10/19/1993 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Further discussion ensued. 'Ms. Jordan discussed the following summary of the results of the employee questionnaire: TO: Jack Price, Personnel Director FROM: Aeth Jordan, Risk Manager DATE: 7 October. 1993 SUBJECT: Indoor Air Quality Survey Results The following will provide an overview of the results of the indoor air quality (IAQ) surveys conducted during August, 1993 in the County Administration Building. You will recall that on August 12 we distributed IAQ surveys to the occupants of the Third Floor. On August 17 we expanded that survey to include the remainder of the building with the exception of the Utilities/SWDD area which was to be tested by Clayton Environmental Consultants. Responses were received from 64% of the Third Floor and 74% of the remainder of the building. Early returns came from employees with the strongest opinions, that is, those who were most displeased with their workplace. Average overall quality for both groups, however, was "somewhat acceptable" with the lowest scores for "amount of dust" and "odor" both of which were "somewhat unacceptable" In the category of "amount of dust" numerous comments were made about paper dust and photocopiers and printers in work areas. Others complained of housekeeping, that Is, dust on desks, shelves, upholstered furniture, etc., as well as dirty carpeting. Among solutions to these complaints are the suggestion that employees be reminded that they are responsible for their own work surfaces. Employees themselves could alleviate much of this situation by cleaning their own desks, work tables, etc. As for more thorough cleaning of carpets and upholstered furniture, these need to be considered. Of interest, many of the complaints about dust came from employees who also complained of cramped work space, lack of windows and distractions. Many of these same complainants also wanted a new office building. The "odor" category was of interest, as well, with complaints centering on tobacco smoke, a situation addressed previously by the Board. Some complaints, however, took tobacco smoke a step further, with several complainants advocating the ban of tobacco smoke from County property. They complained of having to walk past smoking employees to enter the building, and the odor of smoke entering the building from the outside. To further restrict smoking on County property may present legal Issues and we suggest the County continue to comply with applicable laws. Other odor complaints centered on food odors. Some complained of food odors in general; others complained of pizza, popcorn, and unknown food odors. Many employees enjoy the privilege of hot food. The complaints included food brought into the building for meals and the Blind Services' snack room. To remove these odors, however, the County may wish to address its policy on cooking within the building. Other odor complaints included cologne and body odors. In light of these complaints, we must remember that IAQ surveys attempt to identify sources of potential health concerns. Cooking odors, while offensive and irritating to some, do not point to a systemic problem with the building itself. Cooking and cologne odors can be easily controlled through policy. Body odors of the public cannot be controlled. Odors which were referred to as "musty" were also prevalent among respondents who complained of paper dust, old files, etc. Such odors are commonly found In office environments. Absent any ambient air testing, we cannot comment on potential health problems. As has been reported in numerous previous IAQ tests in Utilities, such odors alone are not harmful. W OCT 19 1991 BOOK 90 rnF.814