|
I AIR QUALITY
Probably the health concern uppermost in the minds of most Stuyvesant parents and students is the issue of air quality, or, more specifically, the possible presence of airborne contaminants and related potential adverse health effects. Within the context of the World Trade Center disaster and the reoccupancy of the Stuyvesant building, this concern translates into two issues - outdoor air quality and indoor air quality.
The collapse of the twin towers released many contaminants into the air. Given that subsequent ongoing recovery operations are likely to continue to release additional contaminants for approximately the next 12 months, the questions become: Are our children and school staff being exposed to harmful contaminants when they travel to and from school? And, can we adequately protect the indoor school environment from further contamination from the outside?
Almost from day one, a large number of federal and local government agencies has been monitoring air (and soil and water) quality in lower Manhattan. Additional sampling has been conducted by private vendors, unions, and activist organizations. Toxic substances being monitored include asbestos, lead, fiberglass, silica, PCBs, mercury and other heavy metals, benzene, dioxin, and fine particulate matter. Public ally released government data and accompanying government statements have indicated, with some exceptions, that outdoor levels of contamination are much lower than had been initially feared and that most measurements are below regulatory levels. Similar data and assurances regarding indoor environmental quality at Stuyvesant have been issued by the Board of Education since the return to school on October 9.
Since our children were at Brooklyn Tech, the PA has attempted to ensure that a return to Stuyvesant would occur only when the streets were safe for walking and the building was safe for occupancy. Partly as a result of the aggressive role played by the PA, the entire Stuyvesant building underwent a full asbestos abatement. The PA also received verbal assurances that the ventilation system had been cleaned, filters upgraded, and outside air intakes closed, that the pool would be drained and cleaned, that additional indoor and outdoor monitoring would continue with results shared daily with the PA's expert, that windows would remain closed, that sidewalks and the footbridge would be cleaned several times a day, and that an effective dust control strategy for barge and truck traffic would be implemented. We believed that these measures, when implemented, would protect our children against possible exposure to toxic substances while indoors and that limiting their time outdoors to short walks to and from the subway would not result in significant exposure. Nevertheless, reoccupancy occurred without the consent of the PA because our expert was not given sufficient opportunity to evaluate cleanup protocols or clearance test results. (Of course, the Board of Education is not required to obtain the consent of the PA.)
What has occurred since our return on October 9?
The Board of Education has subsequently increased the amount of outside air entering the school after obtaining elevated readings of carbon dioxide (CO2) in several classrooms. Increased CO2 levels, while not harmful, indicate inadequate supply of fresh outdoor air and/or inadequate exhaust of stale indoor air. In normal circumstances, inadequate ventilation is associated with comfort issues and reversible health symptoms and is corrected by increasing the amount of outside air being supplied. In this extraordinary circumstance, we don't believe that "fresh" outdoor air is available.
Rather we feel it is safer to reduce or eliminate the entry of outside air and thereby reduce the possibility of entry of toxic substances with potentially irreversible health effects.
- The Board of Education, despite promises, has not yet met with the manufacturer of the ventilation system to determine if or how the system can be retrofitted to accommodate HEPA filters (the only filters rated to protect against asbestos fibers).
- We learned that, despite promises, the pool was not drained or cleaned prior to students' return.
- We learned that, despite promises, the bridge is not being regularly cleaned to help prevent contaminants from being carried into the building.
- We learned that the Board of Education has been unsuccessful in moving or improving the truck and barge operation.
- We learned that, despite promises, the Board of Education failed to notify the PA, and more importantly, did not notify parents or children, that recent monitoring results inside Stuyvesant indicate levels of lead and particulate matter above regulatory levels on some occasions.
- To date, the PA has not received a written response from the Board of Education to our request that it implement the PA expert's recommendations. The PA has not received a response to our request for a contingency plan in the event that environmental monitoring results indicate that the school is not safe for occupancy. The Board did respond verbally that in such a circumstance we would return to Brooklyn Tech.
- To date, the Board of Education has not provided the PA with certification from any government agency that the building is safe for occupancy, not has it provided various safety protocols or written procedures.
- We also learned that the EPA did not release to the public some monitoring results that appear to contradict or weaken its assertions of environmental safety. EPA data obtained by environmental activists using Freedom of Information Act requests appear to show more frequent and higher measurements of asbestos, heavy metals, PCBs, dioxin, benzene, and other toxics in and around the World Trade Center area than were previously acknowledged.
II THE BARGE OPERATION
There has been considerable discussion about the barge located on Pier 25 north of the school. The following is our current assessment of the issues. First, there is a very well established professional methodology for dealing with such issues. When faced with an environmental hazard professional protocol dictates a three-step approach:
- The first line of attack in such events is the complete REMOVAL of the hazard. If it is determined after rigorous and professional analysis that the barge cannot be moved without imposing very serious functional limitation on the debris removal efforts then it is dictated that a second level of action must be taken which is
- PROTECTION against the hazard. In the case of the barge this means active covering of the trucks and spraying of all material according to EPA dictated protocols. Finally, if protection cannot be found workable then professional protocol dictates,
- EDUCATION of those potentially exposed to the hazard on how to deal with all possible events flowing from the presence of the hazard.
