Background Air Quality and Mitigation Strategies … Strategies Near the Mountain View ... Background Air Quality and Mitigation ... Areas of the five schools that were not included

Background Air Quality and Mitigation Strategies Near the Mountain View Corridor

Final report prepared for

Mountain View Corridor Air Working Group Utah Department of Transportation

August 2014

Cover images, clockwise from top left: the air monitoring site at Hunter High School; a view along the future MVC route in winter; the view along the future MVC route in fall; and looking toward the future MVC route and Hunter High School with a wind monitor on the roof of Hillside Elementary School in the foreground. Title page image is another view along the future MVC route in fall.

Prepared by Paul T. Roberts1 Jerry Ludwig2

Jennifer L. DeWinter1 David L. Vaughn1

Prepared for Mountain View Corridor Air Working Group

Utah Department of Transportation Webpage at: MVC Air Working Group

1 Sonoma Technology, Inc., 1455 N. McDowell Blvd., Suite D, Petaluma, CA 94954 Ph 707.665.9900 | F 707.665.9800 | sonomatech.com

2 Environmental Health & Engineering, 117 Fourth Avenue, Needham, MA 02494 Ph 800.825.5343 | F 781.247.4305 | eheinc.com

Final Report 3 STI-910051-5902-FR3

August 8, 2014

Background Air Quality and Mitigation Strategies Near the Mountain View Corridor

Air Working Group

Negotiators of the Record of Decision (ROD) Teri Newell Cameron Cova Robert Adler Mark Heileson Roger Borgenicht

Air Working Group (AWG) Member Organizations Utah Transit Authority (UTA) West Valley City (WVC) Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) Utah Division of Air Quality (UDAQ) Breathe Utah University of Utah Department of Pediatrics Wasatch Clean Air Coalition Utah Congress of Parents and Teachers

AWG Meeting Participants Dr. David Gourley, Granite School District Lee Logston, WVC Frank Lilly, WVC Reed Soper, UDOT, now at Parsons Brinckerhoff Mick Crandall, UTA Matt Sibul, UTA Julieanne Ruth Sabula, UTA GJ LaBonty, UTA Tina Bartholomew, UTA Linda Hansen, Region 5 PTA Bryce Bird, UDAQ Bo Call, UDAQ Mark Heileson, Sierra Club Ann Floor, Utahns for Better Transportation Cameron Cova, Breathe Utah Michelle Hofmann, University of Utah Department of Pediatrics Kathy Van Dame, Wasatch Clean Air Coalition

AWG Facilitators John Thomas, UDOT Andy Neff, Langdon Group Jennifer Tays, Langdon Group

● ● ● Contents

● ● ● iii

Contents Figures ......................................................................................................................................................................................... iv Tables .............................................................................................................................................................................................v Terms ............................................................................................................................................................................................ vi

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 1

1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 9 1.1 Background and Objectives .............................................................................................................................. 9 1.2 Near-Road Pollution and Health Effects .................................................................................................... 11 1.3 Study Overview .................................................................................................................................................... 15

1.3.1 Background Monitoring Study Design ....................................................................................... 15 1.3.2 Background Monitoring – Site Locations and Measurements .......................................... 16 1.3.3 Mitigation Approach .......................................................................................................................... 19

1.4 Contents of This Report ................................................................................................................................... 20

2. Background Air Quality Results ....................................................................................................... 21 2.1 Temporal Patterns in BC, PM10, and pPAHs .............................................................................................. 21 2.2 Winter Pollution Episodes ............................................................................................................................... 25 2.3 Ultra-Fine Particles ............................................................................................................................................. 25

3. Gas-Phase Toxics Results ................................................................................................................... 29

4. Wind Characterization ........................................................................................................................ 33

5. Mobile Source Air Toxics and Effective Mitigation Strategies .............................................. 37

6. Mitigation Strategy and System Considerations and Requirements ................................. 41 6.1 System Considerations ..................................................................................................................................... 42 6.2 HVAC System Requirements for Enhanced Filtration Systems .......................................................... 44

7. Mitigation Cost Estimates ................................................................................................................. 49 7.1 Cost Estimate Assumptions ............................................................................................................................ 50 7.2 Estimated Program Cost .................................................................................................................................. 51 7.3 School-Specific Recommendations ............................................................................................................. 52

7.3.1 Recommendations for Hillside Elementary School ................................................................ 52 7.3.2 Recommendations for West Valley Elementary School ....................................................... 53 7.3.3 Recommendations for Whittier Elementary School .............................................................. 53 7.3.4 Recommendations for Hunter Junior High School ................................................................ 54 7.3.5 Recommendations for Hunter High School ............................................................................. 57

7.4 Sources of Data ................................................................................................................................................... 60

8. Results and Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 63 8.1 Mitigation Recommendations ....................................................................................................................... 63 8.2 Additional Mitigation Recommendations ................................................................................................. 64 8.3 Future Monitoring Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 65

9. References ............................................................................................................................................... 69 Appendix A: Additional Characteristics of Air Quality and Wind Data ........................................................... A-1 Appendix B: Emails Cited in Section 7 .......................................................................................................................... B-1

● ● ● Figures

● ● ● iv

Figures 1. School locations in West Valley City, Utah. ........................................................................................................... 10 2. Pollution gradient from Zhu et al. ............................................................................................................................ 11 3. Cancer 1-in-a-million excess risk at West Valley City and Bountiful. ......................................................... 15 4. Monitoring trailer at Hunter High School. ............................................................................................................ 17 5. Annual average PM10 at Hunter High School and nearby permanent monitors. .................................. 22 6. Mean BC and pPAH concentrations by hour at Hunter High School compared with hourly

mean wintertime pollution measured next to US 95 in Las Vegas.............................................................. 23 7. Black carbon concentration by wind speed bin at Hunter High School.. ................................................. 24 8. Diurnal pattern of BC during the days with the highest BC concentrations. .......................................... 25 9. UFP concentrations during February 2012; hourly averaged UFP, BC, and PM10 with wind

speed during February 2012. ..................................................................................................................................... 26 10. Hourly averaged UFP, BC, and PM10 with wind speed during February 19 to 24, 2012. ..................... 27 11. Hourly averaged BC and UFP concentrations, February 9 to 24, 2012...................................................... 28 12. Hourly averaged BC and UFP concentrations, colored by wind speed. .................................................... 28 13. Comparison of VOC concentrations at Hunter High School and in Bountiful, Utah, relative

to health risk benchmarks. .......................................................................................................................................... 31 14. Comparison of annual wind roses............................................................................................................................ 34 15. Seasonal wind roses at Hunter High School. ....................................................................................................... 35 16. Comparison of the fetch across the roadway when winds are from the east and

perpendicular to the road, and from the SSE and at an angle across the road. .................................... 35 17. Particle removal efficiency versus particle diameter for MERV-rated filters. ........................................... 38 18. Classroom black carbon concentrations versus outdoor black carbon concentrations for a

school building close to a heavily traveled roadway with normal and then improved filters installed. ............................................................................................................................................................................. 39

19. Filter loading characteristics form filters with similar MERV ratings........................................................... 43 20. Operating cost comparisons for filters with similar MERV ratings. ............................................................. 44

● ● ● Tables

● ● ● v

Tables 1. Mean concentration of MSATs and other VOCs measured at the West Valley City and

Bountiful monitors. ........................................................................................................................................................ 14 2. Summary of parameters measured at Hunter High School from August 2011 through

July 2012. ........................................................................................................................................................................... 18 3. Annual and seasonal mean concentrations. ........................................................................................................ 21 4. Areas of the five schools that were not included in the mitigation program for technical

reasons................................................................................................................................................................................ 45 5. Modeling assumptions made for mitigation cost estimates. ........................................................................ 50 6. Estimated project cost by school, based on annual incremental operating cost plus first

cost allocated over 30 years at 3% interest, 4% inflation. .............................................................................. 51 7. Estimated first cost implementation items for the mitigation program at Hunter Junior

High School. ..................................................................................................................................................................... 56 8. Estimated first cost implementation items for the mitigation program at Hunter High

School. ................................................................................................................................................................................ 59 9. Estimated project cost by school, based on annual incremental operating cost plus first

cost allocated over 30 years at 3% interest, 4% inflation. .............................................................................. 64 10. Mitigation recommendations: costs and remaining budget. ........................................................................ 64 11. Cost estimates to determine pollutant concentrations and filtration efficiency in

classrooms. ........................................................................................................................................................................ 66 12. Cost estimates for ambient monitoring. ................................................................................................................ 67

● ● ● Terms

● ● ● vi

Terms Term Definition

AHU Air handling unit

AWG Air Working Group

BAM Beta Attenuation Monitor

BC Black carbon

CARB California Air Resources Board

CMB Chemical mass balance

CO Carbon monoxide

CO2 Carbon dioxide

DPM Diesel particulate matter

EC Elemental carbon

EH&E Environmental Health & Engineering

EMS Energy management system

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

GSD Granite School District

HEI Health Effects Institute

HVAC Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning

IQR Interquartile range

MATES Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study

MERV Minimum efficiency reporting value

m/s Meters per second

MSATs Mobile source air toxics

MVC Mountain View Corridor

NATTS National Air Toxics Trends Station

NO2/NOx Oxides of nitrogen

NPV Net present value

OAQPS The EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

pPAHs Particle-bound polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

PM Particulate matter

PM10 Particulate matter smaller than 10 μm in diameter

● ● ● Terms

● ● ● vii

Term Definition

PM2.5 Particulate matter smaller than 2.5 μm in diameter

RH Relative humidity

ROD Record of Decision

STI Sonoma Technology, Inc.

UDAQ Utah Division of Air Quality

UDOT Utah Department of Transportation

UFP Ultra-fine particles

VOCs Volatile organic compounds

● ● ● Executive Summary

● ● ● 1

Executive Summary The Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) is developing the Mountain View Corridor (MVC), a multi-phase freeway expansion project in western Salt Lake County and northwestern Utah County. The MVC Air Working Group (AWG) was formed to assess the air quality effects of the new roadway and to help mitigate impacts due to the construction and the new roadway at five schools in the Granite School District (GSD).

All five schools are within 2,100 feet of the planned roadway, and two of them will abut the planned roadway. The five schools are Hillside Elementary School, Hunter High School, Hunter Junior High School, Whittier Elementary School, and West Valley Elementary School. The school locations are shown in Figure ES-1; note that these schools are also near several existing roadways. The MVC will run between the schools, with Hunter High School to the east and the other four schools to the west.

The MVC will be constructed in three phases.

Phase 1 will be constructed in sections as a four-lane arterial street (two lanes in each direction) built at the outer edge of the right-of-way. Phase 1 will be connected to cross streets at grade with signalized intersections. Phase 1 will also include the MVC trail for pedestrians and bikes.

Phase 2 would convert the arterials to a freeway by converting the signalized intersections to grade-separated freeway interchanges.

Phase 3 will add additional lanes in each direction to the median.

Phase 1 of the MVC has been completed from 16000 South to 5400 South, just south of Hillside Elementary School. Construction extending the MVC to 4100 South (just north of Hillside Elementary School and Hunter High School) is planned to begin in 2014 and be completed in 2016. Construction to complete the MVC past the other three schools and connecting to SR-201 or I-80 on the north is not yet funded. The connection of the MVC to I-15 on the south is also not yet funded. Full traffic on the MVC, including large trucks, will likely not occur until the entire roadway from I-15 to SR-201 or I-80 is completed.


● ● ● 2

Figure ES-1. School locations in West Valley City, Utah.

The AWG engaged Sonoma Technology, Inc. (STI) and Environmental Health & Engineering (EH&E) to conduct an air quality monitoring study to evaluate background pollution concentrations prior to construction, and to develop future monitoring and mitigation strategies for the impacted schools.

Near-road monitoring studies conducted in Las Vegas, Los Angeles, and elsewhere have shown that air pollution in the form of black carbon (BC), carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate matter (PM) has been measurably greater near roadways than elsewhere in the urban environment [see Roberts et al. (2010) and Zhu et al. (2002), for example]. Air pollution concentrations can be many times greater within 100 meters (328 feet) of a major roadway, and decrease rapidly with increasing distance from the roadway. However, note that this distance can extend to over 3,600 feet (1,100 meters) during calm wind conditions. According to a recent report by the Health Effects Institute (HEI), there is sufficient scientific evidence to infer a causal relationship between exposure to traffic-related air pollution and exacerbation of asthma symptoms (Health Effects Institute, 2010). In addition, evidence suggests a causal link between near-roadway air pollution and a number of health effects, including the onset of childhood asthma, all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality and morbidity, other respiratory problems, and impaired lung function. However, the HEI Panel also notes that more


● ● ● 3

research is needed to confirm that traffic-related air pollution is the cause of these health problems (Roberts et al., 2010; McCarthy et al., 2013).

The EPA has identified six priority mobile source air toxics (MSATs) known or suspected to be carcinogenic or to cause other serious health or ecological effects, such as neurological, cardiovascular, liver, kidney, reproductive, and respiratory effects. MSATs are composed of products of combustion in both the particulate and gas phases, including diesel particulate matter (DPM) and the gases 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and acrolein. Monitoring studies performed in school buildings that were modified to mitigate MSATs have shown that current technology can do a good job of mitigating BC, but are not effective with gas-phase MSATs.

Background Monitoring Results

The major goal of the background monitoring project was to characterize air quality prior to any construction in order to provide a baseline for comparison with measurements during and after construction. Results of the background monitoring project include the following:

1. An evaluation of the cancer risk was performed using the data collected at Hunter High School from August 2011 through July 2012. On average, DPM is the greatest contributor to cancer risk, about 84%. Thus, DPM is the most critical MSAT to characterize.

2. BC was monitored as a surrogate for DPM. BC concentrations are higher during the morning commuting period and during the evening period. Concentrations of BC and other pollutants are higher during periods of low wind speed inversions, conditions that occur during the morning and (non-summer) commute periods, and periods of strong inversions.

3. Annual average concentrations of gas-phase MSATs plus additional toxics species were determined using samples collected from August 2011 through July 2012 at Hunter High School. In general, measured toxics concentrations are comparable to the measurements at Bountiful, Utah, and to observed and modeled urban concentrations nationally.

4. Several recent studies suggest that ultra-fine particle (UFP) concentrations are high near busy roads, and have a potential health effect [see Zhu et al. (2002) and Health Effects Institute (2010), for example]. UFP are generally particles smaller than 0.1 micrometers or 100 nanometers in diameter. Two weeks of UFP data were collected for comparison with future data collected next to the MVC. UFP concentrations were about one-half of the UFP concentrations next to US 95 in Las Vegas. The 1-minute averaged UFP data were highly variable and had a diurnal pattern with morning commute period and evening peaks.

5. Based on wind monitoring at the five schools, there is little difference in directional impacts from MVC pollutants at the five schools. However, the dominance of winds from the south, parallel to the new roadway, and south-southeast (SSE) will increase downwind impacts from the roadway, due to the increased fetch across the roadway. Expected pollutant concentrations may be more than two times higher when winds are more parallel to the roadway than when winds are perpendicular to the roadway. The dominance of wind from


● ● ● 4

the south and SSE also mean that the four schools on the west side of the MVC will have the largest pollutant impact, compared with the potential impact at Hunter High School.

Mitigation Recommendations

The mitigation strategy was developed by considering current methodologies and recent filtration results, and then determining how to apply those methodologies to the five schools in West Valley City. The recommended mitigation strategy is to replace the current filters with filters that are significantly more efficient at removing particles such as black carbon. The improved filtration approaches recommended in this report are consistent with the approaches implemented in Las Vegas schools and the improved systems being installed in various schools within the South Coast Air Quality Management District, which seem to be the de facto guidance for school buildings.

To assess the feasibility and cost of implementing the proposed mitigation strategy, each of the five schools was surveyed by site visit, and engineering documents were obtained and reviewed to determine characteristics of each air handling unit (AHU) in the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems in the schools. In total, the operating characteristics of 72 air handlers were analyzed to determine the number and sizes of filters required, the total airflow, the available and required fan horsepower, and the available area for replacement filter installation. Additional analysis was performed to access the ability of the existing AHUs to accommodate filters with significantly higher pressure drop, as well as the capability of the current fan, fan motor, and related hardware.

In the three elementary schools, the recommended changes to the HVAC systems are minor: only a change in the filters and addition of hardware and software to track filter pressure drop and notify maintenance personnel when to change the filters are needed.

In Hunter High School and Hunter Junior High School, additional physical changes are needed to accommodate more efficient filters, including larger frames to hold the filters, larger fans and fan motors, larger electrical wiring and components, and improved control systems to track filter pressure drop and notify maintenance personnel when to change the filters. The Engineers of Record for the recent modifications at these schools were involved in the cost estimates and would be expected to carry out the recommended modifications.

In order to compare the costs of the recommended mitigation program to the AWG’s mitigation budget, it was necessary to roll up the mitigation costs to a net present value (NPV). This was done by adding the initial costs of all modifications (i.e., first cost) and the present value of 30 years of operating costs (mainly the increased filter and electricity costs). The present value of the future operating costs was adjusted to an NPV using the assumptions of 3% interest and 4% inflation.

Table ES-1 summarizes the first and annual incremental operating costs for the five schools. The cost for the improvements at Hunter High School is more than half of the NPV total of $1,620,000, but this is not surprising since Hunter High School contains about half of the total floor area of the five


● ● ● 5

schools. Also notice that the relative costs for improved filtration at Hunter High School is about twice that at the other schools, mainly due to the older age of the school and the fact that all or most of potentially available capacity of the HVAC systems have already been used up by the recently installed air conditioning system.

Table ES-1. Estimated project cost by school, based on annual incremental operating cost plus first cost allocated over 30 years at 3% interest, 4% inflation.

Table ES-2 shows the cost of the NPV of the recommended mitigation program (including a contingency of 10%) and compares it to the AWG’s budget for mitigation. About $1,200,000 remains from the AWG’s mitigation budget.

Table ES-2. Mitigation recommendations: costs and remaining budget.

