At its January 6th meeting, the School Building Committee discussed the geotechnical analysis that is currently being conducted by McArdle, Gannon Associates as part of the Feasibility Study. The objective of the geotechnical analysis is to explore subsurface conditions within the potential areas of development on the site to provide information on what kind of building foundations, construction slabs, and access route support may be needed in the scope of the building project. The results of this analysis will be available by early February. Please note that the architects said the results of the geotechnical study are unlikely to affect any decision on where the new school should be located on the site or where the access routes should be; they will simply provide information about what kind of foundation will be needed, what kinds of slabs will be necessary for construction purposes, etc.
A geo-environmental analyst will also be on site during this process to assess whether there are any hazardous chemicals present in the soil.
In addition, the team from Symmes, Maini, & McKee presented a draft matrix for the SBC to use in evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of each of the potential building site and design alternatives (front of existing building, rear of existing building, and current footprint). The matrix is broken down into a number of different evaluation categories, with various considerations listed under each category. This matrix is a draft and SBC members are currently working on proposing revisions to it in conjunction with SMMA.
Finally, SMMA showed some additional draft site concepts for the new school. One concept showed a footprint for the new school being built on top of the existing footprint. The others presented were 3-story versions of the 2-story footprints that were shown at the December 23rd meeting. All draft site concepts will be made available online for the community to review, hopefully by tomorrow (Monday, January 11th). As soon as they are available, I will post that information here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Children are more vulnerable to toxins than adults. Unfortunately toxic threshold data only reflects toxic effects on a large grown man.
ReplyDeleteIf there is any question about the presence of toxic chemicals, the school should not be located on the site. Unfortunately, architects, contractors, and those who make these decisions are not qualified to make these types of decisions. I found out the hard way.
I was injured by toxins at the school where I was teaching after an architect and roofing contractor convinced the school board that it was safe to spray on a foam roof during the school day.
Fifteen years of litigation taught me that no one at the local, state, nor federal level is responsible and accountable for decisions that result toxic injuries to school children or personnel. The EPA would like to change that but they need support and funding.
Those who make decisions to locate schools on potentially dangerous sites know that it is almost impossible to prove injuries to school children an personnel.
Toxic injuries can take a decade to be diagnosed and by then the statute of limitation would have run out preventing parents from litigating for their losses.
Important question for parents to ask is "Who is responsible if a child or personnel become injured or sick for toxins found on the site?"
"Is the person or company qualified to determine the toxic effect on children's health?"
See my website and healthy schools page for news stories about schools located on sites that were later found to contain toxins. http:www.nancyswan.com
When will the 8 draft site concepts be posted to this or the SBC site?
ReplyDelete