United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office 01
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPAIROD/ROS-89/088
March 1989
3EPA
Superfund
Record of Decision:
Wauconda Sand & Gravel, IL
U.S. Environmentat ~rGtection Agenq
Region Ill. Information Resour~
Center (3PM52),
au Chastnut S\tU1 .. :-;
~fiA d. ~i~
Hazardous Waste Collection
Information Resource Center
US EPA Region 3
PI'1IIadeIphIQI PA 19107
EPA Report Collection
Information Resource Center
US EPA Region :;
Phlladelphia~ PA 1 ~1 01
-------
50272.101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION 11. REPORTNO. 12-
PAGE EPA/ROD/ROS-89/088
:L Aedplenh Acceulon No.
4. Title Ind Subtitle
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Wauconda Sand & Gravel, IL
Second Remedial Action - Final
5. Report DII.
03/31/89
I.
7. Author(I'
L Pwfonnlng OrgeniDtion Rept. No.
8. Pet10nnlng Orgllnlzatlon ....... end Add-
10. ProjectlTlokIWortI Unit No.
11. Contncl(C) or Gren\(G) No.
(C)
(G)
'J. Sooneoring Orglniutlon ....... end Addr-
~.S. Environmental Protection
~Ol M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
1:L Type 01 RepoI1 & PerIod CoWNd
Agency
800/000
14. .
It.. SI_.nwntary No..
II. Abellict (Umll: 200 _rd.)
The 74-acre Wauconda Sand & Gravel site includes 52 acres of permitted and
unpermitted landfill areas and is located in Lake County, Illinois, north of the
village of Wauconda. The area neighboring the site includes agricultural land,
residential properties including 12 homes within 1 mile of the landfill, and 2 new
residential developments. Most residences use well water but the wells lie outside
the ground water flow boundaries of the moderately contaminated shallow aquifer,
which lies directly beneath the site. A deeper aquifer, which is connected to the
shallow aquifer and is the predominant source of drinking water for area residents,
does not appear to be contaminated. From 1941 to mid 1978, the site owner accepted
primarily nonhazardous municipal, residential, commercial, and industrial wastes;
there a~e, however, an estimated 30,000 yd3 of hazardous wastes onsite. The landfill
was closed in July 1978 and was subsequently covered by a layer of clay and soil.
Since the late 1970s leachate has been discharging to a nearby creek, and surface
water sampling taken from this creek has revealed low concentrations of VOCs, PCBs,
and metals. In a 1985 Record of Decision (ROD) EPA determined that a leachate
collection system was needed to prevent further ground water contamination. This
ROD, the second and final operable unit, further characterizes ground water quality
via long-term monitoring to ensure that existing measures are protective of human
I~e:.e:. """--'--'" ~he:.e:.t-\
17. Docurn8nI Anelyll. L D88crtpco..
Record of Decision - Wauconda Sand & Gravel, IL
Second Remedial Action - Final
Contaminated Media: gw, sw, air
Key Contaminants: VOCs (vinyl chloride, benzene), metals (arsenic, lead), methane
b. Identifler8lOpen.End8d Tenno
c. CooA T1 ReldlGroup
18. Avlllobiity 51-
18. SecurIty a... (11111 A8portj
None
2G. SecurIty a... (1111. Page)
None
2t. No. 01 P.gee
107
22. Price
(See ANSl-Z38.18)
SeeIM/nK:/i0fJ8 on ".-
(4-77)
(Fonnat1y NTlS-35)
Departrnant 01 Commerce
-------
EPA/ROD/R05-89/088
Wauconda Sand & Gravel, IL
Second Remedial Action - Final
16.
Abstract (Continued)
health and the environment. The primary contaminants of concern affecting the ground
water, surface water, and air are VOCs including vinyl chloride and benzene; metals
including arsenic and lead; and methane.
The selected remedial action for this site 'includes long-term monitoring of ground
water, surface water, and air emissions with possible evaluation of additional remedial
alternatives and a ROD amendment if action levels are exceeded; further upgrade of the
site cap and possible relocation of a nearby creek; installation and operation of an
improved venting system with possible air emissions treatment; continued operation
and/or maintenance of the leachate collection and venting systems, site cap, fence, and
monitoring well network; and implementation of institutional controls to restrict
ground water use. The estimated present worth cost for this remedial action is
$12,155,606, which includes annual O&M costs of $174,500.
-------
IJEI:£l\Rl\TIrn Fm REIIIID OF DEI:ISIrn
RE1-1EDIAL ~JE S&.EI:.l'ICN
5ITE
Wauconda sand & Gravel 5i te
Wauconda, IL
~ OF ~I5 AND I'URFa)E
This decision docurrent presents the remedial action for the Wauconda Sand ~
Gravel 5i te in accordance with the Carprehensi ve Environmental Res:fX)nse,
Conpen.sation and Liability" Act of 1980 (CERCI.A), as amended by the SUperfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, (SARA), and the National Oil
and Hazardous" SUbstance Pollution Contingency Plan, 40 CFR Part 300,
November 20, 1985.
T1~ State of Illinois (through the Illinois Envirornnental Protection AgPJ1cy)
has bel"!n provided an opportmrity to conment on the technology and degree of
trE'.atment prop:>sed by the Record of Decision and has concurred with the
~ele....-ted remedy.
~mJj!J'1CNl' OF B1\SI5
\
'l'his decision is based on the administrative record for the Wauconda site.
The attached index (Appendix) identifies the i tans which corrprise the
administrative record.
~rn OF ~.FrT'rn REJo1EDY
'l"his is the final of two operable mrits for this site. 'Ihe first operable
uni t addressed the release of leachate to M.1tton Creek, the direct contact
threat via groundwater and air anissions and took measures to reduce
infiltration through the site cover. 'Ihese were addressed by implementation
of the following remedial measures:
Installation of leachate collection drains to stop surface leachate
discharge into l\'hltton Creek;
provision for leachate dis:fX)Sal at Wauconda se.rage treatment plant,
if acceptable, or at a hazardous waste treatment facility;
R~rading of settled, depressed and eroded areas on the existing"
Jandfill soil cover with sufficient slope to prorrote and control
rain nmoff. 'Ibis was to eliminate 1XIDding and reduce infiltration:
Revegetation of bare and eroded areas to prevent erosion of soils
into H..ltton Creek, and e>qX>sureof landfill materials;
-------
-2-
Construction of a fence around the site to prevent human contact
wi th gas vents and the leachate collection system.
Because the groundwater data was inconclusive, a decision on the remedial
action for the groundwater was deferred \IDtil further investigation was
. completed. The additiOnal investigation of air emissions and ground-water
have been completed. Based on the results of previous studies, the
additional investigation and the limited effectiveness of the clay cap
repairs, the U. S. EPA has decided to inplement the fOllowing remedial
actions. The State of Illinois concurs with the selected remedy. The
Record of Decision (ROD) can be amended if new data shows that it is
necessary .
Long term roni toring of ground water and MJ.tton Creek with action
levels to reopen the ROD;
Continued roni toring of the downgradient contaminant plume with
action levels to reopen the ROD;
Addi tional air emission control including new and additional vents
and, if determined necessary, an active collection system. with a
gretmd flare or other appropriate treatment;
IIt1IX>sition of restrictions on usage. of on-site ground water.
The site is considered to be the property on which the landfill is
located;
UpJrade of the northern portion of the site cover to reduce
in£iltration, reduce surface gas emissions, control erosion due to
r\ID-off from the site and. due" to erosion from Mutton Creek. .
COntinued operation of the leachate cOllection systan;
rJ
Long term inspection and maintenance of the gas venting and leachate
. collection systems, site cover, fence, and the roni toring well
network.
J
DEI:I:ARAT.ICN
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment,
attains Federal and State requirements that are applicable or relevant
and appropriate, and is cost-effective. This remedy satisfies the
preference for treatment that reduces toxicity, nobility or VOlLUne as a
principal element. Finally, it is determined that this remedy utilizes
pennanent solutions and alternative treatment (or resource recovery)
tedmologies to the maximum extent practicable for this site. The size of
the landfill and the fact that there are no on-site hot SFOts tJ1at represent
the major sources of contamination preclude a remedy in which contaminants
-------
-3-
could be effectively excavated and treated. In-situ bicx1egradation will
continue to be the principal method of treatment.
Because this remedy will result in hazardous SUbstances remaining onsi te
above health-based levels, a review will be conducted within five years
after conmencement of remedial action to ensure that the remedy continues
, to provide adequate protection of htnnan health and the environment.
~.£( 1t-t. ~~1
~valdas v. Adamkus '
RegiOnal Administrator
~/311~~i
Date
Attachments :
(1) SUIrmary of Ranedial Alternative selection
(2) Canm.mi ty Relations Responsiveness SUrrmary
-------
SUmnary of Ralaiial Alternative
selection at the Waucanda SaIXi and
Gravel Site
-------
1.0
1.1
. 1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
2.0
.2.1
2.2
3.0
4.0
5.0
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
Tables
TABLE. OF CCNrENrS
Location Description
Physiography
Site History and Enforcement Activities
Nature and EXtent of Contamination
Public Health Issues
cormumity Relations
Alternative Technologies for Remedial Action
Evaluation Criteria
Applicable or Appropriate and Relevant Requirements (ARAR,s)
selection of Recomrended Program
SUnmary of Evaluation of Remedial Alternatives
The Selected Remedy
Reccmnended Program
Contingency Plan
Justification for M:xiification of the Prop:>sed Plan
Statutory Detenninations
1.0 SUrnnary of ARARs
2.
Comp:irison of Costs for Remedial Alternatives
Attachment A - Leachate, groundwater, surface water and
sediment analysis
B - Landfill waste stll11T'larY
C - Groundwater Analyses - Comparison Data
SUrrarary
-------
Ficrores
lA&lB
. 2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
D - Mutton Creek surface Water and sediment
Analyses
E - Risk Analyses
Si te Maps
Landfill cross section
Northern boundary cross section
Upper aquifer gradient
Lower aquifer gradient
surface Water Drainage Patterns
'"
-------
1
1.0 Location DescriPtion
The Wauconda Sand and Gravel site is located in Lake County, Illinois, north
of the Village of Wauconda and three miles east of the Village of Island
Lake. The 74-acre site is comprised of a 43-acre unpermitted landfill, a
nine-acre permitted landfill, an additional nine acres which are excavated
but unfilled, and 13 acres of perimeter site area. The nine acres at the
southern part of the site were permitted by the IEPA as a sanitary landfill
. (Figure 1). This site is bordered on the east by Garland Road, on the south
by Bonner Road, and on the west by pasture and cropland. Surface drainage
from the site is predominantly to the north into foIIutton Creek. l'-hltton Creek
drains into Island Lake, which is approximately 3-1/2 miles west of the
site.
Approximately 12 homes are located. within one quarter mile north and east of
the landfill per:irneter. A new developnent called Valentine Lakes Estates is
located farther northeast. A residential developnent of approximately 100
homes known as the Hillcrest carmumity is located east of the site. These
residences are on well water but 90 percent are outside the groU1'1d'...rater flow
boundaries from the site in the shallow aquifer. The landfill itself is
zoned within tile municipal bmmdaries of tile Village of Wauconda; tile
surrounding homes and Hillcrest cOImDJIlity are not located within the city
limits.
Southeast of the site is the Village of Wauconda. Village residents are
IrOstly on a mmicipal water system although some private residential wells
are in use. One of the mmicipal wells is located near Bonner Road
approximately 1000 feet east of the site. This well is rep;:>rtecl.ly 1027
feet deep, in the bedrock beneath the lower aquifer. There are also a
recyc:ling center, auto reclaimer, and construction company and one residence
located adjacent to the land£ill along its eastern border.
1. 1 Phvsioqraphv
The Wauconda area is located in the Valparaiso M:>raine System where the
surface top;:>graphy is C()ITltX)sed of low ridges and hills interspersed with
lakes and peat bogs in low elevation areas. The surface features are
underlain by 100 to 200 feet of glacial till deposits of varying
cOlt'fOsitions and extent.
The site overlies two aquifers. A shallow aquifer, which is believed to
have limited contamination, 1.ies directly beneath the landfill and overlies
an impermeable layer of glacial till. A deeper aquifer lies below the till
layer. Bedrock underlies the lower aquifer at depths of 200 to 300 feet
below the surface (Figure 2). .
Based on the rep::>rted landfill depth,. measured ground water elevations
and ground surface contours, it has been determined that only a small
percentage, if any, of the total landfill volume lies below the water t.1ble
in the upper aquifer. All nearby residents are believed to have w-ells in
-------
2
the lower aquifer and sampling results have not indicated an impact from the
site on these wells.
Five stratigraphic units underlie the site.
These are:
1)
2)
A surficial Clayey Silt Unit;
An Upper Sand Unit (upper aquifer) ;
3)
4)
A Clay Unit (aquitard) (Its continuity is uncertain) ;
A Lower Sand Unit (lower aquifer); and
5)
A !x)lomitic Bedrock Unit.
The structure of these units at the site is shown in the southwest to
northeast cross-section in Figure 2. It is uncertain whether the aquitard
separating the upper and lower aquifers is continuous' near the site. The
two aquifers are known to be connected 1500 feet east of the site (Figure
3). Flow in the upper aquifer is to the north and northeast (Figure 4)
while flow in the lower aquifer is to the southwest (Figure 5). It is
predicted that an interconnection between the upper and Im.ler aquifers
exists 1000-1200 feet north or northeast (downgradient groundwater flow
direction) from the site.
The volume of the landfill is estimated to be between 2.8-3.1 million cubic
yards. In the northern part of the unpermitted landfill, wastes may be
separated from the aquifer by a J;X>rtion of the surficial clay silt unit and
in the southern part wastes are above sandy material but are IrOStly above
the water table. In the permitted landfill wastes were placed above the
water table and a compacted clay liner installed on the bottom and sides.
1.2 Site Historv and Enforcement Activities
Prior to 1941 the Site was a sand and gravel operation. Between 1941 and
1977, before the State required landfills to be permitted, the northern
three-quarters of the Site was used as a landfill. This FOrtion of the Site u
is known as the t.Il'1t=:ermi tted landfill. Waste disposal in the unpermitted
section of the landfill generally conmenced in the southern J;X>rtion and
progressed northerly. In June 1977, a nine-acre p::>rtion in the southern
one-fourth of the Site was permitted for solid waste disJ;X>sal (permitted
landfill) by IEPA and was operated until July 1978 when the entire Site was
closE:.'d and covered by a layer of clay and soil. During its operation, the
landfill received municipal, residential, commercial and industrial wastes.
Si te acti vi ties have been IrOni tored by the IEPA since the mid-1970s. The
site property was sUbsequently used for recreational activities inCluding
rifle practice, !rodel airplane flying and snoWIIDbiling. Site access is
currently restricted by a security fence.
,j
Problems with leachate discharge to Mutton Creek as well as groundwater
contamination were recorded in a July 10, 1974 report by Testing Engineers,
Inc. In the 1974 report, as well as in sampling results from the
-------
3
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) in 1975, levels of chloride,
total dissolved solids, sodilIDl and other parameters upstream and downstream
in MJ.tton Creek indicated that the landfill was having a substantial effect
on the water quality of MJ.tton Creek. In 1976, the operator took measures
to control this leachate discharge under a "Compliance Agreement" with IEPA.
In 1980, records show that IEPA inspectors observed leachate seepage into
MJ.tton Creek. Also in 1980, IEPA detected PCB in one residential well, a
number of ITOnitoring wells and in surface water samples from the site. In
1981, the United States Envirornnental Protection Agency W".S. EPA) received
' an anonyrrous retX)rt that 600,000 gallons of FCB had been distX)sed of at the
site. Based primarily on the alx>ve preliminary aSsessment infonnation, u.S.
EPA determined a Hazardous Ranking System score for the site and in
September 1983, it was placed on the National Priori ties List, which made it
eligible for investigation and remedial action under the Comprehensive
Environmental RestX)nse, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCIA) program.
In 1983, the U.S. EPA initiated a tX)tentially reStX)nsible party (PRP) search
and a remedial investigation (RI) for the Wauconda Sand and Gravel site.
u.S. EPA identified fifteen PRPs, sane of whom organized into a group" called
the Wauconda Task Group (WIG). The RI included ground water, air, leachate,
surface water and surface sediment Sampling. The first report on the
remedial investigation was the Remedial Investiqation Data Remrt August 29,
1984. This was followed by the Remedial Investiqation AnalvsislDevelol:rnent
of Alternatives Rerort Novanber 1, 1984.
NO PCBs were detected in samples taken during the RI although metals and
some organic compounds were identified as being at levels of concern. The
WIG reviewed these rep::>rts and contended that data gaps and deficiencies
existed in these retX)rts. In restX)nse, both the u.S. EPA and the WIG
conducted limited additiOnal sampling. The results of the additional
Sampling by u.S. EPA are included in the Remedial Investiqation SUpplement,
July 1985. The feasibility study (FS) was completed and included in the
Public Cornnent Draft Feasibilitv StudY, August 1, 1985. The WIG "
conmmicated a mnnber of disagreements with these rep::>rts during the public
cornnent period.
Record of Decision - 1985
Based on the foregoing studies and the public COIm61ts, U. S. EPA decided to
implement a first operable unit in a Record of Decision (ROD) dated
september 30, 1985. In this ROD, U.S. EPA concluded that a release of
cO:1taminants to MJ.tton Creek was occurring due to the high concentration of
CadmllIDl, zinc, lead, silver and ChromilIDl and cyanide in the leaChate. It
was concluded that the effect of the leachate discharge could not be
measured but that it may have an adverse effect.
u.s. EPA also concluded that a release to the ground water was occurring.
The low levels of contaminants detected and limited arrount of data made
quantification of the contaminants in" the groundwater difficult at that
time. It '.;as concluded that additional" grOl.md water sampling and
investigations were needed.
-------
4
u.s. EPA detennined that direct contact with leachate and close awroach to
the landfill vents by trespassers could have an adverse health effect, and
to address that threat, that access to the site should be restricted.
The following remedial actions were specified to eliminate the discharge of
leachate to r-tltton Creek and restrict access to the leachate collection
system and landfill vents:
- installation of a leachate collection system to intercept leachate
drainage before it reaches r-tltton Creek;
- provision for off-site leachate dispoSal;
- regrading of settled, depressed and eroded areas on the landfill cover
with sufficient slope to reduce infiltration and prom::>te rain run-off;
- revegetation of bare and ponded areas to prevent erosion of soils into
r-tltton Creek and exposure of landfill materials;
- construction of a fence around the site to protect the landfill cover and
to prevent h1.m\an contact. with gas vents and leachate collection system.
Operable Unit No. 1 RDIRA.
Following the ROD, U.S. EPA and IEPA began negotiations with the WIG for
inplementation of the operable unit and for conduct of a supplemental
remedial investigation/feasibility study (RIffS). U.S. EPA and IEPA
reached an agreement with the WIG under which the WIG would (1) undertake
Remedial Design and Remedial Action activities to implement the operable
unit remedial actions and (2) undertake a. supplemental RIffS. The Consent
Order for this first Remedial Design and Action (RD/RA) became effective on
July 28, 1986. The WIG initiated the supplemental RIffS in August 1986,
sul::rnitted a draft report in August 1987, and a final report in Novenber
1987. U.S. EPA and IEPA reviewed the final report and prepared an Amendment
to it in April 1988. The November 1987 report from the WIG along with this
amendment and the additiOnal investigation repJrt prepared by Metcalf and
Eddy for U. S. EPA and dated Jan. 1989 constitutes the complete RI/FS for the
pJrpose of this ROD.
~
The WIG completed installation of the fence ,the leachate collection system
p.u-suant to RD/RA Consent Order, and some of the site cover repairs by
Septenber 1, 1987. The WIG was to have Completed the remainder of the site
cover repairs during the SlIDtner of 1988.
There were leachate discharges to r-tltton Creek from the Wauconda si te duri ng
construction and during the fall of 1987 due to equipnent failures. U.s.
EPA has increased its inspections and outlined procedures to be fOllowed to
prevent future discharges to r-tltton Creek.
According to the Consent Order signed June 8, 1986, WIG was resrx:>nsible for
leachate collection. On September 30, 1988 a second Consent Order was
-------
5
signed with Browning and Ferris Industries to continue cap maintenance and
leachate removal through ~ay 31, 1989.
'!he U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) reviewed the site and recornnended
erosion control and other maintenance tasks needed to reduce infiltration
through the site cover.
In March 1988, U.S. EPA and IEPA ordered the WIG to conduct additional
downgradient sampling. U.S. EPA conducted additiOnal air sampling in May
'and October of 1988.
In May 1988, U.S. EPA sent special notice letters to the PRPs that had
been identified. M:>difications to the PrOFOsed Plan caused FOstFOnement
of the "good faith proFOsal" deadline. Revised special notice letters were
sent December 16, 1988. The PRPs were r~red to sutrnit a good faith
proFOsal by February 20, 1989.
1.3 Nature and ~ent of Contamination
In 1980, volatile organic cOIYlFOunds (VOCs) and FOlychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs) were detected in a private well near the eastern boundary of the
landfill. SUbsequent investigations conducted by IEPA and the Lake County
Health Department detected PCBs, metals and VOCs in groundwater and surface
water. The site was then placed on the National Priorities List (NPL) in
1983, making it eligible for a federally funded remedial action. PCBs have
not been detected in any Sampling conducted since U.S. EPA started its site
investigations in 1983.
Groundwater:
GrOLmdwater contamination at the Wauconda site has been limited to
relatively low concentrations of contaminants. 'll1.e selected renedy will
further characterize groundwater quality via long tenn rroni toring to ensure
that existing measures are protective of human health and the environment.