Experience dictates that, in terms of effectiveness, there is absolutely no substitute for REMOVAL of the hazard. Options 2 and 3 are prone to human error and poor procedures design. Education is an absolute last resort. Based on our current understanding of the issues we have the following to report. Is the barge a hazard? There has been some question as to whether the barge actually constitutes a HAZARD. Again there are professional protocols for making such determinations. Such definitions, reduced to their essence, are: If the presence of a physical, chemical or psychological event or substance is present to such a degree that it may impair the health or well being of individuals exposed to such an event then such an event or incidence is deemed a HAZARD.
The barge is a HAZARD to our children in two primary ways:
- PHYSICAL HAZARD - The archeology of the WTC site is complex and changing literally on an hourly basis. It is safe to say that this debris removal effort has never been more complex or difficult. We acknowledge these issues. However, it is thought that the bottom 40 floors of the North Tower and the bottom 10 floors of the South Tower contain asbestos. The amount of asbestos and its current disposition is a point of considerable debate. However, what is not in debate is the fact that not all of this debris has yet been reached or removed. Removal and carting of this material to the Barge constitutes an unacceptably high risk to our children and everyone along the truck route to the barge. No amount of spraying or covering will bring this problem within acceptable ranges.
- PSYCHOLOGICAL HAZARD - The barge is a hazard from a second point: As any parents know who have actually visited the school, Stuyvesant is well within the physical and psychological perimeter of ground zero. The noise, vibration and activity pushed north by the location of the barge place a significant, yet less perceptible stress on our children. Please understand that these factors are an accumulation of factors including the noise, vibration, dust, smell, police presence, military presence, emergency presence, repeated visual presence of wreckage in various forms identifiable by the children and seen from the windows of the school. These factors combine to produce an environment of heightened stress. This is not the opinion of this committee but the basis of sound research. An accumulation of such factors is known to have a negative effect on complex human tasks including ability to focus and learn. The overall quality of the environment in terms of noise, military activity, vibration and security at and around Stuyvesant is being dramatically affected by the location of the barge. Removal of the barge will allow these less tangible but important factors to be dramatically reduced. Stuyvesant would be moved into a zone much less physically and emotionally stressful for our children.
Summary of barge issues:
- REMOVAL: We have been unable to gain any access to a professionally executed analysis of alternate barge placements. This is a fundamental error on the part of BOE. Such analysis must be requested and obtained. There is no technical reason for not executing this analysis in light of the obvious physical hazards presented by the barge location. Attempts to obtain a response from BOE on this important question have gone unanswered.
- PROTECTION: We believe that measures to PROTECT our children from the hazards of the barge are not being followed or implemented in a comprehensive manner. It is unclear why this process is not being followed. The fact remains that protection is not being implemented effectively. Attempts to obtain a response from BOE on this important question have gone unanswered.
- EDUCATION: We have requested on numerous occasions emergency egress plans. We have not been provided with any data on how to deal with the barge in this manner. Attempts to obtain a response from BOE on this important question have gone unanswered.
- OUTREACH: We are working with the community surrounding the school and with other schools in the area on these issues. After meeting with the leadership of the Parents' Associations of IS 89, PS 89, PS 234, and Stuyvesant, the Youth Committee of Community Board #1 resolved, among other items, that "The barge located at Pier 25 must be moved to avoid the continued dust created at that site, which is downwind from our schools. There must be demonstrated enforcement of EPA requirements concerning the washing and covering of the trucks." Community Board #1 voted upon the resolution. The chairperson of Community Board #1 has informed us that they are making a formal request to the Mayor for an oversight agency to handle cleanup and other issues like the barge at Pier 25. They recommend that letters and e-mails be sent to the Mayor reiterating this position and the potentially hazardous conditions the community is living under. Letters and emails should be sent to:
Mayor Rudolph Giuliani
City Hall
New York, NY 10007
Email: mayor@cityhall.nyc.gov
III STUDENT AND FACULTY HEALTH SYMPTOMS
In a letter sent to the parents by the administration, it was indicated that, as of last week, approximately 90 students and teachers reported to the physician's office at Stuyvesant manifesting a variety of signs and symptoms. At our last PA meeting, a show of hands indicated that more than twice this number was probably more accurate. We have been informed by the Board of Education that an epidemiologist from the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta and assigned to work with the NYC Department of Health would review the data and attempt to perform an evaluation of the health implications regarding these symptoms.
The Chief Physician from the BOE indicated that she would provide some results this week regarding this epidemiological evaluation. The PA suggested that the number of students and faculty effected was under-reported and that an interactive questionnaire addressed to parents on our website might be an effective tool to assist in a more accurate approach to data collection regarding student/faculty illness.
This offer was not accepted nor were any results from the epidemiologist provided. Our request for the name and telephone number of the epidemiologist is still unanswered. In light of recent disclosures regarding general air quality and the potential effects of identified contaminants in and outside the school, it is strongly suggested that an epidemiological evaluation considering the most recent environmental data and the potential effects on health and safety of the school population be made available as soon as possible.
PA Environmental Health & Safety Committee
|
