Mold Reporter

Building Science Could Succeed Where Traditional Construction Has Failed in Preventing Home Scourge

by Julie Bonnin

For years, experts in building science—the technologists of construction—have predicted that changes in materials and improper and outdated installation techniques, among other factors, would eventually cause widespread mold problems for homeowners. However, word rarely filtered down from the researchers with doctorates to the guys in the pickups doing the work, said Doug Garrett, president of Central Texas-based Building Performance & Comfort.

But as concerns about mold have grown, builders have turned to building science for answers. Preventing this costly problem likely will require a new approach to house building.

Garrett is a frequent speaker on the topics of moisture management and air quality and a member of the Texas Department of Health’s mold policy committee. Audiences such as the air-conditioning contractors he spoke to recently are hungry for such information.

“I finished speaking at 12:15 and they were still asking questions at 1:30,” he said.

Garrett is among those getting the word out on how to stem the swelling tide of mold problems in homes and other buildings. He and Terry Brennan, a New York-based air-quality expert who also has advised the Texas Department of Health, were among those who spoke at the International Green Building Conference Nov. 13-15, 2002 in Austin.

With Joseph Lstiburek (pronounced stee-brook), a forensic engineer who is one of the world’s foremost experts on energy-efficient construction, Garrett and Brennan are busy advising contractors, architects and others on how to do things right when it comes to designing and constructing buildings.

What’s gone wrong is a combination of factors, they say.

Some building materials in widespread use—paper-covered gypsum board, cellulose ceiling tile, particle board and others—happen to be great food for mold, which can grow wherever moisture accumulates.

Other materials that are in widespread use—fiberglass and cellulose cavity insulation, polyethylene vapor retarders, vinyl wallpaper—make it harder for walls to dry out.

Add tight windows and other features designed to boost energy efficiency, and the lack of air flow creates moisture problems.

Houses have always leaked, Lstiburek said, “but that incidental water didn’t mean much because the building dried so quickly. Now we have to choose different techniques to install windows and doors.”

Another factor, he said, is “cold climate chauvinism” in nationwide building codes: Many good building practices for northern climates have been enforced in places such as Texas, even when they didn’t make sense for the state’s hot and humid climate.

Thousands of homes built in Austin in the 1970s and ’80s, for example, were built with a “vapor barrier” consisting of a sheet of plastic stapled underneath the drywall. Vapor-proofing was designed to keep moisture out of walls in the North, but in the South, it works in reverse.

Water vapor moves from warm to cold and from wet to dry. In the North, that warm, moist air is on the inside of the house, and the vapor barrier serves to keep it from infiltrating the walls. In the South, the warm, wet air is on the outside, trying to move inside, and the vapor barrier effectively traps the moisture within the walls.

The vapor barrier was the perfect place for mold to grow, fed by condensation caused by humidity in the air, Garrett said. The building code requiring the vapor barrier in most parts of Texas was changed last year, he said.

Although some have accused builders of cutting corners and not allowing materials to dry properly as they hurried to meet the housing boom, Garrett said that is less of a contributing factor to problems with mold than the trend toward building complicated structures.

“A lot of the houses having the worst problems are the large custom-built homes,” Garrett said. “The bigger the house, and the more roof angles you put into a house, the more difficult it becomes to do a decent job. When you have lots of complicated details—curved walls, huge walls that are mostly windows—it’s no wonder you have problems.”

All of the discussion about mold has been tracked closely by the Texas Association of Builders, which will propose legislation this year that would put a tighter rein on the state’s building standards.

The group has also been working on a building guide with tips for preventing mold in homes, video training guides for construction workers, and recommendations for going beyond building-code standards when necessary, said Kristi Sutterfield, executive vice president of the organization.

The association also is working on a homeowner responsibility checklist that would be distributed to new homeowners when they close on their home.

“This (mold prevention effort) is the biggest undertaking we’ve taken on,” Sutterfield said. “We’re recognizing that we need to get in and roll our sleeves up and provide homeowner education, builder education and have more input into the government regulation agencies that play a part in all of this.”

Ryland Homes is one of several area home builders that try to use some of the new building techniques.

Ryland builds houses using a program it calls HouseWorks, which uses many of the building science techniques recommended by the nation’s top construction experts to prevent mold.

