oEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
IEPA/600/R-15/236
August 2015
i-impact-assessments
Health Impact Assessment (HIA)
of Building Renovations at Gerena
Community School, Springfield,
Massachusetts
IllUlilli].' A-
I ndcn-round Tunnel
V ...
Itnilil in-j C-
tndereround Tunnel
Office of Research and Development and Region 1 (New
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Health Impact Assessment (HIA) of
Building Renovations at Gerena
Community School, Springfield,
Massachusetts
Authors of this Report
(in alphabetical order of last name)
Adkins, Lauren1; Frantz, George2; Fulk, Florence3; Rhodus, Justicia1; Thompson, Bob4; Vesper,
Steve3; Williams, Ron4; Zartarian, Valerie5; Zimmerman, Emily2
1 CSS-Dynamac, c/o U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Cincinnati, OH 45268
2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1 (New England), Boston, MA 02109
3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National
Exposure Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH 45268
4 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Risk
Management Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
5 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National
Exposure Research Laboratory, Boston, MA 02109
Suggested Citation
U.S. EPA. 2014. Health Impact Assessment (HIA) of Building Renovations at Gerena
Community School, Springfield, Massachusetts. EPA/600/R-15/236. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Office of Research and Development and Region 1 (New England)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC
ii | T i 11 e Page
-------
Notice
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), through its Office of Research and
Development (ORD) and Regional Sustainability and Environmental Sciences (RESES) Program
within the Sustainable and Healthy Communities (SHC) Research Program, funded the research
described here. It has been subject to Agency review, external peer-review, and approved for
publication by EPA. EPA staff in ORD and Region 1 (New England) led this health impact
assessment; with technical assistance from ARCADIS, Turner Group, CSS-Dynamac, and the
Oregon Public Health Institute (OPHI)- through a cooperative agreement with the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Input for this report was provided by staff in the City of
Springfield, Massachusetts (MA); the State of Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MA
DPH) and Department of Environmental Protection (MA DEP); local organizations; and staff,
administrators, parents, students, and community residents of Gerena Community School.
Therefore, the contents of this report are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not
necessarily represent the views or policies of the EPA or CDC.
Contact Information
For more information about this HI A, please contact:
Florence Fulk, U.S. EPA
26 W. Martin Luther King Dr.
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
Phone:513-569-7379
Email: fulk.florence@epa.gov
iii I N o t i c e
-------
Acknowledgements
The origin of the Health Impact Assessment (HIA) of Building Renovations at Gerena
Community School, Springfield, Massachusetts grew out of long-standing partnerships between
EPA's regional office in Boston, Massachusetts (Region 1 New England), EPA's ORD, Pioneer
Valley Asthma Coalition, and the City of Springfield, MA. Without these valuable partners, this
HIA would not have been feasible. The authors would like to acknowledge the members of the
HIA Core Group who were responsible for developing the HIA funding proposal, developing
and reviewing HIA materials, performing data collection and analyses, and the planning,
implementation, and evaluation of this HIA:
Florence Fulk, George Frantz, Marybeth Smuts, Valerie Zartarian, Bob Thompson, Steve
Vesper, Ron Williams, Emily Bender-Zimmerman, and Ellie Tonkin from EPA, Lauren Adkins
and Justicia Rhodus from CSS-Dynamac (contractor to EPA), Janice Pare from Association of
Schools of Public Health (Fellow), and Steve White from OPHI.
The authors would also like to acknowledge the following individuals and organizations for their
contributions to the HIA process and/or the HIA Report:
City of Springfield: Jim Avezzie, Noelle Owens, Lynn Rose, Patrick Sullivan, Mike Gibbons
(Department of Parks, Buildings, and Recreation Management)
Massachusetts State Regional Offices: Catherine Skiba (MA DEP), Ben Wood (MA DPH)
Gerena Community School: Diane Gagnon (Principal) Cynthia Escribano, and Luz Riviera
Community Organizations: Debra Askwith (Springfield Education Association), Michaelann
Bewsee (Arise for Social Justice), Karen Pohlman (Brightwood Health Center), Jafet Robles
(Voices De La Communidad), Devon Roller (Arise for Social Justice and WNEV), Jose Rosario
(Voices De La Communidad), Destry Sibley (Voices De La Communidad), Kathleen Szegda
(Partners for a Healthier Community)
U.S. EPA: Richard Baldauf, David Burden, Mary Dever, David Diaz-Sanchez, Brian Dyson,
Gary Foley, Gregg Furie, Janet Gamble, Fran Kremer, Ida McDonnell, Bruce Mintz, Jim
Murphy, Shannon O'Shea, Clyde Owens, Haluk Ozkaynak, Devon Payne-Sturges, Sally
Perreault-Darney, Jim Quackenboss, Marian Rutigliano, Brad Schultz, Marilyn Tenbrink,
Nicolle Tulve, Tim Wade, Tina Yuen, and Rick Ziegler
The external peer-review of this report was performed by Dr. Andrew Dannenberg of University
of Washington in Seattle, Dr. Mohammad Alam of Cincinnati Health Department in Ohio, and
Dr. Mark Mendell of Indoor Environment Group, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in
California.
iv | A c knowledgements
-------
About This Report
The final HIA Report represents the full documentation of the work completed for the HIA,
including (but not limited to) the HIA's purpose, findings, and recommendations, documentation
of the processes and methods involved or reference to an external source of documentation for
those processes, and must be made publically accessible. This report documents all of the work
performed for the HIA of Building Renovations at Gerena Community School, Springfield,
Massachusetts. The HIA evaluated a list of proposed renovations the Department of Parks,
Buildings and Recreation Management (PERM) was considering for their potential impacts to
health and wellness and included several processes, such as stakeholder engagement, onsite
observation, forensic investigation, and material development.
The authors developed the HIA Report in accordance with the HIA Minimum Elements and
Practice Standards and other guidance documents developed by the HIA community of practice.
Following the Introduction, each chapter reflects a step in the HIA process. The authors provide
a timeline of activities at the beginning of each chapter to add a temporal context to the activities
performed during that step. Because the HIA spanned over a period of three years, the final HIA
Report is expansive and may include information not applicable to all readers. To address this
issue, the authors prepared factsheets, presentations, and summary reports (such as the Executive
Summary of Preliminary Findings) for the variety of users. Those materials are provided in the
appendices at the end of this document.
HIA Report Notations
The following abbreviations are used throughout the document:
"e.g." = exempli gratia, which means "for example"
"i.e." = idest, which means "that is"
"etc." = et cetera, which means "and so on"
Cautions or caveats are noted with: Meetings with stakeholders are noted with:
*
v|About this Report
-------
Table of Contents
NOTICE III
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS IV
ABOUT THIS REPORT V
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (7/25/14) 1
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 9
1.1. ABOUT HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 9
1.2. ABOUT GERENA COMMUNITY SCHOOL 10
CHAPTER 2. THE SCREENING STEP 15
2.1. OVERVIEW OF THE SCREENING STEP 15
2.2. CONSIDERATIONS FOR PERFORMING AN HIA 16
2.3. THE PROPOSED RENOVATIONS 20
CHAPTER 3. SETTING THE SCOPE 22
3.1. OVERVIEW OF THE SCOPING STEP 22
3.2. ESTABLISHING THE HIA TEAM AND ROLES 22
3.3. HIA QUALITY ASSURANCE AND EVALUATION PLAN 2 8
3.4. HIA STUDY AREA 29
3.5. HEALTH IMPACTS INCLUDED 3 0
3.6. THE ASSESSMENT PLAN 3 3
CHAPTER 4. ASSESSMENT FINDINGS 3 8
4.1. OVERVIEW OF THE ASSESSMENT STEP 3 8
4.2. EXISTING CONDITIONS AMONG THE POPULATION USING GERENA 4 0
4.3. EXISTING CONDITIONS RELATED TO THE INDOOR ENVIRONMENT 44
4.4. CHARACTERIZATION OF RESPIRATORY HEALTH IMPACTS 6 5
4.5. CHARACTERIZATION OF ACOUSTIC HEALTH IMPACTS IN THE CLASSROOM 73
4.6. CHARACTERIZATION OF HEALTH IMPACT RELATED TO COMMUNITY PERCEPTIONS 81
CHAPTER 5. HIA RECOMMENDATIONS 89
5.1. OVERVIEW OF RECOMMENDATIONS STEP 89
5.2. METHOD FOR DEVELOPING HIA RECOMMENDATIONS 90
5.3. FINAL HIA RECOMMENDATIONS 94
5.4. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF HIA FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 9 6
CHAPTER 6. HIA REPORTING ACTIVITIES 98
6.1. OVERVIEW OF HIA REPORTING ACTIVITIES 9 8
6.2. DEVELOPING THE HI A REPORT 101
CHAPTER 7. MONITORING AND EVALUATION 102
7.1. MONITORING ACTIVITIES AFTER THE HIA 10 3
7.2. EVALUATION OF THE HIA PROCESS 109
APPENDIX A.NOTES FROM STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT MEETINGS 131
APPENDIX B.RESES PROPOSAL FOR THE HIA 163
APPENDIX C.REPORTS INCLUDED IN TECHNICAL REVIEW OF PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS
AT GERENA AND ORIGINAL PROPOSED RENOVATIONS 176
APPENDIX D.THE [DRAFT] HIA COMMUNICATIONS PLAN 185
APPENDIX E.DOCUMENTATION OF HIA COMMUNICATION MATERIALS 187
APPENDIX F.HIA ASSESSMENT PLAN 224
APPENDIX G.DETAILS OF ASSESSMENT METHODS AND FINDINGS 229
APPENDIX H. PERM'S ADDENDUM TO HIA REPORT 269
APPENDIX I. RESULTS OF THE HIA EXTERNAL PEER-REVIEW 279
vi I A b o u t t h i s
-------
List of Tables
Table 1. HIA Step and Description 9
Table 2. Points of Influence for the HIA in the Decision Timeline 17
Table 3. HIA Roles and Responsibilities 24
Table 4. List of Invited Stakeholders that Participated in the HIA 26
Table 5. Stakeholder Engagement Plan 27
Table 6. Prioritized Interests and/or Concerns Identified by Stakeholders 31
Table 7. Initial Study Questions of the HIA by Topic 32
Table 8. Criterion used to Characterize Impacts to Health in Assessment 36
Table 9. Key Socioeconomic Indicators for North End and Springfield, MA 41
Table 10. Student Asthma Prevalence at the School and State Level 42
Table 11. Everyday Noise Sources and Relative Sound Levels 60
Table 12. Summary of Predicted Respiratory Health Impacts from Proposed Renovations 69
Table 13. Summary of classroom acoustic standards and guidelines 77
Table 14. Summary of Predicted Acoustic-Related Health Impacts from Proposed Renovations 78
Table 15. Summary of Predicted Perception-related Health Impacts of Proposed Renovations 85
Table 16. List of EPA-Identified Actions 91
Table 17. External Reporting Outlets for Promoting Information about the HIA 100
Table 18. Proposed Outcome Monitoring Approach for Identified Health Determinants 105
Table 19. Proposed Monitoring Approach for Respiratory Health Symptoms 108
Table 20. Charge Questions to Reviewers Targeting Aspects of HIA Process 110
Table 21. Evaluation of HIA Goal Achievement 121
vii | A b o u t t h is R e p o r t
-------
List of Figures
Figure 1. Aerial view of Gerena Community School (Source: image provided by the City of Springfield,
2013) and entrance to Building A (Source: picture taken by EPA staff, 2013) 11
Figure 2. The storm water pump stations at Gerena Community School (photo by Mark Murray from a
February 9, 2012 article in the Republican) 12
Figure 3. Peeling wall paint and water-stained walls in the tunnel walkway (photo by Mark Murray from a
February 9, 2012 article in the Republican) 13
Figure 4. Timeline of activities performed in the Screening step 15
Figure 5. Timeline of activities performed in the Scoping step 22
Figure 6. A screen snap-shot, from EPA's EJScreen, of the location of Gerena (i.e., represented with blue
cross at the center of the half-mile buffer) 29
Figure 7. Theoretical impact pathway diagram in which renovations could lead to health outcomes 33
Figure 8. Timeline of activities in the Assessment step 39
Figure 9. Prevalence of asthma among school-aged children and attendance at Gerena (Mass CHIP,
2013) 43
Figure 10. Reasons for visits to the school nurse at Gerena, from 2011 to 2013 (Springfield Public
Schools, 2013) 44
Figure 11. Locations of sample sites in the tunnels, with corresponding relative ERMI values 47
Figure 12. Locations of sample sites on second floor of Building B, with corresponding relative ERMI
values 47
Figure 13. Locations of sample sites on third floor of Building B, with corresponding relative ERMI
values 48
Figure 14. Air movement (indicated by red arrows) throughout the second level of Building B 51
Figure 15. Example of a "hot spot," where Building B connects to Building C, identified by infrared
imaging 51
Figure 16. Hourly Traffic Counts for 1-91 on August 11, 2009 54
Figure 17. Daily Ozone and PM25 Air Quality Index Values in 2011 55
Figure 18. Children playing in one of the pods at Gerena during summer camp 60
Figure 19. Timeline of activities completed in the Recommendations step 90
Figure 20. Timeline of activities performed as part of the Reporting step (2012 to 2015) 99
Figure 21. Figure explaining the Monitoring and Evaluation activities 102
Figure 22. Timeline of activities for evaluating the HIA 109
viii | A b o u t t h is R e p o r t
-------
Executive Summary of Preliminary Findings and Recommendations (7/25/14)
GERENA COMMUNITY SCHOOL
German Gerena Community School (Gerena) is a public elementary school built over forty years ago in the North End
Community of Springfield, Massachusetts. The main building sits between an interstate and an industrial railroad line.
The school is connected to two underground tunnels that provide a covered walkway for residents and students. Gerena
also serves as a community center providing residents with space for afterschool programs, a swimming pool, a
gymnasium, and health clinics.
Over the years, Gerena has endured natural ageing, structural damage, flooding, and fire. Many offices and community
spaces in the tunnels are closed due to flooding and air quality concerns. The building's systems and equipment that treat
incoming water and air are expensive to maintain and many are due to be replaced.
Parents and educators are concerned that the conditions in the school may be affecting the health and performance of the
students. Respiratory health is a particular concern, since over one-fifth (20%) of the student body suffer from asthma [1].
The City of Springfield's Department of Parks, Buildings, and Recreation Management (PERM) is managing the
renovations at Gerena and has made health and safety top priorities.
THE PROPOSED DECISION
The 2010 Needs Survey from the State of
Massachusetts School Building Authority gave Gerena
low scores for both building condition and general
environment [2]. PERM led several investigations to
identify and prioritize how Gerena could be improved.
There are many options to renovate the building, but
time and funding are limiting factors. PERM was in
the process of selecting and implementing renovation
options when this HIA began.
Overview of options being considered:
• Continue to inspect and reduce sources of water
coming into underground areas (Tunnels A and C).
• Redesign and upgrade HVAC systems, which may
include relocating fresh air intakes and associated
equipment.
• Repair/replace/upgrade building systems,
equipment, and materials (as needed) and install
security equipment to deter vandalism.
• In Tunnel C, seal the outer tunnel from the inner
tunnel and install a new exhaust system to exhaust
moisture and air from the maintenance corridor to
outside the building.
For a more detailed list of the renovation options
considered, see page 5.
EPA AND HIA
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is
assessing the value of using health impact assessment
(HIA) as a tool to build more sustainable and healthy
communities and promote the consideration of impacts
to vulnerable populations in decision-making. Staff in
EPA's Sustainable and Healthy Communities research
program and Region I Office (Boston, MA)
collaborated with PERM to decide whether an HIA
would bring value to the selection of renovations at
Gerena. It was decided that the HIA would provide:
>^ Valuable health-focused information in time for
PERM to consider its conclusions and
recommendations while making repair
decisions;
S Another platform for the community to become
engaged in the decision-making process; and
•S A unique perspective on implementation and
best practices for future HIAs.
A core team made of researchers, staff, and contractors
from the EPA was established to lead and perform the
HIA. PERM contributed to this HIA by providing
access to and knowledge of Gerena. From this point,
the core team will be referred to as the EPA.
In early October 2012, the EPA announced its intent
to conduct this HIA at a community meeting in the
school.
1 I E x e c u t i v e S LI m m a r v o f P r e 1 i m i n a r v F i n d i n u s
-------
What is a Health Impact Assessment?
Health Impact Assessments:
>^ Evaluate a proposed decision (policy, plan, program, or project) and provides recommendations to promote health that
combine science-based research with input from stakeholders;
>^ Follow a 6-step systematic process - deciding whether to conduct an HIA (screening), defining the scope and design
of the assessment (scoping), gathering and analyzing information to predict potential impacts to health (assessment),
making recommendations based on the findings (recommendations), reporting the findings (reporting), and providing
a post-study monitoring plan and evaluation of the process (monitoring and evaluation); and
>^ Maintain core values - democracy in decision-making, equity in the opportunity for healthy living, transparency and
ethical use of the evidence found, a comprehensive approach to addressing public health issues, and sustainability.
HIA GOALS
At the start of this HIA, the HIA Core Group identified
the following goals:
• The HIA will present a set of recommendations to be
considered in the decision-making that would
maximize potential benefits to health and well-being
and avoid and/or mitigate potential harmful impacts
of implementing the proposed renovations.
• The EPA will deliver a fully developed HIA that
examines health and environmental impacts of the
proposed school renovation options being considered.
• The HIA will provide educational materials that are
context-specific and science-based to the community
and other stakeholders regarding air pollution and
ways to mitigate asthma triggers.
• The EPA will use tools and approaches to conduct the
HIA that will generate lessons learned and best
practices for implementing HIA by a federal agency.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
Stakeholder engagement is a key part of the HIA process.
Stakeholders are any persons or entities that may be
impacted by the decision being made. In this HIA, the
EPA engaged community residents, parents, school staff,
PERM, and representatives from community-based
organizations to gain an understanding of their concerns
about Gerena. Identified concerns included the perceived
poor air quality and amount of particulate matter in the
air, the poor conditions of the carpet, the negative
perceptions of Gerena among the community, the
presence of mold, asthma symptoms occurring at the
school, the potential harmful impacts to vulnerable
populations using Gerena, differing priorities between
school and city administrators, absenteeism, and
classroom noise.
On-site diagnostics performed at Gerena included:
Settled dust sampling to test mold contamination;
Air pressure mapping throughout the facility;
Building enclosure air tightness testing and infrared
imaging;
A visual survey of heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning (HVAC) equipment and maintenance plan;
3-day continuous recording of indoor carbon dioxide,
temperature, relative humidity, and laser particle
counting in selected areas; and
6-day recording of indoor temperature, relative
humidity, and select combustion source pollutants
(particles and gases).
HIA SCOPE
This HIA focused on environmental conditions in Gerena
and how renovations could influence health and wellness
of facility users, especially among vulnerable
populations.
STUDY DESIGN
This HIA was designed to address all of the concerns
raised by stakeholders. From October 2012 to June 2013,
EPA collected new information, including anecdotal and
direct observations about the school's history and uses.
For a summary of the onsite observations, continue to
page 3. Comprehensive literature reviews of peer-
reviewed scientific journals and published reports were
performed to establish the connections (or lack thereof)
between environmental conditions and health. A
summary of the literature findings are on page 4.
Literature evidence, observations made, and professional
expertise were used as a foundation to characterize the
predicted impacts to health for each of the proposed
renovation options (see page 5).
2|Executive Summary of Preliminary Findings
-------
The Population using Gerena
According to the 2013 school year report card,
Gerena enrolled 667 students with an attendance rate
of 93%. The student body was largely a minority
population (81.3% Hispanic or Latino ethnicity)
with 37% speaking English as a second language
[3]. It is estimated that students spend an average of
7 hours per day in the school, more for those who
participate in after school programs.
The Massachusetts Department of Education
considers most students at Gerena as "high needs."
In 2013, 93% of students at Gerena were either
students with disabilities (13.5%), English language
learners (28%), former English language learners
(37.2%), or from low-income families [3]. In
addition, 20% of the 667 students attending Gerena
in 2013 had asthma, a respiratory condition which
renders a person more sensitive to air pollutants, and
211 were young children (pre-kindergarten and
kindergarten grades).
Facility users, other than students, include school
administrators, staff, security guards and community
residents and visitors. Census data showed Gerena
serves a community of about 8,718 people with a
median age of 24-31 years. The resident population
is majority female and of Hispanic or Latino descent
(81- 90%). A large proportion of the population (up
to 61%) lives below the federal poverty level. The
two most common health concerns in the
community, based on mortality rates, were
respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. [4,5,6]
OBSERVATIONS IN THE SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY
HVAC Operation and Equipment
Investigators found major malfunctions with the air
handlers and air conditioning units surveyed. There
are zones where ventilation equipment are not
working as intended and do not meet the minimum
populations, especially asthmatics; 2) accessibility is
a key determinant of facility use among residents;
and 3) Gerena is an invaluable asset to the
community. [See full report for citations]
Community Perceptions
There are three overarching perceptions about
Gerena in the community: 1) conditions at Gerena
are unhealthy and not safe for vulnerable
Temperature and Relative Humidity
Temperature and relative humidity appeared to be
well-controlled. The Commonwealth of
Massachusetts follows the American Society of
Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning
Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 55-1992 which
recommends relative humidity should not go above
60%. The rooms where humidity was found above
60% included the mechanical room, gym, special
education room, library, and principal's office.
Air Movement
Investigators mapped the air flow throughout the
building and found that air was being pulled from
the lower floor (tunnels) and Birnie Avenue up to
the second floor of the main building. Infrared
imaging identified several sites where air was
leaking out of the building's enclosure (e.g., through
gaps in the walls and wall joints). The building
enclosure air tightness testing showed an abnormally
high rate of air was leaking from the building, which
can cause HVAC systems to run longer and less
efficient.
code requirements for supplying outside air. Other
issues identified included microbial growth in the air
conditioning drain pans, and parts of the air
conditioning units were inaccessible for regular
maintenance.
Mold Contamination
Researchers found that mold contamination was high
throughout the school compared to other offices and
schools. The average mold contamination value for
each floor went up with the building floor number.
For example, the highest mold contamination value
was found in pod 7 (Level 3), and the lowest value
was found in Tunnel C (Level 1).
Indoor Combustion Source Air Pollutants
As expected, there were outdoor air pollutants found
coming into the building. Roadway traffic and wind
direction appeared to influence the levels of
combustion source pollutants (e.g., from motor
vehicles) in the building. Although there are no
regulated standards for indoor air and pollutant
concentrations, other standards such as ASHRAE
and EPA's National Ambient Air Quality Standards
were sometimes used for informational purposes
only relative to the observed indoor levels at Gerena
[7]. Based on these guidelines, the average pollutant
levels were relatively low and not above a level of
concern.
SIExecutive Summary of P r e 1 i in i n a r y Findings
-------
LITERATURE FINDINGS
What contributes to indoor air quality?
The quality of the indoor air is largely influenced
by the presence of particles, biological organisms,
harmful gases, moisture, and temperature.
Generally, there is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning (HVAC) system that controls the
moisture and temperature levels in the building.
The HVAC system can also filter harmful
pollutants out of the air coming into the building.
How can indoor air quality impact health?
After a review of selected studies on children and
environmental exposure, EPA found that indoor
air quality (presence of pollutants, moisture, etc)
can greatly impact respiratory health and trigger
asthma symptoms. Typical asthma symptoms
include wheezing, difficulty breathing, and
irritated respiratory passages. Findings from the
review showed that exposure to dampness
(moisture), mold and particulate matter (PMio)
were major risk factors for childhood asthma [8, 9,
10]. Slightly lower risk factors included exposure
to cockroaches and combustion source air
pollutants [10, 11, 12]. The lowest ranking risk
factors included exposure to dog and cat allergens,
ozone, and formaldehyde [12, 13]. Populations
more sensitive to the quality of the indoor air
include infants and young children, older adults
(over 65 years), and persons with pre-disposing
conditions (e.g., asthma, allergies, and lowered
lung function).
What contributes to "noise" in a classroom?
"Noise" is a subjective term used to describe
unwanted sound. Noise can be generated from
inside or outside the classroom, and/or intrude
from adjacent rooms or hallways through
walls/ceilings/floors, windows, and air vents [14].
Classroom acoustics, which is characterized by the
level and movement of sound in a learning space,
is influenced by the level of background "noise"
compared to a speaker's voice, the placement of
materials that absorb or reflect sound, space
design, and "noisy" mechanical equipment [15].
How can "noise" impact health and
performance?
Noise can impact health directly by causing shifts
in hearing levels and physiological functions (at
75 decibels), and indirectly by impeding thought
processes, concentration, and communication (at
70 decibels) [16, 17]. Noise levels in a classroom
typically range from 46 to 77 decibels, depending
on the activities taking place [17]. The acoustic
environment impacts student and teacher
performance through changes in behaviors and
attitudes [18, 19]. The ability and desire to learn
and perform well in school are strong indicators of
future health and wellness [20, 21]. Populations
more sensitive to classroom acoustics include
young children and adolescents, persons with pre-
disposing physical/mental/behavioral conditions
(e.g., ear infections, anxiety, ADHD, etc.), and
persons learning a second language.
What contributes to community perceptions?
There is increasing evidence that conditions of
buildings and structures can influence peoples'
perceptions. Although there are several
interacting factors that play a role in developing
perceptions, one of the biggest contributors is the
presence of social or physical decline (e.g.,
unfriendliness and vandalism) [22, 23]. On the
contrary, community spaces that provide the
opportunity for social interaction and physical
activity have been found to promote positive
health behaviors, improve perceptions, and build
stronger social ties among residents [24, 25].
How can perceptions impact health?
Perceptions can influence how a person feels and
their behaviors and attitudes. For example, a place
perceived as lively, friendly, and safe can
encourage a person to feel secure and participate
in the activities, which can lead to healthy
behaviors (e.g., physical activity) and attitudes
(e.g., social inclusion) [24, 25]. Physical activity
is important to overall health because of its
protective effects against disease and disability
[26]. A space perceived as dangerous or harmful
can lead to avoidance of that space and higher
stress [24]. Prolonged stress can lead to chronic
illness, disability, and a lower overall quality of
life [22, 23, 27]. Persons more sensitive to their
perceived environment include youths, girls, older
adults (elderly), and those with previous
unpleasant experiences.
4|Executive Summary of Preliminary Findings
-------
PREDICTED IMPACTS TO HEALTH
Before the HIA began, PERM had already started renovating at the school. The list of potential renovation options changed as work progressed and issues at the
school were investigated further. At the start of this HIA (October, 2012), PERM was considering a list of proposed renovation options generated from three main
investigative reports prepared by PBRM's contractors: the Industrial Hygiene Assessment [IHA], the HVAC Study [HVAC], and the Tunnel Leakage and Air
Quality Study (Phase 1) [TLAQJ. EPA looked at each of these reports in detail and judged each of the renovation options for potential impacts to respiratory health,
classroom acoustics, and community perception. Judgments were based on on-site observations, reviewed evidence, and professional expertise. The predicted
impacts were characterized by direction, likelihood, magnitude, and distribution among building users. After reviewing the predicted impacts, EPA assigned each
renovation option a relative value based on the potential to influence health.
It is expected that not all of the renovations may be selected and/or those selected may require phased implementation due to available funding, planning
requirements, and other factors. In addition to health value, other factors that could be considered in the selection of renovation actions include first cost1, operating
cost (or savings)2, ease of operation or maintenance3, durability4, and occupancy5. Renovation options considered to have a high health value were further
prioritized into an order of implementation. The table below summarizes the predicted health impacts and the relative priority assigned to each of the proposed
renovation options. High valued items are further grouped (in alphabetical order) to show recommended staging. Please Note: relative values ranked 'high'
correspond with the letter in our final HIA recommended recommendations framework on page 7.
Source
IHA
IHA
IHA
HVAC
HVAC
Proposed Renovahon Options
Eliminate water and accumulation of moisture from entering the building. Continue investigations
into the source(s) of water infiltration, and implement necessary repairs and upgrades as needed.
Remove and discard porous building materials that have been wet for greater than 48 -hours and not
professionally dried and cleaned or show visible evidence of mold growth. Consider replacing
removed materials with those not affected by water or moisture (i.e., ceramic tile flooring) in areas
where water infiltration occurs.
Continue with efforts to evaluate the HVAC system to ensure proper design and distribution (i.e.,
flow, balancing, fresh air introduction, etc.) is in place.
Re-evaluate optimal location for fresh air intakes of Building A, if appropriate, and swap intakes for
Building B with exhausts.
Repair/upgrade all air handling units and exhaust systems in Building B, including fresh air intake
dampers, controls, and associated equipment for air handling units. Rebalance system after
replacements/upgrades are implemented.
Respiratory Classroom Community Relative
Health Acoustics Perception Value
AAAA +
AAAA +
AAAA +
AAAA +
AAAA +
No Effect
TT-
No Effect
AAA +
AAA +
AAAA +
AAAA +
No Effect
AAA
No Effect
High
(C)
High
(D)
High
(E)
High
(E)
High
(B)
1 First cost is the initial cost or funding required to complete the item.
2 Operating costs is the costs (or savings earned) that will occur after implementation.
3 Ease of operation and maintenance refers to the time and actions for operations or maintenance after implementation.
4 Durability refers to how long the item is expected to last before it will need to be replaced or performed again.
5 Occupancy refers to whether the action can be completed when the building is open (occupied) or closed (unoccupied).
5|Executive Summary of Preliminary Findings
-------
Source Proposed Renovation Options
HVAC
HVAC
HVAC
HVAC
HVAC
HVAC
HVAC
TLAQ
TLAQ
Install a new exhaust fan and duct system for Tunnel C to exhaust air from outer tunnel space to
exterior of building.
Seal outer Tunnel C completely off from the inner tunnel space, in order to prevent air from
traveling between spaces.
Contract a qualified, certified professional to test the indoor air quality.
Contract a qualified, certified professional to test for Hazardous Materials (HAZMATs) prior to any
demolition.
Conduct an outdoor air quality test and wind study at different locations on school campus,
including the current locations, to investigate optimal locations for air intake louvers, and relocate
louvers to optimal location, if appropriate.
Complete comprehensive HVAC replacement program, including replacement of all of the existing
air handling units and their controls, expanding the Building Management System (BMS), exhaust
and return fans, boilers, pipes, associated appurtenances (i.e., valves, dampers, controls, louvers, air
separator, expansion tank, etc.), and modifications to some of the mechanical piping and ductwork.
For Building B, replace and upgrade boilers, including associated appurtenances (e.g., flue, pumps,
piping, ductwork, etc.) with higher efficiency, sealed combustion condensing type boilers.
For Buildings A and C, further investigate into the walls' interior construction and assess conditions
and need for repairs, including seasonal monitoring of groundwater level, and replace stormwater
pump stations, as needed.
For Building A, replace roofing membrane; install a waterproof membrane; install new drains, a sill
pan and new door weather stripping for exposed east end of tunnel; isolate the new roof from the
roof beneath the overpass; and repair concrete masonry unity (CMU) walls.
Health
AAAA +
AAAA +
No Effect
No Effect
No Effect
AAAA +
No Effect
AAAA+
AAAA+
Classroom Community
Acoustics Perception
No Effect
No Effect
No Effect
No Effect
No Effect
AAA +
No Effect
No Effect
No Effect
AAA
AAA
No Effect
No Effect
No Effect
AAAA +
No Effect
AAAA+
AAAA+
High
(A)
High
(A)
Low
Low
Low
High
(E)
Low
High
(C)
High
(C)
Table Legend
A A A A = strong impact on many that would promote health, A A A = moderate impact on some that would promote health, T V = small impact on some that would
detract from health, (+) = sensitive or vulnerable groups would benefit more, (-) = disproportionate harm to groups more sensitive or vulnerable
FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE HIA
EPA developed recommendations, based on the predicted impacts to health, for the purposes of avoiding/mitigating potentially harmful impacts and maximizing
potentially beneficial impacts. Recommendations ranged from simple additions to an already proposed action item, to a completely new and separate action item.
For example, the building assessment yielded the finding of sites in the building enclosure where air leaked out of the building. This finding led to EPA adding a
recommended action to seal the identified sites of air leaking from the building. Recommended actions were organized into a guidance framework so the
recommendations could be easily interpreted and added to existing frameworks. The following table represents the recommended action items (i.e., those with high
health values) for implementing renovations at Gerena. Items are to be completed in their entirety and in numerical order, within the assigned immediate-, near-,
and long-term phase. The recommendations added by EPA are provided in italics. It should be noted that because the building was built before 1980, testing for
hazardous materials must be performed by a certified professional prior to any demolition or disturbance of building materials.
6|Executive Summary of Preliminary Findings
-------
HIA RECOMMENDED RENOVATIONS FRAMEWORK
Added
by EPA
Near Term
Action Items
(To be
completed
within 2-3
Seal building enclosure air-tight at identified air leak sites in building enclosure, which includes:
Using approved weatherization materials and techniques to seal the identified cracks and openings. For examples, see the areas noted in the Turner Building
Science & Design (TBS) report.
Change the air flow between outer mechanical space and inner community space of Tunnel C so that the mechanical space becomes negative pressure relative to
the community space, -which includes:
Installation of new exhaust fan and duct system for Tunnel C to exhaust air from outer tunnel space to exterior of building; and
Air sealing outer tunnel space completely off from inner tunnel space in order to prevent air from traveling between spaces.
Inspect and repair every air handling unit (AHU) in Building B, to ensure that at least minimum delivery of outdoor air supply is reached, which includes:
Repairing and adjusting the ventilation systems as identified in the EPA Indoor Air Quality Tools for Schools HVAC checklist. For example, repairing broken
belts and air dampers that do not open, etc.; and
Adjusting outdoor air supply ventilation component systems as needed.
Provide increased cleaning of air conditioning drain pans, -which includes:
Folio-wing EPA and industry guidance on cleaning and treating drain pans (EPA IAQ Tools for Schools Kit);
Ensuring drain pans drain properly; and
Enhance ease of access to air conditioning drain pans, filters, etc. for routine maintenance. For example, upgrading to latch system for doors.
Ensure consistent use of all checklists in EPA IAQ Tools for Schools kit, -within one month of completing #3 and #4. Then, follow the recommended schedule to
ensure proper continued operation (Gerena has been folio-wing EPA's IAQ Tools for Schools Kit checklists, but some improvements can be made).
Implement on-going program of-waterproofing below-ground areas (tunnels), which includes:
Replace roofing membrane and install new drains for exposed east end of Tunnel A (Building A). Isolate the new roof from the roof beneath the overpass;
Repair concrete masonry unit (CMU) walls, install a waterproof membrane, and install a sill pan in the opening and weather stripping around the door of
Tunnel A;
Further investigate into the walls' interior construction and assess conditions and need for repairs of Tunnels A and C, including seasonal monitoring of
groundwater levels;
Sealing water leaks throughout the facility; and
Replacing water pump stations in tunnels, as needed.
Remove and discard porous building materials (e.g., carpet, furniture coverings, etc.) that have been damaged by water intrusion for longer than 48 hours and not
professionally dried or cleaned (AFTER water intrusion is stopped), which includes:
Folio-wing guidance from EPA IAQ Tools for Schools Kit checklists;
Extensive cleaning of building, including shelves, counters, floors, ceilings, -walls, etc.; and
Replacement of discarded building materials -with nonporous moisture resistant materials, only AFTER -water intrusion is stopped.
Complete redesign and replacement of HVAC systems, which includes:
If changes in HVAC system, pollutant levels and/or pollutant sources are expected, re-evaluate optimal locations of air intake louvers and filters used through
long-term air sampling (i.e., multi-seasonal). Air sampling should include a wind study and monitoring of outdoor air pollutant levels, sources, and impacts on
indoor air quality. If findings from longer air monitoring support the recommendation, relocate fresh air intakes from Building A to a more optimal location;
Planning for future air movement throughout the facility;
Incorporate easy access doors for equipment in new HVAC design;
Swapping the fresh air intakes for the five mechanical rooms in Building B with exhausts.
Replacing and upgrading all air handling units, exhaust systems (especially Chiller Room exhaust), and existing controls with high efficiency electronic-
controlled models. This includes relocating thermostats to a location that provides more accurate temperature readings;
Replacing any damaged/missing equipment (e.g., diffusers, grilles, insulation, etc.) and install new security measures for building equipment external to
building;
Extensive cleaning of any ductwork or materials not being replaced within the next five years;
Installation of a new energy management system (EMS) with local computer, communications network, equipment controllers, valve controllers, sensors, air
flow and temperature monitors, etc.;
Installation of new security measures to prevent vandalism or damage of equipment outside facility; and
Rebalancing HVAC system after new installation.
Added
by EPA
9. Rebuild and reopen community spaces once they are deemed safe for occupancy, which includes replacing corroded building systems components.
1 Executive Summary of Preliminary Findings
-------
REFERENCES CITED
[1] Massachusetts Department of Public Health, "Pediatric Asthma
in Massachusetts 2008-2009," Massachusetts Department of
Public Health, Boston, 2012.
[2] MSBA, "2010 Needs Survey Report," Massachusetts School
Building Authority, Boston, MA, 2011.
[3] Springfield Public Schools (SPS), "SY 2013 School Report Card;
Gerena Community School," Springfield Public Schools,
Springfield, MA, 2013.
[4] ACS, "Census Tracts 8006-8008 (Springfield, MA)," U.S. Census
Bureau, 2013. [Online]. Available:
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml.
[Accessed 3 July 2013].
[5] U.S. Census Bureau, "2010 Demographic Profile Data; Census
Tracts 8006, 8007, 8008," American Fact Finder, 2010.
[6] Massachusetts Department of Public Health, "MassChip," 2013.
[7] ASHRAE, "ASHRAE Standard: Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor
Air Quality.," American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-
Conditioning Engineers, Inc., Atlanta, GA, 2013.
[8] E. Romeo, M. De Sario, F. Forastiere, P. Compagnucci, M.
Stafoggia, A. Bergamaschi and C. Perucci, "PM 10 exposure and
asthma exacerbations in pediatric age: a meta-analysis of panel
and time-series studies.," Epidemiologia e Prevenzione, vol. 30,
no. 4-5, pp. 245-254, 2006.
[9] T. Antova, S. Pattenden, B. Brunekreef, J. Jeinrich, P. Rudnai, F.
Forastiere, H. Luttmann-Gibson, L. Grize, B. Katsnelson, H.
Moshammer, B. Nikiforov, H. Slachtova, K. Slotova, R. Zlotkowska
and T. Fletcher, "Exposure to indoor mould and children's
respiratory health in the PATY study.," Journal of Epidemiology
and Community Health, vol. 62, pp. 708-714, 2008.
[10] N. Clark, P. Demers, C. Karr, M. Koehoorn, C. Lencar, L. Tamburic
and M. Brauer, "Effect of Early Life Exposure to Air Pollution on
Development of Childhood Asthma," Environmental Health
Perspectives, vol. 118, no. 2, pp. 284-290, 2010.
[11] M. Salam, Y.-F. Li, B. Langholz and F. Gilliland, "Early-Life
Environmental Risk Factors for Asthma: Findings from the
Children's Health Study," Environmental Health Perspectives, vol.
112, no. 6, pp. 760-765, 2004.
[12] R. McConnell, T. Islam, K. Shankardass, M. Jerrett, F. Lurmann, F.
Gilliland, J. Gauderman, E. Avol, N. Kunzli, L. Yao, J. Peters and K.
Berhane, "Childhood Incident Asthma and Traffic-Related Air
Pollution at Home and School.," Environmental Health
Perspectices, vol. 118, no. 7, pp. 1021-1026, 2010.
[13] Y. Chen, C. Tsai and Y. Lee, "Early-life indoor environmental
exposures increase the risk of childhood asthma," International
Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, vol. 215, no. 1, pp.
19-25, 2011.
[14] Department for Education and Skills, "Building Bulletin 93
Acoustic Design of Schools: A Design Guide," The Stationery
Office, London, 2004.
[15] Technical Committee on Architectural Acoustics of the Acoustical
Society of America (ASA), Classroom Acoustics; a resource for
creating learning environments with desirable listening
conditions., Lawrence, KS: Acoustical Society of America , 2000.
[16] Q. Passchier-Vermeer and W. Passchier, "Noise Exposure and
Public Health," Environmental Health Perspectives, pp. 123-131,
2000.
[17] WHO, "Children and Noise.," in Training for Health Care
Providers, 2009.
[18] B. Shield and J. Dockrell, "The effects of classroom and
environmental noise on children's academic performance.," in
Performance: 9th International Congress on Noise as a Public
Health Problem (ICBEN), Foxwoods, CT, 2008.
[19] J. Buckley, M. Schneider and Y. Shang, "The effects of school
facility on quality and teacher retention in urban school
districts," National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities, p. 10,
2 2004.
[20] J. Telfair and T. Shelton, "Educational Attainment as a Social
Determinant of Health.," North Carolina Medical Journal, vol. 73,
no. 5, pp. 358-365, 2012.
[21] D. J. Hawkings, "Academic Performance and School Success:
Sources and Consequences," Issues in Children's and Families'
Lives, vol. 8, pp. 207-309,1997.
[22] D. Kim, "Blues from the neighborhood? Neighborhood
characteristics and depression.," Epidemiologic Reviews, vol. 30,
no. 1, pp. 101-117, 2008.
[23] C. Latkin and A. Curry, "Stressful neighborhoods and depression:
a prospective study of the impact of neighborhood disorder,"
Journal of Health and Social Behavior, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 34-44,
2003.
[24] B. Saelens, J. Sallis, J. Black and D. Chen, "Neighborhood-based
differences in physical activity: an environment scale
evaluation," American Journal of Public Health, vol. 93, no. 9, pp.
1552-1558, 2003.
[25] A. Wandersman and M. Nation, "Urban neighborhoods and
mental health: psychological contributions to understanding
toxicity, resilience, and interventions.," Journal of American
Psychology, vol. 53, no. 6, pp. 647-656,1998.
[26] D. Warburton, C. Nicol and S. Bredin, "Health benefits of physical
activity: the evidence," Canadian Medical Association Journal,
vol. 174, no. 6, pp. 801-809, 2006.
[27] B. McEwen, "Central effects of stress hormones in health and
disease: understanding the protective and damaging effects of
stress and stress mediators," European Journal of Pharmacology,
vol. 583, no. 2-3, pp. 174-185, 2008.
8 I E x e c u live S u m m a r y of P r e 1 i m i n a r v Findings
-------
Chapter 1. Introduction
1.1. About Health Impact Assessment
The pursuit of more sustainable and healthy communities has steered public health professionals
to encourage the use of more integrated approaches to address community challenges. Health
impact assessment (HIA) is one of the many tools used to consider health in traditionally non-
health focused decision-making. HIAs bring together an assortment of information from
science-based research, community input, and professional expertise so that decision-makers
have the best available evidence. The overarching purpose of all HIAs are to advocate for health
and wellness regardless of the final decision.
HIA was developed based on the awareness that a variety of factors (internal and external to self)
that can influence health and well-being and a more comprehensive approach was needed for
decision-making (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 2009). In 1999, the World
Health Organization (WHO) issued a paper that outlined the core concepts of HIA and
specifically defined the process and elements included. A working group of HIA practitioners at
the first North American Conference on HIA in 2008 developed a set of practice guidelines that
defined the HIA Minimum Elements and Practice Standards for HIAs performed in North
America. Those guidelines were later updated in 2010 and 2014 to capture the evolution of HIA
practice. In 2011, the National Research Council (NRC) Committee on Health Impact
Assessment released a report that further refined the definition of HIA as:
"A systematic process that uses an array of data sources and analytic methods and considers
input from stakeholders to determine the potential effects of a proposed policy, plan, program, or
project on the health of a population and the distribution of the effects within the population; and
provides recommendations on monitoring and managing those effects. " (NRC, 2011)
The HIA process consists of six steps— screening, scoping, assessment, recommendations,
reporting, and monitoring and evaluation (North American HIA Practice Standards Working
Group, 2010; NRC, 2011; Human Impact Partners, 2011; 2012; Bhatia, 2011). A brief
description of each step is provided in Table 1.
Table 1. HIA Step and Description
HIA Step
Screening
Description
Screening determines whether HIA is an appropriate approach to
evaluate the pending decision, and whether the HIA will provide
information useful to the stakeholders and decision-makers.
9|Chapter 1: Introduction
-------
HIA Step
Scoping
Assessment
Recommendations
Reporting
Description
Scoping establishes the goals of the HIA, the scope of health impacts
that will be included in the HIA, the population to be impacted, the
group of people that will perform the HIA, and the sources of data and
methods to be used.
Assessment involves a two-step process that first describes the baseline
health status of the population, and then assesses potential impacts that
may result from the decision.
In the Recommendations step, actions or strategies are identified based
on the assessment findings that will improve the decision or otherwise
manage the health impacts, if any, to achieve protection or promotion of
health and wellness.
Monitoring and
Evaluation
In the Reporting step, the results of the HIA process, including the
findings and recommendations, are documented and presented to
stakeholders, decision-makers, and the public. The Reporting step is
completed when the HIA Final Report is made publically available.
The Monitoring and Evaluation step includes following up after the
findings and recommendations of the HIA are reported and the decision
has been made.
The Core Values (Guiding Principles) of HIA:
• A comprehensive approach to individual and community health issues
• Equity in the opportunity for healthy living
• Democracy in the decision-making process
• Sustainable development for short-term and long term goals
• Ethical use of evidence that includes transparent and rigorous methods
1.2. About Gerena Community School
1.2.1. Historical Background
Before 1973, the North End Community of Springfield, Massachusetts (MA) was physically
divided by the construction of Interstate 91 (1-91) and a railroad. Both the interstate and railroad
tracks caused a physical barrier, making it difficult and dangerous for residents to travel from
one side of the community to the other (Warwick & Sarno, 2013). At that time, the community
was comprised of low-income, Latino residents. To help address some of the physical and social
concerns facing the community, the City of Springfield (i.e., the City) built Gerena Community
School (i.e., Gerena) to reconnect the community and provide needed services, including an
elementary school and community center with language, adult education, and other programs and
services. The school was named after German Gerena, a prominent community leader and the
first Latino principal in Springfield, Massachusetts (Cameron, 2013).
10|Chapter 1: Introduction
-------
I
1.2.2. Campus Layout
Because the school serves multiple purposes, the design of the facility is very complex. Figure 1
provides an aerial view of the campus layout, which consists of four buildings.
Figure 1. Aerial view of Gerena Community School (Source: image provided by the City of Springfield, 2013)
and entrance to Building A (Source: picture taken by EPA staff, 2013).
The first building (i.e., Building A) is also an underground tunnel that sits below the 1-91
overpass and Birnie Avenue. The entrance to Building A opens to Linda Park on Main Street,
which connects to downtown. The west end of the tunnel connects to the east wall of Building B
(i.e., Main Building). Building A houses empty community offices and spaces, that were closed
in 2009 due to flooding and related issues, and the occupied WGBY office (a local public
television station).
The Main Building is located between Birnie Avenue and the railroad tracks and has three levels.
The lower (underground) level is open to the second level, and includes a community mall, with
dental offices, a playground, and other community spaces, the school's cafeteria, and the first
level of the auditorium. The second level houses the special education classroom, chiller and
boiler rooms, upper part of the auditorium, nurse and administrator offices, music and math labs,
language room, counselor's suite, and the media center/library. The third level houses most of
ll|Chapter 1: Introduction
-------
I
the classrooms. The west wall of the Main Building is also attached to an underground tunnel
(i.e., Building C), which runs underneath the railroad tracks to connect to the sports complex.
Building C (which lies entirely underground) houses community offices, which were closed due
to flooding and related issues, and the Department of Recreation. Building C connects to the
sports complex (i.e., Building D), which is located aboveground, across from Chestnut
Accelerated Middle School. Inside Building D are the gym and pool, which are available for
both student and public use. The underground tunnels are continuous and provide a walkway for
the public and students to travel between the aboveground buildings and out to the surrounding
neighborhoods.
Gerena's tunnels were built underneath a major expressway, railroad tracks, and interrupts an
underground stream that supplies a constant source of groundwater (Massachusetts School
Building Authority (MSBA), 2012). For these reasons, the facility was originally constructed
with eight groundwater-pumping stations, each a pit and two large (30-40 horsepower) pumps
that convey groundwater away from the facility. Figure 2 is of the two pumps, each of which
were designed to handle the water intrusion load at that point, should the other pump fail.
Figure 2. The stormwater pump stations at Gerena Community School (photo by Mark Murray from a
February 9, 2012 article in the Republican).
12|Chapter 1: Introduction
-------
I
1.2.3. (Historical) Environmental Issues and Renovations
Over the years, Gerena has endured natural ageing and damage from storms, seismic activity,
flooding (from internal and external causes), and vandalism. One of the most significant events
that affected the building occurred in 1994, when a water main under Birnie Avenue broke and
flooded the entire lower level of the Main Building and connected tunnels. There have also been
smaller flood events due to stormwater coming into the building from adjacent streets and broken
pipes. During events of heavy rainfall, water was seen coming into the tunnels through
unplanned routes in the walls and ceiling (e.g., gaps in the wall joints, breakdown of the brick
mortar, etc.), and up through the tunnel floors causing some intermittent and some continual
damage to building materials and permitting mold growth. Figure 3 is an example of the damage
to the tunnel areas caused by unplanned, incoming water in 2012.
Figure 3. Peeling wall paint and water-stained walls in the tunnel walkway (photo by Mark Murray from a
February 9, 2012 article in the Republican).
In Springfield, MA, all public buildings and recreational facilities are managed and operated by
the Department of Parks, Buildings and Recreation Management (PERM). PERM has
performed ongoing renovations, repairs, and general maintenance to keep the facility operational
for the community.6 In 2010, MSB A performed a survey of schools across the state. This
6 PERM performed major repairs to the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system in 1997
(following a major flood); installed new boilers in 2007; replaced rusted and pitted piping wherever found; installed
a new roof and atrium skylight for the Main Building in 2011 (following major leaks); repaired and replaced the
mortaring of the brick walls on the north and south side of Building B; and repaired and replaced parts for the
sewage and groundwater pumps.
13|Chapter 1: Introduction
-------
survey found that the conditions in Gerena's buildings were generally in good condition, but still
had a few systems that may need alteration, replacement, and/or repair (MSB A, 2011).
The maintenance requirements for the facility have exceeded typical maintenance and repair
costs performed at most of the other City buildings, costing several millions of dollars in recent
years. The systems and equipment designed to manage incoming water are very expensive to
maintain. The heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) systems have reached their
expected lifespan and PERM recommended having an on-site HVAC technician for Gerena. In
addition, PERM hired a team to monitor the district's HVAC systems and perform quarterly
maintenance. The HVAC system is obsolete, meaning broken parts have to be special ordered or
made by hand, which increases the repair costs. PERM has had to seek both federal and state
funds in addition to the annual maintenance budget to address issues at Gerena.
1.2.4. Future Plans for the Facility
Based on a limited review of social media and news articles, the opinion of community residents
appears mixed regarding plans for the school. Some of the options expressed in interviews by
WGBY (a local public television station) included closing Gerena, replacing the facility, or
continue renovating the buildings. Closing the school would require students to be bussed
elsewhere and eliminate the many public amenities provided by the facility that would otherwise
be absent from this neighborhood. Many residents are resistant to closing the school, but do not
want the current conditions to persist any longer (Warwick & Sarno, 2013; Kraft, 2012; Roman,
2012). Replacing the school would require many years and millions of dollars for planning and
construction. Representative Cheryl Coakley-Rivera estimated, based on current costs in 2013,
that replacing the school would require $30 million and ten years for planning and construction
(Coakley-Rivera, Rolden, & Owens, 2013). Rebuilding would also require relocating the school
to a different site, once again leaving the community physically divided. In the event that the
City decides to construct a new school, Gerena would still need to continue operating until the
new school is completed. Continuing to maintain and renovate the school would still be costly.
Regardless, PBRM's primary objective for Gerena is to ensure a healthy and safe building for the
community, staff, and students, and plans to continue renovating the facility.
14|Chapter 1: Introduction
-------
Chapter 2. The Screening Step
Screening is the initial step of the HIA process in which the decision to perform an HIA is made.
Stakeholders decide whether performing an HIA would add value to the decision and/or
decision-making process, if there are enough resources available (e.g., personnel, funding,
scientific tools, etc.) to perform the HIA, and if there is enough time for the recommendations to
be considered before the decision is made. Not all screening steps result in completed HIAs (i.e.,
practitioners may decide to not perform an HIA). This chapter documents the activities and
results of the screening step.
2.1. Overview of the Screening Step
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is assessing the value of using the HIA
process as a decision-support tool. Staff in EPA's Region 1 (New England) office and Office of
Research and Development (ORD) performed the Screening step, with input from PERM. The
Screening step progressed over six months, from April 2012 to October 2012. Figure 4
Figure 4. Timeline of activities performed in the Screening step.
outlines the screening activities performed and the timeline in which they took place. The last
two activities (with red flags) are also considered Reporting activities.
EPA's ORD solicited regional offices to
•submit HIA proposals for RESES program
4/2/2012
EPA's Region 1 (New England) and
City discussed opportunity for HIA RESES proposal for
ORD selected HIA proposal as finalist
^7/2/2012
to inform renovations at Gerena
4/3/2012
H\l\ submitted to ORD
6/1/2012
Region 1 and ORD discussed added value of
^ HIA to inform renovations at Gerena
7/11/2012
ORD awarded fundingfor HIA
8/6/2012
Public flyer released announcing
EPA's intent to lead an HIA in
^Springfield
10/3/2012
EPA attended PBRM's public
meeting at Gerena to announce
HIA and solicit participation
10/4/2012
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Figure 4. Timeline of activities performed in the Screening step.
2012
4/2/2012 -10/4/2012
*,
On October 4, 2012, PERM hosted a meeting at the school to discuss the on-going
efforts to improve Gerena and the next steps forward. Representatives from EPA's regional
office attended the meeting and announced the intention to lead an HIA at Gerena. Refer to
Appendix A for notes from this meeting.
15|Chapter 2: The Screening Step
-------
2.2. Considerations for Performing an HIA
2.2.1. Opportunity for Collaboration
Prior to this HIA, EPA has provided funding and technical assistance for several projects in the
Springfield, MA area for addressing indoor air quality and other environmental concerns,
strengthening communities, and performing environmental research. These efforts helped
develop a close partnership between the regional office and the City.
Before April 2012, staff in ORD's Sustainable and Healthy Communities (SHC) research
program met with staff in EPA's Region 1 (New England) office in Boston, MA to discuss
collaborative opportunities between the two offices for developing EPA's science, tools, and
expertise to support communities' environmental health-related decisions. One topic of
discussion between these groups was the environmental issues and renovation plans at Gerena.
In April 2012, ORD sent a memo to each of the Agency's ten regional offices inviting them to
submit project proposals for funding through the Regional Sustainable Environmental Science
(RESES) program. The focus of EPA's RESES program is on forming "regional research
partnerships to enable effective, efficient, and socially responsible solutions to commonly-faced
resource sustainability problems" and demonstrate the application of a collaborative,
community-based approach to a regional environmental issue (EPA, 2013). ORD is assessing
the value of using HIA as a decision-support tool to promote sustainable and healthy
communities, was looking for an opportunity to demonstrate its use, and announced, in the
invitation, that proposals to perform an HIA would be given higher priority status as a nation-
wide group of HIA case studies led by EPA.
Staff in Region 1 (New England) met with PERM to discuss the opportunity to conduct an HIA
at Gerena— to which PERM welcomed and agreed to participate. Those individuals then met
with others in SHC and the National Exposure Research Laboratory (NERL) to discuss whether
an HIA would be appropriate. The HIA process was the only approach considered for this
project and staff quickly made the decision to move forward with the HIA. Together, those
individuals developed the RESES proposal for the HIA and submitted it in April 2012, as the
HIA Project Leads. Appendix B contains the RESES proposal submitted to ORD.
2.2.2. Decision Timeline
In April 2012, PERM requested assistance from EPA to help determine which renovations would
provide the greatest benefits to health, considering total costs and benefits. Considering
renovation activities were ongoing, this HIA would progress in concert with the renovation
16|Chapter 2: The Screening Step
-------
planning process. EPA identified several possible points in PBRM's planning process that an
HIA could provide valuable information. For example, PERM could use the interests and/or
concerns identified by stakeholders during the Scoping step to decide which renovations should
be made a priority in the upcoming budget year or show the community how those items were
addressed. Table 2 identifies those points in which the HIA was intended to influence the
decision.
Table 2. Points of Influence for the HIA in the Decision Timeline
Decision Timeline
(Summer/Fall) PERM contractors
investigate building issues and
recommend proposed renovations.
(Fall/Winter 2012) PERM begins
planning phase for funding short-
term renovation options and submits
the proposed budget to the City's
Office of Management and Budget.
(Winter/Spring 2013) PERM meets
with the Mayor and Office of
Management and Budget to discuss
and finalize the proposed budget that
will be presented to City Council.
(Spring/Summer 2013) City Council
reviews the budget and if approved,
disperses funds to the departments.
(Summer 2013) PERM performs
short-term renovations and continues
planning for long-term renovations.
(post-Fall 2013) PERM provides
updates to stakeholders on the
progress of renovations at Gerena.
HIA's Potential Influence
The Screening step of the FQA would provide a
platform for PERM and EPA to discuss interests
and/or concerns about the environmental conditions
inside Gerena and identify opportunities to align
research goals.
PERM could use the identified community
stakeholder interests and/or concerns gained from the
scoping process to focus remediation planning and
inform stakeholders which items that have already
been addressed.
PERM could leverage the evidence gained from the
assessment to promote the beneficial renovations and
include mitigation strategies for those renovations
with potential harmful effects. PERM could also use
the evidence gained to help inform the community on
the issues addressed to improve building conditions
and plans to address unresolved issues.
PERM could leverage the FQA recommendations to
inform the City Council's and Mayor's decision on
approving funding for renovations.
PERM could use the HIA recommendations as a
checklist when implementing short-term renovations
and planning for long-term renovations.
Stakeholders could refer to the HIA final report to
track how their input was used in the HIA.
Stakeholders can follow-up on how the information
gained from the HIA was used and whether the HIA
recommendations were adopted.
17|Chapter 2: The Screening Step
-------
Unforeseen circumstances caused the HIA to exceed the original intended decision
timeframe. The first two points of influence were able to influence the decision as intended.
The authors provide further discussion related to this challenge in section 7.2.1.
2.2.3. Potential for Decision to Affect Health
EPA leads several environmental and public health initiatives in Springfield, MA related to
environmental justice (EJ)7 or the "degree of protection from environmental and health hazards
and access to the decision-making process." For example, EPA is providing support to the City
of Springfield and Pioneer Valley Asthma Coalition, through the Community Action for a
Renewed Environment (CARE) grant program, to help reduce asthma severity in the area.
Springfield is one of Massachusetts top five hotspots for high pediatric asthma rates. EPA is also
providing technical assistance to help evaluate indoor air quality and energy efficiency in the
City's schools and developing improvement strategies. PERM is especially interested in
determining the quality of the indoor air and opportunities for improvement at Gerena.
Asthma is a particular concern at Gerena. In 2009, school nurses reported that 24.7% of the 710
students had physician-diagnosed asthma at Gerena, which was significantly higher than the state
average of 10.9% (Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MA DPH), 2012). Thus, a
significant portion of the student body are more sensitive (i.e., vulnerable) to the quality of the
indoor air. An HIA would bring value to the decision-making process by providing information
on the distribution of potential health impacts, specifically the extent to which each of the
planned renovations would affect students with asthma. Considering the distribution of health
effects among the population using Gerena and taking measures to avoid an undue burden of
adverse health effects among vulnerable populations also promotes health equity or the equal
opportunity for health and wellness.
Considering the many amenities Gerena provides to students and the surrounding population, the
potential for renovations to affect the health of all users is very likely. Gerena's tunnels provide
a safe and covered walking corridor for the public traveling through the neighborhood. The
sports complex, which is accessible to both students and the public, is a valuable source for
physical activity. The community spaces and offices in the tunnels provide space for residents to
7 An area with a disproportionate burden of environmental hazards and high presence of low income and/or minority
populations are focus areas for environmental justice.
18|Chapter 2: The Screening Step
-------
build social bonds, skills, and seek other services. Changes to the indoor environment at Gerena
is likely to affect persons that rely heavily on Gerena's many amenities or use the building
frequently. An HIA would bring value to the decision-making process by evaluating the
potential health impacts of each of the planned renovations from a comprehensive public health
perspective.
2.2.4. HIA Goals
The HIA Project leads drew from the needs of PERM, EPA, and community residents to identify
goals the HIA should achieve. The HIA goals included:
• Present a set of recommendations to be considered in the decision-making that would
maximize potential benefits to health and avoid and/or mitigate potential harmful impacts
of implementing the proposed renovations.
• Deliver a fully developed HIA that examines health and environmental impacts of the
proposed school renovation options being considered.
• Provide educational materials that are context-specific and science-based to the
community and other stakeholders regarding air pollution and ways to mitigate asthma
triggers.
• Use tools and approaches to conduct the HIA that will generate lessons learned and best
practices for implementing HIA by a federal agency.
2.2.5. Resources Available
In July 2012, ORD selected the HIA as one of six finalists across the nation. One of the
requirements for the funding vehicle included outlining plans for any anticipated new data
collection and resources needed to complete the project. Considering the impetus for the HIA
and the majority of proposed renovations related to indoor air quality, the HIA Project leads
identified two approaches that could be used to inform the assessment of health impacts:
collecting site-specific data on indoor air pollutants, mold, moisture, and health data (if
accessible); and performing broader outdoor air monitoring. The HIA Project Leads agreed that
the community stakeholders would ultimately determine the specific study questions and health
impacts appraised in the assessment. The funding, methods, and personnel available to perform
each analysis would determine the final selection of methods.
EPA would provide the staff, expertise, scientific tools, to accomplish the HIA activities.
Stakeholder participation would be obtained through the partnerships formed from previous
work in the area. Staff in the regional office and a full-time Fellow from the Association of
Schools of Public Health (ASPH) would provide the support for convening stakeholders and
19|Chapter 2: The Screening Step
-------
serve as the primary vehicle for communicating with stakeholders outside EPA. In addition,
EPA would contract technical support to assist in convening stakeholders, collecting and
analyzing data, and documenting HIA activities. The CDC, through a cooperative agreement
with EPA, would provide funding for an HIA advisor from the National Network of Public
Health Institutes. ORD awarded funding for the HIA in August 2012.
2.3. The Proposed Renovations
PERM led several technical investigations to identify the sources for water intrusion and air
quality issues in the facility and to develop short-term and long-term solutions. In Spring 2012,
PERM contracted Timothy Murphy Architects to investigate water leakage and air quality in
Buildings A and C. Simpson, Gumpertz and Heger performed the water leakage investigation in
concert with RDK Engineers' investigation of the HVAC and other mechanical systems (e.g.,
electric, plumbing, energy conservation, etc.) at Gerena. In June 2012, O'Reilly, Talbot and
Okun Engineering Associates also performed an industrial hygiene assessment at Gerena at the
request of the City of Springfield as part of a city-wide indoor air quality program.
While the HIA progressed, PERM continued to further investigate issues and implement some of
the immediate actions (e.g., resurfacing the floor in Building C and installing security doors).
Refer to Appendix C for the full list of investigation reports reviewed and renovations considered
at the start of this HIA. The following is a list of the proposed renovations used as the HIA
decision alternatives taken from PBRM's technical investigations at Gerena.
1. Eliminate water and accumulation of moisture from entering the building. Continue
investigations in the source(s) of water infiltration, and implement necessary repairs
and upgrades as needed. This option includes corrective actions to both Buildings A
andC.
2. Remove and discard porous building materials that have been wet for greater than
48-hours and not professionally dried and cleaned or show visible evidence of mold
growth. Consider replacing removed materials with those not affected by water or
moisture (i.e., ceramic tile flooring) in areas where water infiltration occurs.
3. Continue with efforts to evaluate the HVAC system to ensure proper design and
distribution (i.e., flow, balancing, fresh air introduction, etc.) is in place.
4. Re-evaluate optimal location for fresh air intakes of Building A, if appropriate, and
swap intakes for Building B with exhausts.
5. Repair/upgrade all air handling units (AHUs) and exhaust systems in Building B,
including fresh air intake dampers, controls, and associated equipment for air
handling units. Rebalance system after replacements/upgrades are implemented.
6. Install a new exhaust fan and duct system for Building C to exhaust air from outer
tunnel space to exterior of building.
20|Chapter 2: The Screening Step
-------
7. Seal the outer tunnel in Building C completely off from the inner tunnel space, in
order to prevent air from traveling between spaces.
8. Contract a qualified, certified professional to test the indoor air quality.
9. Contract a qualified, certified professional to test for hazardous materials
(HAZMATs) prior to any demolition.
10. Conduct an outdoor air quality test and wind study at different locations on school
campus, including the current locations, to investigate optimal locations for air
intake louvers, and relocate louvers to optimal location, if appropriate.
11. Complete comprehensive HVAC replacement program, including replacement of all
of the existing air handling units and their controls, expanding the Building
Management Systems, exhaust and return fans, boilers, pipes, associated
appurtenances (i.e., valves, dampers, controls, louvers, air separator, expansion
tank, etc.), and modifications to some of the mechanical piping and ductwork
12. For Building B, replace and upgrade boilers, including associated appurtenances
(e.g., flue, pumps, piping, ductwork, etc.) with higher efficiency, sealed combustion
condensing type boilers.
13. For Buildings A and C, further investigate into the walls' interior construction and
assess conditions and need for repairs, including seasonal monitoring of
groundwater level, and replace stormwater pump stations, as needed.
14. For Building A, replace roofing membrane; install a waterproof membrane; install
new drains, a sill pan and new door weather stripping for exposed east end of
tunnel; isolate the new roof from the roof beneath the overpass; and repair concrete
masonry unit walls.
This list represents a "snap-shot" in time, specifically at the start of the HIA in fall
2012. It is important to note that PERM completed #12 (upgrading boilers) during the course of
the HIA; items #3 and #8 (regarding evaluation of the indoor air and HVAC performance) were
completed in part as a component of the HIA analyses; item #9 is required due to the building's
age and is already incorporated into all demolition/renovation activities at Gerena; and items #1,
#2, and #13 (related to investigating incoming water) were performed and/or were in progress
during the HIA process.
21|Chapter 2: The Screening Step
-------
Chapter 3. Setting the Scope
The purpose of the scoping step is to plan the assessment. Activities involved in scoping
include: establishing the goals of the HIA; determining the individuals/team that will perform the
HIA and their roles; developing a plan for engaging and communicating with stakeholders;
defining the breadth of health impacts included in the assessment; identifying the population and
vulnerable sub-groups that might be effected; and determining the HIA research questions, data
sources and analytical methods used to answer the research questions.
3.1. Overview of the Scoping Step
The Scoping activities progressed over five months from October 2012 to March 2013. The
Scoping activities grew from the Screening activities to establish the HIA Core Group, the
stakeholder engagement and communications plan, and the assessment plan. There were
numerous team meetings to discuss and finalize the assessment plan (i.e., specific tasks related to
data collection and analysis). Figure 5 outlines the scoping activities and the timeline when they
took place. Items with red flags are also considered Reporting activities.
EPA held HIA Kickoff Meeting at Gerena
10/17/2012
Continued kickoff meeting discussion with
*. stakeholders and general "lessons learned"
10/18/2012
HIA Core Group meeting- discussed information
P~ gained from stakeholders and HIA scope
10/29/2012
HIA Core Group meeting- discussed QAPPs for
(new) data collection and analysis and review
"" of data publically available
1/14/2013
HIA Core Group meeting- discussed 3/11/2013
progress of QAPPs, updates to
t communications plan, and HIA
timeline
1/28/2013
Meeting with ORD researchers to discuss
the HIA scope and solicit participation
11/20/2012
Meeting with PBRM-discussed
HIA scope, research questions,
"and pathway diagram
12/10/2012
rj
HIA Core Group meeting- di; cussed
updates on QAPPs, plans for
upcoming Building and Systems
Analysis, and initial finding
HIA Core Group meeting- discussed plan for
upcoming data collection (QAPP approved for
the Building and Systems Analysis)
Public flyer released notifying community of
upcoming data collection and HIA progress
3/13/2013
of the
HIA Core Group meeting-discussed
logistics for upcoming data collection,
funding concerns, and lessons
learned
3/21/2013
00
Nov
Dec
2013
Feb
Mold Contamination Analy
2/6/2013
Meeting with PBRM- discussed updates on QAPPs,
^ logistics for (new) data collection, and initial
findings of the Mold Contamination Analysis
2/14/2013
HIA Core Group meeting- discussed updates
to HIA timeline and QAPPs and information
"needed to answer research questions
2/25/2013
2013
Mar
110/17/2012-3/22/2013
Figure 5. Timeline of activities performed in the Scoping step.
3.2. Establishing the HIA Team and Roles
3.2.1. HIA Project Leads and Technical Leads
The funding vehicle (i.e., RESES research program) requires members of ORD and the regional
office partner to lead the project. The authors of the RESES proposal fulfilled the role of HIA
22 (Chapter 3: Setting the Scope
-------
Project Leads. HIA Project Leads were tasked with performing numerous duties that included
(but were not limited to) acquiring funding for this HIA, directing HIA activities, leading group
discussions, and making final decisions regarding the direction of the process. Marybeth Smuts
from the Office of Ecosystem Protection (OEP) and George Frantz from the Office of
Environmental Stewardship (OES) served as the regional partners for the HIA. Valerie Zartarian
and Florence Fulk from NERL served as the ORD partners for the HIA.
In addition to the HIA Project Leads, there were also EPA Technical Leads that managed the
procedural aspects of the HIA. Responsibilities of the Technical Leads included (but were not
limited to) supervising and/or performing tasks related to data collection and analysis,
developing the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) (if needed), securing and managing
contracts with entities outside EPA, providing the final synopsis of the data analyzed, and
managing work products and their translation into the HIA Report. EPA's Technical Leads had
expertise in HIA, exposures contributing to pediatric asthma, indoor environments related to
indoor air quality, mold, moisture, building design and mechanical systems, and outdoor air
quality.
In addition to EPA Technical Leads, the CDC (through a collaborative agreement with the
National Network of Public Health Institutes) provided a funding vehicle for an HIA Advisor
from the Oregon Public Health Institute (OPHI). OPHI conducts HIAs and provides expertise
and training sessions to those wanting to conduct HIAs through its HIA Initiative Program.
3.2.2. HIA Core Group
The team established to perform the HIA included a core group of EPA staff and contractors.
The HIA Core Group included the HIA Project Leads, EPA Technical Leads, a full-time ASPH
Fellow, and a NERL contractor from CSS-Dynamac. EPA secured additional technical support
for data collection and analysis through contracts with ARCADIS and Turner Group.
Some of the individuals involved at the start of this HIA were unable to participate
through project completion, because the timing of this HIA far exceeded the original planned
timeline. In addition, the HIA Project Leads were unable to secure a graduate student vehicle to
perform the outdoor air monitoring and source analysis.
Members of the HIA Core Group were selected based on their professional expertise, ability to
fulfill the duties needed, and ability to commit time to the HIA. Each member served in one or
more roles as described in Table 3.
23|Chapter 3: Setting the Scope
-------
Table 3. HIA Roles and Responsibilities
HIA Role
Investigator/
Researcher
EPA Contractor/
Technical Support
Responsibilities
Participated in developing and leading investigations that supported the
HIA, including collecting, analyzing, synthesizing, and interpreting
data.
Performed specific tasks that supported the development and progress of
the HIA, including data collection and management, scheduling and
documenting meetings, and conducting research.
HIA Proj ect Lead
Acquired funding for HIA activities, directed HIA activities, led group
discussions, and made final decisions regarding the direction of the
process.
Communications
Specialist/
Coordinator
Technical Writer/
Editor
Communicated with stakeholders and prepared and distributed
communications materials, including factsheets, public meeting
notifications, and reports.
Reviewed and edited communications materials and final products of
the HIA.
EPA Technical
Lead
HIA Advisor
Advised on technical aspects of investigations, evaluated the
information obtained, developed recommendations for the HIA,
supervised tasks performed, prepared QAPPs, and ensured tasks
performed met quality assurance and standard operating procedures.
Advised on HIA best practices, steps in the HIA process, and strategies
to achieve the minimum elements and practice standards for HIA.
3.2.3. HIA Partners (Stakeholder Engagement)
A stakeholder is any group or individual that may be affected by the decision and/or has an
invested interest in the decision's outcome. Stakeholder engagement is essential to the success
of an HIA and a core part of the process. There are different levels of stakeholder participation
in the HIA process, ranging from appraisal of the HIA's progress (i.e., no direct participation) to
being directly involved in the HIA decision-making and/or leading the HIA itself. There is no
single, best approach for engaging stakeholders, because each HIA can have unique conditions
regarding populations impacted and/or the decision-making process. The different stakeholder
groups, such as community residents, decision-makers, and representatives that advocate for
special interests and/or populations affected, may serve in different HIA roles, but operate as the
HIA Partners.
EPA, the lead organization for the HIA, partnered with CDC to acquire an HIA Advisor. PERM
served as a vital partner to EPA, providing technical expertise, access to the school and data, and
input for HIA activities and products. The Massachusetts Department of Environmental
24|Chapter 3: Setting the Scope
-------
Protection (MADEP), MA DPH, and Springfield Public Schools also were valuable partners,
providing access to data and input that informed decision-making within the HIA. The Pioneer
Valley Asthma Coalition was a valuable partner in soliciting and obtaining community
participation.
Communications Plan
At the beginning of the Scoping step, the HIA Core Group established a communications plan to
manage the flow of information between the various entities. A communications plan is a list of
activities, resources, and contacts that provides a roadmap for transferring information. The HIA
Core Group chose to use factsheets, PowerPoint presentations, and public notice flyers as the
primary method of communicating information about the HIA's progress and findings. For each
communications piece, the team identified a target audience, date of distribution, and responsible
entities. Appendix D documents the original communications plan for this HIA.
The Communications Specialist/Coordinator would coordinate all information released to the
public, including factsheets, flyers, and presentations. For example, the HIA Core Group
released a public flyer in March 2013, announcing upcoming data collection and the HIA's
progress. Appendix E provides the documentation of the communications materials- except for
the Executive Summary of Findings, which is at the beginning of this report.
3.2.4. External Stakeholder Group
The HIA Core Group established the External Stakeholder Group (i.e., stakeholders outside the
EPA), which served as the primary route for stakeholder engagement in the HIA. The
Communications Specialist/Coordinator identified a list of stakeholders and contacted them to
participate in the HIA, via email, phone, and mail. Table 4 lists the twenty-eight stakeholder
organizations and/or entities invited to participate in the HIA.
It is important to note that stakeholder participation in this HIA was voluntary. The
input provided in this report represents the view/opinions of those who attended the HIA
meetings, which may or may not be representative of all stakeholders. The organizations and/or
entities that participated in the HIA stakeholder meetings are those that were documented in the
sign-in sheets or roll call. Some individuals may have belonged to more than one group. Groups
not indicated by the participant were not documented.
25|Chapter 3: Setting the Scope
-------
Table 4. List of Invited Stakeholders that Participated in the HIA
Stakeholders Invited to Participate in HIA
Arise for Social Justice
Baystate High St. Health Center, Pediatrics
Brightwood Community Residents
Children's House (Daycare Center)
Gerena Community School, Principal Dianne Gagnon
Gerena Parent Teacher Organization
Gerena School Nurse
Healthy School's Network, Inc.
MA DEP, Western Regional Office
MA DPH, Western Regional Office
Massachusetts State Representative- 10th District
Neighbor to Neighbor
New North Citizen's Council
New North Child Care (Daycare Center)
New North Community Center
North End Organizing Network
Partners for a Healthier Community
Pioneer Valley Asthma Coalition
Playful Minds (Afterschool Program)
Springfield City Council (Ward 1 Representative)
Springfield Department of Health and Human Services
Springfield PERM
Springfield Education Association
Springfield Public Schools
Springfield Public School Committee
Local United Food and Commercial Workers Union
Voices of the Community (Voices De La Communidad)
WGBY (local public television station)
Plan for Stakeholder Engagement
HIA Participant
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Several meetings were planned between the HIA stakeholders at various milestones in the HIA.
