IICRC Loses S520 Chair, 3 Subcommittee Heads

Voices/Word on the Street

Editorial: Good News: 51 Issues of IE Connections

Ask Dr. Burge: The Ethics of Sampling to Prove the Negative Case

Radon Corner: 2006: Expansion in Public Outreach, Radon Science

Year in Review: The 2006 Winter Solstice and the Future of IAQ

Industry Views: The Best and Worst of IAQ in 2006

At the end of every year since 2000, IE Connections has rounded up the most important stories affecting the IAQ situation. As part of this coverage, members of the newspaper’s Editorial Advisory Board reveal what they believe were the best and worst developments taking place in the year.

Opinions expressed herein are the viewpoints of the individuals stating them. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations, companies or institutions with which these people are affiliated. Their opinions also do not necessarily reflect the views of this newspaper, its publisher, its advertisers or its industry partners.

George Benda, Senior Principal, Chairman and CEO, Chelsea Group Ltd., Maunaloa, Hawaii

BEST – The success of the emerging research program at IAQA is really good news for IAQA and for the industry. By the end of 2006, IAQA will have leveraged in excess of $1 million of IAQ research with its new strategy of providing cash and in-kind support as a cosponsor to larger research projects. As a result, the great, international work of Richard Shaughnessy on IAQ impacts on student learning patterns in schools is now part of the IAQA research program. Anu Dixit’s HUD research on remediation methods is part of the IAQA program now, too. And in the coming year, IAQA will be part of a major project jointly funded with the National Center for Energy Management and Building Technology on air quality impacts of ducted versus unducted plenums. There are several other great projects, as well. The IAQA Research Committee received several commitments from volunteers to make 2007 an even better year as we transition from the early developmental stage to a process of developing research projects, managing the ones we have funded, and promoting the findings and recommendations that come out of our program.

Larry Robertson, Technical Director, Indoor Environmental Consulting Inc., Jewett, Texas

BEST – I was beginning to wonder if anything “really good” was going to emerge for IAQ in 2006 until September/October. In my opinion, IAQ and specifically the impact of mold-related events, has been stagnated in an extremely conservative position for the last year to year and a half. Born from the renderings of overreaction and extremism in 2000 through 2004, the pendulum of public opinion about the potential seriousness of mold-related issues has swung to the extreme right.

In my opinion, most of the general public currently views all the past attention about mold to be unwarranted and unnecessary. As a result, the IAQ industry has been left reeling with a shroud of questionable credibility and the emerging need to reeducate the public about the true and valid concerns these organisms may illicit on IAQ.

However, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently emerged with a host of documents regarding mold, exposure, remediation, and other useful information (www.cdc.gov/mold/strats_fungal_growth.htm). Emerging from the ongoing tragedies associated with Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the CDC has published extremely useful information that essentially provides our industry with a firm foundation on which to base the re-education of the public regarding mold-related IAQ events. These documents also serve as a platform for our industry to begin re-building credibility regarding the importance of mold and the appropriate means and methods to deal with it.

Hopefully, as an industry, we have learned the consequences associated with over-reaction and extremism and that we will not take that path again. The moment in time now exists for our industry to regain credibility in the eyes of the public we intend to serve.

WORST – Never before has the industry been more “primed” for regulation at the state and/or federal levels. While some organizations such as the IAQA, AmIAQ, and IESO have seen the wisdom in consolidating and unifying efforts to standardize the education, training, and practice in the industry, other organizations have not adopted such philosophies. As a result, our industry remains fragmented to those evaluating our industry from afar. The rivalry and competition among the major associations and organizations involved with IAQ creates a vacuum in which the “seeds of legislation” can grow.

I’ll cite as an example the failure of our industry to agree on a simple, basic premise of mold remediation, the post-remedial clearance criterion. We as an industry cannot even gain consensus on a fundamental practice of remediation, and yet we’ve been advocating “appropriate mold remediation” for over 20 years. I fear that we as an industry will not set aside individual agendas and establish unity with regards to basic issues in our industry. In my opinion, when those who intend to develop legislation are left with a choice of choosing the ways of one organization over another, they will not choose but, rather, will develop their own set of rules and regulations. The problem with that is that seldom are the resulting rules and regulations consistent with the ultimate goals of the industry for which they were developed. By then it’s too late.

Unfortunately, I do not see any manner or means to consolidate all of the fragmented parts of our industry; as a result, legislation and regulation of IAQ will become more of the norm. At that point, we will have lost the ability to control the destiny of the industry that we created and the residual will be a different set of IAQ regulations for each state, as well as, a potential federal involvement with another set of rules on top. It will truly be the “asbestos” story retold.

Charlie Wiles, Executive Director, American Indoor Air Quality Council, Phoenix, Ariz.

BEST – The “brainchild” of David Fetveit has come to fruition. The Indoor Air Quality Association (IAQA), the Indoor Environmental Standards Organization (IESO) and the American Indoor Air Quality Council (IAQ Council) implemented their agreement to work together. The agreement allowed the three bodies to focus on specific areas of the industry without competition from one another. The result includes the following.

As a membership organization, the IAQA has strengthened their membership and chapter programs, expanded their benefits and just completed the best trade show and educational conference in our industry.

As a standards organization, the IESO has just been recognized as an ANSI-accredited body and can now move forward with establishing even more industry-setting standards for our professionals to rely upon.

As a certifying body, the IAQ Council has become the first in the IAQ industry to achieve CESB accreditation. The board-awarded Council-certified Indoor Environmental Consultant (CIEC) and board-awarded Council-certified Microbial Consultant (CMC) are now certified at the same CESB Engineer Related level as the revered CIH, CSP and CHMM designations.

It is rewarding to see increasing cooperation in the industry through memorandums of understanding – MOUs – among many organizations closely related with the IAQ industry.

WORST – The industry continues to be burdened with those individuals and organizations more interested in self-promotion and profit-taking than serving the well being of the industry.

One well-known organization has pressed forward with their intent to privatize the generic term “indoor environmental professional” outside of its defined use in their standards by not only trade marking it but also attempting to define its use in the industry.

Another IAQ-related organization continues their ambitious growth under the banner of “service to the industry” while heavily promoting products that plump the pocketbooks of its leaders.

And yet another IAQ-related organization continues to market themselves on the web as having a training contract with the EPA (a contract that no longer exists) and “partnering” with almost every governmental agency in the world.

It is disheartening to see that most of the certifications for our industry professionals are based on testing the knowledge gained through focused course training materials rather than the broad knowledge base accepted by the industry.

G. Pete Consigli, Principal, G. Pete Consigli Group, Sun City Center, Fla.

As I look back on the year 2006 as an observer, activist and watchdog in the IAQ and restoration industries, a few things jump out at me as having far-reaching implications.

BEST – As one of the best, I think ASCR has rebounded from its transitional period of searching and finding the right executive director to lead the association in the 21st century. The new guy, in his sophomore year, has worked with the board of directors to develop a strategic plan and mission statement. ASCR’s mission is to “provide industry leadership, support science, and promote best practices.”

ASCR’s public support of the Colorado House bill – which, if approved into law, would require insurance companies to allow their policyholders to decide who restorers their property after a loss, versus the present norm that heavily leans toward influencing the policyholder to choose from the approved vendor list – is one on the best things that has come out of the past year, in my opinion!

WORST – The worst isn’t really an individual “worst” as much as the escalation of the industry’s politicking, positioning, lack of enforcement of conflict-of-interest policies, and rhetoric that paints those who speak out against the establishment as being a lunatic or heretic (or both)! This kind of accepted activity and unchecked culture is insidious in our industry’s non-profit arena and, in my opinion, an impediment to the growth and prosperity of the spirit of volunteerism that our industry non-profit organizations were founded on.

The idealist in me says, I’d like to see this change. The realist says, Yeah, right! The fact is indifference is perhaps the real “enemy” of progress; perhaps the industry needs to embrace the tics of the world, not paint them all with a broad brush. Think about it?

