1
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
2
RECEIVED
CLERICS OFFICE
3
SANGAMON VALLEY FARM
A l
it
ΒΆ r
2006
SUPPLY,
4
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Petitioner,
Pollution Control Board
5
vs
.
PCB 06-43
6
(Water Well
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL,
Setback Exception)
7 PROTECTION AGENCY and
VILLAGE OF SAYBROOK, ILLINOIS
)
8
)
Respondent
.
)
9
10
11
12
13
14
The following is the transcript of a hearing
15
held in the above-captioned matter, taken
16
stenographically by Gale G. Everhart, CSR-RPR, a notary
17 public within and for the County of Peoria and State of
18
Illinois, before Carol Webb, Hearing officer, at 109
19
East Olive Street, Bloomington, Illinois, on the 9th day
20
of August, A .D. 2006, commencing at 10 :00 a .m
.
21
22
23
24
Page 1
Page 2
1
PRESENT
:
2
HEARING TAKEN BEFORE
:
3
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
1021 North Grand Avenue East
Springfield, Illinois
62794-9274
4
(217) 524-8509
5
BY: CAROL WEBB
6
APPEARANCES
:
7
SORLING, NORTHRUP, HANNA,
CULLEN and COCHRAN, LTD
.
8
BY : CHARLES J . NORTHRUP,
Attorney at Law
ESQUIRE
9
Suite 800, Illinois Building
P .O. Box 5131
Springfield, Illinois 62705
10
(217) 544-1144
11
On Behalf of the Petitioner
.
12
JOEY LOGAN-WILKEY, ESQUIRE
Attorney at Law
13
1021 North Grand Avenue East
P .O. Box 19276
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
14
(217) 782-5544
15
On Behalf of the Respondent the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency
.
16
17
ALSO PRESENT
:
18
LYNN E . DUNAWAY,
MATT MARCUM
P .G
.
19
20
I N D E X
21
Page
GREETING BY HEARING OFFICER
.
4
22
23
24
1
OPENING STATEMENTS
:
Page 3
Page
2
BY MR . NORTHRUP
.
.
.
5
BY MS . LOGAN-WILKEY
.
7
3
4
WITNESS FOR THE PETITIONER
:
5
JERRY L. WILSON, P .E
.
Direct Examination by Mr . Northrup
8
6
Cross-Examination by Mr . Dunaway
.
.
.
.
.
51
Redirect Examination by Mr . Northrup
51
7
8
9
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
:
Identified
Admitted
EXHIBIT A
29
50
10
EXHIBIT B
29
50
11
EXHIBIT C
29
50
12
EXHIBIT D
29
50
13
EXHIBIT E
29
50
14
EXHIBIT F
29
50
15
EXHIBIT G
29
50
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Page 4
1
HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Good morning . My name is
2
Carol Webb . I'm a hearing officer with the Pollution
3
Control Board. This is PCB 06-43, Sangamon Valley Farm
4
Supply versus IEPA and the Village of Saybrook . It is
5
August 9th, 2006, and we are beginning at 10 :00 a .m
.
6
I will note for the record that we have no
7 members of the public present, although we do have an
8
EPA intern with us. Welcome. And members of the public
9
are allowed to provide public comment if they so choose
.
10
At issue in this case is Petitioner's request
11
for a water well setback exception for its site located
12
at the corner of Main and Lincoln in the Village of
13
Saybrook, McLean County. You should know that it is the
14 Pollution Control Board and not me that will make the
15
final decision in this case . My purpose is to conduct
16 the hearing in a neutral and orderly manner so that we
17
have a clear record of the proceeding . I will also
18
assess the credibility of any witnesses on the record at
19
the end of the hearing
.
20
This hearing was noticed pursuant to the Act
21
and the Board's rules, and will be conducted pursuant to
22
sections 101 .600 through 101 .632 of the Board's
23
procedural rules as well as section 106 .308 which
24
governs water well setback exception hearings . At this
Page 5
1
time I will ask the parties to please make their
2
appearances on the record
.
3
MR. NORTHRUP : Charles Northrup for Petitioner
4
Sangamon Valley Farm Service
.
5
MS . LOGAN-WILKEY: Joey Logan-Wilkey for the
6
Respondent, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
.
7
HEARING OFFICER WEBB : Okay. And we have nobody
8
here from the Village of Saybrook so we will continue
.
9
Mr . Northrup, would you like to make an
10
opening statement?
11
MR. NORTHRUP: Yes, I would. I do have a brief
12 opening statement that I would like to read into the
13
record
.
14
HEARING OFFICER WEBB : Okay
.
15
MR. NORTHRUP : I do have a very brief and general
16
opening statement. The petitioner in this matter,
17
Sangamon Valley Farm Supply, has filed this petition
18
pursuant to section 14 .2 of the Act to obtain an
19 exception from the community water supply well setback
20
requirements of the Act
.
21
The petitioner seeks this exception so that
22
it can successfully complete a leaking underground
23
storage tank remediation in the Village of Saybrook
.
24
The LUST of remediation will inject oxygen released
Page 6
1
compound, referred to as ORC, directly into the plume of
2
impacted groundwater . Some, if not all, of those
3
injection points are within the community water supply
4
well setback of the village of Saybrook
.
5
Sangamon Valley Farm Service believes
6
strongly that its petition and exhibits -- actually an
7
amended petition and their exhibits, together with the
8
testimony and exhibits that it will present today,
9
satisfies the elements necessary for the Board to grant
10
the exception
.
11
Today Sangamon Valley will present the
12
testimony of Mr . Jerry Wilson of Ideal Environmental
13
Engineering, the consultant for Sangamon Valley FS . His
14
testimony will establish that compliance with the
15 applicable setback requirements would pose an arbitrary
16 and unreasonable hardship on Sangamon Valley FS . The
17
best available technology controls economically
18
achievable to minimize the likelihood of contamination
19
to the water supply well will be utilized. The maximum
20
feasible alternative setback will be utilized, and
21
neither the location of the ORC injection points nor the
22
ORC itself once injected into the contamination will
23
constitute a significant hazard to the potable water
24
supply
.
Page 7
1
I will also note that in addition to serving
2 a copy of the petition and amended petition on the
3 Village of Saybrook, Sangamon Valley FS has been in
4
communication with representatives of the Village about
5
the remediation and the petition . Also Sangamon valley
6 has met with the appropriate representatives of the
7
Illinois EPA and is pleased to note that the Illinois
8
EPA on April 24th, 2006, filing supports the amended
9
petition
.
10
So in light of the testimony and exhibits
11
that will be introduced today and the support of the
12
IEPA, Sangamon Valley FS respectfully requests that the
13
Board grant this amended petition . That's all I have
14
got
.
15
HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Thank you
.
16
Ms . Logan-Wilkey, would you like to make a --
17
MS . LOGAN-WILKEY : Yes . Very briefly
.
18
HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Okay
.
19
MS. LOGAN-WILKEY: Okay. Thank you. Pursuant to
20
section 14 .2C of the Environmental Protection Act, the
21
Illinois EPA recommends that the Board grant a water
22 well setback exception to the Sangamon Valley Farm
23 Service . And Lynn Dunaway is here today to answer any
24
questions the Board may have
.
