BEFORE THE

IN THE MATTER OF:

SITE REMEDIATION PROGRAM:

AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODE

740

IN THE MATTER OF:

SITE REMEDIATION PROGRAM:

PROPOSED

35

ILL. ADM. CODE

740.SUBPART H (SCHOOLS, PUBLIC

PARKS, AND PLAYGROUNDS)

)

)

)

)

E~

CLERK’S OFFCE

~1~R

2

12001

SThTE OF

ILLIr’QIS

~

Control Board

RO 1-27

(Rulemaking

—

Land)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ROl-29

(Rulemaking

—

Land)

(Consolidated)

NOTICE

OF FILING

To:

Dorothy Gunn, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

James R. Thompson Center

100

West Randolph, Suite 11-500

Chicago, IL 60601

(Original and Four Copies)

Robert T. Lawley, Chief Legal Counsel

Department ofEnergy and

Natural Resources

524

South Second Street, Suite 400

Springfield, IL

62701-1787

Matthew J. Dunn, Chief

Environmental Bureau

Office ofthe Attorney General

James R. Thompson Center

100 West Randolph,

12th Floor

Chicago, IL 60601

Thomas V. Skinner, Director

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

1021

Grand Avenue, East

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield,

IL 62794-9276

All Other Persons on the Attached Service List

)

)

THIS

FILING IS SUBMIlTED

ON

RECYCLED

PAPER

---

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that today I have filed with the Office ofthe Clerk ofthe

Pollution Control Board the attached:

(1)

Appearance of Georgia Vlahos; and (2) Pre-Filed

Testimony ofGeorgiaVlahos; and

(3) Pre-Filed Testimony ofRichard Butterworth in the above-

titled matter, copies ofwhich are hereby served upon you.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

By:

GEOR A

DATED:

March 21, 2001

Georgia Vlahos

Naval Training Center

2601A Paul Jones Street

Great Lakes, Illinois

60088-2845

Telephone:

(847) 688-4422

Facsimile:

(847) 688-6917

E-mail:

georgia.vlahos@cnet.navy.mil

THIS

FILING

IS

SUBMIlTED

ON

RECYCLED

PAPER

---

RECEI~,I3D

CLERK’SOF ~CE

MAR

2

12001

BEFORE THE

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

STATE OF

ILLINOIS

Pollution

Control Board

IN THE MATTER

OF:

SITE REMEDIATION PROGRAM:

AMENDMENTS TO

35

ILL. ADM. CODE

740

)

)

)

)

)

RO 1-27

(Rulemaking

—

Land)

IN THE MATTER OF:

)

)

SITE REMEDIATION PROGRAM:

PROPOSED

35

ILL. ADM. CODE

740.SUIBPART H (SCHOOLS, PUBLIC

PARKS, AM) PLAYGROUM)S)

)

RO1-29

)

(Rulemaking

—

Land)

)

(Consolidated)

)

APPEARANCE

I hereby file my appearance in this proceeding on behalf ofthe United

States of

America, Department ofthe Navy.

UNITED STATES

OF AMERICA,

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

By:

GEOR

AVLAHOS

DATED:

March 21, 2001

Georgia Viahos

Naval Training Center

2601A Paul Jones Street

Great Lakes, Illinois 6008 8-2845

Telephone:

(847) 688-4422

Facsimile:

(847) 688-6917

E-mail:

georgia.vlahos@cnet.navy.mil

---

RECEIVED

CT FRK’SOFFIrF

MAR

2

12001

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOA~U~ E

OF ILLINOiS

Pollution

Control Board

IN THE MATTER OF:

)

)

SITE REMEDIATION PROGRAM:

)

ROl-27

AMENDMENTS TO

35

ILL. ADM. CODE

)

(Rulemaking Land)

740

)

IN THE MATTER OF:

)

)

SITE REMEDIATION PROGRAM:

)

ROl-29

PROPOSED

35

ILL. ADM. CODE

)

(Rulemaking

-

Land)

740.SUBPART H (SCHOOLS, PUBLIC

)

(Consolidated)

PARKS, AND PLAYGROUNDS)

)

PRE-FILED TESTIMONY OF GEORGIA VLAHOS

Good morning, my name is Georgia Viahos.

I am Counsel to the Commander of

Naval Training Center Great Lakes located in North Chicago, Illinois.

My duties include

advising the Commander in his capacity as the Department ofthe Navy’s Regional

Environmental Coordinator for USEPA Region

5,

an area that, of course, includes the

State

ofIllinois.

In this regard, I assist the Command in coordinating environmental policy among

the various Naval and other Department ofDefense (“DoD”) components in the Region

concerning,

among other things, those pertaining to environmental compliance,

environmental restoration and property disposal.

My testimony here was developed in consultation with other DoD

component

agencies.

On behalf ofthe Navy and the other military services, I thank you for the

opportunity to be here today and provide you with our views on the revisions to the Part 740

Site Remediation Program (“SRP”)regulations proposed by the Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency (the “Agency”). I shall refer to these revisions as the “Agency Proposal.”

---

The Agency Proposal introduces the concept of “perfecting” No Further

Remediation (“NFR”) letters byrecording them in county land records.

As will be addressed

in testimony to be presented to you todayby a representative ofthe General Services

Administration, this recording requirement is problematic for federaLlandholding entities.

This is because federal

entities do not generally “own” the federal lands

on which they

operate and, therefore, have no legal authority to record restrictions on the future use ofthat

land.

I appear before you to present an alternative to

this recording requirement for the

Navy and other federal landholding agencies in Illinois.

Our proposal reflects our desire to

apply the Land Use Control Memorandum ofAgreement (“LUC MOA”)concept, which was

recently incorporatedby the Board into the TACO rules in Part 742, into the Part 740

regulations for the Site Remediation Program (“SRP”).

At this point, I must note that, by suggesting revisions to the Agency’sproposal, we in

the DoD

community do not mean to imply that we view every effort we undertake to address

hazardous substance contamination on our facilities as subject to SRP requirements.

As I’m

sure this Board is aware, unlike the private sector, DoD has its own independent CERCLA

lead agency authorities which allow us to deal directly with hazardous substance releases on,

or from, our facilities.

However, we believe there could well be times where wemight want

to seek a KFR letter from the Agency in connection with a site where long term instititutional

controls are contemplated.

Hence, we believe it appropriate to allow such sites to be

encompassed under the same LUC MOA concept which was adopted in the new TACO

regulations and which we hope will soon be adopted under the LUST program rules.

