Superintendent details PCB testing timeline and $99,000 in district costs, urges more data from state testing

Superintendent Gardner updated the board on the district’s response to concerns about polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in district buildings, saying the district has located prior remediation records and is pressing the Oregon Health Authority (OHA/OEA in the transcript) for test details and lab reports. Gardner told the board the district has “evidence of a remediation in 1994, a 2005 remediation with logs … and it was approved in 2006.”

Gardner described a timeline of events dating to an October community meeting where staff and parents raised worries. She said unions conducted initial testing and communicated a verbal finding to the district on Feb. 16 that “a single classroom at Southshore Elementary was above an EPA threshold,” but the district has not received detailed OHA testing methodology or lab reports. When the district performed follow-up testing and cleaning in March, Gardner said the district’s tests detected no PCBs: “Results were received on March 18th with no PCBs detected,” and subsequent cleaning and worker-monitoring tests “No PCBs were detected.”

Gardner said legal preservation notices and outside counsel involvement have complicated collaborative information-sharing: the district’s counsel advised treating the matter as a potential tort claim, and some testing materials have been withheld for work‑product or litigation reasons. She said the district requested from OHA the specific sample locations, chain-of-custody and lab reports and stressed the importance of repeatable methods: “Specific locations in each room where samples were obtained … it is not repeatable because it is not known.”

The superintendent put a preliminary district cost total at roughly $99,000 for legal services, communication, testing and the cleaning of one classroom. She also noted the district’s insurer, PACE, excludes PCB remediation from coverage, meaning remediation costs would come from the general fund unless offset by state remediation programs. Gardner said the district intends to apply for state funds available to older-school districts but expects to review OHA testing results before seeking grants.

Public commenters and staff raised concerns about testing methodology and transparency. Ken Biser, a West Albany teacher and union member, told the board he and colleagues had sought to share their testing data with district counsel and asked why the district has not coordinated a data exchange; district leaders responded they have attempted to schedule joint reviews with testing firms and legal counsel. Biser also questioned whether the district’s summary report used correct units and said outside reviewers found “numerous errors” in the external report they reviewed.

Next steps the board discussed include scheduling additional meetings that include district counsel, OHA representatives, the union and independent scientists to clarify sample locations, methods, and the identity and accreditation of the laboratory that processed samples. Gardner characterized the current posture as cautious but cooperative: the district wants to understand any risk and “establish that the buildings are safe.”

The board was told there is no finalized OHA lab report in district hands; Gardner said the district continues to press for the underlying documents and will move forward with testing partners once methodology and chain-of-custody questions are clarified.

Ending: The district will pursue additional meetings with OHA and testing partners and intends to apply for state remediation funds once it can review OHA’s lab reports and sample methodology.