environmental quality of schools. · document resume ed 383 059 ea 026 710,. title environmental...
TRANSCRIPT
*** **********
***********************************************************************
DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 383 059 EA 026 710,
TITLE Environmental Quality of Schools. Report to the NewYork State Board of Regents.
INSTITUTION New York State Education Dept., Albany.PUB DATE 94NOTE 75p.
PUB TYPE Guides Non-Classroom Use (055)
EDRS PRICE MF01/PC03 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Agency Cooperation; Air Pollution; Asbestos;
Elementary Secondary Education; EnvironmentalInfluences; *Environmental Standards; HazardousMaterials; Occupational Safety and Health;Pesticides; *Physical Environment; Radiation; *SchoolSafety; *State Action; State Legislation
IDENTIFIERS *New York
ABSTRACTEducation reform, besides focusing on teaching and
learning, must also address the need to maintain a safe, secure, andhealthy school environment. As outlined in "A New Compact forLearning," the New York State Education Department and New Yorkeducators are responsible for ensuring the safety of schoolbuildings. Students in school buildings are not covered by the lawsthat regulate the health and safety of workplace environments. Also,there are no provisions in law for a parent's or student's "right toknow" about hazardous conditions in their school environment. TheRegents Advisory Committee on Environmental Quality in Schools wascreated to develop recommendations for policy and action to improvethe environmental quality of schools. This document presents anoverview of the environmental quality of schools in New York andcommittee recommendations. The introduction presents an overview ofconditions in school buildings that threaten students' health:asbestos, electromagnetic fields, hazardous materials, indoor airquality, lead, pesticides, and radon. The second section providesinformation about the Regents Advisory Committee and its members.Section 3 offers the committee's 16 detailed recommendations formeeting environmental standards in public schools. Appendicescontain: (1) a legal analysis by the State Education DepartmentOffice of Counsel and appropriate sections of education law governingenvironmental health issues; (2) the legal and fiscal implications ofthe proposals of the Regents Advisory Committee on EnvironmentalQuality in Schools prepared by the State Education Department; (3) anOctober 1993 report on environmental quality in schools; and (4) a
summary of recommendations derived from public hearings on theenvironmental quality of schools. (LMI)
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.
1-
IP
:
Mk
AS
'
IA:
A
fb
a
REPORT TO THE NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF REGENTS ON THE
ENVIRONMENTAL
AL1TY OF SCHOOLSREGENTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY IN SCHOOLS
1994
The University of the State of New York The State Fducation Department
THE UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Regents of The University
R. CARLOS CARBALLADA, Chancellor, B.S. RochesterJORGE L. BATISTA, Vice Chancellor; B.A., J.D. BronxWILLARD A. GENRICH, Chancellor Emeritus, LL.B. BuffaloEMLYN I. GRIFFITH, A.B., J.D RomeLOUISE P. MATIEONI, B.A., M.A., Ph.D. BaysideJ. EDWARD MEYER, B.A., LL.B ChappaquaFLOYD S. LINTON, A.B., M.A., M.P.A. Miller PlaceMIMI LEVIN LIEBER, B.A., M.A. New YorkSHIRLEY C. BROWN, B.A., M.A., Ph.D. AlbanyNORMA GLUCK, B.A., M.S.W New YorkADELAIDE L. SANFORD, B.A., M.A., P.D HollisWALTER COOPER, B.A., Ph.D RochesterCARL T. HAYDEN, A.B., J.D ElmiraDIANE O'NEILL MCGIVERN, B.S.N., M.A., Ph.D Staten IslandSAUL B. COHEN, B.A., M.A., Ph.D. New RochelleJAMES C. DAWSON, A.A., B.A., M.S., Ph.D Peru
President of The University and Commissioner of EducationTHOMAS SOBOL
Executive Deputy Commissioner of EducationTHOMAS E. SHaroN
Deputy Commissioner for Elementary, Middle, Secondary and Continuing EducationARTHUR L. WALTON
Associate Commissioner for Central ServicesJAMES A. KADAMUS
The State Education Department does not discriminate on the basis of age, color, religion, creed, disability, maritalstatus, veteran status, national origin, race, gender or sexual orientation in the educational programs and activities whichit operates. Porno; of this publication can be made available in a variety of ezrmats, including braille, large print oraudio tape, upon request. Inquiries concerning this policy of equal opportunity and affirmative action should be referredto the Department's Affirmative Action Officer, NYS Education Department, 89 Washington Avenue, Albany, NY12234.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The Regents Advisory Committee on Environmental Quality in Schools would liketo thank State Education Department staff and staff from other State agencies whoassisted the Committee on a variety of issues relating to environmental health and safe-ty, including drafting its report to the Regents and other documents, and for providingstaff support at meetings. Specifically, the Advisory Committee acknowledges the workof:
James A. KadamusAssociate CommissionerN.Y.S. Education Department
Richard AholaN.Y.S. Education Department
Deborah CunninghamN.Y.S. Education Department
Marilyn DuBoisN.Y.S. Department of EnvironmentalConservation
George EstelN.Y.S. Department of Health
Raymond H. KesperN.Y.S. Education Department
Karim RimawiN.Y.S. Department of Health
Laura SahrN.Y.S. Education Department
Charles SzuberlaN.Y.S. Education Department
Mae TimerN.Y.S. Education Department
Lisa Van AlstyneN.Y.S. Education Department
CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. REGENTS ADVISORY COMMI1 1 tE ON ENVIRONMENTALQUALITY IN SCHOOLS 4
III. GUIDING PRINCIPLES AND PROPOSALS TO STRENGTHENTHE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY OF SCHOOLS 6
GUIDING PRINCIPLES 6
PROPOSALS FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE NEW YORK STATEBOARD OF REGENTS 6
APPENDICES
A. Legal Analysis by the State Education Department Office of Counseland Appropriate Sections of Education Law Governing EnvironmentalHealth Issues 1.1
B. Legal and Fiscal Implications of the Proposals of the Regents AdvisoryCommittee on Environmental Quality in Schools Prepared by the StateEducation Department 16
C. Report: Environmental Quality in Schools, October 1993 21
D. Public Hearings on the Environmental Quality of Schools: Summaryof Recommendations 51
IN1RODUCTION
Although focused on teaching and learning, educationreform must also address the need to maintain a safe,secure, and healthy school environment. The capacity ofchildren to learn is impeded if their school environmentcontains elements which are hazardous to their health. Asenvisioned in A New Compact for Learning, the State Edu-cation Department and educators throughout the State ofNew York have a responsibility to assure the school com-munity and the public that, based on th best availableknowledge, school buildings are safe, healthy, clean, and ingood repair.
The Regents Bill of Rights for Children and policy state-ments on early childhood education and parent partner-ships emphasize the right of children to a safe and healthylearning environment and the responsibility of e,1 'cators towork with parents as partners to these ends. In the work-place, there are Federal and State laws to ensure employeesof a safe and healthy work environment and their "right toknow" about hazardous and toxic substances which are intheir workplace. It is equally important that all children inour elementary, middle, and secondary schools throughoutthe State have the right to a safe and healthy learning envi-ronment and the commitment of ,:ducators to work withparents, other community membe's, and local agencies aspartners to these ends. It is the right of parent. to beinformed and involved with educators to mutually worktoward these goals in a prudent and balanced manner.
As interpreted by the State Education DepartmentOffice of Counsel, Sections 408 and 409 of the EducationLaw provide the Commissioner of Education with theauthority to establish criteria for school reconstruction ade-quate to maintain healthy and safe conditions, outside NewYork City. Section 409 of the Education Law further givesthe Commissioner the authority to establish necessaryhealth and safety standards in public school buildings, (nit-side the State's Big Five city school districts.
Legislative action should he sought to apply these healthand safety standards in the State's Big Five ( :it y School dis-
tricts. It should he noted that students in school buildingsare not covered by the laws concerning the health and safe-ty of workplace environments. There also are no provisionsin law for a parent's or student's "right to know" about haz-ardous conditions in their school environment. (SeeAppendix A for a legal analysis and appropriate sections ofEducation Law.)
'Ihe New York State Education Department providesapproximately $450 million annually to schools for con-struction, reconstruction, and renovation and another $48million for energy costs, excluding transportation. Schoolsare major consumers and disposers of paper, supplies, recy-clable materials, energy, food, packaging, and so forth. Thepower of local schools to serve as role models for environ-mentally responsible behavior (e.g., to realize energy con-servation and to reduce the consumption and disposal oftoxic or hazardous materials in communities) cannot heoverstated. Schools can he both environmentally and fis-cally responsible in how buildings are built and maintained,and whether and how toxic/hazardous materials are usedand stored.
Reports of environmental problems have raised publicconcern to new levels. Frequently covered items includeasbestos, lead, pesticides, radon, electromagnetic fields, andother aspects of indoor air pollution, sometimes originatingfrom such common items as new carpeting, copiers, gluedroofing, paints, cleaning agents, and insulation. Some stu-dents and school personnel have experienced mild to seri-ous health problems which interfere with health, activity,and ability to learn. Also, parents and school personnelhave become frustrated by a system that, in some cases, hasignored or dismissed their inquiries and complaints aboutschool environmental quality. Decisions must he made atboth the State and local levels to determine responsibilityand how to address the problems.
It should also be recognized that when health threats arepri:sent, the costs to individual districts and the State Edu-cation Department are enormous in terms of staff time and
effort, cleanup costs, school closings, and the liability fordamage to health. The recent experience of the New YorkCity public schools with closings and delays because ofasbestos problems, as well as problems relating to lead andsanitation, reminds us of the potential adverse impact oneducation caused by environmentally-based health threats.Careful, well thought out policies and guidelines designedto prevent, reduce, and manage hazardous risks, overallconsumption, and disposal of hazardous products should sig-nificantly reduce, these unfortunate incidents.
The problems are not isolated incidents. They arestatewide problems with far reaching effects on the healthand safety of our children. The current standards for envi-ronmental health and safety are not adequate to protectchildren. As a result, there is a need to design careful,thoughtful prevention and proactive policies, based on cur-rent and emerging research in response to the environmen-tal health and safety conditions ;*,.. "chool buildings, such asasbestos, electromagnetic fields, hazardous materials, indoorair quality, lead, pesticides, and radon.
AsbestosAsbestos is not a single substance, but rather a group of nat-urally occurring minerals which can be processed intomaterials which are strong, flexible, durable, heat resistant,and resistant to chemical attack. Because of these remark-able properties, asbestos has been widely used in manyproducts. Asbestos has been known for several decades tobe a human carcinogen based on occupational health stud-ies of workers who are involved in its mining, manufactur-ing, or application. Materials containing asbestos will even-tually need removal, but those that are in good conditioncan be properly maintained in place for many years withminimal risk to the building's occupants. In some instances,improper abatement practices have increased exposure tothis hazardous material.
Electromagnetic FieldsSince the late 1970s, the question of whether electrical andmagnetic fields that emanate from power lines, wiring,equipment, and lighting cause human health problems hasbeen the subject of much discussion. Concerns have beenraised by some scientific studies which have linked electro-magnetic fields to serious health problems.
Hazardous MaterialsSchools are faced with growing environmental concerns asthey consider the purchase of land for new construction,the placement of playing fields, and building additions onexisting structures. Public awareness of the legacy ,t paqpractices for the disposal of hazardous materials has added anew consideration when siting school facilities. In addition,schools now need to dispose of hazardous materials and sup-
plies from classrooms and buildings. If nor handled correct-ly, such materials can create serious health hazards for stu-dents and school personnel.
Indoor Air QualityIndoor air contaminants are either particles (e.g., tobaccosmoke, allergens, asbestos, fibers, respirable particles, bacte-ria, and viruses), chemicals or gases (e.g., carbon monoxide,radon, formaldehyde, oxides of nitrogen or sulfur, andvolatile organic compounds). Indoor air quality problemsare commonly associated with a number of conditions, suchas inadequate ventilation, contamination from indoorsources, inn duction of outdoor contaminants, microbialcontamination, and poor maintenance. The effects of poorindoor air quality can be so subCe that they go unnoticed orare dismissed or attributed to common allergies, flu, thecommon cold, or stress. Some air pollutants may trigger oraggravate medical conditions. The symptoms of individualswith respiratory problems (such as asthma, bronchitis, andemphysema) can be aggravated by indoor air irritants.There is growing evidence that poor oor air quality canproduce verbal, perceptual, motor, and behavioral disabili-ties in children, as well as hearing impairments, irritability,and delayed physical and neurobehavioral development.
LeadLead is a poison that affects virtually every system in thebody, and is particularly harmful to the developing brainand nervous systems of fetuses and young children. There isgrowing evidence that exposure to even low lead levels canproduce verbal, perceptual, motor, and behavioral disabili-ties in children, as well as hearing impairments, irritability,and delayed physical and neurobehavit'fral development. Inschools, lead may be found in deteriorated paint, contami-nated soil, dust, and drinking water, among other sources.
PesticidesPesticides, a diverse group of toxic chemicals, are widelyused in agricultural production, factories and offices, homesand restaurants, and schools to kill, repel or control the tar-get pest. Schools, with kitchens and cafeterias, athleticfields and playgrounds, classrooms and offices, are regularlytreated with a variety of pesticides. An increasing body ofscientific data on the potentially harmful effects of pesticiieexposure on people and on the environment raises concernabout the broad use of these toxic substances, many ofwhich are neurotoxic or carcinogenic.
RadonRadon is a naturally occurring colorless, odorless and taste-less radioactive gas. It comes from the natural breakdown ofuranium which is found in soil and rock throughout theUnited States. It travels through soil and enters buildings
through cracks and other holes in the foundation. Eventu-ally, it decays into radioactive particles which becometrapped in our lungs, releasing small bursts of radiationwhich can damage lung tissue and in time lead to lung can-cer. Because indoor radon concentrations vary with build-ing construction, ventilation characteristics and the under-lying soil and rock, only testing can determine if elevatedradon levels exist.
In summary, the primary purpose of this Advisory Com-mittee is to develop recommended proposals for policy andaction to improve the environmental quality of schools.The legal and fiscal implications of these proposals havebeen tentatively identified by State Education Departmentstaff. (See Appendix B for an analysis of the proposals'implications.)
II. REGENTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY IN SCHOOLS
The Regents interest in the environmental quality ofschools has been advanced in a number of discussions andpolicy documents over the years. Beginning with the publicschool building health and safety discussions in 1988 andcontinuing through the indoor air quality in schools reportin 1989 and their early childhood policy statement, back-ground paper and action plan in 1992 and 1993, theRegents have demonstrated concern about the environ-mental health and safety of children.
Most recently, in October 1993, the Regents reviewed abackground paper by State Education Department staff onthe Environmental Quality in Schools. (See Appendix C forthe Environmental Quality in Schools background paper.)The paper detailed some health and safety concerns for stu-dents and school personnel and recommended that theRegents establish an Environmental Quality Advisory Com-mittee with the charge of developing a draft policy:
D affirming every child's right to an environmentally safeand healthy learning environment;
affirming every parent's "right to know" about healthhazards in the school environment; and
advancing other key policies.
On October 14, 1993, the Regents established the Advi-sory Committee on Environmental Quality in Schools withthe following membership:
CochairsSaul B. Cohen, N.Y.S. Board of RegentsNew Rochelle, N.Y.
James C. Dawson, N.Y.S. Board of RegentsPeru, N.Y.
Parents/CommunityJanet AholaN.Y.S. Parent-Teacher Association
Claire BarnettWestport Parent-Teacher Organization
Jaime KnowlesASPIRA of New York
RueZalia WatkinsUnited Parents Association of NYC
Teacher Orgar.4zationsRaymond DominicoPublic Education Association
Linda MannyNational Education Association of New York
Joel ShufroN.Y.S. United Teachers
School BoardsLucian CappoliN.Y.C. Board of Education
Dennis ColemanN.Y.C. School Boards Association
Jeffrey HandelmanN.Y.S. School Boards Association
School Admin!stratorsCharles AmodeoN.Y.S. Federation of School Administrators
Sidney FreundSuperintendent, Herricks UFSD
Andrew GarrucioSchool Administrators Association of N.Y.S.
Michael Joseph, Jr.Rural Schoob Program
Rick MonacoN.Y.S. Association of Superintendents of Buildingsand Grounds
James O'ConnellN.Y.S. Council of School Superintendents
George PerryN.Y.S.Association of School Business Officials
BOCESJohn SackettDistrict SuperintendentRensselaer - Columbia- Greene BOCES
John C. ThomasHealth a. Safety OfficerEastern Suffolk BOCES
LegislatureChris ColeN.Y.S. Assembly Education Committee
Lynette M. StarkN.Y.S. Senate Majority Program Office
The Mayor's Office of the City of New YorkNinfa SegarraNew York City Mayor's Officeof Educational Services
State AgenciesSharon CostelloN.Y.S. Energy Office
Maureen CoxN.Y.S. Department of Labor
Ann De BarbieriN.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation
Dr Edward HornN.Y.S. Department of Health
Susan Lep lerN.Y.S. Council on Children and Families
David P. StricosN.Y.S. Department of Public Service
Michael SurganN.Y.S. Department of Law
Environmental HealthDoris J. Rapp, M.D.Environmental Health Physician and Allergist
In December 1993, the Advisory Committee met for thefirst time and explored potential policy issues on hazardousmaterials, pesticides, asbestos, lead, indoor air quality, elec-tromagnetic fields, and radon. The next month the Adviso-ry Committee met again to clarify issues and concerns inthe environmental health areas.
To assist in its deliberations, the Advisory Committeeconvened two public hearings the first on March 16,1994, in Albany, and the second on May 12, 1994, in NewYork City. Individuals and organizations were invited topresent testimony on a range of policy concerns regarding
school environmental quality. Individuals presented testi-mony in person and others submitted written statements.(See Appendix D for the summary of recommendationsfrom the Albany and New York City Public Hearings.)
In April 1994, the Advisory Committee met to reviewthe testimony presented at the Albany public hearing andto discuss the policy recommendations for consideration bythe Board of Regents. Again in May, the Advisor; Com-mittee met for the last time to review the testimony pre-sented at the New York City public hearing and to discussits report to the Regents. State Education Department staffthen compiled common elements of the testimony andincorporated them into the policy proposals which werereviewed, discussed, and agreed to by the Advisory Com-mittee.
III. GUIDING PRINCIPLES AND
PROPOSALS TO STRENGTHEN THE
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
OF SCHOOLS
Based on Advisory Committee discussions and testimo-ny presented at the Albany and New York City public hear-ings, the Regents Advisory Committee on EnvironmentalQuality in Schools developed the f011owing guiding princi-ples and proposals and recommends their approval by theBoard of Regents id implementation by the State Educa-tion Department in schools throughout the State. Theseguiding principles and proposals apply to all school districtsin the State, including the Big Five City School districtswhere existing legislation restricts the Commissioner ofEducation's authority regarding school health and safety.
Guiding Principles
I Ever- child has a right to an environmentally safe andhealthy learning environment which is clean and ingood repair.
I Every child, parent, and school employee has a "rightto know" about environmental health issues and haz-ards in their school environment.
School officials and appropriate public agencies shouldbe held accountable for environmentally safe andhealthy school facilities.
I Schools should serve as role models for environmen-tally responsible behavior.
Federal, State, local, and private sector entities shouldwork together to ensure that resources are used effec-tively and efficiently to address environmental healthand safety conditions.
Proposals for Consideration by theNew York State Board of Regents
Proposal 1:Improve school facilities -o make them more environ-mentally sound as follows:
1.1 School districts shall avoid engaging in renovationand construction projects while school is in session,hut, if such projects must be conducted, affectedareas, to the degree possible, shall be isolated fromstudents and school personnel.
1.2 School officials shall accommodate (e.g., relocate)those individuals affected by noxious emissions fromconstruction that cannot be isolated from buildingoccupants.
1.3 Schools shall conduct environmental site audits fornew building construction, including adjacent land,to identify potential environmental health hazards.
1.4 Schools submitting building plans and specificationsto the State Education Department for Commission-er's approval shall not place air intake vents adjacentto school bus loading/unloading areas, loading docks,or air exhaust vents.
1.5 Schools shall he required to develop written buildingoperations and maintenance plans and scheduleswith logs, including the heating, ventilation, and air-
mditioning systems, based on models developed bythe State Education Departh.,:nt.
1.6 Schools shall use construction materials and SCht)ol
supplies which are less toxic and less hazardous tobuilding occupants.
1.7 School buildings, when designed or renovated, shot .1du.,e design principles and construction materials ".richfurther the goals of conserving energy, ensuring gooclindoor air quality, pest-pnxiing, radon - proofing, ease ofmaintenance and include other factors contributing topositive learning environments.
1.8 Schools should consider creating "chemically clean" orenvironmentally safer classrooms (portable or withinschools) for asthmatic, allergic, or chemically sensitivestudents who have not been able to attend classes reg-ularly within their school buildings.
Pr.,Fosal 2:Improve indoor air quality in schools as follows:
2.1 The State Education Department shall implementFederal legislation which prohibits envi-onmentaltobacco smoke in school buildings (i.e., OSHA andGoals 2000: Educate America Act).
2.2 School districts shall operate and, where necessary,upgrade the operation of heating, ventilation, andair-conditioni:-.2 systems to meet the ventilation stan-dards of the American Society for Heating, Refrigera-tion and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE),where needed and feasible.
2.3 Schools shall develop guidelines to reduce exposureto chemical fragrances which can cause possibleadverse reactions in some individuals.
Proposal 3:Improve school pest management programs as follows:
3.1 Schools shall adopt and publicize integrated pestmanagement policies and practices to prevent,reduce, or eliminate pesticide use. When pesticidesare deemed essential, the less-toxic alternative shallhe selected.
3.2 Schools shall select pest management practices whichminimize exposure of individuals to pesticides.
3.3 Schools shall post warning signs at the main entranceof the school, and elsewhere as required by law,whenever pesticides are applied, indoors or outdoors,and shall leave the warning signs in place for at least48 hours fidlowing the pesticide application.
3.4 Schools shall provide prenotification to students, par-ents, and school personnel of intended pesticideapplication(s).
3.5 Schools shall have a certified pesticide applicator on-site supervising or performing pesticide applications.
3.6 Schools shall provide integrated pest management(1PM) training to appropriate custodial and mainte-nance personnel on an annual basis.
3.7 Schools shall maintain, and make available to parentsand school personnel, records of all pesticide applica-tions, including the pesticide(s) applied, the date(s) ofapplication(s), and the location(s) treated.
Proposal 4:Strengthen the asbestos compliance program as follows:
4.1 The State Education Department, in cooperationwith the statewide Health and Safety Coordinatornetwork, shall provide a compliance review of schoolasbestos management plans.
4.2 The c ...-iducation Department, in cooperationwit'. the statewide Health and Safety Coordinatortv_twork, shall conduct annual workshops for theasbestos-LEA-designee in school districts.
Proposal 5:Require periodic lead testing in all schools as follows:
5.1 Schools shall sample and analyze drinking water, soil,and paint for lead content using the EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) protocols and the resultsshould he compared to appropriate State and Federalstandards and guidelines.
5.2 Schools shall use appropriate methodology, based onFederal Occupational Safety and Health Acts(OSHA) and Housing and Urban Development(HUD) guidelines or other appropriate regulations,to ensure protection from exposure to lead dust andresidue during lead cleanup, routine maintenancerepair, and renovation.
5.3 Schools shall use only "lead-free" instructional mate-rials and supplies and shall not introduce new sourcesof lead into the school environment.
5.4 Schools shall require that children entering schoolfor the first time, aged six and under, present proof ofa blood test for lead.
Proposal 6:Require all schools to conduct radon testing and notifica-tion as follows:
6.1 Schools shall he tested periodically, as appropriate,for radon levels in all frequently occupied roomswhich are at or below ground level.
6.2 Schools with readings which exceed the U.S. Environ-mental Protection Agency recommended acceptedlevel for radon shall develop mitigation/abatementplans, and shall implement effective plans with notifi-cation to parents and scl iool personnel.
Proposal 7:Encourage schools to practice prudent avoidance by tak-ing available no-cost and lcu-:..ost measures to reduce theexposure of students and school personnel to electromag-netic fields as follows:
7.1 The State Education Department should work withappropriate State agencies and recognized outsideauthorities to provide updated and current informa-tion about electromagnetic fields in the school envi-ronment to the school community.
7.2 Electromagnetic field exposure and available prudentavoidance measures should be considered in the sit-ing, design, construction, and furnishing of newschools. This consideration should include all sourcesof electromagnetic field exposure in and around theproposed structure.
