RECE~VED
CLERK’S OFFICE
IN THE MATTER OF:
Adjusted Standard Petition of
Hayden
Wrecking Corporation,
from
35
Iii. Adm. Code 620.410(a).
Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center
100 West Randolph Street
Suite
11-500
Chicago, IL 60601
)
)
SEP 07
2004
STATE OF ILUNOIS
Poflution Control Board
)
AS
04-003
)
(Adjusted Standard)
)
Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale., P.C.
Attn:
Ms. Anna Chesser Smith, Esq.
2000 Equitable Building
10
S. Broadway
St. Louis, MO 63102
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have today filed with the office of the Clerk
of the Pollution Control
Board
an
AMENDED
RECOMMENDATION
OF
THE
ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY, copies of which are herewith served upon you.
Respectfully submitted,
ILLiNOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent
Assistant Counsel
Division ofLegal Counsel
1021 North Grand Avenue, East
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, illinois 62794-9276
217/782-5544
217/782-9143 (TDD)
BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
OF THE STATE
OF ILLINOIS
NOTICE
Dated:
September 3, 2004
REC~JVED
CLERK’S OFFICE
BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
SEP 072004
OF THE
STATE OF ILLINOIS
STATE OF
ILLINOIS
Pollution Control Board
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
)
Adjusted Standard Petition of
)
AS 04-003
Hayden Wrecking Corporation,
)
(Adjusted Standard)
from 35
III. Adm. Code 620.410(a).
)
AMENDED RECOMMENDATION TO
AMENDED PETITION FOR ADJUSTED
STANDARD
NOW COMES
the
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY of the State of
Illinois
(“Illinois EPA”), by its
counsel, Kyle N. Davis, and, pursuant to
35 Ill. Adm. Code
104.4 16 (2002), herebysubmits this
Amended Recommendation to
the
Amended Petithin For
Adjusted Standard
(“Amended Petition”) filed by the Petitioner,
HAYDEN
WRECKING
CORPORATION (“HaydenfPetitioner”).
In reply to the Amended Petition, as explained below,
the Illinois EPA recommends that the
ILLINOIS
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
(“Board”) GRANT the Amended Petition and the requested Adjusted Standard
from the
requirements of35 Iii. Adm. Code 620.4 10(a), subject to certain conditions and states as follows:
I.
INTRODUCTION
The purpose ofthe Petition and Amended Petition filedby Hayden is to seek an Adjusted
Standard from certain groundwater quality standards, which are applicable to Petitioner’s
permitted landfills.
The site at issue is located at the intersection ofIllinois Route 203
and
Interstate
5
5/70 in Madison, St. Clair County, Illinois.
The matterbefore the Board proceeded as follows.
On April 27, 2004,
Hayden filed its
initial Petition forAdjusted
Standard (“Petition”) with the Board.
In reply, on May 21, 2004, the
Illinois EPA filed its Recommendation with the Board recommending the petition be granted,
1
yet, noting deficiencies in information that was required by statute.
The Board, on June 3, 2004,
issued a ruling allowing Hayden the ability to amend its Petition to cure noted deficiencies.
Also
on June 3, 2004, Petitioner filed a Response to Illinois EPA Recommendation’.
The June 3
Order expressly requests more detail be provided from Petitioner relative to
the requirements of
35 Iii. Adm. Code
104.406
subsections (d), (e)
and (g).
On July
19, 2004, Petitioner filed its
Amended Petition for Adjusted Standard.
The Recommendation of the Illinois
EPA reviewing the Amended Petition will address,
in order, the deficiencies noted
in prior pleadings and expressly identified within the
requirements of35 Ill.
Adm. Code
104.406(d), (e) and (g).
The Illinois EPA incorporates the
May21, 2004, Recommendation and review ofthe initial Petition filed, because Petitioner
merely amends the initial April 27, 2004,
filing supplemental information and data for
consideration.
II.
DESCRIPTION
OF HAYDEN’S ACTIVITY.
