|
Owen
Mar 14, 2008 20:18:01 GMT -6
Post by doctorwho on Mar 14, 2008 20:18:01 GMT -6
This was the best one I found for perspective: Arch, I just wanted to thank you for the visual. Even I did not realize how big the school was actually going to be. The tennis courts seem to be right over the tank. Didn't they say that the tennis courts were clear? They found no contamination there? The samples were from the retention pond will be; weren't they? heck a couple of feet of dirt on top and no one will know Thankfully they're not selling used cars.
|
|
|
Owen
Mar 14, 2008 20:22:35 GMT -6
Post by d204mom on Mar 14, 2008 20:22:35 GMT -6
My understanding was that they couldn't take samples from underneath the slab. So saying the tennis courts didn't have contamination is kinda true I guess. Or maybe they just meant the smidge that they could sample. For now. Until the concrete comes up.
|
|
|
Owen
Mar 14, 2008 20:24:31 GMT -6
Post by rural on Mar 14, 2008 20:24:31 GMT -6
heck a couple of feet of dirt on top and no one will know Thankfully they're not selling used cars. Too funny! ;D
|
|
|
Owen
Mar 14, 2008 20:30:48 GMT -6
Post by macy on Mar 14, 2008 20:30:48 GMT -6
But yet, if someone other than Midwest Gen cleans it up, it will cost more $$ to the district, no? Wouldn't that bring us closer to the BB site? The district's powerpoint states Midwest Gen is responsible to hand over a safe site. Yikes! What does that really mean? Isn't Midwest Gen paying for cleanup, not us? If I buy a house, I want someone other than the seller making repairs. Yet the seller pays for the cost. So it should be for this purchase as well. I hope Midwest Gen is paying for cleanup. Didn't the district tell us they were? I'm just not sure who is paying for what?
|
|
|
Owen
Mar 14, 2008 20:30:59 GMT -6
Post by Arch on Mar 14, 2008 20:30:59 GMT -6
But yet, if someone other than Midwest Gen cleans it up, it will cost more $$ to the district, no? Wouldn't that bring us closer to the BB site? The district's powerpoint states Midwest Gen is responsible to hand over a safe site. Yikes! What does that really mean? Isn't Midwest Gen paying for cleanup, not us? If I buy a house, I want someone other than the seller making repairs. Yet the seller pays for the cost. Cleanup in this case means this (If someone has more credible evidence, then please post it. I am going by what I read and heard from the SB on this and what I found on the IEPA site about site remediation): Anything identified in the Phase2 that needs remediation will be what is required. Right now, we know of 5 'samples' where there is DFO. Those areas will have to be 'cleaned' only to the point of getting a NFR letter from the EPA (No Further Remediation). To obtain that letter the site is not required to be 100% clean, only that the site does not constitute a threat to human health and the environment and does not require further remediation under this Act, so long as the site is utilized in accordance with the terms of the No Further Remediation Letter. Please re-read that last sentence again because it's a doozy. Only those things currently identified are covered. Once the specific identified contaminants are brought down to the specific required level (residential standards are used for schools) in the specifically identified areas, the letter is going to be issued and anything found after that or elsewhere or rears its ugly head years down the line is OUR problem. If it's not identified now and say for instance the bad chromium gets found later after we build something new on the property 2 years from now that obviously came from the plant operations previously, we're hosed. Our problem. Miss something because only 66 samples were made and something bad happens to lay between where 2 samples were taken, Yup... OUR PROBLEM. If it's found only 3 months after the NFR letter was issued, freeing MWGen of any liability... that's still OUR PROBLEM. If that is not how this is going to work, then please, correct that where it's wrong.
