Yes, if either the site is classified as No Further Action or the site is classified as Low Priority and, upon completion of the Low Priority Groundwater Monitoring Plan, there is no confirmed exceedance of applicable indicator contaminant remediation objectives during the three-year groundwater monitoring period.
Reports documenting the completion of corrective action at a site must contain a form addressing site ownership—namely, the Property Owner Summary. Any time a request is made for issuance of a No Further Remediation Letter such as with a Corrective Action Completion Report, 45-Day Report (if compliance is demonstrated at the early action stage), or Groundwater Monitoring Report, a completed and signed Property Owner Summary is required.
If the property owner is a different party than the owner or operator of the UST system, it is highly recommended that any institutional controls, land use limitations, and engineered barriers proposed as part of the Corrective Action Plan be agreed upon before making such proposal, as the property owner must sign the Property Owner Summary, accepting the terms and conditions identified in the report, before issuance of a No Further Remediation Letter.
The Illinois EPA anticipates requesting notification of field activities in a plan approval (or approval with modification) letter. Notification can be made by telephone, facsimile, electronic mail, or another method specific by the Illinois EPA. Failure to provide this notification may result in referral to the Illinois EPA's Division of Legal Counsel for enforcement action.
The sampling requirements prescribed for piping runs apply all the way to the dispenser. There are no additional sampling requirements for the pump island beyond those that apply to the piping below the pump island.
Effective March 1, 2006, if free product removal activities will be conducted more than 45 days after the confirmation of the presence of free product, the tank owner or operator must submit to the Illinois EPA a Free Product Removal Plan and, if seeking payment from the UST Fund, a budget. The Illinois EPA will prioritize the review of such a plan and budget to avoid delays in free product removal.
If a free product removal plan and budget were submitted and approved as a part of a High Priority Corrective Action Plan prior to March 1, 2006, a separate Free Product Removal Plan and Budget will likely not be required. Please note that, under the new rules, the Free Product Removal Plan and Budget must be submitted with the Free Product Removal Report, which must be submitted within 45 days after confirmation of the presence of free product. Therefore, in many cases it will be difficult to meet the deadline for the submission of the Free Product Removal Plan and Budget if they are submitted as a part of the Corrective Action Plan.
Provided all applicable TACO requirements (35 Ill. Adm. Code 742.300, 742.305, etc.) are met, the presence of free product at levels measuring less than 1/8 of an inch in depth would not necessarily limit the use of TACO. However, in order to exclude from consideration an exposure route, it is required, in part, that the concentrations of any organic contaminants of concern remaining in the soil be less than the soil saturation concentration (Csat). If there is any free product remaining at the site (even at a depth less than 1/8 of an inch), it might be difficult to meet this requirement since the presence of free product is indicative of levels of contaminants greater than Csat.
Yes, an L.P.G. can certify to any report, including an Early Action Tier 1 Remediation Objectives Compliance Report, with the exception of a Corrective Action Completion Report (CACR). A Licensed Professional Engineer must provide certification to the CACR.
Yes, the plan and budget for a Stage 1 site investigation consists of a certification form that is certified by an L.P.E. or L.P.G. and signed by the owner or operator pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 734.315(b). The certification states that the Stage 1 site investigation will be conducted in accordance with Part 734 and the costs of the Stage 1 site investigation will not exceed the amounts set forth in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 734.Subpart H, Appendix D, and Appendix E. The certification is intended to meet the requirements for a plan and budget for the Stage 1 site investigation as required by 35 Ill. Adm. Code 734.315 and 734.310. The certification is included in the 45-Day Report form and the stand-alone Stage 1 Site Investigation Certification.
The actual costs for conducting the Stage 1 site investigation should be submitted on budget forms, and separate budget forms should be submitted for the proposed costs of the next stage of site investigation. Likewise, budget forms of actual costs of the Stage 2 and/or 3 site investigation, if applicable, should be included with the next submittal to the Illinois EPA.
Stage 1 site investigation costs will be subject to Illinois EPA review, and approval or rejection, like other costs. For example, costs will be rejected if they are ineligible or exceed the maximum payment amounts in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 734.Subpart H.
A Stage 2 site investigation can be skipped if the Stage 1 site investigation adequately defines the extent of on-site contamination. If delineation of the extent of contamination requires the collection of samples on- and off-site, then a combined Stages 2 and 3 site investigation plan may be submitted.
The various combinations of stages that may be encountered are depicted in the Site Investigation Process flowchart.
Generally, drilling should stop at the water table. However, the need to drill below the water table will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. If there is need to drill below the water table, justification to do so should be provided.
Yes. They may be used to determine the rate and extent of soil and groundwater contamination exceeding the most stringent Tier 1 remediation objective. However, hydraulic conductivity testing needs to be performed using a two-inch conventional (hollow-stem auger) monitoring well, or a pre-pack monitoring well installed with an auger tool.
No. A groundwater monitoring well screened in glacial till will take longer to recharge than a well screened in sand. There are a number of factors that affect recharge of a groundwater monitoring well, such as hydraulic conductivity and transmissivity. The environmental professional must demonstrate that recharge does not occur based upon site-specific data and his/her experience.
Soil contamination in the saturated zone is considered a groundwater issue. If there is need to collect a sample below the water table, justification to do so should be provided. A soil sample collected below the water table is usually needed only when the environmental professional is trying to evaluate groundwater conditions in order to develop a groundwater remediation plan.
Generally, no. Analytical results from the soil boring in close proximity to the groundwater monitoring well will usually suffice to document the absence of contaminant levels exceeding the most stringent Tier 1 soil remediation objectives.
