ft~1LN~&~L~-
j
\
/j”i~\jL,
Page 499
1
MR.
ICISSEL~
0
—
2
HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN:
Ms. Williams?
3
MS. WILLIAMS:
(Counsel shakes head.)
4
HEARING OFFICER HA.LLORP.N:
You may step down,
S
Mr.
Flippin.
Thank you very much.
6
MR.
KISSEL:
That’s all we have on rebuttal.
7
HEARING OFFICER
HALLORAN:
Okay.
I do want
B
to,
before you rest
on rebuttal,
I just want to address
9
the question regarding the introduction of
--
I believe it
10
was comparable municipalities,
and you stated you may be
11
open to extended discovery?
12
MR.
KISSEL:
No,
that’s
--
we’re fine,
We
13
don’t
have to deal with that.
14
HEARING OFFICER HALLORA.N:
Okay.
Thank you
15
very much.
So,
you rest.
16
Any members
of the public would like to give
17
public comment or statement?
18
You indicated earlier you just wanted to do
-
__
19
publicspfl1tfle2~t.
20
MR. HERMANN:
Yeah.
Yeah.
21
HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN:
Just state your
22
name for
the court
reporter,
please.
23
MR.
HERMANN:
Yes.
My name
is Doug Hermann.
24
I’m a principal at and vice president at STS Consultants,
RECEIVED
CLERK’S OFFICE
jf\-
‘S
Q~—0
FEB
192004
—pa~-~L
t
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Datli ~
flnntrnl
flrio ret
Page 500
1
and
I
have
sat
through
most
of
the
testimony
f or
this
2
hearing and the permit appeal hearing starting back on
3
Tuesday earlier this week.
4
My participation has been at the request of my
5
client,
Illinois River Holdings,
whose president
is Kenin
6
Edwards.
He owns 118 acres of property about 400 to maybe
7
500
feet
--
or that’s my best estimate,
at least
--
which
8
is downstream of the combined Noveon and City of Henry
9
outfall
or,
as
I understand
it,
the single-port diffuser.
10
The Illinois River Holdings property also
11
includes part of
the river bottom,
I
think,
to
12
approximately the center of
the river or the channel.
The
13
underwater river bottom area is about
10
acres
in size
14
overall,
as we can estimate anyway;
of course,
that varies
15
with river stage and other things as well.
16
Illinois River Holdings and its development
17
team,
of which
I am a part,
are planning an off-channel
18
port development with barge fleeting with the guidance of
19
the
local and recently formed Port Authority on the river,
20
and also
the
U.S.
Corps of Engineers.
We’ve had them out
21
there
to look at our development and actually have made
22
plans around that development.
This port will initially
23
serve
the shipping needs of the excavation of the port
24
which will be off channel and the materials associated
Page 501
1
with that,
and also a proposed nearby mine which will be
2
operated as a permitted sand and gravel mine.
Both sites
3
will actually mine gravel, but we’ll be actually making
a
4
port by the mining activity at the location nearest the
5
river.
6
when the port is
excavated,
it will also
7
support shipping other commodities,
we believe,
as well as
8
for local industry that would be local
to the area and
9
Marshall County.
10
I have with me today, because we are in the
11
process of
a zoning and permitting process
for this
12
project,
what has been part of exhibits
for presentations
13
in a
--
the zoning effort for
a special use permit
as
is
14
required to conduct and complete this project.
This
15
effort began back in October 2003,
and
I think the first
16
hearing on this matter was in November.
I wasn’t
a part
17
of that at
that
time,
but later became
so and shortly
18
after
that time became so.
19
I might mention that several million dollars
20
have already been invested in this economic development
21
plan for Marshall
County, and it’s,
as
I mentioned,
in the
22
process of zoning and permitting.
23
In listening to the testimony of Mr. Corn as
24
I’ve sat here
the last
few days,
and later talking to him
Page
502
1
after he gave his first testimony,
I learned that
he was
2
unaware of our planned port development.
