B E F ORE T HE P OL L UT I ON CO NT ROL B OARD
OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
PRIME LOCATION PROPERTIES , LLC,
)
Pet i t i oner,
)
v .
)
PC B 09- 67
)
(LU S T Pe rm it A p p eal)
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
P R OT E C T I ON AGE NC Y,
)
R esp o n d en t.
)
NOT I CE OF F I L I NG AND P ROOF OF S E RV I CE
To:
John T. Therriault , Acting Clerk Carol Webb
I l l i no i s Po l l uti on Co ntrol Board
H eari ng O ffi cer
100 W est Randolph Street
Illinois Pollution Control Board
State of Illinois Building, Suite 11-500
102 1 N orth G rand A venu e East
Chicago, IL 60601
P.O. Box 19274
Spr i ng f i e l d, I l l i noi s 62 794- 9274
T h o ma s D avis
A ssi st ant Att orn ey G eneral
50 0 S . Secon d S t reet
Spr i ng f i e l d, I L 62 706
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have today electronically filed with the Office of the Clerk of
t he Il l i no i s Po l l uti on Co ntrol Board , pursu ant t o B oard Pro cedu ral Ru l e 10 1.3 02 (d), a
PET ITION ER ’S B RIEF , a copy of whic h is her e with se r v e d u pon the hea r ing off ic e r and upon the
at t orn ey s of record i n this cause.
Th e un dersigned h ereby cert i fi es t hat a t rue an d co rrect cop y of t his No t i ce of Fi l i ng, t ogether
w i t h a cop y of t he d ocu men t descri bed abo ve, w ere t od ay serve d u po n the hearing offic er and cou nsel
o f re co rd o f all pa rties to this cau se b y en clo sin g sam e in en velo p es ad d re sse d to su ch atto rn eys an d to
said hearing officer with postage fully prepaid, and by depositing said envelopes in a U.S. Post Office
Mailbox in Springfield, Illinois on t
th
he 29 day of June, 2009 and to counsel of record via email .
Respectfully submitted,
PRIME LOCATION PROPERTIES , LLC, Petitioner
B Y:
MOHAN, AL E WE L T , P R I L L AMAN & ADAM I
B Y:
/s/ Patrick D. Shaw
Patrick D. Shaw
Fred C. Pril l aman
Patri ck D . Shaw
MOHAN, AL E WE L T , P R I L L AMAN & ADAM I
1 North Old Capitol Plaza , Suite 325
Spr i ng f i e l d, I L 62 701- 1323
Te l e phon e : 21 7/ 528- 2517
F a c s i mi l e : 21 7/ 528- 2553
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 29, 2009
1
All citations herein are to the Agency’s record admitted at the hearing. A list of the
documents in the record are attached hereto, and the citations are to these documents. For
example, document 1 in the record is cited as (R.1)
2
BEF ORE TH E P OLLUTI ON CO NTROL BO ARD
OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
P RI M E L OCAT I ON P ROP E RT I E S , L L C,
)
P etit ion er,
)
)
v.
)
PCB No. 09 - 67
)
(U S T A p p eal)
I L L I NOI S E NVI RONM E NT AL)
P ROT E CT I ON AGE NCY,
)
R esp o n d en t.
)
P ETI TI ONER’ S BRI EF
N O W C O M E S Pe ti ti o n er, Prim e L o catio n Pro p erti es, L L C , b y it s u n d ersig n ed co u n sel,
and f or i t s bri ef , st at es as f oll ow s:
I .
IN T R OD U C T ION
T h e A gen cy h as d en ied the s u b ject co rr ectiv e actio n p lan an d b u d get so lely b ase d u p o n it s
uns uppo r t e d f i ndi ng t ha t t he wor k e nt a i l s a ne w r e l e a s e r e por t e d i n 2 006, a nd not a r e - r e por t i ng
o f a 2 0 0 1 rele a s e th a t h a s b e e n an d co n tin u e s to b e th e su b je c t o f rem e d ia tio n effo rts at th e site .
Since t he A g ency ’ s r ecord sho
1
w s, and t he A g ency has previously f ou nd , t hat pr od uct had b een
rem o v ed f rom the tan k s in 2 0 0 1 , the A gen cy ’s f ind ing is f actu ally err o n eo u s. Th e A gen cy ’s
de c is ion is a ls o n ot s uppo rte d b y the Boa rd’s re gula tions a nd is c ontra ry to the Boa rd’s dec is ion
in S w if -T-F o o d M art v . I E P A , PC B 0 3 -18 5 ( M ay 0 , 2 0 0 4 ). Sin ce th e A gen cy ’s de cisio n is
erroneous as a matter of fact and law, it’s denial should be overruled.
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 29, 2009
3
II .
S TATEM ENT OF F ACTS
A .
