Orange County Government Center Hurricane Irene and Tropical ...

Orange County Government Center
Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee
Interim Analysis
May 24, 2012

Table of Contents
Executive Summary……………………………………………………………….3
Introduction………………………………………………………………………..4
Government Center History……………………………………………………….4
Summary of Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee on Orange County………..4
Timeline of Government Center Related Activities……………………………….6
Previous Major Disaster Declarations……………………………………………..6
Damage to the Government Center………………………………………………..7
Damage to the Government Center Parking Lot…………………………..8
Interior Flooding of the Government Center……………………………....8
Damage Due to Water Infiltration…………………………………………10
Masonry Walls……………………………………………………………..13
Mold………………………………………………………………………..14
Conclusion………………………………………………………………………….25
2

Executive Summary
On August 28 th 2011 Hurricane Irene made landfall in New York. This hurricane was the
most significant tropical event in the New York Metropolitan Area since 1999 with
Hurricane Floyd. On September 6 th the remnants of Tropical Storm Lee impacted the
New York Metropolitan Area.
These two tropical storms significantly damaged the Orange County Government Center.
Since 1970, Orange County has been included in thirteen Federal Major Disaster
Declarations related to flooding and heavy rain. Only in 1996 and 1999 (Hurricane
Floyd) has Orange County submitted for Public Assistance under the Stafford Act for
damages done to the Government Center. During these events the Government Center
experienced flooding to the first floor level. The roofing system was never claimed nor
had any resulting damage from its failure.
Not until the arrival of Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee did the roofing system of
the Government Center fail so completely. This failure led to the infiltration of
significant amounts of water in areas and in quantities never seen before in the history of
the building.
The infiltration of water from the failed roofing system, the flooding of the first floor
level and the damage to the switchgear led to a proliferation of mold growth in the
building. The widespread presence of mold was the main causation for the indefinite
closure of the Government Center and is directly related to Hurricane Irene and Tropical
Storm Lee.
It is the contention of Orange County that the Government Center is not a healthy work
environment and this building will not be reoccupied until such time that a
comprehensive remediation and rehabilitation of the facility occurs.
3

I. Introduction
On August 28 th Hurricane Irene made landfall in New York. This hurricane was the most
significant tropical event in the New York Metropolitan Area since 1999. On September
6 th the remnants of Tropical Storm Lee impacted the New York Metropolitan Area.
Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee brought upwards of sixteen inches of rain into
this region and together these storms are on track to be the most expensive natural
disaster in the history of New York State. Current estimates of damage to public
infrastructure and other emergency related costs for all the governments in Orange
County may exceed $55,000,000.
The Orange County Government Center, located at 255 Main Street in the Village of
Goshen, was one of many public buildings damaged in New York State. The
Government Center was evacuated on August 29, 2011 due to flooding from Hurricane
Irene and a lack of electrical power. On September 6, 2011 the Government Center was
reopened after an extensive cleaning and repairs to critical systems. On September 8,
2011 the Government Center was closed indefinitely, again due to flooding from Tropical
Storm Lee and the visible presence of mold in the building.
Orange County acknowledges that the Government Center was in need of repair in some
areas, but the County and its consultants have determined that the building suffered
significant damage resulting from Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee.
II. Government Center History
The Orange County Government Center was constructed in 1970.
“The existing building superstructure consists of reinforced concrete columns with
elevated reinforced concrete floor and roof slabs and integral concrete beams. Floor slabs
utilize reinforced concrete cantilever construction at the building perimeter.” (Labella 1-
7)
In 1992 the Government Center underwent renovation in which the cantilevers were
removed and renovations were completed.
In 1985 and again in the 1990s extensive work was completed on the roof of the
Government Center.
There are no records of hazard mitigation funding being utilized on this property.
III. Summary of the Impacts of Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee on Orange
County
A. Hurricane Irene
On the night of August 27 th and into the morning of August 28 th Hurricane Irene
made landfall in New York State. This was the most significant tropical storm
event to impact the region since Hurricane Floyd in 1999.
4

The most significant flooding was experienced in the eastern portions of the
County where nearly twelve inches of rain fell as a result of Hurricane Irene.
Hurricane Irene caused the closure of nearly two hundred roads, damaged
hundreds of homes, thousands of acres of crops, caused two dams to fail and
forced hundreds of residents to seek emergency shelter.
Location Storm Total Time of
Date of
Source
Rainfall (inches) Measurement Measurement
Tuxedo Park 11.48 1000 8/28 Public
Harriman 10.45 1500 8/28 Skywarn Spotter
Cornwall-on-Hudson 8.15 1120 8/28 Skywarn Spotter
Montgomery 6.65 1400 8/28 Orange County
Airport
New Windsor 6.25 1300 8/28 Skywarn Spotter
Warwick 5.90 0650 8/28 Skywarn Spotter
Newburgh 4.85 0745 8/28 Public
Port Jervis 4.00 0630 8/28 Skywarn Spotter
Table 1: National Weather Service Rainfall Observations during Hurricane Irene
B. Tropical Storm Lee
On September 6 th the remnants of Tropical Storm Lee impacted Orange County
and caused additional flooding and damage to an already weakened public
infrastructure system.
The Wallkill River basin in the central portion of the County received its most
significant flooding as a result of this event. Tropical Storm Lee exasperated
Wallkill River flooding already occurring from Hurricane Irene.
Location Storm Total Time of
Date of
Source
Rainfall (inches) Measurement Measurement
Warwick 8.30 2100 9/08 Skywarn Spotter
Montgomery 8.21 1400 9/08 Orange County
Airport
Chester 7.71 1300 9/08 Public
Middletown 7.20 0800 9/08 Skywarn Spotter
Harriman 7.20 2000 9/08 Skywarn Spotter
Sterling Forest 7.15 2000 9/08 MESONET Weather
Station
New Windsor 6.29 1100 9/08 Skywarn Spotter
Newburgh 6.24 1050 9/08 Skywarn Spotter
Vails Gate 5.98 2129 9/08 Skywarn Spotter
Port Jervis 4.56 0800 9/09 NWS Cooperative
Observer
Table 2: National Weather Service Rainfall Observations during Tropical Storm
Lee
5

