BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
OF TilE STATE OF ILLINOIS

RECEIVED
1. STATE OF ILLINOIS

O(o-43

BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

OF TilE STATE OF ILLINOIS

RECEIVED

THE MATTER OF:

)

CLERICS OFFICE

SANG~ONVALLEY F~ S~PLY,

SEP

19 2O~

STATE OF ILLINOIS

Petitioner,

)

Pollution Control Board

O(o-43

)

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY and

VILLAGE OF SAYBROOK, ILLINOIS

)

Respondents.

NOTICE OF FILING

To:

Mr. Ronald E. Stauffer, Mayor

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

Village ofSaybrook

Division of Legal Counsel

234 West Lincoln Street

1021 North Grand Avenue East

Post Office Box 357

Post Office Box 19276

Saybrook, IL 61770-0357

Springfield, IL 62794-9276

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

Illinois Pollution Control Board the

Petition for Community Well Setback Exception of

Sangamon Valley Farm Supply, a copy ofherewhich is served upon you.

Respectfully submitted,

By:_________________________

One of TheVAttorneys

Sorling, Northrup, Hanna

Cuilen & Cochran, Ltd.

Charles 3. Northrup, of Counsel

Suite 800 Illinois Building

607 East Adams Street

P0 Box 5131

Springfield, IL 62705

Telephone: (217) 544-1144

S0483579. 9/1512005 GIN

KAy

Printed on Recycled Paper

BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

SANGAMON VALLEY FARM

SUPPLY,

)

SEP

192005

Petitioner,

)

PCBfl(p~~.~~U?)

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY and

VILLAGE OF SAYBROOK, ILLINOIS,

Respondents.

PETITION FOR COMMUNITY WELL SETBACK EXCEPTION

NOW COMES the petitioner, Sangamon Valley Farm Supply (“SVFS”), by and through

its attorney, Sorling, Northrup, Hanna, Cullen & Cochran, Ltd., Charles J. Northrup, of Counsel

and pursuant to Section 14.2(c) of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act (“Act”) and Part 106

of the Board’s Procedural Rules (35 Ill. Admin. Code

106.300,

et seq.),

hereby petitions the

illinois Pollution Control Board (“Board”) to grant SVFS an exception from the community

water supply well setback requirements in Section 14.2 of the Act. In support of its Petition,

SVFS states the following:

BACKGROUND

SVFS is seeking a waiver from the setback requirements in Section 14.2 of the Act to

enable SVFS to continue to remediate existing shallow groundwater contamination. The shallow

groundwater located within the setback zone of one of the Village of Saybrook, Illinois

community water supply wells is contaminated with hydrocarbons, most likely residues from

former underground storage tanks (“USTs”) used to store fuel for resale to the public. The

preferred clean up method is the use of direct push technology (i.e. Geoprobe) to inject oxygen

release compound (“ORC”) directly into the plume of impacted groundwater (referred to herein

S0483577.1 9/15/2005 GIN KAVJ

Printed on Recrcled Paper

as “enhanced natural attenuation”). Upon completion of each injection, the open borehole is

backfilled with granular bentonite and hydrated, thereby eliminating the risk of future pathways

of contamination into the shallow groundwater zone. The location ofthe Site is shown on Exhibit

Section 14.2 of the Act prohibits the installation of any “new potential route” within 200

feet of an existing municipal water well. 415 ILCS 5/14.2, the use of direct push technology to

inject ORC into the plume of impacted groundwater technically falls within the definition of

“new potential route”. 415 ILCS 5/3.350. Section 14.2 allows for sources to petition the Illinois

Pollution Control Board and the Illinois EPA for an exception from this setback requirement

under appropriate circumstances. As discussed in this petition, SVFS meets all of the

requirements for granting the exception from the setback requirements of Section 14.2 of the

Act.

The Basis for the Requested Exception

The need for the setback exception arises from broadly worded statutory definitions that

tecimically include the current remediation activities within the definition of “new potential

route.” Most “injection wells” are considered pathways of contamination, either intentionally as

a disposal route, or unintentionally as an easy migration pathway. Both concerns are inapplicable

in this case. SVFS seeks to continue to use enhanced natural attenuation to clean up an existing

contaminated groundwater source rather than allow this contaminated groundwater to remain in

the shallow aquifer. The use of enhanced natural attenuation has been shown to be the most cost

effective and technically feasible alternative in this case. In addition, the shallow groundwater

that is the subject of ongoing remediation efforts is the same aquifer from which the community

water supply well draws its water. Thus, the risk of contamination of the community water

S0483577.t

9/I

5/2005 GIN KAy

Printed on Recycled Paper

supply by doing nothing is at least as great, if not significantly greater, than the risk of

contamination by the use of enhanced natural attenuation. As a result, pursuant to Section

14.2(c), the Board should grant the requested exception as set forth in detail below.

