SUN 3/11 Review of Eola study tabled, for now

[WeBe204]

Permission to discuss results not yet granted

March 11, 2008
By Tim Waldorf [e-mail]
Discussions of safety concerns regarding the proposed site for Metea Valley High School were partially had at Monday's Indian Prairie School District 204's board meeting.

The board was scheduled to review the results of the district's two-phase environmental study of the Eola site chosen for a third high school, but the district was unable to secure the necessary permission to release that information in time for Monday's meeting.

District officials have met with and asked questions of the consultants who performed the study, and "the consultants are advising us that everything that was located - and it's very minimal at that - is easily and regularly remediated," said board President Mark Metzger.

A clean site is written into the contract for the sale of the property, and the site must pass Illinois Environmental Protection Agency standards in order for the district to start construction.

The studies, paid for by Chicago-based Midwest Generation, are being overseen by the IEPA, which must approve all test results and will ensure the site is clean before the district will build Metea Valley High School at Eola and Molitor roads in Aurora.

The first phase of the study looked at historical data from the site and past property owners. The second phase involved soil borings and ground water samplings looking for the presence of diesel fuel or antifreeze, chemicals commonly used at the site.

The results of these studies will be reviewed at a board meeting once the district is free to release them, Metzger said. The district hopes it will secure this permission within the next week.


Delay frustration

The delay unanimously disappointed the board, and only added to an already lengthy list of contingencies related to bids for the Metea construction project.
The board was set to approve bids for mass grading, structural excavation and concrete foundation, and precast concrete wall panels, roof panels, beams and columns, contingent upon the purchase of the Eola site, and the annexation of the property into the city of Aurora. It approved those bids only after providing for a special meeting to review the study's results.

Board member Christine Vickers pushed to postpone action on these bids - not because there was something in the study results that gave her pause, but as a matter of sequence. She argued that the public should have a chance to review the study results before the board acted on the bids.

Before agreeing to the additional contingency, Vickers said the board needed to do some "damage control" in an effort to restore the public's confidence in its decisions.

Despite the delay, the board on Monday did hear reports from various experts on environmental issues that pertain to the property.

Portions of the site are adjacent to two high-energy electrical switching stations, which has led some to express concerns regarding electromagnetic radiation levels at that location.

So District 204 hired Environ International Corporation, an environmental consulting firm, to analyze EMF readings on the property.

On Oct. 30 Environ International took readings from a northern portion of the property likely to be the school's parking lot and athletic stadium, and reported that the typical EMF readings were consistent with a typical suburban area.

The board did not intend to discuss the Neighborhood Schools for Our Children group's lawsuit until after executive session. That closed meeting extended past The Sun's press time.

[d204mom]

"The studies, paid for by Chicago-based Midwest Generation"

Ok this line is in here again. I could have sworn that one of the board members or someone said WE are paying for the tests, not MWGEN, as it's a conflict of interest for them...? Does anyone else remember that?

[Arch]

d204mom said:

"The studies, paid for by Chicago-based Midwest Generation"

Ok this line is in here again. I could have sworn that one of the board members or someone said WE are paying for the tests, not MWGEN, as it's a conflict of interest for them...? Does anyone else remember that?

This bugs me too. If WE paid for it, WE should be able to release it.

Are they using the ones from June of 1999 when MWGEN was going through the contract stuff to buy the plant from ComEd?

[d204mom]

Watch the meeting. It's rather disturbing that the school board does not have permission to release the reports.

This is completely counter to what I thought was happening. I thought the district (through an independent consultant) was performing the tests.

MWGEN is controlling all of the testing and the parameters? And they have control over the results? How exactly is this information supposed to increase our comfort level?

Good night! When I bought my house I chose the inspector and paid for the inspection! I didn't let the seller hire the inspector and control the parameters and output.

The other part I found disturbing was that there are 15 acres (is that what I heard?) that need remediation and will be fenced off and not used? So our price per acre is what, $191K? So why are we paying $2,865,000 for land to sit behind a fence. And there was no assurance it would be cleaned up before students started!!

