THE US SENATE PASSED THE S 506 HIGH PERFORMANCE GREEN BUILDINGS ACT OF 2007. THE SENATE VERSION WITH ALL SCHOOLS PROVISIONS INTACT IS ANTICIPATED TO PREVAIL.
S. 506 Passes Senate as part of Energy Bill
June 21, 2007
THE US SENATE PASSED THE S 506 LAUTENBERG-WARNER HIGH PERFORMANCE GREEN BUILDINGS ACT OF 2007. A HOUSE VERSION PASSED EARLIER THIS YEAR. THE ACT NOW GOES-- VERY SOON-- TO A SENATE-HOUSE JOINT CONFERENCE COMMITTEE TO IRON OUT DIFFERENCES. THE SENATE VERSION WITH ALL SCHOOLS PROVISIONS INTACT IS ANTICIPATED TO PREVAIL.
KEY PROVISIONS OF S 506:
a.. SETS UP A FEDERAL OFFICE OF GREEN BUILDINGS IN GENL SERVICES ADMIN
b.. SETS UP FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
c.. NEW OFFICE WILL COORDINATE FEDERAL AGENCIES, PROMOTE PUBLIC INFO AND RESEARCH.
d.. ALLOWS EPA TO MAKE GRANTS TO STATES FOR PROVIDING TECH ASSISTANCE ON USING EPA'S SCHOOLS-PROGRAMS
e.. ALLOWS EPA TO MAKE GRANTS TO STATES TO CREATE SCHOOL ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY PLANS, INCLUDING STANDARDS FOR SCHOOL DESIGN, IDENTIFICATION OF ONGOING PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS ON HOW TO ADDRESS THEM
f.. DIRECTS EPA, WITH EDUCATION AND CDC, TO DEVELOP MODEL GUIDELINES FOR THE SITING OF SCHOOLS, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT VULNERABILITY OF CHILDREN, ACCESS TO TRANSPORTATION, OTHER FACTORS.
g.. DIRECTS EPA WITH HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES TO DEVELOP GUIDELINES FOR USE BY THE STATES IN DEVELOPING AND IMPLEMENTING ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PROGRAMS FOR SCHOOLS, INCLUDING RESEARCH ON OCCUPANT HEALTH ISSUES; TO PROVIDE TECH ASSISTANCE ON SCHOOL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES; AND TO PROMOTE COLLABORATIONS WITH PEDIATRIC ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SPECIALTY UNITS IN CONDUCTING ON-SITE SCHOOL INVESTIGATIONS.
Final text not available online at this time. See S 506 as of June 6th at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:s.00506:, see summary at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:SN00506:@@@X
Claire L. Barnett, Executive Director
Healthy Schools Network, Inc.
Notice: S. 506 passes Senate, 65-27 vote
From The Engineering News Record
June 22, 2007
power & industrial
Senate Passes 'Green'-Leaning Energy Bill
By Tom Ichniowski
The Senate has approved wide-ranging energy legislation with a decidedly "green" emphasis, including provisions that aim to stimulate use of ethanol fuel, encourage more energy-efficient buildings and also set tougher vehicle fuel economy requirements.
Democrats hailed the measure, passed late on June 21 on a 65-27 vote, as a way to reduce petroleum consumption and improve energy efficiency. But they didn't get all that they wanted: Republicans were able to keep a package of conservation-oriented tax breaks and a renewable energy requirement for utilities out of the bill.
"We have a lot more to do," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters the day after the vote. "The fight's not over." But he added, "This is a big first step."
Attention now will turn to the House, where energy legislation has been moving more slowly than in the Senate. A House Energy and Commerce subcommittee approved six energy-related measures on June 20, but three passed by narrow margins.
Over all, the Senate bill concentrates mainly on regulatory action and new standards. It provides relatively little funding, and what money it does include would be in the form of authorizations, which would subject to annual appropriations.
