PAUL JOHNSON,
INC.,
Petitioner,
V.
ILLiNOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY and
VILLAGE OF WATERMAN,
ILLINOIS,
Respondents.
RECEPJED
CLERK’S OFFICE
JAN
31
2005
)
STATE OF ILLINOIS
PoIIutidfl~ConlroIBoard
)
)
)
)
PCB No. 05-109
)
)
)
)
)
)
NOTICE OF FILING
To:
Dorothy M. Gunn,
Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R.
Thompson Center, Suite
11-500
100 West Randolph Street
Chicago, Illinois
60601
Richard M. Saines, Esq.
Baker &
McKenzie
130 East Randolph Drive, Suite 3500
Chicago, Illinois
60601
(312)
861-8000
BradleyP. Halloran
Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center,
Suite 11-500
100 West Randolph Street
Chicago, Illinois
60601
(312) 814-8917
Kevin E. Buick, Esq.
Cliffe,
Foster, Corneille, Buick & Buick
331
West State Street
Sycamore, Illinois
60178
(815)895-7411
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have today filed with the Office of the Clerk of the Pollution
Control Board the
Illinois EPA’s Response
to Petitioner’s Petition for
Community Well
Setback Exception,
copies of which are herewith served upon
you.
January 27, 2005
Respectfully submitted,
charles
.
Gunna~son
Assistant Counsel
Charles W. Gunnarson
Assistant Counsel
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
1021 North Grand Avenue East, Post Office Box 1976
Springfield, illinois
62794-9276
(217) 782-5544
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
THIS FILING IS SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
REC~JVED
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION
CONTROL BOA~RKS
OFFICE
JAN
312005
PAUL JOHNSON, INC.
)
Petitioner
)
)
)
v.
)
PCB No.
05-109
)
(Petition for Water Well
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
Setback Exception)
PROTECTION AGENCY
and,
)
VILLAGE OF WATERMAN,
)
Respondents.
)
ILLINOIS EPA RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR
WATER WELL SETBACK EXCEPTION
NOW COMES the Respondent, ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY (“Illinois EPA”), by Charles W. Gunnarson,
one of its
attorneys, and respectfully
submits its RESPONSE TO THE
PETITION FOR A WATER WELL SETBACK EXCEPTION,
(“Response”)
according to 35
Ill. Adm. Code 106.306(a).
This Response is in reply to the
Petition filed with the Illinois Pollution Control Board (“Board”) on December
10, 2004, by
Petitioner PAUL JOHNSON, iNC., (“PJI”) requesting a Water Well Setback Exception pursuant
to Section
14.2 of the Illinois Environmental
Protection Act (“Act”), 415
ILCS 5/14.2 (2002).
INTRODUCTION
1.
The Illinois EPA received the Petition for the Water Well Setback Exception
on
December
15, 2004.
It has been given Illinois
EPA file number
18-05.
—1—
NOTIFICATION OF WATER SUPPLY
2.
A ProofofService affidavit was included with the petition stating that the Respondent
VILLAGE OF WATERMAN (“Waterman”) water supply, the only affected community water
supply, has been provided with a copy ofthe petition.
RELIEF
SOUGHT
BY THE PETITIONER
3.
Petitioner requests a water well setback exception so
that it mayperform remedial
actions to address the release ofpetroleum hydrocarbons to
shallow groundwater at the former
Paul Johnson, Inc. truck maintenance and leasing business, located at 340 West Adams Street,
Waterman, DeKaib County, Illinois (“Facility”).
PJI is no longer in operation at the Facility.
Underground storage tanks (“USTs”) were utilized by PJI at the Facility while it was in
operation to
store fuel for its vehicles.
Upon removal ofthe USTs, PJI discovered they had
leaked.
PJI subsequently entered the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (“LUST”) program
with the Illinois EPA.
PJI is currently conducting soil and groundwater remediation activities in
pursuit of a no further remediation (“NFR”) letter from the Illinois EPA.
4.
During the process ofattempting to obtain
the NFR letter, PJI learned that a portion of
the current contamination in the shallow groundwater is within approximately 150
feet of the
existing community water supply well for the Respondent Waterman.
In order to obtain
an NFR
letter,
PJI must adequately remediate the petroleum hydrocarbon contamination in
the shallow
groundwater
at the site.
