\\ARZYNPROJECT10Q10201

OG030Q9

VOLUME I of III

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO. 1INVESTIGATION RESULTS AND ANALYSIS REPORT

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDYH.O.D. LANDFILLANTIOCH, ILLINOIS

OCTOBER 1993

PREPARED FOR:WASTE MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC.

WESTCHESTER, ILLINOIS• • *

PREPARED BY:WARZYN INC.ADDISON, ILLINOIS

PROJECT10010201

VOLUME I of III

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO. 1INVESTIGATION RESULTS AND ANALYSIS REPORT

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDYH.O.D. LANDFILLANTIOCH, ILLINOIS

OCTOBER 1993

Alan J.gichmidt,CPGTechnical Manager

^StevenJ. ChillsonProject Geologist

Richard H. Weber, P.E.Project Manager

John A. HurtenbachProject Chemist

TABLE'OF CONTENTS

VOLUME I

1INTRODUCTION................................................................................................!-!

1.1 Purpose of Report............................................................................................................1-11.2 Background..................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2.1 Site Description....................................................................................................1-1' 1.2.2 Location................................................................................................................ 1-2

1.3 Scope...............................................................................................................................1-31.4 Report Organization........................................................................................................ 1-3

2REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION ACTTVITIES...................................................2-1

2.1 Site Mapping and Surveying..........................................................................................2-12.2 Source Characterization.................:................................................................................2-2

2.2.1 Landfill Cap Evaluation.......................................................................................2-22.2.2 Leachate Collection System Effectiveness..........................................................2-52.2.3 On-Site Surficial Soil/Sediment Sampling..........................................................2-52.2.4 Leachate Piezometer/Gas Well Installation.........................................................2-62.2.5 Perimeter Landfill Gas Probe Installation............................................................2-72.2.6 Downhole Geophysical Logging..........................................................................1-72.2.7 Leachate Sampling...............................................................................................2-tf2.2.8 Landfill Gas Sampling.........................................................................................2-S2.2.9 Landfill Soil Borings............................................................................................2-!>2.2.10 Evaluation of Off-Site Sources..........................................................................2-9

2.3 Hydrogeologic Investigation.........................................................................................2-102.3.1 Evaluation of Existing Wells.............................................................................2-102.3.2 Monitoring Well Installation..............................................................................2-102.3.3 Downhole Geophysical Logging........................................................................2-122.3.4 In-Situ Hydraulic Conductivity Testing.............................................................2-132.3.5 Groundwater Level Measurements....................................................................2-13

2.4 Hydrologic Evaluation..................................................................................................2-142.4.1 Surface Water Flow Measurements...................................................................2-142.3.2 Surface Water Level Measurements...................................................................2-14

2.5 Soil/Sediment Evaluation..........................................,.....................,.............................2-142.6 AirEv^Mion...............................................................................................................2-\?>2.1 Human Population Evaluation................................................................ .....................2-152.8 Ecological Evaluation...................................................................................................2-152.9 Potential Migration Pathway/Contaminant Characterization........................................2-16

2.9.1 Groundwater.......................,...........................,.....................,.....................,.......2-162.9.2 Private and Municipal Water Supply Wells.......................................................2-172.9.3 Surface Water Sampling.................................,...................................................2-182.9.4 Sediment and Soil Sampling..............................................................................2-18

3SITE PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS............................................................3-1

3.1 Landfill Characteristics...................................................................................................3-13.1.1 Landfill Cover Physical Observations and Cover Evaluation..............................3-13.1.2 Landfill Structure/Refuse Characteristics............................................................3-33.1.3 On-Site Landfill Gas Assessment........................................................................3-4

3.2 Cliniate...........................................................................................................................3-53.3 Physiography...................................................................................................................3-53.4 Surface Hydrology..........................................................................................................3-53.5 Surface Soils...................................................................................................................3-73.6 Regional Hydrogeologic Setting.....................................................................................3-8

3.6.1 Regional Geology.................................................................................................3-83.6.2 Regional Hydrogeology.....................................................................................3-10

3.7 Site Hydrogeologic Setting.......................................:...................................................3-113.7.1 Site Geology.......................................................................................................3-113.7.2 Site Specific Hydrogeology.............................................................................3-14

4NATURE AND EXTENT OF COiNTAMINATION...........................................4-l ,

4.1 Summary.......................................................................................:................................^-!4.2 Sampling and Analysis....................................................................................................4-24.3 Site Source Areas and Potential Contaminant Pathways................................................4-34.4 Contaminant Groupings...............................................................................................-..4-4

4.4.1 Volatile Organic Compounds...............................................................................4-54.4.2 Semivolaiile Organic Compounds.......................................................................4-6

4.5 Compound Concentration Comparisons.........................................................................4-64.5.1 Applicable Regulations........................................................................................4-64.5.2 Background Evaluation........................................................................................4-6

4.6 Source Characterization..................................................................................................4-94.6.1 UuTdnUGas.............................................................................................^4.6.2 Leachate...............................................................................................................4-9

4.7 Media Characterization.................................................................................................4-114.7.1 Surface Soils.......................................................................................................4-114.7.2 Ground water....................!................................................................................^-124.7.3 Village of Antioch Water Supply Wells......-......................................................4-174.7.4 Private Residence Wells..'...................................................................................4-184.7.5 Surface Water.................................................................................................. -.4-19

5CONTAMINANT FATE AND TRANSPORT..................................................^-1

5.1 Summary of Findings.......................................................,........,.....................................?-!5.2 Physical/Chemical Attenuation Mechanisms..................................................................5-2

5.2.1 Dilution/Attenuation............................................................................................5-25.2.2 Adsorption/Desorption.........................................................................................5-25.2.3 Biodegradation..........................:..........................................................................:'-45.2.4 Oxidation/Reduction............................................................................................5-45.2.5 Volatilization........................................................................................................5-55.2.6 Precipitation.........................................................................................................5-55.2.7 Hydrolysis.......................^

5.3 Potential Migration Pathways.........................................................................................5-55.3.1 Groundwater/Private Wells..................................................................................5-55.3.2 Surface Water.......................................................................................................5-75.3.3 Surface Soils.........................................................................................................5-75.3.4 Air (Landfill Gas).................................................................................................5-7

6CONCLUSIONS..................................................................................................^.-!

7REFERENCES............................................................................................... ......7-1

LIST OF TABLES

Table i-1 List of Acronyms and AbbreviationsTable 3-1 Soil Testing Results from Landfill Cap EvaluationTable 3-2 Results of Boutwell Conductivity Testing of Clay CapTable 3-3 Landfill Cap Thickness and Vertical Extent of RefuseTable 3-t Landfill Gas Perimeter Probe Field Screening ResultsTable 3-? Sequoit Creek Staff Gage and Stand Pipe Water LevelsTable 3-6 Sequoit Creek Flow MeasurementsTable 3-7 Geotechnical Laboratory ResultsTable 3-8 Summary of Soil Testing Results - Previous InvestigationsTable 3-9 Groundwater ElevationsTable 3-10 In-Situ Hydraulic Conductivity ResultsTable 3-11 Summary of Slug Test Data Analysis Conducted by U.S. EPA FITTable 3-12 Vertical Groundwater GradientsTable 3-13 Leachate ElevationsTable 4-1 Regulatory LimitsTable 4-2 Summary of Background Metals and Indicator ResultsTable 4-3 Summary of Landfill Gas ResultsTable 4-* Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds in Groundwater, Surface Water,

Surface Soils, and LeachateTable 4-5 Summary of Historical Monitoring Well VOC DataTable 4-6 Summary of Semivolaiile Organic Compounds in Groundwater, Surface Water,

Surface Soils, and LeachateTable 4-7 Summary of Metals in Groundwater, Surface Water, Surface Soils, and LeachateTable 4-8 Summary of Groundwater/Leachaie Quality Indicator ResultsTable 4-9 Summary of Chemical Constituents Detected at Village of Antioch Water Supply

Wells and Private Residence WellsTable 4-10 Summary of Historical Data for VOCs Detected in Village of Aniioch Water

Supply Well No. 4Table 5-1 Summary of Physical and Chemical Properties of Compounds Detected ai H.O.D.

Landfill

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Site Location MapFigure 2 Village Water Supply Well Location MapFigure 3 Private Water Supply Well Sampling LocationsFigure 4 Wetlands Inventory' MapFigure 5 Stratigraphic Column For Northeastern IllinoisFigure 6 Pleistocene Stratigraphic Column For Chicago AreaFigure 7 Sequoit Acres Industrial Park MapFigure 3 Filled Areas hi Industrial Park MapFigure 9 Surficial Soils MapFigure 10 Surface Water and Surface Soil Sampling Location MapFigure 11 Leachate Piezometers/Gas Well Location MapFigure 12 Geologic Cross Section Location MapFigure 13 Geologic Cross Section A-A'Figure 14 Geologic Cross Section B-B'Figure 15 Geologic Cross Section C-C

LIST OF DRAWINGS

Drawing 10010201-F1Drawing 10010201-F2

DrawingDrawingDrawingDrawingDrawingDrawina

10010201-F310010201-F4I0010201-F510010201-F610010201-F710010201-F9

Site Features MapMonitoring Well, Soil Boring, And Leachate Piezometer LocationMapRegional Geologic Cross SectionSurficial Sand Isopach MapClay-Rich Diamict Isopach MapSurficial Sand Water Table Map (June 8 and 9, 1993)Piezometric Surface Map (June 8 and 9, 1993)Groundwater VOC Concentrations

VOLUME IILIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A Test Pit LogsAppendix B Leachate Piezometer/Landfill Gas Well Boring Logs and Well Construction

Details

Appendix C Perimeter Gas Probe Boring Logs and Probe Construction DetailsAppendix D Geophysical Logs

Appendix E Landfill Boring LogsAppendix F Geotechnical Laboratory DataAppendix G Summary of Environmental History of Sequoit Acres Industrial Park Through

1989

Appendix H Groundwaier Monitoring Well Boring Logs and Well Construction DetailsAppendix I Monitoring Well Development DataAppendix J Results of In-Field Hydraulic Conductivity TestingAppendix K Groundwater Sampling Field Parameter ResultsAppendix L Meteorological Data

VOLUME III

Appendix M Village and Private Residence Water Supply Well LogsMl Municipal Well Construction Information

M2 Private We 11 Logs

Appendix N Results of Landfill Cap EvaluationNl Geotechnical Analytical Results

N2 Boutwell Test DataAppendix O Village of Antioch Water Supply Well Pumping Records

Appendix P Analytical Laboratory ResultsPI Data Quality Summary. Data Qualifier Definitions, and Analytical Data ResultsP2 Landfill Gas VOCsP3 Leachate VOCsP4 Leachate SVOCsP5 Leachaie Pesticides/PCBsP6 Leachate Indicators and MetalsP7 Leachate Tentatively Identified Compounds (TICs)P8 Surface Soils VOCsP9 Surface SoUs SVOCsP10 Surface Soils Pesticides/PCBsPll Surface Soils MetalsP12 Surface Soils Tentatively Identified Compounds (TICs)P13 Groundwater VOCsP14 Groundwater SVOCsP15 Groundwater Pesticides/PCBsP16 Groundwater Indicators and MetalsP17 Groundwater Tentatively Identified Compounds (TICs)P18 Private Water Supply VOCsP19 Private Water Supply SVOCsP20 Private Water Supply Pesiicides/PCBsP21 Private Water Supply MetalsP22 Surface Water VOCsP23 Surface Water SVOCsP24 Surface Water Pesticides/PCBsP25 Surface Water Indicators and MetalsP26 Surface Water Tentatively Identified Compounds (TICs)

1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE OF REPORT

This report presents the results of Task 3 (Site Investigation) and Task 4 (SiteInvestigation Analysis) of the Remedial Investigation (RI) for the H.O.D. Landfillsite. The purpose of this Technical Memorandum is to document the investigationand.analyses performed in accordance with the August 1992 Work Plan(PSER/TS) and to determine whether sufficient data has been collected to proceedwith the draft RI. The portion of the RI field program documented in this reportwas conducted from April to July, 1993.

The work was conducted in accordance with an Administrative Order on Consent(AOC) executed on August 20, 1990 by the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency (U.S. EPA) and Waste Management of Illinois, Inc. (WMII). Thepurpose of the Remedial Investigation (RI) is to determine the nature and extentof contamination, assess risks to human health and the environment, and provideinformation for the Feasibility Study.

1.2 BACKGROUND

1.2.1 Site DescriptionThe site consists of a total of 80 acres, 51 acres of which have been landfiiled.Although the landfiiled area is visually continuous, it consists of two separatelandfill areas, identified as the old and the new landfills. The old landfill consistsof 24.2 acres situated on the western third of the properly. The new landfillconsists of 26.8 acres situated immediately east of the old landfi l l (seeDrawing 10010201-F1). The two landfill areas have been legally delineated and adivision line established under a special condition of permits (No. 1975-22-DEand No. 75-329) issued by the IEPA, Division of Land Pollution Control.

Technical Memorandum N q O c t o b e r 1 9 9 3 H . O . D . Landfill-Antioch. Illinois

1.2.2 LocationThe site is located within the eastern boundary of the Village ot" Ant ioch inLake County in northeastern Illinois (Township 46 North, Range 10 East.Sections 8 and 9). The site is bordered on the south and west by Sequoit Creek.The Silver Lake residential subdivision is located east ot" the site and agriculturalland, scattered residential areas, and undeveloped land is located to the north. Alarge wetland area extends south of the site from Sequoit Creek. Silver Lake isapprox ima te ly 200 feet southeast of the site. A large industrial park area(Sequoit Acres Industrial Park), constructed on former landfill and fill areas, islocated west of the site and borders Sequoit Creek. The site location is shown onFigure 1.

In July 1984, Ecology & Environment, Inc. (E&E), a contractor to the U.S. EPA.conducted a site inspection of the H.O.D. Landfill Site. The results of that siteinspection, and other available information, were used by E&E to rank the site inApril 1985 under the Hazard Ranking System (HRS). The site was scored at52.02, primarily attributable to an "observed" release of zinc to groundwater and. ^to a much lesser extent, potential for surface water exposure routes. Based uponthe HRS ranking, the site was proposed by the U.S. EPA for inclusion on theNational Priorities List (NPL) in Update 4, on September 18, 1985. FromNovember 1986 to September 1989 the U.S. EPA, through its contractors,conducted additional investigations at the site in response to public comments.including those provided by WMII. WMII contended the zinc detected ingroundwater at well G103 was related to the deteriorated galvanized casing of thewell. In January 1990 a second ranking of the site was performed. The HRSscore (34.68) was based in part on the occurrence of contaminants in the surficialsand. A release of contaminants to the deep sand and gravel was not observed.Because the landfill was considered an adequately covered landfill, the surfacewater score was assigned a value of zero. The air route was scored zero in bothevaluations. On February 21,1990 (55 Fed. Reg. 6154), the H.O.D. Landfill waslisted on the NPL.

A number of Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) were identified by U.S. EPA.However, only WMII responded to U.S. EPA and agreed to participate in theRI/FS. In early 1990, WMII entered into discussions with the U.S. EPA regardingthe conduct of an RI/FS under an AOC that was, following public review andcomment, executed on August 20, 1990. In May 1990, Warzyn Inc. (Warzyn)was contracted by WMII to support WMII's RI/FS effort by preparing the WorkPlan or Preliminary Site Evaluation Report/Technical Scope (PSER/TS) and tosubsequently perform the RI.

Technical Memorandum No. 1 October 1993 H.O.D. Landfill-Anuoch. Illinois

1.3 SCOPE

The goal ot' the RI is to determine the nature of any contaminants present at thesite, to determine the extent to which any hazardous consti tuents have beenreleased into the envi ronment at the site, and to character ize the risk fromexposure to any affected media. The data needs for the RI can be grouped intothree categories which address each of the following:

• Source Characterization - Characterize the physical and chemical nature ofany waste materials and any media in which these wastes are contained.

• Physical and Migration Pathway Characterization - Physically characterizethe various media, identify any active contaminant migration mechanisms,and determine the direction and rate of any contaminant movement in anyaffected media.

• Contaminant Characterization - Determine the location, magnitude, andextent of any contaminants migrating along any pathways of concern.

The scope of this Technical Memorandum is to report the investigative results ofthe field activities conducted at the site. This report also provides data analysisrequired to determine if additional activities should be performed for the RI.

1.4 REPORT ORGANIZATION

Section 2 describes the methods used in the field work. Section 3 describes theresults of this field work and discusses the laboratory analysis results obtainedfrom the sampling performed during the field activities. Section 4 presents adiscussion of contaminant nature and extent. Section 5 describes contaminant fateand transport processes. Section 6 discusses the adequacy of existing data withregards to preparing the RI Report and conducting the Feasibility Study.Section 7 lists the references cited in this Technical Memorandum. Table 1-1presents a list of acronyms and abbreviations.

This report is presented in three volumes. Volume I consists of the report text,tables, figures, and drawings. Volumes II and III consist of the data appendices.which further document the RI activities.

AJS/njt/RHW(^hi 609 90]11)010201

Technical Memorandum No. October 199 3_Paae 1-3

H.O.D. Landfill-Antioch. Illinois

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION ACTIVITIES

The Remedial Investigation (RI) characterizes and delineates suspectedcontamination at a site, and attempts to quantify the risks to public health and theenvironment. A description of the activities and rationale for the data collectionactivities conducted at the H.O.D. Landfill is presented in this section.

2.1 SITE MAPPING AND SURVEYING

An updated topographic base map of the proper ty was prepared byphotogrammetric methods to identify physiographic and cultural features. Thetopographic base map was'prepared by Warzyn from an aerial photograph takenon July 21, 1993 by Aero-Metric Engineering, Inc. (Drawing 10010201-F1). Thebase map was then used for identifying monitoring locations and investigativeactivities.

In March of 1993, a survey was conducted by Gentile and Associates, Inc. to fieldstake the proposed-well, monitoring well, leachate well, gas probe, and test pitlocations prior to the RI investigation activities. Another survey was completedby Gentile and Associates, Inc. to determine the location and elevation of theexisting wells, staff gages, and stand pipes, as well as the new monitoring wells,gas probes, soil borings, and leachate wells installed by Warzyn during the RIinvestigation activities.

Locations of the investigation points were surveyed on June 28 throughJuly 1, 1993 and are based on the Illinois State Plane Coordinate system. A sitegrid was also developed for use on the larger sized drawings to assist inreferencing site features. The grid shown on Drawing 10Q10201-F1 shows thestate plane coordinate system used during the RI. Elevations were measuredrelative to mean sea level datum with an accuracy of+0.1 ft for ground surface.+0.01 It lor top of casing and well pipe, and +0.001 ft for horizontal locations.

Technical Mempriuidmn N o . 1 O c i o l x - r | W * I I . O . D . Landfill • Aniiocli. Illnioi>

The location and elevation survey was used in conjunction with other data todevelop a site water table map, determine hydraulic gradients, and constructgeologic cross-sections.

2.2 SOURCE CHARACTERIZATION

The following activities were performed for the source characterization:

• Landfill Cap Evaluation• Leachate Collection System Evaluation• On-Site Surficial Soil/Sediment Sampling• Leachate Well/Gas Well Installation• Perimeter Landfill Gas Probe Installation• Downhole Geophysical Logging• Leachate Sampling• Landfill Gas Sampling• Landfill Soil Borings• Evaluation of Off-Site Contaminant Sources

2.2.1 Landfill Cap EvaluationThe landfi l l cap evaluation consists of three main elements: a test pitinvestigation including geotechnical testing of the in-place cover soils, in-fieldconductivity testing of the landfill cap, and an estimate of the historical and long-term moisture percolation rate through the cap. Activities conducted to dateinclude the test pit investigation and conductivity testing of the in-place coversoils. Modeling of landfill cap moisture percolation will be performed using theHydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance (HELP) model and results will beincluded in the RI report. This investigation was performed to evaluate theeffectiveness of the existing cap to minimize the infiltration of precipitation.

2.2.1.1 Test PitsTen test pit locations were selected based on locations shown in the Work Plan(Drawing 10010201-F2). Locations were selected to include site areas thatappeared to be representative of the range of cover soil materials; such as typical,stressed, no vegetation areas, and poorly to well drained areas. Test pits wereexcavated vertically in the selected areas in May 1993 using a track-mountedexcavator. Each test pit was excavated into the cover soils to the depth at whichrefuse was encountered. Soil profiles and field observations were 'documented by

Tg_climcal \1cimif.uulum N o . 1 t Molx-i I ' M ' H . O . D . l.uulfill • Aniiocli. Illuioi

a Warzyn soil scientist. Field observations of each test pit included:

• Vegetation characteristics• Root penetration depths• Visual soil classification• Extent of inhomogeneities• Photographic documentation

In-place density tests, proposed in the work plan to be performed in the fieldduring test pit excavation, were not conducted because alternate techniques couldprovide the needed data. Unit/weight density tests were performed in thelaboratory using Shelby tube soil samples collected from the test pits.

After each test pit was excavated to a depth of at least 60 inches, a detailed capprofile description was made from one of the test pit walls. For safety reasons, inthose pits which extended below 60 inches, the remainder of the cap profile below60 inches was described from outside the test pit, using soil brought up in theexcavator bucket.

Individual test pit samples were submitted to Warzyn's soil laboratory for testswhich included:

• Grain Size (ASTM D422-63)• Atterberg limits (ASTM D4318-84)• Natural moisture content (ASTM D4959-89)• Clay mineralogy by x-ray diffraction• Modified Proctor (ASTM D1557-91)• Laboratory falling head permeability (U.S. Army Corp. of Engineers,

Engineering Manual EMU 10-2-1906)

Soil samples to be analyzed, for grain size, Atterberg limits, moisture content andclay mineralogy, were collected from each layer in the test pit, and placed inappropriate sample jars. Samples sent for analysis were selected, based on fieldobservations, from the most representative zone of the moist, homogeneous claymaterial layer (the apparent low permeability layer), and various other layers, ineach test pit.

Samples for the Modified Proctor tests were obtained with a bucket auger throughthe bottom casing of the Boutwell unit after completion of the permeability tests(described below), and placed inside double lined garbage bags.

Shelby tube samples for the laboratory fal l ing head permeability and naturaldensity tests were collected from the apparent low permeability layer from each

Technical Memorandum No, 1_____________OcioNfr 199*____________H.O.D. Landfill - Aimocli. lllinoi.vPace 2-3

test pit, utilizing three-inch diameter Shelby tubes pushed vertically into the soilusing the excavator bucket, and retrieved vertically with as l i t t le sampledisturbance as possible. Two Shelby tube samples were randomly selected fromboth the old and the new landfill.

After completion of each test pit sampling, the test pit was backfilled with theoriginal material. which was placed in the test pit in reverse order of removal andcompacted in approximate 1-ft lifts using the excavator bucket.

Test pit logs describing the materials, thicknesses, structure, root growth,vegetative cover, and sample type and depths are included in Appendix A. Thesoil descriptions are based on the Soil Conservation Service Classification Criteria[U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Handbook No. 436] and soils werevisually classified using the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) and theUSDA methods.

2.2.1.2 In-Field Landfill Cap Conductivity Tests - The Boutwell method(ASTM draft method "Standard Test Method for Field Measurement of HydraulicConductivity of Porous Materials Using the Two-Stage Borehole Procedure") wasfollowed, less stage 2, for the conductivity tests run on the landfill cap. Ten testswere conducted in June 1993. The conductivity tests were performed within a 20to 25-ft radius of each test pit, allowing for the use of test pit information inplacing and running the conductivity tests.

The Boutwell method measures the rate of flow of waier into soil through thebottom of a sealed, cased borehole, utilizing a standpipe in the falling-headprocedure. In stage 1, which measures maximum vertical conductivity, thebottom of the borehole is flush with the bottom of the casing. Stage 2, in whichthe borehole is advanced below the bottom of the casing, and which measuresmaximum horizontal conductivity, was not used during this investigation.According to the ASTM description of the Boutwell method, stage 2 can beomitted if the purpose of the investigation is to "...verify that the vertical hydraulicconductivity...is less than some specified value, and the apparent verticalconductivity...is less than that value...". The purpose of these tests was to obtaininformation on* the apparent maximum vertical conductivity of the landfill cap.Therefore, stage 2 was not necessary.

The Boutwell apparatus was installed by hand digging a hole down to the lowpermeability layer based on the corresponding test pit information. When the lowpermeability layer was reached, the hole was advanced approximately 4 to 8 in.into the layer. The Boutwell apparatus was placed into the hole and the annularspace sealed with bentonite chips.

TechnicalIMcmorajuluiiLSo. 1 O c t o b e r 1 W * H . O . D . UiKllill • Aniioch. I l l inois

As described in the test method, the casing was filled with water and the systemwas checked for leaks. The tests began when the stand pipe was fu l l . A stopwatch was used for liming, and calibrated standpipe readings were taken atvarious intervals and recorded. When the drop rate of water in the standpipebecame steady over time, the lest was completed.

Several of the Boutwell tests were run over a period of two days. Each Boutwellapparatus was pre-wetted for 6 to 12 hours before the test began to help induce thesaturated conditions necessary to produce the quasi-steady final results. Boutwellhydraulic conductivity calculations allow for correction for the expansion andcontraction effect due to water temperature changes inside the units during thelength of the test run , based on a sealed d u m m y unit. However , theexpansion/contraction correction was not applied because of the variabilitybetween the dummy unit and each Boutwell unit. Because of shading caused bycloud cover during the course of the apparatus readings, the depth each unit wasinstalled in the cover, the location of each unit relative to shading from the westtree line, and the location of the scale and support struts on the standpipe,condensation on the inside of the standpipes varied considerably betweenBoutwell units, although it changed slowly throughout the test runs of eachindividual unit. Sensitivity analysis was used to check the ouicome of varyingvolume changes due to temperature fluctuation, and it was determined that it had anegligible affect on the final calculated hydraulic conductivity rate. However,because of this minor departure from the test method, these test results should notbe considered absolute values, but rather relative representations of thepermeabilities at each test pit location. i

2.2.2 Leachate Collection System EffectivenessThe leachate collection system effectiveness was to be evaluated by pumpingfrom the leachate-collection system and monitoring the change in leachate head innearby leachate wells. However, the evaluation was not performed as part of theRI because of the results of a similar test run prior to the RI by WMII. Duringthis test. WMII found that leachate could be pumped from the system only untilthe liquid in storage in the manhole, leachate pipe, and backfill was drained.Then, a recovery period was necessary before more liquid could be pumped.

2.2.3 On-Site Surficial Soil/Sediment SamplingFive surface soil/sediment samples (SU01 through SU05) were collected onMay 14. 1993 from areas which were identified during an inspection of thelandfill cap and surrounding area (Figure 10). Surface soil/sediment samples werecollected from surface water run-off routes and on-sitc deposilional areas whichwere observed to have discolored soil and/or water and/or vegetation. Surface soilsample SU01 was collected from an apparent leachale seep located within a deepsurface water runoff erosional cut into the landfill cap which emptied into the

Technical Memorandum N o . 1 O c M K - r l W H . O . D . Landfill - Aiiliodi. I l luu»>

seasonally flooded area south of the new landf i l l area. Sample SU02 wascollected in an area on the landfill cap surface which was barren of vegetation,and after periods of rain, was observed to produce gas bubbles through smallvesicles, causing black discoloration of the surrounding surface soils. SampleSU03 was collected in the seasonally flooded depositional area south of the newlandfill and east of the old landfill from an area which had discolored standingsurface water and vegetation. Samples SU04 and SU05 were collected fromshallow run-off erosional cuts in the landfill cap which had discolored soils and/orwater.

Samples were analyzed for target compound list (TCL) organics, target analytelist (TAL) inorganics, and total organic carbon (TOC). Several geotechnicalindex parameter tests including grain size analysis, Atterberg limits (to determinethe liquid limit and plasticity index), and natural moisture content were performedon the samples. The results of the analysis of the surface soil/sediment sampleswere used to determine possible routes of contaminant transport.

2.2.4 Leachate Well/Gas Well InstallationDuring the RI, Environmental and Foundation Drilling, Inc. (E&F) and Warzyninstalled 14 leachate wells/gas wells into the landfill refuse during the period ofApril 6 to May 4, 1993. The purpose of these wells was to collect leachate andlandfill gas quality data (Figure 11). Five of the leachate wells were located in thenew landfill area (LP5 through LP9) and the remaining nine were installed in theold landfill (LP1 through LP4 and LP10 through LP14). The leachate wellborings were drilled using 10 1/4-inch inner diameter (ID) hollow stem augers.The soil borings were sampled with a 2-inch outer diameter (OD) split spoon atfive foot intervals from approximately ten feet above the estimated base of therefuse to 2 to 7 feet below the base of the refuse to determine the depth andcomposition of the material underlying refuse in each soil boring. Thisinformation was also used to determine the in-place refuse volume. Soil boringlogs for the leachate well borings are located in Appendix B.

The leachate wells were constructed using a washed pea gravel filter pack around6-inch inner diameter (ID) schedule 80 PVC 0.020-inch slotted screen, withhydrated benionite filling the annular space above the filter pack around the 6 inchPVC riser pipe. Locking protective casings were installed.

The leachate wells/gas wells were screened from approximately 0 to 5 feet abovethe base of the landfill to approximately 0.5 to 4.6 feet below the base of thelandfill cap. Leachate well construction details are located in Appendix B. Thisconstruction method was used so that the leachate wells/gas wells could be usedto withdraw both leachate and landfill gas, if necessary, during the RemedialAction (RA) portion of the project.

Technical Memorandum No. I (kioK-r 1W ROD. Umllill - Aiituvli. I l l inoisPane 2-6

While drilling the leachate wells an Organic Vapor Meter (OVM) photoionizationdetector (PID): an Industrial Scientific oxygen, hydrogen sulfide. and combustiblegas meter: and a Monitox hydrogen cyanide meter were used to screen- dri l lcuttings and the immediate atmosphere. Soils with PID readings above 5 partsper million (ppm), as well as all refuse material, were transported and placed intoan on-site roll-off box. The roll-off box is covered and will remain on-sitepending implementation of the source control remedy. Soils with a PID readingless than 5 ppm were disposed of at the location where the borings wereperformed.

2.2.5 Perimeter Landfill Gas Probe InstallationThree of five proposed perimeter gas probes (GP3, GP4A. and GP5A) wereinstalled on April 15, 21, and 22, 1993, respectively, by E&F and Warzyn(Figure 11, Drawing 10010201-F2). Adjacent property owners would not allowWMII/Warzyn to install off-site gas probes GP1 and GP2 to the north-northwestof the landfill.

The perimeter gas probes were installed to determine if landfill gas is migratinginto or through natural clay soils surrounding the landfill. While drilling gasprobes GP4 and GP5, refuse was encountered in the clay fill material. These soilborings were subsequently abandoned and gas probes GP4A and GP5A weredrilled and installed in their present locations approximately 30 to 60 feet awayfrom soil borings GP4 and GP5, respectively. The top of the gas probe screenswere placed at approximately 5 feet below ground surface. The bottom of thescreens varied from 16 to 26 feet below ground surface. Gas probe soil boringlogs and construction diagrams are located in Appendix C.

The gas probe soil borings were drilled using 4 1/4-inch ID hollowstem augersand were continuously sampled using a 5-foot long CME sampling tube to theterminus of the borings. The gas probes were constructed using a washed peagravel filter pack around a 2-inch ID schedule 40 PVC 0.020-inch slotted screen,with hydrated bentonite filling the annular space above the filter pack and aroundthe PVC riser pipe (Appendix C). Locking protective casings were installed.

2.2.6 Downhole Geophysical LoggingEach of the newly-installed leachate wells/gas wells was logged using naturalgamma, neutron, gamma-gamma and fluid temperature downhole logging tools byWooddell Logging Inc. on June 14. 19 and 20. 1993 (Figure 11) . The naturalgamma logging was used to assess the landfill structure; primarily to determine ifintermediate clay cover layers exist within the refuse. The geophysical logs arelocated in Appendix D.

Tcdimcal Memorandum No. I OcioK-r l"*)i H.O.D. l.indtill - Aiihndi. l l lnioi

2.2.7 Leachate SamplingFive leachate samples were collected by Warzyn from the newly- ins ta l ledleachaie wells/gas wells (LP1. LP6, LP8 and LP11) and the leachate collectionm a n h o l e E a s t ( M H E ) o n M a y 1 2 a n d 1 3 . 1993 ( F i g u r e 1 1 ,Drawing 10010201-F2). Sampling was completed using a stainless steel bailer.Sampling equipment was decontaminated in accordance with the Sampling andAnalysis Plan.

