March 13, 2001

IEPA

William Seltzer, Agency Hearing Officer

1021 North Grand Avenue East

PO Box 19276

Springfield, IL 62794-9276

RE:       1970500012- Will County Texaco Location

            RCRA Post-Closure Permit

ILD041518871 RCRA Log B-38

Draft Comments for IEPA on the draft Post-Closure Care Permit to Texaco:

1.      The Post-Closure Care Permit provides for numerous quarterly and semiannual monitoring reports to be submitted to IEPA including groundwater monitoring, leachate sampling, and landfill gas sampling.  C.A.R.E. requests that the permit be modified to require that copies of these reports be placed in the document repository upon IEPA approval so the community has access to current information on the results of sampling.  C.A.R.E. understands that this information will be available through the Freedom of Information Act, but they would prefer that it be made available in the repository.   

2.      The integrity and potential future risk imposed by LF-2 remains an important concern for C.A.R.E..  At the end of the 30-year post-closure time period, which began in 1988, will any investigation be done as to the potential threat to human health or the environment from LF-2? Are there any provisions for further remediation or monitoring if a potential environmental threat still exists after 30 years of monitoring? The public should be protected beyond the 30 year time period if any possible danger to human health or the environment remains.

3.      Groundwater monitoring allows deletion of chemicals from the analysis list after they have not been detected for two sampling periods.  On page II-8, item number 7, the Permittee is allowed to delete hazardous constituents listed in Condition II.D.1 if the constituent has not been detected above the PQL in two consecutive semi-annual sampling events.  C.A.R.E believes IEPA should verify non-detect results independently before removing any constituent from the list.  Furthermore, as long as there are potential new sources of contaminants, such as LF-2, the full list of chemical (Skinner List) should be periodically monitored to detect new contamination that may arise from these sources.  It is C.A.R.E.'s understanding that this will take place at least every five years.  Is this correct?  If not please explain when such testing will be done.

4.      Groundwater cleanup standards are a critical concern for C.A.R.E..  There was confusion in the permit application as to whether the groundwater is designated as Class I or Class II.  At the public hearing, IEPA indicated the groundwater is considered Class I.   C.A.R.E. believes this should be stated in the permit. 

5.      Although the draft permit discusses groundwater standards, it does not sufficiently clarify this point.  Section II.D.2 of the draft permit discusses establishment of alternative concentration limits, but the procedures and requirements for determining these limits are not described in clear language needed to assure the community that public health and the environment will be protected.  In particular the timing and requirements for the RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI) and the site- specific risk assessment need to be detailed.  References to the applicable administrative code in Section II.D.2 do not provide sufficient clarification.  Attachment A of the draft permit provides guidance for preparation of RFI work plans, but it does not discuss risk assessment requirements.  Please explain how the alternate concentrations limits will be determined.

6.      If a risk assessment is used to determine ACLs, will the community be informed about the timing of the groundwater study and risk assessment process?  Will the community be given timely information about the assumptions used to model exposure scenarios in the risk assessment?   Risk assessment pertaining to human health effects contains much uncertainty. This uncertainty should be understood and addressed before IEPA allows the use of alternate concentration limits (ACLs) for hazardous constituents which are less restrictive than the listed concentration limits for hazardous constituents for Class I groundwater.  The assumptions used for developing the risk assessment and the results of the risk assessment should be communicated to the community prior to adoption of alternative concentrations limits.

7.      It is C.A.R.E.'s understanding that adoption of any ACLs will require a permit modification that requires public notification and a public comment period.  Will the public have an opportunity for public review and comment on proposed ACLs before they are approved by IEPA?

8.      C.A.R.E. is concerned that the Post-Closure Care Permit does not adequately protect the community from future flood events.  Flood management plans should be discussed in the permit.  C.A.R.E. understands the site investigation for Surface Water Within/Around the Facility listed in Section IV.B.n will include investigation of surface water and sediments.  This investigation area should be extended offsite to include all areas within the flood plain.  It should also include soils onsite and offsite within the flood plain and assessment and modeling the effects of future flood events.

9.      The required site investigations do not appear to include sufficient requirements for off-site groundwater testing.  How will the safety of groundwater off-site be assured?  C.A.R.E understands that recently several monitoring wells have been installed off-site at the southwest corner of the facility, but these wells are all within 50 feet of the property boundary.  C.A.R.E. is concerned that past contamination may have traveled farther than 50 feet from the property.  Please explain the reasoning behind placing monitoring wells so close to the property boundary.  Will further offsite testing of the groundwater be done?

