Car Manufacturers Urged to Drive Out Chemicals

Legislative Update: Lawmakers Seek to License, Shape Mold Cleanup

EEF Advisory Group Convened, Seldom Put to Work

Humidity in Schools: Too Dry or Too Damp?

Why Contact a Heart Specialist for a Brain Tumor?

VOICES

“[Environmental Education Foundation] received an official ‘unsatisfactory’ rating because of poor performance and their failure to deliver required products under the contract, and was not paid in full because of this. However, EEF continues to promote their services and solicit clients as if they were endorsed by EPA or acting on behalf of EPA as a result of that contract. To set the record straight, please understand that EEF is in no way associated with EPA. EPA does not endorse or approve of their services, and EPA has asked EEF repeatedly to desist from making such misleading statements and solicitations.”

— David Mudarri, Ph.D., of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Indoor Environments Division, in a post Jan. 17 to the Yahoo! IE Quality Group

Word on the Street 

CONSUMER REPORTS ON MOLD
The December 2005 issue of Consumer Reports magazine weighed in on mold removal with an article called “After the storm: Cleaning up mold.” It eschewed the debate over the existence of “toxic” mold with some practical guidance for consumers: “Toxic or not, it isn’t good for you or your home.” Consumer Reports stressed the importance of using properly trained specialists and listed a few professional organizations – AIHA, ACGIH and ASCR – for consumers to contact for referrals. However, the trade organization that was probably best represented in the write-up was NADCA. A sidebar dedicated to HVAC systems and ductwork provided the National Air Duct Cleaners Association’s Web site as a general resource on duct cleaning and cited ACR 2005 as “the industry standard for assessment, cleaning, and restoration of HVAC systems.” The magazine also referenced NADCA’s executive director, John Schulte, with some information on how much companies typically charge for their services – “$450 for a 2,000 square-foot house.” Consumer Reports said professionals should “clean the entire system from supply to return, not just the ductwork.”

LET’S CLEAN SOME DUCTS
NADCA will hold a course on the basics of operating a profitable duct-cleaning business March 5 in Dallas, the first day of the association’s 17th Annual Meeting and Exposition. The course, “Big Bucks in Air Ducts,” is a one-day primer designed for those starting up a new business in HVAC cleaning. Experienced professionals who know what it takes to run a successful business will offer instruction, from an introduction to HVAC system cleaning to what type of equipment to buy. For more information, call NADCA headquarters at (202) 737-2926.

STUDENTS IN IDUSTRIAL HYGIENE
The American Industrial Hygiene Foundation has set a deadline for applications for its 2006–2007 scholarships. All applications need to be postmarked by March 17. AIHF awards scholarships to students studying industrial hygiene, enabling talented students to complete their education and encouraging the most promising scholars to enter or remain in the industrial hygiene profession. Since 1982, AIHF has distributed more than $760,000 to more than 44 different schools and universities and 310 students. The 2006–2007 AIHF scholarships will be awarded at the 2006 American Industrial Hygiene Conference and Expo, taking place May 13–18 in Chicago. For more information regarding AIHF or to make a donation, please contact Jennifer Steffan by e-mail at jsteffan@aiha.org or by phone at (703) 846-0768.

ACGIH PROCEDURE EVOLVES
The American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists has announced two changes to the development process of threshold limit values and biological exposure indices. Under the first change, ACGIH will begin this year to provide additional information on the status of chemical substances and physical agents that are on the “Under Study” list. By July 31 each year, the list will be separated into two tiers that will indicate which chemical substances and physical agents may move forward as a notice of intended changes in the following year, and which ones will remain on or be removed from the “Under Study” list in the following year. This change may help interested parties prioritize their efforts for submitting information or comments to relevant committees.

Under ACGIH’s second procedural change, the comment period for a notice of intended change or a notice of intent to establish will be limited to a firm six-month period, running from Feb. 1 to July 31 of each year. ACGIH is restructuring the comment period to ensure all comments are received by ACGIH in time for full consideration by the appropriate committee before its fall meeting. All comments received after July 31 will be fully considered in the following year. Draft documentation will be available for review during the full six-month period.

USE IT OR LOSE IT
About 42 percent of U.S. schools have IAQ management programs, according to a study published in the January edition of Environmental Health Perspectives, although the study’s authors note that simply “having a program is not equivalent to implementing effective IAQ policies and procedures.” The authors, including researchers from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Indoor Environments Division, found statistics that suggest “a sustained increase in the use of IAQ management programs over time.” They added that survey results “indicate that schools are paying an increasing amount of attention to IAQ.”

EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson delivered a speech Jan. 13 at the IAQ Tools for Schools symposium in Washington, D.C., heralding the official launch of the Healthy School Environments Assessment Tool, or HealthySEAT. “Simply put, HealthySEAT helps educate school leaders on how to identify and work to prevent environmental problems before they occur,” said Johnson. “It also tracks the status of facility conditions – and needed improvements – school by school.” To download this free software tool, visit www.epa.gov/schools/.
   

