Texas Dismisses Complaint over Mold Fumigation

Lawmaker Wants La. to Issue Assessment Licenses

Court Verdicts Batter Lead Paint Manufacturers

What Are the Standards of Care for IAQ in Schools?

HVAC Work Yields Poor IAQ for Assisted Living

VOICES

“We are very pleased to report that HB 161 has passed through the Business Regulation Committee and is on its way to the Insurance Committee. The bill was passed with the approval of all [Business Regulation] Committee members save one. As a matter of fact, we understand that the chair of the committee, [Rep.] Frank Attkisson, praised it as a good bill. All looks well so far. No foes around the bend to report. We anticipate smooth sailing.”

— Jim Ilardi, president of the Florida Coalition for Healthy Indoor Environments, reporting March 23 to members of the group about the status of mold regulations the industry lobbying group has been championing (see Legislative Update on page 6)

Word on the Street 

CERTIFIED MEMBER PROPOSAL SHOT DOWN
As the National Air Duct Cleaners Association’s general membership meeting entered its fourth hour last month, a controversial proposal to add a new classification of membership was introduced. NADCA President Bill Lundquist made a proposal and presented accompanying bylaws revisions that would cause NADCA to have a new classification of membership: certified members.

While NADCA members are companies, the association certifies only individual people. Currently, all members of NADCA are required to have at least one individual on staff holding the association’s coveted Air System Cleaning Specialist certification, or ASCS.

Lundquist’s proposal called for a member to earn the classification “certified member” by signing an affidavit pledging to have an ASCS on-site at every HVAC system cleaning project conducted by the member company. His 20-minute proposal pitch covered the pros and cons, with emphasis placed on overcoming resistance to the proposal.

Some in attendance speculated that NADCA officials envisioned opposition to the proposal and therefore attempted to answer the proposal’s critics before they had a chance to speak up. If that was the strategy, it didn’t work. By an overwhelming majority, NADCA’s membership voted down the proposal. Those who spoke against the proposal in the meeting said it was too costly for members, lacked any enforcement mechanism, and did not necessarily achieve the objective of guaranteeing higher quality for the customer.

Asked how he felt about the vote after the meeting, Lundquist said, “The great thing about NADCA is that members get to decide how the association is governed. Some proposals are embraced; others aren’t. That’s what associations are all about.”

SUNSET FOR CLEANING & RESTORATION VETERAN
Edgar “Ed” Perry York, an undeniable icon in the cleaning and restoration industry, died last month in Vancouver, Wash. The local newspaper, The Columbian, published an obituary March 16 listing the 79-year-old’s lifetime of accomplishments and volunteer work, including the development of “a much needed school for those engaged in carpet related skills.”

Cleanfax magazine in 2000 honored him with the title “Person of the Century.” In 1974, York founded the franchise Disaster Kleenup International. He is also credited with founding both the Society of Cleaning Technicians and the International Institute of Carpet and Upholstery Certification, the group that evolved into IICRC and remains based out of Vancouver, Wash.

Cleanfax also honored York’s second wife, Wanda Borch York, as “his partner in every sense of the word,” adding that “Ed and Wanda York wrote the scripts for many of the industry’s biggest stories of the century.”

Restoration-industry mogul Pete Consigli offered some kind thoughts about York’s death last month. “I couldn’t fathom what this industry would look like if there was no DKI, IICRC, ISCT,” he said. “I think there should be an Ed York award for innovation, pioneering spirit and out of the box thinking.”

Disaster Kleenup International announced in a March 24 press release that it would rename one of its annual awards “the DKI Spirit Award,” a move the franchise said would “invoke the spirit that Ed York brought to his family, his community, his company, and his industry.” DKI also said its 2007 Insights conference would be dedicated to York’s memory.

“To say that without Ed there would be no DKI is too simplistic a statement,” said Dale Sailer, DKI’s current president. “He was a mentor to so many contractors who for so many years struggled to become better businesspeople. The enthusiasm with which Ed tackled every challenge, turning each into a limitless opportunity, instilled the confidence necessary for his business disciples to grow and prosper. Indeed, Ed’s spirit infuses many of the things we at DKI still do today.”

A memorial service was scheduled to take place April 8 in Vancouver, and York’s family encouraged donations to be made in his name to Hospice Southwest. Its address is 100 East 33rd St., Suite 201, Vancouver, WA 98663.

CRUSADE ON SECONDHAND SMOKE GOES OUTDOORS
California was the first state to have a legislated a statewide ban on smoking in indoor spaces. One community, obviously deciding this measure was insufficient to protect the health of its residents, passed a more stringent ban on smoking, one that moves beyond the walls, doors and windows separating indoor air from outdoor air. The ban on smoking anywhere, inside and out, went into effect last month in a Los Angeles suburb, garnering a fair amount of media attention nationwide as it appears to be the most rigorous smoking ban anywhere in the United States. “There is no right to smoke,” Calabasas Mayor Barry Groveman told Voice of America. “There is a right to protect public safety.” The city does allow designated smoking areas, according to reports, and the ban does not extend to private residences or automobiles.

Another achievement in the battle on environmental tobacco smoke last month was the passage of Colorado’s statewide ban on smoking inside public places. At press time, the governor had yet to sign the bill into law, but several newspapers predicted the signature was a mere formality. Also among other locations successfully passing bans on smoking in public indoor places were the city of Chicago and the suburbs of Cook County.
   

