Dian Cucchisi, PhD, CHMM

Environmental Health and Safety Professionals are often faced with questions that do not seem to have black and white answers, but, in reality, regulatory requirements are not that gray.  A common question: When do the requirements for 29 CFR 1910.120 and 29 CFR 1926.65 (OSHA’s Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response regulations) apply?  The challenge for EHS professionals is to communicate to workers the distinction between what are considered environmental health risks and the risks to human health, and to clarify the difference of the word “hazardous” as used by various environmental protection agencies and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the state environmental protection agencies have standards for soil and groundwater “cleanliness” for residential and non-residential properties.  Soil or groundwater in exceedence of those standards needs to be remediated (usually by removal), but to add to the confusion, sometimes when soil and/or groundwater is removed from the site and transported to a disposal facility it may not fall into the EPA’s definition for hazardous waste.  So here lies the misunderstanding; if it is not classified as “hazardous waste” by the EPA, people often make the determination that it is not considered hazardous to workers and, therefore, it is not necessary to take measures to protect the workers’ health and safety.

When it comes to worker safety and the risks to human health, we must look at the requirements provided by OSHA.   OSHA is focused on exposure potential and the resulting hazard assessment evaluation to workers from the chemicals that may be encountered when working in areas with potentially contaminated soil and/or groundwater.  If the chemicals present are regulated by OSHA with a Permissible Exposure Limit (exposure based on an 8-hour average), the employer is required to conduct exposure assessments and air monitoring to determine potential risks to the workers onsite.  It also requires that workers are protected from these potential exposures through either engineering controls or personal protective equipments (such as tyvek, gloves and respirators).

 There is also a need to protect the workers and meet all the other applicable OSHA standards that mitigate health and safety risks to workers on this site.   Such required protection would include: 

• developing a site-specific health and safety plan,
• training workers in chemical hazards and controls,
• conducting environmental monitoring to determine exposure,
• instituting controls (PPE and Engineering) to protect from exposure potential,
• clean up (decontamination).and a number of other procedures.  

It is surprising and frustrating that this issue is still debated, but if it is, doesn’t it make sense to use the guidelines in these standards to clarify? We are talking about human health and the regulations are clear about the requirements for worker training and personal protection when dealing with chemical contamination.  You can use the environmental classifications to determine how to treat the situation, but you must look to OSHA to protect the workers as they are doing it.

Have you ever had workplace confusion regarding environmental risk and hazardous to human health? If so, I’d like to hear about your situation and how you resolved it.

Barbara Glynn Alves

The July issue of Delta’s Sky magazine was devoted to the profound change that the advertising world is experiencing.  It was the cover of John Slattery and Christina Hendricks from the hit show that caught my eye, but it was the fantastic reporting and interviews of ad industry movers and shakers that kept me reading. The feature articles were entirely relatable to the change that the environmental, health and safety industry is experiencing as technology puts a quivering arrow through the heart of what has been known as “Industry Best Practices”.

Recently, my colleague Tom Carlson,PE, in an EHSWire post regarding Best Available Technology, posed the question, “Given the availability today, right now, of newer technologies and systems that can easily help reduce the risks from air-borne hazards, shouldn’t these be used on remediation sites to protect workers and the public?”   The Emilcott answer is a resounding YES…of course!  And, until now, our message to stakeholders has been that it’s time to revisit Industry Best Practices for perimeter air monitoring and embrace the newest practices that technology has to offer. It has been a hard sell.

As director of all things sales and marketing at Emilcott, I had been a bit baffled by the resistance to the clear advantages offered by new technologies.  Delta’s Sky gave me the last dot to complete the picture as it explored the evolution of the ad world from the late 1950’s to the present. Decades of advertising best practices centered on the dominant triune media of TV, radio and print have been turned on their proverbial ears (and eyes) by the introduction of cable media and the Internet-driven marketplace.  Madison Avenue, the traditional epicenter of advertising, completely understands the changes and use of the new media outlets. However, the only firms to be successful are those that have been innovative enough to walk their clients through this new territory – most of these firms are far from Madison Avenue and are practicing near technology havens.