35 ILL. ADM. CODE 104.406(d)
The Board identified several factors that the Petition failed
tO present information or
analysis of, including:
(1) identificationofoff-site properties and any existing or anticipated uses
ofgroundwater from those properties; (2) location ofpotable water wells orpublic water supply
wells within 2500 feet exist;
(3) illustration of all waterwells within 2500 feet ofthe site; and
1
The Boardshould be aware of the fact that, for two reasons, the Illinois EPA will not reply in this Recommendation to the
Petitioner’s June 3, 2004, Response.
Initially, the Response wasfiled on thesame datethat the Boardissued an Orderrequiring
that either Petitioner amend its Petition or such would be denied.
As such, the Response likely is not proper in aprocedural
context.
Moreover, it is arguablethat the Illinois EPA hasno statutory authority to Reply to aResponse without theBoard
granting approval.
2
(4) identification of data and results from
groundwater samples, if such were taken, before
calendar year 1991 or following calendar year 2001.
Identification of Off-Site Properties and
any Existing
or Anticipated Uses of
Groundwater from those Properties.
The groundwater flow in the vicinity ofthe Hayden site is towards the
southwest.
Off-site
properties down gradient of the site includes the southeast corner of property owned by Gateway
Midstate
Truck Plaza,
the state-owned right-of-way for Route
203
and interstate 55-70, and
the
Gateway International Raceway property.
(Amd. Pet. at 3)
The portion ofthe Gateway Midstate TruckPlaza down gradient from the propertyis usedfor
a parking lot;
therefore,
there are no
existing or anticipated uses ofgroundwater at that property.
(Amd. Pet. at 3)
Thereare no existing or anticipated uses ofgroundwater fromth~
stateowned right-
of-way for either highway properties.
Gateway International RacewayProperty is more than
1000
feet down gradient from the Hayden site (Amd. Pet.
at 3), and obtains its water supply
form the
Missouri Bottoms Water Company.
“Themodeling runs
...
demonstrated that all four inorganic constituents met thegroundwater
quality standards within 616 feetof Hayden’s siteboundary to the south and southwest.”
(Amd. Pet.
at3)
The Illinois EPAwould note the following. According to information submitted, there are no
public water supply wells within a 2,500-foot radius ofthis site.
The nearest non-facilitywell is a
groundwatermonitoring well forthe Milam Landfill, and is located approximately 1,300-feetnorth
of the site, directly upgradient.
Existing potable water supplies
are not
likely to be impacted by
groundwater contamination at the
site, the water supply for the area is
provided by the Missouri
3
Bottoms Water Company.
The City ofMadison, Illinois has issued a city ordinance prohibiting the use of groundwaterin
the area ofthe landfill. Groundwater use restrictionhas been placed on both the siteproperty and the
adjacent property.
(Petition, Exh. H) A highway authority agreementto the south (down-gradient)
ofthe site has been established by the Illinois Department of Transportation, and an environmental
land use control (ELUC) will be established to the southeast.
(Petition, Exh. I)
There should be no
future exploitation ofthe groundwater resource in the general vicinity ofthe site.
Becauseofthe property arid usage restriction place on the property, there is a lessenedlikelihood
ofpotential receptor to be affected by contamination at the site.
Location of Potable/Public Water Supply Wells
The Board requested clarification as to whether there are any potable or public
water supply
wells with in 2500 feet ofthe site.
A search ofthe well databases ofthe Illinois State Geological Survey (“ISGS”) and an Illinois
Water Well Report (also. knownas the Illinois State Water Survey) (“ISWS”) indicatethat thereis no
potable orpublic water supply well located within 2,500 feet ofthe Hayden Site.
(Arnd. Pet.
at 4)
Theonly wells within 2,500 feet are site monitoring-wells forthe Milam landfill, which arelocated
up gradient from the Hayden site.
(Amd. Pet.
at 4)
The Illinois EPAwould note that, according to the Amended Petition, the conclusion that there
are no potable or public water supply wells located within 2,500 feet ofthe Hayden site is based
upon
a review records
obtained from the
ISGS
and
the ISWS.
The information concerning
the
location ofany private wells (potable water supply forprivate residences, existing ornot existing)
4
that maynot appear on these databases has not been taken into account.
Thus,
it maybe prudent to
request a physical surveyofthe site area to determine if any private water supply wells are present.