For the construction industry, a prime focus will be the bill's provisions that apply to federal buildings. They include a mandated 30% cut in such facilities' energy consumption by 2015, something President Bush called for in an executive order issued in January. The legislation also would require new and renovated federal buildings to cut their consumption of fossil fuels. The reduction initially would be 50% compared with levels of similar buildings in 2003, and the cuts would rise by ten percentage points per year until 2030, when those buildings' fossil-fuel use would be eliminated.
The bill also calls for programs to trim operating costs of federally owned or leased buildings by 20% in five years, through efficiency gains in lighting, heating and cooling. Moreover, the bill would establish an "office of high-performance green buildings" at the General Services Administration that would promote not only energy efficiency, but also air quality and other health-related aspects of federal facilities.
Going beyond federal buildings, the legislation also calls for new efficiency standards for lighting, heating and cooling equipment as well as refrigerators, clothes washers and other home appliances.
One of the most contentious issues was vehicle fuel efficiency standards. "This was a big battle," notes Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) "It even divided our own ranks." Michigan's two Democratic senators, Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow, strong allies of the auto industry, fought against the bill's fuel-economy provision.
But in the end, the Senate approved an amendment offered by commerce committee Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) that would increase fleet-wide fuel economy standards from the current 25 miles per gallon to 35 mpg by the 2020 model year. The 25-mpg mark has been in place for more than 20 years.
That was less stringent than the provision in the bill as it went to the Senate floor, which had the 35 mpg mandate, but with the added requirement of increasing the fuel economy level by a further 4% per year after 2020. Nevertheless, at least one auto industry advocate, Sen. Christopher Bond (R-Mo.) was unhappy with the outcom, terming the economy standards in the Stevens plan "disastrous."
Among provisions that weren't in the final Senate bill were a $32.1-billion package of tax breaks for such things as renewable energy and hybrid vehicles. But opponents, who objected to the proposed offsetting tax increases on the oil and gas industry, were able to prevent the tax package from being included in the version the Senate approved.
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) called the tax provisions "unfinished business," and areas to which lawmakers will have to return.
The bill also calls for the Dept. of Energy to do research on ways to capture and store carbon dioxide, including several tests of geological containment of CO2. In addition, it would prohibit oil "price gouging" when the President declares an energy emergency.
In addition, it contains a directive to boost the amount of motor fuel and heating fuel derived from ethanol to 36 billion gallons by 2022. Current capacity is 6.3 billion gal., according to the Renewable Fuels Association.
Copyright © 2006 The McGraw-Hill Companies - All Rights Reserved.
Update on US Senate Bill 506: Green Buildings Act Passes EPW Committee
Lautenberg's Green Buildings Act, S506, approved by Senate Environment and Public Works Committee by 14 to 4 vote [6.6/07].
This bill now goes to the floor of the Senate for a vote, possibly June-July, with floor debate promised by Senator Inhofe.
See full info on this bill below.
Senate Bill 506 May 15, 2007 Hearing: Text of presentations, archived video
United States Senate, Committe on the Environment and Public Works (EPW)
FULL COMMITTEE Hearing on "Green Buildings: Benefits to Health, the Environment, and the Bottom Line"
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
EPW Hearing Room - 406 Dirksen
View Archive Webcast
(Please note: Video begins at 18:00 (18 minutes), slide bar to that starting point)
James M. Inhofe
Robert F. Fox
Vice President of Education and Research
U.S. Green Building Council
Claire Barnett (see text of presentation, below)
Healthy Schools Network
Chairman of NAHB Green Building Subcommittee
Ray Tonjes Builder, Inc.
Green Building Initiative
None to display at this time
Green Buildings: Benefits to Health, the Environment, and the Bottom Line: May 15, 2007
Full Committee Hearing on Green Buildings: Benefits to Health, the Environment, and the Bottom Line
456 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg.Washington, DC 20510-6175
410 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg.Washington, DC 20510-6175
Healthy Schools Network, Inc.
Invited testimony before the US Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works
Benefits to Health,
the Environment, and the Bottom Line
May 15, 2007
Presented by Claire L. Barnett, MBA
Coordinator, Coalition for Healthier Schools and
Founding Executive Director, Healthy Schools Network
Good morning. Thank you Senators Boxer and Inhofe and the other members of the US Senate Environment and Public Works Committee for the opportunity to present information on how the poor conditions of our school buildings undermine children’s health and interfere with learning and what we can do to reverse that by building and operating healthy and high performance schools.
