It’s been more than a week since we left messages for IUSD superintendent Terry Walker to comment on Harvey Liss’s detailed article in the Irvine Community News & Views about significant new findings of toxic waste at the construction site for Irvine’s new Portola High School. The district’s new Public Information Officer doesn’t start until the end of the month, and if Walker doesn’t want to comment to this blog that’s one thing, but I’m also an IUSD parent and taxpayer and he is accountable to me for his silence.
From Liss’s story:
Last November, workers were digging a long trench to install a huge boxed concrete storm drain to serve the school and thousands of new homes yet to be built in the northern reaches of Irvine. The official reports obtained under the California Public Records Act reveal that on November 13th, workers operating earthmoving equipment encountered, at a depth of 16 feet, an unusually strong odor and discolored soil — two red flags for possible toxic contamination. In accordance with State law and regulations, work was stopped. Then higher-ups were notified, and probing of the contaminated soil continued for 100 feet until apparently clean soil was found.
It soon became evident to workers on site, and presumably to school officials as well, that this was no small spill or “stain,” as later described by environmental consultants for the School District. An email later revealed that the contaminated soil stretched 29 feet onto the Portola High School site; and the contamination permeated the soil to a depth of between 15 feet and 28 feet. By the time all the suspect soil was removed for testing and disposal, the true extent of the “stained soil” hauled away amounted to 78 truckloads — nearly 1,000 cubic yards.
Ordinarily, laboratory testing to determine levels of toxins and carcinogens (cancer-causing agents) in soil samples is a straightforward process completed in a matter of days. Yet in the days and weeks after the initial discovery of potentially dangerous and toxic contamination, no test results were provided to the public. No press releases were issued. No newspaper stories appeared. It was as though the worrisome discovery had never happened.
Except it did happen. Tests were performed, but the results remained a secret, hidden from the public. Finally, in response to a citizen’s January 27, 2015 Public Records Act request, on February 10th — three months after the initial discovery of what had been described simply as “stained soil” containing “non-hazardous petroleum hydrocarbons” — 245 pages of documents were released by School District officials, including dozens of pages of test data.
The findings? There were significant and often remarkably high levels of hazardous petrochemicals — some levels were far beyond the “maximum permissible contaminant concentration.” These included significant concentrations of various benzene derivatives, naphthalenes, and extraordinary concentrations of diesel. In addition, soil samples contained significant concentrations of heavy metals, for example: lead, chromium, cobalt and vanadium. None of these toxic and — in some cases — carcinogenic agents typically occur in the natural environment. With sufficient exposure, all of them can cause discomfort and even devastating disease — in laboratory animals and in humans.
Walker and various IUSD trustees have continued to insist the site was safe to build on, but Walker owes it to Irvine parents to explain why 78 truckloads were removed from the site and what exactly was being hauled away. And frankly, if the site is so safe, perhaps the district can find room on campus to build new offices for its employees.
We’ve left another message for the district to call back. I’m not holding my breath.
But here are the questions we’d like answered:
1. What exactly was uncovered?
2. Why wasn’t is uncovered during the testing?
3. Why weren’t parents, especially ones with kids who will be attending the new high school, told abut the find, what it was, how it was being removed and if it added significantly to the cost of building the new school?
4. Is additional testing being done to see if there is additional toxic waste material present?
5. If it’s just petrochemicals, isn’t that the reason why the district rejected the Great Park site B? Why were site B’s petrochemicals worse than site A’s?
I recommend that you ask Mr. Liss for the answers to questions 1 and 2- after all, he has received 245 additional pages to go with the school district’s Jan. 2014 PEA and the historical environmental monitoring and assessment reports for the US Navy. The school district has a web page related to the environmental assessment of the high school site that includes the PEA as well as the school district’s response to many of Mr. Liss’ comments last year on the PEA and a partially technical response to Larry Agran who was using his official capacity as council member to harass the IUSD on this issue. I re-read the PEA after seeing Mr. Liss’ article from March 1 on Irvine Community News and Views. Additional data was contained in the IUSD letter to comments on the PEA in a letter from the city concerning soil testing of contaminated soils during excavation at Heritage Fields adjacent to the high school site. The “results” reported by Mr. Liss may very well be consistent with previously reported easily accessible data. For example, soil samples reported in the PEA all contained chromium, cobalt, lead and vanadium but well below the California Human Health Screening Levels. In the meantime, Mr. Liss should consider reporting actual results from his most recent data acquisition instead of relying of subjective characterization.
And none of that explains why the district can’t be bothered to return two phone calls
Let me paint a simple picture. My husband knows a marine who use to work on the El Toro base. They got the hell out because the contamination became too toxic to work on. Why the hell would IUSD build a school on it?!!!
Friday will mark 2 weeks since I asked the district to call me to answer questions. Pretty unacceptable