BEFORE

THE

POLLUTION CONTROL

BOARD

OF THE STATE

OF ILLINOIS

DOWNTOWN SHELL,

Petitioner,

V.

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

)

)

PCB No.

06-

)

(LUST

—

Ninety Day

)

)

NOTICE

RECEIVED

CLERK’S OFFICE

SEP

122005

STATE OF ILLINOIS

Pollufion Control Board

Extension)

Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

James R.

Thompson Center

100 West Randolph Street

Suite

11-500

Chicago, IL 60601

Carolyn S. Hesse

Barnes & Thornburg

Suite 4400

One North

Wacker Drive

Chicago, IL

60606-2833

PLEASE

TAKE

NOTICE

that

I have

today filed

with

the

office of the

Clerk of

the

Pollution

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

copies of which

are herewith served upon

you.

Respectfully submitted,

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent

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:

September 8, 2005

---

RECEIVED

CLERKS OFFICE

BEFORE THE

POLLUTION CONTROL

BOARD

SEP

122005

OF THE

STATE OF ILLINOIS

STATE OF ILLINOIS

Pollution Control Board

DOWNTOWN SHELL,

)

Petitioner,

)

v.

)

PCB No.

06-

3

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

)

(LUST

—

Ninety DayExtension)

PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

Respondent.

)

REOUEST 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

5/4O(a)(l))

and

35

Ill.

Adm.

Code

105.208,

hereby

requests

that

the

Illinois

Pollution

Control Board (“Board”) grant an

extension ofthe thirty-five

(35)

day period for petitioning for a

hearing to

December 9,

2005, or any other date not

more than a total ofone hundred

twenty-five

(125) days from the date of service of the Illinois

EPA’s

final

decision.

In support thereof, the

Illinois EPA respectfully states as follows:

1.

On August

5,

2005,

the

Illinois

EPA

issued

a

final

decision

to

the Petitioner.

(Exhibit A)

2.

On August

12,

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 documentation

provided by the Petitioner represented that the final decision was received on

August 6, 2005.

(Exhibit B)

I

---

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 of any

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

-

John

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: September 8~

2005

This filing submitted on recycled

paper.

2

---

8B/1@/20@5

@9:54

2175228812

CW3M

COMPANY

PAGE

82

ILLINOIS

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY

1021

NORTH

GRAND

AVENUE EASt

P.O.

Box

19276,

SPRINC;(ELD,

ILLINOIS

62794-9276

(2171 782.3397

JAMES

R.

THOW5ONCENT~R,10O

WEST

RANDOLPH,

SUITE 11-300,CHICAC0,

IL

60601

—(312) 514-6026

DOUGLAS

P.

Scori,

DIRECTOR

ROD

ft.

t:

BLACOJEvICH,

GovERNoR

~AUG

~8~IE

CERTIFIED

MAIL

7004

2SJM

0001

~647

4399

217/782-6762

AUG 0

5

21W

Downtown

Shell

Attention: Mr.

Don McCray

Route 3, Box

58

Greenville, Illinois

62246

Re:

LPC

ft 0050055056—Bond County

Greenville

/ Downtown Shell

317 West

College Avenue

LUST Incident 982949

LUST Technical File

De~

Mt. MeCray:

The illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Iflh±iois

EPA) ha?róviewed theHith

Priority

Corrective Action Plan (plan) submitted

for the above-referenced incident.

This information,

dated April

7, 2005, was

received by the

Illinois EPA on April 7, 2005.

Citations io this letter

are from

the Environmental

Protection

Act (Act)

and

35

illinois

Administativé

Code

(35 III.

Adm. Code).

Pursuant

to

Section

57.7(e)(4)(D)

of the Act and

35 Di. Adm. Code 732.405(c), the plan is

rçjected

for

the

following reasons:

1.

Item Number 2 of illinois EPA’s denial

letter comments inthe

December

12, 2003

letter

have not been adequately

addressed.

Specifically;

a.

Item 2.a asked for the contents of the bioremediation

slurry.

While Illinois EPA

acknowledges that a list of materials that “p2aybe included” has beet provided,

a

list of what is actually in the biological slurry and at what quantities has not.

The

actual contents of this slurry must be provid~d.

b.

Item

2.b asked for the impact that

the biorSmediation slurry will have on

groundwater quality.

It is stated “There is no lông term risk to &ound~ater

ROCKFORO

—4302 North Main Strnt.

Rockfo,d,

IL

61103—

315)

987.7750

•

Ots PL.,j,~a—9311 W.

Hsrnson

St.,

Des

Plaine,.

IL

60016-..

(8471 294.4000

ELCIN

—

595

South State.

Eigir~,IL 60123.- (347)

533.3131

•

P~o,oa

—5415

N.