2

---

I.

Preference for Risk-Based Cleanups

We concur with the General Assembly’s statementofintent for the Site Remediation

Program set forth in Section

58

ofthe Illinois Environmental Protection Act that,

under

appropriate circumstances, risk-based site cleanups are desirable in Illinois.

Such cleanups

can be a protective, timely and cost-effective alternative to more extensive and potentially

cost prohibitive remedial measures which may, or may not, ultimately permit unrestricteduse

ofthe affected property. We wish to secure the flexibility afforded by this approach for our

sites in this

State where both the Agency and we agree that use ofa risk-based cleanup

approach is practicable.

Unfortunately, unless federal landholding agencies are provided a similar alternative

to recording NFR letters as is proposed for the Illinois Department ofTransportation

(“IDOT”)in the new Section 740.62 1 ofthe Agency’sProposal,

our ability to utilize the

SRP

will be jeopardized since the existing regulations in Subpart F ofPart 740

contain specific

deed recordation requirements which we are legally precluded from satisfying.

All that we in

the federal community seek is to have the same ability that now exists forprivate industry

and that is proposed for IDOT to close our sites with full Agency concurrence utilizing risk-

based approaches.

II.

Why an exception should be made for federal facilities

Because we are asking this Board to

adopt our alternative to

the NFR

recordationrequirement contained in the existing SRP regulations, we need to explain how,

in the absence ofa publicly recorded land record, we will ensure the future maintenance of

any land use restrictions applicable to a site.

First, we would have no problem recording

NFR letters for active installations, which contain a notice but no land use restrictions.

3

---

Under those circumstances, the letters cannot be construed as imposing restrictions on future

uses ofthe property and, therefore, do not run afoul ofthe prohibition against restricting

future land use. For circumstances where the NFR letters contain land use restrictions, we

have proposed to the Agency and today present for your consideration the use ofa tri-party

LUC MOA between the federal landholding agency, USEPA Region

5

and the Agency

similar to that provided for IDOT in Section 740.62 1 ofthe Agency’sProposal.

The Navy

has executed such LUC MOAs in other states

and U.S. EPA Regions and, more important,

this Board recently approved their use as a form ofinstitutional control by federal

landholding entities under the amended TACO Regulations.

Furthermore, this LUC MOA

approach is consistent with the recently established DoD “Policy on Land Use Controls

Associated with Environmental Restoration Activities,” which was issued by the Deputy

Under Secretary ofDefense for Environmental Security on January

17, 2001.

I would be

happy to provide a copy ofthis policy to the Board and to

any other interested person.

Under the form of LUC MOA we propose, DoD facilities within the State would

commit to, among other things, certain periodic site inspection and reporting requirements to

ensure that our facility personnel adequately maintain those site remedy-based land use

controls necessary for long term protection ofhuman health and the environment.

I have

provided, as Exhibit

1

to my testimony, a model LUC MOA for your consideration that has

been negotiated between a DoD working group, EPA Region

5

and Agency representatives.

We believe it provides a sound and adequately protective alternative to requiring federal

entities such as ourselves to record NFRs at active, non-transferring installations and at

installations that maybe transferred from one federal landholding entity to another. The LUC

4

---

MOA makes clear that compliance with its provisions

is a prerequisite for the continued

validity ofNIFRs.

III.

Conclusion

In conclusion, we are proposing to the Board, that the Part 740

SRP regulations be

revised to exempt federal facilities from the aforementioned NFR recordation requirement

subject to

a given facility’sexecution of, and subsequent compliance with, a tri-party LUC

MOA with the Agency and U.S.EPA.

Respectfully submitted,

UNITED STATES

OF

AMERICA,

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,

By:

ORGI

LAHOS

Georgia Vlahos

Counsel

Naval Training Center

2601A Paul Jones Street

Great Lakes, Illinois

60088-2845

Telephone:

(847) 688-4422

Facsimile:

(847) 688-6917

E-mail:

~eorgia.vlahos(ll~cnet.navv.mil

5

---

EXHIBIT

1

(Model LUC MOA)

6

---

Date:

10/30/00

MEMORANDUM OFAGREEMENT

BETWEEN THE

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

THE

U.S.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, REGION

5

AND THE

U.S.

DEPARTMENT OF (NAVY, ARMY,

AIR FORCE)

THIS AGREEMENT is

entered into this

_____

dayof

,

by and between

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“U.S. EPA”),the Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency (“Illinois EPA”) and the U.S.

Department ofthe

(Navy, Army or Air

Force; Installation Name)

also collectively referred to herein as “the Parties,” for the

specific purposes hereinafter set forth.

BACKGROUMI~

Environmental investigative activities being undertaken on

(Installation Name)

have revealed and may in the future reveal certain areas of environmental

contamination (“Sites”)on (Installation Name).

These Sites include those

subject to regulation under either the Comprehensive Environmental Response,

Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”)42 USC 9601

et. seq;

the Resource

Conservation and RecoveryAct (“RCRA”), 42 U.S.C.

6901

et. seq.,

and/or the

provisions ofthe Illinois Environmental Protection Act, (“theAct”) (415 ILCS

5/1

et. seq.),

where hazardous substances, hazardous wastes or hazardous

constituents, or petroleum products or their derivatives were released into the

environment as a result ofactivities conducted over the history ofthe installation.

Such Sites may generallybe categorized as follows:

a.

Those that have been fully investigated and specific remedy(ies)

previously implemented;

b.

Those that have been fully investigated and remedy(ies) have been

selectedbut have not yet been implemented;

c.

Those that have been fully investigated but final remedy selection

decisions have not yet been made; or,

d.

Those in need ofinitial or further investigative activities before the

appropriate final remedy(ies) can be selected and implemented.

(Installation Name)

desires that future site remedy determinations take land use

into account in order to facilitate the use of risk-based remediation criteria

established by U.S. EPA under CERCLA or Illinois EPA under the Act or its

corresponding program rules, as may apply to a given Site.

The Parties agree that

when land use controls

(“LUCs”)are necessary to ensure the reliability of land

1

---

Date:

10/30/00

use assumptions, it is essential that appropnate procedures be put in place to

ensure such controls will be maintained for as long as necessary to

keep the

chosen remedy fully protective ofhuman health and the environment.

In addition,

the Parties agree that it is imperative to

ensure that prospective purchasers ofthe

property are fully informed ofthe existence ofsuch controls and their

responsibility to maintain them.

