.

Briarcliff Contamination Cleanup Scheme Ready for DEC

School officials look for approvals next week on their fiscal as well as remediation plans.

Indicted as money pits and killing fields, have simmered, largely untouched, only steps from Briarcliff Manor schools for nearly a decade and a half. Next week, the school district is expected, at long last, to formally tell the state what it plans to do about it.

Even before they officially submit that remediation plan, the district’s environmental and legal consultants were expected to discuss it this week with representatives of the state Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC).

The district’s environmental consultant, Michael Musso, a senior project engineer with HDR Inc. in Pearl River, said that ongoing tests at a softball field near the , one of two target sites, uncovered no harmful contaminants.

“We didn’t find any PAHs [polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons], no volatile compounds and...no pesticides," he told the school board Monday.

Musso said he will meet with state DEC officials informally this week in advance of a formal submission next week.

These discussions come 10 years after DEC uncovered pollutants at the other contaminated site, an all-purpose “practice field” near the high school, and only weeks after school officials acknowledged that they face legal action over the cancer deaths of two students.

Nicholas Birch, a middle school student, was 12 when he died last year, and was 18 and a 2009 graduate when he died in 2010. Their parents have put the district on notice that they plan to sue, asserting a link between the contaminated fields and their children’s illnesses.

School officials, for their part, immediately set aside additional money for legal defense, nearly doubling next year’s allocation, from $300,000 to $560,000. It also established Sive, Paget & Riesel, the district’s environmental counsel, as its legal defense team as well.

The latter move came under fire from Michael Valenti, a frequent board critic, who has been especially vocal on the contaminated-fields issue. Valenti, who fired off a weekend broadside via email, addressed the board directly at Monday’s work session in the middle school auditorium.

He declared the Sive, Paget appointment fraught with conflict-of-interest potential.

“When [state agencies like DEC] or anyone else begins to request specific information about the deaths and illnesses and sickness and cancers that have emanated from this issue, Sive Paget is going to be hard-pressed to answer their inquiries,” he said. “They’ll have to cite attorney/client privilege as they also are our counsel on the litigation issues," he said. "That’s a clear conflict of interest.”

After he emailed “the community,” Valenti said, he “got an outpouring of emails back from people,” including lawyers who “all agreed with my non-attorney viewpoint on this issue.”

But at least one lawyer—Michael Bogin of Sive, Paget, who was on hand to discuss remediation—took issue with Valenti's claims.

“I can unequivocally say that there is no conflict of interest,” Bogin insisted.

Attorney-client privilege would not attach to any information received from the people who sued the district, he said.

“It would be an admission,” Bogin said. “It would be coming through in court papers papers.

“Any attorney-client communication between Sive, Paget and the board would not be disclosed,” he said, “but that would be true whether we were representing the board or any other attorney was representing the board.” No attorney  is entitled “to waive the board’s privilege,” Bogin said. “It doesn’t matter if it’s us; it doesn’t matter who it is.”

Earlier, Valenti had asked when the chosen remediation plan will be submitted to DEC and urged the board to tell members of the public that they can comment on it.

Bogin, in his remarks, covered that ground, saying, “In my experience with DEC—over 20 years of environmental law practice—DEC takes public comments from any person at any time on an issue of importance. And this is an issue of importance.”

Let Patch save you time. Get local stories like this delivered right to your inbox or smartphone everyday with our free newsletter. Simple, fast sign-up here.

No formal plan has yet been submitted to DEC, he said, but after it has been filed the public will have 30 days to comment.

“That’s not required, by the way, under the program under which this remediation is proceeding,” Bogin said. “But the board has asked that we do that and we plan to do that.”

While the board’s remediation choice will not be formally submitted until next week, it will likely be the , the only solution the board has seriously considered in recent weeks. It calls for a rubbery open grid to act as a marker, separating the potentially contaminated soil from a protective barrier layer of clean earth. Tested for sanitary compliance, it would measure 20 inches and provide separation between the yuck below and a 4-inch layer of topsoil, in which the grass would grow.

