IICRC to Offer Mold Standard for Public Review

Colo. Governor's Veto Viewed as Setback for ASCR

Publisher's Perspective: Sausage and Eggs

Will Train for Food

Do All Fungi Decay Wood?

Sampling May Improve Results in Decision Making

Not Just Mold -- Legionella Bacteria Threaten Too

VOICES
“At ‘all’ costs! What turnip truck did you fall from? I have yet to be retained by a client that said: ‘Fix it, and have no regard for cost.’”

— Michael Geyer – who is a professional engineer, certified industrial hygienist and certified safety professional – in response to a post on the Yahoo! IE Quality Group that said, “Michael, as the duty of a PE, CIH and CSP, it is to protect worker and public health at all costs ...”

Word on the Street 

THAT NEW-CAR SMELL CAN LINGER
The amount of literature quantifying the volatile organic compounds present inside automobiles expanded last month as Air Quality Sciences released a white paper summarizing a study the firm recently conducted. The document references and builds on the report released in January by the Ecology Center that ranked vehicles by their PBDE and phthalate concentrations. Air Quality Sciences said a Greenguard Environmental Institute study identifies over 100 types of VOCs in the passenger compartments of three cars. Of those three, the highest total VOC levels were detected in the oldest. The one-year-old vehicle’s total VOC levels measured 8,691 micrograms per cubic meter, or more than four-and-a-half times higher than a car that had been on the lot for two weeks. All three of the cars’ total VOC levels exceeded 500 micrograms per cubic meter, which is the U.S. Green Building Council’s acceptable level used to clear a building for occupancy. Using a 1986 study as its basis, the white paper said a total VOC emission of 3,000 to 25,000 micrograms per cubic meter can result in discomfort and headaches; any total VOC level higher is considered a toxic range that can have neurotoxic effects. Some of the most prevalent VOCs included benzene, butylated hydroxytoluene, phenol, acetic acid and formaldehyde. Measurements for formaldehyde were given separately, and the one-year-old car’s formaldehyde emissions were also the highest of the three. Its measurement of 100 parts per billion is twice USGBC’s acceptable level to clear a building for occupancy. Neither Greenguard nor Air Quality Sciences attempted to explain why the one-year-old car’s VOC levels were higher than the two cars that had been on the lot for either two weeks or two months. Air Quality Sciences said Japanese automakers are working to reduce VOC levels in passenger compartments to comply with government-mandated requirements for homes, and the white paper urges U.S. auto manufacturers to follow suit. Both the Greenguard study and the Air Quality Sciences paper can be downloaded online at no charge – from www.greenguard.org and www.aerias.org, respectively.

QUEASY RIDER
A recent article in the Chicago Tribune highlighting the results of a study showing the presence of disease-causing bacteria aboard Chicago trains and buses provided fodder for the janitorial and sanitation supply industry. Massachusetts-based product distributor Pro-Link capitalized on the study’s press coverage by issuing a news release of its own, labeling it “An Opportunity for Jansan Distributors to Advise Public Transportation.”

In the Tribune article published May 24, a spokesperson for the Chicago Transit Authority outlined the transit system’s cleaning practices for trains, which amounts to removing trash and “dealing with ‘biohazard’ issues such as bodily fluids” every time a rail car reaches the end of the line, daily mopping, and “more intense cleaning” on a biweekly basis.

“Obviously, a more frequent and/or thorough cleaning program is necessary,” Pro-Link marketing vice president Mike Nelson said in response to the article, quoted in the company news advisory issued June 12. He said he believes jansan distributors could play a significant role in making this happen. “Jansan distributors know the most efficient products available to tackle a problem like this,” said Nelson. “This is a perfect example where a distributor can become an advisor and consultant to their client, making them a more vital part of their client’s daily operation.”

AFTER THE SMOKE CLEARS
Don’t spit! Smokers in three U.S. metropolitan areas are trying out new smokeless tobacco products designed so that they can achieve the same end results they would get with cigarettes, without the byproduct of secondhand smoke. In addition, unlike chewing tobacco, there is no chewing involved. Philip Morris USA announced in May it would test-market two versions of its product called Taboka: Original and Taboka Green, a menthol version. Its main competitor, Reynolds American Inc., has reportedly unveiled a spit-free tobacco product called Camel Snus in Portland, Ore., and Austin, Texas. A Harvard University School of Public Health professor was quoted in the Richmond (Va.) Times-Dispatch in May as saying the health risks of smokeless tobacco are oral cancer and gum disease. USA Today in June obtained a quote from the same professor, Greg Connolly, on switching from cigarettes to another product that is just as addictive: “It’s like trading in your Mercedes for a tricycle.”

ANOTHER ‘FAIR’ CONSIDERATION
U.S. Senators are once again considering legislation that would set up a trust fund that would resolve all claims of personal injury due to asbestos. It is the second time this year the Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act, or FAIR Act, is being discussed. In February, a previous version of the bill failed as it fell just two votes short of Senate approval. Senate Bill 3274, like its predecessor, would protect defendant companies from possible bankruptcy for using asbestos while providing asbestos victims with a more effective system to receive compensation. Its sponsor, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), remarked about the bill on the Senate floor on May 26, saying he believes changes to his proposal would attract colleagues who earlier voted down the measure. According to a transcript of Specter’s remarks, he said, “The bill provides for a more prompt recovery for the sickest claimants; stronger medical criteria; preserves the ability of the bankruptcy trusts to continue paying impaired claims; has an improved allocation formula for well-insured and financially strapped defendant companies; and it has a tighter control on so-called leakage.” He said the judicial system is currently unfair to asbestos victims; those filing claims, he said, “receive only about 42 cents for every dollar spent on asbestos litigation,” while lawsuits are crippling small businesses. One group opposing the bill is the Coalition for Asbestos Reform, which said that under the current system, states are successfully working to differentiate between sound asbestos health claims and those based on junk science.
         

IICRC to Offer Mold Standard for Public Review
By Steve Sauer

The IAQ industry’s first standard for the remediation of mold is expected to undergo a review process soon that would allow its second edition to be published by the end of the year, achieving status as an American national standard.

The Institute of Inspection, Cleaning and Restoration Certification announced early last month that its S520 standard would be available to peer reviewers for a 45-day period once final editing and legal review were completed.

According to IICRC’s June 2 news release, anyone wishing to participate as reviewers of the document should register with the organization to do so by following instructions posted online at www.iicrc.org. Registered users would be able to gain secured access to a reviewable copy of the document, according to a message posted on the site.

“We need the restoration industry’s involvement in reviewing the updated S520 Standard and Reference Guide,” said Barry Costa, IICRC’s standards chair. “All comments will be considered, accepted in full, in part or not accepted with reason. We track each one, how the committees decided to use it, or reason for not using the comment. These comments will then be sent back to the reviewer.”

The first edition of the IICRC S520 was published in December 2003, following years of preparation. In the intervening years, members of the IICRC S520 Committee have labored to update the standard. The results of their two years of changes are to be divulged in the upcoming peer review.

Carl Grimes, who is the chair of the Indoor Environmental Professionals Subcommittee, spoke briefly with IE Connections last month about the process of writing the standard. Asked whether he believed the S520 Committee had been able to achieve consensus, he replied, “I am looking forward to an ANSI-accredited standard for mold remediation that was developed with national consensus in an open, transparent process.”