Car Manufacturers Urged to Drive Out Chemicals
By Steve Sauer

New questions about the safety of car interiors emerged last month with the release of a report concentrating on the activity of chemicals present inside automobiles. While some car manufacturers are beginning to reduce the chemicals associated with that “new car smell,” the report’s authors drew attention to other contributors to pollution they say manufacturers fail to recognize.

The report, titled “Toxic at Any Speed: Chemicals in Cars and the Need for Safe Alternatives,” was written by The Ecology Center, a nonprofit based in Ann Arbor, Mich., and released to the public Jan. 12, strategically timed to coincide with events of the 2006 North American International Auto Show in Detroit.
Of particular concern in cars, the report says, are two classes of chemical compounds: polybrominated diphenyl ethers, or PBDEs, and phthalates. Because much of an automobile’s interior is shielded from high amounts of ultraviolet radiation only by glass, “frequent exposure to the sun’s heat and UV light increases [the levels of these chemical compounds] and may exacerbate their toxicity.”

Plastics and textile coatings since the 1970s have included PBDEs as fire retardants, and they are common in the plastic components of many cars, including interior fabric backing, electronic enclosures, arm rests and floor coverings. Seat fabrics, interior trims and instrument panels are among the parts of a car where phthalates are ordinarily used.

The Ecology Center’s report finds that concentrations of these compounds in windshield film varied greatly from one manufacturer to another. While Hyundai yielded the lowest amount of PBDEs among 13 carmakers (0.054 micrograms per square meter), the same manufacturer topped the list of the highest amount of phthalates (24 micrograms per square meter). According to the report, the phthalate concentrations for Volvo and BMW measured only three micrograms per square meter, and the cars’ PBDE concentrations were also among the lowest; Volvo ranked second for least PBDEs with 0.152 micrograms per square meter, and BMW was next with 0.178.

Animal studies cited in September 2004 by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate PBDEs are responsible for neurobehavioral alterations and adverse effects on the thyroid gland, liver and immune systems. “Animal studies have demonstrated reproductive toxicity and other effects of phthalates,” the CDC stated in a separate report in July 2005.

The Ecology Center recommends that automobile manufacturers begin “phasing out PBDEs and phthalates in auto interior parts, setting specific timelines for its material and component suppliers.” It noted that several manufacturers – Mercedes, Chrysler, Toyota and Subaru – were already undertaking “efforts to improve their chemical policies.”

The report also asked government to adopt phase-out timelines with the end goal of prohibiting the use of PBDEs and phthalates. It noted that nine states had already banned two forms of PBDEs, while six other states are considering bans on certain PBDEs.

Vehicle occupants can cut down on their exposure to PBDEs and phthalates in car interiors in a number of ways, the Ecology Center report suggests. Occupants can accomplish this by vacuuming often, using solar reflectors, ventilating car interiors, and parking away from sunlight whenever possible.
 

Legislative Update: Lawmakers Seek to License, Shape Mold Cleanup
By Steve Sauer

The reconvening of legislative bodies in many states last month yielded several new and reintroduced bills related to indoor environments. Continuing its focus on tracking legislation relevant to the IAQ industry, IE Connections presents a current rundown of the bills slated to make the rounds within statehouses in 2006.

Colorado

●  House Bill 1006 would prohibit insurers and agents from specifying a business that would be required to perform an appraisal or repair on personal property. Insurers and agents would also be prohibited from soliciting or accepting referral fees. The bill unanimously passed the House Business Affairs and Labor Committee Jan. 25 after a hearing in which seven contractors and two consumers testified in favor of the bill. One of the contractors, Michael Griggs of Disaster Restoration Inc., said the bill is now headed for a hearing with the House Appropriations Committee.

Joe Arrigo of Arrigo Construction and Restoration said several industry organizations are aligning to support the bill. ASCR International’s president, William J. Lakin, has sent a letter urging Denver lawmakers to pass the bill.

“The ‘one size fits all’ approach so often used by large national property insurance companies does not work, and it does a disservice to insured property owners who have suffered a catastrophic loss,” Lakin said in his letter dated Jan. 23. He said the bill would protect consumers’ interests “by assuring competition in the restoration marketplace and delivering optimum value to buyers of property insurance.”

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

Florida

●  House Bill 161 and Senate Bill 1046 propose a method for the state to regulate mold remediation and assessment without issuing licenses. The bills are a revision of the 2005 legislation that would have been implemented in October except for a veto last June by Gov. Jeb Bush. The Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation issued a report on the legislation last month, specifying ways to improve the bill for congressional passage and gubernatorial approval this year.

Members of the Florida Coalition on Healthy Indoor Environments want the 2006 bill to set a pollution liability insurance requirement of at least $1 million for mold-remediation contractors and an errors-and-omissions requirement of the same amount for mold assessors. They also want the state to recognize mold remediation and assessment certifications from industry associations, societies, certification bodies, junior colleges and state universities – as long as the certifications are accredited by entities such as the Council of Engineering and Scientific Specialty Boards or the American National Standards Institute. “If realistic, third party accreditation might be a credible process by which such requirements are approved,” the Department of Business and Professional Regulation said in its report last month.