Rel e a s e a nd Si t e Inve s t i g a t i on.
O n A ugust 1, 20 01 , a r el ease f r om t he u nd er g r ou nd st orag e t ank s at t he su bject si t e w as
r epo r t ed an d assi g ned i nciden t nu m ber 200 1-13 14 . ( R . 2) I n ad dit i on t o f i l i ng t he twen t y day
r e por t ( R. 3) a nd f or t y - f i ve da y r e por t ( R. 4) , t he owne r a ppl i e d f or pe r mi s s i on f r om t he Of f i c e of
the State F ir e M arsh all to rem o v e all sev en o f the U S T s f rom the s it e o n A u gus t 21 , 2 0 0 1 . ( R . 4 )
The pe r mi t t o r e move t he t a nks i ndi c a t e d t ha t no ne of t he t a nks ha d b e e n u s e d s i nc e M a y 17 ,
1987 . ( R. 4) T he c ons ul t a nt vi s i t e d t he pr ope r t y on Aug us t 13 , 20 01 a nd r e por t e d t ha t ba s e d u pon
a visual i nsp ect i on and petr oleum od ors, a r el ease had occu r r ed, t he ex t ent and n at ure of w hich
was s t i l l un known. ( R. 4)
A sub sequ ent vi si t t o the si t e r evealed prob l em s w i t h the l ocati on of som e of t he tanks:
[ C on sult an t s] w ere at t he si t e on W edn esda y, O ct ob er 24 , 20 01 , t o u nco ver
t he t ank s i n p r e par at i on f or t he i r r e m oval t he f ol l ow i ng day . Upo n t he
u n v eilin g o f the ta n k s it w a s d eterm ine d th a t rem o v a l of th em w o u ld
j e opa r di ze t he i nt e gr i t y o f t he bu i l di ng, be c aus e on e t ank w as c l os e t o the
f oun dat i on w hi l e an ot he r w as al m os t c om pl e t e l y u nde r t he f oun dat i on. The
f oun dat i on w as i n p oor c ond i t i on f ur t he r j e opa r di z i ng s af e t y o f r e m oval
ac t i vit i e s . Add i t i ona l l y, the othe r tank s w e r e inacc e s s i ble du e to the loc ati on
of a l ow c ano py. Tan ks w e r e al s o p os i t i one d n e xt t o f oot i ngs f or t he c ano py
a n d pu m p isl a n d stru ctu re. T h e tan k s co u ld n o t b e rem o v ed a t this tim e to
e ns ur e t he i nt e gr i t y o f t he pr ope r t y b ui l di ng and t he c onn e c t e d b us i ne s s . The
p o siti o n o f o n e fill ca p ind ica ted t h a t the t a n k s lo ca ti o n co u ld b e in th e rig h t-
of-way , the removal of this tank would have to be coordinated with the city .
W hil e t he t an ks w ere unco vered od or a nd disc olora t i on w ere present , w hich
pr ovi de d e vi de nc e a r e l e as e ha d o c c ur r e d.
( R. 5)
The c ons ul t a nt c a nc e l l e d t he t a nk pul l t ha t ha d b e e n s c he dul e d f or Oc t obe r 25 , 20 01, a nd
began the process of preparing a site classification work plan to determine the severity of
c ont a mi na t i on a t t he s i t e . ( R. 6)
On Fe br ua r y 4, 20 02, OSFM i s s ue d a de t e r mi na t i on t ha t t he
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 29, 2009
4
owne r wa s e l i g i bl e t o s e e k p a ymen t of c os t s i n e xc e s s of $1 5,000 for a l l s e ve n t a nks . (R. 6)
A s i t e i nve s t i g a t i on pl a n wa s ul t i mat e l y a ppr ove d a nd pe r f or med , a f t e r whi c h t he
con sult ants r epo r t ed that t he sit e sho uld b e cl assi f i ed as hig h p r i ori t y because con t am i nati on had
m ig rated to th e b o u n d ary o f the s it e. ( R . 1 2 ) Th e A gen cy acce p ted the s it e class if ication . ( R . 1 5 )
H ow ever, because si t e ob st acl es pre ven t ed the con sult ant f r om adv ancing som e of t he p l ann ed
bor i ng a nd moni t or i ng we l l s , t he Ag e nc y a ppr ova l wa s c ondi t i one d o n a ddi t i ona l i nve s t i g a t i on
a nd te s ting ac tivitie s being condu c te d as a part of corre c tive ac tion. (R.15)
B.
