BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD STATE OF ILLINOIS
NOTICE OF FILING
ATTACHMENT A
STAGED SITE INVESTIGATION
Staged Site Investigation Documentation
ATTACHMENT B
Early Action Task List
Ad Hoc Committee’s Total Office Labor Hour Estimate: 60
Free Product Recovery Task List
Time &
Low Priority Corrective Action Task List
High Priority Corrective Action Task List
Ad Hoc Committee’s Total Office Labor Hour Estimate: 64
Reimbursement Request Preparation Task List
Ad Hoc Committee’s Total Office Labor Hour Estimate: 32
ATTACHMENT C
Consulting Fees Summary
METHOD
ATTACHMENT D
Atypical Situations:
ATTACHMENT E

Proposed Personnel Titles and Requirements

RECEIVED

CLERK’S OFFICE

MAY 12 2OO~

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

STATE

OF ILLINOIS

Pollution Control Board

THE

MATTER OF:

)

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO REGULATION OF

PETROLEUM LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE

TANKS

(35

Ill. Adm. Code 732)

IN THE MATTER OF:

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO REGULATION OF

PETROLEUM LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE

TANKS

(35

Ill. Adm. Code 734)

)

R04-22

(Rulemaking

Land)

)

R04-23

)

(Rulemaking

Land)

NOTICE OF FILING

Dorothy Gunn, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

James R. Thompson Center

100W. Randolph, Suite 11-500

Chicago, Illinois 60601-3218

SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST

Marie Tipsord

Illinois Pollution Control Board

James R. Thompson Center

100 W. Randolph, Suite 11-500

Chicago, Illinois 60601-3218

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

the Pollution Control Board the Prefiled Testimony of Daniel J. Goodwin, P.E. on Behalf

of the Consulting Engineers Council of Illinois, a copy of which is herewith served upon

you.

Daniel J. Goodw~h,P.E.

SECOR International, Incorporated

400 Bruns Lane

Springfield, Illinois 62702

(217)

698-7247

Date: May 11, 2004

TESTIMONY OF

DANIEL

J. GOODWIN, P.E. ON BEHALI~6~

2OO~

THE CONSULTING ENGINEERS COUNCIL OF ILL~ SE OFILLIN

ion

Control

Board

My name is

Daniel J. Goodwin. I reside at 1308 Ravenswood Drive in

Springfield, Illinois. I am a Licensed Professional Engineer

in Illinois and I am

employed as a Principal Engineer by SECOR International, Incorporated, an

environmental consulting firm with more than 700 employees at over 60 offices

throughout the United States, including Illinois offices in Lombard and Springfield.

I am also Vice President of the Consulting Engineers Council of Illinois

(CECI) and a long-time member of CECI’s IEPA Liaison Committee. I am here

today primarily to testify on behalf of CECI, although I may occasionally express

my individual view on some points, in which case I shall make it a point to identify

any such individual views as such.

CECI represents approximately 231 member professional engineering

firms located throughout Illinois. Leaking underground storage tank response

and corrective action represents an important market for a sizeable fraction of

our members, and the largest dollar-volume client segment for several of our

members. Increasingly, over the last four years or so, members who are

involved in assisting clients with obtaining reimbursement for corrective action

costs associated with underground storage tank releases have voiced concern

over cuts being made in corrective action budgets by IEPA in reliance on an

undisclosed internal guideline on maximum amounts or unit rates that would be

deemed “reasonable”. In some cases this resulted in a direct financial loss to the

consulting firm, but even more often it created an impression with the client that

the consulting firm was engaged in price-gouging. Thus, CECI was pleased

when, in October 2002, the Agency asked for input into a major rewriting of the

LUST regulations, especially those pertaining to reimbursement.

In response to the Agency’s request, CECI joined with the Illinois

Petroleum Marketers Association in forming an “Ad Hoc Work Group on LUST

Reimbursement Reform”, comprised of representatives of member firms of the

two organizations having substantial working experience with the LUST program,

including reimbursement, as it has actually been implemented over the last 1 0

years. The members of the Ad Hoc Work Group met more than a dozen times

between October 2002 and April 2003. The work product was a series of

detailed analyses and consensus recommendations to the Agency that were

presented in meetings with Agency representatives in the early months of 2003.

I am pleased to be able to state that the Agency’s proposals are

consistent with much of the basic structure of the Ad Hoc Work Group’s

suggestions. Not unexpectedly, there are also some very significant differences.

It is my purpose today to focus on some of those differences with the hope that

the Agency’s proposal can be improved before final adoption by the Board.

