VISION PROPERTIES BLUE ISLAND, LLC,

Petitioner,

Respondent.

V.

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY,

Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

James R. Thompson Center

100 West Randolph Street

Suite 11-500

Chicago, IL 60601

RECEIVED

CLERK’S OFFICE

FEB

23

2005

STATE OF ILLINOIS

Pollution Control Board

)

PCBNo.05-/~~

)

(RCRA Appeal

—

90-Day Extension)

Timothy Ramsey

Weinberg Richmond LLP

333 West Wacker Drive

#1800

Chicago,

IL

60606-1288

)

)

NOTICE

PLEASE

TAKE NOTICE

that

I

have

today filed

with

the

office of the

Clerk of the

Pollution

Control Board a REQUEST FOR NINETY DAY EXTENSION OF APPEAL PERIOD,

copies of which

are herewith served upon you.

Respectfully submitted,

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

John J~-Kim

Assistant Counsel

Special Assistant Attorney General

Division of Legal Counsel

1021 North Grand Avenue, East

P.O. Box

19276

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276

217/782-5544

217/782-9143

(TDD)

Dated: February 18, 2005

BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

---

•

RECEIVED

•

CLERK’S OFFICE

BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

rr~ ~

OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

ri~ ~

?005

STATE

OF

ILLINOIS

VISION

PROPERTIES

BLUE ISLAND, LLC,

)

Polluton Control BOar(J

Petitioner,

)

)

PCBNo.05-/

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

)

(RCRA Appeal

—

90-Day Extension)

PROTECTIONAGENCY,

)

Respondent.

)

REQUEST

FOR

NINETY

DAY

EXTENSION

OF APPEAL PERIOD

NOW

COMES the Respondent,

the Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Agency (“Illinois

EPA”), by

one of its

attorneys, John J.

Kim,

Assistant Counsel

and

Special Assistant

Attorney

General,

and,

pursuant

to

Section

40(a)(1)

of the

Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Act

(415

ILCS

5/40(a)(1))

and

35

Iii.

Adm.

Code

105.208,

hereby

requests

that

the

Illinois

Pollution

Control Board (“Board”) grant

an extension ofthe thirty-five

(35)

day period forpetitioning for a

hearing to June

1,

2005,

or any other date not more than a total ofone hundred twenty-five

(125)

days the date of service ofthe Illinois EPA’s

final decision.

In support thereof, the Illinois

EPA

respectfully states as follows:

1.

On January

26,

2005,

the

Illinois

EPA issued

a

final

decision

to

the Petitioner.

(Exhibit A)

2.

On February

17,

2005,

the Petitioner made a written request

to

the Illinois

EPA

for an

extension of time by which

to

file a petition for review,

asking the Illinois EPA join in

requesting that

the Board

extend the

thirty-five day period for filing

a petition

to

ninety days.

The earliest date the final decision could have been received was on January 27,

2005.

(Exhibit

B)

1

---

3.

The additional

time requested by the parties may eliminate the need for a hearing

in

this matter or, in the alternative,

allow the parties

to identify issues and limit the scope ofany

hearing that may be necessary to resolve this matter.

WHEREFORE,

for

the reasons stated

above,

the parties request that the

Board,

in

the

interest of administrative and judicial economy, grant this request for a ninety-day

extension of

the thirty-five day period for petitioning for a hearing.

Respectfully submitted,

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent

Assistant

Counsel

Special Assistant Attorney General

Division ofLegal Counsel

1021 North Grand Avenue, East

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276

217/782-5544

217/782-9143 (TDD)

Dated: February

18., 2005

2

---

ILLINOIS

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY

1021

NORTH G~ND

AVENUE

EAST,

P.O.

Box

19276,

SPRINGFIELD,

ILLINOIs

62794-9276,

21 7-782-3397

JAMES

R. THOMPSON

CENTER,

100

WEST

RANDOLPH,

SurrE 11-300,

CHICAGO,

IL 60601, 312-814-6026

RoD

R.

