• Industry Views: The Best and Worst of IEQ in 2007
• At Press Time -- New York State Implements Mold Task Force
• Word on the Street
• IICRC Proposes Consensus on IEP, Revises Procedures
• A Confusing State of Regulations -- ESA Pulls Early Training Trigger, Withdraws Claim
• Editorial -- The Future of the Distributorship?
• Ask Dr. Burge -- Outdoor Spore Counts Are Often Higher Than Those Indoors. Do These Outdoor Spores Have Human Health Effects?
• Radon Corner -- Radon Variations Revisited
• Year in Review: IAQ in Schools -- Overall School Hygiene Practice Is a Key to Prevention
• Year in Review: Legal -- Legal Decisions, Legislation, Verdicts & Settlements
• Year in Review: Stress and the New Year -- Are They Sick or Are They Crazy?

At the end of every year since 2000, IE Connections has rounded up the most important stories affecting the indoor environmental quality industry. 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 past year.

Robert Baker, Chairman & CEO, RGB Group, Tampa, Fla.
BEST & WORST – At its hearing on Sept. 27, the California Air Resources Board approved the nation's first regulation to prohibit indoor air cleaners from emitting more than 0.050 ppm of ozone (consistent with the limit set by federal law for certain medical devices). In my opinion, this represents one of the worst IAQ events of the year because it is an example of our private enterprise system and democratic processes failing to protect the health and welfare of American citizens and a regulatory authority being forced to step in.

It ranks as one of the best of the year, however, because it appears that, after decades of debate and litigation involving manufacturers of such devices, one of the nation’s most influential bodies has initiated decisive action. California regulations (especially impacting the environment) tend to spread throughout the nation. There is an overwhelming body of research and other evidence demonstrating that these devices not only fail to produce any beneficial result, but actually pose a significant risk to the health and welfare of building occupants where they are operated. Not only is ozone a respiratory irritant, but recent studies demonstrate that it can react with volatile organic compounds indoors and produce aldehydes and other harmful breakdown products.

Under the new rule, some devices exceeding these levels may be exempted, but only for industrial use and where exposures are already regulated. CARB’s action implements the requirements of legislation (AB 2276) enacted in 2006. The new regulation takes effect after completion of a voluntary standard process and issuance of a revised final rule for a 15-day comment period. The final rule will apply to any air-cleaning device designed for use in a single room, a whole house, an entire floor in a multistory commercial building and inside cars, as well as "personal air purifiers" worn around an individual's neck.

This regulatory action was predicated in large part on a CARB-funded survey conducted by the University of California at Berkeley, which found that, during the last five years, 50 percent of California households that purchased air cleaners did so to address asthma and allergy problems. Although disputed by device manufacturers, CARB relied on research that concluded that ozone reacts with certain indoor chemicals to form ultra fine particles, which can produce respiratory irritants and formaldehyde.

In addition to banning certain air-cleaning devices, CARB’s new regulation requires all air cleaners pass an electrical safety test to prevent fire hazards and display a specified label on packaging to identify acceptable CARB-certified air cleaners.

George Benda, Senior Principal, Chairman and CEO, Chelsea Group Ltd., Maunaloa, Hawaii
BEST – The best news for 2007 was the expansion of the number of projects in the IAQA Research program, with several key projects, which had been approved late last summer by the IAQA Board, getting started at the first of the year. Along with that, the Research Committee made strides in its evolution with the development of a strong group of volunteers taking on subcommittee roles and moving the agenda forward. At the end of 2007, the Research Committee takes on a new leader, Dr. Wei Tang, who can move the agenda forward into the future.

The other "best" for 2007 is the rapid expansion of the global interest in high-performance buildings, which includes key indoor environmental parameters. We are seeing for the first time a positive spin on indoor environmental issues in the commercial real estate market, where everyone is looking for data on productivity correlations – like the analysis Dr. Richard Shaughnessy is doing for schools with IAQA support.

WORST – The worst news for 2007, from my perspective, is the continued presence in the indoor environmental marketplace of "IAQ professionals" who promote ungrounded fear in the general population. I was reminded again just a few weeks ago, watching homeowners disenfranchised from their home because an "expert" found some surface mold and water damage and told them "move out now and don't come back” – a few thousand dollars of cleanup and repairs turned into family disaster.

The other "worst" for 2007 is the end of Bob Baker's role as president of IAQA. It is the end of an era of vision and growth – though I am sure everyone will join me in wishing Bob the best in his new endeavors. Aloha, Bob.

Glenn Fellman, Executive Director, Indoor Air Quality Association; Publisher, Indoor Environment Connections, Rockville, Md.
BEST – The creation of IAQ industry standards is one of the most important positive developments of 2007. ACCA, ASHRAE, ASTM and IICRC have all created (or revised) ANSI-approved standards. IESO has announced the creation of three project committees working on separate IAQ-related standards. NADCA became ANSI accredited and is pursuing ANSI approval of its standard. We are on the verge of having a vast array of IAQ standards covering everything from design, building, maintenance, investigation and remediation. Compared to just a few years ago, the standardization of IAQ has been remarkable. I think the green building trend is largely responsible, as it breathed new life into an IAQ world that was distracted by all things moldy.

Also, collaboration among organizations and professionals resulted in several outstanding programs in 2007. The U.S. Green Building Council has been exceptionally efficient in gathering stakeholders from a wide range of interest groups and banding them together for a common cause. ASHRAE, through its partnerships with groups like the American Hospital Association, has brought specialty certification for engineers specific to the kinds of environments they design and build. When disasters struck, like the autumn California wildfires, groups like IICRC, IAQA and private industry banded together to produce health, safety and restoration resources that ultimately landed in the hands of organizations like the California Hotel & Lodging Association, as well as thousands of homeowners. ACCA and IAQA announced plans for a co-located meeting in 2009 that will produce the largest Indoor Air Expo ever, with more than 350 booths anticipated. Collaboration between organizations has proved almost universally beneficial to stakeholders and is a trend I hope continues to expand.

David Governo, Managing Partner, Governor Law Firm LLC, Boston, Mass.
BEST – One of 2007’s most promising developments in indoor air quality is the focus on green buildings. The beauty of the green building phenomenon is measuring performance to provide quantifiable data to save energy and promote healthy indoor environments. ASHRAE has just launched a quarterly publication – High Performance Buildings – that will help decision makers learn about the benefits of innovative technologies and energy-efficient design and operation.

Caveat: One downside of the green building bonanza is the tendency to boast about green without actual facts to back up these claims, i.e., truth in advertising. Are the green representations true? If health benefits are claimed, are they supported by actual data? Complying with green building requirements, making representations about performance and even staying current with the fast-changing landscape in this area pose an assortment of legal landmines that must be appreciated, recognized and negotiated to ensure a safe legal passage.

WORST – The legal trap created by remediation contractors’ failures to comply with the maze of environmental regulations, particularly in the area of asbestos, qualifies as the worst legal development in IAQ for 2007. A contractor’s breach of regulations controlling asbestos can result in dangerous worker exposures, fines, civil and even criminal liability. See the March, 2007 issue of Cleaning & Restoration, “Asbestos Liability in the Cleaning and Restoration Industry.” When the work is covered by insurance, be particularly careful. Following an insurer’s recommendation to perform at a level below the applicable professional standards exposes a contractor to all virtually certain liability. Managing these risks can be a tricky business and legal proposition.

As a runner-up for Worst of 2007, mold continues to remain a serious liability threat for property owners, builders, product suppliers and others caught in the path of a mold zealot. We still see mold being treated as an excuse for not paying rent and, worse yet, myriad unrelated medical symptoms.

Carl Grimes, President, Healthy Habitats LLC, Denver, Colo.
WORST – You will never guess who is at the top of my list for Worst of 2007.
No, it’s not the IICRC. They are a distant “honorable mention.” The top of my Worst list is ACOEM [American College of Occupational and Environmental Health]. They continue their defense, despite increasing protest, of their questionable Oct. 27, 2002, “Adverse Human Health Effects Associated with Molds in the Indoor Environment.”
A distant honorable mention goes to the IICRC Standards Committee and the “various representatives of the Secretariat” for their continuation of obvious – to everyone but themselves – non-compliance with their own ANSI-accredited policy and procedures. When they do respond, which is seldom, they can’t even cite the correct version!