Key to the program is making sure that the plumbing system, the heating and air-conditioning system, insulation and thermal envelope of the house—the windows, doors and siding—all work together, said Randy Erwin, energy program director for Ryland Homes.

It might sound like common sense to have everything working as a system, but traditionally, construction of many homes is done piecemeal, with separate contractors installing such things as plumbing, heating, air conditioning and roofing with little regard to how they all work together.

Ryland brought in experts who trained subcontractors and superintendents, and developed an inspection team. Sales people also had to be educated about how to sell the new homes.

Although there are added costs to running the program, Erwin said: “It’s not so much the cost that deters (other) builders, it’s that it makes it much more complicated.”

But it’s worth the trouble, Erwin said.

“Our warranty claims have dropped substantially,” he said. “We know we’re having less problems with homes. It’s a lot easier to do it right the first time than to retrofit something.”

Close to 2,000 architects, engineers and other building professionals attended the Green Building Conference in Austin last November. This was the first in a series of such conferences.

Reprinted from the October 19, 2002 Austin American-Statesman. Julie Bonnin is a freelance writer and editor in Austin, Texas.

By Penny Silberhorn, Canadian General Standards Board

In recent years, the face of many professions has changed dramatically. Globalization, altered demographics and the explosion of innovations in information technology have created new opportunities and challenges, and new occupations have arisen to meet the demand. More and more, governments, businesses and an increasingly savvy public are seeking proof of competence through the certification of new and existing professions.

In response to this need for certification, the International Organization for Standardization, Conformity Assessment Subcommittee (ISO/CASCO) initiated the development of ISO/IEC 17024, General requirements for bodies operating certification of persons. This new standard provides a benchmark for certification bodies offering certification of persons in any occupation and facilitates accreditation by national bodies.

Since 1999, the CGSB has supported the development of this standard by sponsoring me as the Canadian delegate to CASCO Working Group (WG) 17, the committee responsible for the standard’s development. The committee comprised members from the Americas, the United Kingdom, Europe and the Pacific Rim. While attending the meetings, I represented the Standards Council of Canada (SCC), Canada’s ISO member body, and brought the Canadian position to the table.

The last meeting of WG 17 was held in June 2002. Publication of the standard is expected by Jan. 2003, after a final round of public consultation. Once completed, many certification bodies will be adopting the standard as a basis of operations, and the SCC will implement the standard by offering accreditation to certification bodies operating certification programs for persons.

This comprehensive standard lays out the general operating requirements for the certification body, including provisions for a management system. It describes conditions for application, examinations, surveillance and recertification. And, it specifies the requisites for independence of training from certification, confidentiality of information, competence of staff and subcontractors, and the need for stakeholder input into certification schemes.

ISO/IEC 17024 is intended as a framework for certification bodies operating a certification program for persons and as the standard against which an accreditation body can accredit the certification body. The standard itself is not enough to certify a person. It is designed to be used in conjunction with a “scheme standard,” which lays out the education, knowledge, skills and experience requirements that a certified person in each occupation would be expected to meet.

As interest in the standard grows, I have had many opportunities to introduce the standard and the concepts for developing a resulting certification program to various groups in the last year. I’ve given presentations to diverse interests, ranging from organizations representing small groups of public sector employees exploring the kind of recognition and status certification would give them, to Treasury Board-sponsored committees considering certification as part of modern comptrollership. Perhaps the largest and most diverse audience attended the presentation at the National Standards System Conference hosted by the SCC last March. This audience comprised public and private standards and certification organization representatives and other related professionals.

There has been great interest in the standard by many professions and occupations and the bodies that currently certify them or will in the near future, and with good reason. By harmonizing the certification process, the standard will provide a basis for international recognition agreements and will promote the global exchange of personnel. It will enable people to expand their career horizons and have their credentials recognized outside of their own country or jurisdiction. A valuable tool indeed!

For more information about CGSB Certification & Qualification Programs or standards, contact the CGSB Sales Centre at: Place du Portage III, 6B1, 11 Laurier Street, Hull, Quebec K1A 1G6 CANADA. Tele: (819) 956-0425 or 800-665-CGSB fax: (819) 956-5644

Reprinted with permission from Calibre, Winter 2002 issue.

