United States Office of
Environmental Protection Emergency and
Agency Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R05-91/190
June 1991
Superfund
Record of Decision:
SE Rockford Groundwater
Contamination, IL
-------
-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTAT10N 11. REPORTNO. 1 ~ 3. RecIpient'. ACC888Ion No.
PAGE EPA/ROD/ROS-91/190
4. 11118 end 8ubft8 5. A8port 0818
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION 06/14/91
Southeast Rockford Groundwater Contamination, IL
6.
First Remedial Action
7. AuIhor(.) 8. P8rfonnlng Org8Rlz8t1on RepI. No.
8. P8rf0nnlng Org8InIz81Ion - end ~ 10. Pl'0j8ct/T88lu'Work Unil No.
1 I. ConInct(C) or Gr.nt(G) No.
(C)
(G)
1~ 8p«8orina Org8lliz8llon Heme end Addre88 13. Type 01 Report & Period Covered
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 800/000
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460 14.
15. 8uppIem8nIary No-
18. Abe..ct (limit: 200 _rd8)
The two to three square mile Southeast Rockford Groundwater Contamination site is a
residential area with contaminated private wells in Winnebago County, Rockford,
Illinois. The site is in a predominantly urban residential area that includes retail
and commercial operations. Surrounding land use is industrial. During sampling from
1981 to 1984, the City of Rockford identified elevated VOC levels in ground water.
Subsequently, in 1985 four municipal wells including Municipal Well #35 and several
private wells were closed. In 1984, after plating waste was illegally disposed of in
a well, EPA conducted investigations that identified contamination by VOCs and
inorganics in municipal and private wells. From 1986 to 1989, further EPA
investigations defined a 1.2-mile contaminated area. In 1989, EPA initiated an
emergency action including temporarily providing bottled water and attaching carbon
filters at affected residences and ultimately connecting wells to the city water
supply if VOC-contamination exceeded 25 percent of the Removal Action Level (RAL).
This Record of Decision (ROD) addresses the elimination of risk to residents of the
southeast Rockford area due to contaminated ground water. A subsequent ROD will
(See Attached Page)
17. Doc:unwnl An8ty8I8 .. D88c:r1pco..
Record of Decision - Southeast Rockford Groundwater Contamination, IL
First Remedial Action
Contaminated Medium: gw
Key Contaminants: VOCs (PCE, TCE)
b. IdIIntffl8r8lOp8n-Endecf Tem-.
c. COSA 11 Fl8lcllGrIql
18. AY8II8bl1ty ~ 18. Security ca... (ThI. A8p0rt) 21. No. 01 P.-
None 47
20. Security Clue (ThI8 Pege) n PrIce
l\Tt"\n<:>
See ANS-Z38.18 SH lnatructione on 1M"",.
(Formerty N11s.35)
Dep8rmwl1 01 Commerce
-------
EPA/ROD/R05-91/190
Southeast Rockford Groundwater Contamination, IL
First Remedial Action
Abstract (Continued)
address remediation of the contaminated ground water plume. The primary contaminants
of concern affecting the ground water are VOCs including PCE and TCE.
The selected remedial action for this interim remedy includes providing an alternate
water supply by constructing and extending water mains, and installing connections and
service to the city distribution system for affected residents; reactivating Municipal
Well 135 after constructing a granular activated carbon water treatment facility at the
well; and abandoning contaminated private wells. The estimated present worth cost for
this remedial action is $5,820,000, which includes an annual O&M cost of $436,800 for
years 1-5 and $58,800 for years 6-30.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: Ground water clean-up standards are based on State and
Federal standards. No chemical-specific clean-up standards were provided in the ROD.
-------
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
FOR THE SOUTHEAST ROCKFORD GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION
OPERABLE UNIT
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Southeast Rockford Groundwater contamination
Rockford, Illinois
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for
the Southeast Rockford Groundwater contamination Site, in Rockfurd,
Illinois, which was chosen in accordance with the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA) , as amended. by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), and, to the extent practicable,
the National oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan (NCP). This decision is based on the" administrative record
for the site. -
The State of Illinois and the united States
Protection Agency concur on the selected remedy.
Environmental
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this
site, if not addressed by implementing the response action selected
in this Record of Decision (ROD), may present an imminent and
substantial endangerment to public 'health, welfare, or the
environment.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
The function of the first Operable Unit for this site is to
eliminate the risks associated with exposure of the contaminated
groundwater to residents of the Southeast Rockford area. While
this Operable unit does not address the source of groundwater
contamination, the Phase I Remedial Investigation as well as future
investigations will involve continued study of the plume. A
subsequent ROD will address remediation of the contamination plume.
The major components of the selected remedy include:
Extending water mains and connecting affected residences to
1
-------
the City of Rockford water distribution system, and
The reactivation of Rockford 'Municipal Well #35
development of a treatment facility for this well.
and
the
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
This interim action is protective of human health and the
environment and is cost-effective. This interim remedy (providing
an alternate drinking water supply) will comply with those
environmental standards directly associated with the limited nature
of this action. The remedy utilizes permanent solutions and
alternate technologies to the maximum extent practicable, given the
limited scope of this action. The statutory preference for
remedies that employ treatment that reduces toxicity, mobility or
volume as a principal element will be addressed by both this and
the final response action. Subsequent actions are planned to
address fully the principal threats posed by the conditions at this
site.
Because this remedy will result in hazardous substances remaining
on-site above health-based levels, a review will be conducted
within five years after commencement of'- the remedial action to
ensure that the remedy continues to provide adequate protection of
human heal and the environment.
£/Nfi;.
Date
711a/14
(Director, Illinois EPA)
S/2~/91
Date
2
-------
REXDRD OF DEX:ISICN StM-1ARY
SOtJlHE1\ST IDCKFURD ~ CDNI'AMINATION
OPERABLE UNIT
IDCKFURD, ILLINOIS
1.
SITE DESCRIPI'ION
'n1e study area is locate:i within sattheast Rcc::kford in Winnebago camty,
and consists of ~tely two (2) to three (3) square miles in
Sections 1, 2 and 3, T43N, R1J and Section 6, T43N, R2e. 'n1e study area
is bc:unded by Harrison Averme to the oorth, Sandy Hollow Road to the
sa.rt:h, the oorth-sart:h center line of Section 6 to the east and the Reck
River to the west. '!he study area is shawn in Figure 1.
'!he study area has been expan:ied eastward, westward and southward !ran the
bourxiaries which were used to score the site for inclusion on the unite:i
States Environment:a1 Protection }qercj' s (U. S. EPA' s) National Priorities
List (NPL). 'n1e eastern boundary has been mJVed fran 21st Street to the
North-SOUth center of Section 6. '!he previous western bourxiary of the
site was Eighth Street, kut the present study area extends west to the
Reck River. '!be previous southern boundary..was sawyer Road, kut the
present study area extends sa.rt:h to Sandy .Jfollow Road.
'!be study area is predaninately an urban residential area that includes
scattered retail arxi rnmIPrcial cperaticns. A small irdustrial park is
locate:l near the eastern bcundary of the study area in the vicinity of
Laude Drive. '!be study area is predaninately flat-lyinq am slopes gently
westward ~ the Rock River, kut locally contains low-relief hilly
areas. MaY;1Ium t:.c:Jpograprlc relief across the study area is approximately
120 feet. A small caraete-lined drainage ditch runs across the study
area and ctischarges to the Rock River near the so..tthwestEu:n corner of the
study area.
'n1e Southeast Rockford study area is situated over a valley train deposit
that unconfOITDably overlies Ordavician-aged ba.h:ock. 'n1e valley train
deposits are a carplex sedimentary """-"!age of unconsolidated sams,
gravels, silts, clays arxi tills deposited on the margins of the ~LLa.l
Rock River durin; various glacial events. 'Ibese deposits are laterally
c:li.sca1tm.1cu with carplex stratigrapuc relationships. within the study
area, the valley train deposit thickens to the west. In the vicinity of
Harrisat and Harta1, the \.1nCXI'1SOlidated RI"ti;1IIPJ'lts are approximately 84 to
93 feet thick. M.micipal Well 35 at Ken Reck playgrcum (2944 Bildahl
Street) has a depth to ber..h::ock of 214 feet.
'n1e unconsolidate:i valley train RI"ti;1IIPTJts overlie an eroded bs.lu.d
surface of the Galena-Platteville dolanite, the Glenwoocl Formation am the
St. Peter Sandsta1e, which is a major aquifer in Illinois. 'n1e Galena-
Platteville and the Glenwcod Formaticm pinch out to the west, so that at
the Rock River, the valley train deposits directly overlie the St. Peter
SaJmtone.
3
-------
STUDY AREA
8()tN)ARY -
-_U~ __;-1
N
. . .1
---~ ""'~'" r
,~-.-
'.-..
"\ ~...:
~ '!! ~ L
~ ~ ~
~
~
.'-
::"~ 51
._.ur -
~~-----
- - .
~--~~~...:..:....- -~ ...;.._-- .
- -- -----.
COM
SCAl£:
tlGtlHt: NO
-,.- - -,- .. ----.-It' ,..,..M..,.
II
r-- .
o:a WlLJ.5
- - -t
SOUTHEAST ROCKFORD
STUDY AREA
1
.." _'811'" 8n1lh""" "...'18'.
-------
1.
SITE HIS'roRY
Grcun:lwater contaminated with volatile organic CCItpJUl'Xls (VOCs) was
initially di.soovered by the City of Rcckford in 1981. Four numicipal
wells in Southeast Rcckford were taken cut of service in December 1981 as
a result of this cant:amination. In 1982, the City c:liscovered that
additional private wells were oontaminated ani then closed dcwn IIOre city
wells. contamination of Municipal Well 35, located at Ken Rcck
Playgro..n:l, was di.soovered durin] a rcuti.ne sanplin] of the well in 1984;
the well was tested for three priority pollutants ani several VOCs were
detected.
Because c:ont:aminants were present at levels above the Safe Dr:inkin;J Water
Act Maximum Contaminant U!vels (MCLs), Municipal Well #35 was taken cut of
service in 1985. SUbsequent analysis of the treated ani disinfected water
in 1989 in::li.cated that none of the original contaminants were present
above the levels of detection; however, the analysis did show the presence
of several trihalaDethanes at low levels. Trihalanethanes are CCulll&JJuy
associated with water disinfection, are not attrihItable to the
groundwater oontami.nation problem in the area ani are regulated under the
Safe Dr:inkin;J Water Act, bIt do not warrant concern for this study because
they were detected at levels significantly lower than the MCLs.
'!he Illinois Environmental Protectiat Agency/(IEPA) reconfil:Taed that VOCs
were present in Southeast Rockford's water in 1984 after receiving a
l:epolt that platirg wastes were be.in; illegally Iii ~ of in a well
located at 2613 South Eleventh Street. In OCtober 1984, the Illinois
Department of Public Health (IDFH) initiated an investigation that
involved scmplin:;J 49 private wells in the vicinity of the suspected
disposal well. While the investigation did not firxl significant levels of
contaminants u.aI8I8..IIl to platirg wastes, it did l~t high levels of
chlorinated solvents. 'Ihese same c:ont:aminants were detected in one of the
City of Rockford's JrUnicipal wells. FUrther investigation by IDPH
in::li.cated extensive CXI'1taminatiat in the area. By 1986, IDm was able to
define the contaminated area as apprax:imately 1.2 square miles in
Southeast Rockford (the original study area ~ies). Ultimately, IDm
c:on:iucted four separate scmplin:;J investigations involving residential
wells in the Southeast Rockford area: 49 scmples collected in 1984, 45
sanples in 1985, 17 in 1988 am 204 in 1989. Far the IICISt part well
locations scmpled varied durin] the separate sanplin;J investigations;
hawever, in sane cases, wells werescmpled mre than once.