The upcoming peer review process, along with a public review to be announced in an electronic newsletter distributed by the American National Standards Institute, helps to fulfill ANSI’s requirement for the S520 to gain official recognition as an American national standard. IICRC became an ANSI-accredited standards-developing body in October and quickly proceeded to follow the conditions for two of its standards to be approved by ANSI.

The other standard gained a unique status in April as both the first IICRC standard to be approved by ANSI and the first restoration standard to bear ANSI approval. The S500 “Standard and Reference Guide for Professional Water Damage Restoration” was published last month in its third edition, greatly expanded over the previous edition.

The ANSI-approved S500 standard was listed as available for purchase last month from the IICRC Web site. ANSI is also expected to list the new standard for sale at its Web site, www.ansi.org; at press time, the second edition, published in 1999, was still listed for purchase in the ANSI eStandards Store.

IICRC plans to follow up the S500 release with a series of workshops to be held beginning next month in various locations across the United States, during which members of the S500 Committee are to present information about the standard and the standard-writing process.

According to a listing at IICRC’s Web site, this series of full-day technical workshops begins Aug. 1 in Milwaukee and then continues on Aug. 2 in Chicago, Aug. 8 in Salt Lake City, Aug. 9 in Denver, Aug. 15 in New York City, Aug. 16 in the state of New Hampshire, Aug. 23 in the state of Michigan, Sept. 6 in Nashville and Sept. 7 in Dallas. A Sept. 24 date in Las Vegas is to be held one day after the completion of the Connections Convention and Trade Show. Another workshop is also scheduled to take place Nov. 13 in the Canadian province of Ontario.

For more information or to register for one of these workshops, call Textile Consultants at (303) 289-1034.
  

Colo. Governor's Veto Viewed as Setback for ASCR
By Steve Sauer

The way insurance companies and consumers in Colorado choose the companies that are contracted to perform restoration services on insured properties is not about to change.
Gov. Bill Owens last month vetoed a bill that its proponents say would have worked to protect the consumer’s right to choose a repair business while also prohibiting insurance practices lawmakers believed “impede fair and honest competition” within the property repair marketplace.

The veto put an end to a major lobbying effort by ASCR International, which lists 20 members in Colorado. ASCR’s president and some members had lobbied in favor of the bill in recent months, saying it would have allowed consumers to exercise increased freedom in choosing a contractor. Such action to encourage competition in Colorado, some had said, could have had a ripple effect in other states.

House Bill 1006 proposed a new statute on unfair or discriminating trade practices, the purposes of which were to prevent monopolies and the like, to encourage honest competition, and “to ensure that all consumers benefit from competition and the expansion of choices in the marketplace.”

In vetoing the bill, Owens said it would have interfered with the preexisting relationships between insurance companies and vendors they deem to be “preferred.”

Writing in a letter that accompanied his June 2 veto, the Republican governor said, “It seems that proponents of this legislation are trying to seek a competitive advantage through legislative intervention rather than through direct competition in the marketplace.”

ASCR member Michael Griggs said he was “aghast” at the reasons Owens gave for his decision. “I can only surmise that some lobbying group got in through the back door to the governor,” he said. “It’s about the only thing I can assume because it isn’t really accurate. It sounds like it was written by an insurance company.”

Griggs, who is the president of Denver-based Disaster Restoration Inc., was one of several contractors who testified in January before a House committee in support of the bill, which amended the bill and passed it unanimously.

Another such contractor was Joe Arrigo, a member of both ASCR and the Indoor Air Quality Association, as well as president of Arrigo Construction and Restoration in Pueblo, Colo. Arrigo’s reaction to the veto letter was similar to that of Griggs.

“It looked like it was written by the franchisors, as if your mother wrote a letter recommending you,” said Arrigo. “It was just terrible.”

Arrigo told IE Connections he had not spoken with Griggs since the veto and therefore did not know their assessments of the veto letter were so similar.

Griggs said one particular passage in Owens’s veto letter struck him as especially erroneous. One sentence in the letter reads, “Insurance companies develop trusted relationships with the businesses on their preferred vendor lists.” According to Griggs, a more accurate description of the relationship between insurance and contractors is this: “They put their finger on people and squeeze them.”

He also responded directly to the governor’s statement that “insurance companies develop trusted relationships with the businesses on their preferred vendor lists.” Griggs said that when insurance companies provide consumers with a list of preferred companies, they also provide consumers with incentives for consumers who make their choice from that preferred list. “Consumers are pretty vulnerable and insurance companies capitalize on that vulnerability,” he said, because the insurance companies in turn receive kickbacks for the referral.

In effect, said Griggs, the insurers “are stifling free enterprise in essence by getting contractors that will acquiesce to their demands.” He said insurers exercise “more power over the preferred vendor” because they threaten, “If you don’t do what I want you to do, then I will take you off the work.”

This places the contractor in a conundrum, he said: “Does the contractor serve the best interests of the consumer or the best interests of the insurance company? I would purport that the two agendas are not in alignment.”

Griggs said about 50 percent of his work comes from referrals from insurance companies. Fearing possible retaliation, he said he hopes his support of the bill does not come back to haunt him.

Arrigo estimated that about 80 percent of his work comes from insurance companies’ referrals but that he expects his company to market its services in such that it would be an equal split between referral work and non-referral work.

ASCR Supported Bill from Near Beginning
HB 1006 was filed on Jan. 11, and ASCR International first expressed its support for the bill later that month. William J. Lakin, who was serving as ASCR president at the time, wrote a letter to a House committee chair about HB 1006, saying the association “applauded this legislative effort.”
“ASCR believes that allowing consumers to choose their own service providers for a covered loss enables them to make the wisest choice for their circumstances, obtain the best price and service expertise available among local contractors, and bring some control to an already difficult situation,” Lakin wrote in the letter.

ASCR’s Board of Directors officially voted in March to endorse the bill. The association then sent Lakin’s successor as president, Brian Spiegel, to Denver in April to testify on behalf of the bill in front of a Senate committee, which voted 4-1 to pass the bill. (Two committee members were excused from the vote.)

Owens’s veto of House Bill 1006 took place less than a month after lawmakers in the Senate voted to pass the measure by a margin of 34-1. In the House, the bill had passed on March 27 with a vote of 62-3.

“ASCR and other proponents of the bill were clearly unsuccessful in communicating the merits of the HB 1006 to the governor,” said ASCR Executive Director Don Manger.

Other Interests Came to Play
A tip alerting IE Connections to the existence of HB 1006 one week after it was introduced in January said “the insurance industry has ‘targeted’ this bill as one to squash.” At every step of the process of having the bill approved by the legislature, proponents of HB 1006 said they were pleasantly surprised that there was little interference from insurance companies. The bill enjoyed overwhelming support from the state legislature.

The veto changed all those perceptions about unilateral support for the bill. Griggs was not the only one who suspected a lobbying organization representing an unknown stakeholder that opposed the bill had given Owens enough reasons to veto it. Arrigo said he also thought so, based on information given to him by ASCR.

“Somebody had the governor’s ear and they gave him some real misinformation and there’s no doubt that it was a large franchisor or the insurance industry,” said Arrigo. “There was never much opposition going through the [General] Assembly, and they knew they had the trump card.”

