[Senate Hearing 107-1010]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 107-1010
GREEN SCHOOLS: ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS FOR SCHOOLS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 1, 2002
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
83-722 WASHINGTON : DC
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
JAMES M. JEFFORDS, Vermont, Chairman
MAX BAUCUS, Montana BOB SMITH, New Hampshire
HARRY REID, Nevada JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia
BOB GRAHAM, Florida JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
BARBARA BOXER, California GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
RON WYDEN, Oregon MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
Ken Connolly, Majority Staff Director
Dave Conover, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
OCTOBER 1, 2002
OPENING STATEMENTS
Clinton, Hon. Hillary Rodham, U.S. Senator from the State of New
York........................................................... 9
Jeffords, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont.. 1
WITNESSES
Barnett, Claire, executive director, Healthy Schools Network..... 13
Prepared statement........................................... 34
Gibbs, Lois M., executive director, Center for Health,
Environment and
Justice........................................................ 21
Prepared statement........................................... 46
Trovato, E. Ramona, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of
Environmental Information, Environmental Protection Agency..... 3
Prepared statement........................................... 29
Wilson, Alex, president, BuildingGreen, Inc., representing the
U.S. Green Buildings Council................................... 18
Prepared statement........................................... 39
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Letters from:
Acton, Katie, parent advocate, Ozone Park, NY................ 68
American Public Health Association; Beyond Pesticides;
Healthy Schools Network; Natural Resources Defense Council;
Physicians for Social Responsibility; Natural Association
of School Nurses........................................... 58
Jackson, Richard J., director, Center for Disease Control and
Prevention................................................. 57
Memorandum, American Public Health Association; Beyond
Pesticides; Children's Environmental Health Network; Healthy
Schools Network; National Association of Schools Nurses;
Natural Resources Defense Council; Physicians for Social
Responsibility to Members of Congess........................... 57
Statements:
Acton, Katie, parent advocate, Ozone Park, NY................ 56
Carella, Veronika, concerned parent and children's advocate,
Glenwood, MD............................................... 61
Davis, Rochelle, Illinois Healthy Schools Campaign........... 62
Graham, Tolle, coordinator, Massachusetts Healthy Schools
Network.................................................... 63
Gustafson, Christine, Trevor, WI............................. 88
Healthy Schools Network, Inc., Sanitizers and Disinfectants
Guide...................................................... 64
Landrigan, Philip J., M.D., M.Sc., Ethel H. Wise professor
and chair, Department of Community and Preventive Medicine,
professor of pediatrics, director, Center for Children's
Health and the Environment, Mount Sinai School of Medicine,
New York, NY............................................... 69
Lawson, Joellen, special education teacher, Fairfield, CT.... 88
Miller, Susanne, Vermont Public Interest Research Group...... 72
Shendell, Derek G., scientist and public health professional. 82
Swartz, Daniel, executive director, Children's Environmental
Health Network............................................. 73
Unger, Geri, The Funders' Forum on Environment and Education. 83
Woods, James E., Ph.D., P.E., The Building Diagnostics
Research Institute......................................... 86
GREEN SCHOOLS: ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS FOR SCHOOLS
----------
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 1, 2002
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:13 a.m. in
room 406, Senate Dirksen Building, Hon. James M. Jeffords
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Jeffords, Clinton, and Carper.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. JEFFORDS, U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF VERMONT
Senator Jeffords. Good morning, the hearing will come to
order. I am sorry for the delay, but there is a little meeting
over at the Pentagon that was of some interest to all of us.
I would like to begin by thanking our witnesses both for
being here today, and for your dedication to promoting green
schools.
I also understand that we have parents of school children
in the audience who have personal interests in today's hearing.
I appreciate, and I am sorry for the unfortunate experiences
that bring us here today.
The statistics are truly alarming. More than 14 million
children attend schools with an environmental problem. More
than $320 billion will be needed to bring these schools up to
healthy standards nationwide.
If the Federal Government fully funded its share of special
education programs, the localities would have the ability to
provide more funding for green schools. More than 1,100 public
schools are built within a half mile of a toxic waste site.
The statement of Lois Gibbs, who is with the Center for
Health, Environment and Justice, will discuss in our second
panel the undeserved struggle parents have in these
communities.
I am very disturbed by this information. With all the
concerns plaguing today's parents, the health of a child's
school should not be an issue. Parents should be assured that
the building and location in which their child spends the
majority of his or her time is safe and healthy.
It is distressing that any child should be confronted with
a possible developmental impairment as a result of the school
he or she attends.
I am pleased that EPA is here today with us. It seems that
EPA is doing more than any other Federal agency in the area of
healthy schools.
I look forward to hearing more from EPA's initiatives, such
as the Tools for Schools Program. I am, however, sorry that the
Department of Education and Energy could not be here with us
today. I hope to work with the Department of Education in the
coming months. I also hope the Department of Energy becomes
more engaged in green school initiatives.
I recognize and appreciate the local nature of issues
related to schools. In my own State of Vermont, a Healthy
Schools Bill was signed into law in the Spring of the year
2000. This is a positive step forward to address the indoor air
quality in Vermont schools, and to limit exposure of Vermont's
teachers and children to potentially harmful environments.
However, there is much that can be done at the Federal
level. First, we need good scientific data to better understand
the link between outdoor and indoor environments, and the
student health and learning.
Second, in the context of school siting, construction and
renovation, we need Federal guidelines that take a child's
small size and the development needs into consideration.
Finally, we need to invest long-overdue resources and
coordinate Federal, State, and local efforts to improve the
health of our schools.
Studies indicate that the benefits of green schools are
numerous. Green schools can save 40 percent or more on energy
costs, as Alex Wilson discusses in his testimony. Mr. Wilson,
from Vermont's BuildingGreen, Inc., is on our second panel,
today.
Students in schools that rely primarily on daylighting
perform up to 26 percent better on standardized tests than
their counterparts in poorly lit schools. Let me repeat that.
Students in schools that rely primarily on daylighting perform
up to 26 percent better on standardized test than their
counterparts in poorly lit schools.
Claire Barnett, with the Healthy Schools Network, will
point out in her statement today that an estimated 17 million
school days were lost in 1997 due to asthma. Taking steps to
address air pollution, leading to asthma, would mean higher
school attendance.
These are the kind of statistics I prefer. I am hopeful
that today's hearing sheds some light on how to achieve greener
schools, and thus better health for our students and teachers.
I have highlighted points that will be made by each witness
in our second panel. A lot of thought and consideration has
gone into these testimonies. I urge EPA, as well as the
Department of Education and Energy, to carefully review our
witnesses' statements.
There is no greater investment that one can make than in
our children and their centers of learning and socialization. I
look forward to working with all of you to promote green
schools.
Our first witness is Ramona Trovato. She is the Deputy
Assistant Administrator of the Office of Environment, at the
Environmental Protection Agency. She is a former Director of
the Office of Children's Health Protection at EPA. We are so
pleased to have you with us.
Ms. Trovato. Thank you so much. It is a pleasure to be here
this morning.
Senator Jeffords. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF E. RAMONA TROVATO, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR,
OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
Ms. Trovato. Thanks, I am really pleased to be here today
on behalf of Administrator Whitman and EPA. We are here to
discuss our efforts to make schools safe and healthy places for
our children to learn, and I am particularly happy, because
this is the beginning of Children's Health Month, and I am
happy to be able to play a role in kicking that off.
Protecting our children's health is a priority of this
Administration and of EPA. Children are our most precious
asset, and may be more vulnerable to many environmental
exposures than adults.
Asthma is the leading chronic illness in children, and the
cause of 14 million missed school days every year. Allergens,
including those from mold, cockroaches, dust mites, animal
dander and other things commonly found in school environments
are known to trigger asthma attacks. Outdoor air pollution is
also a trigger for asthma attacks.
Children in our Nation's schools may also be exposed to
many other contaminants, including chemicals in everything from
cleaning products and art supplies, to the materials and
furnishings in school buildings.
They may also be exposed to pesticides, radon, fumes from
idling school buses, and potentially even to mishandled sources
of mercury and asbestos.
More than 53 million students, and about three million
teachers and staff, almost 20 percent of the United States
population spend much of their time in school. Unfortunately,
in far too many cases, our schools are old, and because of
budget shortfalls are inadequately maintained, leading to a
host of environmental problems that can impact children, staff,
and learning.
If a child suffers an asthma attack in class, or is not in
school because of asthma, if the school is closed because of an
environmental health or safety episode, if the ventilation
system is providing little or no fresh air, that child may not
be up to learning to his or her potential.
Within EPA, we have been working very hard to help schools
address environmental issues that affect learning. For example,
while there is no known cure for asthma, asthma attacks can be
prevented by reducing exposures to environmental triggers, and
by ensuring that all children receive appropriate medical care.
EPA is a committed partner is this battle against asthma.
EPA has been a leader in the effort to help schools address
indoor air problems through its widely acclaimed indoor air
quality Tools for Schools program. I brought you a kit, in case
you would like to see it.
We have worked with 10,000 schools who are already using
the program. In fact, New York City schools and the L.A.
Unified School District, two of the largest school districts in
the country, are committed to using Tools for Schools as part
of their health and safety programs.
Last year, EPA released specific guidance to help schools
identify and fix mold and moisture problems. We are very proud
of our new little book on that. Just last week, we released a
companion guide on preventing and cleaning up mold in homes,
which we have here, as well.
We are continuing to work with other Federal agencies
though, and especially CDC, to better understand the health
effects from mold, so we are doing more research in that area.
Soon, EPA will release new Web-based guidance devoted to
school design, construction, and renovation. This new guidance
will draw from EPA's expertise, as well as excellent work done
in the private sector in the State of California, and
especially the California collaborative for high performance
schools.
EPA strongly encourages school districts to embrace the
concept of designing and building high performance schools.
These are schools with a whole building integrated design to
promote health and performance, while saving energy, resources,
and money.
Energy efficient design can result in reduced operating
costs and these energy savings can pay for any additional up-
front costs very quickly.
These savings do not even include the potential benefits of
improved health and performance of the students and the folks
who work in schools.
EPA is very aware of the resource constraints that schools
face, and so our goal is to allow schools easy access to our
environmental programs. We are doing this through better
coordination and integration within EPA, and we are developing
partnerships with schools, school districts, and organizations
that represent nurses, teachers, facility planners, managers,
school administrators, architects, engineers, and parents.
To that end, I am pleased to report to you today that just
a week ago, we inaugurated a new Healthy School Environments
Web portal. This new Web site will provide one stop access to
EPA resources for schools, as well as those from other Federal
agencies, States, communities, and NGOs.
Within the Federal family, the President's Task Force on
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks to Children, co-
chaired by Administrator Whitman and Secretary Thompson,
identified school environmental health as a priority, and
established an inter-agency work group.
This schools work group is tasked with identifying
opportunities for collaboration and coordination of Federal
efforts, and is co-chaired by EPA, the Department of Education,
and the Department of Health and Human Services.
The work group has developed an inventory of Federal
programs, which should be available later this year, and is
working to develop a strategy for improved Federal
collaboration.
In conclusion, we are committed to working within the
Federal community, with States and tribes, local governments
and communities, schools, and NGOs to promote children's health
in our Nation's schools.
I look forward to working with you and others to make our
schools the healthiest possible environments for our kids to
learn. I thank you for the opportunity to be here today, and I
am happy to answer any questions.
Senator Jeffords. Well, thank you, Ms. Trovato. Your
testimony is alarming.
Ms. Trovato. It is alarming, yes.
Senator Jeffords. We appreciate your candor, and I look
forward to working with you.
Let me read back to you some of the statistics you provided
the Committee in your opening testimony. Asthma is the leading
chronic illness in children, and the cause of 14 million missed
school days each year.
Next, hundreds of thousand of children, living in the
United States, still have blood lead levels high enough to
impair their ability to think, concentrate and learn.
You also report that children, while in our Nation's
schools, are exposed to many chemicals, fumes, and pesticides
that lead to dramatic impacts on their health and learning.
You also report that frequently, schools across America are
being evacuated or permanently closed due to environmental
problems.
You outline that 40 percent of our schools are in
unsatisfactory environmental condition, most of these in urban
environments; and most alarming, minority children that attend
these unsafe urban schools that have poor outdoor and indoor
air quality are four to six times more likely to die--yes,
die--from asthma. That is alarming.
Finally, you conclude by saying the following:
``Nevertheless, many schools continue to provide less than
ideal conditions to facilitate learning, and many pose
unnecessary risks to the health of our children.''
From what you report, every day we send our children into
an environment that may undermine their ability to learn, harm
their health, and increase their risk of death.
These are our schools we are talking about. Our children
trust us to do what is right, to protect them, and provide a
safe environment for them to learn and thrive. Clearly, we are
failing. We can and we must do a lot more to protect our
children in this Nation.
I know you outline a number of steps that EPA is taking to
improve the environment in our children's schools, but there is
much that we can do.
Please tell me why our other Federal agencies, such as the
Department of Education and Energy, are not doing more to
support EPA's efforts. Is there any coordination there, and are
they not aware of the problem?
Ms. Trovato. We are very concerned about kids' health, as
well. For the last 5\1/2\ years, I have been working on
children's health issues.
I was surprised when I learned the extent of the number of
kids with asthma and the number of missed school days, and the
number of kids with elevated blood lead levels. Even though
getting lead out of blood has been a huge public health success
story, there are still hundreds of thousands of kids with
elevated levels of lead in their blood.
So, we have been working long and hard with the other
Federal agencies, as well as with other partners around the
country, to try and deal with these issues.
We have very close working relationships with the
Department of Health and Human Services, and an inter-agency
Federal asthma strategy to try and find ways to not only
prevent exposures that trigger attacks, but also to make sure
that kids are getting the medical treatment they need.
For blood lead levels, we are working really closely with
the Department of Health and Human Services and HUD, because
most of the exposures to lead are in older homes, where there
is toxic, hazardous lead paint. So we have a very strong
relationship there.
In terms of the schools initiative, we have an extremely
strong relationship with the Department of Education. They are
helping us co-chair the group on schools.
We compliment their focus on education, because we are
trying to help find ways to make schools better places to
learn, so kids can focus on learning and not be worried about
if they are safe and healthy in those schools.
The Department of Energy is a key partner, from the point
of view of looking at how we make schools more energy
efficient; but at the same time, make sure the indoor air
quality is such that we are promoting learning, as well as
saving money.
So we are making every effort to have a really strong
partnership with all of the other Federal agencies in the
Government. There is always more we can do. There are always
more programs we are finding, where we can partner.
The Web site, the Healthy School Environments Web portal,
that just went up within the week, has information about what
the other Federal agencies are doing, as well as what we are
doing.
So there is a strong collaboration, I think, with all of
these Federal agencies, and we are going to continue doing
that. As we develop the strategy and identify what each agency
can do and how they fit in, I think it will help us to promote
even more work and more work together, that makes it better for
kids in schools.
Senator Jeffords. There are many differences among the
States in how they fund and regulate school facilities, as
revealed by studies conducted by the Environmental Law
Institute. How can the EPA, at the Federal and regional levels,
ensure that the Federal agency outreach on school environmental
programs is consistent with local and State regulations, and
integrated with local funding budgets?
Ms. Trovato. That is a tough one, Senator. We have the Web
site that all schools can sign in on, or school districts or
States, to look at what we have to offer, in terms of
environmental programs that can help out schools.
The other thing that is happening is, we have 10 regions
around the country, like many other Federal agencies. Each of
those regional offices is, in different ways, reaching out to
the schools, where the schools want to partner with us, and
working with them to try and give them what they need.
In our Region I, which is our New England Region, for
example, we have a program where we are trying to educate
schools about how they can get rid of old chemicals that they
do not want anymore, and how they can handle them safely and
get rid of them safely. We have different programs in different
regions, depending on what that State or that school wants.
So in some cases, we are not consistent, simply because the
issues from region to region in our country are different. So
we are trying to focus on what those people in those regions
want.
We are also trying to partner with other Federal agencies
in those regions. In the past, in Region I, again, in our New
England Region, we have partnered on asthma, where we got
together HUD, HHS, and EPA to look at the asthma issues there,
to try and find ways to reduce asthma episodes in those States.
Senator Jeffords. What role do you think EPA should play in
the labeling of building materials and products according to
their emissions; and how can the agency help schools identify
safe products?
Ms. Trovato. A lot of things are already labeled.
Pesticides are already labeled, solvents, cleaning materials
are already labeled. Energy star materials are already labeled.
But one of the things we are trying to do right now, not
exactly in the labeling mode, but at least in the education
mode, is provide in our new Web page that will be up the end of
this year, our design criteria for things that people should
look at when they are trying to buy new materials in setting up
new schools.
We have some principles for them to look at, in terms of
materials, using the least toxic materials; those that emit
little or no odor. They are easy to clean. They are not
susceptible to moisture damage, so we can avoid getting to
molds.
So we are giving them information about questions they
should ask when they buy materials, and we also, for some
things, pesticides and cleaning agents, they are already
labeled. So we are making a step forward to helping schools
choose more healthy materials.
Senator Jeffords. EPA's Tools for Schools Program is a good
step in the right direction; however, it is voluntary. What
greater role can EPA play in implementing actual indoor air
quality standards; and how would these standards be defined?
Ms. Trovato. EPA has authority to do research and
disseminate information about indoor air quality. Tools for
Schools is one of our premier products that we offer to help.
In terms of setting standards, there are some standards
that are set just because of the other statutory authorities
that we have; for example, pesticide usage inside buildings.
There is information on that and requirements on that, and what
pesticides you can use, and at what rates you can apply.
We have a lot we can offer in terms of information and
guidance, but we do not set indoor air quality standards. To a
large extent, we do not have a lot of information about what
materials, chemicals, are in buildings, in schools; and we do
not have the research to know what is safe and what is not
safe.
Senator Jeffords. The agency has focused considerable
attention on indoor air quality in the schools. Have you looked
at other issues like daylighting, that might affect a student's
health and performance?
Ms. Trovato. Now I have personally read about daylighting
and know that it has been associated with student performance,
but I do not know if we have done work on that issue.
I am told, we have not, but we work with the Department of
Energy and others. That was Bob Axelrad from EPA, who is our
lead schools person.
Personally, I found daylighting to be a big help for
myself.
Senator Jeffords. Given the high priority need to protect
children from toxic hazards, what Federal legislative or
Administrative initiatives are needed to remove and dispose of
toxic hazardous materials in their supplies at schools?
Ms. Trovato. I think we have all the authority we need. I
think education is what we need to offer to help schools.
Because we do know a lot about how to handle and dispose of
them safely.
So as in our New England Region, where we have reached out
to schools and offered them education about how to handle those
materials, I think it is something we could do in more of our
regions, and make sure that folks knew how to handle those
materials.
Senator Jeffords. You mentioned more research is needed.
Can you be more specific?
Ms. Trovato. There are many chemicals in our environment
for which we have not done a lot of health effects research. So
there is always more health effects research, I think, that is
necessary.
In the last 5 years, the agency has funded five centers to
focus on children's health. Well, there are 12 centers; eight
of which are going to come up for renewal very soon, and we are
going to continue to fund them jointly with NIEHS, to help
focus on children's health issues.
In addition to this, we are also very interested in what
effects exposures to urban pollutants, to pesticides, may have
for a variety of different sub-populations of kids, such as
kids who live in the inner city and kids who live in farming
communities. So we are trying to learn more about how children
are specifically affected, perhaps differently than adults, by
doing this research.
Senator Jeffords. What Federal and State initiatives and
resources are needed to ensure that in 5 years, at least half
of the schools will have disposed of old and outdated toxic
products, and adopted pollution prevention purchasing for
products and suppliers in common use?
Ms. Trovato. That is a big question.
Senator Jeffords. Yes.
Ms. Trovato. I probably need to get back to you on that
one, because that is such a big question.
We can do more education and outreach from each of our
regions to let the schools know, or the school districts know,
how they can handle those materials. But the rest of that, that
is a bigger question, and I really need to get back to you on
that.
Senator Jeffords. We would appreciate it if you spend some
time on it, after we finish our discussion.
Ms. Trovato. OK.
Senator Jeffords. Why is the EPA deliberating cutting
funding for these important centers, especially when the number
of children who suffer from asthma and other illnesses from
potential environmental causes are on the rise?
Ms. Trovato. We just have not decided at what level we are
going to fund the centers. We think the centers are really
important, and we are committed to children's health research.
I cannot tell you when we are going to decide how much funding
we are going to contribute with NIEHS and HHS to that.
We do want to also focus, I should say, on older Americans,
as well as on children, because we know that many of the things
that affect kids also affect older Americans. But then there
are different things that also affect older Americans.
Asthma is an even worse problem for older folks than it is
for children, in terms of how well they survive asthma attacks.
So we also want to spread our limited money to look at
populations such as older Americans, as well as children.
We certainly do not want to short-change kids. They have
got a long, long life, and we want to make sure it is as high a
quality as possible. But we also want to make sure the quality
of all the lives of the citizens are well protected and we
promote their health.
Senator Jeffords. In December of 2000, Congress
appropriated $1.2 billion for school renovation grants to
address health and safety issues.
The funds are now in use in the States. Congress has also
established a continuing qualified zone Academy Bonds Program,
that can be used to help schools with renovations and
construction.
What legislation or Administrative initiatives are needed
to integrate EPA's environmental expertise with the Department
of Education's available funding?
Ms. Trovato. So far, we are working really well with the
Department of Education. I do not think we need any additional
authorities or direction.
The Department of Education has recognized that we have a
great deal of expertise in this area, especially in our Indoor
Environments Program. So they are reaching out to us as much as
we are reaching out to them. I think we are doing pretty well
with the Department of Education, in terms of sharing knowledge
and expertise.
I think that we have a good partnership, and that as we
continue to move forward and work together, that the
understanding of how these issues affect how kids learn will
become more readily apparent to more folks, and that
partnership will grow.
Senator Jeffords. Well, I hope so.
Ms. Trovato. Yes.
Senator Jeffords. I want to keep in touch with you on these
things. I am going to be looking to try and see what the
funding situations are, to see what we, at the Senate level
should be doing to make sure the resources are available and
necessary.
Ms. Trovato. Thank you so much. It is always important to
shine light on these issues and keep the focus where it
belongs. The kids are our future, so we appreciate that; thanks
so much.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you.
Senator Clinton.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, U.S. SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Senator Clinton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you so much for holding this very important hearing.
I know that our witness is from the Environmental Protection
Agency and not the Education Department.
But I am going to take this opportunity, since I assume you
do represent the Administration, to some extent, to continue my
efforts to get a response from the Administration, and most
particularly, the Department of Education.
I incorporated an amendment in the No Child Left Behind Act
that was aimed at providing resources and technical assistance
to help schools get rid of environmental health pollutants,
such as mold, lead, asbestos, and many other problems that had
been brought to my attention by the good work of some of the
people we are going to hear on the next panel.
In spite of numerous requests that I have made about this
program, the Administration zeroed out funding for it this year
and in next year's budget.
I am very concerned, because I think the Healthy and High
Performance Schools Program was a recognition by the Congress,
in passing that landmark education, that the health of our
schools had an impact on the health of our children.
So, I would appreciate it if the Environmental Protection
Agency would talk to the Department of Education, and perhaps
report to this Committee as to what the steps are going to be
to try to implement legislation that was adopted. I am very
appreciative of any help you can give me.
Now more closely related to the EPA is, earlier this year,
I asked Administrator Whitman to establish environmental
guidelines for the siting of schools. I expressed an interest
in having this become a priority of the President's Task Force
on Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks to Children.
Again, I would like an update on both the establishment of
the guidelines and on the Task Force, in general. I think it is
imperative that the Task Force continue operating.
I would like to know if President Bush intends to allow the
Task Force to continue operating beyond its current expiration
date of April, 2003. Finally, does the EPA, in your opinion,
currently have the authority to set standards for the indoor
school environment or, for that matter, any indoor
environmental standards, and to conduct indoor monitoring in
schools?
Ms. Trovato. That is a lot.
Senator Clinton. Well, we have been working on this for
quite awhile.
Ms. Trovato. Let me start at the top, which is the
requirement on high performance schools and the work of the
Department of Education.
Despite the fact that I am with the Federal Government, I
really cannot answer for the Department of Education. So I
would love it if you would allow me to get back to you on that
piece.
Senator Clinton. Thank you very much.
Ms. Trovato. We are working closely with the Department of
Education to offer our expertise on environmental issues in and
around schools, whenever we can.
So we think that that is a growing and good relationship
that we have with them. We think that because of the new law
and your efforts, the Department of Education has begun to
recognize that the school environment, itself, can affect how
well you learn.
I think that is a new recognition. I am not sure people, or
at least not a lot of people, were aware of that for a long
time. So that is a good thing.
In terms of environmental guidelines for siting schools, it
is a local issue. However, we are providing, in one of our Web
sites, on the design Tools for Schools site, which should be
final the end of this year, guidelines for siting schools.
We also have, on EPA's Web site, a tool called Enviro-
facts. You can log in there, put in your zip code, and you can
find out what sites are regulated by EPA or the State in that
area. So that will help a lot to identify what is there or what
has been there, and help schools and school districts make good
decisions.
In terms of the Task Force on Children's Environmental
Health and Safety Risks, it is continuing to operate. The
schools work group was formed at the last meeting.
That has been working long and hard. That will have its
product, an inventory of the Federal activities on schools, up
by the end of the year on our Web site, as well as develop a
strategy on how we are going to collaborate to better help
schools.
The asthma work group continues to function, both HHS and
EPA, trying to identify better ways to reduce asthma. In fact,
we have a very strong relationship with the States, through the
Environmental Council of the States and the Association of
State and Territorial Health Officials, to look at ways to
reduce asthma attacks.
Also, the Lead Task Force continues to work, with HUD in
the lead. Congress increased the grant funding to HUD, and it
is focused on the HUD housing, to reduce the lead hazards in
those houses.
We are also partnering with HHS and CDC to better
understand the links between environment and health by
establishing a health tracking system.
Their grants should be announced very shortly for
environment and health tracking. We are already working closely
with them, to make sure that the data standards that they come
up with, and the data standards that we already have in our
environmental network, are compatible so we can exchange and
share information.
Because one of the things that we and they are very
interested in, from a public health perspective, is where are
the chronic diseases that people are suffering; what are the
environmental conditions in those places; and is there a link
between the two, that we could understand better and,
therefore, promote health better through environmental action.
We are really excited about this one, and I know CDC is, as
well. So we are looking forward to them getting their site up
and running, and joining it through the network with out site,
so that we can have more information on that.
EPA does not have authority to set standards for indoor
environments. We have authority to do research and disseminate
information, and our Tools for Schools is one of our packages
that we have disseminated.
We can conduct monitoring activities in schools, and we
have in some specific instances. We do not have a generic
program of understanding, through monitoring, of what is
happening in our schools.
We have done a study of 100 large office buildings
throughout the country, in different climatic regions, to
understand what is happening in those buildings. We are
continuing the analysis of that information, so that we can see
if there are any conclusions we can draw from that study. We
have not done a similar study in schools.
Senator Clinton. Well, I want to thank Ms. Trovato for her
testimony, Mr. Chairman. I know that the health tracking issue
is one that you have worked on with me, and Senator Reid and
others. I think it is the next frontier, in terms of
environmental work.
We have a piece of legislation that we would love to work
with the Administration on getting in place. Because I could
not agree with you more, that we have done a good job tracking
infectious disease. We have not done a good job tracking
chronic disease.
I think you were at the Fallon, Nevada hearing, where you
testified.
Ms. Trovato. Yes.
Senator Clinton. We were looking for the linkage with the
cancer cluster that has been so difficult to understand, that
has claimed lives and has just been devastating to about a
dozen families in that very small farming town.
So I hope that we can really make an issue of health
tracking. Similarly, I think it is also now apparent that we
need standards on indoor air, and we need responsibility,
clearly defined, as to who is responsible, in the event of man-
made or natural disasters that create challenges to indoor air,
and to do some monitoring in just ordinary circumstances.
Clearly, this has been a huge issue for us in New York, in
Lower Manhattan. It was one of those problems that fell between
the cracks, you know, where the city was asked to take
responsibility. They clearly did not have the expertise or the
ability to do it. They turned to EPA.
We finally now have indoor air monitoring occurring in
residences, but this needs to be fixed for the future. This is
a significant issue.
Clearly, too, I think we need standards to that we can be
conducting more regular monitoring, and not wait for a
disaster; for parents to know that the indoor air in their
homes, in their apartment buildings, in their schools is safe.
Because I think we are all learning that we have put so
much stuff into our environment, thousands and thousands of
chemicals, since World War II, that have never been tested, and
their interactions with each other are totally unknown.
I mean, for heaven's sake, we pick up the paper now and
read that, you know, we are now testing for the safety of
french fries and potato chips, because of chemical reactions
with starch and glucose, at high temperatures, that can create
a cancer-causing element that does cause cancer in animals. I
mean, those are things we did not know.
Now that we have more notice, we have to do more work. So I
thank you for your commitment. You have been very, very
helpful, and I look forward to working with you, to try to
answer some of these questions, set the standards we need, and
then provide the resources to monitor and implement what we
know is best for our children in the future.
Ms. Trovato. Thank you so much.
Senator Jeffords. Well, thank you, and thank you, Senator,
for an excellent dissertation here. I look forward to working
with you. That is the final question we have for you at this
time.
Ms. Trovato. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; thank you, Senator.
Senator Jeffords. But we reserve the right to bludgeon you
through the mail.
[Laughter.]
Senator Jeffords. Our next panel is Ms. Claire Barnett. She
is the executive director of the Healthy Schools Network, based
in Albany, NY.
Mr. Alex Wilson is president of BuildingGreen, Inc., based
in Brattleboro, VT. Mr. Wilson is here representing the U.S.
Green Buildings Council.
Ms. Lois Gibbs is the executive director of the Center for
Health, Environment, and Justice, based in Falls Church,
Virginia.
Senator Clinton. Mr. Chairman, if I could just say a word
of introduction, Claire Barnett from the Healthy Schools
Network in Albany has been instrumental in illuminating the
problems that schools face, not just in New York, but around
the country.
The network which she directs provides technical assistance
to parents, teachers, school administrators and others, who are
interested in the health of our schools.
Of course, Lois Gibbs is an environmental heroine who,
while raising her family in Love Canal near Niagara Falls in
Upstate New York, discovered that her home and those of her
neighbors were sitting next to thousands of tons of toxic
chemicals.
This was in 1978, and I think it is fair to say that the
modern environmental concern about toxic chemicals, about what
needs to be done, about who bears responsibility really can be
dated to what Lois did, after she galvanized her neighbors, and
led to tremendous response throughout our country, and the
relocation of 800 Love Canal households.
Today, she is still fighting the good fight, as executive
director of the Center for Health, Environment, and Justice. I
am delighted that both Ms. Barnett and Ms. Gibbs could be here
today.
Senator Jeffords. Well, thank you, Senator.
My first question is for Claire Barnett.
Oh, you all have statements you would like to give; yes,
right.
[Laughter.]
Senator Clinton. He wants to get right to it. He is
chomping at the bit here.
[Laughter.]
Senator Jeffords. Claire, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF CLAIRE BARNETT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, HEALTHY
SCHOOLS NETWORK
Ms. Barnett. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Senator Jeffords and Senator Clinton, those were
lovely introductions, and we are very, very grateful to this
Committee for holding this hearing. We consider it very
significant.
My name is Claire Barnett. I am executive director of the
Healthy Schools Network. We do environmental health research
information and advocacy.
Today, on October 1st, which is the first day of Child
Health Month, we are here representing the 55 million students
and school personnel, about 20 percent of the Nation's
population, who are in school today.
Unlike this room, their buildings are much more like what
we see on the posters over here: dilapidated rooms, moldy
ceilings, falling apart buildings, children are all but wearing
gas masks in their schools.
I am also here with some parents that I want to point out,
who have traveled a bit to help tell the story: Joellen Lawson,
a teacher from Connecticut; Jenna Orkin, from the schools of
Ground Zero in New York City; Veronica Carella from Maryland;
Grayling White from Tennessee; Bill and Judy Sazonski and their
son, Will, are here; Robin Starinieri from Virginia. I think
she will shortly arrive.
All of their lives, like the lives of many other people,
have been adversely impacted by the conditions of schools. It
is something that we need to change, and change as quickly as
possible.
Americans spend 85 to 90 percent of their time indoors. The
General Accounting Office reported in 1995 that over 14 million
children were in schools that threaten their health. This
includes indoor air pollution; lighting and plumbing
deficiencies, and that means, the toilets do not work;
ventilation problems; problems that do not go away on their
own.
In fact, EPA has stated that indoor air pollution is one of
the top five hazards to human health. The American Society of
Civil Engineers has reported that our schools are in worse
condition than any other infrastructure, including prisons.
At the same time, schools everywhere are enrolling more and
more children with special needs: asthma, attention deficit,
autism, severe allergies, learning disabilities. Seventeen
percent of children under the age of 18 have been diagnosed
with one or more developmental disabilities. These children may
be especially susceptible to environmental problems in their
buildings.
A Federal Executive Order on child environmental health
that was reauthorized by President Bush, reaffirms that
children are more vulnerable to environmental hazards than are
adults. So our challenge is, how do we create healthier,
greener workplaces for our children?
We have identified a number of different problems that we
want to point out. I do not want to reiterate EPA's fine
testimony on some of these points. But major indoor triggers of
asthma can include irritants such as paints, cleaning agents,
pesticides, perfumes, sealants, plastics, adhesives, insulation
materials, animal and insect allergens, and environmental
tobacco smoke. All of these are found in schools, including
products which anti-drug abuse advocacy organizations classify
as ``huffable'' products: spray paints, markers, and fixatives.
Any building which is in bad repair, like the one over on
my right, is going to be subject to pest infestations.
Basically, pests like what we like. They like a little food, a
little water, and a nice place to sleep.
But for buildings that are falling apart, we give pests too
many opportunities to settle in. The result of that has been
the constant application and routine application of highly
toxic pesticide sprays, which cause their own problems with
children.
What we do know from another GAO study that looked at
poison control reports between 1993 and 1996, there were
approximately 2,300 pesticide-related exposures involving
individuals at schools.
Molds are also everywhere, and moldy ceiling tiles are a
great example. They are completely preventable, but they are
everywhere, indoors and out. There is no such thing as a mold-
free environment.
Testing for molds is unreliable. It is unclear what EPA's
authority is to deal with molds in indoor environments.
It is our belief that testing is more beneficial to vendors
than it is to schools. The message from EPA and other public
agencies that have looked at molds is that prevention is the
best way out; it is cheaper than remediation: reducing
humidity, stopping leaks, responding promptly to spills, and
always taking public health complaints seriously the first
time.
Chemical toxicants and biological agents in the classrooms
are everywhere. One of the things we ask is, why we cannot have
environmentally preferable purchasing practices taking place in
schools; why schools cannot eliminate the hazardous and toxic
products that are too often left behind in the storage room,
after the chemistry teacher has retired, or after the biology
teacher has retired? There is something left back in that
closet that the next person in the door does not want to touch.
The presence of hazardous and highly toxic products in
schools is a major, major issue. It needs to be addressed.
Mercury is just one example. Other sources beyond the chemical
labs also include art labs, vocational technology shops and so
forth.
What was interesting is the Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry has actually put out a study on evacuations
from educational facilities. They found they are often caused
by chemical spills or releases.
They also found, and when you stop to think about it, it is
not too surprising, that when you evacuate an educational
facility, the evacuees and the victims are younger and more
numerous than those from any other institution.
The most common substances in these evacuations were
mercury and tearing agents, and that actually means mace and
pepper spray; hydrochloric acid; chlorine; ethylene glycol, and
formaldehyde. There was absolutely no estimate of the cost to
health, the cost to learning, or the cost of just school
administration, or missed time. It is an extraordinary
consumption of resources.
We all know that lead comes with old infrastructure and
will always be found in paint dust and chips. Lead is
associated with many, many different difficulties, including
intellectual deficits. It has also been linked to problems with
impulsivity and aggression.
Again, according to the General Accounting Office in 1995,
schools built before 1980 were painted with lead paint. This
means that most of the stock of America's schools does have
lead paint.
