Mold Report’s Dual Nature Largely Misunderstood

HUD Form Minimizes Liability for Federal Housing

Hong Kong Labels Over 30 Buildings Good, Excellent

Word on the Street

• GROCERY GERMS
  The cotton-quilted seat for babies and toddlers in shopping carts at grocery stores has just gotten cheaper and more convenient. Babe Ease LLC plans to expand its line of Clean Shopper products beginning next month with a brand-new disposable grocery-cart liner. “Protecting babies from the harmful bacteria on shopping carts has never been easier or more affordable,” according to a press release promoting Clean Shopper’s new lightweight disposable package. The one-piece design covers the entire seating area of a shopping cart so that bacteria-ridden surfaces are not exposed to babies’ sensitive skin. The brand-new disposable Clean Shopper is scheduled to hit the retail market in August.
     
• CO DEATHS UP
  Reports of portable generator-related carbon monoxide poisoning deaths have doubled in recent years, according to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, which hosted a forum May 20 to discuss possible ways to reduce the risk from portable generators. According to CSPC statistics, the number of carbon monoxide poisoning deaths attributed to generators averaged less than 13 per year between 1990 and 2001 inclusively, while statistics over the past four years have been significantly above average. In 2002 and 2003, the CSPC realized a combined total of 78 deaths from carbon monoxide poisoning linked to generators. “If you use a gasoline-powered generator, set it up outside in a dry area, away from air intakes to the home,” said CPSC Chairman Hal Stratton. “Opening doors and windows or operating fans to ventilate will not prevent CO buildup in the home. Even with a CO alarm, you should never use a gasoline-powered generator inside your home or in a garage.”
   
• OK: DOUBLE DIPPING NOT OK
  The state of Oklahoma has enacted a bill making it illegal for the same company to handle both mold inspection and remediation. After the legislation was approved by both houses, the governor signed the bill into law June 4, and it takes effect beginning this month. A lobbyist behind the bill said it is a small beginning step for the state and that a licensing bill for inspection and remediation will be introduced next year. IE Connections recently called the practice of performing both consulting and remediation “double dipping,” and legal expert Michael Bowdoin weighed in on the topic in March with his article, “Wisdom: Pigs Get Fat, But Hogs Get Slaughtered.”
   
• S520 IS GOOD BOOK
  The Institute of Inspection, Cleaning and Restoration Certification received a plus from a federal government agency last month when it was announced that the IICRC S520 Standard and Reference Guide for Professional Mold Remediation will now be included among a list of indoor air quality resources. The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s list says that the S520, “when properly applied, can assist remediators and others in determining criteria that trigger remediation activities or confirm remediation success.” OSHA’s list, which includes IICRC as a credible organization along with IAQA and AmIAQC, is available online at www.osha.gov/SLTC/indoorairquality/otherresources.html.
   
• BLOWING, BLOWING, BLOWN!
  Unlike most other sports venues, baseball stadiums vary in size. But there may be more than the distance of the outfield at play at the home of the Minnesota Twins. A June 7 report appearing in Michigan-based Booth Newspapers suggests the reason why the Detroit Tigers were not able to reconcile a one-point deficit in the last inning of the previous day’s game at the Twins’ Metrodome was because air circulation in the stadium kept a long drive to left field just inside the park. According to the article, Tigers officials said that during the ninth inning, when all they needed was one more score to force extra innings, the air inside the dome was “cranked.” Detroit’s argument was also touted at MLB.com, which quoted the team’s manager as saying: “It seemed like the air conditioners were blowing straight in our face... There was definitely a difference in the air conditioning in the ninth.”
   
• STAYIN’ ALIVE
  A 34th cosponsor in the House of Representatives signed onto the U.S. Toxic Mold Safety and Protection Act last month, surpassing by four the number of supporters enlisted the first time during the 2001–2002 legislative session. Around the same time a Mississippi representative endorsed the proposed Melina bill, the office of sponsor Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) announced the scheduling of a caucus on the bill to take place July 7. Testimony at the caucus for House Resolution 1268 will include opinions of medical expert Dr. Simone Sommer and activist Bianca Jagger, among others. If the bill moves, it would be the first major action on the bill taken since the month Conyers filed it March 13, 2003. Exactly one week later, congressional attention rerouted to Iraq.

Mold Report’s Dual Nature Largely Misunderstood
By Steve Sauer

The release of a nearly 300-page report by the Institute of Medicine called “Damp Indoor Spaces and Health” was, if nothing else, a good experiment in communication breakdown. Like the punch line of a good joke, you either got it or you missed it completely. The listener of a joke misses the punch line and exhibits a blank stare for a few seconds, the reply is frequently: “You had to be there.

