• Word on the Street
• Ask Dr. Burge - Probability – How It Affects What We Do
• Knowing the Limitations of the Tools in Your Toolbox
• Hurricanes Lead to Opportunities, Challenges for IAQ Industry
• Concerns over Granite and Radon Panic Homeowners
• Opportunities for IEQ Consultants in the Green Building Movement
• Obama and McCain – How Do They Differ on IAQ Issues?

GUIDE FOR GREENING

Healthy Schools Campaign (HSC) is has released an expanded second edition of the Quick & Easy Guide to Green Cleaning in Schools. The second edition includes new sections on sustainability, green cleaning for food service, integrated pest management, new technologies and more.

It was developed with the support of 16 national education stakeholder organizations and 39 cleaning industry corporate leaders following the distribution of more than 70,000 copies of the popular and highly-regarded first edition.

“It’s been remarkable to see how much green cleaning in schools has grown in the two years since we released the first guide,” said Rochelle Davis, executive editor of the guide and founding executive director of the Healthy Schools Campaign (HSC).

“There is a growing awareness of the way that cleaning can affect the health of everyone in the building, from students to the custodial staff working closely with the chemicals. In that way, a cleaning program affects student performance, staff attendance and the overall climate of a school. We’re honored to work with so many leading organizations to provide a guide that schools can use to make their buildings clean, healthy places to learn and work.”

The states of Illinois and New York require green cleaning in schools, and schools in other states are moving toward green cleaning in efforts to protect the health of building occupants while reducing schools’ impact on the environment. The Quick & Easy Guide offers a resource for getting started or moving forward with a healthy, effective, affordable green cleaning program.

The guide includes a handbook outlining five simple steps for setting up a green cleaning program, such as switching to green cleaning products and equipment, adopting new cleaning procedures, introducing green paper and plastic products and involving all school stakeholders in the process.

An accompanying CD contains comprehensive information, practical advice, tools and resources to help schools learn more and institutionalize their efforts. The new guide includes an enhanced  purchasing directory with more than 500 products that meet HSC’s environmental standards for schools.

To access the full guide online or learn more about the guide, the green cleaning award or state-level advocacy, visit www.greencleanschools.org or contact HSC’s Mark Bishop at 312-593-5931.

NEW NAME IN LAW

 Galland, Kharasch, Greenberg, Fellman & Swirsky, P.C., a boutique law firm with a sophisticated international practice announced last month that the firm has changed its name to GKG Law.  Steven John Fellman, the firm’s President explained that, “We have listened to our clients and, in order to make things more simple and identifiable, we have changed our name.  This name change reflects how our clients and the business community have come to know us.  We remain committed to providing excellent practical service to our clients at cost effective prices.”

GKG Law’s main office is in Washington, D.C.  The firm has satellite offices in Minneapolis and Moscow.  The firm’s core practice areas include:  transportation, antitrust, business aviation, corporations/transactions, litigation, tax and representation of trade associations and professional societies.

 GKG Law represents more than 75 non-profit organizations, including the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), Indoor Air Quality Association (IAQA), Indoor Environmental Standards Organization (IESO), National Association of Mortgage Brokers (NAMB), and The Association of Union Constructors (TAUC).  For further information, visit www.gkglaw.com. 

SCHOOL OVERHAUL IN DC

Mayor Adrian M. Fenty, joined by Allen Y. Lew, executive director of the Office of Public Education Facilities Modernization (OPEFM) and Michelle Rhee, District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) chancellor have unveiled the Administration’s 2008 Master Facilities Plan (MFP). The 2008 plan is considered a radical departure from previous school facility planning efforts.

“The Master Facilities Plan is the road map that the Office of Public Education Facilities Modernization will use to deliver world-class public school facilities faster and more cost effectively,” said Mayor Fenty. “Whereas previous plans established a prolonged approach that left too many schools waiting while a select few were being rebuilt, this 2008 plan will dramatically change the face of every school in the District within the next five years.”

The 2008 MFP organizes school modernization into three categories based on the kind of building component being modernized:  Academic, Support and Systems. The plan will be implemented through a phased approach. During the first phase, OPEFM will focus on the academic components; aggressive improvement of the learning environment is the immediate priority.

Support and systems components will be prioritized for the second phase , beyond the first five years , except where necessary to address immediate concerns and ensure that the buildings remains stable and supportive of the academic programs.  

“The quality of any school system, and the ability to educate its students, is significantly impacted by the quality of the facility,” said Chancellor Rhee.

Upon assuming responsibility for the modernization of DCPS facilities in mid-2007, OPEFM encountered a situation of severe need. Not only had many anticipated modernization projects incurred years of delays and budget shortfalls, but the deferred maintenance problem across the entire system had grown so severe that it presented serious health and safety concerns for students, teachers and staff.  

Therefore, OPEFM immediately implemented its stabilization effort that allowed, from late-FY 2007 through 2008, for a rapid series of blitzes to address major problems. The overriding objective of the Stabilization program was to ensure healthy, safe and comfortable environments.  

The Fenty administration moved to implement stabilization initiatives investing more than $500 million in facilities repairs in 18 months.  More than 114 schools have already received major facilities work that will serve as building blocks for the overall modernization program.

Here’s a look at some of the work that has already taken place:

·         Sixteen schools received heating system repairs and 12 central air conditioning units were installed.

·         Nearly 3,000 window air conditioning units were installed at 103 schools.

·         Seventy-five schools received major plumbing work to include repairs to restrooms and water fountains.  

·         More than 3,500 safety and health violations, ranging from simple fixes like replacing an exit sign to addressing fire egress issues, were remedied.

·         OPEFM repaired or replaced roofs at seven schools and six schools received new windows. 

·         More than 100 schools received fresh coats of paint.

During lectures I am often forced to answer “sometimes” or “maybe” or “it depends”.  I know that is frustrating, but it is all a part of the problem of probability, which affects all that we do.

Probability is defined by Wikipedia as the likelihood or chance that something is the case or will happen.  When doing an environmental investigation, we want to be as close to 100% probability as we can that we have uncovered the real problem in a space, that our conclusions are correct with respect to the cause of the problem, and that our remediation protocols will actually correct the problem.  