There is an interesting lead issue, and a small story that
goes with that, which is a new source that not many people
understand. Many schools, years ago, had rifle teams, or
shooting ranges. Some schools actually had shooting ranges
indoors.
One of the things we have discovered about shooting ranges
indoors is that they use lead in the ammunition, which means
that building can be lead-contaminated.
We have asked the New York State Department of Health to
release a study that it conducted 2 years ago, and we would
like some help getting that study out. The study has been
completed, but it has not been released.
They did do blood lead level testing on all the rifle team
members, and discovered they all had elevated blood lead
levels. If that, in fact, stands up to scrutiny, it is a major
lesson for schools everywhere in the country, not just in the
few places in New York where the investigations were done.
Basically, there is no system to protect children. Not one
of the workplace standards that have been set to protect adults
can be used to protect children, who are compelled to be in
school, and none can be invoked by children or parents, as the
parents with us here today can tell you.
Parents cannot take their children to an occupational
health clinic. They have no bargaining rights. Parents are not
in school every day. Schools may not reveal hazards, and there
is no system that provides a right to know safeguard.
Certainly, parent/teacher associations and organizations,
parent associations, as there are in New York City, are
voluntary groups. They simply do not have an institutional
history or capacity to deal with extended onsite environmental
investigations. It is not a system to protect children.
So we think that fresh air and sunshine are a great idea,
and we think that fresh air and sunshine ought to be in
schools. It is a back to basics movement to have healthy and
high performance schools for our children.
We know that fresh air and good indoor air quality are
associated with better productivity for adults. They ought to
be associated with better productivity for children. We know
that daylighting is, as well.
One of the things I want to talk about very briefly is the
terrific kit from EPA, the ``Indoor Air Quality Tools for
Schools'' kit. EPA really is to be commended for getting this
out the door and pushing as hard as they have. It came out
approximately the same time as the General Accounting Office
reports in 1995.
Since that time, while we all know that 14 million children
are compelled to be in decaying and polluted schools, the kit,
unfortunately, has only reached approximately 1 percent of all
schools nationally. This, again, is not a system that protects
children. Implementation is elusive.
One of the results of this is that there are more and more
children on medications than there ever were before. Asthma
medications, as you know, may have side effects, such as
tremors, nausea, headache, and anxiety.
On physician orders, some parents have kept their children
home, or they have withdrawn them and are voluntarily home
schooling them.
We have also had calls, I regret to tell you, from parents
who tell us they have seriously ill children, have schools that
have ignored physician letters, and also report their schools
have threatened to report them for child neglect, based on the
children's long absences from schools.
This is a serious issue with respect to having free
appropriate publication education, and an accessible facility,
and an accessible educational program.
One of the things I want to mention is the outbreak of
school rashes that further illustrates the problem of trying to
keep track of both environment and of children.
Because of our clearinghouse, and because of our national
network of participating organizations, very early on, we were
alerted and had a number of incoming calls about strange rashes
breaking out on children.
Included as an attachment to our testimony here is some
correspondence that we developed as a national coalition to the
Centers for Disease Control. I think our letter arrived at CDC
about the same time it decided to conduct an investigation.
But the result was that CDC did, in fact, conduct an
investigation, and determined that there were well over 1,000
students in 27 different States, who were affected by this rash
outbreak. It, in fact, in our records, started well before
September 11th.
CDC issued a preliminary report on the rash outbreak. Part
were attributed to unknown causes; to ordinary childhood
diseases; and part, to applied chemicals and renovation dust.
So it is hard to tell what is taking up all that time. We
have no system to monitor child health. There is no State that
tracks or records student illness or injury. It does not exist.
So in times of questions with domestic security, and in
times when we do not know what is going on with children, we
have no baseline. We do not know what is happening to them in
their workplaces.
We also know, through the rash investigation, that there
were schools that refused to have an onsite environmental
investigation. I think that is a real challenge, both for this
Committee and for other committees concerned about the
interaction of environment and health, on how to deal with and
how to develop some sort of realistic and effective tracking
system.
We would like very much to continue the discussion with the
Senate, through this Committee and with other committees,
because the problems are not simple.
They are cross-jurisdictional issues here, as was raised
on the earlier panel. Education needs to be involved very
clearly. Environment needs to be involved, very, very clearly,
and Health needs to be involved, very clearly.
We would like to see ``Healthy and High-Performance
Schools'' funded. It needs to be funded. It needs to be
implemented. It needs to be moved forward.
We would like to see the EPA's schools program established
as a clear agency priority. It needs to do more research on
indoor air in schools. It needs a good evaluation of ``Indoor
Air Quality Tools for Schools,'' to look at toxic exposures and
reducing absenteeism. Strengthening EPA's regional office work
with State agencies will also be helpful.
We also call your attention, not just to the children's
centers for research, but also to the Pediatric Environmental
Health Specialty Units, the PEHSUs, that are in existence.
These are clinical centers that will advise other physicians or
actually see children, partially funded by EPA.
As I mentioned a little bit earlier, if you are a parent of
an affected child, you actually cannot take your child to an
occupational health clinic.
But we have found that we have had a good referral
relationship with a number of the Pediatric Environmental
Health Specialty Units that can, in fact, see children and
determine whether or not what they are looking at is a
building-related illness. So we would like to see an expansion
of that.
We would also like to see EPA develop best practices for
schools, not just at a building level, which is where ``Tools
for Schools'' works, at an individual building level, but at a
district level, for implementation of policies.
Clearly, the School Environmental Protection Act needs to
be passed. We strongly support that as a national coalition. It
will put in place pest-proofing of buildings, that will
eliminate the need for toxic chemicals, and we sincerely hope
that school repairs and construction will be funded. Thank you.
Senator Jeffords. Well, thank you.
Now I introduce Mr. Alex Wilson, who is the president of
BuildingGreen, Inc., of Brattleboro, VT. Mr. Wilson is here
representing the U.S. Green Buildings Council. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF ALEX WILSON, PRESIDENT, BUILDINGGREEN, INC.,
REPRESENTING THE U.S. GREEN BUILDINGS COUNCIL
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, Senator Jeffords.
I am sure, as you can sympathize, it is hard to leave
Vermont this time of year, with the foliage getting started.
Senator Jeffords. You deserve a medal, I assure you.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Wilson. It is great to be here, and I thank you for
this opportunity to address the Committee, and Senator Clinton.
My name is Alex Wilson. I am president of BuildingGreen,
Inc., a small company in Brattleboro, VT, which publishes
Environmental News, which is a leading national publication on
green building issues.
I also serve on the Boards of the U.S. Green Building
Council and the Sustainable Buildings Industry Council, both
here in Washington, and both are very much involved with
efforts to advance the implementation of energy-efficient,
environmentally responsible buildings, including schools.
My hope here is to provide a quick overview of high
performance schools and their benefits, and then touch on some
recommendations as to where the Federal Government could
effectively play a role. Greater detail is provided in the
written testimony which I am submitting.
So in a sense, I am going to be addressing the good side of
the issue; what we can do about the problems that Ms. Barnett
and others have raised.
What is a high performance school? Very simply, a high
performance school is one that improves the learning
environment, while minimizing environmental impacts, saving
energy, and reducing operating costs.
High performance schools rely on an integrated whole
buildings approach to design. This is a process in which
different members of a design team work together recognizing,
for example, that better glazings and energy efficient lighting
systems allow us to downsize the air conditioning systems; so
spending money more on one place to save money in another.
What are the benefits of high performance schools? The
benefits of high performance schools accrue to students,
teachers, taxpayers, and the environment. I have outlined eight
benefits below.
First would be improved student performance. As Senator
Jeffords alluded to earlier, there is growing evidence that a
school's physical condition, including its lighting and indoor
air quality, have a direct impact on student performance.
In the California study that Senator Jeffords referred to,
students in classrooms with the most daylighting progressed
more than 20 percent faster on math and verbal tests than
students in classrooms with the least daylighting.
Studies like this confirm what teachers, students, parents,
and others have known anecdotally for years; that a better
facility, one with good acoustics, lighting, and air quality,
will enhance learning.
The second benefit would be increased attendance. A high
performance school will keep students and teachers healthier,
reducing absenteeism. I will not go into further detail on
that, given Ms. Barnett's excellent testimony.
A third benefit is increased staff satisfaction. High
performance schools are comfortable and healthy places to work.
That helps attract and retain quality teachers.
The fourth benefit is reduced operating costs. Schools in
the United States spend approximately $6 billion per year on
energy. That is more than they spend on computers and
textbooks, combined. High performance schools can save 40
percent, and sometimes we are seeing even 50 percent, on these
energy costs.
The fifth benefit is reduced liability exposure. Because
high performance schools are healthier, they reduce a school
district's risk of lawsuits. Unfortunately, in our society,
that is a very significant issue at the local level.
The sixth benefit is reduced environmental impacts. High
performance schools use energy and water efficiently. They use
durable, non-toxic materials that are high in recycled content.
They provide for stormwater infiltration, replenishing
groundwater. They minimize waste generation. Many of these
schools include renewable energy systems.
The seventh benefit is using the school as a teaching tool.
Schools are places of learning, and many of the technologies
and techniques used to create high performance schools can also
be used as teaching tools.
The Alliance to Save Energy, which Senator Jeffords is Vice
Chair of, has played a leading role in this effort, through
their Green Schools Program, I think, since 1996.
Finally, the eighth benefit is schools as disaster
shelters. Schools often play a role in a community's disaster
planning, and high performance schools that incorporate natural
daylighting, highly energy efficient envelope systems, and
renewable power generation will perform far better during power
outages than conventional buildings.
All right, well, what about examples of high performance
schools? Are there examples? Yes, more and more high
performance schools are being built throughout the country.
Thirty-two schools are currently registered with the U.S. Green
Building Council's LEED rating program, which is a program
recognizing green features in non-residential buildings. But
among the thousands of new schools planned over the next few
years, only a small percentage are likely to be what we would
call high performance.
So this brings me to my recommendations. What can the
Federal Government do to turn this around? I have divided this
into a number of areas. First would be research needs.
There are a number of research areas that could
significantly benefit school design. First of all, we need more
studies to help us understand just what the connection is
between academic performance and factors like daylighting and
indoor air quality.
We need to learn more about basic building science issues;
like how to create buildings that are going to avoid mold
problems.
We need to develop better HVAC and lighting packages for
schools, to minimize the need for expensive customized
engineering which, today, with high performance schools, has to
happen basically in every classroom of every one of these high
performance schools.
We need better daylighting design tools. We need national
protocols for quantifying hazardous emissions from building
materials.
Next would be education and technology transfer needs.
Superb resources on high performance schools have been
developed by such groups as EPA, DOE, the Sustainable Buildings
Industry Council, and the Collaborative for High Performance
Schools in California.
But particularly in smaller States, Federal support is
needed to get these resources into the hands of those who need
them. That is a key role that the Federal Government could
play.
Next would be flow-through support to schools relating to
design and construction. Especially in smaller States, schools
need funding to pay for key aspects of design and construction.
Two priorities are computer energy modeling and commissioning.
Commissioning is a process to ensure that a school is actually
built and operates as it was intended.
Very often, we are finding a school is completed, and
systems do not work as they were designed. It needs tweaking.
It needs fine tuning after completion.
A special fund, distributed through State education
departments, to support such efforts would be extremely
beneficial. I believe that the healthy and high performance
schools initiative, the component of the 2001 Education Bill,
provides a mechanism for this, and it would be wonderful to see
that fully funded.
Next and finally, it would be wonderful to see the Federal
Government support a LEED Application Manual for schools. I
mentioned the LEED Building Rating Program earlier. This is a
program designed for commercial buildings.
The U.S. Green Building Council has been developing
specific application manuals to serve specific markets, and
schools is one of those that has been identified.
So in summary, schools are an investment in our country's
future. High performance schools can better serve our
children's academic potential, even while reducing taxpayer
costs.
To achieve greater penetration of high performance schools,
we need to provide support at key leverage points. Integrated,
whole-systems design is the mechanism to do that, and the
Federal Government can play an important role.
Thank you, Senator Jeffords and Senator Clinton, for this
opportunity to speak to you this morning. I would be very glad
to follow up with any of these ideas with Committee staff, as
would the U.S. Green Building Council and the Sustainable
Buildings Industry Council.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you, and thank you for that offer.
Our final witness is Lois Gibbs, who is executive director
of the Center for Health, Environment and Justice, based in
Falls Church, VA. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF LOIS M. GIBBS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR
HEALTH, ENVIRONMENT AND JUSTICE
Ms. Gibbs. It is getting pretty there, too.
Thank you for this opportunity to speak with you. The
Center for Health, Environment and Justice also coordinates the
Child-proofing Our Communities Campaign, which is much of the
work in front of you that I am going to testify to, which
actually came from members of that campaign.
This is an issue that has concerned me for over 20 years.
You are obviously familiar with my involvement at Love Canal,
which lead me to be termed, the ``Mother of Superfund.'' But
what most people do not know is that my concern at Love Canal
began with the 99th Street School, a school that my child was
attending on the perimeter of Love Canal, back in 1978.
Children are powerless against many dangers, and they look
to adults for this protection. However, decisions that adults
are making frequently endanger our Nation's children.
Today, new schools are being built on or near chemically
contaminated land, or near industrial facilities with toxic
emissions, and there is growing evidence that these chemical
exposures diminish our children's health and intellectual
abilities.
While laws compel children to attend school, there are
astoundingly no guidance or laws in place that compel school
districts to locate school buildings on property that will
adequately protect the school population from environmental
health and safety risks.
California is the only State that has some regulations and
an assessment process for building new schools. Consequently,
some parents are forced by law to send their children to
schools that pose threats to their children's health and their
children's ability to learn.
CHEJ, over the past 2 years, has received a number of
inquiries from parents who were concerned about an existing
school, where there was a high rate of cancer or other
diseases; or where they found chemicals in the soil around the
campus; or they were concerned about the construction of a new
school on top of contaminated sites.
For example, parents in Elmira, NY, told us about their 24
teenage boys who suffer from testicular cancer. They all attend
the same school on a piece of contaminated land.
Parents in Tucson, AZ, report that their teenagers, again,
attending the same school, were also found to have a high rate
of testicular cancer. I mean, think about that. We are talking
young boys.
In Marion, OH, high school students there have a high rate
of a rare type of leukemia. In Houston, TX, parents were
concerned about a new school, serving a largely Latino
population, where the property line of the school is less than
1,000 feet from two large chemical plants: Mobil Chemical and
Texas Petrochemical.
In Providence, RI, parents have called us, concerned about
their new elementary and middle school, which is built on land
that was used for illegal dumping, and was used as the city
garbage dump for at least 25 years.
Finally, in New Orleans, parents called us, concerned about
the safety of their elementary school children, where the
school is located on top of a Superfund site. It was designated
Superfund after the school had been operating for 3 years.
We began to ask ourselves, how widespread are these
situations? To answer that, we looked at the location of public
schools in five States, and we overlayed those locations with
known State and Federal identified contaminated sites.
This research revealed that 1,196 schools are within a half
mile of known toxic waste site, with an estimated population of
620,000 students. Those are reflected in some of those maps
that I have brought around here.
Most children walk to school within one mile of the school.
So these are sites only within half a mile of their public
school.
Based on these findings, we believe that there is a
critical need for national laws ensuring that the locations for
new schools are safe, and that contaminated property is
properly cleaned up.
The Child-proofing Campaign has developed model school
siting legislation to promote laws and policies that protect
children's health.
This model includes the establishment of a school siting
committee; a categorical exclusions for school sites, meaning
under no circumstances should a school be built on top of, or
within 1,000 feet of a hazardous waste disposal site, a garbage
dump, or a site where construction and demolition materials
have been disposed of; and a detailed process for evaluating
the site, which would include a three tier assessment and
remedial approach, which we derived from the California
guidance regulations; and finally, screen tools.
We are suggesting as an interim screening tool, the New
York State recommended soil clean-up objectives; because they
are the most conservative numbers that we have been able to
find.
However, guidelines appropriate to children's health are
desperately needed for both screening the site and for cleaning
up. At this time, the primarily non-technically trained school
board and decisionmakers are forced with two very challenging
questions. What level of chemicals are protective for young
children, school-age children; and how does the school board
pay to clean up historical contamination?
It has been the campaign's experience that the level of
clean-up varies widely, from site to site; the determining
factor often being the economic status of the particular
school.
EPA is best suited to issue such guidelines related to an
assessment and a clean-up of these sites. I strongly urge this
Committee to give school boards what they need, and mandate EPA
to establish such guidelines and standards.
Additionally, without adequate resources, the local school
authorities cannot effectively assess or clean up the property
to a standard that is protective of children. Therefore, we are
advocating the Federal funding of the appropriate agencies to
support schools who apply for the assessment, radiation, and
construction of a healthy school on otherwise unsafe sites.
We are truly at a critical juncture. If action is not taken
immediately, new schools will continue to be built without
guidelines to protect children against chemical exposures.
Failure to act could place tens of thousands of children at
risk of being exposed to toxic chemicals at their place of
learning.
Society cannot allow innocent children to be placed in
harm's way, due to decisions by local school authorities, who
had no scientific or technical guidance or funding to
adequately address their local situations.
Thank you.
Senator Jeffords. Well, thank you very much; that was very
alarming testimony from all of you. I just cannot thank you
enough in helping us today to alert this Nation to the serious
problems that we have in this area.
Senator Carper, do you have a statement that you would like
to make?
Senator Carper. I do not, but thanks for asking; a warm
welcome to our witnesses, thank you.
Senator Jeffords. I did not see you there, sorry.
Senator Carper. I am easy to overlook.
[Laughter.]
Senator Carper. It has happened for years; guys from small
States, you know what it is like.
[Laughter.]
Senator Jeffords. Ms. Barnett, how universal is the problem
of unhealthy schools; and do other countries experience the
same problems?
Ms. Barnett. That is wonderful question, thank you.
They appear to be fairly universal. They are certainly
universal in our country. Every State has stories just like the
stories we offered on the record today. It happens all over the
place, all the time. But schools are not happy to talk about
it. It is a very difficult issue for a lot of people.
In terms of an international import, it does have some
international effect. I chaired a school environmental health
policy panel for an international conference in Monterey this
summer.
What was astounding to me, because we have not worked
internationally at all, was the extent to which our own
experience was replicated internationally. It was fascinating.
My co-chair on the panel was an occupational health
physician from the University of Milan, who was there
representing 250,000 people from the European Union in 17
countries, who could have read the testimony that we prepared
today.
So, I think the opportunity for EPA to provide leadership
is now just leadership for children here, and for children in
every building in this country; but also it is an opportunity
to provide leadership in some research internationally, as
well, on a very difficult topic.
Schools everywhere are very densely occupied indoor spaces,
under-maintained, and they have lots of people coming in and
out all the time. They are hard to keep clean, hard to keep
well designed, hard to keep ventilated. So it is a tough issue
for everybody.
Senator Jeffords. Last year, a large number of schools
experienced rash outbreaks. Why have we not heard of such
occurrences more often?
Ms. Barnett. Well, I do not know why we have not heard
about it more often. It may be that it had not occurred more
often.
But there is no baseline. We actually do not know what the
baseline is on children in schools. We do not know how
frequently there are illnesses and injuries. We do not know
what types of illnesses and injuries there are. There is no
State that collects and reports and records that kind of
information. So we really do not know how usual or unusual it
was.
Senator Jeffords. This is a question for Ms. Gibbs.
What is the single most important thing that the Federal
Government can do to ensure green healthy schools?
Ms. Gibbs. I think one of the most important things is to
set some guidelines. Right now, there are absolutely no
guidelines.
There are some States who have put together some
information such as California; who I think has done an
extraordinary job. But there are no consistent guidelines.
What happens at these schools is the more economically
depressed the area, the worse off the school is, and the more
likely the school is going to be located on a dump or near such
a facility.
Senator Jeffords. You mentioned California is the only
State. What is going on? Why have others not pursued this
approach?
Ms. Gibbs. It is unbelievable, is it not? I mean, I do not
know why. I just find it stunning that no States and the
Federal Government have absolutely no laws. You have more laws
about building a home, a commercial building, a store, a 7-11.
There are more laws governing that in toxics than there are
schools.
We, through the campaign, have been working the States of
New York, Massachusetts, Ohio, Michigan, and Texas to try and
begin some State laws that put some requirements in about the
exclusions of not building on a dump; but also how to assess
the property, and then how to clean it up.
The other piece of it, of course, is that in order for
schools to assess property, that costs money. This Committee
probably knows so more than other committees, that it is
extraordinarily expensive to do testing.
So the school boards are then put into a position of, do
they pay for extensive testing to really determine the danger;
or do they save that money to build the school with the
resources, to help the children, technology or otherwise, to be
better prepared for the marketplace?
School boards are like this, with very little training, and
sometimes they chose the testing, and sometimes they do not.
Senator Jeffords. I will sneak a little question in here on
one of my pet projects. If the Federal Government funded
special education and Title I and Pell Grants to the level that
they are supposed to be funded, would that help with getting
more green schools?
Ms. Gibbs. I think it would help. I think anytime schools
can get Federal funding, especially for those types of
programs, it definitely helps. Because it takes the weight off
of the school for other things.
Actually, two of my children, since Love Canal, are special
education children, and I know what a struggle that is in
Timberlane, to be able to get my children the assistance they
need. What happens is the special education teachers get lost
in the shuffle.
So, I think any time the Federal Government can provide
resources to take the burden off the local school district, the
better off it is. I will add, again, it is especially in areas
where there are children who are economically less better off
than others, because they are the most needy of that type of
assistance.
Senator Jeffords. I will turn to Alex. If you had to pick
one of two green technologies as most important for the
schools, what would they be?
Mr. Wilson. I think I would probably look at daylighting as
a very key priority. That is not only for the productivity and
student performance benefits it provides; but also for the
money savings it can provide to the school district.
Another strategy would be displacement ventilation. We can
design much better ventilation systems for schools, that help
get rid of pollutants that might be emitted from clothing, from
building materials, from cleaning materials used in the school.
So those would be two key technologies that I think need to be
looked at, to a much greater extent than they are currently.
We should also look at material choice and basic building
science, which is grossly under-supported. There are many
fundamental things we do not know about keeping moisture out of
buildings.
It is a seemingly very simple strategy, but it is quite
complex, in reality. Moisture is the fundamental cause of many
of the non-site-specific or hazardous-waste-specific problems
in schools.
Senator Jeffords. If the Federal Government were to provide
some flow-through funding to improve school design, how should
that money be targeted; and how much would it cost, on a per-
school basis?
Mr. Wilson. Well, I am certainly not an expert on the way
funding works. But I would like to see funding go toward State
education departments. I could foresee a pool of money that
could be used by those departments to provide key support at
the design leverage points in schools, to pay particularly for
computer modeling, which is a key priority in creating these
high performance buildings that we are talking about.
Also, perhaps there could be support for commissioning;
that step that happens after the school is completed, but
before occupancy. Some studies have shown that 40 percent of
commercial buildings have fundamental problems with the way the
heating ventilation/air conditioning systems were installed.
You know, often these are problems that can be fixed very
simply, if they are examined after construction.
In terms of the cost of these strategies, good computer
modeling, of course, depends on the size of the school and the
complexity of the school. But we are looking at probably
somewhere in the range of \1/4\ of 1 percent of the
construction budget, something on that line. So for a $10
million school, it might be on the order of something like
$20,000 to $30,000.
For commissioning, there are a number of different
estimates as to the cost. I have often heard the figure of \1/
2\ percent to 1\1/2\ percent of the construction cost. I have
also seen much lower estimates of 10 cents to 60 cents per
square foot of building.
So again, I think on the range of \1/4\ to \1/2\ percent of
the construction budget would probably be, you know, a huge
benefit. You could go further with commissioning, but that is
certainly a great starting point.
Senator Jeffords. Senator Clinton.
Senator Clinton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I
particularly want to thank our panel. I do have an opening
statement that I will submit for the record. But I want to
follow-up on your reference to special education.
We now have 12 million children under the age of 18, who
have been identified as suffering from a developmental learning
or behavioral disability.
Since 1977, enrollment in special education programs has
doubled. State and Federal education departments spend about
$36 billion a year on special education programs.
I am certainly concerned at the increase in the numbers of
our children who are being identified as in need of special
education. At least, insofar as we know, at this point,
research suggests that genetic factors explain around 10 to 20
percent of developmental diseases and disabilities.
But a National Academy of Sciences study suggested that at
least 28 percent of developmental disabilities are due to
environmental causes. We do not know the causes for most of
these, but we certainly do know that pollutants like lead,
mercury, pesticides, dioxin, contribute to these problems.
I think it is imperative that we do a much better job in
gathering the necessary data on disease incidents and potential
environmental causes, in order to begin to understand this
rapid increase in our children who are being identified as in
need of special education.
So when we undertake the special education reauthorization,
and this is really something that Senator Jeffords has been
intimately involved in, helping to author the Individuals with
Disability Education Act, back in the 1970s, we need to start
being honest in trying to figure out what is causing this
increase.
Because it is not only enough that we get the Federal
Government finally to fulfill the promise that Senator Jeffords
extracted all those years ago, to fund 40 percent of special
education; but we need to try to prevent and cure and eliminate
problems that cause learning disabilities and other kinds of
difficulties for our children.
I know that as we go through this, both Senator Jeffords
and I are fortunate to sit on the Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions Committee, which will have jurisdiction for
reauthorizing IDEA.
And I hope that each of our witnesses on this panel will
give us ideas that you might have about what we should do when
we reauthorize the special education bill, so that we can try
to begin to understand what we need to do better to address
children who might have been affected by environmental
pollution, exposure to toxins, and other problems that have led
to their being identified as in need of special education.
I want to ask Ms. Barnett about a very important study that
you were part of. It is called Schools of Ground Zero; Early
Lessons Learned in Children's Environmental Health.
I want to hold this up, because I want everybody to see
what a tremendous undertaking this was. I think there might
even be some of the parents and others that you worked with. It
was recently published by the American Public Health
Association and the Healthy Schools Network.
Ms. Barnett, can you tell us some of the most critical
lessons that learned through this study?
Ms. Barnett. We undertook that. Actually, it has just a
very short history, which is, our Board of Directors met in
October, shortly after September 11. We had our meeting in New
York City. All of this was extremely fresh and extremely
painful, particularly for some of our Board members who had
met, who had lost colleagues and friends.
We decided that one thing we could do is try to document
what was actually happening with children, document what was
the first 24 hours, the actual evaluation process itself, and
try to document what was then going to be the first 90 days,
which we assumed would take people into the re-occupancy of all
the seven public schools. So we focused on the public schools.
We look specifically at the experience of children, through
the eyes of their parents, and we commissioned journalists, who
went to all the PTA meetings, Parent Association meetings, and
did extensive interviews.
What was going to be a simple research project developed
into a book, and we were delighted to be able to do this with
the American Public Health Association.
There is one fundamental lesson here which is, there is no
system to protect children. Buildings were re-occupied. People
believed that they were clean at the time. They turned out not
to be. There are a lot of reasons why that might happen.
One of the most interesting events was looking at New York
City and some of the health specialists, who were giving broad
advice to the community of Lower Manhattan about how to keep
your great indoors clean. The advise was, take your shoes off
outside and keep the windows closed, and there were a number of
sort of protocols people should go through.
The reality is that schools cannot do any of those things
to stay clean. The best-intentioned advice out of the health
system could not be applied to the school setting, because
people truly do not understand school facilities and the
educational system.
There are big differences between offices and schools. It
is not just density of occupancy. One of the big differences is
that once a school is back in session and commissioned, they do
not close down again.
So students who were ill on the job do not take their work
home, and work at home for the afternoon, as a lot of people in
Lower Manhattan did; but they are onsite. If they miss school,
they miss school. If they miss a test, they miss it. They
cannot send in a substitute.
So, schools cannot really be treated like any other kind of
institutional setting, like commercial office buildings. They
are very different places.
Parent associations, though, I mentioned in my testimony--
and this is universal, and it is not unique to Ground Zero--
parent associations simply are never prepared. I am sure that
there is not a single parent association president in Lower
Manhattan who would say that they ever anticipated, along with
the rest of the world, what the schools needed to go through
and what their roles would become, as volunteer association
presidents.
All of us who have done duty as PTA people will know how
many phone calls it takes to get a meeting together. It takes a
long time and a lot of hard work. But there is no system to
rely upon. There is no independent agency at the Federal,
State, or local level, which is specifically charged with the
ability just to protect children.
Senator Clinton. You know, one of the items that we
introduced in the Homeland Security Bill that we are still
debating is an amendment to have an office within that
department, charged with the responsibility of looking after
children. Because that has been our experience in New York;
that that is an unmet need of great urgency, and we hope we
will be able to achieve that.
And I want to thank Mr. Wilson for coming with his
expertise and experience. I sent out a brochure last year to
our schools in New York, ``Smart Schools Save Energy.'' That is
the other part of the equation. They not only keep you healthy,
if they are done the right way, and make you more productive,
but they also save energy; and I look forward to getting more
information from you.
Finally, I just wanted to ask Ms. Gibbs, in your testimony,
one of your recommendations is the establishment of school
siting committees within school districts or local schools
boards.
Can you elaborate on this, and are there examples of such
siting committees, or anything similar already in existence in
any part of the country?
I know that we have tried health and safety committees in
New York, and there have been some issues raised about those.
So could you cover that for us, to give us a little more
information.
Ms. Gibbs. What we were suggesting on the siting committee,
most school sitings, what happens is, a little notice gets
posted in the newspaper. New schools have feeder schools, or
students who come from other schools.
So the siting committee includes those parents who have
children who are coming from another school, to be notified of
the new school siting committee. Along with that would be
people who had expertise in things such as Mr. Wilson and
Claire Barnett, and local elected officials. So they would be
the local people who are really going to move forward on the
build of the school.
To my knowledge, the only siting committees for schools
that exists now are pretty much locally controlled. They vary
from place to place. Essentially what they are is just a
notification in the newspaper, where parents who do care, or
have noticed it, will come out to the meetings. But there is no
sort of firm requirement that feeder schools and these other
folks come and sit down at the table and begin to deal with
this issue.
I think because siting schools are very questionable, in
reference to testing, in reference to how to build it, whether
to put carpets in or not, I mean, it really goes beyond health
and safety, and I think what was done in New York is
extraordinary. I know Claire and other folks have had a major
role in that.
But it goes beyond that. It is thinking the whole school
process through, from the dirt that it would be set on, to the
type of materials that would be used inside.
And the advantage of the siting committee, which would
include parents, is that there are very hard decisions to be
made, every step of the way. We cannot build the ideal school
in every community on ideal, perfect land.
So when those choices are made, whether we use material
``x'' or material ``y'' or whether we clean up a site and dig
10 feet down before we put the footers in, or 5 feet down; that
parents should be part of that decisionmaking process; that
they should not be the recipients of looking over the final
decisions and either saying yea or nay. Because those are
critical to their children and critical to the future of their
children and their community.
Senator Clinton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Jeffords. Well, thank you all for very, very
excellent testimony. I cannot tell you how proud I am of you
and what you are doing.
Yet, it raises the tremendous need we have in this Nation
to follow through with the knowledge that you have given us, to
make sure that our schools are as healthy as they can be, and
that we maximize the opportunities for our young people.
So thank you very, very much for your testimony.
Ms. Gibbs. Thank you, Senator.
[Whereupon, at 11:47 a.m., the hearing was adjourned, to
reconvene at the call of the chair.]
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]
Statement of E. Ramona Trovato, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office
of Environmental Information, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Ramona Trovato,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for EPA's Office of Environmental
Information (OEI) and former Director of EPA's Office of Children's
Health Protection (OCHP). I am pleased to be here on behalf of
Administrator Whitman to discuss EPA's efforts to ensure that our
schools are safe and healthy places for our children to learn.
Administrator Whitman is a strong advocate for children and has been
committed to improving and promoting EPA's programs to address
environmental hazards in schools from the day she arrived. I am
particularly happy to be here today, because today marks the first day
of Children's Health Month.
Protecting our children's health is a priority of this
Administration and of EPA. Children are our most precious assets, and
they can be more vulnerable to many environmental contaminants than
adults. Children's bodies are still developing, and they may be exposed
to more environmental contaminants than adults, both because they eat,
drink, and breathe more per pound of body weight, and because their
behaviors--like putting things in their mouths and playing on and close
to the floor--may bring them in greater contact with contaminants than
typical adult behaviors. Throughout the month of October, a
collaborative effort of 17 Federal departments, agencies, and White
House Offices will celebrate Children's Health Month by making a
special effort to raise awareness of the importance of protecting our
children from environmental health and safety risks and by publicizing
tips throughout the month for parents and other care providers to
follow to keep our children healthy and safe. I encourage you to visit
a special inter-agency Web site (www.childrenshealth.gov) and help to
publicize the practical steps that people can take during this month--
and throughout the year--to protect kids.
Every time I hear the statistics--15 million people in America
suffer from asthma, one-third of whom are children under the age of
18--I am reminded of what a gift it is to breathe freely. Asthma is the
leading chronic illness in children and the cause of 14 million missed
school days each year. Allergens, including those from mold,
cockroaches, dust mites, and animal dander, are all commonly found in
indoor environments, including schools, and are known to trigger asthma
attacks. Outdoor air pollution from pollutants such as particulate
matter and ozone also induce asthma episodes.
Hundreds of thousands of children living in the United States still
have blood lead levels high enough to impair their ability to think,
concentrate, and learn. Lead poisoning also lowers IQ and increases
behavioral problems. Although lead paint hazards in older homes are the
biggest concern because of exposures to very young children, lead paint
is still found in many older schools, and lead can be found in the
drinking water of both old and new schools.
Children in our nation's schools may also be exposed to many other
contaminants, including chemicals in cleaning products and art
supplies, materials and furnishings used in school buildings, fumes
from idling school buses, pesticides, radon and potentially even to
mishandled sources of mercury and asbestos. And the list goes on.
Unfortunately, in far too many cases, because of severe past budget
shortfalls, our schools are old and inadequately maintained, leading to
a host of environmental problems that can have dramatic impacts on
children, staff, learning and the fiscal bottom line. Both the General
Accounting Office and the National Center for Education Statistics of
the Department of Education have documented the poor physical condition
of many of our older school facilities.
More than 53 million elementary and secondary students attend
approximately 112,000 public and private schools in the United States.
Along with approximately 3 million teachers and staff, this represents
about 20 percent of the U.S. population. The average child spends about
1,300 hours in a school building each year; teachers and other
employees spend even longer periods.
According to the National Center for Education Statistics report,
The Condition of America's Public School Facilities: 2000, about one-
quarter of schools report that they need extensive repair or
replacement of one or more buildings. Approximately 11 million students
attend these schools. About 40 percent of schools report at least one
``unsatisfactory environmental condition'' such as poor ventilation,
heating or lighting problems, or poor physical security. According to a
1996 study by the General Accounting Office, America's Schools Report
Differing Conditions, these unsatisfactory environmental conditions are
most often reported in urban schools, schools with high minority
student enrollment, and schools with a high percentage of low income
students. In some instances, low income and racial/ethnic minorities
have increased exposure to environmental hazards and suffer
disproportionately from environmental exposures. For example, the
Department of Health and Human Services has estimated that African
American children are three times more likely than white children to be
hospitalized for asthma and asthma-related conditions; these children
are four to six times more likely to die from asthma. These disparities
are often at least partially attributable to differences in health
care. Minority children also have significantly higher rates of
elevated blood lead levels.
To date, school facility conditions have not been widely perceived
as playing a critical role in the education process, largely due to the
fact that research into the complex relationship between aspects of the
physical environment, including environmental factors, and the well-
being, health, productivity, and academic performance of students is
only now emerging. In fact, the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
has recently conducted a review of the scientific literature in this
area at EPA's request, and EPA is preparing a summary of the existing
science that may associate indoor air quality factors in schools and
other buildings with health, productivity, and performance of children.
EPA is also supporting research in this area. Our Science to Achieve
Results (STAR) extramural research grant program already supports a
limited amount of research on school environments. In 1997, the program
provided funding to the University of Minnesota for a school-based
study of complex environmental exposures in children at the University
of Minnesota. This study used outdoor, in-home, in-school, personal,
and human tissue monitoring to quantify exposures among children in two
low-income, racially diverse schools in Minneapolis. The Agency
continues to explore research related to children's health and the
school environment.