I also want to state for the record that, due to restrictions arising from anti-

trust law, neither the Ad Hoc Work Group, nor CECI as an organization will

advocate any specific price, unit rate, or lump sum reimbursement dollar amount

in this proceeding. Our organizational testimony will be limited to the structure of

the reimbursement provisions and the principles and procedures for

implementing them. Nevertheless, individual firms and their employees are free

to express such views, and CECI has encouraged those of its members for

whom LUST reimbursement is an important issue to participate in these

proceedings.

Stage 1 Site Investigation

The Ad Hoc Work Group recommended the adoption of a standardized

Stage 1 Site Investigation as contemplated in Section 734.315. A copy of the

Work Group’s recommendation in this regard is attached to this statement as

Attachment A. While we are glad that the Agency agrees with this concept, there

is a feeling among the group’s members that the Agency’s proposal is overly

prescriptive, and should leave more of the details of boring and monitoring well

location to be decided by the Licensed Professional Engineer or Licensed

Professional Geologist responsible for the work. It is believed that too many

situations will not be well served by the Agency’s “one size fits all” approach to

location of borings and wells.

Subpart H

The general structure of the reimbursement limitations in the Agency’s

proposed Subpart H is consistent with the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Work

Group, although this should not be construed as agreement with specific unit

prices or dollar limits. Apart from such specifics, possibly the most important

problem with the Agency’s proposal from the viewpoint of the professional

consulting firms is the lack of clear delineation of the scope of services that may

be included in each of the phases of the project for which reimbursement limits

are set forth in Proposed Sections 732.845 and 734.845. The Ad Hoc Work

Group provided the Agency with detailed lists of individual tasks that might be

required as part of each phase of the project (except Site

Investigation/Classification). These lists are attached to this statement as

Attachment B. It is CECI’s recommendation that these detailed lists be

incorporated into the regulation for the purpose of better delineating the various

tasks that may legitimately be a part of a given phase of the project. Such tasks

must therefore be allowed for in the establishment of either a lump sum

reimbursement amount or a limit on time and materials reimbursement.

Maximum Payments Versus Lump Sum Payments

As drafted, the Agency proposal seems to set maximum reimbursement

amounts for the various phases of a project, with the implication that it will still be

necessary to detail individual expenditures on a time and materials basis in the

budget and reimbursement claim. If actual charges for a phase do not reach the

specified maximum, only the lesser amount will be paid by the Agency.

This approach defeats the Agency’s stated purpose of streamlining the review of

budgets and claims, so that it is not necessary to account for the cost associated

with “every pair of gloves”, to cite an example often used by Agency staff. It is

not the lump sum payment method the Agency has said it wished to make a part

of the reimbursement program. It is a continuation of the wasteful bean-counting

approach used historically, only with an unacceptable new wrinkle. Unlike a true

lump sum method, this plan puts the owner/operator and consultant in the

position of having the worst of both worlds—reimbursement limited by actual

charges incurred when things go well, and a cap on reimbursement when things

do not go so well.

The Proposed language should be rewritten to provide clearly that the

reimbursement amount for specified phases or categories of work within a phase

is to be on a lump sum basis, and no detailed cost justification is required.

The Ad Hoc Work Group developed a list of project phases with the

corresponding recommended payment method for each. That list is attached to

this statement as Attachment C. I urge the Board to consider adopting these

payment methods in lieu of the Agency’s proposal.

Atypical Situations

The Agency has proposed Sections 732.855 and 734.855 to allow for

reimbursement for “unusual or extraordinary expenses”. The proposed language

offers little guidance on when such expenses might be justified, in effect leaving

that decision to the discretion of the individual Agency reviewer. The Ad Hoc

Work Group developed guidance that could be used for identifying “atypical

situations” for which “unusual or extraordinary expenses” might be warranted.

This guidance is attached to this statement as Attachment D. It is recommended

that this additional guidance be made a part of the regulation.

Personnel Titles and Rates

The list of personnel titles and qualifications contained in the Agency’s

proposed Appendix E to both Part 732 and Part 734 is similar, but not identical,

to the list proposed by the Ad Hoc Work Group. A copy of the Work Group’s

proposal accompanies this statement as Attachment E. The most notable

difference between the two lists is the omission of the “Principal” classification. It

is our view that such a classification should be included, because project

oversight and quality assurance of work products by a firm Principal is an

important management practice for many of CECI’s member firms. It is our view

that such participation by Principals enhances the firm’s overall performance and

adds value to its work, and that a reasonable number of hours charged to a

project by a Principal should be reimburseable at a separate, higher Principal’s

hourly rate.

Updating of Rates

An important problem inherent in the Agency’s proposals regarding

reimbursement is the need to update lump sums and maximum allowable rates

stipulated in the regulations to take account of increased prices due to inflation or

other external factors. While the Agency has included a provision for this, I wish

to point out that, under the Agency’s proposal, by the time the Pollution Control

Board could take final action on the Agency’s proposed updating of rates, half the

data on which the Agency would be relying would be more than two years old.