Don Manger originally told IE Connections he thought some “behind-the-scenes lobbying” by a trade group in Colorado had succeeded in getting its points across to the governor. Manger alleged that “opponents from the Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry” had persuaded the governor to veto the bill despite its overwhelming support from the state legislature.

He retracted this statement only after IE Connections informed ASCR that a Colorado Association spokesperson denied that the association played any role in urging a veto of the bill.
Donnah Moody, the Colorado Association’s director of governmental affairs, told IE Connections that a “member wanted us to go to the governor and request a veto” but that the association did not do so. She identified this member as the disaster-restoration franchise ServiceMaster, represented by a Washington, D.C., lobbyist named Jeff Fedorchak of Crosspointe Partners LLC.
“The bill had a lot of problems with it,” Fedorchak told IE Connections in a phone interview regarding HB 1006. “Our view was that it would prohibit the ability of insurance carriers even from recommending vendors to their customers,” he said.

“On one level, it would be a terrible outcome for Colorado consumers, and it’s also an extremely dangerous precedent to set for state legislatures: Those businesses that cannot even compete successfully in the private sector can use the heavy hand of government to bludgeon those who compete successfully,” he said.

Fedorchak’s comment echoed a statement in Owens’s veto letter that the bill’s proponents appeared “to seek a competitive advantage through legislative intervention rather than through direct competition in the marketplace.”

Moody said the Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry had acted on behalf of ServiceMaster’s interests while HB 1006 was in the General Assembly by asking one legislator to seek a one-sentence amendment to the bill that would have clarified whether or not it would have prohibited insurers from recommending vendors to consumers.

Fedorchak confirmed this, saying the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Dorothy Butcher, rejected the proposed amendment but did not provide a reason.

Moody said that after the amendment was rejected, the Colorado Association did not take a position on the bill one way or another.

Fedorchak did not confirm or deny with IE Connections that the client he represented was ServiceMaster but simply described the client as a disaster-restoration franchise. He said his client did not object to the bill other than pushing for one sentence to be added to the bill to state flatly that it would not prohibit insurers from recommending vendors to consumers.

Owens’s veto letter commented further on this proposed amendment. “Some proponents of this legislation say it is not their intent to prohibit insurance carriers from recommending repair businesses to their customers; however, a simple one-sentence amendment that would have clarified intent was defeated,” the governor wrote.

Arrigo said he had heard of a large franchisor joining the Colorado Association in 2006 strictly because he thought the association would wield enough power to defeat the bill. He said he assumed that is what had happened.

“Little did we know how much influence they had,” said Arrigo. “There was never much opposition going through the assembly, and they knew they had the trump card. ... For a lame-duck governor to veto this is beyond party politics.”

Owens’s second four-year term as governor is set to expire in January. By state law, he cannot seek a third term.

The governor’s press secretary did not immediately return a message from IE Connections asking whether or not the governor’s office had contact with any stakeholders that had led him to veto HB 1006.

ASCR Not Only Industry Group to Support Bill
Support for the bill represented a high priority for ASCR’s government affairs, and it is likely an issue the association and its members will take up again next year. “Our members in Colorado are looking forward to applying the lessons they have learned from this experience during the next session of the General Assembly,” said Manger.

Arrigo shared a similar view. “What I’m hoping is that this will allow us to take this first try here and make a stronger bill and make our case,” he said, “and also to encourage people in other areas to take up a type of legislation that this particular issue requires.”

He said he believes the members of many trade organizations could have been affected by passage of the bill, including the Institute of Inspection, Cleaning and Restoration Certification, the Society of Cleaning and Restoration Technicians, and the Professional Carpet and Upholstery Cleaners Association. To Arrigo, this presented a means for such groups to join together in support of it.

“Those groups are realizing that they need to have governmental affairs committees that observe and watch and try to take a position on certain things that affect the industry,” said Arrigo. “As for this particular issue, they saw an opportunity to have an influence on it, and they began to take positions on it” to serve their members. He said it is refreshing to see this take place.

IAQA Silent on Bill, Many Members Unaware or Indifferent
One industry organization that was not involved in fighting for passage of the bill was the Indoor Air Quality Association. Although the organization has its own paid lobbying firm and a Government Affairs Committee, IAQA’s lobbying efforts this year focused on supporting legislation in other states that dealt with issued more directly related to indoor air quality. For one, IAQA participated in an industry coalition backing the efforts of a Florida state congressman who attempted, for a third year in a row, to make the state regulate mold remediation and assessment.

Mark DeLisle, chairman of IAQA’s Government Affairs Committee, said the organization’s failure to take an official stance on the Colorado bill correlated with how members viewed the legislation.

“IAQA surveyed its membership in Colorado and found a lack of consensus on HB 1006,” said DeLisle. “Among restoration franchisees and independent contractors, some were for it, some against it, and some just weren’t aware of it. We found the same lack of consensus or ambivalence among other members, which is why IAQA didn’t take a position on the bill.”

An internal memo from IAQA Executive Director Glenn Fellman to the members of the Government Affairs Committee characterized Colorado IAQA members’ opinions of the bill as mixed. “Sources in the restoration industry told me that while the Franchisors are opposed to HB 1006, the individual franchisees are in favor of the bill,” Fellman said in the May 3 memo.

“Those not favoring the legislation include insurance adjusters and national franchise restoration groups who have preferred vendor status with certain insurance companies,” said Fellman, adding that the franchisees of national restoration franchises “account for approximately 5 to 10 percent of the IAQA membership.”

On June 12, IE Connections sent e-mails to about 80 IAQA members located in Colorado seeking opinions about the legislation and the fact that it had been vetoed. Of the only three members who responded within 48 hours, two said they had agreed with the bill. One said she was not passionate about the bill either way.

None of the three was a disaster-restoration franchisee.
Tammy Linton, president of RDS Environmental Inc. in Lafayette, Colo., explained that she neither supported nor opposed the bill because she thought its effects on the nature of the industry would be minimal. “As a business owner of an environmental testing company, [I think] the proposed legislation would have little impact on our business services,” Linton said.

She said, however, that she “strongly agrees” in the consumer’s right to decide what contractor will perform work on an insured property and that with this right comes the responsibility for a consumer to be educated about those contractors.

“As with everything in this country, there will be those select few individuals who use the [preferred] vendor selection as a means to make more money while providing inadequate repair work,” she said.

“Personally, I would like to see the insurance companies increase their preferred vendor lists, allow changes to that list yearly or monthly a continual revolving referral list if you must. I believe no matter where the referral comes from, you have to do your own background work, get referrals from the company, check them out! Take the time to make your own educated decisions,” Linton added.

IAQA individual member Bill Schaefer, who said he agreed with the bill, focused a good portion of his comments about the bill on the quality of work contractors perform but added, “The preferred list prevents fair competition among all the business that provide the services to the insured.”

“While I agree the insurance companies may have a preferred list of people they have worked with in the past that give good service, I also believe the insurance companies may collude with these same businesses to provide cheap and insufficient services to the insured,” said Schaefer, who works for Chief Home Inspection LLC in Castle Rock, Colo.

“It is up to the insurer to provide an accurate assessment of the damage the insurer incurred and exact a monetary value for the repair or replacement of the loss, but it is none of their business to determine who the [consumer] uses to bring about the repairs,” he added. “Once the value to repair is assessed, the free-market system takes over and allows the repair companies to decide if the price to repair is fair and equitable for their services.”