In the real world, of course, we hardly ever achieve 100% probability, and we have to decide (in advance) what level of probability we are willing to accept.  The scientific community generally requires greater than 95% probability, while the legal community requires greater than 50% probability.  Our needs are probably somewhere in between those numbers.  We certainly can’t accept that half the time we are wrong.  On the other hand, achieving 95% probability will probably be too expensive for most incident investigations.  We do need to be honest about the probabilities we do attain.  So, here are a few examples.

If you are doing a visual inspection of a space and you see fungi growing on a wall you can say with 100% probability that there is fungal growth.  On the other hand, even the most thorough inspection is unlikely to reveal all the growth in a particular space.  You can estimate the percentage of the space you have actually examined and use that percentage to calculate the probability that you have found all the fungi.  However, (remembering that there are always hidden spaces in a building) this is going to give you a relatively low probability unless you have actually opened walls or threaded in a boroscope to evaluate these hidden spaces.  Knowing that fungi require water for active growth, you could also do a water survey in both obvious and hidden spaces and estimate the chances of active growth in each space studied.  Since you can’t measure every single surface, you will never achieve 100% probability, but you could perhaps reach 75%.  Practically speaking, we use more than just our eyes to do a good visual inspection.  If there is no history of any water intrusion, the humidity is low, and you cannot find any visual signs of fungi, the chances are good that there is little if any growth in the space.  What does this translate to in terms of probability?  I don’t know:  Perhaps 75-80%.  I know it’s not 100% because I have done such inspections, concluded that there was no fungal problem, then done air sampling that indicated a strong source somewhere that I had missed.  

Now, let’s assume we have done a good visual inspection and are 75% sure that there is no fungal growth anywhere.  Further studies are actually designed to prove the negative case, which, as we know, is impossible.  We can, however, augment the probability that our conclusions from the visual inspection are correct by doing sampling.  The problem then becomes, since we have found no potential reservoirs, what kind of sampling should we do? 

The easiest approach might be dust sampling.  I am tending toward the collection of dust from inaccessible (or undusted) surfaces such as the tops of doorframes, baseboards behind furniture, etc.  I would use cassette sampling with microscopic examination.  If there were a mixed group of spores without a significant percentage of Penicillium/Aspergillus types, I would have increased the probability that there is no hidden growth to, perhaps, 80%.  While 80% isn’t perfect, it is really good for this type of investigation.  More importantly, you have used a thought process that is defensible. 

What if you still aren’t quite sure and want to include air sampling?  This, of course, increases the expense of the investigation because in order to increase the probability of no reservoirs beyond 80% you will have to collect a lot of samples.  The question is, how many, and is the effort worth the cost?  There are, of course, some environments where the effort is worth the cost.  I talk regularly to investigators doing studies of hospital environments where the existence of active fungal growth would be a significant hazard for patients.  In these cases, a judicious sampling protocol would be an appropriate addition.  So, how many samples would you have to collect?  If you collect 10 samples, and none appear to indicate fungal growth in the environment, have you increased the probability of no fungal growth?

Yes, by some amount, but the actual increase depends on many factors including the volume of air in the room and the variability in the aerosol over time.  In a hospital setting you could use culture plate sampling (e.g., an Andersen single stage) and sample for 5 minutes for each plate.  Combining all the plates would give you 50 cubic feet of air sampled, or almost 1.5 cubic meters.  Assuming still air, you can calculate the percentage of the room air you have sampled and estimate the reliability of the results.  If the air is well mixed, then you can assume your reliability is better than your calculation, and if you use worst-case sampling, the reliability is even better.  Given all this, you may have achieved a 90% probability that there is no current fungal growth problem.  That is really good for a fungal investigation.

You can follow these same steps for other types of investigations.  You can also use sampling as confirmatory for your 80% probability.  Perhaps you can collect 5 ten minute spore trap samples.  You have collected 750 liters of air (3/4 of a cubic meter).  If none of these samples shows any indication of fungal growth, you have confirmed your initial results and perhaps even slightly increased the probability that there is no fungal growth in the space, especially if you have used worst-case sampling protocols.

The point of all of this is that you can’t just walk into a space and collect one sample and expect to know anything about the environment.  The extent and depth of any investigation must be guided by the degree of certainty you need.   We talk a lot about hypothesis-driven investigations.  In developing a hypothesis-driven plan, it is important to decide up front the level of probability you are willing to accept and design the plan to achieve your desired level of confidence. 

Ever see someone try to drive a nail with a screwdriver? If you haven’t seen it, I’ll save you some trouble. It just doesn’t work. Either the nail is the wrong tool for the job, the screwdriver is the wrong tool for the job, or the combination of nail and screwdriver are completely wrong.  You may ask, why would anyone try to drive a nail with a screwdriver? I propose the practitioner doesn’t understand the limitations of the tools in their toolbox.

I loosely define the environmental practitioner’s toolbox as containing not only the devices of the trade, but also their skills, means, and methods. Your toolbox literally contains microscopes, dehumidifiers, boroscopes, and even hammers.  But, your toolbox also contains your abilities to:

·         Visually assess what you see

·         Recognize what might exist that cannot be seen

·         Hear what’s being described

·         “Hear between the lines” and recognize what’s not being said

·         Draw on your experience to recognize patterns

·         Draw on your education/training

Practitioners with limited experience or inadequate training often make errors by:

·         Not possessing the right tools

·         Using the wrong tools

·         Using the right tools in the wrong way

·         Misinterpreting data generated by the tools

Rarely do I find these errors to be malicious, generally they occur out of ignorance. Usually, the practitioner just didn’t know better. It’s often said; ignorance is bliss. But, bliss quickly gives way to embarrassment and liability the moment someone points out you are ignorant.

I’ve made certain assumptions in writing this article. First, I presumed, you are professionals in the related fields of remediation, restoration, industrial hygiene, environmental consulting, and/or laboratory analysis. Second, I presumed each of you cares… I am not speaking of warm fuzzy holding hands caring. I mean you care about your customer, your business, your employees, and your reputation. Finally, I presumed you are striving to master your craft to become or remain a reputable and effective expert.

