REC~VED

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

CLERK’S OFFICE

IN THE MATTEROF:

SEP 2~2OO~

)

Pollution

STATE OF

Control

ILLINOIS

Board

)

)

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO:

REGULATION PETROLEUM LEAKING

UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS

35

ILL. ADM. CODE

732

)

IN THE MATTER OF:

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO:

REGULATION PETROLEUM LEAKING

UNDERGROU1~~DSTORAGE TANKS

35

ILL. ADM. CODE 734

)

To:

Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

James R. Thompson Center

100 W. Randolph, Suite 11-500

Chicago, Illinois 60601

)

)

)

)

)

R04-22

(Rulemaking

—

UST)

R04-23

(Rulemaking

—

UST)

Consolidated

Ms. Marie E. Tipsord

Illinois Pollution Control Board

James R. Thompson Center

100 West Randolph, Suite 11-500

Chicago, IL 60601

NOTICE OF FILING

Now comes CLAIRE A. MANNING, on behalfofthe Professionals ofIllinois for the

Protection ofthe Environment, PIPE, and files with the Board, via facsimile, with permission, on

September 23, 2004, with hard copy placed in ov~iightmail on that sani~date, the attached

copies ofPIPE’S PUBLIC COMMENT.

CLAIRE A. MANNING

Posegate & Denes, P.C.

Ill N. Sixth Street, Suite 200

Springfield, Illinois 62701

(217) 522-6152

(217) 522-6184 (FAX)

c lal re@posegatc-dcncs.corn

Claire A. Manning

---

RECE~VED

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL

BOARDCLERKS OFFICE

INTHEMATTEROF:

)

SEP 2~

2004

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO:

))

R04-22

PollutionSTATE

OFControlLLINOISBoard

REGULATION PETROLEUM LEAKING

)

(Rulemaking

-

UST)

UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS

)

35 ILL. ADM. CODE 732

)

IN THE MATTER OF:

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO:

REGULATION PETROLEUM LEAKiNG

UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS

35 ILL. ADM. CODE 734

PUBLIC COMMENT

Now comes Professionals of Illinois for the Protection of the Environment, PIPE, by and

through its attorney, CLAIRE A. MANNING, and offers the following public comment for the

Board’s consideration prior to its First Notice Opinion and Order.

As a preliminary matter, the Professionals of Illinois for the Protection ofthe

Environment (PIPE) would like to thank the Pollution Control Board for its attentiveness and

questions throughout these important hearings. PIPE members and others, Dan Goodwin, on

behalfof the American Council ofEngineering Companies (“ACEC”) (formerly known as the

Consulting Engineers Council ofIllinois, or “CECI”), Mike Rapps, on behalfof the Illinois

Society for Professional Engineers (ISPE) and Bill Fleishli, on behalf ofthe Illinois Petroleum

Marketer’s Association (PMA), have testified to their concerns regarding these rules. PIPE

hopes that the Board is poised to adequately address and resolve these public concerns in a First

Notice proposal.

)

)

)

)

)

)

R04-23

(Rulemaking

—

UST)

Consolidated

---

However. resolution will require major revisions to the Agency’s proposal, revisions that

arc well within the Board’s authority under Section 27 and 28 ofthe Environmental Protection

Act (“Act”). PIPE has suggested alternative language that, in this Public Comment, it stands

behind and provides enhancement thereto. However, PIPE submits that, in the context ofBoard

rulemaking, it is not the commentor’s responsibility to provide justification for its suggested

language changes; it is the proponent’s responsibility to providejustification for the proposal it

requests the Board to adopt. PiPE’s alternative language was not drafted with the idea that the

Board accept each piece of language wholesale. It was drafted with the intention that the Board

recognize the missing and faulty concepts in the Agency’s rule, and draft a Board rule, for First

Notice, that makes this UST program work

—

in the specific areas earmarked by PIPE. While

PIPE members are divided as to the value of another hearing prior to any Board order in this

matter, if the Board is not poised to significantly address the concerns raised in this record, PIPE

would

suggest another hearing.

PIPE appreciates the many arduous hours the Agency has put into the drafting and

defense ofits proposal. The majority of the Agency’s work in revising its proposed rules is

commendable. With specific language changes to the three-bid scenario, as set forth below,

PIPE would be able to accept rates set forth for items that are subject to the bid scenario.

Further, while not opposed to the lump sum concept, PIPE believes that certain basic changes are

necessary prior to this concept actually working as the Agency has publicly claimed it expects.

As PIPE has voiced many times in this proceeding, PIPE fully supports the Agency’s efforts at

defining, where possible, in a regulatory context, what standard costs will be considered

“reasonable” so that reimbursement can proceed expeditiously arid without the usual conflict that

currently taints the reimbursement program.

2

---

PIPE suggests, however, that in its members’ experience with the UST program,

“reasonable” has too often been a moving target. What is “reasonable” and therefore

“approvable” to one reviewer may not be “reasonable” to another reviewer. What is

“reasonable” for one company to propose to the Agency may not be seen as “reasonable” when

another company proposes it. What was considered “reasonable” on a given rate sheet was,

without warning, considered “unreasonable” upon modification ofthat rate sheet. Certainly,

PIPE members applaud, and look forward, to a consistent application of identified “reasonable”

costs on the part ofthe Agency. However, PIPE queries: will what has historically been

“reasonable” during the last several years now, upon promulgation ofthese rules, suddenly

become “unreasonable”?

Certainly, PIPE companies, who have established viable UST remediation businesses

over the course ofthe last several years, have as much reason as anyone to ensure that the Board

establishes rules which are workable and which provide for an expeditious method of

reimbursing for the “reasonable” and the easily identifiable costs of remediation. The challenge,

ofcourse, is determining what is “reasonable.” The Board is generally called upon to determine

“reasonableness” in a myriad ofcontexts; usually those contexts have to do with the economic

reasonableness and technical feasibility ofa standard measurement of pollution. In this context,

the Board is called upon to assess, independently ofcourse, the propriety of the Agency’s

proposed rules that are, in large part, intended to regulate the “reasonableness” of the costs

attendant to the business of UST remediation. PIPE submits that, in this context,

“reasonableness” must inevitably envelope the concept of”fairness”: a fair valuation ofthose

costs and a fair process to expeditiously reimburse those who incurred them.’

Dictionary.com detines “lair” in

this

context to he

“reaso,,ahk~

as a basis lbr exchange” as in a

“fair

wage” or a

“fair valuation.”

Einp/wsis

£ukkd.

3

---

It is in this concept of“fairness” that the Agency’s proposal falls short of “reasonable.”

PIPE will attempt, in this Public Comment, to point specifically to those areas where the Board

should improve and enhance the Agency’s proposed rule prior to First Notice.

BASIC PROBLEMS WITH THE AGENCY’S PROPOSAL

In it’s Statement of Reasons and throughout its entire testimony, the Agency generally

maintains that these rules are necessary to “protect the fund”

---

specifically, to the tune of$25

million dollars annually. Further, throughout the record there is an insinuation that the fund is in

trouble because too much money has been paid out in reimbursement claims. Yet, there is no

record evidence in support ofthat assertion. In fact, the record evidence shows that assumption

to be wrong. The UST Fund Update Gary King submitted into evidence at the last hearing

demonstrates the following:

o Over the last 3 years, less than 70 ofthe UST fund has actually been paid out

annually in reimbursement for UST site remediation.

o While UST revenues

increased

from FY 03 to FY 04 by over $11 million dollars,

the amount ofmoney the State paid out in reimbursements for remediation

actually

decreased

during this same timeframe by about $7 million dollars.

o The

only

line item to increase in expenditures from FY 03 to FY 04 was the

IEPA’s operation which, in two fiscal years, has seen a $500,000 increase, from

$3.4 million in FY 02 to $3.9 million in FY 04. (These amounts do not include

the money the EPA also receives from the USEPA to operate this program.)

Importantly, the Agency has also not been able to provide, on the record of this

proceeding, any valuable data or projection concerning what effect these rules will have on the

fund. This point is crucial: if the Agency cannot provide to the Board a projected and sensible

4

---

analysis of the impact that the various costs set forth in the rules will have on the fund and, more

generally, on the UST program, how can the Board honestly determine that the Agency’s

regulation-based costs are reasonable? More importantly, how can the Agency assure the Board

that these proposed rules will have a

positive

impact on the state’s UST remediation program,

especially in the face ofthe serious concern that has been voiced by the very companies who are

conducting a large number ofthese remediations?

PIPE has established, through its testimony and exhibits, that there are over 10,000

Illinois UST sites that yet need to be remediated and at least half of those sites are considered

“inactive”

--

meaning that there have been no efforts, as yet, to even begin the remediation

process. Given these facts, the Agency in proposing these rules to the Board should be in a

position to assure it that they are designed to provide for a more directed use ofthe fund:

specifically, to provide for a maximum use ofthe fund for the purpose for which it was intended:

reimbursement ofUST sites. Only then can the Board be assured that the rule it promulgates

will have the intended positive effect: a UST remediation program that provides for a fair,

reasonable and timely reimbursement of the actual costs associated with the remediation. Only

then can the Board, and the State, be assured that these rules will have the affect of

promoting

the remediation ofthe remaining UST sites.

However, the Agency’s proposal, and its testimony, provides no such assurance. In the

face of significant opposition to its proposed rules, by those very companies who have a lion’s

share ofthe UST remediation business in Illinois, the Agency’s pointing to a few silent

companies who claim to be comfortable with the proposed rules certainly does not provide that

assurance.

5

---

There arc two basic problems with the Agency’s proposal. First, the proposed

reimbursement rates are flawed. They arc not based upon any empirical data, nor are they based

upon a representative sampling ofvarious UST sites. They are based upon outdated data, and

old sites. En many cases, the rates reflect rates that were established in old “rate sheets” that have

since been overridden by newer “rate sheets.” They do not consider or reflect any industry

standard pricing guidelines, such as

RS Means.

