BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
R E C ~ ~V E D
OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
CLERK’S OFFICE
iN THE MATTER OF:
)
SEP 23 2004
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO:
))
PollutionSTATE
OFControlILLINOISBoard
REGULATION OF PETROLEUM LEAKING
)
R04-22
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS
)
(UST Rulemaking)
(35
ILL. ADM. CODE 732),
)
INTHE MATTER OF:
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO:
)
REGULATION OF PETROLEUM LEAKING
)
R04-23
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS
)
(UST Rulemaking)
(35
ILL. ADM. CODE 734)
)
Consolidated
)
NOTICE OF FILING
TO:
ALL COUNSEL OF RECORD
(Service List Attached)
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE
that on September 23, 2004, filed with the Clerk of the
Illinois Pollution Control Board ofthe State of Illinois an original, executed copy of Additional
Comments of CW3M Company, Inc. for the Environmental Protection Agency’s Proposal to
Adopt 35 Ill. Adm. Code 735 and to Adopt Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 732 in the above-
captioned matter.
Dated: September 23, 2004
Respectfully submitted,
CW3M Company
By:
C~j\~rLr—
~
One of Its Attor~ys
Carolyn S. Hesse, Esq.
Barnes & Thornburg LLP
One North Wacker Drive -Suite 4400
Chicago, Illinois 60606
(312) 357-1313
23791 8v 1
This filing submitted on recycled paper as defined in 35 Iii. Adm. Code 101.202
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, on oath state that I have served the attached Additional Comments ofCW3M Company,
Inc. for the Environmental Protection Agency’s Proposal to Adopt 35 Ill. Adm. Code 735 and to
Adopt Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 732 by placing a copy in an envelope addressed to the
Service List Attached from CW3M Company,’ Inc., 701 West South Grand Avenue, Springfield,
IL 62704 before the hour of5:00 p.m., on this 24th Day of September, 2004.
Carol
~
Rowe
(~
This filing submitted on recycled paper as defined in 35
III.
Adm. Code 101.202
2
Service List
Gina Roccaforte
Kyle Rominger
IEPA
1021 North Grand Avenue East
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
217/792-5544
217/782-9807 (fax)
William G. Dickett
Sidley Austin Brown & Wood
Bank One Plaza
10 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60603
312/853-7000
312/953-7036 (fax)
Bill Fleischi
Illinois Petroleum Marketers Association
112 West Cook Street
Springfield, IL 62704
217/793-1858
Robert A. Messina
General Counsel
Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group
3150 Roland Avenue
Springfield, IL 62703
217/523-4942
217/523-4948
Lisa Frede
Chemical Industry Council ofIllinois
2250 East Devon Avenue
Des Plaines, IL 60018
(847)
544-5995
Thomas G. Safley
Hodge Dwyer Zeman
3150 Roland Avenue
P.O. Box 5776
Springfield, IL 62705-5776
217/528-4900
217/523-4948 (fax)
Barbara Magel
Karaganis & White, Ltd.
414 North Orleans Street
Suite 801
Chicago, IL 60610
312/836-1177
312/836-9083 (fax)
Joe Kelly, PE
United Science Industries, Inc.
6295 East Illinois Highway 15
P.O. Box 360
Woodlawn, IL 62898-0360
618/735-2411
618/735-2907 (fax)
Kenneth James
Carison Environmental, Inc.
65 East Wacker Place
‘Suite 1500
Chicago, IL 60601
Michael W. Rapps
Rapps Engineering & Applied Science
821 South Durkin Drive
P.O. Box 7349
Springfield, IL 6279 1-7349
217/787-2118
217/787-6641
(fax)
Joel J. Sternstein, Assistant Attorney General
Matthew J. Dunn, Division Chief
Office ofthe Attorney General
Environmental Bureau
188 West Randolph, 20th Floor
Chicago, IL 60601
312/814-2550
312/814-2347 (fax)
Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk ofthe Board
Marie Tipsord, Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
100 W. Randolph Street, Suite 11-500
Chicago, IL 60601
312/814-3956
Scott Anderson
~Black & Veatch
101 North Wacker Drive
Suite 1100
Chicago, IL 60606
Claire A. Manning
Posegate & Denes
111 North Sixth Street
Springfield, IL 62701
(217) 522-6152
Jonathan Fun, General Counsel
Illinois Department ofNatural Resources
One Natural Resources Way
Springfield, IL 72702-1271
217/782-1809
217/524-9640 (fax)
A.J. Pavlick
Great Lakes Analytical
1380 Busch Parkway
Buffalo Grove, IL 60089
847/808-7766
David L. Rieser, Partner
McGuire Woods LLP
77 West Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60601
312/849-8249
Tom Herlacher, P.E.
Principal Engineer
Herlacher Angleton Associates, LLC
8731 Bluff Road
Waterloo, IL 62298
618/935-2261
618/935-2694 (fax)
James E. Huff, P.E.
Huff & Huff, Inc.
512 West Burlington Avenue
Suite 100
LaGrange, IL 60525
Melanie LoPiccolo, Office Manager
Marlin Environmental, Inc.
1000 West Spring Street
South Elgin, IL 60177
847/468-8855
Brian Porter
Terracon
870 40th Avenue
Bettendorf, IA 52722
563/355-0702
Glen Lee, Manager
Wendler Engineering Services, Inc.
1770 West State Street
Sycamore, IL 60178
815/895-5008
Joseph W. Truesdale, P.E.
CSD Environmental Services, Inc.
2220 Yale Boulevard
Springfield, IL 62703
217/522-4085
Monte Nienkerk
Clayton Group Services, Inc.
3140 Finley Road
Downers Grove, IL 60515
630/795-3207
2
Kurt Stepping
Director ofClient Services
PDC Laboratories
2231 West Altorfer Drive
Peoria, IL 61615
309/692-9688
Daniel J. Goodwin
Secor International, Inc.
400 Bruns Lane
Springfield, IL 62702
Richard Andros, P.E.
Environmental Consulting & Engineering, Inc.
551
Roosevelt Road, #309
Glen Ellyn, IL 60137
Steven Gobelman
Illinois Department ofTransportation
2300 Dirksen Parkway
Springfield, IL 62764
Jennifer Goodman
Herlacher Angleton Associates, LLC
522 Belle Street
Alton, IL 62002
Ron Dye
President
Core Geological Services
2621 Monetga
Suite C
Springfield, IL 62704
(217) 787-6109
Erin Curley, Env. Department Manager
Midwest Engineering Services, Inc.