This was my Eureka: Our clients understand that change is upon them, but they are afraid. This was most profoundly stated in an interview with Christian Haas, Executive Creative Director with the ad firm Goodby, Silverstein & Partners out of San Francisco, who told Sky, “Best Practices are by definition the antithesis of innovation. And innovation eventually causes discomfort.”  I get it!  Not only do we have to introduce the change in Best Available Technology as changing Industry Best Practices, we also have to tell them how WE will help them make the change.  Wow!

Emilcott is embracing this enlightened sales message whole-heartily so that we can help our clients understand and embrace the NEW Best Practices with the reassurance that the expertise of Emilcott will be with them – for the whole ride. Have you or your clients been reluctant to try new Best Available Technologies in the field because it seems intimidating? What would it take to get you to embrace innovation?

When I was first introduced to perimeter air monitoring, I walked in circles for days, literally.  Every half hour I recorded a reading in my field book and moved to the next assigned point. This necessary, tedious process continued for days, weeks, and months. At the end of each day I watched an entire job crew file through the gates to the parking area as I stood by in envy.  After a deep breath of annoyance and gloom, I grabbed the laptop and associated data cables for one last circular trudge to download the day’s data:  Will the data download?  Will it start raining (or snowing) like yesterday? Will the laptop and data cables work? Will I be able to see the mouse cursor on-screen against the glare?  Will the seemingly-fickle detector programs open and perform so that I can eventually go home?  Thirteen downloads in all were required each evening after the project site shut down adding up to over an hour and a half of sheer repetitiveness. That’s if everything worked right. 

On some days I would get all the data I needed, some days not.  Even worse, I knew that a downloaded, extremely high reading would make for an agonizing next morning with the site supervisors. For any EHS technician on a perimeter monitoring job, the biggest problem isn’t the exercise or long days, it is the inability to explain the juxtaposition of “crazy high” reading at one location when a “good” reading occurred simultaneously at the opposite end of the site where I was writing readings down.  When asked for the reason why, I didn’t have a “reason” or a “why”. 

Flash forward five years and a lot has changed.  As part of the Greenlight Environmental Monitoring System Team, I take part in a weekly engineering meeting that focuses on making air monitoring more efficient, detailed, accountable, easier to use and quicker to understand. Essentially, we’re working on streamlining site data acquisition to understand “reasons” and “why” readings occur when they do. Using my experience in the field, a large part of my job responsibility is to figure out ways to improve my old job while creating a much better and cheaper way to retrieve site data.  So what have we accomplished?  Here’s a progression of how the Greenlight System developed as we tried so solve real site problems:

• Using wireless technology is nothing new, and remote linking into a single device at a time is not necessarily that helpful.  So the engineering team developed a program that could “see” what was happening at every monitoring station on a single screen. 
• Unfortunately, we were still trotting out to each field station to download, start and stop each device.  So we added remote start/stop and download capabilities to our developing system and now we could control the devices from a single computer.
• Datalogging in real-time (not just at the end of the day), graphical displays, site and contour maps, automatic report generation and many other features to control and present data were added to the software. Now the technician or any authorized person could see exactly what was happening at each station right now! instead of walking in a circuit  to check on status.
• Instead of relying on each instrument’s datalogging capabilities, we added a Remote Terminal Unit (RTU) in each field station to take over datalogging.  We also log data at the central server to ensure that data is never lost. 
• The RTU gave our growing system even more capabilities; now we could add a multiple, different detectors to a single RTU in each field station, gather data and status from all of them, and send the data packets back to a central server.
• Interference for wireless communications were troublesome and complicated, but by switching to addressable and secure modems, data continuously moves across sites without problem.
• Moving stations based on prevailing winds isn’t ideal (especially when you’re out there in the field!) so wind direction is measured, an upwind station is identified, then background or offsite readings could be automatically subtracted from downwind stations.   
• An action level alarm is not good. Ever.  So we added multiple alarm levels to the System to avoid work stopping exceedences.  Alarming at the base computer was a no-brainer.  In addition, we added text and email alarms to multiple numbers.  Lights and whistles can be added, too. Now, at the first hint of a problem, the user knows and can take proper action.
• So that a smart phone can view and control conditions at any site, we made all of the system server functions web based — all pages can be accessed remotely.  For example, to look at an alarm, device or site reading from any particular day, just log in to the secure web address, and review the data. Five months ago or five minutes, all the device data is there in one database.