PJI proposes the use ofdirect push technology to inject microbes,
nutrients and oxygen release compound (“ORC”) into the area ofshallow groundwater
contamination to remediate the petroleum hydrocarbon contamination.
5.
The direct push remediation technique falls within the definition ofa “new potential
-2-
route” to
groundwater, pursuant to
Section 3.350 ofthe Illinois Environmental Protection Act
(“Act”), 415 ILCS
5/3.350 (2002).
Pursuant to Section
14.2(a) ofthe Act, 415 ILCS 5/14.2(a)
(2002), the installation of any “new potential route” to groundwater is prohibited within 200 feet
ofan existing community water supply well.
Because a portion ofthe contamination lies within
150
feet ofthe existing community water supply for Waterman,
PJI is requesting a water well
setback exception from the Illinois Pollution Control Board (“Board”) for the use ofdirect push
technology to remediate the shallow groundwater at the Facility, pursuant to Section 14.2(c) of
the Act, 415 ILCS 5/l4.2(c)(2002).
LAW
6.
The Act provides for a minimum setback zone, and exceptions from such setback zones,
at 415
ILCS
5/14.2 (2002).
These provisions, in pertinent part, are as follows:
A minimum setback zone is established for the location of each new potential source or
new potential route as follows:
(a)
Except as provided
in subsections (b), (c) and (h) ofthis Section,
no new potential
route or potential primary source or potential secondary source may be placed within 200
feet of any existing or permitted community water supply well or other potable water
supply well.
(c)
The Board may grant an
exception from the setback requirements ofthis
Section and
subsection (e) ofSection
14.3
to the owner ofa new potential route, a
new potential primary source other than landfilling or land treating, or a new
potential secondary source.
The owner seeking
an exception with respect to
a
community water supply well shall file a petition with the Board and the Agency.
The owner seeking an exception with respect to a potable water supply well other
than a community water supply well shall file a petition with the Board and the
Agency, and set forth therein the circumstances under which a waiver-has been
sought but not obtained pursuant to
subsection (b) ofthis Section.
A petition shall
be
accompanied by proofthat the owner ofeach potable water supply well for
which
setback requirements would be affected by the requested exception has
been notified and
been provided with
a copy of the petition.
A petition shall set
forth such facts as may be required to
support an exception, including a general
-3-
-
description ofthe potential impacts ofsuch potential source or potential
route
upon groundwaters and the affected water well, and an explanation ofthe
applicable technology-based controls which will be utilized to minimize the
potential for contamination ofthe potable water supply well.
The Board shall grant an exception, whenever it is
found upon presentation of
adequate proof, that compliance with the setback requirements ofthis Section would pose
an arbitrary and unreasonable hardship
upon the petitioner, that the petitioner will utilize
the best available technology controls economically achievable to minimize the
likelihood of contamination ofthe potable water supply well, that the maximum feasible
alternative setback will be utilized, and that the location ofsuch potential source or
potential route will not constitute a significant hazard to the potable water supply well.
Not later than January
1,
1988, the Board shall adopt procedural rules governing
requests for exceptions under this subsection.
The rulemaking provisions of Title VII of
this Act and ofsection
5-35
ofthe Illinois
Administrative Procedure Act shall not apply
to
such rules.
A decision made by the Board pursuant to
this subsection shall constitute a
final determination.
415
ILCS 5/14.2(a) and (c) (2002)
INVESTIGATION
7.
The Facility is located at 340
West Adams Street in the Village ofWaterman, Illinois.
The Site was previously used as a truck maintenance and leasing business.
There were at least
two USTs at the site.
8.
PJI is attempting to
remediate petroleum hydrocarbons in the shallow groundwater at
the Facility so it might receive an NFR letter from the Illinois EPA’s LUST section and
ultimately divest itself ofthe property.
-
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS
9.
The description ofpotential impacts of the potential
routes on groundwater and the
potable well are intimately linked to the demonstration that the location within the setback zone
-4-
does not pose a significant hazard.
See the Environmental Impact/Significant Hazards to the
Potable Water Supply section ofthis response for further discussion.
ARBITRARY AND UNREASONABLE HARDSHIP
10.
