Proactive Facility Management of Indoor Air Quality
By Randy Herold
Hawaii Director, American Indoor Air Quality Council
President, ENPRO EnvironmentalTM
Posted on: Friday, June 27, 2003
Originally written for:
International Facility Management Association (IFMA)
Dallas Convention Center, Dallas, Texas
October 19-21, 2003
Background
Some say it really all started in Cleveland, Ohio in 1994. Often referred to as the "Cleveland Babies" study, it has been the most publicized incident involving Stachybotrys chartarum (atra). Never mind that after the epidemiological study, the Center for Disease Control retracted their preliminary findings. It was too late. The press had bestowed upon Stachybotrys both "Black Mold" and "Toxic Mold" labels. What remains is a symbol of the difficulty of linking environmental exposure and human disease in the face or scientific uncertainty. Although the CDC eventually acknowledged the study data was insufficient to clearly establish a link between Stachybotrys and pulmonary hemosiderosis, the reality is that for most people who surf the web today, Stachybotrys is a killer mold. So much for science.
Fast forward to 1999 when Texas homeowners discovered that their Texas HO-B insurance policies did not require water discharge to be sudden and accidental as is required by standard insurance policies issued in most states. Furthermore, the resulting mold damage from a water release was also a covered loss. Texas insurance companies have paid out just under $4 billion for mold claims in the past three years. The cost of mold claims peaked in July 2002 with insurers paying $215 million on 24,000 claims. Since then the cost attributed to mold has been declining with most homeowner's policies now either limiting or excluding mold claims altogether.
Probably the best known lawsuit over mold damage has been the Ballard case. In June 2001, a jury awarded $32 million (later reduced on appeal) to a Dripping Springs, Texas family, agreeing that Farmers Insurance Company mishandled the family's homeowner's claim for mold damage. The culprit involved - Stachybotrys chartarum (atra), the "Black/Toxic Mold".
There are more than 10,000 lawsuits dealing with mold pending in the United States, and one prominent plaintiff's attorney recently estimated that, over the next five to ten years, hundreds of thousands of cases alleging mold-related injury and property damage will be filed.
The Reaction - Part I
Up until very recently the reaction to the new mold awareness has been reminiscent of asbestos in the early 1980s. Before the USEPA got their arms around the asbestos problem, there was a proliferation of "rip and run" contractors who would not only test for asbestos, but remove it as well. Unfortunately, many of these contactors were sham artists. It took almost a decade for the regulators to all but eliminate the bad actors.
Mold is opportunistic - so too have been the new "experts". To become a mold remediation contractor all one needed was a magnetic sign for the pickup and a $10 Tyvek® suit. Even less investment was required to be an investigator. Their mantras included "When in doubt, rip it out" and "Mold is Gold".
The Reaction - Part II
With insurance coverage now very limited, the less than reputable mold remediators and unqualified investigators have become fewer and fewer.
There has also been a shift from being reactive to being proactive. Just as the insurance industry decided to do something to combat the mold issue, property managers, owners, Realtors®, and business leaders have undertaken strategies to implement proactive measures to recognize, respond and rectify mold contamination within their properties and work environments.
Due to the expense of dealing with the mold phenomena, legislators are also being quick to respond. During the 2003 legislative session, state lawmakers around the country introduced more than 30 bills related to mold in 23 different states. Many of these are focused on establishing task forces to conduct a variety of studies; others are tailored to develop uniform guidelines.
For those who have been or fear they will be impacted by mold, the message is clear - be prepared.
Taking Action - The Mold and Moisture Prevention and Response Program
Today, buyers, tenants and employees expect to acquire property and work in an environment where the air is free of contaminants and discomfort. With a heightened public awareness, the expectation is to provide a healthy indoor environment. This expectation places property owners and facility managers at risk whether the risk is health, legal or financial in nature. One strategy available to reduce such risk is to establish a Mold and Moisture Prevention and Response Program.
In a larger context, the Mold Moisture Prevention and Response Program is an important component of managing properties for acceptable indoor air quality (IAQ). Other IAQ concerns include asbestos, radon, pesticides, physical stressors and chemical contaminants that can be combined with biological contaminants (such as fungi, mold) to produce a comprehensive IAQ Program.
The Mold Moisture Prevention and Response Program has several key elements:
1. Training
2. Administrative Controls
3. Engineering Strategies
4. Communication
5. Baseline and Periodic Inspections
6. Procedures
7. Investigation Protocols/Contingency Planning
With the implementation and establishment of a well-planned program, property managers and building owners have a new set of tools to a proactive approach to minimize risks from mold and poor indoor air quality.
Back to news
|