The Parties

also recognize that the General Services Administration maintains that

(Installation

Name)

does not have the authority to place land use restrictions in

county land records because it would be considered an unauthorized disposal of

an interest in federal property (since title is held by the United States and not by

(Installation Name).

Therefore, this Agreement is designed, in part, to

ensure

that if (Installation Name) desires to undertake

a risk-based remediation of

any

Site falling under the program authorities of the Illinois EPA, that it comply with

all applicable LUC requirements ofthe Act and its corresponding rules.

II.

APPLICABILITY

This Agreement applies to each Sitewhere

(Installation

Name)

is required to

undertake investigative and remedial activities in accordance withCERCLA

or applicable

Illinois EPA

remediation program requirements andwhere

(Installation

Name)

desires to utilize either U.S.EPACERCLA risk-based Site

remediation guidance

or Illinois EPA’s

TieredApproach to Corrective Action

Objectives (TACO) regulations

(35

Ill.

Adm. Code 742) to undertake a risk-based

remediation ofthe Site.

Such Sites shall specifically include those falling under

the following Illinois EPA programs:

a.

Leaking Underground Storage Tank (“LUST”)Program

(35

Ill. Adm.

Code 732);

b.

RCRA Part B Permits, corrective

action, and

Closure Plans

(35

Ill. Adm.

Code 724 and

725);

and,

c.

Site Remediation Program (“SRP”)

(35

Ill. Adm. Code 740).

Due to

the unique nature ofownership interests in the real property at active

federal facilities and the inability of

(Installation Name) to

comply with the LUC

recording requirements ofthe Act and corresponding rules ofthe Illinois EPA,

compliance with this Agreement will be deemed to

fulfill those requirements until

such time as any Site with LUCs on (Installation Name) that falls under any of

the aforementioned Illinois EPA programs is transferred out offederal ownership.

At the time ofsuch transfer, all requirements ofthe Act and

corresponding rules

of the Illinois EPA as shall apply to that Site must be met.

2

---

Date:

10/30/00

III.

DEFINITION

For the purposes ofthis Agreement, the term “LandUse Control” or “LUC”

means any restriction or control arising from the need to protect human health and

the environment that limits the use ofor exposure to environmentally

contaminated media (e.g., soils, surface water, groundwater)

at any Site on

(Installation Name).

The term includes controls on access (e.g., engineered

bafflers, such as caps, and non-engineered mechanisms, such as fences or security

guards). Additionally, the term encompasses both affirmative measures to

achieve the desired control (e.g., night lighting ofan area) and prohibitive

directives (e.g., no drilling ofdrinking waterwells).

The term also includes

“institutional controls.”Institutional controls are legal mechanisms for imposing a

restriction on land use.

IV.

PURPOSE

The Parties intend to

accomplish the following specific objectives through

execution ofthis Agreement:

a.

To

implement a process to ensure appropriate long-term maintenance of

those LUCs that may have already ormay hereafter be selected as part of

the remedy for any Site on (Installation Name). It is intended such a

process will in turn:

1.

Facilitate the application ofFederal or State risk-based remediation

criteria to Site remediations through consideration ofassumed

future land usage at those Sites where LUCs will be necessary to

make such assumptions reliable;

2.

Elevate the general level of awareness amongst (Installation

Name) personnel as to the need to maintain such controls in order

to

ensure long-term protection ofhuman health and the

environment.

b.

To implement a process for (Installation Name) to periodically advise

U.S.EPA and Illinois EPA representatives ofthe continued maintenance of

any LUCs implemented on the (Installation Name) and ofany planned

changes in land use impacting any Site remediated in accordance wit

risk-based criteria based on the assumption land usage would be

controlled,

(e.g., restricted to industrial use);

c.

To

implement procedures for integrating all Site remedies that include

LUCs into the facility land use planning process;

d.

To provide, in part through (Installation Name’s) goodfaith compliance

with this Agreement, reasonable assurances to U.S.

EPA and Illinois EPA

3

---

Date:

10/30/00

those specific pathway and exposure assumptions relied upon in applying

a risk-based remediation standard to

a given Site will remain valid until

such time as the Parties agree, pursuant to the applicable program

procedures under which the Site is conducting remediation, that either

different Site controls or unrestricted Site usage would be appropriate; and

e.

To satisfy

(Installation

Name’s) obligation tocomply with those LUC

requirements to be reflected in any NFR determinations (ortheir

equivalent) issued by U.S. EPA or Illinois EPA until such time as

(Installation

Name) and U.S.EPA or Illinois EPA, whichever agency has

program authority, determines that those LUCs are no longer necessary for

the protection ofhuman health and the environment.

V.

APPENDICES

a.

The following Appendices are now or shall hereafter become a part ofthis

Agreement as further specified in paragraphs

1 through 4 below:

1.

The attached Site listing (Appendix A) forthose presently known Sites

covered under the terms of this Agreement.

Appendix A will be

updated at on a quarterly basis by

(Installation Name) to

reflect

any

additions or deletions of Sites as may hereafter be agreed to by the

Parties.

Copies of all quarterly updates must be promptly distributed

to U.S. EPA and Illinois EPA.

Ifno

Site additions or deletions have

been made during a previous quarter, then no Appendix need be

prepared or distributed for that period.

2.

Individual Land Use Control Implementation Plans (“LUCWs”)

(Appendix B) for all known Sites to be covered under the terms ofthis

Agreement.

These LUCIPs will be developed by

(Installation Name)

within (insert “thirty (30)”

or” sixty (60)”

days) ofexecution ofthis

Agreement.

Each LUCIP will: (1) identify the Site’slocation by

reference to

the facility’sland use plan orby other means sufficient to

enable the Parties to readily locate the Site; (2) identify both the LUC

objective for the Site being addressed as well as those particular LUCs

to be relied upon to achieve the objective; (3) specify what must be

done in order to implement and maintain the specific LUCs required

for the Site; and (4) contain a cross-reference to whatever decision

document(s) apply to the

Site.

As future decisions involving LUCs are

made at Sites on

(Installation Name),

these Sites will become covered

under this Agreement and listed in Appendix A, and a new LUCIP

appropriate to each such newly covered Site will be added to

Appendix

B.

