Word on the Street

• No Rinsing Required: New label instructions approved by the Environmental Protection Agency for Sporicidin Disinfectant Solution now read, “To Clean Air Ducts: Apply to hard, non-porous, pre-cleaned duct surfaces.” Previously, the instructions included the phrase, “Rinse surfaces after application.” That requirement made use of the product extremely limited by HVAC system cleaners, since it is impractical and often unwise to introduce additional moisture to ductwork. With the removal of the rinsing requirement, the product is now open for use in an antimicrobial market that includes limited options for HVAC system applications.
• Say No To Stucco: If you’re a Hilton employee and the company asks you to move, Hilton will take responsibility for the sale of your home – but not if it’s constructed using stucco. The hotel chain doesn’t want liability associated with homes potentially contaminated with mold.
• Cyborg Cleaners: What's bad news for some cleaners translates to good news for an insurance giant. State Farm Insurance has purchased sonar-guided robot vacuums that will take the place of contractors. The company could really "clean up" on the deal; it's expected State Farm will save $30,000 a year. The robots will be implemented at locations in Charlottesville, Va., and Frederick, Md.
• Dusting Off An Old Theory: German researchers have demonstrated that exposure to house dust endotoxin among children is associated with a lower allergic sensitization. For the research, 444 boys and girls whose ages ranged from 5-10 years, were subjected to various levels of house dust endotoxins. The researchers found that children who'd lived in the same house since birth showed stronger endotoxin effects on sensitization to any allergen than did those who'd moved. The information was published in the first issue of the American Thoracic Society's peer-reviewed journal.
• AQS Goes Green: The latest certification partner for Greenguard Environmental Institute is Air Quality Sciences, a full-service indoor air quality consulting and testing firm located in Atlanta. As a certification partner, AQS will establish standardized testing methods and test of a wide range of products for chemical and particulate emissions. In July, the U.S. Green Building Council made Greenguard certification a requirement for the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Certification Program for Commercial Interiors.
• Bogus Flood Claims: Seven people who were arrested in the Houston-area in connection with the state’s largest known scheme to defraud insurance companies by intentionally flooding homes and filing bogus claims pleaded guilty or have been convicted on fraud charges. The scheme cost insurers– and, through higher rates, their policyholders– more than $5 million.
  The defendants purchased and insured several two-story homes. Pretending to be away for the weekend, the defendants intentionally flooded the homes with water hoses or by damaging water pipes. The water lines would be repaired before an adjuster arrived. The defendants would file claims to obtain the full policy limits of the insurance coverage for their damaged personal property along with additional living expenses. Some homes were flooded more than once. At least one house was “cooked” to encourage the development of mold.
  The defendants served as homeowners, independent sub-contractors, vendors and service providers in filing claims, repairing the damage and selling the homes to each other to repeat the process.
• Anthrax Block: Penn State engineers have developed a concept that they say would make it impossible for bio-terrorists to spread anthrax spores and other biological weapons through air-conditioning systems.
  “Currently, if an anthrax-laden letter is opened in an office, a standard forced-air cooling system can carry the airborne spores to other locations in the building,” said Stanley Mumma, professor of architectural engineering. His approach is documented in in the winter issue of IAQ Applications, an ASHRAE publication. Mumma calls his concept a dedicated outdoor air system, which has other benefits besides foiling a terrorist attack. Forced air systems can also expose occupants to odors and cold viruses or contribute to “sick building” problems.
• ASCR Certifies, Too: At its July board meeting, the Trustees of the ASCR Foundation endorsed a prototype certification schema. The Foundation directed Chairman Tim Horrigan, CRS, to recommend that the ASCR Association Board of Directors approve and adopt the new schema as ASCR’s certification plan. The key point is this: ASCR will offer certification to any applicant for education from any qualified source and will offer it on par with education sourced from the ASCR Foundation. In other words, the ASCR Foundation is on an equal footing with quality educational courses from other organizations, from colleges and universities, from commercial educational vendors, and from in-house corporate human resources departments. This means that any organization, company, college or university can ask ASCR to evaluate its specific educational offerings. If the course qualifies, it will be assigned equivalent recognition and educational credit, i.e. appropriate “credit hours” that will count towards ASCR certification programs. If testing is a requirement or an optional path, it will be done at standardized test sites at a fee. Qualifying course work can come from a wide variety of sources. Some examples are Jon-Don, IAQA, IICRC, MEHRC, BOMA/BOMI, the ASCR Foundation, Belfor’s in-house employee education programs, A.C.E. accredited courses, or college and university programs. In each case, ASCR will evaluate the academic rigor of a completed program and offer appropriate credits towards ASCR programs.
  Educational programs that originate from within ASCR are subject to the same strict scrutiny as those from other sources. The ASCR Certification program has been almost three years in the making. Association officials say there is still much work to be done, but the foundations are in place and these programs can move forward and grow. ASCR asks that all inquiries be directed to Larry Jacobson, Executive Director, ASCR, 8229 Cloverleaf Drive, Suite 460, Millersville, MD 21108-1592.
• Corrections: A HEPA filter is defined as capable of capturing 99.97 percent of monodisperse particulate of 0.3 microns in mean diameter. An article in May 2002 cited incorrect figures for this definition.
  Prescription Air Services President Vikki Nicholas presented at the HVAC Comfortech 2002, along with her husband, Jim Nicholas, president of Bay Temperature Control Inc. Their names and companies appeared incorrectly in an article in the October 2002 issue.