The list of features and firsts goes on and on; the point is that there is always a new and better way to get the job done…even if it is monitoring dust at a construction site.  So why are companies still using field books to store data where the newest technology is the gel pen jotting down readings every half hour?  By employing new monitoring technology and the technician, you’ll have site data quicker and understand “why” so that you’ll have a safer, cleaner site that is in compliance with less anomalies. And, you won’t be walking in circles.

Capt. John DeFillippo, CHMP, EMT-B

I recently reviewed a student HazWOPER field exercise. I’ve seen good execution many times, but this class was not one of them. Why not? Poor planning. It always comes down to planning. Whether you are working together for the first time or are a part of a regular response team, what you do before you suit up definitely dictates the outcome.

“If you fail to plan, you better plan to fail”

I was told that phrase many moons ago and let me add “practice” to “plan” for a hazardous material/waste response event. Teams who break the gear out once a year for their mandatory refresher training get a rude awakening when we review the drill and watch the video that documents their slip-ups and indecision. We are all relieved that it was just a practice drill and no one’s life was on the line.

Practice Saves Time and Increases Effectiveness

At Emilcott, one of the biggest problems that we see during a hazardous material / waste response is no assignment of personnel assigned to the needed roles before the response. This often-ignored, crucial step saves time, duplication of effort and aids in quick reaction time.  As you probably know, actions taken in the first minutes of an emergency usually determine the outcome, so it is imperative that you know your job cold before you have to do it.

Recently I was part of a crew on a 42-foot sailboat competing in the 2010 Newport Bermuda Race and was able to draw some parallels between my sailing hobby and my job as a HazWOPER trainer. With a crew of five on a small boat hundreds of miles offshore, each member needs to know their job as lives depend on it… a storm at night is not the time for a discussion or indecision. The same holds true during a hazmat incident, or any critical situation, especially when victims are involved.

HazWOPER teams whose members know their responsibilities beforehand are more likely to have a successful outcome. Posting duty boards with names and positions and quick weekly meetings and updates are key. Where is the equipment? When was it checked? This must be done monthly, it’s required under OSHA standards. Weekly or monthly meetings present a great opportunity to do a “table-top” or walk-through exercise. Before heading up to Newport, our racing crew sailed together for months and drilled on our emergency procedures over and over until they became second nature. I was confident that the other crew members were going to do what they needed to do before they did it. That kind of teamwork and successful finish only comes from practice and planning.

How often does your response team practice or conduct drills? Do you just go to training and think that’s enough? What do you think about the students in this drill? What would help them improve and become an effective team?

Paula Kaufmann, CIH

As part of their investigative report, NPR discovered that there were situations at the mine when the methane gas monitors on continuous mining machines were disabled because the monitors repeatedly shut down the machines.  The miners interviewed explained that supervisors told them it was acceptable to disable these monitors as long as the miner operating the equipment used a hand-held methane monitor to test the air.  This is the part of the report that stopped me in my tracks!!!

The methane gas monitors are an essential part of the mining machine’s fail-safe system. They are factory-installed and essential components of the machine design; when the monitor senses an explosive atmosphere, the mining machine shuts down automatically.  The ONLY reason that spark-generating equipment can be operated in an environment likely to contain explosive concentrations of methane gas is precisely because the equipment is designed to automatically shut down if an explosive atmosphere is encountered. 

The procedures followed at the mine undermined (no pun intended) a fundamental safety feature of the continuous mining machine. 

The problem with using a hand-held monitor as a substitute for the interlock monitor is that the miner operating a continuous mining machine is 25 to 30 feet behind the face of a machine that is a continuous source of ignition (lots of sparks from metal cutting coal and rocks).  The monitor must be located directly at the source of the spark.  The miner isn’t at the source.

How could the mine leadership eliminate a critical risk management feature?  When deciding to override a critical safety system, the mine leadership should have considered the potential for loss of life AND damage to the mine AND damage to operating equipment.  You have to wonder if anyone really thought about “what if?” especially as Upper Big Branch was a notoriously “gassy” (methane producing) and, therefore, dangerous mine.  I wonder if any hazard or risk analyses were ever conducted for operating the mining machine without an operational methane monitor.   For clarity – here is a brief explanation about the hazards and risks of overriding a safety critical system and the outcome of their analyses:

What’s the difference between hazard and risk?