After reviewing the Petition and supporting documents, it is the opinion ofthe Illinois
EPA that PJI has adequately demonstrated the use of alternative remedial activities would pose
an arbitrary and unreasonable hardship.
BEST
AVAILABLE
TECHNOLOGY CONTROLS
11.
PJI does not provide a monitoring plan or schedule in
its Petition to demonstrate that
the remedial injections made at the Facility to
date beyond the 200-foot setback are having the
desired effects.
Section III of the petition indicates that some areas have already been treated
with ORC.
Data is provided
in the petition that shows bioremediation to be the least expensive
remedial method.
No data has been provided in
the petition confirming the effectiveness of
bioremediation at this site.
The Illinois subsequently reviewed data provided by Clayton Group
Services (“Clayton”), that was not part of this petition, demonstrating the effectiveness ofthis
remediation technique.
The Illinois EPA would support bioremediation using injected ORC and
specific bacteria within the minimum setback zone of Waterman well #2, provided this data is
entered into the record ofthis proceeding and made available to the Board
and other concerned
parties for review prior to the Board’s final order in this
matter.
-5-
MAXIMUM
FEASIBLE
ALTERNATIVE
SETBACK
12.
Typically in the setback zone exception process, the maximum feasible setback is
considered to assure that the greatest possible distance between a potential source or potential
route, and a potable well, is maintained.
Increased distance is proportional to the time it takes a
contaminant to move through groundwater from its source to a well.
In the case ofinjection
wells used forremediation, the maximum feasible distance is, by necessity, the same proximity
as the contaminants in the groundwater to be remediated.
In this matter, the Illinois
EPA
believes the distance between the remedial injection wells and the community water supply well
is
not as important as assuring that the petroleum hydrocarbons are fully remediated within the
minimum setback zone.
The Illinois EPA supports the use ofORC
and bacteria as close to
Waterman well #2 as is necessary to
fully remediate the petroleum hydrocarbons.
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT/SIGNIFICANT HAZARD TO THE
POTABLE WATER
SUPPLY WELL
13.
Section
14.2(c) ofthe Act states that the petitioner must make a demonstration to the
Board that the potential route is not a significant hazard to the potable well.
Closely related to
this demonstration is the required description ofthe possible impacts that the potential route may
have on the potable well.
The petition contains geologic data demonstrating the existence of low
permeability geologic materials between the upper contaminated
zone, which is the focus of the
bioremediation, and the lower aquifer utilized by the potable well.
Waterman well #2
and
Waterman well #3, approximately 1,000
feet east southeast ofwell #2, are the only datapoints
on the cross section, as shown in Figure
3 ofPJI’s Petition.
Review ofpublicly available well
records indicate limited data along or near the transect of the cross section.
No additional data is
-6-
provided in the petition that illustrates the shale zones are laterally continuous beyond the points
at Waterman wells #2 and #3.
14.
In Section I, Page 4, and Section V ofPJI’s Petition it is stated that the groundwater
flow direction is predominantly to the northeast, with some influence created by the sewer
system in the vicinity ofAdams Street.
However, Figure 2 indicates the bulk of the excavated
soil was to
the west and north ofthe leaking tanks (incident numbers 20021711
and 951920).
The presence ofthe contaminated soil to the west and north ofthe leaking tanks indicates that
groundwater flow is sometimes to the west and the north.
The area of leaking tank incident
number 892298 to
the west might
account for some ofthe petroleum hydrocarbons
to the west of
the area ofincident numbers 20021711
and 951920, assuming
a northeasterly flow.
15.
However, extensive soil excavation contiguous and to the northeast of892298 is
not
indicated.
Therefore, the area ofincident numbers 20021711
and 951920, coupled with periodic
northerly flow, appear to
be the main source ofpetroleum hydrocarbon contaminants~The most
recent groundwater monitoring data provided by Clayton indicates that the highest concentration
ofbenzene as of September 14, 2004 was in monitoring well MW-b.
This monitoring well is
located north-northwest ofthe area ofleaking tank incident numbers 20021711
and
951920 on
the north side of Adams Street.
Monitoring well MW-is, which is almost directly north of the
area ofleaking tank incident numbers 20021711
and 951920,
had the second highest benzene
concentration reported on September 14, 2004.
