• Word on the Street
• The Day I Landed In Jail
• Finding Your Way Through the Green Jungle
• Congress Considers Funding for “Green Schools” Effort
• I collected bacterial air samples and some of the levels look high. What should I do?
• To Spray or Not to Spray? The answer, my friend, is not blowing in the wind

SCARIEST SHOWERS SINCE “PSYCHO”

Two studies — one called “Volatile Vinyl: The New Shower Curtain’s Chemical Smell” based in Canada, and another by the Center for Health, Environment and Justice (CHEJ) in Virginia — trumpet warnings of more than 100 toxic chemicals present in PVC shower curtains.

Each group warns that chemicals seep into the air for about a month after purchase, citing a previous Environmental Protection Agency study that turned up similar findings.

The studies come on the heels of similar concerns over the plastic water bottle chemical bisphenol A, or BPA, which sparked concern when researchers found it could cause developmental problems in children.

Canada is now considering a ban on the products, including those tested from Wal-Mart, Target, Sears, K-Mart and Bed Bath & Beyond, while CHEJ hopes similar steps will be taken in the U.S.

But not all researchers are convinced of the danger of PVC-based curtains.

In fact, many have called the studies unfounded, including the traditionally cautious Consumer Protection Safety Commission, which called the results “phantasmagorical” and “ridiculous” in its response.

Despite such rebukes, Stephen Lester, science director for CHEJ, says he will call for the elimination of such products, particularly when safer, more environmentally friendly options are readily available to manufacturers.

Among the retailers to buy into the idea are IKEA, which for more than a decade has avoided PVC shower curtains in favor of the more environmentally friendly ethylene vinyl acetate versions.

LEEDING THE WAY

The Christman Company announced that it has been awarded LEED Platinum certifi cation by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) for The Christman Building, its recently rehabilitated national headquarters located in downtown Lansing,

Michigan. LEED is the USGBC’s rating system for designing and constructing the world’s greenest, most energy efficient and high performing buildings, with the Platinum level being its highest possible rating.

The building was formally certified in a ceremony today in which USGBC presented Christman with certifications in two categories, Commercial Interiors (CI) and Core and Shell. This is the world’s fi rst building project to achieve this “double Platinum” distinction.

Listed on the National Register of Historic Places, the building is an example of sustainable “green” historic building practices, considered by many to be the highest form of sustainable design and construction due to its reuse of an existing structure. The many green features of the project include water use reduction, optimized energy performance, construction waste management, a focus on daylighting and a healthy indoor environment.

“The Christman Company and its design partner Smith-Group are to be congratulated for achieving LEED Platinum certification for both The Christman Building and its office space,” said Rick Fedrizzi, President, CEO, Founding Chair, U.S. Green Building Council. “The best-practices case of The Christman Building has helped expand the boundaries of what’s possible in high-performance, energy-efficient building, and should provide an inspiration for others.”

AFTER THE DELUGE

EPA Region 7 has been tasked by FEMA to provide expertise in potential hazardous materials/oil/chemical incidents related to the Iowa floods.

FEMA has funded EPA Region 7 with $10,000 to conduct initial hazardous material assessments. EPA may also provide expertise to the state about drinking water systems and wastewater systems that may have been affected by the flooding.

EPA has fliers available at www.epa.gov/region07 for agencies to provide to residents in flooded areas. These fliers have helpful information for citizens whose homes or businesses have been flooded. Subjects include: getting rid of mold, checking HVAC for mold, washing hands, food safety, household hazard waste and returning home safely.

FIRE DAMAGE STANDARD

A May 16th notice in ANSI’s Standards Action newsletter announced that a project has been initiated by the Indoor Environmental Standards Organization (IESO) and the Restoration Industry Association (RIA) to create the world’s first

American National Standard for fire damage restoration.

The news was met with enthusiasm when announced last month at the IAQA 12th Annual Meeting & Exposition in Tampa, Florida.

Under an agreement signed earlier this year, the standard will be developed by a subcommittee of the IESO Standards Development Committee and RIA will appoint several representatives to the subcommittee. IESO is an ANSI-accredited standards developer. RIA will help co-fund the project and will share document copyrights with IESO.

It started out as a day much like any other.  I had no assessments scheduled that morning and was in the office working on reports, the bane of my existence.  Then the phone rang.  The call started like so many others:

Caller:  “Do you do mold testing?”

Me:  “Yes, why do you want mold testing?”

Then, the call took a most unusual, and unexpected twist.

Caller:  “I am the safety officer for the women’s maximum security prison, in [a nearby city] and we have had a leak in a water line to a radiator in the hot water heating system of one of our dormitory buildings.  We bought a sample kit at Home Depot and have taken a swab sample and we know that there is mold present.  We would like air samples to determine if there are airborne molds present that would pose a safety risk to our inmates. 

I set a date and time for the assessment, discussed the payment of fees, and we ended the call.

And thus starts the saga of the day I landed in jail.

