1

1 ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

STATE OF ILLINOIS

PAUL JOHNSON, INC., )

4 )

Petitioner, )

5 )

vs ) No. PCB 05-109

6 )

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION )

7 AGENCY and CITY OF WATERMAN, )

ILLINOIS, )

8 )

Respondents. )

11 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held in the

12 hearing of the above-entitled matter, taken

13 stenographically by Maria E. Shockey, CSR, before

14 BRADLEY P. HALLORAN, Hearing Officer, at the City

15 Hall Annex, Council Chambers, Sandwich, Illinois, on

16 the 8th day of March, A.D., 2005, scheduled to

17 commence at 9:00 a.m.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 A P P E A R A N C E S:

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,

3 James R. Thompson Center

100 West Randolph Street

4 Suite 11-500

Chicago, Illinois 60601

5 (312) 814-8917

BY: MR. BRADLEY P. HALLORAN, Hearing Officer

6 MS. ALISA LIU

BAKER & McKENZIE,

8 One Prudential Plaza

130 East Randolph Drive

9 Chicago, Illinois 60601

(312) 861-2835

10 BY: MR. RICHARD M. SAINES

Appeared on behalf of the Petitioner,

12 Paul Johnson, Inc.;

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

14 1021 North Grand Avenue East

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276

15 (217) 782-5544

BY: MR. CHARLES W. GUNNARSON

17 Appeared on behalf of the Respondent,

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency;

19 CLIFF, FOSTER, CORNEILLE & BUICK,

331 West State Street

20 Sycamore, Illinois 60178

(815) 264-3340

21 BY: MR. KEVIN E. BUICK

Appeared on behalf of the Respondent,

23 Village of Waterman, Illinois.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: We're on

2 the record. Good morning. My name is

3 Bradley Halloran. I'm with the Illinois

4 Pollution Control Board. I'm also assigned

5 to this matter entitled Paul Johnson, Inc.,

6 Petitioner, versus the Illinois Environmental

7 Protection Agency and City of Waterman,

8 Illinois, Respondents. This is PCB 05-109.

9 It's a water well setback exception petition.

10 Today is Tuesday, March 8, 2005.

11 It's approximately 9:05 a.m. and I note that

12 there are no members of the public here.

13 The hearing is being held pursuant to

14 Section 106.300, Subpart C of the Board's

15 procedural rules regarding water well setback

16 exceptions and hearing will be governed in

17 accordance with Section 101, Subpart F of the

18 Board's procedural rules.

19 I note that this hearing is

20 intended to develop a record for review for

21 the petition and it will be reviewed by the

22 whole Illinois Pollution Control Board. I

23 will not be deciding this case, again, it's

24 the Board that will be the ultimate

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 decisionmaker. They will review the

2 transcript of this proceeding, the record,

3 and the post hearing briefs.

4 My job is to ensure an orderly

5 hearing and present a clear record and rule

6 on any evidentiary matters that may arise.

7 After the hearing, the parties will have an

8 opportunity to submit post hearing briefs.

9 These too will be considered by the Board.

10 And I do want to introduce

11 Alisa Liu. She's sitting to my right. She's

12 a technical employee of the Illinois

13 Pollution Control Board. She may or may not

14 be asking questions today.

15 With that said, Mr. Saines, would

16 you like to introduce yourself, please?

17 MR. SAINES: Sure. Richard Saines,

18 S-A-I-N-E-S. I'm the counsel of behalf of

19 the petitioner, and I'm here with Mr. Steve

20 Swenson from Clayton Group Services. Clayton

21 is spelled C-L-A-Y-T-O-N. He's the technical

22 consultant that I'll be offering as the only

23 witness.

24 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Mr. Buick?

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 MR. BUICK: Yes. My name is

2 Kevin Buick, B-U-I-C-K, on behalf of the

3 Village of Waterman. I might note there's

4 some references throughout the petitions to

5 the city of Waterman and I just want to note

6 for clarification that Waterman is indeed a

7 village, and I'm here with the Village

8 engineer, Norman Beeh, B-E-E-H --

9 MR. BEEH: Correct.

10 MR. BUICK: (Continuing) -- who is the

11 Village engineer.

12 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thank you,

13 Mr. Buick.

14 Mr. Gunnarson?

15 MR. GUNNARSON: Yes. My name is

16 Charles Gunnarson. I'm an attorney with the

17 Illinois Environmental Protection Agency and

18 I'm assigned to this matter representing the

19 IEPA today. With me as well is Mr. Lynn

20 Dunaway, D-U-N-A-W-A-Y, who's a geologist

21 with the division of public water supplies,

22 groundwater unit, and Mr. Dunaway provided

23 the technical review of the petition for the

24 IEPA.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thank you,

2 Mr. Gunnarson.

3 Mr. Saines, you may proceed with

4 your case in chief. You can do an opening,

5 you can waive opening. You can make any

6 comments on any matters that may arise and/or

7 call your first witness, Mr. Swenson.

8 O P E N I N G S T A T E M E N T

9 BY MR. SAINES:

10 Thank you. I appreciate that. I'll

11 just make a brief statement. I want to thank

12 both the Illinois EPA, Village of Waterman,

13 and the Board in particular for granting the

14 expedited hearing request and accommodating

15 the schedule for this hearing on a relatively

16 short notice.

17 The reason for the expedited

18 hearing, of course, is that we've been

19 involved in a cleanup of existing shallow

20 groundwater contamination at the site for a

21 couple of years now and we're at the point

22 where we've got a completion plan in place.

23 And in order to get that plan

24 implemented and really get this groundwater

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 cleaned up, we need to, you know, adhere to

2 the statutory requirements in the Illinois

3 Environmental Protection Agency Act, one of

4 which is to make sure that we're consistent

5 with the prohibition on locating new

6 potential routes within the setback area of a

7 community well.

8 So this hearing is intended to

9 seek an exception from that, an exception

10 from that prohibition to allow us to

11 effectively clean up the shallow groundwater.

12 And I'd like at this point to call

13 Mr. Swenson as --

14 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: I guess --

15 Mr. Saines, I'm sorry. I should ask

16 Mr. Buick or Mr. Gunnarson, do you have any

17 openings?

18 MR. BUICK: We do not, your Honor.

19 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Okay.

20 Thank you.

21 MR. GUNNARSON: Neither do we.

22 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Okay. I'm

23 sorry, Mr. Saines, proceed.

24 MR. SAINES: No problem. Sorry to

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 jump in there.

2 If it's okay with everybody, I'd

3 like to just call Mr. Swenson and he'll be

4 here to answer your questions. But before we

5 get into your questions, if it's okay, I'd

6 like to just sort of run through some

7 additional materials that have been provided

8 to the Illinois EPA and the Village

9 subsequent to the petition that was filed on

10 December 10th of 2004 so that we can enter

11 those into the record and that they're

12 available for everybody to review.

13 These are materials that have been

14 shared, again, with the Illinois EPA and the

15 Village pursuant to their request for

16 additional information, and it's referenced

17 in fact in the Illinois EPA's response that

18 there was additional information that they

19 were interested in receiving, so pursuant to

20 that request, we provided some additional

21 information. So at this juncture, I'll call

22 Mr. Swenson.

23 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Okay.

