| - NOTICE OF FILING
- 1) For releases reported on or after June 24, 2002, but prior to
- 2) Costs incurred pursuant to a budget approved prior to
- X. In response to recommendations to reduce a “half-day” from five hours to
- Section 734.2 10(h)(1):
- 1) At a minimum, for each UST that is removed, the owner or
- Section 734.21 0(h)(2):
- 2) At a minimum, for each UST that remains in place, the owner or
- wording is highlighted in bold lettering.
- i) Contacting the Agency’s Division ofPublic Water Supplies
- ii) Using current information from the Illinois State
- iii) Contacting the local public water supply entities to identify
- properties that receive potable water from a public watersupply.
- B) In addition to the potable water supply wells identified pursuant to
- C) The Agency may require additional investigation ofpotable water
- ingestion exposure route remediation objectives of 35 Ill. Adm. Code
- is highlighted in bold lettering.
- Using current information from the Illinois State Geological Survey, the
- the Agency proposes to amend Sections 732.309(a)(1)(C) and (D) to the following.
- A) Up to four borings shall be drilled around each
- ii) Free product that may impact groundwater is found
- to need recovery in compliance with Section
- C) One soil sample shall be collected from each five-foot
- ofsoil samples collected pursuant to Section
- i) Wells used for hydraulic conductivity testing
- shall be constructed in a manner that ensures themost accurate results.
- ii) The screen must be contained within the
- Hydraulic conductivity (K)
- Hydraulic conductivity (K)
- (hhh) Costs associated with groundwater remediation if a groundwater
- 1) Payment for costs associated with the preparation and
- A) A total of$3,200.00 for plans to investigate on-
- site contamination.
- B) A total of $3,200.00 for plans to investigate off-
- site contamination.
- 2) Payment for costs associated with field work and field
- fraction thereof, drilled as part ofthe
- (d)(2)(B) of this Section instead of this subsection(d)(2)(A); and
- B) One half-day for each monitoring well installed
- as part of the investigation.
- 3) Payment for costs associated with well surveys
- 4) For conventional technology, payment for costs associated
- 6) Development of Tier 2 and Tier 3 Remediation
- A) Payment for costs associated with field work and
- field oversight for the development of
- i) One half-day for every four soil borings,
- installed solely for the purpose of
- developing remediation objectives.
- B) Excluding costs set forth in subsection (d)(6)(A)
- 7) Payment for costs associated with Environmental Land Use
- Controls and Highway Authority Agreements used as
- e) Payment for costs associated with travel, including, but not
- 0 to 29 $140.00
- 60 or more $300.00
- 1) If a plan must be amended due to unforeseen circumstances,
- g) Costs associated with bidding pursuant to 732.855 of this Part
- Professional Consulting Services
- A) One half-day for every four soil borings, or
- B) One half-day for each monitoring well installed
- as part ofthe Stage 1 site investigation.
- 3) Payment for costs associated with the preparation and
- 7) Payment for costs associated with well surveys
- d) Development ofTier 2 and Tier 3 Remediation Objectives.
- 1) Payment for costs associated with field work and field
- A) One half-day for every four soil borings, or
- B) One half-day for each monitoring well installed
- solely for the purpose of developing remediationobjectives.
- Section, payment for costs associated with the
- e) Payment for costs associated with travel, including, but not
- 1) If a plan must be amended due to unforeseen circumstances,
- g) Costs associated with bidding pursuant to 734.855 of this Part
- Chemical
- Geo-Technical
- Metals
- Other
- PROOF OF SERVICE
- Marlin
|
RECEIVED
CLERK’S OFFICE
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARDSTATE
‘~UG
~
OF
022004
ILLINOIS
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
~~IIUtIOnControl Boarcg
)
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO:
)
R04-22
REGULATION OF PETROLEUM
)
(Rulemaking
-
Land)
LEAKING
UNDERGROUND
STORAGE )
TANKS
(35
ILL. ADM. ~CODE732)
)
iN THE MATTER OF:
)
)
PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS TO:
)
R04-23
REGULATION OF PETROLEUM
)
(Rulemaking
-
Land)
LEAKING
UNDERGROUND STORAGE )
TANKS
(35
ILL. ADM. CODE 734)
)
NOTICE OF FILING
Dorothy Gunn, Clerk
Marie Tipsord
-
Illinois Pollution Control Board
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center
James R. Thompson Center
100 W. Randolph, Suite 11-500
100 W. Randolph, Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Chicago, Illinois 60601
SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that today I have filed with the Office ofthe Clerk ofthe
Illinois Pollution Control Board the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s Additional
Testimony ofDouglas W. Clay in Support of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s
Proposal and Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s Third Errata Sheet, a copy ofeach of
which is herewith served upon you.
Respectfully submitted,
ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
~
~
Kyle R&minger
Assistant Counsel
Date: July 30, 2004
1021
North Grand Avenue East
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
(217)
782-5544
-
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
STIvj-EAUG
OF
022004
‘LUNG
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
~~~lUttOfl
Controi 8O~d
)
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO:
)
R04-22
REGULATION OF PETROLEUM
)
(Rulemaking
-
Land)
LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE
)
TANKS
(35
ILL. ADM. CODE 732)
)
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
)
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO:
)
R04-23
REGULATION OF PETROLEUM
)
(Rulemaking
-
Land)
LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE
)
TANKS
(35
ILL. ADM. CODE 734)
)
ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY OF DOUGLAS W. CLAY IN SUPPORT OF
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY’S PROPOSAL
Today I will be providing additional testimony in support ofthe Agency’s
proposal. The Agency reviewed the transcripts ofthe hearings held to date in this
rulemaking, as well as the testimony filed with the Board, and has made changes to its
proposal where appropriate in response to questions, comments, and recommendations
that have arisen in these proceedings. The Agency would like to thank the Board forthe
opportunity to submit these additional changes. The Agency would like to also thank all
ofthe parties who provided comments and recommendations during this proceeding.
Although the Agency’s Third Errata Sheet contains quite a few changes, we believe the
changes will improve the LUST rules for all parties involved in the LUST Program.
My testimony is divided into three sections. The first contains issues from the
May
25th
and May
26th
hearing that need to be clarified or addressed. The Second
1
contains testimony on several issues raised in the June 21st, June 22nd and July 6th
hearings. The final section contains testimony in support ofthe Agency’s Third Errata
Sheet, which addresses and incorporates many ofthe comments and recommendations
that have arisen during this rulemaking.
Issues from the May 25th and 26th Hearings
1.
Chris Kohrrnann is listed as an Agency witness. The person providing this
testimony was Chris Covert, not Chris Kohrmann.
2.
Doug Oakley provided testimony, but is not listed in the transcripts as an
Agency witness.
3.
On page 152, line 14, ofthe May25t~~transcript Harry Chappel’s
testimony reads as “you can’t calculate the volume ofthe backfill.” (emphasis added).
Harry’s testimony was that “you
ç~j
calculate the volume ofthe backfill.” (emphasis
added).
4.
The Agency was asked if the implicit price deflator for gross national
product has ever been a negative number during the time it has been tracked by the
Agency. The Agency has tracked this number for six years, and it has never been a
negative number during that time.
5.
The Agency was asked to provide, for the record, copies ofthe LUST
Section’s annual reports that have been referenced in several hearings. Copies ofthe
annual reports for the years 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003 will be submitted at the August
9th hearing.
6.
The Agency was asked to provide infornthion regarding the installation of
wells larger than two inches in diameter. For the unit prices for large diameter wells the
2
Agency used historical data for the screens, risers, well boxes, bottom caps, locking caps,
lock, and bailer/rope. The Agency did an extrapolation for the amount ofconcrete, sand,
and bentonite needed for the larger diameter wells. The Agency, using the formula Area
=
~t r~,determined the difference in the amount ofmaterial needed in the annular space
outside the well casing and screen. The differences are:
From a 2 inch to a 4 inch well the difference is
1.5.
From a 2 inch to a 6 inch well the difference is 2.
From a 6 inch to an 8 inchwell the difference is
1.25.
From a 4 inch to an 8 inch well the difference is 1.67.
In developing the amounts allowed for the installation ofwells, for4 and 6 inch
monitoring wells the Agency allowed twice the amount ofconcrete, sand, and bentonite
as is needed for a 2 inch monitoring well. For an 8 inch recovery well, the Agency
allowed twice the amount ofmaterial that is needed for a 4 or 6 inch recovery well.
Issues raised in the June 21st, June 22’~,and July 6~Hearings
1.
PIPE submitted agendas for meetings that it had with the Agency. The
Agency would like to point out that these Agendas were prepared by PIPE and reflect
issues they intended to raise with the Agency, but do not necessarily reflect what was
actually discussed in the meetings with the Agency.
2.
Claims have been made that the Agency is revising the rules because they
saw the Fund beginning to fail. This rulemaking was initiated in 2002 in response to the
statutory changes passed that year. Revisions to the reimbursement process were
included with tJie technical changes needed as a result ofthe statutory changes, but the
reimbursement changes were not added in response to the current status ofFund. The
3
reimbursement revisions were included in order to streamline the preparation and review
ofbudgets and applications forpayment, allow more efficientuse ofconsultant, Board,
and Agency resources, improve consistency in Agency decisions, control cleanup costs,
expedite cleanups, and ultimately allow owners and operators to be reimbursed in a more
efficient and timely manner.
3.
On page 117 ofthe June 21 transcript, Cindy Davis’ testimony states that
Agency came to PIPE and told them that PIPE needed to find a way to cut $125 million a
year from the Fund. This appears to be an error in the transcription. The amount
conveyed by the Agency was
$25
million a year. The Agency raised this number to PIPE
as roughly the difference between the amount ofmoney coming into the Fund each year
and the amount that is paid out through reimbursements each year. Based on information
from recent years, approximately
$25
millionmore is being paid out ofthe Fund each
year than is coming in. Ifthis difference is not reduced, payments will be delayed until
the income to make the payment is received.
4.
The Agency was asked about the expected economic savings ofthe
Agency’s proposal. The Agency has not performed a formal economic analysis to
determine, in specific dollars, the savings that will be generated by its proposal.
However, the Agency believes there will be significant savings in cleanups costs with the
establishment of“reasonable costs” in regulations. In addition, there will be less time
needed forconsultants to prepare budgets and reimbursement packages, and less time
required for Agency review ofbudgets and reimbursement packages, which will further
reduce costs. Furthermore, the Agency believes that limiting reimbursement ofon-site
corrective action to the achievement ofTier 2 remediation objectives and requiring the
4
use of groundwater ordinances, when available, if the owner or operator will seek
reimbursement will significantly reduce cleanup costs.
5.
There have been several claims made regarding the time it takes the
Agency to respond to submittals and requests to reduce the time allowed for the Agency
to review submittals. First, the Act provides the Agency with 120 days to respond to
submittals. Any change to that timeframe would need to be a statutory change and a
reduction in this timeframe would impact the Agency’s administration ofthe LUST
Program. The greatest factor in the Agency’s review time is the volume of
documentation it receives. The Bureau ofLand file room, where LUST documents
received by the Agency are kept, measures its files by lineal feet ofshelf space. On
average, the Agency receives 30 lineal feet ofLUST plans and reports each month, or
more than seven feet each week. That translates into 120 feet of documents during the
120 day review period. LUST documents currently makes up
50
ofall ofthe
documents received per month in the Bureau of Land’s file room. And, these figures do
not include all ofthe reimbursement documentation received by the LUST Claims Unit,
such as applications for payment. There must be an understanding ofthe time and
resources needed to review all ofthe documents received by the LUST Section and the
LUST Claims Unit. Shortening the Agency’s review deadline would do nothing to help
it review the many plans and reports it receives more quickly.
Secondly, statements such as the Agency’s “project manager sends a letter at the
end oftheir 120 day review period (and generally not a day before)” are inaccurate.
“Testimony ofCindy S. Davis on Behalfofthe Professionals ofIllinois for Protection of
the Environment (“PIPE”), CSD Environmental and Heartland Drilling,” page 9. The
5
Agency looked at the review times for plans and reports from May 2003
-
May 2004.
The review times were as follows:
Agency Review Time
# ofReviews Conducted
ofTotal Reviews
3Odays
1,119
26.3
30-60 days
1,108
26.1
60-90 days
839
19.7
90-l2odays
1,184
27.9
Total
4,250
100
These numbers show that more than half ofthe LUST Section’s reviews are
completed within 60 days, and more than a quarter are completed within 30 days. Over a
quarterofthe reviews were also completed within 90 to 120 days, but those would
include situations where the project manager had to ask and wait for additional
information to be submitted before a review could be completed. In some cases
additional information that is needed can be submitted within the 120-day time frame and
the submittal can be approved.
There have been many complaints that it sometimes takes up to two years to
obtain Agency approval. The amount oftime it takes the Agency to approve a plan or
report is largely dependent upon the quality ofthe submittal. Ifthe initial submittal is
approvable (i.e. meets the applicable regulations), then the time frame forapproval will
be no more than 120 days and, as shown above, in most cases will be much less.
6.
There has been at least one request to allow the submission of
reimbursement requests more frequently than every 90 days. This timeframe is
established in Section 57.8 ofthe Act, which states that “an owner or operator may
submit a request for partial or final payment regarding a site no more frequently than
once very 90 days.” However, I would like to point out that, in an effort to allow earlier
6
reimbursement requests, the Agency has proposed to specifically allow the submission of
reimbursement requests after each stage ofthe site investigation under Part 734.
7.
The claim was made in pre-filed testimony that PIPE’s “member firms
conduct or provide services on nearly all of the underground storage tank cleanups
conducted in the State of Illinois.” “Testimony of Cindy S. Davis on Behalf of the
Professionals ofIllinois for Protection ofthe Environment (“PIPE”), CSD Environmental
and Heartland Drilling,” page 9. Later, at hearing, members ofPIPE presented Exhibit
58,
which shows that 10 unidentified consultants are working on 893 active LUST sites.
-
PIPE would not identify its members and could not provide a breakdown ofhow many
members represented each ofthe different types ofbusinesses involved in the
remediation ofLUST sites, but Cindy Davis did indicate that PIPE has a total of 20
member firms that are either consultants, laboratories, landfills, or contractors.
Transcript of June 21, 2004, hearing, p. 137.
To put these numbers in perspective, the Agency would like to offer the following
facts:
A.
There are a total of23,000 sites in the LUST Program. More than 10,000
sites still have to be remediated. Of the unremediated sites, over 2,300
have had some sort ofactivity in the last two years (e.g., submitted a plan
or report to the Agency).
B.
There are 375 different consultants that have worked on LUST sites in the
past 5 years.
C.
There are 48 landfills in the state permitted to accept LUST soils.
D.
-
There are 668 haulers permitted to transport LUST contaminated soils.
E.
There are 89 laboratories certified by the Agency to perform analyses
required under the LUST Program.
7
F.
There are 153 tank removal contractors permitted by
the Office of the
State Fire Marshall.
G.
There are numerous drillers and excavators that work with LUST sites.
H.
In addition, there are the
thousands of owners and operators who are the
parties responsible for complying with these rules and the parties
reimbursed under these rules
their corrective action costs.
The Agency appreciates PIPE’s involvement in this rulemaking. It has
provided
many good comments
and recommendations, which are included the Agency’s Third
Errata Sheet,
and
we look forward to working with
PIPE’s
members in the
future
on
issues relating to the LUST Program.
However, while they have been very vocal in these
proceedings, the Agency would like to point out that they
represent only a small fraction
of the
persons involved in the LUST program. The Agency must administer the program
for the good ofthe people of the State of Illinois and all persons
involved in the LUST
Program, not just vocal minorities. The Agency has heard, either
directly or indirectly,
that many consultants are happy with the rules as proposed, and,
specifically, have no
problems with Subpart H.
8.
There have been comments about the scope of work for professional
consulting services not being adequatelydefined in the rules. The Agency does not
believe that a detailed and defined scope ofwork for every aspect ofa leaking UST
cleanup is necessary, nor should it be included in the regulations. We agree that there is
some variability from site to site, but this variability has been taken into account in the
amounts that the Agency has proposed in Subpart H for professional consulting services.
The scope ofwork is the work required to perform the task being reimbursed (e.g.,
preparing and submitting a plan, preparing and submitting a report).
8
9.
Several members ofPIPE have commented on the Agency’s proposed soil
conversion factor. Testimony has been provided that typical swell factors range from
15 to
25
“PIPE Testimony of Joseph M. Kelly, P.E.,” p. 9, and “Pipe Testimony of
Joseph Truesday (sic), P.G., P.E.,” Subpart 2. The Agency’s proposal allows for a 20
swell factor for estimating the volume of soil to be transported. When looking at the
Agency’s proposed rate of
$57
per cubic yard, please remember that the amount also
includes costs for excavation and disposal. The
$57
can be broken down roughly as
follows:
25
is for excavation,
25
is for transportation, and approximately
50
is for
disposal.