Staff in EPA's regional office took the lead on convening and communicating with individual
stakeholders. The purpose of engaging stakeholders was to discuss progress of the HIA, solicit
feedback, and ensure the HIA was responsive to stakeholder needs. Input from the External
26|Chapter 3: Setting the Scope
-------
Stakeholder Group was used to directly shape the HIA scope and reporting processes. This
approach allowed stakeholders to influence the direction of the HIA, but the HIA Core Group
retained the authority to make specific decisions regarding the assessment and recommendations.
Table 5 outlines the plan for engaging stakeholders, developed by the HIA Core Group.
Table 5. Stakeholder Engagement Plan
HIA Step
Screening
Scoping
Stakeholder Engagement Activities (Planned)
• Consult with stakeholders and determine added value of HIA
• Site visit= attend PERM's public meeting to announce future HIA
• Site visit= hold public HIA Kickoff Meeting with stakeholders to
develop HIA scope and assessment plan
• Communicate assessment plan to PERM and then External
Stakeholder Group
Assessment
Touch base with partners regarding data collection and analysis
Site visit= perform mold contamination sampling
Site visit= perform building and systems evaluation
Site visit= perform indoor air sampling
Communicate preliminary HIA findings to PERM and then External
Stakeholder Group
Recommendations
Reporting
Monitoring and
Evaluation
Site visit= meet with PERM and then External Stakeholder Group
(public meeting) to discuss preliminary HIA recommendations
Report final results of the HIA to PERM and then External
Stakeholder Group
Site visit= meet with PERM and then External Stakeholder Group
(public meeting) to discuss Draft HIA report and Executive Summary
Follow-up on conditions in Gerena and evaluate HIA after some of
the renovations are implemented
It is important to note that the public meetings after the initial HIA Kickoff meeting
were not achieved. The HIA Core Group were able to meet periodically with PERM to ensure
the HIA stayed relevant and responsive to the needs of the decision-makers.
3.2.5. Ensuring Equity in Stakeholder Engagement
A key component of the HIA process is to ensure that all stakeholders have equal opportunity to
be involved in the HIA. In order to ensure stakeholders had equal opportunity, the HIA Core
Group used different strategies to solicit participation, including:
27 (Chapter 3: Setting the Scope
-------
• Hosting community meetings at the school at different times during the day for
stakeholder convenience;
• Inviting stakeholders to HIA meetings via printed flyers in the community, personal
phone calls, and email;
• Notifying stakeholders of opportunities for participation in HIA at other project and
organization meetings; and
• Written invitations in both English and Spanish and hiring a Spanish translator for
community meetings to avoid potential language barriers.
3.3. HIA Quality Assurance and Evaluation Plan
Prior to conducting this HIA, EPA conducted a review of over 80 existing HIAs to determine the
current state-of-science and to identify best practices and areas for improving HIA
implementation (Rhodus, Fulk, Autrey, O'Shea, & Roth, 2013). The HIA Core Group used
EPA's review and other HIA practice guidance documents to guide the development of this HIA.
The Minimum Elements and Practice Standards for Health Impact Assessment (North American
HIA Practice Standards Working Group, 2010) served as the benchmarks for HIA tasks.
Once completed, the HIA would be evaluated through an external review among peers in HIA
and internal environments. The evaluation of the HIA process determines whether the methods
used in the HIA were appropriate, how well the HIA was implemented as planned, and whether
the HIA provided the anticipated benefit. EPA's review coordinator was responsible for
identifying and selecting potential peer-review candidates. The HIA Core Group provided a list
of potential sources for the review coordinator to seek out candidates to perform the review.
Three reviewers outside the project, and removed from the decision, were secured to provide a
critical evaluation of the HIA process. The reviewers included two HIA practitioners and one
expert in the field of building systems and indoor air quality.
As a supplement to the peer-review, the HIA Core Group would provide an internal perspective
on the successes, challenges, and lessons learned from performing the HIA. The HIA Project
Leads established criteria for judging the HIA a success in the RESES proposal. The primary
standard for success was that the HIA influenced the actions taken to improve air quality at
Gerena, with the expectations that those actions would reduce asthma. The second standard was
that the range of audiences, from community residents to school building authorities, would
understand the reasons for the remediation decisions. If the HIA achieved these two goals then
the HIA Core Group considered the HIA a success.
28 (Chapter 3: Setting the Scope
-------
I
3.4. HIA Study Area
Gerena is located northwest of downtown Springfield, Massachusetts. According to school
officials, most of the children and residents who use Gerena Community School live within a
half-mile, walking distance from the school. Figure 6 displays a half-mile radius around the
school, which represents the study area. This area intersects three Census tracts 8006, 8007, and
8008, which have been used historically to represent the community of North End (Spanish
American Union Inc., 2006). Based on the renovations proposed, the population that would be
most impacted included Gerena students, staff, and residents that live within the community of
North End.
EnvinMapper
Esn. HERE DeLoiroe METUNASA, USGS, EPA
Figure 6. A screen snap-shot, from EPA's EJScreen, of the location of Gerena (i.e., represented with blue
cross at the center of the half-mile buffer).
Approximately one-sixth of the student body (n=109 students) use the three school
buses that serve Gerena, which travel up to a mile and a half from the school (i.e., Census tracts
8005 and 8009). Census data showed that the population in the two additional tracts had vastly
different demographic and socioeconomic conditions compared to population immediately
around the school. The HIA Core Group decided not to include the additional tracts in the HIA
study area, because they would misrepresent the population that would be most impacted by
changes inside Gerena.
29 (Chapter 3: Setting the Scope
-------
3.5. Health Impacts Included
3.5.1. Interests and/or Concerns Identified by Stakeholders
*.
On October 17, 2012, the HIA Core Group initiated the Scoping step with a kickoff
meeting at Gerena. The discussions continued the next day to further define and/or refine the
topics of interest and/or concern. Appendix A documents the notes from those meetings.
The HIA Core Group used the HIA Kickoff Meeting in October 2012 to gather historic
experiences and observations at Gerena from among residents, parents, and school staff. It was
clear from the discussion that stakeholders were very concerned about the quality of the learning
environment at Gerena. The main concern regarded indoor air quality and respiratory health of
students and other Gerena occupants. The perception of the school's condition was believed to
be an influential factor in the student absenteeism (i.e., days away from school) and in the use of
the facility by the community. Even though student attendance has improved over the past
couple of years, one parent at the meeting referred to the perceived poor air as a common reason
for keeping their student home. A parent at the meeting raised the issue that the school's
underperformance might be related to inability to concentrate from the poor air quality.
Additional issues raised by community residents included: classroom noise, particularly for
students with behavioral disorders (e.g., attention deficit hyperactivity disorder) and accessibility
for public users. One resident explained that the closure of the tunnels at night and during the
weekend limited resident travel through the neighborhood. One resident stated at the meeting,
"Closing the community center under the school presented a major issue for parents and
community residents as well as several community organizations." The community center and
offices provided a safe space for children to play and the community to come together for social
events, organizations, and other services. Overall, the poor condition of the tunnels gave the
community an impression that the whole school was in disrepair, especially among those who
only use the building for the tunnels. Stakeholders at the meeting agreed that they wanted to see
Gerena used more by the community. Stakeholders urged the HIA Core Group to consider the
positive impact re-opening this space would have on the community.
The HIA Core Group asked the stakeholders at the meeting to rank the identified interests and/or
concerns as either high or low. This activity provided insight into which health issues should be
the focus of the HIA. The higher priority items reflected the amount of time spent discussing
impacts related to indoor air quality, especially among persons more vulnerable to poor air
30|Chapter 3: Setting the Scope
-------
quality (e.g., persons with asthma). Table 6 lists the prioritized interests and/or concerns
discussed at the stakeholder meetings.
Table 6. Prioritized Interests and/or Concerns Identified by Stakeholders
Higher Priority Concerns
Air quality
Mold
Levels of air pollutants in the school (e.g., particulate
matter)
Asthma
Condition of carpet and its impact on air quality
Perception of physical conditions of the school and its
influence on facility use
Unequal impact on vulnerable populations (socio-
economically disadvantaged, the young and the elderly,
and those with pre-existing conditions)
Lower Priority Concerns
Absenteeism
Classroom noise
The discussion that continued on the next day covered the equipment conditions, cost of
replacing the school versus renovating the school, indoor air monitoring, noise-reduction
equipment, and air quality in the building. The main consensus was that the HIA needed to
address the following:
1) Air Quality- characterization of key outdoor and indoor air pollutants and how they
affect indoor air quality at Gerena; recommendations will relate to the HVAC systems
and sewage and water pumps.
2) Respiratory Health- recommendations to mitigate asthma exacerbation at school by
either reducing moisture and water infiltration or improving indoor air quality.
3) Classroom Noise Levels- recommendations to improve classroom acoustics through
policy or management recommendations.
4) Community Perceptions- characterization of community perceptions related to
conditions at the school and a better understanding of the efforts to improve the school
and promote health.
5) Facility Use- identification of perceived facility conditions and opportunity for improved
facility use.
3.5.2. HIA Study Questions
Once the HIA's main topics were defined, initial research questions were developed. Table 7
lists the questions that served as the foundation for designing the assessment plan. These
31|Chapter 3: Setting the Scope
-------
research questions were further refined in the Assessment step, when data gaps were identified
and addressed.
Table 7. Initial Study Questions of the HIA by Topic
Topic
Air Quality
Respiratory
Health
Classroom
Noise Levels
Community
Perceptions
Facility Use
Baseline Research Question
What outcomes, in relation to air quality,
are being affected at Gerena Community
School?
What are the symptoms experienced at
Gerena Community School?
What contributes to the noise levels in
the classrooms?
What is the current perception of the
school from the community?
What are the current levels of use of the
facility? Where do facility users come
from?
Impact Research Question
How might these outcomes be
impacted by renovating the
school?
How might these symptoms be
impacted by renovations?
How might the acoustic conditions
be impacted by renovations?
How might renovating the school
influence community perceptions?
How might use of the facility
change due to renovation?
3.5.3. Pathways of Impact
On October 29, 2012, the HIA Core Group met to debrief after the scoping stakeholder meetings.
The HIA Core Group took the input received at the scoping stakeholder meetings and developed
a diagram of pathways in which the proposed renovations were anticipated to affect health. By
developing the pathway diagram, the HIA Core Group determined that the proposed renovations
would affect health through changes in the quality of the indoor air, perceptions of community
residents, and noise in the classrooms.
Figure 7 explains that the choice of renovation options will determine the amount of funding
spent and the implementation of new equipment and materials to improve indoor air quality. The
choices made in renovating Gerena may change the levels of key air pollutants in side the school,
which has (downstream) effects on respiratory health and perceptions about the facility. The
renovations implemented and how they are implemented may also change the amount of noise in
the classrooms, which may lead to changes in the perceived quality of the learning environment
and/or use of the facility. As mentioned previously, Gerena provides many amenities to
residents and students. The frequency in which stakeholders use Gerena can influence
educational performance (among students), social cohesion (among residents), physical activity,
personal safety, and/or health behaviors. Each of those determinants of health can lead to
changes in specific health outcomes, including overall mental and physical health.
32|Chapter 3: Setting the Scope
-------
I
Mew equipme-nl
and materials
air quality
Choice of
r*m*dl*tlon
sctrunp
Total Mowy
fi l»V»lsgf k*yilr
pollirtBrUitMid*
GeitiM
A Heipiralorv health..
h**hh
determinant* often
interact and
inflw*rnpf multiple
mental ind physical
indudlnfi
. d»pr*HKw»,
,_ Injury- ch"fnl«il
-J L =ai s, ube ii Ly
lVpe-2 diabetes,
asthma,
Figure 7. Theoretical impact pathway diagram in which renovations could lead to health outcomes.
3.5.4. Identified Vulnerable Populations
Vulnerable populations are populations that are more sensitive to and/or more affected (both
either positively or negatively) by changes in health and/or health determinants (NRC, 2011).
Renovations at Gerena may affect vulnerable impacted populations (VIPs) more than other
groups using the school. The HIA Core Group identified the following groups as VIPs:
• Young children (population under age 5
years)
• Older adults (population over 65 years)
• Students with asthma
• Low-income households (population at or
below twice the federal poverty level)
3.6. The Assessment Plan
Students with special needs (school
reported)
Students and residents with low English
proficiency (households in which all
members over age 14 years speak English
less than "very well")
The HIA Core Group searched for data sources and methods to answer the research questions
and used a scoping worksheet (in Excel) to help organize that process. For each research
question, the group identified data needed to answer the question, whether the data was
publically available, potential data sources, and the person responsible for gathering the
information. In addition, the HIA Core Group assigned a priority ranking for each research
question based on three criteria: 1) Is the data available?; 2) Does the team have the necessary
33|Chapter 3: Setting the Scope
-------
resources to answer the question?; and 3) does the research question respond to community
(stakeholder) concerns? The questions with the highest ranking were given priority in the
assessment plan. Appendix F documents the FflA Assessment Plan.
In the Screening step, the FflA Project Leads predicted that the assessment would include some
form of data collection and analysis of the indoor air, including mold, moisture, combustion-
source air pollutants, and health data. Thus, work began immediately to secure vehicles for
performing those activities. EPA used an in-house mold specialist and environmental health
researchers that could perform the mold contamination study at Gerena. EPA also used in-house
contractors and an ASPH Fellow to collect and analyze available health data. The FQA Core
Group needed additional personnel to collect and analyze data on moisture, indoor and outdoor
air pollutants, and the conditions in the facility that contributed to their current state. In order to
fulfill this need, the FflA Core Group solicited help from other researchers within EPA.
On November 20, 2012, the group hosted a meeting within ORD to discuss opportunities for
other researchers in SHC and the Air, Climate, and Energy (ACE) research programs to
collaborate and/or contribute to the FflA. Considering the goals and project timeline, ORD
research and expertise could provide great value to the FflA. This meeting proved very
beneficial, resulting in new researchers recruited to the FflA and methods identified.
The HIA was able to gain additional EPA Technical Leads that would lead the efforts to collect
and analyze data on the building and its mechanical systems and perform an air sampling study.
Combined with the mold contamination study, these on-site investigations would provide a
systems-based perspective of the indoor environment.
3.6.1. Data that was Available
There was a relatively large amount of publically available information. The HIA Core Group
obtained data on demographic and socioeconomic indicators from national surveys and asthma
prevalence among students and other school-reported data from the Massachusetts Department
of Elementary and Secondary Education (MA ESE), MA DPH, and the school nurse (with
permission from Springfield Public Schools). Data on student asthma prevalence and symptom
severity at Gerena was available through the school nurse, given that EPA verified that its use
was for public health practice and not human subjects research. The health data that is collected
will be used in a standard public health practice for the purpose of reducing exposures to
building and environmental contaminants within the specific school. Local media provided a
variety of stakeholder views/opinions. PERM provided historic information on the facility and
previous investigation reports. Furthermore, there was a wealth of peer-reviewed literature
34|Chapter 3: Setting the Scope
-------
available to perform literature reviews on pediatric asthma, classroom acoustics, and the social
environment related to the indoor environment.
National survey data provides the most accurate representation of population counts and
estimates in a given geographic area. Indicators used to characterize the population included
total population counts, demographic distribution (e.g., age, race, ethnicity, gender, etc.), housing
status, income, and educational attainment. The American Community Survey (ACS) was used
to acquire information on the social structure (i.e., family size, household type, gender of
householder), primary language spoken at home, or country of origin, since this information is
not collected by the decennial Census.
There are important differences between the Census and ACS data files. First, the
data for the Census survey is collected every ten years, whereas the ACS collects information
every year. Second, the Census data includes observed numbers (counts), whereas the ACS
reports calculated estimates with margins of error. ACS averages are computed by aggregating
data over five year periods. Thus, the 2008-2012 ACS estimates were matched with data from
the 2010 Census. Third, Census data at fine resolutions (e.g., block group or block levels) was
not available since only the abridged format Census (short format) was released in 2010.
3.6.2. Data Unavailable (Data Gaps)
No data existed on the levels of pollutants in the school or the extent of mold contamination. As
anticipated in the Screening step, technical expertise and funding was available through EPA, to
a limited extent, to perform (primary) data collection and analysis related to indoor air at Gerena.
Often, assessments are limited by the resources available (e.g., data, timing, personnel, funding,
etc.). There were some instances where data needed for the assessment were not accessible or
did not exist. For example, individual-level health data of North End residents was not
publically available, with the exception of mortality data, due to privacy protection laws (e.g.,
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Privacy Rule). Mortality rates are not
optimal indicators of health status, since they do not provide information on existing health
conditions among the living population. However, they can offer a proxy for inferring common
health issues in the community. Some of the outdoor air monitoring and/or modeling approaches
outlined in the RESES proposal were unavailable, due to resource restrictions. Instead, the HIA
Core Group infused some of the outdoor air approaches with the indoor air sampling approach,
wherever possible.
35|Chapter 3: Setting the Scope
-------
Only anecdotal information was available regarding the use of the facility. In order to acquire
information sufficient for analysis, the HIA Core Group would have to make direct observations
of persons who use the building or use surveys to collect the information. This type of study
requires approval through an Internal Review Board, which was not included in the original plan
and/or budget for this HIA. The HIA Core Group decided that research questions related to
facility use would have to be answered with the limited information available.
3.6.3. Methods to be used to Characterize Health Impacts
In the Screening step, the HIA Project Leads anticipated having a group of graduate students
perform modeling and/or estimations of changes in health outcomes as result of the different air
quality scenarios. However, the vehicle for the graduate student could not be secured. Thus, the
HIA Core Group could only qualitatively assess potential health impacts of the proposed
renovations. The HIA Core Group used an impact characterization table, with pre-determined
criterion and scales, to convey the anticipated health impacts. Table 8 lists the chosen criterion,
their description and the scale (non-numeric) used.
Table 8. Criterion used to Characterize Impacts to Health in Assessment
Measurement
Description
Direction Tells whether the renovation will
promote or detract from health
Likelihood Tells how likely the renovation
may impact health
Magnitude Tells how many people may be
impacted
Scale
Positive (|), Negative (|), Both positive
and negative (||), Uncertain (?), No effect
Highly Likely, Somewhat Likely, Not
Very Likely
Many, Moderate, Few
Distribution
Strength of
Evidence
Tells how the impact may be
distributed among sub-groups
within the population
Explains the amount of evidence
used to support the judgment
Equal impact to all (0), Vulnerable
populations will benefit more (+),
Vulnerable populations will be harmed
more (-)
Many strong studies (***; n > 10), A few
good studies (**; 3 > n < 10), No specific
study, but impact is plausible (*)
3.6.4. Refining the Assessment Plan
*,
On December 10, 2012, the HIA Core Group discussed the HIA scope with PERM
and solicited feedback on the pathway diagram and initial research questions. The HIA Core
Group used the feedback gleaned from this meeting and previous discussions to refine the HIA
36|Chapter 3: Setting the Scope
-------
scope. The HIA Core Group met with PERM on February 14, 2013 to discuss final details on
data collection. Appendix A documents the notes from both meetings.
The HIA assessment plan included forensic review of historic investigative reports from
PBRM's contractors, collecting and analyzing new and publically available data, as well as
performing reviews of scientific and peer-reviewed literature. The HIA Core Group would use
the collective information gleaned from each analysis to assess potential health impacts
comprehensively. The three priority health impacts (outcomes and/or determinants of health) of
focus were respiratory health, community perceptions, and classroom acoustics (noise). The
HIA Core Group updated or further refined the assessment plan as the assessment progressed.
Appendix F documents the HIA assessment plan.
The specific data collection and analysis methods for on-site investigations (performed by EPA
and its sub-contractors) were each required to have an Agency-approved QAPP that outlined the
scientific approach, study oversight, and procedures used. EPA finalized the QAPP for
collecting data on the building infrastructure and systems in March 2013 and the indoor air in
May 2013. ARCADIS served as the primary contractor, with additional support from Turner
Building Science and Design. CSS-Dynamac and the ASPH Fellow provided support for
literature reviews and other HIA activities. In March 2013, the HIA Core Group released a
public flyer notifying stakeholders of the HIA's progress and that there was upcoming data
collection planned.
It is important to note that the indoor air analysis was not intended to provide a
comprehensive assessment of outdoor air quality around the school. The resources available to
perform the air sampling were limited to evaluating selected combustion-source air pollutants
and the scope was limited to evaluating the proposed renovations that would affect air quality
inside the school. It is also important to consider where causal associations or inferences are
indicated and where associations (i.e., could be causal or not causal) are described. The
standards for establishing a causal relationship are intricate and typically include levels of
certainty or confidence. Often, researchers must rely on circumstantial evidence to provide some
insight into existing relationships and potential mediators in the pathway.
37|Chapter 3: Setting the Scope
-------
Chapter 4. Assessment Findings
There are two main components to the assessment step in HIA— 1) characterizing the existing
conditions and 2) predicting impacts to health that may result from a proposed project, program,
policy, or plan. During the Assessment step, data is gathered and analyzed from an array of
sources on existing conditions among the target population (i.e., who the final decision will
affect) and the conditions related to health. Once a baseline is established, HIA practitioners can
begin determining what changes to health and/or determinants of health may result from the
decision.
4.1. Overview of the Assessment Step
Assessment activities continued from middle October 2012 to January 2014. This assessment of
health impacts comprised numerous analyses that appraised the existing conditions among the
population using Gerena and existing conditions inside the facility. The HIA Core Group used
an interdisciplinary approach to create the baseline and predict potential impacts to health. EPA
and its contractors performed data collection and analysis for both new and existing data.
Analyses included a baseline population affected analysis; mold contamination analysis, analyses
of the building conditions and systems, including a moisture control analysis, indoor air pressure
and movement analysis, and HVAC operations analysis; indoor air quality analysis; qualitative
analyses of literature on classroom noise, asthma, and social perceptions; and qualitative
characterization of potential impacts to health. In addition to EPA staff and contractors,
representatives from PERM and MA DEP participated in designing the assessment and planning
for new data collection. Figure 8 provides an overview of the activities involved with the
Assessment step. Items with red flags are also considered Reporting activities. Appendix G
provides details of the assessment methods and findings for each analysis.
*,
On April 1, 2013, the HIA Core Group met with PERM to debrief from the data
collection process for the building conditions and systems analyses. The HIA Core Group
solicited feedback on the process and lessons learned for future data collection protocols. The
HIA Core Group used PBRM's feedback to make clarifications and refine subsequent analyses.
Appendix A provides notes from this meeting.
38|Chapter 4: Assessment Findings
-------
C
Oct
Data collection for Mold Contamination
Analysis
10/16/2012
Mold Contamination Analysis
interim report completed
12/17/2012
Nov
Dec
Mold Contamination Analysis
2012
10/16/2012 -12/17/2012
Public flyer released notifying community of upcoming data collection and HIA progress
3/13/2013
w HIA Core Group sent e-mail to community stakeholders with updates on the
progress of the HIA
3/22/2013
Walkthrough Tour of Gerena, data collection initiated
for Building Conditions and Systems Analyses
3/24/2013
HIA Core Group meeting- debrief from data
collection of indoor air, discussed update on HIA
report and plan for developing recommendations
6/17/2013
rcon
8/1:
r sampling plan and went through
HIA Core Group
meeting-
debrief from
data collection
process
3/26/2013
Meeting with PBRM-
debrief from data
collection and PBRM's
feedback on HIA
activities and progress
4/1/2013
HIA Core Group meeting- discusse
"airflow refresher" presentation
4/14/2013
Meeting with PBRM and MA DEP- discussed initial data results of Building
Conditions and Systems Analyses and plan for future air sampling
4/17/2013
HIA Core Group meeting- discussed challenges and plan for upcoming data
collection and QAPP for Indoor Air Analysis and updates to HIA timeline
4/18/2013
HIA Core Group
meeting- discussed
plan for characterizing
health impacts
predicted
7/15/2013
HIA Core Group meeting- discussed updates to HIA timeline and upcoming
meeting with PBRM to present initial findings
5/2/2013
Meeting with PBRM- discussed initial findings from Building Conditions and
Systems Analyses
5/6/2013
Apr
Building Conditions and
Systems Analyses interim
report completed
4/10/2013
HIA Core Group meeting- discussed updates
to the comm. plan and plan for selecting air
sampling sites
4/11/2013
May
HIA Core Group meeting- discussed process for answering HIA questions
related to noise and asthma and findings from the literature reviews
5/13/2013 H|A Core Group meeting-discussed process for
answering HIA questions related to indoor air quality
5/30/2013
Data collection initiated for Indoor Air Analysis
6/5/2013
HIA Core Group meeting-
discussed items included
in (draft) impact
characterization table
7/29/2013
HIA Core Group meeting- discussed
updates to HIA timeline and plan to
complete Assessment step
.2/2013
HIA Core Group meeting- discussed
community perceptions literature review
and analysis findings and health impacts
8/13/2013
HIA Core Group meeting- discussed
classroom noise literature review
findings and health impacts
8/15/2013
HIA Core Group meeting-
continued discussion of
community perceptions findings
and recommendations
8/20/2013
HIA Core Group meeting-
discussed updates on Indoor
Air Analysis, challenges, and
health impacts predicted
8/26/2013
HIA Core Group meeting-
discussed asthma literature
review findings and health
impacts predicted
8/27/2013
Indoor Air Analysis
interim report completed
8/29/2013
2013
Building and Systems Analyses 3/24/2013 - 5/2/2013
Floors resurfaced in tunnels (delay data •
collection for Indoor Air Analysis) i
14/14/2013-4/23/2013
Indoor Air Analysis
Health Impact Analysis
6/5/2013 -8/29/2013
7/29/2013 - 8/30/2013
HIA Core Group meeting- discussed (draft)
^ HIA Report through Assessment activities
11/18/2013
HIA Core Group meeting- discussed updates to HIA timeline
and initial findings from the Indoor Air Analysis
11/18/2013
HIA Core Group meeting- re-opened discussion on
characterizing health impacts from indoor air
12/2/2013
HIA Core Group meeting- re-opened discussion on characterizing
health impacts of from classroom noise and community perceptions
12/3/2013
HIA Core Group meeting- discussed final list of
renovations, HIA recommendations, and
summaries of health impacts predicted
12/5/2013
W Meeting with PBRM- presented summaries
of HIA findings and solicited feedback
12/9/2013
Indoor Air Analysis (revised)
interim report completed
1/13/2014
HIA Core Group meeting-
discussed findings from Indoor
Air Analysis interim report
1/21/2014
2013 Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
2014
Federal
government I
shutdown (delay '
all HIA work)
Health Impact Analysis (discussion re-opened) 11/11/2013 -12/9/2013
| 10/1/2013 -10/17/2013
Indoor Air Analysis (discussion re-opened)
11/8/2013 -1/21/2014
Figure 8. Timeline of activities in the Assessment step.
39|Chapter 4: Assessment Findings
-------
4.2. Existing Conditions among the Population Using Gerena
The following information describes the results from the baseline population analysis, in which
the HIA Core Group established a baseline in which to compare potential health effects of the
affected population. The baseline includes a characterization of the health status among the
affected population and any socioeconomic and/or environmental variables known to influence
health. Performing this analysis helped to understand the extent to which the proposed
renovations may affect health and identify VIPs. Appendix G provides details of the methods
used and findings from the baseline population analysis.
4.2.1. Population History, Demographics, and Socioeconomic Conditions
The community of North End was founded by immigrant workers in the 1800s and still shares a
predominantly immigrant heritage (Gelin, 1984). Beginning in the 1960s, the Connecticut River
Valley farming industry started employing a large amount of Puerto Rican laborers. The large
influx of Hispanic/Latino population greatly influenced the social and cultural environment still
seen in the area today. The 2010 Census reported 8,718 residents living in North End (U.S.
Census Bureau, 2010). The density of the population was 7,861 individuals per square mile.
Young children under the age of 5 years represented 9.7% of the residents. Older adults over the
age of 65 represented 7.7% of the population. Over one-third of the population (36.1%) was
under 18 years old.
In October 2012, Gerena had 667 students enrolled, which was up 6% from the previous year.
The five-year average enrollment was about 694 students per year (MA ESE, 2013). With the
exception of the 2013 year, total enrollment has been declining in the past five years. Gerena
had a student to teacher ratio of 10.3 to 1. Of the students enrolled, 129 were pre-kindergarten
(MA ESE, 2013).
In 2010, most (87%) residents living in North End were of Hispanic or Latino ethnicity; African
Americans made up 14% of the population; and white, alone and non-hispanic represented 5.2%
of the population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). Most households (estimated 77.0%) were low-
income, living on an income below twice the federal poverty level (U.S. EPA, 2015). Table 9
compares the socioeconomic conditions in North End (Census tracts 8006, 8007, and 8008) and
Springfield, MA.
40|Chapter 4: Assessment Findings
-------
Table 9. Key Socioeconomic Indicators for North End and Springfield, MA
Socioeconomic Indicators
Total Population
Minority Population*
Low Income Population^
Linguistically Isolated Households^
Population with Less Than High School Education
North End*
8,625
96.0%
77.0%
36.0%
50.0%
Springfield, MAf
153,276
48.5%
51.0%
15.4%
23.9%
* Source: EPA EJScreen 2015, user-specified polygon location, margin of error not included
t Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2008-2012 American Community Survey, margin of error not
included
* Minority population includes all people other than non-Hispanic, white-alone individuals
§ Percentage of population at or below twice the federal poverty level
^Percentage of people in household in which all member's over age 14 years speak English less
than "very well"
Most of the students at Gerena were reported as "high needs" (93%), which is based on the
percentage of students that are English Language Learners (ELL), students with disabilities,
and/or are from low-income families (i.e., enrolled in the state lunch assistance program). Of the
667 students enrolled in 2013, 13.5% were students with disabilities, 28.0% were ELL, and
90.1% were from low-income families (MA ESE, 2013). Over one-third (37.2) of students
spoke English as a second language. The special education students are taught on the second
level of Building B (Rooms 208 and 209), instead of in the open-floor pods on the third level.
Students were also predominantly (81.3%) Hispanic or Latino ethnicity (MA ESE, 2013).
In 2013, the State of Massachusetts recently upgraded Gerena to Accountability and Assistance
Level 3 (previously at Level 4) for its recent improvement in student and teacher performance
(Warwick & Sarno, 2013). Level 3 signifies the school is among the lowest performing 20% of
elementary schools in the state, but are showing improvement; whereas Level 4 is reserved for
schools that are among the lowest performing and least improving in the state (Office of
Educational Quality and Accountability, 2005). Increased training for educators in conjunction
with the efforts to improve the curriculum, was attributed to the school's improvement, which
was the largest improvement margin seen of any level 4 school in the state (Warwick & Sarno,
2013).
4.2.2. Health Concerns among Residents and Students
The average mortality rate for the study area was 31.2 per 1,000 people over five years. Cancer
(all types) was the leading cause of death in the study area, followed by coronary heart disease.
41|Chapter 4: Assessment Findings
-------
Approximately one in a thousand people die from lung cancer or diabetes mellitus (MA DPH,
2013a). Death from cardiovascular disease may be caused by multiple factors, including
hereditary pre-disposition, prolonged high levels of stress, poor health behaviors (e.g., using
tobacco products, recreation drugs, and/or high consumption of alcohol), and/or exposure to poor
air quality. Exposure to poor air quality is also a common cause of death related to lung cancer.
The prevalence of asthma is considerably high in Springfield, MA compared to other parts of the
state. Springfield, MA has a significantly higher prevalence of lifetime asthma at 18.1% (95%
confidence= 16.6% to 19.5%), compared to the state's prevalence of 14.7% (95% confidence
14.3% to 15.1%) (MA DPH, 2013b). The prevalence of asthma is higher among residents of
Hispanic ethnicity, compared to non-Hispanics, and females, compared to males (MA DPH,
2013b). Asthma prevalence is greater among low-income households (i.e., total household
income less than $50,000 per year) at 13.7%, compared to only 7.9% prevalence among those
with income greater than $50,000 a year (MA DPH, 2013b). Individuals with more formal
education have a lower prevalence of asthma than those with less formal education.
The prevalence of asthma among students at Gerena has continuously been higher than the
statewide school average. Table 10 lists asthma prevalence by year at Gerena compared to the
state.
Table 10. Student Asthma Prevalence at the School and State Level
School Year
2003-2004
2004-2005
2005-2006
2006-2007
2007-2008
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010-2011
2011-2012
School Asthma Prevalence*
21.2%
20.9 %
42.6 %
20.7 %
21.3%
24.7 %
24.0 %!
20.0 %!
19.0 %!
State Asthma Prevalence*
9.5%
10.0%
10.6%
10.8%
10.8%
10.9%
Not Available
Not Available
Not Available
* Source: MA DPH Pediatric Asthma Surveillance Metadata
t Source: Values reported by Springfield Public Schools, but not yet verified by MA DPH
Recently, there has been an improvement in both student attendance and the reduction in asthma
prevalence. Figure 9 graphs the asthma rate, student attendance (and teacher attendance) over
42|Chapter 4: Assessment Findings
-------
time at Gerena. The data suggests that as asthma prevalence declined from 2009 to 2012, student
and teacher attendance improved.
Prevalence of Asthma and Attendance at Gerena
•Asthma Rate
•Student
Attendance
•Teacher
Attendance
School Year
Figure 9. Prevalence of asthma among school-aged children and attendance at Gerena (Mass CHIP, 2013).
It is important to note that the cause for the very dramatic prevalence of 42.6 %,
during the 2005-2006 school year, is unknown; but may have been the result of a reporting error.
The Pioneer Valley Asthma Coalition (PVAC), a local non-profit organization, has been working
with school nurses on documenting visits to the school nurse related to asthma and respiratory
health. This data has been used as a baseline to judge the success of community wide actions to
improve the management of asthma symptoms. Typical asthma symptoms include difficulty
breathing and wheezing.
Over two years, there were 7,343 visits to the school nurse, 1,512 of which were related to
asthma, respiratory health, and/or other exposures. Of those visits, 6.3% were directly related to
asthma, 0.7% were related to difficulty breathing, 1.2% were related to chest pain and/or
tightness, 5.2% were related to headaches, and 3.8% were related to neurological concerns.
Figure 10 breaks down the composite visits related to asthma, respiratory health, and/or other
exposures. Both PVAC and the school nurses have focused on increasing the number of student
asthma management plans filed with the school and increasing asthma awareness events.
43|Chapter 4: Assessment Findings
-------
It is important to note that visits to the school nurse does not account for multiple
visits by one individual. The information presented is total counts of visits, not individuals.
260; 17%
20; 1%
330; 22%
REASONS FOR VISITS TO THE SCHOOL NURSE
109; 7% GERENA COMMUNITY SCHOOL AUG 2011 TO JUN 2013
I Allergy
I Asthma concerns
I Asthma concerns-unexpected visit
I Asthma concern-pre-exercise
I Breathing problems
I Breathing problems- wheezing
I Chest
I Chest-discomfort
I Chest-tightness
I Cough
lHeadache
I Neurological concern
230; 15% 3;°% • Neurological concern- seizure
Figure 10. Reasons for visits to the school nurse at Gerena, from 2011 to 2013 (Springfield Public Schools,
2013).
4.3. Existing Conditions Related to the Indoor Environment
The HIA Core Group used an interdisciplinary, systems-based approach to address potential
and/or perceived issues associated with the indoor environment at Gerena. The assessment
appraised historic and existing states of the building's conditions, systems, and indoor pollutants
to put together a comprehensive perspective of the factors that influenced the indoor
environment. In addition, the HIA Core Group reviewed local media (e.g., newspapers,
television segments, and interviews) to understand how the community perceived the conditions
inside the building. Analyses of the building conditions and systems assessment included several
sub-analyses, which evaluated historic mold exposure, HVAC system performance, air pressure
and movement, air leakage, and the presence of key combustion-source indoor air pollutants.
Appendix G provides the details for each analysis.
44|Chapter 4: Assessment Findings
-------
All (new) data collection and analysis performed by EPA and its contractors followed
EPA-approved procedures, in accordance with the quality assurance project plans (QAPPs)
designed specifically for this investigation. The data collection and analysis of the systems
operations and building conditions were guided by best practices developed by the U.S. EPA,
National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, and the U.S. Department of Energy
handbooks and manuals on building air quality and moisture control.
4.3.1. Mold Contamination Analysis
The presence of mold on building materials and/or a "moldy" odor has been a historic concern
among Gerena users. Mold grows in oxygenated, damp areas and feeds on almost any organic
material (EPA, 2008). Molds reproduce by making microscopic spores that are carried in the air
to other locations or inhaled. When mold spores land on damp, porous building material (e.g.,
carpet, wood, paper, tiles, dry-wall, insulation, etc.), they begin growing and digesting the
material, leading to releasing more spores and (in some) odors (EPA, 2008). As stated in the
WHO Guidelines for Indoor Air Quality: Dampness and Mould (2009a), "exposure to microbial
contaminants is clinically associated with respiratory symptoms, allergies, asthma, and
immunological reactions." It is impossible to completely eliminate mold from the indoor
environment. What is unknown is how much (or to what extent) mold contamination in a
building becomes a health hazard. Knowing that moisture can never be completely eliminated in
Gerena (due to the aforementioned design and location of the underground tunnels), PERM
performs ongoing cleaning, drying and/or and replacing of wet building material that could be a
food source for mold.
The purpose of the mold contamination analysis (as stated in the RESES proposal) was to
identify and quantify the extent of mold contamination in Gerena. The traditional method for
identifying mold in a building involves visual observation of microbial growth in or on building
materials and/or checking for odor, which is most often performed as a walk-through survey.
Although this method is useful for identifying areas where mold is already growing, it is highly
subjective and fails to determine the extent of mold contamination in the building and the species
of mold (or other fungi) present. Different indoor environments can grow different types of
mold. Scientific methods have evolved to identify the mold species that indicate water-damage
and/or are related to (but not definitive causes of) specific health outcomes (Santilli, 2002).
Therefore, identifying the species of mold in the school may inform the extent of water-damage
and/or the potential risk to health for its occupants. It is important to note that there is no
45|Chapter 4: Assessment Findings
-------
standard method for determining the extent of mold contamination in buildings; nor is there a
consistent method for assessing the health impact of mold exposure among building users.
Previous investigations already applied the traditional methods of walk-through survey for
identifying the presence of mold in Gerena. For example, in 2004, the Massachusetts
Department of Public Health performed an indoor air quality assessment and found spots of
water damaged ceiling tiles and carpet, and visible mold growth and "moldy" odor on a ceiling
tile in Pod 1 of Building B third floor). Since then, PERM replaced the roof and atrium skylight
to address the sources of incoming water and replaced the carpet in the Pods. In 2012, PBRM's
contractors noted a "musty" odor in Building C (O'Reilly, Talbot & Okun Engineering
Associates, 2012). Since renovations at Gerena have been ongoing, the HIA needed to use a
method that also provided information on historic or long-term mold exposure.
The HIA Core Group selected a standardized DNA-based method, developed by EPA, to test for
different mold species throughout the building, including species that indicate water damage and
species commonly found even without water damage. On October 16, 2012, EPA collected a
single sample of settled dust at thirty sites throughout the facility and used the DNA-based
method to identify and count the spores of 36 indicator mold species. In order to quantify the
areas where mold contamination was highest, EPA applied the Environmental Relative
Moldiness Index (ERMI), which indicates areas where mold spore concentration from water-
damage indicator species is highest.
Figure 11 maps the locations where EPA sampled the settled dust in the tunnels. Smaller black
dots represent lower ERMI values, across the spectrum of samples, and larger black dots
represent higher ERMI values.
46|Chapter 4: Assessment Findings
-------
Building B
Building C
Figure 11. Locations of sample sites in the tunnels, with corresponding relative ERMI values.
The tunnels had the lowest average ERMI value of the three building levels. The lowest ERMI
value, across the 30 sample sites, was in Office 5 of Building C (tunnel). The "afterschool
room" located in the tunnel of Building B had the highest mold concentration in the tunnels.
Figure 12 maps the sites where EPA sampled the settled dust on the second floor (level 2) of
Building B. Figure 13 maps the sites where EPA sampled the settled dust on the third floor
(level 3) of Building B.
Figure 12. Locations of sample sites on second floor of Building B, with corresponding relative ERMI values.
47|Chapter 4: Assessment Findings
-------
Figure 13. Locations of sample sites on third floor of Building B, with corresponding relative ERMI values.
The third level of Building B had the highest average ERMI value, among the three levels; the
highest value (across the 30 samples) taken from Pod 7. Overall, mold contamination based on
the ERMI values was found to be high throughout the building, which was similar to other tested
schools with historic water damage (Thomas, Burton, Mueller, Page, & Vesper, 2012; Li, et al.,
2011).
It is important to note that settled dust was collected from undisturbed locations (not
included in routine cleaning schedule, such areas as tops of doorframes and bookshelves) to
capture historic exposures. Therefore, the mold spores sampled from settled dust may not reflect
current exposures.
4.3.2. Moisture Control Analysis
Since mold requires water to grow, the control of moisture in buildings is important for
controlling mold growth, in addition to occupant comfort. As stated in the EPA's Indoor Air
Quality Tools for Schools guide, "Humid weather in generally cold climates, like the
Northeastern U.S., can cause condensation on un-insulated ground contact floor slabs or
basement walls," which can lead to mold growth (U.S. EPA, 2012c). EPA recommends a
relative humidity of 60% (or below), and the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and
Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) recommends a temperature remaining between 68-74 °F
during winter and 72.5 to 78 °F during summer (ASHRAE Standard 55- 1992, Thermal
Conditions for Human Occupancy).
Historically, Gerena faced on-going issues with water infiltration and moisture. In June 2012,
PBRM's contractors found evidence of water-damage to the floor tiles in Building C and some
minor water staining on carpeting and floor tiles of Pod 10 (level 3 of Building B); but reported
48|Chapter 4: Assessment Findings
-------
that the majority of the remaining school classrooms, offices, and other occupied areas were
clean, dry, and showed no visible evidence of water infiltration (O'Reilly, Talbot & Okun
Engineering Associates, 2012).
In March 2013, EPA performed a 48-hour recording of temperature and moisture (relative
humidity) in real-time to determine the HVAC systems' ability to control moisture. The sites
where recording took place included the main office and science lab (second level of Building
B), Mini Pod 6 and Pod 6 (third level of Building B). To help determine the variability in
building conditions across campus, temperature and relative humidity measurements were taken
twice daily at a number of indoor locations throughout the facility for six days in June 2013.
Overall, the HVAC systems seemed to be adequately controlling the temperature (between 70-
78°F) and relative humidity (50-65%) in the spaces where sensors were recording. With the
active and historical water issues, it may be advantageous to control the humidity at a lower
level. There were five locations with an average relative humidity slightly above 60%, which is
considered the upper threshold based on ASHRAE guidance, that included the mechanical room
in Building A (tunnel), the gym in Building D, and the special education room, library, and
Principal's office on the second level of Building B.
It is unlikely the mechanical room was actively conditioned and some windows were
open during this study. Based on nearby outdoor temperature readings (at the Springfield
Airport), the HVAC systems were likely operating in both heating and cooling modes during this
study.
4.3.3. Indoor Air Pressure and Movement Analysis
The HVAC systems bring outside air into the building (via air intakes), then circulates the air
using a series of supply, return ducts, and air handling units. An ideal air pressure means there is
an equal balance between the amount of air coming into a space and the amount of air leaving a
space. A neutral balance between the air supplied and the air returned can prove very difficult,
especially during changes in climate. A negative pressure will develop in a space where more air
is removed than supplied. This causes the building space to draw air in from other places or
(unplanned) pathways to make up the loss of air pressure. A slight negative pressure can be
advantageous in colder climates to keep moisture (relative humidity) lower. A positive pressure
develops in a space when more air is supplied than removed, leading to air being pushed out of
the space to other places or through (unplanned) pathways, such as gaps in the building
49|Chapter 4: Assessment Findings
-------
enclosure. A slight positive pressure can also be advantageous in warmer climates to control
moisture. Measuring air pressure can help identify the movement of air in a building at the rate
at which air is escaping the building enclosure. Infrared imaging was conducted in order to
obtain an initial understanding of where was leaking from the building enclosure. Air leakage
from a building can make it difficult to control air movement and maintain air pressure in a
building space.
Adequate ventilation is important to the comfort and breathing ease for building occupants.
When a space is occupied, there must be enough ventilation so that occupants can breathe easily
and carbon dioxide (CCh) levels remain low. Monitoring carbon dioxide levels helps determine
if the HVAC systems are providing adequate ventilation.
From March 24 to 26, 2013, EPA contractors performed air pressure testing and mapped the
direction of air movement throughout the facility. Contractors used blower door measurements
to determine the current air leakage rate of the facility and the likely feasibility of making the
enclosure more airtight to better gain control over the air quality inside the building. Infrared
imaging was also used to identify specific areas of the facility where energy was being lost and if
there were current wet areas along walls, ceilings, or floors that were not readily visible. EPA
contractors performed continuous recording of CO2 in selected occupied spaces to assess if
existing ventilation rates are likely to meet current ASHRAE Standard 62 guidelines. Testing
was performed under normal operating conditions.
A review of the results from the pressure mapping indicate that the current HVAC systems affect
the movement of air within the facility. Some of the air-handling units no longer introduce
outdoor air, either because they were closed or not function properly. In areas where the air-
handing unit is not drawing in outside air (e.g., air conditioning units in the Main Office and
Media Center), a low pressure gradient causes air to be drawn in from other areas, which
overburdens the units serving those spaces.
Additionally, some of the building design features, including the atrium and the series of stair
towers that connect the lower level of Building B to the upper levels, affect building pressures
and transport pathways resulting in air movement from the street into the building. The atrium
draws air from the lower levels (tunnels) and delivers it to the second level and third levels of
Building B simulating a "chimney" effect. This finding helps explain why the average
concentration of mold spores found on the third level of Building B was the highest of the three
building levels when the suspected sources of mold growth came from the tunnels. Figure 14
maps the direction of air movement on the second level of Building B.
50|Chapter 4: Assessment Findings
-------
Figure 14. Air movement (indicated by red arrows) throughout the second level of Building B.
EPA found that the building has a high air leakage rate (1,238.6 cubic feet per minute; CFM)
compared to any modern standard now in existence for building construction. In its current
condition, the building would require approximately 25,000 to 30,000 CFM of make-up air
simply to keep the building at neutral pressure. Such a high amount of make-up air undoubtedly
uses a large amount of energy. As air pressure increases, air leakage also increases.
The infrared imaging identified air leakage sites at the wall-roof junction and the floor-wall
junctions of Building B (where the third level overhangs the second level). Other areas of air
leakage were found along the structural beams and where the structural columns and walls join.
Figure 15 identifies one of the air leakage sites found using infrared imaging that was not readily
identified. Air leak sites, such as the one found at the end of Building C (tunnel) near Building
B, allow for indoor air to escape out of the building and untreated outdoor air to enter the
building. The lost air does not get recycled through the HVAC system, which leads to the
system working harder and using more energy to heat or cool the air.
Figure 15. Example of a "hot spot," where Building B connects to Building C, identified by infrared imaging.
51|Chapter 4: Assessment Findings
-------
4.3.4. HVAC Operation Analysis
The technical portion of the building conditions and systems assessment requires an inter-
disciplinary approach that includes evaluation of previously performed work and existing
operations and maintenance. This approach helps prevent the duplication of work, improves the
design of (new) data collection and analysis, and helps provide a more comprehensive
perspective of the issues facing the operations and management of the facility.
EPA and contractors gathered information on the operation and maintenance of the HVAC
systems from the building maintenance staff and the company contracted to perform
maintenance on the systems to determine the current control logic for the HVAC air supply and
exhaust fans. In addition, EPA and its contractors performed a forensic review of documents
prepared by PBRM's contractors from previous investigations at the school related to the HVAC
systems. In March 2013, EPA and its contractors performed a visual survey of the current
conditions for some of the air handlers that were accessible. The interiors of four air-handling
units were observed, including units 12, 23, 24, 33, and 36.
Based on the on-site observations, EPA and its contractors verified that the information gathered
from the review of historic reports appeared reasonable regarding the status of the various
systems and actions that are planned to address building and occupant needs. Some of the air
handling units were found to be closed or operating with major malfunctions, broken equipment,
and poorly maintained drain pans (units 12, 23, 24, 33, and 36). The access doors to the interior
of some air handing units were malfunctioning making it difficult to gain access to provide
routine maintenance (e.g., cleaning coil faces and drip pans). Visible microbial growth was
found in the drain pans and coil faces of the observed units (units 12, 23, 33, and 36). In
addition, several units were overdue for replacement. The condition of the four units observed
suggest that the remaining (unobserved) units are likely in the same condition.
PERM has been working closely with the school maintenance staff and hired new positions to
help meet maintenance requirements. The areas served by overburdened air handling units
combined with the high air leakage rate are likely contributing to the high-energy use for the
facility.
4.3.5. Indoor Air Quality Analysis
The purpose of the indoor air quality analysis was to address stakeholders' perceived concerns
regarding the potential influence of outdoor combustion-source (mostly nearby traffic) and
indoor air pollutants on indoor air quality in Gerena. Multiple factors related to the design of the
52|Chapter 4: Assessment Findings
-------
building and the efficiency of the HVAC system to treat the air control the levels of air pollutants
in a building (EPA, 2013a). Air coming into the building through the fresh-air intakes can
contain key pollutants that compromise the air, including particles and reactive gases from
combustion reactions (e.g., automobiles and power plant emissions), as well as small particles
from organic sources (e.g., mold spores and pollen from plants) (EPA, 2012a). When the HVAC
system runs efficiently, it typically filters some of these pollutants from the incoming air, but not
all. When the HVAC system is overloaded or malfunctioning, unwanted material is circulated
with the incoming air throughout the building.
Because there are thousands of pollutants one can monitor, the following is a
generalized characterization of key outdoor sources of air pollutants around Gerena and should
not be considered a comprehensive air quality assessment.
Outdoor Air Pollutants around Gerena
Springfield, Massachusetts is a highly industrialized area and sits along a major transportation
route with a lot of road and railway traffic going through the region. Springfield, MA is known
as a transit hub for its central location and the main interstate and state highways routes that run
through the city. On August 11, 2009, the Massachusetts Highway Department recorded 24-hour
continuous traffic counts. Figure 16 plots the results of the traffic recording on 1-91 near Gerena.
A total 104,236 vehicles traveled on 1-91 over the 24-hours, with a clear pattern of higher counts
in the morning and afternoon "rush hours." The recorded daily traffic count was consistent with
historical average annual daily traffic counts recorded in Springfield, MA.
53|Chapter 4: Assessment Findings
-------
Hourly Traffic Count for 191 North and Southbound
Massachusetts Highway Department (August 11, 2009)
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
Hourly Traffic Count
Figure 16. Hourly Traffic Counts for 1-91 on August 11,2009
Autobody shops, hospitals, manufacturing and metal working businesses, cold-storage facilities,
salvage yards, and fuel distributors are just some of the emitters (in addition to road source)
located within a half-mile of Gerena (based on EPA's Enforcement and Compliance History
Online; ECHO maps). Many of these facilities have permitted releases of chemicals known to
exacerbate asthma symptoms, the most common being nickel, formaldehyde, chromium and
acetaldehyde. Members of the HIA Core Group occasionally noticed a metallic, burning odor
outside during the data collection processes at Gerena. The HIA Core Group referred to the
EPA-developed Community-Focused Exposure and Risk Screening Tool (C-FERST)8, which
uses National Air Toxics Assessments (NAT A)9 data, for a better understanding of the possible
ambient air pollutant exposures and respiratory risk estimates for the region. The HIA Core
Group acquired permission from EPA to pilot the tool for screening possible exposures to
ambient air pollutants known or suspected of causing serious respiratory illness and/or
exacerbate asthma.
Based on the C-FERST results of the NATA data query, there were a total of 24 EPA-registered
facilities within a half-mile radius of Gerena, including 3 Toxic Release Inventory facilities, 15
Aerometric Information Retrieval System facilities, and 6 Assessment, Cleanup and
8 At that time, C-FERST was in the pilot-stage. More information about the C-FERST tool is available at
http://www2.epa.gov/healthresearch/community-focused-exposure-and-risk-screening-tool-c-ferst.
9 At that time, the National-scale Air Toxics Assessment analytical tool used emissions from the 2005 calendar year
as the most recent data. More information about NATA is available at http://www.epa.gov/airtoxics/natamain/.
54|Chapter 4: Assessment Findings
-------
Redevelopment Exchange System facilities. The registered emissions of these facilities include
acetaldehyde, benzene, chromium, formaldehyde, and naphthalene. The estimated
concentrations of acetaldehyde, chromium compounds, diesel particulate matter, and
formaldehyde were in the 80th to 100th percentile range for the region around Gerena. This
meant that on 20% to 0% of areas in the U. S. had higher estimated concentrations. The
cumulative non-cancer respiratory health risk for Springfield, MA was also in the 80th to 100th
percentile.
The HIA Core Group also used EPA's Air Quality System Data Mart (more information
available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/aqsdatamart/index.htm) to better understand the overall
air quality in Springfield, MA. The data mart provides graphical representations and
downloadable data on air quality indicators monitored by EPA. Figure 17 plots the calculated air
quality index based on ozone and paniculate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.s) in
Springfield, MA during the year 2011. With the exception of a few days, air quality in
Springfield remained good to moderate (below concern for sensitive groups). Some seasonal
variation was observed with lower air quality in the winter and summer months.
Daily Ozone and PM2.5 AQI Values in 2011
Springfield. MA
300-
250-
VERY UNHEALTHY
UNHEALTHY
I I
00 .P • % 1 «
^M^sil^i^«lJ^&
• • i
. Ozone orJy
PM2Sonly
Both
. Total
Ozone only
1 PM2Sonly
Both
1 Total
4 Ozone only
59 PM2Sonly
10 Both
61 Ozone only
PM25only
Both
Total
01JAN11 C1FEB11 01MAR11 01APR11 01MAY11 01JUN11 01JUI11 01AU011 OUEP11 010CTI1 01NOV11 01DEC11 01JAN12
Ozone
PM2.5
Source: US. EPAAirData
Generated: Januarys, 2013
Figure 17. Daily Ozone and PIVh.s Air Quality Index Values in 2011
55|Chapter 4: Assessment Findings
-------
The western regional office for MA DEP began an Urban Initiative in Ward 1 to improve the
environmental conditions and quality of life in the North End Community of Springfield, MA.
MA DEP monitors the ambient air in Springfield, including on the roof of Gerena, and will be
releasing their report of the current sampling of pollutant concentrations in the near future.
Indoor Air Pollutants in Gerena
The HIA Core Group focused the air sampling study to test for combustion-source pollutants,
including nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), PM2.5, ultrafme particulate matter
(particulate matter less than 100 nanometers in diameter), and black carbon (BC). Nitrogen
oxides (NOx), which includes compounds like nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and nitric oxide (NO), are
very reactive gases that are emitted from combustion reactions, such as automobile engines and
power plants (EPA, 2012a). Carbon monoxide (CO) is an odorless, clear gas emitted from
incomplete combustion reactions, commonly as automobile exhaust (EPA, 2012a). Particulate
matter is a complex mixture of liquid droplets and extremely small particles made up of many
components, including acids (nitrates and sulfates), organic chemicals, metals, and soil or dust
particles (EPA, 2012a). Ultrafme particles are directly emitted from combustion reactions or
when gases from combustion sources react in the air (EPA, 2012a). Black carbon (BC) is a
component of ultrafme particulate matter emitted from incomplete combustion of fossil fuels,
biofuels, and biomass (EPA, 2012a).
In March 2013, EPA contractors performed a short-term (48-hour) recording of particulate
matter to determine if further study of possible indoor intrusion of combustion-source byproducts
was warranted. EPA contractors performed continuous sampling of particulate matter for 48
hours inside the building. Gerena is a smoke-free zone and no tobacco odors were detected
during this study. This initial test indicated that some combustion-sized particles were present in
the indoor air, with spikes indicating morning and afternoon rush hour traffic, warranting further
study.
In June 2013, EPA contractors performed the data collection for the air quality analysis. Air
sampling was limited to 8-hour continuous recording (not 24-hour), due to security and building
access limitations, and monitors recorded for a total of six days. Air sampling occurred on June
5 through 7 (Wednesday through Friday) on June 10 through 12 (Monday through Wednesday)
during normal operations. There was no railroad traffic observed during the study, but EPA
contractors reported high road traffic on both Birnie Avenue and 1-91. The outdoor monitors
were placed in the fresh air intakes, to prevent damage from the elements and to monitor the air
going directly into the building. The indoor air monitors spent the first three days in the
56|Chapter 4: Assessment Findings
-------
classrooms on the third level of Building B and the last three days of the study in Building A
(tunnel).
Samples from the outdoor air intakes were taken for comparison with indoor levels to measure
the filtration efficiency. Average values were also compared with regulatory and industry
standards, from the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA), and the ASHAE. Meteorological conditions (wind speed and
direction) were also monitored from the roof of Building B for the duration of the study.
NOxMeasurements
Daily NOx average values for both indoor and outdoor measurements were typically below the
published NAAQS at 100 parts per billion (ppb) per hour or an average of 53 ppb per year. The
one exception for this occurred on June 7, 2013, when monitors recorded an average 66 parts per
billion (ppb) outside Building A (tunnel) and winds were out of the north, drawing air from 191.
The reduction in NOx concentrations moving from outdoor to indoor spaces was easily observed.
Indoor readings each day were approximately half that of the corresponding outdoor readings.
However, the influence of mobile sources at the Building A air intakes and inside the tunnel was
also readily observed.
The NOx values sampled from the air intake for Tunnel A were typically higher than measured
from the air intake for Building B, likely due to the proximity to road traffic and "upwind"
location of Building A. According to the NAAQS, outdoor NO2 values should not reach above
100 ppb (NO2 level maximum) in 1 hour or an annual average of 53 ppb. In addition, the NOx
values inside Building A were considerably higher than inside the classrooms, with respective
averages of 4ppb and 14ppb.
CO Measurements
Indoor CO values, which were 3 parts per million (ppm) or less, were almost always below the
detection ability of the instruments used (range is 0 to l,000ppm). The NAAQS threshold for
outdoor ambient CO is 9 ppm for an 8-hour period.
Ultrafine Particulate Matter Measurements
Daily average counts for ultrafine particles were consistently the highest at the air intake for
Building A for all six days of the study. This may be due to the close proximity of Building A to
traffic on the interstate and Birnie Avenue. There was a reduction in ultrafine particle counts
57|Chapter 4: Assessment Findings
-------
moving from outdoor to indoor spaces. Indoor readings each day were approximately half that
of the corresponding outdoor readings.
There was an occurrence of higher than normal ultrafine particles in the Pods around 1 :OOPM on
June 6, 2013, likely attributed to the new flooring installation occurring in Building A (tunnel)
and/or the increased lunch time activity. There was also some tile and carpet work occurring
near the intersection of Buildings B and C (tunnel) that may have influenced the indoor
paniculate levels, but neither indoor sampling sites were near this work. Meals for the students
were catered, reducing the risk of influence on the data from cooking activities.
BC Measurements
The air intake for Building A (tunnel) had the highest BC average values for all six days of the
study. This is likely due to the close proximity of the interstate and Birnie Avenue traffic to the
sampling location. There was a sharp fall in BC concentration outside Building A from June 10
to 12, 2013, most likely due to the change in wind direction from north to northwest.
Although the typical 50% reduction in particulates from outdoor to indoor air measurements was
observed, BC measurements in the school also showed an influence of outdoor combustion
sources inside Building A. When traffic volumes were highest, BC levels in Building A (tunnel)
were also high. Increases in indoor concentrations of BC usually followed increases in outdoor
levels. The permissible exposure limit for BC is 3.5ng/m3, based on OSHA standards. The
highest study average at all locations was less than half the OSHA PEL (at 1.6 ng/m3).
PM2.5 Measurements
Typical indoor PIVh.s levels in the presence of human activity (for residences) is above 20ug/m3.
In general, indoor monitors revealed average PIVb.s levels below 20ug/m3, with the exception of
a few isolated high levels for a short duration of time (i.e., "spikes"). There were no definitive
time patterns observed over the course of the study to attribute the spikes in PIVh.s to any one
source or explanation. The outdoor sampling locations did show increased PIVh.s levels with
respect to the indoor concentration averages. Based on the data (normalized for worst-case
scenario), there appeared to be some process where PIVb.s were removed (scrubbed) from the
indoor environment, either through physical filtration mechanisms and/or deposition (in the
ductwork itself). Average indoor PM2.5 concentrations were often well below half of the outdoor
concentrations, with the exception of data from day five of recording that had an average PIVh.s
concentration of 40ug/m3. It is important to note that HVAC operation may influence PIVh.s
58|Chapter 4: Assessment Findings
-------
levels, especially if operating in an economizer mode in which large volumes of outdoor air is
introduced to indoor spaces to save energy costs for cooling.
4.3.6. Classroom Acoustics Analysis
A stakeholder at the HIA Kickoff Meeting in October 2012 raised the concern about the noise
levels in the classroom learning spaces. The perceived concern was that high levels of noise
(partly due to the open floor plan) in the pods was distracting and/or aggravating students and
teachers, reducing performance among students. The intent of the HIA was not to evaluate
classroom design or acoustic environment of the classrooms. However, the HIA addressed this
concern within the context of proposed renovations on their potential to influence noise in the
classrooms. Even though the proposed actions focus on improving the HVAC and other facets
of the building infrastructure, decision-makers should consider the acoustic environment, in
regards to learning spaces, when planning and/or implementing renovations.
Noise levels in the classroom was not considered in planning resource needs when
developing the RESES proposal. The funding allocated by ORD was not adequate to include on-
site noise level measurements or acoustic diagnostics in the classrooms, in addition to the other
planned on-site diagnostics. Therefore, the HIA Core Group reviewed scientific literature and
epidemiology studies to help inform stakeholders on the pathways of impact related to noise in
schools and acoustic benchmarks in learning spaces.
Observations in the Classrooms
Gerena uses an open floor plan classroom design, in which different multi-aged classrooms share
a learning space. There are ten learning spaces (i.e., "pods") on the third level of the main
building (Building B). There were temporary (moveable) partitions placed between classrooms
to address this issue, but may not provide adequate soundproofing between learning spaces.
Sound reflects off the ceiling, off walls, and other surfaces to enter adjacent learning spaces. The
carpeted floor provides some noise absorption benefit (albeit unknown). Figure 18 provides an
example of one of Gerena's pods, with moveable partitions carpeted flooring, during summer
camp. It is important to note that students with special needs are taught in a separate location —
the special education room on the second level of Building B.
59|Chapter 4: Assessment Findings
-------
Photo by John Suchocki (from the July 2, 2014 article in The Republican)
Figure 18. Children playing in one of the pods at Gerena during summer camp.
A good quality acoustic setting can be achieved in an open floor plan for learning. The
Department for Education and Skills in London (UK) developed a guidebook, "Building Bulletin
93 Acoustic Design of Schools: A Design Guide" that provides recommendations for optimizing
the acoustic environment in schools. For example, using partitions that extend the entire length
between the ceiling and floor can help prevent noise from traveling to other classroom space.
Simply angling partitions can help concentrate sound waves where they would better serve the
learning experience. Establishing a schedule for "loud" times and "quiet" times across the floor
helps avoid activity going on in one part of the room from disturbing another part of the room.
Background Information about Noise Levels
Scientists have devised a way to measure sound levels that humans hear, called the "A-weighted
sound pressure level," expressed in dB(A) (Passchier-Vermeer & Passchier, 2000). Table 11
shows everyday noise sources with their relative sound levels according to WHO (2009b).
Table 11. Everyday Noise Sources and Relative Sound Levels
Source
Home appliances
Noise in hospitals
Day-care institutions
Noise from toys (peak sounds)
Background noise in schools
Sound Level
78-102 dB(A)
>70 dB(A)
75-81 dB(A)
79-140 dB(A)
46.5-77.3 dB(A)
60|Chapter 4: Assessment Findings
-------
When simply measuring ambient noise levels, one uses the decibel (dB). The majority of
background noise in classrooms comes from near-by traffic (roads, railways, subways, and
airports). In an environmental review study, researchers found that traffic was the major noise
source for 86% of schools in London (UK) (Shield & Dockrell, 2003). Urban schools typically
experience higher hourly-average noise levels that persist throughout the day, than suburban
environments, because of traffic noise (Shield & Dockrell, 2003; WHO, 2009b; Passchier-
Vermeer & Passchier, 2000; Lercher, Evans, Meis, & Kofler, 2002). Noise generated outside the
classroom may intrude through walls, partitions, windows, openings, or reflected through
ventilation ducts.
Noise from inside the classroom can be generated by children (e.g., scooting chairs, talking), the
teacher, and/or mechanics (e.g., computer fans, air passing through vents, and overhead fans).
Factors that affect noise in a classroom include the routing of HVAC air ducts, roofing/ceilings,
door placement and their proximity to each other, classroom partition material and coverage, and
placement (or lack of) soundproofing materials. The facility design and building materials can
either help control or propagate noise.
The signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) is a key measure of classroom acoustics. This ratio is the
relative sound level of a signal (e.g., teacher's voice or speaker) compared to the amount of
background (ambient) noise. A positive SNR means the speaker's voice is louder than
background noise. A negative SNR means the background noise is louder than the signal. The
SNR permits a relatively quick way to assess the acoustic quality of a learning environment.
Another key measure is reverberation time or how long it takes for a sound to decay in an
enclosed space.
4.3.7. Community Perceptions of the Indoor Environment at Gerena
Investigators reviewed documented, anecdotal evidence from newspaper articles, social media,
and television segments to gain a better understanding of how the school is perceived among
community residents. There has been a lot of media coverage on the school, due to the quality of
the conditions in the building and the vulnerable population the facility serves. Researchers
coded the qualitative data acquired into common themes. The following three collective
perceptions were expressed among community residents:
Perception #1: Conditions at Gerena Community School are unhealthy and not safe for
vulnerable populations, specifically asthmatics.
61|Chapter 4: Assessment Findings
-------
"You can see [water] seeping
down through the walls; and
it was really noticeable. And
it really doesn 'i lookwdl. "
-Student using tunnel
There has been a lot of effort in investigating issues and repairing the facility in the past couple
of years, but the continuous presence of mold, water, rust, and cracks in the floors and walls have
contributed to the perceived "poor" state of the building. This perception is be mostly attributed
to the conditions in the tunnels. The New England Public Radio interviewed one student passing
through the tunnel, who stated "You can see [water] seeping
down through the walls; and it was really noticeable. And it
really doesn't look well" (Mostue, 2012). The tunnels, which
are often residents' first and sometimes only exposure to the
school, have contributed to an impression that the rest of the
school is in disrepair (Mostue, 2012; Denney, Rivera, &
Collins, 2013). The persistent issues with flooding and water
coming into the building has caused rust buildup on metal
surfaces and staining of floors, walls, and ceiling material.
Among the different testimonials reviewed, residents and students continuously reported a heavy
dampness and "musty" odor throughout the school. The Republican reported on a resident
recalling his experience as a student at Gerena, stating "We didn't just have snow days; we had
rain days at the school. There were days when it rained so much that school would be closed
because there was flooding" (Roman, 2012). Jose Rosario, a community resident and parent of a
student attending the school, told Valley Advocate News: "I saw the floor wet, the air smelled
bad. [The air] was heavy. There were problems with the lights and the tunnel would be dark"
(Kraft, 2012). For safety reasons, the offices and most of the community space in the tunnel
were closed and blocked off (Sullivan, 2013).
Some parents reported that their children's asthma symptoms are hard to manage because of the
conditions in the school (Mostue, 2012). School administrators believe that the difficulty in
managing asthma symptoms in the school are more related to the overall exposures in the
children's environment, such as in-home conditions and/or exposures on the way to school. This
difference of opinion has led to increased use of asthma management plans for students and
community outreach for improving awareness of factors that exacerbate asthma symptoms.
Other safety concerns related to the school involved the personal safety of students and people
using the tunnel. In February 2012, the MA ESE performed a site visit to evaluate the conditions
at Gerena. In the report, investigators cited the tunnel as an "unsafe public access way through
the interior of the school," and "school leaders, teachers, and students reported feeling unsafe in
the mall (tunnel) due to public access to the rest of the school" (MA ESE, 2012). The City of
Springfield has already acted to address this issue by adding security cameras, a full-time
62|Chapter 4: Assessment Findings
-------
security guard in the tunnel, and security doors to prevent public access to student areas during
school hours. However, the safety measures have an unfavorable side effect: limiting the
accessibility of the tunnel for residents after school hours. Jan Denney, Director of Elder Affairs
for the City of Springfield, explained on Connection Point that flooding and air quality concerns
have caused some residents to refrain from using the facility altogether (Denney, Rivera, &
Collins, 2013).
Perception #2: Accessibility is a key determinant of facility use among community residents.
Many residents use the tunnels as the primary route for crossing the railroad tracks and interstate
(1-91). Accessibility has been a historic issue to the community since the construction of the
interstate and railroad segregated the neighborhoods. The tunnels under the school provide a
safe and covered walkway that connects Brightwood neighborhood to other destinations, goods,
businesses, and services. Other routes include accessing Highway 20 on the southern border and
Wason Avenue on the northern border of the neighborhood.
Superintendent Daniel Warwick explained, in an interview on Connection Point, that the recent
safety measures have improved safety, but also created some logistical challenges for keeping
the tunnel accessible to the community (Sarno & Warwick, 2013). Due to funding and personnel
limitations, the tunnel can only be open during school hours of operation (until 8:00 PM).
Historically, the tunnel would stay open for residents on weekends and weekdays until 10:00 PM
(Silva, et al., 2013). Until more funding is secured to hire more security personnel, the tunnel
will have to remain closed to after-hour users.
Many residents have resorted to crossing the railroad tracks at non-pedestrian crossings as a
quick and convenient alternative to the tunnels. Representative Cheryl Coakley-Rivera
explained the dilemma of this trend on Connection Point, stating that "Children learned to cross
the railroad tracks [from their parents]. They are now parents [themselves] and teaching their
children to cross the railroad tracks" (Silva, et al., 2013). These individuals risk injury from
being hit by a train and falling on the tracks. Plans have been drawn to expand the railroad line
to serve high-speed industrial freight, posing a heightened level of danger to those who rely on
this route. Not only is crossing the tracks hazardous, but the tracks are also on private property
owned by the railroad company. Crossing the tracks is considered trespassing, a legally
punishable offense. In addition, there have been reports of assaults and drug sales near the
railroad tracks, which makes the tunnels all the more important to the safety of community
residents.
Perception #3: Gerena Community School is an invaluable asset to the Community.
63|Chapter 4: Assessment Findings
-------
The school is viewed in large part as a historic and irreplaceable asset to the community. From
its inception, the school was designed and built as part of the City of Springfield's plan "to
achieve racial balance in the school system" (Office of Educational Quality and Accountability,
2005). In response to an order from the Supreme Judicial Court of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, building the school would encourage racial diversity and provide needed social
services and support to the vulnerable populations living in North End Community. Initially
named "New North," Gerena Community School was intended to be the symbol of the "new"
North End Community and the city's commitment to
supporting the needs of residents (Gagnon, et al., 2013).
"As a student, you did not just
atiend ihe school, your whole
family did You greif up ihere,
your kids went there, and
memories were made there. "
-Zydalis Zayas, Lori no Youth
Media Institute
Springfield historian, Fran Gagnon, explained that "the
North End community was the top target area to place the
community school due to the need being the greatest"
(Gagnon, et al., 2013). English was not a common
language in the homes of North End residents and the
educational needs spanned multiple generations. In the
past, many parents and residents attended night classes to
learn English and earn their General Education
Development (GED) certificate (Freedman & Figeretto, 2013). Zydalis Zayas, who reported on
the history of the school, spoke on Connection Point stating, "As a student, you did not just
attend the school, your whole family did. You grew up there. Your kids went there and
memories were made" (Rivera, et al., 2013). The school has generated a rich history and social
connectivity among residents. Social services were also provided in the community offices
under the school. The added value of having the community offices in the school was that it
greatly enhanced convenience for residents and parents to seek help and use support services
(Manzi, Scavron, Perez, & Franco, 2013). Since the closure of these offices, community
organizations have been gaining support to reopen these spaces.
According to North End resident, Ivette Hernandez, Gerena serves three functions: school,
tunnel, and community space. Removing one of these functions would adversely affect
residents, especially among different groups (Gagnon, et al., 2013). Amenities like the pool,
gym, and underground tunnel provide residents with opportunities for year-round physical
activity and social interaction. When this space is closed, residents must travel outside the
community to find the same amenities. For those individuals with low incomes or disabilities,
this presents a more burdensome challenge. Antonette Pepe, a member of the Springfield
Schools Committee made the statement, "This is not just a school project; this is really a
community project" (Roman, 2013).
64|Chapter 4: Assessment Findings
-------
Not everyone agrees the school is an asset. Some consider the school more of a hazard and a
reason to rebuild. In a response to an article in the Valley Advocate, one North End resident
protested renovating the school, stating "Gerena School is Springfield's most dramatic symbol of
severe and chronic inequality; effectively diminishing the life chances of children that pass
through these foreboding doors" (Kraft, 2012). There has been some misinformation about the
amount of effort to address the concerns about the school. Many repairs to the facility were
performed in areas not easily visible to the public, such as repairs to the HVAC unit and the
purchase of new boilers. Patrick Sullivan, Director of PERM, explained in an interview with
New England Public Radio News that, "People don't usually see where we've put new water
management pumps and motors in the building. It's understandable that people get frustrated,
but a lot of work has been done" (Mostue, 2012). Frustrations have not necessarily been based
on the amount of work that has been done, but in the work left to do. In an economic atmosphere
of budget cuts and recession, not all received the estimated cost of $3 million well.
Representative Cheryl Coackley-Rivera expressed her opinion stating, "Personally, I think a new
school would be a better option, but the community has made it clear that they want to keep this
school, and they want it repaired" (Kraft, 2012). Building a new school would require close to
"ten years and an estimated $40 to 60 million" (Coakley-Rivera, Rolden, & Owens, 2013).
Although this may be a solution for the long-term, it does not address the current issues facing
the school. According to Mr. Sullivan, Gerena is a central asset to the community and stresses
the importance of addressing the current issues, in addition to long-term planning (Sullivan,
2013).
4.4. Characterization of Respiratory Health Impacts
4.4.1. Review of the Evidence: How Indoor Air Affects Respiratory Health and Asthma
The properties of ambient and indoor air (e.g., presence of ambient pollutants, moisture, etc.)
typically influences respiratory health by way of breathing comfort/ease, damaging tissue, and/or
modifying symptoms of pre-existing conditions. Small particles in the air, specifically PMio, can
pass through the throat and lungs and even enter the bloodstream (EPA, 2012a). Researchers
linked PMio concentration in the ambient air to premature death in people with lung or heart
disease, nonfatal heart attacks, irregular heartbeat, aggravated asthma, decreased lung function,
and respiratory symptoms (EPA, 2012a). When inhaled, CO reduces oxygen delivery to the
body's organs and can even cause death in large doses (EPA, 2012a). NOx causes inflammation
of airways and increased emergency room visits and hospital emissions for respiratory issues,
especially asthma (EPA, 2012a). Typical asthma symptoms include wheezing, difficulty
breathing, and irritated respiratory passages (EPA, 2012a). EPA developed the NAAQS based
65|Chapter 4: Assessment Findings
-------
on scientific evidence linking exposure to ozone, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide and particulate
ambient air pollution to health risks, including asthma symptom exacerbation.
Asthma is a common public health problem with serious negative impacts, especially in young
children. It is estimated that over 25.9 million Americans have asthma, in which over a fourth of
that population is under 18 years old (CDC, 2011). The burden of asthma is not evenly
distributed among ethnic or socio-economic groups. For example, asthma prevalence in the U.S.
is highest among families living in poverty, persons of Hispanic ethnicity, and African
Americans (Asthma Disparities Working Group, 2012). More specifically, asthma prevalence is
113% higher among populations of Puerto Rican descent, compared to "non-Hispanic Whites,"
and 50% higher than "non-Hispanic African Americans" (CDC, 2011). The President's Task
Force on Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks to Children developed an action plan
aimed at increasing the understanding of the causes of pediatric asthma and reducing asthma-
related disparities among children across racial and ethnic groups (President's Task Force on
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks to Children, 2012). The recognition of asthma as a
major public health problem has led to federal, state, and academic collaborative actions focused
on reducing the burden of asthma, especially among vulnerable populations.