”However, in the case of the IOM report on building dampness, which debuted at a May 25 press conference in Washington, D.C., you could have actually been at the press conference and still missed the point. Sara Schafer Muñoz may have been among that crowd. Despite the reporter’s sitting four rows from the IOM panelists and staffers who made pains to ensure their report was not misunderstood by the media representatives either in the room and listening to a live web cast, her article in the next day’s Wall Street Journal misreported that there is a “link” between indoor mold and “problems such as asthma and coughing.”

A “link,” as the term is used by scientists, implies causation. An “association,” however, simply suggests that two conditions coexist. The Institute of Medicine could not find evidence that there was a causal link between damp indoor environments, or its agents including mold, and health effects that are attributed to it. However, it did not rule out the possibility.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention first requested the Institute of Medicine’s report on building dampness in 2001, and the 27-month project was underway at the beginning of 2002. The nine-member Committee on Damp Indoor Spaces and Health conducted a review of literature purporting health effects attributed to indoor dampness and its agents including mold, bacteria and chemical emissions.

The committee reported back seven kinds of health outcomes with enough evidence to suggest an association to exposure of damp indoor environments: upper respiratory (nasal and throat) tract symptoms, cough, wheeze, asthma symptoms in sensitized persons, dyspnea (shortness of breath), lower respiratory illness in otherwise healthy children, and asthma development. It also reported 13 kinds of health outcomes evidence could not definitely associate with damp indoor environment exposure. Skin symptoms, cancer, fatigue, and neuropsychiatric symptoms were among these outcomes not associated with damp indoor environment exposure. The committee also produced a similar list of health outcomes associated and not associated with the presence of mold or other agents in damp indoor environments.

Given the dual nature implied by what the report did and did not find pertaining to health effects, the report could be used on either side of mold litigation, suggested lawyers when prompted. “It may help a little on the defense-oriented side because it confirms that there’s no link,” said attorney and IE Connections columnist David Governo. He hinted that the fact the committee did not rule out the possibility of a causal link would not necessarily foreshadow victory for plaintiffs. “It’s virtually impossible to prove a negative, so the fact that they can’t disprove some sort of a more harmful health hazard is really meaningless,” said Governo.

Going one step further, the committee made recommendations in line with the CDC’s inherent goals of disease control and prevention. “In short, excessive building dampness is not your friend. It’s associated with a lot of things that could give rise to problems,” said committee chair Dr. Noreen Clark. “Excessive indoor dampness is a widespread problem that warrants action at the local, state, and national levels.

”Specifically, the report suggests that the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development “should provide support for the development and dissemination of consensus guidelines on building design, construction, operation, and maintenance for prevention of dampness problems.”

“We’re glad to see them doing that,” said Dr. Peter J. Ashley, who works as an environmentalhealth scientist with the Healthy Homes Field Division of HUD’s Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control. “I think they kind of took a public health perspective of the problem and wanted to get some attention focused on prevention, and of course that leads you to the housing and things that can be done to prevent the moisture problem from developing in the first place. I know they mentioned some things that can be done to address moisture problems. I think that is a positive effort.”

“We welcome this study,” commented Brian Sullivan of HUD’s public affairs office. “It says what is both intuitive and what we have been saying for some time.

”The Indoor Air Quality Association last month issued a press release that brandished the argument that numerous media accounts inaccurately depicted the meaning of the Institute of Medicine’s report. As evidence that the report could be used on one hand to minimize the health effects attributed to mold or on the other hand to overstate the health effects, IAQA juxtaposed the Wall Street Journal headline – “Indoor Mold Linked to Problems Such as Asthma and Coughing” – with that of a Scripps Howard News Service article, “Study: No evidence household mold causes major illness.”

“IAQA believes that confusion over this sensitive topic could either prolong mass hysteria or lead to an unduly apathetic attitude. Either approach is counterproductive to the common good,” the press release states.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development has created a new agreement form with statements about the health effects of mold and radon. The form, which is the latest in a series of documents people must sign in order to purchase government housing, signifies an agreement that indemnifies HUD from any liability over the presence of mold or radon in the specified home.

Form HUD-9548-E, which was issued May 28 with the title “Radon Gas and Mold Notice and Release Agreement,” opens with a blanket statement in large capital letters, stating: “Purchasers are hereby notified and understand that radon gas and some molds have the potential to cause serious health problems.” In the following paragraph, HUD specifies that the property identified on the form by its case number and address “is being offered for sale ‘as is’ with no representations as to the condition of the property.