In conjunctionwith

(Installation Name) (Base Master

Plan),

these plans should serve

as a central LUC reference source to

assist

(Installation Name)

personnel with completing those periodic

4

---

Date:

10/30/00

Site inspections, review, and certifications required under Paragraph

VI ofthis Agreement.

3.

The attached Sample Record ofDecision (“ROD”)or Decision

Document (“DD”)language (Appendix

C) containing a specific

reference to this Agreement; and

4.

The attached listing (Appendix D) ofthe appropriate agency and

facility Points of Contact (“POCs”).

b.

Appendix E will contain all future NFR determinations (or their

equivalent) as issued by U.S. EPA or Illinois EPA that pertain to

Sites

covered by this Agreement.

VI.

SITE INSPECTION/REVIEW/CERTIFICATION

Within thirty (30) days offinalizing the LUCIP appendices mentioned above or

sixty (60) days afterexecution ofthis Agreement, whichever occurs first,

(Installation Name) shall initiate the following specific actions:

a.

Conduct (insert

-

quarterly, semi-annual,

or annual as negotiated by

the Parties)

visual inspections ofall

Sites where LUCs have previously or

may hereafter be implemented at such Sites identified in Appendix A to

this Agreement.

These inspections will be for the purposes ofverifying all

necessary LUCs have been implemented and are being properly

maintained.

The

(Installation Name) (Environmental Program

Manager)

will be responsible for:

(1) ensuring all required inspections

are performed;

(2) providing U.S. EPA and Illinois EPA with thirty (30)

days advance notice of, and opportunity to participate in, (insert “one

quarterly,”

one semi-annual” or “the annual”)

inspection conducted

each calendar year; (3) notifying U.S.

EPA and Illinois EPA ofany

deficiencies noted within thirty (30) days, and; (4) ensuring that corrective

measures are undertaken as soon as practicable to correct any such

deficiency(ies) with timely notification to U.S. EPA and Illinois EPA

detailing corrective actions taken or providing a timetable outlining future

remediation activities.

Ifthe agency that has program authority for the

program under which remediation is taking place declines to concur, then

such agency and

(Installation Name)

shall work together to resolve how

the noted deficiencies will be corrected.

b.

If(Installation Name) has, or hereafter establishes, an environmental

compliance board or similar body charged with coordinating and

overseeing environmental compliance

on the installation, suchbody shall

conduct quarterly reviews to assess the

(Installation

Name’s) status in

5

---

Date:

10/30/00

complying with all previously implemented LUCs.

Any non-compliance

issues will be appropriately resolved with U.S. EPA or Illinois EPA,

whichever has program authority

over the Site(s) where deficiencies were

found.

c.

Prepare

and forward an annual report

(insert due date)

to U.S. EPA and

Illinois EPA signed by the

(Installation Name) (Commanding Officer)

certifying the continued retention of all implemented LUCs associated

with those

Sites identified in Appendix A to this Agreement (as last

updated).

VII.

AGENCY COORDINATION

Effective upon execution ofthis Agreement, (Installation Name) agrees to

implement the following agency notification and concurrence procedures:

a.

Except under circumstances reasonably determinedby the

(Installation

Name)

to be an emergency, the (Installation Name) shall provide at least

sixty (60) days notice prior to

implementation ofany Land Use Change (as

defined in Section VII.d.) at any Site subject to

LUCs. The

(Installation

Name) will provide notification ofany such change to U.S.

EPA and

Illinois

EPA.

Such notification must be provided for the purpose of

obtaining either U.S. EPA or Illinois EPA concurrence (whichever shall

have program authority over the affected Site(s)) with the

(Installation

Name) determination as to

whether the contemplate4change will or will

not necessitate the need for re-evaluation ofthe selected remedy or

implementation of specific measures to ensure continued protectionof

humanhealth and the environment.

b.

Except in the case ofan emergency where

(Installation Name)

personnel

reasonably believe it is not practicable to wait for U.S. EPA or Illinois

EPA concurrence, no Land Use Change should be implemented until U.S.

EPA orIllinois EPA concurrence is obtained,

consistent with the

timeliness requirements set forth in subparagraph (c) below. For Land

Use Change(s) affecting LUST or RCRA closure or corrective action Sites

over which the State has program authority, although suchnotifications

will be sent to both U.S.

EPA and Illinois EPA, the

(Installation Name)

need only obtain Illinois EPA’sconcurrence with the proposed change.

Eachnotification or request for concurrencemust include:

1.

An evaluation of whether the anticipated Land Use Change will

pose unacceptable risks to human health and the environment or

negatively impact the effectiveness ofthe selected Site remedy;

6

---

Date:

10/30/00

2.

An evaluation ofthe need for any additional remedial action or

LUCs resulting from implementation ofthe anticipated Land Use

Change; and,

3.

A proposal for any necessary changes in the selected Site remedy.

c.

Uponbeing notified by

(Installation Name) ofan anticipated Land

Use

Change at a Site, U.S. EPA or Illinois EPA or both shall evaluate the

information provided pursuant to paragraph (b) above, and respond in a

timely fashion prior to such land use change.

d.

The Parties agree that any ofthe following will constitute a Land Use

Change:

1.

Any change in land use (e.g. from industrial to residential)

inconsistent with any land use contained in those specific exposure

assumptions in the human health or ecological risk assessments

that served as the basis for the LUCs implemented at the Site;

2.

Any Site activity disrupting the effectiveness ofthe implemented

LUC.

Examples

include, but are not limited to: excavation at a

landfill;

groundwater pumping impacting a groundwater pump and

treat system; a construction project impacting ecological habitat

protected by the remedy; removal ofa fence; unlocking ofa gate;

orremoval ofwarning signs; or,

3.

Any Site activity intended to alter or negate the need for the

specific LUC(s) implemented at the Site.

e.

The

(Installation Name)

also

agrees to immediately notify U.S.

EPA

and Illinois

EPA if, despite its best

efforts to ensure compliance with

paragraphs (a) and (b) above, any Land Use Change at any Site with an

implemented LUC

is discovered not having been previously reviewed and

concurred in by U.S. EPA or Illinois EPA in accordance with paragraph

(a).

Such notifications will provide all pertinent information as to the

nature and

extent ofthe change and describe any measures implemented

or to be implemented (to include a timetable for future completion) to

reduce orprevent

human health or ecological impacts.

VIII.

MOA INTEGRATION

The Parties agree when Site-specific LUCs are to be implemented, an adequate

description ofthe same alongwith conditions for their usewill be included in

whatever decision document reflects the selected remedy for a Site as well as in

the associated LUCIP.

