|
The PA has been working diligently since September 11 to ensure that our children receive a quality education in a safe and healthful environment. We have acted responsibly and prudently in the best interests of all of our children, making reasonable and well-supported requests as warranted. Thanks to PA efforts, an asbestos abatement was conducted, environmental monitoring is ongoing, and better filters have been installed. Although we worked successfully with the Board of Education (BOE) to resolve some environmental and health concerns, negotiations have not always been smooth.
Currently, we are requesting that BOE improve filtration to prevent outdoor contaminants from entering Stuyvesant, clean the ductwork, and work to have the barge operation next to the school relocated to a less environmentally intrusive site. For unspecified reasons, probably financial and political, BOE has been unresponsive and sometimes antagonistic to these issues. The recent letter to parents from Deputy Chancellor David Klasfeld reflects this situation.
The PA Environmental Health and Safety Committee encourages everyone in the Stuyvesant community to give full and fair consideration to Deputy Chancellor Klasfeld's letter and to our response below. (This response is limited to answering points raised by Mr. Klasfeld in his letter. A full report by the Committee will be presented at tonight's PA meeting.)
Regarding mechanical ventilation
The Klasfeld letter states: "We hired a world-class engineering consultant ... to help us to accomplish the best possible retrofit of Stuyvesant's air handling/ventilation system."
The facts are:
- To date, except for the choral room, there has been no retrofit of Stuyvesant's mechanical ventilation systems, which would entail modifying or installing air handling equipment or ductwork.
- All that BOE has done is upgrade the filters in the ventilation systems to 40% efficiency. This work was not completed until the last week in January.
- The BOE and its consultant refused to meet with PA officers or to provide a copy of the consultant's report. A request had to be filed under the Freedom of Information Law for the PA to obtain a copy of the report.
The Klasfeld letter states: "The system is now operating with the highest efficiency filtration system that is possible given its configuration and operating specifications."
The facts are:
- According to BOE's consultant, the recently upgraded filters have an efficiency rating of only 40% at one micron. These filters still do not adequate protect against respirable particulate matter, including asbestos, lead dust, and other toxic contaminants.
- BOE is not willing to consider retrofitting the system to accommodate sufficiently protective filters.
The Klasfeld letter states: "Standard measurements of air quality inside the school have been well within acceptable limits since the air handling and ventilation systems were retrofitted."
The facts are:
- Filters were upgraded as of the last week in January. Elevated levels of lead dust were measured in the school during the first week of February. Standard measurements of air quality inside the school have not been well within acceptable limits since the air handling and ventilation systems were retrofitted.
The Klasfeld letter states: "In an attempt to mislead the parent body ... the (PA) report ... tries to compare Stuyvesant's air handling systems to a totally different kind of system ... at the Borough of Manhattan Community College."
The facts are:
- Stuyvesant and BMCC are each the same distance from ground zero and the same distance from the truck and barge operation. The two schools have virtually identical exposure to outdoor contaminants. Stuyvesant's and BMCC's air handling systems are different. BMCC's is much more protective. The PA is working to improve Stuy's ventilation to make it at least as protective as BMCC's. For example:
- Prior to reopening, Stuvesant required an asbestos abatement. Because BMCC's filters are more efficient, BMCC did not require an abatement.
- Since reopening, Stuyvesant has had numerous days where indoor levels of particulate matter have been elevated. BMCC has not.
- Stuyvesant has 300 poorly filtered unit ventilators in the classrooms which permit entry of outdoor contaminants. BMCC has no unit ventilators.
- Stuyvesant's centralized air handling units had approximately 30% efficient filters. BMCC's filters are approximately 85% efficient.
- Stuyvesant's new 40% efficient filters are still significantly less protective than BMCC's existing filters.
- BOE is unwilling to modify Stuyvesant's ventilation system to accommodate high-efficiency filters that will adequately protect our children.
The Klasfeld letter states: "It would be near to impossible to retrofit the ... system to accommodate HEPA filtration... a process that would take between 12 and 24 months."
The facts are:
- According to a report to the PA by Cosentini Associates, the firm which originally designed Stuyvesant's ventilation systems for BOE, the systems could be retrofitted and upgraded with high-efficiency particulate and charcoal filters, possibly including HEPAs, in about 4 months. Classroom disruption would be minimal, as work would be done at night and on weekends.
The Klasfeld letter states: "The President of the PA discussed with the Robin Hood Foundation (funding for HEPA filters). They ... declined to proceed because the project was deemed impractical."
The facts are:
- The proposal submitted to the Robin Hood Foundation was the Cosentini proposal, not an exclusively HEPA proposal. Our treasurer, not our president, held discussions with the Robin Hood Foundation. The Foundation declined to proceed because the proposal did not meet the foundation's internal funding criteria, not because it was "impractical."
Regarding medical opinions and research
The Klasfeld letter states: "The most comprehensive epidemiological study of ... claims of greater illness (among students and staff) has not been released by the city department of health... There are no large scale sicknesses or illnesses at the school."
The facts are:
- No epidemiological study of Stuyvesant students has been conducted. No parents have been asked for consent for the participation of their children, as required for a study. No interviews have been conducted. No surveys have been distributed.
