Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2015-0017-3240 Page 1

Evaluation of Indoor Environmental Quality 

in Police Evidence Intake, Processing, and 

Storage Areas at a Medical Examiner’s Office

HHE Report No. 2015-0017-3240

July 2015

Catherine Beaucham, MPH, CIH

Kristin Musolin, DO, MS

Gregory Burr, CIH

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
Page 2 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2015-0017-3240

Contents

Highlights...............................................i

Abbreviations ..................................... iii

Introduction......................................... 1

Methods ............................................... 1

Results and Discussion........................ 2

Conclusions.......................................... 9

Recommendations............................... 9

Appendix............................................ 12

References.......................................... 14

Acknowledgements........................... 17

The employer is required to post a copy of this report for 30 days at or near the 

workplace(s) of affected employees. The employer must take steps to ensure 

that the posted report is not altered, defaced, or covered by other material.

The cover photo is a close-up image of sorbent tubes, which are used by the HHE 

Program to measure airborne exposures. This photo is an artistic representation that may 

not be related to this Health Hazard Evaluation. Photo by NIOSH.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2015-0017-3240 Page i

We evaluated the indoor 

environmental quality 

in the police evidence 

intake, processing and 

storage areas of a medical 

examiner’s office. We found 

inadequate ventilation on 

the subbasement 1 floor. We 

recommended adjusting the 

ventilation system so that air 

is supplied as designed and 

meets current ventilation 

guidelines for indoor 

environmental quality.

Highlights of this Evaluation

The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a request from employees at a medical 

examiner’s office building. Employees working in the police evidence intake, processing, and 

storage areas on the subbasement 1 floor were concerned about inadequate ventilation. 

What We Did

● We made a site visit in March 2015.

● We measured temperature, relative humidity, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide in 

the evidence intake, processing, and storage areas on the subbasement 1 and fifth floors.

● We looked at the building’s heating, ventilating, and 

air-conditioning systems.

● We measured air quantity at supply diffusers on the 

subbasement 1 floor.

● We interviewed employees about their work history 

and health and safety concerns.

● We reviewed work-related injury and illness reports.

What We Found

● Airflow from the supply diffusers on the subbasement 

1 floor was less than originally designed.

● Most temperature measurements were outside 

(both above and below) the recommended range for 

employee comfort.

● Employees in the police evidence intake, 

processing, and storage areas reported that they 

were often too hot or too cold in the building. They also felt that airflow and air 

circulation were inadequate and that the workplace was not clean enough. They 

reported lacking training on handling accidental chemical or biological spills.

● Some employees reported upper and lower respiratory symptoms, skin symptoms, 

and nonspecific symptoms that have been associated with conditions inside and 

outside the workplace.

What the Employer Can Do

● Adjust the ventilation system so air is supplied as designed and meet current ventilation 

guidelines for indoor environmental quality.

● Keep temperature and relative humidity within comfort guidelines.

● Improve housekeeping on the subbasement 1 floor.
Page ii Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2015-0017-3240

● Provide additional biohazard waste receptacles on the subbasement 1 floor.

● Improve communication between managers and employees regarding employee health 

and safety concerns.

● Encourage employees to report potential work-related health and safety concerns to 

their supervisors. 

● Do not permit eating or drinking where evidence is handled and processed.

● Develop standard operating procedures for cleaning incidental chemical or biological spills.

What Employees Can Do

● Eat or drink only in designated areas and not at work desks.

● Report work-related health concerns to your supervisor. Seek evaluation and care early 

from a healthcare provider who is knowledgeable in occupational medicine and indoor 

environmental quality issues.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2015-0017-3240 Page iii

Abbreviations

°F Degrees Fahrenheit

AHU Air handling unit

ANSI American National Standards Institute

cfm Cubic feet per minute

CO Carbon monoxide

CO2 Carbon dioxide

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

IEQ Indoor environmental quality

ND Not detected

NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

ppm Parts per million

RH Relative humidity

S1 Subbasement 1 floor
Page iv Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2015-0017-3240

This page left intentionally blank
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2015-0017-3240 Page 1

Introduction

The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a request from employees in a medical 

examiner’s office building. Employees in the police evidence intake, processing, and storage 

areas (evidence property control specialists) were concerned about inadequate ventilation. 

