ELECTRONIC FILING,

RECEIVED,

CLERK’S OFFICE,

SEPTEMBER 23,

2005

*

*

*

*

PC #71

*

*

*

*

ORIGINAL

BEFORETHE

ILLINOIS

POLLUTION

CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MATtER

OF:

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

TO:

)

R04-022

REGULATION

01- PETROLEUM

)

(tJS’I’ Rulcmaking)

LEAKING

UNDERGROUND STORAGE

TANKS (35

ILL.ADMCODE

732)

IN ‘II IF MATTER

OF”:

PROPOSEI) AMENDMENTS

TO:

)

R04-023

REGULATION OF

PETROLEUM

)

(UST Rulemaking)

LEAKING UNDERGROUND

STORAGE

)

Consolidated

TANKS

(35

ILLADM.CODE 734)

RESPONAE OF

IJNITED

SCIENCE INDUSTRIES.

INC. TO THE

ILLINOIS

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY COMMENTS OF 09/23/05

US

respectfully submits the attached comments in regard

to the Agencies submission of

09/23/05.

While many issues

anse as

a result of the

Agencies

comments. time does not

permit LSI to provide detailed

comments on

all

sections of this submission, hut

USI

does

feel compelled

to offer

Ihe

following:

Pat~e

2,S’

Paragraph

1

A

list of expedited

unit rates

for

standard products

and services is

not oveiJy

“elaborate”

or in any

way “difficult

to

decipher”

as the

Agency

implies.

The

initial

expedited

unit

rates

are

published

in Appendix E and

subsequent unit rates

are

easily established by the

use of simple

arithmetic.

tJSI

does

not believe that

the Agency has provided sufficient

justification

to

warrant the

dismissal of this concept and that

the Agency should be open

minded

to consider valid and

forward

thinking proposals.

Page

2S(i1)

The

creation and

use of a

database would

not greatly complicate and lengthen the

reimbursement process for all panics

involved.

US! does

not believe

that

sufficient

justification

to warrant

the

dismissa!

of this concept has

been provided

by

the

Agency.

Until

such a

time,

US! continues

to believe that the

development

and

use of

a database

will

greatly simplify and

shorten

the reimbursement process

for all

parties

involved. The

use

of

database

technology similar to this

is commonplace throughout

industry today.

One

would be hard

pressed

to find any

reputable

insurance administrator that does not

use

a

database in

today’s

business world,

So

long as

the

Agency

claims

to have

a desire

to

streamline

processes

and

become more

efficient

and

at

the

same

time

ignores

the

---

ELECTRONIC FILING,

RECEIVED,

CLERK’S OFFICE,

SEPTEMBER

23,

2005

*

*

*

*

PC #71

*

*

*

*

technology

that will

‘aciliate

such

efficiencies, continued suspicion of

their tiotives

will

persist.

Page 2’)

(h)

JSI’s proposal

is not

to

usc ‘secret rates” plucked from

thin air

as the

Agency has

suggested.

USI

supports

the

use of determining

a statically significant rate based on

real-

time data.

This will

provide accuracy

and reliability within

the system

and will

assure

that

a range of reasonable

costs will

be

available for the

Agency to make decisions.

The

range of

reasonable figures will change over time as

market conditions change.

The

means

and method of determining rates are what would be published

in

regulation

thereby complying with the

Administrative Procedures

,Act.

Page 30(e)

USI

has continued

to maintain

throughout this

proceeding that

owners and operators

should continue

to

he

reimbursed

all eligible

and

reasonably incurred costs for

the

reuiediation of their

LUST site in

accordance the Environmental Protection Act and

relative

regulations. The range of amnounts that may

he reimbursed

are between

SO

and

$1

.5

million

dollars

depending on

the governing rules,

the

site of’ the

plume of

contamination

at the given site

and the reasonableness of charges levied.

tJSl has

provided,

as part of

Lhis

record, the

average

charges

incurred arid paid from

the LUST

fund

historically. This

information

is

not an estinlation or gut feeling

on our part,

it

is

based

on fact.

Page

30

xis!

Paragraph

The Agency has

used dramatic language such

as “At the last hour”

to imply that USI

is

attempting

to conspire

in

sonic

wrongful manner.

USt believes simply

‘that

it

is

never

too

late

to get

it

tight”.

USI does not believe

that this is “the last hour”

by any means

as

the facts

in this proceeding are

just

now becoming complete, this is only the beginning.