Item Cost Mitigation in five schools $1,620,000

Mitigation contingency 10% $162,000

Total mitigation recommendation $1,782,000

Spent so far, mitigation $125,000

Budget $3,100,000

Available for additional mitigation or monitoring $1,193,000

School First Cost Allowance

Annual Incremental

Cost

NPV 30, 3% Interest, 4%

Inflation

Total Enclosed Area (ft2)

Number of

Students

Dollars/ ft2/ Year

Dollars/ Student/

Year

Whittier $26,973 $3,952 $163,854 104,922 687 $0.045 $6.89

Hillside $14,853 $2,247 $92,659 54,667 625 $0.049 $4.28

West Valley $53,020 $3,446 $172,370 88,920 584 $0.056 $8.52

Hunter Jr High $91,754 $4,025 $231,165 172,120 1,047 $0.039 $6.38

Hunter High $243,216 $20,681 $959,449 340,000 2,086 $0.081 $13.28

Cost for five schools

$429,816 $34,352 $1,619,497 760,629 $5,029 $0.062 $9.30


● ● ● 6

Additional Mitigation Recommendations

In addition to improved filtration, a number of other mitigation efforts could reduce pollutant concentrations and/or student exposure at schools; see the list below. Some could reduce pollutant concentrations outdoors, and others could reduce pollutant concentrations indoors. Some could reduce exposure of students while outdoors, while others could ensure that the modified filtration systems work well.

Install sound walls or vegetative barriers between the schools and the MVC. Eliminate bus idling at schools. Retrofit existing buses to reduce emissions. Avoid outdoor activities during morning rush hour. Minimize outdoor activities during periods with strong inversions. Provide training for teachers whose classrooms have characteristics that could defeat the

filtration systems (windows that open; doors that open to the outside, rather than to an interior hallway, etc.).

If portable classrooms are going to be installed at any of the schools, arrange for the HVAC system of the portable classroom to be built to accommodate 4″ deep MERV 13A filters, to handle a filter pressure drop of up to 1″, to meet the code-required ventilation per student, and to monitor the pressure drop across the filter and alert staff when to change the filter.

If portable classrooms are going to be installed at one of the schools, Hunter High School for example, place them as far away from the proposed roadway location as possible.

Control HVAC systems to minimize filling classrooms with morning rush-hour pollutants. Eliminate or minimize emissions from indoor sources (cleaning materials, markers, etc.).

Future Monitoring Recommendations

Future monitoring near the Mountain View Corridor should determine both outdoor (ambient) and indoor, in-classroom impacts of pollutants from the completed roadway. In addition, the current indoor concentrations of MSATs in representative classrooms and the demonstration of the effectiveness of the existing filters should be determined before the ventilation systems are modified.

For indoor classroom monitoring, the recommendations include the following:

Monitor BC in representative classrooms and at the air inlet of representative classrooms, one classroom in each school.

Consider monitoring for ultra-fine particles in classrooms and at the air inlet of these same classrooms by rotating a pair of monitors to each classroom/air inlet pair (to save money, since this monitor is expensive and not readily available).

Perform the “before mitigation” classroom monitoring as soon as possible, in order to support the mitigation recommendations. For the current situation, since West Valley and


● ● ● 7

Whittier Elementary Schools are very similar in design, monitoring in only one would be sufficient.

Also monitor representative classrooms after the mitigation modifications are completed and after the MVC is complete (i.e., once the MVC is connected to SR-201 or I-80 on the north and I-15 on the south, since full use of the roadway will not be realized until then).

Consider monitoring for gas-phase MSATs in representative classrooms once the MVC is complete.

Estimated costs for the classroom monitoring are shown in Table ES-3.

Table ES-3. Cost estimates to determine pollutant concentrations and filtration efficiency in classrooms.

Item Cost

One classroom and air inlet in five schools (BC only) $125,000 to $150,000/time (at least three months) Before modifications, after modifications, possibly during construction, and after whole MVC finished

Add UFP pair, rotating to five schools $100,000 to $150,000

Add gas-phase toxics investigations $100,000 to $150,000

For outdoor, ambient, monitoring, the recommendations include the following:

Monitor BC and PM10 during construction, when the main impacts will be from PM10 (from moving and digging dirt) and BC (from diesel equipment emissions). The impacts occur for only a short duration at any one location as the construction moves along the section. Note that construction may last two years.

Monitor BC after this segment of MVC is finished. The BC will be from diesel trucks and buses, but there will only be a partial traffic impact, since the MVC will not yet be connected to SR-201 or I-80 and I-15.

Monitor after the MVC (Phase 1) is connected to SR-201 or I-80 and I-15. The pollutants with the largest increase in impacts will be BC, UFP, and NO2.

Consider also monitoring for gas-phase toxics after the MVC (Phase 1) is connected to SR-201 or I-80 and I-15.

Estimated costs for ambient monitoring are shown in Table ES-4.


● ● ● 8

Table ES-4. Cost estimates for ambient monitoring.

Item Cost

During construction $125,000 to $150,000/year

After MVC segment completed $125,000 to $150,000/year

Whole MVC completed (more traffic) $150,000 to $175,000/year

Whole MVC completed (add toxics) $50,000 to $100,000/year

● ● ● 1. Introduction

● ● ● 9

1. Introduction

1.1 Background and Objectives

The Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) is developing the Mountain View Corridor (MVC), a multi-phase freeway expansion project in western Salt Lake County and northwestern Utah County, to help meet projected population expansion and increasing traffic (Utah Department of Transportation, 2014a). The Record of Decision (ROD) for the MVC Project allocates funds to protect the students in five schools in the immediate area of the project from the anticipated increase in pollutant exposure due to the construction and operation of what is expected to be a heavily traveled roadway (Utah Department of Transportation, 2014b). These funds will be administered through the MVC Air Working Group (AWG), which was formed to assess the air quality effects of the new roadway and to help mitigate impacts due to the construction and the new roadway (Utah Department of Transportation, 2014c). The AWG was tasked with recommending a plan to the Granite School District (GSD) that offered protection in a sustainable manner.

A portion of the project will occur in West Valley City, a suburban area southwest of Salt Lake City, with five schools within 2,100 feet of the planned roadway, two of which will abut the planned roadway. The five schools include Hillside Elementary School, Hunter High School, Hunter Junior High School, Whittier Elementary School, and West Valley Elementary School. The school locations are shown in Figure 1; note that these schools are also near several existing roadways. The MVC will run between the schools, with Hunter High School to the east, and the other four schools on the west side of the MVC. In aggregate, these schools provide the educational environment for about 5,000 students plus staff, within a total floor area of approximately 760,000 square feet.

The MVC will be constructed in three phases.

Phase 1 will be constructed in sections as a four-lane arterial street (two lanes in each direction) built at the outer edge of the right-of-way. Phase 1 will be connected to cross streets at grade with signalized intersections. Phase 1 will also include the MVC trail for pedestrians and bikes.

Phase 2 would convert the arterials to a freeway by converting the signalized intersections to grade-separated freeway interchanges.

Phase 3 will add additional lanes in each direction to the median.

Phase 1 of the MVC has been completed from 16000 South to 5400 South, just south of Hillside Elementary School. Construction extending the MVC to 4100 South (just north of Hunter High School) is planned to begin in 2014 and be completed in 2016. Construction to complete the MVC past the other three schools and connecting to SR-201 or I-80 on the north is not yet funded. The connection of the MVC to I-15 on the south is also not yet funded. Full traffic on the MVC, including large trucks, will likely not occur until the entire roadway from I-15 to SR-201 or I-80 is completed.


● ● ● 10

Figure 1. School locations in West Valley City, Utah.

The AWG engaged Sonoma Technology, Inc. (STI) and Environmental Health & Engineering (EH&E) to conduct an air quality monitoring study to evaluate background pollution concentrations prior to construction, and to develop future monitoring and mitigation strategies for the impacted schools. One major goal of the background monitoring project was to characterize air quality prior to any construction in order to provide a baseline for comparison with measurements during and after construction. The project had four major objectives:

1. Monitor background air quality focusing on Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs), important for assessing health risks, and PM10 (particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter), important for understanding contributions during construction and background loadings for the mitigation design.

2. Monitor winds at five schools, since localized wind speed and wind direction are significant factors affecting pollution concentrations.

3. Design a mitigation approach to significantly reduce particles indoors at five schools, which would reduce student exposure in schools.

4. Recommend future monitoring and mitigation efforts at the five schools.


● ● ● 11

1.2 Near-Road Pollution and Health Effects

As shown in near-road monitoring studies conducted in Las Vegas, Los Angeles, and elsewhere, air pollution in the form of black carbon (BC), carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate matter (PM) has been measurably greater near roadways than elsewhere in the urban environment [see Roberts et al. (2010) and Zhu et al. (2002), for example]. The results of these studies have supported the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) new near-road monitoring requirements. Near-road monitoring study results, such as those provided in Figure 2, have shown that pollution can be many times greater within 100 meters (328 feet) of a major roadway, and decreases rapidly with increasing distance from the roadway. However, note that this distance can extend to over 3,600 feet (1,100 meters) during calm wind conditions (Hu et al., 2009). As a result, near-road pollution can pose significant health risks.

Figure 2. Pollution gradient from Zhu et al. (2002).

Rob McConnell, a well-known researcher at University of Southern California involved with the Southern California Children’s Health Study, recently reframed the air pollution problem in general by saying [paraphrasing], “We’ve been looking at the wrong pollutant mixture; it’s not regional air pollution, but near-road pollution that is the key to public health” (McConnell, 2013). According to a recent Panel from the Health Effects Institute titled, “Traffic-Related Air Pollution: A Critical Review of the Literature on Emissions, Exposure, and Health Effects,” there is sufficient evidence to infer a causal relationship between exposure to traffic-related air pollution and exacerbation of asthma symptoms


● ● ● 12

The six priority mobile source

air toxics

In 2001, the EPA identified six mobile source air toxics (MSATs) as priority MSATs due to their increased health risks: benzene, 1,3-butadiene, acrolein, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and diesel particulate matter.

(Health Effects Institute, 2010). In addition, the Panel reported that there is evidence suggesting a causal link between near-roadway air pollution and a number of health effects, including the onset of childhood asthma, all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality and morbidity, other respiratory problems, and impaired lung function. However, the Panel also notes that more research is needed to confirm that traffic-related air pollution is the cause of these health problems.

The size, composition, and concentration of different air pollutants pose variable health risks. The EPA maintains a list of many compounds emitted from mobile sources.1 Of these, some compounds, collectively referred to as MSATs, are known or suspected to be carcinogenic or cause other serious health or ecological effects, such as neurological, cardiovascular, liver, kidney, reproductive, and respiratory effects. MSATs are composed mainly of products of combustion that are in both the particulate and gas phases. Particles include diesel particulate matter (DPM) and BC. Gases include 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and acrolein. Vehicle traffic in the vicinity of heavily traveled roadways increases concentrations of MSATs. Monitoring studies performed in school

buildings that were modified to mitigate MSATs have shown that current technology can do a good job mitigating the particulate phase products, but are not effective with gas-phase MSATs (Roberts et al., 2010; McCarthy et al., 2013; Polidori et al., 2013).

Both the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the EPA have identified DPM as a toxic material, but neither agency has identified appropriate measurement methods for DPM. BC is a commonly used surrogate for DPM because it is measurable and represents a large fraction of diesel exhaust (Fruin et al., 2004; Shi et al., 2000; Birch and Cary, 1996).

The Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study (MATES) is a monitoring and analysis project conducted in the South Coast Air Basin in California to characterize cancer risk due to air toxics throughout the basin. The MATES III report was released in 2008 and updated the results provided in the original and MATES II projects. (MATES

IV monitoring has been completed, but reports are not yet available.) MATES III (South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2008) compared three different methods for estimating DPM.

1. The first method calculated DPM by multiplying average elemental carbon (EC) measured in PM10 samples by the DPM/EC ratio 1.04. The multiplier was developed using the emissions ratios of DPM and EC from a study conducted in the South Coast in the 1980s. This method was also used in the MATES II study.

1 http://www.epa.gov/otaq/toxics.htm


● ● ● 13

2. The second method calculated DPM by multiplying average elemental carbon measured in PM2.5 samples by the DPM/EC ratio 1.95. The DPM/EC ratio used was determined from ratios of PM2.5 DPM and PM2.5 EC emissions from the 2005 emissions inventory.

3. The third method used chemical mass balance (CMB) modeling to estimate the contribution of diesel to total PM.

On average, DPM estimates ranged from 2.18 to 3.13 μg/m3 for the MATES III Year 1 data set; the MATES II method resulted in the lowest DPM estimate, while the CMB method resulted in the highest DPM estimate. It was concluded that the MATES II method could underestimate DPM.

MATES III estimated that, on average, diesel exhaust accounts for approximately 84% of the total air toxics risk in the South Coast air basin. The MATES analysis for calculating risk was repeated using data collected at the National Air Toxics Trends Station (NATTS) monitoring site in Bountiful, Utah, as well as data collected as part of this study. The 2005 emission inventory based method was used to calculate DPM from PM2.5 EC. For the West Valley City data set; EC was first calculated from BC using the ratio 0.93 (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2012, appendix). Concentration results are provided in Table 1, and the resulting relative risk concentrations are summarized in Figure 3. Similar to MATES, both the Bountiful and West Valley City results demonstrate that DPM is the greatest contributor to cancer risk (about 84%). Therefore, measurement of BC in West Valley City is critical for understanding health risks.


● ● ● 14

Table 1. Mean concentration of MSATs and other VOCs measured at the West Valley City and Bountiful monitors.

Site West Valley City Bountiful August 2011 to August 2012 January 2008 to December 2010

MSAT or Other VOC Mean Concentration (μg/m3)

Benzene 1.55 1.43

1,3-Butadiene 0.13 0.12

Acrolein 2.10 1.16

Formaldehyde 3.224 2.98

Acetaldehyde 1.00 2.09

2,2,4-Trimethylpentane 0.54 0.95

Carbon tetrachloride 0.59 0.62

Ethylbenzene 0.57 0.44

n-Hexane 1.57 1.98

o-Xylene 0.24 0.51

Propionaldehyde NA 0.45

Styrene 0.40 0.18

Toluene 2.11 3.49

Diesel particulate matter 1.13 1.09

The development of a roadway also introduces environmental and health effects due to emissions from construction-related activities. Particulate matter is the mixture of atmospheric particles and liquid droplets that are emitted from motor vehicles as well as from off-road construction equipment. PM is divided into two different regulatory categories based on particle size: fine particles (PM2.5), which are 2.5 micrometers (μm) in diameter and smaller, and inhalable coarse particles (PM10), which are smaller than 10 micrometers. Exposure to particle pollution is linked to a variety of health effects, including asthma, chronic bronchitis, reduced lung function, and heart attacks. An additional size fraction, called ultra-fine particles (UFPs), is smaller than 0.1 micrometers and may pose short-term health risks, such as decreased heart rate variability. PM10 emission sources include surface soil disturbance during construction activities, bulk material operations on construction sites, and traffic-induced soil suspension on paved and unpaved roadways (re-entrained road dust).

Characterizing pollutant concentrations near roadways is important for estimating and mitigating exposure. In addition to distance, other factors influence pollutant concentrations in the near-road environment, including pollutant dispersion/transport due to wind speed and direction, diurnal variations in meteorology, traffic volume and traffic patterns such as morning or evening rush hour, and background concentrations of air pollution, which can also vary throughout the day. The mixture of cars and trucks also affects air quality, because diesel trucks emit more BC than cars. Exposure may


● ● ● 15

also depend upon the temporal patterns in human activities. For example, at schools near roadways, the timing of school operations and schedules is critical in determining pollutant impacts on school children. Diurnal concentration variations may cause students who are outdoors during the morning rush hour to be exposed to the highest pollutant concentrations of the day.

There are several options for mitigating health impacts near roadways. Some reports indicate barriers, such as buildings, trees, or sound barriers between the roadway and nearby points of interest like schools, may reduce pollutant concentrations [see, for example, Baldauf et al. (2008) and Baldauf et al. (2013)]. In addition, improved heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) filtration systems can significantly reduce particulate air pollution indoors. For example, improved HVAC systems reduced indoor concentrations of BC by 90% at schools near US 95 in Las Vegas (McCarthy et al., 2013).

1.3 Study Overview

1.3.1 Background Monitoring Study Design

Planning for the monitoring study took place in 2010 and early 2011. During this time, STI developed and evaluated a

range of monitoring alternatives. Each alternative varied in the amount of required resources and associated costs. The alternative plans and budgets were discussed during meetings and conference calls and subsequently considered by the AWG for funding. The final study plan was selected and

Figure 3. Cancer 1-in-a-million excess risk at (a) West Valley City and (b) Bountiful. The risk value, or chance in a million, and percent of the total risk are shown for each toxic. Note that DPM is the greatest contributor to cancer risk at 84%.


● ● ● 16

approved in April 2011. The background monitoring study design was selected in order to provide the AWG with the most relevant background data while minimizing budget impacts in order to provide adequate remaining funds for the post-construction monitoring phase. Some of the considerations are discussed below; additional details regarding the monitoring alternatives were provided in a technical memorandum in April 2011 (Roberts and Vaughn, 2011). The selected study methods are described in the next section.

Of the pollutants of concern, gaseous MSATs such as benzene, 1,3-butadiene, acrolein, formaldehyde, and acetaldehyde, and the MSAT DPM, are most important to measure in the area of schools near the future MVC roadway. These MSATs have demonstrated highest risk levels and are not well-monitored in the area by the Utah Division of Air Quality (UDAQ). In addition, PM10 may be of concern during the MVC construction period and of value for determining the particle load on filtration systems in the schools.

