&ki1IdSIBI88
environmental Protection
Agency
Office 01
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPAlRODfR05-88I081
March1988
&EPA
Superfund
Record of Decision:
LaSalle Electrical Utilities, IL
U.S. £nvimm't1f.Jntal ~rotection Ag~nc~:
RElQigft III Information ResoufCQ, -~ ,
Center (3PM52) q '. :..~~
841 Chestnut Street ~,),f.~
philadelphia, fA 191Q7, ~~
Hazardous Waste Collection
, Information Resource Center
US EPA Region 3 .
...~~~,J:!~J~JW.
EPA Report Collection
Information Resource Center
US EPA Region 3
Philadelphia. PA 19107
-------
50772. 101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION
PAGE
! 1. REPORT NO.
. EPA/ROD/R05-88/061
"
2.
-----
------ ---- _._---
"--.--.
I 3. Recipient's Accession No.
I
.--t--
I' Report Date
03/30/88
6.
I - . . --- ---_.. .
8. Perlormlne Oreanization Rept. No.
----_..
4, Title and Subtitle
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
LaSalle Electrical Utilities, IL
First Remedial Action
7, Author(s)
9. Perlormine Organization Name and Address
--"---
10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.
- .
11. Cantract(C) or Gr.nt(G) No.
I (C)
i (G)
i
12. Sponsoring OrganIZation Noame and Address
U.S. Environmental Protection
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Agency
----------
I u. ":'o'~;:O: . ..,.odC.;';',.
114,
15. Supplementary Notes
16. Abstract (Limit: 200 words)
The LaSalle Electrical Utilities (LEU) site is located in the city- of LaSalle,
west-central LaSalle County, in north-central Illinois. There are approximately 190 .
people and 70 residences located within one-eighth mile of the LEU property. LEU, a
former manufacturer of electrical equipment, began operating prior to World War II.
Between the late 1940s and 1978, PCBs were utilized in the production of capacitors.
Undocumented reports allege the application of PCB-contaminated waste oils as a dust
suppressant both on and off the property until as late as 1969. Following the
regulat10n of PCBs, manifests document the disposal of PCBs at all regulated
facilities. Beginn1ng in September 1975, numerous government agencies conducted various
inspections and issued complaints anc orders to the LEU company as a result of its
manufactur1ng and handl1ng pract1ces. Soil sampling conducted by the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) 1n December 1980 documented onsite PCB
contamination. Continued soil sampling revealed offsite contamination in March and May
1981. The 1EPA ordered the company to cease operations in May 1981. The U.S. EPA
conducted Immediate Removal Actions that involved fencing the LEU property and capping a
portion of the heavily contaminated onsite property; capping contaminated offsite
property to the south of the site; and staging, sampling, and packaging PCB waste
(See Attached Sheet)
17. Document Analysi~ a. Descriptors
--.----
I
I
r
j
-.J
!
Record of Decision
LaSalle Electrical Utilities, 1L
First Remedial Action
Contaminated Media: debris, gw,
Kf?Yld&;,~JjIJ;'fH9~~RJe~ Term\,CBs, VOC s
sediments, soil
c. COSATI Field/Group
-----
----- --------. --------
18. Availability Statement
(See ANSI-Z3918)
See InstructIons on Reverse
~---_._~--_.- ---- ------------~ ---___0.
. 19. Security Class (This Report) I 21. No. 01 Pages
None i 72
u. ---_.. ---. - - ..,- ----
20. Security Class (This Page) i 22. Pnce
None I
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-771
(Formerly NTIS-35)
Department 01 Commerce
-------
EPA/ROD/R05-88/061
LaSalle Electrical Utilities, IL
First Remedial Action
16.
ABSTRACT (continued)
material for future disposal. The first operable unit ROD, signed
September 19, 1986, addressed offsite soil contamination. This second remedial
operable unit addresses PCB and VOC contamination in soil, sediments, building
structures, and ground water.
action
The selected remedial action for this site includes: excavation and onsite
incineration of contaminated soil and replacement with clean fill; high pressure
flushing and mechanical cleaning of affected sewer lines; excavation and onsite
incineration of contaminated sediment from the unnamed creek downstream of the storm
sewer discharge; ground water collection and onsite treatment using phase separation,
filtration, and air stripping with discharge to the local waste water treatment plant
via sanitary sewers; and demolition and offsite disposal of contaminated LEU building
structures. The estimated present worth cost for this remedial action is $34,495,180.
-------
~
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SElECTION
Record of Decision
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
LaSalle Electrical Utilities Site, LaSalle, Illinois
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
The decision document presents the selected remedial action for the
LaSalle Electrical Utilities (LEU) site developed in accordance with the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of
1980, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of
1986 and consistent with the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan to the extent practicable.
This decision is based upon the contents of the Administrative Record for
the LEU site.
The State of Illinois concurs on the selected remedy.
DESCRIPTION OF THE REMEDY
The U.S. EPA has elected to split the site into two separate operable
units. The first operable unit dealt with soil contamination not on the
LEU property, while the second operable unit (this decision) addresses
all remaining contamination.
.
The selected remedy consists of the following major components:
Excavation of contaminated soil from the LaSalle Electrical
Utilities (LEU) property;
High pressure fiushing and mechanical cleaning of contaminated
sewer lines;
Excavation of contaminated sediment from the unnamed creek
downstream of the storm sewer discharge; .
Incineration of the contaminated soil and sediment with a
mobile, on-site, thermal destruction unit;
Demolition and disposal of the contaminated LEU buildings;
Construction of a ground water collection system on and near
the LEU property; and
Construction of an on-site treatment system that will process
the contaminated ground water collected.
-------
2
DEClARATIOIL
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment,
attains Federal and State requirements that are applicable or relevant
and appropriate to this remedial action and is cost-effective. This
remedy satisfies the statutory preference for remedies that employ
treatment that reduces toxicity, mobility or volume as a principal
element and utilizes permanent solutions and alternative treatment
technologies to the maximum extent practicable.
If ~ ;3(!J,lfq 8'
Date
~
Va das V. Adamkus
Regional Administ tor
.
-------
SUfllCARY OF REt£DIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
LASALLE ELECTRICAL UTILITIES
LASALLE, ILLINOIS
March 29, 1988
SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION
I.
The LaSalle Electrical Utilities (LEU) National Priorities List (NPL) site
is located in west-central LaSalle County, in the city of LaSalle in north-
central Illinois (SE 1/4, SW 1/4 of Section 3, T33N, R1EL The 1980 census
data showed the City of LaSalle to have a population of 10,347 (Figure 1).
The LEU property (located at 2427 St. Vincent Avenue) has remained
essentially undisturbed since the plant was closed in 1981. Five
buildings, interconnected to form one main complex, remain on the property.
This complex includes an office building, two metal buildings, a brick
building, and a Quonset building. Other. small buildings remaining.on the
property include a pump house, two small hose houses, a thinner shed, and a
sandblasting shed. West of the Quonset building is a small storm water
holding pond which receives precipitation run-off from an asphalt lot south
of the property. Also west of the Quonset building is a small fenced area
that formerly contained a small incinerator. At present, a chain-link
fence surrounds approximately one half of the property. The remainder of
the property consists of a large open field (Figure 2).
The bedrock in the area consists primarily of shale, sandstone, dolomite,
and limestone. The upper bedrock is a hi~hly weathered shale found at a
depth of approximately 20 to 25 feet. Overlying the bedrock is
approximately 10 feet of glacial till. Over the till is an interbedded
unit of sand, silt, and clay.
There are four major hydrogeologic aquifers which occur in this area of
Illinois. The Mt. Simon-Elmhurst aquifer, the deepe$t of the four, is not
utilized in the LaSalle area due to its extreme depth and its high mineral
content. The next aquifer is the Ironton-Galesville which serves the three
public water supply wells in the nearby community of Peru, IJlinois. The
shallow dolomite, and the sand and gravel aquifers in the area serve many
domestic and public wells.
.
Approximately 70 residences are located within 1/8 mile of the lEU
property. Based on the 1980 census data showing approximately 2.7
individuals per household in the area, it is estimated that these
residences house about 190 people. The land use to the north of the
property is rural with an agricultural field separating the facility from a /
residential development. Immediately south of the site are several
commercial developments, including a furniture store, a gasoline/fuel oil
distributor, and a restaurant. East of the facility is the residential
area that was previously addressed, while a mixture of small businesses and
residences lie to the west.
II. SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
LEU is a fomer manufacturer of electrical equipment.. Operations at the
plant began prior to World War II, and in the late 1940s the plant began
-------
dI
-_.
. *_..._- -- -A~
.--.-. ...
e r: -;-:~" ~M ~i.~dC~ ' ~\
ILU ~' ".~/. . ."..:\r .\~~:~..\\~\,-...~...("
. ~;~ - ~.~ . ,"1 ". "H'~"," ~ 'J." Vj':
, c--:-: .... '" .' Cem .;>0..'" . ,-"- .
QUAO"ANGL£L.OCAT1~N.- .",'\..~ ius ; ~J. ._.:T~~\ <:'~..4,t~.~,-,-~.(
.'-~,-' . f 'II ~ ',' ~:-\ -. . '\~:'f~.J'''~ ~~'/~ .=.,
...<:Oltr .BD.Y.1 , ~.. \ : \ : ::~_.: \ \r::d3;~,~ t' "-""'1 ~(d/ t.' ,. ." :
-~ :. ?~ ~~ ~ ' \ .;1; \~ ..: '-~t~~~~:~~l' I !. :II!J~ :',- ~ . ~-~' "-
- T~--.----~~"--'@. \f":-~:; i':;" '. ~
, I r=~ -.~~,. ,- )~,.~.
""'''''""'. 4. ~. L___~_,', ~ - -'_._...J.:f'\~."'G"11\ /"3 ~Jn____';'~--.. .~~, ~",::.-:-~
.... - -"", -- --;-. 641 1,," .' 0.J , - " :.~ i ,,\, r;'.,<::::::..:~r1
''-, 0 . -----, ,! J ~ :::" '---;.: : \ ' '~f I. . I
, 0 !-- ~~ i." '..- ,..... ,~\" 'oS
'- ,'I" !.'1! ~"~ ( --:;:: :=-::';":"" ,: "'P, ..' -<:
'- ~ c.~....."",-",,~.. .--
~ ' ~' , <~
. ~ 0 I, ~ . ~~_" .' ..-.n .'C ~,
. , ~ WE-T,a;~-::..",. ~ ~,
ELECTRICAL- UTI-LrrIE~ . i:ft':,,'~, :'~/1 ~'-'-.""-;" ~
.. ...... \ , ~ ~
-- """" '..,7'::, '. - :-:: :::: \~, 'V~. , .
...' "0". .I~I. I I --U ~~l~ ~ .' -~. 1.11):~ I.,
, .==':1 ,::,' :!r,," ; :,,: , , :. ',::: -~. ',' ,,., '\ ~. .~\ -
. h' ~!.. ~'I''8101,: -.:::::--; '\ ...""'. ,-~'
-' ' - " ,'. ,,' ,~~:1 ,I 633 "y-:: ro.. ". ~ '. '... ,.~
\',. -:a: :-:. .'::::" .. ..M. . ! ',:. ~'" 's.. 11";- "
, ' ",\ -'., :1' .;r:,.....:J:.., ' ',," '-, ~'". '
'~---'1 ',.,'-, . ~~..:. ' '/'-=--' .- b..I (. ,."~ ~ ((r>- ~-
I \'-... '." ,.'- - "!1Id N' t-. ~.;~. .' \'--._-
~---, '. "!!___]~~I.' :'''''I-'t~.-;:liMI~' ~::-. "
o .. '- , f' Iii! Ii. " .. ~:;i....' . - I L
...., ! "'o"'~".~' i ~ d8eN-- 8Jr-~ os....." - .~ tr ,....'
--..,. , --"0 _.... -'..\. ..,- . / ,i"~ f.(ij
......:....,',:""',,' ;::~_::.',' ,. ~ :' I. ~<1~ '-...... 'f '~ ,:.,'-= h I.~'
~"_.,......::::~ :, I I . I~~
,..,. - ) '- I / ' C '
.. .~:.:-::::~ . :-......... ,: ' t V I A! ~, - ' . -.
\ ,.......~ ~aCSlo T- f' If Il ..... , .
'\. ' - ~ ~ 0 U ---.J~.:" .i ;:' ~ IIO~., i - "~~~"'~... ..~ ~ g .;
I~'~ .J) ~~~/ '." I~~~O - :r~i'~/;; 1V.4 .~
~ ~....IfIi.,";_,"::j.: C~~~~~ ~. I':' ~ ~ ~ ~ "/.' ""~A:.'., ,~
~*'- '... ",: -.-'/:t' i-1~' ~~ ' . ..~:, :
'1In- ... a''' . '- i.. --; ~".,..7: - ,.l" , ......
/M-A-o :.,..:.. ~. ,.;:: .,-F.,.. .. . ,- ~rJ ~ ':' I "
1.1. -: ~ - '1:~.'. I r! c ~ ... 'ra .. I~ '.... .. I ".. 01'. . S
.. ,., "''-'''''''''2
I ... i.~., ... ."" - I., ' .:i .../- r- ) \0,_.. ...... ~ ,/ ~
, :i J . ' 1/ . ~ l'
~ ' ..- / .;!!J (~', \L ..... ...., ... / i'...:..i~ ..r'V'" ~\ .
~ ~ J:IIt =~ ~, k'lf! 5 I -,,"" .
"I! ". ,i!~ # ,... - ,... ~ - -IJ ,
-Lii,; ~" f' , r...~. ~ .. . . ~ -
.AJ ':~ . ~.~ - -. ,. _-'\I" ,-
~~.:.~ (~!..--m; ~ "'" ----,;::::P I JD' - !! --1 _" i . . r .
~1"~:.1 rEi, "'" !'" ";,,
~ 'J!~.: ",--"'L"';" ' ,~I~ . "" '- r. .
I ..." -- I' - tII
;T -..:..;:~: ,~'! ~?~~ .......
. ~..,' ..-=0"""- :\)~ c,
, . ~~:;p';'J. --.: - .. " :. -..... .. 1- ~ --::-~T"II!'
SOURCE: USGS 1919,
./'"\
--..
~~, ,~~ii
j..~\:, SAL~E
:\ "-
:1,.' "
- .
..-
'04J
?'
~
'C,-
Ie
o
SCALI
05
05
, MILl
o
t IULOMUI..
I
FIGURE
SITE LOCATION MAP
-------
, ;
~
\
\
.
'i.
...
~
(\
\
LA 8ALU El£CTlIICAl UTlUTlE8 liTE 80UNDMV
~'---"-:'.~V-:-."7=-:-;-r...-=~"--'-.--.~1 ~. . 1( ..- ......
f':.:. ::.- :.:..:. ~;:o:'.~ -:-: -:-:-- --=:~-:.~~' :~...:~ ~Qr"" ~
", - - - - - - - . - . " - - - - - - - III IlAND
r- " " --' .-:.:::.,:.:: -. ;;~.' .-. -: ':1 8lASTlNQ HOSE
I' - -." : . .0'_-_' . : :."- -- .- . .-.'.'.':'- '~r ,":"EII IHED 0- HOUSE-
t:-~---,,:-::::;",:.q;;~S-:-'::=:-:-7:':::: ::--V \r Ir+t
,'. ~--. --._" ."':". - .---','. ~ .U METAL BUILDINO
~ (.~:~-(~~~~~~ ?j~~i~ ;:.lIN1i~NO lUll'"
L-::::~:.:;.:::=.==.:.;,--::.~.:..-....:~~ii' t TAIIIC :x*UIL~:~ 8RICKBUlLO'NO
1:. - - .- - - - - - - - -~ - - ,.. ~ ... .. .:1 .