• A hazard is the source of potential damage, harm or adverse health effects on something or someone (i.e., explosive concentration level of methane gas, source of ignition).
• A risk is the chance or probability that damage, harm or adverse health effect will occur if something or someone is exposed to a hazard (i.e., a chance of the methane gas concentration would reach explosive levels in the presence of a source of ignition).

 A risk assessment is the process where one

• Identifies hazards,
• Evaluates the risk associated with that hazard, and
• Determines appropriate ways to eliminate or control the hazard.
• Safety controls minimize the risk by “controlling” the hazard (i.e., shutting down the mining machine eliminates the source of ignition)

Managers must understand the risk and the systems that put in place to control the hazard.  This is “managing the risk”. 

At the Upper Big Branch mine, the life-saving interlock system in a known high risk environment was disabled while workers were assured that an inappropriately-located substitute would be effective and work continued without interruption. It appears that appropriate risk management was not the goal since the presence of combustible concentrations of methane gas at sources of ignition might not be detected using the hand held monitors.   

The integrity of an organization depends on a leadership commitment to understanding and managing risk to protect their employees and assets as well as their reputation. This NPR report highlights what can happen when leadership is focused on one measure of success, in this case, production. Another recent example of compromised risk in exchange for uninterrupted production is the BP oil leak. Have you ever encountered myopic leadership in your workplace that trades risk management for another benefit. What happened? How do employees feel?

The U.S. Chemical Safety Board (CSB) recently approved recommendations to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and other organizations to help prevent explosions and fires during pipe cleaning and purging operations.  As recently as February 7, 2010 at the Kleen Energy power plant in Middletown, CT, an explosion caused six fatalities and numerous injuries during the cleaning of a natural gas pipe system. Another similar explosion occurred at the ConAgra Foods Slim Jim plant in Garner, NC on June 9, 2009 and caused the death of four workers. In both instances, an operation termed “natural gas blow” was utilized to force natural gas under pressure through a piping system during construction and prior to startup of the plant’s turbines to rid the pipe system of non-natural gas impurities and debris. The gas was vented to the ambient atmosphere at open pipe ends less than 20 feet from the ground, and in worker areas where the gas easily found a source of ignition.  It seems that common sense would lead one to never vent natural gas near sources of ignition.

• At Kleen Energy the potential ignition sources included electrical power to the building, welders actively working and diesel-fueled heaters running in the vicinity.
• Approximately TWO MILLION cubic feet of natural gas were released at Kleen Energy on February 7, 2010 during the “natural gas blow”, enough natural gas, according to the CSB, to provide heating and cooking fuel to the average American home every day for more than 25 years.

The CSB determined that no specific federal workplace safety standard exists that would prohibit the intentional release of natural gas into the workplace. Yes, I was shocked when I read that, too! Eighteen urgent recommendations were provided and voted on by the CSB to prevent future disasters. Some of the recommendations include – Prohibiting the use of natural gas for pipe cleaning and using alternatives such as compressed air, steam and other chemical substitutes, and upgrading the current gas safety standards for general industry and construction that are considered by the CSB to contain “significant gaps” that threaten the safety of workers at such facilities.

In February 2010, the CSB issued a safety bulletin titled “Seven Key Lessons to Prevent Worker Deaths During Hot Work In and Around Tanks”.  This bulletin highlights another gap in the OSHA standards, “While the OSHA standard prohibits hot work in an explosive atmosphere, it does not explicitly require the use of a combustible gas detector”. 

It is an unfortunate fact that such regulatory “gaps” can be found in many industries. We are reminded of these gaps while reading of disasters such as these, or more currently, watching the daily updates of oil washing ashore in the Gulf of Mexico.  It is certainly welcome news that these CSB draft recommendations were quickly approved without amendments to help prevent future explosions during pipe cleaning operations.

Do you know of other examples of what would seem to be ‘common sense’ safety measures that are not utilized because “this is the way we have always done it” wins over common sense?

The remediation of contaminated soil at hazardous waste sites is one way that we, as a society, employ to improve our environment.  However, there is a risk of releasing these hazardous substances into the air during the actual soil-remediating operations that could present health risks to the surrounding community.  One method of controlling these risks is through community air monitoring programs or CAMP.