Univnity

St.,

Peoria.

1

61614—13091 693-3463

BURRAU

or

LA.qo

-

Ptoat, —7620

N.

University St.

Peoria,

IL 61614—1309) 693.5462

•

S

South

First 5tre~t.

Champaign,

IL

61320—12173

27S-5800

Mail Stret. CaIiin5viIIe,

IL 62234 —(5161 345-5123

SPRI.~CFIaD

—4500 5.

SiXth

Stnret

Rd..

Sprin5field,

IL

62706—

(2g.~SSI

3)993-7200

MARION

—2309

W.

Ma~

Ii

A

---

08/18/2005

89:54

2175228012

CL’J3M

COMPANY

PAGE

09

Page 2

quality standards in the subsurface.” Thegroundwater quality standards

being

met should be provided.

c.

Item 2.c asked for the level of oxygen in the bioremediation slurry.

This has

not

been provided and, considering that the contents ofthe biorernediation

slurry

has

not been provided, the

amount

of

oxygen

present is necessary to ensure that the

proper

amount

ofbioremediation slurry is introduced to the subsurface.

d.

Item 2.d asked for the basic

design

parameters for the

bioremediation

slurry

(concentration of contaminants to be treated, amountof oxygen required, and how

the oxygen will be delivered to the area to be treated). While very basic design

parameters are included in the report, the above referenced items have not been

addressed.

This

information, along with the information listed in Condition l.a

and

l.c above, is necessary to determine theproper

amount

ofbioremediation

slurry.

Bvsed upon the results

at the four Incidents

referenced on page 15 ofthe subject

submittal, it appears as though the bioremediation slurry does reduce the concentrations

ofindicator contaminants at the subject facilities.

However, what is not known is how

much of the bioremediation slurry is actually needed at each facility including the

subject

facility and whether this bioremediation slurry is more cost effective than alternative

bioremediation methods.

As such. information should be provided

as to bow

it

was

determined

that the

1,088 cubicyards of

“Bacteria, Nutrients, Catalyst”

was the correct

amount for the subject facility.

2.

It is stated that the plan does not include

a cost comparison since there is not a

conventional technology forgroundwater remediation.

It appears as

though the removal

of the geological unit containingthe groundwater, combined with the soil reinediatiori

effort

that has already been completed, would rernediate the

groundwater.

Pursuant to

Sections 57.7(a)(l) and 57.7(c)(4)(D) of the Actand 35

111. Mm.

Code 732.405(e)

and 732.503(b), the associated budget is rejected for the followingreason:

A full financial

review shall consist of a detailedreview of the

costs associated with each element necessary to

accomplish

the goals of the plan as required pursuant to the Act and regulations.

Hems to be

reviewed shall include, but not be limited to, costs associated with any materials, activities, or

services that are included in the budget plan.

The overall goal ofthe financial review shall be to

assure that costs associated with materials,

activities, and services shall be reasonable, shall be

consistent with the associated technical plan, shall be incurred in the performance of corrective

action activities, and shall

not be used

forcorrective action activities in excess of those necessary

to meet the minimum requirethents of the Act.azid regulations (Section 57.7(c)(4)(C) of the Act

and

35 fll. Adm. Code 732.505(c)).

Without an approvable plan, the proposed budget cannot be

fully reviewed.

---

08/10/2085

09:54

2175228012

CW3M

COMPANY

PAGE

04

Page 3

While.a full review of thebudget has not been conducted,

it is rioted that the budget includes

3,320

square feet of4”

concrete replacement.

The areal extent .01the concrete

to be replaced

should be provided,

as well

as documentation that

4” ofconcrete currently exists

over this

area.

Please note

that only the replacement of concrete over those areas which have been excavated

will

be considered reasonable.

In addition, it is noted thata line item of “Injection Point

(Trench)”, quantity of four, at a rate of $500 per

item.

What this line item includes should be

provided.

Pursuant to 35

111.

Adm. Code 732.401, the Illinois EPA requires submittal of arevised plan,

and

budget if applicable, within

120 days of the date ofthis letter to:

Illinois

Environmental Protection

Agency

Bureau ofLand

-

#24

Leaking Underground Storage Tank Section

102 1.North Grand Avenue East

PostOfficeBox

19276

Springfield,

IL

62794-9276

Please submit

all coirespondende

in duplicate and include the Re: block show-n at the beginning

ofthis

letter.

-

-

An underground storage tanl~

system owner or operator may appeal this decision to the illinois

Pollution Control Board.

Appeal rights

are attached.

If you have any questions or need further information, please contact Michael A. Heaton at

217/524-3312.