Si t e I nve s t i gat i on Cor r e c t i ve Ac t i on
The c ons ul t a nt s pr opos e d t he f i r s t c or r e c t i ve a c t i on pl a n i n Aug us t of 20 02. ( R. 16) Th e
plan r ei t er at ed that al l prod uct had b een r em ov ed f r om t he U ST s af t er t he inci den t had been
r e por t e d, a nd t ha t t he pr e vi ous a t t e mpt t o r e move t he USTs ha d b e e n b l oc ke d b y t he pr e s e nc e of
structures at the site . (R.16)
The Cons ul t a nt pr opos e d r e movi ng a l l of t he t a nks , t he
co n tam ina ted b ack f il l su rr o u n d ing the tank s, an d if n ece ssa ry , “the b u il d ing, can o p y , an d p o ssib ly
unde r g r ound r e t a i ni ng wa l l s wi l l be r e qui r e d. ” ( R. 16)
The first corrective action plan was partly rejected on October 22 , 2002 because the
Ag e nc y c onc l ude d t ha t r e movi ng “ t he USTs , c ont a mi na t e d b a c kf i l l , t he bu i l di ng , c a nopy , a nd
unde r g r ound r e t a i ni ng wa l l s . . . a r e no t r e qui r e d for c or r e c t i ve a c t i on a t t hi s t i me.” ( R. 18)
Ins t e a d, t he Ag e nc y r e qui r e d “ fur t he r i nve s t i g a t i on t o d e t e r mi ne whi c h, i f a ny , of t he USTs ha d a
release” and “[a]fter further investigation has been performed and the full extent defined, some or
all o f the ab o v e activ it ies m ay b e ap p rov ed . ” ( R . 1 8 )
On M a y 14 , 20 03, t he c ons ul t a nt s pe r for med pa r t of t he hi g h p r i or i t y s i t e i nve s t i g a t i on
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 29, 2009
5
corr ect i ve act i on plan app r ov ed b y t he A g ency . ( R . 19 )
Sp eci f i cal l y , t he co nsu l t ant sa m pled as
near as po ssi ble t o the U ST s and pu m p isl and l ocati on s. ( R . 19 ) H ow ever, si t e ob st acl es
obs t r uc t e d t he i nve s t i g a t i on r e qui r e d b y t he Ag e nc y , s o o n Ju l y 30 , 20 03, t he c ons ul t a nt fi l e d a
P h ase I C o rr ectiv e A ction Plan , w h ich so u ght to rem o v e the U S T s an d sit e o b stacles , an d p erf o rm
t he i nve s t i g a t i on a c t i vi t i e s t ha t woul d p e r mi t de f i ni t i on of t he pl ume of c ont a mi na t i on. ( R. 19)
U p o n r em o v ing the b u il d ing an d u n d erg rou n d sto rag e tan k s, sam p li n g w o u ld b e p erf o rm ed an d if
t he s oi l s ur r ound i ng t he t a nks we r e f ound t o b e un c ont a mi na t e d, c or r e c t i ve a c t i on woul d b e
de e med c ompl e t e . ( R. 19)
O n O cto b er 3, 20 0 3 , the A gen cy d en ied the P h ase I C o rr ectiv e A ction Plan to th e ex ten t i t
pl a nne d t o r e move s i t e ob s t a c l e s i n o r de r t o d e f i ne t he e xt e nt of c ont a mi na t i on. ( R. 22) T he
r eason g i ven w as t hat “[ t ] he f ull extent of soil and g r ou nd w at er con t am i nati on has no t been
defined to date,” and thus “the removal of the USTs , contaminated backfill , the building, canopy,
a nd unde r g r ound r e t a i ni ng wa l l s . . . a r e no t r e qui r e d for c or r e c t i ve a c t i on a t t hi s t i me.” (R. 22)
Fu r t herm ore, t he b ud g et f or dis po si ng of l i qu i d in t he tanks w as r ej ect ed b y t he A g ency because
“as m u ch o f the regu lated su b stan ce as p o ssib le ha d b een r em o v ed so . . . n o t m u ch , if an y , li q u id
s houl d r e mai n i n t he USTs . ” ( R. 22 )
The c ons ul t a nt t he n p r oc e e de d t o g a i n a c c e s s t o a dj oi ni ng pr ope r t i e s a s a ppa r e nt l y “ t he
onl y wa y t o d e f i ne t he pl ume . ” ( R. 23) Ev e n t hi s a ppr oa c h wa s c ompl i c a t e d b y t he l a c k o f r oom
t o co nd uct t est i ng on on e of t he p r op er t i es t o the W est . ( R . 23 ) Based up on t his addit i on al
t est i ng, t he co nsu l t ant def i ned t he p l um e of con t am i nati on , bu t r epo r t ed that i t w as “i m po ssi ble”
t o i de nt i f y whi c h t a nks ha d e xpe r i e nc e d a r e l e a s e wi t hout r e movi ng t he t a nks . ( R. 23) Th e
c ons ul t a nt pr opos e d d oi ng s o u nde r t he ob s e r va t i on of t he on - s i t e OSFM r e pr e s e nt a t i ve , who
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 29, 2009
6
w o u ld d eterm ine w h ich tank s h ad h ad a r eleas e. ( R . 2 3 ) A cce ss to the tan k s w o u ld s ti ll r eq u ir e
r e mova l of t he bu i l di ng a nd c a nopy . ( R. 23 )
The Agency rejected any cleanup activities beyond the area of two of the seven tanks . (R.