It’s frequently said that everything’s bigger in Texas. That being true, the state’s mold crisis is a real whopper, and as for homeowners insurance policies, the cost to Texas customers is the country’s most enormous.

Residents of Texas are aware that the issue of insurance coverage was key in this year’s gubernatorial election. Reactions to insurance companies could have been the deciding factor between voters’ choice of incumbent Republican Rick Perry and Democrat Tony Sanchez.

Beyond the election, though, the issue of whether homeowners will be able to protect their homes with coverage of mold testing and remediation is just as ubiquitous as mold itself. Many insurance premiums have more than doubled in recent months.

The skyrocketing rates are figures the governor’s opponent used to campaign for election. Sanchez’s Web site states, “On average, Texas homeowners pay $398 more annually than their counterparts nationwide. This equates to $1.09 per day per homeowner.”

Approximately 700,000 customer households in Texas are being affected by Farmers Insurance Group’s decision not to renew its existing homeowners insurance policies, a move that has taken effect beginning Nov. 1.

The state’s No. 2 insurer of homes, Farmers announced it would pull out of the market in late September, pointing the finger at what it saw as an “unwillingness to conduct reasonable and realistic negotiations” on the part of the Texas Department of Insurance.

The company also cited $1.3 billion in losses in Texas homeowner coverage between June 2000 and June 2002, over one-third of which occurred during the first two quarters of fiscal 2002.

The decision to end Farmers’ Texas homeowners services was done “as a means of survival,” the company stated in a Sept. 25 news release. “For every dollar in homeowner premiums Farmers has received this year, it has paid out approximately $2.50 in claims,” said John Hageman, the company’s state executive director. “No company can stay in business under those circumstances.”

Farmers’ other services in Texas, including automobile, umbrella, flood, commercial, life insurance and financial services, will be unaffected.

The increases in Farmers’ homeowners insurance premiums, which the company alleged were instated to combat its losses, were not only felt by customers. The Texas Department of Insurance took notice and acted.

In a cease and desist order issued in August, the TDI ordered Farmers not to raise its rates again. Elsewhere in that notice, the TDI pointed out various indiscretions it saw, such as an “unfunded catastrophe load” incorporated into Farmers’ rates.

One week earlier, TDI filed a lawsuit against Farmers alleging that the company was responsible for improprieties, namely illegal rating practices. The lawsuit further contended that Farmers did not experience losses as the company said. The suit claimed that the company made a profit. The TDI also sought restitution for customers whom Farmers had allegedly overcharged.

Through September, Farmers agents hinted that the company was thinking of running away from homeowners. The TDI responded with a move it thought would forestall Farmers’ plans: submitting a settlement offer. The letter, dated Sept. 23, encouraged Farmers to consider amending its rates and providing restitution for policyholders. In exchange, the TDI would waive aforementioned penalties and resolve the cease and desist order.

The deal did not go over well with Farmers. The company fired back in a press release two days later, with Executive Director Hageman saying the proposed settlement “was without substance as it offered no real remedies to the issues.”

He continued, “The real issue here is the allegation of unfair pricing practices, which is completely false. We continue to find wide disagreement over the numbers characterizing our homeowners experience, despite the fact that we have repeatedly presented all our data to the TDI and offered to have independent third-party actuarial review, which they will not accept.”

In the meantime, the fourth-largest national homeowners insurance carrier stepped up to the plate, offering affordable coverage in Texas. The state insurance department approved Nationwide Insurance to begin offering homeowners policies, and Nationwide responded, saying it would be able to provide policies beginning early in 2003.

“We applaud this decision by the department because it will allow more competition in the marketplace, which always benefits customers,” said Vice President Lee Morton.

Nationwide policies in Texas would be similar to those in other states, according to Morton. A Sept. 18 news release states: “[Nationwide] would allow customers to choose basic coverage similar to other states at a savings, or to add coverage for losses caused by foundation damage, water damaged caused by seepage and leakage, or mold testing and remediation. The policies then would be priced according to customers’ choices.”

Morton added, “We’re also pleased that we will be able to offer our customers these new choices in coverage. These choices will provide the opportunity for customers to tailor their coverage to their needs and budget.”

The coverage Nationwide is to offer is the standard Texas HO-B “replacement cost” homeowners policy. Few insurance carriers issue the HO-B policy at this time. Farmers Insurance Group used to but switched just to HO-A, which is an “actual cash policy.”

