New Dist. 204 high school secures a home

[Arch]

They need to test more than just the tank area. Somehow that fuel got fed to the turbines and somehow that fuel got delivered to the tank. While I don't doubt the concrete bathtub's effectiveness, that fuel traversed more of the property than just inside the 'tub'. Lubricants, solvents and cleaners for maintaining the equipment also transpired and the stuff was disposed of somewhere... I can venture a guess where.

[Arch]

wvhsparent said:

Well then I think you need to report your data to several sources, starting 1st with the SD/SB.
See if they have any other supporting Docs, that you either cannot get to and/or not available on the net.
Then the IL-EPA next to see if they have anything else.
Then the media {{{{{SHUDDER}}}}}. Although I would doubt their thoroughness.
and along the way keep us in the loop too, and we can also keep pressure on the SB/Admin.

Might you also consider what if anything the phase 2 testing turns up. If it's clean, can we question what they looked for. Or better yet ask now what tests are included in Phase 2.
IIRC Mr. title1parent is an EPA type person. Maybe he can shed some light on what is tested, and do we need to ask for extra tests.

We could save money and do no testing and just press forward. Then, let everyone who is so insistent about going there go there. Let anyone who doesn't like the site opt out for WVHS.

That sounds like a perfectly fair and economical compromise to me. Would you agree?

[twhl]

The SB and DR. D. need to give us the data that he said he would and promised at the Board meeting. That information has been available from Environ since 10/30/07 which is the date of the site walk. The announcement on the Adm's recommendation says nothing, nothing about an additional Phase I or Phase II EPA analysis. They do not list additional testing as a disadvantage or advantage so again they are leaving off some very important information. Since Phase I was apparently completed, why didn't the Adm conveniently include it with the EMF report knowing fully well there is much more data collection on the other environmental issues, so why leave that out? what else are they conveniently leaving out ? If you look at the Environ report, not withstanding the 2 1/2 months to publish it, the subject matter says

"Re: Revised St Johns Property - Eola Road"

Revised from what, show us the original site survey results, when they were taken(specific date and time and location of data recordings) and make a comparison of what the data said then and now!!! We should not assume that the same test equipment was used and calibrated and the data was taken at the same time of day at the same exact coordinates. This would provide the only known historical data for comparison. Where's the beef ????? The first speaker at the Board meeting who I am not disputing has credibility knows fully well that being a degreed EE does not make you an environmental expert in EMF propagation. He and Environ also know that if you do not have the same exact equipment, fully calibrated that you will in fact get different test results. It is easy to argue about something you cant see but only predict and sometimes measure.

[Arch]

We were lied to. Plain and simple.

Either the seller lied flat out to us and Dr. D passed along information he thought was true (only used diesel 2 times and only then for under an hour each time)

OR

He lied to us and made that statement up on the fly to just deflect attention from the concern.

Which is it? He owes us a straight answer to that question.

[gatormom]

archwinsome said:

We were lied to. Plain and simple.

Either the seller lied flat out to us and Dr. D passed along information he thought was true (only used diesel 2 times and only then for under an hour each time)

OR

He lied to us and made that statement up on the fly to just deflect attention from the concern.

Which is it? He owes us a straight answer to that question.

So email him and ask.

[d204mom]

twhl said:

The SB and DR. D. need to give us the data that he said he would and promised at the Board meeting. That information has been available from Environ since 10/30/07 which is the date of the site walk. The announcement on the Adm's recommendation says nothing, nothing about an additional Phase I or Phase II EPA analysis. They do not list additional testing as a disadvantage or advantage so again they are leaving off some very important information. Since Phase I was apparently completed, why didn't the Adm conveniently include it with the EMF report knowing fully well there is much more data collection on the other environmental issues, so why leave that out? what else are they conveniently leaving out ? If you look at the Environ report, not withstanding the 2 1/2 months to publish it, the subject matter says

"Re: Revised St Johns Property - Eola Road"

Revised from what, show us the original site survey results, when they were taken(specific date and time and location of data recordings) and make a comparison of what the data said then and now!!! We should not assume that the same test equipment was used and calibrated and the data was taken at the same time of day at the same exact coordinates. This would provide the only known historical data for comparison. Where's the beef ????? The first speaker at the Board meeting who I am not disputing has credibility knows fully well that being a degreed EE does not make you an environmental expert in EMF propagation. He and Environ also know that if you do not have the same exact equipment, fully calibrated that you will in fact get different test results. It is easy to argue about something you cant see but only predict and sometimes measure.

Unfortunately all of the SB's safety rhetoric is not "legally binding." They said they would post the full reports on ipds.org. We'll see.

