NOTICE

OF

FILING

PCBNo.

(LUST Appeal)

To:

Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Agency

Division

of

Legal

Counsel

1021

North

Grand

Avenue

East

P.O.

Box

19276

Springfield,

Illinois

62794-9276

Dorothy

M.

Gunn,

Clerk

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board

James

R.

Thompson

Center

100

West

Randolph

St.,

Suite

11-500

Chicago,

Illinois

60601

PLEASE

TAKE

NOTICE

that

I have

today,

February

13,

2009,

filed

with

the

Clerk

of

the

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board

a PETITION

FOR

REVIEW

OF

AGENCY’S

FINAL

DECISION

TO

DENY

PORTIONS

OF

PETITIONER’S

HIGH

PRIORITY

CORRECTION

ACTION

PLAN

BUDGET

and

ATTOR1EY

APPEARANCE

OF

F.

RONALDS

WALKER,

a copy

of

which

is

herewith

served

upon

you

through

United

States

Mail

return

receipt

requested.

Respectfully

Submitted,

Walker,

Atty

No.

2922223

PLEWS

SHADLEY

RACHER

&

BRAuN

LLP

1346

N.

Delaware

Street

Indianapolis,

Indiana

46202

Ph:

(317)

637-0700

Fax:

(317)

637-0710

FEB

172009

BEFORE

THE

ILLINOIS

POLLUTION

CONTROL

BOARD

STATE

JOHNSON

OIL

COMPANY,

LLC,

)

)

Petitioner,

)

)

vs.

)

)

ILLINOIS

ENVIRONMENTAL

)

PROTECTION

AGENCY,

)

)

Respondent.

)

PLEWS

RACHER

&

BRAuN

LLP

---

JOHNSON

OIL

COMPANY,

LLC

)

)

Petitioner,

)

)

vs.

)

ILLINOIS

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY,

)

)

Respondent.

)

ATTORNEY

APEARANCE

F.

Ronalds

Walker

an

attorney

with

the

law

firm

Plews

Shadley Racher

&

Braun

LLP

hereby

enters

his

appearance

on

behalf

of Petitioner,

Johnson

Oil

Company,

LLC.

Respectfully

Submitted,

PLEWS

SHADLEY

RACHER

&

BRAUN

LLP

F.

Rbnalds

Walker,

Atty

No.

2922223

PLEWS

SHADLEY

RACHER

&

BRAUN

LLP

1346

N.

Delaware

Street

Indianapolis,

Indiana

46202

Ph:

(317)

637-0700

Fax:

(317)

637-0712

BEFORE

THE

ILLINOIS

POLLUTION

CONTROL

BOARD

IP

FEB

172009

ControI

HOard

PCBNo._____

(LUST Appeal)

)

)

---

CERTIFICATE

OF

SERVICE

I, the

undersigned

attorney

at

law,

hereby

certify

that

on

February

13,

2009,

I

served

true

and

correct

copies

of

the

Attorney

Appearance,

by

placing

true

and

correct

copies

in

properly

sealed

and

addressed

envelopes

and

by

depositing

said

sealed

envelopes

in

a

U.S. mail

box

with

sufficient

postage

affixed

thereto,

upon the

following

named

persons:

Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Agency

Division

of

Legal

Counsel

1021

North

Grand

Avenue

East

P.O.

Box

19276

Springfield,

Illinois

62794-9276

Dorothy

M.

Gunn,

Clerk

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board

James

R.

Thompson

Center

100

West

Randolph

St.,

Suite

11-500

Chicago,

Illinois

60601

2

---

ECEVED

CLERçS

OFFCE

BEFORE

THE

ILLINOIS

POLLUTION

CONTROL

BOARD

FEB

172009

JOHNSON

OIL

COMPANY,

LLC,

)

STATE

OF

ILLINOIS

)

Pollution

Control

Board

Petitioner,

)

PCBNo.

vs.

)

(LUST

Appeal)

)

ILLINOIS

ENVIRONMENTAL

)

PROTECTION

AGENCY,

)

)

Respondent.

)

PETITION

FOR

REVIEW

OF

AGENCY’S

FINAL

DECISION

TO

DENY

PORTIONS

OF

PETITIONER’S

HIGH

PRIORITY

CORRECTION

ACTION

PLAN

BIJTGET

Petitioner,

Johnson

Oil

Company,

LLC

(“Johnson

Oil”),

pursuant

to

Sections

40(a)(1)

and

57.7(c)(4)(D)

of

the

Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Act

(415

ILCS

5/40(a)(1)

and

57.7(c)(4)(D))

and

35 Ill.

Adm.

Code

105.400-412,

hereby

requests

that

the

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board

(“Board”)

review

the

final

decision

of

the

Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Agency

(“Agency”)

to

deny

portions

of

Johnson

Oil’s

High

Priority

Correction

Action

Plan

and

Budget

(collectively

“HPCAP”).

In

support

thereof,

Johnson

Oil

respectfully

states

as

follows:

I.

Facts

and

Procedural

History

Johnson

Oil

formerly

owned

and

operated

a gasoline

service

station

on

property

located

at

851

East Main

Street, Danville,

Vermilion

County,

Illinois

(the

“Site”).

On

May

11,2000,

Johnson

Oil

reported

a

release

of

petroleum

at

the

Site

and

the

Site

was

assigned

Incident

No.

20000875.

Johnson

Oil

retained

American

Environmental

Corporation

(“American

Environmental”)

to

complete

Site

Classification

and

Corrective

Action,

including

the

preparation

of

Site

Classification

and

Corrective

Action

Plans.

American

Environmental

submitted

on

behalf

of

Johnson

Oil

a

HPCAP dated

September

10,

2008

and

a

HPCAP

dated

November

25,

2008

to

define

the

extent

of

contaminated

soil

and

---

groundwater.

The

HPCAP

also

proposed

an

Oxygen

Enhanced

Biorediation

(“OEB”)

method

for

the

Site.

Copies

of

the

HPCAPs

and

Budgets dated

September

10,

2008

and

November

25,

2008

are

attached

as

Exhibit

“A”

and

Exhibit

“B”

respectively.

The

Agency

issued

a

Final

Decision

to

Johnson

Oil

concerning

the

HPCAPs

on

January

9,

2009.

Johnson

Oil

received

the

Final

Decision

on

January

12,

2009

and

timely

filed

this

Petition

for

Review

within

35

days

of

receiving

the

Final

Decision.

A

copy

of

the

Final

Decision

is

attached

as Exhibit

“C”.

The

Agency’s

Final

Decision

modified

the

HPCAP.

The

Agency’s

Final

Decision

also

improperly

reduced

Johnson

Oil’s

HPCAP

Budget

in

the

amount

of

$31,071.91.

Reduced

personnel

costs

represented

at

least

$25,240.87

of

the

improper

Budget

reduction.

II.

The

HPCAP

and

Budget

The

grounds

for

the

Petition

for

Review

are

as

follows:

Johnson

Oil’s

consultant,

Simon

P.

Broomhead,

P.G.

of

American

Environmental,

prepared

the

HPCAPs

and

Budgets

in

accordance

with

the

Environmental

Protection

Act

(“Act”)

and

regulations,

in

addition

to

generally

accepted

engineering

practices.

Mr.

Broomhead

is

a

Licensed

Professional

Geologist

with

over

fifteen

(15)

years

experience

in

the

environmental

consulting

industry.

The

HPCAP

detailed

the

procedures

necessary

to

define

the

extent

of

residual contamination

and

evaluate

the

proposed

method

of

corrective

action.

In

accordance

with

35

Ill.

Adm.

Code

732.404(f),

the

Budget

included

an

estimate

of

all

costs

associated

with

the

implementation

and

completion

of

the

Corrective

Action

Plan. The

Budget

also

included

personnel

costs

for

activities

which

had

been completed

and

for

which

copies

of

invoices

were

provided

and

offered

to

document

such

costs.

These

costs

were

reasonable

and

were necessary

2

---

to

achieve

the

applicable

remediation

objectives.