As more and more owners and operators

become aware of what

!EPA

is proposing and

are more abreast

of the recoid in

this proceeding,

they are

also heconung more resolved

to make certain

that

the

11-PA’s proposed rule is

not adopted.

As US!

stated at hearing,

we

intend

to lead this effort.

The Agency has expressed

a belief that

USI

has not provided sufficient additional

testimony

to show that

the board must abandon the proposed ma.xiniuni

payment amounts

and structure of section 734.845. This is perplexing to

US.

It

has provided over 600

pages of testimony to

the contrary. USI

has performed

a reliable

and extensive analysis of

the historical

reimbursement practices of the

Agency and has demonstrated

in plain detail

that

what the

Agency has proposed is dramatically different.

It seems

that there will

be

no

aniount of testimony, evidence, or fact that will convince the

Agency of anything

contrary

to their own

ideas.

Page 34 (3)

The Agency has admitted

that

!ian’y Chappel’s testimony

was in

error when

Mr.

Chappel

stated that he

had

secured

drum disposal

rates

from

Greg Courson of Advanced

Environmental.

USI

has shown, by virtue of

its filing yesterday,

that Mr.

Chappel’s

---

ELECTRONIC FILING,

RECEIVED,

CLERKS OFFICE, SEPTEMBER

23,

2005

*

*

*

*

PC #71

*

*

*

*

ORIGINAL

BLIURE

THE

ILLINOIS POLLUTION

CONTROL BOARD

IN

THE MATTER OF:

PROPOSE)

AMENDMENTS TO:

)

R04-022

REGULATION

OF PE1ROLEUM

)

(UST

Rulemaking)

LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE

TANKS

(35

1LL.ADM.CODE 732)

1

IN TilE

MATTER OF:

PROPOSED

AMENDMENTS Ta:

)

R04-023

REGULATION OF PETROLEUM

)

(UST Rulemnaking)

LEAKING UNDERGROUNI)

STORAGE

)

Consolidated

TANKS (35

ILL.ADM.CODE 734)

RFSPONAE OF IJNITFI) SCIENCE

INDUSTRIES. INC. TO THE

ILUNOIS

ENVIRONMEN’I’AL PROTECTION

AGENCY

COMMENTS OF 09/23/05

USI respectfully

submits the

attached

comments

in regad to the Agencies submission of

09/23/05.

While

many issues

arise as

a result of the

Agencies

comments, time does not

permit

USI to

provide

detailed

comments

on

all

sections of this

submission,

hut

LISI

does

feel

compelled

to

offer

the

following:

Page

28

Paragraph

I

A

list of expedited unit rates

for standard products

and services is

not overly

elaborate”

or

in any way “difficult

to

decipher” as the

Agency implies.

‘l’he initial

expedited

unit

rates

are

published

in

Appendix

E and subsequent unit rates

are easily established by

the

use of simple arithmetic.

1551

does

not believe that

the

Agency

has provided

sufficient

justification

to

warrant

the dismissal

of

this concept

and

that

the

Agency should he open

nunded

to

consider

valid and

forward thinking

proposals.

Page 28(a)

The creation

and use

of a

database

would not greatly complicate

and

lengthen the

reimbursement process

for all parties involved.

US! does not believe that

sufficient

justification to warrant the dismissal of this concept has been provided by the Agency.

Until

such

a time, US! continues to believe that

the

development and

use of

a database

will greatly

simplify and

shorten the

reimbursement process for all

parties involved.

The

use of

database technology similar to this

is

commonplace throughout industry

today.

One

would be

hard

pressed to

find any

reputable insurance admimstrator that does

not

use

a

database in today’s business world.

So long as the

Agency

claims to have

a desire

to streamline

processes

and become

more efficient

and

at

the

same time

ignores the

---

ELECTRONIC

FILING,

RECEIVED,

CLERKS

OFFICE, SEPTEMBER

23,

2005

*

*

*

*

PC #71

*

*

*

*

technology that will

facilitate such

efficiencies, continued suwicion

of

their motives will

persist.

Page

29 (h)

IJSI’s

proposal

is

not

to

use

‘secret

rates” plucked from

thin

air

as

the Agency has

suggested.

USI

supports

the

use of

determining

a statically sigruficant

rate based on

real-

time data.

This will

provide accuracy

and

reliability within

the

system

and will assure

that

a

range of reasonable costs

will

he available

thr

the

Agency

to

make decisions.