Nature of the SVFS’s Operations

SVFS’s Former and Current Operations.

SVFS formerly operated a gasoline service station at the corner of Main and Lincoln Streets in

Saybrook until early 1996. In April 1998, the underground storage tanks at the facility were

removed. Upon removal, an inspector from the Office of the State Fire Marshal determined a

release had occurred from one ofthe tanks. The inspector reported the release had occurred from

a tank used to store diesel fuel. However, documentation was later filed to indicate the tank

stored gasoline. SVFS subsequently entered into the Leaking Underground Storage Tank

(“LUST”) program with the Illinois EPA under which it is currently conducting soil and

groundwater remediation activities in pursuit of a No Further Remediation (“NFR”) letter from

Illinois EPA. These clean up efforts have included removal of approximately 330 cubic yards of

impacted soil, application of 60 pounds of ORC to the base of the excavation, installation of 13

monitoring wells, and application of 8,040 pounds of ORC to the shallow groundwater through a

total of 317 injection points in the vicinity of the SVFS facility. During the process of the

ongoing remediation activities, SVFS leamed that a portion of the current shallow groundwater

contamination had migrated to within approximately 75 feet of the existing community water

supply well for the Village of Saybrook, Illinois. SVFS’s environmental consultants, Ideal

Environmental Engineering, Inc. (“Ideal”), prepared a Corrective Action Plan and Budget and

submitted to the Illinois EPA for review. This Plan included the use of enhanced natural

attenuation as the preferred clean reduce the contaminant levels. The ORC injections were

lS0483577i 9/15/2005 GIN KAV

Pr,nted on Recycled Paper

proposed to occur in two phases. The initial injections would be performed upon approval ofthe

Plan by the Illinois EPA, with a follow-up round of injections performed approximately 12

months after the initial treatment. Some of the proposed injections were positioned within the

200-foot setback of the community water supply well. The Illinois EPA approved the Plan and

Budget by letter dated December 1, 2000, a copy of which is included as Exhibit B. The initial

round of injections was performed starting in July 2001, after removal of contaminated soils

from the site were completed. A sketch showing the approximate locations of the injection points

relative to the SVFS facility and the cdmmunity water supply well is included as Exhibit C.

Following completion ofthe four quarterly groundwater sampling events for the first year

of monitoring, and review of the analytical results, the follow-up injection treatment was

modified to increase the quantity of ORC at each injection point and the number and overall

placement of the injection points. Again, some of the injection points were located within the

200-foot setback of the community water supply well, which are shown on the sketch provided

as Exhibit D. This modification was verbally authorized by the Illinois EPA project manager,

and a Corrective Action Plan Amendment and Budget were submitted upon completion of the

follow-up injections. The Corrective Action Plan Amendment included a second follow-up round

of injections, to he completed approximately 12 months after the first follow-up injections. By

letter dated February 27, 2003, the Illinois EPA conditionally approved the Amendment, denying

approval of the second follow-up round of injections without groundwater and soil sample

analyses showing the need for the additional injections. A copy of this letter is included as

Exhibit E.

S0483577.I 9/15/2005 GIN KAVJ

Printed on Recycled Paper

Following completion of the four quarterly groundwater sampling events for the second

year of monitoring, and review of the analytical results, a second Corrective Action Plan

Amendment and Budget were prepared and submitted to the Illinois EPA for review. This

Amendment included a second follow-up round of injections to treat lingering groundwater

contamination in the vicinity of the facility. By letter dated December 8, 2004, the Illinois EPA

informed SVFS that it had failed to file an inventory of the injections. SFVS promptly prepared

and submitted the required Injection Well Inventory Form to the Illinois EPA under cover letter

dated December 23, 2004. The letter went on to state that some of the proposed inj ection points

were within the well setback and would be prohibited absent a well setback exception. A copy of

this letter is provided as Exhibit F. The Illinois EPA denied the Corrective Action Plan

Amendment by separate letter dated December 20, 2004, a copy of which is provided as Exhibit

With the exception of the above-mentioned ongoing clean up efforts, SVFS no longer

conducts any operations. Mrs. Margaret Gibbens, the sole remaining shareholder of SVFS,

intends to dissolve the corporation upon receipt of the NFR from the Illinois EPA, and thesale of

the SVFS facility.

