WORD ON THE STREET

• Cash For Clean Air: Two states have announced that they would support selected air-monitoring technologies via the Innovative Clean Air Technologies Grant Program. Applicants for the funding must demonstrate low-cost technologies to monitor indoor or outdoor air pollutants. In an attempt to make such technologies widely available, California’s Air Resources Board and New York’s Energy Research and Development Authority will co-sponsor the grant program. Pre-proposals will be accepted through Sept. 17. See http://www.nyserda.org/funding.html  or www.arb.ca.gov/research/icat/solicit.htm  for more information.
  
  
• Phthalates Phound: A recent study showed high levels of potentially harmful chemical additives in several consumer products. The chemicals, called phthalates, can be found in vinyl building products, medical equipment, personal hygiene products and cosmetics, but the groups behind the study are calling for the government to study the link between phthalates and birth defects.
  
  
  Animal tests considered to be relevant to humans found that phthalates interfere with males’ reproductive tract development. The vice president of science for the Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association said that unless the government or the industry’s own panel of experts can prove that phthalates are harmful to humans, cosmetics would still continue to use them.
  
  
  In building products, phthalates are most often used to soften polyvinyl chloride plastic, known as PVC or vinyl. The chemicals can be found in vinyl flooring, roofing film, wall coverings and cables. The cosmetics industry uses phthalates for other purposes, for example, to make the application of cosmetics easier or to provide the aroma in perfume.
  
  
• Another 3M Innovation: The new Guide to Respirators for Abatement and Mold Remediation is now available from the Occupational Health and Environmental Safety division of 3M. Product and ordering information for the company’s line of respirators, filters and cartridges are provided in the brochure. Three respirators featured are a kit for mold remediation, another for powered air purification, and the new 3M Half Facepiece Respirator 7500 Series Ultimate Reusable. More information can be obtained at www.3M.com/occsafety.
  
  
• Outbreak: The number of confirmed cases of Legionnaires’ disease in Vermont was nearing 20 in mid-August, reported the state’s department of health. Responding to the first case announced on Aug. 1, the department said that the disease “usually occurs as a single, isolated case not associated with any recognized outbreak.” Within two weeks, the state was investigating 16 confirmed cases in the Waterbury area, located 10 miles northwest of Montpelier.
  
  
  Amid several weeks of investigation Aug. 9, the state’s health commissioner commented, “Evidence currently points to an outdoor source of the bacterium in Waterbury, although finding the exact source is unlikely.” People are susceptible to Legionnaires’ disease when they inhale mists containing the bacterium, Legionella pneumophila. Some past U.S. outbreaks of this disease were related to cooling towers, and so two cooling structures were cleaned and disinfected before Aug. 9. Also to blame in the past throughout the country were evaporative condensers, whirlpool spas, showers, fountains and ultrasonic mist machines.
  
  
  The Centers for Disease Control & Prevention list some measures for prevention and control of Legionnaires’ disease, including decontamination of the water source and improved design and maintenance of cooling towers and plumbing systems. Symptoms are similar to those of pneumonia but require additional tests for diagnosis. Legionnaires’ disease acquired its name in 1976 when an outbreak of pneumonia occurred among people attending a convention of the American Legion in Philadelphia.
  
  
• Something Mold, Something New: The mold remediation process is underway at the Hilton Hawaiian Village in Honolulu. In June, forms of mold were detected in two of the Hilton’s six towers, including the Kalia Tower, which opened in May 2001, and the Lagoon Tower, which was reopened after a renovation in January 2001.
  
  
  All 453 rooms of the Kalia Tower were shut down July 23 after an employee discovered mold growing on furniture in guest rooms. The $95 million facility was shut down indefinitely for repairs — an expense the Hilton estimates will exceed $10 million.
  
  
  At the Lagoon Tower, Cladosporium was found on ceilings in hallways but none in guest rooms. In that 24-story building, the clean-up process began early in August. While fungicidal paint is applied to the ceilings, each affected floor will be closed temporarily and then reopened once the paint fumes dissipate.
  
  
  In the meantime, Air Quality Services was investigating in the towers to ascertain what caused the elevated levels of humidity that led to the mold growth.
  