IV. Timeline of Government Center Related Activities
Event
Date
Hurricane Irene makes landfall in New York State 8/28/11
The Orange County Government Center is closed 8/29/11
Major Disaster declared by the Federal Government (DR-4020) for Hurricane Irene 8/31/11
Preliminary Damage Assessment for Hurricane Irene 9/1/11
The Orange County Government Center reopens 9/6/11
Tropical Storm Lee landfall in New York State 9/8/11
The Orange County Government Center is closed indefinitely 9/8/11
Major Disaster declared by the Federal Government (DR-4031) for Tropical Storm 9/13/11
Lee
Labella and Associates performed a visual inspection of the Government Center 9/30/11
Labella and Associates performed a visual inspection of the Government Center 10/7/11
Hurricane Irene Kick Off Meeting with FEMA 10/28/11
Tropical Storm Lee Kick Off Meeting with FEMA 11/18/11
FEMA Building Assessment Team Inspects the Government Center 1/19,
1/20,1/21,1/26,1/27,
1/31/12
FEMA Building Assessment Team meets with Orange County to discuss their
2/9/12
preliminary findings on the Government Center
Orange County receives a written draft of the FEMA Building Assessment Team’s 3/1/12
report
FEMA Building Assessment Team’s report distributed to Orange County Officials 3/8/12
at the weekly recovery meeting
Meeting with EMS-NY to present the FEMA Building Assessment Team’s mold 3/14/12
report and request their assistance in evaluating and responding to the report
Meeting with building specialists to present the FEMA Building Assessment
3/19/12
Team’s Government Center report and request their assistance in evaluating and
responding to the report
Invitations were sent to Orange County, New York State Office of Emergency 4/30/12
Management and FEMA to meet in order to reconcile Orange County’s storm
related damage assessment and FEMA’s assessment
FEMA Building Assessment Team Inspects the Government Center 5/4/12
Orange County meets with its consultants to discuss their findings in response to 5/4/12
the FEMA Building Assessment Team’s report
Orange County, New York State Office of Emergency Management and FEMA 5/9/12
meet to reconcile Orange County’s storm related damage assessment and FEMA’s
assessment
The FEMA Critical Infrastructure Team notifies Orange County that a revised PW 5/17/12
for the Government is complete
Orange County picked up the Government Center PW at the Joint Field Office in 5/23/12
Albany
Table 3: Significant Government Center Related Activities
V. Previous Major Disaster Declarations
Since the construction of the Orange County Government Center in 1970, Orange County
has been included in thirteen Major Disaster Declarations involving rain related incidents
including flooding, severe storms, tropical storms and coastal storms. Each of these
events brought a significant level of rainfall and flooding to Orange County.
6

Incident FEMA Designation Number Declaration Date
Severe Storms, Flooding FEMA-DR-311 New York September 13, 1971
Tropical Storm Agnes FEMA-DR-338 New York June 23, 1972
Coastal Storms, Flooding FEMA-DR-702 New York April, 17, 1984
Severe Storms, Flooding FEMA-DR-1095 New York January 24, 1996
Hurricane Floyd FEMA-DR-1296 New York September 19, 1999
Severe Storms, Flooding FEMA-DR-1564 New York October 1, 2004
Tropical Depression Ivan FEMA-DR-1565 New York October 1, 2004
Severe Storms, Flooding FEMA-DR-1589 New York April 19, 2005
Severe Storms, Flooding FEMA-DR-1650 New York July 1, 2006
Severe Storms and Inland and FEMA-DR-1692 New York April 24, 2007
Coastal Flooding
Severe Storms, Flooding FEMA-DR-1899 New York April 16, 2010
Hurricane Irene FEMA-DR-4020 New York August 31, 2011
Remnants of Tropical Storm Lee FEMA-DR-4031 New York September 13, 2011
Table 4: Federal Disaster Declarations that Include Orange County
Of the thirteen flood related Disaster Declarations since 1970, 61% occurred within the
last ten years.
Out of these thirteen flood related Disaster Declarations since 1970, Orange County
submitted for Public Assistance funding for damages sustained to the Government Center
twice.
In 1996 (DR-1095) heavy rain flooded the parking lot of the Government Center and
water infiltrated the Electrical Room and the Generator Room.
In 1999 Hurricane Floyd (DR-1296) again flooded the parking lot the Government Center
and water infiltrated the Electrical Room and the Generator Room.
There is no record of significant damage relating to the roofs or water infiltration on the
second or third floors of the Government Center.
The Orange County Government Center has never been closed due to storm related
damage in its history prior to the arrival of Hurricane Irene.
No hazard mitigation funding, under Section 406 of the Stafford Act, was submitted for
relating to the Government Center for these declared disasters.
VI. Damage to the Government Center
Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee brought large amounts of water over a short
period of time to the Goshen Area. These storms, combined with numerous other rain
events in August 2011, caused a significant quantity of water to enter the Government
Center. The sources of this water infiltration came in two forms. The first source being
overland flood waters and high ground water entering the first floor level of the
Government Center. The second source was water infiltrating from the roofing system
causing water damage to the second and third floors.
7