Additionally, Appendix C contains standard language for

7

---

Date:

10/30/00

inclusion in such documents as CERCLA RODs or DDs, Remedial ActionPlans

(RAPs), closure or post closure plans for RCRA regulated units or formal

modifications to a facility’sRCRA/HSWA permit, or in separate approval or No

Further Remediation (NFR) letters issued by U.S. EPA or Illinois EPA, whichever

has oversight authority over the Site in question.

IX.

FUTURE PROPERTY CONVEYANCE

Should the decision later be made to transfer to any other agency, private person

or entity,

either title to,

or some lesser form ofproperty interest (e.g., an easement

or right of way) in any Site on

(Installation

Name) with an existing LUC(s), then

(Installation

Name) shall ensure:

a.

U.S. EPA and Illinois EPA are provided with notice at least sixty (60)

days prior to any such intended conveyance.

Such notice must: (1)

indicate the mechanism(s) intended to be used to reasonably ensure any

LUC(s) needing to remain in place after interest conveyance will be

maintained; and (2) include an assurance that (Installation Name) has

fully advised the property disposal agent who shall prepare the deed(s) or

other instruments that will be used to convey the property ofthe need to

include those LUCs that must remain on the property in those documents.

b.

All existing “NFR” determinations (or their equivalent) issued by

U.S.EPA or Illinois EPA, have been appendedto this Agreement and that

a copy ofthe same is provided to the property disposal agent who will

handle the conveyance ofany Site with LUCs still in place.

c.

Each LUC

is reviewed and incorporated into those property disposal

documents

(e.g.,

Environmental Baseline Survey

for Transfer

(“EBST”) and Finding ofSuitability for Transfer (“FOST”))

to meet

CERCLA and 40

CFR 373 notice requirements

and that copies ofthe

following documents are made available by the property disposal agent to

the intended transferee(s) forrecordation as may be required by applicable

federal or State law:

1)

All No-Further-Remediation (NFR) letter(s) or determinations (or

their equivalent) issued by U.S.EPA or Illinois EPA as pertain to

the property; and,

2) All RODs

or similar Site decision documents as pertain to the

property.

d.

Each transferee is given adequate notice of existing Site condition(s) and

informed of the responsibility that they will be assuming for maintaining

8

---

Date:

10/30/00

any LUCs previously implemented on the property.

The notice will

indicate that if the LUCs are not maintained, any NER determination

based on the LUCs may no longerbe valid.

It is understood the planned conveyance of any Site with LUCs may prompt U.S.

EPA or Illinois EPA to re-evaluate the continued appropriateness of any

previously agreed upon LUC(s) based upon the level ofassurance provided that

all necessaryLUCs will be adequately maintained.

X.

CHANGE IN APPLICABLE STANDARDS

Nothing herein should be construed to preclude

(Installation Name) from

proposing at any time or from the Parties otherwise agreeing to effect the deletion

ofany Site from coverage under the terms ofthis Agreement on account of either:

(i) a post-remedy implementation change to

applicable Federal or State risk-based

cleanup standards, or (ii) a change in previously documented contaminant

concentration levels allowing for unrestricted use solely as a result ofthe effects

of man induced or naturally occurring bioremediation/affenuation.

XI.

FUTURE COMMUNICATIONS

Upon execution ofthis Agreement each Party shall notify the other Parties as to

the name(s), address(es), telephone number(s), electronic mail address(es) and

facsimile number(s) of their respective representative(s)-who should receive all

correspondence

and communications on behalfof the Party pertaining to all

matters falling under the terms ofthis Agreement.

The listing of agency POCs,

which is attached hereto as Appendix D, will be updated by the Parties as

appropriate.

XII.

SITE ACCESS

(Installation Name) herein agrees to provide U.S. EPA and Illinois EPA

representatives, contractors or consultants access to all Sites to be covered by this

Agreement at all reasonable times consistent with military mission, national

security and health/safety requirements upon presentation ofproper credentials.

The installation’s (Environmental

Program manager)

or his/her designee will

coordinate access and escort the regulatory personnel to restricted or controlled

access areas, arrange for base passes and coordinate any other access requests that

arise.

Nothing in this Agreement is intended to be construed to limit in any way

the right ofentry or inspection, either U.S.

EPA or Illinois EPA, may otherwise

have by operation oflaw. U.S. EPA and Illinois EPA representatives will have

the authority to enter and move freely around any Site at all reasonable times for

purposes including, but not limited to, reviewing the efforts performed by

(Installation Name)

in complying with the terms ofthis Agreement; conducting

9

---

Date:

10/30/00

such tests as these agencies may deem necessary and verifying all information /

data submitted by (Installation Name) personnel pursuant to this

Agreement.

XIII.

DISPUTES

All Parties agree to engage in a good-faith effortto resolve any and all disputes,

hereafter arising with regard to the

(Station’s)substantial good-faith compliance

with the terms ofthis Agreement or other matters relating to

the Sites addressed

hereunder.

XIV.

RESERVATION OF RIGHTS

It is agreed and understood U.S. EPA and Illinois EPA reserve all rights and

authorities each agency may currently have or hereafter acquire by law to require

(Installation

Name) to comply with those federal and state laws and regulations

applicable to the investigation, cleanup and long term maintenance ofthose Sites

to be coveredby this Agreement.

Moreover, Illinois EPA specifically reserves

the right to rescind any NFR letter or determination issued in connection with any

Site coveredunder this Agreement if the LUC(s) associated with that Site(s) are

not properly maintained.

It is also understood the

(Commanding Officer),

(Installation

Name) herein reserves those rights and authorities granted to the

Department ofDefense (DoD) by federal or state law, regulation, or executive

order including, but not limited to, CERCLA, Executive Order 12580 (Superfund

Implementation), and the National Contingency Plan (40 CFR Part 300). On

behalf ofthe Department of the (Navy, Army, Air Force), (the Commanding

Officer) (Installation Name)

further reserves the right to put all property under

his cognizance to those uses deemed necessary in his discretion for mission

accomplishment or otherwise deemed necessary by appropriate military authority

to meet the needs ofthe DoD.

XV.

ANTI-DEFICIENCY ACT

Nothing in this Agreement willbe construed as obligating the (Navy,

Army, Air

Force)

or U.S. EPA, their officers, employees, or agents to expend any funds in

excess of appropriations authorized for such purposes in violation ofthe federal

Anti-Deficiency Act

(31 U.S.C. Section 1341).

