This is an exercise to see how much you know about lead. Take a few minutes to read the statements, then circle T for True or F for False. Answers appear below.

Here are the answers to the quiz.

Everyone has heard of the situation where a building surface has been wetted by water intrusion (leaky pipe, damaged roof, misguided sprinklers) and mold growth has developed. This usually leads to a mold remediation exercise where mold contaminated surface materials (carpets, hardwood floors, wallboard, ceiling tiles) are removed and replaced. It is necessary to replace the structural support for these materials at times as well.

This article is not about that type of situation. In this article we will discuss two errors, one in building construction and one in building maintenance, that can cause mold growth without water intrusion directly into the building.

Usually the first thing you do in a mold investigation (after sampling the mold) is to search for the source of the water intrusion. In some cases, there is no actual water intrusion from outside the building, nor from leaky or faulty systems within the building. With the advent of airtight and watertight surfacing materials, especially flooring materials, simply enclosing a building cavity can create a terrarium effect. This allows mold to grow inside the cavity using the water from the materials used to construct the building (non-kiln dried wood studs, sheer wall plywood, floor substrates, etc.). If these cavities happen to cover open grade (bare dirt), the moisture in the dirt can also become part of an isolated ecosystem which promotes mold growth.

The worst case that Hazard Management Services, Inc. (HMS, Inc.) has dealt with involved a three foot high stage, over open grade, with a watertight and airtight flooring surface (vinyl sheeting) and no ventilation. A two-year-old building had mold growth in the sub-stage area that destroyed the 2" x 8" floor joists and the plywood floor substrate to the point that the vinyl flooring was turned into a trampoline. Worse, the only route of escape for the air and moisture, pulled from the wood and dirt surfaces by the terrarium effect created by the construction of this stage, was between the sheets of sheer wall plywood. This minuscule escape route for the air and moisture allowed Stachybotrys mold to grow along the nail lines of the sheer wall.

Mold growth on wood, when confined to the surface as it was here, can usually be sanded down to "clean" wood in order to remove the mold growth. However, if you sand on the nail lines of sheer wall, the structural integrity of the sheer wall is lost, and the sheer wall must be replaced. Because a sheer wall is nailed in a close-together stitch pattern, removal of sheer wall from the studs in the wall leaves behind studs that are also no longer structurally sound. As a result, every stud in the wall had to be sistered or replaced, even though no mold had grown on any of the studs.

The total cost for the repair of this 500 square foot stage area damaged by mold due to improper design and construction (lack of ventilation) in a two-year-old building was over $50,000.

The second case involved improper maintenance activities on an existing heating ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) system. Rooftop HVAC units pulled air from return air ducts and from the building exterior. These HVAC units had rooftop access hatches which allowed the system filters to be changed out. These access hatches were sealed to the HVAC ducting with ten small screws. Maintenance personnel over the years stopped attaching the access hatches with all ten screws, attaching them with two screws at diagonal corners only.

This practice saved the maintenance crew minimal amounts of time each time the filters required changing. However, it also created a system where air moved around the filters, rather than through them, and allowed water to enter the ducting whenever it rained. Though the dust and water never made it into the building, it did settle on the interior insulation within the air ducts. The combination of dirt, water and airborne mold spores allowed mold to start growing in the linings of the ducts. Once this mold growth got extensive, health complaints within the building started to be reported.

After an investigation costing over $1,000 which included dust samples, tape lift samples, and air samples, the problem was identified as the improper sealing of the access hatches on the duct work. Cleanup of the classroom building and the associated duct work cost over $40,000 all because the maintenance crew did not take the time to properly seal the filter access hatches.

Mold growth is not always avoidable, as hidden water leaks within walls, improperly insulated building cavities (condensation), and other changes within a building can cause hidden damage that is not apparent until the mold has taken root and grown extensively. However, in the first example above, the Architect, the General Contractor and the Inspector of Record all could have prevented the problem. Constructing a ventless building cavity over open grade is not only an invitation to grow mold, especially with an airtight flooring surface, but it is also against current building code.

The second scenario above, with the HVAC system access hatches that were not sealed, is an easily avoidable situation. However, because of the propensity to improperly maintain HVAC systems, it is recommended that interior duct lining be eliminated from construction. Even with proper access hatch use and timely filter changes, interior duct lining will eventually gather dust, if it doesn't deteriorate and become an indoor air quality problem in and of itself. If there is any water intrusion into an interior lined duct, mold growth is almost guaranteed.

You can best avoid growing mold by assuring construction is conducted to code, watching for water intrusion into the building or building systems, and properly maintaining both the building and its systems.

Millions of children throughout the country enjoy playgrounds every day of the year. Whether at school, the neighborhood park, or at a local fast food chain, kids all have one common goal-HAVING FUN! It's pretty much a sure bet that one thing they aren't thinking about is having fun SAFELY.

As business owners, public agencies, and parents, it is our responsibility to make play areas both enjoyable and safe.

