Environmental Health and Safety Committee Minutes
July 25, 2002 6:30-9:00 PM
Location: Park West High School
(NB Participants will be identified by name or initials in these minutes.)
Attending: David Ross (chairman);
David Newman (parent member);
Felice Perlman (parent member);
Dorothy Schuster (parent member);
Dale Bernstein (PA co-president);
Judy Moore (PA co-president);
Lori Pandolfo (interested parent);
Paul Edwards (interested parent);
Shankra Chakraborty (interested parent);
Rochelle Kalish (interested parent; SLT rep);
Jonathan Jakob (interested parent, SLT rep);
Jenna Orkin (interested parent)
First portion of minutes recorded by DS because FP was delayed.
Collecting Information about Standards and Goals
DR reported that SCA was working on a 20 microg/sq.ft standard for the entire cleaning. DS noted that HB and TF has previously said that the goal of 25 microgr. was unrealistic except for the HVAC system. The consensus was to be glad for the BOE's stringent standard and hope they are able to meet it.
Proposal in regard to air balancing commitment from BOE
DN reported that he had not written a proposal because TF emailed and reported that he had talked with the BOE who had agreed to air balancing. DN found this adequate as long as the BOE put this commitment in writing.
Questions for Howard Bader and Tom Fusillo
DN said that, in regard to the carpeting and upholstery, it would be useful to take samples from heavily trafficked areas and test for asbestos with ultrasonication. DR asked DN to e-mail him and TF with information regarding methods.
RK asked about determining what to do with the upholstery on the seats, and DN wanted to know the BOE justification for replacing the carpet but only cleaning the seats. The question of how the seats were to be cleaned was also raised, and a general discussion followed. DN noted that HEPA vacuuming was better than nothing, HEPA and shampoo would be better than that, but replacement might be preferred., depending on results of testing. The consensus was to ask HB and TF their opinion in regard to the replacement/cleaning issue and for them to also clarify the reasoning/intentions of their counterparts at BOE.
Issues in regard to testing were raised: The question of how we were getting results was asked, and there was some discussion of HB's observation of sampling. JJ was concerned that the 2-hour advance notice for HB limited his observation. DR noted that this question had come up at the previous meeting, and that both HB and TF said that the length of time was not enough for a "cover-up" and was intended to give SCA manager time to be on site during HB visit. DS noted that, as an architect, she recognized the need to have a project manager on site during visits in order to answer questions, that it was not a good policy to ask questions of the workers. PE said that he was unclear about the testing: what was being done and how much had been completed thus far. DR said that he would ask HB and TF to provide a protocol for sampling.
DR raised the question of presenting information on the website. PE noted that this was a sensitive issue for parents, "fairly or unfairly," i.e. that there would not be adequate communication with general membership. DS said that while the building was being cleaned, information might be erratic. DN noted there were rounds of testing in the protocol and suggested that the proposed chart ("scorecard") that TF was to use to keep track of the clean up include testing. DB said that the date and result of tests would be added.
JJ raised question of oversight of the testing and noted that HB had overseen some testing last spring. There was a discussion, and DR said that he would ask HB and TF tomorrow to clarify how the testing was being done, why they had said that they were comfortable with it, .and to ask that they oversee testing in person.
DB raised question about ongoing air testing in the fall, which TF has requested.
DN asked whether the workers on the job were using appropriate respiratory and other protective equipment.
DS asked about the scheduling of HB's visits. The suggestion was made to ask that he stagger visits so that they did not prepared for him.
JM asked if HB and TF thought things were moving on schedule. DB noted loss of time last weekend because of power outage. DR noted that there was a large labor force present and that he had the sense that they could add more to speed up if needed.
DS noted that HB had e-mailed that he was thus far satisfied. There was a discussion of what e-mails the committee was receiving and who received them. DR said that he was using the committee e-mail list.
DR proposed that the scorecard, with additional information about the work (dates and types of testing, which areas cleaned and how many, etc.) be used to communicate information on the website. DB said that, in deciding the amount of detail to post, too much detail can be difficult to wade through and could obscure the overall picture.
A general discussion ensued. DN said that, per HB letter, they owe us results from 2 ½ floors. .JM asked if duct cleaning could be put on scorecard. DN said that we could ask for as much detail as we wanted (e.g. every so many feet, etc.) FP asked what happened with the question of what standards to use for ducts. DR said they had agreed to 20. SC requested testing of air plenums. DN asked how we were going to implement our request for finalized protocols and test results in writing. DR said that he would tell TF that we need them. PE asked for clarification of test results on website. DN aid all result we get should be posted. JM asked how things were done last year and DN said that Richard Mack got the result and he (DN) organized them for posting. DR said that he wanted TF to do that for us.
DN noted that current results would not be as time consuming and said again that we need to post and share results and get original results from TF. JM said that Jane Ritter would be returning Monday and would communicate with webmaster, Elise. JJ asked about availability of hard copies of data rather than distilled. DB said that hard copies would be available in Stanley Teitel's office for review by interested parents. The question of who would review and distill results for scorecard was raised. DR would like to have TF do it and send to DR. DR will then circulate to the committee and send on to Jane Ritter who will pass it on to webmaster, Elise. DN noted that the initial set-up on website was labor intensive. DB aid Elise could do. DN suggested David Strauss might be another resource, and JM said that she had already spoken with him and will again. JJ asked about availability of the hard copies of the data vs., distilled copies.