FCHIE members are also seeking to implement a deadline for grandfathering individuals into the program if they meet certain requirements pertaining to experience and education. Bush had expressed in his veto letter that responsible people would have been put out of business if last year’s legislation were enacted. On the issue of grandfathering, the department report listed several concerns for consideration, including the involvement of insurance companies in determining the minimum level of experience for mold remediators and assessors.

The department also suggested lawmakers should additionally consider regulating the fields of mold inspection and testing.

The House legislation is sponsored by Rep. Carl J. Domino (R), (561) 625-5176.
The Senate legislation is sponsored by Sen. Michael S. “Mike” Bennett (R), (941) 727-6349.

Georgia

●  Senate Bill 156 and House Bill 729 would require licensure of individuals and firms engaged in “the practice of microbial testing, microbial contamination evaluation, or microbial remediation.” The Microbial Contamination Licensing Act would create a seven-member Microbial Contamination Commission made up of representatives of IICRC, AIHA, ACGIH, IAQA, EPA, CDC and the Georgia Department of Consumer Affairs. The commission would define requirements for prerequisite education and continuing education, as well as for licensing and registration, including fees.

The Senate legislation is sponsored by:

• Sen. Horacena Tate (D), horacena.tate@senate.ga.gov, (404) 463-8053;

• Sen. Vincent D. Fort (D), vincent.fort@senate.ga.gov, (404) 656-5091;

• Sen. Steve Henson (D), steve.henson@senate.ga.gov, (404) 656-0085;

• Sen. Gloria Butler (D), gloria.butler@senate.ga.gov, (404) 656-0075; and

• Sen. Sam Zamarripa (D), sam.zamarripa@senate.ga.gov, (404) 419-0115
  The House legislation is sponsored by:

• Rep. Buddy Carter (R), bcarter331@aol.com, (404) 656-0213; and

• Rep. Robert Ray (D), rray@legis.state.ga.us, (404) 656-0265.
  
  Illinois

●  House Bill 4364 and Senate Bill 2198 constitute the Mold Remediation Registration Act, which calls on the Department of Public Health “to adopt rules, under the Illinois Administrative Procedure Act, to implement and administer ... a program establishing procedures for parties that provide mold remediation services to register with the State and provide evidence of financial responsibility.” The bill, if passed, would take effect July 1.
The House legislation is sponsored by:

• Rep. Thomas Holbrook (D), (217) 782-0104; and

• Rep. Linda Chapa LaVia (D), (217) 558-1002.

The Senate legislation is sponsored by Sen. Kirk W. Dillard (R), (217) 782-8148.

Maine

●  Legislative Document No. 1971 / House Paper 1381 would require Maine’s Department of Environmental Protection to establish written standards that describe the process for the cleanup of mold.
 
The legislation is sponsored by Rep. Margaret M. Craven (D), RepMargaret.Craven@legislature.maine.gov, (207) 783-7210.

New York

●  Assembly Bill 9251 and Senate Bill 6359 would fix a calculation error in the number of seats on the state’s Toxic Mold Task Force. The bill passed last June by the state legislature and signed into law by the governor in August created the task force and provided for the selection of only 13 of its 14 members. This new bill would specify that there are 12 at-large members, not 11. The task force will still have until Nov. 30 to “assess the latest scientific data on exposure limits to mold in indoor environments.”
The legislation is sponsored by Assemblymember David Koon (D), koond@assembly.state.ny.us, (518) 455-5784.

●  Assembly Bill 9542 “directs the commissioner of housing and community renewal and the commissioner of health to promulgate rules and standards for the remediation and prevention of indoor mold.” The bill “also requires the disclosure of indoor mold history upon the sale of residential real property.” The bill would take effect 180 days after it is passed.

The legislation is sponsored by Assemblymember Alexander B. Pete Grannis (D), grannis@ assembly.state.ny.us, (518) 455-5676.

Virginia

●  House Bill 1498, filed Jan. 20 and withdrawn only a few days later, would have made changes to the state’s existing Board for Asbestos, Lead and Home Inspectors, giving it authority to “promulgate regulations for licensing of mold inspectors and mold remediators.” One provision in the now-withdrawn bill stated, “The Board may issue a license to perform mold inspections or mold remediation to any applicant who is a member of a national or state professional mold inspectors or mold remediators association approved by the Board, provided that the requirements for the applicant’s class of membership in such association are equal to or exceed the requirements established by the Board for all applicants.” A representative from the office of the bill’s sponsor said the bill “has been withdrawn for further study.”

The legislation, now withdrawn, was sponsored by Daniel W. Marshall III (R), DelDMarshall@house.state.va.us, (804) 698-1014.
     

Following last month’s disclosure that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency gave an “unsatisfactory” rating to Environmental Education Foundation for its work under contract and rebuked the Arizona non-profit for misleading statements used in marketing, members of the Advisory Group assembled by EEF have told IE Connections that their participation amounted to a few initial encounters soliciting their involvement, with sparse contributions ever being required of members, amid a lack of guidance from EEF during the project.

