Cleaning Up Belmont Is No Job for the LAUSD

Finally, experts assert that the Belmont Learning Complex can be finished safely and efficiently. But wait, haven’t we heard this before? And who are these experts?

The notion of expertise denotes relevant firsthand knowledge. Yet the Belmont situation is unique and so such expertise probably does not exist.

Not only is there deadly hydrogen sulfide and explosive methane gas perpetually rising through the ground, but this 35-acre site--intended to be used for a public school attended by children--also is littered with unidentified wildcat oil wells and buildings constructed over hot spots of industrial contamination.

Buildings already constructed on the site will require after-the-fact remedies.

Those who still want to use Belmont as a high school argue that established, “off-the-shelf” environmental safety systems can make the site safe.

But there is a huge difference between applying established remedies to known situations and applying those same systems to unknown situations.

There is equal uncertainty over Belmont’s final cost. Contractors are free to underbid the project because they know that additional expenses can be offset through future “change orders.” There also is the unknown cost of maintenance and supervision over the next 50 years. Future students and staff also could claim that their illnesses are linked to Belmont’s hazards. Because Belmont presents so many unknowns, it is impossible to predict the final cost.

And who will oversee this theoretical system of blowers, tubes, sensors, filters, alarms and vacuum pumps above and below 35 acres of contiguous synthetic fabric that will be used to contain the hazards? The Los Angeles Unified School District will shoulder primary responsibility, an unquestionably sobering thought.

Looking to outside consultants for additional oversight offers little solace, given the debacle of Jefferson New Middle School.

Jefferson was completed in 1997 atop a South-Central Los Angeles industrial site that formerly housed, among other industries, a World War II defense plant and chrome-plating facility.

Underneath Jefferson, according to state regulators, is the highest concentration of chromium 6 contamination in North America.

Like Belmont, the site was never fully tested until the California Legislature began making inquiries. Today, students attend classes while cleanup continues.

By the time the Legislature’s Joint Legislative Audit Committee began looking at Jefferson, an improperly designed vacuum filter by the school’s main entrance had spewed toxic fumes onto students and staff for months. Yet the school district’s outside environmental consultant issued a glowing report that all was well. The district’s outside counsel told a legislative audit hearing that Jefferson was safe when published data clearly indicated otherwise.

No one should rely on state environmental agencies to oversee Belmont. The directors of the California Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Toxic Substances Control both are gubernatorial appointees. It takes millions of dollars to run for governor. Who makes large donations to the governor’s race but land developers, law firms and California’s ever-growing environmental cleanup industry?

Our public education system is not equipped to manage school construction on contaminated land. The school board should reassert its previous decision on Belmont and demand that administrators unload this white elephant back to the private sector from whence it came.