BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PROOF OF SERVICE

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF:

)

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO:

)

R04-22; Docket B

REGULATION PETROLEUM LEAKING

)

(Rulemaking – UST)

UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS

)

35 ILL. ADM. CODE 732

)

IN THE MATTER OF :

)

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO:

)

R04-23; Docket B

REGULATION PETROLEUM LEAKING

)

(Rulemaking – UST)

UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS

)

Consolidated

35 ILL. ADM. CODE 734

)

PRE-FILED TESTIMONY OF THE PROFESSIONALS

OF ILLINOIS FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT

NOW COMES Professionals of Illinois for the Protection of the Environment (PIPE), by

and through its attorney, Claire A. Manning, Brown, Hay & Stephens LLP, and offers the

following attached pre-filed testimony in this proceeding. Various members of PIPE have

contributed to this joint document, and will be available at hearing to answer any questions

related to it. Additionally, some PIPE member companies will file and provide testimony

individually on behalf of their respective companies.

The Professionals of Illinois for the Protection of the Environment (PIPE) would like to

thank the Pollution Control Board for the opportunity to appear before it and present this

position, in Docket B of this proceeding. PIPE appreciates the opportunity to provide further

input regarding the regulation of professional consulting services, and the interwoven issues of

scopes of work and lump sum payment amounts that are proposed in this rulemaking.

This joint testimony, attached as Exhibit A, can be considered as association testimony

offered for three essential purposes:

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MARCH 1, 2006

To outline the standards that PIPE believes are imperative to the development of an

effective rule pertaining to the management of professional consulting service costs

under the Illinois UST Program;

To chart the fundamental approach and implementation steps that PIPE’s membership

believes are imperative to achieving these critical and necessary standards; and

To provide responses to the questions posed by the IPCB in its January 5, 2006 Opinion

and Order.

On page 8 of the Board’s January 5, 2006 opinion, the question was posed: “Should

Professional Consulting Services be Reimbursed on a Time and Materials Basis?” PIPE’s

position is that a time and materials basis for billing professional services is the most logical and

appropriate means for several reasons. Consulting services are not typically commodity-based.

The lump sum payment method is only appropriate for a very limited number of the tasks

performed by professionals because the deliverables for each task may be widely varied.

Development of fair and reasonable lump sum rates may be impossible and if implemented

improperly, the results are devastating to PIPE’s membership and, accordingly, UST

environmental remediation.

Moreover, the determination that lump sum payments are

appropriate reimbursement for professional services necessarily implies that a “one size fits all”

approach is “reasonable” reimbursement for UST remediation. It is not. The Board should

reject this approach in favor of payment for hours worked..

The attached policy and position statement was developed with the intention that it could

be utilized under two scenarios. If the Board is compelled to attempt to develop lump sum rates

for tasks where the data indicates a rate may be appropriate, the policy outlines the steps

necessary to do so fairly and responsibly. Should the Board concur with PIPE and other

professionals, such as the American Society for Professional Engineers, that payment for

professional services is more logically based upon a time worked basis, portions of the policy

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MARCH 1, 2006

can be utilized to collect meaningful data that the Agency could utilize as a tool for determining

reasonableness for future submittals. If a given submittal proposes reimbursement well beyond

what the data suggests is typical, in terms of time, the Agency would have guidance indicating

additional justification is warranted by the professional. As a final note regarding payment on

an hourly basis, PIPE would like the Board to consider that the actual hourly rates that the

Agency is proposing was based upon data from 2002, which is now well outdated.

Accordingly, PIPE asks the Board to strongly consider the merits of time and materials

billing and utilize the attached joint testimony as it was intended to provide a framework for

either direction.

Although as an organization PIPE is not offering detailed alternative proposals, its

membership is unified in support of the standards, approach and implementation steps presented

in this attached Policy & Position Statement. Additionally, some individual PIPE companies

will testify. This testimony may include specific proposals and/or concepts for the Board to

consider. PIPE has not specifically endorsed the individual testimony of any of its members.

However, PIPE requests that the Board carefully consider and evaluate the testimony of each

PIPE Member as well as other credible participants. PIPE hopes that the Board will glean from

each testimony those concepts and proposals that most fully and efficiently achieve the

standards, approach and implementation steps presented herein by PIPE.