BLAGOJEVICH, GOVERNOR

RENEE CIPRIANO,

DIRECTOR

Certified

Mail

January 26, 2005

•

7002

3150

0000

1106

3249

VisionProperties Blue Island,LLC

Attn: Mr. Benjamin L. Kadish, Managing

Member

333 West

Wacker Drive,

Suite 1020

Chicago, Illinois

60606

Re:

0310240004

—

Cook

County

Vision

Properties

Blue

Island,

LLC

(Vision Properties)

(Formerly Gilbert & Bennett Mfg.

Co.)

ILDOO5

109525

LogNo. B-149-CA-20 (revised)

Received:

August 6,

2004;

January

7, 2005

RCRA

Permit

Dear Mr.

Kadish:

This is in response

to

your January

7,

2005

submittal indicating that

Page

8

was missing from

Illinois

EPA’s December28, 2004 letter approvingthe

“RCRA

Phase

H

Supplemental

Investigation” submittedAugust5,2004 on your

behalf

byMahion T.

Hewitt

ifi

LPG, Andrews

Environmental Engineering, Inc.

Mr. Hewitt’s submittal addressed corrective action at several

solid waste management units (SWMUs) undergoing corrective action in accordance with

Section

IV ofthe

above-referenced facility’s RCRApermit.

To ensure that Vision Propertieshas adequate time to respond to the requirements in the

December 28, 2004 letter, illinois EPA is taking formal action on your submittal.

Specifically,

Illinois EPAhereby approves yourJanuary 7, 2005

submittal and the RCRA Phase II

Supplemental Investigation submitted by Mr. Hewitt as modifications to the approved corrective

action program for the above-referenced facility, subjectto the following conditions and

modifications (please note that Conditions 2 through 20 below are the same as Conditions

1

through

19 ofthe

December 28, 2004 letter):

1.

This letter shall supersede Illinois EPA’s December 28, 2004 letter.

The

appeal

rights

cited at the end ofthis letter begin with the revised date ofthis second letter.

Any other

specific conditions with time requirements associated with them shall also begin with the

date ofthis letter.

-

2.

The SWMLJs ofconcern at this facility are as follows:

ROCKFORO

—4302

North

Main

Street, Rockford, IL

61103

—(815)98~

LHarrison St., Des Flames,

IL 60016— (847)

294-4000

ELGIN —595 South

State, Elgin,

IL 60123— (847)608-’~i

j~

~‘

St,

Peoria, IL

61614— (309) 693-5463

BUREAU

OF

LAND

-

PEORIA— 7620 N.

University St., Peoria,

IL

61614 —(3

~

1

South

First Street, Champaign,

IL 61820— (217) 278-5800

SPRINGFIELD

—

4500

S. Sixth Street Rd., Springfield, IL 62706

—(21

~

Mall Street, Collinsville, IL

62234 —(618) 346-5120

MARION —2309W. Main

~

) 993-7200

---

Mr. BenjaminKadish

Log No. B-149-~A-20

Page2

a.

SWMIJ 1—Closed (pre-RCRA) Surface Impoundment

b.

SWM(J 2—Water Soluble Waste Oil Drum Storage Area

c.

SWMU 7—Scrap Steel Storage Area

d.

SWMU 10—Trichloroethylene Hazardous Waste StorageArea in Production

Area

e.

SWN1J

12—WastewaterTreatmentSystem

f.

SWMIJ

13—MosquitoCreek

g.

SWMI.J

14—Suspected DisposalArea

h.

SWMU

15—LandfarmNo. 1

i.

SWMIJ

16—LandfarmNo. 2;

j.

SWMEJ

17—SulfuricAcidCleaningHouse

k.

SWMU

19—Trichioroethylene

Hazardous

Waste StorageAreaNortheastof

Production Area.

A

drawing

showing the location ofeachofthese

units

within the facility is attached. In

addition, a table summarizing

the current

status

ofcorrective action efforts at eachof

these SW.MIJs

is also attached.

3.

The Solid Waste ManagementUnit referredto

as Mosquito Creek cannot be considered

clean closed at this time.

Lead contamination above Tier

1 levels set forth in 35

111.

Adm. Code 742 has been found at this unit.

A planto conduct further investigation at

this unitwas approved by Illinois EPA on September

8, 2004.

Once the contamination at

this unit has been adequately characterized, it will be necessary for Vision Properties to.

take appropriate action to ensure the contaminant levels remaining atthis unit meet the

requirements

of

35

Iii. Adm.