24 Mr. Swenson, you can remain seated and

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 Maria will swear you in.

2 (Witness sworn.)

3 WHEREUPON:

4 STEVEN R. SWENSON

5 called as a witness herein, having been first duly

6 sworn, deposeth and saith as follows:

7 E X A M I N A T I O N

8 BY MR. SAINES:

9 Q. Could you just state and spell your

10 name for the record, please?

11 A. My name is Steven R. Swenson,

12 S-W-E-N-S-O-N.

13 Q. Okay. And, Mr. Swenson, who are you

14 employed by?

15 A. Clayton Group Services.

16 Q. And what do you do there?

17 A. I'm a project manager.

18 Q. Okay. Can you tell us what your basic

19 educational background is?

20 A. I received my bachelor's and master's

21 from Northern Illinois University, department of

22 geography, environmental sciences.

23 Q. Okay. And you mentioned you're a

24 project manager. Are you the project manager on the

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 Paul Johnson site that's at issue here today?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Okay. Can you just briefly describe

4 what your duties entail as project manager for the

5 site?

6 A. Everything from report writing,

7 budgets, technical review, overseeing field staff,

8 working with the -- as a go-between between the

9 client and the Agency.

10 Q. Okay. Within Clayton Group Services,

11 are you the one -- the person most knowledgeable

12 about the technical aspects of this particular site?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Okay. I'd like to offer as Group

15 Exhibit No. 1, which I have copies of for everybody

16 (indicating).

17 I've just distributed group

18 Exhibit No. 1 to the parties at the hearing. And,

19 Mr. Swenson, can you just take a look at that and

20 review that briefly if you don't mind?

21 (Witness perusing the document.)

22 A. Okay.

23 Q. Have you familiarized yourself with

24 it?

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Could you briefly describe in general

3 terms, without getting into the details of each

4 attachment, what Group Exhibit 1 represents?

5 A. Attachment A is a summary of the

6 groundwater analytical results that we've collected

7 at the site, basically starting from January 2002 to

8 the present. Attachment two is a summary boring

9 location map showing the extent of the excavation,

10 the location of all the monitoring well sampling

11 points to date at the site, and attachment three is

12 the proposed groundwater monitoring plan that was

13 requested by Lynn Dunaway.

14 Q. Okay. And Mr. Dunaway -- you referred

15 to Lynn Dunaway. Mr. Dunaway is with the Illinois

16 EPA?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Let me just ask you a little bit more

19 detail on this Group Exhibit No. 1. With respect to

20 Attachment No. 1, was this information provided to

21 the Illinois EPA subsequent to the filing of the

22 petition?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Okay. Do you remember if that was on

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 January 24, 2005?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. And it was on January 24, 2005?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Okay. And was this information

6 requested by the Illinois EPA subsequent to the

7 petition as additional information?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Okay. So you prepared this

10 information and submitted it to the Illinois EPA

11 pursuant to their request?

12 A. Correct.

13 Q. Okay. With respect to attachment

14 two -- or what's actually Attachment B here in Group

15 Exhibit No. 1, you mentioned it's a site map with

16 boring locations. Again, was this provided to the

17 Illinois EPA subsequent to the filing of the

18 petition?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Okay. And that was done pursuant to

21 their request as well?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Okay. As with Attachment A and

24 Attachment B here, both of those were also provided

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 to Mr. Buick at the Village of Waterman; is that

2 correct?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Okay. And was that date on

5 February 15, 2005?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Okay. And Attachment C of Group

8 Exhibit No. 1, you mentioned that's a proposed

9 groundwater monitoring plan. Similar to the first

10 two attachments in Group Exhibit 1, was this

11 submitted pursuant to the Illinois EPA's request?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Okay. And that was subsequent to the

14 petition?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Okay. That was submitted to the

17 Illinois EPA on January 26, 2005 as well?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. And also to the Village of Waterman on

20 February 15th?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Okay. Very good.

23 I'd like to offer Exhibit No. 2 as

24 well.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: And just to

2 make the record clear, when Mr. Saines was

3 referring to attachment one, it was actually

4 Attachment A.

5 BY MR. SAINES:

6 Q. Okay. Mr. Swenson, I'm now showing

7 you what's been marked as Exhibit No. 2. Can you

8 just familiarize yourself with that?

9 (Witness perusing the document.)

10 A. Okay.

11 Q. Do you recognize Exhibit No. 2?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. All right. Can you briefly describe

14 what Exhibit No. 2 is?

15 A. It is a follow-up to Mr. Dunaway's

16 request to -- I've got a -- I'm fighting a cold

17 here, so I apologize. (Continuing) -- that the

18 presence of the shale in the two city wells and an

19 expanded well search be conducted to find out if

20 that's continuous across the region or if it's

21 localized to the area directly below the site.

22 Q. Okay. And just in descriptive terms,

23 Exhibit No. 2 is a letter, the date of which says

24 March 4, 2005, however, for the record, that was

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 actually sent to Mr. Dunaway on March 7th; is that

2 correct?

3 A. Correct.

4 Q. Okay. And it's a one-page -- or well,

5 a two-page letter, including the signature,

6 attaching a figure one, which is a site location map

7 with what appears to be a 2500-foot radius circle

8 drawn and a 5,000-foot radius circle drawn; is that

9 correct?

10 A. Correct.

11 Q. Okay. And as you're looking at the

12 map, there are sort of light blue -- or I guess I

13 would call them light blue dots and a little bit

14 darker blue dots with a check pattern in them; is

15 that correct?

16 A. Correct.

17 Q. Okay. What do the light blue dots --

18 solid light blue dots signify?

19 A. The light blue dots signify well logs

20 that indicate the presence of a shale unit in the

21 boring log.

22 Q. Okay. And with respect to the darker

23 blue dots?

24 A. Those are well logs that did not

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 indicate the presence of a shale unit.

2 Q. Okay. And just for reference, the

3 area of concern in terms of the existing contaminant

4 plume on this figure, can you just describe where

5 that is located in this figure?

6 A. The site is the red box at the center

7 of the figure.

8 Q. And the extent of the plume or the

9 contamination as exists in the shallow groundwater,

10 does that extend beyond the red box area?

11 A. It would probably be just slightly

12 north to the red box.

13 Q. Okay. But contained reasonably close

14 to where that box is?

15 A. Correct.

16 Q. Okay. In terms of inches of the scale

17 of this map is, let's see, one inch equals --

18 A. Two thousand feet.

19 Q. One inch equals 2,000 feet. Thank

20 you.

21 So in terms of inches outside of

22 the red box, I mean, would you be able to identify

23 it? I mean, is it a 16th of an inch, is it a 32th

24 of an inch, is it -- approximately just for scale

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 purposes?

2 A. Approximately it would the black dot

3 just north of the red box would be the limit.

4 Q. Okay. Could you estimate what the

5 inches is on that, how many inches is that or do you

6 know what --

7 A. Maybe a 32th.

8 Q. A 32th of an inch, okay.

9 A. Yes.

10 MR. SAINES: Okay. Thank you.

11 I've got Exhibit 3 and Exhibit 4,

12 both of which respond to questions that were

13 submitted by the Board yesterday.

