[House Hearing, 107 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
MOLD: A GROWING PROBLEM
=======================================================================
JOINT HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS
AND THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY OPPORTUNITY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 18, 2002
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services
Serial No. 107-77
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
82-476 WASHINGTON : 2002
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES
MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio, Chairman
JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa JOHN J. LaFALCE, New York
MARGE ROUKEMA, New Jersey, Vice BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts
Chair PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska MAXINE WATERS, California
RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois
MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ, New York
PETER T. KING, New York MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma KEN BENTSEN, Texas
ROBERT W. NEY, Texas JAMES H. MALONEY, Connecticut
BOB BARR, Georgia DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon
SUE W. KELLY, New York JULIA CARSON, Indiana
RON PAUL, Texas BRAD SHERMAN, California
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio MAX SANDLIN, Texas
CHRISTOPHER COX, California GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
DAVE WELDON, Florida BARBARA LEE, California
JIM RYUN, Kansas FRANK MASCARA, Pennsylvania
BOB RILEY, Alabama JAY INSLEE, Washington
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois DENNIS MOORE, Kansas
WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas
DOUG OSE, California STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES, Ohio
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
MARK GREEN, Wisconsin HAROLD E. FORD Jr., Tennessee
PATRICK J. TOOMEY, Pennsylvania RUBEN HINOJOSA, Texas
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut KEN LUCAS, Kentucky
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona RONNIE SHOWS, Mississippi
VITO FOSSELLA, New York JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
GARY G. MILLER, California WILLIAM LACY CLAY, Missouri
ERIC CANTOR, Virginia STEVE ISRAEL, New York
FELIX J. GRUCCI, Jr., New York MIKE ROSS, Arizona
MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey
MIKE ROGERS, Michigan
PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio
Terry Haines, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
SUE W. KELLY, New York, Chair
RON PAUL, Ohio, Vice Chairman LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois
PETER T. KING, New York KEN BENTSEN, Texas
ROBERT W. NEY, Texas JAY INSLEE, Washington
CHRISTOPHER COX, California JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
DAVE WELDON, Florida DENNIS MOORE, Kansas
WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina MICHAEL CAPUANO, Massachusetts
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona RONNIE SHOWS, Mississippi
VITO FOSSELLA, New York JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
ERIC CANTOR, Virginia WILLIAM LACY CLAY, Missouri
PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio
Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity
MARGE ROUKEMA, New Jersey, Chair
MARK GREEN, Wisconsin, Vice BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts
Chairman NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ, New York
DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska JULIA CARSON, Indiana
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama BARBARA LEE, California
PETER T. KING, New York JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES, Ohio
BOB BARR, Georgia MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
SUE W. KELLY, New York MAXINE WATERS, California
BOB RILEY, Alabama BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
GARY G. MILLER, California MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
ERIC CANTOR, Virginia WILLIAM LACY CLAY, Missouri
FELIX J. GRUCCI, Jr, New York STEVE ISRAEL, New York
MIKE ROGERS, Michigan
PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on:
July 18, 2002................................................ 1
Appendix:
July 18, 2002................................................ 27
WITNESSES
Thursday, July 18, 2002
Ballard, Melinda, President, Policyholders of America............ 12
Howard, Gerald M., Executive Vice President/CEO on behalf of the
National Association of Home Builders.......................... 9
Redd, Stephen C., M.D., Chief, Air Pollution and Respiratory
Health Branch, National Center for Environmental Health Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services............................................. 7
Sandler, Howard M., M.D., Sandler Occupational Medicine
Associates, Inc................................................ 16
Stewart, Gordon, President, Insurance Information Institute New
York, New York................................................. 14
Tighe, Thomas C., Executive Assistant of the International Union
of Operating Engineers and Director of Stationary Affairs...... 11
APPENDIX
Prepared statements:
Kelly, Hon. Sue W............................................ 28
Roukema, Hon. Marge.......................................... 31
Clay, Hon. Wm. Lacy.......................................... 33
Conyers, Hon. John........................................... 35
Gutierrez, Hon. Luis V....................................... 42
Lee, Hon. Barbara............................................ 44
Ballard, Melinda............................................. 46
Howard, Gerald M.,........................................... 50
Redd, Stephen C.,............................................ 57
Sandler, Howard.............................................. 69
Stewart, Gordon.............................................. 75
Tighe, Thomas C.,............................................ 82
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
Kelly, Hon. Sue W.:
``Costly Lawyer cashes in on `Mold' Money,'' New York Post,
May 17, 2002............................................... 86
Ballard, Melinda:
``Breakdown of Mold--Related Insurance Claims by State,
Number of Claims and Date''................................ 87
Written response to questions from Hon. Luis V. Gutierrez.... 88
Howard, Gerald M.:
Written response to questions from Hon. Luis V. Gutierrez.... 94
Sandler, Howard:
Written response to questions from Hon. Luis V. Gutierrez.... 96
Stewart, Gordon:
``How did we get here? Texas: Mold's Ground Zero.''.......... 99
Written response to questions from Hon. Luis V. Gutierrez.... 112
Tighe, Thomas C.:
Written response to questions from Hon. Luis V. Gutierrez.... 114
Air Conditioning Contractors of America, prepared statement...... 116
Associated General Contractors of America, prepared statement.... 120
Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of America, prepared
statement...................................................... 122
MOLD: A GROWING PROBLEM
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 18, 2002
U.S. House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Oversight
and Investigations,
and Subcommittee on Housing
and Community Opportunity,
Committee on Financial Services,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 2:20 p.m., in
Room 2128, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Sue W. Kelly
[Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations] presiding.
Present for the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations: Representatives Kelly, Tiberi, Gutierrez,
Inslee, Schakowsky and Clay.
Present for the Subcommittee on Housing and Community
Opportunity: Representatives Kelly, Miller, Tiberi, Frank, Lee,
Schakowsky, Clay and Israel.
Also present: Representatives Conyers and Gonzalez.
Chairwoman Kelly. This joint hearing of the Subcommittee on
Oversight and Investigations and the Subcommittee on Housing
and Community Opportunity will come to order.
I want to thank all Members of Congress who are present
today. There will be some more joining us. We have a vote on
the floor of the House, which is why there are not so many
people here just now, but they will be coming in, and I want to
thank them for coming and for their presence today.
Without objection, all members present will participate
fully in the hearing; and all opening statements and questions
will be made part of the official hearing record.
The Chair recognizes herself for a brief opening statement.
In the preparation for this hearing, I have spoken to many
of my friends and colleagues about the issue of mold damage in
commercial and private properties and reports of adverse health
effects. While there are many who are aware of the seriousness
of this issue, there are also many who are unaware of the
growing scope of this problem. In an effort to increase all of
our knowledge, Chairwoman Roukema, Ranking Members Gutierrez,
Frank and I have agreed to hold this joint hearing.
In my view, one issue with this is the lack of scientific
evidence as to the direct correlation between mold damage and
adverse health effects. One of the reasons that I am personally
interested in this is that my major in college was
bacteriology, and I dealt a lot with molds and so forth. So
this has a personal interest to me. In addition to that, I am
an asthmatic, and so are my kids. So, because of this
uncertainty, I think homeowners' fears grow sometimes without
the definitive evidence of what is safe or potentially
dangerous levels of mold.
In addition, the uncertainty of this issue has created a
window of opportunity for unethical lawyers and contractors to
prey upon vulnerable populations. As evidence and without
objection, I am going to make part of the record a copy of a
May 17 New York Post article entitled, Costly Lawyer Cashes in
on Mold Money.
[The following information can be found on page XX in the
appendix.]
Chairwoman Kelly. This article tells the story of a lawyer
who settled a class action lawsuit for $1.7 million, taking
more than half of that money for himself; and he left the
families with an average of $1,000 each. The part of the
article that alarmed me the most was this: "the money he
offered me wasn't even enough to buy a decent tombstone for my
daughter." this was said by an 81-year-old woman named Mattie
Qualie, whose daughter, Lorraine Woods, age 58, died in 1998
from an alleged long exposure to molds.
All of us need to step back and look at the facts
surrounding this issue and do so in a coordinated manner. The
witnesses we have at the table today represent a broad cross-
section of the interested parties in the mold debate. By
working together, I hope we will be able to find some answers
in an area where there are still large numbers of unanswered
questions.