Despite the emerging nature of research into the relationship
between environmental factors and learning, if a child suffers an
asthma attack in class or is not in school because of asthma; if the
school is closed because of an environmental health or safety episode;
or if the ventilation system is providing little or no fresh air, that
child may not be learning up to his or her full potential.
Many schools are being temporarily evacuated or permanently closed
due to environmental problems, making the difficult task of educators
even more challenging. Moisture problems in schools are known to
contribute to both mold and pest problems that may directly affect
allergic or sensitive individuals and which can lead to increased
application of pesticides. In one case, an elementary school in
Fairfield, Connecticut was permanently closed after efforts to fix
persistent mold and moisture problems over a period of several years
were unsuccessful. The school closure will cost the local school
district an estimated $21 million to replace the school in addition to
the costs to demolish the existing structure. The chief of allergy and
immunology at the nearby medical center who treated many of the
students and teachers over the years estimated that the building
impacted the health of up to 40 percent of students and staff.
Funding for school construction, renovation and repair, raised
largely through State and local bond issues, has increased
significantly over the past several years, suggesting that the general
trend for school improvements is favorable. Nevertheless many schools
continue to provide less-than-ideal conditions to facilitate learning,
and many may pose unnecessary risks to the health of children, staff
and visitors.
The public becomes aware of new environmental challenges for
schools on a regular basis. Siting of schools on or near contaminated
sites, exposures of children to outdoor sources such as diesel bus
exhaust, the increasing reliance on portable--or relocatable--
classrooms, and the rapidly growing issue of mold contamination all
suggest the need for the Federal Government to provide appropriate
guidance and technical assistance to States and communities to address
environmental health issues in schools. One excellent resource is the
National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities, funded by the U.S.
Department of Education.
Within EPA, we have been working very hard for the past several
years to help schools address environmental issues. While there is no
known cure for asthma, asthma attacks can be prevented by reducing
exposure to environmental triggers and by ensuring that all children
receive appropriate medical care. EPA is a committed Federal partner in
the battle against asthma. Because we believe that one asthma attack is
too many, EPA is working to reduce asthma triggers in both outdoor and
indoor air.
In February, the President announced the Clear Skies Initiative,
which will dramatically cut air pollution by nitrogen oxides, sulfur
dioxide, and mercury by 70 percent, using a mandatory, market-based
approach. Clear Skies will help to prevent asthma attacks in children.
Clear Skies will also help to prevent thousands of premature deaths in
the U.S. population.
But Clear Skies is just one part of our effort to make America's
air cleaner. We need to make sure that the buses that take our children
to school aren't causing them to miss school. President Bush recently
approved an EPA rule to reduce pollution from diesel buses and trucks
and to require cleaner diesel fuel that will reduce the harmful
pollutants from diesel engines by more than 90 percent over today's
engines.
EPA has also been leading the charge to help schools address indoor
air quality (IAQ) problems through its widely acclaimed Indoor Air
Quality Tools for Schools program. IAQ Tools for Schools provides an
effective framework as well as practical tools to help schools prevent
and solve all kinds of environmental problems affecting indoor air
quality in schools. More than 10,000 schools are using the program, and
major school districts around the country--including New York City
Schools, Dallas, Brevard County, Philadelphia and LA Unified School
District--are committed to using the IAQ Tools for Schools as part of
their health and safety programs.
We have dozens of anecdotal examples of schools and school
districts for which the IAQ Tools for Schools program has provided
demonstrable benefits, including reducing asthma related nurse visits
and missed school days. We recognize, however, that we need better
tools to document and measure the effectiveness of the IAQ Tools for
Schools program. One initial effort is a survey we conducted this past
summer that will help us better quantify the reductions in IAQ-related
complaints, in absenteeism, and in costs which many schools are
reporting as they implement the program.
EPA continues to develop new IAQ tools for schools. The Agency has
released specific guidance to help schools identify and fix mold and
moisture problems and is working closely with other Federal agencies--
particularly CDC--to help ensure that schools, the public and others
receive the most accurate and scientifically sound information on mold
related health effects and remediation techniques.
By the end of the year, EPA will also release new Web-based
guidance devoted to school design, construction and renovation issues
titled Indoor Air Quality Design Tools for Schools. This guidance for
new and renovated schools will complement EPA's IAQ Tools for Schools
program, which aims to help existing schools prevent and solve indoor
air quality problems. The new IAQ Design Tools for Schools guidance
will encourage schools to make indoor air quality goals part of the
school planning and design process. It also discusses factors to
consider in the siting of school facilities, stresses the importance of
building commissioning, and provides guidance on a host of other issues
related to the indoor environment. The guidance will draw from EPA
expertise as well as from some excellent resources that have emerged
from State and private sector initiatives such as the California
Collaborative for High Performance Schools and the US Green Building
Council's LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Green
Building Rating System, among many others. The draft IAQ Design Tools
for Schools guidance was widely available this summer for public
review, and we are now integrating comments from a broad spectrum of
interests.
I know that this committee is particularly interested in the issue
of school siting. However, as you know, selection of sites on which to
build new schools is largely a local decision and a local issue. Many
factors related to the availability and cost of land, community values,
and a host of other factors come into play. Unfortunately, in a number
of cases and for a variety of reasons, schools are sometimes being
built on or close to existing sources of air, water, and/or soil
contamination. While the Federal Government does not play a direct role
in these decisions, we can help communities make wise decisions by
providing better information of potential environmental risks and ways
to reduce those risks. For example, the draft IAQ Design Tools for
Schools guidance recommends early involvement in the siting process by
the community, a thorough Phase I environmental site assessment using
ASTM guidelines before the site is acquired, and a more detailed site
assessment and, if needed, clean-up plan, before deciding to build.
There are also a number of tools available to assist communities,
including EPA's Enviro Facts Data Warehouse (http://www.epa.gov/enviro/
), which provides a wealth of resources to help the public access
environmental information about their community.
The IAQ Design Tools for Schools guidance also strongly encourages
school districts to embrace the concept of designing and building High
Performance Schools. High Performance Schools are simply schools in
which a wide range of issues associated with site planning, energy use,
indoor air quality, day-lighting, acoustics and other building systems
are considered as a whole building integrated design that can save
energy, natural resources and money. These concepts are being
demonstrated as cost-effective in a number of State, local and private
sector initiatives around the country. Energy efficient design can
result in reduced construction costs as well as reduced operating
costs. Even in cases where construction costs are higher, energy
savings can pay for additional up-front costs very quickly, sometimes
in less than a year. And this doesn't include the potential benefits of
improved health, productivity and performance.
Another of EPA's priorities is protecting children from unnecessary
exposure to pesticides that are used in and around schools to control
pests. EPA is encouraging school officials to adopt Integrated Pest
Management (IPM) practices to reduce children's exposure to pesticides.
EPA is helping schools understand and implement IPM through the
distribution of printed publications, awarding grants to start IPM
programs, offering workshops and courses, and providing guidance and
assistance through the Tools for Schools Program, as well as
partnerships with Universities and national associations. EPA has
funded two technical resource centers to promote IPM in schools and day
care centers, by providing tools, training and technical support to
start IPM programs. The Centers also provide support to State efforts
and foster sharing of IPM resources nationwide.
EPA has also recently published a brochure on Protecting Children
in Schools from Pests and Pesticides. Over 100,000 copies have already
been distributed to schools around the country. The brochure is also
available on EPA's Web site at www.epa.gov/pesticides/ipm.
EPA has a wealth of other information and programs to assist
schools. The SunWise School Program is an environmental and health
education program that aims to teach children and their caregivers how
to protect themselves from overexposure to the sun's harmful
ultraviolet (UV) radiation. SunWise partner schools sponsor classroom,
school, and community activities that raise children's awareness of
stratospheric ozone depletion, UV radiation, and simple sun safety
practices, that can ultimately lead to sustained sun-safe behaviors.
WasteWise is a free, voluntary EPA program through which organizations
eliminate costly municipal solid waste, benefiting their bottom line
and the environment. EPA's Water Alliances for Voluntary Efficiency
(WAVE) program is a voluntary partnership with institutions such as
schools and commercial businesses to prevent pollution and to reduce
the demand for and to promote the efficient use of water and energy
resources. The Buy Clean pilot program is an EPA initiative to partner
with schools and others to promote the purchase of products and
services for a healthy indoor environment for schools. EPA's EnergyStar
for Schools program is helping schools conserve energy through the use
of benchmarking and other tools. Our EnergyStar partnership with the
Department of Energy has been a tremendous success. EPA has also
recently created a Green Buildings Web Portal to help the public find
green building resources throughout EPA.
EPA is very aware of the resource and other constraints under which
many schools and school districts labor, and we recognize the
importance of providing not just more and better guidance, but better
coordinated and integrated programs that will make the job of
addressing environmental health issues easier for schools, or at the
very least, more efficient. Our goal is to make our environmental
programs directly support schools in achieving their primary mission of
educating children.
To achieve this, EPA programs emphasize partnerships with those who
have the direct responsibility for educating our children and all of
the constituencies that are part of the educational process. This
includes relationships with individual schools, school districts, and
organizations representing school administrators, school nurses,
teachers, facility planners and managers, architects, engineers,
parents, and even kids. We partner with other Federal agencies, with
States, tribes, and with communities to assist schools in any way we
can.
We are also working within EPA to better coordinate and integrate
existing programs. Toward that end I am pleased to be able to report to
you today that just a week ago we inaugurated a new Healthy School
Environments Web Portal to provide one-stop access to EPA resources for
schools, as well as to help school administrators, facility managers,
design engineers, architects, health professionals, parents, teachers,
staff and students find helpful resources from other Federal agencies,
States, communities and non-governmental organizations.
We are looking for additional opportunities to streamline EPA
programs for schools and make them more accessible and more helpful. We
recently received a number of recommendations regarding EPA's school
programs from the EPA's Children's Health Protection Advisory
Committee. These recommendations are consistent with our efforts to
improve the guidance available to schools and better coordinate EPA
programs.
We believe it is critically important for Federal agencies to work
together and in close collaboration to coordinate and leverage existing
Federal programs and resources impacting children's health in schools.
The President's Task Force on Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks to Children, co-chaired by Administrator Whitman and Secretary
Thompson, has proven to be an effective forum to facilitate increased
coordination and collaboration within the Federal community on a
variety of issues, including asthma, lead, unintentional injuries,
childhood cancer, and now schools. The Task Force has identified school
environmental health as a priority and established an interagency
Schools Workgroup to identify opportunities for better coordinating
Federal efforts in this area. The Schools Workgroup is co-chaired by
EPA, the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human
Services, and includes representatives from other Federal agencies
involved in school health issues, such as the Department of Energy, the
Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Labor, among others.
The President's Task Force Schools Workgroup is currently
developing an inventory of Federal programs related to school
environmental health. The primary goal of the inventory is to inform
the development of a strategic plan that will provide recommendations
for increasing the effectiveness of Federal school environmental health
programs. The inventory will also be incorporated into a publicly
accessible electronic data base of school environmental health programs
and activities.
The creation of the workgroup has already substantially improved
coordination and cooperation within the Federal community in addressing
school environmental health issues. For example, EPA and CDC have
offered their assistance and are providing information to the
Department of Education to help them scope the study of Unhealthy
School Buildings mandated by the No Child Left Behind Act. EPA is also
becoming an active participant in the National Coordinating Committee
on School Health, which is sponsored by DHHS, the Department of
Education and the Department of Agriculture and is comprised of many of
the non-governmental organizations interested in school health issues.
In conclusion, EPA is committed to working within the Federal
community, with States and tribes, local governments and communities,
as well as with public and private non-governmental organizations to
promote children's health in our nation's schools.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I look forward to
working with you to make our schools the healthiest possible
environments in which to learn as well as to work.
I will be glad to respond to any questions you may have.
__________
Statement of Claire Barnett, Executive Director, Healthy Schools
Network, Albany, NY
Good morning. Thank you Senator Jeffords, Senator Smith, and other
members of the U.S. Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee for
holding this historic hearing on the greening of our children's
workplaces. There are several questions I hope you will focus on today.
What do we know about environmental hazards in schools?
What do we know about how these affect child health and
learning?
What systems are in place to ensure that the opportunities
to protect child health and learning and to protect the environment are
accessible and implemented?
What roles should US EPA play an improving school
facilities and child health and learning?
The questions are not simple: effective Federal responses to the
multiple environment and environmental health questions facing all
children and their schools requires integrating the expertise and
efforts of several disciplines and agencies at the Federal level and
within the States.
My name is Claire L. Barnett. My husband and I moved from Westport-
on-Lake-Champlain, NY to Saratoga Springs, NY where we now reside a few
years ago. I am Executive Director of Healthy Schools Network, Inc., a
national environmental health research, information, and advocacy
organization; a former PTO President from upstate New York; the parent
of a health-impaired child once in special education; and today, the
representative the parents of 50 million children and the 5 million
school personnel--such as those with me here today, Joellen Lawson
(CT), Jenna Orkin, (NY), Veronica Carella (MD), Grayling and Carol
(TN), Bill and Judy Sazonski and their son Will (CT), and Robin
Starinieri (VA) whose lives have been impacted by the poor conditions
of schools and the lack of any comprehensive system to protect children
and adults from indoor environmental hazards at school.
I coordinate the national ad hoc Coalition for Healthier Schools is
comprised of over 75 national, State, and local parent, public health,
environment, and education groups and is dedicated to assuring that all
children and personnel have schools that are environmentally healthy.
Several representatives of organizations in the Coalition are here
today whom I wish to recognize: American Public Health Association,
Beyond Pesticides, Children's Environmental Health Network, National
Education Association, and American Lung Association. The Coalition
helped secure $1.2 billion in Federal funds for school repairs in the
fall of 2000 and successfully campaigned last year for the ``Healthy
and High Performance Schools'' provisions now in the ``No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001''.
We have also inspired and helped organize countless local healthy
schools groups and large coalitions in several States. It is through
this rapidly growing network of concerned groups and individuals that
we picked up on the outbreak of school rashes last year and with
national partners asked the Federal Centers for Disease Control/
National Center for Environmental Health to launch an investigation and
to report to Congress (correspondence attached).
Applying our skills in New York State, Healthy Schools Network
recently completed a 2-year grant that funded intensive outreach to 225
low-income schools on greening existing schools, including healthier
cleaning and pest control, Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) protocols, and
health & safety committees that are required under State regulations.
After the World Trade Center attacks, we provided extensive help to the
communities and Parent Associations of the seven public Ground Zero
Schools as they struggled to find ways to protect children at school
from environmental hazards no one could have imagined. Our commissioned
research report on their experience, Schools of Ground Zero: Early
Lessons Learned in Children's Environmental Health, is now a book co-
published with the American Public Health Association that I place on
the record here.
The lesson from all of our work and the book: ``. . . N is for No
System to Protect Children.''
CHILDREN, SCHOOLS, AND ENVIRONMENT
Americans spend 85-90 percent of their time indoors. For the 55
million children and adults in 115,000 schools today, Tuesday, October
1, 2002, the first day of Child Health Month, they know that schools
are more densely occupied and less well maintained than most commercial
offices. In the US General Accounting Office study in the mid 1990s, it
was reported that over 14 million children were in schools that
threatened their health. Environmental factors included indoor air
pollution, lighting and plumbing deficiencies, and ventilation
problems. The American Society of Civil Engineers (table attached)
reports that our schools are in worse condition than any other
infrastructure including prisons. While enrollments have grown, schools
have decayed and renovations and new construction have not kept pace;
meanwhile, schools everywhere are enrolling more and more children with
special needs: asthma, attention deficit, autism, severe allergies,
learning disabilities. Seventeen percent of children under 18 have been
diagnosed with one or more developmental disabilities. These
disabilities include Attention Deficit-Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)
and autism and are the result of complex interactions among genetic,
environmental and societal factors that impact children during
vulnerable periods of development. These children especially do not
thrive in the polluted indoors.
As the Federal Executive Order on child environmental health
reauthorized by President Bush reaffirms, children are more vulnerable
to environmental hazards that adults. Our challenge is how do we create
greener buildings for children--from existing building, and with
renovations and all-new buildings?
WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS AT SCHOOL AND THE EFFECTS
ON CHILD HEALTH AND LEARNING?
A is for asthma and air quality
Children are especially susceptible to air pollutants. Children
have increased oxygen needs compared to adults, they breathe more
rapidly and, therefore, inhale more pollutants per pound of body weight
than adults. They often spend more time engaged in vigorous outdoor
activities than adults.
Asthma is the leading cause of school absenteeism due to a
chronic illness. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimated
that American children lost 17 million school days in 1997 due to the
disease, and that parents lost 5 million work days in order to care for
their children with asthma-related illness. Nearly 1 in 13 school-age
children has asthma.
Major indoor triggers of asthma attacks include irritants
such as commercial products (paints, cleaning agents, pesticides,
perfumes), building components (sealants, plastics, adhesives,
insulation materials), animal and insect allergens, environmental
tobacco smoke, and molds. Many of these triggers can be found in
schools.
B is for bugs and bioaerosols
Schools that are poorly designed or constructed, or in poor
condition, or that have inadequate maintenance, inadequate food storage
or garbage and recycling areas, will be subject to pest infestations.
Pests like what we like: food, water, and safe place to nest. It is
better for the building, healthier for occupants, and cheaper to keep
pests out of schools than to continuously apply toxic pesticides.
According to Beyond Pesticides, to protect children from unsafe,
unhealthy practices, more than thirty States have placed limits on
school pesticide uses. Pest-proofing of a facility during renovations
or repairs is cost effective step to promoting an environmentally
healthy school.
Information about on the amount of pesticides used in the
nation's 110,000 public schools is not available. The Federal
Government does not collect such data, and, as of 1999, only two States
collected data on pesticide use in a manner that allows for identifying
use in school facilities. From 1993 through 1996, about 2,300
pesticide-related exposures involving individuals at schools were
reported, according to the American Association of Poison Control
Centers (although these data are not believed to be complete).
Bioaerosols, specifically, molds in schools are a new ``hot'' issue
but hardly a new issue historically. Molds are everywhere, indoors and
out. There is no such thing as a mold-free environment. There are
thousands of different kinds of molds; different individuals may react
differently, and some not at all. Testing for molds is unreliable, and
since most are capable of causing illness, testing is more beneficial
to the vendors than to schools. The message is prevention is cheaper
than remediation: reduce humidity, stop leaks, respond promptly to
spills and flooding, and take health complaints seriously the first
time.
C is for children and chemicals
Chemical toxicants in the classroom, on the playground, in the
science lab, or in other school facilities can lead to health risks and
adverse learning conditions. They can affect many different body
systems and impact health, learning, productivity, and self esteem.
One very effective way to improve indoor environments is to stay
current on repairs and to use less-hazardous, or environmentally
preferable purchasing (EPP) to buy products for cleaning and repair
work. EPP applied to custodial product purchasing can result in a zero-
cost, positive environmental change. The basic steps to healthier
cleaning include keeping dirt and grime out of the building, then by
consulting the product labels and Material Safety Data Sheets,
determining which products have the least hazardous properties.
Other than lead, asbestos and radon, the Federal Government has not
instituted requirements or guidelines that would protect children from
the same chemical exposures that require employee notification and
other worker protections.
Schools are places where children and elemental mercury may come
together via thermometers and barometers, in laboratory courses or
``show-and-tell.'' Mercury can also be released through broken
fluorescent light tubes or thermostats.
Mercury is a potent neurotoxicant and children are
particularly susceptible to mercury's dangers. Mercury interferes with
brain development and more easily passes into the brains of fetuses and
young children than into the brains of adults.
Mercury-containing products or spills must be properly
handled. Even small mercury spills require specialists. Improper clean-
up of a mercury release, such as vacuuming up the mercury from a broken
thermometer, will spread the mercury into the air.
Other sources of chemicals in schools will include science
laboratories, vocational education classrooms, art rooms, copy shops,
computer rooms, and custodial storage areas. There is no system that
attempts to assess the types of chemicals used in schools, including
pesticides. Federal Executive Order 13101 on Environmentally Preferable
Purchasing has not been systematically extended to schools to assist
them with setting purchasing specifications that will drive out toxic
products that may contribute to employee injury, storage problems,
disposal problems, air pollution, and student illness or health risks.
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry studied
evacuations from educational facilities, often caused by chemical
spills or releases, and found--not surprisingly--that the evacuees and
victims from schools are younger and more numerous than those from
other institutional settings. The most common substances involved were
mercury, then tearing agents, hydrochloric acid, chlorine, ethlene
glycol, and formaldehyde. There were no estimates of the costs to
health, learning, or school administration.
Lead comes with old infrastructure and will be found in paint dust
and chips, window sills, the grounds next to an old building, grounds
near highways and bridges, and in water. Lead is a potent neurotoxin.
Exposure to lead can cause a variety of health effects, including
delays in normal physical and mental development in children, deficits
in attention span, hearing, and learning disabilities of children, as
well as problems with impulsivity and aggression. Long-term effects can
include stroke, kidney disease, and cancer. Los Angeles Unified SD
flags old classrooms for high priority clean-ups that have flaking
paint or paint chips on the floors. New York State requires that school
areas to be disturbed during renovation be tested for lead and abated.
According to a report on the condition of the nation's
school facilities by the U.S. General Accounting Office, schools built
before 1980 were painted with lead paint.
Children may also be exposed to lead through drinking
water that has elevated concentrations from lead plumbing materials.
Lead contamination in drinking water occurs from corrosion of lead
pipes, lead soldered plumbing and storage tanks and lead-containing
plumbing fixtures, and it cannot be directly detected or removed by the
water system.
Some support was provided to schools through the Lead
Contamination Control Act of 1988 to identify and correct lead-in-
drinking-water problems at schools, especially water coolers with lead-
lined tanks.
Rifle ranges at school are another potential source of
lead contamination according to research under wraps at the NYS
Department of Health (HSN).
N is for no system to protect children.
Twenty-six States have adopted OSHA for public employees, and thus
these standards may well protect employees from environmental hazards
at school. Although students may indirectly benefit from the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) activities that
cover school employees, OSHA and NIOSH have no jurisdiction for
investigating the health impact of exposure to students.
Parents of the Schools of Ground Zero learned this the hard way, as
did the parents here with me today. Employees may call in NIOSH to
evaluate workplace conditions. None has ever evaluated students who
outnumber adults in school by an average of 10 or more to one. Two
studies on employees of school in Lower Manhattan found health effects
from indoor pollutants 6 months after the World Trade Center attacks.
No similar studies are underway on the 3,000 students who returned to
their ``workplace'' in early October.
Not one of the workplace standards have been set to protect
children who are compelled to be in school, and none can be invoked by
children or their parents. Parents cannot take their children to an
occupational health clinic; they have no bargaining rights; they are
not in school every day; schools may not reveal hazards and they have
no system that provides a right to know; PTA's and PTO's are voluntary
groups have no institutional history or capacity to conduct onsite
environmental health or workplace inspections.
Numerous studies conclude that there is an explicit relationship
between the physical characteristics of school buildings and
educational outcomes. To this end, research shows us that better
quality buildings produce better student results on standardized tests.
In its briefings, for example, the Rebuild America's Schools Coalition
points out:
Four recent studies found higher test scores for students
learning in better buildings and lower scores for students learning in
substandard buildings. One of the more recent of these studies showed a
difference in student test scores ranging from 5 to 17 percentile
points.
Another study in DC Public Schools showed that students in
school buildings in poor condition scored 11 percent below students in
buildings that were in excellent condition on standardized achievement
tests.
BACK TO BASICS: FRESH AIR & SUNSHINE
Healthy and High Performance Schools
Greener buildings are a return to ``the basics'' of fresh air and
sunshine in schools: fund and implement the Healthy and High
Performance Schools to help address the environmental needs of decayed
schools. It is set up to help schools with design, engineering, and
materials selection during major renovations, financed by State
agencies. The opportunity to merge national environmental and building
sciences information and technical assistance with State energy,
education, and environment programs, is unique, timely, and necessary.
Volunteer local school boards simply are not equipped to do this alone.
The U.S. Department of Energy's studies on schools and findings
that schools could save 25 percent or $1.5 billion in energy with
modest improvements. Other organizations have found school saving up to
50 percent on energy with new equipment and human behavior changes.
Daylighting will yield higher test scores and save energy. We also
refer you to the excellent green design guidelines for public buildings
and schools by the New York City Department of Design and Construction
which offers assistance on materials selections.
While there is Federal legislation and regulatory authority at US
EPA on outdoor air, and studies and activities around indoor air, there
are virtually no laws or enforceable regulations on indoor air quality
(IAQ). Yet air pollution is air pollution indoors or out. Priority
research needs for the field of adult workers was just published (Am J
Public Health) that outlined an extensive NIOSH/National Occupational
Research Agenda committee process. The process is not established to
consider children. In fact no State has a system to collect or report
student illness or injury, or to establish standards for them, so
improving on research means starting from square one. There was no
baseline data on children's illnesses during the recent school rash
outbreak.
The New London, TX School Disaster.--On March 18, 1937 a gas
explosion killed nearly 300 students, teachers, and visitors. The
investigation revealed a litany of false savings, negligence in the
design, installation, and maintenance of the heating system, and
weakness in ventilation. Only one of the many recommendations were ever
put in place--the addition of an odorant to natural gas.
Worse, for the parents of affected children and for school
personnel, no school can prove it has acceptable indoor air by
producing a test result. Indeed some research suggests that human
sensors (the building occupants) are more sensitive than testing
equipment and provide continuous onsite feed-back (see Indoor Air 2002
bibliography contributed by researchers at Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratories/Indoor Air Sciences). Indoor air measures can be expensive
and must be done under actual operating conditions, with the school
fully loaded. Contaminants present can include asbestos, lead, mold
spores, pet danders, volatile organic compounds, fumes from
uncontrolled renovation projects and cleaning products, instructional
supplies, pest/pesticide and their residues, foods, garbage, or the
not-so-subtle scents of middle-schoolers in an overheated building.
There are some standards for individual contaminants of indoor air set
for adult occupational exposures; California has set comprehensive
standards for VOC's indoors.
U.S. EPA/Indoor Environments Division (IED) is to be commended for
having a strong, well recognized, dedicated, voluntary program for
schools, the ``IAQ Tools for Schools'' (TfS) program. In addition to
setting quotas for the regional offices and giving mini-grant to
schools to spur implementation, EPA also developed educational
materials, such as ``School Air Quality and Student Performance'' that
indicates even healthy adults placed in a polluted indoor environment--
and without having health complaints--will experience a 3-7 percent
decline in speed and accuracy in keyboarding. There are no such studies
on children, although I am sure the committee would unanimously agree
that every school principal wants a 3-7 percent gain in standardized
test scores.
TfS implementation remains elusive, as it does with many voluntary
school programs. At the Indoor Air conference in Monterey, US EPA/
Region 2 staff presented its work in New Jersey: it has been able to
initiate the voluntary program in only 1 percent of the schools in the
State. TfS is sadly underutilized, and with a few States as exceptions,
has not been incorporated into ongoing school facility work.
Implementation of Healthy and High Performance Schools provisions
that give States funding and information for school renovations would
greatly assist IAQ problems. Since implementation is scant and children
are required to be in schools and schools have known air pollution
problems, the real question is why is TfS is only a voluntary program.
The difficulty in defining what TfS implementation consists of is part
of the problem; another is the basic difficulty in extracting timely
and accurate information from schools about environmental conditions
and child health; and finally, the need for substantial increases in
research into indoor air is also required.
Drugging the Canaries.--Some children now need nebulizers just to
attend polluted schools; entire districts have ordered them for their
classroom buildings. Elsewhere, on physician orders, parents have kept
children home. Some schools have quickly addressed the situation by
providing home instruction, tutoring, building improvements, or
alternative educational placements, while other parents are home
schooling. We and other advocacy groups have also had calls from
parents who report they have seriously ill children, have schools that
have ignored physician letters, and also report their schools have
threatened to report them for child neglect.
Needless to say, as committee members and staff are aware, schools
receiving any Federal aid are required under Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to provide accessible facilities. Under the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), schools must
provide a free, appropriate public education to all children in the
least restrictive setting.
The Outbreak of School Rashes
Centers for Disease Control (CDC) launched a Federal study of the
outbreak of rashes that affected over 1,000 children in 27 States.
Findings include the usual childhood diseases, eczema, applied
chemicals and renovation dusts, and rashes of unknown origins. Despite
some premature media reports that attempted to paint this as ``female
hysteria,'' the rashes appeared on both boys and girls, in different
schools and in different classrooms, and in different States on the
same day. At least one school in the State of Washington refused to
allow the State to conduct an environmental investigation onsite. In
surveying members of the NYS Association of School Nurses, HSN learned
that nurses are not allowed to tell parents about school conditions and
that 71 percent of 206 respondents knew children who were affected
(HSN).
This is not a system set up to protect children and to determine
what the exposures and results of those exposures are. We encourage
Congress to hear from CDC/NCEH on how future school environmental
investigations should be carried out.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The root problem is that there is no system to protect children,
and no system to deliver or enforce a consistent message with local
schools. It is beyond the jurisdiction of this committee acting alone
to establish such a system, but we would urge future Senate committee
Hearings to explore this issue and possible solutions in depth with the
array of Federal agencies.
1. Fund and implement the Healthy and High Performance Schools
provisions of the Leave No Child Behind Act, expanding the USD
Education's ability to:
participate in the National Children's Study;
participate in the Interagency Task Force on Risks to
Child Health;
conduct joint research with other Federal agencies on how
environmental hazards at school affect health and learning;
provide incentives and information to the States to
leverage their own ``high performance schools'' programs.
2. Institutionalize the National Clearinghouse for Educational
Facilities and cross-link it to the other Federal agencies' school
environmental programs;
3. Expand US Environmental Protection Agency's schools programs,
establishing it as an agency priority, including:
research on indoor air at school and impacts on child
health and learning;
evaluating IAQ Tools for Schools and other school programs
for their effectiveness at reducing children's toxic exposures and
reducing absenteeism, or providing disability access to buildings;
strengthening the EPA regional office's work with State
agencies and advocacy organizations so that IAQ Tools for Schools and
other programs are integrated into State agency efforts;
expand US EPA's grants to the Pediatric Environmental
Health Specialty Units, jointly funded with the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry;
require US EPA and other Federal agencies, in cooperation
with environmental health and education groups, to develop best
practice policies for school district maintenance and repair,
consistent with ``greening'' the existing infrastructure for the
protection of child health. This should include methods and examples
for applying the Federal Executive Order on Environmentally Preferable
Purchasing to school supplies and maintenance products.
4. Pass the Federal School Environmental Protection Act (SEPA, H.R.
111 and H.R. 3275/S 1716 in the 106th Congress) that will have the
effect of making schools ``pest-proof'' their buildings and thus reduce
their reliance on the routine use of highly toxic chemicals.
5. Fund school repairs and construction, directing a Federal grant
program at high needs schools; and, offer tax credits to subsidize the
interest on school construction bonds used for repairs, renovations,
and new construction.
Special Thanks/Acknowledgements: Alliance to End Childhood Lead
Poisoning; American Lung Association; Beyond Pesticides; Children's
Environmental Health Network; Healthy Kids: The Key to Basics; PNew
Civic Works; New York State Board of Regents Report of the Advisory
Committee on School Environmental Quality; Rebuild American's Schools
and, Healthy Schools Network research and publications on IAQ,
Cleaning, Molds, Renovations, Daylighting, Access to Decision-Making,
Survey of NYS School Nurses, NYC School Conditions; Schools of Ground
Zero: Early Lessons Learned in Children's Environmental Health, APHA
and HSN, 2002
__________
Statement of Alex Wilson, President, BuildingGreen, Inc.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Alex Wilson.
I am very honored and pleased to have this opportunity to address the
issue of high-performance or ``green'' schools before this committee.
I am president of BuildingGreen, Inc., a small company in
Brattleboro that is recognized as one of the leading national providers
of information on environmentally responsible design and construction.
My company publishes Environmental Building News, which is read by over
10,000 architects and other building professionals nationally and
internationally.
I also serve on the boards of the U.S. Green Building Council and
the Sustainable Buildings Industry Council, both here in Washington and
both involved in efforts to advance the implementation of energy-
efficient, environmentally responsible buildings. I am pleased to
report that the membership of the U.S. Green Building Council, which
has been growing by 100 percent per year for the past 5 years, has just
surpassed 2,000 companies, and the Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED) building rating program the organization
runs is quickly becoming the most important driver of green design in
the country.
The Sustainable Buildings Industry Council (SBIC) has been
particularly active in advancing high-performance schools nationwide.
Senator Bonds may be interested to learn that SBIC is today leading a
workshop on high-performance buildings in St. Louis.
My hope here is to provide a quick overview of what a high-
performance school is, address the benefits of these schools, describe
a few examples, and provide recommendations as to how the Federal
Government can support the implementation of high-performance school
design, construction, and operation.
What is a High-Performance School?
The Collaborative for High Performance Schools in California
defines high-performance schools as ``facilities that improve the
learning environment while saving energy resources and money.'' \1\ The
Sustainable Buildings Industry Council (SBIC) describes a high-
performance school as having three key characteristics: \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Best Practices Manual, Volume I--Planning, the Collaborative
for High Performance Schools, 2001.
\2\ High Performance School Buildings: Resource and Strategy Guide,
Sustainable Buildings Industry Council, Washington, DC, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. It is healthy and productive for students and teachers, in that
it provides:
High levels of acoustic, thermal, and visual comfort;
Significant amounts of natural daylighting;
Superior indoor air quality; and
A safe and secure environment.
2. It is cost-effective to operate and maintain, because its design
employs:
Energy analysis tools that optimize energy performance;
A life-cycle cost approach that reduces the total costs of
ownership; and
A commissioning process to ensure that the facility will
operate in a manner consistent with design intent.
3. It is sustainable, because it integrates:
Energy conservation and renewable energy strategies;
High-performance mechanical and lighting systems;
Environmentally responsive site planning;
Environmentally preferable materials and products; and
Water-efficient design.
Organizations seeking to advance high-performance schools all
emphasize an integrated, whole-building approach to the design process.
This means that the different elements--building envelope, lighting,
mechanical systems, etc.--must be considered holistically, from the
beginning of the design process through construction and operation of
the building.
This is quite different from the design process used in creating
most non-residential buildings. The conventional design process is like
a relay race, in which the architect designs the basic building and
passes the baton to the mechanical engineer. The mechanical engineer
designs the mechanical systems needed to maintain comfort, then passes
the baton on to the lighting designer, and so on. With integrated
design, all members of the design team meet periodically throughout the
planning and design process. Synergies are identified--for example,
recognition that if better glazings and energy-efficient lighting
systems are installed, the air conditioning system (chiller) can be
downsized. Identifying these opportunities becomes possible only
through a collaborative, or integrated design process.
The other key aspect of a high-performance school is that it is the
product of well-thought-out goal-setting on the part of the school
district and the design team.
I am currently the environmental consultant on a complex school
project in Brattleboro, VT. This is the largest school construction
project ever undertaken in Vermont, involving three schools serving
1,600 students. With a $57 million budget, the project will involve
184,000 square feet of renovation and 126,000 square feet of new
construction over a 4-year construction phase. Listed below are several
of the sustainability goals identified by the design team at the
beginning of the design process: \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ BUHS/BAMS/SVCEC--Renovations & Additions: Project Feasibility
Report, Truex Cullins & Partners, May, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exceed ASHRAE 90.1 (1999) energy performance levels by at
least 20 percent
Reduce total greenhouse gas emissions for the building
complex by 50 percent, despite a 45 percent increase in total square
footage (much of this to be met by a wood-chip-fired distributed
heating system);
Achieve significant daylighting (2 percent daylight
factor) in 60 percent of classrooms;
Generate no net increase in stormwater runoff from the
site, despite a significant increase in impervious surfaces;
Reduce per-square-foot water consumption by 40 percent;
Reduce student, teacher, and staff absenteeism by at least
10 percent compared to prior 3 years by improving indoor air quality;
Provide recycling and composting facilities that can
achieve an 80 percent recovery for solid waste generated by the school;
and
Achieve a building that would earn a LEED Silver rating.
