ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    L. KELLER OIL PROPERTIES,
    INC./FARINA:
    Petitioner,
    PCB 07-147
    v.
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    Respondent.
    Proceedings held on Wednesday, August
    22nd, 2007, at the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board Hearing Room, 1021 North Grand Avenue East,
    North Entrance, Springfield, Illinois, before
    Carol Webb, Chief Hearing Officer.
    Reported by: Beverly S. Hopkins, CSR, RPR
    CSR License No.: 084-004316
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    11 North 44th Street
    Belleville, IL 62226

    A P P E A R A N C E S
    ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    BY: Ms. Carol Webb
    1021 North Grand Avenue East
    Springfield, Illinois 62794
    Phone: (217) 524-8509
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
    BY: Ms. Melanie A. Jarvis
    Assistant Counsel
    Division of Legal Counsel
    1021 North Grand Avenue East
    Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
    Phone: (217) 782-9807
    On behalf of the Illinois EPA
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
    BY: Ms. Carol Hawbaker
    Environmental Protection Specialist
    Bureau of Land
    1021 North Grand Avenue East
    Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
    Phone: (217) 782-5713
    On behalf of the Illinois EPA
    BARNES & THORNBURG, LLP
    By: Carolyn S. Hesse
    Jonathan P. Froemel
    Suite 4400
    One North Wacker Drive
    Chicago, Illinois 60606
    Phone: (312) 357-1313
    On behalf of L. Keller Oil Company
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    2

    EXHIBITS
    Exhibit 1
    7
    Exhibit 2
    8
    Exhibit 3
    14
    Exhibit 4
    15
    Exhibit 5
    53
    Exhibit 6
    81
    Exhibit 7
    86
    Exhibit 8
    100
    Exhibit 9
    102
    Exhibit 10
    127
    Exhibit 11
    128
    Exhibit 12
    147
    Exhibit 13
    173
    INTERROGATION INDEX
    MS. HESSE............... 11, 76, 85, 125, 169
    MR. FROEMEL............. 111, 123, 173
    MS. JARVIS.............. 61, 105, 115, 150, 182
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    3

    1
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Good morning.
    2
    My name is Carol Webb. I'm a hearing officer
    3
    with the Pollution Control Board. This is PCB
    4
    07-147 L. Keller Oil/Farina v. Illinois
    5
    Environmental Protection Agency. It is August
    6
    22nd, 2007. We are beginning at 10 a.m..
    7
    I'll note for the record that there
    8
    are no members of the public present. Members of
    9
    the public are allowed to provide public comment
    10
    if they so chose.
    11
    At issue in this case is the Agency's
    12
    rejection of petitioner's plan and budget for an
    13
    underground storage tank site at 1003 West
    14
    Washington in Farina, Fayette County. The
    15
    decision deadline is November 15th, 2007.
    16
    You should know it is the Pollution
    17
    Control Board and not me that will make the final
    18
    decision in this case. My purpose is to conduct
    19
    the hearing in a neutral and orderly manner so we
    20
    have a clear record of the proceedings. I will
    21
    also assess the credibility of any witnesses on
    22
    the record at the end of the hearing.
    23
    This hearing was noticed pursuant to
    24
    the Act and the Board's rules and will be
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    4

    1
    conducted pursuant to Sections 101.600 through
    2
    101.632 of the Board's procedural rules.
    3
    At this time I will ask the parties to
    4
    make their appearances on the record.
    5
    MS. HESSE: Carolyn Hesse. I
    6
    represent Keller Oil at the Farina site. I'm
    7
    with the law firm of Barnes & Thornburg.
    8
    MR. FROEMEL: John D. Froemel. I also
    9
    represent Keller Oil at the Farina site and I'm
    10
    with Barnes & Thornburg.
    11
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Thank you.
    12
    MS. JARVIS: I'm Melanie Jarvis. I'm
    13
    a Special Assistant Attorney General and I
    14
    represent the Illinois Environmental Protection
    15
    Agency.
    16
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Thank you. Are
    17
    there any preliminary matters to discuss on the
    18
    record?
    19
    MS. HESSE: Yes, there is. Before
    20
    beginning this morning, Ms. Jarvis and I
    21
    discussed having a joint motion to supplement the
    22
    record that was filed with the Pollution Control
    23
    Board, and we brought copies of the documents.
    24
    The documents that we want to
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    5

    1
    supplement the record with are the 45-day report
    2
    for LUST Incident No. 05-1539. The 45-day report
    3
    -- oh, there's a number of documents here. I'm
    4
    sorry.
    5
    MS. JARVIS: We can just stipulate to
    6
    all the documents. We don't need to go through
    7
    them. Since they're all within the Agency's main
    8
    record, we -- they've either submitted or we've
    9
    sent the documents out.
    10
    MR. FROEMEL: Do we want to have them
    11
    marked by the court reporter as Exhibit 1 or 2?
    12
    MS. HESSE: Group Exhibit 1, whatever
    13
    the Board's preference is.
    14
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: We can go ahead
    15
    and mark it as Exhibit 1, unless anybody else has
    16
    an Exhibit 1. Do you have petitioner's anything
    17
    labeled?
    18
    MS. HESSE: Nothing labeled yet.
    19
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Okay. We'll
    20
    just go ahead and mark it as Exhibit 1 then.
    21
    MS. HESSE: Okay.
    22
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: And it will be
    23
    admitted into the record.
    24
    MS. HESSE: And we brought multiple
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    6

    1
    copies.
    2
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Okay.
    3
    (The reporter marked Exhibit No. 1
    4
    for purposes of identification.)
    5
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Are there any
    6
    other preliminary matters to discuss on the
    7
    record?
    8
    MS. HESSE: Yes. Yes, there are.
    9
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Okay.
    10
    MS. HESSE: One of the issues that was
    11
    raised in the Agency's denial letter, from which
    12
    this appeal is being taken, in respect to a
    13
    certification signed by the owner/operator or
    14
    licensed professional engineer. Since finding
    15
    that out, we've had a discussion with the Agency
    16
    and gotten an indication from the Agency that we
    17
    could file that at any time with them up to this
    18
    point and they would accept it so that -- that by
    19
    providing a copy of the certification at this
    20
    point that issue would now become moot and would
    21
    be resolved with the Board.
    22
    MS. JARVIS: That's right.
    23
    MS. HESSE: So we have copies of the
    24
    certifications here and we can mark that as
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    7

    1
    Exhibit 2.
    2
    MS. JARVIS: That would be fine.
    3
    MS. HESSE: And we've provided the
    4
    original to the Agency.
    5
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Okay.
    6
    (The reporter marked Exhibit No. 2
    7
    for purposes of identification.)
    8
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Exhibit 2 is
    9
    admitted into the record. Are there anymore
    10
    preliminary matters to discuss on the record?
    11
    MS. HESSE: Yes, there's one more
    12
    preliminary matter. And that is upon further
    13
    review of the samples that were collected and
    14
    analyzed, we're stipulating that analysis of the
    15
    soil samples collected from Monitoring Well 5 was
    16
    not necessary. So that is no longer an issue
    17
    before the Board.
    18
    MS. JARVIS: That is correct.
    19
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Okay. Thank
    20
    you very much. And there were no further issues,
    21
    preliminary matters?
    22
    MS. HESSE: No further issues.
    23
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Ms. Hesse,
    24
    would you to make an opening statement?
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    8

    1
    MS. HESSE: Just a very brief opening
    2
    statement. Keller Oil at the Farina 711 retained
    3
    the consulting firm of CWM to investigate whether
    4
    there was contamination related to some
    5
    underground storage tanks that were pulled at the
    6
    site. Some contamination was found.
    7
    They did further investigation. They
    8
    collected samples during early action and there
    9
    will be testimony on that, how the samples were
    10
    collected during early action and where they were
    11
    collected from.
    12
    The samples collected during early
    13
    action indicated that not all of the TACO Tier 1
    14
    remediation objectives had been met at the site.
    15
    Accordingly, a Stage 1 Site Investigation was
    16
    conducted. During the Stage 1 Site
    17
    Investigation, a number of monitoring wells were
    18
    installed, a number of soil borings were
    19
    installed, those samples were collected and
    20
    analyzed, monitoring well water samples were
    21
    collected and analyzed.
    22
    The report was submitted to the
    23
    Illinois EPA of the Stage 1 Investigation as well
    24
    as a proposed plan to do a Stage 2 Investigation
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    9

    1
    to build on the information that had been
    2
    developed. That information was submitted to the
    3
    Environmental Protection Agency. The Illinois
    4
    EPA issued a letter in October basically denying
    5
    the information that was -- rejecting the
    6
    information that was submitted and denying the
    7
    proposed work plan. Supplemental information was
    8
    provided to the Agency and the Illinois EPA in
    9
    the letter of May of this year rejected that
    10
    information, denied the proposed plan, and that
    11
    is the basis for this appeal.
    12
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Thank you. Ms.
    13
    Jarvis, would you like to make any opening
    14
    statements?
    15
    MS. JARVIS: Just a real very brief
    16
    one. We believe that after all the evidence is
    17
    in that the record is going to show that the
    18
    Agency's decision will be upheld.
    19
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Thank you. The
    20
    petitioner may call its first witness.
    21
    MS. HESSE: Yes, our first witness is
    22
    Ron St. John.
    23
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Mr. St. John,
    24
    if you'd like to have a seat up here by the court
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    10

    1
    reporter, the court reporter will swear you in.
    2
    (The witness was sworn in by the court reporter.)
    3
    DIRECT EXAMINATION
    4
    BY MS. HESSE:
    5
    Q. Okay. Mr. St. John, could you please
    6
    describe your educational and employment
    7
    background for us?
    8
    A. I have a Bachelor's Degree in Geology
    9
    from the Southern Illinois University. I've done
    10
    graduate work in hydrogeology at Wright State
    11
    University in Dayton.
    12
    I'm -- I'm a certified professional
    13
    hydrogeologist by the American Institute of
    14
    Hydrology which requires essentially either a
    15
    graduate degree in hydrogeology or the
    16
    equivalent, seven years of experience working
    17
    under a professional hydrogeologist, references,
    18
    the publication of significant research and
    19
    testing.
    20
    I'm also a certified professional
    21
    geologist by the American Institute of
    22
    Professional Geologists which requires five or
    23
    seven years of experience, a bachelor's degree in
    24
    geology. I am also a certified geologist in the
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    11

    1
    State of Illinois.
    2
    My employment history dates back to
    3
    1979 through 1980. I was a hydraulic engineer
    4
    for Baker Industries in Wood River, Oklahoma,
    5
    working in the oil field. After that I came to
    6
    work for Dr. Ralph Pishkin (phonetic) at the
    7
    Illinois EPA in the groundwater section where I
    8
    performed groundwater studies involving closed
    9
    and covered landfills and uncontrolled hazardous
    10
    waste sources in the State of Illinois.
    11
    I worked for Dr. Pishkin for two
    12
    years, 1980 and '81. During that time I -- we
    13
    did studies on the Pembroke/Cross Brothers Site,
    14
    Dead Creek, Champaign Landfill, Mt. Vernon
    15
    Landfill, Yeoman Creek Landfill. Four of those
    16
    were -- became Superfund sites.
    17
    From there I went to work for Ecology
    18
    & Environment Incorporated in Chicago where I was
    19
    a hydrogeologist, and ultimately before I left
    20
    there in 1985, was the Geotechnical manager.
    21
    From 1985 to 1995 I was a
    22
    hydrogeologist and midwest regional manager for
    23
    Mittelhauser Incorporation. Mittelhauser
    24
    Incorporation was then bought by Clayton Group
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    12

    1
    Services where I was still a hydrogeologist
    2
    managing projects and worked as the midwest
    3
    regional manager. In approximately 2001 my
    4
    responsibilities as the regional manager for
    5
    Clayton Group Services changed. I became the
    6
    national director of remediation services for the
    7
    company.
    8
    And then in 2005 a French company by
    9
    the name of Bureau Veritas bought Clayton Group
    10
    Services where I worked as -- I still -- I worked
    11
    as the director of remediation services
    12
    nationally for Bureau Veritas and left Bureau
    13
    Veritas in March of this year to start my own
    14
    firm.
    15
    Q. Mr. St. John, I'm going to show you a
    16
    document and ask you if this is your resume.
    17
    A. It looks like the resume I provided
    18
    you the other day, yes.
    19
    MS. HESSE: Okay. Could we enter this
    20
    as Exhibit 3?
    21
    MS. JARVIS: I have no objection.
    22
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Mr. St. John's
    23
    resume will be entered into the record as Exhibit
    24
    3.
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    13

    1
    (The reporter marked Exhibit No. 3
    2
    for purposes of identification.)
    3
    MS. HESSE: Thank you. Okay.
    4
    Q. (By Ms. Hesse) Mr. St. John, in your
    5
    experience have you installed monitoring wells or
    6
    overseen the installation of monitoring wells?
    7
    A. Yes.
    8
    Q. Can you estimate how many?
    9
    A. I estimate from approximately March of
    10
    1980 to present that I have been either directly
    11
    in person, or have directed in the field staff
    12
    taking direction from me, probably greater than
    13
    10,000 -- the installation of greater than 10,000
    14
    monitoring wells.
    15
    Q. So it's adequate to say you've had
    16
    some experience with installing monitoring wells?
    17
    A. Yes.
    18
    Q. Since we're going to be discussing a
    19
    number of hydrology terms, Mr. St. John, I
    20
    thought it might be useful if we started out with
    21
    you helping us to understand what some of those
    22
    terms mean. And I'm going to hand you another
    23
    document and ask you if you can identify that?
    24
    A. Yes, this is -- these are copies of
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    14

    1
    various definitions within the Glossary of
    2
    Hydrology that's published by the American
    3
    Geological Institute.
    4
    MS. HESSE: Okay. And we'd like to
    5
    admit this as an exhibit. It's a recognized --
    6
    MS. JARVIS: I would have to object.
    7
    I haven't even seen it.
    8
    MS. HESSE: We will give you a copy.
    9
    MS. JARVIS: I really kind of need to
    10
    see it before I can --
    11
    MS. HESSE: I understand. I'll
    12
    provide you a copy.
    13
    MS. JARVIS: That's okay. Since it
    14
    looks like a dictionary, I would have no
    15
    objection.
    16
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Okay. I will
    17
    admit Exhibit 4 into the record, the Glossary of
    18
    Hydrology. If I could have a copy to look at
    19
    while we go through this, that would be helpful.
    20
    (The reporter marked Exhibit No. 4
    21
    for purposes of identification.)
    22
    MS. HESSE: Yes.
    23
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Thank you.
    24
    Q. (By Ms. Hesse) Mr. St. John, could
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    15

    1
    you help us then with the understanding, and you
    2
    may refer to the Glossary as well since it's an
    3
    exhibit, definitions of some of the geological
    4
    and hydrogeological terms that we are likely to
    5
    encounter as we discuss the work that was done at
    6
    the site. The first term, if you could help us,
    7
    is the term aquifer.
    8
    A. I think a good simple explanation of
    9
    the term aquifer is that it's a geologic
    10
    formation or unit that will yield useful
    11
    quantities of water as a resource.
    12
    The Illinois EPA has definitions on
    13
    classes of aquifers, you know, one of the
    14
    definitions of a Class 1 aquifer is that it will
    15
    yield at least -- there's three definitions of
    16
    which they have to -- you have to be able to --
    17
    any one of which qualifies it as a Class 1
    18
    aquifer. They are the yield of 150 gallons in
    19
    any one day, permeability of one times 10 to the
    20
    minus four centimeters per second or greater; and
    21
    the third one I can't remember right now.
    22
    But it's -- essentially it's a
    23
    geologic unit that will yield useful quantities
    24
    of water as a resource.
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    16

    1
    Q. Okay. What does the term aquitard
    2
    mean?
    3
    A. The term aquitard, if you look at the
    4
    second page, which would be page 10 of this -- of
    5
    the Glossary, just says see aquiclude. And
    6
    aquiclude is back on page 9.
    7
    Aquitard essentially is a geologic
    8
    unit that's reduced in its capability of
    9
    transmitting water and is typically a barrier for
    10
    the direct hydraulic connection for groundwater
    11
    above or below an aquifer to getting into the
    12
    aquifer.
    13
    Q. Are aquifer and acquiclude basically
    14
    synonymous terms?
    15
    A. Approximately, yes.
    16
    Q. What does the term hydrostatic
    17
    pressure refer to?
    18
    A. Hydrostatic pressure is on page 105.
    19
    It's essentially the pressure that a column of
    20
    water exhibits. So if you had a column of water
    21
    that -- it can be calculated in terms of PSI by
    22
    the weight of water, which is 8.34 pounds per
    23
    gallon times the column in feet times a
    24
    conversion factor of .052, to convert the amount
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    17

    1
    of pressure at the bottom of that water column.
    2
    Each -- each linear vertical foot of water has a
    3
    pressure at the bottom that's additive of .43
    4
    PSI.
    5
    Q. Okay. By PSI, does that mean pounds
    6
    per square inch?
    7
    A. Yes.
    8
    Q. How does the term hydraulic head fit
    9
    in with the concept of hydraulic pressure?
    10
    A. Well, hydraulic head is composed of
    11
    both elevation head and hydrostatic -- the
    12
    hydrostatic head. So at any one point in an
    13
    aquifer, the water at that level has its
    14
    elevation head plus the --
    15
    Q. Would it help to draw a diagram of
    16
    this?
    17
    A. Sure. Okay. How about if I draw it
    18
    on here and then show everybody?
    19
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: That's a good
    20
    idea.
    21
    A. So -- so essentially in a water table
    22
    aquifer where this would be the water table
    23
    indicated by the little upside down triangle, any
    24
    point within -- below the water table, the
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    18

    1
    hydrostatic head at that point is composed both
    2
    of the elevation of that point in space as well
    3
    as the weight of the water column or the
    4
    hydrostatic head to ultimately make the -- the
    5
    combined total to -- equal to the hydrostatic
    6
    head -- or the hydraulic head, excuse me.
    7
    Q. (By Ms. Hesse) Okay. You use the
    8
    term water table, what does the term water table
    9
    mean?
    10
    A. The term water table is -- is a term
    11
    used to describe the point at where saturated
    12
    groundwater is at equilibrium with the
    13
    atmospheric pressure.
    14
    Q. Explain to us the concepts of
    15
    confining layer and a confined aquifer and can
    16
    those somehow be equated to or somehow distinct
    17
    from a water table aquifer?
    18
    A. Yes. So a good example of a water
    19
    table aquifer would be in an instance where if we
    20
    were just to look at this page that I just drew
    21
    to demonstrate the concept of a hydraulic head,
    22
    if the entirety of this page were -- if it
    23
    consisted of sand and gravel, course grain
    24
    lithologies that have freely moving groundwater
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    19

    1
    between the -- within the porosity of that
    2
    formation. So that actually when you drill down
    3
    into the sand, you actually get to a point where
    4
    you identify that the -- the particles within the
    5
    aquifer are saturated. Interstitial space, the
    6
    porosity is saturated, and the water just simply
    7
    resides at a consistent level within that
    8
    formation. Alternatively --
    9
    Q. Just to clarify a point there, in the
    10
    example you just gave above the water table would
    11
    also be a sand-and-gravel-type lithology?
    12
    A. Yes. Alternatively, and as the case
    13
    at Farina, you have the surface grade down to
    14
    about approximately 12 feet in depth.
    15
    Q. And you indicated surface grade with
    16
    the letters SG?
    17
    A. Yes. That's this -- so from surface
    18
    grade to approximately 12 feet in depth, the
    19
    materials are generally cohesive, meaning they're
    20
    -- they stick together. They don't fall apart
    21
    when you sample them. And that cohesiveness is a
    22
    good indication that there's permeability in the
    23
    sediments there.
    24
    And essentially that that silty clay,
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    20

    1
    which is predominantly what the zones were from
    2
    surface grade to 12 feet, is really incapable of
    3
    yielding water to any degree freely to a bore
    4
    hole or a well.
    5
    Alternatively, when they got to 12 to
    6
    about 13 and-a-half feet, they -- CWM encountered
    7
    a sand unit, an unconsolidated loose sand that
    8
    was saturated, wet. You could visually observe
    9
    saturation in the porosity of the grains in the
    10
    sampling, and in that particular instance when --
    11
    in these particular instances in general when you
    12
    install a well into a confined -- a course grain
    13
    lithology that's saturated and it's under -- it
    14
    has a certain hydraulic head on the sand, the
    15
    water level in the well will actually rise up to
    16
    a level above the top of the course grain
    17
    lithology. So this is the confining layer, and
    18
    this is the lower confining layer. It actually
    19
    encountered another silty clay below the sand
    20
    unit.
    21
    So that the only unit that would have
    22
    likely been -- could be determined an aquifer
    23
    would have been this sand, and this would have
    24
    been the confining layer -- the upper confining
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    21

    1
    layer and the silty clay below the aquifer would
    2
    have been the lower confining layer.
    3
    Q. Okay. I'm going to show you a couple
    4
    pages from the record since you mentioned the
    5
    Farina site. And if you could identify what
    6
    pages those are in the record as well as describe
    7
    what these pages are and --
    8
    A. All right. This is a copy of the
    9
    boring log, CWM's boring log, from Appendix E of
    10
    the Stage 2 Site Investigation Plan, page 90 of
    11
    the record, Monitoring Well 1. And it indicates
    12
    that the lithologies from surface grade to 12
    13
    feet, pretty much as I described here as either
    14
    being silts, silty clays or clay silts, glacial
    15
    till down to a depth of 12 feet and at 12 feet a
    16
    gray very, fine wet sand was identified from 12
    17
    to 13 and-a-half feet. That's Monitoring Well 1.
    18
    Very similar lithologies and
    19
    occurrence in Monitoring Well 2 on page 91 of the
    20
    record. Very similar lithologies and occurrence
    21
    in Monitoring Well 3, page 92 of the record.
    22
    Very similar lithologies and occurrence in
    23
    Monitoring Well 4, page 93 of the record. Very
    24
    similar occurrence and lithologies in Monitoring
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    22

    1
    Well 5, page 94 of the record. And then
    2
    Monitoring Well 6 was apparently installed in the
    3
    backfill, I believe, it was of the diesel
    4
    excavation. So it's dissimilar because it shows
    5
    that -- like you would expect in backfill of a
    6
    tank. It has sand.
    7
    Q. Okay.
    8
    A. That was page 95 of the record.
    9
    Q. On the boring logs at the bottom it
    10
    indicates that moisture was encountered at a
    11
    depth around somewhere around 10, 11 feet below
    12
    grade. Is there an explanation for that? Could
    13
    that have something to do with capillary fringe?
    14
    A. Yes. It's my review of the logs it
    15
    would be typical that the clay silt that was
    16
    identified in Monitoring Wells 1, 2, 3, and 4
    17
    starting at 10 and-a-half feet and going from 12
    18
    feet that was identified as essentially clay silt
    19
    moist, a couple of the -- or actually all of the
    20
    log -- all four -- or actually all five of the
    21
    logs that some fine grade sand was also
    22
    identified.
    23
    But that that zone from 10 and-a-half
    24
    to 12 feet that exhibited this moisture is likely
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    23