Most importantly, PIPE seeks the Board’s recognition, in moving forward with this

rulemaking, that the methodology, standards, approach and implementation steps offered by

PIPE are reasonable and appropriate. PIPE is prepared to work with the Illinois Pollution

Control Board, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency and others, perhaps through the

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MARCH 1, 2006

designated LUST Advisory group, as appropriate, to develop the specific details of a rule that is

consistent with the appropriate standards, approach and implementation steps.

PIPE believes that if the Board intends to develop lump sum payments for professional

services the Board can best demonstrate its prudence and leadership in this rulemaking by

identifying what it believes are the best ideas, concepts and proposals from the individual

participants, and apply (or order the application of) those elements to a draft rule that is

consistent with the standards, approach and implementation steps set forth below. This draft rule

would be the focal point for the remainder of this rulemaking process – and would represent a

substantial positive step forward in this rulemaking. Most importantly, this approach would

assure the sanctity and credibility of the Illinois UST.

Respectfully Submitted,

PROFESSIONALS OF ILLINOIS FOR THE

PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT

____

/s/Claire A. Manning

______________

By: Claire A. Manning

BROWN, HAY & STEPHENS, LLP

Claire A. Manning, Esq.

Registration No. 3124724

205 S. Fifth Street, Suite 700

P.O. Box 2459

Springfield, IL 62705-2459

(217) 544-8491

(217) 241-3111 (fax)

cmanning@bhslaw.com

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MARCH 1, 2006

Attachment A

POLICY AND POSITION OF THE PROFESSIONALS OF ILLINOIS FOR THE

PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT

STANDARDS NECESSARY FOR AN EFFECTIVE RULE

If the Board chooses to adopt a rule which establishes lump sum values for time spent by

professionals, instead of on a preferred hours worked basis, costs for professional services should

be based upon the following standards.

A. GENERAL STANDARDS

The rule should be:

Fair and objective;

Well defined and easily understood so that it can be uniformly and

consistently applied without bias;

Transparent; and

Clearly and convincingly evident that its implementation will readily

achieve the goals of streamlining and expediting the technical compliance

and reimbursement processes.

B. STANDARDS FOR DEVELOPING SCOPES OF WORK

Scopes of Work developed as part of the rule should be:

Task Based

a. Task conventions should be based upon common standards which are

widely known, recognized and accepted in the industry; and

b. The list of tasks should be comprehensive in that every provision of

the UST regulations should be accounted for somewhere within the

standardized task list or the scopes of work associated with the

individual tasks contained in the list of standard tasks.

Clearly Defined

a. The scope of work requirements and deliverable(s) for each task

should be clearly defined from a qualitative perspective; and

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MARCH 1, 2006

b. The deliverable(s) for each task should be clearly defined and

quantified whenever possible. (Due to the inherently uncertain nature

of certain aspects of environmental consulting work, it may not be

possible to list a specific quantifiable deliverable for each task).

Standardized

a. For purposes of cost comparison and analysis, the list of tasks and the

scope of work and deliverable(s) for each task should be standardized.

Appropriately Delineated

a. Task conventions should not be too detailed or too broad;

b. Scopes of Work for each Task convention should be broad enough to

reduce complexity and assure efficiency and streamlining of processes

yet narrow enough to yield a full understanding of the task’s

deliverable(s) and the typical level of effort and costs necessary to

complete the task’s deliverable(s); and

c. Task conventions and their associated scope of work should avoid the

use of repetitive activities, means and methods of performing the

work, and/or other intricacies of the performance of the task.

Published

a. The list of tasks, along with the accompanying scope of work for each

task, the deliverable(s) associated with each task, and any associated

regulatory guidance, standards, notes, directives, etc. should be

published and readily available to the public.

Flexible

a. The rules should be flexible so that tasks can be added or deleted and

scopes of work and deliverable(s) can be modified as regulatory

requirements change over time.

C. STANDARDS FOR DEVELOPING LUMP SUM PAYMENT AMOUNTS:

Lump sum payment amounts developed for any task pursuant to the rule should be:

1. Based upon statistically sound facts and not estimations;

2. Derived from actual costs incurred at Illinois LUST sites.

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MARCH 1, 2006

3. Applied only to those tasks where:

a. the qualitative component of the scope of work and deliverable are

well defined;

b. the deliverable(s) is/are able to be quantified; and

c. Statistically valid costs data shows a normalized distribution of

professional service costs.

