The Eola School Site

[JB]

Hey Guys and Gals, I think I found out why the tennis courts are going over the tank site....... Please tell me the plan is not to simply cover this up and call it "remediation"

www.epa.state.il.us/land/taco/5-engineered-barriers.html

Migration to Groundwater Barriers
For the migration to groundwater route, the goal of a barrier is to prevent the leaching of contaminants out of the soil and into the groundwater by reducing the infiltration rate (742.905). The two types of barriers discussed in TACO are caps and permanent structures. Using engineered barriers to impede contaminant migration to groundwater may be more feasible under a Tier 3 exposure route review (742.925).

A cap is a horizontal barrier that covers the entire area of contamination to prevent infiltration of water. A cap must be constructed of compacted clay, asphalt, concrete, or other materials capable of producing similar results.
Permanent structures are acceptable barriers due to their capping effects. A roadway, for example, may represent an adequate cap, as could a building.

Soil Ingestion and Inhalation Barriers
For both the soil ingestion and inhalation exposure routes, barriers can prevent human exposure to contaminated media.

The two types of barriers acceptable for both of these routes are caps and permanent structures. A clean soil cover is also acceptable for the soil ingestion route.

Caps used to prevent soil ingestion and/or inhalation are similar to those required for the migration to groundwater pathway, and may be constructed with the same materials. Caps for this use, however, are intended to prevent the upward migration of soil and vapors instead of the downward infiltration of water.

Permanent structures may provide adequate protection from contamination in instances where the contaminants have migrated beneath the structure or when a structure is built above the contamination.

[doctorwho]

sushi said:

My guess is based on the phase II, remediation is no big deal. This is not the first piece of land that had issues that had to be remediated. Close, remediate, inspect. The building will be on another part of the land so construction will not interfere with what is going on. If it doesn't pass the first time, then MWgen will have to do further remediation until it does pass. All guessing based on common sense.

maybe I'm just dense ( and there are places you can get odds on that ) - but once we close I cannot understandhow anyone else is responsible for anything - they are no longer the legal owenrs - they could not even be the ones to request the IEPA come out at that point - it has to be us.
Please help me understand how they owe us anything once we close on the property ? I don't believe they would sign a thing holding responsibility - as a stockholder would you want them to ? This is a public company owned by stockholders - I'd have a fit if I was one and my CEO signed away unkown liability. It would never work on any financial statement for the company.

[doctorwho]

jb said:

Hey Guys and Gals, I think I found out why the tennis courts are going over the tank site....... Please tell me the plan is not to simply cover this up and call it "remediation"

www.epa.state.il.us/land/taco/5-engineered-barriers.html

Migration to Groundwater Barriers
For the migration to groundwater route, the goal of a barrier is to prevent the leaching of contaminants out of the soil and into the groundwater by reducing the infiltration rate (742.905). The two types of barriers discussed in TACO are caps and permanent structures. Using engineered barriers to impede contaminant migration to groundwater may be more feasible under a Tier 3 exposure route review (742.925).

A cap is a horizontal barrier that covers the entire area of contamination to prevent infiltration of water. A cap must be constructed of compacted clay, asphalt, concrete, or other materials capable of producing similar results.
Permanent structures are acceptable barriers due to their capping effects. A roadway, for example, may represent an adequate cap, as could a building.

Soil Ingestion and Inhalation Barriers
For both the soil ingestion and inhalation exposure routes, barriers can prevent human exposure to contaminated media.

The two types of barriers acceptable for both of these routes are caps and permanent structures. A clean soil cover is also acceptable for the soil ingestion route.

Caps used to prevent soil ingestion and/or inhalation are similar to those required for the migration to groundwater pathway, and may be constructed with the same materials. Caps for this use, however, are intended to prevent the upward migration of soil and vapors instead of the downward infiltration of water.

Permanent structures may provide adequate protection from contamination in instances where the contaminants have migrated beneath the structure or when a structure is built above the contamination.

of course that's not all- they're adding a couple of feet of dirt also...

[Avenging Eagle]

doctorwho said:

sushi said:

My guess is based on the phase II, remediation is no big deal. This is not the first piece of land that had issues that had to be remediated. Close, remediate, inspect. The building will be on another part of the land so construction will not interfere with what is going on. If it doesn't pass the first time, then MWgen will have to do further remediation until it does pass. All guessing based on common sense.

maybe I'm just dense ( and there are places you can get odds on that ) - but once we close I cannot understandhow anyone else is responsible for anything - they are no longer the legal owenrs - they could not even be the ones to request the IEPA come out at that point - it has to be us.
Please help me understand how they owe us anything once we close on the property ? I don't believe they would sign a thing holding responsibility - as a stockholder would you want them to ? This is a public company owned by stockholders - I'd have a fit if I was one and my CEO signed away unkown liability. It would never work on any financial statement for the company.