Code 742.

4.

TheSPLP

results fpr soil samples collected and

analyzed for metalswhich are

presented

in Table

3 indicate that the detection limit is higher

than theremediation objectives found

in 35 111.Adm. Code742. As such, it appears as though the soil

samples must be

-

collected and analyzed

again.

---

Mr. Benjamin Kadish

LogNo.B-149-CA-20

Page 3

5.

Based

on

boring logs and geologic cross-sections provided in the subject submittal, the

IllinoisEPAconcurs with the

facility’s

conclusion thatthe site

was constructed on top of

historical

fill

material,

and that

the

fill

material is laterally extensive across the site.

6.

The illinoisEPAdoesnot considerSPLP results to be directly comparable to 35 III.

Adm. Code742 Tier 1 GROs

and

thusdoesnot concur

with

the discussion ofthose

comparisons in Section 3.2 ofthe subject submittalor the

analytical

result comparisons

as presentedin Table

5

ofthe subjectsubmittal.

7.

The illinoisEPA

has

determined that, at

this

time, itcannot approve the facility’s request

to delete chloride,

sulfate, iron, manganese, nickel and zinc

fromgroundwater

monitoring atSWMUs 1,

5,

10, 12, 13

and

19 or thecappedhazardouswaste area

(regulated unit)

based on 35

111. Adm. Code 620.420(a)(3).

This

is

due

to the following:

a.

The boring lags and geologic cross-sections providedin the subject submittal

indicate that the uppermostaquifer at the facility extendsto greater than lOft

below the original landsurface and possesses additional criteria specified in 35

Ill. Adm.

Code 620.210.

This information indicatesthat groundwater at the

facility is appropriately classifiedas Class I Groundwater in accordance with 35

Ill. Adm. Code Part 620.

The groundwater parameter monitoring exemption

discussed in 35

III. Adm.

Code 620,420(a)(3) applies to

Class II Groundwater

only.

b.

The facility

has

not

adequatelydemonstrated

that these

groundwater contaminants

arenot the result of

releases

fromsources other

than

the

SWMUs

or theregulated

unit.

The illinoisEPA acknowledges

that

the facility hasbeenworking to

completeabackground evaluation

pursuant

to

35111.

Adm. Code742.410 as

requiredby Condition 4 oftheNovember 13, 2003 IllinoisEPA letter(LogNo.

B-149-CA-15, 16

and

18). The statistical demonstration discussedinSection 3.4

ofthe subjectsubmittal is not appropriate tomeetthe requirementsof35 ill.

Adm. Code742.410. Therefore, that evaluation

has

yet

to

be completed,

and

as a

result, notenough informationis available tomake

that

determination.

c.

Requests to removeparameters fromthegroundwatermonitoring requirements

for thô regulated

unit

mustbe in theformofrequests

to modify Section

II ofthe

Permit

through

a permitmodificationrequest..

8.

The IllinoisEPA

has determined that,

at

this

time, it cannot approvethe~

facility’s request

to delete cadmium, chromium

and

leadfromgroundwatermonitoring at SWMIJs 1

,.5,

10, 12, 13

and

19 or thecappedhazardous waste areabased on currentlyobserved

background concentrations.

This

is

due to the following:

---

Mr. Benjamin

Kadish

LogNo.B-149-CA-20

Page4

a.

The IllinoisEPAdoesnot concur

with

thefollowing statementonPage 13 ofthe

subject submittal:

a comparisonofthe parameters cadmium,chromium

and

leadto that

found in thebackgroundor upgradientwellGil

5

revealsthatthe

background concentrationofthese parameters appearto be greater

than

that

found on-site.”

This statement

is not totally accurate.

While

it appears

true

forchromium

and

leadbased on First

and

Second

Quarter

2004groundwater results,

historically

their concentrationstend to be aboutan order of

magnitude higher

at well G-l10

than

concentrations detectedso

far

atwell

(3-115.

As discussed in Condition 8.c

below, anappropriate backgroundevaluation fortheseparameters

has

yettobe

completedbythe facility. Additionally, the statementquoted above

has

been

true

for

cadmium

in

eastern portions ofthe facility,butnot

the vicinity

ofwellR-110.

