NOTICE
APPEARANCE

EC ~EBV ED

CLERK’S OFFICE

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARDJUN

1 ~2fl~

OF THE STATE OF ILLiNOIS

STATE

~LUNO!S

Pollut~oflContrO~Board

IN THE MATTER OF

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO:

REGULATION OF PETROLEUM LEAKING

UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS

ILL. ADM. CODE 732

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO:

REGULATION OF PETROLEUM LEAKiNG

UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS

ILL. ADM. CODE 734

PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE

that today I have filed with the Office ofthe Clerk of

the Pollution Control Board APPEARANCE ofDavid L. Rieser on behalf of

BP PRODUCTS

NORTH

AMERICA,

INC.; MOTION TO FILE TESTIMONY INSTANTER;

AND

TESTIMONY OF HAROLD PRIMACK

in the above titled matter.

Copies of these

documents are hereby served upon you.

MCGUIRE

WOODS LLP

David L. Rieser

77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 4400

Chicago, illinois 60601

(312) 849-8100

)

R04-22

)

(Rulemaking

—

UST)

)

R04-23

)

(Rulemaking

—

UST)

)

Consolidated

NOTICE

To:

See Attached Service List

DATED:

June 18, 2004

6—17—04; 1:21PM;                             

;~

# 2~ 4

Printable Notice List

Page 1 of3

••~

~

~

3~:

i ~‘ ~ ~ ‘~:

•:

‘~~‘:~ •- ~

~ I l~~ti’~~

~~:

j~~

~tcm~y_Qff!c~~

County State s ~110

South Fourth Street P 0

IL 61061-0395

13~17~’~1

815/732 6607

Interested Party

Box 395

Michael C. Rock, AssistantStates Aflame

i~_~~~

-i-..- ~,. ~

~to~1

North ~rand Avenue East Spnngfie~d

21 7/7B2~.5544

~ ~ ~

Pet&üoner

_-~ ,L:r~r p~j Box19276

IL 62794~927~

2171782 980T

~r ~

Gina

Rocca~xte~A~sisthnt

Counsel

Kyle Rominger Assistant Counsel

Do(igClay

.-~

Hod~eDwyerZeman 3150 Roland Avenue

Spnng~e~d

217/523 4900

Interested Party

PostOflice Box 5776

IL 62705-5776

217/523-4948

~ , ~ .

Thomas G Safley

SklleyAustinBrown

Baflk~ePIaza

Chicago

312/8~37OQQ

Lnterested Parfy ~

~~ SOUth Dearborn Street

IL 60603

V953-~’a3~

,

;

Wilhlan~G D~ckeft

~ ~ ~

414 North Orleans Street

Chicago

312/536-1177

~ ~

Interested

Party

Suite 810

IL 60610

312/836’.9053

,

BarbaraMagel

JJJJn~~et~o1eun~

-~ ~ ~ 1t~Wes~CooIçS~r~et ~

217.1793 18~& ~

~

1 ~J~

‘BlI!FJ~,~ch~

~ ~

I •—

~ ~. _

-~ .~

i~~u~id_$si~e ~o

B0x360

Woodlawn

618/735-2411

—~~l~ ~

~:~~:~:

Party

6295

East Illinois Highway I 5

IL 62898-0360

51 8/735-2907

~ ‘~)~ ~ ~ ~!

Joe Kelly. PE

~IItI‘

~e-u~~~s•~r

~ t~t~~i ~

~~ ~:

~ ~ ~

rC495~• 

rnterestedParty’~

1

~ U~I~’~

~I

~“1j ,‘~~

~‘

~th9fl

65 E Wacker Place

Chicago

~ ~

~‘

gflyJJQnmentat. InC.

cuite 15°’~

Ji

60601

Interested Party

Kenneth James

~‘ Li$r~e6&I¶P

r~i~J~i~

~ 1 ~ ~        

i. ~i

in~s&ThpinI~ucg

North Wacker Drive

Chicago

312/357-1313

Interested

Party

Suite 4400

IL 60606

312/759-5646

Carolyn S. Hesse, Attorney

.d~’4~nj~

I ~nvkcaon~nta1

~J~1r~h3~I~pp~ a~l&i~,9

Jj~

Management &

2012 West College Avenue

Normal

309/454-1717

Suite 208

IL 61761

309/454-2711

tnterested Party

Craig S. Gocker, President

J1~

~4beLc~ ~

~ ~

~4~l ~44J~jj

Heriacher Angleton

AssocIat~sLI,,Q

8731

Bluff Road

Watesloo

Tom Herlacher, P.E., Principal Engineer

~1I1i F~~

~ ~tild~~3~

http://www.ipcb.state.il.us/CoollExternallcasenotify.asp?caseid=6286&notifytype=Service

6/17/2004

6—17—04; 1:21PM                                        

# 3r 4

Printable Notice List

Page2 of3

CW3M Corn ~Jac.

