A former auto dealership in Forestville where officials plan to build a $60 million school contains some alarming contamination, according to an environmental report that had been kept under wraps.
The report, prepared in 2005, found chromium, barium, lead, TPH, arsenic, chloroform and other chemicals that have the potential to harm people.
Federal government health information warns that excessive exposure to the chemicals can cause a wide array of health woes.
Though officials have mentioned the possibility that the site beside Greene-Hills School could have some environmental problems, they never specified what those problems might be.
The City Council last month endorsed the site for construction of a new 900-student school to house kindergarten through eighth grade. Only one councilor, Frank Nicastro, opposed the move.
Nicastro said at the time there should have been more opportunity for public input and he expressed unhappiness that Mayor William Stortz failed to share two environmental studies that have been done on the Crowley property.
One of those studies was a May 2005 report by Applied Environmental Control, LLC prepared for Crowley Auto Group, which owns the property.
In the report, Environmental Manager Robert Bertolette details findings on the 2-acre site and recommends more monitoring of the property “that will ultimately facilitate the transfer of this property.”
The report said that firm surveyed the site and drilled test wells to determine what sorts of contaminants might have polluted the ground or water beneath the longtime car dealership, which operated from 1948 to 2005.
Among the “contaminants of concern that could be associated with site activities” is TPH, or total petroleum hydrocarbons, a term that covers several hundred chemical compounds created from crude oil.
“Some chemicals that may be found in TPH are hexane, jet fuels, mineral oils, benzene, toluene, xylenes, naphthalene, and fluorene, as well as other petroleum products and gasoline components,” according to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registory.
Samples of TPH typically contain a mixture of the chemicals.
“Some of the TPH compounds can affect your central nervous system,” the agency reports.
“One compound can cause headaches and dizziness at high levels in the air. Another compound can cause a nerve disorder called ‘peripheral neuropathy,’ consisting of numbness in the feet and legs,” it reports. “Other TPH compounds can cause effects on the blood, immune system, lungs, skin, and eyes.”
“Animal studies have shown effects on the lungs, central nervous system, liver, and kidney from exposure to TPH compounds. Some TPH compounds have also been shown to affect reproduction and the developing fetus in animals,” according to the agency.
Water testing at the former Crowley site found elevated levels of “dissolved chromium and lead” in two wells, the study found, though the levels may fluctuate as the groundwater rises and falls at different times of the year.
Chromium and lead are natural elements, but their levels may be elevated on the site.
“At this time, it is our opinion that contaminants of concern (i.e., chromium and lead) detected in groundwater are currently below” the level of groundwater protection criteria, the 2005 environmental report found.
Both chromium and lead can cause health problems.
The site also appears to have an excessive amount of barium, another natural element. It is also produced by burning oil and coal.
“Barium has been found to potentially cause gastrointestinal disturbances and muscular weakness when people are exposed to it at levels above the EPA drinking water standards for relatively short periods of time,” according to the toxic substances agency, a division of the federal Department of Health and Human Services.
“Some people who eat or drink amounts of barium above background levels found in food and water for a short period may experience vomiting, abdominal cramps, diarrhea, difficulties in breathing, increased or decreased blood pressure, numbness around the face, and muscle weakness,” the agency says.
“Eating or drinking very large amounts of barium compounds that easily dissolve can cause changes in heart rhythm or paralysis and possibly death. Animals that drank barium over long periods had damage to the kidneys, decreases in body weight, and some died,” according to the agency.
Specific site concerns
* An abandoned 3,000 underground tank under the west parking lot.
* “A gasoline [underground storage tank] grave” adjacent to the 3,000 gallon tank.
* A 2,000 heating oil tank beside the building.
* “Former drum storage area and solid waste Dumpsters” beside the building.
* “Tank graves” for motor oil transmission fluid tanks removed in 1986.
* A 1,000 gallon waste oil underground tank beside the building.
* Two catch basins on the east side of the site that may have collected “spills of oils or hazardous liquids.”
* Sub-floor drains in service bays that may have caught contaminated runoff.
Negotiations to start soon
Mayor Art Ward, who said he hasn’t had a chance to review the environmental findings yet, said he plans to meet with Ken Crowley within a couple of weeks to begin talking about the potential sale of the property for a school.
*******
Copyright 2007. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com
29 comments:
I think Art needs to rethink his approval on the Crowley property. First of all, it is WAY overpriced. Mr. Crowley is very greedy in my opinion, to even be asking for the amount he is asking for. Obviously it has no retail/commercial value, otherwise a store or company would have bought it up already. Second it is polluted as any former car repair facility would be. Doesn't take reports or a rocket scientist to figure that out. Frank Nicastro made the right call on this one and I wish he was still Mayor because of wise decisions like this. Its just a bad idea and deal for the kids and the taxpayers overall. I can see this small piece of property ending up costing even more than the Center Mall has already cost us. Find another alternative Art and save us all a lot of headaches....and MONEY !!!
Will this prevent the council from purchasing the property? I can imagine that environmental clean up will cost a fortune.
I don't have any idea what cleanup would cost or whether there have been more studies that make it more clear what needs to be done. I believe that as Mayor Ward looks into it all, we'll learn much more, because so far at least he has been much more open about sharing information with the public and press than the last two mayors.
Why the hell would stortz keep something like this on the health and welfare of kids, hidden? Ward will not allow such a school to be built knowing this contamination is there.
You got that right Steve! What a refreshing change from what we had with the last 3 Mayors.