  
• DIY Mold Remediation: The Indoor Air Quality Association is collaborating with producers from the Do-It-Yourself Network, a sister network to Home and Garden Television, on a five-part series about mold contamination in homes. Using live case studies, the series will help homeowners understand what causes indoor mold growth and how to prevent it from happening.
  
  The series will also instruct homeowners about how to clean mold themselves, how to determine if the problem is severe enough to warrant professional remediation, and how to select a qualified abatement specialist when needed. The series is expected to air by late October 2002.
  
  
• Residential Guideline Work Begins: A proposed companion guideline to the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers’ proposed residential ventilation standard is under development. Guideline 24P, Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in Low-Rise Residential Buildings, is the companion guideline to proposed ASHRAE Standard 62.2P, Ventilation and Acceptable Indoor Air Quality in Low-Rise Residential Buildings. The public review of the title, purpose and scope of the proposed guideline closed late last month.
  
  The proposed guideline will provide information on achieving good IAQ, which may go beyond minimum requirements. It will provide information relevant to ventilation and IAQ on envelope and system design, material selection, commissioning and installation, and operation and maintenance

This summer, the Environmental Protection Agency initiated a mammoth cleaning of residential properties in lower Manhattan to remove residual ash and dust from the collapse of the World Trade Center. The agency will clean visible debris from the WTC in residential properties and, upon request, will test air samples for asbestos fibers. EPA is currently soliciting interested contractors to assist in the effort. The agency has also set up a Web site and a toll-free hotline to collect requests for cleaning and testing.

The overall assessment and cleanup efforts go well beyond residencies. Strategic planning is required to make the best use of resources. The sudden release of a wide array of contaminants into an urban U.S. area on the scale of 9/11 is unprecedented in EPA’s experience. The response includes a progression of multifaceted efforts focused on assessing the exposure concerns, understanding the deposition of contaminants, cleaning and preventing recontamination.

EPA is utilizing capabilities from the Superfund and Emergency Release Programs that have been established over its 32-year existence. William Shad, EPA Region II on-scene coordinator said, “At present, the remedial emphasis has been on cleaning roofs, building exteriors (e.g. window ledges, canopies, facades) and residential air conditioners.

We have started on residencies south of Canal St. and plan to work our way north toward 14th Street.”

The work being done by New York City Department of Environmental Protection contractors follows a visual survey of approximately 400 buildings surrounding the WTC site. Of these, some 250 were found to have residual dust and debris needing removal. The owners of 20 percent of these buildings agreed to do the cleaning themselves, leaving about 200 buildings for the city to clean. The work is being done to prevent re-suspension of WTC dust in the air.

Meanwhile, the Risk Assessment Department has worked at interpreting data and establishing priorities. Sampling efforts have included analysis of air, dust (bulk) and wipe samples for an array of contaminants. EPA has found a wide variety of contaminants in varying levels within WTC debris. These contaminants include asbestos, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, dioxin, benzene, silica, calcite, gypsum, and metals such as arsenic, lead and antimony.

For the purpose of risk assessment, EPA has relied most heavily on data from outside air samples collected at monitoring stations around the Ground Zero site during cleanup activities. This data is summarized in a document available from the EPA’s WTC Web site, at www.epa.gov/wtc/summaries/data summaries.

With the recovery efforts at the WTC site drawing to an end, EPA has stopped most of the outdoor sampling of pollutants associated with the WTC collapse, fires, recovery work and handling of bulk debris. Outdoor air sampling has generally shown no presence or very low levels of pollutants for the last few months, and air quality in lower Manhattan is back to the levels experienced before Sept. 11. EPA says it is now shifting the focus of the monitoring program to indoor air and the effectiveness of cleanup methods.

This summer, EPA used the 110 Liberty St. building to conduct a comparative study on cleaning methods. This is an unoccupied five-story building close to Ground Zero, containing 12 apartments and six commercial spaces. Windows and storefronts facing the WTC and the fifth-floor skylights were blown out, resulting in very heavy dust loads. Residential spaces, the roof and the basement were cleaned shortly after the collapse of the WTC but became re-contaminated by dust raised during the recovery work.