SVFS’s Control Equipment.

Prior to treating the hydrocarbons in the shallow groundwater, approximately 330 cubic

yards of impacted soils were removed from the location of the former underground storage tanks.

Upon completion of the soil excavation activities, approximately 60 pounds of ORC were

applied to the base ofthe excavation in an effort to treat residual soil contamination remaining in

the hole. The excavation was backfilled and capped with an asphalt cover to limit the potential of

migration of surface runoffthrough the excavation.

150483577. 9/15/2005 GIN KAVI

Printed on Recycled Paper

To date, a total of 8,040 pounds of ORC have been injected into the shallow groundwater

through 317 injection points, both inside and outside the 200-foot setback limit of the community

water supply well. Upon completion of each injection, the open hole was backfilled with

granular bentonite and hydrated, thereby eliminating the risk of future pathways of

contamination into the shallow groundwater zone.

The groundwater contaminant levels in the vicinity of the site have steadily decreased

during completion ofremedial activities. The groundwater contaminant levels in monitoring well

MW-2, located on the SVFS property, rose to their highest levels during the sampling event in

December 2001, approximately six months after completion of the soil excavation activities.

This likely occurred due to migration of existing contamination in the vicinity of the former soil

excavation area. The contaminant levels have been documented to have reduced by

approximately SO from December 2001 until June 2004 (from a total benzene-ethyl benzene-

toluene-xylenes (BETX) concentration of 13,148 micrograms per liter (ug/L) to 6,631 ug/L). The

highest documented groundwater contaminant levels associated with this site have occurred in

monitoring well MW-7 (located within the minimum community water well setback), with the

total BETX concentration rose to 33,380 ug/L. In the same period of time, the total BETX

concentration in MW-7 has been reduced by approximately 84, to 5,414 ug/L. Currently, the

groundwater contaminant levels exceed Agency standards in two of the wells associated with

this facility (five of the wells originally showed contaminant levels above Agency standards).

The groundwater sample results summaries for the five originally contaminated wells are

provided in tabular format and graphed as Exhibits H through L.

(S0483577. 9/15/2005 GIN KAVI

Printed on Recycle,! Paper

II.

COMPLIANCE WITH THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS WOULD IMPOSE AN

ARBITRARY AND UNREASONABLE HARDSHIP

(35 IAC 106.310(A))

The Board should grant an exception in this case because preventing SVFS from

continuing to utilize enhanced natural attenuation to remediate the contaminated shallow aquifer

would delay the clean up of the shallow aquifer and add significant and urmecessary costs. The

other remediation altematives discussed in the original Corrective Action Plan are discussed in

more detail in Section IV ofthis Petition. However, with each of them, their respective negatives

outweigh their respective benefits.

There are two primary factors that make adherence to the setback requirements arbitrary

and unreasonable in this case. First, the use of enhanced natural attenuation within the setback

area is intended to, improve the water quality. The area is already contaminated with

hydrocarbons and remedial activities have been previously approved by the Illinois EPA in this

area. The remediation activities performed to date at this site have been documented to be

successful in reducing hydrocarbon concentrations in the shallow groundwater.

Second, Mrs. Margaret Gibbens, the sole remaining shareholder of SVFS, has indicated

her intent to dissolve the corporation. She has continued to maintain SVFS for the sole purpose

of funding the ongoing environmental remediation. The longer it takes to complete the

remediation and obtain an NFR, the longer Mrs. Gibbens is required to maintain SVFS. SVFS

has and will continue to maintain adequate resources to fund the completion of remediation and

obtain an NFR, but it does not want to prolong or delay this process unnecessarily.

Because the most cost efficient and expedient remediation technology is the use of

enhanced natural attenuation to remediate the shallow aquifer, adherence to the prohibition on

locating “injection wells” within a minimum setback of a community water supply well would be

arbitrary and unreasonable under these circumstances. This is bolstered by the fact the Illinois

1S0483577. 9/15/2005 GIN KAV

Printed on Recycled Paper

EPA has previously approved these remedial injections within the minimum setback at this

particular site.