Our children and grandchildren—yours and mine-- are compelled to be in school today. Yet, every day brings new reports of e-coli in school water; schools sinking into landfills; closures due to mold infestations; evacuations and ER trips prompted by chemical fumes; schools on toxic sites; chemicals in closets from the 1840’s; parents told to keep their children away from unhealthy schools. No parent wants that for their child and no one here would visit those threats on anyone’s else’s child. But our society does. And the real shocker is that all of those problems are easily avoided through the siting, design, construction, and operations of our children’s workplaces—their school buildings.
School buildings can be designed and maintained in such a way that the school facility itself promotes the health and well being of children, and promotes and facilitates learning. A Healthy and High Performance School dramatically improves the health and learning of students while saving money for schools. Too often schools are unhealthy places that impede learning, sicken children, teachers and staff and waste public resources. The Healthy and High Performance School combines design features that promote children’s environmental health, environmental sustainability, energy efficiency, reduced carbon emissions and save money for education and their communities. Science-based policy and action steps should be taken now to “design out” common problems and ensure that all our children have environmentally healthy schools that are clean and in good repair.
My name is Claire Barnett. I am the founding Executive Director of Healthy Schools Network, Inc, and the Coordinator of the national Coalition for Healthier Schools. Healthy Schools Network is a not for profit research, information and education, and advocacy organization that seeks to ensure that every child will have an environmentally healthy school that is clean and in good repair. We have successfully shaped and secured new polices, programs, and funds for schools, at home in New York, and nationally, while our Clearinghouse has assisted parents and schools in every state. The national Coalition provides “the platform and the forum” for healthy school environments, endorsed by over 520 organizations and individuals nationwide. My testimony is on behalf of Healthy Schools Network and on behalf of participants in the Coalition.
Lessons Learned: A National Report
32,000,000 children: victims of a public health crisis
(national collaborative report, with 28 contributing groups, April 2006)
Missouri Parent. My daughter had been missing one day of school per week for 3 months because of her extreme bouts with chronic illness. She was sent home several times complaining of severe headaches…, the doctor recommended that she stay home from school for 2 weeks to rebuild her strength. We have to be extremely cautious in managing her asthma because she is allergic to a lot of the medications that help, so we followed doctor’s orders without hesitation. Shortly after her school absence, I discovered that the school had reported me to Social Services for educational neglect! This was a shock because the school is well aware of her health problems as well as the doctor’s order to stay out of school….
National Summary of Data*
No. Publ. School Bldgs 96,143
No. Students 48,590,635
No. Minority Students 19,778,912
No. Students in Special 6,597,187
No. Employees in 5,447,541
% Children w/Asthma 8.7 %
% Schools with at least 57 %
one Inadequate Bldg.
% Schools with at least 68 %
Est. No. Students 31,067,803
at High Risk
* Lessons Learned provides state by state data tables, news clips and reports for parents and teachers on school conditions.
Georgia Environmental Advocate. The Board of Education learned in April 2005 that our Elementary school soils were contaminated-enough to be included on Georgia's list of Hazardous Sites. Starting from scratch in May 2005, school staff began… testing the schoolyard…. Initial estimates were a few hundred cubic yards of soil. … When clean up levels were not met, more was removed until goals were achieved. The few hundred cubic yards ballooned to 3500 as toxic soils were discovered much deeper than expected. May, June, and July rushed by as the August 10th school- reopening date approached. School opened, cleaned-up, and on time, thanks to the commitment and hard work of the school’s Facility Director.
COALITION FOR HEALTHIER SCHOOLS: Issue Statement
Issue Background. Improving children’s health, learning, the environment, and communities.