    1
    to be the capillary fringe on top of this
    2
    confined sand.
    3
    Q. What -- what is a capillary fringe?
    4
    And we may need to take you back to your drawing
    5
    again so you can illustrate it for us.
    6
    A. Capillary fringe is a really fairly
    7
    simple concept. It's essentially present both in
    8
    unconfined and confined aquifers.
    9
    Q. Would you mind labeling the first one
    10
    as an unconfined aquifer.
    11
    A. So the capillary fringe since the
    12
    water table -- the definition of the water table
    13
    is the point in which saturated water is actually
    14
    in equilibrium with the atmosphere, the capillary
    15
    fringe is actually water that is actually by --
    16
    by tension, by surface tension with the particles
    17
    above -- above the water table, it actually wicks
    18
    up the water above the capillary action above the
    19
    zone of saturation or the water table to actually
    20
    cause moisture to occur within the sediments
    21
    immediately above the water table. That -- And
    22
    in that area there's actually less pressure than
    23
    the atmospheric pressure in those pore spaces.
    24
    Portions of the capillary fringe will exhibit
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    24

    1
    complete saturation, depending on the nature of
    2
    the lithologies.
    3
    The best example would be the extremes
    4
    so you can think of the capillary fringe -- a
    5
    very -- a very large capillary fringe would occur
    6
    in a silt, sort of lithology where you might have
    7
    5 or 7 feet of capillary fringe. But then on the
    8
    other hand, if you had actual -- say a cobble
    9
    aquifer where you actually have clast the size of
    10
    your first, very high permeability, the capillary
    11
    fringe would almost be zero. The water table
    12
    would just occur within the ground wall itself.
    13
    Q. And on this drawing are you indicating
    14
    the capillary fringe by a little squiggle?
    15
    A. Yes.
    16
    Q. Above the water table?
    17
    A. The little squiggle above the water
    18
    table.
    19
    Q. And to also make that drawing clear
    20
    for anyone who needs to look at it later, where
    21
    you've indicated to us verbally the water table,
    22
    would you write that on the document as well?
    23
    Okay. Could we refer to your next drawing again
    24
    please --
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    25

    1
    A. Okay.
    2
    Q. -- the confined aquifer drawing?
    3
    MS. JARVIS: At this point are we
    4
    talking still about Farina?
    5
    MS. HESSE: Yes, we are.
    6
    MS. JARVIS: I'm going to object to
    7
    his testimony because I didn't hear a foundation
    8
    or a basis for his discussion of Farina. I
    9
    didn't hear that he reviewed any documents or
    10
    that he worked on the site or anything like that
    11
    and I'd like to hear a foundation for his
    12
    testimony.
    13
    MS. HESSE: Okay. I can give a
    14
    foundation.
    15
    Q. (By Ms. Hesse) Mr. St. John, have you
    16
    reviewed -- I know we've been talking about
    17
    general things and help us to all understand
    18
    hydrogeology better. Have you reviewed any
    19
    documents related to the Farina site?
    20
    A. Yes.
    21
    Q. Could you describe to us what the
    22
    documents were that you reviewed?
    23
    A. Well, I reviewed the 20-day report,
    24
    the early action work. This Stage 2 Site
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    26

    1
    Investigation Plan. I think there were several
    2
    -- there was an addendum, I think, to it.
    3
    Q. Did you review the results of the
    4
    Stage 1 Site Investigation?
    5
    A. Yes. I reviewed the correspondence
    6
    from the IEPA. I reviewed the IEPA's reviewer
    7
    notes.
    8
    Q. Did you review IEPA's letters dated
    9
    October 5, 2006, that was the letter from
    10
    Illinois EPA that rejected the plan and the
    11
    associated budget that was received by IEPA on
    12
    August 7, 2006?
    13
    A. Yes, I did.
    14
    Q. Did you also review a copy of the
    15
    letter dated May 17, 2007, that was a letter that
    16
    rejected the plan and budget after supplemental
    17
    information had been provided?
    18
    A. Yes, I did.
    19
    Q. Do you recall reviewing anything else?
    20
    A. I probably did, but I just don't
    21
    remember the specific names.
    22
    Q. So based on that review, were you able
    23
    to evaluate the work that was done at the site by
    24
    CWM?
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    27

    1
    A. Yes.
    2
    Q. And based on that information do you
    3
    feel that you have an understanding of the
    4
    hydrogeology that was going on at the site?
    5
    A. Yes.
    6
    Q. Based on your review of the
    7
    information, is it your belief that CWM did the
    8
    work properly at the site?
    9
    A. By properly I'm assuming you mean that
    10
    they installed the monitoring wells properly?
    11
    Q. Yes.
    12
    A. Based on my experience with reviewing
    13
    work and the guidelines put forth by the IEPA
    14
    underground storage tank section and the
    15
    requirements, I believe that CWM installed the
    16
    wells properly at the Farina site, yes.
    17
    Q. Okay. Let's continue with your
    18
    description and the basis for your determination
    19
    that the work was done properly. Could we go
    20
    back to your second drawing again?
    21
    A. Sure.
    22
    Q. The one that -- I'm --
    23
    A. I'm going to use the chair as an
    24
    easel.
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    28

    1
    Q. Okay. Is this drawing in your mind
    2
    similar to the conditions that were found at the
    3
    Farina site?
    4
    A. Yes. With the exception that I've
    5
    generalized the lithologies above the sand. It's
    6
    -- it's generally accurate to the Farina site.
    7
    Q. Okay. Where you've indicated on the
    8
    drawing where the sand is, is that where
    9
    groundwater would be encountered --
    10
    A. Yes.
    11
    Q. -- or was encountered at the site?
    12
    A. Yes. Groundwater saturates the sand
    13
    from 12 -- excuse me, from 12 to 13 and-a-half
    14
    feet in depth and there's an apparent confining
    15
    pressure.
    16
    Q. How do you conclude that, that there's
    17
    a confining pressure?
    18
    A. Well, later on it was determined that
    19
    once they screened their wells in -- across the
    20
    sand unit, that the static water level in the
    21
    well came up to 2 or 3 feet below the ground
    22
    surface.
    23
    Q. Okay. What does the term static water
    24
    level mean?
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    29

    1
    A. It's simply the water level in a well
    2
    that is -- exhibits the hydrostatic pressure of a
    3
    geologic formation without influence of any
    4
    withdrawal or other pumping on that formation.
    5
    Q. Can the static water level in a
    6
    confined aquifer be used to determine where the
    7
    water is actually found in groundwater, where the
    8
    aquifer actually is?
    9
    A. The static water level for a confined
    10
    aquifer will, by definition, be above the top of
    11
    the aquifer itself, otherwise it wouldn't be a
    12
    confined aquifer. That's -- By definition a
    13
    confined aquifer is an aquifer that exhibits a
    14
    static water level above the upper surface of the
    15
    aquifer.
    16
    Q. Is the saturated zone or the saturated
    17
    area the same thing where the aquifer is located?
    18
    You had used the term saturated before.
    19
    A. Yes, this -- this lithology, this
    20
    course grain unconsolidated lithology, this sand,
    21
    fine grain sand that was identified, was the
    22
    saturated zone.
    23
    Q. Okay. Could you label that in your
    24
    drawing as well too?
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    30

    1
    A. Yes.
    2
    Q. Okay. What is potentiometric-surface?
    3
    A. The potentiometric-surface is the
    4
    total hydraulic head exhibited by an -- an
    5
    aquifer in equilibrium with the atmosphere.
    6
    Q. In -- Is one way of measuring the
    7
    potentiometric-surface to determine what the
    8
    static water level is in the well?
    9
    A. Yes.
    10
    Q. What is importance of determining
    11
    that?
    12
    A. Well, the importance of determining
    13
    that is to determine which way groundwater flows,
    14
    for the most part. There are many other
    15
    important factors really to it, but for the most
    16
    part I think probably related to this site it's
    17
    to determine which way the groundwater flows.
    18
    Q. Okay. And then the drawing that
    19
    you've made that's sort of a generalized drawing
    20
    of the conditions at the Farina site; is that
    21
    correct?
    22
    A. Yes. It could be more detailed if
    23
    you'd like it. I mean, the lithologies are
    24
    fairly similar for Monitoring Wells 1 through 5.
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    31

    1
    The lithologies are very similar from well to
    2
    well.
    3
    Q. When you're doing boring in the field,
    4
    based on your experience in constructing and
    5
    monitoring wells, is it always possible,
    6
    especially in a silty clay like this, to
    7
    determine when the water table has been reached
    8
    or if you might be in a confined aquifer?
    9
    A. No, there's really no way to
    10
    determine, particularly in glacial till
    11
    environments, there's no way to really know what
    12
    the ultimate level -- hydrostatic level will be
    13
    for a well completed in a saturated zone or
    14
    aquifer.
    15
    Q. And when you refer to the term
    16
    hydraulic level, you were referring to the length
    17
    in the well pipe where the water would rise
    18
    above? Perhaps you could draw that for us. And
    19
    then the hydraulic level is what now?
    20
    A. There's no way to determine a -- what
    21
    the hydraulic head is on the saturated zone or
    22
    aquifer you're drilling in at the time of
    23
    drilling. You simply have to wait until the well
    24
    is completed and determine later on after the
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    32

    1
    static water level has reached equilibrium with
    2
    the atmosphere.
    3
    In certain instances where you might
    4
    have -- and again, I'll go to the extremes. If
    5
    you had a cobble zone that exhibited very high
    6
    permeabilities, that water level might go into
    7
    equilibrium while you're out in the field
    8
    drilling. But in other instance where the
    9
    permeabilities aren't as great, it takes a period
    10
    of time, often days.
    11
    Q. When installing a monitoring well,
    12
    when is the screen placed in the well? Is that
    13
    on the same day the well is drilled?
    14
    A. Yes.
    15
    Q. So when a screen is placed in a
    16
    monitoring well, you can't always tell what the
    17
    static water level is going to be; is that
    18
    correct?
    19
    A. That's correct.
    20
    Q. When you reviewed the documents that
    21
    are in the record and were given to you to
    22
    review, did you identify where the wells were
    23
    screened when the well -- monitoring wells were
    24
    installed?
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    33

    1
    A. I'm unsure -- did I understand --
    2
    Q. Did you review -- And you have a copy
    3
    up there. In the record it's pages 102 through
    4
    107.
    5
    A. I did review the Well Completion Logs,
    6
    yes.
    7
    Q. Yes. I apologize. I used the wrong
    8
    terminology. And based on your Well Completion
    9
    Logs, were the wells screened in accordance with
    10
    Illinois EPA regulations and policies?
    11
    A. I believe they were. It's been my
    12
    experience that IEPA typically wants to see a tin
    13
    football screen. And in this particular case,
    14
    the folks from CWM installed the base on the
    15
    monitoring well approximately 6 inches to 1 foot
    16
    below the bottom of the saturated zone and
    17
    screened the remainder of the -- the remainder of
    18
    the screen rose up above the saturated zone.
    19
    Q. So where the well was screened, the
    20
    well was screened so that the screen intersected
    21
    the saturated zone so that the saturated zone was
    22
    covered by the well screens; is that correct?
    23
    A. Absolutely.
    24
    Q. And water would enter the monitoring
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    34

    1
    well through the saturated zone; is that correct?
    2
    A. Yes. The saturated zone between 12
    3
    and 13 and-a-half feet in depth.
    4
    Q. Okay. After a monitoring well is
    5
    installed, are monitoring wells typically
    6
    developed?
    7
    A. Yes.
    8
    Q. And what's the general procedure for
    9
    developing a monitoring well?
    10
    A. Well, there's various procedures.
    11
    Some use -- some folks or drillers use air
    12
    surging, some people use what's known as a surge
    13
    block which essentially is a big plunger.
    14
    The general requirement is that you
    15
    get physical surging action in the well screen --
    16
    in the area of the well screen to loosen, if you
    17
    will, the fine grain particles that have been
    18
    kind of smeared around the aquifer materials
    19
    while drilling.
    20
    The process of turning a hollow stem
    21
    auger through silty clay cohesive materials, like
    22
    you see in the upper 12 feet in these boring logs
    23
    and on this diagram that I've drawn, you bring
    24
    that down along with you as you drill through the
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    35

    1
    unconsolidated course grain lithologies and then
    2
    some of that gets smeared on there.
    3
    So you want -- the premise of the well
    4
    development is to make a good hydraulic
    5
    connection between the well screen and the
    6
    annular filter pack and the aquifer formation.
    7
    Q. I believe you mentioned that you
    8
    reviewed the Illinois EPA reviewer notes at this
    9
    site?
    10
    A. Yes.
    11
    Q. Do you recall a comment in the
    12
    reviewer notes, and the other documents you've
    13
    read from Illinois EPA, to the extent that
    14
    drilling for the monitoring wells should have
    15
    stopped when groundwater was encountered and
    16
    drilling beyond that point was in excess of the
    17
    standards? Do you recall that comment?
    18
    A. I recall a comment similar to that,
    19
    yes.
    20
    Q. What would happen if you stopped
    21
    drilling your monitoring well when you first
    22
    encountered groundwater?
    23
    A. Well, you wouldn't have a good
    24
    hydraulic connection to the well, and you
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    36

    1
    wouldn't have good water entry into the well --
    2
    Q. So --
    3
    A. -- groundwater entry into the well.
    4
    Q. So would you be able to collect a
    5
    representative sample of the groundwater?
    6
    A. In many instances you wouldn't.
    7
    Because in many instances you wouldn't even have
    8
    any groundwater to collect because you -- if you
    9
    stopped when you -- at precisely the level which
    10
    you encountered the groundwater and the geologic
    11
    formation, the aquifer wasn't confined, the water
    12
    level wouldn't rise up and you wouldn't have any
    13
    water in the well.
    14
    Q. Do you recall reviewing any comments
    15
    from the Agency to the effect that the well
    16
    should have been screened up where the static
    17
    water level was in the well?
    18
    A. Yes.
    19
    Q. And what is your impression of those
    20
    comments?
    21
    A. Well, my recollection is that the
    22
    static water level is something like 2 to 3 feet
    23
    in depth. And that would be suggestive that the
    24
    screen should have been -- the top of the screen
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    37

    1
    should have been at least that shallow in depth,
    2
    and which would also suggest that the bottom of
    3
    the screen would have been 12 to 13 feet in
    4
    depth. And that would have -- well, that would
    5
    have caused a -- probably the biggest problem due
    6
    to the shallow nature of the upper surface of the
    7
    screen and its ability to have surface
    8
    contaminants enter into the upper portion of the
    9
    screen.
    10
    Q. Are monitoring wells supposed to be
    11
    grouted below the frost line?
    12
    A. Yes.
    13
    Q. At the -- this site, which is largely
    14
    basically in central Illinois, if a monitoring
    15
    well screen went up to as shallow as where the
    16
    hydrostatic water -- or the static water level
    17
    was in the well, would you expect the well to be
    18
    able to be grouted below the frost line?
    19
    A. Well, no. So the problem there is
    20
    that generally frost heave, freezing soils, are
    21
    going to cause anything that's not grouted or a
    22
    concrete surface seal installed, to at least that
    23
    frost heave depth, it's going cause that to heave
    24
    during freezing conditions.
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    38

    1
    And I'm not sure exactly what the code
    2
    is in Farina but knowing the code in northern
    3
    Illinois and in areas in central Indiana --
    4
    MS. JARVIS: I would object to
    5
    relevance. If he doesn't known the code in
    6
    Farina, we're not going to have testimony as to
    7
    the codes in other area of Illinois.
    8
    Q. (By Ms. Hesse) Mr. St. John, are you
    9
    familiar with codes in similar latitudes in
    10
    Indiana?
    11
    A. Yes.
    12
    Q. And what is the code at those
    13
    locations?
    14
    A. In Indianapolis, for instance, it's 40
    15
    inches.
    16
    Q. And that's where the frost line is
    17
    typically expected, when doing construction?
    18
    A. Right. To prevent heaving. And 40 --
    19
    you know, 40 inches is 3'4", so you typically
    20
    want to install your concrete surface seal and/or
    21
    cement grout monolith from grouting the annular
    22
    space at least to that depth --
    23
    Q. Okay.
    24
    A. -- to prevent -- to prevent frost
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    39

    1
    heaving.
    2
    Q. You use the term annular space and
    3
    we've been talking about grouting a monitoring
    4
    well. Are there reasons other than frost heaving
    5
    where you would grout annular space? And if you
    6
    could also explain to us what annular space is.
    7
    A. An annular space is the space between
    8
    the bore hole that the drilling equipment makes,
    9
    in this case a hollow stem auger. Typically
    10
    hollow stem augers will make anywhere between 9
    11
    and a quarter and 12 and-a-half inch bore holes,
    12
    depending on the size diameter auger flights
    13
    you're using. And inside of that you're
    14
    installing typically an outside diameter well of
    15
    two and three eighths inches maybe in a PVC well.
    16
    So you have an annular space around that two and
    17
    three eighths inch outside diameter PVC well, and
    18
    in the bore hole that's -- that space is referred
    19
    to as the annular space. And it needs to be
    20
    filled around the screen with a sand filter pack
    21
    to allow groundwater to come into the well screen
    22
    and then occur within the well.
    23
    Above that it needs to have -- above
    24
    the sand pack it needs to have a bentonite seal
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    40

    1
    installed and then be grouted to the surface
    2
    grade where either most -- most typical
    3
    applications are where a concrete surface plug is
    4
    installed, surface pad.
    5
    Q. Is the reason to install the concrete
    6
    plug or the bentonite above the well screen to
    7
    prevent surface contamination from flowing into
    8
    the monitoring well?
    9
    A. Yes.
    10
    Q. And in a gasoline service station
    11
    situation like this, is there typically a
    12
    blacktop or concrete surface?
    13
    A. Yes. Most service stations, as most
    14
    people know, have asphalt surfaces.
    15
    Q. Is there typically a sand or gravel
    16
    underlayment to the asphalt or concrete?
    17
    A. And --
    18
    MS. JARVIS: I'm going to object again
    19
    because we're now talking typical, if we're
    20
    talking about the Farina site, or are we talking
    21
    in generalities?
    22
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Are we moving
    23
    on to the Farina site?
    24
    MS. HESSE: We're moving on to the
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    41

    1
    Farina site.
    2
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Okay. Go
    3
    ahead. I'll allow it.
    4
    A. Like you would expect to see in any
    5
    proper -- properly engineered asphalt situation
    6
    there -- and at the -- the boring logs for the
    7
    Farina site there is at least one to, oh, I guess
    8
    the Monitoring Wells 3 and 4 indicate there's at
    9
    least 2 feet of compacted gravel and subbase
    10
    below the asphalt which is typically put down to
    11
    compact and provide a stable base for the
    12
    asphalt.
    13
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Which pages
    14
    were you just looking at?
    15
    A. This would be pages 92 of the record
    16
    -- well pages 90 through --
    17
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Appendix E
    18
    though?
    19
    A. Yes.
    20
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Okay. Thank
    21
    you.
    22
    A. 90 through 92 of the record.
    23
    Q. (By Ms. Hesse) If a spill were to
    24
    occur on the concrete -- a spill of gasoline or
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    42

    1
    petroleum were to occur on the concrete or
    2
    asphalt and there were cracks in the concrete or
    3
    asphalt coat, could the spill then get into the
    4
    gravel subbase that you just mentioned?
    5
    A. Yes.
    6
    Q. What would happen if a well were
    7
    screened so the top of the well screen was close
    8
    to the surface then?
    9
    A. Well, it's creating a vertical pathway
    10
    to cause contamination in the well from surface
    11
    spills or piping leaks in and around the
    12
    underground storage tank system.
    13
    Q. So it would be your conclusion that it
    14
    would be improper for a number of reasons to have
    15
    a well screen at the Farina site that went to
    16
    within 2 to 3 feet from the surface; is that
    17
    correct?
    18
    A. Yes.
    19
    Q. Going back now to how the wells were
    20
    installed at the Farina site, you testified
    21
    earlier that the well screen crossed the
    22
    saturated zone. Before collecting a water
    23
    sample, is there a procedure that is typically
    24
    followed in accordance with accepted professional
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    43

    1
    geological practices to collect a sample to purge
    2
    a well?
    3
    A. Purging is a routine and well-accepted
    4
    procedure for acquiring a sample -- a
    5
    representative groundwater formational sample.
    6
    Q. And what actually is purging?
    7
    A. Well, purging can be a variety of
    8
    things. It can be removing well and annular
    9
    volumes, well volumes. What it really is is
    10
    removing enough water out of the well to bring in
    11
    fresh groundwater from the actual sand, or in
    12
    this instance, formational groundwater.
    13
    Q. So in other words, before you collect
    14
    a sample from a well, you remove the water that
    15
    was already in the well?
    16
    A. The stagnant water. You're basically
    17
    removing the stagnant water.
    18
    Q. Is there a problem with analyzing
    19
    stagnant water?
    20
    A. Well, yes. It's not representative of
    21
    the formational groundwater.
    22
    Q. If you're dealing at a site where
    23
    there's volatile chemicals like benzene or
    24
    gasoline, could it also affect the accuracy of
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    44

    1
    the sample?
    2
    A. Yes.
    3
    Q. Is it more accurate to collect a
    4
    sample then by purging the well and then sampling
    5
    the water that would flow into the well after the
    6
    well is purged?
    7
    A. Rather than sample the stagnant water?
    8
    Q. Yes.
    9
    A. Yes.
    10
    Q. Okay. Mr. St. John, you mentioned
    11
    that as part of your preparation today you
    12
    reviewed two letters sent by Illinois EPA, one
    13
    dated October 5, 2006, and the other dated May
    14
    17, 2007. Do you have copies of those in front
    15
    of you? I believe they start on pages 157 and
    16
    256 representatively in the record.
    17
    A. Well, this just goes to 140 something.
    18
    Q. Oh.
    19
    MR. FROEMEL: We didn't give you those
    20
    pages.
    21
    MS. HESSE: Sorry.
    22
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: I have 157. Do
    23
    I have 256? Is that in a new pile. Is that
    24
    Exhibit 1?
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    45

    1
    MS. HESSE: You should have 256. It's
    2
    at the very end.
    3
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Oh, I got it.
    4
    MS. JARVIS: The original record goes
    5
    through 263.
    6
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: I got it.
    7
    A. Is there a question out there?
    8
    Q. (By Ms. Hesse) Well, I was giving you
    9
    a chance to review them.
    10
    A. I have reviewed these, yes.
    11
    Q. Okay. If you could refer to Item
    12
    Number 3 on page 257 of the record. And that's
    13
    the letter of May 17, 2007.
    14
    A. Okay.
    15
    Q. Does it appear to you that the initial
    16
    portion of Item 3, where there's some
    17
    subparagraphs one through seven that continues on
    18
    to the next page, are taken from the regulations?
    19
    A. Yes.
    20
    Q. And then following that is a paragraph
    21
    that appears to contain Agency comments, is that
    22
    your impression?
    23
    A. Yes.
    24
    Q. Okay. Could you read the first
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    46

    1
    comment of the Agency?
    2
    A. Number one?
    3
    Q. The first comment that begins the
    4
    Agency wishes.
    5
    A. Oh. The Agency wishes to clarify that
    6
    the monitoring wells must be installed in a
    7
    manner to allow sampling only at the desired
    8
    interval of the groundwater.
    9
    Q. Is the term desired interval defined
    10
    anywhere in geological practices or the Agency's
    11
    regulations to your knowledge?
    12
    A. Not that I'm aware of.
    13
    Q. What is your interpretation of that
    14
    sentence?
    15
    A. My interpretation of that sentence
    16
    would be that the monitoring well should have
    17
    been installed with a portion of it screened at
    18
    least though the interval from 12 to 13
    19
    and-a-half feet in depth.
    20
    Q. Between -- That's because that's the
    21
    depth where you saw the sand seam that would bear
    22
    water?
    23
    A. That is the saturated zone in the
    24
    groundwater, yes. It's the saturated course
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    47