I 701 South Grand Ave. West

Springfield

I Interested Party

IL 62704

http://www.ipcb.state.il.us/Cool/External/casenotify.asp?caseid=6286&notifytype=’Service

6/17/2004

6—17—04; 1:21PM;                                

;

#

4/ 4

Printable Notice List

Page 3 of 3

~~iL6~6i~

F ~

I ~

~

••ri•~~~~

UimoLsJ3~partmentof

~ rIn~ieId

ItaespQrtatIQtL

2300 Dirksen Parkway

1L62764

Interested Party

Steven Gobelman

.‘~

SEECO

.!!-~

~7S50D

~••

i~:;

!:~Ti.

Tiniey~arJc:i~i~.

:~~

~ ~

;~~:‘~

~‘

1~:~

IntbresfedlPar4Y

~-,

-~ ~

CollinWGray

—

,

: ~~

jJ~çherAngk~

Alt

Associates,

LLC

522 BelIe Street

IL 62002

Interested Party

~:~::~ ~:•: ~

~ ‘

Jennifer Goodman

~.:.:

:;..i::

•...~.;~.‘

:~.

.:. ; .

~.::

~_:

_;,

..;~::•~:~~

. ~. ~

.~~

.Er~Wotiment~I

119 E~stPa~atui~oad

~ PaIafi~e

ConsuItantsjg~

Suite 101

IL 60067 ~

~ ~

Interested Party

1~-

~ ~

GeorgeF Moncek

~ ~

~

!

~

1~McGuire Woods LLP 77 W. Wacker

Chicago

Interested Party

Suite 4400

IL 60601

David Rieser

‘ ~I:~ ~~ ~

reeri~

er~

F io

~—

Broadway

St Louis

.~ .., .~ ~,

~e~iker.~GaI~

~s~ 2d00

o 63104

.- ~

~ ~- ~ 9’120

~

~‘

1

—H ma Ai~cher~Attomey ~

~ It’

~ ,,

~ I~

MidwestEnginpenng

o k F r t

~ilk

Services Inc

4243W 166th Street

a o es

708 535 9981

~

~‘

L’f ~

Interested Party

IL 60452

Erin Curley Env Department Manager

~ ~°~PS~)

~j~I~èr~Mill

éi1

~‘

;l 1

.,~ ~

~i~t2~

U

~,,

1

~

ç’~U

LI~

Applied

-~-‘~~

~nvironmentalSoIut(pns,j~c.

P0 Box 1225

CentraliaIL

62801

6185335953

-~I~iiflk~

Interested Party

~J1o

.0- - .0 .

•~i~~iU

Russ Goodiel, Project

-~-~

Manager~os~

usa~I;1~

v ~

f~Ll~r~

t~f~

i, Li

‘~

~ 0.

0.i~

I 1ii

,-u

r~U

ra~~’1~ ~

~r/U~U~

11-lqf ~

XPIll~i.Jfl~

f 100 NE Adams Street

3096751658

Eric Minder, Sr~Environmental EngIneer

~i~9 ~

‘

FIs.S~cJs~y~t

ProfessIonal

300Wes1 Edwards

SpringfieldIL

62704

217-544-7424217-525-6239

Interested Party

Kim Robinson

flu,

Jr~6tif~

hr~ ~ ~ ~

fisl~~I’

~

i~i~1~tri~

~

~

~ir4’4~~

http://www.ipcb.state.iLus/Coo1JExterna1Icasenotify.asp?caseid=6286&notif~rtype=Service 6/17/2004

IN THE MATTER OF

REC

~ 11VE’D

CLERK’S OFFICE

I’

THIS FILING IS SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

I ~

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD STATE OF ILUNUIS

OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

PotIUt~OflControl ~0a~d

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO:

REGULATION OF PETROLEUM LEAKING

UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS

35 ILL. ADM. CODE 732

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO:

REGULATION OF PETROLEUM LEAKING

UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS

35 ILL. ADM. CODE 734

)

R04-22

(Rulemaking — UST)

)

(Rulemaking

—

UST)

Consolidated

I, David L. Rieser, hereby file

PRODUCTS NORTH

AMERICA~1~

MCGUIRE

WOODS LLP

David L. Rieser

77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 4400

Chicago, illinois 60601

(312) 849-8100

APPEARANCE

in this matter on behalf of

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION

IN THE MATTER OF

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO:

REGULATION OF PETROLEUM LEAKING

UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS

35 ILL. ADM. CODE 732

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO:

REGULATION OF PETROLEUM LEAKING

UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS

35 ILL. ADM. CODE 734

CLEnu.-’~

OFFICE

C 2C04

CONTROL 

BOARD

OF ILLINOIS

Poliution Control Board

)

(Rulemaking

—

UST)

)

(Rulemaking

—

UST)

)

Consolidated

BP PRODUCTS NORTH AMERICA, INC.’S MOTION TO FILE

TESTIMONY INSTANTER

BP Products North America, Inc. (“BP”), by and through its attorneys,

McGuireWoods LLP, requests permission to files its testimony regarding the above

rulemaking, instanter. BP was unable to file this testimony on the due date because of

conflicting schedules. No one will be prejudiced by this late filing and it will not delay

the Board’s consideration of these proposed rules.

WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated herein, BP respectfully requests permission

to file this testimony instanter.