II. APPROACH & IMPLEMENTATION STEPS

Based upon its vast collective experience in the industry, and in working with the Illinois EPA’s

UST program, PIPE is confident that the approach and implementation steps presented in this

Section is the most feasible way to implement a professional services cost management rule.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

PIPE members include professional consultants, whose primary line of business is

serving the UST consulting and remediation needs of Illinois underground storage tank

owners/operators. Many of these firms have been in business since the inception of the

UST program and most have more than a decade of experience in dealing with the

Illinois EPA’s LUST Section. Over the years, on behalf of their clients, PIPE member

firms and their employees have submitted literally hundreds of thousands of man-hours

of professional service costs to the Agency for reimbursement. Over this same time

period, the Agency has reimbursed tens, if not hundreds of millions of dollars of

professional service costs charged by PIPE members.

Having a thorough working knowledge of the IEPA’s reimbursement applications and

process, PIPE’s member firms are completely confident of the following:

the Agency has never required reporting pursuant to any standardized

structure;

thus, the Agency’s data files and reimbursement records are not adequate to

provide accurate, reliable or statistically sound information as to the costs of

the professional services on a per task basis.

PIPE’s members, as well as a great many underground storage tank owners/operators in

this state, are small businesses. PIPE is confident that these small businesses simply

cannot tolerate the huge financial risks that would be thrust upon them if lump sum

payment amounts included in this rule were to be based upon estimations. The use of

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MARCH 1, 2006

estimations puts both the environmental consultant and the tank owner/operator and the

employees and the families of both at unnecessary peril.

As a good engineer would not put the public at peril by using an untested and unproven

bridge design, so too should the Illinois Pollution Control Board not permit gambling

with environmental remediation by crafting a rule that does not provide reasonable

reimbursement for the costs associated with such remediation because it establishes lump

sums based upon guesses and estimates – not real costs.

The undue risks associated with the use of estimations are soundly mitigated by the

logical, appropriate and practical approach and implementation steps outlined below.

APPROACH & IMPLEMENTATION STEPS

The approach and implementation steps presented below are consistent with standards

presented in Section I above and are the foundation for developing an effective and

credible cost management program for professional consulting services.

APPROACH

The approach is to implement a factually based and statistically reliable method

of determining reasonableness for professional consulting services. The rule

should be implemented in three distinct phases. The milestones related to each

phase are generally as follows:

Phase One- Establish Task-Based Cost Reporting Standards.

Phase Two- Gather Statistically Reliable Task-Based Cost Information

Phase Three- Analyze Cost Information & Determine if Lump Sum

Payment Amounts are Appropriate

IMPLEMENTATION STEPS

The general implementation steps associated with each phase of the rule will be

sequenced and executed as are described below.

Phase One- Establish Task-Based Cost Reporting Standards

This phase would generally consist of the following steps.

Step 1- Develop a Standardized List of Task

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MARCH 1, 2006

o This step entails developing a comprehensive list of tasks that

require professional services and are necessary pursuant to the

LUST regulations.

Step 2- Establish a Clearly Defined Standardized Scope of Work for

Each Task

o This step entails defining the specific regulatory requirements

included in each task along with qualitatively defining the

deliverable(s), and setting forth the standard deliverable quantity,

when possible.

All professional consulting service work required in order to comply

with the UST regulations should be accounted for in the tasks and

scopes work set forth as a result of steps 1 and 2 above.

Step 3- Establish & Implement Standard Cost Reporting

Procedures

o This step entails a requirement that all owners/operators across

the state report professional service costs on a consistent task-by-

task basis pursuant to the standardized task list and scopes of

work implemented in steps 1 and 2 above.

o This step does not implement the use of lump sum payment

amounts, but only standardized reporting of professional

consulting costs. Professional service costs for all tasks would

continue to be billed on a time and materials basis during Phase

One.

The three steps described above are akin to a business establishing a

standard chart of accounts to track and better understand its operating

costs. In the three steps above, the Agency is literally developing a

standardized chart of accounts so that it can track, on a uniform,

accurate and reliable basis, professional consulting costs that are

incurred by task at each Illinois UST site. The Agency’s accounts

are its standardized tasks.

b. Phase Two- Gather Statistically Reliable Task-Based Cost

Information

This phase would initiate upon completion of phase one and would

generally consist of the following steps.