”In a letter stating that HUD would begin requiring this form to accompany all home sales transactions by the end of June, Federal Housing Commissioner John C. Weicher explains why the release agreement is necessary.

“First, it provides important information to potential purchasers of HUD-acquired single family properties that radon gas and some molds have the potential to cause serious health problems,”  Weicher’s letter explains, before listing some facts about mold and radon.

“Second, by ensuring that potential purchasers of HUD-acquired single family properties have received the cautionary information in the release agreement, the potential liability to the Department and to HUD’s management and marketing (M&M) contractors is mitigated.”

Posting news of the form to fellow members of the Yahoo! IE Quality Group on June 9, Curtis Redington let his own opinion of HUD’s action resound. “Hmmm, no mention of where to go for information,” he wrote, offering the Environmental Protection Agency’s Web site as one possibility, “so which [purpose] do think they are really concerned about?”

The same train of thought inspired the response to the HUD release agreement that the American Association of Radon Scientists and Technologists made public in a press release on June 18. The press release focused on the agreement as a defensive move: “HUD fears liability from radon-induced lung cancer.

”“While HUD lauds the new form as helpful and informative, critics contend it is deceptive and discriminatory, as well as a departmental attempt to shirk its responsibility under the law,” states AARST’s press release. It then points out that two senators, Richard G. Lugar (D-Ind.) and Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), have requested an investigation into what AARST says is HUD’s “failure to carry out legally mandated radon testing.”

“HUD’s [comparison] of radon to mold is a blatant attempt to divert the buyer’s attention from the massive liability of a radon-induced lung cancer death,” said AARST President David Hill. “The notice fails to explain that EPA recommends all home purchasers test for radon because radon exposure actually kills people. Not to downplay the problem mold can be for certain individuals with chronic respiratory problems like asthma, it isn’t remotely comparable to a carcinogen responsible for thousands of lung cancer deaths in America every year.

”In another sentence with all capital letters, HUD’s agreement encourages purchasers “to obtain the services of a qualified and experienced professional to conduct inspections and tests regarding radon and mold prior to closing.” Some of the criticism expressed in posts on the IE Quality Group surrounded the fact that HUD did not explain what qualifications and experience it deems sufficient for professionals who would conduct such inspections and tests.

One page on HUD’s Web site, however, contains an external link to information from Freddie Mac about a consumer home inspection kit providing information on how to inspect the house. Among its recommendations are taking a flashlight while inspecting crawlspaces, using a stepladder to check insulation in the attic, and testing the circuits. However, the Freddie Mac Web page notes, “The consumer home inspection does not replace the professional home inspection.”

Dr. Peter J. Ashley, who works as an environmental health scientist with the Healthy Homes Field Division of HUD’s Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control, said HUD is already “in the early stages of” considering a Web site that might include a directory of inspectors and specific guidance on inspector qualifications, especially as related to mold.

The chairman of the American Radon Policy Coalition says HUD’s release agreement fails to protect the very citizens the department is charged to serve – low-income families. “Judging from HUD’s sudden concern with shedding radon liability, it appears likely the department already knows there are significant radon risks associated with these properties,” said chairman Dallas Jones. “HUD is running from its mandated responsibility.

”The National Housing Act of 1949 states that HUD’s goal is “a decent home and suitable living environment for every American family” and charges HUD with the responsibility “of providing decent, safe and sanitary housing.”

“Most purchasers of HUD-owned single-family homes are investors or landlords who will either resell the property for a profit or rent it,” said Jones. “Since they aren’t going to reside in the home, the potential presence of a Class-A carcinogen is of no consequence to them and they have no motive to invest their capital in testing and potentially mitigating dangerous levels of radon. The eventual occupants will likely be a low-income family who will never see the HUD notice, much less an explanation of radon’s deadly consequences.”

Jones says the simple shifting of liability without an environmental assessment may be a violation of the National Environmental Policy Act, highlighting a code for compliance that states: “It is HUD policy that all property proposed for use in HUD programs be free of hazardous materials, contamination, toxic chemicals and gases, and radioactive substances where a hazard could affect the health and safety of occupants or the utilization of the property.”

Residents of Los Angeles and visitors alike are usually aware that the county not only inspects retail food establishments but also publicly posts letter grades reflecting their quality. Some have suggested that because workers and consumers should likewise be informed of the quality of the air in the indoor spaces in which they work or visit, a bold rating system for buildings indoor air quality should be brought before the public.