Natural attenuation via nonnal biodegradation of contamination is expected
to occur. . If rronitoring well samples indicate that offsite groundwater
contamination levels are above health-based risk assessment levels or do not
meet ARARs, then the Agency will reopen the ROD and select an appropriate
resp:>nse action. Attachment A slIl1'm3Iizes the ground water data and compa.res
contaminant concentrations up'- and downgradient of the site and in tl1e
leachate.
'!he data clearly shows that high COD, chloride, soditnn and other wClter
parameters exist in the upper aquifer downgradient from the site due to
leachate from the landfill. Iron and zinc are also at elevated levels
downgradient from the site. All these parameters are expected contaminants
from sanitary landfi lls. 0110ride concentrations are higher in some
downgradient wells than in on-site wells. This indicates that the chloride
plt.nne may have already migrated past the existing rronitoring well network.
-------
6
Leachate:
The estimated total volume of the landfilled waste is 2.8-3.1 million
cubic yards (conpacted). A complete record of the contents of the wastes
disposed of in the landfill does not exist. The documentation suggests
that approximately 10% of the landfill volume was filled with wastes from
industries. The available documentation on hazardous wastes (approximately
1 percent of the total landfill volume that were disposed of at the site) is
sunnnarized in Attachment B.
Thirteen leachate sanples have been analyzed for a large range of inorganic
and organic hazardous substances since U. S. EPA started investigating the
site in 1983. The leachate from the site is high in chemical oxygen demand
(OOD), chlorides, ammonia, iron, calci1.nn, magnesium, sodium and zinc. Other
metals, phenolics, phthalates and a large number of volatile organic earn-
poun::1s (such as methylene chloride, acetone, 2-butanone) were also present
at elevated concentrations in the leachate. Leachate concentrations are
conpared to constituents detected in ground water and surface water in
Attachments C and, D. Studies have shown that the highest contaminant
concentrations in leachate from landfills normally occur early in the
history of the landfill. Inasmuch as the last portion of the Wauconda
Landfill was filled ten years ago, concentrations of leachate contaminants
are not expected to increase.
site Cover:
The thickness of the site cover was previously measured in 47 locations and
13 laboratory permeability tests were :run on sanples frem the existing soil
cover. The cap thickness is fram 3.5 to 5 feet aver l'OC)St of the site. '!he
cap is made up of clay or silty clay with a thin vegetative layer on top.
The measured permeability of the cap soils was frem 6x10-8 to 3x10-7 crvsec.
Using the measured permeability, it was estimated that the infiltration
through the site cover could be as low as one inch per year averaged aver
the entire cover. However, the actual infiltration through the site cover '
is considerably greater than this estimate because of cracks present in the
cover. Since a large portion of the landfill is umerlain by sarx:ly soil,
there is a continuing release of hazardous substances in the lead1ate to the
groun:i water.
'"
Soil borings perfonned in 1988 shows numerous isolated areas of the landfill
cover to have clay covers thicknesses of less than 3.5 feet, less than 2
feet and serre less than one foot. Gas emissions have been absel:ved in these
areas (lnj infiltration of water is contributing to the leachate production
and migration to the groundwater.
Air Emissions:
Sanpling data from 1988 indicate that no immediate action is required, but
with cap inprovernents, models suggest that additional vents are needed to
control methane migration to the perimeter of the site. If new Jronitoring
data indicate that incremental carcinogenic risk to nearby residents is
-------
7
greater than 10-6 lifetime exposure to airborne contaminants from the site,
then it will be necessaxy to provide gas emission control systems.
lateral migration arx:i surface releases indicate that the existing vent
system does not provide sufficierit escape pathways for the expected quantity
of methane and other gases produced in a larxifill of this size.
Risk assessments by the EPA Air arxi Radiation Brandi, am Metcalf arx:i Eddy
indicate that a number of properly installed additional vent pipes must be
placed in the larxifill arxi ronitored. If analyses indicate that a risk
still remains, an active collection system with ground level flares or other
treatJnei1t will be iIrplemented. '!his ROD will be reopened to incorporate
such air emissions treatment systems.
1. 4 Public Health Issues
As part of the SUpplemental Remedial Investigation arx:i Feasibility Study
(SRI/FS), a risk assessment was corxiucted which utilized environmental data
collected during the RI. '!he purpose of the risk assessment was to .
detennine the present or future potential adverse effects of the site on
public health arx:i the enviromnent. '!he risk assessment identified three
potential migration pathways for contamination from the site. '!hese
pathways are surface water, groundwater, and air.
SUrface Water Route
With respect to surface water, Mutton creek is identified as the only point
of direct contact. Mutton creek flows into Island lake, which is used for
recreation arx:i fishing. Since the late 1970s, leachate from seeps alorg the
northern Perimeter of the site has entered Mutton Creek. Trace levels of
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were detected in surface water and
sediment samples collected dCMnstream of the larxifill. '!he concentrations
of these VOCs in surface water were slightly higher in downstream samples
than in scmq:>les collected iInmecliately upstream of the site. Each VOC
detected was below the drinking water stanJards for that substance. '!he
Proposed Plan calls for continued ronitoring of surface water for VOCs am
other parameters. Failure of the site leachate collection system arrljor
site cap would be detected by this scmq:>ling.
Pesticides were not detected in any surface water samples except those
collected directly dC7Nl1stream of a fann field drainage ditch which is
iInmecliately downstream of the larxifill. '!hese may have been present due to
agric::ultural usage in the area since no pesticides were foun:::l in larrlfill
leachate. It does not appear that the site is the source of pesticides in
Mutton Creek.
lr:M levels of Base/Neutral/Acid extractable compounds (BNAs) were foun:::l in
surface water samples collected immediately upstream arx:i downstream of the
larxifill. Similar trace levels of BNAs were foun:::l in sediment samples
adjacent to arxi upstream of the landfill.
-------
8
Metals such as iron, potassium and sodium were detected da..mstrearn at higher
levels in Mutton Creek surface water, than upstream. PCBs were not detected
in any surface water, sediment or landfill leachate samples during this
study. Dioxin was not detected in the sediment samples analyzed for this
compound.
'!he 1985 ROD, concluded that the leachate exceeded the Ambient Water Quality
Criteria (~) for protection of fresh water aquatic life for the following
parameters: cadmium, zinc, lead, silver, chromium, and cyanide. '!hese
parameters also exceeded ~ in some of the leachate samples collected for
SRI/FS and subsequent sampling.
'!he ~ for ammonia, copper, arsenic and iron were exceeded in same
leachate samples and the State of Illinois General Use StaOOards were
exceeded for copper, iron, silver, zinc, phenols, boron, manganese,
chloride, sulfate and total dissolved solids. However, the ~ for iron
and lead and the Illinois General Use Standard for iron were also exceeded
in some upstream samples from Mutton Creek.
'!he state of Illinois Cleanup Objectives Team has recormnended that any
leachate cliscllaIge to Mutton Creek should meet drinking water staOOards.
Many of the VOCs and metals in the leachate exceed drinking water standards.
It was concluded that the leachate discharge had a negative itrpact on
aquatic life in Mutton Creek especially during low flow periods in the
Creek. since no accumulation of metals or arsenic was detected in
downstream sediments, there is no indication of any long term affect on the
water quality or biota.
Groundwater Route
CJrrently, there is no c:x:mp1eted pathway for human exposure to contaminated
grourrlwater. However, grourrlwater from the upper aquifer will eventually
migrate to the lower aquifer. In addition, a drinking water well may be
developed in the upper aquifer in the future. Since the upper aquifer does
not discharge to surface water, there is no potential inpact on other
aspects of the enviromnent including air, soil and aquatic life.
Some general water quality parameters such as chloride, sodium, and total
dissolved solids fom a pluzre in the upper aquifer downgradient fran the
site. '!hese parameters are considered nonnal contaminants fran sanitary
landfills and are not considered toxic.
'!he residential well data showed no contamination of human health concern
according to ATSDR. Available infonnation indicates that the active
residential wells are screened in the lower sarxi aquifer or a bedrock
aquifer.
-------
9
'lWo mx1es of extXJsure exist for the future:
1.
Installation of a new residential well within a potential landfill
plume in the lower aquifer;
2.
l'vIigration of contaminants in the plume to downgradient
residential wells in the lower aquifer.
, In order for contaminants to affect downgradient residential wells in the
low'er aquifer, the constituents IlUlSt first migrate. through the up;;:er
aquifer. Therefore, if the risks are acceptable in the shallow aquifer, the
downgradient lower aquifer will also be protected.
The selected indicator chemicals for the ground water risk assessment are:
arsenic; lead; nickel; benzene; tetrachloroethene; vinyl chloride; and
n-nitrous~phenylamine. The procedures used to evaluate the risk to hlUT\C3l1
health for each indicator chemical were compared with the U.S. EPA Maximum
Contaminant Limits (M:Ls), or, if r.-a.s were not available, to the 10-6
carcinogenic risk level for lifetime drinking water usage calculated using
U.S. EPA p)tency factors. Other EPA guidance values were also used.
The CLmUllati ve carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks were also calculated
for the indicator parameters, and all liver carcinogens and liver toxicants.
The results are shown in Attachment E. The results show that average
concentrations for arsenic, lead, vinyl chloride and benzene, exceeded the
MCLs in same on-site monitoring wells. The average risk levels for
tetrachloroethene and n-ni trous~phenylamine exceeded the 10-6 risk level
in some on-site monitoring wells.
In off-site ronitoring wells, none of the averages exceed the M:Ls except
for lead in well G203A. Well G203A is a former residential well that is now
being used. as a roni toring well. The very high lead concentrations in this
well are inconsistent with lead concentrations in nearby wells. Therefore,
it is believed that the lead detected in G203A is a contaminant from the
well construction.
The vinyl chloride averages are essentially equal to the r-a.' in tw-o off-site
ronitoring wells, and the benzene average is near Ule M:L in one off-site
well. During round 7 of sarrpling, the vinyl chloride concentration in well
Oii403 was 2.8 ug/l, which is above the M:L of 2 ug/l. '
TIle 10-6 risk level was exceeded b~{ arsenic, tetrachloroethene, vinyl
chloride and benzene in some off-site roni toring wells. The risk levels
in off-site ronitoring wells were as high as 5xlO-4 for arsenic, 2xlO-6 for
tetrachloroethylene, lxlO-4 for vinyl chloride and 4xlO-6 for benzene. For
arsenic, vinyl chloride and benzene the M:Ls are established above the. 10-6
risk level and as a result, the average concentrations for these ccrnp:)Unds
do not exceed the M:Ls. Tetrachloroethene was detected during round 6, in
one off-site, downgradient sample at 1.8 ug/l which makes the average above
the 10-6 risk level. Ho',.,rever, during round 6, tetrachloroethene was
detected at slinilar concentrations in three residential wells outside Ule
influence of the landfill. TIle ATSDR reviewed the residential well dat~ and
-------
10
determined that the tetrachloroethene detected in the residential wells did
not indicate an unacceptable hUIParl health threat. Tetrachloroethene was not
detected any rrore frequently in rroni toring wells downgradient from the site
than in upgradient or crossgradieni or lower aquifer wells.
The cumulative carcinogenic risk. levels were then calculated. Based on
these calculations, it was determined that arsenic and vinYl chloride 'Were
the COIT1p)lmds of primary concern for carcinogenic risk. The calculated risk
levels for vinyl chloride were small compared to those for arsenic even
though arsenic was well below its rox::r. in off-site ground water (30 ug/l was
'the highest concentration in any off-site ground water sarrple).
In one lower aquifer rronitoring well, trichloroethene was detected during
the last three rounds of samplings. Tetrachloroethylene was also detected
in three samples but was at or below the 10-6 carcinogenic risk level. The
concentration was above the M:L in one sample. There is a IX>ssibility that
the lower aquifer could be affected by the plume from the site because of
uncertainty in the continuity of the aquitard. Benzene was detected near
the M:L in one out of two Sampling rounds. Trichloroethene was detected
near its r-a in one out of two Sampling rounds. Trichloroethene was
detected near its r-a in one out of three Sampling rounds and n-
nitrosodiphenylamine was detected at above the 10-6 carcinogenic risk level
in one out of two sampling rounds.
In conclusion, the on-site noni toring well data indicates that usage of
ground water from the upper aquifer below the site property presents an
unacceptable health risk to future developtalt. Off-site ground water in
the upper aquifer near the site does not exceed concentrations considered
acceptable for drinking water usage.
A plume of chlorides, total dissolved solids, COD and other constituents
that are typical of sanitary landfills is migrating from the site to the
north and northeast. The plume is expected to reach 1200 feet downgradient
from the site, which is significantly past the existing noni toring well
network. TI1e ground water in a large IX>rtion of the plume is probably
Ul1pC:llatable. Concentrations of chlorides and total dissolved solids exceed
secondary ~I:Ls in large IX>rtions of the plume off the site. SOdium is
present at concentrations that may be of concern to persons on a low sodium
diet.
The continuity of the aquitard does not extend to the east sufficiently
to fully protect the lower aquifer. Therefore, it is IX>ssible d1at
contaminants could migrate to the lower aquifer, and affect the residential
'".;ells in the lower aquifer. If infiltration from above is limited, the low
concentration of contaminants detected in the lower aquifer noni toring wells
will be attenuated by dilution and biological decoIT1p)si tion.
Air Route
Nearby residences are considered IX>tential ex{:X)sure J;X>ints for contamination
emanating from dle landfill in tlle form of gases and va};X)rs. A "walk
through" air quality survey identified elevated levels of organic va[.Ors
-------
11
near gas vents and cracks in the soil cover on site. The u.s. £FA.
detennined that the comp:>und-specific air emissions data from the RI
(Remedial Investigation Data Re.lX)rt, 1984) are unreliable due to quality
assurance problems. The pro.lX)sed remedy addresses the need for additional
remediation of air enissions from the landfill. Further testing in May
1988 indicates a carcinogenic health risk of 10-6, according to air models.
The pro.lX)sed remedy addresses the need. for additional remediation of air
enissions from the landfill.
. The U.S. £FA. Region V recorrmends that rore gas vents and, if required, a gas
control system be installed on the landfill for the following reasons.
'Ibtal peak risk offsi te ranges from 10-7 to greater than 10-6, depending on
the emission scenario. Gi ven the \mcertainties in gas vent flow rates, the
anission rates from the landfill cap, the .lX)ssibility that with the
installation of a better grade cap, the landfill gas will be forced to flow
laterally, and the proximity of residential housing to the landfi 11, U. S.
£FA. believes that the installation of a gas treatment system, either flaring
or carbon adsorption, is an appropriate conservative measure for this site
if these projected .lX)tential gas emission rates are achieved.
'TIle very high levels of methane (as high as greater than 800% of the Lower
EXplosive Limit) present a safety hazard on site. If the methane gas
migrates offsite and enters basements of nearby homes, a public health
hazard will develop.
Although U.S. EPA does not currently regulate landfill emissions, work has
cornnenced, to prop:>se regulation in the future. A preliminary background
document on lT1lll1icipal solid waste landfills notes that the estimated
efficiency for destruction of methane through flaring or capture through
adsorption is 98%, and the ARB expects that guidelines will require some or
all rmmicipal landfills to neet this destruction efficiency~ If such
regulations are finalized, they will become Applicable or Relevant and
Appropriate for the Wauconda site in order to ensure public health, safety
and welfare.
1.5 Community Relations
For the first operable tmi t, a public comnent period was held from August
12-30, 1985 and a public meeting was held on August 14, 1985.
The p.lblic conment period for the second operable unit proposed remedy was
conducted from May 2-May 25, 1988 and a p.lblic meeting was held on May 11,
1988. The SRI/FS, Proposed Plan and the Mninistrati ve Record were made
available at the Wauconda Public Library prior to initiation of the public
conment period. The cornnents received during the public cornnent period are
included in the Res.lX)nsiveness SUrnnary. '
Other p.lblic meetings were held on December 8, and December 14, 1988 to
discuss the questions brought up in the May 11, 1988 meeting and the results
of subsequent air enissions testing.
-------
12
2.0 Alternative Technolocdes for Remedial Action
A set of remedial alternatives were evaluated in the SRI/FS rep:>rt, to
address contamination at the Wauconda Sand and Gravel site. Initially,
fifteen alternatives were subjected to a preliminary screening for
implementability, effectiveness and cost.
Excavation
Emission control
SOlids/semi SOlids treatment
Liquids treatment
In situ treatment
3:>licE dj~l (U1trEBt:ai va:te;)
Capping
Vertical contairnnent barriers
Horizontal contairnnent barriers
Ground water pmping
SUbSUrface drains
Liquids disp:>sal (untreated wastes)
Gas cOllection systems
Alternative water supply'
Incineration
The response actions selected in this Record of Decision are measures
designed to complement the first operable unit partial remedy. Continued
leachate collection and additiOnal improvements to the site cap will reduce
releases of contaminants from the landfill to the surrounding envirol1l11ent.
Four of these alternatives were selected for further analysis.
ALTEBNATIVE 1:
ro ACI'ICN (Statutorv Reauirement)
Alternative 1 requires no further action beyond a one-year maintenance
period on the interim remedial measures (IRMs) implemented under the June 8,
1986 Consent Order. No additional remedy will be executed under this .
alternative. No rronitoring would l:e conducted to measure potential changes
in surface water and ground water quality. .
ALTERNATIVE 2: LONG TERM H:I'JI'JDRll.K; WIlli ACI'ICN LEVELS 'TO RIDPEN ROD:
FURIHER UR:;RADE OF '!HE SITE CAP: CCNI'JNUED OPERATICN AND !\~ OF '!HE
SITE CAP. F:EN:E AND LEAaIATE COILEX:;.ITrn SYSTEM: USE RESTRIcrrrns Q.'J '!HE
SHALLCW AOUIFER BELCW 'lliE SITE: Al'ID ADDITICNAL rnvESTIGATION CU. S. £FA and
IEPA RecOrnnended Alternative)
The long-tenn rronitoring with action levels (generally equal to drinking
water standards or health based criteria) to reopen the ROD will provide
protection for ground water users. The 30 year long-tenn rroni toring program
will include annUal sampling of r-1u.tton Creek and 11 ronitoring wells, and
quarterly sampling of six rronitoring wells. If it is detennined that
hazardous substances are present above relevant action levels, and that they
originated from the site, alternatives for additiOnal remedial action will
be evaluated. Continued operation and maintenance of the leachate
COllection system will assure that leachate discharge to f'D..1tton Creek: does
-------
13
not occur. Furtl1er upjrading and maintenance of the site cap is needed to
prevent erosion and to reduce infiltration into the landfill from preci-
pitation. t-1aintaining the site fence will prevent damage to the site cap
from unauthorized use of the property. Use restrictions on the shallow
aquifer inrnediately below the site will prevent hlII1'aI1 consumption of ground
water containing hazardous substances above drinking water standards.
During the first year of remedial action, U.s. EPA and IEPA are recornnending
additional ground water and air emissions Ironitoring. Part of the Ironitoring
. would include installation and Ironitoring of two to four additiOnal down-
gradient wells in the upper aquifer to the north apd northeast of the Site.
'!he wells would be placed near the leading edge of the contaminated plume
because the contaminant plume may have migrated beyond the existing Ironi toring
well network. Addi tional Sampling of wells in the deep aquifer, near where
contaminants have been detected, is also recorrmended. Additional air
emissions data will be used to evaluate any risk from additional vents. If
this investigation identifies an unacceptable risk, remedial alternatives,
such as an active venting and grmmd flare system will be evaluated. Radon
concentration levels ITUlSt also be considered in this evaluation.
ALTERNATIVE 3: GROUND WATER PUMPJN:; AND ~:
'!his alternative woula provide a ground water pumping system designed to
contain liquids from the landfill. It is estimated to require several
pl.m1ping wells that together would rerrove 200 gpn from the ground water.
A treatment system for the water would be needed that would include metals
precipitation, and p:>ssibly vex: rem::>val and Salinity reduction. The
repaired cap, fence and leachate collection system also would be maintained
beyond the original Consent Order perioo. Following treatment, water would
be discharged to ~fi1tton Creek, which would require subsequent !Toni toring .
Ground water Ironi toring and leachate collection system operation is
identical to that in Alternative 2.
ALTERNATIVE 4:
SYNlHEI'IC LINER CAP
This alternative involves adding a new synthetic liner cap over the e.xisting
clay cap, as well as operating and maintaining the leachate collection
system, for the length of the Consent Order period. The cap 'and fence
would be maintained for 30 years. The basic Ironi toring system would also be
impl6nented under this alternative. About 20,000 cubic yards of refuse
would require excavation and relocation in steeply sloped areas to enable
plac6nent of the synthetic liner. An improved gas collection and venting
system would be required as part of
this alternative.
OIHER ALTERNATIVES
Excavation and off-site disp:>sal, and excavation and on-site incineration
were evaluated and screened out. Excavation and off-site disp:>sal includes
excavation of all waste materials in the landfill and redisposal in another
landfill designed plrsuant to regulations for hazardous waste landfills.
-------
. .
14
Excavation and on-site incineration includes excavation of all \.Jaste
materials and on-site incineration of'those materials. A synthetic liner
cap and grOlmdwater pumping cOmbination of Alternatives 3 and 4, including
rronitoring and maintenance as described, would provide an alternative that
would be available if the chosen alternative proves ineffective as measured
by future rroni toring .
The narrowed list of al ternati ves concentrate on source containment
alternatives. SOurce treatment alternatives such as solidification and
incineration were screened out because of the excessive cost of treating
'3 ~llion cubic yards of waste, the risks involved in excavation, and other
implementation problems.
