supply
directly to-the residents.
4.
Several c~enters, both in writing and verbally, requested that the City.
of Byron water supply be extended to homes on Acorn and Razorville roads.
Also, some commenters asked that the main line be made available to resi-
dents who live between 8yron and the Terrace, or between the Terrace and
Acorn and Razorville roads.
-
EPA Response: lEP~ is studying the feasibility of extending the City of
Byron water supply to Acorn and Razorville roads. The Agency also has said
it intends to design the extension so that residents in the "in-between"
area can hook onto the water line. (The residents in the "in-between" areas
whose well are not contarn.i nated wi 11 have to pay for thei r own hook-ups.
Residents whose wells are contarninated will have their hookup paid by IEPA.)
11.5. EPA has al ready provided carbon filter units to homes with contaminated
water on Acorn and Razorville roads as an emergency measure. If U.S. EPA
were .to provide carbon fi 1 ter units to the Terrace area., the Agency woul d
provide them to residents who live between the Terrace and Acorn and Razor-
ville roads, because .that is considered part of the affected area. The
Agency would not provide the units to residents between the City of l3yron
and the Terrace because those homes are not in the affected area. ~ottled
water would be provided to homes occupied only seasonally. (See Response
~ also.)
s.
One cOMmenter questioned how the Agencies will deal with new homes built
after the line extension is completed.
EPA Response: According to IEPA, owners of homes built after the water line
;s extended will be able to hook onto the main for the nonnal tap-in fee.
As in Response 4, if U.S. EPA were to provi~e carbon filter units to the
Terrace area, new homes built in the affected area would be eligible.
". .
-------
- 6 -
6.
One commenter preferred that a new water well be dug for the Terrace area,
or that carbon filter units be supplied. Two commenters expressed concern
about having to pay a water bill.
EPA Res~onse: U.S. EPA considered, but rejected, developing a new water
supply or the area (ie. digging new wells). Both the initial and long-
term costs woul d be very hi gh, and it woul d t-ake several years to impl ement.
(See page 8 of the ROD for more explanation). EPA did choose carbon filter
units' as its remedy, but because IEPA will be using its own funds to extend
the water main, the carbon filter units will not be necessary.
I EPA has stated it will pay to extend the water mai n, and to hookup each
home in the Terrace. Residents with uncontaminated wells in the "in-be-
tween" areas will have to pay their own hookup. The PFS estimates the
average annual water bill will be $94.
IV. Other Comments and Remaining Concerns:
Many comments were submitted concerning other aspects of U.S.EPA and IEPA
activities in the area. -
-
1. Approximatel y hal f the commenters said that cl ean up of the Byron
Johnson Salvage Yard is critical.
In March 1985, U.S. EPA signed a ROD to remove approximately 12,000
drums and to exca.vate and treat soil contai ni ng excess i ve 1 evel s of
cyanide~ U.S. EPA was unabl e to proceed with the removal when funds
were available because no disposal facilities in -the Midwest were
available that met U.S. EPA's requirements for disposal of solid Super-
fund waste. IEPA is not required to meet all those requirements, and
so can proceed with the removal.
IEPA announced on July 24, 1986 that it _has committed funds to conduct
the source removal on the site. . It has opened the bidding process to
sel ect a cl eanup contractor and expects to begi n removi ng drums and
excavating 50;1 ;n the Fall, 1986.
2. About ten commenters, including the eight who submitted identical
1 etters, stated that cl eanup of Di rk' s Farm is necessary.
U.S. EPA intends to -investigate Dirk's Farm as part of- its investiga-
t i on of groundwater probl ems in the Rock Ri ver Terrace /Byron Johnson
Yard area. U.S. EPA is negotiating with Commonwealth Edison, owner of
the Dirk's Farm property, to have the company conduct the investigation
under U.S. EPA's oversight. If negotiations are unsuccessful. U.S. EPA
intends to conduct the investigation when funds are available.
-------
- 7 -
3.
A few commenters questioned EPA's efforts to have the PRPs (potentially
responsible parties) held responsible for the contamination. Some said
the PRPs should be prosecuted.
u.s. EPA and IEPA staff described at the public meetings the Agencies'
enforcement procedures. Notice letters have been sent to PRPs regard-
i ng the Byron Johnson Sal vage Yard. However, in a case such as thi s
when there are no vi abl e PRPs, U.S. EPA undertakes work and then
attempts to recover its cost, sometimes through the courts. U.S. EPA
is negot i at i ng wi th Convnonweal th Edi son to have the company conduct
the invest i gat; on of the former Di rk.' s Farm property. .
The Superfund law considers any party connected with contamination at a
site (ie. site owner or operator, waste generator or transporter) to be
responsible for paying for a clean up. This does not necessarily mean
the parties are guilty of violating any laws; often there were no laws
governing such disposal practices when the disposing took place.
4.
A few commenters suggested additional possible sources of contamination,
such as old dump sites.
U.S. EPA's Remedial Project Manager has followed up with those commenters
and has visited a few of the alleged dump .sites. This information will be
passed on to other concerned agencies for further eval~ation.
-
" .
-------
"
RECORD OF DECISION
SIGN-OFF
PROJECT NAME: Byron Johnson Salvage Yard Operable Unit
REMEDIAL PROJECT MANAGER: Kenneth A. Wallace
RPM TELEPHONE NUMBER:
886-9296
1. OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS
Community Relations Plan developed/implemented? ~ yes ---- no
OPA Community Relations Coordinator
-3ld3!~
date
2. INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS
State Coordinator
3. OFFICE OF REGIONAL COUNSEL
Legal requirements met?
Site Attorney
./ yes ---- no
, ~date
~ date
cr I(j-{~ date
(~~~Ypi~ate
Section Chief
SWERB Chief
..
Regional Counsel
4. WASTE MANAGEMENT DIVISION
-f%~H~
fIV/
date
Remedial Project Manager
. .