The leachate wells were sampled for TCL/TAL parameters and the followingindicator parameters as listed in the PSER/TS and Table 1-3 of the QAPP.

• Field temperature • Alkalinity• Field pH • Total hardness• Field specific conductance • Nitrate nitrogen• Field Eh • Nitrite nitrogen• Field dissolved oxygen • Ammonia nitrogen• Chloride • Total organic carbon• Sulfate • Total dissolved solids

The field parameters were measured using a Beckman pH meter; a YSIconductivity, dissolved oxygen, and temperature meter; and an Orion Eh meter.One duplicate sample and one field blank were collected during the leachatesampling. These QA/QC samples were analyzed for the TCL/TAL and indicatorparameters as listed in the QAPP. Sampling and analysis was conductedaccording to the protocols listed in the QAPP and the Sampling Plan. Thesamples were analyzed by Warzyn and ETC laboratories. Analytical results arelocated in Appendix P.

2.2.8 Landfill Gas SamplingLandfill gas samples were collected from the leachate/gas wells (LP1. LP6. LP7.LP8 and LP11) on June 4, 1993 to chemically characterize the landfill gas(Figure 11, Drawing 10010201-F2). The gas samples were collected using aSumma Passivated Sampling Canister after removing one well volume of gas andpurging the Tygon tubing sampling line with an SKC pump. A trip blank andfiltered duplicate were collected using this same method, as specified in theQAPP. Sampling and analysis was conducted according to the protocols listed inthe QAPP and Sampling Plan.

The landfill gas samples were analyzed by ENSECO Laboratories for volatileorganic compounds (VOC). Methane, oxygen and carbon dioxide concentrationswere measured at the leachate/gas wells, as well as in perimeter gas probes GP3.GP4A and GP5A using a GEM 500 meter. Analytical results are presented inAppendix P.

Tcdinical Mumurandum \n. 1 October 1WJ 11.0.0. landfill - AtnuHrli. I l l i i u n -

2.2.9 Landfill Soil BoringsSix landfill soil borings (Bl through B5 and B2A) were drilled and sampled byE&F and Warzyn on April 23 through April 27. 1993 (Drawing 10010201-F2).These soil borings were drilled along the southern perimeter of the old landfill toassess subsurface conditions and evaluate the need for/feasibility of constructing abarrier slurry wall along the perimeter of the landfill to contain leachate. Ageologic cross-section of the southern portion of the old landfill was completedusing these soil borings to aid in the slurry wall evaluation (Figure B6 and B9).These borings were also used to estimate refuse volume and to aid in determiningthe extent and thickness of the surficial sand (Drawing 10010201-F4).

The soil borings were drilled with 4 1/4-inch ID hollow stem augers andcontinuously sampled with a 2-inch OD split spoon according to AmericanSociety of Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standards (ASTM:D 1586-84). Soilsample lithology was visually classified in the field by a Warzyn geologistaccording to the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Soil boring logs arelocated in Appendix E.

One sample from each distinct lithologic unit was collected from each soil boringfor geotechnical analysis which included grain size analysis, (sieve plushydrometer) and Atterberg limits (to determine the liquid limit and plastic indexfrom samples collected from the clay-rich diamict. The diamict is defined aspoorly to nonsorted sediment containing a wide range of particle sizes, regardlessof sediment genesis). Results of the geotechnical analysis are located inAppendix F.

An OVM PID; an Industrial Scientific oxygen, hydrogen sulfide, and combustiblegas meter; and a Monitox hydrogen cyanide meter were used to screen drillcuttings and the immediate atmosphere. Soils with PID readings above 5 partsper million (ppm), as well as all refuse material, were transported and placed intoa on-site roll-off box container pending implementation of the source controlremedy. Soils with a PID reading less than 5 ppm were disposed of at the locationwhere the borings were performed.

2.2.10 Evaluation of Off-Site SourcesThe area west of the site across Sequoit Creek is an industrial park (Sequoil AcresIndustrial Park) that contains several companies which arc RCRA small quantityhazardous waste generators, a number of registered underground storage tanks,and an old dump area (see Figures 7 and 8). These facilities are potential sourcesof contamination. A discussion of the Sequoit Acres Industrial Park is containedin Appendix G. /

Technical Mi-moraiijum_Vt>. I O i o l v r 1 W M N . < U ) . U i j i J f i j l _ - AJIIIOVJI. Ilhnoi

2.3 HYDROGEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION

The RI hydrogeologic investigation was performed to further evaluate subsurfaceand groundwater flow conditions. This investigation included eight additionalborings and the subsequent installation of four additional monitoring wells andfour additional wells (Drawing 100I0201-F2). These new investigation pointswere used, along with the existing wells, to further define physical hydrogeologiccharacteristics (i.e., groundwater flow direction, hydraulic conductivity) andgroundwater chemistry.

2.3.1 Evaluation of Existing WellsThe existing groundwater monitoring wells were inspected to confirm theirintegrity for the RI. This activity was performed by Warzyn Inc. during other RIfield activities in order to determine the physical condition of the existing wells.This inspection included an evaluation of the condition of the surface seals andprotective casings, and surface drainage from the well. Water levels and totaldepth measurements were also collected. Some of the wells had permanent WellWizard sampling pumps installed in them. As such, the pumps were not removedduring this inspection to avoid potentially contaminating the pumps and tubing.These wells were assumed to be in adequate condition for the purposes of the RI.

The results of the well evaluation indicated that the existing wells were inadequate condition to meet the data collection requirements of the RI.

2.3.2 Monitoring Well InstallationFour new water table monitoring wells (W4S, W5S, W6S, and W3SA) and fournew deep wells (W2D, W3SB, W3D, and W7D) were installed by E & F andWarzyn (Drawing 10010201-F2). These wells were installed in the locationsspecified in the PSER/TS. However, an adjacent property owner would not allowWMII/Warzyn to install off-site well W1S which was to be located to thesoutheast of the landfill.

The well borings, with the exception of W3SB and W3D, were drilled with 41/4-inch ID hollow stem augers and were continuously sampled with the CentralMine Equipment (CME) 5-fool long sampling tube and/or a 2-inch OD splitspoon. Soil sample lithology was visually classified in the field by a Warzyngeologist according to the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Soilboring logs are located in Appendix H. Lithologic information from theseborings, as well as the existing soil borings and wells, was also used to determinethe extent and thickness of the surficial sand and the clay^rich diamict (Drawings10010201-F4 and F5). Geologic cross-sections along the western and southernboundaries of the landfill were constructed to aid in determining the hydrogeologyof the area (Figure 13, 14. and 15).

Technical Memorandum No. 1 Ori.>lvi ! ' > * > * H.O.D. Landfill • Antiodi. I l l imm. I'a-jc MO

The wells were constructed using a No. 30 sand pack around a 2-inch ID schedule40 PVC 0.010-inch slotted screen, with a bentonite slurry mixture and/or hydraiedbentonite filling the annular space above the filter pack around the PVC riser pipe.Locking protective casings were installed. The well construction diagrams arelocated in Appendix H.

Wells W2D and W7D were installed in the deep sand and gravel aquifer onApril 17 and 13, 1993 respectively. Wells W2D and W7D were installed tomeasure potentiometric head, as well as to collect groundwater samples tomonitor groundwater quality between the landfill and the private water supplywells located to the east of the Site (Figure 3, Appendix M). Both wells wereconstructed with a five foot screen located approximately 5 feet below the base ofthe clay-rich diamict. Soil samples were collected from each of the lithologicallydistinct surface deposits, clay-rich diamict, and the deep sand and gravel aquiferzones of each boring. These samples were analyzed for grain size (sieve plushydrometer), and samples collected from the diamict were also tested forAtterberg limits. A shelby tube was also collected from the clay-rich diamict ateach of these borings. The Shelby tube sample collected from soil boring W2Dwas analyzed for rigid wall hydraulic conductivity, total organic carbon, andporosity.

Wells W3SA, W3SB, and W3D were installed on April 6, 7, and May 25, 1993,respectively, in the wetland area south of the old landfill, in an area whereprevious borings suggested the clay-rich diamict was thinnest. Wells W3SA andW3SB were screened in the surficial sand, while well W3D was installed throughthe clay-rich diamict and screened in the deep sand and gravel aquifer. This nestof wells was installed to assess the hydrogeologic continuity of the clay-richdiamict in this area and to evaluate the groundwater quality in the surficial sandand the deep sand and gravel aquifer.

Since the wetland is a semi-permanently flooded area, the water table is near orabove the wetland surface. Therefore, the top of the well screen for well W3SAwas placed below the water table surface. The intermediate well W3SB wasscreened at the base of the surficial sand. The deep well W3D was screened in thedeep sand and gravel aquifer.

Well W3SB was also drilled with hollow stem augers, but was continuously splitspoon sampled starting from the completion depth of W3SA. Well W3D wasinstalled using rotary wash drilling methods. The upper approximately 35 feetwas drilled using 8-inch diameter iri-cone bit in order to install and cement grouta permanent 6-inch ID schedule 40 PVC casing in place approximately 5 feel intoihe clay-rich diamict (located approximately 30 feel below the ground surface}.The casing was installed to minimize ihe potential for cross contamination of the

Technical Memorandum N o . I O c i o i v ; i - i ) 3 H . n . D Lindfill • Aniiodi.

deep sand and gravel aquifer and surficial sand during drilling operations. Therest of the boring was drilled using a 6-inch diameter tri-cone bit and wascon t inuous ly split spoon sampled (with the exception of the 56 to 60 footsampling interval) starting from the completion depth of W3SB.

One soil sample from the surficial sand was collected from well boring W3SB forgrain size analysis, and one clay-rich diamict sample was collected from boringW3D for grain size analysis and Atterberg limits. A shelby tube sample of theclay-rich diamict was also collected from boring W3D and analyzed for rigid wallhydraulic conductivity, total organic carbon, and porosity to evaluate the potentialfor fluid movement and attenuation of potential contaminants. Geotechnicalanalytical results are located in Appendix F.

Monitoring well W4S was installed on the west side of Sequoit Creek on theQuaker Industries property on May 26, 1993 (Drawing 10010201-F2) to confirmthe lateral extent of the surficial sand and to evaluate the groundwater flowdirection on the west side of Sequoit Creek. Well W4S was screened in thesurficial sand and the screened interval intersected the water table.

W a t e r t a b l e m o n i t o r i n g wel ls W5S and W6S were i n s t a l l e d onApril 21 and 16, 1993, respectively, adjacent to existing shallow U.S. EPA wellsUS4S and US5S, respectively, since wells US4S and US5S were screened belowthe water table. The new wells were screened across the water table to monitorpotential contaminants at the water table surface. Two soil samples werecollected from boring W5S and one from boring W6S for geotechnical analysis.

All of the new wells were properly developed, most of them by removing at least10 to 12 well volumes of groundwater using a decontaminated stainless steelbailer and cable. Wells W2D, W3D, W3SB and W7D were developed byremoving at least the estimated volume of water that was lost into the formationduring drilling plus ten well volumes. A Keck pump was used to develop W2Dand W7D. Well development data is located in Appendix I.

2.3.3 Downhole Geophysical LoggingThe new wells installed into the deep sand and gravel aquifer (W2D, W3D. andW7D), as well as. U.S. EPA wells US4D and US6D. also screened in the deepsand and gravel aquifer, were geophysically logged by Wooddell Logging Inc. onJune 3 and 4, 1993. These wells, except for W3D, were logged using naturalgamma, neutron, and gamma-gamma {or density) logging methods. Well W3Dwas logged using only the gamma logging tool due to lime constraints in the field.The geophysical logging was performed to fur ther assess the physical andhydrogeologic characteristics of the surficial sand, clay-rich diamict, and deep

Tcclinic.il Mciiioraixluin No. I Ociolvr joo; H,<),[">. Ltiidlill • An'ioch. I l l inois

sand and gravel as an aid to correlating stratigraphy. The geophysical logs arclocated in Appendix D.

2.3.4 In-Situ Hydraulic Conductivity TestingSingle well in-situ hydraulic conductivity tests have been performed at the Siteduring previous investigations. Rising head hydraulic conductivity tests wererepeated at wells USSSfuSSD, US4S. US4D, US6S. US6D. and US IS. Theselocations were chosen to re-evaluate hydraulic conductivity of the surficial sand(wells US IS, US3S, US4S, and US6S) and deep sand and gravel (US3D, US4D.and US6D) near the southern boundary of the old landfill (US4S, US4D. US6S,and US6DJ and near Village well No. 4 (US3S and US3D). Hydraul icconductivity tests were also performed at new wells (W4S, W5S, and W7D). Thehydraulic conductivity tests were conducted by Warzyn during the period ofJune 2, 3, 4 and 9, 1993. The resultant data will be used in conjunction withexisting hydraulic conductivity data to assess groundwater flow rates.

The tests were performed on the deeper wells by using a pressurization apparatusto depress the water level in the well. As the pressure was released, a pressuretransducer and automatic data logger were used to record the resultant rise inwater level. Water table wells were tested by quickly removing one bailer ofgroundwater from the well and recording the rise in the water level over time witha pressure transducer and automatic data logger. Hydraulic conductivity testswere analyzed using a PC-based aquifer analysis program (AQTESOLV). Testsperformed on the water table wells were analyzed using the Bouwer and Ricemethod for unconfined aquifers. Tests performed on the deeper wells wereanalyzed using the Cooper method (confined conditions) and the Bouwer andRice method (unconfined conditions). The Bouwer and Rice method provided abetter curve match and therefore was used to estimate hydraulic conductivity.The results of the hydraulic conductivity testing are summarized in Section 3.7.2and presented in Appendix J.

2.3.5 Groundwater Level MeasurementsA full round of water levels were collected by Warzyn on June 8 and 9. 1993.Western Gulf Coast Laboratories, Inc. subsequent ly collected a round ofg r o u n d w a i e r l e v e l s d u r i n g the p e r i o d of A u g u s t 18 . 19 , 20 . andSeptember 3. 1993. Water level measurements were obtained using an electronicwater level indicator, decontaminated with a phosphate free Liquinox wash andrinsed with distilled water prior to collecting water level data and between wells.

The water levels were used 10 determine groundwaier How characlerislics for thes u r f i c i a l s a n d a n d t h e d e e p s a n d a n d g r a v e l a q u i f e r(Drawing I001020I-F6 and F7). This information was also used to calculate

Ttfclmn-.ll Mi'morunlutu N o I p c u ' j y t I 1 * ) * ( I Q . ! ) . ! jinlfill• Ajiliocli.

ver t i ca l h y d r a u l i c g rad ien t s , which were used to assess the h y d r a u l i cinterconnection between the surficial sand and deep sand and gravel aquifer.

2.4 HYDROLOGIC EVALUATION

A hydrologic evaluation was completed to assess the connection between thegroundwater in the surficial sand and the surface water in Sequoit Creek and toevaluate the potential for surface water contamination. The investigation includedmeasuring surface water levels in Sequoit Creek, measuring flow in the creek, andobserving the creek banks.

2.4.1 Surface Water Flow MeasurementsSequoit Creek flow measurements were obtained at the four staff gage locations(PSG1 th rough PSG4) on J u n e 8. 1993 us ing a G u r l e y f low mete r(Drawing 10010201-F2). Flow measurements were obtained at one foot spacingsacross the open channel of the creek at staff gage locations PSG1 through PSG3and at two foot spacings at staff gage location PSG4. Prior to collecting the flowmeasurements, the creek banks were observed to determine their physical natureand vegetation type. This information was used to assess stream loss and gain andthe hydrologic connection of Sequoit Creek to the surficial sand and associatedwetland.

2.4.2 Surface Water Level MeasurementsSurface water level measurements were obtained at existing staff gauges PSG1,PSG2, PSG3 and PSG4 and in the associated standpipes SC1A-D, SC2A-D,SC3B-D and SC4A-D prior to collecting flow measurement data. However, waterlevel measurements collected from standpipe SC3D and SC4A were not used inthe evaluation because broken casings made the measurements unreliable. Thewater levels were read directly from the staff gages and with a electric water levelindicator in the standpipes on June 8 and 9. 1993.

2.5 SOIL/SEDIMENT EVALUATION

A soil/sediment evaluation was conducted to assess the potential for contaminatedsurface soils and/or sediments. The investigation consisted of an observation ofthe Site, (including Sequoit Creek), and a hydrologic evaluation of the creek.Refer to Section 2.2.3 of Source Characterization, On-Sile Surficial Soil andSediment Sampling, for details on sampling locations.

A Site observation was performed lo assess the potential for soil contamination.Soil sampling locations were identified based on the presence of leachate seeps.

Technical Mcmoramluin N o , 1 ( V i t i b o r I W * 1 1 . O . 1 V Luull'ill - Aniux.li. l H i m n -

discolored soils and other visual observations. Sediment sampling of SequoitCreek was determined not to be necessary, during the inspection, as visualobservations did not indicate any areas which warranted sampling. Proposedsampling locations were presented to U.S. EPA, for approval, prior to sampling.

2.6 AIR EVALUATION

Existing meteorological data has been ordered to determine regional winddirection, windspeed, temperature, and precipitation and will be included in the RIreport. The potential for air contamination has been assessed (see Section 4}based on the landfill gas sampling conducted under Source Characterization,Section 2.2.8.

2.7 HUMAN POPULATION EVALUATION

Information has been collected to identify, enumerate, and characterize humanpopulations which could be exposed if contaminants were released from the Site.For a potentially exposed population, information will be collected on populationsize and location. As part of the Baseline Risk Assessment (to be submitted toU.S. EPA concurrently with the RI Report) these populations will be linked withthe potential contaminants of concern (i.e., those that are mutagenic, teratogenic,etc.) to identify potential risk. Copies of water supply logs within an approximatetwo mile proximity to the Site are presented in Appendix M.

2.8 ECOLOGICAL EVALUATION

An ecological assessment was conducted on July 21, 1993 as described in theU.S. EPA "Region V Scope of Work for Ecological Assessments" (included inAppendix I) which describes the following eight tasks;

• Task 1 - Characterize Site based on existing data and limited field work• Task 2 - Prepare preliminary ecological assessment• Task 3 - Prepared detailed Work Plan for further Site investigation• Task 4 - Conduct Site investigation• Task 5 - Revise Work Plan, conduct additional investigation• Task 6 - Prepare summary of biological and chemical data• Task 7 - Prepare draft Ecological Assessment Report• Task 8 - Submit final Ecological Assessment Report

Technical MemorandumNo. I_____________Ociobct\W?____________H.O.P- [jndfill • Aniioch. Illinoisp 2_LS

Tasks 1. 2. and 7 have been completed and are presented in a separate EcologicalAssessment Preliminary Screening Report.

2.9 POTENTIAL MIGRATION PATHWAY/CONTAMINANT CHARACTERIZATION

The objective of the potential migration pathway/contaminant characterization isto evaluate the magnitude and extent of contamination. Each potential migrationpathway was evaluated including:

• Groundwater, including private residence wells and Village of Antiochwater supply wells

• Surface water

• Sediments/soils

• Air (landfill gas)

2.9.1 GroundwaterThe following groundwater monitoring wells were sampled during the period ofMay 10, 11, 12, and 14, 1993 and were analyzed for U.S. EPA TCL/TALparameters list and water quality indicator parameters list specified in the QAPP.

• USlSandlD • US3S. 31, and 3D• US4Sand4D • W6S• US6S,6Iand6D • W7D• G l l S a n d l l D • W5S

Monitoring wells W4S, W3SB, and W3D were sampled on June 1. 1993.

These samples were analyzed to determine the nature and extent of potentialcontamination of the surficial sand and the deep sand and gravel aquifer.

As part of the sampling procedures, a minimum of three well volumes wereremoved before samples were collected from each well. The samples werecollected, preserved and handled in accordance with the QAPP. Proper chain'ofcustody procedures; quality control sampling; and sample labeling were alsoperformed according to the QAPP. Temperature, pH. specific conductance.Redox, and dissolved oxygen were measured in the field (Appendix K).Analytical results arc discussed in Section 4. Nature and Extent of Contamination.

Technical McmiM-iiiidum S o . I O c t o l i c i I ' M 3 H . O . D . Uindl'iil • Aniioch. Illinois

2.9.2 Private and Village of Antioch Water Supply WellsArrangements were made by WMII and Warzyn to have selected Village ofAntioch water supply wells and private residence wells sampled. Four of the fiveprivate residence well owners allowed samples to be collected from their wells(Figure 3):

• PW1 Anton and Margitta E. Kahier22731 West Silver Lake Avenue

• PW2 Kenneth Kull42116 North Lake view Drive

• PW3 Robert Lecki42164 North Lake view Drive

• PW4 Mrs. Darnell42206 North Lakeview Drive(no sample collected)

• PW5 Gary and Ellen Hanenberger42236 North Lakeview Drive

Private wells PW2, PW3, and PW5 were sampled on June 29. 1993. Private wellPWI was sampled on July 1,1993. Private well PW4 was not sampled becausethe property owner would not allow access. Village of Antioch water supplywells VW3 and VW5 were also sampled on June 29, 1993 (Figure 2). Sampleswere analyzed for the TCL/TAL parameters list. The samples were collected,preserved and handled according to the QAPP. Village Well No. 4 was notsampled by Warzyn during the RI due to several reasons. The PSER/TS statedthat Village No. 4 would not be sampled since it was to be decomissioned. Inaddition, a significant volume of oil (more than 100 gallons) was present in thewell when it was video logged. The oil present in the well may have biased theresults of any sampling activity. However, analytical data collected by the Villagewas compiled and is discussed in Section 4.

Three of the private residence wells (PW 1. PW2 and PW5) were sampled from anoutside faucet, while one private well (PW3) was sampled from an inside kitchenfaucet. Once the water wa's determined not to be filtered or softened at thesampling point, the faucet was opened 10 purge water until the well pump wasautomatically activated. The water was then allowed 10 run for at least 15 minutesat which point the attached hose (PWI. PW2, and PW5 only) was removed andthe samples were collected. Field measurements of pH. specific conductivity, and

Mk'Miorancluu) No. I Oiiolvr l l >«n H.O.D. l-uulfiM - AmitH.ii. I l l i imi-

temperature are presented in Appendix K. The results of the pr ivate wellsampling are located in Section 5.

2.9.3 Surface Water SamplingSurface water samples were collected on May 14, 199? at three locations alongSequoit Creek: upstream at sampling location S101. near the bend in the creek atsampling location S201, and at the northwest corner of the Site, at samplinglocation S301. The collected surface water samples were analyzed for theTCL/TAL parameters list.

The sampling was completed using a decontaminated stainless steel sampling pail.Samples were collected, preserved and handled according to the QAPP.

2.9.4 Sediment and Soil SamplingSections 2.2.3 and 2.5 describe the surface soil/sediment sampling locations and

., methods. These samples were collected and analyzed to characterize the surfacesoils/sediments and to determine potential contaminant migration pathways.

[chi60991]

Todnm-ai MymoriiiulmuNo. I_____________OctoberIW_____________H.OJ) Uiiutlill - AninK-li. IllinoisPace 2-18

SITE PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS

3.1 LANDFILL CHARACTERISTICS

The landfill characteristics evaluation consisted of a landfill cap observation andevaluation; a determination of the landfill structure/refuse characteristics; and, aanalysis of landfill gas composition and potential migration.

3.1.1 Landfill Cap Physical Observations and Cap EvaluationTotal landfill cover thickness ranged from 49 inches to 87 inches. The apparentlow permeability layers (homogeneous and undisturbed with no structure and noroot penetration) ranged from 6 to 14 inches thick on the old portion of thelandfill, and from 25 to 63 inches thick on the new portion of the landfill.Remnants of the former landfill cap were observed in the lower profile of the oldportion of the landfill, beneath the apparent low permeability layer. Some of theremnants appeared to have been scraped off the former upper profile (althoughroots were still evident) prior to placement of the new cap, while others hadrelatively intact, undisturbed, profiles. Refuse was generally encountered belowthe low permeability layer on the new landfill. No fissures or deformities wereobserved in any of the apparent low permeability layers. Appendix A contains thetest pit logs.

The clay content of the cap consists primarily of Illiie, with small amounts ofscattered iron-chlorite and smectite, based on X-ray Diffraction Analysisperformed on samples from the test pits (Appendix N). Illite is a 2:1 layer silicatethat is a non expanding clay; therefore, it has a very low shrink/swell capacity.Iron-chlorite and smectite are also 2:1 layer silicates; however, iron-chlorite is apartially expanding clay, and smectite is an expanding clay, so their shrink/swellcapacity is higher than that of illite.

Grain size analysis and Atterberg limits tests (Appendix N) identified the apparentlow permeability layer materials as lean clay (CL) with trace to some sand and

Technical Memorandum No. 1 October 1993______ H.O.D. Lmjl'ill • Anuocli. Illinois

trace gravel. Natural density tests (Appendix N and Table 3 -1 ) resulted indensities ranging from 105.7 to 128.3 Ibs/cu ft. When compared to the maximumdensity calculated from the Modified Proctor tests (Appendix N and Table 3 -1 )this results in a level of compaction ranging between 87 to 92%. Natural moisturecontent (Appendix N and Table 3-1) ranged between 13.7% and 33.6%. with allbut test pit TP9 falling below 247c. However, natural moisture content measuredfrom the Shelby tube sample collected from test pit TP9 was 14.5%.

Vertical hydraulic conductivity of the landfill cap was estimated by Boutwelltesting. Calculated conductivities ranged from IxlO*5 to 4x10"8 cm/sec. Typicalconductivities were in the 10-8 cm/sec range. Results are contained in Table 3-2.Tabulations and conductivity plots are contained in Appendix N. Results from theBoutwell test run near test pit TP9 show a conductivity of approximatelyIx lO" 5 cm/sec. Based on corresponding test pit data and the test pit TP9laboratory falling head permeability test, this conductivity does not appear to beconsistent with the physical characteristics of the cover material in that location.The test pit data shows Soil structure and apparent low permeability layerthickness similar to most of the other test pits on the landfill; therefore, itsconductivity should also be similar. The laboratory falling head permeability testconfirms this by resulting in a similar conductivity as the other three laboratoryfalling head permeabilities.

Results from the Boutwell test run near test pit TP8 show a conductivity of8xlO"6 cm/sec. This unit was installed above the apparent low permeability layer,instead of in it, because of the depth of the apparent low permeability layer belowthe surface. Based on the test pit apparent vertical conductivity profile, if theBoutwell unit had been installed in the apparent low permeability layer, theapparent vertical conductivity in this area would reflect the permeability of theother test areas.

Results from the Boutwell test run near test pit TPI show a conductivity ofapproximately IxlO"5 cm/sec. While the test pit data does not support thismoderately high permeability, the cap material where the Boutwell test wasinstalled, does. Two atiempts were made to find the apparent low permeabilitylayer at the same approximate depth as the test pit. and differing profiles wereobserved in both attempts. It appears that cap material is variable in thisimmediate area. No apparent low permeability layer was found above 33 inchesin the first attempt, and a partially compact layer was identified in the secondattempt, although it was a different material than that of the test pit's apparent lowpermeability layer. The Boutwell unit was installed in the partially compactedlayer. The results from this Boutwell location appear to be accurate, based on thetype of material it was installed in. and appear to reflect the lack of a t ru lycompacted apparent low permeability layer above 33 inches in the immediate area

Ti.-clmiu.il Mi'iiuir;un1mii N o , I O c i o h c r 1 9 ' ) . * H . O . D Uuull'ill • AniuKh. Illinois

of the test. (The Boutwell uni t could not be installed in the original test pitlocation because the test cannot be conducted within a 12 foot radius of any holesthrough the cap.)

The Boutwell data was compared to the laboratory falling head permeability testsfrom samples obtained from the Shelby tubes (see Table 3-1), to confirm that theBoutwell tests and calculations are valid. The laboratory hydraulic conductivityresults were consistently one-half magnitude lower (with the exception of test pitTP9) than the Bouiwell test results. Therefore, it was concluded that the Boutwellresults reflect an accurate average maximum vertical conductivity (with theexception of Boutwells 8 and 9 as previously discussed above) for the capmaterials in the test pit areas.

3.1.2 Landfill Structure/Refuse CharacteristicsRefuse thickness data was obtained from the newly installed leachatepiezometers/gas wells and the landfill soil borings (Table 3-3). Cap thickness wasdetermined from the test pits and the previously existing gas well flare logs, aswell as the leachate piezometers and landfill borings. Warzyn boring and test pitlogs are located in Appendices E and A, respectively. Gas flare logs are presentedin Appendix E.

The refuse thickness in the old landfill ranged from 12 feet in leachatepiezometer/gas well LP13 to 36 feet in leachate piezometer/gas well LP4. Therefuse thickness in the new landfi l l ranged from 35.5 feet in leachatepiezometer/gas well LP6 to 63.5 feet in leachate piezometer gas well LP8. Basedon refuse thickness data, the overall volume of refuse in the landfill was esdmaledto be approximately 1.3 million cubic yards. Refuse thickness ranged from3.3 feet in landfill soil boring Bl to 12 feet in boring B5, located along thesouthern boundary of the old landfill. Geologic cross-section C-C' shows thesouthern portion of the old landfill structure with respect to the natural geology ofthe area (Figure 15).

The geophysical logging was also used to assess landfill structure. Primarily, thelogs were used to determine if intermediate clay cover layers exist within therefuse. The presence of these clay layers would affect movement of leachaiewithin the landfill and ultimately influence the effectiveness of any leachaiecollection system. The geophysical logs are presented in Appendix D. Thegeophysical logs did not suggest that distinct intermediate clay cover layers werepresent.

The basal material underlying the refuse in the northern portion of the old landfilland underlying the entire new landfill, based oriUnlling conducted during the RI.consists primarily of gray silly clay. However, refuse in the southern area of ihe

'IVchniv.ilI \1eiuiM-iimiuiu Nti . I O d o l v r I Q j H . O . D . landfill • AniKKli. I l l inois

old landfill was underlain by peat and/or sand in leachate piezometers LPI2.LP13. and LP14 (Figure 11) and in landfill borings Bl through B5 (Figure 15 andDrawing 10010201-F4). Peat material was detected in leachate piezometer LP11,a n d p r o b a b l y o v e r l i e s t h e a s s o c i a t e d s u r f i c i a l s a n d m a t e r i a l(Drawing 10010201-F4). The basal material in leachate piezometer LP3 was aclayey silt and sand material. A physical description of each sub-refuse materialis located on the borehole logs in Appendix B.

3.1.3 On-Slte Landfill Gas AssessmentTo perform the on-site landfill gas assessment, data was collected from theleachate piezometer/gas wells (LP1, LP6, LP7, and LP11) and the three perimetergas probes (GP3, GP4A, and GP5A). A discussion of landfill gas quali ty(presence of VOCs) is presented in Section 4.6.1.

The field measurements of methane, oxygen and carbon dioxide collected fromthe leachate piezometers/gas wells and the perimeter gas probes are located inTable 3-4. Consistent levels of methane, carbon dioxide and oxygen wereobserved in the gas wells located in the new landfill (LP6. LP7 and LP8).Methane concentrations ranged from 65.4% in gas well LP7 to 67.7% in gas wellLP6; carbon dioxide concentrations ranged from 31.1% in gas well LP8 to 34.4%in gas well LP7; and, oxygen levels were only 0.1% due to displacement ofoxygen by the methane and carbon dioxide. These are typical of levels for thesecompounds as generated in landfills.

Concentrations of these compounds in gas well LP11 located in the old landfill(72.3% methane. 26.7% carbon dioxide and 0.1% oxygen) were consistent withthe samples collected in the new landfill. However, the field measurements at gaswell LP1 indicated atmospheric levels of oxygen at 20.5% and carbon dioxide at0.4%. Methane was not detected in gas well LP1.

Similarly, no landfill gases were detected in the three perimeter landfill gasprobes; only atmospheric concentrations of oxygen ranging from 20.8% to 20.9%were detected.

Based on the landfill characteristics and the landfill gas data collected, landfill gasis being produced throughout the new landfil l and in some areas of the oldlandfill. Off-site landfill gas migration does not appear U> be an issue based onthe results of the perimeter gas probe field measurements and the physiography ofthe site. Sequoit Creek bounds the old landfill to the south and west and acts asan off-site landfill gas migration boundary. Therefore, the potential for off-sitelandfill migration along these boundaries is minimal. As such, the perimeter gasprobes (GP3. GP4A. and GP5A) were installed north, cast, and south of thelandfill to assess potential off-site landfill gas migration in these directions.

a l Memorandum N n 1 • tVinK-r " " * l l . O . D . Landfill • Amiocli. Illinois

Based on the results of the perimeter landfi l l gas probe f ie ld measurements,off-site landfill gas migration appears to be minimal in areas where the landfilloverlies natural occurring clay soils or man-made clay barriers. This is due to thehighly cohesive and impermeable nature of the clay materials underlying the site.