4243 W. 166th Street
Oak Forest, IL 60452
708/535-9981
Thomas M. Guist, PB
Team Leader
Atwell-Hicks, Inc.
940 East Diehl Road
‘Suite 100
Naperville, IL 60563
630/577-0800
Dan King, Team Leader
United Science Industries, Inc.
6295 East Illinois Hwy 15
Woodlawn, Ii 62898
618/735-2411
Terrence W. Dixon, P.G.
MACTEC Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
8901 N. Industrial Road
Peoria, IL 61615
Collin W. Gray
SEECO Environmental Services; Inc.
7350 Duvon Drive
Tinley Park 60477
George F. Moncek
United Environmental Consultants, Inc.
119 East Palatine Road
Palatine, IL 60067
Tina Archer, ‘Attorney
Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale
10 South Broadway
Suite 2000
St Louis, MO 63104
314/241-9090
Ken Miller, Regional Manager
American Environmental Corp.
3700 W. Grand Ave., Suite A
Springfield, IL 62707
217/585-9517
3
Russ Goodiel, Project Manager
Applied Environmental Solutions, Inc.
P.O. Box 1225
Centralia, IL 62801
618/533-5953
Eric Minder
Senior Environmental Engineer
Caterpillar, Inc.
100 NE Adams Street
Peoria, IL 61629
(309) 675-1658
208776v1
Jarrett Thomas
Vice President
Suburban Laboratories, Inc.
4140 Litt Drive
Hillside, ‘IL 60162
(708) 544-3260
Daniel Caplice
K-Plus Environmental
600 West Van Buren Street
Suite 1000
Chicago, IL 60607
(312) 207-1600
4
BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
R E
C E ~V E D
OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
CLERK’S OFFICE
IN THE MATTER OF:
‘
)
SEP 232004
)
‘.
‘
STATE
OF ILLINOIS
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO:
)
Pollution Control Board
REGULATION OF PETROLEUM LEAKING
)
R04-22
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS
)
(UST Rulemaking)
(35 ILL. ADM. CODE 732),
)
)
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
)
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO:
)
REGULATION OF PETROLEUM LEAKING
)
R04-23
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS
)
(IJST Rulemaking)
(35 ILL. ADM. CODE 734)
)
Consolidated
)
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OF CW3M COMPANY, INC. FOR THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY’S PROPOSAL TO ADOPT
35 ILL. ADM. CODE 734 AND TO ADOPT AMENDMENTS
TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 732
The following additional comments have been prepared in response to the previous
hearings as well as the Third Errata Sheet prepared by the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency (IEPA) and the Additional Testimony ofDouglas Clay dated July 30, 2004, which was
presented during the August 9, 2004 hearing (“Additional Testimony”).
In preparation ofthese comments, we felt it was important to re-assess the purpose ofthe
proposed regulations. Without a clearly stated purpose and need, the proposed regulations will
fall short of their intended purpose. The proposed technical changes are clearly in response to
statutory changes enacted in 2002. However, the need for the fiscal portion of the proposal, as
the Agency has proposed, has been more difficult to ascertain and fails to meet the statutory
requirements.
This filing submitted on recycled paper as defined in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.2021
CW3M has participated in the development of and supports the proposal presented by
PIPE.
‘
The comments provided in this additional testimony are meant to further address
unresolved issues and expand u’pon those presented by PIPE.
On page 3 ofMr. Clay’s Additional Testimony, he states that the reimbursement changes
were not added in response to the current status of the Fund.
However, during the
March
15,
2004 presentation of Agency testimony and the subsequent question period, Mr. Jay
Koch of United Science Industries, Inc. suggested that the Agency, in conjunction with the
consulting industry, develop a means of gathering cost data in a format that could be accurately
and statistically analyzed. The Agency responded that there was not time for such an exercise
because, due to Fund solvency concerns, actions were needed immediately. If Fund solvency
was not a factor considered for the need ofthis rulemaking, then perhaps the fiscal portion of the
proposed regulations should be tabled until such data could be collected ‘or until the Agency and
regulated community can come together and produce a set of regulations without numerous
flaws and biases. Also with regards to solvency of the UST Fund, the Pollution Control Board
ruled in 1992, that the Agency did not have statutory authority to preserve the Fund or limit
payments from the Fund in order to protect the solvency ofthe Fund.
See City of Roodhouse v.
JEPA,
PCB 92-31, Sept. 17, 1992
The Agency has also stated on several occasions that the proposed fiscal controls were
added in order to streamline the budget and reimbursement processes. We are in favor of
streamlining the process as well. However, components of the Agency’s proposal create
additional bureaucratic roadblocks, which undermine the streamlining process and create
additional costs, which are in no way accounted for in Subpart H.
(This filing submitted on recycled paper as defined in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.202
2
On page 4 ofMr. Clay’s Additional Testimony, he states, “the Agency believes there will
be significant savings in cleanup costs with the establishment of ‘reasonable costs’ in
regulations.” In CW3M’s testiiñony, discussions ofthe inconsistency of how the proposed rates
compared to those historically ‘deemed reasonable by the Agency were offered. Based on Mr.
Clay’s statement, it is important to re-emphasize this point. Mr. Doug Clay stated during the
March 15, 2004 hearing that the proposed rates are consistent with rates historically approved by
the Agency and the costs incurred by consultants to perform corrective action work would be in
line with the proposed numbers. CW3M strenuously disagrees with that statement and has
‘proven that the proposed rates are significantly lower than rates previously or historically
approved by the Agency.
If the proposed rates are consistent with those historically approved and deemed
reasonable by the Agency, then how are “significant” cost savings going to occur? The only
rationale answer is that the cost savings would occur by slashing reimbursement of costs once
deemed reasonable which represented costs actually incurred. This results in reimbursement
amounts being less than the reasonable actual costs in spite of the fact that one of the stated
purposes of the Underground Storage Tank Fund is “for payment of costs of corrective
action..
. .“
See
Section 57.11
(a)(5)
of the Act. While Section
57.7(c)(3)
ofthe Act may allow
the Agency to review plans using a procedure promulgated by the Board to determine if costs are
reasonable, the Agency continues to ignore the fact that the Act still requires that corrective
action costs be paid by the fund and that it is not reasonable to reimburse less than the actual
costs to do the work or less than the amount that would allow the consultants to make a profit.