- Statistics derived from numbers of absences or numbers of visits to the school nurse are not reliable indicators of the incidence of symptoms or illness among students.
The Klasfeld letter states: "We continue to work with doctors trained in pediatric health and environmental and occupational safety from the NYU Medical Center/Mt. Sinai Medical Center healthcare network. These doctors ... assure us, unequivocally, that Stuyvesant and other downtown schools are clean and safe for both children and adults."
The facts are:
- Mt. Sinai physicians, including consultants to BOE, are not unequivocal.
- Among the Mt. Sinai physicians who continue to express concern about the environmental and health conditions in downtown Manhattan (their comments appear at the end of this handout) are:
- Dr. Philip Landrigan, Chair of the Department of Community and Preventive Medicine and Director of Environmental and Occupational Medicine, and BOE consultant
- Dr. Robin Herbert, co-director of the Mount Sinai Center for Occupational and Environmental Medicine.
Regarding environmental contamination
The Klasfeld letter states: "The outside air environment around the school has improved dramatically, primarily due to the cessation of the fires... "
The facts are:
- Most fires at ground zero were extinguished by the end of December. Consequently, most noxious odors have disappeared. However, smaller quantities of combustion by-products, including soot, dioxin, polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) continue to be produced at ground zero.
- Some toxic substances which were produced by the burning of plastics, PCBs, etc., as well as other chemicals which were present at ground zero, have now become attached to the particulate matter (dust) which is ever-present. 90 Church Street is contaminated with mercury. 30 West Broadway is contaminated with dioxin.
- The barge operation next to Stuyvesant continues to be a source of respirable particulates. The PA's expert has found that outdoor concentrations of respirable and possibly toxic particulates between the barge and Stuyvesant are twice as high as those present in the air next to ground zero.
The Klasfeld letter states: "Air monitoring data ... indicate that the air filtration and ventilation systems ... are doing their job exceedingly well."
The facts are:
- BOE monitoring in the school has found concentrations of lead dust that exceed federal limits on 3 occasions (the most recent being last Thursday), demonstrating that Stuyvesant's filters are not preventing outside air contaminants from entering the school and exposing our children.
- We do not and cannot test Stuyvesant for all possible contaminants. For example, EPA on 2 occasions has found elevated isocyanate and tetrachloroethane levels outside the school. We have no way of knowing whether these toxic substances entered the school.
- Environmental sampling results are not always reliable. For example, on Nov. 28, EPA recorded an elevated concentration of asbestos, well in excess of the regulatory standard, in outdoor air next to Stuyvesant. On the same day in the same spot, BOE found no asbestos.
The Klasfeld letter states: "The report matter of factly claims that 'diesel fumes are carcinogenic,' without mentioning that such fumes are ubiquitous in the urban environment..."
The facts are:
- Many of the gaseous and particulate components of diesel exhaust are known to have toxic effects, including pulmonary irritation from oxides of nitrogen, irritation of the eyes and mucous membranes from sulfur dioxide, phenol, and sulfuric acid, and cancer from polyaromatic hydrocarbons.
- Heavy-duty diesel equipment present at and near Stuyvesant that are not "ubiquitous" in the urban environment include refuse haulers, dump trucks, cranes, diesel generators, marine vessels, and all-terrain vehicles. Nonroad vehicles pose a special threat to air quality because they are major contributors of respirable particulate matter and oxides of nitrogen. Because regulatory standards for non-road vehicles are more lax than for highway vehicles, they are more polluting.
The Klasfeld letter states: "The EPA standard for long-term exposure to respirable particulates, what we call dust, applicable to sensitive individuals is 40 micrograms per cubic meter of air. Sensitive individuals are persons with asthma or other acute respiratory conditions. The air monitoring standard applicable to those not in the sensitive category is 65 µg..."
The facts are:
- According to the EPA, the 40 µg standard applies to children.
- Children are defined as people under 18 years of age.
- Mr. Klasfeld errs in seeking to apply the less protective standard to Stuyvesant students.
Statements of Mount Sinai Physicians:
Dr. Philip Landrigan, Chair of the Department of Community and Preventive Medicine and Director of Environmental and Occupational Medicine at The Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York City and BOE consultant testified that he is concerned about the truck and barge operation: "I've been down there. I have seen the trucks go by inadequately covered. I certainly would not want my grandchildren to be there." He has written, "Although levels of airborne asbestos (in lower Manhattan) are generally low, concern arises from the fact that many of those at risk of exposure are children... Children have more years of future life in which to develop mesothelioma or other delayed diseases that may result from exposures to asbestos or to other toxic materials. Almost no data exist on the possible long?term consequences of low?level asbestos exposure in early childhood. Cases of mesothelioma have, however, been reported in the grown children of asbestos workers."
Dr. Robin Herbert, co-director of the Mount Sinai Center for Occupational and Environmental Medicine, responding to reports on February 9 that EPA withheld information that respirable dust present throughout lower Manhattan is caustic: "There is a large population here (lower Manhattan) whose physicians needed to know that information... Exposure to dust with a high pH could impact everyone."
|