HI.

ENHANCED NATURAL ATTENUATION IS THE BEST AVAILABLE

CONTROL TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE (35

SAC

106.3 10(B))

SVFS is seeking the exception to the setback requirements to enable it to clean up

existing contamination located within the setback area of a community water supply well. Thus,

the regulatory criterion mandating the best available control technology economically achievable

to minithize the likelihood of contamination of the potable water supply well should be analyzed

more broadly. In essence, the key inquiry in this case involves selecting the remediation

technology that will be most effective in cleaning up the existing contamination and not, by

itself, increase the risk of exacerbating such contamination. This inquiry must also consider the

“economic achievability” of any potential technology. When these factors are considered under

the circumstances of this case, enhanced natural attenuation is the best available technology

economically achievable.

Ideal has evaluated several potential alternatives to enhanced natural attenuation. Each

one of the potential altematives is described below. The potential alternatives include: (I)

installing a traditional “pump and treat” system; (2) installing a traditional “air sparging with

vapor extraction” system; or (3) relocating the community water supply well to an area free of

existing contamination. As shown in this Section, each of these alternatives presents technical,

practical and financial obstacles that eliminate them as the preferred approach.

tS0483577.l 9/15/2005 (IN KAVI

Printed on Recycled Paper

Pump & Treat

The effective removal and subsequent treatment of groundwater from the contaminated

shallow aquifer is limited in this case due to the fact the shallow groundwater is approximately

30 feet below ground surface in the vicinity of the site. The depth to the shallow aquifer hinders

the removal of contaminated groundwater which is required as part of remediation. Since a

recovery trench would be out of the question due to the depth, a series of recovery wells, each

outfitted with a submersible pump, would be required to remove the groundwater at a sufficient

rate so as to limit migration of contaminants. This, coupled with the County’s limitations on

work that can occur within its Right-of-Way, would tremendously increase the initial capital

expenditures. Thus, pump and treat technology is not recommended based upon its technical

feasibility. Moreover, the estimated cost to design and install the pump & treat system is

approximately $150,000 to $200,000, with long-term operations and maintenance costs of

approximately $400,000 to $500,000 over 20 years.

Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction

The effective treatment of contaminated groundwater is limited in this case again due to

the fact the shallow groundwater is approximately 30 feet below ground surface in the vicinity of

the site. This method ofremediation requires the introduction of compressed air into the shallow

groundwater. The contaminants are volatilized and collected through a soil vapor extraction

system. Due to the depth of the groundwater at this site, the installation of the soil vapor

extraction system would be extremely difficult and costly. Thus, air sparging system with soil

vapor extraction is not recommended based upon its technical feasibility. The estimated cost to

design and install the air sparging system with soil vapor extraction is $150,000 to $200,000,

1S0483577. I 9/15/2005 GIN KAV

Printed on Recycled Paper

with long-term operations and maintenance costs of approximately $200,000 to $300,000 over

10 years.

Replacement and Relocation of Municipal Well

The cost to move the municipal well is currently unknown, but estimated to be between

$500,000 and $750,000. Unknown factors that need to be addressed prior to a final estimated

price include the number of test borings/pump tests to determine the sustainable yield of the

aquifer, distance required to connect the new well to the existing water supply network, and need

to purchase the parcel on which to locate the well, as well as securing easements or condemning

property to locate the pipeline. Furthermore, following replacement of the well, SVFS will still

be required to either minimize remediation under TACO or complete remediation through

enhanced natural attenuation or another form ofaltemative technology in order to obtain closure

ofthis incident. This alternative is cost prohibitive and uncertain.

Enhanced Natural Attenuation

Enhanced natural attenuation uses direct push technology to deliver the ORC directly to

the areas of contamination. By delivering the ORC directly, remediation of the site is not

hindered by the depth to the shallow groundwater. The estimated cost to complete the

remediation of the SVFS site utilizing enhanced natural attenuation is approximately an

additional $175,000 and will take approximately one year to complete.

Continued use of enhanced natural attenuation is the best alternative for remediaflon of

the SVFS site. It has been shown to work at this site, it is safe, and it is the most cost effective.

