Environmental Health and Safety Committee Minutes, July 17, 2002
July 17, 2002 6:30-9:00 PM
Location: Park West High School
Attending:
David Ross (chairman);
Tom Fusillo (consultant);
Howard Bader (consultant);
Tom Barnard (parent member);
David Newman (parent member) (who was delayed for beginning of
meeting);
Felice Perlman (parent member);
Dorothy Schuster (parent member);
Shanka Chakraborty (interested parent; also SLT rep).
(NB Participants will be identified by name or initials in these minutes.)
David Ross distributed an agenda which was followed through the meeting. DR
asked FP to take notes for this meeting.
Introductions
Attendees introduced themselves.
General Procedures
David Ross presented general procedures for committee meetings. He noted
that, unless attendance was large, the meetings would be informal and not use
Robert’s Rules of Order. He requested that presentations and discussions
remain on topic to promote productivity. Meetings will be flexible in re
introduction of other topics, but members were asked to complete a topic
before moving on to another.
Overview
David R. explained that this was the current Health and Safety Committee;
that a Health and Safety Committee had been created last year as a special
(i.e. not standing) committee of the PA; that a special committee continues
to exist until a final report is issued. David R expressed a wish that this
committee define its mission, accomplish that mission, and issue a final
report in regard to that mission. He suggested, as a mission, that the
Stuyvesant building be deemed to be in a state of good repair and safe for
occupancy. There was no further discussion nor expressed consensus about the
topic of the committee’s mission at this time.
Introduction of Consultants
DR introduced consultants Tom Fusillo of Environ and Howard Bader of Howard
Bader, Inc. The executive board had voted last week to hire these two
consultants to work in tandem to oversee the progress of the cleaning of the
Stuyvesant HVAC system, unit ventilators, ducts. That cleaning began on
Monday, July 15 and is expected to take 6 weeks. The oversight by HB and TF
will include site visits, review of information, and reports to the HSC.
SC then asked who contractor was.
DR, TF, joined in responding. TDX construction is the firm for most of the
BOE clean-up, KISS, would be cleaning the unit ventilators. Taylor
Environment will be monitoring the sampling and overseeing the analysis of
results; VR mechanical will be doing the duct cleaning, mechanical systems,
and any HVAC work. VR will be doing the physical removal of the unit
ventilators.
DS asked how we will get info to PA bulletin and website.
DR said he would pull together the information, send it out to the HSC by
e-mail for comments, suggestions, approval.
David Newman arrived and asked for introductions, which were done. He asked
re process of adding items to agenda. DR re-iterated that the meetings, when
size permitted, would be informal, that we would follow the agenda but be
open to additional topics as needed, and that we would aim to stay on point
and complete topics before moving on to the next agenda or new topic.
Consultant Presentations
DR asked TF and HB to speak about their joint site visit today (DR was also
present and urged each member to go to school with HB or TF for at least one
visit.)
TF explained that he and HB had been in communication since 10/01 and had
spoken relatively frequently regarding the environmental issues since then.
In their current collaboration, TF would have primary responsibility for
interacting/communicating with the BOE and would communicate with HB in re
those interactions. HB (or, while he is away, his “right hand man”) will be
responsible for site visits 3x/week while work is being done.
DS asked what BOE had agreed to do. Last week TF had received from BOE
documents regarding scope of work that they had gotten bids, and last
Thurs. pm forwarded this to HB. On Friday, TF joined a meeting of BOE rep,
UFT rep, and firm supervisors.
TF gave outline synopsis of BOE/SCA proposal and noted that, as of today,
they had finished work on 10th and begun 9th floor.
Removal and cleaning of unit ventilators; cleaning of the central HVAC.
BOE/SCA proposed removing the unit vents from wall, opening, cleaning,
testing them, putting them back. TF noted that at PS 89 BOE had tried to
clean unit vents in place, found they could not, and eventually took them
out.
TF then described in detail method of cleaning and sampling and noted that
BOE had closely followed HB plan and seemed to be trying to be responsive.
TF and HB noted that the cleaning of the rooms following the unit vent/HVAC
cleaning was “custodial” and that, thus far, protocols for room cleaning
were not clear.
HB protocol is available under separate cover and will not be re-iterated in
these minutes. One goal of the protocol is to prevent further contamination
during cleaning process. HB noted that cleaners had been using a vacuum as
negative air pressure source which he pointed out to them was inadequate.
HB also detailed the protocol for sampling for lead and asbestos. DS asked
about further testing for asbestos vs. lead only. It was noted by ? that
when had previously tested, asbestos not found.
DN asked about clearance standards being used. TF reported:
for lead: 40 microgms/sq ft for floors, 250 for window sills, 1.5 for air;
for asbestos: 70 for air.
DN reported that EPA was now using downtown the HUD screening level for lead,
which is 25 rather than 40 and expressed opinion that we should use this
standard as well.
A discussion ensued as to using standard of 25 or 40. Several members of the
group noted that there was a lack of empirical data re risk of one standard
vs the other. A consensus was reached that, absent such data, we should
1.
clarify specifically what standards were being used for what by EPA downtown
and
2. ask that the BOE cleanup at Stuy comply with those same standards.
A discussion then ensued regarding problems which might be encountered or
were inherent in aspects of the cleaning. HB noted that when one of the unit
ventilators had been cleaned and then failed the sampling standard, it was
re-cleaned and re-tested.
FP asked about
1. the possible presence in the settled dust of other
potentially toxic heavy metals (e.g. cadmium, chromium, arsenic, nickel)
which were not being tested for.
