Blog

A couple of years ago a friend compared me to Paul Revere only she said I rode through the world of indoor air quality crying, “Legislation is coming; legislation is coming”. I must plead guilty, as, for the past several years, I have been stating that, unless the industry establishes standards and methods that bring a leap in perceived credibility and professionalism, we would face government regulation of the indoor environment. Sadly, it looks like I am about to be proven correct.

Legislation Fever
About mid year 2001, a widely circulated industry newspaper started to track bills introduced in the various states. At first, while reading these, I thought they were repeating the same bills month after month. Soon I realized that each month’s listing was a new batch. Now I fear they may have to change the name of their publication to the “IAQ Legislative Activity Tracker”. In a recent issue 40 different bills were detailed…and next year is when things are expected to really heat up.

When you realize that there was virtually no activity last year, what has happened this year is truly amazing. The reasons for all this interest in laws regulating various aspects of the indoor environment are many. One thing is for sure. Few if any legislators walk into their office and announce, “I think I will write a law on such and such today.” Someone brings needs and issues to their attention; usually those ‘back home’.

In the very active states of Texas and California, there are easily identified sources of pressure. Mrs. Ballard from Texas who won a judgment in excess of $30 million from her insurance company when they failed to properly remove mold that accumulated in her home has become a crusader. Her cause has received a lot of national attention as well as sparking a review of insurance coverage strategy that is ongoing. The California laws have been supported by the efforts of Erin Brockovich who is dealing with her own mold contaminated home. She has enlisted friends from the Hollywood community and others. As a result, California has passed the most comprehensive (and some say flawed) legislation to date. We can only wonder what is coming next.

The California Laws
Governor Gray Davis recently signed two bills that promise to regulate toxic mold. One is essentially an information gathering law. Getting the most attention is the “Toxic Mold Protection Act of 2001” that has generated headlines (and considerable controversy) throughout the year as it has worked its way through the assembly as SB 732 or the Ortiz Bill (after sponsor Sen. Deborah Ortiz). This law requires the State Department of Health Services to adopt permissible exposure limits for mold, health threat guidelines, and identification and remediation guidelines. The law is embraced by many supports, but has its critics as well. Some criticize the law as being flawed because it does not mandate use of qualified professionals for testing and remediation. Others view it with alarm because they do not believe science has established useful guidelines. Which leads to the questions additional research needed to understand the indoor environment to regulate it?

The above is a question that remains unanswered but few knowledgeable researchers in the field would answer in the affirmative. We have been writing about Indoor Air Quality and holding formal meetings to share our opinions for a little over 15 years. Over that time, our opinions have changed greatly. The proceedings of conferences held in the mid to late 1980s contain papers dealing with particulate and chemical contamination and the need for outside air to dilute them. Starting in the early 90s, conference planners began to include a paper or two on biological contaminates. By 1995 and 1996, whole conferences were dedicated to bacteria and fungi, but microbial growth was seen as a problem associated with “Hot and Humid Climates”. By the beginning of the new millennium, everyone seemed to be talking about biological contamination and especially the newly popular term “Toxic Mold”.

Headline Cases
What drove this new understanding of our indoor environment? Certainly, high profile problem buildings played a factor. For several years in the early 90s, we were treated to a series of headlines from Bartow, Florida as people in the brand new courthouse became sick, were evacuated, and finally, the building was totally rebuilt at a cost considerably higher than the original cost. The culprit, overgrowth of mold from numerous water leaks. More and more cases followed as the years passed. The details were different, but the headlines always included reference to the high levels of mold encountered. Starting with courthouses, the reports soon turned to contaminated schools. The element of urgency to protect our children was added.

Generally, the print media led the charge with one particularly creative contribution by the Wall Street Journal in early 2000. An enterprising editor sent a reporter out to visit a number of well-known hotels armed with a supply of culture plates. The resulting story was filled with sinister sounding names of the various flora found in the rooms and illustrated with pictures of culture plates with abundant and colorful growths. The electronic media joined in enthusiastically. Not only did the network players such as 60 Minutes and Early Edition produce slick specials on mold contamination in buildings, at least one station in every major market produced features on this rampant “problem”.

The business community responded in kind. Mold remediation companies formed and grew. New laboratories were opened dedicated to processing environmental samples and prospered. Course after course was offered on the techniques of testing for mold and removing it in a safe and responsible manner. These courses could not grow fast enough to keep up with the demand for training of those entering this new field. Various groups and organizations devised ‘certification’ exams to provide the newly trained experts the proper credentials.