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MARCH 1, 2006

Step 1- Collection of statistically reliable professional service cost

information on a per task basis.

o During this phase, as a condition precedent to reimbursement, the

Agency would require the owner/operator to report all professional

service costs to the appropriate standardized tasks.

o This step requires clearly defined standards that require professionals

across the state to post their charges in a uniform and consistent

manner for each task. Professional services would continue to be billed

on a time and materials basis during Phase Two.

o During this phase, in order to be eligible for reimbursement, all

professional service costs posted to a task would need to be

documented in detail and the activities being performed must

reasonable and necessary in order to complete the task. This is the

same approach that has been used by the Agency for the past fifteen

year, with the significant exception that under this program the tasks

would be standardized.

o During this phase, the owner/operator would also be required to report

professional service and field service deliverables that were completed

in association with each task. For example, if the professional

consulting service deliverable was oversight, documentation and

quality control of drilling activities, the owner/operator would be

required to report the number of hours of professional service time

spent on drilling oversight, documentation and quality control as well

as the number of borings, feet of borehole and number of samples

collected.

If the professional consulting service was for field

oversight, documentation and quality control of remedial activities, the

owner/operator would be required to report the number of professional

service hours spent on field oversight, documentation and quality

control as well as the volume of soil moved or treated during each day

that field oversight services were rendered and the number of soil

samples taken each day. These deliverables would be tracked to

determine if there is any statistically valid correlation between field

service deliverables and professional oversight, documentation and

quality control deliverables. (NOTE: the level of detailed tracking

listed in this bullet item is only necessary if the Agency desires to

correlate the costs for professional field oversight and documentation

services with the productivity for contractor services. [i.e. validation of

half-day rates]) This data would also be utilized to define typical and

atypical situations based on deliverables correlated to costs.

Step 2- Compilation and reporting of task-based professional

consulting services cost trends.

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MARCH 1, 2006

o At the completion of this phase, reports documenting the

professional consulting cost data and statistics per task will be

reported as will the deliverable information.

c. Phase Three- Analyze Cost Information & Establish Lump Sum

Payment Amounts

This phase would be initiated upon the completion of Phase Two. One

purpose of this phase is to establish and implement any appropriate

lump sum payment amounts for those professional consulting tasks

that are suitable for conversion from time and materials billing to lump

sum payment amounts. The other purpose is to identify those tasks

that are not suitable for conversion.

Step 1- Determine which professional consulting tasks are candidates

for conversion to lump sum payment amounts.

o This step entails using the data collected in Phase Two to

determine which tasks have a normalized costs distribution.

o In general, a task that has a deliverable(s) that is well

defined both qualitatively and quantitatively would be

expected to have a normalized cost distribution.

o Tasks that have a normalized costs distribution would be

candidates for conversion.

o Tasks that have abnormal distributions of costs or

deliverables that are not well defined would not be

candidates for conversion and would continue to be billed

on a time and material basis subsequent to Phase Three.

Step 2- Determine the appropriate cost percentile that should be

covered by the lump sum payment amount and the definition of

“typical”.

o This step requires that a percentile of costs be chosen that will

allow the maximum payment amount selected to cover the desired

portion of the population of UST sites in the state.

o The deliverables and professional service cost information

accumulated during Phase Two for sites falling within the selected

percentile of costs will serve to establish and define what is

considered to be “typical”.

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MARCH 1, 2006

Step 3- Utilize statistical data outliers to establish and define

“atypical”situations.

o For those task selected for conversion to lump sum payment

amounts, the statistical data outliers falling outside the “typical”

range should be evaluated for “atypical” situations.

o “Atypical” situations found to be associated with the data outliers

should be defined, published and used as guidance in determining

if an “atypical” situation exists at a particular site. An “atypical”

situation may warrant an amount in excess of the lump sum

payment amount.

Step 4- Implement Reimbursement by Maximum Lump Sum Payment

Amounts

o After the appropriate percentile of costs is selected for each task

that will be subject to a lump sum payment amount, the maximum

lump sum payment amount will be published as part of the rule.

o This step consists of implementing maximum lump sum payment

amounts for the specified tasks.

o After implementation of Phase Three of the rule, the

reimbursement of professional consulting costs for typical

situations would be limited to the maximum lump sum payment

amount for the task.

o Tasks that were not converted to maximum lump sum payment

amounts and those tasks that involve “atypical” situations would

continue to be reimbursed on a time and materials basis

subsequent to Phase Three.

III. RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS POSED IN THE BOARD’S JANUARY 5, 2006

OPINION & ORDER

The following is a paraphrased list of the questions asked by the Board in its January 5, 2006

Opinion and Order, and PIPE’s responses to those questions:

Question 1:

Should Statement of Work (SOW) be part of the Board’s rules or part of the

Agency’s implementation of those rules? See Opinion & Order Pages 6 &7.

Response

: PIPE believes that it is imperative that the SOW be part of the Board’s rules,

if the Board intends to adopt lump sums for professional services. The consulting

community has consistently held this position since the original discussions it had with

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MARCH 1, 2006

the Agency concerning this rule prior to its filing. Lump sum payment amounts simply

cannot be adopted in a vacuum. Thus, standardized scopes of work are crucial.

Question 2

What is the adequacy of the SOW proposed by the Board to address the

specific tasks? See Opinion & Order Pages 6 & 7.

Response

: PIPE believes the SOW proposed by the Board to be a necessary and positive

step. Proposed changes to the SOW included in the January 5, 2006 Opinion & Order and

associated formatting will be submitted individually by some PIPE member companies.

PIPE asks that the Board consider these individual proposals in light of the standards,

approach and implementation steps recommended above by PIPE.

Question 3

Is adequate information available in the Agency’s database to determine

lump sum payments for tasks that represent reasonable costs incurred? If not, the Board

would like the Agency to comment on whether or not it could all be collected over a

period of time. Opinion & Order Page 8.

Response

: As discussed earlier in this document, based upon its member’s years of

experience in working with the IEPA LUST Program, PIPE is extremely confident that

adequate and reliable information

is not available

in the Agency’s database to determine

lump sum payment amounts on a per task basis. PIPE believes that the research

conducted by United Science Industries (USI) and reported at the last round of hearings

demonstrated that adequate information is not available in the Agency’s database to

determine lump sum payments for tasks. The information in the Agency’s database is

only adequate enough to separate the reimbursed amounts for professional services into

phases (i.e. early action, site classification and corrective action). It is not possible

extract adequate information at the task level. PIPE realizes that the Board has requested

the Agency’s opinion on whether appropriate task-based cost data can be collected over-

time. PIPE re-emphasizes its confidence that, with standardized reporting mechanisms,

the data can be collected over an established period of time and that the collection of

such data is a relatively simple process that is of paramount importance to the feasibility

and credibility of this rule.

Question 4

Comment on the implications of “one size fits all” maximum lump sum

payments. See Opinion & Order Page 10.

Response

: PIPE believes it is virtually impossible to adopt a “one size fits all” approach

to maximum lump sum payments for professional services. Only if maximum lump sum

payments are properly determined in accordance with the standards, approach and steps

presented above they will be an effective tool for expediting the reimbursement process

and managing costs. However, if they are prematurely set, based upon simple estimates

or guesses, they will be counter-productive and may seriously damage the credibility,

integrity and financial well-being of the Illinois UST program. While lump sums may

be appropriate for materials, based upon good data, lump sums are generally not a

reasonable method of reimbursement for the cost of professional services.

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MARCH 1, 2006

Question 5

Provide reasonable personnel time estimates for all tasks which the Board

proposed a SOW . See Opinion & Order Page 10.

Response: Maximum lump sum payment amounts for professional services should not

be based on estimates. Estimates are, by their very nature, inaccurate. The damage that

could be done by using an estimate as the basis for this rule was clearly demonstrated by

USI at the July 27, 2005 hearing. PIPE believes that the only appropriate way to set

rates is through the collection and review of actual market data – either by the Agency,

based upon real data gathered statistically over time, or through an independent third

party market-based review. PIPE therefore respectfully declines to provide estimates as

part of this rulemaking. We further highly discourage the Board from considering the

estimates of other participants in this proceeding as estimates are inherently inaccurate

and dangerous.

Question 6

Discuss the feasibility of the multi-rate approach (differentiating clerical

and professional hours). And if so, propose the personnel in this manner. See Opinion

& Order Page 10.

Response

: As stated in the response to question 5 above, the only accurate way to

determine reasonable rates is through the collection and review of actual market data.

The feasibility of a multi-rate or single rate approach will be easily determined upon the

collection of appropriate data.

Question 7

Discuss whether or not SOW is needed for Early Action closure reports,

ELUCs, HAAs, well surveys, and TACO calculations. And if so, define it. See Opinion &

Order Page 6.

