0
IiJF~J~NIAILINOIS
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
SANGAMON VALLEY FARM SUPPLY
)
RECEIVED
CLERK’S OFFICE
Petitioner,
STATE
OCT
OF
112005
ILLINOIS
PCB No.
0-043
Pollution ContrOl Board
)
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY and
VILLAGE OF SAYBROOK, ILLINOIS,
)
)
Respondents.
)
NOTICE OF FILING
To:
Charles J. Northrup, Esq.
Mr. Ronald E. Stauffer, Mayor
Sorling, Northrup, Hanna,
Village of Saybrook
Cullen & Cochran, Ltd.
234 West Lincoln Street
Suite 800 Illinois Building
P.O. Box 357
607 East Adams
Saybrook, Illinois 61770-0357
P.O. Box 5131
Springfield, Illinois 62705
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have today filed with the Office of the Clerk of the Pollution
Control Board the Appearance of Joey Logan-Wilkey on behalf of the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency in this matter, and the Illinois EPA Response to Petition for Water Well
Setback Exception, copies of which are herewith served upon you.
Respectfully submitted,
~A~&y~
Assistant ounsel
L~JIt~
October 6, 2005
Joey Logan-Wilkey
Assistant Counsel
Division of Legal Counsel
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
1021 North Grand Avenue East
Post Office Box 1976
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
(217) 782-5544
THIS FILING IS SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
U
flfllnlh
1\ I hi
1
l\i
.
Li I
RECEIVED
CLERK’S OFFICE
BEFORE THE ILLTNOISMLUTION CONTROL BOARD
OCT 112005
STATE OF ILLINOIS
SANGAMON VALLEY FARM SUPPLY,
)
Pollution Control Board
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
PCB No. 06-043
)
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY and
)
VILLAGE OF SAYBROOK,
)
)
Respondents.
)
APPEARANCE
I hereby file my appearance in this proceeding, on behalf of the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency.
Assistant Counsel
Joey Logan-Wilkey
Assistant Counsel
Division of Legal Counsel
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
ORIGINAL
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL Bcfl~PE!VED
RK’S OFFICE
OCT 112395
SANGAMON VALLEY FARM SUPPLY,
)
Petitioner
)
Pollution
STATE OF
ControlILLINOISBoard
)
v.
)
PCB No. 2006-043
)
(Petition for Water Well
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
Setback Exception)
PROTECTION AGENCY and,
)
VILLAGE OF SAYBROOK,
)
Respondents.
)
ILLINOIS EPA RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR
WATER WELL SETBACK EXCEPTION
NOW COMES the Respondent, ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY (“Illinois EPA”), by Joey Logan-Wilkey, one of its attorneys, and respectfully
submits its RESPONSE TO THE PETITION FOR A WATER WELL SETBACK EXCEPTION,
(“Response”) according to 35 III. Adm. Code 106.306(a). This Response is in reply to the
Petition filed with the Illinois Pollution Control Board (“Board”) on September 19, 2005, by
Petitioner SANGAMON VALLEY FARM SUPPLY, (“SVFS”) requesting a Water Well
Setback Exception pursuant to Section 14.2 ofthe 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
September 16,2005. It has been given Illinois EPA file number 374-05. A petition requesting
an exception to the minimum setback zone of Saybrook well #3 has been filed with the Board
—1—
and the Illinois EPA. However, all three of Saybrook’s community water supply wells (wells #1,
#2, and #3) have 400 foot minimum setback zones. Therefore, the proposed Potential Routes fall
within the minimum setback zones of all three wells. The petition should therefore request an
exception from all three minimum setback zones.
NOTIFICATION OF WATER
SUPPLY
2. A Proofof Service affidavit was included with the petition stating that the Respondent
VILLAGE OF SAYBROOK (“Saybrook”) water supply, the only affected community water
supply, has been provided with a copy of the petition.
RELIEF SOUGHT BY THE PETITIONER
3. Petitioner requests a water well setback exception so that it may perform remedial
actions to address the release of petroleum hydrocarbons to shallow groundwater at the former
gasoline service station operated by SVFS at the corner of Main and Lincoln Streets in Saybrook,
McLean County, Illinois (“Facility”). The gasoline service station is no longer in operation at
the Facility. Underground storage tanks (“USTs”) were utilized by SVFS at the Facility while it
was in operation to store gasoline. Upon removal of the USTs, the Office of the State Fire
Marshall (“OSFM”) determined that one of the tanks had released gasoline. SVFS subsequently
entered into the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (“LUST”) program with the Illinois EPA.
SVFS is currently conducting soil and groundwater remediation activities in pursuit of a no
further reniediation (“NFR”) letter from the Illinois EPA.
