Blog reader Pam Scott filed an open record request concerning the asbestos abatement at the high school. Pam asked me to post this on Lebo Citizens.
Now the School District is saying that "a legal review is necessary to determine whether, or to what extent, the records sought are public records subject to access." I have requested copies of documentation that is clearly covered by AHERA because it is part of the District's asbestos management plan: the survey of asbestos-containing material locations that MTLSD gave to Allegheny County Health Department ahead of the current high school renovation project; any further documentation regarding inspection of Building D for hazardous materials "proving" that Building D's 1970s portion "slated for imminent demolition work" [turned out to be March 8, 2012] is free of ACM; and District-wide asbestos fiber-release episodes for 2011 and 2012. The District knows they are wrong and in defiance of AHERA, and they seem to be quite proud of it. The EPA Region III Acting Asbestos Coordinator this afternoon suggested that I urge MTLSD to contact her regarding their AHERA responsibilities.
11 comments:
I urged them via email at 5:15pm today.
Who is paying the bills here?
Who has children in the schools?
There's no way in hell this isn't public information!
Maddie Miller
A legal review translates into a thirty day extension.
As I had mentioned earlier in the year, the 1972 graduating class is having our reunion. Several have died from lung cancer. A bunch of my classmates have had thyroid cancer. Maddie, it isn't just the students at risk. How many teachers died from cancer from that era? Our graduating class is unique in that we were there from the beginning to end of the high school renovation.
Rumor has it that the abatement company is banned from working in the entire state of New York.
And our solicitor wants a thirty day extension for a legal review???
Elaine
The School District is well aware of AHERA regulations, but continues to cherry pick them. I realize that one of the reasons that they don't want to give the documentation is because in the past when they have, I have spoken and emailed and blogged about their frequent shortcutting of AHERA and/or other asbestos regulations.
For those new to the conversation, a school's asbestos management plan consists of many components, including but not limited to: all preventive measures and response measures, inspections, sampling and analysis records, training records, fiber release episodes, periodic surveillance records (during the elementary renovations the District actually was cited by EPA for not conducting periodic surveillance), and abatements.
Sec. 763.93(g)(2) of the AHERA Rule clearly states that "Each local education agency shall maintain in its administrative office a complete, updated copy of a management plan for each school under its administrative control or direction. The management plans shall be available, during normal business hours, without cost or restriction, for inspection by representatives of EPA and the State, the public, including teachers, other school personnel and their representatives, and parents. The local education agency may charge a reasonable cost to make copies of management plans.'"
http://www.epa.gov/asbestos/pubs/asbreg.html
http://www.epa.gov/asbestos/pubs/asbestos_in_schools.html
If it seems like I have a personal axe to grind, please keep in mind that I am only trying to prevent any repeat of the elementary renovations when students had to sit in and breathe in asbestos-containing debris from the District's asbestos abatements.
And, pray tell, where are all the federal, state and county enforcement agencies ? Why is there no real or true enforcement of a public body other than a simple citation or a wrist slapping ? If a private citizen were to fail to adhere to each and every aspect and provision of such laws, they would be fined and jailed.
Why does the Acting Asbestos Coordinator for the EPA Region III not initiate direct investigative actions on Pam's report and evidence instead of asking Pam to have the District contact the EPA ? Something is very wrong here !
Veblen Good
Veblen, The state doesn't oversee NESHAP regulations in Philadelphia and Allegheny Counties -- that responsibility lies with the respective counties. And Allegheny County isn't the overseer of AHERA, EPA Region III is. I remember sensing from a 2003 conversation with the EPA inspector who was sent out (after more parents saw how bad the asbestos contamination was at Markham) that there must have been some precedents where EPA got in trouble for coming down too hard on school districts. I think that's why they didn't fine MTLSD for anything and didn't come down on them for all their violations. Perhaps EPA has had no complaints about MTLSD since the elementary renovations and they want to give districts brownie points for contacting the EPA before the EPA has to contact them?
Keep in mind that adherence to applicable regulations doesn't provide as stringent protection from unhealthful exposures as does simple adherance to best practices -- for example, using the regulatory-required PLM to analyze materials like floor tile and mastic rather than TEM (which PSI clearly states on their analysis reports is "currently the only method that can be used to determine if the material can be considered or treated as non-asbestos containing"). That is why the parent-gathered tests from Fall 2003 showed the Markham contamination as loaded with asbestos but the EPA and MTLSD split sample came up negative. There are states that require TEM for such analyses, but Pennsylvania and Allegheny County do not.
Of course, asbestos dusts are not the only unhealthful dusts to wallow in … silica, lead, any unnecessary dust in your air or on your desk isn't healthful.
Just to be clear -- I'm referring to dust debris from demolition, renovation, and abatement activities. I should have made sure not to be possibly misunderstood out of context by writing: "Of course, asbestos dusts are not the only unhealthful dusts to wallow in … silica, lead, any unnecessary dust in your air or on your desk FROM RENOVATION OR DEMOLITION OR ABATEMENT ACTIVITIES isn't healthful." I was not referring to common dust.