Schaefer said he believed Owens’s veto of HB 1006 was “for political reasons and tainted the process of democracy.” He also expressed some advice he would like to share with Owens.

“If the governor really wants to protect the insured, there should be a requirement for the insurer to make a post-clearance assessment of the repairs before money is exchanged and the claim is closed,” said Schaefer. “That way, there is no doubt the job gets done to a standard acceptable to both the insurer and the insured.”

Another respondent from IAQA’s Colorado membership did share his views on the vetoed HB 1006 with Owens. “I believe more research on your part could have helped you understand our industry,” wrote Doug Yearout of IAQA corporate member Cleaning and Restoration Experts in Cortez, Colo., in a letter sent by e-mail to the governor and carbon-copied to IE Connections.

“Large franchises have bartered a deal with insurance companies which virtually make it impossible for small business to get on to the preferred vendor lists,” he continued. “Many times, these franchises do not offer the best quality work, equipment or service due to being handed work on a silver platter. They are not on the lists due to the great work they perform but because they belong to a franchise that has deep enough pockets to court the insurance companies.”
 

Several years ago, I heard a Washington lobbyist compare the making of laws to the making of sausage. The making of sausage isn’t a pretty thing to watch or smell. From animal slaughter to the selection of materials to the processing of meats and meat byproducts, the manufacture of sausage isn’t for the weak of stomach. The finished product, on the other hand, can be delicious. The sight and smell of a bratwurst cooking on a summer barbeque might make your mouth water.

The making of laws isn’t pretty either. It can be unpleasant to watch, smell or participate in. The finished law, on the other hand, might provide important protection and safeguards to the American ethos. The implementation and enforcement of a law that benefits the public might put a smile on your face.
There has been a significant increase in IAQ industry representatives and organizations lobbying for or against proposed state legislation during the last five years or so. Incredible time and financial resources have been lent to these efforts. Unfortunately, the efforts have been largely fruitless. Along the way, we saw some really ugly sausage making, and a few people got their hands stuck in the meat grinder.

This year has been no exception to continuing regulatory failures for the IAQ industry. Two bills in particular were championed by industry, gained great momentum, had proponents wildly optimistic, and then died at the critical moment.

Colorado House Bill 1006 would have prohibited insurance companies from designating specific companies that must perform services under their policies. Bill advocates said it gave consumers the rights they deserve, more choice in the marketplace, and would ultimately hold insurance companies accountable for claims made by their insured, regardless of who was hired to perform the claim work.

The Association of Specialists in Cleaning and Restoration and its membership in Colorado led the IAQ industry’s fight in support of HB 1006. Through grassroots letter-writing campaigns, member testimony before state officials, position papers and other lobbying tactics, ASCR did a yeoman’s job in articulating the benefits of HB 1006. Their message and those of other bill supporters were heard by the Colorado legislature, through which the bill passed with surprising ease before landing on the governor’s desk for ratification. To the surprise of many, HB 1006 was vetoed.

Meanwhile, in Florida, an industry coalition rallied in support of House Bill 161, a bill to regulate the mold assessment and mold remediation professions. The Florida Coalition for Health Indoor Environments included non-profit contributors like the Indoor Air Quality Association, the Institute of Inspection, Cleaning and Restoration Certification, the National Air Duct Cleaners Association, and the Indoor Environmental Institute, plus a number of corporate supporters. With the help of a state lobbyist, FCHIE worked the legislature, the regulatory officials, and the executive branch of the government to build support for HB 161.

HB 161 breezed through a series of committees before coming to the Florida Senate. An affirmative Senate floor vote would have landed the bill on the governor’s desk for signature. Gov. Jeb Bush had vetoed similar legislation last year, but the 2006 version addressed all of the issues Bush raised in last year’s veto letter. At an FCHIE conference call shortly before the Senate vote, coalition members weren’t just cautiously optimistic – they felt quite assured that HB 161 was going to become law. At the end of the week – the last day for the Senate to hear the bill – the Senate president and bill sponsor both decided not to have the bill read, and it died right there in the Senate.

Backers of the Colorado and the Florida legislation were equally disappointed and surprised when the bills they championed died. Some of the more vocal optimists have egg on their faces after making bold predictions and preparations for bill passage. It’s bad enough to have been part of the sausage making. The sausage and egg combo is downright ugly.

Those who put sweat and/or financial equity to support rule making in Florida and Colorado want to know why their bills didn’t make it. In Colorado, there’s a veto letter from the governor that explains his rationale. In Florida, representatives of the Senate sponsor said his own support of the bill waned following house amendments to its companion legislation and a failure to hear consensus for the bill from constituents.

Sausage making may not be pretty, but the packaging for the finished product is usually appealing. And the answers given by lawmakers for the defeat of the Colorado and Florida legislation were also packaged attractively. But we all know that before the packaged message was delivered, some ugly processes took place. The vested interests with political ties and pocketbooks dwarfing those of the associations and small businesses that comprise the IAQ industry proved once again to be the most effective sausage makers in the meat market.
    

My musings of animals in the news, the power of food on eliciting behavior and man’s comparative status in the animal world began while vacationing in Florida. I mentioned to some friends that I was anticipating dinner at my favorite waterside restaurant. I shared with them that I particularly enjoy sitting on the establishment’s floating dock watching a magnificent Florida sunset while eating fried oysters.

Instead of wishing me well, my friends warned me that the dock was no longer open. Alligators also like eating there, they said. And these gators weren’t interested in snatching my oysters but preferred the taste of human flesh.
Supply the food (us) and elicit their feeding response. Very simple.

It turned out to be true that the dock was closed. But not for that stated reason. When I asked the restaurant’s manager about the threat of becoming gator snacks, he laughed. He told me the dock was closed because of a dispute with the county, which claimed the restaurant owed rent for using the county’s water. The manager said the docks were closed until negotiations could be completed.

I thought no more about it until later in the week when the local news reported that human arms – believed to belong to a missing woman – had been found inside an alligator’s stomach. That story was quickly followed by another report of gators boldly invading people’s yards and patios.

According to the story, they all but rang the doorbells to announce their arrival and expectation of a tasty treat.
I began to wonder what other behaviors could be triggered by the anticipation of food and started off my mental exercise at the bottom of the food chain; this is a column about mold, after all.

The purpose of mold is to eat, transforming the dead into dirt so others may grow. Supply the food and elicit feeding behavior, just as for alligators. The difference is in the ability to observe their respective feeding behaviors. Mold slowly dissolving its dinner is more subtle and discrete than when the gators chomp on prey.

Many life forms whose feeding behavior and other actions are easily observable can also be trained by rewarding them with food. Consider the amazing ability of bloodhounds to track killers and find missing people. In 1993, for example, a kidnapped child in Denver was missing for several days and was suspected of being kidnapped. The police called on Yogi, a local bloodhound with an amazing reputation, who found the girl’s body about 30 miles away stashed in a duffel bag in an isolated canyon.

Yogi, whose training included being rewarded with food, was able to follow the minute traces of the little girl’s scent along an interstate highway plus side roads several days after the killer drove her there. I’ll leave it to my cranky ol’ chemist friends – if I still have any – to calculate the unfathomable parts-per-million/billion/trillion levels represented here.

Yogi was so accurate and consistent that in February 1999, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that “testimony about discoveries by police tracking dogs can sometimes be admitted in court.”