A. Damage due to Flooding
1. Damage to the Government Center Parking Lot
As during the 1996 declared disaster and Hurricane Floyd in 1999, the
parking lot of the Government Center became inundated with rainwater
and water from the overflowing drainage ditches during both Hurricane
Irene and Tropical Storm Lee.
“The existing drainage channels through the property, which together form
a branch of the Rio Grande Creek, quickly reached bank-full capacity at
the beginning of each storm.” (Labella 1-4)
The terrain surrounding the Government Center also was a factor in the
flooding of the property. “The existing (Government Center) drainage
system was overwhelmed from other adjoining Goshen neighborhood
hillside drainage systems. All four sides of this complex received water
from neighboring systems.” (Government Center Grounds 1)
This flooding may have caused additional damage to the parking lot
already rated by Labella as fair to poor prior to the storm. According to
Labella, “the most likely cause of the new cracks is heaving and
settlement of the pavement subbase, caused by the flooding and the
subsequent draining of the site. (Labella 1-5)
2. Interior Flooding of the Government Center
As with the storms of 1996 and 1999, water entered the Government
Center due to overland flooding on the Northwestern portion of the
property.
“The existing building ground floor elevations at grade and volume during
the flood from the adjacent creek caused the flooding of the below grade
service spaces.” (Architectural Building Inspection Assessment and
Report 8)
The floodwaters from the parking lot and high groundwater entered the
building in principally two locations. The first areas of flooding were the
mechanical rooms near the parking lot on the first floor level. The second
areas to be flooded were the rooms under which a sub-slab trench ran
along the first floor level.
The floodwaters entered the building and flooded the Main Mechanical
Room, the former Civil Defense Mechanical Room, and the Electrical
Switchboard Room.
8

The Main Mechanical Room and the former Civil Defense Mechanical
Room were flooded with approximately four inches of water. The
Electrical Switchboard Room is a sunken room and this area flooded with
approximately forty inches of water. “Flood water reached a level of 40”
in Room #416 damaging a 600 amp and 400 amp fused switch insert in the
main 4000 amp switch board.” (Rosher 3)
Picture 1: High Water Mark in the Electrical Switch Room
When the Electrical Switchboard Room was flooded, the switchgear
system was damaged preventing electrical power from the grid or the
emergency generators from operating the Government Center. “As a
result, ventilation systems could not operate, and the existing fixed
windows could not ventilate the building. This precondition created the
ideal interior environment for the propagation of mold growth within the
building.” (Labella 1-3)
The second area of flooding on the first floor level of the Government
Center occurred due to a high water table caused by the heavy rain of
Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee as well as the rain storms of the
previous weeks.
Water from the high water table entered the sub-slab pipe trench at the
first floor level. Water backed up in this trench and caused the saturation
of carpeting on the first floor. The water table was so high that for weeks
after the storms had passed, water continued to infiltrate this trench system
and pumps had to be utilized to keep the water at bay.
9

Picture 2: Sump Pump on the First Floor Level Still Operating on 9/12/11
B. Damage due to Water Infiltration
During Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee a large quantity of rain water was
deposited on the roofing system of the Government Center. “The extreme
weather events of tropical storms Irene on August 28, 2011 and Lee on September
5, 6, 7, and 8 produced large amounts of water and wind in rapid secession on the
building structure and site overwhelming the existing building envelope,
especially the roof.” (Architectural Building Inspection Assessment and Report 3)
According to Labella Associates, this roofing system failed during both storms.
Compounding the flood water problems at the base of the
building complex was a large scale roofing system failure
in many locations all throughout the building complex at
the third floor level. Due to the quantity of rainfall, in a
very short period of time, the existing roof drainage system
could not handle the volume of water on the existing roof
system. Hydrostatic pressure forced water down through
the roofing system and the existing building structure,
causing damage to the existing interior systems and
finishes. (Labella 1-4)
The roofing system of the Government Center consists of a single ply roof
membrane which is ballasted with concrete masonry pavers. “The existing
concrete unit masonry pavers have deteriorated over time, due to the freeze thaw
cycle on the roof and a lack of adequate roof drainage system. Existing pavers
have deteriorated to masonry dust in several locations.” (Labella 1-9)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency Building Assessment Team
(FEMA BAT) state “The visual inspection (of the roof) revealed that the storms
did not compromise the existing structural systems and the roof is in basically the
same condition as it was prior to the storms.” (Architectural Building Inspection
Assessment and Report 4)
10