Robert G. Baker, CEO, BBJ Environmental Solutions Inc., Tampa, Fla. / President, Indoor Air Quality Association, Rockville, Md.

BEST – The IAQ/IEQ industry continues to mature. The strongest evidence of this is the continuing (and accelerated during 2006) trend for various organizations and individuals in leadership in the industry to seek and implement ways to cooperate, share information and resources and coordinate activities. IAQA, AIHA, AMIAQ, ASHRAE, ASCR, IESO, IICRC and NADCA are just a few of the organizations that have formed new partnerships or continued existing ones that are resulting in a more united and effective presence for all. At the same time, the visibility of and confusion caused by “fringe” organizations that exist either for profit or have suspect objectives has diminished as those in the industry and the public at large have learned to separate credible groups from those providing questionable value to the public.

WORST – Once again, a unified industry attempt to support the adoption of well thought out and cost-effective regulation of mold assessment and remediation in the state of Florida failed to achieve passage. It was hoped that this legislation would serve as a model for other states of a balanced regulatory position that did not have the complexity of the Texas laws yet provided more effective regulation than the simple form adopted in Louisiana. A patchwork of different laws in each state will not serve either the public or the industry well. On the bright side, there is a pattern developing in the states in New England to issue “guidelines” developed through government/industry collaboration. Hopefully, that will provide a model that will spread and bring consistency without overbearing regulation.

Carl Grimes, President, Healthy Habitats, Denver, Colo.
BEST – Sometimes, we can’t see the forest for the trees and overlook the obvious. On the other hand, my selection for the Best of 2006 could be seen as an obvious conflict of interest. With that said, my candidate for the best of 2006 is this paper, Indoor Environment Connections. Think back over the past year with the comprehensive coverage of a multitude of areas about the indoor environment. Then consider the breaking news and the investigative stories. Where else would you get this reporting? And I don’t believe they missed anything.

WORST – My list for the worst is a tie between two candidates. First is the continuing lack of response from public health on any indoor environmental issues except those that kill, as if those that sicken aren’t of consequence. One example is the ongoing controversy about the health effects of mold exposure. Because public health takes the stance that any mold can be a problem for any individual who is sensitized to it, don’t you think they should provide guidance or a definition to identify such an individual? Without that, their statement is little more than an excuse to continue ignoring those victims.

Which leads directly to the second on my Worst list. No, it’s not the ACOEM and their position statement as reported in the Sharon Kramer interview last month. Rather, it’s the silence of all those in the know. And there seems to be a lot of them. I’ve had conversations with “a number” of people since I wrote that interview who essentially confirm the disingenuousness of that paper. Some even add additional evidence and further wrongdoing. Yet not a one, not a single one, is willing to go public with their information. When I ask them why I can’t use their name, or why they don’t write a rebuttal, they all offer essentially the same answer: the fear of retribution.

David Governo, Esq., Partner, Governo Law Firm LLC, Boston, Mass.

BEST AND WORST – Mold continues to be better appreciated, yet remains capable of evoking conspiracy theories and other nonsense.

Lead, radon, pesticides and other real toxins are gaining attention and improving the real benefits of IAQ.

More insurance is available, but the coverage is confusing and sometimes non-existent.

Mold litigation is impacting an even more diverse group of defendants. Construction defect litigation is increasing in importance as the effective control of moisture becomes paramount in the definition of healthy indoor air. Ironically, the spread of litigation concerning mold may extend so far that it includes insurance brokers and even product suppliers.

Ozone generation, chlorine dioxide and other “cures” still have limited applications but apparently endless marketing opportunities.

Glenn Fellman, President and Publisher, Indoor Environment Communications, Rockville, Md.

BEST – The successful implementation of a unification agreement between the Indoor Air Quality Association, the American IAQ Council and the Indoor Environmental Standards Organization: What previously were three competing organizations with duplicative programs in 2006 emerged as three united organizations with distinct yet complementary purposes. In the year since the agreement was signed, IAQA has grown to more than 5,500 members; IESO has become an ANSI-accredited standards-making body; and the IAQ Council has seen two of its certification programs CESB-accredited. When challenged by their respective memberships to “raise the bar” in terms of industry professionalism, ethics and standards, the leaders of IAQA, IESO and the IAQ Council surpassed expectations.

WORST – The worst this year was the failure by the Institute of Inspection, Cleaning and Restoration Certification to make a public declaration as to whether or not it intends to use the term “indoor environmental professional” and its acronym as certification marks. IICRC applied with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and secured rights to the terms without disclosing their actions fully to the organizations and individuals involved in writing the first edition of S520 in 2003. IICRC’s PTO application included an elaborate description of a program to certify professionals under the designation IEP. Whether IICRC really intends to launch an IEP certification program, or has simply secured trademark rights to prevent misuse of the term by others, remains unclear. IICRC’s failure to make a definitive statement on this issue has caused a deep rift among industry associations, the resignation of several S520 committee members (including the committee chairman), and fueled speculation and distrust that has proven unhealthy to all parties involved. Coming on the heels of its ANSI accreditation, the lack of transparency by IICRC on this issue begs the question of whether or not the Institute will get S520 approved as an American National Standard.

Alan C. Veeck, Executive Director, National Air Filtration Association, Virginia Beach, Va.

BEST – For the air filter industry, 2006 has been a good, solid year of sales and profits, from all of the reports we get. The trend of becoming more concerned with the indoor environment continues as people understand the health and productivity gains from breathing cleaner air, and building owners and managers finally grab hold of the life-cycle costing philosophy of constructing green buildings. NAFA anticipates the momentum created by this movement to create demands for higher-MERV filtration with conversions of existing low-efficiency filter banks over to banks that allow for installation of higher-efficiency filters.

ASHRAE has promoted much of this with standards 62.1 and 62.2 recommending a minimum of MERV 6 filters. Does this mean the end of the “furnace filter”? We are not sure, as there continue to be way too many through-the-wall units still going into facilities (see “WORST”). It is possible to have a MERV 6 and higher filter using the long-strand fiberglass filter, and some manufacturers have put this filter back into their product mix as it still provides a very low pressure drop.

Speaking of pressure drop, 2006 brought about more concern than ever for air filters with high initial pressure drops. This resistance to flow, especially in the residential filter, results in wasted energy from lower velocities along with wear and tear on systems as a result of low airflow. Technicians need to understand this more clearly when they install retrofit or new filter systems so that the owner does not keep calling them back for service problems.

Looking beyond just the end user, our overall energy consumption must begin to decline so that we get more out of every dollar we spend for energy. The more that we can filter the air to clean it without introducing large amounts of outdoor air, the more energy that can be saved from heating or cooling this air. It’s just the right thing to do.

Finally, the United States is long overdue in ending cigarette smoking indoors. ASHRAE and many other organizations have called for the end to smoking indoors, and we believe this is correct. As good as our air-filter systems are at removing the contaminants from the air, we know that no system can eliminate all potentially hazardous contaminants from cigarette smoke. The good news is that smoking is being banned in cities across the world, and the United States is actively involved in this movement.

WORST – We continue to see too many buildings being built “on the cheap.” There is nothing wrong in getting maximum benefit and return on investment from a facility; however, there is now sufficient research to show that building construction with life-cycle costing in mind is the correct way to get even more ROI – even though it results in higher initial costs.
Regrettably, buildings are still being built without this in mind. Too many through-the-wall units that cannot accommodate higher levels of filtration are being installed in buildings. Too much outdoor air is being introduced into buildings where cleaned, filtered recirculated air would do a better job. Too many construction companies are using lower-efficiency filters in the units that are run during construction, resulting in new buildings with contaminated ductwork and dirty air right from day one.