14 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Okay.

15 MR. SAINES: So what I thought we

16 would do is maybe we could go through some of

17 those questions right now on the record.

18 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Okay.

19 That's fine.

20 MR. SAINES: And as those questions

21 come up, we may introduce additional exhibits

22 in response to some of those questions.

23 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Okay.

24 Terrific. Thank you.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 BY MR. SAINES:

2 Q. So, Mr. Swenson, I'm showing you a

3 filing here that was sent by the hearing officer,

4 Mr. Halloran, dated March 7, 2005. Is that when you

5 received this as well?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. So that was yesterday, correct?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Okay. And this is entitled Potential

10 Questions for Hearing and there's a series of

11 questions here and what I'd like to do is sort of

12 read the questions aloud and then solicit

13 Mr. Swenson's answers to those questions.

14 I also want to note for the record

15 that to the extent necessary we would also reserve

16 the right to address those questions in more detail

17 as part of the post hearing brief, but we would like

18 to sort of, you know, put some preliminary answers

19 at least on the record at this point.

20 So the first question relates to a

21 sentence in our petition and I'll read it as it's

22 stated in the document entitled Potential Questions

23 for Hearing and it's states: The petition on Page 4

24 states, "Prior to treating the hydrocarbons, a

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 series of injections are completed around the

2 perimeter of the hydrocarbons plume. The purpose of

3 the perimeter injections is to form a hydraulic

4 barrier that prevents the lateral migration of the

5 contaminant plume during treatment, end quote.

6 The first question related to

7 statement says: Would you please specify what is

8 injected to create a barrier?

9 A. It would be a combination of an ORC

10 slurry, which would be ORC and water, I believe

11 there would also be some nutrients injected.

12 Q. All right. You used the term ORC,

13 just for people that are not familiar with that

14 phrase, can you describe that?

15 A. Oxygen release and compound.

16 Q. Okay. The second question: Would you

17 please describe how the hydraulic barrier would

18 work, and the second part to that question is: Does

19 it provide a barrier to groundwater flow movement or

20 contaminant transport?

21 A. I believe it does two things: One, by

22 injecting -- we inject just into the groundwater

23 table. It basically forms a mound that as you --

24 once you complete the perimeter, you've got a mound

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 of groundwater that when you inject in the inside,

2 then you're pushing against that mound. Basically,

3 you're filling the capillary fringe and the

4 unsaturated soil just above the water table. You're

5 saturating it with water.

6 Q. Okay. And when you describe a mound,

7 what you're saying is you're creating a perimeter

8 mound around the entire area of contamination so

9 that there is inward pressure towards the center of

10 the contamination, correct?

11 A. Correct.

12 Q. Okay. So in answer to that question,

13 the question says: Does it provide a barrier to

14 groundwater flow movement or contaminant transport,

15 is there a yes or no answer to that?

16 A. Yes. Basically, in the short-term it

17 would prevent the outward migration of the

18 groundwater.

19 Q. Okay. The third question under this

20 series of questions is: How deep will the injection

21 wells be?

22 A. Groundwater is approximately ten feet

23 below the ground surface. The injections, I

24 believe, will be between ten and 14 feet.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 Q. Okay. The fourth question in the

2 series is: After completing Phase I and Phase II on

3 the areas identified by IET, which for the record is

4 the vendor providing the bioremediation services, in

5 Attachment C as A, B, and C, would the injection

6 process be repeated?

7 A. The injection process would be

8 repeated if the results of the groundwater

9 monitoring demonstrates we still have areas of

10 concern.

11 Q. And you mentioned groundwater

12 monitoring. That's the groundwater monitoring that

13 is part of the groundwater monitoring plan that you

14 had submitted to the Illinois EPA as Attachment C to

15 Group Exhibit No. 1; is that correct?

16 A. Correct.

17 Q. Okay. The next reference text for

18 which there's a question states as follows: In

19 IET's proposal in Attachment C, Page 19 under Phase

20 I (Time Zero) and Phase II (Time 100 days), there is

21 a reference to a diagram showing the location of the

22 injection points and the anticipated impact zones.

23 The question reads as follows: I

24 did not find this diagram in the attachments, and I

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 was wondering if you would please enter a copy into

2 the record?

3 In response to that, we have what

4 has been marked as Exhibit 3, which I will

5 distribute now (indicating).

6 Mr. Swenson, I'm showing you

7 what's been marked as Exhibit 3. Can you just

8 review that and then when you're ready just briefly

9 describe what it is?

10 A. Okay. It is a grid of proposed

11 injection points for Phases I and II. They're both

12 identical for areas A, B, and C with area A being

13 north of Adams Street, area B being the excavated

14 area, and area C being the perimeter around the

15 excavated area south of Adams Street.

16 Q. Do you believe Exhibit 3 is responsive

17 to question five, which I just read from this

18 document?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Okay. The next statement for which

21 there's a question is as follows: In IEPA's

22 response at Page 5, the IEPA notes the lack of a

23 monitoring plan or schedule. Petition at eight

24 states that the expected in-situ bioremediation time

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 is one year. However, in Attachment C, IET's

2 proposal on Page 2 states: IET has structured a

3 program which will allow for significant removal

4 over a two-year period.

5 The question is as follows: Have

6 you developed a schedule for remediation showing

7 milestones such as timeframes for injections,

8 groundwater sampling, and compliance with Class I

9 groundwater standards and 35 IAC 742 remediation

10 objectives?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Okay. And where would that schedule

13 be?

14 A. In the groundwater monitoring plan in

15 Exhibit 2 -- or excuse me, Group Exhibit 1,

16 Attachment C.

17 Q. Okay. And just for reference, the

18 groundwater monitoring plan that is now contained in

19 Group Exhibit 1 and Attachment C, did that exist in

20 some form prior to you creating it for Group

21 Exhibit No. 1?

22 A. Yes. It was submitted in the amended

23 corrective action plan submitted to the Illinois EPA

24 plan LUST section to do the bio injections. Counsel

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 has it down there (indicating).

2 Q. Okay. You said LUST section, that's

3 L-U-S-T?

4 A. Yes, leaking underground storage tank.

5 Q. Okay. Thank you.

6 Now, did that plan in Group

7 Exhibit No. 1, Attachment C, is it identical to that

8 which was submitted as part of the corrective action

9 plan?

10 A. Some minor modifications have been

11 made at the request of Lynn Dunaway.

12 Q. And, again, Lynn Dunaway is with the

13 Illinois EPA?

14 A. Correct.

15 Q. Okay. So with respect to the

16 monitoring plan then as modified in Group Exhibit

17 No. 1, is that going to then be used as part of the

18 corrective action plan as well?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Okay. So those will be identical?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Okay. The next question from the

23 Illinois Pollution Control Board is: Have you

24 developed a monitoring plan? And, Mr. Swenson, the

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 answer to that question is?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Okay. The next statement in the

4 series of questions is as follows: According to

5 IEPA's response at Page 5, additional data was

6 provided to the Agency by Clayton Group Services

7 that was not part of the original petition. The

8 data apparently demonstrates the effectiveness of

9 the bioremediation at the site.