______________

Dr. Steven Spivak commented on the probable effect of ISO/IEC 17024 in the ISO Bulletin, September 2002: “Recently I attended the first ANSI (USA) training seminar on accreditation for personnel certification organizations, using ISO/IEC 17024. Two outcomes were most evident. First, the range and diverse nature of certification organizations attending was impressive. They ran the gamut from certifications representing professional cleaners and restorers, to glass installers and vibration measurement; from speech and hearing specialists, to health professionals in acupunture and oriental medicine. Also present were organizations now providing third party accreditation (prior to ISO/IEC 17024) for certification schemes and organizations. They all represent personnel in vital day-to-day services we often take for granted, or “overlook” in importance. Second, many certifying organizations and service industries already operate at the regional and international level, notwithstanding where their headquarters are located. In ISO and IEC tradition, it is future mutual recognition agreements (MRAs) among certifications for persons, acting to facilitate the seamless, international trade in service, that will become a lasting benefit of ISO/IEC 17024.”

Last year, Rep. John Conyers of Michigan filed the United States Toxic Mold Act (the “Melina Bill”) and picked up 29 co-sponsors. Highlights of the bill include the creation of mandatory disclosures and inspections for rental properties and for-sale housing, licensing for mold assessors and remediators, tax credits for victims, and a federal insurance guaranty program. The bill did not make it out of committee, but was resubmitted in the House of Representatives this session. For the latest updates on the Melina Bill, contact Rep. Conyers’ office at (202) 225-5126.

Increased media coverage of toxic mold contamination issues has resulted in heightened public awareness. Several states have introduced legislation in response to the outcry. California’s landmark Toxic Mold Act of 2001 became a model for many of these bills. A Maryland bill was adopted which established the Task Force on Indoor Air Quality. Bills also passed in Pennsylvania (Senate Resolution 171 and House Resolution 434) and in New Jersey (Senate Resolution 77). In New York the Toxic Mold Protection Act was recently passed, directing the department of health to create an advisory task force to develop exposure limits for indoor environments. Similar bills in Indiana, Michigan and Illinois are pending in committee.

A pending bill in Massachusetts, Senate Bill 2406, is particularly significant because, in addition to inclusion of the major goals of the California Act, it would also render government liable for defective inspections on buildings that become toxic mold-contaminated.

Bills introduced in Texas include HB 329 (passed in the House) and SB 129 (in committee at press time) relate to the licensing and regulation of mold remediators.

A bill in Connecticut, which would have addressed mold in schools, was defeated last year and Arizona SB 1432 would have created a study group to consider the effects of both commercial and residential indoor mold contamination failed to pass this session.

In Florida the commissioner of insurance held forums to address public and industry concerns about the increase of mold claims. New legislation has since been introduced including HB 1659 to deal with licensing issues and SB 2746 to set up a registration system for all mold professionals.

Strong lobbying in all states by the insurance industry to exclude mold coverage from standard homeowner policies continues. In Texas, hit with several large judgements in 2001, several major insurers left the state after failing to achieve protection from mold claims.

Reprinted with permission, from www.healthy-kids.info

On March 18, 1937, in New London, Texas, a gas explosion killed nearly three hundred students, teachers and visitors while in the supposed safe haven of a public school.

An official inquiry into the disaster revealed a litany of false economies, expediency and negligence in the design, installation and maintenance of the heating system, weakness in provisions for ventilation, and totally inadequate venting … in the richest school district in the nation.

Surprisingly, no one was ever held responsible. Instead, the New London Disaster was attributed to “the collective faults of average individuals, ignorant or indifferent to the need for precautionary measures, where they cannot, in their lack of knowledge, visualize a danger or a hazard.”

On March 25, 1937, a nine-year-old survivor addressed the state legislators, urging them to make more protective laws. “Our daddies and mothers as well as the teachers want to know that when we leave our homes in the morning to go to school we will come home safely when our lessons are over.”

Legislation was finally passed to add an odorant to natural gas. Other expert recommendations included “technically trained administrators for modern school systems,” “more rigid inspections and more widespread public education…,” and “a comprehensive, rational safety code.”