Finally, too many engineers do not recommend better filtration that results in better quality indoor air in their buildings. It’s the air, lady and gentlemen engineers – you know, what we humans need more than anything else and can’t do without for more than about four minutes. What we need is for the engineering community to design an air-filter system that exceeds the “minimum.” By so doing, we can set a standard that allows for cleaner environments with lower energy consumption.
 

IICRC Loses S520 Chair, 3 Subcommittee Heads
By Steve Sauer

The body of volunteers revising the S520 mold-remediation standard shrunk last month as a result of resignations of the committee chairperson and other subcommittee chairs. Relieving themselves of their duties during the closing days of November were Robert Baker, who had served as chair of the S520 Committee, and subcommittee heads Tom Yacobellis and Carl Grimes, all of whom are board members of the Indoor Air Quality Association.

Following Baker’s departure from his S520 chairmanship on Nov. 28, IAQA released a statement backing his decision to resign, which he said stems from unresolved controversy regarding the copyright status of the terms “indoor environmental professional” and “IEP.”

The terms are used throughout the published version of the S520 standard and the draft currently undergoing review, causing a point of contention for IAQA and other organizations, Baker said in his own personal statement.

“IICRC has copyrights to the terms in question,” said Baker, who in October was reelected to a third term as president of IAQA. “Because of my role as a leader of organizations with essentially opposing interests and views on this matter, I was unable to effectively represent either IAQA or IICRC. It was my decision that both IAQA and IICRC require leaders who can be active in solving such matters, rather than having a leader forced to recuse himself from such important matters because of conflict of interest.”

While IICRC President Ruth Travis did not respond to questions posed by IE Connections by deadline, she did address the issue of those terms in an interview published in this newspaper last month, clarifying publicly IICRC’s intentions in acquiring the trademarks. “The registration of the terms ‘Indoor Environmental Professional’ and ‘IEP’ was done to protect these terms used in IICRC Standards from misuse in the marketplace,” Travis said. “The IICRC does not have any current plans to create an ‘IEP’ certification like other IICRC certification categories.”

Members of the S520 Committee told IE Connections that Larry Cooper would serve as interim chairman until a permanent replacement is named. Since 2004, when Baker was named as the first-ever chairman of the newly developed S520 Committee, Cooper has served in a consulting capacity as a liaison between IICRC and the American National Standards Institute. Cooper has chaired IICRC standards task forces and committees since the 1990s.

Baker and Grimes had served as individuals on the consensus body revising the IICRC S520 “Standard and Reference Guide for Professional Mold Remediation” and not on behalf of IAQA. The association has not officially been represented on the S520 Committee since the standard’s first edition was published in December 2003, it said. Yacobellis officially represented the National Air Duct Cleaners Association while he participated in the committee and as a subcommittee chair.

Baker’s resignation on Nov. 28, and the subsequent resignations the following day, happened one month after another subcommittee chairperson, Elisa Larkin, dropped her own affiliations with the S520 consensus body.

Larkin, who had co-chaired the Inspection and Preliminary Determination Subcommittee until resigning on Oct. 28 from the S520 Committee altogether, said she would send IICRC an official complaint regarding more than a dozen policies she believes have been violated along the standard’s revision process. In a seven-page complaint distributed on Nov. 29 to IE Connections and those involved in the S520 Committee, Larkin details what she believes to be breaches of openness, inadequate record keeping and a lack of balance.

Some incidents Larkin itemized were verified by current committee members who have spoken with IE Connections. One particular example contained in her complaint and verified elsewhere had to do with changes made in the editing process after a committee vote on the document. Larkin said that a portion on fogging was “changed and/or deleted from the chapter without a vote from the Consensus Body.”

She told IE Connections that in addition to sending her complaint to IICRC for internal investigation, she would also consider voicing her concerns to the American National Standards Institute.

Under the process of earning ANSI approval, a draft of the S520 underwent a public review between July and September, and public comments were returned to the various subcommittees to reconcile in time for a meeting of the full committee.

Larkin said that changes made to the document made in the editing process prior to the public review period mean “that the standard does not accurately reflect the consensus opinion of either the drafting subcommittees or of the Consensus Body and therefore fails to meet the ANSI objective of a consensus-based standard.” She and others said they recommended the document revert to a version approved by the consensus body in February.

At press time, the next S520 meeting was scheduled to take place Dec. 6–8 in Tampa.

The third edition of the IICRC S500 “Standard and Reference Guide for Professional Water Damage Restoration” was published in June, bearing for the first time ANSI’s seal of approval. It is the first restoration standard to be ANSI-approved, and IICRC in October 2005 became the first organization within the same arena to become an ANSI-accredited developer of standards.
 

WORD ON THE STREET

VOICES

“The quick answer is that we do this to protect the competitive playing field so that consumers can choose the restorer of their choice and so that independent contractors can perform claims work to serve the best interests of their clients, the consumers, not of the insurance companies. But the longer answer is that we do this to preserve an industry.”

— Don Manger, executive director of the Association of Specialists in Cleaning and Restoration, explaining in a mailing to members on Nov. 17 why the association will sponsor the 2007 Insurance Consumer Freedom of Choice Bill, which he says is designed to curb “the practice of some insurers who require that their policy holders utilize only certain ‘preferred’ vendors for claims work”

WHAT WOULD THIS FETCH?
Shares of stock in ServiceMaster Co. increased to over $13 a share on Nov. 28, for the first time since April. The company owns the restoration franchise ServiceMaster Clean as well as other brands including Merry Maids and Terminix. Reports that ServiceMaster Co. is considering putting itself on the market for sale sent the stock soaring on Nov. 28 before finishing up the month hovering just shy of the $13 mark. In the first days of November, share value had dipped below $11.

ASCR TO BACK STRONGER COLO. LEGISLATION IN 2007
The Association of Specialists in Cleaning and Restoration says it is prepared to back legislature in 2007 that would encourage consumers’ ability to choose what contractors work on their restoration needs covered by insurance. It is something the association pressed for this year by formally endorsing it and providing testimony at a committee meeting in Denver. ASCR said it will support the measure if introduced again in the coming legislative session.

The 2006 bill passed the state legislature but failed to win over Gov. Bill Owens, who vetoed the bill, saying, “It seems that proponents of this legislation are trying to seek a competitive advantage through legislative intervention rather than through direct competition in the marketplace.” Any bill Colorado’s legislature passes in 2007 will go before a new governor. Owens, a Republican, served two four-year terms as governor and could not run again this year due to term limits. Elected in November to fill his vacancy is Bill Ritter, a Democrat, who is to be inaugurated Jan. 9.

WORKSHOP TO DISCUSS LIMITING OZONE
The California Air Resources Board has announced that the “development of regulation to limit ozone emissions from indoor air cleaners” will be the topic of discussion at a public workshop to be held Dec. 13 in Sacramento. A new state law approved in September requires the Air Resources Board to develop and to implement such regulations by 2009. California is the first state with such a law. During the workshop, staff of the Air Resources Board is to present the concept of the regulation and an anticipated schedule. More than two hours during the workshop are being allotted for comments and questions from participants.

GOING GREEN IN THE CAPITAL REGION
The District of Columbia and one of its neighboring counties in Maryland are becoming more conscious of green building, with their respective councils moving to advance legislature that would make going green a requirement for many new buildings. In the nation’s capital, city council members in November were considering a bill that would require “commercial and city-funded residential” building construction to meet standards set by the U.S. Green Building Council. The Washington Post reported on Nov. 16 that Washington would be the first major U.S. city with a green building mandate for private development. In Maryland, Montgomery County’s “Green Buildings” bill, if approved, “could take effect in a year and would apply to new and public buildings of 10,000 square feet or more,” the Washington Times reported on Nov. 28. Action on both bills was expected in December.

TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE?
An e-mail received by IE Connections last month detailed a possible scam involving counterfeit checks and potential mail fraud. Building inspector Richard Alexis sent a warning to trade groups regarding a situation that started with e-mails received from usa@consultant.com and outreach.usa@consultant.com. He writes: “I received an e-mail about a week ago offering inspection fees that were very high, however, I played along and filled out the application. I got a check in the mail today in the amount of $3,500.00 as a start-up bonus with this organization. After calling the bank upon which the check was drawn, I was informed that it was a counterfeit check. I am working with the banks fraud unit on this matter and if any one needs help with this issue (if they also ‘signed-up’ with this organization) they may contact me.” Alexis can be reached by e-mail at accurateinfo@aol.com. He also said people should contact the federal Internet Crime Complaint Center, whose Web address is www.ic3.gov, to file a complaint.

PAYBACK FOR DEFRAUDED MOLD VICTIMS
A disbarred lawyer in Georgia awaits sentencing after admitting last month he had skimmed $800,000 from his clients, according to a federal government press release. Charles Femery Peebles, who was a member of the Georgia Bar Association until February, has represented plaintiffs in various lawsuits claiming mold-related illnesses and property damage resulting from shoddy construction. “Unbeknownst to his clients, Peebles would settle their cases, forge their signatures on the checks, and eventually convert the money to his own use,” according to the U.S. Department of Justice press release dated Nov. 6. “When the clients called and asked about the settlement money, Peebles would lie to them, and if necessary, pay the complaining client with settlement proceeds that belonged to his other clients.” As part of his plea agreement, Peebles said he would pay back his clients; he has already paid back $220,000, according to the release. He may also face a maximum prison sentence of 22 years and fines of up to $250,000 for each of his crimes. Peebles pleaded guilty on Nov. 6 to one count of wire fraud and one count of aggravated identity theft.

While this year’s end prompted thoughts from many people as to what were the most important stories of 2006, something else prompted my retrospective moment. It was the fact, realized in October, that my professional involvement with IE Connections spans over 50 issues. The archives in my filing cabinet remind me of the stories behind the newsprint that have not appeared in writing here or anywhere. Included here are some of these stories about news articles, and one editorial, that stick out in my mind for one reason or another as personal favorites.

This newspaper has made a name on providing meaningful insight into topics we believed were worth investigating and explaining. One such topic that comes to mind was the newspaper’s analysis of the Institute of Medicine’s report on damp indoor spaces. The IOM report had been issued in May 2004 just after the June issue went to press, so the newspaper could not weigh in on this important and long-awaited document until after it had been in the public domain for more than a month. In the meantime, it was the public’s perception that became the real story. People could not have drawn more contrasting conclusions from reading the same document: Some said the document proves that there is no way mold causes illnesses, while others said it proves mold is responsible for every ill health effect under the sun. Our front-page story in July 2004 – “Mold Report’s Dual Nature Largely Misunderstood” – held that either interpretation was a gross misreading of the IOM report, an assertion its authors later publicly confirmed.

For years, there was one most frequently asked question that dogged me month after month. How much money is spent on IAQ annually? I no longer had to shrug my shoulders anymore once somebody had finally come up with a conservative but satisfying estimate. Our newspaper received in confidentiality Hal Levin’s draft report submitted under contract to the EPA. Under the assumption that the report’s public release was only a formality, we published an article summarizing the EPA-contracted report along with an original USA Today-style pie chart showing the breakdown of consumer expenditures by category. This front-page story in September 2005 – “Report Characterizes Consumer Spending on IAQ; Findings Show Annual Expenditures May Reach $20 Billion” – ended up being a huge scoop for us because, for whatever reason, Levin’s report has not been officially published anywhere to date. Likewise, I am still bound by a promise that I not share the draft report I received in confidentiality, although its highly sought-after numbers are now readily available somewhat exclusively from us.

Earlier this year, officials and members of ASCR International put a lot of weight behind supporting a piece of legislation in Colorado they believed would directly benefit ASCR members in that state and create a positive ripple effect across the nation. Well-intentioned folks contributed many hours of travel and testimony to back the bill, as well as untold amounts of lobbying money, all of which ensured near-unanimous passage by the state legislature. However, the governor vetoed the measure and kept it from becoming law, so there had to be some good explanation why. Many people guessed, with some guessing correctly, but our newspaper uncovered what had happened to quash the bill and related this in a July 2006 article, headlined “Colo. Governor’s Veto Viewed as Setback for ASCR.”

This newspaper has been unafraid to dig deep into stories we felt were bring ignored elsewhere. One instance of this was our December 2004 article, “Embattled NADCA Members Rally to Oust Directors.” Some people had alerted the newspaper to possible ethics bylaws violations by sitting members of NADCA’s Board of Directors, including the association’s president. These informants said that they intended to bring the issue to a head during the next annual meeting, when they would unite to force anyone believed to have a conflict of interest out of the board. After the newspaper aired their views in this article, NADCA told us the article had unfairly portrayed the opinion of a few as the opinion of many. When the annual meeting rolled around, it turned out they were pretty much right: As we reported in subsequent coverage of the 2005 conference, a motion to oust the directors in question fell flat among NADCA’s general membership. The original claim that directors had been violating ethics bylaws became a moot point as the board altered the bylaws so that what once would have constituted a violation no longer did; NADCA members deemed this acceptable.

The first long article I wrote for the newspaper was the October 2002 front-page story, “Taking Her Case to Congress: Walker and Family Don’t Want Mold in Your Home, Too.” This personality piece focuses on the 9-year-old namesake behind the Melina Bill, which was the first-ever attempt toward legislating federal regulations on mold. I did a lot of interviewing over the phone to get this piece just right. As a young and inexperienced journalist, however, I fell victim to the commonplace mistake of using the term “toxic mold,” which denotes something many experts and others believe doesn’t really exist.

The way government handles mold changed over time, with Texas and Louisiana in 2004 becoming the first states to implement licensing programs for mold professionals. At the end of last year, Louisiana reacted to the environmental effects of recent hurricanes by implementing an emergency rule that some believed undermined the state’s mold licensure. The state government had threatened some licensed remediators and appeared to be saying exterminators were deemed better equipped to apply pesticides in Louisiana homes to treat mold than were mold remediators who were licensed in the state specifically for their own line of work. One of two-front-page stories in the January 2006 issue, “Remediators in Louisiana Vulnerable to Pesticide Law” served as a cautionary tale to readers that they should invest in pesticide application licenses or else face penalties.

An article in June 2005 – “Pureatech Founder Subject of TV News Exposé” – summarized the negative things Atlanta news broadcasts were saying about Harry Youdell, who had been a past contributor to the newspaper. A series of TV reports characterized him and his company as crooked and his mold-control products as ineffective and counterproductive. Youdell was unable to comment to the newspaper in time for this article, but his comments were carried in the following issue. At no time did he receive any preferential treatment.

IE Connections has exercised its own connections well in gaining access to the industry newsmakers. One example of this was the circumstances behind the January 2004 article headlined “Dismissal Prompts Bioaerosols Committee Resignations.” Citing poor communication from the national headquarters of the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, nearly all the members of the organization’s Bioaerosols Committee quit their posts. One of those leaving was particularly forthcoming to this newspaper about those experiences but spoke only on the condition of anonymity. I believe this was the first time I was faced with a decision regarding confidential sources. The source mentioned in the article has to this day not been identified.

The front-page story in May 2004 – “Survey Digs Out the Dirt on HVAC Coil Cleaning” – was conceived, researched and written entirely by other newspaper staff and outside contributors. A wide-ranging survey conducted by newspaper staff discovered that many NADCA members and nonmembers were routinely omitting one component of HVAC system hygiene that the industry standard considers essential. This piece helped to further the notion that our publication digs deep on themes that are important to readers.