Right with them is the IICRC Board of Directors for abdicating their responsibility by not demanding either a stop to the violations or the resignation of those responsible. Also culpable is the Consensus Body for failing to use their power to correct procedural violations. I do, however, commend them for persisting for the content they wanted, despite reported IICRC resistance and/or mismanagement.

Although I consider these issues quite important, they are “small potatoes” compared to the medical harm being reported from the misuse of the ACOEM paper.

BEST – The Best of 2007 includes those who took the risk, often at great cost, of breaking their silence. Those who deliberately and publicly spoke out against what they saw as wrong.

At the top is Sharon Kramer, private citizen, who is definitely not afraid to speak out. She was the subject of an interview in this paper last November, revealing her discoveries about the shenanigans of ACOEM’s mold position statement. She was the inspiration behind the Wall Street Journal front page story two months later. Ms. Kramer has been forced to defend herself in a related libel suit, despite the anti-SLAPP legislation in California. Yet she persists in increasingly powerful ways. She is one of the authors of the explosive expose published in the November 7 issue of the International Journal of Occupational Environmental Health, titled American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM): A Professional Association in Service to Industry. A free download is available at: http://www.ijoeh.com/pfds/IJOEH_1304_LaDou02.pdf.

Jay Portnoy, M.D., member of the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology for demanding that ACOEM publicly withdraw his support and signature from the ACOEM statement. Mr. Portnoy, as the newly elected president of ACAAI, also declared the mission of the coming year to the indoor environment. His first step was to organize the one-day pre-conference workshop Healthy Indoor Environments in Dallas last month.
Bill Moyers qualifies for his 2002 exposé of deliberate chemical-industry coverups in his PBS series, Trade Secrets. http://www.pbs.org/tradesecrets/.

Donald Kennedy, editor-in-chief of Science, merits a “Best” for his November 23 editorial, “Toxic Dilemmas.” What is most astonishing is his connection of the ubiquity of fire-retardant chemicals in society (and inside people) to the activities of the tobacco industry! Remember Sharon Kramer’s history of the authors of the ACOEM mold statement? The world is truly small and circular. Some keep going in circles and others expose them.

Finally, all those working behind the scenes and in their own locales who are fighting to make a difference against insurance denials of claims and legal arguments by the defense. Although “silent” to the industry, they are the true backbone.

Joe Hughes, President, IAQ Training Institute LLC, Central City, Pa.
BEST – The best thing happening over the past year is the continuing decline in the number of people coming to our indoor environmentalist and mold remediation courses because they want to start a new business and get rich in the “mold is gold” rush. Course attendees are almost exclusively people already involved in some way with cleaning up after, investigating, repairing or somehow dealing with moisture intrusion issues. Almost all attendees are already involved with water damage restoration, construction, facilities maintenance/management, pest control, HVAC, industrial hygiene or some other indoor environmental quality-related discipline and they are branching into or trying to learn more about IEQ and microbial remediation issues.

The downturn and shakeup of this industry has been a good thing. For the most part, it appears the people in it for the long haul, or must deal with these issues because of the occupation they are already part of, is who will be left standing when it is over. I hope I am right about this one!

WORST – Since this is my first year writing this segment, it seems like a good time for a little different approach. There were a lot of troubling things that happened in 2007 (MRSA fear tactics, FEMA trailers, Sub-prime loan nightmares) and I am sure the other editorial board members have done a good job pointing them out. Instead of naming a worst thing, I am going to focus on what I consider a worst practice: Barely meeting the requirements of formal agreements and not meeting the spirit of the agreement.

This is something that happens in every segment of IEQ and construction. It happens when consultants, contractors, manufacturers and others cut corners or misrepresent products and processes. Many agreements are written to appear as though a guarantee is being provided when, in reality, there is no guarantee. It also happens when associations do not follow through on promises made between the association and its members or agreements made to work together with other associations or agreements made to work within the rules of accrediting or approving bodies.

It has been a challenging year for people working to improve indoor environments. People and groups that have been around for years, doing quality work, going beyond the minimum requirements of agreements, have had a tough time explaining and even competing with the influx people and groups entering this industry to get rich quickly. We all need to continue pointing out and educating the consumer about these practices. Let’s make sure the associations we support are doing more than meeting the minimum requirements of agreements they make with us and other groups. People and groups need to go beyond meeting minimum requirements. Let’s meet the spirit of our agreements and help make sure people are working and living in healthier, more efficient indoor environments.

David Krause, PhD, Founder and Principal Scientist, Indoor Air Solutions Inc., Tallahassee, Fla.
BEST – Changing the focus from black mold to green buildings. Efforts by the U.S. Green Building Council and other organizations have achieved tremendous momentum, prompting both public interest and professional action. The renewed public interest in consuming, living and building green has spurred action in municipal planners, architects and manufacturers. Constructing buildings to LEED standards attempts in part to prevent indoor air quality pollutants rather than reacting to them after they become a problem. The lessons learned from investigating indoor environmental contamination should be applied to green buildings so they are not repeated. Green buildings hold great potential for providing healthy indoor environments, but should not be considered a panacea before proven so.

WORST – It’s 2007 and we continue to rely on unvalidated methods for indoor mold assessments. While most academics and consultants advocate hypothesis development and performing a robust sampling of the indoor environment to assess mold contamination, the economic reality often prevails. Neither the government agencies who issue guidance nor the professionals who rely upon the testing results acknowledge that costs prohibit collection of enough samples to make interpretations with a desirable level of confidence. Most consultants will acknowledge that commercial mold assessments cannot be turned into a research project; however, we continue to rely on research-based testing methods. So far, no efforts to standardize how we validate assessment methods for mold sampling have been seriously undertaken. Such transparency could shine some light on the uncertainty of conclusions based on existing assessment methods.

Michael McGuinness, Principal, R.K. Occupational & Environmental Analysis, Philipsburg, N.J.
BEST – Carl Grimes (and others) and their tireless efforts to make the S520 approval process transparent and continue to show the self-serving actions of some in IICRC to circumvent an open and honest S520 approval process. The industry stands to gain by Carl’s efforts.

WORST – The shallow effort by IICRC to make their S520 standard a national consensus standard for mold remediation. First of all, the standard does not even represent the consensus in their own committee as evidenced by internal strife, claims of impropriety and obvious undue and excessive influence by too few of the committee’s core (read: “insider network”) in positions of power either in IICRC or the project committee (or both). You all know who you are.

Secondly, the Committee members do not even represent a broad spectrum of power players within the mold remediation industry. Notably absent are many of the best and brightest that AIHA, ACGIH and AEE have to offer, as well as past committee members, including yours truly, who have grown tired of all the antics of the committee and the “good ol’ boys” on the committee and refused to participate further to enrich IICRC. There are other good books and training manuals in the marketplace that do a good job of explaining the remediation process. To single out this document for inclusion as a “national standard” is ludicrous.
 

Larry Robertson, Technical Director, Indoor Environmental Consultants Inc., Jewett, Texas
BEST – In my opinion, the best event involved the continued evolution of our unified industry. Once proclaimed, many thought the unification between the IAQA, AmIAQ and IESO would be an easy feat. In reality, the unification processes created numerous obstacles and areas of conflict. While some still exist for our leaders to resolve, it appears that the major conflicts between “membership” and “certification” have been resolved. This is a very good thing.

WORST – One of the worst things involves the long-term credibility of our industry certifications. Specifically, an individual having certifications as a CIE and CMR knowingly and willfully performed illegal services in a state. After investigating, the state is pursuing the maximum penalty against this individual. However, the certification boards did not find any wrongdoing even though the rules of ethics clearly state that a certification holder must abide by all applicable laws. The integrity and reputation of our certifications are compromised when the certifying agents will not enforce the rules they purport to uphold. This is a very bad thing.