While EEF was working under contract for the EPA, it and some partners distributed at least nine press releases detailing tasks the advisory group was to accomplish, including revising EPA guidelines. Among the items press releases said the advisory group would be evaluating was the EPA’s I-BEAM software, developed for facility managers to manage indoor air quality issues in their buildings. The existence of the advisory group, which included participants from a number of different industries, and the EPA contract work were focal points of EEF marketing campaigns in the IAQ marketplace in 2004 and 2005.

Some members of the advisory group have revealed to IE Connections over the past two months that they were asked to contribute little, if anything, toward the completion of EEF’s contract with the EPA, which spanned the 17 months between March 2004 and August 2005.

One of the earliest advisory group recruits was Emily E. Williams, of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development in Greensboro, N.C. EEF lists the “HUD-Healthy Home Division” as a member of its Advisory Group. In an interview with IE Connections in late December, Williams recalled that she was approached in person by both Troy E. Johnson, executive director of EEF, and Rick Bates, president of EEF, during a HUD conference held in Orlando. She said the two EEF principals asked if she could get HUD involved in reviewing some materials, and she agreed. She said she eventually received a compact disc from EEF but never completed a review of it because she was never prompted to do so.

EEF’s Johnson refused to interview for this article and referred questions to the organization’s legal counsel. An attorney representing EEF, Terry Fong of Wilson-Goodman & Fong, P.C., did not answer questions submitted by IE Connections for this article but did send a letter on Jan. 20 threatening the newspaper with legal action for reports on EEF he called “defamatory, misleading and untrue.”

A story similar to Williams’ came in December from James R. Tucker, Ph.D., who teaches indoor air quality courses as a lecturer and adjunct faculty member for the Medical University of South Carolina. Tucker said that while the university’s other courses on lead-based paint and asbestos were accredited by the EPA, the university’s course on IAQ did not bear that accreditation. EPA does not accredit IAQ programs.

Tucker said that based on the few conversations he had with EEF’s Johnson, he thought involvement with EEF would be advantageous. He said Johnson presented himself as being well connected with the EPA.

“I talked to Troy Johnson perhaps a year and a half – maybe even two years ago,” said Tucker, “and he was really excited: ‘Let’s do this. We’re gonna do all these great things. How would you like to be on our advisory board?’ I said, ‘Sure.’”

Tucker said Johnson asked him to send the logo for the Medical University of South Carolina. “I haven’t heard from him since,” said Tucker. He said he has tried several times to contact Johnson about his participation in the advisory group but has not received any response.

“I don’t know what EEF actually does,” said Tucker.

Meanwhile, EEF boasted that its advisory group included the participation of the Medical University of South Carolina, with the organization’s logo included in advertisements in IAQ industry publications.

Tucker, who also works for Environmental Monitoring Systems as the vice president of technology, clarified that his comments do not necessarily reflect those of EMS. Other contacts at EMS, also a member of the EEF Advisory Committee, declined to comment in this article.

One advisory group participant, Mike McGinley, said he was approached to join the advisory group, representing the Air & Waste Management Association, for which he chairs the Technical Committee on Indoor Air Quality. However, he told IE Connections last month that he proceeded with caution when getting the organization involved.

“Since day one of learning of EEF wanting A&WMA to cooperate with them on this contract, I have said one thing over and over as we tried to take a cautious approach to our relationship. ... Just because an organization is non-profit, this does not mean they are by default out there for the greater good, whether it be the good of the industry or the good of the public,” McGinley said in an e-mail on Jan. 5.

McGinley indicated on Jan. 17 that attorneys for A&WMA did not wish him to comment further on the nature of the association’s work with EEF.

In a press release dated Nov. 29, the American Industrial Hygiene Association announced that it would “participate as a member of the advisory group convened by EEF to continue work started under a contract from the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) headquarters.”

Sources at AIHA confirmed that at the time of the release, the association was unaware of the EPA’s unsatisfactory rating of EEF’s performance under contract. AIHA has since withdrawn as a member of the EEF Advisory Board.

Dan Moberly of the Association of School Business Officials International verified that communication from EEF to advisory group members was seldom. The association is listed as an EEF Advisory Group member.

Moberly, who in July 2004 began serving a two-year appointment as the association’s resident practitioner for indoor air quality, said Johnson sent him an e-mail Sept. 14, 2004, inviting his participation to comment on a training module based on the EPA’s I-BEAM program.

Moberly, speaking with IE Connections by phone Jan. 17, said he did see and comment on some draft versions of the training module. But he said a Web site that was to be set up for advisory group members to interact with EEF “never fully developed.”

“Quite frankly, this is one of those things we will get periodic communication from, but very seldom,” said Moberly.

These new comments about the lack of direction and instruction provided to the advisory group came just after IE Connections went to press with its January 2006 issue, in which a front-page story included the comments of an EPA official observing that EEF “seemed to be using the contract with EPA as a means to enhance their status.” That EPA official, Dr. David Mudarri, said the EPA rated EEF’s work under the contract “unsatisfactory.”

