School Officials Address Parents’ Fears on Indoor Air Quality at Special Meeting

Last night, the Board of Education held a special public meeting for the lead examiners who conducted indoor air quality (IAQ) testing at Miller-Driscoll School in March to speak to parents about the school’s indoor environment.

The meeting was sparsely attended, with fewer than 10 parents in attendance, matched equally by members of the press and school officials.

Representing TRC, the firm that performed a comprehensive analysis of the tests were Eric Plimpton, PE, CHMM, CMC, East Region Practice Leader, Building Sciences & Industrial Hygiene; and Marty Lewis, CIH, CSP, CPEA, Senior EHS Project Manager.

They were presenting their findings in a report they delivered to the BoE dated April 15 and titled, “Radon & Indoor Air Quality Survey Demonstrates Miller-Driscoll School Meets all State and Federal Standards for Indoor Air at Schools.”

Plimpton summarized the radon testing results by saying, “All 117 canisters registered airborne radon levels below both EPA and CT Department of Public Health guidance levels, which is 4 pCi/L; in fact the highest level we saw was 1.6, so less than half. Obviously that’s good news.”

Lewis oversaw microbial and air hygiene conditions, including testing for mold spores, humidity, carbon dioxide, temperature, carbon monoxide and other particulates. “All of the comfort and ventilation parameters were in very, very good order,” adding, “We looked at these and we didn’t see anything that was a real concern. Our recommendations didn’t have anything about remedial activity or stopping any current water leaks. If you look at the report, it will show you that we didn’t observe any moisture intrusions that would be a concern, where you would have mold amplification.” 

[Editor’s note: The report was discussed at a previous BoE meeting, which GMW.com covered at the time. In addition, the full report of TRC’s findings are available on the school district’s website.]

The investigators described the testing that they performed as “above and beyond” the CT Department of Health requirements.

Why So Much Testing?

One parent, Steve DiNapoli, asked why the TRC testing was done when previous tests showed there were no problems, specifically with mold. “Now we spent I’m sure a good amount of money to do what, what does that information get us? If there was no issue, I’m sure we could have done a smaller scope. Testing every room is excessive. Why would we spend that much money? Was it to make someone quiet?”

Bruce Likly, chair of the BoE, responded:  “We had a parental allegation that this was a sick building, and we did the testing to try to put parents at ease. It wasn’t to make someone quiet. It was the board’s feeling that we hadn’t done an extensive test like this. We know the building is getting close to renovation; we know the roof has had issues. It was not only to provide peace of mind to that one parent, but to be better community and for the board itself. I want to make sure that it’s a safe environment.”

Likly was referring to complaints aired publicly over the last several months by one parent, Marissa Lowthert.

Allaying Concerns about Leaks and Mold

Much of the questioning parents had at the meeting dealt with times that they smelled mildew in classrooms or the leaks requiring buckets to collect the drips from the ceiling. But Lewis told parents that nothing they found with several methods revealed any mold at alarming levels or wet spots.

“We have an infrared camera to look at cold spots, another one is a moisture meter to see if there is any hidden moisture—red is a concern, yellow caution, green good. Everything was in the green.” Later in the discussion he reiterated that all mold spore measurements came back reflecting no concerns in the levels or types of mold spores relative to outside measurements. “They were all green lights.”

When asked to elaborate on mold measurements and the need for more testing in times of higher humidity, Lewis explained that the Tools for Schools program would go a long way toward involving everyone in the school community in being more vigilant about spotting any problems and getting them addressed quickly. He reiterated that testing “just because you want to test” isn’t industry recommendation as a first step measure—even given that M-D has a history of leaks.

“Those things happen on a routine basis—water leaks and drippy roofs, yes. So you get other folks involved in this team, so lines of communication happen. If you need to get experts involved you get experts involved,” Lewis said.

Likly encouraged the conversation on the issue of buckets collecting leaks:  “If there are buckets out there, I’d like to understand that.”

John Murphy, the district’s building maintenance supervisor acknowledged the deterioriating condition of the MD roof. “There are leaks because the membrane is failing. There are leaks because of the age and the condition. When we find them, we deal with them. We document the procedure, so we have a history.”

He elaborated on what happens when there are leaks. “If we get a leak the first thing is we go in and extract the water. Then we bring in high-volume industrial dehumidifiers. We have fans and dehumidification to get out any extra moisture we can. In the meantime we call in the roofers. If it’s raining there’s going to be a bucket under that leak until the rain stops. They can’t do anything about it until there’s no rain.”

Murphy described the difficulties with tracking the leaks on a failing roof, explaining that roofers are out frequently, patching spots and new leaks spring up. “We’re chasing these things all the time, and addressing them as we find them. We are re-roofing in little dribs and drabs.”

He also said that the school custodians are active whenever the leaks spring up, and watch carefully to spot leaks and test whether ceiling panels are wet or dry. “It’s a battle we fight all the time. We continue to work through the problems, and deal with them the best way we can.”

Answering a question from the BoE’s Likly on how long it takes to respond to problems, Murphy said “It depends on the weather, but within the week” as they arise, adding, “sometimes we’re at the mercy of [the roofers’] schedule.”

Mary Jane Reis, a parent in the audience, said, “But in the meantime, you’re also using fans and drying the problem spot, not just letting it sit there and get mold. I agree we’ve spent a lot of money on this and show nothing.”

Confusion Over Numbers–Specifically CO2

With much previous discussion and concern over CO2 levels–reports that WHS, Cider Mill and Middlebrook have a limit of 900 ppm while Miller-Driscoll’s upper limit is 5,000 ppm–the officials responded to questions, much of it centered on the age of the equipment at the K-2 school.