'lbrt:ughcut 1989, the U.S. EPA Technical Assistance Team (TAT) ~led
residential wells in the Southeast Rockford area am tested for the
follCMin;1 VOCs:
Trichloroethylene ('D:E),
Cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene (cis-1,2-DCE),
1,2-Dichloroethane (1,2-DCA),
5
-------
1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane (1, 1., 1-'ICA) ,
Trans-l,2-Dichloroethylene (trans-l,2-DCE) and
1, 1-Dichloroethane (1, 1 DCA) .
Fourteen samples were analyzed us.in;J gas chranatography /rrass spectrcscopy
(GC/MS) for these ~ and 24 additional VOCs. 'Ihe u.s. EPA TAT data
c::crrelated well with the IDPH data, indicatirq that the VOC contaminants
of concern in the study area consisted of the chlorinated solvents listed
above.
u. S. EPA initiated an Emergency Action un::ler which OOttled water was
offered as a telrpn'ary measure to residents whose well water analysis
results revealed VOC levels greater than or equal to 25% of the Rencval
Action Level (RAL). In mid-December 1989, the wells of these residences
were equiRJed with carbon filters as an intermedia:ce solution to the
contaminated dr:ink:in; water. U. S. EPA extended water mains and provided
hookups to city water for those residences with private wells contaminated
with VOCs at levels greater than or equal to 25% of the RAL.
On July 24, 1989, U.S. EPA notified five c:qIpmies that it would not
invoke the settlement pl~ un::ler sect,j.on'122 of CERCIA for the FJ./FS
because, at that time, there was no identified saIrCe of the
contamination. u.s. EPA continues to investigate the parties responsible
fqr the contamination.
III. SOJPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT
'Ihe goal of the Operable Unit is to eliminate any present and potential
threat to p.lblic health. 'Ihe carp:ments of the Operable Unit Rs-rlial
Investigation/Feasibility Study included the follcwirg:
To determine the extent of contamination in private wells; and
To evaluate water SUR;)ly options for owners of private wells which
have levels of contaminants in exoess of the Mcrs or are potential
receptors of VOC contaminated groundwater.
IV.
SITE aiARACTERISTICS
'the nature and extent of actual or potential contamination related to the
study area was determined by collecti.n;J groundwater samples fran 117
residential, in::iustrial and m.micipal SUR;)ly wells within the study area
to address data gaps remain.in;J fran previous samplin; events by U. S.
EPA/TAT and the IDPH.
'Ihe results of the field investigation indicated a west-northwest trendin;
pl\mle of VOC contaminated groundwater exterxtin:;J across the study area fran
the vicinity of Reed Avenue and 24th Street to the Rock River. '!he
6
-------
~
contaminant plumes of 'Ia:, 1,1,1~, cis-1,2-DCE, 1,2-DCA, and 1,l-oc:A
have the same general featureS. Vinyl chlori4e and trans-1,2-DCE were
detected at only a few locations in the study area. PCE had an isolated,
distinctly shaped plume.
safe drinki.n; water MCIs were exoeeOed for 'Ia:, 1,1,1~, cis-1,2-DCE,
1,2-0CA, 1,1-DCE, vinyl chloride and lead, throughout various portions of
the study area. '!be area where the 'Ia: MCL was exr-iM ~S:"'es all
of the other areas where an MCL is exc-on...o except for a small area
stret:.c::hin:; iran approximately Harrisa1 Avenue and Ki11sey Street to wills
Avenue and Marshall Street, and a sin;Jle well located near 9th Street and
San:ly Hollcrw Read.
GraIndwater cxmtaminated by metals does net shaw systematic distrib.1ti.on
~le to that observed for vocs. Instead, localized metals
cxmtamination cxx:urs at scattered locations across the study area, and
appears to be the result of several unrelated point scurces. Only two of
the 117 ~les collected for the Operable Unit P.-::rl;;I) Investigation
~M an MCL for arrj metal.
V.
~ OF SITE RISKS
'!be p.IrpOSe of this Operable Unit is to i~ residences within the
study area whidl were affected by the ~ter cxmtamination and
pravi.de a solution to the water supply problem at these residences under
a state-lead action. To det:ennine whether arrj action was needed, nPA
relied primarily at !CIs developed umer the authority of the federal Safe
Dr~ Water Act.
[)]a to the fact that m risk aeE'~C!INOOl'1t is ~ for an operable unit
urxier the NCP (Preamble, page 8704), risks were characterized by the use
of the MCLs. An MCL Iepr~ents the maxiJm.1I'II penni.ssible level of a
contaminant in dr~ water whidl is delivered to the consumer I S tap and
used by the general p.1blic, and is a legally enforceable st:a.mard. '!he
standards reflect the best adlievable levels oonsiderin;J the occurrence,
relative source cont:rib.1ti.on factors, mnitorin; capability, cost of
treatment, available technology and health effects.
For the VOCs analyzed in this investigation, the MCLs are numerically
equivalent to the pt
-------
Excess lifetime caooer risk levels at a number of these wells. are
significantly greater than generally aCx:epted caooer risk lilnits. Risks
:incurred as a result of exposure to non-carcinogenic contaminants in these
wells may be significant if dose sumnation is assumed.
CDNl'AMINAm'
TCE
1,1-DCE
PeE
1, 1, 1-JICA
1,2-ocA
cis-1,2-DCE
Vinyl Chloride
Ie.ad
NO. OF WELLS DJ::l'.&.:l'l:lJ
M!tJVE MAXIMUM CDNl'AMINAm' LEVEL
22
11
9
2
2
2
1
2
'!be pattern of .::ontam:ination detected represents typical transformatia1
pathways for volatile chlorinated aljp1atic chemicals. TrichJ.oroethylene
(TCE) was detected at 53 of the 60 wells where contaminants were detected
at concentrations below MCLs. In many cases, TCE was detected in
canbination with either a possible precursor, PeE or its breakdawn
products, cis-1, 2-DCE or 1, 1-DCE. TCE and 1, 1, 1-JICA, contaminants that
are not asscx:iated via their transformatia1 pathways, were also frequently
detected together. ."
At fifteen of the 60 wells which ~ed the Mcrs only one contaminant
was detected. In nine of these cases TCE was the sole contaminant
detected, altl'1cu3h PeE, cis-1,2-DCE and 1,1,1-JICA were also detected as
sole contaminants. In many of these wells only one carcinogenic su1:1stame
and one non-carcincqenic sutst:anoe c::arprised the mixture of contaminants
detected. Also, at 22 of these 60 wells,. the mixture of contaminants
consisted of TCE and 1,1, l-JICA only.
'Ibe plume of contamination, as defined in the Operable unit RI, .in:::lujes
the areas within which an MCL for one or mare of the target CXI1'p:JUnds has
been e.vr--1.-rl and, in sane areas, a IIl:Iuffer zone, II which consists of these
areas between the last well sanpled shaiin; contamination above Mcrs and
the first well sanpled that was found below the Mcrs. '!his l:Iuffer zone
allows for uncertainties inherent in the position of the plume boun:1aries;
the potential exists that the wells within the l:Iuffer zone are/or may be
contaminated at levels in ~9 of Mcrs. '!he l:Iuffer zone boundary
attenpts to follow stleet txA.1n:mries where possible.
VI.
StHomRY OF AL~
'!he Feasibility St:1xly (FS) identified and evaluated alternatives durin;
the Operable unit that cculd be used to address the threats to the study
area. 'Ibe evaluatia1 criteria consisted of: (a) protection of human
health and the environment; (b) short-term effectiveness; (c) lon:J-term
effectiveness; (d) reduction of toxicity, m:mility and volume of
contaminants; (e) iJlplementability; (f) cost; (g) CUlpliance with
8
-------
applicable or relevant and 8wL~.date requirements (ARARs) i (h) Aqercy
aooept:ance i and (i) CXIIIIJJl1i.ty 'acceptance.
'!be alternatives evaluated for addressirg the water ~ly options for
owners of private wells which have levels of contaminants in excess of the
Mas are nic:t"'l1~~ below.
Alternative 1 - Cc:mn£cti.on of affected residences to the Rockford water
system.
-Estimated COnstruction Cost:
$3,280,000
-Estimated Annual tp!ration and Maintenance (O&M) Cost:
(Years 1-5) $436,800
(Years 6-30) $ 58,800
Estimated Total Present Worth Cost (5%, 30 yr. life)
$5,820,000
Estimated I:aplementation Time-frame:
6 uart:hs
under this alternative all 243 targeted addresses (Table 1) identified in
the FS Report 1Nall.d be oonnected to city ...water . 'Ihi.s WD.1ld include
const:rocti.on CJf new water mains and service c:xmnections where no water
mains currently exist and installation of service ocllnections between
already existing water mains and target addresses who are mt oonnected to
the utility. '!his altemative also inclu3es the oonst:ruction of a
granular activated carix1n water treatment facility at the existing
Jth1ni.cipal Well #35. 1M treatment of Jth1ni.cipal Well #35 is ~~ry in
order to allow the city to pravicle sufficient water S\JR)ly durirg periods
of peak demand. '!his alternative waU.d achieve the Safe Drinkin; Water
Act Mas, and the water quality in the distril:ution system WD.1ld be
OOlI~lled by the Rockford Water Utility's extensive monitorirg plogt:&a.
It was detemineci that there are 243 hcmes within the plume that shcW.d be
~1I1I:,...:t:ed to the City water system. Althcugh many of these hanes do mt
currently ~ fas, they may in the future ~ these levels since
they are within what IEPA and u.s. EPA have considered part of the b.1ffer
zone. It is l:ike1y that a future I'PftII"riiJ'll action for the site will
include u::ll1I.ectinq these haDes to the City water system, and it is m:re
cost efficient to do so rDIIi cansequently, these hanes will be connected
as part of this Operable unit. Includin;J these hanes in this action will
alleviate artf risk to p.lblic health which may exist prior to
brplementation of the final remedy, while the ffI./FS is bein; corx:iucted, a
period which could be as l~ as five years.
Alternative 2 - COnstruction of new residential water wells.
Estimated COnstructia'\ Cost:
Estimated Annual O&M Cost:
$5,290,000
$ 109,400
9
-------
Table 1. Target Addre....
Known Wefl. In Propoaea Area of PubUc Wllte, Supply Hookup.
~".:,,:
4U1 2&19
4d! 2m
4U1 2833
4U1 2901
4U1 3015
4U1 300
7U1 3210
7th 3214
7th 3237
8111 2810
8d! 2~
8111 2914
8d! 291'
8U1 2922
8d! 2926
8d! 2929
8111 2932
8111 2931
8111 32m
alii 320:S
alii 3214
8d! 3219
8111 3211
8111 3US
918 3201
918 3213
918 3217
9111 3m
9111 3219
11111 ~
1118
1118 2137
1118 2926
17t11 30IJZ
17111 ~
17111 300i
17&11 3001
17111 3010
1718 3011
18111 ](D7
18111 3OZ3
20IIa 2923
20IIa 3010
20IIa 3OZ1
23aI ~
AI..
