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

[Guest guest]

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.

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

[Guest guest]

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

> >

> >

> > 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

>

[Guest guest]

Steve:

Thank you for your support and encouragement on this matter. I

believe that your questions about the sampling be conducted while the

HVAC systems are operating for four hours at their minimum

ventilation settings is very pertinent, and I will include that into

my discussions, when they begin, with USGBC, and the CaGBC.

Sharon: I share your concerns about what is happening in schools,

particularly with regards to mold. I continue to run into

difficulties with school boards, school officials, and (alas!) with

school union officials concerning the sampling, analysis and

interpretation of mold spore samples. It is indeed a confusing and

frustrating situation. I am hopeful that the upcoming dialogue with

USGBC will include the LEED and green building criteria for schools

and other public spaces, and that there will be an opportunity to

include mold in those discussions.

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.

> >

> >

> >

>