2 4 ) T h ese are t h e tan k s clo ses t t o the p rop erty li n e w h ere co n tam ina ti o n h ad f low ed . ( R . 2 3 )
W hil e t he co nsu l t ant i nd i cat ed that i t w as i m po ssi ble t o d et er m i ne w hich t ank s had had a r el ease
f r om t he inf orm at i on g at hered t o d at e, t he A g ency r eview er ’ s no t es i nd i cat e t hat he had
dete rmined that “ [f]rom the informa tion s ub mitte d to date o nly US T # 2 & # 3 have s ho wn
e vi de nc e of a po s s i bl e r e l e a s e . Onl y t he pl ume a r ound s oi l bo r i ng s Ba y- 2 & M W - 6 wi l l be
r e i mbur s a bl e un de r t hi s i nc i de nt . ” ( R. 1)
C.
Cor r e c t i ve Ac t i on
In re s ponse to the Age ncy’s re s tric tions on performing corre c tive ac tion a t this time, the
con sult ant subm i t t ed a plan and bu dget : “ W hil e w e disa g r ee wit h the A g ency ’ s con t enti on t hat
onl y USTs #2 & #3 ha ve s hown e vi de nc e of a po s s i bl e r e l e a s e , i n o r de r t o move t he s i t e f or war d,
t he bu dg e t ha s be e n modi f i e d s o t ha t no t hi ng be y ond t he pr opos e d e xc a va t i on a nd r e mova l of
U ST S # 2 & #3 i s i nclud ed in t his bu dget . Furt herm ore, i f other U ST s ar e f ou nd t o h ave r el eased
whi l e on - s i t e , t he y wi l l be a ppr opr i a t e l y a ddr e s s e d. ” ( R. 25) Th i s pl a n wa s a ppr ove d b y t he
Ag e nc y on Fe br ua r y 24 , 20 06. ( R. 27)
I n 2 006, t he owne r s hi p o f t he pr ope r t y c ha ng e d a nd t he ne w owne r , Pr i me L oc a t i on
P rop erties , LLC, n otified the Agency . (R.28 ) T he Agency accepted the n otice , informing P rime
Location that it is now responsible to finish the clean-up of the property , but it may be eligible for
reimb ursement from the LUS T Fund, if OSF M determines that it is eligible . (R.29) Prime
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 29, 2009
7
L oc a t i on s ubmi t t e d a n a men de d b udg e t f or t he a ppr ove d c or r e c t i ve a c t i on pl a n o n Ju l y 18 , 20 06,
wi t h a l e t t e r fr om OSFM , i ndi c a t i ng t ha t Pr i me L oc a t i on was e l i g i bl e for r e i mbur s e men t fr om t he
fund for c os ts a s s oc ia te d with cle a ning up re le a s e s from a ll s e ve n ta nks . (R.30)
In December of 2006, corrective action activities were performed at the site , and in the
presence of a r epresent at i ve o f t he O SF M , al l seven tank s w er e r em ov ed. “Th e O SF M of f i ci al
on-site during tank removal activities confirmed that all seven (7) tanks on-site had releases . As
a r esult , I nciden t N o. 20 06 15 58 w as i ssued on D ecem ber 13, 20 06 and w as no t ed as being a r e-
r epo r t i ng of t he 2 00 11 31 4 inci den t . ” ( R . 36 ) The I EM A H azm at R epo r t r ecei ved by t he A g ency
i nd i cat ed that ho l es i n the t ank s at t he sit e had caused a r el ease, bu t t hat t he re l ease had been
di s c ove r e d “ 8/ 15/ 01 9: 00 AM . ” ( R. 34)
A s a resu lt o f the co n f ir m ation o f r eleas es f rom all sev en o f the tan k s an d ad d it ion al so il
sam ples t aken i n the vici nit y of t he re m ov ed tanks, t he co nsu l t ant’ s l i censed prof essi on al
e ng i ne e r s a t En vi r onme nt a l M a na g e men t , Inc . , pr opos e d t he c or r e c t i ve a c t i on pl a n t ha t i s t he
su b ject of this B o ard ap p eal:
E M I is en clo sin g a C o rre ctive A ction In v estig a ti o n Pla n a n d B u d g et t o
de l i ne at e t he c ont am i nat i on on t he e as t s i de of t he pr ope r t y i n t he vi c i ni t y o f
t he othe r f i ve t ank s . Ear l i e r s i t e i nve s t i gati on ac t i vi t i e s c ond uc t e d d i d n ot
pro perly define t he soil con t am i na t i on at t his faci l i t y. C on fi rm ati on sam ples
collected during the co rrective action ex cavation activities are also included .
