RECEIVED

CLERK’S OFFICE

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

JUL

212004

PETITION BY HAYDEN

)

STATE OF ILLINOIS

WRECKING CORPORATION

)

Pollution

Control Board

FOR AN ADJUSTED

)

Docket No.:

AS 04-003

STANDARD FROM

)

(Adjusted Standard)

35

ILL.

ADM. CODE

§

620.410(a)

)

NOTICE OF FILING

TO:

Dorothy M. Guim, Clerk

Kyle Nash Davis, Esq.

Illinois Pollution Control Board

Assistant Counsel

James R. Thompson Center

Illinois Environmental Protection

100 West Randolph Street

Agency, Division of Legal Counsel

Suite

11-500

1021

North Grand Avenue East

Chicago, Illinois

60601

P0 Box

1976

Springfield, Illinois

62794-9276

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have today filed with the Office ofthe Clerk ofthe

Illinois Pollution Control Board the Amended Petition ofHayden Wrecking Corporation for

Adjusted

Standard from 35

Ill. Adm.

Code 620.410(a), copies of which are herewith served upon

you.

Dated: July

19, 2004

GREENSFELDER, HEMKER,

&

GALE, P.C.

By

CLL~~

Donald E. Weihi

(#

2960672)

Christina L. Archer (#6215708)

Anna Chesser Smith (# 6279428)

10

South Broadway, Suite 2000

St. Louis,

Missouri 63102

Phone:

(314) 241-9090

Fax: (314) 241-4245

Attorneys

for Hayden Wrecking Corp.

727892

THIS FILING SUBMITFED ON RECYCLED

PAPER

---

RECEIVED

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL9k5~!~OFFSCE

JUL21

2004

PETITION BY HAYDEN

)

WRECKING CORPORATION

)

STATE OF ILLiNOIS

FOR AN ADJUSTED

)

Docket No!oR~82~90~’ltr0I

Board

STANDARD FROM

)

35

ILL. ADM. CODE

§

620.410(a)

)

AMENDED PETITION FOR ADJUSTED STANDARD

COMES NOW, Hayden Wrecking Corporation (“Hayden”), through its

undersigned counsel, and pursuant

to Section 28.1 ofthe Illinois Environmental

Protection Act

(the “Act”), 415

ILCS

5/28.1,

and 35

III. Adm.

Code

§

104.406, amends

its

Petition to the Illinois Pollution Control Board (the “Board”) for an Adjusted Standard

from the

Class I groundwater quality standards for four inorganic chemicals codified at

35 Ill.

Adm.

Code

§

620.410(a).

This Amended Petition is being submitted

in response

to the Board’s June 4, 2004 Order and addresses additional

informationthat has become

available since Hayden filed its initial Petition for Adjusted Standard.

Incorporated by

reference to this Amended Petition is Hayden’s Petition for Adjusted Standard, filed on

April 27, 2004, and its Response to the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s

(“IEPA”) Recommendation to Petition

for Adjusted Standard, filed on June 3, 2004.1

A.

Board’s June 3, 2004

Order

In its

June 3, 2004 Order, the Board requests that Hayden provide

additional information on six categories in support ofits Petition for Adjusted

Standard:

(1)

off-site environmental impacts; (2) downgradient properties and

anticipated

groundwater

uses; (3)

location ofpotable/public water supply wells; (4) site map;

(5)

It

should be noted that the

Board’s Order

was issued on the same day that Hayden filed its

Response

to

LEPA Recommendation.

While

the Board’s Order does raise several issues different from

what was contained in Hayden’s

Response, Hayden’s

Response

does address some ofthe informational

deficiencies cited by the

Board, especially regarding costs of compliance and compliance alternatives.

THIS

FILING SUBMITThD ON RECYCLED PAPER

---

groundwater monitoring information; and (6) compliance costs/compliance alternatives.

This Amended Petition addresses those six categories as follows.

1.

Off-Site Environmental Impact

-

35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.406(g~

The Board requests additional information from Hayden regardingthe off-

site environmental impacts ofarsenic, iron,

lead, and manganese pursuant to

35

Ill. Adm.

Code

104.406(g).

It is important to note that the increased

levels ofthese four inorganic

constituents do not originate from Hayden’s property, and the levels found on Hayden’s

property are also off-site impacts from the originating source.

Hayden’s consultant, Environmental Operations, Inc. (“EOI”), has

modeled the potential off-site impacts of arsenic, iron, lead and manganese based on

groundwater flow towards the southwest.

Based on the modeling runs, there are no off-

site environmental impacts from arsenic.

Iron, lead and manganese show only slight off-

site impacts that do not extend further south or southwest than the highway right-of-way

for Illinois State Route 203

and/or the Interstate

55/70

interchange.

The results ofthe

modeling

runs

are attached hereto as Attachment 1

to Exhibit 1, EOI’s Report dated July

16, 2004.

LOT’ s

modeling runs were based on very conservative transport

calculations.

The modeling

runs

do not take into account retardation, degradation or

attenuation factors.

Regardless, the only potential

off-site impacts appear on property

south and southwest ofHayden’s property that is unlikely to be developed because ofthe

presence ofthe highways.

726913

2

THIS NLING SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

---

2.

Downgradient Properties and Anticipated Groundwater Uses

—

35111.

Adm.

Code

l04.406(d~)

As stated above, the groundwater flow in the

vicinity of

Hayden’s site is

towards the southwest.

Off-site properties downgradient ofHayden’s site include the

lower southeast corner ofproperty owned by Gateway Midstate Truck Plaza, the state-

owned rights-of-way for State Route 203

and for Interstate 55-70, and the Gateway

International Raceway property.

See Figure

1, Site Location and Surrounding Properties

Map, from

EOI’s Report, attached hereto as Exhibit

1.

The portion of the Gateway Midstate Truck Plaza downgradient from

Hayden’s property is used for a parking lot, therefore there are no existing or anticipated

uses ofgroundwater at that property.

There are no existing or anticipated uses of

groundwater from the state-owned rights-of-way for State Route 203

and for Interstate

55-70 directly south and

southwest ofHayden’s property.

The Gateway International

RacewayProperty, west of State Route 203,

is more than 1000 ft downgradient ofthe

Hayden’s site.

Properties south ofInterstate

55-70

are

also more than 1000 ft

downgradient ofthe site.

The modeling runs conducted by EOI demonstrate that all four

inorganic constituents met the groundwater quality standards within 616 feet ofHayden’s

site boundaries to

the south and southwest.

Therefore, no properties west ofRt.

203

or

south ofInterstate 55-70 are impacted.

3.

Location ofPotable/Public Water Supply Wells

The Board requests

that Hayden clarify whether there are any potable or

public water supply wells within 2500 feet of the site.

Hayden notes that Exhibit C to

its

initial Petition for Adjusted Standard contained

an Illinois Water Well Report prepared

by Environmental Data Resources,

Inc. (“EDR”), which provided this information.

726913

3

THIS FILING SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

---

Hayden is also re-providing this

information in Attachment 2 of Exhibit

1.

Attachment 2

also provides the results of an Illinois State Geological Survey search.

Both the EDR

Illinois Water Well Report and Illinois State Geological Survey search indicate that there

are no potable or public water supply wells located within 2500 feet of Hayden’s site.

For further clarification, Figure 4

to Exhibit

1

identifies all wells within a

2500

foot radius ofHayden’s site.

The only wells within 2500 feet ofHayden’s property

are monitoring wells,

which are

all upgradient.

There are no potable or public water

supply wells identified on any downgradient properties within 2500 feet that may be

affected based on the modeling runs discussed in Section A. 1

above.

4.

Site Map —35

111.

Adm.

Code l04.406(d~

The Board requests that Hayden provide a site map clearly identifying all

water wells within 2500 feet ofthe site, all groundwater monitoring wells,

the Milam

Landfill, Gateway International Raceway, and all relevant downgradient properties.

Figure

1

to Exhibit

1

identifies the location ofHayden’s site, the Milam Landfill, the

Gateway Midwest Truck Plaza, the Gateway International Raceway, and the

State Route

203 and

Interstate 5 5/70 interchanges.

As

stated above, only the Gateway Midwest

TruckPlaza and the State Route 203 and Interstate

5

5/70 interchanges canbe

considered

relevant downgradient properties, and their lack ofimpacts was stated in Section A.l.

above.

Figure 4 to Exhibit I identifies

all water wells within 2500 feet ofthe site

and all

groundwater monitoring wells,

As stated in Section A.3 above, there are no potable or

public water supply wells within 2500 feet of the site.

5.

Groundwater Monitoring Information

—

35111. Adm.

Code 104.406(dl

The Board requests that Hayden clarify whether Hayden monitored the

groundwater at the site before

1991 or after 2001.

Haydenhas not monitored the

726913

4

THIS FILING SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

---

groundwater before

1991

or after 2001.

All available groundwater monitoring results

were included in Exhibit C to

Hayden’s initial Petition for Adjusted Standard.

6.

Compliance Costs/Compliance Alternatives

—

35

Ill.

Adm. Code

104.406(e)

The Board requests additional information on the efforts

and

corresponding costs that would be necessary to comply with the regulation of general

applicability and any compliance alternatives.

As stated throughout Hayden’s initial

Petition for Adjusted

Standard, Hayden’s Response to the IEPA’s Recommendation, and

this Amended Petition, Hayden is not the source of the groundwater exceeding the Class I

groundwater quality standards contained

in 35 Ill.

Adm.

Code

620.410(a).

The

groundwater is emanating from an off-site, upgradient

source.

Therefore it is extremely

difficult for Hayden to attempt

to quantify what

would be

necessary for Hayden to

comply with

35 Ill.

Adm.

Code 620.41.0(a) unless and until the source of the groundwater

is addressed.2

The EPA

also recognized this and stated in its Recommendation that the

lack ofcost information did not affect its decision to recommend that the Board grant the

adjusted standard.

Hayden’s consultant, EOI, has identified two other possible options to

comply with 35

Ill. Adm.

Code 620.410(a).

One option is to install a hydraulic bather

either upgradient ofthe Hayden site or around the

entire Hayden site, and the other option

is to pump and treat the groundwater to meet the Class I groundwater quality standards.

BOl states

that the hydraulic barrieris technically impractical because the location ofthe

2

Hayden’s Response to JEPA Recommendation also details

other compliance options which

include a judicial/administrative action either by Hayden or the state

or federal governments,

which are all

unquantifiable,

speculative, resource intensive and cost prohibitive.

It is also unknown whether the

source

of the groundwater will be able to meet the standards through remediation of its on and off-site

groundwater.

726913

5

THIS FILING SUBMITTED ON

RECYCLED PAPER

---

site in the Mississippi Bottoms area and the stratigraphy ofthe area consists

of

very

sandy soils.

EOI estimates that a bather would have to be constructed at least 80

to

100

feet deep to effectively control groundwater flow in such sandy soils and that such a

barrier within sandy soils

and to

that depth is not feasible and/or would be prohibitively

expensive.

Finally, £01 states that a hydraulic bathermay minimize any potential

groundwater impacts directly downgradient of the Hayden site, but would have no impact

on the upgradient sources or contaminants.

The pump and treat option is

also prohibitively expensive.

EOI estimates

that the capital costs involved in designing and installing a pump and treat system would

be approximately $330,000 and the annual operation and maintenance costs would be

approximately $225,000/year.

£01 estimates operation and maintenancecosts for

15

years, for an

estimated total ofjust over

$3.5

million. Because the source(s) of the

inorganic constituents in the groundwater are located off-site, remediation ofimpacted

groundwater on Hayden’s site via a pump and

treat system would not address the off-site

source.

Impacted groundwater would be continually renewed from the off-site source(s),

requiring that remedial efforts be continual without prospect ofcompletion.

Although groundwater pump and treat systems

vary

in the length oftime

they are needed to fifily remediate a site, there is no guarantee when treatment could stop

at the Hayden site.

Annual

costs for such a pump and treat

system exceed the worth of

the property, which is

$475,000 in the proposed sale to Gateway (see Exhibit A to

Hayden’s initial Petition for Adjusted Standard), with no guarantee ofremediation.

Additionally,

any

groundwater pump and treat

system could disrupt the transportation

and parking structure ofthe Raceway and potentially result in

lost revenues for St.

Clair

726913

6

THIS FILING

SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

---

County.