7.3 Electromagnetic field exposure and available prudentavoidance measures should he considered in deter-mining space utilization in -...xisting facilities and pur-chase of new and replaceiaent electrical devices andequipment for these facilities.
Proposal 8:Require the reporting of significant environmental conditionstesting in school buildings and on school properties as follows:
8.1 Schools which conduct any environmental condi-tions testing, including lead, radon, indoor air, pesti-cides and other chemicals, shall report significantfindings of such tests to the Star( Education Depart-ment, and shall provide an action and mitigationplan, if warranted. (Similar requirements are now inplace for reporting findings related to asbestos - Edu-cation Law Section 3602-a.)
Proposal 9:Require all school districts to establish policies to ensureaccess to environmental health and safety information("right to know") for individuals relating to environmentalsafety and health as follows:
9.1 School districts shall ensure that students, parents,school personnel, and the community have aco.ss toinf nmation, in a timely manner, about known andpotential exposures to environmental health hazardsin their school environment. In addition, all testreports will he made available upon request.
9.2 Schoo: districts shall notify parents and school per-sonnel of routine and sudden environmental healthhazard exposures and environmental testing results ii,a timely manner.
9.3 School districts shall ensure that parents, students,and school personnel have access to an orderly and
expedited process for resolving environmental healthconcerns.
9.4 School districts shall make abatement plans accessi-ble and available to parents, school personnel, andother interested parties.
Proposal 10Require all school districts to develop and implement envi-ronmental quality plans for each school building. Suchplans shall be reviewed periodically and shall address the fol-lowing:
10.1 The State Education Department shall requireschools to use less-toxic and less-hazardous productsfor instruction, building operations and maintenance,custodial purposes, machinery, and furnishings, andevaluate curricular mandates for hazardous materialsuse and processes.
10.2 The State Education Department shall requireschools to establish procedures that addressemergency situations where children and school per-sonnel are exposed to hazardous substances.
10.3 Every school district shall designate a person in eachschool building to he responsible for the reporting ofproblems to the local school board and the on-sitemanagement of the environmental quality plan,including establishing an environmental qualityschool-community team to develop the environmen-tal quality plan.
10.4 The State Education Department shall requireschools to identify and abate sources of air contami-nation or hazardous conditions that originate inschool buildings or on school grounds.
10.5 The State Education Department shall require schooldistricts to eliminate conflict of interest through con-tract language and written agreements which ensurethat contractors for testing and lal-x)ratory analysis areindependent of any affiliation with individuals and/ororganizations that mr.y financially benefit from therepair of buildings or the removal of hazardous materials.
10.6 The State Education Department shall requireschools, within their environmental quality plan, toaddress the reasonable accommodations of studentsand school personnel with environmental sensitivi-ties, as diagnosed by a licensed physician.
Proposal 11:Establish a Regents Subcommittee on the EnvironmentalQuality of Schools as follows:
11.1 The Board of Regents, through the Subcommittee, shallprovide direction on policy and action to the State Edu-cation Department on environmental health and sdety
issues of schools and on constructing and maintainingschools which are clean and in good repair.
11.2 The Subcommittee shall he comprised of Regents andother members from the following groups parents,students, school personnel, environmental and publichealth professionals, State agencies, and members ofthe private sector, such as industrial hygienists, archi-tects, and ventilation engineers.
Proposal 12:Dedicate additional staff in the State Education Depart-ment to implement the proposals of this report and of theproposed Regents Subcommittee on the EnvironmentalQuality of Schools as follows:
12.1 The State Education Department shall secure andprovide resources for additional staff within the Facil-ities Planning Team to assist schools with their envi-ronmental health obligations.
12.2 The State Education Department should conductand support research on.current and emerging envi-ronmental health and safety issues which will serve asa basis for policy and action.
12.3 The State Education Department shall establish anOmbudsman to respond to the environmental healthand safety concerns of students, parents, and schoolpersonnel.
12.4 The State Education Department, in cooperationwith other appropriate State agencies and theRegents Subcommittee, shall convene (a) workinggroup(s) of technical experts and other appropriateindividuals to advise staff and the Regents Subcom-mittee on environmental health and safety issues, asneeded.
Proposal 13:Improve the State Education Department's technicalassistance to school districts relating to the quality of theschool environment as follows:
13.1 The State Education Department in cooperationwith other State agencies shall develop model envi-ronmental quality plans for school buildings typicalof school districts in New York State to serve asguides to school districts.
13.2 The State Education Department shall update TheSchool Site: Standards, Selection, Development andthe Manual of Planning Standards and , levelop anIndoor Air Quality Manual, HVAC Manual, Envi-ronmental Audit Manual and other necessary materi-als that reflect current state-of-the-art technology, as
they apply to environmental quality in school con-struction, renovation, and maintenance and operation.
13.3 The State Education Department shall disseminateenvironmental health and safety manuals that are suit-able for use by all members of the school community.
13.4 The State Education Department, in cooperationwith other State agencies, shall conduct selectedenvironmental health and safety audits and shallestablish a monitoring process for compliance.
13.5 The State Education Department, in cooperationwith other State agencies, shall develop proceduresfor using school personnel to measure and correctenvironmental conditions in schools.
13.6 The State Education Department shall review andupdate procedures on emergency situations related toenvironmental health exposures for children andschool personnel.
13.7 The State Education Department, in collaborationwith other agencies, shall develop and distributeguidelines on the accommodations of students andstaff with environmental sensitivities based on cur-rent Federal and State civil rights and education laws.
Proposal 14:Expand the existing statewide Health and Safety Coordi-nators network to work with school boards, school per-sonnel, parents, and community members, including NewYork City, in addressing environmental health concernsas follows:
14.1 The State Education Department, in cooperationwith the statewide network and other appropriateagencies, shall develop a "train-the-trainer"' programto educate school coordinators on environmentalhealth issues.
14.2 The statewide network shall assist schools in devel-oping environmental assessment reviews.
14.3 The statewide network shall provide technical assis-tance to schools in abating environmental hazards.
Proposal 15:Increase collaboration between the State EducationDepartment and other State agencies in addressing envi-ronmental health and safety issues as follows:
15.1 The State Education Department shall conduct work-shops on environmental quality issues for school per-sonnel, students, parents, and/or the community andseek the cooperation and participation of other Stateagencies (i.e., the State Departments of Environmen-tal Conservation, Lalxir, law, Health, and Public Ser-vice and the State Energy Office).
NTrain-the-trainer" is a process whereby State agency and other competent experts train Health and Safety Coordinators who, in turn, train/educatethe schtfol designated person responsible for replicating the process in his/her school and community.
15.2 The State Education Department, in conjunction withappropriate agencies and the Regents Subcommittee,shall periodically evaluate, update and disseminate cur-rent recognized protocols, guidelines, and standards forenvironmental conditions in schools.
15.3 The State Education Department, in conjunction withappropriate agencies, shall develop a statewide clear-inghouse of school environmental health and safetyinformation for use by parents, teachers, adkainistra-tors, physicians, nurses, and other interested parties.
15.4 The State Education Department, in conjunctionwith appropriate agencies, shall develop interagencycooperative agreements for investigating and resolv-ing environmental inquirie- and complaints in atimely and expedited manner.
Proposal 16:Fund environmental health and safety programs inschools as follows:
16.1 The State Education Department shall develop afunding proposal to assist school districts in properbuilding maintenance and repair relating to environ-mentally safe buildings.
16.2 The State Education Department shall provide newfull-funding aid for additional expenses incurred inimplementing legislatively mandated environmentalhealth programs.
APPENDIX ALEGAL ANALYSIS BY THE STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENTOFFICE OF COUNSEL
AND APPROPRIATE SECTIONS OF EDUCATION LAW GOVERNING ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
The Commissioner of Education may adopt only thoseregulations that are within the Commissioner's statutoryauthority and not in conflict with other statutes (StateAdministrative Procedures Act § 202[1][f][i]; 202-cl4Hallil,[v]). There are two basic sources of statutoryauthority for the Commissioner of Education to adopt regu-lations concerning environmental health and safety in pub-lic elementary, middle, and secondary schools, namely Edu-cation Law §§408 and 409.
Under Education Law §408, the Commissioner of Edu-cation approves plans and specifications for the erection,purchase, repair, enlargement, or remodeling of schoolbuildings and additions for school districts, other than theNew York City school district. Education Law §408(2)requires that the Commissioner, in reviewing plans andspecifications, assures that they "provide for heating, venti-lation, sanitation, storm drainage and health, fire and acci-dent protection adequate to maintain healthful, safe andcomfortable conditions therein." Education Law §408(3)further requires that such plans and specifications complywith Education Law and the Regulations o. the Commis-sioner and that the Commissioner assures that the site wasselected with reasonable consideration of several factors,including its place in the school district's long-term facili-ties plan, cost and the educational adaptability, environ-ment, and accessibility.
Under Education Law §409, all school buildings inschool districts, other than city school districts in citieswith 125,000 inhabitants or more (i.e., the Big Five cityschool districts), must comply with the Regulations of the
Commissioner of Education adapted for the purpose of"insuring the health and safety of pupils in relation to prop-er heating, lighting, ventilation, sanitation and health, fireand accident protection."
These two statutes, particularly §409, do appear to givethe Commissioner authority to adopt regulations to carryout many of the recommendations of the Regents AdvisoryCommittee on Environmental Quality in Schools thatrelate to environmental health of pupils in school build-ings. However, the Commissioner's authority under thesestatutes does not extend to all school districts. It should benoted that the Commissioner's authority under §409 forregulation on environmental health may not apply to theBig Five city school districts. Similarly, where there isreliance on §408 for authority for regulation, that regula-tion may not apply to the New York City school district.Legislation would he needed to implement most of the pro-posals in the Advisory Committee's report.
Beyond §§408 and 409, there are no other provisions ofEducation Law that would give the Commissioner authori-ty over environmental health in school district buildings,except Education Law §305(19), which authorizes theCommissioner to regulate the storage of chemicals in sci-ence facilities in elementary and secondary schools.
Some of the recommendations would have the Commis-sioner require school districts to report information to theState Education Department on environmental health. Inthis regard, the Commissioner has very broad authorityunder Education Law §215 to require reporting by anyschool district in the State.
I ta
e`,
Plan
s an
d sp
ecif
icat
ions
fit
whi
miti
bitt
k O
wpr
oved
by
ette
mni
sitI
chse
r of
edu
eetle
ct1.
No
scho
olho
use
chin
her
eaft
er b
e er
ecte
d, p
urch
ased
,m
itred
, en-
larg
ed o
r re
mod
eled
nor
sha
ll th
e ad
vert
isem
ent f
or b
ids
for
the.
exec
utio
azi
the
plan
s In
d sp
edfi
catto
sii f
or s
uch
ticho
olho
siiii
s be
Wea
lth in
dist
rict
exc
ept i
n a
city
sch
ool d
istr
ict i
nci
ty h
abit*
isnu
styl
ituun
dIn
habi
tant
s or
mor
e, a
t an
expe
cte*
whi
ch s
hall
exce
ed o
ne h
undr
ed th
ousa
nddo
llars
, unt
il th
e pl
ans
and
spet
lfic
allo
ns s
hall
have
bee
n su
bmitt
ed to
the
com
mis
sion
er o
f ed
uctio
n an
d hi
s ap
prov
al e
ndor
sed
ther
eon,
Suc
h pl
ane
and
spec
ific
atio
ns s
hall
show
In
deta
il th
e V
entil
atio
n, h
eatin
g an
d lig
htin
g bf
web
build
ings
.In
the
case
of
a sc
hool
ark
d r
ing
NA
* W
eird
, tlib
akai
d in
habi
takt
ior
mor
e, a
ll th
e pr
ovis
ions
pre
viou
sly
set f
orth
in th
is s
ubdi
visi
on s
hall
appl
y,ex
cept
that
the
com
mis
sion
er m
ay w
aive
the
requ
irem
ent f
or s
ubm
issi
on o
fpl
ans
and
spec
ific
atio
ns a
nd s
ubst
itide
ther
efor
the
requ
iref
twm
t for
sub
mli-
sion
of
an o
utlin
e of
suc
h pl
ans
and
spec
ific
atio
ns f
or h
is r
evie
w. S
uch
outli
nesh
all b
e In
a f
orm
whi
ch h
em
ay p
resc
ribe
fro
m U
rns
to ti
me.
In e
ither
cas
e, th
e co
mm
issi
oner
may
, In
his
disc
retio
n, r
evie
w p
lans
and
spec
ific
atio
ns f
or p
roje
cts
estim
ated
at a
n ex
peni
e of
less
than
one
hund
red
thou
sand
dol
lars
.In
the
ease
of
a sc
hool
dis
tric
t In
a ci
tyha
ving
a m
illio
n in
habi
tant
Or
mor
e,al
l of
the
prov
isio
ns p
revi
ousl
y se
t for
th I
n th
is s
ubdi
visi
onsh
all a
pply
, exc
ept
that
suc
h sc
hool
dis
tric
t sha
ll on
ly b
ere
quir
ed to
sub
mit
an o
utlin
e of
the
plan
s an
d sp
ecif
icaU
ons
to th
e co
mm
issi
oner
of
educ
atio
n fo
r hi
sIn
form
atio
nw
hyre
a s
choo
lhou
se is
to h
a er
eetp
d in
conj
unct
ion
with
the
deve
lopm
ent o
f a
408
ient
utio
ng w
it
pfej
eet t
o bs
dev
elop
ed u
nder
the
gito
dslo
ss e
t set
t* tw
e tc
fiv
i of
the
priv
ate
hors
ing
fine
sses
law
and
whe
re b
oth
the
who
rl a
nd th
e pr
ojec
t are
toha
ve ti
ghts
or
Inte
rest
s in
the
sam
e la
nd, r
egar
dles
s at
the
alm
lissi
ty,e
req
ualit
y th
ereo
f, in
clud
ing
fee
inte
rest
s, s
hous
ents
, spa
ce r
ight
s or
eth
erri
ghts
or
Inte
rest
s.
BM
Insi
n w
him
s ft
* I
le 0
)(A
s sa
ssnd
ed U
NA
e. 9
15, I
I I.
)
/Rot
arie
s' a
ndfi
tata
bsey
Neb
o11
e1 A
sesn
dsee
nt.
Ssbd
. I, o
peni
repe
r. 1
1990
. e. 3
15, 1
1, p
rohi
bite
d th
epl
acem
ent o
f ad
vert
hem
ents
for
bid
s fo
rex
ecut
ion
of p
lans
and
spe
cifi
csth
es f
orsc
hool
hous
es I
n sc
hool
dis
tric
ts u
ntil
such
plan
s an
d sp
ecif
icat
ions
her
e be
en s
ubm
it-te
d to
and
app
rove
d by
the
com
mis
sion
er.
Eff
ectiv
e D
ata
of A
men
dmen
t by
L1,
10. e
. *15
; Rul
es a
nd R
egul
atio
ns.
1.19
90. c
. 115
. I 2
. pro
vide
d: "
Thi
s se
t
lam
indh
sg th
h su
thni
Jel
l fah
. elb
set
imm
edia
tely
Pin
e 80
, 108
03 a
d sh
ell s
ply
te p
hro
and
'pea
cetim
e el
w4e
deto
be
adve
rtis
ed M
ow s
eek
elfi
etlr
e da
tean
d A
utho
r m
olde
d th
at u
p ru
le s
r m
-ut
atio
n ne
emea
ry f
ar th
e im
plen
enta
tion
of th
e fo
rego
ing
sect
ion
ef th
is s
et o
n its
effe
ctiv
e da
te lc
aut
hori
sed
and
dire
cted
tobe
mad
e an
d co
mpl
eted
with
in 1
80 d
ays
afte
r su
ch e
ffec
tive
data
Rul
es o
f th
e C
ity o
f N
ew ta
ckH
ealth
cod
e co
ncer
ning
bui
ldin
gs a
nd m
omen
ta!
prem
ises
, eel
Si R
CM
' Art
s. 1
31 a
nd
SC
HO
OL
BU
ILD
ING
S A
ND
SIT
ES
Art
. 9
§408
BE
ST c
rg
BL
E
§ 40
8E
DU
CA
TIO
N L
AW
Titl
e I
2.T
he c
omm
issi
oner
of
educ
atio
n sh
all n
ot a
ppro
ve th
e pl
ans
for
the
erec
tion
or p
urch
ase
of a
ny s
choo
l bui
ldin
g or
add
ition
ther
eto
or r
emod
elin
g th
ereo
f un
less
the
sam
e sh
all p
rovi
de f
orhe
atin
g, v
enti'
zctio
n, li
ghtin
g, s
anita
tion,
sto
rm d
rain
age
and
heal
th,
fire
and
acc
iden
t pro
tect
ion
adeq
uate
to m
aint
ain
heal
thfu
l, sa
fean
d co
mfo
rtab
le c
ondi
tions
ther
ein
and
unle
ss d
ie c
ount
y su
peri
n-te
nden
t of
high
way
s or
com
mis
sion
er o
f pu
blic
wor
ks h
as b
een
advi
sed
of th
e lo
catio
n of
all
tem
pora
ry a
nd p
erm
anen
t ent
ranc
esan
d ex
its u
pon
all p
ublic
hig
hway
s an
d th
e st
orm
dra
inag
e pl
anw
hich
is to
be
used
.3.
The
com
mis
sion
er o
f ed
ucat
ion
shal
l app
rove
the
plan
s an
dsp
ecif
icat
ions
, her
etof
ore
or h
erea
fter
sub
mitt
ed p
ursu
ant t
o th
isse
ctio
n, f
or th
e er
ectio
n or
pur
chas
e of
any
sch
ool b
uild
ing
orad
ditio
n th
eret
o or
rem
odel
ing
ther
eof
on th
e si
te o
r si
tes
sele
cted
ther
efor
pur
suan
t so
this
cha
pter
, if
such
pla
ns c
onfo
rm to
the
requ
irem
ents
and
pro
visi
ons
of th
is c
hapt
er a
nd th
e re
gula
tions
of
the
com
mis
sion
er a
dopt
ed p
ursu
ant t
o th
is c
hapt
er in
all
othe
rre
spec
ts; p
rovi
ded,
how
ever
, tha
t the
com
mis
sion
er o
f ed
ucat
ion
shal
l not
app
rove
the
plan
s fo
r th
e er
ectio
n or
pur
chas
e of
any
scho
ol b
uild
ing
or a
dditi
on th
eret
o un
less
the
site
has
bee
n se
lect
edw
ith r
easo
nabl
e co
nsid
erat
ion
of th
e fo
llow
ing
fact
ors;
its
plac
e in
a co
mpr
ehen
sive
, lon
g-te
rm s
choo
l bui
ldin
g pr
ogra
m; a
rea
re-
quir
ed f
or o
utdo
or e
duca
tiona
l act
iviti
es; e
duca
tiona
l ada
ptab
ility
,en
viro
nmen
t, ac
cess
ibili
ty;
soil
cond
ition
s;in
itial
and
ulti
mat
eco
st.
4.N
o fu
nds
vote
d by
a d
istr
ict m
eetin
g or
oth
er c
ompe
tent
auth
ority
in a
ny s
choo
l dis
tric
t to
whi
ch th
e pr
ovis
ions
of
subd
ivi-
sion
one
of
this
sec
tion
are
appl
icab
le, e
xcee
ding
the
amou
nts
spec
ifie
d in
suc
h su
bdiv
isio
n, s
hall
be e
xpen
ded
by th
e tr
uste
es o
rbo
ard
of e
duca
tion
until
the
com
mis
sion
er o
f ed
ucat
ion
shal
l cer
ti-fy
that
the
plan
s an
d sp
ecif
icat
ions
for
the
sam
e co
mpl
y w
ith th
epr
ovis
ions
of
this
sec
tion.
5.In
a c
ity h
avin
g a
popu
latio
n of
one
mill
ion
or m
ore,
all
desi
gnin
g, d
raug
htin
g an
d in
spec
ting
nece
ssar
y in
con
nect
ion
with
the
cons
truc
tion,
add
ition
s to
, alte
ratio
ns a
nd m
aint
enan
ce o
fsc
hool
hous
es s
hall
be p
erfo
rmed
by
a bu
reau
est
ablis
hed
and
mai
n-ta
ined
for
this
pur
pose
und
er th
e bo
ard
of e
duca
tion.
The
wor
k of
this
bur
eau
shal
l be
perf
orm
ed b
y ci
vil s
ervi
ce e
mpl
oyee
s in
the
clas
sifi
ed c
ivil
serv
ice
unde
r th
e di
rect
ion
of th
e su
peri
nten
dent
of
scho
ol b
uild
ings
, des
ign
and
cons
truc
tion,
exc
ept t
hat r
epai
rs, b
ette
rmen
t and
mai
nten
ance
of
heat
ing
and
vent
ilatin
g pl
ants
and
equi
pmen
t, el
evat
ors
and
mec
hani
cal e
quip
men
t sha
ll re
mai
n un
der
the
dire
ctio
n of
the
supe
rint
ende
ntof
pla
nt o
pera
tion
and
mai
nte-
nanc
e. I
n a
spec
ial c
ase
upon
app
rova
l of
the
boar
dof
est
imat
e,su
ch d
esig
ning
, dra
ught
ing
orin
spec
ting
may
be
othe
rwis
e pe
r-fo
rmed
.6.
, T
he c
omm
issi
oner
may
pro
mul
gate
regu
latio
ns r
elat
ing
to th
epu
rcha
se o
f ex
istin
g sc
hool
bui
ldin
gs.
Such
reg
ulat
ions
sha
ll pr
o-vi
de f
or a
n ap
prai
sal o
f su
ch b
uild
ings
as
scho
ol b
uild
ings
and
the
land
on
whi
ch th
ey a
re s
ituta
ted
t as
scho
ol s
ites
by th
e st
ate
boar
dof
equ
aliz
atio
n an
d as
sess
men
t, su
ch e
stim
ates
of th
e co
st o
f re
no-
vatio
n an
d co
nstr
uctio
n as
may
be
nece
ssar
yan
d lim
itatio
ns o
n th
eco
st o
f ac
quis
ition
and
ren
ovat
ion,
inta
king
into
con
side
ratio
n th
eag
e an
d co
nditi
on o
fsu
ch e
xist
ing
build
ings
, in
rela
tion
toth
ees
timat
ed c
ost o
f co
nstr
uctin
g a
new
bui
ldin
gco
ntai
ning
com
para
-bl
e fa
cilit
ies.
Suc
h re
gula
tions
may
als
ore
quir
e th
e pr
ior
appr
oval
of th
e co
mm
issi
oner
of
any
reno
vatio
nspr
opos
ed to
be
mad
e to
such
exi
stin
g sc
hool
bui
ldin
gs.
(139
47, c
. 820
; am
ende
d L
.194
8. c
. 691
, § 1
;1.
.I94
9, c
. 709
, §§
1, 2
;1.
1951
, c. 7
81; L
1951
, e. 8
01. §
§ 1,
2; L
.196
2, c
.616
, § 1
; L19
63, c
. 609
;41
965,
c. 2
57; L
1971
, c. 9
33; 1
.197
2, c
. 414
,§§
8, 9
.)
'So
in o
rigi
nal.
Prob
ably
sho
uld
read
"si
tuat
ed".
His
tori
cal N
ote
1972
Am
endm
ent.
Subd
s. I
. 2 a
nd 3
.1.
1972
. c. 4
14, 5
8, e
ff. J
uly
1, 1
972,
inse
rted
ref
eren
ces
to p
urch
ases
.Su
bd. 6
.L
.197
2, c
. 414
. § 9
. eft
Jul
y1,
197
2, a
dded
sub
d. 6
.D
eriv
atio
n.E
duca
tion
Law
of
1910
,§
451,
am
ende
d L
.193
7, c
. 924
; 1..1
940,
c. 4
27; 1
.194
6. c
. 141
.Si
mila
r pr
ovi-
sion
s w
ere
cont
aine
d in
Edu
catio
n L
awof
190
9, 5
III
, sub
ds. 1
, 2. 3
, der
ived
from
Con
solid
ated
Sch
ool L
aw o
f 18
94,
c. 5
56, d
t. 7,
5 1
7, a
men
ded
1.19
04, c
.28
1, 5
1; o
rigi
nally
rev
ised
fro
m 4
1864
.c.
555
, tit.
7, §
18,
am
ende
d 1.
1883
, c.
294.
