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:
1
REGULATION OF PETROLEUM LEAKING
)
R04-23; Docket B
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS
)
(Rulemaking -
UST)
35 ILL. ADM. CODE 734
1
Consolidated
Proposed Rule. Proposal for Public Comment
PUBLIC COMMENTS OF JOSEPH W. TRUESDALE, P.E., P.G., AND
CINDY S. DAVIS, P.G. OF CSD ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
CSD Environmental Services appreciates this opportunity
to
offer public
comments in this proceeding related to testimony provided at hearing on March
23, 2006. The comments were prepared cooperatively by Joseph W. Truesdale
and Cindy S. Davis.
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.
We believe that it is impossible to
proceed with any meaningful development of lump sum cost for professional
service without some form of data collection which correlates directly to the
consulting service items to be provided.
We urge the Board to continue the
current practice of reimbursing professional services on a time and material basis
until such a time as lump sum payment rates which more accurately reflect
current and historical reimbursement rates can be developed as order by the
Board in their December 1, 2005 opinion and order.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MAY 8, 200
* * * * * PC #75 * * * * *
We would like to provide specific comments on the items listed below, and
request that the Board continue to hear testimony related to these items.
Determination of Payment Amounts for Professional Consulting Services.
The Agency had conducted reasonableness determinations for several years
prior to this rulemaking using tools which are essentially the same as tools
available to them today, ie. rate sheets.
Mr. Clay testified on page 61 of the
March 23, 2006 hearing transcripts that their historic "rate sheets" did not include
prices per task, but provided "dollars per hour for the different job titles for the
professional services."
This is equivalent to the tools "legally" available to the
Agency under Subpart H or the current 35 IAC 732 and 734 regulations. Prior to
this rulemaking the Agency has not endeavored to exercise reimbursement from
the LUST fund on a per task "lump
sum" basis, and as a result, the tools required
for such and undertaking are not available currently. Mr. Clay also testified on
page 50 that "it's not that we (meaning the Agency) don't want to collect data,"
and it would seem to us that the only reasonable way to move the LUST program
to a place where reimbursement on a lump sum basis can be reached is to
standardize the submittal of information in such a manner as that already
directed by the Agency in their current budget and billing forms.
Mr. Clay also
states on the following page that "there's been no proposal for any quality
control", however, basic quality control provisions for random sampling of data is
outlined in numerous sources including USEP SW-846.
At this point in time, regulations are in place that allow the Agency to conduct
reasonableness determination in essentially the same manner as conducted
previously during a time in which Mr. King testified that the LUST fund was not
operated as a giveaway program.
In response to questions by Mr. Koch, Mr.
King stated "that was my testimony when we first started this proceeding, but that
would not be my testimony today.
" On page 181 of the 23, 2006 hearing
transcripts Mr. King states that he believes "over the last two years, because of
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MAY 8, 200
* * * * * PC #75 * * * * *
the fact we have not had legal tools in place, there's been overpayment." In fact,
these tools are in place now for the data collection necessary to move to lump
sum unit prices. The Board's adoption of the current Subpart
HI provisions under
35 IAC 732 and 734 return the rate sheet which the Agency has relied upon so
heavily in the past to make it's reasonableness determinations, the new budget
and billing structure specified by the Agency in the current budget and billing
forms provides a basis for a uniform breakdown of tasks, and data collection and
quality control provisions are outlined in other
EPA
document previously
referenced such as SW-846.
Professional Oversight
Paragraph 325 Section 14 or the Professional Engineering Practice Act of 1989
states that "The use of a professional engineer's seal on technical submissions
constitutes a representation by the professional engineer that the work has been
prepared by or under the personal supervision of the professional engineer or
developed in conjunction with the use of accepted engineering standards."
This
same Section further states that
"It is unlawful to affix one's seal to technical
submissions if it masks the true identity of the person who actually exercised
direction, control and supervision of the preparation of such work."
Illinois Administrative Code, Title 68, Chapter
VII, Part 1380, Section 1380.300
further states that
"Licensees shall approve and seal only those designs
prepared by them or under their direct supervision and found to be safe for the
public health, property and welfare."
The American Heritage Dictionary of the
English Language
defines "direct" as follows:
1.
To Manage or conduct the affairs
of; regulate.
2.
To have or take charge of; control. 3.
To give authoritative
instructions to.
4.
To cause to move toward a goal; aim.
5.
To show or indicate
the way for.
6.
To cause to move in or follow a course. ..
...
.
..'I
* * * * * PC #75 * * * * *
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MAY 8, 200
Given these specifications
I believe that the Agency's estimation of professional
oversight time for the tasks necessary under the LSUT program is inadequate.
In many cases merely one or two hours of professional oversight time is allotted
for tasks including more than 40 hours of time for personnel required to be
working under the "direct" supervision of the certifying professional
Client Correspondence as a Necessary part of Corrective Action
In Mr. Wienhoff's line of questioning beginning on page 75 of the March 23, 2006
hearing transcripts;
he
makes reference
to the
Agency's position that
correspondence with the UST owner
/ operator (client) is not a part a necessary
part of corrective action. I believe that Mr. Weinhoff made it clear during hearing
why this task is in fact a necessary part of corrective action, however, to further
support this I would like to refer the Board to the Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality LUST Program, which is one of the State programs the
Agency presented previously in testimony in support of their proposed Maximum
payment amounts. Specific excerpts form documents contained on the Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality web site are included in
Attachment A.
The first page clearly states that under Arizona's program, project management
activities include
client
and regulatory agency
correspondence,
administrative
and accounting activities, and related pre-and post-field planning tasks, and are
considered corrective action costs.
In addition, on the Agency's own web site under the section entitled Frequently
Asked Questions about
LUSTS, it specifies that when choosing a consultant one
of the items a UST owner or operator should consider is the consultants ability to
explain LUST site cleanup options so owners and operators can make informed
decisions.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MAY 8, 200
* * * * * PC #75 * * * * *
Phased
Submittal
of Alternative
Technologv CAP
We would also like to take this opportunity to refer the Board to the Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) LUST Program in support of the
phased approach to developing a scope of work for submittal of Alternative
Technology Corrective Action Plans. Specific excerpts form documents
contained on the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality web site are
included in Attachment B.
The ADEQ outlines a system of CAP submittal which includes:
1
.)
Evaluation of three remedial options.
2.)
Conceptual design and selection of a remedial alternative.
3.)
Final engineering design (upon ADEQ approval).
4.)
And implementation of the final design (upon ADEQ approval)
Attachment X also includes a copy of a standard agreement for Engineer's
Services which is also broken down into Phases consisting of:
1
.)
Study and Report Phase
2.)
Preliminary Design Phase
3.)
Final Design Phase
4.)
Bidding or Negotiating Phase
5.)
And Construction Phase
This format is indicative of how engineering projects are normally conducted.