Each day over 53 million school children and 6 million adults - 20% of the entire U.S. population - enter our nation's 120,000 school buildings to teach and learn. Unfortunately, in too many cases, they enter "unhealthy“ school buildings," that undermine learning and health. Many school facilities have been poorly maintained and thousands of our nation's schools remain severely overcrowded. Schools are often sited next to industrial plants or on abandoned landfills; new schools are built beyond safe walking or biking distance for students. In a recent five-state survey, more than 1,100 public schools were built with in a half-mile of a toxic waste site. Polluted indoor air, toxic chemical and pesticide use, growing molds, lead in paint and drinking water, and asbestos are also factors that impact the health of our nation's students and school staff. These problems contribute to absenteeism, student medication use, learning difficulties, sick building syndrome, staff turnover, and greater liability for school districts. The US Energy Dept. found schools could save billions of dollars by installing energy efficient heating systems.
32 million children at elevated risk of health problems caused by decayed schools (Lessons Learned, 2006). According to US EPA, "Studies show that one-half of our nation's schools have problems linked to indoor air quality. Students, teachers and staff are at greater risk because of the hours spent in school facilities and because children are especially susceptible to pollutants." Schools are also more densely occupied and more intensively used than offices, which contribute to the overall problem. Asthma is the leading cause of school absenteeism and the leading occupational disease among teachers and custodians. The increase in asthma problems is particularly acute in urban areas with large numbers of African-American, Hispanic American and other minority students. Children with preexisting health, learning, or other special needs may be at greater risk.
Federal agencies, states, communities, and education officials must improve school environmental quality. Federal agencies are well aware that “high performance school” design and construction and environmental management of facilities can produce healthier learning environments. Key policy and program reforms include siting, design and construction, and environmental management on issues such as “green cleaning” and least-toxic pest control, as well as preventive repairs that preserve neighborhood infrastructure and center communities on children’s needs.
At a time when this nation is committed to raising the academic performance of all children, it is essential that the federal agencies provide the knowledge, leadership and technical assistance that states, cities, and schools need to ensure that every child, every school employee, and every community has environmentally safe and healthy schools that are clean and in good repair.
Statement Sponsors: American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Alliance for Healthy Homes, American Lung Association, American Public Health Association, Beyond Pesticides, Children's Environmental Health Network, Connecticut Foundation for Environmentally Safe Schools, Environmental Defense, Funders Forum on Environment and Education, Healthy Child Healthy World (CHEC), Healthy Kids: The Key to Basics (MA), Healthy Schools Network, Improving Kids Environment (IN), Institute for Children's Environmental Health, Learning Disabilities Association of America, Marin Golden Gate Learning Disabilities Association (CA), Massachusetts Healthy Schools Network, National Center for Environmental Health Strategies, National Education Association, National Education Association/Health Information Network, National PTA, Natural Resources Defense Council, New Jersey Work Environment Council, New Jersey Environmental Federation, Oregon Environmental Council, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Public Education Network, 21st Century Schools Fund, West Harlem Environmental Action, League of Conservation Voters, National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities, National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners, Apollo Alliance, and 500 more groups and individuals, as of April 2007.
Children are uniquely vulnerable to environmental contaminants, many of which are found in schools. Children proportionately breathe more air, drink more fluids, and eat more food than adults. Developing systems are more vulnerable to environmental toxins than are fully developed adults. Yet health standards for children’s exposure to indoor environmental contaminants do not exist. An often-cited U.S. General Accounting Office report noted that children are compelled by law to attend school, yet these school facilities may be unsafe or harmful to student health.
Children’s exposure to environmental hazards at school contributes to multiple health problems. Poor school indoor air is a major contributor to causing and exacerbating asthma, which is well known to be at epidemic proportions among school age children. Hazards in the school environment are linked to a host of other health problems including respiratory problems, poor concentration, rashes, headaches, gastrointestinal problems, nervous system disorders, and cancers. Nationally, there has been a dramatic rise in the number of children afflicted with learning disabilities, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and autism. These conditions are also linked with environmental toxins that may be found in the school environment.
The poor conditions of America’s schools are well documented (and endured by millions of children every day), and these deteriorating school facilities contribute greatly to harmful environmental exposures. As noted above, there is no system of environmental health protection for children at school. The school environment is therefore unique, and tragically, often fails in providing its most basic function, that is providing a healthy and safe learning environment for students, teachers and school staff.