Let me state unequivocally that all of us have great
sympathy for those who are suffering health problems of any
kind, no matter what the cause. I would personally urge
property owners to do everything they can to protect their
investments and, most importantly, the families, from mold
infestation. At the same time, this Congress must assess the
true nature of the mold issue before rushing into legislative
action.
In the process of preparing for this hearing, my staff
interviewed numerous medical experts who emphasized that mold
simply cannot be directly connected to so many of the serious
medical conditions for which it has been blamed. There are many
causes that can be cited for the symptoms people blame on mold,
such as hypersensitivity, allergies, viruses and deficiencies
of the immune system.
As we will hear this afternoon, the Centers for Disease
Control is currently working with other institutions to study
this issue and provide more information on the true health
effects of mold infestation. It is imperative that we look to
the Nation's medical research institutions to help us separate
legitimate claims from what some have termed ``mold hysteria.''
Ultimately, we have got to have better scientific standards
and better safety education to help consumers and the industry
identify legitimate dangers to immediately begin for
compensation and remediation. We are holding this hearing to
help us separate the facts from the myths surrounding the
recent dramatic rise in mold claims and its reported
catastrophic effects.
While many Americans are unaware of potential dangers from
untreated mold growth in commercial and private properties, the
lack of scientific standards and documentation only adds to the
confusion we all feel when confronted by potential dangers of
substances that we grew up to believe were harmless. Who would
have thought that when we shook pepper on our food, we were
actually shaking on a mold? Who would think when we ate
peanuts, we were actually ingesting a mold?
I think it is very important that we distinguish what is
myth from the scientific fact.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Sue W. Kelly can be found
on page XX in the appendix.]
I am now going to recognize my friend from Massachusetts
for his opening statement, Mr. Frank.
Mr. Frank. Madam Chairman, on a day when the House is going
to be voting, since we are meeting during the House being in
session, and given the large number of witnesses, I will waive
an opening statement so we can get the benefit of what they
have to say. I can submit remarks later for the record.
Chairwoman Kelly. Thank you very much, Mr. Frank.
Mr. Miller.
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
I read a speech given at a gathering of attorneys, and the
new quote is "mold is gold." it reminds me of tort litigation
in California on attached products for defects, where attorneys
would go out and sue a builder and every subcontractor and the
lender. Then they would go to the board of directors, and they
would say, do you enjoin in this lawsuit, or you can be held
personally liable for damages, which by law they could be. So
then the board of directors enjoins in the lawsuit, and the
associations have to pay attorneys.
The attorneys go in and buy one unit and gut it. If they
can find nailing on drywall that is just an inch overspaced or
half an inch over, they say that is a violation and it is
typical of every unit. If they can find an oversized nut, they
say that is typical of every unit. If they can find a crack in
the concrete, they say it is typical of every unit.
I know a developer who built a project in 1986 that lost a
lawsuit in 1995 for $23 million, and it cost him $3.2 million
to build the complex. I mean, it is a little outrageous.
It reminds me when of when I was taking rhetoric in
college. A professor referred to a post-hoc fallacy, and it is
that A occurs; therefore, B occurs; therefore, A caused B.
I think we are jumping to conclusions on some of these
issues.
I read some testimony that alluded to individuals having
died from mold, Aspergillus growing in their lungs was the
cause. Yet if you go to a wheat field, cornfield, a forest, a
park, if you deal with mulch and you look at the parts per
billion that you can receive just mulching your yard or walking
in a forest so far supersedes what you could receive in the
house with mold growing, it is just unbelievable. In fact,
Aspergillus can be found in peanuts, pecans, peas, bread,
cheese, rice, corn ears, barley grain, sorghum wheat and
cottonseed, exceeding what you will find in a house.
Some of the stuff I have read, I believe if there are
legitimate claims, I don't have a problem with somebody being
rewarded for legitimate claims. But it appears that some of
this is just a way to get to an insurer or a builder and find a
way to pull some money out of their pocket.
Some of the claims that I have read, you would think there
would have to be some liability on the part of the homeowner to
do and perform basic maintenance on their home. When you have a
leaky pipe, you don't wait a year to turn it into the insurer
because your pipe was leaking, and then when your insurer pays
you money to fix it and it far supersedes that money for other
things, you still don't fix the leak--I mean, there is some
point in time you have to look at yourself in the mirror and
say, am I a little to blame here?
I think we are avoiding that, in some cases and in some
points, individual responsibility seems to be overlooked and
people look to others to blame for their own negligence.
So I am looking forward to the hearing. If there is truly
scientific evidence that people are being damaged and it is
other people's fault, let's get to the bottom of that. But if
somebody says, well, look, there is something there, and harm
must be occurring to somebody because of that, and yet there is
no scientific evidence that that be the case--in fact, in some
of the court cases I read there were no damages awarded for
health issues at all, and yet these outrageous dollars are
being proposed out there.
Madam Chairwoman, I applaud you for having this hearing
today and look forward to the testimony.
Chairwoman Kelly. Thank you very much, Mr. Miller.
Mrs. Roukema was unable to be with us today, but, with
unanimous consent, I would like to insert her statement in the
record.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Marge Roukema can be found
on page XX in the appendix.]
Chairwoman Kelly. We turn now to the ranking member of the
Oversight Committee, Mr. Gutierrez.
Mr. Gutierrez. Thank you very much, Chairwoman Kelley, and
the ranking member, Mr. Frank, thank you for joining us this
afternoon here and being part of this important hearing.
We are gathered here to discuss an issue of great
importance to thousands of Americans. The issue at hand is mold
and the impact it has on property and people's health.
In fact, believe it or not, mold is a growing problem,
experiencing a five-fold increase in occurrences in homes.
Thousands of Americans today are living in houses terribly
infested by mold.
I am sure there are those that would argue that the five-
fold increase is probably due to the fact that all the
homeowners in the United States have decided to disregard and
be careless about their water pipes and how it is they keep
good conditions in their basement. Well, maybe that is the
case, that homeowners across the country, specifically in the
State of Texas, apparently, if that is the case, homeowners are
being very, very derelict in their duty, as they have had a 500
percent increase this year over last year.
So maybe it is all of the careless, unworthy homeowners who
bought a home, it is their prize possession, it is their number
one investment, and they just decided they were going to have
mold in it, and there is no other good reason for the sudden
surge and increase in that mold.
With that, Madam Chairwoman, I have nothing further to say.
I would like the rest of my comments to be inserted in the
record.
Chairwoman Kelly. Without objection.
[The statement of Hon. Luis V. Gutierrez can be found on
page XX in the appendix.]
Chairwoman Kelly. Also, without objection, I have a letter
to Chairman Oxley from the Associated General Contractors of
America which, without objection, we will insert in the record.
[The following information can be found on page XX in the
appendix.]
Chairwoman Kelly. We go now to Mr. Clay.
Mr. Clay. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I appreciate your
having this hearing today, and I look forward to the testimony
we are about to hear.
We are indeed facing a growing problem with mold in houses
and buildings. Homeowners, insurance companies and building
construction companies are encountering tremendous financial
and health problems because of harmful molds.
We have thousands of molds, and most of them cause no
problems to humans. As a matter of fact, some are beneficial to
man and are vital for use in medicines, food production, and
many other aspects of our everyday lives. While we mostly
stereotype molds as being only in damp, dark environments, they
exist everywhere.
Madam Chairman, I will cut my opening statement short so
that we can hear testimony from the witnesses and ask that I
submit my statement for the record.
Chairwoman Kelly. Thank you very much, Mr. Clay.
[The prepared statement of Hon. William Lacy Clay can be
found on page XX in the appendix.]
Chairwoman Kelly. Ms. Schakowsky.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I will also
submit my opening statement for the record.
I do want to say that, on my way over here, I was telling
some colleagues of ours that I was coming here, and, to a
person, they told me of a situation of pretty devastating mold
contamination in their district. One Member told me about a
school that actually had to be completely shut down because of
mold contamination. Another told me about a building across the
street from the site of the World Trade Center, some 60 stories
tall or higher, that now is shut down; and they are trying to
figure out what to do with it because of this toxic mold
infestation.
So it was really interesting to me. I had been aware of it
from some constituents in my district, but this is a growing
problem that increasing numbers of Members of Congress are
aware of. I look forward to the testimony today.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Janice D. Schakowsky can be
found on page XX in the appendix.]
Mr. Gutierrez. If the gentlewoman would yield, as
Congressman Schakowsky and I have both been made aware, in and
around the City of Chicago in two different suburban locations
they have had to close down two substantial high schools in the
last 2 years because of the problem with mold. But maybe it was
the kids coming to school ill-prepared those days that brought
the mold with them.