The day of the appointment came and I drove to the facility, where I came upon an imposing double fence, with 10 feet between fences, and each fence over 15 feet high. Both fences were lined with coils of razor wire. (Photo 1)  No one was going to get over that fence!  The entrance was through a 30 ft. by 60 ft. concrete block building.

After hauling all my equipment across a half-mile of parking lot, I entered the building and was met by a matron in uniform, badge and gun.  She was a truly awesome sight.  She could have started at middle linebacker for the Chicago Bears!  And she had an attitude to match.

She told me to bring my equipment over to the metal detectors so she could inspect it for contraband.  When she noticed the cell phone and leatherman tool on my belt, she said that they were not allowed inside and that I should take them back to the car.  I didn’t argue, and walked the half-mile back to the car to deposit the “contraband”.

When I returned, she pointed to my camera and demanded, “Why do you need the camera?  They are not allowed inside.”

I explained that I used the camera to document the conditions as I found them, as well as documenting the sample locations, and that the photos were an essential part of the documentation for my report, which the safety officer wanted. She grunted and said “Wait here.”

I waited while the warden approved the camera.  It was one of the longest half-hours of my life.

With the camera approved (with the caveat that no inmate would be visible in any photo), I now had to wait for a maintenance supervisor to arrive to be my escort on the grounds.  Finally, with his arrival (all 6ft. 3in. and 260lbs.), I could go to work.  Almost!

The maintenance supervisor, who we will call John, took me to the office of the deputy warden for Administration’s office for an obligatory “meet and greet”.  There the deputy warden questioned me as to why I had proposed to the safety officer that a number of samples be taken. 

I then had to educate him that proper sampling procedure required a hypothesis stating what you wanted to determine, and that a sample set was then developed to give you the data required to determine the validity of the hypothesis.  To do otherwise was not scientifically valid and would not stand up in court.  And if inmates had raised the issue of toxic mold, he would need a valid sample set that would stand up in court.  The inmates had raised the issue, and the deputy warden agreed with my logic.

Then, I got another surprise.  The deputy warden wanted me to inspect two more buildings.  I was glad I had brought along adequate sampling supplies!

John and I started walking to the dormitory.  It was a beautiful stone building with a slate roof.  It was built in 1916, and was the first building that was built at the prison. The interior of the building had impressive wood moldings, much of it now painted, and terrazzo floors.  If it were not for the bars on the windows and in the hallway, it would be quite pleasant.

When we arrived at the corridor on the second floor where they had the leak, I found that the maintenance staff had put up plastic over the door as containment.  I took air samples in the corridor (Photo 2) before I disturbed the containment to see if there were elevated levels of airborne mold in the corridor, as that was one of the Warden’s main concerns.

After taking the air samples in the corridor, we entered the containment and noted the leak in the hot water pipe that caused part of the plaster ceiling to fall.  Staining consistent with mold growth was noted on the wood lath and surrounding ceiling plaster (Photo 3).  I also pointed out staining on the other side of the room coming from the toilet from the floor above (Photo 4) and John said that that was a new leak.

I completed the sampling protocol and we moved on to the next building.  It should be noted that the test results showed that the prison staff’s efforts at containment were successful, and that the total spore counts in the hallway were less than those of the outside sample and composed of similar genera.  The building, built in 1916, was known from earlier renovation project to have asbestos fibers in the plaster, so those facts were built into the remediation plan, to be done later this summer.

The second building consisted of a poured concrete, four story building used as classrooms for a local college.  An inmate had complained of adverse health symptoms every time she spent time in the lowest level of the building.  She had discussed this with her lawyer, and was threatening legal action.

A visual inspection of the building showed that there was water entry from a plugged exterior stairway drain, and from several leaks in the below grade hallway. This inspection also showed that there was no drywall or wood construction materials to support mold growth, it was 100% poured concrete construction.  As expected, there was no visible mold growth.

Air samples were taken at various points around the building (Photo 5) and outside for control.  The sample results showed that all indoor samples were lower than the outdoor sample, with no water indicator genera. 

Basically, this documented that there was no mold problem in this building that could be causing the inmates adverse health symptoms.  When shown this documentation, the test results, the lawyer went away, and the warden was happy.

In my opinion, providing a level of documentation is one of the main arguments for sampling, providing that you are sampling to a scientifically valid hypothesis.  Agreed, both sides of the sampling debate have some measure of validity from a purely scientific viewpoint.  However, when lawyers are involved, if you have no samples, you have no evidence.  If you have no evidence, the lawyer has no case.  This makes for a very unhappy lawyer, and one very unhappy client, who may turn the lawyer against you!  From a very practical viewpoint, I like to create a “legally defensible position” for myself whenever possible.  If I can’t see how to do that, I refuse the assignment.  Sampling is often a key component of the necessary documentation to create this “legally defensible position.”

The third building was the smallest but the most challenging from a mold perspective.  It was the former warden’s residence that was converted to offices, and had been vacant for several years. The warden was concerned that the maintenance workers who used the garage for storage, were being exposed to mold contamination.