______________

Today, 66 years later, we are still waiting to see schools follow those recommendations. Millions of children go to schools, old and new, that have inadequate ventilation systems and extensive safety code violations. These children are victims of the same false economies and jurisdictional evasions that failed to make safety a priority and that led to the loss of so many young lives in New London, Texas.

[Every few years, however, we hear of parents, teachers and school nurses who organize to clean up their moldy school, despite the opposition of school officials.

[Paul Ruther's news story below illustrates the nature and magnitude of those obstacles, and the incredible persistence it took for parents and teachers to accomplish reforms. -Ed.]

By Frank Headon (First Restoration Services, Charlotte, NC)

A pipe burst early on a Wednesday morning in a Washington, D.C., office building spilling 500,000 gallons of water onto the seventh floor and drenching the lower levels. In the process, it flooded one of the key disaster relief processing centers for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and caused major damage in state and local government offices.

The 2.5 inch pipe ruptured in a seventh floor office suite where workers had installed a new sprinkler system. FEMA officials said that after the pipe was installed Tuesday, the workers turned the water on and went home. Then around midnight, a security guard on the first floor noticed water raining down. One maintenance worker said that when he arrived on the scene, he saw water pouring through the first-floor ceiling like “a rushing river.”

Wednesday, Day 1

On Wednesday at approximately 2:00 pm, First Restoration Services (FRS) was asked to mobilize and provide mitigation services to the facility. We arrived onsite at 6:00 am Thursday and provided 25 days of continuous 24-hour drying and mitigation services.

Sam Bergman, president of the Rolyn Companies called the Charlotte office of FRS at approximately 2:00 pm on Wednesday. Sam alerted Mark Headen and Mark paged Frank Headen. FRS began an immediate mobilization and loaded all needed equipment and supplies. A convoy left Charlotte at 6:30 pm on Wednesday and arrived onsite early Thursday morning. Frank Headen was in Chicago and flew to Reagan National Airport. He arrived at 5:15 pm and was picked up by Ron Bergman, vice president of Rolyn Companies, and taken to the job site.

A loss assessment of the water damage was performed using standard procedures established by the Institute of Inspection, Cleaning and Restoration Certification (IICRC) in S500 and other industry standards as appropriate. The collection of data included a thorough onsite inspection of the facility using environmental temperature/humidity and moisture content instrumentation; interviews with the facility manager and tenants; a review of documents and drawings of the structure; and an onsite inspection of a sister building located on the same property. After analyzing this collected information, a standard for temperature/humidity levels and moisture content of all materials was established.

The information gathered was further used to formulate a mitigation plan. This plan included:

• Identifying and evaluating health and safety issues;
• Determining protection levels for contents and equipment
• Determining the extent of moisture intrusion
• Evaluating and assessing structural materials
• Evaluating the HVAC systems
• Documenting pre-existing conditions not related to the current loss
• Establishing drying goals
• Determining the overall scope of the mitigation process to support the total restoration plan.

Based on the above procedures, a proposal was provided to remove all water, and to dry the structure and contents to its normal state of equilibrium using desiccant and refrigeration-based dehumidification systems and specially designed air moving and filtering equipment.

Thursday, Day 2

Equipment and generators were set up around the perimeter of the building. Desiccant dehumidifiers (300 cfm) were taken up the freight elevators and installed on the 4^th, 5^th, 6^th, and 7^th floors. Fans and air movers were installed to create a vortex-drying chamber on each floors.

Special attention was given to the Maryland Department of Social Services area, the FEMA floors, the Health Center, and the Community College area. Water removal continued on all floors. Wall assessment continued, vinyl base was removed and drywall was opened up in damage areas. Water was removed from inside the metal base plates in the walls. Approximately 75 Hobos (temperature and humidity recorders) were installed throughout the building. A watch team was set up on two twelve-hour shifts to monitor the drying equipment and continually adjust the air movement.

Friday, Day 3

All drying equipment was installed and operating at designed levels. The ideal situation would have been to start on the 7^th floor and then move down floor by floor. However, access was severely limited due to cubicles, furniture and equipment throughout all floors. Moisture mapping and assessment was done continually.

