Laserfiche WebLink
Is the owner of the contamination source obligated to address the contamination <br /> issue? <br /> Yes, the IEPA requires all contamination sources be addressed and remediated in some <br /> fashion. Remediation options range from the total removal of the contaminated material <br /> to isolating it or to requiring no action at all. The IEPA requires that the issue be <br /> addressed and resolved before any development or redevelopment of the property. Until <br /> the IEPA signs off on the remediation plan proposed by a property owner, the property is <br /> essentially in limbo and of no realistic value. <br /> Can the City force the owners of a contamination source to clean up the right of way <br /> and remove all contaminated soil? <br /> The owner of a leaking underground gas tank or other contamination source is obligated <br /> by the IEPA to remediate the contamination which can include removal. In the past it has <br /> been successfully argued that removal of contaminated material from the right of way is <br /> impractical. It may require a significant amount of legal effort and cost to force the <br /> removal of all contaminated material from the right of way due to the significant costs <br /> involved. The courts would likely make the ultimate determination as to whether it is <br /> practical or not to complete such a removal effort. <br /> If the City can require the owner of a contamination source to clean it up,why not <br /> do so and clean up the right of way? <br /> There are several reasons not to force the removal of all contamination from the City's <br /> right of way: <br /> 1. In some cases, the contamination may not have actually encroached into the right of <br /> way but it may be projected by a computer model to be"likely" to enter the right of <br /> way by ground water migration in the coming years. <br /> 2. The IEPA has determined that in many cases, contaminated soils are sufficiently <br /> isolated within the right of way that they do not pose a significant threat to human <br /> health or the environment which renders full removal unnecessary. <br /> 3. In the past, removal of contaminated soil from the right of way has been considered to <br /> be impractical. It may require significant legal expense to force removal. <br /> 4. Removing contaminated soil from the right of way can be a great expense to the <br /> owner of the contamination source and the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Fund <br /> (LUST), a significant disruption to the public with the removal of potentially vast <br /> amounts of roadway and associated utilities. There is the potential of great expense <br /> for relatively little gain. <br /> 5. A Highway Authority Agreement alerts the City to the possible presence of <br /> contamination and clearly obligates the owner of the contamination source to <br /> properly dispose of any soil that may be encountered during maintenance work. <br /> 6. Being viewed as hostile to Highway Authority Agreements can impede the <br /> development or redevelopment of contaminated sites and may result in a less <br /> cooperative atmosphere between the City, the IEPA, and property owners who are <br /> dealing with potential contamination issues. <br /> Appendix A, Page 3 <br />