$MS, Unit Chief
SMS, Chief
ERRB, Chief
CES, Project Manager
CES, Unit Chief
CES, Chief
HWEB, Chief
date
WMD, Director
date
-------
ATTACHMENT A
Convnuni ty Rel at ions Act i vit i es
Conducted During PFS
SUlTI11er and Fall, 1985
u.s. EPA distributes fact sheet
on private well sampling and TCE.
May 9, 1986
u.s. EPA distributes news release
announcing that carbon filter units
will be provided to 9 homes, but
that source removal delayed due to
lack of CERCLA-authorized disposal
facH ity.
June 13, 1986
u.s. EPA distributes news release
announcing availabil ity of PFS and
start of publ ic cOrmlent period. .
June. 18, 1986
u.s. EPA supplies copies of PFS to
repositories at the Ogle County
Clerk's Office and Byron Public
Li brary.
-
June 24, 1986
Public Meeting at Rockvale Township
Hall. U.S. EPA distributes fact
~heet describing alternatives and
other activities related to Salvage
Yard.
. Jul y 3, 1986 .
u.s. EPA distributes news release
announcing extension of public com-
ment period, date of second public
meeting, availability of IEPA sur-
vey/fact sheet, and availability of
U.S. EPA RPM for individual con-
sul tation.
Jul y 9 & 10, 1986
u.s. EPA RPM meets with individual
well owners at Rockvale Township
Hall. Conducts impromptu public
meeting organized by local newspaper.
* Press Releases were sent to local and Rockford media, local officials and
persqns on site mail ing list
... .
-------
&EPA Environmental.
l NE",TS RELEASE
LJ~;~~c S:a:es .....,.. ~ -
Env,rOr'\rT'E-'"':a. -.:.. ~
Protection ;! "'V
Agency . -.
Region V . . /'
230 S Dearborn Sr 1..- - -
Chicago IL 50504 '" ,,-r-
Technical f:ontact: Kenneth 'w{i(ace
(312) 886-929n
Media r.ontact: f1argaret t1cC:IJe
(312) 886-4359
i=,)r II1Joer1iate Release:
r1ay 9, 1986
~w. ~6-94
U.S. EPA ra PROVIDE IoJATn FILTERS FOR BYRON HOMES, RUT LONG-TERr1 CLEANUP DELAYEn
Ij.~. Enviromoental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 5 Administrator Valdas V.
Ada:',bs dnnounced today that the Agency will take steps toc1 ean the water at
nin~ hOI"I~s near the Ryron Salvage Yard, Byron 110
A carhon-filter unit will be installed in each home's water main to remove
-
trichloroethylene, an industrial degreaser, i" the water.
The new un its will
clean all water entering the homes, including water used for bathing. Te maintain
~he un"its' effectiveness, EPA will neec1 to replace the carbon periodically.
EPA.
~'a5 he~~n pi;)viding the residents with hottlet1 water since July 19A4.
~ork to install the filter units will begin at the end of ~1ay and should
:ake aprroxi~~tely ~ weeks.
The projecterl cost is $12,000, funded by the Comp~e-
;, ~I\'.; i 'Ie E nv i ,'onrnent a 1
Response COI'1penSdtion and Liability Act (CERCLAI, CQlm1onl.:;
:dl1~'1 Supe~fund.
- more -
-------
- 2 -
In 3 separate development. Adal'lkus ,~nnounced today that no disposal. f.3cil i-
tie5 in tile i1idwest are currently el igible to accept wdste drums and soil that
'..,ere to he removed from the Ryron Salvage Yard site. r.IJrrentlj, all midwestern
~JZ3rdous waste ai~posal sites are violating some technical requir~nents of their
i)l~r:nits. \~hile the violations are not causing environmental problems. 11.5. F.PA
will not allow waste from Superfunrl sites to be sent to disposal sites that do
not 1:leet ~11 operating requirements.
~p~ is working with the dispOSdl facilities to bring them into compliance
with regulations.
The Ryron yard cleanup is expected to cost $2.~ million.
Under an agreement
with Ij.~. EPA, Illinois EPA will cleanup the site using funds from CERClA.
.
The Ryr,)11 site was Iised in the 1960's and early 1970's as d 5alvage yard and
an unpermi tted 1 andfil1. Wtistes that wi 11 be removed from the site i nc 1 ude approx-
!:'at~11 ~r)O c1rums of waste paint, st)lvents, And debris; 11,000 buried drums. anc1
'~G~ cubic Ydrc1s of contaminated soil.
The site is secured by a fence to prev~nt
r)~rsons frOf'1 corlli ng into cantact wi th the wastes.
7he site is susp@cted of c0nta~inating the nearby residential water wells.
!J.<;. ~p~ ;s conductirnJ adriitianal investigations to c1eta~ine the source and
c.>d.-=nt of th~ canta!l1irlation.
#
#
/I
.. .
-------
&EPA Environmental
"NEWS RELEASE
'_Ir,,:~c 3~a~-=s
E ""\.lr"':;"'''''~'i:J'
Pr0[.:C~ton
Agency
Region V
230 5 :)eCi'born 5!
Ch,ca 0 !L 60604
~.'
V
T(~r: ;In i ': ,\1
1-: () n ':. :i 0: :
(1]:))
Kenn~t." 1/;t'llr!c~
~t~~ - t}?C}n
r1pdj" Cnnt:ar:t:
( ~ 1 , \
~1a rlJi! ret 11cCIIA
r~~,)-.11~y
F.jr ::'I~erj: H? Rp.l eas~:
!qne 13, 1 C)~Fi
. ~ '.-). '~ :; - 1 ? 7
:1.\. ~o;, <;~c:~)p"I~LTr. CQm1E"'IT:1N Rf)~K IU'JI:h1 nf~I?~r:~ !-!ATF.i~ PLA~~<\
11.,\. tnv;rn,,~p.nt:jl
Drotp.ct;nrt
'\IJency
(F.i>!\)
Rp.'Jion C;
ann()lInce'i t011:" ~
"l'I:',li.- cnl""\~nl~
:Je,..i (vi ""~qtl r11; n('] D 1 (Ins ':') rrotect
rp.s i lipnt 5
f "':1'''\ Ct")n:: ,111 in;:> ~ :>..i
I r- illY i ~q "Ii! ~ ~ r
in t1P f),"'\(k ';~iver Terr'c~ ,1"'PJ, n'jlA f,ollnty, tL.