10.  C.A.R.E. is concerned about potential contamination of the deep groundwater aquifer that is used for drinking water.  What methods can be used to test this groundwater without drilling wells that may create new pathways for contaminants to reach the groundwater?  Are there historical records that indicate deeper wells were drilled in the past that may have provided at path for contamination of the deep aquifer?  Have these wells been properly closed?

11.  Why doesn't IEPA require Texaco to analyze nearby private water wells for contaminants found on Texaco property to ensure that contaminants migrating from the property are not affecting drinking water sources? This information could be provided confidentially to the property owners.

12.  Oversight by IEPA of sampling, analyses and other remediation activities on the site seems to be inadequate.  IEPA should visit the site more frequently, take split samples of soil and groundwater and verify analytical results using a different independent laboratory than used by Texaco.  This should be done for every sampling activity for the next two or three years to promote citizen confidence in the monitoring process.

13.  On August 21, 2000 IEPA allowed Texaco to replace the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) with the Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure (SPLP) when conducting the remediation verification sampling/analysis efforts for metals in soils.  C.A.R.E. disagrees with this decision because the SPLP test is not as aggressive as the TCLP when determining whether or not metals will leach from soil. Future conditions are uncertain and the more protective TCLP testing should be the standard.   If SPLP is allowed, C.A.R.E. requests that IEPA explain both testing procedures and the agency assessment of the advantages of SPLP as the method of choice. 

14.  In several sections of the permit, the Permittee is allowed to resample a well within 30 days if a constituent concentration exceeds the PQL (example Section II.E.2).  Please clarify the rational behind reliance on the second determination.  C.A.R.E. is concerned about the sole reliance on the second determination because the first determination may have detected contamination that would not be detected in a second sampling due to the inherent variability in environmental samples.  If the contaminant is not detected in a second sampling, then a third confirmation sampling should be done. 

15.  The Permittee is required to inspect the components, structures, and equipment at the site in accordance with the inspection schedule contained in the approved permit application. IEPA should also perform these inspections on a regular schedule.

16.  C.A.R.E. is concerned about potential contamination with hexavalent chromium.  IEPA has indicated that analysis of total chromium is just as protective as analyzing for hexavalent chromium.  Please summarize the maximum chromium concentrations that have been observed and explain how the analysis for total chromium is just as protective as analysis for hexavalent chromium.   As long as LF-2 is in place, C.A.R.E. is concerned about its potential to serve as a source for hexavalent chromium contamination.  What were the chromium concentrations of materials that were placed in LF-2?  Will LF-2 be a continuing potential source of chromium contamination in the future?  C.A.R.E. prefers that leachate samples be tested for hexavalent chromium for the life of LF-2.

17.  Leachate samples should be analyzed for chromium, arsenic and barium in addition to the other hazardous constituents listed on page I-7.

18.  The NPDES permit for this site should include analysis and reporting for the same chemicals of concern listed for leachate and groundwater monitoring samples because the leachate is sent to the wastewater treatment system and then discharged to surface water. Any contaminants in the leachate that pass through the wastewater treatment process will be released to the environment.

19.  In the listing of hazardous waste constituents in II.D.1, the monitoring well samples to be taken during semi-annual sampling events for monitoring LF-1, LLF, LAA, and CT do not include several of the hazardous waste constituents for which leachate from LF-2 is analyzed.  The list of hazardous waste constituents for these analyses should be at least as comprehensive as the list for leachate analyses since LF-2 contains hazardous wastes from these locations.

20.  On pages IV-5 and IV-6, soil is listed as the only media of concern for 11 of the 17 listed SWMUs. It is possible that groundwater was contaminated from any or all of these SWMUs. Therefore, groundwater should be listed as a media of concern for all SWMUs.

21.  IEPA should be on-site frequently to evaluate remediation activities for the SWMUs. Split samples should be taken and independent verification of laboratory results should be done before IEPA grants "no further action letters" for these areas.

22.  In the RCRA Post-Closure Permit Log No. B-38, it states the permit expires 10 years after final Permit Issuance (bottom of the page).   It is C.A.R.E's understanding that the Post-Closure Care Permit will expire after 10 years.  Will there be another permit application, draft permit, and public comment period in ten years when the permit is renewed?   Please clarify the effective period of the permit.