Conf i r m at i on s am pl i ng w as al s o c ond uc t e d d ur i ng t ank r e m oval ac t i vi t i e s on
the ea st side o f the pr o p erty . B a sed o n t h ese co n firm a ti o n sa m p les, it is
e vi de nt that the othe r tank s on - s i t e w e r e in f ac t r e s pon s i ble f or c ontr i buti ng
to the r e le as e initially r e por te d.
( R. 36)
The Ag e nc y r e vi e w not e s c onc l ude t o t he c ont r a r y t ha t t hi s i s “ NO T a r e - r e por t i ng of
I nc i de nt #2 0011 1314 . T he r e wa s no t a ny e vi de nc e of c ont a mi na t i on i n t hi s a r e a un t i l t he USTs
were re move d 3 ye a rs la te r . T here will have [to b e ] a new de ductible . It wa s als o a pla nned ta nk
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 29, 2009
8
pu l l . ” ( R . 37 ) Th e A g ency den i al l et t er st at es t hat
D u rin g t h e inv estig a ti o n a ctivities a sso cia ted w it h In cid en t # 2 0 0 1 1 3 1 4 so il
and gr oun dw at e r c ont am i nat i on w e r e no t i de nt i f i e d i n t he vi c i ni t y o f USTs #3
t hro ug h # 7. H ow ever, t hree yea rs l ater du ri ng t he rem ov al of t hese U ST s,
s oi l c ont am i nat i on w as i de nt i f i e d i n t he s e ar e as . The r e f or e , I nc i de nt
#200 6155 8 i s a ne w r e l e as e an d i s no t c ons i de r e d a r e - r e por t i ng of I nc i de nt
#200 1131 4.
( R. 38)
As a result of finding that there has been a new release , which is not a re-reporting of the
2 0 0 1 r eleas e, the A gen cy d en ial lett er f u rt h er r eq u ir es 2 0 -da y an d 4 5 -da y r ep o rt ing req u ir em en ts
be f ulf i l l ed, a si t e i nv est i g at i on plan, and ear l y act i on r epo r t s. ( R . 38 ) The b ud g et w as denied
s ol e l y f or t he r e a s on t ha t t he pl a n wa s be i ng de ni e d. ( R. 38) In s ummar y , t he Ag e nc y ’ s de ni a l of
corrective action is based solely upon a finding that the corrective action is not for the 2001
r el ease.
III .
ARGUM ENT
A.
BURDEN OF P ROO F AND S COPE OF REV I EW
The bu r de n o f pr oof i s on t he pe t i t i one r i n t he s e pr oc e e di ng s t o s how t ha t t he a ppl i c a t i on
woul d n ot vi ol a t e t he Ac t or Boa r d r e g ul a t i ons . “ The s t a nda r d o f r e vi e w unde r Se c t i on 40 of t he
A ct i s w h eth er t h e ap p li catio n , as su b m it ted to th e A gen cy , w o u ld n o t vio late t h e A ct an d B o ard
r e g ul a t i ons . ” Swi f - T- Foo d M a r t v. I EPA, PCB 03- 185 ( M a y 0, 20 04) . T hi s s t a nda r d r e f l e c t s t he
p ri n cip le t h at t h e A gen cy d o es n o t dictate m ean s an d m eth o d s o f r em ed iati n g co n tam ina ti o n ; i t i s
the obligation of the owner to retain a licensed professional engineer to design and certify the
p lan s. Fu rt h erm o re, the A gen cy ’s de n ial lett er f ram es th e issu es o n ap p eal. I d . Th e lett er sh o u ld
co n tain “a n ex p lan ation o f the S ectio n s o f this A ct [ an d r egu lati o n s p rom u lg ated thereu n d er]
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 29, 2009
2
The consultant explained that although “[t]he tanks were inspected to ensure as much
substance as possible had been removed . . ., these are tanks that have leaked contamination into
the environment and if regulated substance can get out, water can get in through the same
pathways, and may need to be disposed of at the time of removal.” (R.23)
9
whi c h ma y be vi ol a t e d i f t he pl a ns we r e a ppr ove d” a nd “ a s t a t e men t of s pe c i f i c r e a s ons why t he
A ct an d the regu lati o n s m ig h t no t be m et i f the p lan w ere ap p rov ed . ” ( 4 1 5 I L C S 5 /57 . 7 (c)( 4 )( D ))
B.
