iN THE MATTER OF:
)
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO REGULATION OF
PETROLEUM LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE
TANKS
(35
Ill. Adm. Code 732)
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO REGULATION OF
)
PETROLEUM LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE)
TANKS
(35
Ill. Adm. Code 734)
)
NOTICE OF FILING
Dorothy Gunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center
100W. Randolph, Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601-3218
(Overnight Mail)
SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
(Regular Mail)
Marie Tipsord, Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center
100 W. Randolph, Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601-3218
(Overnight Mail)
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have today filed with the Office ofthe Clerk of the
Pollution Control Board the ILLiNOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY’S
QUESTIONS FOR UNITED SCIENCE INDUSTRIES REGARDING TESTIMONY
SUBMITTED AT THE JULY 27, 2005. HEARING for the above-titled proceeding, a copy of
which is herewith served upon you.
Respectfully submitted,
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
DATE: August 11, 2005
1021 North Grand Avenue East
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
(217) 782-5544
By:
Kyle Rominger, Assistant~nsel
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD 9~
AUG
LEAK’S
CEIVED
122005
OFFICE
)
R04-22
STATE
OF ILLINOIS
Pollution
)
(Rulemaking- Land) Controj Board
)
)
)
R04-23
(Rulemaking- Land)
THIS FILING IS SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
RECEIVED
CLERKS OFFICE
1NTHE MATTER OF:
)
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO:
)
)
R04-22
STATE
AUG12
OF
2005
ILLINOIS
REGULATION OF PETROLEUM
)
(Rulemaking
—
Land)
Pollution Control Board
LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE
)
TANKS (35 ILL. ADM. CODE 732)
)
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
)
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO:
)
R04-23
REGULATION OF PETROLEUM
)
(Rulemaking
-
Land)
LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE
)
TANKS
(35
ILL. ADM. CODE 734)
)
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY’S
QUESTIONS FOR UNITED SCIENCE INDUSTRIES REGARDING
TESTIMONY SUBMITTED AT THE JULY 27, 2005, HEARING
NOW COMES
the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), by and
through one ofits attorneys, Kyle Rominger, and submits the following questions for
United Science Industries (“USI”) regarding its testimony submitted atthe July 27, 2005,
hearing. The IEPA would like to thank the Hearing Officer and the Board for the
opportunity to submit these questions.
IfUSI claims that any ofthe information requested below is confidential or should
be withheld from public disclosure for any other reason, the IEPA asks that USI include
with its answers appropriate requests for confidential handling and non-disclosure of said
•information by the Board and the IEPA.
1.
Numerous USI employees filed requests forthe Board to hold an additional hearing
in these proceedings, and specifically requested that the hearing be held in southern
Illinois. See PC 10-36. These employees later provided the Board with the dates
they would be available for the hearing. See PC 40 (comments of 18 USI
employees); Exh. 95, 96. However, most of these employees did not present any
testimony at the hearing or even attend the hearing. Please provide the reasons for
each employee’s failure to participate in the July 27, 2005, hearing.
2.
In its pre-filed testimony for the July 27, 2005, hearing and its amended testimony
submitted at the hearing, USI questions the IEPA’s motives in this rulemaking.
Exh. 107 at 28; Exh. 109 at 29-30. Does USI believe that any ofthe listed “other
motives that have been discussed within industry circles” are true? Ifso, please
state the motive(s) that USI believes to be true and provide evidence to support its
belief Ifnot, please state what USI believes to be the IEPA’g “real motives thatJ
are never likely to be stated publicly” and provide evidence to support its belief
3.
USI states in its amended testimony that PIPE and PIPE’s members refrained from
providing alternative rates to the Board because “USI and other PIPE members
were cautioned prior to the 2004 hearings to not discuss rates amongst one another
forlegal reasons.” Exh. 109 at 32. However, for the July 27, 2005, hearing CSD,
CW3M, and USI, who are all PIPE members, each submitted testimony that
included alternative rates. In addition, Carol Rowe of CW3M suggested at the
hearing that CW3M, CSD, and USI get together and submit a coordinated
alternative proposal to the Board. Is it USI’s contention that it, as well as others,
could not have submitted alternative rates to the Board prior to the July 27, 2005,
• hearing? Ifso, please state the reasons why such action was prohibited.