The benefits of such and approach included providing more direct input form the
owners and the regulatory Agencies during the design phase which serves to
keep overall design and construction cost associated with late change orders to a
minimum. This method server to
address concerns stated previously in
testimony by both the Agency and the regulated community.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MAY 8, 200
* * * * * PC #75 * * * * *
Scope Creep Concerns and Need for Clear Scope of Work for Lump Sums
We would also like to take this opportunity to illustrate to the Board the reason for
the regulated communities concern regarding scope creep issues.
In testimony
provided by Mr. Bauer the items and associated costs included in the unit rate for
monitoring well installation were provided. This list did not include use of a water
level indicator to determine static water level elevations within the well, however,
in recent submittals to the Agency, costs for this equipment were denied and
stated to be "part of the drilling". Copies from Mr. Bauer's testimony and a recent
Agency review letter are included as
Attachment C.
We argued previously that the bailer and rope costs should not be included in the
per foot cost for monitoring well construction, because this is an item not typically
provided by the driller but by the consultant.
Similarly the consultant is typically
responsible for surveying and determining static water levels within the wells.
The driller does not typically provide this service and it should not be included as
part of the drilling cost, nor was it identified by the Agency during testimony as
being one of the items they included in the lump sum rate for monitoring well
installation.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MAY 8, 200
* * * * * PC #75 * * * * *
ATTACHMENT A
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MAY 8, 200
* * * * * PC #75 * * * * *
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
STATE ASSURANCE FUND
SCHEDULE OF CORRECTIVE ACTION COSTS
GENERAL NOTES
1.
Claiming Costs:
A Cost Schedule Item Code must be used to claim costs of eligible activities where the claimed
or proposed work meets a Cost Schedule Item Code description. If claimed or proposed work
does not meet the Cost Schedule Item Code description, then the work must be identified on the
Amount Claimed Summary Worksheet and costs must be claimed using time and materials detail
in accordance with A.A.C.
R18-12-605(E). Time and materials detail must include Cost
Schedule Item Codes, such as personnel rates or equipment rental, where appropriate. See the
instructions for the Amount Claimed Summary Worksheet for additional information.
2.
Organization of Table of Cost Schedule Item Codes and Cost Schedule Item Code
Descriptions.
Non-Phase Specific Cost Schedule Items (those that may be used in more than one Phase) are
listed in Item Codes 1 through 123. Item Codes 124 through 16 1 are Phase Specific and each
code is listed under the applicable Phase title.
3. Allowable Mark-up:
SAF will reimburse Primary Provider mark-up on approved subcontracted services
and/or
pass-
through expenses up to 16 percent. Mark-up can only be applied to actual subcontractor or
purchase costs incurred by the Primary Provider as demonstrated by the subcontractor
invoice(s)
or retail receipt.
Mark-up cannot be applied to direct charges incurred by the Primary Provider. Direct charges
include Primary Provider labor expense and capital equipment owned by the Primary Provider
and billed to the project as a rental item. Mark-up on services or equipment provided by an
affiliate or subsidiary company, with any common ownership interest with the Primary Provider,
is not eligible for reimbursement.
4.
Project Management:
Project Management activities include:
elienf
and regulatory agency correspondence,@
administrative and accounting activities, and related pre-and post-field planning task;.
Project Management costs are included in each of the following Cost Schedule Item Codes: 18,
19, 124 through 126, and 142 through 16 1.
If included in one of the Cost Schedule Item Code listed above, Project Management is not
eligible as a separate and unique task or activity. Project management not associated with a Cost
Schedule Item Code listed above should be claimed as a separate line on the Amount Claimed
Summary Worksheet with the applicable Phase Code. Project management should be claimed
using the incremental "pre-field" or "post-field" Phase Code of the applicable Phase.
(06105 version)
Page 1 of 4
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MAY 8, 200
* * * * * PC #75 * * * * *
ATTACHMENT
B
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MAY 8, 200
* * * * * PC #75 * * * * *
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality UST Program
Release Reporting
&
Corrective Action Guidance
7.3.6
Remedial Alternatives
This section of the CAP should consist of a site-specific analysis of three remedial
a
f
i
concern.
A remedial alternative may, if appropriate, consist of a single
-
remediation technology,
OR
may consist of concurrent or sequential uses of
one or more remediation technologies, administrative actions, and risk
management tools.
For example, a
single
remedial alternative may
initially
utilize
air
spargelsoil vapor extraction on-site with monitored natural attenuation off-site until
specified interim remediation
goals/conditions
for
soil
source removal
and
groundwater contaminant mass reduction are attained. Once air
spargelsoil vapor
extraction achieves the on-site interim remedial goals, this remedial alternative may
then rely on the use of monitored natural attenuation
to achieve the site-specific
corrective action standards both on-site and off-site. This example of a single
remedial alternative uses one remediation technology for off-site contaminated
groundwater, and uses three remediation technologies on-site. Assumptions,
supporting information, and an analysis of key factors important to each remedial
alternative should be provided so that a single alternative may be selected for
implementation at the site. A remedial alternative should not be proposed or evaluated
if it can not address a COC determined to be present in environmental media. The
following information should be provided in this section of the CAP for each remedial
alternative:
7.3.6.1
Permits
The purpose of this section is to identify the need for and the type of permit or
contractual document which is required for implementation of any technology
or risk management tool for a remedial alternative. This includes permits that
are required for the installation, operation or maintenance of a technology,
agreements of access rights (see Section
4.2), and
DEURs (see Section 6).
Permits may be required from the appropriate federal, state, county or local
regulatory authority. Permits which may be obtained from the issuing federal
agency include National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permits for wastewater discharges, and Underground Injection Control (UIC)
permits or form submittals for injecting into or above any underground source
of drinking water. Types of UIC applications which commonly occur for UST
corrective actions are Class V Aquifer Remediation Wells
(ARW).
Some
examples of these wells are those installed and operated for technologies such
as air sparge, pump and treat re-injection,
in situ
chemical oxidation,
bioventing, bioaugmentation, bioremediation and biostimulation.
August 20, 2002
7 -
9
Version
0
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MAY 8, 200
* * * * * PC #75 * * * * *
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality UST Program
Release Reporting
&
Corrective Action Guidance
Refer to the EPA Region
IX Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water UIC
Program or NPDES Program until such time that the state has been granted
primacyfor regulatory authority. Further information on UIC is available in EPA
document,
The Class
V
Underground Injection Control Study: Volume 16
Aquifer Remediation Wells, September 1999.
State issued permits may include permits for air quality. Please contact the
ADEQ Air Quality Division Permits Section for further information.
Local permits typically include those for fire, electrical, mechanical, building,
encroachment, architectural, and sanitary sewer discharges.