Page 8
1
HEARING OFFICER WEBB
:
Thank you
.
2
Mr . Northrup, you may present your case
.
3
MR. NORTHRUP
:
Okay
.
I call Jerry Wilson
.
4
HEARING OFFICER WEBB
:
Mr. Wilson, have a seat over
5
here and the court reporter will swear you in
.
6
(Witness sworn .)
7
JERRY L. WILSON,
P .E .,
8
called as a witness, after being first duly sworn, was
9
examined and testified upon his oath as follows
:
10
DIRECT EXAMINATION
11
BY MR. NORTHRUP
:
12
Q
Okay. Mr . Wilson, can you spell
your
name
13
and tell me where you work
.
14
A
It's J-e-r-r-y, W-i-l-s-o-n . I work for
15
Ideal Environmental
.
16
Q
What do you do at Ideal?
17
A
I'm the vice president of engineering and the
18
consultant on this project
.
19
Q
What types of things do you do as the
20
consultant on this project just in general?
21
A
All of the tasks that have to do with this
22
project, the fieldwork, the planning, the reporting and
23
putting together the reimbursement requests
.
24
Q
And the reimbursement requests, what's that
1
f or?
2
A
That's for reimbursement for the underground
3
storage tank for costs incurred during the remediation
4
project
.
5
Q
Okay. Can you give me just a real brief
6
background of your educational history, professional
7
history
.
8
A
I received my bachelor of science in civil
9
engineering in 1986 from the University of Wisconsin,
10
Platteville . I have, for the past 14 years, been
11 working on underground storage tank projects, Phase 1
12
Environmental Assessments. And for the last 11 years
13 have been doing asbestos abatement design over in
14
project management
.
15
Q
Are you a professional engineer?
16
A
Yes . I'm registered in the State of Illinois
17
and in Iowa
.
18
Q
How long have you been a PE?
19
A
I have been a PE for -- it would be 16 years
.
20
Q
At Ideal, are you the person that's most
21
familiar with this
-- with the Sangamon Valley FS
22
project?
23
A
Yes, I am
.
24
Q
And are you familiar with the amended
Page 9
1
Page 10
petition for community wells setback exception that was
2
filed in this case?
3
A
Yes, I am .
4
Q
What is it exactly that Sangamon Valley is
5
trying to get by this exception?
6
A
We are trying to achieve a "No further
7
remediation" letter for the site. And to do that we
8
have to clean up the ground water, contaminated ground
9
water
.
10
Q
And that's under the LUST regulations?
11
A
That's under the LUST, the regulations
.
12
Q
And what is the remedial technology that you
13
want to use at the site?
14
A
We want to use -- it's called enhanced
15
bioremediation
.
We are using an oxygen release compound
16
commonly called ORC to raise the dissolved oxygen level
17
in the groundwater
.
18
Q
Okay. And some of those injection points are
19
going to be within the setback?
20
A
All of them are
.
21
Q
What happens -- assuming the Board grants the
22
petition, what do you do next?
23
A
We have to file a corrective action plan
24
amendment and budget amendment to the Illinois EPA for
Page 11
1
approval prior to doing any additional work at the site
;
2
otherwise, it would not be eligible for reimbursement
.
3
Then once that is approved, we would bring a drill rig
4
on site to poke holes in the ground 30 feet
--
roughly,
5 30 feet deep and pump a mixture of the ORC compound and
6
water into the aquifer
.
7
Q
And assuming that the project is successful,
8
what sort of a closing step?
9
A
Closing step would be -- we would do a couple
10 of rounds of groundwater sampling events to prove that
11
the groundwater contamination levels have receded to
12
within acceptable levels . And once that is approved, we
13 would abandon the monitoring wells and file a request
14
for no further remediation
.
15
Q
And then, ultimately, the goal is to get a
16
"No further remediation" letter from the IEPA?
17
A
Yes
.
18
Q
Is the Sangamon Valley FS gas station, is it
19
still operating?
20
A
No. The gas station closed in
or the
21
tanks were taken out in 1998 . And it ceased operation
22
at that point
.
23
Q
What I would like to do now is just focus on
24
the four elements that Sangamon Valley must demonstrate
Page 12
1
for the Board to grant its exception . Do you understand
2
that one of the elements to be established before the
3 exception can be granted is that Sangamon Valley must
4
demonstrate the compliance with the 400-foot setback
5 poses an arbitrary and unreasonable hardship?
6
A
Yes, I do
.
7
Q
Do you know if the injection technology that
8 you have proposed has been used before in remediation of
9 petroleum contamination?
10
A
Yes, it has
.
11
Q
Is it a common remedial technology?
12
A
Yes, it is
.
13
Q
Used all over the state?
14
A
Yes
.
15
Q
Do you have prior experience with it?
16
A
I have prior experience at this site
.
17
Q
Do you know if this technology has ever been
18
used within a water well setback?
19
A
Yes. It has been used at this site
.
20
Q
Okay. So far has it proven successful?
21
A
Yes, it has . The levels have gone down
.
22
Q
Now is it your understanding that unless the
23
contamination of the site is remediated the IEPA will
24
not issue a "No further remediation" letter?
Page 13
1
A
That's my understanding
.
2
Q
Does the Village stand to obtain any benefit
3
by the remediation?
4
A
Yes
.
5
Q
And what's that?
6
A
They have clean water -- clean water supply
7
in the vicinity of the water wells
.
8
Q
Are there disadvantages to the Village if the
9
contamination can't be cleaned up?
10
A
Yes
.
11
Q
What's that?
12
A
They would have a new well
-- or a new water
13
source would have to be installed
.
14
Q
Do you know what kind of business entity the
15
Sangamon Valley Farm Service is?
16
A
It's a corporation
.
17
Q
And who is the president of that corporation?
18
A
Mrs . Margaret Gibbens-Stocker
.
19
Q
Do you have any understanding as to what will
20
happen to the corporation once the NFRL is received?
21
A
The only reason the corporation is still in
22
existence is this site
.
And once the "No further
23
remediation" letter is achieved -- or received, the site
24
will be sold and the corporation will be dissolved
.
Page 14
1
Q
Based on your training and experience and
2 your working knowledge of the Sangamon Valley site, in
3
your opinion does this proposal
-- if the proposal is
4 not granted, would that pose an arbitrary and
5 unreasonable hardship on Sangamon Valley?
6
A
Yes . I believe it would
.
7
Q
Let me go back to, during the remediation,
8
this whole process, have you been in communication with
9
the representatives of the Village of Saybrook?
10
A
Yes, I have
.
11
Q
Can you describe what kind of contacts you
12 have had with them?
13
A
Well, for one thing we had to get permission
14
to actually do work in the village park . And on a
15
regular basis every time I'm in the area, I stop by and
16
talk to the head of the water department
.
17
Q
Do you know his name?
18
A
His name is Geno Talley
.
19
Q
So he is aware of what you're planning?
20
A
He is aware of everything that we have been
21
doing
.
22
Q
Has he ever expressed any objection?