If we lose our rebate form then we won't be able to collect.

Or there will be an exclusion in the extended warranty that leaves us holding the bag.

[rural]

doctorwho said:

sushi said:

My guess is based on the phase II, remediation is no big deal. This is not the first piece of land that had issues that had to be remediated. Close, remediate, inspect. The building will be on another part of the land so construction will not interfere with what is going on. If it doesn't pass the first time, then MWgen will have to do further remediation until it does pass. All guessing based on common sense.

maybe I'm just dense ( and there are places you can get odds on that ) - but once we close I cannot understandhow anyone else is responsible for anything - they are no longer the legal owenrs - they could not even be the ones to request the IEPA come out at that point - it has to be us.
Please help me understand how they owe us anything once we close on the property ? I don't believe they would sign a thing holding responsibility - as a stockholder would you want them to ? This is a public company owned by stockholders - I'd have a fit if I was one and my CEO signed away unkown liability. It would never work on any financial statement for the company.

I don't know, I'm just guessing here:

Maybe it's like the houses with the dryvit insurance. If anything goes wrong with it over a period of time the sellers are still responsible for the remediation?

Like I said uneducated explanation.

[Avenging Eagle]

rural said:

doctorwho said:

maybe I'm just dense ( and there are places you can get odds on that ) - but once we close I cannot understandhow anyone else is responsible for anything - they are no longer the legal owenrs - they could not even be the ones to request the IEPA come out at that point - it has to be us.
Please help me understand how they owe us anything once we close on the property ? I don't believe they would sign a thing holding responsibility - as a stockholder would you want them to ? This is a public company owned by stockholders - I'd have a fit if I was one and my CEO signed away unkown liability. It would never work on any financial statement for the company.

I don't know, I'm just guessing here:

Maybe it's like the houses with the dryvit insurance. If anything goes wrong with it over a period of time the sellers are still responsible for the remediation?

Like I said uneducated explanation.

Don't worry, Sushi is handling the remediation which is no big deal to her.

But actually the point is that our SB will never get insurance from MWGEN, and our SB will rubber stamp it through and only ask for a worthless piece of NFR paper.

[abc204]

I have never posted to this site before, but feel I must provide some information regarding the IEPA. My family has personally been working for the last 10 years so secure a NFR (related to a small business). We have gone through 2 complete clean ups, but just received word that the most recent soil samples still showed areas of concern. All this was the result of just 2 underground tanks. We still do not have the NFR paper and from our understanding (and dealing with the IEPA has been very confusing at times) we can not sell our property without this letter unless the buyer accepts all liability. I guess that is my concern with this school site. I just hope the school district does not accept that liability.

And If this remediation is truly so easy for the school I would have some concern over how this NFR was really obtained.

[doctorwho]

abc204 said:

I have never posted to this site before, but feel I must provide some information regarding the IEPA. My family has personally been working for the last 10 years so secure a NFR (related to a small business). We have gone through 2 complete clean ups, but just received word that the most recent soil samples still showed areas of concern. All this was the result of just 2 underground tanks. We still do not have the NFR paper and from our understanding (and dealing with the IEPA has been very confusing at times) we can not sell our property without this letter unless the buyer accepts all liability. I guess that is my concern with this school site. I just hope the school district does not accept that liability.

And If this remediation is truly so easy for the school I would have some concern over how this NFR was really obtained.

thank you for your 1st post and real life experience insight. My guess is the hold up right now is somehow tied to exactly this issue.

[WeBe204]

abc204 said:

I have never posted to this site before, but feel I must provide some information regarding the IEPA. My family has personally been working for the last 10 years so secure a NFR (related to a small business). We have gone through 2 complete clean ups, but just received word that the most recent soil samples still showed areas of concern. All this was the result of just 2 underground tanks. We still do not have the NFR paper and from our understanding (and dealing with the IEPA has been very confusing at times) we can not sell our property without this letter unless the buyer accepts all liability. I guess that is my concern with this school site. I just hope the school district does not accept that liability.

And If this remediation is truly so easy for the school I would have some concern over how this NFR was really obtained.

Welcome abc204. And thanksfor the info..