Before, during and after cleanup, bulk, surface wipe and micro vacuum samples were analyzed for asbestos, lead, dioxins, silica, calcite gypsum, fiberglass and PAHs. The data are being used to compare cleaning techniques for upholstery, rugs, nonporous surfaces, exteriors and HVAC systems. EPA has not yet released the findings from this study.

This study, as well as the overall lower Manhattan cleanup, is of particular interest to the indoor environmental marketplace and may become the largest completed comparison of indoor environmental cleaning methods on the widest array of contaminants.

Clearance criteria for cleaning is likely to be at issue as the findings of this study are released. Mark Maddaloni, EPA Region II risk assessment specialist, said the only broadly used surface area standards are the EPA clearance criteria for lead under TSCA 403. These clearance criteria are utilized by the Department of Housing and Urban Development to establish the re-occupancy clearance criteria for lead in homes following a lead-based paint abatement. The most stringent of these levels is for the floors of homes with young children at 40 micrograms per square foot. Higher levels are permitted for windowsills and outdoor concrete surfaces.

This raises the issue of finding the appropriate clearance criteria for the array of contaminants found in the WTC aftermath. This issue may need to be addressed not only for a wider array of contaminants but also for the diverse locations where they have been found, including residencies, work places, exteriors and air conveyance systems.

At present, acceptable conditions for the presence of contaminants are more often based on indoor air quality, as this is the most general means of exposure. Maddaloni said EPA risk assessors have used National Ambient Air Quality Act limits in residencies for evaluating risk from contaminants. When NAAQA limits were not available, the risk assessors may have used 10 percent of the OSHA permissible exposure level as a criterion for non-industrial commercial buildings and 1 percent of the PEL as a risk-based clearance criterion for residential spaces.

The use of National Ambient Air Quality standards and percentages of occupational standards were used specifically for the WTC investigation and should not be construed as standard operating procedure for risk assessors throughout the EPA.

This approach leaves open issues with regard to environmental cleaning contractors, such as insurance restoration and HVAC duct cleaning firms. Clearance criteria that address surface area concentrations of non-microbial contaminants are limited. Surface area samples are typically highly variable, and interpretation of data can be daunting. Environmental health consultants and abatement contractors typically rely on establishing some background criteria of clean by testing non-affected areas or areas with levels deemed acceptable. According to Maddaloni, EPA is currently collecting surface area samples from locations in New York City that were not affected by the WTC collapse to help evaluate areas that were affected and to establish cleaning goals.

Air Technology Inc. is a Manhattan-based IAQ contractor whose services include duct cleaning and microbial remediation. They have been involved in the cleanups of multiple buildings in lower Manhattan, including some in close proximity to the WTC site. ATI Vice President Robert Jawitz said finding 3-4 inches of dust throughout HVAC systems was not uncommon. He said HVAC systems with automatic shutoffs triggered by smoke detectors generally fared much better than systems with out automatic shutoffs, as the dust levels were high enough to shut the systems down. Some buildings had shutoffs on the main HVAC system, but there are no automatic shutoffs on supplemental systems. Jawitz said the effect the automatic shutoffs had in these buildings was a clear indication of its effect on minimizing damage to the system.

Mr. Jawitz said that various environmental consultants have established cleanup criteria at different buildings. Clearance criteria have consequently varied significantly and, in some cases, have been especially strict. ATI is said to have fared well in the comparative evaluations of contractors, which he credits to the capabilities and work efforts of ATI personnel, the use of proprietary encapsulates and the practice of bumping the system. Bumping the system entails turning the system on and running the airflow through HEPA vacuums, then turning the system off again before using encapsulates. before using encapsulates. Jawitz also said that much more hand wiping of interior duct surfaces was needed to pass stringent clearance criteria than is normally required. Also, contractors were informed that several contaminants including asbestos were present so personnel utilized personal protective equipment including air-purifying respirators with HEPA cartridges during cleaning operations.

According to Jawitz, mold has become a big concern at buildings that haven’t been cleaned and have remained vacant for long periods. Some of the buildings have had glass blown out and never replaced, and so rain has entered the building. In some buildings, sprinkler systems discharged, and the buildings have subsequently remained vacant. Mold is said to have become one of the major issues in the cleanup.