Therefore, it is cost prohibitive and technically infeasible to comply with 35

Ill.

Adm.

Code 620.4 10.

B.

Additional Information

—

Proposed Adjusted Standard

—

35 III. Adm.

Code

104.406(1)

When

Hayden filed its initial Petition for Adjusted Standard and Response

to

EPA

Reconmiendation, Hayden believed that the eight monitoring wells were

installed on Hayden’s property (MW 1-8).

Ofthose

8 monitoring wells, MW-5, MW-6

and MW-7 were believed to be located on

the southern edge ofHayden’s property

boundary.

See, e.g., Exhibit D to Hayden’s initial Petition for Adjusted Standard, Site

Plan

from

SO.

However, in preparing its report for this Amended Petition, EOI noticed

that the site boundaries as delineated by SCI were actually the highway right-of-way

south and parallel to the southern property boundary along a fence line.

A revised SO

siteboundary map is being provided as Exhibit

2 which shows Hayden’s correct site

boundary

and

the right-of-way fence line.

This information only affects one portion of Hayden’s request for adjusted

standard.

Hayden requested the alternate, adjusted levels for arsenic, iron, lead

and

manganese based upon the highest concentrations for each inorganic constituent

previously found at Hayden’s site.

The requested alternate, adjusted levels for iron

and

manganese were previously found at MW 5-7, which Hayden nowbelieves

are

off-site

wells.

Therefore, based on the highest concentrations ofiron

and manganese

previously

found on-site in MW 1-4 and MW 6-8, Hayden requests the following adjusted standard:

620.410 Groundwater Quality

Standards for Class

I:

Potable Resource

Groundwater

a)

Inorganic Chemical Constituents:

Except due to natural causes or as provided in

Section 620.450, concentrations ofthe following chemical constituents must not be

exceeded in Class I groundwater (those limitations

marked

with

an

*

shall apply only

726913

7

THIS FILING SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

---

to Hayden Wrecking Corporation’s former landfill sites located near the

intersection of Illinois Route

203 and Interstate 55/70

in Madison, St. ClaD

Constithent

Units

Antimony

mg/L

0.006

Arsenic

mgJL

0.05

(*

0.082)

Barium

mg/L

Beryllium

mgIL

0.004

Boron

mg/L

Cadmium

mgIL

Chloride

mg/L

Chromium

mg!L

Cobalt

mg/L

1.0

Copper

mg/L

Cyanide

mgIL

Fluoride

mgIL

4.0

Iron

mg/L

5.0

(*

73S)(*

Lead

mg/L

0.0075

Manganese

mg/L

0.15

(*24~2)(*

9.12)~

Mercury

mgIL

0.002

mg/L

0.1

Nitrate as N

mg/L

10.0

Those

limits marked

with a

strike-through

represent the

limits

Hayden previously requested for

iron and manganese

in Exhibit 0 to its

initial

Petition for Adjusted Standard

and in

its

Response to IEPA

Recommendation.

Hayden hereby requests

that

those

portions ofthe pleadings be supercededby the

limits

marked with an

*

herein.

726913

8

THIS FILING

SUBMIITED

ON RECYCLED PAPER

---

Radium-226

pCi/I

20.0

Radium-228

pCi/I

20.0

Selenium

mg/L

0.05

Silver

mg/L

0.05

Sulfate

mg/L

400.0

Thallium

mg/L

0.002

Total Dissolved

Solids

(TDS)

mg/L

1,200

Zinc

mg/L

5.0

C.

Hearing Waiver

Pursuant to

35

Ill.

Adm. Code

§

104.422(a)O), Hayden reserves its

right

to request a hearing at this time.

Additionally, Hayden is prepared to participate in

a

hearing

if the Board determines one is necessarypursuant to 35

111. Adm. Code

§

104.422(a)(3).

P.

Conclusion

The Class I groundwater quality standards for arsenic, iron, lead, and

manganese should be adjusted forHayden because those constituents detected in

Hayden’s groundwater

are

emanating from an upgradient, off-site

source.

Even if

Hayden remediates its onsite

groundwater, groundwater with levels ofthose inorganics in

excess of the Class I standards will continue to

flow beneath its property from the off-site

source.

There

are

no downgradient off-site impacts that would

affect any potable or

public water supply wells, and any costs

of attempting to comply with 35

III. Adm. Code

620.410(a) or any other compliance alternatives, other than the requested adjusted

standard,

are

cost-prohibitive and technically-infeasible.

726913

9

THIS

FILING SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

---

WHEREFORE,

Hayden prays that the Board grant its Amended Petition

for Adjusted Standard from 35

111. Adm.

Code

§

620.4 10(a).

Dated:

July

19, 2004

Respectfully submitted,

GREENSFELDER, HEMKBR, & GALE, P.C.

By___

Donald E. Weihl

(#

2960672)

Christina

L.

Archer

(#

6215708)

Anna

C.

Smith (#6279428)

10 South Broadway, Suite 2000

St. Louis, Missouri 63102

Phone:

(314) 241-9090

Fax:

(314)241-4245

Attorneys for Hayden Wrecking Corp.

726913

10

ThIS

FILING SUBMITrEI)

ON RECYCLED PAPER

---

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy ofHayden’s Amended Petition for Adjusted

Standard was deposited in an envelope with postage fully prepaid, and that said envelope

was deposited in a U.S.

Post Office mailbox in St. Louis,

Missouri, on the

19th

day of

July, 2004, addressed to the following persons:

Dorothy M.

Gunn, Clerk

Kyle Nash Davis, Esq.

Illinois Pollution Control Board

Assistant Counsel

James R. Thompson Center

Illinois Environmental Protection

100 West Randolph Street

Agency, Division of Legal Counsel

Suite 11-500

1021 North Grand Avenue East

Chicago, Illinois

60601

P0 Box

1976

Springfield, Illinois

62794 9276

726913

THIS HUNG SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

---

Exhibit

1

---

July

16, 2004

Ms.

Anna Chesser Smith

Greensfelder, l-lemker & Gale

2000 Equitable Building

10 South Broadway

St. Louis, MO

63102-1774

Operations,

Inc.

Subject:

Additional information Requested by

IPCB

In Support of Petition for Adjusted Standard

Hayden Landfill

Hayden Wrecking Corp.

Madison,

IL

Dear Ms.

Smith:

At your request,

Environmental

Operations,

Inc. (EOI) is providing the attached

additional

information

requested

by

the

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board

in

support

of

your

petition

for

an

adjusted

groundwater standard.

If you have any questions or require

additional

information, please contact me

at (314) 241-0900.

Sincerely,

Environmental Operations, Inc.

Jill A. Witts

Senior Project Manger

Environmental Consulting

& Remediation

757

South Second Street

•

Saint

Louis,

Missouri 63102—1617

•

314—241—0900

•

314—436—2900

Fax

www.envi ronmenta ops. corn

On

~

•~1~

---

Environmental

Operations, Inc

HAYDEN

LANDFILL

ADDITIONAL INFORMATiON

REQUESTED

BY THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION

CONTROL

BOARD

IN

SUPPORT OF GROUNDWATER ADJUSTED STANDARD

PETITION

The Board found that the petition did

not fully satisfy informational requirements contained

in

Section 28.1(c) of the Act (415 ILCS

5/28.1(c) (2002)) and the Board’s rules at

35

III. Adm. Code

104.406.

The following information is provided to address the Board’s findings, repeated below:

1.

Under Section 28.1(c)(3) of the Act (415

ILCS 28.1(c)(3) (2002)) and

35

III. Adm. Code

104.406(g), the

petition does not address the off-site environmental impact of migration

from the

Hayden site

of groundwater with levels of certain

inorganic contaminants

above

the

Class

I groundwater standards.

The following constituents of interest (COI) were identified as exceeding Tier

1

Class

I

groundwater remedial objectives (SOs)

in the 2001

monitoring event:

arsenic,

iron, lead,

and

manganese.

In order to address the off-site environmental

impact from the Hayden site of

groundwater migration with

levels of

CCI

above the Class

I groundwater standards,

simulations

of downgradient concentrations of the COI were calculated using the

TACO PIus! Software

package (ATR, 2001)

and

Equation R-26, pursuant to

35

IAC 742,810.

R-26 provides

a very

conservative solution for groundwater transport of these inorganic COl.

The simulations are

considered conservative because the model does riot include

retardation, degradation

or

attenuation

factors.

Modeling input parameters including applicable calculated and default site-

specific input parameters are summarized

below:

Site-Specific Information for R-26 Modeling

at Hayden Landfill:

Hydraulic

Monitoring

Gradient

Well

(ftlft)

Distance to

Compliance

Point (m)

Source

Width

(Sw) (m)

MW-I

0.00088

115.4

77.5

MW-2

0.00086

198;0

107.5

MW-3

0.00124

257.9

65.5

MW-4

0.00090

170.1

49.6

MW-S

0.00064

100

68.0

MW-6

0.00097

100

68.9

MW-i

0.00097

100

96.6

MW-S

0.00076

100

29.9

Hydraulic gradient is

based on

a groundwater elevation change from

the monitoring well to the

compliance

point or southern-most elevation line along the path of groundwater flow as shown in

Figure

2.

The compliance

point is the site boundary for upgradient monitoring wells.

For

downgradient wells,

the compliance point was arbitrarily set at

100

m for the

purposes of running

the

model.

Source width (Sw) is conservatively set to reflect the midpoint of the distance between

each

monitoring well and the adjacent well or site boundary perpendicular to groundwater

flow.

Environmental Consulting

& Remediation

757 South Second Street

•

Saint

Louis, Missouri 63102—1617

•

314—241—0900

•

314—436—2900

Fax

www.environmentalops.com

~rt~c~r.

~

---

In that way, each well represents

a portion of the site’s groundwater that

it could

be expected to

monitor,

and the groundwater from

the entire site

and downgradient

of the site

is represented.

For wells on

the eastern and western edges, the S~

for the outer half (where there is no adjacent

well) was set

equal to the

S~.,for the inner half as

described above.

Gradients, distances

to the

compliance point, and

5W

are shown

above and on Figure

2.

The soil type is sand.

The

hydraulic conductivity (K) is based

on the published

general

hydraulic

conductivity for fine-grained sandy soils (Freeze and Cherry,

1979).

The direction of groundwater

flow is generally to the southwest.

The model

default natural organic carbon fraction (f0~)values

for surface and subsurface soils were used (6,000

and 2,000 mg/kg,

respectively).

Results of the modeling are presented below and

in Attachment

1.

Arsenic, found

in the

upgradient wells only

in

2001, met the Tier I

RO within

the distance to the compliance point (site

boundary).

Other COl

in the upgradient wells also met the Tier

1

ROs within

the distance to the

compliance point, except for manganese.

For wells already

at the downgradient

site boundary,

the greatest migration distance was for manganese from

MW-8,

187.75 m.

The simulated

migration plumes for manganese

in

groundwater from downgradient

monitoring wells

is depicted

on Figure

3.

The plume length for the other COl from

the downgradient

wells are less than the

manganese plumes

shown; therefore only manganese is shown on

Figure 3.

Based

on these

migration distances, impacted groundwater has potentially migrated onto the adjacent properties

south and southwest of the

site.

COI

potentially exceeding

SOs on the downgradient properties

include

iron,

lead, and manganese.

Page

2 of 7

---

Tier

1

Groundwater

coi

RO

(mg/L)

Concentration

Tier

1

RO

j

in

2001

Compliance

In

compliance at

(mg/L)

Distance

Site

Boundary?

Exceeding

from Source

Tier

1

RO

(meters)

Predicted

Concentration at

compliance Point

(Site Boundary)

(mg/L)

UPORADIENT

WELLS

MW-I

Iron

5.0

28

82.42

YES

3.11

Lead

0.0075

0.014

27.33

YES

0.00155

Manganese

0.15

3.4

198.63

NO

0.377

MW-2

Arsenic

0.05

0.082

23.28

YES

0.00462

Iron

5.0

54

145.57

YES

3.05

Lead

0.0075

0.0099

17.11

YES

0.000558

Manganese

0.15

3.4

229.57

NO

0.192

MW-3

Iron

5.0

7.7

21.43

YES

0.180

Manganese

0.15

2.2

144.58

YES

0.0513

MW-4

Iron

5.0

7,1

19.13

YES

0.285

Manganese

0.15

6.9

234.22

NO

0.277

DOWNGRAOIENT

WELLS

MW-5

0.0824

Manganese

0.15

0.640

64.29

MW4

—

39.77

Iron

5.0

13

*

1.69

Lead

0.0075

0.015

29.65

•

0.00194

Manganese

0.15

1.7

127.15

*

0.220

MW-i

Manganese

0.15

2.1

165.37

0.312

MW-a

Iron

5.0

10

28.25

t

0.693

Lead

0.0075

0.014

26.40

*

0.000971

Manganese

0.15

7.3

I

187.75

I

•

0.506

*

-

Not applicable

—compliance point is site

boundary.