I didn’t quite understand this comment until I inspected the house.  I entered a normal, if slightly dirty, 2+ car concrete block garage that was used for the storage of lawnmowers and other landscaping tools and equipment.  It had the usual grass clippings and some dirt.  There was no evidence of water entry and no evidence of visible mold growth, so I was a bit confused as to why they were concerned about mold exposure in the garage.

When I asked John why the concern about this building, he told me that there was a mold issue in the basement of the house and that they had vacated the offices because of the mold in the basement.  When I said that I would like to look at the basement, John informed me that he would have to get the keys to the house from another maintenance supervisor, and that he would be right back.  That took another 30 minutes!

When I went into the basement, I entered a mold nightmare!  Water was dripping from the wood sub floor and standing in pools on the concrete basement floor.  There was mold growth all over the drywall and wood framing (photos 6 & 7).  Due to the extent of the growth, it had been growing there for a long time.  I did not investigate the source of the excessive moisture, as this was not included in my scope of work. 

Surface samples taken from the drywall and the wood framing contained large amounts of Chaetomium, Penn/Asp, and Stachy.  Air samples taken in the basement contained large amounts of the same molds (Photo 8). 

To see if this was the source of mold in the garage, I took an air sample in the garage (Photo 9) and in the first floor living room (Photo 10) of the house.  The sample results were almost identical.  They both had elevated Chaetomium, Penn/Asp, and Stachy; with a little Cladosporium and Basidiospores in the samples.

This showed that the source of mold in the garage was the mold in the basement.  I recommended that they put plastic containment on both sides of the door from the garage to the house, and that access be limited to the front door of the house to keep the mold out of the garage.  I also suggested, since there was no visible mold source in the garage, that the garage be aired out and cleaned as a normal cleaning project.  Additionally, since there is well over 100 sq. ft. of contamination in the basement, no one should enter the house unless they are wearing adequate PPE.  I also recommended that the source of the water intrusion be evaluated and a remediation plan be developed rapidly, before the building structure was compromised.

With no more buildings to evaluate, I packed my equipment and John escorted me back to the entrance building, where the matron again inspected my equipment for contraband, and saw me through the metal detectors and out the door, into the parking lot.

My time in jail was over.  I could return to civilization.

It turned out to be an interesting day, with several interesting buildings.  The warden was pleased with my reports because several of their concerns were shown to be non-issues, and one potential lawsuit went away due to the documentation provided by the samples.

Frank B. Dean, CIE, is an IAQ consultant based in Columbus, Ohio, doing IAQ assessments throughout the Midwest.  His company, The PDF Group, LLC, is an approved course provider for the IAQA.  Mr. Dean has spoken on IAQ issues nationally, including at the IAQA convention.  He is a frequent contributor to IE Connections.  He can be reached by phone at:  614-846-7100 or by email at:  pdfgrp@earthlink.net

It isn’t easy trying to be green, and it’s even more difficult trying to be green and healthy. Not everything green is healthy. Green may just mean something is energy-efficient or that the manufacturing process has a low environmental impact. A product claming to be green could be off-gassing significant amounts of VOCs and formaldehyde.

This can cause problems because building-related health complaints can not always be solved by increasing ventilation. Even if increasing ventilation solves an IAQ problem, at some point the energy required to ventilate a building off-sets the energy saved by building it green in the first place.

Rather than having to choose between being green and being healthy, choosing building materials and furnishings wisely in the first place will allow you to do both. There are a lot of green labels on products to help decision making. Let’s find out what these labels are, what they mean and what to look for to be green and healthy.

It’s a jungle of green labels out there. So many labels to choose from. Fortunately, when it comes to indoor air quality, it gets easy. There are only a few green labels that focus primarily on health and indoor air quality:

·         GREEN GUARD Children & Schools Certification Program

·         Green Label Plus by the Carpet & Rug Institute

·         Indoor Advantage Gold by Scientific Certification Systems

·         Floorscore by Scientific Certification Systems

·          

What These Green Labels Mean

These labels are supposed to mean a product does not off-gas chemicals in a manner that would significantly affect health. It’s important to notice what they do not mean - they do not mean that a product does not contain toxic chemicals. They simply mean that the emission rates of certain chemicals will not negatively affect heath based on an assumed ventilation rate in the building, amount of materials installed and the size of the building.

How Products are Tested

The development of a testing standard began with the State of California choosing office furniture. In 2000, the state was requesting bids for a $60 million office furniture contract. State agencies worked with the furniture industry to benchmark environmental specifications. This specification included an indoor air quality assessment and a testing method outlined in Special Environmental Requirements, Section 01350.

The testing procedure is as follows: A sample of a product is put inside a test chamber. There are small, medium and large sized chambers. Building materials are usually cut up and placed in small chambers; larger chambers are used to accommodate items like furniture. The chamber is purged with clean air at a rate of one air change per hour. Air sampling for VOCS and formaldehyde is performed after several days using sorbant tubes analyzed by GC/MS.