The “Green” or Healthy and High Performance School
One answer to this complex problem is to have schools well designed from the start. Communities across the nation are designing and building healthy and high performance (or “green”) schools that create environments that improve learning, promote good health, are easier to maintain, and cost less to operate than traditional school facilities. Clean air, non-toxic building materials, daylighting and full-spectrum lighting, state of the art thermal and acoustical engineering and energy efficiency are incorporated into a holistic design and comprehensive construction of a school. Demonstrated benefits include improved student performance, improved child health, improved student attendance and substantial operational savings. High performance schools mitigate poor indoor air quality by using materials that do not off-gas hazardous chemicals, by utilizing properly designed ventilation and air conditioning systems, and focusing on preventative maintenance. In addition to superior indoor air quality, healthy and high performance schools provide improved student performance due to better lighting, acoustics and thermal comfort. A healthy and high performance school also saves up to 40% of the building’s energy costs over the lifetime of the facility. In addition, healthy and high performance schools can be built at the same cost as conventional school facilities. These schools then have an added benefit, saving districts substantial funds in decreased energy and maintenance costs over the life of the building.
Across the country, communities are building Healthy and High Performance (“green”, sustainable) schools. Governors of both California and New Jersey have issued Executive Orders requiring schools to be built in accordance with High Performance/Green design standards. The New York City Schools, our nation’s largest district, just adopted a Green Schools Guide blending US GBC’s LEED-NC rating system with elements of NY-CHPS, the NY Collaborative for High Performance Schools design guidelines. Indeed the CHPS design model that began in CAL and is adopted by Los Angeles and other large districts, has now been adapted for use statewide into Washington, New York, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire. These environmentally healthy design protocols will impact billions of dollars of school construction and major renovations. More states can and should do the same.
Indeed, school construction and school purchasing is a $ 730 billion a year decentralized market taking place in thousands of local communities. Imagine if all 54 million children in our nation’s 120,000+ public and private schools had environmentally healthy buildings. What a transformation! And a ready market for green-rated product producers.
The health and learning benefits are known to federal agencies, as well as to high-end real estate developers. But what are the real benefits to our children?
A new National Research Council report “Green Schools: Attributes for Health and Learning” is an excellent review of the hard sciences. Among the findings, that ‘green’ has not been well defined; but that there is a “robust literature” in the impacts of healthy school environments on children, on attendance, on achievement and behavior, and on productivity. Bear in mind the virtual epidemic of children with asthma, autism, auto-immune disorders, visual, auditory, and other learning challenges in school every day, then consider:
Robust body of evidence linking health to IAQ
Some evidence linking IAQ to productivity and learning
There is an association between excessive moisture, dampness, molds in buildings and adverse health outcomes
Key factors in IAQ: ventilation rate and effectiveness, filter efficiency, temperature and humidity control, control of excess moisture, O&M, maintenance
Indoor pollutants and allergens also linked to linked to respiratory and asthma symptoms (HSN note-- asthma is the leading occupational disease of teachers and of custodians)
Reduced pollutant load (through increased ventilation and filtration) has been shown to reduce occurrence of building-associated symptoms
Work performance decreases with higher room temperatures
Green school lighting focuses on energy, not work performance
Control glare when encouraging daylighting
Speaking and listening are key to learning
Sufficient evidence for inverse association between excessive noise and student learning
Infection control in densely occupied spaces requires cleaning and ventilation
More research will be helpful
Greening school design provides an extraordinarily cost-effective way to enhance student learning, reduce health and operational costs and, ultimately, increase school quality and competitiveness.
Gregory Katz, Greening America’s Schools: Costs and Benefits, October 2006, Capital-E.
BACK TO BASICS. No one should be surprised that children do better with a little fresh air and sunshine and a quiet place in which to learn.
The federal agencies like EPA and Education and CDC are aware of the impacts of unhealthy schools on children’s health, and the National Academy of Sciences has produced a tremendous report summarizing the peer reviewed literature on the health and learning attributes of schools, finding that healthy indoor environments produce benefits.
What should a parent, teacher, school principal or a local school board member or school head do?