Chairwoman Kelly. Perhaps they came to school wet.
Mr. Gonzalez.
Mr. Gonzalez. Madam Chairman, thank you very much for the
opportunity and privilege of attending this subcommittee
hearing. I am not a member of either subcommittee, and I do
appreciate being here.
Just a couple of observations. I hope this is not going to
somehow end up again a big argument over tort reform and
everything else. We are really here to be educated again with
the facts. Unlike war, legislation doesn't have to have the
effect of truth being its first casualty.
As far as litigation, I am very aware of what is going on
in the State of Texas, but I will remind my fellow members,
addressing some of the remarks, that some of the claimants in
my own community, I will tell you who they are, one of them is
a Justice of the Fourth Court of Appeals, a Republican; a State
Senator, a Democrat; and some very prominent families. I don't
think it is going to fit the description that sometimes we have
had some abuses out there.
But we really need to get down to the truth to see how
serious it is, and in fact have we been handling it
appropriately.
Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
Chairwoman Kelly. Thank you very much, Mr. Gonzalez.
Mr. Inslee.
Mr. Inslee. Thank you. I just want to express my
appreciation for your holding this hearing. Just two brief
comments.
First off, I know this is a real issue in my district where
we had the taxpayers have a problem because a contractor in a
school left the situation that did cause an enormous amount of
mold growth that made this building entirely uninhabitable. The
taxpayers had to bring a claim against the individuals
involved. The individuals ultimately accepted responsibility,
as they should have; and the taxpayers were reimbursed hundreds
and hundreds of thousands of dollars they had coming to them.
So I understand this has a broad import for taxpayers, not just
health.
The other comment I want to make as far as the tort issue,
everybody has their perspective, and I am very interested in
what is going on out there in the legal claim field. But I will
just share one little story for you, if you talk about this
issue in tort reform.
I had a friend, let's call him Jim for a minute. I used to
be a lawyer. I handled a lot of cases on behalf of people who
had been injured, and Jim and I for 10 years had a running
argument every time we had dinner or a brew together.
Basically, he said all these claims were manufactured,
fictitious, ridiculous, and they were ruining the American
economy.
We had that argument for 10 years, until the night his son
got hit by actually a driver who had pulled out of a stop sign
and caused grievous injury to his son; and his attitude changed
very, very quickly. And my son is a home builder, so you know
where I am coming from. I will tell you, if you get this mold
growing in your house, your view of tort reform changes very
rapidly, because I know this is a problem for a lot of people.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Chairwoman Kelly. We are joined by our colleague, Mr.
Conyers. Mr. Conyers has a singular interest in this and, in
fact, is the author of a bill, so we have asked him to join us
today for this hearing, so he will be sitting in on this
hearing.
If there are no more opening statements, we will begin with
the witnesses on our panel.
Before us today we have Dr. Stephen Redd of the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, a division of the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services. Dr. Redd, who is the
Chief of the Air Pollution and Respiratory Health Branch of the
National Center for Environmental Health at the Centers for
Disease Control, is the institution's lead scientist on air
pollution and respiratory health.
Following Dr. Redd will be Mr. Gerald Howard, Executive
Vice President and Chief Executive Officer of the National
Association of Homebuilders.
He will be followed by Thomas Tighe. Did I pronounce that
right? Tighe, like the necktie, for all of us to remember. He
is Executive Assistant to the General President and Director of
Stationary Affairs at the International Union of Operating
Engineers, both of whom will provide us with information on
mold infestation in buildings.
Then we will hear from Ms. Melinda Ballard, the President
of Policyholders of America, who will discuss mold from the
perspective of those whose homes have been affected.
Following that, we will hear Mr. Gordon Stewart, President
of the Insurance Information Institute, who will discuss the
effects of mold claims on the insurance industry.
Finally, we will hear from Dr. Howard Sandler, President of
Sandler Occupational Medicine Associates, who will join Dr.
Redd in discussing mold and health.
I thank you all for coming. We are very pleased to have you
join us here today to share your thoughts on this difficult
issue.
Without objection, your written statements will be made a
part of the record.
If you have not been with us before, there are lights in
front of you in that black box at the end of the table. You
will be recognized for a 5-minute summary of your testimony.
Your entire written testimony will be made a part of the
record. But the lights will indicate, just the way they do on a
stoplight on a street, green means go; when you get to the
yellow, it means you have 1 minute left; and when it goes red,
it means it is time to finish speaking. That means your time
has expired.
Chairwoman Kelly. So, let us begin with you, Dr. Redd.
Thank you so much for joining us today.
STATEMENT OF STEPHEN REDD, M.D., CHIEF, AIR POLLUTION AND
RESPIRATORY HEALTH BRANCH, NATIONAL CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
HEALTH, CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION
Dr. Redd. Thank you very much. I am Dr. Stephen Redd, the
lead CDC scientist on air pollution and respiratory health at
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Accompanying me today is Dr. Thomas Sinks, Associate
Director for Science of environmental issues at CDC.
It is a pleasure to appear before you today on behalf of
the CDC, an agency that serves by protecting the health and
safety of the American people. I want to thank you for taking
the time to examine the importance of mold exposure and its
affects on people's health.
Today I will briefly summarize three issues for the
committee: CDC's perspective on the state of the science
relating to mold and health effects in people; CDC's efforts to
evaluate health effects possibly associated with molds; and
CDC's next steps in addressing this issue.
Fungi are a kingdom of organisms that include mushrooms,
molds and yeasts. There are between 50,000 and 250,000 species
of fungi. More than 1,000 species of mold have been found in
U.S. homes. Molds need moisture to grow and grow best in warm,
damp conditions.
Fungi and molds are known to cause several specific
diseases. Fungi can cause infections. Ingestion of mold-
produced toxins can cause liver and kidney tumors, and molds
cause a rare, chronic lung disease called hypersensitivity
pneumonitis in workers in industrial and agricultural settings.
In addition, molds have been associated with allergies.
Airborne mold allergens have been associated with hay fever,
allergic conjunctivitis and allergic asthma. The Institute of
Medicine recently concluded that there was evidence of an
association between exposure to mold and exacerbations of
asthma but insufficient information on whether mold exposure
caused the onset of asthma.
We do not know whether molds cause other adverse health
effects, such as hemorrhage from the lungs, memory loss or
lethargy. We do not if the occurrence of mold-related illness
is increasing. Other than surveillance for hospital-acquired
infections, there is no system to track the public's exposure
to and the possible health effects of mold.
CDC has undertaken a number of activities related to mold
and its possible effects on people's health. CDC conducted two
epidemiologic investigations of clusters of hemorrhage from the
lungs of infants. In one investigation a possible association
was reported between exposure to the mold Stachybotrys atra and
disease. This association was not found in a second
investigation.
In a review of that first investigation, CDC reviewers and
an external panel of experts determined that there was
insufficient evidence of an association between exposure to
Stachybotrys atra or other fungi and hemorrhage from the lungs.
CDC has plans to further evaluate this health condition,
including tracking activities, investigations of disease
clusters, and research studies.
In recent years, we have conducted investigations in
occupational settings, in schools, and in residences following
flooding episodes. In addition to working with State health
departments in North Dakota, Texas, and Connecticut, we have
collaborated with the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the
U.S. EPA, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
My written testimony contains more details on these activities.
CDC is also funding the Institute of Medicine to evaluate
the relationship between damp or moldy indoor spaces and
adverse health effects. In addition to conducting a
comprehensive review of the scientific literature, the
Institute of Medicine will provide recommendations for public
health intervention and for future research. This work began in
January 2002 and will be completed in the summer or early fall
of 2003.
In addition to these efforts, CDC is currently developing
an agenda for research, service, and education related to
molds. This effort will enable CDC to make recommendations for
reducing mold contamination, identify conditions that
contribute to the occurrence of disease following mold
exposure, and assist State and local health departments in
improving their capacity to investigate mold exposures.
This is challenging work. Molds can be found almost
anywhere, and individuals have different sensitivities to
molds. It is not possible to specify a safe or a dangerous
level for mold at this time.
Because mold exposure can be harmful, CDC concurs with the
recommendations of agencies such as EPA and FEMA that mold in
indoor environments should be removed.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I would be happy
to answer any questions that you may have.
Chairwoman Kelly. Thank you very much, Dr. Redd.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Stephen C. Redd can be found
on page XX in the appendix.]
Chairwoman Kelly. Mr. Howard.