23.  The Post-Closure Care Permit provides for numerous quarterly and semiannual monitoring reports to be submitted to IEPA including groundwater monitoring, leachate sampling, and landfill gas sampling.  C.A.R.E. requests that the permit be modified to require that copies of these reports be placed in the document repository upon IEPA approval so the community has access to current information on the results of sampling.  C.A.R.E. understands that this information will be available through the Freedom of Information Act, but they would prefer that it be made available in the repository.   

24.  The integrity and potential future risk imposed by LF-2 remains an important concern for C.A.R.E..  At the end of the 30-year post-closure time period, which began in 1988, will any investigation be done as to the potential threat to human health or the environment from LF-2? Are there any provisions for further remediation or monitoring if a potential environmental threat still exists after 30 years of monitoring? The public should be protected beyond the 30 year time period if any possible danger to human health or the environment remains.

25.  Groundwater monitoring allows deletion of chemicals from the analysis list after they have not been detected for two sampling periods.  On page II-8, item number 7, the Permittee is allowed to delete hazardous constituents listed in Condition II.D.1 if the constituent has not been detected above the PQL in two consecutive semi-annual sampling events.  C.A.R.E believes IEPA should verify non-detect results independently before removing any constituent from the list.  Furthermore, as long as there are potential new sources of contaminants, such as LF-2, the full list of chemical (Skinner List) should be periodically monitored to detect new contamination that may arise from these sources.  It is C.A.R.E.'s understanding that this will take place at least every five years.  Is this correct?  If not please explain when such testing will be done.

26.  Groundwater cleanup standards are a critical concern for C.A.R.E.  There was confusion in the permit application as to whether the groundwater is designated as Class I or Class II.  At the public hearing, IEPA indicated the groundwater is considered Class I.   C.A.R.E. believes this should be stated in the permit. 

27.  Although the draft permit discusses groundwater standards, it does not sufficiently clarify this point.  Section II.D.2 of the draft permit discusses establishment of alternative concentration limits, but the procedures and requirements for determining these limits are not described in clear language needed to assure the community that public health and the environment will be protected.  In particular the timing and requirements for the RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI) and the site- specific risk assessment need to be detailed.  References to the applicable administrative code in Section II.D.2 do not provide sufficient clarification.  Attachment A of the draft permit provides guidance for preparation of RFI work plans, but it does not discuss risk assessment requirements.  Please explain how the alternate concentrations limits will be determined.   

28.  If a risk assessment is used to determine ACLs, will the community be informed about the timing of the groundwater study and risk assessment process?  Will the community be given timely information about the assumptions used to model exposure scenarios in the risk assessment?   Risk assessment pertaining to human health effects contains much uncertainty. This uncertainty should be understood and addressed before IEPA allows the use of alternate concentration limits (ACLs) for hazardous constituents which are less restrictive than the listed concentration limits for hazardous constituents for Class I groundwater.  The assumptions used for developing the risk assessment and the results of the risk assessment should be communicated to the community prior to adoption of alternative concentrations limits.  

29.  It is C.A.R.E.'s understanding that adoption of any ACLs will require a permit modification that requires public notification and a public comment period.  Will the public have an opportunity for public review and comment on proposed ACLs before they are approved by IEPA?

30.  C.A.R.E. is concerned that the Post-Closure Care Permit does not adequately protect the community from future flood events.  Flood management plans should be discussed in the permit.  C.A.R.E. understands the site investigation for Surface Water Within/Around the Facility listed in Section IV.B.n will include investigation of surface water and sediments.  This investigation area should be extended offsite to include all areas within the flood plain.  It should also include soils onsite and offsite within the flood plain and assessment and modeling the effects of future flood events.

31.  The required site investigations do not appear to include sufficient requirements for off-site groundwater testing.  How will the safety of groundwater off-site be assured?  C.A.R.E understands that recently several monitoring wells have been installed off-site at the southwest corner of the facility, but these wells are all within 50 feet of the property boundary.  C.A.R.E. is concerned that past contamination may have traveled farther than 50 feet from the property.  Please explain the reasoning behind placing monitoring wells so close to the property boundary.  Will further offsite testing of the groundwater be done?