In the case of lump sums for specific items

(Corrective Action Reports, Site Investigations, etc.) they do not identify the scope ofwork to be

performed for the particular lump sum price.

Second, the proposal contains no commitment to any process efficiencies. PIPE has

suggested many; the Agency has rejected all. Hopefully, although the Agency has not

recognized that the workability of its program is at the very heart ofthis rulemaking, the Board

will recognize such

---

and deal with it

---

prior to promulgating this rule as its own.

SPECIFIC ISSUES

PIPE has proposed specific changes to the rules in its filing ofAugust 2, 2004. To a large

degree, those changes were the subject of testimony and questions at the Board’s last hearing. In

this public comment, PIPE enhances its suggested changes, based upon the information and

evidence contained in the Board’s record in this proceeding.

I.

REGULATORY, APPLICABILITY AND DEFINITIONAL ISSUES

Merge Parts. As previously indicated, these rules would be less confusing if they were

not proposed as two separate parts. PIPE, however, does not plan to take the initiative to merge

them, but would support the Board doing so. For ease ofthe reader, this Public Comment refers

only to the specific sections contained in Part 734. To the extent a similar section is contained in

Part 732, PIPE intends that the identical change be made to that section as well.

()

---

Applicability. PIPE suggests that the Agency’s proposed applicability section would

allow for an unlawful retroactive application of these Parts because it would apply to work

performed prior to the effective date ot’the rules. PIPE has suggested applicability language that

would avoid that result, but trusts that the Board itself can effectively “wordsmith” this section to

achieve the correct result.

UST-Remediation Applicant (UST-RA). In its proposed alternative language, PIPE

simply suggested creating a definition for those who actually perform the UST remediation and,

to do so, it borrowed a concept from the Brownfields program and suggested weaving that

definition throughout these rules. The Agency’s assertion, at the Board’s last hearing, that such

suggestion unlawfully draws an improper connection between Title XVI and Title XVII ofthe

Act is simply wrong. While it is true that PIPE drew the “RA” concept from the statutory

language contained in Title XVII, there was and is no intention to equate Title XVII with Title

XVI. Any definitional phraseology (“remediation consultant” or “applicant” or “agent”) can be

utilized. The point simply is that the person dealing with the Agency under these rules is

generally not the owner /operator, but the remediation consultant, however that entity or person

is defined. The UST-RA definition was simply proposed so that these rules, and the Agency,

would give recognition to that simple reality.

II.

REIMBUSEMENT ISSUES

Subpart H has been the source ofthe greatest controversy in this rulemaking. This Public

Comment draws upon, and enhances, PIPE’s Alternative Proposal that was filed on August 2,

2004 and was the subject of testimony at the Board’s last hearing.

PIPE commends the Agency for trying to find a way to protect the fund from

unreasonable costs and reimbursement requests. Further, PIPE agrees, as did the Ad-Hoc

7

---

workgroup, that lump sums, where appropriate, arc a good way to weed out excessive costs.

encourage defined and stable pricing, and allow for quicker and more efficient processing time.

However, PIPE submits that the professional services cost constraints proposed in this rule are

set too low to capture reasonable service costs and do not consider the actual work required to

perform the service or the variables attendant to work performance, efficiency and quality.

Further, if the procedural issues regarding “maximum payment amounts” and “extraordinary

costs” under Section 734.855 are not addressed by the Board, the lump sum payment concept

will simply not work. On that note, PIPE suggests that Section 734.855 needs to be significantly

redrafted.

Further, it is well documented in the record that the Subpart H cost numbers proposed by

the Agency are primarily based upon limited data from past incidents, much ofit from as far

back as 1998. The cost data was not analyzed using defendable scientific statistical procedures

orproper sampling of all available data. While the Agency submits, and PIPE accepts, that the

proposed numbers are the Agency’s attempt to establish a reasonable price, setting the numbers

to met the

50th

percentile and averaging costs, based on old data, unfairly hurts the consultants

that are capable of, and perform, good professional work at a reasonable cost. Further, costs that

the Agency reimbursed for in the past would now, upon promulgation ofthese rules, suddenly

become unreasonable and unreimbureseable to the eligible owner and operator.

The Board is therefore challenged, based upon this record, to determine what is

“reasonable” for purposes of reimbursement under Subpart F-I. PIPE submits there are several

ways that this can be done. One way is to make the Agency go back to the drawing board, and

develop these amounts based upon reliable and representative data and then, at the very least, set

the lump sums at a figure that captures at least 75 ofthe reasonable costs that the Agency has

---

processed. At this point, however. PIPE does not support that approach, as it has spent much

time and effort in this rulemaking, and supports the notion that reasonable reimbursement costs

should be, to the extent possible, set forth in regulations. These regulations were a long time in

coming as it is; PIPE would like to see the Board move something forward, in consideration of

the testimony it has heard to date.

A second approach is for the Board to recognize that the Agency’s Subpart H costs were

in large part based upon 1998 data and, at the very least, they should be adjusted for inflation. A

third approach, and the one PIPE proposes here, is for the Board to utilize, where possible,

RS

Means

to ascertain standardized industry costs. See 2004 RS Means

Environmental Cost

Handling Options and Solutions

(ECHOS) 1oth Edition. Further, as PIPE has proposed at

hearing, and further refines here, lump sum amounts, in order to be reasonable, must take into

consideration the actual scope of work required for the service being given on a lump sum basis.

PIPE accordingly suggests alternative values for the relevant lump sum amounts the Agency

proposes in these rules.

A. Usual and Customary Costs.

The Agency’s phraseology“maximum payment amounts” as the title and throughout

Subpart H is itself inconsistent with the Agency’s proposed Section 734.855 and Section 734.800

(b), which both provide that the Subpart H prices can be exceeded and are not intended to be

exclusive. While the Agency testified to its expectation that only a minor portion ofclaims

would fall under Section 734.855, the Agency is alone in such testimony and, further, as the rule

is currently drafted, the record does not support it.

Thus, PIPE proposes that a more accurate phraseology be used and, in its proposal, it

suggested the phrase “rcimburscable costs.” However, at the last Board hearing, the Agency

9

---

testimony reflects a confusion between the newly suggested “reimburseable costs” phraseology

and its existing “corrective action costs” phraseology contained in Section 734.630. PIPE

suggests that other terminology could be utilized, such as “usual and customary costs” or

“reasonable costs.”

The point is, as the Agency testified, and as PIPE accepts, these rules are intended to

allow for a remediation consultant to project the cost ofa project based upon the standardized

rates set forth in this rule, but other costs might be appropriate under Section 734.8

55.

Thus, the

phraseology “maximum payment amounts” is a misnomer and should not be adopted,

conceptually, by the Board in its regulatory language.

B.

Section 734.800 Applicability. For that same reason, PIPE proposed alternative

language to Section 734. 800 in its proposal. PIPE stands by that proposal, with the following

refinements, intended to provide clarity and to further address concerns raised at hearing.

Section 734.800

Applicability

a)

This Subpart H sets forth the costs that an owner and operator can expect

to be paid from the fund for various remediation activities. The costs are

divided into one ofthree formats: payment by lump sum; payment for

unit of production; or payment by time and materials. Where payment is

by lump sum, the dollar amount set forth in this subpart is presumed to be

reasonable for all tasks set forth in Appendix G. Where payment is by

unit of production, the dollar amount set forth is presumed to be

reasonable for all equipment, material and labor required to complete that

specific unit ofproduction task. Where payment is by time and materials,

the Agency will conduct a review to ensure the reasonableness ofthe time

and material budget request or expenditure.

b)

The costs listed under a particular task identify costs associated with the

task; they are not intended as an all-inclusive list ofall costs associated

with the task for purposes of payment from the Fund. Necessary costs not

listed under a particular task may be considered to represent extenuating

circumstances and, subject to adequate justification pursuant to this Part,

may necessitate additional payment.

I0

---

c)

Eligibility or ineligibility ot’a type ot’costs will be determined pursuant to

Subpart F of this Part. This Subpart H sets forth the reasonable costs for

purposes ofreimbursement ofthese eligible costs. Where lump sum or

unit of production costs are contained in this Subpart, applicants are not

required to provide a detailed time or materials breakdown or invoice for

costs associated with each task, provided that the costs are at or below the

specified lump sum or unit ofproduction costs set forth in this Subpart.

Costs in excess ofthese amounts will require separate and adequate

justification ofreasonableness on a time and materials basis.

d)

Any and all activities conducted under this Part that are required to be

conducted on an emergency basis, as directed by an entity ofthe State of

Illinois, shall be paid on a time and materials basis.

C.

Reasonable Costs ofUST Removal

—

Section 734.8 10. PIPE proposes alternative

rates to those proposed by the Agency in this Section. The rates PIPE proposes are derived

specifically from

RS Means,

a publication setting forth standard industry rates for various items,

rounded to the nearest hundred dollars. See 2004 RS Means

Environmental Cost Handling

Options and Solutions

(ECHOS) l0t~~Edition. The latest

RS Means

is widely available as a

technical publication but PIPE, in a separate filing, provides this document to the Board as a

supplement to the materials submitted at hearing. Attachment “A” to this Public Comment sets

forth the methodology PIPE used to arrive at the

RS Means

derived rate. These rates, we believe,

are eminently more justifiable as “reasonable” than those proposed by the Agency. PIPE also

proposes changes to the text ofthis section, to provide further clarity.

Section 734.810

UST

Removal or Abandonment Costs

The following payment for costs associated with UST removal or abandonment of

each UST shall be considered reasonable. With the exception of flowable

material utilized for tank abandonment, such costs shall include those associated

with the excavation, removal, disposal and abandonment o’the ~JST. They do not

include costs reluLed to the disposal of any residual material contained in the UST

system. Costs associated with the disposal of any residual material and costs

associated with flowable fill material will be reimbursed on a time and materials

basis

II

---

110

I ~

gallons

S2,00()

2.000—4.9~)’)gallons

54,400

S ,00()

I 4,990 gallons

57.500

I 5,000

10,999 gallons

S9.00()

20,000 or more gallons

$11,800

D.