    1
    grain lithology.
    2
    Q. Based upon your review of the boring
    3
    logs that have been prepared, the Well Completion
    4
    Reports and the other information that you've
    5
    reviewed at this site, were the monitoring wells
    6
    installed in a manner to allow sampling only at
    7
    the desired interval of the groundwater?
    8
    A. Well, the 10 foot well screen allows
    9
    sampling for -- for areas other than that foot
    10
    and-a-half that's saturated from 12 to 13
    11
    and-a-half feet. But it's my opinion that the
    12
    water yielded to the monitoring wells that CWM
    13
    installed is from the course grain lithology, the
    14
    fine grain sand, at 12 to 13 and-a-half feet in
    15
    depth.
    16
    Q. Could you read the next sentence,
    17
    please?
    18
    A. For sampling of indicator contaminants
    19
    pursuant to 35 IAC Section 734 the screen must
    20
    intersect the water level in the well for
    21
    accurate determination of contaminant levels in
    22
    the groundwater because gasoline contaminants
    23
    float on the surface of the water.
    24
    Q. What is your interpretation of that
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    48

    1
    sentence?
    2
    A. The term indicator contaminants refers
    3
    to the constituents benzene, ethylbenzene,
    4
    toluene and xylene, and that screen must
    5
    intersect the water level in the well.
    6
    Q. Could that sentence be contradictory
    7
    to statements contained in your understanding of
    8
    the sentence before that?
    9
    A. The contradiction really comes in the
    10
    form that it's -- it would be very difficult to
    11
    know in the field how to screen the well so that
    12
    the water level -- it would intersect the water
    13
    level, number one --
    14
    Q. By the water level you mean the level
    15
    that the water rose in the well?
    16
    A. The static water level. Ultimately
    17
    that the water rises to in the well, yes. And
    18
    then secondly, if you were just going on that
    19
    basis, that is, you were just to make sure that
    20
    screen level -- the screened interval of the well
    21
    were to intersect the static water level in the
    22
    well, often times in the case of confined
    23
    aquifers, you wouldn't have any water. You
    24
    couldn't have water in the well because the
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    49

    1
    static water level would be too far above the
    2
    saturated zone yielding water to the well and
    3
    creating the static water level.
    4
    So in my opinion if there's not a good
    5
    foundation for the hydrogeologic reference in the
    6
    -- in the sentence.
    7
    Q. Okay. What about the portion of the
    8
    sentence related to because gasoline contaminants
    9
    float on the surface of the water, is that always
    10
    true?
    11
    A. Well, here it's saying gasoline
    12
    contaminants so -- and in the same sentence it
    13
    says indicator contaminants. And I know from the
    14
    general discussions, in the comments prior to
    15
    this, that the indicator contaminants are that --
    16
    are benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene and xylene.
    17
    And there's a suggestion here that gasoline
    18
    contaminants float on the surface of the water
    19
    suggesting that benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene
    20
    and xylene enter as soluble constituents,
    21
    meaning, once they partition into groundwater to
    22
    the extent that there's -- their solubility
    23
    allows them, that they migrate with some sort of
    24
    buoyant factor in groundwater rather than just
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    50

    1
    migrate with the advective flow of groundwater.
    2
    And that notion simply is not true.
    3
    Gasoline as a separate phase
    4
    contaminant floats on the water table. So if
    5
    there was a separate phase, gasoline that
    6
    occurred at the site, which there appears to be
    7
    no indication of, if gasoline was to occur on top
    8
    of a water table condition, not in a confined
    9
    aquifer but on top of a water table condition,
    10
    you'd want to have the well screened across that
    11
    water table so you could get the LNAPL, the Light
    12
    Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid, to occur within the
    13
    well screen.
    14
    But the benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene
    15
    and xylene are going to partition into the
    16
    groundwater to the limits of their aqueous
    17
    solubility. They have -- Benzene has an aqueous
    18
    solubility of approximately 1750 parts per
    19
    million. The other three constituents have
    20
    aqueous solubilities between approximately 200
    21
    and 900 parts per million. Those concentrations
    22
    are orders of magnitude greater than the 620
    23
    regs, or the groundwater clean-up standards, so
    24
    they cause, you know, big problems and once they
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    51

    1
    go into solution and migrate with the normal
    2
    course of groundwater flow or the advective
    3
    groundwater flow, but they do not float. There
    4
    is no buoyant -- there's no buoyancy associated
    5
    with them once they are in solution in
    6
    groundwater.
    7
    Just as, for instance, a good example
    8
    is chloride. Most people realize that, you know,
    9
    you can go out and swim in the great salt lake
    10
    and you're buoyant and you float because, you
    11
    know, brine water is much heavier than fresh
    12
    water. But that doesn't mean that chlorides in
    13
    and of themselves free at -- part per million
    14
    constituents in groundwater have any sort of
    15
    dense -- denser than groundwater effect as they
    16
    are transported in groundwater. They're -- they
    17
    flow along with groundwater in the normal -- in
    18
    its normal course or its advective flow.
    19
    Q. Okay. In preparation for the hearing
    20
    today, did you look at any particular documents
    21
    that contained illustrations that could help --
    22
    help us understand this concept a little better?
    23
    A. Yes. I was aware of this particular
    24
    American Petroleum Institute document that I
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    52

    1
    think could clarify this.
    2
    MS. HESSE: Yes. We'd like to
    3
    introduce this as our next exhibit. I think
    4
    we're up to five.
    5
    MS. JARVIS: I would like to reserve
    6
    objection until I hear the testimony on this
    7
    exhibit. It's awful --
    8
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Okay. We'll
    9
    hear testimony first and then we'll admit it at
    10
    --
    11
    MS. JARVIS: Yeah, it's awful big and
    12
    technical to just look at it.
    13
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Okay.
    14
    (The reporter marked Exhibit No. 5
    15
    for purposes of identification.)
    16
    Q. (By Ms. Hesse) Okay. On this
    17
    document and the cover page of the document are
    18
    there any illustrations here that could help
    19
    illustrate the concept you were just discussing?
    20
    A. Well, I think they all are helpful but
    21
    probably the most intuitive would be the upper
    22
    left figure on the cover. And it simply shows --
    23
    what that illustration is trying to depict is a
    24
    -- is a barrel that is leaking with petroleum
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    53

    1
    compounds in soluble phase, not as an LNAPL,
    2
    meaning as not a free-phase gasoline or petroleum
    3
    sitting on the water table but as a soluble
    4
    contingent.
    5
    And once those soluble constituents
    6
    like the indicator contaminant benzene,
    7
    ethylbenzene, toluene and xylene, once they
    8
    migrate into groundwater, they actually move the
    9
    advective flow of groundwater. And groundwater
    10
    under water table conditions, which is what this
    11
    upper left illustration shows, has a tendency --
    12
    as it moves towards its discharge boundary has a
    13
    tendency to migrate at greater depths into the
    14
    aquifer because -- and it's -- it should be
    15
    intuitive because you have more recharge coming
    16
    into the aquifer from precipitation, infiltration
    17
    and migration down into the water table and that
    18
    water has to go someplace.
    19
    So purely by mass balance and
    20
    conservation of mass you have to have a diving
    21
    plume moving as it goes further down gradient.
    22
    Q. So does contamination, including the
    23
    indicator contaminants here, generally tend to
    24
    migrate downwards, is that an adequate summary?
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    54

    1
    A. They -- it will -- I think a more
    2
    accurate way to say it is that the -- that the
    3
    soluble constituents will migrate with the
    4
    advective flow or the natural gradient flow of
    5
    the groundwater system.
    6
    Q. And at this -- at the Farina site the
    7
    groundwater flow that was found there was found
    8
    in this 11, 12 foot, 13 foot level below grade;
    9
    is that correct?
    10
    A. That's correct. I think one of the
    11
    more important statements, just to shed light on
    12
    this whole discussion, occurs on page 5 of this
    13
    API document entitled Downward Solute Plume
    14
    Migration: Assessment, Significance, and
    15
    Implications for Characterization and Monitoring
    16
    of "Diving Plumes". Page 5 is the -- the
    17
    introduction occurs. And on the -- in the last
    18
    sentence of the third paragraph it states,
    19
    Although LNAPLs, which we've previously defined,
    20
    may float and DNAPLs, which is Dense Non-Aqueous
    21
    Phase Liquids, may sink when in pure phase, the
    22
    constituents that dissolve from these free-phase
    23
    mixtures into groundwater are neutrally buoyant.
    24
    Q. And neutrally buoyant means what?
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    55

    1
    A. Means that they have -- they don't
    2
    occur as floaters. They don't occur as sinkers.
    3
    They just move with the advective flow of
    4
    groundwater.
    5
    Q. Referring back now to page 258 which
    6
    is the Agency's letter, it states the monitoring
    7
    well screens were set at a depth that allows
    8
    total submersion of the screen in the well. Do
    9
    you understand what -- what is your understanding
    10
    of that sentence?
    11
    A. My understanding of that sentence is
    12
    that the static water level in the well rose
    13
    above the top of the screen.
    14
    Q. Is that a problem?
    15
    A. My opinion from reviewing the boring
    16
    logs, static water levels is that there -- and
    17
    given the geologic conditions, i.e., that we are
    18
    talking about a confined aquifer. So if there
    19
    was any sort of an LNAPL occurrence, if there
    20
    was, there's no indication from any of the data
    21
    at the site there's any free-phase LNAPL
    22
    occurrence. But if there was an LNAPL occurrence
    23
    at the site, it would not have been in the
    24
    confined zone. It would have been up in
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    56

    1
    fractures within the till and would not have been
    2
    available to have occurred in the well, that
    3
    would have been -- any well that would been
    4
    properly installed in this confined aquifer. And
    5
    if -- if LNAPL would have gotten down -- separate
    6
    phase gasoline would have gotten down into this
    7
    confined saturated zone, it would have gotten
    8
    into this well.
    9
    Q. It would have gotten into the wells?
    10
    A. Into the wells.
    11
    Q. That were actually installed?
    12
    A. That were installed by CWM.
    13
    Q. Okay. So if I could just recap, it's
    14
    your impression that if there had been Light
    15
    Aqueous -- LNAPLs present that the way the wells
    16
    were screened, the wells would have been able to
    17
    sample for LNAPLs?
    18
    A. If -- if LNAPL was occurring in that
    19
    confined aquifer, these wells would have had as
    20
    good a chance as any other wells screened
    21
    anywhere at the site to demonstrate that.
    22
    Q. If water in a well rises above the
    23
    height of the screen, can representative samples
    24
    still be collected?
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    57

    1
    A. Yes.
    2
    Q. And how is that done?
    3
    A. Again, the water in these wells --
    4
    it's my opinion that the water in these
    5
    monitoring wells at the Farina site was yielded
    6
    from that confined zone between 12 to 13
    7
    and-a-half feet in depth. And as long as they
    8
    were sampled appropriately, they are going to
    9
    yield wells -- yield samples and be
    10
    representative of the formational water in that
    11
    course grain confined aquifer occurring at 12 to
    12
    13 and-a-half feet in depth.
    13
    Q. And would those samples provide
    14
    acceptable data to determine the concentrations
    15
    of contaminants in the groundwater?
    16
    A. Yes, they would be able to determine
    17
    the concentrations of the indicator contaminants
    18
    benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene and xylene.
    19
    Q. Mr. St. John, after reviewing all the
    20
    documents that were provided to you, is it your
    21
    opinion that CWM installed monitoring wells at
    22
    the Farina site in accordance with Illinois EPA
    23
    regulations?
    24
    A. Yes.
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    58

    1
    Q. We had been discussing earlier how
    2
    BTEX might migrate in with the groundwater. Is
    3
    the same hold true to MTBE and polynuclear
    4
    aromatic hydrocarbon?
    5
    A. They are going to partition into
    6
    solution and migrate with the advective flow of
    7
    groundwater. You know, they're going to
    8
    partition into solution to their aqueous
    9
    solubility, yes.
    10
    Q. So if they're present in the
    11
    groundwater, you should be able to detect them in
    12
    the groundwater sample; is that correct?
    13
    A. Yes. Right. I left out MTBE before.
    14
    Sorry.
    15
    Q. In your professional opinion was the
    16
    work that CW3M performed at the Farina site
    17
    consistent with accepted professional engineer
    18
    and/or professional geology -- geological
    19
    procedures?
    20
    A. Yes.
    21
    Q. Is it your opinion as a licensed
    22
    professional geologist that the groundwater
    23
    monitoring wells were constructed in a manner to
    24
    enable the collection of representative
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    59

    1
    groundwater samples?
    2
    A. Yes.
    3
    Q. Is it your opinion as a licensed
    4
    professional engineer that the groundwater
    5
    monitoring wells were screened to allow sampling
    6
    at the desired interval of groundwater?
    7
    A. Well, I'm not a licensed professional
    8
    engineer so that's a difficult --
    9
    Q. I'm sorry. Geologist. I misspoke.
    10
    A. So --
    11
    Q. Okay.
    12
    A. So could you give me that one again?
    13
    Q. Yes. In your opinion as a licensed
    14
    professional geologist were the groundwater
    15
    monitoring wells screened to allow sampling at
    16
    the desired groundwater intervals?
    17
    A. I interpret the desired groundwater
    18
    interval to be the uppermost saturated zone. And
    19
    they were, in fact, screened at the uppermost
    20
    saturated zone.
    21
    Q. Are the documents you reviewed,
    22
    including the boring logs and the monitoring well
    23
    completion reports, the types of documents that a
    24
    licensed professional geologist would review to
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    60

    1
    determine if monitoring wells and the work
    2
    related to them was consistent with professional
    3
    geology standards?
    4
    A. Yes.
    5
    MS. HESSE: No further questions.
    6
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Thank you. Ms.
    7
    Jarvis?
    8
    MS. JARVIS: Can we take like a
    9
    five-minute break just to go to the restroom?
    10
    HEARING OFFICE WEBB: Yes.
    11
    MS. JARVIS: Would that be okay?
    12
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Yes.
    13
    (A short break was taken.)
    14
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Okay. We are
    15
    back on the record with the cross-examination of
    16
    Mr. St. John.
    17
    CROSS-EXAMINATION
    18
    BY MS. JARVIS:
    19
    Q. Mr. St. John, who were you retained
    20
    by?
    21
    A. I was retained by Ms. Hesse.
    22
    Q. Ms. Hesse. What is your fee?
    23
    A. $180 an hour.
    24
    Q. Do you get paid extra for expenses?
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    61

    1
    A. Yes.
    2
    Q. Did you get paid separately for the
    3
    prep or is that the $180 an hour for preparation?
    4
    A. It's all the same rate.
    5
    Q. Did you get paid separately for
    6
    travel?
    7
    A. I haven't been paid anything to date.
    8
    Q. Okay. So you have not been paid so
    9
    far?
    10
    A. That's correct.
    11
    Q. How much did you make last year from
    12
    testifying?
    13
    A. I didn't make anything last year from
    14
    testifying.
    15
    Q. So you didn't testify last year?
    16
    A. I can't remember if I testified or not
    17
    last year, but I didn't make anything above my
    18
    ordinary salary at Bureau Veritas for expert
    19
    testimony anyhow.
    20
    Q. How many times have you testified for
    21
    consultant or landowners?
    22
    A. When you say landowners?
    23
    Q. Owners of a site?
    24
    A. Owners of a site. I would say that I
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    62

    1
    have probably represented owners on nearly
    2
    everything I can think of right now, so probably
    3
    six or seven times.
    4
    Q. Okay. So you've never represented a
    5
    government Agency? You've never testified for a
    6
    government Agency, I should rephrase that?
    7
    A. Not that I can recall.
    8
    Q. Is this the first time that you've
    9
    testified in a hearing for CWM?
    10
    A. Yes.
    11
    Q. Have you testified before the
    12
    Pollution Control Board before?
    13
    A. No.
    14
    Q. State court?
    15
    A. Yes.
    16
    Q. How many times?
    17
    A. Two that I can you think of.
    18
    Q. Federal court?
    19
    A. Yes.
    20
    Q. How many times?
    21
    A. Including depositions?
    22
    Q. Yes.
    23
    A. Probably two or three.
    24
    Q. Have you testified regarding the
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    63

    1
    specific issue in this case before?
    2
    A. No.
    3
    Q. Have any of your -- Let me rephrase
    4
    that. Have any of your opinions ever been found
    5
    to be unreliable by any court or tribunal?
    6
    A. I testified in the Lockformer case
    7
    versus the Ellsworth Industrial Park and -- in
    8
    federal court. And Judge Leinenweber determined
    9
    that my testimony couldn't be admissible related
    10
    to wastewater treatment plant discharges because
    11
    I wasn't a wastewater treatment plant engineer.
    12
    Q. Let's see. Well, specifically -- And
    13
    I'd like the Board to take judicial notice of the
    14
    case. On page 4 of the opinion the court greed
    15
    that your testimony was unreliable. And then it
    16
    goes on to say that you failed to discuss the
    17
    import of, or even mention, material facts in the
    18
    report amounts to cherry-picking the facts that
    19
    you considered to render your opinion. And so
    20
    since you fail to satisfy the selective -- or the
    21
    scientific method in the Daubert case, which is a
    22
    kin to the Fry case in Illinois; isn't that
    23
    correct?
    24
    MS. HESSE: I'm going to object to the
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    64

    1
    line of questioning. There has been no evidence
    2
    produced here that Mr. St. John disregarded any
    3
    relevant data. We had him review all relevant
    4
    data and form his opinions.
    5
    Secondly, I'm going to object to this
    6
    line of questioning because it relates to a
    7
    different set of contaminants. It also goes to
    8
    -- the line of questioning goes to whether he is
    9
    certified to operate a wastewater treatment
    10
    plant. His testimony here was not whether we
    11
    were operating wastewater treatment plants. His
    12
    testimony went to whether what was done here met
    13
    accepted geological, hydrogeological principals.
    14
    And there's been ample testimony that he is well
    15
    qualified in that area. So I object to this line
    16
    of questioning.
    17
    MS. JARVIS: This line of questioning
    18
    goes to the bias and reliability of the witness
    19
    which is allowed. He's been found unreliable in
    20
    another court case by a federal court, and it was
    21
    shown that not his testimony or expertise were in
    22
    question but the information that he used or
    23
    chose to not use in making his decision. And we
    24
    will explore further his reliability in this case
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    65

    1
    as we continue on with questioning.
    2
    A. Well, could I point out that Judge
    3
    Leinenweber found that I was a qualified
    4
    hydrogeologist and also says, even in this record
    5
    that you point out here, that Mestek responded
    6
    that my opinion was based on me being a
    7
    hydrogeologist. It says that in the middle of
    8
    the second paragraph --
    9
    Q. (By Ms. Jarvis) And that --
    10
    A. And that he found --
    11
    Q. Sir, sir, first of all, you don't have
    12
    a question pending in front of you.
    13
    A. Okay.
    14
    Q. And secondly this -- this -- my line
    15
    of questioning goes to your reliability or
    16
    unreliability in a specific case.
    17
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: I'll allow the
    18
    line of questioning and the Board can take
    19
    judicial notice of this case, if they care to.
    20
    Q. (By Ms. Jarvis) What do you
    21
    understand is the nature of this dispute?
    22
    A. Well, the -- I understand that there's
    23
    a dispute related to whether some of the work
    24
    that CWM did was above and beyond the work
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    66

    1
    required by the underground storage tank program,
    2
    and that there's a dispute related to that in
    3
    terms of reimbursement. And some of that speaks
    4
    towards the way the monitoring wells were
    5
    installed. I really only discussed the aspects
    6
    of the groundwater occurrence in the monitoring
    7
    wells.
    8
    Q. Now you stated that you reviewed the
    9
    record files in this case; is that correct?
    10
    A. Yes.
    11
    Q. Okay. And my question to you are:
    12
    Did you prepare any of these documents that are
    13
    contained in this record?
    14
    A. No, I didn't prepare --
    15
    Q. Did you submit any of these documents
    16
    to the Agency?
    17
    A. No, I didn't.
    18
    Q. None of your opinions are located in
    19
    this Agency record, is it?
    20
    A. No.
    21
    Q. Okay. You've already went through
    22
    what you relied upon. Maybe I missed this but am
    23
    I clear that you did not visit the Farina site?
    24
    A. I have not visited the Farina site.
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    67

    1
    Q. So you were not present when these
    2
    wells were installed; is that correct?
    3
    A. That is correct. I was not present.
    4
    Q. And you did not conduct any
    5
    experiments of any kind or test any materials in
    6
    forming your opinion today?
    7
    A. No.
    8
    Q. Did you ask anyone to review your
    9
    findings?
    10
    A. No.
    11
    Q. How many well screens have you
    12
    actually installed yourself?
    13
    A. A thousand.
    14
    Q. Can you point to any other expert in
    15
    the field that agrees with your opinion in
    16
    relation to the placement of the well screens?
    17
    A. Regarding the Farina site?
    18
    Q. Regarding placement of the well
    19
    screens you testified as to where you would place
    20
    the well screens in a site similar to Farina. Do
    21
    you -- can you point to any other expert in the
    22
    field that would agree with your opinion?
    23
    A. I believe that nearly anyone that, for
    24
    instance, would be a professional hydrogeologist
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    68

    1
    with the American Institute of Hydrology would
    2
    agree with my opinion.
    3
    Q. But you can't point to a specific
    4
    document or a named expert that would
    5
    specifically have published on this?
    6
    A. What specific thing are you referring
    7
    to?
    8
    Q. The placement of the well screen?
    9
    A. You mean placing a well screen
    10
    adjacent to a saturated geologic unit and getting
    11
    water to occur in it?
    12
    Q. Yes.
    13
    A. That's probably in every text on
    14
    hydrogeology published.
    15
    Q. Let's discuss the regulations. You
    16
    didn't participate in the Board's hearing
    17
    adopting the regulations, did you?
    18
    A. No, I did not.
    19
    Q. So you didn't comment, you didn't base
    20
    any opinions on the adoption of that regulation
    21
    that's in question, defining desired interval or
    22
    using the term desired interval?
    23
    A. So your specific question is I didn't
    24
    participate in any --
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    69

    1
    Q. In any hearing, Board hearing
    2
    regarding the adoption of the regulation,
    3
    specifically 734.430?
    4
    A. Regarding?
    5
    Q. Wells, monitoring wells.
    6
    A. The desired interval?
    7
    Q. Uh-huh.
    8
    A. No, I didn't.
    9
    Q. To your knowledge has any court or
    10
    board defined what a desired interval is?
    11
    A. No.
    12
    Q. What do you think the relative factors
    13
    are in potentially defining desired interval?
    14
    A. My opinion from experience in the
    15
    underground storage tank program, as well as
    16
    performing hydrogeologic studies throughout the
    17
    midwest for 27 years, is that the uppermost
    18
    saturated zone should be screened.
    19
    Q. At the 12 to 13 foot depth that you
    20
    testified to, would that be the most likely area
    21
    to find the contaminants?
    22
    A. Yes.
    23
    Q. What is the hydraulic conductivity of
    24
    the site?
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    70