3.2 CLIMATE

The Site is located within a continental climatic belt characterized by frequentvariations in temperature, humidity and wind direction. The average dailyminimum temperature is 15°F in January and the average daily maximumtemperature is 83°F in July. The average annual precipitation is 32.5 inches. Thewettest months are April through September (USDA, 1970).

3.3 PHYSIOGRAPHY

The Site is situated in the vicinity of the Wheaton moraine within the Great Lakessection of the Central Lowland Province. The topography of the area is generallycharacterized by gentle slopes with poorly defined surface drainage patterns,depressions, and wetlands. The maximum relief in Lake County is 340 feet.

The topography in the vicinity of the Site is generally flat. The most prominenttopographic feature in the area is the landfill. The maximum elevation of thelandfill is approximately 800 feet mean sea level (MSL). The elevation ofSequoit Creek is approximately 762 feel MSL. Maximum ground surface relief atthe Site is approximately 40 feet.

3.4 SURFACE HYDROLOGY .

Surface drainage around the Site is generally toward the Fox River, locatedapproximately 5 miles to the west. Locally, surface water flows from the Sitetoward Scquoil Creek. Sequoil Creek originally flowed northwest from SilverLake to a point that is now the approximate center and northern boundary of theSite, where it then flowed west toward the Village Qf Antioch. However, SequoitCreek was rerouted to flow west from Silver Lake along what is currently thesouthern boundary of the Site sometime between 1964 and 1967 (Figure 1). Atthe southwestern corner of the landfill, the creek was routed to flow north alongthe western boundary of the Site. Approximately 250 feel north of thenorthwestern corner of the Site, the creek flows toward the west approximately 2miles before discharging into Lake Marie. Lake Marie eventually discharges tothe Fox River. Based on aerial photographs and a I960 USGS topographic map

Technical Mi'nioramluin N o 1 < >cm)vr W * H . O . D . I-iiull'ill • A n i u u l i l l l i n n i >

of the Site area, the eastern portion of the Site was shown as a wetland prior tolandfill development.

Currently Sequoit Creek flows along the southern edge of the siie through awetland which is located south of the landfill (Figure 4). The surficial sand unitlocated at the site (Drawing 10010201-F4) underlies the northern portion of thiswetland. As such, Sequoit Creek appears to obtain most of its water from shallowgroundwater discharge from the surficial sand and from surface water dischargefrom the wetland rather than from stream discharge from Silver Lake.

Water levels collected from the staff gages located in Sequoit Creek and the standpipes located along Sequoit Creek (Drawing 10010201-F6), as well as theinformation collected during the stream flow measurements, were used to assessthe groundwater-surface water hydrologic relationship between the Sequoit Creekand the surficial sand. The water level measurements at staff gages PSG1through PSG4 located in Sequoit Creek and their associated stand pipes (SCI Aand B), (SC2A, B, C, and D), (SC3B, C, and D), and (SC4A, B, C and D),respectively, on June 8, 1993 are summarized in Table 3-5. The Sequoit Creekflow measurement results are located in Table 3-6.

Based on the results of the water elevations of the staff gages and stand pipes, thewater table levels surrounding the staff gage locations show that groundwaterlevels are elevated in the surficial sand with respect to the surface water levels ofSequoit Creek (Table 3-5). This indicates that the groundwater is flowing fromthe surficial sand into Sequoit Creek (Drawing 10010201-F6).

Based on the groundwater levels observed in the stand pipes with respect to thestaff gauges located along Sequoit Creek, groundwater adjacent to and below thecreek was observed to have vertically upward and horizontal components of flowdischarging primarily into the creek under low hydraulic gradients.

The stream flow measurements collected at the four staff gage locations were usedto calculate total discharge rates of surface water flowing in Sequoit Creek(Table 3-6). The results of the stream flow measurements indicated that streamdischarge was increasing from no measurable flow located at staff gage PSG1 toapproximately 3 cubic feet per second (ft3/sec) at staff gage PSG2. then toapproximately 6 ft3/sec at staff gage PSG3. Discharge then decreased slightly toapproximately 5 ft3/sec at staff gage PSG4.

Based on field observations of the physiography of Sequoit Creek, as well as theHow information discussed above, shallow groundwater from the surficial sandand surface water from the wetland both discharge into Sequoil Creek. TheSequoit Creek discharge increases along Lhe southern portion of the stream from

TccliiiiilMtfnion»dum N " . 1 ( M o h e r 1 9 0 * H . p . D . J .nidl'iH • Aniioch. lllmoi-

staff gage PSG1 to PSG3. Once the creek turns north and flows out of thewetland and the area containing the surficial sand, the Sequoit Creek dischargeappears to diminish.

3.5 SURFACE SOILS

The following surface soil types were present at the site prior lo site development,and may still be present in undeveloped areas.

• Houghton muck, wet• Morley silt loam• Zurich silt loam• Peotone silty clay loam• Peotone silty clay loam, wet• Mundeiein silt loam• Miami silt loam.

The Houghton muck and Peotone silty clay loam are classified by the USDA SoilConservation Service (SCS) as hydric soils. The Zurich silt loam and Mundeieinsilt loam are non-hydric soils that may contain hydric inclusions. The distributionof pre-development surface soils is illustrated on Figure 9. A brief description ofeach soil type follows.

The Houghton series consists of deep, level to depressional, very poorly drainedorganic soil that formed in fibrous plant remains deposited in swampy areas. TheHoughton muck generally receives run off from surrounding uplands and issubject to ponding. The water table is at or near the surface mosi of the year.

The Morley series consists of deep, gently sloping to steep, well drained tomoderately well drained soils that formed in thin silty deposits in the underlyingcalcareous glacial till. The Morley sill loam is generally found on tops ofmorainic ridges.

The Zurich series consists of deep, level to moderately sleep, well drained tomoderately well drained soils that formed in 2 lo 3 feet of silty material and theunderlying calcareous stratified silt and sand. The Zurich loam is found onoutwash plains.

The Peotone scries consists of deep, level to depressional, very poorly drainedsoils that formed in thick sill and clay, water deposited materials. These soils arein low areas throughout the county. The Peoione silly clay loam. wet. is subjectlo ponding from water that runs off surrounding uplands. The waier lable is at or

a l MtfiimraiuUim N o . 1 O c i o h e r I W H . O . I ) , Lindl'iH - AminykJljmoi

near the surface most of the year. The Peoione silty clay loam is also subject toponding, but is drained artificially.

The Mundelein series consists of deep, level to gently sloping, somewhat poorlydrained soils that formed in 2 to 3 feet of silty material over calcareous stratifiedsilt and sand. The Mundelein silt loam occurs on outwash plains mainly in thevalley of the Des Plaines River.

The Miami series consists of deep, gently sloping to strongly sloping, welldrained to moderately well drained soils that formed in thin silty deposits and theunderlying calcareous glacial till. The Miami silt loam is generally found inmoralnal areas.

3.6 REGIONAL HYDROGEOLOGIC SETTING

3.6.1 Regional Geology3.6.1.1 Unconsolidated Deposits - The bedrock surface in Lake County iscompletely overlain by thick sequences of glacial deposits. These unconsolidateddeposits exhibit evidence of multiple episodes of glacial advances and retreats oflate Wisconsinan glaciation. The surface topography of the area is characterizedby a series of parallel, onlapping moraines and intermorainal valleys. Thismorainal complex is composed of deposits of the Wadsworth Till Member of theWedron Formation. Deposition of the Wadsworth Till represents the last retreatof the Joliet Sublobe of the Lake Michigan Lobe (Willman and Frye, 1970). Themoraines decrease in age toward the east and are onlapped by lacustrine depositsof the Lake Chicago plain. Figure 6 presents a generalized stratigraphic column,which summarized the glacial geology in the Site vicinity.i w •

Approximately 90 to 325 feet of Woodforian age glacial deposits overlie bedrockin northeastern Illinois. The Wadsworth Till Member of the Wedron Formation isthe primary unconsolidated deposit in Lake County and ranges in thickness from5 to 150 feet. The Wadsworth Till Member is underlain sequentially by theHaeger Till Member and Tiskilwa Till Member. The Tiskilwa Till Memberoverlies the Racine Dolomite. A regional geologic cross section is presented onDrawing 10010201-F3. The glacial deposits are discussed in order of depositionin the following paragraphs.

A reddish-gray, silly clay till (Tiskilwa Till Members) overlies the RacineDolomite in the region. This till unit is generally regarded as the lowermostmember of the Wedron Formation that is present in the area (Willman. 1971).The unit is interpreted to be basal till probably deposited by lodgement (Johnson,el. al.. 1985). The Tiskilwa Till Member consists qf a lower unit consisting of a

Tediim-al Mcnutnimlum N . » 1 O c i o l v r 1 9 9 3 H . O . D . Uiull'ill- A m inch, l l l inoi

sandy silt with clay and a massive main unit which consists of approximatelyequal percentages of sand, silt and clay. No Site borings have penetrated this unit.

In the vicinity of Antioch. the Tiskilwa Till Member is overlain by the Haeger TillMember of the Wedron Formation. The Haeger Till Member was deposited bythe Harvard Sublobe of the the Lake Michigan Lobe, is laterally extensive andconsists of sand and gravel outwash deposits with some clay rich diamicts present.Outwash and till deposits of the Haeger Till Member outcrop locally along thewestern edge of Lake County and westward into McHenry County (seeDrawing 10010201-F3).

The Wadsworth Till Member overlies the Haeger Till Member. The Wadsworthice of the Joliet Sublobe advanced westward across Lake County entrainingrecently deposited lake sediment and Paleozoic shales and limestone, resulting ina clay-rich debris load. The ice advance terminated near the Chain of Lakeslowlands. As the ice retreated the clay-rich load was deposited as the WadsworthTill. The Wadsworth Till is characterized by gray, fine-grained clay rich diamict,and interbedded, sorted silts, sands and gravels. Diamict is defined as poorly tononsorted sediment containing a wide range of particle sizes, regardless ofsediment genesis. The diamict is laterally extensive and is present near thesurface in most of Lake County.

3.6.1.2 Bedrock Geology - Lake County is located along the northeastern flank ofa northwest/southeast trending structural high known as the Kankakee Arch. Thebedrock surface of northeastern Illinois varies in depth from 90 to 325 feet belowthe ground surface (Woller and Gibb, 1976). The bedrock surface dips graduallytoward the east and exhibits an uneven surface as the result of pre-glacial erosion.

Throughout most of Lake County, the uppermost bedrock uni t is the Siluriandolomite of the Niagaran Series. This dolomite unconformably overlies UpperOrdovician, Maquoketa Group shales, and ranges in thickness from 0 to 270 feet.The Maquoketa Group is-the uppermost bedrock unit in small isolated areas alongthe western portion of the county. The Maquoketa Group ranges in thicknessfrom 100 to 240 feet and consists primarily of thick non-water-bearing shales.The Maquoketa Group is underlain by a sequence of Cambrian and Ordoviciansandstones and dolomites which, in turn, overlie Precambrian granite rock.Bedrock stratigraphy is summarized in Figure 5.

Mcimir.uulum N o . I < * " r 11.0.0. Ijiutl'ill - AniiiH-li- Illinois

3.6.2 Regional HydrogeologyThere are three major aquifers in northeastern Illinois:

• Unconsolidated deposits of glacial origin (such as the deep sand andgravel aquifer at Antioch).

• The shallower dolomite aquifer of Silurian age

• The deep Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer

3.6.2.1 Unconsolidated Deposits - Sand and gravel deposits, which occur asc o n f i n e d , semiconf ined and unconf ined aqui fe rs associated wi th theUnconsolidated glacial deposits are fairly extensive throughout Lake County. Themajority of the confined units are located in the western portion of the county.Many residential wells in the Antioch area, and the Village of Antioch's publicwater supply system, obtain groundwater from glacially derived sand and graveldeposits. The deep sand and gravel aquifer is confined in the area of the site. Thedeep sand and gravel aquifer (Haeger Till Member) used by the Village ofAntioch and nearby private water supply wells, is recharged in the Fox RiverValley, located approximately 4 to 5 miles west of the Site. The unit is presentnear ground surface in the Fox River Valley area and water from precipitation,lakes, and the Fox River can enter the sand and gravel (Drawing 10010201-F3).Groundwater within this unit flows from this recharge area to the east towardLake Michigan.

Depths of wells in the sand and gravel are generally less than 140 feet. Thehighest yielding sand and gravel wells (greater than 500 gpm) are generallylocated in major valley systems. The generalized strat igraphy of theUnconsolidated deposits in northern Illinois is shown on Figure 6.

3.6.2.2 Bedrock Hydrogeology - Groundwater producing units in the deepCambrian-Ordovician aquifer include the Galena-Platteville Dolomite,Glenwood-St. Peter Sandstone, Ironlon-Galesville Sandstone, and Mount SimonSandstone. The Mount Simon is sometimes considered a separate aquifer becauseit is separated from the overlying Ironton-Galesville Sandstone by the Eau ClaireShale aquiclude. The shallower dolomite aquifer is separated from the deeperaquifers by the Maquoketa Shale. In some locations, the deeper sand and graveldirectly overlie the shallower dolomite aquifer and the two units are hydraulicallyconnected. The generalized stratigraphy of rocks in northern Illinois are shown onFigure 5.

Of the bedrock aquifers , the Si lur ian dolomite is the primary source ofgroundwater in Lake County. However, ihe sand and gravel aquifers provide only

Mi-iiu>f.iMdum No, 1_____________Ociober I99>_____________ll.O.D. 1-aiidfill • Aniuvii. I l l inoisPage ?-10

slightly less groundwater than the bedrock aquifers (Illinois State Water Survey.1976). The yield capacity of the Silurian dolomite aquifer varies depending uponinterconnection of fractures and aquifer thickness (Woller and Gibb. 1976). Theaquifer is recharged by the downward migration of water from the overlyingglacial deposits where sand and gravel deposits are in contact with the bedrocksurface.

The depth of wells in the deep aquifer averages about 1.300 feet, and many of thewells yield over 700 gpm. Wells in the shallow dolomite are set to an averagedepth of about 300 feet.

3.7 SITE HYDROGEOLOGIC SETTING

3.7.1 Site GeologyThe Site area is underlain by differentiated deposits of sand, gravel, and silty clay.Soil boring and monitoring well locations are shown on Drawing 10010201-F2.Results of grain size analyses, Atterberg limits testing, TOC analyses, andpermeability testing conducted on soil samples during the RI are presented onTable 3-7. Results of soil testing conducted prior to the RI are presented onTable 3-8.

The unconsolidated deposits encountered in borings drilled at the Site consist of adepositional sequence of till and outwash deposits associated with the surficialCahokia alluvium (Holocene) and underlying Wadsworth and Haeger TillMembers of the Wedron Formation. The unconsolidated deposits are divided intofour distinct depositional units, in order of increasing depth and age:

• Surface soils

• An elongated surficial sand deposit (that includes deposition within theWadsworth Till Member and post glacial sand) of limited vertical andlateral extent which is present near the southern boundary of the landfill

• A clay-rich diamict (Wadsworth Till Member)

• A deep sand and gravel aquifer (Haeger Till Member).

A conceptual representation of glacial stratigraphy as it relates to Northern Illinoisis shown on Figure 6. Each of these four units is discussed individually in thefollowing paragraphs. Geologic cross-sections depicting Warzyn's interpretationof the glacial deposits underlying the site arc presented in Figures 13 through 15.Figure 12 shows the locations of the eeoloeic cross-sections.

Technical Meim>r;>ndmu S o . I O c i o h e r I W ^ H . O . l ) himU'ill - Aniiocli.

Surface Soils - Natural surface soils encountered dur ing the RI i n c l u d e d1 to 1.5 feet of reddish to black topsoil formed as weathered surface of the claydiamici in borings W2D and W7D (Appendix H). Five feet of peat and organicrich clay and silts were found overlying the surficial sand in soil borings drilled inthe wet land area (W3SA and W6S). The peat and organic rich clays arerepresentative of fine-grained post-fluvial environments such as wetland oroverbank deposits. Four feet of fill (disturbed soil) was also observed overlying4 feet of peat in soil boring W4S and overlying surficial sand materials in soilboring W5S. See Section 3.1.2 for a description of natural surface soilsunderlying the landfill.

Surficial Sand - The surficial sand is present only along the southern portion ofthe site and is not used for public or private water supply. It exhibits an elongatedeast-northeast to west trending geometry (Drawing 10010201-F4). Structurallythe surficial sand thickens from its furthest lateral extent toward the center line ofthe deposit, reaching its thickest point of 54 feet at soil boring LB4A. Thesurf ic ia l sand was not observed in the northern portion of the l a n d f i l l(Drawing 10010201-F4). Geologic cross-section B-B' (Figure 14) illustrates theextent of the deposit from a north-south perspective. As shown on geologiccross-section C-C' (Figure 15), the surficial sand underlies refuse in the southernportion of the old landfill. Geologic cross-section A-A' (Figure 13) illustrates thevertical extent of the surficial sand along the southern portion of the old and newlandfill.

The surficial sand generally consists of light brown to gray, fine to coarse grainedsand, with varying amounts of gravel, silt, and clay. The USCS classification ofthe surficial sand samples collected from the borings drilled during the RI isSM: a silty sand, sand silt mixture (Table 3-7). A total organic carbon content of11.7% was detected in a sample collected from soil boring W5S (7-9 ft depth).

Clay-Rich Diamict - The clay-rich diamict is a laterally extensive deposit whichcontains various amounts of sand, gravel, and silt mixed in a matrix of clay, whichcontains discontinuous layers and lenses. The clay-rich diamict is present beneathmost of Lake County and its regional extent is shown on Drawing 10010201-F3.The clay-rich diamict represents deposits of the Wadsworth Till Member and ispresent beneath the entire site, based on borings drilled at the site.

The horizontal and vertical extent of the clay-rich diamict in the vicinity of thesite is shown on Drawing 1001()2()1-F5. Drawing 10010201-F5 differs from thePSER/TS Drawing 60953-F7 because Warzyn did not estimate the thickness ofthe clay diamici in soil borings which did not completely penetrate the diamici. asd i d P.E. L a m o r c a u x a n d Assoc i a t e s ( P E L A ) w h e n they p r e p a r e dDrawing 60953-F7. As such, most of the TSC borings which did not penetraie

Technical Mcmoraiuhim No, 1_____________()cii>N.-t I""1_____________H.n.D. l-andfill • A»iu*-li.pai!c 3-12

the clay till (which were used by PELA to estimate the thickness of the clay t i l l )were not used to construct Drawing 10010201-F5.

Based on the soil borings drilled in the vicinity of the site, the surficial sand isseparated from the deep sand and gravel aquifer by the clay-rich diamict. The topof the clay diamict is present immediately beneath the surface soils along thenorthern portion of the site and may be as deep as 54 feet below ground surface(boring LB4A) where it underlies the surficial sand south of the site. Geologiccross section B-B' (Figure 14) illustrates both the area with the thicker clay-richdiamict and the area with the thinner clay rich diamict. Based on a review ofboring logs which penetrated the diamict, the diamict is thickest in the areassurrounding the surficial sand deposits beneath the landfill and north, south, andwest of the landfill (e.g., 110.5 feet and 88 feet in soil boring PZ1 and US2D,respectively [Drawing 10010201-F5]). The clay-rich diamict generally is thinnerwhere the surficial sand is thickest. As such, the diamict is thinnest (less thanapproximately 20-25 feet) south of the landfill.

Based on the results of the geotechnical analysis and the soil samples collectedduring the RI, the clay-rich diamict is typically light to dark gray massive silty tolean clay, with trace to some sand and trace gravel. The samples submitted forgeotechnical analysis are USCS classified as inorganic clays of medium to lowplasticity, gravelly, sandy, silty, and lean clays (CL) to (CL-ML) (Table 3-7).Discontinuous thin layers and lenses of sand and silt were also encountered in thesoil borings penetrating the diamict (borings W3D. W2D, and W7D).

iThe geotechnical analysis of the shelby tube samples collected from the clay-richdiamict in soil borings W2D and W3D indicated that total organic carbon contentranged from 3.6% in soil sample W2D (29 feet to 31 feet depth) and 1.64% in soilsample W3D (36 feet to 38 feet depth). The estimated total porosity ranged from38% to 24% in these shelby tube samples collected from W2D and W3D.respectively.

Deep Sand and Gravel - The deep sand and gravel is laterally extensive and ispresent beneath the entire site. (Drawing 10010201-F3). The full thickness of thedeep sand and gravel is not known, but the unit is at least 185 feet thick in the sitevicinity (Ecology and Environment. Inc. 1989). Based on the results of the sieveanalysis of the samples collected from the deep santj and gravel aquifer, the upperportion of this unit consists of brown to gray fine to coarse sand, with trace tosome gravel, trace to little silt, and trace clay. Lower portions of ihis unit arepoorly sorted and contain greater percentages of gravel. The deep sand and gravelrepresents ou twash deposits associated w i t h the Hacger Till Member(Willman.ct.al.. 1975).

Tedmicjil Mfiimr.iiutuni No. 1 Oi-toher I 'W* ll.O.D. Uiiulfilt'Aniiocli. l l l inoi

3.7.2 Site Specific HydrogeologyAs discussed in the previous section, three major aquifers underlie the Site. Thefo l lowing discussion focuses on the deposits of glacial or recent or igin .Water-bearing glacial or recent deposits consist of the surficial sand, underlyingclay-rich diamict aquiclude and deep sand and gravel aquifer.

Groundwater level data was collected by Warzyn on June 8 and 9. 1993(Table 3-9). A water table map for the surficial sand (Drawing I0010201-F6) andpiezometric surface map for the deep sand and gravel (Drawing 10010201-F7)have been prepared to illustrate groundwater flow directions.

Slug tests were performed on monitoring wells during the RI to estimatehorizontal hydraulic conductivity. Resultant hydraulic conductivity estimates arepresented in Table 3-10. Conductivity test results obtained from the previousinvestigations are located in Table 3-11. Laboratory constant head permeabilitytests were performed on samples collected from the clay diamict by Warzynduring the RI and those test results are located in Table 3-7. Laboratory constanthead permeability test results obtained during the previous investigations of thesite are also presented in Table 3-8.

3.7.2.1 Surficial Sand - Water level elevations from the water table wells andstandpipes screened in the surficial sand indicate that the water table is near thesurface and that the groundwater in the surficial sand is flowing in an east to westdirection under a shallow hydraulic gradient. Groundwater flow in the surficialsand also has, as discussed in Section 3.4, a component of flow discharging intoSequoit Creek (Drawing 10010201-F6), the rate of which is controlled by thehydraulic gradient and the hydraulic conductivity of the surficial sand.

The results of the single well hydraulic conductivity slug tests performed in thesurficial sand in wells (W3SB, W4S. W5S. US IS, US3S. US4S. and US6S)indicate that the horizontal hydraulic conductivity of the surficial sand rangesfrom 2.10E-02 to 3.60E-04 centimeters per second (cm/s) (Table 3-10). Theseresults indicate that groundwater How can readily take place in the surficial sanddeposits and are typical for these types of soil materials.

Based on the water level elevations obtained from well nest W3SA and W3SB. avery slight downward vertical hydraulic gradient of 0.002 feet per fool wasobserved from the water table surface to the base of the surficial sand (Table 3-12.Figure 13). This indicates that even though most of the groundwater movement inthe surficial sand is hori/omally into Sequoit Creek, that there is slight downward"roundwater How.

Ti'cliiiual Mi-inof.nutum N o M t ) t - i o i y i I ' * * * . * l l . O . D . Ijtultill - Auhocli. I l l inois

3.7.2.2 Clay-Rich Diamict - The clay-r ich diamict acts as an aquic lude oraquitard. separating the surf icial sand from the deep sand and gravel .Groundwater movement within the clay-rich diamict is primarily downward.Groundwater equipotential lines within the diamict are shown on Figures 13. 14.and 15. The rate of groundwater movement within the diamict is controlled bythe hydraulic conductivity of the diamict and the hydraulic gradient across thediamict.

The results of the single well hydraulic conductivity slug tests performed in wellsscreened in the clay diamict (wells US3I, US6D and US7S) during previousinvestigations at this site are located in Table 3-10. Horizontal hydraulicconductivities calculated using the Hvorselv Method from the slug tests were7.9E-06 cm/s in piezometer US3I and 8.0E-06 cm/s in piezometer US61.Piezometer US7S was screened through a sand layer and the resultant hydraulicconductivity of 5.80E-03 cm/s is not indicative of the clay-rich diamici.

Warzyn did not perform slug tests on wells screened in the clay diamict during theRI, rather, laboratory constant head permeability tests were performed on Shelbytube samples collected from the clay diamict. Laboratory constant headpermeability results, obtained from diamict samples collected from monitoringwell W2D and W3D, indicated that the vertical hydraulic conductivity of theclay-rich diamict is on the order of 1.50E-08 cm/s to 1.70E-08 cm/s (Table 3-7).The vertical hydraulic conductivity of the clay diamict ranged from l.OE-08 cm/sto 6.9E-07 cm/s, based on constant head permeability tests performed on samplescollected from soil borings LB2, LB3, LB4A and LB10 during the previous siteinvestigations (Table 3-8). These results indicate that the vertical and horizontalhydraulic conductivities of the clay-rich diamict are low, and as a result, poorhydraulic communication exists between the surficial sand and the deep sand andgravel aquifer.

Poor hydraulic communication between the surficial sand and the deep sand andgravel aquifer is also substantiated based on the piezomeiric head elevationdifferences observed between wells screened in each unit . Groundwaterelevations obtained from wells screened in the surficial sand ranged from761.84 feet MSL in wells G102 and W5S to 764.39 feet MSL in well U S I S(Table 3-9), while head elevations in the deep sand and gravel aquifer rangedfrom 728.14 feet MSL in well US3D to 737.02 feel MSL in piezometer PZ2(Drawing 100I0201-F7. Table 3-8). Approximately 30 feet of head elevationdifference exists between the surficial sand and the deep sand and gravel aquifer.

Vertical hydrau l i c gradients were calcula ted based on the head elevat iondifferences between wells screened in the surficial sand and the clay-rich diamict.between wells screened in the clay-rich diamici and Ihe deep sand and gravel

TechnicalI MoiiHMMiutui i i N o . I O a . . l v r I " 1 " ' I I . P . P . huuUill • Aiiliodi. l l inioi .

aquifer, and between wells screened in the surficial sand and the deep sand andgravel aquifer (Table 3-12). The gradients ranged from 0.4 ft/ft in wells US3I.US3D to 2 ft/ft in wells US6S, US6I.

These results coupled with the calculated hydraulic conductivities indicate that theclay-rich diamict impedes groundwater flow between the surficial sand and deepsand and gravel aquifer. As such, groundwater movement is very slow throughthe clay-rich diamict even in areas where the clay-rich diamict is thinnest. Theaverage linear groundwater velocity through the clay-rich diamict in the areawhere it appears to be thinnest (approximately 25 feet) near soil borings W3D,LB10, and LB4A, is estimated to be approximately 0.097 feet per year (ft/yr).The groundwater velocity and travel time through the clay-rich diamict in thisarea were based on the observed thickness of the clay-rich diamict atapproximately 25 feet in soil boring LB10; the vertical hydraulic conductivity of1.76E-02 ft/yr; a porosity of 24% measured in the shelby tube sample collectedfrom soil boring W3D, and an estimated hydraulic vertical gradient ofapproximately 1.3 ft/ft. The groundwater travel time through the thinnest area ofthe clay-rich diamict was estimated to be approximately 258 years in this area.

3.7.2.3 Deep Sand and Gravel AquiferThe deep sand and gravel aquifer is used for public water supply by the Village ofAntioch and for private well use by nearby residences located east of the Site.This aquifer occurs beneath the entire site based on soil borings drilled during theprevious site investigations and the RI. The thickness of the deep sand and gravelaquifer is not known since site soil borings have not entirely penetrated this unit.

Regionally, the deep sand and gravel aquifer exists under confined and semi-confined conditions. Groundwater recharge to the deep sand and gravel aquiferoccurs primarily from the Fox River Valley where the aquifer outcrops (SeeSection 3.6.2, Drawing 10010201-F3). As groundwater Hows toward the eastfrom the recharge area, the aquifer is confined by the clay diamict.

As discussed in the previous section, the clay-rich diamict overlies the deep sandand gravel aquifer over the entire site and, based on the piezometric headelevations obtained during the RI, the deep sand and gravel aquifer exists underconfined conditions. Piezometric head elevations ranged from 728.41 feet MSLin well US3D to 737.02 feet MSL in well PZ2 (Table 3-9). The top of the deepsand and gravel aquifer ranges in elevation from 669.17 feel MSL in soil boringLB10 to 702.77 feet MSL in soil boring VA5.

The groundwater flow direction in the deep sand and gravel aquifer is illustratedon Drawing 10010201-F7. Based on the piezometric head elevations collected onJune 8 and 9, 1993 (Table 3-9), the groundwater of the deep sand and gravel

Technical Memorandum No. 1 Ociolvr I'M3 H.O.D. landfill • Amiocli. Illinois

aquifer appears to be flowing from northeast to southwest under a low hydraulicgradient (Drawing 10010201-F7). The groundwater flow direction along thewestern portion of the site appears to be influenced by the pumping of the Villagewater supply wells located to the west and southwest of the site. Village pumpingrecords for the period June 6 through June 9, 1993 have been requested from theVillage and will be included in the RI Report if and when received.

A groundwater divide in the deep sand and gravel aquifer was shown on thepiezometric map included in the PSER/TS. The divide was controlled by therelatively higher groundwater elevation in well PZ2, located south of the landfill(Drawing 10010201-F7). Elevated potentiometric head levels were also measuredin well PZ2 by Warzyn (737.02 feet MSL) in June of 1^93 and by Weston GulfCoast Laboratories (737.44 feet MSL) in August of 1993 (Table 3-9). As westated in the PSER/TS, well PZ2 is partially screened in the clay-rich diamict.The top of the deep sand and gravel aquifer is located at a depth of approximately74 feet at PZ2 and the sand filter pack was placed at a depth of 65 feet to 82.5feet, approximately 9 feet into the clay diaraict and 8.5 feet into the deep sand andgravel aquifer. The top of the screen was placed at 71.6 feet, only 2.4 feel into thedeep sand and gravel aquifer. The groundwater elevation observed at well PZ2appears to reflect the groundwater head in the lower portion of the clay-richdiamict and not the deep sand and gravel aquifer.

The horizontal hydraulic conductivity of the deep sand and gravel aquifer wasestimated using single well slug tests on wells W3D, US3D and US6D. Hydraulicconductivities ranged from 1.10E-03 cm/s to 3.80E-04 cm/s (Table 3-10). Theestimated hydraulic conductivities that were calculated from slug tests performedduring the previous site investigations were similar, and ranged from 2. IE-03 cm/s to 5.24E-04 cm/s (Table 3-11). These results indicate that groundwater inthe deep sand and gravel aquifer has the ability to transmit groundwater readilyenough for municipal and private use.

3.7.2.4 Landfill HydraulicsLeachate is present within both the old and new landfills. Lcachate elevations andleachate heads (column of Icachate present in the landfill base) arc presented inTable 3-13. The current leachate extraction system consists of a leachatecollection pipe installed on both the west side and east side of the barrier wallbetween the old and new landfills. In addition, leachaie is pumped from existingleachate piezometers PI, P2A, P3A. P8r P9. and P10. The following discussion oflandfill hydraulics is based on leachalc measurements obtained on August 20.1993 and groundwater measurements obtained on June 8 and 9. 1993.

Leachate elevations in the old landfill range from 764,84 feet msl at leachalcpiezometer LP14 (leachalc head: 6.6 feel) to 773.12 feet msl al leachaie

Tcdirnciit MeiiHinimiuiii No. 1 October I1)1).' 11.0.0. Lmitfil! - AtHiodi. I l l inois

piezometer LP4 (leachate head: 24.2 feet). These leachate elevations are higherthan the groundwater elevations at monitoring wells near the perimeter of the oldlandfill. The water table elevation near the southern boundary of the old landfill isapproximately 762 feet msl. At well Gl IS (northwestern corner of the oldlandfill) the groundwater elevation is approximately 765 feet msl. The potentialexists for leachate to leave the old landfill via the surficial sand to the south andthrough the clay berm to the west and discharge to Sequoit Creek. The potentialfor release of leachate from the old landfill to groundwater and/or surface waterwould be greater along the southern portion of the old landfill where the surficialsand underlies refuse.