STATEMENT OF GERALD M. HOWARD, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS
Mr. Howard. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, Mr. Frank, Mr.
Gutierrez. Thank you for holding this hearing.
My name is Jerry Howard, and I am the Chief Executive
Officer of the National Association of Home Builders. NAHB
represents more than 205,000 member firms involved in home
building, remodeling, multifamily housing and other aspects of
residential and light commercial construction. In fact, it is
not an exaggeration to say that our members produce 80 to 85
percent of all the housing units built in the United States.
Our membership is united in its concern over the impact of
this mold issue. Specifically, first and foremost, like all
citizens, we are concerned about the health of our fellow
Americans. NAHB, upon learning of the mold issue, immediately
went to the forefront and began to study the impacts of mold
and what we might be able to do about it.
As a result of that study, with what we have done is, A, we
began to educate our members about what they can do to decrease
the amount of mold and housing in the construction process;
and, B, to inform homeowners and home buyers about what steps
they can do to remediate mold.
Specifically, we will be presenting a pamphlet, a bilingual
pamphlet, on our web site and in hard copy to all of our home
builder members who prefer to give it out to their customers,
and we are encouraging them to do so.
Secondly, NAHB is concerned about the potential impact of
mold on the housing industry as a whole. As you are all aware,
the housing industry has been the bellwether and the buoy of
our economy over the last several years. In fact, depending on
what numbers you choose to believe, NAHB's members in the
housing industry produce 14 percent of the Nation's gross
domestic product.
Over the past year, low interest rates and strong
underlying demand for housing has kept housing strong while the
rest of the economy has struggled. Of the almost 1.6 million
new housing units, again I say, NAHB members produced 80 to 85
percent of them.
Unfortunately, the recent attention to indoor mold has the
potential to negatively impact the housing industry and housing
affordability. Specifically, I would point to increases in
general liability insurance that our members are suffering. As
an example, last year the general liability insurance on a 63-
unit entry-level housing development in California, and by
"entry-level" I mean a purchase price of $125,000 per home, the
general liability insurance on that project was $93,000, and it
included mold insurance coverage. This year, that same project
is insured for $216,000; and mold is excluded from the
coverage. Unfortunately, Madam Chairwoman and members of the
committee, that cost will ultimately be passed on to the
American consumer.
We agree with Dr. Redd and others who are going to testify
that this is a serious issue. However, our primary concern is
that we not rush to judgment. To the best that we can tell now,
mold, while it is harmful, is not linked directly to any
serious illnesses, and specifically mold in well-constructed,
well-maintained houses has not been an issue for most Americans
and their health.
A survey that NAHB handed out in 2002 showed that most of
our members are facing similar insurance cost increases as
those described in my earlier example in California. Our
builders have seen these insurance companies begin with these
mold exclusions, and 150 percent increases is not out of the
ordinary.
Another potential adverse impact on the building industry
are the calls for these new regulations and new building code
requirements. NAHB has always sought to limit the economic
impact of regulations on the cost of housing, and we will
continue to do so. However, if it can be proven that there is a
significant link between serious health risks and mold, NAHB
would like to be part of the solution, and we look forward to
working with the Members of Congress to implement appropriate
regulations.
Once again, we would suggest, however, that regulations
generally do not fit the bill across the board for all types of
construction and in all parts of the country. What may
remediate mold effectively in California may not work in
Vermont. What may work in South Carolina might not work in
Idaho. So we would like to have the opportunity, if there is
proven a nexus, to work with Members of Congress to develop the
appropriate techniques to remediate mold, while at the same
time taking care to preserve affordable housing and housing
affordability.
Again, let me reiterate that NAHB takes the health issue
very seriously, that our members have been in the forefront of
informing and studying, and we are prepared to work with
Congress on this issue.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Chairwoman Kelly. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gerald M. Howard can be
found on page XX in the appendix.]
Chairwoman Kelly. Mr. Tighe.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS C. TIGHE, EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE
GENERAL PRESIDENT AND DIRECTOR OF STATIONARY AFFAIRS,
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS
Mr. Tighe. Chairwoman Kelley, committee members, on behalf
of General President Frank Hanley, I would like to thank you
for the opportunity to offer comments to your subcommittees.
My name is Thomas C. Tighe, and I am an Executive Assistant
to General President Frank Hanley of the International Union of
Operating Engineers. I have been a stationary engineer and
associated with the building industry for 34 years.
The International Union of Operating Engineers is a
progressive trade union with over 400,000 members. Of that
number, 120,000 are stationary engineers employed in the field
of facility operations and maintenance, providing a safe and
efficient environment for the American public.
Stationary engineers perform work in a multitude of
facilities throughout the United States. Our organization has
developed a sophisticated and comprehensive network of training
centers. We have the capacity to provide craft and regulatory
compliance training programs. The IUOE is uniquely qualified to
offer comments on indoor air quality issues at commercial
facilities. Our organization has been a national leader in
providing indoor air quality training.
Mold is a growing concern, and the confusion over the issue
continues to expand. Our organization is interested in the
development of future policy on this matter.
Mold presents a potential workplace hazard for workers and
facility occupants. Your deliberations at these public hearings
are important to the American public.
The IUOE has three specific concerns and would like to
briefly comment on each.
The first concern is education on overall mold issues. The
general public and industry-wide personnel need to be educated
about the facts related to mold.
Mold and IAQ-related issues are part of the new reality for
the general public. Currently, media reports of litigation
settlements are at the forefront of educating the public on the
health hazards of mold. Without a consensus from the scientific
community on the health effects of mold, speculation will drive
this issue. There needs to be a comprehensive educational
program with a clear understanding of the facts about mold and
its potential health effects in our homes and workplace.
The second concern is the lack of Federal mold standards.
Due to the lack of Federal standards on prevention,
investigation, testing and remediation of mold, the industry
continues to be in a state of confusion. The lack of standards
has multiple ramifications within a variety of industries.
In commercial facilities, the manner in which mold
complaints are handled are varied and lack uniformity. This
could create a variety of inconsistent procedures that can lead
to questionable practices.
The Environmental Protection Agency should be commended on
their work in producing guidelines on mold remediation in
school and commercial buildings. The guidelines provide a
general approach to a variety of issues when dealing with mold.
The IUOE believes this is a good first step in addressing this
issue.
The problem remains, however, that until guidelines are
transformed into standards, the industry-wide practice will
remain non-uniform and, therefore, potentially unsafe.
The third and last concern is that specific training on
mold standards needs to be developed and delivered to a variety
of industry personnel.
With the establishment of Federal standards, training
programs could be established to ensure a consistent and safe
approach to mold issues. Standards would create specific
procedures for the prevention, investigation, testing and
remediation of mold. The development of comprehensive training
for workers is imperative.
I have been involved in many aspects of curriculum
development and training implementation over the last 10 years
and can attest to the benefits of providing workers with
detailed training on performance-based objectives. This
approach, in our judgment, provides a cost-effective, results-
oriented way of addressing complex problems such as mold
prevention and remediation.
The IUOE has experience in developing and delivering skill-
based training programs and would be willing to explore the
possibilities of assisting in any future projects or programs
recommended by these subcommittees.
I would like to thank the committee for their time and
effort in this matter.
Chairwoman Kelly. Thank you very much, Mr. Tighe.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Thomas C. Tighe can be found
on page XX in the appendix.]
Chairwoman Kelly. Ms. Ballard.
STATEMENT OF MELINDA BALLARD, PRESIDENT, POLICYHOLDERS OF
AMERICA
Ms. Ballard. My name is Melinda Ballard, and I run an
association of homeowners called Policyholders of America, or
POA. Since we founded POA only 6 months ago, we have 18,763
American families in our membership, all victims of toxic mold.
That number should demonstrate what a crisis the American
homeowner is in as it relates to toxic mold infestations of
their homes.
Our members range from welfare families to some of the most
affluent in America. We are all active in politics not because
we necessarily know anything about politics but we know that
you all can and will make a difference for us. We also know
that our problems are not your problems, and we don't want you
or any other American family to suffer the financial turmoil
and devastating health effects our families have suffered. This
is why we are so passionate about this issue.
I would like for everyone here to put themselves in the
shoes of a young family who bought their first home after years
of squirreling away enough money for a down payment. Imagine
that a storm ravages your roof and driving rain enters your
home. Imagine calling your insurance company to report this
claim and being told it is not covered, even though the policy
says it is. Imagine watching blood come out of your youngest
child's ears and nose while she gasps for every breath and not
having a clue as to why this is happening.