    1
    A. They did a slug test in one of the
    2
    reports, I believe. My recollection is it was on
    3
    the order of 10 to minus three centimeters per
    4
    second, which would be consistent with a fine
    5
    grain sand?
    6
    Q. Okay. I'm going to ask you to go to
    7
    page 13 of the Agency record and look at Section
    8
    3.4. Can you read the section that is in italics
    9
    right after the first paragraph, please?
    10
    A. Hydraulic conductivity?
    11
    Q. Yes.
    12
    A. 9.6 times 10 to minus seven.
    13
    Q. So that would be the hydraulic
    14
    conductivity of the site; correct?
    15
    A. It would be. It doesn't identify any
    16
    units that I can see.
    17
    Q. I think lower in that same page at the
    18
    end it says 3.0. Okay. If you could go to page
    19
    230. Okay, never mind. And it's a sheet
    20
    entitled Bouwer & Rice Method for Calculating
    21
    Hydraulic Conductivity.
    22
    A. Okay.
    23
    Q. And that indicates that the hydraulic
    24
    conductivity, could you read that section?
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    71

    1
    A. Is looks as though the result is
    2
    similar to the page 13 and indicates a hydraulic
    3
    conductivity of 9.61 times 10 to the minus seven
    4
    centimeters per second.
    5
    Q. What is the average hydraulic
    6
    conductivity of porus grain sand as found in the
    7
    aquifer of 12 to 13 and-a-half feet?
    8
    A. I would expect it to be -- the fine
    9
    grain sand that they had in their boring log I
    10
    was expecting to be approximately one times 10 to
    11
    the minus three centimeters per second, somewhere
    12
    in that general range.
    13
    Q. Just a second. Can groundwater
    14
    infiltrate the well in the silty clay strata?
    15
    A. I'm not clear as to what you mean.
    16
    Q. In the silty clay that you indicated
    17
    on your chart, can groundwater infiltrate that
    18
    level?
    19
    A. Can groundwater infiltrate the silty
    20
    clay?
    21
    Q. Uh-huh.
    22
    A. Well, groundwater infiltrates silty
    23
    clay all the time.
    24
    Q. Okay. And what would the hydraulic
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    72

    1
    conductivity of silty clay be?
    2
    A. It would be low. It would be -- it
    3
    can range anywhere at the upper end maybe 10 to
    4
    the minus six to the lower end 10 to the minus
    5
    nine centimeters per second.
    6
    Q. And if you purged a site with this
    7
    type of hydraulic conductivity, how long would it
    8
    take for it to recharge or have water come back
    9
    into the well?
    10
    A. So the question is?
    11
    Q. If you purged, took water out --
    12
    A. Purged what?
    13
    Q. -- purged the well, you stated that --
    14
    A. Yeah, we --
    15
    Q. -- it's common to take water out of
    16
    the well before testing.
    17
    A. Are we talking about the wells that
    18
    CWM --
    19
    Q. Yes, we are.
    20
    A. Okay.
    21
    Q. If using this hydraulic conductivity
    22
    that is in the record, if they purged this well,
    23
    like you were stating in your testimony, okay,
    24
    and how long would it take for that water to come
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    73

    1
    back and recharge?
    2
    A. It -- they will -- very likely
    3
    wouldn't recharge.
    4
    Q. It wouldn't recharge. So water would
    5
    not come back into the well?
    6
    A. Well, it would be very -- I mean, it
    7
    would -- not in the same day. It would be
    8
    slowly. It wouldn't recharge in a matter of, you
    9
    know, minutes or hours. It will take a long
    10
    period of time.
    11
    Q. So if we had this type of well
    12
    installed and they purged this and bailed this
    13
    water, it would take a long time then for the
    14
    water to come back up into this screen?
    15
    A. If -- Okay. I'm sorry.
    16
    Q. It indicated in the record --
    17
    A. Right now I'm confused. Are you
    18
    talking about the CWM installed wells at the
    19
    Farina site?
    20
    Q. Yes, at the Farina site.
    21
    A. Okay.
    22
    Q. I'm talking about at the Farina site,
    23
    not hypothetically.
    24
    A. And not hypothetically, not using this
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    74

    1
    hydraulic conductivity that you're suggesting?
    2
    Q. I'm using the hydroconductivity --
    3
    hydrologic conductivity that they presented to
    4
    the Agency in the record.
    5
    A. Okay. So I just want to make sure --
    6
    that's what --
    7
    Q. It's their -- CWM's hydro --
    8
    A. This is approximately a 10 to the
    9
    minus six hydraulic conductivity.
    10
    Q. Okay. And that if the well was bailed
    11
    or purged, it would take a very long time for
    12
    that water to come back up?
    13
    A. It would be slow, yes.
    14
    Q. And is that common knowledge for
    15
    geologists to know?
    16
    A. Well, it wouldn't -- I'm not sure how
    17
    common knowledge it is, but it would -- it would,
    18
    based on my experience, it would -- it would take
    19
    considerable amount of time for the well to
    20
    recover to allow sampling to occur. But that's
    21
    all based on whether this hydraulic conductivity
    22
    was done correctly too.
    23
    Q. Okay. Well, we're going to assume
    24
    that if they submitted it to the Agency and they
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    75

    1
    signed their PE, that it was done correctly.
    2
    MS. JARVIS: That's all.
    3
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Ms. Hesse?
    4
    MS. HESSE: I have some additional
    5
    questions.
    6
    REDIRECT EXAMINATION
    7
    BY MS. HESSE:
    8
    Q. Let's start, Mr. St. John, with my
    9
    retention of you to assist us in this matter.
    10
    Our agreement to retain you under that agreement
    11
    we agreed to pay you for your time; is that
    12
    correct?
    13
    A. Yes.
    14
    Q. And we agreed for you to review these
    15
    documents and to give me your opinion; correct?
    16
    A. Yes.
    17
    Q. Your reimbursement for this is not
    18
    based on what testimony you present; in other
    19
    words, whether you get paid or not is independent
    20
    of exactly what you say and exactly what your
    21
    opinion is; is that correct?
    22
    A. That's correct.
    23
    Q. With regard to your testimony in the
    24
    Lockformer case, and I'm referring to page 3 of
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    76

    1
    the Court's opinion, Judge Leinenweber did find
    2
    that you were qualified to present expert
    3
    testimony on hydrogeologic issues; isn't that
    4
    correct?
    5
    A. That's correct.
    6
    Q. So you have been found by a federal
    7
    court to be an expert on hydrogeology; correct?
    8
    A. That's correct.
    9
    Q. And that's what we've asked you to
    10
    testify to today here; is that correct?
    11
    A. That's correct. May I point something
    12
    else out about this?
    13
    Q. Yes.
    14
    A. What essentially happened was that
    15
    Mestek's expert regarding the wastewater
    16
    treatment plant processes was disqualified and --
    17
    and they asked me a whole slew of questions about
    18
    wastewater treatment, they being Ellsworth.
    19
    Q. Was Ellsworth the other -- the
    20
    non-party represented?
    21
    A. That's correct.
    22
    Q. The opposing party?
    23
    A. About the wastewater treatment plant
    24
    processes. And Judge Leinenweber concluded that
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    77

    1
    my testimony was -- couldn't be reliable based on
    2
    the wastewater treatment plant discussions
    3
    because I'm not a wastewater treatment plant
    4
    engineer. And I said that, you know, multiple
    5
    times during the during the depositions so --
    6
    Q. So your purpose at -- at this
    7
    deposition or hearing or whatever was not to be
    8
    an expert on wastewater treatment technology?
    9
    A. That is absolutely 100% correct.
    10
    Q. In your prior statements regarding the
    11
    installation of the wells and your opinion of the
    12
    wells that you presented to us, was that based on
    13
    information contained in the record, in the
    14
    record that's been -- that the Agency filed
    15
    before the Board?
    16
    A. Yes.
    17
    Q. Does the Glossary of Hydrogeology
    18
    contain any information on how a well should be
    19
    screened?
    20
    A. I'm sorry. Could you give me that one
    21
    again?
    22
    Q. Does the Glossary of Hydrogeology,
    23
    that we have copies of us before us, contain
    24
    information on or give support to your testimony
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    78

    1
    on where a well screen should be placed in a
    2
    monitoring well?
    3
    A. Well, the Glossary really doesn't. It
    4
    simply defines terms. And I guess it's fair to
    5
    say that hydrogeological text do a much better
    6
    job.
    7
    Q. Okay. In your review of where the
    8
    well screens were placed and in your prior
    9
    testimony you mentioned that 10 foot well screens
    10
    were used so that a portion of the well screen
    11
    was across the saturated layer and then a portion
    12
    of the well screen was above that in the confined
    13
    layer; correct?
    14
    A. Yes.
    15
    Q. So could it be possible, and I realize
    16
    we have not done tests here so this is only a
    17
    theoretical possibility, could it be possible
    18
    when the hydraulic tests were done the hydraulic
    19
    conductivity that was determined ended up being a
    20
    mixture of the conductivities of the narrow sand
    21
    layer as well as the greater expanses of the
    22
    silty clay?
    23
    A. It is possible that the data that --
    24
    from the slug tests that indicates that the
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    79

    1
    approximately 10 to the minus six centimeters per
    2
    second hydraulic conductivity is an average of
    3
    the 10 foot section, yes.
    4
    Q. So that the --
    5
    A. I haven't reviewed that though. It --
    6
    Just to make that clear, I have not independently
    7
    reviewed the slug test data.
    8
    Q. Okay. Earlier when Ms. Jarvis was
    9
    asking you questions about recharging in a well
    10
    that was screened in silty clay and I believe you
    11
    said the silty clay had a hydraulic conductivity
    12
    of roughly 10 to the minus six and 10 to the
    13
    minus seven centimeters per second, was it your
    14
    understanding when she was asking you those
    15
    questions and you were answering those questions
    16
    that you were working under the assumption of a
    17
    well that was just screened in silty clay when
    18
    you said that it would take a long time for the
    19
    well to have water go back in it?
    20
    A. Yes. The way I originally heard her
    21
    hypothetical was that she was assuming that we
    22
    had this low permeability 9.61 times 10 to the
    23
    minus seven centimeters per second hydraulic
    24
    conductivity.
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    80

    1
    Q. And that that would be what was in the
    2
    soil drained the full length of the well screen;
    3
    is that correct?
    4
    A. That's correct.
    5
    Q. Referring now to how the wells were
    6
    actually screened at the Farina site, when a well
    7
    is purged and water flows back into the well for
    8
    sampling, where is the water going to be coming
    9
    from?
    10
    A. It's my opinion that the water being
    11
    yielded to that well is coming from the 12 to 13
    12
    and-a-half foot interval.
    13
    Q. And that's the saturated zone?
    14
    A. Yes.
    15
    Q. And that very little, if any, of the
    16
    water going into the well would be coming from
    17
    the confining layer above that where the silty
    18
    clay is located?
    19
    A. That's correct.
    20
    MS. HESSE: At this time if we could
    21
    mark Mr. St. John's drawings as exhibits.
    22
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: We can.
    23
    (The reporter marked Exhibit No. 6
    24
    for purposes of identification.)
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    81

    1
    MS. HESSE: And I would move that the
    2
    documents that have been marked as exhibits so
    3
    far, I believe it's Exhibits 1 through 6, be
    4
    admitted into the record.
    5
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: I think one
    6
    through four have already been admitted, five and
    7
    six we need to discuss. Ms. Jarvis, do you have
    8
    any comment?
    9
    MS. JARVIS: Yeah, I'm going to object
    10
    to, I believe, it's number five, the Downward
    11
    Solute Plume Migration because I do not remember
    12
    any testimony that this site had a diving plume.
    13
    So I'm going to object based on relevance to this
    14
    document being admitted.
    15
    MS. HESSE: We believe the document
    16
    should be admitted. The hearing isn't over yet.
    17
    It goes to some of the issues we're going to
    18
    discuss later. It helps provide background
    19
    information for the Board and understanding how
    20
    plumes can migrate and how plumes can move in
    21
    various situations. So we think it's appropriate
    22
    to have this admitted.
    23
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Would you
    24
    consider withdrawing your objection if it was
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    82

    1
    moved at the end?
    2
    MS. JARVIS: I'll considering my
    3
    objection at the end. Yes, I will hold my
    4
    objection to the end on this one.
    5
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Okay. All
    6
    right. Let's hold off on five. What are your
    7
    comments on six?
    8
    MS. JARVIS: Six is the drawing?
    9
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: The drawing.
    10
    MS. JARVIS: I will also object to
    11
    six. While they were useful here in the hearing,
    12
    we have actual diagrams of the site in the record
    13
    and I believe those are more reliable than the
    14
    exhibit that he drew by hand.
    15
    MS. HESSE: We think the exhibit
    16
    should be admitted into the record because they
    17
    were referred to during his testimony. It would
    18
    make it easier for the Board to follow along when
    19
    they read the testimony. We understand that
    20
    they're used for illustration purposes and may
    21
    not be the exact site conditions, but it helps to
    22
    provide an overall understanding of background
    23
    information to allow the Board to determine that
    24
    the well -- that the work done at the Farina site
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    83

    1
    was done properly in accordance with accepted
    2
    geological principals.
    3
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Do you know
    4
    offhand which pages in the record the diagram
    5
    would appear on?
    6
    MS. JARVIS: Yes. The diagrams are on
    7
    102. They start on 102 and they go through 107.
    8
    MS. HESSE: Again, there's no
    9
    documents in the record to illustrate the
    10
    differences between an unconfined layer, where a
    11
    water table is located and to understand what a
    12
    confined layer is.
    13
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: I'm going to
    14
    admit number six. It's not being offered for any
    15
    truth of any actual representation of the site,
    16
    but I think to help with interpreting the
    17
    testimony. I would say in the future, though, I
    18
    do think diagrams are extremely helpful but if
    19
    they could be prepared in advance maybe on 8
    20
    and-a-half by 11 paper with more specificity,
    21
    that would be even more helpful. But I will take
    22
    Exhibit 6 as they are. And I will admit those
    23
    into the record. And we're holding off on
    24
    Exhibit 5 until the end of petitioner's case.
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    84

    1
    Let's go off the record for a moment.
    2
    (A discussion was held off the
    3
    record.)
    4
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: If there's no
    5
    further questions for Mr. St. John, you may step
    6
    down. Thank you.
    7
    THE WITNESS: Thank you.
    8
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: And petitioner,
    9
    you may call your next witness.
    10
    MR. FROEMEL: Petitioner will call
    11
    Carol Rowe.
    12
    (The witness was sworn in by the court reporter.)
    13
    DIRECT EXAMINATION
    14
    BY MS. HESSE:
    15
    Q. Ms. Rowe, can you describe your
    16
    educational background, please?
    17
    A. I received a Bachelor of Science
    18
    Degree from Southern Illinois University in
    19
    Geology and a Master's Degree in Environmental
    20
    Studies from, what was then, Sangamon State
    21
    University, now UIS.
    22
    And while I was doing my master's
    23
    degree, I started internship at the Illinois EPA.
    24
    And that was the year of the writing of the
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    85

    1
    Groundwater Protection Act. And I stayed on for
    2
    a couple of years. And then I moved on to Old
    3
    Ben Coal Company where I was responsible for
    4
    groundwater surface water reporting. And then
    5
    came back to the State of Illinois, was at the
    6
    Department of Ag and Department of Energy and
    7
    then started with CW3M Company.
    8
    Q. When did you start with CWM?
    9
    A. 1991.
    10
    Q. Let me hand you a document. Can you
    11
    identify that document for me?
    12
    A. Yes, it's my resume.
    13
    MR. FROEMEL: And can we have that
    14
    document attached? Could we have that document
    15
    marked as Exhibit No. 7?
    16
    (The reporter marked Exhibit No. 7
    17
    for purposes of identification.)
    18
    MR. FROEMEL: I would move to have
    19
    Exhibit 7 admitted into the record.
    20
    MS. JARVIS: No objection.
    21
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Exhibit 7 is
    22
    admitted into the record.
    23
    Q. (By Mr. Froemel) Since you joined CWM
    24
    in 1991, how often have you been involved in
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    86

    1
    field work?
    2
    A. Well, until probably the last eight
    3
    months to a year I've spent most of my time, at
    4
    least half of my time, in the field. In the
    5
    beginning days of the company I spent all of my
    6
    time in the field. I drilled every well. I was
    7
    at every tank pull, every excavation, every
    8
    facet.
    9
    Today my job is a little more
    10
    administrative and with the passage of 734
    11
    recreating forms and formats and accounting
    12
    systems, I've been tied to the chair a little
    13
    more than I like to be so --
    14
    Q. Are you a licensed professional
    15
    geologist?
    16
    A. Yes.
    17
    Q. How long have you been a licensed
    18
    professional geologist?
    19
    A. Since the inception of the program
    20
    which, I believe, is probably 1995, 1996.
    21
    Q. How many groundwater monitoring wells
    22
    have you installed?
    23
    A. Hundreds, perhaps pushing a thousand.
    24
    Q. Are you licensed to remove and install
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    87

    1
    underground tanks, storage tanks?
    2
    A. Yes, I am.
    3
    Q. Are you familiar with the Farina site
    4
    that we've been discussing today?
    5
    A. Yes.
    6
    Q. What's your role at that site?
    7
    A. In a general sense I serve as kind of
    8
    a project oversight manager of it. We assign
    9
    projects to different staff in our office. And
    10
    specifically at the Farina site I was there
    11
    during the first Stage 1 drilling event.
    12
    Q. Who hired CWM to perform work at the
    13
    Farina site?
    14
    A. Keller Oil Company.
    15
    Q. And in installing the groundwater
    16
    monitoring well at the Farina site, did you
    17
    follow CWM's standard procedures?
    18
    A. Yes, I did.
    19
    Q. Can you describe the process for
    20
    installing the groundwater monitoring wells at
    21
    the Farina site?
    22
    A. Typically we'll -- we drill 5 foot
    23
    sections and we'll try to define the zone of
    24
    aeration, the capillary zone and the zone of
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    88

    1
    saturation and define the depth of groundwater.
    2
    And what we call the depth of groundwater, we
    3
    will center our well screen so that there's 5
    4
    foot below and 5 foot above.
    5
    We do that for a couple of reasons,
    6
    one, seasonal fluctuations in groundwater. If
    7
    it's at, you know, 10 feet in the spring, it may
    8
    be at 12 feet in the fall or it may rise in the
    9
    spring. So we try to intersect it at the center
    10
    of the well screen. And that's been our practice
    11
    with all of our LUST sites.
    12
    Q. So the Farina site, how far did you
    13
    drill down?
    14
    A. We drilled 15 feet in all of the
    15
    monitoring wells, I believe.
    16
    Q. How did you determine that you had
    17
    reached groundwater at the site?
    18
    A. Well, in this case we had -- if I can
    19
    find the boring logs.
    20
    Q. I think you'll find it on page 90 of
    21
    the record.
    22
    A. About -- Between the five wells,
    23
    actually one of them, the one in the backfill
    24
    sand was -- was slightly higher since it was
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    89

    1
    backfill sand, but the rest we found moisture
    2
    around 10 feet. And then we began to, you know,
    3
    what we later defined as capillary but at the
    4
    time thought we were into the water table where
    5
    it appeared that the pore spaces were filled with
    6
    water. By the time we hit the 12 foot seam, we
    7
    were certain that we had hit the groundwater. It
    8
    was completely saturated and --
    9
    Q. So in relation to, excuse me, the 10
    10
    to 11 feet where you first encountered moisture
    11
    and then the 12 feet where you were clearly
    12
    within the saturation zone, where did you set the
    13
    screens in the monitoring wells at Farina?
    14
    A. The bottom of the screen or the bottom
    15
    of the cap was set as 14 and-a-half feet and, you
    16
    know, up 10 feet so --
    17
    Q. So where would the center of the
    18
    screen have been located?
    19
    A. At about 10.
    20
    Q. Why was the screen set at that
    21
    location?
    22
    A. Well, the 10 feet is where we saw the
    23
    moisture and 10 to 11 was where we initially
    24
    thought we had -- had hit the water table. And
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    90

    1
    then the sand seam was obviously the -- the
    2
    primary aquifer, but the material above it was
    3
    saturated as well and, you know, until -- until
    4
    we installed the well we weren't sure which, you
    5
    know, which was the producing unit. That -- that
    6
    layer above that, if you looked at -- let's see
    7
    on page 93 we start seeing the moisture in the
    8
    silt and it was -- it was not acting as a
    9
    confining layer so we possibly could have been
    10
    into the water table at the, you know, somewhere
    11
    between 11 and 12, 10 to 11 feet.
    12
    Q. When you refer to the term water
    13
    table, are you referring to where you are
    14
    encountering groundwater?
    15
    A. Groundwater, yes.
    16
    Q. Okay. Now on the date that the wells
    17
    were installed, could you tell whether -- were
    18
    these monitoring wells, it was a confined aquifer
    19
    situation?
    20
    A. No.
    21
    Q. With respect to these wells, how were
    22
    they developed?
    23
    A. We basically, as soon as the well was
    24
    drilled, put a bailer into the well. And as soon
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    91

    1
    as we got water, we started to purge the well. I
    2
    -- I don't recall how long it took that day to
    3
    produce, but I know that we developed the wells
    4
    that day.
    5
    Q. What's the process of developing a
    6
    well? How do you do that?
    7
    A. Basically you lower a bailer into the
    8
    well and -- and in a developing situation you try
    9
    to develop it until it's dry. And you're trying
    10
    to remove the sediment that's created while
    11
    installing the well from, you know, from clogging
    12
    the screen.
    13
    And also as Mr. St. James referenced,
    14
    there becomes a smear zone from where the auger
    15
    turns and you're trying to loosen that to get
    16
    water to come out of formation and into the well
    17
    pack and well screen.
    18
    Q. Now when the well is -- when the
    19
    samples were collected from the monitoring wells,
    20
    would CWM purge them?
    21
    A. Yes.
    22
    Q. Can you describe that process?
    23
    A. Yes. We would purge them down to the
    24
    depth encountered during groundwater -- or during
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    92

    1
    -- during drilling and then --
    2
    Q. Okay. What depth -- at this site what
    3
    depth would that have been?
    4
    A. Probably 11 -- 11, 12 feet. We would
    5
    -- our staff, or if it's not me or one of the
    6
    other folks here in the room, staff are directed
    7
    to look at the bore logs and find where the
    8
    groundwater was encountered during drilling. And
    9
    if they can't get exactly that depth, if it
    10
    recharges too fast, as it would in a sandy
    11
    condition, we would do a minimum of extracting
    12
    three well volumes to try to get a fresh sample
    13
    from the water boring unit.
    14
    Q. So what was the purpose again of
    15
    purging the well?
    16
    A. To get a fresh sample from the water
    17
    boring unit.
    18
    Q. After the water was purged from the
    19
    well at this site, at what point, and maybe we
    20
    could refer to Exhibit 6, that's the diagram
    21
    behind you --
    22
    A. Uh-huh.
    23
    Q. -- at what point on the second page of
    24
    that exhibit would the well have been drawing
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    93

    1
    water from? You'll have to, I think, flip to the
    2
    second page.
    3
    A. What was your question again?
    4
    Q. Yeah. After purging the well, at what
    5
    point in that diagram, the second page of Exhibit
    6
    6, would the water from the well be drawn from
    7
    for sampling?
    8
    A. We would try to get within the zone
    9
    right here.
    10
    Q. So you're pointing to what's been
    11
    marked as the saturated zone?
    12
    A. Yeah.
    13
    Q. Okay. Thanks.
    14
    A. This is heavier than it looks.
    15
    Q. With respect to the wells at the
    16
    Farina site, when did CWM determine the static
    17
    water level in those wells?
    18
    A. That is measured on our second trip to
    19
    the site after the wells have been installed. We
    20
    measure using a water level indicator, the top of
    21
    the water -- the water within the well and record
    22
    that prior to purging.
    23
    Q. Okay. What is the importance of
    24
    determining the static water level? What do you
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    94