:. ==-- ~;:.---£E-::: =- :...;:.:-.; :":--- -: -n.e;"'''ATo. PAD
I ]
Ii '.,
; I
I J ]
; I I. I
'-
.; I fl
I III ':
.--- .......... -......
,
UQH "
Fl/EU~'L '
:'- :";: :'- '--:==;: =====8:~:===~ =-:.;:-:/.. -, '" - - - -n --- --_7-===::~ :Ju
I r
I !
!I I ,
l .I!.
0
I I'
-------
2
utilizing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the production of capacitors.
This manufacturing practice continued until October 1978. During the
1970s, the company expanded its operations and opened another plant in
Farmville, North Carolina. In May 1981, manufacturing operations ceased at
the LaSalle plant. Subsequently, the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency (IEPA), enforcing Section 34 of the Illinois Environmental
Protection Act, ordered the production areas of the plant to be sealed.
The LEU office building remained in use by a lessee until some time in the
early 1980s. Since that time, the e~tire.facility has been abandoned.
Informati on is 1 imi ted on the waste management practices of the company. . .
Undocumented reports allege that PCB-contami nated waste oil s may have been ~
applied as a dust suppressant both on and off the property as late as 1969.
Following the regulation of PCBs, inventory reports document the disposal
of PCBs at approved facilities.
Beginning in September 1975, numerous government agencies including the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) , the IEPA, and the
Oc~upational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) conducted various
inspections and issued numerous complaints and orders to the LEU company as
a result of its past and present manufacturing and handling practices.
Since 1981, when the LEU facility ceased operations, the actions of the
IEPA and the U.S. EPA have been aimed at determining the nature and extentv
of contamination at the site and determining the appropriate remedies for
that contamination. A chronological listing of all major actions at the
site since 1975 is contained in a .table at the end of this summary
(Attachment I). .
.
Analysis of site records revealed only one Potentially Responsible Party,
LEU, from which the U.S. EPA could seek reimbursement of costs associated
with the investigation and removal of contamination at this site. LEU,
however, is not financially viable.
On September 19, 1983, now operating exclusively in North Carolina, the LEU
petitioned for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Act in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court, Wilson, North Carol'04.~ On June 26, 1986, the court
entered an order approving the company's planned liquidation.
LEU was sold by order of th~ Bankruptcy Court on January 20, 1984, to Heede
Industries for $800,000. The sale did not include the LaSalle plant or
property. All proceeds from the sale went to the Lake Shore National Bank
in Chicago which had a valid security interest in all of LEU's assets in
the amount of approximately $1,908,000.
Previously, the Lake Shore National Bank not only found the purchaser for
the LEU Farmville, North Carolina facility, but it also financed the
purchase by advancing the purchase price of $800,000 in return for two
promissory notes from Heede Industries. in the amount of $400,000 each.
Lake Shore National Bank also retained its security interest in the LEU
accounts receivable~to the date of sale, and in the LaSalle, Illinois
property.
-------
3
The U.S. EPA and the State of Illinois both filed claims in the bankruptcy
action for past and future costs associated with their removal and remedial
actions at the site. There was no money in the estate, however, to pay
these costs. The only asset which could be applied toward these costs is
the LaSalle, Illinois property itself. (Presumably, after cleanup, the
LaSalle property will have a positive cash value.)
The amended plan approved by the Bankruptcy Court on June 26, 1986,
provided that the LaSalle, Illinois property first would be offered to
secured lien holders (Lake Shore National Bank, Realtor Developers, and
Equity Research). If the secured lien holders refused to accept title,
their claims would become unsecured claims, and LEU would retain title to
the property. According to the amended plan, the U.S. EPA and the State of
Illinois would then be given liens on the property for the costs of their
cleanup work at the site (a lien to the U.S. EPA for 90% of the costs, and
a lien to the State of Illinois for 10% of the costs).
III.
COMMUNITY RELATIONS
The Superfund activities at the LaSalle site have been followed closely and
consistently by the local press. Interest in the activities at the site
has been high because the residential area is directly affected by the work
outlined in the original (August 29, 1986) Record Of Decision (ROD). Local
and State elected officials, as well as the local news media represent-
atives, have maintained a constant and serious interest in the activities
at the site. .
.
On January 18, 1988, draft copies of the FS and the U.S. EPA's Proposed
Plan (Attachment II) for Remedial Action were made available to the'
residents and other interested parties for their review and comment. A
press release by the IEPA announced the availability of the reports, the
locations in the community where they were available for viewing, the dates
of the official public comment period (January 18 to February 19, 1988),
and the February 17, 1988 public meeting.
The IEPA has conducted a thorough and comprehensive community relations
program in the area. The program included regular distribution of fact
sheets, public meetings (both large formal ones and small informal ones),
and dialogue with area residents and officials.
On February 17, 1988, a public meeting was held at a nearby motel. The
purpose of the meeting was to present the results of the FS and the
proposed remedial alternatives. In addition, both oral and written
comments and questions pertaining to this remediation were solicited.
At the hearing, both the local and state officials expressed their support
for the proposed alternatives. While the citizens at the meeting generally
supported the alternatives, they did express the following concerns:
-------
4
1.
The local residents stated that they would like to see the site re-
stored to usuable commercial property capable of supplying
employment to the local residents.
Residents expressed a stated desire to amend or modify the
existing cleanup contract (for work in the residential area as
outlined in the 1986 ROD) to include this cleanup of the LEU
property. They felt that this type of change would allow site
work to be completed in a more timely manner.
2.
The Remedial Action (RA) being initiated under this ROD
is not an amendment or continuation of the current RA presently
being undertaken in accordance with the 1986 ROD, but is a
separate RA start. Federal procurement regulations outline the
required method of procuring construction services during a
Superfund RA. The regulations clearly state that formal
advertising (40 CFR 33.405 - 33.430) is to be used. The
regulations further state that noncompetitive negotiation
(40 CFR 33.605) can only be used when other procurement methods
are inappropriate because:
a. the item is only available from one source;
b. a public emergency exists;
c. competition, after solicitation, is inadequate; or
d. the U.S. EPA Award Official authorizes noncompetitive
negotiation, subj~ct to tbe limitations of 40 CFR
33.715(a)(2).
.
None of the conditions stated above apply at this site. The most
plausible factor would be (b), the existence of a public emergency.
However, formal advertising cannot be waived in the Superfund
remedial program on the basis of a claimed emergency situation
since the U.S. EPA handles such emergencies under the removal
program. In addition, a declaration of an emergency under State
law does not necessarily constitute an emergency under U.S.E~A's
Superfund criteria.
Formal advertising in accordance with Federal regulations, should
take, from beginning to end, approximately four months. This.
process can begin as soon as adequate criteria are available during
Remedial Design to prepare a procurement package. Finally, based on
the results of the competetive procurement for the RA outlined in
the 1986 ROD, there is no reason to believe that competition will
be inadequate.
The Responsiveness Summary to the formal public comments which were
received is attached to this summary (Attachment III).
-------
5
SCOPE AID ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT OR RESPONSE ACTION
IY.
In March 1986, after review of the Draft Remedial Investigation (RI)
report, the U.S. EPA elected to split the site into two separate projects.
The RI had adequately characterized the soil contamination in the area.
However, it had failed to sufficiently determine the extent of ground water
contamination which was emanating from the LEU property. The first half of
the project dealt with soil contamination not on the LEU property, while
the second half of the project (this decision) addresses all remaining
contamination.
Y.
SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Soil and Sediment
The primary contaminants of concern in the soil on the LEU property are
PCBs. Other materials, primarily volatile organic compounds (VOCs), were
detected above normal background levels in this area, but these were only
found in a localized area west of the manufacturing facility. During the.
site worK for the Supplemental Remedial Investigation (RI), field screening
of the soil borings from this area (directly west of the LEU plant)
indicated the presence of high levels of VOCs. However, no samples from
this area were sent to a laboratory for detailed organic analysis because
the nature of the contaminants had already been identified by analysis of
water samples from the monitoring well located at that location (G105).
Concentrations of PCBs in the composite soil samples on the property range
from as low as 0.38 parts per million (ppm) to as high as 17,000 ppm, but
typically average over 1.200 ppm in the first foot of soil. Depths of
contamination range from 1 to 2 feet in most ~reas, to as much as 5 feet in
a localized area directly adjacent to the west side of the facility. Based
on the cleanup levels selected in the 1986 ROD for the residential soil.
contamination at this site (5 ppm to a depth of 1 foot and 10 ppm at depths
greater than 1 foot), the total volume of soil that is contaminated on the
LEU property is estimated to be 23,500 cubic yards (cy). This number--
assumes that 3 feet of soil, or approximately 7,800 cy, beneath the plant
buildings is also contaminated and must be addressed during the final
remediation.
.
The sewer system investigation focused on storm and sanitary sewers
originating on the LEU property and the unnamed creek nearby which is the
point of discharge for one of the storm sewers. Sediment samples
throughout the sewer system were found to contain PCB concentrations
between 28 and 5700 ppm. Sediment samples from the unnamed creek contained
PCB contamination with concentrations averaging 18 ppm in the first
200 feet after discharge and only 1.7 ppm at a point 1000 feet downstream.
This creek empties into the Little Vermilion River about 3,500 feet
downstream, and the Little Vermilion empties into the Illinois River
approximately 2 miles downstream (Figure 3). Approximately 100 cy of
sediment in the creek are contaminated and will be addressed along with the
LEU soil. '.
-------
,
. ..
! ;'-.1 Ll
~ ~ U--
,1
J-.~. i, ,:
~ C- 1
'I-_~' :
I!'
11
[] I J
I ~ I
r'-'-'-_.-.Io"""""""""'.---.-.-.-.-.--,-.-.---.-----------.-----
i i
i - "ITM i
! Q r --~ 0 ,II
I -_J M~Ot.e
L_'-'-'~-'-'--'-'-lr LL U7 1~.:;"~U'.T ."~~~ I ~
--- -- '30
-"_TAIIT '== -, I I, .~ tj
: - --~~=======:=:=====-:.-==-====-:.-:...'" ........_------------~-=======---- 0
L~
"'aTM
.::: J
i I
I
,- I
r-" ~.~.~;
CJ I~ l ,J l' ] l-' If'
, '-~- J
, I
~ ,
, ---1
1.=]:
'--."
.;,.,.:-,......,
IOUIICI: IE "A. ,..,
SCAlE
o
-
'100
.'0
100
o
tOO
.
. I
I, !
.f'" ~ ..,.1
II I
fJ
[/ C"J
(] fl
.11-,J
l J r I
f1
11 ,
, !
:.:",....,..
.,' ITM -
'00
110
. "
"
Co
S
,s
,..
'\
,...
,
-1!.1!.'t/IP '~
-~~~('1[ u
- --...
~-..
200 '
GULLY
lJ
f) 0' TO ZOO' \
. DOWNStREAM
FROM GUlLY
i IJ
j'IIJ '
'.J LJ
j'"
: ~
. IJ I
[I .~-.
. 'COO' DOWNStREAM
U FROM GUlLY
~: -; "..r r,J"l
, It, ..' - J 1- ..
~ _i
(",
.,
LEGEND
.,
~ I
810
0100
{) 1000
@,.,.
'\';~:;;' 10 000
"'t:' '
"', .' CONCENTRATIONS IN vIII
1000 'EE T
300 MUERS
8.
.3
FlOURE - PCI CONCENTIIATIOtilI IN
IEWER SEDIMENT
l-JR
-------
6
A detailed presentation of the soil and sediment contamination is presented
in the RI report which was prepared by IEPA. Additional information
related to the recent soil boring and field screening activities is
contained in the Supplemental RI Rep~rt.
Ground Water
Monitoring wells at the site were sampled and analyzed for both PCBs and
VOCs. PCB contamination over 10,000 parts per billion (ppb) was detected
in ground water directly west of the LEU buildings, but the average PCB
concentration in the ground water is approximately 100 ppb. A total of 12
different VOCs were detected in various wells at the site. Like PCBs, the
highest levels were found directly west of the LEU building in a well
placed wh~re heavy VOC contamination-~8s found in the soil (monitoring well
G10S). An oil layer was found above the ground water in this well, but was
believed to result from a denser oil in the heavily contaminated soil
settling and collecting in the well hole.
The primary VOCs identified during the RI were: 1) trichloroethylene; 2)
trans-1,2-dich10ro~thytene~~3) 1,1,1 trichloroethane; 4) 1,1
dich10roethane; 5) vinyl chloride; 6) 1,1 dichloroethy1ene; 7) toluene; 8)
tetrachloroethylene; 9) ethyl benzene; and 10) xylene. (A complete list of
the contaminants identified at the site H contained in Table 2-1 of the
Supplemental RI Report.) Contour maps of trichloroethylene and trans-1,2
dichloroethylene ground water contamination show results similar to the PCB
results. The highest concentrations of these contaminants are found
directly west of the LEU ~uildings, and the average concentrations on the
property are approximately 100 ppb. The contaminant plumes are moving off
the LEU property in an east and southeast direction (Figures 4 to 6). A
detailed discussion of the ground water investigation and contamination can
be found in the Supplemental RI Report.
Structures
.
The structures on-site that were not addressed in the previous ROD are
limited solely to the LEU property (Figure 2). The investigation of these
structures revealed PCBs in dust samples, wipe samples, and samples of
construction material (dry wall and roofing material). Significant
concentrations (greater than 150 ug/100 cm2) were identified in all surface
samples collected. Contamination of the structures due to VOCs was not
investigated. An investigation to determine the presence of VOCs was not a
necessary step in the analysis of remedial measures, given the presence of
PCBs. This is because structural remediation selected to address the PCBs
would deal with the VOCs present as well.
VI.
SU~Y OF SITE RISKS
PCBs are a family of compounds containing partially or wholly chlorinated
isomers of the biphenyl molecule. Commercial mixtures generally contained
40-60 percent chlorine with over 200 possible isomers, although only about
-------
I I
r-- ---- --,_",:,-,:,~~:'-------------------I-,--- /
Ii ,'-::8 )1 i'::-:~~}~';-.T.!
. . !
I --_I.O--g'g~ I I -', I
I' ,," 0.37 ['[ .J , / -
/ . 00--"- /
'. I Oil. \0.0 I' / ' . ("'":
I~::'I I Lt I, . - } - - \ -.- - /.,..' _...' '~ . J
.801. I t" . .-0 i IArIIEU£C1n'CU)I(IHES' I .-': n L...,'j
I ' ~._( .--.., - / ,,/ '- ~~13 ~ I .-11
\ '. 0105 / ,," .: 0.12 I -; . . J
, \ I 7800 "/,, I .,---
'---~'':''''-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'~\----l' -~ . .'_OO:Q~~' ~..L!- - .-.-~._-~-_..-~--jl Vt.~ .
I \..: -- i i.~01 . -_. - -, I
, . \. ; 801.' ! I ....,
. - .e \. =:: i. l i ! I
( . \.. --:,. .. Oll"PI , , . - - - - _. . ! :
_J .....:;. '----------------------' ;.r/"'- -....t.~3 .. - -. , i
--------------------------- -~-,._"- ..... I ...
-.,... ,~. ....------------------------
01018. - - - - - - - - "----...,.. . ~ ~I" '>:'UI
'~~5 -,J I I ~
". '---,...,J "
"" 0110 ",0 f ... I '
". '.1./ . . , <
, ~ / ~
',~-~;~ ~
- - -..-.."----. ...-
...8
...
e..
L
~OI~IS" .
BOI. ,
801. .
I
..
'.
"
,
L--j
'L
.."..~h :"'.: .',,1
.
..
,.
.
PI
0111
o.n...
~:
~ . ..