The 20 swell factor proposed by the Agency does not apply to excavation costs
(25
ofthe
$57),
nor to disposal costs
(50
of the
$57).
It applies only to transportation
costs, which make up the remaining
25
ofthe
$57.
The 1.05 (or
5)
swell factor,
when applied
to the total for excavation, transportation, and disposal, is equivalent to
applying a 20 factor to just the transportation portion ofthe equation. An example
follows, where the amount ofsoil to be excavated is 100 cubic yards (cy):
20 Swell for
5
Swell for
Transport Only
Cost
All Categories
Excavation
$14.25
x 100 cy
=
$1,425.00
x 105 cy
=
$1,496.25
Transportation
$14.25
x 120 cy
=
$1,710.00
x 105 cy
=
$1,496.25
Disposal
$28.50 x 100 cy
=
$2,850.00
x 105 cy
=
$2,992.50
$57.00/cy
$5,985.00
$5,985.00
The Agency believes that a 20 swell factor is reasonable for Illinois soils.
10.
Assertions have been made that the Agency has ignored the Board’s 1.68
conversion factor set forth in Section 732.Appendix C, and has for some time operated in
violation ofthat Section. Appendix C sets forth the volumes ofbackfill that can be
9
removed from around USTs during early
action activities when, for purposes of
reimbursement, only four feet of backfill can be removed. The Agency uses Appendix C
for that purpose. However, it is proposing to change the conversion factor and amounts
in Appendix C so they are consistent with the conversion factor of
1.5
proposed for the
rest of the soil excavated at a site. This change is proposed so that all soil conversion
factors in the rules are the same.
The conversion factor of 1.68 tons per cubic yards used in
Appendix C was based
upon the approximate bulk density of gravel. While this factor may be appropriate for
backfill (such as pea gravel, CA6, etc.), it would not appear
appropriate for clay, silty-
clay type soils. The Agency believes that the proposed
1.5
tons per cubic yards
conversion factor is reasonable for Illinois. Whatever conversion factor the Board
determines to be appropriate, the Agency requests that it be consistent throughout the
rules (i.e., in Appendix C and in all other phases ofremediation).
11.
At least one person presenting testimony raised the idea ofallowing
owners and operators to access the Fund forcosts incurred after the completion of
remediation and the issuance ofa No Further Remediation Letter. The purpose of
allowing such access would be to make owners and operatormore comfortable with the
TACO regulations.
The Agency opposes allowing owners or operators back into the LUST Program
and the UST Fund after the issuance ofan NFR letter, except as already allowed for sites
with MTBE. There are over 10,000 releases from USTs that still need to be remediated.
The Agency shøuld be allowed to focus its time and resources on sites that have yet to be
remediated, not on sites that have already received an NFR letter requested and agreed to
10
by the owner or operator. In addition, according
to Exhibit 69 submitted by PIPE, most
owners and operators already utilize the alternatives available under TACO as part of
their remediation, so there is apparently already a good comfort level with TACO.
Finally, allowing owners and operators to come back into the LUST Program and access
the LUST Fund would make
it even harder to get a handle on the Fund’s outstanding
liability.
12.
Issue has been taken with the
Agency reviewing plans, reports, and
applications for payment that have been certified by a Licensed Professional Engineer
(“LPE”) or Licensed Professional Geologist (“LPG”). Some persons have asserted that
the Agency should rely solely on a LPE or LPE certification, and should not question a
LPE’s or LPG’s opinions and decisions. These assertions assume that LPE and LPG
certifications have much more of a role in the LUST Program than they are given by the
Act and the rules. Section
57.7(f)
ofthe Act requires that all investigations, plans, and
reports conducted orprepared under Section 57.7 (i.e., only those concerning site
investigation and corrective action, not those concerning early action activities, free
product removal, or applications for payment) “shall be conducted orprepared under the
supervision of’ a LPE or LPG. The Act speaks only ofoversight ofsite investigation and
corrective action by an LPE or LPG.
Section
57.7(1)
ofthe Act, like the certification requirements in the rules, is
designed to ensure that the work conducted at LUST sites is overseen by persons with the
appropriate training and education, i.e., LPEs and LPGs. Neither Section
57.7(1)
ofthe
Act nor the certification requirements in the rules, however, are intended to grant LPEs
and LPGs with a final decision making authority that supercedes the Agency’s. Under
11
the Act the Agency is the party responsible for protecting human health and the
environment and properly administering the UST Fund. Agency review ofthe work
conducted at LUST sites is necessary to ensure that these obligations are met.
Furthermore, preventing the Agency from reviewing documentation certified by a
LPE or LPG would result in unchecked access to the Fund.
If nothing else, Agency
review is needed to check to for human error and ensure that
payments from the Fund
meet the requirements of Act. The Act gives the Agency, not LPEs and LPGs, the
responsibility to determine
whether costs submitted for reimbursement are reasonable.
Because it is responsible for administering the Fund, the Agency must be able to account
for payments made from the Fund. The Agency has discovered numerous examples
where an LPE or LPG has certified either technical orreimbursement submittals that
were obviously not in accordance with the Act and regulations. Some examples of
inaccurate or improper certifications will be presented at the August 9th hearing.
13.
Members ofPIPE have raised the idea ofcreating a new database
specifically forthe purpose ofdetermining rates to adopt in the rules. The data for this
new database would come from detailed documentation submissions ofcosts requested
for reimbursement.
The Agency strongly opposes this idea. A mandated burdensome and time-
consuming data collection effort sends the LUST Program in the wrong direction. First,
it would greatly complicate and lengthen the preparation ofbudgets by consultants, thus
increasing costs. It would also complicate and lengthen the time needed for the review of
budgets by the Agency. Second, the data submitted would. be skewed from the
beginning. There is nothing to ensure that the data submitted would reflect “reasonable”
12
costs. An owner or operator
can request any amount in a budget. A determination
would
still have to be made ofwhether the requested amount reflects prevailing market prices.
Finally, there is no need for such a data collection effort because the Agency has added
bidding provisions to its proposal as a means ofdemonstrating on a site-specific basis
that costs higher than Subpart H are reasonable. Bidding will more accurately reflect
prevailing market prices and will be more responsive to market changes.
14.
Members ofPIPE have raised the idea ofrequiring the Agency to provide
owners and operators with a draft denial ormodification letter prior to issuing a final
decision denying or modifying a plan or budget. The reason for the draft denial would be
to notify the owner or operator with the reasons forthe denial or modification, and to
provide the owner or operatorwith an opportunity to correct any deficiency orto meet
with the Agency prior to the Agency issuing a final decision. Members ofPIPE have
likened this idea to Agency reviews ofpermits.
The Agency is opposed to requiring a draft denial ormodification letter prior to
the Agency issuing a final decision. Such a process would extend review times and is
counterproductive to the streamlining of the LUST Program. The Agency is under a 120
day statutory deadline to issue its final decision. Unlike permit reviews, the clock on this
deadline would not stop if the Agency were to issue a draft letter. The Agency would
still be required to issue a final decision within 120 days. In many cases the Agency
would likely end up just sending its final decision letter on the 120th day because it was
waiting for a response to the draft letter. This would extend the timeframe formany
reviews to 120 days when the Agency could have issued a final decision at the time it
completed its review and issued the draft letter. Furthermore, the analogy to permit
13
reviews is not appropriate. According to the
Permit Section, ofthe permits they issue,
only RCRA
Part
B Permits (operating permits for
hazardous waste treatment, storage or
disposal facilities) require drafts prior to a final decision.
It appears that the current review process
already takes care ofthe problems the
draft letter idea is
designed to address. Project managers.frequently ask consultants for
additional information that is necessary to complete their review. However, in some
cases an initial denial, without any other communication, is appropriate.
Even if the Agency does deny or modify a submittal, the owner or operatorhas
several options other than going through an entire appeal before the Board. One option
would be to re-submit the information once the deficiencies are addressed. Another
option is to file an appeal with the Board along with a request for a 90-day extension.
Many situations are handled in this manner. Only about 10 ofthe LUST appeal cases
filed with the Board actuallyproceed to a hearing.
15.
The idea ofa “peer review committee” has been raised by members of
PIPE. This committee would consist ofAgency supervisors as well as persons from
outside the Agency who are familiar with LUST projects. The function ofthe committee
would be to review Agency denials and modifications ofsubmittals prior to the Agency
issuing its final decision. The main focus appears to be on amounts allowed for
reimbursement. The purpose ofthe committee, as explained in testimony, would be to
maintain a link to “real-world” problems experienced at LUST sites.
The Agency is opposed to the creation ofsuch a committee. The Act gives the
Agency the authority and responsibility to oversee the LUST Program and determine the
reasonableness of costs reimbursed from the UST Find. The Act does not authorize
14
persons outside the Agency to
review submittals, and the decision ofsuch a committee
would not be appealable to the Board. Only Agency decision can be appealed to the
Board. Outside influence or input on Agency final decisions is simply inappropriate.
Furthermore, routing submittals through such a committee prior to the Agency issuing a
final decision will lengthen the review process and
is counter
to streamlining ofthe
LUST Program.
A peer review committee has been likened to a review committee usedby the
Illinois Department of.Transportation (IDOT). With regard to IDOT, it is my
understanding that the DOT review process is for contractors hired directly by IDOT to
work on DOT projects. The LUST Program is completely different. The consultants are
not working directly forthe Agency on Agency projects. The Agency is not a party to
contracts between owners and operators and consultants. Finally, the bidding provisions
the Agency has added to its proposal should alleviate most or all ofthe issues the peer
review committee is intended to address.
To help foster and enable greater communication between the Agency and other
parties involved in the LUST Program, the Agency is proposing new Sections 732.114
and 734.145 to establish a LUST Advisory Committee. The Committee would be made
up ofrepresentatives ofinterested parties and would meet with the Agency on a quarterly
basis to discuss the LUST Program. This Committee is modeled afterthe Site
Remediation Advisory Committee that was established for the Agency’s Site
Remediation Program.
16.
Another idea raised by members ofPIPE is to allow an alternative method
to Board appeals for challenging Agency decisions. The Agency is opposed to such an
15
idea. First,
an alternative to a Board appeal is not consistent with the Act. The Act
specifically provides that final Agency decisions
under Title
XVI are appealable to the
Board. Second, a mediation or alternative dispute
resolution process would likely be
more expensive to owners and operators than a Board appeal. The owner or operator
would be paying for the cost of the
mediation or resolution in addition to the cost of an
attorney, as the payment of such costs from the Fund is not authorized by the Act.
Finally, as mentioned above, only about 10 ofLUST appeals proceed to hearing, which
alleviates the need for an alternative system.
17.
Testimony has been presented to show that, according to the LUST
Section’s annual report, the number ofUST Fund claims processed each year has risen
while the average dollar amount per claim has dropped from approximately $100,000 in
early 1990s to approximately $40,000 per claim in 2002. I would like to point out that
these numbers only represent the average amount of costs submitted by owners and
operators in a single application for payment. They should not be confused with the total
amounts reimbursed per site. Owners and operators maysubmit any number claims per
incident, and the claims maybe for any amount. For clarification, the following are the
average total amounts paidper incident for incidents closed in 1997 through 2001.
Please note that these are amounts paid to date. Additional claims forthese sites may be
submitted in the future. The Agency did not include incidents closed in later years
because it assumes that many claims related to those sites have yet to be submitted.
Average oftotal amount paid
Year incident closed
per incident
1997
.
$86,266
1998
$95,707
1999
.
$82,819
16
2000
$75,759
2001
$92,190
18. The use of a “rate sheet” in the Agency’s development of the proposed
rules was mentioned many
times in testimony. There appears to be some confusion
regarding the Agency’s use of the rate sheet. In calculating some of the
rates set forth in
Subpart H, the Agency used some of the
average numbers from a spreadsheet that was
also used to generate a “rate sheet.” As clarified by Brian Bauer at the May
26th
hearing,
rates used for soil borings, mobilization, and monitoring wells came from the
spreadsheet. More specifically, rates for the following
items came from the spreadsheet:
Hollow stem auger (HSA) drilling cost per foot,
Daily drill
rig
decontamination rate,
Drill rig mobilization/demobilization rate,
Monitoring well abandonment rate,
2” PVC Screen 10-foot,
2” PVC riser 10-foot,
Well box,
Bottom cap,
Locking cap,
Lock,
Bailer,
Concrete per bag,
Sand per bag,
Bentonite per bag,
Vehicle rate per day, and
PD daily rate.
When the historical data in the spreadsheet was used, the Agency compared the historical
data with
data
that
was
being currently submitted. Based on this
comparison the Agency
determined that the historical data was still accurate and reasonable. In a few cases, such
as drum disposal, the Agency determined that the historical data was not accurate, thus
new data was acquired. In such cases the new data rather than the historical data was
used to develop the numbers proposed in the rules.
17
19.
A few issues have been raised regarding applications forpayment. One is
the requirement that applications for payment include proofofpayment to subcontractors.
There has been a request to strike this requirement because ofa hardship in obtaining
cancelled checks. Another issue that was raised concerned the proposed one-year
deadline for the submission ofapplications for payment.
Cancelled checks are not the only proofofpayment that maybe submitted. The
application for payment may also contain lien waivers or affidavits from the
subcontractor. One ofthese three methods ofproof ofpayment should be reasonably
obtainable. Proof ofpayment to the subcontractor is necessary to show that the
subcontractor was actually paid and therefore the owner oroperator is entitled to
reimbursement ofhandling charges.
The Agency does not believe that the proposed one year deadline causes an undue
hardship for owners and operators. Applications forpayment can be submitted
throughout the remediation process. Ifowners and operators submit their applications for
payment in a timely manner and keep them current with site activities, the only costs left
to be submitted at the end ofthe process will be for the corrective action completion
report and possibly some corrective action costs. One year is more than enough time to
submit an application forpayment forthese final costs. There has been a request for a list
ofexceptions to the one-year deadline. The Agency does not have any evidence to
support orjustify granting an exception for any one situation over another.
20.
There was an assertion that there is no mechanism in the rules to
reimburse owners and operators for additional costs ofdrilling beyond the drilling
proposed in a Stage 3 site investigation plan, if additional investigation is needed. As I
18
stated in earlier testimony, Stage 3 site investigation plans should be contingent in nature.
They should propose additional rounds ofborings that will be conducted if necessary.
Once such a plan is approved, the borings will be reimbursed according to the drilling
rates in the rules, as long as the
borings were needed to define the extent of
contamination. As an alternative, because the drilling rates are set forth in the rules, the
owner or operator can have drilling conducted prior to obtaining approval of the drilling
in a plan, and will know the amounts he or she will be
reimbursed for the work. Under
the alternative the owner or operator would still be required to submit a plan
and
budget,
or amended plan
and
budget, for the drilling.
21. There was also an assertion that there are no costs provided for a
corrective action plan to address groundwater contamination after a corrective action plan
for soil contamination has been approved and implemented.
This was
pointed out
because the Agency sometimes has owner and operators address soil contamination prior
to addressing groundwater contamination when the
proposal is to excavate below the
water table, which would likely impact the design of a groundwater treatment plan.
By definition,
any
method of groundwater remediation is considered an alternative
technology. Therefore, the costs associated with groundwater remediation, including the
groundwater remediation plan, will be
reimbursed on a time and
materials basis.
22. Testimony was provided by CW3M that the average rate for excavation,
transportation and disposal of contaminated soil awarded for DOT project
was $99.75.
We have been in contact with DOT regarding this figure and how their projects are
awarded. It is ç~urunderstanding that DOT reviews bids
and
awards contracts based on
the total cost ofthe project and does not compare
individual line items such as
19
excavation, transportation and disposal costs. The Agency
will present a letter from
DOT confirming this at the August 9th
hearing.
Changes Proposed in the Agency’s Third Errata Sheet
1.
At the July 6,
2004,
hearing
PIPE requested clarification on how proposed
Part
734 should be applied to releases subject to Public Act 92-05 54 but reported prior to
the effective date of
Part
734. In response, the Agency proposes a change to Section
734.100(a) that
recognizes the work already performed at a site even though the work
may not exactly match the requirements of
Part 734. In addition, the Section is changed
to provide that costs
approved in a budget prior to the effective date ofPart 734
will be
reimbursed in accordance with the amounts approved in the budget. Both ofthese
provisions are designed to alleviate retroactive application ofthe Part 734 rules to sites
that have performed work prior to the effective date ofPart 734.
2.
Members ofPIPE have recommended that “half-day” be defined as four
hours rather than five hours, and that there be no limitation on the number ofhalf-days
that can be reimbursed per calendar day. In response, the Agency proposes to amend the
definition of “half-day” so that one half-day equals four hours. The Agency further
proposes to remove the two half-days per calendar day limitation so that more than two
half-days can be reimbursed in a single calendar day. These changes are found in the
“half-day” definition in Sections 732.103 and 734.115.