Below are a few illustrations of the countless examples of tools with limitations. I hope one catches your eye and makes you ponder the limitations of your own toolbox.

Understanding Your Instruments

Many practitioners sell services based on the capabilities of their gizmos and gadgetry. Most practitioners are keen to tout what their tools can do. Do you remember “It slices, dices, and juliennes fries?” However, as a professional, it is equally or perhaps even more important to understand what your tools cannot do. Here’s a relatable example:

What’s Wet in This Bathroom?

Exhibit 1 is a photo and coinciding infrared image depicting wallpapered drywall wall in a bathroom shower enclosure. The infrared (IR) image shows an area of cooler wall surface temperatures, which is represented by the blue color. The cool or blue area is bordered by warmer wall surfaces as indicated in green. The blue areas present an anomaly possibly indicating wet building materials. So, the blue area is wet, right? Before you reply, let’s dig a little deeper.

Your non-penetrating (nondestructive) moisture meter beeps or pegs the display when applied to walls throughout the bathroom. To double-check yourself, you reach for your penetrating (destructive) moisture meter. It too, beeps or pegs the display on every bathroom wall. Both meters showed the bathroom floor, ceiling, and wooden baseboards to be “dry” <15% and/or below the established dry standard.

Surely you’re ready to call the walls wet now. All your state-of-the-art, expensive, and impressive tools “proved” the all walls were wet? So, given this scenario, what is wet? The answer is NOTHING. Everything is dry.

How Can the Walls be Dry?

False Positive #1. The cool blue wall section results from HVAC supply air cooling the surrounding materials. It’s not typical to see HVAC registers in a shower enclosure, but they exist. Duct leaks in wall/ceiling cavities or outdoor air infiltration can produce similar anomalous cold spots. The take home lesson: cool surfaces do not always equal wet building materials. 

False Positive #2. The non-penetrating moisture meter beeps on all walls throughout the bathroom because the wallpaper has a metallic decorative additive. It is not typical to see metal-infused wallpaper, but it exists. Other metal building components such as metal studs, metal corner bead, reflective foil-backed drywall, case window counterweights, etc. can produce similar results. The take home lesson: a beeping meter does not a wet building material make. 

False Positive #3. So too, the penetrating moisture meter alarms on all walls throughout the bathroom because the wallpaper has a metallic decorative additive.

Remember, a monkey can be trained to put a moisture meter on a wall, collect a spore trap sample, or turn on an IR camera. Certainly in trained hands instruments can make your job easier, faster, more complete, but no tool can replace the experienced trained professional.  As an expert, you must know the limitations of your tools, understand building materials, and have a working knowledge of applicable rules and regulations.

But Derrick, you say, these are the state-of-the-art tools, and anyone could make this mistake.  Well I reply, not you. You, the expert, are curious, vigilant, and knowledgeable.  You always question your results. You question results not only when they challenge your hypotheses, but also when they support your hypothesis.

Understanding the Limitations of Document Templates

Computers have dramatically changed our industry. I am not that old (unless you ask my daughter), but I remember reports being typed on a device called a typewriter. Actually, at that time a secretary (known now as an administrative assistant or document engineer) would transcribe gibberish notes from a technical professional into a report from scratch. The draft would be reviewed by the technical professional and retyped by the secretary.  This practice has gone the way of the dinosaur, as have secretaries for technical professionals. Now, we all have computers and generate our own reports.

This gave way to the use and abuse of the document template. Generally, document templates are stored electronically in order to save the author time and effort by preventing repetitive data entry of common phrases, calculations, etc. Templates provide a consistent document appearance and they speed the output of common documents such as proposals or reports. They prevent technical experts from having to reinvent the proverbial wheel for each project.

Abuse of templates is a rampant limitation to this otherwise helpful tool. Experienced professionals write reports, which get converted into templates. The available templates tempt junior staffers into plagiarizing reports that truly require expertise above their pay grade. I can hear the junior staffer’s inner dialogue “Why not? The original report was defensible, so my cut-and-paste version will be defensible too.” Invariably, every project has differences; some are subtle and some are of freight train proportions. If the junior staffer cannot recognize the need to modify, remove, and/or add sections, they are doing their client a disservice, extending liability, and blackening the eyes of the industry.

You, the author must decide what’s essential to your report.  Don’t force your report to “fit” the template. If particular sections are not needed, cut them out.  If you need an additional section not included in your template, insert them.  Each report must be accurate, complete, and defensible.  The information regarding the service order, proposal, meetings minutes, and your observations must be reflected accurately.    This is especially important since the reviewer (presuming you have your reports reviewed) cannot verify this information since they do not have first hand knowledge of the project details. 

Copy-and-paste errors and phantom template verbiage reveal a lack of both attention to detail and professionalism. Templates are useful, but mustn’t be abused. 

When the day is done, the fieldwork is forgotten, the phone conversations are lost, and the collected samples are discarded, only your report remains.  It must stand alone, it must be correct, and it must be clear.

Understanding the Limitations of Our Skill Set

It amazes me when practitioners sell services simply because they can. Perhaps they are proverbial one-trick-ponies yearning to perform their one trick. Just because you can perform a service doesn’t mean you should. Be a responsible citizen of the IEQ community; and only provide “value added” services. Here’s an example that can be modified to apply to all trades across the environmental industry.

A customer calls a mold consulting and testing firm describing a “sick building syndrome” scenario. According to the client, office employees perceive they experience headaches on Wednesdays at noon. Immediately the testing firm proposes a thorough mold inspection. Little regard is given to asking “is there a history of water incursion”? In fact, the question “what happens at your facility on Wednesdays never even comes up. And $2,000 later the customer ends up with a lovely report stating, “It appears mold is not an issue at your facility.”

The report may be pretty, the service may be cheap, the turn-around-time may exceed the customer’s expectations but the mold testing firm wronged the client. The report is worthless for determining why the perceived headaches occur. The client expended valuable resources, critical days have passed, the tenants have paired up with an attorney, and now the entire environmental consulting industry gets a black eye.

A vast array of causative agents and combinations of causative agents potentially cause headaches. People get headaches from writing articles, too much sun, not enough fluids, poor lighting, incorrect contact prescriptions, VOC overexposure, pollen allergies, low blood sugar, etc. More questions should be asked and more options presented. Being a one-trick-pony is fine, but you must understand and express the limitations of your service.