Pam,
PSI can do both PLM and TEM through 30-JUN-2012:
http://ts.nist.gov/Standards/scopes/1013500.htm
Why would they only do the minumum required test?
David Huston
David, if the building owner wanted a false negative test result on asbestos-containing floor tile and mastic dust debris left behind after abatement, they would not want to do TEM because TEM would test positive.
Here is a little bit of basic info about PLM, TEM, and PCM asbestos testing from the State of New Jersey:
"Q. What types of testing methods are available?
"There are a number of recognized testing methods for asbestos. Samples are typically analyzed by three main methods: Polarized Light Microscopy (PLM), Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM), and Phase Contrast Microscopy (PCM). Not all techniques can be used for all sample types. Below is a description of each:
"PLM - Typically fast and inexpensive; can distinguish asbestos fibers from other fibers such as fiberglass and cellulose; most common procedure for bulk samples; TEM recommended for accurate determination for samples such as floor tiles.
"TEM - More expensive; state-of-the-science; magnification of at least 25,000X; accurately identifies fibers which PLM and PCM cannot confidently identify as asbestos or non-asbestos; recommended for dust wipe samples so that asbestos fibers are accurately identified; can be used for both bulk and air samples
"PCM - Typically fast and inexpensive; cannot identify asbestos directly; for lower detection limits or confirmation of asbestos, TEM is recommended; common analytical technique used for analysis of air samples"
Source:
http://www.state.nj.us/health/iep/asbestos_faq.shtml
Apparently, MTLSD is putting a false spin on the request-for-asbestos-documentation situation to EPA Region III, implying that MTLSD's 30-day extension to my request is in regard to my preference that the copies be in MTLSD's oft-used pdf format.
It seems that perhaps MTLSD didn't disclose to EPA that one of the reasons MTLSD states an extension is required is because MTLSD finds "a legal review" to be necessary.
As for the MTLSD claim that my request requires an extension because its nature and/or extent "precludes a response within the required time period", MTLSD routinely provides RTK requests in pdf format, and it is not burdensome because they have the equipment; it is very similar to putting a document into a photocopier's feed tray. Simple. Also, it eliminates paper jam waste as well! In addition to saving trees, it is also less expensive for the requester, since the District charges 25-cents per photocopied page (arguably "unreasonable" under the AHERA Rule).
Since my original request on February 27, I have repeatedly asked for "copies", asking the District to provide the copies to me utilizing the format that THEY prefer.
I did this specifically to prevent them from being able to use any pretend excuse of "it takes more than five days" to provide pdf format. I explicitly and repeatedly have let them know that I will pay for photocopies of requested management plan components in lieu of pdf. My original request became overshadowed when we learned that MTLSD was preparing to demolish a large chunk of the 1970s portion of Building D, so on the afternoon of March 5, 2012, I made a separate, additional request for the survey(s) for ACM that MTLSD gave to Allegheny County Health Department ahead of their high school renovation/demolition project. The concern of parents et al. was that MTLSD had not done due diligence in adequately inspecting for ACM in Building D's voids, roofing, ceilings, walls, insulation, ductwork, acoustical materials, fireproofing, etc. When I was made by the District to resubmit my AHERA-governed request by filling out the District's RTK form on March 7, 2012, I further expanded it to include copies of any and all district-wide asbestos fiber-release episodes in our ten school buildings for 2011 and 2012, as well as copies of "any further documentation regarding inspection of Building D for hazardous materials 'proving' that Building D's 1970s portion slated for imminent demolition work is free of ACM." (That chunk of Building D was demolished the next day)
I suspect that their management plan is not complete or up to date. Or lacking. That's been a chronic problem. It was unsettling to learn of some of the problems they have had at times with their asbestos management (e.g., failing to adequately sample materials suspected to be ACM, substituting "Modified AHERA" for final air clearances, not conducting periodic surveillance, not properly training custodians, pulling air through the filters faster than permitted, using .8micron filters instead of .45micron, using PCM for air clearance in instances where TEM clearance is required, not providing annual written notification to parents and staff, not cleaning up ACM debris and having our kids wallow in it, etc.). Maybe they have to manufacture documents that should be there but aren't. I don't know; that is why I've requested those three specific components. Maybe they don't possess any evidence that they did due diligence and had all of the 1970s additions inspected for ACM, but given that they filed a lawsuit against W.R. Grace in the 1980s for $21.4 million to cover eventual costs for fireproofing abatement alone in the 1970s additions, it has caused a number of parents et al. to be concerned that MTLSD are, as with the elementary renovation projects, deliberately ignoring "anticipated" asbestos in the A, B, C, D, E, and F Buildings of the high school.
MTLSD said on March 14, 2012, that an extension of time is necessary because "(1) a legal review is necessary to determine whether, or to what extent, the records sought are public records subject to access under the RTKL, and (2) the extent and/or nature of the request precludes a response within the required time period." They didn't say anything about them needing extra time to run a scanner or a photocopying machine for documents that should be easily pulled from the management plan. Why are they stalling? Do they not have these critical, requested components of their asbestos management plan? Is there something in the documents that they don't want people to know about? Why are they stalling on this request for copies?
Post a Comment