INDIAN RIVER COUNTY — County Administrator Joe Baird, after expressing concerns about media coverage of the issue of conditions at four of the County’s fire stations, was asked by VeroNews.com to offer his insights into the controversy in writing.
The attached three-page document is an unedited letter from Baird, outlining what Baird represents as the County’s position.
Below is Baird’s letter, copied from the portable document file he sent VeroNews.com:
I am writing this letter in response to a recent article, as well as several past articles that have been written, in regards to the issues surrounding the county’s fire stations and various allegations of exposure to mold and toxins. Let me first reiterate that the county is committed to providing its firefighters with the best facilities possible and remains committed to their safety and welfare. The county will continue to provide work environments that reflect this commitment.
In furtherance of that goal, the county has been working to obtain real, objective data in regards to the fire stations, the results of which would be to move forward on this data to rectify any problems which may exist. Last year the county contracted with AMFC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. to evaluate the four fire stations in question: station 1, station 7, station 10 and station 11. The scope of the evaluation at that time was: 1. Site visit, observations, and comfort parameter screening; 2. Heating, ventilation, and air-condition (HVAC) system observation; 3. Microbial sampling; 4. Moisture intrusion assessment; and 5. Structural integrity assessment. The results of these evaluations would be the basis for remediation and repair which may be required of these fire stations.
AMEC performed these comprehensive evaluations in July of 2014, and submitted the final reports for each of the fire stations in September of 2014. As a direct result of the findings and recommendations included in these reports, the county moved forward with contracts to repair and remediate the fire stations. It was the county’s strong desire to move forward with the repairs and remediation as expeditiously as possible for the benefit of our firefighters. Plans were drawn up and work was commenced beginning with roof repairs in September 2014. It should be noted that repairs and remediation were halted in December of 2014 based on the demands of the attorney for the firefighter’s union, who had by that point filed workers’ compensation claims. The attorney required that the county preserve the evidence, and as a result, no more work could be performed. The county attempted to coordinate testing with the experts hired by the IAFF and attorney for the firefighters. Unfortunately, they insisted on testing for things well outside of the issues presented in the workers’ compensation claims. It appears that the IAFF and attorney for the firefighters then decided to hire new experts, and the county was able to reach an agreeable inspection procedure. Inspections by IAFF’s experts did not occur until the end of April, and the attorney for the firefighters would not allow the county to do any work on the buildings during this time period. Therefore, it is the direct result of the firefighter’s request to preserve the evidence that there was an almost five month delay in work being performed on these fire stations.
It has become apparent that the media has decided to simply publish the opinions and unfounded allegations presented by the IAFF. Therefore, I feel compelled to present some counter points as explained to us by the county’s
experts. I would hope that by doing so, the media might present a more objective, researched perspective and the citizens of Indian River County might be better informed.
First, mold and bacteria are everywhere. As such, we anticipated the inspections would result in positive tests for mold. AMEC made this clear to the county last year. The question is not whether there is the presence of mold, but rather, to what extent. Furthermore, what are the real effects of the presence of mold? A very important question: is the level of mold greater inside a building than outside? Interestingly, the experts for IAFF did not do air sampling. AMEC did perform air sampling in July of 2014. With a few exceptions what they found is that the level of mold spores in the air was lower inside the buildings than was found outside. Logically, so the experts say, one is less exposed to these mold spores inside the building than if he or she goes out for a walk.
Second, there appears to be a lack of basic information on exposure to mold itself. Mold, according to the experts, does not generally become airborne. In order for mold spores to become airborne they need to be disturbed. When one is walking through the woods or through grass he or she will “stir up” mold spores that, like dust, will then float around until they settle in a new location. Therefore, simply finding mold in a building in most cases does not equate to exposure unless that mold is disturbed causing it to became airborne. Even then, according to the experts, the level of spores in the air would have to be exceedingly high to cause the average person any harm. Of course, the exception might be someone with a specific mold allergy. Nevertheless, based upon this information, it is curious, and somewhat telling, that the experts for the IAFF did not perform air sampling.
Third, we were all initially a bit alarmed when we heard that firefighters had tested positive for “toxic mold”. It does appear, however, that this had been dramatically sensationalized and, as it turns out, may not be accurate at all. In truth we were told that the IAFF paid to have roughly 12 firefighters obtain urinalysis tests for mycotoxins. Interestingly, we have learned that some firefighters were asked to be tested who had no symptoms whatsoever. Nevertheless, the county received what appeared to be test results revealing “positive findings” of mycotoxins such as: Aflatoxin, Citrinin, T-2 Toxin, Ochratoxin and Trichothecenes. These all sound very scary but the reality is somewhat different. The truth, according to the experts, is that these substances are generally ingested by way of the food we eat. In fact, the CDC released an article on February 20, 2015, indicating that these non-FDA approved urinalysis tests are not recommended because they are inherently unreliable. According to the CDC article, mycotoxins such as those listed above are found in many foods and therefore many healthy people would test positive for these substances should they undergo urine testing. The CDC further states that using unvalidated laboratory tests to diagnose work-related illness can lead to misinformation and fear in the workplace; incorrect diagnoses; unnecessary, inappropriate, and potentially harmful medical interventions; and unnecessary or inappropriate environmental and occupational evaluations (Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, February 20, 2015: Use of Unvalidated Urine Mycotoxin Tests for the Clinical Diagnosis of Illness-United States, 2014). Therefore, there is simply no evidence whatsoever that the findings in these unvalidated urinalysis results are related to the mold that has been found in the fire stations.
Fourth, according to AMEC and the experts hired by the county, the sampling and testing results as performed by the experts for the IAFF may be improper and not otherwise valid in the scientific community. By way of an example, the IAFF experts used a machine called a Mycometer. This is a non-traditional method of performing testing for mold and bacteria and the results are questionable. Moreover, the county’s experts believe that the delay in the time between the sampling and actual testing would result in inaccurate levels. The sampling was done on March 31, 2015, and April 1, 2015. The experts inexplicably did not have those samples tested until between April 13 and April 21. According to county experts, mold is a living organism and placed in a medium, such as a petri dish with food in it, the mold is going to grow during this period of delay and the results are inflated in relation to the original sample.
Finally, in response to a claim regarding the safety of our employees in the fire stations, there is absolutely no evidence that there is any health or other safety issue involved with these stations. Other than the invalid urinalysis
reports, not a single employee has provided even one piece of paper from a medical doctor indicating that these fire stations are not safe for habitation. The claims are simply unfounded. Even the IAFF’s own expert reports do not indicate anywhere that the buildings are unsafe for habitation. This inaccurate and inflammatory information is simply the uninformed opinion of those that do not have the knowledge, skill, training, or expertise to make such claims. As an interesting aside, the IAFF’s experts did not utilize any protective clothing or devices during the full two days of testing. No masks, special breathing filters, jump suits, nothing. Nor, by the way, did the county’s expert.
In closing, the county has provided, and continues to provide, healthy and safe working environments for the men and women of our fire department while balancing the fiscal responsibility required by the county’s taxpayers. It is our goal to do so, not based upon accusations and conjecture, but rather sound testing and scientific evidence. County administration continues to work diligently to allow our Emergency Services Department to provide the best service possible to the citizens of Indian River County.
Sincerely,
Joe Baird
County Administrator