'..- "':
. """ .. ........j
: j
, !....._- .
LEGEND
. IIIONITOIIIINCI W£U,
. IIOUND t IAM,.,1NO
. ROUNO . IAM....NCI
IIOl IELDW DE TECTIOH UMn
CONCEN"'ATl0N8 IN UOIL
CONTOUR UNn OAIIHED WHEN INFERRED
SCALE
O. 100 200 300 400 500FIE'
o 20 40 10 10 tOO II" TERI
- - ,
FIGUR".r. CONTOUR MAP OF HIGHEST PCB
CONCENTRATIONS IN MONITORINO
WELL8, SAMPLINO ROUNDS I AND 2
.
~J
r~1
I--~
LJ
L:.I
r h.. .
!~_a_j
r .-- J
;,
:.J
l'~
r--:
~ - J
i..-
.
Pit
1'_" 1
- --- I
4-61
-------
.
~
.
.
~
f. - ---- - _:.~.~~~---_.-;--- - - .",,,;"-:;;;;;':
I . 010.. /
... I
,
I
\ . 100------------__- --. .--..
, ~~2 U V'I' ------.
I d--.J !
. 'i'
011' , ~ --------- r .. . J _.
, '.....- O' . .. _.. ..--.... .. .. .. \---- .. ......--'
I r--.J i LaSALLE ElEC~IC.JJ,I"'I'IES: ",'" l
I 0---1 ! ",.".'" J",-'" i .
I I! i ",'" -- i ;1'
I ',,,,'" -'" i j'
. I , 010~.-=~J:::~""-' .'... ..- ""--""'."."-"'-Cl.r'--- J
'---------.-------------,-- ~,p~' .:.-.-,..; -.. ------------
I ;. 4)00 r;' l~' r.----~l {
. . PI \ =- . OIl~PI / : / \ t._-- --.--.1 ,
: . ~ ' ;1..- - 821 0 [-7---' \ . \
-~ '---' '--------.....--- - ----..-- -- ----:..-:,).""" '.........,.....: ~ - ---\---------- '"
-- -------------:-------------\- - - " 01018"'" -- -- --_":'_,~=s---- Jr--v-J \
g8 '-, , I
\ : . / . "r :~\I\ -.---
',: O~:' / ... \ OUI
'''''''-~"o :' \ .10
. \
. \
:- :::---- . "..... -",/
. ; l . .--j -.....--.....-
. ---------------_---e-_----
0103 .
:~ 3'
r i
., L.J
01011 - --...
... IxCJ
I
I
I
..
1=1
l:.~h !il. .Jut
-~j
(]
~
, j
L"J
o
"'-..,
",--r'
i j
LI
[]
IJ
o
.:" t!'l 5:,...
j.'--' i
. I
L._;' -..1
I.'...~...::':'J
I .--.....1 L'~'I
~
.? C'=J C=J
;) _~D
I L...J 0
r-,
. ......,-
.
"11
801.
C~~~
-
...
., i
! -, i i
J ; '0. i .1 ! j
ICALE
100 200 :100 400 100FEE T
o 20 40 80 10 IOOME TERI
6'
FGURE_CONTOUR 101". OF TRICHLOROE1MI1II!
CONCENTRATIONS IN MONnORING
WEW
.!!!!!!!..
8DL: '.iDW III TECTI08I LIIIIIT
CONCENTRATION' IN ...,L
CONTOUR UIIE. ...-0 ."N I....RIIEO
o
.
4-63
-------
- -. - . - -. ----- .----- ---~._.~.~
--- - -- ----.-- ---- - --- -
--- - --- --
r--'-'-'-'_":"'-="~"':'::';;!,--_._._._._--,-_.
.
i . =18
I
I
~
,g:1
.
..
r
';
.;.
~
;. :. ..J
Lo....;
1.....-..-.. .j
j L..~I
I
L£ClEND
8iii:;HlOW DETECTION &.MT
CONCEN"'''TIONI IN Ul/l
CONf¥ lINEI DA8HED WHEN INFIAAED
'----' 0 -.-. -.---------.- -~--..-----
. OW3 ,.
~" 2
IIOL ..
L-
--- -_u- -- ----~-
- .._----- -.-
fit
010.5
lOt.
---
. .
-.
!
[J
.~~. .. .
/0~2 :J ii"\. ------------
~-~-
. .00'
~~ : '
lOt. !
/n
/
/
I . I
:-. -------'--------'------f-_.
I
'~.r.:.. \
- - -- \ -
:"- ~-.:: :'- ~-.::-.:-.:-.: = =:::::::::.::.:: -;- = = - --.:\~::::..-
" l. '.J~h r.~ J""
--I
,.;'
,." " .
41/ <-. j
Jl
. J
"
"
'-
--
0110
II
---
---
.
PI
IIOL
0111
1Ot..- -
l
o
SCALE
200
.00
IOOMETE..I
500f(( ,
FIBUIIE.it CONTOUR MAP OF TR""I- t,I
DlCHLOIIOE tHEME CONeI.. TRATION'
IN 1IONIT000lNO wEU.8
100
300
o 20
---
'0
.2...-
.0
.
,'-"
, I
'.- ,r
LJ
;
."
~
"
:;
.~_.--J
~,
u
l'~
1-:_. '
r-":
! ~
j L..
L.,j
:J
CJ
[J
[J
~41~ S:,...
i'" -',
,-. .....-
,--,
:. ._.J
I~~'l
4-64
-------
7
10 of these isomers were ever distributed in the U.S. using an aroclor
designation for identification. The PCB mixtures are thermally stable.
have low sOlubility in water, low vapor pressure, high boiling point. and a
high dielectric constant. PCBs adsorb strongly to soils. especially those
with high organic content.
The specific PCB aroclors found at the site have water solubilities of
54 ug/1 for aroc10r 1248 and 12 ug/1 for aroclor 1254. The PCB
contamination idenfified in the ground water at the site is believed to be
proportional to the concentration of dissolved and suspended solids found
in the water. The concentrations of PCBs in the ground water are expected
to be minimized by excavation of the contaminated soil. The natural
affinity of the PCBs to soil limits the amount of surface migration from
the site. Therefore, the only significant migration that is likely to
occur would be the result of tracking and/or blowing of the contaminated
soil from one location to an~the!,. - .n. ,. .,..0;1;
VOCs, as a group, are generally soluble in water, readily transported, and
easily treated. A discussion of the properties of each of the specific
VOCs found at the site is contained in Section 5.4.3 of the Supplemental RI
report. An in-depth evaluation of the extent to which the release of these
contaminants may endanger human health and the environment was prepared by
an IEPA contractor and ;s contained in Appendix D to the Feasibility Study
( FS ) .
.
PCBs are considered to have slight acute toxicity, but are resistant to
natural biological degradation. The toxicological properties of PCBs
appear to vary wi del y accordi ng t.o vari aus parameters. .but ,they have been
identified as carcinogenic, mutagenic, and teratogenic in animals. Human
toxicological data is limited, but PCBs have been found to be able to enter
the human body by ingestion, inhalation, and dermal contact. PCBs bio-
accumulate in lipids and fatty tissues, and the U.S. EPA has documented
that chronic exposure to PCBs in humans can cause skin lesions (chloracne),
liver dysfunction and possible permanent liver damage, and possibly cancer.
Other symptoms of systemic PCB poisoning include nausea, vomiting, weight
loss, jaundice, headaches... ederna..and ab,dominal pain. -
...' I -. ~...t"-L' :..~ .. .- ..." .. ". ~ . .... ..-
With regard to the ingestion of contaminat~~ soils. the U.S. EPA used the
existing Carcinogen Assessment Group (CAG} for'. PCBs and calculated that if
the daily intake of PCBs would be limited to 2.3 ng/kg-bw/day (nanograms
per kilogram of body weight per day) then the lifetime cancer risk would be
limited to approximately 1 in 100,000 (10-5). This intake level
corresponded to an acceptable soil concentration of 0.5 to 5.0 ppm. As
part of this study, the U.S. EPA reviewed CAG levels for PCBs which were
recently revised to 1.3 ng/kg-bw/day for a 1 in 100.000 (10-5) lifetime
cancer risk. The risk level corresponds to an acceptable soil
concentration of .03 to 3.0 ppm.
The majority of the VOCs found at the site are not considered to be acutely
toxic, teratogenic, or mutagenic. However, toxicity studies suggest that
liver and kidney damage, marked tachycardia, central nervous system' .
depression, cardiovascular changes, renal toxicity, hepatox;c;ty, and
-------
8
endema of the lungs may result from acute and chronic exposure to the
specific VOCs identified. Vinyl chloride and trichloroethylene are
considered to be human carcinogens, while tetrachloroethylene; 1,1,1-
trichloroethane; and chloroform are identified as possible human
carcinogens based on toxicity studies with laboratory animals.
On the basis of their occurrence and concentration at the site and their
toxicologic effects, eight contaminants were selected as being represent-
ative of the constituents detected in various environmental media at
the site. They were as follows; chloroform, l,l-dichloroethane, 1,1-
dichloroethylene, PCBls, tetrachloroethylene, l,l,l-trichloroethane,
trichloroethylene and vinyl chloride. The sum of the cancer risk from
these chemicals is 1.5 X 10-3. This exceeds the risk range of 1 X 10-4 to
1 X 10-7 which the U.S. EPA has decided as the acceptable range.
VII. DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
There are no significant changes from the preferred alternative described
in the Proposed Plan (Attachment IV).
VIII. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
In response to the health threat posed by the site, an FS was initiated to
evaluate the contamination that was fo~d on the LEU property, in the
sanitary and storm sewers at the site, and in the sediment of the unnamed
creek at the discharge point of a site storm sewer. A prior study (1986
PFS) examined the contamination in the residential area of the site and
along St. Vincent Avenue north and south of the property.
Specifically, the objectives of this alternatives evaluation were: 1) to
identify remedial alternatives that would reduce or eliminate the threat to
human health and the environment which is present as a result of the PCB-
contaminated soil and sediment at the LEU property and in the sewer system
at the site, 2) to identify and evaluate alternatives that would reduce or
eliminate the threat to human health and the environment that exists as a
result of PCB and VOC contamination of the area ground water, and 3) to
identify alternatives for cleaning and decontaminating the structures
remaining on the LEU property.
.
To this end, remedial alternatives were examined in detail. The process
involved screening according to three ba5it steps: 1) identification and
screening of technologies on the basis of effectiveness, technical
feasibility, level of development, and applicability to the specific waste
type; 2) development of alternatives by combining technologies that pass
screening; and 3) evaluation and comparison of the alternatives on the
following basis: protection of human health and the environment;
compliance with appropriate or relevant and applicable regulations; long-
term effectiveness and performance; reduction of toxicity, mobility or
volume; short-term effectiveness; implementability; cost; support Agency
acceptance; community acceptance.
-------
9
Description 0' Alternatives for Soil and Sedi.ent Re.ediatfon:
Technology Screening and Evaluatfon
Approximately 30 different types of technologies were evaluated for use on
the contaminated material. Technology screening was conducted on the basis
of effectiveness, feasibility, level of development, and applicability to
the waste type.
Some technologies were eliminated from further evaluation because they
represented innovative or emerging technologies that have not been
sufficiently proven. However, innovative incineration processes were not
rejected during this screening since the technology as a whole is
conventional. Many of the innovative processes which were eliminated
required the use of a time-consuming and expensive solvent extraction
process prior to treatment. This type of process was not considered to be
technically feasible for the large volumes of material at the LEU property.
Biological metabolism and dechlorination methods were evaluated. However;
both the effectiveness and the time required to achieve desirable results
are unknown for these experimental in-situ methods. Therefore, these types.
of technologies were rejected for application at the LEU site.
The processes that remained after screening included: 1) no action, 2)
capping (two different types), 3) excavation, 4) thermal destruction (four
different types, both on and off-site), and 5r 1andfi11ing (on or off-
site). (A description of all technologies which were screened and an
explanation regarding the decision to reject or retain the specific process
is contained in Section 3 of the FS Report.) ,
Alternatives Screening
.
After the technology screening process was completed, five alternatives
were examined in detail. With the exception of the no action alternative,
all the alternatives would involve restoration of the sewer system. This
restoration would consist of: 1) removal of the 8-inch sanitary and storm
sewers on the LEU property, 2) high pressure fiushing and mechanical
cleaning of approximately 5,200 feet of sewers in the area, 3) collection
and disposal 9f water and s~diment from the sewer fiushing activities, 4)
excavation of soil or sediment from approximately 500 feet of the unnamed
creek beginning at the point of sewer discharge; 5) back filling of the
stream channel to its original elevation with clean fill, and 6) disposal
of the excavated material along with the contaminated soil on the LEU
property.
The following are brief descriptions of the six alternatives which were
assembled and evaluated in detail following the 'initial screening:
Alternative 1: No Action
This alternative provides a baseline against which the
adequacy of the other actions can be measured. Under this
alternative, the site would be left in its existing state and
-------
10
no funds would be expended for monitoring, controlling, or
cleaning up the PCB-contaminated soil. As a result, there
would be no reduction in the contaminant migration from the
site, and the potential contact hazards associated with the
contamination would not be minimized or eliminated.
Alternative 2: Off-Site Landfill
This alternatlve would lnvolve the excavation of the soil and
the shipment of that contaminated material to a U.S. EPA-
approved PCB landfill. This facility would provide long-term
containment of the waste material. Following the removal of .
the contaminated soil, the site would be returned to its
original elevation and grade with clean soil, which would be
revegetated or resurfaced as appropriate.
Alternative 3: Off-Site Incineration
In terms of management of the contamlnated soils, this
alternative closely resembles the off-site landfill
alternative. Under this alternative, the contaminated
material would be excavated and then replaced with clean fill;
but instead of being stored for an unspecified period of time
at a landfill, the material would be shipped to a U.S. EPA-
approved commercial incineration facility where it would be
destroyed. The residual material could then be used as cover
for a sanitary landfill, or as fill for a nearby construction
proj ect.
.
. j
A1 ternat1ve 4: On-Site Incineration
This alternative also involves the excavation of contaminated
material from the site and the replacement with clean fill.
However, unlike the previous alternatives, the materials that
would be removed during the excavation would not be .
transported off the site over great distances to a disposal
or destruction facility. Instead, the materials would be .
thermally treated on the LEU property with a mobile
incinerator which would be set up at that location. Provided
that analysis proves that it is uncontaminated, the residual
material could be used as CDver material at a sanitary
landfill or as fill in roadway and construction projects.
Alternative 5: On-Site Landfill
This alternative would involve the construction of a TSCA
compliant chemical waste landfill for the disposal of the
PCB-contaminated soil and sediment on the LEU property. The
facility would be built above-grade to maintain a separation
between the wastes and the shallow ground water. This action
would isolate the contaminants from direct human and
environmental contact, but the volume and toxicity of the
contaminated material will not be reduced. Long-term
operation, maintenance, and monitoring of the facility would
be required to ensure the integrity of this alternative, and
-------
11
restrictions would have to be placed on the property deed to
prevent damage to the containment cell.
Alternative 6: Multilayer Cap
This alternative would involve the construction of a Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) equivalent cap over the
LEU source area to provide containment of the contaminated
soil and to minimize the migration of the contaminants. Like
the previous alternative, long term operation, maintenance,
and monitoring would be required. In addition, deed
restrictions would also be necessary.
