Re: Mold forces evacuation of Sarasota County's green prize

[Guest guest]

Hi, Sharon and all:

Thank you for posting this article.

The issue, as I see it, is why there is no requirement in the LEED

accreditation process regarding renovated buildings for a thorough

visual inspection for water damage and microbial growth. I have

reviewed the accreditation process and I have not found any such

requirement.

The second issue is, what can we as IEQ professionals do about the

LEED process in order to include mold as part of the building

evalution? The current IAQ methods included in the LEED process do

not address this issue. As the green building movement grows, IMHO,

this will become a growing (excuse the pun!) problem.

I welcome a discussion on this issue.

Don

>

>

>

>

>

> Mold forces evacuation of Sarasota County's green prize

> December 27, 2007 2:59 PM

> Microbial colonizations spoil Sarasota County's first LEED-

certified

> green building complex.

>

> Charlotte Sun-Herald - Charlotte Harbor,FL*

> By GREG GILES

> Venice News Editor

>

> _http://www.sun-http://www.http://www.suhttp://www._

> (http://www.sun-herald.com/breakingnews.cfm?id=4290)

>

> Sarasota County's green sustainability program took it on the chin

> this past week.

>

> The county's administrative Twin Lakes Green Building Complex has

> mold -- enough to require evacuation of the building, according to

> County Administrator Jim Ley.

>

> Building A, a one-story facility home to 45 parks and recreation,

> library and other staff, will be evacuated beginning next week.

>

> Renovation could begin by the end of January, according to

> McCarthy, general manager for county parks and recreation.

>

> Personnel will be moved to various locations, but the parks and

> recreation reservation office will remain on campus to minimize

> interruption during peak season, McCarthy said.

>

> " Last week we identified who all need to go (and) made

arrangements

> for a firm to come in and work on the building. It's a short term

> move (that) comes at a time where we want to minimize disruption, "

> McCarthy said.

>

> Nobody has suffered any ill effects from the mold, so far, he

said.

>

> " This is preventative. " T

>

> Odorous

>

> On Dec. 19, County Administrator Jim Ley informed county

> commissioners via an interoffice memo about the mold problem.

>

> When staff first sensed an odor, Pure Air Control Services was

> brought in for testing, according to Ley's memo.

>

> The company found " carpet backing displayed discoloration caused

by

> microbial colonization (mold) " in numerous locations.

>

> They " confirm(ed) excessive mold in all locations tested. " The

> condition of the carpets was considered " unmanageable,condition of

> replacement of the floor.

>

> They'll study the rest of the building to see if airborne mold is

a

> problem and confirm the mold hasn't made its way into the walls.

>

> Setback?

>

> County Commissioner Staub, one of 10 county commissioners

> nationally to serve on the Green Government Initiative advisory

> board, a National Association of Counties program that helps

> counties throughout the country develop and implement

> environmentally sustainable programs and practices, took the news

in

> stride.

>

> " These things happen and we will do our best to fix the problem, "

> Staub said.

>

> " It seems to me that this is a pretty unusual case -- with the

past

> history of being built on a marsh area by the private sector, then

> us renovating it and trying the underground drainage that was

> suggested. We tried to fix the issue -- but didn't get the

> underground drainage to work. "

>

> While the development is unfortunate, Staub doesn't see it

hindering

> green building efforts.

>

> " I don't think this will affect our future plans to build and

> renovate to the green standards. Green building is the only way to

> build and renovate for future sustainability. That hasn't

changed, "

> she said.

>

> Building A was originally built in 1970 on a marsh by the Kansas

> City Royals baseball team and used as a dormitory for players.

>

> The county came into ownership of the building when it took over

the

> facility and created Twin Lakes Park, converting it into an office

> building.

>

> The U.S. Green Building Council awarded the complex (which

consists

> of the new Building B and the renovated Building A) its

prestigious

> gold-level LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design)

> certification in 2005.

>

> The designation recognizes buildings and grounds that

> are " environmentally responsible, profitable and healthy places to

> live and work. "

>

> Problem resurfaces

>

> The county first discovered mold back in 2003 when it decided to

> renovate the building while at the same time building the new

> adjacent green office building.

>

> It hired Ardaman Associates to assess the situation.