Understanding Lab Results & Instrument Measurements

The best laid sampling strategy can yield false positives, false negatives, anomalies, mismarked samples, media failures, shipping damages, lab failures, data entry errors, etc.  You need to have an anticipated result in your mind before you collect a single sample.  You need to know what the results mean before you collect a single sample. There is nothing worse than getting sample results without value.

You must select sampling and analytical methods with appropriate lower limits of detection (LOD). The lower LOD is the concentration below which the results cannot accurately be reported.

Let’s imagine you’re performing exposure monitoring on your employees to determine the 8-hour time weighted average (TWA) exposure to the dreaded Deathaline (not a real substance, but it sounds scary). Let’s say the LOD for Deathaline given your chosen sample method, run time, and flow rate is 10 parts per million (10ppm). The lab reports a result “below the detection limit” (BDL). This DOES NOT mean Dethaline is absent in the sample. Simply the sample results are less than 10ppm (<10 ppm) or below the lower limit of detection. It means your result falls within the range of 0ppm to 9.9999ppm.

What if the permissible exposure limit (PEL) for Deathaline is 7 ppm?  Your results are inadequate to weigh against the PEL. You have done a disservice to your employees and extended your liability. You cannot prove to OSHA the PEL was not exceeded. You look like a fool, and the lab still charges you for the analysis. 

Analytical Upper Limit of Detection

While performing dry ice blasting, you try to record worker exposure to carbon dioxide (CO₂). You buy some CO₂ meters, and you slap them on your crew.  Let’s say your new meters read up to 4,000ppm. Your crew begins blasting away, and you get data that pegs the meter at 4,000ppm for the whole day. Does this mean you were 1,000ppm below the PEL the entire shift? No, it means your meter didn’t have an adequate upper limit of detection. You cannot tell if your crew was exposed to an environment with 4,000 ppm, 4,001ppm or 1,000,000ppm. That is what I like to call “bad”, since the exposure limits for CO₂ are 5,000ppm PEL, 30,000ppm short term exposure limit (STEL), and 40,000ppm immediate danger to life and health (IDLH).

The cafeteria manager calls reporting headaches and nausea. So you check the air in the cafeteria manager’s office at 6:00am with a real-time measuring device for carbon monoxide (CO). The display says 0ppm, so you go back to the office and write a report stating carbon monoxide is not an issue at the facility visited. NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!

You drew an inappropriate conclusion based on a single point-in-time measurement. At 6:15am the cooks turned on the exhaust hoods, dramatically shifting building pressure relationships. If you would have stuck around until 6:25am you wouldn’t have missed CO backdrafting into the manager’s office from both the parking garage and the boiler room. Use caution when drawing conclusions based on limited data.

Know the Limitations of Standards and Guidelines

We’ve heard the adage: rules are made to be broken.  Our industry rules include:

o   Manufacturers specifications

o   Industry guidelines

o   Federal regulations

o   State regulations

o   Local regulations

o   State-of-the-art

Breaking the rules in the environmental health and safety industry carries liability and may carry dangers to life and health.  But, what if you have a really good reason for not following the rules?  Never deviate from the standard…unless of course you want to. 

Most reputable regulations and guidelines have disclaimers stating something like…“this document does not cover every encounterable scenario and it is up to the professional to judge each situation on its own merit using experience, education, and common sense.” As a professional you should use guidelines as needed and exercise judgment where appropriate.

If you chose to depart from the norm (manufacturer’s recommendations, guidelines, standards etc.) simply indicate you are aware of the “correct” or the “recommended” way, and you are consciously choosing to digress for reasons X,Y,Z.

In order to deviate from the standard, demonstrate you:

·         Understand the standard and are aware of “the box”

·         Considered and accepted potential consequences to both you and your client for stepping outside said box 

Derrick A. Denis (Dĕn-āy) is Vice President of Indoor Environmental Quality for Clark Seif Clark, Inc. (CSC), an environmental consulting firm with locations in California, Arizona, and Nevada. Mr. Denis is based in Tempe, Arizona.

Throughout his 15-year career, Mr. Denis has been involved in over 10,000 IEQ projects. Examples of his industry-relevant certifications include: CIEC, CIAQP, CAC, WRT.

Presently Mr. Denis is the IAQA Phoenix Chapter Director and is a Member of the IAQA Board of Directors. He previously sat on the National Advisory Board of the American Indoor Air Quality Council.

To reach Mr. Denis: email derrickdenis@csceng.com, phone (480)-460-8334, or visit www.csceng.com.

With residents of the Gulf Coast and the Midwest still trying to recover from the impact of Hurricane Ike, the indoor air quality industry is already gearing up for an increase in activity as homeowners and business operators try to deal with the mold and other hazards left behind by the brutal weather.

“Hurricane victims returning to their homes should exercise caution – caution that they not expose themselves, their families, or their pets to illnesses related to moisture; and caution that they not be harmed by charlatans exploiting them in the name of ‘mold remediation,’” said Andrew Ask, a leading HVAC and IAQ consultant.

One good idea, Ask added, is to vet all potential contractors on the Indoor Air Quality Association’s ProFiles website.

Officials from the Gulf Coast and Midwest are already appearing on Capitol Hill asking for federal relief funds for their states. Total damage from Hurricane Ike may approach $20 billion, while the damage from earlier storms Fay, Gustav and Hanna may take on another $4-5 billion.

More than a week after Hurricane Ike, most residents of Galveston, Texas still had not been able to return to their homes. This indicates serious mold problems ahead, given that structures filled with stagnant water for a long time are prime candidates for infestation.

Some Americans suffer from a mold allergy, but many more have chronic asthma, which can also be set off by mold. And the storms often cause problems for health care professionals trying to reach affected areas.

Environmental management expert Patrick Moffett has observed that after the devastating impact of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, many individuals and companies in the IAQ field were not able to reach the places where they were most needed.

“Depending on the devastation in various counties, contractors found that they could not get into cities and towns while other contractors were turned back by local police.”