We made a site visit in March 2015. We held an opening meeting with managers and 

union representatives followed by a walk-through survey of the areas of interest on the 

subbasement 1 (S1) and fifth floors. At the conclusion of our site visit we held a closing 

meeting with managers and union representatives. We sent a summary letter in March 2015 

with our preliminary findings and recommendations. 

Methods

Our objectives were to:

1. Evaluate the indoor environmental quality (IEQ) in the police evidence intake, 

processing, and storage areas on the S1 and fifth floors and compare it to the office 

area on the tenth floor which reportedly had no problems with IEQ.

2. Determine whether employees working on the S1 and fifth floors were experiencing 

work-related health symptoms or had concerns. 

Environmental Assessment

During our walk-through survey of the police evidence intake, processing, and storage areas 

we looked for evidence of past or current water damage, water incursion, and mold. We 

measured temperature and relative humidity (RH) over 2 days with HOBO® H8 ProSeries 

data loggers. We measured temperature and RH because they can affect how employees 

perceive thermal comfort in their indoor environment. We also measured carbon dioxide 

(CO2) and carbon monoxide (CO) over 1 day with a TSI Q-TRAKTM Plus Indoor Air Quality 

Monitor Model 8554. We compared indoor and outdoor CO2 concentrations to determine if 

indoor occupied spaces were adequately ventilated [ANSI/ASHRAE 2013a]. Carbon dioxide 

is a normal constituent of exhaled breath and can be used as an indicator of whether enough 

outdoor air is being introduced into an occupied space to maintain odors to an acceptable 

level. We measured CO concentrations because evidence was unloaded from city vehicles in 

a parking area adjacent to the S1 receiving area and CO is present in vehicle exhaust. 

We visually inspected the air handling units that supplied the S1 and fifth floors and reviewed 

maintenance procedures. We measured the supply air flow from ceiling diffusers in the S1 

evidence intake, processing, and storage areas, and part of the fifth floor evidence intake, 

processing, and storage areas with an Accubalance EBT 731 ventilation flow hood. We 

compared those measurements with the design specifications referenced in the ventilation 

system commissioning report. We used ventilation smoke tubes to visualize airflow direction in 

the S1 evidence intake, processing, and storage areas and the hallway outside of these areas.
Page 2 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2015-0017-3240

Employee Interviews and Record Review

We obtained a roster of all evidence property control specialists working on the S1 floor 

during our evaluation and interviewed all of those present during our site visit. We asked 

them about work-related safety issues, and any health symptoms or concerns they thought 

could be related to their work. We reviewed an environmental survey conducted at the 

request of the medical examiner’s office, as well as work-related injury and illness logs, 

a health and safety incident report, the respiratory protection program, the bloodborne 

pathogens exposure control plan, and employee training attendance records from 2014.

Results and Discussion

Unlike specific medical diagnoses of upper and lower respiratory disease, such as humidifier 

fever and asthma, most symptoms associated with IEQ concerns do not result in persistent 

health problems. Many of the non-specific symptoms commonly reported by building 

occupants have been found to improve when deficiencies in the building environment 

(including heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning systems) are addressed. Measurements 

of ventilation and comfort indicators such as CO2, temperature, and RH below provide 

information relative to the functioning and control of the heating, ventilating, and airconditioning systems. 

General Observations

The 15-story medical examiner’s office building was constructed in 2006. The main entrance 

and lobby were on the first floor and an auditorium was on the second floor. Forensic 

laboratories were located on floors 5–8, and offices were on floors 4, 10, 11, and 12. 

Mechanical rooms containing air handling units for the offices and laboratories were located 

on floors 3, 9, 14, and 15.