A PIJ')';C 1TI~~~irHl \'il\ hp. heH to 11;<;CII"" thp pliins anti tf) .:tcc~!"'t CW"\(T1f:\n1<:s
...
"r"I l'Inf:~ ~.1, lq~') .:tt 7 p.i.,. at. the qoclt".;'"!:!.
'jr:t~..~'1 c"n:.,~nr:c; ".'y ''Ii' ,pnt
t.n ~D.\'; '~p,)i!)n"l r)fficp. in Chic~g') ~nr1 ."tIS~
~i~
:)1)r;t:".:jrk~'1 hy ,hlly H, 1~:~f:..
~:J~ is pr)[)r)si"9 t."')
;"st~:l
Ci'! r')lHl
f;lt~r
Iln; t s
in enr."
"'l")li~ ~"':j~ ~,..~
,; "1.~ ': >~:}: ~ I) 1 ~ 1f~ V"~ 1 s n ~
~ r; :: ~,l i) r () ,.> t \01 '/ I \'" r.
( i(:F' ,
~I)
i n r1 i J ') t r i ,~ 1
'1 P (J r e ,., S P. r. 1 'I
. ~.) w,'~ ~ Q'" .
Thp .~: ~I~nf' '1 ; ';
"S') :,rr,'1'1; ; r1I,
r.; ;r'F.t~11
tl,~ I/nite; i.n IJ')I"\PC; r.~,~.
'".,
"':1 v;.> : L~:\ n \'!'l t.., r ,
..., 'I ~ .., " ~ to
'.:.! '/ ~ i~': : Wh-:-
': 1'1 r'\ t .tl'1 i r:' ~ t p.'1 .
I\prrny,i'''!atp!J lr\~1
. ~. . ".~ '
.... i 1 1 "1;:>
pl i<1~:)I,' .:)r
~.'1P 'J,,;1:.;o
Th'~ 1 "'vr> 1
of rr.r:
fr)lIn~ in th~ "J"t.::>r
,. )I~ c; .,: ~
;),"')C;~ an i!"l"eoii.lt,. hf'~1..h rl,rp.1t. hlJ:
E°!\ i<; cl")ncp.rnerl "ih()o:t r>l)sc;i"'~'
.' & .. ,",).: .. '..;
""''''t0T'! ''')~J-~. .,-,., ~~ :,'1C;:lrp ".n T"('::
- I';' ''':.. -
-------
- ') -
The :arhon in tho ;,;n;)n<;"'1 Fiit,.r Iinits tr,!pS ')rqanic
cont(}f"linr\n~c;.
~ 1 ~ "'1',1-
i"9 cl~an w~t~r tl) &")W tr,rollp.r&'ln1.
!-'Inlli '1" ~nr ~Ijni"rflln"
,...~, pi !"'ed i n r;;~ r t. i"111!"\1' r ll1P, ~ .
'Int; 1
i.r;n'1r"-;c; rp';ll::h"\r~ 7"<:"
L;I'~ 1 J\'I f)r ot."er 1'!(H\''>y
')I?C\Jlrll~'; itVnilnhl~. II.S. F.PI\ \.i11
not r)" dhlp to IJr')'!;'1/'>
t",~ pr,)poser1 units fl)r the R.oc\< River Terracp. np.itJhhorhnorl. The Agency is "01,1-
inlj the puhl ic COI'lf"Ient period now so thnt actinn can prncee1 when funrlS
nre
.;.ni1ah11~.
II.C:;. EPA installerl s;,.,;1'\r unite; in t1ay lqHr. in ninfo> h()f"lPC; ne~r the
I~Jr()n r;tl1vnge Yarrl. Rp.cause of thp. very t,il.l" l~vels of TCE in the wi\ter of
those hol'1~~. !J.e;. F.0A \..~s ahle to USP. eMerq~ncy fllnrls.
The contamination sourc~ in thp. terrace is not known. although t~e ~yran
Sa 1 v a IY~ y" rrl i s S II S p~c t en .
II.S. EPA is cnnrlllctinq arlrlitiMal investigati0ns ':0
d:'~,llr~"i n~ thp. extent
nf qr:1:Jnd-wat.~r c:ontnlltin'ltit)n nrounrl the
~.; 1 v a \ J;:> '( fi !'" ri .
-
I\t the ,)IJnP. :'4 "lpptinil. 11.<:;. FDI\ tlnd Illino;s F:PA staff will ri~<;cri:)p thp
r> r()1 jn s er1 C 1 ea n lip p 1 i\rl c; .
thf'
arlrlitinntll
investiCji\tion.
dnd
other activities
".~lHpr1 to the Sahaqp. Yard site.
Cl)ri'~s of t"~ f~'!<;i')i1 it.y stllrly t'li:)5crioing the proposerl Rock qiver Tprri1c~
: 11 ,. n'~ ,,\ r p n vail a h 1 e f!) r p IJ h 1 i c rev i ~w ,H:
()'~l e ~!')lJn~ y r:nllrt h('\1,SI>
(:('\11"(',' ,~l ~r1f, 's I)ff i c,.>
nr~9nn. ! L
~yron PlJhl ic Lil-)rnry
1 nq ~J ~ ~ ran k 1 i '1
I~'yron. II.
!"\is."iC,
"r)"'''1~''',S c;ho'l11 'ie al !"~<;:)p'ri t,':
~1';~'~1'ir~t r1c(IJP. t;PA-l~
r.ol'll'll/ni r.y Rel '\t i one; Cnor,ii ndtor
'I. <:;. F.DI\ ~~;:')f;OA
,.
of
if
.. ,
-------
~~~V~°!Erf5L~ ~SE ~~~~~::b~'n~"~'
.J.. Tecllni:al c2~~~~~~~o~~~"e~ \oj~'~'
(312j 885-9~~
~1eoi~ Contact: r1argare~ '1cCup.