The adjustment ofthe half-day rate down to four hours will not have any impact
on other rates that are based upon the number ofhalf-days worked (e.g., one-halfday of
field work and field oversight allowed for every four soil borings drilled). The half-day
included one hour oftravel time, which is being broken out and reimbursed separately
20
(see below). Therefore, the rates based upon half days were already based upon four
hours at the site. Without
the added one-hour oftravel time the half-day rates will
continue to be based upon four hours at the site.
With the reduction to four
hours per half-day, however, the Agency proposes to
reduce the amount of soil excavated per half day from 250 cubic yards to 225
cubic
yards. Subsections 732.845(a)(2)(A) and
732.845(c)(2)(A),
and Sections
732.845(a)(2)(A) and
732.845(c)(2)(A),
allow one half-day of field work
and field
oversight for each 225 cubic yards of soil
removed and disposed of. According to the
2003 National Construction Cost Estimator, 51st
Edition, most soils can be excavated
into a truck via a 1 cubic yard backhoe at a rate of
57
cubic yards per hour. Four hours
multiplied by 57 cubic yards per hour equals 228 cubic yards. The Agency rounded this
number down to 225 in the rules.
3.
Members ofPIPE have pointed out, correctly, that much ofthe Agency’s
review ofwork performed at a site is based solely upon the reports it receives and not the
direct observation offield activities. Much ofthis has to do with a lack ofAgency
resources to directly oversee all ofthe field activities that takeplace. In addition,
however, the Agency does not receive advance notice ofwhen field activities will be
taking place. It only knows offield activities after the fact when they are reported in a
site investigation or corrective action completion report. The Agency agrees that direct
oversight offield activities is very valuable in certain circumstances. To help the Agency
identify sites where field activities should be directly observed, and to help in planning
for such oversight, the Agency proposes to add wording that would allow the Agency to
require notification of field activities. This is proposed as new Sections 732.112 and
21
734.145. Please note that the notification
requirement does not apply to early action
activities or initial free
product removal activities since advance notification ofsuch
activities would be difficult.
4.
Members ofPIPE have raised
ideas about requiring the Agency to provide
draft denial letters, establishing a peer review
committee to oversee Agency decisions,
and alternatives to appeals of Agency
decisions to the Board. As discussed above, the
Agency does not agree with adding these ideas to the LUST Program. However, to help
foster
and
enable greater communication between the Agency and other parties involved
in the LUST Program, the Agency proposes new
Sections 732.114 and
734.145 to
establish a LUST Advisory Committee. The Committee would be made up of
representatives ofinterested parties and would meet with the Agency on a quarterly basis
to discuss the LUST Program. This Committee is modeled after the Site Remediation
Advisory Committee that was established forthe Agency’s Site Remediation Program.
5.
Members of PIPE have expressed concern over the language ofthe
professional certification proposed in Sections 732.110(d) and 734.135(d). They wanted
to make it clear that Professional Engineers were not certifying to professional geology
practices, and that Professional Geologists were not certifying to professional engineering
practices. In response, the Agency proposes to amend the certification language as
proposed in the Agency’s Third Errata Sheet so that a professional is certifying only to
the “standards and practices ofmy profession.”
6.
Members ofPIPE requested that allowance be made for situations where
early action soi~lsamples could not be collected in the locations specified in the rules. In
response, the Agency proposes to Sections 732.202(h)(1) and (2), and Sections
.
22
734.2 10(h)(1)
and (2),
to allow alternate locations
for samples if circumstances require.
The proposed language also allows the Agency to excuse the collection of
samples if
circumstances require.
7.
After the Agency proposed one-eighth of an inch of free pr9duct as the
amount to define when free product
removal is required, members ofPIPE had additional
questions on the removal offree product and when it should be required. Free product
removal must continue to be required in order forthe Board’s rules to remain consistent
with federal regulations. However, to address problems where the removal offree
product that exceeds one-eighth ofan inch in depth is impracticable, the Agency proposes
to add the language “to the maximum extent practicable” back into Sections 732.203(a)
and 734.2 15(a).~
8.
There were several comments from members ofPIPE and from CECI
regarding the prescriptive nature ofthe Stage 1 site investigation. In response to their
comments and recommendations, the Agency proposes to amend Section 734.315(a) so
that it contains simplified sampling requirements. Basically, up to four borings may be
drilled for each independent tank field, based upon early action sampling results. Two
borings are allowed forpiping runs. If a groundwater investigation is not required, and
therefore an interior monitoring well is not installed and soil from the monitoring well
boring is not sampled, an additional boring is required near each tank field and each
piping run in order to investigate the depth of the contamination in the areas that are most
likely to be contaminated. In addition, soil sampling from groundwater monitoring
installations wçlls is less prescriptive. The amended Stage 1 investigation is based on
CECI’s Stage 1 site investigation.
23
9.
Members of PIPE have expressed concern
over knowing how many
alternative technologies must be compared in a budget when an alternative technology is
proposed. The Agency believes that comparison to two other alternative technologies is
sufficient. Therefore, it
proposes to amend Sections 732.407(b) and 734.340(b) to
require that “the budget shall compare the costs ofat least two other available
alternative technologies to the costs ofthe proposed alternative technology.” Alternative
technologies vary widely in cost, and a cost comparison is needed to help ensure that
money in the UST Fund is being used in the most cost-effective manner.
10.
Members ofPIPE objected to requiring the submission oflaboratory
certifications in applications for payment. In response, the Illinois EPA proposes to
delete that requirement by deleting proposed Sections 732.601 (b)(11) and
734.605(b)(11).
11. In order to help ensure that UST Fund money is used in the most cost-
effective manner, the Agency proposes changes that will require owners
and
operators
that seek
reimbursement to utilize certain aspects ofTACO. First, the Agency proposes
to limit payment from the Fund to costs that achieve cleanup to Tier 2 objectives.
Owners and operators
are
not prohibited from remediating their site to Tier 1 objectives,
but they will be reimbursed only for remediation
necessary to achieve Tier 2
objectives.
TACO is designed so that a cleanup to the Tier 2 objectives is as equally protective as a
cleanup to the Tier 1 objectives. Therefore, a cleanup to the default Tier 1 objectives,
which is generally more expensive than a cleanup to the Tier 2 objectives, is not
necessary. To implement this change the Agency has proposed amendments to Sections
732.408 and 732.606(ggg), and Sections 734.410 and 734.630(ggg). In Sections 732.408
24
and 734.4 10 the Agency has specified parameters that must
be determined on a site-
specific basis to calculate the Tier 2 remediation objectives for the site.
The second change in the use of TACO is to require the use of a groundwater
ordinance as an institutional
control if an ordinance that has already been approved by the
Agency is available. Again, this is only for sites
seeking reimbursement. This change is
proposed in Sections 732.606(h.hh)
and
734.630(eee),
and
mentioned in a proposed Board
Note for Sections 732.410 and 734.408. Owners and operators would not be required to
obtain an ordinance for their site if one has not already been
approved by the Agency.
They would only be required to use an ordinance if one already approved by the Agency
for use an institutional control (e.g., already used at another site) could also be used at
their own site. This change would
prevent the payment ofUST Fund money to clean up
groundwater that cannot be used as a potable water source per the local groundwater
ordinance, and to cleanup groundwater contamination under one site when groundwater
contamination under other sites in the same area are allowed to remain in place.
12.
In Sections 732.606(ccc) and 734.630(yy) the Agency proposed to make
costs associated with sample collection, transportation, or analysis ineligible if the costs
were required because one or more earlier samples were improperly collected,
transported, or analyzed. CW3M raised concerns about unintended consequences,
specifically not paying consultants for collecting the second round ofsamples when the
error was made by the laboratory. In response to these concerns, the Agency proposes to
delete Sections 732.606(ccc) and 734.630(yy) from its proposal. The Agency agrees that
the consultant should not be penalized if a sample is not properly analyzed by the
laboratory. Likewise, the laboratory should not be penalized if a sample was not properly
25
collected by the consultant. Furthermore, it appears that the Agency’s concerns can be
addressed adequately through existing Section 732.606(q).
13. The Agency proposed Sections 732.606(eee) and 734.630(bbb) to make
costs associated with the maintenance, repair, or replacement ofleased or subcontracted
equipment ineligible for reimbursement. CW3M raised concerns about certain routine
maintenance costs being made ineligible by these Sections. In response, the Agency
proposes to amend the Sections to allow routine maintenance costs to remain eligible for
reimbUrsement if the costs are approved in a budget.
14.
Members ofPIPE have raised concerns over the addition ofSections
732.6 14 and 734.665. Their concerns appear to be centered around the auditing language
repeated from Section
57.15
ofthe Act. As I stated at the first hearing in this rulemaking,
the Agency does not intend to look at a company’s financial statements. The proposed
Section is intended to be used forthe review ofdocuments related to the payment from
the UST Fund, such as time sheets, subcontractor’s invoices, chain ofcustody documents,
and back-up documentation for costs submitted for payment. The Agency merely needs
to ensure that records related to reimbursement submittals are retained for a certain
period oftime so they can be reviewed if necessary. Due to the concerns raised by
members ofPIPE, the Agency proposes to delete the statutory auditing language from
Sections 732.614 and 734.665 and retain only subsections (a) through (c). These
subsections are based on the record retention provisions in other Board and Agency
regulations, copies ofwhich were submitted to the Board in Exhibit 16.
Payment ofcorrective action costs from the UST Fund is the distribution ofpublic
money, and the Agency must be able to properly account for such public money;
26
Subsections (a) through (c) will bring the LUST rules in line with other Board and
Agency regulations that deal with the distribution of public
money and
will aid in the
proper accounting ofthe public funds in the UST Fund. Because hundreds ofmillions of
dollars in public funds are distributed through the UST Fund, far exceeding the amounts
governed by many other Board and Agency regulations, there is an even greater need for
record retention provisions in the LUST rules.
15.
In its pre-filed
testimony, CW3M noted that groundwater removal system
were not included in Sections 732.8 15(b) and 734.8 15(b). The Agency proposes to
amend those Sections to include groundwater removal systems.
16.
Members ofPIPE expressed several concerns over the reimbursement
amounts forpersonnel costs. In response, the Agency proposes the following changes to
its proposal:
A.
Concerns were raised over the amount oftime allowed for tank
pull oversight. In response, the Agency proposes to allow one half-day offield
work and field oversight for each leaking underground.storage tank that is
removed, up to a total of 10 half-days. This change is proposed in Sections
732.845(a)(2)(A) and 734.845(a)(2)(A). Ifmore than ten tanks are pulled ormore
than 10 half-days are required, the owner oroperator can obtain bids for the costs
(see below), or seek site-specific Agency approval ofcosts if unusual or
extraordinary circumstances exist (see below).
B.
Concerns were raised about costs for site investigation at high
priority~sitesunder Part 732. In response, the Agency proposes to add a new
27
Sections 732.845(d)(1) and (2). The added language is the same as for site
investigations under Part 734.
C.
Concerns were raised over the cost ofadditional well survey work
required under the new rules. In response, the Agency proposes to add individual
maximum payment amounts for this work. For reviewing well records (that have
already been obtained) and identifying the wells, regulated recharge areas, and
welihead protection areas within a certain distance ofcontamination that is left in
place, the Agency proposes an amount of$160.00 based upon 2 hours of
personnel time. For additional well survey work that is needed due to site-
specific circumstances (i.e. physical well survey, such as interviewing property
owners or distributing door hangers), the Agency proposes to determine the
maximum amounts on a time and materials basis. The added amounts for the well
surveys are set forth in Sections 732.845(d)(3) and 734.845(b)(7).
D.
Concerns were raised over the reimbursement oftravel time.
Members ofPIPE recommended that travel time be broken out and reimbursed
separately from the half-day rate due to its variability from site to site. In
response, the Agency proposes to remove travel time from the half-day rate and
reimburse it based on the following sliding scale. The amounts listed are the
maximum amounts allowed per day for all costs associated with travel, including,
but not limited to, personnel travel time, vehicles charges, per diem, and lodging.
Distances are rounded to the nearestwhole mile and are measured from the
consultant’s office that is closest to the site. Costs for travel would be allowed
28
only when specified. For example, the maximum allowable amount for field work
and field oversight is typically a total of$390 per half-day, plus travel costs.
Distance to site
Maximum amount per calendar
(land miles)
day or fraction there of
0to29
$140.00
30to59
$220.00
60 or more
$300.00
To determine the above rates the Agency allowed $60.00 per day for a
vehicle or mileage. This was the amount allowed for vehicles charges each day
under the original
half-day rate when it included transportation
(2 half-days x
$30.00 per half-day
=
$60.00). In addition, the Agency allowed $80.00 per hour
forpersonnel travel time, with one hour allowed for sites 0 to 29 miles away, 2
hours allowed for sites 30 to 59 miles away, and 3 hours allowed for sites 60 or
more miles away. These amounts are based on a one-day round trip. However,
they should be sufficient to cover overnight stays because when an overnight stay
is necessary two days oftravel expenses would be allowed. For example, for sites
60 or more miles away, a total of$600.00 would be allowed if the consultant
needed to stay overnight ($300.00 x 2 days). If the consultant needed to stay two
nights, a total of$900 would be allowed ($300.00 x 3 days).
Because travel time is no longer a part ofthe half-day rate, the Agency has
also reduced the $500.00 per half-day offield work and field oversight to
$390.00. The travel costs that have been subtracted from the $500.00 are $80.00
for one hour ofpersonnel travel time and $30.00 for vehicle charges. This leaves
$390.00 per half-day of field work and field oversight. The $390.00 consists of
29
four hours ofpersonnel time at $80.00 per hour ($320.00) plus $70 for equipment
and supplies. Please note that these are the amounts per half-day. Ifthe
consultant works two half-days the amount allowed for equipment will be
$140.00. For three half-days the amount allowed will be $210.00, and so on.
These changes are made throughout Subpart H.
E.
Concerns were raised about costs associated with plan revisions
that are needed as a result ofunforeseen circumstances that arise after a plan and
budget are approved. In response, the Agency proposes to add Sections
732.845(1) and 734.845(f), which would allow $640.00 for plan and budget
amendments required because of unforeseen circumstances. This amount is based
upon eight hours ofpersonnel time at $80.00 per hour. This is not intended for
costs to prepare and amendment to a plan or report that is required because the
original plan
or report was deficient.
17.
Concerns have been raised about setting maximum reimbursement
amounts in the rules. In addition, the idea ofbidding, which is used in several other
states, has been raised as a possible method for determining reasonable amounts for
reimbursement. Inresponse, the Agency proposes to add provisions that would allow the
maximum amounts set forth in the rules to be exceeded if a minimum ofthree bids are
obtained. In such cases, the amount of the lowest bid would be the amount allowed for
reimbursement purposes, unless it is lower than the maximum payment amount set forth
in the rules. The bidding provisions do not specify who is to do the bidding. The Agency
anticipates that•in most cases the bidding will be done by the primary consultant. The
bidding provisions are proposed in Sections 732.855 and 734.855.
30
The Agency believes that a bidding process will greatly improve the proposed
rules.
First, it allows an exceedance of the maximum rates set forth
in the rules if
the
lowest ofthe bids (three minimum) exceed those rates. The rules will allow the rates to
be responsive to site-specific conditions that cause an increase in costs, such as greater
hauling distances to the landfill and
higher fuel costs. Second, costs based on bids will.
accurately reflect market prices, making the rules immediately responsive to price
fluctuations. Third, there is less of a need for Agency approval of unusual or
extraordinary expenses, or a need to determine at what point a cost “substantially
exceeds” the maximum payment amounts in the rules. Instead, costs can be bid out and
the lowest bid will be considered reasonable. Fourth, there is no need to gather new
information and establish a new database specifically for the purpose ofdetermining
maximum reimbursement amounts, which would be extremelyburdensome to both
consultants and the Agency, and result in a great delay in adopting the rules. Finally,
bidding will help the Agency track market rates and adjust the maximum payment
amounts in the rules when necessary. If the Agency sees that certain costs are continually
bid out and coming in higher than the maximum amounts allowed in the rules, it will
know that it is time to review the amounts in the rules to see if they need to be adjusted.
The proposed bidding provisions prohibit bids from certain parties. This is to
ensure that true third party bids are obtained. However, the proposed rules also provide
that the lowest bidder does not have to be used, only the amount ofthe lowest bid.
Another person maybe hired to perform the work, and the rules specifically provide that
the parties prohibited from bidding may perform the work (i.e., parties in which the
owner or operator, or the primary consultant, have a direct orindirect financial interest).
31
The only limitation is that the amount reimbursed
will be limited to the amount ofthe
lowest bid.
The bidding provisions also require that all bids be submitted to the Agency. This
is to avoid situations where, for example, five bids are obtained and the three bids that are
submitted are the three highest. If more than the minimum three bids are obtained, the
amount allowed for reimbursement is intended to be the lowest ofall the bids, not just
three ofthem. Please note that the persons conducting the bidding must determine that
the companies they choose to bid on the task are qualified and acceptable prior to
receiving bids.
18.
.
The Agency still believes there are situations where the reasonableness of
costs will need to be determined on a site-specific basis due to extenuating circumstances.