23
A
No . There is more objection to harming the
24
trees in the park than doing the injections themselves
.
1
2
3
4
5 understand that another one of the elements to be
6
demonstrated before the Board can grant the water well
7
setback exception is that the proposal utilizes the best
8
available control technology economically achievable to
9 minimize the likelihood of contamination to the water
10
supply well?
11
A
Yes
.
12
Q
Okay. And is Sangamon Valley's proposal
13
going to achieve this?
14
A
Yes, I believe so
.
15
Q And, essentially, this is just a weighing of
16 the cost and time and effectiveness of various remedial
17
options, right?
18
A
Correct
.
19
Q
And has the petition sort of laid that out?
20
A
Yes, it has
.
21
Q
What remedial alternatives has Sangamon
22
Valley looked at?
23
A
We have looked at pump and treat and an air
24
sparging system
.
Page 15
Q
Do you know how big the village of Saybrook
is?
A
The water supply serves about 400 people
.
Q
Let me move on to the next element . Do you
Page 16
1
Q
What's pump and treat?
2
A
It's where you would install recovery wells
3
and just extract groundwater and treat it and then
4
reinject it -- either reinject it into the aquifer or
5
discharge it to a sanitary sewer system
.
6
Q
Now is that a recognized remedial technology
7
in the environmental field?
8
A
Yes, it is
.
9
Q
Is the pump and treat technology feasible at
10
this site?
11
A
I don't believe so
.
12
Q
Why not?
13
A
Groundwater at the site is roughly 30 feet
14
below ground surface
.
And much of the groundwater
15
contamination is actually off site . The installation
16
costs themselves will be extremely prohibitive, and the
17
county would not allow us to work actually in the
18
pavement of the main -- it's called Main Street
.
It's a
19
county road
.
20
Q
And Main Street would somehow have to be
21
impacted in order to
22
A
In order to put the recovery wells in the
23
park and then have the treatment, the actual treatment
24
facility on the site, we would have to somehow pump the
1
Page 17
water or get the water from one side of the street to
2
the other
.
And it's kind of difficult to do that
3
without digging up the street
.
4
Q
Using the pump and treat, how long would it
5
take to remediate the site?
6
A
I have seen sites go in excess of ten years
7
and not get complete -- reach the cleanup objectives
8
that they need to reach
.
9
Q
And I assume throughout that whole ten years
10
there are maintenance costs involved?
11
A
Yes
.
12
Q
Based upon your training and experience and
13
your work and knowledge of the Sangamon Valley site, in
14
your opinion is a pump and treat system the best
15
available technology control economically achievable at
16
this site?
17
A
No
.
18
Q
The next technology that you looked at was
19
air sparging?
20
A
Yes
.
21
Q
Okay. What's that?
22
A
You install a compressed air system where you
23
would blow air into the contaminated groundwater . And
24
the contamination bubbles out and gets trapped into the
1
Page 18
soil . And then you put in a soil venting system to
2
extract -- actually extract the contamination
.
3
Q
What's a soil venting system?
4
A
Basically pipes in the ground to pull the
5
contamination, the vapors out of the soil
.
6
Q
And are those vapors, are they just emitted
7
into the ambient atmosphere, or
--
8
A
Yes, they are
.
9
Q
Is air sparging a recognized remedial
10
technology in the environmental field?
11
A
Yes
.
12
Q
Is it feasible at this site?
13
A
No
.
14
Q
Why not?
15
A
Basically the same reasons as the pump and
16
treat, that you have got groundwater 30 feet below
17
ground surface . So for the system to be effective the
18
soil venting system would have to be installed
19
approximately 25 feet below ground surface . And with
20
the types of soils that are there, it would be almost
21
impossible to achieve that
.
22
Q
How long would it
-- any idea how long it
23
would take to clean the site using that technology?
24
A
Those systems typically take, again, five to
Page 19
1
ten years
.
2
Q
And, again, there are maintenance costs?
3
A
Maintenance costs throughout that period
.
4
Q
And I note with both the air sparging and the
5 pump and treat in the amended petition you identify
6
specific costs?
7
A
Yes
.
8
Q
Those are accurate?
9
A
Those are my best guess
.
10
Q
But they are a reasonable guess
--
11
A
They are a reasonable guess
.
12
Q
- based upon your knowledge and experience?
13
Based upon your training and experience and
14 your working knowledge of the Sangamon Valley site, in
15 your opinion is air sparging
-- is an air sparging
16
system the best available technology control
17
economically achievable at the site?
18
A
No
.
19
Q
Did you also look at the replacement
20
relocation of the municipal water wells?
21
A
Yes, we did
.
22
Q
Essentially that is what it is, right?
23
A
It's what it is . You find a new location for
24
the water well . You have to do a certain amount of
1
Page 20
research to find a suitable site, make sure there are no
2
potential contaminating facilities within the -- in this
3
case it would have to be 400 feet of the well, and hope
4
that those
-- hope that new site can make
-- can
5
generate groundwater, can generate water supply
.
6
Q
Do you have a reasonable estimate as to how
7
much it would cost to close and relocate a new well?
8
A
Oh, typically to do that it costs, roughly,
9
200, $250,000
.
10
Q
And there is actually more than one well?
11
A
There are three wells there. One of them is
12
only a test well
.
13
Q
What does that mean, it's only a test well?
14
A
It was the original test well that was
15
drilled prior to drilling the initial water well at the
16
site, and it's directly adjacent to one of the two
17
operating wells
.
18
Q
So you have got the test well in the Village
19
of Saybrook?
20
A
That's the two operating water wells . One
21
they use most of the time . They only use the other one
22
if water use exceeds the capacity of that well
.
23
Q
Based upon your training and experience and
24
your working knowledge at the Sangamon Valley site, in
Page 21
1 your opinion is the replacement and relocation of the
2 water wells the best available technology control
3
economically achievable at the site?
4
A
No. We would have to clean up the site
5
anyway
.
6
Q
And the last sort of technology that you have
7
looked at and ultimately proposed is what you call the
8
enhanced natural continuation; is that correct?
9
A
Yes
.
10
Q
Is that the same thing as in-situ
11
bioremediation?
12
A
Yes, it is
.
13
Q
So this technology goes by different names?
14
A
Yes, it does
.
15
Q
Based upon your training and experience and
16 your work and knowledge of the Sangamon Valley site, is
17
it your opinion that enhanced natural continuation is
18
the best available technology control economically
19
achievable at the site?
20
A
Yes, I believe it is
.
21
Q
And why is that?
22
A
It's
-- the technology is injecting a
23 compound that increases the dissolved oxygen in the
24 groundwater, gives the naturally occurring
Page 22
1
microorganisms one source of food
.
The other source of
2
food that they use would be the contamination itself
.
3
And it actually reduces the contaminant levels to
4
acceptable levels
.
5
Q
I think I asked this before, but I will ask
6
it again
.
Is this technology a recognized remedial
7
technology?
8
A
Yes,
it is
.
9
Q
And is this technology feasible -- well, why
10
is this technology feasible?