(312) 886-43S9
For IJ:ll!'fedii\te Rele~c;e:
July 3. 1986
NO. 86-154
U.~. EPA EXTENDS PUBLIC C~ff1ENT PERIon FOR ROCK RIVER TE~RACE
The U.S. Environmental Prote~tion Agency (EPA) Regior. 5 torlay annotJnced it i5
extent!il1g tt'l.t:! public COfllnent period on a fej~ibi1ity study of contamindted wat~r in
th~ Ruck River Terrace
area. Ogle County
II..
Comments will be accepted until
August 5. 1986.
A public meeting will be helrl on JUlY 29, 1986 at 7.p.m. in the Byr~n Cult~ra'
Center. 210 W. 3rdSt.. Byron, to answt'r qlJe>tions dn(~ dccept comments.
.
The feasibility stYdy evaluates options for protecting residents. from contami-
. niite(1 water.
Options include taking nu action, providing bottled water to residents.
iJroviding in-home carbon filter unit5, or ~J(tending the Byron municipal wHp.r system
to the area.
The Illinois E:1vironmental Protection Agency will distribute additio:'1-
31 ~'(p~dnatil)n of t~e options and an optional form to use for submitting comments
~e;ure the July 29 public me~ti~J.
In adc1ition. U.S. ~PA off;ciai~ will be available ,"July 9 and 111 to rTle~t inc
~!'i1'Jal1y with Rock Riv.er Tcrrac~ ar~a reside~ts I'those wells have he~n Si1:"p~cc1.
'~es i cients Nho wi sh to l:1i ~cuss thei r SCllnpl e resul t 5 can make an appoi ntment hy
:alling Oon OeBlasio) U.S. EPA 1-800-572-2515.
The appointments will be held from
3 p. IT) .
to 10 p.~. at the Bockvalp Township Hdll on River Road.
C~pies of :!le complete fe3sihiiity stuCj ar'~ availat'J1e for review.:it the Ogl.~
County Courthouse» Or':~un anc1 ti1~ ~yron Public lihrcr.y Di$t"ict, Byron.
#
iI
11
-------
IIImois EnVlronmfJnral ""orec~/on Af}fJncv
2200 Churchill Road.SOflngfifJ(d.l (flnOIS 62706 217.782 3397
FOR ~IATE RELEASE
CONTACT:
Cindc1 S. Schien
217/782-3397
Bob Casteel
217/782-6761
II::PA To Cleanup
Byron Salvage Yard
Springfield, Ill., July 24, 1986...Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency (IEPA) Director Richard J. Carlson announced today that money
from Governor Thompson' 5 "Build Illinois". program will be used to
cleanup the Byron Salvage Yard.
"Build Illinois" provides $90 million
over five years to target and further cleanup action at abandoned
hazardous waste sites in Illinois.
The hazardous waste site is located
12 miles southwest of Rockford in Ogle County and was used during the
-
1960's and early 70's as an industrial waste dump. "The decision to'
request State funds to cleanup the site was made when it became apparent
that federal money earmarked for the multi-million dollar cleanup project
would not be available.
The .site was named to the USEPA national priority
list of Superfund sites in December, 1982," said Director Carlson.
"The IEPA and VSEPA have invested much money to perform necessary
r~medi~l investigation and feasibili~y study work in preparation for a
cleanup.
Unfortunately. tite federal Superfund is depleted and awaiting
reauthorization by Congress," said Carlson.
IEPA had issued notices to
solicit bids for excavation work earlier this year, however, the USEPA
money earmarked for this purpose became unavailable.
, .
-------
- --.-..
-- .---..------.. --.- .-
...-""
to::.
-'"
~ '''',. :
-' ,
"
"
"
'';='!I.~
, '...
"~1 -.", ~
" , ", ,",
.. 7"~. ..
"I.
,~\.
. ..') .! ~ ~:: ~-~ ~.~..:"48
" ::i;, ... j!.W ..;
'.~.'. J:::.::I ~ ::i
Rock River Terrace
-.----
Recent Sampling by the Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH), the,
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) and ehe U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) has shown that some drinking water wells in ehe Rock
River Terrace have 10w levels of volatile organic chemicals, predominately
Trichloroethylene (TCE). The highest concentration of TCE found was ~4 par~s
per billion (ppb). A map showing the locations of the wells tes:ed with their
results is attached. The purpose of this fact sheet is to try and answer some
of the questions you may have.
WHAT IS TCE?
-Trichloroethylene (TCE) is used as an industrial degreaser; a solvent for
oils, paints and varnishes; a dry-cleaning agent; and an anesthetic. iC~
is most often' found in ground water because of spills at industrial
facilities and other locations where TCE is used as a cleaning agent. The
chemical is a central nervous-system depressant, as are alcoholic beverages.
People exposed to high levels of TCE become sleepy, experience headaches and
may develop liver or kidney damage. Animals exposed to high doses of TCE
have developed cancer. Also, drinking alcoholic beverages tendS to make tne
symptoms of TCE exposure more severe.
...
..
WHAT IS THE LONG TERM HEALTH RISK?
-TCE is considered to be a possible cancer causing agent. The long ~erm
health risk associated with TCE at low concentrations is expressed in
increases in cancer rates in proportion to the population exposed. For
example, if 100,000 people of average weights (70 kilograms or 154 pounds)
drank 2 liters (which is equal to 2 quarts) of water every day for JO
years, and the concentrations of TCE were 28 ppb for those 70 years, then
one person out of those 100,000 may develop cancer due to the TCE. This
risk can be compared to smokers who have a lifetime cancer risk of 1 cancer
developing due to smoking per 1,000 lifetime smokers. If any changes in
health risks of the TCE are found due to ~ew research, we w;11 inform you
as soon as possible.