10 And question No. 8: Would you be

11 willing to enter this data into the record in the

12 proceeding? Could you summarize the data for the

13 hearing today to describe the effectiveness of

14 bioremediation at the site in the past?

15 We have gone through Group

16 Exhibit 1. Is that the data that you represent

17 demonstrates the effectiveness of bioremediation?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Okay. So let's just -- in response to

20 this question, let's delve into that just a little

21 bit more and refer back to Group Exhibit No. 1,

22 attachment -- well, you tell me. Where in this

23 group exhibit does it reference the effectiveness

24 or does it demonstrate the effectiveness of it?

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 A. I believe the effectiveness is

2 demonstrated with the analytical data from the sumps

3 on Page 5 of 7 on Table 1 in Attachment A.

4 Q. Okay. Can you describe in this Page 5

5 of 7, Table 1, Group Exhibit 1, Attachment A, how

6 the effectiveness is demonstrated?

7 A. Following removal of the impacted soil

8 and the source material, ORC was placed in the

9 bottom of the excavation before it was backfilled

10 with gravel. Following completion of the

11 backfilling activities, six sumps were installed to

12 monitor. Groundwater samples were collected from

13 the sumps on June 1, 2003, February 5, 2004, and

14 September 15, 2004, and in each such improvement was

15 observed with the groundwater quality.

16 Q. Okay. So in other words, the level of

17 contamination was decreasing over time?

18 A. Correct.

19 Q. Okay. All right. Is there anything

20 else you'd like to add in response to that question?

21 A. Not at this time.

22 Q. Okay. The next statement in the

23 series of questions is as follows: According to

24 IEPA's response at Page 7 and the petition on

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 Page 3, the Clayton Group recently installed

2 additional borings to determine the extent of the

3 shallow groundwater plume.

4 The question is as follows: How

5 many additional wells did Clayton install and what

6 did they demonstrate in terms of groundwater

7 contamination?

8 Again, I think we want to delve

9 into this in a little bit more detail if we refer to

10 figure --

11 A. One, Attachment B.

12 Q. -- one, which is in Attachment B to

13 Group Exhibit 1, just to make things clear. Can you

14 on this figure describe -- or just point out by

15 reference to the boring log or the boring number so

16 it's clear for the record what the additional wells

17 were?

18 A. Clayton completed approximately seven

19 borings using a geoprobe to further delineate the

20 extent north of West Adams Street. The wells

21 were -- following completion of the geoprobing, a

22 temporary one-inch monitoring well was placed in the

23 open hole and Clayton attempted to go after a

24 groundwater sample.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 Q. Okay. And with respect to this

2 additional information, you also did a new round of

3 sampling and monitoring wells ten and 15; is that

4 correct? If it's not correct, let me know.

5 A. Yes, we did.

6 Q. Okay. So can you describe whether you

7 have further been able to define the extent of the

8 contamination to the north and west as a result of

9 the soil boring installation?

10 A. Yes. We were able to collect

11 groundwater samples from three locations. CSB 402,

12 which is the westernmost probe location and the one

13 closest to the municipal well, the groundwater

14 sample nondetected with B-tex and PNAs.

15 Q. Okay. What about 405?

16 A. Well, 405 was a northernmost and,

17 again, we were able to collect a sample for B-tex

18 and PNAs; it was nondetect.

19 Q. Okay. And what does that mean for

20 purposes of description?

21 A. Nondetect means it was -- the compound

22 was not detected at the limits of the laboratory

23 equipment.

24 Q. Okay. So in general terms, would you

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 say you have what we call defined the lateral extent

2 of the contamination pursuant to those borings?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Okay. Now, in reference to the

5 question, which, again, says: How do these boring

6 demonstrate in terms of the extent of groundwater

7 contamination, what do they demonstrate, in terms of

8 the extent, is there anything else relevant to

9 monitoring well ten or 15 that would be consistent

10 with the Illinois EPA's response indicating that

11 there was more extensive contamination?

12 A. Can you repeat the question?

13 Q. Sure. It was a terrible question. I

14 would be happy to rephrase it.

15 Illinois EPA responded, and I'm

16 paraphrasing, but that the new data indicated more

17 extensive groundwater contamination, I think those

18 were the terms they used, and since we've just

19 discussed that, we actually have defined that there

20 is nondetects on the perimeters, so we've defined

21 the lateral extent.

22 Did the results from monitoring

23 well ten and 15 indicate any reason for the Illinois

24 EPA to suggest that it showed more extensive

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 contamination; in other words, were there different

2 levels in the monitoring wells that were detected in

3 this new round of sampling?

4 A. No.

5 Q. Okay. So do you understand what the

6 Illinois EPA said when they said that the additional

7 monitoring ports indicate more extensive groundwater

8 contamination?

9 A. I'm a little confused on that point.

10 Q. You're not sure what the reference is

11 in regard to?

12 A. Correct.

13 Q. Okay. That's fair. I'm sure we'll

14 figure that one out.

15 Okay. Let's move on to the next

16 series of questions. The statement says as follows:

17 Page 8 of the petition discusses the option of

18 replacing or relocating the municipal well.

19 And the five questions under that

20 is as follows: In order to detect potential

21 impacts, have you made any arrangements with the

22 city -- and when they say city here, I think that is

23 the reference to the Village of Waterman -- to

24 monitor the CWS well No. 2 for components that will

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 be injected into the remediation wells?

2 A. No.

3 Q. Okay. Do you think that that's

4 something that is necessary in this case?

5 A. No.

6 Q. Okay. Could you explain why?

7 A. I believe the city is already

8 monitoring the well for volatile, bacteria, and

9 nitrate/nitrites as part of their public water

10 service.

11 Q. So, in other words, there's data that

12 currently exists for that well?

13 A. Correct.

14 Q. Okay. And the monitoring that the

15 Village is doing, is that ongoing, is this a

16 continuous obligation?

17 A. Correct.

18 Q. Okay. Do you happen to recall or know

19 offhand what the existing data shows with respect to

20 that?

21 A. There are no issues with the well

22 regarding contamination.

23 Q. Okay. The next question reads:

24 Attachment C to the petition contains some MSDSs,

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 which are material safety data sheets, for the

2 materials to be used in the injection process.

3 Would it be effective to monitor the CWS well No. 2

4 for some of the parameters identified in those

5 MSDSs?

6 And your opinion on that?

7 A. No.

8 Q. Okay. Can you explain why?

9 A. The stuff being injected, the ORC, the

10 oxygen releasing compound, is basically a solid.

11 The byproduct, again, is a solid, an oxygen that is

12 not mobile. The bacteria being injected for the

13 upper plate counts basically cling to the soil

14 particles of the subsurface of the vatozone

15 (phonetic) and just into the groundwater table, they

16 are not mobile -- I mean, they don't swim through

17 the groundwater.

18 The other new nutrients being

19 injected are equivalent to farm fertilizer, in

20 layman's terms, at low concentrations just enough to

21 ensure that there's enough nutrients to maintain the

22 micropopulation.

23 Q. So in short, as you're designing a

24 system for the remediation, this is not something

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 that you would typically recommend in a system like

2 this?