Description of Alternatives for Ground Water Remediation:
Technology Screening and Evaluation
Approximately 65 different technologies and/or processes were evaluated as
potential remedial candidates for the contaminated ground water at the
site. While a number of innovative and emerging technologies were examined
during the process, site conditions including the presence of both PCBs and
vacs., the low penneabil ity of the soil, and the extreme range of
concentrations of the contaminants made application of most of these
treatment methods impractical. In addition, two proven treatment
technologies (air stripping and carbon adsorbtion) are capable of
completely and pennanently removing vacs from the water at a relatively low
cost. Since the effectiveness and costs .nf many of the innovative and
emerging technologies are unproven and uncertain, these technologies were
eliminated from further screening during the FS. (A complete description
of the technologies screened and an explanation of the decisions regarding
their retention or rejection is contained in Section 7 of the FS Report.)
The technologies and processes that remained after screening include: 1)
capping, 2) vertical barriers, 3) gradient control, 4) subsurface drains,
5) physical treatment on-site, 6) treatment at a RCRA approved facility, 7)
RCRA injection well, 8) recharge trench, and 9) discharge to a publicly
owned waste water treatment works (paTW).
.
Alternatives Screening
Utilizing the remaining treatment technologies, four alternatives were
assembled and subjected to detailed analysis after the technology screening
process was completed. The following are brief descriptions of the four
alternatives which were evaluated in depth:
Alternative 1: No Action
This alternative provides a baseline against which the adequacy
of the other actions can be measured. Under this alternative, the
site would be left in its existing state and no funds would be
expended for controlling or cleaning up the PCB and vac con-
taminated ground water. However, money would be spent for annual
monitoring of the contaminant plume. As a result, there would be
no reduction in the contaminant migration from the site, and the
-------
12
potential contact hazards associated with the contamination would
not be minimized or eliminated.
Alternative 2: Contain.ent
This alternative would include construction of a RCRA multilayer
cap, installation of a slurry wall, construction of a subsurface
drain inside the slurry wall to collect ground water that might
build up due to seepage through the cap and walls, and ground water
monitoring. Portions of the construction for this alternative
would be implemented off the LEU property, and could result in a
need to relocate a few existing property owners currently located
within the cap area. Long-term operation, maintenance, and
monitoring would be required to ensure the integrity of this
alternative, and restrictions would have to be placed on the
property deeds to prevent damage to the cap.
Alternative 3: Collection and On-Site Treatment
This alternative would consist of subsurface dr~1ns. 1ncluding a
sump and pump for ground water collection and treatment. Approxi-
mately 2,000 gallons per day would be captured and would need
treatment. The actual treatment would be detailed during the
design process, but would include phase separation, filtration, and
air stripping. The system would be completely automated and housed
in a pre-fabricated building on the LEU property. The treated
water would be discharged to the local waste water treatment
plant via sanitary sewers.. Routine operation, maintenance, and
monitoring would be necessary for-approximately 12 years.
.
Alternative 4: Collection and Off-Site Treatment
This alternative would essentially be identical to the previous
one, with the one exception being that the contaminated ground
water collected would be processed at an off-site chemical waste
water treatment facility. Long-term operation and maintenance of
the collection system and ground water monitoring would be requi.red
for approximately 12 years.
Description of Alternatives for Remediation of Structures:
Tec~no1ogy Screenin~and EValuation'
Several methods for decontaminating the PCB-contaminated structures at the
LEU site were originally evaluated during the 1986 PFS. The methods which
were determined to be the most suitable for decontamination (based on an
evaluation of effectiveness, implementability, and cost) are as follows:
1) dusting, vacuuming, and wiping; 2) dismantling, removal, and
replacement; 3) high pressure water or water-detergent washing; 4) solvent
washing; 5) steam cleaning; and 6) application of strippable or fixative
coatings.
Methods used to decontaminate structures and equipment are generally
proprietary techniques and are not well documented. Therefore, testing and
-------
13
perhaps a pilot-scale study of the technology would be required before any
decontamination procedure could be implemented on a full-scale.
A limitation of all technologies is that surface and subsurface sampling
techniques are not standardized. Therefore, initial and final
contamination levels may not accurately reflect the effectiveness (or lack
thereof) of the decontamination methods used. Consequently, the residual
long-term risks would be very questionable. Such uncertainty about risks
remaining would reduce the salability of the property.
A total of 148,000 square feet of surface area was estimated for exterior
cleaning of all buildings, while 233,000 square feet of surface area
(including 18,000 square feet of interior offices) was estimated for the
interiors of the structures. Several combinations of decontamination
methods were considered. These combinations all utilized similar methods.
However, the potential degree of decontamination achieved varied, depending
upon the proportion of the surface area receiving a particular treatment.
Once the technologies were screened, and some of the alternatives were
assembled, it was very apparent that a detailed analysis of alternatives
would not be necessary. This decision was evident immediately based on the
following:
IX.
1)
2)
The no action alternative would be unacceptable because it would
not address the environmental or pUblic health concerns;
Any form or level of decontamination would not be acceptable due
to the high cost and the continuing long-term liability concerns
that would exist due to the inability to verify the decontami-
nation and the resultant level of protection associated with the
cleaning;
The RI investigation determined that as much as 3-feet of soil
beneath the structures could be PCB-contaminated and would be
acting as a continuing source of ground water contamination; and,
The demolition and disposal of the structures was less costly than
any decontamination alternative, was more protective in both the
short and long-term, and would eliminate a source of ground water
contamination.
.
3 )
4)
Based on these factors, a decision was made to forego, the detailed
analysis. The only viable alternative that offered the desired degree of
protectiveness was therefore, demolition and disposal of all structures.
SUr-MARY OF COfIFARATIVE ANAlYSIS OF AI. TERHATIYES
Each of the alternatives were evaluated according to current U.S. EPA
guidance and Section 121 of SARA which states that the selected remedy is
to be protective of human health and the environment, cost-effective, and
use permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies or resource
-------
14
recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable. Also, all
alternatives have been evaluated based on the following criteria specified
in "Additional Interim Guidance on Superfund Selection of Remedy," dated
July 24, 1987:
1.
Overall rotection of human health and the environment addresses
whether or not a reme y provides a equate protectlon, and describes
how risks are eliminated, reduced or controlled through treatment,
engineering controls, or institutional controls.
Compliance with ARARs addresses whether or not a remedy will meet
all of the applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements of
(ARARs) of other environmental statutes and/or provide grounds for
invoking a waiver.
2.
3.
Lon -term effectiveness and ermanance refers to the ability of a
remedy to malntaln re lab e protectlon of human health and the
environment over time once cleanup goals have been met.
4.
Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume is the anticipated
performance of the treatment technologies a remedy may employ.
5.
Short-term effectiveness involves the period of time needed to
achieve protection and any adverse impact on human health and the
environment that may be posed during the construction and imple-
mentation period until cleanup goal~ are achieved.
.
6.
Implementability is the technical and administrative feasibility
of a remedy, including the availability of goods and services
needed to implement the chosen solution.
7.
8.
Cost includes capital and operation and maintenance costs.
Support agency acceptance indicates whether, based on its review,
or-the RI/FS and Proposed Plan, the support agency (IEPA) concurs,
opposes, or has no comment on the preferred alternative.
9.
Community acceptance indicates the public support of a given
remedy.
The analysis that follows was performed using the above factors as they
apply to each of the developed alternatives.
SOILS AND SEDIMENTS
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The No Action alternative does not afford adequate protection of human
health and the environment since unacceptable risks will be allowed to
remain. It therefore is not eligible for further consideration.
-------
15
All the remaining alternatives afford adequate protection, although they do
through different means of remediation. Alternative 3 (Off-site
Incineration) and Alternative 4 (On-Site Incineration) eliminate the risk
by destroying the contaminants. Alternative 2 (Off-site Landfill),
Alternative 5 (On-site Landfill), and Alternative 6 (Multi-layer Cap) also
afford protection through engineering controls.
Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Require8ents
All the alternatives examined in detail would attain all applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirements of Federal and State Laws. The TSCA
requirements entered most prominen~y into the analysis. TSCA regulations
require that PCB contaminated soi1 in concentrations greater than 50 ppm
must be taken to, or disposed of, at a TSCA regulated facility. If PCB
wastes are incinerated, a destruction removal efficiency of at least
99.9999 percent must be met. Further information of compliance with
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements is included in Section
XI of this report.
Long-Ter8 Effectiveness and PeM8anence
The most advantageous alternatives for long-term effectiveness and
permanence are 3 (Off-site Incineration) and 4 (On-site Incineration).
These two alternatives offer the highest degree of effectiveness and
permanence by permanently destroying the conta~inants in the soil and
sediments. The incineration option would provide removal by destruction
of contaminants. .
.
Alternative 2 (Off-site Landfill) and 5 (On-site Landfill), while offering
a degree of effectiveness by engineering controls, do not destroy the'
contaminants as would Alternatives 3 and 4. There is also difficulty in
assuring the long-term integrity of hazardous waste landfills.
Alternative 6 (Multi-layer Cap) offers the least long-term effectiveness of
all the alternatives considered. Since there would be no underlying liner
and collection system as in 2 and 5, long-term monitoring and maintenance
would be required to assure the permanence of this remedy.
Reduction of Toxic1~. Mobili~ or Volume
Alternatives 3 (Off-site. Incineration) and 4 (On-site Incineration) offer
the advantage of permanently destroying the contaminants in the soil,
therefore satisfying this criterion completely.
Alternatives 2 (Off-site Landfill), 5 (On-site Landfill), and 6 (Multi-
layer Cap) offer no reduction of toxicity, or volume. However, the
mObility of the contaminants is reduced.
5hort-Te~ Effectiveness
Alternative 6 (Multi-layer Cap) would be the most effective in the short-
term. Installation could be completed within a year and would quickly
-------
16
minimize the pathways of exposure and migration of contaminants. The least
adverse environmental impacts would occur during the implementation of this
a1 ternative.
All the remaining alternatives are roughly comparable in terms of
effectiveness. Alternatives 3 (On-site Incineration) and 5 (On-site
Landfill) are estimated at 1-2 years for construction and on-site disposal
or incineration of contaminated soil and sediments. There are adverse
effects to the environment from volatilization caused by excavation and
potential material handling incidents. Alternative 2 (Off-site Landfill)
is effective in the short-term in that it can achieve the respective
response objective by transporting material off-site within 1 to 2 years,
resulting in relatively rapid reduction of site risks. The risks
associated with this alternative are potential adverse impacts due to
excavation, material handling, and off-site transportation. Alternative 4
(Off-site Incineration) has similar advantages as Alternative 2, but the
additional disadvantage of long-term storage on-site until incineration can
be completed. This storage can potentially be required for as long as 15
years.
IlIpl ementabfl i ty
Alternatives 5 (On-site Landfill) and 6 (Multi-layer Cap) are easily
implemented and constructed using standard materials, equipment and
method s.
.
Alternative 4 (On-site Incineration) could not be fully implemented until a
trial burn was conducted and certification of operation was granted. It is
possible that certification may delay the actual ~perationa1 date of the
incinerator.
Alternative 2 (Off-site Landfill) will be more difficult to implement due
to the shortage of space at approved hazardous waste facilities.
Alternative 3 (Off-site Incineration) would be very difficult to implement.
The materials must be packaged in small drums for storage and subsequent
transportation. The facilities which may be used have commitments to
clients which would result in only a small fraction of material being
incinerated monthly.
Cost
The least costly alternatives are 5 (On-site Landfill) with a capital cost
of $3,486,006 and an annual cost of S12,OOO and Alternative 6 (Multi-layer
Cap) with a capital cost of $3,544,700 and an annual cost of $12,000.
Alternative 2 (Off-site Landfill) and 4 (On-site Incineration) are an order
of magnitude more expensive than the previous alternatives. Alternative 2
has a capital cost of $25,427,662 and no annual costs. Alternative 4 has a
capital cost or $28,625,998 and no annual costs.
-------
17
The most expensive is Alternative 3 (Off-site lincineration) with a capital
cost of S151,350,144 and no annual cost.
Support Agency Acceptance
All the alternatives will meet the criteria set forth by the State of
Illinois for protection of the public health. However, the State has
expressed its preference for on-site incineration and has stated that any
landfill alternative would be their least preferred method for a selected
remedy.
Commun1~ Acceptance
The citizens as well as local and state officials have expressed their
support for the selected alternatives. The citizens have expressed their
desire that the on-site landfill or multi-layer cap not be considered. The
citizens prefer that the site be restored to usable commercial property
capable of supplying employment to the local residents. They also
expressed interest in modifying the existing cleanup contract to allow the
sel.cted alternative to be completed in a more timely manner.
GROUNDWATER
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
.
Alternative 1 (No-Action) would not reduce or eliminate human exposure and
would be unprotective of associated risks by ingestion. Therefore, this
alternative was eliminated from further consideration.
All remaining alternatives (Alternative 2, Containment; Alternative 3,
Collection and On-site Treatment; Alternative 4, Collection and Off-site
Treatment) are designed to eliminate human exposure. Therefore, all
remaining alternatives would be protective of human health and the
environment even though the degree of protection afforded is not
necessarily equal for each alternative.
Compliance ~th Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Require8ents
Alternative 2 (Containment), 3 (Collection and On-site Treatment) and 4
(Collection and Off-site Treatment) would all be in full compliance with
all applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements. Section XI of
this document further describes the attainment of these requirements.
Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence
Alternative 3 (Collection and On-site Treatment) and 4 (Collection and Off-
site Treatment) would meet this criterion by effectively eliminating the
related risk by removing contaminated groundwater from the aquifer of
concern. Both would require operation, maintenance and monitoring for
approximately 12 years.
-------
18
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility or Volume
Alternatives 3 (Collection and On-site Treatment) and 4 (Collection and Off-
site Treatment) would reduce the toxicity. mObility and volume of the
contaminants through capture and treatment of contaminated groundwater.
'thereby removing the source of the risk.
Alternative 2 (Containment) would not affect the toxicity or volume of
contaminants present at the site. However, the mobility would be reduced
through engineering controls. such as slurry wall barriers and capping.
designed to reduce ground water migration.
Short-term Effectiveness
All the alternatives have approximately equal short-term effectiveness.
Alternative 2 (Containment) is effective in the short-term in that it can
achieve its response objective in 1-2 years. There would be adverse affects
from the volatilization of contaminants during construction. Alternatives 3
(Collection and On-site Treatment) and 1 (Collection and Off-site Treatment)
a1so would take 1-2 years to construct and implement. While no significant
adverse effects exist for Alternative 3, adverse effects during material
handling and transport may be present with Alternative 4.
Implementability
.
In terms of implementability, Alternativ~ 3 (Collection' and On-site Treatment)
and 4 (Collection and Off-site Treatment) could be easily constructed using
standard material, equipment and methods. Any problems encountered should be
insignificant and easily, minimized by careful
planning during the design and implementation. The only implementation
difficulty associated the Alternative 4 would be the inability to locate an
off-site treatment facility in compliance with the U.S. EPA's off-site policy.
Implementation of Alternative 2 (Containment) maybe very difficult due to the
need for access agreements from, or relocation of, current property owners, as
well as property use restrictions.
Cost
The least costly Alternative is 3 (Collection and On-site Treatment) with a
capital cost of $2,152,106 and annual costs of $64,000. The next most cost-
effective Alternative is 4 (Collection and Off-site Treatment) with a capital
cost of $2.139,244 and annual costs of $212,000. The most expensive
Alternative is 2 (Containment) with a capital cost of $6,802,878 and annual
costs of $54,550. '
Support Agency Acceptance
While the State has supported all the alternatives selected for evaluation, it
has stated a preference for collection and on-site treatment of contaminated
ground water.
-------
19
Support Agency Acceptance
While the State has supported all the alternatives selected for evaluation,
it has stated a preference for collection and on-site treatment of
contaminated ground water.