7.3.6.2
Conceptual design, operation, implementation and goals
Describe,
in
narrative form, the objective to be achieved by the remedial
technologies and risk-management tools employed in the three remedial
alternatives presented. To the extent that is applicable, provide a description
of the conceptual design and operation of chemical, physical, biological and
mechanical process-oriented systems. For each
technology and tool
employed for a given remedial alternative, provide a narrative description of
tasks important to and in the order of implementation . Refer to Appendix K for
an example summary form. These tasks or activities may include concise and
briefdescriptions of the following components when appropriate or applicable:
general engineering schematic;
acquisition and use of specialized
equipment/materials;
specialized subcontractors;
on-site and off-site property access agreements;
execution of restrictive covenants for the site or adjacent properties;
identification of all necessary federal, state, and local permits;
installation and initial sampling of additional monitoring points;
installation of remedial systems;
remedial system start-up and shake down procedures;
acquisition of baseline operational performance data;
fate and transport modeling in the subsurface and suface;
acquisition of modeling calibration and verification data;
submittal of periodic status report;
implementation of contingency effluent treatment plans;
implementation of confirmation sampling or monitoring plan; and
submittal of the corrective action completion report.
When applicable to a remediation technology or risk management tool, a
August 20,
2002
7 -
70
Version
0
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MAY 8, 200
* * * * * PC #75 * * * * *
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality UST Program
Release Reporting
&
Corrective Action Guidance
discussion should be provided identifying the short-term performance goals
and intermediate- term performance goals which may be achieved for the
site-
specific contaminant type and distribution.
Whenapplicable, the potential impacts of pre-existing or off-site contamination
on the use or efficiency of a remediation technology should be discussed .
This also applies to discussions of pre-existing potential health risk due to
contaminants not present from the subject release. A specific analysis or
calculation of the magnitude of decreased system efficacy or incremental
increase to health risk is not needed in this section.
This section should also include a brief discussion of the data needs for the
basic design and operation of each process-oriented system. This may
include rates of degradation or removal which are measured or assumed. If
assumed, include a citation for the supporting information reference. The
locations of system components should be depicted on a site plan. In some
instances, a single site plan may be used to depict the system
designllayout for
all three remedial alternatives.
Remedial tools which may also be applicable for use in a remedial alternative
include the risk-based Tier 2 and Tier 3 evaluations. A Tier 2 or 3 evaluation
may establish alternative points of compliance and cleanup standards such that
one of the following benefits may result:
1.
No additional remediation technologies need to be employed within a
remedial alternative.
2.
A remediation technology must be used in conjunction with the tier
evaluation which is not a component of any other proposed remedial
alternative.
3.
A remediation technology must be used in conjunction with the tier
evaluation which is a component of another proposed remedial
alternative. However, the duration
and/or costs associated with the
conjunctive technology is limited relative to the use of the technology in
another proposed remedial alternative.
When relying upon a Tier 2 or 3 evaluation to distinguish between remedial
alternatives, sufficient information should be presented in this section which
would
provide a screening level tier evaluation, or provide a technical
foundation for establishing the comparative differences referred to in
A.A.C
R18-12-263.01
(A) for site-specific application. Specifically, an estimate of the
order of magnitude of change in cleanup level for
COCs, overestimation of risk
of the prior tier evaluation, or the magnitude of change in level of effort or time
August 20, 2002
7 - 11
Version
0
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MAY 8, 200
* * * * * PC #75 * * * * *
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality UST Program
Release Reporting
& Corrective Action Guidance
of implementation of additional remediation technologies to be concomitantly
applied. This allows risk-based tier evaluations to be treated similarly to any
other remediation technology for consideration in a CAP remedial alternative.
7.3.6.3
Periodic Monitoring, Sampling and Reporting
A description of the monitoring and sampling plan associated with each
remedial alternative should be provided unless each remedial alternative relies
upon the same plan. If the latter is the case, details of this plan should be
presented in the section of the CAP presenting the selected remedial
alternative. Otherwise, a brief discussion of the number and frequency of
sampling events, the number of samples collected at each event, and the
number and types of analyses to be conducted should be provided in this
section. The purpose of this discussion is to present relative differences in the
monitoring
an.d sampling requirements between remedial alternatives which are
key to following the progress of the remediation technology and compliance
with cleanup goals.
7.3.6.4
Schedule
In general, the schedule should depict the time frames for each task associated
with a remedial alternative. It should encompass the key components required
for the various phases of each remedial alternative. The schedule should
clearly identify the time period necessary to conduct each task, and an overall
cumulative time period for completion of the remedial alternative.
The schedule may be presented in a table or Gantt chart format such that
relative time requirements for remedial alternative may be easily reviewed. It
is not necessary to include within the schedule the estimated time periods for
the tasks of remedial goal confirmation sampling and submittal of the
Corrective Action Completion Report.
Refer to the example schedule in
Appendix K of this guidance.
7.3.6.5 Costs
This section should provide a narrative summary of cost estimates for each
remedial alternative's employed remedial technologies and risk management
tools. Costs should include all applicable , key tasks and assumptions
identified in prior sections discussed for CAP contents. These cost estimates
should be based on professional experience and application of remediation
technologies and tools. Cost estimates should also be adjusted for
site-
specific conditions, and contaminant distribution and mass, which may
August 20,
2002
7 -
12
Version
0
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MAY 8, 200
* * * * * PC #75 * * * * *
Arizona Department of Environmental
Quality
UST Program
Release Reporting
&
Corrective Action Guidance
influence the range of costs reported in widely used peer-reviewed scientific
publications.
Refer to the example cost estimate sheet provided in Appendix K of this
guidance. This sheet may be used to establish a comparative basis of cost
differences between the three remedial alternatives presented in the CAP.
7.3.6.6
Additional Information
Additional information not presented as part of one of the CAP sections
discussed above may be presented in this section of the CAP. The purpose
of this additional information is to demonstrate the site-specific conditions
contributing to
the technical feasibility, cost-effectiveness, or
ease of
implementability or administration of a remedial alternative.
For example, evidence exists that an identified or unidentified off-site source
of contamination has contributed to a release. An owner or operator has the
right, pursuant to A.R.S.
§
49-10?
6(G),
to limit corrective action liability. Under
these circumstances, additional information regarding off-site contamination
contributing to the comingled plume should be addressed in the CAP. This
should include information on the location and identity, when possible, of the
known and unknown off-site
source(s), alternative proposed corrective action
standards and remedial goals based on
owner/operator LUST release source
contribution, and evidence supporting the determination of the extent and
distribution of the
owner/operatorJs
portion of the comingled plume.
August
20,
2002
7 -
73
Version
0
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MAY 8, 200
* * * * * PC #75 * * * * *
Arizona Department of Environmental
Quality
UST Program
Release Reporting
& Corrective Action Guidance
7.3.7
Remedial Alternative Selection
Obviously, remediation is necessary when one or more contaminants are present in
environmental media at levels which are not adequately protective of human health,
safety and the environment. Therefore, this section should present an evaluation of
each remedial alternative so that a clear justification can be made for the selection of
a single alternative for addressing all
COCs in all affected media at the LUST site in
achieving this goal.
The evaluation should demonstrate the extent to which each
remedial alternative is reasonable, necessary, technically feasible and cost-effective
pursuant to A.R.S.
§
49-1005(D). A remedial alternative can be selected when the
combination of proposed remediation technologies and risk management tools best
meets these criteria.