The

personnel

activities

included in

the

Budget

consisted

of:

•

Monitoring,

and

report preparation

completed

throughout

the

Corrective

Action

Investigations,

•

Obtaining

permits

and

access

agreements

for

neighboring

properties

and

right-of

ways,

•

Aquifer

testing

and

risk-based

contaminant

modeling

to

calculate

remediation

objectives,

•

Preparation

of

Corrective

Action

Plans

and

Budgets,

•

Complicated

drilling

and

evaluation

to

characterize

the

presence

and

extent

of

confined

aquifers,

•

Preparation

of

reimbursement

claims,

•

Completion

of

additional

investigation,

including

soil

and

groundwater

sampling,

•

Additional

activities

required

to be

included

by

Agency

reviews.

III.

Budget

Expenses

That

Were

Improperly

Disallowed

The

Agency

modified

the

HPCAP

by

letter

dated

January

9,

2009

to

Johnson

Oil.

However,

the

personnel

costs

in

the

associated

Budget

were

modified

down

to

an

unreasonable

level

with

no

valid

justification

for

the

reductions.

The

Agency

improperly

reduced

the

Budget

for

personnel

costs

by

$25,240.87

with

no

valid

or

technical

justification.

The

amount

approved

($34,319.17)

was

less

than

necessary

to

complete

the

required

Corrective

Action.

Furthermore,

portions

of

the

personnel

costs

were

already

completed

and

appropriate

documentation

was

provided

to the

Agency.

Mi.

Broomhead

and

other

qualified

environmental

consultants

will

3

---

testify

that

the

approved Budget

for

the

HPCAP

is

vastly

below

industry

norms,

is

not

reasonable,

and

violates

35

111.

Adm.

Code

732.505

and

732.605.

The

Agency

improperly

claimed

the

following

reasons

for

the

Budget

reductions:

Items

1

&

2:

the

costs

exceed

the

minimum

requirements

necessary

to comply

with

the

Act.

Item

3:

the

costs

for

investigation

are

inconsistent

with

the

associated

technical

plan.

Item

4: the

costs

were

not

reasonable

because

the

costs

were

previously

approved

in

2002

and

therefore

were

duplicative.

Item

5:

the

costs

were

not

reasonable

because

the

costs

were

previously

approved

in

2002

and

therefore

were

duplicative.

Item

6:

the

costs

lacked

supporting

documentation.

Item

7: the

costs

lacked

supporting

documentation.

Item

8:

the

costs

were

not

reasonable

because

the

costs

were

previously

approved

in

2002

and

therefore

were

duplicative.

Item

9: the

costs

exceed

the

minimum

requirements

necessary

to

comply

with

the

Act.

Item

10:

the

costs

lacked

supporting

documentation.

Item

11:

the

costs

are

not

reasonable.

Item

12:

costs

were

indirect

corrective

action

costs

that

are

not

eligible

for

payment

from

the

Fund.

Item

13:

the

costs

exceed

the

minimum

requirements

necessary

to comply

with

the

Act.

4

---

Item

14:

the

costs

lacked

supporting

documentation.

Item,

15:

the

costs

exceed

the

maximum

payment

amount

set

forth

by

the

Fund.

Item

16:

the

costs

lacked

supporting

documentation.

Johnson

Oil

asserts

that

the

Agency’s

reasons

for

the

Budget

reductions

are not

correct,

not

proper,

and

are

without

valid

support. With

respect

to the

Agency’s

claim

that

certain

expenses

lack

supporting

documentation,

Johnson

Oil

alleges

that

that

it

has

supplied

the

supporting documentation,

offered

to

supply

the

Agency

with

the

supporting documentation

and

that

it will

promptly

supply

the

Agency

with

the

requisite

supporting

documentation

now

that

Agency

has

requested

additional

documentation

for the

first

time.

With

respect

to

the

Agency’s claim

that

certain

expenses

are

not reasonable,

Johnson

Oil

will

provide

evidence

and

expert

testimony that

its

investigative

and

corrective

action activities

and

expenses

are standard

and

necessary activities

and

expenses,

that

the

expenses

are

in

standard

and

customary

amounts,

and

that

the

investigation

and

remediation

can not

be

completed for

the

budget

proposed

by

the

Agency.

Furthermore,

the

Agency

failed

to

take

into

consideration:

(1)

the

complexity

of this

particular

Site

including

but

not

limited

to characterization

of

the

apparent

confined

aquifer

at

the

Site;

(2)

the

fact

that

numerous

access

agreements

had

to

be

negotiated

with

property

owners

before

the

investigation

could

proceed;

(3)

the

Site

was

inaccessible

for

lengthy

periods

due

to

road

construction

(4)

the

fact

that

nearby

properties

are

grossly

contaminated

from

unrelated

releases

of

petroleum;

and

(5)

the fact

that

the

Site

and

nearby

properties

changed

owners

numerous

times

over

the

course

of

the

investigation

requiring

additional

access

agreements

to

be negotiated.

The

HPCAP

cannot

be implemented

with

the

unreasonably

small

Budget

approved

by

the

Agency.

The

Budget

approved

by

the

Agency

is

unreasonable,

is

arbitrary

and

capricious,

and

5

---

does

not

account

for

the

several

investigation

and

corrective

action

activities

which

were

proposed

in

the

modified

HPCAP.

Thus, the

Budget

approved

by

the

Agency

is

invalid

and

is

arbitrary

and

capricious.

WHEREFORE,

Petitioner,

Johnson

Oil

Company,

LLC,

for

the

reasons

stated

above

and

others

that

may

be

discerned

through

the

course

of

discovery,

requests

that

the

Board reverse

the

Final

Decision

of

the

Agency

and

restore

the

expenses

as

submitted

in

Johnson

Oil’s

Budget

associated

with

the

HPCAP

and

Budgets

dated

September

10,

2008

and

November

25,

2008

and

award

consultant

and

attorney’s

fees

pursuant

to

415

ILCS

5/57.8(1)

and

35

III.

Adm.

Code

732.606(g).

Respectfully

Submitted,

/

F.

Ronalds

Walker,

Illinois

Atty

No.

2922223

PLEWS

SHADLEY

RACKER

&

BRAUN

LLP

1346

N.

Delaware

Street

Indianapolis,

Indiana

46202

Ph:

(317)637-0700

Fax:

(317)

637-0712

RACKER

&

BRAUN

LLP

6

---

CERTIFICATE

OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned

attorney

at law,

hereby

certify

that

on

February

13,

2009,

I

served

true

and correct

copies

of

the Petition

For

Review

Of Agency

Final

Decision

To Deny

Portions

of

Petitioner’s

HPCAP

Budget,

by

placing

true

and

correct

copies

in properly

sealed

and addressed

envelopes

and

by

depositing

said

sealed

envelopes

in

a

U.S.

mail

box

with

sufficient

postage

affixed

thereto,

upon

the

following

named

persons:

Dorothy

Gunn,

Clerk

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board

State of

Illinois

Center

100

West

Randolph,

Suite

11-500

Chicago,

IL

60601

Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Agency

Division

of

Legal Counsel

1021

North

Grand

Avenue

East

Post

Office

Box 19276

Springfield,

IL 62794-9276

7

---

Exhibit A

---

HIGH

PRIORITY

CORRECTIVE

ACTION

PLAN

AND

BUDGET

-

AMENDMENT

#4

Johnson

Oil

#148

851

East

Main

Street

Danville,

Illinois

LPC

#

1830205198

—

Vermilion

County

IEMA

Incident

Number:

20000875

American

Environmental

Corporation

Proj

ect

Number:

J-207022

September

10,

2008

SUBMITTED

TO:

Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Agency

Bureau

Of

Land/LUST

Section

1021

North

Grand

Avenue

East

P.O.

Box

19276

Springfield,

Illinois

PREPARED

BY:

American

Environmental

Corporation

3700

West

Grand

Avenue,

Suite

A

Springfield,

Illinois

62711

PREPARED

FOR:

Johnson

Oil

Company,

LLC

of

Indiana

P.O.

Box

27

Columbus,

Indiana

47202

---

American

-—‘-

Environmental

From

Springfield

Regional

Office

September

10,2008

illinois

Environmental

Protection

Agency

Bureau

of

LandJLUST

Section

1021

North

Grand

Avenue

East

P.O.

