(Canadian) Schools do homework on mould (mold)

[Guest guest]

Schools do homework on mould

The Toronto Star

5-30-99

By Kellie Hudson

Potentially dangerous scourge isn't confined to portables

`The burden of illness from mould is clearly is unknown, and that' s why

there's a debate on it. But because it's unknown, if you find it, the

prudent course of action is to deal with it.' Dr. Bob Nosal

Halton medical officer of health.

`We've been asking for a province-wide protocol, all around the inspection

process, the remediation process. We don't know if we're doing it right.

We may be spending more money or less money than we should.' Janet

McDougald, Chair, Peel public school board

YORK REGION BUREAU

More than school bells are ringing across the province.

Health officials have set off deafening alarm bells too, alerting school

boards to the fact that potentially dangerous mould doesn't just grow in old

rundown portables. It's in schools, too.

Earlier this month, two elementary schools in Greater Toronto were shut down

within days of each other. In York Region, four more are being inspected for

stachybotrys chartarum, a type of mould that has been linked to upper

respiratory tract infections and other health ailments.

Mouldy portables aren't new. For more than a year, school boards across

Ontario have been spending hundreds of thousands of dollars inspecting,

ripping down and refurbishing some of the province's 14,000 portables -

temporary structures commonly set up at schools filled to capacity.

But shutting down an entire school? This has many parents, school

administrators and some politicians extremely nervous. It raises some

serious questions:

Is someone over-reacting, or is that even possible when it comes to the

safety of our children?

How bad is the problem?

Should all schools, not just portables, be more closely inspected?

If a massive, province-wide clean up is necessary, who should pay?

Closing an entire building because of mould is ``exceptional, a very

uncommon thing,'' says , a Carleton University chemistry

professor and one of North America's leading mould experts.

``In my experience, the number of times I've actually seen the need to shut

down a building, in other words, get everyone out of it because of mould, is

a handful in my whole career,'' he said in an interview from Ottawa.

The jury is still out on the potentially harmful health effects of mould.

It is absorbed through the respiratory tract, making the most common

symptoms felt by people who experience some sort of allergy.

Since the issue of mouldy portables started making headlines in early 1998,

there have been countless stories of sick children and teachers complaining

of headaches, runny noses, coughs, upper respiratory tract infections and

fatigue.

That's enough evidence to make health officials take notice.

``The burden of illness from mould is clearly is unknown, and that' s why

there's a debate on it,'' said Dr. Bob Nosal, medical officer of health for

Halton Region, one of the first areas in Ontario where mould was discovered

in school portables. ``But because it's unknown, if you find it, the prudent

course of action is to deal with it.' '

Several studies on air quality in school buildings, not just portables, are

under way in North America, said.

In the United States, the National Institute of Occupational Safety and

Health has hired an expert to study dampness in American schools.

In Canada, New Brunswick established a mould and indoor air quality task

force with its teachers' union, and Newfoundland tested all its schools last

year, said. British Columbia and Quebec have also been proactive on

the issue, he said.

In Ontario, Pollution Probe is involved in an initiative called Healthy

Schools, Healthy Children. The aim is to develop a provincial strategy to

ensure safe school environments for our children, said Ian Morton, director

of environmental health.

Unfortunately, despite several requests, the provincial government has

refused to come to the table.

Experts like stress that the key to healthy indoor air, free of mould

and other contaminants, is proper construction, ventilation and vigilant

maintenance inspections.

If a school board is in the practice of something he calls ``deferred

maintenance,'' then of course there will be problems.

``It's not a big surprise that, if you don't look after a building in

Canada, it will eventually leak,'' said.

Gibson, Durham district school board's occupational health and safety

officer, credits an early recognition that mould is a ``possible agent for

poor indoor air quality.''

He first started testing for it back in 1991.

``Maintenance is the key,'' Gibson said. ``Maintenance, maintenance,

maintenance.''

Jane of the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board, which has an

asbestos problem but found only 12 of 200 portables had mould, also

emphasizes maintenance, but acknowledges Halton and Peel raised awareness.

``It's unfortunate, but one other board's misfortune was a real good signal

for us and allowed us to be proactive,'' she said.

But Janet McDougald, chair of the Peel public board, doesn't buy the

maintenance argument.

``How can one assume that Peel is the only place that has significant

problems with mould? That just doesn't stand to reason,'' she said angrily,

adding that her board's maintenance program has been comprehensive.

But some of the big city boards, like the Toronto Catholic board, which has

758 portables, and Durham's public board, with 573 portables, claim to have

escaped relatively unscathed.

Part of the problem is there isn't a provincial policy on mould, McDougald

said. Instead, local health departments set the parameters.

For example, right now in York Region, there appears to be a policy of zero

tolerance, hence the closing of Our Lady of Grace in Aurora.

Although Crowe, chair of the York Region Catholic board, accepts

that policy, she is frustrated by it.

She's heard as many as 100 school buildings across Ontario - structures

called Eldales in the business, which contain a high percentage of drywall -

were built in the same way as the school she had to shut down. They could

all have the same mould problem, but other boards may not realize it, she

said.

Both Crowe and McDougald agree there has to be consistency, and it has to

come from the top, so that everyone is forced to follow the same inspection,

maintenance and clean-up procedures.

``We've been asking for a province-wide protocol, all around the inspection

process, the remediation process,'' McDougald said. ``We don't know if we're

doing it right. We may be spending more money or less money than we

should.''

While many school boards can't agree on how bad the mould situation is, or

whether they've cleaned it up or not, most do agree on one thing - whatever

the costs, they shouldn't have to pay for it.

McDougald and others have appealed to the provincial government for

financial help. To date, the separate and public boards in Peel Region have

spent close to $20 million repairing some of the 1,600 portables that

accommodate 40,000 students in the two systems.

Under Bill 160, the Conservative government's controversial education reform

act, Queen's Park, not school boards, is in charge of setting education

property tax rates. Raising taxes would have been one way for individual

school boards to pay for the mould clean up.

In the spring budget, on hold now because of the election campaign, the

Conservatives set aside $50 million to help school boards deal with air

quality issues such as mould. But the Peel boards may need that amount

alone, McDougald said.

The money is there, and there are different ways to access it under the

provincial Pupil Accommodation Grant, argues Drew Nameth, director of

business services for the ministry of education. The annual grant provides

$2 billion for heating, lighting, cleaning, repairs, renovations, new

construction and paying debt.

For many parents and teachers across Ontario, though, it's not important who

pays for what. They just want some assurances that the schools and portables

in which their children spend roughly six hours a day, five days a week, 10

months of the year, are environmentally safe.

Margaret Broad had two children at Our Lady of Grace before it was shut

down. What does she want before her children return? If the school is gutted

and refurbished, she wants proof from the health department that it has a

clean bill of health.

But she doesn't know if even that will be enough. ``I can't help but wonder

if the whole thing should be yanked down, and start anew and build it

right,'' Broad said.