Leachate elevations in the new landfill range from 753.95 feet msl at leachatepiezometer LP8 (leachate head: 31 feet) to 779.64 feet msl at leachate piezometerLP6 (leachate head: 25 feet). The highest leachate head was measured at leachatepiezometer LP9 (45.8 feet). The new landfi l l base grad ;st(approximately 717 to 723 feet msl) in the northeast corner of fillnear leachate piezometers LP 8 and 9. The potential for leachate :henew landfill to groundwater is lower in the new landfill because tr I isunderlain by the clay-rich diamict and a clay bottom and per 'asinstalled along the southern perimeter (where the surficii edpreviously).

SJC/j»/njl/AlS*llWIdii 609 89|

Memorandum No. 1 (K.-IOJVI I'»Hl'lll!C3-KX

I I .O.I ) . I-i mil ill - Aniiivh. I l l n t o i

NATURE AND EXTENTOF CONTAMINATION

This section provides a summary of the results of analyses performed on samplescollected from the H.O.D. Landfill site as part of the RI/FS. Contaminantsdetected at the site are grouped by their structure and by their chemical properties.These analysis results are discussed in terms of potential contamination sources,and in terms of pathways and matrices which may have been contaminated bythose potential sources. The background concentrations of metals in the soils andgroundwater at the site area are discussed.

4.1 SUMMARY

Groundwater samples from the site monitoring wells, the Village of Antiochwater supply wells, and private residence wells were collected as a part of the RIfor the H.O.D. Landfill, as well as samples of the site surface water, surface soils,leachate, and landfill gas samples. The samples were analyzed for organic(volatile, semivolatile, and pesticide/PCBs), inorganic (metals and cyanide), andgroundwater quality indicator parameters.

For the groundwater matrices, VOCs were the only organic compounds detected.VOCs were primarily found in samples from monitoring wells screened in thesurficial sand, including wells US4S and W5S, which are located at the southeastcorner of the old landfill, and wells US6I (screened in.the clay-rich diamict) andW6S which are located in the southwest corner of the old landfill. VOCs werealso found in samples from monitoring well US3D, which is screened in the deepsand and gravel aquifer. The VOCs detected belong to the structural class ofchlorinated alkenes, and include trichloroethene (TCE), 1,2-dichloroethene

Technical Memorandum No. I____________October t»»_____________H.O.D. Landfill-Antioch. IllinoisPaaeTI

(DCE). and vinyl chloride (VQ. In addition, carbon disulfide was detected inwell G11S, located in the northwest comer of the old landfill.

Organ ics de tec ted in the p r iva t e and v i l l age wel ls i n c l u d e VOCs andsemivola t i les . Carbon disulf ide was detected in Village Well No. VW5.Semivolatile organic compounds (o-cresol and 4-chloroaniline) were detected invil lage wells VW3 and VW5, and private well PW2. The source of thesecompounds is not clear (see Sections 4.7.3 and 4.7.4).

Surface water samples do not appear to be significantly impacted by leachate.O r g a n i c s d e t e c t e d i n s u r f a c e wa te r samples i n c l u d e t he k e t o n e s4-methyl-2-pentanone and 2-hexanone, which were found in a sample obtainedfrom the SW03 location. Semivolatile compounds and any pesticides/PCBs werenot detected.

Surface soil samples collected from the sideslopes of the landfill indicate thepresence of VOCs and the Semivolatile compound groups of phthalates andpoly nuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).

4.2 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS

This section provides a discussion of the results of the sampling and analysisconducted during the period May through July 1993 at the site. Media sampledinclude groundwater from the Village of Antioch water supply wells, the privatewells, and the site monitoring wells; the surface water from Sequoit Creek;leachate from the landfill; surface soils from the landfill cover; and gas samplesfrom the leachate piezometers/landfill gas wells. The samples collected wereanalyzed and validated, as specified in the RI/FS Quality Assurance Project Plan(QAPjP) dated December, 1992.

The results of these analyses are presented in report format in Appendix P of thisdocument. Also included in this Appendix is a Data Quality Summary, andlaboratory and data validation qualifier definitions. In addition, detected chemicalconstituents discussed in this section are summarized in Tables 4-1 through 4-10for ease of review.

Technical Memorandum No. 1____________October 1993_____________H.O.D. Undfill-Antioch. IllinoisPage 4.2

Table Title

4-1 Regulatory Limits

4-2 Summary of Background Metals and Indicator Results

4-3 Summary of Landfill Gas Results

4-4 Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds in Groundwater, SurfaceWater, Surface Soils, and Leachate

4-5 Summary of Historical Monitoring Well VOC Data

4-6 Summary of Semivolatile Organic Compounds in Groundwater,Surface Water, Surface Soils, and Leachate

4-7 Summary of Metals in Groundwater, Surface Water, Surface Soils,and Leachate

4-8 Summary of Groundwater/Leachate Quality Indicator Results

4-9 Summary of Chemical Constituents Detected at Village of AntiochWater Supply Wells and Private Residence Wells

x

4-10 Summary of Historical Data for VOCs Detected in Village ofAntioch Water Supply Well No. 4

5-1 Summary of Physical and Chemical Properties of CompoundsDetected at HOD Landfill

4.3 SITE SOURCE AREAS ANDPOTENTIAL CONTAMINANT PATHWAYS

The source of potential contamination at the site is the refuse in the old and newlandfills. Potential pathways include contaminant releases to the groundwater. tosurface water, to surface soils, and to air. Contaminants in the refuse maypotentially be leached from the refuse by percolating precipitation, then betransported out of the landfill and into the groundwater and then be discharged tosurface water (Sequoit Creek). Leachate may also potentially be released throughthe side slopes of the landfil l (via leachate seeps), causing surface soilcontamination. Landfill gas emissions can potentially affect air quality.

Source characterization was accomplished through the analysis of leachate andlandfill gas samples. The results were then compared to samples collected from

Technical Memorandum No. 1_____________October 1993_____________H.O.D, Landfill-Antioch. Illinois_ _ p a g e 4 - 3

potential pathways, including groundwater samples, surtace soil samples, andsurface water samples.

Groundwater samples collected at the site are discussed in terms of the geologicformat ion the well from which the sample was obtained is screened in: thesurficial sand (identified with the postscript "S" for shallow), clay diamict(identified with the postscript "I" for intermediate), and the deep sand and gravelaquifer (identified with the postscript "D" for deep). Groundwater monitoringwells which are on-site (within the WMII property boundary) and off-site (outsidethe WMII property boundary) are delineated for risk assessment evaluation asfollows.

Surficial Sand On-Site Surficial Sand Off-Site

• G11S • US01S• US04S • US03I• US06I • US03S• US06S • W03SB• W05S t • W04S• W06S

Deep Sand and Gravel Deep Sand and Grave!Aquifer On-Site Aquifer Off-Site

• G11D • USOID• US04D • US03D• US06D • W03D• W07D

Three surface water samples were collected from Sequoit Creek. Five surface soilsamples were collected from the sides of the landfill where evidence of suspectedlandfill related effects were observed.

4.4 CONTAMINANT GROUPINGS

In order to facilitate the discussion of organic contaminants present at the site, thecompounds that were detected have been categorized into major groups based onthe compound's chemical structure. The following groupings present compoundsdetected in various media at the site.

Technical Memorandum No,_l____________October 1993_____________H.O.D. Landfill-Antioch. IllinoisPage 4_4

4.4.1 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)4.4.1.1 Chlorinated alkanes - 1 .1 -d ich lo roe thane . 1.2 - d i c h l o r o e t h a n e .chloroethane, 1,2-dichloropropane. methylene chloride, and chloromethane weredetected in samples from the site. The chlorinated alkanes are common industrialsolvents. Methylene chloride is a common laboratory contaminant . Thesecompounds may undergo biodegradation under the anaerobic conditions found inlandf i l l s . Biodegradation of these compounds typically involves the loss of achlorine atom. The following abbreviations are used in the text:

• 1,1-DCA - 1,1-dichloroethane• 1,2-DCA- 1,2-dichloroethane• 1,2-DCPA- 1,2-dichloropropane

The other three VOCs detected are not abbreviated.

4.4.1.2 Chlor inated alkenes - Te t rach lo roe thene , t r i ch lo roe thene .dichioroethenes, and vinyl chloride were detected in samples from the site. Thesecompounds are common industrial solvents* and represent a potential degradationsequence. 1,2-dichloroethene is reported as separate cis- and trans- isomers forthe landfill gas analysis and for Village of Antioch water supply well No. 4, but asa total of the two isomers for all other analyses. For comparison purposes, total1.2-dichloroethene results are discussed in this section. The fol lowingabbreviations are used in the text:

• PCE - tetrachloroethene• TCE - trichloroethene• 1.2-DCE - 1,2-dichloroethene (total)• U-DCE- 1,1-dichloroethene• VC - vinyl chloride

4.4.1.3 Aromatics - The aromatic compounds benzene, ethylbenzene, xylene,toluene (together referred to as BEXT), chlorobenzene. and the semivolatileorganic compound 1,4-dichlorobenzene (1,4-DCB) were detected in samples fromthe site. The BEXT compounds are partially water soluble and are related togasoline and other petroleum hydrocarbon products. 1,4-DCB is used as a soilfumigant, in moth balls, and in disinfecting blocks (such as urinal cakes andrecreational vehicle sanitary systems). All of these compounds are used assolvents and as reagents for a variety of manufacturing processes.

\4.4.1.4 Ketones - Ketone compounds detected at the site include acetone.2-butanone (also known as methyl ethyl ketone or MEK). 4-methyl-2-pentanone(methyl isobutyl ketone or MIBK), and 2-hexanone. These compounds arecommon solvents used in paints, cement adhesives, resins, and cleaning fluids.

Technical Memorandum N o . 1 O c t o b e r 1 9 9 3 H - Q . D . Landfill-Antioch. Illinois

Acetone and MEK are typica l ly used in ana ly t ica l laborator ies and can belaboratory contaminants.

4.4.2 Semivolatile Organic Compounds (SVOC)4.4.2.1 Phenols - Phenol. 2-methylphenol (o-cresol). 4-methylphenol (p-cresol).and 2,4-dimethylphenol were detected in samples from the site. Phenols are usedin adhesives. epoxies, plastics, and a variety of synthetic fibers and synthetic dyes.

4.4.2.2 Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) - PAHs detected at thesite consist of naphthalene, 2-methylnaphthalene, acenaphthene, f luorene.phenanthrene, anthracene, fluoranthene, pyrene, benzo(a)anthracene. chrysene.b e n z o ( b ) f l u o r a n t h e n e , b e n z o ( a ) p y r e n e , i n d e n o ( l , 2 . 3 - c d ) p y r e n e .benzo(k)fluoranthene, benzo(a,h)anthracene, and benzo(g,h,i)perylene. Thisgroup of compounds is associated with and derived from coal, oil, and theincomplete combustion of carbonaceous materials.

4.4.2.3 Phthalates - Diethylphthalate, and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phtha!ate weredetected at the site. These compounds are associated with plastics and plasticmaking processes. Phthalates can also be lab contaminants.

4.4.2.4 PCBs - The polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) Aroclor 1016 was detected atthe site. Mixtures of PCBs are identified and sold under the trade names ofvarious Aroclor numbers and were formerly used extensively in various industrialapplications.

4.5 COMPOUND CONCENTRATION COMPARISONS

In this section, analytical results of compounds detected at the site are comparedto regulatory limits for all these compounds, and for metals analysis only werecompared to local background concentrations.

4.5.1 Applicable RegulationsResults of the two site groundwater analyses were compared to U.S.EPAMaximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs), and Illinois Groundwater QualityStandards for potable resource groundwaters (Class I) and general resourcegroundwaters (Class II). Regulatory limits for all organic compounds andinorganic analytes detected at the site are summarized in Table 4-1.

4.5.2 Background EvaluationUpgradient samples of groundwater from the deep sand and gravel aquifer werecollected {wells W7D and US ID). An upstream sample of Sequoit Creek (S101)was also collected. Background samples of soils and surficial sand groundwater

Technical Memorandum N o . 1 Q c m b g r 1 9 9 3 H . O . D . Landfill-Antioch. Illinois

wore not collected. Background soil samples were not collected because the areassampled were presumed to be contaminated. It was not possible to collect trueupgradient background groundwater samples from the surficial sand because thesurficial sand is of limited horizontal extent and because of the groundwater flowpattern.

However , because metals exist na tura l ly in soils, some source of na tura l(background) concentrations is required in order to evaluate metals in on-sitesoils. For an indication of likely background concentration ranges of metals insoils, two sources were obtained. Observed ranges for background concentrationsof metals in soils for the eastern United States are presented in Table 4-7 and arefrom Elemental Concentrations in Soils and Other Surficial Materials of theConterminous United States. U.S. Geological Survey Paper 1270. 1984. Asecond source, also presented in Table 4-7, is from Chemical Equilibria In Soils.by Willard L. Lindsay (John Wiley & Sons, publishers): Table 1.1 "The Contentof Various Elements in the Lithosphere and in Soils". It should be understood .that these published ranges represent a wide variety of soils derived from a rangeof different parent materials, and may not represent the site specific backgroundconditions.

Upgradient gro'undwater quality in the deep sand and gravel aquifer is representedby groundwater samples collected from upgradient wells US ID and W7D. Thesetwo wells are located upgradient of the landfill and are therefore outside of theinfluence of the landfill. However, two sample points are not sufficient toconduct a meaningful statistical evaluation. Therefore, for comparison purposes.groundwater quality background concentrations were estimated using data fromthe Illinois State Water Survey's Groundwater Quality Database. The databasecontained results from 98 samples collected in Township 46N, Range IDE.Lake County, Illinois. Analytical results for total metals and dissolved metals.and indicator parameters were used for a statistical evaluation, as summarized in ^Table 4-2. For site evaluation purposes, a value of 1/2 the detection limit fornon-detect analyses has been used in calculating values in the table. Thestatistical summary includes the number of samples analyzed; the minimum.maximum, and average concentrations*detected: and the standard deviation. Thebackground value was calculated as the average plus two limes the standarddeviation. The appropriate values have been listed on the analytical summarytables for metals, private wells, and indicator parameters.

Technical Memorandum N o . 1 O c i o b g r 1 9 9 3 H . O . D . Land fill-Antioch. Illinois

Dissolved Metals Present in GroundwaterBased on Regional Database,

Site Background Samples, and Site Samples

Regional Wells SiteMetal Database US ID. W7D Wells

Calcium X X XMagnesium X X XPotassium X X XSodium X X XBarium X X XManganese X XArsenic X XCadmium X XCopper X XNickel X XZinc X XThallium X

A comparison of the data from background wells US1D and W7D, with the datafrom the regional database reveals that results for common dissolved metals(calcium, magnesium, potassium, sodium, and barium) are similar. These metalswere present on-site at concentrations greater than regional or site backgroundlevels. Manganese was not reported in the regional database.

Of the dissolved metals detected in groundwater samples from the site, arsenic,cadmium, copper, nickel, and zinc were reported in the regional database, butwere not detected in background wells US ID and W7D. Of these five metals,cadmium and zinc were detected in the on-site deep sand and gravel aquifersamples at concentrations greater than the regional background value. However.concentrations of arsenic, copper, and nickel, would also be considered abovebackground.

Thallium was not detected in samples included in the regional database, or inbackground wells US ID and W7D. Thallium was detected in one on-site deepsand and gravel groundwater sample.

Technical Memorandum No. 1 October 1993 H.O.D. Undfill-AnUoch. Illinois4-8

4.6 SOURCE CHARACTERIZATION

Potential contaminant sources include landfill gas and leachate.

4.6.1 Landfill GasSamples of landfi l l gas were collected from five leachate piezometer/gas welllocations, two from the old landfill (LP1 and LP11) and three from the newlandfill (LP6. LP7. and LP8), and were analyzed for VOCs. Results are presentedin units of parts per billion, volume to volume in the complete reports included inAppendix P. A summary of landf i l l gas analytical results is presented inTable 4-3. Results in this table have been converted to the mass to volume unit ofmg/m3, which is used for risk assessment purposes. Refer to Table 4-3 for theconversion calculation.

VOCs detected in the landfill gas include chlorinated alkanes, chlorinated alkenes,aromatics, ketones, and freons. Concentrations were generally higher in samples tvfrom the new landfill than samples from the old landfill, as would be expected.Note that the method compound list for VOCs in gas is more extensive than thatused for o ther mat r ices . However , the addi t ional VOCs ( i n c l u d i n gtrimethylbenzene, ethyl toluene, and three different freons) detected in the landfillgas were not found in the aqueous or soil matrices as tentatively identifiedcompounds.

4.6.2 LeachateLeachate samples were collected from five locations, including leachatepiezometers LP1 and LP11 in the old landfill, and LP6, LP8, and the leachatemanhole-east (MHE) in the new landfill.

VOCs detected in the leachate include chlorinated alkenes, chlorinated alkanes.ketones, and aromatic compounds. A summary of the leachate analysis results ispresented in Table 4-4. Ketones were found at the greatest concentrations,reaching a maximum concentration of 19,000'Ug/L for acetone in leachatepiezometer LP8. Ketones were found in all leachate samples, as were aromaticcompounds. Ketones were also detected in some of the surface soils samples, andin one surface water sample.

Aromatic compounds found in the leachate samples include benzene,ethylbenzene, toluene, and xylenes, at concentrations of up to 740 ug/L fortoluene in leachate piezometer LP11. Aromatic compounds were also detected insome of the surface soil samples.

Chlorinated alkanes, including 1,1-DCA, 1,2-DCA, and chloroethane weredetected in samples from leachate piezometer LP1 and the leachate manhole

Technical Memorandum No. 1_____________October 1993_____________H.O.D. Landfill-Antioch. Illinoispage 4 9

(NIHE). Chloroethane was detected at a maximum concentration of 45 ug/L inleachate piezometer LP1. Chlorinated alkanes were not detected in any othermedium (i.e.. groundwater, surface water, or soils).

Chlorinated alkenes, including PCE, TCE. l . l -DCE, 1.2-DCE. and VC. weredetected in leachate piezometers LP01, LP11, and the manhole MHE. 1,2-DCEwas detected in leachate piezometer LP11 at a maximum concentration of 190ug/L. Compounds from this group were also detected in some of the groundwatersamples.

1,4-Dichlorobenzene, which may be included as ei ther a VOC or SVOCdepending on the exact analytical method, was detected in leachate piezometersLP6 and LP11, at 5 and 20 ug/L, respectively. 1,4-DCB was also detected insurface soil sample SU1.

SVOCs detected in leachate samples include phenols, phthalates, and PAHs. Asummary of SVOC results is presented in Table 4-6. Phenols were the mostprevalent, and were detected in concentrations up to 2,200 ug/L (4-methylphenol)in leachate piezometer LP8.

P h t h a l a t e s de tec ted in the l eacha te i n c l u d e d i e t h y l p h t h a l a t e andbis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate at concentrations of 4 to 42 ug/L. Phthalates areconsidered common laboratory contaminants, and are qualified during datavalidation, when blanks reveal contamination, or when concentrations are lessthan 100 ug/L and results are determined to be due to laboratory contaminationbased on professional judgment. Phthalates are often components of leachate. andtherefore the results were not qualified. Phthalates were not detected in thegroundwater samples. Phthalates were also detected in some of the surface soilsamples.

Naphthalene was the only PAH detected in the leachate, and was found atconcentrations of 6 to 34 ug/L. Naphthalene is the simplest PAH. and is used as asolvent for a wide range of industrial and agricultural applications. PAHs werealso detected in some of the surface soil samples.

Of the 23 metals analyzed for, 21 were found in the leachate samples (theexceptions were antimony and selenium). Metals results are summarized inTable 4-7. Leachate samples are not filtered for metals analyses; reported metalsconcentrations represent both dissolved metals and metals adsorbed on suspendedparticles. While MCLs (or IEPA Class I Criteria) are not applicable to leachate,these limits can be used to identify metals present in the source at significantconcentrations. The metals that were detected in the leachate at above the MCLs(or IEPA Class I Criteria) include: aluminum, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium,

Technical Memorandum No. 1 October 1993 H.O.D. Landfill-Aniioch. IllinoisPage 4-10

chromium, copper, iron, lead, magnesium, manganese, nickel, thallium, and /.inc.Of these, aluminum, cadmium, iron, manganese, and thallium were also detectedin groundwater samples at above the MCLs (or IEPA Class I Criteria).

Leachate samples were analyzed for indicator parameters, as summarized inTable 4-8. As expected, the leachate had elevated levels of total dissolved solids(IDS), alkalinity, hardness, chloride, ammonia-nitrogen, and total organic carbon(TOO.

4.7 MEDIA CHARACTERIZATION

4.7.1 Surface SoilsSurface soil samples were collected from the landfill sideslope at areas of obviousstaining or leachate seepage. As such, the surface soil samples exhibi tedcontamination similar to the leachate.

VOCs detected in the surface soils include aromatics, carbon disulfide, acetoneand methylene chloride, as summarized in Table 4-4. Aromatics detected includebenzene, ethyl benzene, toluene, and xylenes, at concentrations of 2 to 280 ug/kg.These compounds are usually associated with gasoline and other petroleumproducts. Carbon disulfide was detected in surface soil sample SU2 at 6 ug/kg.Methylene chloride and acetone were also detected in the samples. It should benoted that acetone and methylene chloride at low concentrations (less than 10times the quantitation limit) are frequently due to laboratory contamination.Because field blanks are not collected for soil samples, the potential for possiblecontamination of samples due to transportation and storage cannot be determined.

SVOCs detected in the surface soils include phthalates and PAHs. The compoundbis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate was detected in all the soil samples at concentrations of160 to 9600 ug/kg. Phthalates are commonly associated with plastics. PAHswere found in surface soils at concentrations of 36 to 1000 ug/kg. With theexception of naphthalene found in the leachate, no PAHs were found in any of theother samples analyzed during the RI. PAHs are commonly associated with theincomplete combustion of petroleum products.

The pesticide 4,4'-DDT was detected at a concentration of 4.3 ug/kg in surfacesoil sample SU1, which was collected at a leachate seep on the south sideslope ofthe new landfill. DOT, which has been restricted from use since 1973. is apersistent pesticide that resists biodegradation and is strongly adsorbed to soilComplete degradation of DDT may take 30 years or longer. This compound maybe a relict of past pesticide application to the agricultural soils. No otherpesticides were detected in any other samples collected during the RI.

Technical Memorandum N o . J O c t o b e r 1 W H . Q . D . Landfill-Antioch. Illinois

Metals results from the soil samples collected for the RI are presented inTable 4-7. Because background soil samples were not collected, these results arecompared to published ranges for metals found in natural soils, as discussed inSection 4.5.2. Metals detected in the soils at concentrations exceeding thepublished background ranges include cadmium and magnesium. Analyticalresults for most metals were similar among the five soil samples. iMetals detectedin all these the soil samples include a luminum, arsenic, barium, beryl l ium,calcium, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, lead, magnesium, manganese, nickel,potassium, sodium, vanadium, and zinc. Cadmium and thallium were onlydetected in two soil samples: SU3 and SU5 for cadmium and SU1 and SU5 forthallium. Antimony, cyanide, silver, and selenium were not detected in the soilsamples.

4.7.2 GroundwaterResults of groundwater monitoring well analysis are grouped below by formationsampled. In addition, the analytical results from the on-site versus the off-sitewells are also discussed. The Village of Antioch municipal well analyses and theprivate well analyses are discussed separately in Sections 4.7.3 and 4.7.4,respectively.

In addition to the groundwater quality data collected during May and June 1993,historical data for the groundwater monitoring wells from 1987 to 1990 has beenincorporated into this discussion. The use of this historical data allows for a betterunderstanding of the fate and transport of the contaminants over time.

A summary of VOC results is presented in Table 4-4. VOC results are alsopresented on Drawing 10010201-F9. A summary of historical groundwater datais presented in Table 4-5. SVOC results are summarized in Table 4-6. Metalsresults are summarized in Table 4-7. Groundwater quality indicator parameterresults are summarized in Table 4-8.

Groundwater quality is discussed in the following sections. Groundwatermonitoring well data is discussed according to whether the wells are on-site oroff-site and according to which formation is being monitored (data from thesurficial sand and clay-rich diamict wells have been included in the same groupand are discussed under surficial sand).

4.7.2.1 On-Site Surficial Sand - The on-site surficial sand monitoring wellssampled during the RI include US4S and W5S in the southwestern corner of theold landfill, US6S and W6S in the southeastern corner of the old landfill, andG11S in the northwestern corner of the old landfill. Well US6I, located adjacentto well US6S and W6S, is screened in the clay-rich diamict. These wells arelocated within the property boundary, but are outside the limits of refuse.

Technical Memorandum No. 1____________October 1993_____________H.O.D. Lamlfill-Antioch. IllinoisPase4-12

VOCs detected in groundwater samples from the on-site surficial sand monitoringwells are primarily chlorinated alkenes including TCE. 1.2-DCE, and VC. Thesecompounds were detected near the southwest and southeast corners of the oldlandfill.

1.2-DCE was detected at 35 ug/L in moni tor ing well US4S. located at thesouthwest corner of the old landfill. Historically, the concentration of 1.2-DCE atthis location has decreased steadily from a maximum concentration of 76.4 ug/Lin 1987 to 41.5 ug/L in 1990.

Vinyl chloride was detected at 19 ug/L in the sample from the new monitoringwell W5S, also located in the southwest corner of the old landfill. The presenceof VC may be the result of the biodegradation of 1,2-DCE. Historically. VC wasnot detected in the older, deeper monitoring well US4S (although 1.2-DCE wasdetected, as discussed above) which is located adjacent to well W5S.

Well W5S is a water table well screened across the water table surface. Well W5Sis screened from approximately 5 to 14 feet below ground surface (bgs) and thedepth to water at this location is approximately 9 feet bgs. Well US4S isscreened at a depth of approximately 17 to 23 feet bgs, which is deeper than WellW5S. This may partially explain the different VOCs and VOC concentrationsdetected at Wells W5S and US4S.

No VOCs. SVOCs, or pesticides/PCBs were detected at deeper well US4D.screened in the deep sand and gravel aquifer (See Section 4.7.2.3). No wells arescreened in the clay-rich diamict at this location (in the southwest corner of theold landfill).

TCE was detected at 2 ug/L in monitoring well US06I, located at the southeastcorner of the old landfill. Historically, TCE has been detected in well US6I atconcentrations of 5 to 8.7 ug/L.

1,2-DCE was also detected at 2 ug/L in monitoring well W6S. Chlorinatedalkenes were not reported in the historical data for US6S, located adjacent to wellW6S.

Well W6S can be considered to be a water table well even though it is screenedfrom approximately 6 to 15 feet bgs. The water table is present at a depth ofapproximately 2 to 3 feet bgs at this location. Well US6S is screened in thesurficial sand at a depth of approximately 36 to 42 feet bgs. Well US6I isscreened within the clay-rich diamict at a depth of approximately 59 to 63 feetbgs; the annular seal extends to a depth of approximately 57 feet bgs. The

Technical Memorandum No. 1____________October 1993_____________H.Q.D. Landfjl 1-Anuoch. Illinoisp 4_ J3

surticial sand is present to a depth of approximately 52 feet bgs at this location(See Geologic Cross Section A-A1, Figure 13).

In summary, a very low concentration of 1.2-DCE was detected at the water tablewell W6S. but no VOCs were detected in the deeper well US6S. which is alsoscreened in the surficial sand. TCE was detected in well W6I. screened in theupper portion of the clay-rich diamict. No VOCs were detected in deepest well,US6D, screened in the deep sand and gravel aquifer (see Section 4.7.2.3).

Carbon disulfide was detected at 0.8 ug/L in well Gl IS, located in the northwestcorner of the old landfill . Carbon disulf ide was not detected in any othermonitoring well sample or surface water sample.

No SVOCs or pesticides/PCBs organics were detected in groundwater samplesobtained from the surficial sand.

The U.S.EPA Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels (SMCLs) for iron andmanganese were exceeded at all of the on-site surficial sand wells sampled, exceptfor well US6I. Iron concentrations in these wells ranged from 2,480 to3,600 ug/L. Manganese concentrations ranged from 20.3 ug/L at well US6I to745 ug/L at well W6S.

In addition to those metals naturally present in all samples from the surficial sandwells (barium, calcium, iron, magnesium, manganese, potassium, and sodium),arsenic, chromium, and nickel were detected in one sample each. Arsenic wasdetected in well US6I at 9.5 ug/L, which is above the background value, butbelow the MCL of 50 ug/L. Chromium was detected in well W6S at 4.4 ug/L.which is below the MCL of 100 ug/L. Chromium background data were notavailable. Nickel was detected in well US4S at 9.7 ug/L, which is below both theMCL and the background value.

Indicator parameter results for the on-site surficial sand wells were elevated abovethe background value (as defined in Section 4,5.2) for ammonia at well W5S,which is located in the southeastern corner of the old landfill. The indicatorparameter sulfate was elevated above the background value at wells US4S andW6S. Hardness, alkalinity, and chloride results were all elevated above thenbackground values, as they were throughout most of the groundwater samples.Total dissolved solids values exceeded the SMCL at most on-site surficial sandgroundwater locations as well. Refer to Table 4-8 for a summary of indicatorparameter results and background values.

4,7.2.2 Off-Site Surficial Sand - The off-site surficial sand monitoring wellssampled during the RI include well US IS outside the southeastern corner of the

Technical Memorandum No. 1 October 1993 H.O.D. Landfill-Antioch. Illinois

new landfill, wells US3S and W4S. located outside the southwestern comer ot" theold landfill and wells W3SA and W3SB. located south of the old landf i l l . WellUS3I is screened in the clay-rich diamict.

No VOCs. SVOCs, or pesticides/PCBs were detected in the off-site monitoringwells screened in the surficial sand.

Well nest W3SA/W3SBAV3D was installed in the wetland south of the landfill toevaluate water quality in the surficial sand (both at the water table and at the baseof the surficial sand) and in the deep sand and gravel aquifer. Wells W3SA andW3SB are both screened in the surficial sand: Well W3SA at a deptrrofapproximately 6 to 16 feet bgs and well W3SB at a depth of approximately 25 to29.5 feet bgs. The bot tom of the surf ic ia l sand is present at a depth ofapproximately 29.5 feet bgs at this location (See Geologic Cross Section A-A',Figure 13). As indicated above, VOCs are not present in any of these wells.

The U.S. EPA SMCLs for iron and manganese were exceeded at wells. WellsUS IS, US3S, and W3SB exceeded the SMCLs for iron and wells US3S, W3SB,and W4S exceeded the SMCL for manganese. Additional metals detected in theoff-site surficial sand wells include arsenic, chromium, cobalt, copper, nickel, andzinc. Of the metals detected, barium, calcium, magnesium, potassium, and zincwere detected above the background values. Zinc was detected in wells W4S andW3SB, both located south of the old landfill.

Indicator parameter results for the shallow off-site surficial sand wells aresummarized in Table 4-8. The ammonia results were elevated above thebackground value for well W4S, as were the sulfate results for well W3SB. Thehardness, alkalinity, and chloride results for the shallow off-site surficial sandwells were all elevated above the background value, as they were throughout mostof the groundwater samples collected at the site. Total dissolved solids exceededthe SiMCL at well US3I and in the field duplicate of well W4S.

4.7.2.3 On-Site Deep Sand and Gravel Aquifer - The on-site deep sand andgravel aquifer monitoring wells sampled during the RI include well Gl ID at thenorthwestern corner of the old landfill, well US4D at the southwestern corner ofthe old landfill, well US6D at the southeastern corner of the old landfill, and wellW7D east of the new landfill.

No VOCs, SVOCs, or pesticides/PCBs were detected in the on-site monitoringwells screened in the deep sand and gravel aquifer.

Historically, TCE had been found at well US6D, at concentrations of 0.5 to 0.7ug/L. These concentrations are less than ten percent of Contract Required

Technical Memorandum No. 1____________October 1993_____________H.O.D. Landfill-Antioch. IllinoisPage 4-15

Quantitation Limits (CRQLsj specified in the QAPP. TCE was not detectedabove the CRQL in the current RI sampling round.