Children spend a lot of their time in school, about seven hours a day, which can be a potential
source of asthma triggers. Those who participate in after-school activities or daycare have even
longer exposure times. EPA recognized the importance of including the school environment
when managing asthma and developed the Indoor Air Quality Tools for Schools Action Kit that
provides recommendations to help manage asthma triggers. There are many challenges in
controlling asthma triggers and managing asthma symptoms. For example, an individual with
asthma may be sensitive to many asthma triggers, which can come from a variety of sources
(National Asthma Education and Prevention Program, 2007). Therefore, each person should
have an individualized comprehensive asthma management plan.
It is important to consider that school environment is not the only environment in
which children are exposed to asthma triggers. It is important to consider that exposures can also
occur inside the home and/or on the way to school via direct exposure to ambient (outdoor) air.
Symptoms may not manifest until after students are in school.
66|Chapter 4: Assessment Findings
-------
Factors that Exacerbate Asthma Symptoms
There is strong research and agreement on the numerous environmental factors that exacerbate or
trigger asthma symptoms (WHO, 2003; Massachusetts Medical Society, 2013). Asthma triggers
are categorized into groups related to how they occur, such as environmental, emotional,
physical activity-induced, medication-induced and food-related. In 2000, the Institute of
Medicine (IOM) published a report identifying a list of exposures related to asthma symptom
exacerbation, including dust mites, tobacco smoke, pet dander, cockroaches, fungi or molds,
respiratory viruses, and combustion-source air pollutants (air pollutant byproducts of engine
emissions or combustion reactions) (IOM, 2000). Since its release, the list of environmental
exposures associated with asthma has expanded to over 300 chemicals and biological agents
(Association of Occupational and Environmental Clinics, 2009).
To support the tflA, EPA researchers systematically reviewed the available evidence regarding
exposures suspected to be risk factors for pediatric asthma and ranked them according to how
often each was found to be a significant risk factor (refer to Appendix G for details). The list
below provides the top fifteen most prominent risk factors associated with pediatric asthma (1 =
most common, 15 = least common):
1. Dampness (in-home)
2. Mold (in-home)
3. PMio
4. Cockroaches
5. SO2 (sulfur dioxide)
6. CO (carbon monoxide)
7. Formaldehyde
8. Dog (dander and hair)
9. Os (ozone)
10. Cat (dander and hair)
11. Carpeting
12. NO2
13. Proximity to major roads/traffic pollution
14. PM2.s
15. Dust Mites
67|Chapter 4: Assessment Findings
-------
Although these categories are broad and may comprise of a group of sub-factors),
researchers believed there was enough distinguishing information to identify the most common
exposures with confidence. There are many other factors that contribute to adverse asthma
symptoms, e.g., in-home conditions, allergies, etc., that were not considered in this ranking.
Therefore, eliminating or controlling any one of these exposures may not reduce the occurrence
of asthma symptoms.
The in-home environment is a considerable source of exposure to asthma triggers for both young
children and adults. The National Center for Healthy Housing (2008) found that an average of
42% of homes have at least one structural defect, such as water leaks, roofing problems,
damaged interior walls and signs of mice. The US Census Bureau's American Housing Survey
data indicated that across metropolitan areas, rental properties tended to have more housing
condition problems than owner-occupied homes. Dampness in homes was associated with a
50% increase for current asthma cases and a 30% risk increase for developing asthma (Fisk et al,
2007). Krieger and Higgins (2002) found a relationship between substandard housing and the
incidence of asthma, respiratory diseases, and other health and safety problems.
4.4.2. Predicted Respiratory Health Impacts from Proposed Renovations
The HIA Core Group reviewed the evidence from each of the sub-analyses and relied on
professional expertise to discuss and qualitatively characterize anticipated impacts to respiratory
health that may result from the renovation options considered by PERM. The HIA Core Group
also considered the distribution of impact, especially among VIPs, drawing from the ranked risk
factors for pediatric asthma. The characterization of respiratory health impacts were formed
using the Delphi method (a structured, interactive discussion among a panel of experts) and the
determined criteria established in the Scoping step.
Table 12 summarizes the predicted impacts of each of the proposed renovations on respiratory
health, especially among those with asthma.
68|Chapter 4: Assessment Findings
-------
Table 12. Summary of Predicted Respiratory Health Impacts from Proposed Renovations
Proposed Renovations
1 . Eliminate water and accumulation of moisture from entering the
Direction
renovation
d
<§, Likelihood
^
building. Continue investigations in the source(s) of water will yield Likely
infiltration, and implement necessary repairs and upgrades as needed. a health
benefit
Magnitude
Many
2. Remove and discard porous building materials that have been wet for renovation Highly Many
greater than 48-hours and not professionally dried and cleaned or will yield Likely
show visible evidence of mold growth. Consider replacing removed a health
materials with those not affected by water or moisture (i.e., ceramic benefit
tile flooring) in areas where water infiltration occurs.
3. Continue with efforts to evaluate the HV AC system to ensure proper renovation Highly Many
design and distribution (i.e., flow, balancing, fresh air introduction, will yield Likely
etc.) is in place. a health
benefit
4. Re-evaluate optimal location for fresh air intakes of Building A and, renovation Highly Many
if appropriate, swap intakes for Building B with exhausts. will yield Likely
5. Repair/upgrade all air handling units and exhaust systems in Building
B, including fresh air intake dampers, controls, and associated
equipment for air handling units. Rebalance system after
replacements/upgrades are implemented.
a health
benefit
renovation
Highly
will yield Likely
a health
benefit
Many
Distribution
vulnerable
populations
will benefit
more
vulnerable
populations
will benefit
more
vulnerable
populations
will benefit
more
vulnerable
populations
will benefit
more
vulnerable
populations
will benefit
more
Strength of
Evidence
many
strong
studies
(n> 10)
many
strong
studies
(n> 10)
many
strong
studies
(n> 10)
many
strong
studies
(n> 10)
many
strong
studies
(n> 10)
69|Chapter 4: Assessment Findings
-------
Proposed Renovations
Direction
Likelihood
Magnitude
Distribution
6. Install a new exhaust fan and duct system for Tunnel C to exhaust air renovation Highly Many vulnerable
from outer tunnel space to exterior of building. will yield Likely populations
7. Seal outer Tunnel C completely off from the inner tunnel space, in
order to prevent air from traveling between spaces.
8. Contract a qualified, certified professional to test the indoor air
quality.
9. Contract a qualified, certified professional to test for hazardous
materials (HAZMATs) prior to any demolition.
10. Conduct an outdoor air quality test and wind study at different
locations on school campus, including the current locations, to
investigate optimal locations for air intake louvers, and relocate
louvers to optimal location, if appropriate.
a health
benefit
renovation
Highly
will yield Likely
a health
benefit
Many
will benefit
more
vulnerable
populations
will benefit
more
No Effect [Blank] [Blank] [Blank]
No Effect
[Blank]
[Blank] [Blank]
No Effect
[Blank]
[Blank]
[Blank]
1 1 . Complete comprehensive HVAC replacement program, including renovation Highly Many vulnerable
replacement of all of the existing air handling units and their controls, will yield Likely populations
expanding the Building Management System (BMS), exhaust and a health
return fans, boilers, pipes, associated appurtenances (i.e., valves, benefit
dampers, controls, louvers, air separator, expansion tank, etc.), and
modifications to some of the mechanical piping and ductwork.
will benefit
more
Strength of
Evidence
many
strong
studies
(n> 10)
many
strong
studies
(n> 10)
[Blank]
[Blank]
[Blank]
many
strong
studies
(n> 10)
70|Chapter 4: Assessment Findings
-------
Proposed Renovations
Direction
Likelihood
Magnitude
Distribution
12. For Building B, replace and upgrade boilers, including associated No effect [Blank] [Blank] [Blank]
appurtenances (e.g., flue, pumps, piping, ductwork, etc.) with higher
efficiency, sealed combustion condensing type boilers.
13. For Buildings A and C, further investigate into the walls' interior renovation
Highly
construction and assess conditions and need for repairs, including will yield Likely
seasonal monitoring of groundwater level, and replace stormwater a health
pump stations, as needed.
14. For Building A, replace roofing membrane; install a waterproof
benefit
renovation
Highly
Many
vulnerable
populations
Many
will benefit
more
vulnerable
membrane; install new drains, a sill pan and new door weather will yield Likely populations
stripping for exposed east end of tunnel; isolate the new roof from the a health
roof beneath the overpass; and repair concrete masonry unity (CMU) benefit
walls.
will benefit
more
Strength of
Evidence
[Blank]
many
strong
studies
(n> 10)
many
strong
studies
(n> 10)
71|Chapter 4: Assessment Findings
-------
Discussion
Dampness and mold (indoors) were the two most common risk factors associated with asthma.
Moisture and ample amounts of food (e.g., carpet, ceiling tiles, cardboard, paper, etc.) provide a
favorable habitat for mold growth. Eliminating sources of water intrusion would not only
provide better control of indoor humidity, but also limit mold growth. Removing building
materials damaged by water, especially if they are already contaminated with mold, would help
to limit mold from growing and dispersing spores. Mold remediation/clean-up efforts should be
focused in the areas where high levels of mold spores were found - classroom pods, afterschool
room (Lower Level of Building B), and Administration Office. Even if these areas do not have
active or readily identifiable sites of mold growth, settled dust sampling showed high levels of
historic mold spore contamination, which increases the risk for these areas to develop mold
growth. Extensive cleaning and/or removing potential food sources for mold, where possible,
will also help to control mold growth.
Continuing to evaluate and adjust the HVAC system control logic may help to improve airflow
in the building simply by reducing pressure gradients between spaces. Swapping the current air
intake locations for Tunnel A may help reduce the levels of combustion-source air pollutants
coming into the building at that location, provided that more optimal locations for the intakes can
be found. Further study is needed to identify the best locations for the intakes.
Repairing/upgrading the AHUs in Building B and ensuring the damper doors are open will help
to ensure that an adequate fresh, outdoor air is being supplied, which will better control carbon
dioxide levels in occupied spaces. Efforts should be focused on the AHUs already identified that
have malfunctions and do not currently meeting the code requirements for supplying fresh air
(i.e., units 23 and 24, serving the Main Office and Media Center in Building B).
Installing a new exhaust fan and duct system in Tunnel C will not only help control dampness
and the opportunity for mold development, but also help to address airflow concerns. It is
important to keep in mind that Tunnel C is in actuality a tunnel within a tunnel. Currently, the
inner tunnel space (occupied mall area) has a negative pressure, relative to the outer tunnel space
(mechanical corridor). This pressure gradient causes air to be drawn from the outer tunnel space,
which has excessive water intrusion and mold, into the inner tunnel space where people are.
Adding an exhaust system will change the pressure in the inner tunnel space to a slightly positive
pressure, relative to the outer tunnel, causing air to flow in the opposite direction (i.e., from
occupied, mall space to unoccupied, mechanical space). This change may also affect the damp
and "musty" odor observed in the inner tunnel. Simply adding an exhaust system will not be
sufficient to changing the airflow between these two spaces. The outer tunnel must be
72|Chapter 4: Assessment Findings
-------
completely air-sealed from the inner tunnel so that air cannot find an alternative pathway
between the spaces and disrupt the intended airflow. In addition, sealing the inner tunnel from
the outer tunnel (airtight) will also act as a barrier against moisture and mold intrusion.
Testing for hazardous materials (HAZMATs) was not performed as part of this HIA, considering
building materials were not disturbed during the assessment. However, it is important that
testing for HAZMATs be performed prior to any demolition or disturbing building materials so
that no adverse health impacts occur. Due to the building's age, the risk for asbestos being used
in the building material is great and disturbing materials with asbestos can cause significant
health hazards. Further investigations in the tunnels are not expected to affect the indoor air,
unless identified sites of water intrusion are fixed. Efforts to waterproof Tunnel A will help to
further eliminate intrusion of water and better control humidity and mold development.
Performing an outdoor air quality test, in conjunction with a wind study, will help identify
optimal locations for air intakes. Air intakes should be sited where there is the lowest amount of
ambient pollutants, considering wind direction and turbulent drafts around structures. Relocating
the air intakes will require extensive redesign of the HVAC system and ductwork. A
comprehensive HVAC replacement program would ensure an adequate amount of fresh, outdoor
air is delivered to all occupied spaces in the building and temperature and humidity are tightly
controlled. Ambient air pollutants may be reduced if the HVAC replacement is designed
efficiently and appropriate filters are used. Replacing the boilers in Building B with efficient
and sealed combustion condensing type boilers will help ensure the combustion-source
pollutants observed in the building are not coming from the school's boilers.
4.5. Characterization of Acoustic Health Impacts in the Classroom
4.5.1. Review of the Evidence: How Classroom Noise and Acoustics can Impact Health
Classroom Noise and Health
As part of this assessment, researchers reviewed the available evidence regarding classroom
noise exposure, health, and student performance. In excess, noise can be a pollutant and an
environmental stressor for health. Sounds heard at or above 116 dB(A) can cause physical pain
in humans (Ann-Heng, 2012). The legally permissible sound level according to OSHA and the
EPA is 90 dB(A), but the EPA must take action (e.g., setting controls and monitoring) when
noise levels reach 85 dB(A) (Ann-Heng, 2012). Typical sound levels in the classroom register
between 46-77 dB(A) (WHO, 2009b).
73|Chapter 4: Assessment Findings
-------
The reaction to noise can change from one individual to another, due to individual sensitivities
(tolerance) and age. Sensitivity to noise in a classroom can depend on the noise source, sound
level and duration of exposure. Several international committees were established to assess
noise as a pollutant and its effect on health, including the Committee on Noise and Health (1994)
and the International Commission of the Biological Effects of Noise (1988) (Passchier-Vermeer
& Passchier, 2000). The American Speech-Language and Hearing Association (ASHA)
Working Group on Classroom Acoustics specifically look at the health effects of ambient noise
in the classroom (ASHA, 2005). There is sufficient evidence that exposure to noise, particular to
level and duration, can affect physiological functions, mental stress, and individual attitudes and
behaviors (Passchier-Vermeer & Passchier, 2000; Shield & Dockrell, 2003). The most reported,
and thus studied, outcome from exposure to noise in the classroom was annoyance. Annoyance
can lead to feelings of frustration, anger, and/or depression (Shield & Dockrell, 2003).
Typically, it is through changes in behavior and attitudes that ambient noise affects school
performance.
Classroom Acoustics and School Performance
Poor classroom acoustics and/or events of excessive noise have been found to influence
cognition, specifically memory, information processing, attention, and speech recognition
(Shield & Dockrell, 2003; Shield & Dockrell, 2008; WHO, 2009b; Nelson & Soli, 2000;
Passchier-Vermeer & Passchier, 2000; Lercher, Evans, Meis, & Kofler, 2002; Hodgson & Nosal,
2002). Ambient noise affects cognition and memory by disrupting concentration or overloading
the sensory system, which can lead to a reduced ability to process new information. Students
may adapt to excessive ambient noise by "tuning-out" sounds, and incidentally
nondiscriminatory "tuning-out," leading to a student's perceived poor attention (Shield &
Dockrell, 2008). The combined effects can make learning more difficult, especially when
learning a new language. Shield and Dockrell (2003) found that consonant identification in a
poor acoustic environment doesn't reach adult level until the late teenage years. In general, it is
imperative to ensure the learning environment provides good speech intelligibility and removes
or mitigates barriers to hearing.
Speech intelligibility is the hearing and understanding of speech (Shield & Dockrell, 2003). A
high amount of background noise can make listening and understanding a speaker more difficult.
The speaker's voice level and clarity between the consonants and vowels can be masked or
distorted from the sound waves of another noise (ASHA, 2005). Reflected sounds join together
creating background noise, which can overpower a person's voice making it hard for the listener
to understand the speaker (ASHA, 2005). Vowels, when reflected, tend to mask consonants
74|Chapter 4: Assessment Findings
-------
(especially final or end consonants) (ASHA, 2005). Speech intelligibility tests are often used in
testing the sound acoustics of a classroom to optimize learning and language development. On
average, listeners with normal hearing can only understand 75% of the words spoken in a
classroom (Acoustical Society of America, 2013). Typically, speech intelligibility is greater in
classrooms that do not reverberate sound. Raising the speaker's voice (so it could be heard
above any potential background noise) can also help to improve speech intelligibility.
There is some anecdotal evidence that teachers are also affected by excessive noise in the
classroom. In the UK, a greater incidence of teacher complaints about noise occurred when
levels reached greater than 60 dB (Shield & Dockrell, 2003). One case study cited "almost 70%
of Washington teachers reported that their classrooms and hallways were so noisy that it affected
their ability to teach" (Buckley, Schneider, & Shang, 2004). However, the evidence that poor
classroom acoustics may negatively affect teacher performance and physical health is very
limited considering impacts are self-reported and there are many other influential factors.
It is important to consider other factors that can influence student performance too,
such as learning ability, primary language spoken, and residual effects from the home
environment. When researchers controlled for source types of noise and socio-economic status,
there was still a statistically significant relationship between noise levels in school and average
SAT scores among elementary students (Shield & Dockrell, 2008). This finding suggests that
students who continually perform low on standardized tests, either due to not "listening" or not
physically being able to hear/understand different factors of speech, may benefit from improving
the acoustic environment. Several of the studies reviewed found that poor classroom acoustics
was a common condition among low-performing elementary schools.
Unexpectedly, there have been some instances where a short exposure of excessive noise
temporarily benefited scholastic performance. In one particular case study, children exposed to
excessive internal and external noise for a short period of time performed significantly better
(based in a widely accepted scientific standard) than children in normal (i.e., control) conditions
(Shield & Dockrell, 2008). Investigators explained that short periods of increased arousal
conditions would increase performance on tasks temporarily due to required focusing and
concentration. However, continued high levels of arousal resulted in concentration fatigue and
lowered performance. Therefore, it is unlikely that children in this condition would continue to
perform at a higher level over a long period of exposure.
75|Chapter 4: Assessment Findings
-------
Populations More Sensitive to Classroom Noise and the Acoustic Environment
Differences in health outcomes related to noise exist among sub-groups in the United States.
Children with temporary ear infections and/or are on ototoxic medication are more sensitive to
excessive noise because their hearing organ cells are already damaged. Noise-induced hearing
threshold shifts (NITS) was more frequent in males than females; in older children than younger
children; among children of lower socio-economic status compared, and urban versus rural areas
(Niskar, 2001). In an earlier study by Berglund and Lindvall (1995), older children (13<18
years) were thought to be more affected by excessive noise levels than younger children (<13
years) because they have been exposed to high noise levels longer, increasing their risk for
permanent shifts (Berglund & Lindvall, 1995). It was later found that younger children are more
annoyed by noise than older children are, but older children are more aware of noise when it
occurs (Shield & Dockrell, 2008). Children, who suffer from prolonged NITS or share
temporary symptoms due to colds or infection, may require special educational needs to assist
with reduced hearing ability.
Many studies have shown a relationship between higher ambient noise levels in school and
children, with pre-existing special education needs, who experience disproportionate negative
physical, psychological, and cognitive effects (Shield & Dockrell, 2008; ASHA, 2005). Children
with behavior disorders, such as attention deficit disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder, are more sensitive to any stimulation and easily distracted. Students with special needs
require a strict SNR, especially if they are less than 15 years old (ASHA, 2005). At 6+ SNR,
which means the speaker's voice is only 6 dB above the background noise, minimum hearing
loss is 13% lower in special needs children (ASHA, 2005). At -6 SNR, the background noise is
6 dB above the speaker's voice, hearing loss is reduced by 33% (ASHA, 2005). Poor acoustic
learning environments disproportionately hinder students learning a new language or who do not
have English as their primary language, even if they have normal hearing.
The Opportunity to Benchmark
Although this HIA did not analyze in-classroom noise measures, it is commonly recognized that
classroom acoustics are important to the scholastic performance and psychosocial development
of all children. Thus, the HIA Core Group suggests performing noise measurements in the
classrooms (both during occupied and unoccupied states) and compare observations to set
standards for adequate sound quality.
Eight European countries, as well as Australia and New Zealand, have implemented their own
guidelines for classroom acoustics (Mazz, 2013). In the U.K., the Department for Education and
76|Chapter 4: Assessment Findings
-------
Skills published guidelines to meet their national standards titled Building Bulletin 93: Acoustic
Design of Schools (A design Guide). The WHO also published standards and guidelines
regarding optimal acoustics for the learning environment. In the U.S., national standards and
guidelines were established by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), titled ANSI
S12.60-2002 Acoustical Performance Criteria, Design Requirements, and Guidelines for
Schools. According to the ANSI standards, the recommendations for noise in an unoccupied
classroom must not exceed 35 dB(A), the SNR should be at least +15 dB at the child's ear, and
the unoccupied reverberation times must not surpass 0.6 seconds in smaller classrooms (0.7
seconds in rooms 10,000 ft3- 20,000 ft3) (Acoustical Society of America, 2013). In a 2002
survey of American elementary classrooms, investigators found that many classrooms did not
meet the preferred acoustical standards for classrooms (Knecht, Nelson, Whitelaw, & Feth,
2002). Table 13 provides a comparison between national and international standards.
Table 13. Summary of classroom acoustic standards and guidelines
Acoustic Parameter
Noise Level
(unoccupied)
Reverberation Time
(unoccupied)
Signal to Noise Ratio
Open-Plan Teaching
Areas (^Aeq, 30 min)
Hearing-Impaired
ANSI (USA)f
35dB(A)
0.6 sec (<283m2)
0.7 sec (<566m2)-
[None Found]
35 dB
40dB (>566 m2)
BB93 (UK)
35dB(A)
< 0.6sec
[None Found]
40dB
30 dB
WHO*
35dB(A)
0.6sec
>15dB
[None Found]
ASHA*(USA)
30-35dB(A)
0.4sec
> 15dB
[None Found]
Did not indicate acoustic parameters for open-plan teaching areas
t Uses background noise level for 1 hour (Z/Aeq,i hour)
4.5.2. Predicted Impacts from Proposed Renovations
The HIA Core Group reviewed the evidence from each of the sub-analyses and relied on
professional expertise to discuss and qualitatively characterize anticipated impacts to classroom
acoustics that may result from the renovation options considered by PERM. The HIA Core
Group also considered the distribution of impact, especially among VIPs. The characterization
of respiratory health impacts were formed using the Delphi method (a structured, interactive
discussion among a panel of experts) and the determined criteria established in the Scoping step.
Table 14 summarizes the predicted acoustic-related health impacts of each renovation option.
77|Chapter 4: Assessment Findings
-------
Table 14. Summary of Predicted Acoustic-Related Health Impacts from Proposed Renovations
Proposed Renovation Option
=
.2
w
4i
5
•o
o
o
•_-
4>
••"
4>
•o
a
°3
W)
SS
=
"3
•C
'•I
•22
Q
O 4)
M O
€ n
e? •§
£ '>
VI
1. Eliminate water and accumulation of moisture from entering the No Effect [Blank] [Blank] [Blank] [Blank]
building. Continue investigations in the source(s) of water
infiltration, and implement necessary repairs and upgrades as
needed.
2. Remove and discard porous building materials that have been wet
renovation
Highly
Moderate
for greater than 48-hours and not professionally dried and cleaned will yield Likely
or show visible evidence of mold growth. Consider replacing a health
removed materials with those not affected by water or moisture
(i.e., ceramic tile flooring) in areas where water infiltration occurs.
harm
vulnerable
many
populations strong
will be studies (n
harmed > 10)
more
3. Continue with efforts to evaluate the HV AC system to ensure No Effect [Blank] [Blank] [Blank] [Blank]
proper design and distribution (i.e., flow, balancing, fresh air
introduction, etc.) is in place.
4. Re-evaluate optimal location for fresh air intakes of Building A
renovation
Some-
and, if appropriate, swap intakes for Building B with exhausts. will yield what
Moderate
a health Likely
5. Repair/upgrade all air handling units and exhaust systems in
benefit
renovation Not Few
Building B, including fresh air intake dampers, controls, and will yield Very
associated equipment for air handling units. Rebalance system a health Likely
after replacements/upgrades are implemented. benefit
vulnerable
a few
populations good
will benefit studies
more exist (n >
3<10)
vulnerable
a few
populations good
will benefit studies
more exist (n >
3<10)
6. Install a new exhaust fan and duct system for Tunnel C to exhaust No Effect [Blank] [Blank] [Blank] [Blank]
air from outer tunnel space to exterior of building.
78|Chapter 4: Assessment Findings
-------
Proposed Renovation Option
7. Seal outer Tunnel C completely off from the inner tunnel space, in
order to prevent air from traveling between spaces.
8. Re-evaluate optimal location for fresh air intakes of Building A, if
appropriate, and swap intakes for Building B with exhausts.
9. Contract a qualified, certified professional to test the indoor air
quality.
10. Contract a qualified, certified professional to test for hazardous
materials (HAZMATs) prior to any demolition.
1 1 . Conduct an outdoor air quality test and wind study at different
locations on school campus, including the current locations, to
investigate optimal locations for air intake louvers, and relocate
louvers to optimal location, if appropriate.
12. Complete comprehensive HVAC replacement program, including
replacement of all of the existing air handling units and their
controls, expanding the Building Management System (BMS),
exhaust and return fans, boilers, pipes, associated appurtenances
(i.e., valves, dampers, controls, louvers, air separator, expansion
tank, etc.), and modifications to some of the mechanical piping
and ductwork.
13. For Building B, replace and upgrade boilers, including associated
appurtenances (e.g., flue, pumps, piping, ductwork, etc.) with
higher efficiency, sealed combustion condensing type boilers.
Direction
No Effect
renovation
will yield
a health
benefit
No Effect
No Effect
No Effect
renovation
will yield
a health
benefit
No Effect
Likelihood
[Blank]
Some-
what
Likely
[Blank]
[Blank]
[Blank]
Highly
Likely
[Blank]
Magnitude
[Blank]
Moderate
[Blank]
[Blank]
[Blank]
Many
[Blank]
Distribution
[Blank]
vulnerable
populations
will benefit
more
[Blank]
[Blank]
[Blank]
vulnerable
populations
will benefit
more
[Blank]
Strength of
Evidence
[Blank]
a few
good
studies
exist (n >
3<10)
[Blank]
[Blank]
[Blank]
many
strong
studies (n
>10)
[Blank]
79|Chapter 4: Assessment Findings
-------
Proposed Renovation Option
14. For Buildings A and C, further investigate into the walls' interior
=
^o
w
•_
5
No Effect
•o
o
o
•_-
4>
••"
[Blank]
•o
s
'3
W)
SS
[Blank]
=
"3
.c
'•Z
.22
Q
[Blank]
'S 4)
_— W
€ a
c? "O
4> "^
** W
c«
[Blank]
construction and assess conditions and need for repairs, including
seasonal monitoring of groundwater level, and replace stormwater
pump stations, as needed.
15. For Building A, replace roofing membrane; install a waterproof No Effect [Blank] [Blank] [Blank] [Blank]
membrane; install new drains, a sill pan and new door weather
stripping for exposed east end of tunnel; isolate the new roof from
the roof beneath the overpass; and repair concrete masonry unity
(CMU) walls.
Discussion
The design and placement of building materials is critical in the control of the acoustic environment. Materials related to the HVAC
system, such as ductwork, fans, diffusers, could contribute to the amount of background noise in a classroom. For example, longer
ductwork makes it harder for noise to travel between classrooms. Broken or poorly placed diffuser inlets/outlets can increase
background noise. Renovations that would alter the ductwork or related equipment would affect the ability of noise to travel between
rooms. Using material that has high noise absorption coefficients helps to reduce the amount of background noise. Absorptive
materials work best when spread throughout the room and not concentrated on just one section of wall or ceiling. When not replaced,
removing noise-absorbing material (e.g., carpeting or upholstery) can negatively affect the acoustic environment. Ceramic floor tiles
or other similar material reverberate noise in a room, often causing echoes. Renovations that would remove or decrease the amount of
noise-absorbing material will negatively affect the noise levels in that space.
80|Chapter 4: Assessment Findings
-------
4.6. Characterization of Health Impact Related to Community Perceptions
4.6.1. Review of the Evidence: How Community Perceptions Can Affect Health
Researchers performed a review of the available scientific evidence regarding factors that
influence perceptions or the collective opinions and feelings among residents in a community.
Based on the evidence found, there are two main factors that influence the development and
perpetuation of perceptions - the social and physical environments. The perceived environment,
including both physical and social features, may influence health by inducing stress and/or
influencing human behavior and attitudes. Stress (i.e., psychosocial stress) is the mental-
physiological response caused by perceived and actual stressors in the environment
(Wandersman & Nation, 1998). The body's response to stress can be external (e.g., a change in
attitudes and behaviors that influence social interactions) or internal (e.g., increased blood
pressure and hypersensitivity to stimulus). When stress persists for a long time, mental and
physical health can deteriorate leading to chronic illness and disability; e.g., hypertension,
cardiovascular disease, and immune dysfunction (McEwen, 2008; Latkin & Curry, 2003; Glaser
& Kiecolt-Glaser, 2005).
Community Perceptions, the Social Environment, and Health
Demographics (e.g., age, race, ethnicity, etc.), family or household structure, and native language
(i.e., primary language spoken at home) are all features of the immediate social environment that
can influence human behavior and attitudes. Social interaction is greatly influenced by the
perceptions (i.e., feelings and opinions) of those individuals within a group, immediate social
structures, and cultural norms (Savolainen, 2000; Larsen, et al., 2004). In a community-based
study, the odds of self-reported poor health were higher in areas perceived as less neighborly,
than areas perceived as more neighborly (Bowling, Barber, Morris, & Ebrahim, 2006). Berkman
et al (2000) found that once ill, socially isolated individuals had a higher risk of premature death
than those with stronger social networks. When perceptions are unified, or when many people
share the same opinions and feelings, the community is described as having high level social
cohesion (Friedkin, 2004). Social cohesion can benefit the community because it increases the
capability or capacity for a community to bond and come together to support a common goal.
Community norms and values determine the social status of an individual in that community.
Having a large group of individuals with a high social status and shared norms and values can
lead to positive health impacts in the community (Aneshensel & Sucoff, 1996). In a literature
review by Kim (2008), lower collective neighborhood socioeconomic status was found to be
81|Chapter 4: Assessment Findings
-------
strongly linked with a higher risk of depression among residents. Larsen et al (2004) found that
residents with high social status and longer residency were more likely to participate in activities
that built stronger social ties and trust in other residents in the community. A positive social
environment can protect health against the effects of other environmental stressors, such as
poverty and crime (Bowling, Barber, Morris, & Ebrahim, 2006; Savolainen, 2000).
When a perceived dysfunction or environmental stressor in the community persists, the social
environment can follow a downward cycle of adverse impacts, called the cycle of social decline,
which greatly limits the community's collective ability to address issues. When environmental
conditions become deteriorated, residents may perceive a loss of control over their environment.
The perceived "lack of control over one's life" can lead to unhealthy attitudes and behaviors,
such as anxiety and depression. When behaviors become uncivil, such as increased violence and
vandalism, residents and visitors are discouraged from socializing further, which limits the
ability to bond and develop social ties. Increased social disorder and physical decline of the
community can lead to increased fear of crime, anxiety, and the severity of depression (Kim,
2008; Ross C. , 2000; Wandersman & Nation, 1998). In contrast, some studies that have shown
an "informal social control" can greatly influence behaviors and attitudes (Berkman, Glass,
Brissette, & Seaman, 2000). The social environment was found to be independently linked to
overall risk of disease and pre-mature death in a community (Yen & Syme, 1999). Thus,
conditions that detract from the social environment may also detract from health.
Community Perceptions, the Physical Environment, Health, and Neighborhood Facility Use
Researchers have observed that when the physical environment begins to deteriorate, individuals
living in that environment begin to feel less healthy, also referred to as the "sick building
syndrome." In a study looking at relationships between building conditions and perceived
health, researchers reported that schools perceived to be in poorer condition had teachers with
lower self-reported health (Buckley, Schneider, & Shang, 2004). Bowling et al (2006) found a
strong connection between poor conditions of neighborhood facilities and the odds of perceived
poor health among neighborhood residents. In their 2006 study, residents were twice as likely to
rate themselves with the lowest level of perceived health, if they lived in a neighborhood with
deteriorated facilities, than if they lived in a neighborhood with facilitates in good condition
(Bowling, Barber, Morris, & Ebrahim, 2006). Kim (2008) found that the physical conditions of
a neighborhood and its assets seemed to affect social capital and mental health, more so in the
U.S. than in other countries studied.
82|Chapter 4: Assessment Findings
-------
Researchers have found that the perceived physical environment also plays an important role in
the use of neighborhood facilities and health-related behaviors. For example, areas perceived as
safe and secure encourage use and occupancy of those areas. Miles (2008) found that in
communities that seemed safer and in less disorder, residents were more likely to let their
children play in local public playgrounds than those that lived in neighborhoods that were
perceived as less safe. Utilizing public spaces create an opportunity for social interaction and
physical activity, which may decrease stress.
Accessibility and perceived barriers to destinations is another influential factor in using
neighborhood facilities (Saelens, Sallis, Black, & Chen, 2003; Patnode, et al., 2010). The
placement and accessibility of a neighborhood facility can also influence occupancy of that
space. Neighborhoods perceived as pedestrian-friendly, aesthetically pleasing, highly populated,
and well-connected seemed to encourage more outdoor physical activity than other
neighborhoods. Being physical active is important to overall health because of its
comprehensive protective effects against disease and disability (Warburton, Nicol, & Bredin,
2006). Physical activity strengthens bones and muscles; prevents the clogging of arteries and
veins; protects against certain cancers (e.g., colon and breast cancer); reduces obesity; and can
help control type-2 diabetes (Warburton, Nicol, & Bredin, 2006; Ross C. , 2007). Physical
activity has also been found to improve mental health by reducing stress and the risk and severity
of depression and anxiety (Fox, 1999). Public spaces that encourage physical activity benefit
community health.
In contrast, areas perceived to be unsafe or insecure can act as a barrier to facility use and even
deter residents from using neighborhood space. The presence of social disorder (e.g., vandalism,
harassment, etc.), especially in combination with previous experiences, can lower a person's
perceived safety and security. The amount of deteriorated buildings in a neighborhood was
found to predict levels of perceived safety among residents (Kim, 2008; Kruger, Reischl, & Gee,
2007; Wandersman & Nation, 1998). Crime levels in a neighborhood were also found to be
closely connected to the perceptions of neighborhood disorder (Kruger, Reischl, & Gee, 2007;
Latkin, German, Hua, & Curry, 2009). In areas where social disorder is high, residents tend to
avoid that space to reduce their risk of injury or harm. Avoidance of public spaces that provide
opportunities for physical activity and social interaction can detract from overall health and well-
being.
Although there are many studies that found strong evidence linking the physical environment
with physical activity, very few studies dispute the connection. Specifically, little to no evidence
of an association existed when researchers looked at only a few factors at a time, or they looked
83|Chapter 4: Assessment Findings
-------
at affects among sub-groups in the population (e.g., minorities or adolescents) (Norman, et al.,
2006; Steptoe & Feldman, 2001; Dulin-Keita, Thind, Affuso, & Baskin, 2013). The mechanisms
related to human behaviors are often complex and may rely on multiple mediators. Therefore,
studies that investigate human behavior must be comprehensive and inclusive of all potential
mediating factors.
Populations More Sensitive to the Perceived Environment
Perspectives of the environment do not influence everyone equally. Economically disadvantaged
individuals are also more likely to be influenced by the social environment; as stated previously,
social effects accentuate impacts of economic disadvantages. Elderly adults, especially those
who suffer from decreased physical mobility and mental decline, may experience the effects of
social isolation more so than others (Yen, Michael, & Perdue, 2009); however, the evidence of
neighborhood influence on elderly adult health was limited. Children are highly susceptible to
the influences of the social environment. Being of younger age has been linked to more negative
opinions of the community (Latkin, German, Hua, & Curry, 2009; Sampson & Raudenbush,
1999). This may be because children are more impressionable and are highly influenced by
peers, more so than adults are. The effects of perceived environment are different between males
and females. The protective effect of neighborhood walk-ability against depression was greater
in men than women (Berke, Goltlieb, Moudon, & Larson, 2007). Girls are more susceptible to
perceived safety and its impacts on mental health and depression. In their 2010 study, which
examined barriers to physical activity, Patnode et al. (2010) found that girls reported being
impacted more by perceived safety than boys, and that self-efficacy was the only significant
barrier for physical activity levels among boys. In addition, many adolescent mental health
disorders (such as anxiety and depression), which can stem from community perception, often
carry into adulthood (Aneshensel & Sucoff, 1996; McEwen, 2008).
4.6.2. Predicted Impacts from Proposed Renovations
The HIA Core Group reviewed the evidence from each of the sub-analyses and relied on
professional expertise to discuss and qualitatively characterize anticipated impacts community
perceptions that may result from the renovation options considered by PERM. The HIA Core
Group also considered the distribution of impact, especially among VIPs. The characterization
of perception-related health impacts were formed using the Delphi method (a structured,
interactive discussion among a panel of experts) and the determined criteria established in the
Scoping step. Table 15 summarizes the predicted health impacts each renovation option may
have on the perceived environment in Gerena.
84|Chapter 4: Assessment Findings
-------
Table 15. Summary of Predicted Perception-related Health Impacts of Proposed Renovations
=
.2
w
flj
V
•_
5
Proposed Renovation Option
•o
o
o
•_-
4*
••"
4>
•o
s
'3
W)
SS
=
"3
.c
'•Z
K
5
0
VI
1. Eliminate water and accumulation of moisture from entering renovation Highly Many vulnerable many strong
the building. Continue investigations in the source(s) of water will yield Likely populations studies (n >
infiltration, and implement necessary repairs and upgrades as a health
needed. benefit
2. Remove and discard porous building materials that have been renovation
Highly
wet for greater than 48-hours and not professionally dried and will yield Likely
cleaned or show visible evidence of mold growth. Consider a health
replacing removed materials with those not affected by water benefit
or moisture (i.e., ceramic tile flooring) in areas where water
infiltration occurs.
will benefit 10)
more
Many
vulnerable many strong
populations studies (n >
will benefit 10)
more
3. Continue with efforts to evaluate the HV AC system to ensure No Effect [Blank] [Blank] [Blank] [Blank]
proper design and distribution (i.e., flow, balancing, fresh air
introduction, etc.) is in place.
4. Re-evaluate optimal location for fresh air intakes of Building renovation Some- Moderate 1 equal no specific
A and, if appropriate, swap intakes for Building B with will yield what impact to study but
exhausts. a health Likely
benefit
all pathway of
impact is
possible
5. Repair/upgrade all AHUs and exhaust systems in Building B, No Effect [Blank] [Blank] [Blank] [Blank]
including fresh air intake dampers, controls, and associated
equipment for air handling units. Rebalance system after
replacements/upgrades are implemented.
85|Chapter 4: Assessment Findings
-------
Proposed Renovation Option
=
'-C
w
4*
5
•o
o
o
1
4>
•o
s
W)
SS
=
•^
s
JS
'•Z
K
5
0
vi
6. Install a new exhaust fan and duct system for Tunnel C to renovation Some- Moderate equal no specific
exhaust air from outer tunnel space to exterior of building. will yield what impact to study but
a health Likely
benefit
all
pathway of
impact is
possible
7. Seal outer Tunnel C completely off from the inner tunnel renovation Not Moderate equal no specific
space, in order to prevent air from traveling between spaces. will yield Very impact to study but
a health Likely
benefit
8. Contract a qualified, certified professional to test the indoor
air quality.
No Effect
[Blank]
[Blank]
all
pathway of
impact is
possible
[Blank] [Blank]
9. Contract a qualified, certified professional to test for No Effect [Blank] [Blank] [Blank] [Blank]
hazardous materials (HAZMATs) prior to any demolition.
10. Conduct an outdoor air quality test and wind study at different No Effect [Blank] [Blank] [Blank] [Blank]
locations on school campus, including the current locations,
to investigate optimal locations for air intake louvers, and
relocate louvers to optimal location, if appropriate.
1 1 . Complete comprehensive HV AC replacement program, renovation Highly Many vulnerable many strong
including replacement of all of the existing air handling units will yield Likely populations studies (n >
and their controls, expanding the Building Management a health
System (BMS), exhaust and return fans, boilers, pipes, benefit
associated appurtenances (i.e., valves, dampers, controls,
louvers, air separator, expansion tank, etc.), and modifications
to some of the mechanical piping and ductwork.
will benefit 10)
more
86|Chapter 4 : Assessment Findings
-------
Proposed Renovation Option
=
w
^
5
•o
o
o
•j-
.1
4*
•o
a
°3
W)
SS
=
^o
°-C
s
JS
'•Z
K
5
0
VI
12. For Building B, replace and upgrade boilers, including No Effect [Blank] [Blank] [Blank] [Blank]
associated appurtenances (e.g., flue, pumps, piping, ductwork,
etc.) with higher efficiency, sealed combustion condensing
type boilers.
13. For Buildings A and C, further investigate into the walls' 1 renovation Flighly Many vulnerable many strong
interior construction and assess conditions and need for will yield Likely populations studies (n >
repairs, including seasonal monitoring of groundwater level, a health
and replace stormwater pump stations, as needed. benefit
will benefit 10)
more
14. For Building A, replace roofing membrane; install a renovation Flighly Many vulnerable many strong
waterproof membrane; install new drains, a sill pan and new will yield Likely populations studies (n >
door weather stripping for exposed east end of tunnel; isolate a health
the new roof from the roof beneath the overpass; and repair benefit
concrete masonry unity (CMU) walls.
will benefit 10)
more
87|Chapter 4: Assessment Findings
-------
Discussion
The lower level of Gerena Community School (Gerena) doubles as a community center
providing a covered, climate controlled passageway between neighborhoods. Residents are
encouraged to socialize or use the community space in the tunnels for physical activity, social
activities, and building capacity (e.g., obtaining GED and learning English). However, members
of the community have raised concerns with the physical conditions of the school, accessibility,
and safety of the facility. Residents have cited these concerns as reasons to avoid using the
building.
The evidence justifies that the primary influential factor to perceptions regarding Gerena is the
presence of environmental stressors in the tunnels. The presence of deterioration, damage,
standing water, and perceived poor air quality lower a person's perceived accessibility and safety
in that area. Perceived and actual accessibility are greatly hindered when the tunnel closes early
or when there are flooding and air quality hazards. Frequent closures or overcrowding of the
tunnel may lead to residents perceiving the building as another barrier instead of an asset.
In order for the community to react and develop a perception, the change must be observed.
Many "behind the scenes" improvements are not likely to impact perceptions of the school,
simply because the changes may go unnoticed. Renovations that focus on improving the quality
of the tunnel environment will have the greatest beneficial impact in regards to improving
community perceptions. Renovation options that addressed safety and accessibility include those
that will improve the air quality in the tunnel space, eliminate water intrusion into the tunnels,
and remove evidence of structural damage or vandalism. As an asset, Gerena encourages
residents in the community to interact and be more physically active. As a barrier, the school can
inhibit physical activity and add to psychosocial stress among residents. Therefore, it is
imperative that the conditions of tunnel remain accessible and safe to protect and promote health
among those that use the facility.
*,
On May 6, 2013, members of the HIA Core Group met with PERM to discuss the
initial findings from the analyses of data collected at the school and solicited input from PERM
to supplement the findings. The group used the input provided by PERM to make clarifications,
verify findings, and help develop recommendations. Appendix A provides notes from this
meeting.
88|Chapter 4: Assessment Findings
-------
Chapter 5. HIA Recommendations
Recommendations are developed in HIA by identifying strategies for each decision alternative
that would promote positive health impacts and mitigate and/or avoid adverse health impacts
predicted. Recommendations are often conceptualized and refined throughout the HIA process,
but finalized in this step. Recommendations should be evidence-based, responsible to predicted
impacts, specific and actionable, enforceable, and feasible. The collective set of
recommendations comprises the Public Health Management Plan.
5.1. Overview of Recommendations Step
Recommendation activities occurred from July 2013 to July 2014. Once all of the interim
reports from the EPA-led investigations were complete, the HIA Core Group reviewed the
evidence gathered and used professional judgement to deliberate and organize a set of
recommendations for PERM. Once the key findings and set of recommendations were
established, the HIA Core Group developed the Executive Summary of HIA Findings and
Recommendations as the main communications piece for sharing that information with
stakeholders. Figure 19 captures the timeline of activities in the Recommendations step. Items
with red flags are also considered Reporting activities.
89|Chapter 5: HIA Recommendations
-------
HIA Core Group meeting- discussed
recommendations from interim reports
7/29/2013
HIA Core Group meeting- discussed plan for developing
HIA recommendations and updates to HIA timeline
8/26/2013
--... HIA Core Group meeting- discussed challenges for
HIA timeline and planned for moving forward in the
Recommendations step
10/28/2013
wPublic flyer released to update
stakeholders on HIA progress
10/31/2013
HIA Core Group meeting- discussed prioritization
and/or grouping of HIA recommendations
11/26/2013
HIA Core Group meeting- discussed final list of
I renovations, HIA recommendations, and summaries
of health impacts predicted
12/5/2013
^_ Meeting with PBRM- presented summaries of HIA
^findings and (draft) recommendations
12/9/2013
HIA Core Group meeting-debrief from meeting
with PBRM, discussed next steps and re-opened
discussion of HIA recommendations
12/16/2013
Aug Oct
Fed. govt. shutdown
(delay all HIA work) ^H 10/1/2013 -10/17/2013
HIA 7/29/2013 - 8/26/2013
Recommendations
Nov
Dec
HIA Recommendations
2013
10/28/2013 -12/31/2013
HIA Core Group meeting- discussed
plan for developing Exec. Summary of
HIA Findings and Recommendations
1/10/2014
HIA Core Group meeting-
* refined HIA recommendations
1/21/2014
Meeting with PBRM- presented plan for
^prioritizing renovations and solicited
feedback on cost and feasibility
1/29/2014
^ HIA Core Group meeting- discussed preparations for meeting with PBRM
4/1/2014
w Meeting with PBRM- presented Exec. Summary of HIA Findings and Recommendations
4/3/2014
^. Received PBRM's comments and proposed edits on the Exec. Summary
4/16/2014
HIA Core Group meeting- discussed draft response to PBRM's
comments and next steps to complete Reporting step
5/5/2014
HIA Core Group meeting-
refined HIA recommendations
2/10/2014
HIA Core Group meeting- refined HIA recommendations
2/11/2014
(Draft) Exec. Summary of HIA Findings and
Recommendations completed
^ HIA Core Group meeting- finalize response to PBRM's comments on the Exec. Summary
2/26/2014
HIA Core Group meeting-discussed (draft) Exec. Summary
3/18/2014
^-Meeting with PBRM-discussed updates to HIA timeline
3/19/2014
HIA Core Group's response to PBRM's comments on the
Exec. Summary (letter and tracking sheet) completed
5/20/2014
^ HIA Core Group meeting- discussed
revisions to the Exec. Summary
6/4/2014
HIA Core Group meeting- discussed updates
to HIA timeline and plans for public meeting
6/30/2014
HIA Core Group meeting- discussed
revisions to Exec. Summary
7/10/2014
Re-release of Exec. Summary
"of HIA Findings and
(Draft) Exec. Summary of HIA Findings and Recommendations shared with PBRM
3/21/2014
Recommendations to PBRM
7/25/2014
Mar
May
Jul
2014
01/01/2014 - 7/25/2014
Figure 19. Timeline of activities completed in the Recommendations step.
5.2. Method for Developing HIA Recommendations
5.2.1. Interim Recommendations from EPA-led Investigations
Each sub-analysis resulted in EPA identifying additional actions aimed at improving the quality
of the indoor environment at Gerena. The HIA Core Group compiled the list of interim
recommendations from each of the reports. Table 16 lists each of the EPA-led investigations
performed at Gerena and the interim recommendations that resulted from those investigations.
90|Chapter 5: HIA Recommendations
-------
Table 16. List of EPA-Identified Actions
EPA-led
Investigation
Interim Recommendations
Mold
Contamination
Analysis
TT Correct the water leaks throughout the school.
2. All carpeting should be removed from the school. Also, all other food
sources (e.g., ceiling tiles, paper, cardboard, natural fabrics, etc.) for mold
should be eliminated, to the best extent possible. (This recommendation
should be implemented when the school is unoccupied and by a
professional team.)
3. After completing items 1 and 2, the entire school needs to be exhaustively
cleaned.
4. Replace the carpeting and ceiling tiles that have been removed; this
should not be done until all water problems have been corrected.
Building 1. Monitor combustion-sized particles during future data collection.
Conditions 2. Design a cost effective, energy recovery, air drying system in future
and Systems HVAC design efforts.
Analyses 3. Design continuously wet areas to be exhausted.
4. Follow interim and long-term recommendations in RDK report (April 12,
2012), add air drying.
5. Study locations for best air intake locations.
6. Follow the three recommendations in the ORD (October 16, 2012) mold
contamination report: a) stopping water leaks; b) carefully remove porous
materials that have been water-damaged and suspected of mold
contamination, including carpeting and ceiling tiles; and c) extensively,
carefully, and exhaustively clean the school after suspected mold
contaminated, porous materials have been removed.
7. Plan for future air movement directions.
8. Reduce make-up air needs by reducing obvious air leakage sites in
building enclosure.
9. Seal facility air-tight to reduce uncontrolled air leakage from the
building's enclosure.
10. Continue to assure the delivery of adequate outside air and temperature
control.
11. Further investigate the impact of combustion-sided particles in the indoor
environment.
12. Provide increased cleaning of air conditioning drain pans.
13. Incorporate easy access doors in new HVAC design.
14. Improve the HVAC Preventative Maintenance Program (PMP).
91|Chapter 5: HIA Recommendations
-------
EPA-led
Investigation
Interim Recommendations
Indoor Air
Quality
Analysis
15. Improve the energy management of HVAC.
Initial efforts to improve the indoor air quality should focus on moisture
intrusion into the building envelope and mold remediation and prevention in
all parts of the building, especially Tunnel A.
Several of the interim recommendations aligned closely with the proposed renovations, while
some were unique. Furthermore, some of the items were sequential, meaning some items must
be completed before subsequent actions could occur. For these reasons, the HIA Core Group
overlaid the interim recommendations with the list of proposed renovations into a complete set of
action items and organized (grouped) the items by sequence order. Items that should be
implemented together were combined.
Before the HIA Core Group could prioritize and finalize the HIA recommendations,
the U.S. Government shutdown for sixteen days and all work on the HIA ceased. PERM had to
submit the draft budget to the Mayor and City Office of Management and Budget for funding
items in the next fiscal year. PERM used the interim recommendations from the Building
Conditions and Systems Analyses interim report to supplement the budget items proposed for the
next fiscal year. After the federal government re-opened, the HIA Core Group continued efforts
to finalize the HIA recommendations. A one-page flyer was developed and released in October
2013 to update PERM on the HIA's progress. Appendix E provides a copy of the flyer.
5.2.2. Prioritizing Recommended Actions
The HIA Core Group prioritized the combined list of action items based on two criteria:
• Timing for implementation— phase in which the HIA Core Group recommended that the
item be accomplished (i.e., immediately, in near-term, in longer-term);
• Predicted health value— the most positive effect on health and well-being, relative to the
other proposed items (e.g., high, medium, and low).
The items that would provide the greatest health benefit were ranked higher in priority.
Information gained from the literature reviews and professional expertise informed the assigned
health value. The resulting framework for renovations served as the HIA recommendations.
92|Chapter 5: HIA Recommendations
-------
*,
On December 9, 2013, the HIA Core Group met with PERM to present the key
findings from the assessment and (draft) HIA recommendations. A handout that summarized
each of the health impact analyses was used to facilitate the discussion. PERM provided EPA
notes from the meeting with comments on the HIA findings and (draft) recommendations. The
group used PERM'S input to make clarifications and further refine the HIA recommendations.
Appendix A provides notes from this meeting and Appendix E provides the handout used.
5.2.3. Additional Considerations for PERM
The HIA Core Group recognized that recommendations should be practical and feasible, in
addition to providing a health value. Performing a cost-benefit analysis for each action item was
outside the scope of this HIA. The primary intent of the HIA recommendations was to help
inform PBRM's decisions regarding renovations at Gerena based on health value. Therefore, the
group established a set of criteria to help inform further considerations regarding the HIA
recommendations, including:
a. First cost— the relative cost of implementing the proposed item;
b. Operating cost (or savings)— the relative cost/savings associated with
operating/maintaining the proposed item;
c. Ease of operation and maintenance— the relative amount of time needed to
operate/maintain the proposed item;
d. Durability— the life span expected before the item needs to be replaced or redone; and
e. Occupancy— whether the item is safe to be performed when the school is occupied.
*,
On January 29, 2014, members of the HIA Core Group traveled to Springfield, MA to
meet with PERM and solicit their input to help qualify the resource values for each of items.
The HIA Core Group developed a handout explaining the proposed approach for characterizing
the practicality and feasibility of implementing each item. Together, EPA and PERM filled out
the sheet. Appendix A provides notes from this meeting and Appendix E provides the handout
used.
93|Chapter 5: HIA Recommendations
-------
5.3. Final HIA Recommendations
After meeting with PERM, the HIA Core Group spent a considerable amount of time reviewing
and refining the language of the action items for the final HIA recommendations. The final HIA
recommendations for PERM include the proposed renovation options with the EPA-added
actions (in italics). Items should be completed in their entirety and in numerical order, within the
assigned immediate-, near-, and long-term phase.
Because the building was built before 1980, testing for HAZMATs must be performed
by a certified professional prior to any demolition or disturbance of building materials.
Immediate Term Action Items (To be completed within 1 year)
1. Seal building enclosure air-tight at identified air leak sites in building enclosure, which
includes:
Using approved weatherization materials and techniques to seal the identified cracks
and openings. For examples, see the areas noted in the Turner Building Science &
Design (TBS) report.
2. Seal building enclosure air-tight at identified air leak sites in building enclosure, which
includes:
Using approved weatherization materials and techniques to seal the identified cracks
and openings. For examples, see the areas noted in the Turner Building Science &
Design (TBS) report.
3. Change the airflow between outer mechanical space and inner community space of Tunnel C
so that the mechanical space becomes negative pressure relative to the community space,
which includes:
- Installation of new exhaust fan and duct system for Tunnel C to exhaust air from
outer tunnel space to exterior of building; and
- Air sealing outer tunnel space completely off from inner tunnel space in order to
prevent air from traveling between spaces.
4. Inspect and repair every air handling unit (AHU) in Building B, to ensure that at least
minimum delivery of outdoor air supply is reached, which includes:
Repairing and adjusting the ventilation systems as identified in the EPA Indoor Air
Quality Tools for Schools HVAC checklist. For example, repairing broken belts and
air dampers that do not open, etc.; and
Adjusting outdoor air supply ventilation component systems as needed.
5. Provide increased cleaning of air conditioning drain pans, which includes:
94|Chapter 5: HIA Recommendations
-------
- Following EPA and industry guidance on cleaning and treating drain pans (EPA IAQ
Tools for Schools Kit);
- Ensuring drain pans drain properly; and
- Enhance ease of access to air conditioning drain pans, filters, etc. for routine
maintenance. For example, upgrading to latch system for doors.
6. Ensure consistent use of all checklists in EPA IAQ Tools for Schools kit, within one month of
completing #3 and #4. Then, follow the recommended schedule to ensure proper continued
operation (Gerena has been following EPA 's IAQ Tools for Schools Kit checklists, but some
improvements can be made).
Near Term Action Items (To be completed within 2-3 years)
7. Implement on-going program of waterproofing below-ground areas (tunnels), which includes:
Replace roofing membrane and install new drains for exposed east end of Tunnel A
(Building A). Isolate the new roof from the roof beneath the overpass;
Repair concrete masonry unit (CMU) walls, install a waterproof membrane, and
install a sill pan in the opening and weather stripping around the door of Tunnel A;
Further investigate into the walls' interior construction and assess conditions and
need for repairs of Tunnels A and C, including seasonal monitoring of groundwater
levels;
Sealing water leaks throughout the facility; and
- Replacing water pump stations in tunnels, as needed.
8. Remove and discard porous building materials (e.g., carpet, furniture coverings, etc.) that have
been damaged by water intrusion for longer than 48 hours and not professionally dried or
cleaned (AFTER water intrusion is stopped), which includes:
Following guidance from EPA IAQ Tools for Schools Kit checklists;
Extensive cleaning of building, including shelves, counters, floors, ceilings, walls,
etc; and
Replacement of discarded building materials with nonporous moisture resistant
materials, only AFTER water intrusion is stopped.
Long Term Action Items (To be completed after 3 years)
9. Complete redesign and replacement of HVAC systems, which includes:
If changes in HVAC system, pollutant levels and/or pollutant sources are expected,
re-evaluate optimal locations of air intake louvers and filters used through long-term
air sampling (i.e., multi-seasonal). Air sampling should include a wind study and
monitoring of outdoor air pollutant levels, sources, and impacts on indoor air quality.
If findings from longer air monitoring support the recommendation, relocate fresh air
intakes from Building A to a more optimal location;
95|Chapter 5: HIA Recommendations
-------
Planning for future air movement throughout the facility;
Incorporate easy access doors for equipment in new HVAC design;
Swapping the fresh air intakes for the five mechanical rooms in Building B with
exhausts.
- Replacing and upgrading all air handling units, exhaust systems (especially Chiller
Room exhaust), and existing controls with high efficiency electronic-controlled
models. This includes relocating thermostats to a location that provides more accurate
temperature readings;
Replacing any damaged/missing equipment (e.g., diffusers, grilles, insulation, etc.)
and install new security measures for building equipment external to building (i.e., air
intakes and AHUs on Building D roof);
Extensive cleaning of any ductwork or materials not being replaced within the next
five years;
Installation of a new energy management system (EMS) with local computer,
communications network, equipment controllers, valve controllers, sensors, air flow
and temperature monitors, etc.;
Installation of new security measures to prevent vandalism or damage of equipment
outside facility; and
- Rebalancing HVAC system after new installation.
10. Rebuild and reopen community spaces once they are deemed safe for occupancy, which
includes:
Replacing corroded building systems components.
5.4. Executive Summary of HIA Findings and Recommendations
The compilation of the HIA's key findings and final recommendations are represented in the
Executive Summary of HIA Findings and Recommendations. Beginning in February 2014, this
document underwent eight iterations before the HIA Core Group finalized the document in July
2014. The Executive Summary was sent to PERM on March 21, 2014 to review and verify the
information presented. PERM reviewed the document and provided feedback in written and
verbal format.
The HIA Core Group met with PERM on April 3, 2014 to discuss the (draft)
Executive Summary of HIA Findings and Recommendations. The HIA Core Group answered
questions from PERM on the HIA process and findings. Appendix A provides notes from this
meeting. PERM transmitted written comments and proposed edits on the document to the HIA
Core Group on April 14, 2014, who used the input received to refine the document.
96|Chapter 5: HIA Recommendations
-------
After the meeting with PERM, the HIA Core Group continued to revise the Executive Summary
to address PBRM's needs and concerns with the document. In addition, the HIA Core Group
prepared a Response to Comments from PERM, including a tracking sheet that addressed each
comment and proposed change so that PERM could track in the revised version how their input
was addressed/incorporated. The final Executive Summary was re-released July 25, 2014.
The HIA Core Group recognized that the HIA Report might be too cumbersome for most
readers. Instead, the HIA Core Group intended the Executive Summary of the HIA Findings and
Recommendations to be the main document shared among stakeholders.
97|Chapter 5 : HIA Recommendations
-------
Chapter 6. HIA Reporting Activities
The purpose of the reporting step in the HIA process is to communicate the HIA progress and
findings. Reporting raises awareness of the pending decision and builds understanding about the
HIA process and the relevance of the decision to health. Although reporting is the sixth step in
the HIA process, reporting activities occur throughout the HIA and may include presenting on
the HIA to stakeholders and fellow HIA practitioners; creating educational materials or
handouts; and preparing a final report and/or official letter.
6.1. Overview of HIA Reporting Activities
The Reporting step progressed over the full timeline of the HIA. Information about this HIA
was shared with community residents; local community organizations and advocacy groups;
local, state, and national government entities; researchers at academic and professional
institutions; and the HIA community of practice. The HIA Core Group used several formats for
reporting information in order to accommodate a diverse group of audiences. Appendix E
provides examples of the different formats used during the HIA. The final task signifying the
end of the HIA was the completion of the HIA Report. Figure 20 provides a timeline in which
reporting activities took place.
In addition to the work completed, there were a few reporting actions planned, but
were not fully achieved. The following lists the activities that were planned but not completed
by the end of the HIA:
• Short, educational factsheet about in-home cleaning products that do not exacerbate
asthma symptoms (planned for May 2013 release)
• Presentation to public (community stakeholders) on initial HIA findings and
recommendations (planned for June 2013, indefinitely postponed)
• Factsheet to update public on initial HIA findings (in place of public meeting; planned for
June 2013 release)
• Presentation to public (community stakeholders) on final HIA recommendations (planned
for July 2013, moved to October 2013, indefinitely postponed)
• Presentation to Mayor and/or City Council (decision-makers) on final HIA
recommendations (planned for March 2014, moved to October 2014, indefinitely
postponed)
98 (Chapter 6: HIA Reporting Activities
-------
Public flyer released announcing EPA's
,. intent to lead an HIA in Springfield
10/3/2012
EPA attended PBRM's public meeting at Gerena
to announce HIA and solicit participation
10/4/2012
Meeting with PBRM- discussed HIA scope,
,. research questions, and pathway diagram
12/10/2012
Meeting with PBRM- discussed updates
on QAPPs, logistics for (new) data
" collection, and initial findings of the Mold
Contamination Analysis
2/14/2013 pubMc flyer released notifying community of
•^upcoming data collection and HIA progress
I II I II
Meeting with PBRM- debrief from data collection and PBRM's feedback on HIA activities and progress
4/1/2013
Meeting with PBRM and MA DEP- discussed initial data results of Building
Conditions and Systems Analyses and plan for future air sampling
4/17/2013
^ HIA Core Group meeting- discussed updates to HIA Report Outline and upcoming stakeholder meetings
4/18/2013
HIA Core Group meeting- discussed updates to HIA Report Outline and Writing Action Plan
5/2/2013
*- Meeting with PBRM- discussed initial findings from Building Conditions and Systems Analyses
5/6/2013
HIA Core Group meeting- discussed updates to HIA Report Outline and Writing Action Plan
5/8/2013 ^ HIA Core Group meeting- discussed updates to (draft) HIA Report and comm. plan
6/17/2013
HIA Core Group meeting- discussed progress of (draft) HIA
Report- completed up through scoping activities
7/1/2013
HIA Core Group meeting- discussed updates to (draft) HIA Report
7/29/2013
5/
M
'
3/13/2013
^ HIA Core Group sent e-mail to community
r~ ctakphnlHprc with updates on the progress of the HIA
3/22/2013
act
Dec 2012 Feb
Apr
Jun
Aug
Oct
2013
loping HIA Report
Federal government shutdown (delay all HIA work) ^^ 10/1/2013 -10/17/2013
| 10/4/2012 -10/1/2013
Public flyer released to update
stakeholders on HIA progress
10/31/2013
Meeting with PBRM- presented plan for prioritizing proposed
renovations and solicited feedback on feasibility and practicality
1/29/2014 Meeting with PBRM- conference call
between staff in Region 1 and PBRM-
" discussed updates to HIA timeline
3/19/2014
HIA Core Group meeting- discussed (draft)
». HIA Report through Assessment activites
11/18/2013
(Draft) Executive Summary of HIA Findings
and Recommendations shared with PBRM
3/21/2014
Meeting with PBRM- presented summaries
of HIA findings and (draft)
r recommendations and solicited feedback
Meeting with PBRM- presented Executive
Summary of HIA Findings and
r Recommendations
HIA Core Group meeting- discussed revisions to
"(draft) HIA Report, Chapters land 2
7/24/2014
Re-release of Executive Summary of HIA Findings
k- and Recommendations to PBRM
7/25/2014
HIA Core Group meeting- discussed revisions
'to (draft) HIA Report, Chapters 3 and 4
8/5/2014
(Draft) HIA Report, Chapters 1 through 4, released to PBRM
8/6/2014
Meeting with PBRM- presented (draft) HIA Report and discussed
final Executive Summary and overall HIA process
8/7/2014
HIA Core Group meeting- discussed updates
to HIA timeline and revisions to (draft) HIA
Report
9/30/2014
HIA Core Group meeting-
* discussed revisions to (draft) HIA
Report
10/28/2014
Apr
Aug
i/ities and developing HIA Report
| 10/21/2013-
I 10/30/2014
2014
Nov
(Draft) HIA Report released to PBRM
^ 11/17/2014
PBRM transmitted corr
^ proposed edits to (dra'
12/2/2014
^ PBRM transmitted
^ comments to (dral
Report with clarifi
12/10/2014
ments
t) HIA R
additio
t)HIA
ations
nd
eport
^HIA
^"frorr
2/5/
H
nal
^fr
2
HIA Core Group meeting- discussed comments from PBRM and revisions to (draft) HIA Report
1/20/2015
w HIA Core Group meeting- discussed comments
* from PBRM and revisions to (draft) HIA Report
2/26/2015
HIA Core Group meeting- discussed response to PBRM's comments,
including letter and tracking sheet, and plans for public meeting
3/26/2015
HIA Core Group meeting- discussed response to PBRM's
comments on HIA Report, including letter and tracking sheet
5/4/2015
HIA Core Group meeting- discussed comments
from PBRM and revisionsto (draft) HIA Report
HIA Core Group meeting- discussed comments
PBRM and revisionsto (draft) HIA Report
2/10/2015
HIA Core Group meeting- discussed comments
from PBRM and revisions to (draft) HIA Report
2/171/2015
w HIA Core Group meeting- discussed response to PBRM's
comments on HIA Report, including letter and tracking sheet
5/12/2015
w HIA Core Group's response to PBRM's comments on HIA
Report (letter and tracking sheet) completed
5/29/2015
Dec 2014
Feb
Apr
Jun
Aug
2015
i/ities and developing HIA Report
10/31/2014 - 8/31/2015
Figure 20. Timeline of activities performed as part of the Reporting step (2012 to 2015).
99 (Chapter 6: HIA Reporting Activities
-------
In addition to sharing information among the HIA stakeholder groups, EPA provided information about the HIA to groups outside the
HIA at different venues. Table 17 provides information about the other outlets (external to the HIA communications plan), where
information about the EPA-led HIA was promoted. In addition to those listed, periodic updates on the HIA were provided to internal
EPA audiences, such as supervisors and fellow research programs.
Table 17. External Reporting Outlets for Promoting Information about the HIA
Reporting Outlet
EPA Research
Newsletter
EPA Regional
Children's Health
Coordinators Forum
(Academic)
Environmental Health
class
Format
1-page
Factsheet
Date Purpose
Ongoing Provide ongoing updates on HIA progress and
raise awareness of EPA's HIA work
Primary Audience
EPAORD
Webinar +
PowerPoint
Presentation
1/31/2013
Provide an example of how HIA is being used to
protect children's health
PowerPoint
Presentation
Jan. 2013
EPAORD
Sustainability
Workshop
PowerPoint
Presentation
Discuss the HIA process and illustrate how EPA
is using HIA to evaluate a community-level
decision
EPA's Regional
Children's Health
Coordinators
Boston University,
Environmental Health
Students
4/16/13
Present HIA as an example of community
Sustainability assessments performed by EPA
ORD Management and
scientists
National Prevention 150 word
Council 2014 Annual highlight
Status Report
3/4/14 Highlight EPA's efforts to evaluate and
implement the HIA process at the community
level.
National Coverage
President's Prevention
Advisory Group
Meeting
Formal HIA Report
PowerPoint
Presentation
and Q & A
Pdf
4/28/14
September
2015
Provide remarks on HIA implementation by a
federal agency and present the Gerena
Community School HIA overview as an example.
Document the process, findings and
recommendations from an EPA-led HIA.
President's Advisory
Group to the National
Prevention Council
All
100 | Chapter 6: HIA Reporting Activities
-------
6.2. Developing the HIA Report
This report is the result of compiling the documentation from all of the activities performed as
part of this HIA. Appendix E provides copies of the many communication materials prepared for
this HIA. Work on the HIA Report began in March 2013 and proceeded as new information was
gathered and more HIA activities were completed. Beginning in July 2014, the HIA Core Group
started reviewing and refining the HIA Report, by chapter. The (draft) HIA Report, through
Chapter4: Assessment, was completed by August 5, 2014 and transmitted to PERM for input.
*,
On August 7, 2014, the HIA Core Group met with PERM to present the (draft) HIA
Report, through Chapter 4: Assessment, and answer any remaining questions from PERM
regarding the findings and/or recommendations. Together, PERM and the HIA Core Group
discussed the findings and recommendations, using a PowerPoint presentation to facilitate the
discussion. The input from PERM was used to verify the information in the (draft) HIA Report
and incorporate needed changes. Appendix A provides the notes from this meeting. Appendix E
provides the PowerPoint presentation that facilitated the discussions.
The HIA Core Group continued to revise the document after the meeting with PERM. By
November 2014, the group had a fully drafted HIA Report, which was transmitted to PERM and
the EPA peer-review coordinator to undergo a final review. On December 2, 2014, PERM
provided written comments and proposed edits to the report and sent additional comments for
clarification on December 10, 2014. The HIA Core Group spent the next several meetings
reviewing comments from PERM and revising the HIA Report as needed. From March 2015 to
May 2015, the HIA Core Group prepared a written letter to PERM addressing their comments
and provided responses to each proposed edit and comment by line. The Response to PERM's
Comments on the (draft) HIA Report was completed at the end of May 2015.
By the beginning of April 2015, the HIA Core Group received all of the results of the external
peer-review and the HIA Report underwent final revisions before its completion in August 2015.
EPA made the final report publically available on EPA's Health Research- HIA website
(available for free download at: http://www2.epa.gov/healthresearch/health-impact-assessments).
101 | Chapter 6: HIA Reporting Activities
-------
Chapter 7. Monitoring and Evaluation
The last step in the HIA process is monitoring and evaluation. Monitoring describes the follow-
up activities performed after the HIA recommendations have been presented. The monitoring
step should either include a period for monitoring changes to the decision, decision-making
process, and health impacts of the decision or propose a plan for monitoring those changes.
Monitoring is used to answer questions related to how the HIA affected the decision or decision-
making process (i.e., impact evaluation), how the decision affected health outcomes or health
determinants (i.e., outcome evaluation), and whether the methods used to predict impacts to
health were appropriate (i.e., process evaluation). Tasks completed in this step include: a)
establishing a monitoring and evaluation plan that delineates indicators (measurements) and
resources available for monitoring (i.e., data sources, tools, analysis methods, and potential
funding vehicles); b) identifying the individual or team that will be in charge of leading the
follow-up and responsibilities; and if possible c) performing the monitoring and evaluation and
sharing the results with others involved in the HIA.
Monitoring
Monitor changes in decision
Monitor changes in health
determinants and/or outcomes
Monitor HIA process implementation
and feedback from stakeholders
Evaluation
Evaluate HIA impact on
decision
Evaluate decision's
impact on health
Evaluate the design and
implementation of the
HIA
Figure 21. Figure explaining the Monitoring and Evaluation activities.
The purpose of monitoring is to:
• Encourage accountability in the decision-making;
• Build a better understanding or demonstrate the added value of HIA; and
• Protect health by enabling early detection of negative outcomes.
102 | C h a p t e r 7: Monitoring and HIA Evaluation
-------
7.1. Monitoring Activities after the HI A
Observing changes in health outcomes or even health determinants can take several years beyond
the timeline of the HIA. Because of this, the HIA Project Team is (at a minimum) responsible
for providing a monitoring plan for follow-up activities. The monitoring plan involves following
a set of key indicators for changes over time and implementing planned actions to manage the
health impacts of the proposal (i.e., enacting a health impact management plan).
7.1.1. Monitoring the HIA's Impact on the Decision
The HIA Core Group monitored the decision-making process while the HIA progressed. In
August 2015, PERM provided a compilation of the work performed and work planned in the
near future for Gerena. Appendix H provides the information given by PERM as an addendum
to this report. The addendum provides background information about the structural and
electrical issues Gerena has endured over the years and the resources invested to address those
issues as they arose. The addendum also provides a list of planned actions and funding sources
for continued renovation work. Based on the information provided, PERM adopted a few, but
not all, of the HIA- recommended items.
Although PERM is still contemplating the results of the HIA, the department has made a few
changes that supports the conclusion that the HIA made an impact on the decision. PERM
reported in October 2013 that the department's draft budget (submitted to the City's Office of
Management and Budget on October 25, 2013) was developed based on the recommendations
from the interim report provided in the Building Conditions and Systems Analysis. More
specifically, the recommendation to increase the air exchange in Tunnel C and seal the building
envelope where air leakage sites, where identified. However, it is unclear as to whether the other
recommendations and/or subcomponents all of the adopted recommendations will be
implemented. The HIA Core Group recommends stakeholders continuously monitor the
renovations performed at Gerena to determine whether each action item was implemented as
recommended.
Some of the long-term recommended action items planned at Gerena can be found in the 2015-
2019 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for the City of Springfield, MA. Specifically, renovations
to Tunnel C and the railroad bridge are planned in 2015 and 2016; actions to replace the HVAC
system, water pumps, seal walls, and renovations to Tunnel A and the interstate ramp are
planned between 2015 and 2017. PERM does plan to continue architect/engineering studies
across the city in the near-term (see Fiscal Years 2014-2018 CIP).
103 | C h a p t e r 7: Monitoring and HIA Evaluation
-------
7.1.2. Monitoring the Decision's Impact on Health
Monitoring outcomes after the decision is made enables stakeholders to better understand the
decision's consequences and make corrective actions earlier when adverse impacts are observed.
For this FflA, a monitoring plan is proposed for outcomes related to the three health determinants
assessed in the HIA (i.e., indoor air quality, classroom noise/acoustics, and community
perceptions), with a health impact management plan for when negative outcomes are observed.
Table 18 outlines the suggested approach for monitoring the health determinants evaluated in the
HIA, including follow-up questions, indicators to monitor, and timelines for follow-up activities.
Funding for follow-up activities may be available through the City's annual budget and/or grants
from state and federal agencies. Further monitoring may be limited by the resources available.
The specific health outcome of interest identified in this HIA was respiratory health, especially
asthma. Respiratory health is complicated to evaluate, simply due to the complex network of
factors that increase the probability of a person developing respiratory illness, such as family
history of asthma and allergies, and exposures inside the home. The HIA Core Group proposes a
monitoring plan for tracking changes in respiratory symptoms among students occurred and
whether those changes can be related to renovations at the school. Table 19 identifies two
specific outcomes for the outcome evaluation, which are already monitored by the school nurse
department (i.e., data is readily available):
• Number of school nurse visits for respiratory-related health issues among all students
(i.e., students who presented with nasal problem, allergy inflammation/reaction, asthma
concerns, breathing problems, chest pain, discomfort or tightness, cough, throat problem,
and upper respiratory symptoms); and
• Number of school nurse visits for asthma-like symptoms among children with asthma
(i.e., students who presented with asthma concerns; breathing problems; chest pain,
discomfort, or tightness).
It is important to note that monitoring changes in health does not directly determine
whether the outcomes observed were a direct result of the actions taken/not taken at the school.
Furthermore, changes in health may not be observed for many years. Health outcomes and risk
factors should not be reported lower than the school-level, to protect the privacy of the students.
104 | C h a p t e r 7: Monitoring and HIA Evaluation
-------
Table 18. Proposed Outcome Monitoring Approach for Identified Health Determinants
Outcome Impact
Question
Indicator(s)
Potential Lead
Agency/
Organization
Has the indoor air quality at
Gerena changed since the HIA
was completed?
• Perform thermal imaging and
blower tests following building
treatment
• Establish Pressure differentials
following facility HVAC
changes
• Visually inspect AHU
components and drain pans
• Inspect below ground areas for
visible water and test relative
humidity in localized areas
• Re-test mold contamination
levels using ERMI methods
• Perform ACGIH/ASHRAE
evaluations of indoor air quality
Has there been any changes in
the levels of noise in the
classroom or overall acoustic
learning environment since the
HIA was completed?