Continuous monitoring was considered for BC, PM10, PM2.5, CO, carbon dioxide (CO2), oxides of nitrogen (NO2/NOx), some gas-phase MSATs, particle-bound polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (pPAHs), particle number, particle size distributions, and meteorological parameters. It was decided to focus scarce resources on BC (as a surrogate for DPM) and the gas-phase MSATs, since they represent most of the cancer risk in urban air; see the MATES results, for example (South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2008). PM10 measurements were added to help understand filter loadings in the schools. pPAH measurements were added to help understand the continuous diurnal patterns of gas-phase MSATs.

Generally, continuous monitoring of gaseous species such as CO or NO2/NOx are the most labor intensive and require substantial peripheral support systems, such as dilution calibrators, zero air supplies, and calibration gases. Particulate matter monitors, such as those for BC, PM10, and pPAHs, require less frequent user intervention and have lower operating costs. Monitoring the MSATs benzene, 1,3-butadiene, acrolein, formaldehyde, and acetaldehyde requires yet other methodologies. Monitoring for ultra-fine PM or for continuous benzene/1,3-butadiene is more expensive.

1.3.2 Background Monitoring – Site Locations and Measurements

The study design included approximately one year of measurements from August 2011 through July 2012. The year-long time period enables seasonal characterization of air quality, and covers an entire school year in order to represent school-time-average pollution and to accurately estimate filtration requirements. Ambient air pollutants, including BC as a surrogate for DPM, PM10, pPAHs, CO2, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), including the other five priority MSATs, were measured at Hunter High School. UFP data were also collected at Hunter High School from February 9, 2012, through February 24, 2012. The site at Hunter High School (see Figure 4) was selected for ambient air monitoring to represent background air quality near the future MVC roadway. At the time the study was designed, Hunter High School was located closest to the intended location of the MVC. However, plans for the MVC route were later altered, making Hillside slightly closer to the roadway.


● ● ● 17

Table 2 summarizes the measured parameters including the intended use of the data, monitor type, and the frequency that data were collected. Envidas for Windows by DR DAS and a computer were used for data acquisition and storage. High-time-resolution continuous measurements of meteorology, BC, PM10, pPAH, and UFP were collected, which enables analysis by time of day, season, and annually, and for short-duration pollution episodes. To remain cost effective, VOC data were obtained on a 1-in-12 day sampling frequency. The 24-hour samples were obtained every 12 days and analyzed for a suite of VOC and carbonyl compounds, including the gaseous MSATs (benzene, 1,3-butadiene, acrolein, formaldehyde, and acetaldehyde).

In order to understand local differences and determine if one school could be used to represent wind conditions at all five schools, surface meteorological measurements, including wind speed and direction, solar radiation, temperature, relative humidity (RH), and atmospheric pressure, were made at Hunter High School; surface wind speed and direction were also measured at the other four schools. R. M. Young 5305V sensors with a Campbell Scientific 23X data logger and solar panels were mounted on a tripod and placed on a roof at Hillside and Whittier Elementary Schools. A WeatherBug wind system and a Davis Weather Monitor II provided wind data at Hunter Junior High School and West Valley Elementary School, respectively.

Figure 4. Monitoring trailer at Hunter High School.


● ● ● 18

Table 2. Summary of parameters measured at Hunter High School from August 2011 through July 2012.

Variables Measured

Use of Data Monitor/

Sample Type Frequency

Black carbon/”blue” carbon

Represent DPM and wood smoke

Aethalometer AE 33 (dual wavelength)

5-minute

PM10 Determine PM concentrations, especially during construction

Beta Attenuation Monitor (BAM 1020)

Hourly

pPAH Represent DPM PAS 2000 5-minute

UFP (Particle number or size distribution)a

A near-road potential risk factor Teledyne-API model 651 water-based condensation nuclei counter

5-minute

VOC (Benzene, 1,3-butadiene, acrolein, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde)

Annual average concentrations Canister/cartridge sampling 24-hr samples every 12 days

Meteorology Determine winds and atmospheric mixing

Winds: R. M. Young 5305V Temperature: R. M. Young 41342VC RH: R. M. Young 41382VC Barometric pressure: R. M. Young 61302V Solar radiation: LI-COR LI-200X

1-minute

a UFP measurements from February 9, 2012, through February 24, 2012, only.

Data were validated in real-time using automated quality control procedures defined in the Data Management System. In addition, data were validated quarterly during the field study for baseline changes, extreme minimum and maximum values, and instrument-generated error codes, and were reconciled with site log information recorded during instrument maintenance periods. Data capture was typically greater than 98%. Wind data collected at Hunter High School, Hillside Elementary, and Whittier Elementary had high-quality sensors that were very reliable. The wind sensor at Hunter Junior High was of mid-range quality, but data recovery was consistently good. Unfortunately, data recovery was limited at West Valley Elementary due to poor data quality, inconsistent data logging, and data file formatting.

BC data as a surrogate for DPM, and UV data as a tracer for wood smoke, were also validated, using the Washington University Air Quality Lab AethDataMasher version 7.0r BETA to perform data validation and filter tape saturation, compensation corrections, calculate the hourly output, format date-time stamps, and generate validation log files. The hourly AethDataMasher output was further quality-assured by a visual inspection of minimum and maximum data values, stuck values, and baseline shift. The UV data for wood smoke are available for later analysis.


● ● ● 19

Validated sub-hourly data were used to calculate 60-minute averages. All sub-hourly data marked as valid or suspect were included in the hourly average; a 75% data completeness criterion was required. The PM10 data were scaled to represent concentrations at standard conditions of temperature and pressure. Additional data recovery and validation results were provided in quarterly technical memoranda.

Much of the technical approach for this study is based on results from a similar study at three schools next to US 95 in Las Vegas, Nevada (Roberts et al., 2010; McCarthy et al., 2013). The US 95 study was the first to quantify indoor and outdoor near-road MSAT exposures before and after a freeway was expanded, and before and after improved filtration was installed in the schools. The US 95 study demonstrated that diesel particulate matter concentrations could be significantly reduced in classrooms using improved filters. Other studies have evaluated separate parts of this situation, such as characterizing pollutant concentrations next to a freeway [Zhu et al. (2002), for example] or next to a number of busy roads [Karner et al. (2010), a review of previous literature studies], or demonstrating effective filtration in schools [Polidori et al. (2013), for example], but the US 95 study demonstrated the whole system, similar to what is being recommended in this MVC study. Some of the previous studies are referred to in this report are listed in Section 9, References; many more studies can be found in the literature from the references listed. This study at schools near the MVC will provide additional data and information on MSAT concentrations in classrooms and outdoors, and thus on the effectiveness of improved filtration to reduce student classroom exposures to MSATs at schools near busy roadways.

1.3.3 Mitigation Approach

The ROD (http://www.udot.utah.gov/mountainview/content/feis) for the MVC requires that improved air filtration be installed in the five schools in West Valley City near the future MVC roadway. The ROD also requires that the filters be in place before initial construction of the MVC roadway in the area adjacent to these schools, and that the allocated costs are to cover the modifications to the filtration systems and ongoing maintenance of the systems.

In order to develop recommendations and costs on appropriate filtration systems, we performed an analysis that included the following steps:

Evaluate the existing HVAC systems. Evaluate available filters and their costs and performance specifications. Prepare a costing spreadsheet. Identify critical assumptions and obtain agreement with the AWG and the Granite School

District on those assumptions. Perform engineering and cost analyses of potential equipment to be upgraded. Evaluate sensitivity of costs to assumptions. Prepare recommendations for each school and review those recommendations with the

AWG.


● ● ● 20

1.4 Contents of This Report

This report contains the results of work to determine the background air quality near the MVC and to develop recommendations on a mitigation strategy for the five schools in West Valley City near the future MVC roadway.

Section 2 summarizes the background air quality for black carbon, PM10, and ultra-fine particles at Hunter High School.

Section 3 summarizes background air quality for gas-phase hydrocarbons and carbonyl compounds.

Local surface wind and meteorological measurement results are provided in Section 4.

A summary of the design process and approach for mitigation at the five schools, of the system considerations and requirements, and of mitigation costs are provided in Sections 5, 6, and 7.

Section 8 summarizes results and recommendations regarding air quality monitoring and mitigation in the schools.

Section 9 contains references cited in this report.

Appendix A includes additional air quality and wind data displays.

● ● ● 2. Background Air Quality Results

● ● ● 21

2. Background Air Quality Results

2.1 Temporal Patterns in BC, PM10, and pPAHs

Annual and seasonal average concentrations of BC, PM10, pPAHs, and CO2 are provided in Table 3. BC concentrations are higher during the winter (December through February): mean BC concentrations are approximately 28% higher than the annual mean BC. This pattern is consistent with lower wind speeds throughout the fall and winter, as well as possible increases in emissions from wood burning. Concentrations of pPAHs and CO2 were also highest during the winter. PM10 concentrations were high during the winter due to more primary emissions, and during summer due to greater secondary formation. As shown in Figure 5, annual mean concentrations of PM10 measured at Hunter High School were comparable to nearby PM10 monitors also located in Salt Lake County.

Table 3. Annual and seasonal mean concentrations.

Mean BC (μg/m3) PM10 (μg/m3) pPAHs (ng/m3) CO2 (ppm)

8/2/2011–8/1/2012 8/6/2011–7/31/2012 8/2/2011–4/5/2012 8/2/2011–8/1/2012

Annual 0.54 19.71 4.78 403.89

August 2011 0.67 25.84 3.52 403.37

Fall 0.61 15.94 4.75 404.74

Winter 0.69 20.36 5.85 413.12

Spring 0.37 16.58 3.2 400.33

June through July 2012

0.39 26.6 394.78

Notes: Missing PM10 data in August 2011; pPAH data range ends in early April 2012; and CO2 was missing data in October and November 2011.

Mean concentrations of BC and PM10 were greater during school hours than all hours. School hours include Monday through Friday from August 22, 2011, to June 1, 2012, between 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Dates such as holidays when school was not in session were excluded. Mean BC and PM10 during school hours were 0.67 μg/m3 and 20.35 μg/m3, respectively; these means are similar to the winter seasonal high averages. Concentrations of BC during school hours are relevant for understanding exposure while school is in session, as well as for calculating HVAC requirements to limit exposure indoors. The results of the filtration analysis are provided in Sections 5 through 7.


● ● ● 22

Figure 5. Annual average PM10 at Hunter High School and nearby permanent monitors.


● ● ● 23

Diurnal concentrations of BC and pPAHs are consistent with daytime traffic patterns; concentrations are higher during the morning (6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.) and evening (5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.) commute hours. As shown in Figure 6, background BC concentrations at Hunter High School are more than 50% lower than BC concentrations measured next to US 95 in Las Vegas.

Figure 6. Mean BC and pPAH concentrations by hour at Hunter High School compared with hourly mean wintertime pollution measured next to US 95 in Las Vegas.


● ● ● 24

BC and PM10 concentrations were also characterized by meteorological condition; BC concentrations decrease with increasing wind speed due to greater transport and dispersion. As shown in Figure 7, BC concentrations are significantly greater when wind speeds are less than 1 meter per second (m/s) than when wind speeds are above 1 m/s. This is consistent with results from other near-road studies [see Roberts et al. (2010), for example].

Figure 7. Black carbon concentration by wind speed bin at Hunter High School. This figure uses notched box-whisker plots, which show the entire distribution of concentrations. In box-whisker plots, the box shows the 25th, 50th (median), and 75th percentiles. The whiskers have a maximum length equal to 1.5 times the length of the box (the interquartile range, IQR). If data are outside this range, the data points are shown on the plot. These “outliers” are further identified with asterisks (representing the points that fall within three times the IQR from the end of the box) and circles (representing the points beyond). The boxes are notched (narrowed) at the median and return to full width at the 95% lower and upper confidence interval values. These plots indicate that we are 95% confident that the median falls within the notch.

LTE 1 1 - 2 GT 2Wind Speed (m/s)

0

1

2

3

4Bl

ack

Carb

on (μ

g/m

3)


● ● ● 25

2.2 Winter Pollution Episodes

Episodes of high concentrations were observed throughout the study. The episodes typically occurred during the winter (November through January) and were characterized by above-average concentrations of BC and a diurnal pattern that included high concentrations of BC in the morning, afternoon, and evening; see Figure 8.

Figure 8. Diurnal pattern of BC during the days with the highest (95th percentile) BC concentrations. The x-axis (bottom scale) represents hours of the day.

2.3 Ultra-Fine Particles

Several recent studies suggest that ultra-fine particle (UFP) concentrations are high near busy roads (see Figure 2, for example), and have a potential health effect [see Health Effects Institute (2010), for example]. UFP are generally smaller than 0.1 micrometers or 100 nanometers in diameter. Because of the potential health effect, two weeks of UFP data were collected for comparison with near-road data from Las Vegas and with future data collected next to the MVC.

The UFP data had a maximum hourly value of 19,587 particles/cm3 and a mean hourly value of 6,755 particles/cm3. These values are lower than UFP data measured next to US 95 in Las Vegas, where the mean hourly value was 11,022 particles/cm3 during the spring of 2013. As shown in the time series in Figure 9, the 1-minute averaged UFP data are highly variable. UFP, BC, and PM10 all have some diurnal patterns, but as seen in Figure 9, there are only modest similarities in their time series.


● ● ● 26

Figure 9. (a) UFP concentrations (particles/cm3) during February 2012 (1-minute averaged data); (b) hourly averaged UFP (particles/cm3), BC (μg/m3), and PM10 (μg/m3) with wind speed during February 2012.

Figure 10 shows a close-up time series of February 19 to February 24, 2012, for UFP, BC, PM10, and wind speed. On February 20, 22, and 23, a morning BC and UFP peak is evident, followed by an afternoon/evening UFP peak. On the evening of February 22, there was a modest increase in wind speeds, resulting in a steep decrease in BC and UFP, but sustained high levels of PM10.


● ● ● 27

Figure 10. Hourly averaged UFP (particles/cm3), BC (μg/m3), and PM10 (μg/m3) with wind speed during February 19 to 24, 2012.

The UFP diurnal pattern showed a strong morning peak at 08:00 local time, and a secondary afternoon/evening peak (Figure 11). The morning peak coincides with a morning peak in BC during rush hour, and is likely due to traffic emissions on the nearby arterial roads plus an increase in emissions city-wide during rush hour. In the afternoon and evening, BC on average remains low, while UFP concentrations increase to levels near the morning average maximum. Since UFP concentrations typically increase with proximity to roadways, the UFP concentrations are likely mostly influenced from emissions on the nearby roadways, while BC may be more influenced by urban-scale emissions and traffic patterns. It may be that there are fewer diesel trucks in the afternoon commute than in the morning commute (thus lower BC concentrations). The modest relationship between BC and UFP is further seen in Figure 12, where the correlation between the two is rather low (r = 0.35), and with no clear change in relationship with change in wind speed.

UFP concentrations peaked in the mornings and evenings, likely because of increased traffic in the immediate area. UFP concentrations are predominantly from local emissions on nearby roadways. After completion of the MVC, BC concentrations will likely increase, depending on the level of truck traffic, and UFP concentrations will likely increase significantly, commensurate with the large increase in traffic.

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

BC μ

g/m

3

2/19

2/20

2/21

2/22

2/23

2/24

date

15x103

10

5

particles/cm3

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

PM10 μg/m

3

6420

ws

m/s

wind speed BC UFP PM10

Winds shift to north and increase in speed leads to high PM10 & low BC & UFP

As wind speeds decrease, BC & UFPincrease while PM10decreases


● ● ● 28

Figure 11. Hourly averaged BC (μg/m3) and UFP (particles/cm3) concentrations, February 9 to 24, 2012.

Figure 12. Hourly averaged BC (μg/m3) and UFP (particles/cm3) concentrations, colored by wind speed (red indicates wind speeds greater than 4 m/s).

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

BC μ

g/m

3

2220181614121086420Hour

10x103

9

8

7

6

5

particles/cm3

BC UFP

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

BC

μg/

m3

15x103105particles/cm3

4

3

2

1

wind speed m

/s

● ● ● 3. Gas-Phase Toxics Results

● ● ● 29

3. Gas-Phase Toxics Results Volatile organic compound (VOC) samples were collected at Hunter High School from August 2011 through May 2012 on a 1-in-12 day sampling schedule. Concentrations from this analysis were used to generate median, mean, 10th, and 90th percentile values for each of the air toxics of interest. Mean (or average) concentrations over this time period are the most relevant for comparison to chronic health benchmarks, which are described below.

1. The EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) non-cancer reference concentration benchmarks. Exposure to concentrations at this level for 70 years would be expected to result in chronic adverse health effects in sensitive populations, such as the elderly or young children. Adverse health effects are unique to each pollutant, but can include asthma, neurological effects, or reproductive effects. Concentrations more than a factor of ten below these levels are expected to have negligible effects.

2. EPA OAQPS 1-in-a-million cancer benchmarks. Concentrations at this level for 70 years would be expected to result in one additional case of cancer per million people exposed. Concentrations below this level would result in a lower rate and concentrations above this level would result in a higher rate. Note that this assumes people are exposed to outdoor air; United States residents, on average, spend more than 90% of their time indoors. Current lifetime probability of diagnosis of cancer in the United States is just over 40%;2 the most recent national model for national air toxics estimates the average risk of cancer from breathing ambient air to be 50 in a million.3 This means that, on average, approximately 1 in 20,000 (0.005%) people are likely to be diagnosed with cancer from breathing outdoor air in the United States.

Figure 13 compares the VOCs measured at Hunter High School and at the Bountiful, Utah, monitoring site. The Hunter High School data are from 2011 through 2012, while the Bountiful data include three years (2008 through 2010) of measurements from the NATTS. Also included are the two health-risk benchmarks described above.

The range of concentrations observed are very similar at the two monitoring sites, as seen by the high degree of overlap in the white and green bars. For many of the pollutants, the range of concentrations is lower at Hunter High School, including concentrations of 2,2,4-trimethylpentane, acetaldehyde, ethylbenzene, o-xylene, and toluene. For a few pollutants, concentrations may be higher at Hunter High School, or have a higher range of observed concentrations, including 1,3-butadiene, acrolein, formaldehyde, benzene, and styrene. When directly comparing the mean concentrations (blue diamond and purple triangle), only styrene and acrolein are unambiguously higher at the Hunter High School site.