Box

19276

Springfield,

IL

62794-9276

Attention:

Carol

Hawbaker,

LUST

Project

Manager

Re:

High

Priority

Corrective

Action

Plan

and

Budget.—

Amendment

#4

LPC

#1

830205198

—Vermilion

County

Johnson

Oil

#148

—

Danville/Johnson

Oil

Company,

LLC

of

Indiana

851

East

Main

Street

IEMA

Incident

Number:

20000875

American

Environmental

Project

Number:

3-207022

Dear

Ms.

Hawbaker:

On

behalf

of

Johnson

Oil

Company,

LLC

of

Indiana

(Johnson

Oil),

American

Environmental

Corporation

(American

Environmental)

is

pleased

to

submit

this

Amended

High

Priority

Corrective

Action

Plan

(HPCAP)

and

Budget

for

the

above-referenced

LUST

Incident.

Johnson

Oil

Company

requests

that

the

illinois

Environmental

Protection

Agency

(“Agency”)

rescind

the

approval

of

the

April

16,

2004

Amended

HP

CAP

and

Budget

in

favor

of

the

attached

plan

and

budget

amendment.

The

excavation

proposed

in

the

April

16,

2004

HPCAP

cannot

be

completed

because

the

order

to

remove

the

USTs,

issued

by

the

Illinois

State

Fire

Marshal

(OSFM),

was

cancelled

upon

the

reported

discovery

that

the

UST

materials

were not

as

listed

in

OSFM

(and

subsequently

Johnson

Oil)

records.

The

October

29,

2001

HPCAP

and

Budget

are

amended

to

include

costs

for

additional

unforeseen

activities

beyond

the

2001

HPCAP

and

Budget

which

were

requiied

pursuant

to

Johnson

Oil’s

release.

These

additional

activities include

monitoring

and

sampling

of

excavations associated

with

right-of-way

improvements

in

East

Main

Street,

research

to

identify

and

characterize

an

Un

remediated

petroleum

release

at

an

off-site

property,

and

discussions

and

information

exchange

with on-site

and

off-site

owners

to

establish

and

maintain

access

to

such

properties

for

the

purpose

of

required

investigation.

The

attached

amended

budget

includes

costs

for

the

above-referenced

activities

and

additional

costs

for

the

completed

investigation

which

were not

foreseen,

and

therefore

could

not

have

been

included

in the

October

29,

2001

Budget.

Corpoi’ate

Office

Regional

Office

Regional

Office

Regional

Office

8500

Georgetown

Road

3700

W.

Grand

Ave.

Suite

A

410

Production

Court

4305

Muhlhauser

Road,

Suite

3

Indianapolis,

IN

45268.1647

Springfield,

IL

62711

Louisville,

KY

40298

Cincinnati,

OH

45014

Si

7-871-4060

217.585-9517

502-491-0144

51

3-874-7740

317-871-4094

Fax

217-585-9518

Fax

502-491-9271

Fax

513-874-7756

Fax

---

This

HPCAP

and

Budget

includes

proposed

investigation

to

characterize

the

extent

and

magnitude

of

contamination

in

the

vadose

zone.

Please

contact

the

undersigned

if

you

have

questions

or

concerns.

In

addition,

please

send

copies

of

future

correspondence

to

me

atthe

Springfield

Office

of

American

Enviromnental.

Sincerely,

AMERICAN

ENVIRONMENTAL

CORPORATION

$Mci

.

Simon

P.

Broonthead,

P.O.

Project

Manager

Attachments

pe:

Rick

Johnson,

Johnson

Oil

Company,

LLC

of

Indiana

---

The

Acncy

Is

authorized

to

require

Ihla

infonnetlon

under

Section

4

arid

Thia

XVI

of

the

Erivhonmental

Protection

Act

(415

ILCS

514,

5157-

57,17).

Fallur

to

disclose

this

Information

may

result

in

a

civil

penalty

of

not

to

exceed

$50,000.00

for

the

violation

acid

an

additional

clvii

penalty

of

riot

to

exceed

$10,000.00

feach

dayduringwhlch

the

violation

continues

(415

ILCS

5/42).

Any

person

who

knowIngly

makes

a

false

material

sialement

or

representation

in

any

label,

mantiest,

record,

report,

permit,

orlicense,

or

other

documentlilad,

maintained

or

used

for

the

purpose

of

comptienca

with

Title

XVI

commits

a

Class

4

felony.

Any

second

croubsequent

offertae

alter

conviction

hereunder

Is

a

Clans

3

felony

(415

IICS

5/57.17).

This

(xml

has

been

approved

by

the

Forms

Management

Center.

Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Agency

Leaking

Underground

Storage

Tank

Program

Corrective

Action

Plan

A.

Site

Identification

IEMA

ncident#

(6-

or

8-digit):

20000875

EPA

LPC#

(10-digit):

1830205198

Site

Name:

Johnson

Oil

#148

Site

Address

(Not

a

P.O.

Box):

851

East

Main

Street

City:

Danville

County:

Vermilion

ZIP

Code:

61832

Leaking

UST

Technical

File

B.

Site

Information

1.

Will

the

owner

or

operator

seek

reimbursement

from

the

Underground

Storage

Tank

Fund?

Yes

J

No

El

2.

If

yes,

is

the

budget

attached?

Yes

I

No

El

3.

Is

this

an

amended

plan?

Yes

1

No

El

4.

Identify

the

material(s)

released:

Gasoline

5.

This

Corrective

Action

Plan

is

submitted

pursuant

to:

a.

35

III.

Adm.

Code

731.166

The

material

released

was:

-petroleum

El

-hazardous

substance

(see

Environmental

Protection

Act

Section

3.215)

El

b.

35

Ill.

Adm.

Code

732.404

c.

35

III.

Adm.

Code

734.335

El

C.

Proposed

Methods

of

Remediation

1.

Soil

Natural

Attenuation

with

Institutional

Controls

(pending

additional

characterization)

2.

Groundwater

Oxygen-Enhanced

Bioremediation

(OEB)

D.

Soil

and

Groundwater

Investigation

Results

(for

incidents

subject

to

35

III.

Adm.

Code

731

only

or

732

that

were

classified

using

Method

One

or

Two,

if

not

previously

provided)

Provide

the

following:

1.

Description

of

investigation

activities

performed

to

define

the

extents

of

soil

and/or

groundwater

contamination;

2.

Analytical

results,

chain-of-custody

forms,

and

laboratory

certifications;

IL

532

2287

Corrective

Action

Plan

LPC

513

Rev.

March

2006

1

of

4

---

3.

Tables

comparing

analytical

results

to

applicable

remediation

objectives;

4.

Boring

logs;

5.

Monitoring

well

logs;

and

6.

Site

maps

meeting

the

requirements

of

35

III.

Adm.

Code

732.110(a)

or

734.440

and

showing:

a.

Soil

sample

locations;

b.

Monitoring

well

locations;

and

c.

Plumes

of

soil

and

groundwater

contamination.

E.

Technical

Information

-

Corrective

Action

Plan

Provide

the

following:

1.

Executive

summary

identifying

the

objectives

of

the

corrective

action

plan

and

the

technical

approach

to

be

utilized

to

meet

such

objectives;

a.

The

major

components

(e.g.,

treatment,

containment,

removal)

of

the

corrective

action

plan;

b.

The

scope

of

the

problems

to

be

addressed

by

the

proposed

correctiveaction;

and

c.

A

schedule

for

implementation

and

completion

of

the

plan;

2.

Identification

of

the

remediation

objectives

proposed

for

the

site;

3.

A

description

of

the

remedial

technologies

selected:

a.

The

feasibility

of

implementing

the

remedial

technologies:

b.

Whether

the

remedial

technologies

will

perform

satisfactorily

and

reliably

until

the

remediation

objectives

are

achieved;

and

c.

A

schedule

of

when

the

technologies

are

expected

to

achieve

the

applicable

remediation

objectives;

4.

A

confirmation

sampling

plan

that

describes

how

the

effectiveness

of

the

corrective

action

activities

will

be

monitored

during

their

implementation

and

after

their

completion;

5.