EPA for follow-up mold
assessment
MA DPH Bureau of Environmental
Health (performed an IAQ study at
Gerena in 2004) for IAQ follow-up
• Measure sound levels in
classrooms using sound level
meter (dB(A))
• Survey Teachers, students,
and parents (Teacher,
student, and parent
complaints related to noise
in classrooms)
Have the collective perceptions
of the school among the
community stakeholders
changed since the HIA was
completed?
Measuring classroom noise
levels= PERM has a sound level
meter (see Lynn Rose)
Monitoring complaints= Gerena
Community School
• Survey community residents,
teachers, parents, and
students using satisfaction
surveys (TELL Mass Survey)
• Monitor General school
environment grading and
comments from MSBA
School Needs Survey
Gerena Community School
Community Liaison
105 | C h a p t e r 7: Monitoring and HIA Evaluation
-------
Outcome Impact
Question
Has the indoor air quality at
Gerena changed since the HIA
was completed?
Has there been any changes in
the levels of noise in the
classroom or overall acoustic
learning environment since the
HIA was completed?
Have the collective perceptions
of the school among the
community stakeholders
changed since the HIA was
completed?
Administrator/Community
Liaison
Follow-up time
Health impact
12-month intervals beginning in
2015 and continuing at least
through 2017 (provided that the
2015-2019 CIP is followed)
If ERMI values do not change or
management plan (if even increase:
adverse changes are 1
observed)
Re-evaluate the areas where
mold is present in significantly
higher values;
2. Determine causes for high
values;
3. Develop new action items to
reduce mold contamination or
modify current renovation
priorities to expedite those that
will reduce mold.
If ACGffl/ASHRAE evaluations
find insufficiencies:
1. Re-evaluate renovation
priorities to expedite
renovations that control indoor
6-month intervals beginning in
2015
If average classroom noise levels
reach above 70 dB(A) and/or
complaints related to classroom
noise increase:
1. Establish a Noise Reduction
Task Force (NRTF)
responsible for investigating
the noise complaints and
possible solutions.
Identify the sources of noise
complaints.
Review the guidelines
identified in this report (e.g.,
BB93) to identify potential
solutions to improve the
acoustic learning
environment.
6-month intervals beginning in
2015
If community perceptions of the
Gerena do not improve or become
more negative after renovations
have been implemented:
1. Develop a School
Environment Task Force,
composed of representatives
from Gerena Community
School, PTO, PERM, and
other local organizations with
a vested interest in Gerena,
that will be responsible for
identifying and addressing
opportunities for improving
conditions in the facility.
106 | C h a p t e r 7: Monitoring and HIA Evaluation
-------
Outcome Impact
Question
Has the indoor air quality at
Gerena changed since the HIA
was completed?
Has there been any changes in
the levels of noise in the
classroom or overall acoustic
learning environment since the
HIA was completed?
air pollutants (i.e., sealing
building enclosure, re-location
of air intakes, and HVAC
system replacement).
Develop school-specific
protocol for incoming air
regulation (including HVAC
operations and open-window
policy).
4. NRTF work with school
engineers, building
maintenance, and PERM to
ensure sources of noise
(related to the air handling
systems and mold/moisture
renovations) are eliminated
or mitigated and ensure an
optimal acoustic learning
environment.
Have the collective perceptions
of the school among the
community stakeholders
changed since the HIA was
completed?
Develop a strategic plan,
including objectives that will
target identified needs.
Report yearly progress to
represented agencies and
Springfield ECOS.
107 | C h a p t e r 7: Monitoring and HIA Evaluation
-------
Table 19. Proposed Monitoring Approach for Respiratory Health Symptoms
Outcome questions Indicator(s)
Follow-up Additional risk factors (potential
time confounders) to consider
Did the total number
of school nurse visits
for respiratory
symptoms change
significantly from the
2012 school year?
Did the total number
of school nurse visits
related to asthma-like
symptoms among
children with asthma
significantly change
from the 2012 school
year?
# school
nurse visits
for
respiratory-
related
health
issues"
# school
nurse visits
for asthma-
like
symptoms
among
children
with
asthma"
At end of
every school
year, post
2012 and
continuing
past 2017
At end of
every school
year, post
2012 and
continuing
past 2017
History of Asthma(Y/N)
History of allergies (Y/N)
Family history of asthma (Y/N)
NSLP Participant (Y/N)1"
Smoking in home environment (Y/N)
Male (Y/N)
Racial/Ethnic minority (Y/N)*
Mold in the home (Y/N; ERMI Values)§
History of allergies (Y/N)
Family history of asthma (Y/N)
NSLP Participant (Y/N)!
Smoking in home environment (Y/N)
Male (Y/N)
Racial/Ethnic Minority (Y/N)*
Mold in the home (Y/N; ERMI Values)§
Potential analyses
First, analyze whether
significant changes occurred
over time. ^ If yes, then a
second analysis should
determine whether the
additional risk factors may be
influencing the change in
outcome.
First, analyze whether
significant changes occurred
over time. ^ If yes, then a
second analysis should
determine whether the
additional risk factors may be
influencing the change in
outcome.
Students who have not been physician-diagnosed does not verify whether or not they have asthma.
t Students who participate in the national school lunch program (NSLP) is sometimes used in placement of socioeconomic status.
* The U.S. Census Bureau determines persons of racial/ethnic minority as African American, Asian, American Indian and Alaskan
Native, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander, and persons of Hispanic or Latino heritage.
§ Mold testing in the home using ERMI would provide objective and comparable data to mold contamination found in the school.
11 Account for changes in population from year to year.
" School nurses should not change their reporting procedures during the follow-up to ensure consistency.
108 | C h a p t e r 7: Monitoring and HIA Evaluation
-------
There are some limits to this outcome evaluation plan. The data reported by the
school nurse is subject to reporting error and more reliable measures exist. For example,
children tested for asthma are often subjected to a spirometry test, which is a standard method for
testing lung function. This test can be easily performed in an office and provides an objective
measurement, which is more reliable and consistent. However, the availability of such tests to
the school nurses is unknown and the data collected by physicians would be relatively difficult to
obtain due to privacy laws. The use of objective measures are recommended, however, the
indicators identified in the outcome evaluation plan appear to be the most readily available at this
time.
7.2. Evaluation of the HIA Process
As stated in the Scoping step, the evaluation of the HIA Report would be evaluated through an
external review among peers in HIA and internal environments. The external peer-review would
determine whether the methods used in the HIA were appropriate, how well the HIA was
implemented as planned, and whether the HIA provided the anticipated benefit. As a supplement
to the peer-review, the HIA Core Group would provide an internal perspective on the successes,
challenges, and lessons learned from performing the HIA. The HIA Project Leads established
criteria for judging the HIA a success in the RESES proposal.
7.2.1. Overview of HIA Evaluation
Figure 22 provides a timeline of the activities related to evaluating the HIA process. The
evaluation of the HIA involved submitting the HIA Report to undergo an external peer-review
and reviewing the results of that review and addressing opportunities for improvement.
(Draft) HIA Report submitted for external
W peer-review
11/6/2014
,. Results from external peer-review received
4/2/2015
HIA Core Group meeting- discussed results of external
peer-review and revisions to HIA Report
4/21/2015
HIA Core Group meeting- discussed results of
external peer-review and revisions to HIA Report
4/28/2015
HIA Core Group meeting- discussed results of
external peer-review and revisions to HIA Report
HIA Core Group meeting- discussed
results of external peer-review and
revisions to HIA Report
6/9/2015
Apr
Figure 22. Timeline of activities for evaluating the HIA.
May
2015
111/6/2014 - 6/9/2015
109 | C h a p t e r 7: Monitoring and HIA Evaluation
-------
7.2.2. Results of External Peer-review
The reviewers included two HIA practitioners and one expert in the field of building systems and
indoor air quality. The experts who were available and agreed to provide a critical review were
provided monetary compensation for their time and effort. While all comments were invited, the
review was facilitated by use of process and technical focused charge questions. Table 20
provides the set of process-focused charge questions, related. Additional technical charge
questions for the building systems and indoor air expert are provided after the table.
Table 20. Charge Questions to Reviewers Targeting Aspects of HIA Process
HIA Process
Context of HIA
Scope of HIA
Stakeholder
Engagement
Evidence and
Analysis
Charge Questions for Peer-Review
Was the HIA undertaken to inform a proposed decision (e.g., policy,
program, plan, or project) and conducted in advance of that decision
being made? Were the need for and value and feasibility of performing
the HIA assessed and clearly documented? Do the authors acknowledge
sponsors and/or funding sources for the HIA? Is the screening process
clearly documented in the report?
Are the goals and/or objectives of the HIA clearly defined? Is the scope
of the HIA clearly defined (i.e., decision to be studied and its
alternatives; potential impacts of the decision on health, social,
environmental, economic, and other health determinants and their
pathways; populations and vulnerable groups likely to be affected by the
decision; demographic, geographic, and temporal scope of analysis;
health impacts and research questions selected for examination in the
HIA and why)? Is the scoping process clearly documented in the report?
Are the participants in the HIA and their roles clearly identified?
Are stakeholder groups, including decision-makers and vulnerable
population groups, clearly identified? Is a stakeholder engagement and
participation approach, including plans for stakeholder communications,
clearly described in the report? If so, was input from stakeholders
solicited and utilized as planned in the HIA process? Did the HIA
utilize community knowledge and experiences as evidence and in what
ways? Where stakeholders given the opportunity to review and
comment on the findings of the HIA?
Are the methods for evidence gathering and analysis clearly described
and justified? Was evidence selection and gathering reasonable and
complete (i.e., was the best available evidence obtained)? Are the
existing conditions (e.g., demographics, socio-economic conditions,
110|Chapter 7: Monitoring and HIA Evaluation
-------
HIA Process
Charge Questions for Peer-Review
health determinants and health outcomes, presence of vulnerable groups,
etc.) clearly described? Is the profile of existing conditions appropriate
as a baseline against which to assess the impacts of the proposed
decision? Are the potential health impacts of the proposed decision
identified? If so, is the characterization of impacts reasonable and
complete (e.g., direction, magnitude, likelihood, distribution, and
permanence of impacts addressed; affected populations clearly
identified; etc.)? Are the methodologies, data sources, assumptions,
limitations, and uncertainties of the assessment clearly identified? Are
the conclusions of the analysis based on a transparent and context-
specific synthesis of evidence (i.e., are the conclusions reasonable and
supported by the evidence)?
Recommendations Are recommendations, mitigations, and/or alternatives identified that
would protect and/or promote health? Are these recommendations
reasonable and supported by the evidence? If prioritization of
recommendations took place, was the method of priority-setting
documented, reasonable, and appropriate? Is an implementation plan
identified for the developed recommendations (e.g., responsible party for
implementation, timeline, link to indicators that can be monitored, etc.)?
Reporting
Monitoring and
Evaluation
Is the layout and format of the report clear and logical, with information
clearly organized in sections that are easy to follow? Is the writing style
such that the report is easily read and understood (e.g., clearly written,
complex or unfamiliar terms described, examples and graphics used to
illustrate text, etc.)? Is documentation of the overall HIA process
transparent (i.e., are the processes, methodologies, sources of data,
assumptions, strengths and limitations of evidence, uncertainties,
findings, etc. of the HIA clearly documented)? Does the report identify
any other methods to be used for documenting and disseminating the
HIA and its findings (e.g., briefings, presentations, factsheets, flyers,
newspaper or journal articles, etc.)?
Was an evaluation of the HIA process conducted (e.g., who was
involved, strengths and weaknesses of the HIA, successes and
challenges, how effective the HIA was in meeting stated objectives,
engagement and communication with stakeholders, lessons learned,
etc.)? Was a plan proposed for monitoring implementation of the
decision and the effect the HIA had on the decision-making process (i.e.,
impact evaluation)? Was a plan proposed for monitoring the impact of
lll|Chapter 7: Monitoring and HIA Evaluation
-------
HIA Process
Charge Questions for Peer-Review
Overall HIA
Process
the decision implementation on health determinants and health outcomes
(i.e., outcome evaluation)?
Are the methods and procedures used in the HIA appropriate? What
aspects of the HIA process appeared to be implemented effectively or
successfully and what aspects of the HIA process could have been
strengthened or improved?
Additional Charge questions for the Buildings and Systems Technical Expert:
Were the series of investigative studies conducted at the school and used as evidence in this HIA
designed and conducted in an appropriate manner? Are there any uncertainties in the
assumptions, parameters, and/or methodologies used in these studies? Were the claims reported
by these studies reasonable and consistent with indoor air and building system principles? Were
the results of these studies and the findings of the literature review used appropriately to describe
the current conditions at the school as they relate to indoor air and building systems? Were the
results of these studies and the findings of the literature review used appropriately to characterize
the potential health impacts of the indoor air and building system-related renovation options?
Speak to the following analyses:
• Settled dust sampling to test mold contamination;
• Air pressure mapping throughout the facility;
• Building enclosure air tightness testing and infrared imaging;
• A visual survey of HVAC equipment and maintenance plan;
• 3-day continuous recording of indoor carbon dioxide, temperature, relative humidity, and
laser particle counting in selected areas; and
• 6-day recording of indoor temperature, relative humidity, and select combustion source
pollutants (particles and gases).
The External Peer-Reviewers
Dr. Dannenberg is an affiliate professor in Environmental and Occupational Health Science and
Urban Design and Planning at the University of Washington, School of Public Health. Dr.
Dannenberg has served on the American Board of Preventative Medicine and American Board of
Family Practice. His research includes performing and reviewing HIAs.
Dr. Alam has worked as the Director of Environmental Health Services at the Cincinnati Health
Department for the past 20 years. Dr. Alam is also currently an associate professor in
environmental health at the University of Cincinnati, Ohio and member of the Environmental
112 | Chapter 7: Monitoring and HIA Evaluation
-------
Health Sciences Advisory Committee (Former Chairman) at Ohio University in Athens. His
work has included practicing and reviewing HIAs.
Dr. Mendell works as a Scientist/Epidemiologist in the Indoor Environment Group of Energy
Technologies Area and an Air Pollution Research Specialist at the California Department of
Public Health. Dr. Mendell is on the editorial board of the journal Indoor Air and a member of
the International Academy of Indoor Air Sciences. He was formerly at the Centers for Disease
Control/National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, where he was head of the
National Occupational Research Agenda Team on Indoor Environments.
The following text provides a summary of the comments given by the external peer-reviewers on
the (draft) HIA Report. Appendix I provides the reviewers' comments (by line) and comment
resolution from the authors. The page numbers referenced in the (draft) version may not be the
same in the final HIA Report.
Context of the HIA
The decision timeliness was clearly outlined and adequate, but not ideal. Some budget decisions
and renovations were performed while the HIA was underway (i.e., this was a concurrent not a
prospective HIA). One reviewer also commented that the authors' inclusion of the initial
investigations by PERM seemed appropriate. The information gleaned from those reports
provided substantial evidence and a set of proposed renovations for the HIA to use. Overall, the
chapter on the Screening step was appropriate, comprehensive, and well documented.
Scoping
Overall, the authors documented the Scoping step well. The discussion on data availability, data
gaps, and vulnerable populations was very transparent. The HIA team considered a good range
of possible topics with input from stakeholders and appropriately focused on a smaller number
for the full assessment. It was clear the HIA team utilized community knowledge and
experiences in the Scoping process (e.g., the inclusion of noise levels and community
perceptions of the school appear to have originated with community input and may not have
been on the list of issues initially considered by the HIA team). However, the issue of safety and
security of school (both students and residents) could have received more attention in the
assessment and recommendations. In addition, the difference between baseline research
questions and impact research questions could have been clearer in the Scoping section as it was
clear in the Assessment section.
113 | Chapter 7: Monitoring and HIA Evaluation
-------
The goals and scope were clearly defined in the report but slightly different from the goals
documented in the Executive Summary, which should have been the same. Furthermore, the
goal "to improve air quality and asthma" was too narrow as an overall goal for an HIA. It was
not completely clear in the Scoping section what was the "decision to be studied," which later
appeared to be the selection and sequencing of the renovation options to pursue.
Stakeholder Engagement
The authors described the stakeholder engagement and communications processes well in the
report. The stakeholder groups were appropriately identified and invited to participate in the
process. One concern, however, was that the majority of groups invited did not participate.
Only 7 out of 27 invited groups attended the Scoping meetings and only 4 out of 7 represented
community residents. The report indicates that the HIA Project Team tried every possible way to
convince them to participate, but did not succeed. It would be helpful to clarify which
viewpoints were absent that may have been different form the viewpoints present. Nevertheless,
the value of the school to the community came across clearly and served as a major reason not to
demolish the building. It was clear the community's knowledge and experiences served as the
backbone of this study.
The draft communications plan in Appendix A indicates the opportunities for review and
comment among stakeholders in 2014. In the report, however, the authors documented meetings
with PERM for review and comment but did not document any meetings with other stakeholder
groups or the public.
Evidence and Analysis- Overall
The authors' described the methods for evidence gathering and analysis well, including the
existing conditions (to the best extent possible) and the selection and analysis of the evidence.
Although the authors documented the methods and data sources in the Appendices, more detail
related to assumptions, limitations, and uncertainties would improve the discussion. All
reviewers agreed that the conclusions made were reasonable, appropriate, transparent, context-
specific, and based on the evidence.
The report identified the potential health impacts for asthma, noise, and community perceptions
and the characterizations were reasonable and transparent. However, one reviewer noted that the
characterization of magnitude did not include likelihood/probability of effect per person, and
instead was a qualitative characterization. The reviewer stated that this was an important
dimension to include and recommended using an odds ratio, risk ratio, or relative risk available
114|Chapter 7: Monitoring and HIA Evaluation
-------
from prior health studies for specific health risks. Regardless of methods used, the
characterization of potential health impacts were reasonable in terms of direction and rough
likelihood, but not for magnitude, distribution or permanence.
Evidence and Analysis- Profile of Population Affected
One reviewer commented that the demographic, economic, and other community data were
appropriate. Individual-level data on facility use or health status was not feasible to obtain. Two
reviewers commented that mortality data (as a less-sensitive measure of health status) would not
be of much use in decisions about renovations, especially for asthma and other respiratory
diseases that have high morbidity but low mortality. Furthermore, some of the mortality data
were based on small numbers, so trends may not be meaningful. It would help if those numbers
were compared with statewide averages.
One reviewer commented that the profile of existing conditions related to asthma was adequate
but not ideal for comparing subsequent impacts. Another reviewer disagreed, explaining that the
described asthma prevalence rates for the community and students were useful for showcasing
the unusually high asthma prevalence and would be helpful for future "before and after" studies.
The authors could improve the report by providing a standardized clinical measurement of
asthma.
One reviewer mentioned that the evaluation of outdoor air pollutants by Census tract should have
concluded that the levels of motor vehicle emissions and the proximity of the school to the
highway was more likely to underestimate health risks in relation to time spent outside, thus
supporting the consideration of filtering mechanisms. The recommendation to increase filtration
of the indoor air at Tunnel A was mentioned (on page 105), but not included as one of the high
priority renovations.
Evidence and Analysis- Indoor Air Quality
One reviewer said the "systems approach to investigate levels of key air pollutants [...]" (i.e., the
assessments and data interpretation for temperature and relative humidity, HVAC systems and
operation, air movement/pressure, combustion pollutants and ultrafme and fine particles) seemed
appropriate in regards to current scientific practice. However, there was some disagreement
among reviewers regarding specific methods and/or conclusions drawn from the findings. The
following items are comments from the reviewers referring to specific analyses and/or
conclusions discussed in the (draft) HIA report.
115|Chapter 7: Monitoring and HIA Evaluation
-------
1. The HIA Team should note that there was no specific investigation category listed that
related to the issue of moisture intrusion. This is likely due to the adequate/appropriate
investigations already performed in 2012.
2. One reviewer stated concerns related to measuring indoor air quality and mold. Specifically,
the mold section did not document a literature review. Thus, it appears that the HIA Team
chose to use a preferred internal EPA method of quantifying mold. The same reviewer
commented that this is not the decision that would have likely resulted from performing a
thorough literature review on health effects of indoor dampness and mold. The most well
documented investigations of dampness and/or mold-related health risks in the indoor
environment employed a visible survey of dampness, water damage, mold, and/or a "moldy"
odor, which have been causally linked to asthma symptom exacerbation. Since the literature
evidence linking ERMI or any quantitative measurement of mold and/or microbials to asthma
exacerbation is lacking, using this method did not seem appropriate or justified. ERMI might
be used extensively within EPA or some commercial laboratories as a recognized and
validated method for indicating water damage; but it is not used in the broader scientific
community working in indoor air, microbiology, and health. The reviewer states further that
the use of the ERMI and no other subjective indicators of dampness and/or mold was a major
limitation of this HIA.
Contrary to the above comments, another reviewer stated, "The use of ERMI for mold
detection is a smart and convenient choice. It is a relatively newer technology that is known
for reliable qualitative and quantitative information." The authors considered the comments
(above) as a missed opportunity to provide references validating the ERMI methods and
provide clarification for its application in this setting.
3. Mapping the air pressure throughout the facility was an important assessment to perform
(that is not always done in practice). However, the report documents mixed conclusions
about the relationships of airflow. For example, the conclusion (on page 74) "continuing to
evaluate and adjust the HVAC system control logic may help improve airflow in the building
simply by reducing pressure gradients between spaces," seemed simplistic, considering that
some air pressure differences are desirable. The authors could improve this section by
providing further clarification. Overall, the building enclosure and air tightness testing,
infrared imaging, and visual survey of HVAC equipment and maintenance plan were useful,
valuable, and appropriate.
4. The approach used to decide what air pollutants to assess was appropriate. One reviewer
thought the number of sampling locations (n=4) was too small, but conceded that an indoor
air quality expert would be a better judge. Another reviewer said the site locations were
116|Chapter 7: Monitoring and HIA Evaluation
-------
appropriate to characterize the problems with the facility. The HIA Team was charged with
clarifying the statement (in Appendix E) "Carbon dioxide levels were elevated above 800
ppm in 5/23 areas surveyed, indicating a ventilation problem in some areas of the school."
Adding a statement saying that these measurements would only be valid if they were taken in
an occupied space after a substantial period during the day would improve the discussion.
Also, the 800 ppm threshold seems conservative, given that outdoor CCh was at least 400
ppm, which does not suggest a widespread problem of inadequate ventilation. However, it
does seem that this approach enabled investigator to identify units with closed dampers, so it
was helpful. In general, the report contains some odd language about CO2- "when a space is
occupied there must be enough fresh, outside air [... ]." Outside air does not help occupants
breathe easily. In addition, CO2 is generally not considered to be an indoor pollutant per se,
but just an indicator of whether the ventilation systems are working effectively. The
sentence (referred above) does not make this relationship clear.
5. One reviewer commented that the ranking of exposures as risk factors for triggering asthma
symptoms (on page. 73) was not clear in meaning (i.e., is the un-numbered figure indicating
how many studies or how many review articles were used to deem the exposure as a risk
factor for asthma exacerbation?). It was also not clear as to whether this was a good way to
rank the importance of exposures.
6. One reviewer stated that the methods for determining the values in the table on page. 74-76
was not clear and the process for filling in the table was not transparent. Given that the
conclusions overall seem reasonable, there was an omission regarding the potential for
additional filtering of incoming air as an immediate action or for even moving intake
locations in the future if they are still near a major road.
Evidence and Analysis- Classroom Noise
One reviewer commented that the literature review for noise is a good thorough review.
However, the two other reviewers agreed that, because baseline noise measurements were not
taken, it would be difficult to assess subsequent improvements in classroom noise. In addition,
the method for determining the values (in Table 17) were unclear and the table seems to mix
short-term noise increases from renovation activities with long-term effects. The authors had not
yet discussed the issue of HVAC systems and noise. This is often an issue, especially in portable
classrooms, but may not be relevant in this facility.
117|Chapter 7: Monitoring and HIA Evaluation
-------
Evidence and Analysis- Community Perceptions
The method of investigating perceptions among community residents was reasonable. One
reviewer suggested adding two references: Quansah et al. 2012 and Jaakkola et al. 2013. These
references support the conclusion that "heavy dampness and a 'musty' odor throughout the
school" is the single factor most strongly associate with both new asthma and allergic rhinitis in
available health studies and warranted the study of moisture and mold-related health risks in this
facility.
Recommendations
All reviewers agreed that the recommendations seemed reasonable, evidence-based, and
actionable. However, the presentation of the recommendations would be improved by adding a
table that explicitly links each recommendation to the assessment findings that support it. The
absence of documenting these links between assessments and recommendations was also noted
by PERM (on page 113). The report does a good job in separating the phased recommendations
in a way that is helpful to decision-makers. The table in Appendix B provides an excellent way
to set priorities, but the right hand columns were not filled, making it difficult to tell which
renovations would receive the highest priority. The implementation plan was appropriate and
reasonable. However, the report would benefit from more transparency in the decision-making
of which action items were higher priority.
One reviewer questioned why item #7 (removal of water-damaged porous materials) was not
listed under immediate actions, as compromised materials may be responsible for much of the
dampness/mold exposures. While it may be economically reasonable to complete this item after
all water intrusion has stopped, this decision is not led by a health-protection perspective.
Delaying the replacement of such items is ill-advised.
On page 106, one reviewer was concerned about the statement: "PERM may have to consider
replacing the school, but leaving the tunnel for the community." This option was not noted
previously in the discussion and may need greater consideration in future decisions.
Monitoring and Evaluation
Reviewers agreed that the monitoring plan for specific renovation outcomes and health outcomes
was detailed, thorough, and used a variety of approaches. One reviewer commented that the
Monitoring and Evaluation section was more detailed than found in most HIA reports. However,
the definition of the process evaluation needed clarification. The challenges identified on pages
118|Chapter 7: Monitoring and HIA Evaluation
-------
140-145 were a valuable part of the process evaluation and will contribute to improving future
HIA practice. The external peer-review was also a valuable part of the process evaluation and
provided an independent review of how well the HIA process worked. It is important to note,
however, that the impact evaluation form was more complicated than described and obtaining
information to complete the form would prove difficult for any person without sufficient
knowledge of buildings and renovations.
Table 22 (on page 119-23) provided a good proposed outcome monitoring plan. However, the
table could be improved by adding a column indicating baseline levels in which to compare.
One reviewer recommended monitoring the student asthma prevalence over time, after specific
renovations are performed, because it would still add value and help future analyses to be more
accurate. In addition, monitoring should involve the same data collection methods used before
and after the renovations are implemented, and would be strengthened if school nurses collected
data on asthma inhaler use at the school, adjusting for differences in socio-economic factors and
whether the student was diagnosed with asthma on a year to year basis.
The reviewer who did not agree with the application of ERMI did not recommend including
ERMI in monitoring activities. Instead, the reviewer recommended using a more subjective
method of identifying dampness and/or mold. In addition, it is not clear what ACGIH/ASHRAE
evaluations of IAQ are, which would benefit from more explanation.
Documentation
The language of the report was very readable and the authors highlighted all of the important
aspects of the HIA practice well. All of the reviewers agreed that the authors did a great job
documenting the HIA process in a transparent manner and identified real-world problems that
occur in HIA practice, citing that the layout and format was clear and logical. However, all
reviewers agreed that the report would benefit from including a short, executive summary at the
beginning since the report is so lengthy. One reviewer suggested adding more photos of various
places in the school to help the reader visualize the setting and problems discussed in the report.
In addition, the authors could provide more details regarding the assessment limitations and
uncertainties.
Two of the three reviewers commented that the readers had to work hard to figure out if the
tunnels also served as buildings with office spaces, community rooms, and/or classrooms and
whether the tunnels were open to anyone or just school staff and students.
119|Chapter 7: Monitoring and HIA Evaluation
-------
The HIA Project Team used all available methods to communicate with stakeholders (e.g.,
flyers, personal phone calls, e-mails, etc.) and went further to hire a Spanish translator to address
a potential language gap. The predicted impacts are explained in an easy to understand
language- a nice feature of communication with people of different educational and English
language proficiency levels. However, the plan for disseminating the final report was less
specific.
Overall HIA Process
The overall HIA process was well done for each of the steps of HIA. However, some areas that
could be improved include better timeliness of the recommendations (given before renovations
started), obtaining baseline measurements of noise, and tying each recommendation more
specifically to the assessments. The HIA met most of its goals identified in Scoping. One
reviewer commented that it was "admirable that this HIA successfully completed the tasks while
facing many challenges that started in the Scoping step." This HIA has all the qualities to serve
as a mini-training booklet in HIA process and HIA-related materials and forms. However, the
reviewer found that the title of the HIA was not easily searchable and suggested adding
keywords, such as renovation, demolition, degraded tunnels, mold remediation/control, water
intrusion, schools, community health, etc.
Based on the comments received, the (draft) HIA Report underwent further revisions, as the HIA
Core Group discussed and addressed each of the comments, before its finalization in August
2015.
7.2.1. Evaluation of HIA Implementation by HIA Core Group
As expected, there were some differences between what was planned and what transpired during
the process. Several changes, both internal and external to the HIA process, required some of the
planned activities to be postponed or altered. The HIA Core Group identified the successes and
challenges that arose while the HIA progressed.
Successes Identified
The HIA Core Group set the HIA goals, outlined in Scoping, as the criteria for judging success
of the HIA. The HIA Core Group evaluated whether the HIA met its intended goals and
identified the evidence supporting that conclusion. Table 21 provides the results of goal
evaluation. From the evaluation, the HIA achieved most, albeit not all, of its anticipated goals.
120 | C h a p t e r 7: Monitoring and HIA Evaluation
-------
Table 21. Evaluation of HIA Goal Achievement
HIA Goal
Achieved
Y/N/?
Supporting Evidence
The HIA will present a set of
recommendations to be considered in
the decision-making that would
maximize potential benefits to health
and avoid and/or mitigate potential
harmful impacts of implementing the
proposed renovations.
Yes
The EPA will deliver a fully developed
HIA that examines health and
environmental impacts of the proposed
school renovation options being
considered.
The HIA will provide educational
materials that are context-specific and
science-based to the community and
other stakeholders regarding air
pollution and ways to mitigate asthma
triggers.
The EPA will use tools and approaches
to conduct the HIA that will generate
lessons learned and best practices for
implementing HIA by a federal
agency.
Yes
No
Yes
The HIA Core Group developed and
prioritized a set of recommendations
based on the health impacts predicted
in assessment. The recommendations
were presented to the decision-makers
as anticipated, but not in the timeline
planned.
The HIA Core Group developed this
report, which documents the completed
HIA, its activities, and supplemental
materials.
This was a missed opportunity that was
not realized during the HIA.
The EPA used an array of analyses in
the HIA across different sectors, as
well as performed a process evaluation,
that yielded valuable insight for
conducting an HIA by a federal agency.
The lessons learned are provided later
in this section.
Challenges Identified
The HIA Core Group identified the following list of challenges faced during the implementation
of the HIA. For each challenge, the HIA Core Group also developed and implemented
countermeasures to ensure the HIA remained relevant to the decision and valuable to
stakeholders.
121 | C h a p t e r 7: Monitoring and HIA Evaluation
-------
1. A sliding HIA timeline and limited resources
The amount of time used to complete each step in the HIA process exceeded the estimated time.
This is a common challenge shared by many practitioners in HIA. However, there were some
nuances unique to a federally led HIA that proved challenging. For example, designing the
assessment plan that was responsive to the stakeholder-identified concerns and scientifically
viable took longer than expected, as did acquiring approval to perform on-site data collection
from the Agency. EPA maintains quality assurance protocols and internal review boards for data
collection and Quality Assurance Project Plans that must be approved before any data collection
can begin. Additional time for internal Agency protocols and approval processes was not
included in the planning process.
The assessment step expanded over ten months, due to changes in conditions both external and
internal to the HIA. For example, the school underwent floor resurfacing in April 2013 after the
building assessment. Resurfacing the floors added dust and paniculate matter into the air, which
would have compromised the air sampling. The air sampling could not occur until after clean-up
from the flooring work was appropriately performed. Furthermore, once the air sampling was
completed, the results of that assessment were not available for six months (January 2014), due
to issues with contractor funding and timing for deliverables. Additional resources were
acquired to obtain the final interim report for the indoor air analysis.
During the Assessment step, the federal government shutdown for sixteen days (October 1 to 17,
2013) causing a complete stop-work for the HIA. For the month of October, there was no
progress. The shutdown occurred during a period of time when project deadlines were critical
and resulted in a temporary shift of project priority within the Agency and the City (due to
budget deadlines).
Another persistent challenge to the HIA was the limited funding available to perform all of the
anticipated activities. For example, the funding resources needed to perform the indoor and
outdoor air analyses outlined in the RESES proposal was underestimated, which limited the data
collection methods available. In addition, the graduate student vehicle, which would perform the
outdoor-source attribution analysis, was not be secured. Coupled with the sliding HIA timeline,
these challenges proved difficult to manage stakeholders' expectations of the HIA. Some of the
expectations, such as identifying optimal locations for the air intakes, could not be met.
Additional funding for the HIA would have allowed for more extensive air quality assessment
than what was able to be performed.
Countermeasure: Maintain Vigilant Communication with Decision-maker
122 (Chapter 7: Monitoring and HIA Evaluation
-------
The HIA Core Group was aware of the need to be sensitive to the decision timeline. When the
initial decision timeline was surpassed, the HIA Core Group met with PERM to determine if the
HIA could still inform the selection and implementation of renovation options. PERM
communicated that the information from the HIA could still be used to inform the selection and
implementation of renovations, since the renovations evaluated were not planned to be
implemented for several years. Maintaining close communication with the decision-makers
helped to ensure the HIA recommendations remained relevant to the decision.
2. Stakeholder Engagement and HIA Participant Roles
One of the shortcomings of this HIA was the low and unequal inclusion of stakeholder groups.
After the HIA Core Group and participant roles were established, strong differences of opinion
regarding the level of involvement among stakeholder groups and participant roles (i.e., who is a
partner, a member of HIA Core Group, and whether internal vs. external stakeholders) persisted
throughout the HIA. This difference resulted in unequal communication and participation
among stakeholder groups.
Countermeasure: Continuously re-visit purpose and goals of HIA
The HIA Core Group held several discussions to build a consensus regarding HIA participant
roles, addressing each person's concerns. The purpose and goals of the HIA were re-visited and
used as the foundation for developing a consensus among the group. Once a consensus was
reached, the roles were more specifically defined and communicated to external parties.
3. Communication with groups external to the HIA Core Group
In part due to the difference of opinions regarding HIA roles, there were several instances where
unfinished reports and analyses, that had not been verified by the HIA Core Group, was shared
with outside entities prior to consensual agreement among the core members. These instances
led to an unnecessary overburden of information to review and miscommunication of
information that was coming from the HIA. Incomplete information not only confused
stakeholders, but also led to wrongful expectations of what came from the assessments
performed. Even though a communications plan was drafted at the beginning of this HIA, it was
not enforced or updated to meet the evolving needs of the decision-makers.
Countermeasure: Update communications plan and assign a single gatekeeper
123 (Chapter 7: Monitoring and HIA Evaluation
-------
One of the countermeasures used to resolve this issue was updating the communications plan and
assigning one gatekeeper for the transmission of information between the HIA Core Group and
other entities. This extra control measure helped to mitigate any confusion, moving forward,
regarding who was responsible for sharing information and when the information would be
shared.
4. Unanticipated needs of performing on-site assessments
The HIA Core Group met with the school and PERM to plan logistics of each site visit before
data collection took place. Even with the planning sessions, there was still some unanticipated
expenses and access issues. For example, the data collection for the Building Conditions and
Systems Analyses required assistance from the maintenance staff and overtime for security
personnel. There were areas that took longer to gain access because the maintenance staff were
not notified earlier which areas needed to be accessible for the investigators.
Countermeasure: Develop a checklist for all resources/materials needed, including the
areas that would need to be accessible, prior to arriving on-site. Allocate a portion of HIA
funds for unexpected costs.
Having a comprehensive checklist of the resources/materials needed will help ensure time is
efficiently used during the investigation and those responsible for providing access to the site are
well-prepared. Also, developing a contingency plan for additional resources needed/costs
incurred either before, during, or after data collection takes place will help ensure the
investigation goes smoothly and conflicts are avoided.
Lessons Learned
The HIA Core Group would like to offer the following recommendations for future HIA
practice, based on the lessons learned while implementing this HIA.
1. Develop and implement a Rules of Engagement Memorandum that clearly (explicitly)
defined roles and responsibilities for those involved in the HIA.
2. Once the purpose and scope of the HIA are clearly defined, these items need to be
continuously repeated or referred to throughout the HIA process.
3. Develop a clear (explicit) communications plan early on in the HIA process that includes
the format of communications material, the person responsible for developing the
material, and the route of dissemination. Communication is defined both among the
internal HIA team and between the internal HIA team and external stakeholders.
124 | C h a p t e r 7: Monitoring and HIA Evaluation
-------
4. Include someone with HIA experience on the HIA Core Team. Having someone well
versed in the HIA field of practice can help ensure the HIA is meeting practice standards
as it moves forward and can help provide HIA best practices when challenges arise.
5. If on-site assessments/investigations are planned, those involved in the HIA should
discuss and outline specific resources needed and who will fund any added or unexpected
costs associated with performing on-site investigations.
6. Openness about the HIA needs to be provided equally to the different stakeholder groups.
Using a Rules of Engagement Agreement will help ensure those involved in the HIA fully
understand what is expected of them, better manage time commitments and availability, and
enable accountability for completion of HIA-related work. Confusion and miscommunication
may arise during the HIA, as a result of many moving parts and groups involved. The direction
of the HIA can be easily influenced if the purpose and/or scope of the HIA is not clearly defined
and made obvious to all parties involved. Having a clearly defined communications plan avoids
unnecessary confusion and establishes when information will be communicated.
On-site visits require several levels of planning to ensure a successful event and resources are
efficiently used. That being said, having a contingency plan for unexpected outcomes and/or
costs should be included in the planning process. For example, on-site investigations planned at
a school during the weekend need to consider funding sources for overtime costs of custodians
Stakeholders involved in the HIA may (should) come from various backgrounds and fields of
expertise with their own preconceived idea of what the HIA should involve. HIA is a specific
process that requires a minimum amount of elements to be incorporated and a different
perspective of how a proposed decision should be evaluated. Thus, having someone well-versed
in the best practices of HIA helps to manage expectations by ensuring everyone involved in the
HIA understands what is to be expected. Those performing the HIA must keep in mind and
respect that the different stakeholders may prioritize issues/actions differently and to not presume
to know what those priorities are or how the stakeholder will react to the given information. An
inclusive and collaborative framework is essential to the success of the HIA and helps to ensure
the HIA is not the product of a single viewpoint.
125 | C h a p t e r 7: Monitoring and HIA Evaluation
-------
References Cited
Acoustical Society of America. (2013). Classroom
Acoustics. Retrieved April 11, 2013, from Acoustical
Society of America:
http://asawebdev.devcloud.acquia-
sites.com/about_acoustics/acoustics_of_classrooms
Aneshensel, C., & Sucoff, C. (1996, December). The
neighborhood context of adolescent mental health.
Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 37, pp. 293-
310.
Ann-Heng, I (2012, November 16). U.S. EPA Region 3
Field Safety Refresher Training: Hazardous Noise
Exposures. United States of America. Retrieved
October 18, 2013, from
http://intranet. epa. gov/r3 intran/facilweb/Nov2012_8hr
_training/HazardousNoise.pdf
ASHA. (2005). Acoustics in Educational Settings:
Technical Report. Retrieved 4 14, 2013, from
Ameriocan Speech-Language-Hearing Association:
http:www.asha.org/docs/html/TS2005-00042.html
ASHA. (2005). ASHA Practice Policy.
doi: 10.1044/policy.PS2005-00028
Association of Occupational and Environmental Clinics.
(2009). AOECExposure Code System. Retrieved
August 27, 2013, from AOEC Web site:
http://www.aoecdata.org/
Asthma Disparities Working Group. (2012, May).
Coordinated Federal Action Plan to Reduce Racial
and Ethnic Asthma Disparities. Retrieved May 15,
2013, from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:
http://www.epa.gov/childrenstaskforce
Berglund, B., &Lindvall, T. (Eds.). (1995). Community
Noise. Archives of the Center for Sensory Research,
2(1), pp. 1-195.
Berke, E., Goltlieb, L., Moudon, A., & Larson, E.
(2007). Protective association between neighborhood
walkability and depression in older men. Journal of
American Geriatric Society, 55, 526-533.
Berkman, L., Glass, T., Brissette, I., & Seaman, T.
(2000). From social integration to health: Durkheim in
the new millennium. Social Science and Medicine,
51(6), 843-857.
Bhatia, R. (2011). Health Impact Assessment: A Guide
for Practice. Oakland, CA: Human Impact Partners.
Bowling, A., Barber, I, Morris, R., & Ebrahim, S.
(2006). Do preceptions of neighbourhood environment
influence health? Baseline findings from a British
survey of aging. Journal of Epidemiology and
Community Health, 60(6), 476-783.
Buckley, I, Schneider, M., & Shang, Y. (2004, 2). The
effects of school facility on quality and teacher
retention in urban school districts. National
Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities, p. 10.
Cameron, A. (Director). (2013). German Gerena
[MotionPicture]. Retrieved April 30, 2013, from
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGBBETSOG3k
CDC. (2011). Asthma in the U.S. Retrieved from Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention:
http://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/asthma/
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
(2009, October 15). Health Impact Assessment.
(Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)
Retrieved August 23, 2013, fromHealthy Places:
http ://www. cdc. gov/healthyplaces/hia. htm
Coakley-Rivera, C., Rolden, N., & Owens, N. (2013,
May 1). Divided We Stand: A street in our school
Segment 4. (C. McGrath, Interviewer)
Denney, I, Rivera, I, & Collins, C. (2013, April 10).
Divided We Stand: A street in our school (Segment 2).
Connection Point. (C. McGrath, Interviewer) WGBY.
Springfield, MA.
Dulin-Keita, A., Thind, H., Affuso, O., & Baskin, M.
(2013). The associations of perceived neighborhood
disorder and physical activity with obesity among
African American adolescents. BMC Public Health,
13^ 440-450.
EPA. (2008). Mold Remediation in Schools and
Commercial Buildings. Washington, D.C.:
Environmental Protection Agency.
EPA. (2012a, April 20). Six Common Air Pollutants.
Retrieved October 15, 2013, from U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency:
http ://www .epa. go v/airquality/urbanair/
EPA. (2012b, December 14). National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS). Retrieved from U.S.
Environmental Proection Agency Office of Air and
Radiation: http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html
EPA. (2013a, November 26). Indoor Air Quality (IAQ).
Retrieved November 27, 2013, fromU.S.
Environmental Protection Agency:
http ://www .epa. go v/iaq/
126 I R. eferences C i t e d
-------
References Cited
Fox, K. (1999). The influence of physical activity on
mental well-being. Public Health Nutrition, 2(3a),
411-418.
Freedman, B., & Figeretto, H. (2013, May 25). Divided
We Stand: A street in our school (Segment 8A).
Connection Point. (C. McGrath, Interviewer) WBGY.
WBGY, Springfield, MA.
Friedkin, N. (2004). Social Cohesion. Annual Reviews
Sociology, pp. 409-425.
Gagnon, F., Denney, I, Hernandez, I., Rivera, I,
Royland, B., Zavala, E.,.. . Collins, C. (2013, May
21). Divided We Stand: A street in our school
(Segment 6). Connection Point. (Z. Zayas,
Interviewer) WBGY. WBGY, Springfield, MA.
Gelin, J. (1984). Starting Over: the formation ofhte
Jewish Community of Springfield, Massachusetts,
1840-1905. New York: University Press of America.
Glaser, R., & Kiecolt-Glaser, J. (2005). Stress-induced
immune dysfunction: implications for health. Nature
Reviews Immunology, 5, 243-251.
Hodgson, M., & Nosal, E. (2002). Effect of noise and
occupancy on optimal reverberation times for speech
intelligibility in classrooms. Acoustical Society of
America, 111(2), 931-939.
Human Impact Partners. (2011). A Health Impact
Assessment Toolkit: A Handbook to Conducting HIA,
3rd edition. Oakland, CA: Human Impact Partners.
Human Impact Partners. (2012). HIA Summary Guides.
Oakland, CA: Human Impact Partners.
IOM. (2000). Clearing the Air-.Asthma and Indoor Air
Exposures. Institute of Medicine, Committee on the
Assessment of Asthma and Indoor Air. Washington,
D.C.: National Academy Press.
Kim, D. (2008). Blues from the neighborhood?
Neighborhood characteristics and depression.
Epidemiologic Reviews, 30(1), 101-117.
Knecht, H., Nelson, P., Whitelaw, G. M., & Feth, L.
(2002, December). Background Noise Levels and
Reverberation Times in Unoccupied Classrooms.
American Journal of Audiology, 11, 65-71.
Kraft, S. (2012, November 15). Is this school dangerous
for children? Retrieved August 26, 2013, from Valley
Advocate News:
http://www.valleyadvocate.co m/article.cfm?aid=1588
1
Krieger, J., & Higgins, D. (2002). Housing and Health:
time again for public health action. American Journal
of Public Health, 92(5), 758-768.
Kruger, D., Reischl, T., & Gee, G. (2007).
Neighborhood social conditions mediate the
association between physical deterioration and mental
health. American Journal of Community Psychology,
40(3-4), 261-271.
Larsen, L., Jarlan, S., Bolin, B., Hackett, E., Hope, D.,
Kirby, A., ... Wolf, S. (2004). Bonding and bridging:
understanding the relationship between social capital
and civic action. Journal of Planning and Education
Research, 24(1), 64-77.
Latkin, C., & Curry, A. (2003). Stressful neighborhoods
and depression: a prospective study of the impact of
neighborhood disorder. Journal of Health and Social
Behavior, 44(1), 34-44.
Latkin, C., German, D., Hua, W., & Curry, A. (2009).
individual-level influences on perceptions of
neighborhood disorder: a multilevel analysis. Journal
of Community Psychology, 37(1), 122-133.
Lercher, P., Evans, G., Meis, M., & Kofler, W. (2002).
Ambient neighbourhood noise and children's mental
health. Occupation Environmental Medicine, 59, 380-
386.
Li, K-T., Schrantz, M., Sandagdorj, O., Keng, Y.-F.,
Boothe, G., & Vesper, S. J. (2011). Spore trap analysis
and MSQPCR in evaluating mold burden: a flooded
gymnasium case study. Frontiers in Bioscience, 108-
114.
MADPH. (2013a). Massachusetts Community Health
Information Profile. Boston, Massachusetts, United
States of America. Retrieved September 9, 2013, from
http ://www. mass, gov/eohhs/researcher/co mmunity -
health/masschip/
MADPH. (2013b, September 10). Massachusetts
Community Health Information Profile. Boston,
Massachusetts, United States of America. Retrieved
September 9, 2013, from
http ://www. mass, gov/eohhs/researcher/co mmunity -
health/masschip/
MAESE. (2012). Geman Gerena Community School
Level 4 / School Redesign Grant (SRG) Monitoring
Site Visit. Maiden, MA: Massachusetts Department of
Elementary and Secondary Education.
127 I R. eferences C i t e d
-------
References Cited
MAESE. (2013, December 5). School/District Profiles:
Gerena (02810195). Retrieved from Massachusetts
Department of Education:
http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/profiles/student.aspx7orgc
ode=02810195&orgtypecode=6&
Manzi, L., Scavron, J., Perez, M., & Franco, M. (2013,
May 25). Divided We Stand: A street in our school
(Segment 8B). Connection Point. (C. McGrath, Z.
Zayas, & J. Madigan, Interviewers) WGBY. WGBY,
Springfield, MA.
Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MA DPH).
(2012). Pediatric Asthma in Massachusetts 2008-
2009. Bureau of Environmental Health. Boston:
Massachusetts Department of Public Health. Retrieved
August 27, 2013, from Massachusetts Asthma
Prevention and Control Program:
http://www.mass.gov/eohhs/docs/dph/environmental/tr
acking/asthma-08-09.pdf
Massachusetts Medical Society. (2013). Primary
Prevention of Asthma: A Symposium on Current
Evidence, Research Needs, and Opportunties for
Action. Primary Prevention of Asthma: A Symposium
on Current Evidence, Research Needs, and
Opportunties for Action. Waltham, MA: University of
Massachusetts, Lowell.
Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSB A).
(2012). FY2012 Gerena School Statement of Interest
(SOI); Submitted January 10, 2012. Springfield, MA:
Massachusetts School Building Authority. Retrieved
July 13, 2013, from
http://info.massschoolbuildings.org/SOI_List/GetRepo
rt.aspx?mid=201202810195
Mazz, M. (2013). Adopted Classroom Acoustics
Standards and Directives. Retrieved April 11, 2013,
from United States Access Board: http://www.access-
board.gov/acoustic/list.htm
McEwen, B. (2008). Central effects of stress hormones
in health and disease: understanding the protective and
damaging effects of stress and stress mediators.
European Journal of Pharmacology, 583(2-3), 174-
185.
Miles, R. (2008). Neighborhood disorder, perceived
safety, and readiness to encourage use of local
playgrounds. American Journal of Preventative
Medicine, 38(4), 275-281.
Mostue, A. (2012, March 19). Community Effort
Launched to Improve Springfield's Gerena School.
Retrieved August 23, 2013, fromNew England Public
Radio: http://www.nepr.net/news/community-effort-
launched-improve-springfields-gerena-school
MSBA. (2011). 2010 Needs Survey Report. Boston, MA:
Massachusetts School Building Authority.
National Asthma Education and Prevention Program.
(2007). Expert Panel Report 3: Guidelines for the
Diagnosis and Management of Asthma. Bethesda,
M.D.: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
National Center for Healthy Housing. (2008). State of
Healthy Housing; Executive Summary. Retrieved
August 27, 2013, from National Center for Healthy
Housing: http://www.nchh.org/Policy/State-of-
Healthy-Housing/Executive-Summary.aspx
Nelson, P., & Soli, S. (2000, Oct). Acoustical barriers to
learning: Chhildren at risk in every classroom
Language, SPeech & Hearing Services in Schools,
31(4), 356-361.
Niskar, A. (2001, Jyly 1). Estimated Prevalence of
Noise-Induced Hearing Threshold Shifts Among
Children 6 to 19 Years of Age: The Third National
Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988-1994,
United States. Pediatrics, 108(1), 40-43.
Norman, G., Nutter, S., Ryan, S., Sallis, J., Calfas, K., &
Patrick, K. (2006). Community design and access to
recreational facilities as correlates of adolescent
physical activity and body-mass index. Journal of
Physical Activity and Health, 3(1), S118-128.
North American HIA Practice Standards Working
Group. (2010). Minimum Elements and Practice
Standards for Health Impact Assessment, Version 2.
Oakland, CA: North American HIA Practice Standards
Working Group.
NRC. (2011). Improving Health in the United States,
The role of Health Impact Assessment. Washington,
D.C.: National Academies Press.
Office of Educational Quality and Accountability.
(2005). Report of Two Year Follow Up Review:
Gerena Community School. Springfield, MA:
Springfield Public Schools.
O'Reilly, Talbot & Okun Engineering Associates.
(2012). Industrial Hygiene Assessment Services
128 I R. eferences C i t e d
-------
References Cited
Report: Gerena Community School. Springfield, MA:
O'Reilly, Talbot & Okun Engineering Associates.
Passchier-Vermeer, Q., & Passchier, W. (2000). Noise
Exposure and Public Health. Environmental Health
Perspectives, 123-131.
Patnode, C., Lytle, L., Erickson, D., Sirard, I, Barr-
Anderson, D., & Story, M. (2010). The relative
influence of demographic, individual, social, and
environmental factors on physical activity among boys
and girls. International Journal of Behavioral
Nutrition and Physical Activity, 7(1), 79-89.
President's Task Force on Environmental Health Risks
and Safety Risks to Children. (2012). Coordinated
Federal Action Plan to Reduce Racial and Ethnic
Asthma Disparities. Washinton, D.C.: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Rhodus, I, Fulk, F., Autrey, B., O'Shea, S., & Roth, A.
(2013). A Review of Health Impact Assessments in the
U.S.: Current State-of-Science, Best Practices, amd
Areas for Improvement. Cincinnati, OH: United States
Environmental Protection Agency.
Rivera, I, Zavala, E., Burgos, F., Pozo, I, Gonzalez, V.,
Royland, B., . . . DeJesus, A. (2013, May 25). Divided
We Stand: A street in our school (Segment 8 C).
Connection Point. (Z. Zayas, Interviewer) WGBY.
WGBY, Springfield, MA.
Roman, E. (2012, October 4). German Gerena School
tunnel system needs estimated S3 million worth in
repairs, Springfield parents told. Retrieved August 26,
2013, from mass live.com:
http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2012/10/gere
na_school_tunnel_system_ne.html
Roman, E. (2013, January 14). Springfield school
department seeks $350,000 from the city to help fund
$3 million in repairs to German Gerena Community
School tunnel system. The Republican, p. 1.
Ross, C. (2000). Neighborhood disadvantage and adult
depression. Journal of Health and Social Behavior,
41, 177-187.
Ross, C. (2007). Atlanta Beltline: Health Impact
Assessment. Atlanta, GA: Georgia Insittyte of
Technology, Center for Quality Growth and Regional
Development.
Saelens, B., Sallis, I, Black, I, & Chen, D. (2003).
Neighborhood-based differences in physical activity:
an environment scale evaluation. American Journal of
Public Health, 93(9), 1552-1558.
Sampson, R., &Raudenbush, S. (1999). Systematic
social observation of public spaces: a new look at
disorder in urban neighborhoods. American Journal of
Sociology, 105(3), 603-651.
Santilli, J. (2002). Health effects of mold exposure in
public schools. Current Allergy and Asthma Reports,
460-467.
Sarno, D., & Warwick, D. (2013, March 15). Divided
We Stand: A street in our school (Segment 1).
Connection Point. (J. Madigan, Interviewer) WGBY.
Springfiel, MA.
Savolainen, J. (2000). Inequality, wefare state, and
homicide: further support for the Institutional Anomie
Theory. Criminology, 38(4), 1021-1042.
Shield, B., & Dockrell, J. (2003). The Effects of Noise
on Children at School: A Review. Journal of Building
Acoustics, 10(2), 97-106.
Shield, B., & Dockrell, J. (2008). The effects of
classroom and environmental noise on children's
academic performance. Performance: 9th
International Congress on Noise as a Public Health
Problem (ICBEN) (p. 9). Foxwoods, CT: ICBEN.
Silva, R., Coakley-Rivera, C., Perez, G., Gonzalez, J.,
Domnarski, M., & Claudio, J. (2013, May 31).
Divided We Stand: A street in our school (Segment 7).
(Z. Zayas, Interviewer) United States of America.
Spanish American Union Inc. (2006). North End
Community Assessment Report. Springfield, MA:
Spanish American Union, Inc.
Steptoe, A., & Feldman, P. (2001). Neighborhood
problems as sources of chronic stress: development of
a measure of neighborhood resilienece, and
interventions. Annals of Behavior Medicine, 22(3),
177-185.
Sullivan, P. (2013, May 20). Divided We Stand: A street
in our school (Segment 5). Divided We Stand: A street
in our school. (C. McGrath, Interviewer) WGBY.
Springfield, MA.
Thomas, T., Burton, N., Mueller, N., Page, E., & Vesper,
S. (2012). Comparison of work-related symptoms and
visual contrast sensitivity between employees at a
severly water-damaged school and a school without
129 I R. eferences C i t e d
-------
References Cited
significant water damage. American Journal of
Industrial Medicine., 55, 844-854.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). 2010 Demographic Profile
Data; Census Tracts 8006, 8007, 8008. Census 2010
Summary File 1. American Fact Finder.
U.S. EPA. (2012c, April 5). Indoor Air Quality Tools for
Schools IAQ Reference Guide; Appendix H- Mold and
Moisture. Retrieved from U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency:
http://www.epa.gov/iaq/schools/tfs/guideh.html
U.S. EPA. (2015, May). EJScreen. Washington, DC,
United States of America.
Wandersman, A., & Nation, M. (1998). Urban
neighborhoods and mental health: psychological
contributions to understanding toxicity, resilience, and
interventions. Journal of American Psychology, 53(6),
647-656.
Warburton, D., Nicol, C., & Bredin, S. (2006). Health
benefits of physical activity: the evidence. Canadian
Medical Association Journal, 174(6), 801-809.
Warwick, D., & Sarno, D. (2013, March 27). Divided
We Stand: a street in our school (Segment 1). WGBY
Education Television. (J. Madigan, Interviewer)
Springfield, Massachusetts: WordPress.com.
Retrieved August 23, 2013, from
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embe
dded&v=gsdXuOdvCHM
WHO. (1999). Gothenburg consensus paper; Health
IMpact Assessment main concepts and suggested
approach. Brussels: World Health Organization.
WHO. (2003). Prevention of Allergy and Allergic
Asthma. WHO/WAO Meeting on the Prevention of
Allergy and Allergic Asthma (pp. 1-14). Geneva,
Switzerland: World Health Organization.
WHO. (2009a). WHO guidelines for indoor air quality:
dampness and mould. WHO Regional Office for
Europe. Copenhagen: World Health Organization.
WHO. (2009b). Children and Noise. InE. C. (Ed.),
Training for Health Care Providers (p. 49). World
Health Organization, Children's Health and the
Environment. Retrieved 04 04, 2013, from
www.who.int/ceh
Yen, I., & Syme, S. (1999). The social environment and
health: a discussion of the epidemic logic literature.
Annual Reviews of Public Health, 20, 287-308.
Yen, I., Michael, Y., & Perdue, L. (2009). Neighborhood
environment in studies of health of older adults: a
systemic review. American Journal of Preventative
Medicine, 37(5), 455-463.
Zimmerman, E., & Woolf, S. H. (2014). Understanding
the Relationship Between Education and Health. IOM
Roundtable on Population Health Improvement (p.
24). Washington, D.C.: Institute of Medicine.
130 I R eferences C i t e d
-------
Appendix A. Notes from Stakeholder Engagement Meetings
Stakeholder Meeting Notes from October 4, 2012
Date: October 4. 2012
Subject: PBRM's Update on School Renovations (HIA Screening meeting)
Location: Gerena Community School, 200 Birnie Avenue, Springfield, MA 01107
Meeting Attendees:
The City of Springfield Department of Parks, Buildings, and Recreation Management (PERM)
was represented by Director Patrick Sullivan, Jim Avezzie, Mike Gibbons, Noelle Owens, Dave
Meehan and Lynn Rose. Jay Dunnigan was present from Springfield Public Schools. PBRM's
contractors performing investigations at the school were also in attendance, including
representatives from Simpson Gumpertz & Heger, RDK Engineers, O'Reilly, Talbot, & Okun,
and Timothy Murphy Architects. In the audience, there were representatives from Charlie
Arment Trucking, Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MA DOT), the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Universal Electric, and WMECO. There was a total of
30 to 40 people in attendance.
Meeting Notes:
Mr. Sullivan reported that, based on recent testing PERM identified the source of water leaks at
Building C (tunnel), room A104 (the wrap-around), upper ramp and lower Ramp of Building A
(tunnel); and room A109 (formerly NEON offices). The leak at room A109 is theorized to be
coming from waterproofing membrane underneath Birnie Ave. Investigators believe that the
membrane is damaged, permitting water infiltration under the membrane and into the tunnel.
The membrane will need to be replaced and the road would need to be rebuilt. Repair will
require additional State assistance, permissions and funding needed to test, confirm, and fix.
PERM is working with Simpson Gumpertz & Heger, MA Department of Environmental
Protection (MA DEP), EPA, and MA DOT.
Simpson Gumpertz & Heger was commissioned to begin designing solutions at:
• overhead section of the Main St. Entrance
• Portions of the 191 Exit 10 ramp abutments
• Highway fencing and vegetation
EPA and MA DEP are planning to:
• conduct additional environmental testing to help determine the final designs for the
indoor air ventilation systems
[131]
-------
MA DOT is planning to:
• monitor the 191 Bridge overpass for water leaks
PERM wants to work with community leaders on designing future renovated spaces. The final
cost for improvements is not yet known, the bids for contractors are out.
George Frantz (EPA Region 1) presented a little of the history, process and purpose behind a
Health impact assessment (HIA) and invited all stakeholders to attend the Scoping meeting
planned on October 17, 2012. Marybeth Smuts (EPA Region 1) presented on what the EPA will
be doing in terms of data collection at the school and reiterated the intended impact of the HIA
for this project.
A community member mentioned that there was a suggestion years ago to bury the school and
build a new school. He mentioned that people are concerned about the cost and talked about
how this (area) used to be a lake and that this is (school is located on) water. This was the first
time investigations looked at where the water was coming into the building. Discussion ensued
regarding the improvements to air quality in the school over time. A former employee
mentioned that the facility is now a lot dryer; there used to be puddles of water in the building.
Since Gerena will be an operating school for another 10-12 years, PERM will fight for money to
keep the school safe.
Stakeholder Meeting Notes from October 17, 2012
Date: October 17. 2012
Subject: HIA Scoping Meeting (6:15pm - 8:15pm)
Location: Gerena Community School, 200 Birnie Avenue, Springfield, MA 01107
Meeting Attendees:
Last Name First Name Organization
Szegda Kathleen Partners for a Healthier Community
Skiba Catherine MA DEP
Wood Ben MADPH
Bewsee Michaelann Arise for Social Justice
Askwith Debra SEA (Ret)
Rivera Luz Gerena Staff/Parent
Roller Devon Arise for Social Justice & WNEV
Robles Jafet Voices of the Community
Rosario Jose Voices of the Community
Sibley Destry Voices of the Community
Sullivan Patrick City of Springfield
Gagnon Diane Gerena School
Escribano Cynthia Gerena School
[132]
-------
Pohlman Karen Brightwood
White Steve OPHI (fflA Advisor)
Fulk Florence EPA, NERL
Zartarian Valerie EPA, SHC
Murphy Jim EPA, Region 1
Pare Janice ASPH Fellow c/o EPA ORD
Smuts Marybeth EPA, Region 1 OEP
Frantz George EPA, Region 1 OES
Zimmerman Emily EPA, Region 1
Rose Lynn PERM
*A Spanish translator attended the meeting, but was not needed.
Meeting Notes:
Jim Murphy (from EPA Region 1 New England) opened the meeting at 6:30pm. He covered the
purpose of the meeting and that EPA will bring another tool to the process of repairing Gerena
School. There were a few minutes allowed for audience introductions.
Steve White (from Oregon Public Health Institute) introduced concept of health impact
assessment (HIA).
• Health Impact Assessment: recognizes that social and environmental conditions drive
health outcomes, especially differences in health outcomes.
• Many decisions that shape our environment don't consider health impacts.
• Health can be influenced by individual factors, public services and infrastructure, living
and working conditions, social economic and political factors.
• HIA evaluates how a specific decision or set of decisions may effect all of the various
factors that influence health
George Frantz gave overview of the planned HIA that will be performed here at Gerena and
spoke about some of the exposures at the school (water, allergens) and partners involved.
Marybeth gave overview of the anticipated data collection process, including indoor and outdoor
air monitoring, mold sampling, moisture analysis, and evaluation of the building conditions and
systems. The HIA will not be collecting information on individual students and their
management of asthma. The HIA will draw from other studies that have evaluated risk factors
for asthma.
Steve White led a general discussion on health covering:
Definitions
Health Outcomes = a change in health status
Health Determinants = things that influence a change in health status
Health Outcomes:
• Asthma
• Diabetes
[133]
-------
• Chronic coughing
• Seasonal Allergies
• Cancer
• Rash
• Cardiovascular disease
• Colds
• ADHD
• Depression
• Obesity
Behaviors that influence health outcomes:
• Smoking
• Poor nutrition
• Lack of exercise
• Sleep
• Drug or alcohol abuse
• Taking your medication
Social and environmental conditions that influence behavior and health outcomes10:
• Racism
• Language barriers
• Poverty
• Community safety as it relates to leading an active life (safety from crime and accidents)
• Absentee landlords
• Abandoned Property
• Housing issues (property maintenance/code enforcement)
• Classism
• Opportunities for physical activity (parks and recreation)
• Health supportive resources (physical activity, goods and services, food)
• Food/transportation access
Health outcomes related to Gerena School:
• Obesity
• Asthma
• Depression
• Anxiety
• ADD/ADHD
• Chronic coughing
• Allergies
Behaviors that influence these health outcomes:
10 These are the root causes of disease and health impacts. When we do an HIA, we have to figure out how social
and environmental conditions are impacted as well.
[134]
-------
• Absenteeism (point was made that absenteeism is not all due to illness, but it affects both
health outcomes and influences the social conditions that influence behavior)
• Inability to concentrate for various reasons
• Physical activity
• Keeping kids inside all the time during summer and after school hours because parents
don't think there are safe places for kids to go
• Parents with infants or toddlers would rather have kids bussed to other schools because of
the way the school looks. Not having child in community you're in has impacts on
building community (improving social cohesion) and getting parents involved in school.
Social and environmental conditions that influence behavior and health outcomes:
• The pod system of the classrooms = loud classrooms (classroom design); could affect
kids with ADHD (there is disagreement expressed; disagreement that it is causal to the
health outcomes: we have to be careful not to put our conception as adult learners on
what the children are doing)
• Acoustics/Noise pollution
• Income/poverty
• Employment
• Education quality
• Parental/citywide/community perceptions (these things can influence the relationships
between the school and these groups)
• No safe place to play
• External perception (physical condition of school not properly maintained or lacking
equipment)
There are different schools of thought on what should be a "priority." The HIA will consider
both scientific evidence and what stakeholders (decision-makers, educators, students, and
residents) need. This HIA will be a pragmatic exercise that balances the basic health issues with
education quality issues. The bottom line should be the health of teachers, students and staff.
There are community perceptions of this school regarding low performance, environmental
factors, low parental involvement (perception different from reality). A lot of negative
perception that may not be factual. The HIA will investigate perceptions of the community
regarding the facility. The first thing people see when they come into the school is
mold/environmental problems in the tunnel (giving a bad impression), which plays a role in how
the school is viewed within the community. There is a misconception that the rest of the
building looks like the tunnel. It is important to note that the negative perceptions is related to
the condition of the building as a school and community center, but not the staff and teachers.
For living in a high crime area, residents don't like that kids don't have a safe place to play.
Community center issue is major concern of parents. There is a perception that the people in
charge of the school don't make Gerena a higher priority and that the conditions in the school are
not improving. The HIA will look at how to help the City direct their resources, eliminate
physical problems, and inform the community on the work performed and/or progress made.
The meeting participants ranked the following items as high or lower priority:
[135]
-------
High Priority
• Air quality
• Mold
• Particulate Matter
• Asthma
• Condition of carpet and its impact on air quality
• Perception of physical conditions of the school or investment priorities (commitment of
city and school board to improve school)
• Vulnerable populations (demographics, pre-existing conditions)
Lower Priority
• Absenteeism (93% attendance rate now; used to be 88%) 3 and 4 year olds are absent
more often than others (significant population of students with special needs here and
they tend to have a very good attendance rate)
• Classroom noise
It is important to consider that school and home are both environments that can have asthma
triggers. There a perception that the school is causing asthma symptoms. Absenteeism is
thought to be linked to asthma, but not known. The audience charged the HIA to look at:
• Unexpected asthma attacks at the school to better identify if there are triggers happening
at the school that are exacerbating the problem;
• Prevalence rates versus unexpected episodes;
• Air Quality - prevalence is good to look at because it shows that there is a population of
vulnerable students who are more sensitive to poor air quality;
• School nurse-collected asthma data
• (If possible) Number of people using the facility over time (5 years)
Although there is no binding contract that the City will have to adopt and implement the HIA
recommendations, there is a strong likelihood that the City will consider the recommendations.
EPA will be working closely with City, along with other state and federal agencies, to provide
recommendations. The hope is that the HIA will help the City get more funding/resources to do
more repairs.
Next Steps
• Begin studies, begin sampling, begin monitoring
• The next public meeting to project will probably be in February, and the
recommendations meeting will probably be in May.
Stakeholder Meeting Notes from October 18, 2012
Date: October 18. 2012
Subject: HIA Scoping Meeting (continued)
Location: Gerena Community School, 200 Birnie Avenue, Springfield, MA 01107
Meeting Attendees:
[136]
-------
Last Name
Rose
Wood
Sibley
Robles
Pohlman
Szegda
White
Zimmerman
Frantz
Skiba
Smuts
Pare
Murphy
Fulk
Zartarian
Sullivan
Meeting Notes:
First Name Organization
Lynn PERM
Ben MA DPH
Destry Voices of the Community
Jafet Voices of the Community
Karen Brightwood
Kathleen Partners for a Healthier Community
Steve OPHI (HIA Advisor)
Emily EPA, Region 1
George EPA, Region 1 OES
Catherine MA DEP
Marybeth EPA, Region 1 OEP
Janice ASPHA Fellow (c/o EPA)
Jim EPA, Region 1
Florence EPA, ORD- NERL
Valerie EPA, ORD- SHC
Patrick PERM
The goal of this meeting was to refine what was said last night to make sure EPA captured the
information accurately and discuss next steps of the HIA. Steve White provided a short
summary from the previous meeting. Mr. White will take the information gleaned from the
Scoping meetings and draft a pathway diagram in which the decision may affect health. Topics
may include:
Air Quality Improvement Actions:
New equipment/carpet
Monitoring Plan
Education component
Occupant performance (occupational and educational)
Money/cost
o
o
o
o
o
Air Quality Improvement (indirect results)
o Cleaner Air
o Changes in facility use (if we could improve air quality we could open up more parts of the
building and/or change perceptions)
o Community perceptions
Health issues identified:
o Asthma
o Physical activity
o Social Cohesion
o Multiple Health Impacts
o Other respiratory illnesses (allergies: itchy eyes, runny nose, stuffy head, headaches)
[137]
-------
There are things that can be done to mitigate the noise issues, while renovations are taking place.
EPA will keep in mind that there may be noise issues related to the renovations.
The HIA needs to be completed as early as possible to inform the renovations. EPA plans to
complete the HIA by June 2013. The HIA is intended to help the City prioritize issues and/or
solutions.
Public meetings may be moveable, but the deadline for finishing in June is not moveable.
Oct and Nov ' 12 = public outreach,
Dec ' 12- April '13 = data collection and formulating problem,
March - May '13= drafting report and recommendations; dissemination
June '13= final report
Developing HIA Research Questions
Potential Question: What are the respiratory health outcomes and symptoms related to AQ at
Gerena?
We can use literature review and data collected by Matt Sadof (Springfield Schools pediatrician),
Pioneer Valley Asthma Coalition, and school nurses to help answer the question.
Potential Question: How might these outcomes/symptoms be impacted by remediation?
We can use EPA modeling to answer the question.
Potential Question: What are the symptoms (e.g., coughing, allergies, etc.) attributed to?
It's very difficult to find specific correlations between exposures and symptoms. Thus, data
gathering is critical in this area. Matt Sadof and Health Advisory Board for Springfield Schools
could be a data source. This should be a general question. For example, what types of
symptoms happen for different things? Asthma is the most tangible outcome to look at right
now, but EPA would like to keep in mind the other respiratory health issues as we continue
through this process. C-FERST databases could be useful to the various community groups,
especially the Health Advisory Board, since there are constraints on collecting surveys.
Potential Question: Why is attendance low and would low attendance improve with improved air
quality?
The community is interested in knowing about the reasons why kids aren't coming to school.
Potential Question: What types of things does air quality impact with health?
Potential Questions: How do we measure improving air quality? What are we measuring?
What are the other media and components? How will the amount of PM 2.5 change based on the
different remediation plans? Which of the options will target the higher areas?
The HIA will not assess indoor air quality comprehensively. The goal is to assess the
remediation plans and how they will affect air quality. MA DEP air quality monitoring will
[138]
-------
enhance the HIA work. DEP monitoring uses a composite sample over 24 hours of PM2.5.
There are ambient air quality monitoring standards for PM2.5. There is no indoor air standard to
compare things against, so there is no way to determine if things are unhealthy or not. Mold
sampling was done on 36 types of molds and there will be ranking of the mold. EPA will rank
areas to show where remediation should be focused. EPA can sample and test sources, such as
trucks, nearby roadways and railroads and an analysis of the building systems. We can do indoor
air and outdoor air sampling and mold sampling to evaluate changes and developments from
sources. The goal is to understand the variation in the things we are measuring that represent air
quality. We need to look at the variability as it compares to occupancy.
Voices of the Community performed a survey that found the priorities were:
o Community center (after school homework help)
o Therapy and counseling
o GED counseling
o Workforce Development
Potential Question: What is the current need and demand for facilities?
This is the only community center. If Gerena is shut down, there is no other place for kids to go.
Data may be available from the community survey.
Potential Question: Where do users come from? How might facility use change?
Look to history of facility, such as the data on number of users (building permits; student body
size, etc.) and type of users.
Lynn Rose provided a history of the facility:
• Original Use of Building, how it has changed, and what it is now...
o Originally: housed grades 5-6. Top floor was the pod system. Bernie Ave. was
arts, music.. .etc. Downstairs area was the gym and pool, open to community.
Where we sit now was the public library. Other downstairs room was used for
adult education. Down in the tunnel, North End community Center, craft center,
King center. Park office. On the opposite side of the tunnel, we had a heath
center and a preschool. Activity downstairs was continual during the day time.
School used to stay open until 9pm. Used to have weekend classes on the
weekends... etc
o Now the building closes at 8pm. During the summer it is 7pm, and on weekends
it is closed.
o Since the water filtration struggles, there have been drastic changes to the original
use
o In 1990, when the water main broke there were severe flooding damages.
o Air handling units were modified, but never upgraded (original air handling units
had fiberglass filters)
o Energy management system was partially upgraded
[139]
-------
o Water infiltration started basically when the building opened.
o Some of the water infiltration has come about through the life of the building—
example is by the auditorium
o Water table issues: floor actually rose 9 inches during a flooding period, and then
has sunk 6 inches to where it sits now.
o Current users of facility: Wraparound, WGBY (public TV), community center,
dental clinic, North End community, Park Dept, after school program
o When the water main broke: they abandoned the utilities under the building, and
we are dealing with that legacy; and stormwater structures now leak
o Air handling system was never updated (in terms of motors and shifts). Outside
dampers are not operating properly.
o Building is living with the legacy of what happened after the flood: Old utilities
underground were abandoned and other things were built, but the old conduits
underground are now pathways for water.
• New installation of doors:
o Caused concern (two sided)
• Used to be concern of security because anyone could walk through
• Flip side: concern/fear that city would limit access of the school for the
community
• Building closing at 8pm is problem for community because hard to cross
the highway. The only other way is to cross live railway, which will, in
the future, be a high speed railway. Railroad tracks are also very dark.
Reports of assaults and drugs near the railroad.
• Another solution: keeping tunnel doors open later at night
Potential Question: What community groups use the school?
The school is designed to bring in the entire city. It still draws mostly from the north end
community in Springfield. The school was built because there was a need for a new elementary
school because the North End had a large influx of Puerto Rican population. This school area is
considered mutual territory during periods of gang violence.
Identifying Vulnerable Populations:
Improving air quality is going to be less of a concern for adults coming into the building, but
more of a concern for the children using the building. There is a subset of vulnerable
populations among the child population. Hot spots within the building could inform planned use
for the space and who uses what. Important to know where the vulnerable populations are in the
school. Level of use also dictates level of exposure. Walking through the tunnel is different
level of exposure than the level of exposure of people using the facility for longer periods.
Having good security and keeping the doors open would be a good solution for the need for
access to the tunnel for people crossing the highway, and keeping the building safe. The tunnels
are the only safe way to travel between the neighborhoods. One side is residential while the
other side has a grocery store and commercial retail. Costs for managing the tunnels comes out
of the school's budget. In order to provide level of community access the City needs to address
the cost of keeping the tunnel open.
[140]
-------
Potential Question: What are the existing perceptions related to AQ at school? Are there other
data sources to give an idea of perceptions as they relate to AQ?
In the press, there are newspaper articles (e.g., the Republican has many articles on the issues of
school). Sometimes documenting what happened in the past can possibly give us an indication
of what might happen in the future. EPA can look to media to see what a fully functioning
community center has done for the community.
Question: How might this project change perceptions?
• reduction in asthma
• increased facility use
• improved community perception
• improved physical activity and social cohesion- needs to be described in a credible
manner
The HIA will consider both positive and negative impacts. When it comes down to making a
choice, the HIA must advocate for health.