In addition to finding living or dead people, dogs have been successfully trained to identify and to locate explosives, drugs and some cancerous tumors. And, of course, mold.

But dogs are not the only animals that can perform astounding feats of detective work when offered food as a reward. And those life forms can often produce results faster, better and cheaper.

According to an article in the April 22 issue of New Scientist Tech, there are rats, fish, wasps and honeybees that are being trained to outperform both dogs and high-tech instruments.

For instance, the article reports that bluegill sunfish can detect chemicals in drinking water. Their responses to toxins – including certain movements and coughs – “generate electrical signals that are picked up by electrodes and sent to a computer,” the article reports.

Giant pouched rats can detect explosives such as landmines, and they are also being trained to diagnose tuberculosis, the article states, citing initial tests that show the rats “can sniff out infection in samples of saliva, checking as many as 150 samples in 30 minutes” compared to the 20 samples the average technician analyzes in a day.

The focus of the article is on wasps that are trained to detect minute odors in as little as 25 seconds after only three 10-second training sessions. The key is to connect the odor with being fed. The yes or no response is identified by a camera connected to a laptop that analyzes the pattern of wasps milling around the source of the odor. Once trained, the wasps don’t forget.

And this is where mold dogs should look out. In addition to detecting explosives, corpses and food spoilage in the parts-per-trillion range (i.e. equivalent to, if not more sensitive than dogs), trained wasps have detected toxic fungi. The article says, “In a contest with a commercial electronic nose, in which both wasp and machine were ‘trained’ to detect fungal odor 3-octanone, the wasps were the undisputed winners.”

Honeybees are another promising insect under investigation, the article explains. A company in England places honeybees in groups of three into a shoebox-sized device. After only four six-second training sessions, they, like the wasps, can be trained to detect a myriad of substances. A “yes” is when they anticipate being fed by extending their proboscis. This is much easier to identify than a group of wasps milling around.

Despite some limitations, trained insects seem to promise the holy grail of testing. Typical methodologies are cursed with high sensitivity producing false positive results and high selectivity producing false negative results. Trained insects respond to only a single chemical that they don’t forget, and they do so at sensitivity levels exceeding the best of instruments and dogs.

Ah, the power of food. Expose the animals to a particular odor and immediately feed them. They associate dinner with the odor and exhibit their unique behavior. Dogs salivate in anticipation of a treat. Fish quiver and cough. Wasps mill around. Honeybees stick out their tongues. As for men, females have known since the beginning of time that the fastest way to a man’s heart is through his stomach.

And with that sobering thought I got depressed, not due to the similarities between animal and human responses to food but because we are more willing to trust the reports of inanimate instruments and dumb bugs than we are with our own experience.

There has to be an advantage to being human rather than a quivering sunfish or a honeybee with an overactive proboscis, which elicited in my mind the difference between training and education.

Training rewards behavior that is already present. It just alters the timing of those actions without teaching something new. People, on the other hand, can be taught new behaviors through education. With that realization, I began feeling much better about myself and mankind’s dominant status on the totem pole of life.

My previous depression was now replaced with hope, which quickly elevated to elation as I continued catching up on my vacation-delayed reading. The next article, in the April 1 New Scientist, was about imitation versus innovation. In it, Mairi Macleod talks about how some animals learn by observing those around them and then imitating what they see.

I stopped to ponder the importance of that concept: that while it is true that people also imitate and respond extremely well to a reward of food, we do so at a much higher level. We can think and innovate. And innovating is something animals can’t do. At best, they can only imitate.

Imitation is incapable of not only innovation but also fabrication, and perhaps that is why we regard human reports of experience with instant suspicion but readily trust dumb animals and bugs.

Another mark of an educated person is that he or she can enter a new situation or an argument with the possibility of having his or her mind changed. An uneducated person, on the other hand, tends to take an initial stand based on imitation, rather than innovation, and furthers his or her position regardless of any information or evidence to the contrary. Because this person can only imitate past behavior, the behavior will persist without change.

I was reminded of a famous quotation from Martin Luther King Jr.: “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” In March, King’s words were brilliantly paraphrased by NAACP regional director Gill Ford, who said, “People of shallow understanding are often more dangerous than people of ill will.”

I was feeling much better about myself and began anticipating the reward of being proven correct as I started actually to read the article. Two particular excerpts devastated me so much that I couldn’t bear to finish reading the article. First, “Why do we grow up imitating even pointless things, while young chimps learn to think for themselves?” Second, “Chimps can imitate, but if they can work things out for themselves then they will.”

This explosion of my imitative beliefs left me with some disturbing questions:

When I conduct an inspection, assessment or remediation of the indoor environment, do I only exhibit behaviors that elicit food (money) as do wasps and honeybees?

Do I imitate pointless things – like humans do – or do I work things out with innovation – like chimps do?

Food for thought.

Carl Grimes is president of Healthy Habitats LLC, an indoor-environmental consulting firm in Denver, Colo. He is the author of the book “Starting Points for a Healthy Habitat” and serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of IE Connections. Grimes can be reached by e-mail at grimes@habitats.com or by phone at (303) 671-9653.
 

The easy (and correct) answer to this question is no. Relatively few fungi can utilize the structural material in wood (lignin). The vast majority of fungi that we see on structural wood in houses is Ophiostoma (lumberyard mold). On finished wood furniture, the most common fungus is probably Penicillium.

Obviously, the answer isn’t quite as simple as that. First, here is the story about Ophiostoma (closely related to Ceratocystis). These are plant and insect pathogens. They grow in the sap wood of living trees, often causing staining of the wood. Some species kill the trees on which they grow (e.g., Ceratocystis ulmi that causes Dutch elm disease). These fungi are in the tree when it is harvested, and may continue to grow and produce fruiting bodies for a very short time after the tree is cut into lumber. The black “mold” often seen on structural lumber is the dead fruiting bodies of these fungi. They do not release spores, nor do they harm the structural integrity of the wood in any way.

On the other hand, wet structural wood can support the growth of some of the wood rotting fungi, of which there are three general categories. The first category is the soft rot fungi. These organisms decay persistently wet wood that has a high nitrogen content (greater than 1 percent) by degrading the cellulose in the wood. These are primarily found on below ground parts of fence posts, telephone poles and on wood in estuaries but can also be found, for example, on persistently wet windowsills. A common soft rot fungus is Acremonium. All of the soft rot fungi require the constant presence of liquid water for weeks or months. These fungi probably have begun their work in New Orleans, attempting to return some of the flooded homes to nature.

The second category is the brown rot fungi. These are primarily basidiomycetes (including the dry rot fungus Serpula lacrymans). They degrade cellulose and hemicellulose when sufficient water is available, leaving the wood brown with a characteristic brick-like pattern.

Finally, there are the white rot fungi (including both ascomycetes and basidiomycetes). These fungi degrade both cellulose and lignin, and are responsible for most of the decay of dead wood in forests. These fungi are rarely found on man-made wooden objects, although most could certainly decay these were sufficient water to be made available.

So, if relatively few fungi actually utilize wood as a food source, why do we see molds on the surfaces of furniture following floods, or where condensation has occurred? These surface fungi, often species of Penicillium and Aspergillus, are actually digesting the waxes, oils and dust that are always on the surface of wood. They often occur on wood that has been transiently wetted (say from a flood) or is periodically wetted from condensation.