Reasonable Costs of Free Product or Groundwater Removal and Disposal, Section

734.8

15.

With the exception of changing the Agency’s language from “costs.. .shall not

exceed” to “The following costs... .shall be considered reasonable” (and doing so throughout

this subpart), PIPE can accept the numbers proposed by the Agency as “reasonable” with the

understanding that the Agency’s three bid scenario, proposed in Section 732.855, is available

where these costs cannot be readily achieved.

E.

Drilling, Well Installation, and Well Abandonment, Section 734.8

15.

PIPE has

no alternative numbers to propose regarding pricing for bedrock coring or vacuum extraction.

However, PIPE points the Board to

RS Means

methodology concerning hollow-stem auger

drilling, well installation and abandonment. See Attachment “B”. Further, PIPE suggests that a

cleaner method of ascertaining costs and payment in these categories is to include drilling costs

in both subsections (a) and (b). As the Agency has proposed this section, subsection (b) stands

alone, but drilling is still required. Thus, PIPE’s suggested changes would establish payment

under subsection (a) for hollow-stem auger drilling and related costs where there is no well

installation at $26 per foot (accepting the Agency’s alternative $1,500 lump sum figure) and

hollow-stem auger drilling under subsection (b), where there

is

well installation, at

$57

per foot.

Since the Agency has proposed the three-bid scenario where warranted, which PIPE

argues is palatable with changes, PIPE proposes no further changes to the numbers proposed by

the Agency in this section. However, to allow for drilling costs using the direct push-platform

method in subsection (I,), where a monitor well is being installed, PIPE would simply suggest

12

---

adding the Agency’s proposed drilling cost olSIS per foot (subsection a) to it’s proposed cost of

$12.50 per foot under subsection (b) to set forth a subsection (b) rate (which now includes

drilling) of$27.50.

F.

Soil Removal and Disposal, Section 734.825.

PIPE has proposed language

changes to this section, which generally concern the need for consideration of compaction ofsoil

and consideration of off-site stockpiling. PIPE has no alternative figures to propose for this

section, however.

G.

Drum Disposal, Section 734.830; Sample Handling and Analysis, Section

734.835 and Concrete, Asphalt and Paving, Section 734.840. PIPE has proposed specific

language changes to each of these sections, which set forth more specific parameters for

payment, and payment exclusions, under each section. PIPE stands by those proposed changes,

and proposes no alternative figures to those proposed by the Agency in these sections.

H.

Professional Consulting Services, Section 734.845 and various other sections.

The majority ofthe hearing testimony was, in one way or another, related to the concern

voiced by PIPE and others that the Agency’s lump sum payment figures were lacking in

definition because they did not identify what tasks the Agency envisioned were included in the

payments that they seek to have the Board deem “reasonable” in these regulations. The

Agency’s position, akin to “we know it when we see it,” should not be accepted in a regulatory

context. If the Board’s expectation is that these rules are to provide the regulated public, in this

case owners and operators and those conducting UST remediation or them, with a clear

understanding of what is actually covered by these lump sum payments, such definition is

essential to the workability of these rules.

13

---

Throughout these proceedings PIPE and others have raised concerns about the lack of

methodology attendant to the Agency’s proposed rates for professional services related to liST

remediation. As just one example, PIPE has maintained that averaging of all professional job

titles into one lump sum rate, as the Agency’s proposal appears to do, is too heavily weighted

towards clerical staff, who spend a significantly less amount oftime on reports and field

activities than do professional staff.

Thus, in its alternative proposed language, PIPE referred to a new Appendix that would

clearly define the Scope of Work for each item where the Agency proposed a lump sum as a

“reasonable” reimbursement amount. The Agency has continued to reject such Scope of Work

delineation, and PIPE posits that such rejection is both unjustified and unreasonable. PIPE has

now completed the Scope of Work document and, as an attachment to these Public Comments,

includes a “Task Breakdown Method” which provides an explanation of the methodology used

by PIPE to suggest, in these Public Comments, a method for the Board to derive alternative

values to those proposed by the Agency for lump sum professional services. See Attachment

PIPE also includes, as Attachment “D”, a proposed Appendix G, referred to in PIPE’s

Alternate proposal, which provides a specific breakdown of all tasks associated with those

service items the Agency proposes to deem a specific lump sum price as “reasonable.” Similar

methodology was utilized to ascribe a “reasonable” value to professional field tasks and travel

costs.

In accordance with these attachments, PIPE suggests to the Board that there are different,

and better ways to value the lump sums than that offered by the Agency. Most importantly, the

figure must necessarily he reflective of the actual work and tasks required to perform the item

14

---

(hat is the subject of the sum. Further,

RS i~’k’ans,

where applicable, represents a recognized and

published industry standard. The Agency’s tigures did not even consider

RS tt’k’ans.

The

following table represents alternative values for various items in these rules, based upon the

scope of work and/or

RS Means.

REASONABLE LUMP SUM VALUE FOR SECflON~

-

734.845 AC~1VITIES

IEPA

Value

-..:

Task Breakdown

Value

.

RS Meai~

Value’~

Early ActioniUST RemovaL ExcavationOffice Tasks

—

$960.00

$1,425.75

N/A

734.845(a)(

1)

20 & 45 Report Preparation

—

734.845(a)(3)

$4.S00.00

$6.442.50

N/A

Stage I Site Investigation Plan— 734.845(b)(l)

$1.600.00

$2,505.00

N/A

Stage I Site Investigation Completion Report

—

734.845(b)(6)

$1.600.00

$6,189.00

N/A

Stage 2 Site Investigation Plan

—

734.845 (b)(2)

$3,200.00

$4,268.25

N/A

Conventional CAP

—

734.845 (c)(1)

$5,120.00

$9,770.25

N/A

Conventional CACR

—

734.845 (c)(4)

$5,120.00

$8,901.75

N/A

Reimbursement

—

734.845(d)(2)

N/A

$2,466.00

N/A

New Project Startup

—

734.845(d)(1)

N/A

$1,698.75

N/A

K*Citations to regulations reference PIPE’s proposal

REASONABLE LUMP SUM VALUE FQR;.L;:~:.:

PROFESSIONAL FIELDTASKS•

~

mPA:~::

Value~

Task Breakdown

Va1ue~.

:•RS Mea~s.~

Value ~

Oversight of 200 yd~of Excavation, Transportation, Disposal

& Backfill

$390.00

(for 225 yd’)

$703.00

$797.40

Oversight of the Installation of 4 Soil Borings

$390.00

$703.00

$1,228.40

Field Activities for 1 Monitoring Well

$390.00

$703.00

$610.87

In-Situ Hydraulic Conductivity Testing

$0.00

$703.00

$540.39

REASONABLE LUMP SUM VALUE

FOR MOBILIZATION AND

TRAVEL COSTS

-

PROPOSED

APPENDIX F

IEPA Value

Task Breakdown Value

~

•~.•

RS Means Value ~

~

~f

~

o to 29 miles

$140.00

$218.25

N/A

30 to 59 miles

$220.00

$376.50

N/A

60 to 89 miles

$300.00

$534.75

N/A

90 to 119 miles

$300.00

$693.00

N/A

120 to 149 miles

$300.00

$851.25

N/A

For all other professional services, where PIPE has not been able to ascribe a

standardized work breakdown structure, and attach estimated hours and therefore a specific value

to such service, PIPF~proposes that the regulations treat these items

Ofl

a time and materials

basms. Some of those specm lie areas are:

Is

---

Costs related to Stage 3 lump sum payments.

PIPE testimony has established that

many of the easier-to-resolve LUST sites have been closed, and have received

NFR status, over the course of the last tit’teen years. An ever-increasing number

of sites that are being remediated are the more complex and difficult sites to

resolve. PIPE submits that many of the open 10,000 LUST sites have not begun

to be addressed due to the complexity of the project and the extent of

contamination. At issue, then, is the Agency’s proposed lump sum payments for

stage three work, the very complex and oflen variable work that is necessary to

address these complex sites. PIPE testimony has established that the experience

of remediation consultants has shown that even when plans for monitoring and

boring in the most logical off-site locations are approved, the consultant may

nonetheless find himself (or herself) in the not uncommon situation of having to

“chase” the contamination. In order to properly do so, additional plans and

budgets may need to be sent to the Agency. This phased approach has worked

well, for both the Agency and the regulated community, because it ensures that

the extent of contamination is sufficiently defined with the fewest number of

borings and wells. It is not, however, appropriate for “lump sum” allocation.

Thus, PIPE suggests that stage 3 plans and budgets be treated on a “time and

material” basis.

o

Environmental Land Use Controls (ELUCs) and Highway Authority Agreements.

The Agency has proposed a cost limitation for obtaining ELUCs and Highway

Authority Agreements. PIPE members have testified to their experience that the

S800 proposed by the Agency is not sufficient to cover the work tasks and efforts

16

---

generally necessary to obtain these agreements. These task items should not be

lump sum costs since the work involved is highly variable, with different levels

ofcomplexity from site to site.

o

TACO related work.

The Agency has proposed an $800 lump sum cost limitation

for professional consulting services associated with the development of Tier 2

and Tier 3 TACO remediation objectives, excluding field costs. PIPE members

have testified to their experience that this lump sum amount is not enough to

cover the work tasks and efforts generally necessary to perform and justify the

TACO work for Tier 2, let alone including Tier 3, except in the most basic ofsite

situations.

I.

Bidding, Agency’s Newly Proposed Section

734.855/732.855;

Proof of Payment

from Subcontractors. In its Third Errata Sheet, the Agency has proposed a bidding process as

“an alternative to the maximum payment amounts set forth in this Subpart H.” Generally in this

Public Comment, PIPE refers to this provision as the “three-bid scenario.”