Orange County and Labella Associates acknowledge that the roofing system had
significant issues, but the roofing system had proved to be sufficiently adequate to
weather eleven previously declared disasters as well as countless other hazardous
weather events. This is the first time Orange County is seeking public assistance
funding in the repair of the roofing system. Orange County contends that the
massive amount of water received due to these storms overwhelmed the roofing
system and not only exacerbated existing problems but also caused substantial
new damage within the building.
Picture 3: Interior Water Infiltration
Evidence of water penetration is documented on the third floor of each of the
three divisions of the Government Center as well as water penetration to the open
areas of the second floor where this floor rises through the third floor to the roof
deck.
Picture 4: Water Damage to Carpeting
The evidence of this water penetration mainly takes the form of stained and wet
carpet, damaged gypsum board in the ceiling, damaged ceiling panels, and water
stained walls and partitions.
11

Picture 5: Water Damage to the Former Emergency Operations Center
“The existing roofing system appears to have sustained further damage as a result
of the subject storm events by providing additional membrane failures as a result
of sustained hydrostatic pressure from the subject storm events.” (Labella 1-10)
The existing roof drainage system of the Government Center was inadequate to
effectively remove the large volume of water brought by these storms. This lack
of adequate drainage may have caused significant downward hydrostatic pressure
due to the weight of the large amount of standing water on the roofing system.
The existing roof drainage system does not have a
secondary means of overflow roof drainage. Due to the
volume and height of water that accumulated in a relatively
short period of time, the design of the existing roof
drainage system, and the existing conditions (deteriorated
concrete masonry unit pavers) impeding roof drainage, the
existing roof drainage system could not drain the volume of
water on the subject roof to the point of the water spilling
over the roof edge in many locations. Hydrostatic pressure
forced water down through the existing roofing system,
through the construction joints and existing cracks in the
existing reinforced concrete roof deck. (Labella 1-10)
Post storm investigation of the roofing system indicates that the drainage
system failure was due to several factors.
1. The drainage pipes on the roofing system of the Government
Center are inadequate to drain large volumes of water off the roofs.
A building of this size constructed today would have four inch
drains. A number of the drains are much smaller than four inches
on the Government Center, some drains are as small two and half
inches.
2. Some of roofing system drains on the Government Center flow
into the Rio Grande Creek. As that creek overflowed its banks due
12

to heavy rain, the water backed up the drains and prevented any
water to flow off the roofs as it was designed.
Instead, the water collected on the roofs and created significant
downward hydrostatic pressure. Water also was forced over the
parapets of roofs and flowed down the sides of the building.
3. As noted earlier, many of the concrete masonry unit pavers had
deteriorated on the roofs but still served as adequate ballast. The
water that had backed up on the roofing system caused some
movement of the ballast on some of the individual roofs. In
several locations this ballast became lodged in the drainage system,
further restricting the flow of water off the roofing system.
The evidence of the failure of the roofing system could be seen in the black stains
that appeared on the exterior masonry walls of the Government Center after
Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee. This black staining was from the dye
contained in the roofing ballast. “As a result during the storm or a large rain
event the saturated roof flood(s) over the cap flashing, down the fascia and the
dye from the block is leached out and drips down the exterior wall indicating the
black stain is a result of the overflow” (Architectural Building Inspection
Assessment and Report 4)
Picture 6: Exterior Staining of the Building
According to personnel in the Orange County Department of Public
Works assigned to the Government Center, they witnessed water
infiltrating into the building in locations never before observed prior to the
arrival of Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee. These employees also
witnessed water entering the building in quantities never before observed.
Combined, these employees have decades of experience in maintaining the
Government Center and are intimately familiar with the building.
C. Masonry Walls
The masonry walls of the Government Center were constructed with a
split rib masonry veneer. This veneer appears to have become saturated in
some locations due to the absorption of water during the storms.
13

It appears that moisture has penetrated the masonry in some
locations, through the joints between the split rib veneer
and the reinforced concrete frame. This is evident on the
building exterior and interior…Water penetrates by air
pressure differential between the building interior and the
exterior. In this instance, water literally is sucked inside of
the existing building. The existing masonry building
envelope appears to have sustained further damage as a
result of the subject storm events by absorbing additional
moisture as a result of wind driven rain and differential air
pressure (building exterior to interior) from the subject
storm events. (Labella 1-11)
D. Mold
Due to the flooding of the Electrical Switchboard Room on August 28 th , all
electrical power was suspended to the Government Center. The flooding of the
switchgear acted as a single point of failure and prevented the delivery of
electrical power from the grid or the emergency generator.
The lack of electrical power prevented the operation of the ventilation system.
“Due to the quantity of water inside the building, and the inability of the
mechanical and electrical systems to operate and ventilate the building, this
created a very humid interior environment, which is the ideal environment for
mold propagation.” (Labella 1-18)
Picture 7: Active Mold Growth in the District Attorney’s Library
The FEMA BAT acknowledges the significant amount of water that infiltrated the
building via cracks located throughout the Government Center. “Most of the
leaks are manifested as efflorescent stains. This staining has occurred on a
regular basis before the storm but the amount of water in the storm intensified the
water infusion through these cracks.” (Architectural Building Inspection
Assessment and Report 5)
14