A

description

of

the

current

and

projected

future

uses

of

the

site;

6.

A

description

of

engineered

barriers

or

institutional

controls

that

will

be

relied

upon

to

achieve

remediation

objectives:

a.

an

assessment

of

their

long-term

reliability;

V

V

b.

operating

and

maintenance

plans;

and

c.

maps

showing

area

covered

by

barriers

and

institutionalcontrols;

V

7.

The

water

supply

well

survey:

a.

Map(s)

showing

locations

of

community

water

supply

wells

and

other

potable

wells

and

the

setback

zone

for

each

well;

b.

Map(s)

showing

regulated

recharge

areas

and

wellhead

protection

areas;

c.

V

Map(s)

showing

the

current

extent

of

groundwater

contamination

exceeding

the

most

stringent

Tier

I

remediation

objectives;

d.

Map(s)

showing

the

modeled

extent

of

groundwater

contamination

exceeding

the

most

stringent

Tier

1

remediation

objectives;

e.

Tables

listing

the

setback

zone

for

each

community

water

supply

well

and

other

potable

water

supply

wells;

f.

A

narrative

identifying

each

entity

contacted

to

identify

potable

water

supply

wells,

the

name

and

title

of

each

person

contacted,

and

any

field

observations

associated

with

any

wells

identified;

and

V

g.

A

certification

from

a

Licensed

Professional

Engineer

or

Licensed

Professional

Geologist

that

the

survey

was

conducted

in

accordance

with

the

requirements

and

that

documentation

submitted

includes

information

obtained

as

a

result

of

the

survey

(certification

of

this

plan

satisfies

this

requirement);

Corrective

Action

Plan

2

of

4

---

8.

Appendices:

a.

References

and

datasources

report

that

are

organized;

and

b.

Field

logs,

well

logs,

and

reports

of

laboratory

analyses;

9.

Site

map(s)

meeting

the

requirements

of

35

III.

Adm.

Code

732.110(a)

or

734.440;

10.

Engineering

design

specifications,

diagrams,

schematics,

calculations,

manufacturer’s

specifications,

etc.;

11.

A

description

of

bench/pilot

studies;

12.

Cost

comparison

between

proposed

method

of

remediation

and

other

methods

of

remediation;

13.

For

the

proposed

Tier

2

or

3

remediation

objectives,

provide

the

following:

a.

The

equations

used;

b.

A

discussion

of

how

input

variables

were

determined;

c.

Map(s)

depicting

distances

used

in

equations;

and

d.

Calculations;

14.

Prqvide

documentation

to

demonstrate

the

following

for

alternative

technologies:

a.

The

proposed

alternative

technology

has

a

substantial

likelihood

of

successfully

achieving

compliance

with

all

applicable

regulations

and

remediation

objectiies;

b.

The

proposed

alternative

technology

will

not

adversely

affect

human

health

and

safety

or

the

environment;

c.

The

owner

or

operator

will

obtain

all

Illinois

EPA

permits

necessary

to

legally

authorize

use

of

the

alternative

technology;

d.

The

owner

or

operator

will

implement

a

program

to

monitor

whether

the

requirements

of

subsection

(14)(a)

have

been

met;

e.

Within

one

year

from

the

date

of

Illinois

EPA

approval,

the

owner

or

operator

will

provide

to

the

Illinois

EPA

monitoring

program

results

establishing

whether

the

proposed

alternative

technology

will

successfully

achieve

compliance

with

the

requirements

of

subsection

(14)(a);

and

f.

Demonstration

that

the

cost

of

alternative

technology

will

not

exceed

the

cost

of

conventional

technology

and

is

not

substantially

higher

than

at

least

two

other

alternative

technologies,

if

available

and

technically

feasible.

15.

Property

Owner

SUmmary

form.

F.

Exposure

Pathway

Exclusion

Provide

the

following:

1.

A

description

of

the

tests

to

be

performed

in

determining

whether

the

following

requirements

will

be

met:

a.

Attenuation

capacity

of

the

soil

will

not

be

exceeded

for

any

of

the

organic

contaminants;

b.

Soil

saturation

limit

will

not

be

exceeded

for

any

of

the

organic

contaminants;

c.

Contaminated

soils

do

not

exhibit

any

of

the

reactivity

characteristics

of

hazardous

waste

per

35

Ill.

Adm.

Code

721.123;

d.

Contaminated

soils

do

not

exhibit

a

pH

2.0

or

12.5;

and

e.

Contaminated

soils

which

contain

arsenic,

barium,

cadmium,

chromium,

lead,

mercury,

or

selenium

(or

their

associated

salts)

do

not

exhibit

any

of

the

toxicity

characteristics

of

hazardous

waste

per

35

III.

Adm.

Code

721.124.

2.

A

discussion

of

how

any

exposure

pathways

are

to

be

excluded.

Corrective

Action

Plan

3

of

4

---

G.

Signatures

Al!

plans,

budgets,

and

reports

must

be

signed

by

the

owner

or

operator

and

list

the

owner’s

or

operator’s

full

name,

address,

and

telephone

number.

UST

Owner

or

Operator

Name:

Johnson

Oil

Company,

LLC

of

IN

Contact:

Rick

Johnson

Manager

Address:

P.O.

Box

27

City:

Columbus

State:

Indiana

ZIP

Code:

47202

Phone:

(81Z)4Q,/

Signature:

-

‘q

v._i

Date:

Consultant

Company:

American

Environmental

Corp.

Contact:

Simon

P.

Broomhead,

P.G.

Address:

3700

West

Grand

Avenue,

Suite

A

City:

Springfield

State:

Illinois

ZIP

Code:

62711

Phone:

(217)

585-9517

Signature:

_i?iiw

P.

QflL.gAfi

Date:

I

certify

under

penalty

of

law

that

all

activities

that

are

the

subject

of

this

plan

were

conducted

under

my

supervision

or

were

conducted

under

the

supervision

of

another

Licensed

Professional

Engineer

or

Licensed

Professional

Geologist

and

reviewed

by

me;

that

this

plan

and

all

attachments

were

prepared

under

my

supervision;

that,

to

the

best

of

my

knowledge

and

belief,

the

work

described

in

this

plan

has

been

completed

in

accordance

with

the

Environmental

Protection

Act

[415

1LCS

5],

35

Ill.

Adm.

Code

731,

732

or

734,

and

generally

accepted

standards

and

practices

of

my

profession;

and

that

the

information

presented

is

accurate

and

complete.

I

am

aware

there

are

significant

penalties

for

submitting

false

statements

or

representations

to

the

Illinois

EPA,

including

but

not

limited

to

fines,

imprisonment,

or

both

as

provided

in

Sections

44

and

57.17

of

the

Environmental

Protection

Act

[415

ILCS

5/44

and

57.17].

Licensed

Professional

Engineer

or

Geologist

L.P.E.

or

L.PG.

Seal

Name:

Simon

P.

Broomhead,

P.G.

Company:

American

Environ

mental

Corp.

Address:

3700

West

Grand

Avenue,

Ste.

A

City:

Springfield

State:

Illinois

ZIP

Code:

62711

Phone:

(217)

585-9517

Ill.

Registration

No.:

196-000536

License

Expiration

Date:

03/31/09

Signature:

WL1’11l

1

p,

4cri#4.e

4

Jt

Date:

Corrective

Action

Plan

4

of

4

---

AMENDED

HIGH

PRIORITY

CORRECTIVE

ACTION

PLAN

Johnson

Oil

Company

#

148

851

East

Main

Street

JEMA

Incident

No.

20000875

IEPA

Generator

Number

1830205198

American

Environmental

Project

J-207022

Johnson

Oil

Company

(Johnson

Oil)

formerly

operated

a convenience

store

with

retail

sale

of

gasoline

at

the

above-referenced

site.

A

release

was

reported

in

response

to

environmental

contamination

reported

in

soil

and

groundwater

samples

collected

during

a

Phase

2

Environmental

Site

Assessment

conducted

on

behalf

of

Clark

Retail

Marketing

(Clark) as

part

of

a

property

transaction.

The

release

was

attributed

to

overfills

of

the

gasoline

underground

storage

tanks

(USTs)

at the

site.

