By Jonathan Farrell

Some Sunset neighbors worry that a dangerous toxic plume lurks beneath the surface of the 2500 block of Irving Street that has spread through the sandy soil into nearby homes on 26th and 27th avenues.

A 90-unit affordable housing structure is under construction at 2550 Irving St.

The plume is made up of a chemical gas called perchloroethylene/tetrachloroethylene, commonly referred to as PCE. The chlorinated solvent was often used by dry cleaners as a solvent and degreaser, before it was banned in California in January of 2023.

In December of last year, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) banned the use of PCE in many environments and “set a 10-year phaseout for the use of PCE in dry cleaning to eliminate the risk to people who work or spend considerable time at dry cleaning facilities.”

On the 2500 block of Irving, the PCE gas was emitted from two former dry cleaners on either side of the street. It also entered the soil through leaky lateral sewer lines.

PCE is toxic, causes cancer and is linked to neurological diseases like Parkinson’s, according to the EPA. Sunset families are currently breathing PCE contaminated air in their homes – many have been for decades.

The PCE on Irving was discovered in 2019 by a Police Credit Union consultant, AllWest Environmental. AllWest found high levels of PCE contamination underneath the entire block and even inside the Credit Union’s building at 2550 Irving St. AllWest’s report “concludes that PCE soil vapor intrusion has impacted the indoor air quality of the subject’s building and is a potential human health risk to building occupants.”

The new owner of 2550 Irving, an affordable housing developer, is currently constructing a 90-unit apartment building on top of this contaminated site.

Using a provision in Senate Bill 35 that gives affordable housing developers great leeway with environmental regulations, the developer is being allowed by California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) to leave the PCE in the ground and install a plastic vapor barrier under the new building.

Environmental consultant Donald Moore, a California professional geologist who lives eight blocks from the plume, became alarmed when he saw DTSC’s decisions were running counter to what DTSC and the California Water Board typically do in cases like this. Moore is an expert in managing California toxic sites, just like the Irving Street site.

“State guidance says a vapor barrier is an interim measure and should only be used after active cleanup has lowered the toxic levels to the extent feasible,” Moore said. He added that vapor barriers are often damaged or punctured during construction and require long-term expert maintenance for the life of the building.

Moore has provided the neighborhood group, the Mid-Sunset Neighborhood Association, (MSNA) his professional advice pro-bono over the past four years because of what he saw as DTSC’s inexperience and mismanagement of the project.

Russ Edmondson, public information officer for the DTSC, said he would “look into it.” But he didn’t respond to charges of negligence or shortsightedness.

While the Mid-Sunset Neighborhood Association is now focusing on getting toxic chemicals removed from the parcel at 2513 Irving, city officials confirmed that safety protocols are being followed.

“The developer of 2550 Irving, Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corporation (TNDC), has been working closely with the DTSC to implement the DTSC-approved Response Plan at the site,” said Anne Stanley, communications manager at the Mayor’s Office on Housing and Community Development.

“TNDC has complied with all DTSC and San Francisco Department of Public Health requirements, including requests for further investigation by DTSC and the community,” she said.

Irving Street resident Adam Michels lives in a home with elevated levels of PCE. In a letter to DTSC, Michels asks: “Why would an agency approve of a vapor barrier under the new building at 2550 Irving to protect the new residents from toxic vapor and not us? How is protecting only the residents in the new building a holistic or comprehensive solution for the neighborhood?”

For four years the neighborhood group has been trying to get the toxic PCE plume remediated. Frustrated by what they saw as inaction by elected officials and oversight agencies, the members of the MSNA went to the San Francisco Board of Appeals (BOA) and argued that the building permit for 2550 Irving should be contingent upon having a plan in place to remove the PCE plume that is under the new apartment house as well as another 40 residences and businesses.

The two BOA commissioners who voted against the appeal concluded that Senate Bill 35 tied their hands and made it impossible to intervene even to protect the health of residents exposed to the contamination. MSNA lost on a 3-2 vote that required a super majority to win.