The U.S. EPA MCL for cadmium of 5 ug/L was exceeded by the sample fromwell G11D (5.6 ug/L). The U.S. EPA SMCLs for iron and manganese wereexceeded by the sample from the on-site deep sand and gravel aquifer wells US6Dfor iron and W7D for manganese. In addition to those metals considered naturallyoccurring, arsenic, chromium, and thallium were detected in these samples.Cadmium, calcium, and magnesium were detected in well Gl ID at concentrationsabove the background value. Background data was not available for thalliumwhich was only detected in well G1 ID.

Indicator parameter results for chloride, alkalinity, and harness for the on-sitedeep sand and gravel aquifer wells were lower overall when compared to thesurficial sand and off-site deep sand and gravel aquifer well results. Totaldissolved solid results exceeded the SMCL for US4D and US6D.

4.7.2.4 Off-Site Deep Sand and Gravel Aquifer - Off-site deep sand and gravelaquifer monitoring wells sampled during the RI include well US ID locatedoutside the southeastern corner of the site, well US3D located outside, of thesouthwestern corner of the old landfill, and well W3D located south of the oldlandfill.

*Vinyl chloride at 28 ug/L, and 1,2-DCE at 11 ug/L were detected in the samplefrom monitoring well US3D, located approximately 250 feet northwest of US4Sand US4D. Historically, VC was detected in 1990 at a concentration of 12.3 ug/Lat this location. A summary of VOC results is presented in Table 4-4.

Well US3D is screened at a depth of approximately 77 to 83 feet bgs, in the upperportion of the deep sand and gravel aquifer (See Geologic Cross Section A-A'.Figure 13). As ind ica ted in Sect ion 4.7.2.2, no VOCs, SVOCs, orpesticides/PCBs were detected in wells US3S and US3I, screened in the surficialsand and clay-rich diamict, respectively at this location.

SVOCs and pesticides/PCBs were not detected in any of the off-site monitoringwells screened in the deep sand and gravel aquifer.

The U.S. EPA SMCLs for iron and manganese were exceeded at all off-site deepsand and gravel aquifer wells (except well US3D for manganese). In addition tothose metals considered naturally occurring, chromium, nickel, and zinc were alsodetected. Barium, calcium, magnesium and zinc were detected in samples abovethe background values at wells US3D and W3D.

Technical Memorandum No. 1 _______Oclober 1993_____________H.O.D. Undfill-AnUoch. IllinoisPage 4-16

Hardness, alkalinity, and chloride analytical results for the off-site wells screenedin the deep sand and gravel aquifer were all elevated above the backgroundvalues , as they were t h r o u g h o u t most of the g r o u n d w a t e r samples. Tota ldissolved solids concentrations measured in these off-site deep sand and gravelaquifer wells also exceeded the SMCL at all locations.

4.7.3 Village of Antioch Water Supply WellsGroundwater samples were collected from the Village of Antioch water supplywells No. 3 (VW3) and No. 5 (VW5). The analytical results for these samples aresummarized in Table 4-9. Also included is a review of the historical VOC datafrom 1984 through 1989 and from August 1992 through May 1993 for theVillage's water supply well No. 4 (VW4), located approximately 200 ft. west ofthe southwest corner of the old landfill. These analytical results for Well No. 4are summarized in Table 4-10.

The VOC carbon disulfide was detected in village well VW5 at 0.6 ug/L. Carbondisulfide was not detected in landfill leachate. No other VOCs were detected invillage wells VW3 and VW5.

The Village of Antioch water supply well VW4, as required by Illinois law, wassampled during 1992 and 1993 for VOCs listed under the Safe Drinking WaterAct (SDWA) by EPA method 524.2 (a gas chromatograph/mass spectrometer(GC/MS) method). VOCs detected include cis-l,2-DCE, chloromethane, andchloroform. Chloromethane and chloroform can be formed during chlorination ofgroundwater and many not be related to an external contaminant source.Cis-l,2-DCE was reported above the detection limit of 0.5 ug/L intermittentlyduring 1992 and 1993, at concentrations of 0.5 to 0.8 ug/L (below the MCL of 70ug/L). Chloromethane was reported above the detection limit of 1.0 ug/L in July1992 (2.2 ug/L) and November 1992 (1.3 ug/L). Chloroform was detected once,at an estimated concentration of 0.9 ug/L (below the reported detection limit of1.0 ug/L). In addition, historical VOC analytical results for samples collectedfrom 1984 through 1990 have also been included in Table 4-10.

SVOCs detected in the village water supply wells VW3 and VW5 include2-methylphenol (o-cresol) at an estimated concentration of 0.5.ug/L in VW5, and4-chloroanil ine, at an es t imated concen t r a t i on of 0.7 ug/L in VW3.4-Chloroaniline has a variety of industrial uses, as a dye intermediate, and inagr icul tura l chemicals-. The source of these compounds is not clear .4-chloroaniline was not detected in any other samples collected at the site.2-methylphenol was detected in one leachate sample and no other samples.

Note that concentrations below the Contract Required Quantitation Limit (CRQL)are considered estimated (i.e., flagged with the laboratory qualifier "J" as defined

Technical Memorandum No. 1_____________October 1993____________H.O.D. Landfill-Anuoch. IllinoisPaae4-17

in Appendix P). This is because the concentration is below the linear range of thethe cal ibra t ion performed during analysis. In organic analysis, the CRQL (theconcentration that can be reliably detected by a number of different laboratories ata specific degree of confidence) is reported instead of the instrument detectionlimit (the instrument-specific, statistically-determined minimum concentrationthat can be detected). Detects below the CRQL are more susceptible to error thandetects above the CRQL.

Total metals analysis indicated that the a luminum and iron concentrationsdetected in the Village water supply wells exceeded the U.S. EPA SMCLs. WellVW5 contained an aluminum concentration of 55 ug/L, which is above the SMCLof 50 ug/L for aluminum. The 300 ug/L SMCL for iron was exceeded in samplesobta ined f rom Vil lage water supply wells VW3 (646 ug/L) , and VW5(1,100 ug/L). Iron exceeded the typical background value in the sample obtainedfrom Village water supply well VW5. The aluminum exceedence may be due toaluminum in suspended solids present in the samples. The Village water supplywell samples are not filtered unlike monitoring well samples which are filtered.These analytical results were below the typical background value for aluminum.

4.7.4 Private Residence WellsFour private residence wells, located just east of the site, were sampled duringJune and July, 1993. The analytical results for these private wells are summarizedin Table 4-9.

No VOCs or pesticides/pCBs were detegted in any of the private well watersamples.

The SVOC 2-methyl phenol (o-cresol) was detected at an estimated concentrationof 0.9 ug/L in the sample obtained from private well PW2.

Metals analysis indicated that aluminum and iron concentrations exceeded theU.S. EPA SMCLs in the private well samples. Private well PW3 containedaluminum at 75 ug/L, which is above the SMCL of 50 ug/L for aluminum. The300 ug/L SMCL for iron was exceeded in private wells PWl (3,050 ug/L). PW2(643 ug/L), and PW3 (549 ug/L).

Additional total metals concentrations detected in samples from the private wellsinclude cobalt in private well PW2 only; and copper, lead, manganese, vanadiumin private well PWl only. Zinc was detected at levels above the backgroundvalue in private wells PWl, PW5, and PW3. Of all of the metals detected in theunfiltered private well samples, chromium, lead, and vanadium were not detectedin dissolved (filtered) metals analysis of samples from monitoring wells US IS,US ID, and W7D, which are located in the same general area on the eastern edge

Technical Memorandum No. 1____________October 1993_____________H.O.D. Landfill-Aotioch. IllinoisPage 4-18

of the site. Copper, detected in private well PW1 at 26 ug/L. was also found inone of the groundwater monitoring well samples (US IS at 4.4 ug/L). Bar ium,copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, and zinc concentrations detected in thepr ivate well samples exceeded the typical background values for these totalmetals.

4.7.5 Surface WaterSurface water samples were collected at three locations in Sequoit Creek. SampleSWS101 was collected upstream ot" the site at the southeast corner of the newlandfill. Sample SWS201 was collected at the southwest corner of the landfill,south of the bridge that crosses the creek at this location. Sample SWS301 wascollected at the northwest corner of the old landfill.

The VOCs that were detected in these surface water samples are limited todetects of 4-methyl-2-pentanone and 2-hexanone, at 2 and 3 ug/L respectively, insample SWS301. These compounds were not found in the field duplicate samplecollected at this location.

No SVOCs or pesticides/PCBs were detected in these surface water samplesobtained from the site. These surface water samples were not analyzed for theindicator parameters that the groundwater samples from the site were analyzedfor.

A summary of all reported metals detected is presented in Table 4-7. Because thesurface water samples were analyzed for total metals (i.e., samples were notfiltered), the metals concentrations that were detected are generally higher thanthose detected in the groundwater samples from the site. Aluminum, which isstrongly adsorbed to solids, was detected in all of the unfiltered surface watersamples. Antimony, detected at 27.6 ug/L in sample SWS301, was not detectedin any other groundwater, surface water, surface soil, or leachate samples from thesite. Cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, and zinc were also detected in thesurface water samples.

JAlI/jah/jrs/AJS/RHW[ehi 609 88)

Technical Memorandum N o . 1 O c t o b e r 1 9 9 3 H . O . D . Landfill-Amioch. Illinois

CONTAMINANT FATEAND TRANSPORT

This section provides a review of physical and chemical mechanisms that mayaffect the behavior of site contaminants identified in Section 4. Migrationpathways are identified, and the fate and migration of specific contaminants foundin eroundwater and soils are discussed.

5.1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Chemical constituents detected at the site consist primarily of chlorinated organicsolvents in the groundwater. These organic compounds are primarily chlorinatedalkenes, including trie hloroe the ne (TCE), 1,2-dichloroethene (1,2-DCE), andvinyl chloride (VC). These compounds were also detected in leachate from thelandfill. The concentrations of these compounds as they travel from the sourcearea are expected to be reduced through physical and chemical mechanisms,including dilution, adsorption/desorption, biodegradation, and volatilization.

A summary of the physical and chemical properties of the compounds detected atthe site, including molecular weight, water solubility, density, Henry's Lawconstant, organic carbon/water partition coefficient (KQC), Log octanol/waterpartition coefficient (KQW), vapor pressure, and relative retardation factor, ispresented in Table 5-1.

Technical Memorandum No. 1____________October 1993_____________H.O.D. Landfill-Antioch. IllinoisPage 5-1

5.2 PHYSICAL/CHEMICALATTENUATION MECHANISMS

The primary mechanism affecting the migration of contaminants in groundwateris the physical flow of the groundwater. As contaminants are carried away fromthe source by this flow, dilution will occur, resulting in the attenuation of thecontaminant concentration. In addition, the fate and migration of organic andinorganic contaminants in the subsurface env i ronment can be affected bychemical and physical mechanisms. These mechanisms may cause a contaminantto remain in solution, precipitate out of solution, be adsorbed to a surface, ort ransform or degrade into another compound. The fo l lowing discussionsummarizes each of these potential mechanisms and their effects.

5.2.1 Dilution/AttenuationA non-reactive species introduced into groundwater or surface water woulddecrease in concentration as it is transported away from the source. Thisdilution/attenuation of a chemical is independent of any chemical mechanismaffecting concentration over distance. Chloride is a non-reactive indicator speciesaffected primarily by dilution.

5.2.2 Adsorption/desorptionOrganic contaminants may be adsorbed or desorbed by organic matter and soil,strongly influencing the rate of migration. Strongly adsorbed contaminants arerelatively immobile and will not be leached or transported. The amount of achemical that will be adsorbed is a function of the properties of the chemical inquestion, the geological matrix, and the hydrological environmertt.

Hydrophobic organic compounds dissolved in aqueous solutions will tend toadsorb onto solid phases that the water contacts. The amount of contaminant thaiis adsorbed is a function of soil grain size, mineral composition, organic content,solute composition, and solid concentration. However, of the variety of soilcomponents that can influence rates of adsorption, organic carbon content isgenerally the most significant. Based on a chemical's organic carbon/waterpartition coefficient (KQC) and the soil organic carbon content (t'oc). the relativeaffinity of a compound for a soil matrix can be estimated. This in turn canprovide an estimate of the transport rates for various chemicals. The retardationfactor of a chemical describes the effect of sorption in decreasing the rate ofcontaminant transport in the liquid phase, relative to a non-reactive species(Rf = 1). A nonreactive species, such as chloride, would have a transport rateequal to the groundwater flow. A secondary influence of adsorption on the fate ofgroundwater contaminants is the retention of organic chemicals near the sourcearea, where biological and chemical degradation may be enhanced by the presenceof a carbon source or bacteria.

Technical Memorandum N o . 1 O c i o b e r 1 9 9 ? H . O . D . Landfil 1-Amioch. Illinois

The retardation factor is calculated as follows:

Rf = 1 + ( P b / n ) x K d

Where:Rf = Retardation Factor (unitless)Pb = aquifer bulk density (g/m3)n = effective porosity (unitless)Kd = distribution coefficient (ml/g)

and=K o c xf o c

where:K = oraanic carbon partition coefficientoc •- r

f = organic carbon fraction

Aquifer bulk density (Pb) and effective porosity (n) are assumed to be 1.8 g/cm3,and 0.3; typical values for sand and gravel soils. The organic carbon fraction (foc)is assumed to be 0.1%. Given the differences of the various geological unitspresent at the Site, these values were assumed to represent conditions in theaquifer and provide estimates to allow a comparison of the effective rate oftransport for various chemicals detected at the HOD Landfill Site. Retardationfactors calculated in this manner are presented in Table 6-1, along with chemicaland physical properties of chemicals detected at the site. Retardation factors for1,2-dichloroethene and 1,4-dichlorobenzene are 1.23 and 11.2 respectively.Therefore. 1,2-dichloroethene would be expected to travel more quickly throughthe aquifer than 1,4-dichlorobenzene. PAHs such as benzo(b)fluoranthene. withretardation factors 1,000 times higher, would be expected to move very slowly.

Inorganic elements have multiple valence states exhibiting different adsorptionbehavior. Hydrogeochemical conditions affect how each chemical contaminantreacts. Adsorption will vary depending on pH and Eh conditions, and on thecompeting ion species present; Geological matrix components such as hydrousmetal oxides (Fe. Mn), amorphous aluminosilicates, layer lattice silicates (clays),and organic matter, all provide significant adsorptive surfaces. These surfacesadsorb contaminants through a pH dependent charge. Decreasing groundwater pHgenerally increases positive charge and favors anion retention, while increasingpH favors cation adsorption. Uncomplexed ions tend to be preferentiallyadsorbed over complexed ions. Although considerable descriptive and qualitativeinformation is available for some elements, it is not possible to predict adsorptionbehavior quantitatively based on mineralogy and groundwater composition

Technical Memorandum No. t____________ October_1993_____________H.CXD, Undfill-Anuoch. IllinoisPane 5-3

( B a t t e l l e . 1984). The synergis t ic e f f ec t of pH. Eh, c o m p l e x i n g ions, andcompeting ions on adsorption varies between contaminants and matrix materialsand requires fur ther study. However, generalizations and broad groupings ofelements with similar geochemical behavior may be made. Accordingly, metalsin groundwater do not appear to present a significant problem at the Site.

5.2.3 BiodegradationBiodegradation may be an important fate mechanism for organic constituentsunder proper conditions. Biodegradation can result in partial or completereduction of contaminant concentrations, and the production of microbial cells,water and carbon dioxide. The contaminant is transformed in the presence of anelectron acceptor; oxygen-in aerobic conditions, and nitrogen, sulfate or carbondioxide in anaerobic environments . Biodegradation of BETXs (aromatichydrocarbons) may occur under aerobic conditions present in the vadose zone.Other persistent contaminants may resist biodegradation.

Microbially mediated reductive dechlorination of chlorinated alkenes and alkanesmay take place in groundwater systems (Bouwer and McCarty 1983, 1983a.Parsons et ai. 1987, 1987a). Thus, the chlorinated alkene tetrachloroethene willdegrade to trichloroethene, which will further degrade to 1,2-dichloroethene andfinally chloroethene, better known as vinyl chloride. 1,1,1-Trichloroethane willdegrade to 1,2-dichloroethane and on to chloroethane. The rate of degradation isrelated to the availability of a non-chlorinated carbon source (as a nutrient for thebacteria), pH, temperature, compound concentration, and the presence ofmicrobial toxicants. Sufficient concentrations of the compound must be availableto support bacterial growth. Biodegradation is likely to occur more readily in thesurficial sand than in the deep sand and gravel aquifer.

5.2.4 Oxidation/ReductionGroundwater systems through hydrochemical and biochemical reactions tendtowards oxygen depletion and reducing conditions. This trend is offset byoxidation of organic matter catalyzed by microorganisms. The general decreasein dissolved oxygen produces H+ ions. This decrease in pH is often offset by thereaction of the H* with various minerals. When all dissolved oxygen is consumed(DO generally less than 0.05 mg/L), and other oxidizing agents are alsoconsumed, the environment may become so strongly reducing that organic-compounds may undergo anaerobic degradation. For this to occur, themicroorganisms must have sufficient consumable material (organic matter),nutrients (nitrogen, sulfur, phosphorus, some metals), and climatic stability(temperature).

Technical Memorandum No. 1 October 1993 H.O.D. Landfitl-Anuoch. IllinoisPage 5^

In groundwater systems. pH and the redox potential (Eh. the the energy gained inthe transfer of I mmol of electrons from an oxidant to H,) are interdependent .Many redox reactions proceed at a slow rate, and may be irreversible.

5.2.5 VolatilizationLoss of organic contaminants from the site through volatilization is dependent onsite factors including soil porosity, moisture content, nature of the ground surface.and climatic conditions such as temperature and wind speed. Volatilization is alsodependent on contaminant specific properties such as Henry's Law constant anddiffusivity. The process involves desorption of the contaminant from the soil intothe soil water, diffusion into the water, interphase mass transfer between the waterand the air, diffusion out of the soil pores and into the ambient air.

5.2.6 PrecipitationThe solubility of metal species present in the aquifer matrix controls precipitationof metal contaminants in groundwater. The thermodynamic behavior of variousspecies may be used to predict the most stable phase that will form inenvironment. The evidence for the existence of solubility-controlling solid phasesis often indirect, such as the comparison of ion activity products to solubilityproducts. Hydroxide and carbonate solids, stable at neutral to high pH values,often control precipitation rates.

5.2.7 HydrolysisHydrolysis reactions occur between water and an ionic species in solution. Saltsof weak acids and bases hydrolize and may affect the overall attenuation ofvarious contaminants. Hydrolysis reactions may be catalyzed by acids, bases andselected metals. Hydrolysis is not a primary fate of contaminants, but may occurin specific environments.

5.3 POTENTIAL MIGRATION PATHWAYS

Contaminants introduced to the environment may migrate through a variety ofpathways to reach potential receptors. The contaminant may contact and bedispersed by groundwater and discharged to a surface water body, or bevolatilized, emitted from the surface, and dispersed to the air.

5.3.1 Groundwater/private wellsGroundwater provides the primary migration pathway for contaminant transport atthe site. The extent of migration of these contaminants in the groundwater isdependent on the interrelationship between site-specific geological andhydrochemical conditions, and the physical and chemical properties of thecontaminant itself. In addition, contaminants may be entering the groundwater

Technical Memorandum No. 1 Ocrotwr 1993 H.O.D. Landfill-Antioch. Illinois

from sources other than the site, further complicating any attempt to describe thefate and transport of contaminants detected at the site.

Physical and chemical properties that may affect the migration of the chlorinatedVOCs present at the site include dilution, adsorption/desorption, absorption, andbiodegradation. No single mechanism appears to dominate contaminant fate andtransport at the site. Varying retardation factors may be slowing the transport ofspecific compounds, while biodegradation rates likely vary at shallow versus deepdepths. Variations in the water table level may be releasing contamination from asource area in 'slugs', as opposed to a steady state release. Changes in the watertable may also effect the direction of the contaminant flow.

The chlorinated VOCs detected at the site appear to be present only in thedissolved phase based on the relatively low concentrations detected. At well nestW3SA/W3SB/W3D, there were no VOCs detected at any of the wells includingwell W3SB screened at the base of the surficial sand. Although low levels ofVOCs were detected at wells W6S and US6I at well nest W6S/US6S/US6I/US6D,there is no evidence that free phase non-aqueous phase liquid (NAPL) is present.

Chlorinated alkenes (1,2-DCE and VC) detected in on-site surficial sand wells(US4S, W5S, and W6S) or at clay-rich diamict well US6I (TCE) were notdetected in off-site surficial sand wells. It is likely that any contaminants presenton-site in the surficial sand are either biodegraded or intercepted by Sequoit Creek(groundwater discharge zone) before they can migrate off-site.

Likewise, chlorinated alkenes detected in on-site surficial sand wells were notdetected in the corresponding on-site deep sand and gravel aquifer wells. Thisfurther suggests that the clay-rich diamict, because of its thickness and lowpermeability (See Section 3.7.2), acts as a barrier to contaminant migration fromthe surficial sand to the deep sand and gravel aquifer.

The source and migration pathway for the VC (28 ug/L) and 1,2-DCE (11 ug/L)detected at off-site deep sand and gravel well US3D is not clear. As indicatedabove, VOCs were not detected in any other deep sand and gravel monitoringwells or off-site surficial sand wells. Vinyl chloride (well W5S: 19 ug/L) and 1,2-DCE (well US4S: 35 ug/L; well W6S: 2 ug/L) were detected on-site in thesurficial sand. However, based on the relatively low concentrations detected on-site and the low hydraulic conductivity of the clay-rich diamict, it appearsunlikely that these VOCs would have migrated from the landfill, through the clay-rich diamict, and into the deep sand and gravel aquifer. The potential exists thatanother source (See Section 2.2.10 and Appendix G) may be contributing toVOCs present at Well US3D.

Technical Memorandum N o . 1 O c t o b e r 1 9 9 3 H . O . D . Landfill- Antioch. Illinois

5.3.2 Surface WaterSurface water in Sequoit Creek may potentially be contaminated by releases ofleachate e i the r th rough seeps or from c o n t a m i n a t e d g r o u n d w a t e r . Lowconcentrations of ketones (2 ug/L of 4-methyI-2-pentanone and 3 ug/L of 2-hexanone) were detected (but not confirmed in the field duplicate) downstream ofthe landfill in sample S301, collected near the northwest corner of the old landfill.Given the concentration of ketones in the leachate, 2-butanone and acetone.detected at concentrations up to 19,000 ug/L. would more likely be present insurface water contaminated by leachate than 4-methyl-2-pentanone and 2-hexanone, which were found at a range of 14 to 450 ug/L.

Ketones would be expected to undergo volatilization in water, as well as directphotolysis; 4-methyl-2-pentanone degraded by direct photolysis producesacetone. Ketones may also be susceptible to aerobic biodegradation.

5.3.3 Surface SoilsSurface soils were collected at locations with obvious signs of staining or leachateseepage. Contaminants identified in these surface soils include aromatics,phthalates, and PAHs. Aromatic compounds such as benzene, toluene, and xyleneundergo volatilization and biodegradation in soils. While very mobile ingroundwater, aromatics were not found in surface waters or groundwaters.

Phthalates. detected at high concentrations in the surface soil, are stronglyadsorbed to organic carbon (the surface soils have an average total organic carbonconcentration of 2.6 %), and thus will strongly resist leaching in to thegroundwater. Biodegradation may occur in surface soils to a limited extent .Phthalates were not detected in surface waters or ground waters.

PAHs found in the surface soils are strongly adsorbed to soils and have low watersolubilities, and are not expected to leach in the water. Under aerobic conditionsPAHs will undergo biodegradation. PAHs were not detected in groundwater andsurface water samples.

5.3.4 Air (Landfill Gas)VOCs detected in the landfill gas include chlorinated alkanes, chlorinated alkenes.ketones, aromatics and freons. The gas is currently burned off in passive flares.destroying most of these compounds in the process. Most VOCs present in thelandfill gas that are released to the ambient atmosphere will be diluted with thatambient air, and undergo decomposition through direct photolysis.

Technical Memorandum No. 1_____________October 1993_____________H.O.D. Landfilj-Antipch. IllinoisPaaeTT

CONCLUSIONS

The field investigation has generally provided sufficient information to preparethe RI Report. However, some additional analysis and review of the existinginformation will be necessary to complete the report. The following is a list ofanalysis to be performed during the preparation of the RI report:

• The geotechnical data and physical descriptions of the cover and subsoilswill be further evaluated to confirm the integrity, geotechnical properties,and quality of the existing cap. The information will also be used tocalculate infiltration rates through the existing cap.

• Additional rounds of water level measurements will be obtained toconfirm the results of the two rounds presented in this TechnicalMemorandum.

• The results of the ecological characterization will be utilized in preparingthe risk assessment for the site.

• All of the geologic and hydrogeologic data collected to date will be usedto revise or expand the conceptual model of the site, as necessary.

• All of the chemical and hydrogeologic data will be used to determine thenature and extent of contamination and the fate and transport ofcontaminants.

[chi609671

Technical Memorandum N o . 1 O c t o b e r 1 9 9 3 H . O . D . Landfill-Antioch. Illinon

7

REFERENCES

Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, 1984. Chemical Attenuation Rates,Coefficients, and Constants in Leachate Migration, Volume 1: A CriticalReview. EPRIEA-3356, Volume 1.

Bouwer, E.J. and McCarty, 1983. Transformations of Halogenated OrganicCompounds Under Denitriflcation Conditions. Applied and EnvironmentalMicrobiology 45(4) 1296-1299.

Bouwer, E.J. and McCarty, I983a. Transformations of I- and 2 carbonhalogenated aliphatic organic Compounds Under methanogenic conditions.Applied and Environmental Microbiology 45(4) 1286-1294.

Howard, H.H., 1989. Handbook of Environmental Fate and Exposure Data ForOrganic Chemicals. Lewis Publishers, 3 Volumes.

Manahan, S.E., 1984. Environmental Chemistry. PWS Publishers, 912 pp.

Freeze, R. and Cherry, J., 1979. Groitndwater. Prentice-Hall 604 pp.

Lindsay, W.L., Chemical Equilibria in Soils. John Wiley & Sons.

Lyman, W.J., W.F.Reehl and D.H.Rosenblatt, 1981. Handbook of ChemicalProperty Estimation Methods: Environmental Behavior of OrganicCompounds. McGraw-Hill.

Olson, R.L. and A. Davis, 1990. Predicting the Fate and Transport of OrganicCompounds in Groundwater parts I and 2. Hazardous Materials Control3(3): 39-64 and 3(4): 18-37.

Technical Memorandum N o . I O c t o b e r 1 9 9 3 H . O . D . Undfill-Antioch. niinoia

Parsons , F., P . R . W o o d , and J. DeMarco , 1984. Transformations ofTetrachloroethene and Trichloroethene in Microcosms and Grounds aler. J.AWWA, February 1984, pp. 56-59.

Robinson, W.D., 1986. Solid Waste Handbook; A Practical Guide. John Wiley &Sons

USDA, 1970. Soil Survey Lake County, Illinois. U.S. Government PrintingOffice, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Geological Survey, 1985. Study and Interpretation of the ChemicalCharacteristics of Natural Water. United States Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2254.

Willman, H.B., Elwood Atherton, T.C. Buschbach, Charles Collinson, John C.Frye, M.E. Hopkins, Jerry A. Lineback, and Jack A. Simon, 1975. Handbookof Illinois Stratigraphy. Illinois State Geological Survey, Bulletin 95,Urbana, Illinois.

Woller, Dorothy M., and James P. Gibb, 1976. Public Groundwater Supplies inLake County. Illinois State Water Survey, Urbana, Illinois.

[chi60967]

Technical Memorandum No. 1 October 1 993 H.O.D. Undfill-Aatioch. lllinon

TABLE 1-1

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONSH.O.D. LANDFILL SITE RI

Acronym1.1-DC A1.2-DCA1,2-DCPA1,2-DCEU-DCEAOCARARASTMATVBETXBRACECCERCLA

CLPCRQLDCEFSHELP ModelI.D.MCLMSLNCPNPLO.D.PCBPIDPQLPSER/TS

Description1.1-dichloroe thane1.2-dichloroethane1,2-dichloropropane1,2-dichloroethene1.1-dichloroethene -Administrative Order by ConsentApplicable or Relevant and Appropriate RequirementAmerican Society of Testing MaterialsAll Terrain VehicleBenzene, Ethylbenzene, Toluene, and XyleneBaseline Risk AssessmentCation Exchange CapacityC o m p r e h e n s i v e E n v i r o n m e n t a l R e s p o n s eCompensation and Liability ActContract Laboratory ProgramContract Required Quantitation Limit1.2-dichloroetheneFeasibility StudyHydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance ModelInner DiameterMaximum Contaminant LevelMean Sea LevelNational Contingency PlanNational Priorities ListOuter DiameterPolychlorinated BiphenylsPhotoionization DetectorPractical Quantitation LimitPreliminary Site Evaluation Report/Technical Scope

AcronymPVCQAQCRISARASDWASiteSQLSVOCTALTCETCLTDSTICTOCusesUSDAU.S. EPAUSGSVOCWEG

DescriptionPolyvinyl ChlorideQuality AssuranceQuality ControlRemedial InvestigationSuperfund Amendments and Reauthorization ActSafe Drinking Water ActH.O.D. Landfill SiteSample Quantitation LimitSemivolatile Organic CompoundTarget Analyte ListTrichloroetheneTarget Compound ListTotal Dissolved SolidsTentatively Identified CompoundTotal Organic CarbonUnified Soil Classification SystemUnited States Department of AgricultureUnited States Environmental Protection AgencyUnited States Geological SurveyVolatile Organic CompoundWater Elevation Gauge

(CM 6D9 90dj

Table 3-1Soil Testing Results

FromLandfill Cap EvaluationH.O.D. Landfill RI/FS

TEST PITNUMBER

1•}

-i

45678910

10-DUP

LAYER

DDDECDB 'D -EDD

DEPTH(inches)

24-3134-4026-3641-5517-2041-65

8-3556-8229-8430-6230-62

•

12345678910

-----~--~----~--

18-3225-3826-4030-4215-3039-5335-5058-7029-4243-55

2 : 21-313 -- 24-34610

!

-

16-2629-39

GRAINSIZECLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCL

ATTERBURGLIMITSLL/PI34/1531/1438/2133/1633/1638/1946/2534/1634/1733/1631/15

MOISTURECONTENT

(%)18.714.319.417.613.718.223.814.833.616.115.6

NATURAL LABORATORY PROCTORDENSITY PERMEABILITY ANALYSIS(Ibs/cu ft) (cm/secl dbs/cu r'n

_--..„

. __

-..-_

- - -- 115.5- - 109.3--

--

16.219.6 .

9.03E-091.04E-08

117.7- - - 116.4- ~ 18.6 3.70E-08

128.3- ~ 14.5 3.00E-08

121. 9

126_ .. _ 126

130132

Note:-- denotes nol applicable

CCH/cch/DAPJ:\l001020ntechnica\geotable\samplej.xls

SAMPLES.XLSPage 1

Table 3-2Boutwell Apparent

Vertical ConductivityH.O.D. Landfill RI/FS

BOUTWELLNUMBER

12345678910

APPARENTVERTICAL

CONDUCTIVITY(cm/sec)1.02E-053.67E-084.22E-087.77E-089.08E-075.97E-081.04E-078.86E-061.6 IE-054.69E-08

CCH/ccli/DAPI:\1001020 l/technica/«oiable/boui5uni..\!s

Paae 1BOUTSUM.XLS

TABLE 3-3

Landfill Cap Thickness and VerticalExtent of Refuse

H.O.D. Landfill RI/FS

BoringLPlLP2LP3LP4~LP5LP6LP7LP8LP9LP10LPliLP12LP13LP14TPlTP2TP3 "TP4TP5TP6TP7TP8TP9TP10BlB2B3B4B5GWF1GWF2GWF3GWF4GWF5GWF6GWF7GWF8GWF9GWF10GWF11GWF12GWF13GWF14

Notes:

Depth to Refuse l f t >5.04.0

Depth to Base Material (ft)23.0

Cup Thickness (f t i5.0

40.0 4.0'."' 5:6 "_ --i- -- - - 28,5_ . . . ........ 5.0! 4.0"i . ..«;;;;_.,

..! 4:5: 5.QI 7-°

8.0: s7o; 9.0. _ _ _ ^ _

«

40.051.040.0 "62.0"70.568.528.533.025.5"17.b"23.5

; 6.5 j. . . _ _ . . . . 4 - . _

. ; . . . . 5 .8* ] "i'.3

} ' 5 7 2i 4.1I 5.4; 5.0

6.87.0"

1 5^2; 5.0

4.6 :

; 4.oi 4.0

5.05.0

" 5.0 "5.05.0"5.05.05.0

' 5.05.05~0

! 5 .0" "1 5.0... _. ...

i 5.°.

ii '

--. . . =i: :. :_~_—

. ._ . ..._L3..10.010.5

r 13.51 17.0

42+"47.6+4s!o+45.0^"55.0+ "41.0+48.0+48.0+

; 48.0+38.6+40.0+22.0+45.6+43.0+

1 " """ "~" •""• " 'i

4.0|P .4.55 . 0 ""7.6""8.05.09.04~5"_.„_.