For example, there may be a situation where three minimum bids cannot be obtained
because there are not three persons who provide the service or perform the work that is
needed. Therefore, the Agency
proposes to change the unusual or extraordinary
expenses Section to an
“unusual or extraordinary
circumstances” Section. This Section
has been moved to Sections 732.860 and 734.860 because ofthe addition ofbidding in
Sections 732.855 and 734.855.
CECI has provided a list ofseveral situations that it proposes to list in the rules as
“atypical” situations. It further proposes to make costs associated with the atypical
situations reimbursable on a time and materials basis because the costs associated with
such situationS would be expected to exceed the maximum amounts set forth in the rules.
The Agency has reviewed this list and believes that the situations identified by CECI are
either already reimbursed on a time and materials basis, can be addressed through
32
bidding, or have been addressed in the proposed rules (including errata). Because all of
the atypical situations identified by CECI have been addressed, the Agency does not see a
need to designate certain situations as “atypical” in the rules.
19. In its original proposal the Agency proposed
a requirement that the
Agency review Sections 732.865
and 734.865a provision that would require
it to review
the rules at least every two years to ensure that the maximum payment amounts remained
current with prevailing market prices. This requirement was proposed in
Section 732.865
and 734.865. In its First Errata Sheet the Agency proposed to change this requirement to
an automatic increase in the maximum payment amounts each year. The amount ofthe
increase is based upon an inflation factor derived from the implicit price deflator for
gross national product. The Agency now proposes to add back in a mandatory review of
the rates to ensure they are keeping pace with the prevailing market rates. The
requirement is now proposed as new Sections 732.875 and 734.875, and applies in
addition to the automatic increase provision. The only difference between the language
as originally proposed is that the review must be conducted at least every three years
instead of every two years. The Agency believes that a three year minimum is sufficient
because the maximum amounts will automatically be increased each year, and the
Agency will be able to track market fluctuations when bidding is used.
20.
Jarrett Thomas, who submitted testimony on behalfofPIPE and the
Illinois Association ofEnvironmental Laboratories, recommended that references to
specific methods ofBTEX and Polynuclear Aromatics PNA analysis be deleted from
Sections 732.APPENDIX D and 734.APPENDIX D. In response, the Agency proposes
to delete those references.
33
21.
Based
on discussions with interested parties, the Agency proposes to
increase the hourly rates Engineer I, Engineer II,
Geologist I, Geologist
II, Geologist III,
and Professional Geologist. The Agency believes the amended rates are reasonable
amounts for the purposes of reimbursing costs from the UST Fund.
22. The Agency has proposed wording changes throughout Parts 732 and 734
regarding water supply well survey requirements to clarify that the water supply well
survey is based on the proximity of wells to soil and groundwater contamination
(measured and modeled) above the Tier 1 groundwater ingestion exposure route
remediation objectives and not the most stringent Tier 1 remediation objectives. This is
the appropriate objective to be used and be protective ofpotable wells.
In addition, wording has been changed from “contacting” to “using current
information from” the Illinois State Geological Survey, the Illinois State Water Survey
and Illinois Department ofPublic Health. The information ofthese entities may be
available through other sources instead ofonly from the entities. This will allow for
flexibility in how consultants collect this information.
34
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOA1~EC E D V E D
LERK’S OFFICE
iN
THE MATTER OF:
)
AUG 022004
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO:
)
R04-22
STATE OF ILLINOIS
REGULATION OF PETROLEUM
)
(Rulemaking
—
Lan~~°~~Control Board
LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE
)
TANKS (35 ILL. ADM. CODE 732)
)
IN
THE
MATTER OF:
)
)
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO:
)
R04-23
REGULATION OF PETROLEUM
)
(Rulemaking
-
Land)
LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE
)
TANKS (35 ILL. ADM. CODE 734)
)
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY’S
THIRD
ERRATA
SHEET
NOW COMES the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (“Illinois EPA”), by
and through its attorney Kyle Rominger, and submits this Third Errata Sheet to its
proposal forthe amendment of35 Ill. Adm. Code 732 and the adoption of35 Ill. Adm.
Code 734. During the course ofthis rulemaking many good comments and suggestions
for improving the rules have been provided. After reviewing the hearing transcripts and
filed testimony, the Illinois EPA incorporated these comments and suggestions into the
rules where appropriate and, as a result, proposes the following changes to its proposal:
X.
In response to a request for clarification on the application ofPart 734 to
releases subject to Public Act 92-0554 but reported prior to the effective date ofPart 734,
the Illinois EPA proposes to amend Section 734.100(a) by adding subsections (a)(l) and
(2) as follows. The changes will allow owners and operators who conducted work prior
to the effective date ofPart 734 to use that work in satisfying the requirements ofPart
734, and allow costs approved in a budget prior to the effective date of the Part to be
reimbursed in accordance with the approved budget. Altered wording, including changes
proposed in the Illinois EPA’s Second Errata Sheet, is highlighted in bold lettering.
a)
This
Part applies to
owners or operators of any underground storage
tank
system used to contain petroleum and
for which a release is reported to
IEMA on or after effective date of rules in accordance with OSFM
regulations. It does not apply to owners or operators ofsites for which the
OSFM does not require a report to IEMA or for which the OSFM has
issued or intends to issue a certificate ofremoval or abandonment pursuant
to Section
57.5
ofthe Act.
1)
For releases reported on or after June 24, 2002, but prior to
effective date of rules, and for owners and operators electing
prior to effective date of rules to proceed in accordance with
Title
XVI
ofthe Act as amended by P.A. 92-0554, the Agency
may deem that one or more requirements ofthis Part have
been satisfied, based upon activities conducted prior to
effective date of rules, even though the activities were not
conducted in strict accordance with the requirements of this
Part. For example, an owner or operator that adequately
defined the extent of on-site contamination prior to effective
date of rules may be deemed to have satisfied Sections
734.210(h) and 734.315 even though sampling was not
conducted in strict accordance with those Sections.
2)
Costs incurred pursuant to a budget approved prior to
effective date of rules shall be reimbursed in accordance with
the amounts approved in the budget and shall not be subject to
the maximum payment amounts set forth in Subpart H ofthis
Part.
X.
In response to recommendations to reduce a “half-day” from five hours to
fourhours
and
not to limit the number ofhalf-days that can be worked in one calendar
day, the
Illinois EPA proposes
to amend the definition of “Half-day” in Sections 732.103
and 734.115 to the following. Altered wording is highlighted in bold lettering.
“Half-day” means four hours, or a fraction thereof, ofbillable work time.
Half-days shall be based upon the total number of hours worked in one
calendar day. The total number of half-days per calendar day may exceed
two.
2
X.
To assist the Illinois EPA in the observance and oversight offield
activities, the Illinois EPA proposes the following new Sections 732.112 and 734.145 so
the Illinois EPA can require notification ofwhen and where field activities will be
conducted. The timeframes in the last sentence of the Section mirror the timeframes set
forth in Subpart B of each Part, as amended.
Section 732.112/734.145 Notification of Field Activities
The Agency may require owners and operators to notify the Agency of field
activities prior to the date the field activities take place. The notice shall include
information prescribed by the Agency, and may include, but is not be limited to, a
description of the field activities to be conducted, the person conducting the
activities, and the date, time, and place the activities will be conducted. The
Agency may, but is not required to, allow notification by telephone, facsimile, or
electronic mail. This Section does not apply to activities conducted within 45
days plus 14 days after initial notification to IEMA of a release, or to free product
removal activities conducted within 45 days plus 14 days afterthe confirmation of
the
presence of free product.
X.
In
response to concerns regarding the Illinois EPA’s administration ofthe
LUST program, the Illinois EPA proposes the following new Sections 732.114
and
734. 145.
Section 732.114/734.145
LUST Advisory Committee
Once each calendar quarter the Agency shall meet with a LUST Advisory
Committee
to discuss the Agency’s implementation ofthis Part, provided that the
Agency or members ofthe Committee raise one or more issues for discussion.
The LUST Advisory Committee shall consist of the following individuals: one
member designated by the Illinois Petroleum Marketers Association, one member
designated by the Illinois Petroleum Council, one member designated by the
American
Consulting Engineers Council of Illinois, one member designated by
the Illinois Society ofProfessional Engineers,
one member designated by the
Illinois Chapter ofthe American Institute of Professional Geologists, one
member
designated by the Professionals of Illinois for the Protection of the Environment,
one me~nberdesignated
by the Illinois Association of Environmental
Laboratories, one member designated by the Illinois Environmental Regulatory
Group, one member designated by the Office ofthe State Fire Marshal, and one
3
member designated by the
Illinois Department ofTransportation. Members ofthe
LUST Advisory Committee shall serve without compensation.
X.
In response to concerns over whetherthe language ofthe Professional
Engineer/Professional Geologist certification would require Professional Engineers to
certify to geology practices or Professional Geologists to certify to engineering practices,
the Illinois EPA proposes to amend the certification language of Sections 732.110(d)
and
734.135(d) to the following to clarify that a professional is required to certify only to the
standards and practices ofhis orher own profession. Altered wording is highlighted in
bold lettering.
I certify under penalty oflaw that all activities that are the subject ofthis plan,
budget, or report were conducted under my supervision or were conducted under
the supervision ofanother Licensed Professional Engineer or Licensed
Professional Geologist and reviewed by me; that this plan, budget, orreport and
all attachments were prepared under my supervision; that, to the best ofmy
knowledge and belief, the work described in the plan, budget, or report has been
completed in accordance with the Environmental Protection Act 415 ILCS
5, 35
Ill. Adm. Code 734, and generally accepted standards
and practices of my
profession;
and that the information presented is accurate and complete. I am
aware there are significant
penalties for submitting false
statements or
representations to the Agency, including but not limited to fines, imprisonment, or
both as provided in Sections 44 and 57.17 ofthe Environmental Protection Act
415 ILCS 5/44 and 57.17.
X.
In response to concerns about possible situations that would prohibit early
action sample collection in the locations specified in Sections 732.202(h)(1) and (2), and
Sections 734.2 10(h)(l) and (2), the Illinois EPA proposes to amend the Sections to the
following. Altered wording is highlighted in bold lettering. Please note that additional
changes to subsections ofSections 732.202(h)(1) and 734.210(h)(2) are proposed in the
Illinois EPA’s First and Second Errata Sheets.
4
Section 732.202(h)(l):
1)
At a minimum, for each UST that is removed, the owner or
operator shall collect and analyze soil samples as follows.
The
Agency may allow an alternate location for, or excuse the
collection of, one or more samples if sample collection in the
following locations is made impracticable by site-specific
circumstances.
Section 732.202(h)(2):
2)
At a minimum, for each UST that remains in place, the owner or
operator shall collect and analyze soil samples as follows. The
Agency may allow an alternate location for, or excuse the
drilling of, one or more borings if drilling in the following
locations is made impracticable by site-specific circumstances.
Section 734.2 10(h)(1):
1)
At a minimum, for each UST that is removed, the owner or
operator shall collect
and
analyze soil samples as follows. The
Agency may allow an alternate location for, or excuse the
collection of, one or more samples if sample collection in the
following locations is made impracticable by site-specific
circumstances.
Section 734.21 0(h)(2):
2)
At a minimum, for each UST that remains in place, the owner or
operator shall collect and analyze soil samples as follows. The
Agency may allow an alternate location for, or excuse the
drilling of, one or more borings if drilling in the following
locations is made impracticable by site-specific circumstances.
X.
In response to comments regarding the removal of
free
product, the
Illinois EPA proposes to amend Sections 732.203(a)
and
734.2 15(a) to the following to
retain the phrase
“to the maximum extent practicable,” although in a different location
for
ease
ofreading. The following language also includes the changes to Sections
732.203(a) and 734.215(a)
proposed in the Illinois EPA’s Second Errata Sheet. Altered
wording is highlighted in bold lettering.
5
Section 732.203(a):
a)
Under any circumstance in which conditions at a site indicate the
presence offree product, owners or operators shall remove,to the
maximum extent practicable,
free product exceeding one-eigh~
ofan inch in depth as measured in a groundwater monitoring
well, or present
as
a
sheen
on
groundwater in the tank removal
excavation
or on
surface water, to the maximum extent practicable
while initiating or continuing any actions required pursuant to this
Part or other applicable laws or regulations. In meeting the
requirements ofthis Section, owners or operators shall:
Section 734.215(a):
a)
Under any circumstance in which conditions at a site indicate the
presence offree product, owners or operators shall remove, to the
maximum extent practicable, free product exceeding one-eighth
ofan inch in depth as measured in a groundwater monitoring
well, or present as a sheen on groundwater in the
tank removal
excavation or on surface water, while initiating or continuing
any
actions required pursuant to this Part
or other applicable laws or
regulations. In meeting the requirements ofthis Section, owners or
operators shall:
X.
As a part ofthe proposed changes to water supply well survey provisions
(see
below), the Agency proposes to amend
Section 732.300(b)(1)(A)(i) to the following.
Altered wording is highlighted in bold lettering.
i’~
One or more maps, to an appropriate scale, showing the following:
The location ofthe community water supply wells and other potable water
supply wells identified pursuant to subsection (b)(3) ofthis Section, and
the setback zone for each well;
The location and extent ofregulated recharge areas and wellhead
protection areas identified pursuant to subsection (b)(3) of this Section;
The current extent ofgroundwater contamination exceeding
the
Tier I
groundwater ingestion exposure route remediation objectives of 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 742 for the applicable indicator contaminants;
and
The modeled extent of groundwater contamination exceeding the Tier 1
groundwater ingestion exposure route remediation objectives of 35 III.
Adm. Code 742 for the applicable indicator contaminants.
6
X.
To allow well survey information ofthe Illinois State Geological Survey,
the Illinois State Water Survey, and the Illinois Department ofPublic Health to be
obtained from sources other than those offices directly, and to narrow the focus of the
water supply well surveys, the Agency proposes to amend Section 732.300(b)(3) to the
following. The same changes are
being proposed to well survey language throughout the
rules.
Altered wording is highlighted in bold lettering.
3)
As
part ofthe remediation
conducted under subsection (b) of this Section,
owners and operators shall conduct a water supply well survey in
accordance with this subsection (b)(3).
A) At a minimum, the owner or operator shall identify all potable
water supply wells located at the site or within 200 feet of the site,
all community water supply wells located at the site orwithin
2,500 feet ofthe site, and all regulated recharge areas and wellhead
protection areas in which the site is located. Actions taken to
identify the wells shall include, but not be limited to, the
following:
i)
Contacting the Agency’s Division ofPublic Water Supplies
to identify communitywater supply wells, regulated
recharge areas, and welihead protection areas;
ii)
Using current information from the Illinois State
Geological Survey, the Illinois State Water Survey, and the
Illinois Department ofPublic Health (or the county or local
health department delegated by the Illinois Department of
Public Health to permit potable water supply wells) to
identify potable water supply wells other than community
water supply wells; and
iii)
Contacting the local public water supply entities to identify
properties that receive potable water from a public water
supply.
B)
In addition to the potable water supply wells identified pursuant to
subsection (b)(3)(A) ofthis Section. the owner or operator shall
extend the water supply well survey if soil or groundwater
contamination exceeding the Tier 1 groundwater ingestion
exposure route remediation objectives of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 742
7
for the applicable
indicator contaminants extends beyond the site’s
property boundary, or, as part
ofremediation, the owner or
operator leaves in place soil or groundwater contamination
exceeding the Tier 1 groundwater ingestion exposure route
remediation objectives of35 Ill. Adm. Code 742 for the
applicable indicator contaminants and contamination exceeding
such objectives is modeled to migrate beyond the site’s property
boundary. At a minimum, the extended water supply well survey
shall identify the following:
i)
All potable water supply
wells located within 200 feet, and
all community water supply
wells located within 2.500 feet,
of the current or modeled extent of soil or groundwater
contamination exceeding the Tier 1
groundwater
ingestion exposure route remediation objectives of 35
Ill. Adm. Code 742 for the applicable indicator
contaminants; and
ii)
All regulated recharge areas and wellhead protection areas
in which the current or modeled extent ofsoil or
groundwater contamination exceeding the Tier
1
groundwater ingestion exposure route remediation
objectives of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 742 for the applicable
indicator contaminants is located.
C)
The Agency may require additional investigation ofpotable water
supply wells, regulated recharge areas, or wellhead protection
areas if site-specific circumstances warrant. Such circumstances
shall include, but not be limited to, the existence ofone or more
parcels ofproperty within 200 feet ofthe current or modeled extent
ofsoil or groundwater contamination exceeding the Tier 1
groundwater ingestion exposure route remediation objectives
of35 Ill. Adm. Code 742 for the applicable indicator contaminants
where potable water is likely to be used, but that is not served by a
public water supply or a well identified pursuant to subsections
(b)(3)(A) or (b)(3)(b) ofthis Section. The additional investigation
may include, but shall not be limited to, physical well
surveys
(e.g., interviewing property owners, investigating individual
properties for wellheads, distributing door hangers or other
material that requests information about the existence ofpotable
wells on the property, etc.).