3 A. Correct.

4 Q. Okay. The next question states: Only

5 the first half of the MSDS for the Regenesis ORC

6 appeared in Attachment C. Would you please submit

7 the entire MSDS?

8 And in reference to that, in

9 response I'm showing you what's been marked as

10 Exhibit No. 4. Can you look at that quickly?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Or take as much time as you need

13 actually.

14 (Witness perusing the document.)

15 A. Okay.

16 Q. Okay. Do you know what that is?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Can you describe it, please?

19 A. It's the material safety data sheet

20 for oxygen-releasing compound or ORC as downloaded

21 from Regenesis' web site.

22 MR. SAINES: Okay. I'd like to offer

23 Exhibit No. 4 into the record in response to

24 the Illinois Pollution Control Board's

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 request.

2 BY MR. SAINES:

3 Q. The next question states as follows:

4 If no monitoring of the CWS well No. 2 is planned,

5 how will you ensure that the well hasn't been

6 impacted?

7 A. From my understanding, the well is

8 already being monitored.

9 Q. Okay. Is that similar to the question

10 that we discussed previously related to the ongoing

11 monitoring obligation of the Village?

12 A. Correct.

13 Q. Okay. The next question states: If

14 the unthinkable happens and the injection wells do

15 impact the CWS well, have you discussed a

16 contingency plan with the Village?

17 A. No.

18 Q. Okay. The next question: Have you

19 talked to the Regenesis ORC representative about

20 what to do in the event that the CWS well is

21 impacted? Could you describe some likely actions,

22 such as a boil order?

23 So let's take the first question

24 first. Have you talked to the Regenesis ORC

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 representative?

2 A. I spoke with the subcontractor.

3 Q. Related to this question?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Okay. And what was the nature of the

6 conversation in general terms?

7 A. I'm sorry. I misspoke.

8 No, I have not spoken to him on

9 the ORC issue.

10 Q. Okay. So you spoke to him for other

11 reasons, but you didn't talk about this particular

12 issue?

13 A. Right.

14 Q. Okay. Let's go to the next question:

15 Could you describe some likely actions, such as a

16 boil order?

17 Given the nature of the

18 constituents here, what would you think would be the

19 likely response action that would need to be taken

20 to the extent there was contamination found in the

21 municipal well?

22 A. My understanding of the injection

23 process and the compounds being injected, if there

24 was to be an impact to the well, there would have to

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 be some kind of a pretreatment.

2 Q. Now, when we talk about impact to the

3 well, for purposes of context, I mean, is it

4 possible -- let me ask this question: Is it

5 possible that you would have impacts from the ORC

6 compound without there being any impacts from the

7 existing contamination?

8 A. They would have to follow the same

9 pathway.

10 Q. So to the extent there's impacts of

11 the ORC compound, that would mean there would be

12 impacts of the existing contamination, correct?

13 A. Correct.

14 Q. And the point of using the ORC

15 compound is to clean up the existing contamination

16 and get rid of it?

17 A. Correct.

18 Q. Okay. The last question in this

19 series is: Does the Village have another source of

20 community water supply besides well No. 2?

21 A. I believe they have two additional

22 wells, well No. 3 and a third one, which is either

23 on line or near completion, but the city engineer

24 would be able to respond to that -- or the Village

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 engineer.

2 Q. Okay. Fair enough.

3 Do you have any idea, and if you

4 want to defer to the Village engineer, that's fine,

5 but do you have any idea following on from the

6 question asked by the Illinois Pollution Control

7 Board, could you please describe how it compares to

8 the subject well No. 2?

9 A. They are both completed in bedrock

10 approximately 400 feet deep.

11 Q. Okay. And just for reference, how

12 deep is this contaminant zone that's currently there

13 right now, what are we talking about?

14 A. Within the first ten, 15 feet of the

15 surface.

16 Q. Okay. And the last question -- or

17 last statement here from the series of questions

18 states as follows: Petition at eight indicates the

19 expected time to complete the in-situ bioremediation

20 is one year, and the IEPA recommends that

21 groundwater remediation efforts continue for a

22 minimum of two consecutive quarters with no

23 exceedance of the Class I standards or 35 IAC 742

24 remedial objectives.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 The question is: Do you foresee

2 any problems with having the setback exception

3 expire once these conditions are met?

4 A. Once the site is cleaned up and we can

5 demonstrate that the groundwater meets Class I, I

6 see no reason why the setback exception should be

7 enforced, so the variance should expire.

8 MR. SAINES: Okay. That concludes my

9 questioning of Mr. Swenson and we're happy to

10 take questions from anybody else.

11 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thank you,

12 Mr. Saines.

13 Mr. Buick?

14 MR. BUICK: At this time, your Honor,

15 I think that we would defer and -- I guess we

16 would prefer to allow the IEPA to proceed and

17 then we may reserve if there's any follow-up

18 questions, but I guess I would be more

19 comfortable allowing Mr. Gunnarson to proceed

20 before we try to take the horns.

21 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Okay.

22 Thank you.

23 MR. SAINES: Could we take two minutes

24 off the record real quick?

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Sure.

2 We're off the record, Maria.

3 (Whereupon, a discussion was had

4 off the record.)

5 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: We're on

6 the record.

7 Mr. Gunnarson, do you have any

8 questions of Mr. Swenson?

9 MR. GUNNARSON: I don't have any

10 direct questions of the petitioner's witness.

11 I'm ready to proceed with our case in chief

12 at this time.

13 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Okay. Let

14 me -- hold on.

15 Mr. Saines, have you rested your

16 case in chief?

17 MR. SAINES: I don't have a formal

18 closing statement prepared, but I would like

19 to say if this is the time to say it, that

20 the goal here, of course, is to clean up

21 existing contamination that is there.

22 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Okay.

23 Ms. Liu may have some questions as well.

24 We'll do the closing --

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 MR. SAINES: Later?

2 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: -- when the

3 time comes.

4 MR. SAINES: Okay. Fair enough. With

5 the exception of that, yeah, I'm done.

6 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Okay.

7 Thank you.

8 So if Mr. Buick and Mr. Gunnarson

9 do not have any questions of Mr. Swenson,

10 Ms. Liu, do you have any questions of

11 Mr. Swenson?

12 MS. LIU: I do. I have one question.

13 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Okay.

14 MS. LIU: You mentioned that the

15 Village monitors its community water supply

16 for nitrates and I was wondering if the

17 nutrient source that you're using in the

18 injection process is a nitrogen-based one?

19 MR. SWENSON: Well, first of all, my

20 understanding is they monitor for nitrates.

21 I'm not stating that as a fact. The nutrient

22 source is urea, ammonium nitrate, and an

23 orthophosphate.

24 MS. LIU: Thank you.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 MR. SAINES: Can I ask a follow-up on

2 that?

3 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Yes, you

4 may.

5 FURTHER EXAMINATION

6 BY MR. SAINES:

7 Q. So urea ammonium nitrates, would that

8 be within the family of constituents that Ms. Liu

9 requested because she said nitrates and she was

10 asking a general question about nitrates. You

11 mentioned urea ammonium nitrate. Would that be a

12 yes to her question; in other words, she said is the

13 media you're using a nitrate-based media and so the

14 answer is yes, it is?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. And the specific compound is urea

17 ammonium nitrate?