Site

Classification

was

completed

between

September

2000

and

July

2001.

The

site

was

classified

High

Priority

based

on

the

exceedence

of

the

groundwater

remediation

objective

for

at

least

one

indicator

compound

at

the

property

boundary.

Additional

investigation

to

define

the

extent

of

the

contamination

plume

was

proposed

in

a corrective

action

plan

dated October

29,

2001

and

approved

by

the

Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Agency

(“Agency”)

in

a

February

15,

2002

letter

to

Johnson

Oil.

However,

while

attempting

to

obtain

off-site access

agreements

to

define

the

extent

of

contamination,

the

Illinois

Department

of

Transportation

(IDOT)

commenced

significant

infrastructure

improvements

along

Main

Street that

prevented

the

completion

of

the

proposed

investigation.

American

Environmental

monitored

the

progress

of

the

improvements,

including

documenting

and

sampling

excavations

within

the

right-of-way,

while

researching

and

attempting

to

obtain

access

agreements

with

the

neighboring

property

owners.

Access

to

the

former

Johnson

Oil

site

also

required

discussions

and

information

exchange

with

Clark

and

two

subsequent

owners.

This

High

Priority

Corrective

Action

Plan

(HPCAP)

and

Budget

Amendment

presents the

results

of

the

off-site

investigation

and

proposes

additional

on-site

vadose-zone

characterization

in

conjunction

with

a feasibility

study

to

evaluate

Oxygen

Enhanced

Bioremediation

(OEB)

for

the

remediation

of

residual

contamination

dissolved

in

groundwater

and

adsorbed

to

saturated

soil.

The

attached

budget

replaces

the

April

16,

2004

budget,

but

includes

costs

for

work completed

pursuant

to

that

budget,

which

were

approved

by

the

Agency

in

the

June

1,

2004

letter

to

Johnson

Oil

and

pursuant

to a

November

10,

2004

telephone

conversation

between

Mr.

Simon

Broombead

and

Ms.

Carol

Hawbaker,

the

Agency

Project

Manager.

D.

Soil

and

Groundwater

Investigation

Results

1.

Description

of

investigation

activities

performed

to

define

the

extents

of

soil

and/or

groundwater

contamination.

On

February

27-28,

2001,

American

Environmental

Corporation

(American

Environmental)

installed

five

monitoring

wells

(monitoring

wells

MW1

through

MW5)

for

a

groundwater

investigation

during

Site

Classification.

While

installing

the

monitoring

wells,

one

soil

sample

from

each

soil

boring was

---

Corrective

Action

Plan

Johnson

Oil

#

148

851

East

Main

Street,

Danville,

Illinois

American

Environmental

Corp

Project

Number:

J-20

7022

Page

2

selected

for

laboratory

analysis

based

on

odors,

headspace

readings

using

a

photoionization

detector,

and

indications

of saturated

conditions.

Groundwater

samples were

collected

from

the

monitoring

wells

on

March

15,

2001. Soil

and

groundwater

samples

were

laboratory-analyzed

for

berizene, toluene,

ethylbenzene

and

total

xylenes

(BTEX),

the

indicator

compounds

for

gasoline

releases in

Illinois.

Samples were

also

analyzed

for

methyl tert-butyl

ether

(MTBE),

and

polynuclear

aromatic

(PNA)

compounds.

Additional

groundwater

samples

were

collected

from

MW1

through

MW5

on August

13,

2001

and

were

analyzed

for

total

lead.

Based

on

water

level

measurements

recorded while

sampling the

monitoring

wells,

groundwater

appears to

flow southwest

from the

location

of

the

USTs,

toward

monitoring

well

MW5.

The

well

locations

are

depicted

in Figure

1 of

Appendix

A.

Additional

investigation

to

define the

extent

of

contamination

was

proposed

in

an

October 29,

2001

HPCAP and

approved

in

a February

15,

2002

letter to

Johnson

Oil. However,

off-site

investigation

was

delayed

by

major

highway

expansion

along East

Main

Street,

which

prevented

access

to

several proposed

sample

locations.

American Environmental

personnel

monitored

the

progress

of

the

infrastructure

improvements

and

were

present

during

excavation

for

the

installation

of

a

sanitary

sewer

on

the

south

side

of East Main

Street. Soil

samples

were

collected

from

the

sanitary

sewer

excavation,

including

within

approximately

ten

feet

of

the

locations

proposed

for

monitoring

wells

MW9

and

MW1O

in the

October

29,

2001

HPCAP.

Abandoned

piping

and

backfill gravel,

typical

of materials

used

in UST

fields

and

eliciting

a

strong

petroleum-like

odor,

exposed

in the

sanitary sewer

excavation

suggested

that

the

excavation

was

completed

through

a

former

tank

field.

Significant

contamination

was

reported

in

some

of

these

off-site

soil

samples.

However,

the

absence

of

methyl tertiary-butyl

ether

(MTBE)

in

these

soil

samples indicates

that

the

off-site

contamination

was

from

a

pre-l990s

release, apparently

associated

with

a

former

service

station

reported

to

have

been

located

at the

southwest

corner

of the

intersection

of

East

Main

Street

and

Bowman Street,

south

of

the

site.

The

sewer

excavation

and

sample

locations

are

depicted

on

Figure

1

of

Appendix

A.

Photographs

of

the

excavation

were

provided in

the

August

9,

2007

CAP.

American

Environmental

reviewed

historical

documents

retained

by

the

Danville

Public

Library,

including

city

directories

and

Sanbom

Fire

Insurance

Maps,

and

interviewed

City

of Danville

and

IDOT

personnel

regarding

the

former service

station

south

of

the

site.

The

1951

Sanbom

Map

shows

a

service

station

at

this

property,

with

USTs

buried

in

the

north

portion

of

the

property, close to the

right

of-way.

The

1951

City

Directory

identifies

this

service

station as

CC

Smith

and

Son

Filling

Station. Subsequent

city

directories

identi’

this

station as

Parkway

Mobil

Service

through

1971.

City

directories

after

1971

show this

property as

vacant.

City

and

IDOT

personnel

reported that

the

USTs

were

removed

in

1993

---

Corrective

Action

Plan

Johnson

Oil

#

148

851

East

Main

Street,

Danville,

Illinois

American

Environmental

Corp

Project

Number:

J-207022

Page

3

and some

remedial

action

was

initiated.

However,

the

site

(Bureau

of

Land

No.

1830205069)

is

not

listed

on the

Agency’s

Leaking

UST

or

Site

Remediation

Program

databases

and

no

information

was

available

pertaining

to

the

remediation.

A

copy

of

the

1951

Sanborn

Map

and

a

printout

from

the

Agency’s

Bureau

of

Land

Inventory

for

the

site

were

included

in

the

August

9,

2007

CAP.

An

amended

HPCAP

and

Budget

(Amendment

#1)

was

submitted

on

April

16,

2004

and

approved

in

a

June

1,

2004

letter

to

Johnson

Oil.

The amended

HPCAP

proposed

excavation

and

off-site

disposal

of

source

area

soil

in

conjunction

with

the

removal

of

the

USTs,

as

required

by

the

Office

of

the

State Fire

Marshal

(OSFM).

The

order

to

remove

the

USTs

was

subsequently

redacted

by

the

OSFM.

Consequently,

the

proposed

excavation

could

not

be

completed.

Budget

Amendment

#2, submitted

on

June

17,

2004,

presented

additional

costs

for

obtaining

access

agreements,

along

with

additional

proposed

costs

to

complete

the

off-site

investigation

which

were

not

foreseen

in

the

October

29,

2001

Budget.

Budget

Amendment

#2

was

rejected

in

a

September

15,

2004

letter

to

Johnson

Oil, requiring

that

the

proposed

investigation

be

completed

prior

to submittal

of

an

amended

budget.

Off-site

investigation

to

delineate

the

extent

of

contamination

was performed

on

March

8-9, 2006,

after

completion

of

the

right-of-way

improvements.

At

that

time,

American

Environmental

installed

four

additional

monitoring

wells. (MW4R

and

MW6

through

MW8).