Since January 2000, California's playgrounds have been subject to the playground safety regulation R-39-97, as well as AB 1055. If you are unfamiliar with these rules and regulations, the following applies to all playgrounds open to the public:

• An initial inspection completed by October 1, 2000, by a Certified Playground Safety Inspector.
• Compliance with the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) Handbook for Public Playground Safety.
• Compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) Final Guidelines for Play Areas.
• Compliance with the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) Playground Safety Guidelines.

The CPSC has been the leading organization involved with playground safety since the late 1970s, but playground safety can be traced back as far as the 1930s when the National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) recommended that a piece of equipment called a "Giant Stride" be removed from all public playgrounds because it was unsafe. The NRPA is the organization which currently certifies Playground Safety Inspectors.

In 1981 the first playground safety guidelines were published by CPSC, and since then they have been responsible for revisions to the guidelines, as well as issuing hazard alerts like "Moveable Soccer Goals", "Preventing Burns on Metal Equipment", "Drawstring Strangulation Hazards", and "Lead-based Paint Hazards on Playground Equipment". They were also responsible for the move to remove dangerous animal swings from public playgrounds in 1995. Unfortunately their efforts were not backed by formal regulations and very few playgrounds were ever brought up to their recommended playground safety levels. All that seems to have changed with R-39-97.

By now, all public playgrounds should have had an initial inspection and should be well on the way to complying with AB 1055, which required compliance with R-39-97 by January 2003. With the extensive changes that will be necessary to most playgrounds, it will not be easy or inexpensive for owners and agencies to comply with these rules and regulations. Some experts fear that many owners will simply remove all the equipment rather than deal with the costs associated with providing a safe and fun playground. Even those playgrounds that are brought into compliance will still be unsafe if children play recklessly due to lack of supervision.

The amount of knowledge required to deal with playground safety issues and regulations is exhaustive, and there is no way to address all aspects of the regulations in a newsletter. If this information is news to you and you are an owner or agency with playgrounds, or if you would like more information regarding playground safety, contact your local HMS, Inc. office. Also, you may obtain copies of the following publications on the Internet at the addresses provided.

Nearly every contractor, construction manager, architect or facilities director is aware that there is a level of asbestos-containing material disturbance over which you need to be a registered asbestos contractor to conduct. Some are even aware this level is 100 square feet.

The misunderstanding of this requirement is for projects that disturb less than 100 square feet of asbestos-containing materials (ACM). It is widely thought that if less than 100 square feet of ACM is disturbed, any contractor can do the work because being a registered asbestos abatement contractor is not required. This is not entirely true.

While it is true that you don't have to be a registered abatement contractor, you are still required to use properly trained workers, proper work practices, and proper housekeeping and cleanup procedures. How many non-abatement contractors know what the proper work practices are, let alone have any properly trained workers? Very, very few.

A direct quote from the Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH) Web site:

What are the rules for work involving less than 100 sq. ft. of ACCM?

The employer must send a simple "report of use" to Cal/OSHA. Reports of use are also required for manufacturing and other general industry settings. All other occupational health and safety work rule requirements apply-especially those from 8 CCR 1529. For more information about "reports of use" and the database of carcinogen use reports, call 415-703-5190. Also, see 8 CCR 5203, the Carcinogen Report of Use Requirements.

In January 2002 Cal/OSHA modified their lead regulations to include a requirement to notify Cal/OSHA 24 hours in advance of the disturbance of 100 square or linear feet of lead-based paint or presumed lead-based paint (or other lead materials).

The regulation requires you to either assume lead paint exists or test it in all buildings, except school buildings constructed after 1993 or residences constructed after 1978.

Disturbance of 100 square feet of paint without proper notification, without proper inspection/ assumption or without valid exemption (schools constructed after 1993; residences constructed after 1978) is a violation even if the paint contains no lead. Also, remember Cal/OSHA regulates paint containing "any detectable amount". So even if it is not lead-based paint, Cal/OSHA still has jurisdiction and their regulations in 8 CCR 1532.1 apply. Mishandling of paints with low levels of lead can create health hazards and regulatory violations.

(Lead-based paint is defined as 1 mg. per square centimeter, 5,000 parts per million, or .5% by weight.)

There is anecdotal evidence gathered from conversations with industry experts that respiratory non-compliance among Latino asbestos abatement workers in California does occur, but this information does not appear to be documented in the asbestos literature. Is this important? Should clients, contractors, consultants, and abatement workers be concerned about this documentation deficiency? The answer is a clear and resounding, YES!

Dr. Irving Selikoff, a professor at Mt. Sinai School of Medicine and leading asbestos researcher, has coined the term third wave, which refers to those individuals currently exposed to the more than 30 million tons of asbestos put in place in the United States from 1900 to 1980 that may develop asbestos-related diseases in the future due to exposures occurring in the present (Bricher, 1990). These individuals include those people who encounter asbestos during maintenance or renovation related activities (Bricher, 1990). Asbestos abatement workers are members of this population.