Mudarri had previously told IE Connections that EPA made a partial payment to EEF for the contract but declined to disclose the full amount EEF did receive, adding instead: “It was the majority of it. But that does not mean that [the] final product was of any substance.”

A Freedom of Information Act request fulfilled for IE Connections last month revealed that EEF’s contract with the EPA was originally worth $49,984 and that the total amount paid to EEF was $43,678.

The fact that EEF was to receive any money under the contract took one advisory group member by surprise. Colin Nicholson, of the New York-based press-distribution service E-Wire, told IE Connections in January that he had long ago agreed to allow Johnson to distribute press releases via the service at no cost, only with the understanding that EEF’s relationship with the EPA was not one in which EEF stood to make any monetary gain.

“He really led us to believe he was not being paid,” said Nicholson.

At least eight EEF press releases were distributed via E-Wire before the conclusion of EEF’s contract with the EPA in 2005.

Advisory Group’s Alleged Longevity
Whether or not the advisory group actually predated the EPA contract in 2004 is unclear. Press releases issued by EEF and various other businesses and organizations in 2004 and 2005 say the advisory group was “convened under the contract” with the EPA. The contract existed between March 29, 2004, and Aug. 31, 2005.

In an e-mail signed in Johnson’s name, dated Jan. 3, 2006, and forwarded to IE Connections by one of its recipients, the EEF executive director claims that the advisory group had existed for at least 15 years and that the contract between EEF and the EPA was “just the latest in a long history.”

An unsigned statement from an EEF partner, quoted in Johnson’s Jan. 3 e-mail, said in part: “The EEF IAQ Advisory Group has existed, with varying members and missions, for nearly 17 years. The EEF Advisory Group continues to evolve and lead the industry with their efforts. I am sure the EEF IAQ Advisory Group, as well as their other environmental advisory groups, will continue to bring business and government together for years to come.”

In the same Jan. 3 e-mail, Johnson repeated that “our 16 year old IAQ Advisory Group recently added a few new members and accepted a contract from the EPA.”

A source in the human resources department of Environmental Support Solutions, an Arizona-based software company specializing in environmental work, indicated last month that Troy Johnson was a full-time employee of the company from July 10, 2000, to Jan. 24, 2003. IE Connections was unable to locate any evidence of the EEF advisory group on IAQ – or EEF as a whole for that matter – engaged in any activities until December 2002.

Another former employee of Environmental Support Solutions, speaking on the condition of anonymity, told IE Connections that Johnson “started working on EEF toward the end of his time at ESS, and in fact it was part of the cause for his departure from the company.”

EEF Ignores EPA Demands
When this article went to press in early February, the headline on the main page of the EEF Web site, www.enviro-ed.org, read “EEF Rolls out IAQ Training as a Result of EPA Contract.”

“EPA has asked EEF to remove all references to the contract in their public solicitations,” Mudarri told IE Connections in December. He further reiterated this comment in a Jan. 17 post to the Yahoo! IE Quality Group, stating that “EPA has asked EEF repeatedly to desist from making such misleading statements and solicitations.”

In a Jan. 26 telephone call, Mudarri told IE Connections of EPA’s increasing frustration at EEF’s failure to abide by their demand, and the possibility that the agency would resort to legal action if necessary.
 

Steven M. Caulfield, P.E., CIH
Senior Vice President
Turner Building Science LLC
Harrison, Maine

Too Dry?
It should now be pretty cold and dry outdoors in many parts of the United States. Low-dewpoint winter weather often means “too dry” for good occupant comfort indoors in a school that meets the recommended 15 cubic feet per meter of outside air. This school could well be experiencing 10 percent relative humidity in classrooms, which will often lead to drying of mucous membranes and, for me, nosebleeds.

If you were actually to add humidity to a school that does not have a properly designed roofing or wall system to handle it, then you could be inviting disastrous consequences regarding long-term damage from condensation.
There are four basic approaches that we have successfully taken with schools to minimize just how dry it will get during low dew point winter weather.

These include:

1. Make the building as airtight as you can so that it is not overly drying out all night long when not occupied.
2. Do not over-ventilate it during occupied hours. That is, if the carbon dioxide levels are down around 600 parts per million at 11 a.m. versus 800 ppm in an occupied school on the coldest days of winter, you are very likely over-ventilating it and exacerbating any potential dryness problems.
3. Do not run the ventilation system when the building is unoccupied. This includes exhaust fans as well as make-up air fans.
4. Install enthalpy (total energy) recovery from the general building exhaust to capture some of the moisture from the occupants and put it back into the building.

None of these four approaches should lead to building damage from condensation within the building shell, or a degradation of the air quality in the facility.

