The building pad was stripped of topsoil last week GSH visited for a inspection. Verifying that the pad was ready for fill. The pad has since been filled with structural fill, intermountain testing was the low bid on testing, they have been testing the compactions. Footing excavation started yesterday, GSH will verify the soils conditions today, rebar is being delivered today. We will make our first footing pour tomorrow if all goes well. Our construction sign will be made after we get the legacy logo file to the sign maker.
The Groundbreaking Ceremony is scheduled for Saturday February 28th at 10am!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Good evening,
ReplyDeleteMy daughter recently got accepted to LPA (very excited) therefore I became "more" interested in LPA and its future. I commend you on your progress and development.
However the selection of your location appears to be a conflict of one of your primary desires, "safety." I have done some quick due diligence on the location and have discovered that not only will the school be in an area of bad air quality (like everywhere in davis county), but also several CERCLIS (superfund) sites are in the surrounding area, TRIS (Toxis Release Inventory Sites), and LUST (Leaking Underground Storage Tanks.
As a parent of a potential LPA student I just want to make sure that LPA has gone through the necessary due diligence requirements, etc. (Phase I ESA, Phase II ESA (if necessary)). If you have done this could you make these available at the school for review for all parents.
Regards.
Kevin
Kevin, I saw from your profile that you know about environmental concerns well. This blog seems to have been forgotten about, but I wonder if you have learned anymore about the new LPA site.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Missy
Was a response ever given the comment left by Kevin....I am a concerned parent who would be interested to know!
ReplyDeleteJust so you know, yes environmental and soil studies were all done and all came back with no areas of concern. They were all in compliance. Furthermore, as you stated yourself, all of Davis County has poor air quality which isn't necessarily completely attributed to the refineries. We have done extensive research and study on the area and have been aided by an independent engineering study that has helped us to conclude that we are in an acceptable area. This specific study was commissioned by the City of Woods Cross and found that in the worst case scenario you would want to be no closer than 175 feet from the refinery. We are a considerable distance further than that. We are working on having this study linked to the blog. Furthermore, the city has approved us based on the scientific belief that it is a safe area...land, air and all. I appreciate the concern, as we are all parents and share a similar concern and goal.
ReplyDeleteThank you for replying Ms. Hilbig.
ReplyDeleteRichard has supplied me with all studies for the expansion project which I am very grateful.
Although in reading the conclusions in the Phase I ESA it appears that the consultant, "Z Engineering Environmental Services, Inc." stated there was no "real" environmental concern. They did state the following regarding the surface impoundments on the adjacent refinery property,
"Mr. Alex Pashley, Environmental Scientist with Utah DEQ was contacted about the adjacent site owned by Inland/Silver Eagle Refining. Mr. Pashley was involved with the Risk-Based Closure of the two surface impoundments on that property. Mr. Pashley reported that the site was closed per Risk-Based requirements.
He believed the property could be used for industrial and/or commercial use, but for
residential use it would require further investigation and approval since the Risk-Based
Closure was developed to meet industrial setting standards and not residential standards.
Mr. Pashley did not have any additional environmental information about the site or the
surrounding properties."
I am not confident as to where these impoundments are in respect to the future LPA, but at the time of the closure there were no residential or "schools" in the area therefore the "RISK BASED CLOSURE" was only pertinent to industrial type settings. Therefore the risk based assessment conducted by the refinery did not assess residential and especially children at a schoo. This may be something you may want to look further into.
If you ever read State closure documents, you need to understand that just because something is stated as "closed," doesn't mean it is closed forever. The State reserves the right to open it at anytime.
I recommended to Richard that you may want to
1. Sample soil within the site (for contamination, not geotechnical purposes) to determine the possibility of vapor intrusion into the building for an 8-hour day.
2. Install wells or at least temporary piezometers and collect groundwater samples in areas that may be potential contaminated, not just from the borings that the geotechnical contractor conducted borings for their investigation (preferably one on the northeast and one near the southeast).
In conclusion, I realize that you are going to continue to make progress with the building and there is obviously nothing that any parent can say to persuade you to move the location....but we do need to create an open dialogue with everyone around the property, especially the refinery and other industrial properties in the area.
Thanks,
Kevin
As a concerned parent I would like to know the school response to the latest comment posted!
ReplyDeleteHas the school considered sending an email to all parents who have students attending LPA as well as parents of new students just recently accepted through the lottery process addressing the environmental and safety concerns and sharing the documents mentioned above with all of us. An open dialogue with the parents of the students I feel should be a high priority? Also looking at future plans to keep out children safe is a valid point that should be look at!
ReplyDelete