Predicted concentration

for

downgradient wells is at

100

m downgradient.

Based

on the modeling results presented above, the offsite environmental impact is

summarized as follows:

•

Arsenic

—

Arsenic was only detected

at concentrations

exceeding the Class

I

RO

in

upgradient monitoring well MW-2

in 2001.

Modeling

results showed that the arsenic

concentration

met the Class

I

RO

at

a distance of 23.28

m, well within the distance to

the site boundary along the downgradient flow line (198

m).

Therefore, arsenic does

not have any environmental impact on off-site properties based on these modeling

results.

•

Iron

-

Iron was detected

at concentrations exceeding the Class

I

RO

in upgradient

monitoring wells MW-i,

MW-2,

MW-3 and MW-4, and

in downgradient

wells MW-6

and MW-B in 2001.

The greatest concentrations were detected in upgradient wells

MW-I

and MW-2.

Groundwater migration simulations indicated that the Class

I

groundwater RO was met for all upgradient monitoring wells at distances

considerably less than the distance to the point of compliance,

For downgradient

well

MW-6, the iron concentration

met the Class

I SO within 39.77 m.

Therefore, the

Class

I RO for iron is potentially exceeded in groundwater beneath the property

south

of the site,

on which

an

Interstate 55-70 interchange is located.

For well

MW-8

at the

Page 3 of

7

---

western property

boundary, the iron concentration met the Class

I RO within

28.25 m.

Therefore, the Class

I RO for iron is potentially exceeded

in groundwater beneath

the

adjacent property to the west,

and the highway right-of-way for Illinois State Route

203.

•

Lead

—

Lead was detected at concentrations exceeding the Class

I

SO

in upgradient

monitoring wells MW-i

and

MW-2, and downgradient wells MW-6 and

MW-B.

Groundwater migration simulations

indicated

that the Class

I

groundwater SO for

lead was met for all

upgradient monitoring wells at distances considerably less than

the distance to the point of compliance.

For downgradient well MW-6, the lead

concentration

met

the Class

I

SO within 29.65

m.

Therefore, the Class

I RO for lead

is potentially exceeded

in groundwater beneath the property south of the

site,

on

which

an Interstate 55-70 interchange is located.

For well MW-B

at the western

property boundary, the lead concentration met the Class

I

SO within 29.65 m.

Therefore, the Class

I SO for lead

is potentially exceeded in groundwater beneath

the adjacent property to the west, and the highway right-of-way for St. 203.

•

Manganese

—

Manganese concentrations exceeded the Class

I

SO in

all monitoring

wells at the site.

Predicted manganese concentrations exceeded the Class

I

RO at

the compliance point from

all wells except MW-S.

Therefore, the Class

I

SO for

manganese

is potentially exceeded

in groundwater beneath the properties west,

south

and southwest of the

site.

The simulated plume that extends farthest off site

is

from

MW-B,

187.75 m (616 ft).

This distance is still within the state and interstate

highway rights-of-way;

therefore,

the Class

I

SO for manganese is potentially

exceeded

in groundwater beneath the adjacent property

to the west, and

the

highway

rights-of-way for St. 203 and Interstate 55-70.

No other offsite properties are

potentially impacted, based on the results of the modeling.

•

No surface water receptors or natural areas were identified at the offsite properties

downgradient

of the site within the area of potential impact.

2.

Under 35 Ill.

Adm. Code 104.406(d), the petition does not address off-site properties

downgradient from the Hayden site or

any

existing or anticipated uses of the groundwater

from those properties.

Off-site properties downgradient

from

the Hayden site

include the following properties:

to the

west,

Parcel

ID # 02-06.0-400-003,

owned by

Gateway Midstate Truck Plaza; and the state-

owned rights-of-way for State Route 203 and for Interstate 55-70 (Figure

1).

The Gateway

International

Raceway property, west of St. 203,

is more than

1000 ft downgradient of the site.

Properties south of Interstate 55-70 are also more

than

1000 ft downyradient of the site.

Modeling results showed that all COl

met the Class

I SOs within 616 ft (maximum distance) of the

site boundaries.

Therefore, no properties west of Rt.

203 or south of Interstate 55-70 are

impacted.

Gateway Midstate Truck Plaza operates a gas station, restaurant and

truck stop on the property

west of the site.

The facilities are located on the northern portion

of the Gateway property, and

the southern

two-thirds of the property is a parking

area.

The

portion of the property directly

adjacent to the Hayden

site is used for parking only, and no facilities

are located on that portion.

A well search was conducted through Environmental

Data Resources,

Inc.

(EDR) and the

Illinois

State Geological Survey, and wells within 2500 ft of the site

were identified (Figure 4).

The well

search results

are included in Attachment 2.

There are no public water supply wells or potable

water wells identified within 2500

ft

of the site.

There are no water wells identified at any of the

downgradient

properties identified

as potentially impacted.

The closest downgradient wells

identified

as water wells are located approximately 4,500 ft downgradient from the site.

Therefore, there is no existing water use on adjacent properties downgradient of the site.

Due

to

the presence of the highways, future property

uses are expected to remain the same.

Therefore,

Page 4 of

7

---

there is no anticipated future use of groundwater on the

adjacent properties downgradient of the

site.

Groundwater at

the

site

is precluded

from development as

a

potable resource due to the

establishment of protective

institutional

controls (a municipal ordinance

in the

City of Madison and

an environmental land use control

ELUCJ

at the site).

These institutional

controls prevent the

development of groundwater for consumptive purposes.

3.

Under 35

III.

Adm. Code 104.406(d), although the

petition states

that the site

is not

within the setback

zone of any potable water supply well, Pet. At 5, the petition

does not

clarify whether there are any potable water wells or public water supply

wells within

2500

feet of the

site.

In section

(h) of Attachment C to the petition,

it was stated that there are no public water supply

wells

or potable water supplies located at the site or within

a 2500 ft radius of the site,

based on

a

search of the

Illinois Water Survey records conducted

by EDR.

A copy of the search

is attached

in Attachment 2.

In

addition, the Illinois State

Geological Survey search did

not identify any public

water supply wells or potable water wells within 2500 ft of the site.

The only wells within

2500 ft

of the site were monitoring

wells, and

those wells were upgradient of the site (Figure 4).

4.

Under 35

III. Adm. Code 104.406(d) the petition does not include

a

map of the site

clearly identifying the location of the

following:

all water wells within 2500 feet of the site,

groundwater monitoring wells, the Milam

Landfill, Gateway International

Raceway,

and

all

relevant downgradient

properties.

Figure

1

was scanned from

an enhanced

aerial photo provided by St. Clair County and shows

the

Milam Landfill, the

Gateway International Raceway, and all relevant downgradient

properties.

Figure

4 shows

all water wells and

groundwater monitoring wells within

2500 ft of the site.

5.

Under 35111. Adm. Code 104.406 (d), the petition does

not clarify whether Hayden

monitored groundwater at the site before 1991 or after 2001.

If Hayden has

monitored

groundwater at the site before

1991

or after 2001,the

petition does not include results of

such monitoring.

Hayden did

not monitor groundwater

at the site before

1991

or after 2001.

All available

groundwater monitoring results for the

site were presented in the petition.

6.

Under 35

III. Adm. Code

104.406(e), the petition does not describe the

efforts and

corresponding costs that would be necessary to comply with

the regulation of general

applicability.

Also, the petition does not describe any

compliance alternatives

and

corresponding costs that would

be necessary to comply with

the regulation

of

general

applicability.

In order to comply with the

regulation

of general applicability, the following options were-identified:

1) attempt to locate the source of the exceeded levels of inorganics constituents and proceed with

a judicial/administrative action to force the source

to remediate both

its

on

and off-site

constituents; 2) attempt to convince the

IEPNU.S.

EPA to become involved

to force the source

to

remediate the on and off-site constituents; 3) install

a hydraulic barrier either upgradient of the

Hayden

site or around the entire Hayden

site;

and 4) pump and treat groundwater to meet the

Tier I

Class

I

SOs.

Page

5 of 7

---

For Options

1

and

2 above, the corresponding costs and time frame associated with either option

are unquantifiable, speculative

and prohibitive (especially if litigation and/or state resource costs

are factored in).

Option

3

is technically impractical because the site

is located in the American

Bottoms area

(Mississippi River floodplain).

The stratigraphy consists of over

100 ft of alluvium

and

it

Is

estimated that the barrier would

have to

be constructed at least 80 to

100 ft deep to effectively

control groundwater flow in the sandy soils.

Construction of such a barrier within the alluvium

and

to that depth

is not feasible

and/or would be prohibitively expensive.

A hydraulic barrier would

minimize the groundwater

impacts directly downgradient of the Hayden site, but would have no

impact on

the upgradient sources or contaminants.

Option 4,

to pump and treat

the groundwater, is also prohibitively expensive.

A general cost

estimate is provided

below for a groundwater pump and treat system.

The first step would be

to

install wells and conduct pump tests

in order to collect

data needed

to design the treatment

system.

The treatment system would consist of groundwater extraction wells, groundwater

recovery pumps,

piping

to the treatment system building, treatment system including system,

pipe, fittings and valves, tanks,

pumps, controls, heating,

heating,

insulation and electrical

systems for the building, and permitting

and system to dispose of treated wastewater.

Annual

operation and maintenance costs would include weekly system maintenance of the wells,

pumps,

treatment system, etc., replacement parts, treatment system supplies, utility fees,

and reporting.

Listed below are estimated general costs for a groundwater pump and

treat system.

Item

Estimated Cost

Capital Cost

System design

$25,000

Extraction wells

$30,000

Pumps

$30,000

Treatment system

$1 50,000

Building

$50,000

Piping

$30,000

Discharge permit/system

$15,000

Subtotal

$330,000

0 &

M (yearly)

Maintenance

$90,000

Repairs (parts)

$25,000

Sampling and reporting

$60,000

Utility fees

$30,000

Subtotal

$225,000

o

& M

15 years

$3,375,000

TOTAL

$3,705,000

-I

Because the source(s) of COI

in the groundwater are believed to be located off-site,

remediation

of impacted groundwater

on site would

not address the off-site source.

Impacted groundwater

would be

continually renewed from the off-site source(s), requiring that remedial

efforts be

continual without prospect of completion.

0

& M costs in the table above were shown for

15

years; however, there would be

no guarantee that treatment could stop after 15 years.

Even

using the

15-year period,

the capital and 0

&

M costs

to treat the groundwater are much

greater

than the total worth of the property ($475,000 in the proposed sale

to Gateway).

Page

6 of 7

---

Compliance alternatives would include

the adjustment of the Class

I groundwater standards as

requested

in the petition.

There would be

no costs associated with

meeting the adjusted

groundwater standards,

other than the one-time costs

to petition for the adjusted standards.

Page

7 of 7

---

I

4

P,ojec/#OOl1

eratkwts,

Inc.

Environmental Op

SNorth

II

600

1200

2400

Approximate

Scale,

feet

Site Location

and

Surrounding

Properties

Map

Hayden Landfill

Madison.

Illinois

a

Figure

1

—.

---

p

Project

#0011

Ertvironiriental

0pcration~.

Inc.

Existing

Mon,toring Well

Location

Gradient Calculation

line

Groundwater

Surface

S.,~(meters)

Groundwater

Elevation

Note:

Wells

gauged

by

EQI

Tier 2 Groundwater

Modeling

Parameters

Haydn,, Landfill

Madison,

Illinois

-

-

—

I

0

60

120

240

Apprcximate

Scale, feet

Legend

‘S

‘iay

391.30)

S

a

a

Figure 2

---

I

C

0

Co

di

a

di

Co

o

t’

ow

en

di

o

U,

‘~0

a

a

0

r

Lit,

c

C,

0

I

C,

E

C

C

C

r

—

U,

-J

c

to

Ia

t

t

•

‘53 ~

0

~

‘a1,0

0’-

a

aLE

C

(a

.9

it

“U,,

---

I

~

.c

~

~

k.~irVn‘,,.i•-:~’,’nt.’.

