Connect with us

Science

L.A. County finds high lead levels in soil on properties already cleaned by Army Corps

Published

on

L.A. County finds high lead levels in soil on properties already cleaned by Army Corps

New soil testing by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health has found high levels of lead and other toxic metals at homes destroyed by January’s catastrophic wildfires and cleared by federal cleanup crews.

The county health department hired Roux Associates Inc. to conduct soil sampling at 30 homesites that had been cleaned up by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers — the federal agency leading debris-removal operations for the Eaton and Palisades wildfires. The Army Corps and Federal Emergency Management Agency have said crews would clear wildfire debris and up to 6 inches of topsoil in ash-covered portions of the property.

In the Eaton burn scar, in the areas scraped by federal cleanup crews, around 27% of the Roux soil samples still had lead levels above California’s state standards for residential properties (80 milligrams per kilogram). In samples taken from parts of those properties where soil was not excavated, nearly 44% had lead levels above the state benchmark.

In the Palisades fire zone, the numbers were much more assuring: Less than 3% of soil samples from scraped portions of properties and about 12% from unscraped areas had elevated lead levels.

Adam Love, the vice president and principal scientist for Roux, said the higher percentage of older homes with lead paint in Altadena, where the Eaton fire primarily hit, could be one of the reasons for the large disparity.

Advertisement

“The honest answer is we don’t know all the things that could be contributing to [the variation in lead contamination],” Love said. “It could be related to the difference in the housing stock, and the fact that the houses in the Eaton area are more likely to have lead-based paint.

“It could be from soils during the scrape that got dislodged,” he continued, “or ash that blew from adjacent parcels into the scraped area.”

An overview of the fire-ravaged Pacific Palisades Bowl Mobile Estates along Pacific Coast Highway in Pacific Palisades on April 15.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

Advertisement

Love and county public health officials are now recommending that property owners in affected areas consider potential soil contamination ahead of rebuilding efforts.

“Soil impact assessment and management really should be part of any rebuilding plan,” Love said. “You may want to consider getting an assessment by an environmental professional in order to ensure you’re taking the appropriate steps to be protected.”

This comes as county and city officials have issued rebuilding permits without soil testing requirements — and some developers have already broken ground.

The county results add to a growing body of evidence that a significant number of properties could still harbor dangerous contaminants even after federal cleanup crews finish removing wreckage — contamination that is typically prevented by the state guidelines that call for comprehensive soil testing.

This week, the Los Angeles Times published a special report built around a soil-testing initiative that provided the first evidence that homes remediated by federal contractors still had levels of heavy metals above typical state cleanup goals. Times journalists found that two Altadena homesites that were burned down and later cleaned up by federal cleanup crews still contain dangerous heavy metals above California’s standards.

Advertisement

The Times first reported in February that the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers would not pay for soil testing after the Eaton and Palisades fires. The refusal of federal and state disaster agencies to conduct soil testing after a major wildfire breaks with California’s long-standing wildfire recovery guidelines that were intended to ensure fire-related contamination is eliminated from residential properties by cleanup crews.

Previous wildfire testing has found roughly 20% of properties fail to meet California’s cleanup goals for potentially toxic materials after a first round of debris removal, which typically involves taking off about 6 inches of topsoil. However, soil sampling allowed state and federal contractors to identify which properties still had high levels of contamination, and then to redeploy cleanup crews to remove additional soil to ensure properties meet California’s cleanup standards.

For this cleanup, without soil testing, the federal cleanup crews will not return to remove additional soil, according to the Army Corps of Engineers.

The decision not to perform comprehensive soil testing has been criticized by many environmental and public health experts.

A worker clears debris from a home destroyed in the Palisades fire.

A worker clears debris from a home destroyed in the Palisades fire in Pacific Palisades on April 15. The cleanup is being overseen by the Army Corps of Engineers.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

Advertisement

“By not conducting soil testing, the federal government and state government have made the decision that leaving contaminated properties — and not informing the homeowners about how much contamination remains — is OK,” said Andrew Whelton, a professor of civil, environmental and ecological engineering at Purdue University who has studied environmental disasters.

When the Eaton and Palisades fires consumed thousands of homes and cars, they released untold amounts of hazardous chemicals. One of the most worrisome is lead, a brain-damaging chemical that has historically been used in paint and is still a fixture in batteries.

