Probe Urged Over Delayed Release of Contamination Data at Belmont

The safety team investigating environmental problems at the Belmont Learning Complex on Friday called for a probe into why district officials and a private contractor took months to provide important field notes suggesting that tainted soils may have been mishandled.

After weeks of wrangling with the firm that monitored soil excavation on the high school construction site, team members said, they received a partial set of notes Friday.

They immediately turned the materials over to Don Mullinax, the district’s new head of special investigations, with a formal request that he investigate “all activities related to the grading and excavation of soils.”

Mullinax said the matter was “serious” and raised questions about whether anyone “knowingly misrepresented” environmental data--or is obstructing his investigation into the Belmont project. Mullinax said he may ask the district attorney to issue subpoenas in the matter.

Team members said they learned about the field notes in January after requesting that district officials turn over all documents relevant to the $200-million project.

The handwritten notes, obtained by The Times, record soil testing conducted by Law/Crandall Inc. and observations that oil-contaminated soil had been mixed with clean soil.

On Oct. 13, 1998, a Law/Crandall inspector wrote in a field note that workers were using a scraper that would “mix a lot of clean soil in with impacted soil, which will make the sample levels lower than they should be.”

On Jan. 28, 1999, the inspector wrote, “Calex has been making new roads on site, so some of this crude oil-impacted soil is being spread all around site.”

Officials at Calex Engineering Co., an excavation firm, and Law/Crandall could not be reached for comment late Friday.

Angelo Bellomo, a safety team member, said it is against state law to mix contaminated and clean soil to dilute toxic concentrations. He added that it is not clear whether the soil would have been considered toxic without sophisticated testing, which district officials decided to forego.

District officials have repeatedly said they were following federal regulations that do not treat crude oil as a hazardous substance.

But Bellomo said the notes were delivered more than six months after he and other safety team members pointedly asked district officials for all backup materials about potential hazards or problems at the site.

They need the information to design an exhaustive set of tests that are being conducted to obtain state certification that the site is safe.

In particular, Bellomo asked the district staff whether the construction had unearthed any oil field waste pits or abandoned wells.

“They said, ‘No, we didn’t run across any of it.’ And I asked them more than once,” Bellomo said.

But in January, Bellomo said, he heard rumors of workers using respirators while loading dirt. He approached a Law/Crandall engineer, who informed him there were voluminous field activity logs that had not been disclosed.

At that point, Bellomo said, he asked the contractor to produce the notes. In April--after repeated requests--he was provided with a summary table.

Mullinax said the safety team’s request for a probe raises two issues. Did the contractors “fully disclose to us” all their information, and did district officials “ask the right questions or monitor the project close enough? You have to pursue all angles.”

If data were misrepresented or withheld from investigators, there may be a “criminal element there,” Mullinax said.

Bellomo said analysis of the 120 borings is being wrapped up, and the unfolding information provided by the field notes may require some supplemental testing but that it probably won’t be “major.”