Please don't label me as selfish. No one in their right mind would be comfortable with this.

[doctorwho]

d204mom said:

Watch the meeting. It's rather disturbing that the school board does not have permission to release the reports.

This is completely counter to what I thought was happening. I thought the district (though an independent consultant) was performing the tests.

MWGEN is controlling all of the testing and the parameters? And they have control over the results? How exactly is this information supposed to increase our comfort level?

Good night! When I bought my house I chose the inspector and paid for the inspection! I didn't let the seller hire the inspector and control the parameters and output.

The other part I found disturbing was that there are 15 acres (is that what I heard?) that need remediation and will be fenced off and not used? So our price per acre is what, $191K? So why are we paying $2,865,000 for land to sit behind a fence. And there was no assurance it would be cleaned up before students started!!

Please don't label me as selfish. No one in their right mind would be comfortable with this.

17 acres if I remembered correctly - and absolutrly it sounded like they would be building next to it - just having it fencd off -- ho nice.
and some of the same people supporting this were concerned over ANY construction going on at BB while students were in it:

here we have:
17 acres fenced off
a gym/ pool/auditorium to be completed after it opens and while they are there -- January - yeah sure,

roads ill be a muddy mess with construction crews entering and leaving the premesis - not to mention the safety hazards

what a GREAT HS ENVIRONMENT for those kids-- equal and balanced to the other schools -- I wish these supporters could hear how crazy that sounds

and we have people rallying behind that -- just why is that now ?

and please spare me the WVHS is so crowded -- it was far more crowded than this before NV opened- I know- we were there.

[Avenging Eagle]

doctorwho said:

17 acres if I remembered correctly - and absolutrly it sounded like they would be building next to it - just having it fencd off -- ho nice.
and some of the same people supporting this were concerned over ANY construction going on at BB while students were in it:

here we have:
17 acres fenced off
a gym/ pool/auditorium to be completed after it opens and while they are there -- January - yeah sure,

roads ill be a muddy mess with construction crews entering and leaving the premesis - not to mention the safety hazards

what a GREAT HS ENVIRONMENT for those kids-- equal and balanced to the other schools -- I wish these supporters could hear how crazy that sounds

and we have people rallying behind that -- just why is that now ?

and please spare me the WVHS is so crowded -- it was far more crowded than this before NV opened- I know- we were there.

That fenced off area will be the MVHS garden where they will grow those big-a** tomatoes.

The other argument I find ludicrous is that the area by the fields will only have severe EMF exposure during July when it is hot and only kids aged 0-5 are at risk, so don't worry about 15 - 18 year olds.

Don't you think the public would like to use the school facilities including the tennis courts and tracks during the summer? What about summer programs and practices? Don't you think parents coming might bring toddlers along? Does anybody remember it getting really hot in May June July August and September, not just July?

Oh wait, I forgot, the high school is not located in proximity to anything or anybody so the fields will just sit idle during the summer.

[gatordog]

avengingeagle said:

The other argument I find ludicrous is that the area by the fields will only have severe EMF exposure during July when it is hot and only kids aged 0-5 are at risk, so don't worry about 15 - 18 year olds.

in my opinion, and per my understanding of the data, the most dangerous thing about the fields will be the games themselves. As Sports Illustrated magazine reported in Dec 2007, on average one HS athlete tragically dies while participating in their sport every two weeks in this country. (not sure about younger kids in sports Little League etc.)

[Arch]

Construction around pipelines while students are there. Brilliant!

[Avenging Eagle]

gatordog said:

avengingeagle said:

The other argument I find ludicrous is that the area by the fields will only have severe EMF exposure during July when it is hot and only kids aged 0-5 are at risk, so don't worry about 15 - 18 year olds.

in my opinion, and per my understanding of the data, the most dangerous thing about the fields will be the games themselves. As Sports Illustrated magazine reported in Dec 2007, on average one HS athlete tragically dies while participating in their sport every two weeks in this country. (not sure about younger kids in sports Little League etc.)