AI... 211.
AJIaI 1131
AlID8 2136
BIllY ow
B8IIY 6i17
BiIdM1 333
Bi1dabt 3]3]
BftIDiIa 106
BraaD 106
Bruab 101
Bruab 110
Bruab 126
Bruab 1]1
BraaD 13'
BraaD 146
I . '."..."'1. StnaNo.;;.,
BroaD 141
BroaD 154
BftIDiIa 204
BroaD 201
Braaa 411
BraaD 823
ea- 2.tJ7
c- 2~--
c- 2910
c- 2914
c- 2915
c..- 291'
c- 2921
c- 2922
ear- 292:5
c- 2929
ea- 2930&
ea- 2931
c- 2939
ea- ~
c- 3001
un- 3OIl5
CIrt8a 3006
em.. 3CXI1
Cad80a 3001
Cad80a 310.
CAi88 ]101
c.u. ]113
c..a. ]115
c..a. ]119
c..a. 3111
c..a. 31ZJ
](D7
CaWIII 2101
CGWaa 3201
c.ow. 3D
eaw. 3:ZW
CaUiu 3212
c.ow. 3216
eaw.. 3216.5
eaw.. ]211
0ILIi8I ]Zl6
c.ow. 3m
F8I8M 27aJ
t'8I8II 2IQD
~ ~
~ 2901
~ 2902
~ ~
~ 2907
-- 2911
~ 2913
~ 2917
~ 2921
~ 29ZZ
"- 2930
~ 2931
~ 2946
~ 3OQO
Hana 2703
Hana 2710
.~:::::"::' ..
.Honaa 2714
Honaa 2717
Honaa 2m
Hanaa 27~
Hanaa 2726
Honaa 2729
Honaa 3001
Honaa 3033
anaa 3037
.uu., 2614
-., 2642
:m.. 2901
Kiawt 2906
KiaI8y 2W7
IUun 2909
K.m.. 2910
~ 2917
K.iawt 2920
J88y 2921
.ia8y 2924
.m.. 2929
IUun 2930
2931
2946
xm
Kiab--- 2929
KJaa- 3037
~ 2131
~ ~
~ 2909
~ 2911
~ 2911
~ 2930
2610
2612
2611
LYIiI 3319
MIIU86& 2641
MInbai& 26IS
MInbai& 2704
MInbai& 2705
Z7UD
MInII8II 2710
MIIIU&1 2711
M8III8I1 2713
MIIIIIII1 2716
M8I8II1 Z711
27%1
MIIIU&1 2711
MIIIU&1 %730
MIIIU&1 2933
..-11 2934
MIIIU&1 29n
M8IIIUi 2931
M8IIIUi 2941
MIIIU&1 2941
294)
M8IIIUi 2946
Mm8Iaa1 3006
M8IIIUi 3013
M8IIIUi 3014
..,A1I88.::.,.... ..
M.8IAaU 3017
M8I8a&& 301'
M.8IAaU 3022
MII'UIai! 3015
MII'UIai! 3030
MIn8aI1 J031
MII'UIai! 3034
M8IIIUi 3031
MII'UIai! 3039
MII'UIai! 3041
MIIIU&1 3042
M8n8 431
MuaI 803
Maa:ia 816
MuaI 817
MuaI 815
New MilJani 606
New MilJani 601
Pac8w 2909
Po.- 2929
Po.- 2933
Poc8r 2915
R..... 801
R..ccr 823
R8d 1125
Kiftl'iilvd. 30CD
IUftI' Blvd. J(JlJ
Ri_iilvd. 3010
Riftl'B1vd. 3019
RMr Blvd. 3107
IUWr Blvd. 3109
RMr Blvd. 3114
RMr Blvd. 3111
~.".a' 606
s-.u u..6
s-.u 27=
Scw8I1 Z7'OI
Scw8I1 2711
Scw8I1 273)
Se..u 2914
s...u 2916
SCw8A& 2917
SCW8U 2'111
Scw8I1 2922
Sew81 2925
Scw8I1 2929
ScwILI mo
ScWIi1 2934
s...u 2931
~ 2941
Scw8I1 2~
ScW8i! JOaZ
s.w.A1 300:5
ScW8i! 3006
s...u 3010
Sewa1 ~16
s...u 3O'JO
s...u 3026
Se..u JUJU
s.... ;032
-------
Estimated Total Present warth cost
(5%, 30 year life):"
Estimated IDplement:ation Time-frame:
$6,970,000
18 lICI'Iths
Un::ler this alternative, new residential wells \to'O.lld be canstructe:i at all
target addresses. All wells \to'O.lld derive gro.m:1water iran the St. Peter
5an:istane aquifer. '!he well depth far each well, on an average, \to'O.lld be
260 feet deep. Asetlq"tions are that this aquifer W01ld provide an
adequate S\JR)ly of drinki.rg water of acceptable quality, ani that the new
wells cxW.d be canstructe:i such that they W01ld not provide a con::h1it far
leakage of contaminatiCX'1 iran the upper sam unci gravel aquifer to the St.
Peter .
Estimated 0JnstructiCX'1 COSt:
Alternative 3 - Point of entry (FOE) water treatment devices.
850,000
Estimated Ar1raJal O&M Costs:
Estimated Total Present warth COSt
(5%, 30 year life)
Estimated IDplementaticr, T~frame:
$
$ 1,129,000
$18,250,000
18 months
under this alternative, .individual treatment wrl.ts \to'O.lld be installed at
ead1 ad:iress ani wculd treat the raw well water prior to its delivery to
the haJsehold distr:ib.tt.iCX'1 pipin;. Treatment of VOCs is us;IVl1ly performed
l:7j iIIstaJ.linr;J gran.1lar activated carbcn filters which a1::sari:) the vocs
directly iran the water flow. 'this technology can be expected to give
reliable perfarmance OYer extended periods of time J:ut does require
intennittent maintenan:e ani testin;J throJghaIt the life of the
installatiCX'1. 'this alternative \to'O.lld provide potable drinkin;J water far
each property served by FOE treatment.
Alternative 4 - No Action
Estimated 0:r1st:ruc:tiCX'1 cost:
Estimated Ar1raJal O&M Costs:
Estimated Total Present Warth cost
(5%, 30 year life)
Estimated IDplement:ation Time-frame:
$ 0
$ 0
$ 0
T1I'nIAti; ~te
'Ibis alternative involves m I'RnRrH;tl action for owners of private wells
in the study area. 'Ibis alternative will not reduce the threats to human
health ani/ar the el"IVixanment at the site. '!he inclusion of the no-actiCX'1
alternative is statutorily required.
11
-------
VII. StHt1ARY OF a:MPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ~
'!be r-r-iial alternatives develcped durm; the develqJDent of the
so..rt:heast Rockford Gro..1n:1water Contamination Feasibility Study were
evaluated by u.s. EPA and IEPA usm; the follc:Min:] nine criteria. '!he
advantages and disadvantages of each alternative were then ~red to
identify the alternative providin;J the best bal.an:::1e of these nine
criteria.
1.
OVerall Pratect:.ia1 of Ibaan Healtll am the D1vircnDent
ackiresses whether or net an alternative provides adequate
protection for human health am the environment and describes
hew risks are eliminated, reduced or COlrl:l~lled. ~
treatment and eR3'ineerm; or institutional (Xul~ols.
CDlp1iance with ~1 ;~hlp or Relevant am ~
Rsq\l:ireIEnts (ARARs) ad:iresses whether or net an alternative
will meet all of the ~licable or relevant am CiWL cpt iate
requirements or provides grcurxls for invr.1k:irg a waiver .
cmaA requires that I'R'/II'rl; ~ 1 actions meet legally ~licable
or relevant and ~~iate requirements of other
environmental laws. A "legally ~licable" requirement is a1e
which wa.1ld legally ~ly to the response action if that
actia'1 were net taken ~.-to'Sections 104, 106 or 122 of
cmaA. A "relevant am ~~iate" requirement is one that,
while net "~licable", is desiqne:i to ~ly to problems
sufficiently similar such that their ~lication is
~~iate.
2.
3.
I.cnJ-'t,eI:m Effectiveness am PeJ:DBnera! refers to the ability
of an alternative to maintain reliable protection of human
health and the environment, over tUDe, once clean-up
objectives have been met.
4.
Reductiat of Tcadcity, }H\; 1 ity or Voluae is the anticipated
perf~ of the treatment technologies an alternative may
eaploy .
5.
Sbart~ Effectiveness involves the period of tbne needed to
achieve protection and ~ adverse iJtpacts on human health and
the environment that may be posed durin3' the construction and
iJlplement:ation period until clean-up objectives are achieved.
6.
Twpl_,I_hility is the technical and administrative
feasibility of an alternative, :irx:ludin;J the availability of
qoods and services needed. to iJIplement the solution.
0:ISt includes capital ccst:s as well as cperation and
maintenance ccst:s.
7.
8.
1q!n::y Acceptance irxticates whether, based on its review of
the ~le unit F-iial Investigation/Feasibility Study and
12
-------
Proposed Plan, u.s. EPA am IEPA agree on the preferre:i
alternative. .
9.
a:ammity Accept:ance iniicates the ~lic SU{.pJrt of a given
alternative. 'lhis criteria is n;c:l""nC!~ in the Responsiveness
SUIIIDazy .
A.
overall Protection of Human Health am the Environment
Alternatives 1 am 3 'NOlld provide adequate protection of human
health by eliminat.irg, reducin;J or oouLLollin; risk t..'1rcugh
treatment or en;ineerin;J \'ouuLLuls. Alternative 2 cannot guarantee
protection over the lcn;J term, am Alternative 4, No-Action does
nct:hin; to increase protection of human health. None of the
alternatives will remove the ccntam:ination threat to the
environment; this is to be addressed in future actions at the site.
B.
Camliance with ARARs
Alternative 1 am Alternative 3 'NOlld be in OCIIpliar„::e with Mas (40
CFR 141) am Proposed Illinois State Grcurxlwater Stamards (35
Admin. Code 620.301), which are "to be cOnsidered" stan:iards, as a
result of water treatment. c::azpl1ance with H:L.; will net be
guaranteed umer Alternative 2 as the potential for future
ccntam:ination will remain, am this alternative does net consider
water treatment. Q:IIp~ wa1ld not be adUeved umer Alternative
4. Alternative 1, as a result of the use of activated carbcn for
treatment, wculd meet at=Plicable ~ regulations for the ni~l
of the spent carbon (40 CFR 264). Alternatives 1, 2 am 3 'NOlld
require that CCI1St::ructi.on be cxn:iucted in adherence with OSHA
regulatia1S, 29 em 1910.120 an:! 29 em 1926.
'!he alternatives ~ within this RD represent an interim
-«:IJre as defined in the Na' (300.430 (f) (ii) (C) (1» an:! will
beo ..wo. part of the total l"PJMIi; A 1 action which will ultimately
attain ~licable or relevant an:! ~OiAiate Federal am State
requirements, or will provide justificatial if either Federal or
State st:an3ards are waived. 'lberefcre, no cleanup stamards far the
ccntam:inatial plume will be established at this time.