4.
USI’s amended testimony contains petitions signed by owners and operators asking
the Board and EPA to ensure that the proposed rules meet certain enumerated
standards. Exh. 109 at 90-177. Did each owner and operator who signed a petition
review the entire record in this rulemaking proceeding and independently conclude
that the Board’s First Notice Proposal does not meet the standards enumeratedin
the petition? Ifnot, please state the following:
a.
The name ofeach person that did not review the entire record in this
rulemaking proceeding prior to signing a petition.
b.
Whether the named personhas concluded that the Board’s First Notice
Proposal does not meet the standards enumerated in the petition.
c.
Ifthe named person has concluded that the Board’s First Notice Proposal
does not meet the standards enumerated in the petition, the standard or
standards that the person believes the Board’s First Notice Proposal does not
meet.
d.
The basis for the named person’s conclusions regarding the Board’s First
Notice Proposal.
5.
USI’s amended testimony contains “Requests for Representation” signed by
owners and operators. Exh. 109 at 181-263. Did each owner and operator who
signed a request for representationreview USI’s amended testimony in its entirety
2
and express full agreementwith it prior to signing the request? Ifnot, please state
the names ofthe owners and operators that did not review USI’s amended
testimony in its entirety and express full agreement with it prior to signing the
request.
6.
USI states in its amended testimony that it was paid approximately
$30,765,541
from UST Fund reimbursements to owners and operators for the period ofJanuary
1, 2002, to December 31, 2004. Exh. 109 at 283. According to USI’s testimony
that figure represents 14.7 ofall amounts requested for reimbursement from the
UST Fund and 15.1 ofall amounts paid for the same period.
(Ith)
USI also
indicates in its amended testimony that it represents 3.6 ofthe open incidentain
the LUST Program, or 2.6 ofall incidents in the LUST Program. Exh. 109 at 76.
Please explain the large discrepancies between the percentage ofsites represented
by USI and the percentage ofUST Fund reimbursements paid to USI.
7.
USI states in its amended testimony that it was paid approximately $30,765,541
from UST Fund reimbursements to owners and operators for the period ofJanuary
1, 2002, to December 31, 2004. Exh. 109 at 283. It also testified about the low
profit margin and the low growth rate ofUST remedial work compared to other
business sectors. ~çç, ~
Exh. 110 and 111. For the period ofJanuary 1, 2002, to
December 31, 2004, please state the following (in dollars):
a.
The amount ofrevenue USI received for environmental consulting services
•
it provided to UST owners and operators that are not eligible for
reimbursement from the UST Fund.
•
b.
The amount ofrevenue USI received for environmental consulting services
it provided to UST owners and operators eligible forreimbursement from
the UST Fund for costs that have not, and will not, be reimbursed from the
UST Fund. Please also state the portion ofthis amount (in dollars) that is
attributable to the payment ofUST Fund deductibles and the portion that is
not attributable to the payment ofUST Fund deductibles.
c.
The amount ofrevenue USI received for environmental consulting services
it provided to remedial applicants for sites in the IEPA’s Site Remediation
Program.
d.
The amount ofrevenue USI received for environmental consulting services
it provided to RCRA owners and operators for sites in the IEPA’s RCRA
program.
e.
The amount ofrevenue USI received for environmental consulting services
it provided to municipalities for sites in the EPA’s municipal brownfield
grants program.
3
£
The amount ofrevenue USI received for environmental consulting services
it provided to Superfiind generators, transporters, owners, and operators for
sjtes in the federal Superfund program.
g.
The amount ofrevenue USI received for environmental consulting services
it provided for sites in a program administered by the EPA’s Bureau of
Water or Bureau ofAir. For this amount, please do not include sites in (a)
through
(0
above where there is regulatory overlap with a Bureau ofWater
or Bureau of Air program (e.g., a LUST site that requires an NPDES
permit).
8.
At the July 27,2005, hearing and on page 402 of its amended testimony (Exh. 109),
USI testified with regard to information on EFCG Historical Industry Profitability
for the years 1999 through 2003. USI’s testimony indicates that historical industry
profitability ranges from 8.8 to 9.9 during these years.
a.