Information and conclusions drawn from pilot testing and feasibility studies should be
provided, if appropriate, as justification for the selection of a remedial alternative. As
used in this guidance, a feasibility study differs from a pilot study in that the certainty
of success of the technology is more fully understood in the case of the latter. Pilot
studies are typically conducted for a remediation technology to define the engineering
parameters of system design and operation needed to accomodate site-specific
conditions prior to full scale implementation. For example, a pilot study on an SVE
system may indicate that the zone of influence around wells is greater than initially
estimated, thus resulting in an increased distance between well locations and fewer
well installations. Feasibility studies for LUST sites, on the other hand, are not to be
confused with formal feasibility studies conducted in conjunction with a remedial
investigation for Superfund sites. Rather, feasibility studies typically appropriate for
LUST site corrective actions are limited to the further evaluation of a remediation
technology or risk management tool which in theory is technically or legally feasible, but
may not be possible to implement due to on-site or off-site conditions that significantly
influence the process. The results of the feasibility study will determine whether the
technology or tool of interest is rendered inapplicable to the site, or less useful relative
to another remedial alternative. The purpose of the pilot test or feasibilty study should
be clearly stated, and demonstrated as necessary toward evaluating site-specific
applicability of the alternative in achieving one or more of the criteria of A.R.S.
5
49-
1005(D).
The following conditions warrant the use of a pilot test or feasibility study:
basic engineering design for a technology which is reasonable, technically
feasible, and cost-effective;
.
confirmation of the site-specific technical feasibility for a technology which is
reasonable and cost-effective;
.
calculation of a more precise estimate of volume of contaminated media or
contaminant mass when utilizing technologies which are substantially
cost-
August 20, 2002
7 -
14
Version
0
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MAY 8, 200
* * * * * PC #75 * * * * *
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality UST Program
Release Reporting
& Corrective Action Guidance
sensitive or time-dependent on this parameter
(e.g., excavation with ex-site
treatmentldisposal); and
cost-effectiveness of a non-presumptive technology in comparison to the cost
of a presumptive technology,
e.g., excavation with ex-situ treatmentldisposal,
or soil vapor extraction.
In comparing the relative ability among remedial alternatives to attain the regulatory
cleanup goals, an estimate of the baseline contaminant volume and contaminant mass
is needed. These calculations should be provided in this section of the CAP, along
with the assumptions, qualifications or limitations used in this determination. When
determining the estimated volume of contaminated soil or mass of contamination in
soils exceeding remedial standards, consideration should be given to the amount and
concentration of separate or sorbed phase contamination within the vadose zone and
the volumetric extent of the vadose zone. When determining the estimated volume of
contaminated groundwater or mass of contamination in groundwater exceeding
remedial standards, consideration should be given to the amount and concentration
of separate or sorbed phase contamination below the water table, and the volume and
concentration of dissolved phase contamination in the saturated zone. Determination
of the estimated mass of contamination found within the capillary fringe aids assessing
the costs and schedule for groundwater remedial technologies. Therefore, information
from the levels of contamination present in the dissolved phase in the saturated zone,
and in the adsorbed phase of the vadose zone, may be utilized in estimating this
additional contaminant mass if the thickness of the capillary zone can be estimated
coincident to installation of monitor wells.
For the selected remedial alternative, short-term performance goals and
intermediate-
term performance goals should be stated for the site-specific contaminant type and
distribution. These performance goals will be used to assess the actual performance
of a remedial system
and/ or efficiency
of the implemented remediation technology.
When applicable, performance goals should be specified for monitoring locations at
specified time frames.
For systems which can measure the level of contaminant
remaining, performance goals should be specified in terms of concentrations not to
exceed. Performance goals should not be specified for COC concentrations which are
achieved under optimal system performance, but rather, those concentrations which
may be achieved by the system or technology operating under site-specific conditions.
When pre-existing or
off-site contamination impacts the performance of the
remediation technology, the extent which system is affected should be assessed.
Information known on the location, quantity, type, sources of, and degree of
contaminant contribution should be provided and evaluated with respect to impacts
upon the remedial system performance goals. For example, certain types or levels of
pre-existing contamination within a zone of the groundwater contaminant plume may
August 20, 2002
7-
15
Version
0
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MAY 8, 200
* * * * * PC #75 * * * * *
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality UST Program
Release Reporting
&
Corrective Action Guidance
be too toxic to allow the biodegradative process to occur. Therefore, the time period
to achieve the AWQS at the point of compliance using natural attenuation is extended
unless the toxic zone is treated.
This section should also include a detailed discussion of the data necessary for the
basic design and operation of each process-oriented system employed by the
selected remedial alternative.
Supporting data may include information and
conclusions obtained through feasibility studies or pilot tests,
e.g.,
the number, location
and cone of influence of SVE wells, groundwater extraction and sparge points; or rates
of biodegradation. The locations of system components should be depicted on a site
plan.
For remedial alternatives which include a risk-based site-specific tier evaluation,
documentation should include the appropriate tier evaluation form for all tiers
completed, the completed screening level tier evaluation (if a full tier evaluation is not
completed at time of CAP submittal), and the full tier
evaluation(s) for the subsequent
proposed tier level which establishes an alternative cleanup standard or point of
compliance.
If a full tier evaluation was submitted and approved prior to CAP
submittal, attach a copy of the approved tier
evaluation(s) in the CAP appendix.
The periodic monitoring and sampling plan should be provided in this section. It should
be designed such that the relative progress of the remedial system can be tracked,
and a quantitative assessment made for changes in levels of
COCs. Therefore, the
plan should reflect site-specificconditions, contaminant plumedistribution,
COC levels,
potential receptor exposure point locations, and other site-specific factors as
necessary. For liquid and dissolved phase contamination sites, periodic sampling of
the groundwater is required. If the selected remedial alternative includes soil vapor
extraction, air sparging, or other remediation technology that causes a discharge of
vapors (air orwater), periodic influent and effluent sampling is required. If the selected
remedial alternative includes the injection, foaming or aerosolization of any regulated
substance into the subsurface or onto the surface, periodic sampling at appropriate
monitoring locations is required. The monitoring and sampling plan should discuss the
following, as appropriate:
media to be sampled
.
monitoring and sampling locations
field measurements and parameters
.
sampling and measurement protocols and procedures
.
laboratory analyses to be conducted
.
initiation, frequency, and duration of monitoring and sampling events
The results
ofthe periodic monitoring program conducted and conclusions based upon
August 20, 2002
7 -
16
Version
0
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MAY 8, 200
* * * * * PC #75 * * * * *
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality UST Program
Release Reporting
&
Corrective Action Guidance
these results should be submitted in conjunction with the periodic corrective action
status report. These reports should include interpretation of reported data including
written and graphical analyses, as appropriate [A.A.C.
R18-263.02 (B)] so that
remedial progress toward short-term and long-term performance measures can be
documented.