As you say, if they were serious about safety they would post all reports completed to date. And they would have done it yesterday.

[Arch]

gatormom said:

archwinsome said:

We were lied to. Plain and simple.

Either the seller lied flat out to us and Dr. D passed along information he thought was true (only used diesel 2 times and only then for under an hour each time)

OR

He lied to us and made that statement up on the fly to just deflect attention from the concern.

Which is it? He owes us a straight answer to that question.

So email him and ask.

We'll see...

[anteater]

I was a bit puzzled by the differing treatment the two newspapers gave to the approval motion. According to the DH, the amendment by Mark Metzger said that any problems would have to be completely remediated prior to closing. The NS story said the amendment basically clarified that the current owners would be liable for the cost of any cleanup. From the beginning of the post, it looks like the former is an accurate description.

I also think d204mom is correct in that the Illinois EPA does not do the testing. A neighbor used to be in the underground tank business, and he told me that they only do the testing if the property is abandoned or there's a possibility of offsite contamination with an uncooperative owner.

[Arch]

Still not even an acknowledgment of the email yet.

[Arch]

Still no response and not even an acknowledgment or a phone call.

[gumby]

I'm not sure you'll ever get an answer. Like I said before, this is a hot button issue. They aren't about to make any admissions on a public forum and hang themselves down the road if somethin goes awry. I can bet that even if you do get a response, it will be very wishy washy and non-committal.

[d204mom]

anteater said:

I was a bit puzzled by the differing treatment the two newspapers gave to the approval motion. According to the DH, the amendment by Mark Metzger said that any problems would have to be completely remediated prior to closing. The NS story said the amendment basically clarified that the current owners would be liable for the cost of any cleanup. From the beginning of the post, it looks like the former is an accurate description.

I also think d204mom is correct in that the Illinois EPA does not do the testing. A neighbor used to be in the underground tank business, and he told me that they only do the testing if the property is abandoned or there's a possibility of offsite contamination with an uncooperative owner.

If you watch the video again the confusion is understandable as the wording of the amendment is very vague.

d204mom said:

ok I watched the video of the meeting. The exact words added to the Midwest Generation directive:

"sign a contract which includes complete remediation of any and all environmental issues."

Glawe came up with the wording.

Not really sure what that means. Doesn't really specify who is going to pay for the remediation or when it has to be done, nor does it define what constitutes an "issue."

[Arch]

For multiple years in the SEC 10-K filings there is mention about still working with the IL EPA to actually identify and quantify environmental issues at their IL power plants and that the results of those may or may not have a financial impact to the company. This goes back several consecutive years now from following the ownership of the place being shuffled around between Unicom, CommEd, Mission Electric, and Midwest Generation. Their mention of issues was for all plants, main base load ones and peakers.

I can not tell if this multi-year delima is due to the EPA being short staffed for their large caseload or if this is being held up by power company lawyers spinning them in circles indefinitely.

I also can not find any 'results' of any testing even though they have documented calling for a phase1 and phase 2 study in june of 1999.

[sushi]

anteater said:

I was a bit puzzled by the differing treatment the two newspapers gave to the approval motion. According to the DH, the amendment by Mark Metzger said that any problems would have to be completely remediated prior to closing. The NS story said the amendment basically clarified that the current owners would be liable for the cost of any cleanup. From the beginning of the post, it looks like the former is an accurate description.

I also think d204mom is correct in that the Illinois EPA does not do the testing. A neighbor used to be in the underground tank business, and he told me that they only do the testing if the property is abandoned or there's a possibility of offsite contamination with an uncooperative owner.

I was at the meeting and remember MM talking about the EPA testing, saying they weren't going to rely on Midwest Gen. testing. I'm too lazy to view the meeting again. Anyone else remember exactly what was said?

[Arch]

sushi said:

anteater said:

I was a bit puzzled by the differing treatment the two newspapers gave to the approval motion. According to the DH, the amendment by Mark Metzger said that any problems would have to be completely remediated prior to closing. The NS story said the amendment basically clarified that the current owners would be liable for the cost of any cleanup. From the beginning of the post, it looks like the former is an accurate description.

I also think d204mom is correct in that the Illinois EPA does not do the testing. A neighbor used to be in the underground tank business, and he told me that they only do the testing if the property is abandoned or there's a possibility of offsite contamination with an uncooperative owner.

I was at the meeting and remember MM talking about the EPA testing, saying they weren't going to rely on Midwest Gen. testing. I'm too lazy to view the meeting again. Anyone else remember exactly what was said?

They are going to order a Phase 2 Environmental study. The EPA will 'review' the results of that.