Please state USI’s net profit rate for each ofthe years 1999 through 2003.
b.
Please provide a breakdown of the revenues and expenses from which USI’s
net profit rates for each ofthese years are calculated (e.g., salaries of USI
employees, payments to subcontractors, overhead, profit, etc.).
9.
USI states in its amended testimony that, having reviewed Sections 734.810 through
734.840 ofthe Board’s First Notice Proposal, “USI is not objectionable in concept
to the language ofany of those provisions.” Exh. 109 at 37. However, USI has
completely re-written Sections 734.8 10 through 734.840 in its proposed rules (PC
55).
Please explain this inconsistency.
10.
The legal memos included in USI’s pre-filed testimony and amended testimony
criticize the use ofany competitive bidding under the LUST Program. Exh. 107;
Exh. 109 at
588-595.
However, USI included a competitive bidding provision in its
proposed rules. See PC
55,
Section 734.855. Please explain these inconsistencies.
11.
In the legal memos included in USI’s pre-filed testimony and amended testimony
there are several statements concerning 35 Ill. Adm. Code 742 (“TACO”). Exh.
107; Exh. 109 at
595-600.
a.
Is it USI’s contention that a remediation that achieves corrective action
objectives developed in accordance with Tier 2 ofTACO will not protect
human health and the environment? Ifso, please state the scientific basis
for such a conclusion and provide citations to documents supporting such a
conclusion.
b.
The legal memos criticize using remediation in accordance with TACO as
the only objective ofthe LUST Program. However, in its proposed rules
4
USI uses compliance with TACO as the standard for remediation. See, ~
PC
55,
Section 734.710(c) and (d). Please explain these inconsistencies.
c.
Please state and provide the citation forthe e~cpresslanguage in the
Environmental Protection Act that prohibits the Board from adopting a rule
limiting reimbursement from the UST Fund to costs incurred in meeting
Tier 2 objectives as set forth in 734.410 and 734.630(bbb) of the Board’s
First Notice Proposal.
d.
The legal memos criticize the Board’s proposed limitation on
reimbursement from the UST Fund to costs incurred in achieving Tier 2
remediation objectives. However, USI’s proposed rules include the same
limitation. See PC
55,
Sections 734.410 and 734.63Ocbbb). Please explain
these inconsistencies.
12.
The legal memo included in USI’s amended testimony criticizes the audit provision
proposed by the Board. Exh. 109 at 600-603. However, USI included the same
audit provision in its proposed rules. See PC
55,
Section 734.665. Please explain
this inconsistency.
13.
The legal memo included in USI’s pre-filed testimony criticizes the IEPA’s
submission ofamendments at the August 9, 2005, hearing. Exh. 107. The
amendments to which the memo refers, Exhibit 87, were pre-filed with the Board
on August 2, 2005, as required by the hearing officer’s June
25,
2004, order and
were entered into the record at the August 9, 2005, hearing. Is it USI’s contention
that, beginning at least one week prior to a hearing, the Board should not accept any
changes to testimony or other information that has already been filed with the
Board?
14.
USI states in its amended testimony that “un the case of Subpart H inaccurate
estimates that are too low could costs jobs and bankruptcies and in the case of
Subpart H if these inaccuracies result in estimates that are too high it could cost the
UST program millions in wasteful spending.” Exh. 109 at 60-61.
a.
Does USI plan to layoff any ofits employees or file for bankruptcy ifthe
Board adopts its First Notice Proposal as final rules? Ifso, please state what
actions USI plans to take and the reasons USI will be taking those actions.
b.
Does USI believe that any ofthe reimbursement amounts set forth in the
Board’s First Notice Proposal are too high, such that they will cost the UST
program millions ofdollars in wasteful spending? If so, please state the
amounts that USI believes are too high, the reasons for USI’s belieC and the
lower amounts that USI believes will not result in millions of dollars in
wasteful spending.
5
15.
USI states in its amended testimony that, if the Board adopts its First Notice
Proposal as final rules, “consulting firms will either no longer provide services to
UST owners/operators or be required to recover costs in excess of the ‘Maximum
Payment Amounts’ directly from the owner/operator.” Exh. 109 at 64. If the Board
adopts its First Notice Proposal as final rules,
a.