Response

: PIPE believes that all professional consulting work required by the UST

regulations should be included in the standardized task list and that a scope of work

should be developed for each task. As mentioned above, individual PIPE member

companies will present specific proposals with regard to a list of standardized tasks and

scopes of work for each.

Question 8

Should time and materials continue to be the basis for reimbursement until

adequate data is available?

Response

PIPE strongly believes that, until reasonable and accurate data is available

for application, reimbursement for consulting services should be made on a time and

materials basis.

V. JCAR ISSUES

PIPE continues to assert that it is inappropriate to automatically disallow reimbursement for the

costs of remediation to Tier I or for any groundwater remediation where a groundwater

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MARCH 1, 2006

ordinance is in place. PIPE is disappointed that, despite JCAR’s admonition that the Board

review these two issues again, that the Board nonetheless adopted these provisions in Docket A.

PIPE believes that the IPCB needs to more fully explore and evaluate the environmental

implications of this decision, including other potential exposure pathways typical of petroleum

contamination, such as inhalation. Specific examples will be given in individual PIPE member

testimony.

VI. CONCLUSION

PIPE again thanks the IPCB for the opportunity to provide constructive input as part of this

rulemaking. Along with the IPCB and IEPA, PIPE remains committed to seeing the process

through to completion.

Our organization is fully prepared to participate and labor as necessary in the development

and/or editing of a draft rule consistent with the standards, approach and implementation steps

described in this Policy & Position Statement.

In order to move this rule along to a successful conclusion at minimal inconvenience to the

Board, PIPE hereby requests the Board to order the parties to work to achieve a result consistent

with the standards, approach and implementation steps set forth above. PIPE is confident that

the approach outlined above is the most sensible and only feasible means of defining

reasonableness in terms of reimbursement and budget submittals. Without the Board embracing

such a systematic approach to the establishment of lump sums, and ordering the Agency to

achieve a result and proposal consistent with that approach, fair lump sums can not be

established.

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MARCH 1, 2006

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned states that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Pre-Filed Testimony,

was filed with the Illinois Pollution Control Board, electronically, on March 1, 2006, and a true

and accurate copy of the filing was served upon the individuals listed on the Board’s Service List

for R04-22 and R04-23, as reflected on the Board’s website on that same day, as reflected below,

by mailing the same via the United States postal service, Springfield, Illinois on the 1st day of

March, 2006.

______________________________

BROWN, HAY & STEPHENS, LLP

Claire A. Manning, Esq.

Registration No. 3124724

205 S. Fifth Street, Suite 700

P.O. Box 2459

Springfield, IL 62705-2459

(217) 544-8491

(217) 241-3111 (fax)

cmanning@bhslaw.com

Michael C. Rock

Gina Roccaforte, Asst. Counsel

Ogle County State’s Attorney Office

Kyle Rominger, Asst. Counsel

Ogle County Courthouse

Doug Clay

110 S. 4

St.

IEPA

P.O. Box 395

1021 N. Grand Ave. E., PO Box 19276

Oregon, IL 61061-0395

Springfield, IL 62794-9276

Thomas G. Salfey

William G. Dickett

Hodge Dwyer Zeman

Sidley Austin LLP

3150 Roland Ave., PO Box 5776

1 S. Dearborn

Springfield, IL 62705-5776

Chicago, IL 60603

Barbara Magel

Bill Fleischi

Karaganis, White & Magel, Ltd.

Illinois Petroleum Marketers Assoc.

414 N. Orleans St., Ste. 810

112 W. Cook Street

Chicago, IL 60610

Springfield, IL 62704

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MARCH 1, 2006

Joe Kelly

N. LaDonna Driver

United Science Industries, Inc.

Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group

PO Box 360, 6295 E. IL Highway 15

3150 Roland Ave.

Woodlawn, IL 62898-0360

Springfield, IL 62703

Kenneth James

Lisa Frede

Carlson Environmental, Inc.

Chemical Industry Council of Illinois

65 E. Wacker Place, Ste. 1500

2250 E. Devon Avenue, Ste. 239

Chicago, IL 60601

DesPlaines, IL 60018-4509

Carolyn S. Hesse, Attorney

Michael W. Rapps

Barnes & Thornburg

Rapps Engineering & Applied Science

1 N. Wacker Drive, Ste., 4400

821 S. Durking Drive, PO Box 7349

Chicago, IL 60606

Springfield, IL 62791-7349

Craig Gocker

RoseMarie Cazeau, Bureau Chief

Environmental Management & Technologies

Office of the Attorney General

2012 W. College Avenue, Ste. 208

188 W. Randolph, 20

Floor

Normal, IL 61761

Environmental Bureau

Chicago, IL 60601

Tom Herlacher

James E. Huff

Herlacher Angleton Associates, LLC

Huff & Huff, Inc.