11
A
For the reasons that the pump and treat and
12
the air sparging aren't . We are poking holes into the
13
ground, pumping fluid down into the ground and then
14
sealing up those holes . There are no -- there is no
15
ongoing maintenance -- mechanical maintenance that we
16
have to do on the cleanup site . We don't have to try
17
and siphon water out of the ground to treat it . It
18
treats in place
.
And cost is considerably less than the
19
alternatives
.
20
Q
Before you had mentioned that the remedial
21
plan, whatever it was, as well as a budget would be
22
submitted to the IEPA; is that correct?
23
A
Yes
.
24
Q
So even with your proposal it's going to go
Page 23
1 to the Agency. And I guess within the LUST program they
2
will review it and make sure it satisfies them?
3
A
Yes. We have had to do that over the course
4
of this project
.
5
Q
How long would it take to remediate the site
6
using this technology?
7
A
There is no way to tell for sure . We are
8
hoping that it takes 12 to 18 months
.
9
Q
And what's the cost of this in general terms?
10
A
In general terms, roughly, a quarter to a
11
third of the other alternatives
.
12
Q
Are there any maintenance --
or ongoing
13 maintenance costs involved in producing this technology?
14
A
None that you would not have with the pump
15 and the other two systems . You would have to do
16 quarterly groundwater monitoring for any system . And
17 other than that, there are no ongoing maintenance
.
18
There may be follow-up injections, but no ongoing
19
maintenance
.
20
Q
So as part of the plan you mention ongoing
21 monitoring . You do that every quarter --
22
A
Yes
.
23
Q
-- at this site?
24
Until the site is clean?
Page 24
1
A
Until the site is clean. And we would have
2
to establish that it's going to stay clean . So we would
3
have to do at least semiannual beyond when we get clean
.
4
Q
How long do you do that for? Is it a year
5
after you reach
6
A
Probably a year, yes
.
7
Q
Moving on to the next element . Do you
8 understand that another one of the elements to be
9 demonstrated before the Board can grant a water well
10
setback exception is that the proposal utilizes the
11
maximum feasible alternative setback?
12
A
Yes
.
13
Q
And what does that really mean in laymen's
14
terms?
15
A
It means that we stay as far away from the
16
well as we can
.
17
Q
And does your proposal do that?
18
A
Yes . At this point it doesn't look like we
19
are going to have to get any closer than 75 feet
.
20
Q
And with respect to the various
21
injection
well, how many injection points will there
22 be or do you anticipate? Roughly?
23
A
Roughly, there were, I believe --
I believe
24
there are about 75 for treatment, and we are also
1
Page 25
proposing installing approximately 100 to generate a
2
barrier
.
3
Q
What's the difference between the ones for
4
treatment and the ones is for barrier?
5
A
The ones for barrier would be actually put in
6
front of the plume to stop any migration beyond the
7
treatment injections
.
8
Q
And in those barriers, you are putting in the
9
ORC, though, correct?
10
A
Yes
.
11
Q
Are you
--
12
A
Just not at the same levels as we are for the
13
treatment
.
14
Q
Lesser, or
--
15
A
Lesser
.
16
Q
Are you
-- do you remain willing to work with
17
the IEPA and the Village of Saybrook on the specific
18
placement of these injection points?
19
A
Oh, yes
.
20
Q
And the last element deals with whether or
21
not the proposal will constitute a significant hazard to
22
the potable water supply well
.
Do you understand that
23
the final element necessary to be satisfied in the
24
report and grant an exception is that the proposal, in
Page 26
1
this case the enhanced natural continuation, will not
2
cause a significant hazard to the potable water supply
3
well?
4
A
Yes . I understand that
.
5
Q
Based on your training and experience and
6 your work and knowledge of the Sangamon valley site, in
7 your opinion would the proposed enhanced natural
8
continuation constitute a significant hazard to the
9
Village of Saybrook's wells?
10
A
No
.
11
Q
Okay. Why not?
12
A
The ORC material itself is a calcium base
13
material . And we basically --
the equivalent of
14
injecting antacid into the groundwater
.
15
Q
And what do you sort of base that opinion and
16
that understanding on?
17
A
That information I received from the MSDS,
18
Material Safety Data Sheet for the ORC
.
19
Q
From the manufacturer?
20
A
From the manufacturer
.
21
Q
Will there be any impact on the groundwater
22
at the site?
23
A
In my best opinion I do not believe so. I
24
can't give any guarantees
.
Page 27
1
Q
And that is your professional opinion
--
2
A
That's my professional opinion
.
3
Q
-- based on your training and experience?
4
A
Yes
.
5
MR. NORTHRUP : Your Honor, what I would
-- Hearing
6
Officer
-- what I would like to do now is go through
7
some questions that the Board posed in writing back in
8
November
.
And what I would -- and the reason I would
9
like to do that is because it's not clear from my file
10
whether I responded to those questions . I couldn't find
11
any indication that I had done so in my file . But then
12
I got another set of questions from the Board, and they
13
were the same questions,
less, I think, five or six of
14
the original which sort of added to my confusion as to
15
whether or not the Board actually received, at least,
16
some of the answers to the first set
.
17
HEARING OFFICER WEBB: I believe the Board did
18
receive that, but go ahead .
19
MR. NORTHRUP : Let me just run through those . And
20
in any event there are some exhibits that were
21
referenced that I don't think the Board got
.
22
HEARING OFFICER WEBB : That's correct
.
23
MR. NORTHRUP : So we will put those in,
too
.
24
Page 28
1
BY MR. NORTHRUP
:
2
Q
Mr. Wilson, let me read these questions to
3
you; then you can respond
.
4
Since the Illinois Environmental Protection
5 Agency in its recommendation has identified two
6
additional well setbacks that are impacted by the
7
petition, would you please provide a revised economic
8
analysis for options designed to meet the Class 1
9 groundwater standards within the minimum setback zones?
10
A
The economic analysis provided in the
11
original petition remained valid for the revised setback
12
information . The economic analysis was based on
13
performing the remediation at the facility until
14
contaminant concentrations in the shallow groundwater
15
fell below the remediation objectives in 35 Illinois
16 Administrative Code 742 . And those are consistent with
17
the groundwater quality standards in section 610 of the
18
Illinois Administrative Code
.
19
Q
Do groundwater monitoring results
20
indicate -- at the site, indicate the hydrocarbon plume
21 is continuing to migrate closer to the community water
22
supply well?
23
A
Based upon the information we have gathered,
24
it appears the ORC injections we performed at the site
1
Page 29
to date have had the desired effect and the groundwater
2
contaminant zone appears to have receded back toward the
3
facility
.
And we showed that in the
-- in some of the
4
documentation that was provided with the petition
5
actually, too
.
6
Q
Yeah
.
You reference Exhibit A, correct
.
7
A
Exhibit A to these questions
.
8
MR. NORTHRUP
:
Your Honor, let me go ahead and give
9
you and Counsel a copy
.
These are the attachments that
10
Mr . Wilson is going to be referencing
--
11
HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Okay
.
12
MR. NORTHRUP
:
- that should have been sent to the
13
Board. And they are marked Exhibit A through G,
I
14
believe, previously marked
.
15
HEARING OFFICER WEBB
:
Yes, I have them .
16
MR. NORTHRUP
:
Okay
.
