•

STATE OF ILLINOIS

Pollution Control Board

September 22, 2004

Ms. Marie Tipsord

I

Hearing Officer

v

Illinois Pollution Control Board

1021 North Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box 19274

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9274

Re: Proposed Rulemakings R-04-22 and R-04-23.

I am writing to respectfully request at least one additional hearing, before the Illinois

Pollution Control Board proceeds to first notice in the above referenced matter. My

rationale for requesting the additional hearing is as provided below.

As you know, United Science Industries, Inc. has participated in the numerous hearings

held before the IPCB since March ofthis year relating to the above referenced proposed

rule. USI’s participation in the hearing process has been at the firm level and also as a

member of the Professionals ofIllinois for the Protection ofthe Environment (PIPE).

Early in the rulemaking process, USI and most of the other members ofPIPE agreed that

the best way to implement a fair, uniform and consistently administered costs

containment program would be to develop a database ofthe costs to perform the various

tasks required by the Illinois LUST program. The notion was that this database would be

used to develop a statistically reliable dataset that could serve as a foundation for the

entire Illinois EPA’ s cost containment program.

Our firm felt so strongly that a statistically reliable database was needed that we

voluntarily developed a detailed written format that could be used as a framework for

establishing such a database. The format provided the concepts of a standardized work

breakdown structure (WBS), a standard billing methodology for each task within the

work breakdown structure, standardized units of measure and a table of standard

resources that could be utilized for time and materials tasks. We also provided a means

by which tasks and resources could be addedlremoved from the standardized WBS and

table ofresources respectively. Finally, we provided paper forms that could be utilized

by owners/operators and their consultants for purposes of submitting budget proposals

and payment applications to the Illinois EPA LUST Program.

USI presented this format to the PIPE Board of Directors in the late Spring of 2004.

PIPE embraced the concept and elected to present the concept to the IEPA for their

consideration.

Page 1 of3

Letter to IPCB 9-22-04

---

IEPA quickly rejected the format and suggested that the process of developing a system

to manage and administer a database would be too complicated, too costly and too time

consuming. One main objection was based upon their assertion that LUST program was

quickly running out of money and that there simply was not enough time to develop a

database.

Upon, IEPA’s rejection of the format for the development of a database of LUST clean-

up costs, USI and the many members of PIPE that elected to present the format to the

JEPA, decided to try and collaborate with the JEPA to develop a jointly prepared

proposal. Our hopes were that a jointly prepared proposal would be considered in a more

favorable light by the IPCB.

Although, PIPE and the Agency did meet on numerous

occasions and were able to reach a consensus on several issues, the two groups were not

able to reach a consensus on a joint proposal.

As a result of the inability of the two

groups to develop a joint proposal, PIPE has or will be submitting to the IPCB its

proposed changes to Subpart H.

Although PIPE’s proposed changes to Subpart H do not include language that would

require the establishment of a database to track historical costs or serve as the foundation

for a costs containment program, the changes to Subpart H that are proposed by PIPE

would be implemented and administered most effectively through a reliable database

system. In fact, it is my belief that the majority of the PIPE membership would be

supportive of the establishment of a database that would be used to administer the IEPA

LUST Program.

USI certainly still strongly supports the development ofa database system customized to

meet the distinctive needs of the IEPA LUST Program.

In fact, USI believes that a

database system that automates portions of the budget and claims review processes would

provide the IEPA with a means of achieving several oftheir stated goals. These include:

I.) limiting the amount of technical reviewer (IEPA Project Manager) time spent on

budget reviews/issues; 2.) minimizing the timeframe for reimbursement; and 3) allowing

the Agency to gain a thorough understanding ofthe costs of clean-up. 4.) maximizing the

effectiveness of expenditures from the LUST Fund (containing costs).

Since the August 9~’~hearing USI has developed a prototype of an automated

administrative system.

This system, which USI envisions could be utilized by the

Agency in the administration of their program, facilitates the creation of a statistically

reliable dataset of Illinois LUST clean-up costs and would allow the Agency to achieve

all ofits above stated goals.

Further, because the system is process oriented, it is flexible and would provide the

Agency with appropriate managerial latitude and discretions in setting interim threshold

pricing levels.

Finally, since the system is functional, it could be implemented very

quickly therebymeeting the time constraints of the IEPA.

Page 2 of 3

Letter to JPCB 9-22-04

---

For all of the above stated reasons, and because the many efficiencies and subtle benefits

of utilizing an automated budgetary and claims review system are best presented in a

face-to-face forum, I respectfully request that the Board consider another hearing to

provide USI with an opportunity to present its proposed approach to costs containment

and the associated prototype ofautomated administrative system.

If you have any questions or comments regarding this matter or need further information,

•please do not hesitate to contact me.

•Sincerely,

Jay P. Koch

United Science Industries, Inc.

President

Page 3 of3

Letter to IPCB 9-22-04

---