RECE
WED
CLERK’S OFFICE
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD
AUG
192004
PCB
No. 04-209
(UST
Appeal)
NOTICE
OF FILING AND PROOF OF SERVICE
Dorothy Gunn
Clerk of the
Board
Illinois
Pollution Control Board
James
R.
Thompson Center
Suite 11-500
100
West
Randolph Street
Chicago,
Illinois
60601
John
J.
Kim
Special Assistant Attorney General
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Division of Legal Counsel
1021
North
Grand Avenue East
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield,
Illinois 62794-9276
PLEASE
TAKE NOTICE
that on
Wednesday,
August
18,
2004
I
sent to the Clerk of the
Illinois
Pollution Control
Board of
the
State of
Illinois
an original and nine
(9) copies of each, via
U.S.
Mail,
of
a
Petition
for
Review
of
Agency
Decision to
Reject
Site
Investigation
Plan,
Site
Investigation
Completion Report,
Corrective Action
Plan and
Corrective Action
Plan
Budget and
Appearance of Jeffrey
R.
Diver and Thomas S.
Yu, for filing
in
the above-entitled cause,
copies
of which
are attached hereto.
The
undersigned
hereby certifies that copies
of the
Notice of
Filing,
together with
copies
of
the
documents described
above were served
upon the
Respondent, via
certified
mail,
return
receipt
requested,
and
by
depositing
same
in
the
United
States
Mail
on
August
18,
2004
properly addressed with
postage prepaid.
Dated:
August 18,
2004
Respectfully Submitted,
The Jeff
Diver Group,
L.L.C.
1749
S.
Naperville
Road,
Suite
102
Wheaton,
IL 60187
(630) 681-2530
By:
Thomas
S. Yu
DiMUCCI DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
Petitioner,
V.
ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY,
Respondent.
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Pollution Control Board
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Printed on
Recycled
Paper
BEFORETHE ILLINOIS
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARDRECE~VED
CLERK’S OFFICE
DiMUCCI DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
Petitioner,
V.
ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
PCB
No. 04-209
(UST Appeal)
AUG
192004
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Pollution Control Board
APPEARANCE
NOW
COME
the
undersigned,
Jeffrey
R.
Diver
and
Thomas
S.
Yu,
and
enter
a Joint
Appearance
for
the
Petitioner,
DiMucci
Development
Corporation,
in
the
above
captioned
August
18, 2004
Respectfully Submitted,
Jeffrey
R.
Diver
Thomas
S.
Yu
The Jeff Diver Group,
L.L.C.
1749 S.
Naperville
Road,
Suite 102
Wheaton,
IL 60187
(630)
681-2530
matter.
Dated:
By:~#’JX2
a
Thomas
S. Yu
Printed on
Recycled Paper
RECE~VED
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS
POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD
CLERK’S OFFICE
AUG
192004
DIMUCCI
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
)
STATE OF ILLINOIS
)
Pollution Control Board
Petitioner,
)
v.
)
PCB No. 04-209
(UST Appeal)
ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY,
Respondent.
PETITION FOR
REVIEW OF AGENCY DECISION TO REJECT
SITE INVESTIGATION
PLAN, SITE INVESTIGATION
COMPLETION REPORT,
CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN AND CORRECTIVE ACTION
PLAN BUDGET
Now
comes
the
Petitioner,
DiMucci
Development
Corporation
(“DiMucci”),
by
its
attorneys,
The
Jeff
Diver
Group,
L.L.C.,
pursuant
to
the Illinois
Environmental
Protection Act,
415
ILCS 5/1
et.
seq.
(the
“Act”)
and
35
Illinois
Administrative Code Section
105.400
et.
seq.,
hereby
appeals
certain
decisions
by
the
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(the
“Agency”).
1.
This
petition
is timely
filed
pursuant
to
Section
57.7(c)(4)(D) and
Section
40
of
the Act.
2.
On
May 10,
2004,
DiMucci timely filed a
notice to extend the appeal
period for 90
days.
On
May 20, 2004,
the
Board
issued
an
order granting
an
extension of
90 days to August
18, 2004.
A copy of the extension
order is attached as Exhibit “A”.
3.
DiMucci
acquired
vacant
real
property
at
the
northeast
corner
of
South
Cicero
Avenue
and
31st
Street
in
Cicero,
Illinois,
with
the
purpose
of
redevelopment.