Then imagine discovering that the roof leak that happened
several months before, wrongly denied by your carrier, caused
mycotoxin-producing molds to overtake several rooms of your
house, including an entire wall in your child's bedroom.
Now imagine that you and your entire family must abandon
your home and all of your possessions because they are all
contaminated; and continued exposure to these mycotoxins, now
airborne, could cause your 5-year-old daughter irreparable
harm. You get remediation bids and find that the cost of fixing
your home is greater than the value of your home.
Apart from losing your home and everything you own, your
family also faces tremendous health care costs and will be
burdened with the costs associated with renting temporary
housing while you battle it out with your insurance carrier
over the coverage that you, in fact, bought.
You try to hire an attorney--and a lot of you all like to
blame attorneys, and I don't much like attorneys, but I can't
blame them for this. You try to hire one. They won't take it.
They say that the damage to your life is only $200,000, and it
is going to cost more than that to take the insurance company
to trial. You can't afford to pay the out-of-pocket litigation
cost, so you really have no recourse against your Goliath
insurance company.
If you are that family, you have only a few choices: You
can walk away from your mortgage and let the house go back to
the lender; you can pay the tab for remediation by taking out a
second mortgage, but, unfortunately, that would mean that the
total loan is greater than what the bank will let you borrow;
you can sell your home to some poor unsuspecting family and not
disclose the problems; or, you can stay there, continue to
expose your family to the health hazards, and rack up medical
bills to the point you claim bankruptcy.
These are currently the choices of every family in our
membership. The economy suffers, builders and mortgage
companies suffer, the family who knowingly buys the problem
because of nondisclosure suffers, the medical profession
suffers. There are no winners. There are just losers.
I have asked the staff here to provide you with a handout
which is done State by State and by year of the mold claims as
of February 5, 2002. These numbers should have been updated,
but I was too busy to do that.
But as of February 5, 2002, there were over 16,000 first-
party insurance cases. These are not legal cases, I want that
to be understood. These are homeowners that have actually had
to hire either an attorney or take their matter up with their
State insurance department and get them to help resolve their
claims.
Chairwoman Kelly. Ms. Ballard, I want to remind you, you
have 1 minute.
Ms. Ballard. Thank you.
POA has outlined a few recommendations that we would like
for you to consider. Hopefully, these recommendations will help
you carve a solution.
We would very much be in favor of a self-funded government
pool that mimics the flood insurance program. A couple of years
from today there will be no insurance policy that covers mold,
and homeowners need to have somewhere to go. That is a fact of
life.
We are not trying to bankrupt the insurance industry. We
want them healthy and happy so that they can honor their
policies in the future. But what we do need is a safety net to
protect American families. The pool should not be considered an
insurance bailout, it should be considered an American public
bailout, and, by the way, a self-funded one.
Because of the time restrictions, I will just submit the
rest of my testimony as part of the written record.
Chairwoman Kelly. Thank you. We have it, and it is already
submitted as part of the written record. You will get another
crack at this when questions come around.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Melinda Ballard can be found
on page XX in the appendix.]
Chairwoman Kelly. We turn now to Mr. Stewart.
STATEMENT OF GORDON STEWART, PRESIDENT, INSURANCE INFORMATION
INSTITUTE
Mr. Stewart. Thank you, Madam Chairman and members.
The year 2001 was the worst in the history of the property
casualty industry, but I am not here to ask for sympathy. That
is the background. We estimate that in the homeowners sector
the loss was about $8.9 billion.
Mold is a major factor in these increased costs. Conditions
have reached crisis proportions in Texas; and mold has become a
serious problem in several other States, including California,
Florida, Arizona and Nevada. Commercial and residential mold
claims are now common in most other States as well, and we
heard from some members about specific things going on in their
districts.
We have submitted a large number of slides and bars and
pies that will give you a background of mold's impact
economically on insurance.
A couple of quick numbers. Mold claims in Texas rose 1,306
percent between the first quarter of 2000 and the fourth
quarter of 2002. The frequency of these claims per 1,000
policyholders rose 1,286 percent during the same period.
Mold claims in Texas, the cost of these claims, rose 560
percent between 2000 and 2001. Now, up until the last few
years, insurance adjusters routinely handled these in the
context of sudden and accidental water damage, which is the
only circumstance, as you know, under which mold is covered in
the standard contract. Mold damage has been specifically
excluded, unless it is a result of a covered peril, such as a
burst pipe, et cetera. The simple presence of mold, the fact it
is around, like termites or damage from vermin, is considered a
home maintenance issue, not an insurance-covered issue. This
has been true for a very, very long time.
In homeowner's insurance today, the fear of litigation has
led to great uncertainty about this long-standing coverage
exclusion, and insurers are doing many things, as you probably
know, to strengthen it, because it has always been there and
now it is under some attack.
Some reasons for this may be that, under the normal
property insurance premise, property insurance makes people
whole. It doesn't offer very much opportunity for significant
recovery. If you can move into liability, if you can move into
wrongful practices of some kind, if you can move into health,
then that changes the economic possibility for litigation
enormously.
The result of this uncertainty is that costs are going up.
Three years ago, the few claims that insurers did see were
handled for a few thousand dollars. An average mold claim today
costs about $35,000 and can easily exceed $100,000. That is
just to look into the claim and deal with it. If you put that
through the system, you can see what will happen to the cost
and, therefore, what will be passed on to all of the other
policyholders who don't have claims.
The average cost per policyholder went from about $23--this
is in Texas--in the first quarter of 2000 to about $444. That
is what everybody else pays now if we look at every mold claim
as a ``white suit'' problem. That resulted in additional
insurance costs in Texas of about $850 million.
Now, the surge and frequency and costs of these mold claims
in Texas cannot be explained by changes in the weather, they
cannot be explained by population growth, they can't be
explained because somehow all the houses are now different.
There has not been, as far as anybody knows, a new strain of
mold, wildly toxic. There is not a new plague abroad in the
land.
So, as a member earlier said, what is the variable here?
Well, we are not entirely sure, but one variable we do know is
the frequency and extent of litigation that has emerged and the
number of people who have flocked to the mitigation, analysis,
testing industry, some of whom were doing air conditioning
before, and we do know that these things are new.
Now, are there possible risks in mold that are serious?
Yes, there could well be. As some doctors will tell you,
certain individuals may be susceptible to certain health
consequences. But by no means are all Americans at risk from
the mold that has always been there. They can't be more at risk
now than they were in 1999. What could possibly have happened
here? That is one of the things we are looking at.
Today we are faced with a lot more claims without effective
Federal or State standards of what is an acceptable exposure
level, are the real health consequences. Nobody knows. We have
greatly increased costs for the average claim, driven in large
part by remediators who are just saying, this is what it will
cost. We have few ways of evaluating that, unlike lots of other
home costs we are used to. We have more court cases and
accusations of severe and permanent health damage; and there is
no peer reviewed, scientific research about health effects.
Health claims are coming under property policies that were
never intended to cover health claims, as you know. And now,
fearing bad-faith lawsuits, which is an area where you can
really build up the legal costs, insurers are tending to throw
money at mold claims because they don't want to be accused of
not doing everything they could be doing and having a very
expensive lawsuit.
The net of it is we have got these exploding costs, and the
only thing to do is either cut back on coverage and pass on
costs to policyholders. These things are going on in State
after State, so we have a kind of insurance crisis developing
as a result of the shock of this relatively recent occurrence.
We are deeply concerned, and I say this not idly, about
health consequences. If you think about property casualty
insurance, you think of all the things we don't want you to do.
We don't want you to drive drunk, we don't want you to smoke,
we don't want you to do dangerous behaviors. We want you to
live in a very sanitized, boring way. We are deeply, as you
know, involved in air bags, seat belts, occupational safety,
arson, fire, anything and everything to keep claim costs down.
This is a mantra of insurers. That is one of the reasons we are
considered to be boring to live around. We don't want bad
things to happen to you.
If there is a serious mold health problem, we would like to
be able to deal with this, but we don't see that something is
radically different biologically in 2001 than it was in the
year 2000.
Chairwoman Kelly. Mr. Stewart, you are over your time.
Could you sum that up for us, please? We have your written
statement as part of the record.
Mr. Stewart. I would like to just tell you one story, since
we heard an anecdote, and this happens to be my personal
anecdote.
We have an apartment. There was a water leak, a serious
water leak. The ceiling came down. We came back, found it on
the floor. Water damage. Lo and behold, we have mold.