As reported in the June issue of IE Connections, the city of Hong Kong now seems to be leading the world with its implementation of an IAQ certification program to attest publicly to the quality of the air in offices and public places such as shopping malls, cinemas, restaurants and public
transport facilities.

Beginning in the late 1980s and through the ‘90s, the government of Hong Kong held hearings on the air quality of the city’s private and public buildings. Ultimately, in 1995, the Hong Kong government commissioned a private consulting firm to conduct an 18-month study, focusing on 40 public and private office buildings.

Motivated by those results, Hong Kong in 2000 established a voluntary certification process that designates a building’s IAQ class as either “good” or “excellent.” The IAQ certification program is part of an overall IAQ management program that includes:

• a public education and publicity campaign to promote public indoor air quality awareness;
• an IAQ information center to disseminate information and reference materials;
• a set of objectives as a common benchmark
  for evaluating and assessing IAQ;
• a set of guidance notes for the better management of IAQ in offices and public places; and
• a voluntary IAQ certification program.

Hong Kong has adopted a voluntary and self-regulatory approach to support annual IAQ building certification. For building owners and managers, the program provides a way to gain public recognition of a building’s superior air quality and, thus, potentially attract more tenants or customers aware of the enhanced health benefits, reduced costs for medical benefits, and the increased worker productivity associated with superior IAQ.

Hong Kong’s guidelines were based in part on standards that were established, recommended or considered by the World Health Organization and the governments of Australia, Canada, Finland, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States. The table that supplements this article contains the parameters that a building’s indoor spaces must meet in order to rate as having “good” or “excellent” IAQ.

Step On Up!
As of April 2004, 32 sites have been certified as “good” under Hong Kong’s IAQ certification program, and two as “excellent.” Of those sites, all but five good and one excellent are public buildings. Hong Kong Environmental Protection officer Josephine Ho says response from private buildings is increasing.

“We are seeing more and more private premises applying for certification. The public response to the IAQ program has been positive,” said Ho. “Since the IAQ certification scheme is a relatively new program in Hong Kong, the private sector would take some time to obtain the necessary professional advice and make their own IAQ plan before seeking certification.

”Hong Kong’s building certification, like the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design program, provides an opportunity for building owners to sing the superior-quality praises of their properties. With LEED squarely addressing sustainability issues and Hong Kong’s certification program seeking to advance IAQ, workers in LEED- and IAQ-certified spaces should be more effective and, thus, more valuable in terms of profits – and corporate decisions are profit-driven. Studies from such researchers as William Fisk have shown that workers in buildings with improved ventilation are healthier and more productive. With the Olympian burst of Gold certifications for green buildings, a voluntary IAQ certification program seems like a natural extension.

The IAQ Information Center
As part of Hong Kong’s IAQ certification program, the city has opened a center where the public can find information on how IAQ issues affect them. The center maintains a Web site at www.iaq.gov.hk/index_eng.asp and distributes brochures. But even the center’s build¬ing itself strives to be a living example of a properly filtrated building.

“The IAQ information center is using HEPA, as well as photocatalytic oxidation filtration,” said Ho. “However, we do not rely solely on [an] air purifier to improve air quality in the center. We advocate the importance of controlling emissions at source rather than end-of-pipe control; hence, low emission paints, adhesives, carpets and furniture were used in the center.”

Many of the indoor environmental quality requirements in the USGBC+s LEED program are the same.

Over Here?
Hong Kong’s IAQ certification scheme shows that indoor air quality in public spaces can be addressed using creative and voluntary methods – and that with the local government setting the example, private landlords can embrace public certification of IAQ as a way to differentiate their properties.

Market pressures within the United States could motivate other landlords to certify their buildings' indoor air quality. With that in mind, the next important task is to establish an IAQ certification program in the United States.

One might question whether a non-governmental organization could implement a voluntary IAQ certification. Would legal or economic pressures derail a program like Hong Kong's in the United States?

The citizens of Hong Kong are already benefiting from the improved IAQ in the certified buildings there. A voluntary certification program in the United States might be the best plan for success.

Steven Welty, CIE, CAFS, is president of GermSafeAir in Reston, Va. He specializes in finding HVAC germ reservoirs and designing cost-effective means to remove them in order to keep the ventilation systems from distributing them. He is currently conducting an energy study with a large federal facility in order to determine the extent of germ infestation in its cooling coils and the energy savings that will be realized by removing the infestation. Welty can be reached by e-mail at GermSafeAir@aol.com or by phone at (703) 904-0200.