This water infusion was a direct contributor to the significant amount of active
mold growth that occurred in the days after the storms. Although minor leaks
may have existed in the Government Center prior to the arrival of Hurricane
Irene, these leaks were manageable and caused no damage and the presence of
visible was limited or non-existent.
Orange County contracted with Environmental Management Solutions of New
York, Inc. (EMSNY) to conduct an investigation to assess the extent of fungal
growth in the Government Center.
1. Investigation
EMSNY began the investigation on “September 1, 2011 and continued for
a period of 14 days with a total of 275 samples being collected (222 air
samples, 4 culturable bulk, 16 tape lifts, 27 wall check samples, 1 swab
and 5 carpet vacuum samples).” (Investigation and Assessment of Fungal
Growth 4)
2. Closed Ventilation System
It is important to note that the Government Center is a “closed system” in
that this building utilizes a ventilation system that recycles 80% of its
indoor air during the cooling season. The ventilation system also utilizes a
filtering system for outdoor air introduced into the system. This filtering
system should reduce the introduction of many types of fungi.
The reason this fact is important is that “indoor versus outdoor
comparisons of spore counts in ‘closed buildings’ have been shown to be
unreliable and not directly related.” (Evaluation of the Draft FEMA
Report 4)
3. Methodology
EMSNY conducted an investigation of the Orange County Government
Center at the request of the Department of Public Works. Sampling was
conducted by EMSNY as part of this investigation despite the visual
presence of mold in the Government Center.
“EMSNY normally does not recommend sampling in order to develop a
remediation plan when mold is visibly present…Due to the County’s
expectation of a high probability of litigation and the need to document
exposures and protect employees and staff, EMSNY recommended
sampling as part of a risk management strategy.” (Building Condition
Assessment 6)
Recommendations from EMSNY were based primarily from visual
inspections and sampling data served as a secondary information source.
15

Picture 8: Active Mold Growth near the County Attorney’s Office
EMSNY, in coordination with the Department of Public Works, set two
Data Quality Objectives as the basis for its investigation of the
Government Center.
The first objective was to determine if mold concentrations existed in
excess of 500 Colony-Forming Units per Cubic Meter (CFU/m3) in the
Government Center. The second objective was to document “if building
occupant activity and disturbance significantly increased spore
concentrations.” (Evaluation of the Draft FEMA Report 4)
a. Use of Background Samples
EMSNY collected background air samples as part of a total risk
management strategy developed in conjunction with Orange
County. The use of these background samples was limited to their
use as a benchmark for future remediation options.
b. Lack of National Standards
Currently there are no acceptable safe numerical standards
established by the US Environmental Protection Agency, the New
York State Department of Health or the New York State
Department of Labor.
In the absence of a Federal or New York State standard for mold
contamination, EMSNY looks to peer reviewed Industry and
International standards as a benchmark in the discussion of
remediation options.
(1). Use of American Society of Heating, Refrigeration
and Air Conditioning and Engineers (ASHRAE)
Standards
As part of its assessment of the Government Center,
EMSNY utilized the Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) standards
established by ASHRAE.
16

In its report the FEMA BAT called utilization of this
standard into question. The use of criteria “promulgated by
ASHRAE is a valid criteria when performing IAQ
evaluations, for common atmospheric IAQ parameters such
as carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, temperature, relative
humidity, etc…so the relevancy of these evaluation criteria
to the fungal spore count data or mold growth in the
building is unclear.” (Ginste 7)
In response EMSNY stated that air quality parameters
including humidity, temperature and odor were collected as
humidity and temperature have a direct relationship with
mold growth and these can be used to assess the efficiency
of the ventilation system and the dehumidification of the
building. This information was also collected to serve as a
gauge for future air quality complaints from potential
occupants. (Evaluation of the Draft FEMA Report 12-13)
(2). Use of International Standards
In its review of the EMSNY report, the FEMA BAT
questioned the use of “A Guideline on Indoor Air Quality
Certification Scheme for Offices and Public Spaces-
September 2003” from Hong Kong by EMSNY as a
standard to establish 500 CFU/m3 as a benchmark. “The
relevancy or applicability of these evaluation criteria was
also unclear.” (Ginste 8)
In response EMSNY stated “the Hong Kong guideline,
albeit international and not binding in the USA, shows that
a modern building with mechanical ventilation can achieve
indoor concentrations less than 500 CFU/m3 and therefore
it would not be unreasonable to try and achieve a similar
level of performance for the Government Center post
remediation…EMSNY supports the use of 500 CFU/m3
total spore count remediation benchmark irrespective of the
outdoor levels due to the closed operation of the building.
(Evaluation of the Draft FEMA Report 14)
Source Year Standard
World Health Organization 1988 500 CFUs/m3 or less
American Conference of Governmental
1989 200 CFU/m3 is a guideline
Industrial Hygienists
Commission of European Committees 1993 500 CFUs/m3 or less
Health Canada 1995 500 CFUs/m3 or less is acceptable
Singapore 1996 500 CFUs/m3 or less
US Occupational Safety and Health
Association (OSHA)
1999 1000 CFU/m3 is considered
contaminated
Hong Kong 2003 500 CFUs/m3 or less
Table 5: Established Airborne Mold Standards
17