BENEFITS OF HIGH-PERFORMANCE SCHOOLS
The benefits of a high-performance school accrue to students,
teachers, taxpayers or other supporters of a facility, and the local,
regional, and global environment. Eight primary benefits are described
below:
1. Improved Student Performance
While data is still limited, there is growing evidence that a
school's physical condition--especially its lighting and indoor air
quality (IAQ)--can have a direct impact on student performance. The
most comprehensive study to date, conducted in school districts in
California, Washington, and Colorado, examined the causal relationship
between natural daylighting and student performance. In the California
district studied, students in classrooms with the most daylight
progressed 20 percent faster on math tests and 26 percent faster on
reading tests over the course of 1 year compared to students in
classrooms with the least daylighting.\4\ An earlier, less scientific
study in North Carolina produced similar findings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ ``Daylighting in Schools: An Investigation into the
Relationship Between Daylighting and Human Performance,'' by the
Heschong Mahone Group for Pacific Gas & Electric, August, 1999. A
follow-up Re-Analysis Report released in February, 2002 responded to
technical questions that had been raised by reviewers and verified the
original results. Reports available at www.h-m-g.com and
www.newbuildings.org/PIER.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits don't only accrue to new, well-funded schools. Here in
Washington, DC, the renovation of the run-down Charles Young Elementary
School, completed in 1997, resulted in dramatic improvements in math
and reading test scores. Prior to the restoration, almost half of the
students scored in the lowest quartile on standardized tests (49
percent in math and 41 percent in reading); after the renovation, those
percentages dropped to 24 percent and 25 percent, respectively.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ ``Healthy School Environment and Enhanced Educational
Performance: The Case of Charles Young Elementary School, Washington,
DC,'' by Dr. Michael A. Barry, prepared for the Carpet and Rug
Institute, January, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These studies confirm what teachers, students, and parents have
known anecdotally for years: a better facility--one with good
acoustics, lighting, indoor air quality, and other high performance
features--will enhance learning.
2. Increased Average Daily Attendance
A high-performance school provides superior indoor air quality by
controlling sources of contaminants, providing adequate ventilation,
and preventing moisture accumulation. Through these strategies,
pollutants are kept out of classrooms, stale air is eliminated, and
mold growth is inhibited--all of which will keep students healthier and
reduce absenteeism, especially among those suffering from respiratory
problems. Indoor environments are believed to be a major causal factor
of asthma, which is mushrooming in significance and now affects
approximately one out of eight children in America.\6\ In some States,
such as California, a school's operating budget is dependent on the
average daily attendance, so an increase in attendance boosts the
operating budget. The renovation of the Charles Young Elementary School
resulted in an increase in student attendance from 89 percent to 93
percent.\7\ The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has a useful
summary of studies addressing indoor air quality and student health.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 1999 data from the American Lung Association showing an
incidence of 121.8 asthma cases per 1,000 among people aged five to 17.
This age group has the highest incidence rate of asthma, well above the
average for all people (90.0 cases per 1,000). ``Trends in Asthma
Morbidity and Mortality,'' American Lung Association, Epidemiology and
Statistics Unit, February, 2002.
\7\ ``Healthy School Environment and Enhanced Educational
Performance: The Case of Charles Young Elementary School, Washington,
DC,'' by Dr. Michael A. Barry, prepared for the Carpet and Rug
Institute, January, 2002.
\8\ EPA Office of Indoor Air Quality, http://www.epa.gov/iaq/
schools/perform.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Increased Staff Satisfaction and Retention
High-performance schools are designed to be pleasant places to
work. They are visually and thermally comfortable, incorporate good
acoustics to minimize distraction, and provide indoor air that is fresh
and clean. Such environments become positive factors in recruiting and
retaining teachers and in improving overall teacher satisfaction.
4. Reduced Operating Costs
K-12 schools in the U.S. spend approximately $6 billion dollars per
year on energy--this is more than they spend on computers and textbooks
combined.\9\ High-performance schools are designed--using life-cycle
costing methods--to minimize long-term costs of operation. They use
significantly less energy and water than conventional schools and are
designed to be easier to maintain. Many high-performance schools built
over the past several years are realizing energy savings of 40 percent
or more. A school in Iowa is even using windmills to generate more
power than it uses and will soon be supplementing its operating budget
with this revenue stream! The benefits of reduced operating costs in
high-performance schools will continue throughout the life of the
buildings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Alliance to Save Energy, www.ase.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Reduced Liability Exposure
Because high-performance schools are healthy, they reduce a school
district's liability exposure over health-related lawsuits. In the past
few years, a number of highly publicized school closings, such as that
of the McKinnely School in Fairfield, Connecticut, have occurred due to
mold problems. The high cost of remediation in schools with IAQ
problems (often a quarter-million dollars in a school) are reason alone
to do it right the first time. While we still have a lot to learn about
such building science issues as mold and moisture control, high-
performance schools are generally designed with much greater attention
to these issues than conventional schools.
6. Reduced Environmental Impacts
High-performance schools are designed to have low environmental
impact. They use energy and water efficiently. They use durable,
nontoxic materials that are high in recycled content and can themselves
be recycled. Attention is paid to protecting wetlands and natural areas
on the school grounds, and efforts are made to allow stormwater to
infiltrate into the ground, replenishing groundwater, rather than being
carried offsite in storm sewers. Many of these schools are being built
to use non-polluting, renewable energy systems to the greatest extent
possible. Wastes are minimized or recycled during construction. And the
schools are designed to facilitate recycling of waste during operation.
Through measures such as these, high-performance schools are good
environmental citizens.
7. Using the School as a Teaching Tool
Schools are places of learning, and many of the technologies and
techniques used to create high-performance schools can also be used as
teaching tools. Renewable energy systems--solar, wind, and biomass--are
ideal hands-on demonstrations of scientific principles. Mechanical and
lighting equipment and controls can illustrate lessons on energy use
and conservation. Daylighting systems can help students understand the
daily and yearly movements of the sun. Wetlands and other natural
features on a school grounds can be used as outdoor laboratories.
The Alliance to Save Energy, of which Senator Jeffords is vice-
chair, has offered since 1996 a tremendous program encouraging energy
savings in existing buildings. Their Green Schools Program gets
students involved with assessing energy issues in their schools,
implementing changes, and monitoring the results.\10\ Through this
program, schools in Pennsylvania, New York, and Washington saved an
average of $7,700 per year on energy bills (10-15 percent) with no
expenditure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Alliance to Save Energy, www.ase.org/greenschools.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Schools as Disaster Shelters
Schools often play a role in a community's disaster planning--
serving as storm shelters, central collection points during
evacuations, or emergency housing during extended power outages. High-
performance school buildings built to incorporate natural daylighting,
highly energy-efficient envelope systems, and renewable power
generation can function far better during power outages than
conventional buildings.
HIGH-PERFORMANCE SCHOOLS: A FEW EXAMPLES
Described below are a few high-performance schools in operation (or
nearing completion) around the country.
Boscawen Elementary School, New Hampshire
Completed in 1996 and located just north of Concord, this
elementary school was designed with a special focus on indoor air
quality. The school it replaced was so crowded that some classes were
held in hallways and the air so bad that people were regularly getting
sick; the school was even evacuated once due to foul odors. Designed by
the H.L. Turner Group, the 48,000 square-foot school for 400 students
was the first in the U.S. to be designed to provide 100 percent fresh
air to the building using a ``displacement ventilation'' system,
controlled by carbon dioxide monitors. Ventilation air flows upward
through the classrooms and better air quality is provided with less
than half the typical ventilation rates in schools (and much lower fan
energy). An energy-efficient building shell is combined with extensive
daylighting, energy-efficient electric lighting, and low-VOC materials.
An integrated, whole-building design process was used, and, remarkably,
construction costs for the building were only $65 per square foot in
1996 dollars (exclusive of site costs).
Edgerly Early Childhood Development Center, Somerville, Massachusetts
Designed by HMFH Architects, Inc. and currently under construction,
the 80,000 square-foot Edgerly Center will serve 560 pre-kindergarten
through first-grade children in this city outside Boston. Somerville is
the most densely populated city in New England, so carving out a site
for the school was difficult. The need to share functions with a
neighborhood park led to other green considerations for the school. A
wide range of energy-saving and sustainability features were included
in the design, such as extensive daylighting, high-performance
glazings, high insulation levels around the entire envelope, superb
acoustical isolation, and low-VOC and natural building materials. With
funding from the Massachusetts Green School Pilot Program, a fairly
large (25-32 kW) photovoltaic (solar electricity) system will be
installed on the school, and a small (400 W) wind turbine will be
erected in the community garden at the school. The energy features are
projected to reduce energy consumption by 31 percent, compared with a
conventional new school. Total cost of the school is expected to be
$152/square foot.
Clearview Elementary School, Hannover, Pennsylvania
Due to be completed this fall, Clearview Elementary School was one
of five buildings nationwide selected to represent the United States at
the International Green Building Challenge, held last week in Oslo,
Norway. This 44,000 square-foot, two-story school, designed by Kimball
Architects of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, is designed to achieve a 40
percent savings in energy and 30 percent savings in water, compared
with a standard school. Among green design strategies employed in the
building are daylighting, a high-performance envelope (high insulation
levels and advanced glazings), a ground-source heat pump system, an
access-floor system for conditioned air supply, demand-controlled
ventilation (with carbon dioxide sensors), extensive use of recycled-
content building materials, and use of low-VOC paints and other
products. Total construction costs were $133 per square foot, exclusive
of site work and design fees. The building is expected to achieve a
LEED Silver rating.
Dalles Middle School, Oregon
This 96,000 square-foot school serving 600 middle-school students
80 miles east of Portland opened in September, 2002. Designed by BOORA
Architects of Portland and built for $12.5 million, the school features
a sophisticated daylighting system with light shelves and light tubes
to bring natural light deep into the school interior. The school makes
superb use of an unusual resource: groundwater pumped from a nearby
hillside to reduce landslide risk. This 58- to 60-degree water is used
in a ground-source heat pump that provides both heating and cooling for
the school. Natural ventilation is used whenever outside temperatures
permit, and a wide variety of recycled-content, locally sourced, and
nontoxic building materials were used. Overall savings in annual energy
consumption are projected to be 46 percent, compared with a
conventional school. The school was built for $105 per square foot,
excluding site work.
Ross Middle School, Ross, California
The original Ross School was built in 1941 and a series of six,
fairly haphazard additions had been added over the years to expand
capacity. In Phase I of the most recent effort, designed by EHDD
Architects and completed in 2000, five existing middle-school
classrooms were replaced with nine new classrooms and support
facilities on two floors. This addition is heavily daylit. Comfort is
maintained using natural ventilation rather than an air conditioning
system, saving $200,000 on mechanical equipment (these savings paid for
all of the other green features). Considerable attention was paid to
material selection to avoid IAQ problems and make use of recycled-
content and sustainably sourced materials. For example, 90 percent of
all wood used in the building was certified as sustainably harvested,
and arsenic-treated wood was avoided in favor of safer pressure-treated
wood.
McKinney Elementary School, Texas
Located near Dallas, Texas and designed by the SHW Group in Dallas,
the priorities of this school were quite different from those mentioned
above. Because water was a very significant issue, an extensive
rainwater harvesting system using the school's roof was designed to
provide water for outdoor irrigation. Completed in 2000, the 70,000
square-foot building uses extensive daylighting throughout. Energy-
conserving electric lighting technologies are used, native landscaping
is emphasized, and a great deal of attention was paid to selection of
green building materials. Another key feature at the McKinney School
was attention to how building features and elements could be used as
teaching tools. The school was named one of the AIA Committee on the
Environment Top Ten green buildings for 1999.
Durant Road Middle School, Raleigh, North Carolina
The 149,000 square foot school for 1,300 students was completed in
1995 as one of the first examples of a heavily daylit, ``green''
school. Some of the daylighting strategies used in this school have
been adopted in schools across the country. Designed by Innovative
Design, the school is realizing annual savings in energy for lighting,
cooling, heating, and ventilation of 50-60 percent. Construction costs
came in at $3.6 million under-budget!
RECOMMENDATIONS
The movement to create high-performance, green schools is moving
along at a healthy pace. The U.S. Green Building Council, for example,
has 32 K-12 schools registered for certification under the LEED rating
program.\11\ These schools are located in 14 States and represent
approximately 4.5 million square feet of floor space. However, compared
with the magnitude of school construction occurring today, this is just
a drop in the bucket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ U.S. Green Building Council, LEED Building Registration List,
23 September, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
American School & University reports in its 28th Annual Official
Education Construction Report that $26.7 billion in K-12 school
construction was completed in 2001.\12\ This was split between new
construction (42 percent), additions (16 percent), and modernizations
(42 percent). During the period 2002 through 2004, total K-12 school
construction is expected to total $108 billion. Nationwide, a total of
6,000 new schools are expected to be built by 2007.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ ``28th Annual Official Education Construction report,''
American School & University, May 2002; www.asumag.com.
\13\ High Performance School Buildings: Resource and Strategy
Guide, Sustainable Buildings Industry Council, Washington, DC, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clearly, a lot of school design and construction is occurring. Each
new building will be occupied, hopefully, for 50 to 100 years. For the
vast majority of them, very little if anything is being done to ensure
that they will be high-performance.
While not by any means a comprehensive list, the following are
offered as initial recommendations of how the Federal Government could
support the creation of high-performance schools. These recommendations
are grouped into several areas.
RESEARCH
Support carefully designed, scientifically based studies
to measure the effect of high performance schools on attributes such as
academic performance, absenteeism, teacher satisfaction and retention,
and operating costs of school buildings (including energy, water,
maintenance, and repairs).
Support building science research to learn more about the
causal factors of indoor air quality and moisture problems in
buildings. One aspect of this could be the development of a protocol
for evaluating what the long-term moisture performance (i.e., mold
risk) of a building is likely to be based on its design.
Support research on IAQ remediation, particularly mold
problems, in buildings.
Support research into advanced mechanical and electrical
``packages'' that could greatly improve school design and simplify
their integration into high-performance buildings. Such systems could
include displacement air delivery systems and lighting control systems.
Until integrated packages are developed that are pre-engineered and
perhaps even pre-manufactured, implementing leading-edge HVAC and
lighting systems with require expensive custom engineering. Efforts to
encourage manufacturers to invest in the development of such packaged
HVAC and lighting systems could be structured like the ``Golden
Carrot'' awards for high-efficiency refrigerators several years ago.
Support prototype development of high-performance portable
(relocatable) classrooms. In some States a high proportion of K-12
students are housed in portable classrooms--one-third of students in
California, for example. Portable classrooms today often have poor
indoor air quality, low energy performance, and poor acoustic
performance.
Support the development of improved daylighting design
tools. According to some architects, the lack of a plug-in module for
DOE-2 to accurately model the energy impacts of daylighting is a
significant obstacle.\14\ Rather than funding development of an end-
user tool, Federal support should go into the building blocks of such
simulation tools, such as the calculation engine and data sets.
Creating design tools that use those components should probably remain
the purview of the private sector.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Personal communication with Mike Nicklas, FAIA, of Innovative
Design, a North Carolina firm well-known for designing daylit schools.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Support the development of national protocols for
quantifying hazardous emissions from building materials.
EDUCATION AND TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
Fund the dissemination of planning guides, design manuals,
general information resources for the lay public, and other resources
to assist in the creation of high-performance schools on a State and
local level. While a few States, such as California, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts, already have effective state-wide
programs in place to promote high-performance schools, most States do
not. Excellent resources on high-performance schools are already
available--from the Sustainable Buildings Industry Council, the
California High Performance Schools Program, EPA, and DOE (especially
the EnergySmart Schools Program). Support is needed to effectively
disseminate these materials through State education departments.
Fund educational workshops, seminars, and other training
programs on high-performance school design and construction.
Fund the compilation and Internet posting of information
on leading examples of high-performance schools. The DOE High
Performance Buildings Program maintains a data base of high-performance
buildings, and includes a category for K-12 schools.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See http: // www.eren.doe.gov / buildings / highperformance /
case--studies/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fund the creation of regional videos about high-
performance schools that can serve to educate school boards and
communities about the benefits of such practices. The State of
Pennsylvania has just produced a superb half-hour program.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ ``Better Places to Learn: Building Green Schools in
Pennsylvania,'' Governor's Green Government Council,
www.gggc.state.pa.us.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUPPORT OF HIGH-PERFORMANCE SCHOOL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
Provide flow-through (block grant) funding to State
education departments to pay for computer modeling during the design of
high-performance schools and commissioning \17\ of schools prior to
occupancy. Energy modeling and commissioning are two critical steps in
the creation of high-performance schools, but they are expenses that
are often seen as expendable. Computer modeling for a moderate-sized
school may cost $10,000 to $15,000 and commissioning can cost from \1/
2\ to 1\1/2\ percent of the total construction budget. The Healthy and
High Performance Schools component of the 2001 Education Bill provides
a mechanism for this, but additional funding is required for that
effort to reach its potential.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Commissioning is a quality-assurance step that can be taken
prior to occupancy to ensure that building systems are performing as
they were designed. If commissioning identifies problems with the
construction of the building, it may be possible to have corrective
measures taken at no cost to the school district.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUPPORT OF A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT TO ADVANCE HIGH-PERFORMANCE SCHOOLS
Fund the development of a LEED for Schools Application
Manual. This could be a collaborative effort among the U.S. Green
Building Council, the California High Performance Schools Program, the
Sustainable Buildings Industry Council, and perhaps other
organizations. The LEED program provides a third-party mechanism for
certifying the ``greenness'' of buildings. This third-party
verification is very important in ensuring that the best of intentions
on the part of a school board or community are really turned into the
best building.
SUMMARY
More than any other type of building, schools are an investment in
our country's future. We are in a period of dramatic growth in the
number of schools, and that offers a tremendous opportunity to improve
these places of learning even as we significantly reduce their use of
energy and other resources. We know how to do that. Dozens of high-
performance schools have been being built over the past few years and
many more are on the drawing boards. But for high-performance features
to be incorporated into all schools, we need to identify key leverage
points and assist at these points. Integrated, whole-systems design is
the mechanism to do that, and the Federal Government can do a great
deal to make that available to school systems nationwide.
I thank you, Senator Jeffords and committee members, for this
opportunity to address these issues today. I look forward to following
the high-performance schools agenda and would be glad to follow up on
any of these ideas with committee staff. I am sure that the two
organizations I represent, the U.S. Green Building Council and the
Sustainable Buildings Industry Council, would also be happy to provide
additional information at any time.
__________
Statement of Lois Marie Gibbs, Executive Director, Center For Health
Environment and Justice
Thank you for this opportunity to speak with you on an issue that
has concerned me for over 20 years. You may be familiar with my
involvement in Love Canal, which led to my being termed the ``Mother of
Superfund,'' the Federal Superfund law. What you may not know is that
the struggle to relocate the residents of Love Canal began with my
concern over the health hazards faced by children at the 99th street
elementary school. The school was built on the perimeter of a toxic
waste site and the students, which included my son, were in danger.
Children are powerless against many dangers in school and out, and
they look to adults for protection. However, decisions that adults make
frequently endanger our nation's children. New schools are being built
on or near chemically contaminated land or near industrial facilities
that release toxic emissions that contaminate the air children breathe,
the water they drink and play in and the soil they play in.
There is growing evidence that these chemical exposures--these
invisible threats--diminish our children's health and intellectual
abilities. Research has revealed increasing numbers of children
afflicted with asthma, cancers, lower IQs, and learning disabilities,
which impede their ability to develop to their full potential. From
birth, children are exposed to toxic chemicals in many ways. Public
schools when built on or near contaminated land are a potential source
of chemical exposure.
While laws compel children to attend school, there are--
astoundingly--no guidelines or laws in place that compel school
districts to locate school buildings on property that will protect the
school population from environmental health and safety risks.
California is the only State that has some regulations and an
assessment process for the building of new schools. Consequently,
parents are forced to send their children to some schools that pose a
threat to their children's health and ability to learn.
CHEJ has received numerous inquiries from parents who either:
were concerned about an existing school where there was a
higher than expected number of students with cancer or other diseases;
found toxic chemicals in the soil of a school campus;
or were concerned about the construction of a new school
on contaminated lands.
In response to these requests, CHEJ decided to bring these parents
together to explore the depth of the problem (See attached list of
community school contamination situations.). Additionally, we began to
undertake research to identify laws that govern such situations. We
were stunned to find that there were no laws governing the siting of a
school with the exception of California. In fact, we found that there
were strict laws and regulations around the construction of homes and
commercial buildings but not schools. This raised two fundamental
questions for leadership.
1. How many schools are located on or near chemical waste sites or
other contaminated sites today?
2. Is there a need for national or statewide legislation that would
prohibit building a school on contaminated property or set cleanup
guidelines when there is no alternative but to use contaminated
property?
To answer these questions, we looked at the location of public
schools in five States and overlaid the location of known Federal and
State identified contaminated sites. In January we released the results
in the Child Proofing Our Communities Campaign's School Siting
Committee report Creating Safe Learning Zones. In this report, the
campaign revealed that 1,195 schools are located within one half mile
of a known toxic site in these five States affecting an estimated
population of over 620,000 students.
Table 1: Number of Public Schools and Students Attending Classes Within a Half-Mile of a Superfund or State-
Identified Contaminated Site
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
State Number of Number of Number of Lists Used to Identify
Schools Counties Students Toxic Sites
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California............................ 43 11 32,865 Superfund only.
Massachusetts......................... 818 13 407,229 Superfund & State.
Michigan.............................. 64 27 20,999 Superfund & State.
New Jersey............................ 36 11 18,200 Superfund only.
New York.............................. 235 39 142,738 Superfund & State.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................. 1,196 100 622,031
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the report's findings, we believe there is a critical need
for national laws ensuring that the locations for new schools are safe
and that, if contaminated property is considered, it is properly
cleaned up. The campaign has developed model school siting legislation
to promote laws and policies (covering both public and private primary
and secondary schools) that protect children's health. Additionally,
with the proposal of building over 2,400 new schools in 2003-2005 there
is an immediate need to define criteria and appropriate funds to ensure
that new schools are designed and built to protect children's health.
The following are model school siting guidelines that the Child
Proofing Our Communities campaign recommends be considered as part of
legislation written to ensure the safety of the school population. This
model draws upon existing California legislation (AB 387 and SB 162,
1999) that mandates the California Department of Toxic Substances
Control (CDTSC) to perform Preliminary Endangerment Assessment's
(PEA's) on proposed school sites.
1. THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A SCHOOL SITING COMMITTEE
The public body responsible for siting new schools is usually the
local school board or a school district committee. This group should
establish a school siting committee whose job is to recommend to the
public body sites for building new schools and/or expanding existing
schools. The committee should include representatives of the public
body as well as representatives from the following stakeholders:
parents, teachers, school health nurse or director, officials from
local health departments, community members, local public health
professionals, environmental advocacy groups, and age-appropriate
students. Only public bodies who have appointed school siting
committees representing such stakeholders should be eligible to receive
Federal money for the assessment and cleanup of school sites or the
construction of new schools.
2. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
The public body (the school board or school district committee)
should notify parents, school staff, members of the local community,
and ``feeder'' school parents of the new school's students of plans to
build a new school and solicit their participation in writing and at
public meetings. This outreach effort should include prominent
placement of public notices and feature articles about the proposed
plan in commonly read newspapers or local magazines. A notice shall be
posted in a conspicuous place in every school within the public body's
jurisdiction (in multiple languages if there's a significant number of
non-English speaking parents). A copy shall also be delivered to each
parent-teacher organization within the jurisdiction, each labor union
covered by a collective bargaining agreement signed by the public body,
and each landowner within 1,000 feet of the proposed site. This effort
can also be used to recruit participants for candidates for the school
siting committee.
3. CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS FOR SCHOOL SITES
Under no circumstances should a school be built on top of or within
1,000 feet of a site where hazardous or garbage waste was landfilled,
or where disposal of construction and demolition materials occurred. To
determine whether the proposed school site has been used for these
purposes, an initial Environmental Assessment should be undertaken,
and, if necessary, a more extensive Preliminary Endangerment
Assessment. If either evaluation reveals that the site has been used
for these purposes, or if the site is within 1,000 feet of any property
used for these purposes, the site must be abandoned.
4. PROCESS FOR EVALUATING SITES
The public body shall not proceed to acquire a site or prepare a
site for construction of any school, including the expansion of an
existing school, until the public body completes the required
environmental evaluations and the State environmental regulatory agency
approves the initial Environmental Assessment. Based on the results of
this initial assessment, a more extensive investigation, a Preliminary
Endangerment Assessment, may be required. Based on the results of the
PEA, a Site Remediation Plan may also be necessary.
A. Initial Environmental Assessment
Once a site is proposed, the school board/district committee must
hire a licensed environmental assessor to conduct a three-part
environmental assessment that is designed to collect information on
current and past site uses and to conduct initial environmental
sampling at the site. This assessment shall include:
Part I: A site history by reviewing public and private records of
current and past land uses; historical aerial photographs;
environmental data bases; Federal, State and local regulatory agencies'
files; a site visit; and interviews with persons familiar with the
site's history.
Part II: A small-scale grid sampling and analysis of soil, soil
gases (if any) and groundwater. Air should be sampled if stationary or
mobile sources of air pollution are near the proposed site, potentially
exposing children to higher levels of pollution than found in their own
communities. Any surface water should also be sampled.
Part III: Identifying any environmental hazards within two miles of
the site, including industrial sites, chemical storage facilities,
facilities found in EPA's Toxic Release Inventory (TRI), waste
treatment plants, landfills, military sites, research facilities, and
Department of Energy sites.
If the Initial Environmental Assessment concludes that the site was
previously used for hazardous or garbage waste disposal, or for
disposal of construction and demolition materials, or if it is within
1,000 feet of any property used for these purposes, the site must be
abandoned.
If some contamination is discovered, the levels found should be
compared to a list of cleanup guidelines developed by the New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation (see table 2 and
discussion below). If contaminant levels exceed any of these values, a
more extensive site assessment--a Preliminary Endangerment Assessment
(PEA)--is necessary.
A Preliminary Endangerment Assessment would also be necessary if
the Initial Environmental Assessment found that the proposed school
site lies within 1,000 feet of one of the following potential sources
of contamination:
A suspected hazardous, industrial, or municipal waste
disposal site
Refineries, mines, scrap yards, factories, dry cleaning,
chemical spills, and other contaminants
Agricultural land
Dust generators such as fertilizer, cement plants, or saw
mills
Leaked gasoline or other products from underground storage
tanks
Concentrated electrical magnetic fields from high
intensity power lines and communication towers
Areas of high concentrations of vehicular traffic such as
freeways, highways
Industrial plants and facilities
An USEPA or State designated Brownfield site
A railroad bed
An industry listed in EPA Toxic Release Inventory (TRI)
If no environmental hazards were identified at the property then
the property would be considered suitable for school site development.
The State environmental regulatory agency must review the final
draft of the Initial Environmental Assessment. Depending on the
thoroughness of the assessment, the State agency would either give
preliminary approval to the assessment, disapprove the assessment, or
request more information.
When the final draft of the Initial Environmental Assessment is
complete and has received preliminary approval by the State
environmental regulatory agency, the public body shall publish a notice
in newspapers of general circulation (including foreign language
newspapers if the school district has a sizable number of non-English
speaking parents) that includes the following information:
A statement that an initial Environmental Assessment of the site
has been completed; a brief statement describing the results of the
assessment such as a list of contaminants found in excess of regulatory
standards; prior uses of site that might raise health and safety
issues; proximity of site to environmental hazards (waste disposal
sites, point sources of air pollution, etc.); a brief summary of the
conclusions of the initial Environmental Assessment; the location where
people can review a copy of the assessment or an executive summary
written in the appropriate foreign language; and an announcement of a
thirty-day public comment period including an address where public
comments should be sent.
A copy of this notice shall also be posted in a conspicuous place
in every school within the public body's jurisdiction (in multiple
languages if there is a significant number of non-English speaking
parents). A copy shall also be delivered to each parent-teacher
organization within the jurisdiction, each labor union covered by a
collective bargaining agreement signed by the public body, and each
landowner within 1,000 feet of the proposed site.
The State environmental regulatory agency will review all comments
received on the Initial Environmental Assessment. This agency will then
accept or reject the conclusion of the assessment, determine whether
the site can be used without further remediation or study, whether the
site is categorically excluded for use as a school, or whether further
study or remediation of the site (i.e., a Preliminary Endangerment
Assessment) is required. The State environmental agency shall explain
in detail the reasons for accepting or rejecting the assessment.
After the State environmental agency has approved the Initial
Environmental Assessment, the local School Siting Committee must also
review the assessment and public comments received. The purpose of this
review is for the School Siting Committee to make a recommendation to
either abandon the site or continue evaluating the environmental
hazards at the site with a Preliminary Endangerment Assessment or PEA.
If a PEA is required, the School Siting Committee should recommend
to the public body whether to abandon the site or proceed with a PEA.
Alternative sites should be considered at this point. Then, the public
body must vote whether to abandon the site or proceed with a PEA.
B. Preliminary Endangerment Assessment
A Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA) is an in depth
assessment of the environmental contamination present at a site. A
licensed environmental assessor must do this assessment. The State
environmental regulatory agency shall oversee the PEA process and issue
regulations that prescribe the precise contents of the PEA. A model for
such regulations can be found in California, where the PEA must meet
the California Department of Toxic Substances Control Preliminary
Environmental Assessment Guidance Manual requirements (CEPA, 1994). The
PEA must also be approved by the State environmental regulatory agency.
Before any work is done on the PEA, the public body must develop a
public participation plan that ensures public and community involvement
in the PEA process. The plan shall indicate what mechanisms the public
body will use to establish open lines of communication with the public
about the use of the site as a school. Activities such as public
meetings, workshops or fact-sheets may be appropriate ways to notify
the public about the proposed PEA investigation activities (such as the
taking of soil, groundwater and air samples) and schedules. The State
environmental regulatory agency must approve the public participation
plan before the public body can commence other PEA-related activities.
The primary objective of the PEA is to determine if there has been
a release or if there is a potential for a release of a hazardous
substance that could pose a health threat to children, staff, or
community members. As part of the PEA, full-scale grid sampling and
analysis of soil, soil gases (if any) and groundwater shall be
undertaken to accurately quantify the type and extent of hazardous
material contamination present on the site. The PEA will also contain
an evaluation of the risks of actual or potential contamination posed
to children's health, public health, or the environment based on the
contamination found. The evaluation of risks shall include:
A description of health consequences of long-term exposure
to any hazardous substances found onsite;
A description of all possible pathways of exposure to
those substances by children attending school onsite; and
The identification of which pathways would more likely
result in children being exposed to those substances.
The PEA shall conclude that (1) there are no environmental hazards
at the site which must be abated through a cleanup plan; or (2) the
site was previously used for hazardous or garbage waste disposal, for
the disposal of construction and demolition materials, or is within
1,000 feet of any property used for these purposes (the categorical
exclusion); or (3) the site must be cleaned up if it is to be used for
a school. If the site was previously used for hazardous or garbage
waste disposal, for the disposal of construction and demolition
materials, or is within 1,000 feet of any property used for these
purposes, the site must be abandoned. If the site must be cleaned up,
the PEA shall identify alternatives for cleaning the site to meet the
applicable safety standards.
The State environmental regulatory agency must review the final
draft of the PEA. Depending on the thoroughness of the assessment, the
State agency must give preliminary approval to the assessment,
disapprove the assessment, or request more information.
When the final draft of the PEA is completed and has received
preliminary approval by the State environmental regulatory agency, the
public body shall publish a notice in newspapers of general circulation
(including foreign language newspapers if the school district has a
sizable number of non-English speaking parents) that includes the same
information released for the Initial Environmental Assessment:
A statement that a PEA of the site has been completed;
A brief statement describing the results of the PEA, such
as a list of contaminants found in excess of regulatory standards,
prior uses of site that might raise health and safety issues, proximity
of site to environmental hazards (waste disposal sites, point sources
of air pollution, etc.);
A brief summary of the conclusions of the PEA;
The location where people can review a copy of the PEA or
an executive summary written in the appropriate local language(s); and
An announcement of a thirty-day public comment period,
including an address where public comments should be sent.
As described for the Initial Environmental Assessment, a copy of
this notice shall also be posted in a conspicuous place in every school
within the public body's jurisdiction (in multiple languages if there
is a significant number of non-English speaking parents). A copy shall
also be delivered to each parent-teacher organization within the
jurisdiction, each labor union covered by a collective bargaining
agreement signed by the public body, and each landowner within 1,000
feet of the proposed site.
The State environmental regulatory agency will review all comments
received on the PEA. The State environmental agency shall then either
accept or reject the conclusion of the PEA, determine whether the site
can be used without further remediation or study, whether the site is
categorically excluded for use as a school, or whether a Site
Remediation Plan is required. The State environmental agency shall
explain in detail the reasons for accepting or rejecting the PEA.
After the State environmental agency has approved the PEA, the
local School Siting Committee must also review the assessment and
public comments received. The purpose of this review is for the School
Siting Committee to make a recommendation to either abandon the site or
consider remediation. Alternatives should be considered at this point.
Then, the public body must vote whether to abandon the site, proceed
with a remediation plan, or consider an alternative site or option.
If the PEA indicates that the site has a significant hazardous
contamination problem, the public body must either abandon the site or
fund a cleanup plan that would reduce contaminant levels to the
applicable safety standard for each contaminant. The public body must
abandon the site if the PEA uncovers that the site was previously used
for hazardous or garbage waste disposal, for disposal of construction
and demolition materials, or is within 1,000 feet of any property used
for these purposes.
C. Child Protective Health Based Standards
The Child Proofing Our Communities campaign found that no health-
based child-sensitive standards exist at the Federal, State, local, or
any level for determining ``safe'' levels of contamination in soil that
will protect children. Lacking such standards, parents, school
districts, regulating agencies, and others are lost as to how to
evaluate contamination at new or existing sites. Until such standards
are developed, the campaign recommends the use of the New York State
(NYS) Recommended Soil Cleanup Objectives. These values were developed
to provide a ``basis and procedure to determine soil cleanup levels''
at State and Federal superfund and other contaminated sites in the
State.
The Child Proofing Our Communities campaign, in conjunction with
environmental engineers we convened at a Children's Environmental
Health Symposium earlier this year, reviewed the cleanup standards or
guidelines for several States and found the NYS values to be generally
lower than all others considered. A subcommittee of professional
engineers and health scientists who participated in the Symposium
concluded that the NYSDEC list is a good, reasonably sound, and
conservative list to use as an initial screen to provide school boards/
districts with a way to evaluate sites early on in the site selection
process.
A table of 27 common contaminants from the NYS list of Recommended
Soil Cleanup Objectives is included below. The entire list provides
guidelines for 126 contaminants.
New York State Recommended Soil Cleanup Objectives For Chemicals
Commonly Found at Contaminated Sites
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pesticides / other
Solvents metals
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acetone.......................................... 0.2
Aldrin/dieldrin.................................. 0.041
Arsenic.......................................... 7.5
Benzene.......................................... 0.06
Chlordane........................................ 0.54
Barium........................................... 300
2-Butanone....................................... 0.3
Chrysene......................................... 0.4
Cadmium.......................................... 1
Carbon tetrachloride............................. 0.6
DDT/DDE.......................................... 2.1
Chromium......................................... 10
Chloroform....................................... 0.3
Naphthalene...................................... 13.0
Lead............................................. 400
1,1-Dichlororethane.............................. 0.2
Pentachlorophenol................................ 1.0
Mercury.......................................... 0.1
1,2-Dichloroethane............................... 0.1
PCBs............................................. 1.0
Nickel........................................... 13
Methylene chloride............................... 0.1
Tetrachlorethene................................. 1.4
Trichloroethene.................................. 0.7
Toluene.......................................... 1.5
Vinyl chloride................................... 0.2
Xylene........................................... 1.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: All values are in parts per million (ppm).
