Part 732

Scope of Work

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF:

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO: )

REGULATION OF PETROLEUM LEAKING ) R04-22; Docket B

UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS ) (Rulemaking – UST)

35 ILL. ADM. CODE 732 )

________________________________________________________________________

IN THE MATTER OF:

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO: )

REGULATION OF PETROLEUM LEAKING ) R04-23; Docket B

UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS ) (Rulemaking – UST)

35 ILL. ADM. CODE 734 ) Consolidated

Proposed Rule. Proposal For Public Comment

PREFILED TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH W. TRUESDALE, P.E., P.G., AND

CINDY S. DAVIS, P.G. OF CSD ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.

CSD Environmental Services offers pre-filed testimony in this proceeding. The testimony was

prepared by Joseph W. Truesdale and Cindy Davis of CSD Environmental Services, Inc. both of

which will be available at the hearing to answer any questions regarding our testimony.

CSD Environmental would like to thank the Illinois Pollution Control Board for listening to our

concerns and creating Subdocket B to allow for further discussion on key issues prior to preparing a

final rule.

The Professionals for Protection of the Environment (PIPE) have prepared and pre-filed testimony

in response to the January 5, 2006 Opinion and Order. CSD Environmental offers it’s support and

concurrence with PIPE’s pre-filed testimony regarding scopes of work and rate development. To

save time, CSD’s testimony will address additional testimony to support PIPE.

The Board in its January 5, 2006 Opinion and Order invited public comment on several key issues.

Each of those issues is discussed below.

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MARCH 1, 2006

Scope of Work

The Board recognized that the regulated community sought specificity regarding the actual work

involved in completing tasks for which the Agency has proposed maximum lump sum payments for

professional consulting services. The Board included in Subdocket B a scope of work which was

the combined effort of the

Ad Hoc

Work Group and PIPE. CSD has reviewed the scope of work

and has added additional items to the proposed scope of work as requested by the Board. All added

items were indicated with bold lettering and underlined. All deleted items were indicated with

strikeout. Only those SOW’s we proposed changes to are provided. Any parallel requirements of

734 are applicable to our proposed revisions to 732 should also be considered. CSD is preparing

additional scopes of work for alternative technology corrective action plans to address preparation

of these plans in a phased approach as we discussed in previous testimony. CSD is also preparing

scope of work for 732.845 (d) and (f). Both of these scopes will be provided by CSD in amended

testimony prior to hearing.

The scopes of work are general and don’t address site specific issues, such as how many ust’s are

present, how many samples were collected during investigation etc. While this may not seem

important at first glance it is important to define “typical” for a maximum lump sum payment to

apply. For example, if the site had two ust’s in a fairly tight clay with a small contaminant plume

versus a site with two ust’s in a sand aquifer and a large contaminant plume, the amount of work

required by the Professional to tabulate and evaluate the data is considerably different. This is also

the case if the contaminants of concern were only benzene, ethlybenzene, toluene and xylene versus

a waste oil tanks were the contaminants of concern are volatile organics, base/neutrals, polynuclear

aromatics, and metal parameters. If maximum lump sums are to be developed for a task, then these

types of specifics will need to be addressed. It is our opinion that the Agency will not wish to

address these types of specifics. Nor will the Agency want to lists these specifics and trust the

consulting industry to provide an estimate of hours to complete the tasks, believing the consultants

will overestimate the hours. Likewise, the consulting community would not trust the Agency’s

proposed hours believing the Agency, with cost cutting measures in mind and lack of experience in

actually completing the work (i.e. not reviewing), will underestimate the hours. With this in mind,

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MARCH 1, 2006

CSD doesn’t believe lump sum payments can be feasibly determined and

we propose that

Professional Consulting Fees remain on a time and material basis.

We believe that a scope of work should be developed for all tasks even if the Board decides

Professional Consulting Fees remain on a time and material basis. The scope of work is still

valuable since it will define what is required by the Agency to comply with the regulations and will

remove some ambiguity in the LUST program. As to the question of

where the scope of work

should be set (pages 6 and 7 of Order)

, CSD recommends if the Board adopts time and material,

then the scope of work could be developed by the Agency, with the assistance of the LUST

advisory committee and be separate from this rulemaking. However, if the Board adopts maximum

lump sum payments, then the scope of work needs to be established in regulation tying the scope to

the maximum lump sum payments. If the scope were not tied to payments, it would leave the

Agency free to add additional tasks to the scope of work without making the appropriate change in

price.