I have a 3-year-old daughter. We just heard about a
hypothetical 5-year-old, or an anonymous 5-year-old. I have a
3-year-old who I love to the ends of this Earth.
What I did, in addition to calling people to do something
about the leak, was I got my old clothes, I got Clorox, I got
up on a ladder, I put on a mask, and day after day, until
something could be done, I cleaned up the mold. She is okay.
Chairwoman Kelly. Mr. Stewart, I am going to have to cut
you off because you are really way over time, and I have not
given anybody else this courtesy.
Mr. Stewart. Fine. I wanted to end with my personal story.
Chairwoman Kelly. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gordon Stewart can be found
on page XX in the appendix.]
Mr. Stewart. We move now to Dr. Sandler.
STATEMENT OF HOWARD M. SANDLER, M.D., PRESIDENT, SANDLER
OCCUPATIONAL MEDICINE ASSOCIATES
Mr. Sandler. Good afternoon, Madam Chairwoman and members.
My name is Howard Sandler. I am a physician specializing in
occupational medicine and environmental health.
I grew up in the D.C. area. My father was with the
Department of Defense, and for the last 15 years I have lived
in the great State of New York.
I have served as a medical officer with NIOSH, I have been
a consultant to OSHA, EPA, the Consumer Product Safety
Commission, as well as local government agencies and private
industry. I have investigated numerous indoor air quality
problems throughout the country in a wide variety of buildings,
homes and schools.
Specifically, I am dealing with some of the buildings
around the World Trade Center site, including some of those who
have water damage and mold proliferation, as well as schools on
Long Island and schools in the State of Illinois. Increasingly,
these concerns have been around microbiologics, meaning
bacteria, viruses, endotoxins produced by bacteria, the
dampness associated with it, as well as dust mites and molds. I
recently provided testimony before a New York State Senate
hearing on proposed legislation on Long Island.
Molds are everywhere. There are molds in this room right
where we are right now, and there is probably enough in this
room that they would not meet the new New York City Department
of Health "guidelines." those guidelines, by the way, were
produced not based on risk assessment on health, they were just
pulled together as a consensus statement by a variety of
different practitioners and specialists.
The 100,000 species you heard from Dr. Redd certainly means
we have a lot of molds. About 350 species produce mycotoxins.
The diseases, as you heard about, that can be produced by molds
are mycotoxicosis. In World War II the Soviet Union lost a lot
of people and horses to ingestion of moldy grain and fodder.
People died from this. If you have ever seen a case of
mycotoxicosis, when it is real and based on ingestion, it looks
like clinical radiation poisoning.
But there are other disorders you heard about, such as
allergies and hypersensitivity pneumonitis. I have allergies.
My kids have allergies. We used to get allergy shots all the
time. I understand, Madam Chairman, that you have asthma.
Twenty to 30 percent of Americans have allergies, allergic
rhinitis; and the most popular allergins, if you will, are
dust, dust mites, pollens and molds.
But, invariably, of all the schools and the different
buildings that I have looked at, I rarely find somebody is
allergic to the precise molds in those buildings. If you do
skin testing on these people, you don't find a correlation,
which is very curious.
However, some people do walk into buildings, and there are
studies that show, for example, that people who have allergies
and asthma do worse in damp buildings. They try to correlate it
with mold because we do know that mold will grow where there is
moisture. But the studies don't show that. There are some
equivocal studies showing yes, some showing no, which is
typical in science, unfortunately.
The present science, however, is limited; and the quality
of the studies right now that have been done, for example, in
the various buildings in New York, are not of the quality to
give you dose response evaluation, nor specific mold type
association with specific disorders.
The reality of the claimed health effects now on mycotoxins
and what has been called MVOCs, microbial volatile organic
compounds, organic compounds which give you your mildew smell
in your bathroom or basement, such as my basement on Long
Island, in fact we don't know if those are related to health
effects because they are in the air. The doses that you see in
ingestion are much greater than you see on airborne exposures;
and while there are certainly people who have theories about
this, it is far from being understood.
I think the key issue on legislation from a health and
safety standpoint are the following: Number one, let's use the
right definitions. Toxic mold is brand new. It is not
scientific. It is based on media, legal and other issues.
Certainly molds do produce toxins, but you just don't refer to
things as toxic mold.
I urge you to be very careful. Just don't say "harmful."
harmful means nothing. Is it simply an aggravation of allergies
or causing of allergies? So I think we have to be very careful
how we do this.
I think we also have to look at and be very careful with
triggers like permissible exposure limits that OSHA sets or
recommended, that NIOSH recommends. There is just no science
there right now to do this.
As far remediation, to what level? I don't know. Nobody
knows, and that is the problem. While certainly, if you see a
huge amount on the wall, you say, let's get rid of it, does
that being on the wall produce enough in the air to cause a
health problem? My studies of buildings all over the country
just don't show it. However, I do see people who have illness.
The bottom line is I urge the committee to address with
adequate funding and oversight appropriate scientific research,
assessment and recommendations. Let the legislation follow the
development of sound science in this area.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Howard Sandler can be found
on page XX in the appendix.]
Chairwoman Kelly. Thank you very much, Dr. Sandler. I very
much appreciate your comments. I will remind all of our
panelists that we do have your written testimony, it is a part
of our record and we will take it into consideration. I would
like to give myself 5 minutes for questioning at this point.
Dr. Redd, the first thing I would like to ask you, if you
would, in your testimony you listed a Web site that was
available to everyone who might have questions about the mold
situation.
I am wondering if you would say that now so we could put it
in as a part of the record and for anyone who might be in the
audience who might be interested in that Web site, they would
have the opportunity to copy that down. I believe that you will
find that on page 2 of your testimony, at least that is where I
found it.
Dr. Redd. The Web site on page 2 is NTP-
server.niehs.nih.gov.
Chairwoman Kelly. Back slash. Would you say that again,
please. Sorry, I want you to say it.
Dr. Redd. It is ntp, dash, S-E-R-V-E-R, dot, n-i-e-h-s dot
NIH dot G-O-V.
Chairwoman Kelly. And then you have to use the slash, the
back slash.
Dr. Redd. That is right. I think you have to start with
http period, or, sorry, colon double slash.
Chairwoman Kelly. But that is usually on everybody's
computer. It is the rest of it. And I believe someone may want
to correct me, it is--I think that slash is important in order
to get to the route. Is that correct?
Dr. Redd. I think it will--.
Chairwoman Kelly. Dot G O V.
Dr. Redd. I think just the G O V will get you there I
think.
Chairwoman Kelly. Just G O V will get us there. Thank you
very much.
I wanted to make sure, Dr. Sandler, you said toxic mold is
a term that is scientifically inaccurate. That is very
interesting, because I read the word toxic mold often in the
press. When they describe mold, it is described as toxic. While
all mold is not, those of us that like gorganzola and blue
cheese are aware it is not toxic. Maybe it is. I would be very
interested if you could define that, toxic mold.
Dr. Sandler. There are certain molds that produce
microtoxins, about 350 species, just like any other chemical.
If you are exposed in the appropriate manner either through
inhalation or more probably ingestion, these type of
microtoxins have been shown to cause problems. The mere fact
that you just go from mold to "toxic mold" to me is more of a
media event than a scientific event. All chemicals are toxic at
the right dose. That is all it means.
So I think you have to be very careful, though, to let the
research determine what are the roots of entry whether it is
inhalation, ingestion, and I don't think it would be skin
absorption, as well as the levels at which each one of those
produce the problem. Clearly, like I said before, the Soviet
Union experienced that bad--we lost I think 100 turkeys in this
country. Not human turkeys, the fowl type.
If you look it up in the literature, you will find there
are plenty of mold-related cases and usually from ingestion of
moldy food products. By the way, though, if you look at, as I
think people already mentioned, there are a variety of
different food substances. There are levels of microtoxins that
are available. And the FDA has allowed a certain level of
aflatoxin, which is a potentially carcinogen in wheat and other
wheat products. So I don't think we can ever get rid of mold
nor should we look at that. I think we should try to find out
what is a level that won't produce harm.
Chairwoman Kelly. Thank you. Dr. Redd, when the CDC
finishes its literature review on mold, what are the potential
next steps, and how likely is it that we are going to be able
to separate the valid consumer risk from bad science? Dr.
Sandler has brought this up. How are we, the public, going to
understand this?