The focus of our evaluation was the police evidence intake, processing, and storage areas 

on the S1 floor and on the fifth floor. The larger of these two areas in number of personnel 

and square footage was on the S1 floor. The police evidence intake, processing, and storage 

areas were staffed by approximately 25 evidence property control specialists and 2 other 

employees (administrative, clerical) working at this building over two shifts. Work activities 

included receiving the evidence that was delivered in the morning, logging the evidence into 

the computer tracking system, printing labels for the evidence packaging, and then placing 

the evidence in storage. The types of evidence stored included packaging containing bloody 

clothes, products of conception, weapons, and larger items such as car bumpers. Some 

prescription drugs were stored in sealed plastic boxes; however, no other drug evidence was 

stored in this building. Similar work tasks occurred on the fifth floor except that evidence was 

stored for a shorter time. No IEQ management program was in place at the time of our visit.

We saw no evidence of dampness or mold growth, nor did we detect any musty odors. We 

did see some areas of past water damage on the masonry wall above the suspended ceiling 

in the S1 evidence storage area that was also near discolored sprayed-on insulation. We 

learned from the facilities maintenance office that employees of the medical examiner’s 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2015-0017-3240 Page 3

office previously washed vehicles and equipment in a loading dock and emergency medical 

services garage located a floor above the evidence storage area. This practice was stopped 

after the discovery that wash water was infiltrating from the loading dock and garage to other 

areas, including the evidence storage area. In addition to discontinuing the washing, a water 

resistant epoxy sealant was applied to the loading dock and garage floors. 

Employees may handle evidence potentially contaminated with blood or other body fluids. 

We observed employees wearing nitrile or vinyl gloves while handing and processing 

evidence at their desks. During our visit, we saw a few employees eating at their desk. We 

also found used gloves, which should be considered potentially biohazardous waste, in 

regular waste receptacles. We saw no biohazardous waste containers on the S1 floor, although 

employees reported that they did have “a few.” No written procedures were in place for 

cleaning up biological or chemical spills.

Employees reported that housekeeping in the evidence storage area on the S1 floor was 

infrequent, and institutional aides who performed the housekeeping were not permitted to 

move any of the evidence. As a result, the shelves where the evidence was stored were not 

cleaned. We did see shelving that appeared dusty during our walk-through surveys. The 

current cleaning policy was to clean the evidence storage areas “as needed.” Managers 

reported that funding for a heavy-duty deep cleaning of the evidence storage area would be 

available on July 1, 2015.

Temperature, Relative Humidity, Carbon Dioxide, and 

Carbon Monoxide

Table 1 presents the temperature, RH, CO2, and CO levels on the S1, fifth, and tenth floors 

of the building. Although storage areas typically are not considered offices, permanent 

workstations, where employees could spend a full shift, were located in these areas. The 

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) 

recommended thermal comfort guidelines for the winter season (using a clothing insulation 

value of 1.0) are approximately 71°F–79°F and 0%–60% for general office spaces [ANSI/

ASHRAE 2013b]. ASHRAE recommends that evidence vaults have temperatures between 

72°F–74°F and relative humidity at 30% in winter and no more than 50% in summer 

[ASHRAE 2011]. The outdoor daytime temperatures ranged from 44°F–76°F, and outdoor 

RH ranged from 14%–100% during our evaluation. Seven out of eight indoor locations were 

not within the recommended thermal comfort guidelines for the winter season. Temperature 

measurements were at times, above and below the recommended guidelines. The lowest RH 

levels were below the ASHRAE guideline for evidence vaults.

ASHRAE notes in an informative appendix to standard 62.1 that indoor CO2 concentrations 

no greater than 700 parts per million (ppm) above outdoor CO2 concentrations will satisfy a 

substantial majority (about 80%) of visitors with regard to body odor from sedentary building 

occupants [ANSI/ASHRAE 2013a]. Elevated CO2 concentrations suggest that other indoor 

contaminants may also be increased. If CO2 concentrations are elevated, the amount of 

outdoor air introduced into the ventilated space may need to be increased. None of the CO2

concentrations in the areas that we tested exceeded the outdoor concentration by 700 ppm. 
Page 4 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2015-0017-3240

CO levels ranged up to 1.2 ppm inside the building, well below the lowest occupational 

exposure limit for CO of 25 ppm recommended by the American Conference of 

Governmental Industrial Hygienists [ACGIH 2015]. 