Three
underground petroleum storage tanks had
been registered to that part
of the property commonly
known
as
3035
5.
Cicero
Avenue,
prior
to
DiMucci’s
acquisition:
one
1,500-gallon
and
one
Printed on
Recycled Paper
4,000-gallon
gasoline
UST
and
one
4,000-gallon
diesel
fuel
UST.
Prior
to
the
start-up
of
development, the three registered
USTs had been searched
for, but not found.
4.
During the course
of active
site development,
particularly, the stripping of
asphalt
surfaces, a
buried
vent or
fill pipe was
struck, leading to the discovery,
on
February
13,
2003
of
a 1,500-gallon gasoline UST.
Because of the petroleum odors and soil
discoloration
in a
test pit
around the UST,
DiMucci
reported the incident to
IEMA, receiving Incident No. 20030198.
5.
Believing this
UST
was
one
of
the
three
registered
to
the
site,
on
February
18,
2003
DiMucci
obtained
an
OSFM
permit
to
remove
all
three
of
the registered
tanks,
although
the two 4,000-gallon
tanks had
still
not been
discovered.
On
March
3, 2003 the first-discovered
UST
was
removed,
and,
through
an
electromagnetic
survey
of
the property,
two
4,000-gallon
USTs
(one gasoline
and
one
diesel
fuel)
were discovered,
more than
200
feet to the northeast
of
the originally
discovered
UST.
The two 4,000-gallon
tanks were
removed on
March
4,
2003,
and,
at the request of the OSFM,
a second incident was
reported,
Incident No.
20030279.
6.
From
March
14,
2003
through
April
29,
2003,
DiMucci
tested
and
excavated
contaminated
site soils
around
the two
UST
areas: Area
1,
the 1,500-gallon
UST;
and
Area
2,
the two 4,000-gallon
USTs.
On
March
19,
2003,
while
uncovering soil
around
the piping for the
twin
4,000-gallon
USTs,
DiMucci
discovered
a
second
1,500-gallon
(diesel)
UST.
DiMucci
immediately
registered
the
newly discovered
tank,
and,
on
March
31,
2003,
OSFM
issued
a
permit
to
remove
the
tank.
It was
removed
on
April
4,
2003
in
the
presence
of
an
OSFM
representative.
7.
On
March 31, 2003 DiMucci filed a 45-Day Report with the Agency,
describing
its
early
actions
at
Areas
1
and
2.
On
April
22,
2003,
an
Amended
45-Day
Report
was
filed,
describing
early actions with
respect to the last-discovered 1,500-gallon
tank.
The Agency had
previously provided written
extensions of the early action
period to
July 2003.
8.
DiMucci
sought
reimbursement
for
its
early
action
activities
through
an
application
filed
with
the
Agency
on
or
about
April
25,
2003.
Both
Incident
Numbers
were
Printed on Recycled
Paper
2
covered
in
the application,
as OSFM
and the Agency
had
agreed
both
should
be
treated
as
a
single
site.
On
July
9,
2003,
the Agency
approved
reimbursement
of
some
of
the
requested
funds,
but
denied
others
because
the
costs
appeared to
be
for
corrective,
rather
than
early
action.
9.
On
May
15,
2003,
DiMucci
submitted
its
Site
Investigation
Plan,
Site
Investigation
Completion
Report,
Corrective
Action
Plan,
Corrective
Action
Plan
Budget
and
Corrective
Action
Completion
Report.
On
September
15,
2003
and
December
23,
2003,
Addenda were submitted
to the Agency.
10.
On
April
15,
2004,
the Agency
issued
DiMucci
a
No
Further Remediation
letter
with
respect
to
the
two
Incident
Numbers.
It
granted
the
NFR,
based
upon
the
amended
Corrective Action
Completion Report,
which
had
demonstrated
that
the remediation
objectives
consistent with an
industrial/commercial land use had
been
achieved.
11.
Determination
for
Which
Review
is
Sought.
On
the
same
day
it
issued
its
NFR,
April
15,
2004,
the
Agency
rejected
the
amended
Site
Investigation
Plan,
Site
Investigation
Completion
Report,
Corrective Action
Plan
and
Corrective Action
Plan
Budget.
A
copy of the
final determination letter is attached as
Exhibit “B”.
12.