WHAT IS THE SHORT TERM HEALTH RISK? .
-The USEPA considers levels of TCE that exceed 200 pph to be a short term
healtn threat. At thos~ levels, bottled water is provided to residents.
None of the samples taken in the ROCK River Terrace exceeded this level.
tnerefore, no bot~led water is to be provided by the USEPA. Continued
,nonitoring by the USE?A of the area will determine if any short term riSkS
are exceeaed in the future.
-------
-2-
WHAT IS A PART PER BILLION (ppb)?
----A part per billion is~desc:ri~tion of now many units of a ~hemi:al tha:
are present per billion total units. ror example, 1 second in 32 y~ars or
one drop in a 10.000 gallon tanK equals one part per billion.
WHAT IS BEING DONE TO DETERMINE THE EXTENT OF THE PROBLEM?
-A ground-water investigation is be1ng completed to dete~ine the source and
extent of the contamination. A map of additional monitoring wells ;hat are
being or have been installed by the USEPA in the Rock River Terrace area is
attached.
~
We hope this fact sneet may answer some of your questions, however, if you have
any additional questions, please feel free to call or write any of the foll~wing
people:
Mike Will i ams
Roger Ruden
Greg Michaud
Doug Yeskis
-
Ogle County Health Department
106 South 5th Street
Oregon, Illinois 61061"
l11inoi5 Department of Public Health
P.O. Box 915
Rockford, Illinois 61105
(815)732-3201
(815)987-7511
" Illinois Environmental
Community Relations
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, Illinois
(217) 782-6760
Protection Agency
62761
u.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region V
Waste Management Division
Emer~ency and Remedial Response Branch
230 South Dearborn
Chicago, Illinois 60604
(312)886-9296
or
toll free
1-800-572-2515
. ""
-------
i'i tj ,(; i{
.
Ii: iK I~? 1°: it
/
/
/
/
I
~ E. :~~t~ r..ra :'r.!
~ ~ I i I J\~,,:.
. ':~/ll' IC~9
- e7 ~~'\~ h'r "I . 11
" I,. li1" e.en ~ I 0
'~1~" ~5) L/- ~(5)1:1 .. t!'.8~~ ' 'I' D, i
, II ~p /' - 6 .9!. I i
I ~L ~ l I
I. , . ~u_. Dr ' I
i,! ... ~D(5)' fI' - . II 22~3j~'. l i
:~! . 7 . 8 '1-/ tl j I j L
! I .. (~9. .ND(O~:)!I ,~~or. Or.
: I:-- .
. ~.
,
, /
//
. /
/<
0\~' \ /
/ ND .\'i \ /,
// / '~/~.\:~ ~/ .
// \. \ \ ND \,1)
\ \~-> \
\'Z>\ \\
/ ~~~, '\
v/'\v-
"J~ j~ Ii 114' C: I~
. - Sampling Point
~D (#) - Nothing Detected above (number) in ppb
# - Concentration of TCE in ppb
:
.
Ca?S)
, ,
I
'-,
. ~ I
. 1. ,~
o', '
-------
/
./
/
~~ /~~
i!-0 / //:,'.,
{ //, ",' .
~,.;e //' :"" "., ;
~. '\\' . i
~// . ;:'.1 . :'. . j i
/'f7>~:~Ck / /?~-> ~:---~ QuarrJ.
,/ I ,/ River ~~~ingS , :' /' .'. : I
// /?,\ I
r/ /' Terrace O:~. \. II .
1/;//// u0 l\ I
\ I
.~ ,
I ' '--, Woodland
: "\ Creek.
I \
, !
~.
I;
I;
I
..
. .
,-
..
.
&u.i.lding
/7'TT7")... :.oc.. t 1 on ;J f
~~on1torin~ Yell(i)
.
.
. . .
. .
I .
! :.
Acorn Road
tf7l77J
.@
:::c
I»
N
o
..,
<
....
-,
....: I Byron
I'D . I
:::c II Salvage
g , . Yard
Co.! 1 ~
Ii
: I
: ;
. i
I
I:
1
r~ ~
-
i
@
I
FIGURE
(Location of new monitoring wells)
-------
. @ Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
217/782-5562
2200 Churchlil Road.SpnngLt'!ci. !:.. ";~-.1t1
J u 1 y 9, 1986
Dear Rock River Resident:
This letter concerns your drinking water and a problem involving contamination
found in some Rock River Terrace ~lls.
The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) is conducting a survey to
detenJine ~ich drinking water relledy you prefer. This survey is a result of
sampling ~ich detected volatile organic chemicals. Through this letter you
have an opportunitY to express your preference for one of three remedies being
considered by the IEPA and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. .
The enclosed fact sheet provides a description of each of the ~~ree proposed
remedi es. After readi ng this fact sheet, please check the box at the bottom -
of this letter that indicates your preference and return it to the IEPA in the
self-addressed, postage paid envelope. The community's preference will be
taken into consideration before the IEPA and USEPA select one of the remedies.
If you have any questions, please contact either Greg Michaud or John Hooker
at our Springfield headquarters (217/782-6760).
~
~~
Richard J. ~son .
Di rector
RJC:GM:jk/1603f,12
I prefer
[:::J Bottl ed Water
c::J Home Carbon Units
c::J Extending the Byron Public Water Supply
" .
-------
@
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
2200 Churchill Road. Spnngfield. I L 6.2':" j6
Rock River Terrace
Fact Sheet
c.
DRINKING WATER REMEDIES
INTRODUCTION
Soil, sediment and groundwater at the Byron Salvage yard have been found to be
contaminated with heavy metals, cyanides, and volatile organic chemicals.
Groundwater flows northerly and westerly fr08 the Sal vage Yard to the Rock
River. The geology of this area consists of a shallow soil cover (7 to 10
feet) overlying fractured dolomite limestone which extends to a depth of 140
to 185 feet. Most of ~~e p~iYate dri~king water wells in this area are
drilled into this dol08ite limestone. . Beneath the limestone is the St. Peter
Sandstone formation which is the deep aquifer in the region.