-------
15
2.1 Evaluation Criteria
EVALUATICW OUTERIA FOR THE REX::CfJJr.'IrnDED ALTERNATIVE
In selecting the remedial alternative to be implemented at the Wauconda Sand
and Gravel Site, U.S. EPA will consider the following nine criteria:
1. Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment addresses whether
or not a remedy provides adequate protection, and describes how risks are
eliminated, reduced or controlled through treat.went, engineering
controls, or institutional controls.
2. Compliance with ARARs addresses whether or not a remedy" will meet all of
the applicable or relevant and appropriate technical standards (ARARs) of
other environmental statutes and/or provide grounds for invoking a
waiver.
3. Lonq-term Effectiveness and Permanence refers to the ability of a remedy
to maintain reliable protection of htnnan health and the environment over
time, once remedial goals have been met.
4. Reduction of Toxicity. ~bbilitv. or Voltm'1e is the anticipated PerfoIm3Ilce
of the treatment technologies a remedy may employ.
.5. Short-term Effectiveness involves the period of time needed to achieve
protection from any adverse impacts on human health and the env"ironment
that may be posed during the construction and implementation period until
cleanup goals are achieved.
6. IrnDlementabilitv is the technical and administrative feasibility of a
remedy, including the availability of goods and services needed to
implement the chosen solution.
7. Cost includes capital and operation and maintenance costs.
8. SlIPrort Aqencv AccePtance indicates whether, based on its review of the
RI/FS and Pro};X)sed Plan, the supp:>rt agency (IEPA) concurs, oPIX>ses, or
has no comnent on the preferred alternative.
9. COITmUI1itv AccePtance is assessed following a review of the public
cornnents received on the FS Report and the Proposed Plan.
The recorrrnended remedy, which contains provisions for the evaluation of
remedial actions in case ground water near the site exceeds drinking water
standards, wi 11 be fully protective of public health and the environment;
and, at the same time, will be cost effective. If a ground water p.Dl1p and
treatment system were installed, during its period of operation it would
recover any contaminated ground water from the site, and would rerove some
existing ground water contamination. 'Contamination above drinking \o.'ater
standards is normally used as an action "level for p.lI11ping and treatme.l1t.
f-bni toring wells off the site indicate that levels are currently at or below
relevant drinking water standards.
-------
16
Another alternative such as installation of a I1U1lti-layered site cap may
further reduce infiltration compared to the existing cap, but' \-lould not be
as cost effective. '
Each of the aOOve nine criteria are discussed for the recorrmended
alternative.
The u.s. EPA and the Illinois EPA reviewed, respectively, Federal and State
laws, standards, re:ruirements, criteria and limitations for tX)ssible
. application to the site. The major ARARs identified are sumnarized bc]ow.
2.2 APPlicable or Relevant and APPropriate Requirements
OFF-SITE GROUND WATER QUALITY (chemical s~ific):
are relevant and awropriate:
The fOllowing standards
Primary Maxim.nn" Contaminants Levels (40 CFR 141)
Public and Food Processing Standards
(35 I!. Mm. Code 302,304 health basErl only).
The Federal and State drinking water regulations provide for the
establishment of drinking water standards for public water system.s. TIlese
standards are applicable only to pJblic water systems as defined by the
regulations. However, they may be considered relevant and appropriate to
attain for groundwater that can p:>tentially be used for drinking. The
shallow acpifer lip3Tadient of the site is used as a drinking water source in
the area of the site. .The deeper aquifer is currently being used as a
drinking water source and, is connected to the shallow aquifer 1500 feet east
of the site. Therefore, the PrirnaIy MaxirroJII\ Contaminant Levels (CvLLs) and
the Illinois Public and Food Processing Standards (IPFPS) are considered
ARARs for off-site groundwater quality.
SI'IE CWSURE AND POST CWSURE REX;1UIREMENl'S (action specific):
There are two statutory schemes uruier the Resource Consen-ation and Recovery.'
Act (RCRA) that may be relevant and appropriate to remedial decisions
inv'Dlving landfills. Both are considered to be protective of the p.1blic
health and envirorurent for the activities they regulate. Subtitle D of Rc..."RA.
regulates landfills used after 1980 for disp:>sal of non-hazardous solid
wastes such as household wastes and construction debris. These .are
primarily implementErl by the State of Illinois and are included in 35 Il.
Adm Code 807. SUbtitle C of RrnA regulates landfills used for disp:>sal of
hazardous 1N'aStes.
The available records indicate that the Wauconda Sand and Gravel Site was
primari ly used for disp:>sal of non-hazardous solid wastes prior to 1980.
U. S. EPA has conducted a thorough search for information on distX)sal at the
Site. This infonnation is incomplete. Of the 3 million cubic yard volume
of the Site, only an estimated 1 p3rcent of the total landfill V01\IDe has
any doet.nnentation indicating it was a hazardous waste (Attachment B).
-------
17
RCRA SUbtitle C technical standards are relevant to tl1is Site because
tl1e leachate, designated as "special waste", contains elevated levels of
hazardous constituents. It is considered relevant and appropriate to
consider SUbtitle C closure perfomance standards.
The 35 11. Adm. Code 807 includes tl1e following closure requirements tl1at
are relevant and appropriate for this site:
807.502 (a):
807.502 (b):
Closure must minimize tl1e need for future maintenance,
Closure must control, minimize, or eliminate release
of waste, waste constituents, leachate,
contaminants or waste decornpJsition products to tl1e
ground water, or tl1e atIIDsphere, to tl1e extent
necessary to prevent threats to human healtl1 or tl1e
environment.
Final cover of a compacted layer of not less than two
feet of sui table material. must be placed over the
entire site.
807.305 (c):
The RCRA subtitle C requirements listed below are considered relevant and
appropriate at this site:
40 CFR section 264.310(b): Post-closure care after final closure of
land£ills includes maintenance of the integrity and effectiveness of tl1e
final cover. This includes repairing tl1e cap, as necessary, to correct tl1e
effects of settling, subsidence, erosion, etc. It is intended that tl1e .
leachate collection and rem:>val system will be operated until leachate is no
longer detected. The ground water IIDni toring system must .te maintained and
IIDnitored.. Rlm-on and nm-off must be prevented from eroding or damaging
tl1e final. cover. Benchmarks which are used to map tl1e location of tl1e
land£ill must be protected and maintained.
40 CFR section 264.14: The active J;Ortion of tl1e site must be protected
from entry by unauthorized or \mknowing persons and livestock, unless it
has been daronstrated that physical contact or disturbance of tl1e waste
structures. or equipment will not cause injury. (Closure activities are
part of tl1e active life or active J;Ortion of tl1e site. )
40 CFR section 264.117 (a), (b) and (c): The security requirenents of
section 264.14 may be continued during tl1e J;Ost-closure care period. The
post-closure use of tl1e property must not disturb tl1e integrity of tl1e final
cOv"'er, liner (s), any cornp::>nents of tl1e containment system, or tl1e function
of tl1e IIDni toring systems. The Regional Mninistrator, or in tl1is case tl1e
Illinois State Director (Illinois is autl10rized for J;Ortions of tl1e RCRA
program) may allow p:>st-closure use of tl1e property if it will not increase
tl1e p:>tential. hazard to hum:m healtl1 or the environment, or it is necessary
to reduce such a threat.
40 CFR Section 264.116: When hazardous waste remains after closure, (i.e.,
surface ilrqx:)undlnent, landfill, waste pile) a survey plat indicating tl1e
location and dimensions of the disposal area(s) must be sutmitted to the
local. zoning authority or authority with jurisdiction over local zoning
-------
18
authority or authority with jurisdiction over local lam use, am the
Regional Administrator (IL Director). '!he plat must contain a note which
states the owner's obligation to restrict disturbance of the hazardous waste
disposal unit. .
40 em Section 264.119: Record, in accordance with state law, a notation on
the deed to the facility property - or on sane other inst.runent which is
nonnally examined during title search - that will in perpetuity notify any
potential p.1rCbaser of the property that the lam has been used to manage
hazardous wastes.
IEAamTE CX>UEC1'ION SYSTEM (action specific): As the . leachate contains
hazardous ~, the follCMing RCRA SUbtitle C requirements are
considered relevant am appropriate:
40 em 264 .15: General Inspection Requirements;
264.51, 264.52, 264.56: Contingency Plan;
264.192: Design am installation of new tank systems or c::arp:ments;
264.193: Contaminant am detection of release;
264.194: General operating requirements;
264.195: Inspections.
35 II. Adm. Code 807.502 (b): Closure must control, minimize or eliminate
release of leachate to surface waters to the extent r-"eSsa%y to prevent
threats to human health or the environment.
OFF-SITE TRANSroRrATION/'lREMMENI'/DISOOSAL OF IEAamTE (chemical am action
specific) : 'n1e State of Illinois detennined that the leachate is not a
hazardous waste b.1t is a "special" waste. '!herefore, it must be transported
p.trSUant to 35 IL Adm. Code 809.
Off-site treatment must c::x:rcply with the pretreatment stamards plrSUaJ1t to
40 em 403 am Sewer Disdm:ge Criteria, 35 II. Adm: Code 307. Hazardous
waste transportation,ltreatmentjdisposal regulations in 40 em 260-264 are
not applicable because the leachate does not meet the definition for a
hazardous waste. '!hey may be relevant am appropriate. RCRA regulations
for non-hazardous transport are aR'licable.
'I'RE'.MMENr OF IEAamTE OR GRaJND WATER ON-SITE AND DISQiARGE TO MtJl'roN CREEK
(chemical am action specific):
'!he followi.rg regulations are aR'licable:
State of Illinois General Effluent Starxlards, 35 n. Adm. Ccx:le
403;
state of Illinois General Use St:armrds, Mixing Zone, Norxiegrada-
tion, 35 II. Adm. Code 302;
l-tmitorin:J am Reporting 35 II. Adm. COde 305;
Perfonnance Criteria 35 II. Adm. Code 306;
-------
19
NPDES permit requirements, 35 II. Adm. Code 309.141, 309.142
309.143, 309.144, 309.152.
'D1e following is relevant and appropriate:
u.s. ~ Ambient Water Quality Criteria for fresh water aquatic life.
RCRA SUbtitle C regulations are not relevant and appropriate because of the
low concentrations of hazardous substanCes present in the ground water, and
~ause the leachate dOes not meet the definition of a hazardous waste.
DISCHARGE OF GROUND WATER TO A PUBLICLY a-JNED 'ffiEMMENI' ~RKS (chanical and
action specific):
The following regulations are applicable:
Pretreatment Standards, 40 CFR 403;
sewer Discharge Criteria, 35 IL. Adm. Code 809.
OFFSITE TRANSPORl' AND DISPQS.r\L OF RESIDt.lALS FRCM ~ OF GROUND WATER
OR LE1aiATE (action specific):
RCRA SUbtitle C requirements will be applicable if the residuals meet the
definition for a haZardous waste under RCRA (40 CFR 261). Otherwise, the
residuals will be an IllinOis Special Waste and ITDJSt be transported in
compliance with 35 II. Adm. Code 807. The residuals ITDJSt be disposed of
in a properly permitted facility under RCRA for hazardous wastes or under 35
II. Adm. Code for special wastes.
AIR EMISSICN5 FRCX1 U\NDFILL, OR POLLUl'ICN CCNrROL DEVICE cmMICAL SPEJ:IFIC:
The following requiranents are applicable:
35 II. Adm. Code 201.141, Prohibition of Air Pollution: anission can not
prevent attai.nrrent of ambient air standards.
'Ihe following requirements are relevant and appropriate:
35 IL. Adm. Code 807. 502(b): Closure ITDJSt control, minimize or eliminate
release. . .. to .. the atnOSphere, to the extent necessary to prevent
threats to human health or the environment. .
40 CFR 61, SUbpart F: National anission standard for vinyl chloride.
VDRK AtHLT.l.l'X; PANK OR QWJNEL OF MUI'K.N CREEK (ACTICN SPEX:IFIC):
Illinois Revised Statute, Q1apter 19, section 65.G.
-------
20
5AFEI'Y PRO:EDURES:
'!he following regulations are applicable:
WELL CIDSURE:
29 CFR 1926/1910.
'!be following regUlation is applicable:
11. Mn Code, Title 77, Cbapter I, SUbchapter r, section 920, 120.
-------
21
TABLE 1.0
Potential Remedial Potential Operational
Law or Regul ation Reference Requi renents Requirements
FEDERAL
1. CERCLAI SARA 42USC 9601 et. seq. Appl icable, relevant and Applicable, relevant and
appropriate requiranents appropriate requiranents of
under Section 121 of SARA 40 CFR 300.68 (NCP)
2. RCRA Appl icable to any waste or Since hazardous substances
leachate disposal that are present, it may be
meets definition of a appropriate to impose
hazardous waste pursuant to relevant RCRA operational
RCRA requi rements
3. Federal Manifest for RCRA Section 3002(5), 40 Appl icable to any waste or Alternatives involving
Transport of Hazardous CFR 262 leachate disposal that transport of hazardous
\~as te meets definition of a substances
hazardous waste pursuant to
RCRA
4. Federal Manifest for Appl icable to offsite Alternatives involving
Transport of rt>n- transport transport of non-hazardous
Hazardous Wastes substances.
5. Pennit for Structure of - 33 CFR Part 320 N/A Al ternatives involving
\Iork in or Affecting ~1utton Creek
Navigable Waters
(Section 10 of Rivers
and Harbors Act)
6. Response in a Floodplain 40 CFR Part 6, Appendix A N/A Al ternatives involving
or Wetl ands l-1utton Creek
-------
law or Regulation
FEDERAL
7. Clean Air Act -
National Air QJality
Standa rds
8. Safe lKinking Water Act
9.
Intergovernmental Review
Act
10. Relocation Assistance
and Property
Acquisitions
11. ~Iorker' Safety and ~alth
Protection
12. Clean Water Act
Re ference
40 CFR Part 52-62
40 CFR 141, 143
Uni fonn Jelocation
Assistance and Real
Acquisition POl icies Act
of 1979, 40 CFR 4
Occupational Safety and
Health Administration
(OSHA)
CWA Section 402, 40 CFR
122, 125 .Subchapter N
o .
TABLE 1.1
Potential Remedial
Requirenents
N/A, Appl icable to
Industrial sources
Regulates drinking water
supplies using MCls
Al ternatives requiring
Federal funds, state funds
or a cooperative agreement
between State and Federal
Agenci es .
N/A
N/A
National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination
Systen (NPDES ~nnit)
22
Potential Operational
Requirenents
Alternatives involving
discharge to air including
particulate matter less
than 10 microns in size
Al ternatives which invol ve
drinking water as an end
use
Al ternatives involving
property acquisition
~Iorker Sa fety duri ng
Remedial Construction
Alternatives invol ving .
discharge to ~~tton Creek
(administered by th~ State)
-------
. law or Regulation
FEDERAL
13. Dredge or Fill Permit
14. Effl uent GJidel ines and
Standards
15. Federal Standards for
Toxic R>ll utant Effl uent
16. Hazardous Materials
Regulations
17. Conservation of Wildlife
Resources
23
- TABLE 1.2
Reference
Potential Remedial
Requi renents
R>tential Operational
Requirenents
CWA Section 404
N/A
Alternatives involving
filling or dredging of
Mutton Creek
40 CFR 400 Subchapter N,
FWPCA
N/A
Al ternatives involving
discharge to publicly o~med
treatment works (POTI~)
40 CFR 129
N/A
Al ternatives involving
discharge to fiutton Creek
(regulated by the State
NPDES pennlt)
49 CFR 170 to 179
N/A
Al ternatives invol ving
transport of hazardous
materials
Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act
N/A
Alternatives involving
Mutton Creek
-------
24
TABLE 1.3
Potential Remedial Potential Operational
Law or Regulation Reference Requirements Requirements
STATE
18. Illinois Water Pollution Illinois Environmental Applicable to Selected N/A
Control Rules Protection Act Constituents (see Table 3.2
and 3.3)
19. Illinois Solid Waste Illinois Environmental N/A Some requirement relevant
Regulations Protection Act and appropriate
20. Illinois Hazardous Waste Illinois Environmental N/A Alternatives with off site
Management Regulations Protection Act transport of hazardous
waste
21. State"NPDES Regulations Illinois Environmental N/A Alternatives involving
Protection Act' and Clean discharge to Mutton Creek
Water Act
22. State Air Pollution Illinois Environmental N/A Alternatives involving
Regulations Protection Act discharge to air
o "
-------
25
TABlE 1.4
Potential Remedial Potential Operational
law or Regulation Reference Requirements Requirements
County
23. 50i1 Erosion Control County Ordinance N/A Alternatives involving
Pe nn i t excavation or construction
on unincorporated land
(county land)
24. Conditional Use Pennit County Ordinance N/A Alternatives involving
filling activities in the
floodplain of Mutton Creek
25. Erosion Control Pennit Village Ordinance N/A Alternatives involving
earth moving over 500CY (or
at the discretion of the
village building inspector)
26. Public Works Review Village Ordinance N/A Alternatives judged by the
Village to involve public
health
-------
26
3.0 selection' of Recornnended Prooram
The evaluation of alternatives is surnnarized in the following table and
discussion.
Al ternati ve 1, the no action al ternati ve, is unacceptable because it wi 11
result in resumption of the leachate discharge to Mltton Creek, increased
leachate release to ground water, and increased risk of direct contact.
Alternatives 2-4 are all protective of the pJblic health and the environment
and meet ARARs. Because off-site ground water is not expected to exceed
health based levels, Alternative 3 will not be recorirnended at this time.
However, if nonitoring shows such exceedances this alternative may become
necessary.
Alternative 3, ground water pmping and treatment, would limit migration of
hazardous subStances in the aquifer. Treatment of vcx:s for the p.m1ping and
treatment alternative is not needed at this time since the levels of VOCs
in ground water are below the drin.l(ing water standards. If ground water is
treated, vo::s in the ground water w'Quld be discharged via an air stripper or
control device as required if the risk to off-site residents exceeds 10-6
for a lifetime. For the pmp and treat alternative, same metals such as
iron, copper and zinc, which are generally not hannful in ground water,
would have to be renYJved prior to discharge to M.1tton Creek to protect
aquatic life. Salinity may alsO have to be determined and adjusted prior to
discharge to M.1tton Creek in order to protect aquatic life and meet State of
Illinois discharge requirements.
Alternative 4 (synthetic liner) would significantly reduce infiltration
and erosion potential carpared to Alternative 2. However, the repaired
and upgraded cover in Alternate 2 subStantially reduces the anount of
infiltration, and erosion can be controlled by upgrading and maintenance of
the site cover. The installation of a synthetic liner cap is expected to
cost approximately $12,000,000. Because the percentage of hazardous wastes
in the site is small, upgrading and maintenance of the existing site cover
along with action levels to initiate an appropriate ranedial action wi 11 be
protective 'of the pJblic health. Alternative 2 (cap upgrade) is therefore.
the cost effective alternative for this site.
Therefore, the u.S. EPA has selected Alternative 2 to control hazards at the
Wauconda Sand and Gravel site.
The following is a further description of how Alternative 2 meets each of
the nine evaluation criteria. .
1.
CNerall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The continued operation and maintenance of the leachate collection systB1\,
upgrading and maintenance of the site cap and fence, along with a long-tenn
nonitoring program, with action levels for additional appropriate ranedial
action and use restrictions for on-site ground water, will protect current
-------
27
am future ground water users. Although hazardous substances are being
released to the ground water in the upper aquifer, the levels of these
suhstances are at or below drinking water standards in off-site wells near
the site perimeter. The levels of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) such
as vinyl chloride, will be rronitored using qL..3rterly sampling data. The
closest existing residential wells are hydraulically distant fram the site
over (1000 ft.). In the event that concentrations of hazardous Substances
in the grOl.D1d water near the site increase arove action levels, there wi 11
be ample time to select and implement a grOl.D1d water reoodial action before
residential wells are affected, since the estimated average ground water
flow rate is 30 feet per year.
The four additional rroni toring wells proposed for installation in the upper
aquifer downgradient of the Site, near the expected leading edge of the
plune, will provide additional protection to well users by rronitoring the
portion of the plune that may have already migrated past the existing
noni toring well network. These wells and an additional deep rroni toring well
in the lower aquifer on the west side of the site will also help confinn
that the lower aquifer has not been inpacted by the Site and help confinn
the continuity of the aquitard.
The concentrations of vinyl chloride, lead, arsenic and benzene exceed
drinking water standards in noni toring wells located on the Site property.
Therefore, use restrictions are required for the shallow aquifer beloW"
the site. COntinued operation of the leachate collection systan should
eliminate discharge of leachate to Mutton Creek. If the proposed air
e:nissions sampling results imicate an unacceptable health inpact on nearby
residents, then air anission controls will be evaluated. Site cap upgrade
and maintenance and the installation of an active venting systan and flares
(or treatIIent) will protect off-site hare owners and camercial residents
from exposure to toxic substances being ani tted with the larxlfill gases.
~ other alternatives would be significantly nore protective of h1.man
health and the envirornnent and as cost effective as the cap upgrading,
maintenance and long-term rronitoring alternative. Although one off-site
ground water sample had vinyl chloride arove the M:L during the last
round of sampling, this does not justify the imnediate implanentation of
the ground water p..nnp and treat option, as the M:L was exceeded only
marginallY and previous results were below the KL. The synthetic liner
cap alternative would further reduce the risk of release to ground water
by reducing infiltration. However, past releases have not exceeded drinking
water standards, and releases appear to have nDderated and are expected to
decrease over time due to the repairs to the existing site cover, and the
raroval of volati Ie organics by the improved venting systan.