Furthermore, if adopted as proposed, the rates established in this proceeding will

be based on data that is as much as seven years old, and those rates would

continue in effect for another three years or thereabout. While CECI has no

specific solution to this problem to offer at this time, it may be that the best

solution would involve establishing procedures and criteria for setting the

allowable lump sums and rates in the Board regulations, and directing the

Agency to update the amounts in accordance with those procedures and criteria

at least annually, and to post the updated amounts on its Web site.

Review of Agency Reimbursement Determinations

It is clear that a procedural problem exists in the manner in which the

Agency has handled disallowance of costs in proposed budgets and budget

amendments that has contributed to the sense on the part of many consultants

that the reimbursement system is “broken”. It has been the Agency’s practice in

recent years when disallowing costs, due to inconsistency with the so-called “rate

sheet” or for other reasons, to simply notify the owner/operator and the

consultant of the disallowance with only the vaguest of explanations of the

reason for the disallowance, and with no opportunity for discussion with either the

individual Agency project manager or with LUST program managers before the

determination is made final. This means that any appeal must be taken to the

Pollution Control Board, a step that is usually far too costly to be warranted for

the sake of recovering a few hundred or even a few thousand dollars in

disallowed costs. One way this could be remedied would be to mandate that the

Agency provide its proposed disallowance determination to the owner/operator

with a specific explanation of the reasons for the disallowance. The

owner/operator would be given an opportunity to provide additional justification

for the costs in question and to meet with LUST program representatives to

discuss the matter before a final decision would be rendered by the Agency.

While it would be unrealistic to expect this procedure to resolve all disputes, I

believe that, in combination with the recent elimination of the undisclosed rate

sheet, it would facilitate resolution of many such disagreements, and would have

the additional benefit of reducing the number of appeals that are filed with the

Board, only to be settled with the Agency and subsequently withdrawn or

dismissed.

It has also been suggested that a “peer review” panel be established to

provide review of Agency disallowance determinations prior to their finalization.

This panel would include designated Agency LUST program supervisors and two

or more members who are not Agency employees and who are qualified by

training and experience to determine the reasonableness of LUST budget

proposals. These members’ outside perspective could prove very beneficial to

the Agency in maintaining a link to the “real world” problems experienced by

consultants and other providers of services and materials for LUST corrective

action.

Speaking for myself, I believe both the Agency review procedure and the

peer review panel can be implemented by the Agency without Board

authorization or direction. Nevertheless, I do want these ideas entered on the

record of these proceedings because they are directly related to the problems

being addressed and it would be helpful to the participants in these proceedings

to know what, if anything, the Agency intends to do with these proposals.

ATTACHMENT A

STAGED SITE INVESTIGATION

At most sites, multiple “stages” are required to complete a Site Investigation. A

staged Site Investigation strategy possesses the principal beneficial

characteristic of allowing both consultant and Agency review and evaluation of

site-specific data prior to determining the necessary scope and specifications of

subsequent stages of work required to satisfy Site Investigation requirements. In

general, all Site Investigations should start at or near the source area and extend

outward in stages until the extent and relative distribution of contaminants in the

subsurface has been adequately defined.

Standard Stage

Site Investigation

A standard Stage 1 Site Investigation (Source Area Evaluation) for a LUST site

can be conducted immediately upon discovery of a release, according to the

scope of work and reimbursement limits established herein, without submitting a

plan and / or budget for Agency review and approval.

Stage 1

Soil Investigation

Stage 1 Site Investigation soil boring specifications:

One soil boring should be advanced through the entire vertical

extent of contamination, based on field observations and / or field

screening for organic vapors, on each side of each independent

tank field, where possible.

(Maximum of four (4) borings per tank

field.)

One soil boring should be advanced through the entire vertical

extent of contamination, based on field observations and / or field

screening for organic vapors, at or near each dispenser, where

possible.

Note:

The total maximum allowable number of borings is dependent on

the number of tank fields and dispensers. Overhead structures

(canopies, power lines, etc.) and / or underground structures

(utilities, piping, etc.) may limit the proximity of borings to tank

field(s) and! or dispenser(s).

Stage 1 Site Investigation soil sampling specifications:

Soil borings shall be logged continuously in accordance with

734.425 (c), and field screened for organic vapors at intervals no

greater than every thirty (30) inches.

One (1) soil sample for laboratory chemical analysis of applicable

indicator contaminants shall be collected from a representative

location per five (5) foot boring interval, or fraction thereof,

beginning at the ground surface and extending through the entire

depth of the boring.

If contamination is indicated throughout any five (5) foot

interval,

if evidence of contamination begins pjj.ç~ends

within any five (5) foot interval, then the sample shall be

collected from the area exhibiting the highest degree of

contamination based on field observations and / or field

screening for organic vapors.