Table 1. Temperature, relative humidity, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide levels, March 2015

Location Temperature 

range (°F)

Relative humidity 

range (%)

Carbon dioxide

(ppm)

Carbon monoxide

(ppm)

S1 intake area 1 70–75† 14–35 400–720 ND–1.2

S1 intake area 2 72–76 13–31 440–770 ND–0.7

S1 clerical desk 71–80† 11–30 * *

S1 storage area 68–72† 15–38 420–670 ND–0.9

S1 storage area 66–72† 15–39 * *

Fifth floor intake area 68–73† 14–45 * *

Fifth floor storage area 66–72† 14–44 370–460 ND–0.5

Tenth floor office 70–74† 13–38 440–550 ND–0.1

Outdoors 44–76 14–100 410–670 0.9–5

ND = Not detected

*No sample collected

†Temperatures were not within recommended guidelines for general office areas and evidence 

storage vaults for the winter season [ASHRAE 2011; ANSI/ASHRAE 2013b].

Ventilation

Heating and air-conditioning for the evidence intake, processing, and storage areas on the 

S1 floor were provided by one variable air volume air handling unit (AHU) that was located 

in an adjacent mechanical room on the S1 floor. The outdoor air intake for this AHU was 

located on the third floor. The AHU used 24′′ × 24′′ × 2′′ minimum efficiency reporting value 

8 pleated air filters that were changed every 2–3 months. All of the air filters were properly 

installed and appeared clean. The S1 AHU, along with all of the AHUs in the building, 

were also equipped with air filter back-pressure monitors that notified the maintenance staff 

when to change the air filters. Maintenance staff changed the air filters more frequently than 

required by the back-pressure filter monitors. 

We looked in the space above the suspended ceiling, also called the plenum, in the S1 

evidence intake, processing, and storage areas. We saw no damage to the variable air volume 

boxes or to the rigid or flexible ducts connecting these boxes to the ceiling supply diffusers or 

to the AHU. The plenum was also free of visible debris, and we observed no evidence of past 

or current water damage aside from what we previously noted in the S1 evidence storage area 

that had been the result of water draining from a loading dock and a garage.

Table 2 presents the airflow measurements from the ceiling diffusers in the S1 evidence 

processing and storage areas. Prior to our measurements we asked the maintenance 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2015-0017-3240 Page 5

department to adjust the variable air volume system in these areas to provide maximum 

airflow. The diffuser locations are shown in Appendix A, Figure A1. Nearly all airflow 

rates were below the original design specifications for this area, with the largest airflow 

deficits in the evidence repackaging room. Low airflow can result in poor air distribution 

and the perception by employees that the air is stagnant. It can also make it difficult to 

consistently maintain temperature and RH levels within recommended comfort guidelines. 

The unbalanced airflows likely account for the use of portable air-conditioning units in the 

S1 evidence intake and processing areas at the time of our evaluation. After we completed 

our evaluation, we asked the maintenance department to return the variable air volume 

system to its normal operating conditions, and then we randomly rechecked airflow at some 

of the air supply diffusers. We found the airflow was essentially the same (within 10%) as 

the maximum capacity airflow that we previously measured. Potential causes for the airflow 

rates being below the design criteria include: improper operation of the variable air boxes, 

blockage of the supply air in the duct before reaching the ceiling diffusers, small supply 

ducts, improperly sized fan and motor, or presence of an air leak somewhere in the ductwork. 

Using ventilation smoke tubes, we found that air flowed from the S1 evidence intake area to 

the hallway that separated the evidence area and an adjacent vehicular parking area. Within 

the S1 evidence areas air flowed from the evidence storage area into the evidence intake and 

clerical areas, and the air pressure was neutral between the two S1 evidence intake areas.