Fresh water, food, housing and toilets were not available for contractors and their support staff. “All of these items had to be brought into a devastation area where your extra supplies were shared with other contractors, the few remaining residents and even first responders like the National Guard.”

Moffett also noted: “It’s said there’s no need to sell a man a pair of shoes when what he really needs is a pair of pants. What this means to building drying contractors is that there is no need to attempt to dry wet buildings when power is not available. Furthermore, if you have temporary generating power, it can be better used in communities to provide valuable electrical services instead of drying out the church or the supermarket down the street.”

Additionally, contractors heading to new areas to deal with the hurricane damages also need to be aware of the legal issues involved.

For example, Texas has a mold law whereby only its own state-licensed mold remediation contractors can do mold remediation or they face stiff penalties. Under Louisiana Act 880, the state had mandated all contractors to be licensed or face fines.

Louisiana has adopted the American IAQ Council certification as part of its licensing program involving mold remediation.

And beware of unusual hazards: Several contractors who responded to Hurricane Katrina reported finding cottonmouth snakes after opening wet walls due to storm damage.

Asthma Impact

Dr. Maureen Lichtveld, who chairs the department of environmental health sciences at the Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, said, "[Mold] is a trigger to asthma. Airways narrow, and then you have a shortage of breath."

She said that, following a storm like this, many asthmatic children face the dual problem of a lack of medical care due to the storm and a lack of care because they come from poor families.

"In Katrina, the clinical evaluation that we are conducting ... was, for many of the children, the first access to clinical care they had post the storm," Lichtveld said.

As part of her study, Lichtveld is looking at the four or five most prevalent of 72 species of mold and their effects, but she noted that people should not waste time considering whether the mold in their homes is harmful.

Concerns over Granite and Radon Panic Homeowners

Although there has been talk about radon emanations from granite countertops over the last few years, these have mostly been discussions among scientists or countertop manufacturers slinging mud at each other.  However, on July 25, 2008 an article in the New York Times, brought the issue to public’s attention that created such a stir that even as I write this article, one month later, it has still not settled down.

So what happened? With a an attention grabbing headline like “What’s Lurking in Your Countertop?” the story indicates the concerns that a homeowner had regarding gamma emissions from a granite counter top.  Being concerned about their pregnant daughter who was soon to pay them a visit they had the countertop removed. 

A follow-up program that ran on the CBS morning show the following day, displayed a technician (Stanley Liebert of Air Quality and Environmental Services, LLC) holding a gamma survey meter up against a chunk of granite that was clicking away, which provided a pretty scary sound byte. 

After these two pieces, the phones started ringing off the hooks at health agency offices, radon certification organizations, as well as for radon measurement providers.  The calls were mostly along the lines of “I have a granite countertop, I need to find out if it is killing me.”  Some of the calls were punctuated with tearful pauses with parents feeling guilty that their materialistic desire to have a beautiful counter top had permanently damaged their children. 

Another measurement provider relayed to me that he had received a call from a person wanting more information, which she would normally get via the internet, but the computer was sitting on the granite counter top and she was afraid to go near it.  Although one could make light of such a story, it causes me to pause and consider the degree of paranoia that can be created when the specter of radiation appears to have been lurking in your kitchen or bathroom.

So What’s This All About?

Without going into the politics of who is saying what and what their motivation is (there is plenty of that on the Internet to fill several tabloids), lets talk about what the basis is. 

Granite, like other rocks can contain uranium and other naturally occurring radioactive elements.  It is not like people are taking spent uranium and making countertops out of them.  In fact, it is this same natural occurring, uranium containing granites that form mountain chains that give rise to elevated radon levels in homes along the Rockies as well as the Appalachians -- nothing new there.

Uranium decays through several elements, one of which is radon.  Radon as an inert gas is no longer chemically bound within the rock and is free to migrate.  If it is formed on the surface of the granite counter top it can enter the room in which it is located.  If it is formed within the countertop, it can slowly diffuse through the rock and perhaps make it to the surface where it can escape. 

The question is not whether or not radon is coming from a granite counter top, but rather how much is leaving the rock, how is it diluted after it enters a home, and hence how much is a person actually exposed to.  We should also not forget that it is the decay products of radon that actually cause the health risk from radon.  After a radon atom leaves the surface of the countertop, it is unlikely that it will immediately decay, allowing the radon atom to easily disperse around the home.

A study conducted by Dr, Chyi of the University of Akron, measured emanation rates of several granites, some of which were fairly elevated, by determining the equilibrium radon levels after being sealed in a chamber.  Although the radon levels inside the chamber were quite high, he did not stop there to alarm the readers of his paper, but went on to calculate that after this radon was dispersed into a room where it would be diluted by the volume it was entering, the highest of the granites he measured would increase indoor radon levels about 0.27 pCi/L which is less than 0.4 pCi/L typically found outdoors (and that was without the assumption of any ventilation, which would further dilute the radon).

The Health Physics Society also provided its assessment of the effect of radon accumulation in a home, but took into account the effect of ventilation rates, with a resulting estimation that 0.13 pCi/L could be added to the indoor radon levels due to the presence of a granite counter top, which is also less than outdoor radon levels.

During the July 25, 2008 CBS Early Show program, the guest indicated that he would place a short-term radon detector under what looked like a popcorn bowl for two days to determine the radon levels.  I certainly hope that some additional calculations would be made to estimate the dilution effect of the house volume, rather than assuming the level of radon within the bowl would translate to actual indoor levels.

Perhaps an analogy will help.  If you were to turn a burner on your stove and set a bowl over it, it would get pretty hot inside the bowl.  However, even though it might be very hot under a bucket, if the bucket was removed and the hot air drifted into the home, the increase in temperature in the home would be negligible. 

So, the approach being recommended by several agencies, is to conduct radon tests simultaneously in your basement and upstairs in the kitchen, and I would also recommend one in another room separate from where the counter top is (but on the same level of the home as the counter top) and then compare the measurements.  If the room with the granite is statistically higher than other rooms in the house, then you may want to conduct additional, more thorough tests by a trained professional.  However, that may be difficult as folks are currently scrambling to develop a protocol for doing so.  In the meantime, lawyers are advertising for potential plaintiffs who think they may have been injured by radon from counter tops for a nice juicy class action suit.  So you radon folks out there, be careful!