And
although
3
many of
the Noveon and,
I know,
Polyone staff people are
4
aware of our local zoning efforts,
he apparently had not
5
been brought up to speed.
of
course,
that became of some
6
concern because this plume has the potential
to reach the,
7
the property location of Illinois River Holdings,
as
I
B
understand it from the testimony that’s been given.
9
As
I understand Mr. Corn’s
testimony,
it
10
appears
that the existing single-port diffuser
is
11
performing in a manner causing about
a 20:1
ratio in that
12
100-foot downstream location, maybe
a 100:1 ratio of
13
dilution up to maybe 850
feet downstream.
Of course,
the
14
850
feet would probably begin to encroach for sure on our
15
property and where there would be
a mouth to this port or
16
a port opening to the
river.
17
with the
Illinois River Holdings property
18
located only about 500
feet downstream from the existing
19
Noveon diffuser,
the Illinois River Holdings
wants to be
20
sure
-
-
for sure that there will be no aquatic toxicity
21
problems
in the Illinois River Holdings’
property and,
for
22
that matter,
in the port development.
23
Based on Mr.
Corn’s testimony,
it sounds like
24
a multiport diffuser will perform better and maybe even
a
Page 503
1
high-pressure diffuser would perform better yet to
2
accomplish that objective.
There’s obviously some
3
controversy about
this,
and I’m not here to sort out the
4
controversy for the Board,
but we certainly want to be
5
sure that
that port
is protected by, by what might happen
6
with water quality.
7
After learning that Mr.
Corn was unaware of
8
our port development,
we encouraged the Board to determine
9
whether or not
the port development will
impact any of his
10
findings
and conclusions.
After the close of the
11
proceedings on Tuesday,
Wednesday,
I approached the Noveon
12
One
--
the Noveon and Polyone staff just
to help
13
coordinate the dissemination of information from us to
14
them to the extent
that that’s important related to
this.
15
And if he needs anything from us in terms of the way of
16
information or data or anything,
we certainly want to
17
supply that information as
well.
18
I believe that neither Illinois River Holdings
19
nor Noveon desire to have any problems with aquatic
20
toxicity
in this
area; that’s obviously the case through
21
listening to the hearing.
But we certainly don’t want it
22
to happen in our off-channel port as well.
We’re
23
concerned about that.
24
I should also mention that the off-channel
Page 504
1
ports are being planned by Illinois River Holdings and
2
also Ozinga Brothers
in the Lacon area further downstream.
3
As we understand
it,
this
is quite
far downstream and
4
probably not
a cause for concern.
I thought
I heard that
S
full mixing was accomplished about
-
-
up
to about
a
6
10-mile distance downstream.
These other two ports are
7
actually on the other
side of
the river,
so maybe that’s
8
irrelevant to this situation.
9
On the issue of whether more treatment for
10
ammonia removal is needed to protect
the Illinois River
11
quality,
we encourage
the Board to consider the technical
12
science presented here by Noveon and the IEPA,
as well as
13
the economic costs to protect the
river quality consistent
14
with IPCB
case law and things that they have done over the
15
years.
We understand that these are hard decisions,
and
16
we encourage them
to consider all the
facts of this case
17
in making its
decision.
We have personally observed
the
18
Pollution control Board do this many times in the past,
so
19
our confidence
is certainly with them.
20
In considering the treatment alternatives
21
investigated by Noveon,
the Board should be aware, that
22
off-gas treatment which is
--
was
for
-
-
was happening or
23
not happening with some of the selected alternatives
-
-
I
24
know they talked about dealing with the off-gas
in some
Page
505
1
and not
in others.
We think it’s important for the Board
2
to know that the local aquifer
is widely contaminated with
3
nitratey
and for that reason, you know,
anything that
4
would maybe further contribute
to that should be
5
considered.
So,
off-gas treatment would appear to be very
6
important here
to protect
the
local aquifer.
And we would
7
encourage them to
--
in
our own studies, we’ve learned
8
about
this contamination,
and
I think it’s also widely
9
known in the area,
region.