ASHRAE does not provide specific exhaust ventilation flow rate recommendations for 

drug vaults or evidence storage rooms but recommends that they be kept under negative 

pressure [ASHRAE 2011]. This recommendation is mainly intended to keep odors from 

drugs stored in the vault from migrating to adjacent occupied spaces. The American National 

Standards Institute (ANSI)/ASHRAE Standard 62.1-2013: Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor 

Air Quality provide specific details on ventilation for acceptable indoor environmental 

quality. The purpose of the standard is to specify “minimum ventilation rates and other 

measures intended to provide indoor air quality that is acceptable to human occupants and 

that minimize adverse health effects” [ANSI/ASHRAE 2013a]. Generally, the standard 

recommends outdoor air supply rates to indoor occupied spaces that take into account peoplerelated sources as well as building-related sources. 
Page 6 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2015-0017-3240

Table 2. Supply air measurements on S1 floor*

Location Actual airflow 

(cfm)

Design airflow

(cfm)

Intake 1 

A† 69 150

B 51 150

C 74 150

Intake 2 

D 59 150

E 89 150

F 77 150

G 66 150

H (Repacking room) 28 150

I 84 150

J 92 150

K 119 200

L 75 150

M (Directors office) 56 100

II 214 150

Clerical desk

N 102 200

O 99 200

P 109 200

Q 89 200

R 83 200

S 67 200

Evidence storage 

T 215 320

U Inaccessible 320

V Inaccessible 320

W 189 320

X Inaccessible 320

Y 129 400

Z 151 400

AA 116 400

BB 147 400

CC Inaccessible 400

DD 127 400

EE Inaccessible 400

FF 137 400

GG Inaccessible 200

HH Inaccessible 640

cfm = Cubic feet per minute

*Evidence intake, processing, and storage areas on S1 floor

†Diffuser locations shown in Appendix A, Figure A1
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2015-0017-3240 Page 7

Table 3 presents the airflow measurements from the ceiling diffusers in the fifth floor evidence 

processing and storage areas. The diffuser locations are shown in Appendix A, Figure A2. We 

were not provided with the ventilation design specifications for this floor. We did not measure 

the airflow from the four ceiling supply diffusers in the center of the fifth floor evidence intake 

area because they were larger than our ventilation hood could accommodate.

Table 3. Supply air measurements on the fifth floor

Location Actual airflow*

(cfm)

Evidence storage

A 489

B 515

C 465

D 344

E 329

F 298

G 272

H 315

Evidence intake

I 80

*Design airflow for fifth floor evidence areas was not provided

Medical Interviews

We held confidential interviews with 21 of 27 employees who currently worked or had 

worked in S1 evidence intake, processing, and storage areas. Interviewed employees reported 

working in the building an average of 6 years (range: 4 months‒10 years), their average 

age was 45 years (range: 32‒63), and 13 (62%) were male. Although most interviewed 

employees spent the majority of their work time in the S1 evidence and storage areas, some 

employees split their work time between the S1 floor and the fifth floor. Two employees who 

no longer worked in S1 now had offices on a different floor or in a different building.

Interviewed employees were asked to respond “yes” or “no” to a question regarding general 

cleanliness and temperature of the S1 floor and fifth floor. Nineteen of the 21 interviewed 

employees (90%) reported they were not satisfied with general cleanliness of the S1 floor 

but only 3 of 21 (14%) were not satisfied with general cleanliness of the fifth floor. Eighteen 

of 21 interviewed employees (86%) reported they were not satisfied with the temperature on 

the S1 floor and mentioned that it was either too hot or too cold, and 7 of 21 (33%) were not 

satisfied with the temperature on the fifth floor. 
Page 8 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2015-0017-3240

Interviewed employees were also asked to rate their level of satisfaction with the air quality 

on the S1 floor (e.g., stuffy/stale air, cleanliness, odors) on a scale from 0 (very dissatisfied) 

to 7 (very satisfied) adapted from Lee [2007]. Of the 21 interviewed employees, the average 

response was 1.8 (range: 0‒5). We asked employees an open-ended question regarding 

what, if any, safety concerns they had about their work. Nineteen of 21 interviewed 

employees reported concerns. These safety concerns included perceived lack of airflow and 

air circulation; lack of workplace cleanliness; dust and air contamination; exposure to cold 

weather when doors are opened; and lack of training on driver safety, lifting equipment, and 

handling accidental chemical or biological spills.