MCGUIREWOODS LLP

David L. Rieser

77 W. Wacker Drive

Chicago, Ii 60601

312/849-8100

Date: June 18, 2004

\\REA\219944.1

ir. ~

v~j

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

JWj

I C

IN THE MATTER OF

!LLU\!QIS

Control Board

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO:

)

R04-22

REGULATION OF PETROLEUM LEAKING

)

(Rulemaking

UST)

UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS

)

35 ILL. ADM. CODE 732

)

___________________________________________________________________________

)

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO:

)

REGULATION OF PETROLEUM LEAKING

)

R04-23

UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS

)

(Rulemaking

UST)

35 ILL. ADM. CODE 734

)

Consolidated

TESTIMONY OF HAROLD PRIMACK ON BEHALF OF BP PRODUCTS NORTH

AMERICA, INC.

My name is Harold Primack and I am testifying on behalf of BP Products North

America, Inc. (“BP”) regarding the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed

revisions to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 732 and proposed new 35 Iii. Adm. Code 734. My

testimony will focus on the Agency’s proposed list of maximum payment amounts for

various tasks associated with the investigation and remediation of leaking underground

storage tanks. While BP chose not to participate in all ofthe hearings, we believe that our

experience in UST work makes us particularly well suited to comment on the concept of

unit pricing as proposed by the Agency.

As Environmental Business Manager, I am responsible for managing environmental

incidents at BP’s retail sites in Illinois. I have been with BP since 1980 and have been

involved in reviewing Board regulations regarding underground storage tanks in Illinois

since 1996.

BP is an international energy company with a significant Illinois presence in gasoline

marketing. BP is in the process of remediating more than 240 Illinois sites with leaking

underground storage tank incidents and is very familiar with the costs of taking these

actions. Because of the number of tanks and remediation projects, BP is in a position to

contract with consultants to obtain favorable pricing and limit some measure of

uncertainty.

BP believes that the unit pricing and maximum payment amounts concept proposed by

the Agency has value to consumers of environmental services. We believe that the unit

price and maximum payments structure will provide a measure of predictability and

stability in the market place and will allow for more informed consumer decisions. We

further believe that reasonable maximum payment amounts will preserve the UST Fund

and, if implemented correctly, improve the efficiency ofthe Agency’s administration.

In taking this position, however, we believe these hearings can improve the Agency’s

proposal by working toward several additional goals. First, the process of arriving at the

costs themselves must be transparent. We believe that transparency is essential both to

allow consumers of consulting services to see usual prices for various activities and to

allow the marketplace to function more efficiently by allowing for better price evaluation.

The transparency would also allow better stakeholder acceptance since it would

document the source ofthe Agency’s numbers and allow the discussion to be focused on

values that represent reasonable costs and not on uncertainty as to Agency methodology.

Second, the hearing will help to ensure that maximum payment amounts are reasonable

so as to accord stakeholders value in performing the UST work. To set maximum costs

too low would drive good consultants from the marketplace and inappropriately shift the

costs of performing the remediation from the Fund. This might cause the Fund to fail of

its required statutory purpose to serve as a financial assurance mechanism for the

remediation of USTs. We believe that setting reasonable maximum costs will best

achieve the goals ofreducing unwarranted payments from the Fund.

Finally, it is essential that flexibility be built into the process. Despite testimony implying

that this work is more art than science, the fact is that much of the UST work is a

commodity activity which can generally be priced in advance. Yet the process of setting

maximum costs and rates must account not only for regional differences but also for the

complex site which presents unique challenges. While the proposed rules provide for

some measure of flexibility, there are no criteria for exercising that flexibility. Given the

increased number of appeals recently filed before the Board, the regulations should

identify these criteria clearly so as best to inform the Agency and the regulated

community in the implementation of the regulations and the Board in its review of

Agency actions.

In evaluating options to achieving the transparency and flexibility required to make this

process work, it is instructive to review the Board’s TACO regulations. After some initial

disputes, these regulations accomplished the potentially controversial work of setting

cleanup values through substantial transparency. Both the underlying data and the process

by which those values were derived were clear and subject to stakeholder review and

comment even before the Agency submitted its proposal to the Board. The resulting

consensus was useful in focusing the discussion on the actual values and not on process

issues.

TACO is also a model of flexibility, both from the user and the Agency’s standpoint. The

user has numerous approaches to choose among from the simple Tier I to the complex

Tier III. The Agency simplified its review process so that the Tier I and II proposals stay

with the project managers who work from templates while the Tier III decisions typically

go to a higher level ofdecisionmaking. While the range offlexibility provided by TACO

is not remotely needed for UST pricing, the Board should consider having different levels

ofreview based on whether or not the project adheres to the maximum payment schedule.

For all these reasons, BP supports the Agency’s concept of maximum payment schedules

but we request that the Board consider our suggestions in order to better address the

Agency’s issues and the needs ofthe stakeholders.

Thank you for allowing me to present this testimony today.

\\REA\219676.1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, David L. Rieser, an attorney, hereby certify that I caused the attached pleadings to be

served upon all parties listed on the attached Service List via first class U.S. mail from 77 West

Wacker Drive, Chicago, IL, on June 18, 2004.

\\REA\219947.l