Steve White explained matrix that can explain multiple scenarios:
How do options potential to improve potential to improve Potential to improve
impact the potential hot spot areas? facility for students? facility for
to improve AQ community?
overall?
XX XX XX XX
After reviewing the HIA recommendations, the bottom line for PERM will be deciding the best
return on investment.
Immediate Next Steps
• Ranking Criteria, and what will actually be assessed
• Refine Research Questions
o For each question rank by data, methodology and level of importance
o ACTION ITEM: Steve will draft these out and share with the research team to
refine and revise
• Communications Strategy and Dissemination Plan
o ACTION ITEM: George, Emily and Marybeth to develop initially, Emily to
review and revise
o Find HIA examples (healthimpactproject.org); UCLA CLIC - good general
examples and pathways info
• Monitoring Plan
o What is it we are basing the improvements on - where is the data coming from
o What does the existing system look like?
• Clarification of Roles and Responsibilities of the Corps team
o ACTION ITEM: George will draft and circulate
• Lessons Learned
[141]
-------
o Documenting lessons learned throughout process
o Evaluation Plan to document lessons learned
Marybeth Smuts iterated that this is EPA's first HIA, so the lessons learned will be translated
throughout EPA and will be translated to other communities impacted by being near roadways.
Lessons learned will have long-range impact. Members of the HIA core team took a guided tour
of the building to better understanding for sources of asthma triggers and the school layout.
Stakeholder Meeting Notes from December 10, 2012
Date: December 10, 2012
Subject: HIA Scoping Meeting
Location: Conference call
Meeting Attendees:
First Nate
Bob
George
Gregg
Jim
Gregg
Lynn
Marian
Marybeth
Ron
Shannon
Janice
Valerie
Emily
Brian
Steve
Rick
Last Name
Thompson
Frantz
Furie
Quackenboss
Furie
Rose
Rutigliano
Smuts
Williams
O'Shea
Pare
Zartarian
Zimmerman
Dyson
White
Ziegler
Organization
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
PERM
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
ASPH Fellow
EPA
EPA
EPA
OPHI (HIA Advisor)
EPA
Meeting Notes:
Steve White presented on the pathway diagram. Noise may be an issue because parts of the
school use an open-floor plan and removing carpet would affect noise levels in those areas. On
the second floor (which has a regular layout) staff can open the windows but choose not to
because of traffic pollutants and noise. Also, the School has been asking for a redesign of the
[142]
-------
third floor (i.e., dividing the area into regular classrooms), which will require a redesign of the
air system.
The main issues from the Scoping meeting are identified in the pathway diagram. Other issues
that were discussed, but were excluded in the pathway diagram, are light and flooding. Resident
and building occupant perceptions are not the same and may need to be differentiated. All
details do not need to be on pathway diagram. Details on what is evaluated will be reflected in
the research questions and assessment plan. The criteria to consider the identified issues
includes technical feasibility to evaluate the issue, stakeholder interest, and likelihood of health
impact. Certain issues may need to be addressed chronologically.
PERM is moving forward with some renovations that were already planned. For example,
PERM is already performing lighting retrofits. But, PERM will wait on ventilation system
upgrades for the HIA recommendations. For example, there may be specific recommendations
that come from the noise literature review to prevent corrections later. Another issue to consider
is long-term feasibility and/or costs from extreme weather events and groundwater intrusion.
There are many questions posed for the HIA to answer. It was agreed that the questions related
to asthma exacerbation are most critical for this study.
Stakeholder Meeting Notes from February 14, 2013
Date: February 14. 2013
Subject: HIA Scoping Meeting
Location: Conference call
Meeting Attendees:
(not documented)
Meeting Notes:
We had a brief call with Lynn Rose (PERM) and Diane Gagnon this morning to discuss the
walk-through tour at Gerena. The dates are not determined, but Diane gave us a few to work
with and sounded like she was comfortable with the plan for the tour and the data collection.
Lynn expressed some concerns about EPA publishing the mold data. She will confer with
PERM about these concerns. The QAPP for air sampling is still in-progress. It is important to
note that no data collection can take place without an approved QAPP. The approval process
may take up to five days, once the QAPP is submitted. As of now, it seems that a team of about
9 EPA employees will be part of the walk-through tour. EPA will need to collect data to get a
basic understanding of how the school operates, including air movement, location and flow of in-
coming water, and general characteristics of the land (where the school was built). EPA will
need access to HVAC vents, pipes, etc. All visitors will need visitor passes and complete the
[143]
-------
sign-in process. EPA will minimize the number of people in classrooms while they are in
session and will be flexible with work if it will be too disruptive while students in classroom.
The schedule is as follows: Walk-through and data collection: 2 days. Sunday and Monday are
ideal in order to get a look at school while it is and is not occupied.
Proposed dates: February 24 to 25, 2013 (QAPP approval pending).
March 3 to 4, 2013 (There will not be MCAS testing at this time)
March 24 to 25, 2013 (May be last option).
Stakeholder Meeting Notes from April 1, 2013
Date: April 1. 2013
Subject: FDA Assessment Meeting
Location: Conference Call
Meeting Attendees:
Name Organization
Lauren Adkins CSS-Dynamac (c/o EPA)
Florence Fulk EPA
Janice Pare ASPH Fellow (c/o EPA)
Valerie Zartarian EPA
Emily Zimmerman EPA
Lynn Rose PERM
Marybeth Smuts EPA
Bob Thompson EPA
Ron Williams EPA
Jim Murphy EPA
Steve White OPHI (c/o CDC/EPA)
Steve Vesper EPA
Meeting Notes:
The Walk-through tour and data collection went well. The timeline of activities was as follows:
Sunday= FTVAC contractors meeting and walk-through; Monday= building walk-through,
PBRM's presentation, and discussion; Tuesday= presentation of preliminary findings and
discussion. PERM conveyed that the City is committed to a long-term, high quality solution.
The data collection included short-term air sampling and thermal-infrared scan of roof, concrete
material, and walls. The data collection identified a lot of causes and short-term solutions.
Where the roof and walls meet, there is a lot of energy loss. Structural steel with bolts became
[144]
-------
separated from the walls over time and now there is a big gap between them. With the
renovations over time, there was a lack of integrated expertise, which is leading to issues now.
For example, when boilers were removed, the pressure released caused air to be cycled from
bottom (underground) to top floors of school. There was a lack of defined parameter/specificity
of "clean" and it has affected health. The results from the Mold Contamination Analysis interim
report lined up with what found in this analysis. The interim report will be available in
approximately 2 weeks. The next step is performing longer air sampling related to nearby traffic
and/or indoor environment conditions.
PERM appreciated the value of the integrated approach. The City does not want to spend a huge
investment on issues that will not solve the problems at the school. The comprehensiveness of
the analysis was the most important value gained from using the FflA approach. The pre-
planning for collecting data left some to be desired (as expressed in a previous email). For
example, PERM needed to know where/what will need to be deactivated/opened for the
contractors to see/monitor, which required unexpected security expense. PERM also needed to
know where data collection was going to occur to ensure EPA had access. PERM wants to make
sure the HIA report includes these "lessons learned." There were two specific questions that the
City will need from the report:
• Can the building be renovated so that it is healthy enough to inhabit/occupy?
• What products/documents can be prepared that include information of the
assessment/recommendations that other schools/city buildings can use?
Lessons Learned: The walkthrough timeline was well-designed. It was good that the contractors
had a chance to familiarize themselves with the building before presentations, so that they could
ask specific questions of the school contractors and City folks. The HIA team needs to be sure to
give PERM at least a five-day notice before the air sampling phase begins.
HIA Timeline Update:
May 13th-20th (Closed) Meeting with PERM
May 21-20 Meeting on integrating repairs to health outcomes (discuss the main
deliverable- the HIA Report)
June 3 or 8th (Public) HIA community meeting for prioritizing recommendations of
HIA (need to be aware of the stakeholder groups at meeting, there were several groups who
were not on board with the renovations proposed, we need to be sure that we're getting feedback
from as many stakeholders as possible)
The air sampling study is planned after floor resurfacing on April 14-23, 2013. Marybeth,
PERM, MA DEP, Ron and Bob will work on locating sites for air sampling and timeline. Lynn
will put together her lessons learned so that we can share them and a factsheet on the
[145]
-------
renovations/items completed at the school. Mary Beth will forward the information on the
building's history (from Jim Murphy) to the rest of the HIA group. The next meeting for the
HIA Core Group is set for Wednesday, April 10th, 2013 to start planning the assessment phase
and incorporating the quantitative data with the qualitative data.
Stakeholder Meeting Notes from April 17, 2013
Date: April 17,2013
Subject: HIA Assessment Meeting
Location: Gerena School
Meeting Attendees:
Marybeth Smuts (EPA), Lynn Rose (PERM), Dave Holland (MA DEP)
Meeting Notes:
Topic of discussion was selection of air sampling sites and proposed data collection process.
Dave Holland MassDEP (Regional Engineer is one of the original contractors commissioned for
building the school. He was the person that recommended the school not be built there (in its
current location) due to the proximity to Hwy (because lead-based gasoline and semi-truck
exhaust from 100-400 trucks per day), the proximity to hospitals (airborne phenol exposure from
hospital), and the proximity to industry factory (Pioneer company tanks with thousands of
gallons of ammonia). The air data (collected from the Building analyses) showed spikes of CO2
emissions throughout the day (especially at 3am and 10pm when the HVAC would turn on/off).
PERM is disappointed that the air pressure flow information was not in the Building assessment
report, but the information is available.
The school underwent flooring resurfacing, which was a huge detriment to the indoor air study
plan. The flooring company did not follow the guidelines on contamination of the fine particles
(sand used to resurface floors). The HVAC unit was also "on" and blew fine particles
everywhere and up in the high loft of the atrium (unreachable). The classroom doors were open.
Therefore, all of the fine dust (sand) particles got everywhere and there is a haze all around the
school. There is only a head custodian for a clean-up crew, and no clean-up plan in place. The
school reopens next Monday (it has been closed for spring break). The fine particles from the
floor resurfacing may contaminate the indoor air quality data and a decision has to be made on
next step in air monitoring plan. A minimalist plan is needed for getting school cleaned up.
Stakeholder Meeting Notes from May 6, 2013
Date: May 6. 2013
Subject: HIA Assessment Meeting
Location: Springfield PERM Office
[146]
-------
Meeting Attendees:
Marybeth Smuts and George Frantz from EPA (Bob Thompson from EPA on phone), Lynn Rose
from PERM
Meeting Notes:
The following comments are on the interim building conditions and systems analyses report
(dated April 10,2013).
-The final report can follow the format of including an executive summary and a summary of
onsite sampling and observations although the body of the report should include the
methodology, observations and results and or impacts of the observations.
The body of the report should provide a brief overview of the operations of the building and its
systems.
-The summary of the recommendations should be ranked by needs for operation of school and
then another prioritization of the recommendations by cost: high, medium or low. Using these
rankings, the HIA will rank based on health impacts.
-It would be better to start the recommendations based on the onsite observations. The next
section should be recommendations from the reviewed documents and then the summary will be
the prioritizations of both sets of recommendations.
-The recommendations based on reviewed documents should only include the results of the Mold
contamination report, which was included to assist in the building evaluation diagnostics and not
the conclusions with remediations.
-Many units of the HVAC system are not functioning so air handlers that are operating are
handling the occupants load for areas that they weren't designed to handle. In many cases, such
as in the pods, air movement is adequate but in some areas, such as the media and office, the
occupant load is not handled by the existing operating systems. If the air handlers can't be put
back into operations by obtaining spare parts or having parts tooled, then the areas should be
prioritized for needed repairs. The RDK report with its recommendations should be prioritized
for which systems need repairs.
-Describe the recommendations for tunnel C with more specific areas and equipment
suggestions. Also, areas for de-humidification or air drying should be delineated with very
focused areas sited and estimate energy recovery savings.
-Within the report there should be some description of the HVAC system with reference to what
unit is operating and serving what area. Particular attention should be given to describing air
flow and pressure differentials in the minipods/teacher lounge areas due to concern about the
ventilation design for this area.
[147]
-------
-It might be beneficial to develop after the prioritization, a developed workplan/timeline for
action items.
Stakeholder Meeting Notes from December 9, 2013
Date: December 9. 2013
Subject: HIA Assessment/Recommendations Meeting
Location: Springfield PERM Office
Meeting Attendees:
Name Organization
Marybeth Smuts EPA
Bob Thompson (via phone) EPA
George Frantz EPA
Noelle Owens PERM
Lynn Rose PERM
Michael Gibbons PERM
Pat Sullivan PERM
Meeting Notes:
The following are related to the impact summaries provided:
• Executive summary needs to be revised. (Marybeth) I have not had a chance to review it.
• PERM will review documents and comment first before EPA disseminates to public in order
to prepare to discuss when the work can get completed.
• Public comment period could be as soon as the end of January.
MSBA schedule and how recommendations can be integrated.
• MSBA funding schedule for projects other than green repairs is due in January, Feb and then
April.
• Gerena (renovation) funding proposals will probably be submitted Feb or April.
Testing for outdoor air
• Needs to be conducted for a longer period based on the findings. EPA may be able to provide
some equipment.
• PERM is concerned that waiting for more testing could cause the community to feel that
actions were being delayed. PERM thought that this HIA was going to accomplish what EPA
is now recommending.
[148]
-------
Documents and information included in the report:
• Highest risks were based on asthma and mold, not contaminants from the outside.
• Recommendations for immediate actions related to the subsystems of the building (City still
needs to assess the long term viability of the building):
Immediate Actions:
1. Seal the building:
• Too many unplanned airflows. There are major gaps where the walls meet
the roof. Must control these in order to plan the redesign of the ventilation
effectively.
• Can be insulated with rock wool, or poly ceiling foam. Issues with poly
ceiling form due to the asthmagen in the isocyanates. It is the best product
for this purpose, but must be installed properly, which EPA will guide us.
EPA will also help to determine if there is a less hazardous foam product
available.
• Pat was concerned whether the gaps are a sign of structural issues from
settling. There was some evident work conducted to reinforce the area
between the roof where are metal plates are installed on all 3 floors and
along the A Tunnel. (Lynn went back to confirm this after the meeting)
2. Change the airflow between the air flow between the inner and outer tunnel C.
This will be done by installing an exhaust system to exhaust 100% of interstitial
tunnel to the outside.
3. HVAC - Short-term:
• Notes from EPA:
• Judge on cost, O&M, operating requirements, feasibility during
occupied times, etc.
• Notes from PERM:
• City is looking at bonding across City to address HVAC systems in
City.
• Add column for community input, concerns, etc. in the planning
worksheet PERM has been developing.
• Some of these items are at different states of being addressed -
some are completed, some are already underway, some need to be
bid out, etc.
• Cooling tower has failed and is a 6 figure cost. EPA has offered to
assist us to develop specs for this.
• Upgrade status of by-pass and fresh air intakes on existing systems.
Near Term Actions (year or two out)
4. Further investigate waterproofing (PERM recommendation to change investigate
stage to "implementation" stage) - status:
[149]
-------
• Done for A tunnel. Implement proposal.
• Underway for C tunnel
5. Reseal leaks in tunnels.
6. Further investigate outdoor air quality at various locations around the building for
long-term decisions about placement of intakes. If we do this additional testing
which will delay some of the HVAC remediation, we would need to do earlier as
a planning step. We have enough data to know that the most contaminants of
concerns are the microbial contaminants. This will involve:
• A Wind study
• Further investigation of combustion particulates to enable us to
plan for location of intakes.
• Would need to be to do at worst case scenario, as the EPA HIA
study was done at best time of year.
• BU has equipment but students had no transportation. UMass
could maybe help us and EPA could help us design study.
• Can reduce impacts of roadway through increased filtration. This
is for any impacts to tunnel A. It is not the number one issue. It
does affect asthma but is not the highest impact.
Long Term Actions
7. Frontload HVAC work.
8. Assess the impacts of the air drawn up in the stairwells through the chimney
affect to the pods. Lynn rechecked and there are heating units in the stairwells.
Miscellaneous:
• Report doesn't address issues of air movement from the mall area up into the stairwells
acting as a chimney effect, and the area where the glass wall meets the ceiling in the pods -
there is a gap. This allows air from the tunnel to be drawn up into the pods.
• (PERM) It is starting to appear that the replacement costs are close to the repairs for this
building.
• (EPA) Maybe keep the tunnel and replace the building.
• EPA's Table is designed to help us to make short and long term decisions based on health
and cost issues.
• Go to EPA's IAQ Tools for schools guideline for new design criteria.
• RR changes may impact structural issues in the tunnel. Is the tunnel designed to bear any
additional weight caused by double decker trains. Needs to be assessed.
PERM action items:
o Maj or cleaning of building
o Assessment and removal of all moldy materials where feasible. Lynn checked the abandoned
areas after this discussion and there is some materials to be removed, but much of the
materials, such as carpets and ceiling tiles, have been removed over times.
[150]
-------
o Remove all stored materials in moldy areas. Teachers use some of the abandoned areas as
storage.
o Assess all furniture. Possibly: Remove all upholstered materials. Classes in the pods have
upholstered couches. Maybe replace with nonporous materials
Overall comments from the meeting:
Pat Sullivan, Lynn Rose, Noel Owens (the architect) and Mike Gibbons (lead technician) were
all pleased that the recommendations being offered seemed to fit well in the framework for
renovation that they had thought appropriate, but it will push things in a few areas and maybe
turn aside some ideas that appeared to be of lower value.
Overall, the response was very positive. However, because of the short turnaround on the draft
summaries, we weren't able to re-order the piece, so we simply started our discussions with the
chart on page 11. While everyone recognizes the importance of the public perception and noise
issues, for this group, mechanical, scientific and health related issues were the order of the day.
One thing the client group noted was that based on preliminary findings, ambient air pollution
appeared not to be a significant issue, contrary to the expectations of many citizen groups. But
they strongly emphasized that we must have the indoor/outdoor air report by the end of the year
so that supporting data can be integrated into the next level report. Pat said they liked the EPA
format, but would probably add a column for "client response" and one for "public input." Lynn
and (George) both took notes and we're in the process of combining for a synthesis. We'll send
draft notes in the next day or so.
So as an initial response, PERM was pleased. They will come back in a week or so with
comments that they would encourage us to consider before they have to go to the city and state
funders re: money for school renovations. For the first time, there was some real discussion of a
replacement school. Pat said looking at our recommendations, he could easily see $12-16
million dollars on immediate and mid-term work. This in comparison to $30-40 million for a
new school, with the state being able to put up a substantial chunk of that, whereas they wouldn't
for renovation. So perhaps we were looking at a scenario where the city would implement the
short-term recommendations, especially those judged to have a high value for health
improvement, and possibly then recommend moving toward tapering expenditures until a new
school could be completed.
Stakeholder Meeting Notes from January 29, 2014
Date: January 29, 2014
Subject: FDA Recommendations Meeting
Location: Springfield PERM Office
Meeting Attendees:
[151]
-------
Marybeth Smuts, George Frantz, and Ron Williams (on phone) from EPA, Patrick Sullivan and
Lynn Rose from PERM
Meeting Notes:
There was good participation from the PERM team members, including finance, engineering,
architectural and overall management. As a result of their input, many of our evaluations of
anticipated first cost, O& M costs, etc., may change significantly. So rather than making
modifications to the presentation materials that Marybeth and I used yesterday, it's my
suggestion that you wait for a few days until we get our notes regarding the suggested changes
transcribed and agreed to by PERM. They see a great deal of use of filling in the Table and do
want to have all of the renovations added so that the mayor, school board and community will
see the complete picture of Gerena. This is great, but we will have a lot of work with all of it
going through the review team again and then back to PERM. Of course it's important to have
materials agreed-upon by our project team. At the same time, I think it's important to leave a
small range of flexibility to the presentation team.
Pat Sullivan suggested yesterday that our next presentation to city officials including the mayor's
office, school board, and finance team would likely be on March 11, although that date will need
to be confirmed and scheduled by PERM when they are comfortable with the Table. We gave
ourselves a target date of early next week to have an updated version of the Handout back to the
client. In addition, since we have included some of the client-contractor based recommendations
in our charts, it was suggested that some of the other recommendations generated by those client
contractors also be included, in order to provide a comprehensive review, all in the same format.
We believe that at the mayor and funders meeting, only the summary of the
findings/recommendations be presented, perhaps along with summary slides from each EPA-led
investigative reports. So perhaps a brief factsheet on mold, air sampling and building evaluation
methods, findings, recommendations. Much will depend upon how much time is allotted for the
presentation to the city officials and (when we get it) the MA DEP summary of their air
monitoring findings. There will likely be a separate meeting with MA DEP to present their
findings (which they did already) along with the EPA-led investigations. This presentation might
be hosted by the Pioneer Valley Asthma Coalition.
There was a high level of confidence demonstrated by PERM in our discussions yesterday.
Marybeth and I left the meeting yesterday feeling very positive about our contribution to the
overall result of providing for a healthier school environment for the students staff and faculty of
Gerena school. We realize that a lot more work with drafting and agreeing on wording is
needed, but we will also need to build in time for the back and forth with PERM, since the
meeting might be a joint presentation.
[152]
-------
Some elements, for example- ceiling air leaks along the top of the building, were possibly going
to be very expensive and difficult, depending on the specific barriers encountered. Noel, the
architect, said there could be a real issue of electrical conduit and other associated piping in that
area, making it difficult to access either from the inside or the outside. Then, as Marybeth and I
discussed, there's the issue of successfully filling the gap with expanding foam. Obviously,
since the foam is isocyanate-based, it will off-gas during the period before it sets up and so will
require protective equipment for the applicators. PERM will have to make sure that children are
removed form that area during application. I'm sure our team can draw on extensive experience
with this type of foam to address Noel's concerns.
There were other areas where PERM indicated that the costs would be very high and the whole
issue of funding sources was discussed. Pat Sullivan will present to the school funding group the
plans for renovation and upkeep on all the City's schools in the next two weeks. We don't know
yet whether or not Gerena is included in that specific budget request or whether specific projects
will be handled via a separate funding mechanism. For example, the work of installing new
pumps in the tunnels will be funded by MA DOT, as a high expense item, but will not come out
of PERM'S annual budget. The entire school maintenance budget of approximately $5 million,
divided among 53 schools across the city, allows for approximately $100,000 per school. Some
schools are very new and require minimum upkeep, while others are older and require much
more upkeep. There is no question of the commitment of PERM to complete the work at
Gerena, but the funding sources and the time in which various funding mechanisms can be
accessed is something Pat Sullivan will know.
The following Tables documents PERM's input on the FflA recommendations and updates to
proposed renovation options, including cost and feasibility.
[153]
-------
Table 1. PERM's Proposed Changes to HIA Recommendations and Input on Cost and Feasibility (Immediate Actions, 2 years or less)
Recommendation
Origin (#)
Building Assessment
Report (#8, 9)
Building Assessment
Report (#3); Air
Sampling Report (#2)
Building Assessment
Report (#10)
Building Assessment
Report (#12)
Building Assessment
Report (#14, 15)
Building Assessment
Report (#14, 15)
Renovation Option
(Proposed edits from PERM in italics. PBRM's values in shaded boxes.)
Renovations will follow all recommendations of handling asbestos,
lead, PCBs, mold and other hazardous materials.
1 ) Seal building enclosure airtight at identified air leakage sites in
building enclosure, using approved weatherization materials and
techniques and retest pressurization of building. Weatherproof
stairwell doors per fire department regulations.
2) Change the airflow between outer mechanical space and inner
community space of Tunnel C by continuously exhausting wet areas
and sealing outer tunnel Cfrom inner tunnel C space.
Reroute the ductwork in outer structural tunnel-maintenance corridor,
preventing any infiltration of air into inner tunnel. (To be done as part
of installing negative pressure ventilation system in outer C tunnel for
1 f\f\0/ 1 -t-\
100% exhaust)
Assess tunnel C structure: determine if tunnel can withstand changes
from the planned high speed and double-decker trains (check with PV
PC).
3) Tune-up and upgrade of bypass and fresh air intake dampers for every
AHU in Building B to ensure delivery of adequate outside air and
temperature control.
4) Pro vide increased cleaning of air conditioning drain pans and ensure
proper drainage and improve access to drain pans. Front-load cost,
change latching mechanisms to provide ease of access for repeated
cleaning.
5) Replace pitted piping (plumbing lines) and corroded switch gear to
eliminate water leaks
6) Improve HVAC Preventative Maintenance Program using checklist of
EPA IAQ Tools for Schools kit within one month of completion of #3
and #4, then follow the recommended schedule to ensure proper
continued operation.
•5 i>
§1
s>
H
H
H?
H?
H
j^
o
U
2
E
$$
«
-------
Table 2. PERM's Proposed Changes to HIA Recommendations and Input on Cost and Feasibility (Near-Term Actions, 3 to 5 Years)
Recommendation
Origin (#)
Building Assessment
Report (#6)
Mold Assessment
Report (#2, 3); Building
Assessment Report (#6)
Building Assessment
Report (#7)
Building Assessment
Report (#1,5, 11); Air
Sampling Report (# 1 )
Building Assessment
Report (#15)
Renovation Option
(Proposed edits from PERM in italics. PBRM's values in shaded
boxes.)
Renovations will follow all recommendations of handling asbestos,
lead, PCBs, mold and other hazardous materials.
7) Implement -waterproofing and resettling of wall construction, and
tunnel ceiling (chase) around tunnel A and C to stop water leakage
and reseal areas causing water leakage in tunnels.
a) Re-roof roof as it is and replace drain (no redesign or additional
roofing system) . Concrete deck and -waterproofing -will replace
existing roofing materials.
b) Only addresses removing soil. See GZA proposal.
c) Landscaping adjacent to 1 91 bridge-re-grade per GCA proposal.
d) Access to roof from outside of building. Obtain access agreement
from mass highway. GCA to generate access plan from outside of
building. Need to determine -where roof drains empty
e) mitigate leak in -wraparound area at the vestibule; entrance door
and inside corner of room
f) mitigate leak in tunnel A -wall at Main Street and fix leaking
expansion joint on High-way
g) repair crack/leak in ceiling area in A tunnel
h) repair crack in A ramp floor by stairway near public toilets
8) Remove and discard building materials, furniture and storage
items that have been damaged by water intrusion for longer than 48
hours and not professionally dried or cleaned AFTER water
intrusion is stopped and replace -with cleanable material
9) Plan for future air movement and ensure airflows from occupied
areas to unoccupied areas. What does this mean for renovations?
10) IfHVAC altered, air sources, such as traffic or trains, or levels
change, re-evaluate optimal locations of air intakes and filters used
and consider protection of air intakes. Design HVAC to ensure
airflow from occupied to unoccupied areas.
1 1) Replace pump stations in tunnels
1 2) Improve energy management of HVAC by adjusting HVAC
operating times.
i
"3
JS
03
2.
I
H
H
jj
H
H
No
Effect
(K
0
+^
E
*£*£*£
>4>>4>i4>
(DOT
as
source
of
funding)
'C'C'C
ijjljjlj)
?
*£*£*£
M) M)M)
*£*£*£
?
>~i /— \
l^l-s^l
1 1 111 § I
lu£* E*I
a) $100,000 construction to
be bid; $15, 000
construction
administration; and bid
and construction design
costs TMA. Ready to be
bid for summer projects,
TMA to provide
proposal
b) $18,080 to be
encumbered
c) included in GCA's
unfunded proposal of
$18,080 regarding
d) $5000 to $6000 for two
doors and door casings
e) $6000 cost, part of
$100 ,000 tunnel
redesign, covered by
DOT funds.
?
7
?
?
7
if*
o
U
§
=8
L
$
7
$$
7
§
=8
V-
o
4>
(X)
w
N/A
L
7
L
7
•fe1
.Q
2
s
O
H
L
7
H
7
>,
a
03
O.
S
CJ
O
N/A
M
7
Any
time
7
[155]
-------
Table 3. Phase 3: Long Term Actions
Recommendation
Origin (#)
Building Assessment
Report (#2,1 3)
Birnie Avenue repairs
Two community suites
Renovation Option
(Proposed edits from PERM in italics. PBRM's values in shaded
boxes.)
Renovations will follow all recommendations of handling asbestos,
lead, PCBs, mold and other hazardous materials.
\3)Redesign and replace (upgrade) all HVAC air handing units and
associated return fans, controls, ductwork, piping in Building A, B,
C, and D with high efficiency electronic-controlled models. Include
installation of easy access doors.
a) HVAC unit one serves tunnel Main Street to building B
b) HVAC unit two serves radio station, NEON suite and
medical unit etc.
14)Replacement of large boilers and associated equipment with higher
efficiency boilers.
15)Upgrade chiller room exhaust system
16)Install new security measures for building equipment external to
building.
a) Install new glassed-in guard station
Implement DPW plan for Birnie Avenue repairs check on tunnel
inspection responsibilities
Rehab and rebuild two community suites. Requires complete
rebuilding: electrical, plumbing, finishes, utilities etc. design cost
estimated at $45,000
i
"3
a
H
L
L
7
L
o
U
2
E
ss.
$
$$
7
(t(t(t
tP tPJ)
« ^
° ° s1^ 2 o
H |3 =3 2 | 1
g (/3 3 ° S "S
•-S =8 ta a s
6d
Costs have been incurred
for design. Funded for 50%
design development.
Partially completed, waiting
EPA recommendations
?
Use of DOT funding is
applicable due to A and C
tunnel designation as
federal bridges
Estimated $450,000 for
construction of these two
suites
o
g
°8
O
$$
$
$
7
7
g
=8
O
St.
0
03
w
L
L
L
7
7
£
03
S
O
H
H
L
7
7
a"
03
O.
(J
O
Unoccupid
Any Time
Any Time
7
7
[156]
-------
Stakeholder Meeting Notes from March 19, 2014
Date: March 19. 2014
Subject: HIA Recommendations Meeting
Location: Conference Call
Meeting Attendees:
Marybeth Smuts and George Frantz from EPA, Patrick Sullivan and Lynn Rose from PERM
Meeting Notes:
Marybeth and I (George) sat in on a conference call this AM with Pat Sullivan and the PERM
crew. They are most anxious to have an opportunity to see and comment on the Executive
Summary. Pat reiterated that he would want EPA to do the main presentation to the Mayor,
Superintendent of Schools (etc.), and they will follow us with supporting comments, assessments
of cost and feasibility, etc. Since we are considered the national experts in the field, having us
up front will help them get to "yes." The meeting with the Mayor is scheduled for Wednesday,
April 9th. We all agreed on having draft presentations ready by April 2, 2014. For us, this means
getting the Executive Summary to PERM as quickly as possible (Friday 3/21?), allowing them a
few days to comment, having a conference call to iron out questions and issues and getting the
presentation and Executive Summary ready to go. Proposed Timeline: Exec Sum draft by April
2nd, final by April 7th. After that session, we will plan for a meeting with community
organizations and finally with the public. Marybeth will be out of town from April 9th to 23rd,
so Pat indicated there was a possibility that the meeting with the mayor could be postponed until
she returned.
Stakeholder Meeting Notes from April 3, 2014
Date: April 3, 2014
Subject: HIA Recommendations Meeting
Location: Conference Call
Meeting Attendees:
Florence Fulk, Lauren Adkins (CSS-Dynamac c/o EPA), Emily Zimmerman, Valerie Zartarian,
Bob Thompson, Jim Murphy, and Ron Williams from EPA; Lynn Rose from PERM
Meeting Notes:
[157]
-------
The discussion started with an overview of the purpose of the meeting, which was to obtain
feedback from PERM on the Executive Summary and document input to ensure transparency in
stakeholder engagement.
The two purposes of the Executive Summary are as follows:
1. To convey overall findings of the Assessment (details in full report)
a. Executive Summary is not to be used as a substitute for the full report, but as a
supplement to the full report,
2. To provide outreach to the community and decision makers for future decision making.
a. Caveat- this document is still in draft form, so minor changes may take place after
this discussion but the overall content will not change.
PERM had put a lot of time and effort in filling out the [feasibility values] in the handout shared
on 1/29/14. More clarity was needed in which document was being referred to as the executive
summary because PERM had received too many documents with lists of recommendations. It
was assumed that "Bob's table" was the executive summary (the handout shared on 1/29/14).
Lynn listed the documents that she had received:
• "Bob's Table" Observations and Guidance Table
• Time Table of Recommendations
• Final Recommendations Summary document
• HI A Final Recommendations document
• Handout for the meeting with client document
• Impact Characterization Summaries
• Original Renovation Options document
The city's technical team had not had time to go through the full executive summary. But, there
was confusion on how the recommendations were developed. The perception of the executive
summary was that the [FQA team] does not understand the building and what is going on at the
school, or what has been done at the school. PERM investigated many of the renovation options,
which were further defined, implemented, or removed from consideration. The FQA appraised
only the renovation options considered at the start of the HIA (fall 2012), as it was designed.
The recommended actions reflect the data and observations gathered from October 2012 to June
2013. There was confusion as to why the findings from the mold analysis were included in the
report, considering someone on the HIA team told Lynn that the Mold report was not going to be
used neither in the study nor in the development of the recommendations, and the Air Sampling
Study was inconclusive.
[158]
-------
PERM did not agree with the recommendation for "implementing ongoing waterproofing
program" and "replacing water management systems." Simply saying remove the carpet was too
broad of a statement and the recommendation needs to say exactly where materials should be
replaced. PERM commented that there were too many sweeping statements and that the
Executive Summary was too complex needed to be more streamlined. There was some
confusion on how the recommendations were developed and that the renovations have evolved
since the October 2012 list. PERM requested that a temporal context should be added in the
final recommendations table or include a column explaining the work PERM has performed
since the start of the HIA. The discussion on the noise section provided too much academic
information and was misleading since no noise measurements were taken in the classrooms.
The group agreed that the challenge with an Executive Summary is finding the balance between
the details needed and using overview statements to preserve length.
Action Items: Lynn will send Lauren her documented comments/mark up of the executive
summary. The HIA Core Group will review the feedback from PERM and discuss at the next
group meeting. Flo and Lauren will put together a timeframe for the next steps of the HIA,
including meetings and presentation of the final report.
Stakeholder Meeting Notes from August 7, 2014
Date: August?. 2014
Subject: HIA Reporting Meeting
Location: Conference Call
Meeting Attendees:
In-person: Patrick Sullivan (PERM), Lynn Rose (PERM), Noelle Owens (PERM), Mike
Gibbons (PERM), Bob Thompson, Florence (Flo) Fulk, George Frantz, Marybeth Smuts, Jim
Murphy, Emily Zimmerman; On-call: Lauren Adkins, Ron Williams, Valerie Zartarian
Meeting Notes:
Meeting Agenda
I. Presentation on Executive Summary
1. Discussion with PERM on Executive Summary
2. Discussion with PERM on draft HIA report (Chapters 1 -4 sent on 8/6/2014)
II. Next steps in HIA process and community meeting prep
1. Written materials needed
2. Presentations
3. Schedule/logistics
III. Value of HIA in Springfield and Lessons Learned
[159]
-------
1. City's perspective
2. EPA's perspective
Presentation on the Executive Summary:
• Brief overview about HIA, the HIA process, and where we are at in the process
• HIA as a science-based assessment (not a scientific assessment)
• HIA goals and EPA's goals for the proj ect
The Screening process:
Screening took place April 2012 to March 2012. Marybeth, George, Patrick, the Director of
Pioneer Valley Asthma Coalition, and PHC met at Gerena. They recognized issues and an
opportunity to address those concerns through the HIA. On October 4, the EPA went to PBRM's
meeting at the school to inform the community about the HIA.
The Scoping process:
The initial scope was for the HIA to be completed in 1 year (completion date July 2013) because
of the limited time (decision timeline) and money (from EPA and City) that limited the scope of
the HIA. Cost effectiveness was important and the City had already started renovations. The
HIA team selected/chose the issues that would be covered in the HIA based on the community
input at the scoping meetings. The HIA information can be leveraged by PERM to get funding
from Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA).
The Assessment process:
Information for the assessment came from many different stakeholder sources. Extensive
literature reviews were performed. The EPA-led analyses included the mold assessment, the
Building Conditions and Systems assessment, and the air sampling assessment.
Results of the Onsite Analyses:
The assessment built on the initial assessments, observations and testing. He noted that the
tendency of previous study methods is to compartmentalize testing- which does not provide for a
comprehensive look at Building and Systems as a whole. Using the information from previous
studies helped to increase the resource efficiency of the HIA. The building assessment provided
a holistic look at the facility. Known issues were widespread asthma, moisture, mold, nearby air
traffic sources, etc. PowerPoint slides showed the building's cross-section and how all of the
issues inter-relate to one another. For example, water in the tunnels increased the growth of
mold, the mold spores and moisture in the tunnels travels to the upper levels of the building
through via the "chimney" effect (i.e., gaps in the walls of the ceiling and side walls allow for air
to leak out (identified in infrared imaging) which pulls air from the tunnels.
[160]
-------
The 6-day sampling was only a "snapshot" in time. Mold is a problem, but it is not the only
issue in the school. One thing to note is that there is not a boiler room in Tunnel C (as shown in
the slides) but a heat exchanger room. Changing the air pressure flow may not be possible due to
the design of the building. Fixing the air pressure gradient can be done, especially if a quality
assurance person is there to make sure efforts are worthwhile (i.e., everything is done completely
and do not lead to other issues). As seen in the pressure mapping, air moves from the tunnels to
the pods (chimney effect). Anything carried in the air in the tunnels, such as mold spores, can
get to the pods via the air pressure gradient. Air sealing will cause air to stop moving to the
pods. PERM should focus on areas where mold is seen and smelled. As long as water is coming
in, mold will continue to grow. There is some impact that occurs when kids come in a see mold
(i.e., impact on perceptions). Deep cleaning everywhere in the building may not be as impactful
in this regard. We suggest a focused cleaning effort.
The Predicted Health Impacts:
The impacts were rated in a way that the community and other stakeholders can understand. The
HIA Team took the health impacts and values and added considerations for cost, timing,
operation and management, etc. Then categorized them based on short-term, near-term, and long
term timing of implementation. The immediate action items are considered "low-hanging fruit"
or easily and less costly to fix. You still need to have someone who is an expert in quality
assurance or in a comprehensive oversight role present while these actions are being
implemented. As one moves down the list, complexity increases, money requirements increase,
and timing required for planning increases. PERM already tried upgrading the air intake filters,
but the new filters were not compatible (did not function well) with the existing system. It is
important to note that the AHUs were built into the building, so replacing them and/or moving
them will be a huge undertaking.
These recommendations regarding the cosmetics of the building and targeting the tunnels and
exterior of the building will improve the aesthetics of the building. Anything that will help make
it look better, feel better, smell better, etc. (e.g., provide "eye candy") will help improve
perceptions. However, the community has to see the change in order to react to it.
There is a collaborative opportunity for PERM and EPA to put a factsheet together with the
information on what needs to be done, like a checklist, that the community can follow and check
off- improves accountability and visibility that change is occurring. PERM can put a poster with
a to do list up in the tunnels when kids leave for summer, then when kids come back, they can
see what's been checked off.
There has been a lot of work on asthma in the community and Gerena has been a model for
controlling asthma exposures in school (e.g., anti-idling zones, nurses' data and asthma
[161]
-------
management plans). PERM will make a factsheet about challenges for renovations, funding, and
upcoming projects to show that PERM is taking the information gleaned from the HIA and using
it. PBRM's goal is to improve the learning environment, regardless of future plans of the
building.
Discussion of HIA Report:
PERM has not had enough time to go through the (draft) HIA Report yet.
Next steps in HIA process:
The meeting with the City Mayor is scheduled in mid-September (Thursday 25, 2014). Thus, the
community meting was to occur late September or early October (October 22, 2014). Emily can
help set up this meeting.
Value of HIA in Springfield and Lessons Learned Action Items:
The City's Perspective is that there is an issue with the recommendations for future study. The
City was waiting on the HIA to determine if air intakes needed to be moved. But, the HIA did
not determine/provide this information. However, what the HIA did with the onsite diagnostics
was very helpful.
End.
[162]
-------
Appendix B. RESES Proposal for the HIA
* The RESES proposal for the HIA was developed using the RESES guidelines and includes
information used in the deliberations for selecting the proposal.
Region 1 Regional Sustainable Environmental Science (RESES) Proposal
1. Project Overview
1.1. Project Title:
A Health Impact Assessment (HIA) in a Springfield, MA, an Environmental Justice (EJ)
Community Elementary School to Evaluate Proposed Remediation Scenarios for Indoor Sources
and Near-Roadway Transportation Exposures
German Gerena Community School
Department of Parks, Buildings and Recreation Management
City of Springfield, Massachusetts
1.2. Regional partner:
MaryBeth Smuts, Ph.D.
Office of Ecosystem Protection (OEP),
Region 1 (New England)
smuts.marybeth@epa.gov
617-918-1512
George Frantz
Office of Environmental Stewardship
(OES), Region 1 (New England)
frantz.george@epa.gov
617-918-1883
1.3. ORD partner:
Valerie Zartarian, Ph.D.
Sustainable and Healthy Communities,
Office of Research and Development (ORD)
(SHC) research program
zartarian.valerie@epa.gov
617-918-1541
Florence Fulk
National Exposure Research Laboratory
(NERL), ORD
fulk.florence@epa.gov
513-569-7379
[163]
-------
Appendix B. RESES Proposal for the HIA
1.4. Other partners: Note: None of these will be considered for funding.
Springfield: City of Springfield Departments, such as Springfield Department of Parks,
Buildings and Recreation Management (PERM), Springfield Public Schools Department, and
Springfield Health Department; Partners for a Healthier Community, Inc., Baystate Children's
Hospital and community groups such as the School Committee, Springfield Education
Association (SEA), North End Organizing Network (NEON), New North Citizen's Council, and
Pioneer Valley Asthma Coalition (PVAC).
State of MA: Department of Public Health (MA DPH), Environmental Protection (MA DEP),
Education and Transportation
Region 1: OEP, OES, and Region I Lab
ORD: ORD scientists in SHC's Community Public Health, Environmental Justice, Children's
Health, and Transportation projects; ORD air modeler and measurement researchers in the Air,
Climate, and Energy (ACE) program and indoor environments program at the National Risk
Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL).
Other: Potential involvement of EPA Office of Air and Radiation (OAR), U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Department of Transportation (DOT), and Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
1.5. Proposed project start/end date:
August, 2012 to July, 2013 * with some potential for follow-up after remediations. * One year
HIA project is critical for city and community engagement and to be responsive to stakeholders'
needs.
2. Project Background
2.1. Regional Problem the Project Will Address
The City of Springfield, MA is an environmental justice community and a focus of the Pioneer
Valley Geographic Initiative within Region 1 (New England)'s coordinated communities
program. The German Gerena Community School was built over 30 years ago in a Hispanic
neighborhood that was split in two by the construction of the Interstate 91. The school was
constructed partially beneath an 1-91 overpass with a community tunnel pathway/mall, swimming
pool and community center within the school connecting the two neighborhoods. Over time, the
school and its community linkage areas have deteriorated due to fires, floods, vandalism, water
intrusion and vibration from the highway and rail line. It has extremely high maintenance for
multiple storm, sewage and water pumps and heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC)
systems.
Springfield is one of MA's five hotspots for high pediatric asthma rates. In the 2007-2008
reporting from school nurses to MA Department of Public Health, Gerena's 760 students had a
21.3% prevalence rate compared to the state's average rate of 10.8%. The Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has been working closely with the PVAC to reduce asthma severity in
the area and assisting PERM to evaluate indoor air quality and energy efficiency in the schools.
The City is already heavily involved in remedial action at the school to address issues of poor or
inadequate ventilation and moisture and mold, and has recently proposed to spend over $2
million in renovation projects related to air intakes close to the highway deck, air intakes
[164]
-------
Appendix B. RESES Proposal for the HIA
adjacent to freight rail lines at a distance of < 50 meters, and moisture getting inside the school in
several areas.
The community and city stakeholders have requested EPA support to understand which
renovations could be most successful in reducing health impacts, considering total costs and
benefits. Region 1 is interested in extending previous efforts in Springfield, and in integrating
health impact assessment into the PBRM's assessment of repairs and their costs, in collaboration
with ORD.
2.2 Other work
Springfield Partners for Healthier Community, a local non-profit, is currently working with EPA
on an ongoing Community Action for a Renewed Environment (CARE) level 1 project, the goal
of which is to determine, evaluate and quantify environmental risks to the community, and begin
the process of recommending feasible solutions to the most pressing problems. The project has
nearly completed its second year, and requested a no-cost extension, which will extend the
project until September 30, 2013.
SHC researchers have previously collaborated with Region 1 and Springfield, MA to pilot the
Community-Focused Exposure and Risk Screening Tool (C-FERST)
(http://www.epa.gov/heasd/c-ferst) for identifying and prioritizing issues of concern. This
project would extend the collaboration to focus on an HIA for this school renovation. Tools and
data used for this project could be incorporated into the C-FERST HIA Roadmap for other
communities to consider for potential solutions and best practices for transportation and
buildings-related HIAs. The methods and tools used to develop the model to assess impacts of
outdoor and indoor pollution sources on health and evaluation of various remediations estimated
reductions in health impacts might be used by other schools near transportation sources. This
project will also provide experience to EPA in conducting HIAs and communicating the results
to a variety of audiences ranging from the community to the Massachusetts School Building
Authority.
Additionally, this will be an opportunity for ORD's SHC group to demonstrate their commitment
to working with regional and community partners to provide technical scientific assistance for
time-sensitive community-based projects.
2.3 Objectives
The primary objective of the proposed project is a fully developed HIA that examines the health,
environmental, and economic impacts of the planned PERM school renovation options being
considered by the city. Although the specific questions of the HIA will have to be determined
with the stakeholders, both the City and community, the decisions on remediation must be made
quickly and neither group has evaluated the health impacts of each of the sources or subsequent
remediation. Another objective is producing generalizable tools and approaches to conduct
HIAs that other communities can use for sustainable solutions and to generalize lessons learned
regarding previous school siting and potential remediations.
The school is a contentious issue for the community and the city. Many parents blame the school
conditions for causing or aggravating their children's asthma and do not think repairs are actually
[165]
-------
Appendix B. RESES Proposal for the HIA
being done. Part of the split Hispanic community views the school renovation studies as a tactic
to justify the need for a new school. The community knows that under the current MA
guidelines for school reimbursements, if a new school were proposed, the community would lose
their swimming pool, daycare, health and community meeting space.
The primary criterion for success of this project is that the HIA influences the actions taken to
improve air quality at the Gerena School, with the expectations that those actions would reduce
asthma. Evaluation of a successful project will also be that the range of audiences from
community residents to school building authority understands the reasons for the remediation
decisions.
Another objective is to provide student and community education on air pollution (inside and
out), scientific methods to assess its impacts and on comprehensive asthma triggers.
3. Approaches
Planned Research to be Conducted (Note: This will need to be discussed with the Community
Stakeholders during the HIA Scoping Process. It is assumed that at least one stakeholder will
bring up school replacement for the HIA to consider. The city will address that responsibility in
their long range planning. Repairs still must continue to be evaluated since it is estimated to
take 10 years for planning, funding and construction of anew school and the old school must
continue to operate until then.)
The following approaches will be employed in this project:
o Health Impact Assessment: approaches a) and b) are essentially the data collection
portion of the HIA
a. Indoor Environments Assessment of Air, Mold, Moisture, and Health Data
b. Outdoor Air Monitoring and Impact Assessment on Indoor Air
c. Assessment of Health Impacts from Remediation Strategies
3.1 Health Impact Assessment
The project hinges on the development of a Health Impact Assessment (HIA) that examines each
proposed remediation scenario based on its estimated impact on health of the students and school
staff. There are several steps in developing an HIA that will be followed. The screening step,
that determines if a health assessment will add value to choices made in selecting repair options
to remediate the school, has already been conducted to initiate this RESES proposal. During the
scoping process, all of the stakeholders should participate in order to clarify and include their
concerns. The collection of the data and its analysis will determine if inclusion is feasible.
Sampling the indoor air and outdoor air monitoring are essentially the data collection and
analysis portions of the HIA. The report will detail the extent of health impacts that each
remediation option will provide.
Each step of the HIA requires extensive communication to gain input and acceptance from the
stakeholders. Documentation will provide information that will inform each step and will also
be used to assist other HIA projects.
A. Scoping.
The scoping step requires participation and input of the stakeholders to incorporate their
[166]
-------
Appendix B. RESES Proposal for the HIA
concerns regarding the school's status and repairs. This proposal is designed to address the
known concerns but stakeholders may provide others. To the greatest extent possible, all
concerns will be addressed since this project is designed as a community partnership.
The CDC will provide a funded vehicle for the HIA technical contractor from the National
Network of Public Health Institutes, which will provide the following deliverables for the whole
project:
• assist in convening the stakeholders
• assist in facilitating an interactive workshop
• assistance in selection of the scoping pathway
• provide advice and consultation on data
• assistance in developing a plan to integrate health into the environmental data, and
• assistance in developing a communication plan by providing models and templates.
In addition to the CDC-funded partner, there will be technical support provided by a NERL
contractor who will assist in convening the stakeholders and provide support for documentation.
This support for the whole project is estimated to be 550 hours for $20,000, which will provide
technical writing, assistance in literature review and support for the communication pieces.
A full time Association of Schools of Public Health (ASPH) Fellow with NERL will also assist
in convening the stakeholders and documenting each step as a case study for use in C-FERST.
Region I will work on convening the stakeholders and developing an agenda for the first scoping
session. This step will require extensive time in communicating with individual stakeholders on
the purpose and intent of the project and meeting. This scoping step will require the assistance
of staff from the Regional Alternative Dispute resolution team and the project's Regional leads.
Documentation of these steps may be also filmed by the Regional media team.
B. Preliminary Collection and Analysis of Data
Region 1 staff, assisted by stakeholders, will collect and review current data, such as city and
state monitoring information by MA DEP, evaluation of general National-scale Air Toxics
Assessment volatile organic compounds modeling data, truck and traffic counts on roadways,
train schedules and type of background and other sources' emissions. Indoor data will be
evaluated, such as the MA DPH indoor sampling and school reports, EPA's Indoor Air Quality
Tools for Schools inventory of indoor sources and data from the school's contractors. Analysis
and other data collection will be described under the separate sections 3.2 and 3.3 for each
approach.
C. Presentation of Findings
Throughout the course of the project, there must be continual communication with stakeholders.
Regional staff, in consultation with the HIA contractors, NERL, and ASPH Fellow, will develop
the best vehicle for communication to the stakeholders, such as a website, newsletters or
factsheets or smaller community meetings in additions to the three main HIA meetings.
There will be a mid-course full meeting of stakeholders to provide an update on the status of the
[167]
-------
Appendix B. RESES Proposal for the HIA
analysis. The presentation of findings and recommendations at a meeting seeking stakeholders'
input will be in late spring. The final report will be developed after that input. All those
involved in the HIA will contribute to the development of the presentation and final report.
3.2. Collection and Analysis of Indoor Air, Mold, Moisture, and Health Data
A. Collection and Analysis of Available Health Data
The Springfield school system must decide if it will release health data from an individual
school. The school nurses who collect the information report to the Springfield Department of
Education. The School System Physician, Dr. Matt Sadof, will work to assist EPA in obtaining
school approval since EPA was a partial funder of the school system obtaining asthma school
champions and increasing asthma action plans from asthmatic students.
• Aggregate information obtained for the school will be: number of students with asthma as
a diagnosis, number of asthma action plans, number of asthma treatments. The number
of absences can be obtained but it is not related to any health reasons.
• From the MA Department of Education, the school performance scores can be obtained
for past years.
• All of the above data can be obtained and potentially provided to EPA without accessing
individual student records.
• Dr. Sadof will assist EPA in obtaining a third party data exemption.
B. Collection and Analysis of Mold Data
In this component of the RESES Region 1 study, the level and extent of the mold problems will
be mapped in the school and associated tunnel. In order to identify and quantify the mold
problems in the school, NRMRL researchers will use a DNA-based method of analysis called
mold specific quantitative PCR (MSQPCR). To perform MSQPCR, settled dust is collected, the
DNA is extracted, and 36 indicator mold species are quantified in each sample (Vesper et al.,
2007). These 36 molds include 26 Group 1 molds that indicate water-damage and 10 Group 2
species that are commonly found, even without water damage. The concentrations of these 36
molds are mathematically combined to provide a single value called the Environmental Relative
Moldiness Index (ERMI) value. ERMI was created by the EPA, with assistance from HUD.
The ERMI scale ranges from approximately -10 to 20 (low to high). The upper quartile (highest
mold contamination quartile) starts at an ERMI value of approximately 5 (Vesper et al., 2007).
The German Gerena Community School contains three floors and a tunnel system. It is proposed
to obtain seven settled dust samples on each floor and in the tunnel. Selection of the sites for
sampling will be done after the continuous relative humidity and temperature readings
throughout the school. Collection of the samples will be done with appropriate safety equipment
and may be collected by the NRMRL Indoor Environments technical lead.
The samples will be collected using a Swiffer Duster™ to wipe the surfaces like tops of light
fixtures, bookcases, and doors, etc. (i.e., areas not normally cleaned). The Swiffer Duster™ will
be placed in a sealable bag and sent to the EPA laboratory for ERMI analysis.
Quantification and mapping of the ERMI values will be performed for the German Gerena
Community School. This should inform the priority selection for remediation. Based on the
[168]
-------
Appendix B. RESES Proposal for the HIA
NRMRL Indoor Environments technical lead's past experience working in schools, we expect to
be able to locate areas in the school and tunnel that are impacted by mold. By mapping the
relative ERMI values major sources of mold will be located. This understanding should
contribute to the prioritization of the remediation plans. It also might help in the containment of
the various areas of the school during the remediation to reduce the possible spread of the mold
during remediation. With this data collection and mapping, remediation efforts to remove mold
damage can be prioritized. Although this HIA project is projected to end within a year, there are
follow-ups which could add value, such as repeating the sampling after the school renovations.
It is expected that effectiveness of remediations on reducing the mold burden in the school can
be evaluated.
C. Collection and Analysis of Moisture Data- Relative Humidity and Temperature
Preliminary indications suggest that water infiltration into the school and the resulting increase in
unfavorable relative humidity is of primary concern. This is true on both a human comfort level
as well as high levels setting the stage for increased mold occurrence. Therefore, a primary
component of the study will be a saturated monitoring program in which continuous relative
humidity and temperature sensors will be positioned throughout the building components. This
data collection may be performed by the school contractors and may be directed by a NRMRL
contractor. To the greatest extent possible, data collection periods will be performed seasonally
to capture potential HVAC changes and their impacts on indoor relative humidity and heating
during cooling and heating seasons.
School-hired contractors are currently working with numerous agencies, such as the MA DOT,
the City Department of Public Works and the Utilities to determine the sources and locations of
rain, storm and ground water entering the school. These school contractors will use dyes in
several locations to determine the specific location and entrance of water into the school. The
NRMRL technical lead for Indoor Environments will work with the school contractors to
determine the need and location of relative humidity and temperature monitoring. This
collaboration will also inform the location of the mold sampling. Analysis of this moisture and
mold data will determine what type of remediation is needed for the various sources of moisture.
It will also be used to evaluate if dehumidification should be added to the HVAC system. The
NRMRL technical lead will assist the city contractors on that issue.
D. Collection and Analysis of Indoor Air Pollutants and Other Environmental Data
Based on evaluation of the school's current data, such as the Indoor Air Quality Tools for
Schools (TfS) inventory, use of pesticides and cleaners and scoping concerns, the plan for
monitoring of indoor air pollutants will be determined. If a TfS inventory and checklists has not
been fully compiled for the year, the stakeholders along with Regional staff will assist the school
in implementing TfS. It is known that the PERM has set policies that identified and established
how to handle any asbestos and lead within the building. All activities in the buildings follow
lead regulations and treat discarded building material as if polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
were present. Indoor pest managment and green cleaners are used. Therefore, it is expected that
major indoor pollutants for the HIA would be from combustion sources, such as those used in
heating and in the cafeteria, some cleaners, and chlorine used to treat the swimming pool. The
major indoor pollutants are expected to be nitrogen dioxides and oxides, particulate matter and
chlorine and its breakdown products. Equipment and analysis of these pollutants may be
[169]
-------
Appendix B. RESES Proposal for the HIA
performed by the school contractors, along with the assistance of a NRMRL technical contractor
and a graduate student. Some equipment and real time analysis for pollutants may be available
but some equipment for nitrogen oxides and chlorine and byproducts may be needed.
The school represents a probable multi-zonal air exchange rate facility. This is because its
campus consists of multiple buildings, some of which are underground or protected from direct
wind effects (e.g. under highway thoroughfares). It is expected that the patchwork of HVAC
systems and the nature of the building locations play an unknown role in the uniformity of air
exchange within the buildings. Understanding such air filtration characterization represents key
information relative to good indoor air quality principles. Air leak rate (ALR) tests such as
pressurized door tests may be used to evaluate how well sealed the buildings are. Blower door
testing may not be feasible since currently the building envelope has numerous leaks. The
NRMRL technical contractor will determine if it would provide necessary information as to
determine if the tunnel was sealed from the school buildings although the school contractors
stated that it is operating independently from the school buildings. Airflow and leakage will use
PFT tubes to understand the air exchange.
The NRMRL technical contractor will collaborate with the school contractors as to evaluating
the performance of the HVAC system. The school contractors have been analyzing the air
delivery of the current HVAC system and estimating its length of reliable service. There are at
least 27 air handling systems within the buildings and tunnel. Each system will be reanalyzed by
the school contractor so this is an appropriate time for involvement of the NRMRL contractor.
Various filtration devices will be evaluated to determine if the air handlers can perform with
higher grade filters. Another remediation may be to evaluate if different treatment methods may
be used on the swimming pool to eliminate pool chemical pollutants. It is expected that the
NRMRL technical contractor will be able to assist the school contractors.
3.3. Outdoor Air Monitoring and Impact Assessment on Indoor Air
Although this task will not be funded sufficiently to provide for a true source apportionment,
investigation on nearby combustion source influence on indoor air quality, it is extremely high
probability that truck and train combustion sources are infiltrating the school. This likelihood is
based on recent EPA and non-EPA near road research that indicates that local transportation
emission sources have an impact on local air quality up to distances of 300 meters for some
constituents with the greatest impact often isolated to the first 100 meters distance from near
transportation sources. There are several known outdoor sources adjacent to the school: traffic
from the roadways, especially 1-91 with its diesel traffic, a diesel rail line less than 50 meters
from the school facing the majority of the air handlers, and background sources of an industrial
city.
Monitoring the impacts of outdoor sources and their impacts on indoor levels would be done by a
graduate student under the supervision of an academic professor who has experience in source
monitoring and along with evaluating health impacts. With academic and NERL supervision,
the student will monitor real time particulate matter (PM2.s) simultaneously at inside and outside
locations, and if possible black carbon. Nitrogen oxides will also be sampled but over a multiday
time frame both inside and outside from various locations to determine the source of the
pollutant. Correlation with diesel truck traffic and train schedules will be used to estimate the
[170]
-------
Appendix B. RESES Proposal for the HIA
source location and time of impact on the school. The MA DEP monitors in Springfield will
provide background information. Also, some site-specific as well as area-wide meteorological
data will be used to interpret the monitoring data. Some seasonal variation monitoring may be
done. Measurements of these particular pollutants provide insight not only as to the general
states of ambient air outside the school but indoor measurements will provide for a general
understanding on the degree of infiltration.
Based on locally done and published studies, it is proposed that source contribution can be
modeled or provide some insight to estimate indoor air. (Some references for the modeling: Hsu
et al. (2012) "The relationship between aviation activities and ultrafme particulate matter
concentrations near a mid-sized airport," Atmos Envir 50: 328-337; Zwack et al (2011)
"Modeling spatial patterns of traffic-related air pollutants in complex urban terrain," Envir
Health Perspect 119: 852-859; Baxter et al (2007) "Predictors of concentrations of nitrogen
dioxide, fine parti culate matter, and particle constituents inside of lower socioeconomic status
urban homes," J Expo Sci Envir Epidemiol 17: 433-44; Hahn et al (2009) Characterization of
traffic-related PM concentration distribution and fluctuation patterns in near highway urban
residential street canyons," JEnvir Monit 11: 2136-2145; and Clougherty et al (2011) "Source
apportionment of indoor residential fine parti culate matter using land use regression and
constrained factor analysis," Indoor Air 21: 53-66.)
A graduate student under the supervision of an academic, ORD experts and Regional staff will
be assigned to conduct this modeling using available data.
3.4. Assessment of Health Impacts from Remediation Strategies
Scenarios using potential abatements will also be evaluated. Some of those remediations
evaluated will be filtration, change of intake locations and effect of trees and barriers on source
reduction into intakes. Potentially, MA DOT might assist in monitoring the rail operation since
the majority of the air intakes face the tracks and their assistance with potential remediation will
be needed.
Evaluating the health impacts, primarily on asthma outcomes (such as nurse visits or modeled
lung function), will rely on estimates and event simulation modeling. This type of modeling,
although new, has been used to evaluate building interventions in residential settings and can be
modified to predict school spaces. (J. Levy, unpublished studies).
4. Confounders and Citizen-science Outreach
Stakeholders, with assistance from Region 1 staff and ORD scientists, will evaluate some of the
confounders for an asthma-based school study, such as the locations and conditions of students'
homes. In addition to the ongoing CARE level 1 project, a Region I project in this Springfield
neighborhood has been funded by the EJ Small Grants program to establish neighborhood based
Environmental Action Councils to collect and educate the community on air pollution and to take
action to reduce the pollution. Either the EJ Small Grants project or this proposal will evaluate
ORD new approach of encouraging citizen-science research using available monitors. Activities
on this proposal will include education for community residents as well as Gerena School
students, faculty, and staff concerning the types of air pollution, impacts on health, and the steps
planned to improve respiratory health in the home, school, and community. Stakeholders and
[171]
-------
Appendix B. RESES Proposal for the HIA
scientists will be involved in developing the modules.
5. Resources Needed
Quality Assurance: This project will produce one or more Quality Assurance Project Plans
(QAPPS) as appropriate within 90 days of project approval, as specified in the RESES
requirements.
4.1. Monetary Extramural Resources for:
A. HIA- no QAPPS expected
o CDC-funded HIA technical partner for assistance with scoping, consultation, and
communication services from August through November 2012 with possible no-cost
extension.
o NERL technical contractor- supervised by Florence Fulk in NERL, 550 hours, plus
deliverables of documentation and final report
o NERL/ASPH Fellow-supervision by Valerie Zartarian and assistance by Region 1
staff from September 2012 to September 2013
B. Indoor Environments Assessment- QAPPS expected
o NRMRL lead- mold assessment performed in-house by Steven Vesper in NRMRL
from September 2012 to post-HIA, QAPP prepared
o NRMRL technical contractor- supervised by NRMRL from September 2012 to
January 2013, work with school's contractors on HVAC performance and moisture
assessment
C. Outdoor Air Monitoring and Assessment of Impacts to Indoor Air and Health- QAPPS
expected
o Graduate student- student services contract vehicle supervised by Clyde Owens in
NRMRL, from September 2012 to June 2013
• The student will have an MS in Environmental Health Science and be
accepted into the PhD. Program. The student must be based in a School of
Public Health or University within a two-hour drive of Springfield (most
likely Boston), based at Boston University School of Public Health, Harvard
School of Public Health, or Tufts School of Public Health. Although, there
may be applicants from University of Massachusetts-Amherst or Yale
University.
• The student must be working under the supervision of an academic faculty
member who has experience in air pollution monitoring, source
apportionment or attribution, using a systems approach to evaluating the
impacts on indoor environments and health parameters.
• QAPPS will be developed by student and assisted by NRMRL.
4.2. Equipment, Analysis, Travel, Contracts, and Oversight Provided by NRMRL
This is dependent on selection of graduate student and sampling needs.
Travel is dependent on technical contractors and NRMRL assistance.
There should be potential to shift funds between contractors, if needed through the general
[172]
-------
Appendix B. RESES Proposal for the HIA
contract.
Anticipated Oversight: 2.75 Full Time Equivalents (FTE) for one year.
o 0.75 from Region 1 and 2 from ORD (across multiple SHC and ACE projects)
o Note: ORD Team members, roles, and available FTE will need to be discussed in the
Labs if this proposal is selected. Success of the project depends in part on available
FTE and commitment from all team members.
5. Specific Proposed Tasks for Region, ORD, and Contractors (also outlined in approach
sections)
5.1. Region 1 Staff Responsibilities
Region 1 in-house FTE will be used for project management and coordination, community
outreach, contractor technical direction, community liaison, community presentations and
communication materials, and FQA input.
5.2. ORD Staff Responsibilities
ORD in-house FTE will be used for project management and coordination, prepare funding
vehicles, modeling, monitoring, data analysis, contractor management and technical direction,
publications, HIA input (assuming support and potential FTE reallocation from ORD Labs if full
proposal accepted).
5.3. Extramural Responsibilities
Secure extramural funding for air monitoring/modeling student contractors and an HIA technical
partner.
6. Project's Demonstration of EPA Researcher Capabilities
This proposal fits into multiple parts of the major research areas in the ORD's SHC plan,
including data and tools to support community decisions; forecasting and assessing community
health; near-term approaches for sustainable solutions; and integrated solutions through actual
community case studies (focusing on the transportation and buildings/infrastructure sectors).
The ORD lead partners are initiating a cross-EPA HIA workgroup and have taken HIA training.
They will manage HIA technical contractors and connect the research needs for the buildings and
transportation sector-focused HIAs to expertise in the SHC Community Public Health,
Environmental Justice, Children's Health, and Transportation projects, and to ORD air modeler
and measurement researchers in ACE program. Other proposed ORD leads on this project have
expertise in school assessments, and conducting air monitoring and modeling for near-roadway
and indoor air pollutants.
This proposed work directly supports SHC Community Public Health Project Task 2.2.1.6
focused on HIA case studies, but would require collaborations among various EPA and external
partners.
7. Detailed Project Timeline
Project Duration: 1 year (August 2012 to July 2013)
To be useful to the City and community stakeholders, the HIA would need to be completed by
July 2013, so findings and recommendations could be integrated with the PERM'S assessment of
[173]
-------
Appendix B. RESES Proposal for the HIA
the building, and included in the next round of school renovations.
Note: A one-year HIA project is critical for city and community engagement, and to be
responsive to stakeholder needs.
Additionally, this will be an opportunity for ORD's Healthy Communities group to demonstrate
their commitment to working with regional and community partners to provide technical
scientific assistance for time-sensitive community-based projects.
• July-August, 2012 full proposals approved by OKD
o conference call to finalize team members and roles, FTE commitments, timeline
o consult with HSRO on asthma analysis using data on asthma prevalence and
school nurse visits
• September-October 2012 extramural vehicles prepared
o Early-September: team conference call to review progress and logistics for
meetings with partners/stakeholders
o HIA scoping with partners and develop HIA data collection
o Work with school contractors on data needs
o Communicate air and mold monitoring plans to partners and stakeholders
o Communicate modeling & assessment plans to partners and stakeholders
o Mid to late-October: team conference call to address feedback
o Late-October: HIA progress briefing for Rl/ORD management
• November-January 2012 data collection
o Collect and analyze asthma data
o Conduct air monitoring
o Conduct mold sampling
o Prepare model for assessment phase
o Mid-November: team conference call to review progress
o Mid-December: team conference call to review progress
o Mid-January: team conference call to review progress
o Mid-January: site visit/conference call to touch base with partners along with
ongoing with ongoing communication
o Late-January: progress briefing for Rl/ORD management
• February-April 2013 analysis of data and modeling
o Assessment phase of HIA
o Mid-April: site visit/conference call to touch base with partners
o Late-April: progress briefing for Rl/ORD management
• May-July 2013 communicate findings and recommendations to
partners and then stakeholders
o Address feedback and respond
o July: final briefing for Rl/ORD management
o Rl/ORD final report and presentations
• July 2013-July 2014 prepare research manuscripts for publication
• Post-July 2014 follow-up monitoring and evaluations after some
remediation measures in place
[174]
-------
Appendix B. RESES Proposal for the HIA
8. Expected Results
8.1. Anticipated End-products
The primary end-product will be an HIA report assessing the proposed Springfield, MA
remediations of the Gerena Community School, completed and reflecting collaborative input
from the community and city with assistance from Region 1, ORD, and HIA consultants. The
end-products will help Region 1 support the Springfield, MA city and community directly by
providing an HIA analysis of proposed remediation scenarios to reduce health impacts such as
childhood asthma. The project will help prioritize the repairs based on feasibility and health
benefits.
8.2. Use of End-products
The Springfield Department of Parks, Buildings and Recreation Management will use the results
to prioritize their repairs. We anticipate that the community and city might accept the results as
being practical and benefit the students and performance of the school. The city will use the
results to present their long term projected repairs and use of the school to the MA School
Building Authority.
The community will accept and potentially utilize HIA to resolve other air pollution issues
within the county, such as in permitting of biomass facilities.
Since there are other schools within Springfield and hundreds across the Region that are near
roadways, these studies evaluating sources and health impacts to evaluate remediation methods
would provide information to other schools where health is impacted by transportation and
indoor air sources.
8.3. Dissemination of End-products
The project results, disseminated through journal publications, presentations, videos, and the C-
FERST HIA roadmap, would provide useful, generalizable information that could be applied for
HIAs in other Regions regarding renovations and remediations of near transportation sources in
EJ communities.
Locally, the results as video, slides, and reports will be presented to numerous audiences from
community groups, city officials and voters to the state School Building authority that funds
renovations and new construction.
It is expected that the end product will be presented as a case study, in video, web based and
written format, to be used to present the steps of an HIA, as well as how to prioritize school
repairs. Also, the lesson learned in community involvement will inform the Regions on how to
engage communities in HIAs.
End.
[175]
-------
Appendix C. Reports Included in Technical Review of Previous
Investigations at Gerena and Original Proposed Renovations
Reports Included in Technical Review of Previous Investigations at Gerena
Source1
Springfield, MA Department of
Parks, Buildings, and
Recreation Management
O'Reilly, Talbot & Okun
Engineering Associates
RDK Engineers
Simpson Gumpertz & Heger
Timothy Murphy Architects
1 All technical reports reviewed
Department of Parks, Buildings
Date of Release
April 6, 2012
Document Title
German Gerena Community School
Building Environmental Review Poster
Series
Industrial Hygiene Assessment Services
Report, Gerena Community School
German Gerena Community School
HVAC Study, Springfield, MA
Tunnel Leakage Investigation, German
Gerena School, Springfield, MA
Phase 1 Investigation Report, German
Gerena School, Springfield, MA Tunnel
and Air Quality Study
by EPA and contractors were provided by the City of Springfield
and Recreation Management (PERM).
June 19,2012
August 23, 2012
August 24, 2012
August 28, 2012
[176]
-------
Appendix C. Reports Included in Technical Review of Previous Investigations at Gerena and Original Proposed Renovations
Original Proposed Renovations
Note: PBRM's permission to review and document information from the Building Poster Series was acquired, but then later retracted.
Table 1. Proposed renovations from the Industrial Hygiene
Issue"
Assessment (O'Reilly, Talbot & Okun Engineering June 19,
Proposed Renovation Optionb Responsible
Party
2012)
Pre-HIA
Progress
A report of concern was filed with the COS regarding
Room 208 (Developmental/Pre-K classroom) regarding
safety of occupancy.
Results: The building areas assessed (Room 208/209)
were determined to have indoor air quality data that was
within recommended standards and therefore acceptable
for occupancy.
There were two areas noted to have evidence of minor to
moderate water infiltration: the second floor hallway
ceiling where several suspended ceiling tiles were
observed with minor water staining, and Pod IOC where
carpet and resilient floor tile staining was observed.
Visible evidence of water infiltration was observed in the
Mall Tunnel areas A, B, C.
See above.
1. Inform the occupants of the building
the results of the industrial hygiene
sampling.
2. Eliminate water and accumulation
of moisture from entering the
building. Continue investigations in
to the source (s) of water
infiltration, and implement
necessary repairs and upgrades as
needed. [Recommendation #2]
3. Remove and discard porous
building materials that have been
wet for greater than 48-hours and
not professionally dried and cleaned
or show visible evidence of mold
growth.
City of
Springfield
Item
completed
(2012).
City of
Springfield
Not yet
completed.
Gerena
Maint. Staff
On-going
[177]
-------
Appendix C. Reports Included in Technical Review of Previous Investigations at Gerena and Original Proposed Renovations
Issue3
See above.
Proposed Renovation Option11
Responsible
Party
4. Consider using building materials
that are not affected by water or
moisture (i.e., ceramic tile flooring)
in areas where water infiltration
Gerena
Maint. Staff
Pre-HIA
Progress
On-going
occurs.
Concerns were raised on the air quality of certain areas
within the school. Total particulate data in the spaces
monitored were within EPANAAQS limits. No VOCs
were detected. On average, the temperature and relative
humidity levels throughout the monitored areas were
within the ranges recommended by ASHRAE (Temp. 70-
73°, RH 30-60%).
Continue with efforts to evaluate the
HVAC system to ensure proper
design and distribution (flow,
balancing, fresh air introduction,
etc.) is in place.
Gerena
Maint. Staff
On-going
aExact phrasing from the report is provided in quotations (""). In the absence of quotations, paraphrasing was used.
b Action option number is based on the order in which the item was listed in the report. It does not reflect priority or sequence.
Table 2. Proposed renovations from the HVAC Study (RDK Engineers August 23, 2012)
Issue3
"The school's location greatly limits the amount of fresh,
clean air available to the air handling units. The air
intakes to the air handling equipment should not be
located at or near ground level. Air handling units AC-1
and AC -2 in Building A have intakes in the worst location
under 1-91. The intakes for AC-1 and AC-2 should be
extended to an area that has better air quality, such as
above the roof or out to the parking lot at the end of the
Proposed Renovation Optionb
1 . Relocate fresh air intakes for
Responsible
Party
City of
Pre-HIA
Progress
Not yet
Buildings A and B. Springfield completed.
[178]
-------
Appendix C. Reports Included in Technical Review of Previous Investigations at Gerena and Original Proposed Renovations
Issue3
Proposed Renovation Option11
Responsible
Party
Pre-HIA
Progress
tunnel on the east side of the highway. The intakes for the
air handling units in the five mechanical rooms in
Building B should be swapped with the exhausts. The
swap will require significant ductwork alterations. All of
the supply and return ductwork should be cleaned
thoroughly. However, ductwork should only be cleaned if
the air handling equipment is not going to be replaced
within the next five years. Duct cleaning would need to be
repeated after replacement of air handlers."
"The building's current make up air needs are not met per
the 2009 International Mechanical Code. To satisfy the
intake air needs, the current status of the bypass and
intake air dampers needs to be addressed. It is understood
that the current pneumatic controlled dampers are non-
functioning and frozen in place, which prevents any
modulation."
2. Repair/replacement of fresh air
intake dampers for air handling
equipment.
• Verify proper operation of all
space thermostats. Relocate
thermostats to a location that
provides a more accurate
temperature reading.
• Replace outdoor air/return air
dampers for each air handling
unit.
• Replace existing pneumatic
controls in outdoor air/return air
damper actuators for each air
handling unit. New controls shall
be electric.
• Install control valves at each air
handling unit. Control valves
City of
Springfield
Not yet
completed.
[179]
-------
Appendix C. Reports Included in Technical Review of Previous Investigations at Gerena and Original Proposed Renovations
Issue3
See above.
Proposed Renovation Option11
will have a minimum flow rate
when the outside air temperature
is below 40°F to prevent the
coils from freezing.
Provide a low limit discharge air
temperature (DAT) sensor and
verify that it is operating
properly.
Verify proper night setback
operations.
There is continual presence of moisture and water
intrusion in the interstitial space of Tunnel C (Building
C). "A new exhaust fan and duct system should be
provided for Building C. The exhaust ductwork should
pull air from the maintenance corridor and exhaust it to
the outdoors. This will aid in the improvement of the
indoor air quality. This will also provide pressurization of
the inner occupied tunnel and allow odors in the outer
tunnel to be contained and exhausted to the outdoors."
"The outdoor tunnel shall be sealed off from the inner
tunnel and associated mechanical room."
3. Rebalance system after
replacements/upgrades are
implemented.
4. Install a new exhaust fan and duct
system for Tunnel C interstitial
space, and associated mechanical
room.
5. Seal off outer tunnel C from the
inner tunnel and associated
mechanical room.