8
X.
As a part of the proposed changes to water supply well survey provisions,
the Agency proposes
to amend Sections 732.306(b)(4) and
(5) to the following. Altered
wording is highlighted in bold lettering.
4) Groundwater contamination does not exceed Tier 1 groundwater
ingestion exposure route remediation objectives of 35 Ill. Adm. Code
742 for the applicable indicator contaminants as
a
result ofthe release,
modeling in accordance with
35 Ill. Adm. Code 742 shows that
groundwater contamination will not exceed such Tier 1 remediation
objectives as a result of
the release, and no potable water supply wells are
impacted as a result of the release; and
5)
Soil contamination exceeding the Tier
1 groundwater ingestion
exposure route remediation objectives of35 Ill. Adm. Code
742 for the
applicable indicator contaminants does not extend beyond the site’s
property boundary and is not located within a regulated recharge area, a
welihead protection area, or the setback zone ofa potable water supply
well. Documentation to demonstrate that this subsection (b)(5) is satisfied
shall include, but not be limited to, the results of a water supply well
survey conducted in accordance with Section 732.307(f) of this
Part.
X.
As a part
ofthe proposed changes to water supply well
survey provisions,
the Agency proposes to amend Section 732.307(f)(2) to the following. Altered wording
is highlighted in bold lettering.
2)
Using current information from the Illinois State Geological Survey, the
Illinois State Water Survey, and the Illinois Department ofPublic Health
(or the
county
or local health department delegated by the Illinois
Department ofPublic Health to permit potable water supply wells) to
identify potable water supply wells other than community water supply
wells; and
X.
As a
part
ofthe proposed changes to water supply well survey provisions,
the Agency proposes to amend Sections 732.309(a)(1)(C) and (D) to the following.
Altered wording is highlighted in bold lettering.
C)
The current extent ofgroundwater contamination exceeding the Tier 1
groundwater ingestion exposure route remediation-objectives of 35 IlL
Adm. Code 742
for the applicable indicator contaminants: and
9
D)
The modeled extent ofgroundwater contamination exceeding the Tier 1
groundwater ingestion exposure route remediation objectives of 35 III.
Adm. Code
742
for the applicable indicator contaminants. The
information required under this
subsection
(D)
is not required to be shown
in the site classification completion report if
modeling is not performed as
part ofsite investigation:
X.
In response to concerns about the prescriptive nature of
Part 734’s Stage 1
site investigation, the Illinois EPA proposes to
amend Section 734.315(a) to the
following. The following language replaces all changes to Section
734.3 15(a) proposed
in the Illinois EPA’s First and Second Errata Sheets. Altered wording is highlighted in
bold lettering.
a)
The Stage 1 site investigation shall consist of the following:
1)
Soil investigation.
A)
Up to four borings shall be drilled around each
independent UST field where one or more UST
excavation samples collected pursuant to 734.210(h),
excluding backfill samples, exceed the most stringent
Tier 1 remediation objectives of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 742
for the applicable indicator contaminants. One
additional boring shall be drilled as close as practicable
to each UST field if a groundwater investigation is not
required under subsection (a)(2) of this Section~The
borings shall be advanced through the entire vertical
extent of contamination, based upon field observations
and field screening for organic vapors, provided that
borings shall be drilled below the groundwater table
only if site- specific conditions warrant.
B)
Up to
two
borings shall be drilled around each UST
piping run where one or more piping run samples
collected pursuant to 734.210(h) exceed the most
stringent Tier 1 remediation objectives of 35 Iii. Adm.
Code 742 for the applicable indicator contaminants.
One additional boring shall be drilled a close as
practicable to each UST piping run if a groundwater
investigation is not required under subsection (a)(2) of
this Section. The borings shall be advanced through the
10
entire vertical extent of contamination, based upon field
observations and field screening for organic vapors,
provided that borings shall be drilled below the
groundwater table only if site-specific conditions
warrant.
C)
One
soil sample shall be collected from each five-foot
interval of each boring drilled pursuant to subsections
(a)(1)(A) and (B) ofthis Section. Each sample shall be
collected from the location within the five-foot interval that
is the most contaminated as a result ofthe release. If an
areaof contamination cannot be identified within a five-
foot interval, the sample shall be collected from the center
of the five-foot interval. All samples shall be analyzed for
the applicable indicator
contaminants.
2)
Groundwater investigation.
A) A groundwater investigation is required under the
following circumstances:
i)
There is evidence that groundwater wells have been
impacted by the release above the most stringent
Tier 1 remediation objectives of35 Ill. Adm. Code
742 for the applicable indicator contaminants;
ii)
Free product that may impact groundwater is found
to need recovery in compliance with Section
734.215 ofthis Part; or
iii) There is evidence that contaminated soils may be or
mayhave been in contact with groundwater, except
that, if the owner or operator pumps the excavation
or tank cavity dry, properly disposes ofall
contaminated water, and demonstrates to the
Agency that no recharge is evident during the 24
hours following pumping, the owner or operator
does not have to complete a groundwater
investigation, unless the Agency’s review reveals
that further groundwater investigation is necessary.
B)
Ifa groundwater investigation is required, the owner or
operator shall install five groundwater monitoring wells.
One monitoring well shall be installed in the location where
groundwater contamination is most likely to be present.
The fourremaining wells shall be installed at the property
11
boundary line or 200
feet from the UST system, whichever
is less, in opposite directions from each other. The wells
shall be installed in locations where they are most likely to
detect groundwater contamination resulting from the
release and provide information regarding the groundwater
gradient and direction offlow.
C)
One soil sample shall be collected from each five-foot
interval of each monitoring well installation boring
drilled pursuant to subsection (a)(2)(B) of this Section.
Each sample shall be collected from the location within
the five-foot interval that is the most contaminated as a
result of the release. If an area of contamination cannot
be identified within a five-foot interval, the sample shall
be collected from the center ofthe five-foot interval. All
soil samples exhibiting signs ofcontamination shall be
analyzed for the applicable indicator contaminants. For
borings that do not exhibit any signs of soil
contamination, samples from the following intervals
shall be analyzed for the applicable indicator
contaminants, provided that the samples shall not be
analyzed if other soil sampling conducted to date
indicates that soil contamination does not extend to the
location ofthe monitoring well installation boring:
i)
The five-foot intervals
intersecting the elevations
ofsoil samples collected pursuant to Section
734.2 10(h),
excluding backfill samples,
that
exceed
the
most stringent Tier 1 remediation
objectives of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 742 for the
applicable indicator contaminants.
ii)
The five-foot interval immediately above each five-
foot interval identified in subsection (a)(2)(C)(i) of
this Section; and
iii)
The five-foot interval immediately below each five-
foot interval identified in subsection (a)(2)(C)(i) of
this Section.
D)
Following the installation ofthe groundwater monitoring
wells, groundwater
samples shall
be collected from each
well and analyzed for the applicable indicator
contaminants.
12
E)
As a part of the
groundwater investigation an in-situ
hydraulic conductivity test shall be performed
in the
first fully saturated layer below the water table. If
multiple water bearing units are encountered, an in-situ
hydraulic conductivity test shall be performed on each
such unit.
i)
Wells used for hydraulic conductivity testing
shall be constructed in a manner that ensures the
most accurate results.
ii)
The screen must be contained within the
saturated zone.
3)
An initial water supply well survey in accordance with Section
734.445(a) ofthis Part.
X.
As a part ofthe proposed changes to water supply well surveyprovisions,
the Agency proposes to amend Sections 732.404(e)(1) and (2) to the following. Altered
wording is highlighted in bold lettering.
1)
In addition to the potable water supply wells identified pursuant to Section
732.307(f) ofthis Part, the owner or operator shall extend the water supply
well survey
if soil or groundwater contamination exceeding the
Tier I
groundwater ingestion exposure route remediation objectives of 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 742
for the applicable indicator contaminants extends beyond
the site’s property boundary, or, as part
ofa corrective action
plan, the
owner or operator proposes to leave in place soil or groundwater
contamination exceeding the Tier I
groundwater ingestion exposure
route remediation objectives of35 Ill. Adm. Code
742 for the
applicable indicator contaminants
and
contamination exceeding such
objectives is modeled to migrate beyond the site’s property boundary. At
a minimum, the extended water supply well survey shall identify the
following:
A)
All potable water supply wells located within 200 feet, and all
communitywater supply wells located within 2,500 feet, ofthe
current or modeled extent ofsoil or groundwater contamination
exceeding the
Tier 1 groundwater ingestion exposure route
remediation objectives of
35111.
Adm. Code
742 for the
applicable indicator contaminants; and
13
B)
All regulated recharge areas and wellhead protection areas in
which the
current or modeled extent ofsoil or groundwater
contamination exceeding the
Tier 1 groundwater ingestion
exposure route remediation objectives of 35 Ill. Adm. Code
742
for the
applicable indicator contaminants is located.
2)
The Agency may require additional investigation ofpotable water supply
wells, regulated recharge areas, or wellhead protection areas if site-
specific circumstances warrant. Such circumstances shall include, but not
be limited to, the existence ofone or more parcels ofproperty within 200
feet ofthe current or modeled extent ofsoil or groundwater contamination
exceeding the Tier 1
groundwater ingestion exposure route
remediation objectives of 35
Ill. Adm.
Code 742 for the applicable
indicator contaminants where potable water is likely to be used, but that is
not served by a public water supply or a well identified pursuant to
Section 732.307(0(1) ofthis Part or subsection (e)(1) of this Section. The
additional investigation may include, but shall not be limited to, physical
well surveys (e.g., interviewing property owners, investigating individual
properties forwellheads, distributing door hangers or other material that
requests information about the existence ofpotable wells on the property,
etc.).
X.
As a part ofthe proposed changes to water supply well survey provisions,
the Agency proposes to amend Sections 732.406(b)(4) and (5) to the following. Altered
wording is highlighted in bold lettering.
4)
Groundwater contamination does not exceed the Tier 1 groundwater
ingestion exposure route remediation objectives of 35111. Adm. Code
742 for
the
applicable
indicator
contaminants as a result ofthe
release,
modeling in accordance
with 35 Ill.
Adm. Code
742 shows
that
groundwater contamination
will
not exceed such Tier 1 remediation
objectives as a result ofthe
release, and
no potable
water supply wells are
impacted as a
result ofthe release: and
5)
Soil contamination
exceeding the Tier
1 groundwater ingestion
exposure route remediation objectives of35 Ill. Adm. Code 742 for
the
applicable
indicator
contaminants
does
not
extend beyond the
site’s
property boundary
and is not located within
a
regulated recharge area, a
wellhead
protection
area,
or
the setback zone ofa potable water supply
well.
Documentation to
demonstrate that this subsection (b)(5) is satisfied
shall include, but not be limited to, the results ofa water supply well
survey conducted in accordance with Section 732.307(f) ofthis Part.
14
X.
In response to questions about the number ofalternative technologies that
must be compared in a budget when an alternative technology is proposed, the Illinois
EPA proposes to amend Sections 732.407(b) and 734.340(b) to the following. Added
wording is highlighted in bold lettering.
Section 732.407(b):
b)
An owner or operator intending to seek payment or reimbursement
for costs associated with the use
ofan alternative technology shall
submit a corresponding budget plan in accordance with Section
-
732.405 ofthis
Part. In addition to the requirements for corrective
action budget plans at Section 732.404 ofthis Part, the budget plan
must demonstrate that the cost ofthe alternative technology will
not exceed the cost ofconventional technology and is not
substantiallyhigher than other available alternative technologies.
The budget plan shall compare the costs of at least
two
other
available alternative technologies to the costs of the proposed
alternative technology.
Section 734.407(b):
b)
An owner or operator intending to seek payment for costs
associated with the use ofan alternative technology shall submit a
corresponding budget in accordance with Section 734.335 ofthis
Part. In addition to the requirements for a corrective action budget
at Section 734.335 ofthis Part, the budget must demonstrate that
the cost ofthe alternative technology will not exceed the cost of
conventional technology and is not substantially higher than other
available alternative technologies.
The budget plan shall
compare the costs of at least two other available alternative
technologies to the costs ofthe proposed alternative
technology.
X.
As a
part
ofthe
proposed changes to water supply well survey provisions,
the Agency proposes to amend Sections 732.409(a)(2)(A)(iii) and (iv) to the following.
Altered wording is highlighted in bold lettering.
iii)
The current extent of groundwater contamination exceeding the Tier I
groundwater ingestion exposure route remediation objectives of 35 Ill.
Adm. Code
742 for the applicable indicator contaminants; and
15
iv)
The modeled extent ofgroundwater contamination exceeding the Tier 1
groundwater ingestion exposure route remediation objectives of 35
III.
Adm. Code
742 for the applicable indicator contaminants.
X.
As
a
part ofthe proposed changes to water supply well survey provisions,
the Agency proposes to amend Section 734.445 to the following. Altered wording is
highlighted in bold lettering.
Section 734.445
Water Supply Well Survey
-
a)
At a minimum, the owner or operator shall conduct a water supply
well survey to identify all potable water supply wells located at the
site or within 200 feet ofthe site, all community water supply
wells located at the site or within 2,500 feet ofthe site, and all
regulated recharge areas and wellhead protection areas in which
the site is located. Actions taken to identify the wells shall include,
but not be limited to, the following:
1)
Contacting the Agency’s Division ofPublic Water Supplies
to identify community water supply welts, regulated
recharge areas, and wellhead protection areas;
2)
Using
current information from the Illinois State
Geological Survey, the Illinois State Water Survey, and the
Illinois Department ofPublic Health (orthe county or local
health department delegated by the Illinois Department of
Public Health to permit potable water supply wells) to
identify potable water supply wells other than community
water supply wells; and
3)
Contacting the local public water supply entities to identify
properties that receive potable water from a public water
supply.
b)
In addition to the potable water supply wells identified pursuant to
subsection (a) of
this Section, the owner or operator shall extend
the water supply well survey if soil or groundwater contamination
exceeding the
Tier 1 groundwater ingestion exposure route
remediation objectives of 35 III.
Adm.
Code 742 for the
applicable indicator contaminants extends beyond the site’s
property boundary, or, as part ofa corrective action plan, the
owner or operator proposes to leave in place soil or groundwater
contamination exceeding the Tier I groundwater ingestion
exposure route remediation objectives of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 742
16
for the applicable indicator contaminants and contamination
exceeding such objectives is modeled to migrate beyond the site’s
property boundary. At a minimum, the extended water supply well
survey shall identify the following:
1)
All potable water supply wells located within 200 feet, and
all community water supply wells located within 2,500 feet,
ofthe current or modeled extent of soil or groundwater
contamination exceeding the Tier 1 groundwater
ingestion exposure route remediation objectives of 35
Ill. Adm. Code 742
for the applicable indicator
contaminants; and
2)
All regulated recharge areas and wellhead protection areas
in which the current or modeled extent ofsoil or
groundwater contamination exceeding the Tier 1
groundwater ingestion exposure route remediation
objectives of35 III.
Adm.
Code 742 for the applicable
indicator contaminants is located.
c)
The Agency mayrequire additional investigation ofpotable water
supply wells, regulated recharge areas, or wellhead protection
areas if site-specific circumstances warrant. Such circumstances
shall include, but not be limited to, the existence ofone or more
parcels ofproperty within 200 feet ofthe current or modeled extent
ofsoil or groundwater contamination exceeding the
Tier 1
groundwater ingestion exposure route remediation objectives
of 35 Ill. Adm. Code
742 for the applicable indicator contaminants
where potable water
is likely to be used, but that is not served by a
public water supply or a well identified pursuant
to subsections (a)
or (b) ofthis Section. The additional investigation may include,
but shall not
be limited to, physical well surveys (e.g., interviewing
property owners, investigating individual properties for
wellheads,
distributing door hangers or other material that
requests
information about the existence ofpotable wells on the property,
etc.).
d)
Documentation ofthe water supply well
survey conducted
pursuant to this Section shall include, but not be limited to, the
following:
1)
One or more maps, to an appropriate scale, showing the
following:
A)
The location ofthe community water supply wells
and other potable water supply wells identified
17
pursuant to this Section, and the setback zone for
each well;
B) The location and extent of regulated recharge areas
and wellhead protection areas identified pursuant to
this Section;
C)
The current extent ofgroundwater contamination
exceeding the
Tier 1 groundwater ingestion
exposure route remediation objectives of 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 742
for the applicable
indicator
contaminants; and
D)
The modeled extent ofgroundwater contamination
exceeding the Tier I
groundwater ingestion
exposure route remediation objectives of35 Ill.