Communi~ Acceptance
The citizens as well at State and local officials have expressed their
support for all the selected Alternative. The citizens. primary concerns
were that the site be restored to usable commercial property capable of
supporting employment to the local residents and that the existing cleanup
contract be modified to permit completion in a more timely manner.
x. SELECTED REMEDY
The Agency selected the alternative which was determined to most effectively
remedy the contamination problem remaining at this site, consists of
excavation and on-site incineration of affected soil and sediment, nushing
and cleaning of affected sewer lines, demolition and disposal of structures on
the LEU property, and collection and on-site treatment of affected ground
water. The remedy will result in restoration of the contaminated aquifer to
acceptable and safe levels of contaminants. Soils will be excavated
consistent with the cleanup levels selected in the 1986 ROD. Specifically the
levels are 5 ppm in surface soils and 10'.ppm at depths greater than one foot
when clean fi11 material is used to return the area to its original grade. (A
discussion of the soil clean up levels is contained in the 1986 ROD.) The
cleanup level for the building is the removal of all building material.
.
These Alternatives are consistent with and complement the prior alternatives
sel ected in the August 29, 1986 ROD. Joi ntl y, these al ternati ves cexnpri se a
complete cleanup of this site.
Section 104(c)(3) of CERCLA as amended sets forth State financial
responsibilities in remedial actions. The State of Illinois. financial
responsibilities in the proposed remedial action would include payment, or
assurance thereof, of 10 percent of the costs of the remedial ~ction and 100
percent of the costs of any operation and maintenance which is not considered
to be the responsibility of the U.S. EPA according to Section 104(c)(6) of
CERCLA as amended.
X I. STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The selected remedy provides adequate protection of human health and the
environment in eliminating the direct contact threat from the contaminated
soil and sediment through incineration which will permanently destroy the
PCBs, and demolition and disposal of the contaminated buildings. The threat
to human health and the environment posed by the contaminated ground water
will be eliminated through collection and treatment of the ground water,
-------
20
restoring the ground water to drinkable quality. Implementation of the
selected remedy will not pose any unacceptable short-term risks.
Attainment of Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirelents
This remedy will attain all applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements of other Federal and State environmental laws. They are:
Toxic Substances Control Act. PCB disposal regulations under 40 CFR 760.60
requlre that PCB contamlnated soil in concentrations greater than 50 ppm be
taken to a TSCA regulated facility. Incineration of PCB waste must be
able to meet a destruction removal efficiency of at least 99.999 percent.
These requirement are applicable and will be met. In addition, residual
material from the incinerator would be required to contain less than 2 ppm
PCBs.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Ground water wi)l be monitored
for three years following attainment of cleanup levels consistent with
corrective action monitoring requirements under 40 CFR 264.100.
Safe Drinking Water Act. Contaminated ground water will be collected to
achieve i~aximum Contamlnant Levels for vacs; PCS's will be removed to the
1 ppb level.
Clean Water Act. Ground water that is collected will be discharged to the
local waste water treatment plant foll~wing treatment and will meet
pretreatment standards established pursuant to 40 CFR 403.5.
.
Clean Air Act. Emission control requirements may be applicable to
emissions from the incinerator depending on the magnitude of the emissions.
Parameters of concern are sulphuric oxides (Sax), nitric oxides (NOx)
gases, and particulates. Costs for air pollution control equipment have
been included in the total cost for the selected remedy. Asbestos in the
LEU buildings will be disposed consistent with the NESHAPS for asbestos
(40CFR 61.147).
In addition to the ARARs noted above, any off-site disposal of the debris
resulting from demolition of the LEU structures will be carried out in
accordance with "Revised Procedures for Implementing Off-site Response
Actions,U November 13, 1987.
Cost-Effectiveness
The selected remedy provides the greatest overall effectiveness of all of the
alternatives evaluated; affords the highest degrees of long-term effectiveness
and permanence; reduces the toxicity, mObility or volume; and provides
reasonable effectiveness in the short-term. Present worth costs of the
selected remedy are estimated at $28,625,998 for the excavation and on-site
incineration of the soil and sediment, $2,588,182 for ground water collection
and on-site treatment, and $3,281,000 for demolition and disposal of the
structures. These costs are and within an order of magnitude of what it would
cost to simply dispose of, or cap, the material on-site. In this context,
-------
21
U.S. EPA and the State of Illinois believe that the costs of on-site
incineration are proportionate to the effectiveness achieved and represent a
reasonable value for the money. (A summary of the costs for the various
alternatives is contained in Attachment II.)
It is worth noting that while cost estimates were prepared using standard
guidance, it is likely that actual costs for on-site incineration may be
significantly lower than estimates, based on experience with the previous
remedial action undertaken at this site under the August 1986 ROD. The cost
of that operable unit, which involved removal and on-site thermal destruction
of approximately 24,000 cy of PCB-contaminated residential soils, was
estimated at $27 million; but the construction contract was awarded to the low
bidder for S12 million. Figuring in IEPA management costs and resident
inspection service, that part of the project should cost approximately $15
million, representing a 45 percent cost savings. This low bid is due to the
current competitive atmosphere in the thermal destruction business in which
many companies are willing to cut profits to a minimum in order to gain
experience and to prove that their equipment can perform. In addition, the
level of competition has been further increased at this site by the use of
perfornance specifications and the two-step procurement procedures, which
substantially increases the size of the pool of potential bidders for the
work. It is therefore possible that when the project is actually bid,
on-site incineration will prove even more cost-effective than currently
estimated.
.
The selected ground v/ater alternative, col~ection and on-site treatment, is
the least costly of all ground water alternatives that would afford adequate
protection. In addition, this alternative offerssignificantlj greater
overall effectiveness than the more costly containment option since it will
ultimately restore the ground water for use as a source of drinking water.
Demolition and disposal of the structures was less costly than any of the
decontamination options evaluated, which ranged from $4.0 - $7.5 million.
addition, a 1986 ~arket evaluation of the structures by the Illinois
Department of Commerce and Community Affairs estimated that the structures
were only worth approximately $1.1 million, and that building replacement
costs were approximately $1.5 million.
In
U.S. EPA and IEPA believe that each component of this remedial action is cost-
effective and that the remedy as a whole represents a reasonable value for the
money.
Utilization 0' permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment Technologies and
Resource Recovery Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable
U.S. EPA and State of Illinois believe that after a careful evaluation of the
alternatives, and after balancing the outcomes from the various evaluations,
the selected remedy is the most appropriate solution at the LaSalle site. This
remedy not only meets the goals of both agencies in terms of a final remedial
action, but it also provides permanent protection of human health and the
environment from the risks currently posed by the contaminated soil, sediment,
and ground water. Protection is achieved by utilizing. an alternative
-------
22
treatment technology (modilet thermal destruction) that destroys the
contaminants or reduces them to nonhazardous levels. The long-term
effectiveness of this remedy is achieved within a reasonable period of time
without posing any short-term risks that cannot be managed properly. This
remedy can be readily implemented at reasonable cost and is accepted by the
State and community. FinallYt this remedy represents the practicable extent
to which permanent solutions and treatment can be utilized at this site.
Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element
The selected remedy addresses the principal threats posed by the site through
the use of treatment technologies, thus satisfying the statutory preference
for remedies that employ treatment as a principal element.
.
-------
Attachment I
CHRONOLOGY OF REGULATORY ACTIONS
LASAlLE ElECTRICAl UTILITIES
* September 1975
* October 1979
* July 1980
* December 1980
* r~arch and r~ay 1981
* r1ay 1981
* June to
September 1981
* r~ay 1982
* August 1982
* August 1982
"'" December 1982
* July 1983
LEU cited for inadequate PCB storage
facilities by U.S. EPA.
Violation of PCB management practices
documented by U.S. EPA and OSHA.
U.S. EPA issues Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA) complaint.
IEPA soil sampling revealed extensive
PCB contamination on the LEU
property.
IEPA soil sampling revealed PCB con-
tamination on property other than
LEU's.
IEPA, under authority of Section 34
of the Illinois Environmental
Protection Act, sealed all but the
leased area of the LEU property.
.
IEPA conducted additional soil
sampling in the area.
IEPA filed a State of Illinois
complaint.
lEPA amended the State of l11inoi5
complaint and also filed a Federal
complaint under TSCA.
U.S. EPA field investigation team
installed four monitoring wells at
the site.
Based on the information gathered,
the site is included on the first
publication of the NPL. HRS score
equaled 42.06.
A U.S. EPA contractor fenced part of
the LEU property as an immediate re-
moval measure at the site.
-------
* July and
October 1983
* June 1984
* June 1984 to
July 1985
* April 1985
* August 1985
* December 1985
* January 1986
* June to
August 1986
* Aug'Jst 1986
2
The U.S. EPA conducted additional
sampling south of the LEU property.
Results indicated heavy contamination
on the property immediately to the
south.
The U.S. EPA conducted an immediate
removal action at the site and capped
the section of the property south of
the LEU site which was found to be
heavily contaminated. This cap
diverted drainage to an on-site pond
that was also constructed.
IEPA conducted addi ti ona1 soi 1 and
ground water sampling in the area.
Ground water contamination, including
volatile organic contaminants (VOCs)
and PCBs, was identified.
The U.S. EPA conducted an immediate
removal action at the site. PCB
waste material that had been stored
on the site was staged, sampled, and
packaged for eventual disposal.
.
Draft FS by IEPA contractor addressed
contamination in area soils.
The IEPA conducted an immediate
removal at the site. An IEPA
contractor removed the previously
staged material and transported it to
a nearby incineration facility.
Draft RI report prepared hy IEPA.
Phased Feasibility Study (PFS) re-
garding soil contamination not on the
LEU property is prepared by IEPA
contractor.
U.s. EPA Record of Decision regarding
residential soil contamination is
signed.
-------
* January to
July 1987
* January to
December 1987
* January 1988
3
IEPA contractor prepared design plans
and specifications for the cleanup of
contaminated residential soils.
IEPA contractor conducted investi-
gation of groundwater contamination
at the site.
IEPA signs contract and begins pre-
liminary work related to the cleanup
of residential soils.
.
-------
Attachment II
SUMMARY OF COSTS
Alternative Capital Cost 1 Annual Cost Present Valu
Soil and Sediment
No Acti on -0- -0- -0-
Off-site landfill 25,427,662 -0- 25,427,662
Off-site Incineration 151,350,144 -0- 151,350,144
On-site Incineration 28,625,998 -0- 28,625,998
On-site landfill 3,486,006 12,000 3,599,132
RCRA-type ,Cap 3,544,700 12,000 3,657,823
Ground Water
No Action -0- 56,000 527,907
Containment 6,802,878 54,550 7,317,116
Collection/On-site Treatment3 2,152,106 64,000 2,588,182
Collection/Off-site Treatment3 2,139,244 212,000 3,583,747
Structures
No Action -0- -0- -0-
Decontamination Level ' 4,037,000 -0- 4,037,000
...
Decontamination Level 4 7,511,000 -0- 7,511,000
Demolition/Off-site Disposal 3,281,000 -0- 3,281,000
Recomnended Alternatives4
On-site Incineration 28,625,998 -0- 28,625,998
Collection/On-site Treat~ent 2,152,106 64,000 2,588,182
Demolition/Off-site Disposal 3,281,000 -0- 3,281,000
Total s 34,059,104 64,000 ' 34,495,180
1 Capital costs include a 35 percent multiplier to allow for both bid
and construction contingencies.
2 Present value is computed using a 10 percent discount rate and a
30 year time period.
3 Present value for this alternative was computed based on a 12 year time period.
4 Implementation of the recommended alternatives will also involve design and
construction oversight expeditures which have been projected at $500,000 and
S2.6 million respectively.
-------
ATTACHMENT II I
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
-------
@
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. 2200 Churchill Road. Springfield. IL 62706
In the Matter of: LaSalle Electrical Utilities Inc.
Superfund PCB Abate8ent Project
Remedial Investigation/Feasability Study
(IEPA to 8781)
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) conducted community
relations for the off-site project segment continuing through the Remedial
Investigation and Feasibility Study for the on-site Electrical Utilities Company
(EUC) project segment.
During the phased feasibility study for the EUC site property, a 32 day
public comment period (January 18 - February 19) was established to receive
public convnent about remedies for management of contamination found on the
EUC plant property.
A public hearing was held on February 17, 1988 to discuss
those remedies.
This responsiveness summary documents concerns expressed by
.
citizens during the comment period and IEPA's responses to those concerns.
INTRODUCTI ON
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), used in the manufacture of electrical
capacitors, and volatile organic compounds, used as degreasing solvents, are
present in the soil, groundwater, buildings and sewers at the EUC property.
PCB contamination has migrated through the sewers fram the EUC property to
the residential area sewe"rs east of the plant and to an unnamed creek tributary
to the Little Vermilion River.
In the feasibility study, three alternatives have been proposed for manage-
ment of contaminated buildings: no-action, building cleaning and decontamination,
and building demolition and disposal.
Six alternatives have been proposed
for management of contaminated soils: no-action, off-site landfill, on-site
landfill, multilayer cap, off-site incineration and on-site incineration.
-------
Four alternatives have been proposed for management of contaminated groundwater:
no-action, site containment, collection and off-site treatment and collection
and on-site treatment.
Community support has been virtually unanimous for the alternative proposals
preferred by IEPA.
Initially there were some questions raised by local health
officials and residents regarding the emissions that will be released during
. operation of the mobile incinerator.
Those concerns have been addressed through
extensive public awareness and informational campaigns.
plans are virtually unopposed.
Currently IEPA 's incinerati c
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
Community relations for this project commenced with a joint presentation
by IEPA and U.S.EPA officials at a city council meeting in January, 1984.
.
Through personal interviews, "living room meetings," public hearings and public
meetings, the following issues have been identified as concerns of the citizens
during the remedial investigation for the on-site and off-site project segments.
Effect on business--Several small businesses are located in the immediate vi-
cinity of the EUC site.
Business owners are concerned about how present and
potential customers are reacting to the news that PCB contamination exists
in the area.
One businessman has been refused liability insurance.
Insurance companies
are citing PCB contamination and underground storage tanks as the reason.
Property values--According to residents, residential property values have di-
minished in one area near the EUC site.
Residents feel that once cleanup at
the EUC site is completed, property values will increase.
According to resi-
dents, removal of approximately 260 fifty-five gallon drums containing PCBs
-------
and drainage of a tank containing trichloroethylene in February, 1986, did
not affect property values.
Health effects--PCB contamination in residential yards raised questions about
potential health effects to both present and future generations.
Officials
from the Illinois Department of Public Health and the IEPA went door-to-door
when PCB levels were identified to discuss the impact of the PCBs in residental
yards.
Traffic disruptions during construction--City administrators, Department of
Transportation officials and State Police officers voiced concerns over traffic
disruptions during excavation and removal of soils.
.
Safety for residents, Lincoln Jr High School students and users of Hegler Park--
Safety, both during and after excavation, is a major concern of all parties
involved in the project.
Elaborate safety measures have been proposed by the
contractor and site safety has been stressed.
Restoration of propert1es--One common concern for most citizens and officials
is that all properties that are excavated, including the EUC plant site, be
returned to origional condition or better than they were prior to excavation.
A public hearing was held on February 17, 1988, at the Howard Johnson's
Motor Lodge in LaSalle, Illinois beginning at 7:00 p.m.
Approximately 20 out
of 60 in attendance at the hearing asked questions or made comments.
Prior
to the hearing, fact sheets were distributed, news interviews were given, news
stories were run in the local papers, and a meeting was held with the city
council and city administrators to discuss the project and to answer any ques-
-------
ISSUE:
QUESTION:
RESPONSE:
QUESTION:
RESPONSE:
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND IEPA RESPONSE
Superfund Progra.
For many years, scrap capacitors were dumped in the Peru, Ill. landfill
and PCB contaminated oils were spread on alleys in the city. The
alleys have since been paved over and the capacitors buried.
this project address those areas of contamination?