    1
    use that measurement for?
    2
    A. The only purpose that we utilize it
    3
    for is relative to all the other wells at the
    4
    site to determine which way groundwater is moving
    5
    across the site or which direction groundwater is
    6
    flowing.
    7
    Q. Okay. Have you reviewed the record in
    8
    this case?
    9
    A. In bits and pieces, as it's been
    10
    prepared but --
    11
    Q. Fair enough. Have you reviewed the --
    12
    excuse me, the reviewer notes from the project
    13
    manager at this site?
    14
    A. I briefly did.
    15
    Q. There's a specific comment in the
    16
    reviewer notes that suggests the well -- the
    17
    drilling for the well should have been stopped at
    18
    this first encounter of groundwater. Do you
    19
    recall having seen that statement or something
    20
    similar to that statement?
    21
    A. Yeah.
    22
    Q. What would have been the result for
    23
    the wells at Farina if they were installed where
    24
    you first believe you would have encountered
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    95

    1
    groundwater?
    2
    A. If we would set the well at 10 to 11
    3
    feet, we believe there would be no production of
    4
    water in that well. We may have gathered some
    5
    condensation or unless there was a seasonal
    6
    fluctuation that drove the water table up several
    7
    feet that that well would have been dry.
    8
    Q. And with respect to the water table,
    9
    again you're referring to --
    10
    A. Groundwater.
    11
    Q. -- where you first encountered
    12
    groundwater?
    13
    A. Right.
    14
    Q. In your opinion as a licensed
    15
    professional geologist, did CWM comply with the
    16
    Section 734 regulations in installing the
    17
    monitoring wells at the Farina site?
    18
    A. Yes.
    19
    Q. Were the wells constructed in a manner
    20
    that would enable the collection of
    21
    representative groundwater samples?
    22
    A. Yes.
    23
    Q. Were the wells screened to allow
    24
    sampling at the desired interval?
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    96

    1
    A. Yes.
    2
    Q. And what would you describe the
    3
    desired interval as at the Farina site?
    4
    A. Definitely the sand seam would be a
    5
    desired interval. And again the foot or foot
    6
    and-a-half above that we are not sure if that was
    7
    a producible unit or not. It appeared saturated
    8
    during drilling. So it may have produced as
    9
    well. So both -- both of those units would have
    10
    been within the screened interval.
    11
    Q. With respect to the screens used at
    12
    the Farina site, how long were the well screens?
    13
    A. 10 feet.
    14
    Q. And how did CWM select the 10 foot
    15
    well screens?
    16
    A. It's been our practice, and apparent
    17
    Agency policy, to try to use 10 foot well
    18
    screens. And that's the way we've done it for
    19
    the last 15 or so years.
    20
    Q. Were the wells constructed at the
    21
    Farina site in accordance with generally accepted
    22
    standards and practices of a -- of geological --
    23
    of the geological profession?
    24
    A. Yes.
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    97

    1
    Q. Are you familiar with or have you been
    2
    involved during your employment with CWM at other
    3
    LUST sites where the static water level rose in
    4
    the well above the well screen?
    5
    A. Yes, that's happened on occasion, yes.
    6
    Q. And do you recall any sites where the
    7
    conditions were similar to the conditions at
    8
    Farina?
    9
    A. A couple of older ones: Hall Service,
    10
    a Keller site in Edgewood, Rushco Shell. We just
    11
    had a new one Zanra (phonetic) in Herrick,
    12
    Illinois.
    13
    Q. Did the Agency approve the
    14
    construction --
    15
    MS. JARVIS: I'm going to object to
    16
    this question. A, it asks for hearsay. We don't
    17
    have the documents that the Agency produced. We
    18
    don't have the Agency project manager to rebut
    19
    whatever happened at these other sites. And the
    20
    question of relevance of information from other
    21
    sites is also in question.
    22
    MR. FROEMEL: We do have the
    23
    documents. I was going to lay a foundation for
    24
    those before I asked to introduce them.
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    98

    1
    MS. JARVIS: But once again I haven't
    2
    seen the documents, and I also haven't been able
    3
    to talk to my project manager that have those
    4
    sites or to be able to rebut whatever else
    5
    happened at every other site that the Agency ever
    6
    takes care of.
    7
    MR. FROEMEL: Two of the sites that
    8
    were discussed, the project manager was Ms.
    9
    Hawbaker. So we're trying to show that in
    10
    similar situations, again, this goes to the
    11
    reasonableness of the Agency's denial in this
    12
    case.
    13
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Okay. I'm
    14
    going to allow the question.
    15
    MR. FROEMEL: Okay. Thank you.
    16
    A. You want to repeat the question?
    17
    MR. FROEMEL: Yeah, I will. I'm just
    18
    trying to figure out what it was. Can you read
    19
    back the last question?
    20
    (The Reporter read from the record as
    21
    follows: And do you recall any sites
    22
    where the conditions were similar to
    23
    the conditions at Farina?)
    24
    Q. (By Mr. Froemel) Did the Agency
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    99

    1
    approve the construction of the monitoring wells
    2
    at the Hall Service, Rushco Shell and Zanra
    3
    sites?
    4
    A. Yes.
    5
    Q. Who is the project manager at the Hall
    6
    Service site?
    7
    A. Ms. Hawbaker.
    8
    Q. And the Rushco Shell site?
    9
    A. Ms. Hawbaker.
    10
    MR. FROEMEL: Can we mark that?
    11
    (The reporter marked Exhibit No. 8
    12
    for purposes of identification.)
    13
    Q. (By Mr. Froemel) If you could flip
    14
    through --
    15
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Do you have a
    16
    copy I could have?
    17
    MR. FROEMEL: Oh, sorry. We do.
    18
    Q. (By Mr. Froemel) If you could flip
    19
    through what's been marked as Exhibit 8?
    20
    A. Uh-huh.
    21
    Q. And can you identify those documents
    22
    for me?
    23
    A. The first one is the Agency's approval
    24
    of the Site Investigation Plan. The second is
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    100

    1
    CWM's Site Investigation Plan. The third is the
    2
    Agency's approval of the Amended Site
    3
    Investigation Completion Report, and the fourth
    4
    is the Site Investigation Completion Report.
    5
    Q. And the documents that you've
    6
    identified that were the Site Investigation
    7
    Reports submitted by CWM, were those submitted in
    8
    the -- were those prepared in the ordinary course
    9
    of CWM's business?
    10
    A. Yes.
    11
    Q. And were you involved in the
    12
    preparation of those documents?
    13
    A. I would have reviewed and had input.
    14
    Typically drilling plans are brought to me or one
    15
    of the senior engineers and staff geologists may
    16
    work on then -- developing them, but we usually
    17
    approve the drilling plan before it gets -- the
    18
    project or the report gets started.
    19
    Q. On the second page of the first
    20
    document what you identified as the Agency
    21
    approval letter, can you identify -- reading the
    22
    last line, Ms. Hawbaker's name is identified
    23
    there, does that show that she then is the
    24
    project manager for that site?
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    101

    1
    A. Yes, that's our interpretation.
    2
    MS. JARVIS: Which site is this? It
    3
    wasn't discussed before. You mentioned like a
    4
    Rushco.
    5
    A. It was referred as the Rushco Shell,
    6
    but it's a Keller Oil site.
    7
    MS. JARVIS: Okay. Sorry. We were
    8
    confused about what site we were talking about.
    9
    MR. FROEMEL: I'll clarify that on the
    10
    record as well. And show you -- we'll mark that
    11
    as Exhibit 9.
    12
    (The reporter marked Exhibit No. 9
    13
    for purposes of identification.)
    14
    Q. (By Mr. Froemel) And if you could
    15
    review that and tell me what documents are
    16
    contained within what's been marked as Exhibit 9.
    17
    A. Let's see. This one, the first is a
    18
    letter from the Agency approving the Corrective
    19
    Action Plan which would have included -- based on
    20
    the time that the work was done, site
    21
    investigation information. The second letter is
    22
    a letter from CWM which is our Site Assessment
    23
    Report and Corrective Action Plan.
    24
    Is there two letters on the top?
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    102

    1
    We're missing a letter on this one. What I don't
    2
    see in here, that would be in this record, is the
    3
    ultimate approval of that plan. The Site
    4
    Investigation Completion Report and Corrective
    5
    Action Plan.
    6
    Q. If you could just look at the first
    7
    page, first letter.
    8
    A. Huh?
    9
    Q. If you could just look at the first
    10
    letter that's on the top of that stack. Would
    11
    that be the approval letter that you're referring
    12
    to?
    13
    A. No. This one was the rejection and
    14
    then there was a subsequent approval.
    15
    Q. Is it your understanding that that
    16
    site was approved?
    17
    A. Yes.
    18
    Q. And the one document that may be
    19
    missing from this packet with respect to the site
    20
    is that final approval letter?
    21
    A. Yes.
    22
    Q. Okay. And if you could identify for
    23
    me again the project manager for this site?
    24
    A. Ms. Hawbaker. If necessary, we could
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    103

    1
    get a copy of that letter brought over here or
    2
    just -- it's in the Agency's file, whatever you
    3
    prefer.
    4
    Q. Yeah, well I'll address that in a
    5
    minute.
    6
    A. Okay.
    7
    Q. With respect to the site that we're
    8
    referring to which is identified in Exhibit 9 as
    9
    the Edgewood/Keller Oil site --
    10
    A. Uh-huh.
    11
    Q. -- were the wells that were
    12
    constructed at that site comparable to the wells
    13
    installed at the Farina site?
    14
    A. Yes.
    15
    Q. And also comparable with respect to
    16
    where the well screens were placed?
    17
    A. Yes.
    18
    Q. Would you say the same with respect to
    19
    the Hall's Service site?
    20
    A. Yes.
    21
    Q. And with respect to the documents with
    22
    respect to the Edgewood/Keller Oil site, for the
    23
    documents that are identified as being prepared
    24
    as CWM, were those prepared in the ordinary
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    104

    1
    course of CWM's business?
    2
    A. Yes.
    3
    MR. FROEMEL: Okay. With the caveat
    4
    that I'd like to supplement maybe at the lunch
    5
    break get a copy of Farina approval letter
    6
    attached here, I would like to move to admit
    7
    Exhibits 8 and 9.
    8
    MS. JARVIS: I'm going to object and I
    9
    would like cross-examine on these two exhibits
    10
    before we discuss entering them in.
    11
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Okay. Let's do
    12
    that. Let's finish with the witness before we
    13
    discussed admitting Exhibits 8 and 9.
    14
    MR. FROEMEL: I have nothing further
    15
    for the witness.
    16
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Okay. Ms.
    17
    Jarvis?
    18
    CROSS-EXAMINATION
    19
    BY MS. JARVIS:
    20
    Q. Okay. Let's start with the exhibits,
    21
    okay. First I want you to turn to page 90 of the
    22
    record in Farina. Now, Ms. Rowe, that indicates
    23
    that we, at least for Monitoring Well 1, we had
    24
    gravel top soil, then brown silt loam, brown clay
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    105

    1
    silt, gray silty clay till with some poorly
    2
    sorted sand, a very small pebble stiff, then we
    3
    have brown clay silt moist, some fine grain sand
    4
    and then gray very fine wet sand, and then it
    5
    goes down to brown till silty clay large and
    6
    chert, C-H-E-R-T, brown silt hard dry and fine
    7
    gray sand dry.
    8
    Then we go to Hall's Automotive. And
    9
    the boring logs there are in appendix C. The
    10
    pages are not marked. Let's see if we can find
    11
    the -- here we go. The Monitoring Well 1 is
    12
    about six pages in on that exhibit. And in that
    13
    case we have asphalt and then gravel and then
    14
    sandy loam and then brown sand fine grain,
    15
    moist --
    16
    A. I'm sorry. I'm not sure we're on the
    17
    same page.
    18
    Q. Monitoring Well 1, the drilling log?
    19
    MS. HESSE: Which document are
    20
    referring to?
    21
    MS. JARVIS: I am referring to the
    22
    document for Hall's Automotive.
    23
    MR. FROEMEL: Exhibit 8.
    24
    Q. (By Ms. Jarvis) Exhibit 9. And it is
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    106

    1
    Appendix C boring logs and Well Completion
    2
    Reports about page six or seven in where we have
    3
    the boring log for Monitoring Well 1.
    4
    A. Okay.
    5
    Q. Okay. Now on that page it shows from
    6
    about 2 feet to 7 feet, if I'm reading it
    7
    correctly, brown sand fine grain; is that
    8
    correct?
    9
    A. Uh-huh.
    10
    Q. That's not what we found at Farina is
    11
    it? Between 2 feet to 7 feet there wasn't brown
    12
    sand fine grain at Farina?
    13
    A. So you're asking is the geology the
    14
    same?
    15
    Q. Is it the same, yeah, that's what I'm
    16
    asking you.
    17
    A. Oh. Huh-uh.
    18
    Q. Are the geologies between the two
    19
    sites the same?
    20
    A. No.
    21
    Q. Okay. Let's then go to the Monitoring
    22
    Well 1 LUST Well Completion Report. Which, once
    23
    again, these pages aren't numbered and it's
    24
    further into that same exhibit. It's the first
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    107

    1
    Well Completion Report. Now at that site it says
    2
    depth of water 93.58 feet static; is that
    3
    correct?
    4
    A. Yes.
    5
    Q. And your top of your screen is at 97.5
    6
    feet which is above the static water level;
    7
    correct?
    8
    A. Correct.
    9
    Q. So that's also not comparable to
    10
    Farina; correct?
    11
    A. Correct. Not at that one.
    12
    MS. JARVIS: I'm going to object to
    13
    this, to the entry of this case. The site is not
    14
    comparable to Farina in geology or the placement
    15
    of the wells.
    16
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Ms. Jarvis,
    17
    would you like to finish your cross --
    18
    MS. JARVIS: Sure. We can go ahead.
    19
    That's it for Hall.
    20
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Okay.
    21
    MS. JARVIS: I'm going to go on to the
    22
    next exhibit.
    23
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Okay. We'll
    24
    just discuss them at the end.
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    108

    1
    MS. JARVIS: Okay. That's fine.
    2
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: After the
    3
    testimony.
    4
    MS. JARVIS: Because I have a lot more
    5
    besides these because I thought we would just get
    6
    the exhibits out of the way.
    7
    A. Can I ask a question?
    8
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Yes.
    9
    A. If there's other wells in here that
    10
    shows the same type of --
    11
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: That would be
    12
    for your attorney -- that would be for your
    13
    attorney to take care of.
    14
    A. Okay.
    15
    Q. (By Ms. Jarvis) Okay. So now we're
    16
    onto the Edgewood/Keller Oil site. And we are at
    17
    Appendix C, the first -- oh, okay. So let's see.
    18
    We have a whole budget of boring logs. Okay. I
    19
    guess it's page four or five in. It's OMW5. Now
    20
    is this geology the same as at Farina? This page
    21
    would indicate otherwise; isn't that correct?
    22
    A. It's sightly different but we had
    23
    brown clay till with increasing sand but not
    24
    exactly the same, no.
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    109

    1
    Q. Okay. Now this indicates Monitoring
    2
    Well 5 and then it indicates that's north of
    3
    Monitoring Well 6. Were there more monitoring
    4
    wells in this case?
    5
    A. There were probably 30. I don't know.
    6
    Q. So this isn't even a complete record,
    7
    it doesn't include all the monitoring wells or
    8
    all the boring logs; correct?
    9
    A. Correct.
    10
    MS. JARVIS: That's all for those.
    11
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Okay. So are
    12
    you finished discussing -- are we -- are you
    13
    finished with the cross-examination regarding the
    14
    8 and 9?
    15
    MS. JARVIS: Regarding just the
    16
    exhibits.
    17
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Okay. I'll
    18
    make a ruling. Do you have anything further to
    19
    say on Exhibits 8 and 9?
    20
    MR. FROEMEL: I have some additional
    21
    questions for the witness with respect to Exhibit
    22
    8. Do you want me to lay additional foundation?
    23
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Do you mind if
    24
    we go ahead --
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    110

    1
    MS. JARVIS: I don't mind if we go
    2
    ahead with the exhibits, then I'll get to my
    3
    regular cross.
    4
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Okay.
    5
    REDIRECT EXAMINATION
    6
    BY MR. FROEMEL:
    7
    Q. On Exhibit 8 Ms. Jarvis had pointed
    8
    out the first page of the drilling bore hole
    9
    logs.
    10
    A. Uh-huh.
    11
    Q. And that was the page that described
    12
    the black silt loam and then the fine brown sand?
    13
    A. Uh-huh.
    14
    Q. Could you turn to the second page of
    15
    the drilling bore hole log in Exhibit 8?
    16
    A. Uh-huh.
    17
    Q. And if you could review the soil and
    18
    rock description on that second page.
    19
    A. Is that --
    20
    Q. It starts with top soil dark brown
    21
    silty loam?
    22
    A. Brown silty clay with fine grain sand,
    23
    tan weathered -- tan weathered sandstone, fine
    24
    grain sand, few fragments.
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    111

    1
    Q. And would you say that that -- that
    2
    geology is similar to the geology of the Farina
    3
    site?
    4
    A. We did have similar geologic units at
    5
    the Farina site. Not in identical depths or --
    6
    MS. JARVIS: I was going to ask if the
    7
    witness could point to where in the record the
    8
    identical or similar units were.
    9
    A. We have a -- we have a brown silty
    10
    clay, silty loam, silt with fine grain sand
    11
    becoming prominent.
    12
    MS. JARVIS: Which monitoring well
    13
    bore log are you referring to in the Farina
    14
    record?
    15
    A. Okay, I'm on page 93. The coarseness
    16
    of the sand is slightly different on page 96. We
    17
    have gray silt with fine grain sand.
    18
    MS. JARVIS: But that's a soil boring,
    19
    correct, not a monitoring well?
    20
    A. I can't --
    21
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: You can take
    22
    off that binder clip if that would help.
    23
    A. Boring --
    24
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: I don't want to
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    112

    1
    spend too much time on this. Is there anything
    2
    that we can just summarize without --
    3
    MR. FROEMEL: If I could just ask a
    4
    couple follow-up questions and see were it takes
    5
    us.
    6
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Okay.
    7
    Q. (By Mr. Froemel) With respect to the
    8
    Farina and the two sites we've been talking
    9
    about, the Hall's Service Center and the
    10
    Edgewood/Keller Edgewood site, it's your
    11
    testimony that the wells at those sites were
    12
    installed in the same fashion?
    13
    A. Yes.
    14
    Q. And those well installations were
    15
    approved by the project -- same project manager,
    16
    Ms. Hawbaker?
    17
    A. Yes.
    18
    Q. If you could just look real quick at
    19
    the Well Completion Report for Monitoring Well 8
    20
    in the Hall's Automotive site.
    21
    A. For which well?
    22
    Q. Monitoring Well 8.
    23
    A. Eight.
    24
    Q. And can you tell me was the -- the top
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    113

    1
    of the screen submerged beneath the static water
    2
    level at that well?
    3
    A. No, it's above the screened interval.
    4
    Q. Okay. So this static water level is
    5
    -- that is above the top of the screen; is that
    6
    correct?
    7
    A. Correct.
    8
    Q. Okay. And then if I could just have
    9
    you a look for an example with respect to the
    10
    Edgewood/Keller Oil site for I think Monitoring
    11
    Well No. 5, the Well Completion Report.
    12
    A. Okay.
    13
    Q. And could you tell me is the static
    14
    water level above the top of the screen for
    15
    Monitoring Well 5 at that site?
    16
    A. Yes, it's above the screen.
    17
    Q. At both those sites, both the
    18
    Edgewood/Keller Oil site and the Hall's
    19
    Automotive site, the placement of the wells with
    20
    the screen below this static water level was
    21
    accepted by the Agency; is that correct?
    22
    A. Yes.
    23
    MR. FROEMEL: Okay. I have nothing
    24
    further on that.
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    114

    1
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Do you have
    2
    anything?
    3
    MS. JARVIS: I just have a couple
    4
    follow-up questions.
    5
    CROSS-EXAMINATION
    6
    BY MS. JARVIS:
    7
    Q. Monitoring Well is one of 17
    8
    monitoring wells at the Hall's site; is that
    9
    correct.
    10
    A. I'm really not sure what the total
    11
    number was.
    12
    Q. It looks like it went to Monitoring
    13
    Well 17 when I looked through here.
    14
    A. Okay.
    15
    Q. The last page before the next blue
    16
    sheet --
    17
    A. Uh-huh.
    18
    Q. -- Appendix C it says Monitoring Well
    19
    17?
    20
    A. Right.
    21
    Q. So that was just one of 17 monitoring
    22
    wells?
    23
    A. Right.
    24
    Q. And Monitoring Well 5 in the Edgewood
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    115

    1
    case is one of how many wells did you say there
    2
    were at that site?
    3
    A. Numerous.
    4
    Q. Numerous. Okay.
    5
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Okay. If we're
    6
    finished with testimony on Exhibit 8 and 9, I'm
    7
    going to take these as offers of proof. On the
    8
    one hand it is information that the Agency had;
    9
    however, whether it's, you know, there's
    10
    obviously some, you know, it's not clearcut --
    11
    there's some factual differences of opinion here.
    12
    I will let the Board make the determination
    13
    whether it's relevant and whether they want to
    14
    consider this information. But I think for now
    15
    I'm just going to accept it as an offer of proof
    16
    for the Board.
    17
    MS. JARVIS: Okay.
    18
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: So if you'd
    19
    like to continue your cross-examination on other
    20
    issues.
    21
    MS. JARVIS: Sure.
    22
    Q. (By Ms. Jarvis) Okay. What was the
    23
    year that CWM was formed?
    24
    A. We began work in 1991 and incorporated
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    116

    1
    in 1992.
    2
    Q. And you've been at CW3M the entire
    3
    time the company has been in business; correct?
    4
    A. Yes.
    5
    Q. What's the nature of your contract
    6
    with L. Keller Oil in the nature of your fees?
    7
    MS. HESSE: Objection, irrelevant.
    8
    MS. JARVIS: It goes to the bias of
    9
    this witness as to how she gets paid from L.
    10
    Keller Oil. Is it from the fund or is it from L.
    11
    Keller Oil? Because if it's from the fund, her
    12
    testimony could be biased in this case in order
    13
    to get reimbursement from the fund. If it's from
    14
    L. Keller Oil, then she may be a little bit more
    15
    neutral in telling us about the site.
    16
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: So was your
    17
    question where her salary comes from?
    18
    MS. JARVIS: The question is --
    19
    Exactly. Does she get paid when she gets
    20
    reimbursed from the fund or does she get paid
    21
    from L. Keller Oil.
    22
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: I'll allow it.
    23
    You can answer.
    24
    A. It's a site eligible for
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    117

    1
    reimbursement, so it ultimately gets paid for by
    2
    the UST Fund.
    3
    Q. (By Ms. Jarvis) How many times has
    4
    your company appealed an Agency decision?
    5
    A. Quite a few.
    6
    Q. 300? 500?
    7
    A. I don't, Melanie.
    8
    Q. I'm assuming we're talking hundreds
    9
    since the inception in 1991; right?
    10
    A. I don't know hundreds.
    11
    Q. Okay. So since the inception since
    12
    1991?
    13
    A. I don't know.
    14
    Q. Since you get paid out of the fund, if
    15
    the Board holds in favor of the Agency and denies
    16
    these wells and the wells are not reimbursed, you
    17
    won't get paid for that work; is that correct?
    18
    A. That's correct.
    19
    MS. HESSE: I'm going to object. One
    20
    of the issues is not -- that's on appeal here is
    21
    not whether the wells get reimbursed or not.
    22
    MS. JARVIS: It still all goes to bias
    23
    of the witness as to whether or not this is
    24
    denied. It's a reimbursable action and what
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    118