Initially, PIPE

comments that the three-bid scenario is a good way to develop costs for subcontractor services

when the listed Subpart H costs are not adequate.

However, several issues need to be addressed by the Board, and language changed, in

order to make these provisions workable and palatable.

First, the Agency seriously

underestimates the amount of time and effort that will be required to conduct this bidding. How

does the Agency propose that the time it takes to create and evaluate the bids will be paid?

Certainly, the Agency should recognize that payment should be allowed on a time and materials

basis, but such is not accounted for in the rules as drafted.

17

---

Second. as an alternative to the three-bid scenario, PEPE suggests that the Board allow for

the contractor to justify costs in excess of the Subpart -I costs also by the utilization ofpublished

industry data, such as

RS imvfeans.

in lieu of obtaining three bids. Third, there is no record

justification for the Board to adopt the Agency’s limitation of bids to those subcontractors who

are not financially related to the prime contractor.

This latter point demonstrates how the Agency’s rule proposal, and thought process in

presenting that proposal, is not built upon actual data and business knowledge, but based upon a

faulty presumption, nowhere justified in the record, that costs are inevitably higher where a

prime contractor has established his or her own subcontracting business related to the prime

business such as, in the case of UST remediation, a consultant who owns a drilling company.

PIPE testimony has established that this presumption is simply not justified and that rather, a

contractor who has his or her own drilling company is able to operate more efficiently because

the drilling service is generally able to be accessed by the prime contractor whenever necessary.

Likewise, PIPE opposes the Agency’s new proposal to require proof of payment to

subcontractors as a requirement for payment from the fund. First, this again is an unnecessary

overly bureaucratic requirement that has no relationship to cost containment and should not be a

concern addressed by state regulation. Requiring proofofsubcontractor payment before a claim

can be submitted only slows the reimbursement process, and provides a hardship to the small

businesses and individuals in the State. It does not allow for subcontractors who have agreed to

extended payment terms, or to wait for payment until reimbursement is obtained. If the primary

contractor agrees to wait for payment once the money is reimbursed, why should that concern

Agency or be the subject of regulations? The work was done and documented and general

1l~

---

accounting practices contirm that once a project is invoiced, the cost for services has been

expended.

Without this ability to rely on the tiand, only the largest and wealthiest UST owners or

corporations can afford the up-front costs to comply with these regulations. Requiring proof of

subcontractor payment before a claim can be submitted unfairly discriminates against the small

businesses throughout Illinois. The Board should not sanction this proposed requirement.

J.

Corrective Action Costs. PIPE testimony suggests strongly that compaction and

of backfill material should be removed as an ineligible cost and treated as an eligible cost.

Without compaction, the record indicates that excavation settles and the site must be revisited to

add additional backfill. Further, the Board should remove, as an ineligible cost under Section

734.630 (nn) costs that are incurred after the NFR letter is issued. Also, as set forth above,

Section

734.630

(ii) should be deleted (disallowance of handling charges for subcontractors

when contractor has not submitted proof of payment). The Agency’s interference in private

party transactions, as this section represents, is unwarranted.

Consultants often hire

subcontractors who are willing to wait for payment until reimbursement is received. There is no

reason for the Agency to prohibit this acceptable business practice.

Likewise, as also argued above, Section 734.630 (oo) should be stricken (disallowance

for handling charges where the subcontractor and contractor have a related financial interest).

The definition of “handling charges” means administrative, insurance, and interest costs and a

reasonable profit for the procurement, oversight, and payment of subcontracts and field

purchases. As is evident from the definition, consultants or contractors incur expenses when

paying subcontractors regardless if they have a direct or indirect financial interest in the

subcontractor. It is unfair to deny handling charges in this context.

19

---

Section 734.630 (aaa) should also he stricken (costs an owner and operator is required to

pay a government entity for the remediation and corrective action such as permit fees,

institutional control fees, property access fees, etc.) Further, in the past few months, the Agency

has been, for the first time, denying requests for reimbursement for sales tax paid by contractors

or consultants on supplies needed to conduct the remediation. The fund has been established as

an insurance program to allow an owner and operator, once the deductible is paid, to access the

fund for all costs incurred that are related to the remediation. The Agency’s response to this

suggestion was that they saw no need to transfer money from one state entity to another. The

point the Agency misses is that the UST fund is not “state” money, nor is it “agency” money.

It’s a fund, paid into by the owners and operators via their payment of motor fuel tax, for the

specific purpose of assuring them that their properties can be completed remediated by

accessing the fund, once a deductible is paid.

K.

TACO-related Issues, Section 732.408; 732.606 (ggg); 732.606 (hhh~: 734.410;

734.630 (ggg); 734.630 (eee). Recently, the Agency has proposed to eliminate payment of

remediation costs associated with Tier 1 remediation objectives and to force the use of a

groundwater ordinance where a community has one. PIPE testimony indicated that, where

feasible, owners and operators have utilized the benefits of TACO for UST remediation.

However, IPMA is strongly opposed to mandating a TACO clean up as part ofthese regulations.

PIPE supports EPMA’s concerns regarding this mandate in the context ofthe UST program. PIPE

believes that the TACO-related portion of this proposal should not move forward at this time,

certainly not without further hearings.

II.

PROCESS AND PROCEDURAL ISSUES

20

---

As stated above, process issues are at the very heart ot’this proposal and, while they have

not been recognized by the Agency, the very workability of these rules depends on the Board

recognizing those issues

—

and dealing with them

--

to the full extent of its authority. No one,

save the Agency, believes that these rules will work as envisioned without significant revision.

That alone is significant. Certainly, the PIPE members who testified and who, as the record

clearly establishes, access the Agency’s process as much or more than anyone, certainly have no

such confidence in the workability of the rules as proposed. Rather, they look to the Board to

sort the issues out, prior to moving this forward as a Board rule.

PIPE has suggested to the Agency various ways that would make this process more

efficient. The Agency has rejected them all, and stands on its belief, unsupported by anything at

all in the record, that this process will work efficiently as soon as the Board promulgates the

costs it has deemed “reasonable” as “maximum payment costs.” To the extent it has heard

resounding evidence to the contrary, it has responded that there are other silent contractors out

there, waiting in the wings apparently, ready to pounce on the state’s UST sites as soon as the

Agency lowers its reimbursement rates. Yet, it is the members ofPIPE before the Board in this

rulemaking who have developed viable businesses geared specifically toward the remediation of

UST sites and who know this program, and its foibles, as well as (or better than) the Agency

itself.

PIPE has suggested that the Agency make this process electronic. The Agency has

suggested that any such change would be entirely too costly and not beneficial.

PIPE

realistically recognizes, and accepts, that the Board will be hesitant to require its sister Agency

to develop efficiencies in this process through the use of electronic means. However, PIPE can

assure the Board that this program would benefit greatly from process efficiencies that could be

21

---

achieved through (lie electronic processing of’ reports and reimbursement claims.

Such

processing would allow for quicker Agency review, more timely payments, and data collection

that can be used to make forward-looking decisions.

Likewise, given the ditTerent nature of disputes that arise from the UST remediation,

PIPE has suggested that the Agency develop, as an alternative prior to formal appeal to the

Board, an alternative process for the resolution of disputes. Clear from Gary King’s testimony

at the last hearing, the Agency has set in its heals in dead-set opposition to agreeing to any

alternative, less costly final state determination of disputed UST remediation cost

reimbursement issues. Thus, PIPE retracts that item from its proposal.

While PIPE understands why the Board would not mandate the above improvements,

PIPE strenuously appeals to the Board to adopt three procedural concepts in these rules, all three

ofwhich are necessary to make this rule work. Each ofthese three changes is well within the

Board’s authority to promulgate in the context ofthis rule.

First, the rules should require that, prior to any denial, the Agency give notice ofthe

specific reason for the denial and an opportunity to correct the deficiency, within the 120-day

review period. The Agency’s response to that suggestion, that it would take too much time

because there are too many rejected claims, is inconsistent with its testimony elsewhere that

these rules are designed to work so that 90 ofthe claims would fall within the Subpart H

parameters and, accordingly, should be immediately approvable

---

without any significant

review. Moreover, the lack ofsuch notice ofdenial may well jeopardize the due process

component of the administrative process. See

Wells Manufacturing C’o., v. Illinois E.P.A. 552

N.E. 2d 1074,

195

Ill. App. 3d 593, 142 Il. Dec. 333, (la’ Dist. 1990).

22

---

Second, the rules should allow for a shorter processing time than 120 days where the

applicant’s budget meets all the standardized fees contained in these new rules. Gary King’s

testimony on this point, at the last hearing, is perplexing. Basic administrative law principals

would suggest that, when a law obligates a governmental entity to make a decision within a

certain time parameter, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the government entity

committing, even in regulations, to a

shorter

processing time.

Mr. King’s testimony on this point speaks volumes regarding the Agency’s position in

this whole rulemaking. He indicated that the Agency had a “right” to make its decision within a

120-day time frame and that it would be unlawful to require it to make its decision sooner.

Presumably, the Agency fully intends to take its entire 120 days whenever it feels justified in

doing so. What the Agency confuses here is “rights” with “obligations.” As an entity ofthe

state, it has no “right” to

take

the statutory amount of time, it has an “obligation” to make a

decision

in at least

that amount oftime.

Such position ignores the legitimate point PIPE is trying to make here, especially given

the significant testimony regarding the concerns ofPIPE members have testified to concerning

the bias they believe marks the current system. That point: where a company proposes a budget,

plan or seeks a claim that is totally within the parameters ofthese new rules, especially this new

Subpart H, the processing time should be

immediate,

the review should be minimal or non-

existent, and the Agency should so commit. Whether that’s 30 days, 45 days, 60 days, or 90

days, it certainly should

not

take 120 days

—

for each and every claim. PIPE would suggest to

the Board that, when the legislature designed the 120 day timeframe, it was not aware of the

Agency’s desire to present what, in effect, is a cost containment rule, as such cost containment

23

---

measures as (lie Agency presents in this rulemaking were not provided for in the legislative

changes that are the actual impetus for this rulemaking.

