~,_-:~::~~

~-~‘

~‘

“~‘~~‘

~‘‘~

CLERK’S OFFICE

SEP 23 2004

~

~~i?AURfl~ASTUn L~ti~~

i

Steven P. Arehood, PE

A

U

ii

v

I

AA

RonaldAndrewE.

D.

Cloninger.canopy,FE,PLSPLS

7615 North Harker Drive

TEL 309-693-7615

A

Kristen E. Fields, FE, SE

Peoria, Illinois 61615

FAX 309-693-7616

Dorothy Gunn, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

James R. Thompson Center

100 West Randolph Street

Suite 11-500

Chicago, Illinois 60601

September 23, 2004

Re:

Comments on Consolidated

dockets, R04-22 Proposed Amendments

To: Regulation of Petroleum Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (35 III.

Adm. Code 732) and R04-23Proposed Amendments To Regulation of

Petroleum Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (35 III. Adm. Code 734),

Dear Ms. Gunn:

This letter is being written in order to demonstrate the opinions of Maurer-Stutz,

Inc., regarding the proposed LUST regulations. Maurer-Stutz, Inc., has been

working on LUST projects for over five years and has received quite a few No

Further Remediation letters to date. After attending

a

Professionals of Illinois for

the Protection of the Environment

(PIPE) seminar recently Maurer-Stutz, Inc.,

decided to support PIPE and discuss a few concerns that Maurer-Stutz, Inc., has

with the current IEPA LUST policies and procedures. It is Maurer-Stutz, Inc.’s

intention for the IEPA to view this as constructive.

The first procedure Maurer-Stutz, Inc., is concerned with is the manner in which

EPA denial letters are being sent. Although the IEPA has 120 days to review a

Plan/Budget, or other reports, it would be beneficial that if the reports are

reviewed earlier than the permitted 120 days, and if a denial is anticipated that

the Owner/Operator or their consultant be warned sooner.

The formal letter

could still be sent to the client on or after the

120th

day. This would greatly

increase the efficiency of the projects, and would expedite the clean-up process.

Furthermore, the scheduling (i.e. the time of year/the weather) could become

PEO~R~A

A.

CANTON

---

c r-~

~ ...J

Li 1

Li .1.

.

.L C.

J’..’

C L41

C

I

Li k.

Li

S. Z.

.1. I I C. .

) Li .J

Li Li Li

Li i-

Li

more manageable for all who are involved. Maurer-Stutz, Inc., would ask that a

more efficient turn-around time be demonstrated.

At this point many

professionals in the LUST field believe that some LUST Project Managers wait till

the 119th day to review a report.

The second concern Maurer-Stutz. Inc., has is the ‘Scope of Work’ vs. fixed fee.

Maurer-Stutz, Inc., does not believe that any two projects can be done in the

same manner. Therefore, pre-defining the ‘Scope of Work’ prior to any on-site

investigation is a more realistic approach than fixing fixed fees for certain tasks or.

phases, and expecting consultants to work within those fixed budgets.

Furthermore, problems do arise because the on-site Project Manager has to get

all of the required work completed within the set budget since every project is

unique. Maurer-Stutz, Inc., does believe that pre-defining the ‘Scope of Work’ vs.

fixed allowance costs is beneficial.

The third comment Maurer-Stutz, Inc., has pertains to the LUST projects when

the contamination plume extends beyond two or more property boundaries. ln

these cases Maurer-Stutz, Inc., has found that delineating the plume in Stage-i

or Stage-2 is sometimes not even possible. Furthermore, as the area of the

investigation increases discoveries are often made that changes the original

‘Scope of Work’, thus affecting the Plan, the Budget, and the extent of TIER-2

calculations.

It is Maurer-Stutz, Inc.’s opinion that there are often more

calculations that need to be performed than the JEPA allows in the budget (ie.

$800.00 for TIER-2 calculations). Maurer-Stutz, Inc., would ask that additional

funding for on and off site TIER-2 work (le. beyond the scope of the initial ‘Scope

of Work’) be approved on a case-by-case basis.

The fourth comment has to do with the ‘off-site’ clean-up procedures and

objectives. Maurer-Stutz, Inc., has found that the required Engineering Controls,

Institutional Controls, and Environmental Land Use Controls (ELUCs) usually

take much more time and effort than anticipated. Writing up and implementing

ELUCs has become ~n extremely tedious part of the TIER-2 process. Many of

the property owners within the calculated plume do not want anything to do with

the paperworklsignatures involved. Many times attorneys get involved with the

process, and in the LUST cases that cover a wide area many attorneys become

involved.

Furthermore, the time that goes into telephone conversations,

meetings, travel to the owner’s residences, and time spent in court houses can

not be reasonably estimated. To complicate this, there is no way (other than

man hours) to report the costs of such activities to the IEPA for reimbursement

purposes. However, a budget for every ELUC is set for this portion of the TIER-2

process. Furthermore, there needs to be a better system of approach. The

proposed regulations are unreasonable for this part of the TIER-2 process.

Maurer-Stutz, Inc., asks that the EPA establish a better system for setting the

budget for implementing ELUCs and/or that additional funding for off-site TIER-2

work (ie. beyond the scope of the ‘Scope of Work’) be approved on a case-by-

case basis.

_______

LJ~~A1JRERA

4

~

ENGINEERS

SURVEYORS

5 INC.

---

C

‘

C.

Li

Li 7

Li S

.

I Li

(‘.‘

C,

Li

C

Li

S.Li C C.

.5 I IC.

The final comment deals with subcontractor costs. Many times Maurer-Stutz,

Inc., contacts several subcontractors to get an estimate of the current costs of

the transportation, manifesting, and disposal of liquid and solid wastes.

Furthermore, many times the lowest cost of all of the subcontractors is still above

the IEPA’s maximum allowance for such action. Since the waste must be

disposed of in a timely manner, Maurer-Stutz, Inc., often pays more than the

reimbursement’s maximum allowance for the completion of the required work.

Maurer-Stutz, Inc., asks that the JEPA establish a more realistic reimbursement

amount for this process.

It is Maurer-Stutz, Inc~’sintention to continue doing LUST work. However, any of

the above items that are addressed would greatly aid in the efficiency of getting

the LUST work completed in a timely manner without losing money in the

process. Maurer-Stutz, Inc., is concerned that if some of these issues are not

addressed the entire LUST network will be affected. Many consulting companies

have stopped doing LUST work, and many subcontractors have contacted

Maurer-Stutz, Inc., because their annual budgets have been affected by the

decline of LUST work. Inner-company research has proven that the ‘typical’ and

‘easy’ LUST projects are nearly gone, and most of the current LUST projects

have more contamination issues than those of five or more years ago. Applying

the old LUST projects ‘Scope of Work” on the current LUST projects results in

multiple complications. In order to complete the current LUST remediation

objectives, Maurer-Stutz, Inc., believes that more work is necessary than in the

past.

Please feel free to call this office with any questions or concerns regarding this

matter.

Thanks.

Sincerely,

Nikki Loya

J

Maurer-Stutz, Inc.

Cc:

Service List for R04-22 and 23

Cindy S. Davis, CSD Environmental Services, Inc.

Jarrett Thomas, Suburban Laboratories, Inc.

L~AURERASTUTZJ, INC.

4

~

ENGINEERS