IlL Environmental Impacts—35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.406(g)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

E C ~

CLERK’S OFFICE

PETITION BY HAYDEN

WRECKING CORPORATION

FOR AN ADJUSTED

STANDARD FROM

ILL. ADM. CODE

620.410(a)

NOTICE OF FILING

TO:

Dorothy M.

Gunn, Clerk

Illinois Pollution

Control Board

James R. Thompson Center

100 West Randolph Street

Suite 11-500

Chicago, Illinois

60601

Kyle Nash Davis, Esq.

Assistant Counsel

Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency, Division of Legal Counsel

1021 North Grand Avenue East

P0 Box 1976

Springfield, Illinois

62794-9276

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have today filed with the Office ofthe Clerk ofthe

Illinois Pollution Control

Board the Response of Hayden Wrecking Corporation to the Amended

Recommendation ofthe Illinois Environmental Protection Agency to Hayden’s Amended

Petition

for Adjusted

Standard from 35

Ill.

Adm. Code 620.4 10(a), copies ofwhich are herewith

served upon you.

Dated:

September 23, 2004

727892

GREENSFELDER, HEMKER,

& GALE, P.C.

C~L

Donald

Weihi

2960672)

Christina

L. Archer

6215708)

10 South Broadway,

Suite 2000

St.

Louis, Missouri 63102

Phone:

(314) 241-9090

Fax:

(314) 241-4245

Attorneys

for Hayden Wrecking Corp.

)

Docket No.:

04-003

(Adjusted Standard)

SEP

2 7

2004

STATE OF

ILL~N0~S

Pollution Controi

~3aard

THIS FILING SUBMITTED

ON RECYCLED PAPER

Hayden filed its

Response to the IEPA’s Recommendation.

On the same day, the Board issued

an Order requesting Hayden submit additional information in an Amended Petition.’

Hayden

filed an

Amended Petition with the Board on July

19, 2004.

The IEPA filed its Amended

Recommendation on September 3, 2004.

Hayden is now responding to the Amended

Recommendation, received September

9, 2004.2

Incorporated by reference,

to the extent

necessary and as delineated herein, are all ofHayden’s previous

filings in this matter.

Description ofArea Affected—

III. Adm. Code 104.406(d)

Ill.

Adm.

Code 104.406(d) requires that

person seeking

an adjusted standard

provide, among other information, a location of, and area affected by, the petitioner’s activity.

Hayden provided this information in its initial Petition for Adjusted Standard.

In its

June 3, 2004

Order, the Board requested additional

information regarding off-site properties downgradient

from Hayden’s site, anticipated or existing uses of groundwater from those properties, whether

there are any potable or public water supply wells within 2,500 feet of the site and a site map.3

The IEPA agrees with

Hayden’s analysis ofoff-site downgradient properties and anticipated uses

(Amended Recommendation at pp. 3-4).

Therefore, no additional

information is provided herein

on those topics.

It should be

noted

that Hayden filed

its Response

to the

IEPA’s Recommendation within the timeframe

allowed pursuant to

Iii.

Adm.

Code

104.416(d).

footnote

ito

its Amended Recommendation, the IEPA states

that

it will not be replying to Hayden’s

Response.

Hayden agrees that

the IEPA

probably does not have the statutory

authority to file a Replyto

Response

without Board approval, but Hayden states that its Response was proper in a

?rocedural

context.

It should also be noted that

Hayden did not receive

a hard copy of the IEPA’s ~mended

Recommendation

until September 20, 2004.

However,

counsel for the

IEPA called the

undersigned on September 3, 2004

and

indicated he had filed the

Amended Recommendation.

When a copy was not received by September 9, 2004, the

undersigned called counsel for the

JEPA, who

faxed a copy of the

Amended Recommendation.

In subsequent

conversations with Board Attomey Assistant Tim Fox,

Hayden is using the September 9, 2004

faxed receipt

date in

calculating its response date pursuant to

Ill.

Adm. Code

104.4 18(c).

its Order, the Board

also requested

information related to groundwater monitoring data which Hayden

provided in its Amended Petition.

The IEPA had no

comment on

the monitoring information provided,

except to

note

it was

consistent with the

data in the

JEPA’s

files.

743051

THIS FILING SUBMITTED ON

RECYCLED PAPER

In its Amended Recommendation, the

JEPA states that Figure 3

to Exhibit

may

be incorrect in detail

due to

the scale used (Amended Recommendation at pp.

5-6).

Hayden is

now providing a Revised

Figure 3

in Exhibit D, Amended EOI Report, which shows the correct

scale.

It should be noted, and will also be explained further in Section III, Environmental

Impacts, below, that the Revised

Figure 3

(and

page

Exhibit

D, Amended EOI Report)

indicates that the migration of manganese (as modeled for MW-6) now extends 687.53

meters

(2,255

feet) beyond Hayden’s property boundary.

However, the modeled off-site impacts extend

only to the southern portion ofthe Gateway property, which is used for a parking lot.

Finally,

Hayden

has already demonstrated that there are no potable public or private water supply wells

within 2,500 feet of Hayden’s site and the modeled impacts are less than 2,500 feet from

Hayden’s site boundary.

II. Compliance Alternatives

—

Ill. Adm. Code 104.406(e)

In its Order, the Board had requested that Hayden describe the efforts and

corresponding costs that would be necessary for Hayden to comply with 35

III. Adm.

Code

620.4 10(a), compliance alternatives and corresponding costs.

stated throughout these

pleadings, the bottom line

is that Hayden is not the source of the groundwater exceeding the

Class

groundwater quality standards.

The groundwater is originating from

an off-site

upgradient source.

Therefore, unless and until the source of the groundwater

is addressed, it is

technically impracticable and economically unreasonable for Hayden to meet the Class I

groundwater quality standards.