I would argue that is is healthier for kids to get exercise playing sports than sitting at home playing WoW or Eve online.

But not in an EMF barrage zone.

[JB]

avengingeagle said:

gatordog said:

in my opinion, and per my understanding of the data, the most dangerous thing about the fields will be the games themselves. As Sports Illustrated magazine reported in Dec 2007, on average one HS athlete tragically dies while participating in their sport every two weeks in this country. (not sure about younger kids in sports Little League etc.)

I would argue that is is healthier for kids to get exercise playing sports than sitting at home playing WoW or Eve online.

But not in an EMF barrage zone.

The sports "risk", if you will, is baseline - same at both schools. AE is bringing up a point on additional risk.

[proschool]

I look aroundand I see a lot of homes that managed to sell in spite of the fact that they at the time they were for sale there were certainly larger homes available for less money.

[proschool]

gatordog said:

avengingeagle said:

The other argument I find ludicrous is that the area by the fields will only have severe EMF exposure during July when it is hot and only kids aged 0-5 are at risk, so don't worry about 15 - 18 year olds.

in my opinion, and per my understanding of the data, the most dangerous thing about the fields will be the games themselves. As Sports Illustrated magazine reported in Dec 2007, on average one HS athlete tragically dies while participating in their sport every two weeks in this country. (not sure about younger kids in sports Little League etc.)

If you break your leg playing football then you know how you broke your leg. I you find out you have a broken leg 20 years after you graduate you will know it had nothing to do with playing football.

If watch your kids to grow up and then come down with leukemia or a brain tumor you won't know the cause. Then you have to sit and wonder if you could have prevented it.

[doctorwho]

proschool said:

gatordog said:

in my opinion, and per my understanding of the data, the most dangerous thing about the fields will be the games themselves. As Sports Illustrated magazine reported in Dec 2007, on average one HS athlete tragically dies while participating in their sport every two weeks in this country. (not sure about younger kids in sports Little League etc.)

If you break your leg playing football then you know how you broke your leg. I you find out you have a broken leg 20 years after you graduate you will know it had nothing to do with playing football.

If watch your kids to grow up and then come down with leukemia or a brain tumor you won't know the cause. Then you have to sit and wonder if you could have prevented it.

One of the leading causes of death and injury for school age children is traffic accidents -- yet we are increasing the time spent in carrs -buses for a number of areas- some time wise 3 fold.
I'd be a little more worried about that....but of course no one cares about those who have to travel the time/distance to a school not near the center of population.

and as for sports -- yeah they can get injured in their sport getting exercise or sit at home on the computer building up plaque and fat etc- and harm themselves long term -- hey not to mention those high EMF's from monitors we heard about yesterday - double whammy.

[Arch]

gatordog said:

avengingeagle said:

The other argument I find ludicrous is that the area by the fields will only have severe EMF exposure during July when it is hot and only kids aged 0-5 are at risk, so don't worry about 15 - 18 year olds.

in my opinion, and per my understanding of the data, the most dangerous thing about the fields will be the games themselves. As Sports Illustrated magazine reported in Dec 2007, on average one HS athlete tragically dies while participating in their sport every two weeks in this country. (not sure about younger kids in sports Little League etc.)

HS Athletes choosing to push the limits and compete in a competitive sport on a team is a choice.

State Mandated PE that requires kids to be outside is something people don't have a choice over when it comes to selecting their courses in the curriculum.

Please let us know if you really did not understand this difference with the SI reported study or if you're trying to diffuse/cloud a legitimate concern with purely BS data on purpose.

[Avenging Eagle]

brad204 said:

Permission to discuss results not yet granted

March 11, 2008
By Tim Waldorf [e-mail]
Discussions of safety concerns regarding the proposed site for Metea Valley High School were partially had at Monday's Indian Prairie School District 204's board meeting.

Partially had?

We've been COMPLETELY HAD!