So he will be referencing
17
those
.
18
BY MR. NORTHRUP
:
19
Q
Can you please describe how the plume is
20
migrating in relation to the other two water supply
21
wells?
22
A
The other two water supply wells, as I said,
23
one is only a test well
.
It's only used under emergency
24
situations
.
They are located south of the -- water well
1
Page 30
number 3 . And the groundwater contamination plume has
2
been shown to have receded back toward the facility away
3
from water well number 3
.
And so the -- it looks like
4
the edge of the plume is also getting further away from
5
those other two wells
.
And I think that's shown on
6
Exhibit A as well
.
7
Q
What method will Sangamon Valley use to
8
prevent the lateral migration of the contaminant plume
9
during the injections?
10
A
We will perform the remediation injections in
11
a specific sequence
.
The injections will begin along
12
the west side of the remediation area and will progress
13
toward the east and back toward the facility and away
14
from the water wells
.
The proposed layout of the
15
injection wells along with the proposed ORC injection
16
rates is shown on the second exhibit, Exhibit B
.
17
Q
Exhibit M to the amended petition, which is a
18
letter from Regenesis, which is the manufacturer of the
19
ORC, correct?
20
A
Yes
.
21
Q
Suggests a barrier-based design along either
22
side of the street . Can you describe how barriers will
23
be created between well number 3 and the plume?
24
A
Barrier was based upon -- proposed by
Page 31
1 Regenesis was based on the assumption the County would
2
not allow injections under the highway . The County will
3
not allow injections through the pavement. However we
4
can perform injections at an angle to allow us to
5 actually treat the groundwater under the road . And to
6 do this we would have perform the injections at an
7
approximate angle of 10 to 15 degrees from vertical
8 which would move
-- and would move the injection
9
location approximately five to eight feet from the edge
10
of the road to provide two injection points
11
approximately one third the width of the road
.
12
Q
Two rows of injections?
13
A
Two rows of injections
.
14
Q
Okay
.
15
A
As we have shown on Exhibit B we are
16
proposing a barrier, as I have previously stated, beyond
17
the west and southwest edges of the injection grid . The
18
barrier will be constructed using two rows of injections
19 based on five feet on center and an ORC injection rate
20 equal to approximately one third of the injection rate
21
used for the remediation injection points, which the
22
remediation injection points, I believe, are 70 pounds
23
per point . The barrier will be installed prior to
24
performing the injections in the remediation area . The
Page 32
1
effect of this barrier will be to treat possible
2 hydrocarbon contaminant that migrated beyond the
3
remediation area prior to migration to the water well
4
number 3
.
5
Q
Okay. Can you please describe if you have
6 plans to use barriers between the plume and the other
7 two community water supply wells?
8
A
As was shown on an exhibit, the barrier will
9 be extended around the southwest edge of the plume
10 between the plume and the other two water wells
.
11
Q
Okay. And that's on Exhibit B?
12
A
That is also on Exhibit B
.
13
Q
As mentioned on the Agency's recommendation
14 which was filed with the Board to demonstrate the
15
effectiveness of ORC injections, could you provide more
16
recent monitoring results to demonstrate ORC injections
17
that are effective at this site?
18
A
The last set of groundwater samples collected
19
at the site were collected on October 25th of 2005
.
20 Analytical results are summarized in Exhibit C . I have
21
also provided a breakdown for well
--
for the analytical
22
results to date from monitoring well 7 which is located
23 between the highway and water well 3, and monitoring
24
well 2 which is located at the site of the initial
1
Page 33
release . And those are provided as Exhibits D and E
.
2
These attachments shows that concentrations for the
3
hydrocarbon contamination has steadily decreased due to
4
our previous injections of the ORC. We believe a
5
subsequent rise in the concentrations in monitoring well
6
7 can be attributed to contamination that has been
7
migrating from under the road
.
8
Q
Exhibit E on the amended petition which is
9
the letter from the Agency dated February 27th,
2003,
10
shows that modifications were made to Sangamon
11
Valley's
--
12
COURT REPORTER: Can you speak up? I can't hear
.
13
Q
Modifications required additional soil and
14
groundwater sampling analysis prior to implementing
15
another round of ORC injections . These additional
16
samples will demonstrate whether the contamination
17
beneath the neighboring properties had been remediated
18
below the tier 1 remediation objectives . Has such
19
additional sampling been done to show the status of the
20
contamination beneath the neighboring properties?
21
A
In April of 2003 we took additional soil
22
samples to determine if the soil contamination was still
23
present above -- currently to look at this . So borings
24
were performed in the vicinity of monitoring well 7 and
Page 34
1
in the county right-of-way between the highway and the
2
facility. Soil samples collected from these borings did
3
not show soil contamination at concentrations which
4
exceed current cleanup objectives as outlined in section
5
742 of the Illinois Administrative Code . Groundwater
6
sampling was performed on a quarterly basis following
7
the injections and the status of the groundwater
8 contamination has been shown on Exhibit A
.
9
Q
How many series of ORC injections are planned
10
after the second follow-up round of injections?
11
A
We are hoping that we won't have to do any
12
additional rounds of ORC injections after this second
13
follow-up round . However, if our analytical data from
14
the groundwater samples indicate the contaminant levels
15 have not decreased to acceptable levels, we may need to
16
do one or two additional rounds of injections
.
17
Q
How long is the waiting period before more
18
follow-up injections will be planned?
19
A
The groundwater sample results will be
20 reviewed and evaluated after each quarterly sampling
21
event by the Regenesis engineers . If Regenesis
22
indicates, an additional round of injections will likely
23
be necessary. We will file a corrective action plan and
24 budget amendment with the Illinois EPA for approval
Page 35
1
prior to proceeding .
2
Q
What criteria will Sangamon Valley use to
3
determine if additional rounds of injections are needed?
4
A
If the contaminant concentration reduction is
5 shown to slow down and contaminant levels are shown to
6
level off, additional rounds of injections will be
7
needed
.
8
Q
For how many consecutive quarters with no
9
exceedences of the groundwater standards or 35 Illinois
10 Administrative Code 742 under the TACO objectives does
11 Sangamon Valley plan to go before discontinuing
12
groundwater remediation efforts?
13
A
Quarterly groundwater sampling is planned at
14
the facility until analytical results show no
15
exceedences of groundwater quality standards . Quarterly
16 groundwater sampling will continue until four
17
consecutive sampling events show no exceedences of the
18 groundwater quality standards . At that time Sangamon
19 Valley Farm Supply will request to discontinue the
20 groundwater monitoring and receive a "No further
21
remediation" letter
.
22
Q Please describe Sangamon Valley's monitoring
23 plan to ensure adequate rounds of quarterly sampling to
24 detect contaminant rebound which might occur several
Page 36
1
months or years after the injections
.
2
A
The primary source of the contamination which
3 was the leaking underground storage tank has been
4
removed from the site . It is no longer contributing
5
to -- a contributing factor to the groundwater
6
contamination. In addition, the secondary source, which
7 would be contaminated soils in the immediate vicinity of
8
the former underground storage tank, have also been
9
removed. So those can no longer continue to contribute
10
to the contaminated groundwater
.