Along the way, the medical community took notice and began to ask questions about the health implications. The deaths of several infants in Cleveland were associated with growth of a mold known to be highly toxic by a team of investigators from the CDC. Later the initial reports were discounted, but the issue remains a matter of debate. Could there be an association between all this mold and the rapid growth of asthma? Given the scientific grounding of the medical community, there have been many questions but little in the way of conclusions or action plans.

Science?
In contrast with all the other activity, there has been little science to help us understand the various factors behind this growing problem and how to best deal with it. In part, this is because the level of funding needed to support the kind of basic research needed to completely understand microbial growth in indoor environments requires government funding because most of it is of little immediate commercial use and therefore of little interest to industry. Opportunities were lost in the early 90s. EPA took an early interest partially because one of the first headline grabbing buildings was its own headquarters building. Congress, however, refused funding and instructed the agency to limit its scope to the outdoor environment. In 1994, OSHA proposed an Indoor Air Quality rule and its research arm NIOSH planned an ambitious program of research to support enhancement of the rule. That was all quickly shelved when the rule received a barrage of public comment that sent the framers of the rule back to the drawing board.

There has been some level of research, but it has been limited. A few researchers have secured limited funding from existing government programs, local sources, or professional societies such as ASHRAE. Since none of this, however, has the backing and focus of a major national effort, it is limited and lacks the centrally coordinated focus that a major research effort enjoys. The scientific advisory panels and review boards that are established as part of managing a major government research effort may be frustrating at times to the participants but they tend to move the effort in a direction and pull together the diverse parts of the puzzle. To date, most of the ‘science’ of the indoor environment has been an outgrowth of those who are investigating alleged problem buildings and those who work with them in correcting the identified problems. The individuals publishing this work are sincere and for the most part competent and careful in their work. They are limited, however, in that most of their data results from the opportunities provided by their regular work. They simply do not have the financial independence to take a dispassionate look at the entire population of buildings. They must concentrate on those encountered in their normal workday. As valuable as their insights are, they do not reach the level of basic research and have serious limits. The limits of our current science have been demonstrated very publicly as we have attempted to cope with the recent incidents of Bio Terrorism. From sampling, to treatment, to clean up, we have been learning as we go and some would say; not nearly fast enough.

Where to go?
Clearly there is a problem. Even if as some claim excessive mold growth is a perception fed to us by the media, the monies being expended and the lives disrupted rank it as a national problem of immense proportions. To determine if it is real and if real, to chart the most efficient course to correction of the problem will take a massive effort. This level of effort will require new federal legislation. CSPA held a series of discussions about this problem with congressional staffers during the spring and summer of 2001. There was considerable support and one initiative suggested was including report language in the Health and Human Services Appropriations Bill encouraging the agency to look into the problem. That plan was overshadowed by the events of September 11 and the ensuing war on terrorism.

It is possible that a better understanding of the indoor environment is an important part of the war on terrorism and the call for basic research should quickly move forward. The facts appear to support such a course. What is clear is that we do not today have enough knowledge to write good laws to solve the problems that we do not yet understand except at the most basic level. Yet, if we do not move quickly with preemptive federal legislation establishing indoor environmental leadership, the clamor for legislation in the various states will only intensify during 2002 and the result will be more and more laws built on the need for speed to act rather than sound science.

May 2, 2002

Mr. Baker’s field of expertise is the control of contamination in air-conditioning and ventilating systems by mold, mildew and bacteria. He writes and speaks frequently about the efficacy, legal risks, and regulatory issues involved in various control strategies. He serves on ASHRAE Technical Committee TC 2.3, TC 2.4, TC 9.8, and Sampling of Airborne Particulate Concentration in Commercial and Residential Buildings GPC 17P. He also serves as a member of ASTM D22.06 (Indoor Air Quality) and is on the Board of Directors of the Indoor Air Quality Association and the Florida Public Health Foundation. Because HVAC applications encompass new uses from an U.S. EPA regulatory standpoint, Mr. Baker works closely with the EPA and industry groups, including serving as the chair of the IAQ committee of the Consumer Specialty Products Association, to help formulate policy in this area.

Bob Baker is Chairman and CEO of BBJ Environmental Solutions, Inc., a company specializing in providing clean air through environmentally responsible products, such as BBJ MicroBiocide , BBJ Micro Coil Clean , “FreshDuct Odor Eliminator “, and BBJ Mold and Mildew Remover™ as well as the revolutionary new Power Coil Clean™. For additional information, Mr. Baker can be reached at (800) 889-2251 or through the company web site at www.bbjenviro.com.