XVI.

AMENDMENT

Any amendments to this Agreement shall be in writing, executed by the

undersigned signatories or their duly authorized designees or successors and

attached to this original Agreement.

10

---

Date:

10/30/00

XVII.

TERMINATION

This Agreement will terminate at such time as the undersigned representatives of

the Parties or their successors, mutually concur the aforesaid objectives ofthe

Parties have been fulfilled and the need for such an Agreement no longer exists.

Alternatively, any Party may unilaterally withdraw from this Agreement upon

sixty (60) days written notice to

the other Parties but only after reasonable

efforts

have first been made by all Parties to resolve the dispute(s) leading to the taking

of such action.

Ifany Party decides to unilaterally withdraw, the Parties shall

nonetheless work towards resolving any outstanding issues as may exist between

them.

It is understood should the (Navy, Army,

Air Force) choose to unilaterally

withdraw from this Agreement, U.S. EPA and Illinois EPA may choose to

reconsider any remedy(ies) associated with any Site with a LUC

still in place at

the time ofsuch withdrawal.

XVIII.

REPRESENTATIVE AUTHORITY

Each undersigned representative of the Parties to this Agreement certifies she or

he is fully authorized to enter into the terms and conditions ofthis Agreement and

to execute the same so as to effectively bind each Party to its terms.

XIX.

EXECUTION

This Agreement shall become effective on the date the last ofthe authorized

representatives ofthe Parties signs.

FOR THE ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

By:______________________

Title:_____________________

Date:

___________________________

FOR THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, REGION

5

By:_______________________ Title:_____________________

Date:

____________________________

FOR THE DEPARTMENT

OF THE

(NAVY, ARMY,

AIR FORCE)

By:____________________

Title:____________________

Date:

11

---

Date:

10/30/00

APPENDIX A

LAND USE CONTROL

SITE LISTING

Date last updated:

Site

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

LUCIP#

12

---

Date:

10/30/00

APPENDIX B

LAND USE CONTROL

IMPLEMENTATIONPLAN

FOR SITE___________

1.

Site Description:

(e.g., former fire fighting training area, approx. size

150’x 200’

and contaminants ofconcern)

2.

Site Location:

(e.g., northeast corner ofthe Station betweenbuildings

250

and

260 as reflected on BMIP page_____/GIS index under IR Site or GPS information

provided in decimal degrees to the nearest sixth digit).

3.

LUC Objectives(s):

(e.g.,

to restrict public access to

an area for recreational use).

4.

LUC(s) Implemented to Achieve Objective(s):

(e.g., installation ofa fence,

warning signs, etc.

.

.,

or BMP notations restricting residential or recreational usage).

5.

Decision Document:

(e.g., RoD/DD dated

Remediation (NFR) letter dated

orNo Further

6.

Other Pertinent Information

13

---

Date:

10/30/00

APPENDIX C

SAMPLE ROD/DD

MOA INCORPORATION LANGUAGE

(Insert the following language in those RODs/DDs providing for the use of LUC(s).

By separate Memorandum ofAgreement (“MOA”) dated

_______________,

with U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency

(“U.S. EPA”), the Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency (“Illinois EPA”), and(Installation Name), on behalfofthe

Department of the

(Navy, Army, Air Force),

agreed to implement base-wide, certain periodic Site

inspection,

condition certification and agency notification procedure designed to ensure

the maintenance by (Installation Name) personnel ofany Site-specific LandUse

Controls (“LUCs”)deemed necessary for present

and future protection ofhuman health

and the environment.

A fundamental premise underlying execution ofthis agreement

was through the

(Branch of

Services) substantial good-faith compliance with the

procedures called for therein, reasonable assurances would be provided to U.S. EPA and

Illinois EPA as to the permanency ofthose remedies that included the use ofspecific

LUCs.

It is understood that the terms and conditions oftheMOA arenot specifically

incorporated or made enforceable herein by reference.

Should compliance with the MOA

not occur or should the MOA be terminated, it is understood the protectiveness ofthe

remedy concurred in may be reconsidered and

additional measures may need to be taken

to adequately ensure necessary future protection ofhumanhealth and the environment.

14

---

Date:

10/30/00

APPENDIX D

AGENCY AND FACILITY POINTS OF CONTACT

ILLINOIS EPA

Name

:

Address

:

Phone

U.S.EPA. REGION

5

Name

:

Address

:

Phone

(INSTALLATION

NAME~

Name

:

Address

:

Phone

15

---

Date:

10/30/00

APPENDIX E

SITE NFR DETERMINATIONS

16

---

i-~iECEIVED

CLE

~WS

OFF CE

MAR

2

12001

BEFORE THE

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

SlATEOF 1LLIr~JOIS

IN THE MATTER OF:

)

POIIUtIOfl Control Board

)

SITE REMEDIATION PROGRAM:

)

RO1-27

AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM.CODE

)

(Rulemaking

-

Land)

740

IN THE MATTER OF:

)

)

SITE REMEDIATION PROGRAM:

)

ROl-29

PROPOSED 35 ILL. ADM. CODE

)

(Rulemaking

—

Land)

740.

SUBPART H (SCHOOLS, PUBLIC

)

(Consolidated)

PARKS, AND PLAYGROUNDS)

)

PRE-FILED TESTIMONY OF RICHARD

R.

BIJTTERWORTH. JR.

Good morning, my name is RichardR. Butterworth, Jr.

I am a Senior Assistant General

Counsel in the Office ofGeneral Counsel, General Services Administration (“GSA”). My

testimony is provided on behalfof the GSA.

I have been an employee ofthe GSA for 13 years, and have been in my current role for

the past five years.

In addition to other duties, I serve as chief counsel for the Office ofProperty

Disposal within the Public Buildings Service, GSA.

In that capacity I am responsible for policy

development, legislative initiatives, regulatory interpretation and adoption,

overall program legal

review, and forindividual real property disposal actions.

I appreciate the opportunity to address this Board specifically on the legal limitations

which exist on the ability offederal agencies to

deedrecord land use restrictions on federal

property.