Richard Shaughnessy, PhD, Program Director, IAQ Research, University of Tulsa
BEST – The best for this year is the California Air Resources Board regulation on air cleaners emitting ozone. The regulation requires any indoor air-cleaning device (IACD) to comply with an “emission concentration not exceeding 0.050 ppm O3.” This level (I assume) was selected based on current health data, or lack thereof, on the effects of ozone at less than .050 ppm concentration in the space. In addition, this coincides with the same level as prescribed by the FDA standard for medical devices.

To fully evaluate the indoor accumulation of ozone, one must consider not only contributions from indoor sources, but also that from the outdoor environment. The broader scenario of including outdoor air sources should also be considered in the final evaluation as to resultant indoor ozone accumulation and whether it is below the 50 ppb level. Still, the current proposed regulation is the first of its kind, with substance, on IACDs and goes beyond any other standard on IACDs. This is a step in the right direction.

In addition, I would hope that this limit is reviewed on a periodic basis to account for the abundance of ongoing research on the effects of ozone and the byproducts of indoor ozone-initiated reactions. The continued research in this field may warrant more stringent ozone limits in the near future based not only on the harmful effects from breathing ozone, but also from the effects of the byproducts of indoor reactions, resulting in irritants such as aldehydes, ketones, organic acids and ultrafine particles.

WORST – While research abounds in the field of indoor air, there is still a significant disconnect between applicable research results and the transfer of this information to practitioners. Further efforts in this direction must be solidified by strengthening alliances between industry and research-based organizations.

Alan Veeck, Executive Director, National Air Filtration Association, Virginia Beach, Va.
WORST – I believe the worst situation currently is the supply chain problems faced by many manufacturers. Delivery times are the longest ever in the filter industry, causing problems with customers.

BEST – The best is the law of supply and demand, which says that prices go up when supply is short. Our members have more business this year than ever – at good margins.

RECENT GRAD LOOKING FOR WORK
According to a press release from the International Facility Management Association and Building Operating Management, the “Profiles 2007 Salary Report” indicates that, with a rise in both base salaries and median age among facility managers, now’s the time for young workers to think about facility management as a career path.
“Profiles 2007” surveyed 4,600 facility professionals. Data show that, between 2004 and 2007, the base salary for those with less than four years’ experience rose nearly 13 percent – from $56,000 to $63,000 – and the median age of facility managers increased from 47 to 49. Furthermore, the proportion of workers 45 or older increased from 62 percent to 68 percent; among those 55 and older, the increase was from 20 to 25 percent.

“To enter this field and potentially be looking at a $63,000 salary speaks volumes about the value of the industry and what it can offer younger professionals,” Shari Epstein, IFMA’s associate director of research, is quoted as saying.

Plus, as the current workforce ages, fewer people under 45 entered the industry in the same time period – workers between 35 and 44 saw their numbers decline from 30 to 25 percent, and those younger than 35 declined from 9 to 7 percent. Only 2 percent of facility managers surveyed were under 29.

But, as the adage goes, “get while the gettin’s good.” Also between 2004 and 2007, the number of workers whose first jobs were in facility manager grew from 5 to 7 percent.

For those instead thinking of a career in HVAC, the news is just as rosy – but in this case, an aging workforce is coupled with an expanding market that only looks to keep growing. The trick will be finding the right job in the right place.

Richard Holden, regional commissioner of the Pacific Region of the U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, has the answers. He will present “An Economic Perspective on the Prospects of HVAC Technicians: A Future in the Green Economy” at the National HVAC Educators and Trainers Conference in Las Vegas, March 16–19, 2008. Holden’s presentation will focus on which parts of the country will have which types of jobs, which technologies need to be taught, which part of the industry will see the most growth and which will have the best-paying jobs.

PREVALENT AUTISM BEGS FOR ANSWERS
It seems impossible to be coincidental: Teachers at one northern New Jersey school have been giving birth to children with learning disorders at an alarming rate. In a matter of years, 24 of 42 children born were diagnosed with various developmental disorders, including 10 with autism.

A Nov. 5 story in the New York Post details the plight of parents who teach at St. Anthony’s school in Bergen County. Leased from the Newark Archdiocese, St. Anthony’s is used by the Northern Valley Regional High School district to educate children with autism and other developmental disorders, giving these unfortunate parents “a unique position [to] recognize the signs when it came to their own children.”

As of now, researchers are uncertain as to what might be causing a huge spike in disabilities above New Jersey’s own nation-leading rate. Until environmental tests carried out by the Deirdre Imus Environmental Center for Pediatric Oncology reveal some answers and positive steps can be taken, teachers and students at St. Anthony’s have been relocated.

SUSTAINABLE PUBLICATIONS?
The magazine industry can be treacherous to navigate. Thousands of titles are introduced every year, of which only a few survive for more than a few months. High costs, the risk of low circulation and saturation of niche markets plague even the most ambitious publishers.

With that in mind, it’s worth noting that two new magazines dedicated to sustainable building performance have been released in the past few months.

From BNP Media, a leader in business-to-business publications, came Sustainable Facility, first released in October. It joins BNP’s substantial slate of magazines focusing on sustainability, building, design and contractors within the industry at large.

Quick on its heels comes the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers’ High Performing Buildings, which will feature “working case studies of exemplary buildings developed by leading practitioners in the sustainability movement,” according to ASHRAE’s press release.

IE Connections wishes its printed kin the very best.

GREEN GRADES ARE IN
The green marketplace continues to grow (see IEC, Nov. 2007). While consumers are looking to green their homes and products, the nation’s largest collections of buildings are getting in on the act.

The College Sustainability Report Card 2008, published by the Sustainable Endowments Institute, shows that 68 percent of higher-education institutions surveyed improved their overall “green grades,” with 37 percent boasting of staff dedicated to sustainability issues and 22 percent having established an office of sustainability. The survey’s executive summary also states that “the percentage of schools with current endowment investments in renewable energy funds or similar investment opportunities more than tripled, from 9 to 31 percent.”

Much like actual school grades, few institutions excelled or failed: Only six schools earned an A-minus (the highest grade awarded) and four received an F.

Cities, too, are showing dedication to green improvements. According to the American Institute of Architects, “the number of cities with green building programs has risen from 22 to 92 for an increase of 418 percent” since 2003.
In a recent report, “Local Leaders in Sustainability,” AIA found that one city in seven currently has a green building program; current projections improve that number to one in five; 39 percent of citizens live in cities with green building programs; and 36 cities “are in an advanced stage of developing a green building program.”

AIA has already developed its SustAIAnability 2030 Took Kit to assist cities with these programs and will release early next year 50to50, “a range of 50 sustainable design principles that can help achieve a 50 percent reduction in fossil fuel consumption.”

“Sustainable design practices have the potential to transform the built environment from an energy intensive past towards a more energy efficient, green future,” said AIA vice president of government and community relations Paul Mendelsohn in a press release. “Technological advances now allow for the design of buildings that are efficient, modern, possess great aesthetics and are financially viable.”

A proposed memorandum of understanding was sent Sept. 18 by Institute of Inspection, Cleaning and Restoration Certification president Ruth Travis to the heads of a number of industry bodies that “had participated in the writing of, or were materially affected by” IICRC’s S520 standard for mold remediation. The purpose of the MOU was to seek consensus on usage of the “indoor environmental professional” designation and the “IEP” initialism, but it has so far met calls for clarity and challenges to terms.

Organizations receiving the MOU were the American Indoor Air Quality Council; American Industrial Hygiene Association; Indoor Air Quality Association; Indoor Environmental Institute; Indoor Environmental Standards Organization; National Air Duct Cleaners Association; Restoration Industry Association; and the Society of Cleaning and Restoration Technicians.

At a Dec., 2006 meeting, IICRC met with representatives from roughly half of the above organizations and “adopted a seven-point agreement, which provides that the IICRC attempt to obtain agreement among stakeholders concerning the use of the ‘indoor environmental professional’ and ‘IEP’ terminology in the S520,” according to Travis’ letter to each organization.