|
|
|
Owen
Mar 14, 2008 20:33:17 GMT -6
Post by doctorwho on Mar 14, 2008 20:33:17 GMT -6
Isn't Midwest Gen paying for cleanup, not us? If I buy a house, I want someone other than the seller making repairs. Yet the seller pays for the cost. Cleanup in this case means this (If someone has more credible evidence, then please post it. I am going by what I read and heard from the SB on this and what I found on the IEPA site about site remediation): Anything identified in the Phase2 that needs remediation will be what is required. Right now, we know of 5 'samples' where there is DFO. Those areas will have to be 'cleaned' only to the point of getting a NFR letter from the EPA (No Further Remediation). To obtain that letter the site is not required to be 100% clean, only that the site does not constitute a threat to human health and the environment and does not require further remediation under this Act, so long as the site is utilized in accordance with the terms of the No Further Remediation Letter. Please re-read that last sentence again because it's a doozy. Only those things currently identified are covered. Once the specific identified contaminants are brought down to the specific required level (residential standards are used for schools) in the specifically identified areas, the letter is going to be issued and anything found after that or elsewhere or rears its ugly head years down the line is OUR problem. If it's not identified now and say for instance the bad chromium gets found later after we build something new on the property 2 years from now that obviously came from the plant operations previously, we're hosed. Our problem. Miss something because only 66 samples were made and something bad happens to lay between where 2 samples were taken, Yup... OUR PROBLEM. If it's found only 3 months after the NFR letter was issued, freeing MWGen of any liability... that's still OUR PROBLEM. If that is not how this is going to work, then please, correct that where it's wrong. yep 66 samples- or about 1 per acre
|
|
|
Owen
Mar 14, 2008 20:37:06 GMT -6
Post by macy on Mar 14, 2008 20:37:06 GMT -6
Isn't Midwest Gen paying for cleanup, not us? If I buy a house, I want someone other than the seller making repairs. Yet the seller pays for the cost. Cleanup in this case means this (If someone has more credible evidence, then please post it. I am going by what I read and heard from the SB on this and what I found on the IEPA site about site remediation): Anything identified in the Phase2 that needs remediation will be what is required. Right now, we know of 5 'samples' where there is DFO. Those areas will have to be 'cleaned' only to the point of getting a NFR letter from the EPA (No Further Remediation). To obtain that letter the site is not required to be 100% clean, only that the site does not constitute a threat to human health and the environment and does not require further remediation under this Act, so long as the site is utilized in accordance with the terms of the No Further Remediation Letter. Please re-read that last sentence again because it's a doozy. Only those things currently identified are covered. Once the specific identified contaminants are brought down to the specific required level (residential standards are used for schools) in the specifically identified areas, the letter is going to be issued and anything found after that or elsewhere or rears its ugly head years down the line is OUR problem. If it's not identified now and say for instance the bad chromium gets found later after we build something new on the property 2 years from now that obviously came from the plant operations previously, we're hosed. Our problem. Miss something because only 66 samples were made and something bad happens to lay between where 2 samples were taken, Yup... OUR PROBLEM. If it's found only 3 months after the NFR letter was issued, freeing MWGen of any liability... that's still OUR PROBLEM. If that is not how this is going to work, then please, correct that where it's wrong. Thank you Arch for your answer. I'm CERTAIN that many in district 204 are under the impression that Midwest Gen will be responsible the entire safety for the site. In fact, if they hand over the site to the district, one would presume they are signing off the site as safe for years to come. Who is responsible for future health problems if and when a contract is signed? Midwest Gen, Ipsd 204 or those that did the environmental studies? I'm thinking it would be midwest gen since the district states that midwest gen is responsible for handing over a safe site? Who is liable in the future if anything (knock on wood) happens in the future in terms of a site related illness?
|
|
|
Owen
Mar 14, 2008 20:38:31 GMT -6
Post by Arch on Mar 14, 2008 20:38:31 GMT -6
1 per acre. Lovely. Some of the known contaminants released from gas and DFO peaker plants only need a couple of parts per billion to be harmful.
