|
EDITORIAL
ADVISORY BOARD’S YEAR IN REVIEW
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 the newspaper, its publisher, advertisers or
industry partners.
Bob Baker, CEO, BBJ
Environmental Solutions Inc., Tampa, Fla. / President, Indoor Air
Quality Association, Rockville, Md.
WORST – Legislators at
the state and federal levels again failed to provide a useful model
for regulation of mold-related services. Following the Texas law
passed in 2003, it was hoped that Florida or some other state would
pass a bill that could become a reasonable and science-based model
for all states. Since the Florida bill died in the final hours of
the legislative session, we are left with the complex and
overreaching Texas law as the only example for others to look to.
Meanwhile, the federal bill went nowhere in 2004.
ALSO WORST – The term of
Tom Yacobellis as president of the Indoor Air Quality Association
came to an end. Tom, during his three years at the helm of this
organization oversaw a period of incredible growth in not only
numbers of members but scope and influence. Under his leadership,
IAQA became the center of education and research for the entire
industry and a builder of bridges with all other organizations in
the industry. His drive and humor will be greatly missed.
BEST – The IICRC S520,
“Standard and Reference Guide for Professional Mold Remediation,”
was introduced to the industry in a series of workshops and quickly
became the model for the standard of practice. Even better, IICRC
made good on its promise to receive comments on the new standard and
immediately fund an effort to incorporate those comments into a
revised document for publication within the next 12 months. The new
committee has been organized and is hard at work making an excellent
document better.
ALSO BEST – After years
of debate, ASHRAE decided to publish a standard on the inspection
and maintenance of HVAC systems. The SPC-180P committee was formed,
made significant progress in 2004 and is working toward an early
publication date for this badly needed industry standard.
George Benda, Chairman
and CEO, Chelsea Group Ltd., Itasca, Ill.
BEST – It is my hope that
2004 represents the turnaround year for our industry, our country
and global well being. I personally felt the industry hit bottom
early in 2004 but that things have been getting better. My feelings
were bolstered by two facts: IAQA continued to grow, though more
modestly, in 2004; the association had a successful annual
conference with a smooth transition of leadership from Tom
Yacobellis to Bob Baker. These are signs of a healthy maturing
process. Substantively, the Institute of Medicine report on the
status of knowledge of health impacts of dampness and mold
represents a milestone in that maturing process as well. I am also
proud of the progress we have made at IAQA on education and
certification and on research. In sum, 2004 has offered a sobering
moment of challenge that has led me to a glittering moment of
hopefulness.
WORST – Well, it is hard
to say it is the worst, but one of the sad moments of 2004 was the
farewell speech by Tom Yacobellis at the IAQA membership meeting in
Las Vegas. Tom has done so much for IAQA and the whole industry; it
is only his promise to stay active that softens the blow. It seems
we have to go through sadness and pain to mature. Other pain in 2004
came from the continuing celebrity parade on the mold victims’
circuit, which continues to mock those of us doing the serious work
of building science. This year seemed also to reflect another year
of proliferation of fractionalization in the industry, with new
charlatans hitting the streets. Maybe I’m just getting old, but I
would rather compete with people I can respect and work with
associations whose bloodline is longer than that of a stray cat.
David Governo, Partner,
Governo Law Firm LLC, Boston, Mass.
BEST – The “best”
development for the IAQ industry in 2004 was the achievement of a
new level of maturity. Mold is no longer “out of control.” There is
growing recognition that IAQ is more than just mold. The research,
even the recent University of Connecticut Guidance for Clinicians
book on mold (see page 11), stresses consideration of all
potential IAQ problems, particularly when assessing whether the
indoor environment caused a person’s symptoms. Think ventilation,
air cleaners, bacteria, endotoxins, dust mites, pesticides, cleaning
products and deodorizers.
There were many good
developments as our industry stabilized from “mold mania.” An
increased appreciation for the importance of technical issues,
including building science, drying technology, scheduled maintenance
and “green” building, has strengthened the IAQ industry. Perhaps
this is a sign that proactive solutions will overtake the reactive
patchwork of the past. Imagine the results that can be achieved with
good design, proper materials, quality construction and regular
maintenance. Just as important, there appears to be some welcome
coalescence of the diverse industry interests, with an emphasis on
partnerships and bridge-building.