Does mold have significant negative effects on health? The answer, apparently, depends on who is responding. Professional opinions on the issue revealed in the last several months by agencies, associations and individuals can be as different as night and day.

Reacting to an observable increase over the last few years in the number of illnesses thought by many to be caused by some molds, a council of doctors took the opposing point of view, stating that there is no existing scientific evidence to prove a link. The report was released Sept. 21 by the Texas Medical Association’s Council on Scientific Affairs.

Council Chairman O. Edwin McClusky and the six Texas-based doctors reviewing the paper called for “continued scientific research regarding the impact of molds on human health.” The report was definitely a far cry from newspapers’ reports that the association said there is no reason for the hoopla surrounding mold’s health effects.

Federal Work
The Texas Medical Association report emerged two months after a presentation by the lead scientist on air pollution and respiratory health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Addressing the House Financial Services Subcommittees July 18, Stephen Redd outlined a decade of pertinent studies that yielded few startling results.

He recognized there are “gaps in our knowledge about linkages between exposure to mold and human health” and called on other organizations to assist the CDC in filling in those gaps. Redd also said that the CDC would develop a coordinated public health response strategy to mold exposure, in conjunction with the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists.

High priorities on a new CDC agenda are to include making recommendations for reducing mold contamination, identifying environmental conditions that contribute to the occurrence of disease following mold exposure, and assisting state and local health departments in improving their capacity to investigate mold exposures, Redd added.

As one step in this process, a CDC agency this fall announced plans to undertake a mold-related study. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health is to conduct research to probe a possible link between asthma and exposure to mold and bioaerosols.

Online Reaction
The issue provided dialogue within an Internet discussion group on indoor air quality. Contributors to The IAQ List, a free mailing list with nearly 2,000 members, typed their opinions for one another and debated the issue.

Indoor Air Quality Solutions’ Matthew Klein first brought the Texas Medical Association’s study to the attention of the list when he posted an article that appeared in a Houston newspaper. Klein also commented in his initial post he believes that “medical literature is extremely lacking in analyzing the illness due to molds.”

A certified industrial hygienist named Richard Cussen supplied the opposing point of view, stating his opinion that the mold issue is driven by “poor scientific investigative methods and preconceived assumptions with judgment clouded by economic opportunity by many IAQ inspectors, the media, lawyers and laboratories.”

Further criticism of the role of the media followed. Lew Harriman, of Mason-Grant Consulting in Portsmouth, N.H., said the report in the Houston Chronicle gave the story “a ‘Don’t worry, be happy’ spin to whatever the doctors’ report really said.”

Taking this sentiment further was Kyle Dotson, an IAQ list reader located in Houston, who said the media “put a spin on the report that is vastly different from the content [because] the doctors don’t seem to know how to communicate in plain English.” He said, “So, the net outcome is that the doctors’ message gets lost.”

Indeed, one part of the doctors’ intended message was lost in a misleading headline in the Sept. 23 Houston Chronicle article, “Doctors find no evidence of mold as a toxic disease.” The Texas Medical Association’s Council on Scientific Affairs “concluded that public concern for adverse health effects from inhalation of Stachybotrys spores in water-damaged buildings is not supported by available peer-reviewed reports in medical literature.”

However, Klein indicated in another post that he blamed the report’s authors for paving the way for media to misinterpret the results. Some instances in the report summary refer to “molds,” rather than just to Stachybotrys, the only strain the medical association tested. “So, the leap is from statements about the toxin effects of a particular mold, Stachybotrys, to the toxin effects of all molds,” Klein wrote. “As any of us who work in the field know, the health implications of one mold do not necessarily represent those of all molds.”

Overkill?
In further conversation, some members of The IAQ List agreed that some past media attention to mold-related issues painted too dreary a picture. The images and descriptions of “killer mold” were plastered in newspapers, magazines and on television over the course of the last few years, effectively creating a frightened public rather than an educated public.

“The press was pretty irresponsible before, in making much ado about ‘killer mold,’” Kyle Dotson wrote in a post dated Sept. 30, just short of two weeks after a Sept. 17 report appeared on the first page of the Washington Post’s Health section, featuring a color graphic parodying toxic mold. The story’s author wrote that his concept, “Attack of the Killer Mold,” could be a horror movie “based more on hype and fantasy than fact.”

The article’s text reported that bleeding lungs and mental problems “have not been firmly linked to mold.” It did, however, reveal that some people who encounter mold are susceptible to mild respiratory symptoms, asthma attacks or even lung infections.

In the article, a source from the University of Texas Medical School at Houston explains that Stachybotrys produces mycotoxins that could potentially be harmful to humans but that these mycotoxins do not cause harm because they cannot enter the body in high enough levels to work its damage. A conflicting quote found on the graphic states, “It’s not clear whether or how [the mycotoxins produced by Stachybotrys] expose people to additional health risks.” This outlines the crux of a debate within a debate: whether mycotoxins present a threat to human health.