Regarding the Board’s question as to

whether adequate information is available in the Agency’s

database to determine lump sum payments for the various professional consulting tasks (page 8 of

Order)

, CSD answers no. The Agency has not collected data on a task level. USI in the September

hearing provided excellent testimony regarding the information available in the Agency’s database.

Refer to PIPE’s discussion on this issue in their pre-field testimony which CSD supports.

Regarding the Board’s request

to provide reasonable personnel time estimates for all tasks the

Board has proposed a SOW (page 10 of Order)

, CSD doesn’t believe the scope of work is detailed

enough at this time to honor the Board’s request. CSD supports PIPE’s method of determination of

maximum lump sum payment amounts, we also believe that the payment amounts should not be

based on guesstimates, but on actual data. As stated above, we believe the Agency would not trust

the consulting industry to provide an estimate of hours to complete the tasks, believing the

consultants will overestimate the hours. Likewise, the consulting community would not trust the

Agency’s proposed hours believing the Agency, with cost cutting measures in mind and lack of

experience in actually completing the work (i.e. not reviewing), will underestimate the hours.

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MARCH 1, 2006

Regarding the Board’s question

whether it is feasible to take a multiple rate approach (page 10 of

the order),

CSD responds that first we support a time and materials payment method. However, it

the Board is determined to proceed with maximum lump sum payments, then we support PIPE’s

method for determining those payments on actual data and not guesstimates.

Regarding the Board’s question to

whether or not a SOW is needed for Early Action Closure

reports, ELUC’s, HAAs, well surveys and TACO calculations (page 6 of Order),

CSD believes yes

a scope of work is necessary for all tasks necessary to comply with the LUST regulations.

However, the 742 regulations are currently undergoing the rulemaking process for revisions. It is

extremely difficult if not impossible to assign a scope of work and associated cost to a parallel

regulation that can change outside the confines of 732 or 734.

We thank the Board for the opportunity to present this pre-filed testimony and will be available at

the hearing to answer any questions in relation to our testimony.

Respectfully submitted,

CSD Environmental Services, Inc.

By:________________________ and By: ________________________

Dated March 1, 2006.

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MARCH 1, 2006

Proof of Service

The undersigned states that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Pre-Filed Testimony, was filed

with the Illinois Pollution Control Board, electronically on March 1, 2006 and a true and accurate

copy of the filing was served upon the individuals listed on the Board’s Service List for R04-22(B)

and R04-23(B), as reflected on the Board’s website on that same day, as reflected below, by

mailing the same via the United States postal service, Springfield, Illinois on March 2, 2006.

By: _______________________________

Cindy S. Davis, President

CSD Environmental Services, Inc.

2220 Yale Boulevard

Springfield, IL 62703

(217) 522-4085

(217) 522-4087 (fax)

cdavis@csdenviro.com

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MARCH 1, 2006

Section 732.APPENDIX F Scope of Work For Professional Consulting Services

(732.202 Early Action)

732.202 (a)(2). Take immediate action to prevent any further release of the regulated

substance to the environment.

732.202 (a)(3). Identify and mitigate fire, explosion and vapor hazards.

732.202 (b)(1). Remove as much of the product from the UST system as is necessary to

prevent further release into the environment.

732.202 (b)(2). Visually inspect any aboveground releases or exposed below ground releases

and prevent further migration of the released substance into surrounding soils and

groundwater.

732.202 (b)(3). Continue to monitor and mitigate any additional fire and safety hazards posed

by vapors or free product that have migrated from the UST excavation zones and entered

into subsurface structures (such as sewers or basements).

Section 732.845(a)(1) Preparation for the abandonment or removal of USTs

1. Project Management

a. Site visit to determine course of action (removal vs. abandonment, etc.) as well as

any other physical site limitations associate with UST removal; or abandonment.

2. Correspondence

a. Office of the Illinois State Fire Marshal (OSFM)

1. Prepare and submit

Obtain

initial Notification Form

and other related OSFM

information

for Underground Storage Tanks.

2. Prepare Application for Permit for Removal/Abandonment of Underground

Storage Tanks and submit to owner/operator for signature.