WORST – There continues
to be significant deception in the marketing of IAQ products and
services. All sorts of unfounded claims tout the capabilities of
products and services. Manufacturers claim to eradicate mold
permanently. They claim consumers can use home test kits to identify
“toxic mold.” Companies market ozone generators as air cleaners.
These charlatans persist in their manipulation of the unsuspecting
public and undermine the credibility of the IAQ industry. Runners-up
for the worst of 2004: (1) the media (in conjunction with rich and
famous people) who continue to hype “toxic mold” and (2) insurers
who continue to use the “mold madness” of the last few years as an
excuse to avoid writing much-needed coverage at reasonable costs.
Carl Grimes, President,
Healthy Habitats, Denver, Colo.
BEST – 1. The Institute
of Medicine report broke with the time-honored ranks of “if there is
no evidence of harm, then there can be no harm.” Instead, they
proclaimed the potential health effects were a public health concern
and the real problem is a lack of studies. Hopefully, next year’s
best will include a flood of research funding so the industry can
base its “professional judgments” on science, rather than belief or
news headlines. 2. IICRC S520, for providing comprehensive guidance
for the total business of mold remediation, rather than just how to
spray bleach. S520 also broke from the ingrained belief system of
visible mold. First, there is no consensus either on what
constitutes visible mold or how to determine the area of visibility.
Second, the term “visible mold” is as oxymoronic as “military
intelligence.” 3. A three-way tie among IAQA-NAFA, IICRC
Connections, and Tulsa/BYU Advanced Perspectives. Each conference
provided an antidote to fragmentation: collaboration and synthesis
of inverse segments of the industry.
WORST – Counting down the
top six: 6. The national media for being so full of themselves that
they completely missed the message of the Institute of Medicine
report. 5. The building industry columnist [Peter G. Miller] who
claimed “mold is about as dangerous as spoiled ketchup.” 4. The IOM
panel itself, for not aggressively defending itself against such
blatant misrepresentation by the press. Next: a two-way tie between
insurance-industry practices that abandon their own customers and
the multitude of engineering, hygiene and consulting firms that
prefer their own in-house “standards” over education – and the
unholy connection between the two. 1. The Texas Department of
Health, whose mold regulations are based on the only thing worse
than personal belief systems: politics. May no other states use them
as a model.
Jack Halliwell,
President, Halliwell Engineering Associates, East Providence, R.I.
BEST – The CDC-requested
study (literature search) on the known health effects of mold by the
Institute of Medicine (and especially Table ES-2) and the follow-on
study led by Dr. Robert E. Bonham and six practicing physicians that
confirmed the IOM’s findings of the non-toxicity of mold exposure.
WORST – The title of the
IOM study, “Damp Indoor Spaces and Health”: This report does not
adequately address that subject, nor does it do justice to
the subject it does address. Is the problem the mold, damp
spaces or both? Furthermore – and here comes the hard part – now
that mold exposure has been relegated to non-toxic upper respiratory
allergic responses, what will EPA, IICRC and NYCDOH do about their
existing guidelines that are based upon containment and negative
pressurization of a toxic agent?
Wayne Hansen, Director of
Engineering, Mintie Corp., Los Angeles, Calif.
It was the best of times;
it was the worst of times.
My worst IAQ nightmare of
2004 was a medical client that attempted to create outpatient
offices and minor surgery in a conventional office building. This
building had a ground-floor restaurant tenant with a 10-year history
of water leaks into the wall behind the kitchen and into the
elevator shaft that eventually filled the building with mold.
Fortunately, we were able to persuade the doctor to abandon this
property before completion of the surgical suites, thereby avoiding
potential liability.
Residential projects
never consider IAQ since with the operable glass, it is assumed that
the inside conditions will always equal the outside conditions. One
high-end condominium owner living in a hot, humid climate zone
changed that by incorporating a three-stage 30/60/98 percent
filter/fan unit ahead of the three cooling units. The air quality in
this condominium is on a par with medical facilities’.