If evidence of contamination is limited to either an upper or

lower portion of any five (5) foot interval, based on field

observations and / or field screening for organic vapors,

then the sample may be collected from a location

representative of conditions in the maiority of the five (5) foot

interval as long as the sample from at least one subsequent

or preceding boring interval is collected from the area

exhibiting the highest degree of contamination based on field

observations and / or field screening for organic vapors.

Note:

If laboratory chemical analysis indicates that the sample obtained

from any five (5) foot interval exceeds Tier 1 remediation

objectives as specified in 35111. Adm. Code 742 for any applicable

indicator contaminant(s), then that entire interval will be

considered impacted for purposes of defining extent of

contamination. If laboratory chemical analysis indicates that the

sample obtained from any five (5) foot interval meets Tier 1

remediation objectives as specified in 35 III. Adm. Code 742 for

any applicable indicator contaminant(s), then the contaminant

zone will be considered to extend no further than that sample

location for purposes of defining extent of contamination.

If no evidence of contamination is observed in a specific boring,

based on field observations and / or field screening for organic

vapors, then a maximum of two (2) representative soil samples

shall be collected from that boring for laboratory chemical analysis

of applicable indicator contaminants.

One (1) sample shall be collected at or near the soil water

interface.

One (1) sample shall be collected at or immediately below

the elevation corresponding to the source of the release (i.e.

piping, UST, spill / overfill), if a specific source can be

determined prior to or during the Stage 1 Site Investigation.

If a specific source cannot be determined, then the sample

should be collected within the upper three (3) feet of the soil

column.

Note:

Wall

and floor samples from the excavation can be used to satisfy

a portion of the standard Stage 1 Site Investigation sampling

requirements, if soil excavation and disposal have been

conducted with tank removal.

Stage

1 Ground Water

Investigation

Stage 1 Site Investigation ground water monitoring well specifications:

If ground water is encountered and / or cannot be excluded as a

potential pathway, a maximum of five (5) monitoring wells shall be

installed within 200 feet of the UST system(s) or at the property

boundary.

One (1) interior monitoring well shall be installed at or near

the location of highest contamination based on field

observations and / or field screening for organic vapors in

the source area soil borings.

Four (4) perimeter monitoring wells shall be installed based

roughly on field screening results from the interior soil

borings. An attempt shall be made to locate perimeter

monitoring wells in such a way as to provide a reasonable

likelihood of detecting contaminant migration, and accurately

determining direction of groundwater flow.

Monitoring wells shall be constructed and sampled in accordance

with 734.430. The screened interval for each well should be

selected to coincide with the zone of greatest contamination

encountered at or below the water table, based on field

observations and / or field screening for organic vapors.

Soil sampling from monitoring well borings shall be conducted in

accordance with (b).

Note:

Exclusion of ground water as a potential pathway for purposes of

Stage 1 Site Investigation will be considered only if Tier 1 soil

remediation objectives as specified in 35 III. Adm. Code 742 for

all applicable indicator contaminant(s) have been meet, ~

there

is no evidence that contaminated soils may be or may have been

in contact with ground water.

Additional Stage 1 Site Investigation specifications:

Site-specific Tier II physical soil parameters, obtained via laboratory

analysis and field measurement, as specified in 742.APPENDIX C,

Table F shall be determined.

Samples for site-specific Tier II physical soil parameter analysis

shall be collected in accordance with 35 Ill. Adm. Code 742.610 (b).

Staged Site Investigation Documentation

If the results of the Stage 1 Site Investigation can adequately identify the nature,

concentration, direction of movement and extent of applicable indicator

contaminants in excess of Tier 1 remediation objectives as specified in 35 III.

Adm. Code 742, as well as, any significant features of the site and surrounding

area that may affect contaminant transport and risk to human health and safety

and / or the environment, then a Site Investigation Completion Report

documenting the results of the Stage 1 Site Investigation must be submitted in

accordance with 734.315.

If additional stages of Site Investigation are needed to address site specific

conditions, such as extent and relative distribution of on-site and / or off-site

contamination and possible migration of applicable indicator contaminants in

excess of Tier 1 remediation objectives as specified in 35 III. Adm. Code 742,

along natural or man made pathways which could not be addressed based on

the results of previous Site Investigation stage(s), then a subsequent Site

Investigation Plan and Budget must be submitted in accordance with 734.310,

which documents the results of the preceding Site Investigation stage. Costs

associated with subseguent stages of Site Investigation will be reimbursed on a

time and materials basis.

Documentation of any Site Investigation stage must be submitted to the Agency

along with or prior to any requests for payment from the Fund for costs

associated with that Site Investigation stage.