“Forget, for a moment, all the mycotoxin debate,” wrote Dotson. “[Aren’t] allergy and asthma enough of a reason to remediate in accordance with a reasonable standard of care, for example, the New York City and EPA guidelines?”

He told IE Connections in a follow-up interview: “Asthma is an epidemic. It kills kids. I’d hoped the ‘killer mold’ fiasco would shine some light on asthma as a problem, but when the media present it to that extreme, we miss the opportunity to correct our problem of asthma. Mold triggers it, and it’s a problem.”

In the last month, a number of news media have reversed the situation once again, reporting on mold as a threat, taking into consideration its increased danger for children in schools. Several stories about schools in Boston reached newspapers, such as an Oct. 7 article in the Boston Herald. This particular article quoted a mold expert from Texas Tech University as saying, “We know these molds produce poison, and it gets into humans and makes them sick.” An Oct. 16 report on the “NBC Nightly News with Tom Brokaw” called mold “an unwelcome intruder.”

One position that a majority of respondents on The IAQ List seemed to favor was that more scientific research needs to be done. Matthew Klein said he hopes further research will ensue, and the sooner, the better: “Some event usually brings them onto the medical stage where they finally receive analytical treatment,” he stated. “Only when the event leads to a number of persons getting ill or dying at about the same time or under similar circumstances, and when someone [is] linking the illnesses to common etiology, does the medical community or the government spend money to investigate it.”

For more information on The IAQ List or to be included in its mailings, please visit http://groups.yahoo.com/group/iaq 

With the membership of the Indoor Air Quality Association tripling in the past year, it was only natural that the group’s annual meeting and exposition would experience the same growth. IAQA’s Training & Certification Forum held last month in Orlando, Fla., more than doubled its attendees from last year to more than 550 participants. They came to sample the latest information and product technology for mold contamination and IAQ.

One of the biggest attractions of the meeting was the keynote presentation of Rep. John Conyers Jr., D-Mich., and subsequent discussions on the recently introduced U.S. Toxic Mold Protection Act, better known as Melina’s Bill. Conyers’ office manager, Pamelia Walker, and daughter, Melina, spoke first recounting their tale of how they encountered mold in their newly purchased home, and the problems that arose when she tried to get help a few years ago. Melina is only now getting over the effects attributed to toxic mold exposure. Another victim, Simone S. Sommer, MD, MPH also brought her son and gave attendees insight on what life with mold in her home has been like.

Conyers, on the other hand, talked briefly about his political background and then went straight to an overview of the pending mold legislation. He told attendees that although the bill was moving slowly, he looked forward to its passage to settle what he called “a complicated, yet important issue.” His office also was waiting for more supporting information to be released in November that would further strengthen the current bill and future versions.

Responding to critics who doubt the link between toxic mold exposure and health problems, Conyers said, “The American Medical Association used to say there was no clinical link between cigarette smoking and cancer.” He said the lack of conclusive scientific proof does not overshadow the thousands of cases of toxic mold victims his office is now tracking. He said he was ashamed that EPA and NIOSH don’t have anything reliable to say about mold and health.

Conyers also had a message for those in attendance. “IAQA must make your industry credible,” Conyers said. That message hit a cord with the toxic mold victims Conyers had with him on the dais, who could already give positive reports about the work performed by IAQA members.

Pam Walker asked Connie Morbach, an IAQA member from Troy, Mich., who performs IAQ investigations, to come up before the group. “This is the lady who figured out what was happening in our house. After all the so-called experts from the insurance company, health agencies and universities failed, Connie found the problem.” IAQA’s convention was the first time Morbach had met Melina. “Thank you” said Melina as she gave Connie a warm embrace.

Sommer then asked Jay Colburn, a restoration and remediation professional from Greensboro, N.C., to come forward. Sommer became teary-eyed as she explained how, “Jay was the first person to come into my house and listen. He said he cared about my family, and after diagnosing the mold problem, helped us get out of the house.” Colburn also performed the remediation work that allowed Sommer and her son to return home several months later. “Without Jay, I don’t know where we would be right now,” she said.

“It’s time for the U.S. government to act on this growing issue,” Conyers told attendees. He closed by urging IAQA members to write to their representatives, hold receptions on Capitol Hill for legislative representatives, and do their part to increase public awareness of the dangers of toxic mold.

Innovative Panels
IAQA put on two innovative panel discussions in Orlando. Both panels brought together industry trade groups with similar or competing problems. In the first panel, on training and certification for IAQ investigators, George Benda served as moderator to Patrick O’Donnell (representing IAQA), Al Thumman (representing AEE), and Jim Holland (representing IEI).

O’Donnell talked about IAQA’s Certified Indoor Environmentalist program, which is geared toward IAQ practitioners. He said the program gives attendees a broad perspective on IAQ issues, rather than limiting the instruction to just one topic like mold. Thumman explained that AEE’s Certified Indoor Air Quality Professional program is tailored for facility managers and others who are responsible for the operation of buildings. He noted that CIE and CIAQP should be viewed as complimentary programs.

