Original EPA Petition
[Page 1]
Mr. Richard Greene
Regional Administrator
Superfund Division
Region 6
January 8th, 2007
Re: Urgent Request For Assistance
Mr. Greene,
My name is Elizabeth Ward. I live in Austin, TX and I am contacting you regarding a new elementary school that our school district is putting in a former petrochemical R&D facility. The site was owned by Sasol North America, formally known as Condea Vista, formally known as Vista Chemical.
An extremely limited Phase I/Phase II environmental assessment was done, which was not adequate to determine the health and safety conditions of the buildings.
The environmental company that performed the assessment indicates this as well, in their own statement contained within their Standards and Care section. Recommendations advise to repeat testing after the demolition of interior walls is complete and before any renovation activity has begun; however the district is simultaneously finishing demolition while moving ahead with renovations without any further testing of any kind.
I have spoken with Karen McCormick and she has expressed her concern as well. I have forwarded a hardcopy of the final assessment to her. An electronic version is available in a PDF format is available as well.
We are within the target window for sampling detectable contaminants in appropriate areas beyond what has already been detected. We are pleading for immediate assistance from the EPA.
Respectfully,
Beth Ward
8007 Tahoe Parke Circle
Austin, TX 78726
512-219-6477
512-632-3127
[Page 2]
See Petition for Preliminary Assessment attached
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 6
Superfund Division
1445 Ross Avenue, Ste. 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Under the authority of CERCLA Section 105(d), as amended, the petitioner,
Beth Ward
8008 Tahoe Parke Circle
Austin, TX 78726
512-219-6477 (h)
512-632-3127 (c)
Hereby requests that Region 6 conduct a preliminary assessment of the suspected presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant at the following location:
Sasol North America Incorporated
formally known as Condea Vista Company,
formally known as Vista Chemical Company
12204 and 12205 Vista Parke Drive
Austin, TX 78726
Petitioner is affected by the contamination because:
I am a mother of 4 children and extremely concerned for their safety and health. Our school district, Leander ISD recently purchased a property with existing buildings onsite. These buildings will be used as a primary elementary school. The property purchased was owned by Sasol North America (Condea Vista) and the buildings were used as the petrochemical manufacturer’s research and development facility. There were also 5 additional companies who leased laboratories, all of whom did experimental chemical, biomedical and biological work in various industries.
The district does not intend to raze the existing buildings, but rather modify and renovate while doing some interior demolition in the main building for remodeling. We are aware that a wide variety of hazardous, toxic, carcinogenic materials were used and stored on site, some in large quantities.
A Phase I/Phase II assessment was done, but the conditions of the contract with the environmental company limited the scope of testing, citing project deadlines as the only explanation. The surveying began on oral authorization and then formalized with the primary contractor on September 18, 2006. Sampling was done September 18th-21st, initial analysis of samples done September 21st-27th, with preliminary reports submitted September 27th. The district closed on the property on September 29th, two days later.
This did not give the district any time to address concerns or expand the scope of the assessment. According to the report there was no information regarding prior uses of particular labs, permits issued to Sasol for hazardous or toxic materials which might have been used or stored onsite and future site plans were not available to decide where testing and sampling would be most appropriate. The environmental assessment could not have fulfilled its intent-which was to ensure that the buildings, rooms and even the floors where the children will sit could be certified as safe. The Phase I/Phase II was completed November 7th, 2006, 6 weeks after the closed and delivered to LISD December 4th 2 months after they purchased the property.
The contractor (PBS&J) recommends in the Phase I/II Introduction, section 8 “Conclusions and Recommendations” that environmental testing is repeated after the demolition is complete and prior to any renovation activities have begun. Our subject matter experts have come to the same conclusion. However, due to the overlapping demolition and remodeling now occurring, it appears a repeat assessment is not planned. Questions to the district regarding a retest have either been redirected to a "community meeting" that has not yet been scheduled, but should be later this month or ignored.
Additionally, the Phase I/II Standard of Care (Exhibit 16) states
“findings and conclusions are necessarily limited by the number of samples taken and access provided for sampling activities.” “This evaluation was not intended to be a comprehensive investigation of soils and/or groundwater at the entire site, nor was it intended to be used for evaluation of health and safety conditions.”
Although the district posted remarks on their website and participated in a story printed in the Hill Country News stating they
“contracted with an outside expert in environmental issues for an extensive review and investigation of not only the building but also the site to make certain that they are, indeed, safe for our students and staff”
Clearly this disconnect must be rectified immediately. The environmental company who did the sampling feels it was limited and can not be used to ensure one’s health and safety. The primary contractor recommends repeated testing. I do not feel, as a mom, that this assessment was thorough enough either and I’m appalled that the district would allow a “limited” sampling for “limited” chemicals/materials and find that sufficient. I would expect them to scrutinize the facility and demand that the most thorough and rigorous testing be done as I’m sure the parents and the kids themselves do too. The district did not require the due diligence owed to the young children that they are charged with keeping safe. At a minimum, the existing assessment should have been available prior to purchasing the buildings for a school. They should have read the assessment in its entirety and questioned the disclaimers and retest recommendation included. They did neither. They mention being limited by time and that is not acceptable for a school accommodating children under the age of 10, in a former chemical R&D facility.
The environmental assessment must be repeated immediately, as we are now in the target window specified for a retest. I believe that this facility may pose a threat to the individuals for which it was intended, who are children and I believe it requires further investigation. I am appealing to you for help. There is no other route available and we need your assistance in assuring that our children will be safe.
Type or characteristics of the substances involved:
Unknown.
• Probability of any hazardous, toxic, biological and carcinogenic materials due to use of buildings on site housing explosion proof work spaces, secondary containment drums stored in a building with sloped concrete floors designed for spill containment, an Above Ground Tank used to contain spills collected by floor drains in laboratories, a location formerly used for an alcohol reactor, a location formerly used for a 500 gallon benzene storage container and an acid neutralization basin on premises. Also, a sign posted on an exterior door states: Permit Required for all Flammables, Toxics, Volatile Chemicals. However, no permits were referenced in the assessment.
• Possibility of radioactive materials having been present; question arising from warning signs on laboratory doors stating “Radioactive Material-This room is a restricted area” Chemical Sampling Plan provided in the assessment shows that these particular labs did not have any sampling done in them at all.
Nature and history of any activities that have occurred regarding the suspected contaminants:
Unknown
State and local authorities you have contacted about the suspected contaminants and their response, if any:
I have spoken with Karen McCormick at the EPA, region 6. I have sent her a copy of the Phase I/Phase II assessment and asked her to review it.
We are contacting the Texas Commission for Environmental Quality, OSHA regarding the demolition workers currently onsite and intend to contact our legislators if necessary.