Not
e of
Com
mis
sion
on
1947
Rei
d-si
on. S
ectio
nre
vise
d;fo
rmer
5 4
51;
wili
ng o
f"s
choo
lhou
se"
corr
ecte
d;nu
mbe
ring
of
subd
ivis
ions
sta
ndar
dize
d;po
sitio
n of
a c
omm
a co
rrec
ted;
"or
boar
d of
edu
catio
n" in
sert
ed in
sub
d. 4
,as
uni
on f
ree
scho
ols
arid
citi
esw
ould
not b
e co
vere
d by
"tr
uste
es";
ref
eren
ceto
boa
rd o
f es
timat
e "a
nd a
ppor
tion-
men
t" c
orre
cted
; 2 ti
tles
corr
ecte
d; r
ef-
eren
ce to
"th
ird
clas
s ci
ties"
spec
ifie
d.
Sepa
rabi
lity
of P
rovi
sion
s of
L.I
972.
e. 4
14. S
ee s
ectio
n 11
of
L19
72, c
. 414
,se
t out
as
a no
te u
nder
sec
tion
549.
Cro
ss R
efer
ence
s
New
Yor
k st
ate
unif
orm
fir
e pr
even
tion
and
build
ing
code
, see
Exe
cutiv
eL
aw
$ 37
0 et
seq
. New
Yor
k C
odes
, Ruk
s an
d R
egul
atio
ns
Con
stru
ctio
n an
d re
mod
elin
g of
sch
ool d
istr
ict f
acili
ties,
see
8 N
YC
RR
155.
2.
Hea
lth a
nd s
ifet
y In
exi
stin
g ed
ucat
iona
l fac
ilitie
s, s
ee 8
NY
CR
R 1
55.3
.Pu
rcha
se o
f ex
istin
g bu
ildin
gs, s
ee 8
NY
CR
R 1
55.7
.
§ 40
8a. P
lans
and
spe
cifi
catio
nsfo
r co
nstr
uctio
n of
new
scho
ol b
uild
ings
I.T
he c
omm
issi
oner
of
gene
ral s
ervi
ces,
aft
erco
nsul
tatio
n w
ithth
e co
mm
issi
oner
of
educ
atio
n an
d su
bjec
t to
the
appr
oval
of
the
dire
ctor
of
the
budg
et, s
hall
prom
ptly
pre
pare
or
acqu
ire
as m
any
mas
ter
sets
of
com
plet
e pl
ans
and
spec
ific
atio
ns f
or th
e co
nstr
uc-
tion
of n
ew s
choo
l bui
ldin
gs a
nd a
ppur
tena
ntfa
cilit
ies
as s
hall
besu
ffic
ient
to p
rovi
de a
t lea
st s
ix d
iffe
rent
mas
ter
sets
each
for
elem
enta
ry, j
unio
r hi
gh a
nd h
igh
scho
ols,
bas
ed o
n th
e nu
mbe
rof
pupi
ls to
be
acco
mm
odat
edth
erei
n. S
uch
plan
s an
d sp
ecif
icat
ions
SCH
OO
L B
UIL
DIN
GS
AN
D S
ITE
S§
408a
Alt
9
shal
l be
prep
ared
so
as to
pro
vide
ade
quat
e cl
assr
oom
s an
d ot
her
nece
ssar
y sp
ace
and
faci
litie
s at
the
low
est c
ost c
onsi
sten
t with
soun
d co
nstr
uctio
n pr
inci
ples
and
pi a
ctic
es, a
nd th
e at
tain
men
t of
educ
atio
nal o
bjec
tives
, and
sha
ll pr
ovid
e fo
r he
atin
g, v
entil
atio
n,lig
htin
g, s
anita
tion
and
heal
th, f
ire
and
acci
dent
pro
tect
ion
ade-
quat
e to
mai
ntai
n he
alth
ful,
safe
, and
com
fort
able
con
ditio
ns th
ere-
in.
Such
pla
ns a
nd s
peci
fica
tions
sha
ll be
so
prep
ared
that
any
poss
ible
fut
ure
addi
tion
to a
ny s
uch
scho
ol b
uild
ing
may
be
eco-
nom
ical
ly e
ffec
tuat
ed.
In a
dditi
on, t
he c
omm
issi
oner
of
gene
ral
serv
ices
sha
ll, a
s of
ten
as h
e de
ems
advi
sabl
e bu
t at l
east
ann
ually
,m
iew
suc
h m
aste
r se
ts a
nd, a
fter
con
sulta
tion
with
the
com
mis
-si
oner
of
educ
atio
n, a
nd s
ubje
ct to
app
rova
l of
the
dire
ctor
of
the
budg
et, m
ay r
evis
e or
can
cel a
ny o
f su
ch s
ets
or p
repa
re n
ew s
ets.
2.T
he c
omm
issi
oner
sha
ll ca
use
dupl
icat
es o
f su
ch m
aste
r pl
ans
and
spec
ific
atio
ns to
be
mad
e, a
nd h
e sh
all f
urni
sh th
e sa
me
to a
nysc
hool
dis
tric
t mak
ing
a re
ques
t the
refo
r fo
r a
reas
onab
le c
harg
esu
ffic
ient
to c
over
the
cost
of
repr
oeci
ng s
uch
plan
s an
d sp
ecif
ica-
tions
.
3.Pl
ans
and
spec
ific
atio
ns p
repa
red
and
furn
ishe
d pu
rsua
nt to
the
prov
isio
ns o
f th
is s
ectio
n m
ay b
e ad
opte
d an
d us
ed in
any
scho
ol d
istr
ict a
s th
e pl
ans
and
spec
ific
atio
ns f
or th
e co
nstr
uctio
nof
any
new
sch
ool b
uild
ing
or a
ppur
tena
nt f
acili
ty h
erea
fter
to b
eer
ecte
d.
4.N
othi
ng h
erei
n co
ntai
ned
shal
l pre
clud
e an
y sc
hool
dis
tric
tfr
om r
etai
ning
an
arch
itect
and
/or
engi
neer
in c
onne
ctio
n w
ith th
eus
e of
suc
h m
aste
r pl
ans
and
spec
ific
atio
ns.
(Add
ed L
.196
0, c
. 447
; am
ende
d L
.196
8, c
. 420
, § 1
00.)
His
tori
cal N
ote
Eff
ectiv
eD
ate.
Sec
tion
effe
ctiv
e A
pr.
12, 1
960,
pur
suan
t to
L.19
60. c
. 447
. * 2
.
Libr
ary
Ref
eren
ces
Am
eric
an D
ivot
Sys
tem
Con
stru
ctio
n of
sch
ool b
uild
ings
. see
Sch
ools
071
.
Enc
yclo
pedi
aS
choo
l bui
ldin
gsC
are,
mai
nten
ance
, and
rep
air.
see
C.J
.S. S
choo
ls a
nd S
choo
l Dis
tric
ts26
3.
Pro
ceed
ings
to a
utho
rize
cons
truc
tion.
see
C.J
.S. S
choo
ls a
nd S
choo
l Dis
-tr
icts
S 2
57
(Add
ed L
.195
1. c
. 801
, § 4
; am
ende
dL.
1952
,c.
443;
L.1
962,
c.
124.
)
Dis
tric
ts 3
259
.
§ 40
8-a
ED
UC
AT
ION
LA
WT
itle
IN
otes
of D
ecis
ions
1.C
onst
ruct
ion
stan
dard
san
dre
-qu
irem
ents
The
re is
no
spec
ific
stan
dard
for
roof
cons
truc
tion
set b
y th
e E
duca
tion
De-
part
men
t.M
atte
r of
Nug
ent,
1983
. 22
Edu
c.D
ept.R
ep. 3
47.
The
Com
mis
sion
er o
f Edu
catio
n, r
ath-
er th
an th
e In
dust
rial C
omm
issi
oner
, is
auth
oriz
ed to
set
the
requ
irem
ents
for
cons
truc
tion
of s
choo
l bui
ldin
gs, a
nd th
epr
ovis
ions
of t
he M
anua
l Pla
nnin
g S
tan-
dard
s ta
ke p
rece
denc
e ov
er th
ose
of th
ein
dust
rial
Cod
e.O
p.C
ouns
elE
duc.
Dep
t., 1
968,
8 E
duc.
Dep
t.Rep
. 225
.
§ 40
9.Sc
hool
bui
ldin
gre
gula
tions
In
rela
tion
to h
ealth
and
safe
tyM
I sc
hool
bui
ldin
gs o
f sc
hool
dist
rict
s ot
her
than
city
sch
ool
dist
rict
s of
citi
es h
avin
gon
e hu
ndre
d tw
enty
-fiv
e th
ousa
nd in
hab-
itant
s or
mor
e sh
all c
ompl
y w
ith s
uch
regu
latio
ns a
s th
e co
mm
is-
sion
er o
f ed
ucat
ion
shal
l ado
pt f
rom
tim
eto
tim
e fo
r th
e pu
rpos
e of
insu
ring
the
heal
th a
nd s
afet
y of
pup
ils in
rel
atio
nto
pro
per
heat
ing,
ligh
ting,
ven
tilat
ion,
san
itatio
n an
dhe
alth
, fir
e an
d ac
ci-
dent
pro
tect
ion.
His
toric
al N
ote
Effe
ctiv
e D
ate.
Sec
tion
effe
ctiv
eA
pr.
13, 1
951,
pur
suan
t to
L.19
51, c
. 801
,11
.
For
mer
Sec
tion
409.
Sec
tion,
L19
47,
c. 8
20. r
elat
ed to
hal
ls, d
oors
, and
sta
ir-w
ays.
and
was
rep
eale
d by
L.9
51. c
.80
1. 3
3.
Gov
erno
r's M
emor
andu
m.
On
ap-
prov
ing
L195
1, c
. 801
, affe
ctin
g th
is s
ec-
tion
and
§§ 4
08, 1
531,
180
6 an
d 36
03-a
,th
e G
over
nor
stat
ed a
s fo
llow
s:"T
his
bill
mod
erni
zes
the
resp
onsi
bili-
ties
of th
e C
omm
issi
oner
of E
duca
tion
with
res
pect
to th
e co
nstr
uctio
n an
d al
-te
ratio
n of
sch
ool b
uild
ings
and
als
om
akes
impo
rtan
t cha
nges
with
res
pect
toS
tate
aid
for
cent
ral s
choo
l dis
tric
ts d
ur-
ing
the
first
thre
e ye
ars
afte
r th
eir
cre-
atio
n.
"Alth
ough
the
lang
uage
of S
ectio
n 40
9,as
add
ed b
y th
is b
ill, r
ead
out o
f con
text
with
the
artic
le in
whi
ch it
is in
sert
edm
ight
be
mis
unde
rsto
od, w
hen
read
inco
nnec
tion
with
Sec
tion
408
and
the
oth-
er p
rovi
sion
s of
the
artic
le it
is a
ppar
ent
that
it is
inte
nded
to a
pply
onl
y to
pub
licsc
hool
bui
ldin
gs in
citi
es o
f les
s th
an70
.000
and
in n
on-c
ity s
choo
l dis
tric
ts.
Cou
nsel
to th
e S
tate
of N
ew Y
ork
Cor
n-m
issi
on o
n S
choo
lB
uild
ings
, whi
chsp
onso
red
the
bill,
has
giv
en a
ssur
ance
sto
that
effe
ct.
"Bec
ause
of t
he im
port
ance
of t
hepr
o-vi
sion
s of
this
bill
, par
ticul
arly
as to
Sta
te a
id fo
r ce
ntra
l sch
ools
, the
bill
isap
prov
ed."
App
rove
d A
pril
13, 1
951.
Cro
ss R
efer
ence
s
Sch
ool a
sbes
tos
safe
ty a
ct, s
ee s
ectio
n 43
0 et
seq.
Sch
ool c
ross
ing
guar
ds, s
ee G
ener
al M
unic
ipal
Law
3 20
8-a.
New
Yor
k C
odes
, Rul
es a
nd R
egul
atio
ns
Fire
and
bui
ldin
g sa
fety
insp
ectio
ns. s
ee 8
NY
CR
R 1
55.4
.S
choo
l asb
esto
s ha
zard
gra
ntpr
ogra
m, s
ee 8
NY
CR
R 1
55.1
2.S
choo
l sti
itmoi
ng p
ools
, see
P N
YC
RR
1t5
.6.
SC
HO
OL
BU
ILD
ING
S A
ND
SIT
ES
§ 40
9-a
Art
. 9Li
brar
y R
efer
esta
n
Am
eric
us D
iges
t Sys
tem
Sch
ool b
uild
ings
, con
trol
and
use
. see
Sch
ools
aril
.
Elle
rdro
dis
Sch
ool
build
ings
.co
ntro
l, po
sses
sion
. and
use
, see
C./S
. Sch
ools
and
Sch
ool
Noi
se o
fD
ecla
im.
I. Lo
ad la
ws
Loca
l ord
inan
ce r
estr
ictin
g sm
okin
gby
tinin
a m
eetin
g pl
ace
did
not
upon
edu
catio
nal f
unct
ion
ofst
ate
whe
n or
dina
nce
was
app
lied
tosc
hool
, as
ordi
nanc
e di
d no
t atte
mpt
tore
gula
te e
duca
tiona
l fun
ctio
n of
sch
ool
syst
em o
r at
tem
pt to
reg
ulat
e st
ruct
ure,
c.N
alnt
enat
ice.
orad
min
istr
atio
nof
scho
ol. B
oard
of E
duc.
of M
iddl
e C
am.
try
Sch
ool D
ist.
at C
.esi
tere
ach
v.C
obs.
Ian,
198
7, 1
33 M
iscl
d 35
8, 5
15 N
.YS
.2d
691. Fire
prev
entio
nre
gula
tions
esta
b-lis
hed
by to
wn
ordi
nanc
e ar
e ne
t app
li-ca
ble
to p
ublic
sch
ool p
rope
rty,
but
pri-
vate
and
par
ochi
al w
ilco*
pro
pert
y is
subj
ect t
o su
ch r
egul
atio
n.14
OpS
tate
Cc
upt.
469.
195
8.
APPENDIX BLEGAL AND FISCAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE PROPOSALS OF THE REGENTS
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY IN SCHOOLS PREPARED BY
THE STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
The Regents Advisory Committee on Environmental Quality in Schools discussed manyareas of environmental health and safety, some of which State agency representatives indi-cated will need to he addressed through new legislation or regulations. Due to time con-straints, the Advisory Committee has not been able to discuss fully the following legal andfiscal analysis conducted by State Education Department staff, but the Committee recognizesthe work as a first step toward identifying these implications of the Committee's proposals. Itis the Committee's belief that these proposals can result in improved learning and workingenvironments and improved environmental protection for all.
LEGAL AND FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
PROPOSAL NEED FOR LEGISLATION,REGULATIONS, AND/OR
GUIDELINES
COSTS/SAVINGS
I. Improve school facilities to makethem nlure environmentallysound.
Legislation: needed to expand Com-missioner's authority under Sections408 ant.1409 of Education Law toapply to au ,chool districts
Commissioner's Regulations: needed
Administrative Guidelines: needed
State level: moderate to revise guide-lines for construct km and environ-mental audits
Local level: moderate to revise build-ing plans and specifications, to con-duct environmental audits, and to useleast toxic materials and supplies
Savings: reduced immediate and long-term testing and mitigation costs
2. Improve indoor air quality inschools.
Legislation: not needed
Commissioner's Regulations: possiblyneeded
Administrative Guidelines: needed
State level: substantial to providebuilding aid to support changes inheating, ventilation, and air-condi-tioning systems
Local level: substantial to providelocal support for building projectsrelating to indoor air quality
Savings: improved student and schoolpersonnel attendance and perfor-mance, and reduced Workers' Com-pensation payments and equipmentmaintenance
3. Improve school pest managementprograms.
Legislat ion: needed to expand Com-missioner's authority relating toindoor health and safety under Sec-tion 409 of Education Law to apply tothe Rig Five City Districts; and need-ed to provide Commi,sioner authorityunder Education Law to apply healthand safety standards outside schoolbuilding, in all school districts
Commissioner's Regulations: needed
Administ rat ive hiidelines: needed
State level: minimal to develop guide-lines
Local level: minimal to change prac-tices
Savings: reduced costly chemicalapplication fees
LEGAL AND FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
4. Strengthen the asbestos compli-ance program.
Legislation: not needed
Commissioner's Regulations: notneeded
Administrative Guidelines: needed
State level: needed to develop guide-lines and training
Local level: minimal for complianceand certificate training activities
Savings: reduced litigation and uniongrievance costs and reduced fines andpenalities
5. Require periodic lead testing in allschools.
Legislation: needed to provide Com-missioner authority under EducationLaw
Commissioner's Regulations: needed
Administrative Guidelines: needed
State level: substantial to provide aidfor testing and lead cleanup
Local level: substantial cost for testingand reporting
Savings: not estimated
6. Require all schools to conductradon testing and notification.
Legislation: needed to provide Com-missioner authority under EducationLaw
Commissioner's Regulations: needed
Administrative Guidelines: needed
State level: minimal for preparation ofguidelines
Local level: moderate to substantialcost for testing and reporting
Savings: not estimated
7. Encourage schools to practice pru-dent avoidance by taking availableno-cost and low-cost measures toreduce the exposure of studentsand school personnel to electro-magnetic fields.
Legislation: not needed
Commissioner's Regulations: notneeded
Administrative Guidelines: needed
State level: minimal to develop guide-lines
Local level: limited to changes inlocal practices
Savings: reduced litigation and uniongrievance costs
8. Require the reporting of significantenvironmental conditions testingin school buildings and on schoolproperties.
Legislation: not needed
Commissioner's Regulations: needed
Administrative Guidelines: needed
State level: minimal
Local level: limited to reporting toState
Savings: not estimated
LEGAL AND FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
9. Require all school districts toestablish policies to ensure accessto environmental health and safetyinformation ("right to know") forindividuals relating to environ-mental safety and health.
Legislation: needed to expand Com-missioner's authority under EducationLaw to apply to the Big Five City Dis-tricts
Commissioner's Regulations: needed
Administrative Guidelines: needed
State level: minimal to develop guide-lines for implementation
Local level: minimal to implementright t know policies and procedures
Savings: not estimated
10. Require all school districts todevelop and implement environ-mental quality plans for eachschool building. Such plans shallbe reviewed periodically.
Legislation: needed to expand Com-missioner's authority under Section409 of Education Law to apply to theBig Five City Districts; and to provideCommissioner authority relating tocontracts for removal of hazardouswaste
Commissioner's Regulations: needed
Administrative Guidelines: needed
State level: moderate to substantial
Local level: moderate costs associatedwith implementing Regents and localschool hoard policies
Savings: not estimated
11. Establish a Regents Subcommitteeon the Environmental Quality ofSchools.
Legklation: not needed
Commissioner's Regulations: notneeded
Administrative Guidelines: not need-ed
State level: needed for staff support ofAdvisory Committee and any meet-ing expenses
Local level: none
Savings: none
12. Dedicate additional staff withinthe State Education Departmentto implement the proposals of thisreport and of the proposedRegents Subcommittee on theEnvironmental Quality ofSchools.
Legislation: needed for additionalfunding for staffing
Commissioner's Regulations: notneeded
Administrative Guidelines: not needed
State level: substantial to fund addi-tional staff
Local level: none
Savings: none
13. Improve the State EducationDepartment's technical assistanceto school districts relating to thequality of the school environ-ment.
Legislation: not needed
Commissioner's Regulations: notneeded
Administrative Guidelines: needed
State level: substantial to strengthenState's technical assistance capabili-
es
Local level: Minimal with possiblelarge costs to rectify some problems
Savings: reduced penalities and finesat the local level
NEED FOR LEGISLATION,REGULATIONS, AND/OR
GUIDELINES
COSTS /SAVINGS
LEGAL AND FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
14. Expand the existing statewideHealth and Safety CoordinatorsNetwork to work with schoolboards, school personnel, parents,and community members, includ-ing New York City, in addressingenvironmental health concerns.
Legislation: not needed
Commissioner's Regulations: notneeded
Administrative Guidelines: needed toclarify responsibilities of statewidenetwork
State level: minimal to establishresponsibilities of statewide network
Local level: minimal for network costs
Savings: reduced litigation and uniongrievance costs
15. Increase collaboration betweenthe State Education Departmentand othe: State agencies inaddressing environmental healthand safety issues.
Legislation: not needed
Commissioner's Regulations: notneeded
Administrative Guidelines: needed
State level: staff time to coordinateinteragency efforts
Local level: none
Savings: more coordinated effort
16. Fund environmental health andsafety programs in schools.
Legislation: needed for funding autho-rization
Commissioner's Regulations: needed
Administrative Guidelines: needed
State level: substantial funding needed
Local level: local matching funding
Savings: none
APPENDIX C: REPORT
ENVIRONIvINTAL
QUALITY IN SCHOOLS
OCTOBER 1993
The University of the State of New York The State Education Department
CONTENTS
Executive Summary 23
Introduction 25
Asbestos 25
Electromagnetic Fields 32
Hazardous Waste Sites 34
Indoor Air Quality 36
Lccul 39
Pesticides 41
Radon 44
Conclusion 47
Next Steps 47
References Consulted 47
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Although focussed on teaching and learning, educa-tion reform, as envisioned by A New Compact for Learningand the Regents Bill of Rights for Children, must includepolicy directions for the need to maintain a safe, secure,and healthy school environment. Increasing concernabout the effects of environmental conditions on humanhealth and knowledge of children's increased suscep..Nli-ty to certain conditions, has resulted in parents, schoolpersonnel, and public officials raising questions related tothe quality of the school environment.
This paper presents background information on theeffect of some health and safety issues on the environmen-tal quality of schools along with potential policy issues forthe Board of Regents consideration. Environmental issuesaddressed are: asbestos, electromagnetic fields, hazardouswaste, indoor air quality, lead, pesticides, and radon. TheBoard of Regents is asked to consider this information as abasis for policy action and for engaging State agency rep-resentatives and other constituent groups from the largercommunity to advise on further policy matters and prac-tices relating to environmental issues in schools.
This report is presented to the Regents for discussion.As a part of this discussion, the Regents are asked to con-skier four policy concerns which affect each of the envi-ronmental conditions. It is proposed that these and otherpolicy questions he developed further with an advisorycommittee described below. The four policy concerns arethe following:
1) Affirm every child's right to an environmentally safeand healthy learning environment, as stated in theRegents Hill of Rights for Children.
2) Affirm every child's and every parent's right-to-knowabout environmental health hazards in the schoolenvironment.
3) Work with other Stare agencies in addressing environ-mental health and safety issues in schools.
4) Require schools to report environmental health and safe-ty issues and actions to the State Education Department.
The Regents are also asked for their consent to estab-lish a Regents Environmental Quality Advisory Commit-tee to advise the State Education Department concerningdeveloping, implementing, and reporting related to issuesof environmental quaiity. The charge would he to addressthe environmental issues raised in this paper and to pro-pose to the Board of Regents policies, regulations, andguidelines to ensure the rights of children and parents toan environmentally safe and healthy school environmentbased on the best available information and technology.Specific tasks for the Committee could include:
AsbestosEvaluate current State Education Department policiesand regulations for schools to ensure proper and prudentactions.
Electromagnetic FieldsEvaluate current policies and regulations; develop guide-lines for prudent avoidance for school use and for inform-ing parents.
Hazardous WasteReview current State Education Department policies andregulations regarding the siting of new school facilities.
Indoor Air QualityReview and develop State Education Department policiesand standards for construction and renovation, heating,ventilation, air conditioning, building operations andmaintenance, and the selection of building, administra-tive, and instructional materials and supplies whichreduce or eliminate the use of hazardous products.
LeadDevelop and disseminate information to the communityconcerning the harmtUl effects of lead in homes, especial-ly for preschoolers; stress proper cleanliness and mainte-nance of school buildings; develop lead abatement project
policies for schools using accurate, state-of-the-art infor-mation, consistent with State and Federal regulations;and require that only lead-free materials and supplies heused in schools.
PesticidesSupport and implement, in conjunction with other Stateagencies, the State Attorney General's recommendationsconcerning pesticides in schools to help minimize risksassociated with toxic pesticide use.
RadonEvaluate current policies and regulations; survey schoolsto determine the extent of testing and mitigation; developcapital construction guidelines for minimizing radon.
Based on the advice of the Regents EnvironmentalQuality Advisory Committee, the Regents will identifypolicy, budget items, and needed legislation that will pro-vide a comprehensive approach to assure that all childrenhave environmentally safe and healthy schools.