18 A. Urea, ammonium nitrate, and

19 orthophosphate, three sources.

20 Q. Okay. Urea, comma, ammonium

21 nitrate --

22 A. Yes.

23 MR. SAINES: Okay. Fair enough.

24 MS. LIU: Thank you.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Okay.

2 Anything further, Ms. Liu?

3 MS. LIU: No. Thank you.

4 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Okay.

5 Thank you.

6 Mr. Gunnarson, you want to proceed

7 with your case in chief? I think Mr. Saines

8 has completed his.

9 Mr. Buick?

10 MR. BUICK: If I could have one

11 opportunity as to his follow-up question

12 related to Ms. Liu's question and

13 Mr. Swenson's responses --

14 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Okay.

15 E X A M I N A T I O N

16 BY MR. BUICK:

17 Q. Just from the Village's standpoint,

18 Mr. Swenson, knowing I suppose perhaps better than I

19 what the routine tests that the Village would

20 administer, for example, for bacteria and other

21 types of --

22 MR. BEEH: Contaminants.

23 BY MR. BUICK:

24 Q. (Continuing) -- would the type of

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 remediation that this would involve involve

2 necessary screening for additional types that would

3 not have been part of the Village's ordinary testing

4 process?

5 A. I think Paul Johnson and the Village

6 would have to sit down and take a look at that to

7 verify that everybody's on the same page.

8 Q. Are you familiar with anything

9 specific in the way of additional problems that this

10 would pose that, again, could be something that

11 might slip under the Village's radar if they're

12 doing the standard battery of ordinary tests?

13 A. Not that I'm aware of.

14 Q. But it is a possibility and something

15 that should be looked at?

16 A. It should be looked at, I would agree

17 to that.

18 MR. BUICK: Thank you.

19 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Any

20 redirect, so to speak, Mr. Saines?

21 FURTHER EXAMINATION

22 BY MR. SAINES:

23 Q. Well, just as a general matter, I

24 guess I'll ask the following question: To the

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 extent there's a demand or formal request to augment

2 or perform some additional monitoring of these

3 community wells to make the parties comfortable and

4 that falls within the scope of the leaking

5 underground storage tank cleanup pursuant to which

6 we're operating as part of this, I don't know, would

7 you be amenable to doing that type of monitoring?

8 A. Yes.

9 FURTHER EXAMINATION

10 BY MR. BUICK:

11 Q. I'll ask a follow-up to that. If that

12 type of follow-up monitoring is done and I don't

13 know, Mr. Swenson, if you're able to speak to this,

14 but based on your discussions with Paul Johnson,

15 Inc., do you believe that they're amenable to

16 handling the cost of that responsibility or the cost

17 of that so the cost is not inadvertently passed on

18 to the Village in the process?

19 MR. SAINES: Well, let me -- if you

20 don't mind, if I can address that as a legal

21 matter. Paul Johnson, Inc. is currently

22 undergoing a remediation process under the

23 leaking underground storage tank program,

24 which provides for reimbursement of approved

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 expenditures related to remediation.

2 So I think that the short answer

3 is that we would submit that documentation

4 and everything else to the Illinois EPA for

5 approval as part of the cleanup and we would

6 see what they would say as to whether or not

7 in fact they would deem that as approved

8 expenditures that you would get reimbursed

9 for.

10 So the initial cost would be

11 funded by Paul Johnson, Inc. and then

12 ultimately be reimbursed on the fund.

13 BY MR. BUICK:

14 Q. And if I could ask, Mr. Swenson, in

15 your experience, are those the types of expenses

16 that are in fact approved in your past experience?

17 A. Yes.

18 MR. BUICK: Okay. Thank you.

19 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Any further

20 questions of this witness, Mr. Swenson? And

21 it may come to pass, I'm not sure if anybody

22 wants to ask Mr. Beeh any questions, but if

23 so, we'll put him under oath as well.

24 With that said, I guess Mr. Saines

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 has rested his case in chief.

2 Mr. Gunnarson?

3 MR. GUNNARSON: Thank you. As noted

4 before, I'm here on behalf of the Illinois

5 EPA as is Mr. Dunaway in a technical nature.

6 The Agency filed its response to

7 Paul Johnson, Inc.'s petition for the water

8 well setback exception on January 27th of

9 2005, and essentially that response

10 recommended granting the exception pending

11 that three conditions were met, two involved

12 the submittal of additional information into

13 the record here today regarding the

14 effectiveness of the in-situ or direct push

15 technology in treating the hydrocarbon

16 contamination of the shallow groundwater and

17 also follow-up information regarding the

18 environmental impact of that technique.

19 And by the petitioner's

20 introduction of Exhibit 1, we believe they

21 have satisfied that and that is the

22 information that was provided to the Agency

23 subsequent to the filing of the petition, so

24 I think the Agency is comfortable in saying

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 at this point that we believe those two

2 conditions have been met.

3 The third one is essentially that

4 if the Board does decide to grant the

5 exception, that that exception is granted on

6 the condition that Paul Johnson, Inc. can

7 demonstrate two consecutive quarters of

8 compliance with the Class I groundwater

9 standards.

10 We feel that's necessary to ensure

11 that the remediation has in fact been

12 completed satisfactorily and gives us a level

13 of confidence to feel that the site has

14 indeed been addressed, so we would ask that

15 the Board consider that when it is

16 considering whether or not to grant this

17 exception.

18 And perhaps one point of

19 clarification: I would like to ask

20 Mr. Dunaway a question related to something

21 that Mr. Saines had mentioned. I think it

22 was also mentioned in the Board's questions

23 to the petitioner if I might at this point?

24 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: We should

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 probably swear him in.

2 Maria, please?

3 (Witness sworn.)

4 WHEREUPON:

5 LYNN E. DUNAWAY

6 called as a witness herein, having been first duly

7 sworn, deposeth and saith as follows:

8 E X A M I N A T I O N

9 BY MR. GUNNARSON:

10 Q. Mr. Dunaway, earlier in this hearing,

11 counsel was referencing to a question that had come

12 about pursuant to the Pollution Control Board's

13 submittal of questions that was dated March 7, 2005,

14 and essentially what it addressed was a comment made

15 in the Agency's petition -- response to the

16 petition, pardon me, at Paragraph 15, the last

17 sentence of that on Page 7 of our response and I'll

18 read that quote from the response here, it says:

19 Section 1, Page 3 indicates that Clayton has

20 recently installed additional monitoring points

21 indicating more extensive groundwater contamination

22 and I believe Section 1, Page 3 refers to the

23 petition. Can you perhaps put that sentence or that

24 comment in a context when you were doing your review

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 and what your thoughts were at that point?

2 A. Yes. In our response, it was

3 referring to that section of the petition and it was

4 sort of the context in which the petition was

5 written and that it's referring to the new areas as

6 being those north of Adams Street. And additional

7 information was submitted showing that that had in

8 fact been investigated, but the way it was submitted

9 in the petition, it sounded as though there were

10 additional areas beyond that.