Adm. Code 742
for the applicable indicator
contaminants. The information
required under this
subsection (D)
is not required to be shown in a site
investigation report if modeling is not performed as
part ofsite investigation;
2)
One or more tables listing the setback zones for each
communitywater supply well and other potable water
supply wells identifiedpursuant to this Section;
3)
A narrative that, at a minimum, identifies each entity
contacted to identify potable water supply wells pursuant to
this Section, the name and title ofeach person contacted at
each entity, and field observations associated with the
identification ofpotable water supply wells; and
4)
A certification from a Licensed Professional Engineer or
Licensed Professional Geologist that the water supply well
survey was conducted in accordance with the requirements
ofthis Section and that the documentation submitted
pursuant to subsection (d) ofthis
Section includes the
information obtained as a result ofthe survey.
X.
As a part ofthe proposed changes to water supply well survey provisions,
the Agency proposes to amend Sections 734.450(b)(4) and
(5)
to the following. Altered
wording is highlighted in bold lettering.
18
4)
Groundwater contamination does not exceed the Tier 1 groundwater
ingestion exposure route remediation objectives of 35 IlL Adm. Code
742 forthe applicable indicator contaminants as a result ofthe release,
modeling in accordance with 35 Ill. Adm. Code 742 shows that
groundwater contamination will not exceed such Tier 1 remediation
objectives as a result ofthe release, and no potable water supply wells are
impacted as a result ofthe release; and
5)
Soil contamination exceeding the
Tier I groundwater ingestion
exposure route remediation objectives of35
III. Adm. Code 742 forthe
applicable indicator contaminants does not extend beyond the site’s
property boundary and is not located within a regulated recharge area, a
wellhead protection area, or the setback zone ofa potable water supply
well. Documentation to demonstrate that this subsection (b)(5) is satisfied
shall include, but not be limited to, the results ofa water supply well
survey conducted in accordance with Section 734.445 ofthis Part.
X.
In conjunction with the proposed new Sections 732.606(ggg) and (hhh),
and new Sections 734.630(ddd) and (eee) (see below), the Illinois EPA proposes to
amend Sections 732.408 and
734.410
as folkws. Added wording is highlighted in bold
lettering.
Section 732.408
Remediation Objectives
For sites requiring High Priority corrective action or forwhich the owner or
operator has elected to conduct corrective action pursuant to Section
732.300(b),
732.400(b) or 732.400(c) ofthis Part, the owner or operator shall propose
remediation objectives for applicable indicator contaminants in accordance with
35 Ill. Adm. Code 742.
Owners and operators
seeking
payment from the
Fund that perform on-site corrective action in accordance with Tier 2
remediation objectives of35 III. Adm. Code 742 shall determine the following
parameters on a site-specific basis:
Hydraulic conductivity (K)
Soil bulk density (i~j
Soil particle density (p~
Moisture content (w)
Organic carbon content (f~
Board Note: Costs associated with the following are ineligible for payment
from the Fund: (1) on-site corrective action to achieve remediation objectives
that are more stringent than Tier 2 remediation objectives developed in
accordance with 35 Ill. Adm. Code 742, and (2) costs associated with
19
groundwater remediation if a groundwater ordinance already approved by
the Agency for use as an institutional control can be used as an institutional
control for the incident being remediated. See Sections 732.606(ggg) and
(hhh) ofthis Part.
Section 734.410 Remediation Objectives
The owner or operator shall propose remediation objectives for applicable
indicator contaminants in accordance with 35 Ill. Adm. Code 742. Owners and
operators seeking payment from the Fund that perform on-site corrective
action in accordance with Tier 2 remediation objectives of35 III. Adm. Code
742 shall determine the following parameters on a site-specific basis:
Hydraulic conductivity (K)
Soil bulk density
(Pb)
Soil particle density (Ps)
Moisture content (w)
Organic carbon content (f0~)
Board Note: Costs associated with the following are ineligible for payment
from the Fund: (1) on-site corrective action to achieve remediation objectives
that are more stringent than Tier 2 remediation objectives developed in
accordance with 35 III. Adm. Code 742, and (2) costs associated with
groundwater remediation if a groundwater ordinance already approvedby
the Agency for use as an institutional control can be used as an institutional
control for the incident being remediated. See Sections 734.630(ddd) and
(eee) of this Part.
X.
In response to objections over requiring the submission of
l1aboratory
certifications in applications forpayment, the
Illinois EPA proposes to delete proposed
Sections 732.601(b)(1 1) and 734.605(b)(1 1).
X.
The Illinois EPA proposes to delete Sections 732.606(ccc) and
734.630(yy) as a result
ofconcern expressed over the effect ofthe Sections. The Illinois
EPA’s concern is that the costs associated with sampling and sample analysis be paid
only one time in cases where re-sampling or re-analysis is necessary due to improper
sample collection, transportation, or analysis. This
concern is already addressed by
existing Sections 732.606(q) and 734.630(q).
20
X.
In response to concerns aboutthe payment
ofroutine maintenance costs
necessary for the operation ofequipment leased for long terms, the Illinois EPA proposes
to amend Sections 732.606(eee) and 734.630(bbb) to the following. Altered wording is
highlighted in bold lettering.
732.606(eee):
eee)
Costs associated with the maintenance, repair, or replacement of
leased or subcontracted equipment, other than costs associated
with routine maintenance that are approved in a budget plan.
734.630(bbb):
bbb) Costs associated with the maintenance, repair, or replacement of
leased or subcontracted equipment, other than costs associated
with routine maintenance that areapproved in a budget.
X.
The Agency proposes to add the following Sections
732.606(ggg) and
(hhh),
and Sections 734.630(ddd) and
(eec), to the list of
ineligible
costs to help ensure
that owners
and
operators
seeking
payment from the UST Fund utilize the Tiered
Approach to Corrective Action Objectives rules of
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
742
(“TACO”) in
the most cost-effective
manner.
Section 732.606(ggg)
and
(hhh):
(ggg) Costs associated with on-site corrective action to achieve
remediation objectives that are more stringent than the Tier 2
remediation objectives developed in accordance with 35 Iii. Adm.
Code 742.
(hhh) Costs associated with groundwater remediation if a groundwater
ordinance already approved by the Agency for use as an
institutional control in accordance with 35 Ill. Adm. Code 742 can
be used as an institutional control forthe release beingremediated.
Section 734.630(ddd) and (eec):
(ddd) Costs associated with on-site corrective action to achieve
remediation objectives that are more stringent
than the Tier 2
21
remediation objectives developed in accordance with 35 Ill. Adm.
Code 742.
(eec) Costs associated with groundwater remediation if a groundwater
ordinance already approved by the Agency for use as an
institutional control in accordance with 35 Ill. Adm. Code 742 can
be used as an institutional control forthe release being remediated.
X.
In response to concerns over the extent ofreviews conducted pursuant to
Sections 732.6 14 and 734.665,
the
Illinois EPA proposes to amend Sections 732.6 14 and
734.665 to the following by deleting the prefatory statutory language repeated from
Section 57.15 ofthe Act. The following language includes changes to the Section
proposed in the Illinois EPA’s Second Errata Sheet.
Section 732.6 14/734.665
Audits and Access to Records; Records Retention
a)
Owners or operators that submit a report,
plan, budget,
application for payment,
or other data or
documents under this
Part, and Licensed Professional Engineers and Licensed
Professional Geologists that certify such report, plan, budget,
application for payment,
data,
or document, shall maintain all
books, records, documents, and other evidence directly pertinent to
the report,
plan, budget, application for payment, data, or
document, including but not limited to all financial information
and data used in the preparation or support ofapplications for
payment. All books, records, documents, and other evidence shall
be maintained in accordance with accepted business practices and
appropriate accounting procedures and practices.
b)
The Agency or any
of its duly authorized representatives shall
have
access to the books, records, documents, and other evidence set
forth in subsection (a) ofthis Section during normal business hours
for the purpose ofinspection, audit, and copying. Owners,
operators, Licensed Professional Engineers, and Licensed
Professional Geologists shall provide proper facilities for such
access and inspection.
c)
Owners, operators, Licensed Professional Engineers, and Licensed
Professional Geologists shall maintain the books, records,
documents, and other evidence set forth in subsection (a) ofthis
Section and make them available to the Agency or its authorized
• representative until the latest ofthe following:
22
1)
The expiration of 4 years after the date the Agency issues a
No Further Remediation Letter issued pursuant to Subpart
G ofthis Part;
2)
For books, records,
documents, or other evidence relating
to an appeal, litigation, or other dispute or claim, the
expiration of
3
years afler
the date ofthe final disposition
ofthe appeal, litigation, or other dispute or claim; or
3)
The expiration ofany other applicable record retention
period.
X.
In response to comments set forth in “CW3M Company, Inc.’s Prefiled
Testimony and General Comments,” the Illinois EPA proposes to amend Sections
732.815(b) and 734.815(b) to the following by adding a missing reference to groundwater
removal systems. Added wording is highlighted in bold lettering.
Section 732.8 15(b):
b)
Payment for costs associated with the removal of free product or
groundwatervia a method other than hand bailing orvacuum truck
shall be determined on a time and materials basis and shall not
exceed the amounts set forth in Section 732.850 ofthis Part. Such
costs shall include, but not be limited to, those associated with the
design, construction, installation, operation, maintenance, and
closure offree product
and groundwater removal systems.
Section 734.815(b):
b)
Payment for costs associated with the removal offree product or
groundwater via a method other than hand bailing or vacuum truck
shall be determined on a time and materials basis and shall not
exceed the amounts set forth in Section 734.850 ofthis Part. Such
costs shall include, but not be limited to, those associated with the
design, construction, installation, operation, maintenance, and
closure offree product and groundwater removal systems.
X.
The Illinois EPA proposes
to amend Sections 732.845 and 734.845,
Professional Consulting Services, as follows:
23
A.
In response to concerns about field work and field oversight costs
associated with tank removals, amend Sections 732.845(a)(2)(A) and
734.845(a)(2)(A) to allow one half-day of field work and field oversight for each
leaking underground storage tank that is removed, up to a total often half-days.
B.
In response to concerns about costs associated with site
investigation at sites classified as high priority under Part
732, amend Section
732.845(d) by adding a new subsections (d)(l) and (2).
C.
Add new Sections 732.845(d)(3) and
734.845(b)(7) to address
costs associated with additional well surveys required under 732.404(e)(1) and (2)
and 734.445(b) and (c), respectively.
D.
Inresponse to concerns about including travel costs in the half-day
rate, remove travel costs from the half-day rate by reducing the half-day rate to
$390.00 throughout the Section and set forth the maximum amounts allowed for
travel in new Sections 732.845(e) and 734.845(e).
E.
In response to concerns about costs associated with plan and
budget amendments that are required as a result of unforeseen circumstances, add
Sections 732.845(f) and 734.845(f) to address such costs.
F.
Add Sections 732.845(g) and 734.845(g) to address costs
associated with bidding when the owner or operatorpays the subcontractor
directly, and therefore the consultant would not be entitled to handling charges.
The following language includes the proposed changes to Sections 732.845 and
734.845 listed above as well as the changes to 734.845 proposed in the Agency’s First
Errata Sheet. Altered wording is highlighted in bold lettering.
24
Section
732.845
Professional ConsultjngServices
Payment for costs associated with professional consulting services shall not
exceed the amounts set forth in this Section. Such costs shall include, but not be
limited to, those associated with project planning
and oversight; field work; field
oversight: travel: per
diem: mileage: transportation: vehicle charges; lodging;
meals; and the preparation, review, certification, and submission ofall plans,
budget plans, reports, applications for payment, and other documentation.
a)
Early Action and Free Product Removal. Payment ofcosts for
professional consulting services associated with early action and
free product removal activities conducted pursuant toSubpartB of
this Part shall not exceed the following amounts:
1)
Payment for costs associated with preparation for the
abandonment or removal ofUSTs shall not exceed a total
of$960.00.
2)
Payment for costs associated with early action field work
and field oversight shall not exceed a total of$390.00 per
half-day, plus travel costs in accordance with subsection
(e) ofthis Section. The number ofhalf-days shall not
exceed the following:
A)
Ifone or more USTs are removed, one half-day for
each leaking UST that is removed, not to exceed
a total often
half-days, plus one half-day for each
225 cubic yards, or fraction thereof, ofvisibly
contaminated fill material removed and disposed of
in accordance with Section 732.202(f) ofthis Part;
B)
Ifone or more USTs remain in place, one half-day
for every four soil borings, or fraction thereof,
drilled pursuant to Section 732.202(h)(2) of this
Part; and
(“i
flne half-day
if a lIST line release is renaired.
3)
Payment for costs associated with the preparation and
submission of20-day and 45-day reports, including, but not
limited to, field work not covered by subsection (a)(2) of
this Section, shall not exceed a total of$4,800.00.
4)
Payment for costs associated with the preparation and
submission offree product removal plans and the
installation offree product removal systems shall be
25
~j~rmined on a time and materials basis and shall not
exceed the amounts set
forth in Section 732.850 ofthis
Part.
•
5)
Payment for costs associated with the field work and field
oversight for free product removal shall not exceed a total
of$390.00 per half-day, plus travel costs in accordance
with subsection (e) ofthis Section. The Agency
shall
determine the reasonable number ofhalf-days on a site-
specific basis.
6)
Payment for costs associated with the preparation and
submission offree product removal reports shall not exceed
a total of$1,600.00 per report.
7)
Payment for costs associated with the preparation and
submission ofreports
submitted pursuant to Section
732.202(h)(3) ofthis Part shall not exceed a total of
$500.00.
b)
Site Evaluation and Classification. Payment ofcosts for
professional consulting services associated with site evaluation and
classification activities conducted pursuant to Subpart C ofthis
Part shall not exceed the following amounts:
1)
For site evaluation and classifications conducted pursuant
to Section 732.307 ofthis Part, payment for costs
associated with the preparation and submission ofsite
classification plans, site classification preparation, field
work, field oversight, and the preparation and submission
ofthe site classification completion report shall not exceed
a total of$9,870.00.
2)
For site evaluation and classifications conducted pursuant
to Section 732.3 12 ofthis Part, payment for costs shall be
determined on a time and materials basis and shall not
exceed the amounts set forth in Section 732.850 ofthis
Part. For owners and operators that elect to proceed in
accordance with 35 Ill. Adm. Code 734, costs incurred after
the notification of election shall be payable from the Fund
in accordance with that Part.
p)
Low Priority Corrective Action. Payment ofcosts forprofessional
consulting services associated with low priority corrective action
activities conducted pursuant to Subpart D ofthis Part shall not
exceed the following amounts:
26
1)
Payment for costs associated with the preparation and
submission oflow priority groundwater monitoring plans
shall not exceed a total of$3,200.00.
2)
Payment for costs associated with low priority
groundwater
monitoring field work and field oversight shall not exceed a
total of$390.00 per half-day, up to a maximum ofseven
half-days, plus travel costs in accordance with
subsection (e) of this Section.
3)
Payment for costs associated with the preparation and
submission ofthe first year groundwater monitoring report
shall not exceed a total of$2,560.00.
4)
Payment for costs associated with the preparation and
submission ofthe second year groundwater monitoring
report shall not exceed a total of $2,560.00.
5)
Payment for costs associated with the preparation and
submission oflow priority groundwater monitoring
completion report shall not exceed a total of$2,560.00.
d)
High Priority Corrective Action. Payment ofcosts for professional
consulting services associated with high priority corrective action
activities conducted pursuant to Subpart D ofthis Part shall not
exceed the following amounts:
1)
Payment for costs associated with the preparation and
submission of investigation plans for sites classified
pursuant to Section 732.307 of this Part shall not exceed
the following:
A)
A total of$3,200.00 for plans to investigate on-
site contamination.
B)
A total of $3,200.00 for plans to investigate off-
site contamination.
2)
Payment for costs associated with field work and field
oversight to define the extent of contamination resulting
from the release shall not exceed a total of $390.00 per
half-day, plus travel costs in accordance with subsection
(e) of this Section. The number ofhalf-days shall not
exceed the following:
27
•
A)
One half-day for
every
four soil borings, or
fraction thereof, drilled as part ofthe
investigation but not used for the installation of
monitoring wells. Borings in which monitoring
-
wells are installed shall be included in subsection
(d)(2)(B) of this Section instead of this subsection
(d)(2)(A); and
B)
One half-day for each monitoring well installed
as part of the investigation.
3)
Payment for costs associated with well surveys
conducted pursuant to Section 732.404(e)(l) of this Part
shall not exceed a total of$160.00. Payment for costs
associated with well surveys conducted pursuant to
Section 732.404(e)(2) ofthis Part shall be determined on
a time and materials basis and shall not exceed the
amounts set forth in Section 732.850 of this Part.
4)
For conventional technology, payment for costs associated
with the preparation and submission ofcorrective action
plans shall not exceed a total of $5,120.00. For alternative
technologies, payment for costs shall be determined on a
time and materials basis and shall not exceed the amounts
set forth in Section 732.850 ofthis Part.
5)
Payment for costs associated with high priority corrective
action field work and field oversight shall not exceed the
following amounts:
A)
For conventional technology, a total of$390.00 per
half-day, not to exceed one half-day for each 225
cubic yards, or fraction thereof, ofsoil removed and
disposed, plus
travel costs in accordance with
subsection (e) of this Section.