Accordingly, CW3M believes that it is imperative for the Agency to reconsider many of
its proposed rates; particularly consultant’s rates for reporting and field oversight activities to
This filing submitted on recycled paper as defined in 35 III. Adm. Code 101.202
3
maintain the integrity ofthe LUST Program. Alternative rates are presented in PIPE’s testimony
which we believe more accurately reflect the costs ofperforming these activities. For many of
the consulting services’ rates, ‘CW3M has participated with PIPE to develop alternative rate
structures to utilize as alternatives to the Agency’s lump sum proposed rates.
Additionally, cost estimates are typically prepared by registered professionals in a time-
and-materials basis. The Agency is attempting to turn professional services and remediation
activities into a commodity-based system.
The system proposed by the Agency is
oversimplified, as exemplified by comparing the number ofrates included in other states rules, to
the proposed Illinois regulations. While consultants are not entirely opposed to the commodity-
based conversion, clear scopes of work are required for each item. In the absence of adequate
breakdowns, one variable item within a given rate could lead to a substantial profit or loss for an
individual site. Distance from a landfill to a site is an example ofa variable that is not accounted
for in the present equation, as is the cost ofdisposal at the landfill. A close landfill with a low
cost would mean a high profit and an unreasonable LUST fund expenditure, while a distant
landfill with a high cost
might
be approvable under the bidding process.
PIPE has prepared detailed scopes of work for the major tasks or technical components of
the proposed regulations. Where the scope of work is more predictable and applicable to the
majority of sites, a lump sum value’ has been derived. For tasks that have widely variable
components and site-specific scopes of work, PIPE has proposed payment on a time and
materials basis.
General Clarification Matters
CW3M presented information from the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) as
an indication of current pricing for certain activities. CW3M’s purpose in contacting IDOT was
This filing submitted on recycled paper as defined in 35
III.
Adm. Code 101.202
4
to show that IEPA’s proposed rates are unreasonably low when compared to IDOT’s real world
experiences. The Agency then went to IDOT, who said that the information was taken from
larger projects and should not b~used for rate setting, but this is the same procedure used by the
Agency in formulating the proposed rates. The Agency selectively looked at bits and pieces of
prior submittals, pulled out individual items or groups of items, and created rates. As
demonstrated by CW3M’s analysis ofthe Agency’s spreadsheets, many of the items were used in
error, or were taken out of context. The primary differences between the IDOT and the
Agency’s numbers are the Agency’s numbers are older, not a complete sample, have fewer data
points and are not an accurate or reasonable representation of the true costs to do the work.
As a point of clarification to ensure that the data provided by the Agency is not
misrepresented, we offer additional comments regarding the figures presented on page 7 of
Mr. Clay’s Additional Testimony regarding the landfills and waste haulers in Illinois. While 48
landfills are permitted to accept LUST soils, not all of these facilities actually accept the waste.
Some are at or near capacity, for example, and no longer will accept waste or accept waste over a
given volume per day. The Agency indicates that 668 haulers are permitted or licensed to
transport LUST soils. What is unknown is how many of those haulers are “not for hire” or how
many of those haulers conduct unrelated work. While we don’t dispute the Agency’s number, it
is important to note that there are not 668 haulers available for transporting LUST soils. For
example, some haulers may devote a large majority of their work to construction activities and
maintain their special waste hauler license to accommodate site-specific needs that may occur
during a construction job.
(This filing submitted on recycled paper as defined in 35 III. Adm. Code 101.202
5
The requirement to have more than one person on site in relation to Occupational Safety
and Health Administration regulations is defined in 29 CFR 1 926.65(d)(3), which requires use of
the “buddy system”, which is de’fined in 29 CFR
1926.65(a)(3).
Sections 732.103 & 734.115
--
Definitions
CW3M proposes to delete the definition of “financial interest” and all references to it
within the proposed regulations.
Our basis for this recommendation was addressed in our pre-filed testimony and is
expanded herein.
The Agency has made several attempts to reduce or eliminate handling charges
throughout the proposed regulations. After evaluating the definition of handling charge and the
costs incurred by consultants or contractors to conduct corrective action activities, we believe
that assessment of handling charges are necessary and legitimate components of conducting the
work, regardless ofthe ownership interest in various firms.
Even when a contractor secures the work of a subcontractor where there may be some
overlapping ownership or interest, the contractor is not relieved from incurring expenses relative
to the work ofthe subcontractor. Perhaps the procurement element of the total list of expenses
described in the definition ofhandling charges is less than that one would incur when hiring a
subcontractor with no related interest, the other elements or associated costs are nonetheless
incurred, such as insurance.
Ifa reasonable profit is an eligible component of a handling charge when the contractor
secures the work of an unrelated subcontractor, why is it ineligible when there is a shared interest
or the parties may be related? Profit is a necessary element for any business to survive and is not
a derogatory word that should be avoided. The Agency is attempting to remove profit from the
This filing submitted on recycled paper as defined in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.202
6
consultants by eliminating the handling charge when the Agency does not clearly understand the
costs associated with conducting work in the private sector.
Sections 732.112 &
734.145
--
Notification of Field Activities
CW3M welcomes the opportunity to have LUST Section personnel visit sites to observe
field activities. In past years, we found it valuable for a Project Manager to have first hand
knowledge of sites, particularly sites with problematic circumstances. As the Agency’s proposed
notification requires providing information prescribed by the Agency, which is likely to be
different or dependent on the Project Manager, CW3M recommends that Subpart H be modified
to allow for the additional expenses incurred to prepare and provide the notification, if so
requested by the Agency, as this activity is clearly beyond the scope and costs proposed. While
this expense is generally quite minimal, it represents an example of additional tasks imposed by
the Agency to comply with regulations without corresponding consideration to the costs. It also
supports PIPE’s position that detailed scopes ofwork are necessary to identify tasks and costs.