In its Amended Petition, Hayden

identified two possible compliance alternatives:

(1) the installation of a hydraulic barrier; and (2) groundwater pump and treat (Amended Petition

at pp. 5-6).

In its

Amended Recommendation, the IEPA agrees that either option is technically

743051

THIS FILING SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED

I’AI’ER

requested a rough estimate of the number ofextraction wells needed to support the cost figures

(Amended Recommendation at p.

8).

In its Amended Petition, Hayden estimated that the capital

costs involved in designing and installing a pump

and treat system would be approximately

$330,000 and the annual operation

and maintenance costs would be approximately $225,000 per

year for

years, for a total estimated cost ofjust over $3.5 million (Amended Petition at p. 6).

Hayden’s consultant, EOI, states that this cost

estimate is based on

10—12 extraction wells (See

Exhibit D, Amended EOI Report at p.

5).

IlL

Environmental Impacts—35

Ill. Adm. Code 104.406(g)

In its

Order, the Board requested information related to the off-site environmental

impact of migration from Hayden’s site of groundwater with levels of certain inorganic

compounds above the Class

groundwater quality standards.

In its Amended Petition, Hayden

provided off-site environmental impact information based on data from sampling performed in

2001.

The modeling results from the 2001

sampling indicated there were potential off-site

impacts

from iron,

lead and manganese (arsenic was modeled to

have no off-site impacts), but no

impacts were modeled further than the highway right-of-way for Illinois State Route 203

and/or

the Interstate

55/70

interchange.

Thus, in its initial and Amended Petition, Hayden stated that

because there were no

groundwater wells located

in that area, because the area was unlikely to

developed due to the presence ofthe highways, and because there were already institutional

controls in place, the potential modeled off-site impacts should not be a determining factor in

approving the adjusted standard (Petition at pp. 9-11;

Amended Petition at pp.

2, 9).

In its Amended Recommendation, the IEPA

appears to raise several points

regarding the modeling results.

The IEPA

questions:

(1) the use of sampling results from 2001;

(2) the use of the TACO Plus! model and equation R026, pursuant to 35

Ill. Adni.

Code

742.801;

743051

THIS FILING SUBMITTED ON

RECYCLED I’APER

The IEPA

states that TACO Plus! uses equations which are designed for situations where the

source ofcontamination has been removed.

However, the JEPA then goes on to state that the

model may be justified since a specific timeframe will show the estimated migration rate of the

concentrations at that specific time (Amended Recommendation at pp.

10-11).

Hayden

respectfully disagrees that TACO Plus!

is generally used in situations where the source of

contamination has been removed.

TACO Plus!

is based on the assumption of infinite source and

concentration, which does not

diminish over time, which are conservative assumptions (Exhibit

D, Amended E0I Report at p.

1).

Whereas, in this case, there has been natural attenuation

occurring at the Hayden site and the use ofTACO Plus!

is justified as being a conservative

model.

Hayden stated in its Amended Petition that the initial modeling runs did not take

into

account retardation, degradation or attenuation factors (Amended Petition at p. 2). The IEPA

questions whether these factors were

actually taken into account because the IEPA states that

data sheets

and input files were not provided.

The data sheets and input files were provided both

in Hayden’s Amended Petition as Attachment ito Exhibit

1, EOI Report, and

this Response as

Attachment

1 to

Exhibit

D, Amended EOI Report.

Specifically, Datasheet B

(Physical Soil

Parameters) and Datasheet RBCA-VII

are included herein.

Additionally, pages

3-4 of

Exhibit

D, Amended EOI Report, also provide the applicable input parameters.

The only attenuation

parameters applicable

to this situation relate to dispersion because inorganics (metals) are being

modeled.

There is no attenuation through biodegradation or adsorption.

Dispersion components

are

shown in Datasheet RBCA-VII.

Finally, Datasheet RBCA-VII also shows that no values

were input for the first order degradation constant, and therefore, no degradation was assumed.

743051

THIS FILING SUBMITTED ON

RECYCLED PAPER

Arsenic

mg/L

0.05 (*

0.082)

Barium

mg/L

2.0

Beryllium

mg/L

0.004

Boron

mg/L

2.0

Cadmium

mg/L

0.005

Chloride

mg/L

200.0

Chromium

mg/L

0.1

Cobalt

mg/L

1.0

Copper

mg/L

0.65

Cyanide

mg/L

0.2

Fluoride

mg/L

4.0

Iron

mg/L

5.0(*

373)

Lead

mg/L

0.0075

(* 0.220)

Manganese

mg/L

0.15

(* 9.12)

Mercury

mg/L

0.002

Nickel

mg/L

0.1

Nitrate as N

mg/L

10.0

Radium-226

pCi/l

20.0

Radium-228

pCi/l

20.0

Selenium

mg/L

0.05

Silver

mg/L

0.05

Sulfate

mg/L

400.0

Thallium

mg/L

0.002

743051

THIS

FILING SUBMITTED ON

RECYCLED PAPER

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy ofHayden’s Response to IEPA Amended

Recommendation to

Amended Petition for Adjusted

Standard was deposited in an

envelope with

postage fully prepaid, and that said envelope was deposited in a U.S. Post Office mailbox in St.

Louis, Missouri, on the 23rd day ofSeptember, 2004,

addressed to the followingpersons:

Dorothy M.

Guim,

Clerk

Illinois Pollution

Control Board

James R. Thompson Center

100 West Randolph Street

Suite 11-500

Chicago, Illinois

60601

Kyle Nash Davis, Esq.

Assistant Counsel

Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency, Division of Legal Counsel

1021 North Grand Avenue East

Box

1976

Springfield, Illinois

62794-9276

743051

THIS

FILING SUBMITTED ON

RECYCLED PAPER