|
Mr. David Klasfeld
Deputy Chancellor
Board of Education of the City of New York
110 Livingston Street
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Dear Deputy Chancellor Klasfeld:
I am writing in response to your letter of February 5th concerning continuing air quality concerns at Stuyvesant High School. Although it is not appropriate for me to discuss internal matters of the Stuyvesant Parents' Association (PA), I wanted to address a number of inaccuracies or omissions in your letter, and to once again reiterate the actions we believe the Board of Education (BOE) still needs to take in order to protect the health of our children. Please note that this letter is not intended to set forth all such necessary actions, or discuss technical details, but rather to outline the major areas in which the BOE has failed to act.
At the outset, however, it is important to note that your refusal to meet with any parent representative of the PA after November 13 to discuss these matters has contributed to the misinformation in your letter and to the unfortunate situation we currently face. Moreover, it is disturbing that, instead of pursuing a constructive dialog about our concerns with the PA's highest elected officers, you have chosen to obtain information about the PA from other sources. Nonetheless, we hope that this letter can help lead to a more detailed discussion between the BOE and the PA and resolve our remaining concerns.
- Ventilation System Ductwork Must Be Cleaned
The first major action that the BOE has failed to take at Stuyvesant High School is a complete cleaning of the building's ventilation system. This action is critical to remove all potential contaminants that may have blown into the ventilation system immediately after the collapse of the World Trade Center. By failing to clean this system, there is a risk that asbestos or other contaminants may continue to be recirculated within the school. Indeed, for these reasons, it is our understanding that all ventilation systems and ducts were cleaned and treated anti-bacterially at other Ground Zero area schools.
In your February 5th letter, you make no mention regarding the cleaning of the ventilation system. Moreover, the January 25th report prepared by Burns & Roe, referenced in your letter, is also silent on this important matter. Although you represented to the Stuyvesant community in an October 5th letter that "the building is now completely clean, including……all aspects of its heating and ventilation systems", there is no evidence that in fact the ventilation system was cleaned. In a report to the PA, dated January 24, 2002, Cosentini Associates-the firm that was originally employed to build the school-- recommends that "cleaning of the ductwork should be done at Stuyvesant High School." (Copy attached.) Thus, a top issue for the PA is that the ventilation and duct system be cleaned immediately.
- Ventilation Systems Must Be Upgraded to Accommodate Maximum Efficiency Filters
A second major action that must take place at Stuyvesant is the installation of new filters in the school's ventilation system that are capable of blocking contaminants from entering the building. More specifically, filters need to be installed that are capable of removing at least 90-95% of all contaminants-an efficiency level that our expert consultants inform us is necessary.
As you know, the ventilation system at Stuyvesant consists of 14 central air handling units for the common areas and approximately 300 unit ventilators which serve the classrooms.
Although your letter states that, "Both the school's central air system and all the classroom unit ventilators have been retrofitted to provide better air filtration", it provides no specifics on how the ventilation system has been retrofitted, what level of efficiency it will achieve, and whether it fully protects our children. Additionally your letter concedes that "improvements" were not completed until January 22nd, three and a half months after our children were returned to school.
In any event, a review of the Burns & Roe report by our expert, Howard Bader, indicates that, with the exception of the upgrade of one of the central units--Air Handling Unit HVAC-1-- and possibly the choral room, the modified filtration in the ventilation system is inadequate to provide maximum protection to our children. This is also the opinion of Cosentini Associates. In their January 24th report, Cosentini states: "With the exception of AC-1, the new filters being installed in the central air handlers at Stuyvesant do not provide a high level of filtration and essentially do not block contaminants from entering the building." (emphasis added). To address this deficiency, as detailed in their report, Cosentini recommends modification of the two existing corridor A/C systems including upgrading of the filtration system to a minimum 90/95% efficiency, extending the existing corridor system ductwork by directly connecting the distribution ductwork into each classroom, and providing a new supplemental corridor system.