Steve Hays, PE, CIH,
Partner and Chairman of the Board, Gobbell Hays Partners Inc.,
Nashville, Tenn.
BEST – The years of
litigation and general concern about indoor mold amplification have
served to focus some building owners, architects, engineers and
contractors on the consequences of uncontrolled moisture in the
indoor environment, ranging from liquid water intrusion to water
vapor migration through walls. Litigation is continuing to move away
from unsupported medical claims of “exotic” injuries from indoor
fungi toward claims related to design and/or construction of the
built environment. Operation and maintenance are also being
reconsidered in light of the trouble induced by mold and damp
environments.
The National Institute of
Building Sciences has created the Buildings and Mold Alliance, which
is an association of stakeholders in the building mold problem. This
group, of which I am chair, intends to produce guidance documents
for a range of building mold issues. The alliance is in the process
of locating funding for the various proposed projects.
WORST – The design and
construction of some buildings continue to be inadequate regarding
moisture control. This sometimes relates to insufficient project
budgets, but also, design and construction practices have not caught
up with the issues in all cases. Pervasive change will require time,
persistence and work by many organizations, such as the National
Institute of Building Sciences, AIA, ASHRAE, ACEC, AIHA, and
governmental agencies.
Joe Lstiburek, Principal,
Building Science Corp., Westford, Mass.
ASHRAE Standard 62.2 was
both the BEST and the WORST thing that happened to indoor air
quality this year. The good news is that we finally have a
residential ventilation standard. The bad news is that it is full of
political interference and political compromises. The ventilation
rates are too high (this is a problem for the Southeast) because the
residential numbers had to agree with the commercial numbers (this
is a false constraint but drove the process). And too many regions
are exempted (the “paradise exemption”). If a house is built in much
of Florida and the coast of California (i.e., “in paradise”), all
you have to do is open your windows. This is due to some members of
the ASHRAE Board of Directors and other ASHRAE political hacks who
interfered in the committee deliberations throughout the process.
Michael McGuinness,
Principal, R.K. Occupational and Environmental Analysis,
Phillipsburg, N.J.
WORST – 1. The demise of
the MidAtlantic Environmental Hygiene Resource Center based in
Philadelphia. MEHRC’s parent, the University City Science Center,
apparently felt that their direction and MEHRC’s were no longer in
harmony. This decision left the entire IEQ industry without an
independent, non-profit group providing quality training without an
induced need driving our direction. 2. The rules promulgated in
Texas (and proposed in other states) relating to mold remediation
and assessment. Where is the good science required to enact this
type of legislation? 3. The proliferation of “certified” individuals
who are killing real estate deals because they “see suspect mold in
an attic or crawlspace” and who “prove their point by taking an
Air-O-Cell and finding some Asp/Pen spores? An
honorable mention to the “moldophobic” clients out there who
actually believe these guys.
BEST – Tie for #1: My
supreme confidence (and insider knowledge) that the late, great
MEHRC will rise from the ashes and maintain its preeminent position
as the BEST IEQ training organization in the IEQ industry who
promises to maintaining an independent, non-profit and ethical view
of the world. Tied for first place, Summer Camp and the barbequed
turkey (Texas) and ribs (North Carolina) and the most awesome Jersey
corn and tomatoes! 3. The fact that IICRC S520 is being revised and
sort of placed under “continuous maintenance.”
J. David Odom, Liberty
Building Diagnostics Group, Orlando, Fla.
BEST AND WORST – The
hurricanes that hit Florida and surrounding areas were the best if
you’re in the mold remediation, building material drying or roofing
business, but they’re the worst if you’re a homeowner, building
owner, contractor, or property insurer. While the water damage
claims will probably subside by the end of the year, the
mold-related claims will continue for five to 10 years. To the
frustration of homeowners and building owners, the hurricanes have
become a get-out-of-jail-free card for every contractor in Florida
when it comes to honoring warranty claims. Additionally, these
events will add a layer of complexity to every insurance claim and
lawsuit that comes out of them. The good news is that it will likely
change some of the building codes related to water management in
residential construction in Florida that could have regional and
national impacts. My final observation is that as of early November,
the construction and insurance industries were still in the first
stage of the five phases of grief: denial.