The

range of

reasonable

figures will change over time as

market

conditions change. The

means

and

t’nethod of

detertnining rates

are what

would

be published

itt

regulation

thereby complying with

the

Administrative

Procedures

Act.

Page 30(e)

USI

has

continued to maintain

throughout this proceeding that owners and operators

should continue to

he ttiiiibursed all eligible and

reasonably incurred costs for the

rernediation

of their

LUST

site

in accordance

the

Environmental Protection Act and

relative regulations. The range

of

arnotrnts that

may he

reirtihursud

are

between

$0

and

$

I

.5

million

dollars

depending

on

the governing rules, the size of

the

plitme of

contamination

at

the given

site

and

the

reasonableness

of charges

levied.

L’S!

has

provided,

as

part

of this

record,

the

average charges

incurred and

paid

from the

LUST

fund

historically. This information

is not

an estimation or gut

feeling

on

our part,

it is

based

on fact.

Page 30 Last Paragraph

The Agency has used

dramatic language such

as “At

the

last

hour” to imply that USI is

attempting

to

conspire

in

sonic wrongful

manner.

USI

believes

sinmtply “that it

is

never

too late

to

get

it right”.

USI does

not

believe

that this

is

“the last hour” by any means

as

the

facts

in this

proceeding

are

just

now

becoming complete,

this is only the beginning.

As

more

and more owners

and

operators

become

aware

of what

IEPA is

proposing

and

are

more

abreast

of the record

in this

proceeding,

they arc

also

becotning more resolved

to

make

certain

that

the

IEPA’s proposed rule

is not adopted

As

USI stated

at hearing.

we intend to lead this

elTort.

The

Agency has

expressed

a belief that

USI

has

not

provided sufficient additional

testimony

to

show

that

the

hoard

must

abandon

the

proposed

maximum

payment

amounts

and structure

of

section 734.845.

This

is perplexing

to USI.

It has

provided over

600

pages

of

testimony

to

the

contrary.

USI

has

performed

a reliable and extensive

analysis

of

the

historical

reimbursement practices of the Agency and

has

demonstrated

in

plain

detail

that what

the

Agency

has proposed is dramatically different.

It seems

that

there

will

be

no

amount of testimony,

evidence,

or fact that will

convince

the

Agency of anything

contrary

to their own

ideas.

Page 34 (3)

The Agency

has admitted that Harry Chappel’s testimony

was in error when

Mr.

Chappel

stated

that he

had

secured drum

disposal rates

from Greg Courson of Advanced

Eirvit’onrnental.

USI

has

shown,

by

virtue of its filing yesterday, that Mr. Chappel’s

---

ELECTRONIC FILING,

RECEIVED,

CLERK’S

OFFICE,

SEPTEMBER

23,

2005

*

*

*

*

PC #71

*

*

*

*

testimony

was otherwise

flawed with

the

regard to

nbc

seventeen

incidents that

he

used

to

support his

7$4.S45 Maxnmm

Payment

Amounts.

The

Board should

be concerned

ahout what other portions of his

testimony are

incomplete,

inaccurate or misleading.

Page

35

(O)

i’he

.4gency’s statement

that

the

Board is sure to receive additional form letters or

petitions complaining about the

proposed rule is correct

in that USI

is dedicated to

protecting the interest of the

small owner/operator and is actively

engaged in

raising

public

awareness and

gaining public opposition to

the

Agency’s severely flawed rules.

As long as the

Agency supports

its flawed proposal,

1.151 will

continue

to lead this effort

which

is growing everyday.

The Agency’s statement

is incontct in

that it implies that

1351’s interpretation of

the impact of this rule on

the

smimall owner/operator is otT-target.

The

more owners/operators and government officials

that

USI speaks

to the more we

are

certain that the

Illinois

Pollution Control

Board should

not adopt

the Agency’s proposal.

Thankfully, we

live

in

a

dennocracy where all

citizens have

a night

to voice their opinnons

and help

to set

public policy

and public opinion.

Public opinion

tends to support

was

it

right.

USI

asks

the

Board

to review the record

in this proceeding

and consider all of the

parties in

this proceeding that

have written letters or

signed petitions in favor or support

of the IEPA’s

proposal.

Other than the JEPA employees

that

testified on

behalfof

the

Agency’s

proposal

there

is no other party that

has

voiced cotmnplete

support for the

Agency’s

proposal.

The

Board should

consider the

voice of the

people.

C

Respect fully

Subrifi tt~d

I

hI

)

,Y

Jay

1

.

Koch-

President