Due to the different federal, state, and local office occupancy, we had a large number of certified industrial hygiene firms involved. Morris French, Ph.D., and Timothy French of Micro Air Inc., represented the insurance carrier. Dr. Eugene Cole with Dyncorp represented FRS Inc. Martel Labs Inc. represented the Maryland Department of Human Resources. FEMA provided their own staff environmental scientist, Terry F. Carraway, Jr., CIH, CSP, and also plus retained Applied Environmental Inc. French acted as the point environmental scientist and we coordinated all other personnel and firms around this organizational structure. There were lots of discussions and meetings regarding air quality issues and drying protocol but this turned into one of the most cooperative and professional jobs we have ever been involved in.

Days 4 through 7

Overall damage assessment continued. We to open walls to dry out the interior as access was gained by having cubicles removed. Because the cubicles that back up to the center core of the building had not been removed on the 6^th and 7^th floors, we could not remove the carpet under the back legs or access the core walls. This was a potential problem area. We lowered the humidity on the both floors to 15 percent to control the wet wall environment.

Vinyl base and wall opening continued in the social service and health clinic areas on the ground and first floors. We re-evaluated the college area on the 2^nd floor and moved equipment around so that we could continue to dry while allowing them to resume classes the next Monday. We installed additional air scrubbers on all floors at the request of the hygienists, and started removing wet insulation from HVAC ducting. We were still waiting on decisions regarding removal and drying of wet documents and papers. Assessed exterior wall construction and damage with French on 3^rd through 7^th floor.

The decision was made not to open plaster columns and walls until asbestos clearance was received. FEMA wanted to keep their check printing and mailroom facility operating, which involved isolating and containing the whole area. This area was now dry and under control environmentally. We engineered, then installed new steel stud walls covered with plastic shrink wrap around the whole perimeter of the mailroom/printing area. We provided two air locks to control access and installed equipment to scrub the air and provide positive pressure inside the containment area, which is approximately 80′ x 100′. This allowed FEMA to operate this facility using three shifts, 24 hours a day.

Days 8 through 15

We were notified that all asbestos issues were resolved, with none detected. Damage assessment teams continue mapping moisture content of materials and documenting temperature and humidity. We removed drying equipment from the Social Services area on the ground floor and re-set the desiccant equipment to maximize drying with available power. We opened up a sample of the exterior wall in the 4^th floor. This allowed us to develop a procedure with French of Micro Air to open exterior walls and columns, and to develop a detailed tracking system for mapping the moisture content of drywall and plaster throughout the entire building. We updated safety and security procedures and had mandatory meetings weekly.

As the concrete floor slabs began to dry, we noticed a pattern of round wet circles on each floor. As ceiling tile was removed, we found a series of continuing water drips in a similar pattern. After further investigation, it was discovered that every floor slab except the ground floor had a system of in-slab “walker floor ducts.” These were installed when the original building was constructed. During a later remodeling, 1 1/2″ to 2″ of concrete topping was poured on each floor to cover all of this. Water had filled almost all of these ducts and was the source of the dripping.

Locating the old access plates, chipping the concrete topping off and accessing these ducts became a major undertaking. As we opened each floor we had to determine if any of the wiring in these ducts were live or had been disconnected. After electrical clearance, we vacuumed all the water out we could. We then installed high-pressure fans to blow the water from the low spots to the other end and then sucked the water out. After removing approximately 1,000 gallons per floor, we installed ducts from the desiccants to pressurize each duct and dry it out.

Days 16 through 21

Moisture mapping and documenting of temperatures and humidity conditions continued. Each floor utilizes an open work environment divided by cubicles which contain power outlets as an integral part of the cubicle system. As cubicles were removed, we lost more and more plugs. To provide the power outlets needed we had to install temporary electrical drops tied into each floor’s electrical room.

We developed a “quick look” demolition plan at the request of Sam Bergman of The Rolyn Companies. They would be doing all reconstruction work and needed to develop a time line to let all tenants know when they could reoccupy their space. We had our 45′ document-drying trailer onsite and began drying documents from the Department of Social Services.

A review of drying progress on the 7^th floor showed that all walls were dry except one bay hotspot.

We began removing equipment that was focused on the exterior walls. Floor 2 was still having problems with water seeping from voids in concrete into “walker duct.” We met with Tim French and discussed relative humidity, moisture contents of materials and drying of the structure and contents as it applies to this building. He was confidant that we had positive control of the environmental conditions of the building. There were no additional drips between floors, an indication that we were making significant headway in solving the “walker duct” problem. We set up document drying chambers on the 4^th floor to dry FEMA documents.

