Search This Blog

Tuesday, January 11, 2011

Mold Complaint Dismissed

Water-damaged ceiling tiles is an indication of a moisture control problem
An article published December 23, 2010 in the Suffolk-News Herald (VA) said a lawsuit filed by a former teacher (claiming mold in her classroom made her sick) against the School Board was dismissed by a United States District Court judge last week.  The former teacher, Christina Hood, had claimed that she began suffering medical problems after beginning her job as a teacher at Booker T. Washington Elementary School in 2007. She said itchy and irritated eyes, a rash, sinusitis and bronchitis were caused by mold in the school.  She had requested damages of $1.5 million.  Hood’s complaint accused the School Board of deliberately exposing her to dangerous conditions at the school, claiming that the board knew of the mold and bacteria growths before she was hired.  She also alleged that the School Board was deliberately indifferent to her health and safety.
In a motion for dismissal, however, School Board attorney Wendell Waller noted that the school system had not been indifferent to Hood’s medical condition.  The response states that the school’s management had allowed Hood to put a dehumidifier in her classroom and frequently inquired as to her condition.  The School Board also retained a professional company to inspect Hood’s classroom for mold.  The assistant director for facilities and planning also inquired about Hood’s past medical condition and her symptoms, inspected the classroom for mold and took air samples.
The school division also had Hood’s classroom cleaned thoroughly several times and was willing to transfer her to a middle-school position teaching seventh-grade math, but Hood was licensed only up to sixth grade.
“The facts alleged … fail to meet the strict ‘shock the conscience’ standard because the defendants did not ignore Hood’s complaints but did in fact take steps to remedy conditions in Hood’s classroom,” the motion for dismissal stated.
This case shows it is important for facility directors to take the concerns of individuals complaining about indoor air quality seriously.   Facility directors should implement an indoor air quality management program to ensure you document all that was done to resolve the indoor air quality complaint.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Friday, January 07, 2011

NYS Toxic Mold Task Force Completes Final Report

Section 1384 of the New York State (NYS) Public Health Law established the NYS Toxic Mold Task Force.  The goals of the NYS Toxic Mold Task Force was to:
  • assess and measure, based on scientific evidence, the adverse environmental and health effects of mold exposure, including specific effects on population subgroups at greater risk of adverse effects;
  • assess the latest scientific data on mold exposure limits;
  • identify actions taken by state and local government and other entities;
  • determine methods to control and mitigate mold;
  • and prepare a report to the Governor and Legislature.
To achieve these goals the NYS Toxic Mold Task Force activities were organized into four main areas of inquiry:
  • health effects of molds in indoor environments;
  • exposure limits and assessment of mold in buildings;
  • approaches to mold mitigation and remediation;
  • building codes, regulations and other actions taken by other governments and private-sector organizations that relate to building mold problems.
In reading the executive summary it is clear that the NYS Toxic Mold Task Force came to the usual conclusions regarding mold that the many in the industry already know.  For example:
  • Since mold problems in buildings are preventable with proper building construction, maintenance, and housekeeping aimed at preventing excess building dampness, mold exposure is preventable.
  • Overabundant growth of any mold or other dampness-related organisms is undesirable and can be addressed by removing contaminants and correcting water problems.  Whether or not exposure to mold toxins is likely when mold growth occurs in a damp building does not substantially change the need for mitigation of the water and mold problem.
  • Continue to improve building code requirements that address building design, construction techniques, and property maintenance so that they prevent or minimize the potential for water problems to occur.
  • The presence and power of the code enforcement official (CEO) can also help minimize the potential mold problems in buildings when approving construction documents, during construction inspections of new buildings, and when issuing property-maintenance violations related to moisture conditions in existing buildings during required inspections.
  • Regulating the mold assessment and remediation service industry is dependent upon how desirable it is to have persons poperly trained and following acceptable protocols.  The main public health goal of any regulation or additional guidance to the mold industry will be to reduce the potential for mold exposures and the risk of health effects in damp buildings.  Costs for such a program can range from $150,000 for using already developed general recommended work practices and certification programs to $4.5 million per year for a full regulatory program like the NYS asbestos program.
  • The development of reliable, health-based quantitative mold exposure limits is not currently feasible.
  • Their is limited evidence of the benefits of chemical disinfectants or encapsulant treatments for mitigating or preventing mold growth on building materials.
  • The main approach to mold control and mitigation should be focused on identifying and repairing water damage in buildings and removing mold source materials.  This method of mitigation is less complicated to implement than mitigation based on attaining a numerical clearance critertion, because the main goal is to return the building to a clean and dry condition.
The document is 150 pages including tables and exhibits.  It will be interesting to see if this document actually goes anywhere in regulating the mold assessment and remediation industry.


Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, January 06, 2011

New York Times Lists the Top 10 Reasons Small Businesses Fail

The New York Times building in New York, NY ac...Image via WikipediaNew York Times posted an excellent article regarding the top 10 reasons small businesses fail.  As a small business owner myself I can say that all of these are definitely issues that make it hard to run a business over a long period of time.  Poor accounting, lack of a cash cushion, and operational inefficiencies have all played a part at one time or another for causing me problems with running my business.  However, though at times I have looked back and said what was I thinking going into business for myself, I feel it has been one of the best decisions in my life.  I highly recommend that if you have this dream you go out and just do it!
Enhanced by Zemanta

Saturday, January 01, 2011

Happy New Year One & All

Angelo Garcia III at a Metro NY AIHA meeting 
I would like to thank all of you for making 2010 a very good year.  I look forward to continuing to provide you with information, assistance, and services that help you with your business in 2011.  I promise to continue to improve Future Environment Designs, this blog, and all the services we provide to keep it up-to-date and as fresh as it can be. 
Enhanced by Zemanta

Friday, December 31, 2010

Paul Mancuso of Utica New York Ordered to Pay $17,972 to EPA

HVAC ducts insulated with chrysotile asbestos.
We have discussed this case in our asbestos refresher classes and slowly but surely it is getting resolved.  Paul Mancuso of Utica, New York was ordered to pay back $17,972.68 it cost the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to clean up toxic piles of asbestos that were illegally dumped in a rural Herkimer County field.  On Tuesday, December 28, the prosecutor, Assistant U.S. Attorney Craig Benedict, said it is satisfying to know that Paul Mancuso will have to pay some financial penalty for what he has done.  “We’re pleased that the judge has found Paul Mancuso responsible for repaying the taxpayers of the United States for money expended to clean up the asbestos that was illegally dumped as a result of the Mancusos’ criminal activities,” Benedict said.


Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, December 29, 2010

Carbon Monoxide Poisoning in Freeport

Carbon Monoxide detector connected to a North ...Image via WikipediaCarbon monoxide that seeped out from a faulty heating system at La Mar Plastic Packaging on Tuesday December 28, 2010 sent dozens of people to the hospital - two with serious injuries - Nassau County fire and village officials said.  La Mar Plastic Packaging located at 216 N. Main St. in Freeport, called Freeport Firefighters about 10:30 a.m., and rescuers evacuated dozens of people complaining of headaches, dizziness and nausea from the structure, said Vincent McManus, a district supervisor for the Nassau fire marshal's office.
After a preliminary investigation, fire officials, members of the Freeport Building Department and the county's hazardous materials team determined that the deadly gas came from hanging gas-fired heaters in the building, McManus said.
Mark Stuparich, an assistant chief for the Freeport Fire Department, said it was unlikely the building was equipped with a carbon-monoxide detector. "The thing would have been going off all morning," he said.  Assistant Chief Stuparich said readings of indoor air showed upward of 500 parts per million (ppm) of carbon monoxide.  According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), normal indoor levels are 5 ppm or less.  According to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the permissible exposure limit is 50 parts per million or less in an eight-hour period.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, December 28, 2010

Licensed Lead and Asbestos Inspector Sentenced to 63 Months in Prison

Preet BhararaImage via WikipediaOn December 21, 2010, Preet Bharara, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, aanounced that Saverio Todaro was sentenced to 63 months in prison for falsifying lead and asbestos inspection and testing reports for residences and other locations throughout the New York City area.  In addition, he was ordered to forfeit $304,395 and to pay $107,194 in restitution to the victims of his crimes and a fine of $45,000.  Mr. Todaro pled guility on March 6, 2010 to an 11-count indictment charging him with five counts of false statements, three counts of mail fraud, and three counts of violations of the Toxic Substances Control Act.  The sentences was imposed by U. S. District Judge Kimba M. Wood.
As we have discussed in our classes, this case has focused a bad light on the asbestos and lead consulting field.  This case will bring scrutiny and focus on the work of asbestos and lead inspectors throughout New York State and New York City.  In imposing the senence, Judge Wood stated that Todaro's crimes were "monumental."  Judge Wood noted that the health of New York City children and adults "heavily depends on inspectors" such as Todaro, and that the public "needs to be able to trust" them.  She stated that the sentence needed to send a message to all New York City inspectors that they are guardians of the public trust and that dishonesty in inspections will be punished.
There is no question that the acts of this individual were so outrageous it is not typical of the industry.  Realize this like Roslyn School District has changed the way things are done in schools.  This case may have similar impacts on our industry.  Asbestos and lead inspectors should be very carefull going forward in ensuring your inspections are performed in accordance with the regulations and standards for asbestos and lead.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Conference Season Starts in 3 Months Save the Date: PACNY 2025 Environmental Conference & EIA 2025 National Conference

With the end of 2024 fast approaching, we are looking ahead to 2025, we are excited to announce the dates for the Professional Abatement Con...