At that well,

cadmiumhas

consistentlybeendetected at concentrations several

orders of

magnitude higher than

observedso

far

at well G-1

15.

b.

The IllinoisEPAdoesnot concur withthe following statementfromPage 13,

paragraph 3 ofthe subject submittal:

“...

it isAndrews

Engineering opinionthat

the ubiquitous

nature

ofthe

parameters ofconcernprovide sufficient evidence to document

that

the

groundwater impacts

are

notfromtheremainingSWMtJs.”

The IllinoisEPAacknowledges thatinformation provided inthe subject

submittal indicatesthatmany ofthese

contaminants

are relativelywidespread

across the facility. However, widespread distribution is notin

and

of

itself

sufficient evidenceto demonstrate thatgroundwaterimpacts

are

notfrom

any

of

theSWMIJs. The facilitymustadequately demonstratethat concentrations of

contaminants

in downgradient wells

are

notthe resultofreleases from

the

SWMUs or the regulated unit.

This has yetto be accomplishedforthe units in

question.

c.

As discussedin Comment 8.b above, the illinoisEPAacknowledges that the

facility

has

beenworkingto complete a backgroundevaluation pursuant to 35111.

Adm. Code 742.410 as requiredby Conditio44 oftheNovember 13,2003

IllinoisEPA letter (LogNo. B-149-CA-15,16

and

18). The statistical

demonstration discussedin Section 3.4 ofthe subject submittal is not appropriate

to meet

the

requirements of35 111.Adm. Code742.410. Therefore, that

---

Mr. Benjamin

Kadish

.

.

LogNo.B-149-CA-20

Page

5

evaluation has yet to be completed, and as a result,

notenough

information

is

available

to

make

that determination.

d.

Requests toremove parameters fromthe

groundwater monitoring

requirements

for the regulated

unit

mustbe in theformof requests tomodify SectionIIofthe

Permit

through

a permitmodification request.

9.

Basedon Conditions 7

and

8 above, the IllinoisEPA

has

determined that, at

this

time, it

cannot approvethe facility’srequest foraNo FurtherAction (NFA) determinationfor

groundwater atSWMUs 1,

5,

10, 12, 13, and 19.

10.

The facilitymustcontinue thebackground evaluation forcadmium,

chromium, iron,

lead, manganese, nickel, zinc, chloride

and

sulfate in accordance

with

Condition4 ofthe

November 13,2003 IllinoisEPA letter.

11.

ByFebruary

15,

2005, the facilitymust

submit

a report

of

theresults ofthebackground

evaluationdiscussed in Condition 10 above. The

report must

be submitted as arequestto

modify

corrective action activities atthe facility. It

must

include, butnot be restrictedto

the following information:

a.

Identificationofthe reason forthe subject submittal;

b.

A discussion ofthe statistical method employed in thebackground analysis;

c.

Derived-background values for theCOCsin question

and

calculationsused to

determinethose values;

d.

A

summary

in

tabular

formof analytical datausedinthe evaluation, including

the appropriate Tier

1, Class IGRO

and

the derivedbackground value for each

COC;

e.

Isoconcentration maps for each COC depicting the extent ofcontamination

exceeding appropriately derived background concentrations; and

-

f.

A course ofaction based on the evaluationresults.

12.

The facilitymust continue semi-annual groundwatermonitoring at SWMUs

1,

5,

10, 12,

13 and

19

in accordance with Conditions 2.a through 2.g oftheNovember 13, 2003

illinois EPA letter.

---

Mr. Benjamin

Kadish

Log No. B-149-CA-20

Page 6

13.

The November

13, 2003 illinois EPA letter (Log No.

B-149-CA-15,

16

and

18)

conditionally approveda Tier 2 evaluationfor cis-1,2-DCE, TCE, vinyl chloride, copper,

sulfate at SWMUs

5,

10, and

19, as well as zinc at SWMUs

l,...12 and 13.

The illinois

EPA thus approves the facility’s requestto discontinue monitoring forthose parameters’

atthe respective SWMUs.

Condition

6 ofthe November 13, 2003 letter, which outlines

the steps necessary to eliminate the groundwateringestion exposure pathway forthose

COCs, remains outstanding.