Larry Robertson, Ph.D.,
President, Mycotech Biological Inc. / Technical Director, Indoor
Environmental Consultants Inc., Jewett, Texas
WORST – The continued
polarization of the IEQ industry toward mold: For almost a decade,
our industry has imploded, generally ignoring other vitally
important aspects of IEQ. The narrowed, “mold-related” focus has
resulted in ferocious competition among associations, groups and
individuals. Many tout they are “more educated, more qualified, more
correct” and have more interest in destroying the other rather than
appreciating the differences between intellectual perspectives.
Meanwhile, we leave many untrained in the comprehensive practice of
IEQ.
BEST – The Texas mold
regulations: They are not perfect and will require improvement and
modification. However, Texas has boldly stepped forward to demand
accountability in an industry that has allowed professional judgment
to morph into professional absurdity. No doubt, challenges in Texas
over this next year will be great, but in the end, the Texas
regulations will emerge as the catalyst that changed an industry for
the better.
Richard Shaughnessy, Ph.D., Program
Manager, University of Tulsa Indoor Air Pollution Research Center,
Tulsa, Okla.
Several efforts made up the BEST (in
no particular order): 1. The IOM report on dampness, for providing
more understanding of the issues to be addressed and researched to
advance our understanding of damp environments; emphasis on
prevention and control. 2. We’re beginning to understand the
importance of tailoring our approaches to assessment and resolution
of indoor environmental problems based on specific building types
and occupancies (susceptibility). 3. National efforts are being made
to combine or fuse organizational programs, etc. 4. IA 2005 in
Beijing received over 2,000 abstracts for its program; it should be
an outstanding event. 5. A four-day workshop held in July 2004 in
Santa Cruz, Calif., arranged by Charles Weschler and Ray Wells of
NIOSH, on indoor air reactive chemistry and health: In the past, we
have focused on VOC, TVOC thinking in our IAQ science; however, this
workshop represents a paradigm shift toward focusing on
contaminants, resultant based on indoor air chemistry and reactive
compounds.
As for the WORST (other than the
results of the 2004 election, after which I’m thinking of spending
the next four years in a foreign country): 1. IOM report on dampness
– yes, it makes the best and worst list: The fact that many have
misinterpreted the IOM report and summarily dismissed the adverse
health effects posed by biological contamination (which by no means
is what the report implies). It is important to note that the
absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (lack of necessary
studies/research is the only thing evident here), as Cliff Mitchell,
M.D., of Johns Hopkins, stated at the recent Tulsa/BYU mold
symposium in Las Vegas, there are “what we know, what we don’t know
(and what we don’t know we don’t know)...” 2. Furthering of Texas
regulation of mold remediation based on sampling close-out criteria.
3. Continuing late-night infomercial marketing of indoor air
cleaning products that yield questionable (if any) benefit to the
consumer. 4. Ozone generators still being marketed and perpetrated
as indoor environmental solutions.
John Tiffany, Principal,
Tiffany-Bader Environmental, Titusville, N.J.
BEST – I would consider the IOM
report to be an important step to better understanding the impact of
moisture problems in buildings. Hopefully, it can help lead to
changes in how buildings are designed, constructed and maintained. A
useful document to that end is the Canadian Construction
Association’s document issued in 2004, “Mould Guidelines for the
Canadian Construction Industry.”
WORST – Unfortunately, the Texas mold
regulations are not only bad for Texas; if picked up by other states
as a template to use, they will also lead to poor practice polices
nationwide.
Alan C. Veeck, CAFS,
Executive Director, National Air Filtration Association, Virginia
Beach, Va.
BEST – This is an easy
one: the IAQA/NAFA Conference in Las Vegas was definitely the best
thing to happen in 2004 as both organizations had the opportunity to
listen to and participate in seminars and discussion of important
indoor air quality and air filtration issues. With so many
organizations involved with these two issues, I believe IAQA/NAFA
have started a process whereby manufacturers and distributors
involved with clean air issues can attend one event and contact
their user base market for maximum return on their investment of
time and money. Also, the two organizations were able to achieve a
level of output more than just each organization separately because
of the partnering on fees and costs. In other words, it was better
for each organization to share expenses of keynote speakers and
receptions and events rather than either paying for these set
expenses.