Once only included on projects with very high levels of risk and public scrutiny, community air monitoring has become more commonplace.  Several key factors are driving the utilization of these programs:

• Public interest is intensifying, especially for projects in proximity to residences and workplaces.
• Technical knowledge and awareness of environmental hazards are expanding.
• Regulatory interest in this topic is steadily increasing.

For the owners or responsible parties of hazardous waste sites, there is a clear expectation from the public and regulators that community health issues will be addressed as part of remediation projects. Like many technology-based products, environmental measurement technology and responsiveness is improving rapidly. It only makes sense that air monitoring programs should evolve using Best Developed Available Technology (BDAT)  and be more sophisticated and more effective (yet easier to use) to meet this growing demand.  From Wikipedia:

“Best available technology (or just BAT) is a term applied with regulations on limiting pollutant discharges with regard to the abatement strategy. … The term constitutes a moving target on practices, since developing societal values and advancing techniques may change what is currently regarded as “reasonably achievable”, “best practicable” and “best available”.

Using BAT to Improve AQ

With this changing backdrop, leaps in technology and communication, and Emilcott’s two-plus decades of health and safety field work at hazardous waste sites, it was clear that air monitoring systems used for CAMP were not keeping up with technologies or project demands.  As a result, Emilcott responded by developing the Greenlight™ Environmental Monitoring System - a technology-based and responsive approach for community air monitoring. This system and other new-generation air monitoring packages take advantage of automation and wireless technologies along with BAT detectors to allow site owners and their project contractors to deal successfully with air quality issues at their jobsite.

 Air Monitoring Program Objectives

Based on Emilcott’s EHS experience, there are three broad objectives for an air monitoring program:

• Manage risk effectively, considering legal, regulatory and public relations aspects.
• Protect the community and the workforce from any potential exposure to substances of concern.
• Keep the air quality issues related to a remediation project on-time and on-budget.

 Good Project Planning Leads to Good Project Results

How do you know when the air monitoring component of hazardous waste remediation project has been planned with care? It uses these basic CAMP Project Planning guidelines — a consideration for regulations, community concerns, contractor budgets and timelines, and desired results — as the basis to select the optimal air monitoring system:

1. Engage community stakeholders early; make them aware of the measurement processes to be undertaken, and establish a regular protocol for sharing sampling and measurement (real time and aggregate) data gathered throughout the project.   
2. Engage the regulators upfront to best ensure a complete and mutually-satisfactory air monitoring plan for the project.
3. Analyze and understand the total cost of air monitoring throughout the life of the project: equipment, startup/deployment, staffing, reporting, reliability/backup, and data integration and analysis. 
4. Specify a system that truly fits the project’s needs:  Flexible? Scalable? Portable? Customizable? Plug and Play? Responsive?

Best Available Technologies for Air Monitoring

There are thousands of clean-up operations taking place throughout the US – most still employing outdated systems that are not as effective in reducing risks as today’s technology allows, and, in many cases, are more costly due to the high need of human labor. How do you know if your air monitoring system is BAT? Does it

• Include user-configured alarms in real-time so that anomalies can be detected early?
• Include a robust database architecture to house all acquired data?
• Include easy data-export capabilities so that report-writing and site analysis are easily accomplished saving time and resolving questions?
• Transmit field measurement data in real-time to decision-makers so that engineering controls can be implemented as needed?
• Identify and distinguish off-site and/or background emission sources to determine if the measured pollutants are related to the site work?
• Include a variety detection equipment options that suit project needs?
• Eliminate or reduce the need for hand-held devices and
• Include multiple power options?

Given the availability today, right now, of newer technologies and systems that can easily help reduce the risks from air-borne hazards, shouldn’t these be used on remediation sites to protect workers and the public?  Do you work on one of these sites, or maybe live near one? If these systems and BAT products can provide higher levels of protection, shouldn’t they be specified into the project?

As a site Health and Safety Officer (HSO) I spend my time looking for safety issues on construction and hazardous waste sites. My entire day is spent trying to keep workers safe and to send them home the same way they came to work in the morning. I may be checking fire extinguishers and power cords one day and checking for OSHA and site safety plan compliance the next.

• Are the crews using proper lifting techniques?
• Are they using the ladders properly?
• Are they wearing eye protection?
• Are hazardous or flammable materials being stored properly?

Absenteeism is costly to American employers whether it is caused by an illness or injury on or off the job. As a result, there is a growing trend among employers to create “Wellness Programs” aimed at keeping their employees healthy so that they will return to work each day and remain productive.  