EMSNY selected to utilize the Hong Kong guideline as it is
the most up to date peer reviewed document available. A
review of other international standards indicates that the
Hong Kong standard is on par with other standards
established in Canada, Europe and Singapore.
In comparison, there is no standard established by the
Federal Government or New York State at this time.
c. Variable Spore Levels
Both the FEMA BAT and EMSNY acknowledge that spore counts
can be variable between measurements. But EMSNY contends
that since the Government Center is a closed system, any
comparison between indoor and outdoor spore levels is not valid.
Spore levels should be considerably lower in a building with a
closed ventilation system.
EMSNY also contends that its sampling was
conducted with minimal activity on part of the
occupants. If normal occupant activities were
taking place on part of the employees and visitors,
the sampling levels could be potentially higher due
to the disturbance of settled spores. “It is
EMSNY’s position that normal activity within the
building would have disturbed settled spores and
made them airborne and that the concentrations
measured are likely the low end estimates.”
(Evaluation of the Draft FEMA Report 17)
d. Sampling Methods
a. Spore Trap Samples
The FEMA BAT stated the following regarding spore
counts collected by EMSNY:
“A review of the spore count data indicates that the spore
trap samples collected between September 1, and 22, 2011
were not indicative of a problem environment. The indoor
concentrations were less then the outdoor concentrations
and the number of fungal genera seen indoors was less than
those seen outdoors.” (Ginste 8)
EMSNY contends that these samples were taken at a time
of minimal movement of personnel within the building.
Normal activity within the building could potentially have
significantly increased the spore count data. “EMSNY
18

purposely did not rely on air sample data or interpretation
because conditions inside the building at the time of
sampling were artificially created and not representative of
the actual occupied environment.” (Evaluation of the Draft
FEMA Report 17)
EMSNY also contends that the presence of significant
visible mold in a building with a closed ventilation system
may indicate a problem environment and is unrelated to the
spore counts outdoors due to the closed environment.
The FEMA BAT does not state what standard it utilizes to
determine what is and what is not a “problem
environment.” EMSNY utilized a number of Industry and
International guidance in the development of 500 CFU/m3
as a benchmark for its investigation of the building. One
source EMSNY utilized was “A Guideline on Indoor Air
Quality Certification Scheme for Offices and Public
Spaces-September 2003” from Hong Kong as it is the most
recent peer review standard available.
In a meeting with Orange County on May 9, 2012 the
FEMA BAT related that the New York Committee for
Occupational Safety and Health (NYCOSH) could be
utilized as a standard for benchmarking the presence of
mold in the Government Center.
NYCOSH offers the following guidance for bioaerosol
sampling:
CFU/m3 Present
Level of Contamination
Less then 250 CFU/m3
Low/Normal Mold Growth
250-1000 CFU/m3 Moderate Mold Growth
Greater than 1000 CFU/m3
Active Mold Growth
Greater than 5000 CFU/m3
Very Active Mold Growth
Table 6: NYCOSH Guidance for Bioaerosol Sampling
The following are air sample results that were taken by
EMSNY in the Orange County Government Center when
compared with the above NYSCOSH Guidance:
19

Sample Date: September 1, 2011
Area Count Viable Level of Contamination
Adjusted
Finance 7780 6224 Very Active Mold Growth
Finance 559 447.2 Moderate Mold Growth
1 st Floor Records and Deeds 359 287.2 Moderate Mold Growth
Law Library 427 341.6 Moderate Mold Growth
DA’s Office 407 325.6 Moderate Mold Growth
Sample Date: September 2, 2011
Area Count Viable Level of Contamination
Adjusted
Probation 920 736 Moderate Mold Growth
Grand Jury Waiting Room 1400 1120 Very Active Mold Growth
Sample Date: September 9, 2011
Area Count Viable Level of Contamination
Adjusted
Room 742 3553 2842.4 Very Active Mold Growth
Payroll 5946 4756.8 Very Active Mold Growth
Personnel 794 635.2 Moderate Mold Growth
Budget 407 325.6 Moderate Mold Growth
Sample Date: September 14, 2011
Area Count Viable Level of Contamination
Adjusted
County Executive’s Office 380 304 Moderate Mold Growth
Mortgages 1 st Floor 306 244.8 Moderate Mold Growth
Deeds Room 607 485.6 Moderate Mold Growth
Room 742 741 592.8 Moderate Mold Growth
Sample Date: September 15, 2011
Area Count Viable Level of Contamination
Adjusted
Law Library 1280 966.4 Moderate Mold Growth
Hall Adj 3205G 6267 5013.6 Very Active Mold Growth
Payroll 1841 1472.8 Active Mold Growth
Finance 800 640 Moderate Mold Growth
Hall Adj to 3 rd Floor Stairwell 580 464 Moderate Mold Growth
Legislature 647 517.6 Moderate Mold Growth
Deeds Room 1494 1195.2 Active Mold Growth
Mortgages 2 nd Floor 353 282.4 Moderate Mold Growth
Mortgages 1 st Floor 413 330.4 Moderate Mold Growth
Hall Near the CE’s Office 3380 2704 Active Mold Growth
County Executive’s Office 853 682.4 Moderate Mold Growth
Budget 3210G 286 228.8 Moderate Mold Growth
Probation 426 340.8 Moderate Mold Growth
20