Jim Holland brought a different perspective to the discussions. He said what the IAQ industry is lacking, is an advanced designation based on collegiate accomplishments, multiple levels of training and certification, and instruction in a wide array of indoor environmental issues. He said that this designation should be developed by IEI in cooperation with other groups such as IAQA, AEE, AmIAQ, AIHA and ACGIH.

Turf Wars Over?
The second panel held in Orlando was on training and certification for mold remediation specialists. Carl Grimes of Healthy Habitats moderated panelists Greg Long (representing IAQA), Jeff Bishop (representing IICRC), and Charlie Wiles (representing AmIAQ).

Grimes put for the proposition that the industry was hurt by having multiple certification programs for the same area of expertise. He asked panelists about the possibility of reciprocity between the organizations working in this area, whereby each group would recognize the other’s as equivalent.

Wiles and Bishop said that reciprocity already exists to a certain extent. They both commented that contractors certified under their respective programs can earn re-certification credits by attending training by any of the three groups represented at the panel. Long reiterated their statements, and added that “Each of these groups has a program that is slightly different. IICRC, for example, includes sewage remediation issues in their programs, where IAQA and AmIAQ do not. It’s up to the professional to select which program is right for them.”

Grimes mentioned the competitiveness that exists between the three groups, and in response to the answers given to the question on reciprocity, he asked, “Are the turf wars over?” Greg Long said they still exist, but that IAQA was trying hard to build bridges with the other groups, as evidenced by the panel that was taking place.

Bishop didn’t answer the question directly; however, he did talk about IICRC’s efforts to be inclusive in the development of mold remediation standards. “We have AmIAQ and IAQA contributing. We invited them to the table, and we are glad they are cooperating.”

Charlie Wiles said that his group does not even recognize “turf wars” as existing. He said that when people ask him which group to join, he tells them, “Join them all. Each has unique, valuable benefits.” Wiles went onto mention that the organizations themselves are not in a turf war. That perception, he said, is fostered by how members perceive the marketplace. “We have a memorandum of understanding with IAQA,” he mentioned, “that calls for mutual recognition of one another’s value to the IAQ industry.”

The IAQA meeting also included a first-rate training workshop on the “Fundamentals of Mold Sampling and Report Interpretation.” The seminar aimed at both a fast start for those new to the industry, and a brush up for those already working in the field.
Dr. Harriett Burge and Dave Gallup, both of Environmental Microbiology Laboratory Inc. in San Bruno, Calif., split the four-hour session between the methodologies and fundamentals of mold detection. This set the stage for questions and concerns expressed by IAQ professionals, ranging from the basic, “What are fungi?” to the specific, “How do you send a sample to a lab?”

Burge established a common knowledge base of mold for attendees, emphasizing that regardless of training and experience, mold inspectors and remediators should not make claims about health effects, but should defer to qualified medical personnel. In her presentation, she defined biological contamination, provided requirements for indoor mold growth and explained the type of evidence needed for mold health effects. The most common health problems are allergic reactions and irritant effects. Burge said other health effects, including chronic fatigue syndrome, have yet to be substantially linked to mold.

During her presentation, many attendees asked questions pertaining to the new federal mold legislation introduced. Not to disappoint, Burge finished up by giving her opinion on the new toxic mold legislation, which she described as an artificially easy solution that merely creates a law, rather than creating any kind of solution.

“The problems with mold are not yet fully understood,” she said. “Basing legislation on a subject in which everyone and no one is an expert, is more trouble than it is worth.”

The second half of the workshop began with Gallup giving a detailed listing of the pros and cons of the various sampling methods available to mold investigators and the current products available. Beyond simply noting the presence of mold or conditions favorable to mold, the actual sampling and identification of molds assists in the grand assessment of a potential contamination. The most appropriate use of culturable or non-culturable sampling using air, surface, and dust samplers depends on the situation being tested, and the goal of the testing. The time available, the surfaces or atmospheres being tested, and the ‘normal’ environmental conditions all bear upon which of the many sampling methods is best applied.

As far as interpretation of sample reports, Gallup, like Burge, strongly cautioned against the diagnosing of any illness, or the inadvertent linkage of any mold species to any condition.

“Stick instead to descriptions of present, observable conditions, such as whether or not there is water in a ventilation system, or whether or not mold is present in the air or on surfaces,” he told attendees. “Such samples as described simply support a hypothesis, rather than proving any specific case.”

Technical Sessions
The IAQA convention featured a two-track series of educational seminars.

Bob Baker presented the session, “Clearing the Antimicrobial Confusion,” which explained the EPA notice of March 14, 2002 and how it broke down into plain English. From a manufacturer’s perspective, the notice advised caution for, but did not restrict the use of, certain products. The language of the notice, however, spooked contractors into limiting or ending the use of many products because of the perception of risk. As a product manufacturer himself, Baker tried to make sense of the EPA pronouncements through an understanding of their intentions, and also by explaining the internal difficulties the department itself has in the nebulous world of health effects on mold and IAQ problems.