2 http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancerbasics/lifetime-probability-of-developing-or-dying-from-cancer. 3 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005/05pdf/sum_results.pdf.


● ● ● 30

Comparing the mean concentrations to the two health benchmarks reveals a few clear facts.

Concentrations of all pollutants except for acrolein are below or well below the noncancer reference concentrations.

Acrolein concentrations are much higher than noncancer reference concentrations at both sites. This is consistent with other observed acrolein values measured nationally (McCarthy et al., 2009) and modeled results of acrolein in the National Air Toxics Assessment 2005 results.4

Most of the pollutants are above 1-in-a-million cancer risk values, including 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, benzene, carbon tetrachloride, ethylbenzene, and formaldehyde. This is true at both monitoring sites, and is consistent with observed and modeled urban concentrations nationally.5, 6

4 http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancerbasics/lifetime-probability-of-developing-or-dying-from-cancer. 5 http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancerbasics/lifetime-probability-of-developing-or-dying-from-cancer. 6 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005/05pdf/sum_results.pdf.


● ● ● 31

Figure 13. Comparison of VOC concentrations at Hunter High School (green boxes and purple triangle) and in Bountiful, Utah, (white boxes, blue diamond) relative to health risk benchmarks (red x).

In summary, these measurements indicate that the observed concentrations at Hunter High School are comparable to the measurements at Bountiful, Utah, and do not indicate any abnormally high concentrations of air toxics. These concentrations can be used as a baseline for assessment of the impacts of the freeway on local mobile source air toxics in future years. We expect concentrations of the gas-phase MSATs (1,3-butadiene, benzene, acrolein, formaldehyde, and acetaldehyde) to increase once the MVC is completed.

● ● ● 4. Wind Characterization

● ● ● 33

4. Wind Characterization This section describes the results of the meteorological analysis which sought to answer two primary questions:

1. Are wind measurements collected at Hunter High School representative of the nearby schools?

2. What are the predominant characteristics of wind speed and wind direction at Hunter High School relative to time of day, season, and the MVC?

There were several objectives for monitoring wind speed and wind direction at all five schools during the background study. One objective was to understand if the topography of the area, including the hill where Hillside Elementary is located, might cause local channeling or differences in general wind patterns observed at each school, and thus potential differences in pollutant impacts. An additional objective was to understand the influence of wind conditions relative to each school and the planned MVC location in order to characterize how often and at what relative magnitude each school might be impacted by pollutants from the MVC. These conditions might then suggest where air quality monitoring sites might be placed.

Figure 14 provides wind roses for each of the five schools. A wind rose is a visual summary of wind patterns for a specific time period at a surface meteorological site. The size of the triangle emanating from the center of the wind rose indicates the percentage of time that winds are from a specific direction (position on axes). Wind speed/time percentages are indicated with color bins along the length of the triangle. At all schools, the predominant wind direction is from the south (S), with winds also originating from the northwest. There is little seasonal difference in this wind direction pattern at Hunter High School, although wind speeds tend to be lower during the fall and winter, which is important because pollutant concentrations are higher at lower wind speeds (see Figure 15).

We conclude that there is little potential difference in directional impacts at the five schools from MVC pollutants. However, the dominance of winds from the south, parallel to the new roadway, and south-southeast (SSE) increases downwind impacts from the roadway. As shown in Figure 16, due to the increased fetch across the roadway, expected pollutant concentrations may be more than two times higher when winds are less perpendicular and more parallel to the roadway than when winds are perpendicular to the roadway.


● ● ● 34

Figure 14. Comparison of annual wind roses. Data for West Valley Elementary School were limited to the November 2011 through January 2012 and for April 2012.


● ● ● 35

Figure 15. Seasonal wind roses at Hunter High School.

Figure 16. Comparison of the fetch across the roadway when winds are (a) from the east and perpendicular to the road, and (b) from the SSE and at an angle across the road.

● ● ● 5. MSATs and Effective Mitigation Strategies

● ● ● 37

5. Mobile Source Air Toxics and Effective Mitigation Strategies Vehicle traffic in the vicinity of heavily traveled roadways increases concentrations of pollutants commonly referred to as mobile source air toxics (MSATs). MSATs are composed mainly of products of combustion that can be in either the gas or particulate phase. MSATs include diesel particulate matter (DPM, with black carbon as a surrogate for DPM) and gases 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and acrolein.

The particulate-phase MSATs are generally in the small size range of less than 1 μm. Particles of this size are not effectively filtered by a person’s upper respiratory system, but unfortunately are transported deep into the lungs, and can deposit into lung tissue. Given that these particles are made up mostly of products of incomplete combustion and are likely blood soluble, current health science assumes that it would be best to minimize exposure to these particles.

Air filtration systems commonly installed when building HVAC systems prior to about 2005 have not done a good job filtering particles less than 1 μm in diameter, but have rather concentrated on removing larger particles that tend to settle in ducts, collect and foul heat exchangers, or otherwise affect the mechanical operation of the system. These filters also have no demonstrated ability to filter gas phase materials from the air. Therefore, unless better filtration is installed in these systems, small particles and gas-phase pollutants tend to pass right through the systems and into the classroom. As smaller particles have very low settling velocities, they tend to behave as gases in all but the stillest of air volumes.

Air filters used in HVAC systems are commonly rated for their minimum efficiency reporting value (MERV). The MERV rating assesses the ability of an air filter to remove particulates as a function of their filtration efficiency over a wide range of particle sizes. Generally, filters that do a good job across a wide range of particle sizes (0.01 to 10 μm) have higher MERV ratings, while filters that only filter large particles (which mainly settle or impact on surfaces) have low MERV ratings. Filters with low MERV ratings (i.e., a MERV 8 filter) do a pretty good job of managing the accumulation of debris within an HVAC system over its expected useful life. Higher MERV-rated filters (MERV 11 through 16) do a better job of filtering particulates overall size ranges, but they especially increase the filtration efficiency in the size range of interest to protect people from MSAT particulates (see Figure 17).


● ● ● 38

Figure 17. Particle removal efficiency versus particle diameter for MERV-rated filters.


● ● ● 39

Monitoring studies performed in school buildings that were modified to accommodate filters with higher MERV ratings did a good job mitigating the particulate-phase MSATs (namely BC), but were not effective with gas phase MSATs (Roberts et al., 2010; McCarthy et al., 2013; Polidori et al., 2013). The improved filtration approaches recommended in this report are consistent with the approaches implemented in Las Vegas schools (Roberts et al., 2010, and McCarthy et al., 2013) and the improved systems being installed in various schools within the South Coast Air Quality Management District (per Polidori et al., 2013), which seem to be the de facto guidance for school buildings. Figure 18 demonstrates that increasing the MERV rating on a school building’s filtration system markedly decreased the exposure of school building occupants to BC in an MSAT-affected school in Las Vegas, Nevada (McCarthy et al., 2013). For purposes of this discussion, BC serves as a surrogate for DPM as well as other small-diameter particles.

Figure 18. Classroom black carbon concentrations versus outdoor black carbon concentrations for a school building close to a heavily traveled roadway with normal (MERV 8) and then improved (MERV 15) filters installed (McCarthy et al., 2013).

The filter technology that will be applied in those schools relies primarily on the filtration mechanisms of impaction and interception to attain the MERV rating. In addition, some


● ● ● 40

manufacturers introduce a static charge on their filter media that has the effect of temporarily enhancing the performance of the filter; that results in a higher MERV rating, but only until the static charge dissipates a short time into the life of the filter. The filters recommended for this mitigation strategy will be tested and rated in a manner that removes the static charge prior to testing; this is designated in the filter rating by the “A” following the rating value.

The process of electrostatic precipitation is used to remove particles from flowing air in some industrial processes. In this process, air flows between two plates with a very large voltage (greater than 10,000 volts) applied between the plates; this voltage drives particles to collect on one of the plates. This process is not currently offered as an installed and supported system in commercial HVAC systems, mainly because such systems would be very large, are hard to ensure the safety of personnel, are difficult to keep clean, and are very expensive to install and operate.

To mitigate the increased MSAT particulates expected as a result of the MVC construction and operation, we recommend the filters in the HVAC systems of the five affected schools be increased from their current MERV 8 filters to filters that have a MERV rating that meets or exceeds MERV-A 13A. This strategy uses “off-the-shelf technology” that has become in recent years more available to the non-industrial building operations sectors, and that is available in configurations that are reasonably affordable for application in school HVAC systems. It is expected that this change in filtration will increase the cost of filtering the air passing through the HVAC systems of these schools, due to the purchase of more expensive filters, and also due to increased fan power and energy. However, it is estimated that these filters will be changed less often than the currently used MERV 8 filters, and result in a savings in labor for filter changes.

The proposed filters with improved MERV rating will impose more resistance to airflow than the current MERV 8 filters. In some systems, larger fan motors will be required, along with larger sized wires and motor control systems. In all HVAC systems, pressure monitors will be installed and connected to the automation system for that building. This upgrade will monitor the pressure drop for each filter bank and notify the GSD maintenance department when filters are at the end of their useful life and require replacement.

It was observed during the site observations made in March 2011 that all five schools appeared to be operating so that the buildings were at a slight positive pressure relative to outdoors. This is an important element to this mitigation strategy in that it assures that air from outdoors that is supplied to the occupied areas of the building pass through the filtration media before it reaches the occupied space, rather than outdoor air leaking into the conditioned space. To maximize the efficacy of the proposed filtration upgrade requires that the buildings are continually operated with a slight positive pressure during occupied hours (i.e., the building should have slightly more mechanically supplied outdoor air than is exhausted).

● ● ● 6. Mitigation Strategy and System Considerations

● ● ● 41

6. Mitigation Strategy and System Considerations and Requirements To assess the feasibility and cost of implementing the proposed mitigation strategy, each of the five schools was surveyed by site visit in March 2011. Subsequently, engineering documents were obtained and reviewed to determine characteristics of each air handler in the HVAC systems in the schools. In total, the operating characteristics of 72 air handlers were analyzed to determine the number and sizes of filters required, the total airflow, the available and required fan horsepower, and the available area for replacement filter installation. Additional analysis was performed to assess the ability of the existing AHUs to accommodate filters with significantly higher pressure drop, as well as the ability of the current motor and related hardware.

The mitigation strategy recommended for the five schools is to replace the currently used MERV 8 filters in the permanent air handling systems in all five schools with filters that meet or exceed a MERV-A 13A rating.

It is also important that all of the outdoor air delivered to the occupied areas of the building be filtered. This is generally attained by mechanically supplying more outdoor air to the space than is mechanically exhausted, which will positively pressurize the building. This positive pressure can generally be observed by noting the direction of airflow in the building openings to the outside. When air is flowing from inside to outside, the building is being maintained with a slight positive pressure with respect to the outdoors. These conditions were observed in each of the five schools during EH&E’s site visit in March 2011. When the building is in unoccupied (i.e., when AHUs are off), exhaust systems should not be operating. Minimizing infiltration is an important aspect of minimizing energy use in buildings when they are unoccupied, and therefore it makes sense that the GSD has maintained operable interlocks to discontinue exhaust fan operations when air handlers are shut off during unoccupied periods.

The filter technology that will be applied relies primarily on the filtration mechanisms of impaction and interception to attain the MERV rating. As a static charge on their filter media can have the effect of temporarily enhancing the performance of some filter types, it can result in a higher MERV rating in the early part of the filter life that then dissipates as the static charge dissipates, resulting in a filter performance that is lower than the MERV rating. The filters recommended for this mitigation strategy will be tested and rated using ASHRAE Standard 52.2 Appendix J procedures (ASHRAE, 2008). This performance assessment procedure assures that the filter performance represented reflects the filter performance with the static charge discharged as will occur during the normal life of the filter. Filters rated with the static charge removed are generally reflected in the MERV rating as MERV-A XA, where X refers to the MERV X rating. The filters recommended for this mitigation strategy have either a MERV-A 13A or a MERV-A 14A rating. All of the recommended filter choices made in this mitigation strategy are synthetic media pleated panel filters.


● ● ● 42

6.1 System Considerations

It is important to consider the filter loading characteristics for the filtration products that are available in the market, as some products with nominally the same MERV rating have less filter loading capacity than other filters. The filters with less filter loading capacity will require more frequent replacement and also have, on average, a higher pressure drop, and consequently require more fan power and energy and power costs than filters with better loading characteristics.

Figure 19 depicts the filter pressure drops versus grams of material removed from the air for three filters with nominally the same MERV rating, as well as the current MERV 8 Filters. Figure 20 compares the operating cost over the life of each of these filters when applied to Hunter High School. Note that while Filter X is the least expensive filter to purchase that exceeds a MERV-A 13A, it is the most expensive filter to own. Due to its relatively lower dust loading capacity, its lifetime is shorter, which will dictate more frequent replacement, and higher labor costs than filters that cost more to purchase. It also has higher initial resistance, and its resistance climbs faster as material is removed from the air, so that it energy and power costs are higher than the more expensive filters in the comparison (Filters Y and Z).

This comparison is for the Hunter High School, which is by far the most sensitive to the difference in dust loading capacity. Hunter High School is the largest of the five schools and accounts for approximately 45% of the total filtered air volume considered in the mitigation program and approximately 60% of the net present value (NPV) cost. Most of the systems at Hunter High Schools are also limited by fan capacity (the fans are not powerful enough), so that the systems cannot meet the normal pressure drop for the replacement filter (i.e., change filters when the pressure drop exceeds one inch water gauge [w.g.]), even with larger motors. So filter changes are required more frequently than would otherwise be required if the filters could absorb the normally recommended filter change pressure drop.

Most of the AHUs at Hunter High School do not have adequate space to install filters that are 4” deep and the cost to retrofit the units is at this time complicated and expected to be very expensive.7 For this reason, in this school as well as in Hunter Junior High, the recommendation is to prescribe easily attainable modifications to an air handling unit (AHU) to accommodate a 4” deep filter, if possible, and choose Filter Z. If the modification cannot be made without extensive capital spending, Filter Y should be installed. In the latter case, more filter changes will be required.

The annual operating cost differential for each air handling unit in Hunter High and Hunter Jr. High has been modeled. EH&E can assist the engineering team on assessing the conversion benefit of modifications for each air handler for the Filter Y versus Filter Z choices as well as other filter choices that may become available as the mitigation plan is implemented. In many cases it can be much less expensive to use the 2” filter with its higher annual operating costs than to modify the AHU to accommodate 4” deep filters, all to achieve the same filtration benefit.

7 See email HHS 4" Filter FW: Cost to retrofit Hunter High AHUs to accommodate 4" deep filters.


● ● ● 43

Figure 19. Filter loading characteristics form filters with similar MERV ratings (RTI International, 2010; Research & Technical Center, 2013; Aeolus Filter, n.d.).


● ● ● 44

Figure 20. Operating cost comparisons for filters with similar MERV ratings.

6.2 HVAC System Requirements for Enhanced Filtration Systems

The proposed mitigation strategy with filters with improved MERV ratings will impose more resistance to airflow than the current MERV 8 filters. In some systems, larger fan motors will be required along with larger wires and motor control systems. In all HVAC systems, pressure monitors will be installed and connected to the building automation system for that building. This upgrade will monitor the pressure drop for each filter bank and notify the GSD maintenance department when filters are at the end of their useful life and require replacement.

In the three elementary schools, Hillside Elementary, West Valley Elementary, and Whittier Elementary, the AHUs as currently equipped have sufficient fan capacity to accommodate the enhanced filtration strategy without upgrades to the fan motors.


● ● ● 45

In Hunter High School, all of the 32 AHUs included in the mitigation strategy will require larger motors to make the proposed mitigation viable. Even with larger motors, most of the AHUs in Hunter High School will not be able to operate at as large of a pressure difference as would be normal practice (i.e., one inch final pressure difference across the filter bank), per the Engineer of Record for the recent air conditioning modifications made to the building in 2011 (Logan, 2013). These limitations will require that these filters be changed more often than would otherwise occur. This approach has been included in the operating cost for the mitigation cost analysis.

Hunter Junior High School will require a larger motor in two of 11 AHUs that serve the building with air from outdoors. Even with larger motors, some of the AHUs in Hunter Junior High School will not be able to operate at as large of a filter pressure difference as would be normal or economically desired practice. As with Hunter High, these limitations are prescribed by the Engineer of Record for the recent air conditioning modifications made to the building in 2011 (Kessler, 2013a). The limitation will require that these filters be changed more often than would otherwise occur. This has been included in the operating cost for the mitigation cost analysis.

Even with larger motors, two AHUs at Hunter High School and one AHU at Hunter Junior High School could not be accommodated in the mitigation program. These areas are shown in Table 4Table 4. Overall, the areas that could not be accommodated in the mitigation plan account for approximately 6% of Hunter High School and 2% of Hunter Jr. High School.

Table 4. Areas of the five schools that were not included in the mitigation program for technical reasons.

a Portable classrooms were not included in the mitigation project because of their temporary nature and their much higher cost to filter.

At both Hunter High and Hunter Junior High School, the Engineer of Record should oversee the implementation of the mitigation strategy in these schools. They should assess the problems associated with the AHUs identified in Table 4, and engineer any reasonable attempts to correct the problems so as to include these areas in the mitigation program. The cost for this engineering effort has been included in the proposed first cost of mitigation implementation.

Buildinga Unit

Designation Area Served

Approx. Square Feet

Percent of Building

Percent of the Five Schools

Hunter High AH-21 Classrooms 8,000 2% 1.0%

Hunter High AH-25 Kitchen/Dining 14,000 4% 1.8%

Hunter Jr. High AH-5 Instruments 3,100 2% 0.4%


● ● ● 46

6.3 HVAC Systems Improvements for Portable Classrooms

Portable classrooms were not included in the mitigation efforts because they represent a high cost per square foot per year, especially when one considers that the buildings will probably not be in place for a long duration. There are two ways to improve the filtration system for a portable classroom: modify the existing HVAC system, or install portable HVAC systems inside the classroom.

