Considerations for a Safe Return to Campus
Expert Framework for University Reopening
Charles N Haas, Drexel University
Richard Corsi, Portland State University
Mark H. Weir, Ohio State University
Joseph G. Allen, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
Lucas Rocha-Melogno, Duke University
Kimberly A. Prather, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego
Tony Day, Chair — Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers (UK), HVAC Special Interest Group
Shelly L. Miller, University of Colorado Boulder
Jose-Luis Jimenez, University of Colorado Boulder
Colleges and universities are facing monumental decisions regarding the nature of their fall terms and how they may operate until a COVID-19 vaccine becomes available. As experts (faculty and students) in indoor air quality, architectural and environmental engineering, public health, and aerosol science, we have significant concerns related to returning to campuses in the fall without deeper planning. It is important to note that universities not only serve an educational and research mission, but are also charged with the physical wellbeing of the students. In particular those students housed on campus provide an additional level of responsibility to the university, since their safety and health are paramount during classes and when they are living on campus too. We know that there are key concepts that institutions can deploy to open in a
safer manner, recognizing that elimination of risk is a practical and technical impossibility. The skill sets that we represent have important knowledge to bring to bear, a cross-disciplinary combination that has not been sufficiently included in planning.
A useful paradigm is the concept of hierarchy of controls, used in industrial and occupational hygiene, with the most useful and sure actions at the base of this. In the context of COVID-19 and for university reopening, we can view the interpretation of the approach as follows:
Potential Actions Universities Should Undertake at Specific Levels
Two important concepts must be understood: 1.) infectious disease risks can rarely be eliminated, and 2.) in infectious disease interventions there is no single magic bullet to accomplish sufficient risk reduction. Consequently, the aim should be to combine multiple layers and strategies, to create an aggregate effect that is sufficient to mitigate risk over a wide range of indoor conditions.
The ideas above are being discussed across institutions, yet we found important to lay them down to establish a baseline of considerations. In addition, we must recognize that building trust with our students, faculty and staff will play a key role in reducing risk of outbreaks. We need to work with our social scientist colleagues to understand particular factors resulting in increasing and decreasing trust. It is also important to understand the particular interactions with the broader community of the university: external activities, commuting and transit patterns, and neighborhood relations may all influence the scope of vulnerability of a university. These additional factors should be considered, but they are likely not in the university’s realm of control, thus the need to layer mitigation strategies and methods throughout campus.
Faculty and university officials need direct and constant communication with student leaders (group/club presidents, resident assistants, graduate student representatives, fraternities and sororities) to strengthen the communication chain. To achieve this, they will have to identify the best communication pathway i.e. text instead of email or the use of mobile applications from each institution.
Universities are also linked to K-12 schools. The ability of school districts to prepare for the safest possible reopening impacts universities. Public K-12 schools alone serve as a place to work or learn for more than 15% of the total population of the United States each year. If these schools are unable to open, or if they open improperly and close due to an outbreak, many staff, faculty and even college students with children in local K-12 schools will be affected as they homeschool their children. Even worse, they may become infected, return to work, and infect others at their university. Importantly, many of the actions that universities should undertake to mitigate risk of SARS-CoV-2 apply to K-12 schools as well. For these reasons we believe that researchers who work to mitigate risk due to SARS-CoV-2 exposure in their universities should lend a hand to local school districts as they plan to open their campuses.
In facilities that have experienced limited re-opening of research laboratories and office spaces, building operators have identified a need for greater understanding of transmission risks. For example where ventilation rates cannot be easily changed, how much greater risk is there with cross-contamination of recirculated ventilation air, compared to direct air exchange between adjacent rooms? Under which conditions does inhalation exposure become a greater risk than contact exposure? These are questions that transcend the engineering experience of technical building operators, who bring their extensive knowledge to the safe operation of building engineering systems. Linked with this are simple intervention concepts such as plexiglass barriers for lecturers who may be exposed at close range and personal recirculating air cleaners for offices. Without knowledge of the designed airflow, there is no knowledge of what the plexiglass barriers would do. If a certified and appropriately size air cleaner is not purchased then it may be ineffective.. Any intervention must be carefully assessed for its risk reduction and unintended risk exacerbation potential.
The evolving knowledge is forcing the understanding that the aerosol route of transmission cannot be ignored for SARS-COV-2, and in some circumstances may be of highest significance. Therefore a multiple barrier approach encompassing social distancing, mask wearing, and stronger attention to ventilation and air cleaning in buildings and installation of treatment technologies that reduce aerosol concentrations in indoor environments should receive greater attention.
The different perceptions of different users in a building need to be considered. This will drive their level of comfort in reopening and reoccupying spaces. Greater understanding and communication of the transmission risks will help to alleviate fears, and provide more targeted planning for mitigation of higher risk activities. While the use of extensive signage, floor markings and thermal imaging cameras provide some levels of confidence, it will be important to develop strategies that enable all building occupiers to feel safe in their place of work and study.
As a final note, it should be mentioned that in our response to this pandemic and the concepts for a safe return to our campuses, we must not lose sight of improving campus sustainability. Universities are large organizations that can lead the way in establishing effective long-term remote working relationships. Consider the continued sustainability impact and resiliency of a workforce resulting from response to COVID19 as a benefit in producing an organization that has the skills and ability to maintain productivity even when working remotely at home is required. Universities can enhance risk mitigation and sustainability by embracing an improved mindset regarding remote work, and continue as a leading example of providing community support and helping foster sustainable thinking and actions.