D. Site Remediation Plan
If the school board/district decides to proceed with cleanup of the
proposed site, a Site Remediation Plan must be developed. This plan
must:
Identify alternative methods for cleaning the site to
contamination levels that meet the applicable safety standards;
Contain a financial analysis that estimates and compares
soil cleanup costs for the identified alternative cleanup methods that
will bring the site into compliance with applicable safety standards;
Recommend a cleanup plan from the alternatives identified;
Explain how the recommended cleanup alternative will
prevent children from being exposed to the hazardous substances found
at the site; and
Evaluate the suitability of the site in light of
recommended alternative sites and alternative cleanup plans.
The public body shall submit the Site Remediation Plan to the State
environmental regulatory agency for approval. Before submitting the
plan for approval, a draft remediation plan shall be given to the
School Siting committee for review and comment. Once the remediation
plan is submitted to the State agency for approval the public body
shall proceed with a public notification and outreach plan similar to
that conducted for the Initial Environmental Assessment and the
Preliminary Endangerment Assessment. This would include publishing a
notice in newspapers of general circulation (including foreign language
newspapers if the school district has a sizable number of non-English
speaking parents) that includes the following information:
A statement that a site remediation plans has been
submitted to the State environmental agency for approval;
A brief statement describing the site remediation plan,
including a list of contaminants found in excess of regulatory
standards and a description of how the plan will reduce the level of
contamination to meet those regulatory standards;
The location where people can review a copy of the
remediation plan or an executive summary written in the appropriate
local language(s); and
An announcement of a thirty-day public comment period and
the address of the State environmental agency where public comments
should be sent.
A copy of this notice shall also be posted in a conspicuous place
in every school within the public body's jurisdiction (in multiple
languages if there is a significant number of non-English speaking
parents). A copy shall also be delivered to each Parent-Teacher
Organization within the jurisdiction, to each labor union covered by a
collective bargaining agreement signed by the public body, and each
landowner within 1,000 feet of the proposed site.
At least thirty days after the conclusion of the public comment
period the State environmental regulatory agency shall conduct a public
hearing on the remediation plan in the neighborhood or jurisdiction
where the proposed site is located.
The State environmental agency shall publish a notice of the
hearing in newspapers of general circulation (including foreign
language newspapers if the School district has a sizable number of non-
English speaking parents) stating the date, time and location of the
hearing. The State environmental regulatory agency shall provide
translators at the public hearing if the school district has a sizable
number of non-English speaking parents.
After the public hearing and after reviewing any comments received
during the public comment period the State environmental regulatory
agency shall either approve the Site Remediation Plan, disapprove the
Site Remediation Plan, or request additional information from the
public body. If the State agency requires additional information, a
copy of the letter requesting additional information shall be sent to
the School Siting Committee. Any additional information submitted by
the public body to the State environmental regulatory agency shall also
be given to the School Siting Committee. After reviewing any additional
information, the State environmental regulatory agency must approve or
reject the Site Remediation Plan. The State environmental agency shall
explain in detail the reasons for accepting or rejecting the Site
Remediation Plan.
After the State environmental regulatory agency approves the Site
Remediation Plan, the local School Siting Committee must also review
the plan and recommend to the public body whether to abandon the site
or proceed with acquiring the site and implementing the remediation
plan. Alternative sites or options should be considered at this point.
The public body must then vote whether to abandon the site or to
acquire the site and implement the remediation plan. Only upon voting
to acquire the site and implement the remediation plan may the public
body take any action to acquire the site and prepare the site for
construction of a school.
4. GUIDELINES APPROPRIATE TO CHILDREN'S HEALTH
The Child Proofing Our Communities campaign believes that the USEPA
is best suited to issue such guidelines related to assessment and
cleanup of these sites. We feel strongly that Congress should require
the EPA to determine proper cleanup guidelines to reduce the risk of
exposure for children. It has also been the campaign's experience that
the levels of cleanup vary widely from site to site--the determining
factor often being the economic status of the particular community. The
campaign strongly urges the EPW committee to mandate EPA to establish a
minimum standard that all cleanup plans must adhere to. Toward that end
we have begun a process of convening a panel of children's
environmental health professionals to identify cutting edge health
information such as neurodevelopmental and reproductive effects in
children that have been associated with exposure to toxic chemicals and
to identify how to incorporate this information into the process of
setting health based exposure standards for children. The campaign
would be pleased to share the results of our investigation with the EPA
to inform future efforts in arriving at children's environmental health
guidelines.
5. NEW SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION
It makes little sense to build an environmentally dangerous school
on a newly cleaned site. We recommend the availability of funds to
build healthy ``green'' schools.
There are no Federal laws governing the environmental health
conditions in schools. The EPA has been the most responsive agency,
producing tools that individual schools can use to diagnose and correct
indoor air quality problems. Much more needs to be done, however, to
eliminate the many avoidable environmental health impacts present in
the school environment. A promising Federal bill--the Healthy High
Performance Schools Act (2001)--and health and safety grants for
emergency school renovations (2000) have had support or funding
withdrawn. Thus we are left with the odd result that the Federal
Government tolerates unhealthy construction practices and materials
usage in schools even as it spends funds to diagnose and correct the
resulting problems after the fact.
We advocate the availability of funding for both the aforementioned
programs in order to promote ``green building'' practices in school
construction and renovation. Presently there are no national standards
that use green building materials and techniques. Some Federal agencies
such as the Department of Transportation and the Department of Interior
are attempting to utilize the LEED (Leadership in Energy &
Environmental Design) program developed by the U.S. Green Building
Council. Unfortunately LEED does not effectively address children's
environmental health concerns. As a first step, we recommend that a
study of applicable green building standards and policies be undertaken
to identify those best serving the goal of protecting children's
health.
6. FEDERAL FUNDING
There is only one State (California), which has a law that provides
some siting guidelines. However, there is little funding available to
put the legislated guidelines into practice. Therefore, we are
advocating for Federal funding of the appropriate agencies to support
schools that apply for the assessment, remediation, and construction of
``healthy'' schools on otherwise untenable sites. Without adequate
resources the local school authorities cannot adequately assess the
property nor clean the property to a standard that is protective of
children.
FINDINGS
Hundreds of schools nationwide have been built on or near
contaminated land
Taxpayers provide billions of dollars for cleanup,
construction of replacement schools, and medical treatment of disease
in exposed children
The Child Proofing Our Communities campaign has provided these
examples of schools disastrously impacted by their proximity to toxic
waste sites:
1. Love Canal, Niagara Falls, NY--Toxic Waste Dump
Most know of the Love Canal dumpsite disaster in Niagara Falls.
Twenty thousand tons of chemicals were buried in the neighborhood's
center and eventually leaked out into the surrounding community. The
99th Street Elementary School was on the dump's perimeter, and the 93d
Street School was just two blocks away. Both closed in 1978 after
extensive testing revealed high levels of chemical contamination on and
around them. Love Canal was the first community to close schools due to
potential health risks to children.
2. Los Angeles, CA--Former Oilfield and Industrial Site
The Belmont Learning Complex was proposed in 1985 by the Los
Angeles Unified School District as a middle school to alleviate
overcrowding in a mostly poor, Latino neighborhood. The project
ballooned into a proposed 35-acre, state-of-the-art, high school
campus, with classrooms and innovative ``academies'' for 5,000
students. More than 15 years later, the half-built brick building
stands abandoned. Parents learned what the school district already
knew--explosive methane gas, poisonous hydrogen sulfide, volatile
organic compounds such as acetone, the carcinogen benzene, and residual
crude oil existed on the location, a former oilfield and industrial
site.
The project, halted in 2000, is now underway again, with over $174
million already spent. After extensive debate about children's health
issues, community support for completing the school remains strong. In
this instance especially, the contentious process would have been
prevented if effective school siting legislation had been in place that
emphasized health concerns first and foremost and required assessment
and remediation to occur before the expensive construction actually
began.
3. Marion, OH--Military Dump
The River Valley Middle and High schools sit on the former site of
the U.S. Army's Marion Engineer Depot, and was used as the facility's
dumping ground from 1942-1961. In 1997, community members formed a
group, Concerned River Valley Families, in response to alarming rates
of leukemia and other rare cancers among former students. The group's
efforts led to an investigation that revealed widespread contamination
from toxic materials dumped for nearly two decades. Students were and
continue to be exposed to potentially harmful concentrations of
solvents, such as trichloroethylene (TCE) and benzo(A)pyrene,
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and heavy metals in the soil
surrounding the schools. Many of the solvents are known carcinogens and
some have been linked to leukemia.
In November of 2000, River Valley school district Marion voters
passed a bond and Congress passed precedent-setting legislation that
together would provide enough money to build new schools away from the
military dumping grounds. To date, there has been an emergency arsenic
removal, and access has been restricted to the polluted athletic fields
and the middle school back doors, but air pathways still have not been
fully or adequately characterized.
The schools remain open although reservists are not allowed on the
adjacent Army Reserve training grounds. The new schools approved by
residents and Congress will not be open until at least August 2003, but
the school board refuses to temporarily move their students to an
environmentally safe facility.
4. Providence, RI--Two New Schools On a Dump, with More Planned
Parents were shocked when bulldozers showed up without warning to
begin construction of Springfield Elementary School on the grounds of
what had been a city landfill for at least 25 years. The Hartford Park
Tenants Association and other community parents have filed a lawsuit
against the school board, city of Providence, and State Department of
Environmental Management. They argue that building a school for
minority students on a landfill is a violation of the children's civil
rights. These students already have high rates of asthma and lead
poisoning. The groups also contend that they were not given enough
notice about the building of the new school to allow them to play a
role in the site selection and remediation process.
The groups have concerns about the State-approved soil gas removal
process that has placed an elaborate system of monitors and underground
pipes beneath the school to prevent the accumulation of explosive
methane gas. Their primary concern is the potential for explosion, but
they are also worried the about the odors coming from the stack that
releases soil gases on school property. They want the school shut down.
During the construction of a middle school next to the elementary
school, parents won a temporary order halting work while children were
outside the elementary school in order to prevent their exposure to
contaminated dust. Now that Springfield Middle School has opened, a
court has ordered the city to notify the plaintiffs in the lawsuit when
environmental testing is done so that plaintiffs' experts can observe
the testing. The city must also share the results of the environmental
tests with the plaintiffs.
5. Tucson, AZ--Industrial Plants
Sunnyside Elementary and Junior High Schools serve primarily
Mexican-Americans in Tucson's Southside. Many who attended during and
after the 1950s later developed cancers and leukemia. By 1981, area
wells used by these schools and many nearby homes were shut down due to
industrial contamination from a groundwater plume of trichloroethylene
(TCE) and other toxins migrating from military-related industries.
Residents formed Tucsonians for a Clean Environment and won local
support for environmental health projects, including a health clinic
for persons poisoned by TCE.
Today Tucson's Southside faces a new toxic threat from a military
contractor. In 1983, Brush Wellman built a facility near Sunnyside High
School, Sierra Middle School, Los Ranchitos, and Los Amigos Elementary
Schools. This facility processes beryllium, a lightweight metal the
military uses that causes a fatal and incurable lung disease. Twenty-
five employees at the plant already have the disease. Beryllium traces
have been found on Los Amigos and Los Ranchitos grounds, putting young
schoolchildren at risk. The community is asking that Brush Wellman
install air monitors on school grounds and around the neighborhood, but
they have had no progress thus far.
6. New Orleans, LA--Garbage Dump
Residents of Gordon Plaza--1,000 low-and middle-income African
Americans--discovered only after they moved in that they were living on
the former Agriculture Street Landfill--the city's municipal waste dump
for more than 50 years. The landfill was never properly capped, and
residents began almost immediately to dig up trash and building debris
in their back yards.
Construction of Moton Elementary School--intended to serve 850
students from Gordon Plaza and a nearby housing project--was completed
in 1987 despite residents' concerns about high levels of lead and other
toxins at the school site. During the 3 years the school was open,
children and staff were sick with rashes, vomiting, respiratory
problems, and headaches, and plumbing problems made it impossible to
use the school cafeteria and toilets. In 1990, the superintendent
overruled the school board and shut the school down.
The U.S. EPA added Agriculture Street to Superfund in 1994 and
began a $20 million cleanup of the site in 1998, replacing two feet of
soil while residents remained in their homes, exposed to contaminated
dust throughout months of cleanup work.
Moton Elementary School reopened in September of 2001. In some
areas on the school grounds, only six inches of soil were replaced.
Despite its history, 900 students currently attend the school.
7. Corry, PA--Industrial Plant Emissions
The school board in Corry decided to consolidate four of five small
elementary schools into one large school housing over 1,000 students.
The chosen site sits next to Foamex, a polyurethane foam manufacturing
plant that ranks second statewide for hazardous air emissions, annually
dispersing approximately two million pounds of hazardous chemicals into
the year. Additionally, toluene diisocyanate (TDI) and methylene
chloride are used in the manufacturing process and are stored in large
quantities on the site. Both are known carcinogens. Suspected TDI
health effects include respiratory, immunological, and neurological
disorders. Methylene chloride is suspected of harming the reproductive,
neurological and respiratory systems.
The community is unified against the consolidation and has
collected 2,000 signatures in support of finding another site.
Meanwhile, the consolidation did not occur and the construction of a
new school seems doubtful.
8. Jacksonville, FL--Incinerator-Ash Dump
This predominantly African-American community suffers from a long
history of industrial contamination. From 1943 to 1969, four sites
served as incinerator-ash dumping grounds. The ash contained high
levels of lead, dioxins, and PCBs. While environmental agencies knew
about the situation as early as 1985, parents and other residents were
only informed in 1999.
As the 1999-2000 school year began, many parents, including the
president of the PTA, withdrew their children from Mary McLeod Bethune
Elementary School, which was built on one site where testing revealed
high levels of dioxin. The school was closed in 2001 as part of an EPA-
ordered cleanup. Community activists are now pressing for closure and
cleanup of a park built on another ash site.
9. Houston, TX--Industrial/Chemical Complex
To relieve overcrowding, the city council created a special taxing
district to help cover the $76 million cost of constructing a new
school in a predominantly Latino area. The re-proposed school was
opened in 2001 and named for Cesar Chavez. The modern, fully equipped
facility with enough computers, laboratories, sport fields, and
classrooms for 3,000 students is located in an industrial zone on a
site previously occupied by an auto salvage yard, a dry cleaner and a
chemical toilet company. The school is a quarter mile from Texas
Petrochemicals, Exxon-Mobil, and Goodyear Tire and Rubber, and 1.2
miles from a Lyondell Citgo Refining facility. These plants release
nearly five million pounds of hazardous chemicals into the air
annually. A major accident at any one of these chemical plants would
endanger students at the school. The underground pipelines from the
plants that cross the school's property pose an additional threat.
10. Quincy, MA--Shipyard Toxics
Residents from Quincy formed Quincy Citizens for Safe Schools and
helped defeat city plans to build a high school on a four-acre site
that was contaminated with wastes from a neighboring shipyard. The city
knew the site was contaminated with asbestos, lead, PCB's and other
chemicals but believed it could be cleaned. When parents and other
residents became aware of the plan, they vehemently opposed it and
circulated a petition to stop it. Eventually, the mayor and some city
council members who had promoted the project were defeated in elections
by candidates who opposed the plan.
11. Detroit, Michigan--Former Industrial Site
In July 2000, the Detroit Public Schools (DPS) broke ground on the
first new elementary school to be built in the city in decades.
Unfortunately, the New Beard School, which would serve the largest
concentration of Hispanic students in the city, was sited on a former
industrial property contaminated with unsafe levels of lead, arsenic,
PCBs, carbon tetrachloride, cyanide, and other toxic materials. Rather
than removing these contaminants from the site, DPS chose to install a
crushed concrete and soil exposure barrier intended simply to prevent
children from touching the contaminated soils.
When initial efforts to convince DPS to listen to their concerns
failed, parents filed a civil rights/environmental justice lawsuit to
prevent the school from opening until the site's safety could
demonstrated. After a 4-day evidentiary hearing, a Federal judge
allowed the school to open, but required DPS to take additional
precautions, which included conducting additional soil and soil gas
sampling, hiring an independent environmental consultant (IEC) to make
recommendations regarding the need for additional testing and/or
monitoring at the site, and establishing a citizens' advisory committee
to oversee the IEC's work. DPS has implemented several but not all
measures recommended by the IEC, but the Beard administration continues
to balk at some precautionary steps, such as installing a permanent
plaque at the school warning that about the contamination that lies
beneath the exposure barrier.
CONCLUSION
We are truly at a critical juncture. Public elementary and
secondary enrollment is rapidly growing and is expected to reach an
all-time high of 44.4 million by the year 2006. At least 2,400 more
schools are needed in the next few years to accommodate this increase.
If action isn't taken immediately, these new schools will continue to
be built without guidelines to protect children against chemical
exposures. Failure to act could place tens of thousands of children at
risk of being exposed to toxic chemicals at their place of learning.
Society can no longer allow innocent children to be placed in harm's
way due to inexcusably bad decisions by local school district
decisionmakers.
Thank you very much for considering our views in the formation of
legislation to improve children's environmental health through
intelligent and comprehensive school siting.
__________
Statement of Katie Acton, Parent Advocate, Ozone Park, NY
To introduce myself, I am Katie Acton, residing at 103-23 105th
Street, Ozone Park, Queens, NY 11417. I am married with two daughters,
ages 9 and 3. Kaylyn Acton-Chadee, my 9-year-old attended PS 65Q
located at 103-22 99th Street, Ozone Park, NY 11417. The principal is
Mrs. Iris Nelson and can be reached at (718) 323-1685. The school falls
under the NYC Department of Education, District 27, superintended by
Mr. Matthew Bromme. Kaylyn was in fourth grade last school year.
In May of 2002, the Queens Forum published an article regarding the
possible toxic condition involving a subsurface plume of
TriChloroEthylene that is located beneath the school and the immediate
environs. Several concerned parents did come together to get answers to
the unanswered. Since that time, the NYCDOE has retained external
testers to test the quality of air inside the school. The results are
doubtful. In July of 2002, further tests were conducted outside the
school involving the groundwater and the soil. The results were very
alarming in that they were way above the ``acceptable'' limits.
Other events have happened during this period. PS 65Q was suddenly
labeled a ``Title I'' school and parents were offered to have their
children transferred to better performing schools within the district.
Those applications were distributed in June 2002. The response was
negative for transfers at that time. Transfers were suddenly approved
in September 2002, right before school reopened.
The NYCDOE met with parents three times since May 2002, with the
last meeting being on 08/29/2002. At the last meeting I attended,
Congressman Anthony Weiner was kind enough to appear on our behalf. He
raised important issues on the growth of the plume and it was confirmed
that the plume is growing and will grow upward. The delegates also
indicated that some measures were being taken to clean up the
environment. One involved the installation of an air evaporating
mechanism to release the pressure buildup below the school.
Another critical issue was the financing of the cleanup. It was
disclosed that negotiations were in progress with the Mother Company of
the dumpers of the TCE. Why must innocent children and the school
public and the community wait on the selfish concerns of others to
clean up such a potential hazardous condition. Classes are also held in
classrooms located in the basement, whose walls separate the inside
from the positive TCE soil on the outside.
Even though Kaylyn is no longer a student there, she was affected.
She developed asthma. Since the TCE was unveiled, parents have come
together and disclosed that their children have also been suffering
from sudden onset asthma and persistent headaches. There have also been
some cases of cancer and that a teacher has since passed away from
cancer. Her demise was held a secret for 2 weeks until the school
population was informed.
I think that the problem is not just restricted to the school
alone, but the entire surrounding neighborhood of which the
``transferred'' parents still reside. It is with deep sadness that I
have to document that the Members of the Board of the Parents
Association at PS65 have not been supportive in this matter. Instead of
acting as a liaison between the parents and the school authorities,
they choose to do otherwise--nothing. My persistence in the matter is
one to have the relevant authorities start the cleanup immediately, and
the confirmation that our community's children are in a fairly safe
environment. We, the residents/parents believe that City and State
Agencies need to get involved and do what is ethically and morally
correct.
The agencies represented were:
1. NYSDEC--New York State Department of Environmental Conversation
2. NYSDOH--New York State Department of Health, Peter Constantekes;
Donn E. Hettrick, Sanitary Engineer 800-458-1158 X 27880
3. NYCHMG--New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene
4. NYCDOH--New York City Department of Health, Chris D'Andrea,
Industrial Hygienist 212-788-4290; Gary Krigsman MD, DOH Physician for
District 27
5. NYCDOE--New York City Department of Education, David Klasfield,
Deputy Chancellor of Operations; Bernard Orlan, Director, Environmental
Health and Safety
Another representative was Mr. Davis Harrington, Field Engineer.
The agency he represented was not clear. He can be reached at 518-402-
9564. He was involved on the drilling of the wells for sampling
surrounding the school. ATC Associates, Inc. was retained by the NYCDOE
to perform the air testing inside the school. Their representatives
were present at all three meetings, but did not address the meeting.
__________
Memorandum from the American Public Health Association; Beyond
Pesticides; Children's Environmental Health Network; Healthy Schools
Network; Natural Association of School Nurses; Natural Resources
Defense Council; Physicians for Social Responsibility
RASHES AMONG STUDENTS CLOSE SCHOOLS IN MORE THAN 15 STATES
We are writing to urge you to call upon the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, Center for Environmental Health, to report to
you on the procedures and results of its investigation into the
outbreak of apparently noncontagious rashes among schoolchildren that
have closed schools in more than 15 States. Of particular concern in
this investigation are the steps that local investigators took to
evaluate the possibility of chemical, physical, or biological agents.
We are especially concerned that this and future investigations of
threats to child environmental health and safety at school will be
hampered by the lack of baseline data. Thus, we urge you to ask as well
on how the Federal agencies participating in the President's
Interagency Task Force on the Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks would coordinate the development of and
implement a plan to monitor pupil illness and injury, as part of the
larger national health tracking system. Your support for CDC and other
agencies involved in setting up a health tracking system that
establishes baseline data and monitors child health is crucial.
Our letter to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is
attached, as is the timely response from CDC.
Thank you for your consideration of this request and for your
continuing support of CDC's work, especially since September 11.
For more information: Claire Barnett, Executive Director, Healthy
Schools Network, Inc., 773 Madison Avenue, Albany, NY 12208, 518-462-
0632.
______
Attachment.--Letter from CDC to Coalition
National Center for Environmental Health,
March 12, 2002.
Claire L. Barnett, MBA, Executive Director,
Healthy Schools Network, Inc.,
773 Madison Avenue,
Albany, NY.
Dear Ms. Barnett: Thank you for your email of March 6, 2002
highlighting concerns about the recent reports of rash among school-
aged children. It is good to know that Healthy Schools Network and your
partner organizations support our efforts to work with State and local
health departments, as well as school officials, to determine if the
different communities are experiencing a common illness.
As you are already aware, we are committed to continue monitoring
reports of rashes among school children. The CDC team is actively
working with State and local health and school officials to determine
if affected children within and between schools have developed rash as
a result of a common etiology. We have colleagues from occupational
health, epidemiology, infectious disease as well as environmental
health working on this.
We also recognize that State and local health and education
departments and schools may have limited resources for investigating
the reports of rash illness. CDC has developed and distributed a
document with suggested approaches for investigating reports of rash
illness among groups of school children, including the importance of
having a dermatologist examine these children. As noted in the
document, the presence of pesticides and other contaminants should be
considered as part of an environmental assessment. State health
department personnel are also aware of the availability and willingness
of CDC staff to provide onsite assistance, if needed.
With respect to identifying other groups of school children and/or
adults with rashes who should be considered as part of the
investigations, we were already aware of most of the incidents you
identified from your files. For the three situations that we did not
know of, we will contact the health department to obtain the relevant
information. In addition, we are encouraging State and local health
departments to follow-up with individuals who report similar rashes to
see if they have a direct or indirect association with affected school
children.
Again, I thank you for your support, and for your own efforts to
ensure healthy school environments for our nation's children.
Sincerely,
Richard J. Jackson, M.D., M.P.H.,
Director.
______
Attachment.--Letter from Coalition to CDC
March 6, 2002.
Richard J. Jackson, MD, MPH, Director,
National Center for Environmental Health,
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
4770 Buford Highway, NE (F29),
Atlanta, GA 30341-3724.
Re: School Rashes Report and Recommendations to Congress on Pupil
Health Tracking
Dear Dr. Jackson: We are writing to commend you for your continued
commitment to investigate the cause of rashes that have broken out in
students in schools in more than 14 States. Scores of schools have been
closed, and over 1,000 students and a good number of adults affected.
We understand that CDC is conducting its investigation in cooperation
with State and local authorities.
We are, however, concerned about the limited resources available to
State and communities for these purposes and urge that CDC ensure that
the investigations carried out are systematic and comprehensive. To
support and ensure the quality of the local investigations, CDC should
encourage its own as well as State and local investigators to work
directly with local pediatricians and dermatologists.
We also urge that CDC report to Congress, first, on the procedures
and findings of the investigation, and, second, on how any future
outbreaks can be monitored in a timely fashion.
Because the affected individuals do not present with fevers and
their rashes have not spread to family members at home, we also urge
you to ensure that special efforts are taken by skilled onsite
investigators to consider chemical and physical agents present in
affected schools.
There may be other school and community outbreaks involving
students that should be included the investigation. A review of Healthy
Schools Network's files indicates other cases that could be included
are: the Argyle, NY school which had a blistering rash event in the
late fall of 2001 affecting two individuals and attributed to an
unidentified powder that spilled from an envelope; the Queens, NY
school (already reported) to confirm whether the responding paramedics
were also affected, as reported by the New York Times, and if so how;
the Saxe Gotha Elementary School in South Carolina whose outbreak
developed in fall of 2000 and was sustained for 3 months; the
Sweetwater County Fair outbreak affecting 30 people in Wyoming, August
2001; and the rashes attributed to ``UV radiation'' from a broken light
fixture in a school gym in North Carolina, reported in October 2001.
CDC should also cooperate with Canadian authorities in Barrie, Ontario
to determine if the spring 2001 school rash outbreak was similar.
We understand that the investigation will be hampered by the lack
of a national system of tracking pupil health or injury at school, and
consequently the lack of any baseline data for comparison. Additionally
impeding school investigations are two other factors: no State mandates
school nurse staff positions and no State has its own required pupil
illness and injury reporting system in place.
Given the unprecedented nature of recent domestic security events,
and this outbreak of still unknown causes affecting so many children in
so many disparate locations, and the lack of baseline data, we strongly
recommend that CDC propose a system to track pupil illness and injury.
Baseline information about children's environmental health at school
must be developed and a tracking system established so that appropriate
and effective prevention and early intervention methods can be devised.
Sincerely,
American Public Health Association,
Beyond Pesticides,
Healthy Schools Network,
Natural Resources Defense Council,
Physicians for Social
Responsibility,
National Association of School
Nurses.
______
Vermont
1997--North Country Union High School. A student was rushed to the
hospital after losing consciousness because of an allergic reaction to
poor indoor air quality at the school. In the following months,
complaints from staff and from over 76 students followed--citing
headaches and gastrointestinal distress.
Between 1973 and 2000, 10 mercury spills occurred within schools in
Vermont. The Department removed over 500 pounds of Hg containing wastes
from the first 50 schools that signed up for the program.
1998--Barnet Elementary School. An odor problem attributed to
severe rodent infestation, combined with faulty ventilation, closed a
Vermont School.
Virginia
2000--Walker Upper Elementary School. A gifted student is tutored
at home due to sensitivity to mold and dust at school. Classroom
carpeting, moldy ceiling tiles, and poor ventilation are found at the
school. Toxic stachybotrys mold is also found in the school.
2001--Liberty High. Another Virginia school spends nearly $400,000
to correct a mold problem, yet acknowledge that residual fungal growth
remains.
Apr. 27, 2001--Jefferson Forest High School. A school is shut down
due to high levels of lead and dioxins found in playground soil. A
school nurse, alert to a pattern of health complaints among students
presses for air quality testing. A classroom is subsequently closed due
to mold contamination.
Rhode Island
2001--North Smithfield School. A 3d grade classroom is relocated
due to mold growth.
Nov. 2001--Smithfield Elementary School. Several dozen school
children are suddenly overcome by a stomach illness and sent home. A
mold problem at the school is one of the suspected causes.
New York
2001--Yonkers City School District. Committed to essential health &
safety repairs after calls to HSN from the Asthma Coalition and an
onsite visit revealed extraordinary mold contamination.
Mar. 2002--Parents from Frankfort Schuyler High School. Found their
children exposed to a sudden blowout of construction dust and debris in
the cafeteria during lunch. Masks were distributed to staff and
teachers but not to students.
Oct. 2001--Brentwood North Middle School. Organized a Health and
Safety Committee that includes parents resulting in the total
remediation of a serious mercury spill. The professional cleaning group
did a thorough mercury extraction finding mercury in areas where it was
thought none existed, several months after the original spill.
Pennsylvania
May 2002--East Pennsboro Area School District. Six children die in
a small town. The only common thread is that they all attend the same
school complex. Problem underscores the lack of adequate tracking.
May 2002--Florence School. A classroom is closed due to
stachybotrys contamination.
Apr. 25, 2002--Freemansburg South School. A school is closed for an
entire year due to mold contamination.
Feb. 2002--Springford School. A school is closed due to a
mysterious rash outbreak. The rash occurs at school and seems to
disappear when the children leave the building.
Oregon
Nov. 2001--Whittaker Middle School. A high school and elementary
school closed due to mold contamination.
Apr. 15, 2002--Chapman Elementary School. An elementary school is
closed due to a rash outbreak.
Feb. 11, 2002--Corvallis Oregon School District. A school finds
that its drinking water is contaminated with unacceptably high lead
levels due to old plumbing. Drinking fountains are shut off and bottled
water brought in.
Oct. 23, 2001--Whittaker Middle School. Teacher Magazine does an
expose on the plight of teachers sickened by a school found to have
extremely poor ventilation and mold and radon contamination. Cost of
repairs are estimated at $8.3 million.
Ohio
Aug. 2002--School for Creative & Performing Arts. The opening of
three schools delayed due to mold contamination.
Feb. 2002--Batavia Elementary School. Teachers who worked in a
school trailer found to have molds literally ``dripping from the
ceilings'' report on going health problems due to mold exposure.
Oct. 2001--Central Elementary School. A school is closed after
students are sickened by mold contamination.
Aug. 2001--Kirk Middle School. A middle school is closed due to
mold and asbestos contamination.
Aug. 2001--Girard School. 2000 residents file a complaint calling
for the removal and replacement of a school board due to mishandling a
mold and poor IAQ problem, leaving students and staff sickened.
New Jersey
Mar. 15, 2002--Oxford Street Elementary. Fumes from cleaning
solvents used by a custodian to clean graffiti in a classroom sends 39
students and a teacher to the hospital for treatment.
Nevada
Apr. 24, 2002--Pahrump Valley High. Stachybotrys contamination
closes a school, is found in three others.
Mar. 3, 2002--Carson City School District. 5 Modular units
contaminated with mold are removed from service.
Feb. 12, 2002--Spring-Ford Intermediate. A school is shut down
after more then 100 intermediate students develop a rash.
Montana
Feb. 6, 2002--Seeley Swan High School. An individual contacts HSN
concerned about a gym floor treatment, over 30 years old, that contains
mercury.
Apr. 10, 2001--Osage Beach. Individual contacts HSN re:
Stachybotrys contamination in a school.
Missouri
Aug. 15, 2002--Kickapoo High School, Springfield. Students return
to school to find the first floor closed due to mold contamination
clean-up.
Apr. 23, 2002--Belvins Elementary, Eureka schools. 35 children are
sent to the hospital, 9 by ambulance after being exposed to a wasp
pesticide on the athletic field.
Florida
May 11, 2002--Trapnell Elementary School. Mold contamination
displaces over 100 elementary school students
Aug. 30, 2001--Virginia Shuman Young Elementary, Fort Lauderdale.
Students and teachers are sickened by mold contamination in a school,
even as it was believed to have been remedied 3 years prior.
Colorado
Feb. 19, 2002--Littleton Public Schools. School built on a swampy
area. High CO2 levels and mold found. Teachers and students with health
complaints.
March 7, 2001--Sunset School in Cody School District. Students
complaints of sinus problems and watery eyes. Complaints stop when
school begins regular maintenance on the HVAC system.
Sept. 2000--Inspectors find unstable chemicals stored in 48 schools
around the State.
Connecticut
Feb. 14, 2002--Connecticut Education Association. Teachers from
across the State testify about their health problems due to poor indoor
air quality in schools at a State Legislative Hearing.
Feb. 12, 2002--McKinnely School in Fairfield. A teacher's career is
ended as she must accept permanent disability due to illness suffered
by exposure to molds in her classroom.
California
Feb.24, 2002--Agoura Hills Schools of the Las Virgenes Unified
School District battle molds since 1992. Teachers complain of serious
illness due to mold contamination at the high school and middle school.
Cleanup took place in 1999, however, teachers still find molds and
remain ill.
Oct. 23, 2001--Torrance South High School. Steps up measures to
address a mold problem in light of a union-sponsored survey of 50
teachers. Sixteen teachers suffer from serious sinus infections,
respiratory problems, eye irritations or allergies, 15 complain of
headaches and stomach ailments and four of the six pregnant teachers
last year had miscarriages.
Nov. 5, 2000--Catskill Elementary School. In South Los Angeles,
Hamilton Elementary School in Pasadena-San Marino and Almonsor Center
for Kids with Learning Disabilities were found by an investigative
reporter to be in a school with lead contaminated paint and paint chips
on window sill, picnic tables and wooden lattice in the playground with
levels from 8 to 31 times the EPA limit.
Dec. 20, 2001--An elementary school in Santa Barbara County is
evacuated due to a sprinkler application of metam-sodium, prompting an
investigation and report by the Cal. Dept. of Health Services.
__________
Statement of Veronika Carella, Concerned Parent and
Children's Advocate, Glenwood, MD
BACKGROUND
Children have the right grow to their full potential, both
academically and physically. Children have the right to a free and safe
public education. For some families, these goals are growing
increasingly difficult and sometimes impossible to obtain, because of
the conditions that they face in their school environment. I urge this
committee to address the concerns presented today and safeguard our
children while they attend school.
I respectfully present testimony as the parent of two children
seriously and perhaps permanently injured by exposure to hazardous
materials sustained while they attend public schools in Maryland. My
children unknowingly became hyper-sensitive to pesticides and some
hazardous chemicals due to unintentional exposure at school to EPA-
registered pesticides and other hazardous materials when they were
young (1995-1998). The resulting injuries have caused them to suffer
serious illnesses and miss a significant number of schools days. As a
family, we struggle with the physical, emotional and economic effects
of their conditions everyday since they were exposed to these hidden
school environment hazards.
Sadly, ours is not an isolated case. As a children's advocate and
active PTA member in the State of Maryland, I have seen, heard,
documented and testified to many horror stories from other families who
suffer needlessly from harmful products used in their children's school
environments.
NEED FOR LEGISLATION
There is no system to protect children. We have personally found
that school systems only do what they are legally required to do.
Ironically, because of the lack of legislative protections and funds to
adequately maintain our public schools, my children and others continue
to be exposed to known hazardous conditions and toxic products in their
public schools. The resulting injuries are unnecessary and pose an
unacceptable risk to their potential to live full and healthy lives as
adults.
Parents are required by law (Maryland) to send their children to
public school, yet there is a distinct lack of legislative protection
both on the State and Federal level to safeguard children while they
are at school. Parents appear to be powerless to protect their children
from known hazards in the school setting, thus school environments
continue to injure innocent and unsuspecting children and staff.
Every day there is the potential for chemical exposures. Public
school students and staff face hidden chemical assaults every day.
Children's small growing bodies cannot always process or tolerate the
chemicals that we all use in our every day world. This is especially
true for certain hazardous pesticides, cleaning products and paints by
many school systems. Lower risk alternatives must be made available.
NEED FOR FUNDING
Solutions exist. However, without legislation, schools will not
implement them. Without funding schools sometimes cannot implement
them. There is a need for legislation and adequate funding to support
such solutions such as least-toxic Integrated Pest Management (IPM)
where school maintenance and repair reduce and often eliminate the need
for chemical pest control methods. Without funding, search cannot
continue on identifying low risk alternatives to the products we know
have the potential to harm our children.