    1
    follows from doing the work is a reimbursement.
    2
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Well, I don't
    3
    know. She works for the company that's bringing
    4
    the complaint so I would imagine that's her
    5
    situation. But, I mean, I guess I'll allow a
    6
    couple more questions on it. I'm not sure how
    7
    relevant it is.
    8
    MS. JARVIS: Okay. This is actually
    9
    how far I'm going on that question.
    10
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Okay.
    11
    Q. (By Ms. Jarvis) And you actually
    12
    installed this well; correct?
    13
    A. Correct.
    14
    MR. FROEMEL: Melanie, which well are
    15
    you referring to?
    16
    MS. JARVIS: These wells. I should
    17
    have said these wells. I meant in plural.
    18
    Sorry, the wells at the Farina site.
    19
    Q. (By Ms. Jarvis) Were you also onsite
    20
    to do the soil borings?
    21
    MR. FROEMEL: Objection. Goes beyond
    22
    the scope of the direct testimony.
    23
    MS. JARVIS: Well, it's the nature of
    24
    the appeal, the soil borings. If she wasn't
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    119

    1
    onsite and didn't do the soil borings --
    2
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: I'm going to
    3
    allow it.
    4
    A. I was onsite for the majority of the
    5
    soil borings that have been completed there.
    6
    Q. (By Ms. Jarvis) But your testimony
    7
    today is just as to the wells, you're not going
    8
    to testify as to the installation --
    9
    A. No.
    10
    Q. -- or the correct placement of the
    11
    soil boring?
    12
    A. No. We have another witness for that.
    13
    Q. That's fine. I won't go any farther
    14
    than that on that one. Okay. Let's go to page
    15
    90 of the Agency record. Do you see the section
    16
    all the way down at the bottom where it says
    17
    Groundwater Depth After Drilling? I'd like you
    18
    to look at pages 90 through 94. That section
    19
    wasn't filled in by you; is that correct?
    20
    A. No, it wasn't.
    21
    Q. Did you determine the groundwater
    22
    depth after drilling?
    23
    A. No, we did not.
    24
    Q. And if we could go to pages 102 and
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    120

    1
    look for Monitoring Wells 1 through 5. On page
    2
    102 if you could read the depth to water.
    3
    A. 10 to 11 well drilling, 97.75 feet
    4
    static.
    5
    Q. Okay. And the top of the screen?
    6
    A. 95.5 feet.
    7
    Q. So the top of the screen in this well
    8
    is below water; correct?
    9
    A. Yes.
    10
    Q. It's below the static water level?
    11
    A. Yes.
    12
    Q. Okay. And if you could look through,
    13
    we'll just try to shortcut this a little bit,
    14
    that's true for the following wells to Monitoring
    15
    Well 5?
    16
    A. Correct.
    17
    Q. Now you testified that when you hit
    18
    moisture around 10 feet you thought you had hit
    19
    the groundwater level; correct? You thought you
    20
    had hit groundwater?
    21
    A. Yeah, 10 feet we hit moisture and then
    22
    it became virtually saturated and we thought we
    23
    hit groundwater.
    24
    Q. And that's the information you
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    121

    1
    presented to the Agency; correct?
    2
    A. Correct.
    3
    Q. And you never presented any
    4
    information in opposition to that to the Agency;
    5
    correct?
    6
    A. Correct.
    7
    Q. So you never told the Agency, hey, we
    8
    were wrong. This isn't where we hit.
    9
    Groundwater is actually down here, as Mr. St.
    10
    John testified in the 12 foot area; is that
    11
    correct? That was never submitted to the Agency;
    12
    correct?
    13
    A. Well, we're -- we're still not sure
    14
    that that unit didn't produce some water. It was
    15
    either capillary or it was -- it was groundwater.
    16
    Q. But you do understand the Agency
    17
    relies on the information you submit to it --
    18
    A. Correct.
    19
    Q. -- in order to make its decision? And
    20
    for the Agency to understand what you submitted
    21
    was that groundwater was at 10 feet; correct?
    22
    A. Uh-huh. Because it was saturated --
    23
    Q. Right.
    24
    A. -- you know.
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    122

    1
    Q. That's the information you submitted
    2
    to us?
    3
    A. Yeah. There's not a magic blue line
    4
    that says that, okay, you've gone from the
    5
    capillary fringe to groundwater. And when it's
    6
    saturated we're saying we're in groundwater --
    7
    Q. Okay.
    8
    A. -- or at the top of the groundwater
    9
    table.
    10
    Q. When you set the well screen, did you
    11
    intend the well to be submerged?
    12
    A. No.
    13
    Q. Okay.
    14
    A. No.
    15
    MS. JARVIS: I have no further
    16
    questions.
    17
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Thank you. Any
    18
    redirect?
    19
    MR. FROEMEL: I have a few.
    20
    REDIRECT EXAMINATION
    21
    BY MR. FROEMEL:
    22
    Q. With respect to the logs that begin at
    23
    page 90 that we have just discussed, does the
    24
    screen extend both above and below the
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    123

    1
    groundwater depth while drilling that 10 to 11
    2
    foot range?
    3
    A. Yes.
    4
    Q. And where's the center of the screen
    5
    placed?
    6
    A. The center of the screen would be --
    7
    the bottom would be about 14 and-a-half and the
    8
    top would be 4 and-a-half, so the center of the
    9
    screen is, what, 9 and-a-half.
    10
    Q. And moisture was found --
    11
    A. Or 10 -- did I say that wrong?
    12
    Q. I think. Between 10 and 11; is that
    13
    right?
    14
    A. Between 10 and 11, yeah.
    15
    Q. And if you look at these logs,
    16
    moisture was found initially in around the 10 to
    17
    11 range; is that right?
    18
    A. Uh-huh.
    19
    Q. And that at the 12 foot range your log
    20
    identifies that it was quote wet; is that
    21
    correct?
    22
    A. Uh-huh.
    23
    Q. Would you have set the screens
    24
    differently at the -- for these wells if you had
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    124

    1
    known they would be submerged beneath the static
    2
    water level?
    3
    A. No, I don't think I would have. And
    4
    if I did, I would have probably only by six
    5
    inches.
    6
    MR. FROEMEL: Okay. I don't have
    7
    anything further.
    8
    MS. JARVIS: I don't have any
    9
    follow-up.
    10
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Okay. Thank
    11
    you, Ms. Rowe, you may step down. Let's go off
    12
    the record for a moment.
    13
    (A discussion was held off the
    14
    record.)
    15
    (A short break was taken.)
    16
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Petitioner may
    17
    call their next witness.
    18
    MS. HESSE: Yes, our next witness is
    19
    Jeff Wienhoff.
    20
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Would the court
    21
    reporter please swear in the witness.
    22
    (The witness was sworn in by the court reporter.)
    23
    DIRECT EXAMINATION
    24
    BY MS. HESSE:
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    125

    1
    Q. Okay. Mr. Wienhoff, could you
    2
    describe for us your educational background?
    3
    A. I have a Bachelor's of Science in
    4
    Engineering, in Chemical Engineering, with
    5
    Departmental Honors from Tulane University in New
    6
    Orleans, Louisiana. I attended one year of
    7
    graduate school for chemical engineering at
    8
    Washington University in St. Louis. Since after
    9
    leaving Washington University, since June of
    10
    2000, I have been employed at CWM Company as an
    11
    environmental engineer and project manager.
    12
    Q. Are you a registered professional
    13
    engineer?
    14
    A. Yes. I've been a registered
    15
    professional engineer since the summer of 2005.
    16
    Q. And how -- what does it take to become
    17
    a registered professional engineer?
    18
    A. You have to have a degree from an
    19
    accredited university as well as pass two tests
    20
    and have a minimum of four years of experience, I
    21
    believe.
    22
    Q. Okay. I'm going to show you a
    23
    document and ask if you could identify what that
    24
    is?
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    126

    1
    A. That's my resume.
    2
    MS. HESSE: Okay. We'd like to enter
    3
    this as Exhibit 10.
    4
    (The reporter marked Exhibit No. 10
    5
    for purposes of identification.)
    6
    MS. JARVIS: No objection.
    7
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Okay. Exhibit
    8
    10 is admitted.
    9
    Q. (By Ms. Hesse) Mr. Wienhoff, did you
    10
    participate in the rulemaking proceedings under
    11
    Section 734, regulations with respect to
    12
    underground storage tank remediation?
    13
    A. For the Section 734 rulemaking
    14
    proceedings, yes, I was at, I believe, every
    15
    hearing and filed comment for our company.
    16
    Q. Did you also provide testimony?
    17
    A. Yes.
    18
    Q. What was your involvement at the
    19
    Keller Oil Farina 711 site?
    20
    A. I have been at both of the UST
    21
    removals. I was onsite for the majority of the
    22
    Stage 1 drilling investigation. And in the
    23
    office I have reviewed plans and reports prior to
    24
    their submittal to Illinois EPA as well as review
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    127

    1
    Illinois EPA's correspondence in response to
    2
    them.
    3
    Q. In preparation for your testimony
    4
    today, did you prepare an illustration?
    5
    A. I had someone at our office prepare an
    6
    illustration.
    7
    Q. And this was prepared at your
    8
    direction?
    9
    A. Yes.
    10
    Q. Could you describe what the document
    11
    is?
    12
    A. It's a map of the Farina site. It's
    13
    basically combining all the soil samples that
    14
    have been taken throughout early action and Stage
    15
    1 Site Investigation as well as the contaminant
    16
    values found at each location. It's different
    17
    pieces of what's in the record combined into one
    18
    document for easier viewing, I guess.
    19
    MS. HESSE: Okay. I'd like to move
    20
    that this be entered at Exhibit 12.
    21
    (The reporter marked Exhibit No. 11
    22
    for purposes of identification.)
    23
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: 11.
    24
    MS. HESSE: Sorry.
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    128

    1
    MS. JARVIS: I'd lake to be able to
    2
    here the testimony first and be able to cross on
    3
    this document first before we admit it into
    4
    evidence.
    5
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Okay. Let's do
    6
    that.
    7
    Q. (By Ms. Hesse) Okay. Mr. Wienhoff,
    8
    did you determine where the soil borings would be
    9
    taken and where the soil borings would be located
    10
    at the Farina site?
    11
    A. Yes, I did. In conjunction with other
    12
    members of our office.
    13
    Q. And are the locations of those soil
    14
    borings reflected on this map that we've
    15
    discussed as Exhibit 12?
    16
    A. Yes, they are.
    17
    Q. And to your knowledge are the
    18
    locations of the soil borings an accurate
    19
    depiction of where the soil borings were
    20
    collected?
    21
    A. Yes, they're accurate in accordance
    22
    with the measurements we took at the site the day
    23
    we installed them.
    24
    Q. Does this diagram also show the
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    129

    1
    locations of the various monitoring wells?
    2
    A. Yes, it does.
    3
    Q. And do the locations of the monitoring
    4
    wells shown on this diagram reflect where the
    5
    monitoring wells were located on this site?
    6
    A. Yes, they are.
    7
    Q. There's other dots here marked, for
    8
    example, N-2, N-1, W-1, S-2, what do those dots
    9
    represent?
    10
    A. Those are the samples that were taken
    11
    during early action sampling.
    12
    Q. And those would have been the sidewall
    13
    excavation samples?
    14
    A. The sidewall excavation samples as
    15
    well as the piping run samples that were taken.
    16
    Q. Okay. Just generally the dots that
    17
    are located in the center of the diagram levels,
    18
    P-1, P-2, P-3, are those piping run samples?
    19
    A. Yes, they are.
    20
    Q. If you look to the left of the diagram
    21
    there is a number of dots that are labeled D-5,
    22
    D-4, D-3, are those representative of where the
    23
    sidewall excavation samples were collected for
    24
    the diesel tank excavation?
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    130

    1
    A. Yes, they are.
    2
    Q. Then there's also some samples labeled
    3
    D-10, D-11, D-12, D-13, and D-1, what do those
    4
    samples represent?
    5
    A. Those are the piping run samples taken
    6
    for the diesel excavation and diesel piping.
    7
    Q. Did you determine where the soil
    8
    borings should be located?
    9
    A. Yes.
    10
    Q. And how did you make that
    11
    determination?
    12
    A. By reviewing the Illinois -- or the
    13
    734 rules in determining what needed to be done
    14
    to define the dirty samples from the early action
    15
    sampling.
    16
    Q. Was that work done in compliance with
    17
    the regulations?
    18
    A. Yes, it was.
    19
    Q. How many soil borings were installed
    20
    around the gasoline tank excavation?
    21
    A. Two soil borings were installed around
    22
    the gasoline tanks excavation.
    23
    Q. And which soil borings are those?
    24
    A. Soil Boring 3 and Soil Boring 4.
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    131

    1
    Q. How many borings do the regulations
    2
    allow to be installed around a tank excavation
    3
    where contamination was found?
    4
    A. Up to four borings are allowed to be
    5
    installed, according to that section of the
    6
    regulations.
    7
    Q. So you installed less than the maximum
    8
    that would have been allowed; is that correct?
    9
    A. That's correct.
    10
    Q. How many soil borings were installed
    11
    along the gasoline piping line?
    12
    A. Two soil borings were installed to
    13
    define the piping run release.
    14
    Q. And which soil borings are those?
    15
    A. SB-1 and SB-2.
    16
    Q. Did you find contamination in Soil
    17
    Borings SB-1 and SB-2?
    18
    A. Yes, we did.
    19
    Q. Under the regulations, how many soil
    20
    borings may be installed the gas -- along a
    21
    gasoline piping run?
    22
    A. For Stage 1 Investigation is two
    23
    samples.
    24
    Q. How many soil borings were installed
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    132

    1
    for the diesel tank excavation?
    2
    A. Two soil borings were installed.
    3
    Q. And that was initially?
    4
    A. Initially SB-5 and SB-6.
    5
    Q. Was that -- Subsequently did you
    6
    determine that SB-6 was not needed and did you
    7
    then install two additional soil borings around
    8
    the diesel excavation?
    9
    A. SB-6 was not needed due to a clerical
    10
    error in our 45-day report that was -- that we
    11
    took to the field with us. We did not install
    12
    any additional borings around the diesel tank
    13
    excavation, but we installed SB-7 and SB-8 around
    14
    the diesel piping run excavation, since that is
    15
    where the correct dirty sample was located.
    16
    Q. When you realized that there had been
    17
    a clerical error where the report got the data
    18
    mixed up for two of the borings, did you advise
    19
    the Agency of that and get that cleared up?
    20
    A. For SB-6, yes, we did.
    21
    Q. Okay. So that's not part of the
    22
    appeal here at all?
    23
    A. No, it's not.
    24
    Q. Could you explain the location of
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    133

    1
    SB-5?
    2
    A. SB-5 is installed originally to define
    3
    D-7, which was the clerical error sample, but now
    4
    it is to the northwest of, I guess, D-10 sample.
    5
    Q. So can that sample be used to help
    6
    define the area near D-10?
    7
    A. Yes, it can.
    8
    Q. And was contamination found in D-10?
    9
    A. Yes.
    10
    Q. Was contamination found in Soil Boring
    11
    5?
    12
    A. Yes, it was.
    13
    Q. Okay. Soil Boring 4, why is that soil
    14
    boring necessary to understand the extent of soil
    15
    contamination at the Farina site?
    16
    A. Soil Boring 4 is to define the
    17
    contamination from the E-1 sample to the north.
    18
    We didn't have anything directly north of sample
    19
    E-1 to define it.
    20
    Q. And sample SB-3, how is that defined?
    21
    A. When we were there, Soil Boring SB-3
    22
    was intended to determine the extents from sample
    23
    E-1 to the east.
    24
    Q. Can Soil Boring N-1 and Soil Boring
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    134

    1
    SB-3 define conditions that would have been found
    2
    at SB-4?
    3
    A. No, they cannot.
    4
    Q. And why not?
    5
    A. Because they are not between the two
    6
    locations. They are further to the east and
    7
    further to the west.
    8
    Q. They being?
    9
    A. N-1 is further to the west, and SB-3
    10
    is to the east.
    11
    Q. And the contamination that was being
    12
    defined, was the contamination in Excavation
    13
    Sample E-1?
    14
    A. Yes.
    15
    Q. Benzene contamination was found in
    16
    SB-5; is that correct?
    17
    A. Yes.
    18
    Q. Do you consider the benzene
    19
    contamination that was found in Sample SB-5 to be
    20
    an anomaly?
    21
    A. No, I do not.
    22
    Q. And why not?
    23
    A. It is likely that it is caused by an
    24
    overfill from the diesel tanks.
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    135

    1
    Q. Are overfills covered by the
    2
    regulations at Section 734?
    3
    A. Yes, they are.
    4
    Q. Are cleanups of overfills eligible for
    5
    reimbursement under Section 734?
    6
    A. Yes, they are.
    7
    Q. One of the issues that the Agency
    8
    raised in this denial letter, and that we're
    9
    appealing, is whether the soil samples collected
    10
    from monitoring wells should have been analyzed.
    11
    So I'm going to be asking you some questions
    12
    about that.
    13
    A. Okay.
    14
    Q. First of all, before we get to that,
    15
    could you explain why the monitoring wells were
    16
    located where they were located?
    17
    A. The regulations for Stage 1 Site
    18
    Investigation require that a monitoring well is
    19
    located at each property boundary or 200 feet
    20
    from the excavation, whichever is less, as well
    21
    as one monitoring well in a location that is most
    22
    likely to be contaminated.
    23
    Q. Okay. Monitoring Well 1 is located
    24
    where?
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    136

    1
    A. On the southern property boundary.
    2
    Q. Monitoring Well 2 is located where?
    3
    A. 200 feet from the excavation in the
    4
    eastern direction.
    5
    Q. Monitoring Well 3 is located where?
    6
    A. It was located in the middle of the
    7
    property to be the most likely -- most -- most
    8
    likely contaminated point from the gasoline tank
    9
    release.
    10
    Q. And where was Monitoring Well 4
    11
    located?
    12
    A. As close to the northern property line
    13
    as we could get with the utilities in the way.
    14
    Q. And Monitoring Well 5 is located
    15
    where?
    16
    A. On the western property boundary.
    17
    Q. Why do you consider analysis of soil
    18
    samples that were collected when Monitoring Well
    19
    1 was installed to be an appropriate sample?
    20
    A. At the time that Monitoring Well 1 was
    21
    sampled, there were -- the regulations required
    22
    that if there is any evidence of contamination in
    23
    the monitoring wells that soil samples must be
    24
    collected. Or if there is no evidence of
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    137

    1
    contamination in the monitoring wells, borings,
    2
    that they must be sampled as long as there isn't
    3
    soil sampling to date which indicates that
    4
    contamination has not reached that direction.
    5
    Monitoring Well 1 was sampled because
    6
    D-10 is contaminated and there was -- there is no
    7
    soil sampling between D-10 and D -- and MW-1
    8
    which indicates that BTEX or PNAs has not reached
    9
    that location.
    10
    Additionally, MW-1 was sampled for
    11
    MTBE as there was no soil sampling to date, and
    12
    there continues to be none, in between the
    13
    release at P-4 and MW-1 for MTBEs.
    14
    Q. Okay. You mentioned earlier, when you
    15
    were just speaking, that there was no data
    16
    between D-10 and MW-1. When was Soil Boring 8
    17
    collected?
    18
    A. Soil Boring 8 was collected at a later
    19
    date.
    20
    Q. So that data would not have been
    21
    available when MW-1 was --
    22
    A. No, it would not have been. And even
    23
    if it would have been done on the same date, it
    24
    would not have been available because you don't
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    138

    1
    have the results in the field. You have to wait
    2
    for the qualified laboratory to return results.
    3
    Q. When you collect samples in the field
    4
    and send them to the laboratory, how long does it
    5
    typically take to get the lab results?
    6
    A. Approximately two weeks, plus or
    7
    minus, depending on how busy they are.
    8
    Q. Is there a reason why the samples
    9
    could not have been held and then submitted after
    10
    receiving the initial laboratory results?
    11
    A. Because samples have to be analyzed by
    12
    the laboratory. The holding time for the samples
    13
    to be analyzed is 14 days -- or for the samples
    14
    to be delivered to the laboratory is 14 days.
    15
    I'm not exactly sure on their protocol once they
    16
    have them.
    17
    Q. Okay. Is one of the reasons why
    18
    samples need be analyzed shortly after they're --
    19
    they're collected, such as samples for BTEX and
    20
    some of the other things we're looking at, is
    21
    because they're -- some of the chemicals in there
    22
    are volatile chemicals and could evaporate?
    23
    A. Yes, that's why. They have to be
    24
    analyzed within a certain time in order to
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    139

    1
    maintain the integrity of the sample.
    2
    Q. So there's a laboratory holding time
    3
    that needs to be met; is that correct?
    4
    A. Yes, that's correct.
    5
    Q. So as a practical matter, it would not
    6
    be possible or prudent or good engineering
    7
    practices to collect all the samples and then
    8
    submit them to the laboratory piecemeal; is that
    9
    correct?
    10
    A. That's correct.
    11
    Q. Could you explain the reasoning for
    12
    collecting and analyzing the samples from
    13
    Monitoring Well -- the soil samples from
    14
    Monitoring Well 2?
    15
    A. The soil samples from Monitoring Well
    16
    2 were collected because there was nothing to
    17
    define soil contamination between the P-4
    18
    location and the MW-2 location for BTEX and MTBE.
    19
    Additionally, for PNAs, there's
    20
    nothing between the D-10 location and the MW-2
    21
    location which can be utilized to define the
    22
    entire unsaturated zone of soil.
    23
    Q. Okay. Could you quickly define for us
    24
    what BTEX is, what that acronym stands for?
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    140

    1
    A. BTEX is benzene, ethylbenzene,
    2
    toluene, and total xylenes.
    3
    Q. And PNA?
    4
    A. Is polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons.
    5
    Q. And MBTE -- MTBE?
    6
    A. MTBE, Methyl tert-butyl ether, I think
    7
    is exactly what it is.
    8
    Q. Is that a gasoline additive?
    9
    A. Yes.
    10
    Q. Has that been known to cause
    11
    groundwater contamination problems?
    12
    A. Yes. It's probably the biggest
    13
    contaminant problem of any of the components.
    14
    Q. Please explain the reasoning for
    15
    collecting and analyzing the soil sample from the
    16
    installation of Monitoring Well 4?
    17
    A. The soil samples at Monitoring Well 4
    18
    were sampled for BTEX and MTBE due to the
    19
    releases at P-4 and E-1 as there were no soil
    20
    samples between those locations and MW-4. They
    21
    were sampled for PNAs because there were no soil
    22
    samples between D-10 and MW-4 that defined PNA
    23
    contamination in that direction.
    24
    Q. Okay. Would you mind repeating the
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    141

