Roberto Clemente Learning Academy
Detroit, MI
Michigan is one of the 20 states in the nation with no policies of any kind that restrict building schools on or near contaminated sites. See the 50 State Survey for details on Michigan’s current school siting laws and regulations.
Constructed in 1886, the former Beard Elementary School facility in a densely populated, predominantly low-income and minority area of southwest Detroit was bursting at the seams from a century’s worth of wear and soaring student enrollment. In 2000, Detroit Public Schools (DPS) proposed construction of a new Beard Elementary School (later renamed Roberto Clemente Learning Academy) on a new site. The site selected by DPS was used for industrial purposes for the better part of the 20th century, and was contaminated with lead, arsenic, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and other toxic chemicals.
Concerned parents teamed up with the environmental group, Southwest Detroit Environmental Vision (SDEV), to fight the school’s construction. In 1999, SDEV hired an environmental consultant to review the site’s history, which prompted DPS to conduct their own testing. Testing revealed high levels of lead, PCBs, arsenic, and other contaminants at the site, warranting involvement of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ).
Together with concerned parents, SDEV closely monitored MDEQ throughout the site evaluation process. Both the community group and MDEQ put pressure on DPS to ensure that environmental dangers at the site were properly characterized. Though their 2001 lawsuit to halt construction was lost, the judge ordered that numerous safeguards be put in place to address the community’s health concerns, including increased monitoring of environmental contaminants, hiring an independent consultant to advise on additional testing and cleanup actions, providing bilingual reports on monitoring and maintenance at the site, and creating a Citizens Advisory Committee.
Extensive remediation efforts were taken at the Roberto Clemente Learning Academy. Contaminated soil was removed from the site to a depth of 7 to 26 inches depending on the intended use for that particular area. All paved areas, including the parking lots, curbs, sidewalks and the basketball court, were underlain with four inches of aggregate and topped with either four inches of paved concrete or three inches of asphalt. A triple-layered protective barrier of varying thickness was installed on all unpaved areas on the property. On landscaped areas, the barrier consists of a geotextile layer, placed on top of the contaminated soil to be left on-site, followed by 4 inches of compacted crushed concrete, and 8 inches of clean topsoil. Grass and other landscaping were planted in the clean topsoil. On areas with a higher level of activity, such as sports fields, a more protective 8 inches of compacted crushed concrete were used, followed by the same 8 inches of topsoil. For the baselines of the baseball field, eleven inches of crushed concrete were placed on top of the geotextile layer, followed by five inches of stone dust.
Because children are more sensitive to chemical exposures, an even more conservative barrier was installed beneath the kindergarten and preschool play areas. The barrier for these areas consists of 6 inches of sand, a 4-inch thick poured concrete slab with reinforcement rod, followed by 4 inches of pea gravel, covered by 12 inches of wood fiber as a cushioned barrier. An 8-inch concrete wall tied into the 4-inch concrete slab surrounds each play area to keep the surrounding soil out and retain cover materials. A maintenance and monitoring plan was prepared to ensure the integrity of the preventative measures taken at the site. The plan includes monthly inspections of the site cap, paved areas, concrete building floor, and other exposure barriers.
Parent and community activist involvement early on in the process helped hold authorities accountable for proper cleanup of the Roberto Clemente Learning Academy. Without laws requiring DPS to conduct site assessments, testing, alternate site evaluations, remediation, and to encourage public involvement, it was left up to the community to put pressure on DPS to clean up the site.
The extensive remediation efforts at the new school site have been called into question. Various breaches in the multi-layered barrier have not been promptly repaired, school officials have been accused of not taking the monitoring plan seriously, and the community is experiencing difficulty in gathering the latest information about the site’s safety. (Benjamin, 2005; UM, 2005).