Modifying filtration systems that protect a typical, commercially available, portable classroom is difficult due to the difficulty of fitting larger and more restrictive filters into the HVAC systems provided on these units, the lack of sufficient fan capacity to accommodate more restrictive filters, and generally insufficient space for modifications. Efforts to install filtration in a portable classroom in Las Vegas (Roberts et al., 2010) required that an additional fan be installed to accommodate the more restrictive filter, as well as ductwork and controls. As there was insufficient space within the portable classroom to house the additional equipment, the equipment had to be installed outside of the classroom, which required it to be weatherproof and behind a security fence to protect the equipment from vandalism and to protect students from dangerous machinery. Further, the visual aspects of the equipment and security fence detracted from the architectural esthetics of the portable classrooms.

Installing a portable HVAC system inside a classroom is possible, but will not be as effective as modifying the existing system. For example, a modified HVAC system with a high-efficiency filter could reduce indoor concentrations of particles to about 3% of outdoor concentrations, while a portable HVAC system with the same high-efficiency filter operating on the air already in the classroom would only reduce the classroom concentrations to 25% of the outdoor concentration. For each portable classroom of 1,000 square feet, four portable units would be required to provide reasonable coverage when operating at low fan speed (to reduce noise). This would cost about $2,000/year, or about $2/square foot/year, more than three times the average cost for all five schools, or about $82/student/year, about 10 times the average for all five schools (see Section 8.1).

Another alternative exists for modifying filtration systems in portable classrooms. If a portable classroom is built to Granite School District specifications, then the HVAC Systems in these portable classrooms could be designed to meet the following types of requirements.

Accommodate a 4” deep MERV 13A filter with a face velocity of no more than 500 fpm.

Locate the MERV 13A filter in the downstream section of the mixing box (downstream of where return air and outdoor air are mixed) of the AHU.

Design the fans to operate with a filter pressure drop of up to 1” s.p. without compromising system airflow.

Design the HVAC system to meet the code-required ventilation requirements per student wholly via mechanical ventilation (i.e., not operable windows).


● ● ● 47

Monitor the pressure drop across the filter by the site’s Building Automation System (BAS).

Program the BAS to alert the maintenance department (to change the filter) when the filter static pressure exceeds 1” s.p.

If the design can accommodate these requirements, the cost for enhanced filtration in these portable classrooms will be greatly reduced from the costs in the Las Vegas study mentioned above. Assuming that the portable classroom’s AHUs would be controlled by the site’s BAS, the annual operating cost per square foot and annual cost per student will more closely resemble the estimated annual operating costs at the elementary schools. There would likely be a small increase in the construction costs of the “built to spec” portables; however, we cannot estimate that cost at this time.

● ● ● 7. Mitigation Cost Estimates

● ● ● 49

7. Mitigation Cost Estimates This section discussed the general details of the cost determination and the details for each of the five schools.

In the three elementary schools, it was determined that the changes to the HVAC systems would be minor, with only a change in the filters installed required and the hardware and software necessary to track the need for filter changes.

In Hunter High School and Hunter Junior High School, it was determined that more detailed study was needed to accommodate the added pressure drop due to modifications made to the HVAC systems when air conditioning coils were installed in 2011, as well as the additional pressure drop required for the more restrictive MERV filters of the proposed mitigation scheme. For both the Hunter High School and Hunter Junior High School, the Engineers of Record for the 2011 HVAC Modifications were consulted as to the limitations of the AHUs to accommodate the proposed filters.

Next, the filtration pressure drop versus particle mass removal was analyzed for a number of proposed filters. This information, along with data characterizing annual ambient particle mass during school operating hours, electric energy and power costs, filter costs, school hours of operation, and labor cost, was combined in a model to determine the difference in cost between operating the HVAC systems in the five schools with the current systems as compared with the proposed mitigation strategy. From this analysis, the number of filter changes per year was forecast as well as the difference in fan energy and power requirements, and the cost increases represented by these changes.

To assess the first cost of implementing the proposed mitigation strategy, assessments were made for the cost of installing the first set of proposed filters in each of the five schools, as well as the cost to install the hardware and software required to monitor the status of the filters and notify GSD maintenance personnel when a filter change is required.

For Hunter High, and Hunter Junior High School, motor and drive changes were itemized based on recommendations provided by the Engineers of Record for the respective 2011 air conditioning modifications made in these schools. The items were priced with installation, with the assumption that they were being purchased piece by piece with relevant accessories (i.e., new motor sieves, belts, etc.) by the mechanical contractor that performed the 2011 modifications on the Hunter High School. In both projects, allowances were made for engineering oversight to develop contract specifications, procure bids, and oversee implementation.


● ● ● 50

7.1 Cost Estimate Assumptions

To estimate the cost of implementing the proposed mitigation measures, a variety of assumptions were required to assess the initial costs of implementation (i.e., the first cost), as well as the annual operating cost of the program. As the mitigation measures are expected to require annual maintenance for the remaining life of the school buildings, and the funds to operate this program is specified in current value, there was a need to be able to roll up the first cost and annual operating costs into an NPV. The NPV is the sum of the first cost plus the annual operating costs brought into present day value, accounting for a fixed rate of return on an investment and inflation.

Table 5 tabulates the assumptions made for the costing model. These assumptions were based on generally accepted engineering costing procedures, as well as information obtained from filter vendors, onsite monitoring data, the GSD, and the AWG.

Table 5. Modeling assumptions made for mitigation cost estimates.

Item Hunter High

Hunter Jr. High

Whittier Elementary

Hillside Elementary

West Valley Elementary

Time horizon in years 30 30 30 30 30

Time value of money (%) 3 3 3 3 3

Annual inflation (%) 4 4 4 4 4

District labor cost ($/hr) 40 40 40 40 40

HVAC operating (hours/week)

80 55 65 55 65

HVAC operating (weeks/year)

37 37 37 37 37

PM10 concentration (μg/m3)

20 20 20 20 20

District electric cost ($/kWh)

$0.037507 $0.037507 $0.037507 $0.037507 $0.037507

District demand cost ($/kW)

$17.69 $17.69 $17.69 $17.69 $17.69

Filter cost ($) Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies

Filter pressure drop limit (in-H20)

Per Engineer of Record

Per Engineer of Record

1.0 1.0 1.0

The cost estimate also assumes that only the air handling units that supply outdoor air to the permanent buildings at the five school sites are included in the program. As discussed in Section 6.2,


● ● ● 51

some units were not included in the program due to problems with the AHUs having insufficient static pressure reserves to be able to accommodate the improved filters that offer higher impedance to airflow that the current filters. As was also discussed in Section 6.2, even with larger motors installed at Hunter High and Hunter Junior High Schools, many of the AHUs will not be able to operate appropriately at as large a filter pressure drop as would normally be economically desirable. Filters in these units will require more frequent changes, and therefore have higher operating costs. These high cost areas were included in the program price, and not excluded due to higher than normal operating cost.

7.2 Estimated Program Cost

The estimated NPV for the proposed mitigation program in the five schools is $1,620,000. This number is based on a first cost estimate of $430,000 and an annual operating cost of $35,000 over and above the cost of the current filtration strategy for these schools. The NPV assumes a 3% rate of return, and 4% inflation over a 30-year operating life. The estimate assumes that the inflation rate adequately reflects the cost changes of labor, filters, and energy resources over the life of the project.

Table 6 tabulates the estimated project cost broken down by school. Additional school descriptor data are provided to allow contrasting project cost by square feet and student occupancy numbers, for example.

Table 6. Estimated project cost by school, based on annual incremental operating cost plus first cost allocated over 30 years at 3% interest, 4% inflation.

Included in the first cost (and therefore the NPV) is an allowance of $25,000 for EH&E to answer questions during the initial implementation of the mitigation program and to perform a site inspection at the end of the implementation phase of the project.


Annual Incremental

Cost


Inflation


Number of

Students

Dollars/ ft2/ Year

Dollars/ Student/

Year

Whittier $26,973 $3,952 $163,854 104,922 687 $0.045 $6.89

Hillside $14,853 $2,247 $92,659 54,667 625 $0.049 $4.28

West Valley $53,020 $3,446 $172,370 88,920 584 $0.056 $8.52

Hunter Jr High $91,754 $4,025 $231,165 172,120 1,047 $0.039 $6.38

Hunter High $243,216 $20,681 $959,449 340,000 2,086 $0.081 $13.28


$429,816 $34,352 $1,619,497 760,629 $5,029 $0.062 $9.30


● ● ● 52

7.3 School-Specific Recommendations

The following sections detail, for each school, the recommendations for implementing the remediation program proposed in each of the five schools included in the program. Included in the specific recommendations are the estimated first cost and annual operating costs, as well as annual cost per student to implement the remediation plan in each school. These recommendations at all five schools should be implemented before heavy construction starts on the MVC near that school.

7.3.1 Recommendations for Hillside Elementary School

1. Install pressure monitors and software in each of the building’s four air handling units, interfaced through the building’s energy management system to monitor the pressure drop across the filters. When the pressure drop exceeds one inch of water, the system should notify the maintenance department that filters require replacement.

2. Replace the currently installed MERV 8 filters with four-inch-deep MERV 13A filters (Aeolus SMP80 AT 24244) or approved filters with equal capacity.

3. Preliminary pricing of the first costs for converting to the enhanced filtration strategy are expected to be approximately $15,000 in 2014 dollars. Of this, approximately $9,000 is for upgrades to the building’s energy management system (EMS) to monitor and report when filter changes are required,8 and $3,000 for the initial set of MERV 13A filters. Recent information from GSD is that the energy management system for which modifications were quoted to perform filter monitoring is being replaced. Funding should be adjusted to represent the incremental costs of meeting the additional requirements of the enhanced filtration program (i.e., monitoring filter pressure drop and notifying when filter changes are required).

4. The increase in annual operating costs is estimated to be approximately $2,300 based on 2014 dollars. The recommended changes for enhanced filtration will result in increased cost for filters, fan energy, and fan power, but fewer filter changes will be required, resulting in lower labor cost for changing filters.

5. The NPV of including Hillside Elementary School in the proposed mitigation program, assuming a 30 year project timeline, 3% time value of money, and 4% inflation, is expected to be $92,820. An additional $15,000 to adjust for the new EMS should be considered, instead of the $80,000 suggested by GSD. The $80,000 suggested by GSD appears to be the amount of money needed to buy all or most of the replacement EMS for Hillside School. This seems excessive for the modest incremental requirements of this mitigation project (monitoring the pressure drop across the filters of four air handling units, even if the cost of controlling the school’s five exhaust fans are included as added mitigation costs).

8 See email HSE1.


● ● ● 53

6. On a cost-per-student basis, this is an annual operating cost of approximately $3.55 per student per year, and the total cost (first cost and annual cost) is $4.13 per student per year.

7.3.2 Recommendations for West Valley Elementary School

1. Install pressure monitors and software in each of the building’s nine AHUs, interfaced through the building’s energy management system to monitor the pressure drop across the filters. When the pressure drop exceeds one inch of water, the system should notify the maintenance department that filters require replacement.

2. Replace the currently installed MERV 8 filters with four-inch-deep MERV 13A Filters (Aeolus SMP80 AT 24244) or approved filters with equal capacity.

3. Preliminary pricing of the first costs for converting to the enhanced filtration strategy are expected to be approximately $53,000 in 2014 dollars. Of this, approximately $40,0009 is for upgrades to the building’s EMS to monitor and report when filter changes are required, and $5,000 for the initial set of MERV 13A filters. Recent information from GSD indicates that the energy management system has been changed from a high-priced vendor to a vendor with a generally more favorable cost structure. The prior, more expensive vendor quoted a price $22,000 higher than was quoted for Whittier Elementary, which is a nearly identical school in design and construction. Some cost reduction should be expected due to this change.

4. The increase in annual operating costs is estimated to be approximately $3,500 based on 2014 dollars. The recommended changes for enhanced filtration will result in increased cost for filters, fan energy, and fan power, but less labor for changing filters, as fewer filters changes will be required.

5. The NPV of including West Valley Elementary School in the proposed mitigation program, assuming a 30-year project timeline, 3% time value of money, and 4% inflation, is expected to be $172,300.

6. On a cost-per-student basis, this is an annual operating cost of approximately $6.00 per student per year, and a total cost (first cost and annual cost) of $8.52 per student per year.

7.3.3 Recommendations for Whittier Elementary School

1. Install pressure monitors and software in each of the building’s 10 AHUs, interfaced through the building’s energy management system to monitor the pressure drop across the filters. When the pressure drop exceeds one inch of water, the system should notify the maintenance department that filters require replacement.

2. Replace the currently installed MERV 8 filters with four-inch-deep MERV 13A Filters (Aeolus SMP80 AT 24244) or approved filters with equal capacity.

9 See email WVE1.


● ● ● 54

3. Preliminary pricing of the first costs for converting to the enhanced filtration strategy are expected to be approximately $28,000 in 2014 dollars Of this approximately $18,000 is for upgrades to the building’s EMS to monitor and report when filter changes are required,10 and $6,000 for the initial set of MERV 13A filters.

4. The increase in annual operating costs is estimated to be approximately $4,000 based on 2014 dollars. The recommended changes for enhanced filtration will result in increased cost for filters, fan energy, and fan power, but less labor for changing filters, as filter changes will be required less frequently.

5. The NPV of including Whittier Elementary School in the proposed mitigation program, assuming a 30-year project timeline, 3% time value of money, and 4% inflation, is expected to be $164,900.


7.3.4 Recommendations for Hunter Junior High School

1. Heath Engineering, the engineer of record for the 2011 air conditioning modifications to the Hunter Junior High School, will develop a scope of work for selecting and managing contractors to upgrade the infrastructure necessary for operating the proposed mitigation upgrade. The engineer will detail the modifications for construction, prepare bid and contract documents as appropriate, and oversee the installation and final adjustments and acceptance of the work (Kessler, 2013b). This work shall include the following:

a. Install pressure monitors and software in each of the building’s AHUs, interfaced through the building’s EMS to monitor the pressure drop across the filters. When the pressure drop exceeds the values prescribed by the engineer, the system will notify the maintenance department that filters for that particular AHU should be replaced.

b. Investigate and, if possible, resolve pressure problems that were apparent when reviewing the air balance reports that kept AH-5 from being capable of accepting the enhanced filtration strategy.

c. Install larger motors, variable frequency drive, and wiring where required based the previous engineering report (Kessler, 2013a).

d. Replace the currently installed MERV 8 filters with four-inch-deep MERV 13A filters (Aeolus SMP80 AT 24244) or approved filters with equal capacity in those AHUs that can be readily adapted to four-inch-deep filters. In those units that cannot be adapted to four-inch-deep filters, install MERV 14A filters (Purolator Prime One PRM98-4402) or approved filters with equal capacity.

e. Rebalance the air handlers with the new improved filters.

10 See email WHES2.


● ● ● 55

2. Preliminary pricing of the first costs for converting to the enhanced filtration strategy are shown in Table 7 and are expected to be approximately $92,000 in 2014 dollars.

3. The increase in annual operating costs is estimated to be approximately $4,025 based on 2014 dollars. The recommended changes for enhanced filtration will result in increased cost for filters, fan energy, and fan power, but fewer filter changes and less labor will be required.

4. The NPV of including Hunter Junior High School in the proposed mitigation program, assuming a 30-year project timeline, 3% time value of money, and 4% inflation, is expected to be $231,165.



● ● ● 56

Table 7. Estimated first cost implementation items for the mitigation program at Hunter Junior High School. References and comments were added in this revision. References are included in Appendix B.

Item Vendor Quantity Dollars/

Unit Total

Dollars Reference Comment

Engineering study

Heath Engineering Co.

1 $12,820 $12,820

Probably should be deleted. It already was included elsewhere.

2 HP premium efficiency motor

Rocky Mountain Mechanical

1 $1,738 $1,738 HJHS1 Based on quote for 10 hp



1 $1,738 $1,738 HJHS1 Based on quote for 10 hp

Control system changes for filter full notification


13 $1,215 $15,795 HJHS2

Filter frame changes

Filter Vendor (allowance) Steve Robinson of Aeolus

121 $5 $605

Air balance Allowance 1 $5,000 $5,000

HJHS3 scaled from HHS3

Belts and sheaves

Allowance 13 $1,000 $13,000 HJHS3

Motor replace labor


2 – –

Included in quote for motors and VFDs

VFD replace labor


2 – –



● ● ● 57


Unit Total

Dollars Reference Comment

First filter install

Filter vendor (based on Purolator PRM98-4402

1 $9,878 $9,878

HJHS5 combined with HJHS6

Branch circuit wiring/breakers

Allowance 2 $690 $1,380

JFL Discussion w Ryan Van Voast of VBFA on 08/22/13

Engineering costs for bid package

Heath Engineering Co

1 $22,400 $22,400 HJHS4

EH&E advice and final review

EH&E 1 $10,000 $10,000

Total $94,354

7.3.5 Recommendations for Hunter High School

1. Van Boerum & Frank Associates, the engineer of record for the 2011 air conditioning modifications to the Hunter High School, will develop a scope of work for selecting and managing contractors to upgrade the infrastructure necessary for operating the proposed mitigation upgrade. The engineer will detail the modifications for construction, prepare bid and contract documents as appropriate, and oversee the installation and final adjustments and acceptance of the work (Bennion, 2013). This work shall include the following:

a. Install pressure monitors and software in each of the building’s AHUs, interfaced through the building’s EMS to monitor the pressure drop across the filters. When the pressure drop exceeds the values prescribed by the engineer, the system will notify the maintenance department that filters for that particular AHU should be replaced.

b. Investigate and, if possible, resolve pressure problems that were apparent when reviewing the air balance reports that kept a number of air handlers from being capable of accepting the enhanced filtration strategy.

c. Install larger motors, variable frequency drive, and wiring where required based the previous engineering report (Logan, 2013).

d. Replace the currently installed MERV 8 filters with four-inch-deep MERV 13A filters (Aeolus SMP80 AT 24244) or approved filters with equal capacity in those AHUs that can be readily adapted to four-inch-deep filters. In those units that cannot be


● ● ● 58

adapted to four-inch-deep filters, install MERV 14A filters (Purolator Prime One PRM98-4402) or approved filters with equal capacity.

e. Rebalance the air handlers with the new improved filters.