Twenty-one percent of the 1.4 million Latino construction workers in the United States are laborers, and asbestos removal workers are embedded within this work classification (Construction Chartbook, 2002). Laborers have a 26% greater incidence of death from pneumoconiosis and other respiratory diseases such as asbestosis. Loomis and Schultz (2000) in "Mortality from six work-related cancers among African Americans and Latinos" documented excess cancer prevalence among Latino workers with a variety of usual occupations that were consistent with widespread exposure to asbestos. Clearly, these asbestos abatement workers are at risk for contracting asbestos-related diseases. If there is the potential of exposure, what has been done to prevent exposures and how is compliance with these procedures documented?

Regulations and laws have been developed and instituted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to protect the general public from asbestos exposure related to construction projects, such as demolitions and renovations (National Emissions Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants [NESHAP], 1990). Specific EPA regulations have also been designed to avoid disturbance of asbestos in K-12 schools to prevent childhood exposures (Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act, 1987). Engineering and work practice controls have been developed and promulgated through Occupational Safety and Health Agency (OSHA) regulations (Asbestos In Construction Standard, 1994). Current engineering controls and work practice standards have been researched and rigorously tested to ensure that asbestos fiber release and exposure to individuals are minimized by these methods. Some of these studies include mastic removal research conducted by Tharr (1994), the evaluation of vinyl floor tile removal methods by Kominsky, Freyberg, and Boiano (1995), the evaluation of glovebag containments by Froehlich and Hollet (1993) and the evaluation of negative enclosure glovebag containments by Froehlich (1993).

Documentation of compliance with these engineering controls and work practices is an ongoing process achieved through enforcement of EPA and OSHA regulations. A worksite notification process allows local branches of the EPA and OSHA compliance officers to visit work sites and observe work practices and engineering controls (NESHAP, 1990; Asbestos In Construction Standard, 1994). The inspection process documents non-compliance with work practices and engineering controls and may result in citations and fines if appropriate (Asbestos In Construction Standard, 1994). While questions may be raised about enforcement funding and the quantity of citations issued by these agencies, this compliance system has been shown to catch regulatory violators.

In the event that engineering controls and work practices are insufficient to protect against potential exposure, personal protective equipment is used to enhance protection from, and limit exposure to, airborne asbestos fibers (Martyny, Glazer, & Newman, 2002). Personal protective equipment includes the use of respirators to limit inhalation of asbestos fibers. The OSHA regulations stipulate conditions under which respiratory protection is to be instituted within asbestos abatement environments (Asbestos In Construction Standard, 1994). Currently, there is no system in place that documents compliance with respiratory protection. This may turn out to be a very large problem!

Previous asbestos research has focused on the efficiency of respiratory protection (Martyny et al., 2002), as well as physical factors, such as perspiration and facial dimensions, that affect respiratory protection (Howie, Johnstone, Weston, Aitken, & Groat, 1996). Clayton, Bailey, Vaughan, and Rajan (2002) in a study designed to test the performance of powered air purifying respirators in simulated work environments observed inappropriate donning of the respirator straps, failure to carry out negative pressure seal checks, inappropriate fit around facial hair and glasses, and poorly maintained respirators affecting the face seal (Clayton et al., 2002). "Correct use and maintenance of respiratory protection are essential to ensure optimum protection to the wearer (Clayton et al., 2002, 1)."

If respiratory non-compliance is a reality, as it appears to be, then why is it occurring? One answer presented by Moore and Smith (1976) is known as the "behavior effect". Individuals working in environments of high and low hazard self-interpret the level of hazard in accordance with their environmental and social cues. Some industry experts agree that the type of asbestos may play a role in the "behavior effect". Individuals inappropriately equate the carcinogenic potential of specific types of asbestos to a graded scale of risk without consideration of the fact that all asbestos is documented by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services as a known human carcinogen.

From 1940 through 1979 an estimated 27 million individuals had potential asbestos exposure at work (Nicholson, Perkel, & Selikoff, 1982). Approximately six million of these people were deceased as of January 1, 1980 (Nicholson, Perkel, & Selikoff, 1982). The annual incidence of mesothelioma, 2-3 million recorded cases a year for men in North America, has increased over the years (Bang, 1996). The current asbestos abatement worker population of the Bay Area of California is predominately Latino, placing them at risk for contracting an asbestos-related disease. If non-compliance with respiratory protection is realized it may potentially result in profound health effects for this population, and prompt a new wave of asbestos litigation. How can this be prevented?

Ensure that asbestos abatement contractors are complying with OSHA and EPA regulations. Be diligent about documenting the presence of contractor employees on site. Update your asbestos documentation regularly. Seek the advice and counsel of a third party environmental consultant to perform project management.

The EPA-mandated "Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act" (AHERA) regulation, which went into effect in 1987, required an initial inspection of all K-12 school facilities, with reports completed by July of 1989. Many school districts submitted asbestos management plans in 1988, but most districts submitted plans in 1989.

Every three years a reinspection by an EPA accredited inspector of all asbestos-containing building materials is required. The first three-year reinspections were due in 1991/1992, and the latest three-year cycle is upon us for 2003/2004. If you have not already been contacted to schedule a three-year reinspection, call the HMS, Inc. office nearest you to schedule a convenient time.