3. Submit Application for Permit for Removal/Abandonment to OSFM.

4. Prepare and submit LUST Fund Eligibility and Deductibility Application

owner/operator for signature.

5. Submit LUST Fund Eligibility and Deductibility Application to OSFM.

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MARCH 1, 2006

5. Prepare and submit amended Notification Form

to owner/operator for

signature.

5. Submit amended Notification Form to OSFM.

b. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA)

1. Prepare and submit early action extension.

2. Follow up.

c. Correspond with and update client.

3. Waste Disposal

a. Determine early action excavation limits.

b. Prepare

and submit

waste profile

to owner/operator for signature.

c. Submit completed waste profile and arrange for landfill approval.

c. Prepare waste manifests or tracking forms.

4. Plan and Report Preparation

a. Prepare site health and safety plan.

5. Resource Coordination

a. Arrange for subcontractors (e.g., excavator, tank removal contractor, backfill, landfill).

b. Schedule project.

c. Call J.U.L.I.E. and/or municipality to locate utilities.

Section 732.845(a)(3) Preparation and submission of 20-day and 45-day reports

1. Project Management

2. Correspondence

a. Correspond with Agency.

b. Correspond with and update client.

3. Records Gathering

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MARCH 1, 2006

a. Obtain and review IEPA and/or OSFM records.

b. Obtain and review well records from ISGS and ISWS.

c. Obtain and review local information (e.g. Sanborn maps, aerial overlays).

d. Site visit to obtain physical information for site map preparation.

4. Waste Disposal

a. Review disposal documentation.

5. Technical Evaluation

a. Prepare well location map (<25 records within 2500 feet).

b. Determine expected local site geology (subsurface soil conditions).

6. Plan and Report Preparation

a. Prepare 20-Day Certification

b. Prepare or revise site health and safety plan

c. Prepare 45-Day Report

1. Provide information pertaining to:

A. Site Identification

B. Release Information

C. Early Action

D. Site Information

1. Nature and estimated quantity of release

2. Data concerning:

a. Surrounding populations

b. Water quality

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MARCH 1, 2006

c. Use and approximate locations of wells potentially affected

by the release

d. Subsurface soil conditions

e. Location of subsurface sewers

f. Climatological conditions

g. Land use

3. A discussion of what was done to measure for the presence of a

release

4. Action taken to prevent further release of the regulated substance

into the environment

5. A discussion of the action taken to monitor and mitigate fire and

safety hazards posed by vapors or free product that has migrated from

the UST excavation zone and entered subsurface structures

E. Supporting Documentation

1. Site map to scale and oriented north showing:

a. UST systems(s) and excavation limits;

b. Product and dispenser lines;

c. Pumps and islands;

d. Underground utilities

(sewer, gas, water, etc.);

e. Nearby structures (buildings, roads, etc.)

f. Soil borings(s) (if present);

g. Monitoring well(s) and/or sumps (if present);

h. Property boundaries;

i. Sample location points.

2. Area map showing the site in relation to surrounding properties.

This map should identify the facilities on the surrounding properties;

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MARCH 1, 2006

3. Cross-section, to scale, showing the UST(s) and the excavation;

4. Analytical / screening results in tabular format, including the

results of soil samples required pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm. Code

732.202(h) or 45 ILCS 5/57-57.17;

5. UST information in a tabular format, including:

a. Total number of UST(s) on site;

b. Volume of the UST(s) (in gallons);

c. The material stored in the UST(s);

d. Identification of UST systems(s) that had a release; and

e. Identification of UST system(s) that were repaired,

removed, or abandoned-in-place;

6. Copy of OSFM Permits or notifications;

7. Narrative of tank removal and cleaning operations; describe how

wastes generated during the tank removal were managed, treated, and

disposed of;

8. Photographs of UST removal activities and the excavation; and

9. Copies of waste manifests for soil and groundwater transported

off-site.

d. Review 20-Day Certification and 45-Day report by project manager or other senior staff.

7. Resource Coordination

a. Call J.U.L.I.E. and/or municipality to locate utilities.

8. Distribution

a. Deliver draft 20-Day Certification and 45-Day Report to owner/operator for review and

signature.

b. Make copies of final 20-Day Certification and 45-Day Report for distribution.

c. Deliver completed 20-Day Certification and 45-Day Report to IEPA and owner/operator.