Documentation of any Site

Investigation stage shall include at minimum:

A narrative description of field activities including sampling methods;

Analytical results in tabular format;

Soil boring logs;

Monitoring well completion reports;

Laboratory reports and certification;

Results of hydraulic conductivity test(s) (if applicable);

Monitoring well elevations and water level measurements in tabular

format;

A geologic cross-section, to scale, constructed through the source area;

Site map(s) to scale and oriented north showing:

UST system(s) and excavation;

Product and lines and dispensers;

Underground utilities and subsurface structures;

Nearby structures (buildings, roads, etc.);

Location of soil borings;

Location of monitoring wells;

Excavation limits and sample locations (if applicable);

Property boundaries and

Ground water flow direction.

ATTACHMENT B

Early Action Task List

Other Direct

20 Day Certification and 45 Day Report Preparation Tasks

Expenses

Set up project file (obtain general project data: address, contact info,

etc.)

Set up project status tracking sheet

Prepare site health and safety plan

Prepare 20 Day certification

Call J.U.L.I.E and

or municipality for utility locate

Prepare CAD map(s)

Copy charges /

FOIA IEPA and / or OSFM records

postage

Obtain well records from ISGS and ISWS

Record costs / postage

Review well records and prepare well location map

Obtain local information (i.e.. Sanborn maps, Aerial overlays, etc.)

Document costs

Determine expected local site geology (subsurface soil conditions)

Prepare cross section

Draft 45 Day report (tables and narrative), provide data concerning:

Nature and estimated quantity of release

Surrounding populations

General water quality

Use and approx. location of wells potentially affectedby the release

General subsurface soil conditions

Locations of subsurface sewers

Climatological conditions

Past, present and potential future land use

What was done to evaluate presence of contamination

Actions taken to prevent further release of substance into

environment

Analytical/ screening results (in tabular format)

UST information (in tabular format)

Word processing

Prepare and describe photos

Film / photo finishing

45 Day report review by PM or other senior staff

General correspondence with client and Agency

Postage

Project update to client

Mail draft 45 Day report to 0/0 for review and signature

Postage

Make Copies of final 45 Day report for distribution

Copy charges

Deliver completed 45 Day report to IEPA and 0/0

Postage

Initial site visit by PM or other senior staff

Daily charges

Site visit by technician or scientist to prepare site map(s)

Daily charges

Ad Hoc Committee’s Total Office Labor Hour Estimate:

Other Direct

Ear/yAction USTRemoval/Excavation Tasks

Expenses

Prepare waste profile (arrange for landfill approval)

Determine EA excavation limits

Arrange for excavator (tank removal contractor)

Prepare waste manifests (or tracking forms)

Project scheduling

Collect sample for waste profile (landfill approval)

Daily charges

Field oversight and sampling (UST removal

EA excavation)

Daily charges

Ad Hoc Committee’s Total OfficeLabor Hour Estimate:

Free Product Recovery Task List

Time &

Free Product Recovery Preparation Tasks

Material

Free Product Recovery Fieldwork

Daily charges

Direct

Free Product Recovery Report Preparation Tasks

Expenses

Draft free product recovery report (tables and narrative), provide data

concerning:

Name(s) of person(s) responsible for implementing free product recovery

Estimated quantity, type and thickness of free product observed

Type of free product recovery system used andjustification for method

Whether discharge will take place during recovery and location of discharge

Treatment type applied to any discharge and effluent quality expected

Steps taken / required to obtain necessary permits for discharge

Final disposition of recovered free product

Table showing dates of free product recovery and quantityrecovered

Copies of waste manifests

Site map(s) to scale and oriented north showing:

UST system(s) and excavation

Product and dispenser lines

Pumps and islands

Underground utility lines (sewer, gas, water, etc.)

Nearby structures (buildings, roads, etc,)

Soil boring(s)

Monitoring well(s)

Locations where free product was encountered & estimated thickness

Location of recoverypoints

Location of the treatment unit

Location of discharge points

Property boundaries

Word processing

Free product recovery report review by PM or other senior staff

General correspondence with client and Agency

Postage

Project update to client

Mail draft free product recovery report to 0/0 for review and signature

Postage

Make Copies of final free product recovery report for distribution

Copy charges

Deliver completed free product recovery report to IEPA and 010

Postage

Ad Hoc Committee’s Total Office Labor Hour Estimate

Low Priority Corrective Action Task List

Low Priority Ground Water Monitoring Plan Preparation Tasks

Draft LP GW monitoring plan (tables and narrative), provide data concerning:

Proposed time table for well installation, sampling and report submittal

Discussion of monitoring well developmentprocedures

Discussion of monitoring well sampling procedures

Activities that will be taken to prevent sample cross-contamination

Adequacy of the monitoring well configuration to detect contaminant

migration

Site map(s) to scale and oriented north showing:

UST system(s) and excavation

Product and dispenser lines

Pumps and islands

Underground utility lines (sewer, gas, water, etc.)