>

> Ardaman determined the problem existed because the building was

> originally constructed on " unsuitable soil. "

>

> The county eventually hired an architectural firm to design a

> perimeter drainage system to eliminate moisture intrusion.

According

> to Ley, it was the only cost effective solution.

>

> The architect/contractoThe architect/contracto<WBR>r, however, wou

> system would solve the problem.

>

> With their only alternative being to tear the building down, the

> county decided to move forward with the drainage project.

>

> In November Gov. Charlie Crist went on an environmentally friendly

> building tour throughout Florida, stopping off in Sarasota County

to

> recognize efforts here.

>

> The complex on Road in Sarasota houses administrative

offices

> for Sarasota County Community Services, which includes libraries,

> parks and recreation, the History Center and the University of

> Florida-Sarasota County Extension.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> **************************************See AOL's top rated recipes

> (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Don,

I almost missed this post. I have wondered about the aspect that the LEED program does not address microbial contamination, too. Somebody please correct me if I am wrong. (Hey Tony, this is where you usually jump in!) But what was the original purpose of the green building movement? Was it to keep outside air pollution from getting into buildings? And to avoid chemicals in the indoor environment?

I maybe totally off base on this one, but it seems to me there is a problem with the concept of green buildings in that they could actually encourage microbial contaminants indoors because it seems to lean toward airtight construction with filtered air re circulating. Buildings that breathe outside air with natural airflow seem to be more conducive to deterring microbial growth. Right?

Isn't the green building movement partially in place because of the concern of global warming?

Sharon

Hi, Sharon and all:Thank you for posting this article. :)The issue, as I see it, is why there is no requirement in the LEED accreditation process regarding renovated buildings for a thorough visual inspection for water damage and microbial growth. I have reviewed the accreditation process and I have not found any such requirement. The second issue is, what can we as IEQ professionals do about the LEED process in order to include mold as part of the building evalution? The current IAQ methods included in the LEED process do not address this issue. As the green building movement grows, IMHO, this will become a growing (excuse the pun!) problem. I welcome a discussion on this issue.Don

Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape in the new year.

[Guest guest]

Sharon:

Don’t get too dismayed. I too am disappointed with LEED.

LEED – Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design.....heavy on the “Design” is supposed to make buildings more attractive, more energy efficient, more healthy for the occupants, and more sustainable. Initially I was a proponent of LEED, and LEED has some very good intentions, however, now I am much more skeptical. Why? Because most significant architectural firms are jumping on the LEED bandwagon and it is now one-upmanship between design firms to see how many LEED projects they have on the board. Many municipalities are now requiring LEED-certified buildings, opportunities abound, and there are LEED-certified one-day wonder people who have no business or background being LEED certified.....go to class, take a test, viola....you are now LEED certified. Unfortunately, not is all green and good, and wouldn’t you know it, some green practices actually promote biological growth! Who would have thunk! I know I did. Anyone who has taken my building science class knows that I start-off being a bit negative towards architects who design for form and not function. But what really gets my goat is the fact that LEED certification is an Atta Boy, good feeling thing, when a building is designed and built, and the Gold certification gets the architects back-slapping each other upon building commissioning, or certificate of completion. In my opinion, this certification should come five years after a building is commissioned to see if it performs as designed. If it saves energy as designed. If it is healthy for the occupants as designed. If it performs as designed, then and only then, should it get its LEED certification. But no, the architects want their LEED certification before the last coat of paint is dry. Herein lies the weakness of LEED.......no performance guarantees. It is all on paper.

I am big on sustainability, reuse, low impact, and long-term low-cost performance. LEED is a great step in the right direction. There are some great LEED projects. However, I predict we will see many more LEED certified buildings with mold problems. It is a given. Green is good, and green can promote mold.

For what it is worth.....

Hi Don,

I almost missed this post. I have wondered about the aspect that the LEED program does not address microbial contamination, too. Somebody please correct me if I am wrong. (Hey Tony, this is where you usually jump in!) But what was the original purpose of the green building movement? Was it to keep outside air pollution from getting into buildings? And to avoid chemicals in the indoor environment?

I maybe totally off base on this one, but it seems to me there is a problem with the concept of green buildings in that they could actually encourage microbial contaminants indoors because it seems to lean toward airtight construction with filtered air re circulating. Buildings that breathe outside air with natural airflow seem to be more conducive to deterring microbial growth. Right?