8731 Bluff Road

512 W. Burlington Ave., Ste. 100

Waterloo, IL 62298

LaGrange, IL 60525

Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Board

Scott Anderson

Marie Tipsord, Hearing Officer

Black & Veatch

Illinois Pollution Control Board

101 N. Wacker Dr., Ste. 1100

100 W. Randolph St., Ste. 11-500

Chicago, IL 60606

Chicago, IL 60601

Melanie LoPiccolo, Office Manager

William Richardson, Chief Legal Counsel

Marlin Environmental, Inc.

Illinois Department of Natural Resources

3935 Commerce Drive

1 Natural Resources Way

St. Charles, IL 60174

Springfield, IL 62702-1271

Musette Vogel

A. J. Pavlick

Burroughs, Hepler, Broom, Macdonald,

Great Lakes Analytical

Hebrank & True

1380 Busch Parkway

103 W. Vandalia St., Ste. 300

Buffalo Grove, IL 60089

Edwardsville, IL 62025

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MARCH 1, 2006

Joseph W. Truesdale, P.E.

Ron Dye, President

CSD Environmental Services, Inc.

CORE Geological Services, Inc.

2220 Yale Blvd.

2621 Monetga, Ste. C

Springfield, IL 62703

Springfield, IL 62704

Monte Nienkerk

Kurt Stepping, Director of Client Services

Clayton Group Services, Inc.

PDC Laboratories

3140 Finley Rd.

2231 W. Altorfer Dr.

Downers Grove, IL 60515

Peoria, IL 61615

Thomas M. Guist, PE, Team Leader

Jeff Wienhoff

Atwell-Hicks, Inc.

CW3M Company, Inc.

940 E. Diehl Rd., Ste. 100

701 S. Grand Ave., West

Naperville, IL 60563

Springfield, IL 62704

Jarrett Thomas, V.P.

Richard Andros, P.E.

Suburban Laboratories, Inc.

Environmental Consulting & Engineering

4140 Litt Drive

551 Roosevelt Rd., #309

Hillside, IL 60162

Glenn Ellyn, IL 60137

Terrence W. Dixon, P.G.

Steven Gobelman

MACTEC Engineering & Consulting, Inc.

Illinois Department of Transportation

8901 N. Industrial Road

2300 S. Dirksen Pkwy., Room 330

Peoria, IL 61615

Springfield, IL 62764

Collin W. Gray

Jennifer Goodman

SEECO Environmental Services, Inc.

Herlacher Angleton Associates, LLC

7350 Duvon Drive

522 Belle Street

Tinley Park, IL 60477

Alton, IL 62002

George F. Moncek

David Rieser

United Environmental Consultants, Inc.

McGuire Woods, LLP

119 E. Palatin Rd.

77 W. Wacker, Ste. 4100

Palatine, IL 60067

Chicago, IL 60601

Tina Archer, Attorney

Erin Curley, Env. Dept. Manager

Greensfelder, Hemker, & Gale

Midwest Engineering Services, Inc.

10 S. Broadway, Ste. 2000

4243 W. 166

Street

St. Louis, MO 63104

Oak Forest, IL 60452

Ken Miller, Regional Manager

Daniel J. Goodwin

American Environmental Corp.

Secor International, Inc.

3700 W. Grand Ave., Ste. A

400 Bruns Lane

Springfield, IL 62707

Springfield, IL 62702

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MARCH 1, 2006

Eric Minder, Sr. Environmental Engineer

Daniel Caplice

Caterpillar, Inc.

K-Plus Environmental

100 NE Adams Street

600 W. Van Buren St., Ste. 1000

Peoria, IL 61629

Chicago, IL 60607

Kim Robinson

Daniel Goodwin, P.E.

Brittan Bolin

GEI Consultants

Illinois Society of Professional Engineers

243 N. Lindbergh Blvd., Ste. 312

600 S. 2

Street, Ste. 403

St. Louis, MO 63141-7851

Springfield, IL 62704

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MARCH 1, 2006