Dr. Redd. The recommendations of the committee, the
Institute of Medicine Committee, I think, is charged with doing
exactly your last point. Separating the wheat from the chaff,
the things that we know to be true from the things that we
don't know to be true or not true. We are very much looking
forward to the recommendations of that report, both from the
public health intervention side as well as for guidance in the
types of research that the committee recommends.
Chairwoman Kelly. Mr. Tighe, one last question, what is
your union doing to educate your members at large and the
consumers about controlling indoor mold growth?
Mr. Tighe. We have trained stationary engineers that have
the maintenance responsibility for about 2 billion square feet
of commercial space to date. Unfortunately, when our course was
written in 1995, mold was not a great issue in indoor air
quality. Since then, it has been a growing issue. And we
provide research, public research to our local union training
programs and try to give them documents, as I referenced, the
EPA remediation guide for schools and commercial facilities and
try to establish best practices.
Because the one thing that we have certainly heard today is
that there continues to be the uncertainty as to the health
effects of mold. But the one thing that is not uncertain is
that there are very precise ways that you should deal with mold
in order to not spread the mold. And just one example, if I
may, Chairwoman, in most heating ventilation and air
conditioning systems in the United States, they take the return
air and rather than duct that air back to the system, they use
the space that is above the ceiling. So there may be a 3-foot
space above that ceiling, that return air is taken in and
across that space and back into the system. Now, if you have
leaks and you have moisture and you have mold, and somebody
gets into that ceiling and disturbed that, that is picked up by
the HVAC unit, put through the system, and dispersed into the
occupant area.
Well, we try to stress to stationary engineers and
maintenance people that have some effect on this is to use good
preventive maintenance activities and standards to try not to
spread the molds to various areas.
Chairwoman Kelly. Thank you very much, Mr. Tighe. I am out
of time and I turn now to Mr. Gutierrez.
Mr. Gutierrez. Thank you very much. I guess what we have
heard today, it is a very interesting panel, a very diverse
panel, is kind of there is something dangerous out there, we
don't know what it is, so let's not fret too much about it; it
is there, but we can figure it out in some time. Lawsuits is
what is causing everything, it is not the mold. It is really
mold, but if it weren't for the all the lawsuits, the mold
would go away, and these kinds of situations.
But I think there is kind of little middle ground here, and
that is that something is wrong. There is a problem. Some may
want to diminish the problem, some may want to blame the
problem on lawyers, but the fact is that we have somebody that
is here that represents 18,000 people that got together that
doesn't seem like they all have a lawyer. They all went to
court and they are all suffering some damage.
And you know, I know that many times we like to look at
situations and I was talking to my friend, Congressman Conyers,
and we were talking about when AIDS first came and everybody
said well, you know, that is just consenting homosexuals, that
is really not a problem that the public has to deal with. And
we deal with a lot of different things. You know, if people
would only drive slower but then we decided seat belts was a
good thing and side safety--I mean all kinds of safety things,
and we passed laws and we save lives by doing that.
We took on the--you know, if people didn't smoke, well,
they wouldn't get lung cancer, but we put it on packages. I can
even remember learning about good old Smokey the Bear and not
ever starting a fire. We certainly know how important that
message is given the tragedies that are happening in the west
in our country.
So it seems to me that there is a problem. I know that Mr.
Howard from the home builders says yeah, there is a problem,
get some standards. Let's figure it out so we can all use the
same standards. It seems like Mr. Tighe also says let's figure
this out. So I say let's figure it out because I think there is
a problem out there that homeowners are having.
I just have a problem with always blaming the victim,
always saying well yeah people have a problem, but, you know,
they are creating the problem so they can go to a lawyer and
create a whole new industry. I don't know that people do that
by and large. I find that the American public is honest, hard
working, God fearing and is doing the right thing. And they are
trying to keep their most valued asset, their home. So I guess,
Dr. Redd, it is on you, when do you think we can have some
answers that are, you know, scientific, objective, that we
could look at so that we can create the kind of standards and
legislation to help all of the home owners that Mrs. Ballard
represents and that are suffering?
Dr. Redd. I agree with your statement that we need some
answers. As far as an exact timetable to have all of this
figured out, I really can't give you that. What I can say is
that in about a year, give or take a few months, we will have a
report from the Institute of Medicine which will, more or less,
provide with us a blueprint for things that we really ought to
be doing now, and things that we ought to be studying. So I
think that is going to be a real milestone in terms of getting
the answers that we really need.
Mr. Gutierrez. Do you have all of the staff and adequate
funding that would you need to get an answer?
Dr. Redd. I think that in terms of activity between now and
the time that report is released, we do have resources to
investigate clusters of illness as we find out about them. I
think from the point of the--when that report comes out, it is
going to depend on a lot of on what sort of recommendations
there are. It is really impossible to say what might be in the
report and whether, or whether we wouldn't have resources at
that point.
Mr. Gutierrez. Given today and the kinds of things that we
have learned today and the kinds of information that we have, I
think it would be safe to say that there are molds, molds do
cause problems, they are some relationship with molds and
illnesses, but we are not quite sure what the relationship is
between those illnesses and molds. But mold, I don't think it
is an issue we should ignore.
Dr. Redd. I absolutely agree with that.
Mr. Gutierrez. Thank you. We will see if we can work with
you to get that report as quickly as possible to get some
solutions. Thanks.
Mr. Miller. [presiding.] Thank you. I award myself five
minutes. I was reading the book Leviticus that said God put a
spreading mold in the House of Aaron and Moses. I don't
disagree with what my colleague said at all. We know there is
mold, the only difference is we don't know what the problem is.
I listened to every witness out here, and everyone acknowledges
yes, there is mold, but is there necessarily a harmful affect
on individuals from that mold. Is it a causal effect of the
mold that happens to be there and an individual who might be
sick.
Just because there is mold does not mean an individual is
sick from that mold. Yet the mold might be causing some damage.
We don't really know. I have tried to research this as hard as
I could and I have read everything I can get. I have talked to
environmental scientists and I have talked about the parts per
billion in a silo and this and that. We could argue mulch and
all these things, but the problem is we don't know what the
problem is.
And I think, Mr. Gonzales, you said earlier we want to hear
the facts. I can't agree with you more. I believe
accountability and responsibility and when it came to the seat
belt your car hits the wall, if a person flies through the
window well, yeah, you know, a seat belt is going to stop you
from flying through the window. But that is not what mold is.
And you gave this very--Mrs. Ballard, you gave a statement and
you painted this picture imagery, it was imagine the insurance
company report that the claim, you know, you have, that it is
being denied, and imagine watching blood come out of young
child's ears and nose and the insurers denying a claim. That is
terrible. Nobody would accept that. That is egregious. But was
that your situation?
Ms. Ballard. Yes, it was. We tried to make repairs. We had
scheduled repairs in our home in January and February of 1999.
Mr. Miller. I wanted to ask you about that. What was your
problem?
Ms. Ballard. We had a series of water leaks. It was several
plumbing leaks.
Mr. Miller. It was in January?
Ms. Ballard. It was in December of 1998. Close to January.
Mr. Miller. In the testimony you had given, you had said it
was in January of 1998. And then when did you notify your
insurer of that?
Ms. Ballard. Immediately.
Mr. Miller. Your testimony said December of 1998 you
notified your insurer of a leak and made a claim. You found it
in January and you notified the insurer.
Ms. Ballard. No. No. No. I am sorry, let me clarify. The
claim was made in December of 1998.
Mr. Miller. You notified the insurer that you had a leak in
December of '98, but you found the leak in January. So almost a
year went by between when you found the leak and notified them.
You notified them in December and then 2 months later they gave
you a check for $108,618. Is that correct?
Ms. Ballard. Not exactly. I think you are misquoting our--
well, please, let me finish because I don't want you to
misquote anything. We had 13 water leaks in our house. And our
claim, what our insurance company thought was the source of the
problem had been fixed 10 months before I had reported a claim.
It appeared as though--not appeared, it was found out
subsequent to that that there were 13 water leaks that were not
discovered by the insurance company's plumbers.
Mr. Miller. But what we gathered from the court text was
that they were notified in December. And 2 months later they
wrote you a check for 108,000. The point I am trying to make is
if we are dealing--you painted this picture about negligence
and the terrible insurance company. That is an egregious
company to think an insurer would come out and deny a claim.
But in your situation, they didn't deny your claim.
In fact, when they paid you in February, your attorney
notified them of mold April 7th of 1999. That is the first time
the insurer knew about mold. April 8th the next day, they
inspected your home.
Ms. Ballard. That is incorrect. Just so we go back and I
don't want you to misspeak--.
Mr. Miller. I don't want to.