Generally, they can be washed away, and the wood returned to its original state. Of course, if the wood doesn’t dry – as probably occurred in some cases in New Orleans – the soft rot fungi may take over.

Questions to ask when trying to decide whether or not structural wood needs to be removed are:

1. How long as the wood been wet? If the water has been present for months say from a hidden leak, it may be supporting wood rot fungi. If so, the part of the wood that is affected can be removed and replaced. Any residual fungi that are missed will not continue to grow if the wood remains dry.
    

2. Is the wood soft, fibrous, pitted, or browned with a brick like pattern of cracks? Again, these are evidence of long-term water damage, and the affected wood can generally be removed with little concern that the problem will return, providing that the replaced wood remains dry. One caution: some of the brown rot fungi (e.g., Serpula lacrimans) can transport water from distant sites. Tracking these sites and breaking the water connection is essential to prevent return of the rot.
     

3. Is the wood dry with patches of black mold? I would initially collect tape samples to verify that the mold is Ophiostoma, and to educate myself about what this fungus looks like on wood. If it is Ophiostoma (or Ceratocystis, or Gonatobotryum, which is closely associated with Ophiostoma), nothing need be done. If it is some other fungus, you need to find the source of the water that allowed the fungus to grow. If water is no longer present, you will have to assess the exposure potential from the growth to make a determination whether or not to recommend remediation.
    

4. Does the mold look like greenish or whitish dots or circles or patches on the surface of the wood? Does the mold disappear if you wipe a gloved finger over the surface? If yes, this is probably surface mold that can be easily removed by washing the surface with detergent and water (Murphy’s oil soap works well), then thoroughly dried and repolished. Obviously, the flooding or condensation problem will have to be corrected.

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

More than 100,000 species of molds have been characterized. Literature has suggested at least 1,000 are commonly found in the United States. Although these numbers are very high, relatively few mold and bacterial species pose a threat to human health. The intent of this article is to discuss fungal and bacterial sampling and their interpretation but not to address the health effects associated with each major group. Fungal testing – whether in hospitals, healthcare facilities, schools, offices or public places – is not a simple task, owing to lack of true standardized protocols and standard sampling equipment. There is also no standardization or uniformity in interpreting the measured mold data. Traditionally, the monitoring of targeted locations (hospitals, commercial settings, schools, etc.) has been a good source for demonstrating relative levels of mold and bacteria in internal air quality. The simultaneous sampling of both the indoor and outdoor environments provides a basic model for determining levels and types of mold inside that are typically reflective of levels and types that may be found outdoors (and to a lesser extent for bacteria, as discussed later).

IAQ professionals are faced with challenging questions regarding bioaerosol and reservoir sampling for buildings recognized as being problematic due to the growth of mold and bacteria there. This challenge is broadened when nosocomial infections are introduced into the problem mix. Initially, a sampling plan should be introduced that includes a hypothesis regarding suspected mold and bacterial sources, including their exposure routes. Consider that the inspection process may take a different path than initially suspected. The objectives of the sampling strategy and investigation must be well defined. The objectives should be both very broad to very specific in nature. Broad objectives might be to determine the presence of the airborne fungi and bacteria, their composition and abundance, whereas a specific objective might be to detect and quantify specific mold and bacterial species such as Aspergillus spp. (aspergillosis in immunocompromised patients) or methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (infections of the skin, eye, ear, blood or surgical implants) in a healthcare setting.

Environmental Assessment
In keeping with the investigative and sampling plan, the presence of mold and bacteria, moisture damage, and musty or foul odors needs to be the primary consideration. In all instances, any sources of errant water must be stopped and the extent of moisture damage evaluated. The visual inspection is key in identifying a possible contamination issue. Collecting moisture and infrared readings will also assist in this process. Ventilation systems should be checked, particularly for damp filters and damp conditions elsewhere, such as cooling coils and condensate pans. Ceiling tiles, paper-faced gypsum materials, cardboard, paper, and other cellulosic surfaces should be given careful attention due to their ability to absorb and retain moisture.

After completing the initial assessment and updating the investigative plan, the next stage is to develop and to implement a sampling plan. The type of analytical data required should determine the types and number of samples to be taken. The level of analytical details required is dependent upon the questions that the analytical results are required to answer. For example, tape-lift sampling – the main advantage of which is to determine the concentration of settled spores on a surface rather than actual growth – could be performed when the investigator simply needs to know whether certain discolorations were caused by fungi. In this case, a direct microscopic exam, or DME, would be a most efficient and cost-effective method since speciation is not of concern. Alternatively, a healthcare facility may have more specific needs such as the speciation of Aspergillus fumigatus, which may require the use of culture media. Each investigation must be based on the objective, and the investigator is responsible for determining the specifications for sampling. Three types of sampling should be considered in order to support both broad and specific objectives: air sampling, surface or tape-lift sampling, and bulk sampling.

Air sampling is performed by impacting air onto cassettes or onto gel impaction slides for non-viable analysis, and/or by impacting air on suitable growth/nutrient media for viable analysis. In the case of hospital and healthcare environments where nosocomial infections are a concern or compliance samples are necessary, the complete characterization of fungi and bacteria is critical; therefore, a viable method (culture) is a method that must be considered for these situations. By comparison, non-viable (non-culturable) air testing allows for determination of total fungal spores and hyphal element counts where the particles are directly quantified under a microscope. Non-viable analysis allows only quasi-generic-level identification but is a very useful tool for monitoring fungal concentrations during construction and abatement activities. This kind of analysis is improved by selecting the most optimal adhesive-coated slides since adhesives differ in their ability to trap spores. Our company in 2004 conducted a detailed, side-by-side comparative study for the efficacy of grease-coated MCE slides and Zefon Air-O-Cell slides. Likewise, the effectiveness of the culture method is optimized by simultaneous sampling with general-purpose and selective media for the extraction of certain targeted organisms. This sampling technique aids the laboratory analyst in the full recovery of all organisms by introducing alternative media, some with unique identification enhancements, to the analytical process.

Surface sampling is also a useful tool for the enumeration and characterization of the levels of contamination when the suspect area is non-porous. Surface sampling is performed either by tape lift, swab, wipes or agar contact plates. Tape-lift samples, swabs and wipes are analyzed by DME, and the swabs or wipes can also be cultured on a variety of general and selective media. Care must be taken in the selection of appropriate surface sampling techniques since tape lifts for fungal determination may not be suitable, for instance when a surface is wet. The one exception to this is wood surfaces; tape samples from wood products often provide sufficient and detailed information. Tape lifts are less effective for bacterial sampling since moist bacteria may not adhere to the adhesive and the size of bacteria does not lend itself to the magnification used in a DME. In these situations, the bulk material itself or a micro-vac cassette of the dust (not carpet fibers, rocks, staples, etc.) would be the sample of choice. Swab samples from carpet, upholstery and insulation will not allow for complete recovery of the organisms; thus, organisms found from these types of samples may be incomplete and the numbers inherently low.