We asked employees what, if any, health concerns they had that they believed were related 

to their work in the building. Seventeen of 21 interviewed employees (81%) reported health 

concerns. These health concerns included upper respiratory symptoms (irritated eyes, nose, 

and throat), lower respiratory symptoms (difficulty breathing, tight chest, shortness of breath), 

constitutional symptoms (weakness, fatigue, headache, nausea), and skin symptoms (dry and 

itchy skin, skin rash). These non-specific symptoms can have many causes and have been 

shown to be associated with certain working conditions (e.g., dampness, poor sanitation, 

poor ventilation) or be non-work related. Complaints of being too hot or too cold have been 

associated with headaches [Tietjen et al. 2012]. We saw no evidence of dampness on the floors 

evaluated, but did see some areas of past water damage as well as current operation of portable 

air-conditioning units which may have contributed to the respiratory symptoms reported 

by some of the employees. The World Health Organization stated that there was sufficient 

epidemiological evidence (based on review up to July 2007) to conclude that occupants of 

damp buildings are at risk of developing upper and lower respiratory tract symptoms (including 

cough and wheeze), respiratory infections, asthma, and exacerbation of asthma [WHO 2009]. 

Certain symptoms may be affected by personal health factors (e.g., pre-existing asthma, 

allergies, and respiratory infections). Research in office buildings has shown a dose-response 

relationship between the number of office exposures and risks of headache, tonsillitis, and sinus 

infections [Jaakkola et al. 2007]. In a study of office workers, authors found that the prevalence 

of certain symptoms (mucous membrane symptoms, fatigue, skin irritation, and headaches) 

decreased after employees moved to a building with improved mechanical ventilation, airconditioning, and sealed windows [Bourbeau et al. 1996].

Logs of Injuries and Illnesses

The New York State Department of Labor Log of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses Form 

SH-900 included 49 injuries and 14 illnesses for the years 2010‒2014. Musculoskeletal 

pain, strain, and/or inflammation was the most common type of injury or illness, accounting 

for 40% of reports. Laceration/puncture was the second most common reported injury and 

accounted for 22% of reports. Slips, trips, and falls accounted for 17% of reports, hand/foot 

crush injuries and not otherwise classified injuries each accounted for 8%, and other injuries 

(i.e., contusion, fracture) accounted for 5%. Only five incidents were reported by evidence 

property control specialists for 2010‒2014, one fall and one musculoskeletal injury in 2013 

and three motor vehicle accidents in 2014. 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2015-0017-3240 Page 9

Bloodborne Pathogens and Respiratory Protection Plan

The medical examiner’s office bloodborne pathogens exposure control plan met all the 

requirements of 29 CFR 1910.1030. It identified evidence property control specialists as 

employees with possible occupational exposure to bloodborne pathogens and identified 

tasks and procedures that could lead to exposure. The plan listed standard precautions to 

prevent occupational exposures, as well as engineering controls such as sharps containers, 

work practices such as hand washing and spill proof containers for specimens, and personal 

protective equipment such as gloves and surgical masks. It also specified a clean-up 

procedure and included the need for red biohazard bags for regulated medical waste other 

than sharps. The plan stated that initial employee training shall occur during the first week of 

hire and annually thereafter; refresher training should be provided as needed. 

The respiratory protection plan met all of the elements required by 29 CFR 1910.134 

including provisions regarding the voluntary use of respirators. Respirators were not required 

for employees working in the police evidence intake, processing, and storage areas. We 

did not observe respirator use during our evaluation, but employees wore surgical masks to 

protect the evidence from contamination while processing it. 

The training attendance records for 2014 indicated that all but two of the evidence property 

control specialists received annual right-to-know training that covered topics including 

the hazard communication standard, respiratory protection, bloodborne pathogens, and 

ergonomics. According to the medical examiner’s office the two employees who did not 

attend the annual 2014 training will be included in an upcoming training session.

Conclusions

We identified several correctable IEQ problems in the police evidence intake, processing, and 

storage areas at the medical examiner’s office building, in particular inadequate ventilation 

on the S1 floor. Some of the symptoms reported by employees, such as headache, fatigue, 

skin irritation, and respiratory symptoms have been associated with dampness and inadequate 

ventilation, but are also common in offices, schools, and the general population when 

dampness or ventilation is not a problem.