The
Agency
denied
the
Site
Investigation
Plan,
stating
that
the
plan
did
not
contain
sufficient
information
as
to
how
to
define the
full
extent
of
contamination.
DiMucci
asserts
that
the
plan
does
contain
sufficient
information
to
delineate
the
full
extent
of
contamination.
The Agenby further
states
that the
Site Investigation
Plan
is not
based
on
soil
samples
collected
from
early
action
activity.
DiMucci
asserts that
the plan
is
based
on
soil
samples collected from
early
action
activity.
DiMucci further asserts that the sampling,
testing,
and
excavatioh
protocol
which
it followed
has
been
accepted by the Agency
at
multiple
LUST
sites, and such past practice was
relied
upon
by DiMucci.
13.
The
Agency
denied
the
Site
Investigation
Completion
Report,
stating
that
the
report did not provide sufficient documentation to define the full
extent of contamination to Tier
1
Printed on
Recycled
Paper
3
residential remediation objectives.
DiMucci
asserts
that the submitted
documents are sufficient
to define the full extent of
contamination to Tier
1
remediation
objectives.
14.
The
Agency
denied
the
Corrective
Action
Plan,
stating
that
supporting
documentation
did
not
clearly
describe
when
and
where
the
early
action
activities
were
conducted
and that
a map
was
not provided
to
show the limits of the early action
excavation
or
the results
of the
early action
soil
sampling
required
pursuant
to
732.202(h).
DiMucci
asserts
supporting
documentation
provided
to
the
Agency
clearly
describes
when
and
where
early
action
activities
were
conducted
and
that
a
map
was
provided
to
show
the limits
of
the early
action
excavation
and
the
results
of
the
early
action
soil
sampling
required
pursuant
to
732.202(h).
The
Agency
states
that
the
Site Investigation
did
not demonstrate
that
the soils
removed
were
contaminated
above
the
applicable
remediation
objective
or
that
all
the
contamination was
attributable to
the
USTs
at
the
site,
and
the Agency further
states
that the
Corrective
ActiOn
Plan
includes
the removal
of
soil
that
does
not appear
to
be
associated
with
the
USTs
and
is
below
the
proposed
industrial/commercial
remediation
objectives.
DiMucci
asserts
that
the
Site
Investigation
demonstrates
that
the
soils
removed
were
contaminated
above
the applicable
remediation
objective
and
that
there
is
no
credible
information
or
data
indicating that the contamination removed
by
DiMucci originated from any source other than the
USTs at the site.
15.
The
Agency
denied
the
Corrective Action
Plan
Budget,
stating
that
the
budget
lacks
supporting
documentation
of
costs associated
with
the implementation
and
completion of
the
corrective
action
plan.
DiMucci
asserts
that
documentation
of
costs
associated
with
the
implementation
and completion
of
the Corrective Action
Plan
have
been
provided.
Second, the
Agency states
that the budget includes costs
that are not attributable to
the registered
USTs at
the
site.
DiMucci
asserts
that
the costs
have
been justified
as attributable to
each
UST at
the
site.
Third,
the
Agency
states
that
the
budget
includes
costs
for
activities
in
excess
of
the
minimum requirements
of the Act.
DiMucci
asserts that the costs are for activities
in compliance
Printed on
Recycled Paper
4
with
the
minimum
requirements
of
the
Act.
Fourth,
the
Agency
states
that
the
costs
as
submitted are unreasonable.
DiMucci asserts that the costs as submitted are reasonable.
Fifth,
the Agency
asserts that
the
budget includes
costs
for
the
removal
of
soil
below
remediation
objectives.
The Agency also states that removal
of
such soils is not corrective
action and
is not
subject
to
reimbursement.
DiMucci
asserts
the
soil
removed
was
above
soil
remediation
objectives
and
the
costs
are
therefore
corrective
action
costs
subject
to
a
claim
for
reimbursement.
Last,
the Agency states that
the budget is associated with
a Corrective Action
Plan
that
has
not
been
approved.
DiMucci
asserts
that
the
Agency
should
approve
the
Corrective Action
Plan
and the Corrective Action
Plan
Budget.
DiMucci further states that it has
not yet submitted
a claim for reimbursement of
its
corrective action costs
16.
Additionally, the Agency’s explanation
in
denying the plans submitted
by DiMucci
did
not comply
with the requirements
of
th.e Act
under 415
ILCS
57.7(c).