Wells

MW6

through

MW8

were

installed

for

off-site

investigation

and well

MW4R

replaced

well

MW4

that

was

destroyed

during

the

preceding

highway

expansion.

In

addition,

soil

borings

SB 1

and

SB2 were

advanced

near

the

north

and

south

sides

of

the

tank

field,

respectively.

While

installing

the

monitoring

wells,

one

soil

sample

from

each

monitoring

well

boring

was

selected

for

laboratory

analysis

based

on

odors,

headspace

readings

using

a

photoionization

detector,

and

indications

of

saturated

conditions.

Two

samples

from

each

soil

boring

were

collected

following

the

same

procedures.

Soil

samples

collected

from

the

well

borings

and

soil borings

were

laboratory-

analyzed

for

BTEX,

MTBE,

and

naphthalene,

a

non-indicator

compound

present

in

gasoline.

In

addition,

the

samples

from

the

soil

borings

were

analyzed

for

leachable

lead

following

the

Synthetic

Precipitation

Leachate

Procedure

(SPLP)

and

for

total

lead.

The Agency

required

lead

sampling

near

the

tank field

in

order

to

support

the

exclusion

of

this

compound

from

the

list

of

indicator

compounds.

Groundwater

samples

were

collected

from

monitoring

wells

MW1

through

MW8

for

laboratory

analysis

on

April

12,

2006.

Groundwater

samples

were

analyzed

for

BTEX,

MTBE,

and

naphthalene.

Based

on

water

level

measurements

recorded

while

sampling

the

monitoring

wells,

groundwater

appears

to flow

southeast

from

the

location

of

the

former

USTs,

toward

monitoring

well

MW3,

---

Corrective

Action

Plan

Johnson

Oil

#

148

851

East

Main

Street,

Danville,

Illinois

American

Environmental

Corp

Project

Number:

J-20

7022

Page

4

where

maximum

concentrations

of

indicator

compounds

were

reported.

Figure

2

of

Appendix

A

is

a

potentiometric

map

of

the

April

12,

2006

water

level data.

The

results

of

the

off-site

investigation

were

initially

submitted

in

an

August

9,

2007 HPCAP

and

Budget

(Amendment

#3),

along

with

proposed

vadose

zone

investigation

and

an

OEB feasibility

study.

The amended

HPCAP

and

Budget

were

rejected

in

a

November

5,

2007

letter

to

Johnson

Oil, requiring

significant

modifications

to

the

vadose

zone

investigation

and

feasibility

study.

2.

Analytical

results,

chain-of-custody

forms

and

laboratory

certifications

Laboratory

reports

for analyses

performed

during

Site Classification

were

provided

in

the

May

4,

2001

Site

Classification

Completion

Report

(SCCR).

Laboratory

reports

for

the

off-site

investigation

and

the

most

recent

groundwater

sampling

event

analyses,

performed

under

Corrective

Action,

are

provided

in

Appendix

B.

3.

Tables

comparing

analytical

results

to

applicable

remediation

objectives

Soil

samples

collected

during

Corrective

Action

investigations

were

analyzed

by

Severn

Trent

Laboratories,

Inc., University

Park,

Illinois.

Soil

and

groundwater

analytical

results,

along

with

the

applicable

Tier

1

remediation

objectives,

are

included

in

Tables

1

and

2

of

Appendix

C,

respectively.

BTEX

and

naphthalene

were reported

in

on-site

soil

samples

collected

near

the

property

boundaries

to

the

north,

east,

and

south

of

the

USTs.

Reported

concentrations

of

BTEX

constituents

exceeded

the

applicable

Tier

1

Soil

Remediation

Objectives

(SROs)

in several

samples.

However,

additional

investigation

and

sampling

is

proposed

to

determine

whether

several

samples

were

collected

from

below the water

table.

Reported

soil

concentrations

of

lead

for

on-site

and

off-site

samples

were below

the

applicable

Tier

1

SROs

or

Statewide

Background

Concentration.

Toluene,

xylenes,

MTBE,

and

naphthalene

were

each

reported

in

at

least one sample

collected

from

off-site

soil

borings.

However;

reported

concentrations

of

these

compounds

were

below

the

applicable

Tier

1

SROs.

BTEX

were

reported

in

groundwater

samples

collected

from on-site

monitoring

wells near

the

property

boundaries

to

the

north,

east,

and

south

of

the

USTs

as

part

of

Site

Classification

activities

during

2001.

The

reported

concentrations

of

benzene,

toluene,

ethylbenzene,

andlor

naphthalene

exceeded

their

applicable

Tier

1

Groundwater

Remediation

Objectives

(GROs)

in

four

groundwater

samples.

Reported

concentrations

of

BTEX

and

MTBE

in

recent

samples

---

Corrective

Action

Plan

Johnson

Oil

#

148

851

East

Main

Street,

Danville,

Illinois

American

Environmental

Corp

Project

Number:

J-20

7022

Page

5

collected

from

wells

near

the

property

boundaries

generally

showed

significant

reductions,

except

for

the

sample

collected

from

MW3.

Reported

BTEX

concentrations

in

this

well

were

significantly

increased

over

the

2001

sample

data.

BTEX

were

not

reported

in

samples

collected

from

off-site

monitoring

wells.

Naphthalene

was

reported

in

one of

five

monitoring

wells

(MW1)

during

the

2001

Site

Classification

sampling

event.

Naphthalene

was

reported

in

two

additional

monitoring

wells

(MW2

and

MW3)

near

the

property

boundaries

during

the

recent

sampling

event.

Reported

naphthalene

concentrations

in

samples

collected

from

these

wells exceeded the

applicable

Tier

1

GRO.

Soil

samples

collected

from

a

sanitary

sewer

excavation

trench

off site

to

the

south

reported

benzene

concentrations

above

the

Tier

1

SRO in

two

of

four

samples

analyzed.

MTBE was

not

reported

in

any

of

the

excavation

soil

samples.

4.

Boring

logs

Soil

boring

logs

for

borings

completed

during

Site

Classification

and

Corrective

Action

investigations

are

provided

in

Appendix

D. The

logs

have

been

updated

to

show the

potentiometric

surface

variation,

as

measured

during

the

sampling

events.

5.

Monitoring

well

logs

Monitoring

well

construction

diagrams

for

wells

completed

during

Site

Classification

and

Corrective

Action

investigations

are

provided

on

the

boring

logs

in

Appendix

D.

6.

Site

maps

meeting

the

requirements

of

35

Ill.

Adm.

Code

732.110(a)

or

734.440

and

showing:

a.

Soil

sample

locations;

b.

Monitoring

well

locations;

and

c.

Plumes

of

soil

and

groundwater

contamination.

A

site

plan

depicting

the

soil

sample

and

monitoring

well

locations

is

provided

in

Figure

1

of

Appendix

A.

The

estimated

extents

of

the

soil

and

groundwater

contamination

plumes

are depicted

in

Figures

3

and

4,

respectively,

of

Appendix

A.

These

extents

will

be

adjusted,

as

necessary

based

on

the

proposed

additional

soil

and

groundwater

sampling,

and

depicted

in

figures

to

be

provided

in

a

subsequent

CAP.

---

Corrective

Action

Plan

Johnson

Oil#148

8,51

East

Main

Street,

Danville,

Illinois

American

Environmental

Corp

Project

Number:

J-20

7022

Page

6

E.

Technical

Information

-

Corrective

Action

Plan

1.

Executive

summary

identifying

the

objectives

of

the

corrective

action

plan

and

the

technical

approach

to

be

utilized

to

meet

such

objectives:

a.

The

major

components

(e.g.,

treatment,

containment,

removal)

of

the

corrective

action

plan;

b.

The

scope

of

the

problems

to

be

addressed

by

the

proposed

corrective

action;

and

c.

A

schedule

for

implementation

and

completion

of

the

plan.

The

site

was

classified as

High

Priority

based

on

the

exceedence

of

Tier

1

groundwater

remediation

objectives

at monitoring

wells

near

the

north,

east,

and

south

property

boundaries.

Remediation

of

groundwater

contamination

will

be

required,

based

on

a

significant

increase

in

contaminant

levels

reported

in

monitoring

well

MW3.