- .
2.
COITpliance with ARMs
SNU\ requires that renedial actions meets legally applicable or relevant and
appropriate requiremants of other environmental laws. 'Ihese laws may
include: the '!Oxic Substances COntrol ~, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the
Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the SOlid waste Disposal Act (RrnA), and
-------
28
any state law which has stricter requirerents than the corresp:>nding federal
law.
A "legally applicable" requirement is one which would legally apply to the
resp:>nse action if t:l1at action were not taken pJrsuant to Sl04 or SlOG if
CERCIA. A "relevant and awropriate" requirement is one t:l1at, while not
"applicable" is designed to apply to problans sufficiently similar t:l1at
their application is appropriate.
'Ihe following is a description of enviromental laws which are legally
'appliCable or relevant and appropriate to different carp:>nents of the
ranedy, and an explanation of how this raneclial action meets those
requiranents .
Drinkinq Water StaI'1nrlrds: Ground water near the site meets drinking water
standards for hazardous substances. 'Ihe level of vinyl chloride wi 11 be
better defined during the first year of quarterly sanpling and analysis.
Relevant drinking water standards are the State of Illinois standards listed
, in Table 3.3 of the FS, and the National Primary Drinking Water Standards,
fOund at 40 CFR 141.
Solid Waste Landfill Closure Recn.rirements: 'Ihe landfill cover will consist
of a coopacted layer of two feet, or nore of low penneability soil plus a
cover of one foot of soil to SlIpp)rt vegetation with an average thickness of
four feet. '!his meets or exceeds the State of Illinois cover requirement of
two feet of suitable material for closure of sanitary landfill (35 Ill. MR.
Code 807.305). This existing cover also satisfie.c.; the State requiranent
to control, minimize or eliminate the release of wdSte, waste constituents,
leachate, contaminated rainfall, or waste decarp:>si tion products to the
grOund water, surface waters or the atIroS};tlere, to the extent necessary to
prevent threats to human health or the envir01l1l1eat (807.502 (b» and to
minimize the need for future maintenance (807.502 (a». RCRA SUbtitle C is
relevant and appropriate and is satisfied by the 'landfill cover on the basis
of perfonnance standards described.
Neither the sanitary landfill requirements of SUbtitle D or the RCRA
SUbtitle C'requirarents are directly applicable. '!his landfill accepted
soma hazardous waste before the passage and effective date of.RCRA, but was
not a hazardous waste landfill. Therefore, the jurisdiCtional prerequisites
are not met for either subtitle. Both Subtitles were designed to apply to
landfills. Wauconda Sand and Gravel landfill is a sufficiently similar
circumstances such t:l1at both laws are considered relevant.
'Ihe site was viewed in tenns of the requirements of both SUbtitle C and
SUbtitle D which were sufficiently similar. 'Ihe final renedy, will conply
with the requirements which are detennined to' be the nost appropriate. For
exanple the cap conplies with sanitary landfill requirements.
Alternatives 2 and 4 address capping requirements for the site. Alternative
2 ccmplies with the State of Illinois sanitary Landfill cawing
requirements. Alternative 4 ccmplies with the RCRA capping requirements.
Both caps are protective and meet respective statutory requirements.
-------
29
~ SUbtitle C requiranents for caps as pro~sed in alternative 4 can be
considered. The RCRA regulation is applicable to those facilities which
operated after prOItU.1lgation of the regulation in 1980 and/or were granted
interim status to operate in the marmer provided by the regulation. This
regulation requires that the caP minimize liquid migration, minimize
maintenance, prOlTOte drainage, accoom::x:late subsidence and be less permeable
than the bottom liner. Since waste from regrading will be consolidated on-
site, RCRA Land Ban Requiranents will not be triggered.
Qistinguishing which regulation is ITDst applicable, when both are relevant,
requires a review of site-specific technical considerations. The site has a
portion of the waste saturated wi thin the upper aquifer. This water table
aquifer. will fluctuate up and down within the waste as diCtated by seasonal
hydrologic conditions. This fluCtuation was noted in the RI. Although it
is clear that reducing infiltration will reduce leachate generation, the low
concentration of ground water contamination may be ITDre influenced by
seasonal fluctuations in the water tablejwaste saturation interface.
Therefore, the zero infiltration provided by the RCRA cap will not likely
result in a comnensurate reduction in existing ground water concentrations.
In addition, the nature of the codisposal operations at the landfill the
nature of the existing cap material and the fact that leaching has been
occurring for a very long tine now, suggests to U.S. EPA that tlie existing
levels of ground water contamination are rot likely to significantly
increase. Therefore, between the t\.IO caps, the SUbtitle D sanitary landfill
capping requirements were considered to be the ITDst appropriate.
DiSJX>sal of Leachate: The State of Illinois has determined that leachate is
a special waste based on presently available records of Wauconda landfill
disposal and ITU.1St be handled, treated and disposed of ~suant to Title 35
of Ill. Adm. COde.
SUrface Water StaI1Orlrds: 'Ihe surface water discharge to f'hltton Creek will
be eliminated by collection of seeps along the northern edge of the
landfill. The State of Illinois has determined that leachate see};'age ITU.1St
meet drinking water standards in order to allow discharge to lv1ltton Creek.
Air Standards: The site cover repairs, improved venting systan and flares
(or treating, as necessary) will result in compliance with all air
regulations.
3.
Long-term Effectiveness
Continued operation and maintenance of the leachate collection systan and
maintenance of the Site cover should eliminate the discharge to l-lutton Creek
and reduce the release of contaminants to the aquifer. The ~tential for
release of leachate to Mutton Creek due to maintenance problems with the
leachate collection systan will be minimized by the inproved cap and the.
developnent and implanentation of a contingency plan. This contingency
plan will describe IOOaSures to be taken in case of maintenance problems,
and will provide for back-up equipnent, . and sufficient storage to prevent
a release to f-1utton Creek. It is expected that, over time, the levels of
contaminants in the leachate will decrease. The long-term ITDnitoring will
-------
30
be effective in detecting any tmexpected increase of contaminants in the
aquifer in time to iroplanent any further remedial action. The contaminants
in the aquifer 'Will further attenuate as they migrate away from the Site.
'Ihe upgraded and re-sloped cap Would be effective in further reducing
infiltration and reducing the release to ground water. It has been rep:>rted
that methane production contimes from 17-57 years. An active venting
system and flares can control these anissions during the period of methane
production.
4. Reduction of Toxicity, M:>bility or Volurre
'!he Site cover repairs 'Will reduce the volurre of leachate produCed.
'Ihe collected leachate 'Will be treated off site.
Raroval of the leachate collected will eliminate sare of the organic
hazardous substances, while other hazardous substances 'Will be concentra-
ted in the treatment sludge and properly disposed of of~'site. Organic
comp:>unds that volatilize during cOllection, transp:>rt and. treatment will
be in low concentrations.
An active gas venting system, if required, would reduce the toxicity and
volurre of gas anissions from the site.
'Ihe leachate that enters the ground water would not be treated except
by natural attenuation. The levels of contaminants in the ground water
compared to the leachate suggests that sene attenuation is occurring.
COI'Ip)unds that do not volatilize, degrade, or adsorb to aquifer materials,
'Will be diluted in the ground water.
5.
Short-term Effectiveness
There is no indication that any residential wells currently used for
drinking water consumption have been affected by contaminants from the Site.
'nle proposed ranedy would eliminate the surface water discharge. Air
anissions would be reduced as required. No adverse ilT1pact on workers during
the sanpling or site maintenance is expected if standard health and safety
procedures are followed. No adverse ilT1pact on the cOImU.Il'ri ty is expected
from the iroplanentation of the ranedy.
6.
Inplanentabili ty
No ploblans are foreseen in iroplanenting 1U.ternative 2.
7.
COst
Camparative estimated costs are presented in Table 2. Alternative 2 is.
the m::>st cost-effective alternative, and is also protective of human health
and the environment. If ground water contamination becomes significant,
Alternative 3 will be the m::>st cost-effective ranedy'. Alternative 4 is m::>re
costly 'Without additiOnal reduction of m::>bility.
-------
31
8. State Aa::ept.arD!
'!be Illinois Environrrent.al Protection 1>qer'Cf (IEPA) concurs with this
proposed plan if implemented am naintained by the PRPs.
9. camv.mity Aa::ept.arD!
. Carmnuni.ty acceptance is reported in the responsiveness summary included in
the Administrative Record. 'Ibis surmnaJ:Y consists of the public camnents
received on the SUpplemental FS report am the Proposed Plan on May 11, 1988
am in a supplemental meetin:} held December 14, 1988 in Waucorx:1a. If the
site upgrades am extensive m::mitorin:} am naintenance is implemented the
p..1b1ic will S\JRX>rt the Lt::IIJedy. While sane people wish to have the entire
larrlfill reJnOVed, nat:hin:.J presently n-easured in the groon::i water down-
gradient fran the site nor arrj EPA guidelines wa.U.d justify such an
extensive am disruptive Lt::Il.edy.
-------
ASSESStt£NT FACTmS
CNeral1 Protection of .unan
~alth am EnvlromB'1t
4.0 SlMI\RY (F EVJIUJ\TI~ (F R.lERtf\TIVES
All£RW\TI\£ 1: N) ACTIOO
Ri sk of exposure due to
release to gromd \'8ter as
result of cap deterioration
and lack of nmitoring.
Risk of release to M.Jtton
Creek as a result of cap
deteri orat i on and non-
operation of leachate
collection systen. Risk of
di rect contact exposure to
. leachate and landfill gases
as a result of fence
deterioration. Risk of
dust enissions and gas
exposure of off-site
residents to landfill gases
as a result of cap
deterioration.
. .
Al1£RMTIVE 2: eN>
IMffiO\£r-fNTS. EMISSIOO
aJNTR
Wi 11 provide protection in
Alternative 2 and wi 11
decrease the risk of
future releases tc ground
\'8ter by reduci ng
infiltration. Wi 11 also
improve capture of
landfill gases.
-------
ASSEssr-£NT FACTrns
. f.o11> Hance wi th MARs
Long Tenn Effectiveness ani
Perfonnance
a) Magnitude of residual
risks
AL TEHfil\T 1 VE 1: t() ACT 100
Wi 11 not attain MAAs
Source wi 11 renain, cap
wi 11 continue to degrade.
Thi swill cause ani
increase in release to
grc.uxhtilter ani surface
water. May also cause
threat to direct contact
and fugitive enissions.
Release to surface water
will resune if operation of
leachate collection systen
is discontinued. Fence
will deteriorate and
increase direct contact
threat.
AL TERfil\TIVE 2:
Wi 11 attai n all AAAAs
&c~tu~ra~ifurgroud
water be10t01 the site wil1
&ceed M:l.s.
~urce wi 11 renai n but
u~rade and maintenance of
site cover wi 11
substantially reduce risks
of future releases to
grc.xm water, and surface
water. A1 so wi 11 prevent
di rect contact threat ani
fugitive enissions.
Maintenance of site fence
wi 11 mJuce threat of
direct contact with
1 eachate ard 1 andf i 11
. gases.
Q>eration of the leachate
collection systen wil1
effectively eliminate
discharge of leachate to
M.Jtton Creek. ~er,
leachate will have to be
hand1 ed. Long- tenn
rmnitoring with action
1 eve 1 s to reopen the ROO
wi 11 effect1y protect
against unexPeCted future
releases. Exposure to 00-
site gnxnt \tfiter will be
controlled lJ~ing usage
AL ltRfil\TI VE 3:
Will attain all ARARs.
~urce wi 11 renai n. Wi 11
provide control in
Alternative 2 plus ground
water should not &ceed
drinking water standards at
the perimeter of the site
and wi 11 rerove sone
secondary contani nant fonn
aquifer. Treatment
residuals will have to be
handled.
33
ALltRfil\TIVE 4:
Wi 11 attain all MARs.
A1 so wi 11 attai n RCRA
subtitle C landfill
closure requirenents.
Source will renain. Will
provide controls in
Alternative 2. Residuals
less than in Alternative
2.
-------
ASSES9<1ENT FACTOOS
Al TERNATI VE 1: NO ACTlOO
. .
AL TERNl\TI VE 2:
restrictions. Off-site
ground Witer will meet
drinking Witer standards.
If off-site grolJ1d Witer
exceeds drinking Witer
standards ranedial action
will be elevated. The
active venting systen if
necessary. with flare will
substantially reduce
eXJXJsure of off-site
residents to air enissions
Will leave secondary
contcJni nants ( ch 1 ori de .
sodillD. etc.) in aqJifer.
34
ALTERNATIVE 3:
AI.. TERNATlVE 4:
-------
ASSES9'ENT FN:TORS
b) MeQJacy of controls
c) Reliability of controls
Redoction in Toxicity
r"obil ity or \blU11e (lMvt
Al TEHtV\TI VE 1: NO ACTION
InadeqJc1te
lkIreliable
tb redoction in ll~V
AL TERAATI VE 2:
Controls adeQJate altoough
~tential for erosion of
cap because of excessive
slo~. 99% IEstru:tion of
toxic air enissions
~ssible if active venting
systan is used.
~ li able but cap may take
roore maintenance.
tb redoction in inherent
lHV solid Wlste. fu\..ever.
mobil i ty of the grotlld
\'itter source will be
redoced. Leachate
treatment will destroy a
small anount of hazardous
substances. IIctive venting
systen if necessary. wi th
flare will destroy majority
of gas enissions.
ALTEHtV\TlVE 3:
Proven technology "except
that reverse 09nos is for
sal inity redoction is
costly for this volune of
flow.
Rel iable
VOCs in grotlld \'it ter may be
transferred to air.
H:!ta 1 s soch as iron that
are not hannful in ground
Wlter must be renoved prior
to discharge to protect
aQJatic life in t\Jtton
Creek.
35
ALlERtU\TlVE 4:
Proven technology altrough
leaks in seams of
synthetic 1 iner are
~ssible. Synthetic 1 iner
srould last indefinitely.
Erosion problens redoced
as W!ll as maintenance.
Rel iable
Sane as Al temative 2
. except that the mobil ity
of the source as a \~le
wi 11 be further re<:!oced.
-------
36
ASSES~ENT FJlCTORS AlTEHNATlVE 1: NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 2: ALTERNATIVE 3: Al TERNATI VE 4:
Short tenn effectiveness
Time U1til Protection Di scharge to ftJtton Creek Con~inuity Continuity Continuity
khieved may resllne srort1y
Protection of connunity tb renedia 1 act ion Sane increase in tru::k rt> rnzard except sane - rt> rnzard except sane
during Ranedia1 Action traffic. R>tentia1 VOC increase in truck traffic. increase in tru::k traffic.
emissions during relocation
of ..astes.
Protection of \'Orkers ~b renedia 1 act ion Protect against direct Silne as A1 temative 2 plus Silne as A1 temative 2 plus
during Rsmedia1 Action contact and inhalation precautions in handling protect against direct
during leachate rnnd1 ing chanica 1 s in treabnent such contact and inhalation
and maintenance of leachate as su1 furic acid. hazards during
collection system, and installation of landfill
installation of the gas vents and relocation of
venting systan. WiSteS.
Adverse Environnental Discharge to ftJtton rreek Additional vents re rened i a 1 action t-\1y need to impl anent a ro\1y be di fficul t to arrange ReCJlired special ized
punp and treabnent systan for discharge of high constru::tion techniques.
in the future, but this salinity ground water.
\'l>uld not be difficult. Treabnent cORlXlnents srou1 d
Better venting systan be readily obtainable.
reCJlires drilling roles for,:"',
added pi pes . '
-------
37
ASSES9-tENT FPCTORS AL TEHtU\ TI VE 1: NO ACTIOO AL TERW\TIVE 2: ALTERW\TIVE 3: AL TERtiATI VE 4:
Alt. 2 msts pl us .
Cost
-capital 0 10,510,612* 1,594,500 11,633,800
-Q\/1 0 174,500* 154,150 131,(00
-Present lobrth 0 12,155,606 3,~,OOO 12,006,600
10% Dr
State Acceptance tbt acceptdble State concurs but State State concurs wi th State concurS with
may not be will ing to preference for ffiP-funded preference for ffip-funded
pay 001 costs. renedy. renedy.
Connuni ty kceptance tbt acceptable kcepts less acceptable Accepts
*
See cost breakdOW'l in Table 2.
-------
38
~2
CCM'ARISCN OF cosrs FOR REMDIAL bl.'I'ERNATIVES
M..'I'ERNlcr'IVE
CAPI'mL
COST
ANNUM, O&M
COST
~ PRESENI' (1)
t-.ORTIi 10%
DISCOUNI'RATE
1) !'b Action
o
o
o
12,155,606(2)
2) CaIrup;rade, Active
Vents, M:>ni toring
plus O&M (recomnended
alternative)
10,510,612
174,500
3) Ground Water
Purlping and
Treatment
Alternate 2 costs plus
1,594,500 154,150
3,068,800
4) Synthetic
Liner Cap
11,633,800
131,000
12,886,600(3)
5) Synthetic Liner
cap plus Ground
Water Purlping
and Treatment
13,046,020
278,570
15,706,800(3)
(1) D:>es 11Dt include costs covered by the existing COnsent Order.
(2) see Metcalf and Eddy January 17, 1989 RetX>rt on Mditional
Investigations and Ratediation.
(3) Plus venting costs as required.
-------
.,
39
5 . 0 'mE SF!".fM'EI) RENEDY
5.1 Recc:mrended Proqram
'!he selected remedy is Alternative 2, which includes the following
camp:>nents :
1\.. Long term m:>ni toring of ground water, air emissions, and Mutton Creek,
with action levels to initiate reopening the ROD for additional
investigation, and evaluation of additional renedial al ternati ves.
B. Further up;rade of the site cap possibly inclUding partial relocation
of fiUtton Creek.
c. Installation and operation of an improved venting system J;X:>ssibly
requiring an active flare or other air emissions treatment.
D. ContiIUled operation and maintenance of the leachate collection and
venting system, maintenance of the site cap, fence and roni toring well
network.
E. Usage restrictions on the shallow aquifer below the site property.
F. Augmented roni toring locations and schedule.
Each of these carp:>nents are described in rore detail in this section.
1\.. I.Dng term ronitoring of ground water, air emissions, and Mutton Creek
with action levels to initiate additional investigation, evaluation of
renedial alternatives and reopening the ROD:
1. Long term m:>nitoring will continue for 30 years or until shown to be
urmecessary. '!be sanpling plan for the long term roni toring can be
IT'Odified every five years. Following is the expected sampling plan
for the first five years.
. a) '!he following ronitoring wells will be sanpled annually:
G 3051\.
G 305B
G 310
G 31l'A.
CJrl 403
CJrl 406
. Gl 407
CM 408
CM 411
CM 412
G 31l'A.
Gl 409
CM 410
CM 405
CM 402
G 201
( replacemant)
Newlv installed ronitorinq wells downen-adient from site.
Up to 10 residential wells. '!he residential wells to be sampled will be
designated by u.s. EPA or IEPA.
Well in lower aquifer on west side of site and 1500 feet north of Gl4l0.
-------
40
l\'A.1tton Creek will be ~led whenever any leachate discharge to the
creek is observed. M..1tton Creek wi 11 be sarrpled once wi thin the
first two years to a point west of the Highway Route 12.
All these samples will be analyzed for all organic and inorganic
comtX>unds included in the COntract Laboratory Program routine
analyses, plus water quality pararret.ers.
The laboratory used nust daronstrate attainment of detection limits
below the maximum contaminant levels listed in 40 CFR 141. Before
sarrpling each nonitoring well, the water level in the well will be
neasured. Each IIDnitoring well will be developed so that ground
water ~les will have low turbidity.
If an analytical result for a parameter, other than a volatile
organic, in a well that is not being sarrpled quarterly, is greater
than primary drinking water standard (40 CFR 141), or if the calcu-
lated cancer risk levels exceed levels described in the next
section, then the well will be resanpled within 60 days of receiv--
ing the analytiCal results.
b) In addition, quarterly sarrples will be collected three times each
year from the following roni toring wells for the next. five years:
av 406
av 407
av 408
av 412
av 403
G 310
G 201 (replacanent)
'lhese sarrples will be analyzed for only the volatile organic
compounds listed in Attacllment 1. 'Ihese quarterly samples
combined with the annual sampling will provide four quarterly
sarrples for volatile organics each year for the wells listed
above. The laboratory used nust dem:mstrate attainrnentof
detection limits below the maxirnum contaminant levels listed in
40 CFR 141.
c) Leachate seeps will be sampled and analyzed for pesticides and
PCBs. .
d) The arrc)\mt of leachate collected in the leachate collection
systan wi 11 be determined each week. Also the leachate level
in the leachate manhole wi 11 be measured each week.
e) Once each year the entire site cap will be inspected for cracks,
depressions, exp:>sed refuse, erosion damage and gas anissions by
walking the site cap on a 75 foot grid. M:thane emissions will
be checked in cracks using an organic vapor analyses with a
flame ionization detector, or equivalent device.
-------
41
f) During the first year of operation of the active venting system,
the total armual methane emission and any hazardous substances
contained in such methane emissions in the landfill gases prior to
flaring will be measured. 'lhe maximum lifetiIre cumulative
carcinogenic risk leveis (assuming no controls are present) to a
hyp:>thetical resident at the landfill boundary (C.) will be
calculated using the rooasured emission rates, the industrial source
canplex long term air dispersion rrodel and u.s. EPA's I1Dst up-to-
date cancer potency factors fran the Integrated Risk Information
Systen. If the action level is exceeded a treating system will be
evaluated.