(732.203 Free Product Removal)

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MARCH 1, 2006

732.203(a)(1). Conduct free product removal in a manner that minimizes the spread of

contamination into previously uncontaminated zones by using recovery and disposal

techniques appropriate to the hydrogeologic conditions at the site and that properly treats,

discharges or disposes of recovery byproducts in compliance with applicable local, State and

federal regulations.

732.203(a)(3). Handle any flammable products in a safe and competent manner to prevent

fires or explosions.

732.845(a)(6) Preparation and submission of free product removal reports

1. Project Management

2. Correspondence

a. Correspond with and update Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA)

b. Correspond with and update Client.

3. Waste Disposal

a. Review disposal documentation.

4. Plan and Report Preparation

a. Prepare Free Product Removal Report

1. Provide information pertaining to:

A. Site Identification

B. Free Product Information

1. Name(s) of person(s) responsible for implementing the free

product removal measures;

2. Estimated quantity, type, and thickness of free product observed or

measured in boreholes, wells, excavation, etc.;

3. The type of free product recovery system used and technical

justification for the method of recovery chosen;

4. Whether any discharge will take place on- or off-site during the

recovery operation and where this discharge (point) will be located;

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MARCH 1, 2006

5. Type of treatment applied to (the free product), and the effluent

quality expected from any discharge;

6. Steps that have been taken or that are being taken to obtain

necessary permits for any discharge; and

7. The disposition of the recovered free product.

C. Supporting Documentation

1. Site map to scale and oriented north showing:

a. UST systems(s) and excavation limits;

b. Product and dispenser lines;

c. Pumps and islands;

d. Underground utilities

(sewer, gas, water, etc.);

e. Nearby structures (buildings, roads, etc.);

f. Soil boring(s) (if present);

g. Monitoring well(s) and/or sumps (if present);

h. Locations where free product was encountered including its

estimated thickness;

i. Location of recovery points;

j. Location of the treatment unit;

k. Location of discharge points;

l. Property boundaries.

2. Table showing the dates that free product recovery was conducted

and the amount of free product recovered on each date; and

3. Copies of waste manifests.

5. Distribution

a. Deliver draft free product removal report to owner/operator for review and signature.

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MARCH 1, 2006

b. Make copies of final free product removal report for distribution.

c. Deliver completed report to IEPA and owner/operator.

732.203(c) and (d).

Section 732.845(a)(7) Preparation and submission of reports submitted pursuant to Section

732.202(h)(3) or

734.210(h)(3)

(Reserved)

Section 732.845(b)(1) Preparation and submission of site classification plans, site classification

preparation, fieldwork, field oversight, and the preparation and submission of the site

classification completion report

SITE CLASSIFICATION WORK PLAN

1. Project Management

2. Correspondence

a. Correspond with Agency.

b. Correspond with and update client.

3. Technical Evaluation

a. Conduct fieldwork.

b. Provide field oversight.

4. Plan and Report Preparation

a. Prepare Site Classification Work Plan

1. Provide information concerning:

A. Site Identification

B. Site Information

C. Site Classification

1. Method of Physical Soil Classification

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MARCH 1, 2006

2. Number of soil borings to be advanced on-site

3. Whether soil borings are proposed to be advanced for reasons other

than Physical Soil Classification or investigation of migration

pathways

4. Whether monitoring

wells are proposed on-site

5. Physical Soil Classification

a. Scientific publications/geologic maps that will be reviewed

to determine consistency with Plate 1 of the Illinois State

Geological Survey Circular 532;

b. Drilling methods, auger types, sampling procedures and

sampling devices that will be used;

c. Basis for determining the location (include number and

spacing) of soil borings;

d. How the proposed final soil boring configuration and

boring depths will provide the greatest likelihood of

determining the geologic characteristics of the site;

e. What will be done if auger refusal occurs or bedrock is

encountered during drilling;

f. What will be done if anomalies are encountered during

drilling;

g. What will be done to prevent cross-contamination between

water-bearing units that may be encountered during drilling;

6. Groundwater Investigation

a. Drilling methods that will be used;

b. Basis for determining the location and number of

monitoring wells placed at the site;

c. Monitoring well installation procedures;

d. Activities that will be taken to prevent cross-contamination

during well installation;

e. Basis for determining well construction materials;

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MARCH 1, 2006

f. Basis for determining the monitoring well-screen depth and

screened interval;

g. Monitoring well development procedures;

h. Monitoring well sampling procedures;

i. Activities that will be taken to prevent cross-contamination

between groundwater samples;

j. How the proposed final monitoring well configuration will

provide the greatest likelihood of detecting the migrations of

groundwater contamination; and

k. Steps that will be taken to determine groundwater elevation

and flow direction.