I. Why Federal Installations Need a Recording Exemption

Federal Installations in Illinois need the proposed recording exemption because unlike

privately-owned facilities, certain legal limitations

exist on the ability offederal agencies to deed

---

I. Why Federal Installations

Need a Recording Exemption

Federal Installations in Illinois need the proposedrecording exemption because unlike

privately-owned facilities, certain legal

limitations exist on the ability offederal agencies to deed

record land use restrictions on federal properties to be retained in federal hands. To understand

the scope of federal agency real propertymanagement authority, it must first be recognized that

those real properties which the various federal agencies occupy or otherwise control are not

“owned”as such by them, but rather by the United

States as sovereign.

This is simply because

the ultimate authority to manage all federally-owned land

rests with Congress pursuant to the

Property Clause ofthe U.S.

Constitution (Article IV, Section 3) and Congress has not chosen to

assign ownership over federal lands to

any particular agency or agencies.

GSA derives its authority to manage and dispose offederal lands from the Federal

Property and Administrative Services Act of1949, as amended, the same statute under which my

agency was established.

See 40 U.S.C.

§§ 471, et seq.

(hereafter “Property Act”). Oneofthe

principal purposes ofthe Property Act was to provide economies ofscale and consolidation of

resources and authorities within the Federal Government.

One ofthose key areas of

consolidation was the authority to manage and dispose ofreal property. Specifically, GSA was

authorized to ensure the effective utilization of “excess” realproperty (property which a

landholding agency has determined is no

longer needed to accomplish its particular mission) and

the efficient disposal of “surplus”real property (excess property for which there is no other

federal agency need).

See 40 U.S.C.

§ 483, 484.

GSA is

authorized to provide these functions

for all federal executive agencies.

Therefore, unless

an agency has specific authority to dispose

ofreal property, once a landholding agency has determined that the property is excess to

its

needs, it must turn the property over to GSA for disposition.

2

---

The Department ofDefense (“DoD”)is in a unique situation in the Federal Government

in that it has a specific delegation ofthe sameproperty and management functions as GSA but

only with regard to closing or realigning base properties identified under one ofthe various Base

Closure and Realignment

(“BRAC”)statutes passedby Congress in recent years. Therefore,

in

those limited circumstances, DoD

can act as both the landholding and disposal agency

—

in

effect, stepping into the shoes of GSA..

While it is true that Congress has chosen on other occasions to grant certain specific

property management authorities to

other federal agencies, including the DoD,

the scope ofthose

authorizations has beenvery limited.

For example, federal agencies have the general authority to

grant utility easements or right-of-ways to third parties..

However, the Department ofJustice

has previously determined that the authority Congress provided to agencies to execute these

types ofinstruments does not extend to other broaderdisposals ofproperty interests.

The Property Act defines the term “property”to include “any interest in property.”

See

40 U.S.C.

§ 472(d).

Accordingly, it is GSA’sposition that, the granting ofa property right in

perpetuity, such as a restriction on the futureuse offederal property as envisioned in the

proposed SRP regulations, is an “interest inproperty”as defined by the Property Act.

Thus, only

GSA and not the landholding agency can grant such an interest.

GSA has chosen not to delegate the authority to landholding agencies to record land use

restrictions that would run with the land in perpetuity for three principal reasons. First, we

believe it would be contrary to Congressional desires as to who should hold property disposal

authority.

In the case ofDoD,

the fact that Congress has only chosen to

expressly grant that

agency full property disposal authority in the context ofBRAC real estate actions clearly

indicates that it was not their intent

for DoD to have those same authorities in the context of

3

---

managing active base properties.

Secondly, GSA believes that recorded land use restrictions

should only be agreed to in the context ofan actual property disposal

so that such restrictions can

truly reflect the risks associated with known site conditions in the context ofa particular

contemplated reuse ofthe propertyrather than some hypothetical use in the future.

At the time

ofdisposal,

GSA or any landholding agency with disposal authority could review the

institutional controls previously set in place during the landholding agency’suse of the property

and determine, with appropriate regulatory agency input, whether those controls should remain

and become permanent use restrictions

or be modified in order to be truly protective in the

context ofthe pending reuse.

And finally, as mentioned previously, GSA strongly believes there are other effective

means to impose use restrictions on federal property without requiring that those restrictions be

recorded.

For example, while federal landholding agencies may be legally precluded from

recording permanent use restrictions, those agencies may enter into land use restriction

agreements, which may run for the length ofthe agency’scustody of the property.

Since many

agencies retain their primary facilities for many years,

such agreements can implement land use

controls practically in perpetuity. The LUC MOA process that was adopted in the TACO

regulations and has been proposed in the LUST regulations results in

exactly such an agreement.

Therefore, GSA hopes that the Board will adopt the amendment proposed by the Defense

agencies in this proceeding which are intended to mirror the LUC MOA process.

We believe it important to

also point out to this Board that in addition to

those LUCMOA

agreement, two federal laws, namely CERCLA and NEPA, independently impose certain pre-

property disposal relatednotice requirements and other obligations on federal landholding

agencies.

These obligations are of a kind not similarly imposed on any private landholder.

For

4

---

example, CERCLA Section

120(h)(3) requires federal agencies disposing ofsurplus properties to

specifically state in the form ofa deed covenant that all remedial action necessary to protect

humanhealth and the environment with regard to identified hazardous substance activity has

been taken prior to conveyance.

The United

States also commits to return to the property to

correct any other hazardous substance condition

from prior federal activity that was not

previously identified.

Second, federal landholding agencies must comply with the National Environmental

Policy Act (“NEPA”) in the contextofmaking closure and “excessing” decisions. Under NEPA,

federal agencies are required to assess potential impacts to the “qualityofthe human

environment” from the proposed federal disposal action.

Thus, if any institutional controls are

affected by an agency’sdecision to close a facility or declare property excess, the landholding

agency must evaluate those impacts and allow public comment on that evaluation.

GSA must

also comply with NEPA for our disposal actions and, if there is contamination in place on

property GSA

is disposing, we routinely notify the appropriate State regulatory agency to obtain

theirinput on the need for land use restrictions on the property.

In light ofthe foregoing, GSA urges the Board to adopt the amendment to the proposal

submitted by Federal agencies.

GSA believes that the proposal will adequately address our

concerns regarding a “perfection”ofthe NFR that would include deed recordation for ongoing

Federal facilities.

While the deed recordation requirement has been removed, GSA believes the

proposal contains adequate safeguards to ensure the viability ofthe institutional controls. These

safeguards include identification and notice requirements, procedures to ensure ongoing updates

are communicated to IEPA, measures to

ensure continued compliance with the LUC MOA, and

5

---

advance notification to IEPA ofany proposed disposal ofa property regulated by an institutional

control.