14.

Consideringthat historic fill material has beenidentified to be laterally extensive at the

facility, and that 35

111. Adm. Code 620.420(a)(3) cannot be applied to groundwater

COCa atthe facilitybecause ofthe appropriate groundwater classification, the illinois

EPA wishes to provide the following guidance regardinggroundwater:

a.

The facilitymay be~ab1e

to request excluding some ofthe remaining groundwater

constituents as COCs pursuant to

35111. Adm. Code 742.415(b)(l) by way ofthe

background evaluation required in Conditions

10 and

11

above.

b.

Thefacility mayrequest to utilize the derivedbackground values as GROs in

accordance with 35

Iii. Adm.

Code 742.41 5(b)(2).

c.

For any constituents that exhibit elevatedbackground concentrations that cannot

be excluded from consideration as COCa by way ofa background evaluation,

additional Tier 2 evaluations may be conducted (assuming that the requirements

necessary to allow theuse

of

35 ill. Adm. Code Part 742 risk assessment have

been met). Under these circumstances, the extent ofgroundwater contamination

would be defined as the area(s) where COC concentrations exceed background

based GROs.

d.

The facilitymust meet the requirements of35 Ill. Adm. Code 742, Subpart J to

exclude the groundwater ingestion pathway for any COCa evaluated under Tier

2.

15.

As investigation of groundwaterproceeds at the facility, itmay be necessary to include

additional groundwater constituents to meet the requirements of35 Ill. Adm.

Code

742.1015(b)(2).

16.

Corrective action activities at this facility must meet the requirements of:

(a) the

facility’s RCRA permit; (2) 35

ill.

Adm. Code 724.20 1

and

742;

and

(3)

previous illinois

EPA letters regarding corrective action at this facility (Log No. B-142-CA-1 through B-

l42-CA-19).

.

~.

---

Mr. Benjamin Kadish

Log No. B-149-CA-20

Page7

.

-

17.

As can be seen in the attachedtable, an engineered bather and associated restrictions are

being used at SWMUs 7,

14,

15,

17 and

17.

This barriermust meet the requirements of

35 Ill. Adm. Code 742, Subpart K.

It must be notedthat an institutional control meeting

the requirements of35 ill. Adm. Code 742, Subpart Jmust be met when an engineered

barrier

is used in developing remediation objectives for a project.

A detailed description oftheproposed bathers must be submitted to illinois EPAby May.

•

1,2005.

The information submitted to. illinois EPAmust include:

(1) a description ofthe

characteristics and coflstruction details ofthebarrier;

(2) plans and specifications for thern

barrier;

(3) scaled drawing showingthe horizontal and vertical boundaries ofthe barrier;

and (4) a demonstrationthat the proposed bather meets the requirements of35111. Adn-i.

Code 742, Subpart K.

18.

Remediation objectives forthis project have beenbased on one ofthefollowing:

(1)

industrial/commercial property use; (2) engineered barriers; (3) point ofhuman exposure

at a location other thanthe source; and/or (4) exclusion ofexposure routes.

In

accordance with 35 Ill. Adm. Code 742.1000, an institutional control meeting the

requirements of35111. Adm. Code 742, SubpartJ must be established to ensure that these

facts do not change in thefuture, as theywere fundamental to the establishment ofthe

approved remediation objectives.

-

A proposed institutional controlmeeting the requirements of35

Ill. Adm.

Code 742,

Subpart Jmust be placed on the propertymust be

submitted to illinois EPAby May 1,

2005.

it must be noted that illinois EPA’s internet site (www.epa.state.il.us) contains

guidance regardingproposed institutional controls, including a model environmental land

use control.

This institutional controlmust:

a.

Restrict futureuse ofthe site to commercial/industrial activities (necessary for

SWMUs

5,

10, 12

and

19);

b.

Require maintenance of an engineeredbarrier and restrict SWMIJs

7,

14,

15,

16

andl7;and

c.

Requires maintenance ofthe final cover over SWMU

1

and restricts exposure to

the material remaining atthat unit.

19.