Sample Date: September 22, 2011
Area Count Viable Level of Contamination
Adjusted
Deeds Room 720 576 Moderate Mold Growth
Payroll 287 229.6 Moderate Mold Growth
Purchasing 267 213.6 Moderate Mold Growth
Law Library 433 346.4 Moderate Mold Growth
Probation 1120 896 Moderate Mold Growth
DA Library 647 517.6 Moderate Mold Growth
DA Hallway near Kitchen 927 741.6
Room 742 2373 1898.4
Moderate Mold Growth
Active Mold Growth
Sample Date: September 27, 2011
Area Count Viable Level of Contamination
Adjusted
Outside Room 742 14321 11456.8 Very Active Mold Growth
Room 742 768553 614842.4 Very Active Mold Growth
Room 707 12407 9925.6 Very Active Mold Growth
Former Emergency Management 82900 66320 Very Active Mold Growth
Hall between DA and Maintenance 1841 1472.8 Active Mold Growth
Sample Date: October 3, 2011
Area Count Viable Level of Contamination
Adjusted
Mortgages 2 nd floor 412 329.6 Moderate Mold Growth
Deeds Room 794 635.2 Moderate Mold Growth
Probation Room 2230G 474 379.2 Moderate Mold Growth
Room 742 67153 53722.4 Very Active Mold Growth
DA Hallway Adj to Kitchen 14233 11386.4 Very Active Mold Growth
ADA Dovico Office 380 304 Moderate Mold Growth
Sample Date: October 7, 2011
Area Count Viable Level of Contamination
Adjusted
DA Library 1100 880 Moderate Mold Growth
ADA Dovico Office 993 794.4 Moderate Mold Growth
Room 742 102473 81978.4 Very Active Mold Growth
Sample Date: November 1, 2011
Area Count Viable Level of Contamination
Adjusted
Room 742 12360 9888 Very Active Mold Growth
Room 915 800 640 Moderate Mold Growth
Sample Date: December 20, 2011
Area Count Viable Level of Contamination
Adjusted
Budget 321 256.8 Moderate Mold Growth
County Executive 347 277.6 Moderate Mold Growth
21

Sample Date: March 1, 2012
Area Count Viable Level of Contamination
Adjusted
Budget 321 256.8 Moderate Mold Growth
County Executive 347 277.6 Moderate Mold Growth
Sample Date: April 5, 2012
Area Count Viable Level of Contamination
Adjusted
Personnel 2460 1968 Active Mold Growth
DA Library 799 639.2 Moderate Mold Growth
Room 742 1173 938.4 Moderate Mold Growth
b. Wall Samples
The FEMA BAT has called into question the wall cavity
sampling methodology employed by EMSNY.
“According to EMSNY the methodology
employed in collecting the wall cavity
samples involved banging on the wall to
loosen any possible mold growth within the
wall cavity. Vibration has the effect of
artificially elevating spore counts which
unfortunately makes the data
unrepresentative. It is therefore unclear
whether some of the elevated counts seen
are due to active mold growth or agitation of
the walls.” (Ginste 9)
EMSNY states that the view of the FEMA BAT is incorrect
and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the method
employed. EMSNY acknowledges the limitations imposed
upon the sampling method but an “observation can be made
irrespective of the ‘vibration’ because you are treating both
walls the same. You are artificially increasing both results
by dislodging fungal components in both walls.”
(Evaluation of the Draft FEMA Report 19)
The testing kit that was utilized to take the samples
includes the manufacturer’s methodology and instructions
that state that the sampler should bang on the wall to take
the sample properly.
The purpose of this sampling method was to create a
prioritization of which walls may contain the highest
concentrations of mold in the event of later remediation.
22

4. Ventilation System
The FEMA BAT does not consider the ventilation system of the
Government Center as an eligible cost due to the pre-existing dust and
potential mold prior to the arrival of Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm
Lee. “It is also difficult to see how the interior of the system could be
more contaminated by fungal spores than it already is with the relatively
small amount of visible mold growth seen in the building that was
attributed to the hurricane.” (Ginste 11)
It is the contention of Orange County and EMSNY that it is unlikely that
no mold introduction occurred into the ventilation system since water
intrusion is present in several locations in the ductwork. “It is important to
note that it is very unlikely that there was no mold spore contribution to
the duct from the storm event.” (Evaluation of the Draft FEMA Report 20)
The existence of dust and debris in the ductwork prior to the arrival of
Hurricane Irene is not relevant due to the fact that any introduction of new
mold into the ventilation system due to Hurricane Irene and Tropical
Storm Lee will require cleaning and should be an eligible cost under
FEMA guidelines.
5. Types of Mold Present
During its investigation of the Government Center, EMSNY identified the
presence of the following fungal types:
a. Ascospores
b. Aspergillius
c. Basidiospores
d. Cladosporium
e. Penicillium
f. Stachybotros
g. Myxomycetes
h. Periconia
i. Pithomyces
j. Rusts
k. Smuts
23