Responsible
Party
Gerena
Maint. Staff
City of
Springfield
City of
Springfield
Pre-HIA
Progress
Not yet
completed.
Not yet
completed.
Not yet
completed.
[180]
-------
Appendix C. Reports Included in Technical Review of Previous Investigations at Gerena and Original Proposed Renovations
Issue3
Proposed Renovation Option11
"Indoor air quality needs to be tested by the qualified,
certified professional. A report should then be provided
with further recommendations to alleviate any existing
issues."
"Due to the age of the building and mechanical
equipment, RDK recommends testing for HAZMATs
(i.e., lead paint, asbestos, etc.). This testing needs to be
done prior to any demolition. All testing should be
provided by a qualified and certified professional.
"Due to Gerena's close proximity to 1-91 and the railway
lines, the concern is that it may be experiencing poor air
quality associate with location the existing air handling
equipment. There could be number of the intake air
louvers requiring relocation to alleviate this possible
problem, an outdoor air quality test should be done at
different locations on the school campus. This study
should identify areas surrounding Gerena where the air
may be of better quality. Once these locations are
identified, they would be prime candidates for intake air
louvers. If air quality testing proves that the air quality is
to acceptable standards, the existing intake air louver
locations may remain. If air quality exceeds acceptable
thresholds, the possibility of relocating the intake air
louvers should be explored."
"As there may be areas surrounding the school where
pollutants from highway and railway exhaust tend to
stagnate, a wind study should also be done. Wind will
Contract a qualified, certified
professional to test the indoor air
quality.
9. Conduct a wind study around the
school campus.
Responsible
Party
City of
Springfield
7. Contract a qualified, certified City of
professional to test for Hazardous Springfield
Materials (HAZMATs) prior to any
demolition
8. Conduct an outdoor air quality test Unknown
at different locations on the school
campus, including the current
locations, to investigate optimal
locations for air intake louvers.
Unkown
Pre-HIA
Progress
Elicited EPA
in 2012
Required by
Law. Not yet
completed.
Not yet
completed.
Not yet
completed.
[181]
-------
Appendix C. Reports Included in Technical Review of Previous Investigations at Gerena and Original Proposed Renovations
Issue3
tend to disperse the pooling of pollutants and create areas
where fresher air can be supplied to the school and its
occupants."
"All short term recommendations should be implemented
in addition to the following HVAC replacement
recommendations. [...]
Building A:
The air handling units, return fans, controls, ductwork and
piping should be replaced in their entirety. [...]The intake
louvers shall be removed. New intake ductwork shall
extend to the roof and terminate with a gooseneck a
minimum of 10 feet above the roof. [... ] The AHS have
long supply and return duct runs. All of the supply and
return ductwork shall be cleaned thoroughly. [...]
Building B:
The boilers, associated flue, pumps, piping, and
appurtenances should be replaced in their entirety. [... ]
The refrigerant exhaust fan shall be removed. Ductwork
shall be removed to allow installation of the new exhaust
fan. [... ] The 100% intake unit (located n the boiler room)
shall be replaced in its entirety."
Building C: (report missing pg. 19)
Install new exhaust system in maintenance corridor of
Tunnel C to exhaust air from interstitial space to outside
of building. Seal outer tunnel space from inner tunnel
space [...]
"Building D:
Proposed Renovation Option11
10.Complete comprehensive HVAC
replacement program, including
replacement of all of the existing air
handling units, controls (including
new BMS and plans to expand the
existing BMS), exhaust and return
fans, boilers, pipes, associated
appurtenances (i.e., valves, dampers,
controls, louvers, air separator,
expansion tank, etc.), and
modifications to some of the
mechanical piping and ductwork.
• Include a new energy
management system (EMS)
• Include appropriate airflow
monitoring and temperature
sensors for the new air handling
units.
• Include security measures to
protect equipment and their
appurtenances.
Refer to RDK report
Responsible
Party
Pre-HIA
Progress
City of
Springfield,
with State
assistance
Not yet
completed.
[182]
-------
Appendix C. Reports Included in Technical Review of Previous Investigations at Gerena and Original Proposed Renovations
Issue3
The air handling units, return fans, controls, ductwork,
and piping in both mechanical rooms should be replaced
in their entirety. [...]"
Proposed Renovation Option11
Responsible
Party
Pre-HIA
Progress
aExact phrasing from the report is provided in quotations (""). In the absence of quotations, paraphrasing was used.
b Action option number is based on the order in which the item was listed in the report. It does not reflect priority or sequence.
Table 3. Proposed renovations from the Tunnel Leakage Study (Simpson, Gumpertz & Heger, August 24, 2012)
Issue"
"Water intrusion into the daycare and east end of Tunnel
A is caused y failure of and poor drainage off of the
buried roof membrane above the east entrance of the
tunnel and extending beneath the overpass. The exposed
roof above the entrance requires replacement of the
roofing membrane and installation of new drains. The roof
beneath the overpass, which is sheltered from weather,
should be isolated from the new roof to prevent water
from draining off of the tunnel ceiling and onto the CMU
tunnel walls, which are not waterproofed and leak."
Proposed Renovation Option'
1 .Replace roofing membrane and install
new drains for exposed east end of
Tunnel A (Building A). Isolate the
new roof from the roof beneath the
overpass.
Responsible
Party
"The Tunnel A atrium walls and exit door cause leakage
into the space below. The CMU walls should be overlaid
or repaired with a waterproof membrane, and the door
should be properly flashed by installing a sill plan in the
opening and providing new weather stripping around the
door."
2.Repair concrete masonry unity
(CMU) walls and install a waterproof
membrane, and install a sill pan in the
opening and weather stripping around
the door.
City of
Springfield
City of
Springfield
Pre-HIA
Progress
Not yet
completed.
Not yet
completed.
[183]
-------
Appendix C. Reports Included in Technical Review of Previous Investigations at Gerena and Original Proposed Renovations
Issue3
Proposed Renovation Option11
"Further investigation into wall's interior construction is
needed to determine whether other repairs to the through-
wall flashing are needed and to assess concealed
conditions."
"We were unable to conclusively identify the causes of
leaks into the north wall of the NEON space or from the
metal infill panels beneath duct banks in Tunnel A. Past
leakage has caused significant corrosion of the steel deck
under the duct banks. We suspect that waterproofing is
discontinuous around the duct bank, as seen in Tunnel C."
"Given the difficulty in identifying leakage and likelihood
of additional damage to the membrane caused by
excavation, a repair program short of re-waterproofing the
entire tunnel roof is unlikely to stop all leaks."
"Tunnel C experiences leakage through the chase that
crosses the tunnel near Building B. This chase lacks any
waterproofing and allows significant amounts of water to
enter the tunnel."
3.Further investigate into the wall'
interior construction and assess
conditions and need for repairs.
4.Further investigate the condition of
the waterproof membrane around the
duct bank, including removal of the
additional concrete slab.
5.Develop a comprehensive repair
program that replaces the
waterproofing of the Tunnel A roof,
extending several feet down walls
and beneath duct banks, with addition
of drained backfill.
6.Reconstruct ceiling chase of Tunnel
C, including waterproof membrane.
Responsible
Party
City of
Springfield,
with support
from
Simpson
Gumpertz &
Heger (Phase
2)
COS, with
support from
Simpson
Gumpertz &
Heger (Phase
2)
City of
Springfield,
with
contracted
support
City of
Springfield
Pre-HIA
Progress
Completed
(2012-2013).
Completed
(2012-2013).
Implemen-
tation began
in Sep. 2012-
Not yet
completed.
aExact phrasing from the report is provided in quotations (""). In the absence of quotations, paraphrasing was used.
b Action option number is based on the order in which the item was listed in the report. It does not reflect priority or sequence.
End.
[184]
-------
Appendix D. The [Draft] HIA Communications Plan
Communication Format
1.
5.
7.
HIA flyer (one-pager) for
notifying public of
upcoming HIA meeting at
Gerena Community School
HIA Flyer (same as
above) in Spanish
Calls to Community
Groups for Oct 17 Scoping
Meeting
Presentation to Public on
HIA process and discuss
scoping of assessment
Factsheet for outlining
preliminary results from
data collection and
assessment (i.e., impact
summaries)
Presentation to City to
discuss previously
distributed factsheet
outlining preliminary
results from data collection
and assessment (impact
summaries)
Executive Summary for
communicating overall
findings from the HIA
8. Draft HIA Report
9. Presentation to City to
discuss previously
Target Audience
City of Springfield,
External Stakeholder
Group, General Public
Spanish speaking
community members
External Stakeholder
Group; translation to
Spanish if needed
City of Springfield,
External Stakeholder
Group, General Public
City of Springfield;
later to External
Stakeholder Group and
Public
City of Springfield
Date Due
10/03/12
City of Springfield,
External Stakeholder
Group, General Public
City of Springfield,
later to External
Stakeholder Group and
General Public
City of Springfield
10/03/12
10/16/12
10/17/12
12/5/14
12/9/14
8/6/14
8/6/14
Responsible Party
Draft by G. Frantz and M.
Smuts
Edited by: E. Zimmerman
and Region 1
E. Zimmerman
Reviewed by: Region 1
Office of Regional
Administrator
E. Tonkin, J. Pare, E.
Zimmerman
G. Frantz, V. Zartarian, F.
Fulk, MB. Smuts, J.
Murphy, S. White
Reviewed by: ORE) and
Region 1
HIA Core Group
Reviewed by: ORE) and
Region 1
M. Smuts, G. Frantz, E.
Zimmerman, J. Murphy
8/7/14
HIA Core Group
Reviewed by: ORE) and
Region 1
HIA Core Group
Reviewed by: ORE) and
Region 1
HIA Core Group
[185]
-------
Appendix D. The [Draft] HIA Communications Plan
Communication Format Target Audience Date Due Responsible Party
distributed Executive Reviewed by: ORD and
Summary Region 1
10. Presentation to Public City of Springfield, To Be HIA Core Group
discussing assessment External Stakeholder Determined Reviewed by: ORD and
findings, Executive Group, General Public Region 1
Summary, and preliminary
recommendations
11. Final HIA Report City of Springfield, 8/30/14 fflA Core Group
External Stakeholder Reviewed by: ORD and
Group, General Public Region 1 and External
Peer-Reviewer
End.
[186]
-------
Appendix E. Documentation of HIA Communication Materials
HIA Kickoff Meeting Flyer (English; October 2012)
U.S. EPA New England
HEALTH IMPACT
ASSESSMENT
US EPA Health Impact Assessment
at the Gerena School, Springfield MA
.S. EPA | UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
KEY CONTACTS:
EMILY ZIMMERMAN
EPA New England
Community /nvolvement
Coordinator
(617) 918-1037
zimmerman.emily@epa.gov
MARYBETH SMUTS
EPA New England
Air Toxicolagist
(617) 918-1512
smuts.marxbeth@epa.gov
GEORGE FRANTZ
EP4 New England
State Assistance Programs
Coordinator
(617) 918-1883
frantz.george@epa.gov
GENERAL INFO:
EPA NEW ENGLAND
5 Post Office Square
Suite 100
Boston, MA 02109-3912
(617) 918-1111
www.epa.gov/region1/
EPA TOLL-FREE
CUSTOMER SERVICE
1-888-EPA-7341
LEARN MORE AT;
www.epa.gov/region1
HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT (HIA)
The US EPA will conduct a Health Impact Assessment (HIA) at German Gerena Community School in
Springfield, MA. A meeting to explain this process will be held at the Gerena School cafeteria on October 17th,
from 6:15 - 8:15 PM. The goal of the HIA is for EPA to provide information to help the City of Springfield
narrow down the options for renovation and improvement at Gerena School to those that will best address
environmental problems and reduce potential negative health impacts. This is the first time EPA will be conduct-
ing an HIA. In addition to assisting the City of Springfield and the
community, EPA hopes to gain experience that can be used in similar
projects in other areas.
HIA Next Steps:
EPA will be gathering both environmental data and available health
data for the Gerena School. Most of the data will relate to air quality
and asthma in the school.
Some initial research has been done to get the HIA started, but EPA
needs more information and input from the community, Gathering
this information is part of an initial phase of the HIA called the 'Scoping Phase,' in which EPA works with a
variety of people and organizations within the City to get input and suggestions on:
• identifying how improvements to the Gerena School might impact community health
* identifying which health impacts to assess as part of the HIA based on community concerns and
available data
• how the assessment will be done, for example indoor and outdoor air monitoring
After these things have been identified, EPA will work with the community to assess and compare specific
proposed renovation options from a public health perspective, This assessment will then be compiled into a
formal recommendation to the City, which will then be considered in the renovations decision process.
What We Need From You Now:
On October 17, 2012, EPA will begin the information gathering stage of the Health Impacts Assessment with
the community stakeholders. We will hold a workshop, where we will present our plans for moving forward
with the HIA. We hope to get feedback and input from the community on this draft plan, and to identify and
discuss any community thoughts and concerns with the school renovations, especially as they relate to health.
This workshop will be held at Gerena School on October 17th from 6:15 - 8:15 PM.
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
October 2012
© printed on 100% recycled paper, with c
of 50% porfo
;r waste, using vegefable-based inks
[187]
-------
Appendix E. Documentation of HIA Communication Materials
HIA Kickoff Meeting Flyer (Spanish; October 2012)
EPA de EE. UU. Nueva Inglaterra
EVALUACION
DE IMPACTO
EN LA SALUD
Evaluation de Impacto en la Salud de la Agenda
de Protection Ambiental - EPA de EE.T ~
en la Escuela Gerena, Springfield MA
U.S. EPA | UNIT
Si
PROTECTION AGENCY
CONTACTOS
CLAVE:
EMILY ZIMMERMAN
EPA Nueva /ng/oterra
Coordmodora de Portidpacidn
ComunHaria
(617) 918-1037
zimmerman.emily@epa.gov
MAKYBETH SMUTS
EPA Nueva (nj/oterra
Toxicologa Ambiental
(617) 918-1512
smuts.marybeth@epa.gov
GEORGE FRANTZ
EPA Nueva Ingtoterro
Coordinator de Programos de
Asistenda Estotal
(617) 918-1883
frantz.george@epa.gov
INFORMACION
GENERAL:
EPA NUEVA INCLATERRA
5 Post Office Square
Suite 100
Boston. MA 02109-3912
(617) 918-1111
www.epa.gov/region1/
EPA - LINEA GRATUITA
DE SERVICIO AL CLIENTE
1-888-EPA-7341
OBTENGA MAS
INFORMACION EN:
www.epa.gov/region 1
EVALUACION DE IMPACTO EN LA SALUD
(HIA, POK SUS SIGLAS EN INGLES)
La EPA de EE,UU. efectuara" una Evaluacidn de Impacto en la Salud (Health Impact Assessment. HIA) en German
Gerena Community School en Springfield, MA. El 17 de octubre, de 6:15 a 8:15 PM, se reahzara1 una reunibn en la
cafeteria de la EscuelaGerena con el fin de explicar este proceso. El objetivo de ia HIA es que EPA pueda proporcio-
nar informacibn para ayudar a la ciudad de Springfield a reducir las opdones de renovacitfn y mejoras en la Escuela
Gerena a aquellas que contemplardn de la mejor forma posible los problemas ambientalesy reducira'n los efectos
negatives en la salud. Esta es la primera vez que EPA efectuara" una HI A. Ademas de ayudar a la Ciudad de Spring-
field y a la comunidad, EPA espera obtener una experiencia que pueda usar en proyectos similares en otras a*reas.
Siguientes pasos de la HIA:
EPA recopilari la informacidn ambiental e informacibn sanitaria disponible de la Escuela Gerena. La mayor parte
de la informadon estara relacionada con la calidad del aire y el asma en la escuela,
Se ha realizado alguna investigadbn inicial para hacer que empiece la HIA, sin embargo, EPA requiere que la
comunidad proporcione mayor informaci6n y comentarios. La recopiladbn de esta informacibn es parte de una
fase inicial de la HIA llamada "Fase de fijacidn de alcance", en la que EPA trabaja con una variedad de personas
y organizaciones en la Ciudad con el prop6sito de obtener comentarios y sugerencias sobre:
• identificacidn de la forma en que las mejoras podrfan impactar la salud de la comunidad de la
Escuela Gerena
* identificacion cuales impactos de la salud se deben evaluar como parte de la HIA tomando como
base las inquietudes de la conumdad y la informaaon disponible
• como se realizari la evaluaci6n, por ejemplo, monitoreo del aire interior y exterior.
Una vez que se hayan identificado estos puntos, EPA trabajara" con la comunidad para evaluar y comparar
las opciones especfficas de renovacion propuestas desde una perspectiva de salud pOblica, Esta evaluaci6n se
tompilara" en ese momento en una recomendad6n formal a !a Ciudad, que se considerar^ en el proceso de
decision para efectuar las renovaciones.
Lo que necesitamos de ustedes ahora:
El 17 de octubre de 2012, EPA iniciar^ la etapa de recopilacidn de informacidn de la Evaluad6n de Impacto en la
Salud con los grupos de interns de la comunidad. Realizaremos un taller donde presentaremos nuestros planes
para proseguir con la HIA. Esperamos obtener los comentarios y sugerencias de la comunidad en cuanto a
este plan preliminar e identificar y discutir los pensamientos e inquietudes de la comunidad en io que respecta
a las renovaciones de la escuela, especialmente en Io que se relaciona con la salud: Este taller se celebrara" en la
Escuela Gerona el 17 de octubre, de 6:15 a 8:15 PM.
UfclidButo October 2012
mo»
© printed on 100% recyded paper, with a minimum of 50% post-consumer waste, using vegetable-based inks
[188]
-------
Appendix E. Documentation of HIA Communication Materials
PowerPoint Presentation to EPA's Regional Children's Health Coordinators on January
31,2013
"HIA to Evaluate Proposed
Remediation Scenarios for Indoor
Sources and Near-Roadway
Transportation Exposures for an EJ
Community School in Springfield, MA"
Region 1 - ORD RESES Project Overview for
Regional Children's Health Coordinators
January 31, 2013
ORD Leads: Valerie Tartarian, Florence Fulk
Region 1 Leads: Marybeth Smuts, George Frantz
•SEFW
Region 1-ORD Collaboration
Region 1 Air Toxics, Compliance Assistance, OPA
• Initiated RESES proposal; Leading community engagement
aspects, external communications, screening and scoping
phases, requesting local data
ORD scientists: NERL, NRMRL, other Labs Centers
• Leading assessment phase: indoor & outdoor air monitoring.
building systems evaluation, data analysis and modeling;
Managing RESES funding vehicles
Jointly
• Collaborate; Communicate; Compile data: Prepare
recommendations; Present findings & lessons learned
oEPA
Health Impact Assessment
• An approach to factor health considerations into the decision-
making process
• A structured process that uses
-Scientific data
-Professional expertise
-Stakeholder input
• Identifies and evaluates public health consequences of a
plan, project or policy
• Both a health protection and health promotion tool
vEPA
How does
a decision
impact...
What is an HIA?
...and result in
changes in our
health???
figure courtesy ol Steve White. Oregon Public Health Institute
Springfield Project Background
One of EPA's first HIAs and first school renovation HIA in field
Springfield is a MA hotspot for pediatric asthma
• EPA Region 1 "showcase" community
Gerena school: 760 students, >20% asthma
Structure is school + community center
City involved in school remediations to address poor ventilation;
jmjsture and mold; other issues
Gerena School, Springfield, MA
760 students, >20% asthma
[189]
-------
Appendix E. Documentation of HIA Communication Materials
>EPA
Springfield Project Partners
EPA Region 1 and ORD, and HIA consultants
City of Springfield school administration
City) Dept. of Parks, Recreation & Bldg Mgmt
Mass DEP and DPH
Pioneer Valley Asthma Coalition
Partners for a Healthier Community (EPA CARE ;
New North Citizen's Council
Community organizations
Parents, students, others
iEPA
Springfield HIA Goals
(1) Add value to decisions on which school
improvements & repairs will have greatest
potential for health improvements
• based on science, community input ,& cost/benefits
(2) Learn lessons that can inform future EPA HIAs
Overarching Question
Which proposed school renovations
will have greatest impact on
health and well-being?
Choice of Remediation Scenario
Drives Activity
EPA will recommend remediation activities which may:
• Lead to > in health for students, faculty & staff
• Change community perception of the school as "risky"
or "unhealthful"
• Increase utility of the facility including community
resources, e.g.,
• senior center, teen center, daycare center
• Lead to > educational performance, < incidence of
respiratory illness (asthma), > social cohesion, and
> personal safety for students, faculty & staff
Scientific Approach
Research component will include:
-collection and analysis of available health data
-outdoor and indoor air monitoring and modeling
-building assessment of ventilation system, moisture
3
Screening
Scopirvg
HIA Process and Project Timeline
Determines the need and value of a HIA Summer 2012
Determines which health impacts to evaluate, methods for
analysis, and a workplart pgii 2012
Assessment Provides.
1) a profile of existing health conditions winter/Spring 2013
2) evaluation of potential health impacts
3) strategics to manage Identified adverse health impacts
Reporting Includes:
1) development of the HIAreport SprinfjrSarnmer 2013
2) communication of findings & recommendation's
Monitoring [racks: Post-renovations TBD
1) impacts on decision-making processes and the decision
2) Impacts of the decision on health determinants
Hu~anirTp3ct Parrsrs: 2011
[190]
-------
Appendix E. Documentation of HIA Communication Materials
>
!--=._- Project Challenges
^Communications and coordination
QTimeframe and resource constraints
^Learning curve for HIA process
QPolicy and "mission creep" sensitivities
Desired Impacts
^Benefits to our stakeholders
^•Successful OneEPA demonstration project
*Lessons learned contributing to growing HIA
community of practice, and finding EPA's niche
•:-Adding HIA as a rapid assessment tool in our
^oolbox to support community decision-making
QUESTIONS?
[191]
-------
Appendix E. Documentation of HIA Communication Materials
HIA Update Flyer (March 2013)
U.S. EPA New England
HEALTH IMPACT
ASSESSMENT
US EPA Health Impact Assessment
at the Gerena School, Springfield MA
U.S. EPA | UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
KEY CONTACTS:
EMILY ZIMMERMAN
EPA New England
Community Involvement
Coordinator
(617) 918-1037
zimmerman.emily@epa.gov
MARYBETH SMUTS
EPA New England
Air ToxJco/ogi'sE
(617) 918-1512
smuts.marybeth@cpa.gov
GEORGE FRANT2
EPA New England
State Assistance Programs
Coord/no tor
(617) 918.1883
frantz.george@epa.gov
GENERAL INFO:
EPA NEW ENGLAND
5 Post Office Square
Suite 100
Boston, MA 02109-3912
(617) 918-1111
www.cpa.gov/region1/
EPA TOLL FREE
CUSTOMER SERVICE
1-888-EPA-7341
LEARN MORE AT:
www.epa.gov/region1
HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT (HIA)
The US EPA is in the process of conducting a Health Impact Assessment (HIA) at the German Gerena Commu-
nity School in Springfield, MA, The goal of the HIA is for EPA to provide information to help the City of
Springfield narrow down the options for renovations and improvement at the Gerena School to those that will
best address environmental problems and reduce potential negative health impacts.
What We Arc Working On Now
EPA is working to complete the data collection phase for the Health
Impact Assessment at the Gerena School. The next step is to gather
information on the building structure, EPA will conduct a building
evaluation of the school from March 24-26, 2013. For this evaluation,
technical specialists will evaluate the entire building and the grounds to
analyze how the building operates. Some of the areas being evaluated
are: how air moves through the building; how the ventilation system
works; and how water moves through and around the building, The
evaluation will include taking some physical measurements, such as
pressure differentials, temperature and humidity readings and thermal
imagery for energy and water leaks.
The information that EPA gathers on the evaluation will be incorporated into the overall health impact assess-
ment, which will then inform recommendations for remediation at the Gerena School. The building evaluation
will help EPA scientists plan their upcoming in-depth monitoring of indoor air and how it is impacted by outdoor
sources. Specifically, it will help to determine where air monitors will be placed. This more in-depth monitoring
will take place over a period beginning in the next month, and will be a final step in our data collection process.
Once EPA has finished collecting the data over the next few months, there will be a public meeting to update
interested citizens on our findings,
For questions or concerns, contact Emily Zimmerman at 617-918-1037 or zimmerman.emilv@epa.gov
United States
, Environmental Protection
I Agency
© prinred on 100% recycled paper, with a minimum of 50% posKOfisumer wosfe, using veoefableia;ed inks
March 2013
[192]
-------
Appendix E. Documentation of HIA Communication Materials
HIA Update Email to Stakeholders (March 22, 2013)
From:
Sent:
Subject:
Zimmerman, Emily
Friday, March 22, 2013 11:48 AM
EPA Health Impact Assessment, Update
US EPA Health Impact Assessment
at the Gerena School, Springfield MA
. S. EPA I UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Hello,
I am writing to you because you have expressed interest in the Health Impact Assessment that EPA is working on at the
German Gerena Community School in Springfield, MA. The goal of the HIA is for EPA to provide information to help the
City of Springfield narrow down the options for renovations and improvements at the Gerena School to those that will
best address environmental problems, considering health consequences on the school community.
What We are Working on Now:
EPA is working to complete the data collection phase for the Health Impact Assessment at the Gerena School. The next
step is to gather information on the building structure. EPA will conduct a building evaluation of the school at the end of
March. For this evaluation, technical specialists will evaluate the entire building and the grounds to analyze how the
building operates. Some of the areas being evaluated are: how air moves through the building; how the ventilation
system works; and how water moves through and around the building. The evaluation will include taking some physical
measurements, such as pressure differentials, temperature and humidity readings and thermal imagery for energy and
water leaks.
The information that EPA gathers on the evaluation will be incorporated into the overall health impact assessment,
which will then inform recommendations for remediation at the Gerena School. The building evaluation will help EPA
scientists plan their upcoming in-depth monitoring of indoor air and how it is impacted by outdoor sources. Specifically,
it will help to determine where air monitors will be placed. This more in-depth monitoring will take place over a period
beginning in the next month, and will be a final step in our data collection process.
Once EPA has finished collecting the data over the next few months, there will be a public meeting to update interested
citizens and stakeholders on our findings.
Thank you for your interest.
Best,
Emily Zimmerman
US EPA
[193]
-------
Appendix E. Documentation of HIA Communication Materials
Impact Summary Handouts Shared with PERM (December 9, 2013)
Gerena Community School Health Impact Assessment
Initial Findings and Health Impact Characterization
Summary of Impact for Renovation Options on Community Perception
Based on the information reviewing the literature and anecdotal evidence, renovation options
were evaluated on the potential to affect community perceptions. Investigators predicted the
direction of impact, likelihood, magnitude, impact on vulnerable populations, and strength of
existing evidence (see legend at end of table) available to help prioritize which options would
yield the greatest benefit related to community perceptions. Vulnerable populations in this
instance refer to the individuals in the community that rely heavily on the school (walkway
tunnel) for mobility, and/or use the school on a frequent basis. There are a large proportion of
low-income and young individuals who may not be able to afford a vehicle, to which the
walkway tunnel serves as a major access route the downtown area and other neighborhoods.
Individuals with physical disabilities or elderly also use the walkway frequently because it
provides a walkway that is covered, climate-controlled, and handicap accessible.
The literature shows that the top factor that influences an individual's perception of their
environment is the presence of environmental stressors. Environmental stressors can change a
person's perceived accessibility and safety, which can influence their decision to use the school
and its amenities. Environmental stressors also cause people to lose perceived control of their
environment. The responsiveness of school administrators and building officials to the needs of
the community can also impact the community's perceived ability to change conditions in the
environment. The loss of control of one's life induces stress that can lead to mental health and
behavioral changes. Often people avoid environmental conditions that may increase stress or
their risk for harm. Renovation options that addressed safety and accessibility were therefore
considered highly influential for changing community perceptions.
For many community members, who do not have students at Gerena, the tunnel area is often the
first and sometimes only impression they develop of the school. The presence of deterioration,
damage, standing water, and poor air quality can lower a person's perceived accessibility and
safety. In addition, perceived social disorder can deter social interaction and limit the space's
ability to develop community capacity. Therefore, renovations that focus on improving the
quality of the tunnel environment will have the greatest beneficial impact in regards to improving
community perceptions. Renovation options that fall in this category are those that focus on
improving the air quality in the tunnel space, eliminating water intrusion into the tunnel, and
removing evidence of structural damage or vandalism.
[194]
-------
Appendix E. Documentation of HIA Communication Materials
In order for the community to react and develop a perception to a change, the change has to be
seen. Because of this a lot of "behind the scene" improvements do not really end up impacting
the community's opinions of the school. Because of this, the changes that may improve the
facility's energy recovery may go unnoticed since a lot are in areas not seen by the community.
Also, energy efficiency is not a high priority to the community, and therefore those renovation
options that address energy recovery will not significantly impact perceptions of the school.
No net effect was expected for any renovation options that proposed further investigation of
issues. The rationale behind this was that any potential positive influence gained from the
increased knowledge about existing conditions is negated by the negative perception that further
study may not be cost effective and prolongs change, There have already been numerous studies
conducted at Gerena that give a basic understanding of the conditions, but have not provided
assurances for permanent solutions to the issues facing the school. The table below summarizes
the predicted impacts each renovation option will have on community perceptions.
[195]
-------
Appendix E. Documentation of HIA Communication Materials
Table 1. Community Perception Impact Characterization Table
Recommendations for Immediate Action
Renovation Option
Legend for impacts located at end of table.
Added renovation options identified by the baseline condition findings are provided in italics.
Grouping of renovation options are indicated by highlighting. Sequence within group follows numbered order.
1 . Seal building enclosure air-tight at identified air leakage sites in building enclosure, which includes:
Using approved weatherization materials and techniques to seal the unplanned cracks and openings
as noted in the consultant report.
2. Change the air flow between outer mechanical space and inner community space of Tunnel C, which
involves:
Installation of new exhaust fan and duct system for Tunnel C (to exhaust air from outer tunnel space
to exterior of building)
Reseating outer tunnel space completely off from inner tunnel space air-tight (to prevent air from
traveling between spaces)
3. Upgrade status of bypass and fresh air intake dampers for every AHU in Building B, which involves:
Relocation of thermostats to areas that provide more accurate temperature readings (i.e., classroom
area)
Replacement of outdoor supply/return dampers for each AHU
Replacement of existing pneumatic damper controls with electronic controls
Installation of control valves with minimum flow rates set at 40 °F at each AHU
Installation of a low-limit discharge air temperature (DAT) sensor at ever y AHU
Verification of proper night setback operations and rebalancing HVAC system
Repair and adjust the ventilation systems as needed
4. Provide increased cleaning of air conditioning drain pans, which includes:
Following EPA and industry guidance on cleaning and treating drain pans (EPA IAQ Tools for
Schools Kit)
Ensuring drain pans drain properly
5 . Use checklist of EPA IAQ Tools for Schools kit within one month of completion of #3 and #4, then follow
the recommended schedule to ensure proper continued operation
Direction
I
t
t
I
I
Likelihood
+++
++
Magnitude
+++
+++
Vulnerable
Population
+
0
Strength of
Evidence
*
***
[196]
-------
Appendix E. Documentation of HIA Communication Materials
Recommendations for Near Term Action
Renovation Option
Legend for impacts located at end of table.
Added renovation options identified by the baseline condition findings are provided in italics.
Grouping of renovation options are indicated by highlighting. Sequence within group follows numbered order.
6. Further investigation of waterproof membrane, wall construction, and tunnel ceiling (chase) around tunnel
A and C to develop repair program to stop water leakage (may not be cost-effective), which may include:
Seasonal monitoring of groundwater levels at existing monitoring wells adjacent to Tunnels A,C
7. Based on findings from #6, reseal areas causing water leakage in tunnels, which may include:
Replacing waterproof membrane around underground areas and areas where tunnel connects to main
building
8. Remove and discard porous building materials that have been damaged by water intrusion for longer than
48 hours and not professionally dried or cleaned (AFTER water intrusion is stopped), which involves:
Following guidance from EPA IAQ Tools for Schools Kit
Extensive cleaning of building, including shelves, counters, floors, ceilings, walls, etc.
Replacement of discarded building materials with nonporous moisture resistant materials, only
AFTER water intrusion is stopped
9. Further investigation of outdoor air quality at different locations on school campus, which includes:
Incorporating a wind study
Further investigation of the impact of combustion sized particles to better locate proper placement of
fresh air intakes
10. Further monitoring of the indoor air quality with longer-term air sampling data of combustion sized
particles, which includes:
Planning for future air movement
If data indicates need for further removal of outdoor air pollutants, add filtration that will remove
particles and gases as appropriate
11. Based on results of #9 and #10, relocate fresh air intakes for Building A (Tunnel A) to a more healthy
location if needed, which may include:
Significant alteration of supply and return ductwork
Extensive cleaning of ductwork that is not replaced
Direction
I
t
t
I
I
t
Likelihood
+++
+++
+
•o
3
&B
+++
+++
+
Vulnerable
Population
+
0
0
JS
1°
***
***
*
[197]
-------
Appendix E. Documentation of HIA Communication Materials
Recommendations for Long Term Action
Renovation Option
Legend for impacts located at end of table.
Added renovation options identified by the baseline condition findings are provided in italics.
Grouping of renovation options are indicated by highlighting. Sequence within group follows numbered order.
12. Replace and upgrade all AHUs and associated return fans, controls, ductwork, piping in Building A, B, C,
and D with high efficiency electronic-controlled models, which includes:
Replacement of any damaged/missing equipment, such as diffusers, grilles, insulation, etc.
Extensive cleaning of any ductwork or materials not being replaced
Installation of a new energy management system (EMS) with local computer, communications
network, equipment controllers, valve controllers, sensors, airflow and temperature monitors, etc.
Removal of all fresh air intake louvers and replacement on building roof with gooseneck terminal at
min. 10 ft. above roof (prevent damage from snowplowing on 1-91)
Incorporate easy access doors for equipment in newHVAC design
Rebalancing HVAC system
13. Replacement of large boilers and associated flue, pumps, piping, etc., with higher efficiency, sealed
combustion, condensing type boilers, which includes:
Re-routing of combustion air intake pipe to exterior of building (per manufacturer's instructions)
Installation of new VFD compatible pumps
Installation of electronic controls compatible with EMS
14. Replace and upgrade chiller room exhaust system, which includes:
Remove refrigerant exhaust fan and reinstall new 2 -speed fan with grille 12" above floor and verify
air flow (CFM) against 2009 IMC
Replace 100% air intake unity with 2-speed unit that has equal air flow with exhaust fan air flow
Remove grilles in boiler room and seal air-tight blocking any air flow from room
15. Install new security measures for building equipment external to building (i.e., air intake/return terminals
and AHUs on Building D roof).
Direction
t
I
I
t
Likelihood
++
+
Magnitude
+++
+
Vulnerable
Population
+
0
Strength of
Evidence
***
*
Impact Legend
Direction of Impact: (f) = changes may improve health; (1) = changes may detract from health; (?) = impact uncertain how health will be impacted; (J) = no net effect
Likelihood: the chances that the renovation option will impact community perceptions (+ = low, ++ = medium; +++ = high)
Magnitude: the number of people that will be affected, if renovation is implemented (+ = low, ++ = medium; +++ = high)
Vulnerable Populations: "-"= there will be disproportionate harms for vulnerable groups; "0" = vulnerable groups will likely be as impacted the same as others; "+" = there will be
disproportionate benefits for vulnerable groups or restorative equity in health; "?"= unknown effect/not enough information
Strength of Evidence: "***" = many strong studies (n>10); "**"= a few good studies (n=3); "*" no clear studies, but generally consistent with principles of public health
[198]
-------
Appendix E. Documentation of HIA Communication Materials
Summary of Impact for Renovation Options on Noise
A single occurrence or prolonged exposure to high levels of noise can negatively impact hearing
and increase stress. In addition, high background noise can cause distraction and distort speech.
Renovation options were evaluated, based on the reviewed literature of factors that affect noise
and the acoustic environment in classrooms, for their potential impact on noise levels and speech
intelligibility in the school. Investigators predicted the direction of impact, likelihood,
magnitude, impact on vulnerable populations, and strength of existing evidence (see legend at
end of table) available to help prioritize which options would yield the greatest benefit related to
the acoustic environment. Vulnerable populations in this instance includes those who have
special education needs due to hearing impairment, learning English as second language, or who
have mental or behavioral disorders that make them sensitive to noise.
Using material that has high noise absorption coefficients helps to reduce the amount of
background noise. Absorptive materials work best when spread throughout the room and not
concentrated on just one section of wall or ceiling. When not replaced, removing noise-absorbing
material (e.g., carpeting or upholstery) can negatively impact the acoustic environment. Ceramic
floor tiles or other similar material reverberate noise in a room, often causing echoes.
Renovations that would remove or decrease the amount of noise absorbing material will
negatively impact the noise levels and speech intelligibility in that space. Building materials that
absorb noise or are well insulated greatly impact the level of background noise in a learning
space.
The design and placement of building materials is critical in the control of the acoustic
environment. Materials related to the HVAC system, such as ductwork, fans, diffusers,
contribute to the amount of background noise in a classroom. For example, internally insulated
ductwork makes it harder for noise to travel between classrooms. Poorly designed or installed
diffuser inlets can increase background noise. Renovations that would alter the ductwork or
related equipment could result in unwanted noise traveling between rooms. The table below
summarizes the predicted impacts each renovation option will have on noise levels and speech
intelligibility.
[199]
-------
Appendix E. Documentation of HIA Communication Materials
Table 2. Noise Impact Characterization Table
Recommendations for Immediate Action
Renovation Option
Legend for impacts located at end of table.
Added renovation options identified by the baseline condition findings are provided in italics.
Grouping of renovation options are indicated by highlighting. Sequence within group follows numbered order.
=
o
£
5
•o
o
o
JS
1
•o
•M
&B
OS
.S
2 *
II
s o
-1
a J
1. Sea/ building enclosure air-tight at identified air leakage sites in building enclosure, which includes:
Using approved weatherization materials and techniques to seal the unplanned cracks and openings
as noted in the consultant report.
2. Change the air flow between outer mechanical space and inner community space of Tunnel C, which
involves:
Installation of new exhaust fan and duct system for Tunnel C (to exhaust air from outer tunnel space
to exterior of building)
Reseating outer tunnel space completely off from inner tunnel space air-tight (to prevent air from
traveling between spaces)
3. Upgrade status of bypass and fresh air intake dampers for every AHU in Building B, which involves:
Relocation of thermostats to areas that provide more accurate temperature readings (i.e., classroom
area)
Replacement of outdoor supply/return dampers for each AHU
Replacement of existing pneumatic damper controls with electronic controls
Installation of control valves with minimum flow rates set at 40 °F at each AHU
Installation of a low-limit discharge air temperature (DAT) sensor at ever y AHU
Verification of proper night setback operations and rebalancing HVAC system
Repair and adjust the ventilation systems as needed
4. Provide increased cleaning of air conditioning drain pans, which includes:
Following EPA and industry guidance on cleaning and treating drain pans (EPA IAQ Tools for
Schools Kit)
Ensuring drain pans drain properly
5. Use checklist of EPA IAQ Tools for Schools kit within one month of completion of #3 and #4, then follow
the recommended schedule to ensure proper continued operation
[200]
-------
Appendix E. Documentation of HIA Communication Materials
Recommendations for Near Term Action
Renovation Option
Legend for impacts located at end of table.
Added renovation options identified by the baseline condition findings are provided in italics.
Grouping of renovation options are indicated by highlighting. Sequence within group follows numbered order.
o
1
5
0
0
•o
S
i
OS
£ a
-o .2
S «
O OJ
6. Further investigation of waterproof membrane, wall construction, and tunnel ceiling (chase) around tunnel
A and C to develop repair program to stop water leakage (may not be cost-effective), which may include:
Seasonal monitoring of groundwater levels at existing monitoring wells adjacent to Tunnels A, C
7. Based on findings from #6, reseal areas causing water leakage in tunnels, which may include:
Replacing waterproof membrane around underground areas and areas where tunnel connects to main
building
Remove and discard porous building materials that have been damaged by water intrusion for longer than
48 hours and not professionally dried or cleaned (AFTER water intrusion is stopped), which involves:
Following guidance from EPA IAQ Tools for Schools Kit
Extensive cleaning of building, including shelves, counters, floors, ceilings, walls, etc.
Replacement of discarded building materials with nonporous moisture resistant materials, only
AFTER water intrusion is stopped
t
(or
I)
(orO)
Further investigation of outdoor air quality at different locations on school campus, which includes:
Incorporating a wind study
Further investigation of the impact of combustion sized particles to better locate proper placement of
fresh air intakes
10. Further monitoring of the indoor air quality with longer-term air sampling data of combustion sized
particles, which includes:
Planning for future air movement
If data indicates need for further removal of outdoor air pollutants, add filtration that will remove
particles and gases as appropriate
11. Based on results of #9 and #10, relocate fresh air intakes for Building A (Tunnel A) to a more healthy
location if needed, which may include:
Significant alteration of supply and return ductwork
Extensive cleaning of ductwork that is not replaced
[201]
-------
Appendix E. Documentation of HIA Communication Materials
Recommendations for Long Term Action
Renovation Option
Legend for impacts located at end of table.
Added renovation options identified by the baseline condition findings are provided in italics.
Grouping of renovation options are indicated by highlighting. Sequence within group follows numbered order.
12. Replace and upgrade all AHUs and associated return fans, controls, ductwork, piping in Building A, B, C,
and D with high efficiency electronic-controlled models, which includes:
Replacement of any damaged/missing equipment, such as diffusers, grilles, insulation, etc.
Extensive cleaning of any ductwork or materials not being replaced
Installation of a new energy management system (EMS) with local computer, communications
network, equipment controllers, valve controllers, sensors, airflow and temperature monitors, etc.
Removal of all fresh air intake louvers and replacement on building roof with gooseneck terminal at
min. 10 ft. above roof (prevent damage from snowplowing on 1-91)
Incorporate easy access doors for equipment in new HVAC design
Rebalancing HVAC system
13. Replacement of large boilers and associated flue, pumps, piping, etc., with higher efficiency, sealed
combustion, condensing type boilers, which includes:
Re-routing of combustion air intake pipe to exterior of building (per manufacturer's instructions)
Installation of new VFD compatible pumps
Installation of electronic controls compatible with EMS
14. Replace and upgrade chiller room exhaust system, which includes:
Remove refrigerant exhaust fan and reinstall new 2 -speed fan with grille 12" above floor and verify
air flow (CFM) against 2009 IMC
Replace 100% air intake unity with 2-speed unit that has equal air flow with exhaust fan air flow
Remove grilles in boiler room and seal air-tight blocking any air flow from room
15. Install new security measures for building equipment external to building (i.e., air intake/return terminals
and AHUs on Building D roof).
Direction
t
I
I
I
Likelihood
+++
Magnitude
+++
Impact Legend
Direction of Impact: (|) = changes may improve health; (1) = changes may detract from health; (?) = uncertain how health will be impacted; ( J) = no net effec
Likelihood: the chances that the renovation option will impact noise (+ = low, ++ = medium; +++ = high)
Magnitude: the number of people that will be affected, if renovation is implemented (+ = low, ++ = medium; +++ = high)
Vulnerable Populations: "-"= there will be disproportionate harms for vulnerable groups; "0" = vulnerable groups will likely be as impacted the same as other
disproportionate benefits for vulnerable groups or restorative equity in health; "?"= unknown effect/not enough information
Strength of Evidence: "***" = many strong studies (n>10); "**"= a few good studies (n=3); "*"no clear studies, but generally consistent with principles of pi
Vulnerable
Population
+
t
iblic health
Strength of
Evidence
***
ire will be
[202]
-------
Appendix E. Documentation of HIA Communication Materials
Summary of Health Impact Characterization for Renovations on Asthma
Each renovation option was evaluated, based on the ranking of factors that trigger asthma, for
potential impact on asthma symptom reduction. Investigators predicted the direction of impact,
likelihood, magnitude, impact on vulnerable populations, and strength of existing evidence (see
legend at end of table) available to help prioritize which options would yield the greatest benefit
related to asthma. Populations particularly vulnerable to air quality include asthmatics and those
who are sensitive to air pollutants and allergens.
Based on the scientific literature reviewed, the elimination of dampness and indoor mold would
provide the best public health impact on asthma. Dampness and mold ranked among the top two
contributing factors that increase the risk for exacerbation of asthma symptoms. Other particulate
matter smaller than 10 microns (PMio) ranked third highest for factors that increased risk of
developing asthma symptoms. Renovation options that relate to the elimination of these risk
factors should be considered highest priority.
The review of the literature available on key air pollutants found that elimination of particulate
matter would improve breathability for all facility occupants, especially asthmatics. Those who
suffer from asthma are more reactive to particulate matter and combustion particles related to
traffic pollution, such as NCh, CO, and particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns. (PIVh.s).
Therefore filtering these pollutants from the indoor air should be considered as the second
highest priority for the reduction of asthma symptoms.
The school cannot prevent the intrusion of every asthma trigger into the school. Asthmagens,
such as dust mites, pet dander and hair typically enter the school on student and staff clothing or
book bags. Control of these triggers, therefore relies heavily on the extensive and professional
cleaning of building and its materials. Cleaning is performed on a regular basis by custodial and
maintenance staff. However, extensive and professional cleaning involves areas that are not in
the regular maintenance schedule, such as HVAC system ductwork, shelves and bookcases,
ceilings, walls, carpets and upholstery. Renovation options that indicate extensive and thorough
cleaning would greatly help in the reduction of asthma symptoms caused by those particular
asthma triggers that are difficult to control. The table below summarizes the predicted impacts
each renovation option will have on asthma symptom mitigation.
[203]
-------
Appendix E. Documentation of HIA Communication Materials
Table 3. Asthma Impact Characterization Table
Recommendations for Immediate Action
Renovation Option
Legend for impacts located at end of table.
Added renovation options identified by the baseline condition findings are provided in italics.
Grouping of renovation options are indicated by highlighting. Sequence within group follows numbered order.
a
o
CJ
o
o
JS
"3
3
•o
3
&B
OS
3 .1
c3 -^
'- C3
a "3
— o,
s o
ft |
1. Seal building enclosure air-tight at identified air leakage sites in building enclosure, which includes:
Using approved weatherization materials and techniques to seal the unplanned cracks and openings
as noted in the consultant report.
2. Change the air flow between outer mechanical space and inner community space of Tunnel C, which
involves:
Installation of new exhaust fan and duct system for Tunnel C (to exhaust air from outer tunnel space
to exterior of building)
Reseating outer tunnel space completely off from inner tunnel space air-tight (to prevent air from
traveling between spaces)
***
3. Upgrade status of bypass and fresh air intake dampers for every AHU in Building B, which involves:
Relocation of thermostats to areas that provide more accurate temperature readings (i.e., classroom
area)
Replacement of outdoor supply/return dampers for each AHU
Replacement of existing pneumatic damper controls with electronic controls
Installation of control valves with minimum flow rates set at 40 °F at each AHU
Installation of a low-limit discharge air temperature (DAT) sensor at ever y AHU
Verification of proper night setback operations and rebalancing HVAC system
Repair and adjust the ventilation systems as needed
4. Provide increased cleaning of air conditioning drain pans, which includes:
Following EPA and industry guidance on cleaning and treating drain pans (EPA IAQ Tools for
Schools Kit)
Ensuring drain pans drain properly
***
5. Use checklist of EPA IAQ Tools for Schools kit within one month of completion of #3 and #4, then follow
the recommended schedule to ensure proper continued operation
[204]
-------
Appendix E. Documentation of HIA Communication Materials
Recommendations for Near Term Action
Renovation Option
Legend for impacts located at end of table.
Added renovation options identified by the baseline condition findings are provided in italics.
Grouping of renovation options are indicated by highlighting. Sequence within group follows numbered order.
6. Further investigation of waterproof membrane, wall construction, and tunnel ceiling (chase) around tunnel
A and C to develop repair program to stop water leakage (may not be cost-effective), which may include:
Seasonal monitoring of groundwater levels at existing monitoring wells adjacent to Tunnels A, C
7. Based on findings from #6, reseal areas causing water leakage in tunnels, which may include:
Replacing waterproof membrane around underground areas and areas where tunnel connects to main
building
8. Remove and discard porous building materials that have been damaged by water intrusion for longer than
48 hours and not professionally dried or cleaned (AFTER water intrusion is stopped), which involves:
Following guidance from EPA IAQ Tools for Schools Kit
Extensive cleaning of building, including shelves, counters, floors, ceilings, walls, etc.
Replacement of discarded building materials with nonporous moisture resistant materials, only
AFTER water intrusion is stopped
9. Further investigation of outdoor air quality at different locations on school campus, which includes:
Incorporating a wind study
Further investigation of the impact of combustion sized particles to better locate proper placement of
fresh air intakes
10. Further monitoring of the indoor air quality with longer-term air sampling data of combustion sized
particles, which includes:
Planning for future air movement
If data indicates need for further removal of outdoor air pollutants, add filtration that will remove
particles and gases as appropriate
11. Based on results of #9 and #10, relocate fresh air intakes for Building A (Tunnel A) to a more healthy
location if needed, which may include:
Significant alteration of supply and return ductwork
Extensive cleaning of ductwork that is not replaced
Direction
t
t
t
t
t
t
Likelihoo
d
+++
+++
+++
+++
+++
++
Magnitud
e
+++
+++
+++
+++
+++
+++
Vulnerabl
e
+
+
+
+
+
+
ft
1 "
-M
C*3
***
***
***
***
***
***
[205]
-------
Appendix E. Documentation of HIA Communication Materials
Recommendations for Long Term Action
Renovation Option
Legend for impacts located at end of table.
Added renovation options identified by the baseline condition findings are provided in italics.
Grouping of renovation options are indicated by highlighting. Sequence within group follows numbered order.
16. Replace and upgrade all AHUs and associated return fans, controls, ductwork, piping in Building A, B, C,
and D with high efficiency electronic-controlled models, which includes:
Replacement of any damaged/missing equipment, such as diffusers, grilles, insulation, etc.
Extensive cleaning of any ductwork or materials not being replaced
Installation of a new energy management system (EMS) with local computer, communications
network, equipment controllers, valve controllers, sensors, airflow and temperature monitors, etc.
Removal of all fresh air intake louvers and replacement on building roof with gooseneck terminal at
min. 10 ft. above roof (prevent damage from snowplowing on 1-91)
Incorporate easy access doors for equipment in new HVAC design
Rebalancing HVAC system
17. Replacement of large boilers and associated flue, pumps, piping, etc., with higher efficiency, sealed
combustion, condensing type boilers, which includes:
Re-routing of combustion air intake pipe to exterior of building (per manufacturer's instructions)
Installation of new VFD compatible pumps
Installation of electronic controls compatible with EMS
18. Replace and upgrade chiller room exhaust system, which includes:
Remove refrigerant exhaust fan and reinstall new 2 -speed fan with grille 12" above floor and verify
air flow (CFM) against 2009 IMC
Replace 100% air intake unity with 2-speed unit that has equal air flow with exhaust fan air flow
Remove grilles in boiler room and seal air-tight blocking any air flow from room
19. Install new security measures for building equipment external to building (i.e., air intake/return terminals
and AHUs on Building D roof).
Direction
t
1
I
I
Likelihood
++
Magnitude
+++
Vulnerable
Population
+
Strength of
Evidence
***
Impact Legend
Direction of Impact: (|) = changes may improve health; (1) = changes may detract from health; (?) = uncertain how health will be impacted; (|) = no net effect
Likelihood: the chances that the renovation option will impact asthma symptoms (+ = low, ++ = medium; +++ = high)
Magnitude: the number of people that will be affected, if renovation is implemented (+ = low, ++ = medium; +++ = high)
Vulnerable Populations: "-"= there will be disproportionate harms for vulnerable groups; "0" = vulnerable groups will likely be as impacted the same as others; "+" = there will be
disproportionate benefits for vulnerable groups or restorative equity in health; "?"= unknown effect/not enough information
Strength of Evidence: "***" = many strong studies (n>10); "**"= a few good studies (n=3); "*"no clear studies, but generally consistent with principles of public health
[206]
-------
Appendix E. Documentation of HIA Communication Materials
HIA Update Flyer (October 2013)
Gerena Community' School Health Impact Assessment (HIAJ
U. 3. Ervirfjnn-srul PrcteUiun Ay.Sriv. Reyi-.ii 1 dinJ Qffte uf ^Sieiich dtid aevsbpi-isrt
Background
frereoa Community School
The Get man Gcreia CommufilTv School tai but in 1973 n the NortTi
End oomirunHv of Spr iffled, Massac-uscm At that time, B* North
End cotrr-uniTv had seen ;plc In two t>> tie construction of lr«rstj:c
91. The intf-state and in&isma railioad line tQ The west ol Tfw
interstate -nadc i difficult far 't&dtnzi to t-a%* satev Between tic
two Nort>i End I--? gnto-foods at ar ghc«>oad and Me:l :i_r ie ;chat crossed bcch tic nTcrstatc aid ra Iroad I ~tef
C'-L'.idin*; a sate passage far rcxdcits and rccoiicdciiR The two
rtighbo-ticoils. Today^ the school i In need of >aaf •adte ta meet
bu Id r* ccd« iacclflutlans and Improve the oMcia I cotdtnons lns.de
the school. Tnere at* seven rcnovat co cor on jidcr CDnsidcrat c>i.
The Dcpartmeit cA Fa'lcs, Buildings aid Rctrcat 01 ivtanagcment
(DCBRM) ! respora be to- prMm : r« ticse and sdKting ttw out
ooUcnjsl rbr mateiwntitkin.
Problems Facing tim School
ff Stoctu'jl damage arvd aging eQjlOTwnt
* Pcrvas vc Hood r^;
d
Research Count I 2D11|.
/ \ffi- "V:"^'111 '••• ••.-. \\ \
Social De«Errnlnants of Health Model
Purpose of This IMA
Tbf Gerena CommiMlty Srtxxt HIA will help inform the 3F9XM
drcuvm muAona .of of ess by itfencift'.wj Ox1 :r«i*ar.on cic-tisnj rAot
.TdjDfiVf ftccVt.*> .wvora to rncjuvnur total bentftt.
rntimdl cf h
film-Mr, wilful, md iMhluUM* ibinrfg Ufpnni<
IM,, nih, irlin>, 5
tt\tr-,itr, Ldi.ful md Kiluuli'.m ikunm; uf jr ^pnv miDRbh [Vm
urn (ius.li. rtlcnlvti^Al
JliJ l.k--j!l^- i/ frrJi -I ir«Ukn «-d liutl imlmi lu mul.
«"»- 'w*f Vum U din f 4! r£ud*dv
' ^' rj! m, vnil
cf>dibiHtlTl |HVAC;
Ail
d l*pUE.nTIHTl,t>U|JflJ{h I*1 W^VT.|IUllAKntH!1lL
i .-tt i-'-mp-i, .dl.ir,, d-mewn. Luii'.i^kr kuiwir BKfMm
[ITIVT£ of M^R
: • .1 1 . -mil
» of Buhfaiji A. B. L. Ji« t I
Etfec! pjiiwiys _..»*•
vriv^to4M.te •'
Serena CcmnMinlty School Impact Padiwar CHaeram
October 2013
[207]
-------
Appendix E. Documentation of HIA Communication Materials
Li rfvd ^""-*
Cm iimid fnontm
Gerena Community School Health Impact Assessment (HIAJ
U. 5. L\ •iririjiiirgi t^i Pi(jte:.tiur) AgfirLy. Region 1 and Off me of RsieaiLh and
Assessment
AssessmenTSi Mere ae*forncd, based an Che parmay d agra TI, TO
gat-w baseline information and evaluate whether the predicted healfi
Imaactf rn gfn be ••ealiicfl'. The HLA pm|eti team assessed mpacts at
Serena CnmmurKty Schco in tic-sc lQL.-etnc.ral areas.
1. Irccor A,r Qja HeaTh (Asthma)
3. Qassraom Atoustc tnvtronmtm
4. GoTimLiicvFe'spectvBsaf the Fac fly
Methodologies
Several mctiadologlBS were used during Tie assessment OTKKI,
••- -d -i.--
*• LmraTLfe flov ews
*• CammatTy E iflageTicnc
-• FYessLre MaDaiic.
S Encosure Al' Tightness
Analysis
• Infrared Imaging
Air monitor on root at s-:hcol
Ecupmt'it Survey
Ai'PartctSa-npling
HIA project team surveying the HVAC syaenu
General Findings
The HIA i-a-xt team evaluated •:crtj tons at the stfco! ard *i the
nhv as aart of tfie MIA. Genera f tdlngs arc presented ic-f
The high rate of air lea luge out of the tacillry a nd th* irregiuar ,3anerns
oi a ' pressure tin* time artriDutcd TO high energy rcgylwDEnts and
o^ersfain or. tic "VAC ifstemi. iTBeuU-patrerrucf air srcxsure 'How
are due TO the malfmct on or so TIC air "iaidliiR LIT 11 and ai' leaks In
the walls, *all cr;5, and footed f»bo iJi>!. The HVAC equipment
arc systfns i"- cuuiited aid need tucnsi** uqajadcs to meet
txtld ng code standards and a r QMallty requireTicn::.
A.-pariicesjn-o r^ indicated .ilE^iconct-nraton evclsaf
cay. Mod contaTilnanlc-i leves were abiornalv
f acllty and Irdcatc ejcterutve watcr damage of dry matcrta s,
Ortob*r 2013
Respiratory Health
Asthma is a miff oanccrnfo' residents n the cio*nmLnty and
stLdc-ifli at the SCTDOI. On a^iaee.. oic r. f :.c itj*Enti ai fw sctioo
sufrei TIOTI asi ma. TWB are scwra facto's that Ir/kjente astima
symptDin onscc. Mo d, excessfiw Tinlstjre.. and air oaliflants a*B
cormnor astvna Trigjcn round in the sciool.
Classroom Acoustic Environment
fgti now levels In fw dasftum ha%* t*cr, repoted bv parents aid
ftarf. Eaccsstve noise can damage lea ing, causa vote strain, aid
rducfl st'ess nstuctefmand teachers. Ruirclaisraaniacioustcscan
also d snjf( tie earning STKESS and make i3«ch intt- ll^la icy wcry
The Community
Tie HIA aroiect neam used 2DID U.S. CensLs data ^CBTBLU tracts SOW,
•SOOT, and 3COSI 10 characrertzc tic corrruncy. In gewal, tv-
cnrnmunltv ca-istsc ol a ynunger DapJatoi:hjr ; D-ccorrinanr r
Icmalcatdot Puerto Scan desocn. The predomrant language
iaokei at lame is SDBI ii. Socki eoonomc iaaars , idicabe that oiy
20 3DK of the lupiJar. 01 iai grduated h gh sciooi or nece-vcd tie p
GED. The percent of Lr*malDvment •angcs rromJi 31*, and the
•ncdiai louserod Ircome h the area i$LS,DH> IG.OOO. Upon
•cv>f(«ir( state repotcd health Oaca, The ma|or health cancems far
TNscacnmuiTv r^olw ncspratory heatih, dabetes.aid
cardovasoiar disease.
Community Perspectives of the Futility
~-<- school Is a prcfliin-it rcanxe ciar int ucrccs T ie soda
tnvlrunme-Tt d the dmnvjiTy, Tt schoo doulnd as a cormnuritv
center in wich sacal capita Is dchvoaed. ~-i?-c is a general xed
aeteatoi of poo- condlt ots at t"« sciool from sa -cncs and
cam*nunny memaefs. Parents ha»* reported air qua! Ty canoETts aT
The sc-ool as a ma|or cause at student absenteeism and lack ol use of
the raci'Jty. The scnaol, aciig a direct rf kience or, resident moUllty,
•nay also Influence lealch nutcomES iclated TO physical actvlty.
ReconiniendatJons
Based on tie findings of cic assessment phase, recornne-idat ois will
ae developed to stee- the decision tnwa mfc the gicatest DOS ii«
•tea th bcnaf c. Tne next stea f pr the HIA yojKt team t: to develop
a-eliminary reccmimendatton£ and eltit cammuirry aid dccisior-
•naker rcedtxact on those rDcornmendackins. Inpur Iron these
sakcnoldfirs: will Than b* lncon»rated Into The fna priornijatbn of
•enoMatonoptois, aid'mal iccommendatlDns wi be presented to
deciskin maters and tic- ouMlc.
£PA, ttegan 1 Office
•3KTjif FTITG
frantiLfeonj eifpepa.gov
MarvBctn Smua
Srrub.marftiethfp epa.gov
CPA, Office of RBsBarrt- ami Ocvetopmcnt
Florence Fulk
Fdk.tkirBnoiageaa.ajmi
Valere la-rsr ar
Zartairlan.i;alerieg>e3aji.C'»
[208]
-------
Appendix E. Documentation of HIA Communication Materials
PowerPoint Presentation to PERM (January 29, 2014)
Gerena Community School
Health Impact Assessment (HIA)
Discussion Presentation
Januar-y 29,2014
Overview of Gerena School HIA
Joint project by EPA Region I and Office of Research and
Development (ORD), funded by ORD's Sustainable and
Healthy Communities Project
Client: Springfield Dept of Parks, Buildings, Recreation
Management
Stakeholders: Gerena Community School staff, students,
and parents, City of Springfield officials, and residents of
North End community
Product: a set of recommendations for renovating the
school and guidance for prioritizing recommended
renovations based on health and community concerns
(overlaid with time and funding ability)
Timeline &. Activities for Next Steps in HIA
• Draft list of recommended renovations, prioritized by
EPA IAQ experts
• Draft list of recommended renovations, prioritized by
health impacts and community concerns
•^' Draft list of recommended renovations, prioritized by
cost and feasibility- requires input from clients (DPBRM)
" Present list of recommended renovations to:
Springfield School Board and Mayor- mid February
2014
Community stakeholders- March 2014
• Finalize list of prioritized renovations- March 2014
• Complete HIA and finalize full report- April 2014
Suggested Prioritization Criteria
Health Impacts: based on science and community
concerns
Costs: initial and operating costs (or savings)
Feasibility: ease of operation/maintenance, durability
and occupancy
Timing and Phasing of Actions: immediate, near term
and longer term actions
The purpose of standardizing priontization criteria is to
improve understanding of renovation selection by all
stakeholders
NOTE: understanding does not always mean consensus
was made
Renovation Options
Immediate Actions
Seal air leakages in Building Envelope
Exhaust and reseal outer tunnej C
Upgrade Air Handling Units, bypass
3'iti nta-res n B
Increased deanjng of drain pans
Use Checklist of Tools for Schools
Value for for
Acthi
LnoiM
High
High
High
Mod.
Low
High
High
Mod,
Mo Effect
No Effect
High
High
High
Mod.
Low
Renovation Options
Near Term Actions
Renovation Option
Value for I for C.P., I Value
Asthma Noise
Implement waterproofing to stop
water leakage in tunnels C & A
After Eeak repair, discard damaged
porous materials. Furniture and
coverings and replace with cleanable
materials
If HVAC or air polSutant sources or
levels change, such as traffic or train,
re-evaiuate air intakes locations or
filters used
Clean ductwork that is not replaced
High
High
High
High
High
High
High No Effect High
[209]
-------
Appendix E. Documentation of HIA Communication Materials
Renovation Options
Longer Term Actions
Rep'ace and upgrade all air handling
units and associated systems in all
bull dings (A,B,C and D)
Replace large boilers with higher
efficiency and sealed boilers
Replace and upgrade chiller room
exhaust
Install security for building equipment
Value for For C.P., Value
Asthma Noise
Mod. High High
No Effect No Effect No Effect
No Effect No Effect No Effect
Suggested Prioritization Criteria
• First Cost
s, $$, $$$
• Operating Cost (or Savings)
4, $$, $$$
• Ease of Operation/Maintenance
High, Moderate, Low
• Durability
High, Moderate, Low
• Occupancy
High, Moderate, Low
Renovation Options
Immediate Actions
Renovation Option
Seal air leakages in
Building Envelope
Exhaust and reseal
outer tunnel C
Upgrade Air Handling
.••.:. bypass and
intakes in bid. B
Increased cleaning of
dirain pans
Use Checklist of Tools
for Schools
Operating Ease Durability Occupancy
Colt (or of
Savins*) O/M
Renovation Option First Operating Ease Durability Occupancy
Cost Cost (or of
Savings) O/M
[Tip eme-i:
watei-proofing to stop
water leakage in
tunnels C & A
After leak repair,
dsscard damaged
porous materials,
furniture, coverings
and replace with
clean able rrvaterials
If HVAC or air pollutant
sources or levels
changer such as traffic
or train, re-evaluate air
intakes locations or
titters used
i Clean ductwork that is
not replaced
Renovation Options
Longer Term Actions
First Operating Ease Durability Occupancy
Cost Cost (or of
Saving!) O/M
Replace and upgrade
all air handling units
and associated
systems in all buildings
£A,B,C and D)
R.ea ace args toilers
with higher efficiency
and sealed boilers
Replace and upgrade
chiller room exhaust
Install security for
building equipment
Bases for Recommendations
• Identification of health impacts: asthma-
school data and science; noise- science and
community concerns; and community
perceptions of school IAQ
• Data collection for school renovations:
1. Evaluation of school contractors'reports
2. ORD's Mold Research Analysis
3. Turner's Building Assessment Report
4. Arcadis Air Sampling Report
* Draft Priorization of Renovations based on
science and expert judgment
[210]
-------
Appendix E. Documentation of HIA Communication Materials
Results and Recommendations
from ORD Mold Analysis Report
Indicator Mold spores (use of ORD research tool
ERI-1I) present in settled dust in upper pods
• Correct water leaks
• Remove damaged porous materials and
replace with easily cleanable material
• Conduct thorough cleaning
Turner Building Assessment Report
Findings and Recommendations
Use of blower dr testing for air exchange rate,
limited COx and pressure testing and
observations identified unplanned air flows
• Seal bid for air leakages
• Exhaust/dry Tunnel C tunnel within tunnel
moisture
• Upgrade Air handling units
• Evaluate air intake placements if outdr
sources change
Arcadis Air Sampling Findings
and Recommendations
Screening level 6 d. study of key combustion
pollutants. Outdr. Pollutants, NOx and BC,
impact IAQ in tunnel area but Indr. Levels
well below outdr levels. In 1/3 sampling
days when N wind, higher pollution levels.
• If HVAC or outdr sources, such as traffic or
train, change, reevaluate placement or
filtering of intakes by completing wind
tunnel study and longer, comprehensive air
monitoring.
• Seal air leakages so all air enters through
air intakes.
o
For additional thoughts,
MvyBcth Smuast^i,
G«crgf Frifltz « "-."7
Thank You!
, suggestions, pterec
[211]
-------
Appendix E. Documentation of HIA Communication Materials
Handout for Meeting with PERM (January 29, 2014)
Observations and Guidance Regarding Gerena Community School
Recommendations for Remediation Actions
HIA Core Research Group
January 2014
During the past several years, contractors and consultants have provided many recommendations
regarding improvements to Gerena Community School. These recommendations span a wide
range of costs, complexity, and potential impacts on the school facilities and on the health and
well being of the school occupants. Not all recommendations can be accomplished at once due
to factors such as cost (e.g., budget constraints), the need for extended periods of no occupancy
(e.g., summer break) to perform some of the recommendations, and because some of the
recommendations should be performed in a sequential manner. It is essential that all
stakeholders (i.e., those who will be affected by the decision) have the opportunity to understand
and comment on the actions, the priority order for the actions, and the overall timeline for
completion of each of the phases, and that there is an overall agreement on the plan. Therefore it
becomes necessary for the school authorities and community to identify and come to agreement
on what actions will be taken, and in what order.
The HIA looked at baseline conditions, identified community and stakeholder concerns, and
predicted potential impacts of each renovation option proposed. Based on the findings from the
HIA, the core research team drafted a set of priority criteria and a sequence of phases for the set
of recommendations proposed11.
First, the renovation options need to be sorted into phases of implementation (i.e., action). Since
the renovations cannot be accomplished all at once, it is recommended that two (2) or more
phases of action are developed. For an example, three action phases were used to sort the
renovation options proposed for Gerena.
Phase 1: Immediate Actions
11 The following observations and guidelines are based on the experience of the authors, and do not necessarily
reflect official policies of the EPA. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement
or recommendation for use.
[212]
-------
Appendix E. Documentation of HIA Communication Materials
These are actions that can be accomplished immediately based on the criteria. These can
likely be completed within one school year.
Phase 2: Near-Term Actions
The timeline for these actions are highly dependent on the available budget and require
more extensive planning and preparation before work begins. They likely can be
accomplished within two (2) or three (3) years after work has begun, or when the budget
has been approved by the City Council.
Phase 3: Long-Term Actions
These are likely actions that will require a significant budget and therefore will take the
longest to accomplish. Some of these actions may also require completion of actions in
Phase 2.
Second, the renovation options need to be prioritized based on a set of criteria deemed
appropriate for the school and agreed upon by all stakeholders. The following are some criteria
the HIA recommends for the decision-makers to consider when attempting establishing the most
efficient and effective remediation plan for the school. Note that most of the following criteria
are rated as being High (H), Medium (M), or Low (L) in the example tables. This makes it easier
to see and compare the rating of each action item. In this case, H is better than M and L, and
actions with a single $ symbol have lower first costs (requires less initial funding) than an action
rated as
Health Value
Establish a simple scale (e.g., score of High, Moderate, and Low) for identifying which
projects are expected to have the most positive effect on health and well being (score =
H) and those that have the lowest expected effect (score = L). Although the other criteria
have an impact on prioritization, since this criterion is directly related to the health and
well-being of the school occupants, it likely will carry significantly more weight in
determining the priority of an action when compared to any of the other criteria.
First Cost
Establish a simple scale (e.g., one to three $ symbols) to associate with the first cost for
each action. A single $ symbol could represent those actions that can be accomplished at
no cost or low cost, such as with currently available funding sources (e.g., annual
operations budget). Two symbols ($$) could represent those actions requiring funding
[213]
-------
Appendix E. Documentation of HIA Communication Materials
that could be available in two (2) to three (3) years, after work has begun. Three symbols
($$$) could represent those actions that may take several years before funding is
available.
Operating Cost (or Savings)
Establish a similar scale as the First Cost criterion (e.g., one to three $ symbols) to
associate with the operating cost for each action. Some actions will have an ongoing
operating cost or savings associated with them. A single $ symbol could represent those
actions that can be operated at no cost, low cost, or even at a savings (over current
operating expenses), such as actions that result in reduced utility bills. Three symbols
($$$) could represent those actions that may result in significant increases to the
operating cost of the school.
Ease of Operation and Maintenance
Actions that require little to no time for proper operation and maintenance would be rated
as H, while actions that may not continue to work properly without investing a significant
amount of time for operation and maintenance would be rated as L.
Durability
Actions that are expected to have a long life (e.g., 15 or more years) before needing
replacement or overhaul would be rated as H. Actions lasting 5-15 years would be rated
as M, and actions lasting less than 5 years would be rated as L.
Occupancy
An action would receive an H rating if it could be performed at any time during the
school year, but would receive an L rating if for safety reasons it could only be performed
when the school is not occupied, e.g., during summer, fall or spring break.
[214]
-------
Appendix E. Documentation of HIA Communication Materials
Phase 1: Immediate Actions
Recommendation
Origin (#)
Building Assessment
Report (#8, 9)
Building Assessment
Report (#3); Air
Sampling Report (#2)
Building Assessment
Report (#10)
Building Assessment
Report (#12)
Building Assessment
Report (#14, 15)
Renovation Option
Added renovation options identified by the HIA are provided in
italics.
Grouping of renovation options are indicated by highlighting.
Sequence within group follows numbered order.
1 . Seal building enclosure air-tight at identified air leakage
sites in building enclosure.
1. Change the air flow between outer mechanical space and
inner community space of Tunnel C by continuously
exhausting wet areas and sealing outer tunnel C from inner
tunnel C space.
3 . Tune-up of bypass and fresh air intake dampers for every
AHU in Building B to ensure delivery of adequate outside air
and temperature control.
4. Provide increased cleaning of air conditioning drain pans.
5 . Improve HVAC Preventative Maintenance Program using
checklist of EPA IAQ Tools for Schools kit -within one month
of completion of #3 and #4, then follow the recommended
schedule to ensure proper continued operation.
1
"3
5
"3
£
H
H
H
H
H
^
^
o
U
|
E
^
^
0
U
§
=8
O
aseofO&M
W
Durability
Occupancy
Prioritization Criteria Legend
Health Value: H= actions that are expected to have the highest positive effect on health and well being , M= actions expected to have a moderate effect on health and well being,
L= actions expected to have a low effect on health and well being
First Cost: $= actions that can be accomplished at no or low cost, $$= actions require funding that could be available in two to three years, after work has begun, $$$= actions may
take several years before funding is available
Operating Cost (or Savings): $= actions that can be operated at no cost, low cost, or even at a savings, $$= actions that may result in moderate increases to the operating costs of
the school, $$$= actions that may result in significant increases to the operating cost of the school
Ease of Operation and Maintenance: H= actions that require little to no time for proper operation and maintenance, M= actions that may require a moderate amount of time for
proper operation and maintenance, L= actions that may not continue to work properly without investing a significant amount of time for operation and maintenance
Durability: H= actions expected to have a long useful life (e.g., 15 or more years) before needing replacement, M= actions lasting or having a useful life of 5-15 years, L= actions
lasting less than 5 years of useful life
Occupancy: H= actions that can be performed at any time during the school year, M= actions that can be performed when the school is at minimum occupancy, L= actions that can
only be performed when the school is not occupied
[215]
-------
Appendix E. Documentation of HIA Communication Materials
Phase 2: Near-term Actions
Recommendation
Origin (#)
Building Assessment
Report (#6)
Mold Assessment
Report (#1); Building
Assessment Report
(#4, 6): ); Air
Sampling Report (#2)
Mold Assessment
Report (#2, 3);
Building Assessment
Report (#6)
Building Assessment
Report (#7)
Building Assessment
Report (#15)
Building Assessment
Report (#1,5, 11); Air
Sampling Report (# 1 )
Renovation Option
Legend for values located at end of table.
Added renovation options identified by the baseline condition
findings are provided in italics.
Grouping of renovation options are indicated by highlighting.
Sequence within group follows numbered order.
6 . Further investigation of waterproof membrane, wall
construction, and tunnel ceiling (chase) around tunnel A and
C to develop repair program to stop water leakage (may not
be cost-effective).
7. Based on findings from #6, reseal areas causing water leakage
in tunnels.
8. Remove and discard porous building materials that have been
damaged by water intrusion for longer than 48 hours and not
professionally dried or cleaned (AFTER water intrusion is
stopped).
9. Plan for future air movement and ensure airflows from
occupied areas to unoccupied areas.
10. Improve energy management of HVAC by adjusting HVAC
operating times.
1 1 . Continue to evaluate impact of outdoor combustion sized
particles on indoor air quality. If air pollutant sources or
levels change, re-evaluate optimal locations of air intakes and
filters used.
Health Value
H
H
H
H
No
Effect
H
First Cost
if*
o
U
§
=8
O
EaseofO&M
Durability
Occupancy
Prioritization Criteria Legend
Health Value: H= actions that are expected to have the highest positive effect on health and well-being , M= actions expected to have a moderate effect on health and well-being,
L= actions expected to have a low effect on health and well being
[216]
-------
Appendix E. Documentation of HIA Communication Materials
First Cost: $= actions that can be accomplished at no or low cost, $$= actions require funding that could be available in two to three years, after work has begun, $$$= actions may
take several years before funding is available
Operating Cost (or Savings): $= actions that can be operated at no cost, low cost, or even at a savings, $$= actions that may result in moderate increases to the operating costs of
the school, $$$= actions that may result in significant increases to the operating cost of the school
Ease of Operation and Maintenance: H= actions that require little to no time for proper operation and maintenance, M= actions that may require a moderate amount of time for
proper operation and maintenance, L= actions that may not continue to work properly without investing a significant amount of time for operation and maintenance
Durability: H= actions expected to have a long useful life (e.g., 15 or more years) before needing replacement, M= actions lasting or having a useful life of 5-15 years, L= actions
lasting less than 5 years of useful life
Occupancy: H= actions that can be performed at any time during the school year, M= actions that can be performed when the school is at minimum occupancy, L= actions that can
only be performed when the school is not occupied
Phase 3: Long-Term Actions
Recommendation
Origin (#)
Building Assessment
Report (#2,1 3)
Renovation Option
Legend for values located at end of table.