Does USI plan to stop providing services to UST owners/operators?
b.
Does USI plan to recover costs in excess of the ‘Maximum Payment
Amounts’ directly from owners/operators?
16.
USI states in its amended testimony that “as long as ‘maximums’, whatever they
may be, are published some firms will be tempted to raise prices to the maximum
thereby increasing the cost to the program.” Exh. 109 at
65.
a.
If the Board adopts its First Notice Proposal as final rules, will USI be
charging UST owners and operators the maximum payment amounts set
forth in the rules, orwill it be charging lower amounts? IfUSI will be
charging lower amounts, please identify the amounts and state the lower
amounts it will be charging.
b:
In contrast to the statement quoted in the first paragraph ofthis question,
USI states in its amended testimony that the use ofpublished “expedited”
unut rates that are lower than maximum unpublished unit rates will
“encourage the expedited units rates’ use and effectively drive down the
costs ofdoing LUST work, because consultants will desire a quick and
painless pricing approvals the use ofsuch rates will provide.” Exh. 109 at
68. Please explain this inconsistency.
17.
USI continues to complain in its testimony that the rates the Board proposed in its
First Notice Proposal, as well as the use of competitive bidding, are not statistically
defensible. Please state and provide the citation for the express language in the
Environmental Protection Act that requires the amounts reimbursed from the UST
Fund to be statistically defensible in addition to being reasonable.
18.
USI stated in its amended testimony that one of“four key facets of our regulatory
system” includes ‘The use ofunpublished maximum payment amounts.” Exh. 109
at 69. “These rates will remain unpublished and known only to EPA.” Id. at 68.
Please explain how the use ofunpublished maximum amounts is legally consistent
with the Illinois Administrative Procedures Act
(5
ILCS 100) and the Board’s
decision regarding the IEPA’s use of rate sheets in Illinois Ayers Oil Company v.
IEPA, PCB 03-214 (April 1, 2004).
19.
USI has testified that the “Maximum Unit Rates” are to “remain unpublished and
known only to the IEPA.” Exh. 109 at 68. However, the definition of “Maximum
Unit Rate” in USI’s proposed rules states that “Maximum Unit Rates” are to be
6
made available to the LUST Advisory Committee, which largely is comprised of
owners and operators, consultants, and contractors, ortheir representatives. PC
55,
Section 734.115. Please explain this discrepancy.
20.
USI’s proposed rules state that “the owner/operator ~
obtain three bids for
services pursuant to Section 734.855” to demonstrate that “a product or service is
not covered by one or more ofthe Standard Products or Services listed in Appendix
E, is reasonable and meets the requirements of Sections 734.625 and 734.630 of
Subpart F.” PC 55, Section 734.805(a)(ii) (emphasis added). Given that obtaining
three bids is discretionary, by what other means does USI contemplate an owner or
operator being able to make the required demonstration?
21.
USI’s proposed rules require owners and operators seeking reimbursement to
demonstrate that tasks performed pursuant to Subpart B are “necessary to meet the
minimum requirements ofthe Act, or are! otherwise eligible for reimbursement
from the Fund.” PC
55,
Section 734.805(b)(i) (emphasis added). However, USI’s
proposed rules also provide that “costs for corrective action activities and
associated materials or services exceeding the minimum requirements necessary to
comply with the Act” are ineligible for reimbursement.” PC
55,
Section
734.630(o). Please explain this inconsistency.
22.
USI’s proposed rules state that owners and operators must “demonstrate that the
Extended Costs
ofStandard Products and Services is reasonable.” PC
55,
Section
734.805(c). The Section then requires the EPA to calculate the Extended Rate via
a prescribed formula using the “ExpeditedRate” and the “Reasonable Quantity,”
and states that the result of the calculation “shall be presumed” reasonable. What
type ofdemonstration is expected ofthe owner or operator if the EPA is required
to calculate the “Extended Cost” using a prescribed formula?
23.
Please state the amounts or ranges ofamounts that an owner or operator can be
reimbursed under Section 734.810 ofUSI’s proposed rules (PC
55)
for costs
associated with the removal or abandonment ofUST5 with the following volumes.
a.
