Regulatory and Standards Activities Relative to HVAC Systems and Mold Assessment and Remediation
By Bob Baker
This column and the one next month are adapted from a paper I presented in Vancouver, BC on September 30. It summarizes the many proposed regulations and standards that are currently being debated in the United States. Some of these will have a strong and lasting impact on the HVAC industry.
Background
For the past several years, there has been an active debate about regulation and/or standards for the various aspects of indoor environmental quality. On one hand, most of us share a feeling that completed research into the indoor environment is far from adequate to start setting standards. On the other hand, there is a high level of agreement that heating ventilation and air-conditioning (HVAC) systems can have a significant impact on indoor environmental quality. Systems can carry contamination from one part of a building to another and thus spread spores and viable organisms. Improperly designed or operated systems can allow for conditions favorable to microbial amplification. Under some conditions HVAC system components can act as a reservoir or source for microbial growth. There is considerable support for improved design and operating standards. Building design, materials and construction have all been identified as potential trouble areas so both regulations and standards are being reviewed in these areas. Finally, some individuals providing mold investigation and remediation services are alleged to provide inadequate, overpriced on un-needed services so pressure has been brought to provide for better regulation.
A major concern is that we have not even devised a definition of a "normal" environment that we all agree on, much less figured out how those conditions can be best achieved or what methods can be consistently utilized to measure their attainment. For example, test methods are a continuing subject of study and debate. Although many methods have been developed that collect data on various dimensions of indoor environments, it is generally agreed that any such data collected must be analyzed and interpreted by individuals with extensive knowledge and long experience. Even then, the opinions provided are open to error. Coupled with this complexity is the significant variation from individual to individual in occupant response to indoor environmental conditions. What may be held to be a comfortable environment for one individual may be totally intolerable for another. Ultimately, the response of the occupants of a given space is the only criteria that can differentiate a normal (or acceptable) space from a problem space.
Especially problematic is the biological characterization of indoor spaces. The measurement and reporting of levels of bacteria and fungi and/or their spores as well as emissions and decay products resulting from the growth of such organisms utilizes a wide variety of methods and techniques. New methods such as the measurement and characterization of the release of microbial associated volatile organic compounds are very much in the developmental stage. Other methods such as viable and non-viable air sampling, although in common and widespread use for years, are acknowledged to incorporate significant risk of error. Currently, there is significant interest in adapting PCR technology to indoor testing and analysis. It is far too early to determine if that approach will bring the needed accuracy and dependability. It is common for prudent investigators to utilize multiple methodologies, collect many samples and carefully interpret the data obtained. Unfortunately, this is costly and places quality inspection and analysis out of the reach of many. Another concern is the growing realization that there can be significant variation of analysis results from laboratory to laboratory and even within the same laboratory on different dates or performed by different technicians. For these reasons and more, many investigators do not sample as a normal procedure or take samples only to confirm visual observations.
Even though the above limitations are widely recognized, there has been significant demand for greater uniformity in approaches to describing what is an acceptable level of indoor environmental quality and making the needed changes to achieve such a condition. The pressure has been especially intense as related to concerns about excessive levels of fungal biomass in building interiors. Much of this pressure has been generated by media reports of high profile events related in the United States to public buildings such as courthouses and schools. In addition, litigation over perceived indoor environment related health conditions and property damage has grown exponentially in recent years.
During the summer of 2001, flooding throughout the Midwestern US, Texas and Louisiana resulted in an avalanche of insurance claims for property damage. Much of the damage was alleged to be from mold growth (often sensationalized as "toxic mold") and many contractors and property owners insisted on complex and expensive procedures to correct the damage and restore the property. The number and size of insurance claims generated during this period led to a crisis in the affected areas that quickly spread to other states and soon included claims for all manner of "mold problems" from a variety of causes. Insurance companies acted to contain their exposure by dropping or limiting coverage. Concerned citizens called for some kind of action. This led to pressure for both regulation and industry wide standards.
Federal Initiative
Congressman Conyers (D-MI) introduced HR1268 (Toxic Mold Safety and Protection Act) in the US House of Representatives in 2002 and again in 2003. This bill known as the Melina Bill (after the name of the daughter of a staff member in the congressman's office who was alleged to have acquired a health condition related to mold in her home) focused more attention on the issue. This bill did not gain wide support. There were only 26 co-sponsors when it was first introduced in 2002 and far fewer during the 2003 session. This lack of support was believed to be less related to the perceived need for action and interest in the issue and more to other issues (The sponsor of the bill is a well known democrat and the bill contained "social engineering content" not popular with the current administration and congressional leadership.) Still, it served to expand the impression that something must be done. Adding to the pressure for action were claims that many of the "mold remediation projects" done in 2001 were not necessary, over priced and/or incompetently executed. One result of all of this was a public outcry for legislation to "address the problem".
State Activities
Many states had legislation in play during 2003 related to IAQ and mold. This included 28 states with a total of 87 pieces of legislation
- 12 states had legislation specific to IAQ and schools.
- 10 states had legislation addressing IAQ in public buildings, often including schools. (This does not include bills specific to tobacco smoke.)
- 20 states had active mold bills in 2003.
- Multiple bills introduced in 8 states (FL, LA, MI, NJ, NY, PA, TN, TX).
- Regulation of remediation proposed in 8 states (AZ, CA, FL, LA, NJ, NV, NY, TX).
A new law was passed in 2003 in Texas:
- HB329 passed and was signed into law
- Mandates regulation of mold assessment and remediation
- Licensure of mold assessors and remediators
- Accreditation of training providers
- State examinations, qualifications, fees
- Prescribes process for assessment and remediation
- Establishes clearance criteria for completed remediation work
- Assigns enforcement to the Texas Department of Health (as opposed to the professional licensing board as with other trades).
Initially, a more complex bill was proposed in the Senate (SB129) that was modeled on existing laws regulating asbestos and lead remediation. The more general house bill was eventually substituted as it was felt that current science does not support the regulatory rigor anticipated in the Senate bill.
Currently, work is proceeding to write enabling regulations that will become effective April 2004. The direction of these regulations is controversial with some pushing for a strong level of regulation consistent with the more complex Senate bill and others insisting on minimal regulation consistent with the intention of the bill that actually passed. The final outcome of this debate is unknown as of mid September 2003. The schedule however seems relaxed somewhat as the final draft that was to have been submitted September 8 was not complete as of September 23. This is being watched closely as many states are expected in 2004 to follow the pattern of whatever course of action is eventually taken in Texas.
Louisiana also passed a bill in the 2003 legislative session. This bill, however, was a straightforward contractor licensing law that is very much parallel to the laws regulating other construction related trades. It does not contain the technical components particular to mold remediation that Texas has included. Neither does it mandate multiple licenses for a single business.
Interestingly, a mold remediation-licensing bill passed both houses in Nevada. This bill, however, never became a law due to factors unrelated to the subject of mold or air quality. There was a partisan dispute involving the bill sponsor.
State activity is expected to greatly expand during the next year as the regulations implementing the Texas law are finalized and placed into effect. Early indications include the following:
- Washington DC has draft rules and will soon be ready to regulate.
- Hawaii is looking at 2004 as the year to pass a law. Several very high profile mold related incidents in that state have attracted considerable attention to the issue.
- The Nevada bill will be re-introduced
- Florida came close in 2003 and seems certain to pass a bill in 2004
Next month, we will continue with a discussion of New and proposed Standards.
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 http://www.bbjenviro.com.
|