32.  C.A.R.E. is concerned about potential contamination of the deep groundwater aquifer that is used for drinking water.  What methods can be used to test this groundwater without drilling wells that may create new pathways for contaminants to reach the groundwater?  Are there historical records that indicate deeper wells were drilled in the past that may have provided at path for contamination of the deep aquifer?  Have these wells been properly closed?

33.  Why doesn't IEPA require Texaco to analyze nearby private water wells for contaminants found on Texaco property to ensure that contaminants migrating from the property are not affecting drinking water sources? This information could be provided confidentially to the property owners.

34.  Oversight by IEPA of sampling, analyses and other remediation activities on the site seems to be inadequate.  IEPA should visit the site more frequently, take split samples of soil and groundwater and verify analytical results using a different independent laboratory than used by Texaco.  This should be done for every sampling activity for the next two or three years to promote citizen confidence in the monitoring process.

35.  On August 21, 2000 IEPA allowed Texaco to replace the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) with the Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure (SPLP) when conducting the remediation verification sampling/analysis efforts for metals in soils.  C.A.R.E. disagrees with this decision because the SPLP test is not as aggressive as the TCLP when determining whether or not metals will leach from soil. Future conditions are uncertain and the more protective TCLP testing should be the standard.   If SPLP is allowed, C.A.R.E. requests that IEPA explain both testing procedures and the agency assessment of the advantages of SPLP as the method of choice. 

36.  In several sections of the permit, the Permittee is allowed to resample a well within 30 days if a constituent concentration exceeds the PQL (example Section II.E.2).  Please clarify the rational behind reliance on the second determination.  C.A.R.E. is concerned about the sole reliance on the second determination because the first determination may have detected contamination that would not be detected in a second sampling due to the inherent variability in environmental samples.  If the contaminant is not detected in a second sampling, then a third confirmation sampling should be done. 

37.  The Permittee is required to inspect the components, structures, and equipment at the site in accordance with the inspection schedule contained in the approved permit application. IEPA should also perform these inspections on a regular schedule.

38.  C.A.R.E. is concerned about potential contamination with hexavalent chromium.  IEPA has indicated that analysis of total chromium is just as protective as analyzing for hexavalent chromium.  Please summarize the maximum chromium concentrations that have been observed and explain how the analysis for total chromium is just as protective as analysis for hexavalent chromium.   As long as LF-2 is in place, C.A.R.E. is concerned about its potential to serve as a source for hexavalent chromium contamination.  What were the chromium concentrations of materials that were placed in LF-2?  Will LF-2 be a continuing potential source of chromium contamination in the future?  C.A.R.E. prefers that leachate samples be tested for hexavalent chromium for the life of LF-2.

39.  Leachate samples should be analyzed for chromium, arsenic and barium in addition to the other hazardous constituents listed on page I-7.

40.  The NPDES permit for this site should include analysis and reporting for the same chemicals of concern listed for leachate and groundwater monitoring samples because the leachate is sent to the wastewater treatment system and then discharged to surface water. Any contaminants in the leachate that pass through the wastewater treatment process will be released to the environment.

41.  In the listing of hazardous waste constituents in II.D.1, the monitoring well samples to be taken during semi-annual sampling events for monitoring LF-1, LLF, LAA, and CT do not include several of the hazardous waste constituents for which leachate from LF-2 is analyzed.  The list of hazardous waste constituents for these analyses should be at least as comprehensive as the list for leachate analyses since LF-2 contains hazardous wastes from these locations.

42.  On pages IV-5 and IV-6, soil is listed as the only media of concern for 11 of the 17 listed SWMUs. It is possible that groundwater was contaminated from any or all of these SWMUs. Therefore, groundwater should be listed as a media of concern for all SWMUs.

43.  In the RCRA Post-Closure Permit Log No. B-38, it states the permit expires 10 years after final Permit Issuance (bottom of the page).   It is C.A.R.E's understanding that the Post-Closure Care Permit will expire after 10 years.  Will there be another permit application, draft permit, and public comment period in ten years when the permit is renewed?   Please clarify the effective period of the permit.

Citizens Against Ruining the Environment

Sandy Burcenski           815-838-0442

Carol Stark                  815-838-1483

Wendy Vlasak              815-838-0622

Ellen Rendulich 815-834-1611

& C.A.R.E. Members