Soil Remediation Process for Metea land

[wvhsparent]

archwinsome said:

wvhsparent said:

That again depends on what needs to be done. Can they section off the portion (open space) from the clean areas?

Here is where having the actual Phase1 and Phase 2 results would help. If we had them, we could take them to a full service consulting group that does construction projects, including environmental mitigations/recommendations and know the answers to these questions. I have been asking for this data so that I can do just that at my own expense as a form of peer review. I have been told that we are still waiting for a FOIA request to be filled so we can even have the data from the pase1 study.

If we paid for one to be done why then do we need to file and wait for a request to get the results?

Something is not adding up with this site or the way the district is handling it, IMO.

Agree with ya arch. would love to see the Phase 1 and then phase2...did you file the FOIA request?

[Arch]

wvhsparent said:

archwinsome said:

Here is where having the actual Phase1 and Phase 2 results would help. If we had them, we could take them to a full service consulting group that does construction projects, including environmental mitigations/recommendations and know the answers to these questions. I have been asking for this data so that I can do just that at my own expense as a form of peer review. I have been told that we are still waiting for a FOIA request to be filled so we can even have the data from the pase1 study.

If we paid for one to be done why then do we need to file and wait for a request to get the results?

Something is not adding up with this site or the way the district is handling it, IMO.

Agree with ya arch. would love to see the Phase 1 and then phase2...did you file the FOIA request?

After I am told they have it and I make a non FOIA request (polite gentleman's request). If I were to file it prior, there is nothing to be filled for that request as of the date of the filing. That is why I am waiting until afterwards so that I know the district actually has something to they need to hand over.

[d204mom]

Has anyone seen the test results used to determine the site was unsafe in '06?

[momto4]

d204mom said:

Has anyone seen the test results used to determine the site was unsafe in '06?

I didn't think the site was ever considered unsafe. I thought they were concerned about perception (which appears to be quite the concern considering people's reactions) and the fact that the land was not for sale so it was irrelevant whether or not the perception problem really mattered.

[EagleDad]

wvhsparent said:

archwinsome said:

Here is where having the actual Phase1 and Phase 2 results would help. If we had them, we could take them to a full service consulting group that does construction projects, including environmental mitigations/recommendations and know the answers to these questions. I have been asking for this data so that I can do just that at my own expense as a form of peer review. I have been told that we are still waiting for a FOIA request to be filled so we can even have the data from the pase1 study.

If we paid for one to be done why then do we need to file and wait for a request to get the results?

Something is not adding up with this site or the way the district is handling it, IMO.

Agree with ya arch. would love to see the Phase 1 and then phase2...did you file the FOIA request?

I don't believe a citizen should have to FOIA - The Administration and multiple board members have sadi multiple times that they will publish the Phase I and Phase II reports on the district website.

I trust them to stand by that and publish the reports (Phase I, Phase II) in their entirety and unedited.

Although from what I've heard I wouldn't expect much from the phase I. I think it goes something like this - "I went by the site and didn't smell anything, I also asked the owners and they said there was nothing wrong." Not terribly scientific.

[JB]

I've also requested the reports, and was pointed to the 01.22 admin report, which has no numbers and basically states, "everything is fine".

The fact that there are amounts of fuel oil in 5 of 66 samples, which I've been told are spread throughout the property, is extremely troubling to me! IMHO, this shows a pattern of environmental neglect. There's absolutely no way you can statistically argue that they've even found all the potential contamination sites, i.e. where there's 5, there's very likely 6, or 7, or .... I'd love to be wrong on this, but I absolutely will not tolerate being told everything is fine.

We need require actual data! Any hedging or massaging or "managing the message" is only going to heighten our misgivings about this location. I'm a data guy - show me the data, and if it really is trace, I'll be happy to say so. But DO NOT expect me to take someones word for it.

[wvhsparent]

d204mom said:

Has anyone seen the test results used to determine the site was unsafe in '06?

There were no test results from before. It was the percerption that there might be problems that led them from going further at that time. Also remember AME was not a willing seller either then, and MWGen was not even on the radar.

[wvhsparent]

archwinsome said:

wvhsparent said:

Agree with ya arch. would love to see the Phase 1 and then phase2...did you file the FOIA request?

After I am told they have it and I make a non FOIA request (polite gentleman's request). If I were to file it prior, there is nothing to be filled for that request as of the date of the filing. That is why I am waiting until afterwards so that I know the district actually has something to they need to hand over.

That sounds ike a plan. Let me know when you make your request. I'll do the same. We can tag team them...

[wvhsparent]

eagledad said:

wvhsparent said:

Agree with ya arch. would love to see the Phase 1 and then phase2...did you file the FOIA request?

I don't believe a citizen should have to FOIA - The Administration and multiple board members have sadi multiple times that they will publish the Phase I and Phase II reports on the district website.

I trust them to stand by that and publish the reports (Phase I, Phase II) in their entirety and unedited.

Although from what I've heard I wouldn't expect much from the phase I. I think it goes something like this - "I went by the site and didn't smell anything, I also asked the owners and they said there was nothing wrong." Not terribly scientific.

I sure hope that's not what the phase 1 report will state..... I know some people we can have review the report when it is published.......and let's hope it's soon.