However,

the

need

for

remediation

of

the

vadose

zone

cannot

be

detennined

based

on

the

soil

data

obtained

to

date.

Soil

samples

collected

from

apparently

unsaturated

soil

in

a majority

of

the

soil

borings

for

the

on-site

monitoring

wells

were

found

to be

below

static

water

levels

in

the

monitoring

wells.

Therefore,

additional

characterization

of

the

vadose

zone

is

proposed.

Vadose

Zone

Investigation

The

vadose

investigation

will

consist

of

five

direct-push

borings

(identified

as

VZ1

through

VZ5)

to

be

completed

around

the

tank

field,

four

direct-push

borings

(DNE,

DNW,

DSE,

DSW) to be

completed

adjacent

to

the

dispenser

islands,

and

four

direct-push

borings

(MW1B

through

MW4B)

to

be

completed

within

five

feet

of

monitoring

wells

MW1

through

MW4.

These

borings

will

be

completed

to a

maximum

depth

of

five

to

eight

feet

to

collect

a

sample

from

vadose zone

soil.

Soil

samples

collected

from

the

borings

will

be

analyzed

for

BTEX,

MTBE

and

naphthalene

in

accordance

with

USEPA Method

503

5!8260B.

In

addition

to

soil

samples

to

be

collected

and

analyzed

for

indicator

compounds,

additional

samples

will

be

collected

from

vadose-zone

soil

for

analysis

of

soil

bulk

density

(Pb),

soil

particle

density

(Ps),

and

fractional

organic

carbon

(foc).

These

analyses, along

with

moisture

content

(w),

are

required

by

35

IAC,

Section

732.408

to

provide

site-specific

parameters

for

Tier

2 TACO

calculations.

Moisture content

is

reported

in

conjunction

with

USEPA

Method

5035

volatile

organic

analysis.

The

soil

sample

for

analysis

of

bulk

and

particle

density

is planned

to

be collected from

either

direct-push

boring

VZ3

or

VZ5,

in

the

central

portion

of

the

site.

Based

on

the

extent

of

contamination

across

the

eastern

portion

of

the

site

and

in

---

Corrective

Action

Plan

Johnson

Oil

#

148

851

East

Main

Street,

Danville,

Illinois

American

Environmental

Corp

Project

Number:

J-20

7022

Page

7

order

meet

the

Agency’s

requirement

that

the

samples

be

collected

on

site,

soil samples

for

foe

analysis

will

be

collected

from

two

direct-push

borings

(TACO-i

and

TACO-2)

to

be

completed

at

the

west

property

boundary.

Groundwater

Investigation

Three additional

compliance

monitoring

wells

are

proposed

to

define

the

extent

of

contamination.

Monitoring

wells

MW9

and

MW1O

will

be

installed

at

the

southeast

corner

of

the

site

and

off

site

to

the

southeast,

respectively.

Monitoring

well

MW4B

will

be

installed

at

the

south

property

line,

within

five feet

of

the

former

location

of

monitoring

well

MW4.

Sampling

information

from

these

monitoring

wells would

initially

be

used

to

refine

potentiometric

maps

and

further

define the

down-

gradient

extent

of

the

groundwater

plume

and

would

later

be

used

to

document

the

completion

of

remediation.

The

proposed

monitoring

wells

are

depicted

on

Figure

5

of

Appendix

A.

Three

additional

contingent

monitoring

wells

are

also

proposed,

based

on

the

analytical

results

of

the

vadose

zone

investigation

at

the

dispenser

islands.

The

three contingent

wells

would

be

completed

under

a

separate

mobilization

if

contamination

exceeding

Tier

1 SROs is

reported

in

one

or

more

soil

samples

collected

adjacent

to

the

dispenser

islands.

One

contingent

well

would

be

installed

at

the

dispenser

boring

location

where

maximum

concentrations

of

indicator

compounds

were

reported,

while

the

other

two

contingent

borings

would

be

completed

at

the

property

boundaries

northwest

and

southwest

from

the

dispenser

islands.

Proposed

contingent

well

locations

are

depicted

on

Figure

5

of

Appendix

A.

Soil

boring

and

monitoring

well

completion

methods

are

discussed

in

Section

E.1O.

Field investigation,

including

soil and

groundwater

sampling,

will

be

completed

within

approximately

60

days after

Agency

approval

of

this

CAP. The

results

of

the

additional

investigation

will

be

submitted

in

an

amended

CAP

approximately

30

days

after

completion

of

the

investigation,

or

approximately

90

days

after

approval

of

this

CAP and

Budget.

No

additional

investigation

or

remediation

is

proposed

for

the

neighboring

property

south

of

the

site,

beyond

East

Main

Street.

Excavation

and

sampling

completed

during

the

installation

of

a

sewer

line

encountered

significant

residual

contamination

(soil samples

E6

and

E7)

associated

with

former leaking UST(s)

on

this

neighboring

property.

Therefore,

investigation

conducted

on

this

property

would

encounter

residual

soil

and

groundwater

contamination

associated

with

another

release

which

has not

been,

and

apparently

will

not

be,

remediated.

---

Corrective

Action

Plan

Johnson

Oil

#

148

851

East

Main

Street,

Danville,

Illinois

American

Environmental

Corp

Project

Number:

J-20

7022

Page

8

Contamination

currently

present

or

migrating

beneath

East

Main

Street will

be

addressed

using

a

highway

authority

agreement

to

be

proposed

in

a

subsequent

CAP upon

completion

of

the

additional

investigation.

2.

Identification

of

the

remediation

objectives

proposed

for

the

site.

The indicator

compounds

established

for

releases

of

unleaded

gasoline

before

June 2002

consist

of

BTEX.

Tier

1

SROs

and

GROs

for

the

soil

ingestion,

soil

inhalation,

and

groundwater

ingestion

routes

are

established

in

35

IAC,

Part

742;

the

Tiered

Approach

to

Corrective

Action

Objectives

(TACO).

The

Tier

1 SROs

for

industrial/commercial

properties

are

used

with

respect

to

the

soil

ingestion

and

soil

inhalation

exposure

routes

for

on-site

contamination.

Tier 1

SROs

and

GROs for

MTBE

were

added

to

the

TACO

regulation

after

the

date

that

the

release

was

reported.

Although

MTBE

investigationlremediation

is

not

required

for

this

site,

remediation

of

residual

MTBE

will

be

monitored

along

with the

indicator

compounds

during Corrective

Action.

The

Tier

1

SROs and

GROs

for

MTBE

are

listed

along

with

the

analytical

results

in

Tables

1

and

2

of

Appendix

C.

Tier

2

remediation

objectives

will

be

calculated

upon

completion

of

the

vadose

zone

investigation.

3.

A

description

of

the

remedial

technologies

selected:

a.

The

feasibility

of

implementing

the

remedial

technologies;

b.

Whether

the

remedial

technologies

will

perform

satisfactorily

and

reliably

until

the

remediation

objectives

are

achieved;

and

c.

A

schedule

of

when

thetechnologies

are

expected

to

achieve

the

applicable

remediation

objectives.

Vadose

Zone

Soil

Contamination

Static

groundwater

levels

in

monitoring

wells around

the

tank field

suggest

that

groundwater

may

be

over

the

top

of

the

USTs at

the

site,

within

about

four

feet

of

the

surface.

Therefore,

significant

vadose

zone

contamination

is

not expected

in

connection

with

this

release.

Soil

samples

from

the

soil

borings

for

monitoring

wells MW1,

MW2

and

MW3

were

collected

from unsaturated

soil

found later

to

be

below the

water

level

reported

in

the

nearby

monitoring

wells.

Soil

samples

collected

from

soil

borings

SB

1

and

SB2

were

collected

from

similar

depths

and

may

also

be

below

the

water

table.

Therefore,

additional

vadose

zone

sampling

is

proposed

in

Section

E.1.

---

Corrective

Action

Plan

Johnson

Oil

#

148

85]

East

Main

Street,

Danville,

Illinois

American

Environmental

Corp

Project

Number.