732.407(b) & 734.340(b)
--
Alternative Technologies
The Agency has modified Sections 732.407(b) and 734.340(b) to request budget
comparisons ofat least two other alternative technologies to the costs ofthe proposed alternative
technology. In some instances, other alternative technologies may not be technically feasible as
a result of site conditions (such as soil types, etc.) or the contaminants of concern (some
technologies are not effective on every type of contaminant). CW3M proposes that language be
included to address this type of situation as an unusual or extraordinary circumstance. Based on
the testimony to date regarding other situations, we believe that the Agency should have no
opposition to such a change when it is so demonstrated.
This filing submitted on recycled paper as defined in 35 III. Adm. Code 101.202
7
An owner or operator intending to seek payment for costs
associated with the use of an alternative technology shall submit a
corresponding budget in accordance with Section 734.335 (or
732.404) of this Part. In addition to the requirements for a
corrective action budget at Section 734.33.5 (or 732.404) of this
Part the budget shall compare the costs of at least two other
available technologies to the costs ofthe proposed technologies.
if
two other technologies are unavailable or are not technically
feasible corrective action measures, the owner or operator must
proceed in accordance with 734.855 (or 732.855).
In some cases, the use of an alternative technology is preferable for technical reasons or
because the costs for using conventional technology are high. For cases where the conventional
technology would exceed the amounts in Subpart H, procedures should be created so that the real
cost of conventional technology at a given site is available for comparison to the proposed
alternative technology, as well as other alternative technologies. Preparation of bids for a
technology which has already been ruled out as unfeasible is not ethical and a waste ofresources.
CW3M recommends additional language for 732.407(b) and 734.340(b):
If the estimated costs for conventional technology exceed the
maximum payment amounts set forth in Subpart H, the owner or
operator shall prepare a cost estimate of the conventional
technology for comparison to the alternative technology in
accordance with the requirements of 732.860 (734.860) and
732.850 (734.850).
Sections 732.408 & 734.410 Remediation Objectives (Board Notice), and 732.606(ggg),
732.606(hhh), 734.630(ggg) & 734.630(eee)
--
Ineligible Corrective Action Costs
On pages 25 and 26 of Mr. Clay’s Additional Testimony and in the Third Errata Sheet,
the Agency is now proposing to eliminate payment of remediation costs associated with Tier 1
objectives and forcing the use of a groundwater ordinance as an institutional control where a
groundwater ordinance is already in existence. We feel it is a little late in the process to propose
sweeping changes when there has not even been concurrence with what has already been
This filing submitted on recycled paper as defined in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.202
8
proposed. This latest proposal is a brand new twist which was not required as a result of
statutory changes. We suggest that the newly proposed language be dismissed as it represents
sweeping policy changes rega~dingprotection of the environment, even beyond the scope of
these proceedings. Such changes would require thorough evaluation for all environmental
programs, not just the LUST regulations.
We have two primary concerns with the Agency’s latest proposal. First, the level of
remediation should be decided by the property owner, who is often not the UST owner or
operator. Our second concern is for off-site properties and their respective owner(s). If the
Agency cannot force Tier II objectives on off-site property owners, then Tier II objectives should
also not apply to situations where the on-site property owner is different than the tank owner.
Page 11 ofMr. Clay’s Additional Testimony refers to Exhibit 69 which was submitted by
PIPE indicating that most owners and operators already utilize alternatives afforded by TACO.
If this is the case, why try to force owners and operators to use components of TACO that may
be detrimental to their site or adjoining properties when they already utilize TACO when it is
appropriate. If the Agency is unwilling to allow owners or operators back into the LUST
Program if a problem later arises as a result of forcibly imposed TACO alternatives, then the
Agency should not consider requiring its use. The applicability ofTACO should be left up to the
discretion of the owner or operator or the property owner.
The Agency currently requires that the LUST owner or operator define the extent of
contamination to Tier 1 Residential objectives. In order to do this, the consultant, on behalf of
the owner or operator, contacts potentially affected neighboring or adjoining property owners
and requests access. In accordance with the Agency’s current policy and proposed regulatory
language, the property owner is to be notified that legal responsibility to remediate the
This filing submitted on recycled paper as defined in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.202
9
contamination is the responsibility of the UST owner or operator and that failure to remediate
contamination from the release may result in threats to human health and the environment and
diminished property value. ‘It ~eems unconscionable to notify off-site property owners that they
may experience loss of property value because of contamination and, if remediation does not
occur, to then inform them that there will be no remediation. In such cases, off-site property
owners should have the discretion of remediating their property or relying on an institutional
control to address whatever levels of contamination may be present and the UST Fund should
cover remediation costs.
The potential cost savings of the Agency’s proposal may be
overshadowed by increased lawsuits and indemnification costs, which have historically been rare
because current Agency policy is to be certain on and off-site property owners are afforded
decision-making control over their own property. The Agency’s 1
1th
hour proposal merely
provides the investigative research for a property owner to claim damages.
Sections 732.411(f), 734.350(f) & 734.710(d)(3) all state that the owner or operator,
despite best efforts, “is not relieved ofresponsibility to clean up portions of the release that may
have migrated off-site”. The Agency’s proposed new language is also in conflict with this
regulatory language.
The Agency is proposing to make ineligible for reimbursement costs associated with
groundwater remediation if a groundwater ordinance has been approved by the Agency for use as
an institutional control. However, even where a groundwater ordinance exists, groundwater
remediation may still be needed. For example, free product must be removed, modeling must be
performed to determine if there would be an issue related to vapor intrusion into surrounding
buildings and, if so, the contamination must be addressed, groundwater quality standards must be
met within any setback zones or regulated recharge areas in accordance with the regulations, and
This filing submitted on recycled paper as defined in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.202
10
surface water quality standards must be met where groundwater discharges into a surface water
body.
In addition, the regulations at 35 Ill. Admin. Code 742.1015 require scaled maps
delineating the boundaries of all properties under which groundwater is located which exceeds
the applicable groundwater remediation objectives and scaled maps delineating the area and
extent of groundwater contamination. Information must also be obtained to identify current
owners of each property under which contaminated groundwater is located, and there are
continuing requirements to monitor the activities of local government regarding whether the
local government issues any variances to allow the installation of potable water wells or if the
local government changes an ordinance prohibiting potable water wells because the ordinance
could be revoked. This continuing obligation is imposed on the property owner which, in many
cases, is not the same as the owner ofthe UST.
Further, if neighboring property owners are not going to have their properties remediated
so that they will then have contaminated property and an institutional control on their property,
there is an increased likelihood of litigation related to property damage and resulting reduction in
values oftheir property. This litigation threat should not be imposed upon the property owners
who may or not also be the owners ofthe USTs.