Sincerely

~LOW~4~

Unit Manager

Leaking Underground Storage Tank Section

Division of.Remediation Management

Bureau of Land

MTL:mh\982949f9.doc

cc:

.

Ms. Carol L. Rowe, PG

—

CW3M Company (Sprin~ield,illinois)

Division File

---

08/10/2EYEi5

08:54

2175228012

CW3M

COMPANY

PAGE

05

Appeal Rights

An underground storage tank owner or operator may appeal this final

decision to the Illinots

Pollution Control Board pursuant

to Sections 40 and 57.7(c)(4)(D) ofthe

Act by filing a petition

for a heating within 35 days after the date ofissuance ofthe final decision. However, the 35-day

periodmaybe extended for a period oftime not to exceed 90

days by written notice torn the

owner or

operator and

the IllinoisEPA within the initial 35-day appeal period,

lithe owner or

operator wishes

to receiye

a 90-day extension, a written request that

includes a statemeril of the

date the final decision was received,

along with a copy of this decision, must be

sent to the

IllinoisEPA as soon as

possible

For

information regarding the filing of an appeal, please contact:

Dorothy Guim, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

State of Illinois

Center

100 West Randolph, Suite 11-500

Chicago,

IL 60601

312/814-3620

For information regarding the filing of an extension, please contact:

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

Division ofLegal

Counsel

1021 North Grand Avenue East

Post OfficeBox 19276

-

Springfield, IL

62794-9276

217/782-5544

---

BARNES&THORNBURG

LLP

Suite 4400

One North Wacker Drive

Chicago, IL 606062833 USA.

(312)

357.1313

Fax (312) 7595646

Carolyn

S. Hesse

(312)

2148301

wwwbtlawcom

Email: chesse~bc1aw.c

IVIS:on

of Legal Counse;

AUG

152005

Environment1

Pr

Agency

otection

August

12,

2005

VIA FACSIMILE & FEDERAL EXPRESS

Mr.

John Kim

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

1 021

North Grand Avenue

East

Springfield,

Illinois

62702

Re:

LPC

#0050055056

-

Bond

Greenville / Downtown

Shell

317

West College Avenue

LUST Incident No.

982949

Request for 90-Day Time Extension

Dear John:

On August 5,

2005,

the

Illinois

Environmental

Protection Agency

issued a

letter with

respect

to

the

above-referenced

LUST

Incident

regarding

IEPA’s

rejection

of the

High

Priority Corrective Action Plan

(Plan)

for the above-referenced

site.

The Plan

proposes the

use of bioremediation by CW3M’s patent pending system. The use of bioremediation is one

of the

topics

we

touched

on

briefly

when

we

met

with

you,

Doug

Clay

and

others

on

April

21, 2005.

At that meeting, we concluded

our discussion of bioremediationhy agreeing

to discuss this topic

further.

CW3M would

like to meet with

you

and Doug Clay at your earliest convenience to

try

to

resolve

the bioremediation

issues raised

in

the enclosed

letter.

A

copy of the

August

5,

2005

letter is attached.

Greenville/Downtown

Shell

believes

that,

based

upon

our

prior

discussions with

the

Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Agency

and

for

other

reasons,

that

we

will

be

able

to

resolve the issues raised

in

the Agency’s letter.

However, we believe that we will not

be able

EXHIBIT

I

Chicago

Elkhart

Fort Wayne

C

I

South

Bend

Washington, DC.

---

Mr. John Kim

August

12, 2005

Page 2

to

resolve

these

issues by

the

deadline

for

filing

an

appeal

of these

issues

to

the

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board.

Thus,

this

is

a

request

for

a

90-day

extension

pursuant

to

the

Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Act

Section

40(a)(1)

and

35

IAC

105.406

to

allow

us

to

continue these discussions and to

try to resolve

the

issues raised

in the enclosed

letter.

If,

for

any

reason,

the

Agency

will

not

seek

the

90-day

extension,

please

notify

me

immediately

so

that

I

may

file

an

appeal

to

the

Board.

If

you

have

any

questions

or

comments,

please do

not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely yours,

BARNES &

THORNBURG LLP

Carolyn S. Hesse

CSHIjmr

Enclosure

cc:

William

Sinnott

Carol

L. Rowe

288400v

I

BARNES &THORNBURC)

up

---

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned

attorney at law,

hereby certify that on

September

8, 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

First Class Mail postage affixed thereto, upon the following named persons:

Dorothy M.

Gunn,

Clerk

Carolyn S. Hesse

Illinois Pollution Control Board

Barnes & Thornburg

James R. Thompson Center

Suite 4400

100 West Randolph Street

One North Wacker Drive

-

Suite 11-500

Chicago, IL

60606-2833

Chicago, IL 60601

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Res

Jo’lih

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)