4.56.5s7s7.3

"5*724.15.4. . . . .; 5:06.87.05.25.04^0

" " " 4.04.05.05.05.05.05.05.05.05.05.05.05.05.05.05.05.0

. . . . . . _

i

Refuse Thickness (ft~i18.0

: 36.0\ 23.5

36.0j 46.5

'35.557.063.5

". 60.5' 235

24.021.0

: I2.o' 19.6

----

. .1.— - .:: .. _.--

i - - ;;•;3.36.055

' y.5; 12.0i 37 0+

42.0+40.+

40.0+50.0+36.0+43.0+

; 43.0+43.0+

: 33.0+; 35.0+: 17.0+

40.0+1 38.0+

•

+ Base Material not encountered. Tllickness of refuse may be greater than actual Tllickness represented.-- Base Material not encountered in Test Pits.

DAP/jrs/PMSJ 1001020L\gecHabltf\rffuw.xls

TABLE 3-4

Lanfill Gas ProbeField Screening Results

June 4,1993H.O.D. Landfill RI/FS

Probe Number % Methane % Carbon Dioxide % Oxygen

LPOlLP06LP07LP08LP11GP3GP4AGP5A

0.067.765.4

; 67.672.30.00.00.0

0.432.234,431.126.70.00.00.0

20.50.10.10.10.1

20.920.820.9

!:

DAP/jrs/PMSM001020l\geotable\sasprob.xls

TABLE 3-5Sequoit Creek Staff Gage and

Stand Pipe Water Levels6/8/93-6/9/93

H.O.D. Landfill RI/FS

6/8/93-6/9/93Staff Gauge (PSG)

and Stand Pipe {SONumberPSG-1SC-1ASC-1BSC-1CSC-IDPSG-11

"SC-'lA *" ;"SC-IBV 1

SC-IC*.sc-ip*. ;"PSG-2" ;

SC-2A"SC-2B •SC-2C 'SC-2D ' \PSG-3 '• 'PSG-3SC-3BSC-3CSC-3DPSG-4~SC-4A ;SC-4BSC-4CSC-4D

S101Surface Water Level atEPA Well Point (SIOl)

Notes:

NA =.. . . „„ ,

._Toc.=a =b =

" fl) =-

Elevations Surveved bv

Ground TOCElevation Elevation Total Ground water i Groundwater(ft msi) (ft msi) Depth (ft) Level (ft) Elevation (ft msi)

763.79 ' " NA ~" ; 1,7 ; 762.16764.7766.4762.9762.94

764.7"766.4 '762.9 :

762.94 ;

763.2766" ;

763.2763.4"

769.9 ,767.7 '767.1

768.8 !768.1765.8766.3762.5

766.84 ;769.34 :765.44766.39 ;763.79 "T"766.84769.34 '765.44766.39762.53 «765.09767.24 :

764.51 "'764.77762.86 ,762.86770.6770.26 !769.77762.45 :

770.22770.44768.53769.6765.49

765.49

14.924 '....

;NA :

15.123.95

18 ;

22.35 .NA ;

20 :1515 :

NA !NA ;

17.25 i17.08 :13.85NA....30

20.17248.9

NA

4.23 i6.22 I....

2.98 :4.11 :

.5,16. _ _ j _2.57 '3.222.1

2-91. „.;..4.8 12.14 j2.4 ;2.31.64 ':8.71W • •!*5.09

1.49.369.6

7.638.682.25

2.45

762.61763.12....

763.44762.73764.18762.87763.17761.3

762.18762.44762.37762.37761.83761.17761.89761.95764.68760.52760.86760.84760.9760.92763.24

763.04

8/18/93-8/19/93 :

GroundwaterDepth to Water

1.8*4.7

7.213.25b4.26 bNANANANANA2.043.595.5

2.69 b2.92 b

1.569.198.75

Broken1.8

10.3510.288.319.422.94 >

Dry"

Measurement Not Collected

GroundwaterElevation

7612*762.14

: 762.15762.1976113

NANANANANA

! 761.24: 76.1-5

761.74761 '.82

! 761.85

761.09761.4

76 1 .5 1769.77760.92759.S7760.167ftO,:2760.2

762 55

7 6 5. -!•'.)

Not ApplicableStand Pipe Broken •T o p ofCasingj _ _ _ _ . . . ,Measurements obtained on 6/9/93 :Measurements obtained on 9/3/93 iWater Levels collected by Western Gulf Coast Laboratories ; i

- - - J - - - , - . . . . — — . . , H - - -

1 i

f , - - - . . . .

Gentile and Associates, Inc. for Warzyn on June

• • i

28 through July 1,1993"

SJC/jrs/DAP/SJCi: 1001020 l/geotable/Stndpipe.xb

PSG 1

TABLE 3-6Sequoit Creek Flow Measurements

Sequoit CreekH.O.D. Landfill RI/FS

June 8, 1993

Station i\o.1234

No flow, the

PSG2

Station No.12345678

Depth ofWater

im1.501.681.701.40

water is full

Depth ofWater

Ift}0.620.931.111.381.701.031.111.00

Revolutionsof Standard

Meter0000

ElapsedTime(sec.)

90606060

Velocity1"(ft/sec.)

0000

DistanceBetweenStations

101I111

Area ofStation :'(ft : )

1.501.681.701.40

Flow j

(ft ' /sec.)NoneNoneNoneNone

(to the surface) of elodea weed.

Revolutionsof Standard

Meter430138930

ElapsedTime(sec.)

6060606060606060

Velocit]1

0.340.310.000.670.490.530.310.00

DistanceBetweenStations

Iffi11111111

Area ofStation"'

0.620.931.111.381.70

- 1.031.111.00

Flow"<fl j /sec.)

0.2140.288None0.9250.8330.5460.344None3.15

Total discharge is 3.15 fl 3 /sec.

SGW/jrs/JAH/SJCf: lOOlOIOi/seoiable/sirmgaae.xIs

Paae 1

TABLE 3-6Sequoit Creek Flow Measurements

Sequoit CreekH.O.D. Landfill RI/FS

PSG3 June 8,1993

Station No.12345678910111213

Depth of\Vater

tm0.230.410.511.301.481.511.451.211.211.051.000.750.46

Total discharge is 6.065

PSG4

Station No.1234567891011 .Total !

Depth ofWater

Ifil0.500.901.181.281.802.201.501.010.780.680.45

Revolutionsof Standard

Meter0013131613191231000

ft '.sec.

Revolutionsof Standard

Meter00001793000

ElapsedTime(sec.)

60606060606060606060606060

ElapsedTime(sec.)

6060606060606060606060

Velocity "'(ft/sec.)

0.000.000.670.670.780.670.890.640.310.240.000.000.00

Velocity"1

(ft/sec.)0.000.000.000.000.240.450.530.310.000.000.00

DistanceBetweenStations

(ft)1111I11111111

DistanceBetweenStations

ill)22222222222

Area ofStation '"(ft : )0.230.410.511.301.481.511.451.211.211.051.000.750.46

Area ofStation ':i( f t : )

1.001.802.362.563.604.403.002.021.561.360.90

Discharge is 5.064 ft ' 'sec.

Flow '"(ft ' /sec.)

NoneNone0.3430.871

1.151.011.29

0.7740.3750.252NoneNoneNone6.065

Flow(ft1 /sec.)

NoneNoneNoneNone0.8641.981.590.63NoneNoneNone5.064

Notes:1. Velocity is reported in feet per second (fps) calculated for the Standard Gurley meter by:

Velocity = 2.13(r) + 0.2 where R = Revolutions/elapsed time (sec.)2. Area of the station is reported in square feet ( f t ' ) and calculated by multiplying the depth

of water by the distance between stationns.3. Flow is reported in cubic feet per second (ft : /sec.) and calculated by multiplying velocity

by the area of the station.4. Total discharge is the sum of the individual stations flow, reported in ft /sec.5. The stations in the creek were located in the main channel ot" the creek. At locations PSGI and

PSG2 the channel from the bank to bank was wider than what is given on this table, but waterwas between 3 and 5 inches deep with cattails, thus now measurement could not be made.

SGW/jrs/JAH/SJCJ:I0010201/geotable/sirmgage.x!s

TABLE 3-7Geotechnical Laboratory Results

H.O.D. Landfill RI/FS

SamplePointSU01SU02SU03SU04SU04(D)SI'05W2DW2DW2DW2D(D)W2DW3SBW3DW3DW5SW5SW6SW6S(D)W7DW7D(D)W7D

—

B lBlB2AB2B3B3B4B4|D)B4B5B5

LocationSurfaceSurfaceSurface

; Surface• SurfaceSurface

• Profilei ProfileProfile

i ProfileScreen interval

i ProfileProfile

; Profile--.- ——— - - ---- —— -- ——

i Screen interval; Screen intervali Screen interval1 Screen intervalProfileProfile

i ProfileProfile

: Pro fileProfileProfileProfileProfileProfileProfileProfileProfileProfile

Depth( f t )

0-10-10-10-1

;0-i0-1

'7-9'29-31:32-34'32-34,86-88: 18-2036-38

,38-40;7-9! 12-14112-141 12-14i2-4'2-4,27-2925-27

131-331 15-1734-36

'22-24: 46-4837-3937-3947-4929-3145-47

M iGSA:0.6/20.1/2S.1/31.24.9/32.4/47.0/15.73.0/25.5/43.2/28.30.5/60.5/23.2/15.8

: 1.2/62.0/20.6/16.2'6.6/33.1/33.5/26.80.6/10.8/54.8/33.8•-3.3/2.3/33.3/61.1

: 0.1/2.0/33.4/64.515.3/78.0/5.1/1.6

' 10.4/80.7/5.7/3.2.-,5.0/44.0/28.8/22.2. __ . _ » —— . _ _ ~ .._ . _ _

'18.5/41.4/30.6/9.5'8.8/70.6/16.5/4.10.0/87.6/9.9/2.5'0.0/86.9/10.1/3.0.0.0/10.5/55.5/34.0.0.9/96.9/0.3/1.9j 1.4/4.1/32.8/61.7»_ ... _ . , . . . _. —

.30.5/62.8/4.3/2.40.7/7.9/43.7/47.718.3/73.9/5.7/2.1

:7.9/21. 1/38.5/32.5; 18.2/67 .6/10.5/3.7:0.7/1 1.2/43.3/44.82.3/70.4/23.5/3.81.1/67.7/27.6/3.60.9/7.7/52.3/39.117.3/69.5/8.8/4.40.4/8.5/42.4/48.7

,P200

59.362.771.539

, 36.8: 60.3

88.6-

; 94.4: 97.9

6.78.9-51f— ———— - __ -

• 40.1i 20.6, 12,4: 13.1i 89.5

2.2' 94.5

——— r r.

6.7. 91.41 7.8

71, 14.2

88.11 27.3

31.291.413.291.1

' j iL.L. P

; 281 33 ;

5126 '

: 25: 29 i

30 ,1

: 38i 38i

i 18 >\ 63; -_- r}"-." r-j- . - . . ii r. ;.• 33 i': 34, 31

23-

'• 27 :--

. 25-29

VerticalLaboratory

4 PermeabilityI- 1CM/S)12S

2110912 ;11- i 1.50E-081919-- i

1.70E-086 ;

— -,

NP .

i14 ._

15 :-15-9-12_-11-13

TotalJb Organic

L'SCS CarbonCLCLMHSCscCLCLCL 3.6CLCL

SP-SMSW-SM •

CL 1.64CL/ML ,

SM 11.7SMSM 'SMCLSPCL

SP-SMCL

1 SP-SMCLSMCLSMSMCLSMCL

EstimatedTotalPorositv

-------

0.33_--_

0.24_------_----------

Footnotes:11) GSA = Grain Size Analysis. % by weight, e.g..

gravel/sand/silt/clay gravel/sand/sitt&clav5/43/20/32 _ -6/68/6

12) P200 = Percent finer than No. 200 sieve, (sill and clay)(3) LL= Liquid Limit t%)i4) PFPlasticity Index :(5) USCS = Unified Soil Classification System(6) = Total Organic Carbon loss on ignition %<D) = DuplicateNotes: .1. -- = Not tested2. *a Shelby Tube Sample ________________

DAP.'jrs/PMSJ: 10010201\geoiabk\geolab.xU

Table 3-8

Summary of Soil Testing ResultsH.O.D. Landfill RI/FS

Boring No.

LB1LB1LB1LB2LB2LB3LB4LB4ALB4ALB4ALB4ALB9LB9LB9LB9LB10LB10LB10LB10LB2LB2LB3LB4AGW3IGW3IGW2DLB10+LB10+LB10 +LB2LB2LB3LB4AAL384AU85AL386AL387AL388AL389

SampleDepth ffn

13,0 to 173203 to 25263 to 317.0 to 83113101353 to 710.0toll322.0 to 233383to4040.0 to 443543 to 56383 to 113143 to 1925.0 to 29349.0 to 53310.0 to 14316.0 to 20343.0 to 4646.0 to 503183 to 193643 to 65316.0 to 173683 to 703493 to 5155.0 to 57319.0 to 213563 to 5858.0 to 593593 to 61183 to 193643 to 65316.0 to 173683 to 7036.0 (Day Sample)5.0 (Clay Sample)S3 (Clay Sample)103 (Clay Sample)63 (Clay Sample)83 (Silty Sand)

Results ofGravel f%l

4633523867430

576875439

575250494547840012000

0

Sand WA Silt (%)

44 - 1057 - 1036 - 1254 - 827 - 654 - 392 - 841 - 227 - 520 - 554 - 372 - 1935 - 838 - 1040 - 1046 - 552 - 344 - 913 - 327 3247 1825 4543 3110 2423 2438 44

Clav f %)..._,.,_..

.

.,.41352924665318

HydraulicConductivity(cm/sec)

6.3x10-3'4.7x10-*'1.4x10-3*5.0x10-3"4.1x10-2"1.2xlO-2"5.0x10-3"4.4x10-2"7.3x10-2"1.4x10-1"1.4x10-2"

13x10-2'3.8x10"*'5.9x10-3"UxlO-3-1.3x10-3'2.0x10-2"7.7x10-1"1.1x10-8"1.1x10-8"1.2x10 "1.0x10-8"_2.3x10*1. 2x10-6I.lxlfr6'2.9x10-6'6.9xlO-7'1.1x10-8'1.1x10-8'1.2x10-8'1.0x10-8*3.4x10-8 (2.7x10-8)1.9x10-8 (1.6x10-8)8.4x10-8 (6.0x10-8)9.0x10-9 (83x10-9)1.6x10-8(13x10-52.1x10-7 (1-5x10-0

Source ofTest Results

PELAPELAPELAPELAPELAPELAPELAPELAPELAPELAPELAPELAPELAPELAPELAPELAPELAPELAPELAPELAPELAPELAPELAU.S. EPA ESIU.S. EPA ESILJ.S. EPA ESIPELAPELAPELAPELAPELAPELAPELAGeoServicesGeoServicesGeoServicesGeoServicesGeoServicesGeoServices

Notes:

PELA - P.E. LaMoreaux and AssociatesESI - Expanded Site Inspection ReportWhere samples have been analyzed for silt plus clay the grain size percentage is shown in the column between silt and clay.+ Samples were disturbed and dehydrated. Results may not be representative.* Constant Head Permeability*' Permeability estimated by Hazen's FormulaGeoServices •GeoServices, Boynton Beach, Florida. GeoServices results presented in parentheses were obtained using Site leachate

u the penneant. Other GeoServices results were obtained using ground-water obtained from the Site.

(chi 609 90b]

TABLE 3-9Monitoring Well Water Levels

6/8/93-6/9/93H.O.D. Landfill RI/FS

WellNumber

•US IS-i ;s i D-US2D-US3S-US3I

+US3D•US4S••-US4D1-US5D-US6S-US6I

1-US6D ,-US7S "'•+GHS '-CUD \-G14S '.-cub-GI02 '*Rl03

*W:RD*W3SA"W;SB

-rW3D•W4S*W5S"W6S-rW7D

+PZ1^PZ2

-P21U'P72IJ*PZ_MJ•PZ4U-IV.5U•PZ6U

Soles:

Ground TOICElevation ift msl) Elevation ift msl)

"'-6.5766.^763.2767.1767.01767.1771.1770.5765.1767.1767.6767.1764.4

767.6767.1767.6767.7771.1767.6770.7763.8763.7763.73767.5771.1764.9730.2786.2763

763.9764.1763.4763.37693763.6

763.69768.88770.73770.48769.93769.72773.67772.7

767.73769.9

770~21 '770.09767.99

770.12769.99770.34769.75 i773.53 \769.55 \773.04 ;

766.54766.81765.93769.97773.49767.41732.87788.48766.44766.41768.04766.27766.49771.11766.54

TotalDepth (ft)

--wwww25.4

59.95wwwwwwV.VJ

....

....ww

35.95 "1

--wwwwww---

88.33 !15.6429.57 :

78 ]15

15.36 \15 ;

99.72119.574.2627.2519.8630.7530.3534.5954.1

6/8/93-6/9/93 9/18/93Groundwater Groundwater Depth lo Water

Leveh ft)4.3

38.2441.248.3936.0041.3f11.8244.0937.557.4532.15 "~40.395.544.749.315."l96.6511.697-'

42.34.244.5536.667.85"11.654.9552.0656.3429.423.474.893.4

3.427.493.5

" = Near surt'ace/surt'icial sand well/water table well+• =

- =PZl =

W6S =

GUS/R103-USIS-

(ft msl) =WW.

Deep sand and gravel aquifer welIntermediate diarruct wellP.E. Lamoreaux w^ellsWarzvn wellsTSC WellsUSEPA WellsFeel above mean sea level

NATOIC

( t )(A)

Elevation (ft msl )764.39730.64729.49

' 762 .'.•/•)' 733.93! 728.41

761.85: 728.61i 730.18i 762.45 :

; " 738.06; 729.7

. ' 76:-45

765.38\ "760'.68' 765.15i " '763,'l

J " 761.84 " '[762.45 ;

': "730.74 •762.3

• 762.26: 729.27

762.12761.84762.46730.8 1731.64737.02762.94763.15762.87763.07763.62763.04

= Measurement not collected= Not applicable= Top of Inner Casing

from TOIC6. IS33.9542.19S.S837.5

40.5712.25 .43.4

38.128.2

23.8940,456.95

Dry9.93Dry3.1212.563.11

43.024.9

5.1535.638.3412.071S852.957.829A

4.32A5.964.454.53R.794.63

(iroundwatiTEMuilmi

",,-• ^ •":«4?~2S ^4"61.6

732.-13729.15761.4272*:. 3

"2l.Vil~'!l .8

746.327?). 64761.04

Dry760.01

Dry-70 1.63760.97761.44

?3().02761.64"6 1 .66T 30 3

76 1 .6.'~6i.4:761.55"29.97"30. AS

737.44. A'7^:.<::<"u-\.

~r^ i ' \~ / l i . S 2>i;-'-7f)" >""Td 1 >j ] :

= Water levels collected by Wester Gulf Coast Laboratory's, Inc.= Elevations recorded on September .?. 199?

Total depth nieasurmems were not collected din: to !Well Wizard installed in well

Elevations sun-eyed by Gentile and Associates. Inc for Warzvn on June 23 ttirouah July 1. 1993.

SJC/jrs/D.\P/SJCJ: 1001020 l/geowble/nwwlrlvl.xk

Table 3-10

In Situ Hydraulic Conductivity ResultsH.O.D. Landfill RI/FS

Well No.W3SBW4SW5SW3DUS1SUS3SUS4SUS6SUS3DUS6D

SaturatedTest Interval

(feet msl)762-734.1

761.9-752.5762.3 - 755.6

*764.7 - 754.1761.8-744.6762.3 - 748.2762.7 - 725.4

*if

SaturatedThickness

im27.99.46.745

10.617.214.137.34545

HydraulicConductivity

(cm/sec)7.10E-029.40E-032.90E-033.80E-043.60E-042.10E-022.30E-025.20E-021.60E-04UOE-03

MaterialScreened(USCS)

SPSP-GP

SMSP

GMGW-GMSW-GWSP-GW

SPSP

Notes:* - Estimated saturated Ulickness for confined aquifer of 45 feet

based upon regional data(msl) = feet above mean sea level(cm/sec) = centimeters per second(USCS) = Unified Soil Classification System

PMS/jrs/SJCJ: I0010201/geo(abltf/hodslug.xls

Table 3-11

Summary of Slug Test AnalysisConducted by U.S. EPA FIT*

H.O.D. Landfill RI/FS

Unit MonitoredWell No. BvWell

US1S Surficial SandUS1D Deep Sand & GravelUS2D Deep Sand & GravelUS3S Surficial SandUS3I Clay DiamictUS3D Deep Sand & GravelUS4S Surficial SandUS4D Deep Sand & GravelUS5D Deep Sand & GravelUS6S Surficial SandUS6I Clay DiamictUS6D Deep Sand & GravelUS7S Clay Diamict

(Sand Lease)

Conductivity (cm/sec) Transmlssivity (T) (ft2/sec) Conductivity (K) (cm/sec)(Hvorseiv Method) (Cooper Method) (T=Kb: b = screen length)

4.8xlO-4

2.7x10-27.9x10-6

5.3x10-2

7.0xlO-2

S.OxlO'6

5.8x10-3

3.0xlO-4

2.1x10-3

5.2xlO-4

2.6x10-3

3.0x10-4

1.8xlO-3

13xlO-2

3.1x10-3

l.lxlO'31.6xlO-2

1.8x10-3

" Source: Ecology and Environment, Inc. 1989.

[chi 609 90b]

TABLE 3-12Vertical Gradient Calculations

H.O.D. Landfill RI/FS

Position ofHead Measurement Elevation

6/8 - 6/9/VWater Level

Well (ft MSL) Elevation (ft MSL)G11D 746.80US5D , 684.85US4S 745.00US4D 700.00W3SB • 734.16W3D 693.23PZ2U 747.60US2D i 684.20

760.68730.18761.85729.00762.26729.27 i763.15730.74 :

VerticalGradient

(ft/ft)

049

0.73

0.81

0.51W3SA 762.30W3SB : 734.13 \US3S : 726.50US3D ! 697.20US6S 715.10US6D : 694.30US1S : ' 753.40USID . 691.50US6S ! 718.10US6I : 706.10

+US6I i 706.10US6D i 694.30US3S 726.50+US3I : 711.10+US3I 711.10US3D 697.20 .

762.30762.26762.09728.41 :762.45 i729.70 i764.39730.64 j762.45738.06738.06729.70762.09733.93733.93728.41

0.0014*

1.15

1.57

0.55

2.03

0.71

1.83

0.40

Notes:1 . Position of Head Measurement is Ube elevation of the top of2. Positive vertical gradients indicate downward flow, negative

clav and the bottom of clav.indicate upward flow.

3. Vertical Gradient * i' Shallow Well Head Elevation • Deep Well Head Elevation '| Absolute Value of Difference between the elevation 01' top clay diamict and bottom clay diamict+i ' |

5. (ft MSL) = Feet above Mean Sea Level i* = Gradient Calculated in Surficial Sand using water table and center of screen elevations+ = Center of screen elevation used for intermediate wells.$JC/jrs/DAP jJ:l0010201/geotable/vertgrad.xls '

TABLE 3-13Leachatc Elevations

II.O.D. Landfill RI/FS

PiezometerNumlier

LP1LP2LP3LP4LP5LP6IJ*7LP8LP9

LPIOLPI1LPI2LP13

_ LPJ4 __

Notes:

GroundElevation

775.6785.5778.1788.9796.6794.6794.7793.5

" 785.8781.1787.8782.6779.0781.7

Depth toBase of Refuse

23.040.0 _,28.540.051.040.062.070.568.528.533.025.517.0

^ 2 3 5

Landfill llaseKlevation

752.6745.5749.6748.9745.6754.6732.7723.0717.3752.6754.8757.1762.0758.2

Depths and leacliale head are in feelHlevations in feet mean sea levelTOIC = Toj> of Inner Casing [Elevations si(a) = f,cachu

rveyed by Genlile and Assnciake levels collected by Weston Ciu

TOICKlevation

778.46787.8780.89790.84800.13797.32797.39796.35789.16783.92790.61784.85781.68784.27

ls, Inc. for War

Total Pie/.Depth20^31

3.525.53950

36.56170

66.523

29.222.5

1722.5

/yii on JuneIf Coast laboratories, Inc.

Depth toLeachate

12.7120.9315.5619.4740.320.6522.7544.0526.7619.2520.5420.5615.4620.2

28 through Jul

S/4/V3l,«achatel^levatitm

765.75766.87765.33771.37759.83776.6777464752.3762.4764.67770.07764.29766.22764.07

y 1, 1993.

Leach 11 te HcaiAbove Itase

13.221.415.722.514222.141.929.345 II2 ' l15.37.24.25.9

Depth InLeacluttc

11.3IX. 116

17.7238.917.6822. S42426.1I7.X519.X19.9

15.1319.43

K/2l l /<M<a)1 , cat halt-l'!lcvali(iii

7<i7.l9769. S

- 764 .X')773.12761.23779.64774.59753.957fi3.0(>70607770.X 1764.95766.55764. X4

Lcai-hiiU- MendAlmvi- Hasi1

M 624.115.324.2IX(>25041 931.04S.XIV. 5l(v<)7')4.5(16

SJf/|rs/l>AI1

TABLE 4-1Regulatory Limits

H.O.D. Landfill RI/FS

ANALYSISTYPE

vocvex;vocvex:vocvocvocvocvocvocvocvocvex:vocvocvocvocvocvocvocvocVOC -GasVOC -GasVOC-GasVOC-GasVOC-GasVOC-GassvocsvocSVOCsvocSVOCsvocsvocsvocsvocsvocsvocsvocsvocsvocsvocsvocsvocsvocsvocPPCBPPCB

PARAMETER

l.l-Dichloroeihane1.1-Didilorceiliene1.2-Dichlorccihane1.2-Diciiiorcethein: icis/irans)1.2-Dichloropropane2-Butanone2-Hexanone4- Met h y 1 - 2 - pen t anoneAcetoneBenzeneCarbon disulfideChlorobenzcneChloroethaneChloromethaneElhvlbenzeneMethylene chlorideTetrachloroetheneTolueneTrichloroetheneVinyl chloride

•Xylenes (total)1 .2.4-Trimethylbenzene1 .3.5 -Trime thy 1 benzene

'4-Ethyl tolueneTrichlorotluoromethane (Freon 1 1 )Dichloroietrafluoroethane (Freon 1 14)

"Dichlonxlifiuoromeihane (Freon 12)1,4-Dichloro benzene2.4-Dimelhylphenol2-Meihylnaphthalene2-Methylphenol4-Chloroaniline4 -Methyl phenolAcenaphtheneAnthraceneBenzo(b)tluoranthenebis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalateCarbazoleDibenzofuran

' Diethylphthalate: FluorantheneRuoreneNaphthalenePhenanthrenePhenolPyrene

•4.4--DDD:Aroclor-1016

L.S.EPA Illinois Groundwater QuaJily StandardsCnits MCL Class I Class II

u*/Luii/L 7 7 55ua/L 5 5 25ua/L 70/100 70/100 200/500ua/L 5 5 25ug/Luz/Luz/LU2/L

uz/L 5 5 25uz/Luz/L 100 100 500ug/L

: Ug/L

ug/L 700 700 1000ug/L 5ug/L 5 5 2 5

: ug/L 1000 1000 2500ug/L 5 5 2 5

.ug/L 2 2 1 0uz/L 10000 10000 IDOOO

mg/m3mg/m3

i mg/m3mg/m3mg/m3mz/m3

ug/L 75 75 375ug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Luz/Luz/Luiz/Lua/L 0.2ug/L 4uz/Luz/Lu^/Lug/L

: ug/L; ug/L

ug/Lug/L 100 100ug/Lug/Lug/L • 0.5 ' 5 2.5

Panel

TABLE 4-1Regulatory LimitsH.O.D. Landfill RI/FS

ANALYSISTYPE PARAMETER

MTLMTLMILMTLMTLMTLMTLMTLMTLMTLMTLMTLMTLMTLMTLMTLMTLMTLMTLMTLMTLMTLINDINDINDINDINDINDINDINDINDIND

AluminumArsenicBariumBerylliumCadmiumCalciumChromium, totalCobaltCopperCyanide. TotalIronLeadMagnesiumManganeseMercurv

1 NickelPotassiumSilver

1 SodiumThalliumVanadiumZincAlkalinity. TotalChlorideHardnessNitrate NitrogenNitrite NitrogenNitroaen. AmmoniaSulfateTotal Dissolved SolidsTotal Organic CarbonPH

Units

us2''LU2/L

Ua/L

ua/Lua/Lug/Lug/Lue/Lua/Lua/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lua/Lug/Lug/Lug/L

; ug/Lua/Luz/Lug/L

: ug/Lmz/L

; mg/Li mg/L

mg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmz/Lrna/L

SI

L.S.EPAMCL

5050

200015

100

100020030015

502

100

100

2

5000

250

10

250500

Qlinois Groundwater Quality StandardsCbss I Class II

502000

5

1001000650200

50007.5

1502

100

50

5000

200

10

4001200

6.5 - 9.0

200:ooo

50

iooo1000^50600

500i)100

1000010

2000

10000

200

100

4001200

6.5 - ').()

Tnis table presents regulatory limits tor all compounds detected at the HOD Landfill RI/FS Site.

1. MCL is the U.S.EPA Maximum Contaminant Level.2. Class I Is the Illinois EPA Groundwater Quality Standard for Potable Resource Groundwaters.3. Class Q is the Illinois EPA Groundwater Quality Standard for Potable Resource Groundwalers.