A detail of the schedule for remedial alternative implementation and completion should
be presented. The schedule should depict the time frames for each task associated
with the remedial alternative, and should encompass the phases of installation, start
up, operation, and demobilization for each remediation technology; implementation
periods of risk management tools, and the submission dates of periodic reports. The
schedule should clearly identify or describe each task, the time period necessary to
conduct each task, and an overall cumulative time period for completion of the
remedial alternative. To the extent possible, this schedule should reflect the
anticipated disruptions or delays in critical activities or steps of implementation.
At a minimum, the schedule, beginning with final CAP approval, should show the time
-
frames and milestone dates, if possible, for the following elements, as applicable:
Final engineering design;
Procurement of on-site and off-site access agreements, permits, and
DEURs;
Installation of additional monitoring points;
Initial sampling of monitoring points;
Acquisition of additional modeling data;
Refinement of health risk assessment components,
i.e.,
exposure
assessment, toxicity assessment, risk characterization;
Remediation system installation;
Remediation system start-up;
Preparation and submittal of first and subsequent periodic status
reports;
Periodic monitoring events; and
Subsequent reports other than periodic status reports.
The schedule may be presented in a table or Gantt chart format. It is not necessary to
include within the schedule the estimated time periods for the tasks of remedial goal
confirmation sampling and submittal of the Corrective Action Completion Report. This
is due to the difficulty in determining precise time periods for attainment of corrective
action standards.
A detailed cost estimate for each remediation technology and risk management tool
should be provided for the selected remedial alternative. Costs should include all
August 20, 2002
7 - 17
Version
0
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MAY 8, 200
* * * * * PC #75 * * * * *
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality UST Program
Release Reporting
& Corrective
Adtion Guidance
applicable substantive activities, subactivities, and assumptions (see example cost
sheet in Appendix K). These estimates should be made as accurately as possible.
Costs for related subactivities for a particular activity may be presented as lump sum,
e.g.,
time, materials, travel, subcontracts and fees for periodic waste disposal.
Examples of substantive activities which should have cost estimates provided, and
apply to multiple remedial technologies and risk management tools are:
pilot testing or feasibility studies
final engineering design
property access agreements
permits and
DEURs
installation of remedial systems
installation of additional monitoring points
start up and first month operation and maintenance
(O&M)
CAP
~eriodic
status reports
monthly and cumulative O&M (inclusive of scheduled and unscheduled
site visits, equipment lease, utilities, effluent treatment or waste
disposal, sampling and reporting per permit requirements
periodic monitoring for progress toward achieving remedial cleanup
goals
confirmation sampling and reporting
decommissioning and abandonment
In conclusion, the justification of the remedial alternative chosen for the contamination
at and from the LUST site must be made upon consideration of site-specific
conditions, information and data collected to support a comparative evaluation of the
remedial alternatives. The remedial alternative selected must meet the remedial
critieria listed in A.R.S.
§
49-1
005(D) and site-specific corrective action standards.
The rationale presented should include references to industry standards of practice
that were relied upon. These standards may include technical guidance documents,
professional scientific peer-reviewed publications, and vendor literature.
August
20, 2002
7 -
18
Version
0
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MAY 8, 200
* * * * * PC #75 * * * * *
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality UST Program
Release Reporting
& Corrective Action Guidance
7.3.8
Attachments and Appendices
The CAP appendix should consist of the department approved SCR, any feasibility
studylpilot test reports, any tier evaluation reports, copies of completed water use
survey forms.
The following maps, tables, figures should be attached when not present as part of one
or more of the reports required to be submitted with the CAP in the CAP appendix:
site
plan(s) showing remedial methodologydesign,
including basiccomponents
of system, overlayed contaminant plumes, and expected zone of influence for
each system component addressing a portion the contaminant plume;
remedial methodology design
figure(s) provided by manufacturer;
well construction schematic;
site location map showing properties surveyed for water use;
site location map showing location of water rights area of water providers;
property and water provider use survey summary table;
remedial alternative cost comparison table;
remedial alternative corrective action implementation schedule; and
most recent site classification form.
August 20, 2002
7 -
19
Version
0
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MAY 8, 200
* * * * * PC #75 * * * * *
SUGGESTED FORMAT
(for use with 1910-1, 1996 Edition)
ENGINEER'S
Services
This is EXHIBIT
A,
consisting of
pages, referred to in
and
part of the Agreement between OWNER
and
ENGINEER
For
Professional Services dated
7
Initial:
OWNER
ENGINEER
,.
Article
1
of the Agreement is amended and supplemented to include the following agreement of the parties.
ENGINEER
shall provide Basic and Additional Services as
set forth below.
PART 1
--
BASIC SERVICES
A1.O 1
Study
and
Reporf Phase
A.
ENGINEER shall:
1.
Consult with OWNER to define and clarify
OWNER'S requirements for the Project and available data.
2.
Advise OWNER as to the necessity of
OWNER'S providing data or services of the types described in
Exhibit B which are not part of
ENGINEER'S Basic Services, and assist OWNER in obtaining such data and services.
3.
Identify, consult with, and analyze requirements of governmental authorities having jurisdiction to approve
&A
the portions of the Project designed or specified by ENGINEER, including but not limited to mitigating measures
ggp
identified in the environmental assessment.
4.
Identify and evaluate
alternate solutions available to OWNER and, after consultation with
OWNER, recommend to OWNER those solutions which in ENGINEER's judgment meet
OWNER'S requirements for
the Project.
5.
Prepare a report (the "Report") which will, as appropriate, contain schematic layouts, sketches and
conceptual design criteria with appropriate exhibits to indicate the agreed-to requirements, considerations involved,
and
those alternate solutions available to OWNER which ENGINEER recommends. This Report will be accompanied
by ENGINEER's opinion of Total Project Costs for each solution which is so recommended for the Project with each
component separately itemized, including the following, which will be separately itemized: opinion of probable
Construction Cost, allowances for contingencies and for the estimated total costs of design, professional, and related
services provided by ENGINEER and, on the basis of
infolmation furnished by OWNER, allowances for other
items
and services included within the
defdtion of Total Project Costs.
6.
Perform or provide the following additional Study and Report Phase
tasks
or deliverables:
7.
Furnish
review copies of the Report to OWNER within
-
days of authorization to begin services
and review it with ,OWNER.
8.
Revise the Report in response to
OWNER'S
and other parties' comments, as appropriate, and furnish
final copies of the revised Report to the OWNER within
-
days after completion of reviewing it with OWNER.
B.
ENGINEER'S services under the Study and Report Phase will be considered complete on the date when the
fd
.
j
p
jl
copies of the revised Report have been delivered to OWNER.
-0
&.
.
,-7
Page 1 of
-
Pages
mxhibit
A
-
ENGINEER'S Services)
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MAY 8, 200
* * * * * PC #75 * * * * *
A
1.02
Preliminary
Design
Phme
A.
After acceptance by OWNER of the Report, selection by OWNER of a recommended solution and indication of
-
'any specific modifications or changes in the scope, extent, character, or design requirements of the Project desired by
OWNER, and upon written authorization from OWNER, ENGINEER shall:
1.