The fundamental purpose ofthe Act and these regulations is protection ofhuman health
and the environment. While exposure pathways may be temporarily addressed, protection of the
environment and long term protection of human health have not been adequately researched to
determine the full impact of the Agency’s proposal. Therefore, the’ decision to rely on a
groundwater ordinance or TACO Tier II analysis should be made by the owner/operator who has
This filing submitted on recycled paper as defined in 35 III. Adm. Code 101.202
11
been paying into the Fund and not by an IEPA employee who has never had to cleanup a LUST
on property he or she owned.
Sections 732.606
(II) & (mm) & 734.630 (hh) & (ii)
--
Ineligible Corrective Action Costs
With regards to Mr. Clay’s comments on page 18 of the Additional Testimony on
submittal of proof of payment, we still contend that the Agency’s proposal only serves to defeat
the purpose of streamlining the process. We refer back to our pre-filed testimony, which
elaborates on the lack of need for the Agency to require proof of payment of subcontractors.
This proposed requirement is unnecessary and burdensome. The Agency is merely trying to
deny handling charges as a method of cost control. As discussed in our pre-filed testimony,
payment of subcontractors is only one element of the costs incurred by consultants who utilize
subcontractors. The handling charges afforded by statute and regulation are already well below
generally accepted industry rates, which are typically
15,
regardless of the total amount, with
no sliding scale. The current handling charge is already deficient, yet the Agency is attempting
to reduce it further unless consultants expend additional resources preparing lien waivers or
tracking and submitting cancelled checks.
Mr. Clay’s Additional Testimony provides further verification that it should not be
necessary for the Agency to require proof of payment of subcontractors. On page
15,
the
testimony states, “The Agency is not a party to contracts between owners and operators and
consultants”, therefore, we believe it is beyond their duty as regulators to require proof of
payment.
Doug Oakley testified that the Agency has proposed this requirement because
subcontractors contact the Agency to determine payment status oftheir invoices. Subcontractors
often contact the Agency requesting status of payments to help spur the Agency’s slow review,
This filing submitted on recycled paper as defined in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.2021
12
particularly when their payment is dependent upon the Agency’s review of their costs and a
“reasonable” determination has been made on the subcontractor’s invoice. The Agency should
direct such inquiries to be conducted through proper Freedom of Information Act requests and
remove themselves from contract interference.
Sections 732.606 (ss) & 734.630 (oo)
--
Ineligible Corrective Action Costs
As discussed above, CW3M recommends striking the following as an ineligible cost:
Handling charges for subcontractor costs where any person with a
direct or indirect financial interest in the contractor has a direct or
indirect financial interest in the subcontractor.
If the Board finds that the definition offinancial interest is a necessary component ofthe
regulations and that 732.606(ss) and 734.630(00) are required elements we recommend striking
“direct or indirect” within this section as the deleted words are not necessary and only stand to
cause confusion, mis-use or misinterpretation and are not necessary to determine compliance
with the definition offinancial interest.
Handling charges for subcontractor costs where any person with a
direct or indirect financial interest in the contractor has a direct or
indirect financial interest in the subcontractor.
Sections 732.605 & 734.625
--
Eligible Corrective Action
Costs
To clarify the eligibility ofhandling charges within the regulations, CW3M proposes the
addition ofthe following within the summary of Eligible Correction Action Costs:
(a)(2 1) Handling charges for any subcontractor cost or field
purchase cost incurred by the owner or operator’s primary
contractor.
As discussed in several sections of our additional comments, there are many elements of
a handling charge that cause costs to be incurred by the contractor. The contractor should be
eligible for payment ofhandling charges when any component of a handling charge is incurred.
This filing submitted on recycled paper as defined in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.2021
13
Common practice for this industry as well as others, such as construction, is payment of a
minimum of
15
handling charge on field purchases and subcontractor costs. While we feel that
the handling charges sliding scale already puts contractors at a disadvantage for securing all
potential costs associated with handling subcontractors, the difference between the sliding scale
and the industry standard are substantial enough to accommodate for situations where one or
more elements of the handling charge are not incurred as direct costs.
Sections 732.606
(rr) & 734.630 (nn)
--
Ineligible Corrective Action Costs
Also discussed on page 18 ofthe Additional Testimony, it is the Agency’s position that
there should be no exceptions for filing payment requests later than one year after closure. If the
Agency can assure us that this requirement will not be extended to 731 sites, we can concur that
is it reasonable to assume that payment requests can be submitted within this timeframe, unless a
budget appeal is pending. When reimbursement requests for 731 sites can take years to review
by the Agency, the Agency should allow the same consideration for owners or operators when
special circumstances exist. As discussed in our testimony and prior comments, it has been
CW3M’s experience on a few cases, if an Illinois Pollution Control Board appeal is pending and
settlement
negotiations are in progress, final disposition ofa case can exceed one year. In such a
circumstance, the owner or operator would be prevented from submittal of a claim until the
appeal is settled or a Board ruling has been finalized.
Should an owner or operator submit a plan or budget, which is rejected or modified by
the Agency and deems an appeal is its best course of action, the time to reach settlement or a
decision by the Board may extend beyond the timeframe for allowance of submittal for an
application for payment (following approval of the budget). An example of such an instance
would be a budget amendment was rejected or modified and subsequently appealed and the NFR
This filing submitted on recycled paper as defined in 35 III. Adm. Code 101.202
14
Letter was issued prior to disposition of the appeal. This, if an appeal is filed with the Board, the
time to submit costs for payment should be extended.
In addition, an owner o’r operator’s incapacitation,’, illness, inaccessibility or even death
can cause delays in submittal offinal plans, budgets or requests for payment. For these reasons,
we request that the Board make exception for such circumstances.
Sections 732.606
(ddd) & 734.630 (aaa)
--
Ineligible Corrective Action Costs
CW3M offered significant discussion in our pre-filed testimony opposing the Agency’s
proposal to disallow fees associated with performing corrective action costs when such fees are
assessed by governmental agencies. Such fees are unavoidable and are direct corrective action
costs.