2. Preliminary pricing of the first costs for converting to the enhanced filtration strategy are shown in Table 8 and are expected to be approximately $244,000 in 2014 dollars.

3. The increase in annual operating costs is estimated to be approximately $21,000 based on 2014 dollars. The recommended changes for enhanced filtration will result in increased cost for filters, fan energy and fan power, but few filter changes will be required resulting in less labor for changing filters.

4. The NPV of including Hunter High School in the proposed mitigation program, assuming a 30-year project timeline, 3% time value of money, and 4% inflation, is expected to be $971,281.

5. On a cost-per-student basis, the annual operating cost is expected to be approximately $10.07 per student per year, and a total cost (first cost and annual operating cost) of $13.45 per student per year.


● ● ● 59

Table 8. Estimated first cost implementation items for the mitigation program at Hunter High School. References and comments were added in this revision. References are included in Appendix B.


Unit Total $ Reference Comment

Engineering study VBFA 1 $4,400 $4,400

Probably should be deleted. It already was included elsewhere.

10 HP VFD Rocky Mountain Mechanical

9 $4,098 $36,882 HHS1

7.5 HP premium efficiency motor

Based on quote for 10 hp

1 $2,897 $2,897 HHS1



13 $2,897 $37,661 HHS1



7 $3,243 $22,701 HHS1



1 $3,540 $3,540 HHS1



3 $3,860 $11,580 HHS1

Control system changes for filter full notification


34 $576 $19,584 HHS2

Filter frame changes

Filter vendor (allowance) Steve Robinson of Aeolus

424 $5 $2,120

Air balance Rocky Mountain Mechanical

1 $11,250 $11,250 HHS3

Belts and sheaves Allowance 34 – – HHS1


Motor replace labor Rocky Mountain Mechanical

34 – – HHS1



● ● ● 60


Unit Total $ Reference Comment

VFD replace labor Rocky Mountain Mechanical

34 – – HHS1


First filter install

Filter vendor (based on Purolator PRM98-4402)

1 $22,606 $22,606 HHS5 combined with HHS6

Branch circuit wiring/breakers

Allowance discussion with Ryan at VBFA

34 $690 $23,460

Allowance discussion w Ryan Van Voast of VBFA on 08/22/13

Engineering costs for bid package, manage project

Allowance 1 $34,535 $34,535 HHS4

EH&E advice and final review

Allowance 1 $10,000 $10,000

Total $243,216

7.4 Sources of Data

The following persons and organizations contributed information and data that were relied upon to make the decisions and analysis for the mitigation recommendations made in this report.

1. The UDOT Air Working Group 2. Dr. David Gourley, Assistant Superintendent for Support Services, Granite School Department 3. Steven Forbes, PE, HVAC, Energy & GEC Mechanical Project Manager, Granite School

Department 4. Dan Dotson, Energy Specialist, Granite School Department 5. Bernie Kelvington, General Maintenance Department, Granite School District 6. Tony Gortat, General Maintenance Department, Granite School District 7. Wade Bennion, PE, Van Boerum & Frank Associates, Inc., Salt Lake City, Utah 8. Randall J. Logan, Van Boerum & Frank Associates, Inc., Salt Lake City, Utah 9. Victor S. Willes, Heath Engineering, Salt Lake City, Utah 10. Robert Kesler, PE, Heath Engineering, Salt Lake City, Utah


● ● ● 61

11. Jerry Johnson, EMI Filtration, Salt Lake City, Utah 12. Steve Robinson, Western Regional Manager, Aeolus Filter Corp 13. Mike Harriman, Aeolus Filter Corporation 14. Stephanie Greenfield; Integrity Air Filtration, LLC. 15. Keith Chesson, Technical Services Manager, CLARCOR Air Filtration Products 16. Colby Hunter, Rocky Mountain Mechanical, Salt Lake City, Utah 17. Mark Kowalk, Utah – Yamas Controls, Inc., Draper, Utah 18. Preston B. Valora, Johnson Controls, Salt Lake City, Utah 19. Thomas Kosinski, Siemens, Sandy, Utah

● ● ● 8. Results and Recommendations

● ● ● 63

8. Results and Recommendations

8.1 Mitigation Recommendations

The mitigation strategy was developed by considering current methodologies and recent filtration results, and then determining how to apply those methodologies to the five schools in West Valley City. The recommended mitigation strategy is to replace the current filters with filters that are significantly more efficient at removing particles such as black carbon.

To assess the feasibility and cost of implementing the proposed mitigation strategy, each of the five schools was surveyed by site visit, and engineering documents were obtained and reviewed to determine characteristics of each air handling unit (AHU) in the heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems in the schools. In total, the operating characteristics of 72 air handlers were analyzed to determine the number and sizes of filters required, the total airflow, the available and required fan horsepower, and the available area for replacement filter installation. Additional analysis was performed to access the ability of the existing AHUs to accommodate filters with significantly higher pressure drop, as well as the ability of the current fan, fan motor, and related hardware.

In the three elementary schools, the recommended changes to the HVAC systems are minor: only a change in the filters and addition of hardware and software to track filter pressure drop and notify maintenance personnel when to change the filters are needed.

In Hunter High School and Hunter Junior High School, additional physical changes are needed to accommodate more efficient filters, including larger frames to hold the filters, larger fans and fan motors, larger electrical wiring and components, and improved control systems to track filter pressure drop and notify maintenance personnel when to change the filters. The Engineers of Record for the recent modifications at these schools were involved in the cost estimates and would be expected to carry out the recommended modifications.

In order to compare the costs of the recommended mitigation program to the AWG’s mitigation budget, it was necessary to roll up the mitigation costs to a net present value (NPV). This was done by adding the initial costs of all modifications (i.e., first cost) and the present value of 30 years of operating costs (mainly the increased filter and electricity costs). The present value of the future operating costs was adjusted to an NPV using the assumptions of 3% interest and 4% inflation.

Table 9 summarizes the first and annual incremental operating costs for the five schools. The cost for the improvements at Hunter High School is more than half of the NPV total of $1,620,127, but this is not surprising since Hunter High School contains about half of the total floor area of the five schools. Also notice that the relative costs for improved filtration at Hunter High School is about twice that at the other schools, mainly due to the older age of the school and the fact that all or most of


● ● ● 64

potentially available capacity of the HVAC systems have already been used up by the recently installed air conditioning system.

Table 9. Estimated project cost by school, based on annual incremental operating cost plus first cost allocated over 30 years at 3% interest, 4% inflation.

Table 10 shows the cost of the NPV of the recommended mitigation program (including a contingency of 10%) and compares it to the AWG’s budget for mitigation. About $1,200,000 remains from the AWG’s mitigation budget.

Table 10. Mitigation recommendations: costs and remaining budget.

Item Cost Mitigation in five schools $1,620,000

Mitigation contingency 10% $162,000

Total mitigation recommendation $1,782,000

Spent so far, mitigation $125,000

Budget $3,100,000

Available for additional mitigation or monitoring $1,193,000

8.2 Additional Mitigation Recommendations

In addition to improved filtration, a number of other mitigation efforts could reduce pollutant concentrations and/or student exposure at schools; see the list below. Some could reduce pollutant


Annual Incremental

Cost


Inflation


Number of

Students

Dollars/ ft2/ Year

Dollars/ Student/

Year

Whittier $26,973 $3,952 $163,854 104,922 687 $0.045 $6.89

Hillside $14,853 $2,247 $92,659 54,667 625 $0.049 $4.28

West Valley $53,020 $3,446 $172,370 88,920 584 $0.056 $8.52

Hunter Jr High $91,754 $4,025 $231,165 172,120 1,047 $0.039 $6.38

Hunter High $243,216 $20,681 $959,449 340,000 2,086 $0.081 $13.28


$429,816 $34,352 $1,619,497 760,629 $5,029 $0.062 $9.30


● ● ● 65

concentrations outdoors, and others could reduce pollutant concentrations indoors. Some could reduce exposure of students while outdoors, while others could ensure that the modified filtration systems work well.

Install sound walls or vegetative barriers between the schools and the MVC. Eliminate bus idling at schools. Retrofit existing buses to reduce emissions. Avoid outdoor activities during morning rush hour. Minimize outdoor activities during periods with strong inversions. Provide training for teachers whose classrooms have characteristics that could defeat the

filtration systems (windows that open; doors that open to the outside, rather than an interior hallway, etc.).

If portable classrooms are going to be installed at any of the schools, arrange for the HVAC system of the portable classroom to be built to accommodate enhanced filtration, according to the specifications detailed in Section 6.3.

If portable classrooms are going to be installed at one of the schools, Hunter High School for example, place them as far away from the proposed roadway location as possible.

Control HVAC systems to minimize filling classrooms with morning rush-hour pollutants. Eliminate or minimize emissions from indoor sources (cleaning materials, markers, etc.).

8.3 Future Monitoring Recommendations

Future monitoring near the Mountain View Corridor should determine both outdoor (ambient) and indoor, in-classroom impacts of pollutants from the completed roadway. In addition, the current indoor concentrations of MSATs in representative classrooms and the demonstration of the effectiveness of the existing filters should be determined before the ventilation systems are modified.

For indoor classroom monitoring, the recommendations include the following:

Monitor BC in representative classrooms and at the air inlet of representative classrooms, one classroom in each school.

Consider monitoring for ultra-fine particles in classrooms and at the air inlet of these same classrooms by rotating a pair of monitors to each classroom/air inlet pair (to save money, since this monitor is expensive and not readily available).

Perform the “before mitigation” classroom monitoring as soon as possible, in order to support the mitigation recommendations. For the current situation, since West Valley and Whittier Elementary Schools are very similar in design, monitoring in only one would be sufficient.

Also perform classroom monitoring in representative classrooms after the mitigation modifications are completed and after the MVC is complete (i.e., once the MVC is connected to SR-201 or I-80 on the north and I-15 on the south, since full use of the roadway will not be realized until then).


● ● ● 66

Consider monitoring for gas-phase MSATs in representative classrooms once the MVC is complete.

Estimated costs for the classroom monitoring are shown in Table 11.

Table 11. Cost estimates to determine pollutant concentrations and filtration efficiency in classrooms.

Item Cost

One classroom and air inlet in five schools (BC only) $125,000 to $150,000/time (at least three months) Before modifications, after modifications, possibly during construction, and after whole MVC finished

Add UFP pair, rotating to five schools $100,000 to $150,000

Add gas-phase toxics investigations $100,000 to $150,000

For outdoor, ambient, monitoring, the recommendations include the following:

Monitor BC and PM10 during construction, when the main impacts will be from PM10 (from moving and digging dirt) and BC (from diesel equipment emissions). Construction phases include clearing land; grading and excavating; providing drainage, utilities, and road base; and paving. Pollution impacts occur for only a short duration at any one location as the construction moves along the section, although it is inefficient to only monitor when the construction activity is near one location. Note that construction may last two years.

Monitor BC after this segment of MVC is finished. The BC will be from diesel trucks and buses, but there will only be a partial traffic impact, since the MVC will not yet be connected to SR-201 or I-80 and I-15.

Monitor after the MVC (Phase 1) is connected to SR-201 or I-80 and I-15. The pollutants with the largest increase in impacts will be BC, UFP, and NO2.

Consider also monitoring for gas-phase toxics after the MVC (Phase 1) is connected to SR-201 or I-80 and I-15.

Estimated costs for ambient monitoring are shown in Table 12.


● ● ● 67

Table 12. Cost estimates for ambient monitoring.

Item Cost

During construction $125,000-$150,000/year

After MVC segment completed $125,000-$150,000/year

Whole MVC completed (more traffic) $150,000-$175,000/year

Whole MVC completed (add toxics) $50,000-$100,000/year

● ● ● 9. References

● ● ● 69

9. References Aeolus Filter (n.d.) Synthetic SMP-90AT filters MERV-A13. Data cut sheet.

ASHRAE (2008) ANSI/ASHRAE addendum b to ANSI/ASHRAE 52.2-2007: Standard 52.2-2007 -- method of testing general ventilation air-cleaning devices for removal efficiency by particle size, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc., Atlanta, GA. Available at http://www.ashrae.org/File%20Library/docLib/Public/20081029_52_2_supplement_final.pdf.

Baldauf R., Thoma E., Hays M., Shores R., Kinsey J.S., Gullet B., Kimbrough S., Isakov V., Long T., Snow R., Khlystov A., Weinstein J., Chen F.-L., Seila R., Olson D., Gilmour I., Cho S.-H., Watkins N., Rowley P., and Bang J. (2008) Traffic and meteorological impacts on near-road air quality: summary of methods and trends from the Raleigh near-road study. J. Air Waste Manage., 58, 865-878, July.

Baldauf R., McPherson G., Wheaton L., Zhang M., Cahill T., Bailey C., Fuller C.H., Withycombe E., and Titus K. (2013) Integrating vegetation and green infrastructure into sustainable transportation planning. TR News, (288), 14-18, September-October.

Bennion W., PE, Van Boerum & Frank Associates, Salt Lake City, UT (2013) Letter to Jerry Ludwig, Environmental Health & Engineering, Needham, MA, September 9.

Birch M.E. and Cary R.A. (1996) Elemental carbon-based method for monitoring occupational exposures to diesel exhaust. Aerosol Science and Technology, 25, 221-241.

Fruin S.A., Winer A.M., and Rodes C.E. (2004) Black carbon concentrations in California vehicles and estimation of in-vehicle diesel exhaust particulate matter exposures. Atmos. Environ., 38(25), 4123-4133, Aug.

Health Effects Institute (2010) Traffic-related air pollution: a critical review of the literature on emissions, exposure, and health effects. Special Report 17, January. Available at http://pubs.healtheffects.org/view.php?id=334.

Hu S., Fruin S., Kozawa K., Mara S., Paulson S.E., and Winer A.M. (2009) A wide area of air pollutant impact downwind of a freeway during pre-sunrise hours. Atmos. Environ., 43, 2541-2549, doi: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2009.02.033. Available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231009001617.

Karner A., Eisinger D.S., and Niemeier D. (2010) Near-roadway air quality: synthesizing the findings from real-world data. Environ. Sci. Technol., 44, 5334-5344, doi: 10.1021/es100008x (STI-3923). Available at http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es100008x.

Kessler R. (2013a) Engineering report. Prepared for Jerry Ludwig, Environmental Health & Engineering, Needham, MA, by Heath Engineering, Salt Lake City, UT, September 3.

Kessler R., PE, Heath Engineering, Salt Lake City, UT (2013b) Letter to Jerry Ludwig, Environmental Health & Engineering, Needham, MA, November 12.

Logan R. (2013) Engineering report. Prepared for Jerry Ludwig, Environmental Health & Engineering, Needham, MA, by Van Boerum & Frank Associates, Salt Lake City, UT, August 21.

McCarthy M.C., O’Brien T.E., Charrier J.G., and Hafner H.R. (2009) Characterization of the chronic risk and hazard of hazardous air pollutants in the United States using ambient monitoring data. Environ. Health Persp., 117(5), 790-796, doi: 10.1289/ehp.11861 (STI-3267), May. Available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19479023.

McCarthy M.C., Ludwig J.F., Brown S.G., Vaughn D.L., and Roberts P.T. (2013) Filtration effectiveness of HVAC systems at near-roadway schools. Indoor Air, 23(3), 196-207, doi: 10.1111/ina.12015 (STI-906034-3629), January 25. Available at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ina.12015/abstract.

● ● ● 9. References

● ● ● 70

McConnell R. (2013) Urban air pollution and childhood asthma: burden of disease. Presented at the South Coast Air Quality Management District's Technology Forum on Near-Road Mitigation Measures and Technologies, Diamond Bar, California, November 21, by Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.

Polidori A., Fine P.M., White V., and Kwon P.S. (2013) Pilot study of high performance air filtration for classrooms applications. Indoor Air, 23(3), 185-195, doi: 10.1111/ina.12013, June.

Research & Technical Center (2013) ASHRAE Standard 52.2-2012 test report for CLC Prime One PRM98-4402 24x24x2. By Research & Technical Center, Jefferson, IN, Clarcor air filtration products test report #6211, October 11.

Roberts P.T., Brown S.G., McCarthy M.C., DeWinter J.L., and Vaughn D.L. (2010) Mobile source air toxics (MSATs) at three schools next to U.S. 95 in Las Vegas, Nevada. Final report prepared for the Nevada Department of Transportation, Las Vegas, NV, by Sonoma Technology, Inc., Petaluma, CA, STI-906034-3509-FR2, May.

Roberts P.T. and Vaughn D.L. (2011) Summary of approach for background air quality monitoring, Mountain View Corridor. Technical memorandum prepared for the Air Working Group by Sonoma Technology, Inc., Petaluma, CA, STI-910051-5903, April 21.

RTI International (2010) ASHRAE 52.2 with Appendix J conditioning test report, performed on Aeolus Corporation mini-pleat panel filter SMP 80 AT 24242. RTI report number BX06161002, June 10.

Shi J.P., Mark D., and Harrison R.M. (2000) Characterization of particles from a current technology heavy-duty diesel engine. Environ. Sci. Technol., 34(5), 748-755, Mar 1.

South Coast Air Quality Management District (2008) MATES III final report: multiple air toxics exposure study in the South Coast Air Basin. September. Available at http://www.aqmd.gov/prdas/matesIII/matesIII.html.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2012) Report to Congress on black carbon. Report prepared by the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Office of Atmospheric Programs, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, Office of Research and Development, and Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Research Triangle Park, NC, EPA-450/R-12-001, March. Available at http://www.epa.gov/blackcarbon/.

Utah Department of Transportation (2014a) Welcome to Mountain View Corridor. Available at http://www.udot.utah.gov/mountainview/.

