Testing schools for fire contamination

It’s hard to fault parents of children attending schools that were impacted by the Marshall Fire who are seeking additional post-mitigation testing for possible contaminants. Reliance by BVSD upon the tests and evaluations conducted by their retained fire mitigation experts is also reasonable. As an outside observer, it’s difficult to know how to parse their respective positions.

It was encouraging to learn that the district’s onsite staff closed outside air intakes before the smoke plume arrived, which had to help reduce intrusion by combustion byproducts, but it also seems improbable that such intakes were and are hermetically sealed in a manner calculated to resist 100 mph wind-driven small particulates. Hiring experts to immediately wipe down surfaces, HEPA vacuum carpets, rugs and furniture, wet-mop hard floors and clean ductwork in the eight affected schools was both prudent and timely. Was it enough? Did the remarkable 5-day cleanup turnaround effectively manage the long-term risk?

How much of an ongoing challenge persists when winds blow again over burned land and buildings in the near vicinity of the schools day after day, month after month? Nothing lying loose on the ground on, over and along Boulder County’s Front Range stays in the same place for long, let alone forever. The stories from parent volunteers and staff that describe ash being found on surfaces in classrooms still today ring true. The worst of the fire contaminant intrusion may well have been avoided, but the ongoing challenge presented by mobile particulates persists. Suggesting

otherwise seems shortsighted.

Apparently, BVSD is working with Boulder County Public Health (BCPH) to install air quality monitors on the exterior of the eight schools to assist with decisions regarding outdoor activities. Better late than never, but sooner than later would be even better. Real-time monitoring of exterior air quality could go a long way toward addressing parental concerns, particularly with respect to airborne particulates still being stirred up on an ongoing basis.

The schools have HEPA filters in their indoor air filtration systems that are changed out on a regular basis. Testing them for combustion byproducts should quickly and easily help determine whether any potential hazard to our children’s young lungs may still exist inside the schools.

If the exterior and interior testing confirms air quality issues have continued unabated, the risk is probably not limited to school sites — it may be ubiquitous throughout the burn zones and downwind from them as well. We’d better find out.

Ed Byrne, edbyrne@smartlanduse.com

First, it’s not like the schools aren’t being used. I live very close to Superior Elementary School and I don’t think it was ever significantly closed. Kids have been attending that school for more than a year without any health issues. At least none that I’m aware of. The parents calling for more testing would cite such health issues if they existed.

I’ve had solicitors come to my door and ask me to sign a petition to increase regulations on our water. On the surface, a request to reduce the amount of arsenic in our drinking water sounds reasonable. Until you find out that our water already has less arsenic than the purest mountain streams.

Toxins and particulates are only an issue if the concentration is beyond a specific threshold. Nothing is 100% pure and wasting money chasing an impossibility doesn’t benefit anyone. So the question is: Do the parents requesting more testing know what they are talking about or not?

Are they the types that don’t understand background contamination and the impossibility of no trace of toxins or heavy metals? Or is there good cause to distrust the BVSD officials that the schools are safe?

I’m no expert in these manners and tend to trust BVSD because I cannot conceive of why they would endanger children. Judging from how easily and unjustifiably schools were shut down due to COVID, I think that BVSD wouldn’t hesitate to close schools given even a whiff of danger.

If parents just want more testing and not school closings, at least until there is a proven danger, then why not do it? Cost, of course. If BVSD thinks schools are safe and are satisfied with the testing that’s been done, fine. If the parents truly fear for the safety of the school, they should take up a collection and pay for the extra testing themselves. If they are proven right, and mitigation must be done, then the district should reimburse them. Or is that too reasonable?

Bill Wright, bill@wwwright.com