The treatment will consist of multiple injection points via direct push equipment with an

injection point designed to inject in a horizontal pattern outward from the injection point. The

treatment within the setback area will consist of approximately 70 pounds of ORC mixed into 50

50483577.I 9/I 5/2005 GIN KAV~

Prthteel on Recycled Pope;

gallons of water injected at each location. The injection points will be placed on an approximate

10-foot grid throughout the estimated groundwater contaminant zone. Further discussion of the

technology is provided in Exhibit M.

IV.

THE MAXIMUM FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVE SETBACK WILL BE

UTJLIZED

(35 IAC 106.3 10(C))

The date collected to date demonstrates that the contaminated shallow groundwater exists

in a plume located underneath the SVFS site. The closest edge of the current contaminant plume

to the community water supply well is approximately 115 feet east of the municipal well. Direct

push technology allows SVFS to maintain hydraulic control of the contaminated shallow

groundwater while delivering ORC directly to the contaminated shallow groundwater. Since

SVFS is able to treat only the impacted shallow groundwater, SVFS is making every effort to

minimize the number of injections within the setback of the municipal well. Under the proposed

layout, approximately 55 to 60 injection locations appear to be within the setback of the

municipal well. SVFS will work closely with the Illinois EPA in finalizing the precise locations

of each ORC injection well.

ENHANCED NATURAL ATTENUATION WILL NOT HARM THE

COMMUNITY WATER SUPPLY (35 IAC 106.31 0(D))

The use of enhanced natural attenuation in this ease is the appropriate remediation

technology because it will work without harming the community water supply. According to

Regenesis (maker of the ORC), the material is environmentally safe. The material contains

magnesium peroxide and magnesium oxide, both of which, into contact with water, convert to

magnesium hydroxide. The ORC also has a small amount of food grade potassium phosphates.

Regenesis reports that the magnesium oxide, magnesium peroxide, and magnesium hydroxide

are safe to ingest in small quantities. Both magnesium peroxide and magnesium hydroxide are

S0453577.I 9/15/2005 GIN KAV~

Pr,aled on Recycled Pope;

used as anti-acids. The Technical Bulletin describing the ORC as environmentally safe has been

provided in Exhibit M.

VI.

PROOF OF NOTICE TO AFFECTED POTABLE WELL SUPPLY OWNERS

SVFS has caused written notice and a copy of this Petition to be sent to the following

affected potable well supply owners: Village of Saybrook, 234 West Lincoln Street, Saybrook,

Illinois; Mr. Ronald E. Stauffer, Mayor. The above notified person was selected based upon a

survey conducted by Ideal to identify all potable water supply well owners within the setback

area of the proposed ORC injection wells pursuant to 35 JAC 106.302(b), 35 IAC 101 and

Section 14.2(c) of the Act.

VII.

REQUEST

FOR EXPEDITED HEARING

Mrs. Gibbens intends to dissolve the corporation and sell the SVFS property upon receipt

of an NFR letter. Obtaining the requested waiver from the setback requirements is a key step in

furthering the ongoing remediation process toward completion. SVFS requests a hearing on this

petition as soon as the Board can reasonably schedule it.

WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, SVFS respectfully requests the Board to grant

an exception from the setback requirements contained in Section 14.2 ofthe Act.

SANGAMON VALLEY FARM SUPPLY,

Petitioner

By:

—~

One of ItCAttomeys

Sorling, Northrup, Hanna,

Cullen & Cochran, ltd.

Charles J. Northrup, of Counsel

Suite 800 Illinois Building

607 East Adams Street

P0 Box 5131

Springfield, IL 62705

Telephone: (217) 544-1144

50483577i 9/15/2005 GIN KAV

Printed on Recycled Paper

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that an original and 9 (9) copies of the foregoing

document were served to:

Ms. Dorothy Gunn, Clerk

Pollution Control Board

100 West Randolph Street, Suite 11-500

Chicago, IL 60601

And by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to

Mr. Ronald F. Stauffer, Mayor

Village of Saybrook

234 West Lincoln Street

Post Office Box 357

Saybrook, IL 61770-0357

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

Division ofLegal Counsel

1 021 North Grand Avenue East

Post Office Box 19276

Springfield, IL 62794-9276

and by depositing same in the United States mail in Springfield, Illinois, on the

/-~

day of

September, 2005, with postage fully prepaid.

T7~~~cC

---—T~I~

S0483577. I 9/15/2005 GIN KAV~

Pr~otedon Recycled Paper