During subsequent years, ~ever an armual risk assessment
indicates that the incremental carcinogenic risk due" to the
inhalation of landfill gases at the peritreter of the site is
less than 10-6, based upon the yearly average maximum gas emission
rate, a plan for dismani:ling the systen will be prepared and
implemented. '!he risk assessment is to be presented to U. S. EPA
for their review, and ItUlSt follow the guidelines laid out in the
SUperfund Public Health Evaluation Manual.
g) Each year a refX)rt on the long tenn ground water I1Dni toring wi 11 be
prepared and su1:Initted to U.S. EPA and IEPA. 'nUs rep:>rt will
include an assessment of the data quality, a tabulation of the
data, calculation of representative ground water concentrations,
a ground water potentiometric surface map, a c~ison of results
wi th relevant standards, and a calculation of the CUIm.llati ve
estimated carcinogenic risk level at each well using the IIDSt
recent U.S. EPA potency factors. 'Ihe reFOrt will also reccmnend
wbether an investigation and feasibility study is needed in order
to determine the risks to the pJblic health and environrrent, and to
evaluate remedial action.
Representative ground water concentrations for each parameter
will be calculated at each IIDnitoring well by averaging the
results fran quarterly sampling for the last year, averaging
the two samples collected for the last year of sampling or using
the single analytical result for tl1at year. Dnly validated
data shall be used for calculating the representative concen-
trations. "
The rate of leachate production and leachate level in the
leachate manhole will be correlated to precipitation events in
order to evaluate the extent of infiltration through the site
cover.
2. Action levels to initiate further investigation, evaluation of
alternatives and reopening the ROD.
lOjitional investigation of contamination of concern will be
ini tiated under the following conditions:
-------
42
'!he representative concentration of a parameter in an
Off-site, downgradient well exceeds an M:I. (40 ern 141).
. or
Using representative concentrations, the ClIrIUllative cancer
risk level for lifetime drinking water usage (excluding
arsenic and vinyl chloride) calculated using- U. s. EPA };X)tency .
factors and representative concentrations in an off-site,
downgradient well exceeds 10-5. '!he 10-6 level will not be
used because of the difficulty in obtaining reliable
measurements for a number of carcinogenic COITp)U11ds at the
10-6 level. For example, the 10-6 risk level for benzene (0.7
ug/l), tetrachloroethene (0. 7 ug/l) and 1, 2-dichloroethane
(0.4 ug/l) are near the limits of analytical detectability of
these cOITp)U11ds.
and
r-
',"
- '!he representative concentrations for the parameters of
concern significantly exceeds representative background
concentrations, and professional judgarent indicates that
the higher downgradient concentrations in ground water or
surface water are likely to indicate a release fran the site.
'D1is will probably require that the pararreter was detected in
sane leachate samples or cOUld be a product of coop:>unds
detected in some leachate samples.
3. FUrther investigation, alternatives evaluation, and reopening ROD:
U.S. EPA and IEPA will review the yearly long-tem nonitoring re};X)rt
and inspection reports. U. S. EPA and IEPA may detennine that a
hazardous substance attri1:utable to the Site is above a relevant
action level as defined in Section 2. '!hey may also detennine
that FOrtions of the site cover are not as effective or as well
maintained as sanitary landfill caps in Illinois, or t.l1at I'IDre
cost effective alternatives for handling leachate may be available.
In these situations, adcli tional investigation will be conducted as
needed to detennine the extent of contarnina.t ion and extent of
hazard or cover problans. For contamination, this will include
estimating how long the constituent will likely persist above the
action level in off-site ground water. If the constituent is
detennined to be likely to persist above the action level I'IDre :than
five years, or affect a residential well, then U.s. EPA or IEPA will
conduct an evaluation of alternatives for ranedial actions as
needed, and the record of decision will be reopened. For site cover
problans or high rates of leachate production, renedial alternatives
will be developed and the record of decision reopened.
4. Further investigation with action levels to initiate evaluation
of alternatives. D..1ring the first year, hydrogeological, grm,IDd
water and air investigations will be conducted. '!he hydrogeological
-------
43
invesUgation should include conducting four oorings and installation
of two to four additional ronitoring wells in the upper aquifer north,
and northeast of the site, at a distance expected to be near the
leading edge of the contaminant pltme. It should also include
installation of a ronitoring well on the west side of the site and
1500 feet north of CM 410.
These wells will be sampled and analyzed for vo:s, aIJd metals
indicator parameters. The p..trp)se of these additional roni toring
wells is to determine whether hazardous' constituents have migrated
past the existing roni toring well network.
These ITOni toring wells will be included in the long term ITOni toring
program and the initial sampling will use the same action levels,
investigation and evaluation procedures, as long term ronitoring
program.
Further upgrade of site cap:
B.
The u. s. Army Corps of Engineers inspected the 8i t'1 and determined that
additional actions were needed to control erosion from the site, control
erosion from Mltton Creek, and to reduce infiltration over the long term
(April 15, 1988 memo fram the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). These measures
include construction of riprap channels along drainage routes, construction
of riprap to protect the toe of the landfill, raroving trees and other
control measures.
Erosion control measures wi 11 be inplanented that will satisfy the following
criteria:
1. Prevent erosion fran reducing the cap effectiveness to less than what
is provided by two feet of compacted suitable material at any time and
any location due to a lO-year flood event. . SUitable material shall
contain less than 50% (by weight) sand or coarser material (Le., less
than 0.05 rrm as per u.s. m) and rore than 5% (by weight) clay (Le.,
greater than 0.0002 rrm as per U.S. DA).
2. Minimi ze long term maintenance.
Trees located on the landfilled area will be raroved and the cap
upgraded and repaired in order to reduce infiltration. The ~isting
gas vents and other app..lItenances will be upgraded to meet safety
guidelines. Vegetation is to be planted near the entrances and in the
soil cover to improve the appearance of the site and prevent clay cap
desiccation. The pJtential and benefits of relocation of Mltton Creek
will be evaluated during the ranedial design ~e.
Inproved landfill gas venting:
C.
D.1ring the first year, additional vents will be installed, and anissions of
volatile organic canpJUI'lds from the landfill gas vents and from other
anission sources of concern will be measured.
-------
"
44
volatile organic COITTfXJl.1l1ds from the landfill gas vents and fro:n other
anission sources of concern will be measured.
If the calculated maximum carcinogenic ("CI") risk to nearby resident~ wing
U. S. EPA' s cancer pJtency factors exceeds 10-6, then upgraded vents or
active treatment systems for controlling the landfill gas emissions will be
installed.
D.
Continued maintenance:
Continued operation and maintenance of the leachate collection SYSt9T1, gas
. vents and the active venting system and flares (if anployed), the site cap,
fence and rroni toring system. Action levels to discontinue operat ion of the
active venting systen and the flares, and action levels to discontinue
operation of the leachate cOllection system will be established. Provisions
for the dismantling of the active venting systen, flares and leachate
collection system. will be established.
1. A prf)gram will be inplanented for these tasks that will meet the
fOllowing goals:
a.
Prevent or minimize erosion of the Site cap.
b.
Repair Site cap, as needed, to prevent erosion damage, cracking,
exposure of refuse,. p:>nding, prOItOte drainage, and minimize
air emissions.
..
c.
Restrict access to the Site.
d.
Assure the capability of COllecting representative sanples
from the ground water noni toring network.
f.
Prevent discharge of leachate to Mltton Creek.
Assure that the leachate is collected efficiently and disp:>sed
of in accordance with State, Federal and Local regulations.
e.
g. .Assure that the overall effectiv'eness of the site cover is
at least equivalent to that of a well maintained sanitary
landfill in the State of Illinois at the time of closure (Le.,
2 feet of cOITp:icted sui table material, with a vegetative cover;
suitable material shall contain less than 50% (by weight) sand or
coarser material (less than 0.05 nrn as per u.S. Department of
Agriculture, U.S. m) and nore than 5% (by weight) clay (greater
than 0.0002 nrn as per U. S. m).
'Ihe program should include the following tasks:
Inspections
Routine maintenance
CCITTIU.Ulications with u.S. EPA and IEPA
ReslX)nse to erosional damage to cap
ReslX)nse to p:>nding on cap
-------
45
Response to fence damage
Response to IrOnitorirq well damage
Response to maintenance problems with the leachate
collection system that will enable correction of the
problems before the leachate is released to Mutton
Creek (oontirqency plan)
SChedule for replacement of major equipnent or systems.
Procedures for addressirq ll1'1E!XpeCted repairs or
replacerrent needs.
A review of the results of the remedial action will be corxlucted with
IEPA an:! the u.s. EPA at the em. of each five year period.
2. Action levels to ni c:t'Y'\ntinue operation of the active ventirq system
an:! flares:
whenever an annual risk assessment irxticates that the incremental
carcinogenic risk due to the inhalation of lan:lfill gases at the
peri1reter of the site is less then 10-6 based upon the yearly average
maximum gas emission rate. '!he risk assessrrent is to be presented to
U. S. EPA for their review, an:! must follow the guidelines laid out in
the SUpe.rfl.1n:l Public Health Evaluation Manual. In this case, a plan
for dismantlin;J the system will be prepared am inpletrented.
3. Action levels to discontinue operation of the leachate collection
system: Operation of the lead1ate collection system can be
ni~ntinued if one of the followirq c:orxlitions oc:x::ur:
a. Analyses of the lead1ate deroonstrate that the chemical contaminants
in the lead1ate are at concentrations below the respective Primary
MaxiJmJm Contaminant Levels (40 em 141) an:! below the u.s. EPA,
Ambient Water Quality criteria for protection of fresh water
aquatic life.
b. For a period of one year, no leachate is collected in the leachate
collection system un::ier average climate c:orxlitiens for the area.
c. It is otheIWise denonstrated that if the operation is discontinued,
a leachate release to Mutton Creek will not occur.
In this case, a plan for dismantlirq the System will be prepared an:!
after an observation period of 5 years, ilTplemented, if the system is
not further required. .
E. Use restrictions on the shallow aquifer below the site:
Usage restrictions will be ilTplemented for grourx3. water in the shallow
aquifer below the site usirq an ag1.eement with the site owner, notices
placed in the plat ani deed records.
-------
46
F. Augmented rrcnitoring locations and schedule:
1. Well Closure:
The following wells will be closed to prevent aquifer contamination:
GI02, G1l2, G20l, G30l, G307, G203A. Well closure will be conducted
in a manner that will minimize the IX>tential for migration of
surface water into the shallow aquifer or migration of leachate from
the landfill into the shallow aquifer. Closure will also be in
accordance with any applicable State, Federal and local
governmental regulations.
2. M:>ni toring Well Replacement:
'1\.,'0 new rronitoring wells will be installed to replace the
following wells that are being closed: G201 and G412.
3.
Preventing migration of contaminant to the lower aquifer:
Installation of new wells into the deep aquifer on or near the site
can provide an avenue' for migration of undesirable contaminants into
the lower aquifer in which residential wells are located. To
prevent this, the Lake COlmty Health Department has plans to require
new well installations to use special procedures. U.S. EPA will
require this for on-site well installation using an agreanent with
the site owner.
5 . 2 Contimencv Plan
'Ihe rronitoring program will give early warning should the clay cap over the
site fail. Prevailing contaminant levels downgradient of the site are well
below the M:L acceptable drinking water levels. Should contamination
reach the ~c:. level, or show a consistent, significant (order of magnitude)
rise above prevailing levels over rrore than two rroni toring periods, .
addi tional samples wi 11 be taken to determine if rE!TEdial action may be
necessary. . Because of the variability inherent in sampling and in
lalx>ratory analytical techniques, it is not };X>ssible to pro};X>se objective'
cri teria for reopening the ROD; data IIU1St be evaluated in the context of
previous data and judganent IIU1St be applied prior to initiating action.
Renedial action would definitely be necessary any time the quarterly
inspection shows SlUITping or erosion at any location on the cap.
If localized failure of the cap is obvious, the reccmnended action is to
e>qX>se and repair the clay in the area of failure. After repairs are made,
the vegetative cover wi 11 be restored.
If no failures are obvious and the data derronstrate that transtX)rt of the
contaminants to the down-gradient groundwater is occurring, then groundwater
pmping and treating and tX)ssibly the replacement of the cap 1NOuld be
necessary .
-------
47
A review of the results of the raredial action will be conClu.L..""ted with IEPA
and the u.s. EPA at the end of each five-year period cornnencing with the
signing of this ROD. 'lhe need for sUch a review, the results of each review
and any actions required as a result of such review will be reported to
Congress as required in the SUperfuoo. AIrendn'ents Reauthorization Act Section
121(C) .
5.3 Justification for M:xlification of the PropJsed Plan
The capital cost has been increased from the May 1988 Proposed Plan, not
because of a change of rene:1y but because of: 1) the inclusion of the
ultimate cost of an active venting systan, should one be required after
study of the vent gas composition and rate after cap upgrade and, 2)
incorporating the cap upgrade and maintenance cost in this Record of
Decision that was specified in the 1985 Record of Decision tut not
accooplished.
The ccmnent period, subsequent observations, inspection and perfonnance
indicate that basic cap condition is not as specified in the 1986 COnsent
Order. The leachate systan is \D1Stable due to the erosion and infiltration
of surface water drainage into the cap up-slope of the leachate wells.
Repair of these slo~ was not adequate to provide stability. Upgrading
must now be accomplished to provide an alternative protective of the
environment and hunan health in ooth the short and long tenn.
Minor roodifications to the details of this recomnended program, if required,
will be addressed in future explanations of significant changes.
5.4 StatutorY Detenninati ons
'Ihe selected rareiy will be fully protective for all routes of e>qx:>sures.
Direct contact threat will be reduced by maintenance of the site cover
and fence. ~sure to air anissians will, if required, be reduced using
an active venting systan and flares. ~sure to grouoo. water with unsafe
concentrations of hazardous substances will be prevented by usage
restrictions for on-site ground water, upgrading and maintaining the site
cap, and long term IT'Onitoring of the ground water. Action levels will be
established to initiate further investigation, evaluation of alternatives
and reopening the ROD as needed.
Release to fvt1tton Creek will be prevented by maintenance of the existing
si te cap and contiIUled operation and maintenance of the leachate collection
s~'Stan. The selected alternative will attain all State and Federal
requirements that are applicable or relevant and awropriate to the site
action. '1hese are listed in Section 2.2 of this RCD. It is also cost
effective. 'Ihe IT'Ore expensive raredial actions such as p.mping and
treatment of ground water and installation of a synthetic liner cap will'
not provide significant additional protectiveness.
'!his reredy is the IT'Ost appropriate solution for the site. Pennanent
detoxification or iImobilization of the source is inpractical. Excavation
-------
48
and treatrcent of the entire landfill would not be cost effective, cause a
number of short term hazards (release of vapJr, release of leachate, worker
safety), and would not reduce the residual contamination in the aquifer.
I
"..."
-------
ATTACHMENT A
LEACHATE AND UPPER AQUIFER ANALYSES
,.
-------
TABLE 9.2
ATTACHMENT A-I
SUm'ARY OF ORGANIC CQt.1POUNO CONCENTRATIONS
IN lEACHATE ANO UPPER AQUIFER
Bac kground Downgradient On-Site
Pa rameter Well leac ha te Wells Perimeter Wells
VOCs
1,1,1-trichloroethane (ug/l) NO NO NO - 5.9 NO - 31
1,1-dichloroethane (ug/l) NO NO - 190 NO - 3.3 NO - 4.0
1,2-dichloroethane (ug/l) NO NO - 480 NO - 2.2 NO - 1. 8
1,2-dichloropropane (ug/l) NO NO - 190 rm - 0.9 BOl
2-butanone (ug/l) NO NO - 22,000 NO - 6.3 tlD - 44
acetone (ug/l) NO . NO - 25,000 NO - 29 NO - 1,100
benzene (ug/l) . NO NO - 70 NO - 11 NO- 16
chlorobenzene (ug/l) NO tlD - 12 NO - 0.9 NO - 2.5
chloroethane (ug/l) NO NO - 91 NO - 3.9 tlD - 6. 9
ethyl benzene (ug/l) NO NO - 140 NO - 0.8 NO - B Ol
methylene chloride (ug/l) NO tlD - 11 ,000 NO - 1400 NO - 29
tetrachloroethene (ug/l) NO NO - 120 NO - 1.8 NO - 14
toluene (ug/l) NO NO - 550 NO - 1. 1 NO - 0.8
trans-1,2-dichloroethene (ug/l) NO NO - 730 NO - 26 NO - 24
trichloroethene (ug/l) NO tlD - 200 NO - 6.6 NO - 2.2
tri chl orofl uoromethane (ug/l) NO rIA NO - 8 NO -
vinyl chloride (ug/l) NO NO - 77 NO - 2.8 30
total xylenes (ug/l) NO BDl - 430 NO - 5. l NO
BNAs
1,4-dichlorobenzene (ug/l) NO NO - 30 NO - BDl NO
2-methylnapthalene (ug/l) NO 350 NO - 0.3 NO
4-methylphenol (ug/l) NO - 0.4 NO - 11 ,000 NO BOl
i sophorone 1700 6.2
continued....
-------
Pa rameter
ATTACHMENT A-2
TABLE 9.2
SUMMARY OF ORGANIC COMPOUND CONCENTRATIONS
IN LEACHATE AND UPPER AQUIFER
,
Bac kground
Well
Oowngrad ient
Wells
On-Site
Perimeter Wells.
Leachate
BNAs (conti d)
benzoic acid (ug/L)
bis (2-chloroethyl) ether (ug/L)
bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (ug/L)
butyl benzyl phthalate (ug/L)
di-n-butylphalate (ug/L)
di-n-octylphthalate (ug/L)
n-nitrosodiphenylamine (ug/l)
phenol (ug/L)
Pesticide/PCB IS
NO 6200 NO - 2.2 BoL
NO NO NO - 5.7 NO
rm - 5. 8 NO - 11 NO - 45 NO - 26
NO NO NO - 0.7 NO
NO NO - 26 NO - 1.3 BoL
NO - 1 NO NO - 6.4 NO - 0.9
NO NO NO - 1. 3 NO - 10
NO 7800 NO - 2.2 NO - 0.6
alpha-BHC (ug/L)
beta-BHC (ug/L)
delta-BHC (ug/L)
dieldrin (ug/L)
gamma-BHC (ug/L)
heptachlor (ug/L)
Notes: 1 )
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
NO NO NO - 0.026 NO - 0.007
NO NO NO - 0.007 NO
NO NO NO - 0.02 NO
NO NO NO - 0.009 NO - 0.006
NO NO NO - 0.009 NO - 0.025
NO NO NO - 0.14 NO - 0.100
Background well represented by OW411.
Oowngradient wells represented by G203A. G305B. OW402. OW403. OW404. OW405
OW406. OW407. OW408.
On-Site Perimeter Wells represented by Gl12. Gl13. G114. G201. G303B. G304. G310. Gl17
NO - not detected.
BOL - below detection limit.
NA - not analyzed.
/ -
-------
TABLE 9.3
SUMMARY OF METALS CONCENTRATIONS IN LEACHATE AND UPPER AQUIFER
UNFILTERED SAMPLES
A1 IACHMENT A-3
Bac kground Downgradient On-Site
Metal Well Leachate Wells Perimeter Well s
Aluminum (mgfL) 0.067 - 0.434 NO - 12.5 NO - 9.1 NO - 51.7
Antimony (mgfL) NO - 0.066 NO - 0.024 NO - 0.069 NO - 0.056
Arsenic (mgfL) NO 0.012 - 0.179 NO - 0.030 NO - 0.142
Barium (mgfL) 0.093 - 0.121 0.268 - 0.788 NO - 0.604 0.027- 0.38
Beryllium (mgfL) NO NO NO NO - 0.0063
Boron (mgfL) NO 6.1 - 23 NO - 1.20 NO - 1. 62
Cadium (mgfL) NO - 0.0016 NO - 0.0011 NO - 0.043 NO - 0.0036
Ca 1 c i urn ( m 9 f L ) 91. 2 - 94. 3 37.5 - 2,600 62.9 - 243 34 . 2 - 67 9
Chromium (mgfL) 0.011 - 0.027 NO - 0.165 NO - 0.036 NO - 0.19
Cyanide, total (mgfL) NO NO - 0.043 NO NO - 0.0063
Hexavalent Chromium (mgfL) NO NO - 0.076 NO - 0.009 NO - 0.054
Cobalt (mgfL) NO - 0.015 NO - 0.37 NO - 0.050 NO - O. 067
Copper (mgfL) 0.017 - 0.027 NO - 0.45 NO - 0.082 NO - 0.7
Iron (mgfL) 0.711 - 1. 26 4.57 - 1,180 2.78 - 45.6 . 1. 61 - 284
Lead (mgfL) NO - 0.0055 NO - 0.047 NO - 0.441 NO - 0.45
Magnesium (mgfL) 41.5 - 42.1 81.8 - 706 28.7 - 142 26.4 - 312
Manganese (mgfL) 0.250 - 0.362 0.104 - 22 0.039 - 1.03 O. 059 - 2. 14
Mercury (mgfL) NO NO NO - 0.0036 NO - 0.004
Nickel (mgfL) NO - 0.033 0.06 - 0.589 NO - 0.057 NO - 0.192
Potassium (mgfL) 5.11 - 5.51 49.5 - 692 1.14 - 89.6 4.94 - 133
Sel eni urn (mgfL) NO NO - 0.027 NO NO - 0.035
Silver (mgfL) NO - 0.030 NO - 0.049 . NO - 0.018 NO - 0.023
Sodium (mgfL) 9.49 - 9.89 1,450 - 3,280 5.3 - 898 10.9 - 389
Tha 11 i urn (mgfL) NO NO NO NO - 0.0021
Tin (mgfL) NO NO - O. 035 ND - 0.023 rm - 0.022
Vanadium (mgfL) 0.026 - 0.060 NO - 0.159 NO - 0.054 NO - 0.577
Zi nc (mgfL) 0.02 - 0.036 0.1 - 44.2 NO - 27. 9 NO - 2. 07
Notes:
1) Background well represented by OW411.