C.
Lon:r-term Effectiveness am Permanence
Alternative 1 'NOlld reduce laJ;J term risk to the target pcf811Ation
as the water quality will be UAtLLulled an:! the water 5lJR:)ly
regulated. '!he Rockford Water Utility has an extensive naritarin;J
~~~ designed to UAILLul the water quality in the distril:ution
system. umer Alternative 2, risk reductions are \.1l1kncwn aver the
laJ;J term; no COItb.ol over the water quality with this alternative
is provided. However, altha.Jgh Alternatives 1 an:! 2 provide little
13
-------
or no 10lX}-tenn protection of the envirorunent, this WOlld be
addressed in the final remedy and Record of Decision for the site.
I.orq-tenn risk could be eliminated urxier Alternative 3, as ~ll.1:vl
over water quality WOlld be provided through the regular ncnitot'irq
of treated water arxi proper management of spent carbon. Alternative
4 does not provide for risk re:iuction or cOlll.1:vl of water quality.
D.
Reduction of Toxicitv. Mobilitv or Volume of Contaminants
Alternatives 1 arxi 3 provide for treatment of contaminants usirq
granular activated carbon (GAC). Adsatption onto the GAC media will
reduc:e the JlDbility of the contaminants. If the GAC media is
reqenerated, there will be destruction of the contaminants, thereby
providirq a reduction in the toxicity arxi volume of these
contaminants. Alternatives 2 arxi 4 do not provide any reduction in
toxicity, JlDbility or volume of contaminants. '!he final ROD will
identify methods to reduce toxicity, IIObility arxi volume of
contaminants in the gramdwater or in any areas that may be
di.scovered.
E.
Short-Term Effectiveness
Alternative 1 will take, after devei~ of the Remedial Design,
cq:prcximately six months to hook-up residences to the Rockford water
system arxi fcm' mart:hs to c:x:mplete the treatment facility for
Municipal Well 35 which will be done concurrently with the main
hook-ups. No shcrt-tenn iJrpacts to the health of the construction
workers or the CXJJmJnity shauld occur durin;J the construction
activities due to the fact that all oonstruction will occur above
the level of grcun:iwater c::ontamination.
under Alternative 2 construction of all new ~ls shcW.d be
c:x:mpleted within 18 mcnths of ~;",1 design c:x:mpletion. Workers
involved in the construction of these new ~ls could potentially be
exposed to contaminants durin;J the drillin;J PL~; however,
exposures shculd be minimized due the statutory requirements of worK
to be done UI'D!r an aRJl"CM!d Health arxi Safety Plan which will
require the use of protective clot:hiD} arxi respiratory equipnent.
under Alternative 3, installation of the POE treatment units WOlld
be carpleted within 18 months after the catpletion of the
installatiat plans, al~ SCIIIe mrl.ts cxW.d be installed before
design exmpletion. '!he installation process should not result in
any short-tenn health ~ for haneovmers; however, ~
installin;J the units could be minimally exposed to contaminants
durin;J the installation iA~.
'!he No-Action Alternative would not result in any short-tenn health
or environmental iJrpacts.
14
-------
F.
Imclement:abili tv
'n1e materials, labor am equipDent neede:i to implement Alternatives
1, 2 am 3 are generally readily available, am
ocnstruction/installation techniques are rcuti.ne. Sane possible
disturbances ami or inconveniences oculc:l be experierx::ed by the
cxmm..mity or haDeowners mnnal toO the iIrplementation of these three:
alternatives.
G.
COSt
Costs for the Preferred Alternative as well as the other considered
alternatives are as follows:
Alternative 1 (preferred alternative)
Alternative 2
$ 5,820,000
$ 6,970,000
$18,250,000
Alternative 3
Alternative 4 (no-action)
$
o
...--
'!he preferred alternative, when oatpared to the other alternatives
for meetin;J the ~tive. criteria, is the most cost effective
alternative.
H.
SUccart ADercv AcceDtance
'n1e United States Environmental Protection h:JerCi suworts the
preferred alternative.
I.
Catmmitv AcceDtance
CCIIIIunity acx:eptance of the preferred has been very favorable. All
~rt:s, written an1 oral, CUlpilecl durin} the Public cat1Dent
Period far the Operable unit lUfFS an1 Proposed Plan as well as
kjercy respcmses are listed in the enclosed Responsiveness SlmInary.
VIII. ~~ REMEDY
Based upon the information develcped in the Operable Unit RIIFS, as well
as a ~rative analysis of the r-i;~l alternatives with the nine
criteria, the Agencies have selected Alternative 1 as the awxl..„L iate
remedy for the Southeast Rcckford GrcurIiwater conta:m:ination Operable unit.
15
-------
'!be preferred alternative is cxmprised of the followin; main features:
'!be construction of new water mains within the targeted areas where
no water mains currently exist with the connection of these new
water mains to the existirg Rockford Water Utility mains;
'!be installatilJt1 of service connections between the :1eW water mains
am the targeted acktresses (table 1), incl~ the ~sary
plumbin:; at the targeted ackiresses, which do not currently have
access to JIU1'ri.cipal water;
'!be installation of service UJJ lI.ections between the water mains am
targeted addresses, includirr; the J'YiK'eSc:!~ plumbin:; at targeted
addresses, in areas where Rockford Water Utility water mains already
exist tut targeted addresses are not connected to the utility;
'!be treatin:; of the well water ~ at the existirg M.micipal Well
#35 which had been taken QJt of normal service due to VOC
contamination, to achieve dri.nk:in; water st:arx1ards, am the
di.sc:harge of the treated water into the Rockford distrib.ttion system
(this well only to be utilized durin:; peak demand haJrs) am
'!be abarDcnment of existirg private ~ at the target addresses
which accept hook up to pJblic water / . .
'!be CXJSt breakdown of the preferred alternative is as follC7w'S:
21,000' Water Main and Fittings
Service Connections with Pre-existing Mains
Service Connections to lIew Water Mains
Weter Meters
RHldential Well AbItIdonIent
Treatment Facility Structure It Municipal Well '35
Site ~ork end Piping at Trelt-.nt Facility
OelllOtli l ization
51,260,000
192,000
58,800
36,500
68,000
207,000
250,000
100,000
Contingency (201)
Engineering Design (81)
Supervision end Acninistration (81)
Construction Engineering (81)
Arnal COlt.
P~ing COlts (years 1-30)
Carbon (years 1-5)
Process Tankage lelse Payments
5 434,000
209,000
225,000
243,000
5 58,800
210,000
168,000
(years 1 -5)
(years 6-30)
Total Pr888nt Worth (pr'88tt ~ + capital coats)
Total
1436,800
58,800
(It 2%)
(It 5%)
(It 10%)
16,380,000
55,820,000
55,300,000
16
-------
"
IX.
STA'IUroRY DEl'mfiNM'ICH;
'!he ~;~1 acticn; that are un:iertaken at SUperfund sites mJSt adlieve
adequate prctection of human health an::l the environment. In addition,
section 121 of cmcLA established several other statutory requirements an::l
pre.f~enoes. 'lbese specify that when CXI!Iplete, the selected ~ial
action far this site 1II.1St cx:aply with ~licable ar relevant an::l
~ "„I- iate envira1mental standards establi.she::l uroer Federal an::l State
envira1mental laws unless a statutory waiver is justified. '!he selected
remedy also 1II.1St be cost-effective an::l utilize pemanent solutions an::l
alternative tec:hnoloqies to the maxim.m1 extent practicable. Finally, the
statute incl\X2; a preference far remedies that Employ treatJDents whidl
permanently an::l significantly reduce the volume, taricity ar mbility of
hazardcus wastes as their principal element. '!he follc:win; sections
it; c:t"'I1~C: heM the selected remedy meets these statutory requirements. .
Protection of HLtlMn Health am the Environment
'!he selected remedy protects human health by elbninatin3' the
exposure of affected residences through the connection to the City
of Rcckford DJI'1icipal water supply system and the aban:ionment of
contaminated private wells. '!he ~ected remedy is an inter:im
action; c:x:I'1SE!qUeI'y, prctection of the environment will be
addressed in a subsequent Record of Decision.
Cancliance with AcDlicable or Relevant am Aoo1::ooriate Reaui.rements
'!be selected remedy will cx:aply with all ~licable ar relevant am
~~iate requirements. Ma;Ir;1II11m CD1taminant Levels, as defined in
the Safe Drinkin;J Water Act (40 CFR 141), are an ARAR far this
action. All oonst:ruction activities will be ocn:lucted in CXI!Ipliaroe
with OSHA regulatia1S, 29 CFR 1910.120 and 29 CFR 1926. '!he mly
State MARs, the l-II-'~ IJ.l.imis State Grcundwater St:.anjards, are
net yet praIUlgated, and are categorized as ''To Be Considered".
():)st-Effecti veness
'!he selected remedy is cost-effective because it has been determined
to provide cverall effectiveness l-II-~tional to its costs, the net
present warth value bein;J $5,820,000 (5%, 30 year life). '!be
selected remedy is the least costly of the alternatives evaluated,
and yet provides the highest degree of prctection of human health.
Utilization of Permanent Solutions an::l Alternative Treatment Technolooie9
(or Rescurce Reoaverv Technolooies) to the Maximum Extent Practicable
'!he State of IJ.l.imis am U. S. EPA have determined that the selected
remedy leflk.~ents the maxim.m1 extent to which pemanent solutioos
and treatment tec:hnoloqies can be utilized in a cost-effective
marmer far this Southeast Rcckford Grcundwater CCntaminatia"l site
17
-------
J I) t1 1: .?:
1 .; : - .:
= : :. n
. - . - -
. - . - .
Operable Unit. '!be selected rE!IDeCly is a pecuanent solution to. the
human health threat. HcweYer, ).)eowP" of the lwtErl SGq:Ie of this
acticr&, alternative ~ tedmolcqies or reswroe rf!D:1Vf!!rj
ted1nologies were not amsidered. 'Ihese cpticns will be evaluated
in later investigatia&, and di8C'\e~ in a subsequent aecm-d of
Decisia1.
Prefel.ence far Treatment as a Prfn::;p'1 Element
'!he selected remedy deals CInly with the tiJreat to PJblic health
resultinq frcm oarrt.amiIBted drinJd.n; water. ']here w.i.ll be saDe
tt~ of cx:.r1taminated grcurdwater as a side benefit to the GAC
unit en 1b1icipal well #35. 'Ibis well w.i.ll only be used in
~'Pq sit:uat.ic:ns, b.Jt 1IIben the GN; unit is activated, treabDent
of this lwted aDDmt of groundwater will be oc:attTin;. '!be
prefereuce for trea'bDent as a principal elBDent will be Da:'e
caap1etely w1;h. r e. j \bin opticr&S for remediatin; the cx:rrt:aminant
plume are dj .....-- in a sul'Jsequent Rsc::CIrd of DecisiCl"l.