The MOU, including mutual covenants and terms of agreement, outlines the creation of the IEP designation within S520, allows that IEP is “a generic industry term,” acknowledges that “several industry certification programs” meet the general criteria of the indoor environmental professional and that no one organization can “claim exclusive rights to the term ... including as a trademark, service mark or certification mark.”

Included as terms of agreement are an understanding that no one organization would claim exclusive rights to the terms as trade, service or certification marks; the terms are and would remain used generically or descriptively; as such, any use of the term for licensing or credentialing would be “accompanied by a non-descriptive term that identifies the source of the program;” a pledge by the signatories to monitor any attempts by those outside the agreement to gain exclusive rights to the terms, and to alert other parties to the agreement of any such occurrence; and to engage legal counsel in those cases.

Among those responding to the proposed MOU was Charlie Wiles, executive director of AmIAQ, who emphatically declined to sign in an e-mail provided to IE Connections, citing as his first point that IICRC should reinforce its stated “willingness to abandon the trademarks secured by IICRC for the ‘indoor environmental professional’ and/or ‘IEP’ designation ... within the MOU.”

Aaron Trippler, AIHA’s director for government affairs, also declined. He stated in an e-mail that his organization “submitted comments back to IICRC” but “did not sign the draft MOU as currently written.”

“However, the leadership of AIHA was not necessarily opposed to the purpose behind the MOU,” he wrote. “As a matter of fact, other than a couple of concerns, AIHA would have signed the document.”

Trippler outlined AIHA’s concerns specific to language within the MOU’s mutual covenants. The seventh mutual covenant, an understanding by which the signatory organizations “desire to encourage the use of the terms ... as generic terms to refer to a professional occupation or discipline,” stuck out as a point of opposition. AIHA’s preference, responded Trippler, is to avoid “language that says we would encourage the use of the terms. ... [We] have concerns about this term and I’m not sure we can encourage use of this term.” Instead, Trippler suggested “something like ‘the undersigned recognize the terms “indoor environmental professional” and “IEP” as generic terms to refer to a professional occupation or discipline.’”

Wiles also pointed to the seventh mutual covenant, saying “The IAQ Council has used these terms for years in our literature and on our website [sic]; however, we do not want to be obliged to encourage the use of one generic term over another.”

“We agree with the intent of the document,” Wiles continued, echoing other respondents, “however, [the third term of agreement] contradicts the entire document ... which was to limit the use of the [indoor environmental professional] term to a generic description.”

Trippler found the eighth mutual covenant as a point of contention as well. “We would like to see this changed to read ‘there are several industry and/or association certification programs ...’” he wrote. “This change would make sure everyone is aware that there may be existing or future association certification programs that meet the generic terms of the IEP.”

Further, AIHA fears liability “for a portion of the legal costs as described in the last section of the MOU, without us having been a party to anything” and that “no clause that provides for a signee [sic] to remove themselves from the MOU.”

IAQA responded similarly to AmIAQ regarding the third item in the mutual covenants, then listed three additional concerns: That item #5 of the terms of agreement includes a provision for legal counsel, but does not specify at what point legal counsel would be engaged, by whose initiative, whose counsel would be used and how legal costs would be divided; That the document currently lacks a termination or exit clause; and the MOU’s lack of any mention of IICRC abdicating its rights to the terms as previously agreed upon. On this last point, IAQA suggested that a clause would be inserted into the mutual covenants, noting IICRC agreement to relinquish its rights to the terms.

However, IAQA applauded IICRC for initiative, noting that the proposed MOU was only a work in progress and expressing hope that IICRC will take all comments into consideration when making revisions.
IESO’s responded simply by stating that its shares the concerns of other respondent organizations and will consider signing the MOU when those organizations are sufficiently satisfied with the draft to do so.

Pearson responded by stating that IICRC’s intent is to modify the MOU in accordance with the other organizations’ concerns without compromising its own position. Additionally, IICRC wishes for a resolution by which all parties are satisfied, thereby maintaining alignment on an important issue.

Larry Cooper, IICRC’s S520 standards consultant, said in a telephone interview that his organization has, he believes, received responses from all solicited parties and that a revised draft may shortly be ready for circulation.

S520 Completed, P&P Revised
IICRC’s S520 mold remediation standard has been a point of controversy among some in the industry, as covered extensively in IE Connections. It was officially opened for American National Standards Institute public review on Sept. 5. In an e-mail dated Sept. 21, Pearson as S520 chair, vice chair Cliff Grost, S520 standards chair Barry Costa and standards consultant Cooper announced the completion of ANSI public review. “The IICRC S520 Consensus Body will review the comments and follow up with responses,” reads the e-mail.

“We look forward to submitting the document to ANSI in the near future for final approval prior to publishing by the IICRC.”

Controversies surrounding S520 centered primarily on ANSI-approved policies and procedures for the creation and certification of standards, causing a number of standards committee members to resign. In two notable cases, former members appealed to IICRC on a number of procedural points, requesting that S520 be held back from ANSI submission until their concerns could be dealt with.

Partly as the result of these appeals, ANSI announced in the Nov. 9 issue of ANSI Standards Action IICRC submission of “revised operating procedures for documenting consensus on proposed American National Standards.”
“As these revisions appear to be substantive in nature,” reads the announcement, “the reaccreditation process is initiated.” Public review of the revision was set to end Dec. 10.

This announcement raised a red flag for one former appellant. Carl Grimes, whose appeal was rejected earlier this year, contends that both his appeals process and the final stages of Consensus Body deliberation may have been governed by the revised, non-accredited policies and procedures.

Grimes cited the date listed on the document, May 8 of this year, the applicability section of which reads in part, “These Policies and Procedures shall guide the activities of the [IICRC] related to the development, approval, maintenance, revision, reaffirmation and withdrawal of standards and reference guides for the cleaning, restoration and inspection industry.”

“The May version was cited as governing my appeal in June until I pointed out it wasn’t the ANSI-approved version,” Grimes wrote to IE Connections. “I’m wondering if the May revision was used to govern the Consensus Body the last six months. If so, then the whole S520 process may have been compromised for ANSI accreditation.”
Grimes further contends that, as part of his ongoing appeals process on his responses to the S520 review, he was directed to comply with the new policies and procedures two weeks prior to their submission to ANSI.

In an e-mail dated Nov. 5, sent to Travis and Cooper, he wrote, “The procedures you sent cannot be found in the Oct. 2005 [Policies and Procedures], which is the official P&P on file with ANSI. ... If I were to comply with incorrect ones, as I did for my appeal hearing, then I would be complicit with the continuing errors of the Standards Committee.”

Cooper denied Grimes’ contentions and explained the process behind revising IICRC’s policies, saying that doing so was merely in accordance with keeping up with ANSI’s own annual revisions. He remarked that Elisa Larkin’s appeal provided particularly interesting grist to feed the revision process, which was approved by IICRC’s board of directors and, pending reaccreditation by ANSI, put into effect “roughly Oct. 15.”

With uncertainty as to the state of pending mold regulation in Florida frustrating industry members seeking guidance, one organization’s pre-emptive step to ensure early certification has spawned protests and curriculum changes.

The Environmental Solutions Association, based in Williamsport, Pa., advertised its “Florida Mold Assessment Technician Training Course” at three in-state locations, adding that “this course meets the requirements for the new Florida Mold Bill [sic] #2234.”

Florida Senate Bill 2234 was passed earlier this year and signed into law by Governor Charlie Crist on June 27. The state Department of Building and Professional Regulation was charged with determining precisely which requirements would be necessary to meet the statute. Regulations set by DBPR would formally enter into law on July 1, 2010.

When ESA’s advertisement fell into the hands of Richard Alexis, a certified home inspector and indoor environmentalist with Accurate Building Inspection Service Inc. of Hollywood, Fla., he became alarmed and forwarded a copy, along with his protestations, to various industry professionals and bodies, including this newspaper. In a telephone interview, he described his frustration with what he called “pump jockey training” of limited value for substantial sums, saying “[ESA] should be stopped dead in their tracks.”