11
We have collected soil samples on either side
12
of the highway to show that soil contamination is not
13
present at levels above remediation objectives in the
14
regulations . And based on the groundwater sampling to
15 date, it appears the groundwater moves rather quickly in
16 the area as shown by the rebound of the contaminant
17
concentrations in monitoring well 7 due to the movement
18 of groundwater from under the highway . If groundwater
19
contamination above remediation objectives is not
20
identified in four quarterly sampling events, it's
21 highly unlikely contaminant concentrations will rebound
22
in the future
.
23
Q
The Agency recommendation that was filed
24
states the best available technology to address concerns
Page 37
1
about ORC is groundwater monitoring. Could you please
2 develop a monitoring plan and schedule for the
3
continuing remediation?
4
A
We have 13 on-site monitoring wells, 12 of
5
those will be sampled on a quarterly basis
.
6
Q
In your monitoring plan, could you include
7 how you would demonstrate the ORC injections having the
8
desired effects not creating unintentional negative
9
impacts to the aquifer and water supply wells?
10
A
The 12 monitoring wells will be sampled on a
11
quarterly basis . In addition, when we do that sampling
12
we will also collect a sample of the
-- from the
13
community water well 3 . And we will --
if water well 1
14
or 2 is going to be brought online, we will also collect
15
a sample from that. All the samples will be analyzed
16
for contaminants of concern for the site which are
17
benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, total xylenes and MTBE,
18
that's methyl tert-butyl ethanol or something like that,
19
that additive. The analytical results will be reviewed
20
against the previous analytical results
.
21
Q
Could you indicate in your monitoring
22 perimeters for the monitoring wells and the community
23
water supply wells such as contaminants of concern,
24
oxidation reduction potential, pH, dissolved oxygen,
Page 38
1
nitrate, total undissolved iron, sulphate, methane,
2 chemical oxygen demand and manganese?
3
A
All the water samples collected will be
4 analyzed with contaminants as concerned as previously
5
stated. Also the five-day biological oxygen demand,
6
chemical oxygen demand, total undissolved iron, total
7
undissolved manganese, nitrate, sulphate and methane,
8
on-site measurements will be collected from each water
9
sample which well include temperature, dissolved oxygen
10
concentration, pH, and oxidation reduction potential
.
11
Q
Would your monitoring program also include
12 quarterly raw water monitoring from the community water
13
supply wells as suggested by the Agency?
14
A
As I previously stated, we will collect a raw
15 water sample from water well number 3 during each
16 quarterly sampling event. Groundwater samples will only
17 be collected from wells 1 or 2 if they are brought
18 online by Village personnel for temporary use
.
19
Q
In your schedule could you show milestones
20
such as time frames for injections, groundwater
21
sampling, and compliance with groundwater standards and
22
remediation objectives?
23
A
It's difficult to project when injections
24
will be performed as all the proposed work is contingent
Page 39
1 upon approval of our petition and approval of a
2
corrective action plan and budget amendment . We foresee
3
performing the injections within 30 days of approval of
4
this petition and the approval of the corrective action
5 plan and budget amendment . In the interim and until the
6
end of required remediation we will start taking
7 quarterly groundwater samples and have them analyzed
.
8
It's also difficult to project when the groundwater
9 sampling will show compliance with the groundwater
10
quality standards . However, we hope the levels can be
11
reached within 12 months of the next set of injections
.
12
Q
Once the groundwater remediation efforts have
13 achieved compliance with the groundwater standards and
14
the remediation objectives, do you foresee any problems
15 with having a setback exception expire?
16
A
If groundwater sampling shows that
17
remediation effects have achieved compliance with the
18 groundwater standards, the only additional work
19 projected in the area will be the eventual abandonment
20
of the monitoring wells . Once the monitoring wells have
21 been abandoned, the setback exception could expire
.
22
Q
The amended petition indicates the closest
23 edge of the current contaminant plume to the community
24
water supply well is approximately 115 feet east of the
1
Page 40
municipal well . The petition also, on a different page,
2
states a portion of the current shallow groundwater
3
contamination have migrated to within approximately 75
4
feet from the existing community water supply well
.
Can
5
you please clarify how close to all three wells the
6
contamination was found?
7
A
During the sampling event on October 9th of
8
2002, the leading edge of the groundwater contamination
9
plume was extrapolated to be approximately 60 feet from
10
well number 3 . The leading edge had since receded to
11
approximately 115 feet from the well . During the
12
sampling event on October 9th of 2002, the edge of the
13
groundwater contamination plume was extrapolated to be
14
approximately 195 feet from wells 1 and 2 . The edge of
15
the plume had since receded to approximately 235 feet
16
from wells 1 and 2
.
17
Q
Regarding well number 3, the amended petition
18
states that 55 to 60 injection locations appear to be
19
within the setback of the municipal well . Are you going
20
to provide
-- could you please provide a similar diagram
21
showing the possible locations for the second round of
22
follow-up injections?
23
A
Provided a diagram showing the proposed
24
injection points as Exhibit B
.
Page 41
1
Q
What will be the distance between the
2
community water supply wells and the closest injection
3
point?
4
A
The closest injection point at this point to
5
the community water supply wells is approximately 95
6
feet to well number 3 and approximately 175 feet to well
7
numbers 1 and 2
.
8
Q
And in your testimony earlier you said that's
9
actually 75 feet?
10
A
I'm not sure. At this point this information
11
is dated . We will have to take another set of water
12
samples to get -- before we actually make our proposal
.
13
Q
Would you please indicate what maximum
14
alternative setback would be utilized,
i .e .,
how far
15
from the community water supply wells would the nearest
16
injection be located?
17
A
The closest injection point to well number 3
18
was approximately 75 feet . No proposed injection points
19
are closer than that
-- than that previous injection
20
point
.
21
Q
And, in fact, they could probably
22
be
-- potentially be further away than 75 feet?
23
A
Yes
.
24
Q
Will other products be injected along with
Page 42
1
the ORC?
2
A
The only material being injected with the ORC
3
is water. And the microbes or additional nutrients will
4
be added
.
5
Q
Beside the ORC, will microbes, nutrients and
6
water also be injected?
7
A
No
.
8
Q
Would you please provide an MSDS for ORC and
9
identify what microbes and nutrients will be used
.
10
A
As I previously stated, we are not using any
11 microbes or nutrients . And we have provided a copy of
12
the MSDS from Regenesis as Exhibit F
.
13
Q
Exhibit G to the amended petition was a
14
letter from the Agency dated December 20th, 2004,
15
requiring Sangamon Valley's corrective action plan to
16
include documentation that injection of the chemical or
17
the impact of the treatment on the existing soil and
18 groundwater shall not cause an exceedence of the primary
19 drinking water recommendations during or after the
20
remediation. Has such documentation been submitted yet
21 to the Agency? Would you please provide a copy for the
22
record?
23
A
The specific documentation has not been
24 provided . However, we do not believe we can make that
Page 43
1
assertion . We have designed the proposed injection
2 points to limit the potential of impacting community
3
water supply wells to a point where concentrations
4
exceed the primary drinking water standards . Material
5 being injected is calcium based material for which there
6
is no regulatory standard set
.