2) Oowngradient wells represented by G305B, OW408, OW407, OW406, G203a, OW403,
OW404, OW405, OW402.
3) On-site perimeter well represented by G112, G113, G114, G117, G201,
4) NO - not detected.
G303A, G303B, G304, G310.
-------
eta I
,luminum (mg/L)
,ntimony (mg/L)
,rsenic (mg/L)
,ltdum (mg/L)
lerylUum (mg/L)
loron (mg/L)
:ltdmium (mg/L)
'ilicium (mg/L)
:hromtum (mg/L)
:yltnide, total (mq/L)
lex8valent Chromium (mg/L)
~ohlilt (mq/L)
~opper (mg/L)
Iron (mg/L)
r.eltd (mg/L)
M8qnesium (mg/L)
"'8nganese (mg/L)
Mr.rcury (mg/L)
Nickel (mg/L)
potassium (mq/L)
5elenium (mg/L)
silver (mg/L)
50nium (mg/L)
Thallium (mg/L)
Tin (mg!L)
Vanadium (mq/L)
Zinc (mg!L)
Notes.
1)
2 )
3 )
4 )
5)
TARLE 9.4
SUMMARY OF HF.TALS CONCENTRATIONS IN LEACHATE AND UPPER AQUIFER
FILTERED SAMPLES
Backg round
Well
NO - 0.328
NO - 0.015
NO
0.088 - 0.117
NO
NO
NO
88.7 - 91.5
NO - 0.024
NO
NO
NO 0.014
0.011 - 0.025
0.416 - 0.437
NO
40.4 41.0
0.265 - 0.349
NO - 0.0022
NO"- 0.032
4.59 - 5.54
NO
NO'- 0.026
9.14 - 9.83
NO
NO
0.023 - 0.056
0.031 - 0.038
. ,
Leachate
NO - 12.5
NO - 0.024
0.012 - 0.179
0.268 - 0.788
NO
6.1 - 2)
NO - 0.0011
37.5 - 2,600
NO - O. 1 65
NO 0.043
NO 0.016
NO - 0.37
NO - 0.035
4.57 - 1,180
NO - 0.047
81.8 706
0.104 - 22
NO
0.06 - 0.589
49.5 - 692
NO - 0.027
NO - 0.049
1,450 - 3,280
NO
NO - 0.035
NO - 0.159
0.1 - 44.2
Oovngradient
Wells
NO - 1.08
NO - 0.011
NO - 0.022
NO - 0.45
NA
NO - 1.2
NO - 0.007
36.1 - 232
NO - 0.028
NO - 0.01
NA
NO - 0.05
NO
0.031 - 9.02
NO - 0.035
27.3 .142
0.03 - 1.05
NO - 0.0004
NO - 0.048
1. 52 - 86.5
NO - 0.0051
NO
5.3 - 617
NO - 0.002
NO - O. 0 J4
NO - 0.027
0.012 - 0.2
I~,/,~
J'. ,
'I, ,.~
;!~~;~
, '7
";.. i~
, i
, ;
On-Site
Perimeter Wells
Background well repreBented by OW411.
Oowngradient wells represented hy G305B, OW408, OW401, OW406, G203A, OW403,
OW404, OW405, OW402.
On-site perimeter well~ represented by G112, G11J, G114, G117, G201, G303A, G3038, G304, G310.
NO - not detected
NA - not analyzed
NO - 0.8
NO - 0.009
NO - 0.026
NO - 0.316'
NA
NO - 1. 7 .
NO - 0.0016
25.2 - 154
NO - 0.017
NO - 0.016
NA
NO 0.0076
NO - 0.01
ND - 2.71
NO - 0.01
18.0 85.7'
0.022 - 0.281
NO - 0.0002
NO - 0.032
3.05 - 126
NO
ND - 0.01
10.9 - 382-
NO
NO - 0.0054
NO - 0.017
NO - O. 1 BJ
"
, ,
. ,'\'
. ;/.
. '..
~ .
~~:\
'-;
"', '
...j
I .!
'4 :.
~'~
:;;
~.
'of,
~
~
";
;.
r
,.
t'
,1
'~
,
~
I
,~
-------
. . . . - -., .. '-~~.:i-.~"~~.h~w..~':'~L ..C....-"".ft-
'- , -".-., :A...' ~~-~~_. --
Jr.:.;J.:..::..2-: 001'- w... - ~~
.. ,.... ..........,.., , r
.....-..-. --
A - 5
.-",..
TABLE 4.9
INOR~IC INDICATOR PARAMETER
CONCE~~RATION DATA - ON-SITE PER~ETER WELLS
Inorganic Indicator Parameters ( ug II. ) ( 1 )
Monitor
well No. Arsenic Lead Nickel
Unfiltered Filtered Unfiltered Filtered Unfiltered Filtered
G112 5.3 (3.7) 7.1 1.6 35.7 19.0
G113 NA NA NA NA NA NA
Gn4 31.3 24.0 33.3 (2.1) 60.7 31.3
G117 (10.0) (10.0) (5.0) (5.0) (10.0) (10.0)
G201 13.0 NA 60.7 NA 37.7 ." NA
G303A 19.0 7.0 88.0 7.0 38.0 ...~... 20.0
G303B 4.1 3.1 242.5 5.0 72.0 (5.0)
G304 63.4 7.6 49.8 1.9 86.8 19.2
G310 (3.7) 3.1 6.2 (2.1) 18.3 15.0
Aquifer
- "erage (2) 1 8.7 8.4 61.6 3.5 44.9 17.1
MCt 50 50
woe 15.4
VA Guidance 150
Guidance (3)
Background (3.7) 0.7) 3.1 (1.6) 26.5 26.0
(OW411)
('1)
Numbers are averages of valid concentrations. (See text) Numbers in
paren~heses are averages where all data was reported as non-deteCt without
qualifiers.
NA - Not Analyzed
(2 )
Averaging procedures:
- Data for duplicate samples were averaged to provide a single value for each
round in each well.
- Estimates below detection limit were averaged as valid data.
- Detection limit was used for purposes of averaging in non-deteCts except
for those instances of poor sensitivity which resulted in unacceptably high
detection limits. (See text)
- Values for each round in each well were averaged to provide the well
averages reported above.
- Well averages, including non-detects, were averaged to develop the aquifer
averages reported in the above table.
r 3)
EPA Guidance - 50 FR, November 13, 1985.
-------
. .~ ::..;: -,......,...- -.....~.. ~....,~..."~ '~~-"'~''''....~..
'. . .-"\~-.- ''''-'''' 'l..-":-'..' .. ~ ~".-' ;:';~:::-"';"'~~".~.,.:-:,:~::.:;,- "':"'2'~:..~......:.....;:J~\...' - ~....fi~ ",' - -. ~~.-=--:a.iS~~~~ .
-: ..:.::""~......~._~-~~;..;.;.- ...,~'.... I~. '~8Lr.:~-....-;;y~......-~~Wd..:aIP'" .. . ----.... - . -
A-6
.
.
!
.
.
(3 )
TABLE 4. 1 0
ORGANIC INDICATOR PARAMETER
CONCENTRATION DATA - ON-SITE PER~ITER WELLS
(1)
Organic Indicator Parameters (ug!L)
Monitor Tetrachloro- Vinyl N-Nitrosodi-
Well No. ethene Trichloroethene Chloride Benzene phenyl amine
G112 7.7 3.4 1.1 2.7 2.0
G113 6.0 (3.0) C*) 9.0 6.0
G114 3.2 1.2 6.9 3.6 2.9
. G1.17 8.0 (4.0) C*) (3.0) C5.0)
G201 1.0 1.8 2.0 1.7 CO.4)
G303A C3.0) C2.5) C1.0) 9.0 8.0
G303B C1.5) 0.4 1.5 CO.6) 1.3
G304 5.0 1.8 0.0) 4.4 1.7
G310 0.2 1.8 5.5 1.3 1.9
Aquifer
(2) 4.0 2.2 2.7 3.9 3.2
Average
C' . (3)
rlterla
MCL 5.0 2.0 5.0
-6 0.88 2.8 2.0 0.88 7
WQC Risk 10_5
10_4 8.8 28 20.0 8.8 70
10 88.0 280 200.0 1e.0 700
(1)
Numbers are averages of valid concentrations. CSee text)
Numbers in parentheses are averages where all data was reported as non-detect
without qualifiers~
(.) - all data reported as non-detect without qualifiers and all analyses are
instances of poor sensitivity resulting in unacceptably high deteCtion
limits.
(2)
Averaging procedures:
- Data for duplicate samples were averaged to provide a single value for each
round in each well. .
- Estimates below detection limit vere averaged as valid data.
- Detection limit vas used for purposes of averaging in non-detects except for
those instances of poor sensitivity which resulted in unacceptably high
detection limits. (See text) .
- Values for each round in each well were averaged to provide the well
averages reported above.
- Well averages, including non-detects, were averaged to develop the aquifer
averages reported in the above table.
MCL - Maximum contaminant levels, National Drinking Water Standards
-------
- '- ""... -,,' ..". -.J' . ..,.-.
z'~~"'::.-'~'~_';"'~ l.._~~,..~-.o..- :-.......
~
(.3)
- '";'''-''''...4t..~.Z'''':''~''' .......-.... .~~~.,....~
':"~'~~-;~I.:..:~~:...,::l~~=;,:~;~~~~:~'--
A-7
TABLE 4. 11
EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS - UPPER AQUIFER GROUNDWATER
DO~~GRADIENT OF SITE (INORGANICS)
Inoraani c Indi~ator Parameter (uglL) ( 1 )
Moni tor
Well No. Arsenic Lead Nickel
Onfiltered Filtered Onfil tered Filtered Unfiltered Filtered
G203A 4.6 1.5 171.1 12.3 27.8 18.3
G305B (3.,7) NA 3.1 NA 16.0' NA
OW402 14.1 9.3 9.4 (2.6) 40.3 37.7
OW403 (4.1) (1.0) 5.4 (J.O) 16.7 5.0
OW404 10.1 (1.0) 7.6 0.0) 23.3 6.0
OW405 (3.7) (1.0) 6.4 (3.0) 14.3 8.0
014406 6.5 (1.0) 5.1 (3.0) 29.7 12.0
OW407 (3.7) (2.8) 6.2 2.8 24.0 13.5
OW408 4.9 (1.0) 8.9 (J.O) 43.7 I 25.5
..:...
Aquifer
Average(2) 6.2 2.1 24.8 4.1 26.2 15.8
6.5 * 2.9 *
'«CL(3) 50 50
tiQC (3) 15.4
HA() 150
Background (3.7) (3.7) 3.) (1.6) 26.5 26.0
(OW411)
(1 )
Numbers are averages of valid concentrations. (See text) Numbers in
parentheses are averages where all data was reported as non-detect without
qualifiers.
NA - Not Analyzed
(2 )
Averaging procedures:
- Cata for duplicate samples were averaged to provide a single value for each
round in each well.
- Estimates below detection limit were averaged as valid data.
- Detection limit was used for purposes of averaging in non-detects except
for those instances of poor sensitivity which resulted in unacceptably high
detection limits. (See text)
- Values for each round in each well were averaged to provide ~he well
averages reported above.
- Well averages, including non-detects, were averaged to develop the aquifer
averages reported in the above table.
Average without Well G203A, Assuming the lead value is anomalis.
MCL - Maximum contaminant level.
wQC - Water Quality Criteria.
SA - EPA Health Advisory
-------
j
i
,
A-8
TABLE 4.12
EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS - UPPER AQUIFER GROUNDWATER
DO~~GRADIE~~ OF SITE (ORGANICS)
(1)
Oraanic Indicator Chemicals (uq/L)
.
Monitor Tetrachloro- Vinyl N-Nitrosodi-
Well No. ethene Trichloroethene Chloride Benzene phenyl amine
G203A (0.9) 1.6 1.3 4.3 1.0
G30SB (0.8) (0.4) 0.7 (0.9) (0.5)
O\oi402 (1.2) 1.0 0.9 2.6 (0.5)
OW403 (0.6) 0.3 1.9 (O.~) (0.4)
OW404 (0~6) (0.4) (1.0) (0.6) (0.5) .
.O\oi405 (1.0) (0.4) (0.9) (0.6) (0.4)
OW406 (0.6) (0.4) 0.9 (0.6) (0.4)
OW407 (1.0) (0.4) 1.6 (0.6) (0.5)
OW408 1.3 (0.4) 1.3 (0.6) (0.5)
Aquifer
(2) 0.9 0.6 1.2
Average 1.3 0.5
C' . (3)
n.terJ.4
MCL 5.0 2.0 5.0
-6
WQC Risk 10_5 0.88 2.8 2.0 0.88 7
10_4 8.8 28 20.0 8.8 70
10 88.0 280 200.0 88.0 700
(1)
Numbers are averages of valid concentrations. (See text)
Numbers in parentheses are averages where all data was reported as non-detect
without qualifiers.
(2 )
Averaging procedures:
- Data for duplicate samples were averaged to provide a single value for each
1 .
. round in each well.
- Estimates below detection limit were averaged as valid data.
- Detection limit was used for purposes of averaging in non-detects except for
those instances of poor sensitivity which resulted in unacceptably high
detection limits. (See text)
- Values for each round in each well were averaged to provide the well
averaqes reported above. .
- Well averages, including non-detects, were averaged to develop the aquifer
averages reported in the above table.
(3)
MCt - Maximum contaminant levels, National Drinking Water Standards
WQC - Wa!gr Quality Criteria for risk levels of 10-4, 10-5 and
10 .
-------
. .
ATTACHMENT B
WASTE SUMMARY
,.
-------
SI/t1MARY (f HAZARDOUS ~/ASTE UISPOSAL BY INDUSTIRES AT THE '~AUCONDA SAND AND GRAVEL
SITE FOR WHICH U.S. EPA HAS SOr-f.: LlMITEU INFORr1ATION (1)
lIazardous Waste RCHA Hazardous
Dis~osal by Industries Waste Disposal(2)
Waste Type Quantity yd3 yd3 -
3U% sulfuric acid 330 barrels 82 B2
Cr+6 dust 415 tons 415 415
WUTP sludge 140 14U
Pigments containing
heavy metals 1430 1 bs. 1 l
ink roller alcohol
based solvent. Ignitable .
anti contained Pb, Cr, Ni,
Zn, Cd, Cu. 66U drums 167 167
Trash, liquid waste 102UO (3)
waste 011 unknown
(est imated) :x:o
-t
-t
):>
Waste including a small n
:5
quantity of partially ..:..
I'T1
filled spray paint cans 24UUU (4) :z
--I
(estimated) CD
I
......
Ink s 1 ud ge 62 drums 16
Carbon, tars latex 73 drums 18
Gri ndi ng sludge and
slag 216
Pigments unknown 570 (3)
(es t imated)
-------
Refuse including
small quantitiea of
adhesives & solvents
3900 (4)
39725
8U5
Estimated Hazardous waste disposal
=
39725
3x1U-6
x 100 = 1. 3%
Known RCRA hazardous waste di sposa1
=
805
3xlO-6
x 100 = 0.03%
(1) This Table is not IlEant for negotiationg purposes.
(2) Only waste for which documentation is available that indicates that waste would probably have met
present definition of a hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. .
(3) Estimated by multip1yiog number of employees by a hazardous \'Iaste generation factor from Weston,
1970. .
(4) No quantitative estimate of hazardous waste disposal available; so total waste disposal assumed
to be hazard OIJ s.
, .
..
en
.
n
o
::s
M'
-------
ATTACHMENT C
GROUNDWATER ANALYSES -
COMPARISON DATA SUMMARY
'"
-------
Upper Aquifer On-site Perimeter Wells
(Maximum Concentration in mg/l for Rounds 6 and 7)1
Tetra- Trichloro- Vinyl N-Nitroso-
Well Arsenic2 Benzene chloroethylene ethylene Chloride diphenylamine
GIl2 F NO 0.00313 NO NO 0.0011 NO
UF 0.0064
GIl3 F NO NO NO NO NO NO
UF NO
GIl4 F 0.026 0.0054 NO NO 0.00083 NO
UF 0.028
GIl7 F NO NO NO NO NO NO
UF NO
G201 F NO 0.0026 0.00173 0.0021 0.0022 NO
, UF 0.027
N
I
G303A F NO NO NO NO NO NO
UF NO
G3038 F NO NO NO NO O. 0017 NO
UF 0.004
G304 F 0.0049 0.0028 NO NO NO NO
UF 0.042
G310 F NO 0.0013 0.0002 0.0022 . 0.0091 NO
UF NO ...
.~..
n
I
.......
-------
. .
"
lower Aquifer Wells
(Maximum Concentration in mg/l for Rounds 6 and 7)1
Tetra- Trtchloro- Vinyl N-Nitroso-
We 11 Arsenic2 Benzene chloroethylene ethylene Chloride diphenylamine
G3118 F NO 0.00443 NO NO NO NO
UF NO
OW409 F NO NO 0.00083 0.012 NO NO
UF NO
OW410 F NO NO 0.00063 0.0039 NO 0.014
UF NO
I
eN
I
n
I
N
-------
C-3
FOOTNOTES
1 Data from rounds 6 and 7 were used to determine maximum concentrations
detected for each chemical of concern. IINDn indicates that the chemical
was not detected.
2 F: Filtered Results
UF: Unfiltered Results
Unfiltered results were used to indicate "worst case" scenario.
3 Value used for dose is an estimated concentration below detection limits.
-4-
-------
TAnLE 1
TAOlJlATION (J" PERCENTAr.E (F TIMES DETECTED
IN ALL SAMPLING IWIINIJS tOMPAHING SITE-
IMPAtHIJ WEllS WITIt WEllS Nur sin IMPACTED
OOWN-GRAOIENT WEllS lLl- WELLS NOT SHE IMPACTEU
PARAMETER t \(05S-(;1( /lJ1I EtH (~) UJWER-AljiTiITR
UP-GRlUlIENT PLUS C"OSS~
GIH\IJIENT (3)
UP-GHA!) I Ern -
Arsent c (u1filtered) (4) 361. 211. 91.
Arsenic (f11terec1) (4) 201. U1. U1.
1,1 Uichloroethane 271. 7'1. 131.
1,2 Dichlorop.thane 71. U1. U1.
1,2 Oichloropropane 10% 0% 01.
Benzene 3U1. 211. lUt
e h 1 orohenzene 161. 01. 01.
C h 1 oroethane 241. U1. U1.
Trans-1,2-dtchl~roethp.ne 361. U1. 01.
Vinyl chloride 461. U1. U'XO
Tetrachloroethene 2U1. 141. ~61.
T rt ch 1 oroethene 231. 14'Xo 211.
1. These tnc1udp. on-site and off-site down-~raclient periml!ter wells 62IJl, G3111, GUll, G113,
till?, r.31J4, (i303A, G1I7, G3IJ3n, ri3051\, OWtlOlJ, Gllfi, m/llOl, m/4U6, G~UJA, (i3{)\J, mltJU3, G111b,
0\-14112. Total of 7U analyses except for ~3 for drse~ic (unfi Itered) and 4~ for drscnic lfi Iter cd).
n
I
""'"
-------
2.
Shal10w aquifer Wells GI04, G3U2, rillS, GlOJ, OW4Ul, OW4ll, G311A. Total of 14 analyses except
7 for arsenic. Gll5, not used for volatile organics because of hiyh.detection limit.
3:
Wells in (3) plus deep aquifer wells 0\1409, OW4W, G311B. and round 6 & 7 residential wells.
Total of 34 analyses except 17 for arsenic.
Values less than 4 ug/1 counted as not cfetected. This is because Hazelton Laboratory redched
lI1uch lower det.ection limits that other lahs but only analyzed only one background out of 15
analyses. r.ountin!.! detects less than 4 ug!l could bias the results by showing an impact down
gradient that is not real. . .
4.
n
I
U1
-------
TAIlLE 2
TAI1I1LATION (J" PERCENTAGE (F' TIMES DETECTED
IN LAST 'IUO SAMPLlNlj HUUNDS (HOUNDS b A 7) CUMPARING
Strl-IMPACHU WELlS WITII WELLS NUT SITE IMPACTEO
nOWN-GRAn lENT WElLS ill
WELLS NOT SITE-IMPACTEO
CIWSS-(iIUIjIIENT (l) LUwE/{ A(JIJIFER
UP-GHJItJ lENT PLUS C/{USS-
GRAUIt::NT (J)
UP-GHAU lENT
PARAMETER
Arsenic (unfiltered) 411. O~
1,10ichloroethane 4111. U~
1,2 nichloroethane In O~
1,2 nichloropropane 21~ U~
nenlene 281. 0'-'
C h 1 orohenlene 211 ot
C h 1 oroethl1ne 55~ O~
Trans-l,2-dichloroethene Jilt ot
Vi nyl Chloride 76% ut
Tetrachloroethene 141. U1.
Trichloroethene 17% Ot.
O~
14f,
U~
O'L
4~
Uf,
Uf,
U~
Uf,
29f,
211.