-2-
4. During the process ofattempting to obtain the NFR letter, SVFS learned that a portion of
the current contamination in the shallow groundwater is within approximately 75 feet ofthe
existing community water supply well for the Respondent Saybrook. In order to obtain an NFR
letter, SVFS must adequately remediate the petroleum hydrocarbon contamination in the shallow
groundwater at the site. SVFS proposes the use ofdirect push technology to inject oxygen
releasing 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
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 ofany “new potential route” to groundwater is prohibited within 200 feet
of an existing community water supply well. Because a portion of the contamination lies within
75 feet of the existing community water supply for Saybrook, SVFS is requesting a water well
setback exception from the Illinois Pollution Control Board (“Board”) forthe use of direct push
technology to remediate the shallow groundwater at the Facility, pursuant to Sectiowl4.2(c)o1
the Act, 415 ILCS 5/14.2(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 ofeach new potential- source~cir
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
-3-
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 of this
Section and subsection (e) of Section 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) of this Section. A petition shall
be accompanied by proof that 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 ofthe petition. A petition shall set
forth such facts as may be required to support an exception, including a general
description of the potential impacts of such 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 of this 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 ofcontamination ofthe potable water supply well, that the maximum feasible
alternative setback will be utilized, and that the location ofsuch potential sourcenr
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 ofTitle VII of
this Act and of section
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.
(d) Except as provided in subsections (c) and (h) ofthis Section and Section 14.Srno
new potential route orpotential primary source or potential secondary source may-be
placed within 400 feet of any existing or permitted community water supply well
deriving water from an unconfined shallow fractured or highly permeable bedrock
formation or from an unconsolidated and unconfined sand and gravel formation. The
Agency shall notify the owner and operator of each well which is afforded this sethack
protection and shall maintain a directory ofall community water supply wells to which
the 400 foot minimum setback zone applies.
415 ILCS 5/14.2(a), (c), and (d) (2002)
-4-
INVESTIGATION
7.
The Facility is located at the intersection of Main and Lincoln Streets in the Village of
Saybrook, Illinois. The Site was previously used as a gasoline service station. There were at
least two USTs at the site.
8. SVFS 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 petition does not provide a concise statement regarding the potential impactstf the
potential routes on groundwater and the potable well(s). However, Section (I)(A) ofthe petition
states: “In addition, the shallow groundwater that is the subject ofthe remediation efforts is the
same aquifer from which the community water supply well draws its water.” Therefore, it could
be inferred that an impact to the aquifer, has the potential to impact the well(s). This inference is
supported by the fact that treatment point samples collected by Saybrook fornimpliance with the
Safe Drinking Water Act periodically contain detectable levels ofbenzene, ethylbenzene,
toluene, xylene (BETX) and methyl tertiarybutyl ether (MTBE).
10. The potential for the oxygen releasing compound (ORC) to impact groundwater and the
potable well(s) is linked to the demonstration that the location within the setbatzune does not
pose a significant hazard. See the significant hazards section ofthis response for further
discussion.
-5-
ARBITRARY AND UNREASONABLE HARDSHIP
11. The petition provides an economic analysis of the cost of ORC injection versus several
other remediation methods. The economic analysis is flawed because the minimum setback
zones of all ofthe Saybrook community wells are 400 feet, not 200 feet as stated in the petition.
Since the setback zones are 400 feet, the entire Sangamon Valley FS site falls within the
minimum setback zones of all of the wells. Therefore, the groundwater cleanup objective will be
required to meet the Class I groundwater standards (35 IAC 620.410). Meeting the Class I
standards may require significant additional remedial activities both on the Sangamon Valley FS
property and off-site. For example, additional soil excavation that would aid in compliance with
the groundwater standards may be required. If the excavation is cheaper than injecting ORC, the
economic analysis may no longer be valid. Since the economic analysis provided in the petition
may be invalid, then the conclusion based on that analysis might also be invalid. Therefore,
denying the use of ORC within the minimum setback zone(s) may not impose an arbitrary and
unreasonable burden if the remedial and economic circumstances are different than those
analyzed. A new economic analysis should be provided that considers the requirements imposed
upon a remediation that is entirely within a minimum setback zone.
BEST
AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY CONTROLS
12. This petition is for the purpose of allowing the installation of potential routes within the
minimum setback zone ofcommunity water supply wells. Therefore, the best available
technology (BAT) that must be addressed is the technology used to minimizetheñsksposed by
-6-
the injection wells. There are two means by which a potential route may introduce contaminants
into an aquifer. As discussed in the petition, a potential route may provide a pathway along
which surficial contaminants can migrate. The technology discussed in the petition to eliminate
this concern is filling the well, after it is used, with bentonite. The bentonite will then be
hydrated to make a seal. The other means by which these potential routes will introduce
contaminants into the aquifer is the injection of the ORC through the push probe, directly into
the aquifer. The BAT to address concerns about the ORC, is groundwater monitoring. The
petition does not contain a monitoring program or schedule designed to demonstrate that the
ORC injections are having the desired effects, and that they are not creating unintentional
negative impacts to the aquifer or well(s). The petition should also include more recent
monitoring results to demonstrate that the past ORC injections have been effective. The most
recent data provided is more than a year old. Exhibit M is a fact sheet produced by Regenesis,
the maker of ORC. The fact sheet recommends a monitoring program that includes
contaminants of concern, oxidation-reduction potential, pH, dissolved oxygen, nitrate, total and
dissolved iron, sulfate, methane, chemical oxygen demand at selected wells within and outside
thq treated area. Manganese should be included in the monitoring program because it is common
in Illinois groundwater, and geochemically active in oxidation and reduction reactions. The
Illinois EPA agrees with this recommendation and recommends including Saybrook well #3
among the wells that are regularly monitored.