7
Q
Okay. Not being able to make that assertion,
8
is that really based upon sort of an engineering and
9
scientific inability to make a 100 percent conclusion?
10
A
Yes . There are no 100 percent guarantees in
11
this business
.
12
Q
So based on
your
training and experience
13
being out in the field, you reasonably believe that you
14
are going to meet the requirements, correct?
15
A
Yes, I do
.
16
Q
The petition refers to the 200-foot
17
setback
-- and this was the original petition, referred
18
to the 200-foot setback of the community water supply
19
well and focused its discussion on the activities inside
20
a 200-foot radius from the well . Since it's actually a
21
400-foot setback that applies to all of the wells,
22 please identify how many injection points are located
23
within the 400-foot setback?
24
A
Based on the location of the remediation site
Page 44
1
relative to water well number 3, all injection points
2 performed to date have been within the 400-foot setback
3
zone. During the initial round of treatment, ORC was
4
injected at 170 points . During the follow-up round, an
5
additional 147 injection points were utilized . Neither
6
of these rounds of treatment utilized a barrier between
7
the contaminant zone and community water supply well
.
8 As part of the next round of injections, we are
9
proposing at this point 97 injection points in the
10
contaminant plume area and 60 injection points to form
11
the barrier between the contaminant zone and the water
12
supply wells
.
13
Q
Just as an aside, too, that was the purpose
14
for the amended petition, correct? You changed it from
15
the 200 to the 400?
16
A
Yes
.
17
Q
Under the Illinois Water Well Construction
18
Code, if a well is contaminated owners and operators of
19
the contamination source are responsible for providing
20
an alternative source of potable water. Based on these
21
requirements, please discuss the contingency plan
22 between Sangamon valley and the village of Saybrook . As
23
suggested by the Agency, will you be providing a plan
24
for regular meetings for Saybrook water supply
Page 45
1 personnel?
2
A
A copy of the analytical summary table for
3 each groundwater sampling event will be forwarded to the
4 village water personnel . If the petroleum contamination
5
is detected in monitoring well 11, which is located
6
between the contaminant -- the contaminated
7 monitoring -- well number 7 and the water supply well,
8
the Village will be informed of the contaminant
9
detection. If the contamination is identified in
10 monitoring well 11 at levels above remediation
11
objectives and the groundwater quality standards, the
12 Village will be notified and an amendment will be
13 prepared to the corrective action plan and budget which
14 will include another round of ORC injections and
15 contingency for construction of a new community water
16
well positioned outside the 400-foot setback from the
17 groundwater contamination plume . If the petroleum
18
contamination exceeding section 735 Remediation
19
objectives and section 620 Groundwater Quality Standards
20
is identified in monitoring well 13, that's when we will
21
do the contingency for the additional
-- or the water
22
well
.
23
Q
Will Sangamon Valley work with the Village to
24 do additional sampling of the community water supply
1
wells during the injection follow-up periods?
2
A
The Village water personnel have agreed to
3
allow testing the raw water from the community water
4 wells during the quarterly groundwater monitoring
5
events
.
6
Q
Okay . The Agency has expressed concern that
7
the ORC might change the character of the potable
8 groundwater before, during and after drinking water
9
treatment . In order to detect potential impact, has
10 Sangamon Valley made arrangements with the Village to
11 monitor the wells for components that will be injected
12 via the geoprobes or for changes in the groundwater
13
quality?
14
A
The Village water personnel have agreed to
15
allow the testing of the well water from the community
16 water wells during our quarterly sampling events . Based
17
on the piping configuration of the well house, water can
18
only be drawn from one well at a time . Since well
19
number 3 is the closest to --
the closest well to the
20
apparent contamination plume and is the primary well
21 utilized by the Village, we propose to sample well
22
number 3 . The water samples collected from that well
23 will be analyzed by the same perimeters as the
24
monitoring wells
.
Page 46
Page 47
1
Q
If testing confirms injected materials,
2 hydrocarbons or byproducts of the ORC injections are
3
detected in the community water supply wells, what will
4
be Sangamon Valley's course of action?
5
A
The ORC materials which are proposed to be
6
injected is a calcium based product . Calcium does not
7
appear in the
-- section 742 Remediation Objectives, in
8
the 611 Primary Drinking Water Standards, nor the 620
9 Groundwater Quality Standards . The main byproduct of
10
the ORC injections is increased dissolved oxygen. If
11
the hydrocarbon contamination is identified in
12
monitoring well 11, which is one of the wells between
13
the contaminated plume and the water well number 3, at
14
levels above the remediation objectives and groundwater
15 quality standards, an amendment will be prepared to the
16
corrective action plan and budget which will include
17
another round of ORC injections . The amendment will
18
also include a contingency for construction of the new
19
community water well if hydrocarbon contamination is
20
identified in monitoring well 13 which is the closest
21
well to number 3
.
22
Q
What is the population served by the
23
community water supply well number 3?
24
A
According to the water personnel, it serves
Page 48
1
approximately 400 households
.
2
Q
Has Sangamon Valley consulted with the
3
Village to determine if another water supply is
4
available besides the wells 1, 2 and 3?
5
A
According to the water personnel, the Village
6
maintains only the three identified water wells, one of
7 which is only a test well and only used under emergency
8
situations
.
9 Q
The amended petition indicates that a survey
10 was conducted to identify all potable water supply well
11 owners within the setback area of the proposed ORC
12
injection wells . Please provide a copy of the survey
13
indicating the radius of the survey area from the
14
injection locations, how the survey was conducted, and
15
if any other potable wells were identified
.
16
A
A copy of the results of the water well
17
survey is attached as Exhibit G. Information includes
18
the radius information from the remediation site, the
19
survey included requests for information from the
20
Illinois State Water Survey and the Illinois State
21 Geological Survey regarding registered water wells
22
within one mile of the remediation site . Village water
23 personnel were interviewed as to the number of water
24
wells it maintains, currently the two wells and the
Page 49
1
initial test well . No other water wells were identified
2
within 400 feet of the remediation site . Additionally,
3
the Village has an ordinance prohibiting installation of
4
a new water well within corporate village limits
.
5
Q
Please discuss if the County or Village have
6
ordinances that might be more stringent than the
7
prohibitions of section 14 .2 of the act?
8
A
I reviewed the McLean County Code which
9
applies to water wells, and it showed that the County
10
has no ordinances which deal with water well setbacks
.
11
The Village water personnel indicated the Village
12
follows current state regulations relative to water
13
wells
.
14
Q
The group of exhibits that I passed around,
15
Exhibits A through G, some of those you created,
16
correct?
17
A
Yes
.
18
Q
And those were the diagrams?
19
A
The diagrams and the summary tables
.
20
Q
Other of those documents did you get from
21
government sources, like the water wells?
22
A
The water well survey information provided in
23
Exhibit G was obtained from the State water survey and
24 the geologic survey . And the other exhibit would have
Page 50
1
been the MSDS from Regenesis
.
2
Q
Okay. That was Exhibit F?
3
A
I believe so, yes
.