    1
    answer to the question of why soil samples for
    2
    Monitoring Well 2 were analyzed?
    3
    A. Because there -- they were analyzed
    4
    for BTEX and MTBE because there was nothing in
    5
    between P-4 and that location. They were
    6
    analyzed for PNAs because there was nothing that
    7
    can define the entire unsaturated zone between
    8
    D-10 and that location.
    9
    Q. Okay. You mentioned PNAs in the
    10
    context of the samples collected near the diesel
    11
    tanks, is there a reason for that?
    12
    A. Because -- Well, the indicator
    13
    contaminants for the diesel release was just
    14
    PNAs. So that the pit for the diesel tank was
    15
    sampled for BTEX and PNAs while the other pit was
    16
    sampled for BTEX and MTBE during the early action
    17
    sampling.
    18
    Q. And that's because BTEX and MTBE are
    19
    indicators of gasoline?
    20
    A. Yes.
    21
    Q. And BTEX and PNAs are indicators for
    22
    diesel?
    23
    A. Yes, they are.
    24
    Q. Can piping run samples, such as were
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    142

    1
    collected during early action and we understand
    2
    Mr. Smith's going testify about those, can they
    3
    be used to show extent of contamination at a
    4
    site?
    5
    A. No. They can be used to determine
    6
    releases from piping, but they cannot be used to
    7
    determine extensive contamination from other
    8
    points where a release may have occurred.
    9
    Q. Okay. Could -- I know you just said
    10
    this in an abstract, could you draw us an
    11
    illustration.
    12
    A. Sure. Describing why clean soil
    13
    samples -- clean piping run samples cannot be
    14
    used to define the entire unsaturated zone
    15
    because, for example, this is D-10 from the
    16
    Farina site. As the contamination migrates from
    17
    that location, it's going to migrate downward and
    18
    latterly. The other piping run samples can be
    19
    used to determine whether there's releases for
    20
    piping at the shallower depths but they cannot be
    21
    used to determine whether or not the
    22
    contamination which was released at the D-10 area
    23
    spread beneath those other piping run samples.
    24
    Therefore, those cannot be used to
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    143

    1
    determine the entire horizontal/vertical stint of
    2
    contamination as related to a soil boring in this
    3
    direction from there, from the D-10 location.
    4
    Q. And then on the drawing you made where
    5
    you've written the word surface, is that the
    6
    ground surface?
    7
    A. Yeah, that's the ground surface.
    8
    Q. And then where you've got one labeled
    9
    as D-10, that's your depiction of D-10?
    10
    A. Yeah, the contaminated piping run
    11
    sample from the Farina site.
    12
    Q. And then next to that is two circles
    13
    with the word clean below them?
    14
    A. Right. For the existing sample those
    15
    would be, I guess there's four of them, D-11, 12,
    16
    13, and D-1 at the Farina site.
    17
    Q. And then you have sort of an
    18
    elliptical semicircle drawn under that and it
    19
    says unsaturated zone, what does that represent?
    20
    A. Yeah, that's the unsaturated zone that
    21
    -- that was meant to incorporate the whole area.
    22
    That's the unsaturated zone where you have to
    23
    search for soil contamination above the water
    24
    table. The actual elliptical area is the
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    144

    1
    potential contaminant plume that is not known
    2
    until you do the drilling investigation. You
    3
    want me to label that?
    4
    Q. Okay. So then the reason you would do
    5
    a soil boring is to try to intercept the
    6
    potential contaminant plume?
    7
    A. That is emanating from the D-10
    8
    location.
    9
    MS. HESSE: And we would like to enter
    10
    this an as an exhibit also.
    11
    MS. JARVIS: You know, with this one
    12
    I'm just a little confused. You don't mind me
    13
    just asking a couple of questions just to clarify
    14
    the drawing?
    15
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Do you mind if
    16
    she --
    17
    MS. HESSE: No, go ahead.
    18
    Q. (By Ms. Jarvis) Okay. Where you have
    19
    D-10, did that come from the surface because it
    20
    looks like the boring is under the ground?
    21
    A. This is the surface.
    22
    Q. And then would you --
    23
    A. And then this would be the bottom of
    24
    the piping trench.
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    145

    1
    Q. Oh, okay. So then at the bottom of
    2
    the piping trench is where you --
    3
    A. Collected the D-10.
    4
    Q. And then how far down did you drill
    5
    down?
    6
    A. The drilling sample like, for example,
    7
    in this case would be MW-2 is 10 feet total.
    8
    Q. Well, how much for the piping run
    9
    though?
    10
    A. You don't drill for the piping run.
    11
    The piping was excavated during early action when
    12
    we were onsite.
    13
    Q. And then you just take the sample?
    14
    A. Take the sample right at the bottom of
    15
    the piping trench.
    16
    MS. JARVIS: Okay. I don't have any
    17
    objection to this. I just wanted to be clear I
    18
    understood it before I --
    19
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Okay.
    20
    MS. HESSE: And may I suggest labeling
    21
    the line that goes --
    22
    A. Bottom of the piping of trench.
    23
    MS. HESSE: The bottom of the piping
    24
    trench.
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    146

    1
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: I guess we
    2
    could go ahead and mark this as Exhibit 12.
    3
    MS. HESSE: 13.
    4
    MR. FROEMEL: I have the next is 12.
    5
    (The reporter marked Exhibit No. 12
    6
    for purposes of identification.)
    7
    Q. (By Ms. Hesse) When the Stage 2 Site
    8
    Investigation plan was submitted to the Agency,
    9
    did it propose additional soil borings?
    10
    A. Yes, it did.
    11
    Q. Did it propose soil borings to be
    12
    located west of the diesel tank excavation?
    13
    A. Yes. It proposed the soil boring to
    14
    the west of SB-5 in order to define the
    15
    contamination found at that location and to the
    16
    west to southwest of D-10 or to define soil
    17
    contamination south of SB-5 and west of D-10.
    18
    Q. Were additional soil borings proposed
    19
    at that site?
    20
    A. There were multiple additional soil
    21
    borings proposed at that site. There's also soil
    22
    borings proposed, I believe, at issue here
    23
    between the SB-1, SB-2, and MW-3 locations and
    24
    the MW-2 location.
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    147

    1
    Q. And why are those borings proposed?
    2
    A. While we already have evidence the
    3
    contamination spreads to the MW-2 location, we
    4
    believe that additional information would be
    5
    invaluable as far as design corrective action,
    6
    and lowering corrective action costs is to know
    7
    exactly what the contaminant levels are between
    8
    those two locations.
    9
    Q. Would it also help to know the
    10
    chemical nature of the contaminants in designing
    11
    some sort of remediation if one is necessary?
    12
    A. Yes, it would.
    13
    Q. Might the information also be helpful
    14
    in deciding what remediation might be necessary
    15
    if the level of contamination that was found in
    16
    Monitoring Well 2 could be -- the term we
    17
    sometime use is risked away in terms of doing a
    18
    Tier 2 assessment in Monitoring Well 2 for the
    19
    stuff that was found at Monitoring Well 2 to meet
    20
    Tier 2 objectives?
    21
    A. Yes, the -- likely once you design
    22
    corrective action, the Tier 2 remediation
    23
    objectives would eliminate the need for any
    24
    remediation to the MW-2 location. So that
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    148

    1
    additional information would be helpful in
    2
    defining the plume for the corrective action
    3
    phase of the work.
    4
    Q. During the Stage 1 Investigation and
    5
    early action activities, is the data under the
    6
    regulations required to be compared to the Tier 1
    7
    remediation?
    8
    A. Yes, for the site investigation
    9
    purposes of the regulations you have to define
    10
    the plume to Tier 1 numbers. And then once that
    11
    is completed, then you can do the Tier 2 analysis
    12
    in order to reduce the area of the plume that
    13
    needs to be cleaned up.
    14
    Q. During early action activities, if
    15
    data from any of the sample exceeds the most
    16
    stringent Tier 1 remediation objectives, is
    17
    additional sampling required?
    18
    A. Yes. If any samples from the early
    19
    action sampling exceed Tier 1 remediation
    20
    objective, then a Stage 1 Site Investigation is
    21
    require to be performed.
    22
    Q. If the Stage 1 Site Investigation
    23
    finds contamination that exceeds the Tier 1
    24
    remediation objectives, is a Stage 2 Site
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    149

    1
    Investigation required?
    2
    A. A Stage 2 Site Investigation is
    3
    required if further onsite investigation is
    4
    necessary to help define the plume.
    5
    Q. Is there a Stage 3 Site Investigation?
    6
    A. Yes. Stage 3 Site Investigation is
    7
    that if any of the contamination reaches the
    8
    property boundaries it is in order to define the
    9
    contamination as it extends onto neighboring
    10
    properties.
    11
    Q. Was your sampling protocol and your
    12
    location of soil borings and your location of
    13
    monitoring wells in accordance with the
    14
    regulatory requirements?
    15
    A. Yes, they were.
    16
    Q. Were they in accordance with accepted
    17
    professional engineering practices and
    18
    procedures?
    19
    A. Yes, they were.
    20
    MS. HESSE: No further questions.
    21
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Okay. Ms.
    22
    Jarvis?
    23
    CROSS-EXAMINATION
    24
    BY MS. JARVIS:
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    150

    1
    Q. Okay. Let's go through your map
    2
    first.
    3
    A. Okay.
    4
    Q. Can you point to the maps in the
    5
    record that you used to compile this map from?
    6
    A. I can, if I have the whole record
    7
    here. Let me figure out where everything is.
    8
    MR. FROEMEL: I think it's all there.
    9
    A. The -- the soil boring -- soil boring
    10
    and monitoring well soil location data can be
    11
    found on pages 215 and 216 of the record. One is
    12
    for the 0 to 5 foot depth and the other is for
    13
    the 5 to 10 foot depth. The early action samples
    14
    are going to be located in what was added to the
    15
    record as Exhibit 1.
    16
    Q. (By Ms. Jarvis) Okay.
    17
    A. They're going to be Drawing Number
    18
    0004 in Appendix B for the 2005-1539 incident.
    19
    Q. Okay.
    20
    A. And is 2006 in here? Do you have --
    21
    we have a copy of 2006 early intervention?
    22
    MR. FROEMEL: It's part of Exhibit 1.
    23
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Part of Exhibit
    24
    1 did you say?
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    151

    1
    MR. FROEMEL: Yes.
    2
    A. The sample location map in Appendix B
    3
    of the -- for the 2006-0153, Drawing Number 4 in
    4
    Appendix B is also there and then the values for
    5
    this map are found in the analytical results
    6
    which are in Appendix E of both of those 45-day
    7
    report addendums. They were not on that
    8
    specifically.
    9
    Q. (By Ms. Jarvis) Okay. Let's look at
    10
    Soil Boring 4.
    11
    A. Okay.
    12
    Q. Okay. And specifically I want to look
    13
    at the maps in the record -- in Appendix B of the
    14
    record starting on 213. Soil Boring 4 on page
    15
    213 is sort of towards the very edge of that near
    16
    N-1?
    17
    A. Yes.
    18
    Q. Okay. But then on the next picture on
    19
    214 it's kind of in the middle of that wall.
    20
    A. Okay.
    21
    Q. And now N-1 and N-2 were both clean
    22
    and this looks like it's right in between those
    23
    two. So it looks like -- Would you agree with me
    24
    that looks like inconsistent data?
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    152

    1
    A. Yes, that was a clerical error from
    2
    the first report that was supposed to be resolved
    3
    in the second report. And obviously the person
    4
    fixing the maps only fixed some of the maps and
    5
    not all of the maps.
    6
    Q. Okay. Let's go on. Why don't we
    7
    stick with Soil Boring 4 since we're on it. And
    8
    where Soil Boring 4 is on this map is the correct
    9
    location?
    10
    A. Yes.
    11
    Q. Okay.
    12
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Exhibit 11.
    13
    MS. JARVIS: Exhibit 11. Thank you.
    14
    Q. (By Ms. Jarvis) I just have to find
    15
    Soil Boring 4 in my notes. Okay. So N-2 and N-1
    16
    on Exhibit 11 are both clean samples?
    17
    A. Yes, they are.
    18
    Q. SB-3 is clean?
    19
    A. Yes.
    20
    Q. And then was SB-3 and SB-4 both bored
    21
    at the same time?
    22
    A. Within 10 minutes of each other, I
    23
    believe.
    24
    Q. Okay. So we had E-1 which is the
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    153

    1
    dirty sample?
    2
    A. Yes.
    3
    Q. To scale, and I'm not very good at
    4
    doing scale, how far away is SB-3 from E-1?
    5
    A. I can't say exactly what it scales to
    6
    on this map. The measured distance when we were
    7
    onsite doing the boring was 20 feet.
    8
    Q. And then how far is SB-4, which looks
    9
    directly north?
    10
    A. It would have been an additional 10
    11
    feet off the northern edge of the excavation
    12
    which probably should have been 10 feet, so it
    13
    should be 20 feet also.
    14
    Q. Okay. Let's move on to SB-5, okay?
    15
    A. Yes.
    16
    Q. SB-5 was drilled due to an error?
    17
    A. Yes, that was the original intent.
    18
    Q. Because D-8 was clean, D-7 was clean,
    19
    D-6 was clean. Now all those were clean and
    20
    would you normally drill a soil boring opposite a
    21
    clean wall?
    22
    A. No. That -- It originally was drilled
    23
    because of clerical error.
    24
    Q. Okay. So you came back in and D-10 is
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    154

    1
    the actual location of the contamination;
    2
    correct?
    3
    A. Yes.
    4
    Q. And you came back in and you drilled
    5
    SB-7 and SB-8?
    6
    A. Yes.
    7
    Q. Which were both clean and not subject
    8
    to this appeal?
    9
    A. Correct.
    10
    Q. But now SB-8, had it been done without
    11
    the clerical error, would have been drilled
    12
    before MW-1?
    13
    A. Yes.
    14
    Q. Or at the same time?
    15
    A. Yes, it would have been drilled at the
    16
    same time.
    17
    Q. Would you have taken soil samples from
    18
    MW-1?
    19
    A. Yes, we would have.
    20
    Q. Even if SB-8 was drilled at the same
    21
    time?
    22
    A. Yes.
    23
    Q. And was shown clean?
    24
    A. I have no proof when I'm in the field
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    155

    1
    if that boring is clean. It can -- I -- For
    2
    example, I drilled a site two weeks ago that I
    3
    could have sworn was clean when I left the site.
    4
    And when I got the results back yesterday, the
    5
    benzene levels were in the thousands as far as
    6
    PPBs. So while I would have suspected it was
    7
    clean, I wouldn't have had enough evidence to not
    8
    sample MW-1. I don't consider a location clean
    9
    until I receive analytical results from the
    10
    laboratory.
    11
    Q. Okay. Now is it your testimony that
    12
    the contamination from the SB-5 is separate from
    13
    the contamination in the diesel excavation?
    14
    A. It is my testimony that since we found
    15
    the contamination at the SB-5 location, that is
    16
    most likely from an overfill at the diesel tank
    17
    excavation.
    18
    Q. So that would be separate from the
    19
    actual contamination in the excavation?
    20
    A. I don't understand what you mean.
    21
    Q. Well, we have -- I'll run you through
    22
    it. We have the excavation, D-8 is clean?
    23
    A. Uh-huh.
    24
    Q. Okay. So we took the wall samples and
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    156

    1
    we have D-9 clean, D-8 clean, D-7 clean, D-6
    2
    clean, then we have SB-1 and it's got
    3
    contamination?
    4
    A. Yes, uh-huh.
    5
    Q. So to me, appearing on the map, it
    6
    appears that in that tank pit those walls were
    7
    clean?
    8
    A. Yes.
    9
    Q. So is SB-5 from a separate release
    10
    from the diesel tank?
    11
    A. No. What I would say is the sample
    12
    location at D-8 is clean. Now the person onsite
    13
    collecting those samples did the best job they
    14
    could in order to get the most contaminated wall
    15
    sample from that area after removing the early
    16
    action backfill. Barring any obvious differences
    17
    in contamination, that sample would have been
    18
    collected from approximately 8 feet deep.
    19
    Q. Now did this tank release, or was it
    20
    just a piping run that had the release?
    21
    A. The fire marshal onsite determined
    22
    that the piping release and overfills at the tank
    23
    were cause of the release.
    24
    Q. Okay, okay. Let's go to the
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    157

    1
    monitoring well samples. I'm just sorry for the
    2
    delay. I'm just checking to make sure -- I hit
    3
    you all with the same questions --
    4
    A. That's fine.
    5
    Q. -- on it so I'm not jumping all over
    6
    the place for you. Okay. Monitoring Well 1 was
    7
    examined for PNAs, BTEX, and MTBE; correct?
    8
    A. Yes.
    9
    Q. And it was clean?
    10
    A. Yes, it was.
    11
    Q. And the only dirty sample anywhere in
    12
    the direction is D-10?
    13
    A. I would say that there was nothing
    14
    between P-4 and MW-1 as well. There was no
    15
    samples in between -- for MTBE. There was
    16
    heating oil samples in between which would have
    17
    defined the BTEX and the PNAs but that -- those
    18
    were not tested for MTBEs because that is not an
    19
    indicator contaminant for heating oil samples,
    20
    for heating oil releases.
    21
    Q. Monitoring Well 2 --
    22
    A. Yes.
    23
    Q. -- that had a hit --
    24
    A. Yes.
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    158

    1
    Q. -- correct?
    2
    A. Yes, it did.
    3
    Q. And it had a hit in BTEX?
    4
    A. In benzene specifically.
    5
    Q. Benzene. And you also tested for
    6
    PNAs?
    7
    A. Yes, we did.
    8
    Q. And why did you test for PNAs?
    9
    A. Because there were no samples between
    10
    the D-10 release location and the MW-2 location
    11
    that spanned the entire unsaturated zone.
    12
    Q. So you're just counting D-11, D-12,
    13
    D-13, and D-1?
    14
    A. Absolutely, because that's --
    15
    Q. Which were all to the same level as
    16
    D-10?
    17
    A. Yes, they were. Because the
    18
    contamination as released from D-10 would migrate
    19
    down towards the water table as it spread
    20
    latterly.
    21
    Q. But now would you still have tested
    22
    MW-2 had you seen that SB-7 and SB-8 were clean?
    23
    A. Yes, because SB-7 is to the north,
    24
    SB-8 is to the south, and MW-2 is to the east.
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    159

    1
    So they're in different directions. And
    2
    additionally --
    3
    Q. Did you pick those directions on SB-7
    4
    and SB-8 because you already had MW-2?
    5
    A. No. We typically do it perpendicular
    6
    to the piping runs, is typically how we
    7
    determine, because we're allowed two borings for
    8
    a piping run release. And we typically do it
    9
    perpendicular to the piping run. Just as policy
    10
    -- company policy perpendicular to the piping run
    11
    release is most contaminated.
    12
    Q. Okay. Let's go to MW-4. We only --
    13
    you only -- MW-4 is clean?
    14
    A. Yes.
    15
    Q. But you only tested that for PNA?
    16
    A. No, we tested it for BTEX and MTBE as
    17
    well. That's just not at issue in this appeal.
    18
    Q. Oh, gotcha.
    19
    A. And we followed the same logic as we
    20
    did for MW-2 in testing that for PNAs. That
    21
    there is nothing in between the sample at D-10
    22
    and MW-4. And then in the northeast direction
    23
    which is sampled -- which it -- which -- where
    24
    the entire unsaturated zone was examined and
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    160

    1
    sampled.
    2
    Q. When did you sample MW-4, MW-2, and
    3
    MW-1 for PNAs? Was it on the same date that you
    4
    drilled SB-6 and SB-5?
    5
    A. Yes, it was.
    6
    Q. So you sampled those thinking that
    7
    actually it wasn't D-10 that was dirty?
    8
    A. That's correct. At the time it was
    9
    for D-7.
    10
    Q. Actually if you thought D-7 was dirty,
    11
    you actually had D-4 and D-3 clean?
    12
    A. That's correct.
    13
    Q. So you still tested MW-4 but you did
    14
    have samples at that time to your knowledge that
    15
    were clean?
    16
    A. Yes, which is why we agreed that MW-5
    17
    is no longer at issue. That was an error on our
    18
    part. However, we believe they're still relevant
    19
    and should be taken because of the release at
    20
    D-10.
    21
    Q. Okay. Let's go to those regulations.
    22
    A. Do we have a copy of those up here?
    23
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: I don't think
    24
    so. Is there a copy of the regulation anywhere
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    161

    1
    in any of these exhibits?
    2
    MS. JARVIS: I don't know.
    3
    MS. HESSE: Did you bring a copy for
    4
    the witness to use?
    5
    MS. JARVIS: I did not bring a copy
    6
    for the witness to use.
    7
    MS. HAWBAKER: Here, I have a copy.
    8
    A. Thank you.
    9
    Q. (By Ms. Jarvis) You testified that
    10
    you were at the hearings for 734?
    11
    A. Yes.
    12
    Q. That was your testimony?
    13
    A. Yes, I did.
    14
    Q. Did you present testimony on 734.315?
    15
    A. It's been -- I think we presented
    16
    testimony on 713 -- 734.315 as it was originally
    17
    written. It was subsequently modified. And I
    18
    don't think we presented testimony regarding its
    19
    final version. It was significantly rewritten
    20
    during the hearings. It was much more
    21
    prescriptive in nature originally than it is
    22
    today.
    23
    Q. So let's look at 734.315(a)(1)(a)?
    24
    A. Yes.
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    162

    1
    Q. That section changed from when you
    2
    gave testimony?
    3
    A. I believe it did.
    4
    Q. So it says up to four borings must be
    5
    drilled and on each independent UST field where
    6
    one or more UST excavation samples collected
    7
    pursuant to 734.210(h), excluding backfill
    8
    samples, exceeds the most stringent Tier 1
    9
    remediation objectives.
    10
    A. Yes.
    11
    Q. How do you interpret that?
    12
    A. That as long as one sample of the --
    13
    along the excavation wall is contaminated you're
    14
    allowed to conduct up to four borings in order to
    15
    define the release at that point.
    16
    Q. Do you interpret that to mean you go
    17
    in the direction of the contamination?
    18
    A. I mean that's -- that's what -- that's
    19
    what I would say is the correct way to do it,
    20
    sure. I don't really see that in there, but,
    21
    yeah, that is the correct way to do it.
    22
    Q. Were you present for the testimony at
    23
    the hearing of Fernando O. Bernstein (phonetic)?
    24
    A. I'm sure I was if it happened.
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    163

    1
    Q. I have a copy if you'd like to see it.
    2
    A. I don't recall it.
    3
    Q. We believe the testimony -- his
    4
    testimony at the hearing was that you follow the
    5
    contamination?
    6
    A. Okay.
    7
    Q. And you did not do soil borings into
    8
    non-contaminated area, if you've already defined
    9
    the extent of the contamination there. Would you
    10
    agree --
    11
    A. I would agree that's reasonable, yes.
    12
    I don't think we've done that.
    13
    Q. Okay. If you could look at
    14
    734.315(2)(c).
    15
    A. Yes.
    16
    Q. Okay. Could you read where it starts
    17
    four borings that do not exhibit, it's about
    18
    halfway down?
    19
    A. For borings that do not exhibit any
    20
    signs of soil contamination, samples from the
    21
    following intervals must be analyzed for the
    22
    applicable indicator contaminants, provided that
    23
    the samples must be not analyzed if other soil
    24
    sampling conducted to date indicates that soil
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    164

    1
    contamination does not extend to the location of
    2
    the monitoring well installation boring. Would
    3
    you like me to read the --
    4
    Q. No, that's all you need to do. You
    5
    saw the words must not be analyzed?
    6
    A. Yes, I did.
    7
    Q. Okay, okay. I just have a couple more
    8
    questions.
    9
    A. Okay.
    10
    Q. MW-2, okay?
    11
    A. Yes.
    12
    Q. You have proposed soil borings between
    13
    -- which are not indicated on Exhibit 11;
    14
    correct?
    15
    A. Yes, the proposed soil borings are not
    16
    on that map.
    17
    Q. But you have proposed soil borings
    18
    between SB-2?
    19
    A. Uh-huh.
    20
    Q. And Monitoring Well 2?
    21
    A. Yes, we have.
    22
    Q. Now SB-2 is contaminated for benzene?
    23
    A. Correct.
    24
    Q. And Monitoring Well 2 is contaminated
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    165