1.
These induc1e on-site and off-site down yradient perimeter wells G2Ul, G31O, G114, G112,
G3U31\, Ci3U5n, 0I~40U, O~4Ul, UWI06, G2U3A, 0\4403, 0\~4U2. A total of 29 analyses.
.
2. Wells shallow aquifer G3111\, OW411. Total of 5 analyses.
1. Wells in (2) plus deep aquifer wells OW409, OW41n, G311I1, anf1 rounds 6 & 7 resirlentidl
we 1 Is.
4. Values less than 4 uy/l C~Jnt~d as not detected (see Table I).
n
I
'"
,.--
-------
TAUIJLA TI ON (f NUMBEI~ (f DETEe TlONS PEH TOTAL ANAL YSES FOR D IFF EHENT
liROUPS (f WELLS AT TI~E HAUCONDA SAND & GHAVEl SITE
On-Site(2) On-Site and IJp-G rad i ent (4) Up-Gradient(!»
Data On-Site(I) Pe rimeter Down-Gradient(3) Down Grddi ent and Cross Gradient C ross-Gradi ent
PARAMETEHS Used. Hells We lis Perimeter \~e 11 Perimeter We 11 s Upper Aquifer Wells Plus Lower Aquifer
III
Trich1oro- all 2/313 2/3U 8/40 lO/7U 2/14 6/39
ethane data
" rounds
6&7 1/16 1/12 2/17 3/29 U/!> 4/2ti
11
Oichloro- a 11
ethane data 1513B 8/30 11/40 19/7U 1/14 !>/39
rounds
6&7 10/16 6/12 8/17 14/29 U/5 412~
t
12
Dich1oro- a 11
ethane data 5/3B 3/3U 2/4U 5/7U U/14 U/39
rounds
6&7 5/16 3112 2/17 5/29 U/!> U/2~
12
Dich1oro- a 11
propane data 8/38 5/3U 2/4U 7/7U U/f4 U/39
.,....,
,
rounds
6&7 6/16 4112 2/17 .' 6/29 U/5 U/2tl
2
Butanone all
data 9/28 4/20 UI3U 4/5U 1/10 J/3';)
("')
rounds I
.......
6&7' 1/16 1/12 0/17 0/29 1/!> 2/2B
-------
Acetone
al1
data
15/28
9/2U
4/30
13/50
4110
7/35
rounds
6tH
3/16
1/12
1/17
2/29
U/5
I/2ti
Benzene
all
data
15/3ti
12/3U
9/40
21/70
3/14
4/39
rounds
6&7
7/16
5/12
3/17
ti/29
0/5
1/2ti
Chloro- all 10/38 lU/30 1/4U 11/70 0/14 0/39
benzene data
rounds
6&7 5/16 5/12 1/17 6/28 U/5 U/2ti
":
Benzoic all
Acid data R/36 3/2ti 3/29 6/57 0/11 0/36
rounds
6&7 6/16 2/12 3/17 5/29 U/5 2/36
( 2-ethyl-
hexyl
phthalate
all
data
9/38 .
7/3U
11/4U
18/70
2/1~
14/4U
rounds
6&7
8/16
6/12
10/17
16/29
2/5
14/2U
n
I
OJ
o .
-------
di-n-
butyl ph- all
thalate c1ate 7/3U 4/30 6/40 lO/7U 1/15 7/4U
rounds
6&7 3/16 3/12 5/17 8/29 U/5 4/28
di-n-
octylph- all
thalate data 3/3U 1/30 2/40 3/7U 2/15 7/4U
rounds
6&7 3116 1/12 2117- 3129 1/~ bj28
n- all
nitroso data 9/38 . 9/30 2/40 l1/7U 4/1!> 7/4U
diphenyl-
amine rounds
6&7 0116 0/12 1/17 1/29 0/5 1/28
phenol all
data 8/38 5/30 4/40 9/70 2/15 5/4U
rounds
6&7 5116 3/12 2/17 5129 V~ 4/28
Heptachlor all
data 1/38 1/30 4/4U 5/7U 1/15 2/4U
rounds
6&7 0/16 0/12 0/17 0/29 Of!> U/28
n
I
U)
-------
Arseni c * d 11
Unfi It ered data 14/29 12/23 7/30 19/53 3/11 3/34
rounds
6&7 11/14 H/12 4/17 12/29 0/5 0/2H -
Arseni c * all
Filtered data 8/23 8/21 1/24 9/45 0/7 0/17
C admi urn
U n{i 1. t eTed
all
dilta .
5/29
5/26
12/30
17/56
5/11
6/34
r~ercury
Unfi ltered
all
data
5/29
5/23
4130
9/53
3/11
7/34
Chloro-
ethane
all
data
11/38
7/30
10/40
17170
0/14
U/39
rounds
6&7
10/16
6/12
10/17
16/29
0/5
0/2H
Et hy 1- all
henzene data 113H 1/30 4/4U 5/7U 0/14 2/3':)
rounds
6&7 0/16 0/12 4/17 9/29 0/5 2/2U
n
I
~
o
* Only arsenic above 4 ugl1 was counted as detected
'.
-------
Methy-
lene all
chloride data lIJ/38 8130 15/40 23/70 4(14 11j3Y
rounds'
6&7 5/16 3/12 'd/17 11/2Y 2/5 Y/l'd
Tetra-
ch1oro- a 11
ethane data 12/38 11/30 3/40 14/7U 2/14 lU/39
rounds
6&7 3/16 3/12 1/11 4/29 0/5 'd/2H
Toluene
a 11
data
9/3C3
6130
9/4U
15/70
2/1!:i
10139
rounds
6&7
5/16
4/12
6/17
10/29
U/~
7/2'd
Trans 12
dich1oro- a 11
ethene data 21138 14/30 11/40 2';)/70 . U~14 U/3Y
rounds
6&7 9/16 5/12 6/17 11/29 O/~ U/2'd
Trichloro- a11
ethene data
14/38
9130
7/4U
16/70
2/14
'dI3Y
rounds
6&7
5/16
3/12
2/17
5/29
0/5
6/2&
n
I
......
......
-------
Vi ny 1
chloride
all
data
20/3U
13/30
19/40
32/7U
0/14
0/39
rounds
6&7
10116
6112
16/17
22/29
U/5
U/28
Xy1enes
all
data
2/33
1/27
8/3U
9/57
1/11
!>/3b
rounds
6&7
2116
1/12
8/17
9129
U/5
4/28
1,4
dich1oro- all
benzene data 3138 3/30 2/40 5/l':J UIl!> 2/4U
rounds
6&7 0116 0/12 0/17 U/29 0/5 Untl
4 methy1- all
pheno 1 data
6138
2/3U
0/4U
2/lU
1/15
2/4U
rounds
6&7
6116
2/12
0/17
2/29
1/5
2/2tl
n
I
......
N
~.
-------
1 )
2)
3)
~ells. G301. G201. G310. G114. G113. G112. G304. G3U3A. G117. G3U3B.
Wells G201. G310. G114. G113. G112. G304. G303A. G117. G303B.
Wells G305B. OW408. G116. OW407. OW406. G203A. G309. OW403. GIU6.
0\~402 .
4)
We1ls GI04. G302. G115. GI03. OW401. OW411. G311A. Gl15 was not used
for volatile organics because of high detection limits.
Wells listed in 4) plus OW409. OW41G. G311B. and residential well in
rounds 6&7.
5)
£"
.". ~
5HE-12:RBoice:mt:CERCLA:l/13/88:Lexitron Disk #3
revi sed 2/1/88
C-13
n
o
:::I
('"to
'oJ
-------
ATTACH~.1ENT D
MUTTON CREEK - SURFACE WATER AND
SEDII1ENT ANALYSES
,.
-------
TABLE 8.2
- 1)-1
SU~~~~Y OF MUTTON CPEEr. SU?~ACE WA~EP k~ALYTICAL DA~A
Parameter
Volatile Organics (ug!L)
2-Butanone
Benzene
Methylene Chloride
Base~eutral/Acids (ug!L)
putyl benzylphthala~e
Di-n-butylphthalate
Pes~icide5/PCBs (ug/L)
4,4'-000
Dieldrin
Endrin
Heptachlor
Heptachlor Epoxide
Metals (mg/L)
Aluminum
Barium
Calcium
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
potassiwn
Sodium
'1'in
Zinc
Upstream
NO
Nt>
NO - 0.2
NO
Nt> - 0.1
Nt>
ND
Nt>
ND
ND
Nt> - 1.07
Nt> - 0.032
70.7 - 70.8
0.264 - 2.15
Nt>
26.1 - 26.~
0.034 - 0.404
Nt>
4.29 - 4.36
13.9 - 14.1
Nt> - 0.023
0.021 - 0.031
Leachate
Nt> - 22,000
t."D - 70
NO - 11,000
Nt>
Nt> - 26
NO
Nt>
ND
Nt>
NO
Nt> - 12.5
0.268 - 0.788
37.5 - 2,600
4.57 - 1,180
Nt> - 0.047
81.8 - 706
0.104 - 22
0.06 - 0.589
49.5 - 692
1450 - 3,280
NO - 0.035
0.1 - 44.2
Downstream
t."D - 2. 3
N:) - 0.2
ND - 1.1
N:) - B:>L
Nt>
ND - 0.13
Nt> - 0.046
Nt> - 0.029
ND - 0.026
N:) - o. 0 32
to":> - 0.884
0.032 - 0.34
69.6
0.508 - 6.0
ND - 0.0028
26.0
0.046 - 0.258
Nt> - 0.041
5.6
21.4
Nt> - 0.022
0.027 - 0.029
continued.. .,'
-------
TABLE 8.2
SUMMARY OF MUTTON CREEK SURFACE WATER ANALYTICAL DATA
Parameter
General Water Quality Parameters
Chemical Oxygen Demand (mg/L)
Chloride (lIIg!L)
Conductivity (umbos)
Dissolved Oxygeno(lIIg/L)
~onia as N (lIIg/L)
Nitrate/Nitrite as N (lIIg!L)
Sulfate (lIIg/L)
Total Dissolved Solids (lIIg!L)
Total Organic Carbon (mg/L)
TQtal Suspended Solids (lIIg/L)
Turbidity (NTl1)
pH
~:
1 )
2 )
3)
4)
S)
6)
Upstream
Leachate
CQwr:stream
38 - 4.0
25 - 27
310
10.38 - 10.57
0.37 - 0.41
0.22 - 0.23
70 - 72
360 - 370
36 - 46
2 - 3
2
7.75
930 - 36,000
1,800 - 4,500
61
38
315
9.48
2.0
0.20
71
400
31
4
2
7.8
460 - 760
0.2 - 1.4
NC - 1,400
5,800 - 25,000
380 - 14,000
48 - 120
Upstream data represented by WS101 and SW3
Downstream data represented by WS301 and SW1
Leachate. data represented by LW503, 1.5 1, LS2, 1.53, 1.54, WS002, WS401
NO - not detected .
BDL - below detection limit
Complete surface water data base provided in Appendix C
,.
71d
0-2
-------
.
.
.
-
TABLE 8.3
SUM.'\A,RY OF MUTTON CREEK SEDIMENT
ANALYTICAL DATA
Parameter
Upstream
!Q£!.
2-butanone (ug/kg)
acetone (ug/kg)
methylene ch~Qr1de
t"luene (ug/kg)
other VOCs
(ug/kg)
NO
ND
NO - 16
NO - BDL
NO
.~
di-n-octylphthalate (ug/kg)
other BNAs
130
NO
Pesticide/PCBs
all parAllleters
NO
Metal s
Aluminum (mg/kg)
Arsenic (mg/kg)
Barium (mg/kg)
Calcium (illg/kg)
Chromium (illg/kg)
Cobalt (illg/kg)
Copper (illg/kg)
Iron (illg/kg)
Lead (mg/kg)
Magnesium (illg/kg)
Manganese (illg/kg)
Nickel (mg/kg)
Potassium (illg/kg)
Sodium (mg/kg)
Tin (illg/kg)
Total Cyanide (illg/kg)
Zinc (mg/kg)
1 , 63 0
13
12 - 52
87,900
6.5
NO - 4.5
NO - 5.1
6,820 - 7,140
9.9 - 13
49,600
246 - 294
NO - 5
NO
41'S
8.9
NO
20 - 42
Note.:
(1 )
(2 )
(3 )
(4 )
(5)
BeL - detected but below detection limit
NO - not detected
upstreAm datA represented by locati"ns 503 and 55101
downstream data represented by locations 55301 and S01
complete sediment dAtA base provided in Appendix C.
71e
0-3
Downstream
NO - 12
NO - 126
ND - 19
NO - 7
ND
Nt>
ND
NO
1,320 - 2,710
ND
'2 - 27 .
15,100 - 45,200
NO
NO
NO - 2.9
2,900 - 7,910
3.5 - 6.1
6,450 - 21,800
76 - 157
2.4 - 9.3
NO - 682
324 - 437.
9.8 - 10
NO - 0.37
20 - 34
-------
ATTACHMENT E
RISK ANALYSES
-------
Ta b 1 e 5
E-1
Peak Ri sks Associated Wi th the Area Source/Typical Gas Generation Rate Scenario
Peak Risk Off Site
Peak. Risk Residence
Vinyl Chloride
Benzene
Trichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Styrene
Methylene Chloride
Total Peak Ri sk
Vi nyl Ch 1 ori de
Benzene
Trichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Styrene
Methylent Chloride
Total Peak Risk
4. 7 x 10- 6
1.2 x 10-7
3.3 x 10-8
3.4 x 10-8
3.3 x 10-9
1.8 x 10-7
4.4 x 10-6*
2. 4 x 1 0- 6
6.8 x 10-8
1. 9 x 10-8
2.0 x 10-8
1.6 x 10-9
1.1 x 10-7
2.6 x 10-6
*The sum of the peak risk for each chemical may not add up to total peak
risk because of round-off error
-------
;..
E-2
Table 5 (continued)
Peak Risk (On Site)
Benzene
5.2 x 10-6
1. 5 x 10-7
Vinyl Chloride
Trichloroethene
4.2 x 10-8
4.4 x 10-8
Tetrachloroethene
Styrene
3.6 x 10-9
2.3 x 10-7
Methylene Chloride
Total Peak Ri sk
5.6 x 10-6*
*The sum of the peak risk for each chemical may not add up to total peak
risk becuase of round-off error
-------
REPLACEMENT TABLE 4.1H
Totdl Potency of Lf ver Carcinogens in Upper Aquifer OO\'mgradient Wells
Aqui fer Average Potency
Parameter C onc. ug/1 Uaily Intake Factor Hisk
1,2-Dichloroethane 0.7 2xlO-5 0.U91 l.ti~xlU-6
1,1-0ichloroethene NO 0.58
Tetrachloroethane 0.9 1.6xlU-5 0.051 1.3lxlO-6
Trichloroethene 0.6 1.7xlU-5 U.U11 U .19xlU-6
Vi nyl C hl ori de 1.2 3.4xlO-5 2.3 78.lxlU-6
Total ti.15xlU-~
Replacement Table 4.2U
Total Potency of Liver Carcinogens 1n Upper Aquifer On-Site Perimeter Wells
1,2-0ichloroethane 1.4 4x1U-5 0 .o~n 3.6xlU-6 ~
1,1-0ichloroethene NDH 0.58 -I
-I
Tetrachloroethene 4.0 1l.4x10-5 0.051 5.BxlO-6 ~
2.2 6. 3x10-5 U.7xlU-6 n
Trichloroethene O.Ul1 :X:
Vinyl Chloride 2.7 7. 7x10-5 177 .4xlU-6 3:
2.3 iT1
2
1. 9xlU-4 -I
~
..',
"'.
*Daily intake asslJming 2 liters/day by a 70 kg individual.
** 1.7 ug/l value in Table 4.20 of FS ~/as a mistake.
Only one detection at 0.3 uy.l
iT1
I
W
-------
E-4
Calculations for the Estimation of
Tot~l Risk From Mixture Exposure
Upper Aquifer Wells - Downgradient From
Wauconda Sand and Gravell
Basic risk calculation:
(Dose x Human Ingestion Factor) x Potency Factor = Added Risk
mg/l 2 l/day/70 kg (mg/kg/day)-l (Unitless)
Well G203A
(1) Arsenic2 = (0.0072 mg/l) (2 1/day/70 kg)
= 2.06 x 10-4 mg/kg/day
risk = (2.06 x 10-4) (1.5)
= 3.1 x 10-4
(2) Benzene = (0.0035 mill) (2 l/day/70 kg).
= 1.0 x 10- mg/kg/day
risk = (1.0 x 10-4) (5.2 x 10-2)
. 5.2 x 10-6
(3) Tetrachloroethylene = ND
(4) Trichloroethylene = (0.0066 mg/l) (2 1/day/70 kg)
= 1.89 x 10-4 mg/kg/day
risk = (1.89 x 10-4) (1.1 x 10-2)
= 2.1 x 10-6
(5) Vinyl Chloride3 = (0.0007 mg/l) (2 1/day/70 kg)
= 2.0 x 10-5 mg/kg/day
risk = (2.0 x 10-5) (2.3)
= 4.6 x 10-5
(6) N-Nitrosodiphenylamine = (0.0013 mg/l) (2 1/day/70 kg)
= 3.71 x 10-5 mg/kg/day
, risk = (3.71 x 10-5) (4.9 x 10-3)
= 1.8 x 10-7 I'
Individual risks are added to estimate total risk from mixture exposure:
(3.1 x 10-4) + (S.2 x 10-6) + (2.1 x 10-6) + (4.6 x 10-5) + (1.8 x 10-7)
. 3.6 x 10-4
Well 3058
(I) Arsenic. ND
-~
-------
(2) Benzene = NO
(3) Tetrachloroethylene = NO
. (4) Trichloroethylene = NO
(5) Vinyl Chloride3 = (0.0011 mg/l) (2 1/day/70 kg)
= 3.14 x 10-5 mg/kg/day
risk = (3.14 x 10-5) (2~3)
= 7.2 x 10-5
(6) N-Nitrosodiphenylamine = NO
Because vinyl chloride was the only chemical detected, total,risk will
not be estimated for Well 305B.
Well OW402
(1) Arsenic2 = (0.030 mg/l) .(2 1/day/70 kg)
= 8.57 x 10-4 mg/kg/day
risk = (8.57 x 10-4) (1.5)
= 1. 3 x 10- 3
(2) Benzene = (0.0042 m~/l) (2 1/day/70 kg)
= 1.2 x 10- mg/kg/day
risk = (1.2 x 10-4) (5.2 x 10-2)
= 6.2 x 10-6
(3) Tetrachloroethylene = NO
(4) Trichloroethylene = (0.0008 mg/l) (2 1/day/70 kg)
= 2.29 x 10-5 mg/kg/day
risk = (2.29 x 10-5) (1.1 x 10-2)
= 2.5 x 10-7
(5) Vinyl Chloride3 = (O.0007 mg/l) (2 1/~ay/70 kg)
= 2.0 x 10-5 mg/kg/day
risk = (2.0 x 10-5) (2.3)
= 4. 6 x 10- 5
(6) N-Nitrosodiphenylamine = NO
Total risk from mixture exposure for well OW402:
(1.3 x 10-3) + (6.2 x 10-6) + (2.5 x 10-7) + (4.6 X 10-5) = 1.4 x 10-3
Well OW403
(I) Arsenic' = NO
(2) Benzene = NO
-6-
E-5
-------
\
E-6
(3) Tetrachloroethylene. ND
(4) Trichloroethylene3 =(0.0002 mgll) (2 1/day/70 kg)
= 5.71 x 10-6 mg/kg/day
risk. (5.71 x 10-6) (1.1 x 10-2)
. 6.3 x 10-8
(5) Vinyl Chloride c (0.0028 mg/l) (2 1/day/70 kg)
= 8.0 x 10-5 mg/kg/day
risk. (8.0 x 10-5) (2.3)
= 1.8 x 10-4
(6) N-Nitrosodiphenylamine . ND
Total risk' from "-ixture exposure for well OW403:
(6.3 x 10-8) + (1.8 x 10-4) = 1.8 x 10""4
Well OW404
(1) Arsenic = ND
(2) Benzene = ND
(3) Tetrachloroethylene c ND
(4) Trichloroethylene. ND
(5) Vinyl Chloride = ND
(6) N-Nitrosodiphenylamine c ND
No total risk estimated for Well OW404.
Well OW405
(1) Arsenic = ND
(2) Benzene = ND
(3) Tetrachloroethylene = ND
(4) Trichloroethylene = ND
(5) Vinyl Chloride = ND
(6) N-Nitrosodiphenylamine = ND
No total risk estimated for Well OW405.
-7-
-------
"
. Well OW406
(1) Arsenic. ND
'(2) Benzene. ND
(3) Tetrachloroethylene c ND
(4) Trichloroethylene = ND
(5) Vinyl Chloride3 = (0.0008 mg/l) (2 1/day/70 kg)
= 2.29 x 10-5 mg/kg/day
risk = (2.29 x 10-5) (2.3)
= 5.3 x 10-5
(6) N-Nitrosodiphenylamine c ND
Because vinyl chloride was the only chemical detected. total risk will
not be estimated for Well OW406.
Well OW407
( 1) A rsen i C'= ND
(2) Benzene = ND
(3) Tetrachloroethylene = ND
(4) Trichloroethylene = ND
(5) Vinyl Chloride = (0.0019 mg/l) (2 1/day/70 kg)
= 5.43 x 10-5 mg/kg/day
risk = (5.43 x 10-5) (2.3)
= 1.2 x 10-4
(6) N-Nitrosodiphenylamine a ND
Because vinyl chloride was the only chemical detected. total risk will
not be estimated for Well OW407.