18
-------
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
IN THE MATTER OF:
SOUTHEAST ROCKFORD
GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION
OPERABLE UNIT/PROPOSED PLAN
IEPA File #12-91
SOUTHEAST ROCKFORD GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
OPERABLE UNIT FEASIBILITY STUDY AND PROPOSED PLAN
MAY, 1991
I. Overview.
In March of 1989, an area in southeast Rockford bounded by
Harrison Avenue, 21st Street, Sawyer Road and 8th street was
placed upon the National Priorities List because of
contaminants from an unknown source or sources found in
private wells and Rockford Municipal Well #35. The National
Priorities List is a list of hazardous waste sites eligible
for investigation and cleanup money through the federal
Superfund law.
In the summer of 1989, the United States Environmental
Protection -' Agency (U. S. EPA) Emergency and Enforcement
Response B-'!!a-nch conducted an emergency action to evaluate
which residences had wells with contamination high enough to
pose a possible health threat from short term exposure.
Subsequently, the U.s. EPA Emergency and Enforcement Response
Branch provided bottl~d water, water filters, and then public
water hookups to approximately 280 identified residences. The
U.S. EPA was responsible for community relations during the
Emergency Response Action.
In the summer of 1990, the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency (IEPA) conducted a Remedial Investigation for an
operable unit (one part of an overall action) to evaluate the
number of private wells which had lower levels of
contamination but still violated the public water supply
standards. This investigation focused on an area bounded by
Harrison Avenue, 24th Street, Sandy Hollow Road and the Rock
River.
This investigation was followed by a study of alternative
remedies for residences with private wells which violate or
potentially violate the public water supply standards. The
Proposed Plan study designated connection to the Rockford
public water supply as the alternative preferred by the IEPA
1
-------
and the u.s. EPA for private wells in the study area that
violate public water supply standards, are used for a drinking
water supply, and the water is not "sold" in a business such
as a restaurant or a tavern. Included in this list are wells
in a buffer zone which either have not been tested or which
may be in the path of groundwater flow. This alternative
includes treatment of Municipal Well #35 with a granular
activated carbon treatment unit to remove volatile organic
compounds so that the well can be used to supply peak demand.
In accordance with CERCLA Section 117, the IEPA held a public
comment pe=iod from March 16, 1991 to 5:00 PM on April 23,
1991 for interested parties to comment on a drinking water
remedy for the Southeast Rockford Groundwater Contamination
Operable unit Feasibility Study and Proposed Plan. At the
public hearing held on April 17, 1991 IEPA presented the
Proposed Plan for the site and received public comments on the
drinking water alternatives and answered questions.
Although a few residents question the requirements for
plugging their wells and annexation into the city as
conditions for public water connection, most residents support
connection to the public water supply as the preferred
alternative. The main area of dissension appears to be among
res~dents with wells who were not on the list for public water
connection.
These sections follow:
*
Background on community Involvement;
Summary of Public Comments, Questions and IEPA
Responses Received during Public Comment Period;
*
*
For More Information; and
Attachment: Community Relations Activities
Southeast Rockford Groundwater Contamination
at
*
II.
Backqroun4 on community Involvem.nt
The IEPA has been responsible for conducting community
relations durinq the investigation for the drinking water
operable unit and will be responsible for community relations
durinq the remedial investiqation and feasibility study into
the source of contamination. The U.S. EPA Emergency Response
Branch will be responsible for the construction of the water
main.
The site first came to the attention of the IEPA with a
citizen's complaint of dumping plating waste in an abandoned
2
-------
well. Subsequent tests did not detect plating waste in nearby
private wells but chlorinated solvents commonly used in
industry for such things as degreasing machinery. A meeting
held in 1985 by Illinois Department of Public Health and the
IEPA drew a crowd of approximately 200, but ongoing concern
did not seem to surface until the site was placed on the
National Priorities List in 1989 and banks began refusing home
mortgage and improvement loans in the area. Since that time
community concern has remained strong. The main issues are
summarized below:
ISSUE # 1. Some of the residents reject the public water
supply alternative because this alternative may mean that
the whole area will be annexed into the city. Annexation
is undesirable to these residents for several reasons
including higher taxes. Since most residents appear to
prefer public water, those who decline may still be
annexed since their property may be surrounded by city
property.
ISSUE #2. Some residents not recommended for public water
hookup contend that the hookup... should include their
houses as well since either t~eir well was not tested or
groundwater movement in the future could contaminate
their wells at levels violating the public water supply
standards.
ISSUE #3. Some residents not recommended for hookup ask
that their houses be hooked up to the public water
supply, since they have been designated as part of the
federal Superfund study area. This designation
reportedly has made it difficult to obtain loans for home
improvement or for mortgages.
ISSUE #4. Some residents expressed concern that the
source of contamination be found and cleaned up as
quickly as possible.
ISSUE #5. Many residents expressed support for the
proposed plan and indicated that they were eager for
construction to be completed this year.
III. Summary of Public comment. and Qu..tion. and Ag.ncy R..pon...
The main issues raised during the public comment period are
summarized below. These issues are reflected in the
transcript of the public hearing. The following categories
include the summarized responses to the above issues.
3
-------
1.
Health effects
2.
Sampling
Connection to the public water supply
3.
4.
Annexation to the City of Rockford
5.
Concerns about specific wells excluded from the
list proposed for pUblic water hookups.
Treatment of municipal well #35
6.
7.
Point of entry water treatment for private wells
8.
Real estate sales and property values
9.
,Investigation into the source of contamination
10.
General
The comments are paraphrased in order t9 effectively summarize
them in this document. The reader .,is' referred to the public
meeting transcript which is available at the public
information repositories located at the Ken Rock Community
Center (3218 South 11th Street) and the Rock River Branch of
the Rockford Public Library (3134 South 11th Street).
HEALTH EFFECTS
Question: I have been drinking water that has violated public
water supply standards. What health problems should I expect?
Response: The concentrations that people are now drinking are not
high enough to cause health effects in the short-term. Those
residents whose wells had concentrations that were high enough to
be of concern for short-term exposure have been given filters or
have been hooked up to the public water supply. In addition, we
have no documented cases in Rockford of residents becoming ill from
drinkinq the well water with low levels of contaminants. We have
enough information to suggest that there may be some health effects
if this contaminated water is consumed over a lifetime of
approximately 70 years. If you have concerns about potential
health effects, you should share information about your exposure
with your doctor.
Question: Will citizens receive bottled water or water filters
until the public water main is connected?
4
-------
Response: No. Concentrations are low enough to not pose a health
threat from a short-term exposure so there is no need for the state
or federal government to provide protection until the water main is
connected. Short-term in this context means several years. The
health concern about these low concentrations are from a lifetime
of 70 years exposure. If residents feel uncomfortable drinking the
water until the water main extension is completed, they may buy
their own bottled water or filters, but: the state or federal
government will not reimburse the cost.
Question: You say my water now meets public water supply standards
but that you will resample next year. will my health be harmed if
contaminants in my water should increase next year to the point of
violating the public water supply standards?
Response: No. The contaminants should not reach a concentration
that would be high enough to cause health problems in this short
time frame. Public water standards are set to be protective over
a lifetime of seventy years. Concentrations that exceed these
standards by only a small amount are not considered harmful in the
short-term.
./
Question: My house is not schedule:! for/hookup but is next to a
house that is scheduled for hookup. Are you saying that my water
is safe to drink?
Response: Yes. The IEPA allowed a buffer zone when drawing the
line for hookups. Those outside the zone have water that is in the
area demonstrated to meet public water supply standards. In 1992,
the IEPA will resample select wells along the border to determine
whether the contamination has spread causinq additional wells to be
in violation of the public water supply standards.
Question: Is there a potential health threat from bathing in the
water or from kids runninq throuqh the lawn sprinkler? I have a 10
month old baby that I bathe in water that violates the public water
supply standard. Is that safe?
Response: There is no health threat from bathinq in the water.
Those residents who are now usinq the water and are waiting for an
alternate supply, have wells which violated public water supply
standards only sliqhtly. The public water supply standards are set
to protect people who consume this water for a lifetime, or
approximately 70 years. Therefore, your water is safe to use for
the short period of time until you will receive an alternate
supply.
Question:
Is the water safe to water veqetable qardens?
5
-------
Response: Yes. Most of the chemicals found in the water vill
evaporate when exposed to air, so there is little threat of the
chemicals accumulatinq on the veqetables.
Question:
What is the status of health studies in the area?
Response: The u. S. Aqency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Reqistry has reqistered residents from Winnebaqo, Boone, and Oqle
counties who have documented exposure to trichloroethene in
qroundwater. Persons on the reqistry will be interviewed once a
year about their health, and this data will be compiled over time
to determine if there is any common lonq-term trend in health
problems in people exposed to trichloroethene.
SAMPLING
Question: My house is located beyond the boundaries of those beinq
hooked up to public water and my well was not tested. My well is
deeper than my neiqhbors. How do I know that my well is not
contaminated or will not become contaminated in the future?
.--'
Response: The sample locations of the wells were spaced in such a
manner that would allow evaluation of the wells not sampled. In
addition, next year the IEPA will sample select wells outside of
the hookup area to evaluate whether additional wells may violate
public water supply standards and thus be eliqible for public water
hookup in the future.
Comment: I would like my well (3237 Collins) tested now instead of
waitinq until 1992. The water main will stop in the middle of the
block which makes no sense, since my well has never been tested.
3018 Bildahl would also like their well tested before 1992.
Response: At this time, until investiqations delineate the area of
. the plume, no residential samplinq is planned until phase II
investiqations are initiated sometime in 1992. Private well water
in the vicinity of 3237 Collins and 3018 Bildahl has been tested
and results indicate that the water meets PUblic water supply
standards.
Comment: I just moved to 2938 Hanson and would like to have my
well tested.
Response: Since you are on the list for hookup to the public water
supply and since water in your area has not been shown to pose an
immediate health risk, the IEPA will not test your water. The u.s.
6
-------
EPA plans to connect your residence to pUblic water by the end of
1991.
Questions will the contamination plume spread out when the private
wells now pumping are removed from service because of the public
water hookup?
Response: The additional sampling planned for 1992 by IEPA .will
detect changes in the plume which may occur due to the abandonment
of private wells.
Question:
What chemicals were the samples analyzed for?
Response: The samples were analyzed for nine volatile organic
compounds, most of which are commonly used industrial solvents, and
for four metals. Most of the chemicals tested for had been
detected previously in private well samples and municipal well
samples in the southeast Rockford area. Samples were not analyzed
for bacteria or nitrates. If residents are concerned about
bacteria or nitrates, they should contact the Winnebago County
Health Department.
Question:
taste?
,
Do these volatile organic compounds have an odor or
Response: These chemicals usually do not have a odor or taste at
the concentrations found in drinking water.
Question: How can you be sure you tested my well (3133 7th Street)
for the right contaminants? It is next to a drainage ditch in
which I have seen several different types of contaminants including
oil and a red material.
Response: According to the IEPA Rockford Regional Field Office the
reddish liquid that is being seen in the drainage ditch is most
likely water that is being flushed from the water mains and
hydrants, which contains high levels of iron. They stated that
many times this water will almost look like "blood" when it is
released within these drainage ways. It is also very unlikely that
any of the materials could possibly enter your drinking water as
the ditch is cement lined, even though cracked, very little water
from the ditch could ever enter the groundwater. Sampling of
residents is part of future investigations and tentative plans to
sample residential wells is scheduled for 1992.