I strongly encourage you to promptly fund and to implement the
Healthy and High Performance Schools Act and strengthen EPA's school
environment programs. Thank you for your time and consideration.
__________
Statement of Rochelle Davis, Executive Director,
Illinois Healthy Schools Campaign
Chairman Jeffords and members of the committee, I am Rochelle
Davis, Executive Director of the Illinois Healthy Schools Campaign. I
would like to thank you for the opportunity to submit a written
statement regarding the work the Campaign is doing both in Illinois and
nationally.
On behalf of the Illinois Healthy Schools Campaign, I would like to
thank Senator Jeffords for convening this important hearing on school
environmental health.
The Illinois Healthy Schools Campaign and its 85 endorsing
organizations are dedicated to making Illinois schools environmentally
healthy places to learn and work.
A review of Illinois laws and regulations by the Environmental Law
Clinic found a number of glaring problems:
There are no standards for school indoor air that have
been established to protect children's health. (OSHA has exposure
standards; they do not take into account children's vulnerability and
apply only to employees.)
Current inspection programs only cover traditional health,
life and safety issues. They do not address indoor air quality (IAQ).
Also, current inspection reports are not readily available to the
public.
Except for the Integrated Pest Management in Schools Act,
there are no State initiatives promoting best practices for improving
school indoor air.
While most of the responsibility to address this problem lies with
State and local governments, we believe that the Federal Government can
and must play a leadership role on this important issue. More
specifically, the Federal Government should:
1. Fund and implement the Healthy and High Performance Schools
provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act.
2. Pass the Federal School Environmental Protection Act (SEPA, H.R.
111 and H.R. 3275/S. 1716 in the 106th Congress) that will encourage
schools to ``pest-proof'' their buildings and thus reduce their
reliance on the routine use of highly toxic chemicals.
3. Fund school repairs and construction, direct a Federal grant
program at high-needs schools, and offer tax credits to subsidize the
interest on school construction bonds used for repairs, renovations,
and new construction.
4. Fund the Clean School Bus Grant Program which will encourage the
use of natural gas and clean diesel power buses.
5. Strengthen the role of Federal agencies (U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Department of Education, Department of Energy, and
National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities) in promoting Healthy
and High Performing Schools.
Since children spend most of their hours outside the home in school
buildings, policymakers have a responsibility to ensure that children
can attend school in a toxin-free and healthy environment. On behalf of
the Illinois Healthy Schools Campaign, I want to thank you for
addressing these important issues.
__________
Statement of Tolle Graham, Coordinator,
Massachusetts Healthy Schools Network
The Massachusetts Healthy Schools Network is a statewide coalition
of parent, education, labor, environment and public health activists
working to address poor environmental conditions in schools. Through
education, technical assistance and advocacy we have been working on
the following initiatives over the last 5 years:
a. Design, construction and maintenance for healthy schools
b. Environmental and Indoor Air Quality information clearinghouse
c. Promotion of ``toxic-free'' schools
d. Establishment of school-based ``Environmental Teams''
Here are some of the environmental health and safety problems we
have identified in our State:
a. Over 800 schools in Massachusetts are located on or within \1/2\
mile of a hazardous site
b. School conditions ranking Massachusetts 49th in the Nation on
the overall measurement of buildings with at least one inadequate
building condition.
c. Asthma rates among school children reported higher in schools
with indoor air quality problems by the Massachusetts Department of
Public Health Bureau of Environmental Health Assessment Survey (1999)
d. Teachers report second highest work-related asthma cases in
Massachusetts
e. Several hundred new schools currently being built that duplicate
some of the same poor design features that pose potential environmental
siting hazards, IAQ problems and maintenance costs that school
districts can't afford.
Three years ago the Mass Healthy Schools Network organized the
first statewide conference ``Designing, Renovating, and Maintaining our
School Buildings'' co-sponsored by, the Office of Civil Rights in the
U.S. Department of Education, the Massachusetts Public Health
Association, the Massachusetts Coalition for Occupational Safety and
Health, the Massachusetts Medical Society, the Massachusetts Teachers
Association and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Twenty-two additional health, environment, school related
organizations and agencies endorsed it. Conference participants,
encouraged to attend as ``teams'' from their school districts, included
school administrators, teachers, parents, health professionals, school
committee members, school design committee members, as well as
facilities and maintenance staff.
In a follow-up conference survey, close to 50 percent of
respondents said they would like to see regulations or laws that
require Massachusetts Board of Education School Building Assistance
Bureau to include specifications regarding environmental and indoor air
quality standards. In addition, they recommended changing the bid
process to require all bids to estimate the costs of maintaining the
buildings and materials for life cycle cost comparison. Few schools
reported even having a written maintenance plan. These responses have
been echoed over and over again in all of the activities we've engaged
in since that conference.
The Mass Healthy Schools Network has spearheaded some reforms
within our State that have the potential for greatly improving school
environments and student and staff health. They are:
a. Won passage of the Childrens' and Family Protection Act
requiring integrated pest management plans in schools and school
grounds
b. Adoption of health and safety requirements (SMACNA Guidelines)
for schools seeking funds for construction projects from the
Massachusetts Department of Education.
c. 2d State in the Nation which is about to adopt a school
environmental siting regulation (public comment period till November
2002).
d. Developed model regulatory language for healthy high performance
schools which are being reviewed by the State Board of Education and
the Healthy Schools Council--representing State and Federal agencies
that have some authority over schools
Although we feel encouraged by these actions we feel strongly that
Federal requirements and funding are both critical to promote national
standards for school environmental health and safety. We therefore
support the testimony of our National advocates from the Childproofing
Our Communities Campaign and the New York Healthy Schools Network and
specifically ask you to support:
a. Requiring the EPA to develop school environmental siting
criteria and proper cleanup guidelines to reduce the risk of exposure
for children and school staff
b. Fund and implement the Healthy and High performance Schools
provision of the Leave No Child Behind Act
c. Funding to promote ``green building'' practices in school
construction and renovation.
d. Reinstate health and safety grants for emergency school
renovations (2000)
e. Expand the EPA's schools programs which provides ``tools'' for
schools to address their school indoor air and environmental hazards.
If committee members wish to get more detailed information about our
efforts to improve health and school environmental conditions in
Massachusetts, please feel free to contact: Tolle Graham, Healthy
Schools Program Coordinator, MassCOSH, 617 825-7233 x19 or
[email protected]
The Healthy Schools Network includes:
Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, New England Chapter
Boston Urban Asthma Coalition
Bowdoin Street Health Center
MA Association for the Chemically Injured
MA Coalition for Occupational Safety (MassCOSH)
MA Parent Teacher Association
MA Public Health Association
MA Teachers Association,
MA Public Interest Research Group (MassPIRG)
Toxics Action Center
Western MassCOSH
__________
Statement of the Healthy Schools Network, Inc., Sanitizers and
Disinfectants Guide
GOOD NEWS.--Sanitizers and disinfectants can play an important role
in protecting public health. They are designed to kill ``pests,''
including infectious germs and other microorganisms such as bacteria,
viruses, and fungi.
BAD NEWS.--Unfortunately, Sanitizers and disinfectants also contain
chemicals that are ``pesticides.'' Exposure to persistent toxic
chemicals in pesticides can cause serious health problems.
Healthy Schools Network, Inc. (HSN) recommends schools follow all
public health laws and regulations regarding the use of sanitizers and
disinfectants in schools, and proceed with extreme caution when using
any chemicals around children or staff. If the law does not require a
chemical use, schools should conduct a thorough analysis of the
potential risk of introducing another chemical cleaning product into
the school environment. The purpose of this Guide is to provide basic
information about the use of sanitizers and disinfectants.
(Underlined words are defined in the Glossary on page 4.)
HOW ``TOXIC'' IS TOXIC?
A chemical is toxic if it can cause harm to humans or the natural
environment. Some chemicals are more harmful, depending on how strong
they are, and whether or not they are persistent. The U.S. EPA must
register sanitizers and disinfectants before they can be placed on the
market for sale. Registration, however, does not assure safety.
CHILDREN ARE AT GREATER RISK
Children are especially vulnerable to toxic chemical exposure. They
can be exposed in the following ways:
Inhalation: Children breathe more air per pound of body
weight than adults. Toxic vapors or fumes can cause breathing problems,
or be absorbed into the bloodstream.
Skin contact: Children are less able to identify and avoid
hazards, and have immature systems that may not detoxify poisons.
Residues from chemicals can damage skin and eyes by burning tissue, or
be absorbed through the skin and carried to body organs.
Ingestion: Children play on the floor or ground, drink or
eat chemicals through hand-to-mouth touch, or can lick off a surface,
such as a toy or a desktop.
SANITIZING AND DISINFECTING IN SCHOOLS
Requirements
Federal law requires schools to follow all applicable
State and local laws and regulations for proper sanitation and health.
New York State regulations require sanitization of food
service areas only. Aside from this, there are no New York laws that
require sanitizing or disinfecting in schools. Despite this, some
schools apply or misapply sanitizers or disinfectants in other areas in
the school building.
The Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) Bloodborne Pathogen (BBP) regulations require a special cleanup
strategy (including the use of an EPA-registered disinfectant) to
protect employees when Hepatitis-or HIV contaminated blood or other
bodily fluids may be present. This most often occurs in emergency or
first-aid situations. Schools must still follow OSHA/BBP when, for
example a fight, playground/sports injury, or illness results in
bleeding or vomiting.
Out-of-State readers should check with their own State or local
Department of Health for regulations on the use of disinfectants or
sanitizers in school.
Common Sense Strategies
Thorough, routine frictional cleaning of surfaces is an
extremely effective strategy for protecting building occupant health.
The maintenance of healthy and safe buildings is a
challenge. Before a school goes beyond legal requirements and routinely
use sanitizers or disinfectants, these products should be selected
carefully and used exactly according to label directions to achieve the
best possible results, while protecting people--especially children--
from harmful chemical exposure.
Commonly Used Sanitizers and Disinfectants
The following chemicals are the active ingredient in many
sanitizers and disinfectants. Some products are sold as concentrates,
which can be highly toxic and should be used with extreme caution. The
level of toxicity will depend upon how much they are diluted. Some
chemicals are persistent, no matter how much they are diluted.
Phenol Compounds or Carbolic Acid: Used mostly in
industrial disinfectant products they are also purchased by schools.
Fatal poisoning can occur through skin absorption. Ingestion of small
even small amounts may cause vomiting, circulatory collapse, paralysis,
convulsions and induce comas. Exposure to vapors or fluids commonly
causes light sensitivity and sinus congestion. Skin contact can result
in severe burns, skin ulcerations, rashes, swelling, pimples and hives.
Sodium Hypochlorite--Chlorine Bleach: Used in many
disinfectant products, especially those designed to remove mold and
mildew. Only a limited number of products registered with the U.S. EPA
contain sodium hypochlorite. It is a respiratory irritant and can
trigger asthma attacks. Chlorine can burn eyes and skin, and if it is
mixed with other cleaners such as ammonia, it will produce a deadly
gas. When chlorine mixes with other organic materials, it can produce
dioxins and furans--the most toxic chemicals known--which are
persistent in the environment and bioaccumulate in living tissue.
Quaternary Ammonia Compounds--QUATS: When these compounds
are properly diluted they are non-staining and non-corrosive to most
surfaces. QUATS are irritating to the eyes and skin. Products using 1
percent of certain Quats as their active ingredient are considered
toxic to aquatic life.
Isopropyl alcohol--Isopropanol: This is the most common
form of alcohol used for cleaning compounds. It must be at a
concentration of 60 to 90 percent to be effective in killing germs.
This is a highly flammable chemical and can burn and irritate the eyes.
It is moderately toxic to humans by skin contact; drinking or breathing
can cause headaches, dizziness, hallucinations, shortness of breath,
nausea, vomiting, and coma.
Pine Oil: This naturally occurring oil derived from pine
trees is considered old technology, but it is still used today. As a
disinfectant, it is weak, and an 80 percent solution (8 quarts of pine
oil to 2 quarts of water) would be needed to kill germs. In its pure
form, it can cause eye and skin irritation to eyes and it is moderately
flammable.
Hydrogen Peroxide: Highly concentrated forms of hydrogen
peroxide can be irritating to the eyes and skin. Hydrogen peroxide is a
sanitizer found in cleaning products that also contain detergents and
other ingredients such as citrus oils because they effectively clean
soiled surfaces. (The hydrogen peroxide sold in drug stores as an
antiseptic should not be used as a cleaning product.)
germ reduction and pesticide exposure prevention checklist
1. Prevention:
Keep dirt out of the building and under control.
Clean often and carefully.
Encourage frequent handwashing among students and staff.
2. Think carefully before using a disinfectant product:
Evaluate areas most often touched by people.
Thoroughly clean these surfaces to remove dirt, spills,
finger marks, etc.
Re-evaluate the need to sanitize or disinfect: cleaning
may be sufficient.
If you choose to use a toxic product, follow the
directions on the label exactly (see #3 below).
Do not use toxic products when children are present.
Remember: a surface must be thoroughly cleaned before a
sanitizer or disinfectant is applied, otherwise the product may not be
fully effective. Allow time for the sanitizer or disinfectant to
react--make sure it is used when people will not be using the surface
until the reaction has occurred and the toxins have dissipated.
Make sure the area is well ventilated while the product is
being used and before the area is reoccupied, especially by children.
3. Read labels, check Materials Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) and ask:
What is the ``active ingredient?''
Is it designed to kill the target germs or other
organisms?
Is there a safer alternative that will do the job with
minimal risk of toxic exposure?
Has the staff been trained to use the product in a manner
that is protective of children?
Will it damage the surfaces cleaned with it?
4. Other tips:
If using a product from concentrate, make sure it is
diluted properly. Measure accurately and use proper equipment.
Use the smallest amount of the product possible to achieve
the intended result.
Sanitizers and disinfectants should be stored safely and
disposed of in an environmentally safe manner.
GLOSSARY
Microbes--Microorganisms such as bacteria, germs and viruses.
Active Ingredient--The ingredient that kills the target organism.
Toxic--Refers to chemicals that can cause harm to humans or
animals.
Hazardous--Refers to chemicals that are dangerous.
MSDS--Material Safety Data Sheets arc the manufacturer's summary of
the potential hazards of a product. They include information on health
effects, safe use, handling and storage, etc. For more information on
MSDS, call the Healthy Schools Network.
Disinfectant--A product designed to kill microbes.
Sanitizer--A product deigned to reduce the amount of microbes.
Sterilizer--A product designed to kill all microbes; for example,
in a hospital.
Frictional Cleaning--Cleaning while rubbing vigorously.
Persistent Toxic Chemical--A chemical that remains in the
environment and causes harm to humans and animals.
USEPA--United States Environmental Protection Agency.
sources and resources
Healthy Schools Network, Inc. Healthier Cleaning and
Maintenance Practices and Products for Schools. 518 462-0632 or http: /
/ www.healthyschools.org. Contains a step-by-step process and
checklists for healthier practices and products.
Thomas Barron, Carol Berg, Linda Bookman, Janitorial
Products Pollution Prevention Project, sponsored by USEPA, Region 9,
http: // www.westp2net.org.
US Environmental Protection Agency, http: //
www.usepa.gov/pesticides.
Minnesota Technical Assistance Program, University of
Minnesota, http://www.mtap.umn.edu
Ted Schettler, MD, MPH, Jill Stein, MD, Fay Reich, PsyD,
Maria Valenti, David Wallinga, MD, In Harm's Way: Toxic Threats to
Child Development, Greater Boston Physicians for Social Responsibility,
11 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, http://www.igc.org/psr/
School Buildings
[School Building Conditions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
School Building Condition (*/-) * Enrollment
State -------------------------------------------------------- Growth** 1996-
A B C D E F G H 2000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama................................. 59 39 63 30 22 38 26 34 91,000
Alaska.................................. 69 45 80 33 39 33 52 45 16,000
Arizona................................. 64 41 69 30 20 40 30 28 51,000
Arkansas................................ 42 25 62 22 8 22 12 20 11,000
California.............................. 71 43 87 40 25 41 29 56 1,064,000
Colorado................................ 58 32 63 26 29 28 37 33 40,000
Connecticut............................. 58 30 68 32 24 25 35 41 8,000
Delaware................................ 70 40 65 36 26 50 30 49 9,000
District of Columbia.................... 91 49 73 67 31 65 34 41 15,000
Florida................................. 57 31 80 23 18 32 35 42 98,000
Georgia................................. 37 26 48 24 12 18 12 38 113,000
Hawaii.................................. 57 21 78 16 -- 20 26 61 24,000
Idaho................................... 56 32 64 31 20 32 36 37 25,000
Illinois................................ 62 31 70 23 21 38 29 41 76,000
Indiana................................. 56 29 67 15 21 29 29 32 47,000
Iowa.................................... 50 19 67 7 11 21 24 15 n/a
Kansas.................................. 55 38 74 28 22 32 35 37 4,000
Kentucky................................ 59 31 63 34 18 24 26 25 8,000
Louisiana............................... 50 39 66 28 18 25 7 39 9,000
Maine................................... 60 38 71 38 20 30 29 35 11,000
Maryland................................ 67 31 65 33 19 26 29 36 93,000
Massachusetts........................... 75 41 80 41 33 36 42 49 195,000
Michigan................................ 52 22 61 20 17 22 25 38 49,000
Minnesota............................... 57 38 66 62 15 33 36 25 32,000
Mississippi............................. 50 28 54 27 11 28 9 20 3,000
Missouri................................ 48 27 58 20 10 30 13 26 61,000
Montana................................. 45 20 69 19 9 19 21 25 2,000
Nebraska................................ 44 35 61 20 17 24 33 21 9,000
Nevada.................................. 42 23 57 18 21 16 23 25 24,000
New Hampshire........................... 59 38 78 20 25 28 47 35 31,000
New Jersey.............................. 53 19 69 25 10 20 22 34 109,000
New Mexico.............................. 69 30 75 29 24 43 33 42 30,000
New York................................ 67 33 76 31 21 28 36 35 36,000
North Carolina.......................... 55 36 68 25 14 22 23 42 110,000
North Dakota............................ 49 23 62 19 20 28 29 18 n/a
Ohio.................................... 76 38 83 33 25 39 33 51 111,000
Oklahoma................................ 54 30 64 26 19 32 21 32 38,000
Oregon.................................. 63 39 84 36 27 41 40 34 62,000
Pennsylvania............................ 42 21 57 19 17 20 23 17 160,000
Rhode Island............................ 61 29 75 23 26 27 29 45 25,000
South Carolina.......................... 52 37 66 28 13 28 26 33 48,000
South Dakota............................ 45 21 50 26 15 25 26 15 n/a
Tennessee............................... 56 27 64 22 17 21 19 25 40,000
Texas................................... 46 27 60 23 14 26 16 22 298,000
Utah.................................... 62 34 72 32 22 33 34 27 47,000
Vermont................................. 53 21 58 21 23 19 32 26 5,000
Virginia................................ 60 27 58 32 17 32 22 29 110,000
Washington.............................. 60 44 74 32 30 39 42 35 133,000
West Virginia........................... 67 42 82 26 34 28 46 18 n/a
Wisconsin............................... 49 33 60 18 14 24 20 33 19,000
Wyoming................................. 49 24 68 24 11 19 24 16 6,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Source: School Facilities, Profiles of School Conditions by State, U.S. General Accounting Office, 1996.
** Projected enrollment growth, 1996-2006. Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics, Common Core of Data Surveys.
A--At least one inadequate building feature (roofs, framing, floors, foundations, exterior walls finishes,
windows, doors, interior finishes and trims, plumbing, heating, ventilation, air conditioning, electrical
power, electrical lighting and life-safety codes).
B--At least one building needing extensive repair or replacement.
C--At least one unsatisfactory environmental condition.
D--Crumbling roofs.
E--Inadequate plumbing.
F--Bad plumbing.
G--Poor ventilation.
H--Lacking enough power outlets and wiring to accommodate computers and multimedia equipment in classroom.
October 4, 2002.
Mr. Joel Klein, Chancellor,
NYC Dept. of Education,
110 Livingston Street,
Brooklyn, NY.
Re: The quality of indoor air at PS65Q, and the toxicity of
TriChloroEthylene that lies beneath the premises
Dear Mr. Klein: I turn your attention to the attached material that
refers to the captioned subject. This letter comes to you and your good
office after I have observed you on the television media making
specific comments on your stance with NYC's children, viz., ``children
come first.''
The situation at PS65Q has evolved into one with many confusing
matters and has left parents doubtful and insulted. As the letter
indicates, the TCE presence was uncovered since May of 2002, with the
relevant DOE officials implementing the necessary steps to have the
indoor air and the subsoil tested for the contaminant. The DOE had
three meetings (to date 08/29/02) with parents indicating that the
school was safe. At the meeting in June 2002, it was revealed that the
air in the basement classrooms contained high levels of carbon dioxide,
which is expected, as the basement rooms have no ventilation. My
daughter has been in two classrooms with no ventilation. In the third
grade she was in a cramped room with no windows, and in the fourth
grade she was in a basement classroom, again with no windows. She has
since developed asthma since attending PS 65Q. There are other children
in the school who have been sick, the statistics of which your office
investigated and determined that it compares with that in other Queens
schools. The actual documentation of the illnesses cannot be trusted
due to the unapproachability of the medical staff at the school. This
is not an accusation, but a mere feedback from the children.
In tests conducted in July 2002, in the subsoil airspaces, TCE was
present. At the meeting in August 2002 those results were disclosed. At
that meeting, Congressman Anthony Weiner was present and raised
questions regarding the plume of TCE. The experts from NYCDOH indicated
that the plume is growing and can grow upward. The most important
question asked was relating to the cleanup of the TCE and what has been
done so far. At that time, the NYCDOE was in negotiation with Ozone
Industries to agree on the financial part of the cleanup. The NYCDOE
was supposed to also install some air evaporators to assist in the
ventilation. Further to that time, I am uninformed as my daughter was
transferred to PS62Q.
This brings me to another confusing matter. At the end of the last
school year, the parents suddenly received application forms for
transfers for students because PS65Q was now a ``Title I'' school. This
was unknown until that time. Prior to that event, at one of the
meetings, the Superintendent for District 27, Mr. Bromme, indicated
that we could call the district office and request transfers for
children if the parents wanted their children out of PS65Q. Many
parents, of course, jumped at that offer, only to find out that the
options were indeed very far away. I requested a transfer to PS62Q and
was denied because there were no seats, yet under the Title I transfer,
there were. That needs explaining.
Another concept that needs explaining is the meaning of ``Title I''
and what broad parameters need to be satisfied for this to be labeled.
I have been told that it relates to the overall lowered academic
performance of the school on a whole and that it needs improvement. The
school administration has conveyed that ``Title I,'' relates to the
financial status of the parents of the children who attend and the fact
that the children receive free breakfasts and lunches. How does this
now connect to The No Child Left Behind Act?
Whatever the policies of the NYCDOE mandate for standards is not
questionable, but rather the people therein who enforce such mandates.
The communicating part of your department needs to be versed in such
issues before they can convey it to the parent population, some of who
are not highly educated as they. The explanations given by the district
and the school are different.
Your views on these issues are sought, as well as the agenda for
the cleanup, which now affects the community.
Respectfully,
Katie Acton,
Parent/Resident.
Statement of Philip J. Landrigan, M.D., M.Sc., Ethel H. Wise Professor
and Chair, Department of Community and Preventive Medicine, Professor
of Pediatrics, Director, Center for Children's Health and the
Environment, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, NY
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee: my name is Philip J.
Landrigan, MD. I am a pediatrician, Chairman of the Department of
Community and Preventive Medicine and Director of the Center for
Children's Health and the Environment of the Mount Sinai School of
Medicine in New York City. A copy of my curriculum vitae is attached to
my testimony.
I will focus my testimony on environmental threats to children's
health in America's schools.
INTRODUCTION
School is a place where children spend 5 to 8 hours per day, 5 days
each week for 12 or more years of their lives. For our nation's future,
it is essential that schools provide our children a sound education and
prepare them for future citizenship. It is also essential that our
nation's schools provide a safe haven for our children and contain an
environment that is free from threats to children's health.
Unfortunately, schools are not always free from environmental
hazards. Pesticides, lead, and asbestos are three classes of hazardous
chemical that have been found in America's schools. These are chemicals
that can cause disease, acute as well as chronic. They can interfere
with children's learning.
Fortunately, there exist well-studied, and proven techniques for
dealing with these environmental hazards in schools and for minimizing
the threats they pose to our children's health. I shall review this
information in my testimony.
CHILDREN'S VULNERABILITY TO ENVIRONMENTAL TOXINS
Children are especially sensitive to environmental toxins. Pound
for pound of body weight, children have greater exposure to pesticides
because they drink more water, eat more food and breathe more air than
adults. Two additional characteristics of children further magnify
their exposures: (1) they live and play close to the floor; and (2)
they constantly put their fingers into their mouths. Children's
metabolic pathways, especially in the first months after birth are
immature. Generally they are less well able to metabolize, detoxify,
and excrete toxicants than adults and thus are more vulnerable to them.
Children are undergoing rapid growth and development, and their
developmental processes are easily disrupted. Since children have more
future years of life than most adults, they have more time to develop
chronic diseases that may be triggered by early exposures.
Pesticides
The Problem. Schools, with their cafeterias and lunches stored in
lockers, provide an ideal indoor habitat for pests. According to
cooperative extension services, common insects that inhabit school
buildings include cockroaches, bees, wasps, ants, flies as well as
rodents and birds.
Pesticides are widely used in schools to combat these pests.
Pesticides are a diverse group of chemical compounds and they are among
the classes of toxic chemicals most commonly encountered by children.
Pesticides include insecticides, fungicides, herbicides, and
rodenticides.
Pesticides have been shown to cause injury to human health, as well
as damage the environment. The health effects include acute and
persistent injury to the nervous system, lung damage, injury to the
reproductive organs, dysfunction of the immune and endocrine systems,
birth defects, and cancer. The principal classes of insecticides in use
in the United States are the organophosphates, carbamates, and
pyrethroids. The organophosphates and carbamates are toxic to the
nervous system and some of the pyrethroids are believed to be toxic to
the reproductive system and disruptive to endocrine function.
A recent survey by Connecticut environmental researchers showed
that schools in 13 of the 16 school districts in Connecticut were
treated with pesticides on a monthly basis, even though they may not
have needed it. Surveys in other States have similarly shown that 85 to
90 percent of school districts routinely apply pesticides, whether or
not there is evidence of need. Pesticides used indoors included
bendiocarb, chlorpyrifos, cyfluthrin, cypermethrin, pyrethrin,
piperonyl butoxide, tralomethrin, and bromadiolone. In addition, seven
school districts in Connecticut reported that townships were
responsible for maintaining the athletic fields used by the schools; of
these, 53 percent used herbicides, some of them known carcinogens.
The effects of pesticide poisoning on children can be acute and
obvious, or chronic, cumulative, and subtle. The Consumer Product
Safety Commission collects data on acute pesticide poisonings in the
United States, based on statistical sample of emergency rooms in 6,000
selected hospitals. From 1990 to 1992, an estimated 20,000 emergency
room visits were the result of pesticide exposure. The incidence was
disproportionately high among children, who accounted for 61 percent or
more than 12,000 of these cases. Organophosphates were the class of
compounds most frequently involved.
Acute high-dose exposure to organophosphate pesticides inhibits the
enzyme acetylcholinesterase in the nervous system, leading to a
spectrum of cholinergic symptoms, including lacrimation, abdominal
cramps, vomiting, diarrhea, miosis, and profuse sweating. The more
severe cases progress to respiratory arrest and death. Studies in
animals indicate that the young are more susceptible than adults to
this acute neurotoxic syndrome, probably because the young are less
able to detoxify and excrete organophosphates.
Concern about the chronic effects of pesticides focuses on two
particular areas: subclinical neurotoxicity and disruption of endocrine
function. The notion of the possible ``subclinical toxicity'' of
pesticides has gained increasing attention in recent years. This term
denotes the idea that relatively low-dose exposure to certain
chemicals, pesticides among them, may harm various organ systems
without producing acute symptoms or being evident in a standard
clinical examination. The concept arose from studies of children
exposed to relatively low levels of lead who were found to have
suffered loss of intelligence and altered behavior even in the absence
of clinically detectable symptoms. The underlying premise is that there
exists a continuum of toxicity in which clinically apparent effects
have asymptomatic, subclinical counterparts. It is important to note
that these subclinical changes represent truly harmful outcomes and are
not merely homeostatic or physiological ``adjustments'' to the presence
of pesticides.
Recent findings on the developmental toxicity of chlorpyrifos in
animals illustrate the potential of pesticides to produce subclinical
neurotoxicity in infants and children. The mechanism of chlorpyrifos-
induced neurotoxicity appears to involve injury to the adenylyl cyclase
cascade, a system in brain cells that mediates cholinergic as well as
adrenergic signals. Even at low doses of exposure, insufficient to
compromise survival or growth, chlorpyrifos was found to ``produce
cellular deficits in the developing brain that could contribute to
behavioral abnormalities.''
Because these animal data are so recent, studies of the
developmental toxicity of chlorpyrifos in human infants have not yet
been conducted. However, the animal data raise the concern that
chlorpyrifos may not be the only organophosphate pesticide that could
be a developmental toxicant in humans. The potential for such toxicity
may be substantial in urban communities, where chlropyrifos is heavily
applied in closed apartments.
On the basis of these findings, the EPA recently issued a ruling
that bans the sue of chlorpyrifos in schools, parks, and day-care
settings and that prohibits and phases out nearly all residential use.
Preventing developmental disability in children was the major reason
for this ruling. But many other similar organophosphate remain on the
market and are used in schools.
The potential of pesticides to disrupt endocrine function has been
recognized for nearly four decades, ever since the 1962 publication of
Rachel Carson's Silent Spring. Carson's work showed that eagles and
ospreys who had been heavily exposed to DDT had suffered disrupted
estrogen cycles. As a result, these two predatory species at the top of
the food chain were producing thin-shelled, nonviable eggs. Carson's
work, along with the desire to prevent the bald eagle from becoming
extinct, prompted the EPA to ban DDT in the early 1970s.
Recent concern about the endocrine toxicity of pesticides in humans
has focused especially on the pyrethroids, a class of insecticides
widely used as substitutes for chlorpyrifos and other organophosphate
and carbamate pesticides. Pyrethroids have been used in pediatric
practice to control body lice and scabies instead of more toxic agents
such as lindane, and their acute toxicity is generally low. However,
hormonal activity has been reported for certain pyrethroids in
laboratory systems, suggesting that their capacity to affect hormonal
and reproductive development in children should be investigated
further.
The Solution. The control of pests in schools does not require
heavy, preventive sprayings of toxic pesticides that can be harmful to
children. The approach to pest management that is preferred by public
health professionals is Integrated Pest Management (IPM). This concept
calls for an approach that relies on a thorough knowledge of each pest
and use of least-toxic, common-sense methods of keeping pests under
control. The best, least-toxic way to control pests is to prevent them
from ever infesting an area in the first place--make sure they cannot
get in, deny them access to food and water, and make the building
uninhabitable. The IPM approach to cockroach control begins with
eliminating the things that are attractive to them: take away their
water sources by repairing leaky pipes and faucets, and treat areas
that have condensation on them; wipe out their travel plans by
repairing cracks and crevices with caulk; and take away their food
sources by cleaning countertops and cooking surfaces. In IPM, chemical
pesticides are used only as the strategy of last resort. I highly
recommend that school districts contact their local cooperative
extension program to see if they have IPM advice for pests in the
district's region.
A legislative approach that has proven successful in several States
in reducing children's pesticides exposures in schools is a legally
mandated requirement that school districts provide parents advance
notification of any planned application of pesticides. This approach
has been adopted into law in Connecticut. Another sensible approach
would be to develop a list of the most toxic pesticides and ban them
from school premises.
Lead Paint
The Problem. Lead is a toxic metal that can damage the kidneys,
heart, and gastrointestinal system and can lead to brain damage in
children. Granted, severe cases of lead poisoning have become less
common in this country as medical treatment and efforts at prevention
have become more sophisticated. However, we still need to be concerned
because even low levels of lead can damage the developing brain and
nervous system of a child. Studies have shown that children with even
small amounts of lead in their blood have more difficulty learning and
have lower intelligence quotients (IQ) than children without lead in
their blood. In addition to affecting intelligence, lead poisoning may
also cause behavioral problems, including a shortened attention span.
The effects of lead poisoning (which are permanent) can occur silently
and may often cause no symptoms.
The Solution. If lead paint is present, schools should call their
local or State health department to find out what steps need to be
taken to insure that children are not at risk for lead poisoning. Even
if lead paint is not chipping or peeling, it can still pose a risk to
children.
Lead in Drinking Water
The Problem. In many older schools, drinking water is contaminated
by lead because these schools have lead pipes in their plumbing. Some
schools also have lead solder in their plumbing (lead solder was banned
from use by the Federal Government in 1986). When water sits in contact
with lead pipes or lead solder overnight, over a weekend, or during
school vacations, it is possible for lead from the plumbing system to
leach into the drinking water. Lead has also been found in some types
of water fountains. Since childhood lead poisoning results from a
child's cumulative exposure to lead from many sources in the
environment, it is important to eliminate lead from every possible
source in the environment, including water.
The Solution. The EPA has published guidelines to prevent lead
poisoning. Under these guidelines, schools are required to test their
water in a prescribed fashion and in accordance with EPA guidelines. If
lead is detected in the water, the source must be identified and
removed.
Asbestos in Schools
The Problem. Asbestos is a mineral that has been used in schools
for heat insulation and for acoustic purposes. Since the 1920s,
billions of tons of asbestos have been used in homes, schools, and
public buildings in the United States. The heaviest use of asbestos
occurred in buildings built in the 1950s and 1960s. In the 1970s, the
use of asbestos rapidly declined as the health hazards of asbestos
became better known. Such hazards include lung cancer and malignant
mesothelioma (a cancer of the chest and abdomen lining). These cancers
occur years after inhaling asbestos fibers. Lung cancer can occur 10 to
30 years after exposure to asbestos fibers, while mesothelioma
generally occur 20 to 50 years after exposure.
The Solution. If asbestos is in poor condition, with apparent
flaking and friability, it needs to be removed by a licensed, certified
asbestos removal expert. If the asbestos is in good condition, with no
flaking or cracking, it is better to leave it alone, and a commonly
used approach is to put physical barriers between it and children,
while continuing to monitor its condition on a regular basis. Under the
EPA's Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA), schools are
inspected and asbestos removed, according to carefully developed
regulations.
Conclusion
Our children are our future. Our responsibility as the elder
members of our society is to care for our children, protect their
health, and guide them to successful adulthood.
The protection of children against toxic chemicals in the
environment poses a major challenge to modern society. Hundreds of new
chemicals are developed every year and released into the environment,
and many of these chemicals are untested for their toxic effects on
children. Thus, the extent of children's exposures to environmental
chemicals will almost certainly continue to increase: The problem is
not going away. The challenge, therefore, is to design policies that
will protect children against environmental toxins and will allow our
children to grow, develop, and reach maturity without incurring
neurologic impairment, immune dysfunction, reproductive damage, or
increased risk of cancer as a consequence of toxic environmental
exposures.
The hearing that you have convened today represents a spectacular
opportunity to build policies that will meet this challenge. I commend
you on having convened the hearing.
__________
Statement of Susanne Miller,
Vermont Public Interest Research Group (VPIRG)
Good morning, Chairman and members of the Environment and Public
Works Committee. Please accept my testimony from the Vermont Public
Interest Research Group (VPIRG) regarding healthy schools in Vermont
for today's hearing on ``Green Schools.''
Currently, many Vermont schools have environmental health problems
that pose health risks to children and staff. For many years now, VPIRG
has worked to rid schools in Vermont of environmental hazards and
reduce the possibility of children being exposed to harmful chemicals
while at school. A few examples of environmental hazards include poor
indoor air quality from old ventilation and heating systems, the
buildup of unhealthy molds, routine application of pesticides within
(and outside) many Vermont schools, and the use of harmful chemicals
found in certain cleaning fluids and solvents, school laboratories, and
art supplies.