Revised 8/27/93[J: 10010201 :REGLIST.XLS/JAH/]

Pa«e2

TABLE -I-:Summary Of Background Metals and Indicator Results

H.O.D. Landfill RI/FS

Samples StandardParameter Analvzed Minimum Maximum Average Delation Background Value

Arse rue 23 ; 0.5Banum 30 25

Cakiurn ?« 3.000 76

10 209 2 .44 . 6.97,100 ! 70«_; _ ^ 23.5 " " ' 118

> ' 1.4S" " 0 5 3 _ "" "252000 : 35.245 13.480 , 62.205

Copper 25 15; 71 ' 6 X) •• 14.15 [ 34 6Lead 22 25 26 , 6.98 681 20 59Magnesium 56 ' 2.?00 75.700 \ 29.846 r '2-115 " 54.076Mercurv , 21 ' 25 150 ' 41 .2 ' 38.5 '• 118Nickel ! _23 , 1.0 _Potassium ' 34 ' 910 i 5Selenium I 2: - 0.50Silver : 22 2 50

Database Description

ARSENIC. DISSOLVED - l.'Ol. AS AS ,BARri'M. DISSOLVED IUC-..L AS BACADMIUM. DISSOLVED iU(;,L AS CD-CALCIUM. DISSOLVED -UG/L AS C.ACOPPER. DISSOLVED . L G-L AS CU>LE.* D. DISSOLVED i UG-t A S PB )MAGNESIUM. DISSOLVED! UOrt. AS MG .MERCI.'RY. DISSOLVED ,UOL US HG

100 i 3.87 | _r_9_6J 50. 10 NICKEL DISSOLVED . UG,L AS NT100 ! 1.624 ^ 650 j 2.923 j POTASSIUM. DISSOLVED -UC-L AS K

1 .00 0.52 0.11 J_ 0.7410 2.84 1.60 | 6.04

Sodium ; 58 '• 9.000. 83.000 j 42,205 i 13.41 lr 69.028ZiK 23 ^ 100 2 1 2 ! 14.3' 43.9 ! 102Total Metals iAluminum ! IS 25 1Anenjc ; 18 0.50Barium _ i JS ; 35Beryllium 1 34 0.25 [Boron ; 18 228Cadmium ' 18 1.50 •

i j i

364 99.4 3 1 5 6 1_j_ 7'126 j 2.62 5.95 ._ 14 5

182 638 32.3 r 1281.00 0.45 ! 0.24 i ""'0.92

SELENIUM. DISSOLVED < Uti-L AS SEiSILVER. DISSOLVED i UG/L AS AG)SODIUM. DISSOLVEDlUGL AS N.vZINC. DISSOLVED • UG/L AS ZNi

ALL'MCsX'M. TOTAL 'UG/L AS ALiARSENIC TOTAL (UG-L AS AS)BARIUM, TOTAL il'G'L AS BAiBERYLLIUM. TOTAL i UG/L AS BE i

419 i 339 56 04 j 451 [BORON. TOTAL (UG/L AS 81 _1.50 ! 1.50 0' 1.50 icADMIUM.TOTALfUG-LASCDi

Calcium ! 18 i 29.000 73,000! 38.889 [ ".245j_ 61.380 i CALCIUM. TOTAL (UG/L AS CAi3iromium ! 40 2 50Cobalt ' 3 7 2 5 0Copper i 18 250Iron ; 55 | 100Lead '• 17 2.50 !Magnesium ] 18 25.00000, 41Mannnese 28 5.00

10 2.69^ 1.19! 5.06 JCHROMIUM.TOT.\L(UC/LASCR)900 2.96 1.46 [ 5.899.00 2.86 j f.53 j 5.93620 380 158 i 6y7S.Oot 2.97 143 "p 5.83000 i 31.056 5.047! 41.149

16 . 9.50 3.04 15.6Mercurv l 18 ' 001 * 0.06 0.03 0.02 : 0.07Nfckel ' 1 8 2!0 ! 14.00 3.72 2.89; 9.50Potassium 18 0.15 2Selenium 18 0 50

400 i t~72^ 677 . 2.6262.50, 0.641 0.48' 1.60

Silver - 18 ; 1.50 5.00 j 1.89 i 0.99 ; 3.88Sodium 18 23.000 62.000 43.500^ 8.767 ' 61.033Vanadium 34 i 2.00Zinc ' IS ": 25 !Indicators.\lkalimty 58 4 .Thionde diss. '• 38 1 ;

^Hardness . 58 : 18Ammonia 18 ; O.?0Nitrate. Jis. 21 0,05N O 2 - N O ? _ 39 0.05 :

Sulfutediii 57 2

5.00 _ 2.35_: 0.53 ; 3.4150 26 .39" 5 89 ' ' »8.2

254 j 214 ! 40.85 [ 296?] 3.19^" 1.69 ; 6.57

296 189 68.88 3275 " "0,72 ; 1 01 2^74 "1- ' 0.47 0.28 1.031 ' 0.08 ' 0.17 . 0.42

72' 52.0 ' 167 85-5

COBALT. TOTAL (UG/L AS C0>COPPER. TOTALlUG/L AS CU)IRON. TOTAL i UG/L AS FE1LEAD. TOTAL (UG/L AS PBiMAGNESIUM TOTAL (UGL AS MG)MANGANESE. TOTAL i UG/L ASVIN iMERCURY. TOTAL (U&L AS HC 1NICKEL, TOTAL, UG/LAS NI)POTASSIUM. TOT AL(UG;L AS Ki

^SELENIUM. TOTAL (UG/L AS SE iSILVER. TOTAL I.UG/L AS AG iSODIUM. TOTALa'O/L AS NAiVANADIUM TOTAL i UG/L AS v">ZINC. TOTAL (UCvL AS ZN'i-*•ALK-XLtNTTY. TFT RATION TO PH 4 5 > MC-L .V3 CACO jCHLORIDE. DISSOLVED , MG-1 AS CL iHARDNESS. TOTAL iMG.L AS CACOi >NITROOEN. ANLMONIA TOTAL i MG/L AS VNITROOEN. NTTRATE. DISSOLVED < MG«1 AS VNTTROGEN. NITRITE PLUS NITRATE. TOTAL MC L \.- SSULFATE. DISSOLVED 'MG,L AS SO4 .

This tible presents 3 statistical sunuiiary of metal and indicator results from the Illinois Slate Writer Survey s Ground-water Quality Database, for Township 46N. Rina? !' E. Mil Si'Uicns.. •Lake County. Illinois. 98 samples (out of a total of 1917 samples for the county t were found in the daubnse for the specified location. The number ot samples specifwi is tli? i.umturr •uu'1for that parameter. Minimum, maximum, and average values are presented. Background values, used tor comparison to H.O.D. site sample results, are calculated ;is the jvencv pUiimo nthe standard deviauoit of all reported detects. If a constituent was not reported at the detection limit, a value equal to one-half the reported detection limit was used for suiiiUta; anai;, sumetals results are compared to private well sample data (which are not filtered), and dissolved metals results oie compared to groundwater monitoring well daUlwhich are liltet.'J1.

Revision: 8/31/93[chux:/mm/chiwjobs/1001020 I/tec rtfiica/background/bkd-mxIs/JAH/AJ S]

TABLE 4-3

Summary of Landfill Gas ResultsH.O.D. Landfill RI/FS

Compound1.1-Dichloroethane1.1-Diebtoroethene1.2,4-Trime;hylbenzene1 .3. 5-Trime thy 1 benzene2-Butanone4-Ethvl tolueneAcetoneBenzeneCarbon disultideChlorobenzeneCluuroe thaneChlovomeihanecis- 1 .2-DichloroetheneEtliylbenzeneTrichlorofluoromelhane (Freon 11)Dichlorotetrafluoroe thane (Freon 1 14)Dichlorodifluoromethane (Freon 12)Methvlene chlorideTetrachloroetheneTolueneTrichioroetlieneVinvl chlorideXvkncsf total 1

Mol

ecul

ar W

cish

i |

9097

181181

72120587876

113655097

10613717112185

16692

13163

106

= £ C£ — —

*"( "™^ """!

f~- ,•«. -«s

570 2.200

;£ — • J.? — —

^ *•» «-

1.9003.300 8.900 16.000 5.1001.500 : 3.800 6.700

62 5.300 , 15,000 65.000 1.8002.600 6.400 13,000 2.4001.700 ; 9.300 36.000

32 1.300: 3.100 2.100 2.010 2.2002.100

: 830 ' 21.000120 2.200

1.50025 1.500 21.000 5.600 9.500 11.000

150 16.000 48.000 42.000 14.000 15.000440 67.000 1.500

50.000 i1.700 18.000

5.300 6.000 ; 6.60031,000 8.900 lO.(XX) 45.000 43.000

330 7601.800 : 30.000

1.8005.600 18.000 19.000

2.000 41.000 250.000 200.000 75.000 79.000860 13.000 3.200 5.100 5.400

13.000 54.000 33.000 2.800 3.400220 33.000 130.000 100.000 30.000 3!. 00'"'

Notes:1. Tins table presents all volatile compounds detected in landfill gas samples collected from landfill gas wells at HOD Land fit!during May 1993.

2. Sample results are in m«/m3. These values were calculated from units of parts per billion, volume to volume (ppb(v/v \\. areported in the complete analytical reports included in the Appendices. The conversion to mg/m3 is as follows:

mg/m3 = (ppb(v/v) * MW) / 24.45 Liters

Oracle/jah/JAH/AJS[chux. 10010201. technica.chem is try jgas.xlsversion 8/26/93

TABLE 4-4Summary ')f \ ulatile Qrganics Compounds in Groundwater, Surface Water. Surface Soils, and [.

H.O. D. Landfill RI/FS

Kernes

AMPLE ID > I -,1CL

"Mi II

roun«iwa«r - Shallow On-Silf

35

HD-CWWOJS-01HD-GWW?tS-01

19

Groundw»it r • Shallow Off-SiKHD-OWIJSOlS-ll

HD-GWL'SOJS-01HD.GWW03SB-01

HD-OWW04S.J1Ground water • D«*p On-Si(*HD-GWO;iD-01_HDOWl.'SfUD-OlHD-GWtSC-lD-91HD-OWI;SI>SD-OI

rounduattr • Detp Off-SiltHD-OWL'SOlD-01HD-GWUS03D-01HD-G\VWOiI>Ol

:8

Surface Wai«rHD-SWSlOl-.'i

HD-SWSW1-01HD-SWS.-01-OLSurface Soili

UO!7

X

:a>; 55 11:i: 3 r

MD-S1V.5-0;

HD-LCLP'11-)1UD-U'LP)!-*!HD-LCLP- •«•')!HD-l.CLP'-8-OlHD-LCLP11-01HD-LCMHE-H

160450 19/X.-0

19070

3.900 1 JO 740

s:Notti.

1. Tlui uM« pKienii voiMlc ofnnr compound* ikieeied in unpkicoll«(Kililunn| May IS4.1.2. Rciulu nt :n pwii pet Hiiuon ippbi. ujiLfor ground WIK n. wrfa«e »awn. and Mactuw*. and uj.i( t'ji «»li-3 MCU at 'j'.S. EPA Mjxunum Contamin«ni Linuu for (roundwawr Oa» I and GaH II iw 1EPA <iroand wain Quality Siandatda. GaM 1 (poubk tttowoe i jpplici u d*rp und »d jravt!KTOunJwatr. GUI U i^nwru niouroe) applm u> miticul land and clay dianxici grouinJ*»ttr. BoiJeJ n'unjwater mulit exceed (he MCL.

[I Luoi-KSL voc XLS/JAH.-AJSI

TABLE 4-5SUMMARY OF HISTORICAL MONITORING WELL VOC DATA

H.O.D. Landfill RI/FS

SAMPLE IDUSD IDUSD ISUS03DUS03SUS04DUS04S

US06D

US06I

US07SG102

Date11/8/373/1 1/875/8/908/1 1/878/10/878/10/874/18/885/9/90

7/26/905/19/885/19/885/9/907/26/908/12/874/18/885/19/888/18/888/11/874/19/885/10/90

Tric

hlor

oclh

cne

i

•fl

•f.•-i '•U 1

u . '1 -= '

— • >(

'

>» u 3 u a•= ' P , >» ' y =

2 y 3 5 "crf ' < • 2 — j—

! 22.9 34.5i 26.3 ; 9.47

! 12.3 i !: ; 13.9 i 26 ; 9.37

| : 19.2 1 5.7 ;i

i

76.4 !

69 j41.1 :

: 21.5 i :3 i

' !41.5 ; i | :

0.47 '0.66 ,

; 4.2 '! 4

0.5 . i :0.7 ! i8.69 i

55.35

1,2

21.2 : 6.59 •: 4 ; 21 i : 1.1

5 2 2i 4 21.3 i 9.6 : 12.8

1 i -; 2.4 . :

Notes:

1. This table presents historical data for H.O.D Landfill for monitoring wells. Only wells and samplingrounds with VOC detects are presented in this table. Acetone and methylene chloride are often labcontaminants. Warzyn did not perform data validation for the sampling rounds and has not assessed dataquality.

2. All results are in units of ug/L.

Revised 8/27/93[J:10010201:GW-H1S.XLS/JAH/AJS]

Paee 1

lABLt 4-6Summary of Semivolatile Organic Compounds in

r.roundwater. Surface Water. Surface Soils, ;md LeachateH.O.D. Landfill RJ/FS

SAMPLE IDMCLClaw IClass IIGroundwater - ShallowHD-GWGllS-OlHD-GWUS04S-01HD-GWUS06I-01HD-GWUS06S-01HD-GWUS06S-91HD-GWW05S-01r{D-GWW06S-OlGroundwater - Deep OHD-GWG1 ID-01HD-GWUS04D-01HD-GWL'S04D-9tHD-GWVSQ6D-Q1HD-GWW07D-01Groundwater • ShallowHD-GWVSOIS-01HD-GWUS03I-01HD-GWUS03S-01HD-OWW03SB-01HD-GWW04S-01HD-GWW04S-9IGroundwaler - Deep OIiD-GWUSOlD-01HD-GWUS03D-OIHD-GWW03D-01Surface SoilsHD-SC01-01HD-SU02-OIHD-SL'03-01HD-SU04-01HD-Sl/04-91HD-Sl/05-01Surface WaterHD-SWS101-01HD-SVVS201-01HD-SWS301-01IID-SWS301-91LeachateHD-LCLPOl-01HD-LCLP01-91HD-LCLP06-01HD-LCLP08-OIHD-LCLPU-OLHD-LCMHE-OI

Phesiola

- "5* "E*1 5 £ s— ri ' ri T

100 " '. *" "1 0 0 ' " '

On-Slter :

1

i-Silet

1 i

OfT-SIte

iT-Site : ;

" ' ' i

i ... _ -1 . .

160 12 | _ _ 730170 "ll ' 76083 ~"7:16T"l,300

840 26! "f 2,2005 "3 ' " ] ~" 48

19 ' 6 5

K-.irM!i:«

"2 ! -

">s ~— ' f'l

4

i

.L

i\i

-,

i 160r 320

280". 3.500

3.600^ : 9.600

- -r-

32"31 j

4 42

Pc;%™:«r \rcmiiK Hv^-rt«-.r.s

1 = H :

^ 1 = i'I i • 1 s "1 1,^< < 2 C if f. '' f ^'. Z f ' ^

- - - °" • : - ' ' ' :

i ',

.. .t '. . -- | : I -

I I

i i ! • 1 '

. . } . . ; ; i . . j . j . ,_ , .

. . . . . . : . _ ; ; _ , . . :

. . . . . ; - - , ( ; . !1

120 46 130 i 59 110 68 61 320 250 771.000 ' ' ' 620 : \ 500 ' 390 ' 630 ' 240

'. ll° '. . . 16° i • 12° "°

73 " il 54

i : ; j \ ; 34 ' L... , " ;" "| ! " • " ! 6 ! ;

'.' " 1 ':' '. i j 16 :

; ' i ! '

-T

"575

375

l.'O

• 20

p.-v.prn..

-r r-T" <

0 5

T <

'

4.66.3

Notes:1. This table presents seinivolatile organic conpounds detected in samples collected from HOD Landfill during May 1993.2. Results are in parts per billion (ppb)'. ug/L for groundwaters, surface waters, and (exhales, and ug/kg for soils.3. MCLi are U.S. EPA Maximum Contaminant Levels for groudwaters. Clou I and Class II are EPA Groudwaur Quality Standards. Class I (potable waterresource) is applicable to the deep sand an gravel aquifer groundwater, and Class II (general resource groundwater) is applicable to the surficial sand and claydiamict groundwater. Bolded values exceed the MCL.

Revised 9/16/93[J:10010201:SVOC.XLS/JAH/AJSJ Page 1

TAItl.i; 4-7

Summary Of Mi-tuts In Ground water, Surface Water, Surface Soils, midHO I). Landfill KI/KS

MCLCUctlCtefBBackground ValueGrMM^wKlcr ShdfewOIID-GWUS04S41

HD-GWUS06S-01HD-GWUS06S-91HD-GWWOSS-01HD-GWW06S-01

Alum

inum

50

PM-SIIC

Antim

ony

5

GrwiBdwalcr Sbdtow Off-SiteIID-GWUSOIS-UJ

IIIMiWtlSOJS-OIHIM,WWO3!>I1-OJ jIflMiWWMS oiHIVGWW04S-91

UO-GWG1 ID-01HD-GWUSO4IMHIID-GWUS04D-9IHD-GWUSOMMHHEM3WW07&O1Grmmmtffttr DrcpOR-SMtHD-GWUS01tW)lIICMJWUSO3IWHH»GWW03IW)] !SMfftee wttmHD-SWS 101-01IID-SWS201-OIMD-SWS301-OIHIXSWS301-QIHOSWFB01-01

1 1 3107

55.591.1 276

Anen

ic5050

2006.97

9.5

i : i1 1- [ 1 1a c M i <•

• DQ OQ U O2.000 1 ' 5 (

2.000 [ 5 12,000 j 50 '

118 I 2.52 ' 62.200

106 ; 119.00053.6 : 51,20068.1 • ' 105.00066.7 1 L05.000182 ' ' 148,000116 ! ' 353.000

34.9 ; 83.7006.1 ; 41 I ; : 45,500

55.1 ' 79.80095 1 I2H.HOO

! 363 ' I63.OOO4.1 J54 ' 1 55.0011

3.1 282 1 56 112.00047.6 '. 4H.30059 I ! ' 43.20069.0 48,20073 8 '. 36,500

89 V . 58.800' 129 ! ' 96.SOO

163 ! 115.000

i'J 4 : 3 3 52.00022 .2 ; 46.70021 9 | 52.500121' 52.40(1

I.JbO

1

1 * -i ! §• ; 3. J | ' " I 5 J *i $ 5 ^ "2 2 5 ~>U U U U ' i -J -*. -- >. /. =- ^ ur. \f- ^ NUXi ! ' 1.000 2 ( M i ' .too : IS , 5" 2 MHI I I K I > - . . I H Hlft» ; l.OOO ' 651) . 200 ' S.ixjO ] 7 S ! I5o j |im •», s < H « I

1.000! t.OOO ' 65O 6(KI 5,OO«) 100 • lO,oo«i, hi 2.o««l I I I . I H K Ii ; 34.6 ! 2 0 6 ; 5411*0 11K .101 J.'^o ( . i M l i ' l . i - - ' I".'

• ' ' 2,700 i | 46,7(Xi 72.7 ') 7 I . 5 7 O SS.N.m43,90") Jo J | 7 . < > i N t H . ' H H i

1 ! 2.S30 ' 44.«(M} • 1(7.7. 1,2'*0 t / . lmi: ! ' ' 3.200 ! 43.4(10 H4.ii l . i m i I U . K I H I1 ' 2.480 I 4ll.2i«) 692 4.25(1 W.'""i

4.4 ! i 3.400 12(1.01X1 745 4.62n 2 4 , * < " i

' 44 »OS 3 V . 2 I K 1 2dl 21. ! '«'1 1 ' U . I M H I .10 6 1 . 7 l i . I ( . . _ > I H J

I.2JO «J/M»P 50.1 2,'*'.m -Ki .S i* .1.070 ' 55.1.N10 1U9 (i (i 1,7 In i > 4 . l > " t ^.'

44 , 9 (I ] 23H ' ' 42.500 1.070 X 4 14.OOO Sn.ui.i _> is1 4 1 ' 2O6 ' 42.400 I.I in 14.10.1 S I . S . K F Ul

3 . 5 ; ' 9M.(iOi) ' 32 O Vi*iii . H , 7 i M i _'|26.500 18 0 I . M l i i 511. * i « "

. 845 24.400 310 I.M.'o J ' ) , S , h ,i • 21.800 S3.4 l,5«n \}.\i*i

6641 41.70(1 SX.7 1 , 1 . In ^,4'«-2,400 , 46.200 424 > . S « , i , , / . M - i .| / 1

4 3 7 0 7 6>.5iH> 1 4 1 S ' 2 . ( , l i . l . l . J - K i i n

3.2 : 23 ' 25.700 suy > , 2 l o > O . . - B I1 I 424 24,'>no X. H 2.1 lo ( 4 , - l - i . t

31 S 2o 25.51") 54.2 :.m.u i \ i » n .

3 5 2 2 5 h I M

TAKI.K4-7

Summary Of Mvfuls In <; round water, Surfufv Water, Surface Stills, andII.O.I). Landfill UI/I'S

SaMpklDUachalcHD-mjOI-OIHIVLCIJOl-VlIID-l,CIJjy6-OlHD-LCLP(W-01HD-LCLPll-OlIID-LCMHE-01HD-LCFB01-UISwriWcSalbIID-SUOI-01IID-SU02-01HD-SU03-01IIIVSU04-0]HD-SII04-9JIID-SUOS-OI<e ioii*l Range('onui)uii Rmtgc

1 1 «1 i 157.100 31.3

222.000 32 04.770 30.6

18,000 39365.900 51.3

isi : 4i62.2

7.450 52«,260| l.'J6,640 4. 11,740 2.28.740 3.38,450 4.4

7000'IOOUM <l 1* <n| JJ

leoMMioogo i *o

1i 1 i i §1 g- 1 i 1m co u (3 u

51H 4(1 213 44H.IKKI : 1261,710 j 12.5 i 67.V i 1.4111,1X10 j 418

257 ! 1.2 ; 5.8 204.0110 ' 42 1459 ! 1.4; 5.6 j 1I9.OW; 68-O

1.610 t 4.9 j 35.4 550,(100 '. 174636 ' 90.3HO ' 99

1 6,1*1

32.5 ' 066 i " 78.500 • 14 325.1 I 0.55 ! t 8»,2(K> , 104307 ! 054 ! i.n «,wjo ; 125500 ! it.!«J ! • 2i,400 ! 15.657.11 ! ti.55 : ' 2I..W10 ! 15.4i l . i404 ' 074 • 1.1 . 79,l«) i 16.1

10 1500 -.1 7 IOO ItUUIMI ! 1 IOOO

10(1 juau O I 41) • 0 Ul U 111 TUOO JOOOUO > 1 IOUU

s -S1 1 * S *O O >, O uU U U J3 -J

52 8 2u7 I) l54.<K*i : 241185 n 755ti 6I2.IKMJ 8H-I

14.3 337 ' \ >4.8I*) 79838 '> . 63.7 : 4i.6lKi HH499 : 37811 37.8 < 257.01X1 ' I.'JIO

8 1 94 7.9<"i 6.2

5.2 ' 12 t>

Kb . 19.6 j 17,600 ' 127

4 1 17 fi | 9.160 ' 11.56.2 | I9.U 1 i 1J.SW) j 12486 ! 15.1 ! 17, 5<>(i i in 5

13.4 ; 15 J ! ! !8.2iKi i 1.14108 ^ 258 i 22.IOH 1 13.7

«.i>j la <i it* IUU>IIHIIHXI ..10 nm1 -to 2 loo 7omi isum*) ; :no

I S 5 - 5« = C- 3 5 §5, £' * 3 a t 1 1 1 ,5 5 ^ . ^ 3 - - 5 ~ a ^^ S >. x. CL. v? u ^ f - ^ - r v ;

157, IKKI 2,261) < i 4 t IH4 i«i,l"Ki tn l.nMM-i.1 _ > i i 111

7HH.IKNI i|.»i2n IN S(.n Jy7.iKHi |u» I.UIIHHI.I ,.s,, N,.'S>.

2X2,l>iKl Klft 7li ii 5n7.i"»i i.un.ihHi ^u t211. <»!() 67<i 1 ) 2llj -IrO.iM-i I.MII.IHMI 11 4\ .'

11.1.IHN1 ),7'||| 1 ( 1?) N '.I it HI X .' JiN.i"-. in''

1 3»,( «Ji i ' 7(, 2 21" 1 1 1," « • i 4»i i.i " » i > u _> -1JI.V 27 7.H. (...»

41, IKK i 4IH |«l 2 l.'M'i i_>l .M, is i. .i-, i3i,i«K) 8N b in •• i..'7-i i i; n I n. ;.tl.sm ' H>7 15.' l./.'i' iss i - i i j* >l l . (HK) ' 502 |^ H |,2ui ,,i _'(, i. | | ..

11, Mm '^84 l(. 1 l,21ti r.H j/ S j i >

Jll.mKl 621 2in l,7(.u l/i us Mi, /J SVi yiiuo vj 7(*«J (i in » i .-. i.ii 5.1 i?»i.> S<K, N.UXHI _• _• , . i .,,1 - s •.,„.(XW WHJU ^11 1IHHI lllllll.l *•.!.! tlHI HKNm n 111 \ fi.ij..-, .-,, 1,., |,, ,,,,

Nolcs

1. Tim table preset I is all mefali detected in samples volfccial from 1IOHI jmldll during May 19*1]. ReiUlis oic in ug/l- lor grumiilwulei. iu2. MCI J are US EPA MMimuip Coolamip»n« Levels lor j-roundu-jleii t 'lasi laikl Class II ate IliPA (innim! water QuJlity Sl-ujdai.t. (I(general resource groundwaien) i* tpplicable 10 xurlicul mid and clay dianiki gniundwaler lioklol V»|IMU cxtcal tlie M( I,3. Well (il IS w«* DM unipled (or met alt Mialyti* becMise iwflicieiil taniple vnkmiu oHikl not he colkcicd.4. BKkgruund metil conceairMioai lur tot«l sails weie unaviiWik. In order to jHoviJe • mentis til [•miiiuriiig tin; »>il iimul i ixK-uiiimiKnu uiisiiEastern United SUIe*)«Wfeobtained Iroin "hleawtll Conceiriruliun* HI Soili .mil otlici SiirfKul Mufetuib t>l ilicCoiiieriniiiiHis Umicil Slate*. U SV«nouiHlenienu in lheljih(tt|l»er«*»il Bt^otU.ol "Cneiukjl liqiulibri.iiu Soili" liy Wiliard I I uulwy

Revised 9/17/91[J KKJH)20t:MII-XI-S/IAll/AlS|

e wjier, uihl IcJili.iie. -un! nip At l»c .^'iliI (|xil.ililu »;ik'i lOMUinuj is :ip|i|ii al>k 10 ilic .lcqi xui.l -in. I

iltuiHcuiioiioii i.nifi-> itw MIul Suivty l'j|vi 1 2/i', 1-'S4

TABLE 4-8Summary of Groundwater/Leachate Quality Indicator Results

H.O.D. Landfill RI/FS

SAMPLE IDSMCLClass IClass IIJackground Value

Groundwater -Shallow On-SlteHD-GWUS04S-01HD-GWUS06I-01HD-GWUS06S-01HD-GWUS06S-91HD-GWW05S-01 'HD-GWW06S-01Groundwater Shallow - Off-SiteHD-GWUS01S-01 IHD-GWUS03I-01 :HD-GWUS03S-OIHD-GWW03SB-01 ;HD-GWW04S-01HD-GWW04S-91 :Groundwater- Deep On-SlteHD-GWUS04D-01 'HD-GWUS04D-91 !HD-GWUS06D-01 :HD-GWW07D-01Groundwater - Deep Off-SiteHD-GWUS01D-01 iHD-GWUS03D-01HD-GWW03D-01Leachate .HD-LCLPOl-01HD-LCLPOl-91HD-LCLP06-01 :HD-LCLP08-01 iHD-LCLPU-01 • iHD-LCMHE-Ol |

1 b< Zc —•.j y£0 £Ct— >—

Z Z1010 '

! 1002.74i 1.03

i 0,02 '0.28

0.05 .' 0.04 .

3.73 i 0.050.78 ; 0.06 '

i 0.04 :

i 0.04 11.02 ; 0.14 !

14.522.8 ' :

0.79 j0.74 ! i0.75 i0.71 :

0.77 |: 0.031

214 , 0.06223 :327 ,378 i45 0.02

106 1 0.05

ix •

Z =

1 1 ;

z • C ;

: j

;

! 3.1 •

2.35.15,4

; 7.7

i 8.4

ii 1-2|: 5.9; 2.5: i3.o: 10.0

! I

1.2 !

5.5 !

1.3

1.3

0.03 ' 32.5 i0.05 30.50.19 36.5 ;0.14 36.0 i0.07 120.0 .

' 110.0 !

-j

250400400 :85.5

133 i32 !3131 i49 .

790 i

39 |30 :40 !

171 !

i

67 ;6890

124 •

49 '4995 '

747428 i17 i

53057

Har

dnes

s

327

514416 ;630 ,551 '798 i

1.800 ii

561 i900 :

1.140 i614 '

1.290 ;1.200 1

j216 i222 '227 :261 !

346620574

3.460 '1.070 :1.660 ;1.150 !1.730 :

768 !

J

296

367328398399518 '640

310303 :

380390580 I572 '

225227218181

318358393

2.7202.6604.3603.4901.7801.700

-r

250200200

6,57

9327 :44435949

558 ,

104 !103 ;102101 i

3 r

384

22144153

1.3101.3301.2702.070 '

196823

•f,

-J-.

]>r.

5001 ,2001.200

620516304600372392

412506448344344666

744756664380

788834

1.880

1,49010.2005.8206.5602.5702.430

Notes:1) This table presents groundwater quality indicator parameter results for H.O.D. Landfill groundwater and leachate samplescollected in May 1993.2) Results are in mg/L.3) SMCLs are U.S. EPA Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels. Class I and Class II are EPA Groundwater Quality Standards.Class I (potable resource groundwater) applies to the deep sand and gravel aquifer groundwater. and Class II (general resourcegroundwater) applies to the surficial sand and clay diamict groundwater. Bolded values exceed the SMCL.4) Well Gl IS and Gl ID were not sampled for indicator parameters because sufficient sample volume could not be collected.

Revised 8/26/93[J: 10010201:IND.XLS/JAH/AJSJ

Page 1

TABLE 4-9Summary of Chemical Constituents Detected at

Village of Antioch Water Supply Wells and Private Residence WellsH.O.I). Landfill RI/FS

ParameterVolalHesCarbon disulfideSemlvolatOes2-MeUiylphenol4-ChloroaniluieMebdsAluminumArsenicBariumCalciumChromium, totalCobaltCopperIronLeadMagnesiumManganesePotassiumSodiumVanadiumZinc

ds

5050

2,000

100

1,000300

15

50

5,000

UlM(40

502,000

1001,000

6505,000

K

150

5.000

u3

Back

grou

nd V

a]73114.5128

61,4005.065.895.936975.83

41,10015.6

2,63061,000

3.4138.20

o o ' o>ff, *r, »A0 0 O£ £ £> > ' >Q Q • a3T K . ffi

0.6 0.6

0.50.7

1: 55 i2.1 4 1 4.559 | 94 i 8K

41,000 ; 55,400 j 54,4(K)0.25 0.24

i

646 1,100 1,100t

29,800 36,600 37.400, 10 , 10

1,490 1.590 1.57041.300 27,800 30.200

25

T* 9 •? =•— n tr, '/".O O O c;£ # £ •£a. a. CL e-c a a ire x = =

o.u

75

260 |0>> |.M 61K2,700 .11,'XH) 32.7IHI 25.M)o

O.H9 0.56 0.2 0-lf,10 ;

263,050 643 54'> Id2

5.547/rfX) 14, 'HM) IJ . .5IH) 17,200

262,320 1,570 1.760 I.Ofill

56.400 - 53,(HK) 53.4(K) 6(),d(K)2.773 MIS -IK

1. This table presents all compounds and inorganic uniilyles detected in private well (PW)and village well (VWt samples collected in UK: vkjnhy ul M.O.I ). l .andliM iluinig June :uutJuly, 1993.2. All results are in ug/L.3. MCLs are II.S.EPA Maximum Conlaminanl Levels. Class 1 are H-PA < imundwatcr (Quality Skindards lor polahlc it-sourt-i- grnundwaUMs. HnUlol v:ilm-s i- \n\-tl UK: M( 'IBackground values are calculated as the rncan plus two timt-.s tin; standard ilf via lion of tkila provided by (he Suite of Illinois.

Rev[J:100102U1:1'W.XLS/JAII/AJS|

Page 1

TABLE 4-10Summary of VOCs Detected In

Village Well No. 4 Finished WaterH.O.D. Landfill RI/FS

Date7-Jan-927-Apr-924-Jun-926-Jul-923-Aug-924-Aug-9216-Sep-922l-Oct-923-Nov-92ll-Jan-938-Feb-93l-Mar-936- Apr-934-May-93

cis-l,2-Dichloroethene Cblorom ethane Chlorot'orm0.5 < << < .0.9< < <

1 < , 2.2 <i

< < ; <0.5 ; < <

i < < 1 <

i 0.8 I 1.3 <' < < - • < . <

< < <\ 0.6 , < ; <i < i < i <: < < <

Notes:

1. This table presents all reported detects of volatile organic compounds in water samples collectedfrom Village Well No. 4 finished water which presumably is chlorinated.2. Sampling was conducted by the Village of Antioch.3. Results are in ug/L.4. - = Not analyzed5. ND = not detected <Not detected at detection limits.6. For 1992 and 1993 data, detection limits are 0.2 for trichloroethene. 0.5 ug/L t'or vinyl chloride,trans- and cis-l,2-dichloroethene. and 1.0 ug/L for chloromethane and chloroform.7. The compounds chloromethane and chlorot'orm can be produced during chlorination ot' groundwaterand may not be related to an external contaminant source.