During a recent PIPE meeting, fellow members expressed concern that the Agency is
now disallowing sales tax on pending applications, as the sales tax is a governmental fee. We
are offering no direct testimony, however, we are asking the Agency if their intent was to also
deem sales tax as an ineligible cost. If this were the Agency’s intent, CW3M would expand its
objection to the entire disallowance. Sales taxes are inevitable on nearly every purchase and are
a legitimate cost bore by the owner or operator to conduct corrective action activities. Since
payment oftaxes cannot be avoided, these costs are reasonable corrective action costs.
Section 732.614 & 732.665
--
Audits and
Acêess to Records; Records
Retention
The Agency’s
proposed modified language still suffers from most ofthe same problems
that was contained in the previous draft language. The Agency’s proposal continues to overstep
the Agency’s
statutory authority. As CW3M commented previously, Section 57.15 of the Act
states in full: “The Agency has the authority to audit all data, reports, plans, documents and
budgets submitted pursuant to this Title. Ifthe data, report, plan or budget audited by the agency
This filing submitted on recycled paper as defined in 35 III. Adm. Code 101.202
15
pursuant to this Section fails to conform in all applicable requirements ofthis Title, the Agency
may take appropriate actions.”
Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary defines the verb “audit” as “to examine with intent
to verify” and then gives the example of auditing account books. Section 57.2 ofthe Act states:
“Audit” means a systematic inspection or examination of plans, reports, records, or documents
to determine the completeness and accuracy of the data and conclusions contained therein.”
Although the Agency may have authority to audit the information that has been submitted to it,
the Act does not give the Agency the authority to audit information that has not been submitted
to the Agency, nor does this language does not give the agency the authority to inspect the
records or offices ofthe professional engineers and professional geologists that consult to owners
and operators ofunderground storage tanks.
In other words, the Agency does not have legal authority to access “the books, records,
documents, and other evidence set forth in the preceding subsection during normal business
hours for the purpose of inspection, audit, and copying,” as proposed, nor does the Agency have
authority to require that owners, operators, Licensed Professional Engineers, and Licensed
Professional Geologists to “provide proper facilities for the Agency to review records.”
Furthermore, the Agency’s proposal also ignores the fact that it is the owners and operators of
underground storage tanks that are the regulated entities. As Doug Clay admitted during the
March 15, 2004 hearing (Transcript, p.
185),
the Agency does not regulate Professional
Engineers. The Agency only has the authority to do those activities that are contained in
legislation such as the Act.
See Reichold Chem. v. PCB,
204 Ill. App. 3d 674, 561 N.E.2d 1333,
1345, 149 Ill. Dec. 647 (3d Dist. 1990).
‘
IThis filing submitted on recycled paper as defined in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.202
16
In sum, the Agency is ignoring the plain language of the Act which limits its authority to
audit to only those data, reports, plans, documents or budgets that are submitted pursuant to the
Act. Thus, proposed Section 7~2.6l4and 734.665 and especially subsections b and c should not
be adopted by the Board. The Agency can accomplish the purposes ofthe Act by requesting, as
it currently does, documentation of costs such as copies of invoices and other records such as
manifests that document volumes of wastes that were disposed of at landfills and volumes of
backfill material that were purchased to perform its auditing function.
Sections 732.825 & 734.825
--
Soil Removal and Disposal
New proposed 734.825(a) and 734.825(a) propose that the maximum rate for soil
removal, excavation and transport be $57.00 per cubic yard. Considerable testimony, comments
and discussions have occurred during the proceedings to date. We believe that the record shows
that the $57.00 per cubic yard rate is out of date and was unreliably calculated. Accordingly, the
Board should consider a rate more applicable to current and realistic rates. Ideally, rates could
be developed which take into account site-specific factors, such as distance to the landfill or
backfill supply; i.e., a rate for 0-20 miles, 20-40 miles, etc. The Agency does not want to raise
the rate, as sites that fall under the $57/yd rate would be eligible for payment of more than the
actual costs. However, by keeping the rate low, they penalize other sites and force many from
automatically falling within an approvable rate, particularly sites located in southern Illinois or
other areas that are remote from landfills. Without adequate flexibility in this rate it will become
necessary to utilize the “unusual or extraordinary” option or bidding process to alleviate this
issue.
CW3M’s
May
2004 testimony included a demonstration of the impact of the Implicit
Price Deflator for the Gross National Product for the excavation, transportation, and disposal
This filing submitted on recycled paper as defined in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.202
17
rate, assuming it
was
$57.00 when first established. The rate was estimated to be $61.43, using
the October 1, 2003, factor. Using the most currently available number, the April 1, 2004 value,
and the rate would now be $~2.54. Considering the amount of time that will pass until the
proposed regulations go into effect and begin to be adjusted for inflation, it is extremely
important to use current, accurate rates. Similarly, the $20 rate for backfill would now be
$22.74.
Sections 732.845 & 734.845
--
Professional Consulting
Services
On pages 29 through 30 ofthe Third Errata Sheet
(734.845(e)),
the Agency has proposed
a schedule for payment of travel costs based upon distance to the site. CW3M supports PIPE’s
proposal for reimbursement oftravel expenses, the following modifications should be made:
1.
Allotment for distances greater than 60 miles should be
included. On the basis of the Agency’s proposal, an incremental
increase should be allotted for every additional 30 miles.
2.
The hourly rate of $80.00/hour (based on the Agency’s
average of personnel rates) should not be utilized for professional
staff conducting site investigation of corrective action field
activities as the $80.00/hr rate includes personnel rates for support
or clerical office staff.
The Agency has again based its travel upon one person traveling to the site in the matter
as follows:
0 to 29 miles 1 person
1 hour $80/hour
$60/day for vehicle $140
30-59 miles
1 person
2 hours$80/hour
$60/day forvehicle
$220
60+ miles
1 person
3 hours$80/hour
$60/day for vehicle
$300
3.
We feel that this formula should be modified in three ways,
and the travel should be allocated for 2 people in accordance with
OSHA and workload requirements as has been discussed
previously. The personnel rate used to calculate the total should
not be a rate weighted with office/clerical staff rates but should
represent technical/professionals who will be conducting the work.
This filing submitted on recycled paper as defined in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.202
18
Also, there is no reason to stop the travel at 60+ miles. Therefore
this section should be as is follows:
1 hour is allocated towards travel for every 30 miles of one-way
travel or fractio~ithereof Two personnel are allowed to travel at a
total rate of $158.25/hour based on the Agency’s personnel rates.