10
I will close my comments and summarize.
11
Illinois River Holdings has an interest
to cooperate and
12
assist where needed with our own development plan,
which
13
is a railroad and marine port in Marshall
County.
Based
14
on the testimony
in this hearing,
it
sounds like the
15
multiport and particularly the high-pressure diffuser and
16
maybe
even the single-port diffuser are all workable
17
solutions potentially for what’s been presented.
And
18
certainly
if
that
is
not
the case,
we ask that the Noveon
19
experts devise
a combined strategy of treatment and
20
diffusers that will
work because we obviously are
21
concerned about that.
22
For the regional conditions which exist on the
23
river,
we trust
that the Board will weigh the technical
24
and economic evidence
in this case as
it relates to
Page 506
1
protecting water quality,
the local businesses,
and
2
certainly the
local jobs which are all so important
to
3
downstate Illinois and the Marshall County economy.
This
4
probably means understanding what the EPA waste
load
5
allocation may be and what the
financial and economic
6
resources may be available from Noveon.
We understand all
7
these things,
but again,
we trust
that the Board will be
8
able to help deal with that.
9
I might mention just in closing,
that although
10
we were given the written testimony yesterday as it was
11
handed out and presented,
no exhibits were attached.
We
12
do intend to get those from the Pollution Control Board
13
office
in Chicago as we are directed to.
We may have some
14
written comment to follow up after that,
but
at this
as
point,
until
I really see that,
I think
I have
a pretty
16
good understanding of what that situation is,
so those are
17
my comments.
18
,
I do have with me actually a packet
of
19
information that
I will give to the
--
20
HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN:
Hearing officer.
21
MR.
HERMANN:
--
hearing officer here which
I
22
might mention that page eight of that probably gives the
23
best kind of layout
and depiction of the port location as
24
it
is.
Page
507
1
I might mention that
the opening to the ‘river
2
has been discussed.
With respect
to some wetlands issues
3
and other issues that
do exist on the river,
that we’re
4
trying to compromise this port opening to the river,
so
--
5
HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN:
What
is your name
6
again,
sir?
7
MR.
HERMANN:
My name
is Doug Hermann.
8
HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN:
I will
take
it with
9
the case as Public Comment Number
1,
and
it
will be read
10
in conjunction with your public comment made here today.
11
MR. HERMANN:
Okay.
12
HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN:
Okay.
Anybody else
13
like
to give
a comment or statement?
14
All right.
Before we go off the record and
15
talk about
a briefing schedule,
I’m still waiting for an
F
16
answer regarding Petitioner’s Exhibit Number
11.
17
We have admitted that,
and I think we were
18
going to hold off until now regarding the data to support
19
table
1 and how long it will take Petitioner to file that
L
20
with the Board,
is what
I recall.
21
MS. DEELY:
I don’t think we’ve addressed
22
that.
23
HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN:
No,
we haven’t.
It
24
keeps getting put off.
F—
•
~4t.
I()(
~r
-—
-
—
-440
T’rT’IC~&L
~CT1O4
c3
S~~~t
*
1~d~
~
~rr.
—--~1’~~
~
---~~N
~
~
c~-~i-~-t-;
••-••
~CflOt~4
~
~4-•~-~z•
~-~-~-
D0~.PI~I
P15
LEGEND
PROPOSED
PORT
?‘~~
PROPOSED
SCREENING
BERM
PUTURE
CONVEYANCE
AND
RALROAO
ACCESI
—
PROPOSED
CONVEYOR
•
SETBACK
UNE
“—4
TOE
OF
BERM/PENCE
PROPERTY
LINE
SECTION
10
MINE
RECLAMATION
FOR
PORT
DEVELOPMENT
KENIN
L
EDWARDS
HENRY
TOVdNSNP
MARSHALL
COUNTY,
ILLINOIS
~T
SECTION
A
TYPICAL
DOCKING
SECTION
r~.~11
/
••
•••
--