Will
No, the scope of work for this Superfund PCB abatement project ad-
dresses the plant site property and surrounding residential and
commercial areas to the east, north, and south to Seventh Street.
If it is discovered that indeed there is PCB contamination at the
city dump or in alleys within the city, that will be addressed as
a separate action or project.
.
Are there any funds set aside in this project to compensate people
who worked at EUC and have suffered adverse health effects from
PCB exposure during their employment?
Though there are no funds set aside to compensate workers w~o have
suffered adverse health effects through their exposure to PCBs or
other toxic substances at EUC, a health assessment study of affected
residents and EUC workers is scheduled to be conducted by the Illinois
Department of Health.
If you wish to be included in this study,
or have information that would be related to health and employment
at EUC, give your name and phone number and IEPA will see that Public
Health gets the information.
In addition, if you have information
or names of past workers at EUC, that information would be of great
value.
-------
QUESTION: Where may the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study reports
and cost estimates be viewed by the public?
RESPONSE:
Copies of the project-related documents you discussed are available
for viewing by the public,at the City Clerk's office in laSalle,
Ill. and at our IEPA headquarters in Springfield, Ill. A summary
of alternatives and costs for the on-site project are in the fact
sheet distributed to you tonight.
QUESTION:
In the course of this hearing, will there be a discussion of off-site
disposal or excavation?
RESPONSE:
The discussions and testimony given at this hearing will be limited
to issues concerning on-site excavation and disposal.
In July of
1986, a hearing such as this was held to address the off-site project.-
The off-site project is current1y underway and is scheduled for
completion in 1989.
If, following the meeting, you wish to ask
any questions regarding the off-site project, you may do so.
QUESTION:
Who owns the incinerator that Westinghouse will be using for the
off-site project, and can it be leased by the contractor to do the
on-site project?
REPSONSE: Westinghouse, and its subsidiary Haztech Inc., own and operate the
incinerator they will be using for the off-site project.
It would
be doubtful that they would lease the incinerator to another con-
tractor, though the decision would be Westinghouse's to make.
QUESTION:
Is there a schedule set for start of excavation and disposal for
the on-site project?
-------
RESPONSE:
No, the project schedule will be influenced by a number of factors,
some of which are the proposals recommended at this hearing.
It
is the intention of the U.S.EPA and IEPA to proceed with the on-site
project and complete both projects with a minimum of delay.
QUESTION: Will the recent cutbacks in the federal budget affect the completion
of the on-site project or the off-site project?
RESPONSE:
Funding for the off-site project has been allocated by the U.S.EPA
and IEPA already, and monies have been expended from that allotment
for project costs incurred to date.
Funding for the on-site project
will not be obligated until the funding request is made by the IEPA.
Any funds allocated for the off-site project and left unspent at
the completion of that project may possibly be applied to the on-site
.
project, with approval .by the~.S.EPA.
QUESTION:
Why was the LaSalle PCB abatement project divided into two project
segments, the on-site and off-site segments?
RESPONSE:
The project was divided to allow the excavation and removal of con-
taminants for the off-site project without waiting for the remedial
investigation to. be completed for the whole project.
In the spring
of 1986. the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study was com-
pleted and the remedial design was undertaken for the off-site project.
The Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study for the on-site
project was completed in January, 1988 and is now about to enter
the remedial design phase.
Thus, the project for removal of off-site
contamination, the contamination more closely contacted by residents
of the area, was able to be undertaken two years sooner.
-------
QUESTION: Who will own the property once the project is completed?
RESPONSE: The Bankruptcy Court has not yet made that decision.
QUESTION:
RESPONSE:
QUESTION:
RESPONSE:
QUESTION:
RESPONSE:
The court
has control of the property through a trust at the Lake Shore National
Bank of Chicago.
I want to be on record to propose that the EUC building be cleaned
and decontaminated or replaced.
Will my comments be given any weight
in the final decision of building structure disposition?
Yes, your comments will be conveyed to the U.S.EPA prior to the
decision in two forms; a responsiveness summary of questions and
comments made during the hearing and comment period, and the permanent
hearing record transcript.
.
Once the building is demolishe~ and the site cleaned up, will there
be any restrictions on use or access to the site property from a
public health or safety standpoint?
No.
If other areas of LaSalle were found to have PCB contamination,
what would the IEPA do?
Just as was done with the EUC PCB abatement project, an initial
discovery or report of contamination triggers a series of responses
by the IEPA.
Each preliminary investigation seeks to learn the
type and extent of any source of contamination until ultimately
a remedy can be implemented if it is found to be necessary.
This
whole process can begin with a phone call report of contamination
of the environment and end with a Federal Superfund Cleanup Project.
-------
QUESTION:
RESPONSE:
QUESTION:
RESPONSE:
ISSUE:
QUESTION:
RESPONSE:
QUESTION:
RESPONSE:
QUESTION:
RESPONSE:
Can local labor forces be used in some portions or aspects of the
project by Westinghouse Inc. if subcontracting work is planned?
Yes.
There are no restrictions forbidding the use of local workers
providing they are adequately trained for the tasks they are to
perform.
This issue is entirely at the discretion of the prime
contractor, Westinghouse Inc.
When will the Record of Decision be made?
The Record of Decision is slated to be completed in March, 1988.
Conta8;nat1on (General)
What level of protection will be required for workers performing
tasks within contaminated areas?
Hardhats, chemical resistant steel toed boots, chemical resistant
.
overalls and gloves, respirators or dust masks, and face shields
or eye protection, must be worn for the safety of workers within
the contaminated areas.
Is the area within the fenced boundary of the plant site the only
contaminated area?
No.
In addition to the plant site property, excavation sites along
St. Vincents and Joliet Street and the property adjacent to the
plant site to the east, are considered contaminated zones or areas.
Do you believe that the contamination ends at this fenced area?
No, the off-site project along St. Vincents Avenue and Joliet Street
to the north and south, and the residential. area to the east of
the EUC property, is scheduled to begin in March, 1988.
This
-------
QUESTION:
project segment addresses the removal of contamination that has
migrated off the plant site property fenced area.
What type of PCBs are found at the plant site?
RESPONSE: Arochlor 1248 and Aroch~or 1254 were found along with many volatile
organic solvents on the plant site property.
QUESTION:
RESPONSE:
QUESTION:
RESPONSE:
QUESTION:
There is an oil company to the south of the plant site property.
Could any of the detected solvent contamination found on the plant
site be coming from there?
No.
Through the investigation phase of the project, it has been
determined that the source of the contamination is the EUC plant
site.
It is possible that other types of contamination, such as
.
gasoline or motor oils, could come from the oil company property
if there were a release of those materials.
Why is the health risk caused by exposure to the PCBs and volatile
organic compounds at LaSalle classified as a potential or long-term
risk and not an immediate or acute risk?
Laboratory and population studies have indicated that effects on
workers or residents of exposure to PCBs and volatile organic com-
pounds in the concentrations and proximity to human contact, such
as found in LaSalle, would pose a more long-term and cumulative
health effect than an immediate or acutely toxic effect.
If you clean up the off-site properties prior to cleaning the source
at the EUC property, will there be a ris~ of PCB recontamination
of the off-site properties; and will they be tested?
-------
RESPONSE:
QUESTION:
RESPONSE:
QUESTION:
RESPONSE:
ISSUE:
QUESTION:
IEPA has planned for there to be very little time delay between
excavation of the off-site and on-site project segments.
This will
minimize the risk of that possibility.
The plant site property
is also the focus of elaborate PCB containment requirements and
procedures to minimize the migration of any contaminants from the
site during the project.
What will be done with PCB contaminated materials that cannot be
incinerated or decontaminated?
Those materials will be landfilled in a U.S.EPA approved PCB landfill.
Any materials that are incinerated will leave a residue or ash.
The waste ash will be tested to ensure it is non-hazardous, and
it will be used for fill on-site or at a local landfill for cover
.
purposes.
Up to now, most discussions of contamination off-site were limited
to PCBs.
Why now, are we talking about PCBs and other contaminants
in the groundwater?
During the remedial investigation study for the off-site areas,
no PCB contamination was found in the groundwater.
When the remedial
investigation study was complete for the on-site EUC property, both
PCB's and volatile organic solvents were found in the groundwater.
Though PCB's in the groundwater are confined to the on-site areas,
there is some movement of solvents in the groundwater toward the
adjacent off-site areas to the south and east.
Conta.ination (Groundwater)
What ;s the proposed plan to deal with groundwater?
-------
RESPONSE:
QUESTION:
RESPONSE:
QUESTION:
RESPONSE:
QUESTION:
The plan is to install a trench drainage system to collect the ground-
water and construct an on-site treatment system to treat the water.
This process is expected to continue for approximately 10 years.
Is my drinking water wel], located 300 feet north of the plant site
boundary, contaminated with PCBs because of storm water run off
that runs onto my property from the EUC plant site?
Your well should not be contaminated, since groundwater monitoring
wells between your property and the EUC plant site show no signs
of contamination.
The groundwater at the plant site flows to the
south and east not to the north.
The storm water runoff that enters
your property is channelled to the east via a culvert and flows
to the little Vermilion River away from your property.
Though there
is surface PCB soil contamination at your property that will be
.
removed as part of the off-site excavation project, your well should
not be contaminated.
If you wish to have your well tested~ we can
arrange for it to be done as part of the sampling to be done during
the off-site project.
Will the wells located to the south and east of the plant site prop- .
erty continue to be monitored after the project is completed?
Yes, they will be monitored in conjunction with the groundwater
treatment effort.
The U.S.EPA also requires monitoring of the site,
and the monitoring requirement could be up to 30 years.
Will the discharge of water from the proposed groundwater treatment
process to the sanitary sewer have any impact on the treatment plant
of LaSalle, Ill.?
-------
RESPONSE:
ISSUE:
QUESTION:
RESPONSE:
QUESTION:
RESPONSE:
QUESTION:
RESPONSE:
QUESTION:
Yes, though any discharge to the treatment plant must meet the permi,
conditions for the treatment process.
The only impact on the process
would be a strictly hydraulic flow increase of water to the plant.
If the waste water can meet clean water standards, it may be dis-
charged directly to the ground at the site or to a storm sewer.
ContA8ination (Sofls)
What are the relative depths of the topsoil, glacial till, and bedrock
layers on the EUC plant site property?
The topsoil layer averages two feet in thickness and the till for-
mations reach bedrock at an average depth of thirty feet.
What is the greatest depth at which PCBs have been found on the
plant site property?
.
PCBs have been found at bedrock- level in one confined area at the
site at approximately thirty feet in depth.
What are the boundary limits for excavation of soils for the on-site
project portion?
Currently the EUC plant site is fenced for safety and security reasons.
The area within that fenced area is, generally, the boundary for
excavation for the on-site project.
There is one exception. A
storm sewer and an outfall to an unnamed creek are also to be cleaned
or excavated.
At what part of the plant site was the highest concentration of
PCBs found?
-------
RESPONSE: An area behind the main plant building to the west near a quonset
hut building. has the highest concentrations of PCB contamination
in the soil.
QUESTION: At what depth are these contaminants found. and how deep will the
excavation need to be to achieve adequate removal of the contami-
nation?
RESPONSE: According to the preliminary study data. the excavation of the EUC
property area would achieve adequate removal at a depth of five
feet.
Once the excavation is made to that depth. additional s011
sampling will be done to demonstrate that no further excavation
will be necessary and that the contaminants have been effectively
removed.
.
QUESTION:
How does the PCB contamination affect the corn or soybean crops
RESPONSE:
grown to the north of the plant site property.
PCBs are not readily taken up into plants. and there has been no
documented proof that the crops to the north of the plant have been
affected.
It is our hope to do the excavation and decontamination
of this area prior to the 1988 planting season.
QUESTION: What is the reason for the large estimated cost difference between
off-site and on-site incineration alternatives proposed in the feasi-
RESPONSE:
bility study report?
Off-site incinceration costs include packaging. handling. and trans-
portation costs not necessary for on-site incineration.
The cost
per ton for actual incineration services ar~ higher off-site. and
an independent incinerator operator would be reluctant to devote
-------
QUESTI ON:
RESPONSE:
ISSUE:
QUESTI ON :
RESPONSE:
ISSUE:
QUESTION:
an entire two-year burning schedule to one customer.
This time
delay would cause increased costs for mobilization and stockpile
management.
What dangers exist for residents that live in close proximity to
the proposed incinerator site, from emissions released during oper-
ation of the incinerator?
Prior to operating the incinerator, a trial burn must be performed
to ensure that the emissions meet stringent state and federal air
pollution standards.
The incinerator will not be allowed to operate
without this effectiveness demonstration.
During the actual incin-
eration of wastes, the emissions are monitored constantly.
If any
emission standard is exceeded, the unit will be immediately shut
down until a cause is found and corrected.
These very strict op-
erating guidelines will ensure the safety of residents in the area.
Contamination (Incineration)
What percentage of PCBs now found at the plant property site will
be destroyed or removed?
The removal requirement for operation of the incinerator mandates
that 99.99991 of PCBs or volatile organic compounds must be destroyed
in the incineration process.
The actual percentage of removal of
contamination at the site would be difficult to estimate.
The remova 1
standard used for this project is geared toward the removal of con-
taminants that are above the federal and state set safety limits
for those contaminants in our environment.
Contamination (Building Management)
What is proposed to be done with the EUC plant buildi~g?
-------
RESPtltSE:
QUESTION:
The plan preferred by the IEPA would require demolition and removal
of all plant site structures.
What was the cost estimate for cleaning and decontamination of the.
buildings?
RESPONSE: The cost estimate for decontamination was $6 to $7 million.
QUESTI ON :
There
is also some question as to whether the building can be effectively
decontaminated.
If the building is demolished. does the IEPA plan to rebuild the
RESPONSE: No.
structure?
QUESTION :
RESPONSE:
Why was demolition of the structure. chosen over decontamination?
The decontamination, if even possible or effective, would cost between
.
$6 and $7 million.
The value of the building has been estimated
at $1. 5 mi 11 ion.
From an economic standpoint decontamination would
not be feasible.
QUESTION: Are the cost estimates listed in the feasibility study in 1988 adjusted
dollars?
RESPONSE:
ISSUE:
QUESTI ON :
Yes.
ProcUre8ent (Contractor Selection)
In the course of dividing the project to expedite the start of ex-
cavation for the off-site project, IEPA has created the problem
of the requirement for the on-site project~ of procurement under
-------
RESPONSE:
QUESTION:
RESPONSE:
QUESTION:
RESPONSE:
40 CFR Part 33., to select a contractor to do the work.
If it is
IEPA's goal to expedite the project start, mitigate costs and minimize
impacts to the environment and local areas by compressing the incin-
erator operating and excavation schedule, would it not seem reasonable
to allow the same contractor to do both project segments?
Yes, logically, and from an environmental, cost effectiveness, and
a timely project completion viewpoint, that course of action would
seem most reasonable.
That does not relieve our agency of the re-
quirement to bid the project through federal procurement procedures.
It is possible to request an exemption or variance from that require-
ment from the U.S.EPA Regional Administrator.
Our agency will pursue
that course of action and relay to the U.S.EPA, any comments that
are made by concerned parties.
.
Would it be possible to add one more alternative to the project,
to explore the possibility or mechanism by which Westinghouse Inc.
can be hired to complete the on-site project in addition to the
off-site project without going through procurement proceedings?
Though an alternative cannot be added to the feasibility study at
this late date, your comments will be forwarded to the U.S.EPA for
their review and your comments will be a part of the permanent record.
I agree with the previous statement about allowing Westinghouse
Inc.
to also undertake the on-site project.
Would it not make
sense to do s01
Yes, logically it would make sense to have one contractor perform
both the on-site and off-site segments.