Added renovation options identified by the baseline condition
findings are provided in italics.
Grouping of renovation options are indicated by highlighting.
Sequence within group follows numbered order.
12. Redesign and replace (upgrade) all HVAC air handing units
and associated return fans, controls, ductwork, piping in
Building A, B, C, and D with high efficiency electronic-
controlled models. Include installation of easy access doors.
Js
03
5
03
a
•£
o
U
E
E
-*^
o
U
4*
O
g
\5
o
St.
0
03
w
_&>
1
Q
b"
a
03
=
U
U
O
Prioritization Criteria Legend
Health Value: H= actions that are expected to have the highest positive effect on health and well being , M= actions expected to have a moderate effect on health and well being,
L= actions expected to have a low effect on health and well being
First Cost: $= actions that can be accomplished at no or low cost, $$= actions require funding that could be available in two to three years, after work has begun, $$$= actions may
take several years before funding is available
Operating Cost (or Savings): $= actions that can be operated at no cost, low cost, or even at a savings, $$= actions that may result in moderate increases to the operating costs of
the school, $$$= actions that may result in significant increases to the operating cost of the school
Ease of Operation and Maintenance: H= actions that require little to no time for proper operation and maintenance, M= actions that may require a moderate amount of time for
proper operation and maintenance, L= actions that may not continue to work properly without investing a significant amount of time for operation and maintenance
Durability: H= actions expected to have a long useful life (e.g., 15 or more years) before needing replacement, M= actions lasting or having a useful life of 5-15 years, L= actions
lasting less than 5 years of useful life
Occupancy: H= actions that can be performed at any time during the school year, M= actions that can be performed when the school is at minimum occupancy, L= actions that can
only be performed when the school is not occupied
[217]
-------
Appendix E. Documentation of HIA Communication Materials
PowerPoint Presentation to PERM (August 7, 2014)
Screening
Seating
Assessmenl
fleportng
HIA Process
• -:!"! ' :• -
tJeh-mwws wtucn hearth impacts ID evaluate iwlhoCsfor
analysis, end a woftplan
Provides:
i 1 a prone at frosting health contf nun*
y \ et-alLatir.n ol patcntia -wjlth mpactx
. . .11
1 1 ctevefiipmenl of ffre MlArepart
; | con-muTcaE-on of Sn^ngs & recommenaaltons
Trade*.
1 1 impacts or) dscfrico-mslung procw«» and Ihc decision
DRAFT AGENDA
1. EPA Preienuiion on Executive Summaf
A. Jiicussic n on Executive Summary
b. Discussion on Report
2. N&rt Steps Netesary and tammuniry
s. Written Maten ali
b. PresenuEi&ns
c. Schedule/Logiitics
3, Value of HIA t n Spf mgfield and Lessees
Learned
a. atv Perspecuve
HIA Goals, Gerena School
Influence actions to improve indoor air & well-being ai Gerena. wnh expeoation that those
Actions would remove or mitigate environ menial factors that i nfluence aithrrw symptoms
Increase range of community groups participating in the decision-making process and their
undersurvdlng of reasons behind decisions made
Provide recommendations so they could be incorporated in repair decisions
Overall HIA Goals
1. Bring a health focus and add value to decisions on school
improvements & repairs
• based on scj'en tsfic data, heatth expertise & publk input
2. Gain experience in HIAs
HIA Process for Gerena School
Screening
* Springfield Department of Parks, Buildings, Recreations Management (PBftM) led
several i nvestigations to identify improvements
• Time and funding are limiting factors for renovations
• PBflM selecting and implementing renovation options as the HIA started
Scoping
• Focused on environmental conditions In Gerena and how renovations could influence
health and well-being of facility users especially among vulnerable populations
[218]
-------
Appendix E. Documentation of HIA Communication Materials
HIA Process for Gerena School (eont'd)
Assessment
* Study designed to address stakeholder concerns
• Literature reviews of peer-reviewed scientific journals and published reports
• Building Integrated Assessment (BIA) and Diagnostics:
: Building enclosure air Tightness testing and Infrared Imaging
: Visual survey of HVAC equipment and maintenance plan
: Settled dust sampling to test mold contamination
: Air pressure m-apf] ing throughout facility
: 3-day continuous recording of indoor CO2, temperature, relative humidity, and laser
particle counting in selected areas
; 6-day recording of indoor and outdoor temperature, relative humidity and
indoor/outdoor monitoring for select combustion source pollutants
Discussion of Executive Summary and Report
GerGfid School
Building Integrated Assessment
1 Provides an integrated assessment that
characterises the building and how it is
operating relative to occupant health
1 Ensures a holistic perspective that connects
the HIA results with likely solutions
• Helps establish a prioritized set of
recommendations
• Goes several steps beyond typical reports
provided by mechanical |HVAC) contractors
and architectural consultants
• Example; Wei hidden tunnel + Major air
leak where walls meet roof deck - central
atrium •+ boiler room convened to pool
room + kids = ht&h potential for asthma
incidents
Agenda Item Number 2:
Reporting and Community Meeting Prep
HIA Key Elements for Gerena School
> Community Perceptions (page 4)
o Condibons at Gerena are unhealthy and not safe for vulnerable populations,
especi all/ asthmatics
o Accessibility Is a key determinant of facility use among residents
o Gerena Is an irreplaceable asset to the community
' Ranking PBRM Renovation Options In Terms of Health {page6]
' Final HIA Recommendations [page 7-8)
HIA Process, Gerena School
Reporting
> HiA Executive Summary
> HIA Report
> Next Steps:
a Bring Draft final HIA Exec, Summary and Report 10 Springfield PBRM for review and
discussion on August 7, 2014
- EPA to emphasise Depart is preliminary and will undergo external peer review
n Sched ule Public Community meeting to present and take comments on Draft Final
HI A Executive Summary and Report
_ EPA wants to emphasize the HIA results are preliminary and need to undergo bom
external peer review and community input before flnalmng
^ Finalize and disseminate on EPA website u
[219]
-------
Appendix E. Documentation of HIA Communication Materials
Agenda Item Number 3:
Value of HIA in Springfield and Lessons Learned
[220]
-------
Appendix E. Documentation of HIA Communication Materials
What We Knew About the Problem
• Primarily asthma (airborne)
• Widespread by location and people-types
• Moisture clearly an issue
• Mold therefore likely a problem
• Vehicle emissions unique concern
' ' :r
Ventilation Intake Grilles
School Cross Section
Look at the vehicles ...
/"H"
Classrooms
Train
1-91
Street
Vehicle exhaust enters school
[221]
-------
Appendix E. Documentation of HIA Communication Materials
6 days of testing did not see high
levels of vehicle exhaust indoors
rmnni
2. Gaps where walls meet roof
/—\ / n. X-N
7 combined factors related to mold
I
J
•
*3 Si
^ 1 — 1
1
1 — • 1
3. Water leaks from rain and ground water
1. Old boiler room connected to hidden tunnel
I
Water in hidden
tunnel surrounding
pedestrian tunnel
4. Water leaks increase mold growth
[222]
-------
Appendix E. Documentation of HIA Communication Materials
5. Open atrium forms a chimney
Is mold A problem? Yes
Is mold THE problem? Fixes will help us know
Short Term Fixes
• Stop or contain most of the water leaks
• Stop unnecessary air leaks
• Place hidden tunnel under negative pressure
• Thorough cleaning of all surfaces
6. Mold carried to classrooms
7. Add the students and staff
[223]
-------
Appendix F. HIA Assessment Plan
HIA Assessment Plan for Baseline Analyses
Health Impact
Indoor Air
Quality
Baseline Research Question
What are the levels of selected
(key) air pollutants present in
Gerena?
• Are there areas in the
building where there are
higher levels of indoor air
pollutants?
• What are the primary health
issues related to exposures
to those indoor air
pollutants?
Assessment Method(s)
Forensic review of previous
investigative reports
Quantitative mold
contamination analysis
On-site diagnostics of
HVAC system and building
enclosure, which will
include pressure mapping;
enclosure air tightness,
infrared imaging; HVAC
operation, monitoring
carbon dioxide,
temperature, and relative
humidity control, laser
particle counting, visual
inspection of HVAC
equipment and maintenance
plan
Continuous sampling of
select air pollutants
Analyze reasons for visiting
the school nurse
Indicators/Data
Environmental Relative
Moldiness Index (ERMI)
values
Total Airflow (cubic feet per
minute)
Pressure Gradient (Pascal's)
Carbon Dioxide (parts per
million)
Carbon Monoxide (parts per
million)
Black Carbon (nanograms per
cubic meter)
Ultrafine Particles (particle
count per cubic centimeter)
Nitrogen Oxides, Particulate
Matter 2.5 (micrograms per
cubic meter)
Relative Humidity (%)
Temperature (°F)
Number of visits to school
nurse by cause
Data Source(s)
MA Department of
Public Health;
EPA testing and
modeling
School nurse
surveillance
records
[224]
-------
Appendix F. HIA Assessment Plan
Health Impact
Classroom
Noise
Community
Perception
Facility Use
Baseline Research Question
What are the current ambient
noise levels in Gerena
Community School
classrooms?
• What facility features
contribute to ambient noise
levels and/or the acoustic
environment in the
classrooms?
What are the current
perceptions of Gerena
Community School?
• What conditions are
influencing perceptions
about Gerena among
community members?
What is the current capacity
for facility use and does the
current use meet capacity?
• What demographic groups
use the facility?
• What types of activities are
going on inside the building
(e.g., physical activity
programs, language
learning, afterschool
programs, etc.)?
Assessment Method(s)
Indicators/Data
• On-site diagnostics of
acoustic environment (if
available)
• Systematic literature review
and synthesis
• Qualitative analysis of input
from building occupants
Direct observation (if
available)
Qualitative analysis of input
from building occupants
• Measured or estimated
ambient noise levels
*Funding unavailable to
perform on-site noise level
measurements.
Data Source(s)
EPA testing (if
available)
Peer-reviewed
journal articles,
grey literature,
and/or agency
reports
• Direct observation (if
available)
• Qualitative analysis of input
from building occupants
• Observational and/or anecdotal
evidence
* Observational data
unobtainable without IRB
approval
• Measured or estimated average
number of users per day
• Square footage and fire code
occupancy maximum
requirements for room
occupancy
• Ratio of student, local resident,
visitor usage)
* Observational data
unobtainable without IRB
approval
Local news and
social media
outlets (newspaper
articles, news
segments, radio,
blogs, etc.)
Facility planning
records
[225]
-------
Appendix F. HIA Assessment Plan
Health Impact
Asthma
Symptoms
Baseline Research Question
What is the prevalence of
asthma among students and the
community using Gerena
Community School?
• Are there differences in
asthma prevalence among
sub-groups in the
population?
• Are there agents in the
school environment that
contribute to asthma
symptom exacerbation in
children?
Assessment Method(s)
Indicators/Data
Data Source(s)
Collection and risk analysis
of reported data from
school nurse and
Massachusetts Department
of Public Health
Systematic literature review
and analysis
Asthma prevalence among
students
Asthma prevalence among
North End residents (if
available) by age, gender, race
and ethnicity, educational
attainment, and income
School nurse
surveillance
records
Massachusetts
Community
Health
Information
Profile
(MassCHIP)
Peer-reviewed
journal articles,
grey literature,
and/or agency
reports
Impact Assessment and Characterization
Health Impact Impact Research Question
Indoor Air
Quality
How can the proposed
renovation options impact
levels of key air pollutants?
Assessment Method(s)
Qualitative review and
analysis of evidence
available
Classroom Will each of the proposed
Noise renovation options have the
potential to change classroom
noise levels and/or classroom
acoustics?
Qualitative review and
analysis of evidence
available
Indicators/Data
Direction; Likelihood;
Magnitude; Distribution
Direction; Likelihood;
Magnitude; Distribution
Data Source(s)
Peer-reviewed
journal articles,
grey literature,
and/or agency
reports
Professional
expertise
Peer-reviewed
journal articles,
grey literature,
and/or agency
reports
[226]
-------
Appendix F. HIA Assessment Plan
Health Impact
Community
Perceptions
Impact Research Question
• How can classroom noise
and/or classroom acoustics
affect health?
• Are there sub-groups more
vulnerable to impacts from
noise?
Will each of the proposed
renovation options have the
potential to change community
perceptions about Gerena
Community School?
• How can community
perceptions affect health in
the community and among
facility users?
• Are there sub-groups more
susceptible to impacts from
the perceived indoor
environment?
Assessment Method(s)
Qualitative review and
analysis of evidence
available
Facility Use Will each of the proposed
renovation options have the
potential to change the amount
of people who use of the
facility or the activities
performed inside?
• How can using the facility
affect health?
• Will different groups who
use the facility be impacted
Qualitative review and
analysis of evidence
available
Indicators/Data
Data Source(s)
Direction; Likelihood;
Magnitude; Distribution
• Direction; Likelihood;
Magnitude; Distribution
* Not enough information to
perform the assessment.
Evidence available links
community perceptions to
facility use. Thus, information
was transferred to perceptions
section.
• Professional
expertise
Peer-reviewed
journal articles,
grey literature,
and/or agency
reports
Reviewed
evidence and
professional
expertise
Peer-reviewed
journal articles,
grey literature,
and/or agency
reports
Reviewed
evidence and
professional
expertise
[227]
-------
Appendix F. HIA Assessment Plan
Health Impact Impact Research Question
more from the predicted
changes?
Assessment Method(s)
Asthma
How can each of the proposed
renovation options impact
respiratory health for all users
of Gerena Community School?
o Will those with asthma be
impacted more so than
others?
• Qualitative review and
analysis of evidence
available
Indicators/Data
• Direction; Likelihood;
Magnitude; Distribution
Data Source(s)
Peer-reviewed
journal articles,
grey literature,
and/or agency
reports
Reviewed
evidence and
professional
expertise
[228]
-------
Appendix G. Details of Assessment Methods and Findings
Baseline Affected Population Analysis
Purpose
In public health practice, investigators establish a reference point (i.e., baseline) in which to
compare potential health effects of the affected population. The baseline should include a
characterization of the health status and/or health trends among the affected population and any
socioeconomic and/or environmental variables known to influence health. Performing this
analysis helps to understand the extent to which a proposed policy, program, project, or plan may
affect health and identify any vulnerable populations.
Common socioeconomic variables included in a baseline analysis of the affected population may
include, but are not limited to, socioeconomic status (a composite score of income educational
attainment and occupation/employment), proportion of minority sub-groups, and primary
language spoken at home. The ability to speak, read, and write in the common language can
broaden or limit a person's access to social services and/or support. Since English is the
common language in the United States, a low proficiency in the English language can become a
disadvantage if the community's social system lacks the capacity to address this gap. The notes
from stakeholder meetings documented that many residents use the afterschool language
programs at Gerena Community School to learn English. Educational attainment is "used in
studies of the relationship between education and mortality and provides and indicator of
socioeconomic status, which is also closely associated with mortality" (Registry of Vital Records
and Statistics (RVRS) Fact Book for Death Registration, Form R-301 Draft 10/05/2006). Formal
education supplies additional opportunity to develop and strengthen cognitive, language, and
emotional skills (Zimmerman & Woolf, 2014). These skills, coupled with strong social capital
(i.e., the support and capability to address issues within a community), can influence a person's
ability to maintain and improve individual health through many mediating pathways, such as
self-efficacy (i.e., the ability to address one's own needs and challenges) and access to services.
Hosuehold income can influence a person's financial access to healthcare, nutritious foods, and
healthy home environments.
Methodology
The affected population included North End residents living in Census tracts 8006, 8007, 8006,
and students enrolled at Gerena. The key indicators used to represent vulnerable impacted
populations (VIPs) included young children under age 5 years, older adults over age 65 years,
[229]
-------
Appendix G. Details of Assessment Methods and Findings
students with asthma, students with special needs, and households with low English proficiency
(speak English less than "very well").
For resident information, investigators extrapolated data from the 2010 Census and American
Community Survey 2008-2012 through American FactFinder (U.S. Census Bureau) for key
socioeconomic indicators. Counts were aggregated and percentages computed using Excel. In
early 2015, EPA's EJScreen was available for public use (http://www2.epa.gov/ejscreen).
EJScreen is an environmental justice screening and mapping tool that utilizes standard and
nationally consistent data to highlight places that may have higher environmental burdens and
vulnerable populations. The mapping tool in EJScreen automatically aggregates 2008-2012 ACS
estimate data at the block group level. Investigators used the mapping tool to draw a polygon
around the three chosen Census tracts and generated summary reports for the area drawn.
For student information, researchers extrapolated data from the Massachusetts Department of
Elementary and Secondary Education School/District Profiles portal
(http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/).
Available health data for residents was limited to mortality counts. Massachusetts provides a
state-wide health database available to the public, called the Massachusetts Community Health
Information Profile (Mass CHIP; available at
http://www.mass.gov/eohhs/researcher/community-health/masschip/). This database reports
mortality (i.e., deaths) by cause at the neighborhood-level. Cause of death was reported using
the 1C-10 coding schedule.12 Mortality counts were pulled for Brightwood/Memorial Square
(North End component neighborhoods) for the years 2006 to 2010 (i.e., the most current data
available). Causes selected included indicators of overall health, mental and behavioral health,
and respiratory health. The population estimate (n = 8,484) was obtained from the American
Community Survey data summary files for 2006 to2010 to match death years.
Cause-specific mortality rate is the number of deaths, by cause, among the total population at the
midpoint of a time period. Crude cause-specific mortality rates were computed in Excel, except
when the number of observed deaths was too few (i.e., less than five deaths), using Equation 1.
Rates were reported per 1,000 people due to the small population size.
Equation 1. Equation used to Calculate Cause-specific Mortality Rates
12 The International Classification of Disease (ICD) coding system is the method used to track patient diagnoses for
surveillance and billing.
[230]
-------
Appendix G. Details of Assessment Methods and Findings
Total Deaths Reported (Cause - Spect/tc)2006_2010 nnn
M/? = x 1,000 people
Total Population Estimated (Ifooe-loio^sooe + x8007 + x8008)
Where, MR = mortality rate, CT = census tract, and x = estimated total population
Cause-specific mortality rate is the rate in which a disease or condition may cause death, but
does not describe the actual prevalence of disease among residents. Because of this, mortality
rates are not optimal to indicate health status, but can be used to infer about common health
issues.
The Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MADPH) surveys asthma prevalence among
residents across the state. MA DPH also collects school health records for the surveillance of
asthma prevalence in school-age populations. There is a lot of confidence in both the community
and school prevalence rates as reported in the pediatric asthma reports. The Pioneer Valley
Asthma Coalition (PVAC), a local non-profit organization, has been working with school nurses
on documenting visits to the school nurse related to asthma and respiratory health. This data has
been used as a baseline to judge the success of community wide actions to improve the
management of asthma symptoms. Counts and reasons for visits to the school nurse were
collected for the dates August 27, 2011 to June 30, 2012 and August 27, 2012 to June 6, 2013.
Data was reported by the school nurse at Gerena and verified by Springfield Public Schools.
Counts were aggregated in Excel and graphed as a percentage of the total.
Findings
Demographic Indicators (Population Structure)
In 2010, there were 8,718 residents living in North End. There density of the population is 7,861
individuals per square mile. Young children under the age of 5 years represented 9.7% of the
residents. Older adults over the age of 65 represented 7.7% of the population. Over one-third of
the population (36.1%) was under 18 years old.
In October 2012, Gerena had 667 students enrolled, which was up 6% from the previous year.
The five-year average enrollment was 694.4 students. With the exception of the 2013 year, total
enrollment has been declining in the past five years. Gerena had a student to teacher ratio of
10.3 to 1. Of the students enrolled, 129 were pre-kindergarten.
Socioeconomic Indicators
In 2010, most (87%) residents living in North End were of Hispanic or Latino ethnicity; African
Americans made up 14% of the population. White, alone and non-hispanic represented 5.2% of
[231]
-------
Appendix G. Details of Assessment Methods and Findings
the population. Most households (estimated 77.0%) were low-income, living on an income
below twice the federal poverty level. Table 1 compares the socioeconomic conditions in the
study area (Census tracts 8006, 8007, and 8008) with Springfield, MA.
Table 1. Key Socioeconomic Indicators for Study Area and Springfield, MA
Socioeconomic Indicators Study Area* Springfield, MA*
Total Population 8,625 153,276
Minority Population* 96.0% 48.5%
Low Income Population* 77.0% 51.0%
Linguistically Isolated Households§ 36.0% 15.4%
Population with Less Than High School Education 50.0% 23.9%
* Source: EPA EJScreen 2015, user-specified polygon location, margin of error not included
* Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2008-2012 American Community Survey, margin of error not
included
* Minority population includes all people other than non-Hispanic, white-alone individuals
* Percentage of population at or below twice the federal poverty level
Percentage of people in household in which all member's over age 14 years speak English less
than "very well"
Most of the students at Gerena were reported as "high needs" (93%), which is based on the
percentage of students that are English Language Learners (ELL), students with disabilities,
and/or are from low-income families (i.e., enrolled in the state lunch assistance program). Of the
667 students enrolled in 2013, 13.5% were students with disabilities, 28.0% were ELL, and
90.1% were from low-income families. Over one-third (37.2) of students spoke English as a
second language. The special education students are taught on the second level of Building B
(Rooms 208 and 209), instead of in the open-floor pods on the third level. Students were also
predominantly (81.3%) Hispanic or Latino ethnicity.
Health Indicators
The average mortality rate for the study area was 31.2 per 1,000 people over five years. Cancer
(all types) was the leading cause of death in the study area, followed by coronary heart disease.
Approximately one in a thousand people die from lung cancer or diabetes mellitus. Table 2
provides the total deaths reported in MassCHIP and the calculated mortality rates by cause.
Table 2. Cause-specific Mortality Rates in the Study Area
[232]
-------
Appendix G. Details of Assessment Methods and Findings
Cause of Death
All Causes
Cancer, All Types
Cancer, Lung
Circulatory,
Cerebrovascular Disease
Circulatory, Coronary
Heart Disease
Circulatory, Hypertension
Endocrine, Diabetes
Mellitus
Digestive, Chronic Liver
Disease
Injuries, Homicide
Injuries, Suicide
Mental Disorders, All
Respiratory, Asthma
Respiratory,
Bronchitis/Chronic/
Unspecified
Respiratory, CLRD
Total
Deaths*
265
61
13
18
29
3
12
6
2
3
9
3
0
8
Percentage
of Total
Deaths
100%
23.0%
4.9%
6.8%
10.9%
1.1%
4.5%
2.3%
0.8%
1.1%
3.4%
1.1%
0%
3.0%
Total Deaths
Total Population
Estimated
0.0312
0.00719
0.00153
0.00212
0.00342
Too Few
Observations
0.00141
0.000707
Too Few
Observations
Too Few
Observations
0.00106
Too Few
Observations
Too Few
Observations
0.000943
Mortality
Rate
31.2
7.2
1.5
2.1
3.4
Too Few
Observations
1.4
0.7
Too Few
Observations
Too Few
Observations
1.1
Too Few
Observations
Too Few
Observations
0.9
* Source: MassCHIP, Cause-specific deaths in Brightwood/Memorial Square, 2006-2010
! Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010 ACS
The prevalence of asthma is considerably high in Springfield, MA compared to other parts of the
state. Springfield, MA has a significantly higher prevalence of lifetime asthma at 18.1% (95%
confidence= 16.6% to 19.5%), compared to the state's prevalence of 14.7% (95% confidence =
14.3% to 15.1%) (MA DPH, 2013b). The prevalence of asthma is higher among residents of
Hispanic ethnicity, compared to non-Hispanics, and females, compared to males (MA DPH,
2013b). Socioeconomic factors appear to be related to asthma prevalence. Asthma prevalence is
greater among low-income households (i.e., total household income less than $50,000 per year)
at 13.7%, compared to only 7.9% prevalence among those with income greater than $50,000 a
year (MA DPH, 2013b). Individuals with more formal education have a lower prevalence of
[233]
-------
Appendix G. Details of Assessment Methods and Findings
asthma than those with less formal education. Table 3 lists the percentage of persons living in
Springfield, MA, by educational attainment, who also have asthma.
Table 3. Asthma Prevalence in Springfield, MA by Educational Attainment
High School or Less
tainment
r 25 years)
Less
Estimated Prevalence of
Asthma*
14.3%
11.8%
9.6%
95% Confidence Interval
12.6% to 16.0%
9.6% to 14.0%
7.2% to 12.0%
Some College
College or More
* Source: MADPH, Mass CHIP 2003-2008 Springfield, MA
The prevalence of asthma among students at Gerena has continuously been higher than at the
state, with an average of one in four students having physician-diagnosed asthma. Table 4 lists
asthma prevalence by year at Gerena compared to the state.
Table 4. Asthma Prevalence among School-aged children at the School and State Level
School Year
2003-2004
2004-2005
2005-2006
2006-2007
2007-2008
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010-2011
2011-2012
School Asthma Prevalence*
21.2%
20.9 %
42.6 %
20.7 %
21.3%
24.7 %
24.0 %!
20.0 %!
19.0 %!
State Asthma Prevalence*
9.5%
10.0%
10.6%
10.8%
10.8%
10.9%
Not Available
Not Available
Not Available
* Source: MA DPH Pediatric Asthma Surveillance Metadata
t Source: Values reported by Springfield Public Schools, but not yet verified by MA DPH
Recently, there has been an improvement in both student attendance and the reduction in asthma
prevalence. Figure 1 graphs the asthma rate, student attendance (and teacher attendance) over
time. The data suggests that as asthma prevalence declined from 2009 to 2012, student and
teacher attendance improved. It is important to note that the cause for the very dramatic
prevalence of 42.6 %, during the 2005-2006 school year, is unknown; but may have been the
result of a reporting error.
[234]
-------
Appendix G. Details of Assessment Methods and Findings
Prevalence of Asthma and attendance percentages at Gerena
45
•Asthma Rate
-Student
Attendance
Teacher
Attendance
2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12
School Year
Figure 1. Asthma and attendance at Gerena
Over two years (2011 to 2013), there were 7,343 visits to the school nurse, 1,512 of which were
related to asthma, respiratory health, and/or other exposures. Of those visits, 6.3% were directly
related to asthma, 0.7% were related to difficulty breathing, 1.2% were related to chest pain
and/or tightness, 5.2% were related to headaches, and 3.8% were related to neurological
concerns. Figure 2 breaks down the composite visits to the school nurse by reason, in relation to
asthma and/or respiratory symptoms and symptoms related to mold exposure. Both PVAC and
the school nurses have focused on increasing the number of student asthma management plans
filed with the school and increasing asthma awareness events.
260; 17%
109; 7%
20; 1%
330; 22%
REASONS FOR VISITS TO THE SCHOOL NURSE
GERENA COMMUNITY SCHOOL AUG 2011 TO JUN 2013
• Allergy
• Asthma concerns
I Asthma concerns-unexpected visit
l Asthma concern-pre-exercise
I Breathing problems
I Breathing problems- wheezing
I Chest
I Chest-discomfort
I Chest-tightness
I Cough
I Headache
I Neurological concern
230; 15% 3;°% • Neurological concern- seizure
Figure 2. Visits to the school nurse by reason (related to asthma and mold exposure symptoms).
[235]
-------
Appendix G. Details of Assessment Methods and Findings
Mold Contamination Analysis
Purpose
From the start of the FQA (i.e., the Screening step), stakeholders from community representatives
stated clearly that the presence of mold and/or the general "moldy" odor in the school has been
an ongoing concern among Gerena users. Previous investigations already applied the traditional
methods of visual inspection, via a walk-through survey, for identifying the presence of mold in
Gerena. What is unknown is how much (or to what extent) mold contamination in a building
becomes a health hazard.
It is important to note that there is no standard method for measuring the extent of mold
contamination in buildings; nor is there a consistent method for assessing the health impact of
mold exposure among building users.1 The traditional method for identifying mold in a home
involves visual inspection of microbial growth in or on building materials and/or checking for
odor.2 Visual inspection typically occurs as part of a walk-through survey. Although this
method is useful for identifying areas where mold is growing, it is highly subjective and fails to
determine the extent of mold contamination in the building and the species of mold (or other
microbes) present. Different indoor environments can grow different types of mold. Scientific
methods have evolved to identify the mold species that indicate water-damage and/or are
associated with specific health outcomes. Therefore, identifying the species and extent of mold
contamination in the school may help inform the potential risk to health for its occupants. For
this reason, the FflA Project Leads planned to perform a mold contamination analysis as a
subpart of the FflA. The purpose of the mold contamination analysis (as described in the RESES
proposal) was to identify and quantify the long-term mold contamination in Gerena.
Methodology
EPA used internal contracts to fund and perform the mold contamination analysis. Dr. Steve
Vesper, from the Office of Research and Development, National Exposure Research Laboratory
(NERL) traveled to the site and collected mold samples in the presence of Lynn Rose, from
PERM, and Dr. Marybeth Smuts, from EPA Region 1 Office of Environmental Protection and
HIA Project co-Lead. Samples were taken by using one Swiffer Duster™ and wiping settled
dust at locations excluded from the routine cleaning schedule (e.g., on tops of light fixtures,
bookcases, doorframes, railings, etc.) to capture historic mold exposures. The objective of
capturing historic exposure was one reason, in addition to other limitations of methods
prescribing visual inspection and/or air sampling, that the settled dust sampling method was
used.3
[236]
-------
Appendix G. Details of Assessment Methods and Findings
Sampling occurred on October 16, 2012. One sample was taken per location, which included
nine (9) locations in the tunnels, ten (10) locations from the second floor of the Main Building,
and eleven (1 1) locations from the third floor of the Main Building (i.e., classroom Pod areas).
The thirty (30) total samples were taken to the NERL in Cincinnati, Ohio, to perform the
analysis. Researchers used an EPA-patented DNA-based technology method called Mold
Specific Quantitative PCR (MSQPCR; U.S. patent number 6387652.B1) to identify and quantify
the concentration of thirty-six (36) indicator mold species. The mold species included in the
analysis consisted of twenty-six (26) species indicative of water-damage (i.e., Group 1 molds)
and ten (10) species that did not indicate water-damage (i.e., Group 2 molds; reference molds).
For each sample, researchers computed the mold burden by taking the sum of log -transformed
Group 1 mold species concentrations (si) minus the sum of log-transformed Group 2 mold
species concentrations (82), as outlined in Equation 2. The resulting value represents a point on
the environmental relative moldiness index (ERMI), a simple numeric estimate of the long-term
mold burden. The ERMI scale, in which most values range from approximately -10 to 20
(lowest to highest), was developed and vetted among homes across the U.S. The standard
deviation of an ERMI value is +/- 3.4
= -
Equation 2. Calculating ERMI ERMI = Z?=i logio(sii) - Z)=i Iog10(s2y)
Note: EPA has no regulatory authority over mold exposures and therefore the use of the ERMI in
this assessment was not required or sanctioned by EPA for non-research purposes.
Statistical analysis used to calculate average ERMI value, standard error and confidence intervals
was performed using STATA IC-12.1 (College Station, TX).
Findings
The average ERMI value across the thirty (30) samples was 15.51 (95% confidence interval of
13.77 to 17.26). Table 5 lists the locations of each sample and the computed concentration and
ERMI value, which ranged from 6.78 (Building C, Room 5) to 26.64 (Building B, Pod 7). The
higher the ERMI value, the greater extent of long-term mold contamination.
Table 5. Computed Sum-logs and ERMI Value for Each Sample
[237]
-------
Appendix G. Details of Assessment Methods and Findings
Sample ID
Tunnels (i.e., Building A, First Floor of
Building B, and Building C)
BLDG C- Room 3, Recreation Department
office
BLDG C- Suite B, (empty) office
BLDG C- Room 5, (empty) office
BLDG C- Community room
BLDG A- NEON office (empty), before
bump out
BLDG A- Dust from window ledge outside
daycare
BLDG B- Community/ After-school
program room
BLDG B- Cafeteria
BLDG B- Dust from near door going up
stairs from Gallery (planned new
playground area)
Building B, Second Floor
BLDG B- Dust from railing of
Library/Media Room (opens to Gallery,
below)
BLDG B- Library/Media Room dust from
ledge near mechanical room
BLDG B- School Administrative office
BLDG B- Planetarium Language Room
BLDG B- Science Lab
BLDG B- Conference Room
BLDGB- Counselor's Suite, middle room
BLDG B- Developmental, Pre-K room
(208-209)
BLDG B- Music Room/Math Lab
BLDG B- Room B-207
Building B, Third Floor (i.e., classroom
Pod area)
BLDG B- Pod 1
BLDG B- Mini-Pod 2
Sum log of
Group 1 molds
(indicate
water-damage)
[Blank]
30.44
25.44
19.40
28.35
32.34
39.98
53.16
28.13
25.13
[Blank]
37.23
36.57
42.66
42.70
39.59
27.22
37.89
27.76
28.37
36.19
[Blank]
41.58
43.96
Sum log of
Group 2 molds
(commonly
found)
[Blank]
15.72
14.07
12.62
16.84
15.97
25.94
26.86
21.32
14.51
[Blank]
21.32
21.07
22.43
24.54
23.00
15.74
19.94
15.32
18.19
19.41
[Blank]
22.98
23.16
ERMI
value
[Blank]
14.72
11.37
6.78
11.51
16.37
14.04
26.30
6.81
10.62
[Blank]
15.91
15.50
20.23
18.16
16.59
11.48
17.95
12.44
10.18
16.78
[Blank]
18.60
20.80
[238]
-------
Appendix G. Details of Assessment Methods and Findings
Sample ID
BLDG B- Pod 2
BLDG B- Pod 3
BLDG B- Pod 4 (Academic support room)
BLDG B- Pod 5
BLDG B- Pod 7
BLDG B- Pod 8
BLDG B- Pod 9
BLDG B- Pod 10
BLDG B- Teacher's Lounge
Sum log of
Group 1 molds
(indicate
water-damage)
44.71
40.51
44.74
38.49
53.31
39.88
38.87
43.28
34.06
Sum log of
Group 2 molds
(commonly
found)
25.66
24.47
26.04
24.61
26.67
23.06
25.61
26.61
22.82
ERMI
value
19.05
16.04
18.70
13.88
26.64
16.82
13.26
16.67
11.24
Figure 3 demonstrates that the average ERMI value appeared to increase with increasing
building floor level. The nine samples collected in the tunnels (i.e., level 1) had an average
ERMI value of 13.17 (95% confidence interval of 9.14 to 17.2.0). The ten (10) samples
collected on the second level of Building B had an average ERMI value of 15.52 (95%
confidence interval of 13.45 to 17.59). The eleven (11) samples collected on the third level of
Building B had an average ERMI value of 17.42 (95% confidence interval of 14.86 to 19.99).
Mean estimation
ERMI
Mean
Std. Err.
[95% Conf. Interval]
Figure 3. Average ERMI Value by Building Level.
References:
1 Santilli, John. 2002. "Health effects of mold exposure in public schools." Current Allergy and
Asthma Reports. Bridgeport, CT 2:460-467.
2 ASTM International. Practice for Evaluating Residential Indoor Air Quality Concerns, D 7297-
06. ASTM International. West Conshohocken, PA 11.01:1-28.
3 Vesper, S., et al. 2007. "Development of an environmental relative moldiness index for U.S.
homes." Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 49: 829-833.
4 Haugland, R.A., Brinkman, N.E., Vesper, SJ. 2002. "Evaluation of rapid DNA extraction
methods for the quantitative detection of fungal cells using real time PCR analysis. Journal of
Microbiological Methods 50: 198-2010.
[239]
-------
Appendix G. Details of Assessment Methods and Findings
Moisture Control Analysis
Purpose
Since mold requires water to grow, the control of moisture in buildings is important for
controlling mold growth, in addition to occupant comfort. As stated in the EPA's Indoor Air
Quality Tools for Schools guide, "Humid weather in generally cold climates, like the
Northeastern U.S., can cause condensation on un-insulated ground contact floor slabs or
basement walls," which can lead to mold growth (U.S. EPA, 2012d). EPA recommends a
relative humidity of 60% (or below), and the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and
Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) recommends a temperature remaining between 68-74 °F
during winter and 72.5 to 78 °F during summer (ASHRAE Standard 55- 1992, Thermal
Conditions for Human Occupancy).
Historically, Gerena faced on-going issues with water infiltration and moisture. In June 2012,
PBRM's contractors found evidence of water-damage to the floor tiles in Building C and some
minor water staining on carpeting and floor tiles of Pod 10 (level 3 of Building B); but reported
that the majority of the remaining school classrooms, offices, and other occupied areas were
clean, dry, and showed no visible evidence of water infiltration (O'Reilly, Talbot & Okun
Engineering Associates, 2012). As part of a more comprehensive assessment, EPA included
temperature and relative humidity monitoring to evaluate the school system's ability to control
moisture.
Methods
In March 2013, EPA performed a 48-hour recording of temperature and moisture (relative
humidity) in real-time to determine the HVAC systems' ability to control moisture. EPA used
GE Telair Model 7001 CO2/Temperature/Humidity sensors to record temperature and relative
humidity. The sensors continuously recorded for 48 hours during normal school conditions. The
sites where recording took place included the main office and science lab (second level of
Building B), Mini Pod 6 and Pod 6 (third level of Building B).
To help determine the variability in building conditions across campus, temperature and relative
humidity measurements were taken twice daily at a number of indoor locations throughout the
facility. In June 2013, EPA recorded the twice-daily temperature and relative humidity
measurements for six days. Figure 4 maps the locations where temperature and relative humidity
measurements took place in the tunnels and Building D. Figure 5 maps the locations where
temperature and relative humidity measurements took place on the second level of Building B.
Figure 6 maps the locations where temperature and relative humidity measurements took place
[240]
-------
Appendix G. Details of Assessment Methods and Findings
on the third level of Building B. Recording took place on June 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, and 12 using the
Vaisala Barometric Pressure Transfer Standard PTB330TS with optional temperature/RH probe
HMP155.
Figure 4. Recording sites for relative humidity and temperature in the tunnels and Building D.
2 Special ED Room | | 3 MUSK
Auditorium Control
Room (Staging area)
Figure 5. Recording sites for relative humidity and
temperature on the second level of Building B.
[241]
-------
Appendix G. Details of Assessment Methods and Findings
14 Pod 10
13. Mini Pod 10
12 Mini Pod 7
11. Pod 6
Building B,
Third Level
9. Pod
Figure 6. Recording sites for relative humidity and
temperature on the third level of Building B.
Findings
A review of the March 2013 results of the real-time recordings indicated that the current building
HVAC system, in conjunction with building infiltration, appears to be providing an appropriate
temperature control in the areas where the continuous recording took place. A review of the
June 2013 results of temperature and relative humidity recordings indicated that the average
temperature and relative humidity values were generally stable and within published guidelines
by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and ASHRAE. Table 6 lists the sites in
Gerena where EPA recorded the temperature and relative humidity twice a day for six days and
the average measurements and standard deviations for each location.
Table 6. Average Temperature and Relative Humidity in Gerena
Location Recorded Temperature Standard Relative Standard
NEON offices
Mechanical room
Elderly Center
Cafeteria
Auditorium
New playscape
71.3
71
72.3
70.5
68.8
71.2
1.3
0.9
2.2
1.6
3.3
0.9
59.3
60.9
58.4
57.6
59.9
59.2
9.3
8.3
8.9
5.3
2.4
6.6
[242]
-------
Appendix G. Details of Assessment Methods and Findings
Location Recorded
World language
center
Building C off ices
Building C off ices
Pool
Gym
Kitchen
Music room
Special education
room
Storage room
Planetarium
Library
Principal's Office
Podl
Minipod 1
Teachers' lounge
Pod 6
Minipod 7
Minipod 10
Pod 10
Temperature
(°F)
71.2
72.3
72.6
74.1
73.7
71.3
72.4
70.4
68.4
71.1
70.1
70.3
71.8
71.5
71.8
71.7
71
71.6
71.3
Standard
Deviation
0.9
0.7
0.6
0.7
1
1.8
0.8
0.9
1.4
1.2
0.6
1
2.1
1.9
1.7
0.7
0.7
0.8
1.1
Relative
Humidity (%)
59.8
58.7
59.3
57.6
61.9
56.6
58.1
60.9
57.9
58.1
60.7
62.2
59.2
58.9
56.2
54.5
57.2
55.3
55.4
Standard
Deviation
7.4
5.4
4.5
4.9
4.9
5
4.4
6.3
2.5
4.7
4.5
6.3
6.4
5.9
3.7
1.9
2.7
3.5
3.3
Overall, the HVAC systems seemed to be adequately controlling the temperature (between 70-
78°F) and relative humidity (50-65%) in the spaces where sensors were recording. With the
active and historical water issues, it may be advantageous to control the humidity at a lower
level. There were five locations with an average relative humidity slightly above 60%, which is
considered the upper threshold based on ASFIRAE guidance, that included the mechanical room
in Building A (tunnel), the gym in Building D, and the special education room, library, and
Principal's office on the second level of Building B.
It is unlikely the mechanical room was actively conditioned and some windows were found open
during this study. Based on nearby outdoor temperature readings (at the Springfield Airport), the
HVAC systems was likely operating in both heating and cooling modes during this study.
[243]
-------
Appendix G. Details of Assessment Methods and Findings
Indoor Air Pressure and Movement Analysis
Purpose
The HVAC systems bring outside air into the building (via air intakes), then circulates the air
using a series of supply, return ducts, and air handling units. An ideal air pressure means there is
an equal balance between the amount of air coming into a space and the amount of air leaving a
space. A neutral balance between the air supplied and the air returned can prove very difficult,
especially during changes in climate. A negative pressure will develop in a space where more air
is removed than supplied. This causes the building space to draw air in from other places or
(unplanned) pathways to make up the loss of air pressure. A slight negative pressure can be
advantageous in colder climates to keep moisture (relative humidity) lower. A positive pressure
develops in a space when more air is supplied than removed, leading to air being pushed out of
the space to other places or through (unplanned) pathways, such as gaps in the building
enclosure. A slight positive pressure can also be advantageous in warmer climates to control
moisture. Measuring air pressure can help identify the movement of air in a building at the rate
at which air is escaping the building enclosure. Infrared imaging was conducted in order to
obtain an initial understanding of where was leaking from the building enclosure. Air leakage
from a building can make it difficult to control air movement and maintain air pressure in a
building space.
Supplying an adequate amount of outdoor air is important to the comfort and breathing ease for
building occupants. When a space is occupied, there must be enough fresh, outside air provided
so that occupants can breathe easily and carbon dioxide (CCh) levels remain low. Monitoring
carbon dioxide levels helps determine if the HVAC systems are providing enough outdoor air
into a space.
Methods
Air Pressure and Mapping
EPA contractors performed air pressure testing and mapped the direction of air movement
throughout the facility. Tests were performed at all readily identifiable and accessible doorways
and exit doors to see where air comes from and goes throughout the school. While on-site, EPA
contractors documented air movement directions at all readily identifiable firewall doorways and
at exit doors to see from where air comes and goes throughout the facility. Contractors
determined airflow by measuring air pressure differentials across identifiable partitions and
accessible zone partitions. An Energy Conservatory DG2 TEC Digital Micromanometer was
used with the aid of smoke pencils to help identify air movement.
[244]
-------
Appendix G. Details of Assessment Methods and Findings
Enclosure Air Tightness
Contractors used blower door measurements, specifically the Minneapolis Model 3 Blower
Doors and Energy Conservatory DG700 Micromanometer blower door fans, to determine the
current air leakage rate of the facility and the likely feasibility of making the enclosure more
airtight to better gain control over the air quality inside the building. EPA followed the Standard
Operating Procedure for Blower Door Measurements, which is closely aligned with the
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) 779-10 Standard Test Method for
Determining Air Leakage Rate by Fan Pressurization. Testing was performed under normal
operating conditions.
Data collected with respect to building leakage and building and fan pressure data, was analyzed
using linear regression methods in accordance with ASTM E779. Collected data was plotted
with fan pressure versus building pressure (including conversion of fan pressures to flow units).
Infrared Imaging for Air Leaks
EPA contractors also used infrared imaging equipment (FLIR Model B360 Infrared Camera) to
identify specific areas of the facility where energy was being lost and if there were current wet
areas along walls, ceilings, or floors that were not readily visible. Infrared imaging occurred in
March 2013. Based on the time year, areas where air escaped from the building enclosure would
be warmer than surrounding areas (i.e., emitting "hot spots"), allowing investigators to identify
sites of air leaks. Areas of significant temperature differences, in which significance was
determined as greater than 5 °C, indicated areas of air leakage or non-visible wetness damage.
EPA followed the ASTM El 186-03 (2009) Standard Practices for Air Leakage Site Detection in
Building Envelopes and Air Barrier Systems.
Ventilation Rate Measurements
In March 2013, EPA contractors performed continuous recording of Carbon Dioxide (CCh) in
using a GAsTech Model 411 in selected occupied spaces to assess if existing ventilation rates are
likely to meet current ASHRAE Standard 62 guidelines. CC>2 was measured under normal
conditions to help evaluate the current ventilation rate provided by individual air handling units.
In addition, EPA contractors placed CO2 monitors (GE Telaire Model 7001
CCh/Temperature/Relative Humidity sensors were placed at four locations in the school to
perform continuous sampling for 48 hours.
Findings
Air Pressure and Mapping
[245]
-------
Appendix G. Details of Assessment Methods and Findings
A review of the results from the pressure mapping indicate that the current HVAC systems affect
the movement of air within the facility. Some of the air-handling units no longer introduce
outdoor air, either because they were closed or not function properly. In areas where the air-
handing unit is not drawing in outside air (e.g., air conditioning units in the Main Office and
Media Center), a low pressure gradient causes air to be drawn in from other areas, which
overburdens the units serving those spaces.
Additionally, some of the building design features, including the atrium and the series of stair
towers that connect the lower level of Building B to the upper levels, affect building pressures
and transport pathways resulting in air movement from the street into the building. The atrium
draws air from the lower levels (tunnels) and delivers it to the second level and third levels of
Building B simulating a "chimney" effect. This finding helps explain why the average
concentration of mold spores found on the third level of Building B was the highest of the three
building levels when the suspected sources of mold growth came from the tunnels. Figure 7
maps the direction of air movement through the tunnels. Figure 8 maps the direction of air
movement on the second level of Building B. Figure 9 maps the direction of air movement on
the third level of Building B.
[246]
-------
Appendix G. Details of Assessment Methods and Findings
Underground ( omple
AMMoned communtl)
NtON Office*
A Building pw
Underground Mall C
Belou U *icr It
His null level ami floe
•bove
Abandoned com- ' munit Suilc B of
Hfficey
C Building Y
Underground Mill Complex
Below Water 1«We
RecDepl
Office
Occupied
Has no abovtground buildinu
oomponenl
»bll( xnplcx
Her fi >lc
NORIH
Figure 7. Air pressure mapping in the tunnels, with direction indicated by red arrows.
[247]
-------
Appendix G. Details of Assessment Methods and Findings
f M 1 1 .,( U
I*—i—i—i'~ L
Figure 8. Air pressure mapping on second level of Building B, with direction indicated by red
arrows.
AMI Mechanical Rooms
I I k.^1, h... l.nt, I . .h.u.
Mini Pods
C Mftomtnn •>« Ik* rtmrtmm «•ilktn rarfc pod
Figure 9. Air pressure mapping on third level of Building B, with direction indicated by red
arrows.
Enclosure Air Tightness
EPA found that the building has a high air leakage rate (1,238.6 cubic feet per minute; CFM)
compared to any modern standard now in existence for building construction. In its current
condition, the building would require approximately 25,000 to 30,000 CFM of make-up air
simply to keep the building at neutral pressure. Such a high amount of make-up air undoubtable
uses a large amount of energy. Figure 10 graphs the total airflow and pressure difference
measured at Gerena to get the air leakage rate. As air pressure increases, air leakage also
increases.
[248]
-------
Appendix G. Details of Assessment Methods and Findings
Air Leakage (CFM) and Pressure
Difference in Gerena
sooee
Total Flow CFM
Linear (Total Flow CFM)
50000
3OOOO
y = -1238.6x +22146
R2 = 0.9833
<
2OOOO
10OOO
-5
-20
-25
-10 -15
Air Pressure Difference (Pa)
Figure 10. Measured airflow graphed by pressure difference to give air leakage rate.
Infrared Imaging for Air Leaks
The infrared imaging identified air leakage sites at the wall-roof junction and the floor-wall
junctions of Building B (where the third level overhangs the second level). Other areas of air
leakage include some sites along the structural beams and where the structural columns and walls
join. Figure 9 identifies some of the air leakage sites found using infrared imaging that are not
readily identified. Air leak sites, such as the one found at the end of Building C (tunnel) near
Building B, allow for indoor air to escape out of the building and untreated outdoor air to enter
the building. The lost air does not get recycled through the HVAC system, which leads to the
system working harder and using more energy to heat or cool the air.
[249]
-------
Appendix G. Details of Assessment Methods and Findings
I tiling of Building C i mniu-l .
where it connects lo Building B
UUM^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Hl I i—^«—^—i
Figure 11. Infrared images of identified air leakage sites, next to non-infrared images of same
location.
location
Ventilation Rate Measurements
Based on the results from the March 2013 testing, the current FTVAC systems, in conjunction
with building infiltration, appears to be providing an adequate supply of outdoor air, where
monitoring was performed. The air handling units serving Pod 6, Mini Pod 6 and the Science
Lab were providing an adequate amount of outdoor air to keep carbon dioxide levels low.
However, the Main Office, which is connected to the Media Center through a short corridor and
door, had higher levels of CCh that those found elsewhere (maximum recorded slightly above
1,000 parts per million). The air handing units (units 23 and 234) serving the Media Center were
not supplying outdoor air and had closed dampers. The lack of incoming air was causing a
negative pressure resulting in air pulled from the Main Office and other spaces. The ability for
the Main Office to draw air from other areas likely kept the CO2 levels below a level of concern.
[250]
-------
Appendix G. Details of Assessment Methods and Findings
HVAC Operation Analysis
Purpose
The technical portion of the building conditions and systems assessment requires an inter-
disciplinary approach that includes evaluation of previously performed work and existing
operations and maintenance. This approach helps prevent the duplication of work, improves the
design of (new) data collection and analysis, and helps provide a more comprehensive
perspective of the issues facing the operations and management of the facility.
Methods
EPA and contractors gathered information on the operation and maintenance of the HVAC
systems from the building maintenance staff and the company contracted to perform
maintenance on the systems to determine the current control logic for the HVAC air supply and
exhaust fans. In addition, EPA and its contractors performed a forensic review of documents
prepared by PBRM's contractors from previous investigations at the school related to the HVAC
systems. In March 2013, EPA and its contractors performed a visual survey the current
conditions for some of the air handlers that were accessible. The interiors of four air-handling
units were observed, including units 12, 12, 22, and 36.
Findings
Based on the on-site observations, EPA and its contractors verified that the information gathered
from the review of historic reports appeared reasonable regarding the status of the various
systems and actions planned to address building and occupant needs. Estimated costs (based on
2012 costing) associated with the proposed renovations ranged from $525,000 to $875,000.
PERM has been working closely with the school maintenance staff and hired new positions to
help meet maintenance requirements. The occupied run-time for the HVAC systems was 3:00
AM to 11:00 PM. Areas served by overburdened air handling units combined with the high air
leakage rate are likely contributing to the high-energy use for the facility.
Some of the air handling units were found to be closed or operating with major malfunctions,
broken equipment, and poorly maintained drain pans (units 12, 23, 24, 33, and 36). The access
doors to the interior of some air handing units were malfunctioning making it difficult to gain
access to provide routine maintenance (e.g., cleaning coil faces and drip pans). Visible microbial
growth was found in the drain pans and coil faces of the observed units (units 12, 23, 33, and
36). In addition, several units were overdue for replacement. The condition of the four units
observed suggest that the remaining (unobserved) units are likely in the same condition.
[251]
-------
Appendix G. Details of Assessment Methods and Findings
Indoor Air Quality Analysis
Purpose
The purpose of analyzing the indoor air was to address stakeholders' perceived concerns related
to indoor air quality in Gerena. Many factors, including the design of the building and the
efficiency of the HVAC system to treat incoming air influence indoor air quality. Air coming
into the building through the air intakes contains particles and molecules. When the HVAC
system runs efficiently, it typically filters some pollutants from the incoming air, but not all, and
provides sufficient fresh air and exhausts used air. The indoor air quality analysis was intended
to provide information related to the HVAC systems performance at Gerena, specifically
whether or not eh HVAC system is effectively controlling traffic emissions from the nearby
interstate, frontage road (Birnie Avenue), and railroad. This analysis was not meant to perform a
comprehensive assessment of indoor air quality, since it only evaluated select combustion-source
pollutants.
The key air pollutants chosen for indicating indoor air quality were Nitrogen Oxides (NOx),
Carbon Monoxide (CO), ultrafine particles (paniculate matter less than 100 nanometers in
diameter), Black Carbon (BC), and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.s).
Nitrogen oxides (NOx), which includes compounds like nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and nitric oxide
(NO), are very reactive gases emitted from combustion reactions, such as from automobile
engines and power plants. Carbon monoxide (CO) is an odorless, clear gas emitted from
incomplete combustion reactions, commonly from automobile exhaust. Particulate matter is a
complex mixture of liquid droplets and extremely small particles made up of many components,
including acids (nitrates and sulfates), organic chemicals, metals, and soil or dust particles.
Ultrafine particles are emitted directly from combustion reactions or indirectly from gases from
reacting in the ambient air. Black carbon (BC) is a component of ultrafine parti culate matter
emitted from incomplete combustion of fossil fuels, biofuels, and biomass.
Methods
In March 2013, EPA contractors performed a short-term (48-hour) recording of parti culate
matter (PM; sized 0.5, 1.0, 2.5, 5.0, and 10 microns) concentration to determine if further study
of possible indoor intrusion of combustion-source byproducts was warranted. Contractors used
Graywolf PC-3016A (light-scattering) Particle Counter sensors to record data. EPA contractors
performed continuous sampling of parti culate matter for 48 hours in the "wrap-around" and
library. Gerena is a smoke-free zone and no tobacco odors were detected during this study. This
initial test indicated that some combustion-sized particles were present in the indoor air, with
spikes indicating morning and afternoon rush hour traffic, warranting further study.
[252]
-------
Appendix G. Details of Assessment Methods and Findings
In June 2013, EPA contractors performed the data collection for the air quality analysis. Air
sampling was limited to 8-hour continuous recording (not 24-hour), due to security and building
access limitations, and monitors recorded for a total of six days. Air sampling occurred on June
5 through 7 (Wednesday through Friday) on June 10 through 12 (Monday through Wednesday)
during normal operations (i.e., school and buses in operation). Equipment included continuous
PM2.5 aerosol monitors (RTI MicroPEMs), continuous NCh/NOx air monitors (2B Technologies
400 series), continuous black carbon (BC) air monitors (Aethlabs AE 51), continuous relative
humidity and temperature monitors (HOBO U series), continuous particle count monitors (P-
Traks), CO2 monitors (Gas Tech model 411, calibrated for zero, 325ppm, ISOppm, and +/-
25ppm), and particle counter (Graywolf PC-3016A). There was no railroad traffic observed
during sampling, but EPA contractors reported high road traffic on both Birnie Avenue and 1-91.
Monitors recorded for a total of six days. The BC sensor was initially located with MADEP's
PM monitor on the roof of Building B, but had to be moved inside the air intake duct for
protection from the elements. The CO monitors recorded in the Principal's Offices, in Pod 10,
and at both indoor locations. The outdoor monitors were placed in the fresh air intakes, to
prevent damage from the elements and to monitor the air going directly into the building. The
indoor air monitors spent the first three days in the classrooms on the third level of Building B
and the last three days of the study in Building A (tunnel). Figure 12 identifies the locations of
air sampling.
[253]
-------
Appendix G. Details of Assessment Methods and Findings
BUILDING B OUTDOOR
LOCATION (O1)
MOVED INSIDE NEARBY
FRESH AIR INTAKE DUCT
SERVING KITCHEN AREA
AFTER FIRST TWO DAYS
OF STUDY
BUILDING
D
FIRST INDOOR
SAMPLING LOCATION
POD AREA (11)
BUILDING A OUTDOOR
LOCATION (O2)
INSIDE FRESH AIR
INTAKE FOR AHU
SERVING ELDERLY
CENTER
SECOND INDOOR
SAMPLING LOCATION
ELDERLY CENTER ON
MALL LEVEL (12)
Figure 12. Locations of continuous monitoring for both indoor and outdoor air.
Samples from the outdoor air intakes were taken for comparison with indoor levels to measure
the filtration efficiency. Values were also compared with regulatory and industry standards,
from the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA), and the American Society of Heating and Air-conditioning Engineers
(ASHAE). Meteorological conditions (wind speed and direction) were also monitored from the
roof of Building B for the duration of the study using a RM Young 3D Sonic Anemometer. EPA
obtained additional data during non-normal operating conditions (every night, when instruments
were left running overnight, and over the weekend).
Findings
NOxMeasurements
Daily NOx average values for both indoor and outdoor measurements were typically below the
published NAAQS (100 ppb per hour or an average of 53 ppb per year). The one exception for
this occurred on June 7, 2013, when monitors recorded an average 66 parts per billion (ppb) and
winds were out of the north, drawing air from 191. The reduction in NOx concentrations moving
from outdoor to indoor spaces was easily observed. Indoor readings each day were
[254]
-------
Appendix G. Details of Assessment Methods and Findings
approximately half that of the corresponding outdoor readings. However, the influence of
mobile sources at the Building A air intakes and inside the tunnel was also readily observed.
The NOx values sampled from the air intake for Tunnel A (site O2) were typically higher than
measured from the air intake for Building B (site Ol), likely due to the proximity to road traffic
and "upwind" location of Building A. According to the NAAQS, outdoor NO2 values should not
reach above an average of. In addition, the NOx values inside Building A (site 12) were higher
than inside the Pods (site II), with respective averages of 4ppb and 14ppb. Figure 13 plots the
average values for NOx over the six-day study period.
?n
1 U
fin
DU
^n
An
HU
S3
a.
Q.
?n
9D
in
I U
•
m *oi
• 02
AM
• XI2
• • •
•
X
6/3 6/5 6/7 6/9 6/11 6/13
Figure 13. Average NOx concentration values, by sample location, for the six-day study.
CO Measurements
A 3-point calibration check (at Oppm, Ippm, and 15ppm) was performed on the Lascar data
loggers prior to deployment of the CO sensors. Indoor CO values, which were 3ppm or less,
were almost always below the detection ability of the instruments used (range is 0 to l,000ppm).
The NAAQS threshold for outdoor ambient CO is 9 ppm for an 8-hour period.
Ultrafme Paniculate Matter Measurements
Daily average counts for ultrafme particles were consistently the highest at the air intake for
Building A for all six days of the study. This may be due to the close proximity of Building A to
traffic on the interstate and Birnie Avenue. The reduction in ultrafme particle counts moving
from outdoor to indoor spaces was easily observed. Indoor readings each day were
[255]
-------
Appendix G. Details of Assessment Methods and Findings
approximately half that of the corresponding outdoor readings. Figure 14 plots the average
values for ultrafine particulate matter over the six-day study period.
Tinnn
iftnnn
I OUUU
ifinnn
IOUUU
i4nnn
IHUUU
i9nnn
i_--~
u
o innnn
Q.
onnn .
Rnnn -
dnnn -
9nnn -
n .
+ Q1
• • jo?
• ••»«•
B 1 * 11
XI2
X *
A A X
*
X
6/3 6/5 6/7 6/9 6/11 6/13
Figure 14. Average ultrafine parti culate matter counts (in pt/cc), by sample location, for the six-
day study.
There was an occurrence of higher than normal ultrafine particles that occurred in the Pods
around 1 :OOPM on June 6, 2013, likely attributed to the new flooring installation occurring in
Building A (tunnel) and/or the increased lunch time activity. There was also some tile and carpet
work occurring near the intersection of Buildings B and C (tunnel) that may have influenced the
indoor particulate levels, but neither indoor sampling sites were near this work. Meals for the
students were catered, reducing the risk of influence on the data from cooking activities.
BC Measurements
The air intake for Building A (tunnel) had the highest BC average values for all six days of the
study. This is likely due to the close proximity of the interstate and Birnie Avenue traffic to the
sampling location. There was a sharp fall in BC concentration outside Building A from June 10
to 12, 2013, most likely due to the change in wind direction from north to northwest. Figure 15
shows the daily averages of BC monitoring during the six-day study.
[256]
-------
Appendix G. Details of Assessment Methods and Findings
onnn
ouuu
ocnn
zouu
9nnn
n
•i 1500
O)
mon -
cno
auu
. •
. »01
• O2
•
11
| Xlz
* x
: — * 5
6/3 6/5 6/7 6/9 6/11 6/13
Figure 15. Average BC particulates (in ng/m3), by sample location, for the six-day study.
Although the typical 50% reduction in parti culates from outdoor to indoor air measurements was
observed, BC measurements in the school also showed an influence of outdoor combustion
sources inside Building A. When traffic volumes were highest, BC levels in Building A (tunnel)
were also high. Increases in indoor concentrations of BC usually followed increases in outdoor
levels. The permissible exposure limit for BC is 3.5ng/m3, based on OSHA standards. The
highest study average at all locations was less than half the OSHA PEL (at 1.6 ng/m3).
PM2.5 Measurements
Typical indoor PIVh.s levels in the presence of human activity (for residences) is above 20ug/m3.
In general, indoor monitors revealed average PM2.5 levels below 20ug/m3, with the exception of
a few isolated high levels for a short duration of time (i.e., "spikes"). There were no definitive
time patterns observed over the course of the study to attribute the spikes in PM2.5 to any one
source or explanation. The outdoor sampling locations did show increased PIVh.s levels with
respect to the indoor concentration averages. Based on the data (normalized for worst-case
scenario), there appeared to be some process where PM2.5 were removed (scrubbed) from the
indoor environment, either through physical filtration mechanisms and/or deposition (in the
ductwork itself). Average indoor PIVh.s concentrations were often well below half of the outdoor
concentrations, with the exception of data from day five of recording that had an average PM2.5
concentration of 40ug/m3. It is important to note that HVAC operation may influence PIVh.s
levels, especially if operating in an economizer mode in which large volumes of outdoor air is
introduced to indoor spaces to save energy costs for cooling.
[257]
-------
Appendix G. Details of Assessment Methods and Findings
Literature Review on Pediatric Asthma and Symptom Exacerbation
A student researcher (Neal Jawadekar), supervised by Marybeth Smuts (EPA Region 1),
performed a systematic literature review of 103 studies related to pediatric asthma and exposures
suspected of exacerbating asthma symptoms. Articles were retrieved using Medline (an online
search engine) with the following parameters: sample size at or above 100 children, asthma
and/or asthma indicator (e.g., wheezing) as outcome of interest, publish date between 1989 and
2012. There were too few school-based studies, so the environmental exposure parameter was
expanded to include in-home and other settings. The exposures investigated in the reviewed
literature included the presence of formaldehyde, ozone, PIVb.s, PMio, NCh. SCh, CO, proximity
to major roads/traffic pollution, dust mite (in-home), cat (in-home), dog (in-home), mold (in-
home), dampness (in-home), mold and/or dampness (unspecified), water damage, cockroach
droppings, breast-feeding, and carpeting.
The student researcher extracted the odds ratio and 95% confidence interval observed for each
exposure (variable) investigated and inputted them into forest plots
(www.stattools.net/ForestPlot_Pgm.php) to visualize the array of odds ratios. The odds ratio
represents the probability of cases (those with asthma) among persons exposed (to the variable)
compared to the odds of those with asthma among persons not exposed. An odds ratio above 1.0
indicates the exposure may be a risk factor, at 1.0 suggests that the exposure does not affect the
outcome of interest, and below 1.0 indicates the exposure may be a protective factor. The
following series of images are the resulting forest plots for each variable from each study.
#
03
20
21
22
29
36
39
48
56
58
61
73
78
80
n OR
6387
4470
416
^^^H
359
7217
4982
—
-*.
2012
114
914
511
183
781
^- 1.17
t 1.36
1.04
>
t 1 fi3
1.93
*— 1.1
0.7
, 1.41
* I./
, 1.7
"it.
0.1 1 10
Forest Plot
95% Cl
(1.01, 1.36)
(1.03, 1.8)
(0.59, 1.78)
(1.13,3.21)
(1.22,5.66)
(1.16,3.23)
(0.7, 1.72)
(0.6, 0.8)
(1, 1.98)
(0.7, 4.4)
(1.68, 8.76)
(1.1,2.3)
(1.11,9.1)
(1.14, 6.67)
Figure 16. Forest plot graph of odds ratios and confidence intervals for asthma symptoms and
exposure to formaldehyde.
[258]
-------
Appendix G. Details of Assessment Methods and Findings
#
06
11
38
47
52
57
71
85
92
104
0.1
n
— 1
2497
•
715
271
5421 ^
10429
m
990
13145
OR
— 1
1.54
0.81
1.52
*- 1.22
0.79
•
* l'22
1.1
1 1.01
• 1.1
1
Forest Plot
95% Cl
(0.6, 1.7)
(1.1, 2.14)
(0.74, 0.87)
(1.06, 2.19)
(0.97, 1.53)
(0.56, 1.13)
(1.21, 1.23)
(0.81, 1.49)
(0.94, 1.09
(1.03,1.17)
10
Figure 17. Forest plot graph of odds ratios and confidence intervals for asthma symptoms and
exposure to ozone.
8
06
11
12
28
31
38
50
52
58
81
85
91
104
D.I
n OR
•
2497
3863
4146
272
37401
3863
^
27]
*
<
_
192
13145
, 1.4
1.49
1.28
•+• 1.14
» 1-05
1.28
0.93
0.97
( 1.03
"*" 1.39
• 1.06
1 10
Forest Plot
95% Cl
(0.9, 2.3)
(1.07, 2.08)
(1.1, 1.49)
(0.98, 1.34)
(1.3, 7.4)
(0.97, 1.14)
(1.1, 1.49)
(0.78, 1.11)
(0.3, 1.6)
(0.91, 1.02)
(0.66, 1.61)
(1.13, 1.7)
(1, 1.12)
Figure 18. Forest plot graph of odds ratios and confidence intervals for asthma symptoms and
exposure to particulate matter with diameter less than 2.5 microns.
[259]
-------
Appendix G. Details of Assessment Methods and Findings
# n
06
11 2497
38 37401
85 ^
89 N/A
92
'
104
1 1 1 1 1 t I 1 1
0.1
OR 95% Cl
-•- 1.4 (1.1, 1
_«_ 1.53 (1.1,2
m 1.07 (1.03,
1.01 (0.79,
"
* 1.06 (1.04,
I 1.01 (0.98,
„ 1.09 (1.03,
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 10
.8)
.12)
1.12]
1.29]
1.06]
1.05]
1.15]
Forest Plot
Figure 19. Forest plot graph of odds ratios and confidence intervals for asthma symptoms and
exposure to particulate matter with diameter between 2.5 and 10 microns.
ft
06
11
12
24
28
31
38
39
47
49
57
58
63
81
85
92
94
104
0.1
n OR
-
2497
849
4146
.
37401
413
715
163597
5421
—4
217
1
•
990
«
13145
• 1.3
« 1.45
-»- 1.17
_^ 1.21
^ 1.13
, 1.5
^ 1.12
t 1.63
t 1.91
1.05
0.95
^M
•^™ 1.29
*• 1.03
«— 1.12
» 1.04
— 0.87
• 1.09
1
Forest Plot
95% Cl
(0.8, 2.2)
(1.03, 2.06)
(0.97, 1.41)
(1.05, 1.4)
(0.99, 1.29)
(0.9, 2.7)
(1.07, 1.17)
(1.14,2.33)
(0.97, 3.77)
(1, 1.11)
(0.72, 1.26)
(0.3, 2.2)
(1.07, 1.56)
(0.9, 1.17)
(0.86, 1.45)
(1.01, 1.07)
(0.51, 1.43)
(1.03, 1.15)
10
Figure 20. Forest plot graph of odds ratios and confidence intervals for asthma symptoms and
exposure to nitrogen dioxide.
[260]
-------
Appendix G. Details of Assessment Methods and Findings
i
38
49
57
92
104
0.1
n OR 95% Cl
1.03 (1.02, 1.05)
f
V 1.04 (1.01, 1.07)
5421 T^ 1.09 (0.86, 1.38)
1.04 (1, 1.08)
• 0.97 (0.91, 1.03)
1 1 lilllll i 1 tllllll
1 10
Forest Plot
Figure 21. Forest plot graph of odds ratios and confidence intervals for asthma symptoms and
exposure to sulfur dioxide.
# n
38
57
•
92
104
OR 95% Cl
• 1.1 (1.06, 1.13)
1.02 (0.85, 1.22)
1.05 (1.01, 1.09)
1.05 (1.01, 1.09)
i 1 i 1 1 i i i 1
0.1 1 10
Forest Plot
Figure 22. Forest plot graph of odds ratios and confidence intervals for asthma symptoms and
exposure to carbon monoxide.
[261]
-------
Appendix G. Details of Assessment Methods and Findings
H
7
33
41
46
72
81
82
84
93
103
105
107
0.1
n
5341
3297
434
7280
417
2860
593
1809
_
50000
1380
434
OR
__ 1.5
+_ 1.18
t 1.24
1.15
^ 1.93
-*• 1.24
-^ 1.26
-•— 2.51
_ 1.05
1.11
0.93
2.28
1 10
Forest Plot
95% Cl
(1.16, 1.95)
(0.99, 1.41}
(1,1.52)
(0.59, 2.28)
(1.13, 3.29)
(1.01,1.52)
(0.98, 1.62)
(2,3.15)
(0.74, 1.49)
(0.97, 1.27)
(0.82, 1.06}
(1.14, 4.56}
Figure 23. Forest plot graph of odds ratios and confidence intervals for asthma symptoms and
exposure to proximity to major roads/traffic pollution.
# n
70 571 H
70 571 ^
102 — ^—
1 11 III tit
OR 95% Cl
^_ 1.11 (0.54, 2.28)
1— 0.95 (0.46, 1.96}
• 0.55 (0.26, 1.17)
.
0.1 1 10 100
Forest Plot
Figure 24. Forest plot graph of odds ratios and confidence intervals for asthma symptoms and
exposure to dust mite (in-home).
[262]
-------
Appendix G. Details of Assessment Methods and Findings
# n
24 ^^
25
56 2012 a*i
70 i
70 3571
74 _^_
78 183
102 1611 _
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II
OR
0,6
• 1,2
0.65
fr— ^^ 1.11
_»_ 2,61
. 0.61
^^^^^^^ K n
0 1.55
1 1 1 1 11111 I 1 1 1 1 (III
0.1 1 10 100
Forest Plot
95% Cl
(0.35, 1.03)
(1.01, 1.43)
(0.47, 0.89)
(0.92, 4.83)
(1.09,6.28)
(0.27, 1.35)
(1.55,24.8)
(0.71, 3.41)
Figure 25. Forest plot graph of odds ratios and confidence intervals for asthma symptoms and
exposure to cat (in-home).
# n
36 4982
70 _
70 ^
0.01 0.1
Forest Plo
OR 95% Cl
^^m 2.2 (1.21,4.01)
*_ 1.20 (0.58,2.45)
^" 1.13 (0.53, 2.43)
0.12 (0.01,0.97)
1 10
t
Figure 26. Forest plot graph of odds ratios and confidence intervals for asthma symptoms and
exposure to dog (in-home).
[263]
-------
Appendix G. Details of Assessment Methods and Findings
it n
14
18
24 849
36 4982
60
OR 95% Cl
1.35 (1.2, 1.51)
^ 1.79 (1.44, 2.32)
— «_ 1.55 (1.04,2.31)
-*- ,,5 ,,,,,67,
"^^" 1.76 (1.18,2.62)
0.1 1 10
Forest Plot
Figure 27. Forest plot graph of odds ratios and confidence intervals for asthma symptoms and
exposure to mold (in-home).
»
18
21
80
OR 95% Cl
.^. 1.23 (1.1, 1.39)
^^^— 416 1.32 (1, 1.75)
1 10
Forest Plot
Figure 28. Forest plot graph of odds ratios and confidence intervals for asthma symptoms and
exposure to dampness (in-home).
[264]
-------
Appendix G. Details of Assessment Methods and Findings
# n
16
17
48 ,
100
OR 95% Cl
^^ 1.62 (1.22, 2.15}
_^^_ 2.62 (1.39,4.39)
^_ 1.2 (0.9, 1.5)
*_ 1.09 (0.9, 1.32}
1 ! I ij
0,1 1 10
Forest Plot
Figure 29. Forest plot graph of odds ratios and confidence intervals for asthma symptoms and
exposure to mold and/or dampness (unspecified).
# n
65
83 •
OR 95% Cl
_^^_^ 2.51 (0.98, 6.44)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
0.1 1 10
Forest Plot
Figure 30. Forest plot graph of odds ratios and confidence intervals for asthma symptoms and
exposure to water damage.
[265]
-------
Appendix G. Details of Assessment Methods and Findings
# n
01
24
i
36 4982
OR 95% Cl
^^^^^ 2.03 (1.03, 4.02)
^^^^^^^^^^^^™
^^^^_ 1.87 (0.94, 3.71)
— ^_ 2.16 (1.15,4.07)
0.1 1 10
Forest Plot
Figure 31. Forest plot graph of odds ratios and confidence intervals for asthma symptoms and
exposure to cockroaches.
# n
35 __«__
106 ^^^^^
OR 95% Cl
0.49 (0.31,0.79)
0.33 (0.08,0.87)
0.45 (0.2, 0.9)
0.01 0.1 1
Forest Plot
Figure 32. Forest plot graph of odds ratios and confidence intervals for asthma symptoms and
exposure to breastfeeding.
[266]
-------
Appendix G. Details of Assessment Methods and Findings
# n
36 4982
48 ^
56 2012
SO 781 -*-
OR 95% Cl
^^^^ 2.36 (1.38,4.05)
0.7 (0.5, 0.8)
-«- 1.39 (1.12, 1.73)
0.57 (0.33, 0.95)
0.1 1 10
Forest Plot
Figure 33. Forest plot graph of odds ratios and confidence intervals for asthma symptoms and
exposure to carpeting.
The ranking of odd ratios was performed using standard epidemiological approaches, including
weighting by sample size and excluding odds ratios at or below 1.0 (i.e., only potential risk
factors were ranked). Although exposure categories are broad, there is enough distinguishing
information to identify the fifteen most common exposures (potential risk factors) with
confidence (1 = most common, 15 = least common):
1. Dampness (in-home)
2. Mold (in-home)
3. PMio
4. Cockroaches
5. SO2
6. CO
7. Formaldehyde
8. Dog (dander and hair)
9. Ozone (O3)
10. Cat (dander and hair)
11. Carpeting
12. NO2
13. Proximity to major roads/traffic pollution
14. PM2.5
15. Dust mites
[267]
-------
Appendix G. Details of Assessment Methods and Findings
Literature Review of Health Impacts from Classroom Noise and the Acoustic Learning
Environment
An empirical literature review was conducted on classroom noise as a health determinant. Meta-
analyses and peer-reviewed literature were considered high priority literature to review based on
their immediate access to summarized information and decreased risk of study bias. Databases
used to extract the literature included GoogleScholar.com, APHAPublications.org, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Noise Pollution Clearinghouse (NPC), World Health
Organization (WHO), Acoustical Society of America (ASA), and the National Clearinghouse for
Educational Facilities. Anecdotal evidence regarding noise in the classrooms was gathered from
informal surveys taken of the building by investigators, school staff, and the community and
documented in the meeting notes. The following keywords were used as the search criteria:
Noise, Noise Levels, noise pollution, health outcomes, health determinants, children, students,
schools, review
Literature Review of Health Impacts from Perceived Environment
A systematic review of empirical literature was conducted in regards to the perceived
environment as a determinant to health. The review examined pathways between community
perception and health impacts. Anecdotal information was gathered via community engagement
meetings, news articles, televised interviews, and interactions with stakeholders. The
information was documented in meeting notes. References for the news articles and televised
interviews are provided at the end of this report. Peer-reviewed journal articles and grey
literature were reviewed using search engines: Google Scholar, Taylor and Francis Online,
SAGE Journals, PubMed, and ProQuest. Keywords used included:
Community perception, health determinants, social capital, neighborhood, neighborhood design,
social interaction, condition of neighborhood, health, community interaction
[268]
-------
Appendix H. PBRM's Addendum to HIA Report
City of Springfield, Massachusetts Department of
Parks, Buildings and Recreation Management
Addendum to EPA HIA Report for
German Gerena Community School
August 2015
Table of Contents
Introduction
Work Summary and Funds Expended
Highlights of Work Completed
Funding Sources to Conduct Repairs, Upgrades, and Capital Projects
Highlights of Proposed and/or Scheduled Work
1
4
6
9
9
-------
HIA Addendum - PERM Documentation of Work Completed at Gerena School
Introduction
This report summarizes the majority of routine, non-routine and capital project work
completed at German Gerena Community School (Gerena) by the current administration of
the Springfield Department of Parks, Buildings and Recreation Management (PERM). The
timeframe spans from FY 2008 through the end of FY 2015.