In addition to minimizing excess dryness, keeping deposited and airborne dust levels under control during dry winter weather will also likely reduce occupant irritation during dryness. The positive effect of having less dirt in the air has been demonstrated in published intervention studies that see most upper respiratory issues and eye irritation symptoms diminish in cleaned up buildings where airborne breathable dust (dirt) levels have been lowered. The typical means to accomplishing this goal include good cleaning practice to capture and remove dirt, such as:

1. daily use of auto scrubbers (with clean water) on hard-surface floors;
2. daily use of vacuums with high efficiency bags and good suction on carpets and hard surfaces;
3. if dry mops are used, they must be treated, or they make dust clouds; or
4. use of some of the new microfiber dusting devices, or damp-wiping.

Too Damp?
You all know by now that areas in schools that stay damp for any lengthy time period will eventually grow mold on deposited dirt or porous surfaces. This is true year-round.

Thus, dealing with routinely damp areas during the heating season as well as the cooling season remains a high priority. Classic areas to keep an eye on in climates where it rains in the winter are utility trenches, crawlspaces, and floor slabs with a high water table or poor capillary break.

There are somewhat limited choices for dealing with dampness. They include:

1. Fix number one, stop the liquid water intrusion, or manage it in a way that porous materials stay dry, and routinely clean the hard surfaces like you would clean your bathroom fixtures.
2. If the source of the liquid water has been addressed, the effects of dampness can often be remediated by keeping paper products away from the damp area and either warming the surfaces in the area above the dew point of the air, or drying the air to lower the dewpoint.

It can be difficult to warm earth contact areas such as damp dirt crawlspaces, or damp floor slabs or below grade walls. Sometimes simply letting damp concrete areas breathe and evaporate moisture and keeping paper away from the area can be enough if the moisture (once evaporated into the air) has a way to leave the area.

Drying: We know of two means for drying surfaces: Add lots of heat, or make air dry by dehumidifying it. In the winter heating up the space and allowing dry outdoor air to enter it will usually give you dry air and good drying potential. During the rest of the year, a good high capacity energy efficient dehumidifier such as a Thermastor Sierra, or one of their competitors, should do a great job at drying any surface by increasing the drying capacity of the air. We define a high capacity unit as one that gets you in the range of 100 to 140 pints a day of moisture for less than 10 amps of power with a 115 volt power source.

Isolation and exhaust of dampness: In some cases, crawlspace dampness can best be addressed by installing a sub-membrane radon removal-type system to capture dampness from the earth below a smoke-rated plastic sheet and dumping it outdoors. Lots of information is now available regarding keeping crawlspaces sealed up, warm and dry, versus the typical vented and damp and cold.

Installing an air suction and venting system on damp utility trenches can also work well.

Basements with air conditioning? In general, installing air conditioning in a basement area often leads to mold problems unless the area has a very high cooling load due to high internal gains, or very well insulated walls and floors. The typical issue arises if the walls and floors are not insulated (and thus cool), then the AC never runs long enough to dry the air and the basement stays cool and clammy (damp). What benefits most older basements is a high-capacity dehumidifier, not an AC unit alone. Some basements need both, however, in general drying from an AC is a byproduct of the unit running for long periods to get rid of heat, and the equipment is primarily intended to cool not to dry.

When Is Dehumidification a Potentially Bad Idea?
What comes to mind is when you already have visible mold growing on surfaces. In this situation, it has been our training that you really want to remove the mold before you dry out an area. A recipe for making things worse is to place a fan blowing on a moldy area. This action has the potential effect of dislodging moldy materials and spreading them considerable distances from the original growth site. Guidelines from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and New York City offer some of the most practical guidance for dealing with mold mitigation.

When Is Dehumidification Not Enough of a Fix?
We recently read a consultant’s recommendation to an owner that said to add dehumidifiers to the 10 rooms with the mold growing on the base of the walls because the floor slab was damp. Upon evaluation, we determined that the external grade had been backfilled to three courses of brick above the weep-holes. Clearly, the consultant did not understand basic building science and construction, nor had the concrete moisture emission rate from the floor slab been tested – which, in fact, was acceptably dry as one moved away from the very damp wall. If the consultant’s recommendation to add a dehumidifier to solve the problem had been to a tenant in a basement apartment as an interim measure, maybe it would make sense, so long as the surface molds were removed before they dried out.

Clearly, the advice that we are aware of should always be to properly remove the mold and to stop the source of the moisture.

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

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

As many of you know, I was an ASHI home inspector before selling my real estate inspection business and becoming a full-time IAQ professional. Over 17 years, I performed more than 3,000 pre-purchase home inspections, and in the 11 years that I have been doing IAQ work, I have investigated over 1,000 problem homes, schools and offices. In the course of these investigations, I have taken more than 20,000 air and dust samples and analyzed most of them by light microscopy. Based on my experiences in these two different worlds, I would no more recommend that indoor air quality be a part of a pre-purchase home inspection report than I would suggest someone with a brain tumor go to a heart specialist for surgery.

The American Society of Home Inspectors has been the premier organization for inspection professionals since 1976. The ASHI Standards of Practice, or SOP, protects the homebuyer by dictating what the inspector must do, and protects the home inspector from lawsuits by limiting what he or she must inspect. The underlying concept of the ASHI SOP has been the principle that a pre-purchase home inspection consists of inspecting and reporting only on those components and systems that are “readily accessible,” defined as “available for visual inspection without requiring moving of personal property, dismantling, destructive measures, or any action which will likely involve risk to persons or property” (emphasis on visual added).