-------
QUESTION:
If local residents or public officials wrote letters to the IEPA
regarding our desire to have one contractor perform both project
RESPONSE:
segments, would that be of any value or would the U.S.EPA see them?
Yes, copies of your comments will appear in the responsiveness summary
if they are postmarked prior to midnight, February 19, 1988 or pre-
sented at this hearing.
All testimony or written comments presented
at this hearing, will also be a part of the permanent hearing record
and transcript.
Any comments our agency receives after February
19, 1988 regarding this procurement issue will be forwarded to the
U.S.EPA and will be considered in making the decision on procurement
requirements.
REMAINING CONCERNS
.
Two major concerns of local city officials, health department offi~ials
and county board officials were raised during the hearing and comment period.
The first concern expressed the desire that the EUC property be cleaned up
and returned to unrestricted use status. ruling out the no-action, on-site
landfill and multilayer capping alternatives.
The second and by far the most
broadly held concern for all groups addressed the proposed IEPA procurement
action regarding the award of the contract for the on-site EUC property project.
The concern is, if a contract~r other than the contractor currently performing
the remedial action for the off-site project segment is the lowest responsive
and responsible bidder for the on-site segment. increased costs. environmental
risks, and project completion delays would be the result.
The concerned parties
want a variance or waiver of the procurement process for the on-site project
to allow one contractor to perform both project segments.
-------
The IEPA will explore the procurement exception or variance issue with
the U.S.EPA Regional Administrator and will attempt, as always, to expedite
the completion of the project.
The community relations staff will maintain
open channels of communication with the LaSalle community, to identify citizen
needs and concerns that may surface during completion of the project.
Listed below are the names of persons that submitted written comments
to request that the U.S.EPA grant a waiver of procurement requirements for
the on-site project segment, and award Westinghouse Inc. the on-site contract.
The Honorable Patrick D. Welch
State Senator, 38th District
The Honorable James Brady
Mayor, City of LaSalle
.
Rober R. Tarter, R.S., M.A. .
Public Health Administrator, LaSalle County Health Department
Greg Chance, R.S.
Director of Environmental Health, LaSalle County Health Department
Jeff Hayden, Third Ward Alderman
City of LaSalle
Edward Iwaszek, Fourth Ward Alderman
City of LaSalle
Gail Heller, Alderman
City of LaSalle
Walt K1nczewski, Third Ward Alderman
City of LaSalle
Leo Nosalik, Fourth Ward Alderman
City of LaSalle
Roger R. Sines, Director of Public Works
City of LaSalle
Mary Schmitt
City of LaSalle
William Constantine
City of LaSalle
-------
Esther Constantine
City of LaSalle
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
Questions about the hearing process and access to exhibits should be di-
rected to the Agency Hearing Officer, John Williams, IEPA, 2200 Churchill Road,
P.O. Box 19276, Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276, or phone 217/782-5544.
Technical questions or inquiries should be directed to Project Manager,
John Hooker, Division of Land Pollution Control, IEPA, 2200 Churchill Road,
P.O. Box 19276, Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276, or phone 217/782-6760.
General questions or inquiries about the Responsiveness Summary should
be directed to Community Relations Coordinator Robert Rosen, IEPA, 2200 Churchill
Road, P.O. Box 19276, Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276, or phone 217/782-5562.
.
Additional copies of the Responsiveness Summary are available from Community
Relations, IEPA, 2200 Churchill Road, P.O. Box 19276, Springfield, Illinois
62794-9276, or phone 217/782-5562.
Signed
.
John D. Wi iams
Agency Hearing Officer
Date ~~~ "-1~ /9J!L
Illinois Environmental
2200 Churchill Road
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, Illinois
Protection Agency
62794-9276
RR/dlh/gh/003
-------
ATTACHMENT IV
PROPOSED PLAN LASAlLE ELECTRICAl UTILITIES
.
[Note:
The following pages were attached to the Draft ROD
together. those two items composed the complete
proposed plan which was distributed.] .
-------
PROPOSED PLAN
LASALLE ELECTRICAL UTILITIES
LaSalle, 1111n01s
January 1988 .
Section 117(a) of CERCLA, as amended by SARA, requires the Agency to issue
a "Proposed Plan" and make such plan available to the pUblic for cOlll11ent.
This document satisfies that requirement in that it: 1) describes the
alternatives from the detailed analysis in the Feasibility Study (FS). 2)
identifies the preferred alternatives; and 3) provides a brief analysis of
the preferred alternatives for the LaSalle Electrical Utilities (LEU) site.
The Proposed ?lan for the LEU site is made available with the FS for public
review and comment. In addition to the Proposed Plan and FS. other
documents, .inc1uding the remedial investigation (RI) reports, which were
used as part of the development process are available for public review
also. A co~p1ete listing of all documents relevant to this project is
contained in the Administrative Record Index which is currently being
developed, and will be available by February 17, 1988.
The Proposed Plan for the LEU site is meant to provide all interested
parties with a summary of the alternatives evaluated, and the rationale for
the Agency's selection of the preferred alternative. The public should
review the FS and other pertinent documents as referenced in the Summary of
Remedial ~lternative Selection. if a more detailed and specific description
of the project and the alternatives evaluated is desired.
.
.-
All docu~ents which have been developed and released to the public are
available for public inspection at the following locations:
City Clerk's Office
City of LaSalle
745 Second Street
LaSalle, IL 61301
(815) 223-0077
Bob Rosen
Illinois Environmental
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, IL 62706
(217) 792-9878
Protection Agency
Daniel Cap1ice
Uni ted Sta~f:'~ ':"'1',i ronmental Protecti on Agency
230 S. Dearborn Street (5HR-11)
Chi cago, IL 60604
(312) 886-0397
-------
2
Written and verbal comments will be accepted from January 18 to
February 19, 1988, and addressed in a Responsiveness Summary which will be
attached to the formal Record of Decision. All written comments should be
addressed to:
Bob Rosen
Community Relations Coordinator
Illinois Environmental Prdtection
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, lL 62706
(217) 782-9878
Agency
Pursuant Section 117 of CERCLA as amended, a public meeting will be held on
Wednesday, February 17, 1988 at 7:00 p.m. at the LaSalle, Illinois Howard
Johnson located at the intersection of 1-80 and U.S. 51. Oral and written
comments can be submitted at that time. A transcript of the meeting will
be made, and will also be available for public review.
.
-------
ATTACHMEHT V
ADMIHISTRATIVE RECORD IHDEX
.
-------
Page ~Io.
03/2e188
F!~!/FP;~E ~AGES
'-
DRTE
8
Ot)/(:(t/OO
4
CO/'XI/OO
:0
ou:'o/:)O
.0
OO/GO/CO
~
(:(:/:::C~/'20
5
i6/:)! 122
7
7="'~)1/~
4
7~/t)i/Ol
c
73/10/:2
i3/:21 :2
.)
...
£')/ :21: 5
8l/sznz
.. . . . "".. .
TITLE
Complaint: In ~e Elec:rical
Utilities Co., LaSalle, IL
(CiV1I AC~l~ls;~a:l.e Action
PYr5uant to i~i
5:~~~ of ~~r~ ~e~~ial
AC~lQn Cv~su~t~~; E~glr.eerl~g
Sel'vH:es
St a~ eraent
:. f ~:)"~.
Cc,t.'t;.)urll ';y Rel:~ ::r:s Pl..fI
for Reroectlal !nv;?s';lsa~ll~n
and Fea~bl 1 i ~y S';I;CY a:
LaSalle Slec~!'~c Ut:llt12S
In Lc:a::e :~~Sal:e Cu.~.
5=ec:a! ~~a:!s:; ~(.t~~
SQ~o:es :Q;;~~~~~ :r~
aria 1 Y5 15
Ce~eMc~r !?eC ~J ~~~~!:
r:8:
Check L1S; - Ca:ac:,Grs
Ca:e of :ns~ec~lon
1/ 'i2./iS
Re~Qr~ ~n InYes';l~at:cr.
of ~CB use it £.!C
PCB Rec~o - ~rmu31 :t;C!J.'~er:t
Rep~rtlng t~e Lcc~tl~~ and
Disp~sltlcn of PC?s
!ns~c~io~ ~~cor~ of
a ~lant faci:i:y w:t~
PCEs on t~e ~r~Jises
PCB lrls;;ec: l,'~ of ~L:S
I~veS:l;it:~n ~f ::~:la:nt
!'e;~rcl~g ~~1p:~; of PCBs
ont a the ~r'j1lrlj
5a~:Jln~ :rc;r:~ ~~ :~~
lane ;urrc~~;:~g fa:ll:~y
ADfIIINIST?.P.TIVE REaJRD INCEX
LASALLE ELECTRICAL L~ILITIES
LASALLE, ILLINOIS
AUTHOR
SSGardebring - USEPA
I:i'A
E::l:;y ! £nvi~r~~r.t
IE.=A
R\L: biJy - !JS~:~
ljE~A & rE.~
~ .~'.~a' ~
;1....__j,.
US~A
sss: :x,n - US~':A
BBE~nlr.g - IEPA
B~=~:rl: q- :::;:'A
RECIPIENT
DOCtJII!ENT rr;
P12adings/~
~eport s/St;;:
R!~:r~s/St~,:
Re::or~s/St :,
.
Si.::r:l ~:":;J::
~e~cr': ~iS: .
Reports/:: .
f".c:r:." ~tV'"" ...
P.e~cr~ S/~:'-
lJSE.'A
~et10rar.::~
Fi 1!
!IIe!OOr;r
F i:!!
"'~?jjI'arl1'.IlII
-------
... ~ ~.. ~- ~_. ..
, D.qe No.
~9/e8
2
F1C.-!/FR~~E ~3ES
,
"', '
......
DAiE
5
81/05/13
~
..
81/:)~/20
~
..
9: /~5/,'£
81/1)5/29
e~/(:5/29
j
2:/f:;~:.2~
~
.: ~ :,.: I j :.
loot..; '.'.' 6:-
e~/0'3/~~
82JC6/1S
8
2Z/0B/l)j
8
82/:;a/03
! 3
~,/.:al a
"'-- -....--- ...._....
TITlE
State ~f Illir~is v.
rue and RiC!1ard Hauser
Complalnt for Injunction
ane Other Relief
Perimeter Sampling
C~1IJolaint F,JI' InjIJ11ctivn
And Ctl",er Rel.ef.
Wri~~&n ~nfi~ati~n of te~~s
c~n:ernlng ~he sealing of
~he :lec~;'ic:al Ut 11 i ties, Inc:.
facility
Ins:ectlvn ar~ sealing
"f Sl te
~2'o.11~~ ~omolaj~t
~"~
~J~E d'J'ii: 1 i't~ at rtJ: ai'IC
re~ult3 ~f s~tS~~~E~~
lr,'.eS1; ~ ;~t lcn
AcCltlcT,al sQ;aoling t"
r;et err1IT,~ ~OSS 1 b: e
~lgt'atl1jn or ~CBs
o Additlcnal si8ples
to ~ tested ror
PCB :On=!ntra;ion
Let~~r free pro~er~y owner
asking for results of ~).l
Sllpll~; tests concuctec
on hlS ~rope~y C~ S/11/81.
~,~le of Illi~jlS v.
r~c, Ric~ard Hau:Er,
a~d La~! Shore ~a~l~nal
Sank Tr~st Ce. 4425
Cornolalnt i~ a cIvil act:~n
~llr's:laTlt ~,) seo::. ZO ,jf ~he
Tc,~ic :IJ;:s~QrlCe Cvntr~l Ac~.
~~t?S N, VISIt :0 slte
fer s~~~;:~;i ~ith
r~Sll!ts
~
.__.._I~_~.. .
ADfilINISinATIVE RECORD WDEX
LASALLE ELECTRICAL UTILITIES
LASALLE, ILLIM:lIS
AUTHOR
JVanVrar.ken - Rsst At~y Gen'I
BBenning - IEPA
State of Illinois
Mary' Drake - IEPR
BBenning - IEPA
K~?e:~ely - I~OA
.,
BEe~r.i rig - !E;~
BBenni ng - IE.tR
Roger J. Dooley
IllinolS At~o~y 6eneral
Peocle of the State of
~llir,ois
DC.n z a
RECIPIENT
File
El~rical Util" et al.
R.Hauser-Elec:trical Uti 1.
File
..C':'~ild - !~A
Fi:e
File
IEPHla)"'OOC cffi~
Electrical Ut i 1. , et al.
File
ooa::OT TY:
Pleac!ir:gs/::
Me1:or c1nC \1:1
Pleadir.gs/C'
ColT!Sp.'Jr.c e'
, br!r;QI~
:
-------
PaS!'~'
,- 03/28/88
F1c;'E/~RA~ ;:A:;ES
3
DATE
13
82/')3/0'3
82/09l2~
2
e2/!O/07
."",
""
S2/~2/C5
c:
..
S"." ~ /""
.... ....It....
52,'::'''';':»
w
Q~/.'''/'~
_w, .. (, .w
- .'.'
~21'~ 8, ::::)
1 .,
.oJ
e2/('8/~):
6
a.;i(;8/~i
,':
.-
83/(;8/29
4
83/03/C8
:,
8Z/()3/~:
Tr7'-E
:: ~e !r.SpeC"tlcin
Nojte re lack of EUC
insoec~lon by State
F i I'e ;.1al'sha 11
letter to son of a local
c~cer~y ~wner exclalnir.g'the
test date ~s~lts of 5011
~ar,;c!t?;; ta~en from hlS
~ar'erlt s 1 ar:d.
~~s ~:!=::"t
;rei~~i"ary Assess~ent
:l:e S~a~p~s
::~: '~::':~:e ~.: ~~Ile:~
:.:. :c.-,e ac:::n
:ll~'::1ay!t
:.:. :e~: :,jr: ~C7
cs: ~e:':r: ana ~~=:r:ulr:es
. .
;., - .:
~ ,'!::,i2C i ~; 2 I~e!iij~ val ~'}~:t j ec~
in :'Ij~j a~ AU5'lSt 1383
~JC ~rcpcsal to Clean-lip
~CSs at the LaSalle, I1
sl~e
P'=B ~nal)'c;is on
15 Sar.oles -rom ~C
Re~ial Pc~ion Mas:er ~lan
i PA/!'P)
Resillts fl'C" analysIs of
seil sa~:le; ta~en on Jlir.e
2, :?aZ at.: se~~ to ¥'ayvr
Al Sunia ar.~ Al~er~an
F:vr':~n ~c1n:er:c~:i"
~=:~et' ~o ~rs. and ~. DI)(,l~y
:r:::atln; tne ~resenc~ of
~C:'s
:!"i 51:::
sa~p!25 fr~~ tnelr
02an
AD~INISjRATlv~ RECCRD INDEX
LASALLE ELECTRICAL UTILITIES
LASALLE,IUL:~O:S
AUTriOR
KSr~ll - E~lcgy ! E~vll~nue~t
Kenn!~~ ?~:~ely - !E?A
TPaukanin - USE?~
:EPA
L~::.:q
~:R~agar. - At~y f,:,;' ::L~
~~=::2 - ~:s~
RLHa'.:~er - E'':::
WnSancers - 'J::yA
C:~2." :-ii~l ar.: Et:")lc;y &
Env: :"':r.i::er.-:
Willi~1 ~lld - !~A
Dale ~el7.e~ - ;£PA
REC Iii !e1T
Ro;er R. Dc;oley
RE:'~en - '1SS':~
U$~ ! !EPA
GRe~an - USE.=-4
u:t~
see ~itle for r~lpien~s
~r. and ~rs. ~)Oley
t:QC..,.~e:i 7'1
O~~er
Hanawri~te',
CI)rT!S~ljn~=
C~~er
Ct::er
C~~e}~
c.:~~;-: ;
?S::;';~.:: .