Third and finally, the rules should mandate, as does the Act, that any Agency denial letter

set forth the specific reasons for the denial, based upon the specific section of the Act (or, more

appropriately, these reimbursement rules) with which the Agency believes the applicant has not

complied. The current Agency’s denial letter is totally insufficient. When an appeal is taken, the

petitioning party is at a complete disadvantage in the Board’s current process because it has the

burden of showing why the Agency was wrong, based upon the way the Agency “framed” the

issue and, in most cases, the Agency has not even framed an issue. PIPE has proposed language

on this point would require that the Agency follow the relevant provisions of the law and,

further, would put the burden on the Agency to establish why the plan, budget or report was not

“approvable” in the context ofits new, presumably “streamlined” rules. PIPE welcomes Board

wordsmithing on this, or any, of its proposed language.

The Agency’s continued opposition to these basic changes is not justified

—

especially

given its consistent testimony that the process will work more efficiently once the Board adopts

its rules. PIPE has presented significant testimony that one ofthe major (and most unnecessary)

costs to a company is the cost of dealing with the Agency’s LUST unit. The Agency asks the

Board to believe that efficiencies will be the natural outcome of this very controversial rule,

despite the fact that the Agency itself has not committed to any efficiencies and, presumably,

upon promulgation, it will continue to administer this program utilizing the very same number of

staff it currently employs. Very few who have testified in these hearings believe that these rules,

without significant redrafting on the part ofthe Board, will work as the Agency intends.

24

---

CONCLUS ON

In the interest of moving this matter forward, and providing a semblance ofstability for

this program, PIPE has made, in good faith, legitimate suggestions geared to achieving what

should be everyone’s basic objective: making this program work so that Illinois UST sites can

be effectively and efficiently remediated, through an intelligent and judicious use ofthe UST

fund.

PIPE thanks the Board for the opportunity to present its position in this important matter.

While the parties appear to be significantly at loggerheads on various issues, PIPE hopes that the

Board can, through its good and proficient offices, sort through these issues and move this matter

forward in a way that works to promote the remediation ofUST sites in illinois.

Res

tfully submitted,

~EA.Ma~ng

On Behalf of the Professionals of Illino~ for the

Protection ofthe Environment

CLAIRE A. MANNING

Posegate & Denes, P.C.

Ill N. Sixth Street, Suite 200

Springfield, Illinois 62701

(217) 522-6152

claire(Zi~osegate-denes.com

25

---

RS Means (2004) Up to

-

2,000 gal UST Removal

z

-.3

Mssn~y1

~“.DescriptIon-~

‘-aUnltCost”~,~1~~.~4..~’~~units

-..-

:.~ ~-..

cost~-~~.

17

02 0208 Demolish

Mesh Reinforced Concrete to 6” thick

with

Power Equipment

$42.57

c.y.

2.6

c.y.

$110.68

33

10

9502

Remove Steel/Fiberglass UST, up to 2,000 gallons

$1,765.00

ea.

1

ea.

$176500

Backfill Material. Transportation and

Labor

(per EPA)

$20.00

c.y.

10

c.y.

$20000

Total Cost:

$2,075.68

RS Means (2004)

-

2,001 -5,000 gal UST Removal

A~sefl1blyt

DescrIpt1on~

..

~

17 02

0208 Demolish Mesh Reinforced

Concrete to 6”

thick

with Power Equipment

$42.57

c.y.

3.7

c.y.

$157.51

33 10

9505 Remove

Steel/Fiberglass UST, 2,001-5,000 gallon

$3747.00

ea.

I

ea.

$3747.00

Backfill

Material, Transportation and Labor (per EPA)

$20.00

c.y.

25

c.y

$50000

Total Cost:

$4,404.51

RS Means (2004)

-

5,001-15,000

gal UST Removal

A,i~ithl’jl

•~-. .,.:~--.‘-

.. ~. .

Description

.

~

. ...

A

UnitCoSt-Y’,,”.

.~

..~~.~Unjti’

.~

P,.:‘t~

Cost~.i’-;r

17 02

0208 Demolish Mesh Reinforced Concrete to 6” thick with Power

Equipment

$42.57

c.y.

7.1

c.y.

$302.25

33 10

9506

Remove Steel/Fiberglass UST 5.001-15,000 gallon

$5643.00

ea.

1

ea.

$5,643.00

Backfill

Material.

Transportation and Labor (per IEPA)

$20.00

c.y.

75

c.y.

$1,500.00

Total Cost:

$7,445.25

RS Means (2004)

-

15,001-20,000 gal UST Removal

£is.n~y~

.~ ~

Descriptlon-~-

;J.;~

‘..-.

~

~UnltCost~~’t

M1~$c’4..Unlts

.‘. .-... ,- ~.-Cost.~~-

17 02

0208

D~m~lishMesh Reinforced Concrete to 6’ thick with Power Equipment

$42.57

c.y.

8.9

c.y.

$378.87

33 13 9507 Remove Steel/Fiberglass UST, 15,001-20,000 gallon

$6,597.00

ea.

1

ea.

$6,597.00

Backfill Material. Transportation and Labor (per EPA)

$20.00

c.y.

100

c.y.

$200000

Total Cost:

$8,975 87

RS Means (2004)