•
110 to 999 gallons.
b.
1,000 to 14,999 gallons.
c.
15,000 gallons or more.
24.
Please state the amount orrange ofamounts, per gallon, that an owner or operator
can be reimbursed under Section 734.8 15 of USI’s proposed rules (PC 55) for costs
associated with the removal, transportation, and disposal of groundwater or free
product via hand bailing or vacuum truck.
7
25.
Please state the amounts or ranges of amounts, per foot, that an owner or operator
can be reimbursed under Section 734.820 of USI’s proposed rules (PC 55) for costs
associated with the following:
a.
Drilling via hollow stem auger (any purpose).
b.
Drilling via direct push platform for sampling or other non-injection
purposes.
c.
Drilling via direct push platform for injection purposes.
d.
Monitoring well installation via hollow stem auger (excluding drilling
costs).
e.
Monitoring well installation via direct push platform (excluding drilling
costs).
f.
Recovery well installation for four-inch diameter recovery wells (excluding
drilling costs).
g.
Recovery well installation for six-inch diameter recovery wells (excluding
drilling costs).
h.
Recovery well installation for eight-inch orgreater diameter recovery wells
(excluding drilling costs).
i.
Abandonment of monitoring wells.
26.
Please state the amount or range of amounts, per cubic yard, that an owner or
operator can be reimbursed under Section 734.825 ofUSI’s proposed rules (PC
55)
for costs associated with the removal, transportation, and disposal ofcontaminated
soil exceeding the applicable remediation objectives. Please also state how the
volume of soil removed and disposed of must be calculated.
27.
Please state the amount or range of amounts, per cubic yard, that an owner or
operator can be reimbursed under Section 734.825 ofUSI’s proposed rules (PC
55)
for costs associated with the removal, transportation, and disposal of concrete,
asphalt, orpaving overlaying contaminated soil or fill.
28.
Please state the amount or range ofamounts, per cubic yard, that an owner or
operator can be reimbursed under Section 734.825 ofUSI’s proposed rules (PC
55)
for costs associated with the purchase, transportation, and placement of material
used to backfill excavations resulting from contaminated soil removal and disposal.
Please also state how the volume of backfill material must be calculated.
8
29.
Please state the amount or range ofamounts, per cubic yard, that an owner or
operator can be reimbursed under Section 734.825 ofUSI’s proposed rules (PC
55)
for costs associated with the removal and subsequent return ofsoil that does not
exceed the applicable remediation objectives but whose removal is required in order
to conduct corrective action.
30.
Please state the amount or range of amounts, per drum, that an owner or operator
can be reimbursed under Section 734.830 ofUSI’s proposed rules (PC
55)
for costs
associated with the purchase, transportation, and disposal of
55
gallon drums used
to contain the following:
a.
Solid waste generated as a result ofcorrective action.
b.
Liquid waste generated as a result ofcorrective action.
31.
Please state the amounts or ranges ofamounts, per square foot, that an owner or
operator can be reimbursed under Section 734.835 ofUSI’s proposed rules (PC
55)
for costs associated with the following:
a.
The installation ofasphalt or paving to a depth oftwo inches solely forthe
purposes ofconstructing an engineered barrier (i.e., not installed as
replacement asphalt or paving).
b.
The installation ofasphalt or paving to a depth ofthree inches solely forthe
purposes ofconstructing an engineered barrier (i.e., not installed as
replacement asphalt or paving).
c.
The installation ofasphalt or paving to a depth of four inches solely for the
purposes ofconstructing an engineered barrier (i.e., not installed as
replacement asphalt or paving).
d.
The installation of concrete (any depth) solely for the purposes of
constructing an engineered barrier (i.e., not installed as replacement asphalt
or paving).
e.
The replacement oftwo inches ofasphalt or paving.
f.
The replacement ofthree inches ofasphalt or paving.
g.
The replacement of four inches ofasphalt or paving.
h.
The replacement of six inches ofasphalt orpaving.
i.
The replacement of two inches of concrete.
j.
The replacement of three inches ofconcrete.
9
k.
The replacement offour inches of concrete.
1.
The replacement offive inches ofconcrete.
m.