Emotional impact has been a serious issue to contractor personnel and seems to have affected decisions of occupants on establishing cleaning priorities. Contractors encountering body parts and personal belongings have been instructed to notify government investigators of these discoveries.

The decisions of occupants on what should be cleaned seemed to have been influenced by their emotions in some instances. Sometimes, lower Manhattan residents did not want surfaces cleaned that should have been cleaned. In other cases, occupants insisted on cleaning that did not seem to be necessary. In some cases, contractors have been confronted by residents who said they never wanted to return to their homes and properties at all. Some said they would wait for their leases to expire, rather than to initiate cleanup.

So, as the last barge loads of Ground Zero debris are being taken away from lower Manhattan, the focus of the remedial effort has turned toward indoor contaminants. The task of removing just the visible debris from nearby buildings has been found to constitute an enormous effort. Contractors, building owners, property managers, and the EPA are in the process of discovering how far the contamination has spread. Some initial sampling programs indicate that metals traveled further than plaster and gypsum dust, which comprises much of the visible debris. The discovery of a range of contaminants inside air conveyance systems and other building surfaces has raised some questions.

A central issue has become the lack of broadly accepted guidelines to be used as clearance criteria. Current guidance seems to be limited, and contractors are finding themselves confronted with different clearance criteria at each site. While the tragedy of this situation has affected everyone involved, it is apparent that the knowledge acquired with the effort will impact the indoor environmental abatement industries. The lower Manhattan cleanup is expected to provide the basis for a broader knowledge on the deposition of contaminants, enhanced understanding of the pros and cons of alternate cleaning methods, more detail on criteria for determining when abatement is required and the establishment of appropriate clearance criteria.

Kevin Held is a senior industrial hygienist at BEM Systems Inc., a nationwide, full-service environmental engineering and consulting firm that provides innovative solutions to complex environmental, health, and safety issues facing private industry, state transportation agencies, and federal government clients. You can reach him by calling (908) 598-2600 ext. 194 or by e-mail at kheld@bemsys.com.

IAQ and The Law
Toxic Mold And The Real Estate Professional

Traditionally, the three most important economic considerations for any purchaser or investor regarding the acquisition and/or development of improved real property, whether retail, commercial, single family residential, multifamily residential or industrial, have been, location, location and finally, location.

However, from 2000 on into the foreseeable future, a strong argument can be made that across many areas of the United States that the three most important economic considerations in the acquisition and/or development of improved real property are: (1) Has water penetrated the shell of the building? (2) Is there “mold” present in the building? And (3) is it “toxic mold”?

More specifically, in legal and scientific terminology: (1) Is there a current or past history of water intrusion events “occurring” in any enclosed portion of the building structure? (2) Has the failure to address these water intrusion events in a timely, adequate and effective manner produced conditions “conducive” to the amplification of microbial growth? And (3) are there active reservoirs of microbial growth producing measurable quantities of airborne contaminants of a type and amount not found in the external environment and containing toxigenic agents?

As the field of toxic mold litigation further expands, develops and mutates seemingly without end and at geometric rates, more real estate professionals are being drawn into this legal morass just like light is irresistibly drawn into the astronomical entity known as the black hole. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines a black hole as “an extremely small region of space-time with a gravitational field so intense that nothing can escape, not even light. A great void, an abyss.”

Many real estate professionals feel an overriding sense of helplessness and confusion like they too have been drawn helplessly into this great abyss of toxic mold litigation. At this point, no one can predict with any degree of certainty where toxic mold litigation will end. The purpose of this article is to assist the real estate professional, principally, the real estate inspector, appraiser and/or broker/agent, in understanding the two most likely sources of liability exposure relating directly to toxic mold in his or her practice (namely, professional malpractice and negligence) and then to advise the real estate professional in taking concrete steps to minimize this liability exposure.

Professional Liability

It should be noted at the outset that the rules, regulations and case law governing both the acts and omissions of real estate professionals vary widely across jurisdictions. The industry professional should engage an attorney competent in his or her geographic area of practice in the event litigation is anticipated or undertaken. Similarly, as will be discussed below, certain steps can be taken before the performance of these professional services that may reduce, limit or prevent legal liability exposure. Attorneys familiar with contract and tort law in a specific locale should be engaged by the real estate professional to draft these concepts into the professional services contract used by the industry professional.