The institutional control for an engineered barrier for SWMIJs

7,

14,

15,

16 and 17 and

for the fmal cover at SWMIJ

1 must be developed in accordance with 35

111. Adm. Code

742,

Subpart J and must also clearly include the following infonnation and restrictions:

---

Mr. Benjamin Kadish

Log No.B-149-CA-20

Page 8

a.

A statementthat contaminated soil/material

is present atthe site, but doesnot pose

a threat

to

human health or the environment, providedan engineered bather or

coverremains over itand the restrictions set fc,rth in th~

institutional control are

met;

-

b.

A scaled

drawing showing

the boundaries ofthe

required engineeredbather or

coverplaced over the contaminated soil/material, relative to the property

boundaries at the site;

C.

A description ofthe construction details ofthe required engineeredbarrier or

coverplaced over the contaminated soil/material;

d.

A requirement that the engineered bather or cover in place over the contaminated

soil/material ofconcern properlymaintained in a future;

e.

A requirement that a site safety planmeeting the requirements of29 CFR be

developed and implemented any time construction/excavation worktakes place in

the contaminated soil/material presentbeneath the engineeredbarrier.

Among

other things, this plan must properlyrestrict worker exposure and any other

person’s exposure to the contaminated soil/material;

f.

A requirement that any soil removed from beneath the engineeredbarrier be

managed in accordance with 35111. Adm. Code, Subtitle G:

Waste Disposal.

20.

35

111. Adm.

Code 742.10 10(d)(8)requires that an ELUC contain scaled maps which

show information about the facility, any remaining contamination at the facilityand any

physical features at the facilityto which the ELUC applies.

a.

The required scaled site maps must specifically show:

(1) The legal boundary ofthe property to whichthe ELUC applies;

(2) The horizontal and vertical extent ofcontaminants ofconcern above

applicable remediation objectives forsoil and groundwaterto which the

ELUC applies;

(3) Any physical featuresto which an ELUC applies (e.g., engineered barriers,

monitoring wells, caps); and

(4) Thenature, location ofthe source, arid direction ofmovement ofthe.

contaminants

ofconcern.

---

Mr. BenjaminKadish

Log No. B-l49-CA-20

Page 9

b.

Exhibit B

of

the

modelELUC-developedby

illinois EPA is comprised

ofthe

•

mapsnecessary to meet

the requirements

of35 ill.

Adm.

Code742.10l0(d)(8). In

developing

such

an exhibit

for anELUCassociated

with

an engineered barrier

or

industrial/commercial land use restrictions:

-

-

(1) If

only

one

drawing

is used topresent all the requiredinformation, then it

must be clearly labeled as Exhibit-B to the ELUC in question.

Many times

•

however, it will be necessary to include more than one drawing in Exhibit B

-

-

to meet the requirements ofthe requirements of35 Ill. Adm. Code

742.1O10(d)(8).

In such cases,

each map shall be given a unique Exhibit

number (i.e., Exhibit B-i, B-2, B-3,

etc.) and labeled as such.

-

.

(2) A cover sheet must be provided for the exhibit which: (a) lists the types of~

scaledmaps that must be provided in the ELUC as required in 35111. Adm.

Code

1010(d)(8); (b) identifies the map withinthe exhibit which addresses the

individual requirements of35 Ill. Adm. Code 742.l010(d)(8)(A), (B), (C) and

-

(D);

and (c) lists the maps which comprise the exhibit by name and number.

(3) The Real Estate Tax Index/Parcel Index Number (PIN) ofthe property in

questionmust be contained on eachmap in Exhibit B.

This letter shall constitute illinois EPA’s final action on the subject submittal.

Within 35 days of

the date ofmailing ofthe illinois EPA’s final decision,.the applicantmay petition for a hearing

before the Illinois Pollution Control Board to contest thedecision ofthe Illinois EPA, however,.

the 35-day period forpetitioning for a hearingmay be extended for a period oftime not to

exceed ninety days by written notice provided to the Board from the applicant and the illinois

EPA within the 35-day appeal period.

.

-

Work required by this letter, your submittals or the regulations mayalso be subject to other laws

governingprofessional services, such asthe Illinois Professional Land SurveyorAct of 1989, the

Professional Engineering Practice Act of 1989, the Professional Geologist Licensing Act, and the

Structural Engineering Licensing Act of 1989.