This should be the death nell to the entire BOE plan. The size of the schools that they are seeking to build is driving the location issue and is very limiting on the potential for valid sites. The mayor and council need to send a message to the BOE that they need to work within the realm of reality and focus on school rehabilitation or new K5 schools that require a smaller footprint. This would open up a greater set of site options. The size of the schools and the grade structure issues are tightly integrated and the mayor does not have the luxury of being hands off with the BOE. We need to see some serious leadership on this issue before we have a very expensive mess on ours hands. Look's like the cost of Tom O'Brien's experiment is beginning to escalate.
Shame on Bill Stortz! During the council meeting that this was voted on Stortz matter of factly mentioned that he had received and seen the reports in question before hand and gave the impression to the surprised council members at the meeting (they had no idea he had the reports because he did not share the fact that he had the reports) that things at first glance looked fine. Bill's lack of respect for the council and the citizens of Bristol shines through again. Could this be why he did not share the reports before the meeting? He wanted it to blow up in the new administration's face!
Disingenous? Not really. Stortz withheld information that impacted a decision. This was wrong -- period.
I was at the meeting and Frank was very outspoken on that fact that information was not shared with the rest of the council. Stortz pushed for this vote to occur. Again, the vote was to let the BOE/city proceed with the process of investigating buying the site.
Stortz is typically the first person to cry foul and accuse others yet in this case it was he who misled everyone. Shame on him!
Keep in mind that the recomendation from the committee is just that, a recomendation.
By virtue of the existing city legislation, it gets referred to the council who then has to refer it to the appropriate boards and commissions.
The state will also have a say, because it is their money too.
There are no environmental experts on either builiding committee: they will rely on experts, for all areas: value, safety, traffic, environment etc..
That is the way the process works. The committee's main interest is education and getting the process moving.
And, keep in mind that Ward does not have a clean record with secrecy: he was part of the secret offsite meetings on downtown and the Mall purchase.
"Keep in mind that Ward does not have a clean record with secrecy: he was part of the secret offsite meetings on downtown and the Mall purchase."
Can you prove this about our new mayor?
What Stortz did is on record. The council meeting was recorded. It plainly shows how he withheld information and the council's reaction.
Just because what Stortz did was wrong doesn't make what Ward did as Deputy Mayor any less wrong.
Stortz was a total disaster, and Ward went along with it even though Nicastro brought up the issue of Stortz witholding the study.
I cannot believe that thew Wesconn student didn't know that Nicastro was the lone no vote on this plan.
Stortz tried to ram this school plan down the throats of bristol residents in the waning days of his failed administration.
and remember Ward went along with it.
Hey ..... The chippens hill site was an open dump site for generations before they placed the school there .
I can remember when businesses and basically anyone could discard ANYTHING there 24 hours a day 365 days a year w/ no regard for contamination .
So I can see nothing that will prevent the school from being built on the crowley site .
You are right if you can prove it.
If you can't the discussion is mute.
One, there are pictures of Ward, and others, meeting, off site, unposted. I have seen them.
One has to think about the concept of information "being witheld"?.
Did Nicastro provide every report, make them public?
Did any of the council ask to see the report, or ask that a report be requested of provided.
Like any other top job, a lot goes on that if time was taken to pass everything on, very little would get done.
I would ask Nicastro if he ever took the time to meet with the mayor, ask questions.
Obviously other council members did, why not Nicastro?
Of course, it was his modus operandi to spring things at the Council meeting, on TV.
Also, the council did not have to vote that night: it was there choice.
This is typical of Nicastro: he pushed for a school in Forestville, but does nothing to make it happen. Could it be that he was miffed that he wasn't selected as the council member to that committee?
What a shock, an old building like that that used to no doubt house a plating company and a car repair facility would have contaminated soil. Are these politicians idiots or are they just inept in their thinking that this site would be a good place for the cities children to spend 1/3 of their lives.
There was no "Plan A" to rebuild Greene-Hills at this site. This was a quick response to people who do not want to lose a school in that area of town. It is "Plan B," if you will. It was a political response intended to salvage a plan that looked like it might be dead on arrival. We need to build or restore some obsolete facilities. The BOE wants to build two K-8 schools. Location appears to be a secondary concern. They will be happy with two new K-8schools...wherever.
Councilman Nicastro was the only member to vote against approving the site recommendation at the October 9th meeting. He specifically asked about the phase 1 and 2 studies that were available at the time but not shared with the council by the mayor. Despite not having reviewed those studies the rest of the council, moved forward with the motion to approve the site selection.
There is an article that I wrote that was published on the Bristol Blog on October 11th that addresses this issue.
As a parent, I want to say right now that I am 110 percent opposed to building a school on that site. It is clearly inappropriate because of the pollution.
I can't understand why it got this far.
Steve, you keep harping about this environmental report being "under wraps". In exactly what way were you, the council, or anyone else prevented from seeing this report?
Stortz had the report since May and didn't share it with anyone. In September he said he "just got it" and that it had "nothing alarming"
This is what you call "under wraps"
To the anonymous poster who wrote that I "keep harping about this environmental report being 'under wraps,'" I can only say that I haven't been "harping" on it at all. I mentioned in one sentence in one story that it had been under wraps. That's because it wasn't shared with the council, the press or the public. How much more under wraps can a thing be?
I also know that some of the officials involved in this school effort hoped the report would not come to light until after the property was purchased.
So, if a particular site is polluted, we should keep it polluted to continue to pollute. That's great vision.
I find quite hard to believe the Finance Board would approve the purchase of the property without having a DEFINITIVE cost estimate for the environmental clean up.
Gamache, you know nothing about how these things work, or you are just naive. Crowley will get what he wants, and so will O'Brien and the BOE.
That's your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it.I choose to have a little faith and enough repect for the Finance Board to do what is best for the taxpayers.You'll note I made NO disparaging remarks about you AND signed my name (as always).
HAs Ward read the environmental reviews yet?
Post a Comment