A common definition provides that “a professional is an individual who, in the process of following and practicing a chosen field, performs services or supplies goods or advice involving the utilization of special knowledge or skills.” In general, civil statutes or administrative rules define and limit with great specificity the prescribed parameters in which a given profession may operate and how that particular group of activities may be undertaken in the performance of services or the provision of goods for consumers. These regulations include licensing and oversight by legislative or industry-specific boards or committees.

Once licensed, the professional must practice his or her profession properly and in compliance with all statutory duties, obligations, standards, rules and regulations. It is the breach of these specific duties and rules that subjects the real estate professional to both civil and administrative liability.

Professional “malpractice” involves both intentional and negligent misconduct on the part of the professional in the course and scope of performing professional services for clients. Furthermore, the causes of action asserted against professionals tend to be a cross between contract and tort causes of action, frequently asserted as a combination of causes of action with interwoven facts and elements.

Intentional actions involve violations of common law and/or statute and may be characterized further as misrepresentation, fraud or deceit. It is understood among legal professionals that intentional conduct is harder to prove, yet once proven will result in the greatest professional and personal exposure both in terms of fines and monetary damages.

Professional “negligence” involves a different set of legal issues. The elements of negligence are: (1) a duty of care; (2) breach of this specific duty; (3) proximate causation; and (4) resulting damage. The plaintiff must prove, within the parameters of the particular burden of proof for the jurisdiction in question, the presence of all four elements.

Furthermore, there are specific questions that the real estate professional should ask when examining his or her actions in light of these elements of negligence. For example: (1) To whom is the duty of care owed? (2) What foreseeable third parties may be owed this duty of care? (3) What third parties will be relying upon or benefit from the actions of the professionals? (4) What are the actions of the individuals who report to or are supervised by the professional (i.e., brokers/agents, inspectors/apprentices)? (5) What specific action or omission caused the damages to the aggrieved party (Remember: The failure to act is just as damaging in many respects as the action itself.)? (6) How and where is the information provided by the professional disseminated? (7) Does the action or omission involve an “extreme risk” of harm to others? (8) Is this risk of harm “known” to the professional? (9) Was there a conscious indifference to the rights or welfare of others (i.e., gross negligence)? And (10) is there a statutory violation of a duty imposed (i.e., negligence per se)? Remember, the law views some of these actions or omissions from the standpoint of the professional but others from that of the individual or entity ultimately affected.

Standards of care are usually stated in terms of “reasonableness.” However, the “reasonable” standard is always closely related to the professional’s possession and usage of the special knowledge and skill for which he or she is employed or retained. In examining breaches of the standard of care by a professional, an expert witness will be called to testify to the manner in which the professional’s conduct met or failed to meet that required by an “ordinarily prudent professional” performing the same or similar actions.

There are additional factors that may be brought to bear on the examination of a professional’s conduct such as: (1) the “locality rule” where the custom and practice of a professional is judged in light of that of similar professionals in his or her geographic location, or (2) the “specialist rule” where the standard of care is raised owing to a professional’s greater degree of training or experience.

Practical Solutions

Just as the three most important considerations in the acquisition and/or development of improved real property were location, location and location, a new list should be proposed in light of current developments in mold litigation. Real estate brokers/agents, inspectors and appraisers should keep these three things in mind when they are involved in a real estate transaction: disclosure, disclosure and disclosure. Unless the professional directly or indirectly contributed to the mold problem in some form or fashion, the greatest liability exposure in many cases results from failing to report a condition or fact known and then trying to disclaim knowledge of these facts.

Although mold utilizes almost anything as a substrate or food source, mold does not grow without water. Remember: Mold follows water, and water follows gravity.

