Expert: Mold case at Greenwich school 'a bad situation'

[Guest guest]

Expert: Mold case at Greenwich school 'a bad situation'

Stamford Advocate,CT*

By Hoa Nguyen

Staff Writer

Published March 17 2008

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/local/scn-sa-

modular10mar17,0,4122001.story?track=rss

GREENWICH - As the head of a trade association for manufacturers and

dealers of commercial modular buildings, Tom Hardiman has frequently

seen the industry tarnished from instances where mold is found

growing in portable classrooms.

But the case of the mold found at Hamilton Avenue School modular

buildings, displacing all of the students, ranks as one of the

worst, said Hardiman, the head of the Charlottesville, Va.-based

Modular Building Institute.

" It's not just one classroom, it's the whole school, " he said. " It's

a bad situation all around. "

Design and construction flaws that appeared to have gone undetected

when the structures were built three years ago caused mold to grow

between the walls of the modular buildings and in 90 percent of the

roof eaves, according to school officials and an architect asked to

perform a preliminary investigation. The architect said a vapor

barrier appeared to have been installed on the wrong side of the

wall insulation and that the soffits were put in without the vents

that would have prevented mold growth.

These type of flaws should have been caught before the modular

buildings were put to use, Hardiman said.

" There are so many steps in this process, places where if there was

a mistake, it should have been caught, " he said.

Bill Carpenter, an official at Milford-based Carp Building

Structures, which sold the classrooms to the school district, said

he knew of no design or construction flaw in the structures, but

that if something, such as a vapor barrier, was improperly

installed, he wouldn't have seen it because the walls were already

sealed in place by the time the structures arrived from the factory.

Carpenter said he was counting on the company to which he

subcontracted the construction work to make sure the location of the

vapor barrier was correct before sealing the walls.

" We're not going to dissect the building when we get it because it's

supposed to have been inspected, " he said.

Officials at Building Systems, the subcontractors that built

the classrooms in its Leola, Pa., factory, could not be reached for

comment. NTA Inc., a Nappanee, Ind.-based firm that submitted a

letter to the Greenwich building department certifying that the

modular structures met all the necessary state building codes, also

could not be reached for comment. The state building official who

told Greenwich officials that NTA was licensed to perform third-

party inspections also could not be reached for comment.

According to Hardiman, although NTA is responsible for inspecting

the modular structures and making sure they are properly built in

the factory, the firm is not obligated to inspect after every phase

of construction. Sometimes, inspectors arrive toward the end of

construction rather than oversee the entire process. But whatever

method its inspectors choose, the firm is required to ensure the

structures meet building codes before they are shipped from the

factory.

" It's a trust factor, " Hardiman said. " We're trusting you to say

that this building is safe and meets the code. "

In the case of Hamilton Avenue School, Hardiman and other observers

said the builders, inspectors as well as the school district should

shoulder the blame for accepting structures that seem to have been

built with defects.

" Did the third party look at the building? Did Carp accept the

building without looking at it? Did the school system sign off on

it? " Hardiman said. " There are so many places where it should have

been caught. "