Utah Department of Transportation (2014b) ROD and final EIS available. Available at http://www.udot.utah.gov/mountainview/content/feis.

Utah Department of Transportation (2014c) Air Working Group. Available at http://www.udot.utah.gov/main/f?p=100:pg:::::T,V:2702,67730.

Zhu Y.F., Hinds W.C., Kim S., Shen S., and Sioutas C. (2002) Study of ultrafine particles near a major highway with heavy-duty diesel traffic. Atmos. Environ., 36(27), 4323-4335, doi: 10.1016/s1352-2310(02)00354-0, September.

● ● ● Appendix A

● ● ● A-1

Appendix A. Additional Characteristics of Air Quality and Wind Data The following figures provide additional characterization of wind speed, wind direction, and also air quality, including black carbon (BC) and particulate matter smaller than 10 μm in diameter (PM10). The figures include wind roses, pollution roses, and box whisker plots.

A wind rose is a visual summary of wind patterns for a specific time period at a surface meteorological site. The size of the triangle emanating from the center of the wind rose indicates the percentage of time that winds are from a specific direction (as indicated by the position on axes). Wind speed/time percentages are indicated with color bins along the length of the triangle. An example of a wind rose is provided below.

Similar to a wind rose, a pollution rose provides the frequency that winds are from a particular direction with the size and position of the triangles. However, a pollution rose also provides the fraction of time that the measurement of a particular pollutant was in different ranges of concentrations as indicated with color bins along the length of the triangle.

Box whisker plots show the 25th, 50th (median), and 75th percentiles (the box). The whiskers always end on a data point, so when the plots show no data points beyond the end of a whisker, the whisker shows the value of the highest or lowest data point. The whiskers have a maximum length equal to 1.5 times the length of the box (the interquartile range). If there are data outside this range, the points are shown on the plot and the whisker ends on the highest or lowest data point within the range of the whisker. The “outliers” are further identified with asterisks representing the points that fall within three times the interquartile range from the end of the box and with circles representing points beyond this. Because we were interested in how similar or dissimilar the data are among time periods, we used an

North South


● ● ● A-2

option called a notched box whisker plot to analyze data in this study. These plots include notches that mark confidence intervals. The boxes are notched (narrowed) at the median and return to full width at the 95% lower and upper confidence interval values. If the 95% confidence interval is beyond the 25th or 75th percentile, then the notches extend beyond the box (hence a “folded” appearance). Confidence intervals are a function of sample size; small sample size will increase these intervals. Examples of notched box whisker plots are provided below.

0

100

200

300

Outliers

Whisker

Notcharoundmedian

Median

95 % C.I.

95 % C.I.

0

5

10

15

20

Mea

sure

75th percentile

Median

25th percentile

Box(Inte rquartile

range)

Whisker

Outliers

Data within 1.5*IR

Data with in 3*IR


● ● ● A-3

Figure A-1. Wind roses for Hillside Elementary School and Hunter High School. All coincident data points during the study were included (n = 7,175).


● ● ● A-4

Figure A-2. Wind roses for Whittier Elementary School and Hunter High School. All coincident data points during the study were included (n = 7,174).


● ● ● A-5

Figure A-3. Wind roses for Hunter Junior High School and Hunter High School. All coincident data points during the study were included (n = 6,554).


● ● ● A-6

Figure A-4. Wind roses for West Valley Elementary School and Hunter High School. All coincident data points during the study were included (n = 1,392). Data were limited to the time period recovered at West Valley Elementary (October 2011–January 2012, and April 2012).


● ● ● A-7

Figure A-5. Wind roses for all five schools. All coincident data points during the study were included (n = 1,383). Data were limited to the time period recovered at West Valley Elementary (October 2011–January 2012, and April 2012).


● ● ● A-8

Figure A-6. Wind roses for four of the five schools; West Valley Elementary School was excluded because of limited data availability. All coincident data points during the study were included (n = 6,512).


● ● ● A-9

Figure A-7. Wind rose for Hunter High School using all data available.


● ● ● A-10

Figure A-8. Seasonal wind roses at Hunter High School.


● ● ● A-11

Figure A-9. Wind speed by season at Hunter High School.

JJA 2011

SON DJFMAM

JJA 2012

Season

0

5

10

15

Win

d Sp

eed

(m/s

)


● ● ● A-12

Figure A-10. Concentrations of BC, PM10, and PAH by season, at Hunter High School.

JJA 2011

SON DJFMAM

JJA 2012

Season

0

1

2

3

4B

lack

Car

bon

(μg/

m3)

JJA 2011

SON DJFMAM

JJA 2012

Season

0

10

20

30

40

50

PM10

(μg/

m3)

JJA 2011

SON DJFMAM

JJA 2012

Season

0

10

20

30

40

PAH

(ng/

m3)


● ● ● A-13

Figure A-11. Diurnal patterns of BC, PM10, and PAH at Hunter High School.

-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Hour

0

1

2

3

4B

lack

Car

bon

(μg/

m3)

-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Hour

0

10

20

30

40

50

PM

10 (μ

g/m

3)

-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Hour

0

20

40

60

PA

H (n

g/m

3)


● ● ● A-14

Figure A-12. Weekday (WD) and weekend (WE) comparisons of BC, PM10, and PAH concentrations at Hunter High School.

WD WEWDWE

0

1

2

3

4Bl

ack

Carb

on (μ

g/m

3)

WD WEWDWE

0

20

40

60

80

100

PM10

(μg/

m3)

WD WEWDWE

0

10

20

30

40

PAH

(ng/

m3)


● ● ● A-15

Figure A-13. Seasonal, diurnal, and weekday/weekend BC concentration at Hunter High School, displayed using a revised y-axis scale.

JJA 2011

SON DJFMAM

JJA 2012

Season

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0Bl

ack

Carb

on (μ

g/m

3)

-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Hour

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Bla

ck C

arbo

n (μ

g/m

3)

WD WEWDWE

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Blac

k Ca

rbon

(μg/

m3)


● ● ● A-16

Figure A-14. Pollution rose showing BC concentrations at Hunter High School.


● ● ● A-17

Figure A-15. Pollution rose showing BC concentrations by season at Hunter High School.


● ● ● A-18

Figure A-16. Pollution rose showing BC concentrations by wind speed bin at Hunter High School.


● ● ● A-19

Figure A-17. Pollution rose showing PM10 concentrations at Hunter High School.


● ● ● A-20

Figure A-18. PM10 concentrations by wind speed bin at Hunter High School.

Figure A-19. BC concentrations at Hunter High School during January 4–6, 2012. Concentrations were above average and high during the afternoon and evening. The delta temperature is also provided, and indicates that an inversion may have contributed to the elevated BC.

LTE 1 1 - 2 GT 2Wind Speed (m/s)

0

10

20

30

40

50

PM10

(μg/

m3)

Appendix B. Emails Cited in Section

HHS1 and HJHS1 HHS2 and HJHS2 HHS3 and HJHS3

HHS4 HJHS4

HHS5 and HJHS5 HHS6 and HJHS6

HHS 4” Filter HSE1

WHES2

HHS1 and HJHS1 From: Colby Hunter [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 3:21 PM To: Jerry Ludwig Subject: Hunter High VFD and Motors Quote Jerry, See attached. -- Thanks, Colby Hunter Supervisor Cornerstone Control Services (CCS) (801) 997-0585 www.ccsutah.net

August 22, 2013 Jerry Ludwig Enviromental Health and Engineering 117 Fourth Ave Needham, Ave 02494

Hunter High School VFD Replacements

Jerry,

We are pleased to provide you with this budgetary estimate for the replacement of VFD’s and motors for Hunter High School. This is a unitary budget only. No scope has really been defined other than in an email from you dated August 9th 2013.

Colby:

As I tried to say to you in my voice mail message, I would like a budget price to replace air handler motors and drives where necessary in the Hunter High School.

I would like a budget price to provide and install the VFD drives and premium efficiency motors for the following:

1. Between 5 and 20, 10 HP motors and drives. Provide a price for the motor and drives separately as in some cases we will only be replacing the motor.




Assume that you will provide sheaves and belts for all of these units. The labor should be priced based on regular hours. Assume that adequate electrical capacity exists at the AHU disconnect to power the motor being installed.

I appreciate your help.

Jerry F. Ludwig, Ph.D., P.E. Director of Engineering Environmental Health & Engineering, Inc. 117 Fourth Ave Needham, MA 02494

There was an additional email in which you instructed us that all control points are existing and will only need to be reterminated into the new VFD’s. This assumes that replacement VFD’s will be located in the same spot as the existing VFD’s.

Scope: Pricing includes removal and disposal of old VFD and motor, replacement of associated belts and sheaves (up to $1200 per assembly). We have placed the cap on the assembly since no sizing has been given to us. Motor pricing is variable depending on frame size. All VFD’s are assumed NEMA 1 WITH Bypass. No additional upgrades have been included.

Unit Pricing Matrix

HP Motor Drive Notes 10 $2897.00 $4,098.00 VFD’s have Bypass 15 $3243.00 $4875.00 VFD’s do not have 20 $3540.00 $5214.00 BACnet integration 25 $3860.00 $5723.00

Note: This is a nonbinding budget since no time line for the work has been given and an exact scope has not been detailed.

All pricing is unit pricing.

Discount of 2% after any combination of 5 units of motors or 5 units of VFD’s

Thanks,

Colby Hunter Rocky Mountain Mechanical 801-486-3423

HHS2 and HJHS2

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Colby Hunter Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 5:04 PM To: Jerry Ludwig Subject: Re: Monitoring Filter Pressure Drop at Hunter High and Hunter Jr. High Schools Jerry, I am pleased to provide this quote to you. See attached. These transducers will provide an analogue signal to the Alerton controls system for an alarm that can be monitored from the mechanical room and on the BAS. Thanks, Colby Hunter Controls and Electrical Supervisor Rocky Mountain Mechanical 801-486-3423 On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 8:08 AM, Jerry Ludwig <[email protected]> wrote:

Colby: As we discussed by phone, I would appreciate it if you would supply me with a quote to do the following: 1. Install differential pressure transducers so the that building automation system in the Hunter High and Hunter Jr. High Schools can measure and monitor the pressure drop across the filtration systems in each of the 35 air handling systems installed in the Hunter High School and each of the 14 AHUs installed in the Hunter Jr High School. 2. The when the building automation system detects that the differential pressure across a filter bank exceeds 1" H2O for more than 1 hour, the building automation system will generate an email notification to building maintenance personnel alerting them to the fault, and which system(s) has excessive pressure drop across the air filter. Thank you for your help. If you have any questions or comments, do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, Jerry F. Ludwig, Ph.D., P.E. Director of Engineering Environmental Health & Engineering, Inc. 117 Fourth Ave Needham, MA 02494 O: 800-825-5343x114 C: 617-593-7512

3412 South West Temple / P.O. Box 65439 / Salt Lake City, Utah 84165 / (801) 486-3423 / Fax: 467-1460

May 11, 2012

To: Jerry Ludwig Enviromental Health and Engineering, Needham, MA 02494

Hunter High School / Hunter Jr. High School

To whom it may concern:

We propose to provide, install, and program a Setra Model 276 pressure transducer with display. This transducer will provide an analogue signal to the existing Alerton building automation system. An alarm will then be configured to notify district personnel when the filters are ready to be changed.

This quote includes: 1. Hardware and installation2. Software and alarm configuration3. Control wiring4. Programming5. Submittals

Hunter Jr. High will need to have some controllers added to at least 5 of the air handlers to give room for an additional input to the control system. Thus, the pricing for the Jr. High will be higher.

The pricing is as follows: Hunter High: $640.00 ea (subtract 10% if for all air handlers) Hunter Jr. High: $1215.00 ea (subtract 10% if for all air handlers).

Exclusions:

Line voltage electrical (Should not be necessary).

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks,

Colby Hunter Rocky Mountain Mechanical 801-486-3432

φφ

φφ

Model 267MR Multi-Range Model 267w/LCD Display Model 267w/Static Probe

●

●

●

●

●

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■ CE

2 6 7 1

2 6 7 1 D N

HHS3 and HJHS3 From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Colby Hunter Sent: Friday, June 08, 2012 9:46 AM To: Jerry Ludwig Subject: Hunter High School Jerry, The test and balance contractor cost us $15k to do Hunter High. That included water balance. If you plan on 75% of that amount, that would cover the air balance. That said, approximately half of the air handlers are variable volume. Thus the VFD's should automatically compensate for the additional restriction on those units. This is just a very round number, but I would imagine that $1000.00 per remaining ahu that would need the sheaves resized, would more than cover 2 - 2 groove sheaves and the belts. -- Colby Hunter Controls and Electrical Supervisor Rocky Mountain Mechanical 801-486-3423

HHS4 From: Randy Logan [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 2:56 PM To: Jerry Ludwig Cc: Wade Bennion Subject: Hunter HS Construction Documents Our proposal is attached. Randall Logan, LEED AP BD+C Project Engineer VAN BOERUM & FRANK ASSOCIATES, INC. 330 South 300 East Salt Lake City, UT 84111 [email protected] P 801 530-3148 F 801 530-3150

September 9, 2013 Jerry Ludwig Environmental Health and Engineering, Inc. 117 Fourth Avenue Needham, MA 02494 Re: Construction Documents - Enhanced Filtering at Hunter High School Dear Jerry: We appreciate the opportunity of proposing on engineering services for this project. As we understand it, the scope of services as discussed in previous phone conversations and emails will include the following:

Investigate the anomalous static pressures reported in previous Test & Balance reports for six air handlers, including services of a Test & Balance contract of four hours per air handler;

Field confirm electrical circuitry and panel assignments; Prepare mechanical and electrical construction documents, including plans and

specifications to install the enhanced filters in the existing air handlers; change fan motors to support the additional filter static pressure; and change VFDs and wiring as required by the motor changes.

Function as project manager overseeing the bidding process, contract negotiation, weekly construction meetings, payment requests and contract closeout.

Cost estimating is specifically not part of our scope of work. We expect the following effort is required to accomplish this project:

Mechanical Engineering = $14,390 Electrical Engineering = $6,745 Test and Balance Contractor (during design) = $2,520 Electrician services (for tracing circuits) = $1,800 Construction Management = $6,080 12 sets of plans and specifications = $3,000 Total Proposed Fee = $34,535

This fee is based on design and construction occurring in calendar year 2014. If work is delay we reserve the right to reevaluate this fee proposal. I hope this gives you what is needed, please let me know if you need further information Sincerely, Wade Bennion, P.E.

HJHS4

From: Rob J. Kesler [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 12:14 PM To: Jerry Ludwig Subject: RE: Fee Proposal for Changes to Hunter Jr High to accommodate Enhanced Filtration Jerry, Please find attached our fee proposal for Hunter Jr High. Can you tell me who to contact in regards to the fee payment for the previous work. We have not yet received payment for that work. Thanks, Robert J. Kesler, P.E. Heath Engineering Company Vice President / Principal Engineer 801-322-0487 From: Jerry Ludwig [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 4:05 AM To: Rob J. Kesler Subject: Re: Fee Proposal for Changes to Hunter Jr High to accommodate Enhanced Filtration Robert Addressing the proposal to me will be fine. Thanks for your help. Jerry Ludwig Sent from my iPad On Nov 11, 2013, at 6:45 PM, "Rob J. Kesler" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Jerry, Should I address the fee proposal to David Vaughn at Sonoma Technology the same as for the study we did for you? And for your information Victor has retired. I will have another engineer helping me with the design. Rob

From: Jerry Ludwig [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 8:52 AM To: Rob J. Kesler; Victor S. Willes Subject: FW: Fee Proposal for Changes to Hunter Jr High to accommodate Enhanced Filtration Robert & Victor: Please provide for me a Fee Proposal to install enhanced filtration at the Hunter Jr High School. The scope of services should include: 1. Investigate the reasons for AH-5 not having the capacity to accept enhanced filtration and suggest a repair if practicable short of replacing AH-5. 2. Engineer a strategy to monitor filter pressure drop and send emails to persons responsible for changing filters when maximum filter drop is exceeded (see attached quotes). 3. Investigate and devise the means of converting (where practicable) AHs that are currently configured with 2" deep filters to be able to accommodate filters of 4" depth with the same filter face velocity. EH&E will provide guidance as to a "go/no go" conversion cost for each air handler to minimize the possibility that the conversion costs exceed the cost savings of 4" deep filters. 4. Prepare mechanical and electrical construction documents, including plans and specifications to install the enhanced filters in the existing air handlers, change the fan motors in AH-3 and AH-4 per Heath's recommendation. 5. Function as project manager overseeing the bidding process, contract negotiations, weekly construction meetings, payment requests, and contract closeout. Assume for purposes of this proposal that the work will occur in calendar year 2014. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, Jerry F. Ludwig, Ph.D., P.E.* Director of Engineering Environmental Health & Engineering, Inc. 117 Fourth Ave Needham, MA 02494 O: 781-247-4314 O: 800-825-5343x114 C: 617-593-7512 * Licensed Professional Engineer in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, New Jersey & Pennsylvania

Attachment to November 13, 2013, email: November 12, 2013

Mr. Jerry F. Ludwig, Ph.D., P.E. Environmental Health & Engineering, Inc. 117 Fourth Ave Needham, MA 02494

RE: GRANITE SCHOOL DISTRICT - HUNTER JUNIOR HIGH MECHANICAL ENGINEERING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION SERVICES FEE PROPOSAL ADDITION OF ENHANCED FILTRATION OF THE EXISTING HVAC SYSTEMS

Dear David:

Thank you for the invitation to provide a fee proposal for the preparation of construction documents to add high efficiency air filters to the existing air handling systems at Hunter Junior High School. We perceive the scope of work to be as follows:

1. Investigate the reasons for AH-5 not having the capacity to accept enhanced filtration and suggest a repair

if practicable short of replacing AH-5. 2. Provide control documentation to implement filter pressure drop monitors with notification to the

mechanical shop when maximum filter drop is reached. 3. Create a detail for the air handlers that require modifications to accommodate a 4” deep filter and provide

to EH&E for review prior to including in the construction documents. 4. Based on the Heath Engineering study, for each of the existing air handling units (13 such) we will provide

construction documentation required to modify the existing equipment to accommodate the addition of high efficiency filtration. The design will include plans and specifications with instructions for the required modifications, including motor changes and test and balance.