The newspaper has also successfully conducted a number of revealing interviews, of which three in particular stand out in my mind as the most enlightening. The first is the March 2004 dialogue with Richard Rooley, who was then first in command at the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers. With the knowledge that our newspaper would be hitting ASHRAE’s annual meeting, I set out to talk ASHRAE staff into allowing me to interview the Society’s president on any topic related to indoor air quality. The staff generously accepted on his behalf, but before I had the chance to follow up with Rooley himself, he was hospitalized in England with cancer. By all rights, he could have canceled his involvement, and we would have understood. However, he instead went ahead with an international telephone interview, pretty much as planned, but from his hospital bed. He said getting on with business as usual was important to him in his condition, and some unanticipated questions and answers were improvised in the interview. The front-page headline we ran, “ASHRAE President Addresses IAQ Questions,” gives little indication of the story behind the interview.

In the meantime, 2004 was my first year spent living on Capitol Hill. It was impossible to avoid knowing it was an election year, and the front page of the August 2004 issue made it clear that we knew who the presidential frontrunners were. With the November election drawing near, the assignment was to have both President Bush and opponent Sen. John Kerry deliver campaign promises related to indoor air quality. Our specific questions were delivered with much advance notice, but as we approached press deadline, it seemed like neither was going to respond in time for the August issue as planned. A few encouraging phone calls to the Bush and Kerry camps stressed the importance of our newspaper as a forum, and the candidates’ written replies surfaced by deadline. With a splendid PhotoShop job that had the incumbent Republican and his Democratic opponent facing one another in lecturing poses, we ran the front-page headline “Election 2004: Where the Candidates Stand on IAQ; President Bush and Senator Kerry Give Exclusive Interviews to IEC.” Landing both Bush and Kerry was a major achievement for the newspaper – one we didn’t let pass without heralding it with our own press release.

Last month’s interview with Ruth Travis, who had been newly installed as president of the Institute of Inspection, Cleaning and Restoration Certification, also ranks among the top three most memorable interviews. With the headline “Ruth Travis Promises to Build Bridges for IICRC,” this was our first President’s Interview to run in well over a year. We received a press release announcing IICRC’s new Executive Committee mid-day on a Thursday in late September. Within minutes, I pitched the idea of an interview with Travis to IICRC’s media relations contact, including a complete list of questions we intended to pose. Travis graciously agreed to the interview over the weekend, and word of her agreement came to me first thing Monday morning. It was a perfect opportunity for Travis to go on the record on topics like the term “indoor environmental professional” and a manufacturer’s complaint lodged against IICRC, which a news article in the October issue had covered.

A handful of articles over the years have taken a critical look at IICRC programs and standards. In August 2006, an article headlined “Industry Checks Mold Remediation Standard Draft” explored what the industry was saying about the draft revised standard S520. When a revised IICRC S520 standard was released for public review, comments sifted in from all over, and we covered those comments. One of the more serious positions we reported was that the standard’s eventual acceptance by ANSI might be jeopardized if the standard is perceived to require an Indoor Environmental Professional certification program administered by IICRC. As reported the following month, at least two industry organizations argued against the use of the term “indoor environmental professional” because it could potentially require adherence to an IICRC certification program, which appears to violate ANSI standards.

A trip into the archives turned up a similar story from the October 2003 issue on the original S520 draft, this one labeled “Industry Reacts to IICRC S520 Draft Document.” It was an early look at what various stakeholders thought of the mold remediation standard during its original peer review. In retrospect, it’s funny to reread this article today, given how much history ended up repeating itself nearly three years later.

Over the course of 2004, the standard gained widespread acceptance as the document of choice for mold remediators. It was not without dissenters, however, and an article covering that year’s American Industrial Hygiene Conference & Expo in Atlanta highlighted one Ph.D.’s overview of perceived shortcomings of the IICRC S520 mold remediation standard. This May 2004 article was headlined “IEQ-related Technical Sessions Heavy on Mold” and detailed the main points of a number of presentations on the indoor environment throughout a week’s worth of sessions. I reported not only on what that Ph.D., Michael Pinto, said to disparage the S520 but also on an earlier AIHce presentation from the standard’s main creators and supporters.

After the article was published, officials from IICRC said they wished they had been approached to respond to the remarks of Pinto’s it carried. Instead, they got the next best thing: a separate article highlighting their point of view versus the original comments. Published in August 2004, this article was headlined “IICRC Heads Defend Mold Standard, Rebut Claims.” Out of fairness, the man who originally made those disparaging remarks was contacted for his reactions to their comments, which probably upset those at the IICRC even more.

About a year later, without any official announcement, IICRC’s public Web site was discovered to have detailed information about what amounted to a new certification program called the Indoor Environmental Professional. IICRC officials did not comment to our newspaper, and so speculation about IICRC’s motives was widespread, some of which made it into our September 2005 news story, “IICRC Contemplates Launch of IEP Designation.” Speculation was further fueled a few months later when IICRC just as mysteriously removed any reference to the certification program from its Web site, another move subsequently highlighted in the newspaper without IICRC providing any public explanation.

Again, the interview with Travis published last month finally sets the record straight on a lot of previously unanswered questions. A meeting with her in Nashville this October, after the interview was ready for publication, solidified for me her intention to be forthcoming to this newspaper during her tenure as IICRC president.

IE Connections has sadly reported on industry deaths. One of these reports was on Ed York, who was the founder of several prevailing organizations in the cleaning and restoration industry, including IICRC’s predecessor. In reading about him in Cleanfax magazine, I learned that his sometimes controversial progressive views earned him an outcast’s reputation among many, including those who had assumed his organizations. On the other hand, those who held York in high esteem were unashamed to proclaim it, with Cleanfax magazine unabashedly proclaiming him Man of the Century. This all had the makings of a good story, and so IE Connections ran an entry in its April 2006 Word on the Street column with the heading “Sunset for Cleaning & Restoration Veteran.”

It came as a shock to all AIHce participants when one of their own was struck by a bus and killed during AIHce 2004. An article in our June 2004 issue, “Professor Killed While Attending Conference,” covered Ken Dillon’s death and reactions to it, and detailed some of the highlights of his career, including his involvement with several AIHA publications on the indoor environment. Survivors in Dillon’s family sent me a letter thanking me for memorializing their late husband and father.

The newspaper has been heavy on investigative reporting, and a series of articles on the Environmental Education Foundation probably shows this better than does any other. In June 2005, an article headlined “EEF Faces Scrutiny for Alleged Misstatements” was the second IE Connections article ever to mention the organization, run out of Gilbert, Ariz., by an executive director named Troy Johnson. The article appeared because some of EEF’s claims in press releases could not be verified; our piece revealed that reports of EEF’s recent mergers were not to be taken at face value. The Environmental Protection Agency, which had hired EEF on a contract, had little to say at the time, except that Johnson was known to have mischaracterized the nature of the contract in the past.

By the end of the year, the EPA was ready to go on the record with a more telling view of EEF and Johnson. The story widened with a new proclamation that the EPA was not going to pay EEF in full due to unsatisfactory work performed under contract. As a safeguard, the newspaper published the unabridged transcript of a written interview with the EPA official closest to the story. Johnson referred our questions to an attorney, who in turn did not respond. We went to press with the story “EPA Fails EEF on Its Performance under Contract; Agency Rebukes Environmental Education Foundation Over Marketing Statements It Considered ‘Misleading.’” This was the main story on our first and only front page without any graphics; the story on pesticide applicators in Louisiana completed this unique layout on page one.

The next month’s follow-up article on EEF wasn’t planned with much forethought. While the article in the January issue was being researched, sources detailed their own negative experiences as members of an industry advisory group EEF had formed. The February 2006 article, “EEF Advisory Group Convened, Seldom Put to Work,” includes the first comments from the attorney representing EEF and Johnson; previously, the attorney had not even acknowledged to us that either was indeed his client. The ambiguity cleared up when we received a letter threatening legal action should we print libelous material against his clients. Our publication of this article proceeded unhindered because we hold that our reporting was accurate. To date, the attorney’s letter is the only direct correspondence we have received from the EEF camp over any articles published since January 2006.