The replacement ofsix inches ofconcrete.
n.
The replacement ofeight inches ofconcrete.
32.
For each ofthe items listed in Section 734.Appendix D ofthe Board’s First Notice
Proposal, please state the amount or range of amounts that an owner or operator can
be reimbursed under Section 734.840 ofUSI’s proposed rules (PC
55)
for costs
associated with sample handling and analysis.
33.
Please state the amounts orranges ofamounts that an owner or operator can be
reimbursed under Section 734.845 ofUSI’s proposed rules (PC
55)
for costs
associated with the following professional consulting services:
a.
Preparation for the abandonment or removal ofUSTs.
b.
Early action field work and field oversight, excluding travel costs, per half-
day (as defined in UST’s proposedrules). Please also state any limits on the
total amount an owner or operator can be reimbursed for said costs and how
the limits are calculated.
c.
Preparation and submission of a 20 day report (including any amendments).
d.
Preparation and submission of a
45
day report (including any amendments).
e.
Preparation and submission ofreports submitted pursuant to Section
734.2 lO(h)(3) ofthe Board’s First Notice Proposal.
f.
Preparation for a Stage 1 site investigation.
g.
Stage 1 field work and field oversight, excluding travel costs, per half-day.
Please also state any limits on the total amount an owner or operator can be
reimbursed for said costs and how the limits are calculated.
h.
Preparation and submission ofa Stage 2 site investigation plan (including
any amendments).
i.
Stage 2 field work and field oversight, excluding travel costs, per half-day.
Please also state any limits on the total amount an owner or operator can be
reimbursed for said costs and how the limits are calculated.
10
j.
A well survey conducted pursuant to Section 734.445(b) ofthe Board’s First
Notice Proposal.
k.
Preparation and submission of a site investigation completion report
(including any amendments).
1.
Preparation and submission of a conventional technology corrective action
plan (i.e., only the removal, transportation, and disposal ofcontaminated soil
—
no alternative technology, including no groundwaterremcdiation)
(including any amendments).
m.
Corrective action field work and field oversight, excluding travel costs, per
half-day. Please also state any limits on the total amount an owner or
operator can be reimbursed for said costs and how the limits are calculated.
n.
Obtaining an Environmental Land Use Control used as an institutional
control.
o.
Obtaining a Highway Authority Agreement used as an institutional control.
p.
Preparation and submission ofa corrective action completion report
(including any amendments).
q.
Field work and field oversight for the development ofremediation
objectives, excluding travel costs, per half-day. Please also state any limits
on the total amount an owner or operator can be reimbursed for said costs
and how the limits are calculated.
r.
Development of TACO Tier 2 or Tier 3 remediation objectives, excluding
field work and field oversight.
34.
USI’s proposed rules prohibit owners and operators from determining alternative
“Expedited Unit Rates” for professional consulting services via competitive
bidding. PC
55,
Section
734.855(e).
Please state the reasons for this prohibition.
35.
USI’s proposed rules state that owners axid operators seeking to exceed the
“Expedited Unit Rates” and obtain “Justified Unit Rates” must demonstrate that the
cost ofproducts or services, inter alia, “do not exceed the Maximum Unit Rate for
the Product or Service.” PC 55, Section 734.860(a). Please explain how an owner
or operator is to make the required demonstration if the “Maximum Unit Rates” are
to “remain unpublished and known only to the JEPA.” Exh. 109 at 68.
36.
USI’s proposed rules state that owners and operators seeking to exceed the
“Expedited Unit Rates” and obtain “Justified Unit Rates” for products or services
listed in Appendix E must demonstrate, inter alia, that the products or services are
unavoidable and are not the result ofunusual or extraordinary circumstances. PC
11
55,
Section 734.860(a). However, owners and operators are not required to
demonstrate the these criteria when seeking “Justified Unit Rates” for products or
services that are not listed in Appendix E. PC
55,
Section 734.860(b). Please
explain this inconsistency.