4
Q
And you obtained that directly from them?
5
A
Yes
.
6
Q
And, again, they are the manufacturer?
7
A
They are the manufacturer
.
8
Q
You assembled all these documents?
9
A
Yes, I did
.
10
Q
And have you relied on these documents in
11
making your opinions and planning this remediation?
12
A
Yes, I have
.
13
Q
Do you
rely
on these types of documents as a
14
regular practice in your profession?
15
A
Yes
.
16
MR. NORTHRUP : At this point, Your Honor, I would
17
ask that those exhibits, A through G, be admitted into
18
the record
.
19
HEARING OFFICER WEBB : There is no objection?
20
MS. LOGAN-WILKEY: No
.
21
HEARING OFFICER WEBB : Exhibits A through G are
22
admitted into the record
.
23
MR. NORTHRUP: And that concludes my examination of
24
Mr. Wilson .
Page 51
1
HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Thank you. Any cross-exam?
2
MR . DUNAWAY: I have one question. Lynn Dunaway,
3
Illinois EPA
.
4
CROSS-EXAMINATION
5
BY MR. DUNAWAY
:
6
Q
When you were discussing the distance of the
7
leading edge of the plume discussing the distance from
8
the potable wells to
-- from the plume to the potable
9 wells, were you referring to the edge of nondetected
10 hydrocarbon constituents or the edge that represents the
11
level that is remedial objective?
12
A
The edge of the contaminant plume was the
13 extrapolated edge of where it exceeded the groundwater
14
quality standards
.
15
MR. DUNAWAY: Okay. Thank you
.
16
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
17
BY MR. NORTHRUP
:
18
Q
If it would have been the other way, does
19 that impact where you would put your injection points?
20
A
I don't believe so . The injection points are
21 based upon cleaning up the groundwater to acceptable
22
levels in the groundwater quality standards
.
23
MS. LOGAN-WILKEY: That's it
.
24
HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Thank you, Mr . Wilson
.
Page 52
1
MR. NORTHRUP: And that's my case
.
2
HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Okay. Thank you,
3
Mr. Northrup
.
4
MR. NORTHRUP: Thank you
.
5
HEARING OFFICER WEBB : The IEPA may present its
6
case
.
7
MS . LOGAN-WILKEY : We don't have anything to
8 present at this time . We would just like to make Lynn
9
available for any questions that the Board may have
.
10
HEARING OFFICER WEBB : Okay. The Board did have
11 one question for you . And that relates to something
12 Mr. Northrup had brought up regarding Sangamon Valley
13
Farm Supply's answer to one of the questions . It was
14
the letter from the Agency dated December 20th, 2004,
15
requires that the petitioner's corrective action plan
16
include documentation that the injection of the chemical
17 or the impact of the treatment on existing soil and
18 groundwater will not cause an exceedence of the primary
19
drinking water regulations at 35 Illinois Administrative
20
Code 611 during or after remediation
.
21
In its response the petitioner indicated that
22
the specific documentation has not been provided and
23
that it does not believe it can make such an assertion
.
24
What are your comments on that, specifically
1
Page 53
whether petitioner may proceed without providing this
2
documentation?
3
MR. DUNAWAY: Well, my opinion they have --
the
4
documentation they provide may not answer that question
5
directly. But they
-- as Mr. Wilson stated, it's not
6
possible to give an absolute guarantee that it will not
7
happen. However, the information they have provided
8
shows that
-- or they have committed to
-- they will
9
monitor their own wells . They have a stage approach
.
10
They have monitoring well 11 at which case they
11
will
-- it would be an early warning system such that
12
they would know before contaminants that would exceed a
13
drinking water level would ever reach the well
.
They
14
would know when it reached monitoring well 11
.
They
15
would know when it reached monitoring well 13
.
16
Therefore, they would be able
-- they would
17
have time to install the new water supply which would
18
eliminate the need for
-- which would eliminate the
19
chance that a violation occur
.
20
Also as part of that, the primary drinking
21
water standards under 611 are based on an average
.
So
22
even if a detection of
-- as an example, benzene in
23
excess of the primary drinking water standards were
24
detected in monitoring
-- or, excuse me, not monitoring
Page 54
1
well 3, community water supply well 3, there would still
2 have to be subsequent detections in order for a
3
violation of that standard to occur, which I'm not
4
saying that it's good that it would be there, but there
5 would be additional time to meet the letter of the law
6
and not having a violation . Those are based on
--
the
7
611 regulations are based on lifetime consumption as
8
opposed to a one-time chronic detection
.
9
HEARING OFFICER: Okay
.
10
MR. DUNAWAY: So I believe the information that the
11 petitioner has provided does indirectly answer that
12
question, though it does not necessarily provide an
13
absolute guarantee that it cannot happen . They have
14
contingencies in place if it appears that that
15
inevitability may be coming
.
16
HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Thank you, Mr. Dunaway
.
17
Let's go off the record for a minute to discuss a
18
briefing schedule
.
19
(Discussion off the record .)
20
HEARING OFFICER WEBB: We have just had an
21
off-the-record discussion regarding post hearing briefs
.
22
The parties have agreed to a briefing schedule as
23
follows : The transcript of these proceedings will be
24
available from the court reporter by August 21st, and
Page 55
1
will be posted on the Board's web site . The public
2
comment deadline is September 11th. Public comment must
3
be filed in accordance with section 101 .628 of the
4
Board's procedural rules. The Petitioner's brief is due
5
by September 21st . The Respondent's brief is due by
6
October 20th, and Petitioner's reply, if any, is due by
7
October 27th. And the mailbox rule will apply
.
8
Mr. Northrup, would you like to make any
9
closing remarks?
10
MR . NORTHRUP : No, thank you, Your Honor,
I will
11
include those in my post hearing brief
.
12
HEARING OFFICER WEBB
:
Okay
.
Ms. Logan-Wilkey?
13
MS . LOGAN-WILKEY: No,
thank you
.
14
HEARING OFFICER WEBB
:
Okay
.
There are no members
15
of the public present to make any statements on the
16
record, so I will proceed to make a statement as to the
17
credibility of witnesses testifying during this hearing
.
18
Based on my legal judgment and experience,
I find all
19
the witnesses testifying to be credible
.
At this time I
20
will conclude the proceedings . We stand adjourned, and
21
I thank you all for your participation
.
22
23
(Whereupon, the proceedings concluded
24
at 11 :05
a.m .)
1
STATE OF ILLINOIS )
2
COUNTY OF PEORIA
)
3
4
CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER
5
6
I,
GALE G
.
EVERHART, CSR-RPR,
Notary Public in and
7
for the County of
Peoria,
State of Illinois,
do hereby
8
certify that the foregoing transcript, consisting of
9
pages 1 through 55,
both inclusive,
constitutes a true
10
and accurate transcript of the original stenographic
11 notes recorded by me of the foregoing proceedings had
12
before Hearing Officer Carol Webb, in Bloomington,
13
Illinois, on the 9th of August, 2006
.
14
15
Dated this 15th day of August, 2006
.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Page 56
GALE G. EVERHART,
CSR-RPR
Illinois License No
.
084-004217