P.e~':r:s/:~ -
~~~"':'r ~~.: :';~J
~e;ljl':s/;:.
c:'rr!!: ;;: reI:::
torr?: ,YJf;C c
-------
- PaQe Sf.).
~8/28
I
~
F!:iE!~r;~E PAGES
DA'!'E
4
a3/09/2~
,
23/0'3/25
.
.~
g3/tl)/~3
2
. c2i:i)/2~
~~:'::::/2~
-
~ 4':;~: /::::
.,
.:.
e4/02/02
2
S..i':.2i17
. . r.
..IJ
e4/'~U(:O
AD~I~I5iRATIVE RECORD INtEX
LA5~ ELECTRICAL UTILITIES
LASALLE,ILLINOIS
TITLE
fielc.
Letters to fQur hcuse~olcs-
K1Jhn,Dyer, Tomse and Vacarro
inf'r~lng them that no PCB's
were aetec;;!d in sOl I saMples
from their r!sldences.
~Ic~.~ L=t~er
E~cl)siri~ Site Map
a~d s~Jpling results
fT":!I r~nt elllergency
ac~ 1 ~1'! SaI~p I H~;
E';.;'C ~e:'genc:'f Act iol'l;
Re=~~el'ldatio~ ~~t tJ
nol'vest ::art of
;,:y:earl ":e10
Re~r': :n :..aSalle E~e=tr~=al
U':.~:t.es":lty WIl~I~
Oreser,~ a': i ,~~.
L=:~ 2" :~nc=~'1'\i ng leaK: ~g
0:"'':::5 :~ ~~3' s at Ele:':r::al
U~.;:; .E; :J:4paTlY PloM sae
11'1 l.aSa::e, :aino.s.
Results of soil analysis
fr?a :~e im:ediate ar!a
indicate ~hat it is
not ~nsidf!"td necessary
'to cle~~ up t~! ~ntalinatian
of t~e laRns aro~~d t~2 s.te
Inspection of sIte to ~eCK
for any possible leaks ane
to f~lliarl:e the]selves
Iii t~ tt",e plant.
~i;r.~~ ~:~ent Agree~ents
f~~ area ~~perty owners
t.:. ~~,e :E;~ fc.r erttry upe,n
t~elr pr~=erty far t~e p~r~~se
of ccl~ect:r.g lnflJt'!~atl')n,
ic~:r:r; ~ec~~lcal data, ano
cC~~~C~l~g sucn 1~'est~;at:c~s
as :.:3y te requ:t'ed.
AUT~CR
Dale. !'ielICer5 - IEPA
BGC~nstantelos - USEPA
PRe~.ar - USE?A
EG::nstantelos - USEFR
?:"'?; ~i :~a~d
- IEPH
.,
Ri:~ar= L.
Hause!~~ec~ri::al
IJt. :.
R.~.Ki:~rougn - DK~
~a~e He;~ers-!EPA
vari,jus
REC4P[~:T
see ~itle
RHauser - E1.:C
RHaus!r - ru:
RDuoley
Be:J C;:'\IIles&J~:: F j':r;i\- :~~
Dale ~~er5 - :~;;
GAJor.es - !EPA
File
IE?A
Ctt!.~-~T ::'~:
CJ~='~~2'
~~::;::;r.tEr
c.j~eS;':1'':=7
CGr.-!: :;:~.:::
:s-:;c f !:..~ :;';l
=.:~.~=:.:~,: :
:-:X1ri:1C:...:;
)'.c:.1Crar~';~i
P~l~S
-------
..- ,-. ... ... ,- --..
'. _. .-. . . .
Page No.
03/28/88
5
F!C~E/F~~E PAGES
MT':
1/"''''
TITlE
4+6
e4/0i/06
Pe!~~n~el Safe~J ~lan
EUC Revision 1
lZS
84/07/r:.o
Quality Assurance Project
Plan (QAPP) for ~he RIfFS
of EUC
85/(!2!13
Results from ;~undwater
110m t':)I'lrlg :r,cicate TC~
in wells
"
0:.
85/03."::5
Results of Soil Analys1s
i~c:cat= ~h~t ~he l~mecia;e
area SIJrro'.ITI~: ~g t hi! E1~C
lS heav1ly con~aminated
"lt~ PCBs
4
85i(;2/1 !
PeEs 1ft ~es::E~~~a1 :~ll
Ne:sr ~JC, ~a:.~:l=, :~
-
a:':(~~l ~,.:
:~;~~teala~a ~e;::-:I"al
Req '~es ~ far £:..::
oC' /,'Ii. ,.:,'
""...1 ",..-,~...,
:i:er;~~:r ~e::c,r.se a~ ~L:C
~5/C5/23
ReV1ew of CDC's RisK
AsseS5ment for PCBs in
Residential Solls
AD~!~ISTRAT:VE RECORD INDEX
LASALLE ELECTRICAL UTILITIES
LASALLE, ILLINOIS
AUTHOR
r~A
Ecology & ErNironment
G~icha~d - I~DA
DHMS
OA~ ,'~es - D!-:~S
:?a.r~;:':':2 ...: U~::r:.q
JBarr::t~e - U$q
w~lark - USErA
RE~IPIENi
RSines - Ci~y of LaSalle
GAJo~ - CHh:
LAr101~ki - ~S:::A
'iV~:a;~kus - U~;:q
~lklolCi!!n - ~S:C;
L.Fabinski - C'.Zc:
DC~J~('j; n
Repcrts/S~:;
Re~'~rtsiS~;
COtTeS:Yo n::: E
!l!elllorariCo
~J':;t',
.
~~:irar::';:!
Ccrresp.:.~.:;
:4em'J~.ar;,:'':':':
20 85/Co/C4 ReDor~ On Preli~inary Reroeclal ~elth Scyc-Slack & Ve3t~ D.::-ancall-!EPA Repe"'+; S,' ~ ~
Tec::nol,j~leS
Z£ 8S/QE./2! Draft Ex~01ure Assess=ent Black & Veatc:"! IDA Re~tJr~sl E:
Electr1cai ~tlli;les Compar.y
Site LaSal:e, !llinols
~/llllZ Cvnfiruation of res11~s 5re~ MIchaud - !EPA R.Si~!s- City of LaSalle C':I"~5:~:'':.
~f ;~~yncwater oon1torlng
tha~ snt:,*, the ~r~cenC1!
~f Tr1~1~~thy!en@.
3 ~f :2/(:2 !E;A ~e~r: of DecIsion R1c:nard Carlson - 18='A /lleIl!OriT,C:.::
!)rt;:JI P'~j'iai Anc Inc:r.erHDr\
e~/:2/,5 r~u~li~e qe~vval Act: c,rl JBarr:ette - USEPA RB~e!'l - USEPA Cor!'!s pc. rr::
atEL::
.. e6/01l29 Press Release =nt:~:ea Cas:eel ~ ~i:haud - ISPA Press Re~f
'"
'\las~ e ~!!r10Va 1 B!!~lns
-------
, . ,-- _. , . -
. D~~e No.
.29/88
6
-.
F!C~/~r.~~E PAGES
272
r.ATE
86/02/00
86/C2/2:
2:
86iOZ/I)7
~
..;
C': ,;.,: n ~
........, ,''W'.-
~'5
~;i)4/OV
z
S£/C~/OO
4
86/05i23
~
St./!)71-.::8
. - - -.. '-.-
~lNI5TRRTIVE RECDRD INDEX
LASALLE ELECTRICAL UTILITIES
LAStUE, ILLI~IS
T:1' ..E
at ~lectri~ utilities'
alon; with attachec PCB
Fact Sheet.
OSC Report with Appendices
A - Vi
!r~iate Removal ~'OJect
in JIJne 1'384
IEPA appMval to :'IcKesson
Che~ical ~Da~y to remove
approwi~ately 940 gallons
of trichloroethylene from
a tank locatet at the LaSall~
Electrical Utilities site.
Agenaa for a leeting between
iEPA an~ USE;;~ regal'(: i ng
;~"t:tncal U'; ~ 1 i ~ les c.:,:nPiny,
L:SIi~12, Il~inc:s.
LaSal;~ !j~~~late ~e~oval
.Jf 2S:;-:~ ~all':.n ~r'l60"'t$ ,~f
=CE cc~ta~1~a';2d olls,solte~ts
ln~ paInt; tht~ crum5
':a:,aCl :vt.
~ar:s ; in:: :lSeC protec: i'le
clcthi~g, ~~pl:ng materlals,
plastic, oil ~ry and
:111 s!:'! 11 anec us
deb:"lS.
Tecr.nical Assistarce Teal
Draft E:;er;eT'~1 Action Plan
For Ye:low CiJ & Transfer
ProDer~y ~al!e, !llinolS
Status ~e~rt: El!Ctrlcal
Ut~litles ~=Dany/LaSal1e
LaSalle - Survey of
residen~;; Outl:ne of
nel ;hc~rnc.':.d S'lrvey
dl;CUS;.?~ ;~e~s
Cover le~~er ar~ copy
of re~Drt 0n health
~ffi?'=~; .:,t \Cc.,."ers
eK~ljS;!: ~.) ~'~B. at E1~C
~aR
!:Cast Ie - USEPA
Ken ~iller - !E~~
~e~ ~411er,; ~:;~
~oy F. West~n, Inc.
5r2; Mi~aud - !~~
SCraven & GKi~haud - IE?A
J!<:eller - IDPH
REC:P!~T
M.Downey-Mc¥.esson ~~eI<
fEe
l'SEPR
19'.cCue & DCaplic2 - tEPA
E!'!aK~ll - U~A
'<":"~---.IIE.--
:""~.::e::- -:l;
~S/s~:..:
ec.1"I"tS;cr:'.:!:r
Otner
.
~r!~.!~
Rep.;rt:/S:.
Fect ;;''':e2~
~ranC:J3
Repurts/S: L
-
-
-------
-, .
Page ~.
03/28/88
7
r:CME/F~~ PAGES
258
DATE
861;)7/10
.~
Co
e~/(:7i16
26N8/(a)
3'3
86/ :::3/23
3SN3/,:S
-'
£~/ :~:..:.I)
;'..')
::./ : 2/!)0
-..
w'
97/0:/')'3
~I.
aill):/:,
~7
87/(':./;:'v
"
a71'::3/12
411
~7;:~)/:7
. .. -. . . . -. .
TriU
at !!eslc!eni:al
Sur/ey on Att.tudes
toward PCB Cc;nta~ination
on property
PCS C12an~p Levels fQr
t~e LaSalle Operable Unit
Final Report
PhascO F~asibility S~~~y
for ?ewediation ~f PC9
Cj~ta~ln~tion at the
I ""1 -- .,....
_i:a..e c.~~ ~l.e
Recard of Decision (RC~)
Re:'Jlts of watel' sa~lple
~2s:~n; ta~en fl~~ a ~ll
a: a ~rlva,e ~eSl:2~~.
5i@:11rg Pla~ f~r ~~e
:~:l Sas S~rvey ~: EWC
PhaS2 !! Rl
CSC ~e~r;r~ wit~ ~p~2r~;:~s
A - Qj
Ij~ediate ~eMOval P~)eet
April 17, 1985 to June
24, 1985
Aocenar.= to ~" for
the ~!/FS of the ~t
HizirdGUS and Texle
ltate-ria 15 reaa
Site Safety Plan
Hycr~;!I)lo;lc Sa=ol:~;
Plan for ~C for Phase
T" OT
.! ...
~CB ica:e~ertt - ~r~G~nIty ~f
LiSille 11m;:s of exei.at~on
alc:'1g
St. V:r~ents Stre~t.
C.:r,!i,i2re:al PI'IJp-;-sal f,j!'
the L~:al12 ~JC ~ca
Abat eMe~lt
AD!'IINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
LAS~ ELECTRICAl UTIL!TIES
LASAlLE. !ll.It.IQIS .
AUTHO~
Greg ~ic~a~d - IEPA
DMCaclicg - ~~A
alacK & Veat:::1
WAcAmklJS - USEPA
Greg :1ict1alJd - IE,:A
::~~l~'gy ~ C;:.v:rc.rHnent
J:.ar~e~~e - U:~A
~::lo~y & Envircnment
E~l,~;y , E.'lVl1"tT'Hnt
E::,lc~y & EnvII'Or.men~
A.~hl:~an - E~lo;1 &
E~v: r'I"r.~n~
~es,~n;~o~se Electr:c Cjr~ .
RECIPiENT
Gloria Crlver. - !~'q
JHooker - tEPA
IEPA
i':r. & ~~. Ri~z
:S:':=i
lEP~
IEPA
John ~)Oker - IE~~
19'A
DCc;;,",ENi "'I~'~
:'\etl.'jr a r~ IJ!I
~r~sco~e~.~
. ~e:c'rts/S:;:.:::
~2D::ranCulJ
. Cor1"es(jc~=r
.
~~~~r':s/S~'.;:
~=::f'~;/S:,;=
~e~:'rts/Sb:
Re~':'t'~:/S::~~
Re::o!'t;/5: .
~rreS~'jr,::~
Ct:-.el'
-------
.
... . ----- .---
.~e No.
_~"9/SS
8
FICH£/F~ PAGES
. -.. . -_.. --.' .
.. -- ..-... ..-"" ..
DATE
24
87/11/1'3
50'3
87/:2/00
BB/OU(I(1
47(:
88/01/(:0
et.\::!:5
89,'O~/17
8S/01128
ea/(12/29
88/03/2:
Tlr~
C~h~uni~y of LaSal~e
AD!'!INI5TRATl'F. RECORD INDEX
LASALLE ELECTRICRl UTILITIES
LASRLLE,lLL!NOIS
AUTHOR
RECIPIeNT
CCCL.IIo!t}IT T'lc
ThOmas Buechler-Black' Veatch John Hooker - tEPA
Re~r~s/S:.~:
~2~~. aadresSlng the issue
of ;Mur.dwater ~val
t echr:o 1 og i es
.inC a report entitled
"!~enti fication
and Preliminary Sc~eening of
R~~!dial Acticn Tec~r~lcgles'.
Fi~al S~pplecental R!
P.e~"rt fc,r ELt
V(j 1 cr.:es 1 and 2
Pr"oc,seo ~lan LaSalle
Elec~rlcal Utilitles
Dre!iQinary Report
.easl:i~:~l Study ~or
~::::e':: ~~ : ,:,n ,~f Gffl1m:;;at 2r
ar~ Ps: !:Jr,tar.l1r.a~ ie,"!
at ~~~ La531l~ :~C Slte
'i,)l w..es 1 ~nd 2
i..e:ar' ;0 ~.C<1r:sor. of
rs.=A r-e:lle;t 1n; Sta~2
ARA~s
Notice of Public Heari~g
re:LaSalle Electrical
~t1lities SuperfUnd
~ Abate!ent ProJEct
RI/FS
~ re: Riview of draft
LiSille Electrlcal
Utilities ROD
LaSalle £l~rl~al
Utilitles Superfur~
Abate~ent ProJect
IR!iF:) Res~Jnsive~ess
Su~ry
~e:!Jt) toe: Final La5a::e
E:~tr:c3l Utilltles ~OD
E:ology & Environment
USEPA
Slack ~ V2atch
. .
Cons.anteios, LSS:~
IEPA
D.~.Ci;)li~e
IEPA
D.:'!. Ca~llc~
IE.t"i
R2~rt$/S~,
~her
lE~'~
~e~:.r~;/::
.
C~i':SCr., !~A
wr're=~:.r.:
~he!'
L'S:;'R Staff
~e:,1Or ar:c '.
!ie~':!'~~1 :
US~;A St..ff
:-'<1!(\rar,::.
------- |