-,‘.

&.‘c’S4t•~

;.,p:,~

‘a

I

4

‘.4

./

.

uiOO#i°°s’°Jd

____JA

,~

T1

.

‘I,.

-

---

Datasheet

B: Physical

Soil Parameters

for the

RBCA Equations

Area(s)/Location(s) at

the site, if applicable

Predominant

Soil

Type

(e.g.,

clay,

sand, silty clay, etc.

Surface

(top

1

meter)

or

Subsurface (below

1

meter):

Site-specifc

values

i.e.,

field measurements (F)

or calculated values using the SSL equation (S

to

be reported if they

are

used in developing the Tier 2 cleanup objectives.

Acceptable procedur

obtaining

these values are

identified

in

Appendix

C, Table F of

TACO

Parameter

Soil Type

Default

Value

Units

Field Measurement

or

Calculated

Value

pb

(Soil Bulk Density)

Surface and/or

Subsurface

soils

1.5

g/cm’

F

=

Surface

Subsurface

1.50

1.50

Gravel

2.0

Sand

Silt

~

i.U’”

1.6

1.7

w

(Moisture Content)

Surface and/or

Subsurface

Soils

0.1

gwater/gsoil

(unitless)

Surface Soils

0.1

Subsurface

Soils

0,2

fcc

(Organic Carbon Content)

Surface Soils

0.006

g/g

(unitless)

Surface

Subsurface

0.006

0.002

Subsurface

Soils

0,002

9~

(Total Soil Porosity)

Surface and/or

Subsurface Soils

0.43

cm’/cm’

(unitless)

Surface

Subsurface

0.43

0.43

Gravel

Sand

0.25

0.32

Silt

Clay

0.40

0.36

8as

(Air.filled

Soil Porosity)

Surface Soils

0.28

cm3lcm3

(unitless)

Surface

Subsurface

0.28

0.13

Subsurface Soils

0.13

Gravel

0.05

Sand

0,14

Silt

0.24

Clay

0.19

ews

(Water-filled

Soil Porosity)

Surface

‘0.15

cm’/cm’

(unitless)

Surface

Subsurface

0.15

0.30

Subsurface Soils

Gravel

Sand

0.30

020

0.18

Silt

0.16

Clay

0.17

07/14/04

Page

1 of!

Inventory ID (10

digits):

0011-MW-I

---

Datasheet

RBCA-VII.

Concentration of Contaminant in Groundwater Source

Datasheet

RBCA-VJI is to be used to predict the groundwater concentration at

a specified distance

from the source

as calculated by the equation in Appendix

C

of TACO: Equation R26 (residential,

industrial! commercial and

construction worker scenarios).

Since values listed in Datasheet

RBCA-V are used in this evaluation,

this datasheet must also

be submitted.

Csource (mg/L)

See below

Uy

(cm)

385

X (cm)

1,540.00

Sd (cm)

200

ccx(cm)*

1,154

az(cm)

58

k(l/day)***

See below

K

(cnild)

86.40

U (cm/d)”

0.18

i(unitless)

0.00

Sw (cm)

7,750

UT (unitl~s)**

0.43

*

ax,ay, az,

and U are reported on Datasheet RBCA-V

* *

Physical Soil

Parameter (see

Datasheet B)

*41*

Chemical Properties (see Datasheet

C)

Chemical Name

(1/day)

Csource*

C(x)

28,00000

3.11E+O0

Lead

0.01400

Manganese

3.40000

*

Note:

Csoume

is the

measured concentntion at the

source for this

form.

Iron

(mgi)

(mgi)

I .55E-03

3.77E-Ol

07/14/04

RBCA-Vll:

Page

1

of

I

Inventory ID (10

digits): 0011-MW-I

---

Conc.

in

mg/L

10~

Hayden Landfill MW-i

Calculated Ground Water Information

Iron

Distance from Source

(m)

Distance to Meet Ground Water Objectives

class

I

82.42

in.

Class II

82.42

m.

Calculated Ground Water Concentrations

Distance from Source (in)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Ito

115.4

Calculated Concentration

(mg/L)

2.8013-fOl

2.6713+01

1.9113+01

1.3913+01

1.0713+01

8.6813±00

7.2213+00

6.1013+00

5,1913-f

00

4.4513+00

3. 8513+00

3,3413+00

3.1113+00

3’

2

15-

5

0

0

50

100

150

Date: 7-14-04

Revision:

I

Page

1

inventory 1.D. 0011-MW-I

---

Hayden Landfill MW-i

Conc.

in

rng/L

0.015~

0.01

0.005-

0.000

Calculated Ground Water Information

Lead

Distance

from

Source (m)

Distance to Meet Ground Water Objectives

Class!

Class II

27.33

m.

Met

Calculated Ground Water Concentrations

Distance from

Source (m)

0

10

20

30

40

so

60

70

80

90

100

Ito

115.4

Calculated Concentration (mg/L)

1.4013-02

I.34E-02

9.5613-03

6.9313-03

5.3613-03

4.3413-03

3.6113-03

3.05E-03

2.6013-03

2. 23E-03

1.9213-03

1.6713-03

1.5513-03

0

50

100

150

Date:

7.14-04

Revision:

1

Page

1

inventory

l.D. 0011-MW-I

---

Hayden Landfill MW-i

Calculated Ground Water Information

Manganese

Conc.

in

mgfL

0

50

100

Distance from

Source (m)

Distance to

Meet Ground Water Objectives

Class I

198.63 m.

Class

11

Met

Calculated Ground Water Concentrations

Distance from Source (m)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

115.4

Calculated Concentration

(mg/L)

3.4013+00

3.2513+00

2,3213+00

1.6813+00

1.3013+00

1.0513+00

8.7713-01

7. 4013-0 1

6.3013-01

5.4113-01

4.6713-01

4.0613-01

3.7713-01

3.

2-

1

0

150

Date:

7-14-04

RevIsion:

I

Page

1

Inventory ID. 0011-MW-I

---

Datasheet B:

Physical Soil Parameters for the RBCA Equations

Area(s)/Location(s)

at the site, if

applicable

-

Predominant

Soil

Type

(e.g., clay,

sand, silty clay, etc.

Surface

(top

1 meter) or

Subsurface

(below

1

meter):

Site-specifc values

i.e.,

field

measurements

(F=)

or calculated

values

using

the

SSL equation (S

to

be

reported

if

they

are

used in developing the

Tier

2

cleanup objectives.

Acceptable procedur

obtaining these values

are

identified in Appendix C, Table F ofTACO

Parameter

Soil Type

Default

Value

Units

Field Measurement

or

Calculated

Value

pb

(Soil Bulk Density)

Surface and/or

Subsurface soils

1.5

g/cm’

F

=

Surface

Subsurface

1.50

1.50

Gravel

2.0

~SiiiTh~~’~’

1.8

‘SiIF’’

C

1.6

~r-

w

(Moisture Content)

Surface and/or

Subsurface Soils

0.1

gwater/gsoil

(unitless)

Surface

Soils

0.1

Subsurface Soils

0.2

foe

(Organic Carbon Content)

Surface Soils

0.006

g/g

(unitiess)

Surface

Subsurface

0.006

0.002

Subsurface Soils

0.002

0r

(Total

Soil Porosity)

Surface and/or

Subsurface

Soils

Gravel

Sand

0.43

0,25

0.32

cmVcm’

(unitless)

Surface

Subsurface

0.43

0.43

Silt

Clay

0.40

Th36

0.zs

(Air-filled

Soil

Porosity)

Surface Soils

-

0.28

-

cm’/cm’

(unitless)

Surface

Subsurface

0.28

0.13

Subsurface Soils

Gravel

0.13

0.05

Sand___________

Silt

Clay

0.14

0.24

0.19

U

(Water-filled Soil Porosity)

Surface

0.15

0.30

cm’/cm’

(unitless)

Surface

Subsurface

0.15

0.30

Subsurface

Soils

~i~’

0.20

Sand

0.18

Silt

Clay

0.16

0.17

07/14/04

Page

1

of

I

Inventory ID

(10

digits):

001 1-MW-2

---

Datasheet RBCA-VIL

Concentration of Contaminant in Groundwater Source

Datasheet RBCA-VII is to

be used to predict the groundwater concentiation at a specified distance

from the soume as calculated by the equation in AppendixC ofTACO: Equation R26 (residential,

industriail commercial and

construction worker scenarios).

Since values listed in Datasheet

RBCA-V

are used in this evaluation, this

datasheet

must also be submitted.

Csource (mg/L)

See below

Uy

(cm)

663

X

(cm)

9,900.00

Sd (cm)

200

ax(cm)

1,990

az(cm)

100

~(l/thy)4’4’4’

Seebelow

K(cnu/d)

86.40

U

(cm/d)*

0.17

i (unitiess)

0.00

Sw (cm)

10,750

Ui

(unitless)

0,43

*

ax, ay, az,

and U

are reported on Datasheet RBCA-V

*

4’

Physical Soil

Parameter

(see

Datasheet B)

4’”

Chemical Properties (see

Datasheet

C)

Csource4’

C(x)

Chemical Name

(1/day)

(mg/L)

(mg/L)

Arsenic

0.08200

4.6213-03

Iron

54.00000

3.05E+00

Lead

0.00990

5.58E-04

Manganese

3.40000

1.92E-01

*

Note:

Csouite is the measured

concentration at the

source

for this

form.

07/14/04

RBCA-V11:

Page

I

of i

Inventory ID

(10

digits): 001

l-MW-2

---

Conc.

in

mg/L

0.1

0.08-

0.06-

0.

0.02

0.00

Hayden Landfill

MW-2

Calculated Ground

Water Information

Arsenic

Distance

from

Source (m)

Distance to Meet Ground Water Objectives

Class

I

23.28

m.

Class H

Met

Calculated Ground Water Concentrations

Distance from Source

(m)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

Calculated

Concentration

(mg/L)

8.20E-02

7.83

E-02

56013-02

4.0613-02

3.1413-02

2.55

13-02

2.1413-02

I

8413-02

I .6013-02

1.4113-02

1.2513-02

1.1113-02

9 .9613-03

8.9313-03

8.0413-03

7.2613-03

65813-03

5.9813-03

5.46E-03

0

50

100

150

200

Date: 7-14-04

Revision:

I

Page

1

Inventory

1.1). 0011-MW-2

---

Catculited Ground Water Concentrattona

Arsenic

Calculated Ground Water Concentrations

Distance from Source (m)

Calculated Concentration (mg/L)

190

5.0013-03

199

4.6213-03

Date:

7-14-04

Revision:

I

Page

2

-

Inventory I.D.

00l1-NIW-2

---

Hayden Landfill

MW—2

Calculated

Ground Water Information

Iron

Conc.

in

mg/L

0

50

100

150

Distance

from

Source (m)

Distance to Meet Ground Water Objectives

Class

145.57

m.

Class II

145.57 m.

Calculated

Ground Water Concentrations

Distance from

Source (m)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

Calculated Concentration

(mg/L)

5.4013+01

5.1513+01

3.6913+01

2.6713+0

1

2.0713+01

1.6813+01

1.4113+01

l.21E+01

1.0613+01

9.3013÷00

8,2413+00

7.3413÷00

6.5613÷00

5. 8813+00

5.2913+00

4.7813+00

4.33 E+00

3 .9413+00

3.6013+00

3

2

1

0

200

Date:

7-14-04

Revision:

I

Page

1

Inventory ID. OO11-MW-2

---

Calculated Ground Water Concentrations

Calculated

Ground Water Concentrations

Distance from Source

(in)

Calculated

Concentration

(mg/L)

190

3.2913+00

199

3.0513+00

Date: 7-14-04

Revision:

I

Page

2

Inventory 1.0.

O011-MW-2

---

Conc.

in

mg/L

Hayden Landfill

MW—2

Calculated

Ground

Water Information

Lead

Distance

from

Source (m)

Distance to Meet Ground Water Objectives

Class I

17.11

m.

