The Eola School Site

[fence]

I get it, I guess I just don't believe it. What if it takes 5 years to get remediated? What if it is never able to meet standards for IEPA?

And if there is a legal clause that will "protect" the SB, what exactly is that recourse language? And is Midwest Gen really going to agree to be on the hook at a minimum to buy back worthless land and at a maximum to get handed their shorts in court for land, time and materials, pain, suffering, etc.? Its highly suspect.

So what I do suspect is that the IEPA wouldn't really be involved. At all. We'll just take the studies we have and a decision will be made based on that. And no recourse all around.

sushi said:

avengingeagle said:

That's why the SB will avoid dealing with the IEPA at all costs, regardless of the implications of their decision.

Why do you say the SB will avoid dealing with IEPA? I imagine you are right, it will be MWGen dealing with the IEPA, until the NFR is issued. Here is proof of the process. Obviously, there is a legal clause that protects the SD after the close up to the NFR.
Why would they close otherwise.

Why am I the only one who gets this?

[sushi]

It is my understanding that $ may be held in escrow until NFR is issued.

[fence]

They're going to hold money in escrow for years? And what happens if the site doesn't meet standards? We are only entitled to any money we're holding, or we have full recourse?

And if so, what company with stakeholders would agree to hold a deal like that on the books?

sushi said:

It is my understanding that $ may be held in escrow until NFR is issued.

[WeBe204]

fence said:

They're going to hold money in escrow for years? And what happens if the site doesn't meet standards? We are only entitled to any money we're holding, or we have full recourse?

And if so, what company with stakeholders would agree to hold a deal like that on the books?

sushi said:

It is my understanding that $ may be held in escrow until NFR is issued.

Fence I have to imagine this would be why the land has not closed yet... Trying to work out this mess.

[d204mom]

fence said:

They're going to hold money in escrow for years? And what happens if the site doesn't meet standards? We are only entitled to any money we're holding, or we have full recourse?

And if so, what company with stakeholders would agree to hold a deal like that on the books?

sushi said:

It is my understanding that $ may be held in escrow until NFR is issued.

Exactly. If we get the school built and can't get the NFR letter our loss is $150 Mil. MWGEN is not going to guarantee that, especially when they are only getting a few mil for their land.

[Avenging Eagle]

d204mom said:

fence said:

They're going to hold money in escrow for years? And what happens if the site doesn't meet standards? We are only entitled to any money we're holding, or we have full recourse?

And if so, what company with stakeholders would agree to hold a deal like that on the books?

Exactly. If we get the school built and can't get the NFR letter our loss is $150 Mil. MWGEN is not going to guarantee that, especially when they are only getting a few mil for their land.

And then they might need to demolish the school just like Belmont in CA, but not before pumping in many more millions in remediation expenses.

ipsd204.proboards76.com/index.cgi?board=newhighschool&action=display&thread=1205306713

Don't forget to add the extra 1 mm in demolition costs if it has to be taken down.
www.laschools.org/vista-hermosa/

And they also learned their lesson about approving the site before the students attend it:

The District will complete environmental studies under the guidance of the State's environmental agency, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). The DTSC certifies schools as safe before they are occupied by students.

Notice that they require more than just an NFR letter. It needs to be certified as "safe for students".

They call it a DTSC approval letter, and I read it and it says something interesting:

"If at anytime during construction at a school site, a previously unidentified release or threatened release of a hazardous material or the presence of a naturally occurring hazardous material is discovered, the school district shall cease all construction activities at the site, notify and take actions as required by DTSC."

www.laschools.org/vista-hermosa/documents/DTSC_Approval_Letter.pdf

[Avenging Eagle]

I was just looking into some more of the Belmont remediation analysis reports and found some interesting things:

Before the school could be occupied, 26 separate sets of reports were completed over a period of 3 years.

www.laschools.org/vista-hermosa/documents

And take a look at the final remediation report...It looks like they were testing for the full array of chemicals and contaminants.

This section is interesting:

Identified Constituents of Potential Concern
As reported in the RI Report, a Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) was prepared for the Site
(including the School Site) in close consultation with the DTSC Human and Ecological Risk Division (HERD),
using site-specific chemical and geotechnical data. A total of 40 chemicals and metals were identified as
constituents of potential concern (COPCs) that warranted further evaluation. Results of the Baseline HHRA
indicated that none of the identified COPCs poses a health risk to hypothetical adult or child residents at the
School Site. However, it was conservatively assumed that hydrogen sulfide presents a potential health hazard at
the School Site for reasons that include the following: hydrogen sulfide is the primary contributor to the
calculated hazard index (HI) at the School Site; hydrogen sulfide is acutely toxic at low concentrations; and
hydrogen sulfide can potentially accumulate in enclosed spaces, if conditions at the School Site were to change.
Of a total of 446 soil vapor samples collected at the School Site, hydrogen sulfide was detected in 53 samples.
Hydrogen sulfide was detected at the greatest frequency and highest concentrations in Area 1 (athletic fields) of
[MA-2003-64]
[10/19/04] ES-3
the School Site. Soil vapor concentrations greater than 50 ppmv were detected in two of the deep probes (>28 feet
bgs) in Area 1. Hydrogen sulfide concentrations at these locations were much higher than elsewhere at the School
Site, ranging from 1,500 ppmv to 33,000 ppmv. In particular, the maximum concentration of 33,000 ppmv
appears to be spatially and temporally anomalous for the School Site and was not subjected to a data validation
review. In Area 2 (school campus), hydrogen sulfide was detected in soil vapor primarily in the intermediate
depth probes. Hydrogen sulfide concentrations greater than 50 ppmv were detected only in one probe at a depth
of 26 feet bgs. The hydrogen sulfide concentration of 132 ppmv reported for this soil vapor sample is considered
qualified due to sampling validation issues.
Although methane is not considered a carcinogen or toxic chemical by either DTSC or USEPA, methane can
pose a potential physical hazard at the School Site because of its flammability, explosivity, and asphyxiating
properties. The highest soil vapor methane concentrations detected at the School Site generally were in Area 1
(athletic fields). Within this area, methane concentrations exceeded the LEL of 50,000 ppmv at 11 of the 17 probe
locations and various depths. Of these 11, the LEL was exceeded in three shallow probes, with the remainder of
the elevated concentrations being detected in intermediate to deep probes. Soil vapor methane concentrations in
Area 2 (school campus) exceeded the LEL of 50,000 ppmv at two of the 43 probe locations and exceeded 20% of
the LEL (10,000 ppmv) at two locations. None of these probe locations are beneath school buildings planned for
the School.
Because it is lighter than air, methane in the near subsurface has the potential to migrate into buildings through
physical pathways that include cracks in concrete floor slabs, unsealed conduits or utility trenches, unsealed
dewatering sumps, and other small openings common in building construction. If allowed to accumulate to the
LEL concentration or greater in an enclosed space with inadequate ventilation (e.g., small rooms, vaults, and wall
spaces), a fire or explosion can result, if ignited.
Consequently, methane and hydrogen sulfide are the only two constituents at the School Site that were evaluated
through the FS process and included for mitigation in the RAP. The source of both COPCs is associated with the
Los Angles City Oil Field that underlies a portion of the School Site. Methane and hydrogen sulfide are likely to
behave in a similar manner and present similar risks (e.g., migration into enclosed spaces). Therefore, remedial
measures considered to manage and monitor one gas will generally be applicable to the other.

www.laschools.org/vista-hermosa/documents/rap/RAP-CLAHS11-Rev010305.pdf

Pay close attention to the part where they actual took 446 soil samples at various depths including shallow, intermediate, and deep probes up to 26 ft. Remember that their land sq. footage is 1/2 of ours. The results of those tests showed that some of the affected areas occurred at different levels under the ground.

[anonofthenorth]

If you are going to make a statement about a situation, read about it first.

The reason Belmont school was torn down is they found out the building was built on an earthquake fault, not because of environmental problems.

See my post on the page you link for a long article which explains the Belmont site issues.

and note the part that reads:

"But the project’s greatest hurdles have always been political, not environmental."

And for those waiting for some long drawn out "what if's", they will know the entire extent of the environmental issues within days if not weeks (11 of 12 power units are down as of today). I am shocked at everyones nievite about the environmental problems that exist in and around you everyday. Do you ever see your favorite gas station shut down for a few weeks as they dig in the parking lot? That is a much larger issue that would effect your drinking water than an above ground tank and 12 large diesel engine generators. There is no "lurking underground boogie man" who will come crawling out 3 years from now.

And if you wonder why they have not released Phase 2 reports, it is so uniformed people do not read them and freak out that, lord forbid, that there are "chemicals" on the ground. When you see the report, make sure your garage and medicine cabinet don't have the same thing in them before you go off.

[Avenging Eagle]

You must have missed abc204's post about his/her family's small business experience trying to get the NFR and that you have to go through multiple rounds of cleanup and discovery that occurs during construction. You may not find everything right away. I believe my posts are very applicable to our situation.

abc204 said:

I have never posted to this site before, but feel I must provide some information regarding the IEPA. My family has personally been working for the last 10 years so secure a NFR (related to a small business). We have gone through 2 complete clean ups, but just received word that the most recent soil samples still showed areas of concern. All this was the result of just 2 underground tanks. We still do not have the NFR paper and from our understanding (and dealing with the IEPA has been very confusing at times) we can not sell our property without this letter unless the buyer accepts all liability. I guess that is my concern with this school site. I just hope the school district does not accept that liability.

And If this remediation is truly so easy for the school I would have some concern over how this NFR was really obtained.

And just because the article says that Belmont's biggest problems are political and and not environmental, that doesn't mean they don't also have huge environmental problems having built on an Japanese oil-field that they bought "as-is". What a steal! If it wasn't for that lousy earthquake fault...It would have been perfect!