The Act
requires an
explanation
as
to the specific
reasons why plans
are denied, as well as the specific
sections of
the
Act
that
are
not
satisfied
by
the
plans.
In
particular,
the
Agency’s
explanation
does
not
specify
in
what
respects
DiMucci
has
not documented
the contamination from
the four
USTs.
Therefore, the Agency’s decision to deny the plans should
be reversed.
Wherefore,
DiMucci
Development
Corporation
respectfully
requests
that
the
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board
(the
“Board”)
enter
an
order
directing
the
Agency
to
approve
the
Petitioner’s
Site
Investigation
Plan,
Site
Investigation
Completion
Report,
Corrective
Action
Plan,
and
Corrective Action
Budget,
as well as
grant
Petitioner such
further
relief
as the
Board
deems appropriate.
Respectfully submitted,
DiMucci
Development Corporation
By:
One of
its attorneys
Printed on
Recycled
Paper
5
Jeffrey
R.
Diver
Thomas S.
Yu
The Jeff Diver Group,
L.L.C.
1749 S.
Naperville
Road,
Suite 102
Wheaton,1L60187
(630) 681-2530
Printed
on Recycled
Paper
6
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
June
3, 2004
DIMUCCI DEVELOPMENT
)
CORPORATION,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
PCB
04-209
v.
(UST
Appeal)
ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL
)
(90-Day Extension)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
)
Respondent.
)
ORDER OF THE BOARD (by J.P. Novak):
On May 24, 2004, the parties timely filed a joint notice to extend the 35-day period
within which DiMucci Development Corporation may appeal an April
15, 2004
determination of
the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency).
See
415 ILCS
5/40(a)(1)
(2002);
35
Ill.
Adm. Code
105.402,
105.406.
Because the postmark date ofthejoint request is within the time
for filing, the joint request was timely filed.
35
Ill.
Adm. Code 101.300(b)(2), 105.404.
The
Agency rejected petitioner’s corrective action plan budget amendment for DiMucci Development
Corporation’s leaking underground petroleum storage tank facility located at 3035 South Cicero,
Cicero,
Cook County.
The Board extends the appeal period until August 18,
2004, as the parties
request.
See
415 ILCS
5/40(a)(1) (2002);
35 Ill. Adm. Code
105.406.
If DiMucci Development
Corporation fails to file an appeal on or before that date, the Board will dismiss this case and
close the docket.
IT IS SO
ORDERED.
I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk ofthe Illinois Pollution Control Board, certify that the Board
adopted the above order on June 3, 2004, by
a vote of5-0.
Dorothy M. Gunn,
Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
EXHIBIT
A
•
~LL1NOISENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
1021
NORTH GRAND
AVENUE
EAST,
P.O.
Box
19276,
SPRINGFIELD,
ILLINOIS
62794-9276, 217-782-3397
JAMES
R.
THOMPSON
CENTER,
100
WEST
RANDOLPH,
SUITE 11-300,
CHICAGO,
IL 60601. 312-814-6026
ROD
R.
BLAGOJEVICH,
GOVERNOR
RENEE
CIPRIAN0,
DIRECTOR
217/782-6762
CERTIFIED
MAIL
7002
3150
0000
125?
0906
DiMucci Development Corporation
Larry Kowalczyk
100 West Dundee Road
Palatine, Illinois 60067
Re:
LPC4t0310515271--CoOkCoUflty
Cicero / DeMucci
3035
South Cicero
LUST Incident No. 20030198
and 20030279
LUST Technical File
Dear Mr. Kowalczyk:
The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Illinois EPA) has reviewed the Corrective Action
Plan Budget Amendment, Site Investigation Plan, Site Investigation
Completion Report,
and
Corrective Action Plan submitted for the above-referenced incident.
The Illinois EPA received
the plans and reports, dated December 23, 2003
on
December 26, 2003 respectively.
Citations in
this letter are from the Environmental Protection Act (Act), as amended by Public Act
92-0554
on June
24, 2002, and 35
Illinois Administrative Code
(35
111. Adm.
Code).
The Site Investigation Plan
is rejected for the reason(s) listed below
(Sections
57.7(a)(l)
and
57.7(c)(4) of
the Act and 35
111. Adm. Code 732.503(b)):
1.