Recommendations

On the basis of our findings, we recommend the actions listed below. We encourage the 

medical examiner’s office to use a labor-management health and safety committee or 

working group to discuss our recommendations and develop an action plan. Those involved 

in the work can best set priorities and assess the feasibility of our recommendations for the 

specific situation at the medical examiner’s office.

Our recommendations are based on an approach known as the hierarchy of controls. This 

approach groups actions by their likely effectiveness in reducing or removing hazards. In 

most cases, the preferred approach is to eliminate hazardous materials or processes and 

install engineering controls to reduce exposure or shield employees. Until such controls 
Page 10 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2015-0017-3240

are in place, or if they are not effective or feasible, administrative measures and personal 

protective equipment may be needed. 

Engineering Controls

Engineering controls reduce employees’ exposures by removing the hazard from the process or by 

placing a barrier between the hazard and the employee. Engineering controls protect employees 

effectively without placing primary responsibility of implementation on the employee. 

1. Conduct a comprehensive assessment of the S1 floor ventilation system in consultation 

with a licensed professional engineer (mechanical engineering) who has experience in 

the design of heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning systems for evidence storage 

environments, followed by testing and balancing the ventilation system.

2. Ensure the temperature and relative humidity in the building meet current guidelines 

for offices [ANSI/ASHRAE 2013b].

3. Ensure the minimum ventilation rates, introduction of outdoor air versus recirculated 

air, and exhausted air provides indoor air quality that is acceptable to human occupants 

and that minimizes adverse health effects [ANSI/ASHRAE 2013a].

4. Improve the frequency and thoroughness of housekeeping, including cleaning dust 

from areas where evidence is stored or processed especially on the S1 floor.

Administrative Controls

The term administrative controls refers to employer-dictated work practices and policies 

to reduce or prevent hazardous exposures. Their effectiveness depends on employer 

commitment and employee acceptance. Regular monitoring and reinforcement are necessary 

to ensure that policies and procedures are followed consistently.

1. Start an IEQ management program. An IEQ manager or administrator with clearly 

defined responsibilities, authority, and resources should be selected. This individual 

should have a good understanding of the building’s structure and function, and should 

be able to communicate effectively with employees. Although no comprehensive 

regulatory standards specific to IEQ have been established, guidelines have been 

developed by organizations and agencies, including ASHRAE, the National Institute 

for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), and the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). These resources are available from the NIOSH Indoor Environmental 

Quality topic page at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/indoorenv/. 

2. Include an employee representative in the IEQ management program to assist with 

communication. The NIOSH/EPA document, “Building Air Quality: A Guide for 

Building Owners and Facility Managers” may be helpful and is available at http://

www.cdc.gov/niosh/pdfs/iaq.pdf. A companion NIOSH/EPA guide, “Building Air 

Quality Action Plan,” discusses how to develop and assess an IEQ management 

program and is available at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/98-123/pdfs/98-123.pdf.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2015-0017-3240 Page 11

3. Improve communication between all managers and employees regarding employee 

health and safety concerns. Employees should be informed what actions have been 

or will be taken regarding their concerns and the rationale for decisions, and their 

concerns should be addressed in a timely manner.

4. Encourage employees to report potential work-related health concerns to their 

supervisors and to seek evaluation and care from a healthcare provider who is 

knowledgeable in occupational medicine and IEQ issues.

5. Ensure sufficient biohazard waste receptacles are on the S1 floor.

6. Do not permit eating or drinking where evidence is handled and processed.

7. Develop standard operating procedures for cleaning chemical or biological spills.
Page 12 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2015-0017-3240

Appendix A: Figures

Figure A1. Supply diffusers in sublevel 1 evidence intake, processing, and storage areas.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2015-0017-3240 Page 13

Figure A2. Supply diffusers in the fifth floor evidence intake, processing, and storage areas.
Page 14 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2015-0017-3240

References

ACGIH [2015]. 2015 TLVs® and BEIs®: threshold limit values for chemical substances and 

physical agents and biological exposure indices. Cincinnati, OH: American Conference of 

Governmental Industrial Hygienists.

CFR. Code of Federal Regulations. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 

Office of the Federal Register.