With those two principles in mind, the prudent real estate practitioner should: (1) Gather and report as much background information on the improvements to the real property, including furniture, fixtures and equipment. (2) Limit the professional opinions to those based on clearly documented factual background and history, noting any discrepancies or lack of sufficient information. (3) Pay specific attention to water intrusion events, namely plumbing leaks, fire suppression activity, flooding, roof leaks, local major weather events, etc. (4) Personally inspect or visit the property. This advice flies in the face of the current practice by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to conduct appraisals by “mining” computer databases for statistical results on sale prices and prior appraisals in a given neighborhood. Similarly, “drive-by appraisals” involving no more than a couple of photographs from the street are equally dangerous. (5) Document all possible or potential locations, amount and appearance of mold or mold-damaged property. This includes the notation of abnormal odors of any kind. (6) Do not make conclusions about the presence of mold based upon anything but “scientifically reliable” testing. Just because it looks like mold or smells like mold doesn’t mean it is mold. The only thing for which “appearances” are useful is to indicate the need for further testing. (7) Do not conduct scientific testing, collection or analysis of microbial organisms unless you are qualified to do so by experience and/or training. Remember the scope of the work that the professional is retained to perform, and do no more and no less. Leave the mold testing to mold experts. (8) Limit contractual liability to “costs of services” provided. (9) Limit the time in which an aggrieved party may bring a legal claim. (10) Include mandatory or binding arbitration provisions in contracts. (11) Limit the scope of reliance on the report to a well-defined group of individuals. (12) Carefully document all factual information upon which your services or opinions are based. And finally, (13) carry sufficient professional liability insurance.

A Solution On The Horizon?

All of these legal and contractual pitfalls appear to leave no escape from the inevitable drop into the abyss resulting from the next real estate transaction, appraisal or inspection that involves any unhappy individuals. However, there is hope on the horizon in the form of the Federal Toxic Mold Bill. HR 5040, or the Melina Bill, is the federal government’s first attempt to answer many of the questions plaguing the general public, research scientists, clinical health specialists, engineers and safety professionals, real estate brokers, appraisers and inspectors, remediators, adjustors, defense attorneys, plaintiff’s attorneys, judges and, most importantly, juries.

This bill is designed to accomplish a number of important goals for the general public, government and industry professionals. Specifically, with regard to real estate professionals: (1) Within one year after the effective date of this act, the Environmental Protection Agency would promulgate, among other things, standards for mold inspection, certifications for mold inspectors and standards for the design, installation and maintenance of air, ventilation and/or air conditioning systems to prevent mold growth or conditions that foster mold growth. (2) Along with the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, National Institutes for Health and the Department of Housing and Urban Development, EPA would sponsor public education programs to reach homeowners, prospective homeowners, the real estate industry, the home construction and renovation industry and other individuals with an interest in the use and/or occupancy of real property. (3) The bill would require inspection of rental property in accordance with these established model standards. (4) The federal government would require that a mold inspection be performed on real property prior to sale or lease. (5) HUD and the EPA would require the disclosure of “mold hazards” in housing that is offered for sale or lease. And finally, (6) the federal government would promulgate fines and civil penalties for the misrepresentation of the results of a mold inspection.

There are additional provisions relating to inspection requirements for public housing, revision of building codes and inspection requirements in connection with federally made or insured mortgages. All of these provisions, if developed and implemented in accordance with sound scientific, engineering and legal research and not public hysteria, will go a long way in filling the black hole of toxic mold litigation.

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.

The National Air Duct Cleaners Association’s new standard released in March, Assessment, Cleaning, and Restoration of HVAC Systems, calls for the inspection of HVAC systems to determine if cleaning is necessary before the commencement of any cleaning services. This requirement in ACR 2002 is a change from the original NADCA standard, 1992-01. On the surface, inspecting a system before cleaning sounds like more work for the HVAC cleaning contractor and higher costs for the client. We have been in the position to prove that by following the ACR 2002 requirement for HVAC contamination evaluation before cleaning, both the client and the HVAC cleaning contractor benefit.

ACR 2002 Section 3 states, “HVAC systems should be cleaned when an HVAC cleanliness inspection indicates that the system is contaminated with a significant accumulation of particulate or microbial growth.” This would work in practice if clients followed the recommended inspection schedule listed in Section 3 of the standard. We all know that clients can sometimes be shortsighted and follow what makes the most sense to their budgets, which may often mean not inspecting HVAC systems on a regular basis. Our job as service providers is to convince them of the cost efficiency of following the recommended inspection schedules.

While routine inspections cost money to perform, they save clients money in the long run by pinpointing HVAC systems that are in need of cleaning, refurbishment and repair, rather than guessing whether a system is the cause of complaints received from occupants. Routine inspections also provide the basis for an IAQ management program.