Seeking to take action into his own hands, Alexis wrote to Cassandra Cox of DBPR’s Bureau of Education and Testing. “As the DBPR has not yet developed the criteria for Mold Assessors or Mold Remediators how is this organization allowed to offer this course as meeting the requirements when those requirements have not been stated by the DBPR?” his letter reads.

In his letter, Alexis further cited approval of the course by Florida’s Construction Industry Licensing Board, saying such approval “is truly misleading as the CILB does not have anything to do with the DBPR’s development of the criteria for the requirements of HB [sic] 2234.”

In closing, Alexis requested that DBPR communicate with ESA “to inform them that they are misleading the industry personal [sic] into think that [ESA’s] training course is officially approved to meets the bills [sic] requirements ...”
According to Alexis, Cox responded in an e-mail, stating that she would forward the original ad and Alexis’ other included materials to “appropriate parties.”

To confirm Alexis’ allegations, IE Connections spoke with Sam Farkas in DBPR’s communications department. After being told of ESA’s advertisement, he responded, “It sounds a little fishy. We haven’t set up any rules regarding coursework.” He reiterated the effective date of 2010.

On Farkas’ advice, IE Connections confirmed on DBPR’s online database that ESA is a licensed construction course provider in Florida (PVD907) and has never been disciplined. Also, according to CILB’s letter to ESA, the mold assessment technician training course meets board approval for continuing education courses, effective until January, 2009 as a 16-hour course, number 0008975. Additionally, despite a confusing entry within the database for continuing education, ESA has indeed been approved, as confirmed by a DBPR representative. However, the representative could not confirm the exact topics for which ESA is approved to instruct.

Alexis’ complaint, however, may have been premature. When contacted by IE Connections, Michelle Sander, listed as ESA’s contact person for the mold assessment technician course, noted that the course notice was a gaffe based on the belief that CILB, not DBPR itself, would be appointed the governing body of the state’s new mold regulations.

“There was so much confusion at the beginning of this,” Sander said, further calling the resultant situation “a pickle.” With the law now placing the regulatory onus on DBPR, Sander cautioned against relying on course passage to constitute compliance once the law takes effect, warning that the earlier belief that course graduates would be “grandfathered in” as in compliance with the law’s requirements in 2010 is most likely untrue. She also stated that ESA has in response canceled three of its courses and will now only offer two, both of which will include discussions of the mold law.

Alexis affirmed his support for SB 2234, citing his own involvement in the pursuit of statewide regulations, but called the final bill signed by Gov. Crist “weak.” As such, he placed some blame for ESA’s claim on DBPR, calling the delay in setting regulations “likely” due to what he viewed as “nobody willing to take responsibility,” thereby creating an atmosphere of confusion.

Such has been the case for mold industry professionals in Florida since SB 2234’s passage. As reported in last month’s issue of IE Connections, Tom Ricci, board advisor for the Orlando chapter of the Indoor Air Quality Association, requested any information from DBPR regarding the state of regulatory discussions since the bill’s entry into law. To his chagrin, a DBPR representative informed him that, to that point, the department was yet to act in accordance with the law.

The Future of the Distributorship?
Alan C. Veeck, CAFS
Executive Director
National Air Filtration Association
Virginia Beach, Va.

 “Dealership termination: A manufacturer's false reasons for exercising the termination for cause provision in the dealership agreement was a bad faith termination even though the manufacturer had other proper reasons for the termination…”

“The concept of the customers' goodwill in the context of trademark law is the goodwill for the trademark, not the goodwill for a specific (franchise) restaurant…”

“Suppliers, manufacturers and franchisers may set price ceilings for the resale of their products by their dealers, distributors and franchisees without risking a ‘per se‘ ruling that they have violated the Antitrust Laws…”

When IE Connections contacted me about writing an article about something I am “passionate” about, it only took me a minute to give the answer: The American system of market distribution that includes a distributor in a local market. I know, here’s another dinosaur wanting to walk backwards upstream of trends and methods. While I admit to remembering when the airlines had mini-offices in hotels, where you could book your tickets, I am a full-fledged user of online services for airline travel and hotel reservation and many other services that lend themselves nicely to the computer.

When you Google distributorships and look at case law, you might wonder if the relationship between manufacturers and distributors is more contentious than it is worth and that this American form of selling goods and services is headed for the scrap heap. Will we look back in 20 years (as we enter our order for a product or service on a computer) and marvel at the way we are saving money by cutting out the middleman, aka the distributor? Can we imagine the amount of savings in time, energy and money if one service becomes the delivery truck for all of our products – even the U.S. Postal Service?

They can delivery packages from several manufacturers and thus save each from having a distributor locally that runs its own truck. This would be a good thing, or would it? What if all the locally owned distributorships were removed from the supply-chain system – wouldn’t this save lots of money for the consumer?

Is this the view of a future reality or a nightmare for all of us? A great question, supposing that the local distributor for products will be the next one in the supply chain to fall to online ordering of merchandise.

Taking a look back over the economic landscape of, “where and how all of this got started,” Francis Quesnay, (1694-1774) developed his idea of a tableau economique. This model sought to explore the relationship between output, income and expenditure and consumption, getting the commodities from the producers to the consumers.
Next in line with a macro economic model was Anne Robert Jacques Turgot (1727-1781), who postulated, “the goods withdrawn from the market in a given period are then replaced by virtue of current productive activity.” This lead to the natural intervention of the merchant between the producers of a commodity and the consumers, ”who [buys] commodities from the hands of the Producers in order to accumulate them or put them in a warehouse where the Consumer comes to get what he wants. By this means, the Entrepreneur [producer] is assured of a market and of the return of his capital, devotes himself without anxiety and without any letting up to produce further goods…”

This birth of the middleman allowed the manufacturer then and today to focus on their core competency, that of producing a good from a distant location and having local merchants focus on the sale and distribution of those products in their own local markets. I use the word “local” because only someone actually living in a market can feel the shifts and changes in the consumer market dynamics, such as speed of delivery, price and quantity.

Take for example a large facility that utilizes a large quantity of a certain product. By calling upon this consumer on a regular basis, the distributor gains the trust and intimate knowledge of the user of this product along with their particular buying habits and utilization of the product. They may also be involved in the education of the user on the correct application of a particular product. They then know how much of a product to stock and hold for that consumer and their approximate buying cycle.

Then assume that this user decides to change out a system or systems that use the product to a different type of use, requiring the distributor to change the product supplied to the user. This change would be done almost immediately, whereas a manufacturer supplying this product would continue to produce the product, unknowing that the purchase of the product will no longer be made. This would result in a product that might ultimately be dumped for lack of use.

By having in a local market a distributor who has a vested economic interest in keeping the customer supplied with the product, the manufacturer keeps an ear to the market and can adjust manufacturing quantities regularly. Relying on the customer to inform them of any change in buying activity, it can safely be said that the manufacturer will not be informed until an excess of wasted inventory is made and then held until the opportunity cost of the unused inventory is realized and the goods discarded either at salvage value or dumped at a complete loss.

All of us have had a touch with the ugly future when we telephone a factory and get caught in the rotary of online messages asking us to punch a perverse number of buttons to reach our desired destination. Many times, I have had the experience of going through the gauntlet of noise, only to achieve my destination, which informs me that the option I desire is no longer available or that the office only accepts calls at certain times. (My calling time not being one of those times.)

Another experience is calling only to speak with a person located in a Third World country who has neither a firm grasp of product knowledge nor a good handle on the English language. This usually results in a lengthy discussion of the basics before one can even get to the nub of a problem. I would rate my own experience with this type of customer service as two out of 10. And I would add that, although many countries advertise their workers to be educated to a certain level, this level does not correspond to our education system here in America.

Having a reliable local representative of a company with warehoused products adds a large degree of the kinds of things that most manufacturers want: Customers who stay with them over time; customers who recommend their product to others; a local distributor educated on the uses and applications of the product – and who, in turn educates the consumer; and customers who end up saving money over time because of correct applications, need for merchandise return or emergency service.

