Background

We the undersigned parents, frustrated by the lack of progress, transparency, and operational capabilities related to COVID preparedness in our district, specifically preparing HVAC systems for adequate introduction of fresh air, and filtration and treatment of the air, to protect our children from COVID-19, demand immediate and complete transparency of any and all proposals, contracts, and installations related to the air systems or lack thereof, in all Montclair public schools. 

8 months after the schools were closed, the school district has failed to prepare for and implement a plan that would get our children back to school safely and timely.  The decision of the district to commence classes on November 16 during a spike in cases, is ill advised not only because we are entering cold and flu season, but also new COVID cases are at record highs in NJ, which is the time increased distancing and remote learning should be the trajectory.  In fact, districts that opened responsibly and on time are beginning to return to remote learning in November.

Based on the on-going updates by the district, the current plan can be summarized as follows:

The district contracted an engineering firm to create a ventilation and filtration plan, and make decisions for the district and its over 6,000 students, with no other substantial professional and medical oversight. 

To date, and 8 months after students have vacated the buildings, “work is on-going” according to district updates.  In fact, the purchase of 200 portable purifiers and opening windows does not constitute work in any substantial way.  The use of the Enviroklenz UV purifiers are inadequate for the majority of classrooms based on ASHRAE guidelines for CADR, as well as being too noisy in a teaching and remote teaching setting.[1]  If these units were tested for the noise impact on teachers and students, the district hasn’t reported to parents.  These units are dramatically undersized and will not be effective at reducing transmission as suggested.  They are a false sense of security for parents, students, and teachers.  They will not prevent COVID transmission in any appreciable way.

Ioninzers, which we oppose for potential negative health effects, have not been installed despite the return date of 11/16.  Ionizers often produce ozone and create charged particles which stick to most surfaces.[2]  This is not a recommended technology for COVID reduction in the air, nor is it proven safe.  If this technology is deemed necessary to make the air safer for students and staff, then they would need to be installed PRIOR to anyone using the facilities.  If an electronic sanitizer is required, we recommend UV-C lamps which are standard practice in areas with high virus and bacteria transmission, like hospitals, and demonstrated to kill the SARS-CoV-2 virus.[3]  This technology does not produce ozone since the wavelength is above the wavelength required to produce ozone, nor does it produce charged particles.  Ozone and charged particles may contribute to negative health effects especially in vulnerable populations, the same populations susceptible to negative COVID-19 health outcomes.  If available, LED UV lamps are preferable to fluorescent due to the mercury hazard if a fluorescent lamp breaks in the duct.

The district consulted with unnamed medical professionals who are presumably creating protocols for students and teachers. 

These protocols have not been adequately disseminated to parents and likely teachers as well.  We are unaware of COVID positive protocols and how they would affect closures, how long those closures would remain in effect, and if testing and tracing is part of the plan.  We are also unaware of on-going and emergency cleaning procedures, products used and if they have been licensed to kill COVID, and if outside contractors are part of this program.  Parents need all of this information to make informed decisions.

Masking plan

Other than students being required to wear masks while in the building, we are unaware of any scheduled “mask breaks” where kids are able to exit the building and breathe freely for a period of time.  Unlike adults who may be conditioned to wearing masks for long periods at work or around other people, masking for younger children may be difficult especially for prolonged periods.  Proper instruction and vigilance is likely required to ensure masks are worn and worn properly.

Testing plan

No information has been disseminated about screening of teachers or other staff, as other districts have implemented.  This is an important part of finding asymptomatic carriers who may transmit disease without knowledge.

BASED ON THIS INFORMATION, WE BELIEVE AND DEMAND THE FOLLOWING:

1.   We the undersigned parents, demand complete and immediate transparency of all proposals, policies, contracts, and relevant occurrences, including COVID positive cases, and whether they are identified in students, teachers or administrators, or other staff.  This information would not violate HIPPA rules for privacy since no personal identifiers are required.

 

2.   We advise against the use of bi-polar ionization or any other ionizers, ozone generators or similar, and urge the district to use effective and safe UV-C lamps in ducts, the same type of lamps in the purifiers purchased for the classrooms and the same lamps used in hospitals and healthcare facilities.

 

3.   We recommend introducing fresh air as the most effective solution to reducing virus and other airborne particles and aerosols in schools. Opening windows is not a calculated solution and will result in cold temperatures which are not sustainable for students or teachers.  The proven fresh air technology used in modern buildings is energy recovery (ERV) or heat recovery ventilators (HRV) which should be installed in every classroom and deliver guaranteed ventilation rates while not creating uncomfortable temperatures in classrooms.  These would contribute to overall air quality as well as reduce the incidence of sick building syndrome, in general.

 

4.   The Enviroklenz UV air purifiers create a false sense of security and should be re-evaluated for efficacy.  These units are not effective for classroom sized rooms, are too noisy, and may increase the chance of virus transmission if not placed properly in each room.  Air flow from these units is directed linearly and mostly towards the ceiling, and therefore delivers air in one specific direction.  Filtered or fresh air in a classroom needs to be diffuse and widespread.

 

5.   The district should re-evaluate the return to school date of November 16 based on the recent surge of positive cases in NJ, and continue work to create a safer indoor environment prior to allowing people back to school.

 

 

 

Sincerely, The undersigned petitioners

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright November 2020, J. Klabin, MS, district parent

[1] https://youtu.be/CSdj__J0lT8
[2] https://www.epa.gov/indoor-air-quality-iaq/what-are-ionizers-and-other-ozone-generating-air-cleaners
[3] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-67211-2.pdf