This land transaction is so pathetically stupid, it defies logic
|
|
|
Owen
Mar 14, 2008 20:42:23 GMT -6
Post by Arch on Mar 14, 2008 20:42:23 GMT -6
Thank you Arch for your answer. I'm CERTAIN that many in district 204 are under the impression that Midwest Gen will be responsible the entire safety for the site. In fact, if they hand over the site to the district, one would presume they are signing off the site as safe for years to come. Is that true or is Midwest gen liable for signing off the site as safe when the can't prove it? One can only hope they will post the language of the sales contract for district-peer review before signing it to have extra sets of eyes on it to make sure we're not getting screwed. Many like to point out that what is written is what matters, not what is IMPLIED. So far, it's been IMPLIED that MWGEN s responsible for ALL of the cleanup. What is actually WRITTEN though?
|
|
|
Owen
Mar 14, 2008 20:44:40 GMT -6
Post by macy on Mar 14, 2008 20:44:40 GMT -6
Thank you Arch for your answer. I'm CERTAIN that many in district 204 are under the impression that Midwest Gen will be responsible the entire safety for the site. In fact, if they hand over the site to the district, one would presume they are signing off the site as safe for years to come. Is that true or is Midwest gen liable for signing off the site as safe when the can't prove it? One can only hope they will post the language of the sales contract for district-peer review before signing it to have extra sets of eyes on it to make sure we're not getting screwed. Many like to point out that what is written is what matters, not what is IMPLIED. So far, it's been IMPLIED that MWGEN s responsible for ALL of the cleanup. What is actually WRITTEN though? Ok, Who will financially take care of the remediation of the midwest gen property? The district led me to believe it we (as taxpayers) would NOT be paying for that. Is that true?
|
|
|
Owen
Mar 14, 2008 20:47:21 GMT -6
Post by Arch on Mar 14, 2008 20:47:21 GMT -6
One can only hope they will post the language of the sales contract for district-peer review before signing it to have extra sets of eyes on it to make sure we're not getting screwed. Many like to point out that what is written is what matters, not what is IMPLIED. So far, it's been IMPLIED that MWGEN s responsible for ALL of the cleanup. What is actually WRITTEN though? Ok, Who will financially take care of the remediation of the midwest gen property? The district led me to believe it we (as taxpayers) would NOT be paying for that. Is that true? From what I can determine (and this is only my opinion): MWGEN is responsible for anything required to obtain a NFR letter. Nothing further.
|
|
|
Owen
Mar 14, 2008 20:51:23 GMT -6
Post by macy on Mar 14, 2008 20:51:23 GMT -6
Ok, Who will financially take care of the remediation of the midwest gen property? The district led me to believe it we (as taxpayers) would NOT be paying for that. Is that true? From what I can determine (and this is only my opinion): MWGEN is responsible for anything required to obtain a NFR letter. Nothing further. Arch, For clarification purposes, what is a NFR letter?
|
|
|
Owen
Mar 14, 2008 20:58:59 GMT -6
Post by macy on Mar 14, 2008 20:58:59 GMT -6
From what I can determine (and this is only my opinion): MWGEN is responsible for anything required to obtain a NFR letter. Nothing further. Arch, For clarification purposes, what is a NFR letter? I agree, I just looked up a NFR (No futher remediation letter). No further comment!
|
|
|
Owen
Mar 14, 2008 21:12:01 GMT -6
Post by proschool on Mar 14, 2008 21:12:01 GMT -6
Wow my wife just pointed out that the Com Ed station is about three times the size of the football stadium.
The peaker plant is bigger than the stadium too.
|
|
|
Owen
Mar 14, 2008 21:44:29 GMT -6
Post by doctorwho on Mar 14, 2008 21:44:29 GMT -6
Wow my wife just pointed out that the Com Ed station is about three times the size of the football stadium. The peaker plant is bigger than the stadium too. Everytime I look at this superimposed map I really just can't believe this is happening--
|
|