What They Allow

The laboratory analytical results are multiplied by factors to estimate what concentrations of pollutants would theoretically be present in an office or school and the potential exposure to occupants. Although their testing chamber specifications might be similar, Green Guard and Indoor Advantage (Scientific Certification Systems) have different specifications for determining exposures. Green Guard uses a propriety standard; Indoor Advantage follows the peer-reviewed, ANSI standard from the Business and Institutional Furniture Manufacturer’s Association (BIFMA). Green Guard, for example, is based on an ASHRAE ventilation rate of 5 CFM per person and 0.06 CMF/ft2 applied to an office space of 32m³ for a single occupant. Green Guard for Schools is applied to a classroom (40’ x 24’ x 8.5’) with an occupancy of twenty-seven.

Regardless of the formula used to calculate the theoretical exposure levels, certification is based on meeting the State of California’s criteria for chemicals with Chronic Reference Exposure Levels (CRELs). A CREL is a concentration that poses no significant health risk to individuals indefinitely exposed.

There are no CRELs for most chemicals. Green Guard has tried to address this by considering Threshold Limit Values (TLVs) set by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH). A TLV is the average concentration to which a normal person can be exposed for 8 hours a day, 5 days per week with no affect.

California does not have a threshold for total VOCs. California feels that many VOCS do not pose health risks. The green labels presented here have adopted the LEED threshold value (500 ug/m3) for total VOCs.

For formaldehyde, California requires the calculated emission rate be less than 13.5 ppb for products going into schools.

Problems with Reported Values

Perhaps the biggest problem with labels is the way the estimated exposures are calculated. Assumptions are made regarding ventilation rates in building. Test results are specific to a particular design, surface area the product would cover, and room parameters. Just because a product meets Section 01350 limits for a specific design such as a classroom, does not mean that it will meet the criteria for use in another application.

It might be better to have the actual emission data listed on the label as well as the computed values. The reason this is not done is, quite simply, because, manufactures don’t have to. California doesn’t require them to and they feel doing so would disclose propriety information.

Another limitation with the certifications is there are no RELS or TLVs for many chemicals. Thousands of VOCs remain poorly understood for their effect on health, alone or in synergy. The additive health effects associated with numerous compounds (numbering in the hundreds in some cases) detected at low concentrations is difficult to model and needs to be examined.

Paint

The EPA definition of low-VOC latex paint is 250 grams per liter (g/l). This is based on a standard to reduce smog; not a health standard. Green Seal (not one of the four green labels listed above) has their own definition of low-VOC at 50 g/l max. This too is based on environmental concerns; not health.

Dunn-Edwards is a favorite with my environmentally sensitive clients. When I tested the product, the lab reported acetone, styrene and methyl ethyl ketone. Methyl ethyl ketone is prohibited by Green Seal, based on environmental concerns, so this product should not be eligible. Testing in my client’s homes suggests the air quality is not adversely affected by these ingredients some period after drying. Which leads the question, does it make sense to eliminate a product from green certification based solely on its ingredients?

If your primary concern is health, it might make more sense to perform the Section 01350 test which is what Green Guard and Indoor Advantage do, labels that focus primarily on indoor air quality. Green Guard test paint in a chamber with the paint applied to gypsum board. This particular paint is in fact listed by California as being certified by its manufacturer to meet the Section 01350 criteria.

Note that green certification labels do not list ingredients. A green certification for air quality simply states that, based on testing and calculated emission rates, the levels of certain VOCs and formaldehyde are below the exposure limits specified in Section 01350.

Cleaning Products

Green Seal is commonly found on cleaning products. The intent of Green Seal is to evaluate a product on a variety of green criteria, including environmental impact; not just health. Chemicals that are toxic to fish and non-biodegradable are not allowed. This appears to eliminate ammonia and bleach, although. it can be difficult to determine what exact chemicals are prohibited. Fragrance, know to trigger asthma, is allowed.

The green labels that focus on indoor air quality don’t prohibit ingredients. They test for exposure levels. Green Guard, for example, tests cleaning products in a chamber by spraying them on a hard surface such as stainless steel and measuring VOCs at 4 and 48 hours. This does not seem to address the immediate exposure.

Kitchen Cabinets

I attended the National Kitchen and Bathroom Association’s annual show in Chicago this year. Nearly every manufacturing rep I spoke with was excited about being green. Their enthusiasm seemed to be based primarily on sustainable forestry practices. The bulk of cabinets contained formaldehyde. Some claimed performance to ANSI A208 standard for low-formaldehyde particle board and the Composite Panel Association’s (CPA) Environmentally Preferable Product (EPP) designation. These allow up to 0.3 ppm and 0.2 ppm formaldehyde respectively. Comparing this to the NIOSH exposure limit for formaldehyde (0.016 ppm), “low formaldehyde” doesn’t seem good enough.