Respectfully submitted,
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
/C~
tQ~
Kyle Ron~ger
Assistant Counsel
DATED:
1-u-or
1021 North Grand Avenue East
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
(217) 782-5544
12
STATE OF ILLINOIS
)
COUNTY OF SANGAMON
)
SS
)
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, on oath state that I have served the attached ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY’S OUESTIONS FOR UNITED
SCIENCE INDUSTRIES REGARDING TESTIMONY SUBMITTED AT THE JULY
27, 2005, HEARING upon the person to whom it is directed, by placing a copy in an
envelope addressed to:
Dorothy Gunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center
100 West Randolph, Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
(Overnight Mail)
SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
(Regular Mail)
Marie Tipsord, Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center
100 West Randolph, Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
(Overnight Mail)
and mailing it from Springfield, Illinois, on August 11, 2005, with sufficient postage
affixed as indicated above.
I ~th
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME
this
11th
day ofAugust, 2005
OFFICIAL SEAL
CYNThIA 1. WOLFE
~:
:~NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF ILliNOIS
:~.
Printing Service List....
Page 1 of3
Party Name
Role
City & State
Phone/Fax
700 First Mercantile Bank
Springfield
Brown. Hay & S~phensLLP
Building
IL 62705-
217/544-8491
Interested Party
205 South Fifth St., P.O. Box 2459
217/544-9609
2459
Claire A. Manning
1021 North Grand Avenue
Springfield
IEPA
East
IL 62794-
217/782-5544
Petitioner
217/782-9807
P.O. Box 19276
9276
Gina Roccaforte, Assistant Counsel
Kyle Rominger, Assistant Counsel
Doug Clay
Hodge Dwyer Zeman
3150 Roland Avenue
ILSpringfield62705-
217/523-4900
Interested Party
Post Office Box 5776
5776
217/523-4948
Thomas G. Safley
Sidley Austin Brown & Wood
Bank One Plaza
Chicago
312/853-7000
Interested Party
10 South Dearborn Street
IL 60603
312/953-7036
William G. Dickett
Karaganis, White & Magel. Ltd.
414 North Orleans Street
Chicago
312/836-1177
Interested Party
Suite 810
IL 60610
312/836-9083
Barbara Magel
Interestedrllinois
PetroleumParty Marketers Association
112 West Cook Street
ILSpringfield62704
217/793-1858
Bill Fleischi
Woodlawn
United Science Industries, Inc.
P.O. Box 360
IL 62898-
618/735-2411
Interested Party
6295 East Illinois Highway 15 0360
618/735-2907
Joe Kelly, PE
Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group 3150 Roland Avenue
Springfield
217/523-4942
Interested Party
XL 62703
217/523-4948
Robert A. Messina, General Counsel
Carlson Environmental. Inc.
65 E. Wacker Place
Chicago
Interested Party
Suite 1500
IL 60601
Kenneth James
DesPlaines
Chemical Industry Council of Illinois
2250 E. Devon Avenue
IL 60018-
Interested Party
Suite 239
4509
Lisa Frede
Barnes & Thornburg
1 North Wacker Drive
Chicago
312/357-1313
Interested Party
Suite 4400
IL 60606
312/759-5646
Carolyn S. Hesse, Attorney
Springfield
Rapos EngIneering & ADDlied Science
821 South Durkin brive
IL 62791-
217/787-2118
Interested Party
P.O. Box 7349
217/787-6641
7349
Michael W. Rapps
Environmental Management &
2012 West College Avenue
Normal
309/454-1717
T~chnologies
Suite 208
IL 61761
309/454-2711
Interested Party
Craig S. Gocker, President
Office of the Attorney General
Environmental Bureau
Chicago
312/814-2550
Interested Party~
188 West Randolph, 20th
IL 60601 .
312/814-2347
http://www.ipcb.state.il.us/coollextemal/casenotifyNew. asp?caseid=6287¬ifytype=Ser... 8/11/2005
rnnnng service
LISt....
Page
2
ot
3
Floor
RoseMarie Cazeau, Bureau Chief
_____________________________
Waterloo
618/935-2262
Herlacher Angleton Associates. LLC
8731 Bluff Road
Interested Party
IL 62298
618/935-2694
Tom Herlacher, P.E., Principal Engineer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
100 W. Randolph St:
Chicago
312/814-3620
Interested Party
Suite 11-500
IL 60601
312/814-3669
Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Board
Marie Tipsord, Hearing Officer
Huff & Huff. Inc.