“The systems in the schools are very different. The system here is 50 years old,” Murphy explained. “They don’t have smart controls. The other building have a level of 900 ppm–as a method of bioeffluent control. We cannot stress that enough:  we’re not looking at CO2 because it has health effects; we’re looking at CO2 because it tells us how much the air is being exchanged for smells, stuffiness, humidity, perspiration. That’s the barometer just to tell us about air exchange. We’re not worried about CO2.”

Lewis added that “CO2 is not toxic, it’s just the level where we get concerned where it can affect your metabolic breathing rate. That level is 5,000 ppm. We are down at 1,000, maybe 1,100. And that’s an average.”

Susan McCall, a parent in the audience, asked, “Numbers get thrown around from this organization or that organization. But we’re talking about children, so their intake of air is different. The Department of Health for CT says 5,000 is an adult number and it’s for commercial. And schools are not commercial. It’s more a comparison to a home level, to protect children, the elderly, sick children.”

Likly referred to an opinion given by Dr. James Babashak, a pediatric anesthesiologist and Wilton parent, who wrote a letter attesting to the levels at M-D being acceptable. “He deals with lung issues, metabolic issues day in day out. His assessment was that the levels we’re dealing with are, relatively speaking, so close to outside, ambient CO2 levels it’s a non-issue.” Likly added that Babashak’s letter is posted on the school district’s website. “At some point we have to find experts we believe in.”

McCall countered that the CT Dept. of Health said the level at which to see if there are problems was 800 ppm. Lewis responded that, “These are guidelines, just like the ASHRAE guidelines which are endorsed by most folks looking at ventilation issues. It really comes back to it’s not the health effects, that’s a non-issue; it’s looking at how much fresh air are we getting for sweaty kids and body odors. The ASHRAE guidelines say 700 ppm above ambient. Twenty years ago, our ambient CO2 levels were 150 ppm lower. Old NIOSH documents or the CT Dept. of Health are pulling up numbers based on ambients down at 200 ppm; I haven’t seen that in many, many years. The ambients we’re seeing are in the high 300s.”

Referencing one classroom where excessive levels were reported, Likly said, “It was investigated, they found it was a faulty [HVAC] damper, they fixed it and it went right back down. The reports I’ve seen, and on the website, the CO2 levels in the classrooms are below 1,110 ppm and in many cases are down in line with the numbers you’d ultimately like to see in a fully renovated school. I’m reasonably comfortable that we’re in a safe environment. ButI want people to feel comfortable that we’re on top of it. The building is old and we’re trying to stay on top of maintenance issues.”

Regarding the differences between having to manually monitor CO2 levels at M-D verses the automatic monitoring in place at the other schools with newer equipment, Likly said, “The school system has the equipment to test the rooms and Mr. Murphy has been doing that on an ad-hoc basis ever since the issue was raised by this same parent. My understanding is it’s been working effectively; that’s how we identified that one classroom that had the faulty damper. We need to renovate this building, there’s no question. We’re doing everything we can to try to insure that each classroom has the appropriate level of fresh air.”

Murphy added that the teachers are “quick to let us know” if rooms are stuffy or if they sense other HVAC related problems, and that there is a software system in place for staff and teachers to put in work orders and complaints.

Reis added that “Isn’t there an element of common sense, if a room feels stuffy. It’s about fresh air, it’s not a matter of health. Can’t we just trust our teachers and the many people occupying the building to have that common sense?”

Miller-Driscoll principal Cheryl Jensen-Gerner spoke up to say that the teachers can report problems, and that the maintenance and custodial staff assess those “immediately. John’s team is totally on top of it.” 

“We recognize we have an issue, that our building is needing renovation; that point has been made many, many times. I have every confidence in the world–I’ve been here 15 years. I care about my health, the children’s health, the staff’s health, everyone who comes in the building. We are going to continue until we do something with the building. But we are taking care of things daily, weekly, monthly, whatever.”

Working to Address Parent Concerns

Reis encouraged other parents to advocate for the renovation: “If every person here could tell 20 of their friends to come out and support the M-D renovation, I think that would be far greater use of our energy. Get out there and say, ‘We need this renovation.’ Tell the other parent, if you’re really concerned about this, that’s what we have to do moving forward.” 

In addition, parents were encouraged by the officials to report issues that they see in the building, whether it’s leaks, odors or anything suspicious. “Parents can call their teachers and their teachers will report it,” Jensen-Gerner said.

While some of the attention that’s been called to air quality issues has reached frustration levels and contention, McCall explained her own individual need to have open discussion about questions she and other parents may have. “The way that I’m filtering some of this information is through the eyes of a parent with a chronically ill child. For perfectly healthy kids, that’s what your addressing, but there is a great community of kids with respiratory issues and other illnesses, ongoing things. So we do look at some of these things maybe a little differently, and we’d like to keep this in mind and make you aware of.”

Likly responded, “We appreciate that.”

He asked whether the group felt comfortable that the schools were doing enough to address their concerns.

DiNapoli responded, “As an environmental consultant myself, and my daughter goes to kindergarten here, and I do these inspections every day, after 15 years. I have no problems after everything I’ve read in the reports so far. These guys did a great job, and I feel completely fine sending my daughter here. I have a degree in environmental science, I’m satisfied, and you went above and beyond. I read all the reports and haven’t seen any issues.”

Following the meeting Meire Mouracade, a parent with two children in the school, said the meeting helped, “because we got answers. That makes me feel much more comfortable.”

Another parent, Julie Comiskey, has a child who will start school next year, but previous news reports have raised her concerns. “I’ve been reading the papers, and my son has respiratory issues. He’ll be here next year, so this just gives you a comfort level that they’re aware and that they are taking care of it. It is comforting.”