There does not appear to be any Green Guard or Indoor Advantage certified kitchen cabinets. This is because there are no residential testing standards. Residential standards are being developed. In the meantime, look for plywood made without formaldehyde. Medium density fiberboard (MDF) and wheat straw seem to be the alternatives. Look for stains and finishes that are Green Guard or Indoor Advantage certified.

What’s Really in Green Certified Products?

You don’t know. Manufacturers are not required to disclose ingredients and they don’t want to. Why is this? They claim it’s because consumers might start comparing products to each other based on ingredients and they worry that an uneducated consumer would be miss-lead to think their product is not as good as another. It would be like food labels. One product has “No MSG” on the label and you think that sounds good, not realizing high levels of nitrates are being used to preserve the food instead. The nitrates might be worse for health than MSG, but one buys the “No MSG” product.

Tips for Doing Research Beyond Green labels

A product does not need to have a green label to have passed the California Section 01350 test. It cost tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars for companies to get their products certified by green labeling programs. Instead, many manufactures test their product per Section 01350. They are required to in order to do business in the State of California schools. For a list of products certified to meet the Collaborative for High Performance Schools (CHPS), visit www.chps.net/manual/lem_table.htm.

If you are a designer or builder and wondering about how good a product’s green label is, contact the manufacturer to model an exposure for your building based on the actual ventilation rate to be expected, amount of material to be installed and size of the building.

If you’re an indoor air quality consultant trying to figure out what’s causing high level of VOCs in a building, you may contact manufactures that have green labels and obtain, with a non-disclosure statement and just cause being shown, the actual test data and emission factors.

Even if the product has a green label or section 01350 testing, you should consider what the ingredients are.

1)      Avoid products with the words “inert” or “other” ingredients on the label.

2)      Get the Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS). The Household Products Database from the National Institutes of Health is a good resource (http://hpd.nlm.nih.gov).

3)      Look for “no formaldehyde”

4)      Avoid fragrance and other potentially irritating chemicals in cleaning supplies by reading the labels.

Don’t be fooled by products that come packaged in green colored bottles or with good sounding labels. Read what’s in them. For example, I recently saw an aerosol freshener at Trader Joe’s with “Essential oils” on the front label. Reading the ingredients on the back label, it contains “Ethanol made from corn”. Ethanol is a central nervous system depressant. Another example is Simple Green® All-Purpose Cleaner which has Butyl-cellosolve as do Windex and 409.

Being Green and Healthy

Ok, there are labels to help pick products for good indoor air quality. What about the environment? One manufacturer says he can make any product zero-VOC by coating it with enough sealer. What about the workers in the manufacturing plant and the environmental impact of using more chemicals.

To take this into consideration, new standards are being developed that address the whole picture. This is referred to as life cycle assessment. One example is SMART© Consensus Sustainable Product Standards. Another is by Scientific Certification Systems (Indoor Advantage) which is taking the international approach by following ISO 14044 Environmental management -- Life cycle assessment, Requirements and Guidelines. This evaluates products in various categories such as energy use, depletion of materials, habit impact and green house gas emissions to name of few. Scientific Certification Systems says life cycle assessments will not be incorporated into the existing Indoor Advantage labels for indoor air quality. This will allow things to stay simple when looking for a product in terms of indoor air quality and make reading the labels on building materials like reading nutritional labels on food.

For example, at the supermarket you might see “High in Vitamin C” and then check the label for protein, fat or carbohydrates. A person looking for good indoor air quality can look for the Green Guard or Indoor Advantage label (High in vitamin C) and then check the life cycle assessment label to see what the impact is on the environment for a category they are most concerned about.

How Do You Really Know?

In actuality, the only way to really know how the building materials and finishes installed affect the indoor air quality is to test the air in the building. Test it after the building is built and before and after major remodeling. At the same time, submit a sample of the building materials to the lab to see if there’s a match to what’s in the air.

Most builders assume that if they use products with green labels and get the LEED points the air quality will be good. This is a bad assumption. Buildings that are LEED certified are know to fail VOC tests. Why is this? It’s usually not because of formaldehyde. The LEED threshold for formaldehyde (50 ppb) is so high it’s hard not to pass. Usually a building fails because of a variety of VOC sources.

The green certification programs listed here and on California 01350’s website go a long way toward helping you minimize VOCs. Just make sure that what you are buying is certified for your application (office vs. school) and when possible, find out what the ingredients are by reading the labels and asking the manufacturer.

If you are concerned about the environment in addition to having good indoor air quality, check for two different kinds of labels: one that designates good indoor air quality; and others that consider the impact on the environment.

Daniel Stih is the author of Healthy Living Spaces: Top 10 Hazards Affecting Your Health. Stih is the President of Healthy Living Spaces, Indoor Environmental Testing & Solutions and the Chapter Director of the Indoor Air Quality Association in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Stih can be reached at dan@healthylivingspaces.com or (505) 992-9904.

by Tom Scarlett

The U.S. House of Representatives has voted to spend more than $20 billion over the next five years to help states build and renovate schools to make them more energy-efficient and environment-friendly, including efforts to improve the schools’ indoor air quality. President Bush, however, has threatened to veto the bill.