[wvhsparent]

jb said:

I've also requested the reports, and was pointed to the 01.22 admin report, which has no numbers and basically states, "everything is fine".

The fact that there are amounts of fuel oil in 5 of 66 samples, which I've been told are spread throughout the property, is extremely troubling to me! IMHO, this shows a pattern of environmental neglect. There's absolutely no way you can statistically argue that they've even found all the potential contamination sites, i.e. where there's 5, there's very likely 6, or 7, or .... I'd love to be wrong on this, but I absolutely will not tolerate being told everything is fine.

We need require actual data! Any hedging or massaging or "managing the message" is only going to heighten our misgivings about this location. I'm a data guy - show me the data, and if it really is trace, I'll be happy to say so. But DO NOT expect me to take someones word for it.

Really, You have been told they are spread throughout the site. By whom? and how would they know....

[d204mom]

wvhsparent said:

There were no test results from before. It was the percerption that there might be problems that led them from going further at that time.

Do you know for sure that no one was consulted in any way or is this just a guess?

[d204mom]

eagledad said:

wvhsparent said:

Agree with ya arch. would love to see the Phase 1 and then phase2...did you file the FOIA request?

I don't believe a citizen should have to FOIA - The Administration and multiple board members have sadi multiple times that they will publish the Phase I and Phase II reports on the district website.

I trust them to stand by that and publish the reports (Phase I, Phase II) in their entirety and unedited.

Although from what I've heard I wouldn't expect much from the phase I. I think it goes something like this - "I went by the site and didn't smell anything, I also asked the owners and they said there was nothing wrong." Not terribly scientific.

I thought this was a good article.

www.aniline.com/knowledgebase/Tech_Reports/Phase_1.html

Phase 1 is pretty much take a pic and do some goo diligence, but is supposed to include a $$ amount guesstimate for remediation.

[wvhsparent]

d204mom said:

wvhsparent said:

There were no test results from before. It was the percerption that there might be problems that led them from going further at that time.

Do you know for sure that no one was consulted in any way or is this just a guess?

OK you got me it would be a guess on my part.....but based on several factors.
#1 - They did not own the land....One cannot just go onto another's property and do tests...even if you are remotely considering it.
(remember they had to get the courts to allow them to do testing on BB)
#2 - if they were to do tests, they would have had to discuss it at a public meeting..to my knowledge, that discussion never took place ( If it fell uder the guise of an Exec Mtg. There still would have been a mention of paying a testing co.)
#3 - at that time they wanted BB. Why spend funds on something you were not pursuing?
#4 - That would have meant they actually had a "Plan B" from the get go. How many times were we told there was not plan B.

So these are what I based my "guess" on, there are probably a few more I can't think of off the top of my head. But these 4 seem pretty solid.
Do you not agree?

[warriorpride]

wvhsparent said:

d204mom said:

Do you know for sure that no one was consulted in any way or is this just a guess?

OK you got me it would be a guess on my part.....but based on several factors.
#1 - They did not own the land....One cannot just go onto another's property and do tests...even if you are remotely considering it.
(remember they had to get the courts to allow them to do testing on BB)
#2 - if they were to do tests, they would have had to discuss it at a public meeting..to my knowledge, that discussion never took place ( If it fell uder the guise of an Exec Mtg. There still would have been a mention of paying a testing co.)
#3 - at that time they wanted BB. Why spend funds on something you were not pursuing?
#4 - That would have meant they actually had a "Plan B" from the get go. How many times were we told there was not plan B.

So these are what I based my "guess" on, there are probably a few more I can't think of off the top of my head. But these 4 seem pretty solid.
Do you not agree?

I think the only reason the current MV location was became possible was AMEs willingness to sell part of their property, along with the adjacent MWGEN property becoming available. The MWGEN property was not being considered back in 05-06, as far as I know - didn't it just become available recently? They were only looking at the AME property. I don't know how far reaching the soil samples should extend off of the MWGEN property, but since AME was an unwilling seller at the time, I don't see how soil samples of AME would ever have been done in 05-06.

[JB]

wvhsparent said:

jb said:

I've also requested the reports, and was pointed to the 01.22 admin report, which has no numbers and basically states, "everything is fine".

The fact that there are amounts of fuel oil in 5 of 66 samples, which I've been told are spread throughout the property, is extremely troubling to me! IMHO, this shows a pattern of environmental neglect. There's absolutely no way you can statistically argue that they've even found all the potential contamination sites, i.e. where there's 5, there's very likely 6, or 7, or .... I'd love to be wrong on this, but I absolutely will not tolerate being told everything is fine.

We need require actual data! Any hedging or massaging or "managing the message" is only going to heighten our misgivings about this location. I'm a data guy - show me the data, and if it really is trace, I'll be happy to say so. But DO NOT expect me to take someones word for it.

Really, You have been told they are spread throughout the site. By whom? and how would they know....

I don't have written documentation, it was part of an e-mail I read - which is why it would really be nice for them to be forthcoming with us and post the original Phase I report! They obviously have it in some form, since it is part of Dash's report - they've just scrubbed the numbers and managed the message.

www.ipsd.org/Uploads/news_17332_1.pdf