Blog

Regulatory and Standards activities during the past several years have been influenced by several drivers. These include:

• Media – The publicity that indoor air quality and especially mold problems have been given by the media has made it a widely recognized and accepted concern.
• Health – Consumers today have very high expectations for health and comfort in general. As indoor air has increasingly been associated with possible health issues and quality of life, the general population has come to demand a cleaner indoor environment. Thus, any regulation or standard that would appear to support improvement in air quality is likely to receive broad support.
• Litigation – The many suits brought for alleged injury and property damage have fed the level of concern.
• Insurance claims for mold and water damaged building interiors have brought additional attention to the entire area.

Currently, there is a bit of a quandary as demand for new regulations and standards is less intense. This is because laws passed so far do not really seem to be responsive to the consumer needs. In addition, the insurance payments that were funding remediation of many of the real and perceived problems are not as freely available. Mold and other air quality related claims rose to alarming levels in the early 2000s and insurance carriers acted aggressively to limit coverage of such matters. Most insurance providers have eliminated or greatly cut back coverage for mold in building interiors and, in some cases, even the water events that lead to mold growth.

At the same time, the research that is needed to provide direction for regulation is finally underway and some findings are being reported. Thus, we have an increasingly strong basis for regulation and standards. For a long time, science has been lacking but we increasingly have the promise of good sound science to point the most productive direction.

Regulation to date

Regulatory efforts have targeted schools very strongly because the public is concerned about and protective of children. Next are public buildings since they have great visibility in the community. In a like manner, commercial buildings have received attention because of the number of people any single building can affect. Fewer regulations have been directed at private residences. Quite a bit of attention has been paid to HVAC systems since these can both serve as an amplification site and spread localized contamination throughout a building. There is general recognition that good routine maintenance is lacking and initiatives are underway to develop an appropriate standard of care.

Although there are many reasons why there is pressure to regulate indoor environmental quality, there are several barriers to developing workable regulations and standards. The first of these is our present inability to identify what quality we whish to achieve. We have not yet been able to define a “normal” indoor environment in ways that we can measure accurately and consistently. This is mainly due to the limitations of our current testing methods.

We suspect that poor air quality can impact health. At the same time, there is not yet solid proof. There are many convincing stories of persons who experience significant health problems that they feel are related to mold or other indoor contamination. Science and medicine have not yet been able to establish a direct link between indoor contamination and health. Finally, where regulations have been proposed, many special interest groups show up stating their case as to why they should be exempted from whatever regulation is being considered. Those pushing for greater regulation then back off feeling that flawed regulations are worse than none at all.

Federal Regulation

The Federal Government has shown little desire to regulate the indoor environment. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has formally dropped an effort to develop an indoor air quality rule for the workplace that was started in 1994. Representative John Conyers introduced his “Toxic Mold Safety and Protection Act” in 2002 and it gained some support but failed to pass. He introduced it again in 2003 and it received virtually no support. He has declined to re-introduce it in 2004. Currently there are no bills being pushed in the US Congress.

Recently, the Institute of Medicine (Part of the National Institutes of Health or NIH) released a report on the relationship between wet and moldy buildings and human health that was requested by the CDC 27 months ago. The report did not show any cause and effect relationship. It did show an association between wet buildings and symptoms such as irritation and allergic reaction and recommended further research. It also recommended better attention to building science and removal of mold found in buildings. Absent additional future findings, there is little in the report that is likely to lead to any demand for new laws or federal regulation.

State Regulation

It is unclear where state regulation is headed. In 2003, 87 Indoor Air Quality and/or mold bills were introduced in the various states and a number passed including a massive law in Texas licensing virtually every aspect of mold related services in the state. In 2004, only 41 bills were introduced and of the five that passed none were major in nature. The most significant development in 2003-2004 has been the passage of the Texas bill and the publication of the rules that will be used to enforce the bill on May 24, 2004. The regulations were opposed at every step of the review and approval process and by almost everyone and are seen by both industry and user groups as a disaster for consumers in Texas. Most expect them to push the cost of mold remediation to a level where it will not be affordable for average consumers. It is a situation that invites abuse.

Efforts to pass legislation in Florida and several other states floundered or failed outright. States will continue to monitor the situation in Texas and additional bills will be introduced requiring disclosure of past mold problems prior to closing of Real Estate transactions. Some school air quality bills are likely to be passed and there will always be more studies authorized. Studies are relatively inexpensive and delay the need to consider laws that mandate actions that may be inappropriate to the real extent of the problem.

Few now expect a flood of state licensing laws because of the perceived failure of Texas to produce a set of workable regulations. Many states will monitor the situation in Texas before taking further action.

What is the future?

It is clear that consumers want a better indoor environment. Sales of portable devices advertised to improve air quality are booming. Most of these have unproven benefits and some have been shown to actually lead to more air pollution. If there is to be progress, it will probably be in the area of consensus industry standards for air quality and the factors such as HVAC system maintenance that impact it. We will look at these in future issues.

Bob Baker is a member of IAQA, ASHRAE, CSPA and Chairman and CEO of BBJ Environmental Solutions, Inc., “The Standard of Care for Indoor Air”. BBJ has offices in Tampa and Hong Kong and Mr. Baker follows indoor air quality developments throughout the world. For additional information, Mr. Baker can be reached at (800) 889-2251 or through the company web site at www.bbjenviro.com