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

[Guest guest]

Hi Mr. Henry,

Good to know. So is there anyway that thru LEED that more emphasis could be added to address the curtailing of moisture and microbial growth? What is the difference between LEED and the Green Building movement? How are they related? Forgive my ignorance on this point. I typically look more at the medical side of this issue.

Sharon

Sharon and Don -LEED gives extra points for greater amounts of ventilation air, so theyencourage more ventilation, not less. They also would encouragenatural ventilation, when climate allows. Because it's achoose-your-own-points program, with few mandatory requirements,designers and builders will still need encouragement and education tomake sure that buildings receive adequate ventilation, but we knowthat's very much the case. Shaughnessy's study of fifth graders(I think) found some schools had NO ventilation. At least a LEEDschool will meet ASHRAE minimum.What they discourage is excess energy use (and in one study, LEEDbuildings used 25- 30% less energy than average conventionalconstruction). In many communities, natural ventilation is challengingwhen outside temperatures may reach 100 degrees F several days in a row.I agree that LEED does not do much to limit or control moisture. Evenwith LEED, you can build a negatively-pressurized leaky building withvinyl wallpaper in Florida, or have construction crews leave gapingholes above the suspended ceiling allowing humid air everywhere. But ifyou're going LEED, you are less likely to design or build carelessly.In this particular building in Sarasota, what I've read suggests that itwas built in an area with high water table (not necessarily a swamp,but...). The county bought it at a bargain price and re-fitted it toLEED, but they still had moisture coming through the slab or foundation.Natural air flow would not have changed this result.HenryAs usual, this is my opinion and while I am happy to share it, pleasedon't claim it as my employer's opinion.

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

[Guest guest]

Don,

Thank you very much for initiating this discourse with the USGBC. I have also found it very difficult to help clients and prospective clients with the IEQ credit requirements.

In addition to questions and problems with the specified EPA testing methodologies themselves, which you have summarized well, there are unspecified requirements to document that sampling is performed over a minimum four hour period with mechanical systems operating at their minimum ventilation settings during normal duty cycles. What documentation is a testing professional supposed to submit to satisfy the LEED application reviewers so that the (passing) sampling results are not challenged or rejected based upon these mechanical system operational settings which the IH typically has no way to control?

There are other issues to consider as well that I hope will be brought out in constructive discussions between the GBC "judges" and those of us who know how to assess IEQ parameters.

Please do keep us informed. LEED accreditation is becoming very popular among building professionals, but it currently seems to be more about "bragging rights" than it is about performance-based improvements in energy conservation and environmental impact. I liked Geyer's comments about LEED certification being issued only after the design improvements have been documented to perform as intended.

Steve Temes

Thanks, Henry, for your reply. I agree with you that LEED

accreditation is better for most buildings because the requirements

for increased ventilation and decreased energy costs. It is a good

program, and I encourage all building designers and owners to adhere

to the credits and requirements when they are renovating older

buildings or building new buildings.

However, it must be said that there is some 'gaps' in the program,

particularly when it comes in indoor air quality and moisture.

These 'gaps' will become more critical when more and more buildings

undergo the LEED accreditation process, as I believe will happen as

oil prices skyrocket. That is why I wrote to the USGBC the following:

'Recently, our firm has been receiving a number of requests for

technical assistance from construction companies and A/E firms for

indoor air quality sampling prior to occupancy, EQ Credit 3.2, Option

3. According to this option, the baseline IAQ testing must be

conducted `using test protocols consistent with the United States

Environmental Protection Agency "Compendium of Methods for the

Determination of Air Pollutants in Indoor Air" and demonstrate that

the contaminants listed in Table 1 are not exceeded'.

Table 1 lists particulate matter (PM10), formaldehyde, total volatile

organic compounds, carbon monoxide, and 4-Phenycyclohexene (4-PC) and

a column of the maximum concentrations not be exceeded for each of

these contaminants.