Site Map —35 IAC 104.406
(d)
The Board requests
a site map clearly identifying all waterwells within 2500 feet ofthe site, all
groundwatermonitoring wells, the Milam Landfill, GatewayInternational Raceway, and all relevant
down gradient properties.
Figure
1
of Exhibit
1
ofthe Amended Petition identifies the location ofthe Hayden Landfill
property and all relevant surrounding features.
Exhibit
1
also identifies “all” water wells within
2,500 feet ofthe site and all groundwater monitoring-wells on the site. As stated above, there are no
potable or public water supply wells within 2500 feet of the site.
(Amd. Pet. at 4)
The Illinois EPA would notethat a review ofFigure
1
ofExhibit
1
ofthe AmendedPetition
shows the location ofthe Hayden Landfillproperty in relationto the surroundingphysical structures,
including the Gateway International Raceway, the Midstate Truck Plaza, Interstate
55-70 and the
City ofMadison.
Figure 2 shows the physical surface elevations, and the groundwater elevations
from each well to the property boundary.
Figure 3 shows the simulated manganese plume and the
distance the plume
is
modeled to travel.
Manganese was modeled
as the constituent that has the
greatest down gradient migration.
Figure 4 shows the well location with in a 2,500 foot radius.
Figure 3 shows that migration ofmanganese (as modeled for MW-7) extend 165.37 meters
beyond
the
property boundary
(down
gradient)
until
the
concentrations
falls
below
Class
I
Groundwater
Standards.
This
is
the greatest
distance
beyond
the property boundary that
any
contaminant is modeled to have migrated.
The provided and revised Figures are adequate.
It is also notable that the Amended Petition, Exhibit
1, Figure 3, may not be correct in detail.
5
The approximate scale provided (in the upper right corner) whenused on the map does not provide
the results identified.
For example, when the 600-foot scale
is used, the lines from MW8 extend
beyond Illinois Rt.
203.
Additionally, MW7 would likewise extend past Illinois Rt. 203.
Groundwater Monitoring Information 35
IAC 104.406(d)
The Board requests that Hayden clarify if groundwater was monitored at the site before 1991 or
after 2001.
Hayden has not monitored groundwater before
1991
or after 2001.
All available groundwater
monitoring results are included in the initial Petition forAdjusted Standards.
(Amd. Pet.
at
4/5)
The Illinois EPA notes that the groundwateranalytical data that was included in Exhibit C ofthe
Petition corresponds with the groundwater analytical data that is present in the Illinois EPA
files.
III.
COMPLIANCE
ALTERNATIVES.
35 ILL. ADM. CODE 104.406(e)
TheBoard requested information on cost ofcompliance alternatives to.the adjustedstandards.
As stated throughout the petition for the adjusted standard, Hayden is not the source ofthe
groundwater exceeding the Class I groundwater quality standards.
The groundwater is originating
from an off-site up
gradient source.
Therefore, it is difficult for Hayden to attempt to qualify what
would be necessaryfor Hayden to comply with 35 IAC 620.410 (a) unless and until thesource ofthe
groundwater exceedences is addressed.
According to thePetitioner,the Illinois EPA also recognized
this and stated in its Recommendationthat the lack ofcost information did not affect its dedision to
recommend that the Board grant the adjusted standard.
(Amd. Pet. at
5)
In the
Amended
Petition,
Petitioner
identifies
two
possible
options
to
address Section
104.406(e).
One option is to install a hydraulic barrier either up gradient ofthe site or around the
6
entire Hayden site. (Amd. Pet.
at 5)
The other option is to pump and treat the groundwater to meet
the Class
I groundwater quality standards.
(Amd. Pet. at 6)
According to the Amended Petition, a hydraulic barrier is technicallyimpractical because of
the location of the site to
the Mississippi Bottoms area, and the stratigraphy ofthe area consists of
very sandy soils.
It is estimated that a barrier would have to be
constructed at least 80 to
100 feet
deep to effectively control groundwater flow in such sandy soils and that such a barrier withinsandy
soils and to that depth is not feasible and/orwould be prohibitively expensive.
The hydraulic barrier
may minimize any potential groundwater impacts directly down gradient ofthe Hayden site, but
would have no impact on the up gradient sources or contaminants.