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
IN SCHOOLS
INTRODUCTION
Although focussed on teaching and learning, our workon education reform must also address the need to main-tain a safe, secure, and healthy physical environment. Thecapacity of children to learn may he impeded if theirschool environment contains elements which are haz-ardous to their health. The State Education Departmentand educators have a responsibility to assure the schoolcommunity and the public that, based on the best avail-able knowledge, school buildings are safe and healthy.
Section 408 of Education Law provides the Commis-sioner of Education with the authority to establish criteriafor school reconstruction adequate to maintain healthyand safe conditions. Section 155.3 of the Commissioner'sRegulations further gives the Commissioner the authorityto establish necessary health and safety standards in publicschool buildings. Federal and State Occupational Safetyand Health laws serve to ensure healthy and safe work-place environments for employees. However, students inschool buildings are not covered by the laws concerningthe health and safety of workplace environments. Therealso are no provisions in law for a parent's or student'sright-to-know about hazardous substances used in theirschool environment.
The Regents Bill of Rights for Children and policy state-ments on early childhood education and parent partner-ships further emphasize the right of children to a safe andhealthy learning environment and the responsibility ofeducators to work with parents as partners to these ends. Inthe workplace, there are Federal and State laws to ensureemployees of a safe and healthy work environment andtheir right-to-know about hazardous and toxic substanceswhich are in their workplace. It is equally important thatall children in our elementary and secondary schools havethe right to a safe and healthy learning environment and
the commitment of educators to work with parents as part-ners to these ends. It is the right of parents to be informedand involved with educators to mutually work towardsthese goals in a prudent and balanced manner.
Reports on problems have escalated public concern tonew levels. Frequently covered items include asbestos,lead, pesticides, radon, electromagnetic fields, and etheraspects of indoor air pollution, sometimes originatingfrom such common items as new carpeting, copiers, gluedroofing, paints, and floor cleaners. Some students andschool personnel have experienced serious health prob-lems. When health threats are present, the costs to indi-vidual districts and the State Education Department areenormous in terms of staff time and effort, cleanup costs,school closings, and the liability for damage to health.The recent experience of the New York City publicschools with closings and delays because of asbestos prob-lems reminds us of the potential adverse impact on educa-tion caused by environmentally-based health threats.Careful, well thbught out prevention policies and regula-tions designed to reduce and manage hazardous risks,overall consumption, and disposal of hazardous productsshould be effective in significantly reducing these unfortu-nate incidents.
This background paper briefly summarizes the variousprograms and activities which have been established torespond to environmental concerns. It also indicateswhere more activity is necessary for the Regents and forthe Department to assure that schools are environmental-ly safe and healthy places for children.
ASBESTOS
I. ProblemAsbestos has been known for several decades to he a
human carcinogen based on occupational health studies
of workers who were involved in its mining, manufacturing,or application. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) developed a mathematical model to assess carcino-genic risk, whereby the EPA determined that, if asbestosexposure is eliminated in schools, .he potential exists to sig-nificantly reduce the overall risk for children, who may belater exposed to asbestos in homes, public, and commercialbuildings."
During the 1980s and 1990s, the health and safety con-cerns associated with asbestos became a focal point forschools nationwide. Largely due to concerns in the commu-nity, schools undertook a number of asbestos removal pro-jects throughout this period.
Although occupational exposure to asbestos has beenlinked to various respiratory diseases and cancers, the merepresence of asbestos within a school building should notautomatically be a cause for concem.50 Asbestos-containingmaterials which are in good condition can he properly main-tained in place for many years with minimal risk to the build-ing's occupants. In fact, there have been a number of schoolswhich have made the decision to remove asbestos, only tocreate escalated problems due to careless removal practices.
II. Background
Asbestos is not a single substance, but rather a group ofnaturally occurring minerals which can be processed intomaterials which are strong, flexible, durable, heat resistant,and resistant to chemical attack. Because of these remark-able properties, asbestos has been widely used in manyproducts, especially in the construction industry. However,it is often difficult to recognize asbestos since the fibershave been added to so many different materials every-thing from fabrics to cement.49
Asbestos materials become a health concern to people ifmicroscopic fibers are released into the air." This conditionmay happen when material containing asbestos is being pro-duced, installed, or if material is damaged and fiber releaseoccurs. When inhaled, the body normally expels foreign mate-rial by sneezing and coughing; however, some of these micro-scopic asbestos fibers are carried into the lungs where they mayremain permanently. Occupational-based studies often showthat, after a latency period of 20 years or more, asbestos fibersmay cause changes in lung tissue for some 1,t. °pie which maydevelop into lung cancer and/or a chronic b! 1g disease calledasbestosis, both of which can be fatal." C.-Acer of the lining ofthe chest and abdominal cavities, or mesothelionm, and othercancers have also been linked to asbestos exposure. Cigarettesmokers, especially those who are also exposed to asbestosfibers, have the greatest risk of developing lung cancer." How-ever, the vast majority of asbestos research is based upon onlyoccupational exposure, such as ship building, and not on nor-mal building occupancy such as in schods.44
Because of its unique properties, asbestos has been usedin the manufacture of a wide variety of products. Much of ithas been used in construction projects, including homes,office buildings, and schools. Due to trends in the construc-tion industry and sometimes even due to building coderequirements, many buildings completed prior to 1960often contained asbestos in their boiler and pipe insulation.In later years, asbestos was frequently installed in ceilingsand walls as insulation and fire/sound proofing material.50Asbestos was also used in building roof products, floor tiles,cement sheets and pipes, as well as in sheetrock, joint, andplaster patching compounds. Asbestos was even used fordecorative purposes.49
The Consumer Product Safety Commission banned wallpatching compounds containing asbestos in 1977. Sprayed-on asbestos was banned by the EPA in 1978. Banningasbestos in various other manufactured products after 1996is under consideration by the EPA as well. Certainly, anynew school building or reconstructed school buildingshould not be installing or using any products or materialswhich contain asbestos.
Schools have been subject to asbestos regulations since1979. The State Asbestos Safety Act of 1979 required pub-lic schools to annually inspect for friable asbestos, test forasbestos, and develop plans to abate any imminent hazards.Schools were also required to submit annual asbestosreports to the Commissioner. These requirements providedfor no inspector training, nor established protocols. TheState Asbestos Safety Act was repealed in 1991, as Federallegislation known as the Asbestos Hazard EmergencyResponse Act was more comprehensive in scope and depth.Additionally, the Environmental Protection Agency issuedin 1982 what was known as the School Asbestos Notifica-tion Rule. These regulations required public and nonpublicschools to inspect for friable asbestos, test for asbestos, andnotify parents and staff of any friable (crumbly to thetouch) asbestos. Like the State Asbestos Safety Act, theSchool Rule inspected only friable asbestos and the person-nel doing the inspections received no asbestos certificationor training. Congress, frustrated with the reported deficien-cies in the 1982 Rule, passed the 1986 Asbestos HazardEmergency Response Act, known as AHERA.
The Federal Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act(AHERA) of 1986 requires the management of asbestos inschool buildings) Asbestos which is managed properly andmaintained in good condition poses relatively little risk tostudents and employees. In fact, asbestos removal may actu-ally present a greater risk to building occupants than proper-ly managing asbestos in place, if done inappropriately.s4Proper management begins with the asbestos inspection by aNew York State Certified Asbestos Inspector." After theinspection of asbestos containing building materials, a NewYork State Certified Asbestos Management Planner will
assess the condition of the asbestos. If the asbestos materialis intact, and has no damage which is emitting a release ofasbestos fibers, then the asbestos should be left alone andmanaged in place.5° Then asbestos material is slightly dam-aged, it can easily be repaired or patched. Damaged asbestosmaterials may also be enclosed or encapsulated so that fiberrelease is nor possible. The only time asbestos materialshould be removed is when the building is being demol-ished, the building is fully renovated, and/or the asbestos isso damaged that it is beyond any repair.50 It is the responsi-bility of school districts to decide on how to manage theasbestos containing building material in their school.3
The EPA has developed the following five facts associat-ed with asbestos.50
FACT I Although asbestos is hazardous, the risk ofasbestos-related disease depends upon exposure toairborne asbestos fibers.
FACT II Based upon available data, the average airborneasbestos levels in buildings seem to be very low.Accordingly, the health risk to most building occu-pants also apt'ears to be very low.
FACT III Removal is often not a building owner's best courseof action to reduce asbestos exposure. In fact, animproper removal can create a dangerous situationwhere none previously existed.
FACT IV EPA only requires asbestos removal in order to pre-vent significant public exposure to airborne asbestosfibers during building demolition or renovationactivities.
FACT V EPA does recommend a pro-active, in-place man-agement program whenever asbestos-containingmaterial is discovered.
Neither Federal nor State regulations require the removalof asbestos in schools, unless the building is scheduled fordemolition or the extent of damage is extensive and poses animmediate asbestos fiber exposure risk.50
III. Federal Roles and Regulations
There are several Federal laws which govern asbestosmaterials in the public and private sector. The foPowinglaws apply to public and nonpublic any time theyengage in asbestos work activities related to the Federal reg-ulation.
The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970(OSHA) established asbestos worker protection standards.The Occupational Safety and Health Administration cov-ers the private sector, including nonpublic schools. Thislegislation was also adopted by New York State Labor Lawunder the Public Employee Safety and Health Act(PESFIA) and affects the public sector, including publicschools, any time asbestos abatement work is done.
The National Emission Standards for Hazardous AirPollutants of 1973 (NESHAPS) legislation regulatesstandards for air emissions from renovation and demolitionwork, including asbestos. The rule governs work in boththe private and public sectors and is enforced by the Envi-ronmental Protection Agency. The EPA must be notifiedin advance of renovation and demolition work which is atleast 260 linear feet or 160 square feet.
Specific Federal legislation governing asbestos in publicand nonpublic schools occurred with the 1982 SchoolAsbestos Notification Rule. The 1982 School AsbestosNotification Rule was superceded by Congress with themore comprehensive Asbestos Hazard Emergency ResponseAct of 1986.
The Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act of1986 (AHERA)(40 CFR Part 763)3 regulates the manage-ment of asbestos containing building materials in publicand nonpublic elementary and secondary schools. AHERArequires schools to do the following in each building thatthey lease, own, or otherwise use as a school building(§763.85(a)).
I By July 9, 1989, designate a person to ensure thatAHERA requirements are properly administered in theschool or school district (§ 763.84 (g)).
1 Prior to May 9, 1989, inspect each school buildingwhich the school leases, owns, or otherwise uses as aschool building to identify and assess all locations ofasbestos containing building material (§ 763.85 (a)).
I Prior to May 9, 1989, prepare an asbestos managementplan for each building which the school leases, owns, orotherwise uses as a school building (§ 763.93). Theasbestos management plan, known as the AHERA ma-t-agement plan, must include methods which the schoolwill use to manage asbestos in the school building.Methods commonly referred to as response actions orabatement include one or more of the following: opera-tions and maintenance; repair; encapsulation; enclosure;and removal.
By May 9, 1989, submit the AHERA management planfor review and acceptance to a State designee agency.(Governor Cuomo appointed the State EducationDepartment as the New York State AHERA agency.)
By July 9, 1989, begin implementation of the AHERAplan.
All maintenance and custodial employees (regardless oftheir specific job functions) must attend at least a two-hour asbestos awareness course. New maintenance andcustodial employees must receive this instruction within60 days following the commencement of their employ-ment (§ 763.92 (a)(1)).
/ Any employee working on any aspect of an asbestos pro-ject must possess current New York State Department ofLabor certification in the specific asbestos task whichthey intend on performing, e.g., asbestos handler, airmonitoring technician, etc.
I Short-term workers (telephone repair, electricians,plumbers, etc.) must he informed of the specific loca-tions of asbestos containing building material in thebuilding (§ 763.84 (d)). This should be accomplishedthrough the use of a building diagram with the exactlocations of asbestos materials clearly marked.
) Warning labels must he posted in routine maintenanceareas (boils- room, pipe tunnel, air handling room, etc.)in order to prominently identify any asbestos containingbuilding material or suspected asbestos containing build-ing material (§ 763.95).
I School building occupants (faculty, staff, parents, legalguardians) must he notified in writing at least once dur-ing each school year regarding the status of the build-ing's ongoing asbestos activities, including infortnationon the availability for the public (including school per-sonnel and parents) to review the asbestos managementplan during normal business hours (§ 76.3.9.3 (e)(10) and§ 763.93 (g)).
At least once every six months following the manage-ment plan's implementation, the school must conduct aperiodic visual surveillance of all asbestos containingbuilding material and assumed asbestos containing build-ing material in each building which it leases, owns, orothenise uses as a school building (§ 763.92 (b)) to see ifthere have been any changes in the condition of theasbestos. The name of the person performing the surveil-lance, the date, and any changes noted in the conditionof the asbestos must be recorded for each surveillanceconducted (§ 763.94 (d)). This surveillance is best doneby the building's custodian.
/ At least once every three years following the manage-ment plan's implementation in 1989, the school mustperform an asbestos reinspection of all known orassumed asbestos containing building material in eachbuilding which it leases, owns, or otherwise uses as aschool building (§ 763.85 (H).
The Environmental I 'Iotection Agency has enforcementauthority for compliance with the Asbestos Hazard Emer-gency Response Act. The EPA encourages states to developcomprehensive asbestos legislative programs, at least asstringent as the EPA programs. New York State has EPAapproval tor its asbestos safety training certification andabatement programs developed by the State Departmentsif 1 lealth and Labor.
S: Agency Roles and Legislation
Suite Education Deparonent
The State Education Department was designated by theGovernor to receive and approve the AHERA managementplans. The AHERA regulations only require a state agencyto receive and approve the plans and to report to the Envi-ronmental Protection Agency as requested. The EPA pro-vided no management plan format, materials, or training inmeeting many of the AHERA requirements. The EducationDepartment, to assist schools with compliance informationand systematic reporting, developed a series of documentsfor completing the asbestos inspection, developed a trainingprogram for school asbestos designees, and developed a two-hour awareness training course for custodians and mainte-nance staff.
The over 13,000 management plans received by theDepartment were on the prescribed reporting form known asthe Building Management Plan Form-5. This form includedthe name of the school district and building, the buildingidentification number, name of the Asbestos inspector, date ofthe inspection, amount and areas of friable and nonfriableasbestos, number of hulk samples taken to test for asbestos,the Asbestos response action with proposed implementationdate, i list of AHERA assurances, and the dated signature ofthe school asbestos designee. The Form-5 review by theDiTanment involved checking the completeness of the dataprovided. The Form-5 was not accepted if any of the follow-ing was missing:
complete name of the building missing;
name of the asbestos inspector missing;
date of the asbestos inspection missing;
incorrect number of asbestos hulk samples taken;
II mathematical errors;
/ data for walls, ceilings, or floors missing;
signature of the school asbestos designee missing; or
date of the designee's signature missing.
The dated school asbestos designee's signature, after thelisting of the AHERA requirements, is an assurance thatthere is complete and intended compliance with Al IERA.
With the advent of the comprehensive Asbestos HazardEmergency Response Act in 1986, in 1991 the New YorkState Legislature rescinded the 1979 State Asbestos SafetyAct. The State Asbestos Safety Act was not as broad inscope or depth as AHERA. To continue the reporting ofasbestos conditions to the State Elucation I \Tart mem, Edu-cation Law § 3602-a was amended by Chapter 53 of theLaws of 1990, which require public schools to submit a report
on the condition of asbestos to the Commissioner once everythree years. Reporting every three years coincides with theAHERA triennial reinspections. There is no requirementunder AHERA for schools to report triennial reinspectionfindings directly to the EPA. While Education Law § .3602 -adoes not apply to nonpublic schools, the Department doesinvite nonpublic schools to submit this asbestos report.Asbestos reports are reviewed for completeness, data isentered in the computer, and a statewide asbestos report issubmitted to the Commissioner. Education Law § 3602-adoes not require asbestos reports to the Governor and theLegislature.
The AHERA Building Management Plan Form-5, whencompletely filled out, does not evidence fraud, improperinspections, improper sampling, improper certification ofpersons or laboratories, or improperly carrying out any ofthe AHERA requirements. Quality and ethics of confor-mance are generally not evidenced on a Form-5.
Under AHERA, the EPA does request from the Depart-ment reports on schools which have not completed anasbestos management plan. The EPA does make on-siteinspections of schools and writes up notices of noncompli-ance. The EPA has visited some of the New York Cityschools and has cited them for violations. The EducationDepartment's role has not been to monitor or enforce theAHERA regulation beyond notifying schools of theAHERA requirements. The EPA sends copies of all NewYork State notices of noncompliance to the State Educa-tion Department for informational purposes. The Depart-ment does follow up in writing to such schools, to offerassistance.
Since 1980, the Department has administered Federaland State asbestos grants to public and nonpublic schools.Asbestos grants are competitive and based on the severityof the asbestos condition and the financial need of theschool. New York City has consistently been awarded grantmonies to abate asbestos.
The State Education Department has also been appointedby the New York Secretary of State (19 NYCRR 441.2(d))with the "administration and enforcement of the New YorkState Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code withrespect to buildings, premises, and equipment in the custodyof or activities related thereto undertaken by school districtsand boards of cooperative educational services (BOCES)."The Department's School Facilities Team reviews andapproves public school asbestos abatement capital construc-tion projects. This team issues building permits which mustbe posted at the work site prior to starting work for publicschools outside of New York City. Under Education Law,New York City does not have to submit plans and specifica-tions for approval prior to going to contract. New York Citysubmits, by law, an outline of its intended work. Certificationdocuments for persons designing asbestos work are not
required to he submitted to the State Education Departmentfor New York City school asbestos projects.
New York State Department of Labor
Article 30 of New Yoi k State Labor Law and IndustrialCode Rule 56 (12 NYCRR Parr 56)21 affect all asbestoswork in the public and private sector, except in owner-occupied, single-family dwellings. The primary goal ofCode Rule 56 is to reduce risks to the public associatedwith exposure to asbestos fibers during asbestos removal,enclosure, repair, and encapsulation. This is accomplishedby requiring the licensing of asbestos contractors, establish-ing asbestos work standards, requiring notification to theState Labor Department for large asbestos projects, notify-ing building occupants of an asbestos project, establishingand maintaining recordkeeping requirements, and creatingan asbestos project inspection and ;.nforcement program.New York State schools performing work which involvesthe disturbance of asbestos must design and follow workprocedures and practices established by the State Depart-ment of Labor Industrial Code Rule 56.
The State Department of Labor makes site visits andissues citations, if necessary, to insure asbestos removal,encapsulation, enclosure, and repair work practices are car-ried out safely and in accordance with Code Rule 56.
State Labor Law Article 30 § 904 and Code Rule 56-1.8require asbestos abatement contractors to post or otherwiseprovide written communication to residential and businessoccupants of a building ten clays prior to the commencement ofwork on any asbestos project in the building. School building fac-ulty, staff, and students attending the school are considered to hebusiness occupants for school asbestos work and shall receive thiswritten notification. In the event that the State LaborDepartment has approved classification of the project as anemergency and the ten-day notification to the public is notpossible, then the contractor must provide this writtennotification as soon as practical after the identification ofthe project.
New York State Department of Health
Under Article 30 of the State Labor Law, the New YorkState Department of Health has the authority to approveasbestos safety training programs. The Department ofHealth reviews and approves all asbestos training providerswho wish to provide New York State specific training andestablishes minimum training curriculum requirements(Part 73 of Title 10 of State Labor Law). The State Depart-ment of Labor will not issue an asbestos license or certifi-cate without first receiving the Department of Health'sproof of asbestos training.
Asbestos air samples and suspect construction materialsmust be analyzed by a laboratory which is approved by both
the New York State Health Department Environmental Labora-tory Approval Program (ELAP) and the National VoluntaryLaboratory Approval Program (NVLAP). This fulfills bothNew York State (Section 502(2) of the State Public HealthLaw) and AHEP,A (§ 763.90(i)(ii)) requirements forasbestos air analysis.
Local Asbestos Laws
New York State Labor Law permits local municipalitiesto enact local laws and ordinances governing the handlingor disturbance of .'sbestos material, provided they are moreeffective than Article 30 and Code Rule 56, as determinedby the State Department of Labor. This includes asbestoslicensing and certification requirements. Communities mayalso elect to enforce local laws and Code Rule 56, includingbut not limited to the collection and retention of any mon-etary penalties. New York City is an example of such anarrangement. The New York City Department of Environ-mental Protection enforces asbestos statutes within the fiveboroughs of New York City. New York City asbestos abate-ment work is governed by the New York City Departmentof Environmental Protection.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
The New York State Department of EnvironmentalConservation's Division of Hazardous Substance Regula-tion and Bureau of Municipal Waste issue transport, ionpermits for asbestos waste haulers, asbestos disposal sites,and approve methods for on-site asbestos disposal withinNew York State.
IV. School Experiences
Since schools began to remove asbestos, there have beennumerous problems with contractors, air monitors, archi-tects, and general deviations from asbestos managementplans developed by schools. Recently however, two inci-dents have brought serious attention to asbestos in theschools.
During summer 1991, the Pen_ Central School Districtundertook asbestos removal projects which were not calledfor in its original 1989 AHERA management plan, in threeout of five district buildings at an estimated 'cost of$463,900. The removal projects concluded and the threeschools were set to open in September 1991 when it wasdiscovered that the schools had not been properly cleanedfollowing the conclusion of work. Asbestos air samplescame back positive for asbestos and the buildings could notopen for students. Due to asbestos contamination in the air,the State Labor Department closed the three buildings anda massive cleaning effort commenced. Schools had beenclosed for two weeks when the district initiated a split .ses-sion schedule for students. Eventually, the buildings all
passed final asbestos air clearance, but not until the schooldistrict had spent $ 3,490,351 to clean and open the build-ings. This resulted in Peru Central School District spendinga combined asbestos removal project plus building cleanuptotal of $ 3,954,251.
More recently, the New York City Public Schools havebeen embroiled in an asbestos related crisis. On August 6,199.3, Mayor Dinkins declared that all New York City pub-lic schools would he reinspected for asbestos prior to schoolopening due to faulty and questionable asbestos manage-ment plans. Over the past two and a half years, the SchoolConstruction Authority has reportedly discovered that theasbestos bulk samples taken by them often contradict thehulk sample results reported in the AHERA managementplan. The result was that construction work thought not toinvolve asbestos, according to the plan, did indeed containasbestos.
P.S. # I in Manhattan's Chinatown apparently precipi-tated this incident when it was discovered that renovationwork, believed to he a nonashestos project as reported inthe AHERA management plan, resulted in the identifica-tion of asbestos. Such discrepancies may be due to differingprotocols and technological differences between 1988 and1993. The School Construction Authority began an in-depth investigation of the asbestos management plans,which resulted in alleged fraud in the conduct of theasbestos inspection process. With the School ConstructionAuthority's ongoing investigation, far more alleged prob-lems with the AHERA management plans and abatementwork are emerging. The School Construction Authority isalso claiming that schools built in the 1980s containasbestos. (There is no law that prohibits the use of asbestosand warehouses are permitted to sell asbestos materials. Notall products are clearly labeled, especially foreign madematerials.)
Mayor Dinkins formed Operation Clean House andimmediate asbestos hulk testing started in school facilitiesin which there were summer school programs. These sum-mer programs were moved to difkrent facilities. A 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week multilingual tc phone hot-linewas started. The responsibility for asbest(. in the schoolswas transferred from the Board of Education Asbestos TaskForce to the New York City School Construction Authori-ty. A quality control protocol program for the new asbestosinspections and an asbestos inspection plan for 1,069schools were quickly developed by the School ConstructionAuthority. The plan uses the "scorecard" program whichidentifies damaged facilities. The inspection plan was tobegin with the schools identified by the "scorecard" as hav-ing wall and ceiling damage. The Board of Edi.cat ionreported 714 schools with damaged surfaces. Of these, 8had severe damage and will receive the highest priority.
The extent of damaged areas identified under the score-
card program illustrates a continuing lack of building mainte-nance and extremely poor roofing and parapet conditions.Painting and maintenance in New York City which are overeight feet high must be done by outside contracts. Schoolcustodians, by contract, do no work above eight feet.
At this writing, the New York City asbestos situation isstill unfolding with more allegations which remain underinvestigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI),
the Office of the Inspector General of the New York CitySchool Construction Authority, and the Special Commis-sion of Investigation of the New York City Office of Counsel.
