Virginia Board for Asbestos, Lead, and Home Inspectors
9960 Maryland Drive, Suite 400
Richmond, Virginia
Re: Proposed mold regulations
Dear Sir:
As a career indoor air quality/public health practitioner (also currently licensed in Florida) I am writing to you with regard to the proposed 18VAC15-60, Mold Inspector and Remediator Regulations. While I agree with much of the content with the proposed regulations and the emphasis upon training of inspectors and remediators, I offer the following comments.
1)Under 18VAC15-60-20. Definitions, there is no reference to industrial hygiene, which is the accepted science and art devoted to the recognition, evaluation, and control of occupational and environmental hazards. Industrial hygienists by formal training and/or certification have broad background in chemical, biological, and physical hazards, how these hazards are correctly evaluated by environmental testing, health effects of environmental/occupational stressors, occupational and environmental regulations, engineering controls to protect workers and the environment, personal protective equipment, and various other related sub disciplines. Clearly, the issue of fungal proliferation in a building falls principally within the practice of industrial hygiene/safety and/or public health. The American Board of Industrial Hygiene (ABIH) has had a rigorous certification program since 1939, and the Certified Industrial Hygienist designation (CIH) granted by the ABIH is already cited in other Virginia regulations (Title 40.1 Labor and Employment, Chapter 9, as well as Title 18, Agency 15, Chapter 30 – Lead). Further, the two premier industrial hygiene professional organizations, the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) and the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) have provided the bulk of the peer reviewed technical information regarding fungal (mold) growth in buildings. In a field in which there are no fixed numerical health based “mold levels,” the well recognized guidelines and publications from these two organizations are essential. Not referencing these organizations (as well as the industrial hygiene discipline) and such publications as “Bioaerosols: Assessment and Control” (ACGIH) in your regulations will continue to promote building evaluation and/or remediation services that are not consistent with best practice and the latest technical information.
2)Under 18VAC15-60-320. Mold Inspector are a variety of duties and functions which include (but are not limited to) “sampling of mold.” The requirement to test mold runs contrary to virtually every recognized guideline in the field to include (but not limited to) Mold Remediation in Schools and Commercial Buildings, (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2001), Guidelines on Assessment and Remediation of Fungi in Indoor Environments (New York City Department of Health, 2008), Recognition, Evaluation, and Control of Indoor Mold (American Industrial Hygiene Association, 2008), Field Guide for the Determination of Biological Contaminants in Environmental Samples (American Industrial Hygiene Association, 2005), Bioaerosols: Assessment and Control (American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, 1999). These are consistent in emphasizing the importance of visual inspection coupled with identification of moisture/water sources as the primary criteria by which to evaluate a building. The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), a premier standards setting organization, is currently in the process of publishing a building inspection protocol which takes a similar position. Moreover, the entities cited above caution on the use of environmental mold sampling as a primary evaluative tool due to the lack of standard protocols, the frequency with which “mold test data” can be misleading, and the inclination by many “mold testers” to “interpret” sampling data either with no mathematical/scientific basis (further discussed below) or to support a predetermined agenda.
3)As you are aware, there are no fixed numerical health based standards for acceptable levels of mold – this is universally recognized. As a result, any meaningful indication of indoor air quality with regard to airborne mold requires a comparison of the suspect environment with the general background (i.e., outdoor) conditions as a building performance indicator, and not as direct numerical exposure limit. (Due to the ubiquitous nature of mold, one can only opine on adverse health effects in a building when the building indoor environment can be shown to be “different” from the general environment.) It is also universally recognized that air mold sampling data is very extreme with total numerical concentrations (“mold levels”) often fluctuating by a factor of 10 or 100 at the same location within minutes. (Surface dust and bulk data varies similarly, but the discussion here is focused upon air sampling). Individual fungal species detected at some time during the day can vary by as much, but often will not be detected at all for the majority of the sampling period. Any objective, rational, and mathematically based comparison of indoor and outdoor data must take this variability into consideration by 1) collecting enough samples to adequately characterize both zones and 2) using a criterion to compare the two zones that is based upon the distribution (mathematical nature) of the data. The general “common sense” approach of collecting a few samples and then directly comparing numerical “mold levels” with a subjective judgment of “high” or “low” while intuitive, is fundamentally flawed and mathematically invalid. (The laws of probability and sound mathematical data analysis have not changed with the advent of mold as a public health issue.) Unfortunately, use of numerical levels, or various ratio or index values for “interpretation” characterizes the approach of those who collect a few samples and offer opinions of indoor conditions. Peer reviewed publications (to be provided upon request) going back to 2000 estimate actual positive and negative error rates for various numerical criteria for mold data, and demonstrate that comparing numerical mold concentrations is no better at characterizing an indoor environment than a random guess.
Please feel free to contact me if you or your staff has any questions.