Isn't the green building movement partially in place because of the concern of global warming?

Sharon

Hi, Sharon and all:

Thank you for posting this article.

The issue, as I see it, is why there is no requirement in the LEED

accreditation process regarding renovated buildings for a thorough

visual inspection for water damage and microbial growth. I have

reviewed the accreditation process and I have not found any such

requirement.

The second issue is, what can we as IEQ professionals do about the

LEED process in order to include mold as part of the building

evalution? The current IAQ methods included in the LEED process do

not address this issue. As the green building movement grows, IMHO,

this will become a growing (excuse the pun!) problem.

I welcome a discussion on this issue.

Don

[Guest guest]

Don,

That is great news. I can give you some real life examples of the problems with LEED not acknowledging mold. As an example, Healthy Schools Network out of New York has been working diligently for over twenty years to promote the need for chemically free buildings and good indoor air quality. They have been a major force in the change in schools over this matter. Yet, they are of little to no help what so ever to the teachers that are sick from mold and who support HSN. Even one of the HSN medical advisors, Dr. Carpenter, who has volunteered much time and effort to improve the IAQ of schools, does not understand (or believe) that mold may make one seriously ill. So it is very frustrating for the teachers who are sick. They work hard to get the buildings cleaned up by supporting this organization and others, but no one helps the mold sick teachers.

So while HSN has done much to improve the indoor school environment by supporting LEED and the green building concept, the mold sick teachers that support HSN are slipping thru the cracks. And one cannot expect HSN to change this situation on their own. The change needs to come from the LEED program itself.

Sharon

Hi, Sharon:Last week I wrote to the USGBC, and I am hopeful of a reply soon about this aspect of LEED and green buildings. I will keep the group posted on what USGBC has to say about this issue.Don

Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape in the new year.

[Guest guest]

Hi, Sharon:

Last week I wrote to the USGBC, and I am hopeful of a reply soon

about this aspect of LEED and green buildings. I will keep the group

posted on what USGBC has to say about this issue.

Don

>

>

> Hi Don,

>

> I almost missed this post. I have wondered about the aspect that

the LEED

> program does not address microbial contamination, too. Somebody

please

> correct me if I am wrong. (Hey Tony, this is where you usually

jump in!) But what

> was the original purpose of the green building movement? Was it

to keep

> outside air pollution from getting into buildings? And to avoid

chemicals in the

> indoor environment?

>

> I maybe totally off base on this one, but it seems to me there is a

problem

> with the concept of green buildings in that they could actually

encourage

> microbial contaminants indoors because it seems to lean toward

airtight

> construction with filtered air re circulating. Buildings that

breathe outside air

> with natural airflow seem to be more conducive to deterring

microbial growth.

> Right?

>

> Isn't the green building movement partially in place because of the

concern

> of global warming?

>

> Sharon

>

>

> In a message dated 1/3/2008 10:31:30 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,

> don.weekes@... writes:

>

> Hi, Sharon and all:

>

> Thank you for posting this article.

>

> The issue, as I see it, is why there is no requirement in the

LEED

> accreditation process regarding renovated buildings for a thorough

> visual inspection for water damage and microbial growth. I have

> reviewed the accreditation process and I have not found any such

> requirement.

>

> The second issue is, what can we as IEQ professionals do about the

> LEED process in order to include mold as part of the building

> evalution? The current IAQ methods included in the LEED process do

> not address this issue. As the green building movement grows,

IMHO,

> this will become a growing (excuse the pun!) problem.

>

> I welcome a discussion on this issue.

>

> Don

>

>

>

>

>

>

> **************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in

shape.

> http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?

NCID=aolcmp00300000002489

>

[Guest guest]

I can attest that from a builder's perspective, that the LEED program

does not even begin to address the real issues associated with indoor

air quality or microbial potential. Several of our clients over the

past year have enquired about the rating. My suggestion is to save

the money that is required to achieve the rating and put it into

sensible construction methods and energy performance.