Fortunately, the situations in Peru and New York Cityare exceptions. Since the inception of AHERA, the schooldistrict which has not had an asbestos removal project istruly the exception, and rarely have things gone awry.However, millions of dollars have been spent removingasbestos since 1988 and, as the EPA states, managingasbestos in place is most often a school's safest and mostcost-effective response action. The following charts esti-mate spending on asbestos abatement in New York State.The charts are based on data submitted on the 1992 New
York State Triennial Asbestos Reinspection Form.
THE ESTIMA14), AMOUNT M. ON.EY:: ptsiTql. ASBESTOS ABATEMENTcrp44;,',.BY NEW YORK Lic,,$cliooLs -
YEARS AMOUNT SPENT
1988-89 $1,142,037
1989-90 $2,547,369
1990-91 $1,063,927
1991-92 $715,420
Total Amount Spent $5,468,753
THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OEMONEY SPENT ON ASBESTOS ABATEMENT
BY NEW YORK STATE PUBLIC Sc*OLS 1(EXCLUDING NEW YORK CITY)
YEARS AMOUNT SPENT
1988-89 $56,119,567
1989-90 $94,931,496
1990-91 $60,889,161
1991-92 $26,917,029
Total Amount Spent $238,857,253
THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF MONEY SPENT ON ASBESTOS ABATEMENT
BY NEW YORK STATE NONPUBLIC SCHOOLS
YEARS AMOUNT SPENT
1988.89 $5,408,645
1989-90 $5,944,539
1990.91 $5,916,188
1991.92 $9,140,459
Total Amount Spent $26,409,831
Based on these data, New York State public and non-public elementary and secondary schools expended a totalof $ 270,735,837 for asbestos abatement during the yearsof 1988 through 1992.
The Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act(AHERA requires all public and nonpublic elementaryand secondary schools to reinspect (once every three yearsfrom July 9, 1989) all friable (able to he crumbled, pulver-
ized, powdered, or crushed by hand pressure) and nonfriableknown or assumed asbestos-containing building material ineach school building that they lease, own, or otherwise useas a school building. Based upon a compilation of financialdata obtained on the 1992 State Triennial Asbestos ReportingForm, the following ,hart displays the amount of moneyNew York State schools spent to comply with the first tri-ennial asbestos reinspection.
ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS
AHERA 1992 REINSPECTION COSTS. INCURREDBY NEW YORK STATE PUBLIC, NONPUBLIC SCHOOLS, AND BOCES
AMOUNT SPENTNew York State Public Schools $ 13,856,983
BOCES $ 90,455Nonpublic Schools $ 1,038,150
Total Spent $ 14,985,588
1. Problem
Since the late 1970s, the question of whether electricaland magnetic fields that emanate from power lines causehuman health problems has been the subject of much dis-cussion. While some scientific uncertainty remains, manypublic health officials and scientists are becoming increas-ingly concerned about the significantly elevated leukemiarates among children living near power lines. Studies haveshown a repeated pattern of response that suggests a rela-tionship between exposure to electromagnetic fields(EMFs) and the increased incidence of childhoodleukemia. These health concerns were referenced in theScientific Advisory Panel's 1987 final report on the NewYork State Power Lines Project.26
11. Background
In 1992, two Swedish studies about EMF exposure andchildhood cancer were strengthened by demonstrating adose-response relationship. Some researchers say that thestudies offer the most compelling evidence yet uncoveredthat shows a link between EMFs and childhood cancer. Anearlier study conducted by Dr. David Savitz in Denverdemonstrated that the risk of leukemia conk' he 1.5 in15,000 per year tOr children living near high voltage lines.The risk of leukemia is estimated to he 1.0 in 15,000 peryear fOr children not living near power lines.7
The llniversity of California at Los Angeles and South-
cm California Edison studied the health records of 36,221employees who had worked for the company between 1960and 1988. The researchers looked at the employees' on-the-job exposure to EMFs. The research found no excess can-cers or any other health effects in any of the groups in thisstudy. The Swedish study findings, followed by the Califor-nia study, is typical of the ebb and flow that has character-ized the EMF controversy. Much of the research hadfocused on the strength of the magnetic field, however theEnvironmental Protection Agency is not certain that thestrength of the field is the only important consideration.Other factors to consider are how long the exposure lastsand whether particular characteristics of the field chargerapidly. More research is needed and is under way.
Wherever electric current is flowing, EMFs are present.EMF fields are created by both large and small power lines,lighting fixtures and wiring, electrical equipment and appli-ances in our homes, schools, and workplaces. Electric fieldsare found wherever electricity is used, such as in a build-ing's wiring or in an electrical appliance. in fact, the appli-ance does not even need to be turned on for an electricfield to exist. Magnetic fields, on the other hand, are ineffect only when electricity is flowing through a wiresuch as when an electrical appliance is turned on or poweris being sent from its source to another location. An exam-ple of this is electrical transmission through power lines.Most U.S. homes have background magnetic field readingsranging from 0.5 to 4 milligauss. The following representsthe typical levels of magnetic fields in everyday situations.t8
'TYPICAL LEVELS OF MAGNETIC FIELDS
PLACE RANGE (IN MILLIGAUSS)
center of a living room 0.2 - 3
under an electric blanket 5 - 25
hair dryer at 4 inches 3 - 400
operating toaster (at 4 inches) 10 - 60
connection at home (electric meter) 5 - 20
directly under high voltage line 50 - 500
edge of right of way - high voltage line 10 - 200
The closer one is to the source of an electric or magneticfield, the stronger the field. The strength of these fieldsdrops very quickly as one moves away from the field source.In the case of a computer, EMFs are strongest right next tothe machine, but at an arm's length their effect is negligi-He. Even if we were to estimate exposures more precisely, itwould he impossible to relate these measurements to poten-tial health effects. This is so because, while some studiessuggest an association between EMFs and adverse healtheffects, including cancer, the nature of this relationship isstill under investigation. Therefore, it is not possible to fullyassess the magnitude of the risk that miy he associated withexrosure to the magnetic field in schools.'
A. the State Department of Health indicates, scientistsdo not agree on what measures, if any, people should taketo prevent possible risks. No one is sure whether reducedexposure translates into reduced risk. Some researchersadvocate a policy of "prudent avoidance", whereby peoplewill take affordable steps to reduce their exposure to EMFswhile not making major investments to limit exposure. TheState Department of Health believes there is not yetenough information to advocate such actions, but wouldnot discourage individuals from adopting that approach.The Department of Health and the Public Service Connmission are to convene a panel to examine scientific dataand current knowledge to explore developing guidelines.
III. Legislation and Regulations
There are no law, or tegulat ions requiring schools to testfor ENIFs.
New York State has established standards for exposure toEN1F, at the right of way for electric power transmissionlute,. There are no standard, set tor exposure tint the gener-al ens uonment or school population.
There are no established standards for workplace EMFexposure. I liiwever, the International Radiation ProtectionA..coctat it in has recommended 5,000 milligimss for a mag-netic field limit and 10,000 voltage per meter for an electric
field limit. New York City government workers have EMFstandards for video display terminal work.
IV. State and Federal Actions
II In 1991, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, at therequest of the State Public Service Commission and theState Attorney General, conducted a study of EMFs andhigh power lines located near schools. Thirty-twoschools were identified in this study as being locatednear high power lines.
The U.S. Congress signed the Energy and Water Devel-opment Appropriations Act of 1992 (P.L.102-104),which authorized $ 65 million for the U.S. EnergyOffice to award grants for the study of EMFs.
In March 1993, State Attorney General Robert Abramsobtained a voluntary agreement from each of New YorkState's eight electric utilities to undertake a survey of thelocation of power lines near schools and the strength ofthe EMFs which these lines generate.29 The utilitieshave made individual contact with schools to discussthese findings.
Agency Involvement
I The State Department of I lealth conducts EMF testingat schools when requested by the respective countydepartment of health. It provides technical informationand assistance, and also discusses the issues with mem-bers of the community.
The State Education Department, as requested byschools, provides general information, identities infor-mational resources, and collaborates with the StateDepartment of 1 lealth and the Public Service Commis-sion as needed.
V. School Experiences/Analysis
The Williamsville School District and the VoorheesvilleSchool District experienced considerable staff and parent
concern about power lines adjacent to school buildings. Inboth cases, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation was ableto reduce the power transmission. The Department ofHealth also identified areas for prudent avoidance measuresand held meetings with staff and parents of these schools.
The eight electric utilities in New York State have iden-tified public and nonpuillic schools located near high volt-age lines and the strength of the EMFs which these linesgenerate.28 The findings of this study were sent to eachschool which was identified. Schools wishing assistancefrom their local utility are encouraged to contact ir.
HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
I. Problem
Schools are faced with growing environmental concernsas they consider the purchase of land for new construction,the placement of playing fields, and building additions totheir existing structures. Public awareness of municipal haz-ardous waste has brought into question the siting of schoolfacilities.
II. Background
The State Department of Environmental Conservation's1993 Annual Report on Inactive Waste Disposal Sites inNew York State identifies 935 sites located throughout theState. While data on the proximity of these listed sites andother municipal landfills to schools is not immediatelyavailable, they have the potential to impact a number ofexisting or proposed educational facilities in the State.Under current Education Law and regulation, there is norequirement for evaluating the potential impacts of thesesites on proposed schools and school expansion projects.
New York State Education Department site standardselection criteria under Education Law Section 408 andCommissioner's Regulation 155.1 include the following:
Size and Location-State Standards, Future Expansion, Local CommunityEnvironment, School Environment, Accessibility
Shape and Contour-Topography and Landscape, Area for Building, Area forOutdoor Act ivit ies, Drainage
Health and Safety-
Odors, Dim, Noise, Water Supply, Sewag Dispt
Hazards-Cm. Lines, Electricity, Traffic (railroads, air, highways),Thpography (streams and ravines), Nuisances
Purchase Cost-Land Acquisition and Development Costs
Development Costs-Soil Characteristics, Ground Water, Drainage, Grading andFilling, Services
In 1976, the State Education Department published theSchool Site Standards, Selection, and Development Manualdetailing these standards. The manual states that hazardousconditions and installations in the vicinity of and on haz-ardous sites must he avoided. The site environment mustprovide safe and healthful conditions for building occu-pants. Sites adjacent to or affected by sources of odors, dust,and other types of pollution and of disturbing noise shouldhe avoided. This manual does not specifically address evalu-ation of potential impacts from municipal and hazardouswaste sites.
Determination of a hazardous waste site is conducted bythe State Department of Environmental Conservationthrough a Preliminary Site Assessment to determine if haz-ardous waste was disposed of and if a significant threat tothe public health or the environment exists. The Prelimi-nary Site Assessment data and evaluations are used todetermine what actions may he necessary.15 These sites areclassified as follows:
Classification I Sites are defined as causing imminentdanger to the environment or public health. They requireimmediate remedial action and immediate legal action.This classification would he assigned on the basis of a dec-laration or order of the State Commissioner of Health pur-suant to Section 1389 -h of the Public Health Law, asoccurred at Love Canal in 1978 and 1979. A Classification1 Site could properly he subject to summary abatementauthority of the Commissioners of the New York StateDepartments of Environmental Conservation and Health.New York State has no Classification 1 Sites.
Classification 2 is for sites where information suggeststhat they pose a significant threat to the public health orthe environment. The State Department of EnvironmentalConservation has recently adopted regulations whichdefine significant threat and the factors taken into accountin reaching this determination. These regulations wereadopted as 6 NYCRR Part 375, effective May 20, 1992. Inmaking a determination of significant threat, the Commis-sioner considers a number of factors after finding that haz-ardous waste has been disposed. They include type of wastepresent, area and magnitude of impact, the manner of dis-posal, violations of environmental standards, and condi-tions relating to surface waters and groundwater at or nearthe site. In addition, after reviewing the above factors, theCommissioner may determine that the site poses a signifi-cant threat in any of the following ways:
a significant adverse impact upon endangered species,threatened species, or species of concern;
1 a significant adverse impact upon protected streams,tidal wetlands, freshwater wetlands, or significant fishand wildlife habitat;
1 a bioaccumulation of contaminants in flora or faunacauses adverse ecotoxicological effects in flora or fauna,or leads to a recommendation that human consumptionbe limited;
1 contaminant levels that cause significant adverse acuteor chronic effects to fish, shellfish, crustacea, or wildlife;
1 a significant adverse impact to the environment due to afire, spill, explosion, or similar incident, or a reactionwhich generates toxic gases, vapors, mists, or dusts; and
1 where a site is near inhabited buildings, or water sup-plies, and the New York State Department of Health orthe U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Reg-istry has determined that the presence of hazardouswaste on a site poses a significantly increased risk to pub-lic health.
In order to assess these factors, a considerable amount ofinformation must he obtained about the site. In most cases,a Preliminary Site Assessc lent or equivalent is needed toprovide the needed data.
The Department of Environmental Conservation andthe Department of Health have issued a revised system toprioritize Classification 2 inactive hazardous waste sites forremedial acticr.. The Priority Ranking System establishes aprocess to help determine which of 532 sites in New YorkState should he remediated first. These choices must hemade because it is impossible to work on all of them at thesame time. All Class 2 sites, whether Priority 1,11, or Ill, arescheduled to he remediated. Priority ranking only affectsthe order in which the sites will he remediated.
In July 1990, a draft priority ranking system was adoptedon a trial basis. Priority rankings have been assigned toClass 2 sites and have been included in the Department ofEnvironmental Conservation's Quarterly Status Reportsince January 1991. Final review and approval of the Priori-ty Ranking System and public notification of its formaladoption were held off until recently when the results ofthe trial period were fully evaluated and the new inactivehazardous waste site regulations (Part 375) were approved.New York State has 532 sites in Classification 2.
Classification 2u includes sites for which additional infor-mation is needed before the Department of EnvironmentalConservation can classify them according to the classesestablished by the Environmental Conservation Law. Priorto fiscal year 1990-91, sites were added to the 2a category ifthe disposal of hazardous waste was suspected. Some ofthese sites will be dropped from the Registry as investiga-
tions conclude that hazardous waste was not disposed.Since fiscal year 1990-91, only those sites with known haz-ardous waste disposal have been added to this category.Most Classification 2a sites will require the equivalent of aPreliminary Site Assessment before they can he properlyasses.:ed. In fiscal year 1992-93, 102 Class 2a sites werereclassified to other classes, or delisted, and 10 sites wereadded, for a net reduction of 92 sites. In New York, 275 ofthe 532 Classification 2 sites are further identified byClassification 2a.
Classification 3 sites are known to contain hazardouswaste. However, investigations indicate that they do notpose a significant threat to the public health or the environ-ment. New York State has 62 sites in Classification 3.
Classification 4 sites are known to contain hazardouswaste (or have contained hazardous waste at one time) andhave been remediated or closed, often in conformance witha Department of Environmental Conservation approvableplan. However, they need to he sampled or inspected peri-odically to ensure that contaminant removal has been com-plete to determine the effectiveness of contaminant controlmeasures, or to otherwise check the site status. Mainte-nance at t'.:ese sites may he required indefinitely, and theywill not he removed from the Registry until the mainte-nance period has ended. New York State has 56 sites inClassification 4.
Classification 5 sites are known to contain hazardouswaste, but have been completely remediated or closed andrequire no further maintenance. If all hazardous waste hasbeen removed, or if only an inconsequential quantityremains, these sites may he removed from the Registry.New York State has 10 sites in Classification 5.
III. Legislation
Federal Superfund of The Comprehensive EnvironmentalResponse, Compensation, and Liability Act. The funding ofthis Act establishes Federal procedures for investigating,evaluating, and cleaning up hazardous waste sites. Underthis Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency com-piles a National Priorities List of hazardous waste sites ascandidates for Federal remedial response.
The 1986 Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Actprovided over $ 8.5 billion to fund the Federal share ofremedial hazardous waste programs.
The Abandoned Sites Act of 1979 - Chapter 282 of theLaws of 1979 was the first New York State law to specifical-ly address the need to identify and clean up hazardous wastesites.
New fork State Superfund - Chapter 857 of the LAWS of1982 established an assessment of hazardous waste to createa fund for the clean up of the hazardous waste sites. The1985 Amendments to the State Superfund under Chapter 38
required additional activities, including the preparation ofquarterly status reports for all hazardous waste sites and theestablishment of a site elevation system to select and priori-tize sites for remedial action.
The Environmental Quality Bond Act of 1988 enabledNew York State to further provide $1.2 billion in funds forthe remediation of hazardous waste disposal sites. Legisla-tion in 1990 made $100 million available for closing outnonhazardous waste landfills. This in effect reduced theamount available for hazardous waste remediation to $1.1billion.
Agency Roles
The New York State Department of Health is responsi-ble for investigating and assessing exposure, determininghealth significance, and for providing prompt public healthintervention. The Department of Health also inspects eachsite to identify the presence of potentially exposed sensitivepopulations, thereby identifying nearby schools.
The New York State Department of EnvironmentalConservation is responsible for identifying and investigat-ing sites for remediation, remedial design, construction andmonitoring, and the maintenance of remedial sites.
The State Education Department is responsible fordeveloping site standards for site selection and site devel-opment for public schools in New York State. It is alsoresponsible for approving sites for school capital construc-tion, reviewing State Environmental Quality Review Act(SEQRA) requirements for schools, as well as approvingplans and specifications for school capital construction.
IV. Schools Information
At present, the State Education Department knows ofonly two schools located on Superfund Hazardous WasteSites. The State Department of Environmental Conserva-tion's reporting of hazardous waste sites by site code, sitename (often the owner of the site), and county does notinclude information about the surrounding facilities, suchas schools. However, data is available to identify sites thathave schools nearby. There are no formal reporting require-ments to the State Education Department about the namesof schools located on or near hazardous waste sites.
The Department's State Environmental Quality ReviewAct Public School Environmental Assessment Form, whichis to he completed by local school districts for certain capitalconstruction projects, does not address specific hazardouswaste site conditions either on school property or adjacent tothe proposed capital construction site.
INDOOR AIR QUALITY
I. Problem
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reportsthat indoor levels of many pollutants may he two to fivetimes, and occasionally more than 100 times, higher thanoutdoor levels. This is significant because it is estimatedthat most people spend as much as 90 percent of their timeindoors. The EPA ranks indoor air pollution among the topfive environmental risks to public health.52
Media reports and complaints made to the State Educa-tion Department and the State Department of Health evi-dence mounting claims of indoor air quality problems inschools. Poor indoor air quality often triggers allergies, res-piratory problems, and/or eye irritation, and clearly disruptsthe quality of life and the quality of learning for students.Indoor air quality is the investment the taxpayer has in theschool physical plant. "A school with an indoor air qualityproblem is a building whose design, maintenance, or repairis lacking in some respect."2
II. Background
The effects of poor indoor air quality are often so subtlethat they may go unnoticed and/or are frequently dismissedor attributed to allergies, flu, the common cold, or stress.
Thomas Godar, Director of the Pulmonary Disease Sec-tion at St. Francis Hospital and Medical Center in Hart-ford, Connecticut, contends that children's defensesagainst airborne contaminants are weaker than adults andthey are more susceptible to health problems. Because chil-dren are small and their organs are developing, they areespecially sensitive to air pollutants, which may immedi-ately affect them and last long after the initial exposure.
Many indoor air pollutants may aggravate past or pre-sent medical conditions. The symptoms of individuals withrespiratory problems, such as asthma, bronchitis, andemphysema can he aggravated by indoor air irritants.1Symptoms may also be aggravated in persons taking med-ication or in persons with chemical sensitivity.
Exposure to indoor air pollutants may result in healtheffects classified as either acute or chronic. Acute healtheffects, such as the irritation of mucous membranes, aremanifested almost immediately. Chronic health effects,such as cancer and kidney disease, manifest themselvesover time. Therefore, the appearance of health effects mayor may not coincide with exposure to the causative agents.Adverse health responses to indoor pollutants, such asheadache, malaise, and coughing, are subtle and arc notalways recognized as an air quality problem.
Indoor air contaminants are either particles or gases.Particles generally include tobacco smoke, allergens
(pollen, fungi, mold spores, insect parts, etc.), asbestosfibers, respirable particles (these remain suspended in theair and are breathed deeply into the lungs), and pathogens(bacteria and viruses). Gases include carbon monoxide,radon, formaldehyde, oxides of nitrogen or sulfur, andvolatile organic compounds.51
Indoor air quality problems are commonly associatedwith a number of conditions, such as inadequate ventila-tion, contamination from indoor sources, introduction ofoutdoor contaminants, microbial contamination, and poormaintenance.2
Inadequate ventilation may be caused by faulty design ofa ventilation system, improper control of temperature andhumidity, or insufficient maintenance of ventilation sys-tems. Inadequate outdoor air supply is often the result ofefforts by the school to control energy consumption. Begin-ning in the early 1970s, districts were faced with theincreasing cost of energy which led to efforts to conserveenergy. Many districts reduced energy use by increasing theefficiency of the heating plant and by adding insulation andweatherstripping. The amount of fresh air brought into aschool was reduced; this decreased the amount of energyneeded to heat incoming fresh air. Central air systems werenot used and the intakes for individual unit ventilatorswere closed either by closing the damper or by physicallycovering the air intake. With less fresh outdoor air enteringthe building, indoor air contaminants were no longer dilut-ed, causing contaminant levels to increase. This results inincreased humidity; reduced human comfort; an enhancedenvironment for the growth of bacteria, fungi, and otherbiological contaminants; and higher levels of indoor airpollutants.
Product technology has compounded indoor air qualityproblems. The number and type of contaminants intro-duced into indoor air by new construction and furnitureproducts have grown rapidly in the last few decades. Addi-tional sources of indoor pollution include office and copymachines, pesticides, cleaning and maintenance solvents,tobacco smoking, and inadequately vented heating devices.Emissions (off-gassing) from furniture, insulation, carpet-ing, wall coverings, adhesives, and chemicals used in schoollaboratories, art rooms, and industrial arts rooms all con-tribute to indoor air pollution.38
Outdoor air pollutants drawn into a school further cre-ate indoor air problems. These conditions are most severewhen air intake vents are located in the wrong place. Forexample, intake vents located near roadways or school busparking areas where engine exhaust enters a building's airsupply system or near service areas where garbage and otherwastes are stored can introduce contaminant air into theschool.38 Other problems arise when school buildingexhaust vents are located too close to intake vents andexhaust air is drawn back into the building. In most cases of
poor indoor air quality, there are generally three acceptedways for managing the problem. These include source con-trol, ventilation, and air cleaning. 52
Source control is the first step. Air pollutants can be con-trolled at the source by removing them or by modifyingthem. A ban on cigarette smoking will eliminate a majorcontributor to indoor air pollution. By reviewing the ingre-dients in cleaning and maintenance products, it may bepossible to substitute products with less toxic ingredients.For example, odorless latex paint is a good substitute for oil-based paint.2
Ventilation can be modified to correct or prevent indoorair quality problems. This is effective when schools areunder ventilated or where a specific contaminant sourcecannot he identified. Ventilation can be used to controlindoor air contaminants by diluting contaminants withoutdoor air or by isolating or removing contaminants bycontrolling air pressure relationships. Air cleaning is mosteffective when used in conjunction with source control andventilation. It is also effective when the source of contami-nants is outside the school. Areas such as shops, art rooms,and science rooms should have local exhaust fans to con-trol contaminants released from site-specific activities.
building maintenance and custodial care are usually themost overlooked ways to avoid poor air quality. Cleanbuildings have less dust and dirt and fewer odors and fumesin the air than dirty ones. Badly maintained buildings andleaky walls and roofs can create the conditions which breedmolds, fungus, insects, rodents, and other vermin. Further-more, improper maintenance of the heating, ventilating,and air conditioning (HVAC) system can lead to inade-quate ventilation.
Dirty, improperly maintained buildings also seem toinvite activities that contribute to more air pollution. Cus-todians may use cleaners that have strong odors to maskother smells. As the insect and vermin populations grow,pesticide applications may become more frequent. Thesesituations can be avoided, if a building is kept clean andwell maintained.
Indoor air quality can also he related to new buildingconstruction and renovation projects in schools. Chemicalvapors and dust released into the air inside the buildingmay affect the health of exposed individuals. Constructionprojects which are most likely to cause indoor air qualityproblems include: roofing with hot tar; insulating (particu-larly with sprayed-on foam); installation of new carpets,drapes, and furniture; painting; caulking; and demolition.These projects can generate large amounts of dust, and thematerials used (such as paints, adhesives, and caulkingcompounds) contain volatile organic solvents and otherchemicals. Space heaters, internal combustion engines, andother construction support activities emit combustion prod-ucts, such as carbon monoxide. The chemicals and dust
released into the air during construction reach occupiedareas of the school through the ventilation system, openwindows, doors or hallways, resulting in serious air qualityproblems and health complaints.38 The simplest and mosteffective ways to avoid potential indoor air quality prob-lems are to isolate the work area, ensure that renovationwork is scheduled when the school building is not occupiedand increase ventilation until odors dissipate.