[Avenging Eagle]

abc204 said:

I have never posted to this site before, but feel I must provide some information regarding the IEPA. My family has personally been working for the last 10 years so secure a NFR (related to a small business). We have gone through 2 complete clean ups, but just received word that the most recent soil samples still showed areas of concern. All this was the result of just 2 underground tanks. We still do not have the NFR paper and from our understanding (and dealing with the IEPA has been very confusing at times) we can not sell our property without this letter unless the buyer accepts all liability. I guess that is my concern with this school site. I just hope the school district does not accept that liability.

And If this remediation is truly so easy for the school I would have some concern over how this NFR was really obtained.

That's why the SB will avoid dealing with the IEPA at all costs, regardless of the implications of their decision.

[sushi]

avengingeagle said:

abc204 said:

I have never posted to this site before, but feel I must provide some information regarding the IEPA. My family has personally been working for the last 10 years so secure a NFR (related to a small business). We have gone through 2 complete clean ups, but just received word that the most recent soil samples still showed areas of concern. All this was the result of just 2 underground tanks. We still do not have the NFR paper and from our understanding (and dealing with the IEPA has been very confusing at times) we can not sell our property without this letter unless the buyer accepts all liability. I guess that is my concern with this school site. I just hope the school district does not accept that liability.

And If this remediation is truly so easy for the school I would have some concern over how this NFR was really obtained.

That's why the SB will avoid dealing with the IEPA at all costs, regardless of the implications of their decision.

Why do you say the SB will avoid dealing with IEPA? I imagine you are right, it will be MWGen dealing with the IEPA, until the NFR is issued. Here is proof of the process. Obviously, there is a legal clause that protects the SD after the close up to the NFR.
Why would they close otherwise.

Why am I the only one who gets this?

[specailneedsmom]

They want to avoid the IL EPA because dealing with the IL EPA will take lots of time and time is a limited commodity.

[snerdley]

specailneedsmom said:

They want to avoid the IL EPA because dealing with the IL EPA will take lots of time and time is a limited commodity.

And they're willing to take the risk with the taxpayer's money because that's exactly what they've done before. Roll the dice, deal with it later - they think they have unlimited resources (us).

[WeBe204]

sushi said:

avengingeagle said:

That's why the SB will avoid dealing with the IEPA at all costs, regardless of the implications of their decision.

Why do you say the SB will avoid dealing with IEPA? I imagine you are right, it will be MWGen dealing with the IEPA, until the NFR is issued. Here is proof of the process. Obviously, there is a legal clause that protects the SD after the close up to the NFR.
Why would they close otherwise.

Why am I the only one who gets this?

I actually get it now. To be honest when I sat through the land selection meeting and the boundary meeting I walked away thinking the plant would be disassembled and the land would be remediated before we took ownership. This is one of the many reasons I thought the 2009 date was a total joke.

Now, I get it. We buy the land put of fencing and do it at a later date. The level of MidWest Gens responsibility I believe is the real sticking point in the negotiations. Remember the wording was changed by the board at the end of the land meeting. I wonder if that wording is causing a problem? Hmmmm... Not some wacked tin foil theory being put out by NSFOCFraud.

So, now kids will be in a construction zone and a remediation zone for at least the first year. Regardless of the location 2009 seems foolish.

[doctorwho]

brad204 said:

sushi said:

Why do you say the SB will avoid dealing with IEPA? I imagine you are right, it will be MWGen dealing with the IEPA, until the NFR is issued. Here is proof of the process. Obviously, there is a legal clause that protects the SD after the close up to the NFR.
Why would they close otherwise.

Why am I the only one who gets this?

I actually get it now. To be honest when I sat through the land selection meeting and the boundary meeting I walked away thinking the plant would be disassembled and the land would be remediated before we took ownership. This is one of the many reasons I thought the 2009 date was a total joke.

Now, I get it. We buy the land put of fencing and do it at a later date. The level of MidWest Gens responsibility I believe is the real sticking point in the negotiations. Remember the wording was changed by the board at the end of the land meeting. I wonder if that wording is causing a problem? Hmmmm... Not some wacked tin foil theory being put out by NSFOCFraud.

So, now kids will be in a construction zone and a remediation zone for at least the first year. Regardless of the location 2009 seems foolish.

yeah that 1st year is quite the HS experience isn't it:

1/ construction
2/ remediation area
3/ no gym
4/ no pool
5/ no auditorium
6/ no sports venues
7/ no varsity sports
8/ triple the bus time for some to get to this place
9/ and a vista like none other
10/ who knows what chemically/ emf wise

I'd add, likely no parking for parents - but what the hell would we be going there to see ?


Yep - I'd love to see the poster for this FULL high school experience - what a load of horse manure this is.

Yep 2009 sure looks like the right choice