The measure, known as the 21st Century Green High-Performing Public School Facilities Act (H.R. 3021), is intended to save school districts billions in energy costs while reducing asthma and other environmentally linked health problems. The legislation passed 250-164 and now must be considered by the Senate.

Indoor Environment Connections contacted the presumptive presidential nominees of the major parties, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.),  to find out their position on the legislation. If vetoed by Bush, the bill is likely to be offered again next year, according to its backers.

A spokeswoman for the Obama campaign said that the Illinois Democrat has endorsed the measure, plans to vote for it in the Senate, and will sign it if he becomes president next year. The McCain campaign told IEC that the Arizona Republican supports the principles behind the bill but is “not convinced that a new federal spending program is the best way to achieve this goal.”

The legislation contains $6.4 billion for the 2009 budget year and similar sums in subsequent years to help school districts modernize facilities to improve the learning climate, promote student and teacher health and make schools more energy efficient.

Projects would have to meet one of three widely recognized standards for building construction materials and energy sources: Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System, Energy Star, or Collaborative For High Performance Schools.

Requirements for meeting the green standards would be phased in, but by 2013, 90 percent of the funds would have to be used for green projects.

Democratic supporters of the bill cited studies that a green school uses 35 percent less energy than a conventional school, reduces carbon dioxide emissions by 40 percent, uses 30 percent less water, and has better lighting and temperature controls that encourage student achievement.

The legislation, said Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller (D-Calif.), will “not only save them energy, not only will make the facilities safer, cleaner and better for the learning environment these children need, it will also dramatically change the cost of running a school district.”

But congressional Republicans see the bill as a federal intrusion into education matters that are best left under the jurisdiction of states and local governments.

“The Democrats' massive $20 billion 'green scheme' would place faceless Washington bureaucrats in charge of priorities historically and best handled by states and local school districts,” said House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio. Other Republicans warned it would siphon off funds from federal programs for poor or disabled students.

The bill “would create an inappropriate and costly new federal role in modernizing and renovating public schools,” the White House said in issuing its veto threat.

The White House also objected to a funding formula linking amounts that a state receives to Title I, the federal program for schools receiving aid for low-income students. No school under the formula would receive less than $5,000.

The legislation, sponsored by Rep. Ben Chandler, D-Ky., also approves federal funding of $100 million a year for five years for public schools in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama damaged by hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

Indoor Air Funding

The text of the bill states that a local educational agency receiving a grant would be allowed to use the grant for “modernization, renovation, or repair of public school facilities, including--

(1) repairing, replacing, or installing roofs, including extensive, intensive or semi-intensive green roofs, electrical wiring, plumbing systems, sewage systems, lighting systems, or components of such systems, windows, or doors, including security doors;

(2) repairing, replacing, or installing heating, ventilation, air conditioning systems, or components of such systems (including insulation), including indoor air quality assessments.”

The money could also be spent on renewable energy generation and heating systems, “including solar, photovoltaic, wind, geothermal, or biomass, including wood pellet, systems or components of such systems, as well as other modernization, renovation, or repair of public school facilities to--

(A) improve teachers' ability to teach and students' ability to learn;

(B) ensure the health and safety of students and staff;

(C) make them more energy efficient; or

(D) reduce class size.”

The Secretary of Energy and the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency would provide outreach and technical assistance to states and school districts concerning the best practices in school modernization, renovation, repair, and construction, including those related to student academic achievement and student and staff health, energy efficiency, and environmental protection.

Local educational agencies receiving a grant under the act would have to annually compile a report describing the projects for which such funds were used, including for each project--

(A) the cost;

(B) whether the funds were to be used in compliance with the agency's efforts to use such funds in an environmentally sound manner, or if not, why this was not feasible;

(C) if flooring was installed, whether--

(i) it was low- or no-VOC (Volatile Organic Compounds) flooring;

(ii) it was made from sustainable materials; and

(iii) use of flooring described in clause (i) or (ii) was cost-effective; and

(D) any demonstrable or expected benefits as a result of the project (such as energy savings, improved indoor environmental quality, improved climate for teaching and learning, etc.).

Funding authorized by the legislation would also be available to charter schools, according to supporters of the bill.

A spokesman for the Senate Majority Leader said that the upper chamber of Congress had not yet scheduled a vote on the bill as of June 18.

The big question here is “Why collect bacterial air samples?”  As you might expect, the answer depends on why you are doing the investigation.  There are specific questions that can be answered by air sampling for bacteria.  For example:

1.      Is this humidifier emitting bacterial aerosols during operation? Collect air samples before and during humidifier operation, and collect humidifier water samples for comparison.

2.      Do cleaning activities in this hospital patient room expose patients to multiply drug resistant staphylococcus organisms? Sample on culture media designed to detect this organism and sample before and during cleaning activities.

3.      Which activities in this machining shop expose workers to the highest concentrations of Gram negative bacteria? Consider using personal filtration sampling so that the samples can be dilution cultured.