One of the points that all the session speakers mentioned repeatedly was the importance of not just correction, but prevention, of contamination. The session, “Preventing IAQ Problems During Construction and HVAC Installation,” addressed the controllable human factors that contribute to risk. What happens when air-handling equipment is delivered days or weeks before it is installed? It gets exposed to the elements and to molds. Humidity and precipitation can cause moisture to collect in drywall, wood, and in HVAC components while they’re still on pallets…or not. Speaker Andrew Ask suggested certain techniques to prevent inadvertent contamination through proper storing and staging of equipment. Simple post-installation inspections can prevent a host of problems early on. As attendees groaned about the time and expense involved, Ask said, “these guidelines for storage and drying of materials may seem difficult, but so are remediation insurance settlements.” Of particular interest were the photographs of real examples of careless and wrong fixture installation, and how they might be causing more harm than they prevent.

One of the more crammed technical session rooms was for speaker Mark Jackson of Lennox International, who drilled the packed room on his five keys to good HVAC design: eliminate, ventilate, clean, purify and monitor. He gave a quick overview of system design guidelines, and presented some excellent basic HVAC system diagrams. The examples he used were from his own experience, and photographs of his own home illustrated the importance of proper surface finish application, balancing and venting of airflows, and the differences between microwave and air-popped popcorn to air quality. On the product technology side, he discussed the relative MERVs of filtration products, the use of antibacterial UVC, and the newer technique of photocatalytic oxidation.

Although the revised IICRC Standard 500 on Water Damage and Restoration has been on the market for the last year, Larry Cooper’s session to discuss the standard and future revisions still had attendees packed into the meeting room. Cooper explained chapter by chapter the contents of the IICRC’s publication S500, and mentioned that an updated version was due out in the next year. He stressed disclosure, legal caution, and the importance of current knowledge for the industry professional.

Barney Burroughs told attendees he wasn’t selling any filters at this conference, so he was free to speak the truth. That truth involved realities of the post 9/11 world. During his session on “Filtration and Building Safety,” he pointed out that the IAQ industry isn’t just mold, but also is concerned with bioterrorism and building system economics as well. Recent events have made fire protection, gaseous and particle contaminants from building trauma, and areas of refuge and isolation a major focus of filtration design. More mundane features of ventilation systems are the reduction of ambient pollution levels that affect occupant productivity, and the simple dollar values of ongoing maintenance. Tighter systems mean more efficient systems, as well.

“Simply sealing and gasketing retainers, tracks, and access doors increases performance up to 18 percent,” he said, adding that it can also lead to longer system life cycles with lower overall cost.

Carl Grimes has spent more time in crawlspaces than most, and he began his session on “Solving Crawlspace IAQ Problems” by presenting his musings on the subject. Is a crawl space indoor or outdoor? Grimes feels that it is a boundary zone, and an assumption that it is either one or the other can lead to the introduction of molds into the living space. He illustrated his points with artistic and startling images that are worth a thousand words. If you ever thought tarpaper was a fine moisture barrier, or that mold wouldn’t grow on dirt, the examples showed that with time and a little help from the human animal, anything is possible. Although he focused on problems that were fairly specific to Colorado, he also displayed marijuana grow rooms and hilariously poor structural techniques to spice it up for everyone. The attendees willingly sat through their own break when he went over time, and were rewarded with possible remedies for the conditions that are under, rather than outside or inside, the house.

The session, “IAQ Testing and Instrumentation for Field Investigations,” was presented by Patrick O’Donnell, who ran through a list of the common equipment types, adding quick explanations and handy tips on their use. He touched on improvements to existing instrumentation, with electronic devices and improved precision making very accurate assessments possible. However, O’Donnell stressed that it was the operator and not the equipment that interpreted data and made conclusions, so familiarity and training was important to the use of any such tool.

Exhibit Hall Packed
Thirty-one of the industry’s leading product manufacturers and service providers greeted attendees in the tabletop exhibition area. Some companies were brand new to the “war on mold,” while others were long-time IAQA meeting exhibitors. Several attendees that IE Connections spoke to in the exhibit area noted some of the mold control technologies and training were being retooled from the parallel field of asbestos removal.

Larry Young of the exhibitor, A.P.Buck, was the most forthright of all the equipment providers on the future of sampling.

“The next generation is a data log,” he said. “You can’t always trust people to be accurate, but if you can print out a sheet for your boss and the customer, there’s the numbers right there.”

Not only electronic capabilities, but compactness and portability were important. He had a small programmable sample pump on display, which ran on a chunky battery, and said he had seen adaptors that made plug-in equipment portable and self-contained. “Even the older stuff is going battery-operated. It’s all batteries.”