Plus $60/day vehicle charge.
In this scenario:
0-29 miles
$21 8.25
30-59 miles
$376.50
60-89 miles
$534.75
90-119 miles
$693.00
...andsoon
And as specified below, the mileage should be based off of the office in which the
employees come from instead of the nearest office, since all of a company’s offices may not be
staffed with all types ofpersonnel.
CW3M recommends revising the language regarding multiple
offices. While a consultant may maintain more than one office,
satellite offices may not be equipped with the specific needs or
personnel to conduct a given activity. Accordingly, the consultant
will need to schedule and assign the appropriate personnel to a
given field task and should
have the
option ofbudgeting the travel
time from the location most appropriate for the task. Therefore,
we suggest changing the language to the following:
734.845(e) 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 in which the personnel completing the task are
located.
732.845(a)(2)(A) & 734.845(a)(2)(A)
--
Professional Consulting
Services
In the Third Errata Sheet, the Agency modified the oversight rate of 250 cubic yards to
225 cubic yards as a result in the proposed changes to the number of hours considered for a half-
day rate. On page 14 of Mr. Brian Bauer’s pre-filed testimony, the 250 rate was derived from
the National Construction Estimator Guide and rounded down to 250 yards per day as a
This filing submitted on recycled paper as defined in 35 III. Adm. Code 101.202
19
conservative estimate. Utilizing a standard ratio, the revised conservative estimate should be 200
yards per the half-day rate for excavation activities alone.
CW3M recommends relising the yardage rate to reflect actual field conditions during an
excavation. We are not disputing the rate the Agency extracted from the guide, however, the rate
fails to account for all of the activities underway which will affect the overall time on the joh,
hence the amount oversight time required. The
57
yards per hour rate assumes no activity except
excavation. However, reality is that backfill operations are often conducted concurrently with
the excavation. Depending on the location of the landfill in proximity to the location of the
backfill suppliers, trucks may deposit a load of contaminated soil at the landfill and pick up a
load of backfill on the return trip. If that cannot be accomplished, a portion of the trucks may be
assigned to landfill runs only and some to backfill only. Often, excavated areas need to be
backfilled in order to advance equipment to the next area of the excavation, which requires
positioning trucks and equipment over the previously-excavated area. What the 57-yard per hour
rate also does not take into account is movement of equipment and trucks during the excavation.
Even when trucks are loaded continuously, time is spent to position the truck and excavator and
to line the truck prior to loading. Interruptions in loading may occur to check load distribution
and estimated weight prior to departure. During the excavation and loading,’if a wall begins to
fail or loose material needs to be removed and secured, the excavator’s loading will be
interrupted and the truck may need to be repositioned. The 57-yard rate also does not factor
loading in tight spaces which requires the operator to maneuver more slowly around structures,
overhead lines, etc. The excavation will also be interrupted during sample collection activities.
Field oversight also does not begin the minute the first scoop of soil is excavated.
Personnel overseeing the excavation are required to arrive ahead ofthe heavy equipment crews
(This filing submitted on recycled paper as defined in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.2021
20
to prepare for the day’s activities, which may include assessing the excavation (wall stability,
accumulation ofgroundwater, etc.) setting up traffic patterns, re-arranging site barricades, having
manifests ready and distributing them to each driver, ‘relaying the days assignments, and
collecting tickets and documentation from the previous day’s work. Similarly, at the close of the
excavation each day, oversight personnel will assess the site, assure it is secured for the evening,
provide instructions for crew for the following morning, check material supplies and make
arrangements or go secure additional materials for the next day’s work (truck lining material, site
safety equipment, sampling supplies, etc.). If samples were collected, they will need to be
delivered or taken to a shipping location as well.
We estimate that these additional activities for oversight account for 20
of the
professional’s time during excavation oversight. Therefore, we believe the most accurate
number that should be used to calculate excavation oversight is 160 cubic yards, a 20 reduction
of the 200 cubic yard rate.
Additionally, while the Agency’s estimate was solely based on the amount of time in
which it takes to load a truck,’ the Agency has indicated during its testimony that oversight also
needs to cover backfihling activities.
The Agency’s estimate then must assume that the first load ofbackfill is being dumped at
the same time as the first scoop of soil is excavated. This would apply to the entire job and to
each single day. There is time at the beginning and end of each day and eachjob when only one
of the two activities are being performed and the Agency has failed to take this fact into account
in its proposed rate.
This filing submitted on recycled paper as defined in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.202
21
732.845(g) & 734.845(g)
--
Professional Consulting Services
732.855 and
734.855, added by the Agency in response to its bidding proposal, has
allotted a meager $160.00 pertask bid. The allotment fails to take into account the extent of
work associated with bid preparations. Bid specifications must be prepared for each task that
clearly define the scope of work and cost items included therein. The consultant will have to
send requests for bids, which requires time and office-related expenses (i.e., postage and copies).
The consultant will also have to screen the qualifications of those it solicit bids from or those it
may receive bids from to ensure that they are even capable and qualified to ~performthe tasks.
Technical professionals will be doing the majority of work, particularly developing the
specifications and scope of work; this is not a task for an office clerk, whose role would be
limited to copying and mailing the bids. The allotted amount also does not account for the time
needed to summarize and complete the Agency’s forms. Therefore, the $80.00 hourly rate is
insufficient, as is the number of hours allotted for this task.
On page 30-35 of the Third Errata Sheet,, (addition of Sections 732.845(g) and
734.845(g)), the Agency has proposed to add costs for bid preparation when the subcontractor is
paid directly by the owner or operator and deny the consultant handling charges as well.
Whether or not the consultant or the owner/operator pays the subcontractor, the consultant is
going to incur considerable expenses preparing the bid specifications and scope ofwork, finding
and screening subcontractors, and evaluating bids. The Agency is attempting to force the
bidding process, yet denying the consultant payment of legitimately earned costs. Further, the
~Agency continues to allege that if an owner or operator pays the subcontractor directly, the
consultant is not entitled to handling charges. CW3M discussed this it its pre-filed testimony.
