SAFE SOIL RESULTS
Third Party Test Confirms Convention Center Soil is Safe
SAN ANTONIO (Apr. 17, 2015) – Independent third party environmental test results of the soil relocated from the Henry B. Gonzalez Convention Center show the soil is safe and is within the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ)'s residential standards. The soil was placed on a City-owned commercial property at Highway 151 and Old Highway 90 beginning in late 2013 as it was not structurally strong enough to support the weight of the new addition to the convention center.
The City's Metro Health Department oversaw the environmental tests by Weston Solutions, Inc. at the direction of City Manager Sheryl Sculley. Weston's results confirm the data from the two initial environmental reports that indicated the soil is safe for residential use and was appropriately reused on a commercial property.
Data from Weston's tests showed metals below or within TCEQ's residential standards. The data also shows that the low levels of metals do not transfer through water, including groundwater and storm water runoff.
Weston's environmental analysis included 48 soil borings over the approximately 48 acre commercial site. TCEQ approved the work plan prior to the start of work and the results of the test were also shared.
The Weston executive summary is available through the front page of the city’s website at www.sanantonio.gov . The full environmental report is available upon request.
Safe Soil Relocation Facts Video
TCI is providing the facts on the safe soil relocated from the Henry B. Gonzalez Convention Center to a vacant City-owned commercial property.
- The soil is safe enough to meet TCEQ residential standards.
- The property is designated for commercial use.
- The soil needed to be removed from the Henry B. Gonzalez Convention Center expansion because it could not support the weight of the new building.
- A total of 85 soil samples were evaluated.
- The low level of metals shown in both environmental assessment reports are not susceptible to move through water or air.
- The commercial property at Hwy 151 and Old Hwy 90 is an appropriate site for the soil.
- La tierra es sufficientemente segura para cumplir con las normas residenciales de la TCEQ.
- La propiedad está designada para uso comercial.
- La tierra necesitaba ser trasladada de la expansión del centro de convenciones Henry B. Gonzalez, porque que no podía soportar el peso del nuevo edificio.
- Un total de 85 muestras de tierra fueron evaluados.
- El bajo nivel de los metales que se muestran en los dos informes de evaluación ambiental no son susceptibles de moverse a través del agua o el aire.
- La propiedad comercial en la carretera 151 y Old Hwy 90 es un lugar apropiado para la tierra.
SOIL RELOCATION Policy and Communication Plan
City Manager Sheryl Sculley requested that TCI prepare a soil relocation policy and develop a communication plan.
Review the Capital Project Soil Relocation Policy and Communication Plan
Removed SOIL Safe for Neighborhood Use - Sheryl Sculley, For the Express-News
I would like to address and set the record straight regarding the
Express-News coverage of the Convention Center soil removal. The soil was moved
because it was not structurally sound to handle the load of the Convention
The data in two different studies, by environmental engineering firms Geo
Strata and Raba Kistner Environmental, indicate that the soil excavated from
the Convention Center property does not exceed regulatory standards for
residential or commercial development, as established by the Texas Commission
on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). In other words, the soil is safe enough to use
for backyards, ball fields and gardens in any neighborhood community. The data
in the two reports does not conflict on this critical point.
Where the reports differ is in the narrative recommendations made by the
consultants. Geo Strata recommended that the soil be taken to a landfill for
disposal. This would have cost an estimated $6 million and resulted in
approximately 150,000 cubic yards of residential-grade soil being unnecessarily
placed in a landfill.
City staff did not agree with Geo Strata’s conclusion and hired Raba Kistner
to perform a more thorough Environmental Assessment. While the Geo Strata study
was limited to 27 boring samples, the Raba Kistner assessment added another 58 samples for a total of 85 samples. It was a far more thorough and comprehensive
assessment, and it too, indicated that the soils were appropriate for re-use at
another site instead of being taken to a landfill.
The two studies cannot be treated as equals; it a false premise that the
city picked and chose from among two competing studies. The first was an
initial, limited study and the second was a more thorough, comprehensive
analysis. I have directed the city’s Metro Health department to oversee an
independent review to test the soil at the new location.
Yes, mistakes were made here, and they had mainly to do with communication. City
staff should have better informed the mayor, City Council and our external
partners of the situation to ensure that they were as comfortable as we were
with the plan to move the soil.
But poor communication does not make an environmental catastrophe. Sensational
reporting, on the other hand, can certainly create the perception of one.
Sheryl Sculley is city manager of San Antonio.
Read more on MySanAntonio.com...
Third test confirms soil near food bank is safe
April 8, 2015
City Stresses: Convention Center Dirt IS Safe
February 20, 2015
City explains dirt reports
February 20, 2015
City defends dumping contaminated dirt near food bank
City engineer says second testing ruled soil safe
February 17, 2015
City confirms safety of SA Food Bank garden soil
February 27, 2015
Update: SA Food bank Garden Dirt Given Clean Bill of Health
February 28, 2015
City reassures community convention center soil is safe
March 4, 2015
Convention Dirt Declared Clean and Safe, Again
March 4, 2015
SOIL Boring Locations
Each environmental engineering firm took soil samples from the area. The first firm, Geo Strata, tested multiple areas but soil was only removed from Area 3. In Area 3, Geo Strata took 27 samples from nine locations. The second firm, Raba Kistner, only tested in Area 3, where the soil was removed. Raba Kistner took 58 samples from 32 locations.
Cada empresa de ingeniería ambiental tomó muestras de tierra del área. La primera empresa, Geo Estratos, probó varias áreas, pero la tierra solamente fue extractada del Area 3. En la Area 3, Geo Estratos tomó 27 muestras en nueve lugares. La segunda empresa, Raba Kistner, únicamente hizo pruebas en la Area 3, donde se había extractado la tierra. Raba Kistner tomó 58 muestras en 32 lugares.