(Amd. Pet.
at 6)
Relative to
the
pump
and
treat
option, Petitioner offers that
the
option
is
prohibitively
expensive.
The Amended Petition
states
that
estimated capital costs
involved
in designing and
installing a pump and treat system would be approximately $330,000 and the annual operation and
maintenance cost would be approximately $225,000 per year. Petitioner estimates that operation and
maintenance costs for 15 years would be over
$3.5
million.
Because the source(s) ofthe inorganic
constituents in the groundwater are located off-site, remediation ofimpacted groundwater at the
Hayden site by a pump and treat system would not address the problem ofcontamination migrating
on to
the site
and then off-site.
Petitioner opines
that there are no
guarantees ofremediation, or
could such bereasonably anticipated.
Further, the groundwaterpump and treat system could disrupt
the transportation and parking structure (pavedparking lot) that GatewayInternational Racewayhas
proposed to construct on site (after purchase ofthe property)
(Amd. Pet. at 6)
TheIllinois EPA would note that Petitioner has stated that the groundwaterat the site is not
currently exploited as a resource.
There are no potable water supplies located at the site or within
7
2,500 feet down gradient of the site (based on TASG and ISWS databases).
Potable water supplies
for the areais provided by the MissouriBottoms Water Company.
Because institutional controls are
to be (orhave been) implemented to prevent the developmer~t.ofgroundwaterasaresourceatthesite-
and affected down gradient properties, there will be no impact to
future water supplies.
Illinois EPA would agree that construction ofa hydraulic barrier within the alluvium ofthe
American Bottoms would be problematic to construct because ofthe quantity of sand and gravel in
the area and because of the volume ofgroundwater and the hydraulic conductivity ofthe sediment
aquifer.
The construction ofa hydraulic barrierwould, in fact, reduceor eliminate the groundwater
impacts that are added to by the facility, but the overall quality ofgroundwater in the areawould not
be
significantly improved.
The Amended Petition, once again, did not provide any type ofrough
cost
estimate
for
construction
of a
hydraulic
barrier,
so
the
Illinois
EPA
cannot
provide
an
evaluation.
TheIllinois EPA agrees that a pump and treat system for groundwaterin the site area willnot
result
in significant improvement ofgroundwater quality.
Because there are contaminant sources
located up
gradient ofthe facility, remediation ofimpacted groundwater on site would not address
the off-site sources.
The provided cost estimate for a pump and treat system was listed
at $330,000
for installation ofthe system,
and $3,375,000 operation and maintenance cost over
15 years.
The
cost estimate lists prices for system design,
extraction wells, pumps,
treatment system, buildings,.
piping, and discharge permit for capital items needed for a system.
The operation and maintenance
cost include line item for maintenance, replacementparts,
sampling and reporting, and utility fees.
Yet, though the dollar figures providedare significant, without atvery least a rough estimation ofthe
number ofextraction wells, it cannot be determined ifthe cost estimate is adequate.
8
IV.
IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT.
35
ILL. ADM. CODE 104.406(g)
The Board requested additional information regardingthe off-site environmental impacts of
arsenic, iron, lead and manganese from the Hayden site ofgroundwaterwith levels abovethe Class I
Groundwater Standard. The increased levels ofthe four inorganic constituents do not originate from
Hayden’sproperty.
The concentrations have beenmodeled to show the potential-off-site impacts of~
arsenic, iron, and manganese based upon groundwater flow to the southwest.
The constituents that exceed Class
I Groundwater Standards in the 2001 monitoring event
include arsenic, iron, lead, and manganese.
To
address the off-site environmental
impact ofthese
parameters, a simulation of down gradient concentrations were “calculated using the TACO Plus!
Software package (ATR, 2001) and Equation R-26, pursuant to 35
IAC 742,810.
R-26 provides a
very conservative solution for groundwater transport ofthese inorganic constituents ofconcern.”
“The simulations
are “considered
conservative because the model
does not include
retardation,
degradation or attenuation factors.”
(Amd. Pet., Exh.
1
at
1)
Modeling input parameters for the
model included the use of default values from the program and site-specific input parameter that
involved the hydraulic
gradient,
distance from each modeled well to the “compliance point”
and
source width.