Nearby structures (buildings, roads, etc,)

Location of soil boring(s)

Location of monitoring well(s)

Property boundaries

Radius of 200 feet from the excavation

Word processing

Prepare budget forms

LP GW monitoring plan & budget review by PM or other senior staff

General correspondence with client and Agency

Project update to client

Mail draft LP GW monitoring plan & budget to 0/0 for review and signature

Make Copies of final LP GW monitoring plan & budget for distribution

Deliver completed LP GW monitoring plan & budget to EPA and 0/0

Ad Hoc Committee’s

Total

Office Labor Hour Estimate:

401

Low Priority Ground Water Monitoring Fieldwork

Daily charges

Low Priority Ground Water Monitoring Report Preparation Tasks

Draft LP GW monitoring plan (tables and narrative), provide data concerning:

Description of implementation & completion of all elements of plan

Description of well development, sample collection, preservation & analysis

Analytical results in tabular format

Copies of laboratory reports

Copies of laboratory certifications

Ground water elevations in tabular format

Monitoring well logs

Completed chain-of-custody form(s)

Site map(s) to scale and oriented north showing:

UST system(s) and excavation

Product and dispenser lines

Direct

Expenses

Postage

Copy charges

Postage

Direct

Expenses

Pumps and islands

Underground utility lines (sewer, gas, water, etc.)

Nearby structures (buildings, roads, etc,)

Location of monitoring well(s)

Direction of groundwater flow (groundwatercontouring)

Property boundaries

Radius of200 feet from the excavation

Word processing

LP GW monitoring report review by PM or other senior staff

General correspondence with client and Agency

Postage

Project update to client

Mail draft LP GW monitoring report to 0/0 for review and signature

Postage

Make Copies of final LP GW monitoring report fordistribution

Copy charges

Deliver completed LP GW monitoring report to IEPA and 010

Postage

Ad Hoc Committee’s Total Office Labor Hour Estimate:

High Priority Corrective Action Task List

Conventional (Dig & Haul) Corrective Action Plan and Oversight Tasks

Direct Expenses

Prepare waste profile (arrange for landfill approval)

Mail waste profile to 0/0 for review and signature

Prepare (update) site health and safety plan

Determine limits of excavation

Estimate quantity of contaminated soil to be disposed of

Estimate quantity of clean’ overburden to be stockpiled (if any)

Draft Corrective Action Plan (tables and narrative), provide:

Description of activities performed to define extent of contamination

Analytical results and cleanup objectives in tabular format

Laboratory reports

Boring logs

Monitoring well logs

Discussion of how corrective action plan shallremediate the release

List of sampling parameters and corresponding remediation objectives

Basis for determining sampling parameters and remediation objectives

Media sampling plan to verify completion of remediation

Current and future use of property

Proposed preventive, engineering and institutional controls

Schedule forimplementation and projected completion of the plan

Engineering diagrams, calculations, site maps, etc.

Site map(s) to scale and oriented north showing:

Soil sample locations

Monitoring well locations

Plume of soil and groundwater contamination

Word processing

Prepare budget forms

CAP & budget review by PM or other senior staff

Prepare P.E. / P.G. & 0/0 Budget Certification

General correspondence with client and Agency

Postage

Project update to client

Mail draft CAP & budget to 0/0 for review and signature

Postage

Make Copies of final CAP & budget for distribution

Copy charges

Deliver completed CAP & budget to IEPA and 0/0

Postage

Arrange for excavator

Arrange for trucking (transportation)

Arrange for backfill

Prepare waste manifests (or tracking forms)

Project scheduling

Call J.U.L.I.E and / or municipality for utility locate

Prepare (finalize) field notes

Film/photo

Prepare and describe excavation photos

finishing

Collect sample for waste profile (landfill approval)

Daily charges

Field oversight and excavation sampling

Daily charges

Ad Hoc Committee’s Total Office Labor Hour Estimate:

Alternative Technology Corrective Action Plan Tasks

Time & Material

TACO Tier II or Tier Ill Evaluation / Calculation Tasks

Time & Material

Conventional (Dig and Haul)Corrective Action Completion Report Preparation

Tasks

Direct Expenses

Prepare CAD map(s)

Draft Corrective Action Completion Report (tables and narrative), provide:

Chronological narrative of corrective action activities

Explanation of how the corrective action activities remediated the release

Discussion of how the remediation objectives were determined

Media sampling and analytical procedures to verify completion of remediation

Analytical results and remediation objectives in tabular format

Laboratory reports

Soil boring logs

Monitoring welllogs

Laboratory certification

Professional Engineer Certification

Owner/ Operator & Property Summary

Photographs documenting corrective action activities

Word processing

Film/photo

Prepare and describe photos

finishing

Obtain legal description of property

Obtain property tax identification number

CACR review by PM or other senior staff

General correspondence with client and Agency

Postage

Project update to client

Mail draft CACR to 0/0 for review and signature

Postage

Make Copies of final CACR for distribution

Copy charges

Deliver completed CACR to IEPA and 0/0

Postage

Record NFR letter

Recording costs

Make Copies of recorded NFR letter for distribution

Copy charges

Deliver recorded NFR letter to IEPA and 0/0

Postage

Site visit by technician or scientist to prepare site map(s)

Daily charges

Ad Hoc Committee’s Total Office Labor Hour Estimate:

Reimbursement Request Preparation Task List

Direct

Reimbursement Reguest Preparation Tasks

Expenses

Prepare OSFM eligibility and deductible application

Mail draft eligibility and deductible application to 0/0 for review and

signature

Postage

Deliver completed eligibility and deductible application to OSFM and 0/0

Postage

Setup reimbursement file

Review & process subcontractor invoices

Cost and budget tracking

Draft LUST reimbursement claim request

Reimbursement claim review by PM or other senior staff

Prepare P.E. / P.G. & 0/0 Billing Certification

General correspondence with client and Agency

Postage

Mail draft reimbursement claim to 0/0 for review and signature

Postage

Make Copies of completed reimbursement claim for distribution

Copy charges

Deliver completed reimbursement claim to IEPA and 0/0

Postage

Ad Hoc Committee’s Total Office Labor Hour Estimate:

ATTACHMENT C

Consulting Fees Summary

Under this framework, consulting fees would consist of lump sum or time & material charges for

office based consulting activities (project management, remedial design, report preparation,

reimbursement request preparation, etc.) combined with daily charges for field based activities (field

oversight, sampling, mapping, etc.). For activies covered by lump sum or daily charges, direct costs

other than labor are to be included in the lump sum or daily charge rates.

Early Action Activities

20 Day Certification and 45 Day Report Preparation

Early Action UST Removal / Excavation Preparation

Early Action Fieldwork / Consultant Oversight

Early Action Ground Water Removal Preparation

PAYMENT

METHOD

Lump Sum Cost + Daily Charges

Daily Charges

Lump Sum Cost

Free Product Recovery

Free Product Recovery Preparation

Free Product Recovery Fieldwork

Free Product Recovery Report Preparation

Time & Material

Daily Charges

Lump Sum Cost

Site Investigation / Classification

Stage 1 Site Investigation

Site Classification Plan Preparation

Stage 2, 3, etc. Site Investigation Plan Preparation

Site Investigation / Classification Fieldwork / Oversight

Site Investigation / Classification Completion Report Preparation

Lump Sum Cost

Time & Material

Daily Charges

Lump Sum Cost

Low Priority Corrective Action

Low Priority Ground Water Monitoring Plan Preparation

Low Priority Ground Water Monitoring Fieldwork

Low Priority Ground Water Monitoring Report Preparation

Ground Water Monitoring Completion Report Preparation

Lump Sum Cost

Daily Chartges

Lump Sum Cost

High Priority Corrective Action

Conventional (Dig & Haul) Corrective Action Plan Preparation

Alternative Technology Corrective Action Plan Preparation

Conventional (Dig & Haul) Corrective Action Fieldwork

TACO Tier II or Tier III Evaluation

Calculations

Conventional (Dig & Haul) Corrective Action Completion Report Preparation

Lump Sum Cost + Daily Charges

Time & Material

Daily Charges

Time & Material

Lump Sum Cost

LUST Fund Reimbursement Report Preparation

Lump Sum Cost

ATTACHMENT D

Atypical Situations:

Identification of a site as “atypical” would be an indication to the IEPA that the

budget (or Early Action costs) need to be reviewed because the budget or costs

are not typical for that phase of corrective action. A site would on/yneed to be

identified as atypical

the site characteristic(s) have caused the costs to exceed

the typical costs. A site that has atypical characteristics, but has not exceeded

the allowed (or typical) costs, would not be identified as atypical. Provided below

are discussions of why these atypical characteristics may cause costs to exceed

typical costs. Some of these atypical situations may no longer be applicable

depending on the final decisions regarding how some tasks or costs are charged

and reimbursed.

45-Day Report is the Corrective Action Completion Report: When the 45-Day

Report is submitted as a CACR, the amount of documentation and the effort that

goes into drafting the report is greater than what is required for a typical 45-Day

Report.

No Further Action Site: When a site is classified as NFA, the amount of

documentation and the effort that goes into drafting the report can be greater

than what is required in a typical Site Classification Completion Report.