    1
    for benzene?
    2
    A. Yes.
    3
    Q. And in a site investigation, according
    4
    to the 734.315, you're supposed to only do
    5
    borings necessary to define the extent of the
    6
    contamination?
    7
    A. Well, 315 is just Stage 1.
    8
    Q. Right. But that's kind of where we're
    9
    at right now.
    10
    A. Well, the proposed borings are Stage
    11
    2.
    12
    Q. Stage 2.
    13
    A. That's a different section of the
    14
    rules.
    15
    Q. Let me just grab that real quick. I
    16
    just probably looked at the wrong section.
    17
    A. Okay.
    18
    Q. Okay. So let's go to 734.320.
    19
    A. Okay.
    20
    Q. In the first paragraph of 734.320 it
    21
    says, Stage 2 Site Investigation must be designed
    22
    to complete the identification of the extent of
    23
    soil and groundwater contamination at that
    24
    site --
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    166

    1
    A. Uh-huh.
    2
    Q. -- or at the site, that as a result of
    3
    the release it exceeds the most stringent Tier 1
    4
    remediation objectives.
    5
    A. Correct.
    6
    Q. And we already know the extent that
    7
    SB-2 is contaminated?
    8
    A. Correct.
    9
    Q. And that MW-2 is contaminated?
    10
    A. Okay. Here's the logic that we --
    11
    that we utilized in order to do this, and we've
    12
    had it differ by product manager, where some --
    13
    only one -- the bare minimum to determine the
    14
    edge of the contamination, where the
    15
    contamination actually ends; and then what
    16
    they'll do is have us go back under the first
    17
    stage of corrective action and do more samples to
    18
    define exactly how bad it is and in what areas.
    19
    We found that that's an inefficient
    20
    way of doing it because it's cheaper if you do it
    21
    all at once and it saves time if you do it all at
    22
    once. It gets the job done cheaper and more
    23
    efficiently.
    24
    Q. But basically that's a problem with
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    167

    1
    the regulation?
    2
    A. Okay.
    3
    Q. I mean, the regulation is written, you
    4
    had an opportunity to comment on the regulation
    5
    and the regulation is written in a certain way?
    6
    A. Okay. I'm --
    7
    Q. I know you're explaining --
    8
    A. Okay.
    9
    Q. -- the practical aspect of it, but the
    10
    regulation states what regulation states.
    11
    A. Okay. We filed this rule following
    12
    discussions with the manager of the LUST section
    13
    who said all the drilling should be done during
    14
    site investigation and not -- because we had
    15
    inconsistent from multiple project managers. And
    16
    that's the reason we proposed it in this matter.
    17
    While it says, let me read the thing,
    18
    to complete the identification of the extent and
    19
    soil groundwater contamination at that site that
    20
    exceeds the most -- to define the extent in my
    21
    mind it isn't that it exceeds the most but
    22
    exactly where it is and what it is. That's how
    23
    we were interpreting it. Exactly where the
    24
    contamination is and what it is.
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    168

    1
    And originally we did not propose it
    2
    that way and then we were getting project
    3
    managers that wanted us to, so that's why we did
    4
    it like that.
    5
    MS. HESSE: Can I ask a clarifying
    6
    question?
    7
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Yes.
    8
    MS. HESSE: You say why you did the
    9
    work -- how you did the work applying --
    10
    A. Why we proposed those three borings
    11
    between the -- that she's talking about between
    12
    the SB-2 and SB-1, and MW-3 and MW-2 location.
    13
    MS. JARVIS: No further questions.
    14
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Redirect?
    15
    Ms. HESSE: YES.
    16
    REDIRECT EXAMINATION
    17
    BY MS. HESSE:
    18
    Q. Earlier you were discussing, when Ms.
    19
    Jarvis was questioning you, the relationship
    20
    between where the sample at D-8 was collected and
    21
    where the contamination was found in SB-5?
    22
    A. Uh-huh.
    23
    Q. Approximately how many feet below
    24
    ground surface was the sample at D-8 collected?
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    169

    1
    A. Approximately 8 feet.
    2
    Q. And approximately how many feet below
    3
    the ground surface was the contamination found in
    4
    Soil Boring 5?
    5
    A. 2 and-a-half feet.
    6
    Q. So that if there was an overfill in
    7
    the area of Soil Boring 5, did the deeper sample
    8
    from Soil Boring 5 indicate that that
    9
    contamination had gone down --
    10
    A. No.
    11
    Q. -- to the same level that sample D-8
    12
    was collected?
    13
    A. No, it did indicate contamination at
    14
    that level.
    15
    Q. You also had some questions regarding
    16
    the timing of when the monitoring wells were
    17
    installed and the soil borings were installed.
    18
    Is there a reason why you installed all of those
    19
    on the same day?
    20
    A. Just more efficient and more
    21
    cost-effective than doing multiple trips at that
    22
    distance.
    23
    Q. Earlier you had mentioned another site
    24
    where you had recently gotten some data back and
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    170

    1
    found benzene contamination. When you're in the
    2
    field collecting samples, is it always possible
    3
    to determine if the samples are going to be
    4
    contaminated or not?
    5
    A. I would say 90% of the time you can
    6
    get a pretty good read, but there's that 10% of
    7
    the time you get surprised.
    8
    Q. And when you get surprised, is it
    9
    because you find contamination and you did not
    10
    expect to find it?
    11
    A. It can be both ways. It can be you
    12
    get -- find contamination when you thought it was
    13
    clean. And it can be you thought it was
    14
    contaminated and it's come back clean. I've had
    15
    it happen both ways.
    16
    Q. Again, when you had the samples
    17
    analyzed that were collected from the monitoring
    18
    wells, was the data from the soil borings
    19
    available?
    20
    A. The laboratory data was not available,
    21
    no.
    22
    Q. So in referring to regulations at
    23
    734.315(a) to (c), is it your belief that you
    24
    complied with the regulatory requirement with
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    171

    1
    respect to samples being analyzed if other soil
    2
    sampling conducted to date indicates soil
    3
    contamination?
    4
    A. We comply with that because we did not
    5
    have -- we did not believe there was other soil
    6
    sampling to date which indicated that
    7
    contamination had not spread to that location.
    8
    Q. And there was not other soil sampling
    9
    data that was available at the time, was there?
    10
    A. No, there was not.
    11
    MS. HESSE: I'd like to move to admit
    12
    Exhibit No. 11, which is the drawing that Mr.
    13
    Wienhoff prepared.
    14
    MS. JARVIS: And I'm not going to
    15
    object since he established it came from the
    16
    record.
    17
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Okay. Exhibit
    18
    11 is admitted. And you have no more questions
    19
    for this witness?
    20
    MS. JARVIS: I have no more questions.
    21
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Okay. Thank
    22
    you very much.
    23
    MS. HESSE: Just a quick point of
    24
    clarification. A handwritten drawing was
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    172

    1
    admitted and --
    2
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: It was
    3
    admitted.
    4
    MS. HESSE: Thank you.
    5
    (A short break was taken.)
    6
    (The witness was sworn in by the court reporter.)
    7
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: And would you
    8
    state your name?
    9
    THE WITNESS: My name is Vince Smith.
    10
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Vince Smith.
    11
    DIRECT EXAMINATION
    12
    BY MR. FROEMEL:
    13
    Q. Mr. Smith, I'm handing you a copy of a
    14
    document. And could you identify that document
    15
    for me?
    16
    A. It's my resume.
    17
    MR. FROEMEL: If you could please mark
    18
    that as Exhibit 13.
    19
    (The reporter marked Exhibit No. 13
    20
    for purposes of identification.)
    21
    MR. FROEMEL: I would move to have
    22
    Exhibit 13 admitted into the record.
    23
    MS. JARVIS: No objection.
    24
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Okay. Exhibit
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    173

    1
    13 is admitted into the record.
    2
    Q. (By Mr. Froemel) Mr. Smith, are you a
    3
    licensed professional engineer?
    4
    A. Yes, I am.
    5
    Q. How long have you been a licensed
    6
    professional engineer?
    7
    A. Since approximately 1990.
    8
    Q. Can you describe your educational
    9
    background?
    10
    A. I have a Bachelor of Arts Degree in
    11
    Mathematics from Culver-Stockton College. I also
    12
    have a Bachelor of Science Degree in Civil
    13
    Engineering from the University of
    14
    Missouri-Rolla.
    15
    Q. How long have you worked for CWM?
    16
    A. Just over seven years now.
    17
    Q. How often are you out in the field?
    18
    A. Approximately 40% of the time.
    19
    Q. How many sites have you conducted soil
    20
    investigation on?
    21
    A. In the neighborhood of 100.
    22
    Q. Do you have prior work experience
    23
    that's relative to issues related to soil
    24
    analysis and investigation?
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    174

    1
    A. When I worked for a firm called ALPHA
    2
    Testing based into Dallas, they were a
    3
    geotechnical as well as a materials testing and
    4
    construction inspection firm, and we did a lot of
    5
    geotechnical type investigations. During my
    6
    final year with them, they were beginning to get
    7
    into the environmental arena and we were
    8
    beginning to do some soil and groundwater
    9
    investigation work.
    10
    Q. Okay. Are you familiar with the
    11
    Farina site?
    12
    A. Yes, I am.
    13
    Q. What's you -- what has been your role
    14
    or responsibility at the Farina site?
    15
    A. I was there during the removal and the
    16
    early action activities associated with the
    17
    gasoline tanks. I also was there doing the
    18
    second round of soil borings which were just the
    19
    two borings to replace the borings that were
    20
    earlier determined to be improper.
    21
    Other than that, from the office
    22
    standpoint it's been one of a management
    23
    oversight and then the professional certification
    24
    of the reports that have gone in on that.
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    175

    1
    Q. Are you licensed to remove and install
    2
    underground storage thanks?
    3
    A. Yes, I am.
    4
    Q. You've referenced the excavation
    5
    samples at the gasoline tanks, can you explain
    6
    how those samples were collected?
    7
    A. I took those samples myself as well as
    8
    the piping samples for the gasoline tank
    9
    excavation. The piping samples were taken
    10
    following the removal of the piping. So they
    11
    were taken basically at a depth of about 2
    12
    and-a-half to 3 feet below ground surface at the
    13
    bottom of what was the pipe trench.
    14
    The excavation wall samples were taken
    15
    -- the requirement is that you obtain at least
    16
    one sample per 20 linear feet of wall. In this
    17
    case the walls -- the wall dimensions of the tank
    18
    excavation were between 20 and 40 feet;
    19
    therefore, I obtained two samples from each wall.
    20
    Typically you would obtain floor samples from
    21
    beneath -- beneath the tanks, either one or two
    22
    samples depending upon the size of the tank. In
    23
    this case I was unable to obtain those because we
    24
    had groundwater entering the excavation.
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    176

    1
    Q. So where then did you collect those
    2
    samples from?
    3
    A. The wall samples were collected, in
    4
    this case, at a depth of approximately 8 feet
    5
    which was -- was about 2 feet below the bottom of
    6
    what we had removed from the excavation and
    7
    basically at a line at which the water was
    8
    collecting in the hole.
    9
    Q. Is it possible to determine during an
    10
    excavation with certainty the most contaminated
    11
    location on excavation wall?
    12
    A. With absolute certainty, no.
    13
    Experience does help select the possible
    14
    locations, but absolute certainty it doesn't. I
    15
    don't think that's possible.
    16
    Q. What's the relationship between the
    17
    size of the sample and the size of the excavation
    18
    wall?
    19
    A. Like I said, you're required to take a
    20
    sample at least every 20 feet. So a typical tank
    21
    excavation is between 10, 12 feet deep so you're
    22
    looking at an area of 20 by 12, 20 by 10 and out
    23
    of which you're going to obtain a sample that's
    24
    possibly a 3 inch cube to represent that entire
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    177

    1
    area.
    2
    Q. You had said the sample area was 20 by
    3
    10, do you mean -- is that in terms of 20 feet by
    4
    10 feet?
    5
    A. 20 feet by 10 feet, yes.
    6
    Q. And when the tanks were excavated, did
    7
    water flow into the excavation?
    8
    A. Yes. There was -- there was some
    9
    purged water both from the piping runs as well as
    10
    beneath the pavement, that tended to stop. We
    11
    did remove water from the excavation and then it
    12
    basically returned by coming up from the bottom
    13
    of the excavation. We could see it seeping back
    14
    through the floor.
    15
    Q. How high did it rise up in the
    16
    excavation?
    17
    A. There was about 2 feet of water within
    18
    the excavation, the top of which was
    19
    approximately 8 feet below the ground surface.
    20
    Q. Okay. What's the difference between
    21
    collection of early action sample and soil boring
    22
    samples during a Stage 1 Site Investigation?
    23
    A. In this case specifically the piping
    24
    samples were only taken from the bottom of the
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    178

    1
    piping trench which is at a very shallow depth.
    2
    Whereas a boring taken during the Stage 1 would
    3
    have been -- you would investigate from ground
    4
    surface all the way to the area the groundwater
    5
    has encountered.
    6
    Q. Do piping run samples indicate
    7
    contamination or can they indicate contamination
    8
    at greater depths?
    9
    A. Only if you obtain a piping run sample
    10
    through drilling would you know anything beyond
    11
    the bottom of the piping trench.
    12
    Q. Now you mentioned that you were
    13
    responsible for the licensed professional
    14
    engineering certification at the Farina site. If
    15
    you could turn to page 21 of the record. I don't
    16
    know if the record is still up there or not.
    17
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Here, he can
    18
    use this one.
    19
    A. Okay.
    20
    Q. (By Mr. Froemel) Can you tell me is
    21
    that your signature on the bottom of page 21 of
    22
    the record?
    23
    A. Yes, it is.
    24
    Q. And -- and I don't know if it's still
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    179

    1
    up there in front of you, is Exhibit 2 available
    2
    for the witness? And if you could look at
    3
    Exhibit 2 and if you could identify for me is
    4
    that your signature on the second to last page of
    5
    Exhibit 2 under licensed professional engineer?
    6
    A. Yes, it is.
    7
    Q. With respect to the licensed
    8
    professional engineering certification, how did
    9
    you comply with that role? Basically what did
    10
    you look at in making your certification?
    11
    A. As Carol Rowe and Jeff Wienhoff have
    12
    talked about earlier, we sat done before this was
    13
    ever drilled in the first place and laid out a
    14
    plan for the drilling. I was involved all the
    15
    way from the early action at the site. And then
    16
    each subsequent report and response I reviewed as
    17
    it came across. And so basically the work was
    18
    done under my direction and, therefore, I felt
    19
    comfortable approving it.
    20
    Q. In your opinion was the work done at
    21
    the Farina site in a manner that's consistent
    22
    with procedures -- accepted procedures of a
    23
    professional engineer?
    24
    A. Yes, I do.
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    180

    1
    Q. To the best of your knowledge was the
    2
    Stage 2 plan completed in accordance with Section
    3
    734 of the Administrative Code?
    4
    A. Yes, it was.
    5
    Q. To the best of your knowledge was the
    6
    Stage 2 plan completed in accordance with
    7
    generally accepted standards and practices of the
    8
    engineering profession?
    9
    A. Yes, it was.
    10
    Q. And to the best of your knowledge is
    11
    the information in the Stage 2 plan accurate and
    12
    complete?
    13
    A. Yes.
    14
    Q. With respect to the 45-day reports
    15
    that were entered as Exhibit 1 --
    16
    A. Uh-huh.
    17
    Q. -- were they completed in accordance
    18
    with Section 734 of the Administrative Code?
    19
    A. Yes, they were.
    20
    Q. And also completed in accordance with
    21
    generally accepted standards and practices of the
    22
    engineering profession?
    23
    A. Yes, they were.
    24
    Q. Would that be true with respect to the
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    181

    1
    addendum to the 45-day reports as well?
    2
    A. Yes.
    3
    Q. Okay. Same question with respect to
    4
    the Stage 1 investigation. Were those completed
    5
    in accordance with generally accepted standards
    6
    and practices of the engineering profession?
    7
    A. Following the additional submittal of
    8
    additional information, yes.
    9
    Q. And to the best of your knowledge was
    10
    the Stage 1 plan completed in accordance with
    11
    Section 734 of the Administrative Code?
    12
    A. Yes.
    13
    MR. FROEMEL: Nothing further.
    14
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Thank you. Ms.
    15
    Jarvis?
    16
    CROSS-EXAMINATION
    17
    BY MS. JARVIS:
    18
    Q. I have one very short question for you
    19
    just for clarification. You said you were there
    20
    during the removal of the gasoline tanks?
    21
    A. Yes.
    22
    Q. Were you also there during the removal
    23
    of the diesel tanks?
    24
    A. I was not.
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    182

    1
    Q. Okay. I just wanted to make sure I
    2
    understood.
    3
    A. That's correct.
    4
    MS. JARVIS: Thank you.
    5
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: And you have
    6
    nothing further?
    7
    MR. FROEMEL: Nothing further.
    8
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: At this time I
    9
    would like to ask again about Exhibit 5. The EPA
    10
    was holding their objection until the final
    11
    witness of petitioner.
    12
    MS. JARVIS: And it wasn't used again
    13
    so I would once again object to this.
    14
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: What is it
    15
    being -- what are you moving to admit it to show?
    16
    MS. HESSE: We're moving to admit it
    17
    essentially as reference material to assist the
    18
    Board in understanding that contamination,
    19
    including petroleum contamination, when it's
    20
    released onto the ground can migrate down below.
    21
    So it can migrate down and then migrate with the
    22
    flow of the groundwater.
    23
    There's been some issues raised in the
    24
    Agency's denial letters with respect to whether
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    183

    1
    the piping run samples can adequately
    2
    characterize contamination at a site. We have
    3
    presented testimony, and I think this supports
    4
    the testimony that was presented that you can
    5
    have a release at a site, the contamination can
    6
    migrate downward and then it can migrate latterly
    7
    so that the contamination would be below where
    8
    the piping run samples would have been collected.
    9
    And this document supports our position.
    10
    This document was prepared by a
    11
    professional organization and it goes to support
    12
    that our position is in accordance with generally
    13
    accepted engineering and geological principals.
    14
    MS. JARVIS: My main objection is, A,
    15
    we did not have any testimony that there was a
    16
    diving plume at the site. In fact, I think the
    17
    diesel tank was -- there was testimony that it
    18
    was in good condition, didn't leak. Further,
    19
    this has to go with groundwater and it deals with
    20
    groundwater and not piping run samples or soil
    21
    samples. So I'm just going object to it as far
    22
    as the relevance.
    23
    I haven't had a chance to check this
    24
    organization or look at it so I'm just going to
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    184

    1
    have to keep my objection.
    2
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Well, I'm going
    3
    to then take this as an offer proof. I'm not
    4
    sure that the Board necessarily needs this. We
    5
    have technical staff as well. I will show the
    6
    Board, but I agree that it -- it's not
    7
    necessarily relevant to a lot of the testimony
    8
    we've had. So I will take Exhibit 5 as an offer
    9
    of proof.
    10
    Ms. Hesse, is there -- do you have
    11
    anything further to offer for your case?
    12
    MS. HESSE: Not at this time. But we
    13
    would like to reserve the opportunity to call
    14
    witnesses as rebuttal witnesses after we hear the
    15
    Agency's case. And may I also request can we
    16
    take a five-minute break before the next witness?
    17
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Okay. We can
    18
    take a five-minute break.
    19
    (A short break was taken.)
    20
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: I believe we
    21
    are picking up with the EPA's case.
    22
    MS. JARVIS: And we have no testimony.
    23
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Oh, you're not
    24
    putting on witnesses?
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    185

    1
    MS. JARVIS: So we're going to just
    2
    rest, that's right. We're going to stand on the
    3
    record.
    4
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: And you don't
    5
    have anything further you would like to add?
    6
    Okay, well --
    7
    MS. HESSE: Just a second.
    8
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Okay.
    9
    MS. HESS: Never mind.
    10
    MR. FROEMEL: We have nothing more.
    11
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Then let's go
    12
    off the record again just to clarify our briefing
    13
    schedule.
    14
    (A discussion was held off the
    15
    record.)
    16
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Okay. We have
    17
    just had an off-the-record discussion regarding
    18
    post-hearing briefs. The parties have agreed to
    19
    a briefing schedule as follows: The transcript
    20
    of these proceedings will be available from the
    21
    court reporter by August 27th and will be posted
    22
    on the Board's Website. The public comment
    23
    deadline is September 14th. Any public comment
    24
    must be filed in accordance with Section 101.628
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    186

    1
    of the Board's procedural rule. Petitioner's
    2
    brief is due by September 18th. Respondent's
    3
    brief is due by October 9th. Any reply must be
    4
    accompanied by a motion for leave to reply
    5
    directed to the Board. The mailbox rule will not
    6
    apply, although parties may file electronically.
    7
    Ms. Hesse, or petitioners like to make
    8
    any closing argument.
    9
    MS. HESSE: Just a very brief summary
    10
    of the case. We believe that petitioner has
    11
    demonstrated through testimony, through exhibits
    12
    at the hearing, through the documents that were
    13
    in the record that the work that it did at the
    14
    Farina site was in accordance with applicable
    15
    Board regulations, that the work was in
    16
    accordance with accepted engineering practices
    17
    and professional hydrogeological practices and
    18
    procedures, and that the Illinois Environmental
    19
    Protection Agency should not have rejected the
    20
    work that was done, should not have rejected the
    21
    proposed plan that was submitted and that the
    22
    Board should find in favor of petitioner.
    23
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Thank you. Ms.
    24
    Jarvis, would you like to make any closing
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    187

    1
    statements?
    2
    MS. JARVIS: Very brief. We believe
    3
    that after the Board reviews the record that was
    4
    available to the Agency when we made our
    5
    decision, it will uphold the decision of the
    6
    Agency in the denials that it made.
    7
    HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Thank you. I
    8
    will again note that there are no members of the
    9
    public present to present any public comment. So
    10
    I will proceed to make the statement as to the
    11
    credibility of witnesses testifying during this
    12
    hearing.
    13
    Based on my legal judgment and
    14
    experience I find all of the witnesses testifying
    15
    to be credible. At this time I will conclude the
    16
    proceedings. We stand adjourned and I thank you
    17
    all for your participation.
    18
    (The hearing was adjourned.)
    19
    20
    21
    22
    23
    24
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    188

    STATE OF ILLINOIS
    COUNTY OF FAYETTE
    C E R T I F I C A T E
    I, BEVERLY S. HOPKINS, a Notary Public
    in and for the County of Fayette, State of
    Illinois, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing
    188 pages comprise a true, complete and correct
    transcript of the proceedings held on August
    22nd, 2007, at the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board Hearing Room, 1021 North Grand Avenue East,
    North Entrance, Springfield, Illinois, before
    Carol Webb, Chief Hearing Officer, in the case of
    L. Keller Oil Properties, Inc./Farina vs. IEPA,
    in proceedings held before Hearing Officer Carol
    Webb, and recorded in machine shorthand by me.
    IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set
    my hand and affixed by Notarial Seal this 24th
    day of August, 2007.
    _____________________________
    Beverly S. Hopkins, CSR, RPR
    CSR License No. 084-004316
    KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
    189

    Back to top