ANSI/ASHRAE [2013a]. Ventilation for acceptable indoor air quality. American National 

Standards Institute/ASHRAE standard 62.1-2013. Atlanta, GA: American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.

ANSI/ASHRAE [2013b]. Thermal environmental conditions for human occupancy. 

American National Standards Institute/ASHRAE standard 55-2013. Atlanta, GA: American 

Society for Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.

ASHRAE [2011]. Justice facilities. In: 2007 ASHRAE handbook: heating, ventilating, and 

air-conditioning applications. Atlanta, GA: American Society for Heating, Refrigerating, and 

Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.

Bourbeau J, Brisson C, Allaire S [1996]. Prevalence of the sick building syndrome symptoms 

in office workers before and after being exposed to a building with an improved ventilation 

system. Occup Environ Med 53(3):204–210.

Jaakkola MS, Yang L, Ieromnimon A, Jaakkola JJ [2007]. Office work exposures and 

respiratory and sick building syndrome symptoms. Occup Environ Med 64(3):178–184.

Lee Y [2007]. The relationship between indoor environmental quality and worker satisfaction 

and performance in leadership in energy and environmental design (LEEDRTM) certified 

buildings. Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota. Available from ProQuest 

Dissertations and Thesis database. (UMI No. 3292959).

Tietjen GE, Khubchandani J, Ghosh S, Bhattacharjee S, Kleinfelder J [2012]. Headache 

symptoms and indoor environmental parameters: results from the EPA BASE study. Ann 

Indian Acad Neurol 15(1):S95–S99.

WHO [2009]. WHO guidelines for indoor air quality: dampness and mould. Copenhagen, 

Denmark: World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe. [http://www.euro.who.

int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/43325/E92645.pdf]. Date accessed: July 2015.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2015-0017-3240 Page 15

Keywords: North American Industry Classification System 621511 (Medical Laboratories), 

New York, medical examiner, IEQ, ventilation, office building
Page 16 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2015-0017-3240

This page left intentionally blank
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2015-0017-3240 Page 17

The Health Hazard Evaluation Program investigates possible health hazards in the workplace 

under the authority of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. § 669(a)

(6)). The Health Hazard Evaluation Program also provides, upon request, technical assistance 

to federal, state, and local agencies to investigate occupational health hazards and to prevent 

occupational disease or injury. Regulations guiding the Program can be found in Title 42, Code 

of Federal Regulations, Part 85; Requests for Health Hazard Evaluations (42 CFR Part 85).

Disclaimer

The recommendations in this report are made on the basis of the findings at the workplace 

evaluated and may not be applicable to other workplaces.

Mention of any company or product in this report does not constitute endorsement by NIOSH.

Citations to Web sites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the 

sponsoring organizations or their programs or products. NIOSH is not responsible for the 

content of these Web sites. All Web addresses referenced in this document were accessible as of 

the publication date.

Acknowledgments

Desktop Publisher: Shawna Watts 

Editor: Ellen Galloway 

Logistics: Donnie Booher, Kevin Moore

Availability of Report

Copies of this report have been sent to the employer, employees, and union at the facility. 

The state and local health department and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

Regional Office have also received a copy. This report is not copyrighted and may be freely 

reproduced. 

This report is available at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports/pdfs/2015-0017-3240.pdf.

Recommended citation for this report:

NIOSH [2015]. Health hazard evaluation report: evaluation of indoor environmental 

quality in police evidence intake, processing, and storage areas at a medical examiner’s 

office. By Beaucham C, Musolin K, Burr G. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health 

and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health, NIOSH HHE Report No. 2015-0017-3240.
Delivering on the Nation’s promise:

Safety and health at work for all people through research and prevention

To receive NIOSH documents or more information about 

occupational safety and health topics, please contact NIOSH:

Telephone: 1–800–CDC–INFO (1–800–232–4636)

TTY: 1–888–232–6348

CDC INFO: www.cdc.gov/info

or visit the NIOSH Web site at www.cdc.gov/niosh

For a monthly update on news at NIOSH, subscribe to 

NIOSH eNews by visiting www.cdc.gov/niosh/eNews.