In 1998 VPIRG conducted a survey of Vermont schools to determine
the extent of chemicals found in the classroom. We learned that 75
percent of schools surveyed used pesticides on a monthly basis, while
88 percent of those surveyed used maintenance products containing
chemicals linked to negative health effects. Headaches, respiratory
problems, stomach aches, and behavioral and learning disabilities are
all common symptoms of environmental health exposures.
While the survey was conducted, a student in Newport Vermont was
rushed to the hospital after losing consciousness because of poor air
quality found at North Country Union High School. The school was found
to have elevated levels of benzene, styrene, and carbon monoxide, and
air circulation within the school was poor. Multiple complaints
followed from staff, and at least 76 students cited headaches and
stomach problems. At first, the school administration was very
reluctant to acknowledge that there was a problem with indoor air
quality, but after the threat of a ``sick building syndrome'' lawsuit
from staff, and heightened community activism, the school agreed to
look into the issue. Shortly thereafter with the help of the community
and some EPA funding, the school revamped its ventilation system and
drastically improved the air quality in the buildings, creating a much
safer environment.
The North Country Union High School is not an isolated case of air
quality hazards in Vermont's schools. In fact, the State legislature
recognized that there could be serious health consequences from
environmental hazards and passed a law in 2000 known as the ``School
Environmental Health Act,'' or Act 125. The law requires the Vermont
State Department of Health to create a voluntary program for all
schools that will reduce harmful exposures to chemicals, and lead to
improved environmental health conditions in schools.
Although the intent behind the law was clear in that it was to
improve school environmental health, unfortunately the implementation
of this law has been dismal. There are three reasons why this law has
not yet improved environmental health at a single school since 2000.
First there is inadequate funding and resources available for
implementation of an effective statewide program. Second, there is
strong reluctance from many school administrators in recognizing that
indoor air quality and environmental conditions at schools can relate
to or cause serious health problems among students and staff. Third,
the act does not require Vermont's schools to actually take steps
toward making buildings and facilities safer. This act is not well
designed to protect children.
Since the law's inception, VPIRG has worked hard with State
officials to further the implementation of Act 125. Sadly, the lack of
funding and of public awareness has significantly delayed the
improvement of environmental health in Vermont's Schools. Vermont
desperately needs Federal assistance with funding and with resources to
make its schools and buildings greener and safer for children.
VPIRG is currently conducting a new survey with the University of
Vermont, and the Vermont Department of Education to determine the
extent of pesticide use within and outside of Vermont's schools and
buildings. Many States require advanced notification to parents when
pesticides are applied at school, and the use of integrated pest
management policies in schools. Integrated pest management policies,
and pest-proofing of schools is a highly cost effective way for our
schools to improve their infrastructure and to reduce the use of toxic
chemicals. Vermont's schools lack these requirements, and so far many
completed surveys are showing that schools are not engaging in
integrated pest management, are potentially exposing children to
pesticides at school, and are not warning parents of pending
applications. Nor are they taking appropriate steps to pest-proof their
buildings and facilities.
Although this survey only focuses on pesticide use at schools, we
strongly believe that poor air quality, mold outbreaks, and other
chemical toxic exposures are likely to be found throughout Vermont's
schools. Not implementing Act 125 and not having Federal funds or
legislation to promote environmental health at schools puts all
Vermont's children at risk. We ask for your assistance in making school
buildings and grounds in Vermont, and around the U.S. safer.
Specifically, we are asking for:
The funding and implementation of the Healthy and High
Performance Schools provisions of the ``Leave no Child Behind Act''--
which will allow the U.S. Department of Education to research the links
between environmental hazards at schools and children's health and
learning and establish State-based programs for greener schools.
Expansion of the U.S. EPA's schools programs to improve
indoor air quality.
Passage of the Federal School Environmental Protection Act
(SEPA) which would make schools ``pest-proof'' and would reduce the
necessity for routine reliance on pesticide use.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter, and for the
opportunity to voice concern about school environmental health in
Vermont. If I can be of any further assistance to your committee I
would be happy to provide more information.
__________
Statement of Daniel Swartz, Executive Director,
Children's Environmental Health Network
The Children's Environmental Health Network commends this committee
for bringing attention to the issue of children's environmental health
and the important relationship between children's health and the school
environment.
We appreciate the opportunity to submit this testimony for the
record. The Children's Environmental Health Network is a non-partisan
and multi-disciplinary national project whose mission is to protect the
fetus and the child from environmental hazards and to promote a healthy
environment. The Network's Board of Directors and committee members
include numerous experts in children's environmental health who serve
on key Federal advisory panels and scientific boards.
The last few years have seen a dramatic increase in awareness of
the simple fact that children may be harmed by a wide range of
environmental toxicants--often in ways quite dissimilar to adults. Yet
much more needs to be done in educating the public, changing behavior,
amending our policies, and gaining more information if we are to meet
the challenge of providing a healthy environment and protecting our
children from environmental risk.
In my testimony, I'd like to highlight a few of the basic medical
and scientific concepts that form the foundation for this field and
outline how our policies relating to school facilities can better
recognize these concepts.
A fundamental maxim of pediatric medicine is that children are not
``little adults.'' What does this mean when we talk about children and
environmental toxicants? Scientists have documented the many
differences between adult and child behavior and exposures; often these
differences lead to higher exposures for children. The medical evidence
is unassailable that every child experiences particular windows of
vulnerability from conception through adolescence. In brief, children
can be more susceptible to harm caused by environmental agents.
Exposures that for an adult may have little or no consequence can
result in life-long harm for a child.
There is clear, sound science underlying these principles. There is
a solid consensus in the scientific community for these concepts. As
additional scientific knowledge in this field expands, it continues to
reinforce this foundation. I am attaching materials on these points
developed by the Network for additional background (Attachment 1).
If we take these principles and apply them to the school
environment, these are the types of pediatric, scientific and public
health concepts that should be shaping the policies and activities of
our educational institutions:
Children deserve a safe and healthy school environment,
including protection from harmful environmental exposures.
Every child experiences particular windows of
vulnerability from conception through adolescence. Exposure at those
moments of vulnerability to environmental hazards can lead to permanent
and irreversible damage.
These windows of vulnerability do not exist for adults, so
standards based on effects on mature systems will not take into account
children's vulnerabilities.
Children's exposures to environmental toxicants are not
the same as adult exposures; exposure estimates based on adult
exposures are likely to understate children's exposures.
Past practices which do not take children's
vulnerabilities and exposures into account cannot be assumed to be
protective of children's health.
Parents and other caregivers deserve to know what their
children are exposed to in school facilities and the impact of such
exposures.
Research, data collection and other components of public
health infrastructure must be in place to identify and correct existing
problems and to prevent potential environmental problems in school
facilities and children and their caregivers should have access to
these resources.
However, in most cases our educational facilities are not guided by
these concepts. Children spend hours every day in and around their
school. Chemical toxicants and biological agents in the classroom, on
the playground, in the science lab, or in other school facilities can
lead to health risks and adverse learning conditions. They can affect
many different body systems and impact health, learning, productivity,
and self esteem. Yet few steps have been taken to protect children from
environmental toxicants in the school environment. I am also attaching
to this testimony a summary of the health effects and toxicants of
greatest concern in the school environment. (Attachment 2)
LEADERSHIP THROUGH POLICY
We join with other witnesses testifying today commending the Senate
for its leadership in passing such important initiatives as the Healthy
and High Performance Schools provisions in H.R. 1/P.L. 107-110, the
``No Child Left Behind Act of 2001'' and the ``School Environment
Protection Act.''
Under the Healthy and High Performance Schools program:
The Department of Education is directed to undertake a
study of ``unhealthy public school buildings'' and their health and
learning impacts.
A joint Department of Education-Department of Energy-
Environmental Protection Agency grant program was created to award
grants to State and local educational agencies to support healthy and
high performance school buildings.
The Department of Education is to biennially report to
Congress on this program.
The Network was delighted at the enactment of these provisions. We
strongly urge their full implementation, and expect these measures to
receive the strong support of both Congress and the Administration. The
Department of Education must provide funding and implementation of
these provisions. The Department must also be a full participant in
activities such as the Interagency Task Force on Children's
Environmental Health and Safety and the National Children's Study.
Though the Network and others were heartened by the Senate's
decision to--twice--adopt the ``School Environment Protection Act,'' we
were doubly disappointed by the House's decisions not to accept these
important provisions on the education bill and the farm bill.
Many school districts around the Nation have implemented integrated
pest management (IPM) programs to minimize the use of pesticides and
have instituted processes to provide advance notice of pesticide use in
schools to parents and employees. The ``School Environment Protection
Act'' would further encourage schools to adopt IPM programs and would
provide a valuable tool for parents.
ADDITIONAL STEPS
These efforts are vital, but additional efforts are needed, such as
research into the relationship between environmental hazards at school
and their affect on health and learning. This type of research must
also involve interagency coordination and support.
Little is known about the incidence of health effects which may
have a school-related environmental component, the substances to which
children are exposed in school, and connections between these exposures
and health effects. Little is known about exposures in the school
environment, where millions of American children spend a large portion
of their childhood. No research or data collection efforts exist.
Schoolchildren and their families deserve access to an agency which can
help answer their questions, investigate concerns and provide
information on exposures.
A network for identifying, investigating, responding to, and
preventing environmental health problems in schools is needed to help
protect children's health in school. Data systems that link
environmental factors with health conditions need to be developed to
obtain data for disease prevention and health promotion. Such a network
would help to close the gap in knowledge regarding the prevalence and
incidence of environmentally related conditions and environmental
exposures. The Network urges the committee to support S. 2054, the
``Nationwide Health Tracking Act of 2002.''
Schoolchildren deserve to be protected from environmental hazards
in their school; however, no standards exist providing such
protections.
For example, in the States with Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) coverage, school employees are covered by
standards including:
a written hazard communication standard that lists all
products with toxic ingredients, access to material safety data sheets,
training for employees on chemical hazards;
protective equipment for employees to use;
a laboratory standard covering science teachers and
technicians;
emergency evacuation procedures; and
access to any environmental monitoring performed by the
employer.
However, students are not covered by these standards.
Also, as a result of queries from school personnel, the National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), has visited
schools for Health Hazard Evaluation (HHE) investigations, which assess
risks and exposure and health consequences for employees when there are
no standards. These investigations can be requested by employers and
employees.
Just as is the case with OSHA, schoolchildren are not under the
jurisdiction of NIOSH, so the institute does not have the authority to
undertake investigations based on concerns about student risks,
exposures and health effects. The Network believes school children
deserve at the very least the level of protection and research afforded
working adults--and probably even more protection.
We commend you for the leadership you have shown by holding this
hearing. Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify.
______
Attachment 1.--Protecting Children from Environmental Toxicants
(Children's Environmental Health Network)
Every day, we are exposed to dozens, perhaps hundreds, of
chemicals. Such extensive exposure is relatively new. Since World War
II, thousands of new, primarily synthetic, chemicals have been
discovered and introduced into commerce and our environment. In 1940,
the annual production of synthetic chemicals was 1.3 billion pounds; in
1980, it was 320 billion pounds.\1\ In 1999, more than 7 billion pounds
of toxic chemicals were released into the nation's environment.\2\
Chemicals are ubiquitous; traces of synthetic compounds are found in
all humans and animals around the world.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Diagnosing and Treating Environmental Health Problems.
Interview with Robert R. Orford, Minnesota Medicine 1991; 74:7-10.
\2\ Based on data from the U.S. EPA's Toxic Release Inventory for
1999, posted on http: // www.scorecard.org / env-releases/us-map.tc.
\3\ Colborn T., Dumanoski D/ and Myers JP. Our Stolen Future. New
York, NY:Dutton, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both synthetic and natural chemicals, such as lead, once released
into the environment, can harm the health of humans and wildlife.
The diverse and growing range of chemicals to which we are exposed
means that today's children live in an environment vastly different
from previous generations. Currently more than 70,000 chemicals are in
use. For the majority of these chemicals, little is known about their
health effects on children.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Schaefer M. Children and Toxic Substances: Confronting a Major
Public Health Challenge. Environmental Health Perspectives 1994; 102
(Supp 2) :155-156.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHILDREN ARE NOT JUST ``LITTLE ADULTS''
Children, from conception through adolescence, are in a dynamic
state of growth as their immature nervous, respiratory, reproductive,
immune and other systems develop. Because of these developing systems,
growing organisms can be more vulnerable to permanent and irreversible
damage from toxicants than mature organisms.
Children experience the world differently than adults, meaning that
children's exposures to environmental toxicants and their levels of
exposure can vary dramatically from those of adults.
THE DELICATE CHOREOGRAPHY OF CHILDREN'S GROWTH
The primary task of infancy and childhood is growth and
development. If growth and development are hampered, the chances of a
healthy adulthood are dramatically decreased. Many different kinds of
environmental insults have the potential to damage these natural
processes, potentially leading to lifetime harm. It is often impossible
to repair damages that occur in childhood.
Studies of the impact of exposure to environmental toxicants on
development make clear that not just the degree and route of exposure
but also the timing of the exposure affects the response.
Example: Development of the Nervous System. One of the critical
organ systems to be considered in evaluating the effect of
environmental toxicants on the fetus, infant, and child is the nervous
system. Its anatomic and functional development is complex, intricate,
and dependent on a precise sequence of events that occur at specific
points in the development of the child. This exquisitely scripted
pattern of development can be disrupted and irreparably injured by
various agents at various stages, resulting in very specific
alterations of neurologic and behavioral development. Key stages in the
anatomical development of the central nervous system, beginning in
utero and continuing into adult life, include:
Formation of the neural tube, an embryonic structure that
leads to all further brain development.
Neuron proliferation, the growth of functional brain
cells.
Cell migration, the process by which cells move from one
place to another to form the complex structure of the brain.
Synaptogenesis, the process by which connections between
neurons occur. Both the numbers and complexity of these
interconnections affect the functioning of the brain.
Cell death. The nervous system initially produces more
neurons than it needs. The process of brain maturation requires the
retention of some neurons and the natural loss of other neurons.
Pruning of synapses. Synaptogenesis, which peaks at 2
years of age, creates more connections between neurons than are needed.
Subsequently, there is an orderly process of loss of some connections
and retention of others.
Myelination, the process by which the communicating
structures of neurons are covered to protect them and improve their
function. Myelin functions like the insulation on an electrical cord.
Each one of these vital steps to a healthy brain and nervous system
can be disrupted by environmental agents, resulting in permanent injury
or impairment.
Because of children's developing systems, children can be more
susceptible to harm caused by environmental agents. Exposures that for
an adult may have little or no consequence can result in life-long harm
for a child.
Children are different from adults in other ways. Because
biochemical systems are still developing in the fetus and the child,
their ability to detoxify and excrete toxins differ from adults. This
difference is sometimes to their advantage, but more frequently
children are not as able to excrete toxins and thus are more vulnerable
to them.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Echobichon DJ and Stevens DD. Perinatal Development of Human
Blood Esterases. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics 1973; 14:41-47.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What we don't know about the effects and potential effects of
environmental toxicants is far more than what we do know, not just for
the nervous system (see box) but also for our reproductive, immune and
other critical systems, as well as our state of knowledge for
carcinogenic, endocrine and other health effects.
CHILDREN EXPERIENCE THE WORLD DIFFERENTLY
Children's exposures to environmental toxicants, and their levels
of exposure, can vary dramatically from those of adults.
Pound for pound, children eat more food, drink more water, and
breathe more air than adults do. Young children have higher metabolic
rates than do adults.\6\ A school-age child, on average, drinks twice
as much water per pound of body weight and eats two to three times as
much fruit per pound of body weight as an adult.\7\ Because of these
differences, potential exposure to toxins that might be in the water or
the air such as lead, pesticides, and nitrates is potentially greater
for children.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ National Research Council. Pesticides in the Diets of Infants
and Children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1993.
\7\ Guzelian PS, Henry CJ, Olin SS, eds. Similarities and
Differences Between Children and Adults: Implications for Risk
Assessment 1992. ILSI Press.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exposure differences are also a result of locations where children
spend time, the activities in which children indulge, and children's
level of personal hygiene. Thus, in identifying how children may be
exposed to a chemical and the level of exposure, it is inadequate to
simply extrapolate from adult exposure.
Behavioral differences, because of age and developmental stages,
means that opportunities for exposure to environmental chemicals such
as pesticides also differ. These differences exist both between adults
and children as well as between children of different ages.
Some examples of children's behavior and activities that lead to
exposure differences include:
Young children spend hours close to the ground where there
may be more exposure to toxins in dust, soil, and carpets as well as to
low lying vapors such as radon or pesticides.
Toddlers and primary school children may spend many hours
sitting or lying on the floor while watching TV or playing games (2-3
hours/day). They place their fingers in their mouth frequently (9-10
times/hour); they are constantly touching their clothes (65 times/
hour), objects (118 times/hour) and surfaces (97 times/hour). When they
put their fingers in their mouth, whatever they have touched, they
swallow.
Children often eat snacks while sitting on the floor, thus
whatever environmental chemicals are on the floor can adhere to both
their hands and food and will be ingested through hand to mouth
activities and through contamination of the food with dirty hands.
Primary school children are likely to spend more time
outdoors than toddlers or infants, typically in contact with dirt or
grass and are also more likely to be outside barefoot than either older
or younger children. They roll on the grass, tumble, and play games.
They typically do not wash their hands after coming indoors and before
eating. Whatever is on the grass may be absorbed through the skin on
the body and feet or ingested when they put their hands in their mouth.
Older children also spend a lot of time outdoors,
typically playing organized games such as soccer or football, or
hanging out. Their activities may include dermal contact with soil or
grass.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Busser HJ, Ott J, van Lummel RC, Uiterwaal M and Blank R.
Ambulatory monitoring of children's activity. Medical Engineering and
Physics 1997 19: 440-5; Connolly RD and Elliot JM. Evolution and
ontogeny of hand function in N. Blurton-Jones (ed). Ethological Studies
of Child Behavior Cambridge UP, London, 1972; Eaton WO and Yu AP. Are
sex differences in child motor activity level a function of sex
differences in maturational status? Child Development 1989 60:1005-11;
Engstrom L-M. Physical activity of children and youth. Acta Paediatric
Scand 1980 Suppl 282:101-5; Fenske RA, Black KG, Elkner KP, Lee C,
Methner M and Soto R. Potential exposure and health risks of infants
following indoor residential pesticide application. Am J. Public Health
1990 80:689-93; Freedson PS. Field monitoring of physical activity in
children. Pediatric Exercise Sci 1989 8-18; Freeman NCG, Ettinger A,
Barry M and Rhoads G. Hygiene and food related behaviors associated
with blood lead levels of young children from lead contaminated homes.
J Exp Assess and Environ Epi 1997 7:103-18; Freeman NCG, Lioy PJ,
Pellizzari E, Zelon H, Thomas K, Clayton A and Quackenboss J. Responses
to the Region 5 NHEXAS Time/activity diary. J Exp Assess and Environ
Epi 1999 in press; Gallahue DL Understanding Motor development:
infants, children, adolescents (2d ed) Benchmark Press, Indianapolis
1989; Quackenboss J, Pellizzari ED, Clayton A, Lioy PJ, Shubat P and
Sexton K. Measurement and analysis of children's exposures to
pesticides and PAHs. The 7th annual meeting of the International
Society of Exposure Analysis, Nov. 2-5, Research Triangle Park, NC
1997; Reed KJ, Jimenez M, Lioy PJ and Freeman NCG. Quantification of
Children's Hand and Mouthing Activities. J Exp Assess and Environ Epi
1999 in press; Tsang AM and Klepeis NE. Descriptive Statistics Tables
from a detailed analysis of the National Human Activity Pattern Survey
(NHAPS) Data 1996 U.S. EPA/600/R-96/074; Wiley JA. Study of Children's
Activity Patterns California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, 1991.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This type of behavior/exposure data do not exist for children older
than 12. In addition to sources of exposure through play that may be
similar to younger children, older children may have exposures similar
to adults. For example, adolescents may work on farms or can be exposed
to workplace toxins in shop class, vocational-education settings, and
in work settings.
The data that do exist show that children are more heavily exposed
than adults to toxicants such as pesticides. For example, studies that
looked at biomarker levels for a commonly used organophosphate
pesticide, chlorpyrifos, in children and adults found that the levels
of the pesticide in children were substantially higher than in the
adult population.
SUMMARY
In brief, a child's metabolism, physiology, diet, exposure
patterns, and behavior are different than those of an adult.
A child is exposed to multiple toxicants in the course of her/his
life, sometimes simultaneously, sometimes sequentially. Children have a
longer life span than adults so they have more time to develop diseases
with long latency periods that may be triggered by earlier
environmental exposures, such as cancer or Parkinson's disease.\9\ The
effects of multiple and/or cumulative exposures and their potential
synergistic effects are not known.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Landrigan PJ and Carlson JE. Environmental Policy and
Children's Health. Future of Children Summer/Fall 1995; 5(2):34-52.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Experience with a variety of chemicals, from alcohol to
environmental toxicants like lead and mercury, has shown us that what
is safe for the adult is not necessarily safe for the fetus, infant or
child. Exposure levels that for an adult would have no impact or a
transitory impact can have life-long negative consequences for a child.
For More Information: Contact the Children's Environmental Health
Network at 202 543-4033 or visit the Network's Web site (www.cehn.org)
which includes the Resource Guide on Pediatric Environmental Health.
About the Network: The Network is a non-partisan and multi-
disciplinary national project whose mission is to protect the fetus and
the child from environmental hazards and to promote a healthy
environment. The Network's three areas of concentration are education,
research and policy.
______
Attachment 2.--Environmental Health In Schools (Children's
Environmental Health Network)
Chemical toxicants and biological agents in the classroom, on the
playground, in the science lab, or in other school facilities can lead
to health risks and adverse learning conditions. They can affect many
different body systems and impact health, learning, productivity, and
self esteem.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ California Department of Health Services. California
Interagency Working Group on Indoor Air Quality in Schools, ``Indoor
Environmental Quality in California Schools: An Assessment of Needs and
Opportunities''. August 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Children spend hours every day in and around their school
facilities. However, few steps have been taken to protect children from
environmental toxicants in the school environment.
Other than lead,\11\ asbestos,\12\ and radon,\13\ the Federal
Government has not instituted requirements or guidelines that would
protect children from the same chemical exposures that require employee
notification and other worker protections. Although students may
indirectly benefit from the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) and National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health (NIOSH) activities that cover school employees, OSHA and
NIOSH have no jurisdiction for investigating the health impact of
exposure to students. Additionally, only 26 States have OSHA coverage
for their public employees.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Lead Contamination Control Act, P.L. 100-572.
\12\ The Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) requires
all schools to inspect and assess the condition of asbestos-containing
material. (EPA regulations, Title 15, Chapter 53, Subchapter II).
\13\ In 1989, EPA recommended that schools nationwide be tested for
the presence of radon. U.S. EPA, Radon in Schools: Air and Radiation.
Second Edition.
\14\ OSHA Coverage of State and Local Government Workers
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specific health effects and toxicants of concern in the school
environment include:
AIR POLLUTANTS, AIR QUALITY, AND ASTHMA
Children are especially susceptible to air pollutants. The airways
of young children are smaller than those of adults. Inhalation of air
pollutants that would produce only a slight response in an adult can
result in a significant obstruction in the airways of a young child.
Children have increased oxygen needs compared to adults, they breathe
more rapidly and, therefore, inhale more pollutants per pound of body
weight than adults. They often spend more time engaged in vigorous
outdoor activities than adults.
Asthma is the leading serious chronic illness among
children.\15\ The number of children with asthma in the United States
is rapidly growing, increasing by 75 percent between 1980 and 1994.\16\
Asthma is the No. 1 cause of hospitalization among children under the
age of 15.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ American Lung Association, 2002
\16\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, America's Children and
the Environment, December 2000.
\17\ ALA, 2002
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Asthma is the leading cause of school absenteeism due to a
chronic illness.\18\ The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimated
that American children lost 17 million school days in 1997 due to the
disease, and that parents lost 5 million work days in order to care for
their children with asthma-related illness.\19\ Nearly 1 in 13 school-
age children has asthma.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Indoor Air-Asthma Facts.
Available at www.epa.gov / iaq / asthma / introduction.html
\19\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Costs of Asthma
for 1997.
\20\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Indoor Air-Asthma Facts.
Available at www.epa.gov / iaq / asthma / introduction.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The impact of asthma falls disproportionately on African-
American and certain Hispanic populations and appears to be
particularly severe in urban inner cities.\21\ These differences
include both the incidence of asthma as well as mortality rates. In
1997, non-Hispanic Black children living in families with incomes below
the poverty level were found to have the highest rates of asthma.\22\
Between 1980 and 1993, death rates for asthma were consistently highest
among blacks aged 15-24 years.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Indoor Air-Asthma Facts.
Available at www.epa.gov / iaq / asthma / introduction.html
\22\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, America's Children and
the Environment, December 2000, p. 49.
\23\ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, ``Asthma Mortality
and Hospitalization among Children and Young Adults--United States,
1980-1993,'' Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report, May 3, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major indoor triggers of asthma attacks include irritants
such as commercial products (paints, cleaning agents, pesticides,
perfumes), building components (sealants, plastics, adhesives,
insulation materials), animal and insect allergens, environmental
tobacco smoke, and molds.\24\ Many of these triggers can be found in
schools.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ American Academy of Pediatrics, Handbook of Pediatric
Environmental Health, 1999, p. 45.
\25\ Environmental Law Institute, Research Report. Healthier
Schools: A Review of State Policies for Improving Indoor Air Quality.
January 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air pollutants such as particulate matter \26\ and ozone
\27\ also can trigger asthma attacks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1996 Air Quality
Criteria for Particulate Matter, Research Triangle Park, NC.
\27\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1996 Air Quality
Criteria for Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants, Research
Triangle Park, NC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the causes of asthma are not yet known, one
recent 10-year study found that ozone was linked to causing asthma,
especially among physically active school age children living in high
ozone communities.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Rob McConnell, Kiros Berhane, Frank D. Gilliland, Stephanie J.
London, Talat Islam, W. James Gauderman, Edward Avol, Helene G.
Margolis and John M. Peters. ``Asthma in Exercising Children Exposed to
Ozone,'' The Lancet, Vol. 359, No. 9304, Feb. 2, 2002
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide decrease lung function
in asthmatics.\29\ Long-term exposure to air pollution (such as
nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter) slows children's lung
development over time. While these are generally thought of as outdoor
air pollutants, these agents will be found in schools that keep windows
open much of the year. In addition, children will encounter these
pollutants during school hours while on the playground or sports field
during recess, physical education and sporting events.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ American Thoracic Society, ``Health Effects of Air
Pollution,'' Am Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine,
153:3-50, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Poor indoor air quality can reduce a person's ability to
perform specific mental tasks requiring concentration, calculation, or
memory.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ``Indoor Air Quality and
Student Performance'' Indoor Environments Division. Office of Radiation
and Indoor Air. August 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air quality problems inside school buildings can arise
from a variety of sources, such as mold growth from excessive moisture,
chemical emissions, insufficient fresh air supply, pollutants, and high
radon levels.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Environmental Law Institute, Research Report. Healthier
Schools: A Review of State Policies for Improving Indoor Air Quality.
January 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
27 percent of schools in a U.S. General Accounting Office
survey reported unsatisfactory ventilation. 22 percent reported
unsatisfactory indoor air quality generally.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Environmental Law Institute, Research Report. Healthier
Schools: A Review of State Policies for Improving Indoor Air Quality.
January 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An EPA investigation of 29 schools across the country
found inadequate ventilation in most of the schools.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Indoor Air-Schools.
Frequently Asked Questions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
learning disabilities--developmental disabilities
Seventeen percent of children under 18 have been diagnosed with one
or more developmental disabilities. These disabilities include
Attention Deficit-Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and autism and are the
result of complex interactions among genetic, environmental and
societal factors that impact children during vulnerable periods of
development.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ In Harm's Way. Toxic Threats to Child Development Project.
Executive Summary. 1998. Greater Boston Physicians for Social
Responsibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
report indicated that approximately 1.6 million elementary school-aged
children (7 percent of children 6-11 years of age) have been diagnosed
with ADHD, which is also known as Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD).\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ ``Prevalence of Attention Deficit Disorder and Learning
Disability,'' CDC's National Center for Health Statistics, May 2002.
Available at http: // www.cdc.gov / nchs / data/series/sr--10/sr10--
206.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A recent National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences (NIEHS) study indicated that the incidence of ADHD may be
greatly underestimated by school and public health officials. In the
study, parents reported more than 15 percent of boys in grades one
through five had been diagnosed with ADHD. Overall, more than 9 percent
of all fourth and fifth grade children studied were taking medication
to treat ADHD.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Prevalence of Medication Treatment for Attention Deficit-
Hyperactivity Disorder Among Elementary School Children in Johnston
County, North Carolina. Andrew S. Rowland, UNM Department of Family and
Community Medicine. Available at http: // www.apha.org / news / press/
2002--journal/feb02.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Known or suspected causes of brain and nervous system
disorders are exposure to lead, methylmercury, and some pesticides,
therapeutic drugs and food additives.\37\ Other chemical classes
suspected of developmental neurotoxicity include cancer chemotherapy
medications, polyhalogenated hydrocarbons, psychoactive drugs, and
solvents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Congressional Office of Technology Assessment report on
neurotoxicity, 1990.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MERCURY
Schools are places where children and elemental mercury may come
together via thermometers and barometers, in laboratory courses or
``show-and-tell.'' Mercury can also be released through broken
fluorescent light tubes or thermostats. Elemental mercury is a liquid
at room temperature but readily volatizes to a colorless and odorless
vapor.
Mercury is a potent neurotoxicant and children are
particularly susceptible to mercury's dangers. Mercury interferes with
brain development and more easily passes into the brains of fetuses and
young children than into the brains of adults.
Both short- and long-term exposure to mercury vapor can
lead to brain disorders. These include a wide variety of cognitive,
personality, sensory and motor disturbances.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ ATSDR. Toxicological Profile, Mercury, http: //
www.atsdr.cdc.gov / toxprofiles/tp46.html. For specific information on
memory loss, see the section on Health Effects, Section 2.2.1.4,
Neurological Effects of Metallic Mercury http: // www.atsdr.cdc.gov /
toxprofiles/tp46-c2.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mercury poisoning is linked to kidney and liver damage and
reproductive disorders.
Exposure to high levels of mercury vapor, such as heating
elemental mercury in inadequately ventilated areas, have resulted in
fatalities.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ American Academy of Pediatrics, Handbook of Pediatric
Environmental Health, 1999, p. 147.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mercury-containing products or spills must be properly
handled. Even small mercury spills require specialists. Improper clean-
up of a mercury release, such as vacuuming up the mercury from a broken
thermometer, will spread the mercury into the air.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ American Academy of Pediatrics, Handbook of Pediatric
Environmental Health, 1999, p. 152
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In July 2000, the National Academy of Sciences concluded
that every effort should be made to reduce the release of mercury into
the environment.
PESTICIDES
Pesticide exposure may result in symptoms ranging from
relatively mild headaches and skin rashes to paralysis and death. Some
long-term illnesses linked to pesticide exposure may be subtle--such as
neurological disorders or reduced cognitive skills.\41\ Long-term
illnesses and those with delayed onsets, such as cancer, which may
appear years after exposure, can also occur. Most exposures to
pesticides cause no symptoms. Even when exposures are symptomatic, they
are often misdiagnosed. This may mask the true extent of the illnesses
caused by pesticides.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ U.S. General Accounting Office, PESTICIDES: Use, Effects, and
Alternatives to Pesticides in Schools (RCED-00-17), November 1999, p.
3.
\42\ U.S. General Accounting Office, PESTICIDES: Use, Effects, and
Alternatives to Pesticides in Schools (RCED-00-17), November 1999, p.
3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scientific reviews of the U.S. pesticide regulatory system
identified important gaps in knowledge about the health effects of
pesticides on children's developing systems as well as children's
actual exposures to pesticides.\43\ According to the American Academy
of Pediatrics, ``because the health effects of pesticide exposure on
children are not well studied, an approach that reduces their exposure
to these chemicals is desirable.'' \44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ National Research Council. Pesticides in the Diets of Infants
and Children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1993.
\44\ American Academy of Pediatrics, Handbook of Pediatric
Environmental Health, 1999, p. 314.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pesticide use in schools can be widespread. It can include
``routine spraying,'' ostensibly to prevent the development of
problems, in classrooms, hallways, the cafeteria, and other areas. This
type of use may result in children being exposed to high levels of
pesticides.\45\ Additionally, pesticides can be used in the building
when an infestation is noted and pesticides may also be used outside on
lawns and playing fields.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ American Academy of Pediatrics, Handbook of Pediatric
Environmental Health, 1999, p. 314.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information about on the amount of pesticides used in the
nation's 110,000 public schools is not available. The Federal
Government does not collect such data, and, as of 1999, only two States
collected data on pesticide use in a manner that allows for identifying
use in school facilities.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ U.S. General Accounting Office, PESTICIDES: Use, Effects, and
Alternatives to Pesticides in Schools (RCED-00-17), November 1999, p.
2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From 1993 through 1996, about 2,300 pesticide-related
exposures involving individuals at schools were reported, according to
the American Association of Poison Control Centers (although these data
are not believed to be complete).\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ U.S. General Accounting Office, PESTICIDES: Use, Effects, and
Alternatives to Pesticides in Schools (RCED-00-17), November 1999, p.
2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LEAD
Lead is a potent neurotoxin. Exposure to lead can cause a
variety of health effects, including delays in normal physical and
mental development in children, slight deficits in attention span,
hearing, and learning disabilities of children. Long-term effects can
include stroke, kidney disease, and cancer.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water.
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations. Consumer Factsheet on
Lead.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Children of day-care-age who are in lead-contaminated
buildings will be at highest risk of adverse outcomes from the
exposure, but older children may be effected as well.
A common source of lead exposure for children today is
lead paint and the contaminated dust and soil it generates.\49\
According to a report on the condition of the nation's school
facilities by the U.S. General Accounting Office, schools built before
1980 were painted with lead paint.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ U.S. EPA Office of Children's Health Protection, at http: //
www.epa.gov / children/toxics.htm.
\50\ U.S. General Accounting Office, Report to Congressional
Requesters. 1995 School Facilities: Condition of America's Schools,
GAO/HEHS-95-61., p. 27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Children may also be exposed to lead through drinking
water that has elevated concentrations from lead plumbing materials.
Lead contamination in drinking water occurs from corrosion of lead
pipes and it cannot be directly detected or removed by the water
system.\51\ According to the EPA, the longer water remains in contact
with leaded-plumbing, the more the opportunity exists for lead to leach
into water. As a result, facilities with on again/off again water use
patterns, such as schools, may have elevated lead concentrations.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water.
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations. Consumer Factsheet on
Lead.
\52\ U.S. EPA, ``Lead in drinking water in schools and non-
residential buildings,'' EPA 812-B-94-002, April 1994, available at
http: // www.epa.gov / safewater/consumer / leadinschools.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some support was provided to schools through the Lead
Contamination Control Act of 1988 to identify and correct lead-in-
drinking-water problems at schools, especially water coolers with lead-
lined tanks.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ U.S. EPA, ``Lead in drinking water in schools and non-
residential buildings,'' EPA 812-B-94-002, Section 1--Background
Information (p. 3-11), April 1994, available at http: // www.epa.gov /
safewater / consumer / leadinschools.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCHOOL BUSES AND DIESEL EXHAUST
According to the EPA, diesel engine emissions contribute
to serious public health problems including: premature mortality,
aggravation of existing asthma, acute respiratory symptoms, chronic
bronchitis, and decreased lung function. They have also been linked to
increased incidences of various cancers in adults in more than 30
health studies.