III. Legislation
There are no Federal or State requirements for schoolsto test the quality of the indoor air.
There are no standards for indoor air contaminant levelsestablished specifically for children. Occupational standardshave been developed for employees, but these standards donot adequately protect children.
IV. State Agency Roles
The New York State Department of Labor is responsiblefor the enforcement of occupational safety and health stan-dards in public schools (PESHA).
Local health departments (city and county) and theNew York State Department of Health are responsible forpublic health matters. The State Department of Health willassist local health departments to investigate indoor airquality complaints in schools and to develop recommenda-tions.
The State Education Department is responsible for pub-lic school compliance with the New York State UniformFire Prevention and Building Code. The Department'sCentral Services Facilities Planning Team approves archi-tect's plans and specifications for renovation and construc-
tion of school buildings. This process includes reviewingthe details for building HVAC systems. Team staff are guid-ed by the Department's Manual of Planning Standards forSchool Buildings.31 This is the document which is used todetermine appropriate HVAC systems in schools. It shouldbe noted that, although this document was reprinted in1985, it has not been updated or revised since 1977. Manybuilding and HVAC standards thought to he adequate in1977 are now considered questionable and obsolete. Inaddition, the 1977 standards may not he sensitive to today'sconcerns about indoor air quality. In fact, the State Depart-ment of Health has stated that the ventilation standards inthe Manual of Planning Standards for School Buildings areinadequate and should he revised.
V. School Experiences
Schools experiencing indoor air quality problems are notrequired to report such incidents to the Department. Howev-er, the number of schools voluntarily reporting indoor airquality problems has steadily increased over the past fewyears. These problems are primarily reported to the StateEducation Department and the State Department of Healthby parents and school faculty and staff. The State Depart-ment of Health investigated 26 complaints about indoor airquality in schools in 1990, 31 complaints in 1991, 35 com-plaints in 1992, and 19 complaints (January to August) in1993. An informal survey of 14 complaints in early 1993 esti-mate the costs of responding to the incidents.
In addition to fiscal costs, these districts spent an enor-mous amount of time calling special meetings with the Boardof Education, parent groups, union groups, and the media.
SCHOOL INDOOR. AIR. QUALITY INCIDENT COST ESTIMATES
Air Monitoring and Analysis $ 134,246Consultant $ 83,630Contract $ 259,901Legal Fees $ 29,500Ov,rtime $ 25,038
Miscellaneous $ 120,493TOTAL (14 SCh0016) $ 652,808
LEAD
I. ProblemLead is a poison that affects virtually every system in the
body.45 It is particularly harmful to the developing brainand nervous system of fetuses and young children. There isgrowing evidence that exposure to even low lead levels canproduce verbal, perceptual, motor, and behavioral disabili-ties in children, as well as hearing impairments, irritability,and delayed physical and neurobehavioral development.45Exposure of the fetus to low levels of lead has been associat-ed with neurobehavioral disabilities, shortened gestation,low birth weight, and growth deficits after birth. Childrenwith nutritional problems, such as calcium or iron deficien-cies, absorb lead more efficiently than children withoutthese deficiencies. These children may therefore be moresusceptible to lead poisoning.
H. Background
Lead is a soft bluish-gray metal which can form chemicalcompounds. Useful properties of lead include softness, mal-leability, high density, low melting point, and corrosionresistance. In 1986, the United States produced 808 millionpounds of lead from ore and recycled and 1,356 millionpounds from scrap.9 Approximately 76 percent of all lead isused in batteries. Other uses include ammunition, brass,solder, pipes, power and communication cable coverings,lead sheeting for flashing material in construction, sound-proofing, gasoline additives, radiation shielding, paint pig-ments, and plastics.9 Until the 1950s, lead arsenate wasused extensively as an insecticide, particularly in orchards.
There are numerous sources of lead exposure in ourenvironment. Although all U.S. children are exposed tosome lead from fo(xl, air, dust, and soil, some children areexposed to higher amounts of lead than others. Lead-basedpaint remains the most common source of lead exposure formo,t preschool children. Lead-based paint (containing upto 50 percent lead) was widely used in the 1940s. The useand manufacture of lead-based paint started to decline dur-ing the 1950s. However, not until 1978 did the ConsumerProduct Safety Commission ban paint containing morethan 0.06 percent lead by weight on residential surfaces,toys, and fumiture.4s Lead-based paint is still available forindustrial, military, and marine usage. The Centers for Dis-ease Control estimates that about three million tons of leadremain in an estimated 57 million occupied private housingunits built before 1980. The U.S. Department of HousingAnd Urban nevelt ,pment is particularly concerned with the14 million housing units believed to contain lead-basedpaint in an unsafe condition and the 3.8 million deteriorat-ed units which are occupied by young children.
A child does not have to eat paint chips to become poi-soned by kid. Children may ingest dust and soil contami-
nated by lead-based paint which has flaked or chipped as itaged or which has been disturbed during home ,nainte-nance or renovation. Lead dust and soil ingested by chil-dren putting their hands into their mouths is now recog-nized as a major contributor to the total body burden oflead in children.45 As part of normal play, ingestion appearsto be a more significant pathway than inhalation for youngchildren.
Lead levels are typically low in ground and surface water,but may increase once water enters a water distribution sys-tem. Drinking water can be contaminated within theplumbing system by lead connectors (goosenecks), lead ser-vice lines or pipes, lead-soldered joints in copper plumbing,lead-containing water fountains and lead-lined water cool-ers, and lead-containing brass faucets.
Lead pipes are often found in homes and schools builtbefore the 1920s. Pipes made of copper and soldered withlead came into use during the 1950s. Lead leaching fromcopper pipes with lead-soldered joints represent the majorsource of water contamination in homes and schools.48
Hobbyists may also inadvertently expose themselves andtheir families to lead. Activities associated with lead expo-sure include furniture refinishing, stained glass work, indoorrifle ranges, home repair and remodeling, pottery, andceramics.' 7
The EPA ordered the reduction of lead in gasoline dur-ing the 1970s and 1980s. The 1990 amendments to theClean Air Act prohibit the use of lead as a gasoline addi-tive no later than December 31, 1995. While leaded gaso-line has quickly become less of a source of airborne lead,other industrial activities remain localized concerns. Local-ized exposures to lead include burning solid waste in incin-erators and sand-blasting or demolishing lead painted metalstructures, such as bridges.
In 1980, 47 percent of domestically-produced food andsoft -drink cans were lead soldered. By 1989, only 1.4 per-cent of domestically-produced cans were lead soldered.45Lead in food may come from the soil in which the plant isgrown. It may also come from contact with lead solder orlead-glazed containers used to store food. In July 1993, theU.S. Fcx .1 and Drug Administration proposed a rule to pro-hibit the use of lead solder in all cans, imported and domes-tic, that contain food.
III. Federal Legislation
The Safe Drinking Water Act (1976) set standards fordrinking water quality.
II The Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1986banned lead pipes - defining lead-free plumbing pipes ashaving not more than eight percent lead and plumbingsolder as having not more than 0.2 percent lead.
Public Law 100-572, the Lead Contamination Control
Act of 1988 (LCCA), amended the Safe DrinkingWater Act. The LCCA required the U.S. Environmen-tal Protection Agency to publish a list of lead-linedwater coolers (with manufacturer model number) andthe recall of these lead-lined water coolers and monetarycompensation by the manufacturer to schools for returnof the cooler. Schools were required to stop using thesecoolers immediately or to test the water for lead content.In conjunction with the LCCA, the EPA published Leadin School Drinking Water: A Manual for School Officials toDetect, Reduce, or Eliminate Lead in School DrinkingWater: The EPA stated that the goal of this documentwas to:
provide general information on the significance of leadin school drinking water and specifically its effects onchildren;
provide information on how to detect the presence oflead in school water and how to pinpoint its source;
provide advice on the steps to take to reduce or elimi-nate lead in school drinking water; and
provide information necessary to train school personnelin water sampling and remedial programs.
The document provided detailed instruction on how todevelop a school building plumbing profile and test for leadin the water system. Although testing lead in water was,and is, voluntary (unless the school is its own water suppli-er), the school community must be informed of the resultsof any testing which is performed. The State Department ofHealth is responsible for implementing lead in drinkingwater programs under the LCCA in New York State.
In 1952, Congress passed the Residential Lead-BasedPaint Hazard Reduction Act. Key elements of thisinclude: training and certification programs, developinglaboratory protocols, developing public education infor-mation, and developing health standards for exposure.
No Federal legislation requires testing schools for lead-based paint, soil, or dust.
State Legislation
The newest legislation in New York State whichaddresses the lead issue is the Lead Poisoning PreventionAct - Chapter 485 of the Laws of 1992 (amendment to theState Public Health Law). The principal thrust of the legis-lation involves mandated blood lead testing of all childrenunder age six by health care providers (§1370-c(2)). Anyelevated blood lead levels will he reported to the healthofficer of the health district in which the child resides(§1370-e) and to the State Department of Health for inclu-sion in a statewide registry of children with elevated leadlevels (§1370-a(2)(c)). A certificate of lead screening must
be provided to each child's parent or legal guardian follow-ing this mandated screening (§1370-c(3)). This certificateserves as proof that the child has been tested for lead. Eachchild care provider, public and private nursery school andpreschool licensed, certified, or approved by any State orlocal agency shall, prior to or within three months after ini-tial enrollment of a child under six years of age, obtain fromthe parent/legal guardian proof of this lead screening(§1370-d). Shoul.d the parent/legal guardian be unable topresent this proof, it is then the responsibility of the childcare provider, principal, teacher, owner or person in chargeof the nursery school or preschool, to provide informationon lead poisoning prevention. In addition, they are alsoresponsible for referring the family to their primary healthcare provider or the local health care authority for bloodlead level screening of the child (§1370-d(2)).
An environmental assessment of areas a child frequentswill be conducted by the State Department of Health forchildren with elevated blood lead levels in order to deter-mine the possible source of the child's lead poisoning andto prescribe methods to reduce and/or eliminate the source(§1373 (2)). This process could lead to an environmentalassessment of the school if the child's home does not appearto be the basis for the elevated blood lead level. Once theorigin of the child's lead contamination is determined, theState Department of Health, or its designee, is empoweredto order the elimination, confiscation, or recall of this leadsource. Potential causes of lead poisoning include lead-based paint, lead-contaminated soils, lead pipes supplyingdrinking water, lead-glazed tableware and china, crystal, orother consumer products.
There is nothing in the legislation that would require orallow a school to deny admission to a child under the age ofsix who has not had a blood lead test.
State Roles
The State Education Department provides informationto schools about current lead work standards and the sta-tus of lead legislation.
The State Department of Health is responsible foradministering, developing, and enforcing lead legisla-tion. The Department of Health is also the agencywhich identifies and assesses public health hazards.
IV. School Experiences
In 1990, the State Education Department and the StateDepartment of Health distributed the EPA's Lead in SchoolDrinking Water: A Manual for School Officials to Detect,Reduce, or Eliminate Lead in School Drinking Water to all pub-lic and nonpublic schools statewide. While the LCCA legis-lation does not require testing the school's drinking water
system, it does require that parents and staff be notified ofany and all testing results should the school decide to test.There is no reporting of school compliance efforts to test forlead in water coolers. However, in summer 199i the StateDepartment of Health surveyed the public schools in theState to determine what they had done in response to theEPA's recommendation. The Department of Health sentquestionnaires to 700 school districts and received 61 per-cent or 425 responses. The Department of Health found thefollowing from this survey.
Overall, the questionnaire results indicated that mostschool districts have completed assessments (85 percent ofthose reporting). Of the 5,682 water sample results reported,4,252 (27 percent) were above the current EPA lead indrinking water action level for schools (15 parts per billion).Approximately 67 percent of the districts reported at least onesample above this action level. In most cases, the school dis-tricts indicated that some sort of remedial action was initiat-ed.
The State Department of Health regulations for theLead Poisoning Prevention Act are not final. Therefore,school involvement is very limited at this time. One princi-pal in New York City, however, interpreted the law on hisown and sent out notices that children entering the schoolwould he required to show evidence of a lead blood testprior to starting school. A parent objected and challengedthe principal's position on the issue. Again, with no system-atic feedback from the schools, it is difficult to know how,when, and if schools are informing and educating parentsabout testing blood for lead.
One school district on Long Island, acting under com-munity pressure, has voluntarily removed lead-based paintfrom all of its school buildings. There are no State approvedlead abatement training programs, lead certification pro-grams, or lead abatement work protocol guidelines.
PESTICIDES
I. Problem
Pesticides, a diverse group of toxic chemicals, are widelyused in agricultural production, in factories and offices, inhomes and restaurants, and in schools. Schools, with theirkitchens and cafeterias, athletic fields and playgrounds,classrooms and offices, are regularly treated with a variety ofpesticides.26 An increasing body of scientific data on the
potentially harmful effects of pesticide exposure on peopleand the environment raises concern about the broad use ofthese toxic substances. The commonplace, widespread useof pesticides is both a major environmental problem and apublic health issue.26
II. Background
Pesticides are designed to poison and kill living organ-isms.26 Many insecticides work as nerve poisons. The activeingredients in pesticides are those which are specificallydesigned to kill, repel, or otherwise control the target pest.While the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)registers active ingredients, inert ingredients are not identi-fied on the product label, nor are they fully accounted forby the EPA. Although inert chemical identification is lack-ing, it has been reported that the inert chemicals in someproducts have the potential for causing serious healtheffects.25 Pesticides do not dissipate immediately followingapplication.26 In fact, some pesticides are designed toremain active over a period of time. As a result, residualamounts of pesticides may be detected for weeks andmonths following a pesticide application. Many schoolsroutinely apply pesticides for preventive purposes. Residualsmay he present for great lengths of time, especially insidebuildings away from sunlight and soil bacteria which mayassist in breaking down the pesticide.26
Currently, at least 50 different pesticide ingredients areapplied in school buildings and grounds throughout NewYork State. Students and staff may be exposed to pesticidesused in schools through inhalation, swallowing, or absorp-tion through the skin and eyes. Pesticide exposure cancause both acute and chronic health effects. Acute expo-sure indicators include irritation to eyes and throats, skinrashes, nausea, upper respiratory distress, and, in the mostextreme circumstance, death. According to Dr. MarionMoses, President of the Pesticide Education Center in SanFrancisco, California, organophosphate pesticides, such asdiazinon, durshan, and malathion, cause acute illnesses)2Chronic long-term health problems may include cancer,reproductive impairment, and neurological impairments.By the time chronic ailments become apparent, however, itmay be difficult to identify the specific pesticide involved.12The following chart illustrates some potential health effectsof some pesticides used in schools or on school grounds.26
. ,, ,.
,
.
'.-: jklaENTIAV5!".. .
,
:.- PESTI.' CMS -USED IN OOLS: 0 04 OM. ROUNDS :
'PESTICIDEMAIM NAME)
SAMPLETARGE'r PESTS HEALTItEFFEbTL
Chloropyrifos(Dursban)
Insecticide:
ants, termites, fleas,mosquitos, cockroaches
.
headache, nausea, dizziness,abdominal cramps, vision prob-lems, persistent weight loss, toxicpsychosis, convulsions
Bendiocarb(Ficam)
Insecticide:
ants, fleas, ticks, cockroaches,silverfish, crickets
diarrhea, muscle weakness, dizzi-ness, headache, blurred vision, sen-sory and behavioral disturbances,spasms, sweating
Acephate(Orthene)
Insecticide:
cockroaches, antsheadache, flu-like symptoms, possi-ble human carcinogen, reproduc-tive effects, interferes with nerveimpulse transmission
Cypermethrin(Demon)
Insecticide:
cockroaches, antsallergic dermatitis, flu-likesymptoms
MCPP(mecoprop )
Herbicide:
broadleaf weeds, e.g.,clover and dandelions
skin irritation, vomiting, uncon-sciousness, coughing, dizziness,sensory and behavioral distur-bances, spasms, sweating
Dicamha Herbicide:broadleaf weeds
skin irritation, vomiting, uncon-sciousness, coughing, dizziness,sensory and behavioral distur-bances, spasms, sweating
2,4-D Herbicide:
broadleaf weedsvomiting, diarrhea, anorexia,ulcers of the mouth and pharynx,damage to the liver, kidneys, andcentral nervous system
In 1991, State Attorney General Robert Abrams initiat-ed a statewide school survey and investigation into schoolpesticide use due to safety concerns associated with chil-dren's exposures to pesticides used in schools. Based on theinvestigation's findings, a report was developed entitled,Pesticides in Schools: Reducing the Risks.25
Based on this survey and investigation, 331 schools weresurveyed statewide. In this report, the Attorney General,Albany Medical Center, and the State Department ofHealth strongly encouraged schools to implement a seriesof recommendations, including initiation of a statewide
so liool integrated pest management policy to reduce the useof pesticides in schools.
An integrated pest management strategy does notinclude preventive or routine pesticide applications.Instead, it uses pest-specific pesticide control methods onlyif an actual pest problem exists, and then only as a last pos-sible resort with use of the least toxic formula available.Some schools have already voluntarily adopted integratedpest management strategies and are realizing the benefits ofreduced risks, reduced costs and positive publicity.
Pursuant to Governor Cuomo's 1990 Stare of the State
Message, an Interagency Task Force on Occupational Safe-ty and Health was created to assist in formulating policies,training, and procedures to achieve a safer and healthierworkplace. As a result of the work of this Interagency TaskForce, Executive Chamber Policy Memorandum 93:13, onintegrated pest management directed each State agencyand authority to establish an integrated pest managementprogram at selected sites. The program is to he phased-inover a period of five years during which time it will be eval-uated for its effectiveness in controlling pests and its eco-nomic impact.6 The New York State Office of General Ser-vices implemented an integrated pest management policyin 1992.34 This policy mirrors the pest management policyalready in use by the Federal General Services Administra-tion.
Integrated pest management programs are being initiat-ed nationwide. In October 1991, on a large scale, the SanDiego, California, schools agreed to implement a compre-hensive integrated pest management policy. In Maryland,the Montgomery County public school system adopted anintegrated pest management approach. It reduced its pesti-cide use by 90 percent between 1988 and 1990 and hasbecome a model for approximately 500 public schoolsthroughout Maryland. Dade County, Florida, the fourthlargest school system in the United States, has implement-ed an integrated pest management program with the goal ofeliminating all pesticide use in its public schools.
III. LegislationFederal laws governing pesticides pertain to the manu-
facturing and registration of chemicals used in pesticides.51New York State legislation is directed at both outside
and inside pestic:de application, notification, and certifica-tion. The New York State Department of EnvironmentalConservation is currently engaged in negotiated rule-mak-ing for inside building pesticide application and notifica-tion.
IV. Agency Roles
D New York State Department of EnvironmentalConservationRegulates and enforces activities relating to the sale, use,transport, storage, and disposal of pesticides. Requirespesticide applicator training and issues pesticide applica-tor certification.
New York State Department of HealthAssesses the potential risk for adverse health effects fromchemical - pesticide exposure and maintains a pesticidepoisoning registry.
1 New York State Department of LaborEnforces compliance with employee exposure keels,including pesticide exposure levels.
1 New York State Public Service CommissionResponds to complaints and questions concerning theuse of pesticides on utility rights-of-way.
1 New York State Education DeparnnentProvides information to schools regarding pesticideapplicator certification and integrated pest management.Cooperates with other State agencies.
V. School Experiences
Numerous incidents have occurred over the yearsinvolving the misapplication of pesticides in schools. Aparticularly costly incident occurred on October 27, 1992,when the Westchester County Department of Healthclosed the Eastchester High School after students and staffcomplained of nausea, headaches, eye irritation. and respi-ratory prohlems.26 The day before, an exterminator hadover-applied the insecticides resmethrin, chlorpyrifos, anddiazinon inside the school building. The building remainedclosed for three weeks. This one incident cost the schooldistrict an estimated $243,000.
Some schools in the State have begun implementingpest management programs designed to reduce the use ofpesticides. The Albany City School District's ThomasO'Brien Academy of Science and Technology recentlyimplemented "no-pesticide" pest management. It is work-ing so well that the school district may expand the pro-gram. In 1992, the Canajoharie Central School Districtadopted a "least toxic" pest management policy, with theultimate goal of eliminating all pesticide use. In 1991, theSchalmont School District in Schenectady County beganreplacing the chemical fertilizers, insecticides, and herbi-cides used to treat athletic fields with organic compost mix.In 1986, the Kenmore-Tonawanda School District ordereda moratorium on using pesticides at its 12 schools to deter-mine health and safety effects on the school district's10,000 students and teachers. Since then, the school dis-trict has continued to use "least toxic" pest managementpractices.
Adopted written policies, as well as involving the entireschool community, can help produce the most appropriate,acceptable, and least - toxic pest management approach.The Saranac Central School District reported that in 1991it informally adopted a working written policy pro% Mingthat pesticides shall be used only as a last resort, if othernonchemical and less toxic pest controls are proven inef-fective. The policy also provides for posting warning signs,various safety precautions, appropriate training for staff, andrecordkeeping.
RADON
I. Problem
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, as well asmajor national and international scientific organizations,have concluded that radon is a human carcinogen and con-stitutes a substantial health risk. Early concern in the 1980sabout indoor radon focused primarily on the hazard ofradon in the home. More recently, the EPA has conductedextensive research on the presence and easurement ofradon in schools. Initial report: from se those studiesprompted EPA Administrator \Villiam eilly in 1989 toissue a recommendation warning of the need to test thenation's schools for the presence of radon.47 Because indoorradon concentrations vary with building construction, ven-tilation characteristics, and the underlying soil and rock,the only way to determine it elevated radon concentrationsexist is to test.{
II. Background
Radon is a naturally-occurring colorless, odorless, andtasteless radioactive gas.4" It comes from the natural break-down (decay) of uranium which is found in soil and rock allover the United States.{? It travels through soil and entersinto buildings through cracks and other holes in the foun-dation. Eventually, it decays into radioactive particles(decay pioducrs) which become trapped in our lungs. Asthese particles decay, they release small bursts of radia-tion:0 This radiation can damage lung tissue and in timelead to lung cancer. EPA studies have found that radonconcentrations in outdoor air average about 0.4 picocuries
per liter (pCi/L) and about 1.3 pCi/1_ indoors. However,radon and its decay products can accumulate to much high-er concentrations inside a building.
Prolonged exposure to elevated radon concentiat ionscauses an increased risk of lung cancer. No other conditionor illness is known to be associated with radon exposur, atthis time. Like other environmental pollutants, there issome uncertainty about the magnitude of radon healthrisks. Of all the annual lung cancer deaths each scar, theEPA estimates that about 14,000 may have been related toradon. Although smoking is clearly the major cause of lungcancer, it is unclear how many lung cancers may be causedby the combined effects of radon exposure and smoking.47An individual's risk of developing lung cancer from breath-ing radon dc, ay products varies. A person's risk of contract-ing lung cancer from radon depends on three factor,: thelevel of radon; the duration of exposure; and the individ-ual's smoking habits. Smoking combined with radon is anespecially serious health risk.
It has been reported that children has e a greater riskthan adults t r certain types of cancer from radiation, kJ;there are currently no conclusive data on whether children.ire at a greater risk than adults from radon.{
The EPA has established an action level of 4 piC /1.based largely on the ability of current technology to reduceradon concentrations to that level or below. The exposureto a radon level of 4 piC/L over a Iifetime is eNt 10 beassociated with smoking four cigarettes per day. The follow-ing charts estimate radon risk to adults.'" Children may beat higher risk.
'RISKS FOR'SMOKERS
RADON LEVEL IF 1,000 PEOPLE WHOSMOKED WERE EXPOSED TO
THIS LEVEL OVER A LIFETIME.
THE RISK OF CANCERFROM RADON EXPOSURE
COMPARES TO:
20 pCi/L About 135 people couldget lung cancer.
4- 4-100 times the riskof drowning.
10 pCi/L About 71 people couldget lung cancer.
4- < 100 times the risk ofdying in a home fire.
8 pCi/L About 57 people couldget lung cancer.
4 pCi/L About 29 people couldget lung cancer.
4- ( 100 times the risk ofdying in an airplane crash.
2 pCi/L About 15 people couldget lung cancer.
< 4- 2 times the risk ofdying in a car crash.
1.3 pCi[1... About 9 people couldget lung cancer.
Average indoor radon level.
0.4 pCi/L About 3 people couldget lung cancer.
Average outdoor radon level.
' RADON; RISK IF YOU'VE NEVER SMOKED
RADON LEVEL IF 1,000 PEOPLE WHO NEVERSMOKED WERE EXPOSED TO
THIS LEVEL OVER A LIFETIME.
THE RISK OF CANCER FROMRADON EXPOSURE
COMPARES TO:
20 pCi/L About 8 people couldget lung cancer.
4- 4- The risk of being killedin a violent crime.
10 pCi/L About 4 people couldget lung cancer.
8 pCi/L About 3 people couldget lung cancer.
4- 4- 10 times the risk of dyingin an airplane crash.
4 pCi/L About 2 people couldget lung cancer.
4- E. -The risk of drowning.
2 pCi/L About 1 person couldget lung cancer.
4 4-The risk of dying in aborne fire.
1.3 pCifL Less than 1 person couldget lung cancer.
Average indoor radon level.
0.4 pCi/L Less than 1 person couldget lung cancer.
Average outdoor radon level.
From numerous radon studies conducted by the EPAthroughout the country, it has been found that many fac-tors contribute to the entry of radon gas into a school build-ing. Radon levels may vary from room to room within thesame school building. Factors which determine why someschools have elevated radon levels and others do not are:4'
the concentration of radon in the soil gas (sourcestrength) and permeability of the soil gas (gas mobility)under the school;
the structure and construction of the school building; and
the type, operation, and maintenance of the heating,ventilation, and air-conditioning system.
Depending on their design and operation, heating, ven-tilation, and air-conditioning systems can influence radonlevels in schools by:47
increasing ventilation (diluting indoor radon concentra-tions with outdoor air);
decreasing ventilation (allowing radon gas to build up);
pressurizing a building (keeping radon out); and
depressurizing a building (drawing radon inside).
The frequency and thoroughness of HVAC mainte-nance plays an important role in the control of radon lev-els. For example, if air intake filters are not periodicallycleaned and changed, this can significantly reduce theamount of outside air ventilating the inside of the building.Less ventilation allows radon to build up indoors. There aresome things which schools can do about radon, even beforetesting. For schools that have mechanical ventilation sys-tems, the strategy is to keep them operating and to havethem checked as frequently as needed to assure that theyare in good repair. Often that is all that is needed to keepthe radon level in the school well below acceptable limits.
III. Legislation
There are no Federal or State laws or regulations requir-ing schools to:
1) conduct radon tests;2) report any voluntary radon testing; or
notify the school community of any radon tests.
IV. Agency Roles
The New York State Department of Health is responsi-ble for monitoring, regulating, and setting standards forradiation. The agency provides technical assistance andconducts radiation studies.
The State Education Department is responsible for pro-viding informat ion to schools and assisting with resources,such as identifying available grant money for remediationand BOCES 1 lealth and Safety services.
V. School Experiences
Under an EPA grant, the State Department of Health isconducting radon tests in selected schools which are geo-graphically located where there is already evidence of highlevels of radon in homes. Approximately 60 public schoolbuildings (out of approximately 7,000 school buildings)have been tested by the State Department of Health forradon. Reports indicate that roughly 85 percent of therooms tested have less than 4 pCi/L, 14 percent havebetween 4 pCi/L and 20 pCi/L, and one percent of ther,Ans tested have greater than 20 pCi/L. A few rooms notoccupied by students, such as storage and crawl spaces, havemeasurements over 100 pCi/L.
The State Education Department, in January 1991, issuedRadon Detection and Control in New York State Schools: A Rec-ommended Program Guideline.33 The number of school dis-tricts or school buildings which have tested for radon isunknown. Additionally, testing results and/or mitigationactivities are also unknown. This is due to the fact thatschools are not required to report such information. Howev-er, an informal telephone survey to 29 BOCES Health andSafety Offices (serving 650 school districts) reported that 91school districts expressed interest in and initiated radon test-ing programs. (It is not known if testing was initiated by theprompting of the Department's Guidance Document, schoolinterest, or community interest.) Of these 91 districts, areported 22 school districts have radon levels which exceedthe EPA action level of 4 pCi/L. There is no information onif and/or how these districts have reduced their radon levels.There is no information on whether any mitigation effortsresulted in capital building project submissions to the Educa-tion Department, nor is any cost information available.
Many schools have informally stated their reluctance topursue radon testing for the following reasons.
I Schools are waiting for issuance of final Federal and/orState radon regulations. Schools do not want to have toretest and expend additional money for new radon test-ing.
II Schools realize that radon remediation and abatementmethods for elevated radon levels primarily may consistof operations and maintenance activities, such as caulk-ing, sealing foundation cracks, cleaning air filters, andbalancing the HVAC system. And unlike capital con-stniction projects, operations and maintenance activitiesdo not generate State Aid.
Many schools are concerned that the technology forabating radon in schools may be costly and may noteffectively lower the radon concentrations.
CONCLUSION
This paper has presented facts on school environmentalissues which form the comprehensive theme of schoolindoor and outdoor environmental quality. Specific recom-mendations associated with asbestos, radon, electromagnet-ic fields, lead, pesticides, indoor air quality, and hazardouswaste sites have been presented. However, only through theaffirmation of every child's right to an environmentally safeand healthy learning environment, as stated in the RegentsBill of Rights for Children, and of every child's and parent'sright-to-know about environmental health hazards in theschool environment, can these recommendations beachieved.
The State Education Department, through A New Com-pact for Learning and the Regents Bill of Rights for Children,must stress the responsibility of both public and nonpublicschools to maintain a safe, secure, and healthy school envi-ronment. The State Education Department must foster andfacilitate an atmosphere of interagency, school, andparental cooperation and collaboration to fulfill this goal.
NEXT STEPS
To carry out action on this background paper and its rec-ommendations, the following steps are proposed.
I) The Board of Regents will review the background paperon Environmental Quality in Schools and its recommenda-tions at the October 1993 meeting.
2) A Regents Environmental Quality Advisory Committeewill be established by December 1993 with appropriatecharges.
3) By February 1994, the Regents Advisory Committee willdevelop a draft policy affirming every child's right to anenvironmentally safe and healthy learning environmentand every parent's right-to-know about environmentalhealth hazards in the school environment and other keypolicy considerations.
4) At the March 1994 Board of Regents meeting, recom-mended School Environmental Quality Policies will hepresented for approval. The policy statements willinclude recommendations for legislation, regulation, andbudget requests.
REFERENCES CONSULTED
1. American Lung Association. (1992). Indoor Air Pollu-tion in the Office (Publication 1002).
2. Anne Arundel County Public Schook. (1990) IndoorAir Quality Management Program. Annapolis, MD.
3. Asbestos-Containing Materials in Schools; Final Ruleand Notice, Environmental Protection Agency, 40CFR Part 763 (Federal Register October 30, 1987).
4. Breathing Lessons: Problems of Indoor Air Quality.(1993, August). Public Employees Federation Health andSafety News.
5. Carra, J.S. (1993). Getting the Lead Out: EPA Actingto Prevent Childhood Lead Poisoning. EPA Chemicalsin Progress Bulletin, Volume 14, No.2. (PublicationEPA-745-N-93-001). Washington, DC.
6. Crotty, M.A. (1993). State of New York Executive Cham-ber Policy Memorandum 93:13: Integrated Pest Manage-ment (IPM) Program Implementation. Albany, NY.
7. Edison Electric Institute. (1992). A School Teacher's andAdministrator's Guide to Electric Magnetic Fields (Publi-cation 07-91-58). Washington, DC.
8. Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act(FIFRA), 7 U.S. Code sec 136 et seq.; 40 Code ofFed.Reg. parts 152-180.
9. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. (1991).Lead-Based Paint Fact Sheets. Springfield, IL.
10. King, J. (1992, December). The Toxicity of Fear. Anaddress on behalf of The National School BoardsAssociation to Lead Poisoning Prevention ConferenceCenters for Disease Control.
11. Melamed, D., (Ex.Ed.). (1993, July). Indoor Air Review,Volume III, No. 5.
12. Moses, Marion, President of the Pesticide EducationCenter, CA. (1993, June). Presentation at Integrated PestManagement (IPM) Training Program sponsored by NewYork State Governor's Office of Employee Relations.
13. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollu-tants; Asbestos NESHAP Revision; Final Rule, Envi-ronmental Protection Agency, 40 CFR Part 61 (Feder-al Register November 20, 1990).
14. New York State Department of Environmental Con-servation. (1992, May). 6 NYCRR Part 375: InactiveHazardous Waste Disposal Site Remedial Program.Albany, NY.
15. New York State Department of Environmental Con-servation. (1993, April). Inactive Hazardous Waste Dis-posal Sites in New York State. Albany, NY.
16. New York State Department of Environmental Con-servation. (1993, July). New York State HazardousWaste Site Remedial Plan. Albany, NY.
17. New York State Department of Health. (1990). LeadPoisoning in Children. (Publication 2501). Albany, NY.
18. New York State Department of Health. (1991). FactSheet: Electromagnetic Fields in Schools. Albany, NY.
19. New York State Department of Health. (1992). Elec-trontagnetic Field Survey at Williamsville Central SchoolDistrict, NY
20. New York State Department of Health. (1992). NewsRelease: Lead in Water Systems. Albany, NY.
21. New York State Department of Labor. (1992). Asbestos.Part 56 of Title 12 of the Official Compilation of Codes,Rules and Regulations of the State of New York.
22. New York State Department of Labor. (1993). A Guideto the Conduct of Asbestos Projects in New York State.(Publication DOSH 490). Albany, NY.
23. New York State Department of Law. (1988). LawnCare Pesticides: A Guide for Action. Albany, NY.
24. New York State Department of Law. (1991). ConsumerAlert: Chemicals in New Carpets Pose Potential HealthHazard. Albany, NY.
25. New York State Department of Law. (1991). The SecretIngredients in Pesticides. Albany, NY.
26. New York State Department of Law. (1993). Pesticidesin Schools: Reducing the Risks. Albany, NY.
27. New York State Department of Law. (1993). Electro-magnetic Field School Survey. A letter from AttorneyGeneral Robert Abrams to Chief Executive Officers ofState Electric Utilities.
28. New York State Department of Law. (1993). NewsRelease: Abrams Calls on Utilities to Measure Electro-Magnetic Fields Near Schools. Albany, NY.
29. New York State Department of Law. (1993). NewsRelease: Abrams Obtains Utilities' Pledge to MeasureElectromagnetic Fields Near Schools. Albany, NY.
30. New York State Education Department. (1976). SchoolSire Standards - Selection - Development. (Publication86-7945). Albany, NY.
31. New York State Education Department. (1977,reprinted 1985). Manual of Planning Standards. (Publi-cation 85-9390). Albany, NY.
32. New York State Education Department. (1987, Decem-ber). A Memo from Brian P. Walsh to District Superinten-dents, Superintendents of Public and Nonpublic Schools, andNew York City Board of Education on the Asbestos HazardEmergency Response Act. Albany, NY.
33. New York State Education Department. (1991, Janu-ary). A Memo from J. Francis O'Connor to DistrictSuperintendents, Superintendents of Public and Non-public Schools, and New York City Board of Educa-tion. Radon: A Recommended Program Guideline.Albany, NY.
34. New York State Office of General Services. (1992).Modern Pest Control Techniques Handbook: A General-ist's Guide to integrated Pest Management. Albany, NY.
35. New York State United Teachers. (1992). Indoor AirPollution. Albany, NY.
36. New York State United Teachers. (1993). NewsRelease: NYSUT Survey Shows School Buildings MayMake People Sick. Albany, NY.
37. Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation. (1992). YourGuide to Understanding Electric and Magnetic Fields.Syracuse, NY.
38. Nielsen, Ronald P. (1992). Indoor Air Pollution: Sourcesand In-House Correction. Albany, NY: Civil ServiceEmployees Association.
39. Nielsen, Ronald P. (1992). Heating, Ventilating, and AirConditioning Systems: Checklists for Building Managersand Supervisors. Albany, NY: Civil Service EmployeesAssociation.
40. Rapp, Doris. (1986). The Impossible Child: In School - AtHome. Buffalo: Practical Allergy Research Foundation.
41. Rapp, Doris. (1991). Is This Your Child ? Discovering andTreating Unrecognized Allergies. New York: Wm. Mor-row and Company.
42. Setterberg, F., & Shavelson, L. (1993). The Fight toSave Our Communities From Chemical Contamination.New York: Wiley.
43. Silverman, J. (1993, May). Indoor Air Hazards PoseSerious Threat to School Children, EPA Tells Con-gress. Indoor Air Review, p. 8.
44. Thomas, S. (1991, August). Trouble in the Air: Are OurPower Lines Killing Us ? Buffalo Magazine: Buffalo News.
45. United States Department of Health and Human Ser-vices: Centers for Disease Control. (1991). PreventingLead Poisoning in Young Children. Atlanta, GA.
46. United States Environmental Protection Agency.(1986). Radon Reduction Techniques for Detached Hous-es: Technical Guidance (Publication EPA 625/5-86-019 ). Washington, LX1
47. United States Environmental Protection Agency.(1993). Radon Measurements in Schools: Revised Edition(Publication EPA 402-R-92-014). Washington, DC.
48. United States Environmental Protection Agency.(1989). Lead in School Drinking Water (Publication El 'A570/9-89-001). Washington, DC.
49. United States Environmental Protection Agency.(1989). The ABCs of Asbestos in Schools. ( PublicationTS-799). Washington, DC.
50. United States Environmental Protection Agency.(1990). Managing Asbestos in Place: A Building Owner'sGuide to Operations and Maintenance Programs forAsbestos-Containing Materials. (Publication 20T-2003).Washington, DC.
51. United States Environmental Protection Agency.(1990). Environmental Hazards In Your School (Publica-tion 2DT-2001). Washington, DC.
52. United States Environmental Protection Agency.(1991). Building Air Quality: A Guide for Building Own-ers and Facility Managers (Publication 91.114). Wash-ington, DC.
53. United States Environmental Protection Agency.(1991, March). An Advisory to the Public on Asbestos inBuildings. Washington, DC.
54. United States Environmental Protection Agency.(1992). A Gtuae to Performing Reinspections Under theAsbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA).(Publication EPA 700/13-92/001). Washington, DC.
55. United States Environmental Protection Agency.(1992). Lead Poisoning And Your Children. (Publication800-8-92-0002). Washington, DC.
56. United States Environmental Protection Agency.(1992). A Citizen's Guide to Radon (Second Edition):The Guide to Protecting Yourself and Your Family FromRadon. (Publication 402-K92-001). Washington, DC.
57. United States Environmental Protection Agency.(1992). EMF in Your Environment: Magnetic Field Mea-surements of Everyday Electrical Devices. (Publication402-R-92-008). Washington, DC.
APPENDIX D: SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THE
ENVIRONMENTAL
AL1TY IN SCHOOLSREGENTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY IN SCHOOLS
ALBANY, NEW YORK MARCH 16, 1994
NEW YORK CITY MAY 12, 1994
CONTENTS
1. BACKGROUND 53
IL PUBLIC HEARINGS 54
III. PURPOSE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS 55
V. RECOMMENDATIONS 56
ATTACHMENTPersons Who Submitted Testimony at March 16, 1994, Public Hearingin Albany and at the May 12, 1994, Public Hearing in New York City... 63
I. BACKGROUND
Since 1988, the New York State Board of Regents hasdemonstrated' concern regarding environmental health andsafety issues. Most recently, in October 1993, the New YorkState Board of Regents reviewed a background paper onEnvironmental Quality in Schools. The paper detailed theeffects of some health and safety issues on students andschool personnel. .M a result, on October 14, 1993, theRegents established the Advisory Committee on Environ-mental Quality in Schools with the charge of developingpolicy recommendations for consideration by the Board.With Regent James Dawson of Peru and Regent SaulCohen of New Rochelle as cochairs, the Advisory Commit-tee membership includes representatives from the StateLegislature; other State agencies with responsibility forenvironmental or health matters; school districts, includingteacher union representatives, superintendents, districtsuperintendents, school boards, and building and grounds
superintendents; parents; and the New York City Mayor'sOffice.
In December 1993, the Advisory Committee met for thefirst time and explored potential policy issues on hazardouswaste, pesticides, asbestos, lead, indoor air quality, electro-magnetic fields, and radon. Again in January, March, April,and May of 1994, the Advisory Committee met to clarifyissues and concerns in the environmental health areas.
To assist in its deliberations, the Advisory Committeeconvened two public hearings: .
II The first public hearing was on March 16, 1994, in Room5A-B of the Education Building in Albany, New York.
The second public hearing was on May 12, 1994, in theauditorium of the Murry Bergtraum High School in NewYork City (Manhattan).
IL PUBLIC HEARINGS
The Education Quality in Schools public hearings hadthe following structure:
ALBANY PUBLIC HEARING (March 16, 1994)II Welcome and opening remarks
I Called to order at 11:00 a.m. and adjourned at 5:15 p.m.
I The Albany Public Hearing was moderated by the Advi-sory Committee cochairs, Regent James Dawson andRegent Saul Cohen
Testimony was presented within focused panel discus-sion as related to the environmental quality ofschools:
Hazardous Waste and PesticidesAsbestos and LeadIndoor Air QualityElectromagnetic Fields and RadonOverall Policies
To allow time for everyone who wished to speak, a 3-minute presentation schedule was imposed on eachtestifier, followed by a 15-minute discussion periodamong panelists and Advisory Committee members.
Time was allowed at the end of the hearing for indi-viduals to testify who had not preregistered to speak.
NEW YORK CITY PUBLIC HEARING(May 12, 1994)
) Welcome and opening remarks
I Called to order at 1:00 p.m. and adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
I Testimony and discussion were moderated by the Adviso-ry Committee cochair, Regent James Dawson
Testimony was presented on the following topicsrelated to the environmental quality of schools:
AsbestosElectromagnetic FieldsHazardous WasteIndoor Air QualityLeadPesticidesRadonOverall Policies
I Following each group of five testifiers, there was a dis-cussion period between testifiers and Advisory Commit-tee members.
) Time was allowed at the end of the hearing for individu-als to individuals to present further testimony.
(See the Attachment for a listing of persons who pre-sented testimony at the Albany and New York City Pub-lic hearing.)
III. PURPOSE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
Education reform, as envisioned in A New Compact forLearning and the Regents Bill of Rights for Children,should include policy directions on maintaining safe,secure, and healthy school environments. Increasing con-cern about the effects of environmental conditions onhuman health and knowledge of children's increased sus-ceptibility to certain conditions have resulted in parents,school personnel, and public officials raising questionsrelated to the quality of the school environment.
The Regents Advisory Committee on EnvironmentalQuality in Schools invited testimony from concerned andinterested parties at two public hearings to discuss theeffects of health and safety issues on environmental qualityin schools. Environmental issues that were addressed in thehearing included: asbestos, electromagnetic fields andradon, hazardous waste and pesticides, indoor air qualityand lead. Testifiers were asked to consider recommenda-tions for policy action in their remarks.
Specifically, testifiers were asked to consider the follow-ing policy concerns which affect each environmental con-dition:
Schools will provide written information, as preparedand distributed by appropriate agencies, to children andtheir legal guardians about the health and safety effectsof environmental issues and also serve as a n)le modelfor environmentally responsible behavior.
I The Regents will affirm every child's right to an envi-ronmentally safe and healthy learning environment. asstate in the Regents Bill Rights for Children.
The Regents will affirm every child's, parent's, andemployee's right-to-know about environmental healthhazards in the school environment.
I The State Education Department will work with otherState agencies to develop a single set of guidelines relat-ing to environmental health and safety issues in schoolsand update appropriate materials as needed.
I Schools shall report environmental health and safetyincidents and actions to the State Education Depart-ment, as defined and prescribed by the Commissioner ofEducation.
II The State Education Department will analyze and dis-seminate information or otherwise act appropriatelyconcerning health and safety incidents and actionsreported by schools.
Environmental policies, requirements, and guidelinesshould apply to both public and nonpublic elementary,middle, and secondary schools.
State Aid shall be available to schools for environmen-tal health and safety operations and maintenance activi-ties, without diminishing State Aid available for instruc-
iScZols shall use, when and where possible, the least,known and available hazardous and/or toxic substancesfor instructional and building purposes.
I Where and when occupational safety and health rulesapply to employees, students in similar activities shouldbe afforded similar appropriate safety and health protec-tions.
I The Commissioner of Education will he granted theauthority to withdraw a Certificate of Building Occupancyin schools not in compliance with environmental laws andregulations ur in buildings that present a health hazard, asdetermined by the State Department of I lealth.
IV. RECOMMENDATIONS
Individuals presented comments and, in most cases, sub-mitted written testimony related to the public policy con-cerns listed above. Following is a summary of major recom-mendations from the oral and written testimony for theAlbany and New York City Public Hearings which is cate-gorized within the areas of asbestos, electromagnetic fields,hazardous waste, indoor air quality, lead, pesticides andoverall policies:
ASBESTOS
State-level Focus:
D Exercise caution in enacting new regulations since ade-quate laws, rules, and regulations currently exist ghataddress asbestos containment and removal.
Explore State waiver process for nonrepairahle floor tilesto he consistent with the standards being used in NewYork City.
II Provide fiscal relief to schools in the area of asbestosfloor tiles.
ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS
School-level Focus:
P Plan new construction away from fixed EMF fields.
I Use existing space already exposed to fixed EMF fieldsonly intermittently, if at all.
Keep adequate distance between people and the EMFsgenerated by electrical equipment; of particular concernis the design of work spaces in which students and staffuse computers.
P Reduce exposure to EMFs when this can be accom-plished at no great expense or inconvenience by practic-ing "prudent avoidance."
Remove EMF exposure from the school vicinity.
II Require students to maintain a distance of, at least, 40inches from the hack and sides of video display ter.ninals.
State-level Focus:
Recognize the current limitations of scientific knowl-edge about electromagnetic fields and their healtheffects.
I Use restraint in establishing any policy on EMF expo-sure in light of the lack of concrete evidence to supporta policy direction.
Establish safe EMF exposure levels for children.
HAZARDOUS WASTE
School-level Focus:
Address hazardous waste management with a "leas,:toxic" approach.
I Develop a removal and prevention plan for hazardouswaste.
I Prohibit the use of products that must be managed ashazardous waste on disposal.
I Exercise care in the siting and design of new construc-tion and renovation relating to potential hazardous con-ditions. The State Education Department should reviewan environmental assessment report in approving schoolplans and specifications.
State-level Focus:
I Include the concept of "mutual aid," whereby school dis-tricts, on a township, city/county, or regional basis,would provide for emergency accommodation of stu-dents from participating mutual aid districts affected by acatastrophic environmental incident.
P Coordinate and unify hazardous waste programsappropriate State agencies.
11 Explore funding sources for hazard mitigation in schools.
among
INDOOR AIR QUALITY
School-level Focus:
Educate students, staff and parents as to the importanceof good indoor air quality and its effect on individuals,i.e., toxic chemicals, carbon monoxide emissions frombuses, fragrances worn by individuals, etc.
Train school nurses to identify and to document envi-ronmental health problems exhibited by children.
Develop an Indoor Air Quality plan, including engi-neering details of the heating, ventilation and air-condi-tioning systems; a detailed log book of the maintenanceschedule for the system; and a list of all the cleaningproducts and pesticides used in the schools. (The logbook should be available to State agencies, school per-sonnel, and parents.)
1 Designate a person in each school to be 1-sponsible forthe on-site management of an indoor air quality planand the logging and reporting of problems to the localschool board.
Establish a "right-to-know" policy for parents and chil-dren regarding the materials, chemicals and other sub-stances children are exposed to in school, particularly inthe classroom.
) Establish indoor air quality committees, comprised ofparents, students, teachers, and staff, to monitor schoolhealth and safety concerns.
) Change the practice of sacrificing indoor air quality forenergy conservation.
) Investigate every complaint of poor air quality, with thecomplaint and results fully documented.
I Provide training to custodial and maintenance staff toensure the proper maintenance of heating, ventilating,and air - conditioning systems.
I Protect school personnel and students with chemicalsensitivities from the harassing behavior of others incases where chemical sensitive individuals are beingrequested with special equipment or rooms to reducetheir discomfort or level of exposure to toxic fumes.