For the filter industry
alone, the BEST thing to happen was the testing by EPA of air
filters challenged with three different bioterrorism microorganisms.
The good news is that air filters with a rating of MERV 11 or better
(a line of filters that can be installed in existing systems as an
upgrade) provide a high level of removal efficiency that can protect
building inhabitants from this kind of attack. All facility managers
and building owners should make this switch as soon as possible.
WORST – Another potential
change in the ASHRAE 52.2 Standard, which is only 4 years old.
Current debate centers on the ability to accurately and repeatedly
challenge electrically enhance fibers (electret media) to show their
MERV. Addendum C, currently out for public review, details a
protocol of conditioning the filters with nano-sized particles to
mask the charge. NAFA has submitted a statement regarding this
addendum that cautions moving ahead at the present time while
research on the subject has yet to be completed. Additionally, round
robin testing of the original standard is still outstanding that
determines if there are any statistically significant
inter-laboratory problems with the test as it is currently
configured.
Charlie Wiles, Executive
Director, American Indoor Air Quality Council / President, Metro
Environmental, Glendale, Ariz.
BEST – 2004 found the IAQ
industry less polarized, meaning the members of the various
professional associations are beginning to better understand that no
single organization can be everything to everyone. Each of the major
IAQ organizations serves its membership differently, and they aren’t
nearly as “competitive” as once thought.
WORST – Our members
report the worst of 2004 is the never-ending struggle to find and
maintain affordable professional liability insurance. Perhaps the
very foundation of insurance – the concept of pooling – can be
influenced by the major IAQ organizations working toward that common
goal.
Election-year Promises on IAQ
During this election
year, the interviews this newspaper landed with President Bush and
Sen. John Kerry carried forth messages about indoor air quality. We
have since asked several of our esteemed industry experts to submit
their thoughts on whether the elected president would make good on
any promises made. Some chose to share what they think the future
holds under Bush’s second term and what it would have been like
under a Kerry administration. Here are the responses we received:
Bob Baker, BBJ
Environmental Solutions
There is little in Sen.
Kerry’s legislative history or position statements during the
campaign to indicate what his attitude is toward indoor air quality.
As a result, it is difficult to know what if any direct action he
would have taken to give IAQ a higher profile in the national
agenda. This includes especially the consistently limited budget of
the Indoor Air Division at EPA and research monies into the effects
of indoor air on health by the NIH and CDC. I am guessing that these
budgets would not have been greatly increased in Kerry’s budget
requests as president – not so much because he does not care about
the indoor environment as the fact that other programs that he has
made a strong commitment to, such as healthcare and education, will
compete for scarce dollars.
The largest change due to
Kerry’s presidency may have been in perception and thus the actions
of others. Rep. Conyers may have been motivated to aggressively
pursue his “Toxic Mold” bill and push for its passage. Others may
have felt that with an “environmentally friendly” president in the
White House, they also should support the bill. Likewise,
individuals and organizations including the Indoor Air Quality
Association perceive that the time is right to initiate other
proactive initiatives to raise the profile of IEQ.
President Bush is
unlikely to change the position on the indoor environment that he
has held during his first term. He will continue to be neutral to
slightly supportive of IE issues. He will probably continue to allow
modest increases in the budgets of departments working with IEQ
issues. These will come far short, however, of the significant
increases sought. Although he may be concerned about indoor
environmental quality, competing needs – such as the war on terror,
homeland security, healthcare costs and other competing domestic
issues – will occupy most of his time and attention. He may
experience some pressure from his brother Jeb as the after-effects
of the hurricanes in Florida show up as serious and far-ranging IEQ
problems ranging from incorrectly or incompletely dried buildings to
materials off-gassing due to massive and hastily implemented
repairs. This could lead to a change in his priorities.
Others will perceive
“business as usual” on the environmental front [and] so will not
change their priorities of level of activity. Conyers will not spend
a great deal of political capital to push for passage of his bill.