2. the need to use particular
metal-attracting solvents in the cleaning
3. the reliability of wipe samples
from ducts made of unlined galvanized metal
TF noted that wipe samples at PS 89 had not found other metals, and HB said
that they had not been found at Stuy. In the ensuing discussion, it was
noted that lead was being used as a surrogate or marker for the presence of
other contaminants, the assumption being that if cleaning led to acceptable
lead levels, then it was unlikely that other toxins would be present in
significant quantities.
TB asked how much of the lead that was found was from the WTC. HB noted that
new units (since WTC) at BMCC had been found with lead present.
DN asked about the time frame for cleaning--that the ducts and mechanical
vents should be cleaned prior to the rooms. TF explained that it was being
done by zones. HB added that ceiling tiles were also being taken down.
Duct cleaning
DR noted that BOE had initially proposed cleaning the unit vent. But then
made changes to protocol which he wanted to clarify for those who were not
yet informed on specific changes made.
TF noted that the major focus was on clearing the air handling system and the
general exhaust system and noted that it was not clear what was happening
with the return part of the system. TF, HB, and UFT rep had expressed
concern about this and BOE had agreed to expand the cleaning of the return
system.
The BOE had initially also excluded the clean-up of the high level vent in
the auditorium because it required the erection of scaffolding. They have
now agreed to clean those vents.
The BOE had included sampling of the unit vent. But had previously excluded
sampling of the major HVAC. They have now agreed to do so. HB asked if they
had a number in mind yet. TF said no. He and HB agreed to consider this
issue together.
TB asked about acceptable standards for levels of lead in the ducts. HB
noted that there was no data regarding acceptable levels in ducts. HB noted
that it requires visual inspection and that there might be a need for using
particular cleaning solvents. TF noted that 40 was the standard for surfaces
after lead abatement programs; that for the ducts, visible dust was at issue.
DN pointed out that 40 was a standard for residential buildings, not schools.
HB pointed out that the main route being considered residentially was hand
to mouth.
There was a question about standards, and what other standards, if any,
existed. A discussion of standards and methods of sampling ensued, with the
question of what standard to use for the ducts. DN said that Mark Mattaloni
had information about the standards being used downtown and he reiterated the
position that we want to match the downtown EPA standards. TF will check
about these standards.
DS asked about the replacement or upgrading of the ventilation system. It
was clarified that nothing has been said about an upgrade as yet.
HB raised question of what test results had been so far. It has been agreed
to add sampling to the testing, but the issue of sampling method and
standards for the ducts remains unsettled. TB asked about rag sampling. HB
said it had too many problems.
TF noted that, because the cleaning was being done by zones, each zone could
be inspected before they move on to the next. The unit vents are scheduled
to be cleaned through the summer, with completion date 8/26. The HVAC
cleaning is expected to be completed by late July or early August. TFís
opinion is that they seem to be trying to do the cleaning efficiently and to
keep clean what has been cleaned.
DR asked HB and TF if they were generally confident about what was going on.
HB said yes. He and TF had found areas where they could do better and
pointed them out and cleaners were responsive. HB had thought that the unit
vents would be the hardest but observed that they were doing well. HB feels
that the area of testing is our weakness and expressed uncertainty about the
ducts.
DN raised some points from the original protocol.
- What are the SCA cleaning protocols? (p.5)
- What is the National Duct Cleaners Association standard 92-01 which is
referred to in the protocol? He could not find it on their website.
HB noted that Natíl Duct Cleaners Assoc. does not address environmental
toxins, only general duct cleaning.
TB raised the question of how ducts can be tested. HB noted that air
sampling for lead ìis a jokeî since air lead levels are seldom above
standards.
TF said that, after cleaning, they will cover all the ducts with a filter and
blow through, but he noted that this was not really a reliable/effective
testing method.
DN continued with questions from protocol.
The contractors were not responsible for air-balancing the system. (p.15).
TF responded that they intend to have Burns and Roe come in. DN asked that
we get their commitment in writing. DR asked how much is their specific
responsibility. DN said to the specifications of the original and also noted
that the system had never been re-balanced. DR asked DN to draft a letter in
regard to BOEís commitment to re-balancing.
HB and TF clarified the inspection schedule. HB will be the primary person
on site, 3 times a week. TF will be on site on 2-3 occasions (has done one)
and will be in communication with HB. DR noted that if the site visits seem
insufficient, HB and TF to inform committee Members of committee were again
encouraged to visit site with HB. HB reported that he thinks that SCA wants
to do a good job; he feels that Taylor (like ATC) is the weakest link.
HB noted that next visit would be this Friday at 1 pm and next week probably
M-W-F at 1pm. DR suggested some randomness to visits so cleaners would not
be able to prepare. HB noted that they (he and TF) had negotiated a 2-hour
advance notice with SCA so that their representative, Alex Lempert, could be
present. Also noted that Marcia Soroka is SCA industrial hygienist.
TF asked HB if he had looked at any of the ducts before they were cleaned and
suggested that he inspect some.
DS had 2 questions?
- Is testing going to continue after the cleaning is completed?
Ans. No.
- What is happening with the filters?
TF: They are going to replace the current filters (which have had
carbon for gas filtering) with filters for particulate matter.
DN requested that several items be placed on next meetingís agenda.
Get copies of the current (updated protocol re scope of work.
Get documentation of clearance standards.
DR asked TF to
have BOE reps write documentation of changes
get their proposal in re testing and standards
determine EPA clearance standards being used downtown.
Also, prior to next meeDN requests items for next meeting agenda:ting, HB will email DR and TF after site visits,
- He believes Sheldon Stachel should be on committee and wants to discuss.
- Posting of sampling results.
- Upgrade of filtration system
- Getting Stuyvesant included in health registry
- Sign-off and remediation of waste transfer site
DR added that we will review HB and TF reports and minutes.
Next meeting 7/25/02 at 6:30 at Park West High School.
Submitted by Felice Perlman