Because of the geology and the contamination found at the Byron Salvage Yard,
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) decided to investigate the
possibility of groundwater contamination in Rock River Terrace. Assisted by
the Illinois Department of'P~blic Health, private drinking water wells were
sampled. Volatile organic chemicals were detected in .any samples. Nearly
half of the wells sampled showed excessive levels of the volatile organic
chemical trichloroethylene. Although these levels do not pose an immediate
health hazard, a drinking water remedy is needed for the residents of Rock
River Terrace. .
.
USEPA and the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) are evaluating
three drinking water remedies for Rock River Terrace. This fact sheet
describes these three remedies. In addition, USEPA and tEPA are conducting a
public meeting to discuss these remedies on Tuesday, July 29, at the Byron
Cultural Center, Third and Washington Streets, beginning at 7:00 p.m.
DRINKING WATER REMEDIES
"
A. Bottled Water--Bottled water would be supplied to homes in Rock River
Terrace. The amount of bottled water supplied to each household would be
based on drinking and cooking needs. Deliveries would be made through a
contract with a private vendor either once a week or once a month.
Bottled water offers two advantages over carbon treatment units. If
inorganic contamination migrates toward these wells, carbon treatment
units would be ineffective in removing them from the water, however, USEPA
does not anticipate inorganic contamination in the Rock River Terrace
wells. Also, with bottled water there is no worry about changing filters
and subsequent concerns about bacterial contamination that is associated
with improper operation and maintenance of carbon treatment units.
". .
-------
@
Illinois Environmental Protection A~ency
. 2200 Churchill Road. Springfield. rI.. .;.;7()ci
"
Page 2
SollIe families who have received bottled water at other location report an
inconvenience with storing a weeks supply of bottles. Other concerns
include supply. In some instances an allotlent may be depleted before the
next delive~. A more serious concern is the continued exposure through
direct contact (i.e. bathing) and inhalation. .
This re8edy 1s viewed as only a te8porary solution. It is the least
expensive of the three options. Annual cost is esti.ated at $91,150.
B. Carbon Treatment Units--Home carbon units have been successfully used to
relave YOlat11e organic chemicals from drinking water. Recent tests
indicate that home units are effective in re.ov;ng virtually all of the
trichloroethylene fral water.
With a home unit, water from the well is pumped through the unit which
contains granular activated carbon. Volatile organics are attracted to
the carbon surface and, are in effect, fl1 tered out of the water. Once
the concentration of the contaminants adsorbed onto the carbon has reached.
a certain level, the carbon filter must be replaced. Typically, the
carbon filter must be replaced annually.
A .whole house" unit can be used to treat water at each tap throughout the
house. These larger units are about the size of a water heater and
usually take no /DOre than one day to install.
-
Carbon treatment units would be installed in permanent residences.
Seasonally occupied residences would not receive these units, but would
receive bottled water. It is estillated that two to three IIOnths would be
needed to install carbon treatment units at approximately 100 residences
in Rock River Terrace.
.Whole house". units can be installed at Rock River Terrace for $115,000.
Operation and ~aintenance costs include an annual carbon filter
replacement, residential /DOnitoring, and project administration. These
costs would add approximately $45,000 a year to the total cost for home
treatment units for each year of operation.
o
C. Byron Public Water Suppl~--Water'would be available to every residence in
ROCk R1ver Terrace as we" as residences between the City of Byron and the
Terrace. Through this remedy, an 8 inch water line would be constructed
to meet every user's water needs. The Byron Public Water Supply has
sufficient capacity to meet additional needs.
This remedy offers a long-term solution to the driAking water problem in
Rock River Terrace. It will offer continuous protection of public health
irregardless of the type of contaminant that may ul~;mate'y .;gr~~ into
the vicinity of Rock River Terrace. Futhermore, th1S releQy min1m1zes
inconveniences to residential users by allowing normal use of the internal
plumbing fixtures of each connected home.
-------
~
Illinois Environmental. ProtectIon Agency
2200 Churchill Road. Spnngfield. IL 62-:-06
Page 3
<;;
This is the III)st expen$ive of the three r-emedies. It would cost
approxinaately $900 ,000te construct. Monthly water bi 11 s .ould cost. an
estiuted $8 te $12.00~ Hook-up costs woul d not be charged to homeowners
in Rock River Terrace who reques~ hook-up at the time the water line ;s
constructed. ' Construction and hook-up costs would be paid frOll the Clean
Illinois fund.
This remedy would take the longest to implelll!nt. Approxillate1y one year
would be needed to finalize arrangellents with the City of Byron, and to
c08plete design, construction, and hook-ups.
Annexation by the City of Bryon has been expressed as a concern about thi s
reDedy. City officials have indicated to IEPA that annexation would not
be considered.. They believe the cost to the City for fire and police
p'rotection and wastewater ~reat8ent services woul d _et or exceed the
revenue collected through p!"Operty taxes.
How can I comment?
Questions and comments should be directed to either Greg R. Michaud or J~hn
Hooker, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, 2200 Churchill Road, .
Springfield, 62706 (217/782-~760). before August 5.
Margaret McCue and Ken Wallace are also available to answer questions at
USEPA. Region V. 230 S. Dearborn. Chicago. 60604 (1-800-572-2515). ,
-
GRM:JH:jd/1429F/10-12
o
,. ,
-------
ATTACHt.1ENT C
List of ?ersons Submitting Ver,al and ~r;tten Comments
~
1.
VERBAL COHHENTERS
Karen little
R-R. .iH
Bryron, I l
61010
lori Henson
123 Oakwood
Byron, IL f;1010
David F. DeCicco
402 E. N. Park Or.
Rryron, I L 61010
Geral d Goodwi n
315 w. 2nd
Bryron, IL 61010
Daryl .Jean NeSSerlger
218 E. Hillcrest nr.
Byron, I L 61010
Merl e Snodgrass
R.R. 3
Oregon, I L 61061
June Snapp
R.R. 11
~yron, IL 61010
Jim Vogl
Box 349
Byron, IL
61010
-
Chris MaCarty
1768 Acorn Rd.
Byron,- IL 61061
Jo Schmidt
1780 Acorn Rd.
Byron, I L 61010
Gordon t-1ac naniel s
5367 River Road
Byron, I l 61010
Mike. Will; ams
Ogle Co. Public Health Dept.