Just as you cannot accurately predict the time of life or death even thought they are absolute occurrences, one would be hard pressed to predict the next revolution in marketing and distribution of goods and services in America. But here goes, anyway;

1. One thing may be constant in the model – the existence of a person detached from the manufacturer who deals with the end user, even if this person is employed by the manufacturer. The continued success of any product depends on making the consumer aware of the product not just by advertising. There is still a desire by people to use the senses in buying (touch, taste, sight and smell). A person representing the manufacturer of products is still a valued buying motive.
    
2. Certain products lend themselves more appropriately to online purchasing. Among these are clothing, gifts, durable tools (with few, if any, moving parts) and travel tickets, to name just a few. Many other products do not lend themselves to online buying due to their application or complexity. I believe HVAC systems and products fall into this category. Hence, a local expert is necessary.
    
3. Accreditation and certification to help avoid fraudulent practices. Industry programs and trade group initiatives have set the standard for education of HVAC technicians and people who supply auxiliary products for HVAC systems. These certification programs have returned good will back into the system by giving the customers an avenue of redress if they are not satisfied.
    
4. Lack of a strong national brand preference for HVAC products and a strong presence in the community of a local distributor who warehouses and sells a reliable brand and has sales representatives calling on local customers. Keeping their products in front of consumers is still a valuable and successful method of distribution.

Dr. Harriet Burge
Director of Aerobiology
EMLab P&K
San Bruno, Calif.

Yes, they do. Several papers in the literature document the relationship between asthma outbreaks and especially high concentrations of specific spore types. “New Orleans Asthma” is a syndrome blamed on basidiospores. Thunderstorm asthma has been blamed on a particular type of ascospore. In addition, clear relationships have been found between increased hospital admissions for asthma and outdoor spore concentrations. In the American Southwest, outdoor Alternaria exposure may actually initiate asthma in children.

None of this is surprising. Indoor fungi are simply those outdoor fungi that have found a food source indoors. All the indoor fungi are also present outdoors, often in concentrations higher than commonly found indoors. This means that the fungal agents of disease are also outdoors – allergens, toxins, glucans, chitin, etc. Even volatile organic compounds can be detected in outdoor air, especially clean country air.

Obviously, some kinds of fungi can become greatly amplified indoors. In New Orleans, wet wallboard became infested with Aspergillus and Penicillium species so that spore concentrations in houses were higher even than those outdoors (exceeding 106/m3). The same thing happens when wet or damp houses are closed for weeks or months. As long as water is there, certain molds will grow and conditions will become worse, at least with respect to one or two kinds of fungi, than those outdoors.

Generally, however, these are not the conditions under which most non-specific health effects blamed on fungi are found. Usually, someone will detect a “moldy” odor or see a stained ceiling tile or perhaps see mold growing in some isolated spot in their environment. Especially if they have no immediate control over their environment (e.g., in an office environment), the observation may lead to worry and concern that health effects may occur. This concern is often followed by symptoms.

However, if these same conditions are observed in a home, especially an old one in which contractors have not recently been involved, the problem is remedied and no symptoms occur. Also, the same fungi found under these conditions (Penicillium, Aspergillus, Cladosporium) are probably at least as abundant in the outdoor air as they are on the inside.

Also consider the fact that gardening is considered to be a healthy form of exercise. You are outdoors breathing the “fresh” air (assuming you don’t live in the Los Angeles basin!) and are encouraging things to grow. You happily pull weeds and dig holes for the plants, breathing in the wonderful odors of the microbial volatiles responsible for the odor of new-turned soil along with all the spores (including those of Stachybotrys) that are growing on the dead leaves you are digging up.

Obviously, there are people who cannot enjoy these activities. If you have severe mold-related asthma or hypersensitivity pneumonitis related to Aspergillus or actinomycete exposure, you will not be comfortable. On the other hand, gardening has never been reported to cause “toxic” symptoms such as headache, fatigue (other than that induced by using your muscles), memory loss, etc.

Finally, people whose occupations give them opportunities to work outdoors often experience much higher spore concentrations than would be found in the vast majority of interior situations. Sawing wood, working with municipal compost, moving stored lumber around, harvesting grain, sweeping the streets – the list is endless – all lead to spore exposures that can be orders of magnitude above that experienced by office workers living with moldy ceiling tiles or homeowners with a leaky bathroom sink.

Dr. Harriet Burge is director of aerobiology at EMLab P&K and associate professor and director of the microbiology laboratory at Harvard School of Public Health. Widely considered the leading expert in IAQ, Dr. 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 her will receive a reply, although space limitations prevent us from publishing them all. By submitting, you agree that your question and Dr. Burge’s answer may be published in a future edition of IE Connections.

In last month’s column, there was a short discussion regarding a paper delivered by Dr. Daniel Steck at the National Radon Meeting, in which he determined that year-long averages in the same home can vary within a 25 percent margin, which is not too bad.

However, year-long measurements are not what radon professionals are typically asked to provide. Rather, home inspectors are asked to conduct a short-term measurement of two to three days in duration, the results of which are to provide sufficient information for a home buyer to determine the suitability of a home or to require mitigation prior to closing on the property. Since radon entry is determined by a number of factors, including weather conditions and how a home is occupied during a test, it is easy to understand that the results of these short-term measurements can be highly variable. The radon measurement professional should be very cautious in how these measurement results are presented to a client.

Factors Impacting Radon Levels
In a series of postings on the Radon Professionals list server, a number of practitioners and scientists posted comments regarding the variability of radon measurements. This series came as a result of a contractor being surprised at two sets of consecutive two-day measurements having averages of 3.2 and 14 pCi/L, respectively. The contractor also noted hourly variations provided by the continuous monitor ranging from a low of three to a high of 22.

For individuals who routinely utilize continuous radon monitors, the variations cited by the contractor are not unusual, especially where weather conditions change during the test or the intermittent operation of a building’s HVAC systems impact the forces that cause radon to enter. In fact, in my experience, a very flat radon level in a building is more unusual than one that varies. However, many testing professionals utilize integrating devices that only provide an average of the varying radon and hence do not necessarily appreciate or experience the level variability.

Even more so, the client who receives a radon test report only focuses on the average of the radon levels. This is not because they are shortsighted, but rather that they are simply following advice provided in the measurement protocols of the Environmental Protection Agency. These same individuals are often surprised when subsequent tests, perhaps several years later when they resell their home, provide significantly different short-term results. This circumstance obviously causes some concern on the part of the consumer, causing them to doubt the reliability of the test devices or the competency of the tester, when in fact the result of one short-term measurement can easily be two or three times different than another.

To illustrate the variability of successive short-term measurements, Dr. Steck posted data on the list server that compared successive two-day measurements in the same room within the same house over a two-year period. A summary of the 360-odd data points are provided in the graph below, but the striking point of his work is that yes, two-day short-term measurements, even when conducted under the control of a scientist, can be highly variable.

Comparison of maximum and minimum results of consecutive 2 day measurements over two year period in the same location.

The impact of Dr. Steck’s data is that the results of a two-day test could be well below the EPA’s guidance, yet the overall average is in excess of the guidance of 4.0 pCi/L. Furthermore, it is likely that a subsequent two-day test could easily show significantly higher results. Both conditions can cause liability concerns for a testing professional who relies solely upon the results of a single two-day measurement.

Adding to the debate was Bob Lewis, a respected researcher and scientist with the state of Pennsylvania, when he simply listed all the variables that can affect radon concentrations within a structure:

“Soil permeability, soil moisture content, radium content, wind speed, wind direction, heating season vs. non-heating season, radon in water, diffusive vs. convective flow, barometric pressure changes, local geology, water table, snow or ice cover, emanation coefficient, building characteristics, building materials, ventilation rate, stack effect, temperature differences, occupant activities (windows, fireplaces, exhaust fans).”

Given this long list, Lewis went on to point out that “with all this said, we then have to mention that all of these factors do not work independently of one another. Thus, the simplest thing about radon entry dynamics is that there is nothing simple about it!”

I would suspect that other researchers would add additional factors to Lewis’ list, but suffice it to say that, since the entry of radon is based upon a large number of varying factors, it is logical to conclude, as well as is confirmed by Dr. Steck’s data, that the results of a two-day short-term test, even when expressed to a tenth of a decimal point, does not provide an infallible indication of long-term exposures.