4.      Is this hypersensitivity pneumonitis outbreak related to thermophilic actinomycetes? Collect samples early on Monday morning before the HVAC system is turned on then immediately after the system is turned on (and, if possible) 3 or 4 additional samples throughout the day.

Questions that are more difficult to answer using air sampling include:

1.      Is this chronic sinus infection caused by airborne bacteria?  Most sinus infections are caused by commensal bacteria (i.e., those already present in the respiratory tract.  Occasionally an environmental bacterium will be the causative agent.  In this case, matching bacteria recovered from a sinus infection to a specific source can be done using a combination of source and air sampling as is described for humidifiers. . 

The airborne bacteria that are collected using traditional culture plate methods are generally not those that cause serious disease.  Such bacteria are often fastidious in their nutritional requirements and are difficult to culture, or they will be lost in the cloud of ordinary bacteria that is always present in occupied environments.  For example, there is a school here in California that is closed due to a whooping cough epidemic.  Whooping cough is caused by Bordetella pertussis, a Gram negative bacterium that is transmitted from one person to the next through the air.  The number of cells that have to be inhaled to induce disease is quite low, so that only a few cells need be present in the aerosol to present a significant risk.  One might use air sampling as a research effort to determine how many cells an infected person releases with each cough. 

2.      Since there are no fungi, are bacteria causing sick building syndrome symptoms in this building?  As a general rule, bacterial concentrations are not related to sick building syndrome symptoms.  On the other hand, actinomycetes are a kind of bacteria that produce an organic compound (geosmin) that may have irritant effects.  Air samples can be collected to look specifically for actinomycetes.  Since they are generally not abundant in indoor air, their presence as the dominant organism would precipitate a search for a source.

However, sick building symptoms remain difficult to ascribe to any specific exposure, probably because they are always multifactorial.  There are studies that show a relationship between endotoxin, glucans, chair fungi, lighting, etc. 

3.      Are bacterial aerosols being released along with the fungi in this very wet environment?  This is a question that can be answered using air sampling providing good source samples are collected to match to species in the air.  Obviously this approach involves species identification of the bacteria.  While the data collected in this way would be extremely interesting, there is no way at this point to relate such exposure measures and symptoms.

4.      Are coliforms entering the air from this sewage spill?  Sewage spills always need to be cleaned up, and it is probably irrelevant whether or not the or not the organisms are getting into the air.  The organisms that are dangerous in sewage cause gastrointestinal disease that is acquired by ingesting the organisms, not inhaling them (advise occupants to be meticulous about hand washing).  On the other hand, collection of surface samples in the environment may give an indication of the risk of hand to mouth exposure in occupants of a sewage-damaged home. 

5.      Won’t I be criticized for not doing a complete job if I don’t sample for bacteria?  Covering all the bioaerosol bases during an investigation may seem laudable, but it’s a waste of time if you don’t know what to do with the data you collect.  So what if there are 5000 Gram negative bacteria per cubic meter of air in this sample?  Does that piece of information really tell you anything about the environment?  Gram negative organisms are common in outdoor air, they are shed from people, and they could be a part of growth on a wet wall.  On the one hand, the knowledge that the wall is wet is more easily obtained using visual observation or other sensors, and hidden water is more easily documented by measuring fungal aerosols since fungal spores are designed to be aerosolized.  On the other hand, developing a good hypothesis involving the role of bacteria in your investigation, and designing sampling strategies to test that hypothesis will not only give you good data, but convince your clients that you are thinking and working scientifically.

I’ve never been an advocate of routine spraying of chemicals of any sort. Not in the last 20 years, anyway. All of that “foo-foo juice,” as one of my friends calls it, makes me sicker that what it is supposed to kill.

But that wasn’t always true. Being against spraying, I mean. Not the part about making me sick. I grew up on a farm where chemical spraying was a necessity.  It was the only way to keep the flies from infesting the livestock, the corn borers from killing the corn, the weeds from out-competing the crops, and the flies from invading the house on the hot summer nights where even the breeze was stifling.

In mid-summer my father would hire a crop-duster to perform his acrobatic end-of-field maneuvers, spraying DDT in between. The pilot needed to know the path of his next pass, and that was Dad’s job. He’d position himself in the center of the next swath holding high in the air a long stick with a white flag on the end. That was the target for the pilot to fly over.

Dad protected himself from the DDT by wearing a handkerchief, cowboy style, over his mouth and nose. That and a long-sleeved shirt to protect his arms was the only PPE he had, and it was all anyone believed they needed.

I followed suit by filling a hand sprayer with DDT and going bug hunting. If the spray didn’t kill my target as quickly as I desired, I’d spray more until the poor bugger drowned.

Forty years later I experienced firsthand the negative effects of this ignorance. DDT, actually its metabolite DDE, absorbs into body fat and is not easily dislodged. It also has a half-life of twenty years.

A measured level of DDE from a fat biopsy 40 years later should have been fairly low, at least one quarter of the maximum exposure at age 8. I guess it did decrease in accordance with the calculation, but the results were not comforting. 