Class II

Met

Calculated Ground Water Concentrations

Distance from Source (m)

0

I0

20

30

40

50

60

70

so

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

Calculated Concentration (mg!L)

9. 9013-03

9.4513-03

6.7613-03

4.9013-03

3.7913-03

3.0813-03

2 .5813-03

2.2213-03

1.9413-03

I

.7013-03

1.5

113-03

1.3413-03

1.2013-03

1.0813-03

9.7113-04

8. 7713-04

7.95 13-04

7.2213-04

6.5913-04

0.01

0.

0.00’

0.00~

0.000

0

50

100

150

200

Date: 7-14-04

Revision:

1

Page

1

Inventory LD.

00l1-MW-2

---

Calculated Ground Water Concentrationu

Calculated Ground Water Concentrations

Distance from Source (m)

Calculated Concentration

(mg/L)

190

6.0313-04

199

5.5813-04

Date:

7-14-04

Revision:

1

Page

2

Inventory1.0. 00II-MW-2

---

Conc.

n mg/L

Hayden Landfill MW-2

Calculated Ground Water

Information

Manganese

Distance from Source

(m)

Distance

to

Meet

Ground Water Objectives

Class

I

Class II

229.57 m.

Met

Calculated

Ground Water Concentrations

Distance

from

Source (m)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

ISO

160

170

180

Calculated Concentration (mg/L)

3 .4013+00

3 .2513+00

2.3213+00

1.6813+00

1.3013+00

4.0613+00

8. 8713-0

1

7.6213-01

6.6513-01

5.8613-Cl

5.

1913-Cl

4.6213-0

I

4. 1313-01

3.70E-Ol

3.33E-01

3.0113-01

2,7313-01

2.4813-01

2,2613-01

2

1

0

0

50

100

150

00

Date: 7-14-04

Revision:

I

Page

1

InventoryI.D. 001l-MW-2

---

Calculated Ground Water Concentrations

Manganese

Calculated Ground Water Concentrations

Distance from Source

(m)

Calculated

Concentration (mg/L)

190

2.0713-01

199

1.9213-01

Date: 7-14-04

Revision:

1

Page

2

InventoryID. 00h1-M’W-2

---

Datasheet B:

Physical Soil Parameters for the RBCA Equations

Area(s)/Location(s) at the site, if applicable

Predominant Soil

Type (e.g., clay, sand, silty clay, etc.

Surface (top

1

meter) or Subsurface

(below

1

meter):

Site-specifc values i.e.,

field measurements (F=) or calculated values using the

SSL equation (S

to be reported if they are used in developing the Tier 2 cleanup objectives.

Acceptable procedur

obtaining these values

are identified in Appendix C, Table F ofTACO

Parameter

Soil

Type

Default

Value

Units

Field Measurement

or

Calculated

Value

ph

(Soil Bulk Density)

Surface and/or

Subsurface soils

Gravel

1.5

2.0

g/cm’

F

=

Surface

Subsurface

1.50

1.50

Sd””~

iT~”

~“~ff’””~

Chy

‘T6’

1.7

w

(Moisture Content)

Surface and/or

Subsurface Soils

0,1

gwater/gsoil

(unitless)

Surface

Soils

Subsurface

Soils

0.1

—

0.2

foc

(Organic Carbon Content)

Surface Soils

0.006

gIg

(unitless)

Surface

Subsurface

0.006

0.002

Subsurface

Soils

0.002

0T

(Total Soil Porosity)

Surface and/or

Subsurface

Soils

-

0.43

—

0.25

cm’/cm’

(unitless)

—

Surface

Subsurface

0.43

0.43

Gravel

Sand

0.32

Silt

Clay

0.40

0.36

e~

(Air-filled

Soil Porosity)

Surface

Soils

0.28

cm’/cm’

(unitless)

Surface

Subsurface

0.28

0.13

Subsurface Soils

Gravel

0.13

0.05

0.14

Sand

Silt

0.24

Clay

0.19

o

(Water-filled Soil Porosity)

Surface

0.15

cm’Icm’

(unitless)

Surface

0.15

Subsurface

0.30

i~ih~iirfaceS~E”

0.30

“~F’

0.20

Sand

Silt

Clay

0.18

0.16

0.17

07/14/04

Page

1 of!

Inventory ID (10 digits): 0011-MW-3

---

Datasheet RBCA-YII.

Concentration of Contaminant in Groundwater Source

Datasheet RBCA-VH

is to be used to predict the groundwater concentration

at a specified distance

from the source as calculated by the equation in Appendix C ofTACO:

Equation R26 (residential,

industrial! commercial and construction worker scenarios).

Since values listed in Datasheet

RBCA-V

are used in this

evaluation, this datasheet

must also be submitted.

*

ax,

ay, az, andU

are reported on

Datasheet RBCA-V

**

““

Chemical Properties (see Datasheet

C)

A

Chemical

Name

(1/day)

Iron

Manganese

Csource*

C(x)

(mg/L)

(tng/L)

7.70000

2.20000

*

Note: Csoujce is the measured

concentration at the source

for this

font.

Csource (mg/L)

See below

cxy (cm)

860

X

(cm)

5,790.00

Sd (cm)

200

ax

(cm)*

2,579

czz(cm)

129

A(1/day)***

Seebelow

K(cni/d)

86.40

U

(cmid)*

0,25

i (unit!ess)

0.00

Sw (cm)

6,550

OT(unitless)**

0.43

Physical Soil

Parameter (see Datasheet B)

l.80E-01

5.1313-02

07/!4/04

RBCA-VI1:

Page!

of

I

Inventory ID (10

digits): 00II-MW-3

---

Conc.

in

mg/L

0

Hayden Landfill MW-3

Calculated

Ground Water Information

Iron

Distance

from Source (m)

Distance to Meet Ground

Water Objectives

Class!

Class

1!

21.43m.

21.43m.

Calculated Ground Water Concentrations

Distance

from Source (m)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

Calculated Concentration (mg/L)

7.705+00

7.355+00

5.26E+00

3.815±00

2.945+00

2.375+00

1.945+00

1,615+00

1.35 5+00

1.145+00

9.715-01

8.34E-01

7.23E-01

6.325-01

5.55E-Ol

4.925-01

4.385-01

3.93E-01

3.545-01

4.

2

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Date:

7-14-04

Revision:

I

Page

Inventory I.D. O011-M’W-3

---

Calculated Ground

Water Concentratjonp

Calculated

Ground Water Concentrations

Distance from Source (in)

Calculated

Concentration

(mg/L)

190

3.205-01

200

2.915-01

210

2.655-01

220

2.435-01

230

2.235-01

240

2.065-01

250

1.915-01

257.9

1.805-Cl

Date:

7-14-04

Revision:

I

Page

2

Inventory 1.0. O011-MW-3

---

Hayden Landfill MW-3

Calculated

Ground

Water Information

Manganese

Conc.

in mg/L

2.

2.0~

1.5

1

0.5

0.0

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Distance

from Source

(m)

Distance to Meet Ground Water Objectives

Class I

Class

11

l44.58m.

Met

Calculated Ground Water Concentrations

Distance from Source

(in)

0

I0

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

I40

150

160

170

180

Calculated

Concentration (mg/L)

2.205±00

2.105÷00

1. 505±00

I .095+00

8 .4 15-0

I

6.765-01

5.555-01

4.605-01

3.855-0 I

3.255-0 I

2.775-01

2.385-0

1

2.075-0

1

1.805-Cl

1.595-01

1.415-01

1.255-01

1.125-01

1.015-01

Date: 7-14-04

Revision:

I

Page

1

Inventory ID.

0O11-MW-3

---

Calculated Ground

Water Concentrations

Manganese

Calculated Ground Water Concentrations

Distance from Source (m)

Calculated

Concentration (mg/L)

190

9.145-02

200

8.3I5-02

210

7.585-02

220

6.945-02

230

6.38E-02

240

5.895-02

250

5.445-02

257.9

5.l3E-02

Date:

7-14-04

Revision:

I

Page 2

Inventory 1.0.001

1-MW-3

---

Datasheet B:

Physical Soil Parameters for the RBCA Equations

Area(s)/Location(s) at the site,

if

applicable

Predominant

Soil Type (e.g., clay, sand,

silty clay, etc.

Surface (top

1

meter)

or Subsurface (below

1

meter):

Site-specifc values i.e.,

field measurements (F=) or calculated values using the SSL equation (S

to be reported if they are used in developing

the Tier 2 cleanup objectives.

Acceptable procedur

obtaining these values are identified in Appendix

C, Table

F of TACO

Parameter

Soil

Type

Default

Value

Units

Field Measurement

or

Calculated

Value

ph

(Soil Bulk Density)

Surface

and/or

Subsurface soils

1.5

g/cmi

F

=

Surface

Subsurface

1.50

1.50

Gravel

Sand

2.0

1.8

Silt

~

1.6

1.7

w

(Moisture Content)

Surface and/or

Subsurface Soils

0.1

gw~uer/gsoii

(unitless)

Surface

Soils

0.1

Subsurface Soils

0.2

foe

(Organic Carbon Content)

Surface

Soils

0.006

g/g

(unitless)

Surface

Subsurface

0.006

0.002

Subsurface Soils

0.002

Or

(Total

Soil Porosity)

Surface and/or

Subsurface Soils

043

cm3/cr&

(unitless)

Surface

Subsurface

0.43

0.43

~

Gravel

0.25

Sand

0.32

Silt

Clay

0.40

0.36

oar

(Air-filled

Soil Porosity)

Surface

Soils

Subsurface

Soils

028

0.13

cm3/cm3

(unitless)

Surface

Subsurface

0.28

0.13

Gravel

0.05

Sand

0.14

Silt

Clay

0.24

0.19

o’N~

(Water-filled Soil

Porosity)

Surface

0.15

cmi/cm3

(unitless)

Surface

0.15

Subsurface

0.30

I

Subsurface Soils

0.30

Gravel

0.20

Sand

0.18

Silt

0.16

Clay

0.17

07/14/04

Page

1

of

I

Inventory ID

(10 digits):

001 1-MW-4

---

Datasheet RUCA-Vil.

Concentration ofContaminant in Groundwater Source

Datasheet

RBCA-V1I is to be used to predict the groundwater concentration

at

a specified

distance

from the source as calculated by the equation in Appendix C ofTACO: Equation R26 (residential,

industriall commercial and construction worker scenarios).

Since values listed in Datasheet

RBCA-V are used in this evaluation, this datasheet

must also be submitted.

Csource (mg/L)

See

below

ay (cm)

567

X (cm)

7,010.00

Sd (cm)

200

ux(cm)*

1,701

az(cm)

85

A

(l/day)***

See below

K (cm/d)

86.40

U (cnild)

0.17

i (unitless)

0.00

Sw (cm)

4,980

OT(unitless)**

0.43

*

ax, ay, az,

and U

are reported

on

Datasheet RBCA-V

* *

Physical Soil Parameter

(see Datasheet B)

~

Chemical

Properties (see Datasheet C)

Csource*

C(x)

Chemical Name

(1/day)

(mg/L)

(mg/L)

Iron

7.10000

2.855-01

Manganese

6.90000

2.775-01

*

Note:

Csouwe is the measured

concentration at the source for this

form.

07/14/04

RBCA-VJI: Page

1

of

I

Inventory ID

(10

digits):

001 1-MW-4

---

Hayden Landfill MW-4

Calculated Ground Water Information

Iron

Conc.

in mg/L

0

0

50

100

150

Distance

froni Source (ni)

Distance to Meet Ground Water Objectives

Class

I

19.13

m.

Class II

19.13 m.

Calculated

Ground

Water Concentrations

Distance

from Source (m)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

ISO

160

170

170.!

Calculated Concentration (mg/L)

7.IOE+00

6.785+00

4.855+00

3.51E+00

2.68E÷00

2.095+00

1.655+00

1.33 E+00

1.085+00

8.945-0!

7.495-01

6.345-01

5.445-01

4.705-01

4.115-01

3.615-01

3.205-0!

2.865-01

2.855-01

6-

4

2

200

Date:

7-14-04

Revision:

I

Page

1

Inventory ID. 001 I-MW-4

---

Conc,

in

mg/L

0

Hayden Landfill

MW-4

Calculated

Ground

Water Information

Manganese

Distance

from

Source (m)

Distance to Meet Ground Water Objectives

Class

I

234.22

m.