The source width was
set
at the midpoint
between the well and
the site boundary
(perpendicularto groundwater flow). Forup gradient monitoring wells the“compliance point” was
the siteboundary.
Fordown gradient monitoring wells, thedistance to the “compliance point” was
arbitrarilyset at 100 meters.
A compliance point, evenhypothetical, was needed to run the model.
Default input parameters, presumably from
the for the RBCA Equation
R-26 model
are
published with the model documentation by U.S. EPA, for the physical conditions at the site were
9
used from the model default value for surface or subsurface soils.
The values are as follows:
Soil
Bulk Density of
1.5
glcm3,
Moisture Content of 0.1,
Organic Carbon
Content of 0.002,
Total Soil
Porosity of 0.43 (subsurface and surface),
Air Filled
Soil
Porosity of 0.28 for surface soils and 0.13 for subsurface soils.
Water Filled Soil
Porosity of 0.15 for surface soils and 0.30 for subsurface soils.
Results of the modeling show the following.
Arsenic, which was found in’the up gradient
wells
only in
2001, met
the
Class
I Standard within the distance to
the site boundary,
therefore
arsenic does not have any environmental impact on off-sitepropertiesbased on the modeling results.
All otherup gradient constituents, with the exception ofmanganese~
also met the Class I Standard at
the site boundary.
(Amd. Pet., IExh.
1
at 3)
-
For wells located atthe down gradient site boundary the greatest migration distance was for
manganese for MW-8 at 187.75 meters or 616 feet. (Amd. Pet.,
Exh.
1
at 7)
According to Illinois
EPA review, therefore, the greatest distance ofmanganese contaminationbeyond the siteboundary is
from MW7
at
165.37
meters
or approximately 543
feet.
The simulated
migration plumes for
manganese in
groundwater from down gradient monitoring wells
is depicted on Figure 3, which
shows
that migration of manganese.
Based upon the migration distances, impacted groundwater
(iron,
lead,
and
manganese)
has
potentially
migrated
onto
-the
adjacent
properties
south
and
southwest ofthe site.
The Illinois EPAwould note that groundwater qualityreview ofthe site datahas previously
identifiedthe contaminants ofconcerns as beingarsenic, iron, lead, and manganese.
The Amended
Petition uses the TACO model
and the Equation R-26 (RBCA), which is not typically used for
landfill contaminant transport modeling.
This model used equations that are designed forsituation
where the source ofcontamination hasbeenremoved.
Inthe case oflandfills, this would
not be an
10
accurate
assumption.
However, with
regard
to
review of Hayden’s
Amended
Petition,
and
in
particular because up gradient wells also show the contaminants ofconcern are also present in off-
site
sources,
the
model
may be justified
since
a
specific
time
frame will
show
the
estimated
migration rate ofthe concentration at that specific time.
This said, the Illinois EPA reasons that the petition incorrectly states that the R-26 Equation
does not
consider
attenuation
and
degradation within the model
construction.
The RBCA R-26
Equation doeshave the capability to consider these factors.
However,the Amended Petition did not
provide complete data sheets or input files for the Illinois EPA to duplicate theircalculations, or to
make a determination if attenuation or degradation was used in the model set
up.
The Amended
Petition should have provided documentation as to theinputparameter&forthemodei to the Illinois
EPA for review.
Additionally, review of the model results
showed the predicted concentration
at the site
boundary or at
100
meters down gradient of the specific
well location.
The model
showed that
several parameters
from
multiple
wells
exceed
Class
I Groundwater
Quality
Standard off site.
Manganese concentrations from up gradient wells MW-i, MW-2, and MW-4 all extend beyond the
property boundary.
Inthe table below, theparameters and distance themodel.predicts contamination
will migrateuntil
it reaches the Class I Groundwater Standard, beyond that well is presented.