Thankfully, not all articles are so serious in nature. We’ve also been known to exhibit a sense of humor and a sense of style. Probably the best examples of this are reviews of Joe Lstiburek’s annual conference on building science in 2004 and 2005.

In 2004, when the newspaper returned to Summer Camp for the first time since proclaiming it “The Best of IAQ” in 2000, the top-level technical sessions were not the only thing I could write about. I also happen to be a sucker for delicious food and good music, so these tastes make more than a passing appearance in my September 2004 article, “Building Science’s Summer Camp Shines Again.” Immediately following this event, I did not hesitate to secure an invitation to the following year’s. My second annual review – the September 2005 article “By Invite Only, the Summer Feast of the Mavericks; Level of Technical Instruction at Lstiburek’s Annual Conference May Actually Outdo Quality of Meals” – focused prominently on the man himself. The second part of the headline was not intended to suggest any deficiency in Summer Camp cuisine; no such deficiency exists, much to the credit of chef Pete Consigli, his mother, and the rest in the kitchen. My third excursion to Westford, Mass., is detailed in the September 2006 article “Lstiburek’s Tenth Summer Camp Outdoes Itself,” along with some photos I took from behind an electronic piano I was playing inside the camp clubhouse every night past my bedtime.

The writing for which I am undoubtedly most recognized was the only editorial ever published under my byline – “Keep Your Eyes on the Sushi and Don’t Look Up,” from October 2003. It is the only strictly humorous piece of mine that’s appeared in the newspaper, and it’s also the only time my face appeared – until now. People still comment to me that they saw my editorial three years ago and ask whether or not the sushi restaurant I photographed still has mold in it. I tell them it probably does, but eatery staff paints over it nicely.

Q. Is it ethical to take dozens of samples to prove the negative case when visual observation and previous sampling has indicated that the problem has been solved? Also, is it ethical for the company collecting these samples to do their own analysis?

A. These questions are generally related to investigations that involve litigation. Often one side or the other wants to confirm (or negate) data produced by themselves or the other side. So, there are at least four possibilities:

1. Plaintiffs want independent confirmation of their own data.
2. Defendants want independent confirmation of their own data.
3. Plaintiffs want to attack defense data.
4. Defendants want to attack plaintiff data.

Actually, there are at least eight possibilities, since for each of the above either positive or negative data might be of concern. For all of these, the requirements are:

1. Each investigation must be based on a hypothesis-driven protocol.
2. Each investigator must be independent of both the plaintiff and the defense.
3. Each investigator must design protocols (including sample numbers and analysis protocols) that are tied to the hypothesis and not to his or her own profit.

We have discussed hypothesis-driven investigations many times. For the two independent confirmation cases, the hypothesis would be that the original data represent the environment, and one would test the negative hypothesis that the original data are in error. If the original data are positive, then you try to prove the negative case (which is the hard one). You do an extensive visual inspection, and focused aggressive sampling wherever contamination was originally found, and in whatever sites you feel might be reservoirs that were not originally sampled. If the original data were negative, then you follow the same protocol, focusing especially on suspicious places. Aggressive sampling in this case might be air sampling with disturbance, or it might be collection of tape or other surface samples suspicious areas.

Since these are not scientific investigations, the minimum number of samples consistent with hypothesis testing should be collected. This might mean that no samples are necessary (e.g., if visible mold is present). If no visible mold is present, then only those places that are clearly suspicious as reservoirs should be sampled. It is never useful to collect random samples of any kind (as opposed to many scientific studies, where randomness is required).

The investigators’ independence from both parties in the litigation is for obvious reasons. In many large building cases, initial investigations have been done by in-house industrial hygienists. This is fine, but confirmation must be done by outside investigators.

Finally, it is obviously unethical to design expensive protocols just to make a profit. However, it is extremely important where litigation is concerned to be able to document the need for each step in your protocol. This should be easy if the protocol was hypothesis driven and well designed in the first place.

The question remains as to whether or not it is ethical for investigators to analyze their own samples. I think the answer to this question is no. Although all of us would like to think we are unbiased, nobody is. In science, we use blinding techniques to insure that sample analysts have no clue as to the origin of any sample. Investigators that analyze their own samples cannot do this.

Finally, should investigating companies maintain their own analytical laboratories? Again, I would say no to in-house laboratories where the investigators and the laboratory are not independent. In this age of big business, it isn’t always clear who owns what company, so, in fact, conglomerates can exist that include both investigating companies and analytical laboratories. In these cases, I would investigate the relative independence of the two companies before proceeding.

Dr. Harriet Burge is director of aerobiology at Environmental Microbiology Laboratory Inc. and associate professor and director of the microbiology laboratory at the Harvard School of Public Health. Widely considered the leading expert in IAQ, Burge pioneered the field more than 30 years ago. She has served as a member of three National Academy of Sciences committees for IAQ, including as vice chair of the Committee on the Health Effects of Indoor Allergens.

To submit a question to Dr. Burge, write to her by e-mail at askdrburge@emlab.com. All questions posed to Burge will receive a reply, although space limitations prevent us from publishing them all. By submitting a question, you agree to have your question and its answer published in a future edition of IE Connections.
 

As is normal at this time of year, we get to reflect upon those events that helped shape our industry over the last 12 months. Throughout 2006, we experienced growth in public awareness about radon and the mechanisms of radon-induced lung cancer, but perhaps most notably have been the activities outside our own borders. Let’s take a look back at some of our prime radon stories of 2006.

International Activities

Canada Makes Plans to Lower Radon Exposure Guidance (See May 2006)
 
Perhaps the biggest event of 2006 was our northern cousin’s plan to drop its guidance from 21 to 5.4 picocuries per liter. It has always been problematic for those recommending conformance with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s guidance of 4.0 pCi/L when the Canadian program had guidance four times higher. The recommendation to drop Canada’s guidance to a level that is more in line with the rest of the world will certainly add credibility to the policies of the United States and other nations. Perhaps even more interesting was the public reaction of outrage that it had not been dropped earlier.

Ireland Takes a Hard Stance on Workplace Radon Exposure (See February 2006)
 
We’ve seen the Irish government crack down on businesses who had not complied with mandatory testing requirements in workplaces. Perhaps most interesting was that Ireland took a prosecutorial approach for those not abiding by the laws. Although many of the cases were dropped or settled through fines, it still is a signal that governments concerned about health and safety are willing to take these kinds of measures.

Public Outreach Activities Escalate

• Alliance for Healthy Homes, Other Nonprofits Take On the Radon Challenge (See January 2006)
    
  The Alliance for Healthy Homes – joined by the American Lung Association Environmental Law Institute, the Children’s Environmental Health Network, National Center for Healthy Housing, and the National Safety Council and representatives of many other organizations representing environmental health and the radon industry, as well as the EPA – took on the radon challenge by participating in the first of several “radon summits.” Their goal was to promote the incorporation of radon testing and mitigation initiatives in all levels of public policy making, from the federal level down to the city and county government level, as well as further promoting voluntary actions to be taken by individuals. Although the initial meeting occurred early in January, subsequent meetings have taken place during the year with outcomes likely to occur in 2007.
   
• Group Targets Radon in Low-income Housing (See March 2006)
    
  Another initiative, involving the Alliance for Healthy Homes coupled with the American Association of Radon Scientists and Technologists, was to pilot a program by which testing and ultimately mitigation could best be handled in low-income housing. This has always been a thorny issue since landlords may not be willing to test for fear of the cost of mitigation. This same fear likely exists for the tenants who would like to reduce their exposure but are faced with the lack of resources to remedy a situation when found. This is an undertaking whose lessons learned will be of significant interest for state radon programs.