Ms. Ballard. The claim was made, they thought the cause was
relating to a water leak that had been fixed 10 months before.
They, in fact, were incorrect. It was there were 13 other
ongoing leaks. Now, they did pay $100,000. We refused to accept
the check telling them that that was insufficient.
Mr. Miller. But you cashed--but--one second. You cashed
that check in late February, that month.
Ms. Ballard. We told them this was unacceptable because
their own estimates were well exceeding that amount.
Mr. Miller. I accept that. And then in April you told them
about the mold. And then you both agreed to an independent
umpire. And they gave you a check for $1.2 million.
Ms. Ballard. Sir, that occurred about 18 months after we
are talking. Mold does not stop growing because of an insurance
company's delays. They--and the appraisal process was called
for by the insurer, the umpire was later found out to have
been--.
Mr. Miller. I am running out of time. Did you ever make the
repairs.
Ms. Ballard. Yes, we did. We repaired every water leak in
the house.
Mr. Miller. I am going to have to reread the court document
because it said they were never made.
Ms. Ballard. We repaired every water leak in the house.
Mr. Miller. I am going to close with the fact that if
anybody has a claim and an insured does not cover it, there is
not a person on this panel who would not want to hold the
insurance company absolutely accountable and responsible for
that. But what was the entire--there was--there was no award to
you for health.
Ms. Ballard. No, sir, there was not.
Mr. Miller. What was the total award? 33 million?
Ms. Ballard. 32, and there was $6-1/2 million of actual
proven property damage. Every one has focused on the health
effects.
Mr. Miller. $6 million worth of property damage in a home
that you paid $275,000 for 10 years before.
Ms. Ballard. And made a whole lot of additional
improvements and had a lot--.
Mr. Miller. Must have been--thank you very much. Ms. Lee. I
am sorry, Mr. Gonzales then. Mr. Inslee.
Mr. Inslee. I am sorry, I thought there was others who have
been waiting longer than me.
Mr. Miller. You want me to pass you and come back.
Mr. Inslee. I will go ahead. I am trying to be gracious.
That is a little unusual here so I was just trying. Mr. Howard,
I think you heard me allude to my son builds houses on
Bainbridge Island, Washington. That is just west of Seattle.
Mr. Howard. God bless him, sir.
Mr. Inslee. We are proud of our sons and daughters. He does
great work. He really is a guy who takes a lot of pride in his
work. That is one of the things I am so proud of in seeing his
work. And I want to ask you about your sort of response to this
issue. When an industry gets in a situation like this where you
have obviously had an explosion in claims it sounds like
listening to Mr. Stewart, any way, there is sort of a couple
responses it can take. One it can try to educate the public
about how to--maybe three kind of responses, educate the public
on how to avoid problems associated with the product, that is
one response.
Second, to try to deny there is any losses associated with
the product, that is the second response, and third, to try to
reduce the occurrence of the problem by helping educate members
of the association of your producers in how to reduce the
exposure, reduce the number of incidents which do occur, I
think everybody agrees, on occasion. Could you categorize how
your engineers have been on those three efforts?
Mr. Howard. We have been very aggressive in items 1 and 3,
specifically we have, as I mentioned in my statement, prepared
a Web site which would be mold tips dot com for consumer Web
sites, for consumers to go on and look, and we have got a whole
list of things that home owners can do to reduce the presence
of mold and the presence of moisture which seems to be from our
research the primary reason for mold in structures. So we have
been very aggressive in trying to educate the consumers. I
would point out again our efforts in that regard are bilingual.
Secondly, we have a very well respected research laboratory
here in suburban Maryland called the NHB Research Center. It is
one of the preeminent laboratories for housing research in the
United States. The research center has undertaken to study the
building envelope as a whole to make determinations about what
we can do in the construction process to minimize the
possibility for mold in the home.
In addition to that, we study individual products to
determine mold, their likelihood for providing a food source
for mold, and we are also studying products that are also being
touted as mold eliminators. So we are active in educating the
consumer in researching products and the whole construction
process so we can educate our members and in reaching out to
our members once they that information and educating the
public. We do not deny that there is a problem. We would like
to see the problem studied.
There is obviously a difference of opinion about the extent
of the problem, what causes it. And until we know exactly what
causes it, that is as far as I think we are prepared to go at
this point. I would say, however, that we are prepared to
assist the Congress, the CDC or anybody else in the research
and we make our services available.
Mr. Inslee. What do you think is the most frequent reason
for a problem of excess moisture that might end up in mold
growth? If you are going, if you can just categorize it in the
industry.
Mr. Howard. I would have to, Mr. Inslee, respectfully ask
to be able to answer that in writing. I am not an expert on
that and I don't know the answer off the top of my head.
Mr. Inslee. If could you do that I appreciate that. I will
get you my card.
Mr. Stewart.
Mr. Stewart. On the subject of public information and
education, it really is the first line of activity of our
organization. Because it is--anything related to any kind of
insurance risk we are trying to do things with this workplace
safety or anything that will help that. We have a Web site that
has about 4 million hits a month. And we also do video news
releases to news stations that have reached some 10, 15 million
people. It is a major front line activity.
As I have said, my own personal example we encourage
everybody else. The first line of defense is do something about
it rather than wait for the problem to go. If it is hidden that
is one thing. Obviously you can't. If there is negligence on
the part of some party, that is something else. An overwhelming
majority of cases simple behavior changes will fix the mold
problem.
Mr. Inslee. Given your success, if I get a constituent with
a mold problem, I will give him your home number.
Mr. Stewart. We maintain a national consumer hot line.
Mr. Inslee. Thank you. I have one more question. Mr.
Sandler, we have this case on my island where the school got a
problem, $100,000 to fix the problem, sort of, I guess,
everybody agreed there was a problem with excess moisture,
excess mold and there were some pretty well documented health
problems associated with it. And I haven't asked the people
involved. But are there standards now that people do look to
for some guidance as to what an acceptable level is in the
ambient air? If I had a constituent who said I bought this
house, I think it has got too much mold, my children are having
asthma attacks, et cetera, what do I tell them as to what to
decide whether there is too much or too little mold or what is
the situation with standards in that regard?
Dr. Sandler. I think the first issue that you really have
to look at is truly what is causing the problems. Remember in a
school environment, for example the biggest health hazard you
have are with the kids because of the viruses that they share
to each other and the teachers. So that is issue. Why do
people, for example, feel better during the summer? Is it
because they are no longer in the school environment or is it
because they are no longer being exposed to the viruses. Could
it be the issues of bacteria and endotoxin? Could it be from
dust mites? Could it be from a variety of different things? A
lot of children or adults once they have asthma, they may have
their symptoms exacerbated by odors. So sometimes it could
simply be the mildew or some other odor that is present in the
school. Certainly once you have a mold infestation, it is not
pretty, can be structurally problematic.
Mr. Miller. The gentleman's time has expired. We have to
wrap this up. We have two votes on the floor. We are going to
temporarily recess for about 20 minutes. But I would grant Mr.
Israel 30 seconds to welcome one of the witnesses who is from
his district.
Mr. Israel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I understand that Dr.
Sandler's company is based in Melville, Long Island, my neck of
the woods. I haven't had an opportunity to hear your testimony,
I am sorry I was late, but I wanted the opportunity to welcome
you to the Capitol and look forward to working with you.
Mr. Miller. The meeting is recessed for 20 minutes.
Chairwoman Kelly. [presiding.] The hearing is going to
resume now. Apparently some of the people are either stuck on
the floor or had to go to other hearings. I am going to hold
this hearing record open for 30 days so that the members who
were not able to attend the hearing will be able to direct
written questions to this panel, and you can respond within
that 30-day period. Since there are no more questions, the
Chair will note that there will be these additional questions.
So without objection, this hearing record will remain open for
30 days for members to submit those questions and witnesses to
respond.
I want to thank all of you here today. This is a very
thorny difficult problem. We need sound science and we need
alternatives. We also need some insurance alternatives so that
the insurance question is able to be met with some alacrity on
the part of the people in the industry being able to take care
of those people, like Mr. Tighe and the other people, Mr.
Howard, your groups of people who are involved can get some
protection. And also Ms. Ballard, we need to get you some
protection too.
So I thank you all very much for appearing here today. I am
sorry that we kept you through the hearing. I had assumptions
that some of the people were going to come back but apparently
they aren't able to. So thank you. We appreciate it. And this
hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:22 p.m., the joint subcommittee was
adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
July 18, 2002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82476.097