B)
For alternative technologies, payment for costs shall
be determined on a time and materials basis and
shall not exceed the amounts set forth in Section
732.850
ofthis Part.
6)
Development of Tier 2 and Tier 3 Remediation
Objectives. Payment of costs for professional consulting
services associated
with the development ofTier 2 and
Tier 3 remediation objectives in accordance with 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 742 shall not exceed the following amounts:
28
A)
Payment for costs associated with field work and
field oversight for the development of
remediation objectives shall not exceed a total of
$390.00 per half-day, plus travel costs in
accordance with subsection (e) of this Section.
The number of half-days shall not exceed the
following:
i)
One half-day for every four soil borings,
or fraction thereof, drilled solely for the
purpose ofdeveloping remediation
objectives. Borings in which monitoring
wells are installed shall be included in
subsection (d)(6)(A)(ii) of this Section
instead ofthis subsection (d)(6)(A)(i); and
ii)
One half-day for each monitoring well
installed solely for the purpose of
developing remediation objectives.
B)
Excluding costs set forth in subsection (d)(6)(A)
of this Section, payment for costs associated with
the development ofTier 2 or Tier3 remediation
objectives shall not exceed a total of$800.00.
7)
Payment for costs associated with Environmental Land Use
Controls and Highway Authority Agreements used as
institutional controls pursuant to
35 Ill. Adm. Code 742
shall not exceed a
total of $800.00 per
Environmental
Land
Use
Control or Highway Authority Agreement.
8)
Payment for costs associated with the preparation and
submission ofhigh priority corrective action completion
reports shall not exceed a total of$5,120.00.
e)
Payment for costs associated with travel, including, but not
limited to, travel time, per diem, mileage, transportation,
vehicle charges, lodging, and meals, shall not exceed the
following amounts. Costs for travel shall be allowed only when
specified elsewhere in this Part.
Distance to site
Maximum total amount
(land miles)
per calendar day
0 to 29
$140.00
29
30 to 59
$220.00
60 or more
$300.00
Distances shall be measured in ground miles and rounded to
the nearest mile. If a consultant maintains more than one
office, distance to the site shall be measured from the
consultant’s office that is closest to the site.
1)
If a plan must be amended due to unforeseen circumstances,
costs associated with the amendment of the plan and its
associated budget plan shall not exceed a total of$640.00.
g)
Costs associated with bidding pursuant to 732.855 of this Part
shall not exceed a total of$160.00 per task bid (e.g., tank
removal, drilling, laboratory analysis of samples). For the
purposes ofthis subsection (g), soil excavation, transportation,
and disposal shall be considered three separate tasks. Costs
for bidding shall be allowed under this subsection (g) only
when the person performing the task bid is paid directly by the
owner or operator.
Section 734.845
Professional Consulting Services
Payment forcosts associated with professional consulting services shall not
exceed the amounts set forth in this Section. Such costs shall include, but not be
limited to, those associated with project planning and oversight; field work; field
oversight; travel; per diem; mileage; transportation; vehicle charges; lodging;
meals; and the preparation, review, certification, and submission ofall plans,
budgets, reports, applications for payment, and other documentation.
a)
Early Action and Free Product Removal. Payment ofcosts for
professional consulting services associated with early action and
free product removal activities conducted pursuant to Subpart B of
this Part shall not exceed the following amounts:
1)
Payment for costs associated with preparation for the
abandonment orremoval ofUSTs shall not exceed a total
of$960.00.
2)
Payment for costs associated with early action field work
and field oversight shall not exceed a total of$390.00 per
half-day, plus travel costs
in accordance with subsection
(e) of this Section. The number ofhalf-days shall not
exceed the following:
30
A)
Ifone or more USTs are removed, one half-day for
each leaking UST that is removed, not to exceed
a total often half-days,
plus one half-day for each
225 cubic yards, or fraction thereof, of visibly
contaminated fill
material removed and disposed of
in accordance with Section 734.210(f)
of this Part;
B)
If one or more USTs remain in place, one half-day
for every four soil borings, or fraction thereof,
drilled pursuant to Section 732.2 10(h)(2) ofthis
Part; and
C)
Onehalf-day if a UST line release is repaired.
3)
Payment for costs associated with the preparation and
submission of20-day and 45-day reports, including, but not
limited to, field work not covered by subsection (a)(2) of
this Section, shall not exceed a total of$4,800.00.
4)
Payment for costs associated with the preparation and
submission of free
product removal plans and the
installation offree product removal systems shall be
determined on a time and materials basis and shall not
exceed the amounts set forth in Section 734.850 ofthis
Part.
5)
Payment for costs
associated with the field work and
field
oversight for free product removal shall not exceed a total
ofa total of $390.00 per half-day, plus travel costs in
accordance with subsection (e) of this Section. The
Agency shall determine the reasonable number ofhalf-days
on a site-specific basis.
6)
Payment forcosts associated with the preparation and
submission offree product removal reports shall not exceed
a total of$1,600.00 per report.
7)
Payment for costs associated with the preparation and
submission of reports submitted pursuant to
Section
734.2 10(h)(3) ofthis Part shall not exceed a total of
$500.00.
b)
Site Investigation. Payment ofcosts for professional consulting
services
associated with site investigation activities conducted
pursuant to Subpart C ofthis Part shall not exceed the following
amounts:
31
1)
Payment for costs associated with Stage 1 site investigation
preparation shall not exceed a total of$1,600.00.
2)
Payment for costs associated with Stage
1 field work
and field oversight shall not exceed a total of $390.00
per half-day, plus travel costs in accordance with
subsection (e) of this Section. The number of half-days
shall not exceed the following:
A)
One half-day for every four soil borings, or
fraction thereof, drilled as part ofthe Stage 1 site
investigation but not used for the installation of
monitoring wells. Borings in which monitoring
wells are installed shall be included in subsection
(b)(2)(B) of this Section instead ofthis subsection
(b)(2)(A); and
B)
One half-day for each monitoring well installed
as part ofthe Stage 1 site investigation.
3)
Payment for costs associated with the preparation and
submission ofStage 2 site investigation plans shall not
exceed a total of$3,200.00.
4)
Payment for costs associated with
Stage 2 field work and
field oversight shall not exceed a total of $390.00 per half-
day, plus travel costs in accordance with subsection (e)
of this Section. The numberofhalf-days shall not exceed
the following:
A)
One half-day for every four soil borings, or fraction
thereof, drilled as part ofthe Stage 2 site
investigation but not used forthe installation of
monitoring wells. Borings in which monitoring
wells are installed shall be included in subsection
(b)(4)(B) ofthis Section instead ofthis subsection
(b)(4)(A); and
B)
One half-day for each monitoring well installed as
part ofthe Stage 2 site investigation.
5)
Payment for costs associated with the preparation and
submission ofStage 3 site investigation plans shall not
exceed a total of$3,200.00.
32
6)
Payment for costs associated with Stage 3 field work
and
field oversight shall not exceed
a total of $390.00
per half-
day,
plus travel costs in accordance with subsection (e)
of this Section.
The number ofhalf-days shall not exceed
the following:
A)
One
half-day for every four soil
borings, or fraction
thereof, drilled as part ofthe Stage 3 site
investigation but not used for the installation of
monitoring wells. Borings in which monitoring
wells are installed shall be included in subsection
(b)(6)(B) ofthis Section instead ofthis subsection
(b)(6)(A); and
B)
One half-day for each monitoring well installed as
part ofthe Stage 3 site investigation.
7)
Payment for costs associated with well surveys
conducted pursuant to Section 734.445(b) of this Part
shall not exceed a total of $160.00. Payment for costs
associated with well surveys conducted pursuant to
Section 734.445(c) of this Part shall be determined on a
time and materials basis and shall not exceed the
amounts set forth in Section 734.850 ofthis Part.
8)
Payment
for
costs associated with the preparation and
submission of
site investigation completion reports shall
not exceed a total of $1,600.00.
c)
Corrective Action. Payment ofcosts for professional consulting
services associated with corrective action activitiesconducted
pursuant to Subpart C ofthis Part shall not exceed the following
amounts:
1)
For conventional technology, payment forcosts associated
with the preparation and submission ofcorrective action
plans shall not exceed a total of $5,120.00. For alternative
technologies, payment for costs shall be determined on a
time and materials basis and shall not exceed the amounts
set forth in Section 734.850 ofthis Part.
2)
Payment
for costs
associated with corrective action field
work and field oversight shall not exceed the following
amounts:
33
A)
For conventional technology, a
total of$390.00 per
half-day, not to exceed one half-day for each 225
cubic yards, or fraction thereof, ofsoil removed and
disposed, plus
travel costs in accordance with
subsection (e) of this Section.
B)
For alternative technologies, payment forcosts shall
be determined on a time and materials basis and
shall not exceed the amounts set forth in Section
734.850 of this Part.
3)
Payment for costs associated with Environmental Land Use
Controls and Highway Authority Agreements used as
institutional controls pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 742
shall not exceed a total of $800.00 per Environmental Land
Use Control orHighway Authority Agreement.
4)
Payment for costs associated with the preparation and
submission ofcorrective action completion reports shall not
exceed a total of$5,120.00.
d)
Development ofTier 2 and Tier 3 Remediation Objectives.
Payment of
costs
for professional consulting services associated
with the development of Tier 2 and Tier 3 remediation
objectives in accordancewith 35 Ill. Adm. Code 742 shall not
exceed the following amounts:
1)
Payment for costs associated with field work and field
oversight for the development of remediation objectives
shall not exceed a total of $390.00 per half-day, plus
travel costs in accordance with subsection (e) ofthis
Section. The number of half-days shall not exceed the
following:
A)
One half-day for every four soil borings, or
fraction thereof, drilled solely for the purpose of
developing remediation objectives. Borings in
which monitoring wells are installed shall be
included in subsection (d)(1)(B) of this Section
instead ofthis subsection (d)(l)(A); and
B)
One half-day for each monitoring well installed
solely for the purpose of developing remediation
objectives.
34
2)
Excluding costs set forth in subsection
(d)(l) of this
Section, payment for costs associated with the
development of Tier 2 or Tier 3 remediation objectives
shall not exceed a total of $800.00.
e)
Payment for costs associated with travel, including, but not
limited to, travel time, per diem, mileage, transportation,
vehicle charges, lodging, and meals, shall not exceed the
following amounts. Costs for travel shall be allowed only when
specified elsewhere in this Part.
Distance to site
Maximum total amount
(land miles)
per calendar day
0to29
$140.00
30 to 59
$220.00
60 or more
$300.00
Distances shall be measured in ground miles and rounded to
the nearest mile. If a consultant maintains more than one
office, distance to the site shall be measured from the
consultant’s office that is closest to the site.
1)
If a plan must be amended due to unforeseen circumstances,
costs associated with the amendment of the plan and its
associated budget shall not exceed a total of$640.00.
g)
Costs associated with bidding pursuant to 734.855 of this Part
shall not exceed a total of $160.00 per task bid (e.g., tank
removal, drilling, laboratory analysis of samples). For the
purposes ofthis subsection (g), soil excavation, transportation,
and disposal shall be considered three separate tasks. Costs for
bidding shall be allowed under this subsection (g) only when
the person performing the task bid is paid directly by the
owner or operator.
X.
In conjunction with
re-numbering ofSections 732.855 and
734.855
to
Sections 732.860 and 734.860 (see below), the Illinois EPA proposes to amend Sections
732.850(a) and 734.850(a) to the following. Altered wording is highlighted in bold
lettering.
35
Section 732.850(a):
a)
Payment for costs associated with activities that have a maximum
payment amount set forth in other sections of this Subpart H (e.g,
sample handling and analysis, drilling, well installation and
abandonment, drum disposal, orconsulting fees forplans, field
work, field oversight, and
reports)
shall not exceed the amounts set
forth in those Sections, unless payment is made pursuant to Section
732.860 ofthis Part.
Section 734.850(a):
a)
Payment for costs associated with activities that have a maximum
payment amount set
forth in other sections ofthis Subpart H (e.g,
sample handling and analysis, drilling, well installation and
abandonment, drum disposal, or consulting fees for plans, field
work, field oversight, and reports) shall not exceed the amounts set
forth in those Sections, unless payment is made pursuant to Section
734.860
ofthis Part.
X.
The
Illinois EPA proposes to add the
following new Sections 732.855 and
734.855 to allow bidding as an alternative to the maximum payment amounts set forth in
Subpart H.
Section 732.855/734.855
Bidding
As an alternative to the maximum payment amounts set forth in this Subpart H,
one ormore maximum payment amounts may be determined via bidding in
accordance with this Section. Each bid shall cover all costs included in the
maximum payment amount that the bid is replacing.
a)
A minimum ofthree written bids shall be obtained. The bids shall
be based upon the same scope ofwork and shall remain valid for a
period oftime that will allow the owner or operator to accept them
upon the Agency’s approval ofthe associated budget. Bids shall
be obtained only from persons qualified and able to perform the
work being bid. Bids shall not be obtained from persons in which
the owner or operator, or the owner’s or operator’s primary
consultant, has a direct or indirect financial interest.
b)
The bids must be summarized on forms prescribed and provided by
the Agency. The bid summary form, along with copies ofthe bid
requests and the bids obtained, shall be submitted to the Agency in
the associated budget. If
more than the minimum three bids are
36
obtained, summaries and copies ofall bids shall be submitted to
the Agency.
c)
The maximum payment amount for the work bid shall be the
amount ofthe lowest bid, unless the lowest bid is less than the
maximum payment amount set forth in this Subpart H in which
case the maximum payment amount set forth in this Subpart H
shall be allowed. The owner or
operator is not required to use
the
lowest bidder to
perform the work, but instead may use another
person qualified and ableto perform the work, including, but not
limited to, a person in which the owner or operator, or the owner’s
or operator’s primary consultant, has a direct or indirect financial
interest. However, regardless ofwho performs the work, the
maximum payment amount will remain the amount ofthe lowest
bid.
X.
In conjunctionwith the addition ofthe bidding provisions above, the
Illinois EPA proposes
to amend current Sections 732.855 and 734.855 to 732.860 and
734.860, with the following changes to the text ofthe Sections. Altered wording is
highlighted in bold lettering. With this change, Sections 732.860 and 734.860 should be
re-numbered to 732.865 and 734.865, and Sections 732.865 and 734.865 should be re-
numbered to 732.870 and 734.870.
Section 732.860
Unusual or Extraordinary Circumstances
If, as a result
ofunusual or extraordinary
circumstances, an owner oroperator
incurs
or will incur eligible costs
that exceed the
maximum payment amounts
set
forth in this Subpart H, the Agency may determine maximum payment
amounts forthe costs on a site-specific basis. Owners and operators seeking to
have the Agency determine maximum payments amounts pursuant to this
Section shall demonstrate to the Agency that the costs for which they are
seeking a determination are eligible for payment from the Fund, exceed the
maximum payment amounts
set forth in this Subpart H,
are the result of
unusual or extraordinary circumstances, are unavoidable,
are reasonable, and
are necessary in order to satisfy the requirements ofthis Part.
Examples of
unusual or extraordinary circumstances may include, but shall not be limited
to, an inability to obtain a minimum of three bids pursuant to Section
732.85~ofthis Part due to a limited number of persons providing the service
needed.
37
Section 734.860
Unusual or Extraordinary Circumstances
If, as a result of unusual or extraordinary circumstances, an owner or operator
incurs or will incur eligible costs that exceed the maximum payment amounts
set forth in this Subpart H, the Agency may determine maximum payment
amounts for the costs on a site-specific basis. Owners and operators seeking to
have the Agency determine maximum payments amounts pursuant to this
Section shall demonstrate to the Agency that the costs for which they are
seeking a determination are eligible for payment from the Fund, exceed the
maximum payment
amounts set forth in this Subpart H,
are the result of
unusual or extraordinary circumstances, are unavoidable,
are reasonable, and
are necessary in order to satisfy the requirements ofthis Part. Examples of
unusual or extraordinary circumstances may include, but shall not be limited
to, an inability to obtain a minimum of three bids pursuant to Section
734.855 ofthis Part due to a limited number of persons providing the service
needed.
X.
To help ensure that the maximum payment amounts set forth in Subpart H
reflect prevailing market rates, the Illinois EPA proposes to add Sections 732.875 and
743.875 as follows. This language is the same as originally proposed in Sections 732.865
and 734.865, except that the minimum time between reviews is changed from two
years
to three years.
Section 732.875/734.875 Agency Review ofPayment Amounts
No less than every three years the Agency shall review the provisions ofthis
Subpart H. As part ofits review the Agency shall determine whetherthe amounts
set
forth in this Subpart H generally reflect prevailing market rates. If, as a result
ofthe review, the Agency determines that the amounts set forth in this Subpart H
no longer generally reflect prevailing market rates, it shall propose appropriate
amendments to the Board.
X.