MAXIMUM FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVE SETBACK
13. Typically in the setback zone exception process, the maximum feasible setback is
considered to assure that the greatest possible distance between a potential source orpotential
route, and a potable well is maintained. Distance is proportional to the time it takes a
-7-
contaminant to move through groundwater from its source to a well. In the case ofinjection
wells for remediation, the maximum feasible distance is necessarily as close as the location of
the contaminants ofconcern. In the opinion of the Illinois EPA 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.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT/SIGNIFICANT HAZARD TO THE POTABLE WATER
SUPPLY WELL
14. Section 14.2(c) of the 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 description required to be in the petition of the possible impacts that the
potential route may have on the potable well. The petition states that the shallow groundwater
that is the subject ofthe remediation efforts is the same aquifer from which the community water
supply well draws its water. As discussed previously, the treated water samples collected by
Saybrook have had recurring detections ofBETX and MTBE. Therefore, it should be assumed
that any contaminant introduced into the aquifer will also make its way to the Saybrook wells
and the drinking water of the community. The Illinois EPA believes the petroleum hydrocarbons
already in the aquifer pose a greater threat to public health and the environment than the remedial
chemicals being applied. However, allowing the injection ofpotential contaminants within the
minimum setback zone of a community water supply well should be coupled with safe guards
that assure the risks posed by the injection, whether direct or collateral, are outweighed by the
benefit of remediation.
-8-
15. Because ofthe close link between contaminants in the aquifer and Saybrook’s drinking
water, careful consideration must be given. In addition to chemically safe water, community
water supplies are expected to provide aesthetically acceptable water. When the ORC is injected
it provides oxygen and forms magnesium oxide, magnesium peroxide, magnesium hydroxide.
Hydroxides are chemically basic (i.e. have a high pH). The Class I groundwater standard for pH
is 6.5 to 9.0 units. Oxygen will react with a host ofother chemicals. Significantly changing the
pH of water or altering its chemical composition may significantly change its character before,
during and after the water treatment process. Therefore, compliance with the Class I
groundwater standard for pH must be addressed in the petition through the monitoring program.
The Illinois EPA also recommends that the petitioner stay in close communication with the
Saybrook water department regarding any water quality concerns or technical issues that may
arise that could be related to changes in aquifer water quality.
CONCLUSION
16. Pursuant to Section 14.2(c) ofthe Act, 415 ILCS 5/14.2(c) (2002), the Illinois EPA
would recommend that the Board grant a water well setback exception to SVFS in this matter,
provided that the following data supports its use:
a) Revise the Petition to include all of Saybrook’s Community wells, with all ofthe wells
having 400 foot minimum setback zones;
b) Provide more recent monitoring results that demonstrate the effectiveness ofprevious
ORC injections;
-9-
c) Provide a monitoring program and schedule to monitor contaminants of concern and
other general water quality parameters;
d) Include quarterly raw water monitoring from Saybrook well #3 in the monitoring
program;
e) Provide a revised economic analysis that demonstrates that ORC injection is the most
economical means to achieve the required cleanup; and
fl
Provide a plan for regular meetings with Saybrook water supply personnel (perhaps at the
time ofsampling events) to discuss any water quality complaints or treatment issues they
may have encountered.
Respectfully submitted,
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
Assistant Counsel
Division of Legal Counsel
Dated: October 6, 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-
RECEIVED
CLERKS OFFICE
OCT
1/2005
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
STATE
OHution
OFControlILLINOIsBoard
I, Joey Logan-Wilkey, certify that I have served the original and nine copies of the
attached Appearance and Illinois EPA Response to Petition for Water Well Setback
Exception, by first class mail, upon:
Ms. Dorothy Gunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
100 West Randolph Street, Suite 11-500
Chicago, IL 60601
Charles J. Northrup
Sorling, Northrup, Hanna,
Cullen & Cochran, Ltd.
Suite 800 Illinois Building
P.O. Box 5131
Springfield, IL 62705
(217)544-1144
Mr. Ronald E. Stauffer, Mayor
Village ofSaybrook
234 West Lincoln Street
Post Office Box 357
Saybrook, Illinois 61770-0357
via first class United States mail from Springfield, Illinois, on the
6th
day of October
2005, with postage fully prepaid.
Joey
(-i~ci~
ga4)Wilkey
h~-
Assistant Counsel
Division of Legal Counsel
OR!GINAL
And one copy each, to
THIS FILING IS SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