On the basis of the above acceptance, selection, and authorization, prepare Preliminary Design Phase
documents consisting of
final design criteria,
prelmlnary drawings, outline specifications and written descriptions of
the Project.
2.
Provide necessary field surveys and topographic and utility mapping for design purposes.
Utility mapping
a
will be based upon information obtained from utility owners.
3.
Advise OWNER if additional reports, data, information, or services of the types described in Exhibit B are
necessary and assist OWNER in obtaining such reports, data, information, or services.
4.
Based on the information contained in the Preliminary Design Phase documents, submit a revised opinion of
probable Construction Cost and any
adjustments to Total Project Costs known to ENGINEER, which will
be,itemized
as provided in paragraph
Al.Ol.A.5.
5.
Perform or provide the following additional Preliminary Design Phase tasks or deliverables:
6.
Furnish the Preliminary
Design Phase documents to and review them with OWNER.
7.
Submit to OWNER
-
frnal
copies of the
Prelmlnary Design Phase documents and revised opinion of
probable Construction Cost within
-
days after authorization to proceed with this phase.
B.
ENGINEER'S services under the Preliminary Design Phase
will
be considered complete on the date when
final
@
copies of the
Prebinary Design Phase documents have been delivered to OWNER.
A 1
.O3
Final
Design Phase
A.
After acceptance by OWNER of the Preliminary Design Phase documents and revised opinion of probable
Construction Cost as determined in the Preliminary Design Phase, but subject to any OWNER-directed modifications or
.
changes in the scope, extent, character, or design requirements of or for the Project, and upon written authorization from
OWNER, ENGINEER shall:
1.
On the basis of the above acceptance, direction, and authorization, prepare final Drawings indicating the
scope,
extent, and character of the Work to be performed and furnished by Contractor. Specifications will be
prepared, where appropriate, in general conformance with the
16division
format of the Construction Specifications
Institute.
2.
Provide technical criteria, written descriptions, and design
data
for OWNER'S use in
fLmg applications for
permits from or approvals of governmental authorities having jurisdiction to review or approve the
f
d
design of the
Project and assist OWNER in consultations with appropriate authorities.
3.
Advise OWNER of any adjustments to the opinion of probable Construction Cost and any adjustments to
Total Project Costs
laown to ENGINEER, itemized as provided in paragraph
A1.01.A.5.
4.
Perform or provide the following additional Final Design Phase tasks or deliverables:
Page 2 of
-
Pages
(Exhibit A
-
ENGINEER'S Services)
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MAY 8, 200
* * * * * PC #75 * * * * *
5.
Prepare and furnish Bidding Documents for review and approval by OWNER, its legal counsel,
and other
advisors, as appropriate, and assist
OWNER in the preparation of other related documents.
6.
Submit
-
final copies of the Bidding Documents and a revised opinion of probable Construction Cost to
A
- -
OWNER within
-
days after authorization to proceed with this .phase.
B.
In the event that the Work designed or specified by ENGINEER is to be performed or
mshed under more
than
one prime contract, or if ENGINEER's services are to be separately sequenced with the work of one or more prime
Contractors (such as in the case of fast-tracking), OWNER and ENGINEER shall, prior to Commencement of the Final
Design Phase, develop a schedule for performance of ENGINEER'S services during the Final Design, Bidding or
Negotiating, Construction, and Post-Construction Phases in order to sequence and coordinate properly such services as are
applicable to the work under such separate prime contracts. This schedule is to be prepared and included in or become an
wendment to Exhibit
A
whether or not the work under such contracts is to proceed
conclurently.
C.
The number of prime contracts for Work designed or specified by ENGINEER upon which the ENGINEER'S
compensation has been established under this Agreement is
D.
ENGINEER's services under the Final Design Phase will be considered complete on the date when the submittals
required.by paragraph
A1.03.A.6 have been delivered to OWNER.
A
1.04
Bidding or Negotiating Phase
A.
After acceptance by OWNER of the Bidding Documents and the most recent opinion of probable Construction
Cost as determined in the Final Design Phase, and upon written authorization by OWNER to proceed, ENGINEER shall:
1.
Assist OWNER in advertising for and obtaining bids or negotiating proposals for the Work and, where
applicable, maintain a record of prospective bidders to whom Bidding Documents have been issued, attend pre-Bid
-
.-
.
=r~;~>+
-A-A>
conferences, if any, and receive and process Contractor deposits or charges for the Bidding Documents.
:><
.3
-"y-
2.
Issue Addenda as appropriate to clarify, correct, or change the Bidding Documents.
3.
Consult with OWNER as to the acceptability of subcontractors, suppliers, and other individuals and entities
proposed by Contractor for those portions of
the
Work
as
to which such acceptability is required by the Bidding
Documents.
4.
Perform or provide the following additional Bidding or Negotiating Phase tasks or deliverables:
5.
Attend the Bid opening, prepare Bid tabulation sheets, and assist OWNER in evaluating Bids or proposals and
in assembling and awarding contracts for the Work.
B.
The Bidding or Negotiating Phase will be considered complete upon commencement of the Construction Phase or
upon cessation of negotiations with prospective Contractors (except
as
may be required if Exhibit F is a part of this
Agreement).
A1.05
Construction
Phase
A.
Upon successful completion of the Bidding and Negotiating Phase, and upon written authorization from OWNER,
ENGINEER shall:
1.
General Administration of
Consrnrction Contract.
Consult with OWNER and act
as
OWNER'S representative
as
provided in the General Conditions.
The extent and limitations of the duties, responsibilities and authority of
ENGINEER as assigned in said General Conditions shall not be modified, except as ENGINEER
may otherwise agree
Page 3 of
-
Pages
(Zxhibit
A
-
ENGINEER's Services)
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MAY 8, 200
* * * * * PC #75 * * * * *
ATTACHMENT
C
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MAY 8, 200
* * * * * PC #75 * * * * *
The above rates include, but are not limited to, all costs for the installation of a
groundwater-monitoring well except for costs associated with drilling or consultant
oversight of the drilling or monitoring well installation.
The rates are broken down into two different drilling types: hollow-stem auger
and direct-push
platform. Some direct-push
platforms are capable of using an auger tool
for the installation of a monitoring well. Since the materials used to install monitoring
wells via a direct-push platform with an auger attachment are similar to the materials
used to install monitoring wells via a hollow-stem auger, the applicable rate for
monitoring wells installed via a direct-push platform with an auger attachment will be the
hollow-stem auger rate rather than the direct-push
platform rate.
An evaluation of thirty-seven LUST sites revealed the following cost averages for
the components of a
monitoring well:
Material
Hollow-stem
auger
Direct-push
platform
PVC Screen 10-foot
$35.00
$30.00
PVC Riser 10-foot
$20.00
We13 Box
Bottom Cap
Locking Cap
Lock
B
ailedrope
Concrete
Sand
Bentonite
* * * * * PC #75 * * * * *
Incidentals
$9.00
$7.00
Total
$330.00
$250.00
The above averages are based on a monitoring well installed to a depth of 20 feet below
ground surface. The hollow-stem auger monitoring well is based on a 2-inch diameter
for the screen and riser. The direct-push platform monitoring well is based on a 1 to
1.5-
inch diameter screen and riser. The rates for the installation of a monitoring well were
determined by dividing the totals from the above table by 20 feet.