Advances in Health Effects Research

• Researchers: Genetic Disposition Can Cause Threefold Risk of Lung Cancer from Low-level Radon Exposures (See July 2006)
   
  A study funded by the National Cancer Institute concluded that certain individuals may have a genetic predisposition towards contracting lung cancer from exposures to radon gas. It is suggested that this genetic predisposition is associated with the expression of the GSTM1 gene as follows:
• Radon and, more specifically, radon-decay products release alpha particles.
• Alpha particles are like subatomic bullets that slice through live tissue.
• In addition to directly striking and damaging DNA, alpha particles induce intracellular generation of superoxides and hydrogen peroxide, known as reactive oxygen species, or ROS.
• If left untreated, an ROS can damage the cell and lead to carcinoma. This is a bad thing.
• The glutathione-S-transferase M1, or GSTM1, gene controls the production of a beneficial enzyme that can act like Pac-Man and gobble up these reactive oxygen species. This is a good thing.
• People have a varying expression of the GSTM1 gene. While the enzyme is produced in some cases, it is not so in other cases; if the gene is null thanks to homozygous deletion, then the enzyme is not produced. This is a bad thing. In essence, this suggests that in cases where the GSTM1 gene is null, a person does not have the defense mechanism to combat the effects of exposure to alpha radiation from radon.

• National Radon Proficiency Program
  AARST, NEHA Clarify National Radon Proficiency Program (See November 2006)
  
  In what several attendees of the National Radon Symposium considered to be a complete turnaround from statements made a year earlier, representatives of both the American Association of radon Scientists and Technologists and the National Environmental Health Association jointly and clearly stated that the National Radon Proficiency Program is still a NEHA program. AARST’s involvement is only as an administrative support role and consulting body rather than as having an oversight role, which remains within the purview of the Policy Advisory Board subject only to NEHA and its Board of Directors.
  
  Furthermore, as far as standards for measurement and mitigation, although a lot of discussion has surrounded new standards being proposed by AARST and others, the NRPP program still operates under the original EPA standards and policies it adopted when it was formed in 1998 and were in place when reviewed in 2001 by the EPA. So, although more standards will likely be a hot topic for 2007, in essence nothing really changed in 2006 regarding how radon professionals conduct their business.

Conclusion
So, as usual, a lot of things can happen in a 12-month period, and 2006 was no exception. It is unlikely that 2007 will be any different. So stay tuned for more things to come.

And thanks for all the comments we receive regarding these articles.

As always, who says there is nothing new in radon?

Douglas Kladder is director of the Center for Environmental Research and Technology Inc. He can be reached by e-mail at dougkladdr@aol.com or by phone at (719) 477-1714.

Gail Brandys
Director of Training Services
Occupational and Environmental Health Consulting Services Inc.
Hinsdale, Ill.

The winter solstice is celebrated by most cultures today as a religious holiday. Historically, this time of year was celebrated as the start of a new solar cycle that eventually brought warmer days, spring rains and, hopefully, bumper crops. Each year, we use this time to reflect on what we have accomplished and what we hope to see in the coming year.

The start of a new year brings new opportunities for the field of indoor air quality. There are many challenges and unanswered questions still facing this industry. As a result, there are a number of things we, as IAQ consultants, would like to see happen in the IAQ industry during 2007 to address these challenges.

Often heard at this time of year, the song “Twelve Days of Christmas” lists a dozen gifts. In that spirit, here are 12 gifts for the IAQ industry that we would like to see materialize in 2007. We would love to see consulting firms, laboratories and trade associations working together to make some of these wishes come true.

1. Resolving the question of whether the use of amended water increases or decreases airborne mold spore levels during mold remediation: We would like to see more research conducted on the role of water in controlling airborne spore levels. Mycologists point out that many mold spores are hydrophobic and repel water; hence, they say, the application of water will not wet spores and prevent them from becoming airborne. On the other hand, many remediation contractors use water misting during remediation to control dust generation and, they hope, mold spore levels.

In addition, such a study could determine whether it is best to remove moldy materials when they are wet, damp or dry. The literature on mold growth indicates that when moldy materials are still damp, they are more likely to be in the vegetative state and do not release as many spores. Hence, removing moldy materials when they are damp may release fewer spores than waiting for those materials to dry prior to removal.

These critical issues need to be clarified with some real-world studies to provide guidance to remediators and IAQ consultants on the most appropriate work practices. The data may also better position us to delineate appropriate PPE for remediation workers and situations where containment is warranted.

2. Development of interpretive guidelines for particle count data: Many IAQ professionals use particle counters as a tool when assessing indoor air quality and for monitoring progress or completion of a remediation project. Real-time particulate monitoring of five different sizes of respirable particles can be a powerful tool in the IAQ professional’s arsenal. However, there are no published references on how to assess these numbers or what should one expect as “normal” levels in different types of buildings. Given the recent research on PM 2.5 particles and their potential for causing premature death, this is an important health issue.

We have accumulated nearly 1,000 data points from different environments. However, they are all from the Chicago area. Unfortunately, the Chicago area appears to have a bias in particulates that are small in size. Therefore, we are looking for particle data from other IAQ professionals from other regions across the country and around the world to add to this database. Using this data, we intend develop a reference document for IAQ professionals to use when making IAQ assessments. (If you would like to add your particle data to this important research project, please contact us directly for free data input and graphing software.)

3. Standardization of spore trap counting and analysis methods: Spore traps have become a very popular method of sampling the air for total mold spores in situations ranging from IAQ investigations to post-remediation verification. IAQ professionals are highly dependent upon the accuracy of spore trap analysis. However, the various labs in the country that analyze spore traps use different analysis methods to count mold spores. Some labs use microscopes set to 400× magnification; others use 600×; and some research microscopists claim that you need to use 1,000× to identify spore genera properly. This is not to say that we need only one method; most likely, two or three methods may be sufficiently accurate.

We see a need to establish a method comparison and consensus amongst the major laboratories to insure counting accuracy. This will add both scientific and legal credibility to spore trap data.

4. Qualification and quantification of “normal fungal ecology”: The creation of the concept of “normal fungal ecology” was a brilliant first step in acknowledging that mold spore levels in the indoor environment are never zero. But what exactly is “normal fungal ecology” in buildings? We could surely use a better scientific delineation of this concept. A simple statement that the major genera should be Cladosporium during the warmer months would be a start. A lower or low level of Penicillium/Aspergillus spp. may be another guideline.

Another aspect of “normal fungal ecology” that needs to be addressed is hyphae levels. Analysis of spore traps often includes this mold-related material. The literature reports that people can be allergic to airborne hyphal fragments as well as mold spores. Therefore, it would appear that we should be including hyphae levels in all spore trap analyses. However, some labs report hyphae only as an extra cost.

If hyphae are part of normal fungal ecology and can contribute to occupant symptoms, should this be included as a standard item in all mold spore sample analyses?

There is sufficient data among the various laboratories to be able to determine what is “normal fungal ecology.” There is precedent in this area. The United States possesses a rather extensive database of radon levels, and Germany archives all of their occupational hygiene data for both chemical and microbial sampling in a single national database. In this way, chemical exposure levels can be compared to employee health data in the national health care system. To date, this German database has over 1.2 million records.

We would like to see the development of a database of indoor sampling data that is representative of the air quality in buildings with and without an ongoing mold problem. This would be a worthwhile effort and an invaluable tool in indoor air quality investigations.

5. Quantifying bacterial contamination levels in categories 1, 2 and 3 water: The definitions of the three water categories are designed to be qualitative. These broad categories allow the IAQ consultant, restorer or remediator to make a fairly quick judgment call as to what needs to be done in situations when time is generally of the essence. However, there may be times when the situation doesn’t fit easily into one of these general categories or when very costly decisions need to be made.

Water quality standards and other data exist to better define these three categories of water. Use of these comparative standards can help to better quantify risk to occupants and workers. In situations where the source of the intruding water is a mixture of more than one category, testing could delineate which category of water was involved and the appropriate restoration or remediation methods. Testing can also provide clearer information to justify insurance coverage and remediation costs.