106 South Fifth St.
Oregon, IL 61061
c
Charl es al anchard
207 Riverv;ew
Byron, I l 61010
John l. Van Zandt
5577 N. River Rd.
Byron, Il fHOt6
<1
I I .
WRITTEN CONMENTERS
Mari on Hefl ~y
RFD H 1
Byron, IL 61010
Robert E. ~anchard
P.O. Ro x 720
Byron, Il 61010
Robert Henson
116 Oakwood
Ryron, Il 1;1010
i1argaret Eich
106 E. Hillcrest Or.
Byron, n. 61010
.. .
-------
ATTACHMENT C - (Cont'~)
The Nelson Family
~ 17 E. Ro c k val e Rd.
Rock River Terrace
~yron, IL 61010
. . .
MargaretE; ch
10n ~. Hillcrest nr.
Byron. IL 51010
Al~ert , Vera Engel
.100 r-1ain - RoCk ~iver Terr.
R.R.-n
Byron, IL 61010
Mr. & Mr s n.a I" i e 1 Erne ry
Z17 E. Riverview
. 8yron, IL ~1010
Mr. , Mrs. r,lenn Hilton
'-14 E. Hillcrest Rock River Terr.
qyron, tL ~1010
Mr. & ~rs. Ruhard Aiherson
111 N. Terrace Park Drive
8yron, tL 61010
Steve 1t Shirley ~10lnar
602 Vi ewe: rest
Rock River Terrace
Ryron, It fn010
Mo Jones
20q E. Roekvale Or.
Ryron, IL n1010
Mr. ~ Mrs. Charles ~lanc~ard
Po O. ~x 720
8yron, IL 61010
Mrs. Charles 8artkus
Rock River Terr.
R. 1 8yron, IL 61010
Otten
111 Oakwoorl
R y ron, r L Iii 1 01 0
Fred R. Hagemann
504 .'Jiewcrest
8yron, tL 61010
Al fred Roberts
1670 E. Acor" Rrl.
8yron, IL 61010
-
Robert Buec i
RoT.-1 Rock River Terr.
Byron, IL 61010
Kathryn A.. Kuspa
54A1 Ri vel" Road
Po O. ~x H;q
8yron, IL lii1010
Richard J. A Betty Lesniewski
205 Hillcrest Drive
8yron, ILliil010
Richard Paul
30Q ~;verv;ew
Rock River Terrace
Byron; tL 1;1010
Garl and I). r,race
~02 S. Ma in St..
Rochelle, Il nlOfiR
()
A. P~uline Holemeyer
~t. 1 Ri vel" Road Terrltce
Ryron, tL 610\0
81" a(1 ~ "1elot1y He<1C)es
sRS8 Marrill ~oad
Ryron, IL ~1010
Patricia .Hill
D.O. ~x nq~
308 Rl ackhawk
~ock River Terrace
Ryron, IL 61010
Nancy Howl ett
207 ~. South Park
Byron. IL lii1010
-------
ATTAC~~1ENT C -
.(Cont'rl)
,Jal'les' W. ~ Ethel
306 N. Rlackhawk
R 11
Ryron, IL nl0l0
Sam & ~ncy Tri pl ett
R.R. *1 Terrace Or.
Byron, IL 61010
F. Kilgore
nrive
Steve ~ nu,lin Molnar
g03 N. Oevils Ln.
Rock ~iver Terrace
Byron, IL ~nOlO
Andrew. 01 son
R.R. *1 Rox 215
ROCk River Terrace
qyron, IL 61010
Kenda 11 Myers
nOn South Sixth St.
Oregon, IL 61061 .
Mer1e Snodgrass, Supervisor
Rockvale Township
R. R. ~. 3
Oregon, IL 61061
Willard .\ leare" Little
60? ~. Rlackhawk nrive
Rock River Terrace
Mr. ~ Mrs. R. E. Soresi
115 E.S. Park Or.
Byron, IL 61010
John & Colleen VanZandt
5577 N. River Rrl.
Ryron, IL "1010
.
L. ~lson
~17 E. Rockval e Rd.
Rock River Terrace
Byron, IL 61010
Mr. & Mrs. Ronald A.
30R E. River View
Rock River Terrace
Byron, IL 611'nO
Chrzanowski
Ii
James H. Vogl
4-17 E. North Park Ori ve
Byron, I L 61010
r~a ry E. M~xson
303 E. rbrth Park Drive
qyron, IL Fill'nO
Roy V. !3f!uer
554, ~. Ri ver Rd.
Byron, jL 61010
Roherta ~Kiski
~OCk Ri ver Terrace
R . R. 11
Byron, IL 1;1010
-------
.
ROO/NOO/ED:)
Site Name ~~..Q. ." ~Q~
Site L oca t ion ~..., J..i2P.. .-.:..
CHECKLIST
~ ROD
II NOD
TI EDD "
Acti vi ty
IR~ (with off Site Disposal)
OPERABLE UNIT
x
COMPLETE R~t~EDY
This ROD/NDD/EDD checklist has been developed to facilitate t~e preparation
and review of RODs, HDDs and EDDs. This checklist does not purport that.
all elements of the c~ecklist must, as a matter of law or policy, be complied
with before a ROD, NOD or EDD may be finalized. All negative responses to
elements of the checklist should, however, be addressed.
(Place reviewers initials on
appropriate line)
1. Compliance with S104 (a)
a. Release or substantial threat of release
./YES
../YES
LYES
J YES.
b. Of a hazardous substance; (or)
c. Of a pollutant or contaminant
<08>
d.