Yes, a soil sample may be collected for this purpose at any time during site investigation, as well as during corrective action.
The five site-specific soil parameters can be determined from one soil sample. If an environmental professional wants to collect more than one sample to run a geotechnical test, an explanation of the rationale for more than one sample should be included in a plan.
Sampling should be performed at an undisturbed, uncontaminated location.
The ASTM method for subsurface sampling location (ASTM – D 2937 – 94 drive cylinder method) should be used.
Site investigation regulations require that the extent of contamination be defined to the most stringent Tier 1 remediation objectives. However, the collection of a soil sample and the subsequent laboratory analyses to determine site-specific parameters pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 732.408 or 734.410 may be performed prior to submittal of the SICR. The Tier 2 remediation objectives should be submitted in a CAP and/or CACR.
It is not required that the groundwater ordinance be used, but costs associated with groundwater remediation will not be eligible for payment from the Fund if the ordinance can be used as an institutional control for the release being remediated.
If the Illinois EPA has already issued an NFR Letter for a release, the owner or operator may come back into the Leaking UST Program (electing to include MTBE as an indicator contaminant) to remediate the MTBE contamination if the release caused off-site groundwater MTBE contamination exceeding 70 ppb. Such an election is effective upon receipt by the Illinois EPA and cannot be withdrawn once made.
For the purposes of defining the extent of contamination, the applicable soil remediation objectives continue to be the most stringent Tier 1 soil remediation objectives. For the purposes of corrective action, the applicable soil remediation objectives will depend upon whether the site is being remediated to residential or industrial/commercial standards and whether engineered barriers and institutional controls are utilized.
Yes. Since K is one of the five site-specific parameters that must be collected for a Tier 2 evaluation if payment from the UST Fund for corrective action costs is sought (35 Ill. Adm. Code 732.408 and 734.410), DF must be also calculated when the Soil Component of the Groundwater Ingestion Exposure Route is evaluated. If the calculated DF (with site-specific parameters) is less than 20, the 20 default must be used. If the calculated DF is greater than 20, the calculated value must be used.
In accordance with 35 Ill. Adm. Code 742.Appendix C.Table A, DF may be calculated using equation S22:
K = hydraulic conductivity (m/yr), a site-specific parameter
i = hydraulic gradient (m/m), a site-specific parameter
d = mixing zone depth (m), 2 meters or calculated value (equation S25)
I = infiltration rate (m/yr), 0.3
L = source length parallel to groundwater flow (m), a site-specific parameter
The first two requirements at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 732.300(b)(3)(A)(i) and (ii) or 734.445(a)(1) and (2) can be satisfied by using the SWAP database, but contact must still be made to the local utility entity to identify properties that receive potable water from a public water supply in order to meet the requirement at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 732.300(b)(3)(A)(iii) or 734.445(a)(3).
The SWAP mapping results and identification of potentially impacted properties that do not receive potable water from a public water supply must be provided as documentation of the water supply well survey results.
Parties may gain access to the Illinois EPA's SWAP database (the SWAP ArcIMS Mapping Tool) by contacting the Illinois EPA's Division of Public Water Supplies:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
1021 North Grand Avenue East
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
Additional investigation (e.g., drive-by and door-to-door) may be required if, for example, only some of the residents obtain potable water from the public water supply.
Contact the assigned Leaking UST Section project manager, who will forward the information to the appropriate Bureau of Water staff.
Yes, all active ISGS potable wells have a minimum setback of 200 feet. Other wells, such as underground injection wells and groundwater monitoring wells, do not have a minimum setback established and are not part of a potable water well survey. Community water supply wells have a 200-foot minimum setback zone for wells the Illinois EPA has determined use a confined aquifer, and a 400-foot minimum setback zone for wells the Illinois EPA has determined use an unconfined aquifer.
By performing the following steps within the SWAP database, you can obtain additional information (including minimum setback zone) about specific wells:
Please note that, if there is a maximum setback zone, then its boundary applies just like that of a minimum setback zone boundary. When searching the SWAP database, the maximum setback zone, if one has been adopted, will be highlighted so long as you have checked "Adopted Maximum Setback Zones" under Water Use/Source Water Protection Area.
For additional information about community water supply wells contact the Bureau of Water, Groundwater Section at (217) 785-4787.
Pursuant to the Illinois Pollution Control Board's February 2, 2006, order in the case of Freedom Oil Company v. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, PCB 03-54, PCB 03-56, PCB 03-105, PCB 03-179, and PCB 04-2 (consolidated), releases from underground storage tanks taken out of operation before January 2, 1974, are not subject to mandatory corrective action under the Leaking UST Program unless the Office of the State Fire Marshal (OSFM) issues an order under Section 57.5(g) of the Environmental Protection Act based on a current or potential threat to human health and the environment.
No. There is no such election provision for pre-1974 tank owners or operators. However, they may submit the Pre-1974 UST Notification form to notify the Illinois EPA that the release was from a pre-1974 tank and that an order for removal has not been issued by the OSFM. The owner or operator can then decide whether to perform corrective action under the Leaking UST Program regulations.
Yes. The tank owner or operator may do so by submitting the proper documentation to the Leaking UST Program or Site Remediation Program.
Yes. The petroleum UST regulations apply to the release. However, the tank owner or operator may submit the Election to Proceed under 35 Ill. Adm. Code 734 and Pre-1974 UST Notification forms to notify the Illinois EPA that the release was from a pre-1974 tank and that an order for removal has not been issued by the OSFM. The owner or operator can then decide whether to perform corrective action under the Leaking UST Program regulations.
OSFM makes determinations on eligibility. Please call OSFM at 217-785-5878 for more information.
Updated July 2007