BOARD MEETING DATE: December 1, 2006
AGENDA NO. 6

Execute Contract for Pilot Study of Classroom Air Purifier Systems at Three Elementary Schools

SYNOPSIS:

On July 7, 2006, the Board approved release of an RFP for a pilot test of classroom air purifier systems at three elementary schools to be funded with Rule 1173 mitigation fees. Three proposals were received and reviewed by a qualified evaluation panel. The pilot study involves the design and installation of air purifier systems and testing of the classroom air before and after the installation to determine the efficiency of the filtration systems. This action is to execute a contract with Thermal Comfort Systems, Inc. for an amount not to exceed $547,590 for the pilot study of classroom air purifier systems with Rule 1173 mitigation funds.

COMMITTEE:

Technology, November 17, 2006, Recommended for Approval

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Authorize the Chairman to execute a contract with Thermal Comfort Systems, Inc. to conduct a pilot study of air purifier systems in classrooms at Del Amo, Dominguez and Hudson elementary schools for an amount not to exceed $547,590 from the Rule 1173 Mitigation Fee Special Revenue Fund #44.

Barry R. Wallerstein, D.Env.
Executive Officer

Background

In December 2002, the Board approved amendments to Rule 1173 – Control of VOC Leaks and Releases from Components at Petroleum Facilities and Chemical Plants, which include an alternate compliance provision allowing the payment of a mitigation fee in lieu of connecting the pressure relief device (PRD) to a vapor recovery/control system. Facilities subject to Rule 1173 may elect to pay a mitigation fee of $350,000 for each release of VOC from any PRD exceeding the thresholds specified in the rule. The fees collected would be used to conduct clean air projects in the nearby communities. A special revenue fund was created by the Board in September 2003 to account for the Rule 1173 mitigation fees collected and track projects funded through these fees.

To date, approximately $1.4 million in mitigation fees has been collected as a result of four release events that occurred at two refineries: one located in Wilmington and the other located in Carson. On April 7, 2006, the Board approved the set-aside of these Rule 1173 mitigation funds for two projects: a refinery fenceline monitoring project, and a pilot study of classroom air purifier systems at three elementary schools. The Board also directed staff to prepare RFPs for these projects.

Proposal

The RFP for the pilot study of classroom air purifier systems was released on July 14, 2006, and closed on September 8, 2006. Three proposals were received and reviewed by the evaluation panel. Based on the results of the evaluation, only one proposal received a technical score above the minimum points needed to qualify for an award. The following table shows the average scores of the evaluation panel.
 

 *  A proposal must receive at least 56 out of the 70 points allocated for technical criteria in order to be deemed qualified for award.

The proposals submitted by Action Duct Cleaning Company and Carrier Corporation were determined not technically qualified by the evaluation panel. The panel found the proposal by Action Duct Cleaning Company represented only a partial understanding of the scope of work and did not clearly specify the air cleaning technologies to be utilized or how the filtration effectiveness would be measured. The panel also found this proposal did not provide sufficient air purification experience to complete the pilot study. The proposal by Carrier Corporation was found to include only one air cleaning approach, which the panel determined did not meet the objectives of the pilot study to test different air purification systems. The panel also found the proposal by Carrier Corporation did not provide specific information requested for key individuals to be involved in the project and subcontractor qualifications. The panel expressed concerns about the potential noise impacts of the air cleaning approach proposed, and noted the proposal did not provide sufficient information on past projects directly related to this pilot study.

All six panel members unanimously selected the TCS proposal as the most technically qualified. The TCS proposal was found to present the best understanding of the project objectives. The TCS proposal involves testing of three different air purification approaches, which will provide a range of solutions and costs. The panel commented that the air purifier technologies proposed by TCS are highly rated and are expected to produce low noise.

The air cleaning approaches proposed by TCS include: 1) stand alone room air cleaner, 2) HVAC system upgrade including the replacement of existing filters in the HVAC system with higher efficiency filters, and 3) add-on of a retrofitted in-line filtration system for the HVAC system. These approaches may be used by themselves or combined as part of the study design. All three approaches can include both particulate (High Efficiency Particulate Arresting or HEPA) and gas-phase (activated carbon) filtration.