As BOA President Rick Swig said to the other commissioners, “It comes down to whether we are going to ask these people to live with a little bit more cancer.”

Although the appeal failed, all five commissioners were clear on what they wanted done. In the words of Commissioner J.R. Eppler, “This area must 100% be cleaned up.”

Although MSNA lost the appeal in 2023, they have not given up. One of its members, Paul Holzman – who has been leading the neighborhood fight to get the PCE remediated – went looking for help from last year’s mayoral candidates. Before the election, Holzman showed then-candidate Daniel Lurie the map that Moore prepared that shows the magnitude and extent of PCE in the neighborhood. He noted that five years after the discovery of PCE, the full spread of PCE into the neighborhood is still not completely defined. Lurie called Holzman the next day and said that he wanted to help.

A few months ago, a new opportunity opened up to have the City revisit the issue. Across the street from the affordable housing site, the Police Credit Union is reviving its plan to build a market rate apartment house using an empty parking lot they still own (2513-2525 Irving St.).

“I have no problem with the Police Credit Union building new apartments on the parking lot,” said Holzman. “But the contamination should be removed. This parking lot has some of highest levels of PCE in the neighborhood – more than 150 times the state’s cancer risk screening level.”

Since August, when a new senate bill took effect (SB-423), new market-rate housing has the same environmental leeway as affordable housing. Holzman and others are worried that when permits are issued for building at the 2513-2525 Irving St. parking lot, the Police Credit Union will try to use the vapor barrier method instead of active cleanup as specified by state guidance.

“The PCU certainly knows that playbook,” Moore said, “since they sold the 2550 Irving property only after the developer’s ‘Band-Aid’ vapor barrier approach was approved by DTSC for that project.”

In his assessment, Moore notes that “DTSC made many mistakes early on, including being duped by the Police Credit Union’s consultant with misrepresentations.” These are highlighted in detail in Moore’s sworn declaration before the Board of Appeals.

Like Holzman, Moore is very upset that this is not a priority for the City.

“Cleanup of the entire PCE vapor plume can be done in one to two years,” he said.

Moore points to soil vapor extraction (SVE) as the obvious cleanup solution that is in accordance with DTSC’s own guidance. However, Moore notes that “DTSC’s mismanagement has allowed responsible parties like the Police Credit Union to walk away from their liability.

“The entire cost of SVE cleanup would be less than what the 2550 developer has allocated for its vapor barrier,” Moore said.

“The whole thing makes no sense,” Holzman said. “An affordable housing developer and the Police Credit Union are asking their future residents to live over a toxic site – while leaving the neighbors completely exposed to harmful gas. There should be no reason that San Franciscans can’t have housing and health.”

Sunset District Supervisor Joel Engardio said he is sympathetic to resolving the issue for residents.

“I briefed the mayor’s office about the ongoing concerns about toxins in the soil due to decades of dry cleaners operating on that block of Irving Street,” Engardio said. “This issue is under the jurisdiction of the state agency in charge of cleaning up waste – DTSC, the Department of Toxic Substances Control.”

Uneasy with bureaucracy and delays, Moore stated, “We need Supervisor Engardio and Mayor Lurie’s administration to step up.”

He also indicated that these city leaders have the ability to exercise oversight through San Francisco’s own Maher Ordinance, which is a law that requires developers to keep their sites safe for San Francisco residents.

Engardio’s predecessor, Gordon Mar, introduced a resolution to clean up the toxics by SVE that was unanimously approved by the Board of Supervisors in July 2022 that invoked the Maher Ordinance.

Understanding the frustration of residents, Engardio said, “I will work with Mayor Lurie to see what kind of request can be made.”

Because this is also a state issue, Engardio encourages residents to connect with their state representatives on this issue.

“I can help facilitate those connections,” he said.

According to Holzman and Moore, the big question that city leaders need to address is, “Why are you allowing San Francisco residents to live with a higher risk of cancer and other diseases?”