Employers can give you the information and training, but it’s up to the individual to implement the practices. So, as the good weather is upon us, and we start working on our home projects and working around the yard let’s take a minute and think about our safe work practices at home:

• Are the gasoline containers stored properly?
• Are we using the safe ladder practices we are accustom to using at work?
• Are we wearing eye protection while mowing, sawing or running the weed eater?
• And, what about hearing protection while running the chain saw?

These are common practices at work that somehow become uncommon at home.  I came home the other day to find a fire truck and ambulance at the neighbor’s home. It seems he was on a ladder, pressure washing his siding on his home, and leaned out too far instead of moving the ladder. The resulting fall left him with broken ribs and an injured back. He works in the construction industry and told me he knew better than to lean out that far while being that high on the ladder.  Yet, there he was – injured!

We all get complacent at home perhaps because we are most comfortable there.  Take a moment and think about the task at hand and the worst thing that could happen before starting.

• Check your home for household chemicals that are old and need to be disposed of. Most counties have a household chemicals waste day where you can dispose of your chemicals and paints properly.
• Check your home fire extinguishers for proper charging. Make sure the pressure gauge is in the green.
• Shake your dry chemical fire extinguisher well once a year so the powder doesn’t solidify on the bottom. 
• Do a mental job hazard assessment before starting a project so you don’t become a at home injury statistic.

We do all these things at work automatically so let’s do the same at home!

The concept of Employee Wellness Programs (both on and off the job) has strong support from the country’s leading health and safety organizations:  American Society of Safety Engineers,  the American Industrial Hygiene Association,  and the American Association of Occupational Health Nurses. The National Safety Council has an entire section on their website dedicated to home safety.

Do you practice home safety?  Have you considered applying workplace safety training and practices at home?  Have you ever considered if you can afford to be out of work due to a preventable injury you sustained while power washing your house?

Have you ever wondered if the air your kids are breathing at their school is safe?  Well, so has the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA).

The US EPA has completed sampling outside air at 63 elementary, middle, and high schools in 22 states.  Even better yet, they have completed the analytical work associated with these samples and have uploaded more than 22,500 results to the EPA website.

The EPA is now analyzing the sampling results to see if there may be long-term health consequences for young people attending these schools.  Reports of the analysis have been released for two schools:  Pittsboro Elementary School in Pittsboro, Ind. and Minnesota International Middle Charter School in Minneapolis.  At both schools, levels of the high-profile pollutants monitored were below levels of both short-term and long-term concern.  EPA previously released analyses for two schools in Tennessee.  These results will also be used for air contaminant modeling programs.

The samples were analyzed for 6 distinct pollutant groups:

1. Carbonyls such as acetaldehyde,
2. Diisocyanates such as methylene diphenyl diisocyanate, 2,4-toluene diisocyanate, and 1,6-hexamethylene diisocyanate,
3. Metals such as arsenic, cobalt, lead, manganese, and nickel,
4. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH)s such as benzo(a)pyrene, and naphthalene,
5. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) such as acrolein, benzene, and 1,3-butadiene, and
6. Other specific pollutants such as 4,4’-methylenedianiline, and hexavalent chromium (Chromium VI).

While some of these materials may be found in nature, they are concentrated in processed materials and uses related to dyes, plastics, tobacco, transportation, pesticides, and steel / energy production activities.  Many of the emissions related to these products can become concentrated in some areas.  Where schools existed in such areas, outside air was tested.

Particulates were collected by using the EPA’s PM10 method (for dust less than 10 um [microns] in diameter that can enter and be impacted in the lungs), and by the TSP method for particulate matter greater than 10 um in diameter and can be a human health hazard due to dermal contact and subsequent ingestion, or by drinking water contaminated with these materials.

Since these are OUTDOOR air samples – the results tell us a lot about the air quality not just at the schools, but in the communities around these schools.  Check out these data for schools in your community at http://www.epa.gov/schoolair/schools.html.

I’ve looked at the results for schools in New Jersey, and even though they are schools close to or in urban areas, the levels measured were well below the Short Term Screening Limits established by the EPA.  While the results are reassuring, they do reinforce that we do live in a chemical world!  I wonder what the air quality is like INSIDE my house. What do you think?