Soil Excavated: When the concept of the atypical sheet was originally devised,

the concept of a daily field charge was not yet formulated. The original thought

was that when soil is excavated during the Early Action Period, the costs could

exceed the Agency’s proposed lump sum amount for Early Action activities.

Depending on the final method for reimbursement, this site characteristic may or

may not cause costs to be atypical.

Free Product Present: Costs for free product recovery can be highly variable.

They depend on the product thickness, the number of wells in which free product

is present, the method of free product recovery, and the amount recovered.

Free Product / Vapor Migration: Costs to mitigate free product or vapor migration

can be highly variable, depending on where free product or vapor is migrating.

Number of USTs: If a site has numerous USTs, more soil borings and/or

monitoring wells may be required than what would be required at a typical site to

perform a site investigation to characterize the potential source areas and

determine the extent of onsite contamination.

Number of tank fields: If a site has multiple tank fields, more soil borings and/or

monitoring wells may be required than what would be required at a typical site to

perform a site investigation to characterize the potential source areas and

determine the extent of onsite contamination.

Site Size: If a site is very large, more soil borings and/or monitoring wells may be

required than what would be required at a typical site to perform a site

investigation to characterize the extent of onsite contamination.

Areal Extent of Plume: If soil or ground water contamination is extensive, more

soil borings and/or monitoring wells may be required than what would be required

at a typical site to perform a site investigation to characterize the extent of onsite

contamination.

Distance to site is over 110 miles (one way): If the distance to a site from the

consultant’s office is greater than 110 miles one way the round trip travel time in

one day would exceed 4 hours, based on an average of 55 miles per hour.

Depending on the time required for the work being performed, additional costs

might be incurred for overnight stay, over-time for non-salaried employees, or per

diem charges. In winter months, short daylight hours could also affect when an

overnight stay may be required to complete fieldwork.

Site Geology: Some geological characteristics may require additional materials,

time, and effort required for sampling and monitoring well construction.

Additional mobilization may also require be required.

Shallow Bedrock:

The cost to drill through bedrock is greater than drilling

through soil. When shallow bedrock is encountered and the bedrock needs

to be cored, in addition to higher drilling costs, the costs for laboratory tests to

determine physical properties will also be atypical. If bedrock had not been

anticipated, an additional mobilization may also be required.

Multiple Water Bearing Units:

If more than one water-bearing unit is

encountered, additional wells may be required to screen the different units.

Additional materials and time to construct wells in the deeper unit to protect

the shallow water-bearing unit may be required. If multiple water-bearing

units had not been anticipated, an additional mobilization may also be

required.

Deep Ground Water Unit

If the ground water table is deep, monitoring wells

deeper than typical monitoring wells will be required. Deeper wells would

require additional well construction materials (casing, grout and may

potentially require pumping grout with a tremie pipe), and additional time for

soil sampling and descriptions, well installation, well development and

purging, and ground water sampling. If a deep ground water table had not

been anticipated, an additional mobilization may also be required.

Othen

For example, if the subsurface strata are dominated by

unconsolidated sand, the sand may heave. Drilling and well construction in

heaving sand conditions can be problematic and may require additional time

for well installation, and large diameter augers (at an increased drilling cost)

to be able to construct the monitoring well inside the auger stem. Emplacing

the well seal by pumping grout with a tremie pipe may also be required. If

heaving sand had not been anticipated, an additional mobilization may also

be required.

ATTACHMENT E

Proposed Personnel Titles and Requirements

Title

Degree Requirement

Ill License

Requirement

Minimum Yrs

Experience

IEPA

Hourly

Rate

Engineer I

Engineer II

Engineer Ill

Professional

Engineer

Senior Prof. Engineer

Geologist I

Geologist II

Geologist III

Professional Geologist

Senior Prof. Geologist

Scientist I

Scientist II

Scientist III

Scientist IV

Senior Scientist

Technician I

Technician II

Technician III

Technician IV

Senior Technician

Account Technician

Account Technician II

Account Technician III

Account Technician IV

Senior Acct. Technician

Bachelor’s in Engineering

Bachelor’s in Geology or Hydrogeology

Bachelor’s in Geology or Hydroqeolocjy

Bachelor’s in a Natural or Physical Science

None **

None

P.E.

None

P.G.

None

None **

None

Administrative Assistant I

None **

None

Administrative Assistant II

None **

None

Administrative Assistant Ill None **

None

Administrative Assistant IV

None **

None

Senior Admin. Assistant

None **

None

*While there is no specific license or experience requirement for a Principal, the position is assumed to entail

substantial decision-making authority and performance accountability on behalf of the firm.

**Equivalent work-related college level education can be substituted for all or part of the specified experience

requirements.

Project Manager

Senior Project Manager

Princirjal