As the legal net is cast farther and farther from the side of the boat by plaintiffs (whether first party or third party; direct or by subrogation), increasing numbers of potentially responsible parties are being drawn down into the “black hole” of mold litigation.

Initially, the defendants were homeowners’ insurance carriers and mold remediation contractors. As parties involved in litigation seek additional sources of monetary recovery and/or additional entities to share fault, more and more parties are brought into the fray: architects, builders, engineers, manufacturers, previous owners, real estate brokers, property managers, homeowners’ associations, utility districts, inspectors, employers, sureties and all of their associated subcontractors.

The sampling professional (hereinafter referred to as the “microbial investigator”) is the latest victim in this search for additional sources of recovery and apportionment of responsibility. In an attempt to allocate responsibility for microbial contamination and/or cross-contamination, plaintiffs and defendants are focusing on the very parties they have retained to conduct the microbial sampling. With the possible exception of the engineer or other professional employed to investigate the cause and origin of the water intrusion event, the microbial investigator is the initial source of information for the homeowner, insurance company, mold remediator and/or contractor. The investigation and analysis conducted by the microbial investigator can have broad-ranging and sometimes unintended impacts on parties who may be far removed from the initial litigation but ultimately become involved in its resolution. The purpose of this article is to guide the microbial investigator through the minefield of mold litigation. Potential pitfalls related to professional malpractice, negligence, misrepresentation and even fraud await the unsuspecting microbial professional.

Overview
Unfortunately, it has become painfully obvious to those who handle litigation matters involving alleged or actual mold contamination that some industry professionals are no longer in the business of collecting and objectively analyzing scientific data. The primary purpose of any scientific investigation should be the analysis, development and pursuit of objective and reproducible factual results, not the development of subjective, slanted and misguided inflammatory rhetoric. Any professional engaged by a party in threatened or pending litigation who seeks to manipulate scientific results or observations in order to maximize or minimize economic damages claimed by a particular party performs a supreme disservice to his or her client in particular and to the industry as a whole. The old adage, “You get what you pay for,” has no place in genuine, credible and honest professional endeavors.

There are professionals (and I use that term loosely) who maintain extreme, outrageous and/or inflammatory positions with regard to IAQ sampling and interpretation generated solely to bolster the position of the party who pays their professional fee. They will sooner or later lose all credibility in the courtroom.
My favorite example of this outrageous behavior occurred when a “mold consultant” looked me squarely in the eyes and said with complete and utter conviction, “Once mold spores were shown to be present in the air, all furniture in the home must be destroyed; not one piece may be safely cleaned.”

“Why?” I asked.

“You see,” he said, “you can’t accurately sample for the mold or safely clean the furniture because a dust mite could have eaten a Stachybotrys spore, then crawled beneath the fabric, and now can never be completely removed, no matter how extensively you clean the furniture.”

It is helpful initially to outline four basic issues the microbial investigator should address in the course of every investigation. I believe the critical issues directly impacting microbial investigators are: Why do we sample? Who should sample? How do we sample? and How can the microbial investigator protect himself or herself from potential legal exposure?

Why Do We Sample?
We sample primarily to identify visible microbial growth as well as microbial growth that cannot be readily observed. The ultimate goal is to determine if mold remediation is necessary, and if so, to define the scope of microbial remediation of a building structure and/or its contents. A predetermined purpose, such as to prove a plaintiff’s allegation of cross-contamination or a defendant’s defense of failure to mitigate should never be the goal of a microbial investigation.

For example, indiscriminate usage of swab sampling in non-complaint areas always provides evidence of mold growth. How much of this type of mold growth exceeds allowable concentrations and how are these results ultimately interpreted? In addition, pre- and post-remediation sampling may also be useful in determining which remediation efforts were effective and ultimately defining the extent of those efforts. Remember to confine your opinions solely to the presence and/or absence of mold after remediation and not to either the “quality” of the remediation services or the “safety” of the “cleaned” home.

We have lost sight of the fact that an air sampling event is merely a “snapshot in time” and may or may not provide an accurate picture of microbial contamination present over extended periods of time. I’ve seen too many microbial investigation reports containing only one sampling event utilized to make blanket observations concerning chronic airborne conditions in an occupied building. Ambient conditions vary dramatically throughout the day, over the course of a week, and over the course of several seasons. No one visit to a site for sampling can accurately represent the “whole mold picture.” In addition, the indoor environment created and maintained by the occupants is always dramatically different from that existing in nature. Improper usage of air conditioners and other equipment by the homeowners themselves can be the direct cause and/or a contributing factor to the mold growth. Avoid the temptation to make subjective statements that go beyond your “snapshot in time,” especially with regard to areas beyond your level of expertise or beyond that supported by an objective reading of the data.

Who Should Sample?
From a legal perspective, a microbial investigator is an expert. An expert is a person qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, training or education who helps the trier of fact (judge or jury) to understand the evidence or determine a fact in issue when scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge would be helpful. The microbial investigator will determine types of contamination present, set out remedial recommendations or a scope of work and conduct clearance testing.