J-20

7022

Page

9

Saturated

Zone

Contamination

(including

groundwater

contamination)

Corrective

Action

for

residual

saturated

soil

contamination

and

groundwater

contamination

is

proposed

to

be

completed

using the

Oxygen

Enhanced

Bioremediation

(OEB)

method.

The

selection

of

OEB is

based

upon

its

efficiency

in

remediating

concentrations

of

hydrocarbons

over

small

areas

and

low

cost

relative

to

conventional

remediation

methods.

Aerobic

microbes

require

oxygen,

nutrients

and

a

carbon

food

source

(petroleum).

Nutrient

supplies

in

groundwater

are

generally

adequate

for

bacterial

growth,

so

this

parameter

is

not

a

controlling

factor

for the

growth

of

microorganisms.

However,

the

consumption

of

oxygen

is

directly

proportional

to

the

growth

of

microbe

populations.

Therefore,

in

order

to

increase

the

population

of

microbes

in

a

contaminated

aquifer,

and

subsequently

the

rate

of

degradation,

increased

levels

of

oxygen

over

the

natural

concentration

are

required.

Based

on

the

results

of

the

proposed

additional

investigation,

an

OEB

feasibility

study

will

be

proposed

in

a

supplemental

CAP.

4.

A

confirmation

sampling

plan

that

describes

how

the

effectiveness

of

the

corrective

action

activities

will

be

monitored

during

their

implementation

and

after

their

completion.

Soil

andlor

groundwater

sampling

to

monitor

the

effectiveness

of

corrective

action

activities

will

be

proposed

in

a

later

CAP.

5.

A

description

of

the

current

and

projected

future

uses

of

the

site.

The

property

is

currently

occupied

by

a

convenience

store.

The

ground

surface

above contaminated

soil

and

groundwater

is

used

for

parking.

The

current

commercial

use

of

the

property

is

anticipated

to

continue

indefmitely.

6.

A

description

of

engineered

barriers

or

institutional

controls

that

will

be

relied

upon

to

achieve

remediation

objectives.

a.

An

assessment

of

their

long-term

reliability;

b.

Operating

and

maintenance

plans;

and

c.

Maps

showing

area

covered

by

barriers

and

institutional

controls.

Active

remediation

of residual

contamination

is

proposed

for

this release.

Therefore,

no

institutional

controls

or

engineered

barriers

are

proposed

at

this

time.

Based

on current

soil

data,

institutional

controls

limiting

the

use

of

the

property

to

industrial

or

commercial

uses,

prohibiting

groundwater

use

on-site,

and

providing

for

notification

to

construction

workers

of

residual

soil

---

Corrective

Action

Plan

Johnson

Oil

#148

851

East

Main

Street,

Danville,

Illinois

American

Environmental

Corp

Project

Number:

J-207022

Page

10

contamination

are

anticipated

to

be

required.

Highway

authority

agreements

to

address

contamination

beneath

the

adjacent

right-of-ways

are

also

anticipated

to

be

to

be

required.

7.

The

water

supply

well

survey:

a.

Map(s)

showing

locations

of

community

water

supply

wells

and

other

potable

wells

and

the

setback

zone

for

each

well;

b.

Map(s)

showing

regulatedrecharge

areas

and

welihead

protection

areas;

c.

Map(s)

showing

the

current

extent

of

groundwater

contamination

exceeding

the

most

stringent

Tier

1

remediation

objectives;

d.

Map(s)

showing

the

modeled

extent

of

groundwater

contamination

exceeding

the

most

stringent

Tier

1

remediation

objectives;

e.

Tables

listing

the

setback

zone

for

each

community

water

supply

well

and

other

potable

water

supply

wells;

f.

A

narrative

identifying

each

entity

contacted

to

identify

potable

water

supply

wells,

the

name

and

title

of

each

person

contacted

and

any

field

observations

associated

with

any

wells

identified;

and

g.

A

certification

from

a

Licensed

Professional

Engineer

or

Licensed

Professional

Geologist

that

the

survey

was

conducted

in

accordance

with

the

requirements

and

that

documentation

submitted

includes

information

obtained

as

a

result

of

the

survey.

American

Environmental

completed

a water

well

survey for

the

May

4,

2001

Site

Classification

Completion

Report

(SCCR).

Available

well location records,

requested

from the

Illinois State

Geological

Survey

(ISGS)

and

the

Illinois

State

Water

Survey

(ISWS),

were

reviewed

to

locate

all

potable

water

wells within

2,500

feet

of

the

site.

A

map

indicating

local

potable

water supply well

locations

was

provided

along

with

copies

of

well

records

in

the

May 4, 2001 SCCR.

Additional

research,

including interviews

with

local

officials

and

review

of

the

Agency’s

Source

Water

Assessment

Program

(SWAP) database,

to

meet

the

requirements

of

an

extended

water

well

survey

will be

completed

during

Corrective

Action.

8.

Appendices:

a.

References

and

data

sources

report

that

are

organized;

and

b.

Field

logs,

well

logs,

and

reports

or

laboratory

analyses.

Tables,

figures

and

additional

information

are

provided

in

the

Appendices.

9.

Site

maps

meeting

the

requirements

of

35

Ill.

Adm.

Code

732.110(a)

or

734.440.

Site

maps

are

provided

in

Appendix

A.

---

Corrective

Action

Plan

Johnson

Oil

#

148

851

East

Main

Street,

Danville,

Illinois

American

Environmental

Corp

Project

Number.’

J-20

7022

Page

11

10.

Engineering

design

specifications,

diagrams,

schematics,

calculations,

manufacturer’s

specifications,

etc.

Vadose

Zone

Delineation

Additional

characterization

efforts

to

define

the

extent

of

the

vadose

zone were

presented

in

the

May

12,

2008

CAP.

However,

in

the

August

15,

2008

letter

denying

the

May

12,

2008

CAP,

the

Agency

denied

the

use

of

tensiometers

to

“detennine

if

the

water

producing

layer

is

under

confined

conditions.”

The

Agency

incorrectly

interprets

the

use

of

tensiometers,

which

simply

evaluate

the

degree

of

subsurface

water

saturation,

and

thereby

the extent

of

the

vadose

zone.

However,

the

Agency

did corroborate

the

assessment

that

groundwater

remains

in

the

water

producing

layer

and

does

not

penetrate

the

overlying

dry, tight

soil

indicated

on

the

boring

logs. Therefore,

soil

samples

to

be

collected

during

the

additional

investigation

will

be

collected

from

unsaturated

soil within

five

feet

of

the

ground

surface

in

each

soil

boring.

Table

3

of

Appendix

C

compares

the

depths

to

groundwater

in

the

wells

to

the

depths

to

saturated

soil in

the

soil

borings

for

the

wells.

The

variation

between

the

depth

to

water

saturation

observed

while

drilling

and

the

water

level

observed

in

the

completed

well

was

more

significant

in

monitoring

well

MW5;

between

about

five

and

seven

feet.

The

soil

cores

recovered

from

the

soil

boring

for

this

monitoring

well

were

dry

and

tight

to

a

depth

of

at

least

eight

feet.

However,

the

water

level

in

this

well

was

only

2.87

feet

below

ground

surface

(bgs)

about

two

weeks

after

the

well

was

installed.

This rapid

recovery

of

groundwater

to

a

depth

corresponding

with

dry,

tight

soil

suggests

the

presence

of

a

confined-aquifer

condition.

Further

evaluation

of

the

vadose

zone

and

apparent

confined

condition

in

the area

of

this

monitoring

well

was proposed

in

the

May

12,

2008

CAP,

and

subsequently

denied

by

the

Agency

in

the August

15,

2008

letter

to

Johnson

Oil.

Soil

Boring!

Monitoring

Well

Completion

Methods

Direct-push

borings

and

soil

borings

for

the

monitoring

wells

will

be completed

using

a

combination

rotary/direct

push

drilling

rig

with

soil cores

collected

for

borehole

logging

and

sampling

using

five-foot

direct-push

Macro®

samplers with

Lexan®

plastic

liners.

Soil

samples

for

identification

and

field screening

will

be

collected

at

approximate

five-foot

intervals

using

clean

stainless

steel

sampling

trowels.

Disposable

nitrile

gloves

will

be

put

on

before

each sample

is

collected.

One

soil