The stand alone room air cleaner will likely consist of a housing made of plastic or metal, particulate and gaseous filters, a fan motor and electronic/electrical controls. The advantage of the stand alone system is that it can be used regardless of the type of HVAC system installed and can be set to work even when the HVAC system is not operational.

The HVAC system upgrade will involve the replacement of the existing low efficiency air filters in the classroom HVAC system with higher efficiency filters. This approach is expected to work well with wall-mounted air conditioners and packaged roof units.

The add-on filter system will be installed outside the existing HVAC system, but will utilize the air movement of the existing HVAC system. The add-on filter system will use larger filters, which maximizes removal efficiency and minimizes airflow resistance. This approach is expected to generate no additional noise inside the classroom. The engineering and installation costs of the add-on system will be higher than those of the HVAC integrated filter solution. This approach could be applied to wall-mounted air conditioners or packaged roof units.

TCS is a California-licensed HVAC contractor. IQAir North America, Inc. will act as a subcontractor to TCS by providing the air cleaning technologies and assisting in the engineering and design of the classroom air purifier systems. IQAir specializes in indoor air purification, and is well known for their high efficiency residential and commercial air cleaning products. The ambient air testing and air sample analysis will be performed by H.M. Pitt Laboratories, Inc., a California laboratory specializing in the industrial hygiene and environmental fields. H.M. Pitt Laboratories, Inc. will provide a certified industrial hygienist and the air testing and air sample analysis for this pilot study.

Staff recommends the Board approve the execution of a contract with Thermal Comfort Systems, Inc. to complete a pilot study of air purifier systems in classrooms at Del Amo, Dominguez and Hudson elementary schools in an amount not to exceed $547,590. The pilot study will include the following main phases: 1) select/design and install three different air cleaning systems in classrooms at each school site, 2) ambient air testing before and after the installation to determine filtration efficiencies, 3) preparation of a pilot study report summarizing the test results and other findings, and 4) preparation of an operation and maintenance manual to insure proper and efficient operation of the air purifier systems. The schedule for the pilot study will be one year.

Evaluation Panel

The evaluation panel for this pilot study was established with particular consideration for each member’s involvement and representation in addressing the air quality impacts to children attending the three elementary schools. The panel consisted of a representative from each school/school district (including a total of two members), a member from the Long Beach Interfaith Community Organization representing the parents/teachers, the CARB Manager of Indoor Exposure Assessment, the AQMD Senior Engineering Manager of Air Toxics, and the AQMD Supervising Engineer of Monitoring & Analysis. Of the six panelists, two are Asian/Pacific Islander, four are Caucasian; one female, five male.

Following the close of the RFP, a copy of each proposal was mailed to the panel members. On September 28, 2006, AQMD staff met with the evaluation panel to review AQMD’s proposal evaluation procedures and answer any questions relating to the evaluation process. For those panel members that did not receive the proposals or parts thereof, a complete set was provided to them at this meeting. On October 10, 2006, a second meeting was held with the evaluation panel to provide an opportunity to discuss each proposal in detail and identify if any of the proposals require clarification from the bidder. It was identified that one proposal required clarification concerning the prime contractor, the name of the laboratory to conduct the air testing and sample analysis, and the potential for missing pages. The meeting concluded with agreement from the panel that final scores could be prepared and submitted to AQMD by no later than October 17, 2006, provided AQMD staff can furnish the bidder’s clarifying information by October 13, 2006.

AQMD staff provided the clarifying information to the panel in a timely manner and received the final scores from each member as scheduled. The average scores of the evaluation panel revealed that only one proposal met the minimum technical score and, thus qualifies for an award.

Benefits to AQMD

The successful implementation of this pilot program will meet a community need to address air quality impacts at local schools and provide mitigation for excess VOC releases from PRDs subject to Rule 1173. The pilot program will also reduce particulate matter from the indoor air.

Resource Impact

The total cost of the pilot study shall not exceed $547,590. Sufficient funds are available from the Rule 1173 Mitigation Fees Special Revenue Fund.

///