11 But if you look at the data in

12 fact with the new additional data that was submitted

13 and that was entered as I believe Group Exhibit 1,

14 it's clear that they were talking about the area

15 north of Adams Street that had already been

16 discovered, but it was better defined with the

17 additional borings.

18 And they were referring to the

19 area that had not been treated with ORC as that area

20 with the understanding on their part, and it wasn't

21 necessarily clear from that paragraph, that they had

22 treated the base of the excavation with ORC. And it

23 was -- when we were doing the response without the

24 additional information, it was not clear where that

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 area was, but with the additional information, it

2 became clear after we had submitted our response.

3 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thank you,

4 Mr. Dunaway?

5 MR. GUNNARSON: Thank you,

6 Mr. Dunaway.

7 At this point, Mr. Hearing

8 Officer, the Agency doesn't have anything

9 additional in its case in chief, but we're

10 certainly available for any questions from

11 the Board or the other parties.

12 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thank you.

13 Mr. Saines?

14 MR. SAINES: I have no questions.

15 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Okay.

16 Ms. Liu?

17 MS. LIU: I would like to ask the

18 Village a question if they would like to be

19 sworn in.

20 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Okay. So

21 no further questions of Mr. Dunaway at this

22 time.

23 So, Mr. Beeh, would you please

24 raise your right hand and the court reporter

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 will swear you in?

2 (Witness sworn.)

3 MS. LIU: Mr. Beeh, one of the

4 questions we asked was regarding an alternate

5 water supply and Mr. Gunnarson indicated that

6 there was another 400-foot deep well. I was

7 wondering if you would comment on its

8 capacity and ability to act as an alternate

9 water supply?

10 MR. BEEH: The Village of Waterman

11 currently has three active wells, this is one

12 of them. In 2002, we began developing a new

13 well approximately 1500 feet north/northeast

14 of this current site and, you know, have

15 completed the well and the well house, we

16 have that online.

17 Just for the record, in drilling

18 and developing it, we did not encounter shale

19 until we were below the limestone and it was

20 at the depth of between 406 and 425 feet, but

21 we did go through a significant layer of

22 clay.

23 But the Village has two other

24 wells that are currently online and active at

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 the same time. But we also use the well in

2 question all of the time and it is -- I guess

3 also for the record, all three wells are in

4 the limestone formation or lower. The new

5 well is in limestone and sandstone and it

6 goes down to 685 feet.

7 So we do have other sources, but

8 you never know if a well is going to go down

9 and you should always have a backup. In the

10 letter from Clayton dated March 4, 2005, they

11 refer to the shale formations and presumably

12 that's because they're a fairly impervious

13 layer, but, you know, our -- and I'm not sure

14 why this new well log didn't show up in your

15 search, but it's not -- the shale does vary

16 depending upon where you're at.

17 I do have one question and I was

18 wondering what is the --

19 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Excuse me.

20 Can Mr. Buick ask the question?

21 MR. BEEH: Oh, sure. I'm sorry.

22 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: I know this

23 is kind of informal but --

24 MR. BUICK: Does Ms. Liu have any

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 follow-up? I do have a couple of things I

2 would like to ask Mr. Beeh, if possible.

3 MS. LIU: No. Thank you.

4 E X A M I N A T I O N

5 BY MR. BUICK:

6 Q. Before we get to your question,

7 Mr. Beeh, just directing your attention to the

8 Board's questions that were submitted and

9 specifically the question No. 14 that was posed

10 regarding if the unthinkable happens and the

11 injection wells do impact the CWS well,

12 Mr. Swenson's testimony was that there was no

13 contingency plan that had been discussed with the

14 Village.

15 From the Village engineer's

16 standpoint, could you give the Board and the hearing

17 officer some idea of what type of contingency plan

18 would be appropriate for what the situation would

19 present?

20 A. I guess in my opinion if the well were

21 to become contaminated, the contingency plan would

22 be to replace it and we would have to begin a

23 planning proceeding with that process. The well

24 completed in the last couple years, the total cost

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 would have been between 400 and 500,000.

2 Q. Your question, Mr. Beeh, do you have

3 an answer to the question regarding what the life

4 cycle of the treatment method would be? I mean,

5 from your standpoint, do you have any understanding

6 of what the life cycle I guess of the ORC compounds

7 would have been?

8 A. No, I really don't. And I would be

9 interested in knowing how long the treatment process

10 will be going on underground, is it something which

11 continues indefinitely, is it something which will

12 end at some point?

13 MR. BUICK: Thank you.

14 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Mr. Saines?

15 MR. SAINES: Does he need to be

16 re-sworn?

17 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: No. He's

18 still under oath.

19 MR. SAINES: Mr. Swenson, please feel

20 free to respond to that.

21 MR. SWENSON: Are you talking about

22 once we inject it, how long it will be --

23 MR. BEEH: (Indicating.)

24 MR. SWENSON: Well, once the ORC is

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 basically added to water, it begins releasing

2 oxygen compound and it will continue

3 releasing for approximately 180 days by that

4 stretch of drop-off.

5 As far as the bacteria being

6 injected, the whole purpose of that is to

7 increase -- kind of spike the native

8 population of bacteria. There are bacteria

9 there now consuming the hydrocarbons.

10 The whole idea being is to promote

11 their development by giving them the oxygen

12 needed and the nutrients to promote their

13 growth. The other thing with bio is, the

14 hydrocarbon degrading bacteria, the class,

15 are very slow in kind of coming out of

16 their -- I'm blanking on the word.

17 MS. LIU: Dormant.

18 MR. SWENSON: (Continuing) -- their

19 dormant stage, whereas, if you just put ORC,

20 you know. There's other classes of bacteria

21 that degrade plant matter, animal matter, you

22 know, the whole gamut of compounds, and what

23 would happen is you would spike those

24 populations up that would then be competing

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 with your hydrocarbon degrading bacteria.

2 So the purpose of adding the

3 hydrocarbon degrading bacteria from day one

4 is to bring everybody up onto an even playing

5 field with degrading the hydrocarbons. Once

6 we're done and the contaminants -- as we

7 monitor the contaminants -- or the nutrients,

8 the nutrients are used up by the bacteria in

9 the subsurface at the groundwater interface.

10 Once we're done and we show that

11 we've got the two quarters clean and we close

12 out, we will not be introducing anymore

13 oxygen and the bacteria counts will drop back

14 to their preexisting levels because there

15 will be nothing to support the additional

16 plate counts.

17 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thank you.

18 MR. BUICK: Mr. Hearing Officer, would

19 I be permitted one question in follow-up to

20 that?

21 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Sure. I

22 guess we've somewhat suspended the formal

23 procedural rules, but if there's no

24 objection, sure, go ahead Mr. Buick.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 MR. BUICK: Thank you.

4 FURTHER EXAMINATION

5 BY MR. BUICK:

6 Q. This is maybe an obvious question, but

7 is this bacteria harmful for human consumption that

8 you're referencing?

9 A. That, I don't know. I would have to

10 follow up with that.

11 MR. BUICK: Okay.

12 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Okay.