512 West Burlington Avenue LaGrange
Interested Party
Suite 100
IL 60525
James E. Huff, P.E.
Black & Veatch
101 North Wacker Drive
Chicago
Interested Party
Suite 1100
IL 60606
Scott Anderson
InterestedPosegate
&PartyDenes
111 N. Sixth Street
ILSpringfield62701
217-522-6152
Claire A. Manning
Marlin Environmental, Inc.
1000 West Spring Street
South Elgin
847-468-8855
Interested Party
IL 60177
Melanie LoPiccolo, Office Manager
IllinoisInterestedDeDartmentParty
of Natural Resources
One Natural Resources Way
ILSpringfield127162702-
217/782-1809217/524-9640
William Richardson, Legal Counsel
Posegate & Denes. P.C.
111 N. Sixth Street
Springfield
217/522-6152
Interested Party
IL 62705
217/522-6184
Claire A. Manning, Attorney
Burroughs. Herder, Broom, MacDonald,
103 W. Vandalia Street
Edwardsville
618/656-0184
Hebrank & True
SuIte 300
IL 62025
618/556-1801
Interested Party
Musette H. VOgel
Great Lakes Analytical
1380 Busch Parkway
Buffalo Grove (847) 808-
Interested Party
IL 60089
7766
A.J Pavlick
CSDInterestedEnvironmentalParty
Services. Inc
2220 Yale Boulevard
ILSpringfield62703
217-522-4085
Joseph W. Truesdale, P.E.
InterestedCORE
GeologicalParty Services. Inc.
2621 Monetga, Suite C
IISpringfield62704
217-787-6109
Ron Dye, President
Downers
InterestedClayton
GroupPartyServices Inc
3140 Finley Road
ILGrove60515
630.795.3207
Monte Nienkerk
Suburban Laboratories. Inc.
4140 Litt Drive
Hillside
708-544-3260
Interested Party
IL 60162
Jarrett Thomas, V.P.
Environmental Consulting & EnglneerinQ
551 Roosevelt Road
Glenn Ellyn
#309
IL 60137
Interested Party
Richard Andros, P.E.
http://www.ipcb.state.i1.us/coolIexterna1Icasenotif~’New.asp?caseid=6287¬ifytype=Ser... 8/11/2005
Printing Service List....
Page3of3
MACTEC Engineering & Consultiqg_ Inc.
Peoria
8901 N. Industrial Road
Interested Party
IL 61615
Terrence W. Dixon, PG.
Illinois Department of Transportation
2300 Dirksen Parkway
Springfield
Interested Party
IL 62764
Steven Gobelman
SEECO Environmental Services. Inc.
Tinley Park
7350 Duvon Drive
Interested Party
IL 60477
Collin W. Gray
Herlacher Angleton Associates, LLC
Alton
522 Belle Street
Interested Party
IL 62002
Jennifer Goodman
United Environmental Consultants~
Inc
119 East Palatin Road
Palatine
Interested Party
Suite 101
IL 60067
George F. Moncek
McGuire Woods LLP
77 W. Wacker
Chicago
312/849-8100
Interested Party
Suite 4100
IL 60601
David Rieser
Midwest Engineering Services, Inc.
4243 W. 166th Street
Oak Forest
708-535-9981
Interested Party
IL 60452
Erin Curley,Env. Department Manager
Applied Environmental Solutions, Inc.
Centralia
P 0 Box
1225
6185335953
Interested Party
IL 62801
Delete Me 2
Secor International. Inc.
400 Bruns Lane
SpringfIeld
Interested Party
IL 62702
Daniel J. Goodwin
Illinois Society of Professional Engineers
300 West Edwards
Springfield
217-544-7424
Interested Party
IL 62704
217-525-6239
Kim Robinson
Brittan Bolin
GEl Consultants, Inc.
243 North Lindbergh Blvd.
St.MO Louis63141-
Interested Party
Suite 312
314-569-9979
7851
Daniel J. Goodwin, P.E.
Total number of participants: 44
http://www.ipcb.state.il.us/cool/extemal/casenotifyNew.asp?caseid=5287¬ifytype=Ser... 8/11/2005