In conclusion, we at GSA support the proposal to modify the proposed SRP rules as

submitted by DOD to take into account the unique authorities given to, and responsibilities

imposed upon, federal agencies

management of federal real property. I appreciate the

opportunity the Federal Government has had to work with the Board and IEPA to resolve this

issue and I thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony to you today.

General Services Administration

1800 F Street, N.W.,

Room 4129

Washington, D.C.

20405

(202) 501-4436

6

---

Mar—07—01

04:3Bps,

From—ILLINIOS POLLUTION

CONTROL BOARD

+3129143669

7—310

P004

F—BOB

Service List

Re1-27

March 7, 2001

Erin

Curley

Midwest Engineering Services, Inc.

4243

W.

166th Street

Oak Forest, IL 60452

William (1 Dickerr

Sidley & Austin

10 South Dearborn

Suite 5200

Chicago,

IL 60603

Matthew J. Duwi

Environmental Bureau

Office ofthe Attorney General

100 W. Randolph

12th Floor

Chicago, IL 60601

~<

Steven Gobelman

U3OT

BcI&E

2300

South

Dirksen Parkway

Dorothy Id.

Gium

Clerk

illinois Pollution Control Board

100

W.

Randolpb

Suite

11-500

Chicago,

IL 60601

Katherine D. Hodge

Hedge & Dwyer

P.O. Box

5776

Springfield,

IL

62705-5776

RobertLawley

Department ofNatural Resources

524

Springfield, It 62701-1787

Daniel Goodwin, P.E.

Goodwin Environmental Consultants

400

Brims Lane

Springfield, it 62702

Holly 1). Harley,

Esq

Chicago

Legal Clinic

205

W.

Monroe Street

4th Floor

Chicago,

~

Stephen Kirachuer

Advanced GeoServices Coip.

Ri.

202 &

1

Brandywine One

Suite 202

Brent Manning

Direaor

Department ofNatural Resources

524

5.

Second Sweet

4thFloor

Karen L.

Bernoteit

IERG

215 East Adams

Street

Springfield, Ii. 62701

---

Mar—OT-Ol

04:3Gpm Fram—ILLINIOS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

+312914660

T—310

P.005 F—SOB

2

Monte Nienkerk

Clayton Group Services

3140 Finley

Road

Downers Grove, IL

60515

StetbnA.

Noc

Citizens for a Better Environment

205

W.

Monroe Street

4th floor

Chicago,

Mike R.apps

Rapps Engineering & Applied Science

821

S. Duricin Drive

David Reiser

Ross & Hardies

150 N.

Michigan

Chicago,

Thomas

V. Skinner

Director

TEPA

1021

North Grand Avenue East

P.O.

Box

Springfield, IL 62794-9278

John Reimann

INDECIC

600 N.

Buffalo Grove Rd.

Suite 300

Buffalo Grove, IL 60089

Jim Ryan

Office of the Attorney

Geixeral

100 W.

Randolph

Chicago,

IL 60601

Mark Wight

JEPA

1021

North GrandAvenue East

Springfield,

Georgia Viahos

2601A Paul Jones Street

Great Jskes,

IL 60088-2845

Bobb Beauchamp

Hearing Officer

illinOiS Pollution Control Board

100 W. Randolph

Suite 11-500

Chicago,

IL

60601

---

Mar—07—01

04:Slpin

Froin—ILLINIOS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

+312B 143660

T—310 P.002 F—SOB

Service List

RO1-29

March7,2001

Lynn Crivello

125 3.

Clark Street

17thFloor

Chicago, IL 60603

Erin Curley

Midwest Engineering Services, Inc.

4243

W.

oak Forest, IL 60452

Matthew J. Dunn

Environmental Bureau

Office ofthe Attorney General

100 W.

Randolph

12th Floor

Chicago.

IL 60601

Daniel Goodwin, Pt.

Goodwin Environmental Consultants

Holly D.

Harley. Esq

Cbicago Legal

Clinic

205 W.

Monroe Street

Chicago,

IL 60606

Stephen Kirsotner

Advanced GeoServices Corp.

Brandywine One

Suite 202

Cbadds Ford, PA 19317

William 0. Dlckett

Sidley & Austin

10

South

Dearborn

Suite

5200

Chicago, IL 60603

Steven Gobehuan

Bd&E

2300 South Diriceen Parkway

Springfield, IL 62764

Dorothy M. Gun

Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

100 W.

Randolph

Suite 11-500

Chicago, IL 60601

Katherine D

Hodge

Hodge & Dwycr

P.0. Box 5776

Springfield, IL

62705-5776

Robert Lawley

Department ofNatural Resources

524

Karen Bernotiet

IERG

215 E. Adams

Street

Springfield, IL 62701

---

Mar—07—01

04:35pm From—ILLINIOS

POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

+3129 143669

T—310

P.003 F—lOB

2

Dobb Beauchamp

Hearing C)fflver

Illinois Pollution Control Board

100

W.

Randolph

Suite

11-500

Chicago,

XL

60601

Monte Nienkerk

Clayton Group Services

3140

Finley Road

Downers Grove, IL 60515

Mike Rapps

Rapps

Engineering & Applied Science

821

S.

Springfield, IL 62704

Jim Ryan

Office of

the Attorney General

100 W.

Randolph

Chicago,

IL

60601

Brent Manning

Director

Department ofNatural Resources

5245.

Second Street

4th floor

Springfield, IL 62701

Stefan A. Noc

Citizens for a Better Environment

205

W.

4th Floor

Chicago,

John Reimann

INDECK

600 N. Buffalo Grove Rd.

Suite 300

IL 60089

Buffalo

Grove,

Thomas V. Skinner

Director

IEPA

1021

North Grand Avenue East

P.O.

Box 19276

Springfield,

IL 62794-9278

Mark Wight

IEPA

1021 North Grand Avenue East

WO.

Box 19276

Springfield

7

XL 62794-9278

---

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy ofthe foregoing (1) Appearance of Georgia Viahos,

(2) Pre-Filed Testimony ofGeorgia Viahos, and Pre-Filed Testimony ofRichard Butterworthhas

been served upon the Clerk by personal delivery and upon each other person on the attached

Service List by First Class U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, this

21st

day ofMarch 2001.

Georgia V hos

THIS

FILING IS

SUBMIlTED

ON

RECYCLED

PAPER