“Given these findings, it’s critical to understand the specific health risks posed by the chemicals detected — particularly lead, which remains one of our top concerns, “ said Nichole Quick, chief medical advisor at the county health department. “Lead is a potent neurotoxin, and even at low level, exposure can affect learning, development and behavior in young children. Lead exposure isn’t always obvious. Symptoms don’t show up right away or at all until the damage is already done.”

The county health department previously shared preliminary results from soil testing of still-standing homes in and around the Eaton and Palisades burn scars. As many as 80% of soil samples collected downwind of the Eaton fire had lead levels above the state health standards for residential properties.

Advertisement

However, department officials declined to provide the copies of the soil test results, saying data had yet to be finalized. The department also said it would not be sharing those results with individual property owners. The Times has submitted a public records request for those data.

The Los Angeles County health department is the only government agency to perform post-cleanup soil sampling. Federal disaster agencies have repeatedly refused. The Newsom administration also has not undertaken any soil testing.

In April, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors approved $3 million to help homeowners downwind of the fires to test their yards for lead. That program is expected to start on May 19, and public health officials said 26,000 eligible properties would receive a postcard invitation with more information.

In that case, homeowners would need to collect soil samples themselves and drop it off for analysis.

If results find contamination, homeowners will probably be left to pay for additional soil removal or other methods to seal off contaminated areas. As the meeting dragged on, many residents in the comment section expressed their concern on how they might pay for such removal.

Advertisement

“We have no money,” wrote one commenter.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Science

Video: Axiom-4 Mission Takes Off for the I.S.S.

Published

on

Video: Axiom-4 Mission Takes Off for the I.S.S.

new video loaded: Axiom-4 Mission Takes Off for the I.S.S.

transcript

transcript

Axiom-4 Mission Takes Off for the I.S.S.

Hungary, India and Poland sent astronauts to the International Space Station for the first time by paying Axiom Space for the journey.

3, 2, 1, ignition and liftoff. The three nations, a new chapter in space takes flight. Godspeed Axiom 4.

Advertisement

Recent episodes in Science

Continue Reading

Science

Contributor: Those cuts to 'overhead' costs in research? They do real damage

Published

on

Contributor: Those cuts to 'overhead' costs in research? They do real damage

As a professor at UC Santa Barbara, I research the effects of and solutions to ocean pollution, including oil seeps, spills and offshore DDT. I began my career by investigating the interaction of bacteria and hydrocarbon gases in the ocean, looking at the unusual propensity of microbes to consume gases that bubbled in from beneath the ocean floor. Needed funding came from the greatest basic scientific enterprise in the world, the National Science Foundation.

My research was esoteric, or so my in-laws (and everyone else) thought, until 2010, when the Deepwater Horizon offshore drilling rig exploded and an uncontrolled flow of hydrocarbon liquid and gas jetted into the deep ocean offshore from Louisiana. It was an unmitigated disaster in the Gulf, and suddenly my esoteric work was in demand. Additional support from the National Science Foundation allowed me to go offshore to help figure out what was happening to that petroleum in the deep ocean. I was able to help explain, contextualize and predict what would happen next for anxious residents of the Gulf states — all made possible by the foresight of Vannevar Bush, the original architect of the National Science Foundation.

Now the great scientific enterprise that has enabled my research and so much more is on the brink of its own disaster, thanks to actions and proposals from the Trump administration. Setting aside the targeted cuts to centers of discovery such as Harvard and Columbia, and rumors that California’s public universities are next, the most obvious threats to research are the draconian budget reductions proposed across virtually all areas of science and medicine, coupled with moves to prevent foreign scientists from conducting research-based study in the U.S. The president’s latest budget calls for around a 55% cut to the National Science Foundation overall, with a 75% reduction to research support in my area. A reduction so severe and sudden will reverberate for years and decimate ocean discovery and study, and much more.

But a more subtle and equally dire cut is already underway — to funding for the indirect costs that enable universities and other institutions to host research. It seems hard to rally for indirect costs, which are sometimes called “overhead” or “facilities and administration.” But at their core, these funds facilitate science.

Advertisement

For instance, indirect costs don’t pay my salary, but they do pay for small-ticket items like my lab coat and goggles and bigger-ticket items like use of my laboratory space. They don’t pay for the chromatograph I use in my experiments, but they do pay for the electricity to run it. They don’t pay for the sample tubes that feed into my chromatograph, but they do support the purchasing and receiving staff who helped me procure them. They don’t pay for the chemical reagents I put in those sample tubes, but they do support the safe disposal of the used reagents as well as the health and safety staff that facilitates my safe chemical use.