Texas Dismisses Complaint over Mold Fumigation

By Steve Sauer

The Texas Department of State Health Services last month dismissed a regulatory complaint regarding the use of chlorine dioxide to kill mold at a residence in the Houston area. A department spokesperson confirmed that the Quality Assurance Group had closed its investigation and found no violation of state or federal law.

Travis West, a licensed mold assessment consultant in Texas, filed the complaint on Feb. 6 against the Albany, N.Y.-based Sabre Technical Services LLC. In the complaint, West alleged that the remedial work Sabre performed at the residence on Feb. 2 and 3 violated Texas rules pertaining to mold remediation.

Dr. Quade Stahl, chief of the department’s Indoor Air Quality Branch, said chlorine dioxide is registered with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to kill mold.

The Texas Department of Agriculture had also issued a “special local needs” registration to allow the use of chlorine dioxide on mold.

The Department of State Health Services investigation into the regulatory complaint also included interviews with both the homeowner and the consultant involved in the project.

One month earlier, Stahl had told IE Connections that the state’s determination to approve mold fumigation did not take into account whether or not the use of chlorine dioxide to kill mold leaves allergenic materials in walls. That, he said, is among factors to be considered by the consultant on the job.

Mike Machen, a mold assessment consultant who is licensed to work in Texas, explained in front of a television camera in February that HEPA vacuums are used to remove the remaining dead mold after a mold remediation job using chlorine dioxide. A report aired on Houston’s ABC affiliate, KTRK, also said new carpet would be installed and the air would be cleaned with negative-air machines.

West, who works for the Texas consulting firm Building Air Quality, told IE Connections that Stahl called him on March 21 to let him know that the regulatory complaint had been dismissed. West said Stahl told him that some electrical equipment in the home had been malfunctioning since the mold fumigation. West said that the chlorine dioxide is believed to have drawn the oils out of the metal of a vent, some electrical outlets and a garage door. If true, he said, it could be evidence of corrosion.

West’s complaint alleged that the remediators working for Sabre at the Houston-area residence did not bear the proper mold-remediation licenses necessary to work in Texas. However, Stahl said Sabre operated in compliance with the law on that job due to an exemption in the law permitting homeowners to appoint a managing agent to perform mold remediation.

According to that section of the law, “This exemption does not apply to a managing agent or employee who engages in the business of performing mold assessment or mold remediation for the public.”

The KTRK report in February said a residence in the Memorial area of Houston became “the first Texas house” to be treated with chlorine dioxide gas to kill the mold inside. The KTRK footage, which is featured on Sabre’s company Web site, is the same one that sparked the now-dismissed complaint, company spokespeople confirmed. It shows a red-and-yellow tent that was placed around the home. It also includes interviews with homeowner David Hall and Sabre’s John Mason, who both cited savings in time and money as advantages over traditional remediation.

Hall could not be reached for comment. Speaking for Sabre, Chief Operating Officer Karen Cavanagh said she believes the initial reluctance within the IAQ industry to accept the technology’s application for mold is natural. She also stressed that Sabre “followed the proper protocols” to have the technique – which she said is “validated extensively” – approved for use in Texas, Mississippi and Louisiana.

Cavanagh also said improvements in downsizing the equipment have made the process more feasible. Because it now takes five hours to set up a fumigation whereas is once took as many as five months, “We do fumigations every day now,” she said. “In a way, an incredible thing came out of such a tragic happening.”

Sabre performed at least one other Texas mold fumigation in February, this one taking place at the office of an oilfield tool rental company in the city of Alvin. Mike Hidalgo, a manager with Petro Rentals, praised Sabre for its work in fumigating the mold in his building. He hailed Sabre’s work at the building as quick and effective, and he said Sabre personnel “were some of the most professional people I’ve ever dealt with.”

The only downside of the work, said Hidalgo, was that the gas oxidized some cheap metal surfaces, but that did not tarnish his opinion. “I would rather see some rust on the handles of my desk drawers than be breathing in the mold that was here before,” he told IE Connections in a phone interview March 23. He said there have been no other problems since the fumigation and that he believes workers’ health had been improved as a result.

KRTK’s account of the Houston residence is one of several media reports since November that documents the company’s use of chlorine dioxide gas to kill mold. Most of these reports, including one broadcast on CNN, originated from New Orleans, where the company focused efforts on Hurricane Katrina cleanup.

Sabre is a wholly owned subsidiary of Bio One Solutions LLC, which is a joint venture with Giuliani Partners LLC, named for and founded by former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, currently chairman and CEO. Bio One received some notoriety last year for its cleanup of anthrax-contaminated buildings in several states.
 

Lawmaker Wants La. to Issue Assessment Licenses
By Steve Sauer

The representative for the New Orleans suburb of Slidell, La., introduced legislation last month to revise the state licensing program for mold remediation, most notably by adding assessment to the program’s scope. Other proposals in House Bill 202 alter the qualifications for mold remediation licensure as provided for under Louisiana’s existing licensing program, which took effect in 2004.

The bill, pre-filed by Rep. A.G. Crowe (R) on March 13, seeks to expand current remediation qualifications to mandate a minimum experience requirement – “either three years of experience in mold remediation or one year of experience in mold remediation along with a four-year accredited college degree.”

It also provides minimum requirements in education and experience for mold assessors, requiring individuals with only high-school diplomas or equivalent to have “at least five years of experience in an allied field” in order to be licensed as assessors. The bill also delineates less stringent experience requirements for individuals with accredited education beyond high school, as well as for certified industrial hygienists, professional engineers and others holding similar professional registrations or certifications.

HB 202 also refines a requirement in the current law regarding the coursework an individual must obtain in order to receive a license for mold work. The bill stipulates that the 24-hour mold remediation and assessment training the law currently requires must be “developed from a qualified and recognized industry organization that certifies its trainers and whose training curriculum is approved by a board of directors or other qualifying program.”

The bill would require licensed individuals to attend eight hours of continuing education each year. It also mandates post-remediation assessments in every remediation project. A post-remediation assessment, according to the bill, is designed to determine whether or not “the work area is free from all visible mold and wood rot” and “all work has been completed in compliance with the work analysis and protocol, if any, or according to nationally recognized standards for mold remediation.”

Under the bill, assessors must write a post-remediation report to clients after each remediation deemed to be successful. The bill outlines five things the reports must include: “a description of relevant work site observations; the type and location of all measurements made and samples collected at the work site; all data obtained at the work site including temperature, humidity and material moisture readings; the results of analytical evaluation of the samples collected at the work site; and copies of all photographs taken by the assessor.”

If the bill is passed, the law’s current requirement that mold remediators have a minimum of $50,000 in liability insurance would be increased to $100,000 and would apply to both mold remediators and assessors.

The Committee on Commerce is set to be the first in the House to act on the bill. The 2006 regular legislative session is set to convene March 27 and adjourn June 19.

Crowe, the legislation’s sponsor, can be reached by e-mail at larep076@legis.state.la.us, or by phone at (985) 643-3600.

Other State Updates
In other Louisiana legislation news ... Gov. Kathleen Blanco (D) is not known to have acted on House Bill 97, which passed both the House and Senate in February. The legislation would require insurers to indicate clearly, in at least 14-point bold print on homeowners insurance policies, whether or not the insured has coverage for flooding or mold and whether or not an increased deductible is required for hurricane damage. The legislation was sent to Blanco for her signature on Feb. 17, and no decision had been announced by press time.

The House legislation was sponsored by Rep. Karen R. Carter (D), larep093@legis.state.la.u, (504) 568-8346.s

Colorado
House Bill 1006, would prohibit insurers and agents from specifying a business that would be required to perform an appraisal or repair on personal property. The cause has been embraced by ASCR International members and officials. Writing in a note to ASCR members dated March 15, ASCR Executive Director Don Manger said the bill benefits those in Colorado’s restoration industry and that momentum could extend the bill’s reach to other states.

He credited the initiative of Joe Arrigo, who testified in favor of the bill during a January committee hearing on the bill, along with a group of roofing contractors. Manger said the work in Colorado by Arrigo and others has the potential to “move an entire industry a step forward.”

Previously, ASCR President William J. Lakin had urged passage of the bill, which would also prohibit insurers and agents from soliciting or accepting referral fees. Lakin’s Jan. 23 letter said, “ “The ‘one size fits all’ approach so often used by large national property insurance companies does not work, and it does a disservice to insured property owners who have suffered a catastrophic loss.”

Manger, in his March 15 letter to ASCR members, said financial help would be needed to advance the bill in the state legislature. The association directed those wishing to contribute to send an e-mail to NewsbreakDEM@ascr.org for more information.

The legislation is sponsored by Rep. Dorothy Butcher (D), Dorothy.butcher.house@state.co.us, (303) 866-2968.

Connecticut

     h  Senate Bill 577, filed March 3, orders the Department of Public Health to establish a mold-remediation protocol all contractors would be required to follow. According to the legislation, “Such protocol shall include, but need not be limited to, specific, acceptable methods for performing mold remediation or abatement work.” The bill was referred to the Joint Committee on Public Health.

The legislation is co-sponsored by Sen. Joan V. Hartley (D), hartley@senatedems.ct.gov, (800) 842-1420.

Florida

     h  New language is to be adopted in both House Bill 161 and Senate Bill 1046, the two measures introducing a method for the state to regulate mold remediation and assessment without issuing licenses. The language is to be based on the work of the industry-based Florida Coalition on Healthy Indoor Environments and recommendations from the state government’s Department of Business and Professional Regulation.
 
Legislation to regulate mold remediation and assessment passed both houses last year, only to be vetoed in June by Gov. Jeb Bush. While lawmakers in other states endorse self-funded government licensing programs, the legislative solution in Florida remains unique because it would not establish government-mandated licenses. Instead, the state would recognize existing mold remediation and assessment certifications that are accredited by entities such as the Council of Engineering and Scientific Specialty Boards or the American National Standards Institute.

The House legislation is sponsored by Rep. Carl J. Domino (R), (561) 625-5176.

The Senate legislation is sponsored by Sen. Michael S. “Mike” Bennett (R), (941) 727-6349.

Georgia

     h  The state legislature was expected to adjourn March 31 without acting on either Senate Bill 156 or House Bill 729, which would have required licensure of individuals and firms engaged in “the practice of microbial testing, microbial contamination evaluation, or microbial remediation.” The measure, which is known as the Microbial Contamination Licensing Act, received a favorable report from the Senate Committee on Health and Human Services, showing a sign that it could be reconsidered in the next legislative session.
 
It would create a seven-member Microbial Contamination Commission made up of representatives of IICRC, AIHA, ACGIH, IAQA, EPA, CDC and the Georgia Department of Consumer Affairs, that would be responsible for defining requirements for prerequisite education and continuing education, as well as for establishing fees, licensing and registration.

The Senate legislation was sponsored by:

• Sen. Horacena Tate (D), horacena.tate@senate.ga.gov, (404) 463-8053;
• Sen. Vincent D. Fort (D), vincent.fort@senate.ga.gov, (404) 656-5091;
• Sen. Steve Henson (D), steve.henson@senate.ga.gov, (404) 656-0085;
• Sen. Gloria Butler (D), gloria.butler@senate.ga.gov, (404) 656-0075; and
• Sen. Sam Zamarripa (D), sam.zamarripa@senate.ga.gov, (404) 419-0115

The House legislation was sponsored by:

• Rep. Buddy Carter (R), bcarter331@aol.com, (404) 656-0213; and
• Rep. Robert Ray (D), rray@legis.state.ga.us, (404) 656-0265.

Maine

     h  Legislative Document No. 1971 / House Paper 1381 would create a task force that would study mold remediation practices and the potential for developing mold cleanup standards. The task force would also study the effectiveness of building standards in helping to prevent mold, according to a lobbying firm retained by the Indoor Air Quality Association. The bill, which was originally written to require the state’s Department of Environmental Protection to establish written standards for mold cleanup, was rewritten based on an amendment by the Joint Natural Resources Committee. The lobbying firm said some members of the committee expressed opposition to funding a study, due to budget concerns.

The legislation is sponsored by Rep. Margaret M. Craven (D), RepMargaret.Craven@legislature.maine.gov, (207) 783-7210.

Massachusetts
Two bills in the Senate addressing so-called “toxic mold,” received favorable reports last month from the Joint Committee on Public Health. Both of the bills were introduced over one year ago.

     h  Senate Bill 1310, known as the Kenneth H. Moulton Jr. Toxic Mold Protection Act, calls for the state’s Department of Public Health to establish a volunteer task force to adopt guidelines for the identification of mold, water damage and microbial volatile organic compounds in indoor environments.
  
Under the bill, the task force is directed to consider the feasibility of adopting permissible exposure limits to mold in indoor environments. The bill also requires the department to “adopt mold identification guidelines for the recognition of mold, water damage, or microbial volatile organic compounds in indoor environments” and to “develop and disseminate remediation guidelines for molds in indoor environments.”
   
The bill would also require written disclosures of mold in real estate transactions and leases. It directs tenants who know of mold in their units to alert their landlords in a timely manner. The bill also directs landlords and property managers to “conduct air or surface tests ... to determine whether the presence of mold” represents a health threat.

An article in the bill on enforcement establishes a $1,000 fine for violations.

     h  Senate Bill 1311, would establish “a task force to study the health effects of toxic mold and to recommend methods to protect the public from unsafe indoor exposure to toxic mold.” This task force, like the one described in SB 1310, would be convened by the Department of Public Health; in addition, the SB 1311 task force would be convened in conjunction with the Department of Environmental Protection, the Division of Occupational Safety and the State Board of Building Regulations and Standards. The study issued by this task force would address current mold research, existing guidelines on safe exposure limits for a variety of indoor environments, and the feasibility of enforcing such standards throughout the state.

The legislation is sponsored by Sen. Robert O’Leary (D), Robert.O’Leary@state.ma.us, (617) 722-1570.

A Rhode Island jury has held a trio of lead paint manufacturers liable for a public nuisance, marking the conclusion of a lawsuit years in the making. The Rhode Island Superior Court verdict passed down in February, and some other decisions before and after it elsewhere in the country, marks a shift in judicial systems’ ability to find the lead paint industry responsible for childhood lead poisoning and lead paint abatement.

In past decades, product liability claims failed because it was impossible to prove which manufacturer’s paint was actually on a house. Almost all market share liability and alternative liability claims failed during that period.

Rhode Island took a different route beginning in 1999, shifting its focus from individual tort claims to a public health lawsuit alleging that the mere presence of lead in paint was a public nuisance. The defendants, on the other hand, argued that intact lead paint poses no danger.

The first trial ended with a hung jury in 2002, but the retrial closed with a verdict finding three defendants – Sherwin-Williams Inc., Millennium Holdings and NL Industries – to be liable. The presiding judge, Superior Court Associate Justice Michael A. Silverstein, is expected to order the defendants to pay for the cleanup, although the calculation of damages has yet to be determined.

Silverstein chose not to award punitive damages because there was no willful behavior and the companies had stopped producing lead paint years ago.

In what could be a direct result of the Rhode Island verdict, a California appeals court recently reversed a lower court’s decision that dismissed a class-action lawsuit against the paint manufacturers. The lawsuit, County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Co., involves several cities that claim they spent millions of dollars to remove lead paint. The appeals panel stated that the lower court erred when it dismissed the claims for public nuisance, negligence and fraud.

One attorney for the plaintiffs said the Rhode Island Superior Court verdict and the California appellate courts ruling in favor of his clients was a one-two punch against lead paint manufacturers. Trial in the California case is scheduled to begin next year.

Just days before the Rhode Island verdict was announced, an appeals panel in Illinois had reversed an earlier ruling that dismissed a case against paint manufacturers. The plaintiffs in Mary Lewis, et al. v. Lead Industries Association Inc., et al., alleged intentional failure to warn, supplier liability, fraud and civil conspiracy against several lead paint manufacturers. The appeals panel held that the defendants failed to present evidence to dispute the plaintiffs’ allegations. Since the burden never shifted to the plaintiffs to show that the defendants were the sole suppliers of the lead pigments used in the paint to which their children were exposed, the court held that the case was still viable.

Motley Rice, the law firm that prosecuted the Rhode Island case, is now preparing for a similar battle in the New Jersey Supreme Court, which is scheduled to hear a lawsuit this year filed by more than 20 cities against lead paint manufacturers. A court had dismissed the suit in 2002, holding that the state’s lead law precluded the suit. However, an appeals court reinstated it last August, ruling that the law was not intended to be the sole means of abating lead.

These cases contain many of the same claims and illustrate common defenses. The lead paint manufacturers allege that it is the deterioration of the paint, which is the responsibility of the homeowner or landlord, that causes harm and not the paint itself. They also argue that it is not possible to link lead paint found in a residence, or lead paint ingested by a child, to a particular paint manufacturer.

This last point is exemplified in a Wisconsin case, Thomas v. Mallett, in which the court expanded the theory of market share liability. The suit alleges that several lead paint manufacturers were liable for the lead poisoning of the plaintiff, who was a minor. In a 4-2 decision issued last July, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that a risk contribution theory can be applied to the former makers of lead paint.

One of two dissenting judges in the case, David T. Prosser, argued that the ruling made it possible for defendants to be held liable for products they may not have produced, that may or may not have caused the plaintiffs’ injuries, based on conduct that may have occurred over 100 years ago, when some of the defendants were not even part of the relevant market.

Subjecting defendants to liability under these circumstances is an unwarranted relaxation of the rules governing tort liability and raises serious concerns of fundamental fairness for the defendants, Prosser said in his opinion. The judge also noted that Wisconsin would become “the mecca for lead paint suits” since “it will be nearly impossible ... for plaintiffs to lose.”

Attorney John Isbister of the Baltimore law firm Tydings and Rosenberg spoke about the Wisconsin case during a conference last month in Las Vegas; the title of his presentation was “Liability for a Product You Did Not Make.”

In one form or another, these issues were tried to the jury in Rhode Island and are slated for trial or appellate review in other states. As a result of the Rhode Island and Wisconsin cases, many other states are likely to either reinstate or file similar lawsuits. Commentators point out that the Rhode Island verdict is an example of aggressive tort liability ungrounded in legal precedent, especially since there was no evidence that the defendants actually made the paint found in Rhode Island homes.

Even more alarming is the idea that these public nuisance claims could be expanded to other areas of the law. For example, several pharmaceutical companies filed amicus curiae briefs in the New Jersey case, based on concerns that they may be next.

Fallout from the Rhode Island case has also spawned at least one insurance coverage lawsuit. Lloyd’s of London filed a lawsuit in New York to limit the coverage of insurance policies purchased by the paint companies found liable in Rhode Island. The suit alleges that the paint makers did not disclose the dangers of lead paint when they purchased policies from Lloyd’s.

The fact that 50 companies have hundreds of policies with the three Rhode Island defendants could indicate that this is only the beginning of insurance litigation on the topic of public claims for lead.

It remains to be seen if the Rhode Island judge can fashion a cleanup remedy that will be effective and not mired down by bureaucratic waste or years of appeals. Much has been done to solve the problem of childhood lead poisoning. Screening programs identify children with elevated blood lead levels at an early stage. Lead paint abatement techniques have been refined over the past decade. Much like asbestos, the current “lead-safe” philosophy involves maintaining intact lead-based paint.

The focus is on safe renovation and repair, as well as routine maintenance. For example, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Jan. 10 proposed requirements to minimize lead hazards resulting from the disturbance of lead-based paint during renovation, repair and painting activities in most housing built before 1978. The proposal introduces lead training, certification and safe work practice requirements for contractors involved in these activities.

While childhood lead levels have been reduced dramatically, this is primarily due to the removal of lead from gasoline, not from paint. With the residual lead in soil and the ubiquitous presence of lead throughout the urban environment, it is difficult to pinpoint an individual child’s most important lead exposure risks. Given the small quantities of lead needed to raise a child’s blood level, remedies for the so-called “public nuisance” caused by lead will require careful consideration.

Ideally, a qualified group of housing experts with experience in designing lead-safe housing would be consulted in the process of fashioning a remedy. The guidance of specialists with an understanding of the complexities of the social, scientific, technical and medical issues related to childhood lead poisoning would be necessary to achieve the goal of making housing lead-safe.

David M. Governo has over 25 years of experience in helping clients prevent and resolve environmental and indoor air quality problems, including lead, asbestos and mold. In 1992, he chaired Mealey’s First National Lead Litigation Conference. Governo has represented clients in lead litigation across the country, has served on ASTM and other technical committees, and has written and lectured extensively on lead poisoning prevention, insurance and litigation. His firm counsels individuals and companies in risk management and litigation. Governo can be reached by e-mail at dgoverno@governo.com or by phone at (617) 737-9047.

We trust that readers have guessed that the question posed in the headline above likely centers on a rather complicated, multifaceted topic. The norm of care is often discussed in terms of what we know is the minimum standard (i.e., codes), what we know works better than what most folks are doing, and what we consider best practice. With something like wastewater treatment or drinking water treatment, or even burger joint air emission discharges in urban California, these best practice terms are often defined by some type of cognitive authority or regulatory body, and typically, it is relatively easy to find answers.

With regard to building systems and the care and interaction of building systems that likely affect indoor air quality, the topics and answers are likely less defined, far more debatable, and sometimes more complicated. Let’s look at some examples. We will offer some opinions in this article, which by no means are intended to be legal advice or to be from a cognitive authority or regulatory body.

Chimney stack height: One might hope that figuring out the required height and specific recommended geometry of a gas or oil fired boiler discharge point would be quite straightforward. You could look at the life safety code for the proposed facility and determine how high the discharge point needs to be off the roof, correct? However, it has been our experience that the answer for the life safety code is often inadequate for indoor air quality concerns if there is a rooftop air intake on the building. There are rules of thumb for preventing exhaust re-entrainment that would keep every stack discharging well above the roofline, and there are pages of calculations in ASHRAE “Fundamentals” for figuring out how to keep what you discharge onto the roof area from coming back in again through a rooftop air intake. There are even “university types” who have canyon models of cities who make a living figuring out for a specific building on a specific street in a given city, where should you put the air discharges and air intakes. This topic gets even more interesting when it’s your neighbors’ discharge or air intake, and it’s not a regulated pollutant, or it is below a certain amount of pounds per day.

Possible best practice? Don’t bring back into the building very much of what you or your neighbor discharges, or you will likely have IAQ complaints.

HVAC condensate pans: Today’s specifications for a condensate pan might read something like “the condensate pan shall drain completely under all operating conditions.” If the drain pan is actually installed correctly, adherence to this spec will likely keep the hygiene of the pan in much better shape than allowing stagnant water to accumulate and grow stuff.

However, what to do about all the existing drain pans that are located throughout your school that do not drain completely? Weekly cleaning? Time-release capsules? Bombard it with ultraviolet energy? Rebuild it so it drains? These are not easy choices, and there is very little clear guidance on the best practice to provide a healthy indoor environment.

Possible best practice? Make sure that the AC condensate drain pan is clean enough to eat your lunch out of if it is necessary.

Indoor humidity in winter in a heating climate: Now this is clearly a difficult topic. It’s much easier to decide for a hospital operating room, computer room or for an industrial weaving process than it is for a school classroom with a teacher who is a known asthmatic.

Guidance? Well, there is some research regarding humidity and bacteria in swine containment areas but very little that I am aware of for schools. Think about it: Would you really dare attempt to humidify air to a 30 percent level in a public school with the level of funding most public schools get for HVAC maintenance?

Possible best practice? Make the school as airtight as you can, and put in planned ventilation with enthalpy energy recovery at 15 cubic feet per minute per occupant. Be careful not to over-ventilate the school during dry winter weather, making the air in the school as dry as an airplane at 30,000 feet and also wasting heating energy.

How about the cleanliness of a hard-surface floor or short pile, non-flow-through commercial carpet? You may have thought humidity was difficult to answer; how about this one? There are standards of which we are aware, on how often floors should be cleaned and how to clean them, especially in hospital and cleanroom settings. We know dry and clean are basic important parameters in schools and homes to foster good respiratory health for anyone with twitchy airways (asthma). I’m not sure if we have ever heard of a school district that tests for floor cleanliness. I am aware of some type of European evaluation criteria for floor cleanliness, but we have never heard of it being applied to a school in the United States. Too often, we are asked to test for mold levels in carpets that are 10 years past their useful life with threadbare, worn sections.

Possible best practice? Clean the floors nightly in a manner that removes the tracked in dirt from that day, and does not move it to the desk tops. Plan to do restorative cleaning periodically.

How about dealing with photo-reprographics emissions? You may read the instructions that come with the high-speed printer or copier, and find that it states to “install with adequate ventilation”? Just what does this mean, you ask? Great question. Does this mean isolation and exhaust? Well, it may depend on the size of the room, the number of cases of paper it consumes, how close someone is to it, the general ventilation rate in the room, etc. You can’t see anything coming out of the machine, but you sure can smell something as the machine melts the bonding agent and sticks the carbon black and iron filings to the paper. Several technical articles published in professional journals in the late 1990s said certain toner manufacturers were reformulating the blend of their brands of carbon black, decreasing the levels of carcinogenic agents in the toner.

Possible best practice? Follow ASHRAE applications guides for a photo-reprographics facility that sounds a lot like isolation and exhaust. For example, don’t breathe the VOC emissions from the melting plastic, or send them to the rest of the facility.

HVAC air filters: Finally, we have selected an easier one! Most folks today would likely agree that the ASHRAE application guidelines would be reasonable to follow in a school.
Possible best practice? Run MERV-8 filters as a minimum, and change the filter when it needs changing. Well, how often is that? In schools, the answer likely varies. Hopefully, the district has figured out what it can budget, and knows it is less expensive to keep good air filters in the air handlers than to pay someone to clean the coils and ducts professionally every two years because they are getting clogged up.

Preventing mold growth indoors: On paper, this is a relatively straightforward topic.
Possible best practice? It looks something like stopping liquid moisture from getting past the exterior drainage plane or into basement level of the facility. If moisture does get in, deal with the water damage and get porous materials dry in 24–48 hours. If a clean water pipe bursts, open up the water-damaged hidden porous spaces and get them dry within 24–48 hours. Don’t make a habit of using nasty chemicals that may cause health effects for the folks doing the drying or the occupants of the facility.

If you lose the water-damage fight and need to deal with mold, what is the possible best practice? Follow New York City or U.S. Environmental Protection Agency guidelines. In this case, it is somewhat simpler to identify the general standard of care than to determine how much wall needs to be removed under containment to access the mold to get rid of it. Clearly, the advice of which we are aware should always be to remove the mold properly and to stop the source of the moisture.

William A. Turner, MS, P.E., is president and CEO of Turner Building Science LLC. He has more than 25 years of experience in IAQ/HVAC and energy evaluation and development of solutions for building system problems. He supervises a group of engineers, industrial hygienists, architects, and building scientists who serve owners, architects, general contractors, and construction managers. Turner can be reached by e-mail at bturner@turnerbuildingscience.com or by phone at (207) 583-4571 ext. 11.

Steven M. Caulfield, P.E., CIH, is a senior vice president of Turner Building Science LLC. He can be reached by e-mail at scaulfield@turnerbuildingscience.com or by phone at (207) 583-4571 ext. 14.

While assisted-living facilities are often thought of as apartments or residential facilities, their primary focus is as a type of healthcare facility. They are often large complexes with multiple buildings and many variations of conditions. The occupants are generally elderly and often not in good health. The friendly, homey atmosphere of these facilities can cause staff and others to put less importance on things such as indoor air quality than is really demanded by occupant health risks.

Recently, I have been involved in several investigations of poor indoor air quality conditions within assisted-living facilities in northern Florida, and the causes of the poor air quality have been a bit surprising.

One northern Florida facility is on a beautiful site on the water. The facility is a multi-building complex with residential buildings, community buildings, a “main street” building and a skilled nursing facility. The skilled nursing facility and several of the newer residential buildings had experienced fluctuating temperatures from their opening.

During the summer months, ceiling tiles in the dining areas and corridor areas became water-stained and developed mold growth. Moisture beads sometimes developed on metal door frames, ceiling track and on air-conditioning grilles. As the season changed to winter, temperatures in the building were more consistent and comfortable, the moisture beads disappeared and the water staining did not worsen. In the spring, however, the moisture beads returned, ceiling tile staining exacerbated, and musty odors appeared, seeming more pungent in the mornings. Temperatures in the buildings started to fluctuate dramatically again. Several compressors failed on the large, multi-stage DX condensers that were used to provide cooling for the buildings.

By summer, the mold growth became more obvious, and building staff began replacing ceiling tiles. The maintenance staff began to make adjustments to the HVAC systems to minimize the temperature fluctuations. They noticed that the air-handling units, or AHUs, located in the attic spaces exhibited condensation on the casings. They contacted the installing contractor and the equipment manufacturer, who investigated and found that the AHUs were not working properly due to adjustments that had been made to change the discharge temperatures from the unit and the temperatures at various points within the AHU configuration. The controls were reset to provide proper temperatures. The building staff found that the temperatures within the building were still fluctuating considerably and were often too cold for the occupants to be comfortable. Therefore, they readjusted the controls so that the temperatures would be warmer.

Patients in the skilled care facility were generally inactive, often bedridden and were often chilled and complained about drafts. Some were having trouble with their sinuses and other respiratory problems, and were requiring additional medication and treatment from what was normally used for their illness. Despite daily cleaning and quarterly steam cleaning of the corridor carpets, the building continued to become mustier. The residential buildings experienced the same problems; however, the occupants were not in their rooms as much, so they had fewer temperature complaints. These residents seemed to complain much more about the odors, sinus issues and watering eyes. As the weather again became cooler and drier that winter, the moisture beads on surfaces went away, the temperatures in the buildings evened out and the odors seemed to disappear.

This cycle continued for three years before the owners decided to get someone involved to find out why these same problems returned every spring and summer. During this time, the facility maintenance staff had replaced many ceiling tiles and some drywall that had consistently become water-damaged and had developed mold growth. Many compressors had also been replaced – almost 30 percent of them!

Hiring a consultant to review the installation, the owner also initiated an insurance claim against the general contractor and the designers. This resulted in a second consultant becoming involved to evaluate the situation and determine what was causing the problems the owner was reporting. The two consultants reviewed the situation and independently came to the same conclusions.

Installation Facts, Site Conditions
A review of the design plans and building maintenance records provided by the installing contractor, uncovered the following facts:

• The AHUs were to be installed in an attic that was not vented and was actually part of the conditioned space, sealed from the exterior by having no ridge vent or vented soffit areas.
• The large amount of outside air required for the facility was to be conditioned by specially configured AHUs. These AHUs included a stage-one cooling coil that would cool and dehumidify the outside air to approximately 54 degrees (Fahrenheit) and 98 percent relative humidity. Then, the air would pass through a second cooling coil that would “polish” the air, dropping its temperature another couple of degrees and removing more moisture. Then, a reheat coil would bring the temperature of the air back up to approximately 65 degrees, to be ducted out into the rooms, to mix with the room air and maintain room conditions approximately 75 degrees and 55 percent relative humidity.
• The distance from the condensing units on the ground to the AHUs located in the attic space, required over 100 feet of refrigerant piping to connect them, creating a “long-line” DX system. The design called for accessories and appurtenances that are necessary to deal with the added complications of controlling both liquid and gas phases of the refrigerant as well as oil return, in a long-line system.
• The design also called for a hot gas bypass refrigerant line on the first-stage compressor of each condensing unit. This was to improve the stability of the operation of the system when the outside conditions are cool, but the outside air still requires some cooling. In long-line applications, special care must be taken to install safety features with hot gas bypass, to prevent liquid refrigerant from returning to the compressors. These safety features were addressed on the plans and in the shop drawings presented by the manufacturer.
• A test and balance had been done at the time of the completion of construction and indicated air flows and temperatures were appropriate throughout the facility.
• Service records and reports from the maintenance staff and the installing HVAC contractor indicated that the performance of the refrigerant portion of the DX systems had been found to be severely out of adjustment at various times during the three years since construction. Temperatures off the first-stage cooling coil did not seem to be consistent, and the “polishing” coil and reheat coils were not working at many of the various times they were checked during those three years.
• The installing air-conditioning contractor had made some changes to the system over those three years; adding some refrigerant valves, measuring devices and controls that were on the original plans, but that had not been installed in the initial installation. Some changes found could not be explained by the records of the air-conditioning contractor, and the building maintenance staffers had no records of what they had done or the adjustments they had made.
• Almost all of the compressor failures had been on the first circuit of the four compressor systems. The air-conditioning contractor had disconnected the hot gas bypass circuit at some point during the three years, and the compressor failures had seemed to end.
• No resolution had been found for the temperature complaints in the three years. The maintenance staff would adjust the controls seasonally, to try to minimize the complaints.

A review of the actual conditions at the site found the following facts:

• Very few of the diagnostic appurtenances called for on the design plans had actually been installed in the refrigerant piping systems.
• Many of the components (such as sensors and controllers) that are used to control the operation of the compressors and maintain the steady discharge temperature of 54 degrees off the first-stage coil were not installed. The few things that were installed were not adjusted properly and were not sufficient to adequately control this discharge temperature.
• Field wiring adjustments had been made to some of the manufacturer’s controls, which may have overridden the equipment’s ability to properly control the first-stage discharge temperature and the second-stage coil as well as the reheat coil.
• The additional appurtenances, required when you have long-line runs of refrigerant piping, were not installed in any refrigerant circuits except those where a compressor failure had already occurred.
• There was evidence that almost all possible equipment adjustments that might affect the operation had been made since the original installation and test and balance. Therefore, without performing extensive checks on the actual performance of the systems, it was not possible to know how the system was performing.
• The attic spaces were not constructed to isolate the attics from the exterior environment. There were locations where daylight was visible between construction materials, such as corrugated roof decking materials. No attempt had been made to close up the attic spaces. In fact, there were signs of attempts to create more ventilation in the attics.
• The secondary drain pans, under the AHUs, which had been called for on the plans, were not installed.
• The actual conditions within the buildings indicated long-term elevated relative humidity levels in addition to the reported temperature fluctuations.
• The water-stained ceiling tiles were under the AHUs. The drywall that had been water-damaged included areas around metal frame windows and at exterior doorways.

Conclusions
For the full three years that this had been going on, there was no recorded temperature or humidity data either for within the buildings or for the attic spaces. The building maintenance staffers exhibited a lack of understanding of the intended operation of the HVAC system and did not seem to understand that the system would not work properly if they adjusted controls differently than the design called for. They also failed to understand that compressor failures in a new system should have been evaluated immediately by the design engineer and the equipment manufacturer. In fact, they did not even notify the design team for over two years! Twelve compressors had already failed. It wasn’t until the installing air-conditioning contractor could no longer provide warrantee compressors that the owner decided to contact the design team.

The missing components of the refrigeration circuits and controls that the installing contractor had left out caused a chain reaction in both system performance and stability. The temperature fluctuations and loss of humidity control in the building (thus the moisture beads on cool surfaces) were a result of this chain reaction, as were the compressor failures. Maladjustment of the controls accentuated the problems by keeping components such as the polishing coil and reheat coil from operating when they should have, which in turn led to overcooling of spaces and complaints of “too cold.” Thus, the maintenance personnel felt the need to adjust control settings further, such as increasing the discharge temperature of the first-stage coil, which would result in further loss of humidity control.

Although none of these things directly affected the IAQ of the space, they dramatically affected the humidity levels within the space, and materials such as fabrics, acoustical ceiling tiles, drywall, carpeting and upholstered furniture all absorbed moisture from the air, and that moisture added to the amount that then had to be removed during the cooling and dehumidifying of the building. For the AHUs handling large quantities of outside air, the faultiness of the refrigeration circuits’ operation due to the missing components would have dramatically affected the equipment’s ability to remove moisture from the outside air. In a humid environment, this is certainly a huge contributor to indoor humidity levels, condensation on surfaces and mold growth.

The owner’s delay in taking action and bringing this situation to the designer’s attention caused the situation to be perpetuated for three years. During this time, it is unknown how many residents suffered aggravation of their existing medical conditions due to the high humidity in the buildings as well as the mold growth that resulted on some surfaces. The cleaning staff had additional work to do: keeping surfaces free of mold growth and cleaning up after materials such as ceiling tiles were replaced.

System design and operation issues such as oversized systems or continuous fan operation are often the cause for elevated humidity in buildings, resulting in mold and bacteria propagation. However, as we see in this situation, construction and installation issues, and owner’s staff cooperation and proper training can all be crucial to the successful implementation of a design and to the resulting performance and proper IAQ.

Hollace Bailey is the president of Building Environment Consultants Inc., based in Jupiter, Fla. She is a past president of the Indoor Air Quality Association, and she is active in ASHRAE, AIHA, IAQA and other professional and trade associations, often contributing to committee work and documents developed within the associations. Bailey is a professional engineer, certified indoor air quality professional, certified indoor environmentalist and certified mold remediator, as well as the author of “Fungal Contamination: A Manual for Investigation, Remediation and Control,” published in 2005. Bailey can be reached by e-mail at holly@becifl.com or by phone at (561)744-1384.