One way to get usable information into their hands quickly and to accelerate the number of schools taking action is to encourage states to become active. Thus my own organization and the participants in the national Coalition are supporting The High Performance Green Buildings Act that would establish a federal office and advisory committee on green buildings.
Focusing on Title II, the Healthy and High Performance Schools section, we find that it will address many of the issues raised today. For example,
Grants to the states. An important effort that will protect taxpayers and protect children is to make sure that High Performance Green buildings, once opened, stay green, and that localities don’t “lose” any more school facilities due to poor siting, design, construction, operations, or ill-informed maintenance practices. This puts a premium on rapidly disseminating US EPA’s best practices for healthy indoor environments, such as IAQ Tools for Schools and Healthy SEAT into states and cities, thence into local schools, allowing state agencies to mix and match energy, education, health, and construction aid formulas for efficient and effective results.
Title II authorizes EPA to make grants to qualified state agencies to develop comprehensive school environmental quality plans that address critical issues in design, construction, siting, maintenance. It also would allow states to identify problems and develop and disseminate solutions.
Title II also directs EPA to develop model school siting guidelines. Not one parent in the country wants their child to go to school on a toxic waste site or in a swamp. Yet report after report has found too many schools on such sites. Model guidelines for the siting of schools would do much to alleviate the pressure to place schools on compromised sites and would help communities reject proposals to place hazards adjacent to or near existing schools.
Title II also directs EPA to issue guidelines for the states to develop and implement environmental health programs for schools in research and in children’s health protection. One feature that is critical to protecting children caught in unhealthy conditions is encouraging the states to collaborate with the federally designated and funded Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Units in on-site environmental investigations of schools. Adults and children often have the same exposures in schools; children may outnumber adults in schools by ten to one and are more vulnerable to these hazards. Yet adults can call upon contracts, unions, OSHA, NIOSH, Labor Departments, occupational health clinics and more, while children and families have no such system of environmental health services anywhere. In the aftermath of September 11th, with local schools contaminated by fumes and debris, not one agency stepped in when schools were re-opened without appropriate, full remediation. This gap in services has a perverse effect, depriving everyone-- schools, agencies, parents and children-- of independent, full and complete assessments of hazards. (Schools of Ground Zero: Early Lessons Learned in Children’s Environmental Health,, © APHA, Healthy Schools Network, Bartlett and Petrarca, 2002).
As advocates for children’s environmental health, we have worked diligently to promote Healthy and High Performance school design in the federal government, in the state houses, in local districts and with parents, teachers and school personnel across the country. There is now burgeoning interest across the country in “green” building and design as an essential part of our commitment to protect our environmental heritage.
Yet the additional benefits for our children, their health, and their educational experience from designing in features that are health-protective, in contrast to resource efficient, is at least as great.
The Bottom Line. There is no downside to healthy and high performance school design and operations. It improves children’s health, workers health, improves our environment, saves energy, and saves money for education. As schools across the country are built, rebuilt and renovated, we owe it to our children, their parents, their sponsoring communities and the taxpayers to assure that they are designed and built to specifications representing now proven state-of-the-art healthy and high performance architectural standards.
A vote for healthy schools is a vote for children, for environment, for education, for health, and for communities.
Federal Executive Order 13045—Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks, Federal Register: April 23, 1997 (Volume 62, Number 78), http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/eo/eo13045.htm. Renewed 4/ 18/2003 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/04/20030418-10.html)
US Environmental Protection Agency, www.epa.gov/schools for an extensive listing of EPA programs, also http://www.epa.gov/iaq/schooldesign/introduction.html . Also see EPA’s “Healthy School Environments Assessment Tool” (SEAT) at www.epa..gov/schools for assessing the conditions and practices of school buildings and identifying priority actions based on federal laws and best practices.
Building Healthy, High Performance Schools: A review of Selected State and Local Initiatives, Tobie Bernstein, Environmental Law Institute, 2003 (http://www.elistore.org/reports_details.asp?ID=10925&topic=Indoor_Environments)
The Collaborative for High Performance Schools, (http://www.chps.net/). CHPS Best Practices Manual: Volumes I-IV. http://www.chps.net/manual/index.htm#v4, Collaborative for High Performance Schools, CA, 2004. TO ORDER: Collaborative for High Performance Schools, c/o Eley Associates, 142 Minna St., San Francisco, CA 94105. Tel: (877) 642-2477.