Into the environment
e. Release or threat of rel@ase may present
an imminent and substantial danger to
public health and welfare;. .
~YES
NO ~,.. .,
_NO tJ~
_NO Ct'-
_NO {j0
~ . .
NO ~j \~
f. Have PRP's been given opportunity to conduct
the remedy j
(date of notice letter(s) YES ~NO
(Explain negative response) . .
9. PRP(s) failed to undertake required action YES ~0
~~ ~~k~~D~~RCD~ ~~
, r2. R!/i='S completion ~ -0-'
a.
~I/~S conducted by:
(i)
Responsi~le party
( i i)
. (ii;)
S ta te
YES
y/Y~S
US E?A
(iv) . Other Federal ~gency(s)(
.. .
(J
YES
c/N8 ,-', \ (.-.-
, "
t./'f (1 L. \"""'-
~\ :~ .', ~ '-'"
y::s
v
. ......crt"
~r.. I: .'~
- l-\-
-------
3.
Remedial Action consistent wit~ the National (ontingency Plan (NCP)
(300.68 (g) through (1)) .
If action is an operable unit Cor IRM) is it cons~t
with a peM~anent remedy; YES
b. The action prevents or minimizes the release(s)
of hazardous substances (po1.1utants or
contaminants); .
More cost-effectiv~ than other actions; or ----YES
Win actior'l create new ~apacity to manage
in co~pliance with QCQA. Subtitle C; or
a.
Alternativ~s hav~ ~een d~veloped. screened and
evaluate1 in ter~s of:
q
Ci)
(i i)
Cost
Environmental impact
(;;i)
Technical feasibility
Alternative technology & land disposal
(iv)
b.
No action alternative evaluated
c. Extent of remedy (which may include operation
and maintenace) is consistent with agency
policy .
(i)
. Existing standards used (other
environmental loss)
( 11)
Exisiting standards not attained
(explain)
(fi1)
Has the cost effective remedy been
selected
d.
Are specific cleanup standards available?
-
4.
Remedial Action is consistent with SlOl (24)
a.
"
c. The action ;s one of those listed at SlOl (24)
d.
If the actio~ requires off-site storage.
treatment. destruction. secure disposition. or
transport of hazardous substants (pollutants or
contaminants).. ;s the action: .
(1)
(; i)
~ES
v{ES
v-YES
V"'fES
~ES
vYES
----
VYES
YES
\/YES
YES
~S
. YES
0ES
YES
"
I.
NO l.. )~'-
NO i\V
'- I
.. :,
NO '- ~r--
NO i?t-./,
'- ,,6,
NO '- s-
NO ~ 'Ij'-./
NO.' ~.../,
NO (V I/t ) 2{i-./
\
NO .. ~...-'
'-~
NO ,vi A
NO
NO ~ S-./
~o -:~~
NO -:s.-'
~o
I
/1) ( It
Jt,( A
NO
-------
(ii;) Necessary to protect public health,
welfare or environment fro~ risk created
by further exposure to continued presence
of the substances
YES
5 .
Is proposed re~edy consistent wit' other
environmental laws?
~ES
6.
~espons i veness SIJr.r:1ary addresses publ i c concern;
~S
. -
a.
Summary of comments received has been
prepared including:
hs
(0
(i i)
Comments by public
Comments by special interest groups
YES
YES
. b.
(iii) Comments by responsible parties
~esponse to 411 comments (public and PRP) is
provided consistent with ROD guidance and is
attached
~S
-
7. Appropriate Agencies have commented;
a. State. f1..v ~~J
b. HI')
c. COC
d. FEMA
e.' Other (Identify)
~. State involve~er.t consitent wit1 $ 104 (c).
YES NO () (~
0ES NO ~ A~-/
YES NO - ~,e,
%
YES' NO
-
YES NO AlIA
~!o' (C
YES \ \ -",'
\
YES VNO t'~' \\~
_"I-
I
-
~S ~:~1
a.
, .
Stat~ concurs with proposed actions
b.
Has State agreed to assurances:
(i)
State will provide al' future
mainter.~nce
( ii )
A R:~A approve1 sit~ is availah1e for
off-~ite disposal of substances
(iii)
St~te will pay 1~ percent (or at least
51 p~rcent) of re~e~ial cost
-' .. .
'11
A~{A
--.-:.... ~ J ,-' \ ~--
,j
"0 t,i"\,./
r- I... \,"
\
- I
NO :: ,l-'"
- '- f\
NO '..; V-:A
NO --NA
NO
. I
r '"...,/
L ~,
o
-------
. ,
..
9.
Is the action cost effective and balanced
against other demands on the fund
(1)
If fund balanced has recommended altern-
ative been justified from standpoint of
Drotecting public health and the
environment.
10. Are there outstanding issues that may inf1uenece
p. ~ the re~overy of r~spo.rtse g>s.t~l ~ -~ :T: ~-
~~ (<'t)t') *'~~.
(Explain l!! response, properly handle confidential
informatTOn) .
11. ' Who has authori ty to' make the deci s ion
I. A A OSWER
b.
Regional Administrator
hs
YES
LY,ES
YES
/YES
. 12. Have FS and remedy been researched for consistency
with other ROD/EDDs ~YES
13. Hive key policy issues to be highlighted in ROD/EDD ~YES
briefing been listed.
14. Has all relevant information been included?
..
15., Key reminders:
I. Are costs well laid out and estimates reasonable/
reliable?
'vI YES
b.
Is there adequate factual support for conclusions/
recommendations? -
l; c.
n
" d.
e.
Is presentation well organized and logical?
Has confidential information been handled properly?
, .
'1') '~J
'NQ /vilA
NO
-LNo ~ ~
NO /\1 '\.
- LX
,
~O ~"~:'~
-'
_NO ,~:~
_NO :~'--'
Have waivers been ade~uate'y justified?
f. Does the record support a11 of the findings and conclusions?
OSC/RPM
Attorney
Y ,
q!r!lr.
~/~8(
ate
------- |