I have the USEPA Compendium, and I note that this compendium of

methods has not been updated since 1989. Many of the sampling and

analytical methods listed have been replaced with methods that are

more exacting and accurate, less time consuming, and less expensive.

Also, the PM10 air sampling method for the measurement of total

particulates is not usually utilized for indoor environments, and it

is better suited for outdoor ambient sampling.

I also note that the list of IAQ contaminants in Table 1 is somewhat

limited. For example, it does not consider other possible indoor air

contaminants such as mold, humidity, and ultra-fine particulates.

My question is whether the indoor air quality criteria in EQ Credit

3.2, Option 3 are subject to periodic review and update. If so, we

are interested in participating in this process. As a leading IAQ

consultant with an interest in LEED, we believe we are well qualified

to assist with the review and updating of this criteria.

I would appreciate if I could receive a reply as soon as possible on

this matter. Thank you for your time!'

I hope to hear back from the USGBC in the near future. At that time,

I plan to share with this group what I find out.

Don

>

>

>Sharon and Don -

>

>LEED gives extra points for greater amounts of ventilation air, so

they

>encourage more ventilation, not less. They also would encourage

>natural ventilation, when climate allows. Because it's a

>choose-your-own-points program, with few mandatory requirements,

>designers and builders will still need encouragement and education

to

>make sure that buildings receive adequate ventilation, but we know

>that's very much the case. Shaughnessy's study of fifth

graders

>(I think) found some schools had NO ventilation. At least a LEED

>school will meet ASHRAE minimum.

>

>What they discourage is excess energy use (and in one study, LEED

>buildings used 25- 30% less energy than average conventional

>construction). In many communities, natural ventilation is

challenging

>when outside temperatures may reach 100 degrees F several days in a

row.

>

>I agree that LEED does not do much to limit or control moisture.

Even

>with LEED, you can build a negatively-pressurized leaky building

with

>vinyl wallpaper in Florida, or have construction crews leave gaping

>holes above the suspended ceiling allowing humid air everywhere.

But if

>you're going LEED, you are less likely to design or build

carelessly.

>

>In this particular building in Sarasota, what I've read suggests

that it

>was built in an area with high water table (not necessarily a swamp,

>but...). The county bought it at a bargain price and re-fitted it

to

>LEED, but they still had moisture coming through the slab or

foundation.

>Natural air flow would not have changed this result.

>

>

>Henry

>

>As usual, this is my opinion and while I am happy to share it,

please

>don't claim it as my employer's opinion.

[Guest guest]

Hey Guys,

What it sounds like to me is that LEED does a great job on energy conservation, but fails to properly address any aspect of specific requirements or points for doing moisture control. Isn't that what got us into trouble with mold in the first place? Again. Not well versed on this issue and not dissing LEED. Just trying to understand the logic.

Sharon

Don,Thank you very much for initiating this discourse with the USGBC. I have also found it very difficult to help clients and prospective clients with the IEQ credit requirements.In addition to questions and problems with the specified EPA testing methodologies themselves, which you have summarized well, there are unspecified requirements to document that sampling is performed over a minimum four hour period with mechanical systems operating at their minimum ventilation settings during normal duty cycles. What documentation is a testing professional supposed to submit to satisfy the LEED application reviewers so that the (passing) sampling results are not challenged or rejected based upon these mechanical system operational settings which the IH typically has no way to control?There are other issues to consider as well that I hope will be brought out in constructive discussions between the GBC "judges" and those of us who know how to assess IEQ parameters.Please do keep us informed. LEED accreditation is becoming very popular among building professionals, but it currently seems to be more about "bragging rights" than it is about performance-based improvements in energy conservation and environmental impact. I liked Geyer's comments about LEED certification being issued only after the design improvements have been documented to perform as intended.Steve TemesIn a message dated 1/8/2008 2:38:50 PM Eastern Standard Time, don.weekesinairenvironmental (DOT) ca writes:

Thanks, Henry, for your reply. I agree with you that LEED accreditation is better for most buildings because the requirements for increased ventilation and decreased energy costs. It is a good program, and I encourage all building designers and owners to adhere to the credits and requirements when they are renovating older buildings or building new buildings.However, it must be said that there is some 'gaps' in the program, particularly when it comes in indoor air quality and moisture. These 'gaps' will become more critical when more and more buildings undergo the LEED accreditation process, as I believe will happen as oil prices skyrocket. That is why I wrote to the USGBC the following:'Recently, our firm has been receiving a number of requests for technical assistance from construction companies and A/E firms for indoor air quality sampling prior to occupancy, EQ Credit 3.2, Option 3. According to this option, the baseline IAQ testing must be conducted `using test protocols consistent with the United States Environmental Protection Agency "Compendium of Methods for the Determination of Air Pollutants in Indoor Air" and demonstrate that the contaminants listed in Table 1 are not exceeded'.Table 1 lists particulate matter (PM10), formaldehyde, total volatile organic compounds, carbon monoxide, and 4-Phenycyclohexene (4-PC) and a column of the maximum concentrations not be exceeded for each of these contaminants.I have the USEPA Compendium, and I note that this compendium of methods has not been updated since 1989. Many of the sampling and analytical methods listed have been replaced with methods that are more exacting and accurate, less time consuming, and less expensive. Also, the PM10 air sampling method for the measurement of total particulates is not usually utilized for indoor environments, and it is better suited for outdoor ambient sampling. I also note that the list of IAQ contaminants in Table 1 is somewhat limited. For example, it does not consider other possible indoor air contaminants such as mold, humidity, and ultra-fine particulates.My question is whether the indoor air quality criteria in EQ Credit 3.2, Option 3 are subject to periodic review and update. If so, we are interested in participating in this process. As a leading IAQ consultant with an interest in LEED, we believe we are well qualified to assist with the review and updating of this criteria.I would appreciate if I could receive a reply as soon as possible on this matter. Thank you for your time!'I hope to hear back from the USGBC in the near future. At that time, I plan to share with this group what I find out.Don>>>Sharon and Don ->>LEED gives extra points for greater amounts of ventilation air, so they>encourage more ventilation, not less. They also would encourage>natural ventilation, when climate allows. Because it's a>choose-your-own-points program, with few mandatory requirements,>designers and builders will still need encouragement and education to>make sure that buildings receive adequate ventilation, but we know>that's very much the case. Shaughnessy's study of fifth graders>(I think) found some schools had NO ventilation. At least a LEED>school will meet ASHRAE minimum.>>What they discourage is excess energy use (and in one study, LEED>buildings used 25- 30% less energy than average conventional>construction). In many communities, natural ventilation is challenging>when outside temperatures may reach 100 degrees F several days in a row.>>I agree that LEED does not do much to limit or control moisture. Even>with LEED, you can build a negatively-pressurized leaky building with>vinyl wallpaper in Florida, or have construction crews leave gaping>holes above the suspended ceiling allowing humid air everywhere. But if>you're going LEED, you are less likely to design or build carelessly.>>In this particular building in Sarasota, what I've read suggests that it>was built in an area with high water table (not necessarily a swamp,>but...). The county bought it at a bargain price and re-fitted it to>LEED, but they still had moisture coming through the slab or foundation.>Natural air flow would not have changed this result.>>>Henry>>As usual, this is my opinion and while I am happy to share it, please>don't claim it as my employer's opinion.

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

[Guest guest]

Dear Sharon:

The best answer your question is, " Market Transformation "

Improving the way things are done. Monitoring Moisture Management is one

example. If we compare LEED with the Green Guide for Health Care and then the

draft of ASHRAE 189 (Proposed Standard for the Design of High Performance Green

Buildings) we see a gradual movement from just installing monitors to assess

ventilation performance to actually requiring that someone actually reviewing

monitoring data for both carbon dioxide and absolute humidity in a timely

fashion.

