RECEIVED

TESTIMONY
I am Bill Fleischli, Executive Vice
President of the Illinois Petroleum
Marketers Association. I represent
the Illinois Petroleum Distributors
who pay the $75 million in
Environmental Fees that fund the
U.S.T. Program.
As I read the new proposal the IEPA
has submitted to the Board, our
members have some real concerns.
The new proposal would require
the use of less stringent clean-up
objectives for my members
property, while requiring that off-
site impact be addressed using the
most stringent regulatory
requirements. The proposal rule
change would only allow for the
reimbursement to the lower
standard on-site, making the owner
pay out of pocket for additional
costs if they choose to restore their
property to a more stringent
standard.
Currently, the fund pays for
reimbursement costs to clean up
the property to comply with state
statutes. The owner/operator after
consulting with their engineers
chooses the standard they want to
use to clean up their property,
based on use and land value. Now
the IEPA wants to mandate they use
the less stringent standard and once
a “No further Action Letter” is
issued to the property this incident
will no longer be eligible for the
fund. Should IDOT or future law
changes require a phase study of
the property, and contamination be
to be cleaned up the property will
not be eligible for reimbursement
for that incident from the LUST
fund. Even though the owner is
still paying into the LUST fund, the
owner would be liable, even
though he is still paying into the
fund this incident will not be
covered by the fund. This is not
fair or right in our estimation.
The Illinois Petroleum Marketers
Association is not against the tiered
approach for clean ups. In fact, we
lead the industry and the state with
this approach about 10 years ago.
What is wrong, is not allowing the
owner of the property and the
owner of the tanks the opportunity
to make the right decisions for their
particular piece of property and is
shutting the owner out of the UST
insurance fund after a “No further
Action Letter” is issued for that
incident even though he continues
to pay into the fund. The IPMA
believes this is not what the fund
was originally set up to accomplish.
These hearings should be left open
and lender and real estate people
should be asked to testify to the
effect this rule change will have on
property values.
If a supposed shortage in the fund
“is the reasoning for this proposal
then I ask the agency to join the
industry to help pass legislation
that would prevent the Governor
and General Assembly from taking
any more dollars from the fund and
help the industry pass legislation
that would direct the Governor and
General Assembly to pay the fund
taken from the fund over the last 3
fiscal years.
Thank you and I will answer any
questions you may have at this
time.

Illinois Petroleum Marketers Association

Illinois Association of Convenience Stores

WM. R. DEUTSCH BUILDING

•

112 WEST COOK STREET

P.O. BOX 12020. SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 62791-2020

PHONE: 217/544-4609

•

FAX: 217/789-0222

RECEIVED

CLERK’S OFFICE

Augustll,2004

AIlS 152004

STATE OF ILLINOIS

PoHution

Control Board

Ms. Marie Tipsord

Illinois Pollution Control Board

James R. Thompson Center

100W. Randolph, Suite 11-500

Chicago, IL 60601-3218

Dear Ms. Tipsord:

Thank you for allowing me to testify at the Pollution Control Board hearing that

was held on Monday, August

9th,

Please find a copy of my testimony for your files. I have had several

conversations with lenders and real estate agents, and based on what I told them about

IEPA’s proposed changes to the UST fund program they have voiced some real concerns.

Is it in your purview to request representatives from the Illinois Bankers

Association, and the Community Bankers Association of Illinois to testify before the

Board?

I think it would inform the Board and the industry the affect these changes

would have on real property values.

Thank you and I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely yours,

‘

BILL FLEISCHLI

Executive Vice President

WILLIAM J. FLEISCHLI

EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT

BF:jk

TESTIMONY

I am Bill Fleischli, Executive Vice

President of the Illinois Petroleum

Marketers Association. I represent

the Illinois Petroleum Distributors

who pay the

$75

million in

Environmental Fees that fund the

U.S.T. Program.

As I read the new proposal the IEPA

has submitted to the Board, our

members have some real concerns.

The new proposal would require

the use of less stringent clean-up

objectives for my members

property, while requiring that off-

site impact be addressed using the

most stringent regulatory

requirements. The proposal rule

change would only allow for the

reimbursement to the lower

standard on-site, making the owner

pay out of pocket for additional

costs if they choose to restore their

property to a more stringent

standard.

Currently, the fund pays for

reimbursement costs to clean up

the property to comply with state

statutes. The owner/operator after

consulting with their engineers

chooses the standard they want to

use to clean up their property,

based on use and land value. Now

the IEPA wants to mandate they use

the less stringent standard and once

a “No further Action Letter” is

issued to the property this incident

will no longer be eligible for the

fund. Should IDOT or future law

changes require a phase study of

the property, and contamination be

found and the property mandated

to be cleaned up the property will

not be eligible for reimbursement

for that incident from the LUST

fund. Even though the owner is

still paying into the LUST fund, the

owner would be liable, even

though he is still paying into the

fund this incident will not be

covered by the fund. This is not

fair or right in our estimation.

The Illinois Petroleum Marketers

Association is not against the tiered

approach for clean ups. In fact, we

lead the industry and the state with

this approach about 10 years ago.

What is wrong, is not allowing the

owner of the property and the

owner of the tanks the opportunity

to make the right decisions for their

particular piece of property and is

shutting the owner out of the UST

insurance fund after a “No further

Action Letter” is issued for that

incident even though he continues

to pay into the fund. The IPMA

believes this is not what the fund

was originally set up to accomplish.

These hearings should be left open

and lender and real estate people

should be asked to testify to the

effect this rule change will have on

property values.

If a supposed shortage in the fund

“is the reasoning for this proposal

then I ask the agency to join the

industry to help pass legislation

that would prevent the Governor

and General Assembly from taking

any more dollars from the fund and

help the industry pass legislation

that would direct the Governor and

General Assembly to pay the fund

and the

$35-$40

million they have

taken from the fund over the last 3

fiscal years.

Thank you and I will answer any

questions you may have at this

time.