Diesel exhaust is known to be a major source of fine
particles that can lodge deep in children's lungs, increasing the
likelihood of asthma, chronic bronchitis, heart disease and even
premature death.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ U.S. Newswire via Comtex, February 7, 2002. Berkeley,
California.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the United States, nearly 600,000 school buses
transport 24 million students to school daily. Collectively, U.S.
children spend 3 billion hours on school buses each year.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ Environment and Human Health, inc., Children's Exposure to
Diesel Exhaust on School Buses, February 7, 2002. Available at
www.ehhi.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Children who ride diesel school buses are exposed to an
excessive amount of toxic diesel exhaust. The excess levels on the
buses are 23 to 46 times higher than levels considered to be
significant cancer risks according to the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency and Federal guidelines. The diesel exhaust exposures are likely
to result in an additional 23 to 46 cancer cases per million children
exposed.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ Natural Resources Defense Council and Coalition for Clean Air,
No Breathing in the Aisles: Diesel Exhaust Inside School Buses, 2001
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOLD
Mold grows on virtually any substance when moisture and
oxygen are present, including ceiling tiles, carpets, wood and paper.
Some molds, such as black molds or Stachybotrys, are known to produce
potent toxins which can cause impaired breathing and cause
allergies.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ Stricherz, Mark. ``Moldy Buildings: Troubling Trend For Many
Districts''. Education Week. September 26, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Children can be exposed to mold in schools if the building
has indoor air that is very damp or if there have been water leaks.
Mold may grow within 48 hours if the building materials or furnishings
are damp.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ ``Mold in My School: What Do I Do''. The California Department
of Health Services. National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities.
March 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The common symptoms of mold toxin exposure include
headache, fatigue, diarrhea, nausea and respiratory irritation.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ ``Mold in My School: What Do I Do''. The California Department
of Health Services. National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities.
March 2002
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For More Information: Contact the Children's Environmental Health
Network (www.cehn.org) at 202 543-4033 or the Healthy Schools Network
(www.healthyschools.org) at 518 462-0632.
__________
Statement of Derek G. Shendell,
Scientist and Public Health Professional
I am a young scientist and public health professional in the field
of children's environmental health working and training in California.
My interests, however, have included urban areas in the United States
and Latin America witnessing substantial population growth and
migration to those cities, respectively. My dissertation for a
multidisciplinary professional-track doctoral program at the UCLA
School of Public Health concerns school indoor environmental quality
(IEQ) of California public school classrooms, especially portable
classrooms. The three projects included in the dissertation conducted
quantitative measurements of toxic and odorous volatile organic
compounds, thermal comfort parameters, and/or air exchange or effective
ventilation rates. In addition, qualitative surveys and interview
questionnaires were developed and conducted to assess potential indoor
and outdoor pollution sources, moisture damage and mold growth, energy
use, and custodian knowledge of HVAC operation and maintenance (O&M).
Lessons learned have been shared with researchers in agencies and
universities in California and Texas.
These projects, and others I work on at Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory, Indoor Environment Department, address linking energy
efficiency and IEQ parameters or the impact of local traffic from
freeways on ambient and thus indoor air quality at schools. I
constructed the annotated bibliography to be presented by Claire
Barnett of the Healthy Schools Network, Inc. (Albany, NY). This
document included papers and presentations from recent international
conferences on school IEQ and health as well as three final LBNL
reports on our relocatable classrooms study; copies can be available
upon request.
Nevertheless, overall and especially in the United States, data on
school IEQ and environmental health, including ``best practices'' for
designs and O&M, are limited. Therefore, research and demonstrations
projects in different geographical areas/climate zones should be
conducted on:
1. Energy efficiency and IEQ linkages through adequate and/or
improved ventilation and environmentally friendly building designs,
e.g., interior finish materials and furnishings;
2. IEQ in relation to health, attendance, and productivity of
teachers and students.
Without a doubt, public school populations will continue to
increase across the United States, intensifying the need for clean,
comfortable, and environmentally friendly school facilities, new or
modernized, and proper O&M practices. The importance of energy
efficient classrooms with low-emitting construction, interior finish,
furnishing, teaching and cleaning materials is evident. Congress should
fund the Healthy and High Performance Schools program.
Statement of Geri Unger, The Funders' Forum on Environment
and Education
Schools provide the opportunity for advancement of knowledge and
creation of a civil society. The type of school facility that we
provide out children is indicative of the care and respect we hope they
will grow with. Schools must be safe, healthy and inspirational places
for study. The full funding and implementation of the Healthy High
Performance Schools Provision of the Leave Nor Child Behind Act will
lead the way in insuring that every child in the USA has a seat in a
school which is:
Healthy
Economic
Environmentally friendly or ``green''
Community Centered
Open to creative learning opportunities
Studies conducted over the last decade have shown that healthy
schools, with proper ventilation, lighting, and high indoor air
quality, make a positive difference in the health and academic
performance of the children attending them.\1\ Despite these documented
results, both existing and new schools fail to provide students and
staff with healthy and academically conducive buildings. The U.S.
Department of Education in its 1999 report on the Condition of American
Public Schools Facilities surveyed some 78,300 regular public
schools,\2\ and estimated that at least $268 billion is needed for
major rehabilitation and new construction of public schools across the
country. USEPA estimates that one-half of our nation's public schools
have indoor air quality problems. This represents an enormous
opportunity to renovate and design schools that provide a healthy
educational environment for students and teachers, build social capital
in surrounding communities, cost less to operate, and impact lightly on
the ecological health of the environment. In spite of clear evidence
that such design can result in better health, increased learning
capacity, and cost savings, numerous obstacles to the implementation of
these ``high performance'' \3\ schools exist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are numerous studies, among them the following available
on-line at www.epa.gov / iaq / asthma/intor/index.html; www.epa.gov /
iaq / schools / caseca.html; www.h-m-g.com; and
www.innovativedesign.net
\2\ Conditions of American Public Schools Facilities. 1999 U.S.
Department of Education http: // nces.ed.gov / pubs2000 / 2000032.pdf
\3\ ``High performance'' is also used as a term for describing
student academic performance. We believe that just as students are held
to high standards, school buildings should be designed for similarly
high standards of performance, with buildings contributing to student
opportunities and outcomes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps the biggest obstacle to school facilities being healthy and
high performance is the lack of understanding among key decisionmakers
and financers of the benefits of environmentally healthy schools.
Bringing together school facility managers, educators, school finance
professionals, architects, and health professionals to create a
strategy for implementing high performance schools is a necessary first
step toward improving learning environments for all students and
establishing schools as centers of community.
Schools are important focal points of neighborhoods and families,
and the springboard for a civil society. As more children come from
single parent and dual-income families, the school and its surroundings
increasingly become a second home to children, especially in the
elementary years. High performance schools provide a range of benefits
including a healthy, non-toxic environment during the extended school
day, enhanced learning ability and the opportunity for community
leadership in health and environmental issues. Every day one in five
Americans (approximately 55 million people) occupies a school building,
and the majority of these occupants are children.\4\ Children and
teachers spend at least 6 hours per day in school buildings. In many
communities the extended school day for children in before- and after-
school care can result in children in school facilities for up to 12
hours. Healthy Schools Network's Claire Barnett suggests that
``Children spend 90 percent of their time indoors and the great indoors
is always dirtier, more crowded, and more polluted than the great out
of doors especially in densely occupied, poorly maintained schools.''
\5\ Increasingly, it is important to provide a healthy environment for
these students and their teachers. Studies have shown that enhanced
indoor air quality, reduction of air-borne pollutants, increased
ventilation, increased day lighting, and access to safe outdoor spaces
enhances student ability to concentrate and study.\6\ Asthma is the
leading cause of school absenteeism due to chronic illness, accounting
for over 10 million missed school days per year. Nearly one in 13
school age children has asthma, and the impact falls disproportionately
on African American and certain Hispanic populations, particularly
those living in urban areas \7\ (often representing distressed--both
from an achievement and facilities standpoint--school districts, where
students can least afford to miss school). In 1997-1998, 8.3 percent of
non-Hispanic Black children living in families below the poverty level
had asthma, the highest for all racial groups and income levels.\8\
Studies show that one-half our nation's 115,000 schools have problems
linked to indoor air quality that may include common asthma triggers
such as pests, mold and dander, as well as cleaning agents, chemicals,
pesticides, and poorly ventilated workspaces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ USEPA Tools for Schools www.epa.gov/iaq
\5\ Press release January 15, 2002 in reference to The Healthy and
High Performance Schools amendment to the newly signed Federal
education budget.
\6\ http: // www.epa.gov / iaq / schools / caseca.html; http: //
www.h-m-g.com; http://www.innovativedesign.net
\7\ http://www.epa.gov/iaq/asthma/intro/index.html
\8\ America's Children and the Environment: A first View of
Available Measures, USEPA December 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The economic aspects of school management are a key consideration
in high performance schools. School funding is at the heart of local,
State and Federal initiatives to make school facilities healthy and
conducive to learning. As witnessed in the current California energy
crisis, heating and cooling costs spare no facility or operation. The
U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) estimates that schools spend more than
$6 billion annually on energy, and that they could save at least 25
percent of this amount through better design (even in renovated older
buildings) through the use of energy-efficient and renewable energy
technologies, and improvements in operations and maintenance. This will
result in an overall savings of 1.5 billion dollars per year. DoE also
estimates that school energy costs are approximately $110 per student
per year, with costs of wastewater processing and trash removal adding
to a total of $140 per student per year. High performance, sustainable
design solutions can yield savings up to $56 per student per year.\9\
As an example of the savings possible, it is estimated that improved
energy efficiency in 91 public school buildings in Pittsburgh will save
over $750,000 per year. Given the uncertainty of energy markets,
schools could be community leaders in reducing energy demand and
increasing savings. The savings could be used toward physical facility
improvement, reduction in class size, increased teacher salaries, and
enhanced instruction. All schools, including those in distressed
districts, should have the opportunity to realize these savings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ U.S. Department of Energy Rebuild America K-12 Program
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental stewardship is another area where schools can play an
important role. In a 1994 Roper Starch Worldwide Poll investigating
young people's attitudes toward the environment, commissioned the
National Environmental Education and Training Foundation,\10\ it was
found that students, both from disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged
areas, feel that protection of human health is by far the most
important reason for protection of the environment, but that it is also
important to protect the environment for plants and animals. In order
to bring students into understanding their own place in nature, schools
need to emphasize methods of reducing the environmental impact of
buildings on their surroundings. Reduction in energy use results in
reduction in air pollution including particulates that cause lung
disease and ozone pollution, as well as green house gas and acid
deposition.\11\ Water conservation and appropriate land use are
important aspects of environmental stewardship as well. Reduction in
the use of toxics for cleaning and pest control is another contribution
that schools can make as environmental stewards.\12\ If schools use
their collective purchasing power toward pollution reduction in
materials, energy, and maintenance, the overall cost savings could be
great, as could the non-monetary value of modeling environmentally
responsible practices for the community at large.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ http://eelink.net/ROPER/html
\11\ From 1993 to 1998, 146 schools in Canada decreased their
greenhouse gas emissions by the equivalent of 10,000 tons of carbon
dioxide.
\12\ Montgomery County Public Schools in Maryland cut its pest
control costs from $2,400 per school per year in 1985 to $575 per year
in 1992 by using Integrated Pest Management and less toxic
alternatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increasingly, schools are seen as centers of life-long learning for
the entire community, not just the kindergarten through high school
years. A national movement integrating schools more closely with the
community is growing. In a Department of Education April 2000
Publication ``Schools as Centers of Community: A Citizens' Guide for
Planning and Design'', the following six principles assert that, in
order to meet the nation's needs for the 21st century, we must design
learning environments that enhance teaching and learning to accommodate
the needs of all learners:
Serve as centers of the community
Result from a planning/design process involving all
stakeholders
Provide for health, safety and security
Make effective use of all available resources
Allow for flexibility and adaptability to changing needs.
In order to have the above principles become useful to most
communities, much work needs to occur across the broad scope of
community stakeholders in changing the way schools are renovated and
built.
Another important characteristic of healthy, ``high performance'',
energy-efficient schools, is the use of the school building and nearby
physical environment as a pedagogical tool. Place-based learning and
environmental teaching techniques are increasingly recognized as
essential tools in increased retention of science, social science,
mathematical and language arts skills.\13\ Students investigating the
``ecological footprint'' or impact of the school building use science
and math to conduct measurements and audits of energy, materials and
resource consumption, and apply social studies and language arts to
propose and communicate strategies for reducing the impact. Teachers,
once trained in this method find that it opens the door for critical
thinking, transfer of problem solving skills to other academic
frameworks and cooperative learning. Studies have shown that scores on
standardized tests are increased by using environment as an integrating
concept. Additionally, research done indicates that 96 percent of
teachers and principals surveyed thought that school design was an
important part of a good learning environment. Furthermore, 92 percent
said that they would be willing to devote nearly 4 hours per week to
collaborating with facility designers, but that most had never been
asked.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Improving Student Learning: Using the Environment as an
Integrating Context. 1997. Gerald A. Lieberman, Ph.D. State Education
and Environment Roundtable.
\14\ B. Schapiro and Associates ``Perceptions of Educators about
School Design Issues,'' survey conducted for Heery International,
Atlanta, GA. 1998. As seen in Harvard Education Letter. January/
February 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The studies show that improved schools would improve our children's
health and their ability to learn and achieve. The technology exists to
build and renovate these building to higher standards. Using high
performance building techniques saves money and is fiscally responsible
as well as environmentally responsible by saving energy and water and
preventing pollution. The wisdom exists to implement policies to
support our children's health, and the greater community and
environmental well-being. Governmental leaders can fully fund and
support these measures that will yield results far beyond the Federal
investment. I appreciate this opportunity to speak with you today and
hope that these Federal Governmental mandates will be funded in the
near future.
__________
Statement of James E. Woods, Ph.D., P.E., of The Building Diagnostics
Research Institute
Mr. Chairman, I am Dr. James E. Woods, the Executive Director of
the Building Diagnostics Research Institute, Inc., a not-for-profit
organization in Bethesda, Maryland. I am pleased to have the
opportunity this morning to appear before this hearing on ``Green
Schools Initiatives,'' and I want to commend the committee for
examining the very important problem of classroom facilities as it
relates to health and performance of our students and teachers.
Before offering some recommendations, let me take a moment to place
this issue in perspective. For the past several decades, an increasing
awareness has emerged of the direct relationship between indoor
environmental (IEQ) control and health. However, the dearth of
scientific, quantifiable data characterizing the relationships between
this environmental control and student performance is a detriment to
educational outcomes in our Nation. I was extremely pleased to note,
Mr. Chairman, that the first recommendation you cited in your opening
statement this morning was the need for credible, scientific data. The
need for more scientific research has also been cited by the National
Research Council and by the General Accounting Office. At the K-12
level, as various witnesses have testified this morning, the effects of
indoor exposures can result in life-long impacts on student health,
learning, and performance.
Schools in the United States are on average 42 years old and have
four times as many occupants per square foot as typical office
buildings. On any given day, one in five Americans spends at least a
part of the day in a school building. A series of surveys taken by the
General Accounting Office from 1994 through 1998 indicates that more
than half of U.S. schools have deficiencies that adversely affect
indoor environmental quality. But despite these warnings to the public
and the education community, there is a lack of reliable, scientific
data quantifying the relationships between indoor environmental quality
and the performances of building occupants. I am not aware of any
scientifically designed study that has directly measured the impact of
the total exposure of thermal, indoor air quality, lighting and
acoustic stressors on the performance of teachers and students under
actual classroom conditions. Moreover, there has never been a study on
a national level seeking to characterize the extent of unhealthy
schools in the U.S. and the concomitant impact on learning outcomes.
Yet the Department of Education has been mandated to submit a report to
Congress no later than 18 months from the enactment of the ``No Child
Left Behind Act of 2002'' characterizing the problem of unhealthy
schools in the United States.
How are we to begin the task of measuring the problem of unhealthy
schools in America? A first start, Mr. Chairman, is the leadership your
committee has shown today by calling this hearing and bringing greater
public attention to the issue. Those of us who have lived with this
problem for some time have come to the conclusion that the classroom
environment is part of the learning experience of the students, and it
is vital that public attention be focused on the need for improved
school facilities, as you are doing here today with the array of
witnesses you have brought together for this hearing.
As I stated earlier, Section 5414 of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Reauthorization Act of 2002 (popularly referred to as the
``No Child Left Behind Act'') mandates the completion of a study by the
U.S. Department of Education and submission of a report to Congress
within 18 months of enactment (which was January 8, 2002) in which the
problems unhealthy schools at the K-12 level in America are to be
characterized and in which recommendations are to be made to Congress
for remedial actions. I believe that Senator Clinton, a member of this
committee who has demonstrated leadership in this area, was responsible
for this mandate. Implementation of this study is essential, Mr.
Chairman, if we are to begin the process of obtaining quantifiable,
scientific data to which you alluded at the outset of today's hearing.
I would like to offer some recommendations to the committee for how we
might go about conducting a study such as the one envisioned by Section
5414 of the No Child Left Behind Act, as well as suggest the need for a
truly national study of the magnitude of this problem that would go
well beyond the requirements of the Section 5414 provision.
In evaluating and characterizing the performance of school
facilities, it is important to use valid and reliable methods, such as
building diagnostics, which are translated from medical diagnostics
procedures and require hypothesis formulation and testing. Building
diagnostics may be used for investigating of buildings that have IAQ
complaints as well as for assuring that buildings are performing as
intended. The principles of building diagnostics are focused on
defining the nature of the problem, e.g. detection of faults in system
performance, so that interventions can be implemented mitigation before
failure occurs in exposure or human responses. These procedures also
embody the concept that objective and measurable performance criteria
should be defined as an initial step in conducting building
diagnostics.
I recommend to the committee that, as a precursor to a national
study of unhealthy schools, the initial characterization of the problem
should be drawn from an in depth analysis of a small number of actual
cases of schools where complaints about the indoor environment in
schools have encompassed reported illness, confirmed by a medical
diagnosis, and resulted in litigation. Thus, all of these initial cases
would have advanced at least as far as the discovery phase and beyond a
preliminary motion to dismiss. I also recommend that, following the
initial study of litigation cases, a LEXIS/NEXUS search be undertaken
and a similar analysis be performed on available litigation cases to
broaden the data base of what is known about ``unhealthy schools'' and
their impact on students and teachers.
This approach I am advocating will enable us to develop a baseline
of the building performance of unhealthy schools over time, measured
against objective performance criteria that enable us to identify
indicators of unhealthy schools. I believe that any school building
that has been involved in litigation over allegations involving
``Building Related Illness'' satisfies per se the definition of an
``unhealthy school.'' By an in depth analysis of the exposure factors
and related health effects presented in the litigation cases, we will
then be able to create a data base for defining an unhealthy school. A
further expansion of this proposed data base can also be made through a
review of existing data from the General Accounting Office and the U.S.
Department of Education. Taking into account differences in the size,
geographic location and grade levels within the schools, the overall
approach I am advocating will enable the construction of a baseline
profile of the typical unhealthy school in the United States.
Once we have this baseline of the building performance of unhealthy
schools, it will be possible to profile the types of exposures, system
performance, and other factors such as deferred maintenance that cause
adverse health effects in school children, and ultimately to develop
recommendations to Congress for improvements in school facilities.
I believe that the unhealthy schools facilities study mandated by
Congress, what I will refer to as the ``baseline study,'' can be
completed within the statutory timeframe ending July 8, 2003 if this
committee and other interested committees urge the Department of
Education to move ahead with the implementation of Section 5414. The
larger national study I mentioned earlier will involve the acquisition
of data in schools and will have to await the outcome of the ``baseline
study'' and the input from other groups and researchers that are
looking at these problems. Such a study will require a substantial
dedication of resources, probably in the range of $10-$30 million over
a period of 3 to 5 years, as in other health effects studies, in order
to complete a study that is truly national in scope. I urge this
committee to work with the Senate Committee on Health, Education, &
Labor and with the Committee on Appropriations to earmark the necessary
funding beginning in fiscal year 2004 to undertake a national study on
unhealthy schools.
We at The Building Diagnostics Research Institute, Inc., (BDRI) are
very interested in working with you, Mr. Chairman, and with other
Members of Congress, in securing the implementation of Section 5414 and
enactment of other measures that will improve school facilities and the
indoor environment of the nation's classrooms. We are an independent
not-for-profit research organization. We strive to provide the highest
level of research, education and training, and public outreach on
issues related to the effects of building performance on health,
safety, security and productivity, utilizing an interdisciplinary
approach to the advancement of the arts and sciences associated with
the control of indoor environments.
As you have stated very succinctly here this morning, Mr. Chairman,
the vision that is required to promote ``healthy schools'' is to
measurably increase our understanding through the use of quantitative,
reliable and accurate methods of diagnosing the performance of school
facilities. While we speak of characterizing the problem of ``unhealthy
schools,'' let us remember that our goal is not just the absence of
illness, but also the promotion of healthy classroom environments that
will enhance student and teacher performance. The goals of healthy
classrooms and schools facilities, improved system performance,
increased environmental security, and increased energy efficiency are
all closely related. This hearing and others like it will contribute to
the increased public understanding that can be achieved through
interdisciplinary leadership that focuses on improving the performance
of school facilities. I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman,
by using our diagnostics protocols and outreach programs for the
benefit of the general public, policymakers and building owners, and
those responsible for the design, construction and operations of school
buildings.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would be glad to respond to any
questions you may have.
______
Statement of Christine Gustafson, Trevor, WI
Dear Committee Members: We need both, effective national indoor air
quality standards and an illness tracking system for schools. The lack
of sufficient funding for school operation and maintenance is like,
painting a room with a paintball gun and is not conducive to a good
learning.
My asthmatic son Glenn, is highly allergic to mold, mildew, and
fungi. He missed 32 days of school last year in the first two months of
third grade. For him 40 percent humidity is too low and 50 percent
humidity is too high. I monitor & record his peak flow breathing levels
3x a day to document irreplaceable loss of class experience and
productivity, which is detrimental to his educational attainment. He is
a part of a minority group that are the labor force replacements that
must be able to support this country's ever increasing elderly
population's retirement and healthcare benefits.
His school is down gradient of high-density development built when
drain it & get it out of there fast was the acceptable method of
stormwater management. Three maintenance guys are responsible for
211,000 sq. ft. plus 80 acres of school property. Their duties include
setups for programs, meetings and events; heating, snow removal &
salting; repairs and preventative maintenance. Each custodian has to
clean 29,000-sq. ft. per day, which equates to just over 60 sq. ft. per
minute in a normal day. The per student debt last year was $7239.00,
not including the local high school. Glenn's school used emergency
funding for repairs because a recent referendum failed by 85 percent.
The voting majority's average income is about $29,000 which is not a
living wage.
Wisconsin capped school operation costs, froze school construction
costs, and will not recognize the extra 30 million dollars it estimates
schools could need this year. It does not allow developers to be
charged impact fees for facilities owned by school districts; and has a
law which basically says ``you can not build anything worse than
dirt.'' In this state, built to code is nothing to brag about.
Children are the most valuable resource in the United States, which
clearly needs to have healthier schools in this global economy where
only the smartest nation will survive.
__________
Statement of Joellen Lawson, Special Education Teacher, Fairfield, CT
My name is Joellen Lawson and I was a Special Education teacher at
McKinley School from 1991-1998. This is the elementary school in
Fairfield, CT that was permanently shut down in October 2000 due to
severe mold contamination. Although it is painful to talk about, I am
here today because I feel a strong moral obligation to share how long-
term and acute mold exposure ended my twenty-three year teaching career
and has seriously damaged my health and financial security. Mine is a
cautionary tale that warns us of what can happen in the absence of
enforceable air quality standards. My case demonstrates that there are
not enough safeguards to guarantee teachers and students a safe and
healthy environment to work in. Thankfully, those of you in the
legislature are acknowledging and addressing these important issues as
you seek solutions to remedy the problem of poor air quality in the
schools. I only wish the current level of public awareness and the
legislative initiatives being proposed had been established a decade
ago.
In 1991, I joined the faculty at McKinley as a part time Special
Ed. Teacher. I had just completed my second master's degree (ironically
in Health Education) and was taking additional courses in order to
become certified in Elementary Education. My volunteer work in the
community included presenting workshops for statewide conferences for
CACLD (CT Association for Children with Learning Disabilities) and
serving on the board of directors for the ADD Society of Ffld County (a
support group for parents of children with attention deficit disorder).
My expertise in teaching children with ADD was the focus of my work as
a seminar leader for the American Institute for Creative Education as
well as an educational consultant and tutor for the ADD Institute of
Westport. So in summary, I was very invested in a career I would have
described as dynamic, multifaceted and very fulfilling.
My first recollection of not feeling well occurred during the 1992-
1993 school year. That particular year I was teaching in room 118 which
doesn't have any windows. By noon each day I was suffering from
headaches, burning eyes, mental fatigue and the beginnings of a chronic
cough. I vividly recall a conversation I had with my principal
regarding my health problems that appeared to be caused by
``something'' in that room. Fortunately, by the end of the school year
the principal did honor my request for a transfer to a classroom with a
window.
From 1993-1997, my classroom was a very small office in the library
with a window. At first, my symptoms did improve. In 1994 my position
was increased to full-time and as I began to spend more time in the
building my cough worsened and new symptoms emerged. Now in addition to
burning eyes, my tongue was usually swollen; I had visible hair loss on
my head and my eyelashes started falling out. By 1995-1996, the
coughing spells worsened and during one of them I herniated a disk:
More neuromuscular difficulties included muscle spasms, tingling
sensations and occasional tremors. I did consult several doctors, but
blood tests and lung X-rays failed to pinpoint a cause. Finally, in
September 1997, I was delighted to be assigned to a standard sized
classroom with ample closets and windows. The previous occupant had
packed the closets with books, kits and teaching materials. It wasn't
until May of 1998 I had the time to clean them out. Over the course of
four days, I removed twenty bags of mold contaminated materials. As I
do have a history of allergies and asthma I did expect some
exacerbation of my symptoms. However, I never anticipated the long-term
consequences that would result. By the second day of cleaning, I asked
the custodian for help because I was getting dizzy and quite sick to my
stomach. The following Monday I awoke at 1:00 am and the room was
spinning. For the next ten hours I suffered from intense vertigo,
diarrhea, vomiting and tremors. When I was admitted to Danbury
Hospital's emergency room, the attending physician told me that a virus
or food poisoning were the likely culprits for those ailments after I
proposed my theory that the moldy materials could have triggered the
incident.
Two days after my trip to the emergency room I felt compelled to
return to work to finish my end of the year obligations. Completing job
tasks was hampered by dizziness, intermittent nausea and the sensation
that my brain was swollen. Little did I suspect that after June l, 1998
my life would never be the same. At no time before this had I felt so
seriously ill. Yet, I still expected to fully recover over time. So
regaining my health was the goal for the summer of 1998.
By late June my symptoms not only persisted, they were worse. The
dizziness had not abated and was further complicated by a very severe
ear infection. No hearing loss was ever detected by the ENT, but since
then I have difficulty tolerating a normal sound volume. Going to a
mall or eating out at a restaurant can be physically debilitating
because of my inability to cope with the noise level characteristic of
such places. Other sensory disturbances included increased sensitivity
to light, an inability to control eye tracking and intermittent
blurring. Balance problems made walking a task that was demanding and
required considerable effort. There were days when the floor appeared
tipped to one side. My kinesthetic experience could be best expressed
as feeling as though I was still in motion while I was at rest. By
August, the consensus of two primary care physicians, an ENT and a
neurologist was that I was afflicted with a ``vestibular dysfunction.''
The vestibular system consists of the brain, spinal cord, eyes, skin,
muscles, joints of the body and inner ear. It is responsible for
maintaining one's sense of equilibrium or balance. However, a
vestibular dysfunction could not account for other symptoms such as
night sweats, low-grade fevers, swollen glands, an excessive need to
urinate, a sharp pain behind my eyes and terrible migraine headaches.
Two peculiar symptoms: a black growth on my tongue and mild bleeding
from my ears were also reported to my doctors.
The primary care physician who would eventually fill out my
disability paperwork and coordinate input from the many specialists who
evaluated my symptoms kept extremely detailed records. In August 1998,
she did record my comments about teaching in a moldy classroom and that
my most debilitating symptoms manifested within days of removing moldy
materials from the classroom. Not one of the well meaning medical
professionals involved in my case recognized the significance of this
information until nearly three years later.
Assured by my doctors that a vestibular dysfunction would repair
itself within a two-three month period, I attempted to return to work
in October 1998. Had I truly understood my illness I would have
realized the personal purchase of a HEPA filter and half-day schedule
would not protect me from another assault to my immune system. Within
weeks I suffered another major episode of vertigo and simultaneous
vomiting and diarrhea followed by heart palpitations and shortness of
breath. For the first time I was painfully aware that my cognitive
functioning, especially short term memory problems were interfering
with my ability to communicate with others and teach effectively. Word
retrieval and multitasking were excruciatingly difficult. Finally, I
accepted that I could not will myself into wellness and a formal
medical leave of absence was necessary. I was granted a medical leave
of absence for the 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 school years. During my
medical leave my primary care physician ordered extensive medical
testing to rule out everything from multiple sclerosis to a brain or
vestibular tumor to Lyme's disease.
The closing of McKinley School in October 2000 was a turning point.
Soon after, I contacted Dr. Eileen Storey (UCONN Occupational
Medicine), John Dorland (FEA president), and Mary Fitzgerald (Pupil
Personnel for Ffld Public Schools) to share my story. The complex
health, career, financial and legal implications raised by the shutdown
of McKinley were totally overwhelming. I began by addressing those
questions most pertinent to my health and career issues. I wondered:
Had my illness been preventable? Had my thoughts about the mold in my
classroom which had been dismissed and ignored been on target from the
beginning? If this were true, would there be changes in my prognosis
and treatment? Could there be magic bullet that would enable me to
return to work in September 2001 when my medical leave would have
expired?
Initially, I did not speak out publicly about these matters because
without further proof I believed it would be irresponsible to alarm
those McKinley teachers, parents and students who were already
traumatized by what had taken place. By the spring of 2001, I was
personally convinced by mounting evidence that my illness directly
resulted from breathing in toxic mold spores while teaching at
McKinley. I utilized numerous resources before coming to this
conclusion although my appointments with Dr. John Santilli were
pivotal. Dr. Santilli had already, treated fifty McKinley staffers and
students who became ill from mold exposure. In collaboration with a
mold toxicologist, he had analyzed the results of air samples taken
from McKinley. After extensively reviewing my medical records, Dr.
Santilli confirmed that the respiratory, digestive, neurological and
sensory disturbances I had been suffering from were consistent with
exposure to the high levels of mold (stachybotrys, aspergilllus and
penicillum) found in classrooms I had been teaching in during my seven
years at McKinley.
The good news was that I finally had some definitive answers. The
bad news was there would be no magic bullet to cure me and Dr. Santilli
could not recommend I return to work in the fall. Despite all the
evidence to the contrary, I had been clinging to the hope of holding
onto my tenure in Fairfield. My disappointment was further compounded
when my request to extend my medical leave was denied by officials in
Fairfield. It was devastating to file for a disability retirement at
the age of forty-six, some twenty years early.
As I sorted out my health and career issues, I was also wrestling
with legal and financial ones. In November 2000, my husband and I met
with a workman's compensation attorney who warned us that proving an
environmentally triggered illness would be very challenging, especially
because at that time I lacked a medical advocate to back me up. She
also cited probable complications with statute of limitation laws as
2\1/2\ years had transpired since the onset of my disabling condition.
Later, other attorneys declined to take my case because of the statute
of limitations.
This legal predicament leaves me dealing with serious financial
consequences. Despite the disability payments I receive, my income has
been substantially reduced and concern for my long term financial
security is a considerable source of anxiety. Living on a fixed,
reduced income places stringent restrictions on my lifestyle and denies
me access to resources that could contribute to my recovery. For
example, Dr. Santilli suggested I hire someone to help clean my house
in order to avoid contact with allergens that testing has shown to
compromise my immune system. However, I simply can no longer afford
such luxuries.
Now if we fast forward to my current situation, it is clear that my
debilitating condition has robbed me of my professional identity and
significantly altered my personal and social life. Essentially, I am
housebound with the exception of physical therapy or doctor's
appointments which my parents and husband usually drive me to. A
tremendous loss of independence comes from not being able to drive a
car. Since June 1, 1998, I rarely drive due to safety concerns for
myself and others. In order to get behind the wheel of a vehicle, one
should be able to turn their neck and head from left to right: and move
their eyes from the rearview mirror to the view of oncoming traffic
with ease. I am sure most people take for granted their ability to
perform such tasks. In my case, I have days when the act of moving my
eyes to look up or down can elicit visual blurring, nausea and a loss
of balance. This can happen without the introduction of additional
demands on my vestibular system such as movement. When this occurs, I
cope best by remaining as still as possible and aiming my gaze directly
in front until the episode is over (which may last minutes, hours or
days). At times the vertigo, vomiting, tremors and full body sweats
have been so incapacitating that I have been unable to walk from the
bedroom to an adjoining bathroom and have had to use a bedpan. During
these episodes, my husband utilized many vacation days from work
because I was unable to care for myself. As you might imagine it is
hard to schedule plans due to the highly unpredictable nature of my
symptoms as they wax and wane on a day to day basis.
Another especially disconcerting component to this cluster of
symptoms has been my inability to lay flat, with my head down since
June 1, 1998 without considerable discomfort. The discomfort may
manifest as severe eye, neck, or headache pain as well as
lightheadedness, dizziness, tremors or full blown vertigo. To
compensate I usually sleep on my left side elevated by two pillows. As
a result of my inability to lay in a supine position, the quality of my
sleep is compromised and I developed adhesive capsilitis in January
2001. Adhesive capsilitis ``frozen shoulder'' is a painful condition
that limits the use of my left arm and shoulder, making such tasks such
as washing or fixing my hair, tucking in my shirt or almost any task
requiring the use of two hands at best, challenging.
My overall stamina is further depleted by increased sensitivity to
environmental allergies, shortness of breath and a chronic cough. These
respiratory ailments put an end to my favorite hobby, singing, which
had been a wonderful source of joy and self expression during eight
years of vocal training. I still miss my weekly voice lessons and
performing in two to three recitals each year.
On good days, I am able to do simple chores such as doing dishes,
laundry and cooking as long as I take rest breaks every few hours. This
is a far cry from the active, physically fit person I once was. In
1991, I practiced yoga regularly and could do a forty-five minute
aerobic routine, three to four times a week. Now if I am lucky I can
exercise at a moderate pace for ten to fifteen minutes. One area where
I have observed improvement has been in the gradual return of my
cognitive abilities, particularly short term memory skills.
Last Fall when I agreed to be interviewed for NEA Today and
Schoolhouse News, my motivation was to warn others of the dangers of
poor indoor air quality before it is too late. I have learned my case
is not an isolated one as teachers throughout the U.S. have told me
about mold contamination in their schools and the physical symptoms
they have endured which are sadly reminiscent of mine. Their stories
have strengthened my resolve to campaign for legally enforceable air
quality standards. I believe if such policies had been in place the
McKinley School disaster might have been averted. The extensive and
extremely hazardous mold contamination at McKinley would not have been
allowed to fester for years. The ``deferred maintenance'' that
contributed to the building's deterioration would not have been so
readily tolerated had regular air quality testing been implemented.
Those of us with pre-existing conditions such as allergies and
asthma who are most vulnerable to the effects of toxic air quality
would have been more cognizant of the risks we were undertaking by
simply coming to work at a sick building. I only wish I had been armed
with the knowledge I have acquired since McKinley was shut down, before
I was assigned there in 1991 and especially after my trip to the
emergency room in 1998.
Many of the health and career decisions I made in 1998 would have
been dramatically different had I comprehended the connection between
my illness and work environment. First of all, I would never have
exposed myself to such air quality again by re-entering the building.
Secondly, I would have immediately filed for a workman's compensation
claim. Finally, I would have sought the advice of a physician with a
background in mold related illnesses. In that way, I might have avoided
the waste of time, energy and expense of meeting with fourteen medical
practitioners who ordered testing and the use of medicines which for
the most part actually aggravated my condition.
Believe me, I do not relish exposing parts of my medical history in
a public forum such as this. I realize doing so will not repair my
health, fix my financial woes or bring back the daily contact with my
students that made my job such a deeply satisfying one. However, if in
some way my testimony helps to protect the basic civil right of
teachers and students to work insafe and healthy environment, then this
will have been worth it.
Thank you for you kind attention.