Section I, Page 3
indicates that
Clayton has
recently installed additional monitoring points
indicating more extensive groundwater
contamination.
16.
The discussion above illustrates there are some unknowns that exist at this site.
The
petroleum hydrocarbons pose a threat that
is greater than the remedial chemicals being applied.
-7-
However, allowing the injection ofpotential contaminants within the minimum setback zone ofa
community water supply well should be coupled with assurances that the risk posed by injection
provides a greater benefit
in remediation.
17.
The Illinois
EPA has recentlyreviewed data provided by Clayton that was not part of
PJI’s Petition.
The Illinois EPA would support bioremediation using injected ORC and specific
bacteria within the minimum setback zone ofWaterman well #2, provided this data is entered
into the record of this proceeding and made available to the Board and other concerned parties
for review prior to the Board’s final order in this matter.
18.
After reviewing the Petition, the supporting documentation, and the information
subsequently provided by PJI to the Illinois EPA, the Illinois EPA believes a more definite
demonstration that PJI’5 remedial actions have successfully removed petroleum hydrocarbons
from the shallow groundwater to
acceptable levels is necessary.
The geology at the Facility is
such that groundwater moves relatively slowly through the area.
As
a result, the Illinois EPA
believes
a longer period ofsampling demonstrating petroleum hydrocarbons levels within
acceptable concentrations is necessary to ensure the long-term safety ofthe Respondent
Waterman’s potable water supply.
The Illinois
EPA would support bioremediation using
injected ORC and specific bacteria within the minimum setback zone ofWaterman well #2,
provided PJI continues its remediation
efforts until petroleum hydrocarbon levels show no
exceedence of a Class I:
Potable Resource Groundwater standard, found at 35
Ill. Adm.
Code
620.4 10, or an acceptable remedial objective pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 742, for a minimum
oftwo (2) consecutive quarters.
-8-
CONCLUSION
19.
Pursuant to
Section 14.2(c) ofthe Act, 415 ILCS
5/14.2(c)
(2002), the Illinois EPA
recommends the Board grant a water well setback exception to PJI in this matter, but only under
the following conditions:
a)
The data provided by PJI to the Illinois EPA subsequent to the filing of its Petition
demonstrating the effectiveness ofthe direct push bioremediation technique
is
etitered into the record ofthis proceeding and made available to the Board and
other concerned parties for review prior to the Board’s final order in this matter.
b)
The data provided by PJI to the Illinois EPA subsequent to the filing of its Petition
addressing the environmental
impact/hazard to
the potable water supply well ofthe
direct push bioremediation technique is entered into the record ofthis proceeding
and made available to the Board and other concerned parties for review prior to the
Board’s final order in this matter.
c)
The Board orders PJI to continue groundwater remediation
efforts for petroleum
hydrocarbons for a minimum oftwo (2) consecutive quarters with no exceedence
ofa Class
I: Potable Resource Groundwater standard
(35
Ill.
Adm. Code 620.4 10)
or an applicable remedial objective pursuant to 35
Ill.
Adm. Code 742, before
bioremediation is considered complete.
-9-
-
Respectfully submitted,
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
By: ~
arles W. Gunnarson
Assistant Counsel
Division ofLegal Counsel
Dated: January 27, 2005
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
1021
North Grand Avenue East
Post Office Box
19276
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
217/782-5544
THIS FILING IS SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-10-
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Charles W.
Guimarson, certify that I have served the attached
Illinois EPA
Response
to Petition for Community Well Setback Exception,
by first
class mail,
upon the following persons:
Dorothy Gunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center, Suite 11-500
100 West Randolph Street
Chicago, Illinois
60601
Richard M. Saines, Esq.
Baker & McKenzie
130 East Randolph Drive, Suite 3500
Chicago, Illinois
60601
(312) 861-8000
BradleyP. Halloran
Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution
Control Board
James R. Thompson Center, Suite
11-500
100 West Randolph Street
Chicago, Illinois
60601
(312) 814-8917
Kevin
E. Buick, Esq.
Cliffe, Foster,
Corneille, Buick & Buick,
LLC
331
West State Street
Sycamore, Illinois
60178
(815)895-7411
Assistant Counsel
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
THIS FILING IS SUBMITTED
ON RECYCLED PAPER