Payment of the subcontractors is only one element of the costs incurred “handling” the work of
This filing submitted on recycled paper as defined in 35 III. Adm. Code 101.2021
22
subcontractors. Costs are also incurred to secure certificates of insurance, verify subcontractor
invoices, secure required back-up or supporting documentation, request and secure revisions to
the invoice and prepare the invoice for payment, document payments or prepare and secure lien
waivers. The definition of “Handling Charges” means administrative, insurance, and interest
costs and a reasonable profit for procurement, oversight, and payment of subcontracts and field
purchases. As is evident from the definition, consultants of contractors incur expenses for more
than just the interest charges associated with paying subcontractors.
For example, our
professional and general liability insurance premiums are based on total sales and revenues. If
1/2
of the company’s gross sales are the costs ofsubcontractors, the insurance company will assess
premium rates based on the company’s gross. Subsequently, we pay insurance for subcontractor
invoices. There are also administrative costs incurred for handling subcontractor invoices, such
as reviewing invoices, supporting documentation and securing revised invoices if errors are
found.
Sections 732.855 & 734.855
--
Bidding
Sections 732.855 & 734.855 Bidding, should be modified to remove the elimination of
securing bids from entities with financial or related interest as well as the phrase “direct or
indirect,” as follows:
a)
A minimum of three written bids shall be obtained. The
bids shall be based upon the same scope of work and shall
remain valid for a period oftime that will allow the owner
or operator to accept them upon the Agency’s approval of
the 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.
This filing submitted on recycled paper as defined in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.2021
23
c)
The maximum payment amount for the work bid shall be
the amount ofthe lowest bid, unless the bid is less than the
maximum payment amount set forth in this Subpart 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 able to
perform the work, including, but not limited to, a person in
which the owner or operator, or the o~~~er’
C
or operator’s
primary consultant, has a direct or indirect financial
interest. However, regardless of who performs the work,
the maximum payment amount will remain the amount of
the lowest bid.
If the Board finds that the definition of “financial interest” is a necessary component of
the regulations and that 732.855 and 734.855 are required elements we recommend striking
“direct or indirect” within this section as the deleted words are not necessary and only stand to
cause confusion, mis-use or misinterpretation and are not necessary to determine compliance
with the definition of financial interest.
For consultants, who can provide services such as drilling, excavation, and transportation
ofmaterials, the acquisition ofthree external bids will be difficult. There is no incentive for an
external contractor to provide a bid if the work may not be awarded to them, even if they provide
the low bid. External contractors also begin the bid process with a competitive disadvantage;
handling charges are not needed if the consultant does the work.
Ifthe proposed maximum rates are set such that 90 of actual costs are at or below them,
then the problems associated with bidding will be encountered by only 10 of the projects.
Since the rates were selected using the average of outdated data, the use of extraordinary
~circumstancesand the bid procedures will be commonplace.
If a consultant is unable to obtain bids, the Agency could claim that not enough effort
was used. Given the Agency’s proposed two-hour limit, a consultant cannot afford to put in
This filing submitted on recycled paper as defined in 35 III. Adm. Code 101.2021
24
much of an effort.’ If bids are obtained, but the contractors that provide them are the same or
similar from project to project, there could be the appearance of collusion. The proposed bidding
procedures need to be further developed to define “best efforts” in relation to obtaining bids,
considering the proposed dollar limit. We believe that “best efforts” ‘should be defined in a way
similar to that of off-site access requests. We believe that certified letters should be sent to a
minimum of three contractors, notifying them ofthe scope of work, required qualifications and
allowing 14 days to respond. These efforts should qualify as “best effort” requirements for
obtaining three bids. Similar to off-site access, an affidavit would be an acceptable means to
demonstrate that “best efforts” were completed.
The bidding procedures suggested by the Agency are yet another demonstration of their
lack ofunderstanding ofthe realities of conducting LUST investigations and remediations. Bids
must be reviewed in the same unit rates as the rate structure proposed in Subpart H. Therefore,
additional breakdown for bidding purposes is not practical and may not even be possible. For
example, if excavation, transportation, and disposal are lumped into a single rate, one cubic yard,
then bids must be obtained from contractors as a single price for excavation, transportation, and
disposal. Requiring three individual bids for each component would require a matrix so that
Trucking Company A can provide bids to work with Excavation Company A and take the soil to
Landfills A, B, or C, work with Excavation Company B and take the soil to Landfills A, B, or C,
etc. This makes the bidding process unnecessarily complicated. Despite the Agency’s assertion
that all excavators are the same, some have larger or smaller equipment, and more or less
experienced operators, thereby allowing them to load trucks faster or slower than others; directly
affecting the trucking costs. Similarly, trucking companies have different numbers and sizes of
This filing submitted on recycled paper as defined in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.2021
25
trucks available, and route selection to the landfill affects the speed of travel and may impose
loading limits, all ofwhich affect the excavation contractor’s production.
During the August 2004 hearing, the Agency discussed the IDOT information and
bidding/awards process, indicating that rates extracted from the total shOuld not be relied upon
without looking at the entire award. However, the Agency is now proposing to piece together
total project costs from individual and unrelated bids. This appears to be contradictory to the
statements made on page 22 of Mr. Clay’s Additional Testimony that the bids should be
evaluated on the total costs and not by comparing individual line items such as excavation,
transportation and disposal.
It is not practical to have two contractors on site during the excavation and backfill,
therefore, reviewing bids for excavation, transportation, and disposal, and backfill as separate
items is not realistic.
We believe that PIPE’s proposal, which allows for Subpart H rates, bidding and/or a time
and materials submittal, would alleviate many ofthe concerns that we have regarding the bidding
process and the alternative technology cost comparison process.
This filing submitted on recycled paper as defined in 35 III. Adm. Code 101.2021
26
Summary
In conclusion, CW3M would like to reiterate that it fully supports the positions of PIPE
throughout this rulemaking process. We also feel that we have provided additional testimony to
demonstrate what our concerns are with rules as proposed by the Agency. If the Pollution
Control Board wishes to hold another hearing, we would be willing to participate in any
additional hearings.
Dated: September 23, 2004
Respectfully submitted,
CW3M Company
By:”
~
~&~aq
One ofIts Atto
ys
Carolyn S. Hesse, Esq.
Jonathan P. Froemel, Esq.
Barnes & Thornburg LLP
One North Wacker Drive
Suite 4400
Chicago, Illinois 60606
(312) 357-1313
219627v1
This filing
submitted on recycled paper as defined in 35 III.
Adm. Code 101.2021
27