Ensure for better design, construction, operatio,n andmaintenance practices in school facilities.
I Require that power exhati,t systems are maintained toensure for proper ventilation by encouraging the use ofauxiliary air filtration devices, particularly in areas whereoutdoor air quality is poor.
I Establish procurement policies to ensure the reductionof hazardous product and chemical use in schools.
I Establish school-community management teams toreview school indoor air quality practices.
State-level Focus:
1 Encourage interagency cooperation around indoor airquality issues.
) Establish regulations, guidelines and other administra-tive procedures that
Ensure that local indoor air quality problems areresolved.
Focus on children's physical and developmentalneeds.
Focus on cleaning product use in schools.
Mandate school districts to maintain an updated list ofall Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) in a centrallocation for the public to review. The MSDS should befor cleaning products, art supplies, science departmentchemicals, swimming pool chemicals, and all otherchemicals used in the district.
Expand guidelines to address building/classroom tem-perature, lighting, and humidity.
Eliminate smoking from all school buildings, grounds,and events.
Require training on Indoor Air Quality for all schoolpersonnel.
Emphasize child air quality tolerance criteria, mainte-nance and cleaning chemicals/solvents, and con-struction and remodeling.
Ensure that districts involved in renovations or newconstruction consider air quality in the building, thatadministrative and maintenance staff are trained inissues of indoor air quality, and that regular mainte-nance programs are established for ventilation sys-tems.
Recognize specific standards established by credibleFederal or State Agencies who are authorized by law toestablish such standards when drafting regulations.
) Establish standards on air quality for children.
I Exact penalties and award compensation for childreninjured due to hazardous exposure.
II Develop a directory to identify schools with reportedindoor air quality problems for administrative follow-up.
D Develop an Indoor Air Quality Management Manual.
1 Update the Planning Standard Guide to incorporate thelatest technologies and standards.
D Designate one school in the State to serve as a model forpolicy implementation.
Communicate and collaborate with other State agenciesand private sector organizations to avoid duplication ofeffort and effective implementation of appropriateactions.
Support N.Y.S. Assembly bill 3603 allowing for theimplementation of indoor air quality policies, and N.Y.S.Assembly bill 7139-D eliminating the use of tobacco inschools.
I Establish an Indoor Air Quality Task Force to establishand implement a comprehensive facilities maintenanceprogram, educate school officials about the risks tohealth and academic potential posed by poor indoor airquality, and conduct routine on-site environmentalassessments. The Task Force would be comprised of par-ents, teachers, community representatives, and consul-tants with an expertise in environmental assessments.
LEAD
School-level Focus:
I Allow the public to have easy and timely access to infor-mation on the lead problem, particularly in the NewYork City public schools.
I Conduct thorough lead paint testing on playgroundequipment and soil.
D Test all sources of drinking and cooking water for leadand remediate substandard conditions.
Couple asbestos removal with lead abatement.
D Prevent situations that exacerbate paint deterioration.
Follow safety standards for lead-based paint abatementin all New York State schools.
Place a high priority on school building maintenanceand make school custodians accountable for the results.
I Remove lead which poses a risk, and only if it poses arisk.
I Eliminate unhealthy practices affecting children, e.g.,exposing children to dust from poor paint removal prac-tices.
Educate parents, teachers, students, and administratorsregarding lead poisoning prevention.
I Abate the lead hazards this summer when fewer childrenwill be in schools.
I Prevent situations that exacerbate paint deterioration,such as leaky roofs and plumbing and structural damage.
I Couple asbestos removal with lead abatement.
State-level Focus:
I Urge the passage of N.Y.S. Senate hill 5159-B andAssembly bill 7964-A, the worker certification andtraining bills, to set safety and consumer protection ',tan-dards for lead clean-up.
Direct the State Education Department to take a promi-
nent role in educating parents, teachers, administratorsand children on lead poisoning prevention.
D Provide adequate funding for lead programs in schools.
I Mandate that new students, six years of age and under,be tested for the presence of lead in their blood and thatthose results be presented with required immunizationsrecords.
I Follow a thorough assessment of the scope of the prob-lem in abatement policy and use available emergingtechnologies to deal with the problem in a cost effectivemanner.
I Urge the passage of State Senate Bill 5159-B whichwould set safety and consumer protection standards forlead cleanup.
I Urge the State Legislature to use the current New YorkCity Health Code requirements as the basis for statewidelegislation.
Establish universal screening for lead-levels for children.
PESTICIDES
School-level Focus:
Establish effective Integrated Pest Management (1PM)programs.
"Integrated Pest Management means an economicaland environmentally sensitive approach to pest man-agement which .lies on a combination of biological,chemical, cultural and mechanical practices to man-age pest populations by the most effective means toprevent unacceptable levels of pest activity and dam-age, with the least hazard to people, property and theenvironment." N.Y.S. Senate bill 1092-B and N.Y.S.Assembly bill 4774-C
"Integrated Pest Management means an economicaland environmentally sensitive approach to pest man-agement which relies on a combination of biological,chemical, cultural and mechanical practices to man-age pest populations by the most effective means toprevent unacceptable levels of pest activity and dam-age with the least hazard to people, property and theenvironment." N.Y.S. Professional ApplicationsCoalition
"IPM is an effective and environmentally sensitiveapproach to pest management that relies on a combi-nation of common-sense practices. IPM program usecurrent, comprehensive information on the life cycleof pests and their interactions with the environment.This information, in combination with available pestcontrol methods, is used to mange pest damage bythe most economical means, and with the least possi-
ble hazard to people, proper.y, and the environment.IPM programs take advantage of all pest managementoptions possibly including, but not limited to, thejudicious use of pesticides." U.S. Environmental Pro-tection Agency
Provide children with opportunities for direct experi-ences in natural, toxic-free environments on a dailybasis.
Use only least toxic pesticides, those that have provento be safe with children. And adopt a strong, simple,common sense pest control policy urging use of leasttoxic methods, in consultation w ith informed parents,teachers, and interested organizations.
P Ecologically balanced programs may be more appropri-ate, because "least toxic" can he misused and misinter-preted. Factors associated with the ecologically balancedapproach include applicator training, facility manage-ment training, and the development of programs to dis-seminate information on specific chemical data.
Establish an "informed consent policy" where parentsand the community are notified of what substances arebeing sprayed in and around schools.
P Schools should develop a system of posting informationand schedules to notify the public when pesticide spray-ing is occurring.
1 Ensure that only certified applicators apply pesticides inschools.
P Prevent the storage of pesticides on school property.
P Require that new school construction he pest-proof.
Train school personnel in Integrated Pest Managementprinciples.
Ensure that individuals performing pest control inschools are experts and are familiar with food operationsand pest control management.
Use pesticide spray treatment only if children are notpresent in school.
State-level Focus:
Develop standardized bidding language that can he easi-ly used by all school districts on Integrated Pest Manage-ment process.
1 Amend current health and safety regulations to ensure ahealthy school environment tOr children.
Provide schools with additional funding and technicalassistance to implement an effective pest managementsystem. ( RO('ES have health and safety officers whocould assist school districts in developing such a process.The State Department of I lealth has training on Inte-gi at C1.1 Pest Nlanagement on video cassette, at no cost.)
I Direct the State Education Department to develop acompendium of successful programs which could heshared with others.
I Establish working relationships among State agencies tocollaborate on problems.
Work with pest management experts before proposingpesticide treatment legislation.
RADON
School-level Focus:
Test and fix buildings for radon.
State-level Focus:
I Conduct studies and establish administrative proceduresthat
Focus on determining the extent of the problem inNew York State schools.
Include the evaluation of all results and cost effectivestrategies and technologies in radon abatement.
Verify that schools located in areas with radon levels, asestablished by the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, have conducted testing and assessment:;, andinvestigate whether those schools have implementedmitigati -n/abatement procedures.
Provide funds to schools to mitigate radon problems.
I Encourage schools to participate in the Drew Universi-ty/New Jersey/Internet Radon Evaluation Programinvolving elementary students in a survey of radon levelsat schools.
OVERALL POLICIES
School-level Focus:
Develop procedures to address emergency situationswhere children are exposed to dangerous substances.
Rethink the practice of first dismissals being custodialand maintenance personnel since many building havefallen into disrepair due to the practice.
Include parents in policy discussions on environmentalquality.
0 Construct schools with nonporous, durable, cleanablematerials, whenever possible. For example, materialssuch as terrazzo floors and masonry walls, are less likelyto emit volatile chemicals than carpeting. Avoid short-sighted economies in school construction which, in thelong run, may cost more in terms of rectify ing environ-mental quality inadequacies.
Improve school maintenance programs which couldpotentially decrease costs for maintenance staff and/orsupplies.
) Support local ordinances and increased funding forhealth and safety standards.
Notify school personnel, students and their families ofpotential environmental hazards; the media could beused for such purposes.
Construct new facilities that meet stringent health andsafety requirements.
) Identify and address classroom environmental problems,e.g., use water-based markers instead of chalk; avoidrugs; and keep children away from duplication machin-ery.
Educate teachers regarding environment-1 illness andwhat can and cannot he done in specific situations.
Designate a person, a student advocate, to assist inimplementing the program, to identify problems and towork with parents and other students.
Respond more quickly to situations in which hazardsexist to a child's health.
II Prohibit the use of products that require the use of pro-tective gear for safe use.
Avoid ing products for which Current IntelligenceBulletins (NIOSH) or Permissible Exposure Limits(OSHA) has been issued, except when absolutely neces-sary, and even then, only in the presence of as few peo-ple as possible.
Provide accessible educational opportunities for childrenwith chemical sensitivities, in the most cost-effectivemanner.
Ensure that only competent professionals perform envi-ronmental quality reviews.
Establish school-based environmental managementteams which would include parents as fully participatingmembers. These teams should he required to identify,monitor and coordinate efforts to eliminate health haz-ards, and should also ensure that occupational healthand safety rules are uniformly enforced.
0 Establish a system of school-based environmental man-agement which would reinforce the accountability andparent involvement tenets of A New Compact for Learn-ing.
II Use funding for environmental quality activities differ-ently and for better purposes.
Link environmental concerns to construction materialsand poor pra t k es.
Attribute environmental problems in schools and com-tnunitjes to political patronage,mage, corrupt i( in, fraud, graft,
kickbacks, incompetence, and the bureaucracy.
I Emphasize the importance of plaster, paint, and timelymaintenance in addressing environmental concerns.
I Decentralize the administration of school maintenanceteams in New York City.
) Ensure that only non-toxic supplies are used which haveno offensive odors or chemicals.
) Provide children with healthy food from healthy farms.
) Inform parents with chemically sensitive children of theoptions regarding special education classifications.
I Encourage joint labor-minagement safety committees atthe school-level to address environmental quality prob-lems.
State-level Focus:
11 Establish regulations, guidelines, and other administra-tive procedures that
Require schools to survey all instructional buildingsas part of a total environmental audit of school struc-tures.
Address emergency situations where children areexposed to dangerous substances.
Protect the health and safety of children who alreadyoccupy, or who will occupy, the school buildings dur-ing construction and renovation.
Require that all construction, remodeling, andrestoration of any schools or learning facilities, bescheduled during vacations and holidays.
Mandate that schools use least toxic materials in andaround schools.
Develop process by which children, parents, andschool personnel can file complaints, if they believethat the school district is in violation of State regula-tions.
Provide guidance to school districts so that students,parents, and school personnel have a clear under-standing of what constitutes a safe and healthy envi-ronment.
I )esignate organizational units or individuals who willhe responsible and accountable for ensuring thatschools comply with, and stay in compliance with,adopted policies.
Develop mechanisms to adjudicate disputes arisingfrom differing interpretations of adopted policies.
Enact strict regulations and legislation and appropri-ate administrative procedures, with civil and crimit,a1penalties, for nonmaintenace of the school environ-ment.
Foster the development of holistic facilities plans thataddress environmental issues as part of ongoing main-tenance and repair operations.
Identify and evaluate school environmental hazards.
Develop a process for reporting problems by employ-ees and students.
Ensure timely follow-up after the problem is reported.
Apply to all school levels.
Require school districts to establish environmentalmanagement plans which include parents in thelong-term decision-making processes.
Allow building-specific plans to address particularproblems.
Require local education agencies to establish school-based environmental management teams comprisedof parents and school building administrators to iden-tify, monitor and coordinate efforts to eliminatehealth hazards.
Require licensing and certification for environmentalhealth and safety workers.
I Encourage interagency cooperation to address the envi-ronmental needs of children.
D Develop and disseminate information on avoiding envi-ronmental problems.
Reexamine current school building codes.
D Develop a "train-the-trainer" program to educate schoolpersonnel and other individuals on selecting the mostsensible environmental options for their needs.
Establish clearinghouse and data base on environmentalquality issues for distribution to schools.
Establish a State Office on Environmental Quality torefine policies; to implement programs; to provide tech-nical advice; to prepare and distribute informational andinstructional materials; and to provide needed in-servicetraining.
II Establish a permanent State Advisory Committee onEnvironmental Quality in Schools to research environ-mental problems; to provide suggestions for regulationsand planning; to serve as a resource for school districtswith information on problems and ideas for remediation;to develop and implement comprehensive policies toensure the health and safety of students and school per-sonnel; and to assist the Regents and the State Office ofEnvironmental Quality in designing implementationstrategies and developing materials for addressingschool-based environmental hazards. The advisory com-mittee should represent all parties affected by or interest-ed in school environmental quality, including thoseindividuals who are already represented on the Regents
Advisory Committee State agencies; the State legis-lature; school districts and BOCES; statewide educa-tional organizations representing teachers, administra-tors, rural schools, school business officials and buildinasand grounds superintendents; parents; and the New YorkCity Mayor's office but also be expanded to includeother important viewpoints and expertise,i.e., environ-mental and public health organizations, chemically sen-sitive individuals, and technically experts drawn fromuniversities or other research institutions who are versedin such issues as integrated pest management and theabatement of toxic contamination in buildings.
II Dedicate State aid funding to address environmentalproblems and maintenance.
Support legislation with appropriate funding to ensurehealth and safety standards.
I Establish "right-to-know" on environmental conditionsin schools for students, parents and school personnel.
Extend occupational to students safety and health rulesthat currently apply for employees. However, studentsafety and health safeguards should be adjusted as to age,individual chemical sensitivity and preexisting condi-tions.
Concern over extending the occupational right-to-knowrequirements to students, parents or their legal guardianswhich could become a burden on schools and school dis-tricts.
Be mindful of the costs involved in implementing newpolicies and regulations on lead, radon, and indoor airquality as well as requiring schools to perform capitalconstruction and renovation projects when schools arenot in session. It may be more feasible to isolate thework areas from the building occupants to prevent expo-sure.
Generate a list of products that school districts andarchitects should avoid using.
D Attention . Mould be focused on rural school districtsthat may no have the maintenance staff to performdetailed environmental quality procedures.
I Allow local school districts, in conjunction withBOCES Safety/Risk Management office, to resolve envi-ronmental issues in their districts, with the State role ofoffering advice and assistance rather than issuing regula-tions.
Focus on enforcement of existing rules and regulations,and avoid making new rules and regulations.
Establish a task force to inspect all schools, to identifyareas of noncompliance, and to issue directives for com-pliance, while, at the same time, providing technicaland financial assistance to such schools.
I Adopt the principle that there are no safe levels of expo-sure to carcinogens and that their introduction intoschools or the failure to remove them from the schoolenvironment is unacceptable.
Update schools about the safest, least-disruptive, mosteffective way of eliminating a given hazard.
0 Publish user-friendly environmental heal.:h and safetymanuals suitable for use by all members of the schoolcommunity.
Develop or assist in developing, training and informa-tion materials for administrators, teachers, custodialworkers, parents, and other community members.
Foster information sharing between districts, by establish-ing a statewide school environmental quality data basegiving districts the opportunity to teach each other.
I Include unions in the developing an action plan:
I Post visible warning signs at the site of pesticide or her-bicide spraying.
0 Make explicit the roles for various agencies.
Provide separate and targeted resources to implementany new initiative requiring significant expense.
I Gather, analyze, and disseminate information concern-ing environmental hazards.
Establish licensing and certification requirements forenvironmental health and safety workers.
Establish an information exchange around worker prac-tices, abatement, among others.
I Ensure that competent professionals evaluate eachbuilding as to health and safety standards.
D Allow the Commissioner of Education to withdraw anexisting certificate of occupancy for environmental healthviolations. The New York City Board of Educationexpressed concern that such a regulation would result inconfusion, duplication and disruption at the local level.
I Direct the State Education Department to establishguidelines to identify and evaluate school environmentalhazards by providing schools the safest, least-disruptive,most cost-effective way to eliminate a given hazard.
Require the use of international environmental manage-ment criteria, as developed under the auspices of theInternational Organization for Standardization.
Use independent auditors to evaluate school environ-mental health and safety practices.
II Require all schools to generate and maintain an envi-ronmental handbook, including all investigatory andremedial action.
D Provide more equitable funding for New York City.
Support U.S. Senate bill 1614, "Better Nutrition andHealth for Children Act," to provide $2 million to assistschools in purchasing organically grown foods.
ATTACHMENT
LIST OF PERSONS SUBMITTING TESTIMONYAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITYIN SCHOOLS PUBLIC HEARINGSAlbany, New York Public Hearing (March 16, 1994)
Timothy Almeida, New York, State Association forSuperintendents of Buildings and Grounds
Audubon Council of New York State,National Audubon Society
Dawn Aune, Parent
Monica Aune, Student
Atom Avery, Student
Loretta Avery, Parent
Annie Berthold-Bond, Green Alternatives forHealth and Environment
Judy Bertsche, Vice President, Westport PTO
Lucy Billings, Bronx Legal Services
Yael Bloom, NY Public Interest Research Group(NYPIRG)
Pamela Botway, Parent
Wendy Brasure, Teacher, Wilson Central School District
Michael Buccigrossi, United States EnvironmentalProtection Agency
Mary Anne Byrne, Parent
Camilla Calhoun, Westchester PTA
David 0. Carpenter, Dean, University at Albany
Terry Chase, Parent
Innonja Chelakian, Teacher
Diana Combs, Greenworking Coalitions for the Planet
James Cross, District Superintendent,Cattaraugus-Allegany-Erie-Wyoming BOCES
Liz Cusack, Green Schools, Inc.
David Daignault, Safety Officer, Onondaga-CortlandMadison BOCES
Doris Delaney, P.R.O.T.E.C.T.
Angela De Vito, Long Island Occupational andEnvironmental Health Center
The Honorable Thomas P. Di Napoli,Member of the New York State Assembly
Mary Ellen Dowling, Health Systems Agency ofNortheastern New York
Marilyn DuBois, New York State DepartmentEnvironmental Conservation
Bryna hill, New York Coalition for Alternatives toPesticides
Alice Farber, Art Teacher
Elsa Ford, Chair, Brentwood /Bay Shore Breast CancerCoalition
Peggy Francisco, Parent
Tracy Frisch, New York Coalition for Alternatives toPesticides
Paul Giardina, United States EnvironmentalProtection Agency
Lin Ramsey Golash, CNYCOSH
Cherie L. Griffith, Parent and Teacher
Elizabeth Gundlich, Chair, South Country PTA
Ashok Gupta, Senior Energy Analyst, NaturalResources Defense Council
Jeffrey Hahn, Superintendent, Laurens CentralSchool District
Leon Hall, New York State Electric and Gas Corporation
Jackiette Hicks, Parent
Edwina Hill, Parent
Thomas Hobart, Jr., President, New York StateUnited Teachers
Geraldine Hogan, Fulton IAQ Task Force
Ken Hooper, New York State Electric and Gas Corporation
Jane Howat, Vice President, Congers Elementary PTA
Peter lwanowicz, American Lung Association
Thomas Jerram, Thomas Associates, P.C.
Margaret Jungquist, Teacher
Colin Kaufman, Esq.
Richard Kaufman, Chappaqua PTA EnvironmentalCommittee
Alice Kaswan, Berle, Kass, and Case
Galen Kirkland, Executive Director, Advocates forChildren of New York
Donna Knapp, Teacher, Vestal Central School District
Bette Koch, Parent
Norman Koslofsky, Superintendent, WestportCentral School District
Louise Kosta, PENN-YORK HEAL
Denise Laino, Parent
Arthur Lange, Orange-Ulster BOCES
Robert Lavery, State Education Department
The Honorable Mimi Levin Lieber, Member Nell YorkState Board of Regents
Amy Linden, Chief Executive for School Facilities,New York City Board of Education
LIST OF PERSONS SUBMITTING TESTIMONY
March 16, 1994 Continued
Lynn Lyons, Fulton IAQ Task Force
Linell Machold, Parent, Hazardous Waste Director SUNYUtica/Rome
Carol Madonna, Parent
Jonathan Madonna, Student
John Martin, Student
Nancy Martin, Parent
Frank A. Mauro, Superintendent, Brentwood Union FreeSchool District
Alan R. McCartney, Superintendent, VoorheesvilleCentral School District
William J. McDonald, Superintendent, Floral Park-Bellerose Union Free School District
Marilyn Mohr, Parent
Brenda R. Muller, Former Teacher, Rochester CitySchool District
National Audubon Society, Audubon Council ofNew York
Alexander Nossek, First Option Regular Education(EO.R.E.)
James J. O'Connell, New York State Council ofSchool Superintendents
Brandon Oghunugafor, Student
Candice Oghunugafor, Student
Fanny OgbunugatOr, Parent
Donna Osborne. Fulton IAQ Task Force
David Ow lett, Cattaraugus-Allegany BOCES
Glen Patrick, Disabled Teacher
Gene Piasecki, Fulton IAQ Task Force
Peter Pirnie, Cayuga-Onondaga BOCES
Anne Rabe, Executive Director, Citizens EnvironmentalCoalition
Kara Lynn Reed, Middle School Counselor
Carol Rinere, Genesee-Livingston-Steuben WyomingBOCES
Ken Scallon, American Lung Association
Walter D. Schroeder, New York State ProfessionalApplicators Coalition
Donna E. Seymour, Potsdam PTA Safety Committee
Anne M. Sheehan, Parent, Executive Editor,The Chatham Courier
Cheryl Shaw, Teacher, Wilson Central School District
William Shine, Superintendent, Great NeckPublic Schools
Donald Singer, New York State Federation of SchoolAdministrators
Marilyn Sweeney, Parent
Linda Thurlon, School Employee
Domenick Uzzi, New York State Federation ofSchool Administrators
Gary Van Valkenhurgh, New York State PestControl Association
Virginia D. Weeks, M.D.
Christopher Wendt, Board President, Wantagh Union'-ee School District
Westport Central School District
Western Now York Council on Occupational Safety andHealth
Rodney Whalen, New York State United Teachers
Mary Ellen White, Health and Safety Committee,Albany City School District
Irene Ruth Wilkenfeld, Safe Schools, Granger, IN.
Wayne Williams, Superintendent, William FloydUnion Free School District
Steve Willner, Principal, South Country Central Schools,Frank P. Long Intermediate School
Albin Winckler, Spouse
Patricia Winckler, Teacher
Michael A. Wolfson, M.D., Central New YorkOccupational Health Clinical Center
Eileen Zamhetti, M.D., Advisory Council onEnvironmental Conservation o. Scarsdale
NEW YORK, NEW YORK, PUBLIC HEARING(May 12, 1994)
Linda C. Aniello, Parent
Philip Berns, Bronx Legal Services
Dan Dickerson, Director, New York City Board ofEducation Pest Control
Mary DiServio, Teacher, Murry Bergtraum High School
Michelle Goldberg, Parent
The Honorable Howard Gi,lden, President,Borough of Brooklyn
Ashok Gupta, Senior Energy Analyst, NaturalResources Defense Council
Catherine I lughes, Legislative Advocate, NY PublicInterest Research Group (NYPIRG)
William S. Kerhel, American Industrial I lygieneAssociation
Galen Kirkland, Executive Director, Advocates forChildren of New York
Amy Linden, Chief Executive for School Facilities,New York City Board of Education
Marta Milchman, Environmental Chair, Long IslandCoalition for Alternatives to Pesticides
Mothers and Others For A Livable Planet, New York,New York
Martin Rosenman, Teacher, Murry BergtraumHigh School
Lydia Saltzman, Parents Against Lead in Schools
Alan Stieb, Concerned Citizen
Edward Swoszowski, Consultant
NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENTALBANY, NEW YORK 12234
FIRST CLASS
F1RST-CLASS MAILU.S POSTAGE
PAID
Albany, NYPermit No. 293