I found this paragraph in the article you linked:

A dollar amount for environmental work was omitted from the project budget, with the quiet understanding that the district would pick up the tab later as needed.

No evidence shows that Shambra and Cartwright thought they were compromising safety — they planned to address oil-field-related problems during construction. But this subterfuge, once exposed, suggested that Shambra’s team was giving short shrift to environmental matters, or even worse, hiding dangerous conditions. Their plan to “mitigate as you go” during construction underscored critics’ assertions that there wasn’t enough advance environmental review.

Sound familiar? That's why I think we can say the same thing about our huge political problems with our SB and administration, but we also have our fair share of environmental and liability problems on the site. And like Belmont, we are in effect probably going to buy it "as-is".

The final parallel is that if it is not for the toxic waste and diesel deeper in the soil that will get us, the "earthquake fault" of 6 pipeline running below the football field will.

And excuuuuse me for trying to read the Belmont environmental reports to try to educate myself. They sure beat the lame-ass reports put out so far by Kinder Morgan and MWGEN.

Also, the SB has their 50 page version locked in the underground catecombs of the Howie Crouse center, so I couldn't get access. Do you have a copy you can share?

[demandingthetruth]

I called the Illinois EPA. There is currently no request by IPSD 204 for IEPA involvement. The gentleman there said that the only way they even know about this site is through newspaper articles and concerned citizen inquiries. If they became involved, their process is not fast, minimum time measured in months, and would require for them to be on the site.

They will also review somone elses results, but then are limited only to those things that the person who gives them the report cares to provide.

Gee, I wonder which option our school board will choose? Sounds like the perfect option for them - only give information that they "care to provide". Where have we heard that before?

Maybe getting this report to read the way they want to in order to hand it over is the real hold up to phase II test results.

Doubts? Call yourself:
Our regional office:
Chuck Grigalauski, (Regional Manager)
IEPA Des Plaines Regional Office
9511 Harrison Street
Des Plaines, IL 60016
Phone [phone]

Springfield
[phone] / 6762

[Arch]

The Parallel between Belmont and Eola is simple:

Both stupid places to build schools due to hazards.

The fault line is not a hazard until something bad happens. Many claims the pipelines are not hazards... of course, that is until something bad happens. Both of those 'bad things' have a VERY LARGE PROBABILITY for loss of life and loss of structure and BOTH HAZARDS are known (or should have been known) ahead of time.

[sushi]

I see this as apples and oranges. To compare the two sites is ludicrous. It's time to accept the fact that Eola will be the site of the new school. All this negative hysteria does nothing to help unite the district. The IEPA will be involved, as stated earlier in this thread more than once, after the close. The BB lawsuit has no precedent. The NSFOC lawsuit has no precedent.
It would be fiscally irresponsible to buy BB (as much as we'd like it) - there are other voters who voted no who would not share our zeal to spend more $ than voted on. Would it be nice to wait another 3 years and see the end result of the lawsuit - maybe. We don't have three years. All of us realize how badly the new school is needed. The atty's would like nothing better than to drag this on for perpetuity to keep the billable hours coming. Hopefully, it will get thrown out in May. My opinion.

Arch, I agree and the SB stated BB is their first choice. Not happening. Next.

[doctorwho]

sushi said:

I see this as apples and oranges. To compare the two sites is ludicrous. It's time to accept the fact that Eola will be the site of the new school. All this negative hysteria does nothing to help unite the district. The IEPA will be involved, as stated earlier in this thread more than once, after the close. The BB lawsuit has no precedent. The NSFOC lawsuit has no precedent.
It would be fiscally irresponsible to buy BB (as much as we'd like it) - there are other voters who voted no who would not share our zeal to spend more $ than voted on. Would it be nice to wait another 3 years and see the end result of the lawsuit - maybe. We don't have three years. All of us realize how badly the new school is needed. The atty's would like nothing better than to drag this on for perpetuity to keep the billable hours coming. Hopefully, it will get thrown out in May. My opinion.

Arch, I agree and the SB stated BB is their first choice. Not happening. Next.

what's ludicrous is that you want people to just accept a site that I don't believe is safe - has not proven to be safe- but you'll have us risk our kids because you say it is time?
that's ludicrous in my book.

Even more ludicrous is the fact that you can make that 'demand' when you will be sending no children to that site.

[rural]

doctorwho said:

what's ludicrous is that you want people to just accept a site that I don't believe is safe - has not proven to be safe- but you'll have us risk our kids because you say it is time?
that's ludicrous in my book.

Everyone is acting like there is a monster under the bed. It's going to turn out to actually be a pair of socks, but everyone is going to run around saying, "Well, it sure looks like a monster!"

[fryfox]

Sorry, but I think you're being naive. There are plenty of cases where there is no precedence that become the precedent moving forward. And you say that BB is not happening, but it seems to me that it certainly could. It is so difficult for me to understand why so many are willing to move forward when there is so much potential financial downside. We're not talking about some extra cash on the side that we're gambling with, this is a LOT of money. NOT the right time for gambling.