-

20,000

-

30,000

gal UST Removal

~~~i~fyt

-c~4~Descrlptlon

-A

:

:~-‘,.:,:,‘,

.

-

UnltCost~.:’~-.~

~l..,Pt

Units. ~

17 02 0238 Demolish Mesh Reinforced Concrete to 6” thick

with

Power Equipment

$42.57

c.y.

9.9

c.y.

$421.44

33 10 9508

Remove Steel/Fiberglass UST 20,000-30,000 gallon

$8,364.00

ea.

1

ea

$8,364.00

Backfill Material, Transportation and Labor (per IEPA)

$20.00

c.y.

150

c.y.

$3,000.00

Total Cost:

$11,785.44

--

~-----

~

- -----~-~ - -------- I

---

ATTACUMENT n

RS Means (2004)

-

Monitor Well Installation Costs for 2”, 4”, 6” and 8” Wells

Construction Cost Based on Depth of Well

Assembly#

-

DescrIptIon ~

Unit Cost

15 feet ‘-20

feet

- -

25

feet

30

feet~

33

2321012”

33 23 2102

33232103

33232105

Beritonite Seal

4” Bentontle SeaL

6” Bentonite Seal

8” Bentonite Seal

39,29

each

98.25

each

157.17 each

216.16 each

39.29

39.29

39.29

39.29

98.25

98.25

98.25

98.25

157.17 157.17 157.17 157.17

216.16 216,16 216.16 216.16

-

-

~

- ‘..‘

--

l5feet 20feet 25feet 30feë~

3323 1401

33 23 1402

33 23 1403

33 23 1403

2”Screen Filter Pack

4” Screen Filter Pack

6” Screen Filter Pack

8” Screen Filter Pack

10.65 /LF

18.79 / LF

27.25 / LF

27.25

I

LF

117,15 117.15 117.15 117.15

206.69 206.69 206.69 206.69

299.75 299.75 299.75 299.75

299.75

299.75

299,75

299.75

i--~:~~~

-

- -

15feet

20

feet

25feet

-

30’fe~~

3323 1801

3323 1802

33 23 1803

33 23 1804

2”WeU Grout (Annular Seal)

4”Well Grout (AnnularSeal)

6” Well Grout (Annular Seal)

8’ Well Grout (Annular Seal)

47,40

/LF

81.87

/LF

120.64

I

LF

160.86

I

LF

47.40

284.40

521.40

758.40

81.87

491.22

900.57

1309.92

120.64

723.84

1327.04

1930.24

160.86

965.16

1769.46

2573.76

-

-.

-~ - ~

~-. -~:~-~‘-

-~ - ‘-‘

l5feet

20feet-

25feet

30fee~

33 23 0101

33 23 0102

33 23 0103

3323 0104

2” Pvc

Sch 40 Well Casing

4” PVC Sch 40 Well Casing

6” Pvc

Sch 40 Well Casing

8”PVCSch4oWellCasing

10.16

/ LF

16.22

I

LF

16.99

I

LF

23.05

/LF

50.80

101.60

152.40

203,20

81.10

162.20

243.30

324.40

84.95

169.90

254.85

339.80

115.25

230.50

345.75

461.00

-

-;~-~‘:

-- --

~

-.

-

15 feet

-

20

feet

-25 feet

30

feet~

33 23 0201

33230202

33 23 0203

33 23

0204

2” PVC Sch 40 Well Screen

4”PVCSch4OWellScreen

6” PVC Sch 40

Well Screen

8” PVC Sch 40 Well Screen

14.28

/ LF

24.17

ILF

30.77

I

LF

42.24

/ LF

142.80

142.80

142.80

142.80

241.70

241.70

241.70

241.70

307.70

307.70

307.70

307.70

422.40

422.40

422.40

422.40

P

‘~~‘.‘::

‘ -.

15 feet

20 feet

25 feet

30 feet”’~

33 23 0301

33 23 0302

33 23 0303

33230304

2” PVC Well Plug

4” PVC Well

Plug

6” PVC Well Plug

8” PVC Well Plug

19.12 each

43.34

each

95.48

each

113.96

each

19.12

19.12

19.12

19.12

43.34

43.34

43.34

43.34

95.48

95.48

95.48

95.48

113.96

113.96

113.96

113.96

—

--

- . -,

-,p~-

:

-

- -

15 feet.

20 feet

-

25 feet

30 feet~

33 23 2211

33 23 2212

33 23 2214

33 23 2214

2” Well Finish Flush (8” x 7.5” MH

w/ Lock Cap)

4” Well Finish Flush (8” x 7.5” MH

w/ Lock Cap)

12”x7.5” Locking Manhole Cover, Watertight

12” x 7.5” Locking Manhole Cover, Watertight

309.97 each

327.38 each

282.41

each

282.41

each

309.97 309.97 309.97 309.97

327.38 327.38 327.38 327.38

282.41

282.41

282.41

282.41

282.41

282.41

282.41

282.41

-..

-

15 feet

20 feet

25 feet

30

feet~

3323 1504

33 23 1504

33 23 1502

33 23 1502

ConcreteSurface Pad (2ftx2ftx4in.)

Concrete Surface Pad (2 ft x 2 ft x 4 in.)

Concrete Surface Pad (4 ft x4 ftx4 in.)

Concrete Surface Pad (4 ft x 4 ft x4 in.)

115.30

each

115.30

each

179.35

each

179.35

each

115.30

115.30

115.30

115.30

115.30

115.30

115.30

115.30

179.35

179.35

179.35

179.35

179.35

179.35

179.35

179.35

- - ~

r~’I”

.- --

‘

15 feet

20 feet

-

25 feet

.

30

feet7~

33 17 0808 Decontaminate Rig, Augers (Rental Equipment)

108.60

day

14.88

19.85

24.81

29.77

15 feet

20 feet

25 feet

30 feet~

2” Monitor Well

Total Cost

856.71 1149.48 1442.24 1735.00

4” Monitor Well

Total Cost

1210.51 1705.93 2201.34 2696.75

6” Monitor Well

Total

Cost

1542.33 2235.45 2928.56 3621.67

8” Monitor Well

Total Cost

1805.02 2729.54 3654.05 4578.56

15 feet

-

20 feet

25 feet

30 f~

2” Monitor Well

Cost Per Ft.

57.11

57.47

57.69

57.83

4” Monitor Well

Cost Per Ft.

80.70

85.30

88.05

89.89

6” Monitor Well

Cost Per Ft.

102.82

111.77

117.14

120.72

8” Monitor Well

Cost Per Ft.

120.33

I 136.48

146.16

152.62

---

From a 2-inch to a 4-inch well the difference

(ratio)

is:

ItIMt~

1,41

1.48

~I~!

1.53

~!

1.55

From a 2-inch to a 6-Inch well the difference (ratio) is:

1.80

1.94

2.03

2.09

From a 6-inch to an 8-inch well the difference

(ratio)

is:

1.17

1.22

1.25

1.26

From a 4-inch to an 8-Inch well the difference

(ratio)

is:

1.49

1.60

1.66

1.70

RS Means (2004)

-

Monitor Well Abandonment Costs for 2”, 4”. 6” and 8”

Wells

Total Cost

5385.23

$513.65

$642.06

$770.47

33~U~b*9~23 1822 Well

~I

Abandonment, 2” Well

18.11

I

LF

~tsfe~

271.65

t4M~

362.2

452.75

543.3

33

23 1823 Well Abandonment, 4” Well

31.13 /LF

466.95

622.6

778.25

933.9

33 23 1824 Well Abandonment, 6” Well

57.43

I

LF

861.45

1148.6

1435.75

1722.9

33 23 1825 Well Abandonment, 8” Well

89.16 /LF

1337.4

1783.2

2229

2674.8

I

RS Means (2004)

-

Hollow Stem Auger. 8” dia. Borehole 100 ft. Deep Costs

M~Oi~flbiy~# ~

2~Unltc~Ost~

~

33 22 1101 Hollow Stem Auger, 8” dia. Borehole,

100 ft.

24.69

ft.

370.35

493.80

617.25

740.70

33 17 0808

Decontaminate Rig, Augers (Rental Equipment)

108.60

day

14.88

19.85

24.81

29.77

---

ATTACHMENT C

TASK

BREAKDOWN

METHOD

This document describes the methodology utilized by PIPE members in assessing

alternative values to the “lump sum” payments the Agency proposes to be deemed

“reasonable” in Part 732 and proposed Part 734. The method has been applied to propose

new values to three speci tic areas where the Agency has proposed “lump sums” as the

method for determining what is “reasonable” to be reimbursed for activities related to

UST reimbursement. Specifically, those areas are: Section

845

and Section

Instead ofcoming up with one single weighted average for an hourly cost, PIPE

determined that it would be more appropriate to break UST remediation project personnel

into

5

groups. PIPE then used the method in which Mr. Chappel determined the

S80/Hour average and applied the IEPA’s personnel rates as set forth in its 3’~Errata

sheet to develop the following average hourly rate to applicable categories.

SP

Staff Professional

-

Engineers, Geologists,

Scientists,

and Project Managers

$93.25

LP

Licensed Professional

-

Professional Engineers and Professional Geologists...

$120.00

T

Technician

—

Technicians

$65J)0

OS

Office Staff- Account Technician & Administrative Assistant

$50.00

DC

Draftsperson/CAD

-

DraftspersoniCAD

$60.00

Accepting that a lump sum figure could be applied to those tasks that do not vary widely

in scope, so long as the scope of work necessary to properly complete the task was taken

into consideration, PIPE undertook the following steps:

1. Revised Scope of Work

—

PIPE started with the scope ofwork originally

presented to the IEPA by the Ad-Hoc Workgroup, led by ACEC (formerly CECI).

Various individuals, as well as PIPE, have put that document into evidence in the

Board’s record. PIPE then updated that document, to match the regulations as

proposed. Additionally, for tasks which the Ad-Hoc Workgroup did not have a

scope ofwork, PIPE developed one using similar methodology. The revised

scope ofwork is attached to PIPE’s Public Comments as Attachment “D.”

2. Assignment of Hours/Duties

--

PIPE members then assigned the number of

hours (minimum and maximum) that each believed were necessary to accomplish

the given item. These hours were then summed to obtain a range ofhours in

which it is believed a report can be typically completed. Additionally, each work

line item was assigned to one of the five personnel groups described above,

appropriate to the task being performed. Based on that distribution, a number of

hours were assigned to each personnel grouping for each report.

3. 9O~~percentile

—

The

90th

percentile between the minimum and maximum

number ofhours was calculated, and used, as the lump sum number of hours

needed l’or preparation of these reports. The 90~percentile was chosen based

upon the Agency’s stated desire to have 90 percent ofsubmittals fall within the

lump sum prices set forth, as “reasonable” in Subpart I-I.

---

4.

Assessment of Cost of Specific Project

--

These hours were then multiplied by

the personnel rates as set forth above, based upon the Agency’s personnel rates,

and summed together. In addition, a lump sum was developed for the direct

expenses detailed (based on current document costs and postage charges as well

as a typical number ofcopies multiplied by a copy per page rate on a previous

EPA rate sheet).

A spreadsheet, which details the above-described process, is attached.

Using a similar methodology, new figures for the half-day rate and travel expenses were

also derived:

Lump Sum Rates for Field Activities

According to Mr. Bauer’s testimony, the majority ofthe field activities forwhich the

IEPA allocated a lump sum rate were based upon having one person on-site. Hearing

testimony and exhibits indicate that OSHA and workload requirements generally mandate

that two personnel are needed on-site during remediation activities. Therefore, utilizing a

version of the method described above, the lump sum rate has been re-calculated and is

based upon having two people on site in the following manner.

IEPA

I person

$80/Hour

4 Hours$70 equipment and supplies

Total

$390/Task

PIPE

I Technician

$65/Hour

4 Hours$70 equipment and supplies

I Professional $93.25/Hour

4 Hours

Total

$703/Task

PIPE submits that these changes should be made to the lump sum rates applicable to field

activities throughout the IEPA’s proposed regulations, including the field activities which

PIPE has outlined in its proposal that were not included in the Agency’s proposal.

Travel Expenses

The Agency has again based its travel upon one person traveling to the site in the manner

as follows:

0 to 29 miles

I person

1 hour $80/hour

$60/day for vehicle

$140

30-59

miles

I person

2 hours $80/hour

$60/day for vehicle

$220

60+ miles

1 person

3 hours $80/hour

$60/day for vehicle

$300

PIPE submits that this formula should be modified in three ways: (1) the travel should be

allocated for 2 people in accordance with OSHA and workload requirements as has been

discussed previously; (2) 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; (3) given testimony that establishes that remediation

companies have UST sites throughout the state, a 60+ mile limitation is not “reasonable.”

---

As with the Agency proposal, one hour is allocated towards travel for every 30 miles of

one-way travel or fraction thereofand

there is a

$60 day vehicle charge allowed. If two

personnel are considered to be traveling, as better reflects reality, the more “reasonable”

travel reimbursement rates would be as follows:

0-29 miles

$218.25

30-59

miles

$376.50

60-89 miles

$534.75

90-I 19 miles

$693.00

---

Office Tasks 734

Task ID# Section

Description

IEPA

Hours

Rate

Total

Our Pmposal

Personnel Hours

Rate

Total

1

(a)(1)

EarlyAcuon

12

$ 80.00 $

960.00

OS

8

$

50.00 $

400.00

SP

11

$ 93.25

$ 1,025.75

Totals

19

$ 1,425.75

2

(a)(3)

20 &45

Day Reports

60

$ 80.00 $4,800.00

DC

10

$ 60.00 $

600.00

OS

10

$ 50.00 $

500.00

LP

4

$

120.00

$

480.00

SP

50

$ 93.25

$

4,662.50

Direct

Expenses

$ 200.00 $

200.00

Totals

74

$

6,442.50

3

(b)(1)

Stage 1

20

$ 80.00 $1,600.00

LP

2

$

120.00 $

240.00

OS

6

$

50.00

$

300.00

SP

20

$

93.25

$

1,865.00

Direct Expenses

$

100.00 $

100.00

Totals

28

$ 2,505.00

4

(b)(6)

Stage 1

SICR

20

$

80.00 $ 1,600.00

DC

4

$ 60.00 $

240.00

OS