Picture 9: Active Mold Growth in District Attorney’s Office
The FEMA BAT indicated in its report that the initial EMSNY report
“specifically identifies locations where fungal genera Stachybotrys was
identified in air, samples, wall cavity samples, tape lifts, or bulk samples
but it is unclear why this distinction is made. Stachybotrys…is not
unusual or a cause for immediate concern since it is a normal component
of the indoor and outdoor environment. (Ginste 7)
EMSNY highlighted the presence of Stachybotrys for a number of
reasons:
a. The presence of Stachybotrys was reported by an independent
lab performing the fungal analysis.
b. Stachybotrys is widely considered a trigger for litigation.
c. The presence of Stachybotrys is an indicator of the presence of
water in building as it has a high Available Water requirement for
growth.
d. Areas containing Stachybotrys may be an indication of water
infiltration since areas that normally allow Stachybotrys to grow
are normally highly saturated.
In the FEMA BAT report Mr. Ginste discounts the presence of
Stachybotrys in the Government Center and determines that it is not a
reason for immediate concern.
In 2003 Mr. Ginste testified as an expert witness for the plaintiff in Roche
VS Lincoln Property Co. (No. CIV.A.02-1390-A US District Court, ED,
Virginia, Memorandum of Opinion, July 25, 2003). Mr. Ginste claimed
that his client’s apartment contained “extensive contamination” with many
of the types of molds present in the Government Center. Samples
collected yielded a viable fungal spore count of 947 CFU/m3 including the
predominance of Stachybotrys. Mr. Ginste concluded that the occupants
had been “exposed to severe mold concentrations” (Roche v. Lincoln
Property Co)
24

The table below summarizes samples taken in the Government Center by
EMSNY that exceed the 947 CFU/m3 benchmark which Mr. Ginste
utilized a as a measure to determine what was extensively contaminated
by mold in 2003.
Area Count Viable Adjusted Date of Sample
Finance 7780 6224 9/1/11
Grand Jury Waiting Room 1400 1120 9/2/11
Room 742 3553 2842.4 9/9/11
Payroll 5946 4756.8 9/9/11
Law Library 1280 966.4 9/15/11
Hall Adj 3205G 6267 5013.6 9/15/11
Payroll 1841 1472.8 9/15/11
Deeds Room 1494 1195.2 9/15/11
Room 742 2373 1898.4 9/22/11
Outside Room 742 14321 11456.8 9/27/11
Room 742 768553 614842.4 9/27/11
Room 707 12407 9925.6 9/27/11
Former Emergency Mgt 82900 66320 9/27/11
Hall between DA & Maint 1841 1472.8 9/27/11
Room 742 67153 53722.4 10/3/11
DA Hallway Adj to Kitchen 14233 11386.4 10/3/11
Room 742 102473 81978.4 10/7/11
Table 7: Samples Exceeding 947 CFU/m3 in the Government Center
VI. Conclusion
The Orange County Government Center suffered significant damage as a result of
Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee. The consultants retained by Orange County
estimate the damage to the Government Center relating to these storms to be between
$7,000,000 and $10,000,000.
The FEMA BAT contends that much of the damage is related to pre-existing conditions.
Orange County acknowledges that pre-existing conditions were present at the
Government Center, but the pre-existing conditions were capable of resisting numerous
other federally declared and non-declared storms.
Time and time again the Orange County Government Center was capable of resisting
heavy rain, snow and ice. It was not until the arrival of Hurricane Irene and Tropical
Storm Lee did the roofing system fail so completely and utterly.
The failure of the roofing system combined with the flooding of the first floor level led to
active visible growth of mold within the building. The visual presence of mold was
documented throughout the facility. This factor was a significant contributor in the
decision to close the Government Center indefinitely.
Although pre-existing conditions are well documented at the Government Center, it is the
contention of Orange County that Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee exacerbated
these conditions and led to a host of other significant and expensive damage to the
25

uilding. The pre-existing conditions were manageable and this is evidenced by the lack
of interior damage to the interior of the building by previous storms.
Currently there is no acceptable level of mold set by the Federal Government or New
York State. Orange County seeks to be proactive in order to identify any areas that may
contain mold in the Government Center. If the decision is made to reoccupy the building,
Orange County should also seek to remove as much of the mold as possible from the
Government Center. As there is no acceptable standard of mold and people have a vast
differentiation in the degree of sensitivity to mold, Orange County must seek to protect
the most vulnerable persons among the workforce and the visitors and take extensive
action to remediate the mold that is present in the building.
It is the conclusion of Orange County and its consultants that the Orange County
Government Center is not currently a safe work environment and that extensive
remediation and rehabilitation will have to occur prior to the reoccupation of the building.
26

Works Cited
Environmental Management Solutions of New York Inc. Evaluation of the Draft FEMA
Field Report-Building Condition Assessment-Review and Response to Comments
Regarding Mold. May 5, 2012
Environmental Management Solutions of New York Inc. FEMA Field Report-Building
Condition Assessment Review and Comments. March 22, 2012
Environmental Management Solutions of New York Inc. Investigation and Assessment of
Fungal Growth. November 9, 2011
Federal Emergency Management Agency Building Assessment Team. Architectural
Building Inspection Assessment and Report. February 15, 2012
Federal Emergency Management Agency Building Assessment Team. Government
Center Grounds. Undated
Ginste, Ronald. Field Report-Building Condition Assessment. February 1, 2012
Labella Associates. Post Tropical Storm Property Condition Report Orange County
Government Center. November 2011
Rosher, Len. Electrical Damage Report. January 31, 2012
27