Class II

Met

Calculated Ground Water Concentrations

Distance from Source (m)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

170.1

Calculated

Concentration (mg/L)

6.90E+00

6.595+00

4.71E+00

3.415+00

2.605+00

2.035+00

l.61E+00

1.295+00

1.055+00

8.69E-01

7.285-01

6.175-01

5.285-01

4.575-01

3.995-01

3.515-01

3.115-01

2.78E-Ol

2.775-0!

6

4

2

0

50

100

150

200

Date: 7-14-04

Revision:

1

Page

1

Inventory I.D. 00I1-MW-4

---

Datasheet

B: Physical Soil Parameters for the RBCA Equations

Area(s)/Location(s) at the site, if applicable

Predominant Soil Type (e.g., clay, sand, silty clay, etc.

Surface (top

1 meter) or Subsurface (below

1

meter):

Site-specifc values

i.e.,

field measurements (F=) or calculated values using the SSL equation (S

to be reported if they are used in developing the Tier 2 cleanup objectives.

Acceptable procedur

obtaining these values are identified in Appendix

C, Table F

ofTACO

Parameter

Soil Type

Default

Value

Units

Field Measurement

or

Calculated

Value

pb

(Soil Bulk Density)

Surface and/or

Subsurface soils

1.5

g/cm3

F

=

Surface

Subsurface

1.50

1.50

Gravel

2.0

Sand

Silt

Clay

1.8

1.6

1.7

w

(Moisture Content)

Surface and/or

Subsurface Soils

0.1

gwaser/gsoil

(unitless)

Surface

Soils

Subsurface Soils

0.2

foc

(Organic Carbon Content)

Surface Soils

0.006

g/g

(unitless)

Surface

Subsurface

0.006

0.002

Subsurface Soils

0.002

0T

(Total Soil Porosity)

Surface and/or

Subsurface Soils

0.43

cnl’/cm’

(unitless)

Surface

Subsurface

0.43

0.43

Gravel

Sand

0.25

0.32

Silt

0.40

Clay

0,36

Bar

(Air-fill&I Soil Porosity)

Surface Soils

0.28

cm3/cm’

(unitless)

Surface

Subsurface

0.28

0.13

Subsurface Soils

0.13

0.05

Gravel

Sand

Silt

Clay

0.14

0.24

0.19

ews

(Water-filled Soil Porosity)

Surface

0.15

crn’/cm3

(unitless)

Surface

Subsurface

0.15

0.30

Subsurface Soils

0.30

Gravel

0.20

Sand

0.18

Silt

0.16

Clay

0.17

07/14/04

Page

1

oft

Inventory ID (10 digits): 0011-Mw-S

---

Datasheet RBCA-VH.

Concentration of Contaminant

in Groundwater Source

Datasheet RBCA-VII is

to be

used to predict the groundwater concentration

at a specified distance

from the source as calculated by the equation in Appendix C ofTACO:

Equation R26 (residential,

industrial! commercial and

construction worker scenarios).

Since values listed in Datasheet

RBCA-V are used in this evaluation, this

datasheet

must also be submitted.

Csource (mg/L)

See below

txy

(cm)

333

X

(cm)

0,000.00

Sd (cm)

200

czK(cm)

1,000

czz(cm)

50

X(llday)***

Seebelow

K(czn/d)

86.40

U

(cm/d)

0.13

i (unitless)

0.00

Sw (cm)

6,800

UT

(unitless)**

0.43

*

ux,

uy,

czz, and U

are reported on

Datasheet

RBCA-V

* *

Physical

Soil Parameter (see

Datasheet B)

~

Chemical Properties (see Datasheet

C)

x

Csource*

C(x)

Chemical Name

(1/day)

(mg/L)

(mg/L)

Manganese

0.64000

8.245-02

*

Note:

Csource

is the measured concentration at the

source for this

form.

07/14/04

RBCA-VI1: Page

1

off

Inventory ID

(10

digits):

0011-MW-S

---

Hayden Landfill

MW-5

Calculated Ground Water Information

Manganese

Conc.

in

mg/L

20

40

60

80

100

Distance

from

Source (m)

Distance to Meet Ground Water Objectives

Class

I

Class II

64.29 m.

Met

Calculated Ground Water Concentrations

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Calculated Concentration (mg/L)

6.405-01

6.115-01

4.375-01

3.175-01

2.455-01

1.975-01

1.625-01

I.35E-0l

1.145-01

9.645-02

8.245-02

0.

0.

0.0

0

Distance from Source

(m)

Date: 7-14-04

Revision:

I

Page

1

Inventory 1.0. 0011-MW-S

---

Datasheet B:

Physical Soil Parameters for the RBCA Equations

Area(s)/Location(s) at the site, if applicable

Predominant Soil Type (e.g., clay, sand, silty clay, etc.

Surface (top

1 meter) or Subsurface (below

1

meter):

Site-specifc values

i.e.,

field measurements (F=) or calculated values using the SSL equation (S

to be reported if they are used in developing the Tier 2 cleanup objectives.

Acceptable procedur

obtaining these values

are

identified in Appendix C, Table F of TACO

Parameter

Soil

Type

Default

Value

Units

Field Measurement

or

Calculated

Value

p1’

(Soil Bulk Density)

Surface and/or

Subsurface soils

Gravel

1.5

2.0

g/cm3

F

Surface

Subsurface

1.50

1.50

~iiid

1.8

Silt

1.6

Clay

1.7

w

(Moisture Content)

Surface and/or

Subsurface

Soils

Surface Soils

0.1

0.1

gwater/ggoil

(unitless)

Subsurface Soils

0.2

foc

(Organic

Carbon Content)

Surface

Soils

0.006

g/g

(imitiess)

Surface

Subsurface

0.006

0.002

Subsurface Soils

0,002

O~

(Total Soil Porosity)

Surface and/or

Subsurface Soils

0.43

cm’/cm’

(unitless)

Surface

Subsurface

0.43

0.43

Gravel

0.25

—

Sand

032

Silt

Clay

0.40

036

Bas

(Air-filled

Soil Porosity)

Surface

Soils

0.28

cmYcm’

(unitless)

Surface

Subsurface

0.28

0.13

Subsurface Soils

0.13

Gravel

0.05

Sand

0.14

Silt

0.24

Clay

0.19

ews

(Water-filled Soil

Porosity)

Surface

0.15

cm’/cm’

(unitless)

Surface

Subsurface

0.15

0.30

Subsurface Soils

0.30

Gravel

0.20

Sand

Silt

0.18

0.16

Clay

0.17

07/14/04

Page

1

of

1

Inventory ID

(10

digits): 001 1-MW-6

---

Datasheet RBCA-VII.

Groundwater Source

Datasheet

RBCA-VII is to be

used to predict the groundwater concentration

at

a specified distance

from the source as calculated by the equation in Appendix C ofTACO:

Equation R26 (residential,

industrial!

commercial

and construction worker scenarios).

Since values listed in Datasheet

RBCA-V are used in this

evaluation, this

datasheet must also be submitted.

Csource (mg/L)

See below

czy

(cm)

X (cm)

0,000.00

Sd (cm)

ax (cm)*

1,000

az (cm)

X

(l/day)*

**

See below

K

(cni/d)

333

200

50

86.40

U (cm/d)~

0.19

i (unitless)

0.00

Sw (cm)

6,890

OT (unitless)t

0.43

*

ax, ay, az

and U

are reported on

Datasheet RBCA-V

‘““

Chemical

Properties (see

Datasheet C)

A.

Chemical Name

(1/day)

Iron

Lead

Manganese

*

Note:

Csourceis the measured

concentration at the

source

for this

form.

13.00000

1,69E+00

0.01500

l.94E-03

1.70000

2.20E-0l

**Physfr~lSoil Parameter (see Datasheet B)

Csource

C(x)

(mgi)

(mgi)

07/14/04

RBCA-VIL Page

I

of

I

Inventory ID (10 digits);

001 l-MW-6

---

Cc’nc.

in

mgJL

1

1

0

Hayden Landfill MW-6

Calculated Ground Water Information

Iron

Distance to Meet Ground Water Objectives

Class I

Class

II

39.77

m.

39.77 m.

Calculated Ground Water Concentrations

Distance from Source (m)

0

10

20

30

40

30

60

70

80

90

100

Calculated

Concentration (mg/L)

1,3013+01

1.2413+01

8.8713+00

6.4413+00

4.9713+00

4.0113+00

3.3113+00

2.7613+00

2.3213+00

1.9713+00

1.6913+00

5

0

20

Distance

from

Source (m)

80

100

Date: 7-14-04

Revision:

1

Page

1

Inventory

I.D.

001l-MW-6

---

Conc.

in mg/L

Hayden Landfill MW-6

Calculated Ground Water Information

Lead

Distance

from

Source (m)

Distance to Meet Ground Water Objectives

Class

I

29.65

m.

Class

11

Met

Calculated Ground Water Concentrations

Distance

from

Source_(m)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Calculated

Concentration (mg/L)

1.5013-02

1.4313-02

I .0213-02

7. 43 13-03

5.

7413-03

4.63 13-03

3.8113-03

3.I8E-03

2.68 13-03

2. 2713-03

1.9413-03

0.01

0.01

0.000

0

20

40

60

80

100

Date: 7-14-04

Revision:

1

Page

1

Inventory ID. 00I1-M’W-6

---

Conc.

in

mg/L

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

Hayden Landfill MW-6

Calculated Ground Water Information

Manganese

Distance to Meet

Ground Water Objectives

Class!

Class

II

127.lSm.

Met

Calculated Ground Water Concentrations

Distance from Source

(m)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Calculated Concentration (rng/L)

1,7013+00

1.6213+00

1. 1613+00

8.4213-01

6.5013-01

5.2413-01

4.3213-01

3 .6113-01

3.0413-01

2.5813-01

2.2013-01

0

20

40

60

80

100

Distance from

Source (m)

Date:

7-14-04

Revision: I

Page

1

Inventory ID. 00lI-M’W-6

---

Datasheet B:

Physical Soil Parameters for the RBCA Equations

Area(s)/Location(s) at the site, if applicable

Predominant Soil Type (e.g.,

clay, sand, silty clay, etc.

Surface

(top

1

meter) or Subsurface (below

1

meter):

Site-specifc values

i.e.,

field measurements (F=) or calculated values using the SSL equation (S

to

be reported if they

are used in developing

the Tier 2

cleanup objectives.

Acceptable procedur

obtaining

these values are identified in Appendix C, Table F of TACO

Parameter

Soil Type

Default

Value

Units

Field Measurement

or

Calculated

Value

pb

(Soil Bulk Density)

Surface and/or

Subsurface

soils

1.5

—

g/cm~

F

=

Surface

Subsurface

1.50

1.50

Gravel

2.0

—.-T___

‘Sihd”

SilT~

~

1.6

1.7

w

(Moisture Content)

Surface and/or

Subsurface Soils

Surface Soils

0.1

0,1

gwater/gsoil

(unitless)

Subsurface Soils

0.2

foe

(Organic Carbon Content)

Surface Soils

Subsurface Soils

0.006

0.002

g/g

(unitless)

Surface

Subsurface

0.006

0.002

or

(Total Soil

Porosity)

Surface and/or

Subsurface

Soils

Gravel

0.43

0.25

cm’/cm’

(unitless)

Surface

Subsurface

0.43

0.43

Sand

032

Silt

Clay

0.40

0.36

Gas

(Air-filled

Soil

Porosity)

Surface

Soils

0.28

cm~/cm3

(unitless)

Surface

Subsurface

0.28

0.13

Subsurface

Soils

0.13

Gravel

0.05

Sand

0.14

Silt

Clay

0.24

0.19

ews

(Water-filled Soil

Porosity)

Surface

0.15

cm’/cm3

(unitless)

Surface

Subsurface

0.15

0.30

Subsurface

Soils

0.30

Gravel

0.20

Sand

0.18

Silt

Clay

0.16

0.17

07/14/04

Page

1 of

I

Inventory ID

(10 digits):

001 l-MW-7

---

Datasheet RBCA-VII.