What about the Gamma?

Along with the creation of radon, as the Uranium 238 decay chain progresses, it also gives off ionizing radiation, such as alpha, beta and gamma.  Unless it is created on the surface of the counter top, no alpha or little of the beta will escape the rock.  However, gamma, since it is so penetrating will be emitted from the material and can travel substantial distances.  In other words, the gamma can come from the interior of the counter top as well as from the surface, so the gamma is an item of interest.

On the CBS morning show, we saw the technician using a gamma survey meter held directly against a chunk of granite.  Clickety-click went the meter and Harry Smith oohed and awed, as his listeners cringed away from their breakfast counters made of granite.  What was being measured was gamma.  However, with a survey meter, held directly against the surface of the material you also get betas and alphas directly from the surface, which could overestimate the counts.  Furthermore, there needs to be a calibration factor applied to determine the actual release rate, as well as an averaging of multiple measurements as the gamma is not likely to be uniform across a large surface.

To assess actual exposure, one also has to consider where a person stands with respect to a radioactive source.  As you double your distance from a source, the exposure is decreased by a factor of four.  This is the inverse square law.  So a measurement placed directly on the material is a very conservative, if not a misleading, indication of exposure.  It would be logical to determine a location where a person would spend the majority of the time or perhaps a representative average distance.  Then make multiple measurements at this same distance around the counter top and average them.

Since one is attempting to determine the amount of gamma exposure coming from the countertop that is above the natural gamma radiation we are exposed to from the soil, space, etc., one should also take measurements in different parts of the house to determine the “background” activity.  The average background is then subtracted from the average activity from the counter top, to get the net activity rate for the countertop.

The resultant net gamma rate in units of microR/hour should then be multiplied by the number of hours the occupant is likely to spend within a year and divided by 1,000 to convert from microRem to milliRem.  This result can then be compared to the recommended maximum general public exposure of 100 milliRem/year over background.

So if we were take an example of average background gamma, like we have here indoors in Colorado of 13 milliR/hour and subtract that from an average of measurements taken 12 inches from a countertop with the average of 20 microR/hour, we get a net difference of 7 microR per hour.  If a person spends four hours a day at that average distance from the counter top, 365 days per year, they will receive this exposure 1.465 hours per year.  The product of the difference times the hours and then divided by 1,000 would calculate to an annual exposure of essentially 10 milliRem per year, which is 10% of the suggested annual maximum of 100 milliRem per year. 

One can compare this example exposure to other gamma exposures we receive.  According to the American Nuclear Society, we Coloradoans receive an additional 129 milliRem per year just for living in Colorado at 6,000 feet above sea level.  You can also receive the same dose, as used in our example, if you spent 20 hours flying in a jet during a year or came out to visit us in Colorado for a month.

Granted, there may well be granite slabs with much higher emission rates than used in our example.  Only actual measurements, rather than hypothetical examples, should be used.  Also, with respect to the interpretation of the result, the decision as to how much radiation a person wants to be exposed is up to the client, which may be influenced by their being pregnant, cautious or downright scared with the clickety clack of a survey meter. 

What will be the Impact?

It would appear that some studies would indicate that the risk from granite countertops is minimal.  However, there are likely to be exceptions to the samples that have been studied.  There certainly is the possibility that there could be some extremely hot rocks, and the importers and manufacturers appear to be taking appropriate actions to identify these.  There may also currently be some hot rocks in homes and it would be prudent for people to measure multiple levels of a home for radon as well as have a qualified person test for gamma, with the emphasis being placed on the word qualified.

I would assume that there will be some protocols come out of several organizations.   I would also assume that there will be some opportunists arise who will be more than happy to do some quick measurements or a salesman who will use this to steer you to composite counter tops.  However, I hope that it will also cause people to realize that the greatest amount of radon comes from the soil.  After all, where I live in the Rocky Mountains, it is like living on a huge counter top that is all busted up so there is a lot of surface area for the granite to escape.  So, perhaps out of all this we will increase radon, awareness or if not, maybe you can get a good price on granite counter tops that aren’t selling all that well right now.

As always who says there is nothing new in radon?

Doug Kladder

By: David Krause, Ph.D., MSPH, CIH, CIAQP, CIEC
Indoor Air Solutions, Inc.
Tallahassee, FL 32303
dkrause@indoorairsolutionsinc.com 

      No matter how you present the idea of building “green”, the bottom line is protecting the environment.  While much attention is being paid to the outdoor environment and how green building practices will minimize the adverse impacts of commercial buildings, equal importance has been placed on the indoor environment.  Although not news to most IEQ professionals and contractors, when a building fails to perform as designed and constructed, the indoor environment is degraded, energy is wasted, and occupants suffer.  The goal of most green building programs is to avoid these pitfalls by designing, constructing, and operating buildings so they have a minimal impact on resources and the surrounding environment, and provide a healthy indoor environment while using the least amount of energy possible. 

      The leading green building rating system being used today is the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) developed and managed by the U.S. Green Building Council (http://www.usgbc.org/ ) While others do exist and should be considered when choosing a program to follow, examples cited in this article will be limited to USGBC LEED.  The USGBC offers several different rating systems that allows users to certify their projects with the most appropriate system, but the rating system that will likely have the most far reaching impact is the LEED for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance (EB-OM).  The most recent version, only released in July 2008, lays out a comprehensive list of prerequisites and credits to achieve an on-going certification for existing buildings.  The LEED EB-OM certification is based on measured and verified building performance, not design expectations.  No matter how many new buildings are constructed to meet the LEED certification, they will always be outnumbered by existing building stocks.  Intuitively it should be obvious that a greater impact can be made by focusing efforts to renovate and upgrade existing buildings so they meet LEED standards for site sustainability, water efficiency, energy usage, resource usage, and indoor environmental quality. 