In sum, the PA believes it is critical that both the central and unit (classroom) ventilators be upgraded to provide at least 90-95% efficiency.
- HEPA Filtration
In your February 5th letter, you mention that " The President of the Parents' Association discussed with the Robin Hood Foundation the possibility of the foundation funding the installation of HEPA filters, but that this proposal was not pursued because this project was deemed impractical." This is incorrect. Please note that the proposal we submitted to the Robin Hood Foundation was the Cosentini proposal, not an exclusively HEPA proposal. Further, it was our treasurer that had the discussion with the Robin Hood Foundation. He has informed me that the Robin Hood Foundation declined to proceed because our project's cost and estimated implementation time did not meet the foundation's internal funding criteria.
We continue to believe that HEPA is the most protective filtration for our children and the only filtration which can block asbestos from entering the school. Nevertheless, for the last several months, in an effort to find a more expeditious solution, we have been discussing alternative high efficiency filtration solutions that would achieve the 90-95% minimum efficiency our experts believe is necessary. Once again, your refusal to meet with parent representatives of the PA over the past three months has apparently contributed to your misunderstanding of our position.
- Air Quality
The PA recognizes that outdoor air quality has partly improved since the beginning of January. However, there continue to be days with particulate matter above EPA regulatory limits as well as periodic high levels of other contaminants inside the school such as lead dust on January 2nd. Further, the PA expert has advised us that levels of particulate matter at Stuyvesant have consistently been double the levels at Barclay Street, one block from Ground Zero. (He also notes that the filtration system at Borough of Manhattan Community College, located across the street from Stuyvesant, is approximately twice as protective than Stuyvesant's new filters.) Additionally, the EPA has been advising us of high levels of other contaminants on certain days, i.e. tetrachloroethane and isocyanate, at its monitoring station at the barge adjacent to Stuyvesant. As the EPA is not monitoring these on a daily basis and neither is the BOE, we do not know if these contaminants or any other unmonitored chemicals are entering the school environment.
Finally, we wish to emphasize that environmental monitoring results that fall within regulatory limits are not by themselves guarantees of a safe environment for our children. Potential health effects from simultaneous
exposure to multiple chemical contaminants, such as is likely occurring in the current unknown environment, are neither regulated, nor well understood. There may well be synergistic effects which multiply the adverse health impact of a single contaminant.
Moreover, as we have previously informed you, there continues to be incidence of illness among our children, including respiratory problems (e.g.,
onset asthma, chemical bronchitis), rashes, nosebleeds, and severe sinus
infections. Unfortunately, neither the BOE nor any other governmental entity has comprehensively documented or studied these illnesses. Visits to the school nurse's office and attendance rates at a school like Stuyvesant cannot characterize the incidence of illness.
In conclusion, we believe that what the PA is asking for is reasonable and consistent with actions taken at other buildings in the downtown area. Moreover, the cleaning of the ducts and the ventilation system upgrade that we request have been endorsed by two independent engineering firms.
We hope that we will reach an accommodation and that a further escalation of this matter can be avoided. We also hope that this letter has clarified any misunderstandings you may have had regarding the PA's overarching position. However, we wish to make clear that we will pursue all options to ensure that the health of our children is protected. Time is of the essence as our children are exposed to contaminants every day they go to school.
We remain willing to meet with you and the Board members of the Board of Education at any time to discuss all of these issues in more detail.
Sincerely,
Marilena Christodoulou, PA President
cc: Chancellor Harold Levy
Ninfa Segarra, President NYCBOE
Irene Impellizzeri, Vice President NYCBOE
Edison Jackson, NYCBOE
Jerry Cammarata, NYCBOE
Irving Hamer, Jr., NYCBOE
Sandra Lerner, NYCBOE
Terri Thomson, NYCBOE
Stanley Teitel, Principal
Chad Vignola, NYCBOE
Burt Sacks, NYCBOE
Bernie Orlan, NYCBOE
|