Comment: The map in the Rockford Journal ~ shows the affected
area bounded by the west by 11th Street. Is this correct?
7
-------
Response: No. The area sampled extended west to the Rock River
and was bounded by Harrison Avenue, Sandy Hollow Road, and the 24th
street. The expanded study area boundaries are 1.25 miles east of
Alpine, Harrison Avenue, Sandy Hollow Road and the Rock River.
Comment: I have two wells in the new addition to the study area
(3916 Sandy Hollow and 3844 Sandy Hollow). Should they be tested?
Response: Plans for testinq wells within. the newly defined areas
are part of the future investiqations. The Phase I investiqation,
which is due to start this summer will attempt to delineate the
horizonal extent of the contamination, will identify those
residences overlyinq the plume. At that point, most likely mid
1992, the next phase of investiqation will most likely include
residential well samplinq to confirm this potential contamination.
CONNECTION TO THE PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY
Comment: How did the IEPA arrive at $5,820,000 as the estimated
cost for the proposed plan.
Response: The Feasibility Study, which-~utlines the specifics of
the proposed alternative, contains breakdowns and explanations of
the costs for each considered remedy. These documents can be found
in the Public Repositories located at the Ken Rock Community Center
(3218 South 11th Street) and the Rock River Branch of the Rockford
. Public Library (3134 South 11th Street).
Comment: I went to the Water Department and they said that the map
in the fact sheet is not the most recent version.
Response: Maps delineatinq the extent of contamination have not
chanqed from the fact sheet. The maps containinq future water
mains and line hookups, however, are, at this point, tentative.
These installation maps will not be finalized until contractors
have been secured and their work plans finalized. Due to the
amount of work to be done durinq the city water hook ups, it would
be very difficult, at this time, to say for certain where specific
piping will qo.
Question: I am not included in this round of hookups. In the
future, will you ever pay for public water for my residence?
Response: In 1992, the IEPA plans to conduct an additional round
of private well samplinq alonq the border of the proposed area of
public water hookups. If additional wells violate the public water
supply standard for the chemicals of concern, these wells will be
8
-------
= :.. :::: .).:
el1';1ible for the public water supply hookup under this program
also.
gU88tion:
my 'liell?
If I chose to hook up to City Water, will I have to plug
Response: Yes. Old wells are a comaon pathway of contaminants to
the aquifer (ur.derground water) which supply drinking water for the
Rockford Area. Plugging these wells helps protect the aquifer, so
all residents who hook up to city water will be required to plug
their wells. In addition, plu9ging wells is an assurance that
residents will not be exposed to the contaminants in the future.
state and federal funds will pay for the cost of plugging wells at
residences receiving public water hookup through the Superfund
program.
oues~ion:
wells?
I have two wells but only use one.
will you plug both
aespODS.: The U. s. EPA' s policy is to only plug one well per
residence, the well which is beil19 utilized for drinking water. If
an addition well exists, however, that poses a potential threat to
the public or existing aquifers through cross contamination, it,
will be considered by the Agencies for aba~donment also.
. ..----
CO~..Dt: I do not like the taste of city water, because it tastes
of chlorine.
R8s:pOD8e: city water may taste of chlorine, but it is safer to
drink than well water that tastes goocl and contains industrial
solvents at levels violating the public water supply standard.
OUlt.tioD: Hov often is city water tested for the industrial
solvents found in the water?
Rel!lpOnS8: Effecti ve .July 1 of this year, once contamination has
beEtn found or suspected, the City is required to sample water from.
a &Ipecific location quarterly until the specific constituents are
n~ longer detected.
QUC!st1oza: I paid for hookup to the public water system last year.
Wi:Ll the Superfund reimburse me for that cost?
R8:IPOIl88: No. Federal law explicitly forbids the use of Superfund
money to reimburse citizens for cost they have incurred on their
own.
Qu.astion: will you repair my lawn after di9ging it up for the
wa1:er main?
9
-------
Response:
Yes
Question:
How much will the hookup cost the resident?
Response: If your residence is on the list for public water
hookup, Federal and state Superfund money will pay for the water
main down the street, for the connection between the street and the
house, for the water meter and for pluqqinq the private well. The
city of Rockford has aqreed to waive the hookup fee. The
resident I s expense will be the cost of interior modification to
plumbinq, if needed, and the monthly water bill to the City of
Rockford.
Question: will businesses with contaminated water be hooked up to
the public water supply throuqh the Superfund proqram?
Response: Businesses who use private well water only for employee
consumption will be hooked up to the public water supply at
federal expense. Businesses who "sell" the water, such as
restaurants and taverns, are not eliqible for federally funded
hookup to the Rockford public water supply.~...
Question: How will residents know when to siqn up for the public
water? Who will receive the notification of public water hookups?
Response: The person who receives the tax bill will receive the
notification which will outline the procedure for siqninq up for
the public water.
Question:
What if we are out of town durinq the sign up period?
Response: People who are on the list for public water, wili be
able to siqn up for the water anytime durinq the construction of
the water main, which will be several months.
Que.tion:
How lonq will residents be without water?
Response: Each residence will be without water for only one to two
hours durinq the hook up process.
Comment: Durinq the u.S. EPA Emerqency Response action last
summer, there was some confusion about schedulinq. In addition,
there was misinformation about the urqency for people not on the
list to pay tor the hookup themselves since accordinq to this
information, the price would go up in the future. Several people
who paid for the cost themselves would have been eligible for a
free hookup this year.
10
-------
Response: This misinformation was not attributable to 'the
Agencies. The Federal On-Scene-Coordinator (OSC), Mr. Ken Theisen,
was available at the Ken Rock Center during construction between
ten to twelve hours a day, five days a week, and during off hours
an answering machine was available for any questions or concerns by
the public.
Question: Who should residents contact if they have questions
about the water main construction.
Response: The U.S. EPA Emergency Response Branch will probably set
up a trailer on the parking lot of the Ken-Rock Community Center
(3218 South 11th Street). The on-scene coordinator, Ken Theisen,
will be able to be contacted during working hours at that trailer.
Comment: We live on the west end of Brooke, are on the list of
hookups but have been told that water main cannot be laid in the
area because it is in a floodplain.
Response:
area.
The U.s. EPA will still try to lay water main in that
. ...-/"
Question: Will U.S. EPA repair the existing main on the west end
of Brooke Road? It is laid only three to four feet beneath the
surface and freezes every winter.
Response: The city of Rockford is aware of this problem and has
pledged to rectify it. The water main that the U.S. EPA lays will
meet all city specifications including the depth at which it must
be installed which is at least six feet.
Question: In some places one side of the street is designated for
hook up and the other is not. Wouldn't it be cheaper to hook up
both sides of the street when the water main is put down instead of
coming back later and hooking up the other side if sampling next
year shows that it is contaminated also?
Response: The intention of the Agencies is to hook up those
residences who have been found or are believed to have contaminated
water. It is not the Agencies' objective to ultimately hook every
residence to public water. If a residence does not show
contamination levels which violate public water supply standards,
this property will not be connected to public water by the
Agencies.
Question: If you lay the main down the street, and we are not on
the list for hookups, can we hook up to the main at our own cost?
11
-------
Response:
Yes.
Question:
Who will oversee the construction of the water main.
Response:
The U.S. EPA Emergency Response Branch
Question:
Does the City have to approve the water main design?
Response:
Yes.
Question: If the Agencies stop the water main two blocks short of
Sandy Hollow, will the City require them to loop the main or will
they allow a dead end.
Response: In some instances the City will require a loop; however,
it this procedure becomes too expensive or impracticable the OSC
will request an exemption from this policy.
Question:
will you construct a stub at vacant property?
Response: During last year's action nc5--service connection stubs
were installed to vacant lots as this would have been at the City's
expense. Again, during this action, it will be up to the City to
decide whether to hook up empty lots.
Question: By allowing a dead end, isn't the U.S. EPA allowing the
water to become contaminated?
Response: No, these water lines are sealed and no external
contamination could enter them. Also, these dead end lines will be
periodically flushed by the city water department.
Comment: When is this project scheduled to begin. We have just
received a letter from the City statinq we will be annexed, and I
think we have to connect to city water when we are annexed.
RespODse: If you are annexed into the City of Rockford and are on
the list for hook up by the Aqencies, you will not be required to
hook up to public water before the Aqencies hook you up. You are
required to annex into the City of Rockford if you accept a water
line hookup from the Aqencies, but you are not required to hook up
to public water if you choose to annex into the city. However, if
an individual who is annexed into the city decides not to be hooked
to public water and their well is found to be contaminated they
will not be able to obtain a permit to drill a new well on that
same property.
12
-------
Question:
made.
When will the final decision on the proposed plan be
Response:
The decision should be made by late May.
Question: I am outside of your proposed area for hook up and may
decide to pay for hookup out of my own pocket. How much will this
cost?
Response: Cost of hookup depends upon several variables including
whether or not there is a main already down your street and the
distance from the property line to your house. The City of Rockford
Water Division can tell you whether there is a main down your
street. A private plumber can give you an estimate of the cost
from the property line to your house. Additiqnal costs are the
city's hookup fee and the cost of a water meter.
Comment: There were a number of comments supporting connection to
the public water supply as the best alternative for providing safe
water to residents for all uses.
./
...----
Question: Why are you excluding restaurants and taverns from
eligibility for public water hookup under your program?
Response: This criterion will be used in order to be consistent
with the criteria used by the u.s. EPA during their Emergency
Action in Rockford during the summer and fall of 1991.
Question: How will restaurants and taverns provide safe water for
their employees and customers.
Response: It will be up to the owners of restaurants and taverns
to hook up to public water. If their water is found to violate
public water supply standards, they should not be serving this
water to their customers.
A1fH!:nTION IN'l'O THE CITY 01' ROCD'ORD
Que.tion: will those who hook up to the City of Rockford be
required to be annexed into the City?
Response: Those who sign up for City Water hookup will be required
to sign a pre-annexation agreement. This document is an agreement
to be annexed into the city when a person IS. property becomes
contiguous or next to city property. The public water system
13
-------
belongs to the city of Rockford and the city makes this requirement
in order to pay for ongoing maintenance of the system.
Question: Has the IEPA and the u.s. EPA conspired with the city of
Rockford to make people think their wells are contaminated so that
the City can annex the area?
Response: No. The IEPA and the U. S. EPA have no interest in
whether or not people are annexed into the city. The purpose of
the IEPA and the U. S. EPA is to protect human health and the
environment. The recommendation to hook up to city water is based
solely on sample results that indicate water from certain wells are
a threat to human health.
Question: Why was the farmland north of Lindberg included in the
shaded area of. the map?
Response: At this time the delineation of the plume has been
determined by a limited number of sample points. The location of
the plume, therefore, encompasses areas between points of known
contamination, and the farmland lies between two of these points
and is considered to be part of the ar~~of contamination.
Comment: Several residents on Lindberg Street obj ected to the
inclusion of several houses on that street in the proposed list of
homes eligible for public water hookup, because they were afraid
that this action would make the whole area vulnerable to annexation
into the City.
Response: The IEPA included a house on Lindberg plus two in a
buffer zone, because the first well had an industrial solvent which
violated the public water standard. In order to be consistent,
these houses should be included on the list of proposed hookups,
however, residents have a right to refuse a hookup to the public
water supply system.