      Most attention on green buildings has been focused on New Construction.  However, once the Architect has delivered the building, the ribbon has been cut, and occupants move in, the real work of operating and maintaining the building begins.  Despite the presence of high performance lighting, mechanical systems, and building automation controls, if the building management and maintenance staff do not use them properly and maintain them effectively, the building will not perform as planned and built.  This is where Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance certification becomes so important.  It turns potential into reality, intent into execution.  Without this on-going certification program we, as a society, may never benefit from the energy savings, lower environmental impact, and improved indoor air quality goals of the Green Building Program.  In other words it could be a waste of time and money to build a “Green Building” if it is not operated and maintained in a “Green Manner”.

      According to the USGBC, LEED-certified buildings will have lower operating costs, higher asset values, reduced volumes of waste sent to landfills, lower energy and water usage, reduced harmful green house gas emissions, and provide a healthier and safer environment for occupants.  A tall order to fill, we must admit, but laudable goals none-the-less.  An in-depth review reveals the most intriguing aspects of the LEED EB-OM rating system are the direct and indirect impacts it will have on Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ).  Although only 3 of 9 prerequisites directly address IEQ, as many as 30 of the 34 Credits needed for certification are related to or positively impact IEQ.  Nineteen credits are available for implementing comprehensive IAQ Management Practices, ensuring and documenting occupant comfort, and implementing green cleaning practices.  Credits that indirectly improve or protect IEQ include management of cooling tower water, performing re-commissioning of building mechanical systems, and continuously monitoring mechanical system performance. (LEED^® for Existing Buildings Operations and Maintenance, April 2008, available at https://www.usgbc.org/ )

      A significant component of the recently revised LEED Existing Building Certification is that it requires documenting measured building performance parameters, not just developing plans or policies.  Measurement results must be submitted for air exchange rates, temperature, relative humidity, air speed, and the results of occupant surveys regarding comfort parameters. Results of building commissioning tests and energy audits are also required for certain credits.  This on-going certification program’s emphasis on demonstrating the results of operations and maintenance practices creates two important opportunities.  First, it requires that definable results must be realized from the resources invested in gaining the certification.  Second, it creates a demand for trained, knowledgeable, and experienced professionals to perform the testing and measurements as third-party consultants.  Few if any building owners or management firms are likely to invest in the equipment and staff training to perform the testing and measurements required in the EB-OM.

      The opportunities for IAQ professionals and technicians who offer measurement and verification services to building owners, managers, architects, and engineers should be obvious.  Although some specific tasks may be performed by more traditional Test Adjustment, and Balance firms, the majority of services that will be needed require the development of a testing strategy, identifying appropriate measurement methods and equipment, and implementing quality assurance/quality control protocols.  Additionally, all of the results must then be presented in a manner and format that meets the requirements of the USGBC certification program. 

      Many of the assessment tools and techniques that IEQ professionals have used for years will be necessary to provide the documented test results for building certification.  Most importantly will be the expertise these professionals can bring to the process.  It is likely that most buildings will not initially meet performance requirements and some amount of diagnosis and trouble shooting will be necessary to identify deficiencies.  Feasibility assessments are likely to be a first step in determining if LEED certification is achievable for an existing building. 

      Many experienced IEQ professionals bring with them experiences and technical expertise not often held by Architects, Engineers, or General Contractors.  Having seen building failures and the impact they have on air quality, building operations, and occupant health, many IEQ professionals can spot early warning signs and identify the system failures.  When assessing the building performance parameters required by the LEED: EB-OM certification program the IEQ professional can identify deficiencies and possibly identify remedies based on past experiences.  Technical expertise in using thermal imaging, air flow meters, temperature and relative humidity dataloggers, blower doors, and tracer gas to diagnose buildings can give the IEQ professional an edge when it comes to assisting a building owner in achieving LEED Certification for their building.

Special Challenges

      All parties involved in the operations and maintenance of green buildings will be faced with new challenges.  One of the first to be impacted will be the building’s owner, whether that is an individual, a corporation, or a government agency.  Additional resources in time and money will be necessary to plan, document and operate a building so that it meets the LEED certification standards.  The hope will be that investments made in building upgrades, repairs, modifications, measurements, and verification will be returned in the forms of increased value, increased productivity of employees, and reduced long-term energy costs.  Regardless of when and how much the return on investment will be realized, the up front increase in costs must be made.  Unfortunately, the relative youth of this program means that a database of information on the realized return on investment does not exist.  Some vague estimates have been offered by some on the relative costs of new construction to the LEED standard, but none have been made for operations and maintenance of existing buildings.  It appears that embedded within the EB-OM certification are the metrics for estimating the expected and realized reductions in energy and water usage.  This leap of faith may be too much for some building owners, and may be a “no-brainer” for others.

      A substantial learning curve should be expected for all parties involved.  Because record keeping, adherence to policies, and use of specified products play such large role in this on-going certification, all in-house maintenance and custodial staff, as well as all outside contractors must be educated on their roles.  How each stakeholder contributes to achieving certification should be communicated. Maintenance staff who have come up “through the ranks” have often relied upon OJT, or on the job training.  The complexity of most modern Heating, Ventilation, and Air-Conditioning (HVAC) systems requires specialized education and training.  Without specialized training and the resources to operate, maintain, and diagnose problems, maintenance staff can find themselves ill equipped to operate the most complex system in the building and failure of the system often results. 

      Custodial staff are critical to the implementation of the LEED EB-OM program.  Implementing green cleaning practices and properly using green-cleaning products are expected to play a key role in the certification and achieving good indoor air quality.  The certification includes a rating program for Custodial Effectiveness Assessment (EQ Credits 3.2 and 3.3).  This entails conducting an audit in accordance with the APPA Leadership in Educational Facilities’ Custodial Staffing Guidelines to determine the appearance level of the facility.  In other words, the standard for cleaning the facility should not suffer from the use of green cleaning products or practices. 

Outside contractors used to maintain or repair HVAC systems, repair or modify plumbing, install lighting, or make repairs to any of the building systems must be informed of the building owner’s goals.  Documentation requirements will often rely upon information obtained from outside contractors.  An approach often recommended is to require outside contractors to provide the necessary documentation in the format needed for certification, however this may entail additional costs.

Maintaining good air quality during construction and occupancy phases is one goal of EQ Credit 1.5. This requires implementation of practices that meet or exceed recommendations from the Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors’ National Association (SMACNA) “IAQ Guidelines for Occupied Buildings under Construction”, 1995, Chapter 3.  Designing such a strategy and verifying compliance may require a third-party consultant with IEQ and construction experience.