Bulk sampling is preferred when a portion of the suspect material can be collected and submitted to the laboratory. It is, in my opinion, the sample of choice and represents the primary microbial reservoir. Bulk sampling can be analyzed by DME or by culture. Generally, serial dilution of the material is carried out on bulk samples, which gives quantifiable results in the form of colony-forming units per gram, or CFU/g. This procedure allows recovery of variety of microorganisms and can be utilized on very selective media for the recovery of slow growing targeted organisms. It is always a good practice to perform DME of cultured bulk samples due to the suppression of some organisms by mucoraceous molds. Furthermore, some fungi are present in samples but will not grow on culture media owing to microbial competition or the health of the organism at the time of sampling. It is not unusual for multiple genera to be present on a direct read that would not be recovered from culture.

Sampling efficiency is enhanced when considerations of environmental conditions at sampling locations are addressed. Temperature and relative humidity – and, in the case of outdoors, wind velocity and direction – should be recorded during sampling. For example, sampling under unsaturated air conditions can cause the airborne bacteria to desiccate by the evaporation of cellular water, which affects overall counts. Noting the environmental conditions during this sampling will aid in the interpretation of the data. Likewise, considerations for the sampling location should be addressed to assist in the evaluation of a developed hypothesis. For example, in the case of immunocompromised patients or those with nosocomial infections, the sampling must be performed in the inhabited areas, and care must be taken to prevent the inadvertent aerosolization of microorganisms.

Interpretation of Data
It is very difficult to draw a defensible conclusion based on obtained data if there is significant variation among species and numbers. Indoor bioaerosol concentrations must be compared with outdoor levels or to a non-complaint or non-affected control area. Outdoor levels may not always be the best reference number to use based on proximity of the outdoor sample and the area being sampled. In general, outdoor levels of fungi are much higher than indoor levels, and indoor levels of some bacteria tend to be higher than outdoor levels. In my view, the interpretation of a low airborne concentration of microorganisms, in and of itself, does not indicate an unaffected environment.

Researchers in various fields such as environmental microbiologists, ecologists, physicians and microbiologists are attempting to develop a relationship between symptoms and causal agents. Since there is no threshold-level protocol, research is needed to explore the possibility of new sampling procedures. Current sampling strategies, especially air sampling, may be improved by increasing the number of samples taken at a given location and increasing the use of selective media. This would allow sufficient data for statistical interpretation, effectiveness of the sampling procedures, and for the growth and identification of the targeted organisms.

Table 1 shows the data analysis of fungal spores trapped in outdoor and indoor air at a children’s hospital in 2004; the values for variance and standard deviation were very high and statistically hard to prove any significant correlation between indoor and outdoor samples.

Included with this article are the data of two air-sampling procedures – traditional and flow cytometery – for their efficiency and significance. Table 1 represents the data collected at a children’s hospital in 2004. The values for variance and standard deviation were very high; indoor and outdoor samples did not statistically correlate. Most of the outdoor fungal genera were not detected inside and there were high numbers of unidentified fungi. This particular study was conducted using total counts without identification.

Flow-cytometric – or FCM – techniques are being utilized for the detection of pollen and airborne bacteria and fungi, as discussed in studies in 1997 and 2004. In recent years, FCM has been widely used for the enumeration of pollen in the environment, for the recovery of prokaryotic and eukaryotic organisms from aquatic environments, such as in a 2000 study. The results of the FCM analysis of airborne fungi demonstrated significant correlation between the indoor and outdoor samples in Figure 1, while there was no correlation among the samples collected at the children’s hospital, as seen by the negative R² value in Figure 2.

Figure 1, adapted from a 2004 study by Priogione and others, shows the relationship between flow cytometric and microscopy counting results for Penicillium brevicompactum. In this figure, R2= 0.994.

Figure 2 shows the relationship between indoor and outdoor fungal species count collected by Aerotrap at a children’s hospital.

In conclusion, not any one collection protocol or one sampling device can provide all the relevant data. Several sampling procedures may be required to completely assess the environment. The investigator should develop a very thoughtful hypothesis based on available resources and information. For some projects, simultaneous multiple air samples (five to 10 minutes to hourly differences), selective media, sequential sampling based on environmental conditions, and the use of slides with the best collection efficiency may improve the laboratory findings and ultimately result in more consistent data interpretation. Such data can then be statistically analyzed and utilized in defining the remediation process, in establishing a ranking of the indoor and outdoor bioaerosols, and in determining the recovery and enumeration of targeted organisms in a specific environment improved. Sampling may not be economical, but until new and improved sampling protocols are defined, use of the above procedures may improve results.

Rizwan Hashmi, Ph.D., is a staff mycologist at the Aerobiology Laboratory Associates Inc., based in Reston, Va. He recently joined Aerobiology after completing his post-doctoral research in plant pathology and diseases from Southern Illinois University Carbondale. Hashmi has worked as a research scholar at the Danish Government Institute of Seed Pathology in Copenhagen. Hashmi can be reached via email at rizwan@aerobiology.net or by phone at (877) 648-9150.
 

Risks from chemicals – including household chemicals, chemicals used in components of construction – and bacteriological risks also present serious health hazards. Of the latter, one of the most serious risks is posed by the disease commonly known as legionnaires’ disease and, in its lesser form, Pontiac fever. Both diseases are primarily linked to the bacterium Legionella pneumophila (and possibly other Legionella species) and are sometimes collectively referred to as legionellosis.

Legionella pneumophila is a gram-negative bacterium that generates flu-like symptoms and can infect the lower respiratory tract. The risk from these diseases can be severe. While many would argue that death from legionnaires’ disease is limited to elderly persons or persons with immunocompromised conditions, there have been deaths among seemingly normal, healthy individuals age 45 and up. With an average of 8,000 to 18,000 diagnosed cases of legionnaires’ disease every year, and with an unknown number of cases that are not properly diagnosed or reported, Legionella pneumophila presents a significant risk that in many cases could be dramatically reduced or eliminated. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, only 2 to 10 percent of cases are reported.

Symptoms of legionnaires’ disease include a high fever, chills, coughing and other pneumonia-like symptoms. Often, legionnaires’ disease is first diagnosed as pneumonia. Tests for the disease include chest X-rays or blood, urine or sputum tests. The symptoms generally appear with two days to two weeks from exposure. According to the CDC, death occurs in 5 to 30 percent of legionnaires’ disease cases, with a much higher percentage arising from nosocomial (those contracted in hospital or hospital-like settings) outbreaks.

Pontiac fever – named after the Mich. city in which an outbreak was revealed – is a milder version of legionellosis, for which the symptoms include fever, headaches and muscle aches – but without the conditions of pneumonia.

Legionella pneumophila was first identified in 1976, when the CDC analyzed the cause of illness and death of members of the American Legion at their convention in Philadelphia. Twenty-nine people were known to have died as a result of the Legionella pneumophila outbreak – out of 180 identified cases – and when the CDC identified a newly discovered genus of bacteria, it was named after the Legionnaires.

As a result of the analysis, the CDC identified Legionella pneumophila as a true building-related illness. As a primarily water-borne bacterium, Legionella pneumophila found a host in air-conditioning chillers, plumbing systems, pools, spas, humidifiers, water fountains, decorative fountains, dental hygiene sprayers, and other water containing vessels and devices. There did not seem to be a basis for human-to-human transmission. The general route of transmission seems to be from aspirating aerosolized water containing the bacteria – although, as noted below, there are some cases of ingestion-caused illness. Both are a significant concern as Legionella pneumophila is fairly ubiquitous.