Question: If we are on the list of proposed hookups and decide to
refuse the offer, can we still be annexed into the City?
Respons.: The City decides who they will annex and not the IEPA or
the u.S. EPA. However, a state law allows a City to force
annexation of parcels less than 60 acres which are surrounded by
the city.
Comment: My residence is not on the list of proposed hookups, 50
must have good water. Nevertheless, the City will annex this
property and condemn my well. I think I should be compensated for
14
-------
losing the use of my well:
Response: Your well will not be automatically condemned if you are
annexed into the City although you may be prohibited from drilling
a new well if your present well goes bad. The IEPA and U.S. EPA
cannot compensate you for the loss of your well and will not
provide City water if your well meets public water supply
standards.
Question:
same time.
Why can't we have water main and sewer installed at the
This is a waste of taxpayer's money.
Response: The Federal Superfund money, under the law, can only be
used to protect public health which has been endangered because Of
releases of hazardous waste. Extension of the sewer would not meet
this criterion. If citizens want sewer, they will have to pay for
that expense themselves.
CONCERNS ABOUT SPECIFIC WELLS EXCLUDED
FROM THE LIST PROPOSED FOR PUBLIC.WATER HOOKUPS
.---'
Comment: My mother lives on the corner of 9th Street and Sawyer.
Will the IEPA provide for public water hookup. Will you sample her
well?
Response: This residence will be hooked up to public water if it
is on the list of residences eligible for hook up.
Comment: 3209 7th street should be on the list since groundwater
flows from east to west. You have the line stopping across the
street to the east of us, but houses just immediately south of us
and to the west are on the list for hookups. The groundwater
surely does not flow in the step fashion shown on the map.
Response. The Agencies will consider this residence for hook up
during the design of the construction.
Comment: The Illinois Department of Public Health comments that
there are several homes in the 2400 and 2500 block of 22nd, 23rd
and 25th Streets that should be offered hookups to the Rockford
public water supply. They meet the criteria established by the
IEPA for hookup in that they exceed the public water supply
standard, and the contaminants are the same as those in the wells
offered city water indicating the contaminants come from the same
source.
15
-------
Response: If the owners of these residences wish to be hooked up,
the Agencies will allow their inclusion on the list of eligible
residences for public water hookup. The Agencies will work with
the Illinois Department of Public Health to further define the area
to be connected to the public water supply.
Comment: The house on 1306 Sandy Hollow that exceeded the public
water supply standard for lead should also be on the list of houses
to be connected to the public water supply.
Response: The Agencies believe the lead contamination at this
residence is not due to the identified plume, and this residence as
well as those residences considered for hook up due to this problem
are not eligible for City water hookup at this time. The Agencies
will continue to investigate the source of the lead, and the
possibility exists that this residence may be eligible for hook up
to public water by the Agencies in the future.
Comment:
1735 Hamilton had 18.8 ppb lead and should be retested.
Response: The contaminant levels found at this residence were
below the public water supply standards.;--therefore,' at this time,
this residence will not be considered for retesting or public water
hookup.
Comment: 3209 9th Street is located in the shaded area of the fact
sheet map but not on the list of target addresses so should be
added to the proposed list of hookups.
Response: If 3209 9th Street is a residence it will be eligible
for hook up.
Comment: My house at 3218 9th Street (which is not on the list) is
reportedly on the same water reservoir as 3217 (which is on the
list) so it should be connected to the public water supply also.
Response: If this residence (3218 9th street) is either on the
same side of 9th street as 3217 9th Street or it is on the same
well as 3217 9th Street it will be eliqible for public water
hookup.
Comment: The five houses with wells in the 300 and 400 block of
Brooke Road should be included in the public water hookups since
groundwater flows from east to west, and the fact sheet map shows
contamination on both the east and the west of these five houses.
It would be cheaper to hook up these houses now when the road is
torn up than to wait for the houses in the middle to become
contaminated.
16
-------
Response: The Agencies will reconsider these residences for hook
up during this round of pUblic hookups. The Agencies will make
this determination during the development of construction plans and
will notify those residences if it is decided they are eligible for
hook up.
Comment: I think there is a well at 404 ~arry which is in the
shaded area which should be included for hook up. This well may
have been hooked up by the U.S. EPA Emergency Response Branch last
fall.
Response: If this residence is within the shaded area the Agencies
will reconsider this residence for hook up during construction plan
development, and the owners will be notified.
Comment: I own. two houses on the same well (3037 Harshall and 3039
Marshall). Only one address is listed for hook up. Please add the
other.
Response: Both houses, if they are separate residences, will be
eligible for hook up.
..~_.-
Comment: We moved the house on 3002 Kinsey (which is recommended
for hook up) to a vacant lot at 2905 Potter which is in the shaded
area. (The reason for the move is that st. Edwards is constructing
a road where the house was). 2905 Potter has no water and we
request that this house be put on the list for hookups.
Response: In this case the new location. of the house (2905) will
be eligible for hook up if this lot is within the contaminated
zone, but the now empty lot (3002 Kinsey) will no longer be
eligible.
Comment: I am living in a mobile home at 3003 18th street which is
in the shaded area. We have a community well and I think we should
be on the list for hookups to the public water supply.
Response: The Agencies will investigate this issue and if it is
found that this residence is within the shaded area and on well
water, it will be considered for public water hookup.
Comment: I have had a mobile home at 2941 Horton for thirty years
which was on the same well as 2945 Horton which was hooked up by
the U.s. EPA. The U.S. EPA refused to hook up my mobile home to
public water. I request the IEPA hook up the mobile home to water
also since I have to run a hose from the house to the mobile home.
17
-------
Response: This residence will be hooked up to public water during
this action.
Comment: We live at 3025 18th street and request public water
hookup. The house next to ours (3023 18th street) has been offered
public water and they are located 30 fe~t from our well. 3012 17th
street joins our property on the back and has also been offered
public water so the cutoff line is jagged. Our neighbor 3035 18th
street has been denied bank loans because of the contaminated
water.
Response: Reports show that this residence was listed as being
tested for the contaminants of concern, and the levels were either
non-detect or below the public water supply standards. This
residence's water, therefore, is considered safe, and the residence
will not eligible at this time for public water hookup.
Comment: I considering purchasing property at 3609 Harrison Avenue
which is in the expanded study area. The Illinois Department of
Public Health will test my water next week. If it exceeds public
water supply standards will you pay for con~ectinq this property to
the public water supply?--
Response: Your private well was sampled by the Illinois Department
of Public Health, and no contaminants were detected above the
public drinking water standards.
Comment: I live at 3317 Bildahl Street. You are hooking up 3329
and 3333 Bildahl and will have to come down the block to hook up
these two people. Why are you not recommending public water hookup
for my residence?
Response: These two residences are associated with the residence
at 1306 Sandy Hollow which, when sampled, had elevated lead levels.
These residences were mistakenly left on the list for hook up. The
Agencies will continue to investigate the source of the lead, but
at this time these residences are not eligible for public water
hookup by the Agencies.
Comment: A number of people on the list for hookups commented that
they approved the proposal and that they would gladly take public
water hookup.
TREATMENT OF MUNICIPAL WELL 135
Qu..tionl If we get our water from Municipal Well #35, won't it be
contaminated also?
18
-------
ae~lpODS.: Part of the remedy which will be constructed by the U.S.
EPJ., will be a granular activated carbon treatment unit installed
on Municipal Well #35 to remove the chlorinated solvents from the
well.
COla.D~: I doubt that Municipal Well #35 can provide a permanent
lorlq term source of safe water. According to an Department of
EnE:rqy and Nat'.lral Resources report Municipal Well 35 couf.d in time
rec:eive toxic materials from shallow wells or the bedrock aquifer.
In addition Municipal Well #35 may not be able to meet the demand
of additional wells.
Ree.pons.: Municipal Well #35 will be modified for treatment using
an activated carbon unit to remove organic contaminants that could
ent.er the well system ana will be reqularly monitored for such
cor.ltaminants. This well will only be utilized durinq peak demand
pel:'iods and is not intended to represent the total source for the
ne~' public hookups.
QUI:stioD I
Is it feasible to treat Municipal Well #35?
Reapons.: Yes. Granular activated carbon treatment is a proven
technology for removing chlorinated solv!nts' from municipal wells.
Question: Wouldn't it be cheaper ~o drill a new well instead of
treating Municipal Well #35 and prov1d1nq new filters through the
years.
aespoDs8: IEPA considered drilling a new municipal well but
discarded that idea because of the time involved. Before a new
well could be drilled, an extensive study of the aquifer would have
to be undertaken to determine the placement of the well. This type
of study would have delayed water main' construction for another
year which the IEPA thought unwise.
guestion: Will the qranular activated carbon treatment system
proposed for Municipal Well #35 be noisy?
Response' No. It should not make any more noise than the well
originally made without the filter system.
CommeDt: One person commentea that if Municipal Well #35 is
started, contaminants will be pulled into additional private wells.
Those who turn down City water will regret their decision, because
their wells may be one of those which will have increased
contamination.
19
-------
- - .
Respon..z Ongoing as well as future investigations in the
Southeast Rockford area will attempt to track the movement of the
contamination plume, plus monitor any influencing factors, such as
the increased use of Municipal Well 135, which could cause the
plume to .Ove in an unnatural fashion. During these
investigations, the Agencies will sample residential wells which
could be affected by this plume movement. However, the Agencies
will not be sampling wells of residents who decided to turn down
the present offer of City water since it has already been
determined these wells present a risk.
POIJft' OF DTRY D'l'BR T'RBATXEJlT roa PRIVATE nLLS
C01D:.en~: I would prefer a water filter to connection with the
public water supply.
Re8J~ons.: Since the groundwater may not be cleaned up for many
yea:l:'s the IEPA and u. S. EPA prefer a remedy that is permanent and
doe:!; not require onqoinq maintenance. Water filters are not
eff'!!ctive unless they are reqularly maintained. The onqoing
mahltenance makes filters more expensive/in the lone; term than
public water hookups and requires a coJllJliitment of time and people
tha'~ the IEPA and u.S. EPA consider to be a poor use of limited
reSI)urces.
Que:ltiozu Can we vote on whether or not we want filters or public
watc!r main hookup?
ReSJ~oDse: No. The remedy chosen will have to be the same for all
aff43cted residences.
Coaments One person commented that point of entry treatment for
residential wells should not be considered because maintenance
Cos1:s.
REAL ESTATB SALES ABD PIlOPBRn VALUES
Comllent:
Sup41rfund
the area;
sti~J1Ra of
The desiqnation of
site has caused banks
therefore, all houses
a super fund site.
this neighborhood as a federal
to refuse home mortgage loans in
should be hooked up to remove the
ReSI)Qn..: The IEPA has no authority over banks' decisions on
lending. IEPA staff are willing to answer questions that banks,
appraisers, realtors or others have about the project and clarify
20
-------
, .' /. : ~
, .,. ~
, '. ' . -
the IEPA's position on liability and other aspects of the project.