This letter does not relieve anyone from

compliance with these laws.and the regulations adopted pursuant to these laws.

All work that

falls withinthe scope and definitions ofthese laws must be performed in compliance with them.

-

The Illinois EPA mayrefer any discovered violation ofthese laws to the appropriate regulating

authority.

.

.

-

---

Mr. Benjamin Kadish

LogNo. B-149-CA-20

Page 10

Should you have any questions regarding corrective action at the facilityplease contact William

T. Sinnott, II at 217/524-3310.

Ifyou have any questions regarding groundwater issues please

contact Scott Kaufman

at217/785-6869.

.

—

-

Since~~-~~

Joyce L. I

Manager,

Bureau ofLand

JLM:WTS:bjh\0535~s.doc

-

~‘

•

-

Attachments:

Facility Layout Map

Corrective Action Status

of

the SWMUs

of

Concernat Vision Properties

cc:

Harriet Croke—USEPA Region V

Mablon T. Hewitt

Ill

Section

I.

---

Corrective Action Status ofthe Various

SWMUs

ofConcern at Vision Properties

B-149-CA-20

SWMU

No./Name

Status ofCorreàtive Action Efforts

1--Closed

(pre-RCRA)

Surface Impoundment

.

..

Per 1/29/99 letter: (1)

unitproperly closed as a landfill; (2)

institutional control needed to reflect fact unit is a closed

-

disposal unit and establish appropriate testrictions;

and

(3) post-

closure care must be provided (cover maintenance and

groundwatermonitoring).

Groundwater

investigation/monitoring

efforts have been and continues to be

carried out in accordance with plans

and

reports approved by

Illinois EPA.

5--Water Soluble

Waste Oil Drum

Storage

Area

•

Per 7/21/00 letter, no further action neededprovided: (1) an

institutional control is

establishto restrict future

use offacility to

commercial/industrial activities;

and (2) a groundwater

investigation and,

as necessary, remediation program is

completed.

Groundwater investigation/monitoring efforts have

been and continue to be carried out in accordancewith plans and

reports

approvedby Illinois EPA.

7—Scrap Steel

Storage Area

Per 1/29/99 lette~r,engineered barrier and associated institutional

control needed for soils remaining at unit.

10—TCE Haz

Waste Storage Area at

the Production Area

Same as SWMIJ

5.

.

12—Wastewater

Treatment System

Same as SWMEJ

5

13--Mosquito Creek

-

-

Lead detected atunit.

Add’linvestigation must be conducted in

accordance with Illinois EPA’s September

8, 2004 letter.

Remediate, as necessary, to meet requirements of35 Ill. Admin.

Code 742.

Groundwater investigation/monitoring efforts have

been and continue to be carried out in accordance with plans and

reports approved by IEPA.

-

14—Suspected

Disposal Area

Same as SWMLJ 7

-

15--Landfarm#1

Same as SWM1J7

-

16--Landfarm#2

Same as SWMU7

1 7--Sulfuric Acid

Cleaning House

~

Per 1/29/99 letter, no furtheraction needed if unit is: (1) cleaned;

(2) found to be structurally sound; (3) filled with sand; and (4)

covered with a concrete cap.

19—TCE Haz Waste

Storage Area NE of

Production Area

Same as SWIVIIJ

5

.

.

Vision Properties—S WMU summary

---

-

0

r~

\•

.~

-

-

~

~

~

1~J~

l°l~

~

~

~—~—

I

-

-

I

6

1.

C

A

g

-

_

.

-

a

~

VACIffO

MACV

X~

W~

MACIllA

CAVMAI

.-

n~

I

-

VulVA

MACV

MA

mliii

•

•

-.

—

£

-

r

—

i

4

50

~IAV

F

-

.—..——-—--.—-•—•

-

~

---—~

‘~j

RELE4SABL~

‘I.,

n

.

‘

-9~-

.

-

DEC Z~2004

—~

.,

-

J

1

.

i_Al

Z

BEV~WERMD

~

~

:~-

~

~

___

-~

~

~_

a.,-.,

U

_______________

9

-

•

~

-“-u

/

I

~

~J

2J

~I3~

-

\

uhf

~

~

~

T___

T

-

~

~

.