Well OW408
(1) Arsenic2 = (0.005 mg/l) (2 l/day/70 kg)
= 1.43 x 10-4 mg/kg/day
risk = (1.43 x 10-4) (1.5)
= 2.1 x 10-4
(2) Benzene = ND
(3) Tetrachloroethylene a (0.0018 mg/l) (2 1/day/70 kg)
, = 5.14 x 10-5 mg/kg/day
risk = (5.14 x 10-5) (5.1 x 10-2)
= 2. 6 x 10- 6
-8-
E-7
-------
E-B
.(4) Trichloroethylene = ND
(5) Vinyl Chloride = (0.0016 mg/l) (2 1/day/70 kg)
= 4.57 x 10-5 mg/kg/day
risk = (4.57 x 10-5) (2.3)
= 1.1 x 10-4
(6) N-Nitrosodiphenylamine = ND
Total risk from mixture exposure for Well OW408:
(2.1 x 10-4) + (2.6 x 10-6) + (1.1 x 10-4) = 3.2 x 10-4
-9-
-------
E-9
Calculations for the Estimation of
Total Risk from Mixture Exposure
Upper Aquifer Wells -- On-site
Perimeter Wells for Wauconda
Sand and Gravell
Well G112
(1) Arsenic2 = (0.0064 mg/l) (2 1/day/70 kg)
= 1.83 x 10-4 mg/kg/day
risk = (1.83 x 10-4) (1.5)
. 2.7 x 10-4
(2) Benzene3 = (0.0031 mg/l) (2 1/day/70 kg)
= 8.86 x 10-5 mg/kg/day
risk = (8.86 x 10-5) (5.2 x 10-2)
= 4.6 x 10-6
(3) Tetrachloroethylene = ND
(4) Trichloroethylene = ND
I"..
,.,....,
(5) Vinyl Chloride = (0.0011 mg~') (2 1/day/70 kg)
= 3.14 x 10- mg/kg/day
risk = (3.14 x 10-5) (2.3)
... 7.2 x 10- 5
(6) N-Nitrosodiphenylamine = ND,
Total risk from mixture exposure for Well G112:
(2.7 x 10-4) + (4.6 x 10-6) + (7.2 x 10-5) . 3.5 x 10-4
Well G113
(1) Arsenic = ND
(2) Benzene = ND
(3) Tetrachloroethylene = ND
(4) Trichloroethylene = ND
(5) Vinyl Chloride = ND
(6) N-Nitrosodiphenylamine = ND
Ho total risk estimated for Well G113.
-10-
-------
E-IO
- .
Well G114-
(I) Arsenic2 = (0.028 mg/l) (2 1/day/70 kg)
- 8: 8.0 x 10-4 mg/kg/day
risk = (8.0 x 10-4) (1.5)
8: 1.2 x 10-3
(2) Benzene = (0.0054 mg/l) (2 1/day/70 kg)
8: 1.54 x 10-4 mg/kg/day -
risk. (1.54 x 10-4) (5.2 x 10-2)
8: 8.0 x 10-6
(3) Tetrachloroethylene 8: ND
(4) Trichloroethylene. ND
(5) Vinyl Chloride3 = (0.0008 mg/l) (2 1/day/70 kg)
= 2.29 x 10-5 mg/kg/day
risk = (2.29 x 10-5) (2.3)
. 5.3 x 10-5
(6) N-Nitrosodiphenylamine-= ND
Total risk from mixture exposure for Well G114:
(1.2 x 10-3) + (8.0 x 10-6) + (5. 3x 10-5) = 1.3 x 10-3
Well G117
(I) Arsenic = ND
(2) Benzene = ND
(3) Tetrachloroethylene. ND
(4) Trichloroethylene. ND
(5) Vinyl Chloride ~ ND
(6) N-Nitrosodiphenylamine = ND
~o tnt-al risk estimated for Well G117.
I-
Well G201
(I) Arsenic2 = (0.027 mg/l) (2 1/day/70 kg)
= 7.71 x 10-4 mg/kg/day
risk = (7.71 x 10-4) (1.5)
= 1.2 x 10-3
(2) Benzene = (0.0026 mg/l) (2 1/day/70 kg)
= 7.43 x 10-5 mg/kg/day
risk = (7.43 x 10-5) (5.2 x 10-2)
= 3.9 x 10-6
-11-
-------
E-ll
. (3) Tetrachloroethylene3 ~ (0.0017 mg/l) (2 1/day/70 kg)
. = 4.86 x 10-5 mg/kg/day
risk = (4.86 x 10-5) (5.1 x 10-2)
= 2.5 x 10-6
(4) Trichloroethylene = (0.0021 mg/l) (2 1/day/70 kg)
= 6.0 x 10-5 mg/kg/day
risk = (6.0 x 10-5) (1.1 x 10-2)
= 6.6 x 10-7
(5) Vinyl Chloride = (0.0022 mg/l) (2 1/day/70 kg)
= 6.29 x 10-5 mg/kg/day
. risk = (6.29 x 10-5) (2.3)
= 1. 4 x 10-4
(6) N-Nitrosodiphenylamine = ND
Total risk from mixture exposure for Well G201:
(1.2 x 10-3) + (3.9 x 10-6)"+ (2.5 x 10-6) + (6.6 x 10-7) + (1.4 x 10-4)
c: 1.3 x 10-3
Well G303A
(1) Arsenic = ND
(2) Benzene = ND
(3) Tetrachloroethylene = ND
(4) Trichloroethylene = ND
(5) Vinyl Chloride = ND
(6) N-Nitrosodiphenylamine = ND
No total risk estimated for Well G303A.
Well G303B
(1) Arsenic2 = (0.004 mg/l) (2 1/day/70 kg)
= 1.14 x 10-4 mg/kg/day
risk = (1.14 x 10-4) (1.5)
c 1. 7 x 10-4
(2) Benzene = ND
(3) Tetrachloroethylene = ND
" (4) Trichloroethylene = ND
-12-
-------
\
E-12
. .
'(5) Vinyl Chloride ~ (0.0017 mg/l) (2 1/day/70 kg)
. . 4.86 x 10-5 mg/kg/day
risk. (4.86 x 10-5) (2.3)
= 1.1 x 10-4
(6) N-Nitrosodiphenylamine . NO
Total risk from mixture exposure for Well G~v.~:
(1.7 x 10-4) + (1.1 x 10-4) = 2.8 x 10-4
Well G304
(1) Arsenic2 = (0.042 mg/l) (2 1/day/70 kg)
= 1.2 x 10-3 mg/kg/day
risk = (1.2 x 10-3) (1.5)
= 1.8 x 10-3
(2) Benzene = (0.0028 mg/l) (2 1/day/70 kg)
= 8.0 x 10-5 mg/kg/day
risk = (8.0 x 10-5) (5.2 x 10-2) .
= 4.2 x 10-6
(3) Tetrachloroethylene. NO
(4) Trichloroethylene = ND
(5) Vinyl Chloride = ND
(6) N-Nitrosodiphenylamine = NO
Total risk from mixture exposure for Well G304:
(1.8 x 10-3) + (4.2 x 10-6) . 1.8 x 10-3
Well G310
(1) Arsenic. NO
l'
(2) Benzene = (0.0013 mg/l) (2 1/day/70 kg)
= 3.7 x 10-5 mg/kg/day
risk = (3.7 x 10-5) (5.2 x 10-2)
= 1.9 x 10-6
(3) Tetrachloroethylene3 = (0.0002 mg!l) (2 1/day/70 kg)
= 5.71 x 10-6 mg/kg/day
risk = (5.71 x 10-6) (5.1 x 10-2)
. 2.9 x 10-7
(4) Trichloroethylene = (0.0022 mg/l) (2 1/day/70 kg)
= 6.29 x 10-5 mg/kg/day
risk = (6.29 x 10-5) (1.1 x 10-2)
= 6.9 x 10-7
-13-
-------
(5) Vinyl Chloride = (0;0091 mg/l) (2 1/day/70 kg)
= 2.6 x 10-~ mg/kg/day
. risk = (2.6 x 10-4) (2.3)
= 5.98 x 10-4
(6) N-Nitrosodiphenylamine . ND
Total risk from mixture exposure for Well G310:
(1.9 x 10-6) + (2.9 x 10-7) + (6.9 x 10-7) + (5.98 x 10-4) = 6.0 x 10-4
-14-
E-13
-------
E-14
. .
Calculations for the Estimation of
Total Risk from Mixture Exposure
Lower Aquifer Wells for Wauconda
. Sand and Gravell
Well 311B
(1) Arseni c = NO
(2) Benzene3 = (0.0044 mg/l) (2 1/day/70 kg)
= 1.26 x 10-4 mg/kg/day
risk = (1.26 x 10-4) (5.2 x 10-2)
. = 6.6 x 10-6
(3) Tetrachloroethylene. NO
(4) Trichloroethylene = NO
(5) Vinyl Chloride = NO
(6) N-Nitrosodiphenylamine = NO
Because benzene was the only chemical detected. total risk will not be
estimated for Well 311B.
Well OW409
(1) Arsenic = NO
(2) Benzene = NO
(3) Tetrachloroethylene3 = (0.0008 mg/l) (2 1/day/70 kg)
. 2.29 x 10-5 mg/kg/day
risk = (2.29 x 10-5) (5.1 x 10-2)
= 1.2 x 10-6
(4) Trichloroethylene = (0.012 mg/l) (2 1/day/70 kg)
= 3.43 x 10-4 mg/kg/day
ri~k = (3.43 X 10-4) (1.1 X 10-~)
I: 3.8 x 10-6
(5) Vinyl Chloride I: NO
(6) H-Nitrosodiphenylamine I: NO
Total risk from mixture exposure for Well OW409:
(1.2 x 10-6) + (3.8 x 10-6) = 5.0 x 10-6
-15-
-------
Well OW410
(1) Arsenic = NO
(2) Benzene. NO
(3) Tetrachloroethylene3 . (0.0006 mg/l) (2 1/day/70 kg)
= 1.71 x 10-5 mg/kg/day
risk = (1.71 x 10-5) (5.1 x 10-2)
= 8.7 x 10-7
(4) Trichloroethylene = (0.0039 mgll) (2 1/day/70 kg)
= 1.11 x 10-4 mg/kg/day
risk. (1.11 x 10-4) (1.1 x 10-2)
= 1.2 x 10-6
(5) Vinyl Chloride = NO
(6) N-Nitrosodiphenylamine = (0.014 mg/l) (2 1/day/70 kg)
= 4 x 10-4 mg/kg/day
risk = (4 x 10-4) (4.9 x 10-3)
= 1.96 x 10-6
Total risk from mixture exposure for Well OW410:
(8.7 x 10-7) + (1.2 x 10-6) + (1.96 x 10-6) . 4.0 x 10-6
-16-
E-15
t:".
~~
-------
FIGURES
,.
-------
0"
... "
/iO'
...~...
@
o
I
'0
.
20
/
MILES
SCALE
...
'-
. ..
_.
",LAKE MICHIGAN);....
.' '"
.~ .
..." .."::,, ."
,', . '...:..:' . ',' '. ,_.
. ..
" ....:',..,
".. ..... ..
"", , ...,"".,,'
.','..
"... ..
. .
. ,'"
"',' .
,- ..
"',
,'. :...', .
";'.....
. ..:': :""""':",
. .
'.'" .
.....:.".";,
'" .
FIGURE 1 A
SITE LOCATION MAP
-------
.' ..'... -- IM8
~
.-
a::::J
-
FIGURE 1 B
-
-
-
-
-
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION STUDY AREA
WAUCONDA SAND A'ND GRAVEL SITE
WAUCONDA, ILLINOIS
U1
LEGEND
Property
Limit of
Landfill
.-------------
I
I
I
Mutton Creek
I
I
..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
UNFILLED I
AREA I
I
I
.
Bonner Road
r---------
L_~__J ~
. 0
'. ,'. t. ~
r 1. ~ Swamps -g
&'IS
-
..
&'IS
C)
":
Bbundry
s',udy
Areas
-
----.-
1;'.' :. :.."..:.; .1
'....
........
........
........
'....
........
........
''"'
I
I
,
PERMITTED
SECTION
-------
8
WEST
1140
g
810 ..
.. .,
..
~ l:
780 I I
cu.y
.." Go.., ....
750
,.u~ tY
s.oHO .
-= 720
!
!
F:
..
~811O
im
i !~OOI
1~'
II
...
..
I
CUy
cu.y
/IPP£R I7NC
GRAINED tNT
CUy
--\IlL
-- QUOI --
--
180
130
-l1li.
soo
IJEDROC1( AQUIFCR
o
300
800
IlOO
1200
2400
2700
3800
JOOO
3JOO
1 !lOCI
1800 2100
DISTANCE (,..t)
lImi
I) . CANIIA lOGCm WELL
2) WA TtR l£'t'[LS RECORD£D ON HO'lDl8£R 20. 11188
-.2.- UPPER ACUIItR WA TtR IEYU
CRA
14411-40-30/10 87-28-0-1
8'
EAST
JlIoo
figure .3 "
GEOLOGIC CROSS-SEC1l0N 8-8'
Wauconda Landfill Site
-------
8;
D' . W~).' iii
S'
~
-
-
..
-
-
~
-
NORT.HEAST
CORNER OF SITE
SOUTHWEST
CORNER OF SIT'E
84'0.
1'\ 81
~~
~,
~.
Z,
H
:Z'
0,
H:
8
<:
~I
~,
~,
~
'\
!
810
'. ,'.. ,',,,
,"'," '''.,
I"". ..,.....,, ,
., ..".....,.,..','
, . 8; . ... \ .' "'" . .-- . '- \ .... I I
,.. ,,' '1.../
,.,'. "',,' LANDFILL '.' ....; ','.. i.. "
t .~... ", . .. I . '" " "'" ""'. -. ,
i . . ";:~~~::'"'' ~ ' ',' I ....... '... , ' '. I " .. . - " , '..
001."'.0.,", . ..'", . ,-."..'.'-'.'-...' , 1°' ... .' I "
..~./~!':::''':'::~:i:/:'~~:~':/:'';..:.:':;'.:&''':...''.~~.;.'Io"..... 1 . \, \ I. I" ".... , J " .
""":".,~.".,.~:.,...:..",;,,.~:.:!,;.:.:,..:,.;::~::.,~;~;,.,'" .. . ....' ...IWater Level', Clay and Salt
. '''i::;~'\:;'>~''",:,~:,::~,~,::",:~~::,.',~~:~:,/,,:,'"::.::.'..',~,:':.:",,. ,',. " . ,. , .' .,
Clay .."",""",.,\.,,,,.,,,,(o-:...,,,O.01..",.,Oro,,".' .~..~'''i.'.'.'..''4''....''~'''''':' ~., ~ . .:.0.
,~:~'=,~~f,~JA~:1f~~:"~f!t~:l:'~;~~f~::,t:~:~{r~i,:£~:~~'~:1~;:;~fjj:~;'~~:!:,~;:~'::'7:;:.~)'~~ ..... ' ',:'" .' . A~f;::~,
"'~"'t';:.::~~".,~:~:'..:,:. ,:;,":,.,.~~.~.T~:' ~:":;I'~"::: ";,.,,,..;..: ,; ',~,:,,,'.~i ';'.'~\.,", ~";;-"::.f,',";'~~'- ~ ' UncertaIn I Boundry ;,.,';:':'..
.; :,"f;":::~,~!~,;,~,~:i.':';~, ;,:-:.,,:':~"~';,::~/.~ :i; :".;~':~:,; .~'::.;;:" :~,~:'~~:::"I ~,::.~~':;.:.~'! {!.!.}..,:~~': .~?~h,:::: :-;-:'::~','~-; 1i ~:.:;',~: ~ ',,::.~, ~. i::/:' r.;,
",,-:;"..r ;',;'."'.,..'. '.: :',;: '.', .;.~:,.. , ~,',. ..I::.. ,;. ':.; ~,,;.,~~ ,,~,:,,~'.; ,::'. ::"::';~" ",;',"!::', ~!"';':"". .,.'..:!, ',' .;,-..;. , ~. " ...,,,.1.-;' ,,~,...... ;:!'-,"': ,,!.
:': ~::-:: ~.~e".. .;,:::;.i:.:;.i ::~~"'~.i ':';': J:~" '~'::~ ~':;"'~"'; ':',M::'::,;,,:':,~~ :~::"::'~":J~" "':-".:..!.I~~ '1.:.;::.., ::::::,::;,:,,',:~:....:,: ~ ;:,~:.:i ."';,"'0: ," :.' .~:::.-;:":!
:.... i ..;'~::.=:::::~'~:"~'~::.:':".; ::::. :";.;, ::.~:-t:.~;::..: ":;":'i.:~::::'~:: j;':~~~ UPPER AQUIFE'R l,-:,;':/,~: :::~::.~;~~~;~ ~;;i',~'.;;; f:':~;':;";, .:i~'.~~';,~';':'
~.~ .:....'~ ~.14 :..."e.; .:~ E..' .'::..:.:,;'...';".:/t.-';.'. of:'" ".,..,' .."lo'- : ~..;:.. i ,.:.- "0: ,":; :'.";"".~ .::; !:'~~'..... ..r.-:,. .f~... ~I. :;~.l~~.i :.. '.;
~:: :.Y.o: :;"~;:.!',P"::'~~:": :-:: 0;':" ~',~ "'::.':"':'~ ::'~>':"'':' ~ ..:d .r.'~'. ':~,:;",:,: ':.;o.~.:.:. '.:;'~",~':.',':=~i' !'... ".,h,"":;:.i '~;' ,~.~; ;".~..'i!.-:':' :",...:.~,.'i.: ::'~'~ .!.:, ~~ :":-:- :'. '" ..: ,,:;,,'..:~:..:,;::
. ..---.\.~ ~ ~<' ~...... .... .... ..."'..'- .....:........ ..., .. ,.... ..: ........ .......... &...., ........... e. ':' ,... ..''':.. .~..... .... ..... ... ... - .7,- .." . . .'.. .. ,. .. ... ."8..
:-.: Gravel a nd Sand L:'::i..>'::-'~:;::-:'::': i:.;:~:,:,~,'..:':"';,~::';\,;,~',,;,~;= ..:';':::';,":" ~;::,.,~,~'r~';::'::'~~:-:':" ,~:;~.:~~':~.::':. ',.:,~ .'.",\:',;' : ,." . . '~i"~"-1"':":":;: .,"0;',', ":';':::
~p~--~~~~~
780
750
720:
660
690'
Clay and Silt
AQUIT ARD, '
Clay
630
600.
, .900.
,.1200..
" ,1500.
,1800..,
2100,
2400
2700,
3000.
. ,3300.
.,3600
.3900
DtSTANCE
FIGURE 2', .
I
I
IN
FEET,
GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION
-.. ---.-.....- . . .-.
WAUCONDA LANDFILL SITE i'
<.
.J
-------
-
-
....-
~
--~
,-
..
-
I
.
!
",-------
.'
"
"
,J
..~.
m
m
".I
»II
CIIA
1441-40-27/t14/117-21-D-1
f'
..
'.
-
-
-
-
.
~
.
,
I
t'
~
,
/
~
o 100
~ ----J
100"
I
mm!
.-.- .....,.,......,.
.
.
.
--IIU"~
-- IIU" 0-
--.... ...
(788" -- IUWI- trill)
-,n- _10 -- ClUI)
- _lOr\C,._~
---- .........""
L'.':,
1 AII(' wmt flOW IOUICIAIrY
J . 'HI IIIU IfUDII D
figure 4
UPPER AQUIFER CROUNOWA1£R CONTOURS
NOVEMBER 20 1986
Woucondo londlul Slttl
-------
- --It~~ . '- ..---
,-.-
,
,
,
I
1
,
I
,
.~ J
"'-I
, .
,
,
I
.... ~...- ,---
cnA
-'''9 4U.71104/"'
I ~ '~'~'!/~
( "l,
"''':I~
... I' ,
'lour. 5,0
LOWER AQUIfER GROUNDWA TrR CONTOURS
NOVo.mER 20, 19R6
Waucanda landfill Silt!
,
j
....,,-----'"
.~
(
.:n-.l
~:::
-...
... ---I
......,~
.' ;~.
.
'.
"'"
(., .
~}
o Ion
~.
II)f) n.
J
!!!!NO
--.- ......n....M"f'
~
.
-'...... ~, I' WfCiUlA
-,- 1tiI." ....,
,... .,
........,.. ". 1.1 w..... ,,"..
78'- at,....,..". (...ma-. ria"
~ GltOdC)...n8 now .... fDI
/
-------
o
-.-.-.-.
I -,-' ~
~.-eo
. I r-;; ;50 .
~ ec~
, .
I
.
I
.
I
.
I
.
I
.
I
.
;~
i)
u
CRA
. . .
.
.
"r:::.
t~
~ ~
fr'-'
H ~
I ~~
.
I
t
.rN'~
'.:..1'
!
I
I '
!.
o 100
I .
JOC "
J
I
i I t
Ii ; I
, :
LE GEN 0
.._u APPROXI~A~ U~I':'
OF' L,NjOF1~
~OPERT"r
~ "0- GROUNO EL!VA 1101'<
CONTOUR (F'!~:)
~ DIRECTION OF
SURFACE DRAINAGE
BONNER ROAD
figure 6
SURFACE DRAINAGE PATTERNS
Wauconda Landfill Sit(:
1449-40- 30/ 10/87-26-0- 0
------- |