THE 20 06 I NCI DENT W AS A R E- REP ORTI NG O F THE 20 01 I NCI DENT.
T h e A gen cy rec o rd in d icates th at all s ev en tan k s w ere tak en o u t o f se rv ice p rio r to 2 0 0 1 .
( R . 4) W hen a r el ease w as r epo r t ed in 20 01 f r om t he seven t ank s, t he co nsu l t ant r em ov ed as m uch
fr e e pr oduc t fr om t he t a nks a s po s s i bl e . (R. 4) Inde e d, t he Ag e nc y r e j e c t e d a bu dg e t i t e m i n 2 003
f or cost s t o remo ve re m ai ning f r ee pr od uct i n the t ank s because t here w as no l on g er any prod uct
i n t he t a nks .
2
( R. 22)
T he r e i s s i mpl y no e vi de nc e i n t he r e c or d t o s uppo r t t he Ag e nc y ’ s f i ndi ng
t ha t t he r e wa s a n a ddit i ona l r e l e a s e fr om t a nks t ha t ha d c l e a r l y be e n a ba ndon e d p r i or t o 2 001 a nd
dr a i ne d i n 2 001.
T h e o n ly thin g tha t hap p en ed at t h e site sinc e 2 0 0 1 is t h at t h e A gen cy h as b een takin g it s
c us t oma r y r ol e of pr ot e c t i ng t he L UST f und by pr e c l udi ng t he t y pe of a c t i vi t i e s t ha t woul d b e
man da t e d b y a ny ot he r di vi s i on of t he Ag e nc y . T he pr e s e nc e of t a nks ne xt t o c r umbl i ng bu i l di ng
f o u n d ation s an d u n d er can o p ies cau sed the A gen cy to b e co n cern ed that the L U S T f u n d w o u ld
h av e to p ay d em o li ti o n co sts. C o n seq u en tl y , the A gen cy d ir ected sit e inv estig ation activities in
hope s of r ul i ng ou t t he ne e d f or s i t e de mol i t i on. ( R. 15; R. 18) Howe ve r , t he i nve s t i g a t i on
directed by the Agen cy was not co m pleted because site obstacles precluded making soil borings
in lo catio n s n ear the tank s. ( R . 1 5 ; R . 1 9 ) D esp it e rep eated r eq u ests f o r ap p rov al t o r em o v e site
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 29, 2009
10
o b stacles , the A gen cy im p o sed a classic C atch -22 o n the p rojec t:
1.
Remov a l of site ob s ta c le s is nec e s s a ry to inves tiga te the exte nt of conta mination;
2. S i t e ob s t a c l e s c a nnot be r e move d wi t hout fi r s t i nve s t i g a t i ng t he e xt e nt of
c ont a mi na t i on.
D espit e t he A g ency ’ s ef f ort s t o tr y and r ule out a r el ease f r om t he tanks that m i g ht t r i g g er
exp ensive dem oli t i on costs , i t w as “i m po ssi ble” t o identi f y w hich t ank s had exp er i enced a r el ease
without removing the tanks . (R.23) Those tanks were removed in 2006 in the presence of a
r e pr e s e nt a t i ve f r om OSFM , a nd uns ur pr i s i ng l y , ho l e s we r e f ound i n t he t a nks a nd t he i nc i de nt
was r e por t e d a s a r e - r e l e a s e of t he 20 01 i nc i de nt . ( R. 34; R. 36)
The r e i s s i mpl y no e vi de nc e t o s uppo r t t he Ag e nc y ’ s f i ndi ng t ha t t he 20 06 i nc i de nt
numbe r wa s a ny t hi ng bu t f ur t he r c onf i r mat i on t ha t a l l of t he t a nks ha d e xpe r i e nc e d a r e l e a s e by
2001 . Re - r e por t i ng s of r e l e a s e s a r e no t un c ommon. I n S wi f - T- Foo d M a r t v. I EPA, PCB 03- 185
( M a y 0, 20 04) , t he Boa r d f ound t ha t t he Ag e nc y ha d e r r e d i n d i s put i ng t he pe t i t i one r ’ s c ont e nt i on
that a 1996 release was merely a re-reporting of an incident reported in a previous year . In
M i ck’s Garag e v. I EP A , PC B 03 - 12 6 (D ec. 18 , 20 03 ) , t he A g ency successf ull y ar g ued t hat a r e-
r epo r t i ng of a previou s r el ease had occu r r ed at t he ti m e t he tanks w er e r em ov ed in r espo nse to an
earlier rep o rt ing. Su ch m u lt iple rep o rt ings p rom o te t h e A ct’s pu rpo se o f m ak ing su re t h e site i s
f ull y cl eaned - up and no evidence i s i g no r ed; i t i s cer t ai nly no t i ntend ed to prom ote mu l t i ple,
bu r eaucrat i c par cel i ng of t he cle anu p p r ocess i nto m ult i t ud es of para l l el cl ean-up t r act s.