Another challenge that building operators, especially in humid climates, may experience is meeting the ventilation requirements in building areas with low or no occupancy.  Examples of such challenging areas are schools during the summer time vacation, auditoriums, conference rooms, convention centers, and theaters during times between uses.  When operation controls or design of HVAC systems do not allow for control of humidity, these spaces can become “cave-like” when outside air is supplied and cooling the space does not remove sufficient humidity.  Strictly providing the required amount of outside air ventilation for maximum occupancy during unoccupied times can cause high relative humidity and result in amplification of microorganisms such as dust mites and fungi. 

Finally, evaluating and selecting “Green Cleaning Products” may be the most challenging aspect of operating and maintaining a green building.  While few would argue the point of intentionally using toxic or irritating products, the reason that many cleaning agents are irritating to humans is that they are toxic to microbes.  It is critical that chemicals used for cleaning, disinfecting, and sanitizing be effective at killing and removing viruses, bacteria, and fungi, or the health of building occupants can be compromised.  Similarly, chemicals used for the maintenance and cleaning of HVAC systems such as lubricants for fans and motors and coil cleaners, can have unwanted irritant properties.  But, if effective coil cleaning is not performed on a regular basis or bearings are not lubricated, a litany of adverse impacts can be predicted on the air quality, energy efficiency, and sustainability of HVAC equipment.  A balance must be found between care of the building and its systems and the impact these chemicals have on the building occupants. 

Apart from some basic information provided on material safety data sheets (MSDS) and product label information, the building manager is often left to information in marketing materials from product sales staff.  Some independent labs have tested products for the manufacturers, but testing criteria and the meaning of test results vary from program to program.  Harmonizing test criteria may be a long way off, but in the mean time end users should educate themselves on the meaning of certification from any of the available product certifying labs. (http://www.greenguard.org , http://www.greenseal.org)

Conclusion

      Occupant complaints and illnesses resulting from indoor pollutants often originate from either a malfunctioning building mechanical system, or the inadvertent introduction of a contaminant to the building.  By ensuring the building systems are performing as they are designed, and the use of cleaners, pesticides and other chemicals are limited to what is necessary, the likelihood of IAQ problems can be reduced.  By incorporating these preventive measures into green building operations and maintenance we are seeing the result of 30 years of building science research and public health guidance from the US EPA and other government agencies.  The prominence that indoor air quality plays in green building programs speaks to its importance and growth of the industry.  IEQ practitioners should look to the future and find ways to lend their expertise to protecting both the indoor and outdoor environments.

David Krause is the President and founder of Indoor Air Solutions located in Tallahassee, Florida and has served on the editorial board for IEC for over ten years.  As the Industrial Hygienist for the Florida Department of Health he established the Indoor Air Assistance Program.  He has participated in state and national committees to quantify the impacts of indoor air pollution.  Dr. Krause holds a Masters of Science in Public Health, in Toxicology, and Doctorate of Public Health from the University of South Florida, College of Public Health.  He also holds the professional credential of Certified Industrial Hygienist (CIH), and has recently co-authored Assessing Potential Health Effects and Establishing Ozone Exposure Limits for Ozone-Generating Air Cleaners for the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.

by Tom Scarlett

Both of the men who might become the next president on January 20, 2009 – Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) – promise to change the existing environmental policies of the federal government, which will mean a new era for indoor air quality regulation.

Obama has said he will conduct “a thorough overhaul” of the policies of the Environmental Protection Agency. He also says he will direct the Department of Housing and Urban Development to address a greatly increased amount of resources to the problems of mold and radon abatement.

McCain’s policies would not represent as thorough a break with the Bush administration, but he does have some priorities that are different from those of his Republican predecessor.

McCain did say in response to a questionnaire submitted by several environmental groups that he believes “air quality standards need to be more stringent.” A spokesman for the candidate said this includes indoor air quality.

Both candidates have said they would allocate increased funding to the Environmental Protection Agency, including the Indoor Air Division. Whether there will be money in the budget to fulfill this promise – the federal deficit already exceeds $400 billion, and that’s before taking into account the government bailouts agreed to in September – remains an open question.

One difference between the two candidates is that Obama’s campaign says the candidate would establish a program to educate commercial building owners and homeowners on indoor air treatment and source abatement options.

A spokesman for Senator McCain said the GOP nominee has not made a similar commitment, but added that McCain is “open to the idea.”

Obama Proposals

The central tenet of Obama’s proposed environmental policy is his promise to “create millions of new green jobs.” This will involve

·         ensuring 10 percent of our electricity comes from renewable sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025.

·         setting an aggressive energy efficiency goal -- to reduce electricity demand 15 percent from projected levels by 2020.

·         making a national commitment to weatherize at least one million low-income homes each year for the next decade, which can reduce energy usage across the economy and help moderate energy prices for all.

·         implementing an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050.

Obama also wants to create a national health tracking system that would enable the government to determine the links between environmental conditions and health problems.

Such a system might help pin down the link between the indoor air environment and the increasing rate of asthma among American children.

McCain Proposals

McCain’s pronouncements on the environment have almost invariably emphasized dealing with climate changes, rather than the more broad-based policies mentioned by Obama.

McCain will use a portion of auction proceeds to reduce impacts on low-income American families. The McCain plan will accomplish this in part by incorporating measures to mitigate any economic cost of meeting emission targets, including trading emission permits to find the lowest-cost source of emission reductions.

McCain believes that there must be a global solution to global climate change. Part of the solution he envisions includes  
permitting America to lead in innovation, capture the market on low-carbon energy production and export to developing countries.

McCain’s plan “will address the full range of issues: infrastructure, ecosystems, resource planning and emergency preparation.”

Finally, McCain says he wants to continue the “Clear Skies” initiative that was begun under President Bush, which concentrates on reducing mercury, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides.

Green Construction Funding

One significant difference between McCain and Obama is how much federal funding they would allocate to “green” building construction.

Earlier this year, Congress 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.

The measure is intended to save school districts billions in energy costs while reducing asthma and other environmentally linked health problems.

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.