Identifying the Source of an Outbreak
Because Legionella cannot be seen with the naked eye, smelled or otherwise be readily patent to building maintenance personnel, it is, unfortunately, usually discovered when an outbreak occurs in the building. As Legionella infections must be reported to the health department – and in Florida is a listed disease requiring notice from doctors and hospitals – the health department will generally perform an epidemiological study seeking to determine the source of the contamination.

Sometimes, this may be readily identified, such as in a common workplace, or may be more difficult to identify if people were made ill at a hotel, convention or other gathering place where people arrive from different locations and soon disperse. If a common source is identified, the result may be the closing of an office building, hotel or other facility until the contamination can be found. The closing of a building can result in severe economic harm to the enterprises that occupy the closed facility.

Sometimes, contamination may be difficult or impossible to find. Legionella contamination in traps in a piping system may be released due to an air hammer or a shift in pressure, and then either be dispersed or again sealed in its reservoir. In this event, even water sampling may not reveal the exact location. If that is the case, often extreme and expensive measures must be undertaken to ensure that all potential sources have been decontaminated. This may result in a further closure of the facility.

The CDC notes disparate cases of Legionella pneumophila causing serious illness or death with seemingly unrelated sources of contamination.

• One Italian study in 2004 found that the hot water systems in more than 22 percent of tested residences showed evidence of Legionella contamination. It also found that Legionella could survive in temperatures in excess of 140 degrees Fahrenheit.
   
• In 1994, a Bermuda-bound cruise ship was the site of an outbreak of legionnaires’ disease. Fourteen cases were confirmed and 28 others suspected. Links were made to the whirlpool spa on the ship. Samples were taken from the sand filter for the spa, confirming the contamination, and steps were taken to eliminate the contamination, including hyperchlorination of the ship’s potable water supply, removal of the whirlpool filters, and discontinuation of the whirlpool baths.
   
• Spas can be an active source of Legionella contamination. In a 1996 event, 23 people contracted legionnaires’ disease from exposure to a spa on display at a home improvement center. Many of the victims were customers with only a limited exposure to the spa. While testing was performed on spa filters, a greenhouse sprinkler system, a decorative fish pond and fountain, potable water fountains, urinals, and hot and cold water taps in the store’s restrooms, it was testing on a filter on a spa that had been on display and then sold that confirmed the original source of contamination.
   
• Cooling towers present a common source of Legionella contamination. In 1993, the CDC identified outbreaks in Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Michigan, with cooling towers identified as the source.
   
• One of the more unusual sources of contamination identified by the CDC is commercial potting soil. Several individuals merely potting plants were identified as suffering from exposure to Legionella pneumophila with the soil as the link. In these cases, the species was identified as Legionella longbeachae. In one reported case, a 45-year-old man died from legionellosis.
   
• In 2001, two workers at an automotive plant in Cleveland, Ohio, died, and many more were made ill. Testing revealed that the source of Legionella pneumophila was a finishing tank in the plant.

Responding to an Outbreak
Responding to a Legionella outbreak and promptly treating the disease will require educating physicians and use of tests such as urine antigen. The CDC believes that use of culturing is key to recognition of infections. The primary difficulty noted by the CDC is identifying the source of legionellosis in sporadic cases, but that rapid detection is critical to prevent further disease transmission. Improving the sensitivity of testing procedures are needed in order to more rapidly identify the condition, and remediate the source of contamination.

Treating patients with legionnaires’ disease is difficult due to the limited effectiveness of various antibiotics. The preferred antibiotics are known as macrolides, and include azithromycin, erythromycin, and clarithromycin.

Eliminating Legionella pneumophila from a water source can be more problematic. First, identifying the source may be difficult if not impossible. In a recent contamination associated with a resort property, neither the local health department nor expert consultants could detect any Legionella pneumophila in any water supply, whether plumbing systems, pool or spa. Because Legionella pneumophila is easily aspirated, it is possible that a neighboring property’s cooling tower could have led to the outbreak in the adjacent property. Because of the potential severity of the outbreak, the property, in an abundance of caution, undertook to remediate all potential sources of contamination, including replacing every shower head in the facility. While many of the steps taken were likely unnecessary, the potential risks associated with Legionella pneumophila often result in extreme measures being taken. This case indicates the difficulty in preventing outbreaks of legionnaires’ disease. Even if regular testing on water systems had been undertaken, it is highly likely that no potential for the presence of Legionella would have or could have been detected.

A report by the Association of Water Technologies, “Legionella 2003: An Update and Statement,” notes the following optimal conditions that promote Legionella growth and amplification:

1. Stagnant water conditions and/or system design configurations that produce stagnation, such as side-arm and dead-leg piping;
    
2. Warm water temperatures between 20 and 50°C (68 to 122°F);
    
3. Optimal growth is at temperatures between 35 and 45°C (95 to 113°F);
    
4. Bulk water pH in the range of 5.0 to 8.5;
    
5. Sediment, scale, deposits, biofilm – support not only Legionella growth, but also that of the very important supporting microbiota for Legionella;
    
6. Microbiota, including algae and many bacteria that supply essential nutrients for growth of Legionella;
    
7. Certain amoebae and other protozoa that harbor Legionella as endosymbionts – allowing them to thrive, resist harsh environmental conditions (including biocides) and to significantly amplify.”

Legionella bacteria are found living in certain amoebae and protozoa as parasites and in the host biofilm often found in water systems. This can make the bacteria more difficult to treat and eradicate in the water system. The Association of Water Technologies notes in its report that “chlorination, UV irradiation and chemical biocides all offer temporary means by which laboratory and planktonic Legionella can be eradicated from a water source. However, the majority of Legionella do not exist as free-swimming (planktonic) bacteria. Instead they reside, well-protected, inside protozoan hosts and in the matrix of biofilm. Eventually, they are released from their hosts in the form of small vesicles that may contain hundreds or a thousand or more Legionellae per vesicle. In terms of survival, the amoeba-grown bacteria are better able to withstand their aquatic environment and may be more virulent. This adaptation and endosymbiotic relationship with amoebae and other protozoa allows Legionella, among other things, to survive typical potable water chlorination (disinfection) and appear in many finished water supplies to homes, buildings and industry.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has generally identified certain treatment methods for entire systems, including thermal disinfection (super heat and flush), hyperchlorination, and copper-silver ionization.

Treatment and control methods to disinfect only a limited portion of a water distribution system include ultraviolet light sterilization, ozonation, and instantaneous steam heating.
The EPA notes that utilizing a combination of the disinfection methods may be best for eradicating Legionella growth and in preventing re-growth.

[Editor’s note: It is recommended that people consider implementing recognized control measures and proactive monitoring and testing before an outbreak occurs.]

Conclusion
It is key for environmental professionals to understand the risks of limiting their knowledge, and training, to one potential cause of disease. Without an understanding of the multiple impacts the built environment can have on occupants, the environmental professional may leave a serious condition undetected and undiagnosed, result in significant health exposure to people, and will expose himself or herself to liability for not identifying the potential conditions.

Improved understanding of the host source of Legionella can increase the effectiveness of prevention and control measures in buildings and enable the building owner to better protect its occupants. The indoor environmental profession should seize the opportunity to prevent and rapidly identify the sources of this potentially deadly disease.

Michael Greene is a shareholder in the West Palm Beach office of Akerman Senterfitt. He can be reached by e-mail at MSGreene@Akerman.com or by phone at (561) 653-5000.