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 29, 2009
11
C.
THE LEG AL BAS I S OF THE AG ENCY’ S I NTERP RETATI ON O F THE ACT
AND REGULATI ONS HAS BEEN REJ ECTED BY THE BO ARD.
Ev en if Peti t i on er w er e t o assum e f or t he sake o f ar g um ent t hat t here w er e mu l t i ple
incidents at the site , this is not relevant under the Act or the Board’s regulations . Frustratingly,
this is an issu e the B o ard h as alread y d ecid ed o v er t h e A gen cy ’s co n ti n u al disa gr eem en t.
I n M a c I nve s t men t s v. OSFM , PCB No. 01 - 129 ( Dec . 19 , 20 02) , a bu i l di ng ha d t o b e
dem oli shed t o remo ve f i ve u nd er g r ou nd st orag e t ank s on t he sit e. Af t er t heir r em ov al and f urt her
co rr ectiv e actio n , a six th tan k w as d isco v ered an d r em o v ed . O S F M arg u ed , as h ere, tha t t h e six th
ta nk ga ve ris e to a s e pa ra te inc ide nt , s ubje c t to an additiona l deduc tible . T he Boa rd d is a gre e d,
f i nd i ng t hat t he n um ber of occu r r ences at a si t e i s i r r el evan t un der t he A ct , w hich i s con cer ned
ab o u t cl ean ing u p “the sit e.” “I n ter m s o f co rr ectiv e actio n , the B o ard d o es n o t see h o w the s ixth
tan k is a n y d ifferen t th an th e first fiv e tan k s.”
The Ag e nc y t r i e d t o c ha l l e ng e t hi s r ul i ng i n S wi f - T- Foo d M a r t , PCB No. 03 - 185 ( M a y 20 ,
2 0 0 4 ), b u t t h e B o ard h eld that the A gen cy ’s arg u m en ts h ad n o t persu ad ed the B o ard to alter it s
previou s deci si on t hat dedu ct i bles a r e asse ssed per si t e, no t per occu r r ence.
Th er ef ore, even i f w e assum
ar gue
e
ndo
, t hat t here w er e mu l t i ple occurr ences at t he sit e,
this is legally irrelevant . As stated earlier , the Agency can deny a plan only if it articulates how
t he A ct or i t s r eg ulat i on s w ou l d b e viol at ed. N on e of t he p r ov i si on s ci t ed in t he A g ency ’ s den i al
l e t t e r c ont a i n a ny t hi ng mor e t ha n g e ne r a l pr ovi s i ons c onc e r ni ng t he L UST p r og r a m, a nd none
con t r adict t he B oard’s pri or deci si on s.
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 29, 2009
12
D.
THE AG ENCY’ S DECI S I ON I S BAD P OLIC Y.
The L UST p r og r a m s houl d b e i nt e r pr e t e d i n a ma nne r whi c h f ur t he r s t he pu r pos e s of t he
Act , whi c h a r e f or e mos t t he “ pr ot e c t i on of I l l i noi s ’ l a nd a nd wat e r r e s our c e s . ” ( 415 I L CS 5/ 57)
The Ag e nc y’ s de c i s i on i s ba d for t he e nvi r onme nt be c a us e i t wi l l i nfus e mor e de l a ys a s t he
owne r / ope r a t or i s r e qui r e d b e g i n t he pr oc e s s a ne w. T he Ag e nc y ’ s de c i s i on i s ba d for t he L UST
Fu nd , as i t w i l l g i ve ri se t o redun dan t costs , w hich m ay no t even be of f set by char g i ng an
ad d it ion al de d u ctible it see k s to asse ss th e o w n er. B etter f o r the en v ir o n m en t w o u ld b e to
c ont i nue i nve s t i g a t i on of t he e xt e nt of c ont a mi na t i on a s pa r t of a s e c ond pha s e of i nve s t i g a t i ve
c orre c t i ve a c t i on.
E .
IN THE ALTERNATIVE , JUDGMENT SHOULD BE ENTERED DUE TO THE
AGENCY’ S F AI LURE TO F I LE THE RECORD O N TI M E.
On M a y 7, 20 09, t he Boa r d a c c e pt e d t he Amen de d P e t i t i on f or He a r i ng i n t hi s ma t t e r , a nd
dire c te d the Re s pond e nt to file the e ntire re c ord o f its dete rmina tion by M a y 20 , 20 09. T he
Agency failed to file the administrative record by M ay 20 , 2009, nor did it request an extension
of t i me be f or e t ha t da t e . ( 35 I l l . Admi n. Code §1 05. 116) T he Boa r d’ s pr oc e dur a l r ul e s s t a t e t he
R esp o n d en t’ s f ailure to ti m ely f il e the ad m inistrative r eco rd is su b ject t o san ction s. ( 3 5 I ll .
