Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Packet from DOCS for BZA 02-28-22
Dept. of Community Services ‘Info Packet’ Docket No. PZ-2022-00002 A: VOWC Gas Station Appeal. Wednesday, Feb. 23, 2022 Table of Contents: Tab 1. Zoning map of the Village of WestClay and nearby areas; And, aerial photograph of proposed site and neighboring properties Tab 2. The Appeal Application submitted by the applicant, including copy of Determination Letter. Tab 3. Excerpts from Planned Unit Development Ordinance for the Village of WestClay (the “PUD”) with relevant provisions highlighted; Also excerpts from 2004 and 2016 amendments to the PUD, concept site plan, and imagery. Tab 4. Excerpt of the 2020 Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) in force and effect for gas stations just before the TAC Application was filed; Also, excerpt of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) in force and effect for gas stations in 2021. Tab 5. Aerial photographs of the proposed site depicting 30-ft, 80-ft, and 500-ft buffers; Tab 6. Scholarly articles describing the dangers of gas stations in close proximity to residential neighborhoods and schools; Tab 7. Examples of other instances where DOCS made a determination interpreting the VOWC PUD; Also, examples of other instances where DOCS made a determination interpreting another planned unit development ordinances. Docket Number: PZ-2022-00002 CITY OF CARMEL PLANNING & ZONING APPLICATION Application Type: Appeal Date Applied: 1/5/2022 Application Fees: $187.00 Name of Project: Village of WestClay Gas Station Appeal Project Address: 2425 Harleston St City/State/Zip: CAR, IN 46032 Name of Applicant: Indy Holdings LLC Applicant Address: 4949 East Thompson Road City/State/Zip: Indianapolis, IN Name of Contact Person: Gordon Clark Company: Address of Contact Person: 4820 Buttonwood Crescent City/State/Zip: Indianapolis, IN 46228 Email: GC1ark482K aol.com Phone: 317 431-7164 ePlan Review Contact Person: Gordon Clark Phone: 317 431-7164 Email: GC1ark4820(cr aol.com Name of Landowner: Village of WestClay Email: info@vowcoa.com Parcel ID: 17-09-29-00-20-002.000 Area (in acres) of Property: 1.10 Zoning Classification: PUD Overlay Zone: Legal Description: Acreage 2.98 Section 29, Township 18, Range 3 VILLAGE OF WESTCLAY Section 6003B Block B Present Use of Property: vacant ProposedUse of Property: gas station and convenience store Project Description: VOWC Gas Station Appeal of 12/9/21 Director's Determination letter. Signature: By typing in my name, I swear that the foregoing statements, and answers herein contained and the information herewith submitted are in all respects true and career to the best of my knowledge and belief. *Note that required fees are due after the application has received a docket number, and not at the time of application submittal. CARMEL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL APPLICATION Filing Fee: S182QQ Office Use Only DOCKET NO. DATE RECEIVED: 1) Appli j6t: Address: At 5- 5. n4Et.3 N\i��,4`►�.=�C 5`� '�; !L40t CARMIE'L, 1f 4-1aD,3A 2) Project Name:-ae V't1. _1),Gg Oj� WF_5- d LM Phone: ' 11-stT 4-34130 Engineer/Architect: G' URRDO N Phone: Attorney: '' Phone: Contact Person: <llDN\ C1X0tRLtS VWi 510r1 Phone:3�%1- 163" 140 �t'ELG Email: t & bZft�. d-c- t Fax: --- _ ProjectDox Contact Person: 60tt Aen (f t'y— Phone.7ZA1 41 1 CA - Email: VCJakkJrO 0Cw'QG,( CJV14A 3) Applicant's Status: (Check the appropriate response) v/ (a) The applicant's name is on the deed to the property .. (, k W Icj`, -� '/ (b) The applicant is the contract purchaser of the property- } 1 0L~> 1-t4G (c) Other: 4) If Item 3) (c) is checked, please complete the following: 5) 6) Owner of the property involved: Owner's address: Phone: Record of Ownership: Deed Book No./instrument No. j4 9 9 O -Rq,45-.' x7 q Page: Purchase date: ) 7 9 q Common address of the property involved: t�4T_ A5.51GAED • r CAt4- QAr4D PIA-7 Legal description: PAR-eOte Gt-DOK (5 IN -114 _Y-JtJAG6 We !,49S+eCi .SEC.' -f i o of O O - A0070/3S © FILAr aA13, Tax Map Parcel No.: 11— D`f- .2Q-00 -,A0- OOA - 0O00 7) State explanation of requested Appeal: (State what you want to do and cite the section number(s) of the Unified Development Ordinance which applies and/or creates the need for this appeal). Page 1 of 11 Filename: Administrative Appeal Application & Instructions 2021 Revised 2;25/2021 8) State reasons supporting the Appeal: (Also. complete the attached question sheet entitled "Findings of Fact - Appeal"). 9) Present zoning classification of the property: P L.l 9a) Zoning Overlay (if applicable): 10) Present use of the property: VAC AN 'r' Lei PJ D 11) Size of lot/parcel in question • 1 Q. . acres 12) Describe the proposed use of the property Q0 P� V15 t%J 1151`4 & h :5lb 0 C Z G A $ $11A b IJ Is the property: Owner occupied Renter occupied Other VA01 A4T' L ---- 14) Are there any restrictions, laws, covenants, variances, special uses. or appeals riled in connection with this property that would relate or affect its use for the specific purpose of this application? If yes, give date and docket number, decision rendered and pertinent explanation. > c► k^(A JeE .._.� A _r.414 ry- JZ- � Q'te ti%;!&, : S-CRurv►r.-w-r iQ q Iq &Rg4la9L, 14. t,S A rAE 4 Dit,? Has work for which this application i P� Vin filed already started? 1; answer is yes, give details: Buildine Permit Number: Builder: 16) If proposed appeal is granted. when will the work commence? '? If the proposed appeal is granted_ who will operate andlor use the proposed improvement for which this application has been filed? NOTE: Three modes of public notice are required. LEGAL NOTICE shall be published in the NEWSPAPER according to the Chart on parse 5 a MANDATORY twenty (20) clays prior to the public hearing date. The certified "Proof of Publication" affidavit for the newspaper must be available for inspection by the night of the hearing. LEGAL NOTICE to all adjoining and abutting property owners is also MANDATORY; two methods are recommended: 1) FIRST CLASS MAIL with CERTIFICATE OF MAILING sent to adjoining property owners. (The white receipt should be stamped by the Post Office at least 20 days prior to the public hearing date). OR 2) NAND DELIVERED to adjoining and abutting property owners (A receipt signed by the adjoining and abutting property owner acknowledging the 20 day prior notice should be kept for verification that the notice was completed) LEGAL NOTICE via a Notice of Public Hearing SIGN posted on the property is also required (see Pg 9.) (THE BURDEN OF PROOF FOR ALL NOTICES IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE APPLICANT) The acolicant understands that docket numbers will not be assigned until all supporting information has been submitted to the Department of Community Services. i J �{' d rSCmds 16/ Applicant Signature: '5( fie LL_ Matt The applicant certifies by siari�g this applicaiiarr that h&'she has been advised ;haWAKFi� VIOLO r Department of Community Services are advisory only and that the applicant should rely on appropriare Unified Development Ordinance anti,cr the legal advice of hisiher attorney. Page 2 of 11 Filename. Admiris rative Appeal Apolit-at-on & Instructions 2021 Rev-sed 2!25 2Q21 ii4i'Of `OC\GAJ9f City of C Y7H i.t1i1 lNa i pua DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES Sent Via Email: paulsinghshell@yahoo.com December 9, 2021 Indy Holdings LLC 4949 East Thompson Road Indianapolis, IN 46237 RE: Village of WestClay Gas Station and Con. Harleston Street & Towne Road Technical Advisory Committee Application Docket Number: PZ-2021-00201 To whom it may concern: You recently submitted an application to the Carmel Department of Community Services ("DOCS") for Technical Advisory Committee ("TAC") review of a proposed gas station and convenience store to be located in the WestClay Village Planned Unit Development district (the "Project"). The Project is scheduled to be reviewed by TAC at its meeting on December 15, 2021. Upon further examination of the Project by DOCS and the City's attorneys, I am writing to inform you that 1 am cancelling all further review of the Project, including TAC review, because the Project as presented does not conform to Carmel's requirement for gas station pumps, pump islands and vent pipes to be set back at least 500 feet from residentially used property as set forth in Unified Development Ordinance ("UDO") Section 5.65. Because the WestClay Village PUD district ordinance, as amended, is silent regarding use -specific setback requirements for gas stations, pursuant to UDO Section 9.05(A)(4)(c), the UDO's use -specific gas station setback requirement of 500 feet applies to the Project. Unfortunately, therefore, the Project as presented to the City cannot be approved. This letter and the conclusions herein shall constitute an official determination of the Director. If you or any interested party disagrees with this determination, a formal appeal to the Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals (`BZA") may be filed pursuant to UDO Section 9.01(A). Any appeal to the BZA must be filed within thirty (30) days of issuance of this letter or the determination will be final. Sincerely yours, Michael ollibaug , ireetor Department of Community Services Copy: Gordon Clark 4820 Buttonwood Crescent Indianapolis, IN 46228 Sponsor: Councilor: Rattermann ORDINANCE NO. Z-330 AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE WESTCLAY VILLAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT WHEREAS, Section 31.6.4 of the Carmel/Clay Zoning Ordinance Z-289, as amended (the "Zoning Ordinance"), provides for the establishment of a PUD District in accordance with the requirements of IC 36-7-4-1500 et. seq.; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. Z-330 establishes the WestClay Village Planned Unit Development District (the "District"); and WHEREAS, the Carmel/Clay Plan Commission has recommended that Ordinance No. 7- 330 -be amended and restated; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, that, pursuant to IC 36-7-4-1500 et. seq., Ordinance No. Z-330 is amended and restated as set forth below and as thus amended and restated constitutes an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. Section 1. Legislative Intent. Having given reasonable regard to the Comprehensive Plan and the other matters specified in Section 31.6.4(4) of the Zoning Ordinance, and specifically to section 1.1.6, the intent of the Council in adopting this Ordinance is to insure that the increased flexibility and design specificity regulations over land development authorized herein is carried out under administrative standards and procedures. Section 2. Applicability of Ordinance. 2.1. The Official Zoning Map, a part of the Zoning Ordinance, is hereby changed to designate the land described in Exhibit A as a planned unit development district. 2.2. DeveIopment in the District shall be governed entirely by the provisions of this Ordinance with the exception that provisions of the Subdivision Control Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance and the Sign Ordinance specifically referenced within this Ordinance and as in effect on the date hereof shall also apply. 2.3. This Ordinance, having met the requirements of IC 36-7-4-702(b), constitutes the subdivision control ordinance of the District. 1 (3) accessory dwellings (4) senior housing (5) vertical dwellings B. Recreational developments or facilities owned or operated by an Eligible Title Holder, including clubhouses, parks, pools, ball fields, ball courts, playgrounds and other recreational spaces and recreational buildings. C. Civic uses D. Commercial uses ancillary to congregate housing and intended primarily for the use of visitors to and residents of congregate housing. E. Agricultural uses, except agri-business structures. 5.2. Secondary Area. The following uses are permitted in the Secondary Area: A. Large lot single-family detached dwellings. B. Accessory dwellings. C. Recreational developments or facilities owned or operated by an Eligible Title Holder, including clubhouses, parks, pools, ballfields, ball courts, playgrounds and other recreational spaces, and recreational buildings. D.. Agricultural uses, except agri-business structures. E. Churches or other places of worship, but only if located in that part of the Secondary Area described in Exhibit B. 5.3. Peripheral Retail Area. The following uses are permitted in the Peripheral Retail Area: A. The following commercial uses: (1) financial institutions, including drive-thru teller service and exterior ATMs (2) restaurants or fast food operations, including drive-thru window service (3) grocery store (including customary ancillary uses such as flower shop and bakery), including drive-thru window service (4) drug store, including drive-thru window service (5) the sale of gasoline and other petroleum products exclusive of liquefied petroleum gas and, as an accessory use only, the polishing, greasing, washing or other cleaning, servicing or repairing of motor vehicles provided such services are rendered within a fully enclosed service bay or shielded from view from adjacent properties. Automobile body repairs are not permitted. (6) convenience store (with or without gas sales) ELI F. Accessory lighting on a residential lot shall not cause illumination at or beyond any lot line in excess of 0.1 foot candles of light. G. No private radio or television reception or transmitting tower or antenna shall be located within 10 feet of a power transmission line. Satellite receiving antennas shall comply with the requirements of Section 25.0(l) of the Zoning Ordinance. H. No home occupation shall be permitted without the prior consent of the Department and a permitted home occupation shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. 6.2. In the Home -based Office Area only, home -based offices, subject to the following conditions: A. The home -based office is (i) located in or attached to a single family detached dwelling or (ii) located in a detached accessory building or garage typically associated with such a dwelling. B. Medical, dental and real estate offices are not permitted as home -based offices. C. Retail sales of goods may not be made from a home -based office. D. In addition to the family occupying the dwelling to which the use of the home - based office is accessory, there shall not be more than three outside employees in the home -based office. .E. The employees and clients shall park in on -street curbside parking spaces or in a rear or side yard parking area and shall not park in the driveway forward of the front facade of the dwelling. F. Signage is limited to one wall -mounted sign with a sign area not exceeding three square feet. G. The home -based office shall not exceed 1,000 square feet or 30 percent of the total square footage of the dwelling if attached to or incorporated in the dwelling; if located in an accessory building, the home -based office shall not exceed 1,000 square feet. 1-1. -No outside storage or outside display is permitted. All exterior aspects of the home -based office operation shall be consistent with the residential character of the neighborhood. 6.3 1n the Peripheral Retail Area, all accessory buildings and uses that are permitted by the Zoning Ordinance with respect to uses specified in Section 5.3. 17 Sections 16 and 18. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be required before the model is placed in service. Section 8. Commercial Development. 8.1. Commercial and mixed use structures (exclusive of those associated with senior housing) shall be located only in the Village Center and the Peripheral Retail Area. Commercial and mixed use structures associated with senior housing are permitted in the Primary Area (SH). 8.2. Without the approval of the Commission, the aggregate square footage of commercial space in mixed use or commercial structures in the Village Center and Peripheral Retail Area shall not exceed 274,800 square feet; of which not more than 100,000 square feet shall be located in the Peripheral Retail Area. 8.3. Not more than one (1) fast food restaurant shall be permitted in the Peripheral Retail Area. The architectural design, landscaping, signage and drive-thru stacking lane of a fast food restaurant shall be subject to approval by the Commission in accordance with the procedure specified in Section 8.12. For the purposes of this Section 8.3, "fast food restaurant" means a restaurant offering drive-thru window service where the food order is placed on site from a menu board. 8.4. Without the approval of the Commission, no restaurant located in the Peripheral Retail Area shall be open for business between the hours of 11.01 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. except that the closing time may be extended from 11:01 p.m. to 12:00 a.m. on Friday and Saturday nights. 8.5. Commercial uses may be mixed and integrated with dwellings and civic uses within the Village Center, Peripheral Retail Area and Primary Area (SH). 8.6. Commercial uses in the Village Center, Primary Area (SH) and Peripheral Retail Area may be contained in single -story or multi -story structures. Multi -story structures may contain mixed uses 8.7. Restaurants in the Village Center and Peripheral Retail Area shall be permitted to operate outdoor cafes on sidewalks and in courtyards, provided that pedestrian circulation and access to store entrances arc not impaired. An open pedestrian way of less than three (3) feet .shall constitute impairment. Immediately adjacent to the handicap ramp connecting a street to a sidewalk or a path, a pedestrian way of no less than five (5) feet in width shall be provided. 8.8 Retail establishments in the Village Center shall be permitted to have sidewalk displays of retail merchandise. 8.9. A landscaped buffer of not less than 30 feet in width shall be established and maintained along the north, east and west boundaries of the Peripheral Retail Area as depicted on the Landscape PIan. Such buffer shall constitute community area and shall be maintained by an 19 14.4. Bike racks shall be provided in the Village Center, the Peripheral Retail Area and in community areas located elsewhere in the Development. 14.5. Sidewalks in the Primary Area and the Peripheral Retail Area may be penetrated by tree lawns and/or planting areas. Section 15. Area and Bulk Regulations. 15.1. Large lot single family detached dwellings in the Primary Area. A. Minimum lot area: 8,400 square feet B. Minimum lot width at build -to line: 70 feet C. Minimum lot depth: 120 feet D. Minimum yard dimensions Build -to line: 20 feet unless otherwise specified on an approved final plat Front yard: minimum of 10 feet Side yard: minimum of 5 feet per side; aggregate 15 feet Rear yard: 20 feet (12 feet if access is available from an alley) E. Maximum building height: 35 feet F. Maximum building coverage: 50 percent G. Garage required 15.2. Large lot single family detached dwellings in the Secondary Area shall comply with the area.and bulk. regulations established for the R-2 District in the Zoning Ordinance, except as provided in Section 7.5 of this Ordinance and except as follows: A. Minimum lot width at the building setback line: 70 feet. B. Maximum building height: 35 feet. C. Minimum front yard: 20 feet. D. Minimum rear yard: 20 feet (12 feet if access is available from an alley) 'E. Maximum building coverage: 50 percent. F. Minimum ground floor area for a one-story dwelling: 2,000 square feet. G. Minimum ground floor area for a two-story dwelling: 1,200 square feet. 15.3. Small lot single family detached dwellings. A. Lot area: a minimum of 3;500 square feet B. Lot width at build -to line: minimum of 32 feet and a maximum of 69 feet C. Minimum lot depth: 90 feet D. Yard dimensions: Build -to line: 10 feet unless otherwise specified on an approved final plat Front yard: minimum of 0 feet; maximum of 25 feet 27 H. On site parking at rear of Lot required; supplemental screened side yard parking permitted 15.8. Commercial Uses, Mixed -Use and Vertical Dwelling Buildings in the Primary Area. A. Lot area: minimum of 1,000 square feet B. Lot width at build -to line: minimum of 25 feet C. Minimum lot depth: 40 feet D. Yard dimensions Build -to line (unless otherwise indicated on an approved final plat or in another recorded instrument): 5 feet Front yard: a minimum of 0 feet, a maximum of 20 feet Side yard: none Rear yard: a minimum of 20 feet unless abutting a common parking lot, in which event no rear yard is required E. Maximum building height: 50 feet F. Maximum building coverage: 100 percent G. All off-street parking must be to rear, in screened side yards or in common parking lots complying with Section 16. 15.8.1 Commercial uses in the Peripheral Retail Area, A. Lot area: minimum of 5,000 square feet B. Lot width at the build -to line: 50 feet C. Minimum lot depth: 100 feet D. Yard dimensions: Build -to line: 10 feet unless otherwise indicated on an approved final plat or in another recorded instrument. Front: 10 feet Side: 10 feet Rear: 10 feet E. Maximum building height: 40 feet F. On -site parking must comply with the requirements of Section 16.1 15.9. Civic Buildings (Exclusive of Day Care), Bed and Breakfast Establishments and Inns not located in a Community Area. A. Lot area: a minimum of 5,000 square feet B. Lot width at build -to line: a minimum of 50 feet C. Minimum lot depth: 110 feet D. Yard dimensions Build -to line Community facilities, bed and breakfast establishments and inns: 15 feet Religious: 25 feet Institutional: 20 feet 30 Front yard: minimum of 10 feet Side yard (each side): minimum of 15 feet Rear yard: a minimum of 20 feet unless abutting a common parking lot, in which event no rear yard is required E. Maximum building height: 50 feet if in the Village Center; otherwise, 45 feet. F. Maximum building coverage: 60 percent G: All required off-street parking must be in the rear yards, screened side yards or in common parking lots complying with Section 16. 15.10. Commercial Child Day Care and Elderly Day Care Facilities: as required by the Zoning Ordinance (exclusive of Section 25.0 thereof) to the extent not inconsistent with the specific provisions of this Ordinance. No front or side yard setback shall be required, but a rear yard of not less than 20 feet will be required unless abutting a common parking lot, in which event no rear yard is required. 15.11. Accessory buildings may be located in the rear yard and in the side yard behind the rear facade of the principal structure. Residential garages, whether attached or unattached to the - principal dwelling structure, may be located in a rear yard if access thereto is afforded from an alley. An accessory building (including accessory dwellings) located in the Secondary Area may not exceed 25 feet in height. Accessory buildings (including accessory dwellings) located elsewhere in the District shall not exceed 35 feet in height. 15.12. Threshold elements may encroach into a front or side yard and shall not count against lot coverage limitations. In addition, architectural features such as cornices, eaves, bays, sills, belt courses, awnings, stoops, stairs, balconies, chimneys, gutters and fire escapes may encroach into an established or required yard up to (i) five feet if the lot is located in the Primary Area and (ii) . three feet in the Secondary Area. 15.13. Lots may be consolidated as building sites, in which event the yard dimensions shall be applied to the consolidated building site and setbacks measured from the exterior lot lines of the consolidated building site. 15.14. Accessory uses such as public utility installations, private walks, driveways, retaining walls, mail boxes, nameplates, lighting fixtures, patios at grade, birdbaths and structures of a like nature are permitted in any required front, side or rear yard. 15.15. Where gasoline sales are permitted, pumps and light standards may be located in any yard. 15.16. Fences and walls may be located in any yard subject to the provisions of Section 22. 15.17. Signs may be located in an established front setback or a side yard abutting a street as permitted by Section 18. 15.18. Off-street parking areas, maneuvering areas for parking and loading areas are prohibited in the established front building setback, in any established side yard abutting a street and in any 31 B. A six (6) foot wide perimeter planting area shall be provided along the perimeter of parking areas. The required planting unit for this area shall include: two (2) shade trees, three (3) ornamental trees and thirty (30) shrubs per 100 linear feet. C. Masonry walls not exceeding 48 inches in height may be substituted for perimeter planting areas. 16.16 The parking spaces required for any building or use may be located in a common parking lot, a shared parking area or a parking structure if such lot, area or structure is located within 300 feet of the building or use. 16.17 The following shall apply to drive-thru lanes in the Peripheral Retail Area: A. Stacking shall be confined to the sides and rear of the parcel B. Lanes for drive-thru facilities shall not be permitted along the front of a building nor permitted to spill over onto adjoining properties.. C. Outlet from drive-thru lanes may be through any established ingress/egress drive serving the parcel. D. The minimum number of vehicle stacking spaces required for drive-thru lanes shall be as follows: (1) Bank teller lane: "5 measured from the teller window (2) ATM: 3 measured from the ATM (3) Restaurant or fast food drive-thru: 10 measured from the pick-up window (4) Car wash: 5 measured from the entrance (5) Gas pump island: 3 measured from the pump island (6) Drug store: 3 measured from the pick-up window. E. No required stacking vehicle space shall block or obstruct access to a public entrance to the building. Section 17. Loading and Service Areas. 17.1. Loading docks, solid waste facilities, recycling facilities, and other service areas shall be placed to the rear or side of buildings. 17.2. Screening and landscaping shall prevent direct views of the loading areas and their driveways from adjacent properties or from the public right-of-way. Screening and buffering shall be achieved through walls, fences, and landscaping, shall be a minimum of five feet tall, and shall be visually impervious. Recesses in the building, or depressed access ramps may be used. 111A I-WWcr:l-I:I-N zs ~a.. 0 w 0 I- N f) Ck:: w w o ~f) l- I- <..:>f) 0 w3:zsa..w ~I- 0 en ~w w o z f) :::>I-enw3: c:: Q) 3 en S. en os Q) ~~~ c:: r-+0- .. 3 ',' . \ / . \ 3 :: J CD . ~/~ fA \ - 0 CD en OJ 1\, 1 f} i :: J CD 3 o c::J i)0..OJ c 3 J C 3 en cO.J OJ Q CD J)r CD 3 CD11 .'J O( j) ( 0 Q)~J CD o OJ 03 I( J) 5. OJ CD ,-+ Q.OJ I Q)0 J i""" \ r., J ' I,,;"~ \. ~ ~!! 7' J! /? V \ A \ i tEE! \ J I I f C/)N.CD 0..0..CD OJ J to I~ B 4~ @ OJ ~ N ..,0 CD 0 ( t) Cf) J .-+ 0 6 _ 0 C') Q) n 2: 7' '< en C') 0 C fir t) "' 0 f' < .-+ t) 0 en - ~t) 0 :: J t: J C 0 3 3 C" t) 0 3 N : J 0 - 3 0 4: 1. CD 0 -, Q. C Q) 0 OJ Q) c 0 0.. 0 :: J J CO CJ) saweJJ J auedwnu!wnl\ f aUOlSlse8 aBe~B!swnUlwnlepalunowlSOd 8ewa~JS 5u! lle~appaZIl^~S Tm f .~.. -: . - ,/ 1 Uo~~elS6u~ IIL::J ooz 'LJaqwajdasI "3UI 'spaj!43JVOllVtJ ~OOl@ - OI. L\f~ U0 ! IeJ0dJ0:> IuawdOla ^ aa )j:>! MUaJ8 S6U!PUnS18!JJ8LuW08uMo~dnA818 ~saM ~~.;. I o~ '1 pe+ous' V : aID: JS pafoJd OOZ "gLeunr :~+Dp Suol~"8^aI3 ~U' 9Jn'9~8ay 1I' 9~a8 '^-.Ia:)o. JO U' 8ld '^ 9) f / U" Bldel!S vOOl 'Sl ^Inr :pas!M8 vaal 'u'jaqwa^ON :pas!^a~ UMO1dn SI~lseM 8I~gaM JOaalllA aLIi vOe9-L9Z-LL € 3~n. l:>3J.IH:>C: JV ~OI~3. lNl NINN' V1d 3C: JnJ.:> 3. l1H:>~V L:)3. LIH:)crv 3135011\ 1 NHor I\ dONV:> rmNI~nlV SllV130 iaNldO:> 3NOlS3~n 6 I'~ ~f ~ V. ~,'~~ 1 \..- -I, ~' / ts;; ... ~~ ,;~::))1 ',:," 1. 1:':'-/ /..' J' k.'..~... /~. . '.,~ I IJ~ L- J 9 V J 1m u o a l t'. g:-.. LPNI^11a31SISS~ 133~lS .LS ~ ~ ~ O-J U" 8 .In"8~satla^~~ "8~uaseJ UOn" 8^eI3' ~ea. J~8 3NnQ33dS lVJLUi3(\ O-.~ - .8/~ - UOI~'8^aI3 ~aa. J~81I" 8~atla^I~'8~uasa. JdatlG O-J = .8/~ UOI~"8^eI3 ~aa. J~SaJOl8 ^.Je~o. JOe^n' 8~Uase. Jdatl ~ 8/~ 8t18 953~\1H:I HUlON U" 8ld Ae) lUBlda~18l' 8n~ OOl - J e~uo8UOI~"8^aI:3 ~aa. J~8 O-J - .e/l u' 8.Jn'8~satla^I~'8~Uasa. Jdatl17 1111111111111111111111111 r w CeI) a:: N J o C 1111111111' 11. U J- C .- 0 0 as.!~ u 0 O:( J)~ v or-- 1111111111111111111111111 WW w Octj N <{ 8 ~ CDG) O Jr W I < 1> 0 >- c: G> aS[ ij~ 11' 11 ' ~ u ~ .!), C\ I ~ O= a5 111' 1. ZW! : J a:: 0 ..!!!;= E aj " U 1) ' C\ I -...... ~.!! .- 2 1111111111111111111111111 "' G( < D C) I - 00 ~ ~ 0 I{ f) U ~ Zrr ~ Zi~ COG) c <( t- - 0 r"- Q) ctjCl) (;) 1- as as a: ~ 1' 1111' 1 000:: - z- to a: E .. """) 11' 1 IZO:: N . c.- Q) Cl) c. ~:~ L.~ II c 11111111111111 ~~~ ~ 1-:> 3: C) as c ~ J~<( 3:::> ~ ,~ : t::. r::. aS a.. ~ ( f) mo..m D~JOL ajCDWCD1)IDQ)I-oenCDocQ)cQ)coo 0z a... b~ 3NMO~ c0ajen ~I)ajoQ)ajcCDI)CD.I-~Q) 0" a:~ Q)ocoo croCL1) OJ ccdLQ)00roJ el LL< I c:0aj c c c 1) 0 0 0 w ~ :.;::; :.;::; ro ro cd Q) Q) ( 1) Q) Q) w w W I-en Q) Q) Q) CD Q) ( I) 0 l- I- L cd en ( J) en E . ta ~ ~ L.. C c: 1 ...-c. CD ro a1 L a: CD ( D 1) Q)' Q) Q) aj aj cd aj c: c: c: c: Q) ( 1)- CD < D CI) ( I) CI) en Q). ~ b Q). ( I). 9 I L..~ '-~ Q)! ~ Q) 0' Q) .' < D . 1 a:~ 0 a:~ a:~ a:~ z3 LOI ~ I 001 0) 1 JOHN MOSELE ARCHITECTt ARCHITECTURE PLANNING INTERIOR ARCHITECTURE 3,17-257-6804 FEDERALITAUANATECREEKREVIVALFEDERALFEDERALCREEKREVIVAL Street Elevation ITALIAN A TE Representative Senior Housin 1/8" = 1'-0" CREEK REVIVAL L Site Plan / Key Plan Senior Housing date: June 18, 2004 project: scale: As noted coord.: JMA drawn: JMA checked: JMA The Village of WestCla y WestCI~y Senior -Housing Revised:November 12, 2004 o c5 0:: l n( I o- tttffi1t\{) (}lliH{),[}till+() I c.=::: J c:=> P I Concectual Site Plan / Kev Plan c5 eJ WHffi ~ Jill '~' : mmmnJ . WlU. J1W"', '.. , fTTlllTT1T1J ( { ectiveresentativeSeniorHousinRe2 103A NORTH Sponsors: Councilor Kimball CARMEL, INDIANA WestClay Village PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT Text Amendment) ORDINANCE Z-608-16 January 23, 2016 Exhibit "A" — Page 1 of 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Section 1. Applicability of Ordinance.............................................................................................. 3 Section2. Exhibits.......................................................................................................................3 Exhibit A. Amendments Exhibit B. Amendment Locations Exhibit C. District Development Plan Note: All of the above Exhibits (A -C) are attached to this 2015 WestClay Amendment Ordinance, are incorporated by reference into this 2015 WestClay Amendment Ordinance and are part of this 2015 WestClay Amendment Ordinance. 2 Sponsors: Councilor Kimball ORDINANCE Z-608-16 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL INDIANA AMENDMENG THE WESTCLAY VILLAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ORDINANCE Synopsis: Ordinance amends certain provisions of the West Clay Planned Unit Development District Ordinance (the "West Clay PUD"). These amendments relate solely to two (2) mixed use commercial/residential) areas: the Village Center and WestClay Uptown. The changes are necessitated by the current limit on residential density within the West Clay PUD, and are in response to changes in economic conditions over the course of a decade that render it unfeasible to build out the Village Center and WestClay Uptown exclusively for office and retail uses. The amendment for (i) Area 1, as identified in the ordinance, will permit a maximum of 52 additional dwellings, (ii) Area 2 would allow an addition of approximately thirty (30) loft units and an additional nine (9) Townhomes, and (iii) Area 3 would subject Area s to the same standards as other businesses within WestClay Uptown (the Peripheral Retail Area of the West Clay PUD). WHEREAS, a petition has been filed, as Docket No. 15090010 OA (the "2015 WestClay Amendment"), to amend the development requirements of the Z-330, The WestClay Village Planned Unit Development District as amended (the "District"); and WHEREAS, the Plan Commission of the City of Carmel (the "Plan Commission") has given a Favorable recommendation to this 2015 WestClay Amendment to the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indian (the "Council"). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council, that (i) pursuant to IC §36- 7-4-1500 et seq., the Council adopts this 2015 Westclay Amendment Ordinance, as an amendment to the District, (ii) all prior ordinances or parts thereof inconsistent with any provision of this 2015WestClay Amendment and its exhibits are hereby made inapplicable to the use and development of the real estate subject to the District, (iii) this 2015 Westclay Amendment Ordinance shall be in full force and effect fiom and after its passage and signing. Section 1. Applicability of Ordinance. The provisions the District shall be amended by the standards established in what is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A" which are applicable to the areas within the District as identified in Exhibit `B". In all other respects, the District Ordinance shall remain in effect and unchanged. Section 2. Exhibits. All of the Exhibits (A -C) on the following pages are attached to this 2015 WestClay Amendment Ordinance, are incorporated by reference into this 2015 WestClay Amendment Ordinance and are part of this 2015 WestClay Amendment Ordinance. The remainder of this page is left blank intentionally. 3 Exhibit "A" Amendments) Section 1. The District shall be amended to include the following standards on the real estate identified as Area 1 on Exhibit `B" Page 1 of 3. A. Section 7.1 of the District Ordinance shall be amended to permit a maximum of fifty-two (52) dwellings in addition to the number of dwellings allowed under the permitted residential density in the District. B. The development of all dwellings shall not be subject to the Peripheral Retail Area Design Guidelines and shall be subject to the Village of WestClay Building Guidelines and Requirements for Residential Construction. C. A Secondary Plat shall be required for development of dwellings. Section 2. The District shall be amended to permit the following standards on the real estate identified as Area 2 on Exhibit `B" Page 2 of 3. A. Section 7.1 shall be amended to calculate the residential density in the District exclusive of all Village Center Lofts and Townhomes located in Area 2. B. The Amended Section 7.1 shall be as follows: "The gross residential density in the District exclusive of (i) 216 units of Senior Housing, (ii) all Village Center lofts, (iii) eighteen (18) Townhomes in Block F, (iv) and fifty-two (52) dwellings in the Peripheral Retail Area shall not exceed 2.1 dwellings per acre and the gross residential density in the Secondary Area shall not exceed 1.3 dwellings per acre." Section 3. The District shall be amended to remove the real estate identified as Area 3 on Exhibit B" Page 3 of 3 from Primary Area (SH) and designate the real estate identified as Area 3 on Exhibit "B" Page 3 of 3 Peripheral Retail Area on the District Development Plan (see Exhibit "C" for reference). The remainder of this page is left blank intentionally. M Exhibit `B" Amendment Locations) Tax Parcel Numbers: Part of 17-09-29-00- 20-002. 000 Part of 17-09-29-00-20-003.000 Total of 12.4+/- Acres) iayne 5t Exhibit "B" Page 1 of 3 Tax Parcel Numbers: All of 17-09- 28-00-06-004. 000 All of 17-09-28-00-07-001.000 All of 17-09-28-00-07-002.000 All of 17-09- 28-00-07-002. 008 Total of 7.94+/- Acres) Exhibit `B" Page 2 of 3 Tax Parcel Number: Part of 17-09-29-00-20-002.000 Total of 1.3+/- Acres) Exhibit "B" Page 3 of 3 Exhibit "C" Amended District Development Plan) IXORO M Exhibit "C" Page 1 of 1 ADOPTED by the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana this )5-m day of P -b ruckI)A , 2016, by a vote of -_ ayes and _ nays. COMMON COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF CARMEL Presiding Officer l Laura D. Campbell Roofd E. Carter, Council President Sue m ATTEST Christine S. Paule , Clerk-Treasu M#A Carol Schleif 441 4 J i ell Presented by me to the Mayor of the City of Carmel, diana this day o b M VC 2016, at Q P .M. hnstine S. Pauly, Clerk-Treas r Approved by me, Mayor of the City of Carmel, Indiana, this /5 fil day of 1 N tur I 2016, at 0 -.M. J es Brainard, Mayor ATTEST ! ; qj nikine S. Pauley; Clerk -Treasurer This Instrument prepared by: James E. Shinaver, attorney at law, NELSON & FRANKENBERGER and Jon C. Dobosiewicz, land use professional, NELSON & FRANKENBERGER. 550 Congressional Blvd, Carmel, IN 46032. Westclay Village PUD Amendment with synopsis- 012316 CC Exhibit "C" Amended District Development Plan) IXORO M Exhibit "C" Page 1 of 1 Article Page 5-72 City of Carmel Unified Development Ordinance 5 5.63 A. 5.64 A. 5.65 A. 1. 2. 5.66 A.. B. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. C. 1. 2. F. - H. J. Last Updated: 06/07/21 Use-Specific Standards (US) Use -Specific Standards (US) _ 5.63 US-17: Carnival, Fair and Circus Use -Specific Standards These Use -Specific Standards (US) apply to the following districts: 61 A. Not to exceed fifteen (15) days per calendar year. 5.64 US-18: Roadside Sales Use -Specific Standards These Use -Specific Standards (US) apply to the following districts: KID A. Shall not exceed six (6) months per calendar year. 5.65 US-19: Automobile Service Station; Automobile Filling Station Use -Specific Standards These Use -Specific Standards (US) apply to the following districts: ER ; ; I1 A. Setback: 1. Principal Building: Per primary zoning district. 2. Pumps and Pump Islands: Minimum of five hundred (500) feet from residentially zoned or used property. May not be located within required yards. 3. Vent pipes for underground storage tanks: Minimum of five (500) hundred feet from residentially zoned or used property. May not be located within required yards. B. Li htin : 1. Light standards may be located within the required Front Yard. 2. Light standards shall be located a minimum of thirty (30) feet from residentially zoned or used property. 3. Intensity: Lighting shall not cause illumination beyond any residential Lot Line or road right-of-way line in excess of 0.1 Foot-candle of light. Lighting shall not cause illumination beyond any non-residential tract or parcel line or road right-of-way line in excess of 0.3 Foot-candle of light. 4. Under -canopy lighting shall use full cut-off, recessed luminaires with flat lenses to minimize glare and light trespass. 5.66 US-20: Food Stand Use -Specific Standards These Use -Specific Standards (US) apply to the following districts: ULDIA12 6U3m;, Mm11® A. Food Stands shall only be permitted according to the applicable zoning district in Article 2: Zoning Districts. Such uses shall only be allowed as a Temporary Use, requiring a Temporary Use Permit. All licenses, certificates and permits from all government agencies shall be prominently displayed on the Food Stand. Non -incorporated children's stands, such as a lemonade stand, shall be exempt from Temporary Use permits. B. Submittal of a site plan, indicating sales areas, shall be required before the issuance of any permits related to Food Stands. Signage plans are also required. Areas designated for Food Stands shall not be located within nor encroach upon: 1. Any drainage easement; 2. A fire lane; 3. A maneuvering aisle, 4. Any right-of-way, greenway or trail; 5. A parking space or spaces necessary to meet the minimum parking requirements of the other use(s) of the lot or parcel. C. Food Stands may be located within parking areas, provided it: 1. Does not interfere with pedestrian or vehicular access or parking. 2. Does not create a visibility obstruction to moving vehicles within a parking lot. D. Food Stands shall be removed from the premises when not in operation. E. The height of the Food Stand, including all accessory equipment and signage, shall not exceed ten (10) feet. F. Signage in conjunction with a Food Stand shall be permitted signage per Article 5, Section 5.39 (P): Temporary Sign; Signage for Temporary Uses and attached to the Food Stand. G. Food Stand vendors shall be prohibited from using or maintaining sound amplifying equipment, lights or noisemak- ers, such as bells, horns or whistles. H. Customer seating areas associated with Food Stands shall be prohibited. I. Temporary Use Permits for Food Stand may be issued for up to one (1) year. J. All Food Stand requirements listed herein are in addition to health and safety codes administered by the State or County Health Departments. Page 5-721 City of Carmel Unified Development Ordinance Last Updated: 11/19/21 PLANNING CRITERIA FOR LOCATION OF PETROL FILLING STATIONS 1. Stations should be located within a growth center or an urban area except in circumstances where it can be shown through appropriate studies that the need exists otherwise. 2. Land should be zoned for commercial/industrial use or be designated specifically for the purpose in a subdivision. 3. Stations should be located at a minimum of 500 ft. from any public institution such as schools, churches, public libraries, auditoriums, hospitals, public playgrounds, etc. 4. Area of land to be developed should be sufficient to allow maneuvering of vehicles within its cartilage but should not be less than 12,000 sq. ft. with a minimum frontage of 300 ft. on the primary street. 5. Filling Stations will not be allowed in any area where the traffic situation is such that it will cause obstructions in entering or leaving a station, or on tight curves where visibility is not adequate. 6. Vehicular access/egress/crossover should be reasonably safe with adequate approach distances especially where main roads and intersections are involved. 7. Wherever possible, stations should be erected on level rather than sloping site to prevent rolling or discarded materials such as cans, drums, etc. 8. When sited in shopping centers, stations should be located in an isolated area of the development as long as planning criteria are met, example, set back. 9. Environmental impact on streams, lakes, ponds, aquifer, etc., will be taken into consideration. An Environmental Impact Assessment may be required from the applicant. 10. Buildings are to be located a minimum of 40 ft. from road property boundaries to provide adequate area for maneuvering of vehicles in the service area. 11. Canopies and supports over pumps and service equipment when located less than 20 ft. from interior residential lot lines or building or structure should be constructed of non- combustible material. 12. Petrol pumps shall be located a minimum of 100 ft. from any residential building. 13. No fuel pumps or other mechanical equipment shall be installed so as to permit servicing of motor vehicles standing in a public street or highway. 14. All service areas should be paved to avoid dust nuisance. 15. Exterior design of the building should be compatible with adjacent development and should be such that it is not detrimental to property values in the area. 16. In a residential area a landscaped open area 10 ft. wide shall be provided along the rear property boundary and 15 ft. wide along the side proper boundaries, and be separated from paved area by curb or other barrier. 17. Where the site adjoins the side or rear boundary of a residential lot, a solid wall 10 ft. in height should be constructed and maintained along that lot boundary. 18. A raised curb of at least 6” in height should be erected along street property lines except for driveway openings so as to prevent operation of vehicles on sidewalks, and to define entrance/exit points. 19. Signs should be accordance with the Advertisement Regulations and should be located so as not to reflect the sun into the face of motorists and should be large enough so that they can be seen from a reasonable distance at a reasonable speed. 20. Stations are to be equipped with fire-fighting and fire protection equipment installed in accordance with the requirements of the Fire Department. 21. Each tank shall be vented to the atmosphere outside of buildings by means of an independent vent pipe which should not be less than 12 ft. in height or 2 ft. above the top of the nearest adjacent building. 22. All volatile flammable liquid storage tanks shall be installed below ground in compliance with the requirements of the Ministry of Construction (Works). 23. Integral containers of adequate design and capacity should be provided for solid waste, such as discarded cans, bottles, etc. 24. Proper facilities for storage and disposal of used and waste oil and gas must be provided. 25. Waste water from the washing of motor vehicles et cetera and sewage disposal should be to the satisfaction of the Health Authorities. 26. Notice of intent to construct and operate a Petrol Filling Station should be posted on the site and gazetted to enable ad to enable adjacent owners within a specified radius to object if they so desire. 27. Fuel should be stored in double walled container to minimize leakage and prevent contamination of ground water. 28. Normally no access to nor egress from a filling station shall be closer than 150 ft. to any road intersection or 250 ft. from the intersection of two main roads. 29. Other development criteria are given in the Filling Station Development Orders. GUIDELINES TO APPLICANTS 1. Filling Station is defined as any land, building or equipment used for the sale or dispensing of petrol or oils for motor vehicles or incidental thereto and includes the whole of the land, building or equipment whether or not the use as a petrol station is the predominant use or is only a part thereof. 2. Any erection or alteration of building or equipment for the sale of petrol or oils for motor vehicles on any land or the change of use of land or buildings from any other use to that of a filling station shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Development Order and permission granted by the Town and Country Planning Authority thereunder. 3. All applications for permission to erect a filling station should be made to the local planning authority/Parish Council in the parish in which the proposal is to be located on a form issued and obtainable from that authority. 4. Each application is to be accompanied by at least five (5) copies, or the number printed on the application forms, of: a) A Plan sufficient to identify the land to which it relates; b) Plans and drawings as are necessary to describe and illustrated the development in detail. 5. The Planning Authority may request an applicant to produce evidence to verify any particulars of information given in an application. 6. In dealing with applications, the Authority will afford the applicant, if he/she so desires, an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed by the Authority for the purpose. 7. The decision of the Authority can be appealed to the Minister responsible for Planning as set out in the Development Order. 8. Under the Law it is a requirement that permission for the erection of a filling station anywhere in the island be obtained from the Planning Authority. sineled GuiingtiS lohocS This page left intentionally blank. Contents | i School Siting Guidelines Contents 1. About the School Siting Guidelines .........................................................................................................................................1 1.1. Who Should Use the Guidelines? ............................................................................................................................2 1.2. Limitations of the Guidelines ...................................................................................................................................2 1.3. Public Involvement in the Development of the Guidelines ........................................................................4 1.4. Principles behind the Guidelines ...........................................................................................................................5 2. Overview of the School Siting Guidelines ......................................................................................................................... 13 2.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................. 13 2.2. Overview for Considering Environmental Factors in the School Siting Process ........................... 14 3. Meaningful Public Involvement ............................................................................................................................................ 19 3.1. Overview ........................................................................................................................................................................ 19 3.2. Establishing a Public Involvement Strategy ................................................................................................... 20 3.3. School Siting Committee ......................................................................................................................................... 20 3.4. Communications Plan .............................................................................................................................................. 22 3.5. Consideration of Community Information Accessibility Issues ............................................................ 23 3.6. Technical Assistance and Training ..................................................................................................................... 24 3.7. DPuebsiglicn Iantivonolv ofem Oepnpt Aortuctivnititiieess f ...............................................................................................................................or Meaningful Public Input and Budget for 24 4. Environmental Siting Criteria Considerations ............................................................................................................... 33 4.1. Overview ........................................................................................................................................................................ 33 4.2. Before the Siting Process Begins ......................................................................................................................... 34 4.3. Identify Desirable School Location Attributes .............................................................................................. 37 4.4. Consider Environmental Hazards....................................................................................................................... 47 5. Environmental Review Process ............................................................................................................................................ 65 5.1. Overview ........................................................................................................................................................................ 65 5.2. WSitehys I Sso I anmp Efoferctativnte? E ................................................................................................nvironmental Review of Prospective Candida................................................... te 65 5.3. Recommended Environmental Review Process .......................................................................................... 67 5.4. Stages of Site Review ................................................................................................................................................ 68 5.5. Stage 1: Project Scoping/Initial Screen of Candidate Site ........................................................................ 70 5.6. Stage 2: Preliminary Environmental Assessment ....................................................................................... 72 5.7. Stage 3: Comprehensive Environmental Review ......................................................................................... 78 5.8. Stage 4: Develop Site-specific Mitigation/Remediation Measures ...................................................... 84 5.9. Stage 5: Implement Remedial/Mitigation Measures .................................................................................. 89 ii | Contents sineled GuiingtiS lohocS 5.10. Stage 6: Long-term Stewardship ......................................................................................................................... 92 6. Evaluating Impacts of Nearby Sources of Air Pollution.............................................................................................. 95 6.1. Overview ........................................................................................................................................................................ 95 6.2. Location Layout and Study Area ......................................................................................................................... 97 6.3. Initial Assessment of Area Air Quality .............................................................................................................. 97 6.4. Inventory of Air Pollutant Sources and Emissions ..................................................................................... 98 6.5. Screening Evaluation of Potential Air Quality ............................................................................................ 100 6.6. Development of an Environmental Assessment Report ........................................................................ 102 7. Recommendations for States and Tribes ....................................................................................................................... 105 7.1. Overview ..................................................................................................................................................................... 105 7.2. Recommendations for States ............................................................................................................................. 105 7.3. Recommendations for Tribes ............................................................................................................................ 111 8. Quick Guide to Environmental Issues ............................................................................................................................. 117 8.1. Air Pollution .............................................................................................................................................................. 117 8.2. Nearby Highways and Other Transportation Facilities (Including Goods Movement) ........... 118 8.3. Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) in Soil and Ground Water ........................................................ 120 8.4. Radon ........................................................................................................................................................................... 121 8.5. Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soil and Ground Water .............................................................................. 121 8.6. Lead-based Paint Hazards and Lead in Soil and Drinking Water ...................................................... 122 8.7. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in Fluorescent Light Ballasts, Window Caulking and Soil Associated with Older Buildings .............................................................. 123 8.8. Asbestos-Containing Material Surveys.......................................................................................................... 124 8.9. Mold .............................................................................................................................................................................. 124 8.10. Chemicals in Schools ............................................................................................................................................. 124 8.11. Heavy Metals in Soil and Ground Water ....................................................................................................... 125 8.12. Pesticides .................................................................................................................................................................... 125 8.13. Securing Safe Soil and Fill .................................................................................................................................. 126 8.14. Historic Fill ................................................................................................................................................................. 126 8.15. Institutional and Engineering Controls ......................................................................................................... 127 8.16. Capacity for Long-term Maintenance of Engineering and Institutional Controls ...................... 128 9. Frequent Questions ................................................................................................................................................................. 129 9.1. How do the guidelines address community involvement in the school siting process? ......... 129 9.2. Do the guidelines apply retroactively to previous siting decisions? ................................................ 130 9.3. Do the guidelines address the retention and renovation of existing schools? ............................ 130 Contents | iii School Siting Guidelines 9.4. Will EPA’s School Siting Guidelines prevent pollution generating facilities from being built near existing schools? ........................................................................................................ 130 9.5. What can I do to protect my child right now from environmental hazards at their current school? ............................................................................................................................................. 131 9.6. Shouldn’t schools be built as far away from major pollution generating sources as possible? ................................................................................................................................................................ 132 9.7. Isn't an uncontaminated site always the best location for a new school? ..................................... 133 9.8. Can schools be safely built on sites with residual soil or ground water contamination? ....... 134 9.9. In cases where the best available location for a school relies on engineering and/or institutional controls to prevent potential exposures, how can the community work with the LEA and other responsible entities to ensure that those controls are effective for the life of the school? ...................................................................................................................................... 134 9.10. What cleanup or remediation of contamination at a school site should be completed before the school is occupied? ................................................................................................... 134 9.11. To what cleanup standard should school sites be remediated? ........................................................ 135 9.12. Does EPA recommend buffer or exclusion zones (also sometimes called distance criteria or separation distances) to make sure schools aren't built close to major sources of pollution? ............................................................................................................................................. 135 9.13. What is the difference between "screening perimeters," which are included in the guidelines, and "buffer" or "exclusion" zones? .......................................................................................... 136 9.14. The School Siting Guidelines place a lot of emphasis on state and tribal involvement in evaluating and approving siting decisions where environmental contamination is present. At a time of shrinking state and tribal budgets, how are states and tribes to meet the anticipated demand for more involvement? ........................................................................... 136 9.15. Do the guidelines apply to child care centers or other facilities where children spend time? ................................................................................................................................................................ 137 10. Glossary......................................................................................................................................................................................... 139 DISCLAIMER: Mention of trade names, products, or services does not convey official EPA approval, endorsement, or recommendation. October 2011 iv | Contents School Siting Guidelines Exhibits Exhibit 1: Overview of the Siting Guidelines .................................................................................................................................. 15 Exhibit 2: Meaningful Public Involvement Points and Opportunities ................................................................................ 25 Exhibit 3: Example Enrollment Area that Creates a Prohibitively Long Walking/ Biking Trip for Some Students ........................................................................................................................................ 41 Exhibit 4: Desirable Attributes of Candidate Locations ............................................................................................................ 44 Exhibit 5: Factors Influencing Exposures and Potential Risks .............................................................................................. 49 Exhibit 6: Screening Potential Environmental, Public Health and Safety Hazards ....................................................... 53 Exhibit 7: Stages of Site Review ........................................................................................................................................................... 69 Exhibit 8: Stage 1: Project Scoping/Initial Screen of Candidate Site .................................................................................. 70 Exhibit 9: Stage 2: Preliminary Environmental Assessment .................................................................................................. 72 Exhibit 10: Stage 3: Comprehensive Environmental Review .................................................................................................... 78 Exhibit 11: Stage 4: Develop Site-specific Mitigation/Remediation Measures ................................................................. 84 Exhibit 12: Stage 5: Implement Remedial/Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................. 89 Exhibit 13: Stage 6: Long-term Stewardship .................................................................................................................................... 92 Contents | v School Siting Guidelines Acronyms ADA Americans with Disabilities Act AHERA Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act AQI Air Quality Index ASTM American Society for Testing Materials CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations CHPAC Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee CHPS Collaborative for High Performance Schools DOD Department of Defense DOT U.S. Department of Transportation EISA Energy Independence and Security Act EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ESA Environmental Site Assessment FUDS Formerly Used Defense Sites HAPs Hazardous air pollutants HealthySEAT Healthy School Environments Assessment Tool HEI Health Effects Institute HVAC Heating, ventilating and air conditioning IPM Integrated pest management LEA Local education agency LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design LTSP Long-term Stewardship Plan NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NATA National Air Toxic Assessment NEI National Emission Inventory NIOSH National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health PCB Polychlorinated biphenyl QA/QC Quality assurance and quality control RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act SSC School Siting Committee USGBC U.S. Green Building Council VOCs Volatile organic compounds vi | Contents School Siting Guidelines This page left intentionally blank. About the School Siting Guidelines | 1 School Siting Guidelines 1. About the School Siting Guidelines IIndn Deecpeemndbencer 2e a0n0d7 S, Ceocnugrirtesy sA ectn (aEcth in Ited te provisions included the Act w SAas) a.h1 eA Emnoerngg y rPerqotueircetiomne Ant thgenact yth (Ee UPA.S). d Environmenta l with the Departments of Edeuvcealoption, in a cnodn Hsuealtalthtion asitinnd Hg uofma s nh Soolervices, mod c facilities th eal tg tauideke ilinnto aes fcorcou thnet: 1.Thahzea srpdouecias sl vuublsntaernacbeils oritie ps olof children to incon atanymin casaeti inon w lution exposures aht aic ph thoteen ptiaotel snctiahooll for site exists; 2.Tstuhede modnts aesn ofd s trtaafnf;s portation available to 3. The efficient use of energy; and 4.Temheer pgotenecnytia shl uelstee or. f a school at the site as an In carwdeilvle elorpyiedng v ouolut thntaris sytatutory mandate, EPA has of envnicrouonrmeagneta, inl ffoacrm a Schnool Siting Gtors ind i lmpocarlovceh cuid s ool oneslidineersa thtioant lodeccalis iondec-ismaionkin-mag pkrinoce siting ov g aserarching goal for theustheso writyith.ou EPtA in’s fringing on guidelines is to serve children, staff and the broader community by: 1 Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Public Law 110-140, HR6, 110th Cong., (December 19, 2007). Available at: www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-6. Supporting states, tribes, communities, local officials and the public in understanding and appropriately considering environmental and public health factors when making school siting decisions; Encouraging meaningful, broad and inclusive community involvement to ensure community understanding, input and engagement in school location selection; Encouraging comprehensive evaluation of prospective locations for their potential positive and negative impacts on the health and safety of children and school workers and on the environment; Identifying opportunities to promote environmental justice in how school siting decisions are made; Encouraging decision makers, where appropriate, to examine existing schools and the potential for renovation, upgrade, adaptation and expansion before concluding new school construction is warranted; Encouraging decision makers, where appropriate, to examine nearby environments in low-income, minority, indigenous and other overburdened communities; Demonstrating how well-located schools can allow more students, faculty and staff to walk, bike and/or use public transit to get to and from school; Identifying opportunities to serve multiple community purposes (e.g., emergency shelters, community centers, joint school and public libraries, gymnasiums, playing fields, theaters and community gardens) so that schools can become a hub for the whole community; and 2 | About the School Siting Guidelines School Siting Guidelines Encouraging decision makers to consider short- and long-term construction, transportation and operation and maintenance costs and benefits in design and construction decisions. 1.1. Who Should Use the Guidelines? These voluntary guidelines are intended to assist local school districts, which will be referred to throughout these guidelines as the local education agency (LEA) (see Section 10), and community members in evaluating environmental factors to make the best possible school siting decisions. The special vulnerabilities of children and considerations for children's health underpin the recommendations contained in these guidelines, consistent with EISA, Subtitle E—Healthy High-Performance Schools, Section 502. While the guidelines are primarily intended to be used by LEAs in evaluating and selecting locations for K-12 schools, EPA believes that the recommendations in the guidelines represent a set of best practices that inform and improve evaluation and selection decisions for a wide range of settings where children spend time. Although there are many differences in how locations are chosen across the types of child-occupied facilities, the practices recommended within the guidelines may be applied, with appropriate adaptation, to a wide range of school-related institutions, including: K-12 public schools (including charter schools and schools in leased locations); K-12 private schools; K-12 schools operated by the Department of Defense or Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Indian Education; Technical and vocational schools; Colleges and universities; and Pre-K and non-home child care, after care and early learning settings (e.g., Head Start and Early Head Start programs). The guidelines are intended to be used prior to: Making a decision about whether to renovate the existing school, build a new school on the current site or build a new school on a new site; Acquisition of land for school facilities; Use of legacy property already owned by the LEA; Leasing of space in new or existing structures not owned by the LEA for use as a school; and/or Major repair, renovation or reuse of existing properties and structures already owned by the LEA for use as a school. 1.1.1. Evaluation of Hazards Throughout these guidelines, references are made to chemical hazards, contaminants, toxic substances and other terms that identify chemicals and compounds that may pose risks to students, staff, parents and others. The use of any of these terms is not intended to be limited to a statutory or regulatory definition. The intent of these voluntary guidelines is to provide a process for the assessment of chemicals, compounds or other materials that pose a threat to anyone that spends time in the school environment at candidate locations for schools. 1.2. Limitations of the Guidelines Decisions on school siting are complicated and in many instances will involve issues where there are scientific and technical uncertainties. Generally, state, tribal and local governments decide where to locate schools. With few exceptions (e.g., a school located on a Department of Defense base or funded and/or operated by the Bureau of Indian Education), the federal government does not have authority over school siting decisions. While EPA does not have the statutory authority to control school siting decisions directly, it About the School Siting Guidelines | 3 School Siting Guidelines administers federal environmental laws that may apply to or be relevant to location evaluation, including site assessment and cleanup. In many cases, states have similar authorities to address site cleanup, and some states and tribes also have additional authorities (e.g., certain land use authorities) that may be relevant to school location decisions. No single set of national guidelines can reflect the widely divergent situations and institutional relationships that exist throughout the education system in the United States. Because each state, tribe and community has or will develop their own location evaluation and selection procedures, the recommendations contained in EPA's School Siting Guidelines are designed to provide a general guide that should be adapted to local situations. The guidelines are designed to support state, tribal and community decision makers in evaluating their existing school processes and policies to address environmental factors in school siting and construction decisions, especially when the presence of contamination may pose a threat to a safe learning environment. These guidelines do not impose legally binding requirements on EPA, states, tribes, local governments, LEAs or the regulated community, and may not apply to a particular situation based upon the circumstances. These guidelines do not pre-empt, supersede or serve as a substitute for state, tribal or local school site or location selection policies or requirements. Economic, racial and ethnic segregation is a continuing challenge across the country. More diverse schools can provide educational as well as life attainment benefits to all school age children.2 While community centered schools can be part of improved educational, economic, community and public health outcomes for children, families and 2 Gary Orfield and Chungmei Lee, “Historic Reversals, Accelerating Resegregation, and the Need for New Integration Strategies,” The Civil Rights Project, University of California Los Angeles, August 29, 2007. Available at: http://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/k-12- education/integration-and-diversity/historic-reversals-accelerating- resegregation-and-the-need-for-new-integration-strategies- 1/orfield-historic-reversals-accelerating.pdf. neighborhoods, LEAs should balance these issues with meeting the goal of diverse school populations. Techniques are available to help achieve the multiple goals of diverse student populations and schools located within the communities they serve. The Resources page of the guidelines website (www.epa.gov/schools/ siting/resources.html#Links_Technical_Assistance) contains information about techniques that have been identified to support these goals. While these issues are beyond the scope of these guidelines, the Resources page of the guidelines website also contains links to select studies on school segregation trends and causes. (www.epa.gov/schools/siting/resources.html#LINKS_Segregation) It is beyond the scope of these guidelines to discuss the requirements of federal civil rights laws that apply to public school districts and may be relevant to school siting decisions. These civil rights laws include Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (www.justice.gov/crt/cor/coord/ titlevi.php), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin in federally assisted programs or activities. EPA’s regulations implementing Title VI prohibit both intentional discrimination and facially neutral policies and practices that result in discriminatory effects, including siting decisions.3 3 EPA’s Office of Civil Rights and the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights are available to provide technical assistance to districts concerning applicable civil rights laws. See agency regulations implementing Title VI, for example, EPA’s Title VI regulations, 40 C.F.R. Part 7, and the U.S. Department of Education’s Title VI regulations, 34 C.F.R. Part 100. The Title VI regulations prohibit, among other things, race, color or national origin discrimination in siting decisions. In addition to prohibiting discrimination in siting decisions, among other things, the civil rights laws establish other requirements relevant to the decision-making process, such as requirements pertaining to effective communication with limited English proficient persons and individuals with ties and requirements pertaining to access by individuals with disabilities. See U.S. Department of Justice regulations implementing Title II, 28 C.F.R. Part 35, and Title III, 28 C.F.R. Part 36, of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and U.S Department of Education’s regulations implementing Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 34 C.F.R. Part 104. 4 | About the School Siting Guidelines School Siting Guidelines IMPORTANT: The School Siting Guidelines are NOT designed for retroactive application to previous school siting decisions. They are designed to inform and improve the consideration of environmental factors in the school siting decision-making process going forward. In developing these guidelines, EPA seeks to strengthen information exchange and cooperation between LEAs, state and tribal education agencies and their environmental counterparts to better serve school children, parents, staff and their communities in providing safe school environments. Many schools across the country may be located in proximity to one or more of the potential hazards discussed within the guidelines. Due to many factors that affect exposure to environmental hazards (such as those included in Exhibit 5) and based on the regulations and protective measures that can be applied, proximity of a school to nearby sources of environmental contaminants may not pose unacceptable risks. EPA recommends that districts periodically inspect existing schools for potential environmental health and safety risks using tools designed for that purpose such as EPA’s Healthy School Environments Assessment Tool (HealthySEAT; www.epa.gov/schools/ healthyseat/) or the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Safety Checklist Program for Schools. (www.cdc.gov/ niosh/docs/2004-101/) Where deficiencies are found, EPA recommends steps to reduce student and staff exposure to potential hazards be identified and implemented (see Section 9.13). Keeping children safe from environmental exposures at school does not end with site selection, or even materials selection during construction; the health of students and staff in schools is supported by an ongoing attention to commitment to healthy school environments. EPA has a considerable body of guidance and regulations that are specifically geared toward existing schools, which is available at www.epa.gov/schools. 1.3. Public Involvement in the Development of the Guidelines In July 2009, EPA convened a special School Siting Task Group (Task Group) under the existing Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee (CHPAC) to provide early input to EPA on the content of the siting guidelines. (http://yosemite. epa.gov/ochp/ochpweb.nsf/content/whatwe_advisory.htm) The Task Group was composed of representatives from a wide range of national, state, tribal and local organizations. The Task Group was provided with an initial draft and provided comments (http://yosemite.epa.gov/ ochp/ochpweb.nsf/content/CHPAC_Comments.htm#14) in April 2010 to EPA in the form of a letter from the CHPAC to Administrator Lisa Jackson (April 7, 2010) (http://yosemite.epa.gov/ochp/ ochpweb.nsf/content/CHPAC_School_Siting_Letter_web.htm) and a report from the School Siting Task Group. (http://yosemite.epa.gov/ochp/ ochpweb.nsf/content/CHPAC_SSTG_Report2.htm/$File/CHPAC_SSTG_Report2.pdf) EPA appreciates the work of the Task Group and the contributions made by all of its members. EPA incorporated many of the recommendations from the CHPAC letter and School Siting Task Group report into the guidelines. In November 2010, EPA released the draft School Siting Guidelines for public comment. The comment period was open until February 2011. EPA considered these comments in revising the guidelines. A summary of the issues raised by the public commenters and EPA’s responses can be found on the Public Involvement in the Development of the guidelines page. (www.epa.gov/schools/siting/development) In addition, the guidelines have drawn from, and the Resources page of the guidelines website includes links to, numerous resources that have already been developed by state and local jurisdictions and other organizations. (See: www.epa.gov/schools/siting/resources) About the School Siting Guidelines | 5 School Siting Guidelines 1.4. Principles behind the Guidelines 1.4.1. Principle 1. Safe and healthy school environments are integral components of the education process The overriding purpose of a school building is to provide a safe, healthy and supportive environment in which children can learn. Children spend nearly a third of their typical day in the school environment, where they may be exposed to a range of contaminants both indoors and out. Such exposures can impact health and learning and negatively impact school attendance. Student exposure to environmental hazards at school can arise from multiple pathways, which may differ between locations. Each location may have different underlying causes of potential exposure, such as site contamination, neighborhood emission sources or indoor air quality problems. (http://yosemite.epa.gov/ochp/ochpweb.nsf/frmchemicals) Poor indoor air quality can contribute to illness resulting in absence from school and acute health symptoms that decrease performance while at school.4 Poor indoor air quality may also directly reduce a person's ability to perform specific mental tasks requiring concentration, calculation or memory. Although children spend most of their school day inside the school building, they also spend time outdoors, such as during recess, physical education class, physical activity outside of class time and getting to and from school. Examples of contaminants that can be found in outdoor school environments include air pollution from motor vehicles, pesticides and industrial pollutants. Some of these pollutants also 4 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Indoor Air Quality and Student Performance,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA 402-F-00-009, August 2000. contribute to exposures within the indoor environment in schools.5 Children are more vulnerable to environmental exposures because their responses to toxic substances, both in severity and in the nature of the adverse effect, can differ markedly from those of adults.6 Children breathe more air, drink more water and eat more food per kilogram of body weight than adults; Children’s behaviors (e.g., hand to mouth contact) also make them more susceptible to environmental hazards, especially hazards in soil and dust;7 Children experience periods of growth and development which can be adversely affected by exposures to toxic substances. The rapid development of a child's organ systems during embryonic, fetal and early newborn periods makes children vulnerable when exposed to environmental toxicants. The particular vulnerabilities of infants, preschool and young children may be of particular importance to consider where child care centers are integrated with or adjacent to elementary or other schools; Children with chronic illnesses such as asthma may experience increased vulnerability to 5 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “An Introduction to Indoor Air Quality (IAQ),” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Last modified November 29, 2010. Available at: www.epa.gov/iaq/ia-intro.html. 6 “Developmental Toxicity: Special Considerations Based on Age and Developmental State,” in Pediatric Environmental Health, 2nd Edition, ed. Ruth A. Etzel and Sophie J. Balk, American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Environmental Health (2003) 9-36. 7 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook (Final Report),” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-06/096F, September 2008. Available at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/ recordisplay.cfm?deid=199243#Download. 6 | About the School Siting Guidelines School Siting Guidelines benve ai sronmental tochildreign;ni aficndan t prxicobalenm ats.8 Asthma continues to mong school age There is potential for children who are actively engaged in structured and unstructured outdoor physical activity, including sports activities, to be disproportionately affected by outdoor air pollution because intake of air increases during periods of increased physical activity. Also, when mouth breathing occurs, the process of deposition in the upper respiratory tract is bypassed with direct deposition in the lungs of any environmental contaminants present in the air. Research has confirmed that the quality of a school facility has an impact on students’ experiences and ultimately on their educational achievement. Research on school building conditions and student outcomes finds a consistent relationship between poor facilities and poor performance: higher student achievement is associated with school facilities that are clean, in good repair and designed to support high academic standards, independent of student socioeconomic status.9 (www.epa.gov/ schools/siting/resources) 1.4.2. Principle 2. The environmental review process should be rigorous, thorough and well-documented, and include substantive and ongoing meaningful public involvement Selecting sites where environmental reviews have recently been conducted and documented (within the past six months) or performing an environmental review on candidate locations is the only means of determining if there are any 8 World Health Organization, “The Physical School Environment: An Essential Component of a Health-Promoting School,” The World Health Organization's Information Series on School Health Document No. 2 (2004). Available at: http://www.who.int/school_youth_health/media/en/physical_sch_envir onment_v2.pdf. 9 M.J. Mendell and G.A. Heath, “Do indoor pollutants and thermal conditions in schools influence student performance? A critical review of the literature,” Indoor Air (2005) 15:1. 27-52. Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1600- 0668.2004.00320.x/full. onsite or offsite environmental hazards that may pose a health risk to students and staff. If there are potential hazards associated with the preferred location, in addition to identifying the potential hazards, the LEA and the school siting committee (SSC) (see Section 3.3) with meaningful public involvement (see Section 3) can use the environmental review process (see Section 5) to determine what cleanup, mitigation and long-term stewardship should be implemented to ensure the safety and health of all school occupants. A thorough and transparent environmental review process will help reduce the likelihood that natural hazards (e.g., flooding) or environmental hazards (e.g., site contamination) will be discovered after the school is located and operating, thus reducing potential adverse environmental and public health effects on children, legal and financial liability and/or public backlash. The rationale for choosing one location over another should be clearly articulated based on a robust review of candidate locations, especially if the environmental review is a deciding factor. Moreover, all engineering and scientific reporting must comply with applicable federal, state, tribal and local regulations. Stakeholder groups such as parents, teachers and other school personnel, and nearby residents are most directly impacted by school siting decisions and should be fully engaged in the review and decision-making process. These guidelines provide important information and links throughout, especially in the Quick Guide to Environmental Issues (see Section 8) and on the Resources page of the guidelines website, to address the need for technical assistance and training to enable meaningful participation by parents and nearby residents, including minority and low-income populations. (www.epa.gov/schools/siting/resources) State and tribal environmental regulatory agencies may play a central role in oversight and approval of the environmental review where contaminated sites are being considered (see Section 7). Their involvement is critical in any site About the School Siting Guidelines | 7 School Siting Guidelines reenmerdiation a site mplansunds in(seg the See icntionteg r5ity.10 ofan lonagegm-terenmt p slantewsa as)rd wsheill as, including any p institutional and engineering controls (see Section 8.15) in place to prevent exposures, so they can be relied upon over the long term. Investments in educational facilities represent one of the largest capital outlays that many states, tribes and local governments make. Decisions about the construction and renovation of schools will have important implications for communities beyond educational outcomes. Communities may choose to use these investments to meet multiple goals—education, health, environmental, economic, social and fiscal. Both the location and design of a school and its accessibility to residents outside of class hours, including residents with disabilities, play a major role in determining what benefits it provides to the community. Many communities that are re-evaluating their growth patterns and infrastructure investments are also assessing how and where they spend their education dollars. Integrating school planning with broader community plans, visions and goals can produce neighborhood-centered schools that offer high-quality educational programs while benefiting the environment, health and well-being in many ways. National trends in school siting and size have largely followed the model of building new schools at the edges of communities on large, undeveloped parcels of land away from the neighborhoods and towns they serve. Average school size (in terms of student population per school) has steadily grown. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, the number of schools in the United States decreased from 262,000 in 1930 to 95,000 in 2004.10 (http://nces.ed.gov/) Student population over the same period rose from 28 million to 54.5 million. This approach of constructing large schools on undeveloped locations often leads to underinvestment in the community core and existing facilities and increases public expenditures, vehicular travel, traffic congestion, pollution and loss of open space. Accordingly, many residents in older neighborhoods have lower access to public infrastructure and recreational locations, such as school playgrounds and athletic fields. Instead, schools should be a hub for the whole community, by providing public spaces for recreation and learning, extended hours before and after school and during the weekends and summer, and space for academic and non-academic services such as social services and activities that engage parents and the entire community. The National Trust for Historic Preservation’s 2009 report “Helping Johnny Walk to School” outlines the benefits of retaining community centered schools.11 It can be found here: www.preservationnation.org/ issues/historic-schools/. 1.4.3. Principle 3. Schools should be located in environments that contribute to the livability, sustainability and public health of neighborhoods and communities Encouraging physical activity The location of a school and the school environment can influence levels of physical activity. Further, the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on the Environment wrote in 2009, “The most universal opportunity for incidental physical activity among children is getting to and from school.”12 Many studies show that the distance between home and school is the 10 U.S. Department of Education Institute of Educational Sciences, “National Center for Educational Statistics Fast Facts.” (Accessed on September 16, 2011) Available at: http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/ display.asp?id=84. 11 Renee Kuhlman, “Helping Johnny Walk to School: Policy Recommendations for Removing Barriers to Community-Centered Schools,” National Trust for Historic Preservation (2010). Available at: www.preservationnation.org/issues/historic-schools/helping-johnny- walk-to-school/helping-johnny-walk-to-school.pdf. 12 American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Environmental Health, “The Built Environment: Designing Communities to Promote Physical Activity in Children.” Pediatrics (June 2009) 123:6. 1593. Online article available at: http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/ cgi/content/full/pediatrics;123/6/1591. 8 | About the School Siting Guidelines School Siting Guidelines strongest predictor of whether students walk or bike to school.13 The U.S. Department of Transportation reports that the number of students ages 5 to 18 who walk or bike to school has declined dramatically over the past few decades, from 41 percent in 1969 to only 13 percent in 2001.14 This has coincided with a sharp increase in obesity rates among children. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the prevalence of obesity among children ages 6 to 11 nearly tripled in the past three decades, increasing from 6.5 percent in 1976 – 1980 to 19.6 percent in 2007 – 2008. The rate among adolescents ages 12 to 19 more than tripled, increasing from 6.5 percent to 18.1 percent over the same period.15 Obesity rates and associated chronic disease rates are substantially higher in minority populations. Yet, these communities often lack access to opportunities for physical activity and to affordable and nutritious food.16 Well-sited schools within these neighborhoods combined with Safe Routes to Schools 17 (see Section 4.3.4) efforts and reinvestment in infrastructure that increases pedestrian and bike safety can increase the opportunity for incidental physical activity and may help address this environmental inequity 13 Safe Routes to School National Partnership, “The Influence of the Built Environment on Travel Behaviors.” (Accessed on September 16, 2011) Available at: www.saferoutespartnership.org/mediacenter/ research/231317. 14 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services at Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Kids Walk-to-School: Then and Now—Barriers and Solutions,” Last modified February 25, 2008. Available at: www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/kidswalk/ then_and_now.htm. 15 Cynthia Ogden and Margaret Carroll, “Prevalence of Obesity Among Children and Adolescents: United States, Trends 1963-1965 Through 2007-2008,” National Center for Health Statistics Health E-Stat Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Last modified June 4, 2010. Available at: www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ hestat/obesity_child_07_08/obesity_child_07_08.htm. 16 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “CDC Health Disparities and Inequalities Report—United States, 2011,” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (January 14, 2011) 60 (Suppl). Available at: www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/other/su6001.pdf. 17 Safe Routes to School National Partnership, “Impact of Physical Activity on Obesity and Health.” (Accessed on September 16, 2011) Available at: www.saferoutespartnership.org/mediacenter/ research/230339. and health disparity. Numerous studies have shown that when schools are within an easy walking or biking distance of residential areas and the routes to school are safe, students increase their participation in physical activity.18 (www.epa.gov/schools/siting/resources) In a study of adolescents, 100 percent of students who walked both to and from school met the recommended levels of 60 or more minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity on weekdays.19 Community centered schools that encourage daily physical activity lead to better health for children, for example better cardiovascular fitness, and healthier communities and may reduce risk of obesity and chronic disease.20 School siting that supports walking or biking to school can also contribute to academic achievement. The 2010 CDC report, “The Association between School-based Physical Activity, including Physical Education, and Academic Performance” (www.cdc.gov/ healthyyouth/health_and_academics/pdf/pape_executive_summary.pdf), synthesized the scientific literature examining indicators of cognitive skills and attitudes, academic behaviors and academic achievement. The report found substantial evidence that physical activity can help improve academic achievement, including grades and standardized test scores. The review suggests that physical activity can have an impact on cognitive skills and attitudes and academic behavior, all of which are important components of improved academic performance. These include enhanced 18 Active Living Research, “Walking and Biking to School, Physical Activity and Health Outcomes,” Research Brief (May 2009). Available at: www.activelivingresearch.org/files/ALR_Brief_ActiveTransport.pdf. 19 Leslie M. Alexander, Jo Inchley, Joanna Todd, Dorothy Currie, Ashley R. Cooper and Candace Currie, “The broader impact of walking to school among adolescents: seven day accelerometry based study,” British Medical Journal (2005) 331:7524. 1061–1062. Available at: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1283187/ 20 American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Environmental Health, “The Built Environment: Designing Communities to Promote Physical Activity in Children,” Pediatrics (June 2009) 123:6. 1591-1598. Online article available at: http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/ cgi/content/full/pediatrics;123/6/1591. About the School Siting Guidelines | 9 School Siting Guidelines concentration and attention as well as improved classroom behavior.21 Reducing environmental impacts on air, water and land The location of a school affects the environment in complex ways. Locating schools in the neighborhoods they serve, reusing infrastructure and renovating buildings conserve energy and resources. Integrating schools into neighborhoods instead of building them on undeveloped land on the fringe of the community preserves the natural environment, including farmland, fields and wildlife habitat. By using existing buildings, roads, parking lots and other infrastructure, communities can avoid building more impervious paved surfaces, which in turn reduces contaminated water runoff into nearby lakes, rivers and streams. Appropriate consideration of a school’s potential environmental impact can help to preserve and nourish the natural and human resources of a community. As noted earlier, the percentage of children that walk or bike to school dropped from 41 percent in 1969 to about 13 percent in 2001. Bus ridership has remained relatively stable during the same period, with about 55 percent of students riding a school bus in 2004.22 This means that the proportion of children arriving at school in privately owned vehicles has increased—a change that has implications for overall traffic and emissions. Increases in traffic can raise emissions of numerous pollutants, including criteria air pollutants, air toxics and greenhouse gases. In addition, traffic congestion around schools decreases child safety. Data from the 2001 National Household Transportation Survey show that the distance a child lives from school 21 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “The Association Between School-Based Physical Activity, Including Physical Education, and Academic Performance,” U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (April 2010). Available at: www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/ health_and_academics/pdf/pape_executive_summary.pdf. 22 Safe Routes to School National Partnership, “National Statistics on School Transportation, Safe Routes to School: Creative and Safe Solutions to School Bus Cuts.” (Accessed on September 16, 2011) Available at: www.saferoutespartnership.org/media/ file/school_bus_cuts_national_stats_FINAL.pdf. influences the choice of whether to walk, bike, ride a bus or get a ride in a car. For trips of less than ¼ of a mile, walking or biking is the dominant mode. For trips of ¼ to ½ a mile, private automobiles account for about half the trips to and from school. At a distance of 1 mile and beyond, the majority of the trips are by private automobile.23 Additionally, schools that apply integrated site and building design practices incorporating green principles and standards (See: www.epa.gov/ schools/siting/resources)—such as those from the Collaborative for High Performance Schools (CHPS) (www.chps.net/dev/Drupal/node) and the EPA’s ENERGY STAR program (www.energystar.gov/k-12)—improve educational opportunities through use of the building and practices as teaching tools; improve energy, material and resource efficiency; improve indoor environmental quality; and help create models of sustainable neighborhoods. 1.4.4. Principle 4. The school siting process should consider the environmental health and safety of the entire community, including disadvantaged and underserved populations A growing body of research suggests that minority and low-income children are more likely to attend schools that are in poor condition or have received inadequate maintenance due to lack of resources.24 Studies also highlight the disproportionate percentage of minority and low-income children that are exposed to multiple environmental hazards in close proximity to the schools they attend.25 These environmental 23 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, “National Household Travel Survey,” NHTS Brief (January 2008). Available at: www.saferoutespartnership.org/media/file /Travel_To_School.pdf. 24 Daria E. Neal, “Healthy Schools: A Major Front in the Fight for Environmental Justice.” Lewis & Clark Law School's Environmental Law Online (n.d.) 38:2 (Accessed on September 16, 2011) Available at: www.elawreview.org/elaw/382/healthy_schools_a_major_front.html. 25 David Salvesen, Peter Zambito, and Dylan McDonnell, “Safe Schools: Identifying Potential Threats to the Health and Safety of Schoolchildren in North Carolina,” Center for Sustainable Community Design Institute for the Environment, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina (November 2010). Available at: www.ie.unc.edu/cscd/pdf/Safe_Schools_Final_Report.pdf. 10 | About the School Siting Guidelines School Siting Guidelines hazards range from exposures to outdoor air toxics to various exposures that originate within the school boundaries. Minority and low-income children may be even more at risk from these environmental hazards given the presence of other factors, such as poor nutrition, lack of access to health care and pre-existing health conditions. The adverse health effects from these exposures may result in both short-term effects, such as poor school performance due to increased absenteeism, and possible long-term effects, such as the development of a serious learning disability, respiratory illness or other disease. Policies that encourage the renovation of existing schools, with appropriate mitigation of environmental hazards if necessary and the siting of new facilities within existing neighborhoods can contribute to solving multiple challenges in older communities. Conversely, policies that discourage renovating existing schools or siting schools within the community can lead to a disinvestment in the community that may contribute to physical, social and economic decline in the community. Siting schools in the communities they serve—particularly in urban areas where disinvestment in neighborhoods has led to chronic environmental, economic and public health disparities—can be part of a revitalization strategy aimed at a wide range of improved community outcomes. School grounds can provide important play and recreational space for children.26 Research shows that in inner-city neighborhoods, children are more likely to be physically active when there is a safe, easily accessible play space such as a schoolyard than when their neighborhood does not have a similar 26 Ad-Hoc Coalition for Healthy School Siting, “Revising CDE School Siting Policy Documents: How California’s School Siting Policies Can Support a World-Class Educational System,” Submitted to the California Department of Education by the Ad-Hoc Coalition for Healthy School Siting (January 31, 2008). Available at: http://citiesandschools.berkeley.edu/reports/School_Siting_Policy_Brie f_013108.pdf. space.27 Because these facilities are located within walking distance, families and children are more likely to use them.28 School locations that are accessible by walking or biking make it easier for families without cars to be part of their children’s school community and helps to reduce transportation expenses. Rates of auto ownership are lower among low-income and minority populations and being closer to the school makes it easier for parents to be involved in the school community.29 The benefits of locating schools in the communities they serve should be considered, especially in cases where the school will be serving disadvantaged or underserved populations. When renovation or new construction of school facilities in existing communities is paired with a joint-use program—using the location for K-12 education as well as an adult vocational training center in the evenings, for instance—communities benefit. Joint use schools can also include public libraries, amenities such as swimming pools and gyms, public health centers, and counseling clinics. Co-locating these uses leverages public and private dollars more efficiently, reuses existing infrastructure and contributes to the vibrancy of existing communities. Joint use agreements can be used to address LEA or community concerns about costs, vandalism, security, maintenance and liability in the event of injury. For more on joint use and joint use agreements see the Center for Cities and Schools (http://citiesandschools. berkeley.edu/) and the National Policy and Legal Analysis Network to Prevent Childhood Obesity (www.nplanonline.org/nplan/joint-use) websites. 27 Thomas A. Farley et al., “Safe Play Spaces To Promote Physical Activity in Inner-City Children: Results from a Pilot Study of an Environmental Intervention,” American Journal of Public Health (September 2007) 97:9. 1625-1631. Available at: www.njafter3.org/edu/docs/Reports_Safe-Places-to-Play-Report.pdf. 28 National Policy and Legal Analysis Network to Prevent Childhood Obesity, “Healthy School Siting.” (Accessed on September 16, 2011) Available at: www.nplanonline.org/nplan/healthy-school-siting. 29 Adam Carasso and Signe-Mary McKernan, The Urban Institute, “The Balance Sheets of Low-Income Households: What We Know about Their Assets and Liabilities,” Prepared for U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (November 2007). Available at: http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/07/PoorFinances/balance/index.shtml. About the School Siting Guidelines | 11 School Siting Guidelines The renovation of an existing school or the siting of a new school facility on a previously developed site can reduce or eliminate expenses that might have otherwise been incurred—for new infrastructure like roads and sewers, separate locations for the different uses, and the costs of transporting children out of their neighborhood to the new facility.30 It can also mean that a facility or site that was once seen as a blight or blemish on a community or neighborhood has been transformed into a community asset.31 When prospective locations for schools are taken out of the discussion solely because they were previously used or are in disrepair, or when recent trends towards larger, dispersed, and auto- or bus-access only schools are followed, communities in most need of reinvestment can miss out on significant opportunities for catalytic investments.32,33 Links to more information on disparities and environmental justice are provided in the Resources page of the guidelines website. (www.epa.gov/schools/siting/resources) 30 National Trust for Historic Preservation, “Older and Historic Schools: Restoration vs. Replacement and the Role of a Feasibility Study,” Last updated January 2010. Available at: www.preservationnation.org/issues/historic-schools/additional- resources//school_feasibility_study.pdf. 31 Ariel H. Bierbaum, Jeffrey M. Vincent and Erika Tate, “Building Schools and Community,” Race, Poverty and the Environment (Spring 2008) 15:1. Available at: http://urbanhabitat.org/files/ 15.Bierbaum.et_.al_.pdf. 32 Renee Kuhlman, “Helping Johnny Walk to School: Policy Recommendations for Removing Barriers to Community-Centered Schools,” National Trust for Historic Preservation (2010). Available at: www.preservationnation.org/issues/historic-schools/helping-johnny- walk-to-school/helping-johnny-walk-to-school.pdf. 33 Constance E. Beaumont and Elizabeth G. Pianca, “Why Johnny Can’t Walk to School: Historic Neighborhood Schools in the Age of Sprawl,” 2nd ed. National Trust for Historic Preservation (October 2002). Available at: www.preservationnation.org/issues/historic- schools/additional-resources/schools_why_johnny_1.pdf. 12 | About the School Siting Guidelines School Siting Guidelines This page left intentionally blank. Overview of the School Siting Guidelines | 13 School Siting Guidelines 2. Overview of the School Siting Guidelines 2.1. Introduction School buildings are fundamental components of the educational process, and children spend more time in school than in any other environment except their home. A well-located, thoughtfully designed, soundly built and efficiently operated school enhances the educational process by providing a safe and healthy environment for children, teachers and other staff and provides many opportunities to meet multiple community goals. These voluntary guidelines are intended to assist local school districts, which will be referred to throughout these guidelines as the local education agency (LEA) (see Section 10), and community members in evaluating environmental factors to make the best possible school siting decisions. The guidelines are intended to be used prior to: Making a decision about whether to renovate the existing school, build a new school on the current site or build a new school on a new site; Acquisition of land for school facilities; Use of legacy property already owned by the LEA; Leasing of space in new or existing structures not owned by the LEA for use as a school; and/or Major repair, renovation or reuse of existing properties and structures already owned by the LEA for use as a school. In developing the guidelines, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) focused on four underlying principles for addressing environmental factors in school siting decisions (described in detail in About the School Siting Guidelines): 1. Safe and healthy school environments are integral components of the education process (see Section 1.4.1); 2. The environmental review process should be rigorous, thorough and well-documented and include substantive and ongoing meaningful public involvement (see Section 1.4.2); 3. Schools should be located in environments that contribute to the livability, sustainability and public health of neighborhoods and communities (see Section 1.4.3); and 4. The school siting process should consider the environmental health and safety of the entire community, including disadvantaged and underserved populations (see Section 1.4.4). 14 | Overview of the School Siting Guidelines School Siting Guidelines 2.2. Overview for Considering Environmental Factors in the School Siting Process The decision about where to locate a school is fundamentally local in nature, although state, tribal and federal laws and programs often influence the decision-making process in both direct and indirect ways. For example, the presence of environmental contamination and threat of exposure of children and/or staff to unsafe levels of contaminants on school property may trigger the need for state and possibly federal involvement. These guidelines present recommendations on evaluating the environmental and public health risks and benefits of potential locations as part of the school siting process. Examples of potential environmental and public health risks include onsite contamination, such as radon, volatile organic compounds or petroleum hydrocarbons in soil and ground water, or impacts from nearby sources of pollution, such as industrial facilities and transportation facilities (see Exhibit 6: Screening Potential Environmental, Public Health and Safety). Some examples of environmental and public health benefits include the location’s proximity to residences where future students live (so students would be able to walk or bike to school) and the availability of public transportation to and from the site (see Exhibit 4: Desirable Environmental Attributes of Candidate Sites). The siting process is complex and involves many considerations that extend beyond the scope of these guidelines, for example: Educational and extracurricular programs and services; Anticipated size and demographics of the student body; Needs of individuals with disabilities; Location size (acreage and facility space); Community partnerships and planned or potential commercial development in the community; Cost of land and location preparation; Availability of infrastructure (e.g., roads and utilities); Requirements that must be met to receive local, state and tribal funding assistance; and Economic impact to the community. While these issues are beyond the scope of the guidelines, some resources related to these other considerations have been provided on the guidelines website. (www.epa.gov/schools/ siting/resources) Many LEAs develop long-range school facilities plans to help determine future facilities needs. These long-range plans provide the context within which the school siting decisions are made. To make informed decisions, the LEA should consider consulting with municipal officials on the community’s plans for future land use and capital expenditures (often outlined in a comprehensive plan or similar document) (see Section 4.2.1). Although the actual process to consider environmental factors in school siting decisions varies from community to community, Exhibit 1 gives a general picture of the issues that are addressed in the guidelines. Overview of the School Siting Guidelines | 15 School Siting Guidelines Exhibit 1: Overview of the Siting Guidelines 16 | Overview of the School Siting Guidelines School Siting Guidelines At the beginning and throughout the process of considering environmental factors in the school siting process it is essential for the LEA to involve the public by reaching out to stakeholders in the community, especially those most impacted by the decision to build a new school or renovate an existing school. Stakeholders can include parents, teachers, school personnel, school health council or team members, community and business leaders, and nearby residents. It is important to develop a communications plan (see Section 3.4) and to identify opportunities for meaningful public involvement (see Section 3) to ensure the public is engaged throughout the entire school siting process. It is also important to enhance the capacity of disadvantaged and other community members to participate in the process through facilitating access to technical information and assistance and providing access to information for individuals with disabilities and limited English proficiency. To ensure public involvement in consideration of environmental factors in school siting decisions, EPA recommends that the LEA establish a school siting committee (SSC) (see Section 3.3). This committee should generally consist of representatives of the LEA and its governing body, local government or tribal staff, and representatives from stakeholder groups that can help the LEA identify and evaluate potential school locations (both new and existing). Before beginning the siting process, an initial decision should be made on whether a new school facility is needed. If the LEA, advised by the SSC, determines that a new facility is needed, the location will play an important role in determining whether the LEA’s goals for the facility will be met (see Section 4.2.1). It is critical for the LEA and the SSC with the community’s input to identify environmental factors related to desirable school location attributes that can be used to prioritize potential new sites (see Section 4.3). Questions that can be asked to determine these characteristics include, but are not limited to: What environmental and public health criteria should be used to evaluate each potential location (see Section 4.4)? How can locations be avoided that are either on or in close proximity to land uses that may not be compatible with schools because of onsite and/or offsite pollution and/or safety hazards? How can prospective locations complement and leverage local and regional growth and development plans and strategies? What are the desirable cultural or historic preservation attributes that should be considered? What environmental justice considerations should be included in the desirable location attributes? (www.epa.gov/environmental justice) How will staff, students and community members get to the school? What are the potential impacts that the school might have on the environment? What attributes will allow the school to serve as an emergency shelter for the community? Once potential locations have been identified (see Section 5.5) by the LEA and the SSC with the community’s input, the LEA and the SSC should determine which potential locations best meet the stated desired environmental attributes. Questions that can be used to further evaluate potential locations include, but are not limited to: Which locations present the least risk of exposure to pollutants originating either onsite or offsite? Which locations have opportunities for shared or joint use of school facilities (such as a library, classrooms, physical activity facilities or a health clinic) or community facilities (such as an athletic center or park)? Which locations best fit with local, tribal, regional and state development plans? Which locations would give the most students additional physical activity opportunities by being able to walk or bike to school? Overview of the School Siting Guidelines | 17 School Siting Guidelines pWotehicnhtia locl faotionr neseg would resul thenviro c t innm nt? ative impa ts on th e leow est Cost Considerations for School Siting After deciding which locations best meet the During the siting process, the LEA will sdehousirled cd ponosduitivct ae e pnrveirliomnimnarenyta enl avttriroibnumteesn,t Lal EAs need to consider costs related to comparing desirable attributes of awssehicssmh is thente f(sirese St sectatgieo nin 5 th.6e) onenv thes candidate sites, performing the ironme locenattioal ns, assessments recommended in these review process (see Section 5.3). EPA guidelines and acquiring the site or reSeccotiomnm 7e)nd ensv ciroonnsumlteinngta wl aitnhd e stadutec aatind ton aribgeanl (cseiese structure. Some of these cost during the environmental review process to considerations include: eannsd toure ob cotampinliance with requirements and policies •Cost of land and location preparation; topconsicisd ther de LuEriA te, thchen SicSaCl a anssd tistahen ccome. Emuxampnityle cs aofn •Short- and long-term construction or include, but arnge n thoet l eiminvitero me renovation costs; dn to: ntal review process •Transportation costs for students and staff; and thwThhee enic pha cst vauirns ioenn ofcmlu eendeact shaol ll hocicistaititionnogr y o;p ubf ealic icnhp luot acabtioount, •Cost estimates for mitigating or reducing environmental risks and long- term stewardship of remediation from contaminated perfor m min eas g a ur m es or . Assessments of potential onsite ensoilvir anod nwmaentetra alt th hazea sritd es Assessments of potenti ; a l offsite environmental hazards creview for the locaetio conm fpourehnd to hensivae envvironmental eonvnciroernmns (esntee alS recevtiioenw 5 s.h7o).u Tldh de cetoemrmpe prehoteenntial The technical feasibility f a ro n m n d th e e c arb o y st s s ources; hazardous materials are present or if itneher ife i sive associated with preventing or reducing photeazarndtiaoul fso mr aat rerelieal oaser o sfu obrs teanxpcose tuhrates to a s sehnvortiro- nmande lntongal -etxerpos re could pose a The envir men a m l im pu on t erss,p ief p ent fro a ealth thre pa ctreivse; , m fmhembers. Tat to ct or cl nu his r cseehdvil oniedrea p ba wen, staff or community of building o le cvoeulsld of a clsoon atasseminss tatiohen n eed rheabnovitatatin org g aree scnh soolpac oen) th; ane sdi te (e.g., loss to r found and Other physical characteristics breve uiewsed i.s O cncidee tnhtifeteyompl edc thome cnpreleahn p s a d th eue nspuivtae endards that will blic hnvaisro bnmeene gntivael n safety and proximity to noise and s trucahf as overall ththee c oopmmuportunnityity s tho couomld hmaenvet th, thee Lr th i Efic. elated to e school environmen nt fnoA and erma, thetioe SnS C Once the preliminary assessment has been tha feinrea al derec onisisonite a abnoud/tor w ofhefrsei teto l eocnvairteo thdeed sto machool.k Ief rcevoniduewcedted a byn tdh the peu abslisce assnmed thne St reSpCor, ifts n hoa ve been environmental concerns exist, a decision can be mhaezasarudsre, ss anite-ds a pelocifngic- rteremme sditewationard/mitnimgaetionntal lmaocadetion to m. ove forward with the preferred school should be developed, reviewed by tshhe ipp upblanlic and impsitinlge/mreensouted.rc (ews)w w.epa.gov/schools/ If potential environmental concerns are found in the preliminary assessment, EPA recommends 18 | Overview of the School Siting Guidelines School Siting Guidelines This page left intentionally blank. Meaningful Public Involvement | 19 School Siting Guidelines 3. Meaningful Public Involvement 3.A me1.an inOgfveul purbvilice inw thwithose a andmin ring th veol pvroed useis gtoeod public invcmeesns to t prboce feasmils requires communication practices. olvement and riaisrk Panud bblicu iilndsvol pvuebmlice trnt pusrtom in sotcehsool civic engagement In(E 2PA003, the Environmental Prot secitintiogn A degceisnciony s. (Pwolwicwy) aupdated the 1981 Public.enpd isa.g sued its Public Invol Pvaerticmeipnat Ptioolnic y. sduexp)p Iortst f eouffenovda/tiopunb islicinvolvement/policy2003/in ctive pub lthic ine sveovlevne bmeasnict: s teps to 1. Plan and budget; 2. Identify those to involve; 3. Consider providing assistance; 4. Provide information; 5. Conduct involvement; 6.Rtheev pieuwb alicn;d u ansde input and provide feedback to 7. 34 Evaluate involvement. To help implement the steps, EPA developed a series of How-To brochures for effective public involvement (www.epa.gov/publicinvolvement/ brochures/index) as resources on how to budget for, plan and evaluate public involvement, including “The Risk Communication Workbook.” (www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/625r05003/625r05003.pdf) 34 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Seven Cardinal Rules of Risk Communication," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, OPA-87-020, April 1988. (Accessed on September 16, 2011) Available at: www.epa.gov/care/library/7_cardinal_rules.pdf. Seven Cardinal Rules for Risk Communication34 There are seven cardinal rules for risk communication that may be helpful when planning public involvement strategies: 1.Accept and involve the public as a legitimate partner; 2.Plan carefully and evaluate your efforts; 3.Listen to the public's specific concerns; 4.Be honest, frank and open; 5.Coordinate and collaborate with other credible sources; 6.Meet the needs of the media; and 7.Speak clearly and with compassion. 20 | Meaningful Public Involvement School Siting Guidelines 3.2. Establishing a Public Involvement Strategy Providing meaningful public involvement throughout the school siting process is of critical importance and should be formalized prior to initiating school site selection. Stakeholder groups such as parents, representatives of students, teachers and other school personnel, and nearby residents are most directly impacted by school siting decisions. The community should be fully engaged throughout the siting process and fully informed of the presence of contaminants at or near school sites, of any remedial measures employed to eliminate exposure to such contaminants, and of testing results evaluating such measures over the long term. These groups also play a critical role in the initial site selection process. Documentation of contaminated sites can be housed in many different locations (e.g., federal, tribal or state environmental regulatory agency, local health or planning department, private property owner). This can make it difficult to find a complete record of the contamination history at the site. Efforts are underway to consolidate these different information sources through geospatial and Internet accessible methods. Currently members of the public can use EPA’s MyEnvironment search application (www.epa.gov/myenvironment) to find a cross section of environmental information based on location. Additionally, members of the public can contribute to the information collection effort through their own recollections as neighbors or employees. The public should be engaged to help establish historical uses of potential school sites and adjacent sites and to assess the likelihood and possible presence of contamination. Because these groups may also have frequent contact with the site, they can significantly contribute to efforts to ensure compliance with site use restrictions as part of long-term site management plans. Finally, transparency and meaningful public involvement are essential to understanding decisions about risk tradeoffs and to building trust in the safety of specific school sites and the siting process in general. Aand pu mblic involvement strateinformeead nipngubfulicl a ppaprroticaipchatioesg y inclunto. T ehnceodeuras gpirngoa ctive bpeu eblsicta ibnl fisacility p role of the ensure effehcetivd ee carllayn innin thge a sncd shoolite s sitinelegction should participation. Keyol clompaboronatioennts a fnodr p impublic p rocess to me aningful public participation strateglye inmecnlutidneg: a School siting committee (see Section 3.3); Communications plan (see Section 3.4); Caconcessidesibrilaitytio isn osuf cesom (semue Sneitycti inonf 3or.5ma); ti on T(seee Schnieccatilo ans 3si.s6t)a;nc e and training D(seee Ssignecatitionon of 3.7 op); paorndtu nities for public input B(suee Sdgeect ftoior pn 3ub.7lic). involvement activities 3.3. School Siting CIef du noommittee estabct aalrealitionsh a adysgce inhnoolc piel ssa (cLe,EAs EPA) recommends that local responsibilities inclitiudneg ma com(smittee S tkineece(iSSCon 1g recomm)0 w) endahotiseto th on e LEA s preunrovposatines,g’s e gxisovbtienrgn binugil b uilding new sdiodyng son for s eitedus fcorchools and/oratio leansasinl pace fo g raelsvo iniewc oflru new schools. SSC responsibilities would existing a pdeot peanrtiaticlipating in the environmental recommenndsd n thewat th us seite cons avnders siontrusc.t EuPreAs for cly transparenteipnucblulide: p froorcmaesst aniond o tfh thate t ShSe SC bSCe a Representa bfaocdilyit (ys, huceh ativs eelsec oft thede s LchEoAo al bnd itsar g movemeralth and safety staff)o; d b nerings, Local governspplaennecialrsists, g, covmeernmnt orent tr einvbali sounty au rotanmff (esntucahl h aesa clityth recreation departmenditot starsff,) p; aarnkds and Meaningful Public Involvement | 21 School Siting Guidelines Rrefeplecrets tehne dtativemeos fgrromaph sictas kofe thholede comr grmuounpisty th, at sreimilcomarme govndeerd ninthga bt thodye l, ocforamal sclhizoole th beoa prrd,oc ores a - uc c v of s h as: on ening the S s - Parents of children likely to attend the crelecaromlym arentidcus latthateSsC t ahned S dSeCv’se lcopha lragen. EguPagAe that r arty help - school; a neut al p Teachers and school staff; acommittdministeeer. and/or facilitate the work of or thgane ize, - Public health organizations; - Community members and neighborhood dTecheis SionSC cs aanb poulayt th ane m inostet greal role in making groups; Environmental advocacy and sacnh SoolSC l cocana btione c.o Onntreib ofu thtineg fnivrirst ronemesponntasibllyil sitieousn fdor - - environmental justice groups; Community planning organizations; a pdeclanision fo-rma mekaninging to the developmen prfocul pesusb, liincc elundingagge ammpentle i tin tmehte of - - Locally based nonprofits; (e.g., 30 – 90 days) for public comment by Age-appropriate students; member - Local businesses and trade/building eanlsvo airosnsiss of the affec d cmt wentithally oth deesrti kerabeyle p sotmmueops inni idtye. Tntihefic SaStionC ca ofn - associations; tential school Emergency planners and responders; and locations, including: Preservation organizations and agencies. Establishing desirable location criteria; Long-range School Facilities Plan inIdeclnutifdinyign gth ienitial candidate locations, School siting decisions should be existing schools; integrated with broader community planning efforts, including transportation, Wexpeigerhieinngc the we ithpr osth ae end cxisotinnsg lofoc aa ctionommu; nity’s health care, libraries, parks and historic districts, to name a few. A long-range Working with environmental professionals to school facilities plan functions as a way review the suitability of candidate locations for LEAs to identify important projections (see Section 10); of long-term school and community needs such as student enrollment, operatio al costs and infrastru Rfreomvie thwine egn recommendation n cture to vironmental revise awn pd rrocepeorss;ts use in making school siting Considering th decisions. The LEA's long-range plan sites in light of eth seu litaocbailtionity so;f potential school should be reviewed and commented on by the public, including other local public Giving recommendations to the decision- entities (e.g., municipalities, planning inmapkuint; g authority based on data and public departments). More information on the long-range school facilities plan can be Making formal presentations and providing found in the Environmental Siting Criteria reports to the LEA and general public; Considerations section (see Section 4). Paprovpriding the public with all of the opthein avioponr td/e data, a forai aialabnle orop totio mans; ankuem to a ed recommexpressn dathetioir n on LEAs should seek to avoid conflicts of interest in aFnacd lilitaegatinl ign pfourbmalictio acncess to relevant technical selecting committee members and should manage assistance and other m thearousurgehs. te chnical any conflicts transparently, as needed. It is 22 | Meaningful Public Involvement School Siting Guidelines SSC members should collaborate with LEAs and other local government agencies and stakeholders to ensure school siting decisions account for fiscal constraints and fit with the objectives of larger community and regional development plans. Community involvement in school facility assessment, planning, design and construction provides the community an opportunity to improve local schools, increase their suitability for community use and build and strengthen connections among community members. The Smart Growth Schools Report Card (www.smartgrowthschools.org/ about.html), For Generations to Come: The Leadership Guide to Renewing Public Buildings (www.21csf.org/csf-home/Documents/ Organizing_Manual.pdf) as well as other resources identified in the Resource page of the guidelines website (www.epa.gov/schools/siting/resources) can serve as useful tools to support collaboration and community involvement. The SSC should be mindful of its members’ knowledge and expertise to effectively participate in decision-making. The SSC should also ensure that its members effectively reach out to environmental justice and low-income communities, as well as other stakeholders, with technical assistance and/or training support to ensure that they have the necessary skills and knowledge to address relevant issues. (see links to Community Involvement and Training resources at www.epa.gov/schools/siting/resources) Engineering and institutional controls, such as lead encapsulation systems, can be used to prevent exposure to contamination and typically require specialized expertise. The SSC should carefully evaluate if there is sufficient capacity at the LEA to safely operate engineering and institutional control systems or to undertake long-term stewardship tasks to prevent environmental exposures at schools. If the LEA staff do not have the expertise, EPA recommends that LEAs obtain training or support from a government environmental department and/or additional contracted technical services to effectively manage institutional and engineering controls. 3.4. Communications Plan LEAs should develop a communications plan to ensure meaningful public involvement in school siting. The plan should include a schedule and methods of delivery of information to the public and identify ways for the public to participate throughout the school siting decision-making process. It is essential that the public receives timely notice about the LEA’s plans for school facilities and critical decision points in the process. To ensure that key stakeholders receive such notice, LEAs should publicize the release of plans and reports, the commencement of public comment periods, and the dates of public hearings through written notices that are: Composed in lay-accessible language to communicate effectively with all stakeholders in the community, including non-English-speaking stakeholders and individuals with disabilities; Published in newspapers of general circulation within the LEA’s jurisdiction (including foreign language newspapers for any non-English-speaking population); Placed conspicuously in schools within the LEA; Delivered to each parent-teacher organization and each labor union covered by a collective bargaining agreement within the LEA; Delivered to businesses and residents located within 1,000 feet of potential school locations; Delivered to places of worship and community centers within the LEA’s jurisdiction; Delivered to organizations representing neighborhoods within potential catchment areas; Provided to elected representatives in jurisdiction areas; and Disseminated on the Internet through websites and social media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, blogs). Meaningful Public Involvement | 23 School Siting Guidelines Public comments received on plans and reports should be made available on all non-final actions, and the LEA, SSC and other governing bodies should be encouraged to provide responses to these comments. LEAs and/or state or tribal environmental agencies should also establish and make public key contact persons, including local planning, public works, parks and recreation, and library directors, and create central information repositories (e.g., a project website and other centralized sources such as community libraries) for key documents and notices related to school siting and monitoring. For each ongoing school siting process, these repositories, including the website, should provide: Documents that are or have been subject to review and comments received on such documents; Relevant correspondence between LEAs and the state or tribal oversight agency, including any supplemental information provided as a result thereof; A timeline for the review process that specifically notes opportunities for public comment and public hearings; Copies of any public notices; Key school siting resources, including laws, regulations, guidance documents and appropriate agency contacts; For any schools where environmental remediation measures (see Section 5.8) are put in place and/or long-term stewardship plans (see Section 5.10) are implemented, copies of such measures or plans and the results of any monitoring results or reports generated under those measures or plans; and How the project supports the community's long-range plans. 3.5. Consideration of Community Information Accessibility Issues A number of factors can impede effective communication in community settings, including a lack of trust between stakeholders and community members, a lack of easily accessible information related to decisions in languages spoken by local residents, socio-cultural differences, lack of access to electronic communication resources, limited access to scientific information and legal resources, and a lack of available time for meetings and review of documents. These factors can be especially prominent in populations disproportionately burdened by environmental hazards as well as those vulnerable subgroups that are at particular risk to threats to human health and the environment. These include minorities, low-income and indigenous populations, children and people with disabilities. Although these factors can frequently be overcome, the LEA may need to enhance information delivery and communication methods and consider providing assistance to communities that are affected by a combination of any or all of these factors to ensure their meaningful and informed participation in the process. Every effort should be made to provide information that will be accessible to the community. Some activities that should help make information more accessible include: Seeking out community leaders to obtain their views on how to best communicate and follow their advice; Holding public meetings that are convened at times and locations available and accessible to community members (provide the services of an interpreter for those who need it); Publicizing meetings and the availability of information; 24 | Meaningful Public Involvement School Siting Guidelines Pnmeoakiestdiennd,gg i into t avfroairmlabaletio inn m onu tlthipe Ilent lanergneuagt aends, if trreasinouinrcge osp. Epxaormptunlitiese ofs c thane sbee p fourognrda onms th aned M commu eeting n In ity; t e er ac n h et al a l me cce mb ssib er i s lit of y s th ta e ndards TReeschonuicrcaesl A psage of the guidelines website under C(wommuww.enpiatie.govsis/tascnhcoole asn/d Csitinapga/crityes Bouurilcdines) g. aforc making informthec fesesdiberlea tol gov useersa wtioithn o disn tahbeil Iitinteesrn (ee.gt ., for local collegess an mady u anlsivo consider reaching out to O comp rgan liance); andrn e d g a m nt this woul be 508 izin community tour flocor aals gsovistaernncmee anntsd tr, orai perrosities, state, tribal and technical topics. ningfe osns sionpeaclif oricg sacnieiznatitionfic ors sites and/or pote of existing eAndsdurreessi efnfegc ativccee cssintbia d p eoilyoposmmuli atn issures is impd locoratationtn to s. community support for pnricojaetioncts. a Inn thd e end, 3.7. Designation of commu Opportunities for degain scis supnpityort fuions. oprp sorcht woolil fl ubned cinriticg aanld s to hitienlgp Meaningful Public Input and Budget for Public Involvement Activities 3.6. Technical Assistance and Training meIt isa cnrinitgicfuall to b pubulicdg inet tivolmevem aennd tr duesourinrgc thes ef eora rliest impA brooratad nrte fporre smeenatantioningf uolf p sutakeholder groups is setxaagmpes olefs p oflan pnoiinngts. T inh the teab plre boceeslos ww hpererese pnutbs lic Hthowe SeSvCe hr,av it se thhoue nld ecneot ssbare ay sssbulicme ind avolllv mem and o e enkills kn mbt.ers of setrngaagtegeimese fnort s henogualdg ebmee cnot ansindd therede ty, asp wese ofll as to fcommuully pniatyrt micipematebe onrs, th paer SticSCu.l Sarimilly tharoslye, wledge inrefqouremastetiod fnr thom that mae pyu bbelic p.r SeSseCns stehd outo old ar lso inby ecomnvier ponopmental injustic affected consider including a public comment period and resources to uelafftionectivs,e anly ad ddrter (ibee.gs).,, mminayo lacrityk t andhe low-ppuubblliicc to he sareienkg csl, warifhicena aptionpr aonpd priatrove, tiode allo inpwu tt.h e tethceh sncichoolal a snitid lnegg palr inocfeorssmatieonss p threes secnietend dutificr, ing BLEefAo to rre finesaploiznind gto c its aomctionmen, EtsPA encourages the critical that all members o. For these reasons, it is in writing. cteommuchnicanli atys hsisavtaen thcee th opapt porf ttuhne SityS tCo a ancdc tehsse pErPopA roseceommd fore unsdse as th a sat achllo porl opbe certiareesf oullyr s tructures cthommonat are c kriticnowall inedg rovides a basis for evaluated for potential environm the ae sncd uhoolnde locrsatationndin dge ocn factors contaminants and potential exposeunrtaesl of children, enincvliurdinonmg enputballic r heveiaewlth, s, tirtae rnsevporiewta tioissnu oespistiioonsn, , sutasef af a snitd ve oisr sitortrusc betufroer feor ma a skinchgool fin. Talh dee sciteision s to specific mitigation/remediation strategie,s s aitned -pevotealunatiationl sa pfreocty hesasz sahrouds ald idnd esnoutifryce ans odf evaluate all nolegnal c-proofnsit oiderrgatanioiznastio. Mnans ofy ffeerd etrraal aginineng act lieittls aen tod aent thvireo snimtee ornta wl chiconhta maminy migatiorna thte ato tht maey s bitee fprresent avno caioslabt alen fd aor vlsao hriouave progra om s technicamsl a wssisithta fnucnedin g nearby sources. Meaningful Public Involvement | 25 School Siting Guidelines Exhibit 2: Meaningful Public Involvement Points and Opportunities Before the Siting Process Begins LEA Activity Description of Activity Opportunities for Meaningful Public Involvement Develop Long- range School Facilities Plan (see Section 4.2.1) A long-range school facilities plan functions as a way for local education agencies (LEAs) to identify important projections of long-term school and community needs such as student enrollment, operational costs and infrastructure to use in making school siting decisions. Review and comment on the long-range facilities plan Establish School Siting Committee (see Section 3.3) If not already in place, EPA recommends that LEAs establish a SSC whose responsibilities include making recommendations to the LEA’s governing body on locations for building new schools, leasing space for new schools, and/or renovating or expanding existing schools, and considering environmental, public health and sustainable communities objectives (see Section 3.3). Provide nominations for stakeholder/community representatives on the SSC Request a community meet-and- greet with SSC representatives, once selected Develop Communications Plan (see Section 3.4) LEAs should develop a communications plan to ensure meaningful public involvement in school siting. The plan should include dates and methods of delivery of information to the public, and identify ways for the public to participate in school siting decisions. The plan should also ensure sufficient funds are allocated for meaningful public involvement activities in the school siting budget. Voice expectations for informed and meaningful involvement while addressing potential communications barriers and considerations for underrepresented community members, including translation services Provide recommendations for the location of an information repository and information delivery needs, and ensure that the communications plan and public involvement budget will meet these needs 26 | Meaningful Public Involvement School Siting Guidelines Before the Siting Process Begins LEA Activity Description of Activity Opportunities for Meaningful Public Involvement Provide Opportunities for Training and Technical Assistance (see links to resources at www.epa.gov/ A broad representation of stakeholder groups is important for meaningful public involvement. However, it should not be assumed all members of the SSC have the necessary skills and knowledge to fully participate on the SSC. For these reasons, it is critical that all members of the SSC and the community have the opportunity to access technical assistance and/or training resources that provide a basis for common knowledge and understanding of factors that are critical in the school Ensure that all community members (including the SSC) have the ability to access and utilize available independent technical assistance options and training resources This may be accomplished by inquiring about grant funding for technical assistance and/or the availability of low-cost or free online training resources schools/siting/ resources) location decision, including public health, transportation options, environmental review, site review issues, site-specific mitigation/remediation strategies and legal considerations. Consider reaching out to local colleges and universities, state, tribal and local governments, or professional organizations for assistance and training on specific scientific or technical topics Determine if a New School Facility is Needed (see Section 4.2.2) LEAs should consider renovation, repair and/or expansion options before deciding to build a new school facility. "Old" and "obsolete" are not synonymous. Many existing schools can be retrofitted with new technologies to expand their useful life, possibly at a lower cost and lower environmental impact than new construction. Engage in discussions with the LEA and SSC regarding the pros and cons of using an existing school building versus building a new school facility. These discussions may include getting community input on the influence of the existing school on the well- being of the overall community, including disadvantaged/ underserved, minority and low- income populations Meaningful Public Involvement | 27 School Siting Guidelines Environmental Siting Criteria Considerations LEA Activity Description of Activity Opportunities for Meaningful Public Involvement Evaluate Desirable Environmental Attributes of Candidate Locations and Appropriate Environmental Criteria (see Section 4) The LEA, in concert with the SSC and with meaningful public involvement, should identify the criteria that will be used to evaluate both the present characteristics and the possible future characteristics of all locations being considered for use as a school. In addition, the SSC should weigh those location characteristics that may adversely affect the decision, including exposure to onsite contamination and offsite pollution. Discuss the characteristics of the community's preferred school site, including location (both proximity to students and other community buildings) and compatibility (space and accessibility) with student and staff activities Help to identify environmental or public health siting considerations (with a basis for common knowledge and understanding on factors that are critical in the school location decision), including public health, community health environmental review, site review issues and site- specific mitigation/remediation strategies, legal considerations as well as green building techniques that are important to the community Provide insight into key community characteristics that could influence the siting decision (e.g., demographics, income) 28 | Meaningful Public Involvement School Siting Guidelines Environmental Review Process LEA Activity Description of Activity Opportunities for Meaningful Public Involvement Project Scoping/Initial Screening of Candidate Site Locations (see Section 5.5) This portion of the environmental review process begins when the LEA decides to proceed with a school facility project (ideally identified in a long-range school facility plan). This decision includes such considerations as the project size (number of students to be served), scope (type of school to be built) and target date for completion. At this point, the SSC should be tasked with identifying candidate sites for the school project and should plan to give the public an opportunity to comment on the preferred site that is selected. Review/comment on the screening criteria proposed by the LEA, as well as the top three sites proposed for preliminary environmental review Recommend additional sites for consideration that the community deems as candidates for preliminary environmental review Offer community knowledge regarding historic land use on candidate sites (e.g., the site was used for agricultural or industrial purposes in the past) Preliminary Environmental Review (see Section 5.6) The LEA should engage environmental professionals or professional firms to conduct the necessary environmental reviews for the project. The LEA should solicit public comment on the preliminary environmental assessment and proposed next steps based on review findings. A public comment period is recommended and may be required by the tribal or state regulatory agency, particularly if the preliminary review indicates that no further environmental review is necessary and no other methods of securing public comment are likely. Review/comment on each preliminary environmental review report as they become available and request LEA response to comments received Identify community needs for technical assistance to explain the technical/scientific information in the reports Request tours of candidate sites for community members/representatives, if possible Notify the LEA of the community's perspectives on the preferred site(s) and request a response to community recommendations Request changes to the public involvement plan (e.g., to extend the public comment period), if necessary Meaningful Public Involvement | 29 School Siting Guidelines Environmental Review Process LEA Activity Description of Activity Opportunities for Meaningful Public Involvement Comprehensive Environmental Review/Site Selection (see Section 5.7) The purpose of the comprehensive environmental review is to gather and analyze data on environmental and public health hazards and impacts identified in the preliminary environmental review, and evaluate the risks posed to children’s health, public health, and the environment based on the contamination or impacts found. The comprehensive environmental review also includes developing preliminary plans and cost estimates for mitigating or reducing risks. The environmental professional should prepare draft reports of onsite contamination, investigation results, offsite hazards and project environmental impacts. The LEA should release those drafts for public comment. The environmental professional should then prepare final drafts that take into account public comments. The final drafts should be subject to review and approval by the SSC and LEA. Review and comment on the draft versions of the comprehensive environmental review report Request a response to public comments from the LEA and review the resulting final draft of the comprehensive environmental review report Request and attend any scheduled public meetings to discuss project impacts If the final comprehensive environmental review report includes proposals for mitigation measures (e.g., additional sidewalks, enhanced filtration in the heating, ventilating and air conditioning system, institutional controls), review preliminary cost estimates and schedules of implementation for any remediation of onsite contamination and provide input on implications of the suitability of that site for a school 30 | Meaningful Public Involvement School Siting Guidelines Environmental Review Process LEA Activity Description of Activity Opportunities for Meaningful Public Involvement Develop Site- specific Mitigation/ Remediation (Cleanup) Measures (see Section 5.8) If the LEA decides to proceed with a site where contamination will be cleaned up, a remedial action workplan should be developed and submitted to the state or tribal regulatory agency for approval, typically with the help of an environmental professional. The remedial action workplan should identify and recommend methods for cleaning up the site to contaminant levels that meet the applicable safety standards and should clearly describe the responsibilities and long-term environmental stewardship obligations of the LEA (or other responsible parties) for inspection, maintenance and reporting associated with any engineering or institutional control implemented as part of the cleanup. The remedial action workplan should also include a preliminary long-term stewardship plan (LTSP). Participate in the public hearing on the draft remedial action workplan, which the LEA should conduct in the neighborhood or jurisdiction where the candidate site is located, at a time and location convenient for community residents, with interpretation services provided as needed Review and comment on the draft remedial action workplan during the public comment period and request a response to comments from the LEA Community input is important on remedial action workplan issues such as: Sufficiency of remedial response Timeline for remedial work Cost estimates for remedial work Effects of remedial actions on the community and daily life (traffic, noise, etc.) Meaningful Public Involvement | 31 School Siting Guidelines Environmental Review Process LEA Activity Description of Activity Opportunities for Meaningful Public Involvement Implement Remedial/ Mitigation Measures (see Section 5.8) Prior to the onset of any school construction on the candidate site, EPA recommends that the remediation of the site, as defined in the remedial action workplan, be completed. If engineering or institutional controls are required as part of remediation, construction of those controls may begin following approval by the state or tribal environmental regulatory agency. Review and comment on documentation regarding the implementation of the plan and all final sampling results Any modifications to the remedial action workplan should also go through the appropriate public review processes Review and comment on the revised LTSP, which should detail specific engineering and institutional controls, if applicable (see Section 8.14) Suggest adding a public accountability/oversight plan to the LTSP to ensure long-term public and institutional memory of the LTSP through activities designed to promote awareness by students, staff and the community, including signage at the site and reporting measures Long-term Maintenance and Monitoring (see Section 5.10) LEAs should incorporate key components of the long-term stewardship plan into other facilities and operational plans and training materials for principals, facilities staff, groundskeepers and contractors. This plan describes in detail the specific manner in which institutional and engineering controls will be employed in the future, and by whom. Consider forming a public oversight committee to ensure that periodic reviews are conducted on the effectiveness of remedial measures and any engineering and institutional controls that are used at the site Provide the LEA and tribe or state with a list of community contacts to be notified if a problem arises. Ensure there is a contact person for the community to go to with concerns related to facility maintenance or monitoring 32 | Meaningful Public Involvement School Siting Guidelines This page left intentionally blank. Environmental Siting Criteria Considerations | 33 s School Siting Guideline 4. Environmental Siting Criteria Considerations 4Sc.h1ool. locO hedu aaverview ealctahtiony, s aftione sch poollayss th ana nd promote stin steuppogralr tro hlige hin q curaelaitytin g cloommucal edunictieations. In a ogrder to urseataichn abthlees ea ndgo alshealt, thhey co(senece Sretc wtionith 3 th.3e) scenhoolcy ( sLitEAin)g (cseommie Secttetione ( SSC10),) in cinrviteolrviaeme than seea Sndttwi (ll bee c withustioned to 3 m),eaningldf ev saluhouate uidl epnutblic cpresen haractet crhisaticrasc teofr allistic l s aandtion psos besible fboth ifthyuture e fporro thpeert sicehsool h oc and. Ccuarrreacntte arisndtic pslan of singnedur rocounndsidinerged lanCardef uusles asse neassmr theen tl octakeations ti meshou, buld be z oenivalungat anded. ofand sc thhoole n esitiedn fgor d esucisstaioinns justifies tth the ea tteimpnortionta nce encommusure thnityat the loca ed public involvement to and has tioncommu meentitys th seu pnpeeordt.s of the gTenhiser saelc artioenas in cludes into locate a schofool c:on sidefroratimonation for onde cthidein folg wlowherineg W(sehee tSheecrti aon ne 4w.2 .s2c)h; ool is needed Wperhfeotrhmera thncee/ negrwee snc hsoolchool wi l(ls beee aS ehcigtionh 4.2.3); Whether some candidate locations increase environmental health or safety risks (see Section 4.3.1); Implications of the school location for transportation options (see Section 4.3.3); Options for developing Safe Routes to School Programs that can support alternative modes of transportation (see Section 4.3.4); and The potential use of the school as an emergency shelter (see Section 4.3.5). Balancing the many criteria and potentially conflicting characteristics of candidate locations can be very complex. For example, in most urban areas, potential school locations that are accessible to the community may have been previously used for other purposes that may present environmental hazards. Further, they may be located in proximity to sources of potential environmental health and safety concerns, such as highways, rail yards, a wide range of light and heavy industries and other facilities that, under ideal circumstances, would not be located near a school or other facilities used for children's care. Sites that have not previously been developed—often called greenfields (see Section 10)—are often not ideally located in terms of environmental impact and transportation options. Integrating community centered schools into existing residential neighborhoods often allows for better environmental, community, economic, educational and public health outcomes. These community centered schools allow children, faculty and staff to walk or bike to and from the school and use public transportation options, when available. These schools also often take advantage of previous investments in infrastructure and add to the vibrancy and vitality of a community. 34 | Environmental Siting Criteria Considerations School Siting Guidelines Sopermceei cvaednd eidnvatiroe snmchoolent locations maprior uses and potentialal challengesy. Whahvilee r theael or caandndida impteac ltsoc farotiomn nsea marbyy f orso onsite contamination determining these issues be at kunorceswn, for in s othomeer cases, erenvquiroiresnm inentveaslt ighaazatiornd.s T ahses oc chandidate sites be overcom ciaalletedn gweiths of s iptoeste cantian l trTeibchaln anical assie inst amnacnye a, ndalt hovouergshig nohtt f allrom ins statatenc,e s. pploteannintiangd al agloenc el envi c ienvronms cairoen nmhelepntntal and commual, public health and c publicn hitieealts hev aluate losuconche cronsnc ate specific sites. A thorough evaluation of cacnal, ac trhibievaelr ns w siltal theel amundltiple leap cdoermsmu chnoositiees l,oc LEaAtios,n and ject e s that faacility investments whobile miivnimizs from school dverse environmental and health iinssug peos.te ntially Aandsse bssiennegf itsand balanexpansion of whan ielexis cocinsngid muerilngtip rlee npovotaential risks new sites is not a simptinlge ftaascilk,ity and or prostiopenc there is notivor e singlowe tool avai le to accomp Lfol l labocationing A sttecrtioibuntes,s I (deseentif Syec Desliisrahb it.le TShche ool C4.on4)s, idehigrh lEignvhti rcoonmnsidenteral tion 4.3), ati Haonzsa rds (seea Sndec tion inownto asccochoolun ts itinas logc calri tceommuria, anndititheast sehstaoublldis be taken Review Pro the Environmh thenteiral gausseidssielinnesg e dcesescsr snvinbemesctioiro e a n (arosec Ssectiontpe l es for inde 5n)tif ofy thineg and 4.2. Before the h S a i za ti r n ds g . Process Begins S4c.2h.1ool. sitinDevelop a Long-range School b Fa ro c a ilit der ie s c ommu Plga dne cisions should be integrated with thraisnstorpico rtdisattiroicn,ts hnity planning efforts, including communities acro, etoalt nah mcaer e,ss the coa flewibr.a Mrieasny, p arks and community-based processesunt tory c ruseaet dae atand-d riven, satndra tegies and policies thschool facilitie 35 cimpommuortannitty p nrojes plan caeedcsti sonucsh ofn helpg LEAs aslo sntud-tenertm tosc hideooln tifandy oper enrollment, maengkainationg scahlool costs and infrastructure to use in supervgei swoithrs apnl asnniitinngg de cocmmisionisss. d/ionLEAsor city councils frsom, bo shaourdlsd of ltoink d evtoel anop long-range school facilities thpe outset communidty c polanmpsl.em Thenrotu cgohm thpisre lihnenskagivee lans that range school facilities plan wo , the long-cinommu the scnhityool g rsowitinthg parndoc ethss,e schuoolld i ncdisotrrpicotra att elar ge isconolasidetionrin frog ntial s h ratheroc thmth e pote c ool l ation an s in planning issues.oth er important community EscPAhool enc ourages LEAs to prepare a long-range fPorro facilities plan that does ejseeectsab slech fuotuolr deist (e.g.ric, t the following: Identifies existing school 5 en–rollments i 2 n 0 f r y a e s a t r r s); uc tu fo r r e th e that may need to be improved or replaced E inbast stsaedblishes ru ; oncti opn Wor roje thce n a s; for additional l orti oneed multiuse space, if any, bshroela to consider a D nd evel tdkererss w ec op , cr s ciommu ommuth locnalnityity au nmtheeodrsi tisucesh as emergency as ren a plan for m eet eet in in g g s n pa ew ce, s s p p ac or e ts nfaeedcilities r ov eation; thaatint ingc orlu dresec ovnsartiourucst aingppr sochaoolche s such caco sqnsutru iredcton sing e sxischtioolng bscuhilooldin ggsro onund news, ly b In u c il lude ding s s ; a i ppr tes a o nd new school facilitixim le a as te in d g at sp e a s ce in existing es; for opening 35 San Diego Unified School District, “Long-Range Facility Master Plan." Available at: http://www.sandi.net/cms/lib/CA01001235/Cen tricity/Domain/82/Lon g_Range_Facilities_Master_Plan/Section_1/ALL_Section1.pdf. development. Develaot psumppoentr oft future growth a long-range implement comprehensive plans that set forward Environmental Siting Criteria Considerations | 35 School Siting Guidelines Tandargets enrollment size by type of facility Freascoto urcrse in st other local and regional pexislantinning gor c nryceewalesm ss, tar sneetucd ph oasten cotnniale fuctinodnsin wig or,th commercial infrastruct puarrek,. residential or Tcommehe LEAn'st long-range plan should be reviewed and pduepblairct menentiedtie ons ( bye.g., th mue pnublic, ints). Finally, thice iploanglitieclu cal -ras ding other lo be ng, pela pnnlaning sh ould T4.2 approved s by he.2 fir. stC conriteriidoe th r e W LEA. s N c eed hool ed is neededn. C toommu choetnsh nidere ra is Ne wwhe tShcehrool a ne Isw re r and/or eitxipesa nshould consider b“oefnoorvea tdiecon,id riepngai to build a new scshionool op. Thtione tesr ms etexisldti” nandg s c“hobsolete” are notchnologiesool tos ex capna bend rtehteiro synonymous. Many a lower cost and with fewerrf itte eusefdul w lithife, neposws ibly at impspacae)cts th (aen.g. ne, enwer cognsy staruvicngtiosn., nvlesisro imnmpaecntahool tht onl A sc at isop toeno small yfor s an existing population y be expa othorsp ecmaial perrovgera am na. Urrosingwe erxis grtiadne c mao nded er benefits that new constrgu cfatiocnilfigitiuersa oftiofenr sor a Fbuoril tex atam a tipleme, m whany older school facnen schools were pil itieoftes nwe carnnot. serve as the focal point in a neighbolanrhonoedd ntoot e for edurication only leixisbratinegs s acndhool op butn also fo commuser ca play fields. Contniitynu evede usntes, of bwecalkabausele t haeynd arbiek ofnte ennc loocuatraegde inph thysei cmosal atc tivity caRennovating existineagbl nee igpahrtbso rof om provide an impetus for c h ooda commu scmuhooln ityfac. ilities rperovitapelrtizya tiovalnue, has, veenc anou iramgpae cinvt ons tn nityhb e m eigent inor sincg by mu leity s irr ecpom eabn hoollac c ommumembneritys, anassed pts.res erve It is important to consider both direct and indirect ; costs associated with building in a new location, such as the cost of site acquisition, transportation, traffic congestion, operation and maintenance, eimpnvironmental cleanmaintrovenaements and loungp, -nterecmes smaoryni intofrirangstr aundctu re ecommuxpansionnc ofe ancos etsxis. Intin agddi butiilondin, rge canovn abetio pna rtan ofd/ aor impSitinegtusn fiotyr rsetavritatinlizg aatio brno aeffort or serve as an expan spiolonic ofie se xisthattin disg sccouhoolradgere rreenvovitaaliztioationn or effort. lardisginevr ensewtm esncht oinol esxis catinn con s and favor building disinvestment further cong nteriibghubtore tohoods . This sneoc and triigiahlb orh oeocodns omicwher deec a llarineg sbeeutens in to m thanye p hysical, in cen age ofstucome, A e per t low-dents lfivrie.ca36n -American and Hispanic or Latino Cwonhetsideherr at akinewng s thcheool fol islow neing actions to decide Erevnaluate the existing e s d ch ed o : o l’s current fa (through ofe E nv v cailovlteitaiesrtiona tivnan/redes hp, aobteilnitatitioal nfa)c aindlities the full costs al e e envir iro uat nm e th nta s l c onmenta ai h ncnd o luduiblngi ce l an p hdealtucationh impal,a fcistsc.a l, cononsittaemin anda tiofonfs.i te soolu fo d rcesr h ofealth, safety rpiskotesn ftiarolm both N(EOPATE): r Tinspect echoe mEnvmenirodnms theantt adisl Protection Agency enviro existing schools for tproteictsn ptiaerl iodically toolHealts hdnmesental health and safety risks using Tool (Hye Sicghnooled fEornv thiraotnm puerpntoss eA ssesuc e PSEssmh as E g althy nt A's Sovafe/tysc Chhoolecsk/lihsteaA PlthT; www.roygsraeamt/ f)e pora .th e NIOSH .cdefdcic.goienv/nios or Schools. (www identifyicniesg a arhnde/ difmpooucsnd/2004-leme, EPA 1rec01o/m) Whernmende nti g steps to reds uce student and staff exposure to potential 36 Ad-Hoc Coalition for Healthy School Siting, “Revising CDE School Siting Policy Documents: How California’s School Siting Policies Can Support a World-Class Educational System,” Su bmitted to the California Department of Education by the Ad-Hoc Coalition for Healthy School Siting (January 31, 2008). Available at: http://citiesandschools.berkeley.edu/reports/School_Siting_Policy_Brie f_013108.pdf. 36 | Environmental Siting Criteria Considerations School Siting Guidelines h E Sea v cza al tio u rd at ns 9, e to. 1 th 4 th e ). e p ma hysic ximu al c m h a ex r t ng a en cha ing commun fority thneeedir sp.ote Iscte t r p i r s a ti c c tic s a of l (see existing schools thntiae slc tohool meet ci E d v e al ally at located to serv on e u e the effect r th es e i d e en du t c s at of i o th n e al and s ommu ocial d n evel ity, i o nc pm lud e i n ng t of se th nior e st c u itiz den en t s s ? in the corenmovmautinn of constructing a new building, E cl v os al in u g at e buildin a g sigt y th chor e ool o e n xp. g a o n in ding an existin the community in theg imm value adiaend ofte ida v es g nch fa ool cility or as a tify h ow thsche oolsch, oolbuil widinllpub be aliffce actess g det ic a new schoobyl reorno clvosaitningity of school. Is the school a treasured partin ofg tow th thee the Co the n nn duc e? igIs t h thb an ore buil a ticipate a h n l d ysis in n oo a d? g a of lan sc d h m ool ar k sy th st a e t m def ines opcloseinragt iaon s savings and costs that would be Cmovonsidinger th d p o fro ten m t r ia e l no in v c a r t ea ing s , es bu in ild ing or transport c a h ti ool on . e h c sc ool o tosts a th newat w, moroulde cdisometan fltr om bocuseations, bu, isnc stloupds,ing st irnfeetra impstructure (additional siemisgnaslios, netsc f.ro), fmuel b,u isnescr eaandsedr aovire pmoelluntstan, ttr affic D veh et i er cles m i a n nd e if tr (i .th af e fic s conges tiproniv.a tely owned st culty dAcut d(AenDAts), faand an isabilities e.Se, Actiomcheoriolca nsis awcithcess Diblisaeb ilto dn 5o0th4e cromp emplialonyeet). Ifsiti nwot,eisth whinaacct ewssouibld be the cost of retrofitting an older S E e v c al tio uat n 5 e 0 s l4e ta rebu te qi d uld i p rein refer gm soent ths?a t it meets ADA comprehensivweith planin ,a p cromoenjecmctes,uedn itygcoapal’sita s al nd and ainlvterenatives test s E tr val a u g at meic e ni th nts e in c ap inf ac ra i s t t y ru of ct ex ure th ist and ing oth er inefr faastcilrityuc t v u es re. tm ent commitments. be onIf p uyoubli cbu wiatlder a neandw ssewchooler?, Ifwi ll the LEA expands an existing school on a well aexndpa s h Ceoaltnsid nedpetic e d? sy stem, can the septic field be otherh gcolinr icopsportunities to p vern amnden litb serarrviiesc)es th ( active traaer.g.promote wellness and t catn, nper arh welkspith, P ch lan oic e h s o . w to ensure the safety a n of s p th or e ta tion chil rrbueennilovdren in ot vaonatiot anionn eis th uen xisandtindexisting school dur g ce in gorntakenstruc ortio an ne. Ifw ma bujoilrdin g is deformol sig ion sitnifica mntatdiserrialsupitite,on th ofe rceon iss the potential management practice. sIt ar ise im uspedor dtatrnutc tiothant anbesdt reexpnovosuatiore nto a tndhes ceon msattrerucition to pruevrienngt als. Mbuoilredin ingfsor, emanvtioniron mone ntreanlov cleanatinugp o aldnder capommund historic lanning nity sthche oolguisd/el cainnes be w febousnitde. on (w thwew R.eespao.gourcves/ page of _ 4 p .2 lanningsitin) g/resources.html#LINKS_community M .3. C W suoppo illre B thr e t a a en on Higev s er id h, e xis t to allote r c W hn h ol et og her y, e th xp e e r Ne tis w School Perf w o c rma omm nc u e n / iti Gre es e toen abu Sndc i h l dpool ubl ic shuperior learning environleiagrniherng ac ehnvieviroemnmenetnt ands wh prments that caniolev ialsdeo h seaaltvihngier s upport resou energy, roref gerreenrredces s ic toand ignif asc hasool hes a(lsethey Shnight a mpeourfonrmts ofanc meo snceyhool. Ofst en fpacilities that inte ection 10), these are androc theses ssctahrooltin gloc wgithrate s elallec atsiopnec ofts thof the design meet multiple eduactionatio ntoal, d eenvsigniro snmcheool dess ithgn team community goals. The environmentalental aandt hfaecaillitiethys in incdoorlud ea ienr, seragy and water eff icgoiealsnc yof, such r(iednculucedding env lifiero-cynmcleen cfoser materials selection The technologies andt apl timp conascidet frromation th)e, ascndhool . tchuresreic guloumals aarend of othteenr i a ntregcraticteesstudent ld us inteod thtoe a chieve earning opportunities. Environmental Siting Criteria Considerations | 37 School Siting Guidelines LEAs can use elements from green rating systems, such as the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED; www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx? CategoryID=19) for Schools Rating System and the Collaborative for High Performance Schools. (CHPS; www.chps.net/dev/Drupal/node) Both LEED and CHPS rate schools based on sustainable site selection and development, indoor environmental quality, materials and resources, energy atmosphere, water efficiency and innovation. Because high performance/green schools are based on the principle of integrated design, in which all aspects of the school are designed with a clear understanding of how the various systems and decisions affect each other, the decision to build a green school or renovate an existing school to meet green standards should be made before establishing siting criteria. To ensure that a new school is energy efficient, LEAs can design it to earn the ENERGY STAR (see www.energystar.gov/newbuildingdesign). Building orientation and shading strategies and renewable energy technologies, such as geothermal heat pumps, wind turbines and solar panels, can help increase energy efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. EPA encourages local governments and communities to investigate and, where appropriate, integrate healthy high performance school or green school principles into their location selection and school planning and operation processes. Links to more information on green building (www.epa.gov/greenbuilding) are available on the Resources page of the guidelines website. (www.epa.gov/schools/siting/resources) The focus of these guidelines is on school siting, but there are many tools and resources available to ensure that school environments are healthy throughout the lifecycle of the school building. EPA has a considerable body of guidance and regulations that are specifically geared toward existing schools, which is available at www.epa.gov/schools. EPA recommends that districts periodically inspect existing schools for potential environmental health and safety risks from both onsite and nearby hazards using tools designed for that purpose. These include EPA's Healthy School Environments Assessment Tool (HealthySEAT; www.epa.gov/schools/ healthyseat/) or the NIOSH Safety Checklist Program for Schools. (www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/ 2004-101/) Where deficiencies are found, EPA recommends identifying and implementing steps to reduce student and staff exposure to potential hazards (see Section 9.14), to the maximum extent practical. In some cases, school specific improvements can reduce potential hazards; in other cases, such as widespread air pollution or water quality issues, a community wide approach may be called for. 4.3. Identify Desirable School Location Attributes State and local policies and practices should support school locations that promote healthy people and healthy behaviors, including physical activity, healthy environments, and healthy communities. School siting decisions influence growth and development patterns and are influenced by these patterns. Many communities across the country are increasingly interested in ensuring that growth and development meet multiple community goals, including improving public health; supporting revitalization efforts; strengthening fiscal responsibility; increasing transportation choices; providing opportunities to live, work, play and attend school in convenient locations; and limiting emissions of greenhouse gases, criteria air pollutants and air toxics. Selecting healthy, safe school locations in the neighborhoods of the students the schools serve helps meet many of these goals (see Exhibit 4: Desirable Attributes of Candidate Locations). Community centered schools encourage students to walk and bike between home, school and centers of community activity. In addition, locations that allow community access to school playgrounds and facilities encourage physical activity outside of school time. The location of schools in neighborhoods may allow more children to participate in after-school activities such as clubs, intramural and physical activity 38 | Environmental Siting Criteria Considerations School Siting Guidelines clubs, interscholastic sports or activities sponsored by the community at local libraries, parks and community centers. As discussed in Principle 3 (see Section 1.4.3) in the About the Guidelines section (see Section 1), schools located within neighborhoods can also increase access to public transportation for students, faculty and staff in the neighborhood and in surrounding communities.37,38 4.3.1. Select Locations That Do Not Increase Environmental Health or Safety Risks During the initial screen of candidate locations, the LEA and SSC should seek to avoid locations that are either on or are in close proximity to land uses that may be incompatible with schools, if acceptable alternative sites exist within the neighborhood(s) being served by the new school. These incompatible land uses may include contaminated sites that have not been remediated (i.e., cleaned up) to at least a residential use standard, clusters of industrial facilities, or other potential hazards identified in Exhibit 6: Screening Potential Environmental, Public Health and Safety. The section, Consider Environmental Hazards (see Section 4.4), describes some principles used to define environmental criteria and the typical environmental and safety issues that the school siting process should consider and address to ensure that the location chosen does not pose unacceptable environmental and public health risks. If no alternative locations exist, it is critically important that the LEA and SSC fully explain the absence of alternatives in a transparent manner and fully engage the public in identifying and 37 Ariel H. Bierbaum, Jeffrey M. Vincent and Deborah L. McKoy, “Putting Schools on the Map: Linking Transit-Oriented Development, Families, and Schools in the San Francisco Bay Area,” Center for Cities and Schools, Institute of Urban and Regional Development, University of California Berkeley (June 2010). Available at: http://citiesandschools.berkeley.edu/reports/Putting%20Schools%20o n%20the%20Map_Final_Jul10_appendices.pdf. 38 Ariel H. Bierbaum, Jeffrey M. Vincent and Deborah L. McKoy, “Linking Transit-Oriented Development, Families and Schools.” Community Investments (Summer 2010) 22:2. 18-21. Available at: www.frbsf.org/publications/community/investments/1008/A_Bierbau m.pdf. implementing both site-specific and community-wide exposure and risk reduction strategies to protect the health and safety of students and staff. The LEA and SSC should consult with regional planning authorities to be cognizant of future plans for development or facilities that may result in environmental or health threats to the school location (e.g., large industrial facilities). Exhibit 5: Factors Influencing Exposures and Potential Risks, introduces some potential mitigation options for potential environmental, safety and health hazards. 4.3.2. Locate Schools Near Populations and Infrastructure Consider establishing clear goals and criteria to give preference to locations near existing populations and close to facilities and infrastructure that support school programs to minimize transportation and infrastructure costs and their related environmental, economic, public health and sustainability impacts. Additional school capacity and the location of new schools often influence the location of residential development.39 School location is a critical aspect of quality community planning. Schools built on the fringes of communities can contribute to outward migration from city centers, which can cause disinvestment in existing neighborhoods and can hurt local economies. This phenomenon is particularly common when new school sites require the extension of infrastructure, making undeveloped areas more attractive for residential and commercial development. Flexibility with respect to school size and site size allows communities to retain and upgrade (or replace on the same site, when necessary) existing schools. Smaller schools tend to be easier to locate near population centers, minimizing transportation needs and commuting exposures to traffic-related air pollution. Goals and criteria to 39 Upper Grand District School Board, “Planning Department Frequently Asked Questions.” (Accessed on September 16, 2011) Available at: http://www.ugdsb.on.ca/planning/article.aspx?id=4722. Environmental Siting Criteria Considerations | 39 School Siting Guidelines gpivopeu plartionefersen ince to locations near existing Avobikinidgin andg bu clude: locations Maximizin th puailtbld aring s g pro ic x e tr i no m ancths apoolcorcetasssi intionb lree; bymot we theaters, lsibucrahri ases c, opmmuroitygra tonmit p ycr enomugtrersaemsu, ms s alki uppo ng, t facil , r dow D rec evel reaities ntow o ti p o in nna g cl oa jo mmnd in t ene us rrciia e c hl a mar gr ene ee ast m ;a c en tiv t itie s s and Scommuection n1i0ty) tofac f (ilaiticileitas atend s ctoho se allool awcce commuss toe ccess to school facilities; nity a CmaTohneximizresid maereyin dis beg tap lornoccalxei bmreetiatywsoee tonsn o tosthc miheoolrn simizsc the desire to pr ,h sooluce hors as. is Avo ola id tion ing in loc th a e t omot ities. i L on EA util sucs 'se s dcivhoolers ce infrastruct sity; a ndor redu ure h t ashat ro wiadlsl, rwequaterir/es ewnewer or Lresocualtint ing par soxchoolsitu ou imity in thations sh to peol clomutimuon nity it serves may information on lads sbeoc aiadtedrdes hsazedar sobyurces. Such availability and effectiveness of mids ctig aondns ithderiatione ng f options Sasorimil th adeda proteessir analynntiag lth e environmsesa fddior alttioneranl atcosentt aandl h atimzareds, as well locating the s ive options f oinrvo lved. inthfeo brmaenetion, ccomhoolmu shnouitields sbehou mladd se.e Weki ttoh thbalanat ce arinysk s.p otefnitstia ofl e anv ciormmuonmenntityal c aenndter puedbl sicc hhoolealt wh ith 4T.3ra.3ns. L o oc ver a all tp si ion oertCon n v onairtioon Tnder Implications of the School r isan as pmaorjomore transportmeationnta clh imp tar tfi oiceaao ccn t.tor S O c pinh ti s can redool ao sn sc shth ooluce thate ’osf fer aamouwndnalki bun of langst trora bfficd a thnda tp isol lpuationved, reduce automobile school travelik sinhogws to cslecharoolly. tS acndaie etnthtifncourage h e icfa lrithteerar tau re on school is from a child’s residence, the less likely it is that the child will walk or bike to school, and that vir40tu,41ally no children walk over two miles to ssicdheoolwalks., biCoknne paectthings a and s cohtoolher toinf ara nsettruwork of enbikcinougr saages cture provide wfealki a phndy ensicjaolng andy activ babikle.ityin It isby als mao kimpingo wrtaalkigntn tog or othbringer cmahildjorren pol clluostione to s larourcge r roouatdess, thhiagth dwao nysot a nd psalayfety a rocolnce iner nsde)t.e Sirmtei nisingze, oc wles (for both hheattionher awndalki desealtignh allan d bthikaint pgr wiovlidl be ng or public transe a ancce option for students. Locations as potentialliyt wipromotlls alss foor restududceen tsveh andicle s tausfef vasia w ell insc hgooletti. ng to the transiet isntopcreass freomd ph byothsic halo amectiv aitynd Torra tons thpoert faamiltionie csos it tsse, reivtehs,er to the school district cdisonstriicdte r.ca Fno irnc exluadmep thle,e tcrosan asrepor also important to and store buses; the cost oft ftouel putartichon costs to the and the cost associated with an ianndcrea paerse,s omanninel;ta in bu(e.g., s mai lfeaeeg fe.or T shtue decosnts sts toto friadmile thiees mabusy) e in school (e.g., beor idnidrecirect t achssoctiaratendsp worithta tioperns-orelnallyated taxes and fuel costs accoildurnent ftoor strchanoolsp)o. rTtahetio siti tnrag nsprpoocesrtisnn ou irr sgh the cost exte nalities ld also , such as the h whLowil-e ridealtingh th impe slcichaooltio nbus sof or e xpfroosmu idlre into exhaust especiniallycom ime anpadcte mid nbyor tritya nfasmilporietasti caonn cbeg vehicles. children may not ha osts since tosc hsoolchool bu as ndor oftaketen p nvee the optionubled ofic totr awnalk,spor btaik be,ei usnge dthriev en rereianfsoonarcbesle th dise ntaeed tion. This 40 Lawrence Frank and C n o c m e to p a any nd loc parotev sicdheool , a sas fw Inc., “Youth Travel t e o ithbikin Scho in ol g : and C ommunity Design Relationships with Mode Ch oice, Vehicle Emissions, and Healthy Body Weight,” Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, December 2008. Available at: www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/pdf/youth_travel.pdf. 41 Noreen C. McDonald, “Active Transportation to School: Trends Among U.S. Schoolchildren, 1969-2001,” American Journal of Preventive Medicine (2007) 32:6. 509-516. Available at: http://dot.ga.gov/localgovernment/FundingPrograms/srts/Document s/news/Trends_Among_US_School_Children.pdf. 40 | Environmental Siting Criteria Considerations School Siting Guidelines walkilndg als envo ciroonnsmideentr h foor these populations. LEAs over the life of the schoolw. these costs may change Candommu critenritieia tos s ghivouel dp recofneresidnerce etosta locblaistionhing goalswill promote alter s that irencqluuidriengm ewntalkis, sncg norat bivikein mgo. dMes of transportation, building codes ofhteooln f afuvndor icnong finorimumulmas ac andreag e snechigoolhbso orhvoer th strde renova uctio schools; htionowe ofver exis, gitivinon of new to locations that will prom ngg preference tsrahornstepro rtdriatviiongn, dwisalkitanncge the e ofsorote wi biking orus ll reduce th at p reublquicire trasa pnasrepontrtas tioandn ccaosretsg ifvorers lo.c42al S gchooolvernm conesntol,ida as tiowelnl pimpolicaiecs shphysicta onl ac souchldool be carefully examined for their tivity. transportation and students' Inenc noewura locgea intiontegsr, astionchools can be esigned to by with fut d net ewsotarkblsis thhinatg s sutprpeeotrt p watalkiternns,ur sied edwevalkselop amendn ttsra il scaunrro hauppendinng b dothevel aso ppmarten ofts areg acondns biking as construction of the school c tahme pudess igntru andcte d. This wofith suibnd pivoisteionntia rle wgualkilationgn sa ndguiding daevndel aso pam resenut lt a school’s boundary. biking distance from Tofhund the SSCe a shouer croeans idsulrdro ausseerationndssing w eaalkability and bikeability long-term health effe anctsd of evch sc caluandidaatheool th eloc poationtentia l the stud tehow to aessentsss a ndthe s btaikeff.43ab Aili dtyet/awilalkabed ex lamocaptionle ofs on candidate locations can be found in thilie t“yA ofctiv e 42 Renee Kuhlman, “Helping Johnny Walk to School: Policy Recommendations for Removing Barriers to Community-Centered Schools,” National Trust for Historic Preservatio n (2010). Available at: www.preservationnation.org/issues/historic-schools/helping-johnny- walk-to-school/helping-johnny-walk-to-school.pdf. 43 Safe Routes to School Program Arizona Department of Transportation, “Active School Neighborhood Checklist,” Arizona Department of Transportation, ver. 14, August 6, 2010. Available at: http://www.adotenhancement.com/SafeRoutes/PDF/Documents_Activ e_School_Neighborhood_Checklist.pdf. shou School Neighborhood Checklist” (NKwwS_wcle.eanpau.gov/schools/sdeveloped inp _Arerizguonlatai.o Tnhse_itinang/resou aimd_ pofr othcesrsceess).h tml#LI provide decision e checklist is to impfor eavcaluts ofat icnagn dthide m pakeoternstia with a quantitative ate schooll lloocnga-tionterms onhe alttheh tool cwihislhd rtoen c whonsoid werill attend theassessment that sceekondus toctin balg m.a h LeEAsalth maimpy also impacts of planning pr ance the healtahct epxaollmputionle c ahndan ghesealt ofh tr riaonjsecptor alternatives, for health impact assessmskens.ts Inftaortionmati on air Resources page of the guidel canines be w foonund a boonu tht e (NKwwS_wh.eealtpah.g_ovim/psacchtoolass ebsite. _ s /essitinmengt/sr)e sources.html#LI Byexis ctiompng slechting an assessment for proposed or LpEAsrefer maabley f toinool location doth theart so wneith sloc andation com isp caleriarng them, walking potential and/or rhegealtard to bikinlyg and cshonousideld trakeatio thn ewh resenu lstels ecof tsuinch ha sseimpssmactsen. LtsEAs int o ldocecaitionding . Ifw htheethree ris to o nlmov fr gom schooly oene can didaan etex lisoctinations or is still recommended that an a locagtio n, it walkability/bikeability be condsseucssmted.e nt of Ifth we salkichoolng rdoisutrtes for a location are unsatisfactory, lsocafea tionwalki orn wg roorkic wt sithhou thlde cutes installecoitnsider othdy b orefo crou ane onptysce toer h ninga thvee hool biimpkeetu. sN fewor roret rrofenittiovnagted or s rechpoolairisn cag nsi adctew asalk an local itietrails manetwy usorek sdif in existing c and determining walking/febriekinnt gmetrommuics andniti ruelses. S fomor e ssomeidew maalksy apndrior tritizail en cetomwoprlket ionbou ornd raepriesai,r a ofnd lbocikaintiong diss. taStnreceet ofs within realsis nticea rw salkichool ng the location should incl uord cponedtresoltr imanea psaturhesw ay(es.g., , btricyafclfiec rcoaulmintes,g a, nddes sipgeeed cl ear n speeds). Environmental Siting Criteria Considerations | 41 School Siting Guidelines Cdisommotancensl ya rae:cc epted maximum walking/biking Esclehmoolen; tary schools: ½-mile radius around Mandid dle schools: 1-mile radius around school; High schools: 1½-mile radius around school. T“Ahcetiv exeample in Exhibit 3, adapted from the (byw wthwe .A Sriczhoool Neighborhood Checklist” created ocumenatsdo_tAennah aDnepcemartenmet.ncot mof/ TSraafnsportatioctive_School_NeighboreRhood_outesC/hPnD F/Dpdexcf),eed shso onwse a milid ecklist. prohibitively m longe indl w era sdchiuools a nden rcorllmeatenes ta a rea that who live in the shadedalki arnegas/b. i king trip for students 4.3.4. Plan for and Develop Safe Routes to Scghroool Pr impAAl te l r ewn m aient n ig onugrambmser ofth acommt Canu nSitiuppoes arrt v tin e g Mo mea de s s u of res T to ra w nspo ov rtatieo a impr e n paalkirticnipga tnde in bi ak pinrog gtora smch foolund. edMa byny ths thcheool safety of Department of e U.S.s RInoujurteys/ Ptoe dSbchimool Transportation (DOT) called Safe which encouragot/ (wBikwew/.nSahftes-aR.goouvte/sP-e2o0p0l4e/ impmore c men e / Index), rovheildrents saafnds b eothely duwalkc ianftiorans tprurocgturarme s to help spcrohoolgra.m In, madditanyion sch toool ths eof f or bifeedre srallyke to fu anndded fro m (also called sa imilar programs wproalkigrangm asnd) th biaftek f iapcailssaitagtees a ornd wn encalko tog to school. Thesura sgchool often educate community memberes, pfaroeg sraafme s sbtuendefitsts s, e n , a milie approac hofe dmiwalkinisntrg aatndor sbi, fkaicnugl tyto asndchool staff on the s to make walking and biking atond sc onhool a safe alternative. Related efforts include improvements to existing infrastructure that Exhibit 3: Example Enrollment Area that Creates a Prohibitively Long Walking/Biking Trip for Some Students 42 | Environmental Siting Criteria Considerations School Siting Guidelines mfSaorfe w Ralkioutnesg atond Sc bhikoinolgs .P Mroorgrea inmfso carman betion fo aubonduthe Resources page of the guid ot n N(wKwS_wC.ommuepa.govnity/sc_phloolanns/insiting) g/elreinsoues rwceesb.shittmle. #LI Wandhe thn ep lSaSCnni snghou for aroutes to school exldi sc nto fnsewid sechr eoolo chrildnsu locringation tha, tth saef eL EA wandalk. b ikInin agddit rouiontes, tmaransy fiat cconnercentio tons bike and of the immediate school nileigitahtebor thheood.ir usneae rou wtsalkiiden g rceolatnsiedde to w ctorredlundg Fa ialki s nc e: a nd biking that should be The likelihood that bike lanes and paths, ake routes to school safer and more convenient adequate sidewalks and crosswalks will be developed; Access to building epandark bingiker ents wraithncoues,t ntorcrrances for p osstusindegn but dsro zoednestrians pick-up areas; p-ofesf, and Connectivity to souts t nsc ; the imme radiateit hoolide lnineigesh fboror shtuoodde nofts a Bbiuske f slowafet pylan; s that ensure pedestrian and Aandcce sstasibffil wityith f odisr paabreilitintess, ;s tuanded nts, teachers Wrualkin adnjgac aendnt btoik hiniggh rwaouytess, oth thaetr d laro not cross or roadways and transportation facilitieges (e.g., rail lines), and other large pollution sources. Relevance of Childhood Obesity to School Locations Today, nearly one in every three (or more than 23 million) children in the United States is overweight or obese, and physical inactivity contributes to this.44 Children who carry their obesity into adolescence have up to an 80-percent chance of developing an associated chronic disease (e.g., high blood pressure, high cholesterol and diabetes).45 This childhood obesity epidemic is the result of the interaction of three identified factors: genetics, behavior and environment.46 Two of these factors are associated with an ever-decreasing amount of physical activity in the lives of our children due, in part, to how our communities are built. For example, a lack of sidewalks, safe bike paths and parks in neighborhoods can discourage children from walking or biking to school as well as from participating in physical activity. While childhood obesity does not discriminate across race and ethnicity, studies show that a disproportionate number of minority children are overweight and obese; while 30.7 percent of white children ages 2 to 19 are considered obese or overweight, 34.9 percent of African-American children and 38 percent of Mexican-American children are considered so.47 Physical activity is especially important for youth not only because of its immediate health and academic benefits, but also because participation in physical activity tracks from youth into adulthood.48 See Principle 3 (see Section 1.4.3) in the About the Guidelines section for further discussion (see Section 1). 44 American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Environmental Health, “The Built Environment: Designing Communities to Promote Physical Activity in Children,” Pediatrics (June 2009) 123:6. 1591-1598. Online article available at: http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;123/6/1591. 45 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “The Surgeon General’s Call to Action to Prevent and Decrease Overweight and Obesity,” U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Office of the Surgeon General, 2001. Available at:: www.surgeongeneral.gov/topics/obesity/calltoaction/CalltoAction.pdf. 46 Ibid. 47 Cynthia L. Ogden, Margaret D. Carroll and Katherine M. Flegal, “High Body Mass Index for Age Among U.S. Children and Adolescents, 2003- 2006,” Journal of the American Medical Association, Washington, DC (May 2008) 299:20. 2401-2405. 48 R.M. Malina, Institute for the Study of Youth Sports, Michigan State University, “Tracking of physical activity and physical fitness across the lifespan,” Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport (September 1996) 67(Suppl 3). S48-57. Available at: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8902908. Environmental Siting Criteria Considerations | 43 School Siting Guidelines A 4.3 S of cl th .5. Consider the Potential Use of the hool can,proou vgi dhas oi sng canhand fte eool du Emes arerg ebuncilyt wShithel ater pri mary mission their communn itdo,cation services to youth, schools to withstand naietus s. erScvheool multiple purposes for attacks n ral disastse lrocs aatendd t anerrod driessti gned fsrhomelt erhasrmot, obunlty ca prno alstecot sseturvdee n , asts facuin the immediate afterma emther ofgltyen acndy staff par a disaster, pofrfetpiacruedlarnlyes ws hpenlan prs aorepe croor emdinergaentecdy ndic amoa viaollsu, ntlocaalry eme ngreliefrg oenrgcayn mizaanationgesm (esuntc ha uasth school American Red Cr thoreiti es befac ilreqitieusir toed be or deencoss)oura. Ing some jurisdictions, itsigned ored afvorai clabertale into s scerhoolve may emergency shelter for the community. as an Fsuorite sdom ster uccomturmue ton itiseresv, es cash oaol pos mast-disy beas the best Slarchgoole mus flrtiequently contain gymnasiumste orr oshtheletrer . pnurepmbareatrsi oofp ruesrpidosene tssp aandces f rtheqatu can shelter large building locna antiond sst toerandg eto c abepa wcityen. tly have food residents and sited within the celoml-kFurther,munowintie a n s mschool serve. Because sc tohngey tefinmanpcoriaalr cilosy tsare of of uhsoolings are publten mi scnhimool faiccil pitieropse rty, the sacndhool eas lioclya ationccessi thbatle is to c enrestraal lto. T thhues c, omchoosmuinnigty a disaster preparedness, planidnienngts a candn r aeidco inve ry. TDheep aFredtmeernatl Eofm Heergaltench any Md aHnuamagemn enSert Agency, the gRoedve Crnmrosse ntand other gove vices, the learned froma lH eunrrititiceasn hae Kvern metntal aatrrinana salatndend d th nosubsee nle-qussoentns disas cteronmsideters bomraimutionton ns fettrer c ity o s hboth plan emnienrgg aendelncy op anderaters. Links to these ltioonngeral resou are rces th(we Ravesaiolabule in the emergency planning section of NKwS_wem.epear.gocesv /pascgheool of sth/seitin guigd/elines website. rgency_planning_and_rreessoupornscees).h tmll#LI L 4Eocxh.3.6ib.it 4S:uDmmaesimpaotionrtans t isattr intireandbryle Attributes of Candidate ibuteesd f otor scuommmamurnizitiee ssom to ec oofns thidee r in identifying candidate sites for school. 44 Exhibit 4: Desirable Attributes of Candidate Locations Feature Description Distance Recommendation Potential Benefit References and Resources 49 No unacceptable environmental or public health risks Poses the least potential for exposure and risks to children and staff from pollutants in air, soil and water Site- specific Conduct thorough and transparent environmental review of environmental risks Reduced risks to children and staff Avoid remediation costs Reduced potential liability and disruption due to environmental issues Meaningful Public Involvement (see Section 3) Environmental Review Process (see Section 5) Evaluating Impacts of Nearby Sources of Air Pollution (see Section 6) Quick Guide to Environmental Issues (see Section 8) Community facilities Nearby community facilities, parks, public pools, etc. ½ mile Locate school such that neighborhood resources are within walking/biking distance of schools and/or joint use is available onsite Ability to walk or bike to compatible student resources Reduced space required for parking Less air pollution Increased exercise Community Centered Schools Resources Emergency Planning Resources Green/High Performance School Resources 49 Visit the Resources website for additional information (www.epa.gov/schools/siting/resources.html). 45 Feature Description Distance Recommendation Potential Benefit References and Resources49 Attendance boundary Area in which most students live ½ mile to 1½ miles Locate school such that a large portion of the student body lives within ½ mile (elementary) to 1½ miles (high school) of school Ability to walk or bike to compatible student resources Reduced space required for parking Reduced bus transportation costs Less air pollution Increased exercise Community Centered Schools Resources Neighborhood access via street connectivity and infrastructure Presence of sidewalks, bike lanes, crosswalks, transit stops, etc. ½ mile Ensure that safe routes to and from school are available for students Ability to walk or bike to compatible student resources Reduced space required for parking Reduced bus transportation costs Less air pollution Increased exercise Increased pedestrian and bike safety Community Centered Schools Resources Sensitive land preservation Critical habitats, important farmland, parks, etc. Site- specific Avoid siting new schools on or in close proximity to existing sensitive land uses Preservation of critical land uses Green/High Performance School Resources 46 Feature Description Distance Recommendation Potential Benefit References and Resources49 Renewable energy Potential to use alternative energy sources such as geothermal heat pumps, solar or wind Site- specific Make use of renewable natural resources for energy generation Contributes to green energy and sustainability Energy Efficiency/Renewable Energy Resources Green/High Performance School Resources Public water and sewer Ability to tap into the public water supply and sanitary services; review the county sewer and water plan for boundary areas Site- specific If your school has to drill a well and become its own water source, it is a Public Water System and subject to the regulations of the Safe Drinking Water Act. If your school is on a septic system, you will need to determine if the soils are suitable according to tribal, state, municipal and/or county regulations. Little maintenance or upkeep No added regulatory or technical expertise needed to maintain a water and septic system Less costly to have municipal services Water Other infrastructure Presence or absence of adequate roads, adequate traffic lights and telecommunication infrastructure Site- specific Take advantage of previous investments in infrastructure Avoided or reduced costs of building or extending infrastructure Community Centered Schools Resources Environmental Siting Criteria Considerations | 47 School Siting Guidelines 4.4. Consider Environmental THhazae primrds environmaerynt aplu crpriotesrie aof f oers tascbhloolish insiting lthocea stioncreening and evaluation of candidga tise tosc hgooluid e ha sleaszatr pdots to for id natural, safentiaeln htifealty thh ea ndlocetyation and thenvironmental and staff and financial risk s atofe thtye riast poses the While the typical steps and proced commuk to students should ures thnaityt . rReveviiewew be arPreino dccesluescd redssiebe ind inan th efef eEcnvtiviero enmnvironmental section describes scotiomen pr(seinec Siplecetios uns 5eried)e,n thtaisl nvironmental c teria to de fine esitinnvirog pnmroceesntsa ls ahndou lsda cfe atynd issu the typical ensure that the locationo ncshiodere asnd th aatd thdrees ssc htoool urinskacces. E p P t A a b s l t e r o env ng i l ro y r n ec me o nt mm sen en d do s es and evaluating hazards as a s l o and ciat p e u id e no nt d bl w ic i th if poe yin altseh g th a location prior to taking title or ownership of that property, or in the case of leased space, prior to executing the lease. 4.4.1. Potential Onsite Hazards Aha C ularve rreng bee tnen uorm c o pben rio tar ofmi r si pn troa e te pu desrt es byie pas inst the Unitedoccurring hazards, such as high l evuseless orof nat Sutarallytes ground water or radon in rock formationasrs. Seomnice in inof twhhesiceh properties fall tribal and case EPA work usnd togere ththee ro wverithsi sgtahtte of, EPA, rpemropedertiaitee lothceal s aiteuth. Oorthitiere ks ntoo wnassess and Departmesn mat ofy D beef eunndse,e rth the eD juepris cdicontatiminated or other federal land managers, asructmeh asnont of of E the Bureau of Lan the nergy othIndeiarns Amaffayir bes din Management or th de thalte wDepithar dtirmecentlty ofe IBnuterrieaour, of wh and local authorities. There is also by an s taunkte,no trwibali le nuhavemb noert of yet si tbeseen th aidt ema n tify beor tribal authorities. n ied cbyon ftaedminerala, tsetda tbue, tlo cal Documentation of contaminated sites can be housed in many different locations (e.g., federal or state environmental regulatory agency, local health or planning department, private property owner). This can make it difficult to find a complete record of the contamination history at the site. Efforts are underway to consolidate these different information sources through geospatial and Internet accessible methods. Currently members of the public can use EPA’s MyEnvironment search application (www.epa.gov/myenvironment) to find a cross section of environmental information based on location. Additionally, members of the public can contribute to the information collection effort through their own recollections as neighbors or Applicability of the Guidelines The school siting guidelines are NOT designed for retroactive application to previous school siting decisions. They ar designed to inform and improve the school siting decision-making process from this point forward. In developing these guidelines, EPA seeks to strengthe information exchange and cooperation between LEAs, state and tribal education agencies and their environmental counterparts to better serve school children, parents, staff and their communities in providing safe school environments. EPA recommends that districts periodically inspect existing schools for potential environmental health and safet risks using tools designed for that purpose such as EPA's Healthy School Environments Assessment Tool (HealthySEAT; www.epa.gov/schools/ healthyseat/) or the NIOSH Safety Checklist Program for Schools. (www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2004-101/) Where deficiencies are found, steps to reduce student and staff exposure to potential hazards should be identified and implemented (see Section 9.13). e n y 48 | Environmental Siting Criteria Considerations School Siting Guidelines emestapblolisyehes h.is Ttohe public should beand adjacent sirticesa la undses to of a ssepotessn tiaenlg sacghedool to s itehelsp pgroosusibpsle presence of contamination the .l Bikecelaihuoodse t haesnde senitesu, trheey may alsigo have frequ co campn s nificantly conenttr contact with the part of long-tleriamnc seit weith ma snitaeg emuseib reustetr toiction effosr asts to Mmoreaen iningfofurlma Putiobli nvolvemen ennc onI engaging tth sect tiponlan s. The school siting process (see Sectione 3 p)u. blipcr inov thidee s EWenv xihsiilro tei nthnm ge sre truent ara c letu b erceons omicexisting structuree nforefits a s to, rseocnoiavla atnding /reusing an thpreodu LEActs an rt d th chool, it is impo antused eh isSSCtor toica belly a inw buareil thdinatg ac onnusmtrbe for (e.g., asbestos, lead, PCBs) a ucrti ofon beand p oadtenulttsially in c heartazainrd soituusa totio retnh enos, hw ecognseucaltrh has of w chhiziedldr toen en distrturbereaninoveadtin sdta orff orman conagtred unsafely by improperly school useg orexis adtiapngt isachctors. LEAs consideringng ooolthse ror e xisstrtucintgur sterus fcotur for res hmaza edusc aationdnal puanagrdemen tth ofe cosrpots sofes th sheou salfde wtreeimovgh athl ehese hazardous materialsor ceompvaluatariend to the steps and school facgil anitieds a. Lcqinuksiri ngto msiotcesos tsto acsosnsoctiarutectd n wewith pconrovsideiderda intio thnse r Relesatoed re in ormati w u x f on on ebsite. rctoes e piasgetin ofg bthuiel dgiunigsdel arinees NK(wwS_wm.eappa.gov/schools/siting/resources.html#LI TN exha petu l opr roted ael h s_ a an za d r _ d m s apping) ntial for as well as in all d pecoteisionna tsu toral hazards should be natural hazards mantiay bel n ewren com sovchaoolte e lxisocatitionng ssc. hToolhe s, aorceacu rriandng ma hayza incrdlsu sduce thh ase s elite’mons ge or uniqueevatedol oglevyel (sn ofat tour allythe amarsteeniriac orls) ,oth areeasr naturally o radon, of seismic caccutivrriityng, ftoloodixic ng or frequent wildfires, or areas prone to extreme wfnaeeatherbe ev genivtens. Acedilitie tos toddi nationturaall hconazarsiddesr watiohenre ma schyool tLeimnkspo tora mryar eor also planned or renovatedore lionnfogrerma tertiomn em one nargtenuracyl sh toel tserervs.e as pwreovbsiditee.d ( inww thwe Resources page of hazards are resources.html#.eLpIaNK.govS_/nsatchuoolral_sh/ . azs itinthe guidelines 4.4.2 ardgs/) aTndhe resa fisoximitye Pa o pr ty wh t aidee za nti rraaln Ngee ofar bypot Henaztiaarl ednvs ironmental offsite hazato a prdoss ptheacttiv mae ysc behool loc laocteadtion in c. lToshee dneevwel uospesed; e frodrs i ndmauys tcrihaangl, trea over time as areas are processes, axisctivtinityg forac cilonitiefisg ucnhsapngoreta ptionrodu orctio othne r evanden ptsla, nnsuch as spills, occur. Irdeationntify; iorng u, envfoaluresateienng sscohuoolrces s is iang c rfiticor palote compntiaonl heazntar ofd ssu frcomcessf neual rby nraearby hitinazagr. dCsh isara chctalleerizing potential rnge of variables that infngluinegnc beec wahuesteh ofis kths from an actual exposure to a potential hazarde rth theer wie dise powhsete may ha risk at can rederu cpeh. yAsddical,itio enngali nefacetorrings toor co or othnseird ecron artreol s risk, if such m earesmovurese arexep prosouperesr,l yth maus inredtauinceind.g PEotexhibnittia 5:l R Fisacktors, psr Iesnfenluencing Exposures and ennvearironmental hazardst sth saotme ma ofy beth eon or located opthetio p otcandidate sites, the vnse fnotiar eal fcorh hexapzaorsdu.r Inea ariables that influence mitigation options differ if ( tsndome ris cka, seands, thmitige ation secxishooltin gfa sctilrucityt urcoens thtruatc iste h dbei N ern)g ore wi if ltl renovh beer ea isne anw ated (E). These differences are designated in the table. Environmental Siting Criteria Considerations | 49 School Siting Guidelines Exhibit 5: Factors Influencing Exposures and Potential Risks Potential Hazard Potential Variables Potential Mitigation Options N=New schools E=Existing structure Air Pollution (see Section 8.1) Type and volume of contaminant released Distance from the source Nearby traffic type, fuel, volume and speed (mobile sources) Stack height, facility practices and type of pollution control employed (stationary/point sources) Timing of operations (stationary/point sources) Meteorological conditions (e.g., prevailing wind direction and wind speed) Atmospheric stability and mixing Regulatory compliance Intensity of use Presence of natural or man-made buffers (e.g., trees, hills, buildings) Planning and zoning Adopt an area-wide approach to address air pollution issues (N/E) Maximize distance from transportation or other pollution sources (N) Vegetation buffers (N/E) Anti-idling policies (N/E) Limiting bus or personal car use on and near campus (N/E) Enhanced indoor filtration/air cleaning (N/E) Locating sensitive activities and outside air intakes away from sources (e.g., locate playgrounds and classrooms away from source; place parking lots, utilities closer) (N/E) Timing of HVAC system operations (N/E) or industry operating periods (N/E) Limiting outdoor activities during high exposure periods (N/E) Soil Contamination Type of contamination Extent of contamination Concentration of contamination Depth of contamination Potential transport (e.g., runoff or migration to ground water, air transport) Geology and soil characteristics Water table Access or exposure potential (e.g., dermal contact/ingestion) Barriers (e.g., plants, grass, ground cover, pavement) Site cleanup and removal (N/E) Onsite treatment (N/E) Engineering controls (e.g., cap, venting systems, vapor barriers) (N/E) Institutional controls (N/E) 50 | Environmental Siting Criteria Considerations School Siting Guidelines Potential Hazard Potential Variables Potential Mitigation Options N=New schools E=Existing structure Use of Agricultural Pesticides (see Section 8.12) Use pattern (application rate, crop type) Environmental conditions (wind, temperature, etc.) Toxicity of the pesticide Volatility Persistence Application of Integrated Pest Management measures to reduce pesticide use (N/E) Choice of pesticide active ingredients (N/E) Oversight and strict enforcement of product label use directions and drift restrictions (N/E)50 Use of drift reducing application technologies and best management practices (N/E) Enhanced indoor filtration/air cleaning (N/E) Locating sensitive activities and outside air intakes away from sources (e.g., locate playgrounds and classrooms away from source; place parking lots, utilities closer) (N/E) Timing of HVAC system operations (N/E) Limit opening of classroom doors and windows during periods of potential spray drift (E) Limiting outdoor activities during high potential exposure periods (E) Notification when pesticides are applied (N/E) 50 Buffer zones are specified on all pesticide product labels. The buffer zones provide flexibility based on several factors such as application rate, field size, application method, and soil characterization. Environmental Siting Criteria Considerations | 51 School Siting Guidelines Potential Hazard Potential Variables Potential Mitigation Options N=New schools E=Existing structure Ground Water Contamination Type of contaminant(s) Type and frequency of contact with contaminated water Type of contact with contaminated water/route of exposure (e.g., ingestion) Extent of contamination Concentration of contaminants Extent of vapor intrusion (for certain contaminants) Seek alternative drinking water sources or install water treatment systems (N/E) Restrict access to water bodies (N/E) Phytoremediation (N/E) Mitigation system for vapor intrusion (N) Surface Water Pollution Type of contaminant(s) Type and frequency of contact with contaminated water/route of exposure (e.g., dermal) Extent of contamination Concentration of contaminants Stormwater runoff Improve riparian buffers (N/E) Restrict access to water bodies (N/E) Green roof, rain gardens and barrels (N/E) Safety Hazards Frequency Intensity of hazard (e.g., explosion vs. flooding) Emergency response plans (N/E) Emergency shelter design incorporated (N) Noise (www.epa.gov/ schools/siting/ resources.html# LINKS_noise) Distance Timing and intensity of source Presence of natural or man-made buffers (e.g., hills, noise barriers) Active noise control (N/E) Install or preserve noise barriers (e.g., highway barriers or other noise buffers) (N/E) Odors Timing of operations Meteorological conditions (e.g., prevailing wind direction and wind speed) Locating sensitive activities and outside air intakes away from sources (e.g., locate playgrounds and classrooms away from source; place parking lots, utilities closer) (N/E) Enhanced indoor filtration/air cleaning (N/E) 52 | Environmental Siting Criteria Considerations School Siting Guidelines T 4.4 he .3 in . itia S l c s r c e re eni eni ng ng L p oc ro a c t es ion s of s fo ide r n P tif ote yin n g ti a al E na n rro viro w n ing me p ntal Hazards nd cinontos aideccorautiont ota ewintiadel ra scnghoole of l ocscahtionool scitinhoicg es takes imp nenviorortanmnte ofnt atsh esande is challenges. Aml and p utobl idice hnealttifyh p coteongntia thle most inpote thne tiaprlo ccosestss as an pdos bsible oncerns as early before deciding to puersneufeits to offu cllyan udndidaetrse tlaocnd the Unanticip a particular site. ations dexetlayrems, elcommuya ctosedtl eynv inironmrmentanity cteoncesrn of aclle issuanueps cacosnts be, ti me support for siting choices. A fundll upndoteenrstiatalnd losings of of tha per posotpeenctiativle ri ssckhsool of candidate sites to ensure tha t uandna ccestapfft aisb vlee ryhe altimhp asndite ortantsdaoe bfetsuty no rits kpos stoe students timedesir-acbolnes toumin tryg to. F aorvoid this s ireteasso can, nit bema cyos betl y and cponolltautionmin agtienoner orati anreg lan in dve uryses cthlat ha osat eth prve onsite of identifying candidate sites if otheer oxiinitiamityl sta tog e lfocewaetionr envs eiroxisntm ine ntthael c cohmmunity acceptable allenges. that may pose EPuxhblibicit H 6e:alt Sca list of potehre aendning Sa fPeottye Hantizanal rEdnsv, irbelonmental, hazards that stiahoul elnvd beiro idenmnetntifieald a, ndevalu soawfet, cyo ntains swceihoolghed, along with other factors, in choosatedin agnd a hmorazaer d lisoc toation a ca. nInd gidenatere laocl, athtione cloimport forser a as cphoteooln, tiathel uasndsocersiatteandd wingant of it th ise to p otgaeinnti anal eriarly to be used in ithcon thjuantc htioazan rwdi. thExh thibskits 6 thisat i ntmaeynd beed Eandnv iwironmth Eevnalutal Review Process (see exe Samectioplen 5) Air Pollution (seatei nSge cImptiona c6ts). of Nearby Sources of Sqcureicklyeni ngide pnertifiym aetctiversiti caesn orhelp fea the LEA and SSC athraeat hasuverrounding a pros tures on or in the students a thnde sptaotfef nantiadl w top epcotseivearrant a s hcahzaoolrd l octoa tion further evaluation. These include a wide range of potential ongoing saso ufearcestu rofes a orir, water and land contamination as wfrom accidentalac rtiveleaitiesse st.ha Fot rm payote pontisael s sacfhetoyol r isks ell lofoc anatio ennvs iideronnmtienfietdal w feitathinur the, efu “rsthcreere snitungdy pwarrant iser imeter” associateedd wtoith ens thuarte f teahattu three a preote notnti saigl nrisificksa nt. S creening perimeters are intended to facilitate: Rapid identification of land uses near candidate school locations that could potentially pose health and safety hazards to students and staff; Consultation with appropriate state, tribal, local and other authorities, local stakeholders and the public to assist with the evaluation; and Consideration of appropriate mitigation or separation strategies to reduce potential risks within the context of the broader school siting decision-making process. Determining screening distances for various hazards is, to a large degree, a matter of best professional judgment. Several jurisdictions have adopted screening distances based primarily on existing state or local rules, law, ordinance, policy or guidance. Links to this information are provided on the Resources page of the guidelines website (www.epa.gov/schools/siting/ resources). In the following table, EPA has included recommended screening distances based on existing approaches at the state and local level as approximate distances within which EPA recommends that potential hazards should be identified and considered for additional study. NOTE: Screening distances are intended to identify potential land uses near candidate school locations that warrant further consideration rather than to identify land uses that may be incompatible with the location of schools. Screening distances, alone, may not be predictive of the actual potential for a source located within that distance to present an environmental or health hazard. Potential hazards associated with candidate school locations should be evaluated as part of the site screening and evaluation process. 53 Exhibit 6: Screening Potential Environmental, Public Health and Safety Hazards IMPORTANT: This table is intended to assist with the initial screening of candidate locations but is NOT a substitute for case- and site-specific evaluation of potential risks and hazards. It is intended to be used in conjunction with the example Environmental Review Process (see Section 5) and Evaluating Impacts of Nearby Sources of Air Pollution (see Section 6). For more information on typical environmental hazards that may be encountered during the school siting process, see the Quick Guide to Environmental Issues in Section 8). Existing applicable federal, state, tribal or local statutes, ordinances, codes or regulations take precedence over the recommendations contained in this table. Users should check with state, tribal and local authorities for applicable requirements or other recommendations. Feature/Land Use Description Potential Hazard(s) Recommendations Additional Information 51 Screening Perimeter Evaluation Onsite buildings or structures (including all leased space) All onsite or adjacent buildings/structures slated for reuse, renovation or demolition. Legacy contaminants in existing structures including lead and other heavy metals, asbestos, PCBs, vapor intrusion/(VOCs), mold, radon, pesticides, pests For existing school buildings, chemicals from laboratory, art, shop, drama, maintenance, cleaning, grounds Structure may not meet current building codes (e.g., for seismic activity) All onsite structures slated for demolition, reuse or renovation Evaluate for the presence of hazardous materials or conditions. Age, location, condition and type of structure, and the history of use are critical factors to consider in assessing potential risks. Identify all potential hazards and remediate as appropriate. Lead Heavy Metals Asbestos PCBs Vapor Intrusion/ (VOCs) Mold Radon Mercury Pesticides Air Pollution Risk Assessment 51 See the Resources page of the guidelines website for links related to the topics listed under the ‘Additional Information.’ (www.epa.gov/schools/siting/resources) 54 Feature/Land Use Description Potential Hazard(s) Recommendations Additional Information51 Screening Perimeter Evaluation Contaminated sites (formerly or currently regulated under Superfund, RCRA hazardous waste sites, state- regulated hazardous waste sites, or unremediated sites under federal, tribal or state orders or agreements for cleanup) Properties that have or are managing hazardous waste onsite, or have had releases of hazardous waste in the past, and are under federal (CERCLA, RCRA Subtitle C), tribal or state regulation. Air pollution Dust Soil contamination Ground water contamination Vapor intrusion into structures Surface water contamination Odors Accidental release/spill of hazardous chemicals Identify and evaluate all facilities within~1 mile of prospective locations Applies to both onsite as well as adjacent or nearby sites Evaluate on a case- and site-specific basis. See Exhibit 5 for potential variables and mitigation options. Regulating agencies should be consulted to obtain environmental status of the site, if it has been assessed. The site may have had contamination removed or addressed, and be safe for use, or the site may still need additional cleanup. The site should not be used for a school unless regulating agencies can confirm that the potential for unsafe human exposures has been prevented. Air Pollution Risk Assessment Maps and Mapping Vapor Intrusion/ (VOCs) Heavy Metals in Soil and Ground Water Water 55 Feature/Land Use Description Potential Hazard(s) Recommendations Additional Information51 Screening Perimeter Evaluation Solid waste landfills and transfer stations Properties that have or are managing non- hazardous solid waste. Air pollution Soil contamination Ground water contamination Vapor intrusion into structures Surface water contamination Odors Pests and disease vectors Diesel emissions and heavy truck traffic Fires Identify and evaluate all facilities within ~1 mile of prospective locations Applies to both onsite as well as adjacent or nearby sites Evaluate on a case- and site-specific basis. See Exhibit 5 for potential variables and mitigation options. Regulating agencies should be consulted to obtain environmental status of the site, if it has been assessed. The site may have had contamination removed or addressed, and be safe for use, or the site may still need additional cleanup. The site should not be used for a school unless regulating agencies can confirm that the potential for unsafe human exposures has been prevented. Air Pollution Heavy Metals in Soil and Ground Water Vapor Intrusion/ (VOCs) Risk Assessment Maps and Mapping Water 56 Feature/Land Use Description Potential Hazard(s) Recommendations Additional Information51 Screening Perimeter Evaluation Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) Properties formerly owned, leased, possessed or used by the Department of Defense (DOD) or its components that were transferred from DOD control prior to the enactment of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA). The FUDS program communicates with regulatory agencies, tribes and the public to ensure proper characterization and cleanup of past DOD lands. Unexploded ordnance (FUDS) Discarded military munitions Munitions constituents Surface water contamination Ground water contamination Legacy contaminants in existing structures including lead and other heavy metals, asbestos, PCBs, vapor intrusion/(VOCs), mold, radon, pesticides, pests Identify and evaluate all facilities within ~1 mile of prospective locations Applies to both onsite as well as adjacent or nearby sites Consult with state, tribal and local authorities to identify sites. Formerly Used Defense Sites Maps and Mapping Water 57 Feature/Land Use Description Potential Hazard(s) Recommendations Additional Information51 Screening Perimeter Evaluation High-traffic roads and highways High-traffic roads or roads with heavy diesel truck traffic. Air pollution Noise Accidental releases/spills of hazardous chemicals Pedestrian and bike safety Identify and evaluate all high- traffic roads and highways within ~½ mile Roads farther away with a high likelihood of accidental releases should also be considered In general, air pollutant concentrations will be highest closer to the source, decreasing with distance from the road. Many factors affect the magnitude and extent of impacts, so the potential variables and mitigation options described in Exhibit 5 should be evaluated. Consider additional mitigation strategies for locations near high-traffic roads. Also, consider potential adverse consequences related to inability of students to walk/bike to school, etc. Roads Air Pollution Noise Risk Assessment Water Distribution centers, bus terminals, bus garages and truck-stops Facilities with more than 100 trucks/buses per day, or more than 40 refrigerated trucks per day. Air pollution, including diesel emissions Soil contamination Ground water contamination Surface water contamination Vapor intrusion Heavy truck or bus traffic Identify and evaluate all major distribution centers within ~½ mile Centers farther away with a high likelihood of accidental releases should also be considered Evaluate on a case- and site-specific basis. See Exhibit 5 for potential variables and mitigation options. Risk Assessment Maps and Mapping Vapor Intrusion/ (VOCs) 58 Feature/Land Use Description Potential Hazard(s) Recommendations Additional Information51 Screening Perimeter Evaluation Large industrial facilities Fossil fuel power plants (more than 50 MW), incinerators, refineries, chemical/ pharmaceutical/rubber and plastics plants, cement kilns, metal foundries and smelters, other large industrial facilities. Air pollution Soil contamination Ground water contamination Surface water contamination Accidental releases/spills of hazardous chemicals Odors Heavy vehicular traffic Identify and evaluate all large industrial facilities within ~½ mile Evaluate on a case- and site-specific basis. See Exhibit 5 for potential variables and mitigation options. Consult with local air quality agencies to determine sites with high concentrations nearby. Air Pollution Risk Assessment Maps and Mapping Vapor Intrusion/ (VOCs) Water Other large sources Metal platers (especially chrome), rendering plants, sewage treatment plants, composting operations, fertilizer or cement plants, large manufacturing facilities. Air pollution Soil contamination Ground water contamination Surface water contamination Accidental releases/spills of hazardous chemicals Odors Identify and evaluate all other large sources within ~½ mile Evaluate on a case- and site-specific basis. See Exhibit 5 for potential variables and mitigation options. Consult with local air quality agencies to determine appropriate separation. Air Pollution Risk Assessment Maps and Mapping Vapor Intrusion/ (VOCs) Water 59 Feature/Land Use Description Potential Hazard(s) Recommendations Additional Information51 Screening Perimeter Evaluation Gas stations and other fuel dispensing facilities Large gas station dispense more than 3.6 million gallons per year. Air pollution Soil contamination Ground water contamination Vapor intrusion into structures Heavy vehicular traffic Identify and evaluate gas stations and other fuel dispensing facilities within ~1,000 feet of prospective school locations Applies to both onsite as well as adjacent or nearby locations Evaluate on a case- and site-specific basis. See Exhibit 5 for potential variables and mitigation options. Consult with state, tribal and local authorities for applicable requirements. Evaluate for spills, leaking underground storage tanks, potential air emissions. Air Pollution Risk Assessment Maps and Mapping Underground Storage Tanks Vapor Intrusion/ (VOCs) Dry cleaners Facilities using perchloroethylene or similarly toxic chemicals. Air pollution Soil contamination Ground water contamination Vapor intrusion into structures Identify and evaluate dry cleaning operations within ~1,000 feet of prospective school locations Applies to both onsite as well as adjacent or nearby locations Evaluate on a case- and site-specific basis. See Exhibit 5 for potential variables and mitigation options. Consult with state, tribal and local authorities for applicable requirements. Consult with local environmental agencies to determine locations with high concentrations. Air Pollution Risk Assessment Maps and Mapping Vapor Intrusion/ (VOCs) 60 Feature/Land Use Description Potential Hazard(s) Recommendations Additional Information51 Screening Perimeter Evaluation Other area/small sources Auto body shops, furniture manufacturing and repair; wood product manufacturing or processing; printing, electronics and chip manufacturing; charbroilers, commercial sterilization, back-up generators; small neighborhood metal platers Air pollution Soil contamination Ground water contamination Surface water contamination Odors Vapor intrusion into structures Identify and evaluate other small sources within ~1,000 feet of prospective school locations Applies to both onsite as well as adjacent or nearby locations Evaluate on a case- and site-specific basis. See Exhibit 5 for potential variables and mitigation options. Consult with local health and/or environmental agencies to determine locations with high concentrations. Air Pollution Risk Assessment Maps and Mapping Large agricultural growing operations Operations employing aerial pesticide spraying Air pollution (from volatilization and drift) Soil contamination Ground water contamination Surface water contamination Identify and evaluate all large agricultural growing operations within ~3 miles Evaluate on a case- and site-specific basis. See Exhibit 5 for potential variables and mitigation options. Air Pollution Risk Assessment Maps and Mapping Water Large concentrated animal feeding operations Animal feeding operations Air pollution Soil contamination Ground water contamination Surface water contamination Odors Identify and evaluate all animal feeding operations within ~1 – 3 miles Evaluate on a case- and site-specific basis. See Exhibit 5 for potential variables and mitigation options. Consult with local health and/or environmental agencies to determine locations with high concentrations. Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations Air Pollution Risk Assessment Maps and Mapping Water 61 Feature/Land Use Description Potential Hazard(s) Recommendations Additional Information51 Screening Perimeter Evaluation Ports Marine ports with more than 100 truck visits/day Air pollution Noise Soil contamination Surface water contamination Heavy vehicular traffic Accidental releases/spills of hazardous chemicals Identify and evaluate all port facilities within ~1 mile Ports farther away with a high likelihood of accidental releases should also be considered Evaluate on a case- and site- specific basis. See Exhibit 5 for potential variables and mitigation options. Air Pollution Noise Risk Assessment Maps and Mapping Vapor Intrusion/ (VOCs) Rail yards, intermodal freight terminals and major rail lines A major service and maintenance rail yard; Rail lines serving more than 50 trains/day (excluding electric light rail, except for safety) Air pollution Noise Odors Soil contamination Ground water contamination Vapor intrusion into structures Accidental releases/spills of hazardous chemicals Fire/explosions Safety Large truck traffic Identify and evaluate all major rail yards, intermodal freight terminals and rail lines within ~1 mile Rail facilities farther away with a high likelihood of accidental releases should also be considered Evaluate on a case- and site- specific basis. See Exhibit 5 for potential variables and mitigation options. Consult with local air quality agencies to determine locations with high concentrations. Consider additional mitigation approaches. Air Pollution Noise Risk Assessment Maps and Mapping Vapor Intrusion/ (VOCs) 62 Feature/Land Use Description Potential Hazard(s) Recommendations Additional Information51 Screening Perimeter Evaluation Rail lines All rail lines (excluding electric light rail) Air pollution Noise Odors Soil contamination Ground water contamination Physical hazards due to derailment Hazardous cargo spills Train road crossings and access to rail tracks Identify and evaluate all rail lines within ~1/2 mile Rail lines farther away with a high likelihood of accidental releases should also be considered Evaluate on a case- and site- specific basis. Evaluate safety based on cargo, speed, traffic, etc. See Potential Variables under Exhibit 5. Consult with local air quality agencies to determine locations with high concentrations. Consider additional mitigation approaches. Rail Yards and Rail Lines Maps and Mapping Noise Airports and heliports All commercial and military airports, consider flight patterns/runway configuration Safety concerns near runways Noise Air pollution Identify and evaluate all locations within ~2 miles from runways Evaluate on a case- and site- specific basis. See Exhibit 5 for potential variables and mitigation options. Consult with state, tribal and local authorities for applicable requirements. Consult with local air quality agencies to determine locations with high concentrations. Airports Maps and Mapping Noise 63 Feature/Land Use Description Potential Hazard(s) Recommendations Additional Information51 Screening Perimeter Evaluation Power lines High voltage power lines more than 50 kV. Exposure to electromagnetic fields Safety concerns if power lines fall Identify and evaluate all high voltage power lines within ~500 feet of prospective school locations Applies to both onsite as well as adjacent or nearby locations Consult with state, tribal and/or local authorities for requirements. Variable, depending on voltage and if lines are above ground or below ground. Power Lines Electromagnetic Fields Cellular phone towers All cellular phone towers and antennas. Exposure to electromagnetic fields Fall distance of towers Identify and evaluate cell towers within ~200 feet of prospective school locations Applies to both onsite as well as adjacent or nearby locations Review and apply Federal Communications Commission regulatory guidance. Electromagnetic Fields Hazardous material pipelines Oil pipelines, high pressure natural gas pipelines, chemical pipelines, high pressure water lines. Soil contamination Ground water contamination Accidental release/spills of hazardous materials Fire/heat from flammable fuels Flooding/erosion from water Explosion hazard Identify and evaluate hazardous material pipelines within ~1,500 feet of prospective school locations Applies to both onsite as well as adjacent or nearby locations No hazardous pipelines on site (except natural gas serving school). Pipelines Maps and Mapping Water 64 Feature/Land Use Description Potential Hazard(s) Recommendations Additional Information51 Screening Perimeter Evaluation Reservoirs, water or fuel storage tanks All aboveground large volume liquid storage tanks Potential for inundation in an accident Surface water contamination Ground water contamination Vapor intrusion into structures Air pollution Identify and evaluate reservoirs, water or fuel storage tanks within ~1,500 feet of prospective school locations Applies to both onsite as well as adjacent or nearby locations Evaluate drainage direction and emergency planning options. Aboveground Storage Tanks Maps and Mapping Water Geologic features Earthquake faults, liquefaction zones, volcanic/geothermal activity, landslide/lahar zones, flood zones, methane zones, naturally occurring hazardous materials (examples: asbestos, uranium, radon) areas, etc., reservoirs, high water table Natural hazards Air pollution Soil contamination Surface water contamination Ground water contamination Dust Moisture intrusion Identify and evaluate potential geologic hazards within ~¼ mile of prospective school locations Applies to both onsite as well as adjacent or nearby locations Evaluate geologic/ geotechnical hazards for every location. Natural Hazards Maps and Mapping 5. Environmental Review Process | 65 School Siting Guidelines 5. Environmental Review Process 5.1. Overview While the decision to build a new school is primarily focused on the educational needs of children in the community and reflects a great many local factors and considerations, a full understanding of the environmental issues associated with each candidate site is essential for a fully informed school siting decision. The example environmental review process presented in this section describes a process of evaluating candidate sites that are under serious consideration as a location for a school. EPA recommends that all sites under serious consideration undergo an initial screen (see Section 5.5) and preliminary environmental assessment (see Section 5.6). If no environmental concerns are found in the preliminary assessment, no further assessment is needed. If potential environmental concerns are found, the local education agency (LEA)(see Section 10) should select a different site or perform a comprehensive environmental assessment (see Section 5.7) to ensure that environmental concerns are identified and remediated (i.e., cleaned up) or mitigated, as appropriate. If remediation or mitigation is necessary to prevent exposures, site-specific remediation/mitigation measures (see Section 5.7 and 5.8) and a long-term stewardship plan (see Section 5.9) should be developed, reviewed by the public and implemented. A full understanding of the potential risks of candidate sites to ensure that a prospective school site does not pose unacceptable health and safety risks to students and staff is very important but can be costly and time-consuming. For this reason, it may be desirable to try to avoid sites that have onsite contamination or are in very close proximity to pollution generating land uses at the initial stage of identifying candidate sites if other acceptable locations exist in the community that may pose fewer environmental challenges. 5.2. Why Is an Effective Environmental Review of Prospective Candidate Sites So Important? Children, particularly younger children, may be more vulnerable when exposed to contaminants in both indoor and outdoor environments. There are multiple pathways for potential exposures to contaminants in air, water or soil that should be considered during the site evaluation process. Indoor pathways can include vapor intrusion into structures from soil and ground water and poor indoor air quality from infiltration of air contaminants through windows, doors and ventilation air intakes. Children competing in outdoor sports or playing on school grounds could be exposed to contaminants present in soil, water and outdoor air on school grounds. Therefore, it is important to determine whether a site is You will see the word “site” mentioned throughout this section, which is an established term in the environmental profession. Its use should not be interpreted to reference only vacant sites or greenfields; it includes locations (sites) with existing buildings. 66 | Environmental Review Process School Siting Guidelines contaminated or could be impacted by contaminants that may migrate to the site from nearby air, land and water sources. If these contaminants reach a level that poses a threat to the health of children and staff, cleanup or other mitigation actions may be required to prevent unacceptable exposures. These contaminants may be present due to historical and current industrial activity, unsafe demolition practices, illegal dumping or through material brought to a site, such as fill, which could have resulted in soil, ground water or surface water contamination. EPA recommends that all properties or structures proposed for use as a school be carefully evaluated for potential environmental contaminants and potential exposures of children, staff and visitors before making final decisions to use a site or structure for a school. The site evaluation process should identify and evaluate all potential safety hazards and sources of environmental contamination that may be present at the site or which may migrate to the site from nearby sources. The environmental review process for candidate school sites is designed to answer the following questions: Are site surface soils, subsurface soils, soil gases, ground water or surface water contaminated with hazardous materials and substances to a degree that the site should be remediated before use or should not be used for school purposes (i.e., onsite contamination); Are there offsite sources of pollution, contaminants or other environmental hazards affecting the site such that the hazards should be mitigated before use of the site or the location should not be used for school purposes (i.e., offsite environmental impacts); and Are there environmental and public health impacts associated with putting a school on the site that should be mitigated or that are so significant that the site cannot safely be used for school purposes (i.e., impacts of the project on the environment)? NOTE: LEAs, as well as states and tribes (see Section 7), are encouraged to adopt and use an environmental review process comparable to the process outlined in this section to the maximum extent possible. However, EPA recognizes that elements of the process outlined may be beyond the current capacity of some LEAs, states, tribes and other participants in the process to fully implement with existing authorities, expertise and resources. EPA encourages LEAs, states, tribes, communities and other interested organizations to work collaboratively with each other to identify opportunities to leverage existing resources as well as to identify and work toward fulfilling needs for improving local, state and tribal capacity to conduct a rigorous site evaluation process and to safely operate risk reduction measures such as lead encapsulation systems. 5.2.1. The Importance of Meaningful Public Involvement An essential prerequisite to an effective site review and selection process is to develop and formalize substantive public involvement in site selection decisions (see Section 3). LEAs should develop a communication plan at the beginning of the process. When draft and final reports are available for public comment, written notice of the Existing State Requirements Some states, such as California, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York and Washington, require sponsors of new school construction projects to assess the environmental impact of the project as part of a state environmental review process. Other states have environmental review laws including Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Montana, North Carolina, South Dakota, Virginia and Wisconsin. The extent to which human health impacts are considered in such reviews varies. More information can be found on the Resources page of the guidelines website. (www.epa.gov/schools/siting/resources.ht ml#LINKS_States) Environmental Review Process | 67 School Siting Guidelines rweesults of the reports shoucommubsiten, siceantiot to nsth poslane a idnenld std be posted on the hifouied inld in thcleu de: A statement that a report has been completed; A b its srpieefc sifticat cemompenton ine nptslai ann land rgeusuagltse d; escribing Tthhee r loepcoratit oonr awnh eerxe peceople can review a copy of the appropriate foreiugntiv lane sguumagmea (ryif a wpriptlitceabn ilen ); Aprnovnouidnesc aem reeanst oonf aab pleublic comment period that m90e daaniynsg, afusl dpeuteblirmic innveo opd lvemportunity LEA b the c (for y ent irtcyupmsicallytan 3ce0s –, or tri pbraalc eticnvei roornm receontmmal aegnednactiony); s of the state Ipnusbtrlicuc ctioomnmes anndts a ; addrnde sses for submitting Tpuhbe ldaic mtee, timetineg as.n d location of any scheduled Mord maecaan inn be finfortamaounindition inng me ona thnineg process for establishing Involvement (se the eS eMctieaonninfugl publ 3)ful Puicb ilicnv olvement 5.3. Recommended . EThne vexironmenta presenatemd iplne thenisv sireocntioml enRevtal rievewiew P prroo n cescess s and illupflow charts de strated in the scrhosoolpe scitetivse a prscocreibsse s afor t eravanslupaationrent o, tf phooteroungtiah,l apdrodcreessss eisd t pori ennds sutrreu tchtuatr all es. The purpose of the use a particularor t loco tahtione de orcispioon ttenot aial h structurceq fuazireards are or other purpose where ch ildren w or a l sacndhool or significant amount of time (see Sectiill sonp 1e.nd1). a Iisf nsuoe ssig arenif ficoaunndt environmental and public health f(uSrtathgee 1r a, Ssseecssmtion 5du.5ri angnd t hStea igne 2itia, Sl screening stages ent is needed. Lateerc sttioagne 5s sh.6),o nould be used for those sites that may have csouonrtacmines) thatiaont mu isssut ebs (oenssolitvee orschool. e r d p frrioom r tno ueasreb fyo r a Ideally, the LEAenloc hva r school s o uuitionronm foental r slde u nnotilt a thcqeu airpep orro leprasiate ane y Senvtagie 2ronm, Seecnttioaln i 5ev.6i,ew f has been completed (e.g., sites with significssaunet csor a ndsit eSst wage 5ith n, So orontaection few 5 .9, for cmosandidat resteou srccheool in lteocnsaivtioe nesnmination issu ovironmental reccur in Stagesesv)i. eTwhse 3-5. of Trehceo fmolmlowendinsg s stitatee r anevdie twri abalnd s enveleregulatory approval and oversighitroction process of onsite contamination of candida fteonmr ental and tr sitevealus. Sattaitoesn teenvchinroicibes (seenmal aesntsisalta Snecction 7 hazea frdors a)n c eavna a and thelulsao ptionrovide environmental impacts associate pd woten oftia lof fsite school on a candidate site. However, thithe p alcatucinagl a trvaibrioual osr s stetaptmay v with se i and local oversigary, n s thtatee e ornv triribonamel polnhtat rle rleavtioniews hpirpocs feosrs greater or lesser oversight. icies mandating Aagll sentcatiese an (hdttp m:/o/stw twriwbal e.astsnvwirmo.onmeorgn/taRPal rgeesg/u latory esoucplreoagnramrcess i/nS ptalacte_eA tgoe envcaluy_Latinks.htm) have typesu ofp p sitlaenss o ofr oprnojsitecets c.o Fnetwaemin and approve require sponsors of new school staatetions cu frorre snptleyc ific pprrojojeecctst a tos p aasrst oes construction process. EPA encfs the eno au srtaagtees L veinrvoirnms tonementanl imEA o see tak tl rpeavcit ofew the assistance on assessme echnica l rregeguullaatotorrsy in re thqueir aembsenencnet f ofro othm eents. r lveirgonislmeativneta olr Sedutatcea ationnd t crouibal entedrpuacatrtsio wn agill beencies aninvolvement and technical assisntaefnit cfers fodm th eir local tate o rom the sbersoswinngfrie trldsiba rl and ene vsolponunstae pryr cogleraanm upin p iderognrtiam or suring safe school site selfeycintiong, a ins- accordance with state and federal requirements. Potential health and environmental risks posed by 68 | Environmental Review Process School Siting Guidelines llocateadtion unsd ner teahr eS Rupeseorfuurcnd se Ciotes or facilities regu-Rethrcoouvgehr y Act (RCRA) can besnst berve aadtidornes asnded cfeodnserual hltationazar with appropria Special C d o o n u s s id s era ite c ti le o a n n bal, tate s utep t srti f and for E af xi . s sting Structures/Leased Space EPA recommends that existing structures/leased space be subject to a thorough environmental review consistent with these guidelines prior to use as a school. Existing structures at the site may have additional considerations for environmental review, including, but not limited to, the concern that a structure may not have been built and/or remediated to an adequate standard for occupation by students (e.g., with respect to the presence of toxic substances, potential vapor intrusion, or seismic activity) and that existing structures may not be accessible for intrusive sampling of onsite contamination. 5.4. St cTanhe recomma didate schenges of Site Review vironmental poroodl sed perocfesitsios snahesous fldo br e pevaluating ls (see Secertifoonr 1m0ed) an byd eb wn-enef ill rmuevlietiwpit flr som ebegtep p iublic volveme t (ss in n see Sin w nit thh ep prorjeoccet sssc. Tophine eg ofnv thireonctimone 3nta) atl resitve fieowllo. Iwf noed s bigyn a ifpreliminary environmee cnatal nd idate icant issues are found in the preliminary assessment, no further assessments are needed. If potential environmental hazards are identified in the preliminary assessment, the environmental review should continue to Stage 3, which begins the more detailed or comprehensive environmental review, or another site should be selected. The process of environmental review culminates in a final evaluation that responds to comments received from the public and the agencies providing oversight of the process. Stage 1 – Project Scoping/Initial Screen of Candidate Sites (see Section 5.5) Stage 2 – Preliminary Environmental Assessment (see Section 5.6) Stage 3 – Comprehensive Environmental Review (see Section 5.7) Stage 4 – Develop Site-specific Remediation/ Mitigation Measures (see Section 5.8) Stage 5 – Implement Mitigation/Remediation (see Section 5.9) Stage 6 – Long-term Stewardship Plan (see Section 5.10) It is important to note that the full process for environmental review can be quite lengthy if site remediation and mitigation are necessary. The LEA may want to consider alternative locations early on rather than take a site through the entire environmental review process. Environmental Review Process | 69 School Siting Guidelines Exhibit 7: Stages of Site Review STAGE 1:Project Scoping/Initial Environmental Screen of Candidate Sites (Section 5.5) START STAGE 2:Preliminary Environmental Assessment (Section 5.6) YES Should the site continue to be evaluated? NO YES Is the site acceptable from an environmental perspective? NOEliminate site from further consideration Environmental review process for site is complete STAGE 3:Comprehensive Environmental Review (Section 5.7) STAGE 4:Develop Site-Specific Mitigation/Remediation Measures (Section 5.8) STAGE 5:Implement Remedial/Mitigation Measures (Section 5.9) NO YES Do remedial actions and mitigation measures fully address environmental hazards so that no long-term stewardship is needed to prevent school occupants’ exposure?Environmental review process for site is complete STAGE 6:Long-term Stewardship (Section 5.10) Maintain long-term stewardship to ensure that contaminant levels are safe for use of the school YES Does the LEA decide to mitigate/remediate environmental hazards so site can be safely used for a school location? NO YES Is the site acceptable from an environmental perspective? Environmental review process for site is complete NO NO YES 70 | Environmental Review Process School Siting Guidelines Exhibit 8: Stage 1: Project Scoping/Initial Screen of Candidate Site Go to STAGE 2 : Preliminary Environmental Assessment 1.Develop a public involvement plan to implement throughout the environmental review process 2.Identify preliminary candidate sites using the environmental siting criteria (see Environmental Siting Criteria Considerations, Section 4) 3.Screen out sites that do not meet the environmental siting criteria considerations 4.Designate the site(s) to carry forward to preliminary environmental assessment STAGE 1:Project Scoping/Initial Environmental Screen of Candidate Sites START 5.5.Stage 1: Project Scoping/Initial Screen of Candidate Site Environmental Review Process | 71 School Siting Guidelines This stage of the environmental review process begins when the LEA decides to proceed with a school facility project. At this point the school siting committee (SSC) (see Section 3.3) should be tasked with identifying candidate locations for the school project and plan to give the public an opportunity to comment (see Section 3.7) on the preferred location that is selected. The SSC would typically begin with a review of possible locations for the project and screen sites using a variety of siting criteria considerations (see Section 4) that would include, but not be limited to, community, environmental, planning and transportation factors, and public health considerations. The scope of criteria considered by the SSC could also include cost, availability, educational programs, services to be provided, zoning and other considerations appropriate to the locality. The screening should also assess the likelihood of obtaining the various environmental, historical, cultural and other land use approvals and permits relevant to the proposed school site. For example, such an evaluation is required in New Jersey under the School Development Authority Environmental Screening Report (www.njsda.gov/Business/Doc_Form/PDFsForms/RE_Manual.pdf), beginning on page 15 of Appendix A. Many of the factors that will be considered by the SSC are beyond the scope of these guidelines. While all of these factors play an important role in school siting decisions, the remainder of this section will focus on environmental factors that should be considered by the SSC in recommending appropriate locations for schools. The SSC and LEA may wish to consult existing state or tribal site inventories to streamline the acceptance or rejection of sites. The screening activity may need to be facilitated or supported by advisers from various disciplines, including environmental professionals and consultants. Support from federal, state, tribal or local government may be needed at this stage as well. 72 | Environmental Review Process School Siting Guidelines 5.6. Stage 2: Preliminary Environmental Assessment Exhibit 9: Stage 2: Preliminary Environmental Assessment Go to STAGE 3 : Comprehensive Environmental Review 2.Task environmental professional to develop a preliminary environmental assessment report (Section 5.6.5) 3.Submit the report to state or tribal environmental regulatory agency for preliminary review (Section 5.6.5) STAGE 2:Preliminary Environmental Assessment If all preferred sites are eliminated, Go to Stage 1, Step 2 Should the site continue to be evaluated? NO YES 1.Identify environmental professional to evaluate the site(s) and conduct preliminary environmental assessments Potential onsite contamination (Section 5.6.1) Potential offsite contamination (Section 5.6.2) Potential impacts of the project on the environment (Section 5.6.3) Positive environmental attributes of candidate locations (Section 5.6.4) 4.Post the draft report for public comment (Section 5.6.5) Modify the report to address substantive issues raised during the public review phase 5.Submit the report and public comments to state or tribal environmental regulatory agency for final review (Section 5.6.5) YESIs the site acceptable from an environmental perspective? NO Eliminate site from further consideration Environmental review process for site is complete 6. Consider findings of the final preliminary environmental review report (Section 5.6.6) Environmental Review Process | 73 School Siting Guidelines Once the LEA designates candidate sites for the project, the LEA should engage an environmental professional (see Section 10) to conduct the necessary environmental reviews for the project.52 Because LEAs may have limited experience and limited resources for conducting or overseeing the work described in the guidelines, the LEA may need assistance from federal, state, tribal or local government agencies to guide or even undertake this work. If the local government has an environmental department, the LEA should consult with them as they may be in the best position to oversee contractors or otherwise help with the environmental review process. The preliminary environmental assessment of the site is intended to: Identify issues related to the environmental suitability of the preferred site; and Identify issues to be addressed in detail during the next stage of environmental review (Stage 3, Comprehensive Environmental Review, Section 5.7) if environmental issues are identified and the site continues to be considered. The first step of the preliminary environmental assessment involves four environmental reviews, which can be conducted concurrently. Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of onsite contamination; Preliminary environmental assessment of offsite environmental impacts; Preliminary environmental assessment of impacts of the project on the environment; and 52 The qualifications of an environmental professional needed to conduct ESA's are defined in ASTM International Standard E1527-05 (www.astm.org/standards/e1527.htm); also see U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “All Appropriate Inquiries Rule: Definition Of Environmental Professional,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA 560-F-05-241, October 2005. (Accessed on September 16, 2011) Available at: http://epa.gov/brownfields/aai/ep_deffactsheet.pdf. Preliminary environmental assessment of desirable environmental attributes of candidate locations. The following four environmental reviews should be combined into a preliminary environmental assessment report when they have been completed. 5.6.1. Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of Onsite Contamination An Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) initially examines the site history and former use of the property, and may include interviews with nearby property owners and residents, to assess potential for onsite contamination of surface soils, subsurface soils, soil gases, ground water and surface water that may be contaminated. The purpose of the ESA is to identify the presence or the likely presence of any environmental hazards on a property based on historical and current land uses that might pose health risks. An ESA, as a preliminary environmental assessment process, will help identify issues for decision-making as well as screen for issues that may need to be addressed in greater detail. The industry standard for ESAs is the ASTM International Standard E1527-05.53 (www.astm.org/Standards/ E1527) The ESA will be based on a review of public and private records of current and past land uses, historical aerial photographs, environmental databases and the files of federal, tribal, state and local regulatory agencies. In addition, the assessment includes conducting a site visit, inspecting adjacent properties and interviewing people familiar with the site’s history, including past and present owners. Many lenders and insurers require an ESA prior to property acquisition to obtain Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 53 ASTM E1527-05 Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process sets forth the activities to be conducted and information to be gathered. The standard is used during real property transfers. (www.astm.org/standards/e1527.htm) 74 | Environmental Review Process School Siting Guidelines Liability Act 54 (CERCLA; also known as “Superfund”) (www.epa.gov/superfund/ policy/cercla) liability protections such as: The bona fide prospective purchaser protection (www.epa.gov/compliance/cleanup/revitalization/bfpp); Contiguous property owner protection (www.epa.gov/compliance/cleanup/revitalization/cpo); and The innocent landowner defense (www.epa.gov/oecaerth/cleanup/ revitalization/ilo).55 The Environmental Review Process section of the Resources page (www.epa.gov/schools/siting/ resources.html#LINKS_environmental_review_process) lists links to ASTM standards related to site assessment for commercial transactions. Additionally, an eligible LEA may apply for an EPA Brownfields Assessment Grant to conduct an ESA on one or multiple sites and will be required to have completed one if the LEA intends to apply for an EPA Brownfields Cleanup Grant. The LEA may also be required under state or tribal laws or regulations to ensure that all potential hazards are identified, including those that are beyond the scope of CERCLA. Tribal and state voluntary cleanup programs often provide guidance and oversight during real property transfer transactions. ESAs conducted for proposed school sites should also address non-CERCLA related potential hazards from both onsite and offsite sources (see Exhibit 6: Screening Potential Environmental and Safety Hazards). Ultimately, an ESA or subsequent environmental site assessment is used to determine if further 54 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, U.S. Code 42 (1980) §§9601 et seq. 55 In the CERCLA liability context, an ESA, usually called “All Appropriate Inquiries,” (see: http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/aai) is usually a prerequisite to obtaining any of these liability protections. If the LEA intends to obtain and maintain any of these CERCLA liability protections, it must conduct an ESA within one year prior to acquisition, with certain elements updated within 180 days prior to acquisition. action or no further action is required for the site. For example, if a review of records shows onsite environmental contamination exceeds state, tribal or local standards, a comprehensive environmental review would need to be conducted before the site could be developed as a school. Many states have established a variety of environmental standards to support cleanups. In some cases, states or tribes have developed guidance or rules specifically to guide the school siting process when considering environmental contamination. In other cases, states or tribes have other standards that have been developed for more generic purposes that may be appropriate for assessing the suitability of candidate school sites. When state or tribal standards exist, they should be used. In the absence of such standards, states and tribes may wish to employ EPA risk assessment methods for the establishment of cleanup levels. (www.epa .gov/oswer/riskassessment/risk_superfund) The environmental standards used to evaluate site contamination should be based on either 1) standards developed for schools or residential use or 2) risk based levels set for residential use. If further action is required, the ESA report should specify recognized environmental conditions for further study. 5.6.2. Preliminary Environmental Assessment of Offsite Environmental Impacts In the preliminary environmental assessment of offsite environmental impacts, the environmental professional should identify potential environmental hazards surrounding the candidate site such as from old waste sites (including Superfund sites), localized air pollution (e.g., rail lines, industrial facilities), hazardous material pipelines and others. Hazards of potential concern and the screening distance from the site for which potential hazards should be identified for evaluation are described in Exhibit 6: Screening Potential Environmental and Safety Hazards. Some level of air quality analysis should be considered for every new school site prior to project approval by the LEA. This analysis should Environmental Review Process | 75 School Siting Guidelines at a minimum include criteria air pollutants (i.e., ground-level ozone, sulfur dioxide, lead, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides and particulate matter) and hazardous air pollutants (e.g., air toxics such as benzene, formaldehyde and diesel exhaust). Depending on the location of the site, the analysis may require database reviews, contaminant transport and dispersion modeling, monitoring, health risk assessments, site reconnaissance and/or other methods. For more specific guidance see Evaluating Impacts of Nearby Sources of Air Pollution (see Section 6). The Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act 56 (www.epa.gov/oecaagct/ lcra#Hazardous%20Chemical%20Notification%20and%20Inventory%20Reporting) gives communities access to information on toxic and hazardous chemicals inventories in their communities. Additionally, Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act 57 requires facilities that produce, handle, process, distribute or store certain chemicals to develop and submit a Risk Management Plan to EPA, which is also available to communities.58 5.6.3 Preliminary Environmental Assessment of Impacts of the Project on the Environment In assessing a potential site for new school construction (rather than renovating or expanding an existing school or adapting another structure), LEAs should consider the environmental impacts of building a school on the new location, in addition to potential health and safety risks to the surrounding community. An environmental impact review conducted during the preliminary environmental assessment identifies potential significant impacts of the project on the surrounding environment and human health, as well as construction and regulatory obstacles that cannot be overcome. An environmental impact 56 Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act, U.S. Code 42 (1986) §§11001 et seq. 57 Clean Air Act, U.S. Code 42 (1970) §§7401 et seq. 58 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Risk Management Plan Rule.” Last modified September 19, 2011. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/osweroe1/content/rmp/. review may be required by a state or tribal environmental regulatory agency or planning board (e.g., for large school construction projects). The outcome of the environmental impact review could result in rejecting a site from further consideration either by the state or tribe or by the LEA. The potential categories for consideration that should be assessed may include: Community amenities; Existing infrastructure; and Potential impacts or hazards. Potential impacts that should be assessed may include: Local utilities such as water supply, sewage service and electricity; Increases in local traffic and congestion as well as impacts on pedestrian safety; Hydrology/water quality such as coastal wetlands, floodplains and stream encroachment constraints; Public land such as displacement of parks; Access to public resources such as parks and libraries; Historic or archeological resources; Threatened or endangered plant or animal species; Habitat loss; Aesthetics such as lighting or noise from stadiums; Hazards and hazardous materials related to transport and disposal of onsite contamination removed from the site during cleanup; Agricultural resources such as displacement of farmland; 76 | Environmental Review Process School Siting Guidelines Air quality such as emissions from construction, including engine exhaust and dust from clearing, grading and burning; Geology/soils such as creating slope instability during construction; Mineral resources such as displacing drilling rights; Public services such as police and fire; Ability to serve as an emergency shelter; Excessive community relocation and displacement impacts; Time spent traveling to and from school; Walk/bike route audits; and Percentage of students who could walk/bike to school. 5.6.4. Preliminary Environmental Assessment of Desirable Environmental Attributes of Candidate Sites Desirable environmental attributes of a given site should also be assessed, such as the site’s proximity to residences where future students live (so students would be able to walk or bike to school); whether sidewalks, crosswalks and streets in proximity to the site provide safe routes to school; the availability of public transportation to and from the site; and access to community resources, such as libraries, community centers, parks and other features. See Exhibit 4: Desirable Environmental Attributes of Candidate Sites. 5.6.5 Review of the Preliminary Environmental Assessment Report Once the environmental professional has completed the four reviews described earlier, a report should be developed and submitted for the review steps that follow. Preliminary agency review of the preliminary environmental assessment report The LEA will need to comply with the state’s requirements for environmental review and would typically submit the draft preliminary environmental assessment or additional assessments to the state or tribal environmental regulatory agency (www.astswmo.org/Pages/ Resources/State_Agency_Links.htm) for any site it is considering pursuing. When state or tribal requirements are not present, the LEA should secure an agreement with the state or tribal environmental regulatory agency for review of the draft ESA results. It is desirable to have the state or tribe review the offsite contamination assessment, environmental impact assessment and assessment of desirable environmental attributes as well. Public comment on the preliminary environmental assessment report All four reviews that comprise the preliminary assessment report should be made available to the public and relevant local agencies (e.g., the local department of transportation and the local police) for comment. To aid with the understanding of these work products, the environmental professional or the LEA should prepare a plain language summary of the preliminary environmental assessment reports for the community, including translation for non-English speaking stakeholders, if applicable. If the preliminary environmental assessment report recommends no further action, the LEA should release the work conducted (e.g., reports submitted to the state, any responses and other supporting assessments) for public comment and, if appropriate, hold a public hearing, before formally adopting the recommendations of the preliminary review. If the preliminary environmental assessment report recommends further action, public review of the preliminary environmental assessment report may occur during Stage 3 (see Section 5.7). Regardless of the findings, the components of the preliminary review report should be subject to Environmental Review Process | 77 School Siting Guidelines public comment. The LEA should follow the steps described earlier (see The Importance of Meaningful Public Involvement, Section 5.2.1) to solicit public comment on the preliminary environmental assessment report and proposed next steps based on review findings. A public comment period may be required by the state or tribal regulatory agency, particularly if the preliminary review indicates that no further environmental review is necessary and no other method of securing public comment are likely. The information listed earlier should be included in a public notice. More information on effective public involvement can be found in the Meaningful Public Involvement section (see Section 3). Final agency review of preliminary environmental site assessment Prior to final state- or tribal-level review, the LEA’s report should be modified to address substantive issues raised during the public review phase. The state or tribal environmental regulatory agency (www.astswmo.org/Pages/Resources/State_Agency_Links.htm) should also review all comments received on the preliminary environmental assessment report and determine whether no further action is required on the site or whether further action (e.g., a comprehensive environmental review) is required. 5.6.6. SSC and LEA Review and Recommendation After the state or tribal environmental regulatory agency responds to the findings of the final preliminary environmental assessment report and determines whether further action is needed, the SSC and the LEA should review the findings of the preliminary environmental assessment report and make a recommendation on the project. The recommendation should be based on the Preliminary Assessment Report and public comments received. The purpose of this review is for the LEA to either: 1. Proceed with plans for construction if no further remediation or study is required; 2. Continue evaluating the potential environmental hazards at the site with a comprehensive environmental review; or 3. Eliminate the site from further consideration and pursue alternative locations. If the recommendation is to proceed with construction or with a comprehensive environmental review, decisions should be explicitly described and steps should be taken to involve the public to the greatest extent possible. If the recommendation is to proceed with construction of a new school because no further remediation or study is required (no further action is needed), the governing body of the LEA should formally accept and document the findings of the review and then proceed with the project. 78 | Environmental Review Process School Siting Guidelines Go to STAGE 4 : Develop Site Specific Mitigation/Remediation Measures 2.Task environmental professional to develop a workplan that defines the goals and rationale of the sampling strategy and the sampling methods and procedures (Section 5.7.1) Post the workplan for public comment Submit the workplan to state and tribal environmental regulatory agency for review 3.Task environmental professional to conduct comprehensive environmental review (Sections 5.7.1-5.7.3) STAGE 3:Comprehensive Environmental Review 4.Task environmental professional to draft a final report of all comprehensive environmental reviews that were conducted (Section 5.7.4) Develop preliminary plans and cost estimates for any mitigation/remediation measures that may be needed for the site 5. Submit the draft report to state or tribal environmental regulatory agency for preliminary review (Section 5.7.4) YES Go to Stage 1, Step 2 Does the LEA decide to mitigate/remediate environmental hazards so site can be safely used for a school location? NO YES 6. Post the draft report for public comment (Section 5.7.4) Modify the report to address substantive issues raised during the public review phase 7. Submit the final report and public comments to state or tribal environmental regulatory agency for final review (Section 5.7.5) Is the site acceptable from an environmental perspective? NOEliminate site from further consideration Environmental review process for site is complete 8. Make final comprehensive environmental review report available to the public (Section 5.7.5) 9. Consider findings of the final comprehensive environmental review report (Section 5.7.7) 1.Identify environmental professional to conduct the comprehensive environmental assessment (Section 5.7) NOTE : Comprehensive environmental reviews are only needed for potential environmental hazards identified in the preliminary environmental assessment and may include review of onsite contamination, offsite environmental hazards and/or impacts on the environment. 5.7. Stage 3: Comprehensive Environmental Review Exhibit 10: Stage 3: Comprehensive Environmental Review Environmental Review Process | 79 School Siting Guidelines If the LEA decides to conduct a comprehensive environmental review, the environmental professional (see Section 10) employed or hired to perform the assessment will conduct a more thorough examination of the potential issues identified in the preliminary environmental review.59 The LEA is encouraged to work with its state or tribal environmental program to assist with this effort. The following description of the comprehensive environmental review includes assessment of onsite contamination, offsite environmental hazards and potentially significant environmental impacts of the proposed school on the surrounding environment. It is important to note that it may not be necessary to perform all three comprehensive reviews. The findings from the preliminary environmental review can be used to determine which assessment(s) is/are needed to fully characterize the site. The purpose of the comprehensive environmental review is to gather and analyze data on environmental hazards and impacts identified in the Preliminary Environmental Review, and evaluate the risks posed to children’s health, public health and the environment based on the contamination or impacts found. The comprehensive environmental review also includes developing preliminary plans and cost estimates for mitigating or reducing risks. The cost of the comprehensive environmental review will depend on the complexity of the site. LEAs are strongly encouraged to work with their state or tribal environmental regulatory program to identify critical environmental factors that need to be considered in the environmental assessment process. In many states, the only portion of the comprehensive environmental review that is subject to review and approval by the state 59 The qualifications of an environmental professional needed to conduct ESA's are defined in ASTM International Standard E1527-05 (www.astm.org/standards/e1527.htm); also see U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “All Appropriate Inquiries Rule: Definition Of Environmental Professional,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA 560-F-05-241, October 2005. (Accessed on September 16, 2011) Available at: http://epa.gov/brownfields/aai/ep_deffactsheet.pdf. environmental regulatory agency is the onsite contamination component. An oversight review of the offsite and environmental impact reports should also be completed, but the agency that conducts the review will vary from state to state. The environmental professional should prepare draft reports for each review being performed, and the LEA should publish those drafts for public comment. All final drafts should consider public comments. The final drafts should be subject to review and approval by the SSC and LEA. To capture a range of considerations the three reviews that follow (or whichever of the three reviews that are needed, based on the preliminary environmental review) can be conducted concurrently. The comprehensive environmental review should also include an evaluation of the potential risks posed to children’s health, public health or the environment based on the contaminants identified at the site. This evaluation should include: A conceptual site model that includes a written description and graphic depiction of all possible pathways of exposure that could result in children, school staff and the community being exposed to potentially harmful contaminants at the school site (e.g., inhalation, soil ingestion, dermal);60 and A description of potential health consequences of long-term and short-term exposure to any potentially harmful contaminants, to the extent feasible. 5.7.1 Comprehensive Environmental Review of Onsite Contamination If the state or tribal regulatory agency concurs with the findings from the preliminary environmental assessment and no further action 60 Many conceptual site models have been developed. For example, there is a model in Section 3.1 of the Regional Screening Level Guidance available at: www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/risk/human/rb- concentration_table/usersguide.htm and California has a model available at: www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/upload/Appdx_A1_083108.pdf. 80 | Environmental Review Process School Siting Guidelines is required, the review for onsite contamination is complete. If the preliminary environmental assessment (see Section 5.6) shows that further assessment of onsite contamination is necessary, the environmental professional should conduct a comprehensive environmental review to determine if hazardous materials are present, or if there is potential for a release of a hazardous material or substance that could pose a health threat to children, staff or community members. The comprehensive environmental review should also assess the need for cleanup based on levels of contamination found and identify the cleanup standards that will be used. Before any work is done on the comprehensive environmental review, the LEA should develop a public involvement plan (see Section 3) that ensures meaningful public and community involvement in the comprehensive environmental review process. The plan should indicate what mechanisms the LEA will use to involve the public. The LEA should submit the public involvement plan to the state or tribal regulatory agency for comment before comprehensive environmental review activities begin; in some cases, this may be a state or tribal requirement. Before conducting any sampling for the detailed comprehensive environmental review, the environmental professional should prepare a workplan that defines the following: The goals of the sampling; The rationale for the sampling strategy, including the number and location of sampling sites and what substances to analyze in the samples; and The sampling methods and procedures that will be used, and the analytical methods and procedures, in accordance with quality assurance plan requirements. The comprehensive environmental review may include full-scale grid sampling and analysis of soil, soil gases (if any), and potentially surface water, ground water and air (www.epa.gov/ schools/siting/resources) to accurately define the type and extent of contamination present at the candidate site. State or tribal environmental regulatory agency (www.astswmo.org/ Pages/Resources/State_Agency_Links.htm) review of the workplan should be obtained prior to the initiation of sampling. Prior to sampling, the LEA should obtain signed access agreements from property owners. Criteria for establishing the degree of cleanup needed should be based on state or tribal cleanup Engineering and Institutional Controls and Community Involvement Engineering controls and institutional controls are tools to ensure that sites remain safe by preventing potential exposures to contaminants and preventing land uses likely to create exposures (see Section 8.15). Communities have an important role to play in ensuring engineering and institutional controls remain in place and are effective in preventing potential exposures. Through the community involvement and planning process, the community can become familiar with the nature of residual contamination, engineering controls and institutional controls that place restrictions on how the land can be used. They can help LEAs meet their obligations by reporting actions in conflict with those land use restrictions to LEA management and tribal or state environmental regulatory authorities. The LEA and the SSC also can continue to play a role in updating the community about their inspection, monitoring and maintenance efforts, with the assistance of tribal or state technical oversight, as appropriate. See the Quick Guide for Environmental Issues (see Section 8.15) for information about engineering and institutional controls. Environmental Review Process | 81 School Siting Guidelines rules or guidance, where they exist. The environmental standards used to evaluate site contamination should use either 1) standards developed for schools or residential use or 2) risk-based levels designed to be protective for residential use. If cleanups are going to leave residual contamination that exceeds residential use levels, engineering and institutional controls (see Section 8.15) and long-term stewardship (see Section 8.16) should be included to provide a safe environment. The process of identifying the capability of the state, tribal or local agencies to maintain institutional and/or engineering controls and implement long-term stewardship will vary with the jurisdiction. For example, communities with well established environmental departments are more likely to be familiar with institutional and engineering controls and long-term stewardship, especially if there are sites within their community where institutional and engineering controls and long-term stewardship have been employed. In situations where the local government lacks the resources, expertise or authority to implement and enforce institutional/engineering controls as part of overseeing long-term stewardship plans, state or tribal staff may need to assume this responsibility. If staff or resources are not available to support institutional and engineering controls and long-term stewardship that would be needed, a site that requires these tools should not be selected because exposures without institutional and engineering controls and long-term stewardship could pose unacceptable risks to students and workers. When environmental testing is completed, and remedial actions are undertaken to prevent potential environmental exposures, it may be important to preserve the ability to pursue cost recovery in the future, in cases where legal cost recovery mechanisms exist. The environmental professional should keep detailed records during all phases of the environmental assessment and remediation and is required to sign documentation of their findings and recommendations. Photo documentation, complete field notes, written notification to property owners of environmental conditions and provisions to allow property owners to obtain split samples for analysis are all recognized methods to preserve cost recovery rights. 5.7.2. Comprehensive Environmental Review of Offsite Environmental Hazards Using the list of offsite hazards identified in the preliminary environmental assessment report (Stage 2, see Section 5.6), the environmental professional should evaluate and estimate the risks those hazards may pose to future users of the school site. (If no nearby hazards were identified in the preliminary environmental review, no further review of offsite environmental hazards is needed.) The environmental professional should identify both the risks that can be mitigated and those that cannot be mitigated and identify measures to reduce these risks to the extent feasible. Old waste sites, including Superfund sites, industrial air pollution sources, rail lines, rail yards and highways are examples of the kind of hazards that would be evaluated at this stage (See Exhibit 6: Screening Potential Environmental and Safety Hazards). The report about offsite hazards should discuss whether feasible mitigation measures are available that would eliminate all significant risks. For more specific guidance see Evaluating Impacts of Nearby Sources of Air Pollution (see Section 6). 5.7.3. Comprehensive Environmental Review of Impacts of the Project on the Environment Using the list of potential significant environmental impacts (e.g., habitat and water quality) identified in the preliminary environmental assessment (see Section 5.6), the environmental professional should evaluate and report potential impacts the project may have on the surrounding environment and propose alternatives to mitigate or eliminate those impacts. The report should discuss what environmental impacts will remain even after mitigation measures are taken. (If no potential 82 | Environmental Review Process School Siting Guidelines significant environmental impacts were identified in the preliminary environmental review, no further review of impacts of the project on the environment is needed.) 5.7.4. Development and Review of Comprehensive Environmental Assessment Reports The environmental professional should prepare a draft report that combines the findings of the environmental assessment(s) performed in the comprehensive environmental review. This draft comprehensive environmental review report will also describe proposed and alternative mitigation measures to reduce potential risks and impacts. Through findings and conclusions with supporting data, the report should document potential impacts that: Are not considered to be of concern; Could be effectively managed though mitigation; and May pose significant or unacceptable risks even after all feasible mitigation steps have been implemented. The LEA should submit the draft comprehensive environmental review report to the environmental agencies involved in the regulatory oversight of the school siting decision, which may include tribal, state, other local agencies or federal agencies (such as Bureau of Indian Education or Department of Defense), and the public upon its completion by the environmental professional. To solicit public comment, the LEA should post the draft comprehensive environmental review on the project website and should follow the steps described earlier in this section. The LEA and state or tribal environmental regulatory agency should evaluate public response to the notice and modify the public involvement plan (e.g., by extending the comment period), as necessary, to ensure meaningful public input throughout the school siting process. The LEA should address all substantive comments received during the comment period. The state, tribal, local or federal environmental regulatory agency that is overseeing the conduct of the comprehensive environmental review should review all comments received. The agency may then accept or reject the conclusions of the review or request revisions. In some cases (e.g., due to timing or access constraints), the comprehensive environmental review may not characterize all environmental hazards. A separate supplemental site investigation may be necessary prior to determining the potential need for remediation/mitigation. The process for conducting a supplemental site investigation should follow the steps identified earlier for the comprehensive environmental review. If accepted, the state, tribal, local or federal environmental regulatory agency may concur with the finding that no further action is required or that a remedial action workplan is required if the LEA decides to pursue development of the site. The agency will explain in detail the reasons for accepting or rejecting the comprehensive environmental review report and the basis for its determination. 5.7.5. Final Comprehensive Environmental Review Report Following the public comment period the environmental professional, in consultation with the LEA and the SSC, should evaluate and respond to all public comments and incorporate those comments into a final comprehensive environmental review report. The final report should then be forwarded to the SSC and to relevant public agencies. To solicit public comment, the LEA should post the final comprehensive environmental review on the project website and should follow the steps described earlier in this section. 5.7.6. Cost Estimates and Schedules of Remediation and/or Mitigation Measures If the final report of potential environmental risks and impacts includes proposals for mitigation measures (e.g., institutional controls (see Section 8.15), engineering controls (see Section 8.15), Environmental Review Process | 83 School Siting Guidelines encapsulation of lead based paint (see Section 8.16), enclosure of asbestos (see Section 8.8), and long-term stewardship (see Section 10), potential cost estimates and schedules of implementation should be developed in coordination with facility planners (e.g., architects and local agencies). In addition, preliminary cost estimates and schedules for implementation of any remediation of onsite contamination should be prepared, including, where appropriate, the cost of maintaining and monitoring controls over the life of the school. These preliminary cost and schedule estimates for mitigation and remediation should then be forwarded to the SSC and LEA. 5.7.7. SSC Review and Recommendation The SSC should review: Final comprehensive environmental review report; Preliminary cost estimates and schedules for remediation and mitigation; and Public comments received on these documents. The SSC should recommend to the LEA whether the environmental reports adequately characterize potential environmental concerns at the candidate site. Following this determination, the SSC can recommend to the LEA whether to proceed or eliminate the site from further consideration based on public health risks, costs and schedule impacts, public concerns and other factors. The LEA should then review the committee recommendations, including any analysis of potential alternatives, impacts to public health, project costs/schedule impacts, public concerns, etc., and decide to certify the environmental reports or request further revisions to the reports. Following this determination, the LEA may approve proceeding with the project at the site for which the comprehensive environmental review was completed or decide to eliminate the site from further consideration. If the LEA decides to eliminate the site from further consideration, the LEA should work with the SSC to identify another preferred location for environmental review that begins at Stage 2 (see Section 5.6) or Stage 3 (see Section 5.7), depending on what assessment has already been performed for the new preferred location. In those instances, records of environmental investigation, findings and decisions should be retained. 84 | Environmental Review Process School Siting Guidelines Are there alternate remediation/ mitigation measures that can be selected that will not require long-term stewardship? Go to STAGE 5 : Implement Remedial/Mitigation Measures 1.Task environmental professional to develop a remedial action workplan, including a preliminary long-term stewardship plan if the remedial action includes the use of institutional controls, engineering controls and/or long -term mitigation measures. (Sections 5.8.1-5.8.4) 2.Submit draft workplan to the state or tribal environmental regulatory agency (Section 5.7.5) Will remedial actions and measures fully address environmental hazards so that no long-term stewardship is needed to prevent school occupants’ exposure? STAGE 4:Develop Site-Specific Mitigation/Remediation Measures NO Does the LEA have the capacity to manage institutional and engineering controls to prevent potentially harmful exposures? NO 3.Post the workplan for public comment (Section 5.7.5) YES 4. Submit the final workplan to the state or tribal environmental agency for review and approval (Section 5.7.5) Is the workplan approved by the state or tribal agency? YES NORevise workplan and resubmit for review YES Go to Stage 1, Step 2 YES Eliminate site from further consideration NO 5.8. Stage 4: Develop Site-specific Mitigation/Remediation Measures Exhibit 11: Stage 4: Develop Site-specific Mitigation/Remediation Measures Environmental Review Process | 85 School Siting Guidelines 5 cInon .8 a.1 taddit. min ionOf ati to f on sitr, e Me thmeei Ldiati E g Atioa the appropriate state, tr s tino onf onMeasitseu res agencies to implemen ibhal anould cd looorcal gdinoavteer wnimthen t smitigignaalstio, sign nmeagaes, uurtilesiti, stu acnhy a nsec inesstasallriny og tffrsaites, etc., as well as ideffe ic thpotee pnrtiaoplos meed sasuchres that can be implementendtif ayt to poffsitolel uptaolnlut htioan soolour scitese b toy emitigliminataetin hagz eaxprdsos furomres Psee ollEuvtionalu at(sieneg S Izamrpds. For more specific gectionacts 6 of). Nearby Sourceusida of Ancire cI5fo .8 thn .2 team L. EinAOn at dies o icn tidee R wsill b em to epe crdocle ia aet neio edd wn u Mithp ea , a as r su eitm rees ece w h re a tion wor dial apsubpmittroval.ed T to kplan shouldypthiceally sta, tean e re bge dulaevtorelyo apgeden acny dfor deprofessional w l nvi onmentalin r sign g clean ilupa asscistivt witiithes, th thee w LEorAk sphlaoun.l Wred hen he scogitnie azen that yetstablishind g cevleaanlouuangte a cshsiuldmren wilup standarpdtions ansl u bd see pdre ins ent on rsehsopuoldn use.se W clehenan avupai lelabvelsle t, th remedial protective of early life senshitate stativ aritye to ee anxplidc LitElyA NO ear T ly E li : fe exposures. toxicants and for resi dTenyptiical uallys, ce arleane apupp lerovperlsiat foer f soirt uess intended pconrosidered for a future school use. State aen atd striitbeas l oncon thgreamir rse mviayew r ofec thomem speencdif cicle saniteu cph learvaeclste brasisticeds , sfachottaormins. Wahnertse c present on thuld be complleetanedu apn ids a neee sditeed a, all cnd other tribal regulatory agency prpioprr toov ocedc byle thane sutpa twe oorrk scconhotaominl. Ina ctiasones w wailh upancy of the cle nup, a careful a l reree rmaeisni odunal w siteas foltend objective evalul oowr ationin gof ca the opaupthaorcityiti ofes therationshe ool a snd ou scthld habt e district and local and state controls (see Sectionin cso 8.1titumptilet 5) wonedillal t aonden ensu be maintagrie sneaerfe ined (ini.ge ., long-term stewardship) over the long term and be subject to public review betmriabdal e troe gruellaty oonrs s huch controfolsr.e W thheer de secistaionte o isr rfuesndtrsic oter dp roeust ase s botavaned aarpdpsr, LovEe monit nd Ad c nleanup to t s eed to secure engineoreriningg a cnond matrolisn.to ensuere of t inhe c enanc stitu onttioinuneadl a nd T h Id e r edial ac onen em c ta tmiifyn manett leh ti o o d n s f w o o r r c kp lea lan n s in h g o u uld p : vels that meet the ap thpliec sabitele to e C n o v n i t r a o in nm a e fin ntal an anci d a p l a ublic health standards; ethsetima idetnetifd cieosd ctsl over that compareseanup th mneae llythifsieo sofds th thea st wchilooll b froinr sthtaend sitaerd insto; compliance with applicable safetgy Raoflete lconronmga-tivmteeremns idd ae cntifleaiend,up pla includinn frgom th a desec ription acosndt of long an-tyer in mstaituinttioenanancl ore, e mnogniintoring and the part of the clmea snutewp (aprredslhimipi inamrypl semeering controls maintenance plan); iteen ted as Explain how the recommended cleanup oat thptioen s witeil orl p onreve anny at cdjhoinildren from being pexarpcoesedls; an to the environmienngt caonl htaazmiarndaste fod und Clearly desc d ribe the responsibilities and lon opreaprtg ter bligy-)a ftiom ortinogr i environmental stewardship annss o r responsible ontr l sp (o other c ol imp seocfe tiachtntee Liome te d nE,w mAithaint a enance and d as parnt ofy e thngein celeearinnugp . If cleanimpcontalemups are goingminenatationtio onn a thnde t soit lee thavea rt reesiqduuial ma re 8en.1g5in),e LeErinAsg s/hinoustild etutionsnuaintenance ofrle c thonatrt tholse s(s ee Section plan is approved by the state or tribeite for cle santateup or tribal voluntary cleanup sites. 86 | Environmental Review Process School Siting Guidelines Ap 5 r .8ltesh.3oc .ur igbhed R teh me sepdeciaitfiioc rn Temeedchinialq rueespso nse measures ncheaerd to bace tainil aor reemd to edthiale a pcatiroticn uwlaorr kplan will aenrev irorounteristics of a given site, a number of proposetmineenlyta el s nc conditions id chool l oocuntationereds. ant n eexeisdt ofing remediation pr The enviro anndme ntal rneegofuelatssoionry agal aennd the state or tribal environmental thaet fdeold tlowo d. e velcopy s ehaocuhld of h thavee r tehmee edxiapertiontis ope tions Tthhaet mfolilgowht bine g tenextco punrovteridedesv. exampbeing pro ided because the These exleas ofmp slesitu aartioe ns ththraout hgahvoue bt theene r ceoupenatrteyd i. Tnh dyif hfigerhelnigt lhoct sactioenanrsios emconptalominyeda. tiSonee t ahne d Qr hlight tyuemedieesy th haigick Guide to Et hanvveir bepenes of tIssuhe eexsam, Sepcletions b 8, for additional informaotionmn aenbtaoul t t(hwe gwwui.edpelai.ngesov w/eslochwool, ans/ds see the Resources environmental isebsuseiste t fhoatritin l mingayk/sr b reelsouatedrce tso) page of some s e encoun tered for E(TVxhOae Cmpsrp i l te e 1 s. )esenc e omay req inui sroe mitil afn volatile oigd agtiorounn md rwganic ceasauterre s(ompsee Souecntidson to protect 8.3) ascghaoolinst p buotildinentiagsl. v Caompormon intrusion into overland ground water that can c conautasemi a vnaapnorts in syinoilg dcoryn ccerlenan iinncg aludned b denegzreneae (sine.g gs.,o flrvoemnt gs (aseol inine)tru asniodn otrir ochthloerro veothlatylielene c aonndtam peircnanhloroethylen.g., s e). If these LwEaA decides to proceed with tht are se piter, thesenerte an arde the pdeotesyigs thnede facility can bntial f aonrd v eanpgorin ineetree ldoc to atemind oimizn thee th preop erty, m ramitig lowaetior cosn et thquipan ife rnet tfroursionof fitutetu aned i usnclude d ar e, if needed, at When constructed, periodic indoofterr a ciron tsetrstinucgti ison . often warranted, and depending on the concentration and potential duration of exposure, runemdeerdiagrol aunctiod snos such as the installation ofrequired to elimiiln vaatep aor p roeteconvetiarly s vaysportem in m an e uali truay concern. Wat r q ty te siobne required. If ground waters isti nfoug mnayd to alsboe be dconrilletadmin at tahtee sd, moite, annitod lorinngg w-teerllm ws mamay ne ter medon toit borein ay b g wTExhat ae er mpr p e r le 2 equ ired. (esseee Sncece otfi opneund 8trerground storage.ol5eum in soil and ground ground water remedia t)a asnk a rs meaysu rlte oqfu leirakie sntion. If the soil is excogil an avatedd an , tofhfed ifwat seerpa traabtleed, i pt uhas ite trea ssueally pe rtreqoleuuirm ises r efcloaovtineryg an ond fvroapmor i undntruergtmroenut andn sd distoposal. Contamination the earlier esxioamn cpolenc. ernsrag,e w tahnkichs a crean a dilsscou ressseudl itn in EIto pnx saomr m ov peid l ce 3 ea as e rse, sliatrbuctural fill is brought onto a site sciteon astrreu cctioon lmp, and ineosed of o stthruecrtu carsael ss,u thrfea sceoil fors o n the 8pote.14)n. Itiaf flil rlis is contam inhisatok to s ted,ric it c filla (ns peere Sseecntiont a LleEvAe slsh, wouhlicd ch malean utupde thnets s or staff. If feasible, the Where removal ofy i lnavrgolev qeu itree movto reaslid ofe fniltlia mal utseer ial. isan ind anfea senibfloer, icneabstitule lotional/eanngtities of fill material approved by an environng-mteenrmtal r sinteweerarindgs choniptr pollans , may be utilized to eliminate exposeguurlate toor y agency, ccontamtibineompxampale, plate ewdith soil. Landscaping planslants w thithe e onngliny aee srhinalgl cowon rtootr nole.ed Fo tro be b Ex e allo amp w le e d 4 b ut trees may be prohibited. zone may T8.h1e2 p) rmeaysen bce ene of banned pesticidewater at existingc aounnd tperroedp iosne sd soil ans (dse ge Sroecuntdio n maresnualt ogefm foernmt perra acgticric ofd phooleusl. Some a c tural n theesst sites as a e pesticides do not readily degrade, and as a result may Environmental Review Process | 87 School Siting Guidelines present a potential exposure when soil is excavated. Depending on prior uses of the site, sampling for pesticides may be appropriate to consider in the development of the comprehensive environmental review plan described earlier in Stage 3 (see Section 5.7). 5.8.4. Preliminary Long-term Stewardship Plan If the remedial action workplan includes partial cleanup in conjunction with the use of institutional and engineering controls to prevent potentially harmful exposures to contaminants, the LEA should develop a preliminary long-term stewardship plan as part of the remedial action plan to ensure full consideration of long-term feasibility and cost. A preliminary long-term stewardship plan should include: Identification of contaminants of concern and, if possible, maps showing the location of contamination, property boundaries, and institutional and engineering controls; Proposed plans to contain contaminants, including any engineering and institutional controls to be used; Long-term maintenance and monitoring measures necessary to ensure the long-term integrity of engineering and institutional controls; A detailed evaluation of the resources and expertise necessary to implement the plan and a discussion of alternative measures considered and the basis for their rejection; A demonstrated commitment of funding sufficient to ensure the implementation and maintenance of all plan components over the long term (i.e., the life of the school); A remedial action workplan that addresses cleanup of the entire contaminated site when a school is proposed for only a portion of a known contaminated site. In this case, the long-term stewardship plan should outline the ongoing security measures which will ensure that only authorized persons can gain access to the unremediated portion of the contaminated site; Plans for monitoring institutional and engineering controls should include timeframes for monitoring (annual monitoring reviews should be adopted at least for the first few years when institutional controls/engineering controls are employed), recordkeeping and reporting; Conditions and procedures for modification and termination of institutional controls; and Recommendations for the final site sampling to be done after the cleanup has been completed to ensure that all residual contamination is less than the cleanup goals defined for the site. Such sampling recommendations should be designed to discover the highest possible concentrations of contamination at the candidate site. There are a number of resources that document types of remediation, costs and effectiveness for a range of contaminants, engineering controls and institutional controls that can be effective in managing contaminants, including EPA’s Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response onsite cleanup (www.epa.gov/oswer/cleanup/index) and EPA’s Clu-In (www.clu-in.org/) websites, which are listed on the Resources (www.epa.gov/ schools/siting/resources) page of the guidelines website. While these websites provide extensive materials, the cost, effectiveness and variety of methods will vary with the site and need to be properly monitored and maintained to remain protective. 5.8.5. SSC and State or Tribal Agency Review and Public Comment The LEA should secure state or tribal regulatory agency review and approval of the remedial action workplan prepared by the environmental professional. Upon submitting this plan to the state or tribal environmental regulatory agency, the draft remedial action workplan should be 88 | Environmental Review Process School Siting Guidelines made available to the SSC for review and comment. Once the workplan is submitted to the state or tribal agency for approval, the LEA should post the draft comprehensive environmental review on the project website and follow the steps described earlier to solicit public comment. A public hearing on the remediation plan should be conducted in the neighborhood or jurisdiction of the candidate site. The LEA should publish a notice of the hearing in newspapers of general circulation, including foreign language newspapers if the school district has a sizable number of non-English speaking parents, and post a notice on the LEA and project websites stating the date, time and location of the hearing. After the public hearing and review of any comments received during the public comment period, the state or tribe should approve the remedial action workplan, approve the workplan with revisions or disapprove the workplan. If the state or tribe requires additional information, a copy of the state’s or tribe's comments and the responses prepared by the environmental professional in coordination with the LEA should be made available to the SSC and be posted on the project website. Any additional information submitted by the LEA to the state or tribe should also be made available to the SSC. The state or tribe should explain in detail the reasons for accepting or rejecting the workplan. Before approving a workplan, the state or tribe should make an explicit finding that the LEA has the requisite capacity to oversee and manage the remediation/mitigation measures and institutional and engineering controls proposed in the remedial action workplan. After the state or tribe approves the workplan, the SSC may also review the plan and recommend to the LEA whether to proceed with acquiring the site and implementing the remediation plan. The LEA should not begin constructing the school until site clearance has been provided by the state or tribal environmental regulatory agency, following its approval of the remediation activities (post-Stage 5). Environmental Review Process | 89 School Siting Guidelines 5.9. Stage 5: Implement Remedial/Mitigation Measures Exhibit 12: Stage 5: Implement Remedial/Mitigation Measures Go to STAGE 6 : Long -term Stewardship 1.Commence with the remediation of onsite contaminants and mitigation of offsite sources of pollutants 2.Conduct sampling to verify cleanup goals have been met and mitigation measures of offsite sources of pollutants have been successful 3.Document successful implementation of the plan and final sampling results, and compile into a report STAGE 5:Implement Remedial/Mitigation Measures NO YES Do remedial actions and mitigation measures fully address environmental hazards so that no long-term stewardship is needed to prevent school occupants’ exposure? 5.Submit the report to the state or tribe for review 6.Revise the preliminary long-term stewardship plan (developed in Stage 4, Step 1) 7.Post the final long-term stewardship plan for public comment Do state or tribal authorities approve the final long-term stewardship plans? YES Revise the long- term stewardship plan NO Environmental review process for site is complete 4.Post the report for public comment 8.Send long-term stewardship plan to state and tribal authorities for approval 90 | Environmental Review Process School Siting Guidelines Prior to the onset of any school construction at the candidate site, EPA recommends the remediation of the site as defined in the remedial action workplan be completed. If engineering controls are required as part of remediation, construction of those controls may begin following approval by the state or tribal environmental regulatory agency. Remediation measures taken to reduce risks from offsite hazards can be conducted prior to or during school construction activities, depending on the mitigation measures being implemented. Appropriate state, tribal and local environmental agencies should be consulted before and after the remediation measures are installed to ensure that the mitigation controls taken will reduce exposures to the environmental hazards of concern. For more specific guidance see Evaluating Impacts of Nearby Sources of Air Pollution (see Section 6). Final sampling, in accordance with sampling procedures in the comprehensive environmental review or the remedial action workplan, should be conducted to verify that cleanup goals have been met. Documentation regarding the implementation of the plan and all final sampling results should be compiled into a report and submitted to the LEA and SSC for posting on the project website and also submitted to the state or tribe for review, which may require additional sampling and/or remediation efforts as the state or tribe deems appropriate. Any modifications to the remedial action workplan should also go through the appropriate public review processes described earlier. Toward the completion of remedial activities, the environmental professional should revise the preliminary long-term stewardship plan (LTSP) developed in Stage 4, Section 5.8, which will set forth, in detail, the specific manner in which institutional and engineering controls will be employed. The preliminary LTSP should address all contamination left on site following remediation that would prevent residential use. The preliminary LTSP should be submitted for punudblerict rakeneview fo ar all ond comreports and should bf ethme pent in the same manner tribe for a subrmiectteeddin to g pthlane ssta anted or iscon a cstrleuacrtioppnr. Aov carlitic priaor to the commenceme commitment fl coompr theon fuenndit ofng s auncd othh a npt laofn supp er thande i enort needed tongteginerityeri angnd c e ofentfeffcetivctiveneelys mons of aitorny i ansntitud entiosunrael rols. Apr deeslimcrinipartiyo on or ff tinhal Le recTSoPm fmollenowdsed : contents of the A site description - that includes: - Hadjaistorceicnt hal uissteors icofa thl ues sesit;e and relevant A suthevea llummaationry of the environmental contaocmination of the site iati aonn ind e extxcennest ofclu sdioiln/gw daetetaril s on - standards; and s of regulatory Ath seu smmaite alrony ofg w thithe r themee tediast rl wesorulkts don. e at A clear depiction of th the iant isnti in - ctu eng eering control lutideosn: al and - aAndccurate ma s engineeripngs s choowntirongl ths; e institutional Aenv deiroscrnmiptioentna ol sf thtewe laordngsh-te o - a ipr m obligati ns relonspgon wsithibl ae f sorta thtemeeir inmpt ofl ewmheo wntailtil bone; and Ar publiceensgpinoneesi documenrbinilgiti aensd f inort mathait ountatliniinnegs bthothe pconrovtridolesd. contaminsattioituntio lenvaell cs wonatrrolrasn, t the Senpgecinificeer cinogn ctionngtrenolc ry pestloranast ionthat descrshould the engineering control b aec tivdisittuieibse A desc rbed; digengginineger)rip inint agio crneon aostrf p colonr oto mashtribiuctitenedtd wa aincithtivit anies (e.g., the integrity of the engineering control; Environmental Review Process | 91 School Siting Guidelines A definition of the minimum professional requirements (i.e., licensed professional engineer) for maintaining the engineering control, including where appropriate any necessary training of school staff responsible for managing school grounds including: - Identification/creation of a position within the schools facility department for a technically knowledgeable person trained and responsible for oversight of the school and grounds; - Training on techniques for monitoring cracks in the school foundation and breaches in the engineering control; - How to handle and/or report problems with equipment and remedial systems; and - How to handle complaints and comments about environmental conditions at the school. A compliance monitoring program to be carried out by qualified environmental professionals, as necessary, that will include: - Routine inspections, tests and maintenance of engineering and institutional controls to ensure their continued effectiveness; - Tests for the presence of contaminants in the soil, soil gas, ground water and indoor and ambient air on the school grounds if an engineering control is disturbed; - Procedures for recordkeeping and reporting; - Allocation of responsibilities for these activities among LEAs, state or tribal agencies, school officials and staff; and - An independent review by a licensed professional engineer not affiliated with the school. A public accountability/oversight plan that includes: - The prominent placement of signage within the school that clearly defines the extent of the contaminated areas along with appropriate institutional and engineering controls on the property, and directs readers to appropriate personnel and documents for further inquiry; - Development of a "due care plan," to be kept onsite and made available to the public electronically, that summarizes key elements and responsibilities for implementing the plan in a lay-accessible manner; - Measures to promote the long-term, institutional and public memory of the plan through activities designed to promote awareness by students, staff and the community, such as guest speakers and dedication of a section of the school or local library to the history of the site, remediation strategies and oversight and stewardship measures; and - The establishment of regular reporting mechanisms that publicly disseminate information on the location of controls, compliance status and monitoring reports in a manner consistent with the notice provisions discussed earlier and including relevant local and tribal or state environmental agencies. Included in this should be testing reports that clearly describe the purpose of the testing, sample locations and collection procedures, and analytical methods used. The release of these reports should: - Be accompanied by a meaningful opportunity for the public to provide comment and meet with school officials responsible for maintaining the engineering controls; and - Target outreach and communications about release of reports to parents and school workers (should be notified yearly about where and how to obtain information about contamination, remediation activities and ongoing monitoring). School building construction should begin only after the state or tribal authority approves the final long-term stewardship plan and determines that the site is ready for construction. Engineering controls may be implemented before, during or after construction, depending on the type of controls to be used. 92 | Environmental Review Process School Siting Guidelines 5.10. Stage 6: Long-term Stewardship Exhibit 13: Stage 6: Long-term Stewardship 2.Incorporate key components of long -term stewardship plan into other facilities and operational plans 3.LEAs and state or tribal environmental regulatory agency should conduct periodic reviews of the effectiveness of remedial measures and engineering and institutional controls used at the site STAGE 6:Long-term Stewardship NO YES Implement Remedial/Mitigation Measures Are remediation and mitigation measures being effectively implemented to prevent school occupants' exposures to environmental hazards? Go to Stage 4, Step 1 1.Implement long -term stewardship plan Maintain long-term stewardship to ensure that contaminant levels are safe for use of the school Environmental Review Process | 93 School Siting Guidelines LEAs should incorporate key components of the long-term stewardship plan into other facility and operational plans and training materials for principals, facility staff, groundskeepers and contractors. The long-term stewardship component of the school management plan memorializes the remedial actions that were performed, monitoring of well locations, the standards to which the remediation was performed, the location of material removed and replaced, and tests and confirmatory sampling of materials brought as replacement fill and any wastes or material left capped in place. This plan describes in detail the specific manner in which institutional and engineering controls will be employed in the future and by whom. The final plan should clearly show figures and drawings of those locations where soil or water quality remains above residential use standards, including as-built drawings depicting the engineering control. The plan should clearly define the roles and responsibilities for maintaining the engineering controls, and these responsibilities should be memorialized in an institutional control such as a deed restriction that stays with the property even when bought, sold or donated. Where offsite sources of contamination exist, area-wide partnerships may be an effective tool to address contamination. After the school project is complete and the school is opened, the state or tribal environmental regulatory agency should conduct a periodic review of the effectiveness of remedial measures and engineering and institutional controls used at the site. Annual assessments of school sites may also be required as part of a school facility operation plan or long-term facility plan or as part of local government master planning or comprehensive plan updates and reporting. One potential model for such reviews is the five-year review EPA currently conducts for Superfund sites. Five-year reviews 61 (www.epa.gov/ superfund/cleanup/postconstruction/5yr) 61 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Superfund Five-Year Reviews.” Last modified August 9, 2011. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/cleanup/postconstruction/5yr.htm. provide an opportunity to evaluate the implementation and performance of a remedy to determine whether it remains protective of human health and the environment. These reviews will also be useful in identifying new sources of environmental hazards arising after school construction and occupancy. When employing institutional/engineering controls, plans should be developed to address issues that might arise. For example, the failure of an institutional or engineering control should trigger immediate notification by the LEA of the staff, parents and community, as well as state or tribal authorities. Actions may be needed to ensure that students or staff are not exposed to contamination. School emergency preparedness plans should provide for ensuring that students and staff will not be at risk in the event of the failure of engineering controls. Plans should also outline requirements for personnel to monitor engineering controls, which might be a combination of maintenance staff and environmental engineers. Complaints or concerns related to the performance of engineering and institutional controls should be tracked and responses to those complaints/concerns documented. To help ensure that the management of institutional and engineering controls will receive the attention they require, the procedures for management of institutional and engineering controls should be part of the school facility operations procedures. The procedures should include monitoring requirements, effectiveness and integrity review requirements, any performance review requirements (such as calibration procedures) and documentation requirements. Because these documents can be challenging for a lay audience, a summary written in plain language (and translated for non-English speaking stakeholders) should be available to community members. Routine monitoring, reviews for the effectiveness and integrity of the remedy, and reporting all need to continue for as long as contamination levels do not meet safe levels for use of the school. 94 | Environmental Review Process School Siting Guidelines This page left intentionally blank. Evaluating Impacts of Nearby Sources of Air Pollution | 95 School Siting Guidelines 6. Evaluating Impacts of Nearby Sources of Air Pollution 6.1. Overview This section provides guidance on assessment of offsite environmental hazards during the environmental review process (see Section 5.1). It can be complex to measure and understand the potential risks to school occupants that may be associated with air emissions sources situated in the vicinity of the proposed school location. The local education agency (LEA) (see Section 10) and school siting committee (SSC) (see Section 3.3) should consider any potential impacts from nearby sources of air pollution early in the selection process. Airborne pollutants from nearby emission sources can directly contaminate the ambient air at the location or be deposited on the site over time. Sources of these air pollutants are varied, but most are human-made, including: Mobile sources (e.g., cars, trucks and buses on roadways; trains and rail yards; ships and port facilities; planes and airport equipment); Stationary major sources (e.g., factories, refineries, power plants); and Local area sources (i.e., collections of small point sources, such as auto-body spray shops or dry cleaners). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) identifies pollutants of interest in evaluating air quality at a particular location either as criteria pollutants or toxic air pollutants, also known as hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). Criteria pollutants refer to six common air pollutants that are regulated through the development of human health-based and environmentally-based criteria (i.e., science-based guidelines) that are used to set the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).62 They are particles (often referred to as particulate matter), ground-level ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and lead. States with areas where ambient concentrations are above the NAAQS (nonattainment areas) are required to develop plans to bring them into attainment. Air toxics are pollutants that are known or suspected to cause cancer or other serious health effects, such as reproductive effects or birth defects, or adverse environmental effects. The current list of HAPs is available on EPA’s Technology Transfer Network Air Toxics website. (www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/188polls) In addition to this list, diesel emissions are considered a mobile source air toxic. Brief summaries of the pertinent toxicity information on these HAPs and information on where more comprehensive and primary data can be obtained are located at www.epa.gov/ttn/ atw/hlthef/hapindex. 62 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).” Last modified August 4, 2011. Available at: www.epa.gov/air/criteria. 96 | Evaluating Impacts of Nearby Sources of Air Pollution School Siting Guidelines As discussed in the Environmental Siting Criteria Considerations (see Section 4) and Environmental Review Process (see Section 5) sections, the initial screen of potential locations for schools should consider potential onsite and nearby environmental and safety hazards. In general, the LEA and SSC should seek to avoid locations that are in close proximity to land uses that may be incompatible with schools, such as those included in Exhibit 6: Screening Potential Environmental and Safety Hazards, particularly in cases where acceptable alternative locations exist that may pose fewer environmental challenges and still meet other important school siting criteria. If an LEA is considering locations that are in proximity to air pollution sources that may pose potential risks, an understanding of those potential exposures and risks is essential. Due to the many variables involved (such as those included in Exhibit 5: Factors Influencing Exposures and Potential Risks from Nearby Hazards), assessing risks from air pollution is inherently complex and should be performed by a trained environmental professional with monitoring, modeling and risk assessment expertise. The overall process involves the following components: Thorough familiarity with the potential school location’s layout (see Section 6.2), including local meteorology, topography and the land use of the surrounding neighborhood; Initial assessment of existing air quality monitoring and modeling information (see Section 6.3) to gauge air quality in the neighborhood around a potential school location; Development of an inventory of pollution sources (see Section 6.4) and associated emissions that may impact the air quality at a location; Screening evaluation of potential air quality (see Section 6.5) and, if feasible, health impacts potentially associated with a location’s air quality based on modeling and/or monitoring assessments; and Development of an environmental assessment report (see Section 6.6) containing descriptions of activities, conclusions and recommendations. Public involvement (see Section 3) is an important part of evaluating the impacts of nearby sources of air pollution. The LEA and SSC should inform the public about the evaluation and give opportunities for public comment on assessment reports and, in cases where mitigation is needed, on potential mitigation measures. Examples of Local Air Toxics Monitoring (www.epa.gov/schools/siting/resources) EPA’s Initiative on Assessing Outdoor Air Near Schools: In 2009, EPA embarked on an initiative to understand whether outdoor toxic air pollution poses health concerns to school children. This initiative, “Assessing Outdoor Air Near Schools,” (www.epa.gov/schoolair) is instructive about some of the types of school air monitoring efforts that have been performed and provides useful examples of assessing outdoor air near schools. Community-Scale Air Toxics Ambient Monitoring Projects (www.epa.gov/ ttn/amtic/local): Since 2003/2004, EPA has conducted periodic Community-Scale Air Toxics Ambient Monitoring grant competitions to support state, local and tribal communities in identifying and profiling air toxics sources, characterizing the degree and extent of local air toxics problems, and tracking progress of air toxics reduction activities. The Community- Scale Air Toxics Ambient Monitoring website has grant information, final project reports and a training module, How to Create a Successful Air Toxics Monitoring Project. (www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/airtox- daw-2011.html#how) Evaluating Impacts of Nearby Sources of Air Pollution | 97 School Siting Guidelines 6.2. Location Layout and Study AThreea st vary wudnature ofithy t arheea around a potential location will stationary n seouar lanby de umisses (ioi.en. s, uourban vrces, mobile sources (si.. reu., maral)jor, th e apnad thrticuel tyate)pe. Ts ofhe prolecluomtamntsen (di.eed.r, gceass, aeouresa o sour rces), cponerismideetreers inc creening aluded sd as rule o in Exhibit 6 should be wenvinidro dinmrecetintonals p arond thfessf thionauml. bD fepore thndine g on the leocmisationsion ( sou,iei.e. th rcees d uirpewction d exisof tethnec cea onfd lidaargn of the prevailintee ma schjooolr g w carries ind to aschooldju) ,th thee a eir from around the source toward the 6.3. st th In e it sntuvidyro anm ial As reean. tal professional may need sessment of Area AirAn in itiaQul aality potential scshseoolssme locnat tionof a sireh quad mality akrouxisting da oul e u nsed of a in the neightab thorhat isood a rerpouresnedn thtaetiv loce ofatio conn. ditions thAire i qnuitiaalityl a mossesnitoring can play muenvironmesment. Early in the alstipselses rmoleenst, i thn e gaairu qguinaglity air monntal profines quaitorlity at ags daiontaal assh ao meulda envsaluate local access to data on criter liaoc paoltionluta. Tntso ,f Eac ofilita inteit ially isAir aEnxp onlorlineer c wolelbescittioe (nwww.epa.gov/airPeAxp’s lorer) vAisiruEaxlpizloinrger a allond mawsp upsi ofng u asire monr-frieitnordliyn gtool dasta f.o r pdaroduta for monitoring siteress in to adow l ing c s n oad monitore g pvisualize locrapationhs ofs mo usinngito Gred aire cqifuical aityre aan, d sdacrtaee ant n ofe saitrbey c sotandititionons mas, mooongitole Ereadrth air. A qsu aanlity in itial alslevoe bl ofe av thaie NlabAAleQ fSo.r N asearbyy mon be citomporinagre dad to thta maey (pwwwotentia.epl location. EPAs’se Assing air toxics at a a.gov/air/data) alloirDwatas u wserebss titoe q uery and map air quality data from locations across the country. Compgmoneneitraorlliyn mog, ariera troxiced tos mo criteria p limited inn thitoreirinolg dalutatan at re thopeer aatmouingn. St oftat time, trei thbal ane monitor csov haevrea bgee aenn d in balse uo hseadv ine l thocisal i aniritia qul aalsityd m losessmeoncal aiitont.r inr agg daentacie ths mat caya n Ewxishictinh thg air monitors will vary in the extent to lpocoteationntia.l Meyo rneitoprersse anrt a school locatioe miror qun wea rleitypr aet asen ptaarticular similarities in the types of nheenar tbhyey sou shrativre e of a uses, topography an ces, land pdocresuement.n Tt thhe ee nvexteironnmd meentteaorological conditions a t to whicl phro exisfestsiniogna mol snhitoourlds caren ldidaikeltey t so crheoolpre lsocenat atioirn. q uality conditions at a (ENPAAT’sA N) (ationwwwal.-eSpcaa.lgeov Ai/rttn To/xics Assessment avscreereagnie amng tobolien tht aiat pr prov atw/natamaolluidetasn modet concleend tresatimain) iste as tions, an od f aasursociated cancer risseead ts suo idche antifs cyo aunnd ptieks a, ancrdos stsa bters.oa NdA gTeAog craanp bheic lsoctuadytion. Hso awned veprol, NluAtanrtsio ofritiz inete ermisest fsoiorn f surouthrecre s, fcorhar pacintpeoirinztiningg o srp ceocTifAic is ris nkot v aa deluefsin ait ativ seite m orean s scuanchdida as btee stwcheenool ne mparorinhgo r locigahtiobns. Codissks o atr b loetwcal leeenv els, indefvoerlmaopintiogn th soue inrcitiesal as ares neescseonssaseryq atlssyis, ot inthe touen rment. Wpriofthe avssionailabal sle dhouatla id cno hnandudc,t tahne in enitiavirlo ansmenof air quality conditions at the candidates leocsstmeal nt wThhee tenhevri loronmen ation. both criteriacal m polotal professional should note available data arl aveuntaitnotsrin ag data are ailable f limitednd air toxics and whoern smacreye innicnlugde as cseompssmaernt of a tiro qNAuaTlityA. A at thn ineit liocal ation leasvseoclsia tote td whe NAith aAQirS toxic aisnond c ofs ihna c rraacitend ateriarriz pinolgl uritasksnt ound the potential location. 98 | Evaluating Impacts of Nearby Sources of Air Pollution School Siting Guidelines If the environmental professional determines that there is a basis for air quality concern due to high ambient concentrations, or there is insufficient information to determine whether a concern is present, additional site-specific analyses (description to follow) should be considered. For environmental professionals needing more site-specific air quality information, onsite monitoring or local air quality modeling should be considered. Air monitoring and modeling are complex and expensive to conduct. For the monitoring and modeling to provide accurate and relevant information, the activities must be appropriately performed. The assessment plan and the results should be clearly communicated to stakeholders before, during and after completion of the monitoring and/or modeling. The following steps pertain to refined site-specific analyses that may be performed. 6.4. Inventory of Air Pollutant Sources and Emissions The environmental professional should develop or obtain an inventory of all the potential pollution sources, both large and small, within the study area. Developing the inventory should include consulting with the state, tribal or local air agency (e.g., permits, monitoring) and EPA Regional Offices (www.epa.gov/aboutepa/index.html #regional) to determine what data resources may be available that can provide additional information for inventory development. The state agencies (www.epa.gov/air/where) are particularly useful in that they may have emissions data or other studies that are not reported at the national level. When local information is unavailable from state, tribal or local air agencies, other information sources can be used, such as EPA’s AirData website, (www.epa.gov/air/data) which queries large national databases such as the National Emission Inventory (NEI) (www.epa.gov/oar/data/neidb) and allows users to download emission data on local sources permitted to emit criteria pollutants and air toxics. At a minimum, this pollutant inventory should include: The name of each point and industrial area source; A description of the source (e.g., point source, mobile source, fugitive emission, major or area source); and The distance from the source to the study area. For point and industrial area sources, also include: Their locations (i.e., street address, latitude/longitude); The ongoing activity at the source; The pollutants emitted or released (i.e., criteria pollutant, or chemical name and Chemical Abstracts Service number for toxics); and The emission rate of each pollutant (e.g., pounds/year or tons/year). Highways and other transportation facilities may be nearby emission sources. However, detailed emissions information is often not readily available for these sources, and mobile source inventories are usually developed by allocating emission factors from broad geographic areas using estimated values. As such, when assessing nearby transportation sources, local data on activity such as use (e.g., vehicles per day, trains per day) and time of operations (e.g., morning/evening rush hours for highways, ship and truck activity in ports) should be collected and applied to emission rate estimates to develop local inventories. The NATA (www.epa.gov/ttn/ atw/natamain/) and NEI (www.epa.gov/ oar/data/neidb) databases may also contain information on some transportation facilities in an area. The environmental professional should consult with transportation and urban planning agencies to identify the location and activity of all transportation facilities in the area, such as state departments of transportation and metropolitan planning organizations for metropolitan areas with at least 50,000 residents. These organizations can also provide information on future planned infrastructure in the area that may impact air quality around the school location. Evaluating Impacts of Nearby Sources of Air Pollution | 99 School Siting Guidelines More information on considering nearby highways and other transportation facilities, including goods movement (see Section 8.2), is included in the Quick Guide to Environmental Issues (see Section 8). The environmental professional should recognize that all databases have limitations. They may not be up-to-date; they may not have the most accurate location information for some of the sources in the study area; or they may not identify all the potential sources in the study area. Also, the data contained in these databases may be aggregated at some larger level (e.g., county or state level) and lack the necessary detail for the study area. Therefore the environmental professional should be prepared to utilize additional methods, such as an on-the-ground visual survey, often called a “windshield survey,” to complete the pollutant inventory. A windshield survey is extremely valuable for identifying those sources not available through national and regional databases and agencies, identifying new sources that have recently opened near the location, and verifying whether sources identified in the initial database reviews are still operating. The survey can be informed by maps, aerial photographs, online resources and local government records (e.g., utility records, tax records). Also, documents, such as the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s “Air Quality Issues in School Site Selection Guidance Document,” (www.aqmd.gov/prdas/aqguide/ doc/School_Guidance.pdf) can provide the environmental professional with useful guidance for identifying general categories of emission sources for inclusion in the survey. If new sources are discovered during the windshield survey, or if modifications are observed in known sources, the environmental professional should contact the state or tribal air agency and the EPA Regional Office to fill in data gaps. If source-specific emission details are not available, these agencies may recommend surrogate parameters (e.g., emissions profiles and emission rates) to help complete the inventory. To qroauadsntif ay the extent of emissions from nearby epmrofpelosynedd. oth Fore er sxamourpcleess, t, eional can use hme eisnsvioniro mnmodeenltsal may be /Eotamisqs/ionmod Simuels/lmovator e( EMOPAV’sE MeSx) otors/ind .h (tmww Vweo.ehicle emiss ) t c palca.goulatv e uAsPe-d4 f2i (owwn raw.tees fpoar .giondo nary v ir statio and /tvtindcuhal road links, and EPA’s areai es1o/uarcpe4s2./ ) can be Isn ichntooler lpocreatintiong th, ite is immeteorological condit hepact of nearby souionlpfsu pl tro eesevnatl auat thte rces on a p e crosdows hool pective location. For instanw liocnd ationof ans th aira t apolrleu stioitunatencd pe, preotdomentiainla ntly ugrpewaitnerd o imf thpaec stsou thracn those th se e at aource may. Howev r, e rvee locate rd ealize hlocisatortionica isl w situind daated uta, pthweirned w ofil al s stiloul brnc ife aba psotede onntia l Iwnh aedditn thione loc, foatior hnig whwilla byse a downwind ofe oc thcea ssion pollutan n ou s ts can travel upwindd oth of theer rtroaafd ficb secouaurrccee.s, thof ae irroa flows created by the vehicles operating onse mauy notdw bea ay. s Tighnuifs,ic foran t diroafdfewraeyn sceou brectwese, thene re airpw piolndlu ationdn imdowpancwtsin. d locations with regard to Bjuadgsemd oennt t pheer itanvineuinntinfl encing exposu go tory th ande ma on pnyro fafectorssiosna l deExhteibrminit 5)e, th whee ethnveirreosn amnr thereed pntaoterl prnoftia is easonels rsisionksa (see concern related to air pollutant exp foosru irneitial shl ould lmonocationitor ainngd is de wtearrrmianntee ifd p onsite ambient as atir the rior to choosing the location. 100 | Evaluating Impacts of Nearby Sources of Air Pollution School Siting Guidelines 6.5. Screening Evaluation of Potential Air Quality 6.5.1. Local Air Quality Modeling If the environmental professional determines that additional information pertaining to local air quality beyond that developed in the initial assessment is needed, air quality modeling may be considered as a means to provide this information. In particular, dispersion models are tools that calculate the air quality impacts of nearby sources at downwind locations. They may be used to model ambient concentrations of both criteria pollutants and air toxics and to estimate the magnitude of nearby sources’ impacts on air quality at a given location. Dispersion models require information on emission rates of nearby sources (from an emission inventory (see Section 6.4) as previously discussed), meteorological conditions at a location, and information on terrain and land use in the vicinity of the candidate location. There are two major categories of dispersion models: screening models and refined models. Screening models estimate the maximum likely impacts of a given source, generally at the receptor with the highest concentrations. These models are intended to eliminate the need for more detailed modeling in cases that will clearly not create ambient concentrations of concern. For many sources in simple terrain, the SCREEN3 (www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/ dispersion_screening.htm) model may be used to estimate maximum ground-level concentrations resulting from a single source. For roadways and intersections, the CAL3QHC model (www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/dispersion_ prefrec.htm#cal3qhc) may be used to estimate likely maximum concentrations at locations nearby. Refined models use detailed local information and simulate detailed atmospheric processes to provide more specialized and accurate estimates of how nearby sources affect air quality at downwind locations. Relative to screening models, refined models can require a significant investment of time and resources to conduct a proper analysis. AERMOD (www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/dispersion_prefrec.htm#aermod) is EPA’s general-use model recommended for a wide range of sources in all types of terrain. For most situations, AERMOD is an appropriate model for estimating the impact of nearby sources on air quality near a potential location. 6.5.2. Onsite Air Quality Monitoring and Risk Analysis If the environmental professional determines that onsite monitoring is warranted, and upon authorization by the LEA, the environmental professional should develop and implement an onsite air quality monitoring and analysis study. The objective of the study is to determine whether the targeted air pollutants identified in the inventory are present at the location in concentrations that may pose either short-term or long-term health risks to children or adults that may utilize the school facility. Monitoring can also capture impacts from sources that were not explicitly included in any local scale modeling, including unreported or unidentified sources. Ambient air monitoring, however, is costly in terms of the time, resources and technical expertise required to generate meaningful data. To minimize these costs as much as possible, a short-term monitoring approach can be used as an initial screen to determine if a location is suitable for future development. In addition, passive and other portable sampling techniques can also be used in screening monitoring to compare and evaluate multiple potential school locations. Throughout the monitoring activity, the environmental professional should review the monitoring and analysis procedures to confirm compliance with the appropriate quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) protocols Evaluating Impacts of Nearby Sources of Air Pollution | 101 School Siting Guidelines amonnd aitsorseisnsg l aocctival meitietseorological conditions during impnumabcetsr o onf s thtued sieasmp andl eto i coldelenctiftiony a. Tnyh perosesible EPA’s website that pro pvirode exgraamms dpleessc orfi lob aedre o an monAir Niteorari Scngh aocotivlsit” (ies. EPA’s “Assessing Ouctal door Iapnitiaprotivaceh p rreovlatiideves to a uwswefwu.le gpuai.dagovnc/es fchorool thaisir ) EdePtAe’rsmin Comatiomunn ofity p-Sotceinrtia mlon a itoring and the ale Air Tdverse health impacts. loMconalito) wreinbgs Piter sojheouctsl d a(wlwso wb.eepoxicas Ambient .gov/ttn/amtic/ consulted for recommendations on conducting air toxics monitoring analyses. Both websites include information on QA project plans for outdoor air monitoring. The NO2 near-road monitoring website (www.epa.gov/ttnamti1/nearroad) provides some information on pilot studies conducted at several cities in the United States using passive sampling devices. 6.5.3. Development of Pollutant Specific Screening Criteria An important step in determining a location’s acceptability is the identification of a set of screening criteria for each of the targeted air pollutants. These criteria should be protective of children’s health. As discussed in Principle 1 (see Section 1.4.1) in the About the Guidelines (see Section 1) section, children are more vulnerable to environmental exposures than adults. For criteria pollutants, these criteria may be based on comparison with the relevant NAAQS. For air toxics, the criteria should screen for the potential of adverse health effects resulting from both short-term (i.e., acute) and long-term (i.e., chronic) exposures at the location. If using a dispersion model to assess potential exposures, the output should be formatted to reflect the averaging times relevant to the screening criteria. In a short-term monitoring study, established reference concentrations, dose-response assessments or other similar benchmarks may not be available for all of the pollutants detected. Consequently, the environmental professional may need to employ other acrpiteprroaiac, ihnecsl uto idindeg nthtifey d aepvperlooppmeriate screening efonvr uirose inmn leinteua ol pf esrotfaesbsliisohed acute vnt ofalu sesur. rToghe ates eavdvaleurastee h theael athir i smpampactslin rgna dal tawi fll alsor poot neeentiad tl o ethxpe osenuvrireosn to mpeolntalulta prnofts esulting from chronic health-based screening ce ast siothnea lloc shationould de. Thveerleopfor e, lo riteria that can be used as desungita-term comparispenbldse s ocnre thenei anvga cilron levelsaitebilriaity f oor. Theo dneicvef tw chro diff elxpoposmeunret ofs of long-term comparison levels: erent types Aes catimanceter-d cbasonedti cnuomoupsar (i.iseo., 2n leve365 days per year) exposure4 c honol turshat p iesr d ana centrationy s, at an et tyrapic acaceptable linge ollyf 1 c ionn osidene rsfe ltifimetime cean cce imillion to 1a0nr re s0c inr on k.ris EkPsA in the bacec aecpcteabptaleb rlie s. In s e million to k levomels ce soituldua btione aps,p orthoperri ate. Ath noencancer-based comparison levalu reef, werhenicche c is thonec eensttrimaatiotend c oron a ctiovmel,p such as 24 hours per day, 365 days per yeanru) eouarsab (i.lee. x , concentr posure adverse efatiofecnts c oovnersid ae lriefetd liikmee.l y to be without Isnh douelrd bivine gg thiveen c tohr thoneic u sscer ofee rninelegv carnitte arniad , priority apwepllr aos EpriPatAe’ ais rrisk st aanssedarssmds (een.tg g., the NAAQS) as Ipnrfeorcemadentiotsn. D Saytaste fmrom E (www.PA’esp Intueigdraatnceed a Rnisdk bcreite usreiad. to Intedegrrivatee thd Reis akp Ipnropra.govformaiatetio s/crireisen/)in cgan also cconhemictains both Inhalation Unit Risk vna Sluyesst femor noconnccentralas wtioithns c foarr ccinogenic effects aancer health effheecmicts. Oatlhs wer ithda ctahrnond reference be found on the following websites: s ourcic,e s can ENPeAtw Oofrfkic Ae irof T Aoir’sxic sT (ewchnology Transfer ttn/atw/toxsource/summaww.erpya).go; v/ 102 | Evaluating Impacts of Nearby Sources of Air Pollution School Siting Guidelines COaffliifcore onfia E Envnivrironomnmenetnal Htal ProteAssessment (www.oehha.ceaalt.gh Hctioaznov/airar Adg anendc y ); T(wexawws C.tcoemmisq.texasios.gnov on/ E tonxicvirolonogmye);n tal Quality NPrew ote Jcetiorseny ( Dwwwepart.smtaetent .n oj.uf Es/nvdeirop/nmdaqe/n)t;a al nd ARgegenisctryy f or(w Twowxic.a Stsudbr.cstadcn.gocesv a/mnd Drls)is. ease An examppscrreeveniouinsg a cleirr ofiter hiowa h both acute and chronic found at ww toxw.eicpas. moave bnitoeengov/schroolin egs stabtudilishe cda fno br air/pdefss/ e U 6.5 se .4 sO . fHe E a va lthEffectsInfoinEvalSampleResults.pdf. Ac cWriitht u er t ae ia i anan nlyd pticlaul raetisounlt os ifn Po hantedn antiadl f socrre Aendivengrs e Chro t ni can begin anlac evea, luhae en c He v alth Impacts air ty tion i quali ofro thnme lenoctaal ptionro’sf pesotesionntiaal l ceonffeccetsn. Ttrahtioos imep sacamtsp olen acresuutle tsan shdow chirnogn picol hns less than the leualth indicate acceptable air quality sc arened nido ngn cot ritretarian t further action. Those pollutants dete equire cprreiteseriant s aht couolncd bente fralagtigoensd f aobro ue t r fv rthheer s cmreineenid ngto be consideration in the final report. Wenhveniro envmaluenattal pingr oonfessitseio monnal witorill alsingo d nateea, the cmonetseideororl thogey opotn aennytia slam imppleacsts c of the locadtio ton ollected. This w’s roneq auciturea clo smampparliinngg tdahe mys aegtaeoinr ill onsite over all the days withinsot thlogosical de daattaa t taakekenn wpeeraiothde, asr s wtationell as. T available d the monitoring environmental profhises wsionill ean a flaat to dblee r e throme a nearby r p esen termine the terersm.pe ct to tawtivheant migess ofht thbe exe sapmpectleeds c oolverlec ttheed lownithger For an example of how to compare monitored values to acute and chronic screening criteria, go to thwww.e sechool air toxics monitoring project at sInfoinEpvaa.glovSa/mpschleoolReasuirl/tsp.dfpdfs/. U sesOfHealthEffect Wcomphen several locations are being considered, a laoclternaartivisoen l ofoca ptiootnens matial healation with the lowest yri hseklthp imp. in ideacntstif ayt ing the 6.6. Development of an Environmental Assessment RepAfter coomprt envi n lesubmroitn amn eenvttial png the comparison, the When developirornmofeesntsioanl aal sssehsosumlde pntr erepparoert an. d reto cpoonrts, tidhe enviinrog rnmeceontmmalendations for the these is theer a fancdt wtheaigt thh ae v sca professiorreiety of fanng lecal weni v tor ill need developed specifically to be conservativelss w. Aemore ng indicator e nEot xposneucress of at o thre a rbisovk oe af a snp aedvcificerse healessarily indicate that screenithng e lfefvecet.l do inindicdicaatetors th, thaet ares is e axpnos inucrreesa sinac rriseaks eex aisbtsov; re aathn er it of adverse health effects. ing potential for risk Tfraomkin thg ien eto anvicrcreport may inconoument thntal asese fsaesctorsmse annt,d t thhee f rineal sults hreacom lude ove bmeeen nidadetiontinfsie. Idf a nneo p ofol sevlutaernal t conc ts of concern rtheapnor tht mae acyu cteon orcl cudehr thonicat s thcreentenraintigo cnsri gterreiaa,t ther e thacosceep itabnsleta fnrcoem as inn w ahiric qhu eaitlitye l poceartionspec istiv her or both ofe th. In abcyu ate p oroll cuhtarnot,n thic secreening criteria are exceeede d plocerastionpectiv is ue nora cthcep rtaepborle ft marom ay cnon acirlu qdeua thlityat th e aasdditionsessmeanl mt) aonreitorat aindditg, siteion-sapl meecificas ruisreks (e.g., location required. If no candidate cmitigoncearnss, a three ation op tiorveapilorabst sleh thn may ouat a beld r wvdee a ail sacrithibout air quality blee f worh that e candidate school location. Evaluating Impacts of Nearby Sources of Air Pollution | 103 School Siting Guidelines At a minimum, the final report to the LEA and SSC should describe and discuss the following: Study area, including the sources, activities and emissions located within area boundaries; Pollutant inventory process, including the identification of the pollutants targeted for monitoring; Modeling approach and modeled concentrations for locations in and around the site; Monitoring approach and results, including actual measured pollutant concentrations, projections of potential longer term concentrations and a comparison of these concentrations against national and regional averages; Acute and chronic screening criteria, including the process for selecting and/or deriving the criteria; Comparison of pollutants against the screening criteria, including potential health effects and toxicity information for those air toxics determined to be at the location; Potential for multipollutant impacts in those cases where multiple pollutants have been detected at levels above or just below their respective comparison levels; Identification and evaluation of potential contributing sources; Conclusions and recommendations for next steps; and Impacts of the uncertainty and limitations associated with the recommendations arising from limited sampling, location meteorology, available toxicity information, etc. The draft report should be made available for public comment, as described in the Meaningful Public Involvement, Section 3. The environmental professional should consider public comments in drafting the final report. The LEA and SSC should review the environmental professional’s report and the public comments received on the report and, in light of other assessments being performed at the location, determine next steps. To further clarify its options, the LEA may elect to have the report reviewed by a third party, such as a state, tribal or federal agency, with expertise in the subject area. In addition, the LEA may choose to identify and evaluate actions (regulatory or otherwise) being taken or planned nationally, regionally or locally that may achieve emission and/or exposure reductions in an acceptable time frame. The decision about next steps should be based on the weight of evidence supported by the environmental professional’s report, other data developed during the environmental review process (see Section 5.1), and the potential for future reductions in exposure 104 | Evaluating Impacts of Nearby Sources of Air Pollution School Siting Guidelines This page left intentionally blank. Recommendations for States and Tribes | 105 School Siting Guidelines Policies that Impact the Siting of Potential Sources Near Schools States, tribes and localities should evaluate siting and permit processes that influence where potential sources of environmental pollution (see Source categories identified in Exhibit 6: Screening Potential Environmental and Safety Hazards) may be allowed to locate with respect to schools. While these land use decisions are highly complex and beyond the scope of these guidelines, states, tribes and communities should seek to avoid situations in which new nearby sources of potentially harmful pollutants are sited in such close proximity to schools that they may pose a potential hazard to the school occupants. 7. Recommendations for States and Tribes 7Sta.1te. a ndO trviberal vini m vew any opportunitieso ltovem enhenatnc ande th oev werosrkigheen t offducation ag cies (LEAs) (see Se of locealrs sinc hidoolen tifsitinyingg c pootmmitentiatele ssite (SSCs ors )s t(rsecteion Se c1tio0) nan 3d.3) uctur thschools. This esat states an sde tcrtioibesn id caenn ttiakefies to important sftoepr s fcorap saccity of local communities to idenhenatifncye l octhaetio ns bychi pldrreovhoolidins that enhance the edun, teagc ah ersasfe a andnd s tahefalthy ecnvationironmal pernotc fesors 7.2. Recommend f. ations for SStatatetes s school ofsitete n s elplayect iano important role in community sletagistelsa tion(see, Sreecgtioulantionn decisions, depending on state comprehensive sch 5ool.2s. and guidance. 1s)iti hangve p oldevicieelso pAe ndu mber of , including: Cinadlifex.orcnfmia;: www.dtsc.ca.gov/schools/ New dccreq Jeurseseyt/: ;w anww.d nj.gov/dep/ Washington: www.ecy.wa.gov/ programs/sea/sepa/e-review.html. At a minimum, state agencies are important resources for communities on siting issues. For example, states often serve as a central repository for expertise in the many complexities associated with choosing the best possible site. This is often the result of promulgated legislation, state regulations or state-specific recommendations related to issues that are relevant to school siting decisions. While individual LEAs may have limited resources for investing in their own specialists, states may be able to help defer the costs of such expertise through centrally located resources that can be made available to all state LEAs. For example, a state-wide listing of environmental professionals licensed or registered with a central state agency can serve as an important resource for LEAs needing highly qualified and well-respected onsite evaluation of potential sites or buildings. 106 | Recommendations for States and Tribes School Siting Guidelines Because land for development is becoming less available in many states, officials at the state level in these states often develop comprehensive state-wide or regional land use and development plans. Working together, LEAs and state officials can effectively coordinate to identify appropriate lands for locating schools. Establishment of state-wide school siting policies and guidelines, where they are not currently in place, can help states promote educational, environmental, health and safety objectives associated with school facility construction and renovation. In some cases, states have programs in place that allow them to partially fund projects that meet state school siting guidelines.63 7.2.1. State Resource Review Many state agencies have expertise that can contribute to sound school siting decisions and implementation, including departments of education, public health, transportation, planning, parks, community development, historic preservation and environment. Different agencies will likely have staff with complementary knowledge, expertise and skills that can be helpful in various parts of the school siting process. However, it may be challenging for LEAs and local community residents to know which agencies to contact for specific concerns and questions. States are encouraged to share the expertise, available assistance, state-level contacts and responsibilities they have across agencies, and to assign an office or agency to serve as the liaison for school siting questions and assistance. In doing so, states can review whether there are adequate staff resources with appropriate expertise in place to assist local communities with school siting decisions and planning processes and develop a plan to support local school siting efforts, including addressing gaps in staffing and resources as necessary. Two of the ways states can support local communities in the selection of potential school 63 For more information on existing state policies, see “50 State Survey,” conducted by Rhode Island Legal Services. Available at: www.childproofing.org/school_siting_50_state.htm. sites are to provide information from existing site inventories to LEAs and to develop policies to support local communities making school location decisions. In addition, states are encouraged to partner with LEAs to build capacity to effectively manage waste or contamination that remains through the implementation of engineering and institutional controls (see Section 8.15) and long-term stewardship (see Section 8.16). There are several important steps that states can take to support development of local capacity for identifying appropriate locations for schools: Improved coordination across state programs (see Section 7.2.2); Staffing and financial resources (see Section 7.2.3); Participation in public meetings (see Section 7.2.4); and Access to state information on school siting (see Section 7.2.5). 7.2.2. Improved Coordination across State Programs Many existing state programs have the capacity to support local land use decisions related to the siting of schools. States are encouraged to enhance coordination across state programs to assist local communities with school siting decisions. Some key factors for states to consider include: Whether the existing state program management structure is able to perform the necessary coordination and supervision between agencies needed to support LEAs in making school siting decisions; Which state and/or local agencies can contribute to school siting and the responsibilities of each agency; and Whether there are legal and institutional impediments that need to be addressed. Recommendations for States and Tribes | 107 School Siting Guidelines Effective coordination across state programs can help to ensure that the programs with responsibility, knowledge and expertise in healthy schools issues are engaged in the school siting process. A state should consider identifying a point of contact with responsibility for coordinating across state agencies with authorities, responsibilities, programs, policies, guidelines or standards affecting decisions concerning whether and where to build new schools or carry out major expansion of existing facilities, as well as coordinating other school facility issues. States are also encouraged to coordinate with local and regional planning agencies to ensure locations selected for schools meet multiple community goals. Many states have processes to determine appropriate land and resource uses for sites that have residual contamination after cleanup; these processes may already apply to school siting or may be expanded to apply to school siting decisions. State inventories of assessed or remediated locations or structures as well as those undergoing or planned for assessment and cleanup may be useful to share with LEAs and other state, public or private entities to ensure safe reuses. It is essential that the agency and department responsible for reviewing potential school sites for potential environmental contamination be identified early in the siting process so that they will be appropriately involved. Local governments with robust environmental, planning and health departments often bear primary responsibility for managing environmental health or contaminated site cleanup programs. However, in many parts of the country, local government resources to support school siting decisions are very limited or perhaps may not even exist. In these cases, the state government frequently provides assistance to the local agency or identifies a suitable third party to manage efforts to determine appropriate land and resource uses for properties with residual contamination. These activities are particularly important in situations where schools may be constructed on sites with residual contamination to ensure proper maintenance and oversight for any necessary engineering or institutional controls or long-term monitoring. States may want to consider developing a formal memorandum of understanding between agencies to ensure that staff resources and expertise are available to assist with school siting. For example, the Iowa Department of Historic Resources has a memorandum of understanding with the Iowa Department of Education to provide information about older and historic schools.64 7.2.3. Staffing and Financial Resources An assessment of the human and financial resources available in state agencies to support local school siting decisions should address the following questions: How can staff with the appropriate expertise assist local communities with school siting decisions and planning processes; and How can budgetary or other resource gaps be overcome to safely renovate or site schools? 7.2.4. Participation in Public Meetings State government representation at meetings with the community is important when the state has oversight responsibilities for environmental cleanup or reuse planning. Even when oversight responsibilities have been delegated to local agencies, state government participation can be helpful to ensure that the review process is sound and that communications with the community are effective and to reinforce that the special sensitivities of children were considered as part of the school location selection process. 64 State Historical Society of Iowa, “Historic Preservation.” Accessed on September 16, 2011. Available at: www.iowahistory.org/historic- preservation/. 108 | Recommendations for States and Tribes School Siting Guidelines 7 Sta .2 te .5 s . sh A ou cce ld s c s on to sid S e ta r te dev Informa Sit avai in lab g le, easily accessible elwoepbisnig tion te a/ dpatub on lic ly S chool pr ab to eov ase inpcrltinide a cenudineng:t to stcrhaoollized ev saluouatrcieo nof a indnfo srelmaectiotionn , Pevolaicluieations and an pdro rcevedgu ce i uresidanfor evaluatewio,n i nc folru sditei locof candngid sataation ai etle eav lab ; t si-tseps,e cifi fic Public involvement guidelines; Mevapping and aluation of pothoteenr tiaresl osuchrcoeols toloc aassitionst sin; Redescocrripdstio ofn l ocof astionite reviews (e.g., findings, docinstituumetionntsa fl orand cl eae ngremineediaerintigon co antctivrolitis,e dse, cision asitends that meet standnuaprd asnd fo rdoc resuimedentntaiatiol unse of); Sscurhoolveyss, ofca sehis stortudieic psr aopnde rawtiears, dincs gluivdeningh for 7.2 reistorovic renovati .6 n . n, ation vs.cosots rofe pneorwts c aonbosutrt uccostitson of. oStavertes eeenv a Sisse tarotenmssm Oenve etnat rsl a ri nd gegh ut clat l Ro eaon lreys a gencies may pprorogpraertmiess. Menarnyolle stad teins t hhaeivre v aoulupnt acativry itcleieans fuorp cleanup actions and determ dopted risk-based cnoneedtredol tbraascedking on p proropgraosmesd mrineeu sle.ev Ielns oftit culetioannuapl pro ayreguglraatmory ov overesrigsighth ast d woesell. no Hot w beev ear p, thartis ofsta thtee ir mprianvaagtee p trhopeire rptyro opwners of t eliitorheirerty, mon r a revepthndes maone LEAs or use controls and insibtailinity lan tod ELnEAsviro shnoumenld wtaolrk e e v ns a u lu re a t sa io f n e site reuse. with state governments to ensure all sites proposed for construction of new schools, renovation of an existing building for srchool use or expansionfrecomei vthed appropriate env ofiro exisnmtinentga slc aphoolpros vhaalve sdonhoualtiod bee s taassete agsseend cpyr iorpri otor to construction. Sites environmn to determine if the arecq isu ispitionotentia orl neenvigihrobnmorinentg sailt contamination onsite or at and for theeintr aiml esris thkat could pose health or pactss to on c htriladnrespn,or fatactioultyn, orair s qtaaufaf,l nd accessibility. ity Wthahte hrea sp eropnvosiroenmd sitens aLEAs should seek ouett athl djoior pnu blori ca bue approprihaetalt a locte phl coanctioenr ns, epnvoteiro annintianml seitntea wol anduld h beealt anh arepprvieowpr toia etens anurde s thnga,t a l C oc le a a tion nup f or a school. afe Aprlthocouedguhr esmospro thctaed ts tsauptreesesci df o not have schinvestigation, samplingic, allyclea anpplup,y de tot step esoole siting a ritpromination of prawcticarpdsriate land andes hinip p, lacmaeny th do r haesoveur tchees ues espol aicndie lso angnd-t erm sites at cleanbueipsn arg ceo tansiliordereded to aforpply more generally to Locations which a m eetreu sthe.e In in gteennderedal ,r euse. beuse. c lInea nthede evupe ntot levrethel to beat rses thida ut sseduppo for schools should re ual contart minresidatioenntia l docconmtraiolnss onto pthreev seintte, eexpngosineureeri angnd a and institutional be inume placntee atd l thonge l-octermatio stne. Fworar dmshorip c leplanar, should M see ea th n e in E g nv fu i l ro p n u m bl e i nt c i a n l vo Review Procees insf, oSremactitioonn 5. Mtheraouninghgoufutl pthuebl sicch ioolnvo slvitiemlnvegen mprteo (n nc cseestetas Simpor isec oftio cnritic 3) be formalizee. dP lanpriso rfor to p inuitiablict iningv olthvee idemenntit sfichouationladl ofpr opcoestesnestia, lf isndchioolngs ,si ctlees.an Duept aidelsc isofion site a procedures, findings), land use restrics tion(esse.g., ssmscopee,nt (Seengctioinen e8ri.1ng5) aandnd insustitutional controls, sese toplan commus shounlityd be in pvroolvvbisdeqedu toen tht sec hpoolubl icconst up andrsucement and ublic notif icabtionject tion. Recommendations for States and Tribes | 109 School Siting Guidelines It is important for LEAs to develop a communications plan to ensure effective public involvement (see Section 3.4). Local capacity to manage institutional and engineering controls States should establish standards to assess the capacity of any party for management of institutional or engineering controls at potential school locations. The standards should be designed to ensure the long-term integrity of any institutional or engineering controls put in place at potential school sites where residual contamination or offsite hazards to be mitigated exist. The capacity to manage engineering and institutional controls should consider the following: Availability of accurate information on the location or extent of institutional and engineering controls, perhaps provided on a map; Establishment of, and participation in, a one-call system (see Section 10) to protect against human exposure to contaminated soil; Establishment of a mandatory monitoring program to routinely review institutional and engineering controls to ensure their continued effectiveness; Establishment of enforceable institutional controls, which require compliance; Establishment of informational institutional controls that effectively disseminate information on the location of controls, compliance status and monitoring reports to interested stakeholders, especially parents, state and local environmental officials; Long-term budget commitment to provide funds for the operation and maintenance of institutional and engineering controls, including required training of staff responsible for maintaining controls; Tracking of expenditures associated with institutional and engineering controls by the LEA so that historical expenditures can be used to refine planning estimates for the cost of maintaining institutional and engineering controls; Using more than one institutional control (i.e., “layering”) to improve overall reliability and effectiveness for managing the amount, concentrations, toxicity and other characteristics of the residual waste or contamination; and Availability of a process to report malfunctions of controls. 7.2.7. State Policy Review States are encouraged to review existing laws, policies and regulations addressing school siting to determine whether changes are needed to encourage improved school siting decisions. Such a review of existing policies across state agencies would help identify gaps and outdated policies that no longer serve state goals and objectives. Education, health, environmental, planning, and transportation agencies, as well as others, such as the State Historic Preservation Officer, should work together to consider how existing regulations, policies and guidelines influence or affect decisions about school renovation, remodeling or the siting of new schools. Review of existing guidelines or policies may focus on those related to the following general topics: Community involvement and public participation in school siting and renovation decisions; Long-range school facilities plan; School funding of new construction or to support existing school renovation; Prohibitions on state reimbursement of land costs that force communities toward the lowest cost sites, regardless of potential environmental challenges; 110 | Recommendations for States and Tribes School Siting Guidelines School size formulas or requirements for lot size and access to recreational areas; Minimum school enrollment requirements; Environmental evaluation and associated costs; Environmental cleanup (including cleanup standards and long-term stewardship site controls) and associated costs; Community use of schools (and joint use of community resources such as libraries, theaters, parks and ball fields); Energy efficiency; Sustainable development; and Emergency preparedness and sheltering plans. States may also consider developing policies, guidelines or regulations with local health jurisdictions to involve them in approval of school sites, and states should provide local communities with information related to state policies that pertain to siting decisions.65 Public health policies should promote school sites that do not lead to harmful environmental exposures and that do facilitate physical activity, healthy behaviors and healthy communities. Schools located in the neighborhoods of the students they serve will have an increased number of children who walk, bike or take public transit to and from school and will provide families with access to playgrounds and facilities that encourages physical activity outside of school time. Policies related to environmental review should facilitate assessment of locations before an LEA purchases or leases a property. State policies, laws and regulations can promote these goals in a number of ways, including: Encourage the creation of long-range school facilities plans (see Section 4.2.1) by LEAs, including LEA guidance on how these plans can 65 For more information on existing state policies, see “50 State Survey,” conducted by Rhode Island Legal Services. Available at: www.childproofing.org/school_siting_50_state.htm. involve stakeholders and community members and complement comprehensive plans and other planning efforts at the municipal (and state) levels. One resource is California’s Guide to Long-Range Facilities Plan (www.cde.ca.gov/ ls/fa/sf/longrangeplan.asp); Do not require minimum number of acres for school sites. Acreage requirements can prevent LEAs from using smaller sites within neighborhoods and force them to build schools on large tracts of lands on the outskirts of communities. The Council of Educational Facility Planners International (www.cefpi.org/) has abolished its “minimum acreage standards” policy but many states still have now-outdated laws based on this policy in effect; Encourage communities and LEAs to plan and develop joint use agreements for libraries, parks and ball fields for efficient use of available land; Do not favor larger enrollment schools, which are challenging to build within neighborhoods, in formulas for education funding allocations; Do not favor new construction over renovation of existing schools in school construction funding formulas (often called the two-thirds rule or “60 percent” rule). Renovation and modernization could help achieve educational objectives by creating school environments that support improved academic achievement by helping to alleviate the backlog of repair and maintenance projects. In a study conducted in the Los Angeles Unified School District (www.edfacilities.org/pubs/ LAUSD%20Report.pdf), researchers found that Recommendations for States and Tribes | 111 School Siting Guidelines improvements in the quality of school facilities led to an increase in student performance; 66 Consider true long-term costs of a site assessment/investigation, including land acquisition, initial construction, long-term busing costs and other transportation costs, improvements to the utilities and street network around the school, long-term site location monitoring and maintenance costs in policies on estimating costs for renovation versus construction; Encourage efficient location of schools and judicious use of busing through school busing reimbursement formulas and busing radius policies; Consider “walkability” infrastructure (e.g., adequate sidewalks, absence of traffic hazards, safe routes to schools); School funding mechanisms at the state level should allow time for proper analysis and consideration of suitable sites for construction, particularly at sites where environmental concerns are involved; Provide technical support to LEAs during the environmental review. Policies of state health and environmental agencies should allow for and encourage LEAs to partner with state agencies in conducting a thorough environmental review; and Encourage public involvement throughout the siting process. In addition to policies related to environmental review and cleanup, relevant policies include those that promote public health and take into account the impact of proposed or existing offsite sources on existing schools. 66 Jack Buckley, Mark Schneider and Yi Shang, “LAUSD School Facilities and Academic Performance,” Los Angeles Unified School District, Unpublished report prepared as part of Building Educational Services Together initiative, 21st Century School Fund, Washington, DC. Accessed on September 16, 2011. Available at: www.ncef.org/pubs/LAUSD%20Report.pdf. 7.3. Recommendations for Tribes Tribes are sovereign entities and play a central role in community school site decisions when an existing or potential school site is situated in Indian country or on other tribal lands. This role may also depend on what type of school is being built, and whether a community, tribal or Bureau of Indian Education school is on trust or tribal lands. School siting decisions on tribal lands may also depend on federal and tribal legislation, regulations and guidance or memoranda of understanding with state and local governments. Tribal government coordination with federal, state and local governments, as appropriate, is also desirable. Tribal agencies can be critical resources for communities on siting issues. In cases where tribal members attend schools outside of Indian country, tribes will want to coordinate with state and local governments about siting nearby schools. The balance of this section will focus on situations where schools are being sited inside Indian country. In addition to the critical role of the local school siting committees (SSCs) (see Section 3.3) in identifying potential sites for new school construction, tribal involvement and oversight offers many advantages. For example, tribes can be a central repository for expertise in the many nuances associated with choosing the best possible site, thereby ensuring that the site will not only be suitable from the perspective of environmental health and safety, but will also respect the local traditions and customs of the community. Working together, LEAs and tribal level officials, possibly in conjunction with states, can more effectively coordinate to determine appropriate lands for locating schools. Establishment of tribal school siting policies and guidelines, where they are not currently in place, can help tribes promote educational, environmental, health and safety objectives associated with school facility construction and/or renovation. 112 | Recommendations for States and Tribes School Siting Guidelines 7.3.1. Review Tribal Expertise Tribal councils and/or several tribal agencies, including departments of education, public health, transportation, historic preservation and environment, can play an important role in school siting decisions and implementation along with local governments. Different agencies will likely have staff with complementary knowledge, expertise and skills that can be helpful throughout the school siting process. Tribes are encouraged to share existing inventories of contaminated sites with local communities to assist with assessment of potential school locations (www.epa.gov/schools/siting/resources) and to help to identify locations that may require the use of engineering and institutional controls (see Section 8.15) and development of a clearly documented long-term stewardship plan to meet standards for residential use. Local residents may not know which agency to contact for specific concerns and questions, so tribes are also encouraged to coordinate across programs and to assign an office or agency to serve as the liaison for community members. There are several important steps that tribes can take to support development of local capacity for identifying appropriate locations for schools: Coordination across tribal programs (see Section 7.3.2); Staffing and financial resources (see Section 7.3.3); Participation in public meetings (see Section 7.3.4); and Access to information on school siting (see Section 7.3.5). 7.3.2. Coordination across Tribal Programs Enhanced coordination across tribal programs with responsibility for healthy schools can play an important role in informing local school siting decisions. Among the institutional questions that tribes should consider with respect to school siting are: Which tribal or other agencies need to be involved in school siting; and Are there legal or institutional impediments that need to be addressed? Some tribal governments have established processes to determine appropriate procedures for addressing sites that have residual contamination after cleanup. In other cases, tribes work with federal partners to address these issues. It is essential that the agency and department responsible for reviewing potential school sites for potential environmental contamination is identified early, so that they will be appropriately involved throughout the siting process. Tribes are also encouraged to coordinate with local and regional planning agencies to ensure locations meet multiple community goals. Tribes are encouraged to identify a point of contact with responsibility for coordinating across agencies with authorities, responsibilities, programs, policies, guidelines or standards affecting decisions concerning whether and where to build new schools or carry out major expansion of existing facilities, as well as coordinating other school facility issues. Tribes may want to consider developing a formal memorandum of understanding with different government agencies (federal, state, local) to ensure that staff resources and expertise are available to assist with school siting. 7.3.3. Staffing and Financial Resources An assessment of the human and financial resources available in tribal agencies should address the following questions: How can staff with the appropriate expertise assist local communities with school siting decisions and planning processes; and How can budgetary or other resource gaps be overcome to safely renovate or site schools? Recommendations for States and Tribes | 113 School Siting Guidelines 7.3.4. Participation in Public Meetings Tribal government meetings with the community are especially important when environmental review activities need discussion with the community. Even when oversight responsibilities have been delegated to local agencies, tribal government participation can be helpful to ensure that the review process is sound and that communications with the community are effective, and to reinforce that the special sensitivities of children were considered as part of the school location selection process. 7.3.5. Access to Information on School Siting Tribes should consider developing a publicly available, easily accessible website/database to provide a centralized source of information pertinent to school evaluation and selection, including: Policies and procedures for site evaluation and review; Public involvement guidelines; Mapping and other resources to assist in evaluation of potential school locations; Records of location reviews (e.g., findings, description of site remediation activities, institutional and engineering controls, decision documents for cleanup and documentation of sites that meet standards for residential use); and Surveys of historic properties, including schools. 7.3.6. Tribal Oversight Roles Tribes are encouraged to identify and document tribal roles and responsibilities for long-term oversight early in the school siting process. If a site that has not been cleaned up to standards for residential use is selected for a school, tribal agencies may oversee the environmental review to ensure that institutional and engineering controls and the long-term stewardship plan are sufficient to prevent exposures to environmental hazards. Alternatively, this role may be shared with or delegated to a local agency or other partner, provided the partner can demonstrate the capacity to manage these important issues. Environmental evaluation LEAs should work with tribal governments to ensure that all sites under tribal jurisdiction that are proposed for renovation of an existing building for school use, construction of new schools or expansion of existing schools have received appropriate environmental approval from the tribal agency prior to construction. Sites or buildings should be assessed prior to acquisition or donation to determine if there is environmental contamination onsite or at neighboring sites that could pose health or environmental risks to children, faculty or staff. Federal review may also be needed. Cleanup procedures Although most tribes do not have procedures that specifically apply to investigation, sampling, cleanup, determination of appropriate land and resource uses, and long-term stewardship of potential school locations, they often do have policies and practices in place that apply more generally to locations being considered for reuse. Locations selected for use as schools should be cleaned up to standards for residential use. Cleanups should also follow cleanup plans that have clearly delineated contamination and verify that cleanup efforts have been effective. In the event that a site does not support residential use because of residual contamination, institutional controls (and possibly engineering controls) may be a necessary component of the cleanup. Because the purpose of institutional and engineering controls (see Section 8.15) is to prevent exposure to contaminants and protect the integrity of the cleanup, effective management of institutional and engineering controls is critical to ensuring that a site can be used safely. 114 | Recommendations for States and Tribes School Siting Guidelines MMtheea raounning i h ngou gfufu tl pl th up eblu s biccl h iic ooln vino s volvitieml n ve gen m prte o (n csees t es S isec oftio cnritic 3) impinvolovrtaemencen.t Treriqbues should ensu al the community, anired pmlanentss f owir lpl efref ecthtaitv telhyei inr pvuolblveic sidehountifldic beatio fonrmalized prior to inuibltiaictin ingv tholev ement ssitecop ae,sse prssmocede noft pproteocntial school sites. Details of (engineering aundres in, fsinesdsinesg,s c)le, lanandu pus dee criseions (e.g., Section 8.15) and subtistueqtiouennatl scconhooltrol cson, sestreic tions plan struction simpubjecs sth toould be provided to the community and plano torta ennst pforublic notiure L eEAsffec fictivto daevtion e puelbloipand a c comommumenn S c ict.a Ittio isn involvement (see s e TLo c ca tio ribesl n c a 3 p .4 a ) c . ity to manage instit encapgaicnitye seriho ofnul agnyd co e spntaatrtbrolyisls fhor s tmananadagrdems tout ioanal and institutional or en ent sseof ss the sdceshoolign edloc toation enssu. Tghien eestarndinga crdons trsholous re the long-term intelatd bepot ential institu grity of any atcon ptaotminetinontiaal ls orch oolengation or of siniteeesr winhge contrfsite hazarred rsesolidsu pual t in place einxisstitut. Ttihone caalp caoncitytrol tos mshanouaglde c enong toin eebe mitigated following: sider rthineg and Alocvaailtionabil ority e ofxt aenccut ofra intes information on the menagp;in eering controls, petirtuhatipson parlov andide d on a syEssttaebmlis (hsemee nSet coftion, and 10 p)a tortic pirpoattion in, a one-call human exposure to contaminateecdt sagoilai; n st pErostagbralismh meto rnout oftin ae maengineering controllsy rndaetowry monitoev einsu rein sttituheirtiotorinng effectiveness; contali nuanded Establishment of enforceable institutional controls, which require compliance; Establishment of information on institutional controls that effectively disseminate information on the location of controls, compliance status, and monitoring reports to interested stakeholders, especially parents, tribal and local environmental officials; Long-term budget commitment to provide funds for the operation and maintenance of institutional and engineering controls, including required training of staff responsible for maintaining controls; Tracking of expenditures associated with institutional and engineering controls by the LEA so that historical expenditures can be used to refine planning estimates for the cost of maintaining institutional and engineering controls; Using more than one institutional control (i.e., “layering”) to improve overall reliability and effectiveness for managing the amount, concentrations, toxicity and other characteristics of the residual waste or contamination; and Availability of a process to report malfunctions of controls. 7.3.7. Tribal Policy Review Tribes are encouraged to review existing laws, policies and regulations addressing school siting to determine whether changes are needed to encourage improved school siting decisions. Such a review of existing policies across tribal agencies would help identify gaps and outdated policies that no longer serve state goals and objectives. Education, health, environmental, planning and transportation agencies, as well as others, such as Historic Preservation Offices, should work together to consider how existing regulations, policies and guidelines influence or affect decisions about school renovation, remodeling or the siting of new schools. Review of existing guidelines or policies may focus on those related to the following general topics: Recommendations for States and Tribes | 115 School Siting Guidelines Community involvement and public participation in school siting and renovation decisions; Long-range school facilities plan; School funding of new construction or to support existing school renovation; Prohibitions on tribal reimbursement of land costs that force communities toward the lowest cost sites, regardless of potential environmental challenges; School size formulas or requirements for lot size and access to recreational areas; Minimum school enrollment requirements; Environmental evaluation and associated costs; Environmental cleanup (including cleanup standards and long-term stewardship site controls) and associated costs; Community use of schools (and joint use of community resources such as libraries, theaters, parks and ball fields); Energy efficiency; Sustainable development; and Emergency preparedness and sheltering plans. Tribes may also consider developing policies, guidelines or regulations with local health jurisdictions to involve them in approval of school sites, and tribes should provide local communities with information related to tribal policies that pertain to siting decisions.67 Public health policies should promote school sites that do not lead to harmful environmental exposures and that do facilitate physical activity, healthy behaviors and healthy communities. Schools located in the neighborhoods of the 67 For more information on existing state policies, see “50 State Survey,” conducted by Rhode Island Legal Services. Available at: www.childproofing.org/school_siting_50_state.htm. students they serve will have an increased number of children who walk, bike or take public transit to and from school and will provide families with access to playgrounds and facilities that encourages physical activity outside of school time. Policies related to environmental review should facilitate assessment of locations before an LEA purchases or leases a property. Tribal policies, laws and regulations can promote these goals in a number of ways, including: Encourage the creation of long-range school facilities plans (see Section 4.2.1) by LEAs, including LEA guidance on how these plans can involve stakeholders and community members and complement comprehensive plans and other planning efforts at the municipal (and tribal) levels. One resource is California’s “Guide to Development of Long Range Facilities Plan” (www.cde.ca.gov/ls/fa/sf/longrangeplan.asp); Do not require minimum number of acres for school sites. Acreage requirements can prevent LEAs from using smaller sites within neighborhoods and force them to build schools on large tracts of lands on the outskirts of communities. The Council of Educational Facility Planners International (www.cefpi.org/) has abolished its “minimum acreage standards” policy but some tribes may still have now-outdated laws based on this policy in effect; Encourage communities and LEAs to plan and develop joint use agreements for libraries, parks and ball fields for efficient use of available land; Do not favor larger enrollment schools, which are challenging to build within neighborhoods, in formulas for education funding allocations; Do not favor new construction over renovation of existing schools in school construction funding formulas (often called the two-thirds rule or “60 percent” rule). Renovation and modernization could help achieve educational objectives by creating 116 | Recommendations for States and Tribes School Siting Guidelines school environments that support improved academic achievement by helping to alleviate the backlog of repair and maintenance projects. In a study conducted in the Los Angeles Unified School District (www.edfacilities.org/pubs/ LAUSD%20Report.pdf), researchers found that improvements in the quality of school facilities led to an increase in student performance;68 Consider true long-term costs of a site assessment/investigation, including land acquisition, initial construction, long-term busing costs and other transportation costs, improvements to the utilities and street network around the school, long-term site location monitoring and maintenance costs in policies on estimating costs for renovation versus construction; Encourage efficient location of schools and judicious use of busing through school busing reimbursement formulas and busing radius policies; Consider “walkability” infrastructure (e.g., adequate sidewalks, absence of traffic hazards, safe routes to schools) in tribal school funding policies; School funding mechanisms at the tribal level should allow time for proper analysis and consideration of suitable sites for construction, particularly at sites where environmental concerns are involved; Provide technical support to LEAs during the environmental review. Policies of tribal health and environmental agencies should allow for and encourage LEAs to partner with tribal agencies in conducting a thorough environmental review; and 68 Jack Buckley, Mark Schneider and Yi Shang, “LAUSD School Facilities and Academic Performance,” Los Angeles Unified School District, Unpublished report prepared as part of Building Educational Services Together initiative, 21st Century School Fund, Washington, DC. Accessed on September 16, 2011. Available at: www.ncef.org/pubs/LAUSD%20Report.pdf. Encourage public involvement throughout the siting process. In addition to policies related to environmental review and cleanup, relevant policies include those that promote public health and take into account the impact of proposed or existing offsite sources on existing schools. Quick Guide to Environmental Issues | 117 School Siting Guidelines 8. Quick Guide to Environmental Issues Contents Air Pollution (see Section 8.1) Nearby Highways and Other Transportation Facilities (Including Goods Movement) (see Section 8.2) Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) in Soil and Ground Water (see Section 8.3) Radon (see Section 8.4) Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soil and Ground Water (see Section 8.5) Lead-based Paint Hazards and Lead in Soil and Drinking Water (see Section 8.6) Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in Fluorescent Light Ballasts, Window Caulking and in Soil Associated with Older Buildings (see Section 8.7) Asbestos Containing Material Surveys (see Section 8.8) Mold (see Section 8.9) Chemicals in Schools (see Section 8.10) Heavy Metals in Soil and Ground Water (see Section 8.11) Pesticides (see Section 8.12) Securing Safe Soil and Fill (see Section 8.13) Historic Fill (see Section 8.14) Institutional and Engineering Controls (see Section 8.15) Capacity for Long-term Maintenance of Engineering and Institutional Controls (see Section 8.16) This section provides general information on some of the common environmental issues that the local education agency (LEA), the school siting committee (SSC) and the community may encounter during an environmental review. 8.1. Air Pollution The potential exposure of children to air pollution is both a general community concern, depending on the overall air quality in any given region, and a very local concern, depending on what sources of air pollution may be located in proximity to a prospective school location. There are many potential sources of air pollution ranging from large scale industries to small businesses located within neighborhoods; a variety of transportation related activities such as roads and transportation hubs; and area sources including agricultural activities and a myriad of other land uses. Major pollutants include: Criteria pollutants (ozone, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide and lead) – Exposure to these pollutants is associated with numerous effects on human health, including increased respiratory symptoms, heart or lung diseases and even premature death (www.epa.gov/air/ urbanair/); and 118 | Quick Guide to Environmental Issues School Siting Guidelines Air toxics include 187 specific pollutants that are known or suspected to cause serious health effects and are regulated as hazardous air pollutants, or HAPs. Examples of toxic air pollutants include benzene, which is found in gasoline; perchloroethlyene, which is emitted from some dry cleaning facilities; and methylene chloride, which is used as a solvent and paint stripper by a number of industries. Examples of other listed air toxics include dioxin, asbestos, toluene and metals such as cadmium, mercury, chromium and lead compounds. (www.epa.gov/air/toxicair) In 2009/2010, EPA, state and local air pollution control agencies conducted air monitoring at 63 schools in an effort to better understand the air around selected schools throughout the country. Data from this air monitoring initiative can be found at www.epa.gov/schoolair. Link to air pollution resources: www.epa.gov/schools/siting/resources.html#LINKS_air_pollution. 8.2. Nearby Highways and Other Transportation Facilities (Including Goods Movement) Recent research has demonstrated a link between exposures to air pollutants from traffic emissions near large roadways and adverse human health effects. The Health Effects Institute (HEI) recently completed a review of a large number of health studies, concluding that near-road exposures “are a public health concern.”69 Although the link between adverse health effects and near-road exposures has been made, the science has not yet progressed to an understanding of how some key elements affect these associations, such as the 69 Health Effects Institute Panel on the Health Effects of Traffic- Related Air Pollution, “Traffic-Related Air Pollution: A Critical Review of the Literature on Emissions, Exposure, and Health Effects,” Health Effects Institute Special Report 17 (January 2010). Available at http://pubs.healtheffects.org/view.php?id=334. type and size of roads of concern, the vehicle fleet mix and activities leading to highest exposures, and the distance from the road at which near-road health impacts subside. Most studies on traffic and health focus on roads with high levels of traffic (for example, 100,000 annual average daily traffic or higher). A few studies have reported health effects associated with smaller traffic volumes, with one study showing effects at volumes as low as 10,000 annual average daily traffic in an area. Further, while the health studies reviewed by HEI focused on exposures to traffic emissions, other transportation sources such as rail yards, rail lines, airports and marine ports have similar concerns due to similarities in the type and characteristics of air pollution emissions. For most transportation sources, air pollutant concentrations are generally highest closest to the source, with concentrations decreasing with distance from the facility. According to the HEI report, studies that have examined gradients in air pollutant concentrations as a function of distance from roadways have indicated “exposure zones for traffic-related air pollution in the range of 50 to 1500 m” from the highways and major roads evaluated. However, the magnitude and extent of these increased air pollutant concentrations can vary based on a number of factors related to emissions from the source, meteorological and topographic conditions affecting pollutant transport and dispersion, and the influence of roadway design and roadside features on pollutant transport and dispersion. Traffic emissions may vary depending on the total number of vehicles using a road, the level of congestion on the road and the number of heavy-duty trucks present. For rail operations, the number of trains, maintenance activities and line/yard configuration will influence emissions and exposures. Ports and airports will generate emissions from the ships/planes present at the facility, as well as support equipment and operations at the facility. For marine ports, large numbers of heavy-duty trucks may also be present on local roadways to move goods from the port. Air pollutant concentrations near transportation Quick Guide to Environmental Issues | 119 School Siting Guidelines facilities will also be affected by wind direction, wind speed and atmospheric stability. Changes in local topography from natural or roadway design features will also affect air pollutant transport and dispersion, which can lead to varying exposures for school occupants. Thus, air quality may vary based on surrounding terrain and features, such as cut sections, noise walls, vegetation or combinations of these features. The complexity and multitude of factors affecting air pollutant concentrations near transportation sources (see Exhibit 5: Factors Influencing Exposures and Potential Risks from Nearby Hazards) make it difficult to recommend a strict set of guidance for safe distances from these source types, particularly given the potential for unintended consequences. Locations in close proximity to major transportation facilities should consider a range of approaches to mitigate or avoid potential exposures. When evaluating potential locations that may be located near a highway or other major transportation facility, several factors should be considered: Are there other locations in the community at farther distances from the source that are also being considered? Urban areas may be limited in their ability to find appropriate locations away from major roads and other transportation sources; thus, careful consideration should be given to near-road and other transportation source locations before eliminating them if the only alternatives are to locate schools much farther from the communities being served. Unintended negative consequences to moving schools away from these communities may include increased pollutant exposures during longer bus or personal car commutes, increased traffic on local roads to access schools further from their communities, and lack of walking, biking, or other alternative commute options to school; and What options might be feasible for mitigating pollutant concentrations at the site from these offsite sources? - Studies suggest that roads in cut sections (i.e., road surface below existing terrain) or that have combinations of noise barriers, vegetation and/or buildings near the roadside may reduce downwind air pollution concentrations; - School design techniques may be employed to reduce exposures at near-source schools, such as locating athletic fields, playgrounds and classrooms as far from the source as possible, and locating air intakes in areas on the school building(s) that are least affected by offsite or onsite transportation air pollutant sources; - Installing or preserving barriers such as trees, buildings and noise barriers may reduce air pollutant exposures; - Filtration devices as part of HVAC design can be used to improve indoor air quality as described in other sections of this guidance; and - Adding controls or redesigning offsite sources to reduce school area pollutant concentrations (e.g., replacing or retrofitting port and rail engines/equipment with cleaner technologies, reducing idling at terminal facilities, rerouting existing or projected traffic away from school or other populated areas (e.g., truck-only lanes), and adoption of high density development and transit alternatives). The section Evaluating Impacts of Nearby Sources of Air Pollution provides information that can assist LEAs and environmental professionals in evaluating potential sources of air pollution early in the site evaluation process (see Section 6). Links to air pollution resources: www.epa.gov/schools/siting/resources.html#LINKS_air_pollution and www.epa.gov/schools/siting/resources.html#LINKS_highways_and_traffic. 120 | Quick Guide to Environmental Issues School Siting Guidelines 8.3. Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) in Soil and Ground Water The potential for vapor intrusion into overlying buildings has received much attention in the past decade. There is a heightened awareness nationally and internationally by the general public of the potential health concerns related to vapor intrusion. Vapor intrusion is generally defined as the upward migration of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) into overlying buildings from underground soils and ground water. Common contaminants that may create a vapor intrusion health concern include, but are not limited to, gasoline components (e.g., benzene) and dry cleaning and degreasing solvents. Common dry cleaning and degreasing solvents include perchloroethylene and trichloroethylene. The presence of these contaminants in the soil or the ground water beneath a building does not always present a vapor intrusion concern. Physical factors, such as soil chemistry, ground water conditions, subsurface features and weather conditions, also affect whether vapor intrusion occurs. Extremes in weather conditions can increase extent of the vapor intrusion (e.g., in times of drought). Likewise, excess precipitation may cause plumes to migrate (e.g., based on water cascading off edges or aprons of gas stations) and/or travel farther (e.g., under nearby schools). These weather and geophysical conditions can result in unanticipated exposures. Even though well-designed, well-constructed and well-operated new buildings are generally not susceptible to vapor intrusion, the use of integrated foundation sub-slab venting systems equipped with polyethylene or other vapor barriers is becoming increasingly common in new construction in densely-populated regions of the country, including California, New York and New Jersey. There are many different types of designs for sub-slab venting systems. Most systems, ornaigtuiranallllyy o deccvuerrilopanged for protconsist of a rel tive radon gase actionccumu agalaintionst , ihnorstizalleondta wl pitehrifno anratelyd P inolexpyveinnysivl ceh nloretworeg r n iddere pki o aggr ate laye u a p pinf ougr conc ed bconuilndinrete slab beneath the grouecteg. Td tohe a polyvinyl chloriden d fpiploores a ofre a thcolrlouecgtehd v thea rpoor ma is vneifnolted cd bolyl evcetionrtica sly psitepinm,g a unpd th e topsyn fthaentsic a vrea ipnorof b oafr thrieer b isu riledcinommeg. In snodme cases, acluded to operate the syesd,te m ior rnoo a f- more active mode. Iuns mued tco ih nthteer scaemept r way that venting systems are phromeeve,n stinucgh th veen aticncga sdonyst gemsas b aerfeor eeff iet cetivntee irns a vchapalleor inngtre. u sion intuo olmudlaetionr bu ofildin VOgCs iss. A morddree sofs ain g sTyhsete demssig ann ad vnd iapnorsta ballrartioniers o bfu silut ib-nsto lab venting afourchnidatetictonura alr aend be est cngominepleted the building installation of a vapor baerririnegr th fibrym esxp. Tehreie pnrocepd er isnubst-alleslab ven ing ystem is at may oved, thet vap sor barrier v sehroyu impld bore itansnpt.e rOlniec ae cted, teresctoerd aworksd a tnhd catertified by the engineer or architect of method ts do ae tshige bnead.rr Siemokr wase te insstintalleg isd a c roerrceogctnlyiz anedd barriers andsse othss er spryopntehre intiscta linellarstion. of vapor Tfuhren isengh ain reeepro and/or a Lrchof the testing, art nto thd a ceopyE ofAit aeclont ogf wreithcord the inspec th seh roeusuldlts tion and tes results should be in t oversight regulatoryc alugdeendc iyn. a r eport to an Peqeurfaorllyma impncore motannt.ito If rrinesgidu of aal v uenndetinrggr saouysnted smoil is nd g pshrofoueldrou retnaid wn anate er cxontamination exisssional to devepleorpien a lconedg en-tevrim moronmts,en thteal LEA spclanhool an to docd periodically nitoring properly. Soilu gmase snat th caomplete testing around the mplt inthge p sorystste am isre b opest erating integrated into the building design, within a vent Quick Guide to Environmental Issues | 121 School Siting Guidelines piping, or as close to the building as is feasible if the structure already exists. Link to vapor intrusion/VOC resources: www.epa.gov/schools/siting/resources.html#LINKS_vapor_intrusion_vocs. Additional information regarding volatile organic compounds can be found here: www.epa.gov/iaq/voc.html#Additional%20Resources. 8.4. Radon Radon is a naturally occurring, radioactive, soil gas. Inhaling radon can lead to lung cancer. Radon enters buildings through openings in ground contact floors and walls. Well water may also contain radon and contribute to the level of radon in indoor air. Always test for radon in indoor air before testing for radon in water. Fortunately, simple, proven and inexpensive techniques have been used in many schools to keep radon at acceptable levels. Soil testing a site for radon is not a reliable way to determine if a school building will have high radon levels once constructed. Instead, EPA recommends that all schools in high radon potential areas be built with radon prevention techniques. Such schools should be tested upon completion and periodically over time to ensure the radon is at acceptable levels. EPA recommends the following radon prevention techniques for construction of schools: installation of active soil depressurization systems, pressurizing the building using the HVAC system, and sealing major radon entry routes. For existing structures, EPA recommends testing all schools for radon. As part of an effective indoor air quality management program, schools can take simple steps to test for radon and reduce risks to occupants if high radon levels are found. The only way to know if elevated radon levels are present is to test. Some states regulate radon-related activities in schools, for example, by requiring schools to take certain actions or licensing radon measurement and mitigation services providers. Link to radon resources: www.epa.gov/schools/siting/resources.html#LINKS_radon. 8.5. Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soil and Ground Water One common environmental issue likely to be encountered at existing and proposed school locations is contamination from petroleum or other fuel or heating oils attributed to petroleum products that have been spilled during use or leaked from old underground storage tank systems and piping. These oil and fuel storage tanks are commonly associated with gas stations or fuel storage areas governed by federal and state environmental regulations. Nonresidential underground storage tanks (including commercial heating oil and commercial motor fuel) can be larger than 10,000 gallons in size. Care should be exercised whenever older petroleum tanks are encountered. Soil and water samples should be obtained from around the underground tank prior to its removal or abandonment, and appropriate budget contingencies should be established by the LEA to address soil and ground water remediation costs associated with leaking petroleum tanks. If the underground storage tank has leaked, it may be necessary to drill monitoring wells and regularly test the water, adding to the cost of remediation. Above- or underground heating oil tanks are often regulated by the local fire marshal or health department, depending on the size. In many parts of the country, especially older cities, home heating oil is commonly used as a fuel in homes. Most buried residential underground tanks are smaller than 1,000 gallons in size, but due to their age, poor condition and location (commonly under sidewalks), fuel leaks are commonly encountered. In some instances, fuel tanks are located within basements. These systems present less of a concern, as they can be visually inspected. 122 | Quick Guide to Environmental Issues School Siting Guidelines The LiroEA shoulreenmvovanlm oef untandld p rretofaeisns aionn exaperiencederground stol rato ovge tearnksee the epxcropaveartionly dis that may be necessary to rse amndov ae anyn d sIstorsuaegs ce taoncneprnosie of petrolks shngou uld ndbeer idgroeuum-impacted soil. prelim entifndie od ir anb thovee ground dissecctionussinaed inry e thnve Eironn, the purposevmiroenntmael natassle Rssemvieent. As environmental asses osmef thnet ipsr to idelimiennatifrwy Process penvresiroennmce oernt tahle l haikely presence of any y the historical and currzeanrdt ss oiten a us peros. perty based on Lwiwnkw t.oe upand.erground storage tank resources: KS_Storageg_ovTa/nsckhsool. s/siting/resources.html#LIN More information rela 8. tan 6. ks: ww Lea w.ep d a.g - ov b / a oilted s sp to il aboveground storage ed P l/spc a c. int Hazards and Lead in Soil aLcommeenadd D has brinking Water gasolinerc, piaeenn dil a useng, flass ipid re id ne a hinntiawide range of industrial, pesticides and paint. g orl p sorodulderc asts f wroem ll as PSabeaffineortyte Ca thnommisde 1 So9il78: bLeaand w bya ths eco Cmmononsumlye ru Pserd ino paint applications whsioerne c onon lseuadm-erbass meday pa binte ex fopr ducts aBnud sildinoilgs sexturerrouiorns may c osed. lead at levels thatdin pregs olendeonrt abinuil ledinadg-bts maasedy p an unacceptable coainntat in egxpovosernuirneg r bisokt.h E tPhAe ab hasat permomenutl,g asate wd rell asegula tions rethinnogvsa, ptioren,-1 re97p8ai cr ahinldd- pocacinting of, amo theupied facilitiengs, w othh er wgehneerreally chil indrcelund ue p ich amount of time. (nSdreers schix soolpse ornd abu siligdinnifgic aarneet as and L.) For post-197e8 4 b0u CilFdiRn Pgasr at 7nd4 s5c, Shuoolbpsa inrt s E general, representative testing for lead on building elextad iserior dse atencd itedn a st aurf caocne sceoilntsr isation a b inest pposes a risk to childr soilra thcticat e. If whavaset ane p reoxfpesersiioennal cedp anen,d th liec rop enbesset pd hraazcticared isou to s onof im thpe aecxtteedr sioroilss of. I fp loseatd-1-erbalys red empaoinve t hanadza dridssp eosxise t breenstov paratorctic pee isrfor to hm raevneov an97a EtiP8 schoolonA, or re sta bteu ciledirtifngise,d the wproarkctic in ae rcecqourdireamence with pair and painnts for E cPhAil’sd l-oceacdu-spaiefed f waorcilkiti ting found a es ex Dr p in osurt 4es0. CFR Part 745 or cap the soils to reduce inexpveesrkieinn The LEA should engage an existitingg agcte Wed eatnevrir: onmental professional to served bbyu ail thdien drgsin/king water quality within be renovate dmu orn exicipstructures if the scpanalityde.d F, tohr se schamoolpsli thhoolat a isr e to paneoalpylseis ma ofy w baet derr ifnrom taps an ng and building(s) is a best kpinragc aticnd e cto dookd fouingn tawiithnsi wn thheer e bperess e etetence and conc rmi done by an envnirotranmtioenn ofta ll pearod.f Teshisn we thorek is dexetpecertieedn acedbo ivne wtater quality sional he EPA actio ten lsevtinelg, t. Ihf lead is reenvporirot tonm thente LalE pAro thfeast idsioenantil sfiehould furne ish a concern and provides options ons th heo lwoc baetiost tons of ausddringe thss that tae spi otura wtiona. The school should stop prercoofesmmsioenndala ctaionns b fe enrotemr f tohuen etaacted. nvini uronnmtil thente al Iitsf a ow schnool wa iste ar pwuithbl aic wwealtle, it r sisys steubm ajecnt tod s sutapptelies fsehdoeural Safe Drinking Water Act reg and EPA aldc btione aw levareel. LofE anAsy c leanad con levtaeclst th thuatlat eioxncees adn tdh e drinking water program for assistanceeir. local Link to lead resourcesKwSw_lewad.ep. a.gov/schools: / siting/resources.html#LIN Additional information regarding sampling drinking water in schools can be found here: Quick Guide to Environmental Issues | 123 School Siting Guidelines htettpsti:n/g/.wcfamte arnd.ep a.gov/drink/info/lead/ herttp/s:c/h/oolwast/egr.ueidapa.ngovce./cifnmfr. astructure/drinkingwat 8.7. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in Fluorescent Light Ballasts, Window Caulking and Soil Associated with Older BPoluycil used ihn ldiorn eleincagsted b trical aipndhe mny (b r alsefo e they nufPaCcBtus) ringwere widely building is b weinerge cbonansnideder 3ed0 yasea ar ps ag op.ro Ifc aens oses or exists on a site propose ossible localtionder pshrofouelsds eniongaalg te ao inn vexeperiend cedfor en a svcirhooolnm, theneta Ll EA bPCuilBdin-congsta/instructuressti tog dateete exisrmintineg th e presence of maelectetrriiacalsl eq. PCinuBg ipsm ecaqnuent bipem feount/nd infixtu ligrehst f anixtud brueilsdin, g eforlevmuatelad ctioonnsc aenndtr olatiode (trra wnsinfdoowrm cersau)l,k o pldreordu paint environmental profesnsiso onaf Pl sChBosu aldre f fuornundish, acn ts. If arenpd roretm toe thdiae LEA that documents their occu ar rence eannvdi froollonmwe tnhtationl p ropofetisonsions aanld c shosoutlsd a. Tlhse o identify PCreqBu-irconemtaentse f foederal and state regulatory Ballasts: ining itr hemsandl. ing, storage and marking of before 197M9a hnavy se lichoolghts b inallas thet Us cnoitnetd Sainitangte sPC buBils. t Tcahpe PCthe laactitorBs ed ithin the lig 19s a are contain we 70 nsd i, PCn thBse w baerlle cast pomottimonngly maht ballast insulators in electrical equipment bec uausteedr asial. Until have h se they are nonigexh tolploesrivae.nc e to heat, do not burn easily and CUonnitgerd esSsta bteans inne 1d 9th7e7 ma becnauufasec tuofr the oefir PC toxicBs i n the effects. In 1979, EPA banned the processing or use of PCwBs, except in totally e clbHallaso ev ntser th, a larat wgeree i nunmstballeer od fp frluosoerd eescqenuipt limgehntt. maschyool cons. tain PCBs and may stiliol br teo in th uessee inban s Inththeeac bat,l loapserts aational ballasts wheralth risk orn and p enottvinirogn mamentertal hiale maPCyB nsot re pmosaien i a n athse th neuym abgee,r t ohfe obpaelrlaatinstsg degourade. Daz h rs, the eparend.d Howev of a ain er, expectancy ma typic l l gif oen to this betew eeendn of 1 th0 ane uds 1g5netic fluorescefu yl leifares o. Tf bhael lfaaienlut lrige rhatt bea pll p s raiost ts is about 0r er 1f1a9il7ucent9r eb r.a Ateftallasse inr thcrisea tysep siciganl iflificea enxptlye.c Atancy, ballast use are nowts fa inr b ligeyhontind gth fixist luifrees e thxpaet all ofre th stile pre- increasing the r ctancy, l in wPCouB lcd ponostaien ain hgeisk of leaks or even fires, which thermal overloa baltallash ant md enay valsiroon bmeen lactal hkingaz possib d p inar d. A rotworsenileityd bofy fmiriessh oanr leeacktios. Tn,h ine hcraezaasrind cg thane b e uballasnawatsre o. A bf tallashe ptr teshatendlicne og bf Py pCBsersonnel who are has been d amin tagheed lig ohrting smischoolhan pdleersdo cnanne iln tco rPCeasBes e. xposure of studen ts and Cahavulke id aenndtif Soied ail: R peotceennt stiatul edxpiesos cuonredu risctek to d by EPA wbeincaduowse th caeuylk w aenre used in the past for certaPCin Bs to maresultk, Pe thCBesm m mayord rubberized paint formulations older buildings. R bee f flouexinbd ilen an soild d thuraabt sleepresentative testingur. Arous a nds sbouiillsdin angds d theteriorated window of surface 1950 and 19a7t 8w iesr ae bbeusilt pt orra crtein covaualtek fd orce. If PCBbse PCBs in in deteriorated window caulk atwree feoun is to have an experienced and liincge, thnsee db ceostn ptrracactticned Spimilropearrllyy remove and dispose of the caulking. or cponractrticaceto is, i to hf PCBavs ar propeerl aren d eexpteecte by r ried innce sd aoils, the est emove and disnpd loseic ofen sed impacted soils. 124 | Quick Guide to Environmental Issues School Siting Guidelines Links to PCBs resources: www.epa.gov/schools/siting/resources.html#LINKS_pcbs and www.epa.gov/pcbsincaulk/guide/guide-sect4. 8.8. Asbestos-Containing Material Surveys Asbestos is a naturally occurring mineral fiber that has been used in a wide variety of products as an insulator and fire-retardant. The Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA), a provision of the Toxic Substances Control Act, became law in 1986. AHERA requires local education agencies (LEAs) to inspect their schools for asbestos-containing building material and prepare management plans to prevent or reduce asbestos hazards. If an older building is being considered for a possible school location, the LEA should engage an experienced environmental professional to determine the presence of asbestos-containing materials and its condition using recognized testing methods. Asbestos-containing materials may be found on interior and exterior pipe/duct insulations, equipment and boiler insulations, fire brick, HVAC units, plaster materials, floor and ceiling tiles, mastics/glues, roofing materials, window glazing caulks, wire wrap, between old wooden flooring (for noise reduction) and fireproofing materials. Asbestos may also be found in vermiculite insulation. The environmental professional should furnish a report to the LEA that includes the test results, an itemized inventory of all suspected asbestos-containing materials, and a corresponding cost estimate to abate such conditions (including management in place, where appropriate) and conduct the appropriate testing in accordance with all applicable regulatory agency and code requirements. Links to asbestos resources: www.epa.gov/schools/siting/resources.html#LINKS_asbestos. A list of EPA regional asbestos contacts is available at: www.epa.gov/asbestos/pubs/regioncontact. Additional guidance on asbestos programs for schools can be found at EPA’s asbestos website: www.epa.gov/asbestos. 8.9. Mold Leaks, condensation and high humidity can result in significant mold contamination of structures. Buildings that are intended for reuse should be evaluated for evidence of prior moisture problems and potential for future moisture and mold issues. In buildings where mold issues are identified, proper assessment and remediation of both the underlying moisture problems and cleanup of existing mold should be completed prior to occupancy. Potential health effects and symptoms associated with mold exposures include allergic reactions, asthma and other respiratory complaints. Link to mold resources: www.epa.gov/schools/siting/resources.html#LINKS_mold. Additional guidance regarding mold remediation in schools can be found here: www.epa.gov/mold/mold_remediation. 8.10. Chemicals in Schools Existing buildings may contain improperly stored, hazardous and outdated chemicals, which can pose a risk to students, staff and other school occupants. From elementary school maintenance closets to high school chemistry labs, schools use a variety of chemicals. When they are mismanaged, these chemicals can put students and school personnel at risk from spills, fires and other accidental exposures. The Schools Chemical Cleanout Campaign website gives K-12 schools information and tools to responsibly manage chemicals. To view the Schools Chemical Cleanout Campaign website, visit Quick Guide to Environmental Issues | 125 School Siting Guidelines www.epa.gov/schools/programs and click on Schools Chemical Cleanout Campaign. Link to chemicals in schools resources: www.epa.gov/schools/siting/resources.html#LINKS_chemicals_in_schools. 8.11. Heavy Metals in Soil and Ground Water In addition to lead, metals such as arsenic, cadmium, mercury and chromium can be found in paint pigments and older pesticide formulations. Metals may also have been released to the environment from commercial or industrial operations. Metals do not degrade in the environment, and as a result, can be found in soil and ground water in many areas. Although low background levels of metals may not represent a health concern, elevated levels of metals in soil are frequently encountered across the country. Metals are also found in older masonry products. A standard of care needs to be undertaken if masonry materials from older buildings are to be crushed and recycled as fill material. This issue has only recently surfaced in environmental assessments of older building slated for demolition. Older masonry materials may contain elevated levels of metals, such as beryllium and cadmium that may not be suitable for onsite recycling. This is especially true if masonry materials are painted. Representative samples of the masonry should be obtained by an experienced environmental professional to determine whether the masonry is suitable for onsite recycling. Links to resources on specific metals: www.epa.gov/schools/siting/resources.html#LINKS_lead, www.epa.gov/schools/siting/resources.html#LINKS_arsenic and www.epa.gov/schools/siting/resources.html#LINKS_mercury. The following links provide information regarding laws and regulations and technical approaches related to ground water and soil. Ground Water: www.epa.gov/lawsregs/topics/ water.html#ground, http://water.epa.gov/type/ground water/index.cfm and www.epa.gov/schools/siting/resources.html#LINKS_drinking_water. Soil: www.epa.gov/gateway/science/land and www.epa.gov/superfund/index. 8.12. Pesticides Pesticides may be encountered on existing and proposed school sites. If a proposed school was historically used for residential or agricultural purposes, surface and subsurface soils should be tested for pesticides such as chlordane, dieldrin, lead arsenate and dichlorodiphenyltrichloro-ethane as well as other pesticides associated with the crops or agricultural activities at that site. If there is a well on the property, the water should also be tested if it is likely to be used for consump-tion. Pesticides used for termite protection at schools were routinely sprayed adjacent to building foundations. If a school building is proposed for demolition or expansion, soils should be tested for pesticides in areas proposed for disturbance. Proper health and safety precautions should be employed by workers that may come in contact with pesticides. Excavation and offsite disposal of soil found to contain pesticides may be required prior to or during school construction. Pesticides in ground water generally occur as a result of leaching from soil into ground water as well as injection of soil fumigant pesticides into the ground. The potential presence of pesticides in ground water should also be considered if an onsite source of drinking water is required. Aerial- as well as ground-based applications of pesticides can result in unintended spread of pesticides from the intended target location to other locations due to equipment, application techniques, applicator error or weather or other application conditions. The drift of spray and dust 126 | Quick Guide to Environmental Issues School Siting Guidelines fwromildl pifee asticnd idthee a epnpvliciraontiomnes can expose people, athnatd p cranop ceaurtyse da health and ennvt to ir pemage. onmesticntaidel e rfefesciduts es Wopheiworkrle larationgse s, hacsaleers childre re aesulrteial sd inpr payoisinong of agricultural during any pesticn aidend a oppthlicearstion, sp,rainyg d orif ffta cram including in on ccur socucbuurr duban orinr ug inrbdaoorn e unvseiro ofn pmeesntticsid. Deris. ft can even Psiotetesn intia rlu pral,estic suidbuer ubsanag ase near prospective school to eshouxpldos bee c choilndrsideern oed s an well as urban locatior ta dff e tvoalu pesattiecdid fesor. p Wohtenerte inal s seuxpchos puoteresn stiahoul elxisd btse, steps to mitigate potential impincluledme:e nted. Potentia conl msiditiegraetiond an ad pproaches Olavbeerls uigshe t a dirned sctiotrnicst aenndfor drcifetme renst otricf ptioroduns; ct Uansde bofe drst imft anreagduemcineng at ppprlacictaitionces; antecdh nologies cBonuffseider zroantioesn bsa. sed on case- and site-specific Lhinttpk:s//w to pwewstic.epidaeml#LINKS_pestic.idg roevs/scourhcoeos l: es.s/siting/resources.ht 8.13. Securing Safe Soil aSonil and Fd fii thes ll mll as u at smeourd toce of b se oilferreials sh aen ofd f ciloonutaldmin not always be to a school site, the soil al mand fteillriaanlsts to. D beepending on contaminants as well as constr mauctiony con anta impin orted demolition deb d imported to a scrishool. Not sit one nlye edoes fill material amen eent eginnveireorinnmg penetarslp qeuctivalitye, sthd to e soilbe smauitay nbelee fd tromo arerccomhitemect onrd eed ngthinaet maer oft errial btae tendsatredds a. Intd ie ths cord approves the e placement of fill material on school sites before it iscl deelivered to the site. Cmeeartl eys sttaabteli thshedat eimpnviorroteonnd tfract documentsmenillt maal qteuraliiatlys n ee sd tohou ld specifications. Contract saunitad toblpes foildoc imumporenttsed s tohould clearly state that fill property aors ath sec inhoolten, fdred f a proposed se ofchoolomuture us the site be thande q eunvaliityronmental quality b pothers apenc etivngein, aened thringa t pnrot copehratyng fe of th the een imvirponormteedn ftiall and topsoil shall Similarly, throme e axpn uorntaretisontric ofte ed tl co alass rifeicstartion of the that originates from a propo xcess fill anicd tetd uopssoile. nleot veblse of as csonumetamid tona bnets fr aeree of commo sceond stacminhoola snittse. L shoouw ld eTshpee LcEiallyA a innd its urb eannv airnond fmoremntaerl ag prrnicly found, responsible for ensuring that th ofeusltsuionral aral areeas . fdilelli maverteedria. l is suitable for propeer etyxp to orwtahtioichn it o isf When tesqhuoualityld b, rsetipnrg ise tesetese nntaecessary to document fill and soil pesticides, PC d fortiv suec sha cmponltaesmin of thanets fil al as nd soil hydrocarbonsB. s, metals and polycyclic aromatic Aordditioww c nawontaminl inaftioonrma cati.epa.gov/supernon b er feougarndind hge lregacy land use 8.14. Historic fun F d/h ill ea lth/ined: ex. Hmaistetorriaicl thfilla ist w geanse irmpallyor dteefd tino aed as site n toon rinadisigeen thoeu s topmayog inraclp E lrdem sinuhic elevation. xa p e of historcine ator r :e csoniduster,u dectionmol ditieonbr dis,e dbrreisdg, fley sicp foilills , nonhazardous solid waste. ash or Pcommonrior to th per tuacticrne of in th ceer ptaaisnt caerentury, it was a bStareteedsi tno fg gilrlo luownd-lying areas to ras of the United which to build. Ins ma andn ye xinpsantad uerbduanc lane mosd oqnu ito nces, this historic fill material originated from an offsite location, and its environmental quality was never determined. Quick Guide to Environmental Issues | 127 School Siting Guidelines Most historic fill contains low levels of pollutants, but some historic fill can have poorer quality. In some instances there can be economic and impracticability issues associated with removal of such large quantities of historic fill materials, which in some areas of the northeastern United States can be 20 feet thick. In these instances, construction of various impervious and engineering controls is currently an accepted practice. Additional information regarding legacy land use or contamination can be found here: www.epa.gov/superfund/health/index. 8.15. Institutional and Engineering Controls Institutional controls are legal and administrative controls used to prevent human exposure to residual contamination and protect the integrity of the remedy. Examples of institutional controls include zoning, notices and warnings, easements, restrictive covenants, other land or resource use restrictions, permits/governmental controls and administrative orders. Engineering controls: Examples of engineering controls include the placement of two feet (or more) of clean soil/fill material (suitable for residential uses) and turf grass on playgrounds and athletic fields, impervious engineered surface parking lots and building slabs, landfill soil caps, impermeable liners, other containment covers, underground slurry walls, fences, air filtration devices and physical and planted vegetation barriers. Best construction and performance management practices should be used when an engineering control in the form of a clean soil cover is necessary to eliminate direct contact exposure to soil found to contain pollutants. The most common practice is to isolate the underlying soil using geotextile and visual barrier materials (such as polyethylene orange construction/snow fencing material). Two feet of clean fill and soil is placed over the geotextile and visual barrier. The visual barrier serves as a “marker layer” to warn anyone who might dig into the soil that soil below this marker contains pollutants in soil that should not be disturbed. However, sites that contain an area of contaminated soil/fill may require additional engineering controls to encapsulate the contaminated layer of soil/fill. For example, a layer of crushed stone underneath the clean fill layer will provide a “capillary break” that limits the upward and downward movement of water or leachate. This layer will also prevent burrowing animals and worms from transporting contaminated soil into the clean fill and potentially to the surface. LEAs should review EPA’s requirements for encapsulating contaminated soils. Underground utilities are best installed within clean soil zones to mitigate exposure should future repairs, alterations, improvements or disturbances be necessary. Such “clean utility corridors” are recommended when an engineering control is necessary for a particular property to eliminate a potential direct contact exposure to pre-existing soils that may contain residual contamination. A clean utility corridor is defined as a linear trench that is excavated to support the installation of underground utilities; the trench is restored to grade, after the installation of utilities, using clean soil or fill materials. Clean utility corridors reduce the potential for damage to an existing engineering control when future utility repairs, alterations or improvements are necessary. Planting trees with extensive root systems should be avoided if a site is constructed with a multilayered engineering control barrier. When an engineering control, in the form of a clean landscaped soil cover of sufficient thickness, is employed, trees and shrubs should be planted in clean soil zones specifically excavated to accommodate their root systems. Trees and shrubs should be kept away from water wells and septic fields. This often requires excavation to a 128 | Quick Guide to Environmental Issues School Siting Guidelines depth of four to six feet to accommodate the root ball of the tree or shrub. Link to cleanup regulations and processes: www.epa.gov/schools/siting/resources.html#LINKS_cleanup_regulations_and_processes. Additional information regarding cleanup programs and standards can be found here: www.epa.gov/oswer/cleanup/index and www.epa.gov/oswer/cleanup/programs. Additional information regarding risk assessment processes can be found here: www.epa.gov/oswer/riskassessment. 8.16. Capacity for Long- term Maintenance of Engineering and Institutional Controls The use of institutional and engineering controls can be an effective method for eliminating direct contact exposure. Where there is concern about an LEA’s capacity and ability to manage sites with institutional and engineering controls (see Sections 7.2.6 and 7.3.6, under “Local capacity to manage institutional and engineering controls”), LEAs are encouraged to enroll prospective sites in their state or tribal voluntary cleanup/ brownfields response program to ensure oversight of assessment and cleanup efforts and to identify a process for an LEA, working with their regulatory partners, to oversee continued safe site management. If an institutional or an engineering control is necessary to eliminate direct contact exposure, the LEA should adequately budget for periodic inspections, maintenance and repair/replacement of the controls. An institutional control, in the form of a notice to the property deed, can specify certain actions to be completed by the property owner and will identify the various reporting requirements to document that the engineering control remains intact. This “deed notice” typically: Informs the owner (and future owners) of the property to maintain the engineering controls and to notify the regulatory agency prior to any alterations, improvements or disturbances in the area (i.e., the restricted area); Sets forth the schedule to conduct periodic inspections of the area; and Specifies any particular certification requirements that the engineering control remains intact. Long-term stewardship resources: www.epa.gov/schools/siting/resources.html#LINKS_longterm_stewardship. Additional information regarding cleanup programs and standards can be found here: www.epa.gov/oswer/cleanup/index and www.epa.gov/oswer/cleanup/programs. Additional information regarding risk assessment processes can be found here: www.epa.gov/oswer/riskassessment. Frequent Questions | 129 School Siting Guidelines 9. Frequent Questions ConPubtelic Innvts - o lvement Hinow do th (see Svolvecemeen t igunid thelein secsh aoolddr siets itins c ommuprocess?n ty ion 9.1) gExis - ting Schools - Dpro thevioue gsu sideitinling edes acisppiolyn rs?e tr(soaeec Stivecetliyo to n 9.2) Dano thd ree gnovuiadtionelines of a edxisdrtinessg t shce rhooletens? t ion - (see Section 9.3) Wpolilllu EtionPA S gcehnoeolra Stinitign fga Gciluitieideslin freoms prool bebuilt near existing sch s? evienngt - (see Section 9.4) Wnowhat can I do curre fntrom scheonov to protect my child right lir? o(nseme Senectatli honaz 9a.r5ds) at their Env - ironmental Hazards Smahoujorldn pol’t sluctionhool gse bneibse bu - poss le? ( ee Section ra 9tiilnt as far a.6)g sourcews aays from Isn't an uncontaminated site alw - b(seee Sst locecattionion 9 f.or7) a new school? ays the Creasnid suchalool sosil b oer g safely built on sites with - contamination? (roseue Sndec wtiaotne r 9.8) Ifonr a cas secsh woohler ree tliehse b on eesngt avinaieleable location einxpstituosutirones,a hl control and/or ths ringow can toe c pormevmuentn pityote wnotiarkl with the LEA and other responsible entities to ensure that those controls are effective for the life of the school? (see Section 9.9) - What cleanup or remediation of contamination at a school site should be completed before the school is occupied? (see Section 9.10) - To what cleanup standard should school sites be remediated? (see Section 9.11) Distances for Evaluating Environmental Hazards - Does EPA recommend buffer or exclusion zones (also sometimes called distance criteria or separation distances) to make sure schools aren't built close to major sources of pollution? (see Section 9.12) - What is the difference between “screening perimeters,” which are included in the guidelines, and “buffer” or “exclusion” zones? (see Section 9.13) States and Tribes - The School Siting Guidelines place a lot of emphasis on state and tribal involvement in evaluating and approving siting decisions where environmental contamination is present. At a time of shrinking state and tribal budgets, how are states and tribes to meet the anticipated demand for more involvement? (see Section 9.14) Other Child-Occupied Facilities - Do the guidelines apply to child care centers or other facilities where children spend time? (see Section 9.15) 9.1. How do the guidelines address community involvement in the school siting process? The guidelines emphasize the importance of meaningful public involvement (see Section 3) 130 | Frequent Questions School Siting Guidelines thgurideoulgihout the school siting process. The s(LchEAool)nes recommend that at the beginning of the siting process, the local education agency (see Section 10) should create a public involvement plan and formalize the role of the public, including reviewing potential locations, environmental reports, cleanup plans and long-term stewardship plans. EPA recommends forming a school siting committee (SSC) (see Section 3.3) that includes representatives from the community to make recommendations to the LEA throughout the siting process. 9.2. Do the guidelines apply retroactively to previous siting decisions? No. The School Siting Guidelines are not designed for retroactive application to existing school locations or previous school siting decisions, but rather to inform and improve future school siting decision-making processes. However, irrespective of these guidelines, EPA recommends that districts periodically inspect existing schools for potential environmental health and safety risks. These inspections should use tools designed for that purpose, such as EPA's Healthy School Environments Assessment Tool (HealthySEAT; www.epa.gov/schools/healthyseat/) or the NIOSH Safety Checklist Program for Schools. (www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2004-101/) Where deficiencies are found, EPA recommends steps to reduce student and staff exposure to potential hazards be identified and implemented, to the maximum extent practical (see Section 9.5). 9.3. Do the guidelines address the retention and renovation of existing schools? Yes. The siting decision often starts with evaluating existing schools and their suitability to be updated to meet the future needs of the LEA. The guidelines recommend that communities consider renovation, repair and/or expansion options (see Section 4.2.2) before deciding to build a new school. Many existing schools can be restrofitted with new technoleuognvefiurol lnmife, possibly at a lower cieosst a to end wxpaithnd ftheweeirr iRmepnoacvta otin oentpaeln s imppaaccet)s (e.g., energy savings, less can provideng aexisn itmpinge ntuesigthhabn onerhwood s conschtru for communityoolc ftiaocn.il ities rpervoitapelrizty vaatiolnue, hsa, vee an impact on neighb oring irbyr cepomlacmueabnliety c mommuencmboeruras ange idnv preesstermvee nt in schools nity assets. EinPsAp recetc eommxistiennegds sc that districts periodically innsvpieroctnionmesn sthal houeld ualthoolh ans fdo sr apfoteetyns ig rtiaisksl e tools des ned f . Tohr these purpose, such as E at wEnwvwiro.epnma.egnovts A/scssePssmA's Henehools/hetalt Tohoyl S (Hcheoolalthyseat/a)l ort hySEAT; ( NwIOwSwH.c Sdacfe.gtyov C/nheiockshlis/dt Pocrs/2ogra0m f04-o1r0 S1c/ho tholes rdeefduicciencies are found, EPA recommend)s. W sthe pers te o hmaazaximurde ss tubed iedent antind staff exposum extent fpieradc atincdal imp(seele Smere to ntepdot, to thentiael 9.4. Will EPA’s Schoo ec l t i S on i 9 ti .5 n ) g . Guidelines prevent pollution generating facilities from being buil ut sen dea lLeanvedl, subjeeccisr ioenxs ariseti gneng schools? other land uts to e ptholice lieocs.a Wl juerrisallydic mtionade at the local industries, commercial opheilraetion mans ay ty’sp zeons oinf g and ttroa sntsapteo,r ttaritiobaln a indnfr/aos d oj r ftruecture pr ec ntsderal environm aernte saul objer ct othHowere rveegr,u thlaetio r ns, the requirements vaguidelines can beceomm usede bnyda ptilanonnsi inng th anedsrey . environmental a permitting issuesg teo thnciees ienxt leanndt a upspel aicndabl e. EcommuPA recnommitiese envdsalu thateat s sitatintegsp s a d r , trnd pibeesr amittinoces es that i ng ideof enntifviireond inme Enxhtanlf pluolenluctioe wnh (esreee p sotouernctiae cla steougorcreies ibit 6) may be allowed to locate s Frequent Questions | 131 School Siting Guidelines wdeithcis rionesps aecrt eto s h chools. While these land use sccommuope onf thitieese giguhidlyel ciomnesp, sletx aatesnd , trbibeyeons ad thnd e pwolhilcuhta nnewts a ns should sereaerbyd i sonu sre site u ckes to o fa pvoid sotentiaitulach close proximitylytio hnasr inmf to ul sch sool 9 th . e 5. c hsool tha oct thcuepya mantsy. pose a potential hazard to What can I do to protect my child right now from environmental hazards at their cTphuerre arrene mt scanhool? rersomouoterce hs (esaelthyy steps the be slochwool) fo eat parents can take to help programs th rn pvairreonntmes in ants .nu EPmAb hear os f chommuealth inni ontieesa tat a of thkree a dectiosignn toed ptorot he most importaeeclpt c shchools and where children learn. EPA also ennct pourlilacdrese—n’s cpoarmenmtusn tioty p parlantnenrer with schools and locagal es bmorikineg a rcoutivtee tsr saanfsepr fso tortar co make school walking andtiohildren. This encourages E in P f A ew Sc e h r ool vehicles on the rona cdh. oices which results padrovides lin —The Web portal schdoolresss,i fngrom sek nvWs to Eierob PnmPortAe antanlda otl hehaelrt hp irograms chemical man aagire pmeollnut,tion pes atincd aidessbsessutoses t in o cwonwswe.revpaati.gonov a/nscd morhoolse. . Visit: , water Healthy School Environments Assessment Tool (toolofHeal to hthyeSlpE sAcTh)ool—H disealttrhicytsSE aAsT is a fr their environmental health asensd ss aanfd maee sonftawgaer alle V R is ed it: u c w e w en w g .ep in a. e i gov/schools/h ety r isks. dling around s ealt ch h o y o s ls e , at cl . ean up obulds sesc ahoreo al b su em ases Howisesvioenr, s poolulrfuectione w anyd f reduce other diesel s ina fr toohm olre c choildmdremre diunn teo gitsey—et Sto schoolchool l vehicles ha.s health implications for everyone, especially children. The goals of the Clean School Bus USA Campaign are to rcdieresateedl exh bya duiset asenl sd theduec ae cmhouildrnt oenf' as eirxp polosluurchool buses. Schools cantioe to n eanncdou ovreargall ue these r educ alsoon camtiopnu ofs. p ersonal vehicle idling Femisor tipsvsion onisit: wwsw a how to.erpoungd s rov/cea. c hduoolces e anngd inine idling and diesel whatyoucando. leanschoolb thuse/ c ommunity, Pimpanrotd poerrctaott inentc to cdtinoorgh i ailndridoor quenr’ aas hlirite qya ulathatl sitych aoolt scsh—ooImls ipros ving oupoltdoolutanr ltse cvealns .b Seou twrco toes of fiv peo time. Indoor levels of air in schools ran or insdoo higrh aeirr th quaanl ity saygsentetmss. M toan fuy ofmgee from ina ths fer omnation pedsetiqcuideates a vnedntil claetionanin g impproglerammsentin ’s schools are voluntary , m prevent i,n wIdond osg o i or t ofndoo wrh aicihr q aurea blityas maed onnage Pr EPmeA’sn t hichlowog- raandm no-corost a hi Are ilqrpu Qsa sulcityahliool ptyr Tobs ideoollesmsn ftifor uy Ss, rcheoosollsv e and measures. ing mostly Finordoo EPrA a'irs g quidance on preventing and resolving U w s w e i w n .e t p eg a. r govua/liaityq /psrcobhoollemss. in schools, visit provides —IPM pefefseticctividee p saeasftet ed aman pdnes uagst muemealalynn late.g Vsemsis cit:osen tlwt (yw opIPwM.etio)pna.gos fovr/ Eec /—hns s ipm/. nou Consuming Enisldurgreenh d f’lsriu hidsneak ilonnthg a w t t c daa uring tha hil andrde ilweyr quat b ality n r eras iiss is a h imporeceive safeealt drhinyta cnht foiocre . abt thecaueisre t schhatools and child care centers isk imingp orwatatenrt adare ty, ahnerd the. Secy’s a wreh lerikee clyh to ildren spend part of their on EPA’s webhsoitoels i anndfor cmahildrd cinarek w ceantter while thtion about leearsd c inan findey dcorinsnkeirvng water, source water protection, water managemateionn,t p crroacstics-ceons to atamissnisat stionch, aoolnds a othnd cerh biled st care centers in providing safe drinking water to 132 | Frequent Questions School Siting Guidelines students and staff. Visit: www.epa.gov/safewater/ schools/. Manage chemicals safely—From elementary school maintenance closets to high school chemistry labs, schools use a variety of chemicals. When they are mismanaged, these chemicals can put students and school personnel at risk from spills, fires and other accidental exposures. EPA’s school chemical cleanout campaign website gives K-12 schools information and tools to responsibly manage chemicals. Visit www.epa.gov/schools/ programs (click on Schools Chemical Cleanout Campaign). Protect students and staff from the sun—Too much sun can lead to heat stress and unhealthy exposure to UV radiation. EPA’s SunWise program provides information and materials to schools, educators and parents to help them prevent cancer and blindness caused by UV exposure. Visit: www.epa.gov/sunwise/. Check the Air Quality Index—Children are one of the sensitive groups at risk for health effects from air pollution, in part because their lungs are still developing. The Air Quality Index (AQI) (www.airnow.gov) lets you know when air quality in your area is unhealthy and how you, your family and your community can protect your health. The AQI uses a color-coded scale and maps to provide daily air quality information. The AQI is available at www.airnow.gov and it is reported in many local newspapers and on television and radio stations. For tips on how you can reduce air pollution in and around your community, visit: www.airnow.gov/index.cfm?action=jump.jump_youcando. To teach students about air quality, use EPA’s toolkit: www.airnow.gov/index.cfm? action=learning.workshop_for_teachers. Create Safe Routes to Schools—The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Safe Routes to School program encourages schools and communities to improve infrastructures and eto sduacfaetionly baikl pe orrograms to encourage morehttp://safety.fhw waa.dot.lk to agovn/d safrfomerou sctehsool/. . cVhisilit:dr en Examples of EPA-funded projects in commun (CCommuARE) gniratyit Aiecstio: nt prognra for a Renewed Environment incompnoveatitivtive ew garya a A’ fnt promg—r EmP ths Cor a communat ofARfeEr iss a an take action to reduce ity to organize and aenv pairrotnnmersehntip. T thharot impug htoxic CAR pEol, alu ctionomm in its local releases of toxic pollutalenmtse anntsd m solinutionuniimizse to ty creates exposur peropedulec'se cEommuPA’s Cnei toty theffeom.A rts thTo lRE program,ate aarrn visit:e b moreineg a sbuouppt www.epa.goorvt/ed by communitybyregion. care/ sCuommupportsn aityir- tBoxicased As priroj Teoxiccts isn P arcommunities across the nation tbojo houect 3ts—0 EPA empow elp inform and (chonttpcer er citizens to ma:/n/yinosg themie htee.eapltha.g ofk the leocir calomm decisuionnities me e s s ?Op ov s. Ma n k t.n f/Welcome en /Foaorrm/)C ommunityAssess pc — y isonart to Doing our eagseys imtiimpplre coveh aoiirc esq. Ionnco arprouorand stingcuh oality th aen ooln even as an rd d ioarnedduce t few o yfou thre croaffic steps offered here can help clean the air s aimmmuple nity reduc nd . 9. ita 6. lla ddse truafpf.icgov co/nrgeesstion. For ea Shouldn ou ’t r s ce c s/ h w o hasy tip ls n_si_, v e b do.isiat: www o t_ca b u sp ilt . as far away from major pollution gWenhener accaetpintabgle s aloteurnractivese s aitess p exisost wsibithle?in th etnhee gighubiodrelhiood(nes rsec) boeminmgen sedr tved by the ne seek to avoid sites that are ehithate trh oe Ln oErA i wand sc ShSCool , pwrithoximity to land us n close schools during thes eth inaitit maal syc nreote bn ofe c coampndidaatibtlee sites. These include locations that have onsite contamination that has not been addressed, major Frequent Questions | 133 School Siting Guidelines pollution sources, clusters of industrial facilities or other potential hazards (see Siting Criteria, Exhibit 6: Screening Potential Environmental, Public Health and Safety Hazards). If no acceptable alternative sites exist, it is critically important for the LEA and SSC to fully explain the absence of alternatives in a transparent manner and fully engage the public in identifying and implementing both site-specific and community-wide exposure and risk reduction strategies. High traffic roads can be a major pollution source that require careful consideration and evaluation by the LEA and SSC because these sources are common and there is typically a direct relationship between the transportation system and the accessibility of the school for staff and students. The guidelines recommend that when practicable, a chosen school site should be as far from high traffic roads as feasible. High traffic roads may include highways, local roads experiencing heavy congestion, local roads with significant stop and go activities, and roads with large numbers of trucks. Since high traffic roads are very common, especially in urban areas, it may be difficult to find locations away from these roads yet still be located within the community being served by the new school. Under these circumstances, the LEA and the SSC should consider a number of factors in making the best choice for student health, safety and accessibility. These factors can include: 1) if the school site and design provide an opportunity to place classrooms, playgrounds, athletic fields and air intakes as far from the road as possible; 2) whether barriers (e.g., noise barriers, nonsensitive buildings) or natural features (e.g., vegetation, berms) are or can be located between the school and road to reduce air quality impacts; and 3) whether certain sites allow students to walk/bike to school compared with alternatives that require bus and personal vehicle travel. Because of all of these factors and the difficulty in comprehensively assessing the advantages and disadvantages of particular sites under these conditions, an environmental professional should be consulted to provide assistance. More information is provided in the Quick Guide for Environmental Issues (see Section 8). 9.7. Isn't an uncontaminated site always the best location for a new school? The best school location will be one that provides a healthy and safe learning environment for children, while also meeting a diverse array of other community goals. For example, integrating community centered schools into existing residential neighborhoods often allows for better environmental, community, economic, educational and public health outcomes. The voluntary School Siting Guidelines are intended to help communities appropriately consider environmental health and safety in the context of this complex decision-making process. Of course, if uncontaminated structures or sites are readily available in the community the school is intended to serve, and meet the community’s other important educational, economic and community criteria, selecting an uncontaminated location would be the ideal choice. However, such locations are rare in many urban communities, and often the LEA is faced with choosing among locations that have some level of contamination from prior uses or are close to potential sources of contamination. Building schools on the undeveloped outer edges of communities—often called greenfields—creates other problems such as increased transportation risks, longer transportation times and increased traffic-related air pollution, while reducing opportunities for students, parents and staff to walk or bike to school in their community. 134 | Frequent Questions School Siting Guidelines 9.8. Can schools be safely built on sites with residual soil or ground water contamination? Schools can be safely located on sites where all waste and contaminated media have been removed, as well as those with residual contamination, provided that the location is carefully managed over time to ensure that no exposure to the contamination can occur. In cases where complete removal of contamination is not feasible, exposures can be prevented through the use of engineering controls and/or institutional controls (see Section 8.15). For example, vapor intrusion from soil or ground water contaminated with certain chemicals can pose a risk to the people who use buildings that are located above the contamination. Engineering controls can be used to alter the flow of contaminated air or restrict land use in a specific area so that contaminated air does not enter the building’s indoor air. The use of engineering and institutional controls can prevent exposures, but only if effective systems are in place to maintain and enforce them, such as periodic monitoring to ensure their continued protectiveness and safe operation. Nationwide, brownfields and other formerly contaminated lands, including those with residual contamination, now safely support housing, schools, clinics, hospitals and other reuses that meet community needs. Criteria for establishing the degree of cleanup needed should be based on state or tribal cleanup rules or guidance, where they exist. The environmental standards used for determining the appropriate level of cleanup should be based on either 1) standards developed for schools or residential use, or 2) risk-based levels set for residential use. If the site will have residual contamination at concentrations above these levels after the cleanup has been completed, engineering and/or institutional controls will be needed to ensure no exposure occurs (see Section 8.15). As part of their review of the cleanup plan, state, tribal and local regulatory agencies should consider the ability of the LEA and other governmental bodies to effectively maintain those controls. In the event that there is concern that these controls cannot be effectively and reliably managed, then the LEA may need to clean the site to residential levels, or select another location. 9.9. In cases where the best available location for a school relies on engineering and/or institutional controls to prevent potential exposures, how can the community work with the LEA and other responsible entities to ensure that those controls are effective for the life of the school? Communities have an important role to play in ensuring that engineering and institutional controls remain in place and are effective in preventing potential exposures (see Section 8.15). Through the community involvement and planning process, the community can become familiar with the nature of residual contamination, engineering and institutional controls and any restrictions on how the land can be used. They can assist LEAs and help them meet their obligations by reporting actions in conflict with those land use restrictions to LEA management and state environmental regulatory authorities. The LEA and the SSC can also continue to play a role in updating the community about inspection, monitoring and maintenance over time, with the assistance of state technical oversight, as appropriate. 9.10. What cleanup or remediation of contamination at a school site should be completed before the school is occupied? Before a school or portion of a school is occupied, all contamination that could pose a risk of harmful exposure to students and staff should be removed Frequent Questions | 135 School Siting Guidelines or controlled. In cases where there is residual contamination, any necessary engineering and institutional controls should be in place and the site certified by the state or tribal regulatory agency as suitable for occupancy (see Section 8.15). For example, occupation of a school above a ground water plume that is undergoing remediation to clean the ground water should not pose a threat to students, faculty, staff or others unless there is a threat of vapor intrusion from the ground water. If the contaminated ground water poses a threat of vapor intrusion, any institutional or engineering controls should be in place at least for any portion of the school where there is a potential for exposure. 9.11. To what cleanup standard should school sites be remediated? Criteria for establishing the degree of cleanup needed should be based on state or tribal cleanup rules or guidance, where they exist. The environmental standards used for determining the appropriate level of cleanup should be based on either 1) standards developed for schools or residential use, or 2) risk-based levels set for residential use. If the site will have residual contamination at concentrations above these levels after the cleanup has been completed, engineering and/or institutional controls will be needed to ensure no exposure occurs (see Section 8.15). As part of their review of the cleanup plan, state, tribal and local regulatory agencies should consider the ability of the LEA and other governmental bodies to effectively maintain those controls. In the event that there is concern that these controls cannot be effectively and reliably managed, then the LEA may need to clean the site to residential levels, or select another location. 9.12. Does EPA recommend buffer or exclusion zones (also sometimes called distance criteria or separation distances) to make sure schools aren't built close to major sources of pollution? No, the guidelines do not include distance-based buffer or exclusion zones for potential school locations. EPA’s approach to the School Siting Guidelines is to encourage and promote an integrated and holistic evaluation of a wide range of community and location-specific criteria in selecting the best location for a new school. The distance between a school location and a major source of pollution is only one of many complex factors that influence whether that source poses risks of concern to students and staff (see Exhibit 5). These factors can only be effectively evaluated on a case- and location-specific basis and require consideration of the extent to which a specific source raises a concern for a potential school location, as well as the degree to which any risk can be reduced or eliminated. Some states and local governments have developed distance-based requirements or guidance for schools and other locations that may have sensitive receptors, and while EPA does not believe that establishment of buffer or exclusion zones at a national level is appropriate, this should not be construed as a criticism of those jurisdictions that have adopted or are applying buffer or exclusion zones as a useful tool.70 70 Examples include: “Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective,” California Environmental Protection Agency, California Air Resources Board (April 2005). Available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf; Rhode Island Department of Elementary and Secondary Education School Construction Regulations. (May 24, 2007). Available at: www.ride.ri.gov/regents/Docs/RegentsRegulations/Regents%20Schoo l%20Constructions%20Regulations.pdf. California Department of Education, “School Site Selection and Approval Guide,” Prepared by School Facilities Planning Division. Last modified March 10, 2011. Available at: www.cde.ca.gov/ls/fa/sf/schoolsiteguide.asp; Links to additional state and local regulations and guidance are available in the Resource section of the guidelines website. (www.epa.gov/schools/siting/resources) 136 | Frequent Questions School Siting Guidelines EcPiteA briaelievurnintend ise likes tha to t ed ceolynseqrsta lishueesubnclt iesni an vg national dis. For aerxieatym ofple n, uegtaativncee nlocationationals dis thatat ancere crit se of they serv , withou e ft cartherareia aerfu aws thaye f bromasis th foer c sheillecting location-specific factors, coul conld csidreeartaetio lesns o hfe dren eincnvrieraosnemd tenratsns forpo srttuatdioenn ts and staff througha lthy risks, reducediopncproeartusedniti treasf fficor-r welaaltekind ag airn d bik pollutioning a. nd EasPsAe rssemecomments ofn bdsoth th aont sdtsounhazar s be under aken t iteo d ad tend nchenaicral such potential hazards mig etermine bwy phetoteherntia l sshtuoudeld bntse or e sxcclhuoolded f starom fff (sehe Et pxhosibe ait 6 th).r Leaoct to ations thneaat crbayn ornot b onseite el himinazards puosrthe uerated or redun caonccsideecde to aptarbaltione ris kifs 9 ac . c 1 ep 3 t . ab W le level. n hat is the difference between "screening perimeters," which are included in the guidelines, and "buffer" or "EPex hcalsus i io recAommenncdalu n" z tided soo ons inmne the d s? e Eisntanvircoe-based screeniCriteria Considerations sectio nmental Siting ng gEunivdielroinnmesen untalder an Edx Shafibetit 6y H: Sazcnreen of thinegs Peo tential a4p).p Trhoe xismacreente diisngta pnerceism fetoer arr u dsei isntandsc (esse ea Sree ction spcrroeceenss,ing a pn roencveisrso.n Dmu the initial Section 10), the LEA (enringtal p thrissee Secto iofiennsi 1stiiaoln screening should identify 0) aaln d(s tee he SSC lwocithatiinon th aisn ddis deta all ptnce ootfen a tpiralos hpazecatrivdse t shcahto aolr e thevealu guaitdioenli.n Tehs e arsecrminee breenasein thg dosiest thanact ens ienedclu fudrether state or local rules, lawd ps, orridmainarilncye osn, p eoxislictiiendg i n gthuuidmban.c Pe anotedn artiae illyn itmenpdoedrta nast s goenurecral rules osf or es that may be outside the recommended screening pevearilmuaettierons. m ay also be appropriate for further Sofc threeeni acngtu dali pstoteancnetias, al floorne e, mlevaayte nor f om th d et be posredictivisks r at s xp ures an ed fsrigom anific saount.r Tceo de couould brcee. E nxponosexisurtee to cnt, oonr ctaouminld bante s pexpartos ofure, an assetermine the potential for proces ths. Ien s cconhooltra sssitinmegn st scrheouenlid bng ae performed as are based on a presst,u bmpuftionfer or th eaxct thlusniond e zvaonlueation potential for significant exposures ferrom ae is a s houigs hl a r oc ted within th ce thee approp ar gulatory p riarogte rsatat zteon rees. pLoEnsAse s ohr tould work with within the screeninm ing p aersimseessteinr gto de schrioolbal locations lfocacilationities de poscise a risk sufficient to inf tions or require alter lueenrmice sneitin if g pseotelecntiontial. r Iisn thk to se evtuedent nthtsa, st ata ffafc, pilaityna ptivosee ssite a thase resolution of any unacceptabler reisntsk or others, b 9 esforoceia thteed w deithcis thiona to st facility should be addressed .14. The School ite S a s iti ch n ool g . Guidelines place a lot of emphasis on state and tribal involvement in evaluating and approving siting decisions where environmental contamination is present. At a time of shrinking state and tribal budgets, how are states and tribes to meet the anticipated demand for more inAvolv en rEP recog em ecommenndiedzes thatt? el ements of the bothe beery poanrd thticipe c eunrvriernotn cmaenpatcaityl r ofev siewom per LoEcesants in the process to fully Ass a mand y impresoluemrceesn t w(seithe S eecxtionistin 5g) a. uAtlhl sortaititee as,n edxp moserttis tre anibadl environmental regulatory agencies have programs Frequent Questions | 137 School Siting Guidelines in place to evaluate and approve cleanup plans for specific types of sites or projects (see Section 7). EPA encourages LEAs, states, tribes, communities and other interested organizations to work collaboratively and with EPA to identify opportunities to leverage these and other existing resources as well as to identify and work toward fulfilling needs for improving local and state capacity to conduct as rigorous a process of site evaluation as possible. EPA recommends that LEAs work directly with the state and tribal environmental response program regarding the needed evaluation and approval of cleanup plans. EPA also recommends that LEAs seek advice from state and tribal environmental response programs to ensure that long-term stewardship responsibilities are effectively met. The Resources page of the guidelines website contains potentially helpful funding and capacity building resources. (www.epa.gov/schools/siting/resources.html#LINKS_Technical_Assistance) 9.15. Do the guidelines apply to child care centers or other facilities where children spend time? While the guidelines are primarily intended to be used by LEAs in evaluating and selecting locations for K-12 schools, EPA believes that the recommendations in the guidelines represent a set of best practices that may inform and improve the evaluation and selection of locations for a wide range of settings where children spend time. However, EPA recognizes that there are many differences across the types of child-occupied facilities. For example most K-12 schools generally have a clearly identifiable central authority and significant (though not necessarily plentiful) resources, while many child care centers are small businesses with extremely limited resources and subject primarily to state licensing authorities. Nevertheless, the siting criteria considerations (see Section 4), environmental review process (see Section 5) and public involvement (see Section 3) practices recommended within the School Siting Guidelines may be applied, with appropriate adaptation, to a wide range of school-related institutions. 138 | Frequent Questions School Siting Guidelines This page left intentionally blank. Glossary | 139 School Siting Guidelines 10. Glossary Terms not defined herein should have their ordinary meaning within the context of their use. Ordinary meaning is as defined in, for example: “Webster's Collegiate Dictionary,” see the online version at www.m-w.com/. A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z All Appropriate Inquiries: The process of evaluating a property’s environmental conditions and assessing potential liability for any contamination. See All Appropriate Inquiries Standard 40 CFR Part 312 (http://ecfr.gpoaccess. gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=c712de4f bdbfd669e790daa37865a02e&rgn=div5&view=text&node=40:27.0.1.1.9&idno=40), EPA Fact Sheet: All Appropriate Inquiries Rule: Definition Of Environmental Professional (www.epa.gov/ brownfields/aai/ep_deffactsheet.pdf), and ASTM E1527-05 Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. (www.astm.org/Standards /E1527) Brownfield: A property, the expansion, redevelopment or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant or contaminant. Capacity: The institutional, organizational, technical and financial ability to address issues. Used in the context of these guidelines as the capacity of education agencies or local governments to have the organization, staff, technical and financial resources to safely operate school facility risk reduction measures such as lead encapsulation and to inspect, maintain and ensure long-term stewardship of any institutional or engineering controls designed to protect people from residual site contamination following a cleanup (see Section 8.15). CERCLA: The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act—otherwise known as CERCLA or Superfund—provides a federal “Superfund” to clean up uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites as well as accidents, spills and other emergency releases of pollutants and contaminants into the environment. Through CERCLA, EPA was given power to seek out those parties responsible for any release and ensure their cooperation in the cleanup. Comprehensive environmental review: A stage in the environmental review process (see Section 5) that involves gathering and analyzing data on environmental hazards and impacts identified in the initial or preliminary environmental review (see Section 5.6) and evaluating the risks posed to children’s health, public health and the environment based on the contamination or impacts found. The comprehensive environmental review (see Section 5.7) also includes developing preliminary plans and cost estimates for mitigation/remediation measures. Concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) or animal feeding operations (AFOs): Agricultural operations where animals are kept and raised in confined situations. AFOs generally congregate animals, feed, manure, dead animals and production operations on a small land area. Feed is brought to the animals rather than the animals grazing or otherwise seeking feed in pastures. Animal waste and wastewater can enter water bodies from spills or breaks of waste storage structures (due to accidents or excessive rain) and from nonagricultural application of 140 | Glossary School Siting Guidelines manure to crop land. An AFO is a lot or facility (other than an aquatic animal production facility) where the following conditions are met: Animals have been, are or will be stabled or confined and fed or maintained for a total of 45 days or more in any 12-month period; and Crops, vegetation, forage growth or post-harvest residues are not sustained in the normal growing season over any portion of the lot or facility. AFOs that meet the regulatory definition of a CAFO may be regulated under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting program. For Regulatory Definitions of Large CAFOs, Medium CAFOs, and Small CAFOs, see: www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/sector_table.pdf. Criteria pollutants: The Clean Air Act requires EPA to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards for six common air pollutants. These common air pollutants are found all over the United States. They are particle pollution (often referred to as particulate matter), ground-level ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides and lead. These pollutants can harm human health and the environment, and cause property damage. Of the six pollutants, particle pollution and ground-level ozone are the most widespread health threats. EPA calls these pollutants “criteria” air pollutants because it regulates them by developing human health-based and/or environmentally-based criteria (science-based guidelines) for setting permissible levels. The set of limits based on human health is called primary standards. Another set of limits intended to prevent environmental and property damage is called secondary standards. Engineering controls: For purposes of this guidance, the engineered physical barriers or structures designed to control or limit exposure to residual onsite contamination. Engineering controls are distinct from institutional controls. Certain engineered cleanups routinely involve ongoing operation and maintenance (O&M), monitoring, reporting and evaluation. Environmental justice: For the purposes of this guidance, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people, regardless of race, color, national origin or income with respect to the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies. Environmental professional: The qualifications of an environmental professional needed to conduct Environmental Site Assessments are defined in ASTM International Standard E1527-05. (www.astm.org/Standards/E1527) Also see EPA Fact Sheet: All Appropriate Inquiries Rule: Definition Of Environmental Professional. (www.epa.gov/brownfields/aai/ ep_deffactsheet.pdf) Environmental review process: A series of steps taken to determine whether a project will be impacted by potential hazards. In the case of school siting, the environmental review evaluates potential environmental hazards and exposures to children, staff and visitors before a decision is made to site a school in a particular location. Further action: Denotes step(s) during the environmental review process that trigger additional review, evaluation, remediation, referral or other appropriate activity. Greenfields: Locations, typically outside of cities, that have not previously been developed. Green schools: See term healthy high performance schools in the glossary. HAPs: Toxic air pollutants, also known as hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), are those pollutants that are known or suspected to cause cancer or other serious health effects, such as reproductive effects or birth defects, or adverse environmental effects. Health impact assessment (HIA): Most often defined as “a combination of procedures, methods and tools by which a policy, program or project may be judged as to its potential effects on the health of a population, and the distribution of those effects within the population” (World Health Organization, 1999). This broad definition from Glossary | 141 School Siting Guidelines the World Health Organization European Center for Health Policy, as presented in the Gothenburg Consensus paper on HIA, (www.euro.who.int/ document/pae/gothenburgpaper.pdf) reflects the many variants of HIA. A somewhat more precise definition is that HIA is “a multidisciplinary process within which a range of evidence about the health effects of a proposal is considered in a structured framework.” Healthy high performance schools: Facilities that integrate all aspects of the design process starting with selection of the design team and the school location to design schools that meet multiple educational, environmental and community goals. The environmental goals of such facilities include energy and water efficiency, healthy indoor air, safer materials selection (including life-cycle cost consideration) and reduced environmental impact from the school. The technologies and practices used to achieve these goals are often integrated into the curriculum and other student learning opportunities. High traffic roads: May include highways, local roads experiencing heavy congestion, local roads with significant stop-and-go activities and roads with large numbers of trucks. Institutional controls: Nonengineered instruments, such as administrative and/or legal controls, that help to minimize the potential for human exposure to contamination and/or protect the integrity of a remedy. See: EPA Citizen’s Guide to Understanding Institutional Controls (www. epa.gov/fedfac/pdf/ic_ctzns_guide.pdf) and All Appropriate Inquiries Standard 40 CFR Part 312. (http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40cfr312_main_02.tpl) Joint use: The use of school district controlled, owned or utilized facilities by a nondistrict entity or the use of nonschool owned property, such as a library or park or athletic facility, by a school. There are five types of entities that constitute joint users: Individuals: Persons, generally residents of a community, who have access to exterior spaces, such as play equipment, athletic fields or courts, and open space for personal use. Civic Groups: Individuals, groups or organizations who seek occasional use of school buildings and grounds for activities or events such as polling stations, community meetings and special events. Other Public Agencies: A public agency that is not part of the school district that may offer programs, need to lease space and offer no program connection to the school and/or may seek joint development with ongoing joint programming. Private Nonprofit Organizations: The use of school buildings and/or grounds by a nonprofit organization such as after-school programs, health clinics or adult education classes. Private For-Profit Corporations: The use of school building and/or grounds by a private for-profit corporation, either for education-related work like a private testing service or unrelated work like private offices. Joint use agreement (JUA): A formal agreement between two separate government entities, often a school and a city or county, setting forth the terms and conditions for shared use of public property or facilities. See: www.nplanonline. org/nplan/joint-use. Local education agency (LEA): Any entity, whether public or private, including its staff and its governing or voting body (e.g., a school board or a tribal board) with responsibility for decision-making with respect to school buildings and operations. Local community: General term referring to all members of a local area with an interest in school environmental health and safety issues, including but not limited to local governments, local education agencies (see term local education agency in the glossary), nongovernmental organizations and individuals. 142 | Glossary School Siting Guidelines Location-specific remediation/mitigation: Appropriate response measures, as prescribed in a remedial action workplan, that are tailored to the particular characteristics of the location in question. Long-range school facilities plan: A way for local education agencies (LEAs) to identify important projections of long-term school and community needs such as student enrollment, operational costs and infrastructure to use in making school siting decisions. Long-term stewardship: Long-term management of contaminated environmental media to protect human health and the environment, generally through the use of engineering or institutional controls (see Section 8.15). LTSP: Long-term stewardship plan. Meaningful public involvement: Fully engaging stakeholder groups throughout the review and decision-making process, including opportunities to share opinions and review relevant documents. Nearby hazard: A potential risk or hazard located outside of the site property boundary. Determining what is nearby depends on many factors and will vary with type of potential hazard. See Exhibit 5: Factors Influencing Risks from Nearby Hazards and Exhibit 6: Screening Potential Environmental, Public Health and Safety for more information. O&M: Operation and maintenance. One call system: Centralized and integrated phone-based system for obtaining information from a single phone call on underground utilities or other hazards prior to digging or excavation (e.g., “Miss Utility”). PAH: Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. PCBs: Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) belong to a broad family of human-made organic chemicals known as chlorinated hydrocarbons. PCBs were domestically manufactured from 1929 until their manufacture was banned in 1979. They have a rliganhgt-ec ofolo toxredic liityqu aindds t voa yrye illon wcon ors D e istensolids. u to their nonflammabil bitylac, ck wcy fhemicaxromy thin, sinstabuillaityting, h igproh boiling point and ele al of industrial anpdert commies, PeCrBcsia wl aeprep ulicscetrdic ianl h including electrical, heat transfer anadtion hyds undreds reuqbubipemcren raulic opy pa ppreodt; ausc ptsl;a instic pizigemers in paints, plastics and applicationr;s a. nd many othenrt sin, dyduesstr aianld c arbonless Phuetnrdroleeud cm hydrocarbons or total petroleum hfrydomr corcuarbohemicns (aTPl cHomp): A large family of several in TPH ardee h oilexa. Some cheoumicndsals th thaat t maare dyer beiv fedou nd twoelullen ase, oth xyelenr pesn, en,ap jeht fthualenels, min retroleum produe anectsd a falul oilorsnd gaen, bee, asnze ne, P comp hyto on rem ents. soline environmeedntaial ptiroonb:l eDmessc (rbibioesre thmee tdriaetaitomen) nt of thnrough the use of plaeexcvairvoantem theneta col pntaromiblenmts w thitahtou mitit thgea ntee thed eto Pit elsewhere. See EPAn Caitnitz men’ates Griauidl aen to d dispose of dowhytornloaemd/ediacitiztion. (www.epa.gov Preliminary en e vir ns/ o c n it m ph en yto. ta p l df as ) /tio/ sidecrenetifnyin pgo atnedn rtial eneview stage for casessndidamente stite: Insitia to l ththae st suhitaoublildity to b ofe a c asseanvidroidnatmeenssed in desctal hoolissu sitees ,r ife alatnedy, to dlocecaitiondes to pursue the site for ustae ails i af th sceh LoolEA inPuvblolicve in . mevnotl vemin thent: See term meaningful public crReleemmaneeddiaupia mtionl eatch oftoio donns, w e glossary. lositoer ckoplantanmin: Detatioailen,d i npclanludin forg obreqliguiartioemnesnt. s and lonngg--tterermm m steaiwntaenrdsanhcipe School siting committee (SSC): Committee established to make recommendations to the Glossary | 143 School Siting Guidelines LEA’s governing body on sites for building new schools, leasing space for new schools and/or renovating or expanding existing schools. The committee includes representatives of the LEA’s governing body (such as elected school board members, facility, health and safety staff), local government or tribal staff (such as city planners, government environmental health specialist, county auditor) and representatives from stakeholder groups (such as parents of children likely to attend the new school, teachers, public health organizations, community members, environmental advocacy and environmental justice groups, age-appropriate students, local trade/building associations). Screening perimeter: Screening distances intended to identify potential land uses near candidate school locations that warrant further consideration rather than to identify land uses that may be incompatible with the location of schools. Screening distances, alone, may not be predictive of the actual potential for a source located within that distance to present an environmental or health hazard. Potential hazards associated with candidate school locations should be evaluated as part of the site screening and evaluation process. SVOC: Semi-volatile organic compound. TPH: Total petroleum hydrocarbon. Transparent: Readily accessible and understandable by all community members (e.g., decision-making criteria and procedures should be transparent). Vapor intrusion: Migration of volatile chemicals from contaminated ground water or soil into an overlying building. For more information, see the discussion on this topic in the Quick Guide to Environmental Issues, see Section 8. VOCs: Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are emitted as gases from certain solids or liquids. VOCs include a variety of chemicals, some of which may have short- and long-term adverse health effects. Concentrations of many VOCs are consistentlahrigrahye ofr) th prayn h ouigher indoors (up to 10 tioductdoots nurmbs. VeOrinCsg a inre th emitte thouemed bsy a wide sEtxramippperless, c inleaclundineg: spaiupnptstel and lacquers, psaianntds . ma iesas copriaielrs and furnishings, o,f pficesetic eqidueipsm, beunilt sdiuncgh mcaatrbeornlialsess and printers, c isn ccolupyd ipnagp gelur,e gsraorprhecictions and flu p an cidsraf at nd erma d adhesives, Zdeovneing n e a n n t d ma lan rk d e u rs ses an : d photographic solutions. loped to regulate th Zeo lniocngation codes are ddeevteelrminopmeen thte i lna an gdi uvens of a and tyer aea. Zoning can pe of such as residential, commer pciaarltic oru inladur locstraiationl. , Office of Children’s Health Protection 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW Washington, DC 20460 EPA-100-K-11-004 October 2011 www.epa.gov/schools/siting 2/16/22 , 3 :38 PM V Is It Safe to Live Near a Gas Station? Scientists Point to Numerous Health Hazards -FossilFuel.com Petroleum Is It Safe to Live Near a Gas Station? Scientists Point to Numerous Health Hazards Marshall Distel • April 20, 2020 1't 2,326 1111117 minutes read Gas Station Prevalence Gas stations have been an essential component that have helped to facilitate the widespread adoption of travel by personal vehicles. For decades, gas stations have been one of the most common elements of the American built environment. In fact, gas stations are so common across the U.S. that nearly 93 percent of all Americans live within only a few minutes of one (Ferris, 2020). As these businesses have evolved over the years, regional store chains like Sheetz, RaceTrac, and Wawa have started to compete against restaurants and coffee shops by offering a wide variety of food and beverages in addition to just simply being a place to fuel up a personal vehicle. The gas station and convenience store model has become so popular https://fossilfuel .com/is-it-safe-to-live-near-a-gas-station-scientists-point-to-numerous-health-hazards/ 1/10 2/16/22 , 3 :38 PM V Is It Safe to Live Near a Gas Station? Scientists Point to Numerous Health Hazards -FossilFuel.com automobility, an abundance of scientific research regarding environmental and health concerns shows that it may be hazardous to live near a store that sells diesel fuel or gasoline. Source: Pixabay Disconcerting Findings from Columbia University A recent study conducted by a team of environmental health scientists from Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health found that many of the nation's gas stations are leaking potentially hazardous vapors into the surrounding environment. Gas stations can have a significantly adverse impact on neighboring housing complexes, especially neighborhoods with young children. Despite the convoluted array of modern safety and health guidelines that gas stations must follow, these fossil fuel-selling businesses can emit high levels of ground-level ozone from gasoline fumes, impact groundwater systems from leaking fuel tanks, and expose nearby residents to a number of other hazards from other chemicals that might be used at a fuel station (Scientific American, 2009). Study results from Columbia University's Mailman School of Public https://fossilfuel .com/is-it-safe-to-live-near-a-gas-station-scientists-point-to-numerous-health-hazards/ 2/10 2/16/22 , 3 :38 PM V Is It Safe to Live Near a Gas Station? Scientists Point to Numerous Health Hazards -FossilFuel.com schools. The findings were published in the journal Science of the Total Environment. The researchers highlighted that toxic gasoline and diesel chemicals may have been unknowingly exposing nearby residents to harmful carcinogens for decades. By attaching gas flow meters on venting pipes held at multiple gas stations in the Midwest and the Northwest, the researchers found elevated levels of vapors containing a number of toxic chemicals like benzene, which is a known a carcinogen. Over the past few decades, the average benzene content of gasoline has been approximately one to three percent in the United States and three to five percent in European countries (Infante, 2017). Source: Pixabay Toxic Fuel Vapors Over a period of three weeks, the gas flow meters reported average daily evaporative losses of between three and seven gallons of liquid gasoline, which is equivalent to about 1.4 pounds and 1.7 pounds per 1,000 gallons of gasoline distributed from the pump (Hilpert et al, 2019). These numbers may not mean much to the average citizen, but they are truly shocking when compared to the figures that were used to determine the safe setback distances for other land uses. For example, the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association ( CAPCOA) utilized an estimate of 0.11 pounds of toxic vapor emitted https://fossilfuel .com/is-it-safe-to-live-near-a-gas-station-scientists-point-to-numerous-health-hazards/ 3/10 2/16/22 , 3 :38 PM V Is It Safe to Live Near a Gas Station? Scientists Point to Numerous Health Hazards -FossilFuel.com regulations of 300 feet from large gas stations. Since these estimates were found to be ten times lower than actual observed emissions, one would think that the setback requirements should be modified to be ten times the existing requirement. Regulations similar to California's gas station setback requirements can be found in most states and local municipalities. Although, some communities, especially in dense urban areas, do not require any specific setback regulations, which may expose countless numbers of residents to potentially toxic vapors. While gasoline vapors are known to contain harmful chemicals like benzene and volatile organic compounds, little is known about how long-term exposure to these chemicals may impact human health. Carbon monoxide, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and unburned hydrocarbons are emitted when gasoline evaporates or is burned. These contribute to air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Source: Pixabay Exposure to Chemicals https://fossilfuel .com/is-it-safe-to-live-near-a-gas-station-scientists-point-to-numerous-health-hazards/ 4/10 2/16/22 , 3 :38 PM V Is It Safe to Live Near a Gas Station? Scientists Point to Numerous Health Hazards -FossilFuel.com unburned fuel are released into the environment in the form of both liquid and vapor compounds. Workers dispensing fossil fuels and truck drivers that deliver gasoline and diesel have among the highest exposure to chemicals like benzene, ethyl-benzene, toluene, and xylenes (WHO, 2012). The World Health Organization has issued occupational warnings for workers that deliver fossil fuels to gas stations. Continuous exposure to these chemicals has been found to cause a number of cancers. The Columbia University study raises serious questions about the safety of living within close proximity of gas stations. The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has established a system known as one-hour Reference Exposure Level (REL) to evaluate the potential for benzene exposure. This system measures continuous exposure to the chemical over a period of one hour. The Columbia University researchers found the REL exposure was exceeded at both gas stations at distances greater than 50 meters away from the stations themselves. Moreover, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry's Minimal Risk Level (MRL) corresponding to a year's worth of benzene exposure was exceeded within seven meters of the gas stations that were studied ( Columbia University, 2018). However, it's important to also note that the American Industrial Hygiene Association's Emergency Response Planning Guidelines (ERPG) were not exceeded with regards to benzene exposure. Although, the ERPG uses a less stringent system to measure potentially harmful levels of benzene exposure. Post-Research Interview with Markus Hilpert In a post-research interview with Markus Hilpert, Ph.D., an associate professor of Environmental Health Sciences at the Columbia Mailman School, Hilpert said, "We found evidence that much more benzene is released by gas stations than previously thought. In addition, even https ://fossilfuel .com/is-it-safe-to-live-near-a-gas-station-scientists-point-to-numerous-health-hazards/ 5/10 2/16/22 , 3 :38 PM V Is It Safe to Live Near a Gas Station? Scientists Point to Numerous Health Hazards -FossilFuel.com He also highlighted that, "Officials should reconsider their regulations based on these data with particular attention to the possibility of short spikes in emissions resulting from regular operations or improper procedures related to fuel deliveries and the use of pollution prevention technology" ( Columbia University, 2018). Source: Pixabay The U.S. Clean Air Act The establishment of laws like the U.S. Clean Air Act have been aimed at reducing the impact that fossil fuels have on the environment and human health. Since it was first established in 1970, the Clean Air Act has primarily served as an environmental law that has reduced air pollution from vehicle tailpipe emissions. In order to meet air pollution goals, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has used the Clean Air Act to require emission control devices and cleaner burning engines, remove leaded gasoline for use in vehicles, require the use of reformulated gasoline, require the use of ultra-low sulfur gasoline, and reduce the risk of gasoline leaks from service stations. Amendments added to the Clean Air Act have had a profound impact https ://fossilfuel .com/is-it-safe-to-live-near-a-gas-station-scientists-point-to-numerous-health-hazards/ 6/10 2/16/22 , 3 :38 PM V Is It Safe to Live Near a Gas Station? Scientists Point to Numerous Health Hazards -FossilFuel.com Modern Fuel Vapor Controls Most modern gas pumps are required to have government-regulated vapor-recovery units on their nozzles in order to limit the release of toxic gasoline and diesel vapors while a car is being refueled. When a tanker truck arrives to refuel the underground storage tanks at the gas station, a similar system of government-regulated vapor- recovery units are required to be used. However, these units often fail, while vent pipe emissions from the underground storage tanks frequently lack adequate air filters, as outlined by the study conducted by Columbia University. In addition to elevated levels of benzene, direct concerns related to gasoline fumes include the presence of ground-level ozone. Ozone pollution is known to be caused by a toxic mixture of volatile organic compounds which can be found in gasoline vapors. High levels of ozone are known to cause asthma and other respiratory problems. Furthermore, the National Institutes of Health says that volatile organic compounds can lead to certain types of cancers. Source: Pixabay https://fossilfuel .com/is-it-safe-to-live-near-a-gas-station-scientists-point-to-numerous-health-hazards/ 7/10 2/16/22 , 3 :38 PM V Is It Safe to Live Near a Gas Station? Scientists Point to Numerous Health Hazards -FossilFuel.com In addition to the concerns related to harmful vapors, leaks from gasoline storage tanks should also be a concern for homeowners that live near gas stations. According to data tracked by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, there are more than 660,000 underground gasoline storage tanks in the country. The vast majority of gas stations have underground fuel tanks that are made from uncoated steel, which are known to deteriorate over time. Once uncoated steel tanks start to rust, they are prone to fuel leaks. Many lawsuits have been filed over the years against gas stations with uncoated steel tanks for fossil fuel contamination that has leached into groundwater systems. As gasoline enters the soil and begins to contaminate groundwater, it can be extremely challenging to address. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, groundwater systems supply nearly a half of all American households with water. If a storage tank were to leak and contaminate a groundwater system with gasoline additives like methyl tertiary-butyl ether, the groundwater could potentially be rendered permanently undrinkable. While this chemical has been outlawed in a number of states, methyl tertiary-butyl ether is only one of nearly 150 harmful chemicals that can be found in gasoline ( Scientific American, 2009 ). While the notion of permanently contaminated drinking water can be a difficult concept to grasp, lawmakers have been working to reduce the risk of fuel tank leaks. For example, a federal law enacted in the 1990s started to mandate a phased removal of older underground fuel storage tanks to be replaced with new doubled-lined tanks. Reducing Exposure The National Library of Medicine at the National Institutes of Health has published countless of research reports on the dangers of repeated exposure to liquid and vaporized gasoline. Lung, brain, and kidney damage are frequently cited as the most pressing health https://fossilfuel .com/is-it-safe-to-live-near-a-gas-station-scientists-point-to-numerous-health-hazards/ 8/10 2/16/22 , 3 :38 PM V Is It Safe to Live Near a Gas Station? Scientists Point to Numerous Health Hazards -FossilFuel.com from vehicle tailpipes and other non-point sources, it can be nearly impossible to completely avoid these chemicals. However, with due diligence, a homeowner can reduce long-term risk by avoiding homes that are located in close proximity to gas stations. Sources Columbia University. (2018). "Gas stations vent far more toxic fumes than previously thought." Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health. EIA. (2019). "Gasoline Explained." U.S. Energy Information Administration. Ferris, F. (2020). "America's gas stations and convenience stores grapple with an uncertain future." CNBC. Hilpert, M., et al. (2019). "Vent pipe emissions from storage tanks at gas stations: Implications for setback distances." Science of The Total Environment: Volume 650, Part 2, Pages 2239-2250. Hilpert, M., et al. (2015). "Hydrocarbon Release During Fuel Storage and Transfer at Gas Stations: Environmental and Health Effects." Current ~nl/irnnrnt=Jntrtl J....lt=Jrtlth /:)t=,nnrt~ \/nh 1mo ') 1~~110 1 Pnno~ Ll.l'J-LI.')') https ://fossilfuel .com/is-it-safe-to-live-near-a-gas-station-scientists-point-to-numerous-health-hazards/ 9/10 2/16/22 , 3 :38 PM V Is It Safe to Live Near a Gas Station? Scientists Point to Numerous Health Hazards -FossilFuel.com Issue 1, Pages 1-4. NIH. (2020). "Why are Gas Stations a Concern?" National Institutes of Health: Department of Health & Human Services. Scientific American. (2009 ). "Is It Safe to Live Near a Gas Station?" Scientific American: Division of Springer Nature America, Inc. WHO . (2012). "Chemical Agents and Related Occupations." World Health Organization: International Agency for Research on Cancer. ~ Tags Columbia University diesel emissions Energy Environment fossil fuel gas stations gasoline Pollution toxins https ://fossilfuel .com/is-it-safe-to-live-near-a-gas-station-scientists-point-to-numerous-health-hazards/ 10/10 2/16/22 , 4 :20 PM Residential Proximity to Environmental Hazards and Adverse Health Outcomes We identified studies of environmental proximity analyses in relation to health through the National Library of Medicine's Pub Med, using search terms that combined proximity to and adverse pregnancy outcomes (birth defects, fetal death, low birth weight, preterm birth, and spontaneous abortion), childhood cancer, cardiovascular and respiratory illnesses, end-stage renal disease, and diabetes. We also identified additional relevant studies in these studies' bibliographies. With respect to cancer, we focused our review primarily on childhood cancers. Given the relatively long induction and latent period of solid tumors in adults, studies would need to include residential histories for as many as 15 to 30 years before a cancer diagnosis to capture pertinent environmental exposures. Although several recently published studies have included extensive residential histories,2---4 such studies are scarce. Even though various respiratory and cardiovascular conditions may originate many years before manifestation of overt disease, environmental exposures to pollutants could have acute effects, for example, precipitating asthma attacks or myocardial infarction in susceptible individuals. We summarized information from each study regarding target populations, type of study design used, health outcomes included, methods of proximity analyses and exposure assessment, major findings, and limitations . We also examined study results for evidence of racial or economic disparities in health outcomes in relation to residential proximity. In addition to discussing overall findings, we summarized the conclusions of studies that had minimal limitations with respect to exposure assessment and outcome. A wide variety of methods were used in the reviewed studies to examine the relation between proximity to potential environmental hazards and adverse health outcomes, including spatial coincidence analyses (e.g., residence in a zip code with~ 1 hazardous waste sites), distance-based analyses ( e.g., residence :::; 1 mile of industrial facilities as defined by a 1-mile buffer), and pollution plume modeling (i.e., the dispersion footprint of the pollutant as a proxy for exposure). The most frequently used method was distance-based analysis . ADVERSE PREGNANCY OUTCOMES We reviewed 49 studies that examined the relation between residential proximity to 1 or more potential environmental hazards and adverse pregnancy outcomes. Few studies specifically examined health impacts in relation to race or socioeconomic status (Table 1 ). Those studies that did had mixed conclusions regarding health impacts on specific racial or income groups. In a study of maternal residential proximity to hazardous waste sites and chromosomal anomalies, increased risk of Klinefelter variants was confined to births to Hispanic women.!i In the same study population, however, neural tube defects were associated with residential proximity within 1 mile of an industrial facility only among non-Hispanic White women. IO Among the various ethnic and racial groups studied, Orr et al..8. noted the strongest associations between maternal residence in a census tract with 1 or more National Priorities List hazardous waste sites and birth defects among American Indians and Alaska Natives. In Israel, Bedouin populations showed increased risk of major congenital malformations and perinatal mortality with residential proximity to an industrial park, but Jewish populations showed no increased risk.-i 2 In a Canadian population, risks for preterm and low birth weight births in relation to maternal residential proximity to highways were strongest among highly educated women and women who lived in wealthy neighborhoods.1 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3222489/ 2/19 2/16/22 , 4 :20 PM Residential Proximity to Environmental Hazards and Adverse Health Outcomes TABLE 1 Studies of Residential Proximity to Environmental Hazards and Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes With Reported Disparities by Race and Ethnicity or Socioeconomic Status https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3222489/ 3/19 2/16/22 , 4 :20 PM Residential Proximity to Environmental Hazards and Adverse Health Outcomes .... First Population Pregnancy Disparities Environmental Hazard and Disparities Author, Outcomes Examined Year, and Country Bentov, Beer-Major congenital Jewish Residential proximity to a regional industrial 2006 ;~ Sheva malformations populations park was associated with increased rates of Israel subdistrict, combined and (urban, urban major congenital anomalies among the 1995-subcategorized satellite, and Bedouin population but not among the 2000 into major agricultural Jewish population. congenital localities); anomalies of Bedouin central nervous population system, (permanent chromosomal localities and anomalies, and traditional other major tribal congenital settlements) malformations Brender, Live births Chromosomal Race or Hispanic women who lived near hazardous 2008,2 and fetal anomalies ethnicity waste sites were 7.9 times as likely (95% CI Texas deaths, combined and (non-Hispanic = 1.1, 42.4) to have offspring with 1996-categorized into 9 White, Klinefelter variants . 2000 categories Hispanic, African American, other) Genereux, All live Preterm birth, low Maternal Proximity to highways associated with OR = 2007,1 singleton birth weight, and education 1.58 for preterm birth, OR= 1.81 for low Canada births, SGA birth (<11 y, 11 y, birth weight, and OR= 1.32 for SGA births Montreal, 12-13 y, >13 among women living in the most wealthy 1997-y); census neighborhoods but not associated with these 2001 tracts ranked outcomes in less wealthy or poor areas ; this into quintiles residential characteristic was associated with according to preterm birth and low birth weight births in .... Onen in a senarate window Note. CI = confidence interval; OR = odds ratio; SGA = small for gestational age; TRI = Toxic Release Inventory. We summarize the findings of studies, including limitations, that examined the relation between residential proximity to various environmental hazards and adverse pregnancy outcomes in a supplemental table (available as a supplement to the online version of this article at htm://www.ajnh.org). In several studies, investigators noted positive associations between maternal https ://www .ncbi.nlm.nih .gov/pmc/articles/PMC3222489/ 4/19 2/16/22 , 4 :20 PM Residential Proximity to Environmental Hazards and Adverse Health Outcomes residence near waste sites and central nervous system defects;8.,ll-l 4 heart defects,.U.U,l 5-I 9 surgical correction of gastroschisis and exomphalos, 20 hypospadias and epispadias, 19 and chromosomal anomalies in offspring.2,.8..ll,2.!. Fewer studies explored the relation between maternal residential proximity to waste sites and adverse pregnancy outcomes other than congenital malformations. Most of these studies reported minimal or no association except between maternal residential proximity to pesticide-contaminated waste sites and fetal deaths,22 polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)-contaminated sites and low birth weight among male births,23 municipal solid waste landfills and low birth weight or small-for-gestational-age births,24 and any hazardous waste site and low and very low birth weight.20 In Europe and Japan, pregnancy outcomes were examined in relation to maternal residential proximity to incinerators or crematoriums. Studies noted associations between these residential characteristics and risk of neural tube defects,25 heart defects,25 oral clefts,26 renal dysplasia,26 stillbirths,25 and infant deaths.27 However, Tango et al.27 found no higher rate of deaths resulting from congenital malformations among births to mothers who lived near municipal solid waste incinerators in Japan. In several populations, maternal residential proximity to industrial complexes was associated with increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes, including central nervous system defects;~' 10 •28 oral clefts,29 chromosomal anomalies,2 undescended testis,30 perinatal mortality,2 and low birth weight..ll Vinceti et al. 32 noted that women living in an industrial area contaminated with lead were more likely to give birth to babies with cardiovascular, musculoskeletal, and oral cleft defects than were women living away from this area. Increased risks for low birth weight and preterm births were noted among offspring of mothers who resided near highways1 and in areas with high traffic density, 33 although no statistically increased risk was noted for fetal and early neonatal deaths with this maternal residential characteristic. 34 Mothers living near cornfields at delivery were more likely to give birth to babies with limb malformations,35 an association that might be attributed to exposure to pesticides used on this crop. Rull et al.36 noted elevated risks for neural tube defects among offspring of women who lived within 1000 meters of applications of pesticides classified as amides, benzimidazole, methyl carbamate, organ op hosp hates, benomyl, or methomyl. Bell et al. 37 found elevated risk of fetal deaths from congenital malformations if mothers lived near areas of pesticide application. We expected that studies that measured actual distances between the environmental hazard of interest and individual maternal residential addresses would have less exposure misclassification. With respect to congenital malformations, we considered studies that included fetal deaths or terminations as well as live births and that examined specific defects instead of all malformations combined as having stronger designs. Eleven of the studies on congenital malformations6,ill12 •13 ,18 ,2.l.,22.30 .35 ,3s and 6 of the studies on other adverse reproductive outcomes1 ,22 ,33 ,34,37,39 met these criteria. In several of these studies, adverse reproductive outcomes were associated with maternal proximity to waste sites,2,.U,U,.l.8.,2.!., industrial sites,2•10 •29 ,30,37 areas with pesticide applications,35 ,36,37 roadways,1 and dense traffic. 33 CHILDHOOD CANCER Most published studies of childhood cancer and residential proximity to potential environmental hazards focused on leukemia, brain cancer, or all childhood cancers combined. We list the characteristics, findings, and study limitations of the 25 studies reviewed in Table 2 . https ://www.ncbi.nlm.nih .gov/pmc/articles/PMC3222489/ 5/19 2/16/22 , 4 :20 PM Residential Proximity to Environmental Hazards and Adverse Health Outcomes TABLE 2 Studies of Residential Proximity to Potential Environmental Hazards and Childhood Cancer https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3222489/ 6/19 2/16/22 , 4 :20 PM Residential Proximity to Environmental Hazards and Adverse Health Outcomes al.43 estimated traffic-related benzene emissions by means of a Gaussian diffusion model and observed an odds ratio (OR) of 3.91 (95% confidence interval [CI]= 1.36, 11.27) for childhood leukemia with benzene concentrations higher than 10 micrograms per cubic meter. Residential proximity to roadways or traffic emissions was also associated with Hodgkin's lymphoma in Danish children. 52 Risk of childhood cancer was examined in relation to residential proximity to cropland and pesticide applications in US populations in Califomia53 ,56 ,57 and Texas.41 A birth address within 1000 meters of cropland showed some association with germ-cell tumors, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, and Burkitt lymphoma, although the elevated ORs were based on a small number of cases.41 Using an exposure metric that consisted of residential proximity within 0.5 mile of pesticide applications (pounds per square mile), Reynolds et al.56 noted slightly elevated ORs for leukemia with birth addresses near application of pesticides that were probable or possible carcinogens and nearby applications of organochlorine or organophosphate pesticides. Risk of acute lymphoblastic leukemia was elevated in children who lived within 0.5 mile (lifetime residences) of applications of organophosphates, chlorinated phenols, and triazines and pesticides classified as insecticides or fumigants 57 ; acute lymphoblastic leukemia risk was associated with moderate but not high exposures. Risk of childhood cancer was examined in relation to residential proximity to other sources of contaminants, including industries reporting under the US Toxic Release Inventory, petrochemical plants, gas stations, repair garages, nuclear power plants, and landfill sites and hazardous waste sites. Increased risk of childhood leukemia was found with residential addresses near gas stations,44 ,60,63 repair garages,60 and nuclear power plants.46 ,59 Children whose mothers lived near industries covered under the Toxic Release Inventory during pregnancy were more likely to have brain cancer, especially if the mother lived within 1 mile of a facility with carcinogen emissions.42 We considered studies that examined incident cases of childhood cancer in relation to actual measured distances between 1 or more residences documented before diagnosis and the environmental hazard of interest to be less subject to exposure misclassification and selection bias. Of the reviewed studies, 10 met these criteria_4 I,4l,.iQ,Sl,SS-S?,fil,62 ,64 Residential addresses near cropland,41 pesticide application,56 ,57 and industries42 ,61 and their associated emissions64 were associated with childhood cancer in several of these studies. CARDIOVASCULAR, RESPIRATORY, AND OTHER DISEASES We conducted a comprehensive review of the literature to examine the relation between residential proximity to a wide range of environmental hazards and cardiovascular and respiratory disease, PCB toxicity, end-stage renal disease, diabetes, and adult cancers such as leukemia and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Online Supplemental Table 2 (available as a supplement to the online version of this article at hnp://www.ajph.org) summarizes the 20 research studies reviewed in this section, including limitations . The results of 12 studies on respiratory illness suggested that residential proximity to both stationary sources of air pollution (industries covered under the Toxic Release Inventory, National Emission Inventory, hazardous air pollutants, petroleum refineries, etc.), and, with a few exceptions, heavily trafficked roads, was significantly associated with asthma hospitalizations.65 -69 An example is the case-crossover study by Smargiassi et al.,69 which examined the effects ofresidential proximity to point-source air pollution on asthma among children. They collected asthma hospitalization data for children aged 2 to 4 years and calculated the risk of asthma episodes for residential postal codes for the east end of Montreal Island. Exposure was estimated using the American Meteorological Society- Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model, an air dispersion model, and sulfur dioxide https ://www.ncbi.nlm.nih .gov/pmc/articles/PMC3222489/ 8/19 2/16/22 , 4 :20 PM Residential Proximity to Environmental Hazards and Adverse Health Outcomes emissions data from 2 petroleum refineries and other point sources measured via 2 fixed air-monitoring sites . The model computed estimations of daily sulfur dioxide exposure at the centroid of each postal code as well as average hourly predictions and daily peaks. Smargiassi et al. 69 used logistic regression to evaluate sulfur dioxide exposure in relation to asthma hospitalization days versus control days using a time-stratified approach. Results revealed that short-term increases in sulfur dioxide were significantly associated with a higher number of asthma-related emergency department visits and hospital admissions in children residing near refineries. In addition, several studies found that exposure to mobile sources of air pollution through residential proximity to major roadways increased the occurrence of chronic respiratory symptoms by exacerbating asthma or increasing self-reported chronic respiratory symptoms such as wheezing, pulmonary function, attacks, and the use of respiratory medicine. 70-73 Three other studies did not find a significant relationship between proximity to roads and asthma hospitalizations among children,74--76 although English et al.74 reported that the odds ofresiding in high traffic-flow areas were significantly higher for children experiencing more than 1 asthma hospitalization per year than for children having only 1 incident. Three studies on cardiovascular diseasefil,77 ,78 also suggested a significant association between residential exposure to combined sources of air pollution and stroke mortality. For instance, Hu et al. 77 determined the observed and expected stroke mortality at the census tract-level for counties in northwest Florida. Air pollution was characterized by the presence of Toxic Release Inventory sites and other stationary sources of air pollution (i.e., dry cleaners, sewage treatment plants, solid waste disposal, and Superfund sites), and roads with high average vehicle traffic counts. Using location, Hu et al. calculated air pollution density surfaces for point sources and traffic and used hierarchical logistic regression. The mean age-adjusted stroke rate in the study areas was more than 8 times the expected rate, and census tracts with high levels of air pollution had significantly elevated risks of stroke mortality. Maheswaran and Elliott 78 also looked at relationship between stroke mortality and residential proximity to main roads at the census enumeration district level in England and Wales . They evaluated mobile sources of air pollution by using road network data that characterized exposure as distance categories from the centroid of each census enumeration district to the nearest main road. Logistic regression controlling for age, gender, socioeconomic deprivation, and urbanization determined the associations between stroke mortality and distance categories. Census enumeration districts with distances of less than 200 meters to main roads had significantly higher stroke mortality rates than those with distances of more than 1000 meters . This association held when stratified by gender, and Maheswaran and Elliott determined a significant dose-response relationship for distance categories. Three studies using geographic information science examined the impact of residing near hazardous wastes sites, although the health outcomes of interest were different: cord blood PCB level, end-stage renal disease, and diabetes. Kouznetsova et al. 79 conducted an ecological study to determine whether exposure to persistent organic pollutants (POPs) found near hazardous waste sites was associated with diabetes risk in New York. They used state hospitalization data to calculate diabetes hospitalization rates in patients aged 25 to 74 years by zip code, controlling for age, gender, race, income, and urban or rural population density. Hazardous waste sites were grouped into exposure categories by zip code: POP sites (dioxins and furans, PCBs, persistent pesticides), non-POP sites (volatile organics and metals, etc.), and clean sites. They found significantly higher diabetes hospitalization rates in POP zip codes versus both clean and non-POP sites. With stratification, the rate ratios were highest for Blacks and older age groups. Some evidence has linked residential proximity to hazardous waste sites and adverse health impacts, 79- fil. but the dearth of literature makes cross-study comparisons difficult. Although exposure to hazardous waste sites may be associated with outcomes such as PCB toxicity, end-stage renal disease, and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3222489/ 9/19 2/16/22 , 4 :20 PM Residential Proximity to Environmental Hazards and Adverse Health Outcomes diabetes, more research is needed. We reviewed three studies using geographic information science to explore the relationship between environmental burdens and adult cancer. The environmental exposures of interest in these studies included air pollution from industrial plants and a nuclear facility's radioactive emissions; the findings were mixed. Leukemia was significantly associated with proximity to the Pilgrim nuclear power plant among women, 82 and the odds of leukemia increased with proximity to the plant. Wilkinson et al. 83 calculated the observed and expected cancer incidence and death rates for electoral wards using a distance decline model around the pesticide-and fertilizer-producing Pan Britannica Industries Plant. Although they found significant differences between observed and expected rates of cancer incidence and mortality for distances from Oto 1 kilometers and Oto 7.5 kilometers around the plant, evidence of a dose-response relationship was mixed, and the rate ratios were within the range for the region, although the observed incidence of melanoma and cancers of the lung, pancreas, and stomach was significantly higher than expected values . Another study84 found significant associations between other industrial plants and some cancers; for instance, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma was significantly associated with proximity to a copper smelter and sulfite pulp mill. Similar to the hazardous waste site studies, studies assessing cancer risk from exposure to various environmental hazards suffered from comparability problems. Residential proximity to certain industrial plants appears to be linked to cancer risk, although the significance of the results depends on the specific type of plant, population subgroup, and cancer types. We would expect studies that measured the distance between the environmental hazard of interest and individual residential addresses to have fewer exposure misclassifications and therefore stronger designs. Of the 20 studies we considered, 11 met that criterion. 65 -68 , 7o,11, 74,80-82 ,84 In 9 of these 11 studies, residential proximity to roads66 ,1Q., 74 ; to cokeworks, copper smelters, refineries, nuclear power plants, or other stationary point sources of air pollution65 •67 •68 •~84; or to hazardous waste sitesfil were associated with asthma, respiratory illnesses, heart disease, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, end-stage renal disease, or adult leukemia. LIMITATIONS OF EVIDENCE Without exception, the studies included in this review had 1 or more limitations that should be considered in the interpretation of results and implications for environmental and public health. Several studies used an ecological approach in which the investigators compared rates of adverse health outcomes with census-defined or administrative boundaries ( e.g., zip code) as a proxy for residential location when individual addresses were unknown. This approach, in which exposure is assigned on the basis of whether a specific environmental hazard is present within a particular unit of aggregation85 ( called a container approach or spatial coincidence analysis), implies that all residents within a particular boundary are equally affected by the hazard of interest without accurate assessment of individual exposure .85 For example, a case participant may live next to a particular hazard of interest, but if the hazard is located outside the researcher's unit of analysis ( e.g., zip code), then that case participant would not be defined as exposed. Such a design can lead to an ecological bias in which associations at an aggregate level do not represent exposures at the individual level among people with and without adverse health outcomes. 86 In general, the larger the unit of spatial aggregation is, the more likely it is that bias will be introduced as a result of heterogeneity across and within these units, 85 and ecological fallacy may result. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3222489/ 10/19 2/16/22 , 4 :20 PM Residential Proximity to Environmental Hazards and Adverse Health Outcomes Distance-based methods greatly improve on this approach by measuring the actual distance between residential addresses and environmental hazards. However, residential exposure to site contaminants, industrial emissions, traffic emissions, and pesticide applications will also vary by the climatic and topographic characteristics of the geographic area . The distance-based studies we reviewed rarely considered these conditions; the exceptions were those by Crosignani et aI.,43 Goldberg et aI.,24 Maantay et aI.,68 Raaschou-Nielsen et aI.,52 Vinceti et aI.,38 •87 Wilhem and Ritz,33 and Yu et aI.64 Residential proximity to environmental hazards can only serve as a crude proxy for exposure and does not accurately represent individual exposure to ambient conditions or body or target organ dose. However, pollution plume modeling, a method that combines data on chemical emissions and local meteorological conditions to model the environmental fate and dispersion of pollutants, can more accurately predict exposures in the ambient environment. With respect to residential proximity and adverse pregnancy outcomes, many studies used maternal address at delivery to assign exposure rather than address around conception and during the first trimester. Although address at delivery might be relevant for some adverse pregnancy outcomes, it can be problematic for assigning exposure in studies of chromosomal and nonchromosomal congenital malformations, for which the time around conception and earlier or in the first trimester of pregnancy are, respectively, the most relevant. The estimated percentage of women who change addresses between the time of conception and delivery has ranged between 12% and 33% depending on the maternal population examined.88-91 Childhood cancer studies frequently based exposure assignment on 1 address such as address at birth, diagnosis, or death, which potentially introduced exposure misclassification by not accounting for residential mobility. In a California study of childhood leukemia,92 65.8% of the study children moved between birth and date of diagnosis, with more than one third of those who moved living in at least 1 residence outside of the county of birth. Residual confounding can also be an issue; information regarding factors that are related to both exposure and outcome are measured imprecisely or are not available. Residential addresses of mothers, children, and adults are not randomly distributed; rather, they depend on several factors such as socioeconomic status, parental occupation, and race or ethnicity. These same factors may also increase or decrease the likelihood ofliving near potential environmental hazards. For instance, race and ethnicity,93 -95 maternal education,95 and maternal occupation96 have been associated with maternal residential proximity to sources of pollution. These factors are also risk factors for several adverse pregnancy outcomes. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Research using geographic information science and other geospatial techniques to explore the public health burdens of residential proximity to environmental hazards is in its infancy. We investigated the associations between only a few environmental exposures and health outcomes, and our review is not by any means meant to be considered exhaustive. In addition, differences in study design and methodology may result in a lack of consistency across studies. Although their results are mixed, many studies found significant relationships between residential proximity to environmental hazards and adverse health outcomes, such as adverse pregnancy outcomes (including increased risks for central nervous system defects, congenital heart defects, oral clefts, renal dysplasia, limb malformations, chromosomal anomalies, preterm births, low birth weight, small-for-gestational-age births, fetal deaths, and infant deaths), childhood cancers (including leukemia, brain cancer, germ-cell tumors, non- Hodgkin's lymphoma, and Burkitt lymphoma), asthma hospitalizations and chronic respiratory symptoms, stroke mortality, PCB toxicity, end-stage renal disease, and diabetes. Although populations https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3222489/ 11/19 2/16/22 , 4 :20 PM Residential Proximity to Environmental Hazards and Adverse Health Outcomes living close to environmental hazards appear more likely to have adverse health outcomes, proximity does not necessarily equate to individual-level exposure. Few studies have examined whether such exposures are more or less likely to increase risk of adverse health outcomes among minority and lower-income populations. This dearth of studies is possibly the result of a limitation of the available health data, which often do not accurately or completely report race and ethnicity for the health outcome cases. Given these conclusions, which are based on previous evidence of disparities by race and income in relation to proximity to environmental hazards,97-100 the adverse health outcomes for populations in close proximity to environmental hazards, and acknowledgment of the health disparities experienced in general by communities of color and lower-income communities, we suggest that government agencies consider these findings in siting of environmentally burdensome facilities and land uses, in regulatory and enforcement efforts concerning pollution, and in the active promotion of environmental health justice and environmental health protection. The evidence at this time is sufficient to justify the application of the precautionary principle to protect people from the deleterious effects of living near environmental hazards. Even in the absence of complete scientific proof, enough evidence of potential harm being done exists to justify taking steps to rectify the problem and to protect the public from potentially harmful exposures when all available evidence points to plausible risk. Although economic and political forces will likely require stringent proof that specific recommendations ( e.g., establishment of protective buffer zones around noxious land uses) will be effective, some practical applications should be obvious. For example, prohibiting the siting of schools near highways and being cognizant of pesticide drift when planning residential locations or other sensitive land uses, fall into the category of commonsense guidelines and constitute approaches that would be difficult to argue against. Acknowledgments We thank the US Environmental Protection Agency for their support of the development of this article. Dr. Maantay also thanks the following organizations for supporting her research in environmental health justice: National Institute for Environmental Health Science; National Center for Minority Health and Health Disparities; the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Cooperative Remote Sensing Science and Technology Center; US Environmental Protection Agency; South Bronx Environmental Justice Partnership; Bronx Center to Reduce and Eliminate Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities; Montefiore Medical Center and Albert Einstein College of Medicine; Professional Staff Congress-City University of New York (CUNY) Faculty Research Awards; and George N. Shuster Fellowship. Dr. Maantay would like to acknowledge the invaluable assistance of three doctoral student researchers in the Urban Geographic Information Science Lab at Lehman College, CUNY: Rachael Weiss, Keith Miyake and Laurel Mei Turbin . Human Participant Protection This work did not involve human research participants. References 1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Public opinion about public health-United States, 1999. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2000;49(12):258-260 [PubMed] [Google Scholar] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3222489/ 12/19 2/16/22 , 4 :20 PM Residential Proximity to Environmental Hazards and Adverse Health Outcomes 2. Bonner MR, Han D, Nie J, et al. Breast cancer risk and exposure in early life to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons using total suspended particulates as a proxy measure . Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2005;14(1):53-60 [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 3. Nie J, Beyea J, Bonner MR, et al. Exposure to traffic emissions throughout life and risk of breast cancer: the Western New York Exposures and Breast Cancer (WEB) study. Cancer Causes Control. 2007;18(9):947-955 [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 4 . Vieira V, Webster T, Weinberg J, Aschengrau A. Spatial analysis of bladder, kidney, and pancreatic cancer on upper Cape Cod: an application of generalized additive models to case-control data. Environ Health. 2009;8:3. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 5. Bentov Y, Kordysh E, Hershkovitz R, et al. Major congenital malformations and residential proximity to a regional industrial park including a national toxic waste site: an ecological study. Environ Health . 2006;5(Mar 29):8. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 6. Brender JD, Zhan FB, Langlois PH, Suarez L, Scheuerle A. Residential proximity to waste sites and industrial facilities and chromosomal anomalies in offspring. Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2008;211(1- 2):50-58 [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 7. Genereux M, Auger N, Goneau M, Daniel M. Neighbourhood socioeconomic status, maternal education, and adverse birth outcomes among mothers living near highways. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2008;62(8):695-700 [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 8 . Orr M, Bove F, Kaye W, Stone M. Elevated birth defects in racial or ethnic minority children of women living near hazardous waste sites. Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2002;205(1-2):19-27 [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 9 . Sarov B, Bentov Y, Kordysh E, et al. Perinatal mortality and residential proximity to an industrial park. Arch Environ Occup Health. 2008;63(1):17-25 [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 10. Suarez L, Brender JD, Langlois PH, Zhan FB, Moody K. Maternal exposures to hazardous waste sites and industrial facilities and risk of neural tube defects in offspring. Ann Epidemiol. 2007;17(10):772-777 [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 11. Geschwind SA, Stolwijk JA, Bracken M, et al. Risk of congenital malformations associated with proximity to hazardous waste sites. Am J Epidemiol. 1992; 135( 11): 1197-1207 [Pub Med] [Google Scholar] 12. Croen LA, Shaw GM, Sanbonmatsu L, Selvin S, Bufller PA. Maternal residential proximity to hazardous waste sites and risk for selected congenital malformations. Epidemiology. 1997;8(4):347- 354 [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 13. Dolk H, Vrijheid M, Armstrong B, et al. Risk of congenital anomalies near hazardous-waste landfill sites in Europe: the EUROHAZCON study. Lancet. 1998;352(9126):423-427 [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 14. Dodds L, Seviour R. Congenital anomalies and other birth outcomes among infants born to women living near a hazardous waste site in Sydney, Nova Scotia. Can J Public Health. 2001;92(5):331-334 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 15. Shaw GM, Schulman J, Frisch JD, Cummins SK, Harris JA. Congenital malformations and birthweight in areas with potential environmental contamination. Arch Environ Health. 1992;47(2):147-154 [PubMed] [Google Scholar] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3222489/ 13/19 2/16/22 , 4 :20 PM Residential Proximity to Environmental Hazards and Adverse Health Outcomes 16. Malik S, Schecter A, Caughy M, Fixler DE. Effect of proximity to hazardous waste sites on the development of congenital heart disease. Arch Environ Health . 2004;59( 4): 177-181 [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 17 . Yauck JS, Malloy ME, Blair K, Simpson PM, Mccarver DG. Proximity ofresidence to trichloroethylene-emitting sites and increased risk of offspring congenital heart defects among older women. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2004;70(10):808-814 [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 18 . Langlois PH, Brender JD, Suarez L, et al. Maternal residential proximity to waste sites and industrial facilities and conotruncal heart defects in offspring. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2009;23(4):321-331 [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 19. Elliott P, Richardson S, Abellan JJ, et al. Geographic density of landfill sites and risk of congenital anomalies in England. Occup Environ Med. 2009;66(2):81-89 [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 20. Elliott P, Briggs D, Morris S, et al. Risk of adverse birth outcomes in populations living near landfill sites. BMJ. 2001;323(7309):363-368 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 21 . Vrijheid M, Dolk H, Armstrong B, et al. Chromosomal congenital anomalies and residence near hazardous waste landfill sites. Lancet. 2002;359(9303):320-322 [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 22 . Mueller BA, Kuehn CM, Shapiro-Mendoza CK, Thomashek KM. Fetal deaths and proximity to hazardous waste sites in Washington State. Environ Health Perspect. 2007;115(5):776-780 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 23. Baibergenova A, Kudyakov R, Zdeb M, Carpenter DO. Low birth weight and residential proximity to PCB-contaminated waste sites. Environ Health Perspect. 2003;111(10):1352-1357 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 24. Goldberg MS, Goulet L, Riberdy H, Bonvalot Y. Low birth weight and preterm births among infants born to women living near a municipal solid waste landfill site in Montreal, Quebec. Environ Res. 1995;69(1):37-50 [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 25. Dummer TJ, Dickinson HO, Parker L. Adverse pregnancy outcomes around incinerators and crematoriums in Cumbria, north west England, 1956-93 . J Epidemiol Community Health. 2003;57(6):456-461 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 26. Cordier S, Chevrier C, Robert-Gnansia E, Lorente C, Brula P, Hours M. Risk of congenital anomalies in the vicinity of municipal solid waste incinerators. Occup Environ Med. 2004;61(1):8-15 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 27 . Tango T, Fujita T, Tanihata T, et al. Risk of adverse reproductive outcomes associated with proximity to municipal solid waste incinerators with high dioxin emission levels in Japan. J Epidemiol. 2004;14(3):83-93 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 28. Marshall EG, Gensburg LJ, Deres DA, Geary NS, Cayo MR. Maternal residential exposure to hazardous wastes and risk of central nervous system and musculoskeletal birth defects. Arch Environ Health. 1997;52(6):416-425 [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 29 . Brender JD, Zhan FB, Suarez L, Langlois PH, Moody K. Maternal residential proximity to waste sites and industrial facilities and oral clefts in offspring. J Occup Environ Med. 2006;48(6):565-572 [PubMed] [Google Scholar] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3222489/ 14/19 2/16/22 , 4 :20 PM Residential Proximity to Environmental Hazards and Adverse Health Outcomes 30. Czeizel AE, Hegedus S, Timar L. Congenital abnormalities and indicators of germinal mutations in the vicinity of an acrylonitrile producing factory . Mutat Res. 1999;427(2): 105-123 [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 31 . Bhopal RS, Tate JA, Foy C, Moffatt S, Phillimore PR. Residential proximity to industry and adverse birth outcomes . Lancet. 1999;354(9182):920-921 [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 32. Vinceti M, Rovesti S, Bergomi M, et al. Risk of birth defects in a population exposed to environmental lead pollution. Sci Total Environ . 2001;278(1-3):23-30 [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 33. Wilhelm M, Ritz B. Residential proximity to traffic and adverse birth outcomes in Los Angeles county, California, 1994-1996. Environ Health Perspect. 2003;111(2):207-216 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 34 . De Medeiros AP, Gouveia N, Machado RP, et al. Traffic-related air pollution and perinatal mortality: a case-control study. Environ Health Perspect. 2009; 117 (1): 127-13 2 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 35 . Ochoa-Acuna H, Carbajo C . Risk oflimb birth defects and mother's home proximity to cornfields. Sci Total Environ. 2009;407(15):4447-4451 [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 36 . Rull RP, Ritz B, Shaw GM. Neural tube defects and maternal residential proximity to agricultural pesticide applications. Am J Epidemiol. 2006;163(8):743-753 [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 37 . Bell EM, Hertz-Picciotto I, Beaumont JJ. A case-control study of pesticides and fetal death due to congenital malformations . Epidemiology. 2001;12(2):148-156 [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 38. Vinceti M, Malagoli C , Fabbi S, et al. Risk of congenital anomalies around a municipal solid waste incinerator: a GIS-based case-control study. Int J Health Geogr. 2009;8(Feb 10):8. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 39 . Bell EM, Hertz-Picciotto I, Beaumont JJ. Case-cohort analysis of agricultural pesticide applications near maternal residence and selected causes of fetal death. Am J Epidemiol. 2001;154(8):702-710 [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 40. Carozza SE, Li B, Elgethun K, Whitworth R. Risk of childhood cancers associated with residence in agriculturally intense areas in the United States. Environ Health Perspect. 2008;116(4):559-565 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 41 . Carozza SE, Li B, Wang Q, Horel S, Cooper S. Agricultural pesticides and risk of childhood cancers. Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2009;212(2):186-195 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 42 . Choi HS, Shim YK, Kaye WE, Ryan PB. Potential residential exposure to Toxic Release Inventory chemicals during pregnancy and childhood brain cancer. Environ Health Perspect. 2006; 114(7): 1113- 1118 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 43 . Crosignani P, Tittarelli A, Borgini A, et al. Childhood leukemia and road traffic: a population-based case-control study. Int J Cancer. 2004;108(4):596-599 [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 44. Harrison RM, Leung PL, Somervaille L, Smith R, Gilman E . Analysis of incidence of childhood cancer in the West Midlands of the United Kingdom in relation to proximity to main roads and petrol stations. Occup Environ Med. 1999;56(11):774-780 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3222489/ 15/19 2/16/22 , 4 :20 PM Residential Proximity to Environmental Hazards and Adverse Health Outcomes 45. Jarup L, Briggs D, de Hoogh C, et al. Cancer risks in populations living near landfill sites in Great Britain. BrJCancer. 2002;86(11):1732-1736 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 46. Kaatsch P, Spix C, Schulze-Rath R, Schmiedel S, Blettner M. Leukaemia in young children living in the vicinity of German nuclear power plants. Int J Cancer. 2008; 122( 4):721-726 [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 4 7. Knox E. Childhood cancers, birthplaces, incinerators, and landfill sites. Int J Epidemiol. 2000;29(3):391-397 [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 48. Knox EG. Roadways, railways, and childhood cancers. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2006;60(2): 136-141 [PMC free article] [Pub Med] [Google Scholar] 49. Knox EG, Gilman EA. Hazard proximities of childhood cancers in Great Britain from 1953-80. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1997;51(2):151-159 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 50. Langholz B, Ebi KL, Thomas DC, Peters JM, London SJ. Traffic density and the risk of childhood leukemia in a Los Angeles case-control study. Ann Epidemiol. 2002;12(7):482-487 [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 51. Liu CC, Chen CC, Wu TN, Yang CY. Association of brain cancer with residential exposure to petrochemical air pollution in Taiwan. J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2008;71(5):310-314 [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 52 . Raaschou-Nielsen 0, Hertel 0, Thomsen BL, Olsen JH. Air pollution from traffic at the residence of children with cancer. Am J Epidemiol. 2001; 153( 5):433-443 [Pub Med] [Google Scholar] 53. Reynolds P, Von Behren J, Gunier RB, Goldberg DE, Hertz A, Harnly ME. Childhood cancer and agricultural pesticide use: an ecologic study in California. Environ Health Perspect. 2002; 110(3):319- 324 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 54 . Reynolds P, Von Behren J, Gunier RB, Goldberg DE, Hertz A, Smith D. Traffic patterns and childhood cancer incidence rates in California, United States. Cancer Causes Control. 2002; 13(7):665- 673 [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 55 . Reynolds P, Von Behren J, Gunier RB, Goldberg DE, Hertz A . Residential exposure to traffic in California and childhood cancer. Epidemiology. 2004;15(1):6-12 [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 56 . Reynolds P, Von Behren J, Gunier RB, Goldberg DE, Harnly M, Hertz A. Agricultural pesticide use and childhood cancer in California. Epidemiology. 2005;16(1):93-100 [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 57. Rull RP, Gunier R, Von Behren J, et al. Residential proximity to agricultural pesticide applications and childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Environ Res. 2009;109(7):891-899 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 58. Sharp L, Black RJ, Harkness EF, McKinney PA. Incidence of childhood leukaemia and non- Hodgkin's lymphoma in the vicinity of nuclear sites in Scotland, 1968-93. Occup Environ Med. 1996;53(12):823-831 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 59. Spix C, Schmiedel S, Kaatsch P, Schulze-Rath R, Blettner M. Case-control study on childhood cancer in the vicinity of nuclear power plants in Germany 1980-2003. Eur J Cancer. 2008;44(2):275- 284 [PubMed] [Google Scholar] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3222489/ 16/19 2/16/22 , 4 :20 PM Residential Proximity to Environmental Hazards and Adverse Health Outcomes 60. Steffen C, Auclerc MF, Auvrignon A, et al. Acute childhood leukaemia and environmental exposure to potential sources of benzene and other hydrocarbons: a case-control study. Occup Environ Med. 2004;61(9):773-778 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 61. Tsai J, Kaye WE, Bove FJ. Wilms' tumor and exposures to residential and occupational hazardous chemicals. Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2006;209(1):57-64 [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 62. Von Behren J, Reynolds P, Gunier RB, et al. Residential traffic density and childhood leukemia risk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2008;17(9):2298-2301 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 63 . Weng HH, Tsai SS, Chiu HF, Wu TN, Yang CY. Childhood leukemia and traffic air pollution in Taiwan: petro station density as an indicator. J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2009;72(2):83-87 [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 64. Yu CL, Wang SF, Pan PC, et al. Residential exposure to petrochemicals and the risk of leukemia: using geographic information tools to estimate individual-level residential exposure. Am J Epidemiol. 2006;164(3):200-207 [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 65. Aylin P, Bottle A, Wakefield J, Jarup L, Elliott P. Proximity to coke works and hospital admissions for respiratory and cardiovascular disease in England and Wales. Thorax. 2001;56(3):228-233 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 66. Edwards J, Walters S, Griffiths RK. Hospital admissions for asthma in preschool children: relationship to major roads in Birmingham, United Kingdom. Arch Environ Health. 1994;49(4):223- 227 [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 67. Maantay J. Asthma and air pollution in the Bronx: methodological and data considerations in using GIS for environmental justice and health research. Health Place. 2007;13(1):32-56 [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 68. Maantay JA, Tu J, Maroko AR. Loose-coupling an air dispersion model and a geographic information system (GIS) for studying air pollution and asthma in the Bronx, New York City. Int J Environ Health Res. 2009;19(1):59-79 [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 69. Smargiassi A, Kosatsky T, Hicks J, et al. Risk of asthmatic episodes in children exposed to sulfur dioxide stack emissions from a refinery point source in Montreal, Canada. Environ Health Perspect. 2009;117(4):653-659 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 70. Oosterlee A, Drijver M, Lebret E, BrunekreefB. Chronic respiratory symptoms in children and adults living along streets with high traffic density. Occup Environ Med. 1996;53(4):241-247 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 71. van Vliet P, Knape M, de Hartog J, Janssen N, Harssema H, BrunekreefB. Motor vehicle exhaust and chronic respiratory symptoms in children living near freeways. Environ Res. 1997;74(2):122-132 [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 72. Venn AJ, Lewis SA, Cooper M, Hubbard R, Britton J. Living near a main road and the risk of wheezing illness in children. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2001;164(12):2177-2180 [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 73. Wjst M, Reitmeir P, Dold S, et al. Road traffic and adverse effects on respiratory health in children. BMJ. 1993;307(6904):596-600 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3222489/ 17/19 2/16/22 , 4 :20 PM Residential Proximity to Environmental Hazards and Adverse Health Outcomes 74. English P, Neutra R, ScalfR, Sullivan M, Waller L, Zhu L. Examining associations between childhood asthma and traffic flow using a geographic information system. Environ Health Perspect. 1999;107(9):761-767 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 75 . Livingstone AE, Shaddick G, Grundy C, Elliott P. Do people living near inner city main roads have more asthma needing treatment? Case control study. BMJ. 1996;312(7032):676-677 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 76 . Wilkinson P, Elliott P, Grundy C, et al. Case-control study of hospital admission with asthma in children aged 5-14 years: relation with road traffic in north west London. Thorax. 1999;54(12): 1070- 1074 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 77. Hu Z, Liebens J, Rao KR. Linking stroke mortality with air pollution, income, and greenness in northwest Florida: an ecological geographical study. Int J Health Geogr. 2008;7:20. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 78. Maheswaran R, Elliott P. Stroke mortality associated with living near main roads in England and Wales: a geographical study. Stroke. 2003;34(12):2776-2780 [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 79. Kouznetsova M, Huang X, Ma J, Lessner L, Carpenter DO. Increased rate of hospitalization for diabetes and residential proximity of hazardous waste sites. Environ Health Perspect. 2007;115(1):75- 79 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 80. Choi AL, Levy n, Dockery DW, et al. Does living near a Superfund site contribute to higher polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) exposure? Environ Health Perspect. 2006; 114(7): 1092-1098 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 81. Hall HI, Kaye WE, Gensburg LS. Residential proximity to hazardous waste sites and risk of end- stage renal disease . J Environ Health. 1996(2);59: 17-22 [Google Scholar] 82. Morris MS, Knorr RS. Adult leukemia and proximity-based surrogates for exposure to Pilgrim plant's nuclear emissions. Arch Environ Health. 1996;51(4):266-274 [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 83. Wilkinson P, Thakrar B, Shaddick G, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality around the Pan Britannica Industries pesticide factory, Waltham Abbey. Occup Environ Med. 1997;54(2):101-107 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 84. Johnson KC, Pan S, Fry R, Mao Y Residential proximity to industrial plants and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Epidemiology. 2003;14(6):687-693 [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 85. Maroko AR, Maantay JA, Sohler NL, Grady KL, Arno PS. The complexities of measuring access to parks and physical activity sites in New York City: a quantitative and qualitative approach. Int J Health Geogr. 2009;8:34. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 86. Morgenstern H. Ecologic studies. : Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash TL, eds. Modern Epidemiology. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008:511-531 [Google Scholar] 87. Vinceti M, Malagoli C, Teggi S, et al. Adverse pregnancy outcomes in a population exposed to the emissions of a municipal waste incinerator. Sci Total Environ. 2008;407(1):116-121 [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 88. Canfield MA, Ramadhani TA, Langlois PH, Waller DK. Residential mobility patterns and exposure misclassification in epidemiologic studies of birth defects. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2006;16(6):538-543 [PubMed] [Google Scholar] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3222489/ 18/19 2/16/22 , 4 :20 PM Residential Proximity to Environmental Hazards and Adverse Health Outcomes 89. Fell DB, Dodds L, King WD. Residential mobility during pregnancy. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2004; 18( 6):408-414 [Pub Med] [Google Scholar] 90. Khoury MJ, Stewart W, Weinstein A, Panny S, Linday P, Eisenberg M. Residential mobility during pregnancy: implications for environmental teratogenesis. J Clin Epidemiol. 1988;41(1):15-20 [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 91. Shaw GM, Malcoe LH. Residential mobility during pregnancy for mothers of infants with or without congenital cardiac anomalies: a reprint. Arch Environ Health. 1992;47(3):236-238 [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 92 . Urayama KY, Von Behren J, Reynolds P, Hertz A, Does M, Buffler PA. Factors associated with residential mobility in children with leukemia: implications for assigning exposures. Ann Epidemiol. 2009;19(11):834-840 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 93 . Perlin SA, Wong D , Sexton K . Residential proximity to industrial sources of air pollution: interrelationships among race, poverty, and age. J Air Waste Manag Assoc. 2001;51(3):406-421 [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 94 . WoodruffTJ, Parker JD, Kyle AD, Schoendorf KC. Disparities in exposure to air pollution during pregnancy. Environ Health Perspect. 2003; 111 (7):942-946 [PMC free article] [Pub Med] [Google Scholar] 95 . Brender JD, Zhan FB, Suarez L, et al. Linking environmental hazards and birth defects data. Int J Occup Environ Health. 2006;12(2):126-133 [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 96 . Brender JD, Suarez L, Langlois PH, Steck M, Zhan FB, Moody K. Are maternal occupation and residential proximity to industrial sources of pollution related? J Occup Environ Med. 2008;50(7):834- 839 [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 97. Apelberg BJ, Buckley TJ, White RH. Socioeconomic and racial disparities in cancer risk from air toxics in Maryland. Environ Health Perspect. 2005; 113( 6):693-699 [PMC free article] [Pub Med] [Google Scholar] 98. Boer JT, Pastor M, Jr, Sadd JL, Snyder LD. Is there environmental racism? The demographics of hazardous waste in Los Angeles . Soc Sci Q. 1997;78:793-810 [Google Scholar] 99. Neumann CM, Forman DL, Rothlein JE. Hazard screening of chemical releases and environmental equity analysis of populations proximate to toxic release inventory facilities in Oregon. Environ Health Perspect. 1998;106(4):217-226 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 100. Perlin SA, Sexton K, Wong DW. An examination of race and poverty for populations living near industrial sources of air pollution. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol. 1999;9(1):29-48 [PubMed] [Google Scholar] Articles from American Journal of Public Health are provided here courtesy of American Public Health Association https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3222489/ 19/19 CITY OF CARMEL JAMES BRASNARD, MAYOR October 7, 2014 Mr. Kevin Krulik, Executive Director Village of West Clay HOA Carmel, IN 46032 RE: Accessory Building Rebuild — 12410 Hoover Road Dear Mr. Krulik: This letter is to communicate the basis for issuance of the Improvement Location Permit (ILP) for the above referenced construction, proposed to be used as the Village of West Clay maintenance facility. The Village of West Clay (Village) has been working on plans to construct a barn to replace that which was destroyed by fire in April 2014. A demolition permit was issued in late August 2014 by the Department of Community Services to clear what remained of the barn, as well as to remove the farmhouse which was also substantially damaged in the fire. The previous barn and farmhouse were turn -of -the -century structures; the barn was of wood construction, approximately 55' x 60'. Aerial photos indicate the barn was the main farm building as far back as 1936 in support of a farm operation, which also included the farmhouse and two other small outbuildings. It is apparent from aerial photography the previous barn and nearby property have been used as a maintenance hub since at least April of 2001. There are no records or history of complaints filed with the City over the maintenance use or condition of the property. The Village proposal is for a new stand-alone 64' x 40' maintenance barn that will be architecturally significant, with fiber cement siding installed in a board & batten style, with battens placed at 16" on -center; properly detailed windows and other features including decorative faux Carriage style overhead garage doors and a standard pitched roof (4:12) with dimensional shingles. Related site and landscape improvements include: 0 a small paved parking/staging area; DEPARTNIENT OF COMINIIINITY SERVICES ONE CIVIC SQUARE, CARNIEL, IN 46032 PHONE 317.571.2417, FAx 317571.2426 MICHAEL P. HOLLIBAOGH, DIRECTOR Mr. Kevin Krulik, Executive Director page 2 Village of West Clay HOA RE: Accessory Building Rebuild —12410 Hoover Road • fenced dumpster and fenced material storage areas; landscaping of the property to the satisfaction of the City's Urban Forester, including: — a landscaped berm will be constructed along the southern edge of the property; — existing trees will be evaluated, and new trees planted to buffer the facility from Hoover Road and adjacent homes; — foundation landscaping where possible. • Safety Improvements to the property will include: — A fire alarm and monitoring system will be installed; — The driveway will secured with a decorative metal gate; — The building will be illuminated at night using carriage style lighting. Zoning Ordinance Z-330 is the primary zoning document for the Village of West Clay Planned Unit Development District. Section 6 of Z-330 allows for accessory uses, buildings and structures in the Primary and Secondary areas of the Village. The provisions in Section 6 do not specifically address a rebuild situation as presented with this barn reconstruction. Section 6.1 provides that an accessory building may not be constructed until the main building has been constructed. In this particular instance, I find the required main building/primary use is not a stand-alone building, but the overall Village of West Clay development, including all parks and common areas in the Village as well as public and commercial buildings. The building proposed will merely replace the structure lost in the fire and re-establish a previously allowed accessory use (maintenance facility). The building's design and use is to support the property maintenance and general upkeep of the Village, and is an upgrade from the previous facility. It is not a commercial venture, but will function solely in support of and accessory to the primary use, the Village of West Clay. In consideration of the above, it is hereby determined that the maintenance building proposed is a permitted use, thus eligible for an Improvement Location Permit (ILP) once final comments from Carmel Building & Code Services and the City Engineering Department have been addressed. This letter shall constitute an official Director's Determination pursuant to Chapter 29.0 of the Carmel Zoning Ordinance. A copy of this letter has been posted at Carmel City Hall, and will be mailed to adjoining property owners. Mr. Kevin Krulik, Executive Director page 3 Village of West Clay HOA RE: Accessory Building Rebuild —12410 Hoover Road If you or an interested party finds fault or disagrees with this Determination, a formal appeal may be made to the Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals (the BZA) pursuant to Section 30.01 of the Carmel Zoning Ordinance. An appeal made to the BZA must be filed within thirty (30) days of this letter, consistent with Ordinance procedure. If no appeal is filed with the BZA in the ordinance prescribed time period, this Determination will be final. If I can be of further assistance regarding this, please call me at 317 5712422. Very truly yours, 1""17Z Michael Hol" augh copy: Douglas Haney, Carmel City Attorney CITY OF CARMEL December 16, 2015 JAMES BRAINARD, MAYOR Mr. Kevin Krulik, Executive Director Village of West Clay Owners Association 12884 Broad Street Carmel, IN 46032 RE: Village of West Clay PUD - Chapel Square use determination Dear Mr. Krulik: The Department of Community Services (DOCS) was contacted in September 2015 by Village of West Clay residents who reside on Chapel Square Street concerned about and objecting to the rental of the Chapel Square common area by the Village of West Clay Owners Association (OA) for commercial weddings and other non-residential uses. This concern was shared with you via an email dated October 22, 2015. A detailed email response followed from Tom Huston, dated Oct 24, 2015, which was helpful and appreciated. It is fair to say there are few people in our community that have greater understanding or appreciation for the Founder's philosophy behind the project than me. However, in this instance, it appears there is missing from the City's official record any documentation supporting the intended use of Chapel Square as detailed by Mr. Huston, beyond early illustrative documents submitted with the PUD in 1997, and the recent efforts of the CA to use Chapel Square for marriage ceremonies, which have caused the City's involvement. The Chapel Square area falls within the Primary Area RU Zone District, defined in Section 3 of the PUD, as 'that part of the Primary Area delineated on the Development Plan as "Primary Area (RU)" and containing primarily residential uses.' The permitted uses within Primary Area (RU) per Section 5.1.1 include: single family detached dwellings; attached and vertical dwellings; accessory dwellings, Recreational Developments or facilities; and Agricultural uses. While it is understood the overall Primary Area is intended to include a mix of residential, commercial, Civic and Public/Semi-public uses, the complex mix of uses contemplated in the PUD is limited to the Primary Area (MU) and Primary Area (SH). This is clearly written in the PUD and illustrated in key exhibits. Section 12 of the PUD specifically provides for Civic spaces in the Primary Area, but limits their location to generally 'in and adjacent to the Village Center', with emphasis on University Green and the Meeting House as Civic Space. Chapel Square is not at all mentioned in Section 12, Civic Space. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES ONE CIVIC SQUARE, CARMEL, IN 46032 PHONE 317.571.2417, FAx 317.571.2426 MICHAEL P. HOLLI➢AUGH, DIRECTOR Mr. Kevin Krulik page 2 RE: Village of West Clay PUD - Chapel Square use determination Mr. Huston's October 24 response averred that Chapel Square common area was originally intended for public open air events, and was specifically designed as an outdoor chapel. While that is generally supported in early PUD exhibits, including a drawing identified as "Plan Enlargement", which identifies the common area surrounded by Horseferry Pass (now Chapel Square St.) as location for a chapel building. What is missing from the record, however, is any supporting documentation or a specific provision in the PUD that details the intended use of the Chapel Square common area as Community Area or Civic Space. The PUD clearly limits the use of Chapel Square common area to those uses permitted in the Primary Area (RU) only. Thus, any use of Chapel Square for Civic Uses and other uses not expressly permitted in the PUD are prohibited. Based on the above, it is determined the use of Chapel Square for Civic Uses is a violation of the PUD. Any actions or plans by the CA for the use or leasing of Chapel Square for uses prohibited in the PUD must cease effective immediately. Further, any use of Chapel Square common area by the HOA for Civic Uses or other uses not expressly permitted in the Primary Area (RU) will result in a formal enforcement action initiated by the City. Should the OA wish to pursue the use Chapel Square for Civic Uses or other uses not permitted in the PUD, approval will need to be obtained in the form of either a PUD amendment by the Carmel City Council, or approval for a use variance or special use by Carmel's Board of Zoning Appeals. This letter and the conclusions herein shall constitute an official Director's Determination per Section 29.04 of the Carmel Zoning Ordinance. It has been forwarded to you and to the residents whose property fronts on the Chapel Square Street. If you or any interested party disagrees with this Determination, a formal appeal to the BZA may be filed pursuant to Section 30.2 of the Carmel Zoning Ordinance. Any appeal to the BZA must be filed within thirty (30) days of issuance of this letter or the Determination will be final. Very truly yours, G Michael Holliba Director, Depa ent of Community Services Copy via email: Douglas Haney, Carmel City Attorney Tom Huston Liz Van Tassel file October 18, 2011 City ofCarmel Department ofCommunity Services Mr. Tony Barbee Mr. Robert Potakar PulteGroup. Traditions on the Monon HOA 11590 N. Meridian Street Smoky Row Suite 530 Carmel, IN 46032 Carmel, IN 46032 Re: Traditions on the Monon Zoning and quality construction issues. DearMr. Barbee andMr. Potokar: Thisletteristoinformyouofadetermination madebytheDirectorofCommunityServices, pursuant to the authority granted in Section 29.04 of the Carmel Zoning Ordinance, ontheabove referenced matter. I have reviewed in detail the issues surrounding each complaint raised in the Traditions on the Monon Defects List" dated ofAugust 29, 2011. After careful review and analysis, including consultation with DOCS staff, Department of Engineering personnel, and outside experts, Iconclude thefollowing: 1. Banked Parking Area. A new parking area was constructed by PulteGroup (Pulte) in response to acomplaint by the Traditions HOA (HOA), per their previously submitted "Transition Report" of August 2010, and subsequent action by the City of Carmel. This parking area was constructed inalocation and ofaconfiguration consistent with the Development Plan forthe project. The HOA has identified intheHOA "Defects List" (Attachment A) four complaints tothisparking lot construction, as follows: The parking area is not curbed The parking area needs light pole The parking areas drainage design should require anoverflow curb The parking area guard rail needs painted Determination: A. TheparkinglotwasconstructedwithoutcurbingpursuanttotheCarmelZoning Ordinance requirements. It is determined that the developer shall install approximately onehundredsixty (160) feetofcurbalongthesidesoftheeasternpartofthelot, according to the standards of the Department of Engineering. B. The installation of a light for this area, while helpful for safety and security, is not a requirement ofCity ordinances orofthePUD, andshall notberequired. C. The installation of an additional overflow curb adjacent to the retaining wall will not result inanimprovement tothedrainage design andshall notberequired. Division ofPlanning Zoning One Civic Square Carmel, IN46032 317 571 2417 Michael P. Hollibaugh, Director Mr. TonyBarbeeMr. RobertPotakar Re: Traditions on the Monon Transition Report Zoning and quality construction issues Page 2 D. The guard rail design must becompleted, including installation ofadditional segments of missing rail material, approximately eight (8) boards. An additional coating of black paint shall be applied to the railing already in existence, with additional paint required for the newer sections. Upon completion ofthe above, the surety inplace toensure proper parking lot installation will bereleased 2. Streets andCurbs A lengthy list of pavement defects was presented by the HOA in the Traditions on the Monon Transition Report ofAugust 2010. While anumber ofthe defects listed have been repaired bythedeveloper, therearenineitemsidentified intheHOA "Defects List" of8/29/11. Since that list was issued, the Department has found seven items which remain incomplete or unresolved: Street Curb cracks 20 Bldg 15 No concrete curb on road end 36 feet 9thStreetNWWestendnorthsidenocurb 114 feet ll th Street NWEastendnocurb 45feet Monon Lane East end no concrete curb 66feet Monon Lane No street name sign hasbeen installed Bldg7 Finish asphalt top coat missing Bldg 14, 15 Finish asphalt top coat missing Determination: A. The presence of20remaining cracks inthe curbing has been identified and categorized as to their severity by the City Engineer. The repair of those cracks is essential to the longevity oftheimprovement, andforproper conveyance ofstormwater. Therepairof all curbs with cracks rated as "category 2, 3, 4, and 5" shall be required according tothe standards oftheCarmel Department ofEngineering. B. TheHOA identified that "finish asphalt topcoatismissing from theareas around Building 7, on3Ave. NW, andfromtheprivatedriveservicing Buildings 14 15. Finish asphalt has been installed throughout the project, including the areas identified by theHOA. Theaddition ofmore pavement intheareaofBuilding 7willlikely have a negative effect on drainage inthis area, and shall not be required. However, it is observed that the concrete drives for Building 7have been installed with a finished grade approximately 1" above finished pavement, creating a problem for maintenance, current and future. Mr. Tony Barbee Mr. Robert Potakar Re: Traditions on the Monon Transition Report Zoning and quality construction issues Page 3 In order to repair this, the driveway pad to each unit in Building 7shall be reinstalled so theconcrete isflush with theasphalt pavement ofthedrive lane. This shall beintheform of an entirely new driveway or apad renovation by saw cutting and removal of the existing concrete drive inthelocation ofthemid -point control joint and new pour to proper elevation. New concrete driveways shall be poured to be flush with the existing finish asphalt, consistent with other areas throughout the project. AsimilarissueoccursintheareaofBuilding14 15, wheretheoffsetbetweenthe concrete drive and top of asphalt isamaintenance problem and notconsistent with the standard fortheproperty. This isespecially evident atBuilding 14where thejoint betweenasphaltandtheconcretedrivewayholdssufficientmoistureformosstogrow. This area shall be repaired by the builder either through milling of existing asphalt and thelaying ofnew asphalt tothelevel ofthedrive, orthrough thereconstruction of driveways, asdetailed forBuilding 7. C. The HOA identified the need to install curbs at the ends of drive lanes in four locations. It isdetermined that thepavement design inthose areas ispertheapproved plan forthe project, that the installation of curbs will have a detrimental effect on the conveyance of stormwaterinthoseareasandshallnotberequired. However, inthefour identified locations thepavement/turf transition, i.e. theedge between asphalt and turf, shall be improved by establishing a uniform clean, defined edge ofpavement, and through thecareful establishment ofturf inthose areas, including: proper soil preparation, removal of stones from the soil; placement of additional top soil asmay berequired; seed application and mulching with clean straw. 3. Landscaping and Grounds Alengthy listofgrounds and landscaping issues was presented bytheHOA inthe Traditions ontheMonon Transition Report" ofAugust 2010 (Attachment B). While a number of the issues identified previously by the HOA have been fixed by the developer, there were nine items identified inthe HOA "Defects List" of 8/29/11. Since that list was issued, there are six HOA items which remain unresolved. Bldg21 Sod missing Southwest corner byroad 11 street NW Sodmissing east end All Grounds remove all plastic utility warning posts, white, yellow NorthRetainingwallbackfillwithsoilandsod 114 ft. x 8 ft. New East Retaining Wall Insufficient adhesive on cap row Monon entry sidewalk needs fill dirt on sides Mr. Tony Barbee Mr. Robert Potakar Re: Traditions on the Monon Transition Report Zoning and quality construction issues Page 4 Determination: A. The missing sod inthearea adjacent toBuilding 21was primarily aresult ofconstruction for the overflow parking. Since completion of that construction the irrigation to that area has been restored and the grass hasbegun togrow in. Itisdetermined this area, between Building 7 and Building 20, shall require a comprehensive re- seeding effort by the Pulte including proper soil preparation, seeding and straw mulch application. This shall occur following installation of curbing for the new parking area. B. Other areas throughout the project that shall require a comprehensive re- seeding include: the area surrounding the new parking lot adjacent to Building 9; the common area in SE corner of traffic circle (between Buildings 14 and 15); the lawn area along the eastern side of the subdivision, especially in the common area east of Building 14; theendareabetweenBuilding16and17; the end area between Building 18 and Building 23. C. Sod replacement was attempted by Pulte during the summer months in areas where mail boxes were installed and areas where metal fencing was erected. It is determined that replacement sod shall be installed by Pulte in areas where it was previously installed and failedduringthedrysummermonths. D. Portions of the North Retaining Wall were reconstructed to correct outward shifting. The HOADefectsListidentifies "backfillandsodissues" which, uponinspection, are unidentifiable and shall not require repair by Pulte. E. Portions of the East Retaining Wall were reconstructed to correct outward shifting. The HOA Defects List indentifies insufficient adhesive on the wall's cap row. Our inspection found at least one cap stone has been removed and left unattached, showing a minimum amount of adhesive used to complete this repair. Other stones were found to be loose and easilymoved. The east wall cap row stones shall be repaired by Pulte, including a pre repair inspection by City and Pulte, and cap stones re- adhered by Pulte per manufacturer's specifications. F. The HOA has requested the area immediately adjacent to their Monon Greenway egress walk be filled by Pulte, citing a safety issue. The egress walk is currently a seven foot wide concrete walk with drainage tile. The filling of the Monon egress point, already initiated by the HOA, shall not be arequirement of Pulte. Fill dirt by the HOA must be removed by the HOA, or its installation approved by the City Engineer and theParks Department. Mr. Tony Barbee Mr. Robert Potakar Re: Traditions on the Monon Transition Report Zoning and quality construction issues Page 5 4. Landscape Audit. A separate landscape audit has been conducted by the Department of Community Services beginning in November 2010, updated over the course of spring and summer 2011, and finalized in October 2011. The DOCS audit was used to compare with a similar audit performed by the Tradition HOA, dated August 2011. Full Landscape inspection reports can be found in Appendix C. A. Driveway landscaping Inspection report: Species to match rest of budding Determination (Driveway plantings): Replacement by Pulte of missing and dead driveway plant material for all buildings. Replanting or replacement by Pulte of material noted as improperly installed. Missing- Dead /Installed Improperly (II) Building 1 3 grass 1yew Building 2 2 arborvitae 4 yew (3 11) Building 3 2 arborvitae 6 grass 2 yew Building 4 1 grass 1 yew Building 5 4grass 1yew Building 6 3 grass Building 7 Building 8 4 grass 3 yew (3 II) Building 9 3 grass Building 10 2yew (1 II) Building 11 4 grass Building 12 Building 13 3 arborvitae 1bayberry Building 14 2 arborvitae 2grass Building 15 2 arborvitae Building 16 Building 17 2 arborvitae 1 grass Building 18 1yew (1 II) Building 19 1 grass 1 yew Building 20 2grass Building21 Building 22 1 yew Building 23 TOTALS 13 arborvitae (M -D) 34 grass (M -D)17yew(9M -D)(8II) /1bayberry(1M -D) i Mr. Tony Barbee Mr. Robert Potakar Re: Traditions on the Monon Transition Report Zoning and quality construction issues Page 5 4. Landscape Audit. A separate landscape audit has been conducted by the Department of Community Services beginning in November 2010, updated over the course of spring and summer 2011, and finalized in October 2011. The DOCS audit was used to compare with a similar audit performed by the Tradition HOA, dated August 2011. Full Landscape inspection reports can be found in Appendix C. A. Driveway landscaping Inspection report: Species to match rest of budding Determination (Driveway plantings): Replacement by Pulte of missing and dead driveway plant material for all buildings. Replanting or replacement by Pulte of material noted as improperly installed. Mr. TonyBarbeeMr. RobertPotakar Re: Traditions on the Monon Transition Report Zoningandqualityconstructionissues Page 6 B. Foundation landscaping Inspection report: Building13 2yew; 1spirea; 1weigela Building 14 2 holly; 4 boxwood; 1 burning bush Building15 —1boxwood; 1burningbush; 1spirea; 1maidengrass; 1daylily Building 16 3yews; 3spirea Building 17 —1weigela; 2maiden grass Building 23 —1 burning bush; 1bayberry Building 7 —1 barberry Building 11 2barberry Building 20 —1 boxwood; 1 euonymus; 1 buming bush; 1 spirea Determination: Replacement by Pulte of missing and dead plant material installed with construction in 2009 orlater; Buildings 23, 17, 16, 15, 14, and 13. Replacement by Pulte of missing and dead plant material installed with buildings constructed without irrigation system: Buildings 7, 11, and 20. C. Common Area Inspection report: NE Corner (bldg. 23 and 18) 1crab apple 4arborvitae Funeral Home Parking area (bldg. 17 and 16) 5arborvitae C.A. SE Corner 3rd Ave and 10 Street (bldgs 14 and 15) 1crab apple Center Green north half (bldgs 11 and 7) 2red maple Building 8 (east facade, south corners) 1oak SECorner (byDukesubstation) 6arborvitae (top of wall) 2 arborvitae (foot of wall) Determination: Replacement by Pulte of dead common area plant material noted above. Mr. Tony Barbee Mr. Robert Potakar Re: Traditions ontheMonon Transition Report Zoning and quality construction issues Page 7 D. Tree mulch. Ithas been reported by the HOA and observed by DOCS that most shade trees and ornamental trees have been overmulched, creating aproblem described as "volcano mulch which builds up a high level of mulch around the trunk, which encourages insects andmoisture related maladies. The practice occurred while the HOA was operated by the developer, and has continued under the management of the residents. The cost for repair is estimated to be twenty dollars ($20) per tree. Determination: Thecost forrepair of110trees shall besplit equally between theHOA andPulte, amounting to $1100 each. E. Mulch bed restoration. There are many areas across the property where drainage improvements were made atthe HOA's request, involving the removal of black corrugated drainage pipe was removed from the gutter /downspout drainage system, then replaced with river stone and downspouttroughs. Across the property are the remnants ofthis pipe removal which were left unfinished, in many cases creating erosion channels, but, in general the result is an eight or ten inch channel which needs to be backfilled and mulched. Determination: Pulte shall restore all mulch bed areas where the repair need exists, with a level of detail indicatingcareforaqualityoutcome. Upon completion of Landscape items A E above, the surety in place to ensure proper landscape installation will be released. 5. Irrigation System. Aseparate Irrigation System audit was conducted by the Department ofCommunity Services over the course of summer 2011, and finalized in October 2011. The DOCS audit utilized the August walk -thru; the HOA report titled "Traditions on the Monon Irrigation Repair List" the List), personal field observation, the as -built irrigation plan prepared by Irrigation Design Source forPulteandgeneral assistance fromAutomatic Irrigation, Fishers, Indiana. The List submitted by the HOA following the August walk -thru detailed offered thirty-six 36) specific recommendations for improvements to each of the forty -three (43) zones in the system. The List was subsequently reviewed by Pulte who responded by resolving eighteen 18) oftherecommended changes, andconcluding thatmanyoftheactions wereHOA responsibility, or not required by the PUD. Mr. Tony Barbee Mr. Robert Potakar Re: Traditions on the Monon Transition Report Zoningandqualityconstructionissues Page 8 ThePUDordinanceforTraditionsdoesnotprovideprecisedesignspecificationsforan irrigation system, nor does it require a plan submittal from which an objective evaluation can bemade. The irrigation system audit is complicated by as -built plan which accounts for only forty (40) zones of the forty -three (43) zones, and does not indicate the recent updates from the parking construction, and/or subsequent resulting irrigation adjustments. It is apparent from field inspection and review of the as -built plan the installed irrigation system provides coverage to the vast majority of the property, including lawn areas and landscape beds. There are foundations plantings for buildings 7, 11 and 20 where irrigation conduit exists but irrigation hardware was not provided. This is in contrast to a community standard for landscaping foundation areas found atall other buildings within the property. It is generally observed that the opportunity is without a location where a garden hose may be used to water common area plants in parts of the property without irrigation, such as along the eastern edge of the property where a number of plants have been lost likely to drought. The neighborhood also appears to be challenged by a conflict between pet ownership and availability of greenspace on the property. There are many areas where the turf and shrubbery have been damaged by animal urine, as well as areas where animal feces had not been cleaned. This HOA management issue conflicts with proper landscape maintenance and degrades the positive effects from the irrigation system, in some cases obfuscates the system effects completely, and ingeneral undermines efforts toimprove the quality ofthe landscape. Determination: A. Irrigation system shall be installed by Pulte for foundation planting bed, Buildings 7, 11 and 20. B. The Irrigation As -Built drawing shall be updated by Pulte to include the over -flow parking areas, the irrigation adjustments, and missing zones, 41, 42 and 43. C. The irrigation plan may need to be amended, following review of the updated Irrigation As -built plan to ensure a high level of coverage in the amended areas noted above. Upon completion of Irrigation System items A Cabove, the surety in place to ensure aproper irrigationsysteminstallationwillbereleased. The Director's determinations in this letter may be appealed to the Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals by you or any other interested party pursuant to Chapter 30.0 of the Mr. Tony Barbee Mr. Robert Potakar Re: Traditions onthe Monon Transition Report Zoning andquality construction issues Page9 CarmelZoningOrdinance. Suchappealsmustbefiledwithin thirty (30) days ofissuance of this letter or the determinations are fmal. Ifyouhaveanyquestions, orwishtodiscussthismatterfurther, pleasedo nothesitatetocontact me at 571 -2422. Very truly yours, Michael Hollib Attachments: Copy: Site map with building numbers Attachment A Traditions HOA "Defects List" Attachment B Traditions Transition Report Summary List of Issues Attachment C Pulte Inspection Items Response Status Attachment D DOCS Landscape inspection reports Attachment E Irrigation Plan "Defects List" DOCS photo documentation MayorJamesBrainard John Molitor Douglas C. Haney CITY OF CARMIEL JAMES BRAINARD, MAYOR Date: October 6, 2015 To: Whom it may concqm From: Mike Holli ugh, Director, Carmel Department of Community Services Copy: Cliff White, M/I Homes of Indiana Re: Westmont PUD This letter is to notify you of a Zoning Determination made by the Director of Carmel's Department of Community Services (DOCS) for certain unimproved lots in the Westmont Planned Unit Development (PUD). The Director of DOCS has determined the provisions and exhibits of Ordinance Z-507-07 limit the height of new residential dwellings on lots of 80' in width to 1-story and 1.5 stories in height only. This Determination will prohibit the construction of 2-story homes on Westmont's remaining 80' wide lots located on Finnhorse Drive, Altair Drive, Nordland Drive and Caspian Drive. If you find fault or disagree with this Determination, you may file a formal appeal to the Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals (the BZA) pursuant to Section 30.01 of Carmel's Zoning Ordinance. An appeal made to the BZA must be filed within thirty (30) days of issuance of this letter, consistent with the procedure set forth in Zoning Ordinance, Section 30.02 If no appeal to the BZA is filed by 4:00 PM on November 5, 2015, this Determination will be final. You may contact the Director of DOCS with your questions or concerns at 317-571-2417, or via email at mhollibaugh@carmel.in.gov. DFPaRFNIENT Or CONINI NNIT Sr-RVRJC ONE (A IC S LARr. C RMEL. IN -10 032 PH(-)\L 31—.5-1.2•11—. FAx 31^.5,1.23 26 MIC111Ar-1. P. II�:�LLIL�.ai. �;I�. DIRL(TO>R r r 1 \ j y ) 4 i tic - �: •_ Burnett _� , CA _ MCA CITY OF CARMEL JAMES BRAINARD, MAYOR October 6, 2015 Mr. Cliff White M/I Homes of Indiana, LP 8500 Keystone Crossing, Ste. 590 Indianapolis, IN 46240 Re: Westmont PUD Dear Mr. White: am writing in regards to the Westmont PUD located west of Ditch Road on between Smoky Row and 1415L Streets in Carmel, Indiana. The City was contacted recently by property owners who live adjacent to Westmont in the Westwood Estates subdivision, concerned about homes under construction by M/I on Finnhorse Drive. The neighbors asked that we examine the record for ordinance Z-507-07 for commitments to build exclusively one-story homes on lots abutting Westwood Estates. Review of the file for Westmont did not reveal dwelling height commitments; however, what was found were key provisions in the PUD ordinance and Plan Commission record of decision (Docket No. 07020014) which support the smaller homes on certain Westmont lots assertion by the Westwood Estates neighbors, as follows: The approved plan for Westmont consists of 143 lots divided into three 'typical' lot types defined by width, which is easily seen on the Westmont Site Plan, found in the petitioner's packet of June 19, 2007. Building lots widths on the plan are color coded as follows: - 80' width (pink, 34 lots); - 100' width (green, 91 lots); - 120' width (yellow, 18 lots). There are also Character Exhibits in the June 19, 2015 petitioner's packet that clearly communicate the character of homes planned to be built in Westmont, based solely on lot sizes in the subdivision: • Character Exhibit 8 — provides 10 images of two-story dwellings on 100 & 120' wide lots • Character Exhibit 9 — provides 10 images of 1 story and 1.5 story dwellings on 80' wide lots And while the Character Exhibits clearly are conceptual only, it is my opinion these images were used to communicate a firm direction planned for project buildout, and were used to convey that intent to Plan Commission, and City Council and interested parties of the remonstrance. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES ONE CIVIC SQUARE, CARMEL, IN 46032 PHONE 317.571.2417, FAX 317.571.2426 MICHAEL P. HOLLIBAUGH, DIRECTOR Mr. Cliff White M/I Homes of Indiana, LP Re: Westmont PUD October 6, 2015 page 2 The Westmont PUD Ordinance adopted by the Carmel City Council establishes the Westmont District as governed by the Westmont Ordinance, and its exhibits (and the Carmel Zoning Ordinance). It is my belief the PUD and exhibits contemplated the dwelling height limits based on lot size, that the request by adjacent property owners to limit dwelling heights based on lot with is a reasonable expectation based on the public record and record of decision, and it is the City's responsibility to enforce this aspect of the PUD. It is my duty to inform you of these relevant provisions, and the intent of the City of Carmel Department of Community Services to require adherence to building height limits based on lot width, as outlined above. Based on the above, it is hereby determined that, from this point forward, any Improvement Location Permits for new dwellings on 80' wide lots in Westmont Sections 2A and 2B will be issued for 1-story or 1.5 story buildings only, consistent with the Exhibit 9, enclosed herein. This letter shall constitute an official Director's Determination per Chapter 29.0 of the Carmel Zoning Ordinance. It has been mailed to you and all impacted, adjoining property owners consistent with the Rules of Procedure of Carmel's Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) and the Carmel Zoning Ordinance. If you or any interested party disagrees with this Determination, a formal appeal to the BZA may be filed pursuant to Chapter 30.0 of the Carmel Zoning Ordinance. Any appeal to the BZA must be filed within thirty (30) days of issuance of this letter or the Determination will be final. Very truly yours, Micha I P. Holli gh Copy: Douglas Haney, Carmel City Attorney Adjacent property owners (in file) Enc. Exhibits 8 & 9 Westmont Site Plan 'Yles,tmant SITE PLAN -- iai(s«ee(. J }I�,I y Urain - - POND = S 117 17 ii t j 1 POND --- 1 t. MY WIDE LOTS ❑ (fYPiCALW.Qtf) . I / ...,� ,. //.-, 1 "^.� IW WIDE LOTS ❑ (TYPICALIMNIWI POND - IZO' WIDE LOTS ❑ � - IryIIC L 'JfcleQ' 1 ,f SLulpdsa�.[ fL+wLeu.9.�. In �-�j WESTMONT 100' & 120' WIDE LOT CHARACTER EXHIBIT 8 ...K .'t-•t�tS•. ems.. Ysi•1�xan�._