There is no exclusive method by which experts are qualified. Criteria suitable for establishment of an individual as an expert witness include background training (whether in-house or through formal academic channels) and relevant experience. The most important factor in the utilization of an expert by an attorney is the ability for that expert to provide an opinion upon which the trier of fact may base a ruling or opinion. The ability of an expert to influence the trier of fact is dependent upon the expert passing the “Daubert Test.”

The “Daubert Test” was established by the United States Supreme Court in 1993 and is the current “law of the land” regarding experts. Fundamentally, the Supreme Court held that the trial court judge acts as the “gatekeeper” with respect to the admission of expert witness testimony. In determining whether or not to let expert witness testimony “past the gate,” ultimately to be considered by the trier of fact, the scientific evidence must be both reliable and relevant.

The four non-exclusive factors to be considered in determining reliability are: 1) whether a theory or technique has been tested; 2) whether a theory or technique has been subjected to peer review and publication; 3. the technique’s known or potential rate of error; and 4) the general acceptance of the theory or technique by the relevant scientific community.

Therefore, unless the techniques and methodology utilized by the microbial investigator meet or exceed those outlined by the U.S. Supreme Court, the data obtained thereby will not be adjudged reliable and relevant. Bottom line: No one gets to see the evidence or opinion proffered by the expert, and as such, the expert will not affect the outcome of the case.

How Do We Sample?
Initially, you should always follow a written protocol based upon the standards of care promulgated for the industry. The protocol should reflect the specific standards utilized and relied upon by the investigator. Well-known and accepted publications in the industry include “Bioaerosols, Assessment and Control” and the “IESO Standards of Practice for the Assessment of Indoor Environmental Quality.” IESO standards currently require that a minimum of two outdoor samples be collected. Other publications in the industry recommend both direct source sampling and air sampling be conducted in conjunction with one another to get an overall indication of microbial contamination and that a source sample be taken in a non-complaint area to get a better indication of background mold levels.

In addition, sampling equipment should be properly calibrated, sterile techniques should be followed in handling samples, care should be taken in labeling sample source and location, chain of custody forms should be accurately maintained, samples should be properly packaged when carried or sent from the field to the laboratory, field blanks should be collected and ambient conditions should be recorded. Discrepancies in these sampling methods could result in all or part of the scientific results being invalidated, the investigators credibility or reliability being questioned and a very unhappy client with a large bill requiring adjustment.

Those industry professionals who apply improper or increased standards of care to a given fact situation will be subject to criticism. Extreme views regarding remedial recommendations and/or a scope of work designed solely to increase damages are currently rampant throughout the industry. Remember that unless the industry professional provides a remedial scope of work based on industry-accepted guidelines, the remedial recommendations can be ultimately disregarded by a finder of fact (judge or jury).

I remember one notable deposition where I questioned a “mold consultant” who was recommending asbestos standards to remove less than 10 square feet of mold from a home. After discussing numerous guidelines and/or standards commonly accepted in the industry with him, I asked him why his protocol was so outrageously expensive and extreme. He replied, “I don’t follow industry standards; I use my own standards, which go above and beyond that required by any other professional.” Needless to say, his client never intended to rebuild her home and was using the consultant to maximize her damages. This attitude serves only to pour gasoline on the bonfire raging across the insurance industry.

Protecting Yourself
Although no amount of training, experience, knowledge or documentation can completely protect a microbial investigator from liability for professional malpractice, negligence or misrepresentation, the following suggestions will minimize that exposure.

The prudent microbial investigator should follow these recommendations: 1) be extremely careful concerning statements made to anyone during the initial interview at the site of the investigation; 2) do not give opinions or make statements without sufficient data, ask questions only; 3) gather as much background information as possible, noting even minor discrepancies or the lack of critical facts; 4) note all water intrusion events; 5) personally inspect the property and interpret the data collected closely with the water intrusion history and visual references; 6) document everything you see photographically (Remember, there is some question as to admissibility of digital images which can be easily manipulated); 7) don’t make conclusions without scientific testing; 8) limit your contractual liability to cost of services provided; 9) insert binding arbitration provisions in professional service contracts; 10) limit statutes of limitation in contracts; 11) limit the parties who may rely upon your report as narrowly as possible; 12) critically examine your own work; 13) if you make a mistake, admit it up front; 14) carry sufficient professional E&O liability insurance; and, most importantly, 15) define the purpose and scope of your investigation, and never venture outside these parameters.

Michael Bowdoin is an attorney at the law firm of Brown Sims, PC in Houston, Texas. Bowdoin has an undergraduate degree in microbiology and has practiced commercial litigation, construction law, real estate law and insurance law in numerous states for both corporations and private law firms. You can reach Bowdoin by calling (713) 629-1580 or by e-mail at mbowdoin@brownsims.com.