Health Registry
JM asked if this committee had access to the health survey discussed last year. DN said that he did not know, but that Marilena had said that it was in the PA office. JM asked which health survey this was. DN said that the NY Health Department had announced the intention to do a survey of 200,000 people, but he was unsure how and who and that we needed to reach out to them. DR asked DN if he would contact them and report back. DN agreed. JO noted that the Clinton initiative had been for workers. DB mentioned that attorney Richard Ben Veniste had offered to help if we wanted and were having difficulty with a health survey. He had suggested a group at NYU. JO said that a group in Chinatown were going to ask not only for a registry but also for health coverage: a coalition called "beyond Ground Zero." RK asked about 9/11 environmental action groups and wondered if we should ask DN or a group of people to get involved with. DB said perhaps as a longer-term plan after immediate cleanup issues were done. DN said that he would get Department of Health information. He expressed uncertainty about committee involvement with demonstration JO had mentioned. JM suggested announcing it on the website. RK thought that giving our support would be useful. DN suggested that this might be handled by the Political Action Committee. FP raised question of clarifying the mission of the current HS. DN noted that much of what had been achieved was not just technical but was connected to activism. DR suggested that we'd post on website and bring issues of ongoing action to the general membership.
HEPA Filtration
DN said that we need improved filtration, that we had the money, and that there had been a mandate form the membership. DR asked what he knew about getting at the money. DN said that there was FEMA money allocated, that they were waiting for us to ask for it. JM asked where. JO said under "Hazard Mitigation." JM said that she had spoken to Lisette Norton in June and was told that there had been a misunderstanding about the money available under. She has made several more calls to Lisette N at Nadler's office about this but has thus far received no response. She said that it was not clear to her that this would be eligible under Hazard Mitigation and that there had been many proposals. LP said that the BOE should be handling this. JM said that the grounds sought by BOE for FEMA were problematic because the upgrade would take the system to a state, which was better than rather than equal to pre 9/11.
DS wanted to clarify: she understands that there are HEPA filters available for the corridors but none to fit the unit ventilators, and she noted that the improvement in filtration raising it to 40%--was not very adequate. DB asked if there was information available from last year regarding upgrading the system. PE noted that in newer buildings, filtration was 80 % and said that another approach was to extend the ductwork. He said that FEMA was willing to do under Hazard mitigation because the school was near Ground Zero and would be subjected to problems over the next years in regard to demolition and construction. DB said that Ben Veniste had said that FEMA would not pay for upgrading the system. DN said he had not known that. PE said that we needed consultation in regard to what system we need and we need to clarify if money was available. DR asked to clarify process of determining about the available money. JO said to call Lisette Norton at Nadler's office and PE said he was willing to do this personally. LP said we should look through old emails. JM repeated that Lisette Norton had told her that there had been a misunderstanding about hazard mitigation moneys and suggested that we go to FEMA website for definition and clarification of criteria for hazard mitigation.
DN said that JM was right about the need to disconnect this from 9/11 in terms of request; he felt that time was of the essence. It was decided that between now and the next meeting
JM would follow up with Lisette Norton.
People with access to old e-mails regarding this would send them to DR who would send them on.
DB raised the issue of the waste transfer site and wanted to know what if any information we currently had. She has traded messages with but not yet actually spoken with Paul Weisbrod of Lower Manhattan Business Improvement District. She wants to get information about possible problem with return of the barge. DN raised question of whether they had cleaned up that site and, if so, how and now large an area. JM asked if there was information about this. DN said they'd been told to contact FEMA and OEM. DR asked JM to follow up on this question. DS asked that what they defined as the barge site be clarified. DB said she would ask Paul Weisbrod. JM said that she had put self on Community Board 1 and that a memo in regard to cleanup had been quoted there referring to a National Contingency Plan. DN said that EPA was passing the buck on this to OEM. JM said she had and would research.
DR wondered about getting HB and TF paid out of FEMA funds and said that Julie Romano was trying to reach someone about this. It was noted that BMCC had gotten some funds for consultation. DN thought the best course of action would be to get money through BOE as part of the cleanup, and that, if there was any payment it would probably be through BOE or SCA. RK suggested Bernard Orlan as a contact.
New Business
DR asked for any more new business. DS asked that we continue talking about filtration and said that she was concerned about the use of diesel over the next 6 years of construction. She has heard that diesel was outlawed but does not feel confident about this. JO said they were working on ensuring low sulfur fuel. SC said that they could not proceed without an environmental impact study, that this had been the case with the reconstruction of the 1 and 9 subway. JO said that we should be careful that things were not fast-tracked. DN noted that Pataki has asked for a waiver of the Clean Air Act for downtown and that the waiver had been in effect downtown for the last 10 months. He said that the Community Board was asking for more stringent requirements. He mentioned the submerging of West St. JM said that, in regard to these issues, she thinks that we should unite with other schools and area groups.
Next meeting
DR proposed August 7. FP noted that this was 2 weeks away. DB suggested that if there were problems, an earlier meeting could be called. DR said that if we didn't get the test results or there were other problems, we would meet sooner.
Next meeting will be Wednesday, August 7, 2002 at 6:30 in same place (Park West High School.)
Submitted by Felice Perlman