These are important guidelines for a home inspector. On one inspection, I removed a framed picture placed to conceal an electric panel. After inspecting the panel, I replaced the frame, which promptly fell to the floor and smashed. On another inspection, the buyer insisted that I check an outlet behind an antique dresser on spindly legs. I declined to move the furniture, which he then offered to do. As he slid the valuable piece aside, one leg caught on the floor and broke off. So there are various dangers like these awaiting a home inspector during any inspection, before we even begin to discuss environmental issues.

That said, as an indoor air quality professional, I believe that environmental issues are important and that they can have a substantial impact on the health of a home occupant. There are some rather obvious, visually noticeable environmental issues that home inspectors might wish to comment on. I inspected a home that the sellers had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars restoring. They had never experienced any roof leaks, the brokers disclosed. The roofing material, original and over 50 years old, consisted of asbestos/cement composite shingles. The roof appeared to be in satisfactory condition, but there were white tufts poking out of every shingle where the masonry had been eroded by weathering.

At the end of the inspection, after the brokers had left, I took out a ladder and decided to check the debris in a low gutter. Much of the material was white. I took samples of the debris and some of the bark mulch that was stuck to the foundation, where water had splashed from the overflowing gutter above, and I gave the samples to the buyer. A lab determined that the asbestos content in the material varied from 10 to 25 percent.

But asbestos is only one of many overarching environmental issues, also including lead, carbon monoxide, pesticides, water quality, radon and bioaerosols. The presence of most contaminants cannot be determined by a strictly visual assessment during a home inspection any more than the condition, or even presence, of a buried oil tank or septic system can be determined. Of course, there are chemical tests, instruments and optical devices that could assist in making some determinations, but these all go beyond the ASHI SOP or the standards of practice in most states with home inspection licensing laws, as Carl Grimes states in his “Breaking the Mold” column in IE Connections (“Home Inspections and Environmental Evaluation,” November 2005).

Grimes refers to inspectors who do IAQ testing as pioneers, but let me illustrate some of the pitfalls that faced those who dared to tread beyond the ASHI SOP.

Buyer Fumes and Carbon Monoxide
An experienced ASHI inspector I know used to provide carbon monoxide testing of furnaces at no extra charge. On one inspection, after explaining what he was about to do, he found that the battery was dead on his CO-detection instrument. The buyers purchased the home, had the furnace inspected and were told that the heat exchanger was cracked. They insisted that the inspector would have known this had he tested it for CO and demanded that he pay for their new furnace. The heat exchanger in a furnace is inaccessible and excluded from the inspection, but the inspector was obligated to buy the furnace, because he had raised the buyers’ expectations with his promise to do CO testing.

Moreover, indoor-air CO testing during a home inspection is not even an assurance that a problem will be found. In two homes, occupants experienced intermittent symptoms of CO poisoning only on days when the wind blew in a direction that sent chimney combustion products into adjacent flues that were experiencing down-drafting when the fireplace damper was left open. Who can promise that the wind would blow in that direction when a home inspection is being performed?

Radon Ruse
Many home inspectors sell passive radon test kits to buyers. For this privilege, inspectors must pay for separate insurance coverage. Radon is an environmental issue, and it makes sense to test for it, yet the home inspector does not control the test conditions – a potential problem for his or her credibility.

A pest inspector related this story to me. He had been at a home for about 20 minutes. Shortly before the home inspector arrived, he ran into the female real estate agent, who was surreptitiously rushing down the entrance walk and clutching a small paper bag. She was quite startled when he suddenly stood up from behind bushes at the front stoop. Flustered, she apologized for her shock by saying that she had to return the radon kits before the home inspector arrived. I’ll bet those test results were reassuring!

At a home in a neighborhood with a reputation for serious radon problems, I drove slowly around the block after completing the inspection. As I passed by the house again, I noticed that the seller had already opened all the windows, presumably to defeat the radon test.

Continuous monitoring of radon can produce actual readings, which still may fluctuate according to weather conditions. An inspector who does continuous monitoring in homes noted during one test that the readings were close to zero during most of the time period but was surprised to find that the average reading over a few days was over four picocuries per liter. As he scrolled through the printout, he came to a period of a few hours when the reading rose to 100 pC/L (due to a rapid drop in barometric pressure associated with the passage of a heavy thunderstorm). Thus, two different, two-day tests in the same house could provide drastically different test results.

Mold Madness
Grimes is probably correct in noting that five years ago, more inspectors were testing for mold than they are now. Insurance companies are understandably nervous about mold claims, given some of the huge decisions and settlements (from the hundreds of thousands to the millions of dollars) in some lawsuits. In consequence, insurance companies exclude coverage for mold testing in standard home inspection policies.