5. Provide construction administration services, including bidding services, contract negotiations, weekly construction meetings, payment requests, and contract closout.

We propose a design and engineering fee to accomplish the noted scope of work through design and construction of $22,400.00 based on the following breakdown.

1. AH-5 investigation and recommendations

8 Hrs PM 4 Hrs Drafting $1,650 2. Pressure Drop Control Design

4 Hrs PM 12 Hrs Designer 8 Hrs Drafting $2,770 3. 4” Filter Modification Design

6 Hours PM 8 Hours Designer 12 Hrs Drafting $2,940 4. Construction Documentation

12 Hours PM 24 Hours Designer 16 Hrs Drafting 4 Hours Secretarial $6,440

Total Fixed Design Fee $13,800 5. Construction Administration (To be billed on a Time and Material

Basis not to exceed the amount shown.) 4 Hours PM Each Week x 12 Weeks 1 Hours Secretarial Each Week x 12 Weeks $8,600

Maximum Fee Total with CA $22,400

Please let us know if there are any questions.

Sincerely,

COMPANY

RJK/rk

377 West 800 North • Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 • Tel: 801.322.0487 • Fax: 801.322.0490 • Email: [email protected] C. Lewis Wilson • Larry D. Veigel • Victor S. Willes • Randall T. Veigel • Jeffrey S. Anderson

Nolan E. Johnson • Robert J. Kesler • Andrew J. Paskett

HHS5 and HJHS5

From: Jerry Johnson [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 3:39 PM To: Jerry Ludwig Subject: Granite corridor Project Jerry, I’ve finally got the last of the work put together for you on Hunter Jr., and Hunter High. We went thru all of the air handlers, crunched the numbers, and I think you’ll be happy with the results …. In both Hunter Jr., and Hunter High there will be no need to make any modifications to get them up to the Leeds 85% level. These two buildings are a lot newer, and better set up than the elementary schools we started with. Changing over to the 85% Aeolus filters will be very cost effective in both schools. Based on the information we got from the junior high ….when the filters are replaced with 85% Aeolus filters, you will have the initial pressure drops in a range between .19 and .30 The high school was even better, coming in between .16 and .28 … (see attached for individual units … H-1 is Jr. high … H-2 is high school)) As with the three elementary schools, these two will also save money each year with the upgrades. If you’ve got any questions, or need anything else, give me a call. Thanks Jerry Johnson C. A. F. S. Technical Sales EMI Filtration 1414 Gladiola SLC, Ut. 84104 Ph - 801-973-2221 Fax - 801-973-2202 [email protected]

HHS6 and HJHS6 From: Stephanie Greenfield [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 5:21 PM To: Jerry Ludwig Subject: Re: MERV Filter Prices.xlsx Give me a few options for time and I will schedule :). Also, I am not able to supply Aeolus as I thought. I am happy to put you in touch with a rep if needed. Thank you, Stephanie Greenfield Integrity Air Filtration C: 208.297.0188 O: 208.672.1323 F: 208.672.1325 [email protected]

On Aug 21, 2013, at 3:04 PM, Jerry Ludwig <[email protected]> wrote:

Stephanie Thanks for all of your help. I probably will want that conference call at some point with Purolator, and/or Aeolus just to make sure I don’t make any bad decisions based on any misunderstandings of the data, options, etc. Sincerely, Jerry F. Ludwig, Ph.D., P.E. Director of Engineering Environmental Health & Engineering, Inc. 117 Fourth Ave Needham, MA 02494 O: 800-825-5343x114 C: 617-593-7512 From: Stephanie Greenfield [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 6:10 PM To: Jerry Ludwig Subject: Re: MERV Filter Prices.xlsx Jerry, The engineers from Purolator will be sending me pressure drop and additional specifications soon. Here is the pricing from Purolator on the links I forwarded.

PRIME 1 98% MERV 16 2” Pleats 16x20x2 $35.56 16x25x2 $50.15 20x20x2 $42.33 20x25x2 $51.57 24x24x2 $67.93 DOMINATOR 95% MERV 14 Mini Pleat 4” 16x20x4 $42.30 16x25x4 $47.79 20x20x4 $49.26 20x25x4 $53.63 24x24x4 $58.86 PURO-GREEN 80-85% MERV 13 Pleats 2” and 4” 16x20x2 $9.31 16x25x2 $11.16 20x20x2 $11.04 20x25x2 $13.19 24x24x2 $15.30 16x20x4 $14.46 16x25x4 $16.76 20x20x4 $17.10 20x25x4 $19.93 24x24x4 $22.64 Thank you, Stephanie Greenfield Integrity Air Filtration C: 208.297.0188 O: 208.672.1323 F: 208.672.1325 [email protected] On Aug 20, 2013, at 7:00 AM, Jerry Ludwig <[email protected]> wrote:

Stephanie: I would be interested in obtaining quotes based on the Purolator Filters, assuming that Purolator can provide pressure drop versus filter loading data. JL

From: Stephanie Greenfield [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, August 19, 2013 4:07 PM To: Jerry Ludwig Cc: Jordan Fitch Subject: RE: MERV Filter Prices.xlsx Jerry, I wanted you to know that I just received word from Aeolus and they cannot get pricing to me until mid week as the rep is not available who will be able to assist me. So sorry From: Jerry Ludwig [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, August 19, 2013 6:46 AM To: 'Stephanie Greenfield' Subject: RE: MERV Filter Prices.xlsx Stephanie: I look forward to your quote. I would also like to see information on filter drop versus filter loading for the Purolator filters. TX JL From: Stephanie Greenfield [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, August 16, 2013 5:19 PM To: Jerry Ludwig Subject: RE: MERV Filter Prices.xlsx Thank you! I’m getting a quote from Aeolus & Purolator. I will probably hear back Monday. Can you look at the attached link for comparable offerings, although Merv 14: Spec sheets for Purolator/ Merv 14/16: 2” http://www.purolatorair.com/brochures/P-PrimeOne.pdf 4” http://www.purolatorair.com/brochures/PUROLATOR_Dominator.pdf Spec Sheets for Aeolus / Merv 13: 2” http://www.aeoluscorp.com/PDF/Performance-Data-Aeolus2inchMiniPleat.pdf 4”

http://www.aeoluscorp.com/PDF/Performance-Data-Aeolus4inchMiniPleat.pdf If acceptable we can send Merv 13 pleat pricing. See spec sheet for example: http://www.purolatorair.com/brochures/purogreen13%20brochure.pdf This pleat will be cardboard frame vs. plastic frame, which sounds acceptable to me based off our quick conversation Maybe not, but the pricing is dramatically different. Ill be in touch Monday, have a great weekend, Stephanie Greenfield Outside Sales Integrity Air Filtration, LLC. 598 N. Dupont Boise, ID 83713 p: 208.672.1323 c: 208-297.0188 f:672.1325 [email protected] From: Jerry Ludwig [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, August 16, 2013 1:49 PM To: Stephanie Greenfield Subject: FW: MERV Filter Prices.xlsx Stephanie: Good to talk with you. As I said on the Phone, so far my engineering has been based upon use of Aeolus and would like to continue with them as I know their performance and loading characteristics. I will try to talk with you next week to explain more fully the project, etc. Sincerely, Jerry F. Ludwig, Ph.D., P.E. Director of Engineering Environmental Health & Engineering, Inc. 117 Fourth Ave Needham, MA 02494 O: 800-825-5343x114 C: 617-593-7512

From: Jerry Ludwig Sent: Friday, August 16, 2013 4:20 PM To: [email protected] Cc: David Vaughn ([email protected]); 'Paul Roberts'; Mike Harriman Subject: MERV Filter Prices.xlsx Jerry: I am getting my analysis together for the Five Schools that We are proposing filter upgrades for the Mountain Valley Corridor Project, and I would like to have updated price on filters. My analysis of the High School with information I am getting from the Engineer tells me that in most systems if we run the filters to 1” of static pressure we will decrease the flow performance of the air handler even when we install as large a motor as the unit is capable of handling. The upgrade strategy can still work; but filter changes will be more frequent than if we were able to go to 1” sp. Aeolus provides pressure drop versus filter loading which I am using for my analysis. I haven’t yet gotten the report from Hunter Jr. High, but I suspect that the upgrade strategy there can work but only with more frequent filter changes. Up until now, I have been using in my analysis $8 for a 2000 CFM MERV 8 regardless of size and $60 for a 2000 CFM MERV 13A regardless of size. Please update the price of the filter pieces that we need. The table contains the number count that is required for one complete change out. Sincerely, Jerry F. Ludwig, Ph.D., P.E. Director of Engineering Environmental Health & Engineering, Inc. 117 Fourth Ave Needham, MA 02494 O: 800-825-5343x114 C: 617-593-7512

HHS 4” Filter From: Randy Logan [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, September 27, 2013 3:47 PM To: Jerry Ludwig Cc: David Vaughn; Wade Bennion Subject: RE: Cost to retrofit Hunter High AHUs to accommodate 4" deep filters I am not going to be in Salt Lake until next week, Wednesday maybe, so I can't go to the school and look at the air handlers until then. But here are my thoughts regarding 4-inch filters. The gymnasium units (4) are built-up air handlers with filters mounted in a flat vertical plane. Access is good and I think the filter rack could be easily be converted to handle 4-inch filters. All of the other thirty air handler are standard Trane ClimateChanger "out-of-the-box" air handlers. The filters are mounted in a 45-degree vee-arrangement which will not accommodate 4-inch filters by simply installing 4-inch tracks. We have talked to Trane before and know that they do not support these units with replacement parts or accessories. In most of the fan rooms, access is limited only one side of the air handler. It is my opinion that each unit would require a unique engineering design and custom fabrication, if it is at all possible, which of course equals lots of engineering and construction dollars. Let me know if you want me to visit the school next week and then modify our proposal. Randy

From: Jerry Ludwig [[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 2:52 PM To: Randy Logan Cc: David Vaughn Subject: Cost to retrofit Hunter High AHUs to accommodate 4" deep filters

Randy: I am wondering if you have an opinion or could render one with a small effort as to the feasibility of installing 4” deep filters in place of the 2” deep filters at Hunter High. The results of my analysis is showing me that there are significant annual operations savings that can be achieved by installing 4” deep filters (in the same configuration so as to give me low filter face velocities on the order of 250 fpm) in place of the 2” deep filters currently installed. If you think it is feasible, then I would ask you to revise your scope of work to accommodate this as an additional task item. As I recall, there are a few different size units that appear to be used in multiple locations. If you could analyze a representative cross section it would be useful. I would appreciate your help on this, but before you do so I will call you to make sure that scope addition to your current work would not be so large that I would have to go back to my group for funding. Sincerely, Jerry F. Ludwig, Ph.D., P.E. Director of Engineering Environmental Health & Engineering, Inc. 117 Fourth Ave Needham, MA 02494 O: 781-247-4300x114 O: 800-825-5343x114 C: 617-593-7512

HSE1 From: Mark Kowalk [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, May 18, 2012 10:04 AM To: Jerry Ludwig Subject: RE: Monitoring Filter Pressure Drop at Hillside Elementary School Jerry, Yes, it will not exceed $9K. Regards, Mark Kowalk Utah Yamas Controls 801 990-1950 office 801 694-6416 cell From: Jerry Ludwig [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, May 18, 2012 7:45 AM To: Mark Kowalk Subject: RE: Monitoring Filter Pressure Drop at Hillside Elementary School Mark: I need a number that is safe, and I don’t want to give you the idea that this will definitely occur. If I carry $9K am can I have a very good certainty that it will cover the cost of what I have asked to be done? Thanks for your help. Jerry F. Ludwig, Ph.D., P.E. Director of Engineering Environmental Health & Engineering, Inc. 117 Fourth Ave Needham, MA 02494 O: 800-825-5343x114 C: 617-593-7512 From: Mark Kowalk [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 7:53 PM To: Jerry Ludwig Subject: Re: Monitoring Filter Pressure Drop at Hillside Elementary School Jerry, it all depends on how difficult it is to get the new wiring between the ahu's. If it did exceed, it would not be by more than 10 percent. Let me know how you want me to proceed.

From: Jerry Ludwig [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 05:17 PM To: Mark Kowalk Cc: JFL <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Monitoring Filter Pressure Drop at Hillside Elementary School Mark: In spite of these issues, I still would like a budget estimate. Is $8K a number that will likely not be exceeded? Jerry Ludwig Sent from my iPad On May 17, 2012, at 19:10, "Mark Kowalk" <[email protected]> wrote:

Jerry, After looking into the school and the equipment that is there, we found a few items that will make this more expensive than normal. We do have a differential pressure on 2 AHU’s but on the other AHU’s we don’t have any room on the controllers to add new equipment. Normally we would just add a new controller but the existing system is old and those controllers are no longer available new. Also that system does not do email notification. So in order to accomplish what you are requesting, we need to upgrade the head end, redo graphics and programming, and run some new communication wiring so we can add the new controllers. This will cost between $6000-$8000. If this is something you still want to move forward with, I will need to go out and look at exactly how far it is between AHU’s and the new head end and will give you an accurate quote. Please let me know how you want to proceed. Regards, Mark Kowalk Utah Yamas Controls 801 990-1950 office 801 694-6416 cell From: Jerry Ludwig [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, May 07, 2012 1:06 PM To: Mark Kowalk Cc: [email protected] Subject: Monitoring Filter Pressure Drop at Hillside Elementary School Mark: I would appreciate it if you would supply me with a quote to do the following:

1. Install differential pressure transducers so the that building automation system in the Hillside Elementary School can measure and monitor the pressure drop across the filtration systems in each of the four air handling systems installed in that school

2. The when the building automation system detects that the differential pressure across a filter bank exceeds 1” H2O for more than 1 hour, the building automation system will generate an email notification to building maintenance personnel alerting them to the fault, and which system(s) has excessive pressure drop across the air filter.

Thank you for your help. Sincerely, Jerry F. Ludwig, Ph.D., P.E. Director of Engineering Environmental Health & Engineering, Inc. 117 Fourth Ave Needham, MA 02494 O: 800-825-5343x114 C: 617-593-7512

WVE1 From: Kosinski, Thomas [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, May 18, 2012 1:24 PM To: Jerry Ludwig Subject: WVE1 RE: Monitoring Filter Pressure Drop at West Valley Elementary School, West Valley City, UT Jerry- Found out more information, we will have to install a point block at 7 of the units to pick up the point. As a budget quote to accomplish all, $40K will cover all...once you decide to actually do this project, I will go with my installer and walk the site, and provide you a hard number and proposal...please let me know. Tom Kosinski Siemens Industry, Inc. Ph: 801.230.4895

From: Jerry Ludwig [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 1:01 PM To: Kosinski, Thomas Subject: Monitoring Filter Pressure Drop at West Valley Elementary School, West Valley City, UT

Thomas: As we discussed by phone, I would appreciate it if you would supply me with a quote to do the following:

1. Install differential pressure transducers so the that building automation system in the West Valley Elementary School can measure and monitor the pressure drop across the filtration systems in each of the 9 air handling systems installed in the School.

2. The when the building automation system detects that the differential pressure across a filter bank exceeds 1” H2O for more than 1 hour, the building automation system will generate an email notification to building maintenance personnel alerting them to the fault, and which system(s) has excessive pressure drop across the air filter. Thank you for your help. If you have any questions or comments, do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, Jerry F. Ludwig, Ph.D., P.E. Director of Engineering Environmental Health & Engineering, Inc. 117 Fourth Ave Needham, MA 02494 O: 800-825-5343x114 C: 617-593-7512 This message and any attachments are solely for the use of intended recipients. The information contained herein may include trade secrets, protected health or personal information, privileged or otherwise confidential information. Unauthorized review, forwarding, printing, copying, distributing, or using such information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you received this email in error, and that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this email and any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please contact the sender and delete the message and any attachment from your system. Thank you for your cooperation

WHES2 From: Kosinski, Thomas [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, May 18, 2012 1:24 PM To: Jerry Ludwig Subject: RE: Monitoring Filter Pressure Drop at West Valley Elementary School, West Valley City, UT Jerry- Found out more information, we will have to install a point block at 7 of the units to pick up the point. As a budget quote to accomplish all, $40K will cover all...once you decide to actually do this project, I will go with my installer and walk the site, and provide you a hard number and proposal...please let me know. Tom Kosinski Siemens Industry, Inc. Ph: 801.230.4895

From: Jerry Ludwig [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 1:01 PM To: Kosinski, Thomas Subject: Monitoring Filter Pressure Drop at West Valley Elementary School, West Valley City, UT

Thomas: As we discussed by phone, I would appreciate it if you would supply me with a quote to do the following:

1. Install differential pressure transducers so the that building automation system in the West Valley Elementary School can measure and monitor the pressure drop across the filtration systems in each of the 9 air handling systems installed in the School.

2. The when the building automation system detects that the differential pressure across a filter bank exceeds 1” H2O for more than 1 hour, the building automation system will generate an email notification to building maintenance personnel alerting them to the fault, and which system(s) has excessive pressure drop across the air filter. Thank you for your help. If you have any questions or comments, do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, Jerry F. Ludwig, Ph.D., P.E. Director of Engineering Environmental Health & Engineering, Inc. 117 Fourth Ave Needham, MA 02494 O: 800-825-5343x114 C: 617-593-7512 This message and any attachments are solely for the use of intended recipients. The information contained herein may include trade secrets, protected health or personal information, privileged or otherwise confidential information. Unauthorized review, forwarding, printing, copying, distributing, or using such information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you received this email in error, and that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this email and any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please contact the sender and delete the message and any attachment from your system. Thank you for your cooperation