A d m in. C o d e § 1 0 5 . 1 1 8 ) Th e B o ard h as p rev iou sly ind icated that at t w o ty p es o f san ction s are
specifically applicable to the issue of late filed Agency records : the Agency be barred from filing
an y o the r p lead ing o r d o cu m en t i n this m atter o r im m ed iately aw ard the P etit ion er t h e resu lt it
seeks. E & L Truck ing C o . v . IEPA , PC B No . 02-83 (A pril 18 , 2002).
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 29, 2009
13
F.
PETITI O NE R RE SERV ES I TS RI G H T TO SEEK ATT O RN EY ’ S F EE S.
Purs ua nt t o S e c t i on 57.8( l ) of t he Ac t , t he Boa r d is a ut hori z e d to a ward le g a l fe e s i f t he
o w n er or o p erato r p rev ails be f o re t h e B o ard . ( 4 1 5 I L C S 5 /57 . 8 (l )) Pa st p ractice h as b een to
reserve this issue for post-judgment filings , and accordingly Petitioner expressly reserves the
issu e as w ell.
W HEREFORE, Pe t i t i one r pr a y s f or a n o r de r r e ve r s i ng t he Ag e nc y ’ s de c i s i on, de ny i ng t he
su b ject co rr ectiv e actio n p lan an d b u d get, an d f o r su ch o the r an d f u rt h er r elief as th e B o ard
d eem s m eet an d jus t.
Respectfully submitted,
PRIME LOCATION PROPERTIES, LLC,
Petitioner,
BY:
MOHAN, ALEWELT, PRILLAMAN & ADAMI, its
aottrneys
B Y:
/s/ Patrick D. Shaw
Patrick D. Shaw
MOHAN, ALEWELT, PRILLAMAN & ADAMI
1 N. Old Capitol Plaza, Suite 325
Springfield, IL 62701
Tel: (217) 528-2517
Fax: (217) 528-2553
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 29, 2009
14
RECORD EXHIBITS
1.
LUST Technical Review Notes (11/21/05)
2.
Incident Report (8/1/01)
3.
Early Action Extension Request Approval (9/6/01)
4.
45 Day Report (9/13/01)
5.
45 Day Report Addendum (12/3/01)
6.
Site Classification Work Plan and Budget (2/18/02)
7.
LUST Technical Review Notes (3/11/02)
8.
Agency Modification and Denial of Site Classification Plan (3/21/02)
9.
Amended Site Classification Work Plan and Budget (4/19/02)
10.
LUST Technical Review Notes (5/15/02)
11.
Agency Modification of Amended Site Classification Work Plan and Budget (5/21/02)
12.
Site Classification Completion Report (6/21/02)
13.
LUST Technical Review Notes (7/9/02)
14.
LUST Technical Review Notes (7/23/02)
15.
Agency Conditional Approval of Site Classification (8/5/02)
16.
Corrective Action Plan and Budget (8/13/02)
17.
LUST Technical Review Notes (10/15/02)
18.
Agency Modification and Rejection of Corrective Action Plan and Budget (10/22/02)
19.
Phase I Corrective Action Plan and Budget (7/30/03)
20.
LUST Technical Review Notes (9/24/03)
21.
Fax from Consultant to IEPA (9/25/03)
22.
Agency Denial of Corrective Action Plan (10/13/03)
23.
Corrective Action Plan and Budget (8/22/05)
24.
Agency Modification of Corrective Action Plan (11/23/05)
25.
Corrective Action Plan and Budget (12/20/05)
26.
LUST Technical Review Notes (2/14/06)
27.
Agency Approval of Plan and Rejection of Budget (2/24/06)
28.
Notice of New Ownership (4/3/06)
29.
Agency Acceptance of New Ownership (4/10/06)
30.
Corrective Action Plan Budget (7/18/06)
31.
LUST Technical Review Notes (9/12/06)
32.
Agency Modification of Budget (9/15/06)
33.
IEMA Hazmat Report (12/13/06)
34.
Agency Acknowledgment of Receipt of Notice of Release (12/18/06)
35.
Notice of Failure to File 20 Day/45 Day Reports (2/27/07)
36.
Corrective Action Plan and Budget (11/10/08)
37.
LUST Technical Review Notes (1/23/09)
38.
Agency Denial of Plan and Budget (1/27/09)
39.
Owner’s Request for Extension of Appeal Period (2/17/09)
C:\Mapa\Prime Location Prop\Brief.wpd/crk 6/29/09 2:16 pm
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 29, 2009