One New England home inspector was sued for failing to find a moldy attic. He insisted that the attic was inaccessible (The ceiling hatch was screwed and painted shut, and an eaves door in a closet was completely blocked by boxes and clothing). Based on a few settle-plate and total spore count mold tests, the buyers concluded that their child’s autism was caused by exposure to “toxic” attic mold; the home inspector’s fearful insurance company settled for about $100,000. The buyers moved out and used the money to replace the entire second floor of the house, yet they continued to experience respiratory problems after moving back in. They then proceeded to sue the sellers for almost $200,000 but settled for nearly nothing after further testing and analysis done by an IAQ professional showed that no attic mold spores were in the house and that all the “toxic” spores originated in the damp basement that was full of the owner’s moldy stored goods.

So, even though the home inspector followed the ASHI SOP, he was assumed to be culpable and liable, supporting my position that home inspections and environmental surveys should be seen as two different processes: one done by a qualified home inspector and the other done by a qualified IAQ professional.

A Higher Standard
Many home inspectors are engineers and architects, yet the ASHI SOP correctly states that home inspectors are “not required to provide any engineering or architectural service” or “offer an opinion as to the adequacy of any structural system or component.” In other words, home inspectors with other professional registrations or licenses cannot be held to a higher standard.

When I was still a home inspector, I had the unfortunate luck (in this case) of being known as an author of books and articles on IAQ. Despite the fact that my contract and report stated in several places that IAQ was not a part of my inspection, a chemically sensitive buyer threatened to sue me for over $50,000 because I failed to inform her that the wood flooring was off-gassing and that the seller used a popular brand of fabric softener (a particularly odious product for the chemically sensitized) in the dryer.

In the end, the lawsuit never materialized, but the frivolous claim cost me $3000 in legal fees. Ultimately, the buyer did me a favor, because her actions convinced me that I had to choose between being a home inspector and being an IAQ professional.

I agree with another implication of Grimes’ argument: that there is no more qualified a group of professionals than ASHI home inspectors to perform indoor environmental surveys. I have always encouraged home inspectors to seek additional training in order to qualify as IAQ professionals. There is clearly the need for an IAQ investigatory profession: one that is interdisciplinary and that involves cooperation between the appropriate non-profit organizations. But the pre-purchase home inspection should never be confused with an IAQ survey.
A home inspector cannot deliver all that a buyer might expect from pre-purchase IAQ testing. How can a few air and swab tests determine if there is concealed mold growth inside a wall or HVAC system? How is one to determine from a few air tests if mold spores are from the outdoors, the HVAC system, a moldy basement carpet or some of the seller’s furniture, or even from a moldy onion being sliced by the homeowner (which happened to me once during testing).

More than 50 percent of the basement fiberglass insulation I have sampled was riddled with mold growth, and over half of these further infested with mites. How can this determination be made during a home inspection? (Visible mold is always a sign of a problem, but it is not the home inspector’s job to identify the mold or determine if it is toxic. It is, however, in my opinion, part of the inspector’s responsibility to supply his or her explanations as to why visible conditions might lead to excess moisture in a home.)

What if an IAQ problem develops after the inspection? In my experience, it takes less than a month of excessive moisture (no leaks, just moisture from high relative humidity) for a pristine basement to fill with mildew. If this occurs after the inspection but before the closing, is the home inspector responsible?

And the kind of viable testing done by some home inspectors does not detect non-living spores. More than 90 percent of indoor spores can be dead, yet they are allergenic nonetheless. The most problematic indoor spores (“moisture-indicator organisms” like Penicillium and Aspergillus spores) are often in large clusters: 10, 20 or even 50 or more. When such a cluster lands on a Petri dish, only a single colony grows. When these spores are present and counted in total spore assays, they are reported only as numbers of Pen/Asp spores and not whether present in clusters. Thus, if coincidentally there are comparable numbers of Pen/Asp spores indoors and outdoors, an indoor problem can be overlooked, since spores of these genera are generally present as individuals in the outdoor air (because the wind turbulence breaks them up).

For indoor testing to be meaningful, the source of the problem must be located. The type of testing required to make this determination is rarely undertaken on a home inspection. Thus, after a home inspector’s “mold testing,” a buyer may be given the false impression that there is (or is not) a mold problem. For testing, limitations of liability can certainly be written into any agreement, but ultimately, the inspector can never give the buyer the assurance he or she really wants, and unfulfilled expectations inevitably lead to increased risk and liability. If someone in the buyer’s family experiences health problems after the family moves into a new home, where will they all go for restitution? I wouldn’t be surprised if one of their first stops is at the door of the “pioneer” IAQ home inspector.

Jeffrey May is co-author of “The Mold Survival Guide: For Your Home and for Your Health,” and author of “My House is Killing Me! The Home Guide for Families with Allergies and Asthma,” both published by Johns Hopkins University Press. Currently at the press is May’s next book, “My Office is Killing Me,” which will deal with IAQ problems in offices, schools and businesses. His company, May Indoor Air Investigations LLC, investigates IAQ problems throughout the United States. May can be reached by e-mail at Jeff@mayindoorair.com or by phone at (800) 686-1055.