Section
734.820(c)
Drillinn, Well Installation. and Well Abandonment
Groundwater-recovery Wells
The rates for the installation of groundwater-recovery wells are included in the
Agency's First Errata Sheet to 35
Ill. Adm. Code 734. The maximum rates listed in the
following table would be applicable based on the diameter of the finished recovery well:
Well Diameter
Maximum Total Amount
4 or 6 inches
8 inches or greater
The above rates include, but are not limited to, all costs for the installation of a
groundwater recovery well except for costs associated with drilling or consultant
oversight of the. drilling or monitoring well installation.
An evaluation of seven LUST sites and extrapolation of the data for the 2-inch
monitoring well revealed the following values and cost averages for the components of a
groundwater-recovery well:
Material
4 or 6 inches
8 inches or
=eater
PVC Screen 10 foot
$65.00
$1 10.00
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MAY 8, 200
* * * * * PC #75 * * * * *
.... :
:..
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1021 NORTH GRAND AVENUE EAST,
P.O. BOX 19276,
SPRINGFIELD,
ILL~NOIS
62794- 9276 -
( 21
7)
782- 3397
JAMES
R.
THOMPSON CENTER, 100 WEST RANDOLPH,
S
U ITE
1 1-300, CHICAGO,
IL 60601 -
(31 2)
81
4-6026
2171782-6762
CERTIFIED MAIL
LeAng UST Incident Nos.
Lealung UST Technical File
Dear Mr.
The
Ihois Environmental Protection Agency (Illinois EPA) has reviewed the amended High
Priority Corrective Action Plan submitted for the above-referenced incident. The Illinois EPA
received this amended plan, dated
March 13, 2006, on March 14,2006. Citations in this letter
are
fi-om the Environmental Protection
Act (Act) in effect prior to June 24,2002, and 35 Illinois
Administrative Code (35
Ill.
Adm. Code).
Pursuant to Section
57.7(c)
of the
Act
and 35
111.
Adm. Code
732.405(c), the amended plan is
approved. The activities proposed in the amended plan are appropriate to demonstrate
compliance with Title XVI of the Act and 35
Ill.
Adm. Code 732.
Based on the March 3 1,2006 telephone conversation between the Illinois EPA, Mike
Prigge
(CSD Environmental Services,
Inc.) and Joseph Truesdale (CSD Environmental
Sewices,
Inc.),
the owner or operator will use the results of the proposed investigation activities to obtain
closure under 35
Ill. Adm. Code 742. If
the owner or operator does not use the results of the
proposed investigation activities to obtain closure under 35
Ill.
Adm. Code 742, approval for
some or all of the investigation activities will be voided.
Pursuant to Section
57.7(c) of the
Act
and
35
111. Adm. Code
732.405(c), the amended High
Priority Corrective Action Plan Budget is modified. Based on the modifications listed in Section
2 of Attachment A, the amounts listed
in Section 1 of Attachment A are approved. Please note
that the costs must be incurred in accordance
with the approved plan. Be aware that the amount
of payment
from the Fund may be limited by Sections
57.8(e),
57.8(g) and
57.8(d) of the Act, as
well as 35
Ill.
Adn. Code 732.604,
732.606(s) and 732.611.
ROCKFORD
-
4302
North Main Street,
RocMord,
IL
61
103
-
(81
5)
987-7760
.
DES
PL~~INES
-
951
1
W.
Harrison St.,
Des Plaines,
IL
6001
6
-
(847)
294-4000
ELGIN
-
595
south State,
Elgin,
IL
601 23
-
(847)
608-31
31
PEORIA -
541
5 N.
University St, Peoria,
IL
61 614
-
(309) 693-5463
BUREAU OF LAND - PEORIA-
7620
N. University St.,
Peoria,
IL
61614
-
(309)
693-5462
CHAMPAIGN -
2125
South First Street,
Champaign,
IL
61820
-
(21
7)
278-5800
SPRINGFIELD
-
4500
S.
Sixth
Street Rd., Springfield,
IL
62706
-
(217)
786-6892
COLLINSVILLE
-
2009
Mall Street,
Collinsville,
lL
62234
-
(618)
346-5120
MARION
-
2309
W.
Main St.,
Suite
11
6,
Marion,
IL
62959
-
(61
8) 993-7200
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MAY 8, 200
* * * * * PC #75 * * * * *
Page 2
If the owner or operator agrees with the Illinois
EPA's modifications, submittal of an amended
budget is not required (Section
57.7(c) of the Act).
All future correspondence must be submitted to:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Bureau of Land
-
#24
Leaking Underground Storage Tank Section
1021 North Grand Avenue East
Post Office Box 19276
Springfieid,
1L 62794-9276
Please submit all correspondence in duplicate and include the Re: block shown at the beginning
of this letter.
An underground storage
tank.system owner or operator may appeal this decision to the Illinois
Pollution Control Board. Appeal rights are attached.
If you have any questions or need assistance, please contact Trent Benanti at (217) 524-4649.
Michael T. Lowder
Unit Manager
Leaking Underground Storage Tank Section
Division of
Reme&ation Management
Bureau of Land
Attachments: Attachment A
Appeal Rights
c:
CSD Environmental Services, Inc.
Division File
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MAY 8, 200
* * * * * PC #75 * * * * *
Attachment A
Re:
Leaking UST Incident Nos.
Leaking UST Technical File
Citations in this attachment are from the Environmental Protection Act (Act) in effect prior to
June 24, 2002, and 35 Illinois Administrative Code (35
Ill. Adm. Code).
SECTION
1
The High Priority Corrective Action Plan Budget was previously approved for:
$
8,119.25
Investigation Costs
$
26,345.00
Analysis Costs
$121,213.00 Personnel Costs
$
5,627.80
Equiprnent'~osts
$208,772.59
Field Purchases and Other Costs
$
9,535.07
Handling Charges
As a result of the Illinois
EPA's modifications
in
Section
2
of
ths Attachment A, the amended
High Priority Corrective Action Plan Budget is approved for:
$
8,340.00
Investigation Costs
$
7,011.00 Analysis Costs
$
14,784.00
Personnel Costs
$
1,224.00
Equipment Costs
$
1,635.00
Field Purchases and Other Costs
$
1,636.08 Handling Charges
Therefore,
the
total cumulative
High Priority
corrective Action Plan Budget is approved for:
$
16,459.25
Investigation Costs
$
33,356.00
Analysis Costs
$135,997.00 Personnel Costs
$
6,851.80 Equipment Costs
$210,407.60
Field Purchases and Other Costs
$
11,171.15 Handling Charges
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MAY 8, 200
* * * * * PC #75 * * * * *
SECTION
2
1.