Wells
Parameter
Distance from Well Location to the
Class
I Groundwater Standard
Meters
Feet
MW-I
(upgradient)
Iron
-
82.42
270.4
Lead
27.33
89.6
Manganese
198.63*
651.7
-
MW-2
(upgradient)
Arsenic
Iron
23.28
145.57
76.4
477.6
11
Lead
17.11
56.1
Manganese
229.57*
753.2
MW-3 (upgradient)
Iron
21.43
70.3
Manganese
144.58*
4743
MW-4 (upgradient)
Iron
19.13
62.7
.
Manganese
234.22*
768.4
MW-5
Manganese
64.29*
210.9
MW-6
Iron
3977*
130.5
Lead
29.65*
97.3
Manganese
127.15*
417.2
MW-7
Manganese
165.37*
542.6
MW-8
Iron
28.25*
92.8
Lead
26.40*
86.6
Manganese
187.75*
616.0
*
Parameters that exceed the Class
I Groundwater Standard off-site.
Themodel used forthis document was the U.S.EPA RBCA R-26 Equation for contaminant
transport.
Default input values were stated atbeing used in the RBCA Equation.
The only variables
were
the
contaminant
concentrations per
well
and
the distance
from
that well
to
the property
boundary.
This is adequate.
It is also important to note that the model did not use the highest, most conservative
concentrations as the source concentrations for the model inputs.
As presented in the Amended
Petition, only the most recent data set,
2001
concentrations were used in the model. (Amd. Pet.,
Exh.
1
at
1)
In Exhibit 2(b)(2) of the Petition, higher concentrations were present in either the
2000 or 1999 data sets.
For example, on September 9,
1999
MW3 recorded a high lead
concentration level of.220 mg/i, while on April
17-18, 2001
lead concentrations were below
.005 mg/l for that same well.
This result would indicate that concentrations are present in the
groundwater at the facility.
More importantly, the modeled distances from the site boundary may
not necessarily be the furthest extent that the contaminants will migrate off-site.
The Petition as
proposed was based upon the highest concentrations present from the
1999, 2000, and 2001
12
analytical results.
As a result ofthis modification to the proposal forAdjusted Standard, the data
maynot be adequate on its own; for, at very least, a consistent application ofvalues should be
required, and should reflect the concentrations found within sample results
that yielded the
highest concentrations.
-
Petitioner
also
provides
information
entitled
“Proposed
Adjusted
Standard
35
IAC
104.406(f).”
The Illinois
EPA raises the following for review.
Inthe Petition, Petitionernotes that eight monitoring wells were installed and sampled(M-i
through MW-8).
Ofthose
8 monitoring wells,
MW-5,
MW-6 and MW-7 were believed to be located
on the southern edge of the Hayden property.
In preparing its
report for this Amended Petition,
Petitioner apparently noticed that the site boundaries as delineated were actuallythe highway right-
of-way south and parallel to the southern property boundary along a fence line.
(Amd. Pet. at 7)
A
revised siteboundary mapwas providedwhich shows the-correct-site boundary-and the right ofway
fence line.
(Amd. Pet. Exh.
2)
According to Petitioner, this information only affects one portion ofHayden’s request for
Adjusted
Standard.
Hayden
requests
the
alternate,
adjusted
levels
for
arsenic,
iron,
lead
and
manganese based upon the highest concentrations for eachinorganic constituents previously found
on Hayden’s site.
The requested alternate, adjusted levels of iron and manganese were previously
found
at MW-5
through MW-7, which
are
not believed
to be
off-site wells.
(Amd.
Pet.
at
7)
Therefore, based
on the highest concentrations ofiron and manganese previously found on-site in
MW1 through MW4 and MW8, the following changes are made to the adjusted standard.
Arsenic:
0.082
mgJL
is unchanged
Iron:
373
mg/L has
been
revised
from 735 mg!L
Lead:
0.220
mg/L is unchanged
Manganese:
9.12 mg/L has been
revised
from 24.2 mg/L
13
The Illinois EPAwould note that the Amended Petition did not provide any documentation
that the site boundary stops at the Highway Right ofWay (“ROW”).
In general, a ROW does not
include fee simple to the property.
In this case, there is no wayofdetermining the on-siteversus off-
site status ofwells since the Amended Petition did not such information.
V.
RECOMMENDATION AND RATIONALE.
Insum, the Illinois EPAnotes more issues with the AmendedPetition that with the Petition.