The Green Book, 2nd ed., American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Environmental Health, 2003, see http://www.aap.org/visit/cmte16.htm
Science-Based Recommendations to Prevent or Reduce Potential Exposure to Biological, Chemical, and Physical Agents in Schools, Derek G. Shendell, et al., Journal of School Health – December 2004, Vol. 74, No. 10, a review of peer-reviewed publications and proceedings.
“Healthy and High Performance Schools Act”, Sec. 5414 ff, No Child Left Behind, defines healthy and high performance school and authorizes a federal grant program to the states to implement local information and technical assistance program; mandates Study of National Significance on Unhealthy School Buildings.
A Summary of Scientific Findings on Adverse Effects on Indoor Environments on Student’s Health, Academic Performance and Attendance, 2004, US Department of Education, Office of the Under Secretary, Doc # 2004-06, Washington, DDDC, 2004., prepared for Congress pursuant to HHPS/NCLB.
Healthier Schools: A Review of State Policies for Improving Indoor Air Quality, Tobie Bernstein, Environmental Law Institute, Jan. 2002 (http://www.elistore.org/reports_detail.asp?ID=56&topic=Environmental_Health
Do Indoor Pollutants and Thermal Conditions In Schools Influence Student Performance? A Critical review of the Literature, M.J. Mendell, G.A. Heath, Indoor Air, Volume 15 Issue 1 Page 27 – January 2005
“Learning the Hard Way”, Jn 2002 cover story, Environmental Health Perspectives, Journal of the Natl. Inst. of Env. Health Sciences, online at http://www.healthyschhools.org/
Schools of Ground Zero: Early Lessons Learned in Children’s Environmental Health, Sarah Bartlett and John Petrarca, American Public Health Association and Healthy Schools Network, 2002, 300 pp. Order through Healthy Schools Network or APHA.
Creating Safe Learning Zones: Invisible Threats, Visible Actions, Center for Health, Environment and Justice, 2001, for sample policies and GIS maps on schools built on or near Superfund and other hazardous site. http://www.childproofing.org/cslzindex.html
Do School Facilities Affect Academic Outcomes?, Mark Schneider, National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities, 2002, at http://www.edfacilities.org or call 888-552-0624.
Lessons Learned, 32,000,000 Children: Victims of a Public Health Crisis, Healthy Schools Network, Inc., April 2006.
New York State School Facilities and Student Health, Achievement, and Attendance: A Data Analysis Report, Healthy Schools Network, Inc., 2005. http://healthyschools.org/clearinghouse.html
Green Schools: Attributes for Health and Learning, National Research Council of the National Academy of Science, 2006. http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11756
Greening America’s Schools: Costs and Benefits, Gregory Katz, Capital E, October 2006. http://www.cap-e.com/ewebeditpro/items/O59F9819.pdf
Who’s Sick at School: Linking Poor School Conditions and Health Disparities for Boston’s Children, MassCOSH, March 2006. http://www.masscosh.org/SchoolsReport.pdf
Healthy Schools Network, Inc.
United States Senate Bill 506, Healthier Federal and School Buildings
United States Senate Bill 506, Healthier Federal and School Buildings
Click here: S. 506: High-Performance Green Buildings Act of 2007 (GovTrack.us)
The text of this bill is at (to print, 18 pages): http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-506&page-command=print
This is a Senate Bill for Federal Buildings "to improve efficiency in the Federal Government through the use of high-performance green buildings, and for other purposes". This includes language to promote the health of schools in the states. This would include provisions that would produce healthy indoor air quality (ie. not moldy or contaminated with chemical pollutants, etc.).
The sponsors for S. 506:
green - original sponsors; yellow, added on
Snowe - ME
Boxer - CA
Lautenburg, Menendez - NJ
Clinton - NY
Sanders - VT
Leiberman - CT
Cardin - MD
Kerry - MA