Monitoring of absolute humidities can actually provide an early warning

mechanisms to identify the presence of elevated indoor moisture levels, the

event that will precede mold growth.

sincerely,

W. Bearg, PE, CIH

--

LIFE ENERGY ASSOCIATES

20 Darton Street

Concord, MA 01742-5710

www.LifeEnergyAssoc.com

-------------- Original message ----------------------

From: snk1955@...

>

> Hi Mr. Henry,

>

> Good to know. So is there anyway that thru LEED that more emphasis could be

> added to address the curtailing of moisture and microbial growth? What is the

> difference between LEED and the Green Building movement? How are they

> related? Forgive my ignorance on this point. I typically look more at the

> medical

> side of this issue.

>

> Sharon

>

>

> In a message dated 1/8/2008 7:17:45 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,

> slack.henry@... writes:

>

> Sharon and Don -

>

> LEED gives extra points for greater amounts of ventilation air, so they

> encourage more ventilation, not less. They also would encourage

> natural ventilation, when climate allows. Because it's a

> choose-your-choose-your-<WBR>own-points program, with few mandatory

> designers and builders will still need encouragement and education to

> make sure that buildings receive adequate ventilation, but we know

> that's very much the case. Shaughnessy'that's very much the case. R

> (I think) found some schools had NO ventilation. At least a LEED

> school will meet ASHRAE minimum.

>

> What they discourage is excess energy use (and in one study, LEED

> buildings used 25- 30% less energy than average conventional

> construction)construction)<WBR>. In many communities, natural ventilat

> when outside temperatures may reach 100 degrees F several days in a row.

>

> I agree that LEED does not do much to limit or control moisture. Even

> with LEED, you can build a negatively-pressuriwith LEED, you can buil

> vinyl wallpaper in Florida, or have construction crews leave gaping

> holes above the suspended ceiling allowing humid air everywhere. But if

> you're going LEED, you are less likely to design or build carelessly.

>

> In this particular building in Sarasota, what I've read suggests that it

> was built in an area with high water table (not necessarily a swamp,

> but...). The county bought it at a bargain price and re-fitted it to

> LEED, but they still had moisture coming through the slab or foundation.

> Natural air flow would not have changed this result.

>

> Henry

>

> As usual, this is my opinion and while I am happy to share it, please

> don't claim it as my employer's opinion.

>

>

>

>

>

>

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

> http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489

Hi Mr. Henry,

Good to know. So is there anyway that thru LEED that more emphasis could be added to address the curtailing of moisture and microbial growth? What is the difference between LEED and the Green Building movement? How are they related? Forgive my ignorance on this point. I typically look more at the medical side of this issue.

Sharon

In a message dated 1/8/2008 7:17:45 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, slack.henryepa (DOT) gov writes:

Sharon and Don -LEED gives extra points for greater amounts of ventilation air, so theyencourage more ventilation, not less. They also would encouragenatural ventilation, when climate allows. Because it's achoose-your-own-points program, with few mandatory requirements,designers and builders will still need encouragement and education tomake sure that buildings receive adequate ventilation, but we knowthat's very much the case. Shaughnessy's study of fifth graders(I think) found some schools had NO ventilation. At least a LEEDschool will meet ASHRAE minimum.What they discourage is excess energy use (and in one study, LEEDbuildings used 25- 30% less energy than average conventionalconstruction). In many communities, natural ventilation is challengingwhen outside temperatures may reach 100 degrees F several days in a row.I agree that LEED does not do much to limit or control moisture. Evenwith LEED, you can build a negatively-pressurized leaky building withvinyl wallpaper in Florida, or have construction crews leave gapingholes above the suspended ceiling allowing humid air everywhere. But ifyou're going LEED, you are less likely to design or build carelessly.In this particular building in Sarasota, what I've read suggests that itwas built in an area with high water table (not necessarily a swamp,but...). The county bought it at a bargain price and re-fitted it toLEED, but they still had moisture coming through the slab or foundation.Natural air flow would not have changed this result.HenryAs usual, this is my opinion and while I am happy to share it, pleasedon't claim it as my employer's opinion.

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