SCALE:

IN

FEET

--

.

.

-

-

•6~~J

~

:-~

-

•

-

MIlL-

AUGUST

21

llCo.CCt MA

2001—15

Ike:

.0W

MUM

FIG.

.1•

1.~.

---

WE

I N B E PG

I

P

I CH MO N0

333

WEST WACKER

DRIVE

#1800

N-~——~

LLF

.

CHICAGO,

ILLINOIS

60606-1288

TELEPHONE

(312

807-3800

FACSIMILE

(312

807-3903

TIMOTHY

RAMSEY

(312

845-2507

TRAMSEY@WR-LLP.COM

February 17,2005

BY ELECTRONIC

MAIL

(john.kim(li~epa.state.il.us)

John Kim, Esq.

-

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

1021 North Grand Avenue, East

P. 0.Box 19276

Springfield, Illinois 62702

Re:

0310240004

—

Cook

County

(formerly Gilbert & BennettMfg. Co.)

Log No.

B-149-CA-20 (revised)

Dear John:

-

-

-

As

I indicated in

our recent telephone call, we

are representing Vision Properties

Blue

Island, LLC

(“Vision”)

with

respect to

the above-referenced

facility.

Enclosed

herewith is

a

copy of

the letter

dated January

26,

2005

from Joyce L. Munie

of the

Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Agency (“JEPA”)

to

Vision concerning

this facility.

The

IEPA letter dated January

26, 2005

states that Vision has 35

days from the

date of mailing ofthat letter to

petition for a

hearing before the Pollution

Control Board to contest IEPA’s decision but that this 35-day period

may be

extended

for up

to

90

days by written notice

provided to

the

Pollution

Control

Board

from Vision

and

IEPA

within the

35-day appeal

period.

I understand that,

in

fact, the 35-day

appeal period commences

on the date ofVision’s receipt of the January 26, 2005 letter, not the

date of IEPA’s mailing ofthat letter.

IEPA’s

letter dated January

26,

2005

addresses

many

technical

aspects

of the RCRA

Phase

II

Supplemental

Investigation

previously

submitted

by

Vision’s

consultant

to

IEPA.

Vision

objects to

some ofthe

JEPA determinations

set forth in the January 26,

2005

letter.

In

order

to

allow

sufficient

time

for Vision and IEPA to

resolve their differences

concerning

the

61

1713_LDOC

---

WEINBERGj RICHMOND

LLP

John Kim, Esq.

February 17, 2005

Page 2

issues

addressed

in

JEPA’s

January

26,

2005

letter,

Vision

requests

a

90-day

extension

of

Vision’s appeal period with respect to IEPA’s determinations in its January 26, 2005 letter.

Please send me confinnation that IEPA will be submitting this letter,

along with IEPA’s

concurrence to the requested extension, to

the Pollution Control Board within the 35-day appeal

period.

-

Verytruly

Timothy Ramsey

cc:

Benjamin Kadish (via email, w/enclosures)

Kenneth Liss (viaemail,

w/enclosures)

Mahion T. Hewitt III (viaemail,

w/enclosures)

Arnold Weinberg, Esq. (via email, w/enclosures)

JTR/bfp

Enclosures

r

L

611718_I

.DOC

---

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned attorney at

law, hereby certify that on February 18,

2005, I served true

and

correct copies of a REQUEST FOR NINETY DAY EXTENSION

OF

APPEAL PERIOD,

-by placing true and

correct copies in properly sealed and addressed envelopes and by depositing

said

sealed envelopes in

a U.S. mail drop box

located within Springfield,

Illinois, with sufficient

FirstClass Mail postage affixed thereto, upon the following named persons:

DorothyM. Gunn, Clerk

Timothy Ramsey

Illinois

Pollution Control Board

Weinberg Richmond LLP

James R. Thompson Center

333 West Wacker Drive

100 West Randolph Street

#1800

Suite 11-500

Chicago, IL

60606-1288

Chicago, IL 60601

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY,

Assistant Counsel

Special Assistant Attorney General

Division ofLegal Counsel

1021 North Grand Avenue, East~

P.O. Box

19276

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276

217/782-5544

217/782-9143 (TDD)