Jim McNees, radon program director for Alabama, also reinforced this discussion with the results of a paper he recently published in the Health Physics Journal, in which the presence of highly permeable geology (Karst) also caused false highs and lows when conducting short-term tests. This data has led him and others to suggest that, even though the results of a short-term test may be less than 4.0 pCi/L, it is advisable to conduct a long-term test as a means to avoid false negatives. This advice would be well taken by professional testers to reduce their liability by also recommending long-term tests if short-term tests are below the EPA guidance.

Are Long-Term Tests the Gold Standard?
Certainly in most cases, a long-term test provides a better indicator of the overall exposure. This is especially true in residential buildings when the occupant can be there at any time of the day. It is also a reasonable assumption to base risk on long-term exposures, since the risk is also assumed to be a function of the overall average exposure rather than peak values. However, in buildings such as schools or office buildings, in which the HVAC system can create much larger pressure differentials than exist in residential buildings, the entry rate of radon can be very dependent upon the operation of these systems. Couple this with the HVAC operations often being different in occupied periods versus unoccupied periods, an integrating measurement device that does not differentiate between these operating conditions can indicate an exposure significantly different than what the occupants are exposed to.

Simple mathematics can illustrate this point. A long-term test that integrates radon levels over a 91-day period will provide an average radon exposure for a total of 2,184 hours (91 x 24 hours per day), including conditions that exist on weekends and evenings in addition to occupied periods. However, if the building is only occupied 40 hours per week and the HVAC system is operated differently during these occupied hours, such as higher exhaust fan usage from hoods, bathroom exhausts or additional fresh make-up air, then the conditions that exist during occupied periods only represent 480 hours of the 2,184 hours during which the test was conducted. In other words, long-term tests can be biased by a factor of 4.5 times (2,184/480) to the conditions that exist when no one is in attendance.

Consequently, short-term tests conducted during the work week in large buildings with managed HVAC systems may provide a better representation of exposure than would long-tem tests. Even better yet may be continuous radon monitors that can differentiate exposures between occupied versus unoccupied periods during the work week.

The debate of short-term versus long-term is likely to continue for years, as long as one attempts to determine if one is better than the other, when in reality they both have their relevance, provided the measurement professional understands the variability of radon and the factors that can influence it and properly advises their clients accordingly.

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 at dougkladdr@aol.com or by phone at (719) 477-1714.

William A. Turner, MS, P.E.
President/CEO

Steven M. Caulfield, P.E.,CIH
Senior Vice President
Turner Building Science & Design, LLC

There is recent news of the closing of a school for two days to allow for intense meticulous cleaning after a student’s recent rapid death was associated with CAMRSA (Community-associated Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus). MRSA is not new, but it is increasing in prevalence and we are told the reason for its appearance is excessive us of antibiotics. In this article, we will summarize the current available information regarding this growing communicable-disease problem and the recommended practices that can reduce its transmission rate. The information we have compiled is from discussions with public health officials we know in the United States and some searches of what appear to be very good and consistent Web-based information.

Information on the Internet
After some calls to colleagues and Web searches, we found the Centers for Disease Control’s site on MRSA in schools, www.cdc.gov/Features/MRSAinschools/, to provide the most useful technical and practical information, with excellent links to other very useful sites. All the sites with links on the CDC site appear pretty up to date and consistent with their messages.

For schools with no prevention programs in place, the likely most useful comprehensive site is the Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department site, www.tpchd.org/page.php?id=364, which links from the CDC site.

The CDC Site and Others
The CDC site has some great typical practical questions and factual answers. Let’s look at some covered topics and facts.

1. Infections: For beginners, the site and others explain that MRSA skin infections are all too common now, how they can be recognized and why prompt treatment is needed.
    
2. Transmission of the Disease: The factors that determine the disease transmission rate as summarized are the Five C’s – crowding; frequent skin-to-skin contact; compromised skin (i.e., cuts or abrasions); contaminated items and surfaces; and lack of cleanliness.
   
   For those of you who know school environments well, it would appear that dormitories, athletic activities, equipment and areas in a school would likely be prime situations in which the disease can spread. A review of the cited and summarized technical literature on the CDC and Tacoma-Pierce sites confirms that the current majority of cases related to schools appear to be related to these types of settings and situations. Having never played football, the authors can mostly relate to hockey and wrestling or watching competitive cheering and gymnastics.
   
   It turns out, based on our readings, that all physically active contact sports, whether conducted indoors (on mats and gym floors) or outdoors (on grass or artificial surfaces), likely increase risk factors. Practical guidance includes not sharing towels and always covering and treating wounds.
   
   If one looks at the Five C’s, it is obvious to the authors that some of the most enjoyable non-academic pursuits likely carry some of the greatest risks for exposures. We have read no reports regarding disease transmission in a musical instrument setting. Perhaps that’s simply because fewer abrasions occur and the band equipment is typically cleaned more often to prevent corrosion. Based on our understanding of the literature, there could be increased risks with Lego building competitions or other activities in which many people handle some of the same materials.
    
3. Treatment of the Disease: Treatment of infections is best covered by medical professionals and beyond our scope. It should come as no surprise to the reader that key factors in preventing the spread of infections include prompt recognition and diagnosis, prevention of the release of body fluids and careful handling of the infection sites during treatment.
   
   Additionally, all guidelines recommend careful handling of contaminated bandages, towels and other surfaces and effective disinfection of all materials that may contact skin or sweat, such as shared equipment and associated surfaces that can harbor the viable germs for days or weeks.
    
4. Cleaning/Disinfection: Based on our discussions and readings, exotic activities like fogging with strong chemicals have not been shown to be needed to remove the threat of contamination and disease transmission. All recommended cleaning and decontamination practices include the use of standard EPA-registered cleaning compounds, which are known to provide disinfection of surfaces with adequate contact time. The guidelines recommend properly training the user and checking the disinfectant for proper use of the cleaning material to clean Staphylococcus aureaus.
   
   The guidelines of the county of Los Angeles and others recommend orientation of new uses of shared equipment regarding the proper use of cleaning materials and frequent cleaning of touched surfaces with disinfectants supplied by the school.
    
5. School Athletic Program Checklist: The Tacoma-Pierce information includes sample posters for educating sports team members and checklists for infection control policies and procedures for various sports and school areas and the education of parents and athletes.
    
6. School Closings?: Guidelines from the CDC and other organizations suggest that, in most cases, it is not necessary to close a school because of a MRSA infection in one student. It also suggests that any decisions regarding the control or management of communicable disease should be made by school officials in consultation with local and/or state public-health officials. The information reminds the reader that most MRSA transmission can be prevented by good hand hygiene and careful covering of infection sites while treatment is underway. The guidance also reminds the reader that EPA-registered disinfectants used to clean surfaces should not be used to treat infections.
    
7. Practical Advice for Teachers, Coaches and School-Health Personnel: The CDC guidelines suggest that a teacher who observes an open, draining wound or infection should refer the child to a school nurse and should enforce hand hygiene before eating and after use of the bathroom. Additionally, the guidelines suggest that students with skin infections should be referred to a licensed healthcare provider for diagnosis and treatment and that parents/guardians should be notified.
   
   Guidelines by the state of Connecticut suggest a coach should ensure that athletes wash hands, properly treat and cover wounds, not share personal items, such as towels and razors, and recommends that showers with soap always be taken before any type of whirlpool equipment is used. Some guidelines suggest that athletes with open wounds should not be allowed to compete in contact sports until the wounds are completely healed.
    
8. Surface Sampling: Whether surface testing is needed in a given situation should likely be decided by school and health officials. There are standard test methods and rapidly evolving methods suitable for determining surface contamination. Whether they are routinely warranted or beneficial is yet to be determined. Limited school funds may be spent with more direct disease transmission-prevention benefit by targeting specific areas for appropriate routine cleaning and disinfection.
    