LEED does little to address indoor air quality beyond low emitting

materials. The fallacy we see every day with " green building " is -

as soon as the homeowner furnishes their new home with all sorts of

volatile furnishings, cleans with all sorts of volatile chemicals,

deodorizes the home with all sorts of volatile air fresheners, kills

bugs with all sorts of volatile pesticides, introduces all sorts of

plants and pets to their home, and tracks yard pesticides & chemicals

into their new home, all the green building standards in the world

are instantaneously rendered worthless.

We see more liability with mold and moisture than we do (or will)

with volatile building materials. That's where the customer should

focus. Moisture kills more homes than termites.

The answer is - invest in a high performance HVAC system, make sure

it is properly balanced and sized, use an air exchanger, use an in-

system dehumidifier and 95% of the indoor air quality problem is

resolved. This little tidbit can save the " green " homeowner a bundle

in the long run - and it saves me a dumpster load full of headaches

(not that my customers seem to care).

Will

> >

> >

> > Hi Don,

> >

> > I almost missed this post. I have wondered about the aspect

that

> the LEED

> > program does not address microbial contamination, too. Somebody

> please

> > correct me if I am wrong. (Hey Tony, this is where you usually

> jump in!) But what

> > was the original purpose of the green building movement? Was it

> to keep

> > outside air pollution from getting into buildings? And to avoid

> chemicals in the

> > indoor environment?

> >

> > I maybe totally off base on this one, but it seems to me there is

a

> problem

> > with the concept of green buildings in that they could actually

> encourage

> > microbial contaminants indoors because it seems to lean toward

> airtight

> > construction with filtered air re circulating. Buildings that

> breathe outside air

> > with natural airflow seem to be more conducive to deterring

> microbial growth.

> > Right?

> >

> > Isn't the green building movement partially in place because of

the

> concern

> > of global warming?

> >

> > Sharon

> >

> >

> > In a message dated 1/3/2008 10:31:30 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,

> > don.weekes@ writes:

> >

> > Hi, Sharon and all:

> >

> > Thank you for posting this article.

> >

> > The issue, as I see it, is why there is no requirement in the

> LEED

> > accreditation process regarding renovated buildings for a

thorough

> > visual inspection for water damage and microbial growth. I have

> > reviewed the accreditation process and I have not found any such

> > requirement.

> >

> > The second issue is, what can we as IEQ professionals do about

the

> > LEED process in order to include mold as part of the building

> > evalution? The current IAQ methods included in the LEED process

do

> > not address this issue. As the green building movement grows,

> IMHO,

> > this will become a growing (excuse the pun!) problem.

> >

> > I welcome a discussion on this issue.

> >

> > Don

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > **************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in

> shape.

> > http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?

> NCID=aolcmp00300000002489

> >

>

[Guest guest]

This goes back to an argument I have been making for the

past few years. The word “commissioning” from the designers

standpoint means little to the actual performance of a building. Why? Too much

is based on assumptions which later prove to be false. I can’t even count

the number of buildings that I have evaluated that have commissioning reports.

I find the same issues in most of them (e.g. drop ceiling plenums, leaky

building envelopes, poor humidity control, etc., etc., etc.) I have to agree

that there is a big rush to see who has the most LEED Certs under their belt.

When I took my LEED exam, I chose to take the EB track for a reason. The reason

is that LEED NC is design based, while LEED EB is performance based. I think

that most of us can agree that many IAQ problems in buildings originate on the

performance and O & M side of the equation. Sure, we still have many

designers that know little about the effects of air leakage through the

building enclosure or all of the dynamics (e.g. stack effects, barometric

cycling, temperature cycling) involved in moisture transport, but a good

consultant, brought in at pre-design phase can help with that. My concern is

that in the rush to certification, too little attention is being paid to

maintaining the certifications over the long term. That’s why I personally

believe that the LEED EB O & M cert is the one with which truly interested

parties should play a role. I have worked on several projects recently that

experienced significant mold and moisture problems. I had one look, did some

modeling of the walls and alas dew points were reached within the cavity. I

mentioned WUFI to the designers and they looked at each other and scratched

their heads. There is definitely quite a learning curve from a building science

perspective. Hopefully, the years ahead will provide for a better qualified

team from the onset of projects rather than bringing them in a year later as

forensic investigators.

Al Tibbs, LEED AP, CIAQT, CIEC, CIAQM

C.L.I. Group, LLC

Cleveland, OH

www.cligroup.net