We would like to see the adoption of quantifiable ranges for Category 1, 2 and 3 water to be used by the IAQ professional when the situation warrants it.

6. Use of established, long-term air quality exposure standards in assessing IAQ: Three U.S. governmental agencies have established long-term exposure limits for almost 1,000 chemicals. These standards are designed to apply to lifetime exposures of 70 years for 24 hours a day. They are typically used in assessing risk from long-term outdoor air exposure.

Since a significant number of people spend most of their time indoors, these long-term exposure standards should be equally applicable to indoor air quality situations.
We would like to see IAQ professionals consider using these same risk assessment levels when doing indoor air exposure assessments, especially in residential and long-term care facilities.

7. Expansion of IAQA’s global reach to the occupational setting: Many IAQ consultants focus mainly on mold and other biogenic contaminants in residential and commercial buildings. However, many indoor exposure problems are chemical-related. We need to expand the training of IAQ consultants to be able to handle these exposure assessments as well. Making this level of training available to the CMCs, CIEs and CIECs can strengthen an IAQ consultant’s abilities in these areas.

There is significant IAQ and chemical exposure information available from countries other than the United States. The American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists has chemical exposure standards for about 600 chemicals. Other countries and governmental agencies now have chemical exposure standards for over 5,500 chemicals. It is important for IAQ consultants to take a global approach to evaluating microbial and chemical exposures. This global perspective will put IAQ consultants ahead of other consultants who only look at the limited information available in the United States. Standard-setting organizations such as the Indoor Environmental Standards Organization could play a fundamental role in helping to expand the role of the IAQ consultant.

We would like to see the development of IESO standards for the measurement of indoor chemical exposures as well as guidelines for the use global chemical standards in indoor air quality assessments.

8. Expansion and better recognition of the IAQ consultant’s areas of expertise: We need to increase awareness within the public and business communities of the expertise that many IAQ consultants have in dealing with indoor air pollution issues. A possible way to do this is to differentiate ourselves by having a broader global perspective on IAQ and IAQ evaluations. For example, we should be knowledgeable of IAQ standards in Hong Kong, Germany and other countries. We should be aware of chemicals that are banned in the European Union, Japan and other nations because their toxicologists have found that these cause disease. We should be knowledgeable about energy conservation and green building techniques. There is also a wealth of information on mold and bacteria exposure standards in other countries.

Clearly, if toxicologists outside the United States feel that exposure above a certain level of chemicals or biological agents is a health risk, it is a starting point for us in the United States. Not acknowledging their existence and the potential guidance they could provide is a disservice to the population we wish to protect.

Many people just automatically call upon industrial hygienists when they have indoor air quality problems. If we possess more comprehensive and up-to-date information on IAQ, then we can market ourselves as being more effective than typical industrial hygienists who use the outdated OSHA PELs as their chemical exposure standards.

Both IAQA and the American Indoor Air Quality Council should take leadership roles in bringing this global information to IAQA members to keep Council-certified individuals the leaders in their field.

9. Better understanding by hospitals of the need to use qualified IAQ professionals: Last year, we saw a presentation at a professional conference where spore traps were used as the method of post-remediation verification for a large mold remediation job in a hospital. The consultant sampled only 141 liters of air and took no culturable samples.

We were shocked that this presentation was even permitted. The literature is full of cases of fatal aspergillosis directly traceable to viable mold spores that are released from building renovations in hospitals. Not testing for culturable mold spores in these situations borders on negligence. And the need to always sample at least one cubic meter in any mold evaluation in a hospital is not new information. The whole point of infection control risk assessments as part of construction activities is the potential for the spread of viable mold spores. The situation above was an example of a lack of knowledge on two fronts – the hospital and the consultant.

We would like to see IAQA take an active role in approaching the American Hospital Association to establish minimum requirements for sampling in hospitals and to educate hospital administration, interested IAQ consultants and remediators in the appropriate protocols for hospitals.

10. Research into the mold infection rate in people who are not immunocompromised: There are so many questions about fungal-related diseases that are unanswered. We know that thousands of people die prematurely each year due to fungal infections. However, we do not fully know or understand the etiology of these infections.

Even if you are not immunocompromised, viable mold spores are entering your lungs and sinuses and starting to grow. It is assumed that a healthy person’s immune system responds to this infection and controls it. But we really don’t know this with any scientific certainty. It may be that many of the cases where people claim mold-related disease are actually sub-acute infections that lead to permanent health deficits.

One way to establish a scientific framework around this issue would be to look at the immunological parameters in cystic fibrosis patients and compare them to symptomatic “mold-injured” individuals. A good start would be comparing the indicator parameters of Dr. Ritchie Shoemaker’s and others’ research and how this compares to cystic fibrosis patients, of whom 95 percent develop aspergillosis at one time or another in their lifetime. Perhaps Dr. Michael G. Rinaldi, with his extensive experience in unique mold infection cases, can also add some of his immune system response data to this research. Even if no correlation is found, it would indicate that some other mechanism is involved other than active infection.

We would like to see more research on how the daily fungal “assault” of background spores in the environment affects otherwise healthy normal individuals.

11. Increased use of political activism: As much as we are concerned about IAQ and public health, this is not a national political priority in the United States. Consequently, as professionals, we have to recognize our role and responsibility of educating both the media and our politicians about the importance of IAQ in disease prevention and ultimately reducing health care costs. Political activism involves writing letters or commenting on blogs about the importance of IAQ in maintaining overall health. We all have dealt with people who have had their lives severely and permanently changed as a result of poor IAQ. This is no small issue.

We also need to make the public, the media and the government aware of the fact that we are falling behind the rest of the world in health and environmental standards, and it is time for the United States to catch up with the rest of the industrialized world.

We hope that IAQ professionals will take the time to promote a better understanding of IAQ issues in the media, government and the public.

12. Which type of impact sampler is better at detecting smaller spores? Many water intrusion incidents involve elevated levels of Penicillium and Aspergillus species. These spores are relatively small and can evade easy detection by some spore trap media.

Fortunately, research on this topic is already in the works – as a gift to IAQ professionals for 2007. During 2006, a Penicillium-contaminated environment was identified that provided an excellent opportunity to explore this question. A number of major analytical laboratories graciously agreed to donate the sampling media and provide the analysis for this study as a research gift to the industry.

This study compares Zefon, Micro 5, Cyclex D, and Allergenco D spore trap samplers. Simultaneous samples were collected with each type of sampler at three different airborne mold spore concentrations. This provided a total of 28 samples. Analysis of the laboratory data and development of an article for IE Connections is planned for mid 2007. We hope this will shed some light on the pros and cons of each type of sampler at various Penicillium levels.

As one can see, 2007 poses many challenges and opportunities for IAQ professionals. We need to work together to continue to advance our industry and give it a large voice both nationally and locally. If each of us does our part, it will have an impact. We encourage you to embrace one of the challenges our industry faces and to work together with others to find answers. This will help the industry evolve and will have a positive impact on our livelihood, the public health and the welfare of future generations.

Best wishes for an enjoyable and fruitful 2007!

Bob Brandys has served as president of his own environmental consulting firm since 1984 and has authored numerous publications on chemical safety and microbial control for the hospital and healthcare manufacturing sector as well as the mold consulting and remediation industries. He can be reached by e-mail at bobb@safety-epa.com or by phone at (630) 325-2083.

His wife, Gail Brandys, has been involved in safety and health consulting for industries and institutions for over 25 years. The two have co-authored three books: “Post-Remediation Verification and Clearance Testing of Mold and Bacteria Remediation,” “Worldwide Exposure Standards for Mold and Bacteria” and “Global Occupational Exposure Standards for Over 5,000 Chemicals.” She can be reached by e-mail at metromom@safety-epa.com or by phone at (630) 325-2083.