Concentration of Contaminant in Groundwater Source

Datasheet

RBCA-VII is to be

used to predict the groundwater concentration at a specified distance

from the source

as calculated by the equation in Appendix C

ofTACO: Equation R26 (residential,

industrial! commercial

and construction

worker scenarios).

Since values listed in Datasheet

RBCA-V are used in this evaluation, this

datasheet must also be

submitted.

Csource (mg/L)

See below

ay

(cm)

102

X

(cm)

3,050.00

Sd (cm)

200

ax(cm)*

305

az(cm)

15

?~

(

1/day)*

**

See below

K (cm/d)

86.40

U (cm/d)*

0.17

i (unitless)

0.00

Sw (cm)

10,820

OT (unitless)

0.43

*

ax,

cxy,

az, and U

are reported on Datasheet RBCA-V

~

Physical Soil Parameter (see Datasheet

B)

***

Chemical Properties (see Datasheet C)

x

Csource

C(x)

Chemical

Name

(1/day)

(mg/L)

(mg/L)

Manganese

2.10000

3.12E-01

*

Note:

Csource

is the measured

concentration at the source for this

form.

07/14/04

RBCA-VII: Page

I

of

I

Inventory ID

(10

digits):

0011-MW-?

---

Conc.

in

mg/L

Hayden Landfill

MW-7

Calculated Ground Water Information

Manganese

Distance to Meet Ground Water Objectives

Class I

165.37

m.

Class!!

Met

Calculated Ground

Water Concentrations

Distance from

Source_(m)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Calculated Concentration

(mg/L)

2.IOE+00

2.0013+00

I .4313+00

I

.0413+00

8.0413-01

6.5313-01

5.4713-01

4.6913-01

4.0713-01

3.5513-01

3.1213-01

2.5

2.

1.

1.

0.0

0

20

Distance

from

Source (m)

100

Date:

7-14-04

Revision:

I

Page

1

Inventory ID.

0011-MW-7

---

Datasheet B:

Physical Soil

Parameters for the

RBCA

Equations

Area(s)/Location(s) at the site, if applicable

Predominant Soil Type (e.g., clay, sand, silty clay, etc.

Surface

(top

1

meter) or Subsurface (below

1

meter):

Site-specifc values i.e.,

field measurements (F=) or calculated values using the SSL equation (S

to be reported if they are used in developing the Tier 2 cleanup objectives.

Acceptable procedur

obtaining these values

are

identified in

Appendix C, Table F of TACO

Parameter

Soil Type

Default

Value

Units

Field Measurement

or

Calculated

Value

pb

Surface and/or

(Soil Bulk Density)

Subsurface soils

Gravel

~5~iid~

Silt

Clay

1

.5

2.0

1.8

g/cm’

F

=

Surface

Subsurface

1.50

1.50

~i.6

1.7

w

(Moisture Content)

Surface and/or

Subsurface

Soils

Surface

Soils

0.1

0.1

gwater/gsoil

(unitless)

Subsurface Soils

0.2

foe

(Organic Carbon Content)

Surface

Soils

0.006

gIg

(unitless)

Surface

Subsurface

0.006

0.002

Subsurface Soils

0.002

®T

(Total Soil

Porosity)

Surface and/or

Subsurface

Soils

0.43

cm~cm3

(unitless)

~

Surface

Subsurface

0.43

0.43

Gravel

0.25

Sand

Silt

0.32

0.40

Clay

0.36

Gas

(Air-filled

Soil

Porosity)

Surface Soils

0.28

cm’/cm’

(unitless)

Surface

Subsurface

0.28

0.13

Subsurface

Soils

0.13

Gravel

Sand

0.05

0.14

Silt

0,24

Clay

0.19

ews

(Water-filled Soil

Porosity)

Surface

0.15

cm’/cm’

(unitless)

Surface

Subsurface

0.15

0.30

Subsurface

Soils

0.30

Gravel

Sand

Silt

0.20

0.18

0.16

Clay

0.17

07/14104

Page

1 of I

Inventory ID (10

digits): 0011-MW-S

---

Datasheet RBCA-VH.

Concentration of Contaminant in Groundwater Source

Datasheet

RBCA-VII is to

be

used to predict the groundwater concentration at a

specified distance

from the source as calculated by the equation in Appendix C of TACO: Equation R26 (residential,

industriall

commercial and construction worker scenarios).

Since values listed in Datasheet

RBCA-V are used in this evaluation, this

datasheet must also be submitted.

*

ax,

ay, az, and U are reported on

Datasheet RBCA-V

***

Chemical Properties

(see

Datasheet

C)

*

Note:

Csoume is the measured

concentration at the

source for this

form,

**

Physical Soil Parameter(see Datasheet B)

Csource (rng/L)

See below

ay

(cm)

333

X

(cm)

0,000.00

Sd (cm)

200

ax

(cm)*

1,000

czz(cm)

50

X

(1/day)*

~‘

See below

K (cnVd)

86.40

U (cm!d)*

0.15

i (unitless)

0.00

Sw (cm)

2,990

UT

(unitIes s)**

0.43

x

Csource*

C(x)

Chemical

Name

(1/day)

(mg/L)

(mg/L)

Iron

Lead

Manganese

10.00000

6.93E-01

0.01400

7.30000

5.06E-01

07/14/04

RBCA-Vll: Page

1 of

I

Inventory ID (10 digits):

0011-MW-S

---

Hayden Landfill

MW-8

Calculated Ground Water Information

Iron

Conc.

in

mg/L

0

0

20

40

60

80

100

Distance from Source

(m)

Distance to Meet Ground Water Objectives

Class I

28.25

m.

Class II

28.25

m.

Calculated Ground Water Concentrations

Distance from Source

(m)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Calculated

Concentration (mg/L)

l.OOE+Ol

9.54E+00

6.80El-00

4.68E+00

3.26F-1-00

2.34E-l-00

I .74E+00

I .33E+00

l.05El-00

8.44E-01

6.93E-01

4-

2

Date:

7-14-04

Revision:

1

Page

1

InventoryI.D. 0Oll-MW-8

---

Hayden Landfill MW-S

Calculated Ground Water Information

Lead

Conc.

in

mg/I.

20

40

60

80

100

Distance

from

Source

(m)

Distance to Meet Ground Water Objectives

Class I

Class

II

26.40m.

Met

Calculated Ground Water Concentrations

Distance from Source(m)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Calculated Concentration_(mg/L)

l.40E-02

I.34E-02

9.52E-03

6.56E-03

4.57E-03

3,28E-03

2.43 E-03

I.86E-03

I .47E-03

I.

I SE-03

9.71E-04

0.01

0.01

0.00

0.000

0

Date: 7-14-04

Revision:

1

Page

1

InventoryI.D. 00l1-MW-8

---

Hayden Landfill MW-S

Calculated Ground Water Information

Manganese

Conc.

in mg/I.

0

0

20

40

60

80

100

Distance from Source

(m)

Distance to Meet Ground Water Objectives

Class I

187.75

m.

Class II

Met

Calculated Ground Water Concentrations

Distance from Source (in)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Calculated Concentration (mg/L)

7.30E+00

6.97E+00

496E+00

3.42E+00

23 8E+00

1.7lE+00

I.27E+00

9,72E-Ol

7.65F-01

6.IÔE-0l

5.06E-Ol

2

Date:

7-14-04

Revision:

I

Page

1

Inventory ID. 0o11-MW-8

---

ATTACHMENT

2

Well Search Results

Page 10 of10

---

S

flIfl

Resources, Inc.

EDR Illinois Water Well

Report

Hayden Landfill

-

750

Madison Road

Madison, IL

62201

Inquiry Number: 0704556.lr

The

Source

For

Environmenta’

Risk

Management

Data

-

November 16,

2001

3530

Post Road

Southport, Connecticut 06490

Nationwide Customer Service

Telephone:

1-800-352-0050

Fax:

1-800-231-6802

Internet:

www.edrnet.com

FO~M.fl4C

---

SECTION

PAGE

TopographicMap

Well Search Summary

3

Well

Findings

Government Records

Searched

A-I

Thank you for your business.

Please contactEUR at

1-800-352-0050

with any questions or comments.

Disclaimer

copyright and Trademark Notice

This report contains

information obtained from a variety ofpublic and othersources.

NO

WARRANTYEXPRESSED

OR IMPLIED,

IS

MADE WHATSOEVER

IN CONNECTION

WITH THIS

REPORT,

ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES INC.

SPECIFICALLY

DISCLAIMS

THE MAKING OFANY SUCH WARRANTIES,

INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION,

MERCHANTA8ILITY OR FITNESS

FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE.

ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY

THE

USER.

IN NO EVENT SHALL EDR BE LIABLE TO

ANYONE,

WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS,

NEGLIGENCE,

ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE,

FOR ANY

LOSS

OR DAMAGE,

INCLUDING,

WITHOUTLIMITATION,

SPECIAL,

INCIDENTAL,

CONSEQUENTIAL. OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES.

Entire contents copyright 2001

by Environmental Data Resources,

Inc.

Allrights reserved.

Reproduction in

any media or format,

in whole

or

in pail, of any report ormap of Environmental Data Resources, Inc.,

or its affiliates,

is prohibited

without prior written permission.

EDR and the edr logos are trademarks ofEnvironmental Data Resources,

Inc.

or its affiliates.

All other trademarks used herein are the

property of their respective owners.

Tco7o4556.

I

---

The EDR Illinois Water Well Report

The EDR-Illinois Water Well Report is

a screening tool designed to assist

in the location

of water supply wells in accordance with the Illinois EPA Leaking Underground Storage

Tank Program:

Site Classification Completion Report.

The EDR-Illinois Water Well Report consists of the following information within

1/2

mile of target property:

•

wells

•

map displaying concentric rings at 200’, 400’

1000’

and 2500’

•

topography (25 foot intervals unless otherwise shown)

•

major roads

•

surface water bodies

•

railroad tracks

•

flood plains (available in selected counties)

•

wetlands (available in selected counties)

•

geologic data

•

radon data

TC0704556.Ir Page 1

---

TOPOGRAPHIC

MAP

-

0704556.lr

-

Environmental Operations, Inc.

S

t

,

4447

Source~US

Geological Survey 1-Degree Digital Elevation Model- Complied 09115/92

-Major Roads

,/rif

-

PowerLines

,AJ

-

contour Unes (25 toot interval

-

Pipe Lines

unless otherwise shown)

-

Waterways

-

Fault Lines

•

-

Water Wells within search

-

Rail Roads

distance to Target

Property

©

-

Earthquake Epicenters

(Richter S or greater)

S

S

.4.4.

S

s

s/.~

s

S

/,..

.4..

...

S

—

_~....:../s

s

.~.

s

/.~,.

AlL.

S

7.

.4..

5

,

,:

.4

.~L

7

.4

44

.4.

S

.~

S

AL

,~.

S

S

S

S

....

.-~.

.~

,-~

S

5

4

.L....

...

s

.

.

S.

~

S’•AL’S~

55

5

454444

444

4444444.44

S

5555555

4444.44.4.444

S

...

5555555

,~

within tita maD’area

~‘

4

.4

4

-4

4

S4S44444~

5

500

1000

2oeoft

—

-

Water Bodies

-

Wetlands

-lao-year flood

zone

-

500-year flood zone

TARGETPROPERTY:

Hayden

Landfill

CUSTOMER:

Environmental OperatIons,

Inc.

1

ADDRESS:

750 Madison

Road

CONTACT:

Frank Fick

CITY/STATE/ZIP:

Madison

IL 62201

INQUIRY #:

0704556.1

LATILONG:

38.6515/ 90.1266

DATE:

November 16,2001

S

---

GEOLOGIC AGE

IDENTIFICATIONt

Geologic

Code:

M3

Era:

PaIeozo~c

System:

Mississippian

Series:

Chesterian Series

ROCK STRATIGRAPHIC UNITt

Category:

Stratified

Sequence

SEARCH DISTANCE RADIUS INFORMATION

DATABASE

SEARCH DISTANCE (miles)

Federal

Database

0.500

State Database

0.500

PWS Database

Nearest

PWS within

1

mile

FEDERAL DATABASE WELL INFORMATION

MAP

WELL

LOCATION

ID

ID

FROM TP

NOWELLS FOUND

STATE DATABASE WELL INFORMATION

MAP

WELL

LOCATION

ID

ID

FROMTP

Al

121632745400

1323Ft.NNW

A2

121632745300

1323Ft.NNW

A3

121632745500

l323Ft.NNW

A4

121632745700

1323

Ft. NNW

AS

121632745600

1323Ft.NNW

A6

121632745200

1323Ft.NNW

Al

121632744800

I323Ft.NNW

AS

121632744700

1323Ft.NNW

A9

121632744900

1323Ft.NNW

AlO

121632745100

1323FLNNW

All

121632745000

1323 Ft.NNW

PUBLIC WATERSUPPLY SYSTEM INFORMATION

NO WELLS

FOUND

AREA RADON INFORMATION

EPA Radon Zone for ST

CLAIR County:

2

Note: Zone

1

indoor average

level

4 pCi/L.