$500.00 for an adjustment in the mobilization costs. The Illinois EPA has determined
that these costs are not reasonable as submitted (Section
57.7(~)(4)
of the Act and 35
Ill.
Adm. Code
732.606(h.h)). One of the overall goals of the financial review is to assure
that costs associated with materials, activities and services are reasonable (35
Ill. Adm.
Code
732.505(c)).
.The mobilization costs are part of the
drilling costs, which have already reached the
maximum payment amount.
2.
$138.00 for an adjustment in the concrete coring
machne costs. The Illinois EPA has
determined that these costs are not reasonable as submitted (Section
57.7(~)(4)
of the Act
and 35
Ill. Adm. Code
732.606(hh)). One of the overall goals of the financial review is
to assure that costs associated with materials, activities and services are reasonable (35
Ill. Adm. Code
732.505(c)).
The concrete coring machine costs are
part of the drilling costs, which have already
reached the maximum payment amount.
3.
$100.00 for
an
adjustment in the fuel surcharge. The Illinois EPA has
determined that
these costs are not reasonable as submitted (Section
57.7(~)(4)
of the Act and 35 Ill.
Adm. Code
732.606(hh)). One of the overall goals of the financial review is to assure
that costs associated with materials, activities and services are reasonable (35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
732.505(c)).
The fuel surcharge is part of the drilling costs, which have already reached the maximum
payment amount.
4.
$212.00 for an adjustment in the 55-gallon drum costs. The Illinois EPA has determined
that these costs are not reasonable as submitted (Section
57.7(~)(4)
of the Act and
35
Ill.
Adm. Code
732.606(&)).
One of the overall goals of the
financial review is to assure
that costs associated with materials, activities and services are reasonable (35
Ill. Adm.
Code
732.505(c)).
The 55-gallon
drum costs are part of the drum disposal costs,
whch have already reached
the maximum payment amount.
5.
$36.00 for an adjustment in the soil sample
hsposal costs. The Illinois
EPA has
determined that these costs are not reasonable as submitted (Section
57.7(~)(4)
of the Act
and
35
Ill. Adm. Code
732.606(hh)). One
of
the overall goals of the financial review is
to assure that costs associated with materials, activities and services are reasonable (35
111.
Adm. Code
732.505(c)).
The soil sample disposal costs
are
part
of
the
sample handling and analysis costs, which
have already reached the
maximum payment amount.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MAY 8, 200
* * * * * PC #75 * * * * *
$5.50 for an adjustment in the groundwater sample disposal costs. The Illinois EPA has
determined that these costs are not reasonable as submitted (Section
57.7(~)(4)
of the Act
and 35
Ill. Adm. Code
732.606(hh)). One of the overall goals of the financial review is
to assure that costs associated with materials, activities and
semices are reasonable
(35
Ill.
Adm. Code
732.505(c)).
The groundwater sample disposal costs are part of the sample handling and analysis
costs, which have already reached the maximum payment amount.
$6.00 for an adjustment in the lab energy surcharge. The Illinois EPA has determined
that these costs are not reasonable as submitted (Section
57.7(~)(4)
of the Act and 35
Ill.
Adm. Code
732.606(hh)). One of the overall goals of the
financial review is to assure
that costs associated with materials, activities and services are reasonable (35
111. Adm.
Code
732.505(c)).
The lab energy surcharge is
part of the sample handling
and analysis costs, which have
already reached the maximum payment amount.
$132.00 for an adjustment in the disposable bailer costs. The Illinois EPA has
determined that these costs are not reasonable as submitted (Section
57.7(~)(4)
of the Act
and
3
5
Ill.
Adm. Code
732.606(hh)). One of the overall goals of the financial review is
to assure that costs associated with materials, activities and services are reasonable (35
Ill. Adrn. Code
732.505(c)).
The disposable bailer costs are part of the
drihg, sample handling and analysis costs,
which have already reached the maximum payment amount.
$30.00 for an adjustment in the water level indicator costs. The
Ilhois EPA has
determined that these costs are not reasonable as submitted (Section
57.7(~)(4)
of the Act
and
35 Ill.
Adm. Code
732.606(hh)). One of the overall goals of the financial review is
to assure that costs associated with
materials, activities and services are reasonable (35
Ill.
Adm. Code
732.505(c)).
The water level indicator costs are part of the
drilling, sample handling and analysis
costs,
whch have already reached the maximum payment amount.
$100.00 for an adjustment in the United Parcel Service costs. The Illinois
EPA has
I
determined that these costs are not reasonable as submitted (Section
57.7(~)(4)
of the Act
and 35
Ill. Adm. Code
732.606(hh)). One of the overall goals of the financial review is
to assure that costs associated with materials, activities and services are reasonable (35
Ill.
Adm. Code
732.505(c)).
The maximum payment amount is $50 per shipment (day).
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MAY 8, 200
* * * * * PC #75 * * * * *
11.
$20.00 for an adjustment
in
the miscellaneous item costs. The Illinois EPA has
determined that these costs are not reasonable as submitted (Section
57.7(~)(4)
of the Act
and 35
Ill. Adm. Code
732.606(hh)). One of the overall goals of the
fmancial review is
to assure that costs associated with materials, activities and services are reasonable (35
Ill. Adm. Code
732.505(~)).
The miscellaneous item costs (ice for samples) are part of the drilling, sample handling
and analysis costs, which have already reached the maximum payment amount.
12.
$20.00 for an adjustment in the UPS fuel surcharge. The Illinois EPA has determined
that these costs are not reasonable as submitted (Section
57.7(c)(4) of the Act and 35 111.
Adm. Code
732.606(hh)). One of the overall goals of the financial review is to assure
that costs associated with materials, activities and services are reasonable (35
Ill. Adm.
Code
732.505(c)).
The UPS
fuel surcharge is
part of
the sample shipping charge, which has already reached
the maximum payment amount.
13.
$9
1
.OO for an adjustment in the handling charges.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MAY 8, 200
* * * * * PC #75 * * * * *
Appeal
kghts
An underground storage tank owner or operator may appeal this final decision to the Illinois
Pollution Control Board pursuant to Sections 40 and
57.7(~)(4)
of the Act by filing a petition for
a hearing within 35 days after the date of issuance of the
final decision; however, the 35-day
period may be extended for a period of time not to exceed 90 days by written notice
fiom the
owner or operator and the Illinois EPA within the initial 35-day appeal period. If the owner or
operator wishes to receive a 90-day extension, a written request that includes a statement of the
date the final decision was received, along with a copy of this decision, must be sent to the
Illinois EPA as soon as possible.
For information regarding the filing of an appeal, please contact:
Dorothy
Gunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
State of
Ilhois Center
100 West Randolph, Suite 11-500
Chicago,
IL 60601
.
3
1218
14-3620
For information regarding the filing of an extension, please contact:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
-
Division of Legal Counsel
1 02
1 North Grand Avenue East
Post Office Box 19276
Springfield,
IL
62794-9276
21
71782-5544
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MAY 8, 200
* * * * * PC #75 * * * * *