I don’t remember the numbers but the physician who prescribed the test told me the DDE levels, even after two half-lives of reduction, was at the federal limit. Which means my peak exposure from absorption 40 years previous was about four times the limit. And I was half the body weight. No wonder I lost so many productive years of my life to ill health. There were other suspected causes, but that’s a story for another time. I want to get back to the question of to spray or not to spray and why it is no longer a question seeking an answer.

The answer is not blowing in the wind, my friend, as it was for my father in the corn field. There is little wind inside the build environment.

The reason I say the battle is over is not because the public and the industry have realized the error of their ways and sworn off the chemical bandwagon. Nor is it over because of a regulation or law prohibiting the use of chemical killers of smaller life forms. The closest that prohibition was approached is when the U.S. EPA removed a few pesticides from the market in the recent past. The agency continues to police the misuse of others through their FIFRA registration requirements. 

The ACGIH Bioaerosols book has firm language about the use of anti-microbials. Sections 15.2, 15.4, 16.2, 16.2.3 and 16.2.4 are boldly cited in the IICRC S520 Standard and Reference Guide for Professional Mold Remediation. The concerns are further intensified in ANSI-IICRC S500 Standard and Reference Guide for Professional Water Damage Restoration by devoting the entire Chapter 8 to anti-microbials. EPA mold remediation publications offer similar cautions. But they are only guidelines.

Despite, or because of the above, the logic is now widely accepted that killing mold by any means accomplishes little to nothing. Mold, dead or alive, can trigger allergies, asthma and a myriad other more controversial effects, in sensitized individuals. If the mold is first removed there is nothing to kill. No why the added expense of killing it? Simple common sense.

Yet the overwhelming majority of water damage and mold job sites I visit use chemicals.

The demand – that’s right, the demand – for chemicals comes from several sources. If the contractors don’t insist on using them, their customers will. The emotional fear of “toxic, killer black mold” seems to eradicate all vestiges of rational common sense from the public as does the lure of increased revenue remove it from the contractor.

Fifteen years ago a duct cleaning company objected to my “no chemical fogging” admonishment for my client. He said if he didn’t spray something strong and irritating his customer would accuse him of charging for work not done. The occupant used ill health to verify the contractor actually did something.  Kind of like my father using his DDT-soaked shirt sleeves to verify the plane flew over the right path.

But the blind demand for “foo-foo juice” seems to be fueled by more than that.  I sometimes wonder if our genetic emotional coding for “kill or be killed” is somehow being activated by our fear of invisible “death bugs.” It was recently suggested to me that the original marketing of deodorizers and pesticides excelled at reinforcing this need to “kill,” just to be sure, and this is why the “spray first and ask later” conviction is so ingrained in our market.

An extreme example of the “just to be sure” mentality was demonstrated on a job site recently. When I asked the contractor for his protocol for controlling mold at the source, the contractor said, “First I spray the area to knock down any mold. Then I start opening the wall. Before I put the pieces of the wall into the bag I spray them again to keep the mold from spreading. Then I spray inside the wall before I remove more of it. When the bag is full I spray the bag before I take it outside. That way I can be sure there is no mold being spread around the house.”

Oh, by the way, this contractor used absolutely no containment or air flow controls.

More recently, I heard a novel response which triggered the agony that bred this column. When I asked why they were spraying I was told. “The leak is 10 days old. According to S500, Category 1 and Category 2 water will degrade to Category 3 after 3-5 days at room temperature. So I’m confronting black water. An Institute of Medicine report clearly identified bacterial amplification as much a concern as fungal growth. Asbestos laws compel me to assume a hazard until proven otherwise. For those reasons I’m treating all mold remediation older than a few days as Category 3 water restoration. That procedure includes anti-microbials.”

Wow! This guy is a rarity. He actually knew about – and read – S500, the IOM report and asbestos laws.

And I was stymied.

The only way I know to refute his procedure is to first confirm the presence of bacteria with a lab sample. But that both delays quick action (bacteria must be cultured) and increases cost. And it re-opens the whole can of worms on the reliability and interpretation of sampling. But it would address the issue of how lab results would affect the remediation procedures. If there are bacteria, it’s Category 3 water. If not, then there is just Category 2 water and mold. Different procedures based on sampling.

That leaves me stuck with the dilemma of the effects of the chemicals on the occupants, some of whom react as badly or worse to the chemicals as they do to the (non-infectious) bacteria and mold. Evidence is increasing that numerous pesticides and anti-microbials may be hormone emulators or disrupters. Not good.

If I am to remain consistent with my philosophy of minimal action to achieve the desired result, then I would now be compelled to act against my experience and spray instead of test. Spray instead of wait. Spray, spray, spray! The personal injury law suits are for mold exposure, not anti-microbial exposure. And that’s why the question has been decided. The marketplace has spoken. He who has the gold makes the rules. And those who use the chemicals have more gold than those who don’t.

And I remain stymied.