The plan did
not contain
sufficient information as to how the full
extent
of contamination
would
be defined both vertically and horizontally.
The Site Investigation must be based
on
the results ofthe soil samples collected from the limits ofthe early action excavation
pursuant to 35 IAC Section 732.202(h).
The results of these soil samples have
not been
submitted
to the Agency.
Please note that
soil
samples collected from the limits of an
over excavation during early action over the limits
allowed in 732.Appendix C are not
acceptable for defining the extent in
the Site Investigation stage of the project.
The Site
Investigation Completion Report is rejected for the reason(s) listed below (Sections
57.7(a)(5)
and 57.7(c)(4) of the Act and 35
UI. Adm.
Code 732.503(b)):
1.
The report did not
provide sufficient documentation as
to how the full extent of
contamination was defined bothvertically and horizontally.
R0CKE0NO
—
4302 North Main
Street.
RockI~rd.IL 61103
—
I~EXH
I BIT
B~
~
W. Harrison St.. Dee
Plaines.
IL 60016 —(847) 294-40~
ELGIN
—
595
South State.
61gm.
IL 60123
—
(8471
.
.
~_.
-
.
.5
N.
University SI..
Peoria.
IL
61614—1309) 693-5463
BUREAU
OF
L,•’,No
-
ProR~
—
7620
N.
University St..
Peoria.
IL
61614— ~309)693-5462
•
C~t~,I’AiGr~
—
2125
Soulh
FirsI Street.
Champaign.
IL
61820
—(217)
278-5800
SI’RINGFIELO
—
4500
S.
Sixth
Street Rd..
Springfield.
IL
62706—
I~
171
786-6892
•
CowNsvlLlE
—2009
Mail
Street.
CuIIinsvilIe,
IL
~~2234
—(618)
346-5120
MARION
—
.~309
W.
Main
51.,
Suite 116.
Marion, IL 62959
—
161)1)
993-7200
l’R,NTio ~)N REC’CLCO
P-orR
Page 2
2.
The full extent ofcontamination has not been defined to the most stringent Tier
1
remediation objective.
For purposes ofdefine the extent Tier
1
residential remediation
objectives must be used.
The Corrective Action Plan and the associated budget are rejected for the reason(s) listed below
(Sections 57.7(b) and
57.7(c)(4)
of the Act and 35
III. Adm. Code
732503(b)).
The
Corrective Action Plan is rejected for the following reason(s):
1.
An explanation and supporting documentation must be provided that clearly describes
when and where the early action
activities were conducted.
A map must be provided that
shows the limits of the early action excavation and the results of the early action soil
sampling required pursuant to
35
IAC Part 732.202(h).
2.
A demonstration through Site Investigation
must be conducted
that the soils removed
were contaminated above the applicable remediation objective.
In addition, a
demonstration must be made that
all contamination is attributable to the USTs at the site.
3.
The plan includes the removal ofsoil that does not appear to be
associated with the USTs.
4.
The plan includes
the removal ofsoil that are below the proposed industrial/commercial
remediation objectives.
The Corrective Action Plan Budget is rejected for the reason(s)
listed
in attachment A.
An underground storage tank system owneror operator may appeal
this decision to the Illinois
Pollution Control Board.
Appeal rights are
attached.
If you have
any questions or need further assistance, please contact Brian Bauer at 217/782-3335.
A. Chappel, P.E.
Unit Manager
Leaking Underground Storage Tank Section
Division ofRemediation Management
Bureau ofLand
HAC:BB\
Attachment:
Attachment A
cc:
Environmental Protection Industries
Division File
Sincerely
Appeal Rights
An underground storage tank owner or operator may appeal this final decision to the Illinois
Pollution Control Board pursuant to Sections 40 and 57.7(c)(4)(D) of the Act by filing a petition
for a hearing within 35
days after the date ofissuance ofthe final decision.
However, the 35-day
period may be extended for a period oftime not to exceed 90 days by written notice from the
owner or operator and the Illinois EPA within the initial 35-day appeal period.
If the owner or
operator wishes to receive a 90-day extension, a written request that includes a statement of the
date the final decision was received,
along with a copy of this decision, must be sent to
the
illinois EPA as soon as possible.