If inspections aren’t routine and the client wants to have the HVAC systems cleaned, an ACR 2002 evaluation kicks in by requiring that a project assessment be completed before cleaning. This assessment has three parts: 1) building usage classification, 2) HVAC contamination evaluation and 3) environmental impact assessment. I am going to focus on the second part, HVAC contamination evaluation.

ACR 2002 suggests the HVAC contamination evaluation include a visual evaluation of representative sections of the HVAC components and surfaces. The purpose behind the ACR 2002 HVAC contamination evaluation is to ensure various contaminants are taken into consideration when determining appropriate cleaning methods and whether engineering controls are required. In this case study, the ACR 2002 HVAC contamination evaluation proved valuable – not in pinpointing contaminants requiring special techniques and controls – but in identifying the systems that were actually causing problems.

In this particular case study, the client requested HVAC system cleaning because his tenants were complaining of a regular accumulation of particulates on their desks and work areas. The tenants blamed the HVAC system. The client was the owner/property manager of a building housing a laboratory and office area of a state agency. The tenants were not complaining of any illnesses but just the nuisance and concerns caused by the particulates that would accumulate on their desks and work areas. The accumulations would occur mainly over the weekends and when the HVAC system would cycle.

This particular HVAC system-cleaning project was originally quoted prior to the release of ACR 2002. The client had requested cleaning of the largest of three HVAC systems because he believed that was the system causing the problems and the system that served the largest area of the laboratory building. The drawing that was provided to me showed only that one HVAC system serving the areas of the building with complaints. The work was quoted and languished for almost one year.

As this air conditioning season approached, the client had renewed interest in the HVAC system cleaning because the tenant had resumed complaining about particulate accumulation. The client called me to re-bid the work. I went back to inspect the site with him. We went to his office to look for additional prints that showed the other systems and found none. So, I bid the system that he claimed was servicing the areas of concern – the only one that was shown on the drawing.

We were awarded the work and scheduled a start date. The client was informed that on the first day of the project we would perform the HVAC contamination evaluation as per ACR 2002. Section 4.2 states, “The HVAC systems, including air handling units and representative areas of the HVAC system components and ductwork, must be evaluated for contamination levels.”

Our air systems cleaning specialist (as certified by NADCA) conducted the inspection. We inspected the air handler and found that it was fairly clean. Inspection of the components and ductwork related to that air handler also proved to be clean. The inspection also revealed that the air handler really wasn’t servicing the building as the drawing indicated.

We called the client in to show him what we had turned up, and he immediately gave us the OK to inspect the other units that supplied that building and also the systems that supplied the other buildings on this site – a big coup for proving the benefits of routine inspection.

As a result of the HVAC contamination evaluation, we were able to determine that the two smaller systems did the brunt of the conditioning in this building, that the larger system was clean, and that the systems had no evidence of microbial growth or moisture problems and could be cleaned without special environmental controls. We were also able to give the client a modified drawing that detailed the location and size of the ductwork and the location of the diffusers and returns for these previously unknown systems.

The two systems supplied the original building proved to be the culprits of the particulates. The air handling units were very dirty and un-insulated. The filters were the wrong size and poorly installed, and the condensate pans and coils were in desperate need of cleaning. The related ductwork for both systems had significant accumulations of dirt and debris through out. It was apparent that these two smaller systems rather than the largest system needed cleaning and the units needed to be reinsulated.

Presented with the HVAC contamination evaluation results, the client gave the go-ahead to clean the two smaller systems and ignore the largest system. The client then awarded us the two other buildings. The end result for the client was savings in money and time. Tenants were thrilled with the results, and their complaints ceased. The end result for the HVAC cleaning contractor was solving the client’s problem cost-effectively, being awarded additional work and becoming a hero in the client’s eye.

Nancy Yannuzzi, CMR, is business development manager for Air-Vent Duct Cleaning Inc. in Ambler, Pa. A mechanical engineer, she has published articles and presented on IAQ and mold issues for the last five years and has worked in environmental remediation and consulting for 15 years. You can reach her by calling (215) 641-0440 ext. 102 or by e-mail at nancy@airventductcleaning.com.