It !;hould be made clear that the designation of a study area is not
a dl9lineation of an area of contamination. A study area is only an
area in which the Agency is looking for contaminants. In addition,
Mar.le. Rose of the Land Acquisition Department for the city of
Roc:ltford has indicated that he is willing to work with residents to
finj banks that will give loans on property in the study area,
Comaent: Banks refused to finance our house because it is in the
&tudy area, yet the Winnebaqo county Health Department said our
water was. fine.
Response: The Winnebaqo County Health Department analyzes well
samples primarily for bacteria and nitrates. Your well could meet
the standards for bacteria and nitrates and still violate the
standards for the industrial solvents found in private wells.
Que.tion: will those areas not hooked up be "de-listed" from the
Superfund site.
R..poDse: The objective of the Remedial, Investigation is to
determine the location of the contaminati,9J\" plume. At that point
the "site" boundaries will be develOped,'.'and those residences that
are now considered part of the study area but are not in the area
,of contamination will no lonqer be considered a part of the
SO\1,theast Rockford Groundwater contamination 51 te. The boundaries
of the study area to date have been expanded through the use of
stx'eets as cutoff lines since the exact delineation of the plume is
unJcnown .
gUElstion: Designation of the area as a Superfund site has caused
thEI value of my property to decline. Does the Superfund pay for
lO!is of property value?
aelupODse: No. Under the Federal Superfund Law, money cannot be
ust!d to compensate residents for 10S5 of property value. It has
be.!n the experience of the IEPA at other Superfund sites, that if
prc)perty values decline at the beqinninq of a project; they will
rebound when action to correct the problem is undertaken. One
Roc:kford appraiser has stated (unoff,icially) that he has seen no
dec:1ine of property values in the area.
IIlVBSTIGATIOH Ilft'O THE SOUROS OP CONTAMINATION
QUII.tioD: Is the water main construction the end of the project or
is the IEPA qoinq to stay with this project until the source is
idl~ntified and cleaned up?
21
-------
ReS1?onse: The water main construction is only one part of. the
project. The IEPA will begin an investigation into the source or
sou:c-ces this spring. After the source or sources are identified,
a study of cleanup options will be undertaken including a "no
action" option. This study of options including the option
preferred by the IEPA and U.S. EPA will be submitted to the public
for comment before a final remedy is decided upon.
Question: How big of an area will be affected by contamination in
the future?
Res:pODsez At the present, the size and extent of the contamination
is lJnknown. The purpose of the next phase of investigations is to
determine the vertical and horizontal extent of the contamination
plume as well as its source. These investigations will also
include a study of methods to prevent the enlargement of the
contamination plume and alternatives t.o reduce or cleanup the
contamination. .
QUestion:
How many aquifers have been contaminated?
Respon.e: The answer to that question is ~t known at the present
time. The investigation into the source' of contamination should
answer that question also.
Question: Why are the IEPA and u.s. EPA going to spend taxpayer
mone.y to find the source of contamination when all the people who
are affected are qoing to be hoo~ed up t.o public water?
RespoDse: The IEPA and U.S. EPA wish to find the source for two
reasons: (1) to recover costs of investigation, public water
hOOKUp and cleanup from those parties responsible for the
contamination; (2) to clean up the source of contamination if
possible. If the source or sources are st.ill releasinq contaminants
into the qroundwater, action must be taken to prevent further
release.
Co~aent~ The area west of 20th street and south of Harrison has
haCl little industry. Most of the industry is north of Jiarr ison
inc:ludinq the old People's Avenue Landfill which is north of
Haz"rison.
Re!ipODse: The old people's Avenue Landtill is being considered for
pos;sible inclusion on the National Priorities List (Superfund).
ThE! investigation for Southeast Rockford will consider all
pot;ential sources, includinq those industries north of Harrison, if
nec:essary .
22
-------
O\Ulstiozu I have noticed there are several areas of contamination
is()lated from the main plume of contamination. Have you found the
cOlltamination sources for these isolated areas? Has the
contamination been stopped?
ae11pon..: No. Findinq sources is one objective of the remedial
investiqation which will begin this sprinq. After the source or
SO\lrces have been identified, then a determination can be made
abc)ut stopping the f low of contamination. .
OU'lstion: Is the contamination being caused by industry, septic
sYl1tems, or old landfills where chemicals have been buried?
a.alpense: The contaminants are chlorinated solvents that are
co~~nly used by industry for such things as deqreasinq machinery
and dry cleaninq. These chemicals could cODle from industry or from
olCl landfills where chemicals have been buried in the past. These
chE~icals are not septic contaminants unless someone poured
solvents into their septic system.
GERBRAL QUBSTXO.S
."'---
COJll8eD~: The junk yard at the corner of Brooke Road and 9th Street
hat:; the potential for many contaminants including sulfuric acid,
oils, radiator fluids and lead.
a81Ipozas.. The U. S . EPA and IEPA are in the process of
investigating the source or sources of the Southeast Rockford
qrc1undwater c~ntamination.The Agencies welcome all information
relevant to the potential sources of the contamination and will
investigate such potent.ial sources..
Quel.tion: How can I obtain a list of IEPA, U. s. BPA, and IDPH
saD~le results to determine for myself whether or not public water
is necessary?
Ree:pouse. TheBe results are in Section 3 of the Operable Unit
Tec:hnical Memorandum at repositories located at the Rock River
Bre.nch of the ROckford Public Library at 3134 South 11th street and
at the Ken-Rock Community Center located at 3218 South 11th street
in Rockford.
COlaent: Last year the u.s. EPA installed water mains for a group
of houses. This year the IEPA proposes to install water mains for
an additional group of houses. Next year you will install public
wat.er to Sandy Hollow Road, because the City wants to annex all
23
-------
'. .
that area and they are doing it thr~u9h the extension of the water
main. The extension has nothing to do with pollution.
Response: The IEPA and U.S. EPA will not propose additional
hoc.kups unless sampling indicates that the contamination has
spread. The IEPA and U.s. EPA have nothing to do with annexation
and. have no interest in whether or not an area is annexed into the
city. Their main concern is to protect public health and proposals
for public water hookups are based solely upon sample results that
ind.icate that wells violate or may potentially violate public water
su.ply standards.
Qul.stion: Have you investiqated the former quarry and dump site
eas.t of 20th street?
aes:ponse: Ho. The investiqation into the source which will beqin
thi.s sprinq will look at all possible sources based on information
qat.hered fro. monitoring wells and soil gas survey.
.'-----
24
-------
~
IV. For More Information
Questions about the hearing process and access to exhibits
should be directed to the Agency Hearing Officer, John
williams, IEPA, 2200 Churchill Road, P. o. Box 19276,
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276 or phone 217/782-5544.
Que~tions about the final decision should be directed to
Steven Washburn, Remedial Project Management Section, Division
of Land Pollution Control, IEPA, 2200 Churchill Road, Box
19276, Springfield, Illinois 62794-9296 or phone 217/782-
6760.
Additional copies of this responsiveness summary are available
from Virginia Wood, Community Relations, IEPA, 2200 Churchil.l
Road, P. O. Box 19276, Springfield, Illinois 62794- 9276, or
phone 217/782-5562.
The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency's Director, Mary
A. Gade, the Division of Land Pollution Control's staff and
the IEPA Hearing Officer would like to thank those individuals
and groups who attended the meetings and hearing, as well as
those who sent in comments, for, their interest and
participation. --' .
Signed:
Date:
Illinois Environmental
2200 Churchill Road
P. O. Box 19276
Springfield, Illinois
Phone (217) 782-3397
Protection Agency
62794-9276
25
-------
ATTACHMENT
COMMUNITY RELATIONS ACTIVITIES
SOUTHEAST ROCKFORD GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION
*
IEPA conducted community interviews with local officials and
communi ty leaders (February, August, and. October 19 B 9 and
March 1991).
IEPA prepared a community relations plan (March 1989 and May
1990).
*
*
IEPA prepared and mailed a background fact sheet.
1989)
(October
*
IEPA held a news briefing on the project (October 1989).
IEPA held a series of public meetings to explain the status of
the project, the Superfund process, and planned action.
(October, 1989)
*
*
IEPA conducted a private well survey and obtained access for
private and industrial well sampling (March through June,
1990). A part of this survey was.~'update on the project.
*
IEPA issued a news release announcing private well sample
results.
*
IEPA regularly telephoned and met with local officials and
community leaders to update them on the project.
IEPA established a repository (at the same locations as U.S.
EPA repository on Emergency Actions) at the Ken-Rock Community
Center and the Rock River Branch of the Rockford PUblic
Library.
*
*
IEPA released the operable unit Remedial Investigationl
Feasibility Study (RI/FS) for public comment. A public
comment period was held from March 18 until 5:00 PM April 23,
1991. In addition, a fact sheet summarizing the Operable Unit
RIfFS was sent to a mailing list of over 4,000 residents and
businesses. The IEPA also placed an advertisement in the news
paper announcinq the comment period and public hearinq (March
16, 23, 30, 1991).
The IEPA and U.S. EPA held a series of informational meetings
to answer questions about the operable unit feasibility study
. and proposed plan (April 3, 4, 9, 10, 11).
*
*
IEPA issued a news release announcing the Public Hearing for
April 17, 1991.
26
-------
*
IEPA held a pUblic hearing to receive comments on the operable
unit feasibility study and proposed plan (April 17, 1991). A
transcript of this hearing will be placed in the Public
Repositories (Rock River Branch of the Rockford Public Library
and the Kenrock community Center).
..
27
-------
FOR THE
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
SOUTHEAST ROCKFORD GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION PROJECT
Update No.1
The Co~prehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), requires
the establishment of an Administrative Record upon which the
President shall base the selection of a response action (42
U. S. C. 9113 (k)(l».
The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) has
compiled the following official Administrative Record Index
for the Southeast Rockford Groundwater Contamination National
Priorities List site located in Winnebago County, Illinois.
This index as well as the Administrative Record itself will
be updated by the IEPA.
Please contact Virginia Wood (r. o.
Churchill Road, Springfield, Illinois
217/782-5562) for more information on
questions concerning this index.
NO. DOCUMENT TITLE
1.
Operable Unit Project
Plans:
Work Plan
Health & Safety Plan
Quality Assurance Project
Plan
Sampling & Analysis Plan
Community Relations Plan
2.
Memo Re: Update on Actual
NUmber of Private Wells
Sampled in Operable Unit
Remedial Investigation (RI)
3.
Validated Raw Data From
Operable Unit RI Private
Well Sampling
Final Operable Unit RI
Technical Memorandum
(Includes map packet)
4.
(MORE)
Box .19276, 2200
6-2794-9276, telephone
who and where to direct
ISSUE
DATE
AUTHOR
NO. OF
PAGES
6/6/90
CDM-IEPA
52
59
192
73
21
6/20/90
D. Dollins
1
8/15/90
CDM
178
9/27/90
CDM
193
-------
'J
Sa. Phase I Project Plans
Work Plan
Health & Safety Plan
Appendices
Community Relations Plan
Quality Assuance Plan
Appendices
Samplinq & Analysis Plan
Appendices
5b.
6.
Operable Unit Draft
Feasibility Study Report
(Includes map packet)
Proposed Plan-Operable Unit
7.
Administrative Record Page 2
2/91
CDM-IEPA
56
41
44
26
71
230
65
94
CDM-IEPA 79
3/91
3/91
IEPA
12
~ r---#
------- |