Some critics like Valenti want to see an impervious barrier layer to cap the contaminants, firmly closing them off from the earth/topsoil layer. Valenti renewed that call Monday night. But in response to a question from Board President Guy Rotondo, Musso, the HDR consultant, called that kind of barrier unnecessary.

Such caps are used, he said, at solid waste landfills, where refuse is deposited, to keep contaminants from percolating down to foul the groundwater. At the school sites, however, “there is no evidence of contaminated fill leaching downward,” he said.

Caps can also be placed over a fill containing volatile compounds that give off gas to keep them from accumulating in buildings, Musso said. But, he added, “We don’t have those conditions here.”

An impervious cap, he said, “would add another level of effort, another layer of cost. And, if it’s not needed, I think the DEC would agree it’s probably not appropriate to put one in.”

Budget public hearing goes quietly

In a final presentation before next week's budget vote, Superintendent Neal S. Miller and Assistant Superintendent Stuart Mattey reviewed the highlights of for 2012-13.

Billed as a public hearing but seemingly aimed more at a television audience beyond the middle school auditorium, the budget review went off largely without comment.

Earlier, before the official public hearing, incoming board member Dina Brantman questioned what cuts accounted for declines in appropriations for the security and co-curricular budget lines. Mattey ascribed the reduced figures just to “general tightening,” not program cuts.

The budget will be voted on next Tuesday.


Like us on Facebook | Follow us on Twitter | Sign up for our newsletter

Curious May 09, 2012 at 12:08 PM
Tom, Why is this article titled with the word "scheme" and not "plan"?
Mike Valenti May 09, 2012 at 01:13 PM
Based on the deaths, cancers, tumors and many other illnesses attributible to these contaminated athletic fields, common sense dictates that there is more to this than the test results. The test results DO reveal carcinogens, heavy metals and PAHBs above threshold levels. The caseworker at the DEC handling this is Steve Parisi. He is happy to take your comments at any time via email or telephone. His email is: sxparisi@gw.dec.state.ny.us His phone number is: 1.845.256.3126
McKey Rivers May 11, 2012 at 03:09 PM
Some people apparently believe that the Briarcliff School Board and Superintendent have engaged in nonfeasance and/or malfeasance in the formulation of the "scheme" to address the fields situation. Why would the School Board and/or Superintendent want to do anything other than what's reasonable, legal and in the best interests of the community? The statement in Mr. Valenti’s comment "there is more to this than the test results" suggests that the top flight environmental law firm and environmental engineer engaged by the School District are ignorant and/or involved in a conspiracy with school district officials to hide something from the public. Does that sound rationale? There are families in the community who believe that they have experienced the horrible tragedy of losing a child caused by conditions at the fields, which remains to be demonstrated in due course, but their situation and the interest of the community are not helped by the wild speculation engaged in by Mr. Valenti.
Mike Valenti May 14, 2012 at 08:06 PM
A long line of Administrators and School Board Trustees have grossly mis-handled this issue from the moment Whitney Trucking dumped toxic fill on our school campus right up to the current Board of Education and Administrators. These individuals are protecting their friends and their property values instead of the health and safety of our children. The FACTS here are that several children are no longer with us. Others have cancer and/or tumors and many others are sick. The clear common denominator is the toxic athletic fields. Common sense dictates that the problem (and solution) are much more serious than the district is willing to admit. Readers should read comments from individuals who use fictitious names with skepticism and afford them the complete lack of credibility they deserve.
Jenny Rosen July 09, 2012 at 12:45 AM
It is not "speculation" Mr. Rivers that the school was negligent in this issue and it it is not "speculation" that there are HIGH levels of illness and cancer in our town. Frankly, speaking as a student-athlete alumni of Briarcliff High School, it is not "speculation" just from Mr. Valenti. MANY people feel this way because of facts and common sense. And to answer your question of "why" the School Board and/or Superintendent would do this... I'm just a lowly college student so what could I possibly know but my "speculation" is that it has something to do with covering up their own tracks and MONEY.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something