13 Ms. Liu, any question?

14 MS. LIU: No. Thank you.

15 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Mr. Saines?

16 MR. SAINES: I was wondering if I

17 could ask a question of Mr. Beeh?

18 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Okay.

19 MR. SAINES: It relates to the new

20 data log, is that okay?

21 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: That's

22 fine.

23 E X A M I N A T I O N

24 BY MR. SAINES:

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 Q. Okay. Because we don't show it on

2 our -- what was previous marked as Exhibit 2, I've

3 taken the liberty of marking an additional

4 Exhibit 5, and I was wondering if you would be so

5 kind as to the best you can to put an X on the site

6 diagram on Exhibit 5 as to where that new well is

7 located?

8 A. (Indicating.)

9 Q. Okay. And for the record, the -- can

10 you make it a little bit bigger so it will be easier

11 to read there, easier to see?

12 A. (Indicating.)

13 Q. For the record, to the best of your

14 knowledge, the well log information shows that you

15 went through a significant layer of clay but you did

16 not encounter shale at this location until

17 approximately 600 feet?

18 A. No. Four hundred and six feet.

19 Q. Four hundred and six feet, okay.

20 A. Below the limestone.

21 Q. Below the limestone, okay.

22 Do you recall about how thick the

23 clay layer was that you went through?

24 A. Ninety-five feet.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 Q. Ninety-five feet of clay?

2 A. Well, clay or sandy clay, yes.

3 MR. SAINES: Okay. Thank you.

4 And I will submit this as Exhibit

5 No. 5. Unfortunately, I don't have multiple

6 copies of this, but we can get that done.

7 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thank you.

8 MR. SAINES: Thank you.

9 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: I'm not

10 sure where we are. I think, Mr. Buick,

11 you're still -- I think Mr. Gunnarson and the

12 IEPA has rested their case in chief.

13 Mr. Buick?

14 MR. BUICK: I think we have nothing

15 further at this time.

16 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Okay.

17 While I have you all sworn in, Ms. Liu, do

18 you have any questions?

19 MS. LIU: No. Thank you.

20 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Mr. Saines,

21 any rebuttal?

22 FURTHER EXAMINATION

23 BY MR. SAINES:

24 Q. One question to clarify the question

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 from the Village, which I think was in relation to

2 sort of how long are we going to be doing the

3 treatment. Mr. Swenson, can you just, without being

4 precise in terms of number of days, but anticipated,

5 you know, what you anticipate the time from when you

6 start the ORC process until when you're completed

7 with it, can you give a general sense of what you

8 anticipate that time frame to be?

9 A. Our goal was to have the remediation

10 done within one year.

11 MR. SAINES: Okay. Thank you.

12 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thank you.

13 Any other questions, follow-up of

14 Mr. Swenson?

15 (No response.)

16 Okay. Before I forget and we'll go

17 off the record shortly, I do want to address

18 two things: I'm supposed to give a

19 credibility determination. Based on my

20 observations, experience, legal knowledge, I

21 find that there are no credibility issues

22 with the witnesses, all three of them, who

23 testified here today.

24 And it's my understanding that

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 Mr. Saines has offered Exhibits No. 1 through

2 5, I believe, into evidence. Any objection,

3 Mr. Gunnarson or Mr. Buick?

4 MR. BUICK: No.

5 MR. GUNNARSON: None.

6 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: These

7 Exhibits 1 through 5 are admitted into

8 evidence.

9 Any closing, Mr. Saines?

10 C L O S I N G S T A T E M E N T

11 BY MR. SAINES:

12 Just a real brief statement just to

13 reiterate that the goal that we're trying to

14 accomplish is in fact to clean up existing

15 hydrocarbon contamination in the shallow

16 groundwater zone and that, you know, the

17 purpose of this proceeding is to allow us to

18 do that in what we believe is the most

19 effective and efficient manner.

20 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thank you.

21 Mr. Buick, anything?

22 C L O S I N G S T A T E M E N T

23 BY MR. BUICK:

24 From the Village of Waterman's

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 standpoint, we're very supportive of that

2 goal, of course, and our concern is only to

3 try to ensure that if, as the Board had

4 indicated, the unthinkable occurs and there

5 is some migration of the bioremediation into

6 the Village's water supply, that there's some

7 manner of dealing with it, some manner of

8 addressing that. That's the concern that we

9 would have.

10 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thank you.

11 Mr. Gunnarson?

12 MR. GUNNARSON: Thank you, Mr. Hearing

13 Officer.

14 C L O S I N G S T A T E M E N T

15 BY MR. GUNNARSON:

16 Just to reiterate, the IEPA continues

17 to stand behind its response filed on

18 January 27th. Essentially it seems like the

19 only issue remaining from that are the three

20 conditions we had suggested was that the

21 Board, again, consider requiring two

22 consecutive quarters of clean monitoring

23 pursuant to Class I groundwater standards

24 prior to allowing the remediation to cease.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thank you.

2 Mr. Saines?

3 MR. SAINES: Just one response to

4 that. For the record, that's not

5 objectionable to the petitioner. We would

6 agree to adhere to that regime.

7 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Okay.

8 Before we go off the record to discuss post

9 hearing briefs, I do want to note for the

10 record that this hearing was noticed up

11 pursuant to Section 101.602 of the Board's

12 Procedural Rules.

13 At this time we'll go off the

14 record to discuss post hearing briefs and

15 we'll come back on momentarily. Thank you.

16 (Whereupon, a discussion was had

17 off the record.)

18 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: We're back

19 on the record. We've been discussing post

20 hearing briefing schedules. We concluded

21 that the transcript will be ready on or

22 before March 18th, I believe.

23 We've scheduled simultaneous post

24 hearing opening briefs and they're due on or

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 before March 25; simultaneous reply briefs,

2 if any, due on or before March 31st. I have

3 set public comment due date March 21st. Any

4 other things I forgot to mention?

5 (No response.)

6 I think that's it. I want to thank

7 Mr. Gunnarson, Mr. Dunaway, Mr. Beeh,

8 Mr. Buick, Mr. Swenson, Mr. Saines. Thanks

9 for coming today and I want to thank the City

10 of Sandwich for their hospitality.

11 I want to thank specifically

12 Mr. Gunnarson and Mr. Dunaway for coming all

13 the way from Springfield and making it, you

14 know, 20 to 9:00, well before that time. I

15 appreciate that. With that said, thanks and

16 have a safe drive home. This concludes the

17 hearing today.

18 (Which were all the proceedings

19 had in the above-entitled cause

20 on this date.)

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 STATE OF ILLINOIS )

) SS.

2 COUNTY OF DUPAGE )

5 I, MARIA E. SHOCKEY, CSR, do

6 hereby state that I am a court reporter doing

7 business in the City of Chicago, County of DuPage,

8 and State of Illinois; that I reported by means of

9 machine shorthand the proceedings held in the

10 foregoing cause, and that the foregoing is a true

11 and correct transcript of my shorthand notes so

12 taken as aforesaid.

15 _____________________

Maria E. Shockey, CSR

16 Notary Public,

DuPage County, Illinois

18 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO

before me this ___ day

19 of ________, A.D., 2005.

_________________________

21 Notary Public

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292