7. How the Licensed Professional Engineer will verify whether Class

III Special Resource Groundwater exists within 200 feet of the UST

system.

8. How the Licensed Professional Engineer will identify and locate

all community water supply wells within 2,500 feet of the UST

system and all potable water supply wells within 200 feet of the UST

system, and determine if the UST system is within the regulated

recharge area of any community water supply well or potable water

supply well.

Note: Pursuant to 732.312(a)(1), owners or operators electing to classify a site by exclusion of

human exposure pathways “must elect pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 734.105 to proceed in

accordance with 35 Ill. Adm. Code 734 and conduct site investigation and corrective action in

accordance with that Part instead of meeting the requirements of this Section.”

9. Classification by Exposure Pathway Exclusion

a. Discussion of the activities to determine the full extent and

concentrations of contaminants in soil and/or groundwater

exceeding the Tier 1 remediation objectives;

b. Discussion of the tests to be performed to determine

whether or not the following requirements will be met:

1. Attenuation capacity of the soil will not be

exceeded for any of the organic contaminants;

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MARCH 1, 2006

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 Ill.

Adm. Code 721.123;

4. Contaminated soils do no exhibit a pH 2.0 = or =

12.5; and

5. Contaminated soils which contain arsenic, barium,

cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium or silver

(or their associated salts) do not exhibit any of the

toxicity characteristics of hazardous waste per 35 Ill.

Adm. Code 721.124.

c. Discussion of how the inhalation exposure route will be

evaluated to determine that:

1. An institutional control is in place that requires

safety precautions for construction worker populations

and compliance with #2 below;

2. Any contaminant of concern within ten (10) feet of

land surface or within ten (10) feet of any man-made

pathway does not exceed Tier 1 remediation

objectives; OR and Agency approved engineered

barrier is in place.

d. Discussion of how the soil ingestion exposure route will be

evaluated to determine that:

1. An institutional control is in place that requires

safety precautions for construction worker populations

and compliance with #2 below;

2. Any contaminant of concern within three (3) feet of

land surface does not exceed Tier 1 remediation

objectives; OR and Agency-approved engineered

barrier is in place.

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MARCH 1, 2006

e. Discussion of how the groundwater ingestion exposure

route will be evaluated to determine the following:

1. The source of the release is no located within the

minimum/maximum setback zone or regulated

recharge area of a potable water supply 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 contaminant of concern in

groundwater within the minimum/maximum setback

zone of a potable water supply well meets the

applicable Tier 1 remediation objective; and

4. The concentration of any contaminant of concern in

groundwater discharging into a surface water will

meet the applicable surface water quality standard per

35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.

10. Site map to scale and oriented north showing:

a. UST system(s) and excavation limits;

b. Product and dispenser lines;

c. Pumps and islands;

d. Underground utilities (sewer, gas, water, etc.);

e. Nearby structures (buildings, roads, etc.);

f. Location of the proposed soil borings(s);

g. Location of the proposed monitoring wells (if

required);

h. Property boundaries; and

i. 200-foot radius from the UST system.

11. Chart indicating the following:

a. Boring identification;

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MARCH 1, 2006

b. Depth of boring (in feet);

c. Number of samples from each boring that will be

submitted for geotechnical analysis; and

d. Identification of geotechnical tests that will be

performed on samples.

b. Prepare budget for site classification work plan.

c. Review site classification work plan and budget by project manager or other senior staff.

d. Prepare LPE/LPG certification.

5. Distribution

a. Deliver draft site classification work plan and budget to owner/operator for review and

signature.

b. Make copies of final site classification work plan and budget for distribution.

c. Deliver completed report to IEPA and owner/operator.

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MARCH 1, 2006