9. Summary: It is estimated by some experts that 25 percent of the general population is colonized with S. aureus and about 1 percent with MRSA. There are those who think the 1 percent underestimates the magnitude of the problem, as some situations have been found in which 10 percent or more of athletes on a team are colonized or carriers of MRSA. It is estimated that 25 percent of all MRSA infections are misdiagnosed as spider bites and some professionals believe all boil-like infections should be assumed to be MRSA until proven otherwise. The literature also suggests that once MRSA is entrenched in a facility or population, it is nearly impossible to completely eradicate.

Shelly LeVick Masters
Attorney
Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd.
Austin, Texas

With an increasing focus on the environmental impact of population growth and climate change, “going green” and “green-build” efforts are resulting not only in the reduction of pollution and preservation of our natural resources, but also in better indoor environments as builders embrace new techniques and products that reduce the number of indoor pollutants. Along with these improvements, state legislators were hard at work this year in pursuit of a number of proposed bills with respect to many indoor air quality measures to protect against harmful exposures from radon, mold and the like. Elsewhere this year, state court judges and juries issued verdicts or resolved standing legal debates with respect to the fate of certain claims in the ongoing mold litigation. This article is an overview of legal decisions, legislation, verdicts and settlements specific to indoor air quality matters in 2007.

Legal Decisions
Lawsuits continue to be filed by plaintiffs who seek reimbursement for personal injuries and property damage caused by mold proliferation. The claims in these lawsuits encompass myriad causes of action and factual allegations. State courts are asked to interpret the law with respect to many facets of mold litigation including, but not limited to, the following:

• The standard for proving general and specific causation in a mold case;
• The qualifications of expert witnesses;
• The reliability of the testimony of expert witnesses;
• Whether a claimant’s insurance policy provided coverage for mold-related claims;
• Whether property sellers adequately disclosed property details that may have indicated the likelihood of the presence of mold;
• Compliance with state statutes regarding mold remediation, inspection and maintenance;
• Worker’s compensation benefits for workplace exposure to mold;
• The nature and extent of a landlord’s duty to its tenants with respect to mold remediation;
• The appropriate calculation of damages in a property damage case;
• The applicability of arbitration provisions in construction contracts;
• The appropriateness of verdicts in mold cases.

National and State Legislation
Although there are currently no pending bill proposals for federal legislation that deal specifically with mold or indoor air quality, the 110th Congress is in session through January 3, 2009 and the second session will begin January 15, 2008.

In a nationwide response to the disrepair of America’s schools including poor indoor air quality, legislation has been proposed in the U.S. House and Senate to address this problem. The “America’s Better Classroom Act of 2007” would create a program that would provide federal incentives for the renovation, repair and construction of schools. Both bills have been referred to committee.

Additionally, a spokesperson for Michigan representative John Conyers stated earlier this year that it was likely that new federal legislation on mold is on the horizon. Conyers introduced “The United States Toxic Mold Safety & Protection Act” in 2002 to establish guidelines to protect the public from toxic mold; however, the prior legislation failed to pass.

Statewide this year, multiple bills were introduced in state legislatures to improve indoor air environments and mold-related matters including the following:

• The Florida governor signed legislation into law that will regulate the mold inspection industry, including licensing requirements for mold remediators.
• Mold study, assessment, remediation and other regulatory bills were introduced in Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, New York and Wisconsin.
• A bill was introduced in Maryland that would require that a residential property disclaimer statement include information on abnormal levels of mold spores under specified circumstances.
• Several bills relating to indoor air quality in school facilities that will require inspections, evaluation programs and ongoing maintenance were introduced in Alabama and Indiana.
• In New York, legislation was proposed to (1) amend the public health law in relation to protecting indoor air quality by establishing guidelines for the operation of a building’s heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems; (2) ensure that people who suffer adverse affects from poor indoor air quality have a means for communicating their problems; and (3) research mold, including standards for its prevention, detection and remediation.
• Multiple state legislatures, including Alabama, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island, proposed bills that require radon testing of certain facilities, disclosure of radon conditions at the time of sale, radon mitigation, radon standards and other radon-associated initiatives.
• A bill was introduced in Connecticut concerning the inspection and evaluation of air quality in state buildings.

Daniel Stih, BSE, CMC, CIEC
President
Healthy Living Spaces
Santa Fe, N.M.

Does this sound familiar? “We’re not feeling good and think we might have a mold problem. Can you come over and inspect for mold?”

“Do you see any mold?” you ask.

“No, but we had a leak some time ago and smell something. People are complaining about allergies and being sick. No matter what we do, they just don’t seem to feel any better. Some people’s doctors are telling there might be a mold problem and that they should not come to work until it’s been fixed.”

“OK”, you assure them, “I will come over and check for mold.” You hang up the phone and head out to do a mold inspection, confident you can help.

A few days later, you get the test results back and there’s a little bit of mold in one of the wall-check samples. Good news. Now you can write a mold remediation protocol and claim you’ve found the problem. You’ve also found the ventilation in the office to be a little poor. Thinking you can never have too much fresh air, you throw into your report protocols to increase the ventilation.

The mold is successfully remediated. A few weeks later, you’ve just about closed the file on this job when you get the call.

“Hi, it’s us again. People are still complaining about being sick. Some of them are starting to file worker’s compensation claims.”

What do you do now? They expected you to solve the problem. If we find a mold problem or we determine there is not enough ventilation, we assume these are the causes of complaints. Yet removing the mold (often at the cost of tens of thousands of dollars) and increasing ventilation do not make the complaints go away. At this point, you clearly have a case of Sick Building Syndrome.

You could tell the client that mold is not the only thing that can be making them sick. There are other indoor environmental factors that affect health. You might suggest testing for chemicals, formaldehyde, carbon monoxide, dust, allergens, humidity and whatever you can think of. Whatever it takes to solve the problem, right?
OK. Now let’s suppose your client spends a ton of money testing for everything you can think of and all the results show that every air-quality parameter you can imagine is within normal and acceptable levels. What do you do then? What else could be responsible?

Often, it is stress. A nationwide survey conducted of office workers found that eye and throat irritation, fatigue, irritability and headache, symptoms commonly associated poor indoor air quality and Sick Building Syndrome, were primarily stress-related. It was the people under the most stress having symptoms.

Researchers concluded that work-related stress, independent of other factors, was significantly associated with Sick Building Syndrome. One study, performed by Professor Alan Hedge at Cornell University, concluded that Sick Building Syndrome is not correlated with very many environmental conditions at all, but was correlated with feeling overworked and the mere perception of poor indoor air quality. Dr. Hedge, who has been studying indoor air quality for about 30 years, says it’s rare to find a building in which the air quality parameters are as poor as the people complaining think they are.

Stress Factors
Job Satisfaction. Deadlines, job insecurities, boring work and feeling overworked.

Our Imaginations. Often, people have a picture in their heads of where the air supplied to their offices comes from. Smells trigger different feelings in different people. If something smells bad, people start to believe it’s bad for their health. They imagine the worst and create mental pictures of mold and other toxic stuff in their air ducts. People may go into mass hysteria from the perception that something is bad for their health, even when there’s nothing hazardous present.

Lighting. Fluorescent lighting is known to cause headaches and stress. Glare and too much light can be as big of problems as too little. People feel lethargic when lighting levels are too high. It’s similar to how lying in the sun at the beach all day makes you drowsy. Cubicles with the dark, stodgy corporate colors and no natural daylight cause stress. Full-spectrum lighting, painting the walls brighter colors and requiring that people go outside when they take their breaks can help resolve complaints.

Comfort. The constant ringing of the telephone, noise, room temperature and vibration affect stress. There is a balance. You don’t want it too loud or too quiet, too hot or too cold, too bright or too dim.

Medical Conditions. There may be medical factors responsible for stress or a synergetic effect with environmental factors. Suggest people get a checkup from their doctors.

How To Proceed with the Investigation
Let’s first distinguish between a Building Related Illness (BRI) and Sick Building Syndrome (SBS). For a Building Related Illness, there is something clearly wrong that can be easily identified and fixed; in the case of Sick Building Syndrome, no precise cause can be identified and increasing ventilation does not eliminate complaints. This is when it gets tough to solve the problem. It can al