9

$

50.00

$

450.00

LP

8

$ 120.00 $

960.00

SP

46

$ 93.25 $ 4,289.50

Direct Expenses

$

250.00

$ 250.00

Totals

67

~

6,189.50

5

(b)(2)

Stage2

Plan

40

$ 80.00

$3,200.00

DC

10

$ 60.00 $

600.00

OS

10

$

50.00

$

500.00

LP

8

$ 120.00 $

960.00

SP

21

$ 93.25 $ 1,958.25

Direct Expenses

$

250.00 $

250.00

Totals

49

I

$ 4,268.25

6

(c)(1)

Conventional

CAP

64

$

80.00 $5,120.00

DC

13

$ 60.00

$

780.00

05

12

$ 50.00 $

600.00

LP

8

$

120.00

$

960.00

SP

77

$

93.25

$ 7,180.25

Direct Expenses

$250.00 $

250.00

Totals

110

I

$

9,770.25

7

(c)(4)

Conventional

CACR

64

$

80.00 $5,120.00

DC

16

$ 60.00 $

960.00

OS

15

$ 50.00

$

750.00

LP

12

$ 120.00 $ 1,440.00

SP

59

$ 93.25 $

5,501.75

Direct Expenses

$ 250.00 $

250.00

Totals

102

I

$ 8,901.75

8

(d)(2)

Reimbursement

OS

17

$ 50.00 $

850.00

SP

8

$

93.25 $

746.00

LP

6

$ 120.00 $

720.00

Direct Expenses

$

150.00 $

150.00

Totals

31

I $

2,466.00

9

(d)(1)

New

Project

Startup

05

6

$ 50.00 $

300.00

SP

15

$ 93.25 $ 1,398.75

Totals

21

j $

1,698.75

OS

Office Staff

$

50.00

Used Chappol method & 3rd errata

ti’s

SP

Staff Professional

$ 93.25

DC

Draftsman/CAD

$ 60.00

LP

Licensed Professional

$ 120.00

---

ATTACHMENT 0

APPENDIX G: SCOPE OF WORK FOR LUMP

SUM ITEMS

732.845 (a) & 734.845 (a)(1)--Early Action UST Removal/Excavation

OSFM Correspondence:

Initial Notification Form preparation and submittal

Application for Removal/Abandonment (one) preparation and submittal to

0/0 for signature

Submit removal/abandonment permit to OSFM

Scheduling

Eligibility and Deductibility Letter preparation and submittal

Amended Notification Form preparation and submittal

Prepare waste profile

(arrange for landfill approval)

Determine EA excavation limits

Arrange for subcontractors (tank removal

contractor,

landfill, backfill, etc.)

Prepare waste manifests (or tracking forms)

Project scheduling

EA extension preparation, submittal and follow up

Prepare site health and safety plan

Call J.U.L.I.E and

I

or municipality for utility locate

732.845

(a)(3) & 734.845(a)(3)--20-Day Certification and 45-Day

Report

Project management and coordination

Prepare 20 Day certification

Prepare one CAD site map

Obtain well records from ISGS and ISWS

Review well records and prepare well location map (25 records within 2,500’)

Obtain local information (ie. Sanbom maps, Aerial overlays, etc.)

Determine expected local site geology (subsurface soil conditions)

Prepare one typical

cross section

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

Nature and estimated quantity of release

Surrounding populations

General waterquality

Use

and approx. location of wells potentially affected by the release

General subsurface soil conditions

Locations of subsurface sewers

Climatological conditions

Past, present and potential future land use

What was done to evaluate presence of contamination

Actions taken to prevent further release of substance into environment

Analytical / screening results (in tabular format)

UST information (in tabular format)

Word processing

Prepare and describe photos

45 Day report review by PM or other senior

staff

General correspondence with client and Agency

Project update to client

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

Make copies of final 45 Day report for distribution

Deliver completed 45 Day report to IEPA and 0/0

Prepare Excavation/Sample Location CAD Maps

Review Disposal Documentation

Stage

I Site Investigation Plan

Project management and coordination

Prepare (update) site health and ~aIetyplan

---

Arrange (or drilling contractor

Call J.U.L.I.E and

I

or municipality for utility locate

Determine expected local site geology (subsurface soil conditions)

Evaluate backfill/piping samples to Tier I #‘s

Determine drilling location for soil samples and mw install

Word Processing Report and Budget

Prepare budget

Plan review by PM or other

senior staff

Prepare P.E./P.G. certification of budget

General correspondence with client and Agency

Project update to client

Mail draft plan to o/o for review and signature

Make copies of final report for distribution

Deliver completed report to EPA and 0/0

734.845(b)(6) Stage I Site Investigation Completion Report

Project management and coordination

Executive summary identifying SI objectives and technical approach

Describe history of the site with respect to the release

Describe method(s) for investigating site and surrounding area(s)

Describe observations made while investigating site and surrounding area(s)

Prepare (modify/update) site map of sufficient detail and accuracy to show:

Distance ofat least 1,000 feet around UST (scale 1: 200)

Location of site with respect to section township and range

Property boundaiy lines of the site and other affected properties

Land use of the site and other affected properties

Current and former locations of UST systems (and UST contents)

Locations ofall water supply wells and designated setback zones

On-site and off-site injection and withdrawal wells affected by release

All structures, improvements and significant features affected

Table indicating the setback zone for each water supply well

Contact IEPA Division of Public Water Supply

Contact Illinois Department of Public Health

Contact local health department

Contact local watersupply entity

Site’s regional location, geography, hydrology, geology, hydrogeology, etc.

Existing and potential migration pathways and exposure routes

Current and future land use

Legal description of the site

or reference to plat showing

boundaries

Information regarding site specific sampling activities and methods, including:

Narrative description of field activities

Sample collection information (date, time, method, location, sampler)

Sample preservation and shipment information including QNQC

Chain of custody

Field and lab blank documentation

Analytical and / or screening results in tabular and / or graphic format

Interpretation of the results of the site investigation

Description of the release and evaluation of exposure routes

Description of nature, concentration and extent of indicator contaminants

Site map(s) of sufficient detail and

accuracy to

show:

Location

of each

sample labeled to correspond with analytical results

Extent of indicator contaminants exceeding Tier I objectives

Cross Section showing horz and vert extent of soil or gw

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

Prepare (finalize) field notes

---

Prepare and describe site investigation photos

Prepare (finalize) boring logs and

MW completion reports

Prepare sample(s) for shipment or delivery to lab

Hydraulic conductivity test data analysis from single well (H/C calculation)

Description of physical features that may affect contaminant transport

Comparison of indicator contaminant concentrations to Tier 1 objectives

Determination whether UST system is in regulated recharge area

Demonstration that groundwater investigation is not required (if applicable)

Conclusions including assessment of sufficiency of data in report

Appendices containing references and data sources, logs, lab reports, etc.

SI completion report review by PM or other senior staff

Prepare RE. / P.G. Certification

General correspondence with client and Agency

Project update to client

Mail draft SI Completion report to 0/0 for review and signature

Make copies of final SI Completion report for distribution

Deliver completed report to EPA and 0/0

734.835(b)

(2)

-

Stage 2 Site Investigation Plan

Project management and coordination

Review and Summarize Stage I activities-Executive Summary

Describe activities to be performed during Stage 2 Investigation including:

The degree/extent of soil contamination

The degree/extent of groundwater contamination

The direction and velocity of groundwater flow

Identif~jpotential natural and man made migratoiy pathways

Data Reduction of Stage I activities-Analytical, SB logs, MW Reports

Describe current and post-remediation uses of site and surrounding properties

Provide water

supply well survey documentation including:

Location of community water supply wells and their setbacks

Location and extent of regulated recharge/welihead protection areas

Modeled extent of groundwater contamination exceeding most stringent CUO

Tables listing setbackzones for community supply wells

Documentation of entities contacted to identify potable water supply sources

LPE/LPG certification that water supply survey was properly conducted

Prepare contingency scope of work for boring/mw locations

Determine extent of property boundaries

Prepare (modify / update) CAD map(s)

Prepare (modify

I

update) cross section

Prepare (update) site health and safety plan

Arrange for drilling contractor/scheduling

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

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

Prepare (finalize) field notes

Prepare and describe site investigation photos

Prepare groundwater contour map

General correspondence

with client and Agency

Project tracking and update(s) to client

Prepare budget forms

Plan & budget review by PM or other senior staff

Mail draft plan & budget to 0/0

for review

and signature

Make copies of final plan & budget for distribution

Deliver completed plan

& budget to IEPA and 0/0

732.845

(dXI) and 734.845 (c)(I)(A) Conventional (Dig & Haul) Corrective Action Plan

---

Project management and coordination

Prepare waste profile (arrange for landfill approval)

Mail waste profile to 0/0 for review and signature

Prepare (update) site health and safety plan

Determine limits of excavation

Estimate quantity of contaminated soil to be disposed of

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

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

Description of activities performed to define extent of contamination

Analytical results and cleanup objectives in tabular format

Laboratory reports

Boring logs

Monitoring well logs

Discussion of how corrective action plan shall remediate the release

List of sampling parameters and corresponding remediation objectives

Basis for determining sampling parameters and remediation objectives

Media sampling plan to verify completion of remediation

Current and future use of property

Proposed preventive, engineering and institutional contmls

Schedule forimplementation and projected completion of the- plan

Engineering diagrams, calculations, site maps,

etc.

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

Soil sample locations

Monitoring well locations

Plume of soil and groundwater contamination

Word processing

Prepare budget forms

CAP &

budget

review

by

PM or other

senior staff

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

Budget Certification

General correspondence with client and Agency

Project update to client

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

Make copies of final CAP & budget for distribution

Deliver completed CAP & budget to EPA and 0/0

Arrange for excavator

Arrange for trucking (transportation)

Arrange for backfill

Prepare waste manifests (or tracking forms)

Project scheduling

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

---

732.845(d)(5) and 734.845(c)(6) Corrective Action Completion

Report

for Conventional

Project management and coordination

Prepare CAD map(s)

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

Chronological narrative of corrective action activities

Explanation of how the corrective action activities remediated the release

Discussion of how the remediation objectives were determined

Media sampling and analyticalprocedures to verify completion of remediation

Analytical results and remediation objectives in tabular format

Laboratory reports

Soil boring logs

Monitoring well logs

Laboratory certification

Professional Engineer Certification

Owner! Operator & Property Summary

Photographs documenting corrective action activities

Word processing

Prepare and describe photos

Obtain legal description of property