For information regarding the filing of an appeal, please contact:
Dorothy Gunn, Clerk
illinois Pollution Control Board
State ofillinois Center
100 West Randolph, Suite
11-500
Chicago, IL
60601
312/814-3620
For information regarding the filing ofan extension, please contact:
Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency
Division ofLegal Counsel
1021 North Grand Avenue East
Post Office Box
19276
Springfield, IL
62794-9276
217/782-5544
Attachment A
Re:
LPC#0310515271--CookCoUnty
Cicero / DeMucci
3035
South Cicero
LUST Incident No. 20030198 and 20030279
LUST Technical File
Citations in this attachment are
from the Environmental Protection Act (Act), as amended by
Public Act 92-0554 on
June 24, 2002, and 35 illinois Administrative Code (35
III. Adm. Code).
The
budget includes costs that lack supporting documentation
(35
111. Adm.
Code
732.606(gg)).
A corrective action plan budget must include,
but not be limited to, an
accounting ofall costs associated with the implementation and completion of the
corrective action plan (Section 57.7(b)(3) of the Act).
Since there is no supporting
documentation of costs, the Illinois EPA cannot determine that costs will
not be used for
activities in excess ofthose, required to meet the minimum requirements of Title XVI of
the Act (Section 57.7(c)(3) of the Act and
35
111. Adm. Code 732.505(c) and 732.606(o)).
2.
The budget includes costs that the owner or operator failed to justify are
attributable to
each underground storage tank at the site (Section 57.8(m)(2) of the Act.).
3.
Costs incurred after completion ofearly action activities in accordance with 35
III. Adm.
Code 732.Subpart B by owners or operators choosing to conduct remediation sufficient to
satisfy the remediation objectives upon completion
ofearly action activities are ineligible
for payment from the Fund.
These costs
are for activities in excess of those required to
meet the minimum requirements ofTitle XVI of the Act (Sections
57.7(c)(3)
of the Act
and
35
111.
Adm.
Code 732.505(c) and 732.606(o)).
The budget includes such costs.
4.
One of the overall goals of the
financial review is to’assure
that costs associated with
materials, activities,
and services are reasonable (35
111. Adm.
Code
732.505(c)).
The
budget includes costs that are not reasonable as submitted (Section 57.7(c)(3) of the Act
and 35
III. Adm.
Code 732.606(hh)).
Please
note that
additional information
and/or
supporting documentation may be provided to demonstrate the costs ~rereasonable.
The following items
are not reasonable:
1.
Professional Engineer rate;
2.
Amount ofpersonnel time to prepare the corrective action plan;
3.
Amount of personnel time to oversee
corrective action
activities;
4.
Amount of personnel time to prepare the corrective action
completion
report;
‘
5.
The company vehicle rate;
6.
The rate for excavation, disposal
and transportation;
7.
The
rate for backfilling the excavation:
5.
The budget includes costs for the excavation, transportation, and disposal of soil
contaminated below
the propsed remediation objectives.
These costs are not
corrective
action costs.
“Corrective action”
means an activity associated with compliance with
the
provisions ofSections
57.6 and 57.7 ofthe Act (Section 57.2 of the Act
and 35
111. Adm.
Code 732.103).
One of the eligibility requirements for accessing the Fund is that costs
are associated with
“corrective action” (Section 57.9(a)(7) of the Act and 35
111. Adm.
Code 732.505(c)).
6.
The illinois EPA has not approved the plan with which the budget is associated.
Therefore, the flhinois EPA cannot determine whether these costs are for activities in
excess ofthose required to meet the minimum requirements ofTitle XVI of the Act
(Section 57.7(c)(3) of the Act and 35
111. Adm. Code
732.505(c)).
Costs for corrective
action activities
and associated materials or services exceeding the minimum
requirements necessary to comply with the Act are not eligible for reimbursement from
the Fund
(35
III. Adm.
Code 732.606(o)).
It also cannotbe determined whether the costs
are corrective action
costs.
“Corrective action”
means an activity associated with
compliance with the provision of Section 57.6 and 57.7 of the Act (Section 57.2 ofthe
Act and
35
Ill. Adm. Code 732.103).
One ofthe eligibility requirements for accessing
the Fund is that costs
are associated with “corrective action” (Section 57.9(a)(7) of the
Act and 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 732.505(c)).
In addition, it cannot be determined whether
these costs are reasonable as submitted
(Section
57.7(c)(3)
of the Act and 35
111. Adm.
Code732.505(c)
and 732
606(hh)).
BB\
