R~CE~VED

CLERK’S

OFFICE

M~R2

7

ZOOl

BEFORE TEE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

STATE

OF

ILLINOIS

Pollution

ControlBoard

INTHE

MATTER

OF:

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO

)

ROi-2~

REGULATION

OF

PETROLEUM

)

(Rulemaking

-

LEANING UNDERGROUND STORAGE

)

TANKS

(36 ILL.

ADM. CODE

732)

)

TESTIMONY

OF

JAME~

HUFF.

P.E.

IN

OPPOSITION. TO

CERTAiN

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION-AGENCY’S

PROPOSAL TO AMEN1)

35 ILL.

ADM.

CODE

732

My

name

is Jai~sE. Huff.

I

ath Vice President of Huff & Huff, Inc.,

an

environmental

engineering firm located

in ‘LaGrange,

Illinois.

I

am

a Licensed

Professional

Engineer and a

member of th~Consultthg’ Engineers Council:ofIllin~is(“CECI”).

I

serve

as

Chairman

of the

Illinois EPA ‘Liaison

c~mrnittee

~forthe CEO.

1

~ni testifying today oi behalf Ofthe

Con~ulting

Engineers Council of‘Illinois ~

~veli~sth~Illinois

Sdcie’ty of Prbfes~iohaI

‘En~gi’neers(“1SPE”).

ISPE

serves

over 3?000 Lic~nsed

Professional Engineef~inlllinois, while

CECI h~

.25

member consulting

engineering finns, of which approximately one-third provide

environmental

engineering~ervices.Ma~iyof the CECI member

firms employ geolocists, and their expertise is

integral to our practice.

This is particularly true in the ePviroiim~i-itai

‘arena.

I

ai~itestifying toda~’

to

object to

certain portions

bf

the

proposed amendments to

35

III.

Adm.

Code

732,

on

behalf of ISPE

and‘CEO.’

First.

we

domniend

the

Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Agency

and

the

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board

for

its

actions

in

updating

and

amendthg

these proposed

rules.

We

appreciate

the

Agency’s

concerns

in

refining the process

and implementing the proposed improvements to the reaulations.

Our

objections

to

the

proposed

amendments

relate to

a limited

arid

specific

issue.

That

issue

is

the

proposed

inclusion

of

terminology

in

the

regulations

which

allow

for

Licensed

Professional

Geologists”

to

perform

many

of

the

same

functions

as

‘~LicensedProfessional

—1--

---

Engineers”.

We

ol

ed

on

the

ground

that

there

is

no

statutory

authority

in

the

enablina

leiiislation to include licensed professional geologists in the

rules.

The only reference throughout

the LUST legislation

is to licensed professional en~ineers.

ks

the Boaid

is a~arespecific functions are assigned

in the LUST legislation

10

licensed

professional

engineers.

‘For

example,

the

determinati op

of

physicaL ~soil ciassifications,

site

evaluations, survey

of water

supply

wells,

and

groundwater inve~ti~abons

are

~ili assigned to

licensed

professional

engineers. ..The

~gency

is

proposing

that

with

one

exception,

licensed

professional

geologists

should

be

included

for

every

action

whic’h

licensed

professional

engineers

currently perform

Conceptually, both CECI

and 1SPC

aie open to

allov~

Ing

qualified

geologists

to

practice

in

areas

where they

are

licensed,

so long

as

this

is

not

achieved

at the

exclusion

of qualified

engineers to ~proper1y.

practice their profession.

Unfortunately, we believe

the

LUST

legislation

does

not

grant

the, authority

fbr

such

operations

~o.geologists,

and

we

request

the

Board carefully

examine

ouriegal

arg~irnentscontained

in

our Motion

to

Oppose

Certain Proposed Amendments of the EPA?s. Proposal

to Am~nd35

Ii.

Adm.

Code .732, and

the

accompanying

Memorandum

of,Law.

CECI

‘and

ISPE

are prepared to

work

c’~oselywith the

geologists

~o develop

the proper

statutory basis

to

allow

the

licensed

professional

geologist

to

certify those items contained in the Agency’s proposal.

.

.

.

The

Agency’s

own

testirnQny

raises

questions

of

the

‘validity: of

including

licensed

professional geologists

The filed testimony of Mr

Doug Clay clearly indicates that Title XVI of

the Environmental Protection Act, the LUST provisions, was not modified

or amended to include

certifications

by

licensed

professional

geologists.

His

testimony

merely

reflects

the

Agency

belief that Board should adopt these

changes

because the Professional ‘Geologists

Licensing Act

was

adopted subsequent

to the

LUST provisions.

However,

that testimony

fails to

indicate that

the Professional Geologists Licensing Act was passed prior to the most recent amendments to the

LUST

provisions

in

1996.

The

presumption

therefore

exists

that

:

if the

General

Assembly

intended to

include geologists

in

the

LUST provisions,

they

clearly

could have done

so

in

the

subsequent LUST amendments.

---

In the

filed testimony

of Mr.

Ron Dye

of the Advisory Eoard

or ‘ttie”Iiiriois

Ch”apter of

the American

Institute of Professional

Geolonists.

Mr. Dye

asserts the aaencv should

also insert

licensed

professional

geologists

in

proposed

Section

732.409(a)(2’

relating

to

certification

of

Corrective

Action

Completion ‘Reports.

The

,krneric~”

~tute.~ of

Professional

~Geoiogists

acknowledges

that

certain

portions

of a

Corrective

Action Con~l~io~i

Reportrdre

outside

the

purview

and

practice

of

professional

geologists.

Geologists

are

not

trained

as

design

professionals

though

they provide valuabic

scientific

services,

it

seems

inconsistent

to

us

that

the

Agcncy

can

pick

and

choose

the

application

of

where

cenifi~ation by

geologists

are

appropriate,

especially

in

light

of the

fact

that

there

are

no

enumerated

statutory

standards

to

govern the

Agency

in

its selection.

If

an

Agency project

manager

inappropriately

accepts

a licensed

professional

geologist

(LPG) certification

that

entails engineering, what are the potential

consequences’?

Could the No

Further Remediation

letter become invalidated because

the report

was certified inappropriately?

Who

would make

such

a

decision

on the

appropriateness of a LPG

certification?

Our position

remains

that

qualified

Licensed Professional

Engineers

are

the

only professionals

qualified

to

certify

Corrective

Action

Completion

Reports,

and

allowing

LPGs

to

certify

some

of these

Reports

leads to

far more complications and potential

problems.

In this regard, CEO

and ISPE

are in full

agreement with the Agency draft language in 732.409(a)(2).

In

summary, many of CEO member firms

employ geologists,

and both

CECI

and 1SPE

support developing the framework to

allow qualified Licensed Professional

Geologists

t~

certify

in those

areas recognized by

the statutes.

ISPE and CECI are prepared to work

closely with

the

geologists

to

develop

this

proper

statutory

framework

to

allow

LPG’s

to

certify

those

items

contained in the Agency’s

proposal.

However, this legislative framework

is not yet in place, and

consequently

ISPE

and

CECI

object

to

the

Licensed

Professional

Geologist

inclusion

in

the

proposed 732 changes.

I

thank

the

Board for

this opportunity,

and I

would

be pleased to

answer any questions

you may have.

---

Respectfully submitted,

Illinois

Society of Professional Engineers

Consulting ‘Engineers Council ofIllinois

By:

~

&

Huff, Inc.

THIS FILING SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

E:~i

liiesJ’IUFF\PubIic Service’JEH

Testimony

0301 .doc

LaGrange. IL

4-