Rather, he will leave it to the committee process, and it will go
nowhere. Heads of federal departments involved with the indoor
environment will not aggressively push for new funding or program
initiatives. In all likelihood, the indoor environmental industry
will continue to grow at the healthy rate it has for the last
several years. That growth, however, will be fueled by emerging
awareness of and continuing discoveries about IEQ that fall out of
ongoing research rather than dramatic breakthroughs driven by a
dramatic increase in federal funding or program visibility.
Carl Grimes, Healthy
Habitats
Perhaps the following
quotes should have been attributed to the presidential campaigns:
“There are no WMDs, and
we don’t need them anyway. My reorganized cabinet will eradicate all
types of mold without the use of weapons of mold destruction.”
—George W. Bush
“We are looking for WMDs.
I have moved the EPA into Homeland Security so they can help us find
the weapons of mold destruction you desire so we can root them out
and kill them all before they can strike us again.” —John Kerry
Joe Lstiburek, Building
Science Corp.
Under President Bush, we
will have an emphasis in public health on responding to chemical,
biological and nuclear terrorist attacks; development of strategies
on creating “safe” rooms within public and private buildings and
strategies on cleaning facilities after such events; no changes in
the regulatory area regarding indoor air.
Under John Kerry, we
would have had no change in public health strategy regarding
national security; changes in the regulatory area regarding indoor
air particularly in the area of consumer mold legislation,
insurance, testing and certification.
So, with President Bush
more of us will live, but we will likely be sick and miserable. But
with Kerry as president, more of us would die, but before we do, we
will be healthy and happy because we are blissfully ignorant.
Larry Robertson, Mycotech
Biological Inc. / Indoor Environmental Consultants Inc.
I do not think the
election of either candidate would have a direct or significant
impact on the IAQ marketplace. Based on previous statements, Kerry
appeared to have a better understanding of IAQ and at least
insinuated that his presidency would have had more of a positive
impact on our industry. However, I think that the larger issues of
Iraq, international terrorism, domestic economy, energy and
insurance costs (health and other) would have dominated all agendas,
regardless of who was elected. In my opinion, how these overriding
issues continue to evolve and are addressed or ignored represents
the fundamental forces that will ultimately influence the IAQ
industry and all other industries, both domestic and international.
When and if these issues are stabilized, I predict the IAQ industry
will explode. Until then, we remain a “sleeping giant” experiencing
a moderate but tenuous growth that is far below its potential.
Richard Shaughnessy,
University of Tulsa Indoor Air Pollution Research Center
[The election] may not
have a significant impact on the field of indoor air quality as a
whole. Keeping in mind that IAQ and associated product sales,
contracting, consulting and services have been driven more in the
past decade by consumer awareness and demands, I would not
anticipate this demand to be altered based on election results.
Budgets for federal agency IAQ spending appear to have been slowly
declining over the years, yet there have been no drastic cuts in the
recent past, nor would anyone guess any drastic cuts are anticipated
in the near future. Republicans, as well as Democrats, see that IAQ
is an agenda item that serves well on the public perception meter,
yet does not call for an inordinate amount of [monetary]
appropriation to continue the current agency work. IAQ funding to
federal agencies may continue to be consistent, yet at the same time
may hold more stipulations attached to the monies based on “directed
appropriations” from Congress for spending the funds.
Final note: Based on the
trend in increasing outdoor pollution in U.S. cities as cited in
recent [American Lung Association] reports, the adverse impact on
the indoor environment and subsequent demand to address related
problems (e.g., ozone/indoor chemistry prescriptions, fine
particulate matter, etc.) may become more significant. Given that
the decrease in ambient air quality has often been attributed to
Bush administration policies, it is conceivable that IAQ will only
become more important as a result of the detriment of outdoor air.
Alan C. Veeck, National
Air Filtration Association
I do not
believe either candidate had a plan for legislation that would
substantially affect the IAQ marketplace. What needs to be examined
is the number of commercial buildings that will be vacant as
customer service centers and computer centers continually move
offshore. I foresee that the United States will have a glut of
commercial office space within the next five to seven years. As most
building owners turn down or off the HVAC system and decrease even
further their investments in maintenance for the empty spaces, these
spaces will become a new breeding ground for all kinds of indoor air
problems. The question is: Will we see these spaces reoccupied?
|