It is important to understand that the building presents both typical and atypical maintenance
issues due to its design and location. As illustrated by the included summary of completed
work orders, contracted services and capital projects, PERM has been effectively addressing
the typical routine building maintenance requirements of the above ground portions of this
building complex to a large degree. It must be noted that the building's complexity and
location make even typical maintenance more difficult, costly and time consuming than the
average building.
The portions of the building located underground in the tunnel system and mall area present
atypical, large scale and expensive maintenance, repairs and replacement issues due to the
buildings location and design, as outlined in the list below.
1. The school building's location below street level, in the water table, and under
the 191 interstate highway and railroad tracks.
a. The building requires numerous pumping stations and drainage systems
that are costly to operate, maintain and replace. They are not typically
found in the average facility, but are located in Gerena to address:
• Continuous and unplanned infiltration of storm and ground water.
• Planned influx of stormwater as the building's storm water management
systems also serve an adjacent school parking lot. The stormwater drains
into the building and must be pumped out into the City's stormwater
system.
• Ejection of sewage up to street level, which is due to the location of
the building below street level.
• Vulnerability to flooding when the city stormwater structures have
exceeded their capacity. This is due to the fact that the entrance location
to Tunnel A building on Main Street is built below street level.
b. There are numerous abandoned utility conduits under the building that
serve as pathways of uncontrolled water intrusion. Their presence is due
to:
• Abandonment of Thomas Ave and the utility structures underlying it.
Thomas Ave was abandoned to enable Gerena to be built at that
location, but some of those underground utilities were never removed.
• Abandoned utilities under the Interstate 91 bridge overpass over
Bridge Tunnel A.
• Excess pressure from an elevated water table which caused the floor
in Bridge-Tunnel C to rise in excess of 4" thereby damaging the in-
[1]
-------
HIA Addendum - PERM Documentation of Work Completed at Gerena School
floor slab utility network (electrical, fire alarm, phone and intercom
conduits), which had to then be abandoned. The final settlement of
the floor slab is now roughly 1-1/4" above its original grade level.
2. The building's size, underground location, and numerous levels make
multiple air handling units a necessity.
a. The building is approximately /^ mile long in east west direction, approximately
1A mile long in the north-south direction, and roughly 50 feet in height, of which
only 35 feet is visible above the ground. The building size is 227,500 square
feet.
b. The building has 36 air handling units (AHU) to service the extensive
underground tunnel system and mall area, as well as two aboveground
structures.
c. The design also incorporates a huge open atrium to bring in natural light from
the roof to the lowest level of the building to the third floor in the mall area.
This large volume of air must be conditioned.
d. The energy use per square foot is one of the highest of the City's buildings, due
in part to the multiple AHUs, the water and sewage pumping stations, and the
large open atrium and tunnel spaces in the building.
3. The age of the facility (40 years) and its location relative to other manmade
structures and conditions.
a. The increased traffic on the roadways overhead and adjacent (Interstate 91
highway and Birnie Avenue) to the building has increased the amount of
vibration on Bridge- Tunnel A, affecting the building's structure.
b. Over time, construction and maintenance projects at nearby roads and at Birnie
Avenue have compromised the waterproofing membrane on the exterior of
Bridge- Tunnel A. Please note that Birnie Avenue is directly above Tunnel A.
c. The building's expansion j oints have been exposed to conditions beyond their
original design, allowing water and uncontrolled air to enter and leave the
building.
d. Usage and frequency of use of the federally-maintained railroad tracks located
over Bridge Tunnel C, has changed over the last 40 years, from passenger to
freight, with changes in amount of weight being carried.
4. The age of the facility (40 years) and its relationship to its internal systems
and components.
a. At the time of construction, the facility's energy management system (EMS) was
only the second such system installed in the City.
b. State-of-the-art systems, such as the EMS, were dependent upon equipment
and technology that is currently no longer in use, available, or both.
c. Design criteria for many of the building's internal systems has changed and
evolved. Thus, many of the building's systems are not adequate for today's
operations.
[2]
-------
HIA Addendum - PERM Documentation of Work Completed at Gerena School
d. The material at the juncture of the upper walls and the roof has deteriorated to
the point where the exterior is clearly visible. It may have been caused by both
the age of the building material in the juncture and/or movement of the building.
These expanded openings allow leakage of the indoor air, and cause the atrium
to act like a chimney. This increases the loss of conditioned air and increases
energy costs.
e. The deterioration of the building's various waterproofing systems, which
require complete replacement and extensive renovations to surrounding areas
to complete, including excavation of the soil around the underground tunnels.
Work on A Bridge- Tunnel requires excavating Birnie Avenue.
f. Many of the internal systems have reached the end of their operational life cycle
and require major capital outlays to replace. HVAC maintenance issues are
encountered on a regular basis due to the fact that some of the parts cannot be
purchased off the shelf and must be fabricated; some the old pneumatic controls
have air leaks, while some have rusted and do not work effectively due to
exposure to water-laden air, and were never made to be installed in that type of
moist environment.
[3]
-------
HIA Addendum - PERM Documentation of Work Completed at Gerena School
Work Summary and Funds Expended
Table 1. Purchase Orders and Capital Expenditures
SYSTEM WORK
Architecture and
Engineering
Services
Carpentry,
Masonry, Painting
and Ceiling Tiles
Communications
Custodial
Electrical
Elevator
Environmental
FF&E
Flooring
Generator
HVAC
Interior Playscape
Lighting
Miscellaneous
Moisture
Mitigation and
Damage Repairs
Plumbing
Pool/Gym/Lockers
Pumps
Roofing (Garage)
Safety and
Security
Water Treatment
Atrium Skylight &
Building B Roof
Replacement &
Upgrade of
Heating Boilers
SUMMARY
CAPITAL
PROJECTS &
REPAIRS
203,780.00
[Blank]
65,471.37
3,185.87
51,195.11
[Blank]
18,000.00
[Blank]
15,870.00
[Blank]
337,157.00
86,656.25
87,694.73
[Blank]
229,987.00
14,750.00
183,118.60
101,968.00
12,850.00
116,500.00
[Blank]
1,474,794.00
478,213.00
$3,481,190.93
NON-ROUTINE
MAINTENANCE
[Blank]
27,563.00
[Blank]
4,351.00
46,003.00
21,115.50
36,402.56
5,333.96
16,759.37
17,543.05
117,371.24
[Blank]
16,975.00
14,211.25
127,821.19
7,903.10
2,432.74
31,814.69
[Blank]
22,147.43
2,000.00
[Blank]
[Blank]
$537,748.08
ROUTINE
MAINTENANCE
[Blank]
51,784.00
[Blank]
71,890.95
11,320.63
[Blank]
11,655.24
25,540.00
17,945.70
[Blank]
30,634.60
[Blank]
27,650.23
[Blank]
27,579.00
992.51
22,110.00
[Blank]
[Blank]
49,639.00
[Blank]
[Blank]
[Blank]
$348,741.86
TOTAL
EXPENDITURE
PER SYSTEM
203,780.00
79,347.00
65,471.37
79,427.82
108,518.74
21,115.50
66,057.80
30,873.96
50,575.07
17,543.05
485,162.84
86,656.25
132,319.96
14,211.25
385,387.19
23,645.61
227,661.34
133,782.69
12,850.00
188,286.43
2,000.00
1,474,794.00
478,213.00
$4,367,680.87
[4]
-------
HIA Addendum - PERM Documentation of Work Completed at Gerena School
Table 2. Work Orders Completed - the following costs are categorized using the same categories
as listed in the chart above.
WORK ORDERS
Architecture, and Energy Services
Carpentry, Masonry, Painting & Ceilings
Communications
Custodial
Electrical
Elevator
Environmental
FF&E
Flooring
Generator
HVAC
Interior Playscape
Lighting
Miscellaneous
Moisture Mitigation & Damage Repairs
Plumbing
Pool/Gym/Lockers
Pumps
Roof
Safety & Security
Water Treatment
Vandalism
TOTAL
TOTAL COST
3,000.00
113,543.16
727.58
14,999.62
22,623.27
9,090.19
5,783.87
12,701.50
0.00
376.44
105,374.40
29.17
6,943.56
8,604.34
21,689.72
45,537.61
7,547.79
41,770.44
20,078.18
41,106.91
0.00
327.89
$481,855.64
[5]
-------
HIA Addendum - PERM Documentation of Work Completed at Gerena School
Highlights of Completed Work
Reports, Studies, and Assessments performed at the request of PERM:
• Caolo and Bieniek Associates, Inc. - interior security and atrium floor waterproofing
• Gale Architects, Inc. - reroofmg and atrium skylight replacement
• Timothy Murphy Architects - roof, wall, and floor leak investigations
• Cardno ATC - environmental, and indoor air quality assessments
• O'Reilly, Talbot & Okun, Geoenvironmental Engineering - indoor air quality
assessment
• Lindgren and Sharpies - mechanical inspections and redesigns
• RDK Engineers - mechanical system assessment
• Siemens Engineering - mechanical inspections and redesigns, energy
conservation for building envelope, transformers, additional interior lighting,
etc.
• Harry Grodsky and Company - mechanical equipment survey, inspections,
maintenance and repairs
• TJ Conway Co. - mechanical equipment inspections, maintenance and repairs
• Rise Engineering and WMECO - mechanical and electrical energy audits
• Universal Electric - electrical inspections, repairs and audits
• GZA Geotechnical, Inc. - subsurface investigations and evaluations, Facility
Condition Assessment
• Simpson Gumpertz and Heger - subsurface investigations and evaluations
Upgrades & Repairs to Mechanical Systems (Air):
• Replaced the cooling tower
• Separated domestic hot water for handwashing and pool heating by installing 2
new domestic hot water boilers (Energy project)
• Replaced original boilers for building heat with 3 new hot water boilers (Energy proj ect)
• Upgraded pool heating (see above) (Energy project)
• Upgraded the Energy Management System to a hybrid pneumatic-electric system
which allows it to be controlled remotely (Energy proj ect)
• Performed maintenance and various repairs on all 36 AHUs
• Repaired or replaced vandalized air handling equipment for A tunnel and D
building and installed additional preventative measures against vandalism
occurring to AHUs and building envelope
[6]
-------
HIA Addendum - PERM Documentation of Work Completed at Gerena School
o Relocated Tunnel A air handling units from the roof to inside the
building to protect it from damage from the highway and vandalism
(prior to 2008).
o Fenced Tunnel A roof under 191 off-ramp.
o Fenced AHUs located on roof of Building D.
o Fenced off the area between the railroad tracks and B Building to
prevent vandalism to the building envelope, and air intakes and
returns.
• Management of Nuisance Vegetation
o Removed all vegetation and debris in the cooling tower. The area was
sprayed with a natural product to prevent re-growth.
o Removed interior garden of shrubs and trees in the mall area of the tunnel
system to prevent moisture and mold from the vegetation from being
emitted into the building.
o Periodic removal of vegetation in in 2011 and 2015 the area between the
railroad tracks and B Building to prevent pollen and debris from entering
the air intakes and to ensure adequate air flow into the air intakes.
Prevented and/or Reduced Water Intrusion, and Mitigated Water Damage:
• Resurfaced and waterproofed 25,000 square feet of atrium floor in the interior
pedestrian walk-way in the tunnel mall area.
• Recaulked and repointed the exterior north and south brick walls on Building B
to eliminate water intrusion. Also replaced all carpeting in adjacent learning
areas due to water damage from exterior walls.
• Replacement and ongoing maintenance of eight pump stations (with 2 pumps at
each station) handling stormwater, groundwater and sewage. The two largest
stations handle stormwater and groundwater. The pumping stations that handle the
sewage are needed because the building is below street level and the sewage must
be ejected up to City sewage and wastewater lines in the streets. Typical buildings
do not have any of the pumping stations. These pump stations have flooded in the
past, and to prevent flooding they require monitoring and maintenance:
o Pump Station Replacement
Large pump station # 8 - $124,000 (both pumps)
Small pump station # 1 - $22,000 (both pumps)
o Pump Inspection, Monitoring and Maintenance:
Installation of alarms and monitoring devices on the four critical pump stations for pump
failures by an outside security company at $l,000/year
Requirements for special preventative maintenance, and inspections, at
$4,000/year
[7]
-------
HIA Addendum - PERM Documentation of Work Completed at Gerena School
Improved Safety and Security:
• Upgraded Security and Safety Systems
o Installed additional surveillance equipment throughout building complex
o Installed additional lock-down door hardware throughout the building
o Upgraded the building fire alarm system
o Upgraded the building intercom system
• Restricted unauthorized access to the school
o Installed two additional security vestibules at the interior public
pedestrian walkway to prevent unauthorized access to the school.
o Isolated the cafeteria from unauthorized access from the interior public
pedestrian walkway.
• Upgraded Interior and Exterior Lighting
o Upgrade the exterior lighting to LED fixtures and bulbs
o Upgraded lighting in the A and C tunnel portions of the interior
pedestrian walkway.
• Installed Additional Security Fencing (already detailed)
Improved the Learning Environment:
• Lighting - retrofitted interior lighting in Pods 1 thru 5
• Playscape - installed an interior playscape, which is handicapped accessible.
The PERM design was recognized and published in a national magazine.
[8]
-------
HIA Addendum - PERM Documentation of Work Completed at Gerena School
Funding Sources to Conduct Repairs, Upgrades and Capital Projects
• Massachusetts School Building Authority - PERM has applied to MSBA for
funding the HVAC upgrades
• Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MA DOT) - PERM had Tunnel A
recognized as a bridge. This status as a bridge makes it eligible for other forms of
state and federal funding. Its status as a bridge now requires the MA DOT to
perform inspections. PERM worked with a previous State Representative to have
three million dollars requested as a budget line item in the state's Highway
Transportation Budget.
• PERM has actively sought energy grants through State and Federal funding, and
has bonded for a number of energy improvements at Gerena.
Highlights of Proposed and/or Scheduled Work
Note that the work listed is in addition to HIA recommendations under consideration, PERM
is seeking funding for the proposed work that includes, but is not limited to the following:
• Mitigate water intrusion at entrance to A Tunnel from Linda Park and Main Street
• Mitigate water intrusion and damage in Bridge Tunnel A, especially at Birnie Avenue
• Resurface the tunnel floors. PERM has obtained quotes for this work, which
will commence in FY 2016 if funding can be secured:
o Tunnel A - resurface the aggregate floor
o Tunnel C - grind down existing flooring and resurface the aggregate
• Increase the air exchange in Tunnel C
• Continuing to correct an electrical grounding problem which has accelerated the
plumbing pipes to corrode and leak. All compromised piping and water damaged
materials will be replaced. PERM has estimates for this work and is seeking funding
to complete this work in FY 16. Note that plumbing pipes have been replaced in
approximately 2/3 of the areas damaged.
• Continuing replacement of the old or original pumps in the pumping stations:
o Small pump station #3 - on order at $27,000 (both pumps)
o It is anticipated that the additional 5 pump stations will need to be replaced
in the near future
• Seal the building envelope and implement other energy saving measures.
• Upgrade and continue to maintain HVAC systems
• Hire a dedicated HVAC technician to service all of the mechanical systems
in the building
End.
[9]
-------
Appendix I. Results of the External Peer-Review
Appendix I. Results of the HIA External Peer-Review
Table 1. Responses and Comment Resolution to HIA Process Charge Questions
Peer-Review Charge
Questions
1. Context of HIA.
Reviewer 1
Reviewer 2
Reviewer 3
Comment Resolution from Authors/HIA
Core Group
la. Was the HIA undertaken
to inform a proposed decision
(e.g., policy, program, plan,
or project) and conducted in
advance of that decision being
made?
The HIA was undertaken to
inform the pending decisions
about renovations to the Gerena
school. Of particular importance
was helping to set priorities
among a number of proposed
renovations. The timeliness of
the HIA was adequate but not
ideal - some budget decisions and
renovations apparently were
being made while the HIA was
underway, and completion of the
HIA was delayed for a number of
reasons documented in the report.
Yes. Decision timelines were
clearly outlined. The decision
to conduct the HIA was
comprehensive and included
the value added, decision
points, timelines, and funding
sources.
No comment.
The authors acknowledge that the timing for
this HIA was not ideal- in that the HIA was
performed as a concurrent HIA, not
prospective HIA- and recognized that this
limitation was not made more clear in the
beginning of the report. The authors
resolved to address this issue by making the
timing of the HIA more explicit and
reflecting the language above in the
evaluation of the report.
Ib. Were the need for and
value and feasibility of
performing the HIA assessed
and clearly documented?
The need, value, and feasibility of
the HIA were assessed and well
documented.
No comment provided.
No comment.
No response needed.
Ic. Do the authors
acknowledge sponsors and/or
funding sources for the HIA?
The sponsors and funding sources
are appropriately acknowledged.
Yes
No comment.
No response needed.
Id. Is the screening process
clearly documented in the
report?
The screening process is
appropriately documented in the
report.
Yes. The report acknowledges
that the timeline of the HIA
exceeded the original
screening and scoping
timeframe. This self-reporting
of limitations is a hallmark of
transparency.
No comment.
No response needed.
2. Scope of HIA.
[279]
-------
Appendix I. Results of the External Peer-Review
Peer-Review Charge
Questions
2a. Are the goals and/or
objectives of the HIA clearly
defined?
Reviewer 1
The goals of the HIA are defined
in Section 3.1 on page 18. But
these goals are somewhat
different than the goals in the
Executive Summary on Page B-
32. Specifically, on page 18 it
refers to a goal of examining
health and environmental impacts
of the proposed school
renovations, which is appropriate
as an HIA goal. But on Page B-
32, the first goal is to improve air
quality and asthma, which is too
narrow as an overall goal for an
HIA. The HIA goals in these two
sections should be more
consistent.
Reviewer 2
Yes.
Reviewer 3
Yes, 2.3.1. discusses some of the
advantages of doing an HIA. In3.1.,
pp. 18-19, specific goals are
explicitly described.
Comment Resolution from Authors/HIA
Core Group
The goals documented in the HIA report are
the original goals outlined at the beginning of
the HIA (i.e., in the Screening step). As the
HIA progressed, these goals were modified
in Scoping to reflect more
appropriate/reasonable goals for the
resources available. The authors resolved to
note this process in Chapter 2: Screening and
update the HIA goals for consistency.
2b. Is the scope of the HIA
clearly defined (i.e., decision
to be studied and its
alternatives; potential impacts
of the decision on health,
social, environmental,
economic, and other health
determinants and their
pathways; populations and
vulnerable groups likely to be
affected by the decision;
demographic, geographic,
and temporal scope of
analysis; health impacts and
research questions selected
for examination in the HIA
and -why) ?
The scope of the HIA is clearly
defined. The HIA core team
considered a good range of
possible topics with input from
stakeholders in the scoping
process and appropriately focused
on a smaller number for the full
assessment. The issue of safety
and security of school users (both
students and community
members) could have received
more attention in the HIA
assessment and recommendations.
Data availability and data
gaps are covered in the report
which is very transparent. The
vulnerable population is
identified in the report. The
report also details the method
(discussion/consensus) that
was used to select the final
health determinants to be
studied, and in detail is the
notion that the stakeholders
and community lead the
selection of final health
determinants and then-
pathways. It is clear that the
HIA team did utilize
community knowledge and
experiences by holding
community meetings. At these
meetings, the concerns of the
community were
acknowledged. The
knowledge of the condition of
tunnel areas, and the student
attendance came from the
community meetings. The
perceptions of the community
regarding deteriorating
environmental conditions in
It is not completely clear in the
Scoping section what "the decision to
be studied" is. It seems to be the
selection and sequencing of the
renovation options to pursue, of the
ones listed in Table 1 onpp 10-11,
choosing those that would be of the
greatest benefit, and the least
detriment, to health. The initial
investigations by PERM, by
contractors in 2012, seemed
appropriate, and provided substantial
evidence, and a set of proposed
renovations (Table 1, pp. 10-11) for
the HIA to use, and these
recommendations did not change
during the HIA process, [in regards to
potential impacts of the decision on
health...] This question on scope
seems to be on whether the breadth of
potential impacts to be considered is
clear? If so, yes, clear, [in regards to
populations and vulnerable groups]
This is clear, [in regards to
demographic, geographic, and
temporal scope] The demographic
and geographic scope seems clear.
The temporal scope is not so clear. At
the beginning of Chap 2, it provides
that for an HIA to be appropriate,
The topics related to facility use and safety
and security are brought up in the Scoping
chapter and later discussed in the Assessment
chapter, under community perceptions. The
HIA minimum elements and practice
standards require establishing baseline and
impact research questions that drive the
assessment. These questions are documented
in the HIA report, regardless of whether they
were answered to the full intended extent.
Documenting this piece of the process helps
to inform the process evaluation, which
answers whether the HIA was implemented
as planned and identifies lessons learned
and/or best practices for future HIA
implementation. The authors resolved to
clarify the discussion regarding the research
questions to better reflect their purpose. The
HIA Core Group missed an opportunity to
further investigate issues related to facility
use and safety and security at Gerena, due to
limited resources and other restrictions. The
authors resolved to discuss this missed
opportunity in the evaluation section of the
report. The reviewer was correct in
discerning that the "decision to be studied"
includes the selection and sequencing of
renovation options listed in Table 1 on page
10-11. The authors will revisit that section
and make improvements for clarity, where
[280]
-------
Appendix I. Results of the External Peer-Review
Peer-Review Charge Reviewer 1
Questions
Reviewer 2
the school is described in the
assessment section.
Reviewer 3
there should be enough time for the
recommendations to be considered
before the decision is made. This
apparently seemed feasible at the
time, although ultimately it was not
the case. The temporal scope of the
decisions becomes somewhat clearer
towards the end of the document,
when it considers solutions that can
be implemented immediately, in the
mid-term, or in the long-term, and
also considers the possibility that any
solutions to the current buildings will
be temporary while a replacement
facility is built, [in regards to health
impacts and research questions]
These seem clear, as they were
developed from input at the
stakeholder meetings. In Table 6, the
difference between and the different
roles of baseline condition research
questions and impact research
questions are not so clear within the
Scoping section. Later this is
explained in Chap 4 on Assessment.
Comment Resolution from Authors/HIA
Core Group
possible. In regards to the temporal scope of
the HIA, the authors agreed to include the
HIA timeline, broken down by step, at the
beginning of each chapter (excluding the
introduction chapter)believing this change
would help provide more context regarding
when HIA activities occurred.
2c. Is the scoping process
clearly documented in the
report?
The scoping process is well
documented in the report,
including minutes from
community meetings in the
Appendix.
Yes. The goals of the HIA, the
roles of HIA team members
and the plan to execute are
clearly defined in the report.
Yes, the process is clearly explained. No response needed.
2d. Are the participants in the
HIA and their roles clearly
identified?
The participants in the HIA and
their roles are appropriately
identified.
No comment provided.
Yes.
No response needed.
3. Stakeholder Engagement.
3a. Are stakeholder groups,
including decision-makers
and vulnerable population
groups, clearly identified?
The stakeholder groups are
appropriately identified and
invited to participate in the
process. One concern is that only
7 of the 27 stakeholder groups
invited to participate (page 21)
chose to participate. Of these 7
groups, 3 represent government,
so only 4 participating groups
actually represent voices from the
community. It would be helpful
to clarify which viewpoints were
absent that may have been
Yes
No comment.
The HIA Core Group acknowledge that very
few people that were invited to participate
attended the scoping meetings. However, it
should be noted that those who did
participate may have represented more than
one group, but listed only their primary
organization. The authors resolved to make
this notation in the report and highlight this
shortcoming in the "lesson learned."
[281]
-------
Appendix I. Results of the External Peer-Review
Peer-Review Charge Reviewer 1
Questions
different from the viewpoints that
were present.
Reviewer 2
Reviewer 3
Comment Resolution from Authors/HIA
Core Group
3b. Is a stakeholder
engagement and participation
approach, including plans for
stakeholder communications,
clearly described in the
report?
Stakeholder engagement and
communications are well
described in the report.
Announcements of and minutes
from stakeholder meetings are
included in the Appendix.
Yes
No comment.
No response needed.
3c. If so, was input from
stakeholders solicited and
utilized as planned in the HIA
process?
Input from stakeholders appears
to have been used in the HIA
process. In particular, the
inclusion in the HIA of noise
levels and community perceptions
of the school appear to have
originated with community input
and may not have been on the list
of issues initially considered by
the HIA Core Group.
Yes. The core group used
various strategies (e.g. flyers,
pamphlets, personal phone
calls etc.) to ensure the
participation of stakeholders.
Additionally, due to lack of
English language proficiency
of community members, the
information was translated in
Spanish language as well.
No comment.
No response needed.
3d. Did the HIA utilize
community knowledge and
experiences as evidence and
in what ways?
The HIA Core Group received
community knowledge in the
stakeholder meetings in 2012 as
documented in the minutes of
those meetings. The value of the
school as a community asset came
across clearly and served as a
major reason to not consider
demolishing the school and
rebuilding it elsewhere.
Yes. The community
knowledge and experiences
served as the backbone of this
study. Major concerns of the
community included factors
that involved respiratory
health (e.g. asthma and mold),
noise in class rooms that
impacted learning
environment and the security
of the buildings etc.
No comment.
No response needed.
3e. Where stakeholders given
the opportunity to review and
comment on the findings of
the HIA?
The Draft Communications Plan
in Appendix A indicates that
opportunities for review and
comment by the city, external
stakeholders and the general
public were to occur in 2014. On
pages 110-112, Table 21
documents meetings with the
city's PERM office for review
and comment, but does not
document any meetings for
review and comment with other
stakeholders or with the general
public in 2014 as the EDA was
nearing completion.
Majority of stakeholders who
were invited for participation
did not respond. The report
indicates that the core group
tried every possible way to
convince them to participate,
but did not succeed. The
situation put the decision-
making responsibilities mostly
in the hands of the core group.
Comments provided by the
community members
(Community Knowledge)
provided essential pieces of
information regarding safety,
student absenteeism, air
quality, mold, health
condition and the
No comment.
The authors acknowledge that stakeholders-
other than PERM- were not engaged after the
Scoping step of the HIA. The HIA Core
Group planned to re-engage the community
and other stakeholders during the
Recommendations and Reporting steps, but
failed to accomplish this objective. This
shortcoming was further documented in the
evaluation section of the report.
[282]
-------
Appendix I. Results of the External Peer-Review
Peer-Review Charge Reviewer 1
Questions
Reviewer 2
community's socio-economic
concerns. This information
proved valuable to establish
the priority list and scope
pathway diagram. All
stakeholders were encouraged
to review and provide
comments on the findings of
the HIA.
Reviewer 3
Comment Resolution from Authors/HIA
Core Group
4. Evidence and Analysis.
4a. Are the methods for
evidence gathering and
analysis clearly described and
justified?
The methods for evidence
gathering and analysis are well
described. No noise monitoring
was done so it is difficult to
assess subsequent improvements
in noise in the absence of baseline
measurements.
Yes
The search for and decisions about
data sources seem generally
reasonable. The approach used to
decide what air pollutants to assess
was appropriate. The prior site
investigations identified were
appropriately used to characterize
problems with the facility. The
exception is the method used to
assess moisture and mold-related
risks. The topic of measurement of
indoor air quality and mold did not
seem to include a literature review,
but just somehow decided to use
internal EPA quantification of mold.
This is not the decision that likely
would have been made from a
thorough literature review on health
effects of indoor dampness and mold.
The method of investigating
perceptions among community
residents seems reasonable.
The authors noted in the report that no
measurements of noise levels were taken in
the school. Because the initial funding
proposal did not include allocation for noise
measurements, and funding was already
limited, no noise measurements could be
taken at that time. The HIA Core Group
acknowledged that the choice of using ERMI
to quantify the extent of mold contamination
was not based on literature review, albeit
there is a plethora of scientific literature on
ERMI methodology used in homes. This
decision was made, during the development
of the RESES proposal, based on the
knowledge that the traditional methods of
identifying and/or assessing mold
contamination (e.g., visual survey) had
already been performed at Gerena and further
information was needed. EPA recognized the
opportunity to apply an established
quantification method to a new setting,
which would add scientific value. The
authors drew from language in the RESES
proposal to help add context for why the
ERMI method was chosen.
4b. Was evidence selection
and gathering reasonable and
complete (i.e., -was the best
available evidence obtained)?
Figure 34 on page E-20 indicates
that air sampling was done at only
4 locations which seems like a
relatively small number of
sampling locations. An air
quality expert would be in the
best position to judge whether this
constitutes a sufficient number of
air samples.
Yes
The method of investigating
perceptions among community
residents seems reasonable. One
conclusion was: "residents and
students continuously reported a
heavy dampness and "musty" odor
throughout the school." Note that this
is the single factor most strongly
associated with both new asthma and
allergic rhinitis in available health
studies (Quansah et al. 2012;
In regards to the number of air sampling
sites, the indoor air and building systems
expert reviewer commented that the sampling
of indoor air was appropriate. The authors
will incorporate the added notation and
references provided by the reviewer in the
report.
[283]
-------
Appendix I. Results of the External Peer-Review
Peer-Review Charge Reviewer 1
Questions
Reviewer 2
Reviewer 3
Jaakkola et al. 2013). It thus merits
consideration in assessing
dampness/mold-related health risks in
this facility, both before and after
renovations, along with other
assessments of visible dampness or
mold.
Comment Resolution from Authors/HIA
Core Group
4c. Are the existing conditions
(e.g., demographics, socio-
economic conditions, health
determinants and health
outcomes, presence of
vulnerable groups, etc.)
clearly described?
The existing conditions are well
described to the extent that data
are available. Census data
provide a good picture of local
demographics and socio-
economic conditions. Health
outcomes are less well described
because mortality data as not a
particularly sensitive measure of
health status, especially for
asthma and other respiratory
diseases that have a high
morbidity but a relatively low
mortality. Some of the data in
Table 11 and in Figures 11-15 are
based on small numbers so trends
may not be meaningful. It would
help if the numbers in that table
and those figures were compared
with statewide data.
Yes. Information related to
demographics, health
determinants and health
conditions are described under
appropriate headings. The
evidence selection and then-
analysis is describe very well
along with the reasoning from
the core group why the
available evidences were
selected from the three
selected tracts for the HIA
completion.
4d. Is the profile of existing
conditions appropriate as a
baseline against -which to
assess the impacts of the
proposed decision?
Yes. The demographic, economic,
and other community-level health
data were appropriately obtained, as
feasible; individual level data on
facility use or health status was not
feasible to obtain within the HIA. The
cause-specific mortality rates in Table
11, some of the only health-related
data readily available, would not be
of much use in decisions about
renovations, and are also unlikely to
be useful in evaluating benefits or
adverse effects of the renovations
performed at the school. The asthma
prevalence rates by family education
level in Springfield, along with the
baseline profile of students, and the
asthma prevalence among Gerena
students (Table 13) are useful in
documenting the unusually high
asthma prevalence, and would help in
estimating study size needed to do a
before and after health study among
the students. Data from school nurses
would also be useful for this.
The HIA Minimum Elements and Practice
Standards prescribe that the HIA Report
should include a characterization/profile of
the status of health in the community. The
authors acknowledged in the report that
health status data for the study area was
limited to mortality data (provided by MA
DPH) and student asthma prevalence
(provided by Springfield School Nurse
Department). The HIA Core Group
acknowledged that mortality rates are not the
optimal indicators of health status, but that
reported cause-specific mortality was the
only public health data available at the
neighborhood level. The authors noted in the
report that mortality does not provide
sufficient insight as to the prevalence of
disease in the study area, but can be used to
infer which health outcomes may be of issue.
The authors resolved to clarify this section in
the report and minimize it (move the figures
and explanations to Appendix) to make the
section more understandable for readers.
Yes. The core group spent a
lot of time to profile the
existing baseline conditions.
This seems important since
the other participants did not
seem to possess either the
technical knowledge or the
expertise for this task.
The profile of the existing
conditions related to asthma is
adequate but not ideal as a
baseline for subsequent
comparison of impacts. The
available data include Table 13
with reported asthma prevalence
at the school and Figure 17
related to school nurse visits for
illness, asthma, and breathing
problems, but do not include any
standardized clinical
measurement of asthma. No
baseline data on noise is provided
so there is only anecdotal
Yes, although as the report states, it
will be difficult to accurately assess
the impacts actually caused by any
renovations performed. One potential
opportunity to assess impacts of the
renovations is to monitor the student
asthma prevalence over time after
specific renovations, using a
surveillance system already in place
for nurses: "The Pioneer Valley
Asthma Coalition (PVAC), a local
non-profit organization, has been
working with the school nurses on
documenting visits to the school
nurse related to asthma and
The authors resolved to note that asthma
prevalence reported was clarified as
"physical-diagnosed asthma." The school
nurses report prevalence and symptoms for
those students already diagnosed by their
physicians. The HIA Core Group was unable
to obtain more ideal health data, such as
direct observations of students and/or
medical records. Thus, the best available data
was used. Refer to the response to item 4a.
regarding the missing noise data. The HIA
Core Group investigated, to the best extent
possible, potential confounding factors for
asthma (e.g., exposures in-home and in
ambient air). However, further investigation
[284]
-------
Appendix I. Results of the External Peer-Review
Peer-Review Charge Reviewer 1
Questions
information against which
changes in noise level can be
compared.
Reviewer 2
Reviewer 3
respiratory health. This data has been
used as a baseline to judge the
success of community wide actions to
improve the management of asthma
symptoms." While other factors than
just the school environment will
influence these outcomes, it may still
be worth analyzing these data, and
possibly collecting additional
demographic or health data to help
analyses be more accurate.
Comment Resolution from Authors/HIA
Core Group
was limited by the scope of the HIA.
The overall goal of the HIA was to provide
timely guidance to City officials regarding
renovations at Gerena. Because of this, a
long-term follow-up plan is recommended,
with P VAC identified as a potential partner,
but was not feasible within the HIA timeline.
4e. Are the potential health
impacts of the proposed
decision identified?
The potential health impacts for
asthma, noise, and community
perceptions are appropriately
identified in Tables 14, 17 and 18.
Yes.
Yes.
No response needed.
4f. If so, is the
characterization of impacts
reasonable and complete
(e.g., direction, magnitude,
likelihood, distribution, and
permanence of impacts
addressed; affected
populations clearly identified;
etc.)?
The characterizations of impacts
seem reasonable, although as
documented in Appendix D, some
of the characterizations are based
on professional expertise where
not otherwise addressed in the
literature.
Yes. The characterization of
impacts are transparent and
reasonably supported by
evidences e.g., exposure
impact to mold and moisture
on respiratory health.
Predicted impacts of proposed
renovations are explained in
an easy to understand
language - a nice feature of
communication with people of
different educational and
English proficiency levels.
Specification of the potential health
impacts of the recommended
renovations was reasonable in terms
of direction and rough likelihood,
although it is not possible to
characterize magnitude, distribution,
or even the permanence of the
impacts (Table 19). Concerning
noise, in 4.3 there is a good thorough
review. Aside from the unclear
method for determining values in
Table 17, which summarizes the
predicted impacts each renovation
option will have on noise, another
issue is that the table seems to mix
short-term noise increases from
renovation activities with long-term
effects? The issue of HVAC systems
and noise was not mentioned. This is
often especially an issue in portable
classrooms, but this may not be
relevant in this school facility.
The HIA Core Group acknowledged the
limitation of this HIA to report quantified
predictions in health outcomes. The
qualitative characterization of health impacts
were developed based on the professional
experts in indoor environments and health at
EPA. The predicted impacts to health were
derived from the Delphi method, which is
inherently qualitative. The authors resolved
to provide further explanation in the report
on how the predicted health impacts were
determined.
4g. Are the methodologies,
data sources, assumptions,
limitations, and uncertainties
of the assessment clearly
identified?
The methods and data sources are
well documented in the text and
in the Appendices. The
assumptions, limitations and
uncertainties could be presented
in more detail.
Yes. The usage of ERMI for
mold detection is a smart and
convenient choice. It is a
relatively newer technology
that is known for reliable
qualitative and quantitative
information.
Yes.
The HIA Core Group agreed with the
reviewer about the lack of detail in
limitations, assumptions, and uncertainties
throughout the assessment. The authors
resolved to provide more notations in the
report where limitations and uncertainties
could be noted (e.g., data was missing and/or
incomplete, assumptions were made, etc.).
In addition the authors will revisit the
discussions in the Appendix to see if the
[285]
-------
Appendix I. Results of the External Peer-Review
Peer-Review Charge Reviewer 1
Questions
Reviewer 2
Reviewer 3
Comment Resolution from Authors/HIA
Core Group
methodology of analyses could be further
explained or clarified.
4h. Are the conclusions of the
analysis based on a
transparent and context-
specific synthesis of evidence
(i.e., are the conclusions
reasonable and supported by
the evidence)?
The conclusions are reasonable
and based on the evidence
including recommendations from
engineering and environmental
experts. The school needs many
renovations, some simple and
some complex and costly.
Including health as one of the
components of priority setting is a
major reason this HIA was
conducted.
Yes. The conclusion of the
analyses are transparent and
supported by evidences (e.g.,
exposure impact to mold and
moisture on respiratory
health). Predicted impacts of
proposed renovation are
explained in an easy to
understand language - a nice
feature of communication
with people of different
educational and English
proficiency levels.
The process on which the conclusions
are based is fairly clear, and seems
appropriately context-specific. The
conclusions seam generally
reasonable and supported by the
evidence, although the actual
decision-making is not fully
transparent. One conclusion was:
"residents and students continuously
reported a heavy dampness and
"musty" odor throughout the school."
Note that this is the single factor most
strongly associated with both new
asthma and allergic rhinitis in
available health studies (Quansah et
al. 2012; Jaakkola et al. 2013). It thus
merits consideration in assessing
dampness/mold-related health risks in
this facility, both before and after
renovations, along with other
assessments of visible dampness or
mold. The report concluded that the
specific renovations chosen that
improved tunnel environments and
maintained accessibility, and did not
involve further study, would have a
positive effect on community
perceptions, and on health. These
conclusions in Table 18, while
requiring assumptions, seemed
reasonable. The evaluation of
outdoor air pollutants by census tract
concludes that the three included
tracts had substantially elevated
levels of respiratory hazard, above 4.
The report concludes "The limit of
using this tool is that estimates are
generated for a broad area (i.e.,
census tract, county, state) and may
be overestimated." hi fact, given the
role of vehicular emissions in the
measured pollutants, and the location
of the school adjacent to t highway,
these estimates are more likely to
underestimate the risks of time spent
The HIA Core Group agreed that the used of
ERMI for quantifying the extent of mold
contamination would help bring new
information regarding the conditions in the
school, beyond what has already been done
at the school. However, the HIA Core Group
would also like to acknowledge that there
exists some debate in the appropriate
application of ERMI-based findings and
relevance to asthma prevalence.
[286]
-------
Appendix I. Results of the External Peer-Review
Peer-Review Charge Reviewer 1
Questions
Reviewer 2
Reviewer 3
at the school. This would seem to
support the importance of considering
indoor exposures to outdoor air
pollutants at the school, and the
importance of filtering the air, while
movement of HVAC air intakes
farther from the freeway or
replacement of the school elsewhere
are investigated over years. Page.
106- This is the first mention that
"PERM" may have to consider
replacing the school, but leaving the
tunnel for the community." This had
not been included in the discussion,
even though some of the options for
renovating the existing school tunnels
would offer continued benefits in
retained tunnels, even if the buildings
were no longer used. This issue may
need greater consideration in
decisions.
Comment Resolution from Authors/HIA
Core Group
5. Recommendations.
5a. Are recommendations,
mitigations, and/or
alternatives identified that
would protect and/or promote
health?
The recommendations mostly
focus on repairs and renovations
to improve air, water and mold
issues and would contribute to
improving health.
Yes. Recommendations
presented in the report are
evidence-based, actionable,
and enforceable. Since they
are science-based, therefore,
in all likelihood, protect
and/or support the health and
well-being of the community.
Yes (to both). The specific
mechanism for selecting these
recommendations was explained in
Section 5.1, but was not fully clear.
For instance, the 2 criteria mentioned
did not include community
perception, although that seemed to
be considered in the selection? It is
not clear why item 7, removal of
water-damaged porous materials, is
not to be done immediately, as this
may be responsible for much of
current dampness/mold exposures to
occupants. It is recommended that
this should be done, and the items
replaced, only after all water intrusion
is stopped. While perhaps logical
economically, this is not a health-
protective decision, and a delay of
years for this action seems
inadvisable. Some alternative but
feasible approach should be
developed if possible.
The authors resolved to provide more clarity
in the report discerning the development of
recommendations and the prioritization
process. The HIA Core Group agreed that
water-damaged materials should be removed
immediately. However, the sources of
incoming water will never be completely
resolved, due in large part to the building's
design. The group also acknowledged, based
on information from PERM, that these
materials are replaced on a on-going basis.
Given the persistent water issues, the HIA
recommends that materials be replaced once
the source of incoming water is better
controlled, so that the replacement materials
are not further damaged and/or contaminated.
[287]
-------
Appendix I. Results of the External Peer-Review
Peer-Review Charge
Questions
5b. Are these
recommendations reasonable
and supported by the
evidence?
Reviewer 1
The recommendations seem
reasonable. The presentation of
the recommendations could be
improved by adding a table that
explicitly links each
recommendation to the
assessment finding(s) that support
it. The absence of documenting
these links between assessments
and recommendations were noted
by PERM on page 113.
Reviewer 2
Yes.
Reviewer 3
Yes.
Comment Resolution from Authors/HIA
Core Group
There were several iterations between the
interim-recommendations (from the on-site
investigations) and the final HIA
recommendations, which were developed
from the comprehensive perspective of
reviewing all of the analysis findings. The
HIA Core Group had decided to not present
the initial recommendations from the
interim-HIA reports that related to specific
findings and instead provide the final table of
proposed action items to prevent confusion
among readers. The authors resolved to
provide language in the report regarding this
decision and further explanation for how the
recommendations were developed.
5c. If prioritization of
recommendations took place,
•was the method of priority-
setting documented,
reasonable, and appropriate?
Prioritization is one of the most
important parts of this HIA
because many repairs and
renovations are needed and not all
can be done. The report does a
good job in separating the
immediate, short term, and long
term recommendations in a way
that is helpful to decision makers.
Appendix B on pages B-26 to B-
29 provides an excellent table for
setting priorities that includes
health value, costs, maintenance,
durability and other factors. But
the right hand columns of this
table are not filled in, so it is
difficult to tell which renovations
would receive the highest priority.
The prioritized
recommendations have placed
high stress on mold
contamination assessment,
building assessment and the
assessment of indoor air
quality. Timing for
implementation and the
predicted health values are
based on relevant scientific
literature reviews and
professional expertise. The
method of priority setting is
reasonable and appropriate.
The method of priority setting was
explained, and the decisions seemed
reasonable, but the actual decision
making was not very transparent. The
HIA team also provided specific
information on the practicality of
each recommended action to the
PERM. 4.6 page 105 - first mention
of possible filtration of outdoor air
intake for Tunnel A without waiting
for further testing or measurements:
an excellent idea. PERM, "could
increase filtration to reduce the
influence of roadway combustion-
source pollutants on the indoor air for
Tunnel A." Still, this did not seem to
be included in the high priority
renovations ultimately listed, for
some reason.
In regards to the cost and feasibility values,
the authors resolved to add the table filled in
by PERM to the notes from the stakeholder
meeting. In regards to upgrading air
filtration, there was not enough evidence to
support that increased filtration was needed.
The data indicated that there was some
influence of outdoor-source combustion
particles and wind, but there was already
appropriate filtering (unidentified) occurring
that rendered the average indoor levels of
pollutants below of a level of concern.
5d. Is an implementation plan
identified for the developed
recommendations (e.g.,
responsible party for
implementation, timeline, link
to indicators that can be
monitored, etc.)?
Table 22 on page 119-123
provides a good proposed
outcome monitoring plan
including a responsible party,
timeframe, and indicators to
monitor. The table could be
improved by adding a column
indicating baseline levels against
which each of the indicators could
be compared. Appendix E
indicates which earlier
recommendations are already
Yes. The implementation plan
identifies the timeline,
responsible party to
implement and the link to the
indicators. The timeline list of
action items for completion
within one year, within 2-3
years and after three years is
appropriate and reasonable
approach.
The timeline is identified, and the
responsible parties and funding
sources. Possible methods and timing
of impact evaluation are discussed,
keyed to the recommended time
frame of the proposed actions.
The report provides benchmarks for
classroom acoustics and a baseline of indoor
air measurements for comparison with later
assessments. However, the baseline for
community perceptions would have to be
inferred since no direct surveys were
performed to gather that baseline
information.
[288]
-------
Appendix I. Results of the External Peer-Review
Peer-Review Charge Reviewer 1
Questions
underway and the responsible
party.
Reviewer 2
Reviewer 3
Comment Resolution from Authors/HIA
Core Group
6. Documentation.
6a. Is the layout and format of
the report clear and logical,
•with information clearly
organized in sections that are
easy to follow?
The layout and format is clear and
logical and the table of contents is
helpful. A short executive
summary at the beginning of the
report would add substantial value
to the report, even though there is
a lengthy executive summary
buried in an appendix.
Yes.
The report is generally well-
organized and clear.
The authors resolved to move the Executive
Summary to the beginning of the report and
revisit the length of the report and eliminate
superfluous details that are already provided
in the appendices, as appropriate.
6b. Is the writing style such
that the report is easily read
and understood (e.g., clearly
•written, complex or
unfamiliar terms described,
examples and graphics used
to illustrate text, etc.) ?
The writing style is easy to read,
abbreviations are explained in a
table, and tables and figures are
appropriate. While the report
contains a small number of
photos, it would be helpful to
include more photos of various
places in the school to help the
reader visualize the setting and
the problems discussed in the
report. Some typos and wording
errors were noticed in the report;
a careful review by a copy editor
would be helpful before the report
is finalized.
The language of the report is
very readable and all the
important aspects of HIA
practice have been highlighted
well. The section on cautions,
acronyms and caveats
inclusion is novel and should
help readers with various
educational levels to
understand the report.
Further, notations and public
meeting symbols are novel
and very helpful.
The report is clear in these ways,
although it is a long and complicated
document that winds around in a
convoluted way and is somewhat
challenging to read and digest.
The authors will re-visit the figures in the
report and find areas where the text would
benefit from a visual aid. In addition, the
FDA Report will undergo technical editing
and 508 compliance tasks, prior to
publication.
6c. Is documentation of the
overall HIA process
transparent (i.e., are the
processes, methodologies,
sources of data, assumptions,
strengths and limitations of
evidence, uncertainties,
findings, etc. of the HIA
clearly documented) ?
The documentation of the overall
HIA process is well done
especially on processes, methods,
and data sources. More could
have been included on study
limitations and uncertainties.
The HIA report can serve as a
guide for HIA practitioners.
The overall HIA process is
transparent and the various
aspects of the report indicate
the hardship in getting
scientific data, cooperation
from some stakeholders and
financial constrains etc.
These are the real world
problems that HIA
practitioners face in their line
of work. Authors of this report
This is all done reasonably well, with
some issues discussed in these
comments.
The authors will revisit the discussion of the
limitations and uncertainties in the
assessment, as described in the response to
4g-
[289]
-------
Appendix I. Results of the External Peer-Review
Peer-Review Charge Reviewer 1
Questions
Reviewer 2
have done great job in writing
this report. The core group
successfully resolved the
problems created due to data
gaps (e.g. non-existent, non-
publically available data or
not relevant data etc.).
Reviewer 3
Comment Resolution from Authors/HIA
Core Group
6d. Does the report identify
any other methods to be used
for documenting and
disseminating the HIA and its
findings (e.g., briefings,
presentations, factsheets,
flyers, newspaper or journal
articles, etc.)?
The report describes a number of
methods of dissemination of the
HIA at various stages of the
process in Table 21 (pages 110-
112) and in Appendix A (Draft
communication plan). The plans
for dissemination of the final
report are less specific.
Yes. The reporting of HIA
progress has been an on-going
process since the start of the
HIA studies. It has used
various methods (formats) of
communication, described in
Table 21 of the report. The
core group utilized all
available means of
communication (e.g. flyers,
personal phone calls, e-mails
etc.) to involve stakeholders.
A Spanish translator was hired
to patch the communication
gap with the users of the
facility.
Yes, it discusses various approaches
to do this.
The HIA Core Group acknowledged that the
communications portion was a weakness of
this HIA. There were missed opportunities
for more community participation and more
frequent communications among the
different stakeholder groups. The authors
resolved to revisit the discussion regarding
dissemination of communication materials
and identify areas where further explanation
can be provided and make notations in the
lessons learned.
7. Monitoring and
Evaluation.
7a. Was an evaluation of the
HIA process conducted (e.g.,
•who -was involved, strengths
and -weaknesses of the HIA,
successes and challenges,
how effective the HIA -was in
meeting stated objectives,
engagement and
communication -with
stakeholders, lessons learned,
etc.)?
The report has a substantial
monitoring and evaluation section
which is more detailed than that
found in most HIA reports. On
Page 114, it states that a process
evaluation is "whether the
methods used to predict impacts
to health were appropriate,"
which is not a good definition of
process evaluation. Rather,
process evaluation is whether the
HIA followed the intended steps,
such as those found in various
guidelines to conducting HIAs.
The challenges identified on
Pages 140-145 are a valuable part
of the process evaluation in that
they recognize what did and did
not go well during the HIA and
can assist in improving future
HIAs. The external peer review
now underway is also a valuable
Yes. The evaluation of the
HIA process was conducted
by involving the decision
makers, the HIA core group,
PERM, the City's office of
Management and Budget. The
Core group also
recommended the
stakeholders involvement to
do a more formal and regular
evaluation of the HIA to
determine that all
recommended
implementations are
addressed. Also, this would
help the decision makers to
take appropriate immediate
counter action if negative
impacts were observed. An
Impact Evaluation Form was
also developed by the core
group to help monitor the
No comment.
No response needed.
[290]
-------
Appendix I. Results of the External Peer-Review
Peer-Review Charge Reviewer 1
Questions
part of the process evaluation in
that it provides an independent
review of ho w well the HIA
process worked.
Reviewer 2
implementation timeline along
with relevant supporting
evidences. It is admirable that
this HIA successfully
completed the tasks while
facing many challenges that
started from the scoping phase
of the HIA when only seven
out of 27 stakeholders
attended the stakeholders
meeting. Another challenge
that was faced by the core
group involved data gaps (e.g.
non-existent, non-publically
available data or not relevant
data etc.). The HIA
successfully met the stated
objectives and successfully
engaged the stakeholders. The
HIA made a positive impact
on PERM who supported it
and made few changes in the
document mainly for financial
Reviewer 3
Comment Resolution from Authors/HIA
Core Group
7b. Was a plan proposed for
monitoring implementation of
the decision and the effect the
HIA had on the decision-
making process (i.e., impact
evaluation)?
A form for impact evaluation is
provided in Appendix F. This
form is discussed on Page 117
which it states this form could be
filled out by any person including
the HIA core group or various
stakeholders. While the form is
relatively simple, obtaining the
information to complete the form
requires cooperation from those
with sufficient knowledge to
know what school renovations
were done (such as
replacing/repairing HVAC
components) and how well the
changes match the recommended
renovations. It is not clear
exactly who would take
responsibility for such
monitoring.
Yes. Recommended action
items may take several years
for implementation to occur.
Therefore, impact evaluations
were planned to be performed
at a minimum of 12 months
and 48 months.
No Comment.
The HIA Core Group agreed that the
simplicity of the form does not reflect the
expertise and/or resources needed to
complete it. Prior to the finalization of the
HIA Report, PERM provided a document
that detailed the final decision and future
renovation plans at the school. The HIA
Core Group used this information to inform
the impact evaluation, rendering the previous
form unnecessary. However, the authors
notated that stakeholders should continue to
monitor the renovations to ensure they are
implemented as planned.
[291]
-------
Appendix I. Results of the External Peer-Review
Peer-Review Charge
Questions
7c. Was apian proposed for
monitoring the impact of the
decision?
Reviewer 1
The plan includes a proposed
outcome evaluation on page 124-
126 that includes following over
time the number of visits to the
school nurse for respiratory and
asthma related symptoms. As
noted in the limitations on page
126, this is not ideal but is a
reasonable approach because the
data can be easily obtained.
Reviewer 2
Yes. A detailed, thorough
monitoring plan was proposed
for identified health
determinants (Table 22). The
plan includes the time frame
for the responsible agency to
monitor each indicator, the
funding source and the health
impact parameters.
Reviewer 3
Yes, although as the report states, it
will be difficult to accurately assess
the impacts actually caused by any
renovations performed. Monitoring of
specific renovation outcomes and of
health outcomes is discussed
extensively, using a variety of
different approaches (Table 22).
One potential opportunity to assess
impacts of the renovations is to
monitor the student asthma
prevalence over time after specific
renovations, using a surveillance
system already in place for nurses:
"The Pioneer Valley Asthma
Coalition (PVAC), a local non-profit
organization, has been working with
the school nurses on documenting
visits to the school nurse related to
asthma and respiratory health. This
data has been used as a baseline to
judge the success of community wide
actions to improve the management
of asthma symptoms." While other
factors than just the school
environment will influence these
outcomes, it may still be worth
analyzing these data, and possibly
collecting additional demographic or
health data to help analyses be more
accurate.
This reviewer would not suggest
performing ERMI evaluations over
time to assess environmental
conditions, but would suggest instead
use of better studied, more subjective
evaluations of dampness and mold. It
is not clear what "SCGIH/ASHRAE
evaluations of IAQ" are. If they
involve CO2, T and RH, that would
seem reasonable.
If health were to be monitored in
Gerena students to assess benefits
from renovations, one relatively good
approach, although with limitations,
would be, as is suggested on page 126
and Table 23. This should involve
Comment Resolution from Authors/HIA
Core Group
At this point in time, the entities that could
perform the monitoring are unknown. Only
potential entities that should be involved in
the monitoring was provided in the report,
but there is no mechanism (contract, funding
etc.) as part of the HIA. The HIA Core Group
did not agree with the recommendation for
using more subjective measures for follow-
up. Using objective measures, where
possible, helps to eliminate potential bias
inherent with subjective methods. EPA
offered to perform post-assessment ERMI
sampling at no cost to PERM to provide a
comparison to baseline results. For more
responses related to the use of ERMI, refer
item 4a and 4h, above.
[292]
-------
Appendix I. Results of the External Peer-Review
Peer-Review Charge Reviewer 1
Questions
Reviewer 2
Reviewer 3
data collected the same way before
and after the renovations, and would
be strengthened if school nurses
could also collect data on asthma
inhaler use at school, as well as data
to adjust for differences in
demographics and initial diagnosed
asthma prevalence, year to year.
Again, for schools and if any home
data can be obtained, I would suggest
careful data collection on dampness
and mold indicators, instead of
ERMI.
Comment Resolution from Authors/HIA
Core Group
8. Overall HIA Process.
8a. Are the methods and
procedures used in the HIA
appropriate?
The overall methods and
procedures used in the HIA are
appropriate and efforts to
incorporate stakeholder
engagement were well done. The
report could provide more
information on limitations of the
methods used.
Yes.
The identification of the health
problems that defined the research
questions to be addressed in the HIA
(Table 6 and then section 3.5.3)
seems to have included only those
perceived by community
stakeholders. The community may
not know about risks that are chronic
health effects rather than acute. Other
relevant health effects, including
chronic, may include other less
obvious impacts that might be
identified by public health or
technical experts; e.g., greater
likelihood of developing incident
asthma with dampness/mold
exposures, chronic effects of
spending each day in and outside
buildings adjacent to a major
freeway, etc. The HIA process is
obviously very complex and
challenging. The history of this
particular HIA suggests that ensuring
timeliness will be a key challenge,
and may require difficult trade-offs
between completeness/thoroughness
and speed. Developing a way to
produce preliminary results when
needed would be good, even if
complete results take longer.
The HIA Core Group decided to focus on the
issues more important to (or identified by)
the community stakeholders, within the
context of the decision appraised. The HIA
Core Group performed literature reviews to
verify the impact pathways of interest.
However, as with most HIAs, the resources
available to perform in-depth analyses and
further investigations limited the scope of the
HIA. Not all issues that were identified could
be investigated in the assessment. Inclusion
of chronic health data would have increased
the expense and the time required to
complete the assessment, which was already
behind schedule. Furthermore, investigating
other sources of asthma symptom
exacerbation outside the school would have
been outside the scope of the decision and
inherently the HIA.
[293]
-------
Appendix I. Results of the External Peer-Review
Peer-Review Charge
Questions
8b. What aspects of the HIA
process appeared to be
implemented effectively or
successfully and -what aspects
of the HIA process could have
been strengthened or
improved?
Reviewer 1
The overall process was well
done for each of the steps of the
HA. Some areas that could have
been improved include better
timeliness of the
recommendations related to the
decision making processes
(acknowledging there are factors
beyond the control of the HIA
Core Team), obtaining baseline
measurements of noise levels
before trying to improve noise
levels, and tying each
recommendation more
specifically to the assessments.
Reviewer 2
Public perception and the
visibility implemented
changes/processes was given
priority status. A list (Table
18) was prepared to
summarize the predicted
impacts of proposed
renovations on community
perception. Most proposed
renovation items are expected
to result in positive promotion
of citizen's health.
Reviewer 3
No comment.
Comment Resolution from Authors/HIA
Core Group
For more discussion, refer to responses for
items la, 4a, and 5b.
8c. To what extent were the
goals and/or objectives of the
HIA achieved?
As documented on pages 139-
140, the goals and objectives of
the HIA were generally met
including providing a full HIA
with recommendations and
lessons learned for future HIAs in
which EPA may be involved.
The goal of providing asthma-
related educational materials of
the community appears to be
incomplete as of the date of the
report.
This HIA has achieved most
of the goals/objectives that
were set in the scoping section
(page 17-18) of the document.
This includes: (a) Information
for stakeholders how built
environment could impact
health and wellness at the
project site, (b) Decisions that
will be made to maximize
health benefits and avoiding
potentially harmful health
impacts, (c) Present scientific
evidences, professional
expertise and the community
input regarding the problems
at Gerena. (d) Use the
assessment information to
develop comprehensive
recommendations addressing
the environmental problems to
promote health and wellness
of the building users, (d)
Make recommendations for
consideration in decision
making that will help
maximize health benefits and
avoiding potentially harmful
health impacts. Additional
goals that EPA indicates,
include the development of
HIA that will provide science-
Other than the extended time
required, the HIA seems to have
achieved its primary goals. It will not
be fully clear till later the extent to
which the HIA recommendations
were practical/ feasible enough to
provide actual benefits to the Gerena
renovation process.
The opportunity to provide asthma-related
educational materials was missed in this
HIA, but there are other entities that provide
these materials. EPA's Indoor Air Quality
Tools for Schools Initiative offers several
handouts and reference materials related to
asthma in school. Handouts in both English
and Spanish are needed to ensure the
information available is accessibility to this
community.
[294]
-------
Appendix I. Results of the External Peer-Review
Peer-Review Charge Reviewer 1
Questions
Reviewer 2
based and context-based
educational material and tools,
lessons learned and other tools
that could be used by other
federal agencies in the future.
Reviewer 3
Comment Resolution from Authors/HIA
Core Group
9. General Comments.
Overall the report is well done.
Its usability would be increased if
a concise executive summary
were to be added to the beginning
of the report. It would also be
valuable to add a section that
more explicitly identifies the
limitations of the study.
The title of the HIA does not
lend itself to internet search
for topics such as relocation,
renovation, demolition
degraded tunnels, mold
remediation/control, water
infusion, schools, students,
school staff, community
health etc. The title of the
HIA does not give any detail
as to what are the main
concerns of the HIA that a
potential reader should know.
Consideration should be given
to include an Abstract for
quick overview and
understanding of the most
important findings and results.
This HIA has all the qualities
to serve as a mini-training
booklet in HIA process and
HIA related materials and
forms. If the authors' goal was
to provide an HIA that would
inform and educate future
HIA practitioners about the
subject, then they have
achieved that goal with this
HIA. The reader of this report
has to work hard to
understand if: (a) the tunnels
also serve as a building space
with offices, community
rooms, and classrooms, and
(b) are the tunnels open to
anyone or just for the school
staff and students. It would be
easier to understand the
situation of problem in the
tunnel area if these items were
explicitly stated.
Regarding "monitoring for indoor air
quality" as an outcome: using this
terminology might lead to less than
optimal follow-up for the following
reason, hi evaluating indoor
dampness and mold in the buildings,
the current most scientifically
supported evaluation would be to
assess visible moisture, visible water
damage, visible mold, and mold odor,
and not to measure anything in the
indoor air, and probably not anything
in the dust for now. The phrase
"indoor environmental quality" might
be more appropriate for this reason
(as well as because it would include
noise as well).The issue of the
location of the school adjacent to a
highway, and resulting high indoor
and outdoor exposure to OAPs, is not
emphasized sufficiently in this
evaluation. Multiple studies have
shown high pollutant exposures and
increased health risks for such
locations. The need to ensure
adequate outdoor air ventilation at the
school, but the downside of bringing
indoors more outdoor air pollutants
while doing this, suggests a need to
assess the feasibility of outdoor air
cleaning in the school HVAC system.
This is especially true if any decisions
about moving some air intakes farther
from the roadway might take years to
make, might still introduce unhealthy
levels of outdoor pollutants indoors,
and might not be done at all. "During
events of heavy rainfall, the pits fill
too quickly and overpower the pumps
causing system failures and damage."
An issue not specifically addressed in
the report is that of the capacity of the
The authors resolved to make the proposed
changes for moving the Executive Summary
to precede the report and making the title
more searchable. The authors added "key
terms" under the proposed citation to
improve visibility of the report, hi regards to
the monitoring plan for indoor air quality, the
HIA Core Group disagreed that the follow-up
activities should not include considerations
for mold and moisture, as discussed in the
responses above. The water pumps that
control the groundwater around the school
were not further investigated, since they were
replaced with backup pumps at the main
stations. The authors resolved to provide
more information about the water pumps in
the report. The HIA Core Group does agree
with the reviewer's comment about lessons
learned in future school siting.
[295]
-------
Appendix I. Results of the External Peer-Review
Peer-Review Charge Reviewer 1
Questions
Reviewer 2
Reviewer 3
water control systems for the tunnels.
In standard urban decision making,
drainage systems can be designed as
adequate for all but the unusual
flooding, and when the 100-year
storm occurs, the streets flood.
However, when a building for
children and a community is located
within a tunnel that can flood, and the
building will become a major health
hazard and require extensive
remediation or demolition after
flooding, the cost/benefit balance
needs to shift. If this is not possible,
then this provides evidence that a
school and community center should
not be located in these tunnels in the
first place. The wisdom of siting
major building uses underground in
tunnels where water incursions would
be likely, and in fact have been
ongoing, is questionable. Obviously
this must be balanced against feasible
alternatives in this community.
The references in the comments
above are:
Jaakkola MS, Quansah R, Hugg TT,
Heikkinen SA, Jaakkola JJ. 2013.
Association of indoor dampness and
molds with rhinitis risk: a systematic
review and meta-analysis. J Allergy
Clinlmmunol 132(5): 1099-1110
e!018.
Kangchongkittiphon W, Mendell MJ,
Gaffin JM, Wang G, Phipatanakul W.
2015. Indoor Environmental
Exposures and Asthma Exacerbation:
An Update to the 2000 Review by the
Institute of Medicine Environmental
Health Perspectives; doi:
DOI:10.1289/ehp.l307922.
Mendell MJ, Mirer AG, Cheung K,
Tong M, Douwes J. 2011.
Respiratory and allergic health effects
of dampness, mold, and dampness-
related agents: a review of the
epidemiologic evidence. Environ
[296]
-------
Appendix I. Results of the External Peer-Review
Peer-Review Charge Reviewer 1
Questions
Reviewer 2
Reviewer 3
Health Perspect 119(6): 748-756.
Quansah R, Jaakkola MS, Hugg TT,
Heikkinen SAM, Jaakkola JJK. 2012.
Residential dampness and molds and
the risk of developing asthma: a
systematic review and meta-analysis.
PloS one 7(11): e47526.
WHO. 2009. World Health
Organization (WHO) Guidelines for
Indoor Air Quality: Dampness and
Mould. (WHO Guidelines for Indoor
Air Quality). Bonn, Germany.
Comment Resolution from Authors/HIA
Core Group
Table 2. Responses and Comment Resolution for Technical Charge Questions
Additional Questions for IAQ and
Building Systems Expert
a) Were the series of investigative
studies conducted at the school and
used as evidence in this HIA (see
below) designed and conducted in
an appropriate manner?
Technical Reviewer
hi general, (a)-(e) were good for all factors of interest, with some exceptions described below. The
assessments and data interpretation for temperature and relative humidity, HVAC systems and
operation, air movement/pressure, combustion pollutants, and ultrafine and fine particles seem (p. 74)
reasonable, based on the evidence collected and the literature review.
Comment Resolution from Authors/HIA
Core Group
Responses provided below.
b) Are there any uncertainties in the
assumptions, parameters, and/or
methodologies used in these
studies?
No comment.
No response needed.
c) Were the claims reported by these
studies reasonable and consistent
•with indoor air and building system
principles?
No comment.
No response needed.
d) Were the results of these studies
and the findings of the literature
review used appropriately to
describe the current conditions at
the school as they relate to indoor
air and building systems?
No comment.
No response needed.
[297]
-------
Appendix I. Results of the External Peer-Review
Additional Questions for IAQ and
Building Systems Expert
Technical Reviewer
e) Were the results of these studies
and the findings of the literature
review used appropriately to
characterize the potential health
impacts of the indoor air and
building system-related renovation
options?
One general exception is for item (e) above: Table 7 p. 36, in metrics used to characterize health
impacts, considers magnitude of health impact to include only the number of people effected. The
magnitude does not include the likelihood/probability of effect per person (as a multiple of baseline
health risk or an excess health risk, such as a 50% or a 150% increase in risk for individuals in a
population with a specified exposure, as estimated in an odds ratio, risk ratio, or relative risk), an
important dimension that may be available from prior health studies for specific health risks, such as
indoor dampness or mold, and possibly for indoor exposures to outdoor air pollutants at school. For (e),
on p. 73: the ranking of exposures in what seems to be an un-numbered figure. "Exposures were then
grouped and ranked according to how frequent each was found to be a significant risk factor for
triggering asthma symptoms." It is not clear what this means (perhaps, in how many studies, or how
many review articles, the exposure was deemed a risk factor for asthma exacerbation?) It is also not
clear that this is a good way to rank the importance of exposures. For (e), conclusions about predicted
impacts of proposed renovations on IAQ, on pp 74-76: the method for determining values in this table is
not clear, and the process is not transparent. "Each renovation option was evaluated, based on the
ranking of factors that trigger asthma and the potential to impact respiratory health for those without
asthma. Table 14 summarizes the predicted impacts of each of the proposed renovations on respiratory
health and asthma." Also, while the conclusions still seem generally reasonable, there is one omission -
relocating outdoor air intakes seems advisable, but no mention of possible additional air cleaning for air
brought in, immediately, or for even future improved intake locations if still near a major road.
Comment Resolution from Authors/HIA
Core Group
As noted in previous responses, magnitude
for this HIA was characterized
(qualitatively) as a separate criteria than
likelihood. The authors resolved to provide
more explanation in the report on how the
predicted impacts were determined. In
regards to the process for raking of asthma
exposures, the authors resolved to provide
more explanation in the appendix and
clarify the language in the report. In regards
to upgrading air filtration, there was not
enough evidence to support that increased
filtration was needed. The data indicated
that there was some influence of outdoor-
source combustion particles and wind, but
there was already appropriate filtering
(unidentified) occurring that rendered the
average indoor levels of pollutants below of
a level of concern.
Speak to:
[298]
-------
Appendix I. Results of the External Peer-Review
Additional Questions for IAQ and
Building Systems Expert
Technical Reviewer
• Settled dust sampling to test mold
contamination:
Note that there is no specific investigation category listed here for the issue of moisture incursion as a
critical element that requires assessment as to presence, severity, location, and required remediation
strategies. In fact this was appropriately investigated in 2012 by PERM contracts with architects,
industrial hygienists, and building engineers. For now, the most well-documented assessments of indoor
environment for evaluating dampness/mold-related health risks are the assessments of visible dampness,
visible water damage, visible mold, and mold odor ,(WHO 2009; Mendell et al. 2011), which have been
causally associated with asthma exacerbation (Kangchongkittiphon et al. 2015). No measurement of
mold or other microbiologic measurements has currently been found to have this well-documented a
relationship with asthma exacerbation. ERMI might, within the EPA and at some commercial
laboratories offering ERMI-related services, be considered a recognized and validated assessment for
moisture-indicating mold. However, it is not considered such in the broader scientific communities
working in indoor air, microbiology, and health. There is nowhere near the amount of scientific
substantiation needed to justify the use that ERMI is put to in this HIA. The exclusive use of ERMI -
based assessments, and not evaluation of dampness/mold indicators, is a major limitation of this HIA
evaluation. For instance, on page 74, the report says "Mold remediation/clean-up efforts should be
focused in the areas where high levels of mold spores were found - classroom pods, afterschool room
(Lower Level of Building B), and Administration Office. Even if these areas do not have active or
readily identifiable sites of mold growth, settled dust sampling showed high levels of mold spore
contamination, which increases the risk for these areas to develop mold growth." Current evidenced
suggests that evident dampness or mold would be more appropriate indicators of a need for remediation.
Issues with the decision to use ERMI to assess indoor health risks include:
o The basis for assuming that the specific sampling approach used in ERMI is adequate( e.g., one dust
sample is sufficiently representative of a specific home or building) has not been demonstrated, to my
knowledge, even if this approach has been used in many publications on studies with ERMI. No studies
seem to have included validation of this approach.
o The specific ERMI formula for selecting and combining concentrations of 36 specific fungal species,
and the interpretation, were developed in a manner that has never been well-scrutinized by outside
researchers for success in identifying buildings with water damage, or with unhealthy levels of mold
growth. To this reviewer, the basis of the construction of the ERMI scale has never been clearly
explained or justified, even though each article in which ERMI is used cites prior articles as if they
contain such justification.
o Prior ERMI data, on which interpretation in this HIA rest, have been mostly from homes, not schools.
o QPCR-based assays of fungi in dust hold great promise for assessing indoor fungal growth for use in
determining health risks. However, some of the specific "primers" used in the set of 36 QPCR assays
are considered by some mycologists to be erroneously derived and thus incorrect.
o Overall, while the use of fungal QPCR shows promise, use of fungal QPCR in dust, and ERMI in
particular, is currently only justifiable as a research tool, and not as a validated assessment for
dampness-related fungi (and thus a proxy for health risks) in all kinds of buildings, including homes.
Especially inappropriate would be to interpret an ERMI score with some accompanying "threshold"
level to trigger action or justify non-action. It is not clear that the ERMI, despite its quantitative nature,
provides more information about health risk than subjective indicators of indicators dampness or mold.
Such an advantage has not been clearly demonstrated.
o In this HIA, Figures 18-20 do not provide actual ERMI levels for each location that could be
compared to levels (-13.8-19.1) found in the one school and one school gym studied in the two cited
studies (Thomas et al. and Li et al.).
Comment Resolution from Authors/HIA
Core Group
It is important to note that all
epidemic logical studies of asthma come
with limitations. The WHO 2009 report is a
review of pre-2009 studies and
recommended that mold exposure should be
"minimized." The ERMI was not created
until 2007 to help quantify the extent of
mold exposure. It should also be noted that
that the WHO report was highly supportive
of the development of molecular-based
methods of mold analysis because of the
many limitations of traditional mold
analysis methods. HUD in its testimony
before Congress also noted the many
limitations of traditional mold analysis.
These quotations and references can all be
found at: Vesper S. Traditional Mould
Analysis Compared to a DNA-based
Method of Mould Analysis. Critical
Reviews in Microbiology. 2011. 37:15-24.
(A pdf of this publication can be made
available upon request.)
[299]
-------
Appendix I. Results of the External Peer-Review
Additional Questions for IAQ and
Building Systems Expert
Technical Reviewer
• Air pressure mapping throughout
the facility;
An important assessment to make, often not performed. This would be very important in correcting the
overall indoor air problems in the school, considering the identified moisture incursion, mold, and
outdoor pollutant issues. The report says mixed things about air pressure relationships. For instance, on
page 74, it says: "Continuing to evaluate and adjust the HVAC system control logic may help to
improve air flow in the building simply by reducing pressure gradients between spaces." This seems
simplistic - the desired pressure differentials and air flows depend on where the air is flowing, and
some pressure differences are desirable. Elimination of all differences is not necessarily ideal. For
instance, see paragraph below re desired positive pressure in the inner tunnel in Tunnel C.
Comment Resolution from Authors/HIA
Core Group
The EUA Core Group agreed that the air
pressure mapping analysis was critical to
the assessment. The authors resolved to
revisit the section describing the analysis
and its findings and provide more clarity of
its intent.
• Building enclosure air tightness
testing and infrared imaging;
Useful and appropriate
No response needed.
• A visual survey of HVAC
equipment and maintenance plan;
This was a critical inspection to conduct, apparently not done recently or ever before this, and it turned
up multiple problems needing remediation.
No response needed.
• 3-day continuous recording of
indoor carbon dioxide, temperature,
relative humidity, and laser particle
counting in selected areas; and
In Appendix E, the report says "Carbon dioxide (CO2) levels were elevated above 800 ppm in 5 out of
23 areas surveyed, indicating a ventilation problem in some areas of the school." One caveat here is
that these measurements would only be valid if they were taken in an occupied space after a substantial
period of occupancy during the day, not in, for instance, a classroom early in the morning, or an
assembly room or classroom with no occupants. Also, since 800 ppm, with a likely outdoor CO2 of at
least 400 ppm, is a pretty conservative threshold for indicating ventilation problems, and this was only
found in 5 of 23 locations, this does not suggest a widespread problem of inadequate ventilation.
However, it does seem that this approach enabled investigators to identify units with closed dampers, so
it was helpful.
The authors resolved to make notifications
about the carbon dioxide monitoring in the
occupied spaces, as indicated by the
Building Conditions and Systems Analyses
interim report.
• 6-day recording of indoor
temperature, relative humidity, and
select combustion source pollutants
(particles and gases)
The report says on p. 54 "Investigators measured the levels of combustion source air pollutants coming
into the building through air intakes and in two locations inside the school." On page 64, it says:
"Continuous monitoring equipment was used to sample nitrogen oxides (NOX), carbon monoxide (CO),
particulate matter (PM2.5), ultrafine particulate matter (PM<1.0), and black carbon (BC). Monitors
were placed at two different indoor locations, which sampled the air for three days at each location; and
in two fresh air intakes, which sampled the air for six days." These measurements seem appropriate, and
this showed high levels of several outdoor pollutants from mobile sources at the intake for Tunnel A.
The report contains some odd language about CO2: "When a space is occupied, there must be enough
fresh, outside air provided so that occupants can breathe easily and carbon dioxide (CO2) levels remain
low." Outside air does not help occupants breathe easily. CO2 is generally not considered to be an
indoor pollutant per se, but just an indicator of whether the ventilation systems is effectively keeping
down the concentrations of indoor-produced pollutants, especially occupant-produced pollutants. That
sentence doesn't make this clear.
The authors resolved to revisit this section
with the HIA Core Group and verify/clarify
the language for better understanding.
End.
[300]
------- |