They don’t pay salary for my research assistants, but they do support the human resources unit through which I hire them. They don’t pay for international travel to present my research abroad, but they do cover a federally mandated compliance process to make sure I am not unduly influenced by a foreign entity.

In other words, indirect costs support the deep bench of supporting characters and services that enable me, the scientist, to focus on discovery. Without those services, my research enterprise crumbles, and new discoveries with it.

My indirect cost rate is negotiated every few years between my institution and the federal government. The negotiation is based on hard data showing the actual and acceptable research-related costs incurred by the institution, along with cost projections, often tied to federal mandates. Through this rigorous and iterative mechanism, the overhead rate at my institution — as a percentage of direct research costs — was recently adjusted to 56.5%. I wish it were less, but that is the actual cost of running a research project.

The present model for calculating indirect costs does have flaws and could be improved. But the reduction to 15% — as required by the Trump administration — will be devastating for scientists and institutions. All the functions I rely on to conduct science and train the future workforce will see staggering cuts. Three-quarters of my local research support infrastructure will crumble. The costs are indirect, but the effects will be immediate and direct.

Advertisement

More concerning is that we will all suffer in the long term because of the discoveries, breakthroughs and life-changing advances that we fail to make.

The scientific greatness of the United States is fragile. Before the inception of the National Science Foundation, my grandfather was required to learn German for his biochemistry PhD at Penn State because Germany was then the world’s scientific leader. Should the president’s efforts to cut direct and indirect costs come to pass, it may be China tomorrow. That’s why today we need to remind our elected officials that the U.S. scientific enterprise pays exceptional dividends and that chaotic and punitive cuts risk irreparable harm to it.

David L. Valentine is a professor of marine microbiology and geochemistry at UC Santa Barbara.

Insights

L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.

Advertisement
Viewpoint
This article generally aligns with a Center Left point of view. Learn more about this AI-generated analysis
Perspectives

The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.

Ideas expressed in the piece

  • The article contends that indirect costs (overhead) are essential for research infrastructure, covering critical expenses like laboratory maintenance, equipment operation, safety compliance, administrative support, and regulatory processes, without which scientific discovery cannot function[1].
  • It argues that the Trump administration’s policy capping indirect cost reimbursement at 15% would inflict “staggering cuts” to research support systems, collapsing three-quarters of existing infrastructure and crippling scientific progress[2][3].
  • The piece warns that broader proposed NSF budget cuts—57% agency-wide and 75% in ocean research—threaten to “decimate” U.S. scientific leadership, risking a shift in global innovation dominance to nations like China[3].
  • It emphasizes that these cuts ignore the actual negotiated costs of research (e.g., UC Santa Barbara’s 56.5% rate) and would undermine “discoveries, breakthroughs, and life-changing advances”[1].

Different views on the topic

  • The Trump administration frames indirect costs as excessive “overhead” unrelated to core research, justifying the 15% cap as a cost-saving measure to redirect funds toward prioritized fields like AI and biotechnology[1][2].
  • Officials assert that budget cuts focus resources on “national priorities” such as quantum computing, nuclear energy, and semiconductors, arguing that funding “all areas of science” is unsustainable under fiscal constraints[1][3].
  • The administration defends its stance against funding research on “misinformation” or “disinformation,” citing constitutional free speech protections and rejecting studies that could “advance a preferred narrative” on public issues[1].
  • Policymakers contend that reductions compel universities to streamline operations, though federal judges have blocked similar caps at other agencies (e.g., NIH, Energy Department) as “arbitrary and capricious”[2].
Continue Reading

Science

How Bees, Beer Cans and Data Solve the Same Packing Problem

Published

on

How Bees, Beer Cans and Data Solve the Same Packing Problem

Animation of the same plastic spheres disappearing one at a time.

A holy grail in pure mathematics is sphere packing in higher dimensions. Almost nothing has been rigorously proven about it, except in dimensions 1, 2 and 3.

That’s why it was such a breakthrough when, in 2016, a young Ukrainian mathematician named Maryna Viazovska solved the sphere-packing problem in eight dimensions, and later, with collaborators, in 24 dimensions.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending