Year in Review: Standards, Laws,
Money and Mold
What were the best and worst events
for the indoor air quality marketplace in 2003?
That's exactly what the members of Indoor Environment Connections'
Editorial Advisory Board were asked to think about as the year draws
to a close.
Most respondents cite efforts to build uniformity in mold remediation
as the best of the year. Some cite the release of guidance in the form
of the IICRC S520 or the promise of a best practices document
forthcoming from the American Conference of Governmental Industrial
Hygienists. Others mention the work being done in states to license
mold remediators and assessors. Aside from standardization issues,
some board members applaud the absence of hype and hysteria in recent
media coverage of IAQ issues.
But with the good comes the bad, and our panel of experts commented on
everything from behind-the-scenes bickering to the weather. One
particular topic of contention has to do with money. Among comments
made by the board is a frightful warning about multi-million-dollar
litigation against contractors who could have prevented mold problems
from becoming worse. Another commenter combats the opinion that
"good IAQ is unaffordable," an assumption that could easily
be drawn from reports citing remediation projects whose costs seem to
skyrocket - yet not due to the remediation itself.
One final note: The opinions expressed herein are the viewpoints of
the individuals stating them. They do not necessarily reflect the
views of the organizations with which these people are affiliated.
Their opinions also do not necessarily reflect the views of Indoor
Environment Communications, the newspaper or any of its partner
organizations.
Richard J. Shaughnessy, Ph.D.,
Program Manager, University of Tulsa Indoor Air Pollution Research
Center, Tulsa, Okla.
In the past year, the reality of the general public's growing
awareness of IAQ and health is making its mark on the industry. This
brings many positives, accompanied by inevitable negative facets.
The positives relate to the increasing recognition that IAQ is an
important determinant of health, performance and productivity. Such
awareness has driven scientists to seek more practically-oriented
based solutions founded upon quality research. Translating significant
research findings into user-friendly approaches to resolving
IAQ-related problems is imperative if we are to succeed in making
advances for the good of the public.
On the down side, research funds are still extremely limited in the
U.S. The awareness borne by the public has generated an overnight
demand for responses that are frequently counterproductive toward
resolution. Proposed legislation and demands to improve IAQ in
buildings are being distilled down to reactive measures that are
promulgated to appease the immediate needs of those at hand. Such
measures are often scientifically unfounded, resulting in arbitrary
guidelines that may be unreasonable given our current state of
knowledge. In addition, the overnight business ventures, products and
consultants claiming to provide the miracle relief to all of the ills
that exist are innumerable. IAQ certifications abound, with little if
any efforts being made to merge these efforts. The fragmentation,
splintering and further segmentation of this industry are creating
utter chaos at a time when cohesiveness is needed most. There is an
overwhelming need for consolidation of efforts related to training,
outreach and development of clear, practical, definitive guidance to
address IAQ related problems. Professional organizations have a
responsibility to serve their constituents and to make attempts to
work cohesively to interface and promulgate such guidance. The IICRC
S520 document is just one example of what can be produced when
organizations work together as opposed to separate endeavors.
Common sense is needed above all but may be the most elusive of the
obvious that stares us in the face. In its stead, we are inundated
with politics, rhetoric and profit-driven frenzy, all obscuring the
principles and basis for which we strive: improving the health and
general well being of the population.
David M. Governo, Partner, Governo
Law Firm LLC, Boston, Mass.
Disclosure: My firm generally defends IAQ and mold cases brought
against companies and individuals.
BEST - ACGIH's Quest for Uniformity: This symposium on mold
remediation was a superb series of presentations by some of the top
experts in mold remediation. Its goal of a "Quest for
Uniformity" is exactly what is needed to bring science and
rationality to decisions being made in the current marketplace.
WORST - Mold politics: In January 2002, the Institute of Medicine
started a 15-month project to conduct a comprehensive review of the
scientific literature regarding the relationship between damp
or moldy indoor environments and the
manifestation of adverse health effects.
The group, sponsored by the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, (1) held three meetings in 2002, (2) lost its chairperson,
Dr. Harriet Burge, one of the top researchers in this area, to
resignation, and (3) apparently - according to its Web site - has done
nothing more in 2003 than hold two closed-door meetings.
John Bower, Owner, The Healthy House
Institute, Bloomington, Ind.
BEST - The slowly increasing awareness of IAQ issues: There hasn't
been a big jump in awareness, but it is a regular topic in the media -
both in the legitimate news and in the news/entertainment media. While
usually dealing with the more sensational situations or lawsuits, this
coverage continues to help the public understand when they might have
an IAQ problem before it becomes a serious situation.
WORST - The exclusion of mold in insurance coverage: The bad news
continues to revolve around mold, and I think this year's bad news is
the fact that insurance companies are excluding coverage of
mold/fungus issues from their policies. This is not only bad for
homeowners who will have to cover clean-up costs themselves, but it is
also bad for remediation contractors who won't be able to tap into the
lucrative insurance-repair market.
Jim Holland, REA, CMR, CR, WLS,
President and CEO, RestCon Environmental, Sacramento, Calif.
BEST - IICRC S520: Obviously, this will help define the mold
remediation industry and provide a baseline for everyone interested in
the remediation process to begin an ongoing discussion of what does
and does not work. No doubt, over time the S520 will change as people
start comparing their experiences to the standard. It helps restorers
in that they have something to go by in rendering services, and it
helps them to substantiate why certain services are necessary. I think
that it will help clients because there will be a standardization of
what works. It will make it easier for buyers of services to compare
people's services because there's something to go by, in that scopes
of work won't vary on a whim. It will be based on the S520. It makes
it easier, what is a valid process and not, from an industry
standpoint. I think insurance companies will ultimately find S520 to
be a benefit because typically an insurance adjustor has to justify
what he's paying for based on something. It aids the adjustor into
determining what services are/are not appropriate.
WORST - The economy: A lot of companies have seen a reduction of
business because money's tight. I think this lull in the economy is
only temporary. It has been a difficult thing for remediators to have
to live through, but it's temporary. When there will be insurance
coverage for mold remediation services, then there will be more money
for remediation in the future.
David Krause, President, Indoor
Air Solutions Inc., Tampa, Fla.
BEST - ACGIH Bioaerosol Committee's attempt to address uniformity
issues in mold remediation: Currently, there are many training courses
and many experts giving certifications and advice, yet there is no
uniform guidance to which each of these programs and experts must
aspire. There are no uniform criteria for post-remediation assessment
either, and guidance is certainly needed in this area as well.
WORST - The continued inappropriate use of air sampling to assess
effectiveness of mold remediation performed on surfaces: Comparing
indoor and outdoor air samples is not a meaningful measure of surface
contamination. Building owners are paying for surfaces to be cleaned.
Even though exposure is through the respiratory pathway, the
limitations of this method will not afford the building owners any
reassurance that the remediation was performed successfully or that
indoor bioaerosol concentrations have been reduced to a
"safe" level.
George Benda, Chairman and CEO,
Chelsea Group Ltd., Itasca, Ill.
BEST - Progress by the Indoor Air Quality Association and others in
working with state legislatures on making the regulation of the mold
remediation business more reasonable and appropriate than what
everyone suffered through in reducing the risks from asbestos in
buildings: IAQA and its leadership - especially Tom Yacobellis and Bob
Baker - deserve high praise for their work on this critical issue.
WORST - The outcome at the Hilton Hawaiian Village: The outrageous
mold remediation cost of $55 million included $20 million in
consulting fees, according to Hilton press releases. This project
damaged the future of the IAQ marketplace by creating the impression
that good IAQ is unaffordable, when in fact these costs were driven by
decisions made by the Hilton executives and their consultants. This
project and its excesses are a black eye for IAQ consultants and
remediators that will haunt their industry.
BEST SELF-SERVING PLUG - The launching of the INvironment Institute to
provide an Internet campus for online, advanced learning in building
sciences and technology, providing a flexible way to obtain IAQ
training: Chelsea Group pioneered the concept and built the campus to
serve the industry with instructor-led classes that let participants
take classes in their own offices or at home.
Charlie Wiles, Executive Director,
American Indoor Air Quality Council / President, Metro Environmental,
Glendale, Ariz.
I've watched the IAQ marketplace change significantly over the past 30
years. Most of these changes have taken years to evolve as an event;
however, there are some things that are quite notable in 2003.
WORST - Natural disasters: Unfortunately, this past year was unique as
we watched the forest fires in one state - California - affect both
the outdoor and indoor air quality in seven states. Residents in some
California areas found the smoky outdoor air affected their indoor air
so drastically that they had to temporarily flee to other states. Many
in the nearby burn areas wondered if the stench from burning buildings
could cause them permanent health effects. Our phones were ringing as
IAQ consultants scrambled to set up sampling strategies for
"clearance criteria" that could be used to determine when
employees and residents could return to their indoor environments.
MIXED BAG - Legislative solutions: Fortunately, we watched a number of
poorly crafted legislative mold bills disappear (for good reasons)
under the guise of "no available funding." Most of these
bills were quickly put together, as mandated by the legislative
bodies, without any scientific basis or even a voice of reason. Most
of us condemned those who entered our field of professional endeavor
solely as an opportunity to get rich, so we welcomed licensing as a
way to control those who are unscrupulous. Now we find the bureaucracy
using the very same mold opportunities to create rules and levy
exorbitant fees to support their agencies.
Michael McGuinness, Principal, R.K.
Occupational and Environmental Analysis, Phillipsburg, N.J.
BEST - New spirit of cooperation among various industry stakeholders:
Notwithstanding Joe and Betsy Lstiburek's annual summer camp that is
always the best of indoor environmental quality each year, I believe
the cooperation, particularly with respect to industrial hygienists
and their relationships in the industry, is the best thing to occur in
IEQ in 2003. Examples include the recent ACGIH symposium, Mold
Remediation: The Quest for Uniformity, which was very well attended by
folks other than IHs. I also refer to the fact that the AIHA
participated in an official capacity in the IICRC S520 review process.
Many IHs are coming down from their "ivory towers" and are
trying to work together with other mold remediation industry
constituencies to approach remedial projects from a team perspective
as opposed to simply writing a scope of work for
contractors to follow. Everyone in the remedial process must work
together to achieve a successful outcome to remedial activities, and
we IHs are starting to understand that we are simply one player in the
game. The team approach is also beneficial when looked at from the
perspective of sharing liability for mold remediation projects.
ALSO GOOD - Honorable mention goes to the understanding in the
industry that knowledge of building science and building physics is
essential if you are trying to remediate moisture control issues or
complete an IEQ diagnostic assessment.
WORST - Confusion over certifications: As I noted last year, the
continued proliferation of mold remediation certifications plagues our
industry. It does nothing more than create market confusion among
consumers of our services and fragments the market. As usual, though,
smart remediators will prevail over "certified" remediators
who are not so smart. As long as the "certifying bodies"
require attendance at their "review" courses prior to taking
their certification exams, I will speak out. If and when a unified
certification board for mold remediators is established and operating
as a body that does nothing but administer exams and monitor
maintenance of certification and continuing education, I will stop
ranting against those folks I believe are profiting from certification
of mold workers.
ALSO BAD - Dishonorable mention goes to the early process IICRC
established to produce the S520 document. The fact that too few
individuals from too few organizations held too many committee and
subcommittee chairs was distressing to me. The process changed
somewhat over the development and review process, and I hope this
trend continues in future revisions to S520.
Alan C. Veeck, CAFS, Executive
Director, National Air Filtration Association / General Manager,
Tidewater Air Filter Fabrication Co. Inc., Virginia Beach, Va.
BEST - Aftermath of Hurricane Isabel: The year 2003 was a good one for
IAQ people on the East coast as Hurricane Isabel blew through cities
in several states and caused structural and water intrusion problems
in thousands of buildings from South Carolina to as far north as
Pennsylvania. Many buildings were affected immediately, and
restoration and cleanup were initiated to avert problems. In my
opinion, many more had leaks and structural damage that were not
readily identified and are now ticking time bombs that will be
discovered over the next several years as the problem starts to
magnify. This "bad news for owners" will be good news for
IAQ people and create a solid market for testing and remediation for
several years.
ALSO GOOD - Other good news is low interest rates have also fueled a
boom in the construction industry. While this is good economically, it
also comes at the price of buildings built in a hurry by builders that
may or may not have years of experience and knowledge about the IAQ
problems that can be built into a structures. This boom is still
underway and again, in my opinion, provides the seeds of future
testing and remediation.
WORST - Three unmet needs: Still in limbo are the needs for
maintenance criteria for commercial building HVAC systems, some kind
of guide for building owners to "rate" their facility
against unusual occurrences and, finally, a guideline for indoor air
quality testing. To their credit, IAQA, ASHRAE, NAFA and other
industry groups have committees of volunteers working toward these
goals. Hopefully, this time next year, we will be applauding the work
that will have come from these committees. In the interim, industry
and IAQ professionals need to continue to practice diligence in their
work to provide the client with the best possible information based on
"best practice" protocol.
Bob Baker, CEO, BBJ Environmental
Solutions Inc., Tampa, Fla.
BEST - The completion of the IICRC S520 Standard: It is a real
landmark that so many industry organizations collaborated on this. It
will have incredible value even for those who think it is deficient as
it will provide a basis for discussion and debate that will propel
indoor environmental science to the next level. Even before its
publication, S520 attracted worldwide attention and interest.
Another incredibly exciting event is the decision of ASHRAE to form a
project committee to develop an HVAC inspection and maintenance
standard, but my nod for the best event of 2003 goes to S520 because
work on the ASHRAE standard will not actually start until 2004. I may
name it as my choice a year from now unless something even more
exciting develops in our rapidly changing field.
WORST - The Texas legislature's passage of House Bill 329, the
Regulation of Mold Remediation: Even though I support the concept
behind the law, it is premature because we have not had time to find
out what does and doesn't work, relative to IICRC S520. Therefore, the
Texas Department of Health is attempting to write regulations to
implement the law that do not reflect the latest thinking in the
industry and may not serve either the residents of Texas or mold
remediation firms well. Even here, though, all is not lost, as many in
the industry are working to make the regulations both sensible and
consistent with our present knowledge of science and best practices.
G. Pete Consigli, CR, Trainer and
Consultant, G. Pete Consigli Group, Stamford, Ct.
BEST - ACGIH's initiative to develop a best-practice guideline for
mold remediation: This may provide self-regulation before the
government makes the decision for us. Several factions of the mold
stakeholder chain have been talking about developing some form of a
state-of-the-practice remediation document. In some instances, these
activities may be an attempt to influence the pending legislation in
several states, with Texas leading the way. The ACGIH's recent
"Quest for Uniformity" mold symposium was the first step to
provide a forum for the input of a broad-based constituency. I applaud
such efforts and hope a timely and collaborative guidance document
will be forthcoming.
WORST - The hard market that is the insurance marketplace and the
hardships it has caused on stakeholders involved in the process of
mold investigation, evaluation, remediation and post-remediation
verification: Reduced coverage, policy cancellations, rising
deductibles, denied claims, inability to secure coverage, and
astronomical increases in policy premiums are just a sampling of the
challenges faced by remediators, consultants, homeowners and property
managers. I suspect this situation will level off as a combination of
legislation and self-regulation more clearly defines the parameters of
risk assessment and the cost of remediation based on a reasonable
standard of care for post-remediation verification. As the market
softens, new insurance products should become available.
Steve Hays, PE, CIH, Partner and
Chairman of the Board, Gobbell Hays Partners Inc., Nashville, Tenn.
In our practice, mold investigations have continued to dominate our
time. Our mold consultations divide into two major categories:
complaint investigations for commercial real estate owners and
litigation support.
BEST - The formation by the National Institute of Building Sciences of
the Buildings and Mold Alliance: This alliance is composed of
associations, building owners, lenders and other interested parties
who wish to establish consensus guidance for appropriate responses to
the presence of mold in buildings.
WORST - Increasing hype in the marketplace by businesses seeking to
make money from the public's unfounded, exaggerated fear of "mold
toxicity." The techniques include selling unproven home test
kits, providing "free" interpretation of the data produced
by those kits, and direct advertising of unjustified
"remediation" services in homes.
H. E. Barney Burroughs, CEO, Building
Wellness Consultancy Inc. Alpharetta, Ga.
BEST - The approval of ASHRAE Standard 62: ANSI/ASHRAE Standard
62-2001, Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality, sets minimum
ventilation rates and other requirements for commercial and
institutional buildings. ASHRAE voted to deny all six appeals to an
addendum.
WORST - Spring weather: The Southeast suffered the wettest spring on
record. Inordinate amounts of rainfall accounted for numerous
residential damage issues throughout the region, and IAQ here suffered
as a result.
Jim Woods, Executive Director, The
Building Diagnostics Research Institute, Chevy Chase, Md.
BEST - Preventive efforts: Indoor air quality is one measure of the
performance of a building, but by itself, IAQ does not really help us
with the outcomes that people are looking for. We have to address what
are the issues and what are the outcomes, and how you can move toward
those outcomes. One obvious issue is mold, but the underlying issue is
moisture. Beyond that, the real problem with moisture is deficiencies
in design and construction. If we address those problems, the moisture
and mold problems are prevented. More and more people in building
diagnostics are realizing this.
Also, when you ensure the performance of the building to meet normal
conditions, it also gives you a level of assuredness and preparedness
for emergency conditions, such as wind problems, smoke control or even
environmental terrorism. Therefore, preparedness against CBR
[chemical, biological or radiological] attacks becomes an extension of
what we're doing to control buildings under normal conditions. We are
beginning to integrate normal and emergency operation of buildings,
and that's the best.
WORST - Litigation, credibility and accountability issues: One
statistic I read somewhere states there are something like 10,000
mold-related cases in the United States as we speak. The courts are
being overused and abused. Everybody is suing everybody else rather
than trying to resolve their problems, and that is a problem. There is
an increased awareness, but there is certainly a desire by a lot of
people to make money on this.
The other is with regard to certifications and the kinds of people who
are out there doing the work right now. We need to get some credible
professionals out there. There are still an awful lot of people
offering their services who don't really have the background to solve
the problems. There's been some really good movement toward guidance
documents on moisture control; that awareness has increased
considerably. The efforts toward building commissioning have improved
the probability that systems will be delivered in a better position.
Finally, the whole area of accountability is one that needs to be
developed. This is a topic that I've worked on a lot. Who really is
accountable for the performance of the building and the consequences
of that performance?
Larry D. Robertson, Ph.D., President,
Mycotech Biological Inc., Jewett, Texas / Technical Director, Indoor
Environmental Consultants Inc., Jewett, Texas
WORST - Dealing with the fallout of preceding years: The underlying
principles of IAQ have been blanketed by unwarranted and unnecessary
extremism and hysteria. To some, IAQ currently seems like a snake oil
salesman, existing with a perceived shroud of illegitimacy.
BEST - The fact that 2001 and 2002 are over: With hype and hysteria
driving events those years rather than sound practices and principles,
many individuals at that time swarmed into IAQ to capitalize. Like
teen-agers, they thumbed their nose at the establishment, behaved
selfishly and acted in their own interests. Eventually, though, they
developed new principles to replace old ones that wouldn't work
anymore, and IAQ matured into adulthood. The Great Texas Mold Rush
evolved into the Mold Bust. Rites of passage throughout life require
growing, change, even some pain and some learning. Ahead lies the
greatest challenge, to return to practices that are characterized and
supported by sound scientific and medical principles. Leaving behind
unnecessary hype and hysteria and establishing a healthy growth path,
we can assure our public is receiving IAQ services that have true
value and are based on ethical and responsible professionalism.
J. David Odom, Vice President,
Building Services, CH2M Hill, Orlando, Fla.
Michael Childress was quoted in the National Law Journal in October
2002 as stating that the "next wave" of mold litigation is
going to be "remediation malpractice." I happen to agree
with this prediction. We've seen an increasing number of cases where
forensic investigators and remediators have dealt with only the
symptomatic mold problems and not with the underlying moisture
problems that caused the mold. The risk to investigators and
remediators with this approach is obvious: They could be held
responsible for the recurrence of a mold problem, even with favorable
contract language that might seem to limit their liability and
exposure. Written disclaimers and favorable contract language are not
a substitute for a poor standard of care.
|