The Illinois EPA would suggest that the Board consider the
following:
1.
The transport model did not use the highest, most conservative concentrations presetited in
-
the petition, only the most recent data set as concentrations input values.
In exhibit 2(b)(2)
of the original petition higher concentrations were present in either the 2000 or 1999 data
sets.
This indicates that these concentrations arepresent at the facility and that the modeled
distances from the site boundary are not necessarily the furthest extent that the contaminants
will migrate off site.
The Adjusted
Standards
as initially proposed was based
upon the
highestconcentrations presentfrom the
1999, 2000, and 2001 analytical results.
Inthis light,
the model provided in
the Amended Petition may not be
adequate for what it purports to
demonstrate; a consistent application ofthese values maybe required.
2.
The Amended Petition failed to
provide data sheets or input files for the Illinois
EPA’s
review so that the~
Illinois EPA may duplicate the calculations.
3.
Aphysical surveyofthe site areamaybe appropriate to determine if any private watersupply
wells are present within 2,500 feet ofthe Hayden site.
4.
The AmendedPetition did not provide any documentation that the siteboundary stops atthe
Highway Right ofWay (“ROW”).
Typically, ROWs do not include fee simple title.
5.
The Amended Petition did not provide any type ofrough cost estimate for constructionofa
hydraulic barrier, so the Illinois EPA cannot provide an evaluation.
6.
TheAmended Petition provided a cost estimate fora pump and treat system for groundwater
in the site area at a total cost of$3,705,000 for capitalcosts and
15 years ofoperation-ofthe
system.
The petition did not provide at least a rough estimation-ofthe numberofextraction
wells
in such a system, as such, the Illinois
EPA cannot provide an evaluation if the cost
estimate is adequate.
.
14
Certain requirements and/or information ofan Adjusted Standard petition, pursuant to 35
Ill.
Adm. Code
104.406(a)
-
(j), may still be lacking.
Those omissions aside, Hayden has
otherwise adequately presented the Board with a sufficient Petition to
substantiate its request for
an Adjusted Standard.
The Illinois EPA can determine that contaminants are migrating from off-
site to Hayden’s property and beyond.
Furthermore, the highest concentrations of contaminants
found in all monitoring wells
(MW1
—
MW8) (even those alleged to be off-site)
are consistent
with contamination levels that would be expected from those found up gradient.
In addition, the
contaminants ofconcern will attenuate over distance and reach levels below applicable standards
within a short distance down gradient from the Hayden site and within the area ofthe ELUC and
the Restricted Used Ordinance.
Thus, it is the Illinois EPA’s opinion that if changes were made
to the transport model the attenuation of the contaminants of concern will occur with in the areas
controlled by the ELUC and the Restricted Use
Ordinance.
Based upon the forgoing, in this case,
conditioned upon the specific conditions within the Illinois EPA’s Recommendation, the Illinois
EPA files this Amended Recommendation and suggests that the proposed Adjusted Standard be
granted.
Respectfully submitted,
ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL
CTION AGENCY
Davis, Esquire
Division ofLegal Counsel
1021
North Grand Avenue, East
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, Illinois
62794-9276
Dated:
September 3, 2004
(217) 782-5544
15
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned attorney at law,
hereby certify that on
September
3,
2004 I served true
and
correct
copies of an
AMENDED
RECOMMENDATION
OF
THE
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY,
by
placing
true
and
correct
copies
in
properly
sealed
and
addressed
envelopes and by depositing said sealed envelopes in a U.S. mail drop box located within Springfield,
Illinois, with sufficient Certified Mail postage affixed thereto, upon the following named persons:
Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
Greensfelder,
Hemker & Gale., P.C.
Illinois Pollution Control Board
Attn:
Ms. Anna Chesser Smith, Esq
James R.
Thompson Center
2000 Equitable Building
100 West Randolph Street
10 S. Broadway
Suite 11-500
St.
Louis, MO 63102
.Chicago, IL 60601
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
ent
I
Kyle Nash Davis, Esqu
Assistant Counsel
Division of Legal Counsel
-
1021
North Grand Avenue, East
P.O. Box
19276
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
-
217/782-5544
217/782-9143 (TDD)