Obtain property

tax identification number

CACR review by PM or other senior staff

General correspondence with client and Agency

Project update to client

Mail draft CACR to 0/0 for review and signature

Make copies of final CACR for distribution

Deliver completed CACR to IEPA and 0/0

Record NFR letter

Make copies of recorded NFR letter for distribution

Deliver recorded NFR

letter to IEPA and 0/0

Prepare (finalize) field notes

734.845 (d)(2) Reimbursement Tasks

Prepare OSFM eligibility and deductible application

Mail draft eligibility and deductible application to

0/0 for review

and signature

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

Setup reimbursement file

Cost and budget tracking

Draft LUST reimbursement claim request

Reimbursement claim review by PM or other senior staff

Prepare P.E./P.G.

& 0/0 Billing Certification

General correspondence with client and Agency

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

Make copies of completed reimbursement claim for distribution

Deliver completed reimbursement claim to IEPA and 0/0

734.845 (d)(I)

New

Project Startup

FOIA review/Historical Research

Initial lEPNClient Correspondence

Initial Site Characterization including-Equipment, Personnel and Stock Items

associated with initial site map and characterization of release (includes site visit) - ---~-—-_______________

---

732.845(b)(1)- Site Classification Work Plan

Project management

and coordination

Physical Soil Classification

-

provide a discussion of the following

scientific publications/geologic maps that will be reviewed

drilling methods, auger types, sampling procedures and devices to be used

basis fordetermining the location of soil borings

justify proposed final soil boring configuration and boring depths

alternate plan in case of auger refusal

how anomalies encountered during drilling are to be handled

how cross contamination between water bearing units will be prevented

Groundwater Investigation

-

provide a discussion of the following

drilling methods used

basis fordetermining location and number of monitoring wells

monitoring well installation procedures

activities taken to prevent cross contamination during well installation

basis for determining well construction materials

basis fordetermining the monitoring well screen depth and screened-interval

monitoring well development procedures

monitoring well sampling procedures

activities taken to prevent cross contamination between groundwater samples

how the proposed final monitoring well configuration provides likelihood-of detecting

migration of groundwater contamination

steps taken to determine flow direction and gw elevation

Discuss how the PE will verify Class Ill GW exists within 200 feet of UST system

Discuss how the PE will identify the location of all community water supply wells within

2500’ and all potable water supply wells within 200 feet and determine if the UST is in

the regulated recharge area of any community water supply well or potable water well

Classification by Exposure Pathway Exclusion -provide a discussion of

the following

Activities to determine the full extent and concentration-of contaminants in soil and/or

groundwater exceeding the Tier I CUO’s

Discussion of tests to be performed to determine whether the following requirements

have been met:

1. attentuation capacity of the soil will not be exceeded for any organic contaminants

2. Soil saturation limit will not be exceeded for any of the organic contaminants

3. contaminated soils do not exhibit any of the reactivity characteristics of hazardous waste

per 35 IAC 7321.123

4. Contaminated soils do not exhibit a pH of ~ 2.0 or 12.5

5.

Contaminated soils which contain as,ba,cd, cc, pb, hg, se or ag (or their associated salts)

do not exhibit any of the toxicity characteristics of haz waste per 35 IAC 721.124

Discussion of how the inhalation exposure route will be evaluated to determine:

1. an insitutional control is in place that requires safety precautions for construction worker

populations and compliance with

t~2

below.

2. any contaminants of concern within 10 feet of land surface or within 10 feet of any man-

made pathway does not exceed Tier 1 CUO’s; or an Agency approved engineered barrier in

place.

---

Adiscussion of how the soil ingestion exposure route will be evaluated-to determine

that:

1. an institutional control is in place that requires safety precautions forconstruction work

populations and compliance

l~2below:

2. any contaminant of concern within 3 feet of land surface does not exceed Tier 1 CUO’s;

or an Agency approved engineered barrieris in place.

A discussion of how the groundwater ingestion exposure route will be evaluated to

determine the following:

1. the source of the release is not located within the minimum/maximum setback zone or

regulated recharge area of a potable watersupply well:

2.

any area within 2500 feet from the source of the release is restricted under a local

ordinance which prohibits the use of groundwater as a potable supply;

3. the concentration of any contaminat of concern in groundwater within the

minimum/maximum setback zone of a potable watersupply well meets the applicable Tier I

CUO;

4. the concentration of any contaminant of concern in groundwater discharging into a

surface water will meet the applicable surface water qualitystandardper35 IAC Section

302.

Provide a Site map to scale and oriented north showing the following:

UST system and excavation limits

product and dispenser lines

pumps and islands

underground utilities (sewer, gas, water, etc.)

nearby structures (buildings, roads, etc.)

location of the proposed soil borings

location of the proposed monitoring wells

property boundaries

200 foot radius from the UST System

Provide a

chart

indicating the following:

boring identification

depth of boring in feet

number of samples from each boring submitted forgeotechnical analysis

identification of geotechnical test what will be performed on samples

Word Processing

-

SCWP and Budget

Prepare SCWP budget

SCWP review by PM or other senior staff

Prepare P.E./P.G. certification of budget

General correspondence with client and Agency

Project update to client

Mail draft SCWP to o/o for review and signature

Make copies of final SCWP report for distribution

Deliver completed report to IEPA and 0/0

732.845(b)(1)- Site Classification Completion Report

Project management and coordination

Executive summary identifying SCWP objectives and technical approach

Describe history of the site with respect to the release

Describe method(s) for investigatIng site and surrounding area(s)

Describe observations made while InvestigatIng site and surrounding area(s)

Prepare (modify

I

update) site map(s) of sufficIent detail and accuracy to show:

---

Distance of at least 1,000 feet around UST (scale 1: 200)

Location of site with respect to section township and range

Property boundar,’ lines of the site and other affected properties

Land use of (he site and other affected properties

Current and former locations of UST systems (and UST contents)

Locations of all water supply wells and designated setback zones

On-site and off-site injection and withdrawal wells affected by release

All structures, improvements and significant features affected

Table indicating the setback zone for each water supply well

Contact IEPA Division of Public Water Supply

Contact Illinois Department of Public Health

Contact local health department

Contact local water supply entity

Site’s regional location, geography, hydrology, geology, hydr-ogeo!ogy,

etc..

Existing and potential migration pathways and exposure routes

Current and future land use

Legal description of the site or reference to plat showing boundaries

Information regarding site specific sampling activities and-methods, including:

Narrative description of field activities

Sample collection information (date, time, method, location, sampler)

Sample preservation and shipment information including QA/QC

Chain of custody

Field and lab blank documentation

Analytical and / or screening results in tabular and

I

or graphic format

Interpretation of the results of the site investigation

Description of the release and evaluation of exposure routes

Description of nature, concentration and extent of indicator contaminants

Site map(s) of sufficient detail and accuracy to show:

Location of each sample labeled to correspond with analytical results

Extent of indicator contaminants exceeding Tier I objectives

Cross Section showing horz and vert extent of soil or gw

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

Prepare (finalize) field notes

Prepare and describe site investigation photos

Prepare (finalize) boring logs and MW completion reports

Prepare GW sample(s) for shipment or delivery to lab

Hydraulic conductivity test data analysis from single well (H/C calculation)

Description of physical features that may affect contaminant transport

Comparison of indicator contaminant concentrations to Tier I objectives

Determination whether UST system is in regulated recharge area

Demonstration that groundwater investigation is not required (if applicable)

Conclusions including assessment of sufficiency of data in report

Appendices containing references and data sources, logs, lab reports, etc.

SCCR completion report review by PM or other senior staff

Prepare P.E.

I

P.G. Certification

General correspondence with client and Agency

Project update to client

Mail draft SCCR Completion report to 010 for review and signature

Deliver completed report to IEPA and 0/0 _______________________________

---

Low Priority Ground Water Monitoring Plan

Project management and coordination

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

Proposed time table forwellinstallation, sampling and report submittal

Discussion of monitoring well development procedures

Discussion of monitoring well sampling procedures

Activities that will be taken to prevent sample cross-contamination

Adequacy of the monitoring well configuration to detect contaminantmigration

Treatment type applied to any discharge and effluent quality expected

Steps taken / required to obtain necessaiypermits for discharge

Final disposition of recovered free product

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

UST

system(s)

and excavation

Product and dispenser lines

Pumps and islands

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

Nearby structures (buildings, roads, etc,)

Location of soil boring(s)

Location of monitoring well(s)

Property boundaries

Radius of 200 feet from the excavation

Word processing

Prepare budget forms

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

General correspondence with client and Agency

Project update to client

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

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

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

Low Priority Ground Water Monitoring Report SOW

Project management and coordination

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

Description of implementation & completion of all elements of plan

Description of well development, sample collection, preservation & analysis

Analytical results in tabular format

Copies oflaboratory reports

Copies of laboratory certifications

Ground water elevations in tabular format

Monitoring welllogs

Completed chain-of-custody form(s)

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

UST system(s) and excavation

Product and dispenser lines

Pumps and islands

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

Nearby structures (buildings, roads, etc,)

Location of monitoring well(s)

Direction of groundwater flow (groundwatercontouring)

Property boundaries

Radius of 200 feet from the excavation

---

Word processing

LP GW monitoring report review by PM or other senior staff

General correspondence with client and Agency

Project update to client

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

Make copies of final LP GW monitoring report for distribution