In response to recommendations set forth in “Testimony of Jarrett Thomas
on Behalfofthe Professionals ofIllinois for the Protection ofthe Environment and the
Illinois Association ofEnvironmental Laboratories, Inc.,” the Illinois EPA proposes to
amend Section~732.APPENDIX
D and 734.APPENDIX D to the following by deleting
references to specific methods of analyses for
the following: BTEX Soil; BTEX Water;
38
Polynuclear Aromatics PNA, or PAH SOIL; and Polynuclear Aromatics PNA, or PAH
WATER. “(EPA 8260)” is deleted afterthe BTEX analyses and “EPA 8270” is deleted
after the Polynuclear Aromatics analyses.
Section 732.APPENDIX D /734.APPENDIX D Sample Handling and Analysis
Max. Total Amount
____________________________
per Sample
Chemical
BETX Soil with MTBE
$85.00
BETX Water with MTBE
$81.00
COD (Chemical Oxygen Demand)
$30.00
Corrosivity
sis.oo
Flash Point or Ignitability Analysis EPA 1010
$33.00
FOC (Fraction Organic Carbon)
$38.00
Fat, Oil, & Grease (FOG)
$60.00
LUST Pollutants Soil
-
analysis must include all volatile,
base/neutral, polynuclear aromatic, and metal parameters
listed in Section 734.AppendixB ofthis Part
$693.00
Organic Carbon (ASTM-D 2974-87)
$33.00
Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
$24.00
Paint Filter (Free Liquids)
$14.00
PCB / Pesticides (combination)
$222.00
PCBs
•
$111.00
Pesticides
$140.00
PH
$14.00
Phenol
$34.00
Polynuclear Aromatics PNA, or PAH SOIL
$152.00
Polynuclear Aromatics PNA, or PAH WATER
$152.00
Reactivity
$68.00
SVOC
-
Soil (Semi-volatile Organic Compounds)
$313.00
SVOC
-
Water (Semi-volatile Organic Compounds)
$313.00
TKN (Total Kjeldahl) “nitrogen”
$44.00
TOC (Total
Organic
Carbon) EPA 9060A
$31.00
TPH (Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons)
$122.00
VOC (Volatile Organic Compound)
-
Soil (Non-Aqueous)
$175.00
VOC (Volatile Organic Compound)
-
Water
$169.00
Geo-Technical
Bulk Density ASTM D4292 / D2937
$22.00
Ex-Situ Hydraulic Conductivity/ Permeability
$255.00
Moisture Content ASTM D22l6-90 / D4643-87
$12.00
39
Porosity
$30.00
Rock Hydraulic Conductivity Ex-Situ
$350.00
Sieve / Particle Size Analysis ASTM D422-63 / Dl 140-54
$145.0O
Soil Classification ASTM D2488-90 / D2487-90
$68.00
Metals
Arsenic TCLP Soil
$16.00
Arsenic Total Soil
$16.00
Arsenic Water
$18.00
Barium TCLP Soil
$10.00
Barium Total Soil
$10.00
Barium Water
$12.00
Cadmium TCLP Soil
$16.00
Cadmium Total Soil
$16.00
Cadmium Water
$18.00
Chromium TCLP Soil
$10.00
Chromium Total Soil
$10.00
Chromium Water
$12.00
Cyanide TCLP Soil
$28.00
Cyanide Total Soil
$34.00
Cyanide Water
$34.00
Iron TCLP Soil
$10.00
lion Total Soil
$10.00
lion Water
$12.00
Lead TCLP Soil
$16.00
Lead Total Soil
$16.00
Lead Water
$18.00
Mercury TCLP Soil
$19.00
Mercury Total Soil
$10.00
Mercury Water
$26.00
Selenium TCLP Soil
$16.00
Selenium Total Soil
$16.00
Selenium Water
$15.00
Silver TCLP Soil
$10.00
Silver Total Soil
$10.00
Silver Water
$12.00
Metals TCLP Soil (a combination ofall RCRA metals)
$103.00
Metals Total Soil (a combination of all RCRA metals)
$94.00
Metals Water (a combination of all RCRA metals)
$119.00
Soil prepaiation for Metals TCLP Soil (one fee per sample)
$79.00
Soil preparation for Metals Total Soil (one fee per sample)
$16.00
Water preparation for Metals Water (one fee per sample)
$11.00
40
Other
En Core® Sampler, purge-and-trap sampler, or equivalent
sampling device
$10.00
Sample Shipping (*maximum total amount for shipping all
samples collected in a calendar day)
$50.00*
• X. The Illinois EPA proposes to amend Sections 732.APPENDIX E and
734.APPENDIX E to the following by increasing maximum hourly rates for engineers
and geologists. Altered rates
are highlighted in bold lettering.
Section
734.APPENDIX
E Personnel Titles
and Rates
Title
Degree Required
Ill.
License
Req’d.
Mm. Yrs.
Experience
Max.
Hourly
Rate
Engineer I
Engineer II
Engineer III
Professional Engineer
Senior Prof. Engineer
Bachelor’s in Engineering
Bachelor’s in Engineering
Bachelor’s in Engineering
Bachelor’s in Engineering
Bachelor’s in Engineering
None
None
None
P.E.
P.E.
0
2
4
4
8
$75.00
$85.00
$100.00
$110.00
$130.00
Geologist I
Geologist II
Geologist III
Professional Geologist
Senior Prof. Geologist
Bachelor’s in Geology or Hydrogeology
Bachelor’s in Geology or Hydrogeology
Bachelor’s in Geology or Hydrogeology
Bachelor’s in Geology or Hydrogeology
Bachelor’s in Geology or Hydrogeology
None
None
None
P.G.
P.G.
0
2
4
4
8
$70.00
$75.00
$88.00
$92.00
$110.00
Scientist I
Scientist
II
Scientist
III
Scientist IV
Senior Scientist
Bachelor’s in a Natural or Physical Science
Bachelor’s in a Natural or Physical Science
Bachelor’s in a Natural or Physical Science
Bachelor’s in a Natural or Physical Science
Bachelor’s in a Natural or Physical Science
None
None
None
None
None
0
2
4
6
8
$60.00
$65.00
$70.00
$75.00
$85.00
Project Manager
Senior Project Manager
None
None
None
None
8’
12’
$90.00
$100.00
Technician I
Technician II
Technician III
Technician IV
Senior Technician
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
0
2’
4’
6’
8’
$45.00
$50.00
$55.00
$60.00
$65.00
Account Technician I
Account Technician II
Account Technician III
Account Technician IV
Senior Acct. Technician
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
0
22
42
62
82
$35.00
$40.00
$45.00
$50.00
$55.00
Administrative Assistant
I
Administrative Assistant II
None
None
None
None
0
2~
$25.00
$30.00
41
Administrative Assistant III
Administrative Assistant IV
Senior Admin. Assistant
None
None
None
None
None
None
43
6~
8~
$35.00
$40.00
$45.00
DraftpersonlCAD I
Draftperson/CAD II
Draftperson/CAD III
DraftpersonlCAD IV
Senior DraftpersonlCAD
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
0
2~
44
6~
8~
$40.00
$45.00
$50.00
$55.00
$60.00
‘Equivalent work-related or college level education with significant coursework in the
physical, life, or environmental sciences can be substituted for all orpart ofthe specified
experience requirements.
2 Equivalent work-related or college level educationwith significant coursework in
accounting orbusiness can be substituted for all or part ofthe specified experience
requirements.
~Equivalent work-related or college level education with significant coursework in
administrative or secretarial services can be substituted for all or part ofthe specified
experience requirements.
~Equivalent work-related or college level education with significant coursework in drafting
or computer aided design (“CAD”) can be substituted for all orpart ofthe specified
experience requirements.
42
STATE OF ILLINOIS
)
)
COUNTY OF SANGAMON
)
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, on oath state that I have served the attached Additional Testimony of
Douglas W. Clay in Support ofthe Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s Proposal and
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s Third Errata Sheet upon the persons to whom they
are directed by placing copies in envelopes addressed to:
Dorothy Gunn, Clerk
•
Marie Tipsord
Illinois Pollution Control Board
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center
James R.
Thompson Center
100 W. Randolph, Suite 11-500
100 W. Randolph, Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Chicago, Illinois 60601
(Overnight Mail)
(Overnight Mail)
SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
(First Class Mail)
and mailing them from Springfield, Illinois on July 30, 2004, with sufficient postage affixed
as indicated above.
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME
this 30th day ofJuly, 2004.
~k
Notary Public
OFFICIAL SEAL
BRENDA
BOEHNER
NOTARY PUBLIC. STATE OF ILLINOIS
*~Y.~
Printable Notice List
Page 1 of 3
II
Party Name
Role
City & State
Phone/Fax
Ogle County State’s
Ogle County Courthouse
Attorney Office
110
South Fourth Street,
P0
Oregon
815/732-1170
IL 61061-0395
815/732-6607
Interested Party
Box 395
Michael C. Rock, Assistant State’s Attorne
IEPA
1021 North Grand Avenue East Springfield
217/782-5544
Petitioner
P.O. Box 19276
IL 62794-9276
217/782-9807
Gina Roccaforte, Assistant Counsel
Kyle Rominger, Assistant Counsel
Doug Clay
Hodge Dwyer Zeman
3150 Roland Avenue
Springfield
217/523-4900
Interested Party
Post Office Box 5776
IL 62705-5776
217/523-4948
Thomas G. Safley
Sidley Austin Brown
Bank One Plaza
Chicago
312/853-7000
& Wood
10 South Dearborn Street
IL 60603
312/953-7036
Interested Party
William G. Dickett
Karaganis & White,
414 North Orleans Street
Chicago
312/836-1177
Interested
Party
Suite 810
IL 60610
312/836-9083
Barbara Magel
Illinois Petroleum
Marketers
112 West Cook Street
Springfield
217/793-1858
Association
IL 62704
Interested Party
Bill Fleischi
United
Scien~
P.O. Box 360
Woodlawn
618/735-2411
Industries. Inc.
6295 East Illinois Highway 15
IL 62898-0360
618/735-2907
Interested Party
Joe Kelly, PE
Illinois
Environmental
3150 Roland Avenue
Springfield
217/523-4942
Regulatory Group
IL 62703
217/523-4948
Interested Party
RobertA. Messina, General Counsel
Carison
65 E. Wacker Place
Chicago
Environmental. Inc.
Suite 1500
IL 60601
Interested Party
Kenneth James
Chemical Industry
2250 E. Devon Avenue
DesPlaines
Council of Illinois
Suite 239
IL 60018-4509
Interested Party
Lisa Frede
Barnes & Thornburg
1 North Wacker Drive
Chicago
312/357-1313
Interested Party
Suite
4400
IL 60606
312/759-5646
Carolyn S. Hesse, Attomey
Rapps Engineering & 821 South Durkin Drive
Springfield
217/787-2118
Applied Science
P.O.
Box 7349
IL 62791-7349
217/787-6641
Interested Party
Michael W. Rapps
Environmental
Maiiagement &
2012 West College Avenue
Normal
309/454-1717
Technologies
Suite 208
IL 61761
309/454-2711
Interested Party
Craig S. Gocker, President
OWjcofth~tt~m~y
General
Enviçonmental188
West Randolph,Bureau20th Floor
ChicagoIL
60601
312/814-2347312/814-2550
Interested Party
Joel J. Stemstein, Assistant Attorney Genera
Herlacher Angleton
Waterloo
618/935-2262
Associates. LLC
8731 Bluff Road
IL 62298
618/935-2694
Interested Party
Tom Herlacher, P.E., Principal Engineer
JJIin.ois.Pollution
http ://www.ipcb.state.iLus/coolIexternal/casenotif~’.asp?caseid=6286¬if~’typeService 7/28/2004
Printable Notice List
Page 2 of3
Control
Board
100W. Randolph
St.
Chicago
Interested
Party
Suite 11-500
IL 60601
3128143956
Dorothy M. Gunn,
Clerk
of the Board
Marie Tipsord,
Hearing Officer
fkiff&Hujf,jnc.
512
West Burlington Avenue
LaGrange
Interested
Party
Suite 100
IL 60525
James
E.
Huff, P.E.
Black & Veatch
101
North
Wacker
Drive
Chicago
Interested Party
Suite 1100
IL 60606
Scott
Anderson
Posegate & Denes
111 N. Sixth Street
Springfield
217-522-6152
Interested
Party
IL 62701
Claire A. Manning
Marlin
Environmental.Interested
Party
Inc.
1000 West Spring Street
SouthIL
60177Elgin
847-468-8855
Melanie LoPiccolo, Office Manager
Illinois Department of
Natural Resources
One Natural Resources Way
SpringfieldIL
62702-1271
217/782-1809217/524-9640
Interested
Party
Jonathan Furr, General Counsel
Burroughs. Hepler.
Broom. MacDonald.
103W. Vandalia Street
Edwardsville
•
618/656-0184
Hebrank & True
Suite 300
IL 62025
618/656-1801
Interested
Party
Musette H. Vogel
Ecooigital
P0 Box 360
Woodlawn
Development
LLC
6295 East Illinois
Hwy
15
IL 62898
(618)735-2411
Interested Party
JoeKelly, VP Engineering
GreatAnalyticalLakes
1380 Busch Parkway
ILBuffalo60089Grove
(847)
808-7766
Interested Party
A.J Pavlick
CSD Environmental
Services. Inc
2220 Yale Boulevard
SpringfieldIL
62703
217-522-4085
Interested Party
Joseph W. Truesdale, P.E.
CORE Geological
Services.
___________
Inc.
2621 Monetga, Suite C
SpringfieldII
62704
217-787-6109
Interested Party
Ron Dye, President
Clayton Group
Downers Grove
630.795.3207
Services Inc
3140 Finley Road
IL 60515
Interested Party
Monte Nienkerk
PDCInterestedLaboratoriesParty
2231 W.
Altorfer
Dr.
IIPeoria61615
309-692-9688
Kurt Stepping. Director of Client Services
Atwell-Hicks. Inc.
940
East Diehl Road
Naperville
630 5770800
Interested Party
•
Sute 100
IL 60563
Thomas M. Guist. PE. Team Leader
~W~3MCompany.InC.
Springfield
217-522-8001
701 South Grand Ave. West
IL 62704
Interested Party
Jeff Wienhoff
SMkiirb~n
_________________
Laboratories. Inc.
4140 Lift Drive
HillsideIL
60162
708-544-3260
Interested Party
JarfettThomas. V.P.
Environmental
Consulting &
551 Roosevelt Road
Glenn Ellyn
Engjcaeijng,jri~,
#309
IL 60137
Interested Party
Richard Andros, P.E.
MACIE~
Engineering &
Peoria
http ://www.ipcb.state.il.us/cool/externallcasenotify.asp?caseid=6286¬ifytype=Service
7/28/2004
Printable Notice List
Page 3 of 3
Consu.Jtingjiic.
8901 N. Industrial Road
IL 61615
Interested Party
Terrence W. Dixon, PG.
HI
I
• pa
rn~nInf
Transportation
2300 Dirksen Parkway
Springfield
IL 62764
Interested Party
Steven Gobelman
ECQ
Environmental
7350 Duvon Drive
Tinley Park
IL
60477
Interested Party
Collin W. Gray
Herlacher Angleton
Alton
A~s~ates._LL~Interested
Party
522 Belle Street
IL 62002
Jennifer Goodman
United
Environmental
119 East Palatin Road
Palatine
Consultants, Inc.
Suite 101
IL 60067
Interested Party
George F. Moncek
McGllIreWo~sJ.J.2
77 W. Wacker
Chicago
312/849-8100
Interested Party
Suite
4400
IL 60601
David Rieser
Gfelder~
Hep~er
& Gale
Suite10
S.
2000Broadway
StMOLouis63104
314-241-9090
ComplaInant
Tina Archer, Attorney
Midwest Engineering
Oak Forest
Services. Inc.
4243W. 166th Street
IL
60452
708-535-9981
Interested Party
Erin Curley, Env. Department Manager
American
Environmental Corp.
3700 W. Grand Ave., Suite A
Springfield
IL 62707
(217)585-9517
Interested Party
Ken Miller, Regional Manager
Appiie~i
Environmental
P0 Box 1225
Centralia
6185335953
Solutions. Inc.
IL 62801
Interested Party
Russ Goodiel, Project Manager
Secor International.
1nc~
400 Bruns Lane
SpringfieldIL
62702
Interested Party
Daniel J. Goodwin
Caterpillar.
______________
Inc.
100 NE Adams Street
Peoria
3096751658
Interested
Party
IL 61629
Eric Minder, Sr. Environmental Engineer
K-Plus
Suite
1000
Chicago
Epvirpnmental
_______
600W.
Van Buren Street
IL 60607
312-207-1600
Interested
Party
Daniel Caplice
Illinois Society of
olasstonal
300 West Edwards
Springfield
217-544-7424
Engineers
IL 62704
217-525-6239
Interested Party
Kim
Robinson
Brittan
Bolin
Total number of participants: 50
http://www.ipcb.state.il.us/coollexternallcasenotify.asp?caseid=62 86¬ifytype=Service
7/28/2004