Revised 8/31/93[J: 10010201:VW4-HIS.XLS/JAH/AJS]

cTABU*; 5-1

Summary of Physical and Chemical Properties of Compounds Detected at II.O.I). LandfillII.O.I). Landfill RI/KS

COMPOUND

Volatile Organic CompoundsChloromethancVinyl chlorideChlorocthaneMetbylcnc chlorideAcetoneCaibon disulfide1 , 1 -Dichioroetbene1,1-Dichioroethanc1.2-Dichtoroethene1 ,2-Dichloroethane2-Butanone1 ,2-DichloropropaneTrichloruetheneIcnzcne4-Melhyl-2-pentanone2-HexanonerctrachloroetheneTolueneChktobenzcncEtbylbenzeneTotal Xyfencs1 ,2,4-Trimethy (benzene1 ,3.5-Triinethylbcnzene4-Ethyl tolueneTrichlorofluoromethane (Freon 1 1 )[)ichlorodiflijoromcthanc (Freon 12)Dkbloiotetrafluoroctbane (Freon 114)

MolecularWeight

(g/mote)

50636585587697999799721131317810010216692113106106181181120137122122

WaterSolubility

<tng/l.)

6.50F.+032.67I-+033.33E+032.00E+04l.OOE+062.94E+032.25E+035.50E+036.30E+038.5213+032.68E+052.70E+031.10E+03I.75E+03i.70h+043.50E+041.50E+025.35F.+024.66E+021.52E+024.66I-+023.oon+oi3.00K+014.70E+02I.l6i:+032.80E+022.80E+02

Density

(g/rc)

0.921.370.921.330.791.261.221.181.261.250.811.161.460.880.8

0.831.620.871.110.870.9

0.880.880.861.491.491.53

Henry's LuwConstant

((ilm-in3/uwle)

4.401--028.19E-021.16H-022.03R-032.06E-051.23E-023.40E-024.3 IE-036.56E-039.78E-042.74E-052.31H-039.10E-03

h 5.59E-031.59E-027.67ti-062.59E-026.37E033.72E^)36.43E-037.04E-032.30E-032.30E-033.36E-031.09E-01

2.79li+002.79E+00

KIH;

tml/g)

3557508.82.25465303914

4.551

12683

20.514

364300330

1100330

92009200

3301595858

I*»K K»w

tml/S)

0.951.381.541.30

-0.242.001.841.790.481.4K0.262.002.382.120.881.382.602.732.843.1 53.264.304.303.262.532.162.16

VaporI'rcssuri-

(nun Hif)

4.31 1-XH2.661 i+034.57I-+023.60I-+022.70I-+023.60H+026.00H+021.82I-+023.24I-+026.40H+017.751-+OI4.20I-+OI5.79I-+OI9.52I-+016(XH-;+(M)2.(XH-+(H)I.78H+012.SI1-+OII . I7 I -+017.(K)l-;+(K)I . ( M H - + ( U2.901-012 . ' X H - O It . (KH-+OI6.671 i+024.K7I-.+034.87I-+03

Uclurthiliunl''iicli>r

i

.3

.3

.1().3-1i2

.1

.0J.S.5

11

3.22.83.07.63.056563.02.01 11.3

JAH/jrs/DJCJ:l001020l/dicnuslry/clkMii.xl$ Pace I

TABU': 5-1Summary of Physical and Chemical Properties of Compounds Detected at II.O.D. Landfill

II.O.I). Landfill KI/FS

COMPOUND

Scmivolatile Organic CompoundsPhenol1 ,4-Dichlorobenzcne2-Methylphenol4-Methylpbenol2,4-DimethylphenolNaphthalene4-Chloroaniline2-MethylnaphthaleneAcenaphtheneDibenzofuranDiethylphlhalateRuorencPbenanthrencAnthraceneFluoranthenePyrenebw(2-Ethylhcxyl)phlhalateBenzo(b)niiorantheneCarbazolePesticides/PC Bs4,4P-DDDPCB

MolecularWeight

(g/nu>le)

94147108108122128

142154170222116178178202202391252167

320328

Water

Solubility

(mg/lj

9.301-+047.90F.+0]3.00E+043.00E+044.60H+03 h3.20H+01

2.70F+013.42B+002.10F.+O18.96B+021.69I-+00l.OOH+004.50H-022.06E-011.32F.-012.85E-01 a1.40E-02

i.69E4OO i

I.OOI--013.101:02

Density

.07

.46

.03

.02

.030.96

* 1.011.021.091.12

1.20.981.281.251.270.98

Henry's Law

Constant

(eitm-m.t/mole)

4.54I--072.891:031.I41--064. 95! 1-04

1.111:03

4.08I--049.18E-052.I3F,^41.I4F.-066.42I--051.59EO41.02F-036.46F,-065.04F-061.55F.-05I.18I--059.23F-05

7.96I--061.07H-03

KtK

t nit/if)

14.217005005<K)

42649

7124600820142

730014000140003800038000

692550000

7300 i

77nfWMl

530000

Log Kow

1.463.60I 971.971 "1

3.45

3.434.003.512.504.204.46-1.454.904.884.916.063.29

6.206.04

V;i|H»r

(mm 11%)

3.411:011.1 81 -;-K>02 - K H - n i1.101:015.90I--02 1-2. MM-: 0-1

5.W1--02 tl1.551-032.00I--02 p3.501-037 . I O I - - t M6.K()I:(MI.95IMH5.001-Mki2.50I;.(»68.d0lv-0ft ;t

5.00li-077.101:0.1 i

l.89l:-0f.7.70I--05

IKtill (li«tioll

l-'nctor

I I1

• .0• 0

3.0

5.3295.91.9-15S>85i -it)21()5.2

3.«)1•15

4.6213.1 HI

JAII/jrs/HJrJ:]OOI0201/clieiiu.slfy/diciii.xl.s

TABLE 5-1Summary of Physical and Chemical Properties of Compounds Detected at I I.O.D. Landfill

H.O.D. Landfill RI/I'SFootnotes

The Octanol/Waler Partition Coefficient (Kow) is defined as Hie ratio of Hie ei|uilil>riuiii conmilratiou (' of ;i dissolved .sulistaiice in a two-phase system consislmu: ot two l.u uclyimmiscible solvents, in this case n-ocunol and water:

C octanolKow = ——————

C water

'The Kow is ideally dependent only on lernperalure and pressure. It is a constant wiiluiul dimensions, and is given in tlic form of its logarithm U> base leu. li is useful .is a means uipredict soil adsorption, biological uptake, and biotiugnificalioti. Values arc cillier dcienniiicd expcrimenllly, n arc oilmuUed ;is follows:

Kow = 4.5 • (0.75 * l^og Waler Solubility in nig/1,)

Retardation factors are calculated using the Collowiiig equation:

R f = l + (pb/n)*Kd

wherePb = aquifer bulk density (g/cmJ) assumed 1.8 g/cni3n - total ptiosily of UK aquifer, assumed 0.3 (unilk-ss)Kd = distnbution coefficient (mUg) is calculated as Ktx~ * \\ic

andPoc = organic carbon content of soils, assumed l:oc is 0.1%.

Values were obtained from the following sources:

U.S.EPA Superfuml Public lleallli Evaluation Manual (SPKM), 1986

VerslHieren, K. Handbook of Environmental Data on Organic Cltemicals. Van Nostraiul keiiilH)ld Co., NY I9S3

Weast. R.C. I landbook of Ctiemistrv and Phvsics. 54l)i lulition. CRC I'Uess. Cleveland. 1073

TABLES-1Summary of Physical and Chemical Properties of Compounds Detected at II.O.D. Landfill

II.O.D. Landfill RI/FSFootnotes

Footnotes .a = value estimated using bulylbenzylphUialaleb = value estimated using 2,4-dichloroplienolc = value estimated using ben/ined = value estimated using 2-naphlhylaminec = value estimated using DDTf = value estimated using dieldrin

. g = value estimated using mpltenylainineh = value estimated using dipltenyl ellteri = value estimates using fluorene

Definitions of cltemical properties:

Water solubility is lltc maximum concentration of a clieimcal thai dissolves in pure water at a specific lem|ieralurc and pi I. Values arc given for a neutral pi I and a leiii|X-'raiuic r.mucof 20 degrees C. llte rale at which a cltemical is leaded from a waste is a function of its solubility in water; mure solubk* compounds are expected lo he leached more readily ih.ui lesssoluble chemicals. Ilic water solubilities presented in literature indicate lh.it the volatile organic compounds are more water soluble than mast .semivolatile organic voiii|xMiiuts (e.g.,PAlbandPCBs).

Vapor Pressure (VP) provides an indication of tlte rale at which aclicinical in its pure stale volatilizes. Values are given for a lempiTaluie range of 20 in .Wdcguvs ('. VP is ol jium.iiysignificance wlicrc environmental interfaces such as surface soil/an and surface walei/aii oi:air. ('hcnucals wnh lugher v.i|x* |vcs.surcs arc cx|x-cti-d to cnU-i HK% .iiuti>s|)h>.-iv MKHI-readily than chemicals with lower vapor pressures.

Density refers tollie specific density of a compound relative to pure water, having a density of 1.00, Cuinpounifs thai have low solubilities and wnh a tk'iiMly utc.iioi than one would lieexpected to sink in water.

Henry's Law constant, or Uie compound's air-water panilitm ttx:tficiciil, is inqxNlunl in evaluating air exposure [ulhways. Values It* Henry's I awcoiiManis weic di-iivalexperimentally or estinwle<) as follows:

VP (mm Hg> x (I aim/760 mm |fg) x MW (g/mole)H{aim-m3Anole) = ———————————————-———"--

Water SoJubility (g/m3)

Organic Carbon Partition Coefficienl (Koc) is a measure of Hie tendance tor or^anics to he ailsoitu'd by .soil and sediment, and is expressed as:

mg cheiiiical ailsorbedAg organic carbonKoc= ______——————.————-

mg diemical dissolved/liter of solution

The Koc is cliemical specific ami is largely i in tern: i idem <>lsoil (xoperiios. In general. Kt»c is iuvt.-i.scl> rel.tied hi us t-nviroiiiik.-iiliil imilii l i iy. Kuc is ciiha ik-k-iiiiincil i -x jvn i ik -n t . i l l ) <Hestimated as follows:

Koc = (-0.55 * Log Water Solubility in mg/l-l + 3.M

Pane

H

3

i » J•

I S"S.H a.a. -o° 2o .3

r-MI. 11 / !.!!• II |>__/yC^1

f^\0/LOCATION [A^ijg

=, "i" IfaB i 'Aliti h^J-f . ".-.rj- -Li: ' .A/| VtffJEa:

4 >fe ^^4^^

i n i wS^K^ i"--^ ;iL'k-25_*. •!' II* .IHa*'"-* •ffli.u.V^B ,., ^Chi J__.__lig..____„ - . /' =f- r——r:iX .,'Jn ...- IM.j| Ji.iBt-I-'- ..;.. Wlha;aSlM.)."g i

/•

NOTES1. BASE MAP DEVELOPED FROM THE

ANTIOCH, ILLINOIS 7.5 MINUTEU.S.G.S. TOPOGRAPHIC QUADRANGLEMAP DATED 1960, PHOTOREVISED1972.

north2000 4000

QUADRANGLE LOCATION SCALE IN FEET FIGURE 1Dw«(op«d By. Drawn By:

y:

««..SITE LOCATION MAP

Rwliioni:

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONH.O.D. LANDRLLWASTE MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC.ANTIOCH, ILLINOIS

Drawing Number

10010201 A1

n

- „£t- 0.

11•§ .2c «3 S

.H.O.D.LANDRLL

SilverLake

LEGEND® PW1 PRIVATE WELL SAMPLING LOCATION AND NUMBER

NOTES1. BASE MAP DEVELOPED FROM THE

ANTiOCH, ILLINOIS-WISCONSIN 7.5MINUTE U.S.G.S. TOPOGRAPHIC QUAD-

north0 10002000

RANGLE MAP. DATED 1960, PHOTO-REVISED 1972.

Davalopad By: < ) -• Drawn By: ppu

Approved By: -.^ f ^ ^/ * . ^ Dot»: ^ .

Rafaranca:

Ravisioni:

SCALE IN FEET FIGURE 3PRIVATE WATER SUPPLY WELLSAMPLING LOCATIONS

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONH.O.D. UVNDFILLWASTE MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC.ANTIOCH, ILLINOIS

(Drawing Number

10010201 A3

-

W\RZYN

o =a 6

o-

Ioo

o|v

LEGENDSEASONAL WETLAND 1, 2

WETLAND 1, 2

NOTES1. BASE MAP DEVELOPED FROM THE ANTIOCH, ILLINOIS

7.5 MINUTE U.S.G.S. TOPOGRAPHIC QUADRANGLE MAP,DATED 1960, PHOTOREVISED 1972.

2. WETLAND AREAS IDENTIFIED BY ANALYSIS OF HIGHALTITUDE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY. AREAS HAVE NOTBEEN FIELD VERIFIED. SCALE IN FEET

4000

FIGURE 4D«v«top«d By: . i

Approved By: x*^>d*lr •Cn«

Rttarwuw.

Rcvlaioni:

Drawn By: rr. .LLM WETLANDfl INVEMTOWV MAP

-/C ffcX^X-r^- V-<S^yy^ REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONH.O.D. LANDRLLWAbIL MANAGLMLNI Oh ILLINOIS, INC.ANTIOCH, ILLINOIS

Drawing Number

10010201 A4———— .. ——— s

___ mrr- —

WtfEYN

SYSTEM

ocUJ >t- CC

D ZO

Z

aD

Z

>OO

o

z<aa>S

PRE-CAMBRfAN

SERIES

STO

CE

NE

UJ

d.

Z

O

Z

z£oz

Ul

o p0 Z

z

i

X

Xo<EO

GROUP ORFORMATION

Sugar Run

Joliet

Kankakee

El wood

Wilhelmi

Maquoketa

PUtteville

Glenwood

St. Peter

Eminence

Potosi

Franconia

Iron ton

Elm hurstMember

Mi. Simon

AQUIFEF

SandsandGrave It

Silurian

Galena-Planevilte

Glenwood-St. Peter

Eminence-Potosi

Franconia

Ironton-Galesville

€lmhurst-Mt. Simon

(

"5?•i

o0

irt

V

V\\

fei

rdov

kltn

S

1

1

"B

LOG

'X"T^-. '"*' 7 "*

ri^*.¥^rl ?-' — r~^A/ ii i ,/ f _.

7 i'' * "L. * _ r•^ , f-Cf ~*L4/A i/_r~At A fa'— f —— i — ~r-f — f-~L

S^L-I</*'-

/ /i L£'rlAT T/ // /

/ / i

"/''>' "— TL "

?$\

^

ty$/ / • -\

Jy -«• ^

'•-£'- -r. • . . ' ./• •/• •/rv.rr.-T. */ . . / . .

*m^3

THICKNESS(FT1

90-325

/ Fissuref Fillings

o-tso

0-90

100-240

270-335

165-300

0-100

40-80

100-190

385-475

1200-2000

DESCRIPTION

Unconiofidated g'aciaf depotia pebblyclay (nil), tilt, sand and gravel

Alluvial tilts and sands along streams

Shale, sandy, brown to black

Dolomite, slightly argillaceous andsitty

Dolomite, very pure to shaly and shale,dolomitic; white, light gray, green,pink, maroon

Dolomite, pure top 1'-2'. thin greenshale partings, bate glauconitic

Dolomite, slightly argillaceout,abundant layered white chert

Dolomite, gray, argillaceout endbecomes dolomitic shale at base

Shale, red; oolitesShale, tilty, dolomitic. greenith gray,

weak (Upper unit)Dolomite and limestone, white, light

gray, interbedded shale (Middle unit)Shale, dolomitic. brown, gray (Lower

V unit)

Dolomite, and/or limestone, cherty

Sandstone, fine and coarse grained; littledolomite; shale at top

Sandstone, fine to medium grained;locally cherty red thafe at bate

Dolomite, light colored, sandy, thinsandstone*

Dolomite, fine-grained, gray to farown,

Dolomite, sandstone and shale. gUu-conitk. green to red, micaceous

Sandstone, fine to coarse grained, wed

Shale and u Intone, dolomitic.

glauconitic

in lower half; lenses of shale andlilutone. red. micaceous

Granitic Rocki

NOTES1. STRATIGRAPHIC COLUMN ADAPTED FROM PUBLIC

GROUNDWATER SUPPLIES IN LAKE COUNTY, ILLINOIS.STATE WATER SURVEY, URBANA, ILLINOIS BY DOROTHYM. WOLLER AND JAMES P. GIBB, 1976. FIGURE 5

Developed By; Drown By: CCMApproved

Reference:

Revieiona:

gTBATIQRAPHIC COLUMNFOR NORTHEASTERN RJJNOM______

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONH.O.D. LANDFILLWASTE MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC.ANTIOCH, ILLINOIS

Drawing Number

10010201 A5

*Iw I

00

t HS 3

"

TIME STRATIGRAPHY

SYST

EM!

>_cczcc.UJr-^

O

SER

IES

1

LJZUJoor-eo__LU

Q.

STA

GE

1

UJZUJuooX

zzCO

ooen3

SUBSTAGE

VALDERAN

TWO-CREEKAN

wooo-FORDIAN

ROCK STRATIGRAPHY

inVIVO

C

O

cooeoU.

>.cVI

VI

J3Ew

ouUlO

•oco

*"oc'.£uO

oo3CD

cooE

I>.o3o-

UJ

w>at

1VSco

Oa•aco

Io0

E3'>3

<O

'•JCoou

cooE£co

uS

= Ea **._ 2

c s i =o 0 . 0 °CD U. (/I

•a * c .2c -g 2. .=o — ^2^ >3 "" j= ao 2 ^ X

Q. O *4>jea

WadsworthTill Member

Hoeger TillMember

YorfcvilleTill Member

Malaen TillMember

Tiskilwd TillMember

MORPHOSTRATIGRAPHY

Lake Border Drifts

Zion Cily Drift

Highland Pork 0.

Slodgett 0.

Oeerfield 0.

Pork Ridge D.

Tmley 0.

Valparaiso Dri f ts

Palatine 0.

Clarendon 0.

Resell* D.

Westmant 0.

Keeneyvilte D.

Wheaton 0.

West Chicago D.

Valparaiso Drifts

Fat Lake D.

Cory 0.

West Chicago D.

Manhattan 0.Wilton Center D.

Rockdole 0.

St. Anne D.

Minooka D.

Marseilles 0.

SI. Charles D.

\Barlina D.

Huntley D.

Gilberts D.El burn 0.

Bloomington Drifts

Marengo 0.

NOTES1. STRATIGRAPHIC COLUMN TAKEN FROM SUMMARY OF THE

GEOLOGY OF THE CHICAGO AREA. ILLINOIS STATEGEOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 460 BY H.B. WILLMAN. FIGURE 6

Dw«.lop*d By: Drawn 8y: „-.,

R«f«r»nc«:

Revieioni

PLEISTOCENE STRATIQRAPHIC COLUMNFOR CHICAQO AREA ______

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONH.O.D. LANDFILLWASTE MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC.ANTIOCH, ILLINOIS

Drawing Number

10010201 A6

W^KZYN

APPROXMATE PROPERTY LHE

OLD LANDFILL ~N

1. BASE HAP DEVELOPED FROM ENVIRONMENTALAUDIT FOR SEQUOIT ACRES INDUSTRIAL PARKBY PATRICK ENGINEERING INC.. DATED 1989HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATORS

CHICAGO INK AND RESEARCHGALDINE ELECTRONICSMAJOR INDUSTRIAL TRUCKNU - WAY SPEAKER PRODUCTSQUAKER INDUSTRIESNCG ELECTRONICSROLL FOIL LAMINATING. INC.AKTIOCH TOWNSHIP HIGHWAYDEPARTMENT

SCALE IN FEET FIGURE 7

\

10010201

APPROXIMATE PHDPERTV UNE •

TI

NEW LANDFILL

APPRONtMATE LIMITS OF FILL AREA

——in——t——'i

FILL AREA OF UNKNOWN COMPOSITION

FORMER CUNNINGHAM/qUAKER VILLAGE DUMP

CHICAGO INK AND RESEARCH

GALDINE ELECTRONICSMAJOR INDUSTRIAL TRUCKNU - WAY SPEAKER PRODUCTSQUAKER INDUSTRIESHCG ELECTRONICSROLL FOIL LAMINATING, INC.ANTIOCH TOWNSHIP HIGHWAYDFPARTMFNT

NOTES1. BASE MAP DEVELOPED FROM ENVIRONMENTAL

AUDIT FOR SEQUOIT ACRES INDUSTRIAL PARKBY PATRICK ENGINEERING INC., DATED 1989.

north300 6po

SCALE IN FEET FIGURE 6

i

raving Numb*r

0010201 B

SOIL LEGEND

NOTES

1. SCS SOILS MAP WAS OBTAINED FROM THE SOILSURVEY OF LAKE COUNTY, ILLINOIS, DATEDSEPTEMBER 1970.

north1000 2000

SCALE IN FEET (APPROX.)

RGURE 9

SEQUOIT ACRESINDUSTRIAL PARK

LEGEND

S202

SU01

APPROXIMATE PROPERTY LINE

APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF LANDRLLED AREA

ACCESS ROAD

BUILDING

SURFACE WATER MONITORING LOCATIONAND NUMBER

WARZYN SUREACE SOIL SAMPLINGLOCATION AND NUMBER

NOTEJ1. REFER TO DRAWING 10010201-F2 FOR ADDITIONAL

NOTES AND LEGEND.

2. BASE MAP DEVELOPED FROM AN AERO-METRICENGINEERING INC. SURVEY.

J. INVESTIGATION POINTS HAVE BEEN LOCATED BASED ONGENTILE AND ASSOCIATES. INC. SURVEY DURING JUNEAND JULY 1993. north

250 600

SCALE IN FEET FIGURE 10

S!

: uj in

g Numbv

0010201 B'

11* «Qra

SEQUOIT ACRESINDUSTRIAL PARK

LEGEND

I•:° c*•r

APPROXIMATE PROPERTY LINE

APPROXIMATE LIMITSOF LANDFILLED AREA

ACCESS ROAD

BUILDING <8.QPBA

0MHE/MHW LEACHATE MANHOLE EAST/

LEACHATE MANHOLE WEST.own

WARZYN LEACHATE PIEZOMETER LOCATIONAND NUMBER

TEMPORARY LEACHATE PIEZOMETERLOCATION AND NUMBER

WARZYN GAS PROBE LOCATIONAND NUMBER

LANDFILL GAS FLARE LOCATIONAND NUMBER

NOTES1. REFER TO DRAWING 10010201-F2 FOR ADDITIONAL

NOTES AND LEGEND.

2. BASE MAP DEVELOPED FROM AN AERO-METRICENGINEERING INC. SURVEY.

3. INVESTIGATION POINTS HAVE BEEN LOCATED BASED ONGENTILE AND ASSOCIATES, INC. SURVEY PERFORMEDDURING JUNE AND JULY. 1993.

260

SCALE IN FEET

600

FIGURE U

0010201 E

SEQUOIT ACRESINOUSTPlAL PARK

,US5D

(OLD LANDFILL)

LB7

LB8

111

__ 1 ;•""""^^ tW* """ "m • •** j

*•»

^_~+ -w'T-- - _ - -

(NEW LANDFILL) !, ;i

+• *•" - ^ •;•*S- !

I:

,-:;--=-•- --^._.^™--;

1111

Ic1111

PZ5U

LEGEND— APPROXIMATE PROPERTY LINE

APPROXIMATE LIMITSOF LANDFILLED AREA

ACCESS ROAD

BUILDING

LOCATION OF GEOLOGICCROSS-SECTION

NOTES1- REFER TO DRAWING 10010201-F^ FOR ADDITIONAL

NOTES AND LEGEND.

2. BASE MAP DEVELOPED FROM AN AERO-METRICENGINEERING INC- SURVEY.

3. INVESTIGATION POINTS HAVE BEEN LOCATED BASED ONGENTILE AND ASSOCIATES. INC. SURVEY PERFORMEDDURING JUNE AND JULY 1993.

north260 600

SCALE IN FEET FIGURE 12

nq Ngmbv

0010201 E

WJCZY

WEST ELEVATION

SURRCIAL

EAST ELEVATION LEGEND

660 -———————J

LJ SAND

[ffij SILTY SAND

O CLAYEY SAND

£9 CLAYEY GRAVEL

^3 SAND AND GRAVEL

gg SAND AND GRAVEL, SOME SILT AND CLAY

g| SAND AND GRAVEL SOME CLAY

| TOPSOIL

| PAVEMENT

pffl FILL OR REFUSE

|§j SILTY CLAY

Pi LEAN CLAY

^.^—— EXISTING GROUND SURFACE

^760 GROUNDWATER EOUIPOTENTIAL LINE"^ (CONTOUR INTERVAL = 10 FT.)

(7JB.06) GROUNDWATER ELEVATION

6Z.8 TOTAL DEPTH OF WELL IN FEETBELOW GROUND SURFACE

|——- BACKHLLED WITH BENTONITE

[——2' 1.0- RISER

(-—- 2" 1.0- SLOTTED WELL SCREEN

V 5URFICIAL SAND WELL WATER LEVELS

1600 2000 2*00

DISTANCE ALONG PROFILE (FT.)

SECTION A - A'

CROSS SECTION SCALE20

0 400 800SCALE IN FEETVERTICAL EXAGGERATION: TWENTY TIMES

2800 J200 3600 *000NOTES1. THE STRATUM LINES ARE BASED ON INTERPOLATION BETWEEN BORINGS

AND MAY NOT REPRESENT ACTUAL SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS.

2. FOR THE PURPOSE OF ILLUSTRATING SUBSOIL CONDITIONS ON THE CROSS-SECTIONS. SOME OF THE BORING LOGS HAVE BEEN SIMPLIFIED. FOR ADETAILED DESCRIPTION OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AI INDIVIDUAL BORINGS,REFER 10 SOIL BORING LOGS. (APPENDED TO REPORT)

3. COMPLETE MONITORING WELL INSTALLATION DETAILS ARE APPENDED TO REPORT.

4. CROSS-SECTION HAS BEEN EXAGGERATED TWENTY TIMES.

5. HORIZONTAL DISTANCES ARE MEASURED WITH RESPECT TO THE CENTER OF EACHSOIL BORING LOCATION.

6. ELEVATIONS ARE SHOWN IN REFERENCE TO U.S.G.S. DATUM.

7. QUESTION MARKS INDICATE THE CORRELATION OR EOUIPOTENTIAL LINESARE INFERRED.

8. CROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON MEASUREMENTS OBTAINED BY WARZYNINC. ON JUNE 8 AND 9, 1993. CONTOURS ARE EXTRAPOLATED BASED ONCALCULATED VERTICAL HYDROLOCIC GRADIENTS. SEE SECTION 3.7 OF REPORT.

9. CLAY FILL MATERIAL SHOWN AT SOIL BORING PZ6U IN CROSS SECTION IS PROBABLYASSOCIATED WITH THE CLAY SEAL INSTALLED ALONG THE SOUTHERN PORTION OFTHE NEW LANDFILL (SEE DRAWING 10010201-F*).P ,. , , FIGURE 13

_

0010201 E

NORTHELEVATION

OLD LANDFILL SOUTHELEVATION

(730.74)112.8

CROSS SECTION SCALE20

800 1200 1600

DISTANCE ALONG PROFILE (ft.)

SECTION B - B-

2000 2*00

0 400 800SCALE IN FEETVERTICAL EXAGGERATION: TWENTY TIMES

LEGEND[~] SAND

[fjj] SILTY SAND

FT] CLAYfY SAND

g| CLAYFY GRAVEL

f^<) SAND AND GRAVEL

g| SAND AND GRAVEL. SOME SILT AND CLAY

gj SAND AND GRAVEL, SOME CLAY

| TOPSOIL

^ PAVEMENT

SffB Fll-L OR REFUSE

|§| SILTY CLAY

H] LEAN CLAY

- 760 ——• GROUNDWATER EOUtPOTENTIAL LINE(CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FT.)

(730.74) GROUNOWATER ELEVATION

112.B TOTAL DEPTH OF WELL IN FEET8ELOW GROUND SURFACE

[-——BACKFILLED WITH BENTONITE

[-———2" I.D. RISER

I-——2" I.D. SLOTTED WELL SCREEN

V SURFICIAL SAND WELL WATER LEVELS

NOTES1. THE STRATUM LINES ARE BASED ON INTERPOLATION

BETWEEN BORINGS AND MAY NOT REPRESENT ACTUALSUBSURFACE CONDITIONS.

2. FOR THE PURPOSE OF ILLUSTRATING SUBSOILCONDITIONS ON THE CROSS -SECTIONS, SOME OF THEBORING LOGS HAVE BEEN SIMPLIFIED. FOR A DETAILEDDESCRIPTION OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT INDIVID-UAL BORINGS, REFER TO SOIL BORING LOGS. (APPENDEDTO REPORT)

3. COMPLETE MONITORING WELL INSTALLATION DETAILSARE APPENDED TO REPORT.

4. CROSS-SECTION HAS BEEN EXAGGERATED TWENTY TIMES.

5. HORIZONTAL DISTANCES ARE MEASURED WITH RESPECTTO THE CENTER OF EACH SOIL SORING LOCATION,

6. ELEVATIONS ARE SHOWN IN REFERENCE TO U.S.G.S.DATUM.

7. QUESTION MARKS INDICATE CORRELATION OR EQUIP-OTENTIAL LINES ARE INFERRED.

8. GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON MEASUREMENTSOBTAINED BY WARZYN INC. ON JUNE B AND 9, 1993.CONTOURS ARE EXTRAPOLATED BASED ON CALCULATEDVERTICAL HYDROLOGIC GRADIENTS. SEE SECTION 3.7OF REPORT.

tI

0010201 E

FIGURE 14

WESTELEVATION7BO I--————

EXTENT OF REFUSE

720

EASTELEVATION

SURFx DEPOSITS

(729.70)83.17

(728-61)104.5

660 L-——————•

LEGENDSAND

jgftj SILTY SAND

FT] CLAYEY SAND

f^l CLAYEY GRAVEL

^t| SAND AND GRAVEL

g§ SAND AND GRAVEL, SOME SILT AND CLAY

gj SAND AND GRAVEL, SOME CLAY

| TOPSOIL

| PAVEMENT

HI FILL OR REFUSE

fflfy SILTY CLAY

1^ LEAN CLAY

,760-^ CROUNDWATER EOUIPOTENTIAL LINE(CONTOUR INTERVAL = 10 FT.)

(728.41) CROUNDWATER ELEVATION

82.6

V

TOfAL DEPTH OF WELL IN FEETBELOW GROUND SURFACE

- BACKFILLED WITH BENTONITE

-2" I.D. RISER

-f I.D. SLOTTED WELL SCRF-F-N

SURFICIAL SAND WELL WATER LEVELS

400 600

DISTANCE ALONG PROFILE (ft.)

SECTION C - C

CROSS SECTION SCALE20

0 133 266SCALE IN FEETVERTICAL EXAQQERATION: 6.66 TIMES

NOTES1. THE STRATUM LINES ARE BASED ON INTERPOLATE BETWEEN BORINGS

AND MAY NOT REPRESENT ACTUAL SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS.

2. FOR THE PURPOSE OF ILLUSTRATING SUBSOIL CONDITIONS ON THE CROSS-SECTIONS, SOME OF THE BORING LOGS HAVE BEEN SIMPLIFIED. f-QR ADETAILED DESCRIPTION OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT INDIVIDUAL BORINGSREFER TO SOIL BORINC LOGS. (APPENDED TO REPORT)

3. COMPLETE MONITORING WELL INSTALLATION DETAILS ARE APPENDEDTO REPORT.

4. CROSS-SECTION HAS BEEN EXAGGERATED 6.65 TIMES.

5. HORIZONTAL DISTANCES ARE MEASURED WITH RESPECT TO THE CENTER OFEACH SOIL BORING LOCATION.

6. ELEVATIONS ARE SHOWN IN REFERENCE TO U.S.G.S. DATUU.

7. QUESTION MARKS INDICATE THE CORRELATION OR EOUIPOTENTIALLINES ARE INFERRED.

8. GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON MEASUREMENTS OBTAINED BY WARZYNINC. ON JUNE 8 AND 9, 1993. CONTOURS ARE E>CTRAPOLATED BASED ONCALCULATED VERTICAL HYROLOGIC GRADIENTS. SEE TABLE 5 OF TECHNICALMEMORANDUM NO 1 TEXT

't

0010201 f

RQURE 16