Days 22 To 23

Damage assessment teams began final evaluation and equipment was cycled down through the building as required. We continued to work on final moisture content equilibrium, and removed desiccant dehumidifiers from floors 4 and 5. Floors 2 and 3 “walker ducts” were evaluated for rate of drying, and equipment repositioned form final drying. Social Services and FEMA documents were reboxed. Equipment trailers were prepared as part of demobilization process.

Day 24 and 25

We began the demobilization process and the removal of drying equipment from the building. Moisture content readings, and temperature/humidity readings for the entire structure were finalized. The balance of FEMA documents were packed and returned to the 6th floor. We replaced HEPA filters on 31 Phoenix air scrubbers with a 4-stage filtration system to handle paint fumes, new carpet offgassing and dust and particulate matter generated during the reconstruction process. As of Saturday, November 18, all equipment had been demobilized and re-packed with the exception of 31 air scrubbers, which were to remain until the building was reoccupied.

The total floor space mitigated and dried was approximately 250,000 square feet. Due to the nature of occupancy, high-level security and safety protocols were continually in place, but 7,776 man-hours were expended without a single reportable accident or security violation. The final documentation report was approximately 250 pages and included graphs, continuous measurement records of moisture content of structure and contents.

We had the good fortune to be part of an exceptional team of professionals. The industrial hygienists, the building owners and managers, and restoration and reconstruction company all worked together on a very difficult project with high profile occupants to accomplish a very short building recovery.

Frank Headon, CR, CMH, WLS is president of First Restoration Services Inc., a multi-tiered restoration company out of Charlotte, NC., that does catastrophe response for insurance and business clients world wide (800-743-6717).

(Reprinted with permission from the publisher of Indoor Environment Connections, Volume 3, Issue 5, March 2002.)

Mold can be an allergen, and in rare cases can be toxic to humans. Please exercise extreme caution when handling moldy materials. Always wear rubber gloves and a dust particulate mask when handling materials with mold on them. After contact with mold, always wash hands and face before eating or drinking.

Steps to recover mold damaged materials:

Upon receipt:

1. Wearing a facemask and gloves, unpack the mold-damaged tapes, and place on tables or shelves in a closed-off, ventilated room (a triage room) that has low heat and humidity.
2. If necessary, place a dehumidifier in the room with the materials.
3. If materials are wet, place a fan directed over the materials to blow them dry.

Initial recovery:

1. Wearing a facemask and gloves, remove a small group of tapes (approximately ten) at a time to work on them in a clean room.
2. One at a time, remove the tapes from the box. Use a post-it note or other marker to mark the box and tape.
3. If the box is cardboard, break the box down so that all sides are flat. Photocopy the entire box. If the contract allows you to do so, discard the box in a trash receptacle that will be emptied at the end of the day. If the contract does not allow you to discard the box, place it in a ziplock-type plastic bag. Place the photocopy in a safe place to reunite with the moldy tape when it is recovered.
4. If the box is plastic, wipe it down with dilute isopropyl alcohol in a ventilated area. Set aside to dry.

Vacuum recovery:

1. Wearing a facemask and gloves, set up the work area. Attach the vacuum hose to the HEPA vacuum system. Also attach the soft brush attachment.
2. Set the tape on the work area and remove flanges from the tape, if possible.
3. Place fiberglass screen on top of tape.
4. In a step-wise fashion place the vacuum brush nozzle on the tape; work across the tape by setting the vacuum brush on the tape and lifting it.
5. If the mold is friable (easily damaged), use a very soft brush and whisk the mold into the vacuum.
6. Do not drag the vacuum nozzle over the tape; do not allow heavy pressure on the edge of the tape.
7. Repeat on the other side of the tape and set tape aside for buffer-winder cleaning.
8. Wipe down the work surface periodically with dilute isopropyl alcohol (once every ten tapes). When work for the day has ended, clean surfaces. Especially, clean the brush attachment and any other brush that has been in contact with mold in a soapy solution, and set out to dry overnight.