Zone 2 indooraverage level

2 pCi/L and

4

pCi/L.

Zone

3

indoor average level

C

2

pCiIL.

Not Reported

Souse:

P.S.

Sct,njben. RE.

ArTist

end

W.J,

9.wl.t,

Geologyad

thu

cont.m’,lnoo.

u.s.

at

1:2,500,0)0

Scale

-

A

digital reprnuntason

Ti

the

1974 PB.

King

arid

N.M.

Suluman

Map, uses DIgItal

Out.

Series 005.11

(1994).

TC0704556.lr

Page

3

---

—

MaptD

Direction

Distance

~L

Into Source:

Al

API

ID:

NNW

Well Type:

1323 Ft.

X Coord:

Al

NNW

1323 Ft.

A3

NNW

¶323 Ft.

A4

NNW

1323 Ft.

A5

NNW

1323

Ft.

A6

NNW

1 323

Ft.

A?

NNW

1323 Ft.

AS

NNW

1323 Ft.

IL Geological Survey

121632745400

WATER

2822354

Group Number:

Boring:

V Coord:

31

0

2052415

Info Source:

A9

API ID:

NNW

Well Type:

1323 Ft.

X Coord:

IL Geological Survey

121632744900

WATER

2822354

Info Source:

IL Geological Survey

API ID:

121632745300

Group

Number:

31

Well Type:

WATER

Boring:

0

X

Coord:

2822354

V

Coord:

2052415

Into

Source:

IL Geological

Survey

API ID:

121632745500

Group

Number

31

Well Type:

WATER

Boring:

0

XCoord:

2622354

YCoord:

2052415

Info Source:

IL Geological Survey

API

ID:

121632745700

Group

Number:

31

Well Type:

WATER

Boring:

0

X coord:

2822354

Ycoord:

2052415

Info Source:

IL Geological Survey

API

ID:

121632745600

Group Number:

31

Well Type:

WATER

Boring:

0

X

Coord:

2822354

V Coord:

2052415

Info Source:

IL Geological Survey

API

ID:

121632745200

Group Number:

31

Well Type:

WATER

Boring:

0

X Coord:

2822354

V Coord:

2052415

Into Source:

IL

Geological Survey

API

ID:

121632744800

Group

Number:

31

Well Type:

WATER

Boring:

0

XCoord:

2822354

YCoord:

2052415

Info Source:

IL Geological Survey

API

ID:

121632744700

Group Number:

31

Well Type:

WATER

Boring:

0

X

Coord:

2822354

V Coord:

2052415

Group

Number:

Boring:

V Coord:

31

a

20524 15

TC0704556.lr Page 4

---

IL Geological Survey

121632745100

WATER

2822354

IL Geological

Survey

121632745000

WATER

2822354

Group

Number:

Boring:

V

Coord:

Group Number:

Boring:

V Coord:

Map

ID

Direction

Distance

Into

Source:

AIG

API ID:

NNW

Well Type:

1323 Ft.

x

Coord:

I

Into

Source:

All

API ID:

NNW

Well Type:

1323 Ft.

x

Coord

31

0

2052415

31

0

2052415

1C0704556.lr

Page 5

---

-

_

__

PWS:

Public Water

Systems

Source:

EPNOtfice of Drinking Water

Telephone:

202-260-2805

Public Water System data

from the

Federal Reporting

Data System.

A

PWS

is any water system which provides water to at

least 25 people

for at least 60

days annually.

PWSs provide water from wells,

rivers and other sources.

PWS

ENF:

Public Water Systems Violation and Enforcement

Data

Source:

EPNOfflce of Drinking Water

Telephone:

202-260-2805

Violation and

Enforcement

dala for Public Water

Systems from the Sate Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) after

August

1995.

Prior to August 1995, the data came

from

the Federal Reporting Data System (FRDS).

Area Radon Information:

The National Radon

Database has been

developed by the

U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency

(USEPA)

and is

a

compilation of the EPNStaLe

Residential

Radon Survey and the

National Residential

RadonStwveyv

The

study covers the years 1986-1992.

Where necessary

data has been

supplemented by information collected at private sources

such

as

universities

and research

institutions.

EPA Radon

Zones:

Sections 307 &

309 of IRAA directed EPA to list and identify areas of U.S. with the

potential for

elevated indoor radon levels.

USGS Water Wells:

In November

1971

the United States Geological Survey (USGS)

implemented

a

national water resource

information tracking

system.

This database contains descriptive

information on sites where the USGS collects or has

collected

data on

surface

water and/or groundwater.

The groundwater data includes information on more than 900,000

wells,

springs, and

other sources ofgroundwater.

County Well Data

in illinols:Cook and DuPage Counties

Source:

Illinois State Geological Survey

Telephone:

217-244-2387

Illinois Private Well

Database and

PICS (Public, Industrial, Commercial

Survey)

Source:

Illinois

State Water Survey

Telephone:

217-333-9043

Illinois State Geological Survey Water Wells

Source:

Illinois State Geological Survey

Telephone:

217-333-5102

Point data set

that shows locations, well type, and

well

ID for wells in

Illinois. Data

comes from driller’s logs.

TC0704556.l r

Page Al

---

Map Area:

2N-9W-7 m3 to

2N-9W-5

Explanation

•

Oil

~

Gas Injection

O.

Junked

*

Oil &

Gas

~

Gas storage

~

Temporarily Abandoned

4.

Gas

e

salt

Water Disposal

~

Observation

4.

D&A- Oit show

‘5l~

water

Injection

‘l&

Other

Inlection

4.

D&A

-

Gas show

£

Waler

supply

c

confidential

*

O&A

-

Oil &

Gas show

a

Permit

N

Other

Well Type

4.

D&A

S

Water

+

Status unirnown

,/

through any symbol

Indlcales

well

is currently plugged

o

935

1870ff

Illinois State Geological Survey

QuEStoR:

Custom Map

Date:21-JIJN-04

Scale:

1:11220

Displayed data

ia based upon

inFormation supplied tothe Illinois

state

Geological

Survey (lsGS) and

are not field verified.

The ISGS

doet not guarantee the valIdity, accuracy or completeness

of these data.

---

—

21-JUN-04

QuEStoR

Data Extraction

DB: oradb

Non

Oil

and

Gas

-

Wells

121632978800

Geo

Engineering,Inc.

5-

2N-

9W

StClair

Nilam Sanitary Landfill

GEl-i

Status:

MONIT

2550 NL 1600 WL

Elev:

411GL

permit:

permit date:

comp.

date:

01/16/96

Lambert

X:

2822637

Lambert

Y:

2051189

td:

81

producing formation:

td formation:

latitude:

38.652900

longitude:

90.124422.

Water from

at depth

0

to

0

ft.

Screen:

Diam.

in.

Length:

0

ft.

Slot:

Casing and Liner Pipe

-

Diam.

(in.)

Kind and Weight

From(ft)

To(ft)

Size hole below casing:

in.

Static level

0

ft. below casing

top which

is

0

ft.

above grnd level.

Pumping level

0

ft. when pumping

at

0 gpm for

0 hours.

121632978600

John Mathes

& Assoc,,Inc.

5-

2W- 9W

Milam Sanitary Landfill

GEl-i

Status:

ENG

Elev:

411GL

permit:

permit date:

comp.

date:

02/11/85

Lambert X:

2823688

Lambert Y:

2051086

td:

39

producing formation:

td formation:

latitude:

38.552635

longitude:

90.120719

121632978400

Geo Engineering, Inc.

5-

2W- 9W

StClair

Milam Sanitary Landfill

GEI-17d

Status: MONIT

2600 NL 650

WL

51ev:

413GL1

permit:

permit date:

comp.

date:

01/16/86

Lambert X:

2821687

Lambert

Y:

2051157

td:

82

producing

formation:

td formation:

latitude:

38.652793

longitude:

90.127765

Water from

at depth

0

to

0

ft.

Screen:

Diam.

in.

Length:

0

ft.

Slot:

Casing and Liner Pipe

-

Diam.

(in.)

Kind and Weight

From(ft)

To(ft)

Size hole below casing:

in.

Static level

0

ft. below casing top which

is

0

ft.

above grnd level.

Pumping level

0

ft. when pumping at

0 gpm for

0 hours.

121632978500

Geo Engineering,Inc.

5

2N

9W

StClair

Milam Sanitary Landfill

GEI-17s

Status: MONIT

2600 NL 650

WL

51ev:

413GL

permit:

permit date:

comp.

date:

01/28/86

Lambert

X:

2821687

Larnbert Y:

2051157

td:

62

producing formation:

td formation:

latitude:

38.652793

longitude:

90.127765

Water from

at depth

0

to

0

ft.

Screen:

Diam.

in.

Length:

0

ft.

Slot:

Casing and Liner Pipe

-

Diam.

(in.)

Rind and Weight

From(ft)

To(ft)

Size hole below casing:

in.

Static level

0

ft.

below casing

top which

is

0

ft.

above grnd level.

Pumping level

0

ft. when pumping at

0 gpm for

0 hours.

121632978700

John Mathes & Assoc.

Inc.

5-

2N- 9W

StClair

Milam Sanitary Landfill

GEl-is

Status: MONIT

2550 NL 1600 WL

51ev:

41OGL

permit:

permit date:

comp. date:

01/15/86

Lambert

X:

2822637

Lambert

Y:

2051189

td:

71

producing formation:

td formation:

latitude:

38.652900

longitude:

90.124421

Water from

at depth

0

to

0

ft.

—1—

---

0

ft.

Slot:

Screen:

Diam.

in.

Casing and Liner Pipe

-

Diam.

(in.)

Size hole below

Static

level

Pumping level

Status: MONIT

NW

permit: none

permit date:

Lambert

X:

2822354

Lambert

Y:

2052415

producing formation:

td formation:

latitude:

38.656279

longitude:

90.125447

Water from alluvial

deposits

at depth

8

to

Screen:

Diam.

2

in.

Length:

10

ft,.

Slot:

.01

Casing and Liner Pipe

-

Diam.

(in.)

Status:

MONIT

NW

permit:

none

Lambert X:

2822354

producing

formation

latitude:

38.656279

1

Water from alluvial deposits at depth

Screen:

Diarn.

2

in.

Length:

10

ft.

Casing and Liner Pipe

-

Diam.

(in.)

Kind and Weight

SCH

40,

304 SS

SCH 40

304

SS

SCREEN

Size hole below casing:

in.

Static level

9

ft. below casing top which

is

Pumping level

9

ft. when pumping

at

Formations Passed Through

clay with silty & sand

7

clay silt sand cinder gravel & rubbish

3

silt-sand-clay to silt w/sand & gravel

6

fine sand

16

Baldwin,

Harvey

Thomas

Waste Management

of

IL

Status:

MONIT

NW

td formation:

longitude:

90.125447

9

to

Kind

and

Weight

SCH

40,

304

SS

SCH 40

304

SS

SCREEN

Size hole below casing:

8.25

in.

Static

level

9

ft.

below casing

top which

is

Pumping level

9

ft. when pumping at

5-

2N-

9W

51ev:

4O6GL

comp.

date:

06/10/93

td:

32

31

ft

5

gpm

for

Thickness

Bottom

5-

2W-

9W

Elev:

406GL

comp.

date:

06/08/93

td:

31

Length:

i2l632744800

StCiair

Kind

and

Weight

From(ft)

To(ft)

casing:

in.

0

ft.

below

casing

top

which

is

0

ft.

above

grnd

level.

0

ft.

when

pumping

at

0

gpm for

0 hours.

Baldwin,

Harvey

Thomas

Waste

Management

of

IL

G020

5-

2W-