Buffer-winder cleaning:

1. Wearing a facemask and gloves, place the tape on the appropriate buffer-winder cleaning machine. NOTE: all workers in the vicinity of the cleaning room must wear face masks when this cleaning occurs.
2. Clean the tape as normal on the buffer-winder cleaning machine.
3. Use the vacuum to aspirate mold particles from the pellon material and from the vicinity of the cleaning machine during the cleaning operation.
4. Clean the cleaning machine with isopropyl alcohol when the batch is through.
5. Clean the photocopy machine.

Other notes:

1. Take frequent breaks, as the mask can be fatiguing.
2. Keep thorough notes about the amount of time spent on each tape and about the condition of each tape.
3. If necessary, we have a contract with a company that will analyze mold (Pure Earth Environmental, 1-856-486-1177).

Dan Gaydos, who sent this information on request, made some additional comments in his letter:

The procedures do not provide specifications on the face mask and vacuum cleaner. The face mask is a nose/mouth apparatus which accommodates 2 HEPA filter canisters that eliminate particulates down to 1 micron or finer. An archivists’ vacuum cleaner should also accommodate a HEPA filter that blocks particulates of 1 micron or finer. The ones we use are rated down to 0.3 microns.

When receiving mold-contaminated media from a client, we routinely have the mold tested. It’s a very quick, inexpensive step, which assures the safety of both the client and the staff. Some molds can be toxic, though almost all are irritating.

Buffer-winder cleaning is a proprietary process that is a final cleaning after initial recovery and vacuum recovery. This requires a high-speed transport across dust-free pellon rolls that clean any mold from both sides of the actual tape surface, to further ensure complete elimination of mold from the tape.

Resources:

VidiPax, for complete magnetic media restoration service. ph: 212-563-1999

Pure Earth Environmental Labs, for mold testing. ph: 856-486-1177

Lab Safety Supply, for face masks, filters, vacuum cleaners. ph: 800-356-2501

(VidiPax, The Magnetic Media Restoration Company, is at 450 West 31st St., 4th fl., New York, NY 10001; tel. 212/583-1999, fax 212/563-1994).

Thomas E. Miller, the attorney representing owners in a $5 million class action lawsuit against the developer of “The Gables” condominium complex in Coral Gables, has co-authored an important handbook titled, “Home and Condo Defects: A Consumer Guide to Faulty Construction” (Seven Locks Press, $9.95 in paperback). The book educates homeowners about potentially dangerous and costly construction defects and the process of seeking resolution. It is available at Barnes & Noble and other bookstores.

Miller wrote the handbook with his daughter, Rachel Miller. Both are nationally renowned specialists in construction defect and land subsidence claims. They have represented hundreds of homeowners and homeowner associations in construction defect lawsuits throughout the United States and have won more than $350 million on behalf of their clients. Besides “The Gables” lawsuit, they currently are examining potential construction defect claims in Boynton Beach and Aventura as well as other areas throughout the U.S.

Miller observed that “the American dream can turn into a nightmare for the family that discovers their new home is riddled with problems. Our goal in writing this handbook was to let them know that they can effectively fight back.”

The book has been widely endorsed by watchdogs in government and media. Sandy Lopez, national director of Homeowners Against Deficient Dwellings Inc. (HADD), said the handbook “dispels the counterfeit claims of the building industry regarding construction defect litigation and informs homeowners not to fall into builders’ implied one-year warranty myth.”

Harvey Rosenfield, president of the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, added that the handbook is “an important resource for protecting home values.”

The most common defects homeowners encounter are leaking roofs and windows; mold, mildew and fungal damage resulting from water seepage; residences not properly attached to foundations; and balconies and decks that fail prematurely. For instance, the defects at “The Gables” condominium for which Miller is seeking redress include faulty air conditioning, roof and window leaks, electrical problems, pool and tennis court surface failures and loose balcony hand rails.

Miller estimated that a third of new residential and commercial construction has some significant structural defects. The industry trend of using cheaper materials and cutting corners to increase profits and speed up production has contributed to the upsurge in claims.

The Miller Law Firm is headquartered at 4685 MacArthur Court, Suite 300, Newport Beach, California 92660, and represents homeowners throughout the United States. The firm may be contacted at 800-403-3332 or http://www.constructiondefects.com. (The handbook may be ordered through this website.)

For more information, contact Jane Swanko Souaid at 305-867-8090.