RE: Clearance testing & standards

[Guest guest]

Josh,

For what it's worth, I also would have failed the area. My clearance

criteria is as follows:

1. No significant difference between indoor & outdoor airborne spore

counts (> 1 spore of any type, raw count), & no (0) Stachybotrys.

2. Less than or equal to 25 spores of any type per cm2 on surface

samples. There's a loophole in the surfacial requirements that surficial

counts can be as high as no greater than 30 spores per cm2, provided

that no more than 50% of collected samples show counts in excess of

25 per cm2, AND that the average of all surficial sample results is no

greater than 25 spores per cm2, and again, NO Stachy. This gives a

contractor who has done a good job a little bit of " wiggle room " .

These levels are based upon many factors, which are too complex and

numerous to explain here, but include consideration of the results of

hundreds of acceptance criteria samples that had previously passed.

According to this particular acceptance criteria, approximately 15% of

previously acceptable samples would have failed.

These acceptance criteria ARE quite achievable, but in order to be

achieved the contractor must do an excellent remediation job, which

includes " overkill " use of both negative air (exhausting to the outside)

as well as work area " air scrubbers " , several blow-downs with leaf

blowers of all surfaces within the work areas at certain stages of

progress by the contractor during the remediation process, as well as

very thorough cleaning.

I've found that successful remediation results are not so much a matter

of what is done, but how it's done and it what order, and keeping

cleaning buckets out of the work area, using sprayers, rags and wire

brushes instead, in order to accomplish multiple surface cleanings

without spreading contamination around from use of dirty cleaning

solutions in buckets. Of course changing cleaning rags rigorously is a

key component along with diligent use of HEPA vacuums. A little trick I

have been known to use is to suggest to the contractor that they do a

final wipe down with clean rags & Endust.

Regarding the Stachy in particular, as it is a very heavy and sticky

spore with relatively poor aerodynamic properties, as well as the fact

that it doesn't compete well with other types of fungi, in my humble

opinion, if two spores showed up on an air sample, I would bet that

there are hundreds or thousands somewhere still in the building,

assuming that there were none in the outdoor counts. This could be

because of either the presence of a missed colony or colonies, or due

to less than thorough remediation techniques.

Every job is different, and I'm speaking in generalities here, so some

adjustments may be necessary depending upon the particular project

and or building.

The bottom line is that if it were my responsibility to decide whether the

area would pass, based upon the info you've given us, I'd somewhat

politely suggest that you stop whining and start thinking & recleaning.

Cheers,

Chuck Reaney, CIAQC, CIAQP & part-time grump

To: iequality

Date sent: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 22:03:10 -0000

Subject: Clearance testing & " standards "

Send reply to: iequality

[ Double-click this line for list subscription options ]

Our company performs both investigations and remediation. We only

do

both if it is a smaller residential project but on commercial projects

we call in a third party inspection company (We are located in a rural

area). I have used a different company for the first time on a

commercial remediation project and they wanted to fail me for 2 (two)

stachybotrys spores that showed up in an air sample post remediation.

They found the area cleaned and remediated properly. Investigation

showed no other signs of contamination in other areas. Our

remediation

supervisor runs a tight ship. Am I to think that this should not

pass? Especially given that there was ONE air sample taken?

I want to take a quick minute to say that for the last year or two I

have been one of those " silent lurkers " . I do appreciate the

different posts and I do think (most of the time) that this is a great

site. Josh

FAIR USE NOTICE:

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not

always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are

making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding

of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy,

scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this

constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided

for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title

17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed

without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in

receiving the included information for research and educational

purposes. For more information go to:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use

copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go

beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright

owner.

[Guest guest]

Not to mention the consultants's pump (with filter or not), clothes, shoes, hair, toolbox, etc. If someone failed you for two spores, s/he has to be able to show you that they were not brought in. I know some remediators will take samples themselves before the consultant come in. Those samples will become very helpful if things like this happen. Wei Tang QLabJosh wrote: This was a response I received from someone else and my reply was 1) where does the leaf blower come from (where has it been stored, was it used on another job, etc.) and 2) should it be considered “sterile” enough to bring inside of containment? It would seem to me if we are talking about 1,2,3….spores, I need to really consider everything that is being brought into containment. Josh From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Wei TangSent: Monday, November 20, 2006 8:28 PMTo: iequality Subject: Re: Clearance testing & "standards" IMHO, one or two Stachy spores in the air is no big deal if the surface is all cleaned up. However, it would be a problem if the surface is not sufficiently cleaned. Ok, now, how do we test for surface? One (or a few) square inch of sample is not going to tell you much on the entire job, right? Have the consultant use a electric leave blower (a small one, please) and blow all the spores off the surface while sampling to see if he can get any significant amount of Stachy (or any other) spores in the air. Of course, you should blow the spores/hyphae off the dried surface while running the air scrubber for some time before the PRV. Please see Bob s' PRV book for details. Wei Tang QLab healthyiaq <josh2cureit> wrote: Our company performs both investigations

and remediation. We only do both if it is a smaller residential project but on commercial projects we call in a third party inspection company (We are located in a rural area). I have used a different company for the first time on a commercial remediation project and they wanted to fail me for 2 (two) stachybotrys spores that showed up in an air sample post remediation. They found the area cleaned and remediated properly. Investigation showed no other signs of contamination in other areas. Our remediation supervisor runs a tight ship. Am I to think that this should not pass? Especially given that there was ONE air sample taken? I want to take a quick minute to say that for the last year or two I have been one of those "silent lurkers". I do appreciate the different posts and I do think (most of the time) that this is a great site. Josh Wei Tang, Ph.D.Lab Director QLab5 DriveCherry Hill, NJ 08003www.QLabUSA.com Wei Tang, Ph.D.Lab Director QLab5 DriveCherry Hill, NJ

08003www.QLabUSA.com

[Guest guest]

I appreciate the posts to my question. There

are several people here who speak VERY frankly, which I appreciate. So,

let me be frank, rather than “technical” and try to prove how much

I know (or show how much I don’t J).

I have been in this profession for less

than 6 years, and even though my degree is not directly related to this

profession, I do have a fair amount of secondary education coupled with a

decent amount of experience performing many assessments on residential and

commercial buildings. (I might even understand more if I would have been

able to attend the iequality after hours extravaganza I missed.) I do

work hard on furthering my education and understanding while keeping open to

teaching, which is why I enjoy this group. All right, now that many of

the more “qualified” people on the group can attack me for not

being as intelligent and educated as they are………….. That

said, and trying to be practical, how many end consumers can afford (with respect

to mold only) to have enough tests ran to get a good picture of the environment

(pre remediation), the remediation itself by an insured and qualified remediation

company, post inspection/testing with enough samples to get another good

picture of the environment, & possibly have to pay for another round or two

of inspection/testing because the remediation company didn’t get the

remediated area to a zero or “trace” (which can be 3 spores or 100

spores depending on who you talk to and if there background is in microbiology

or engineering).

And, before anyone attacks, FYI, I recommend to the customers our company performs remediations for

that they have a third party come in and perform post remediation

inspection/sampling. I DON’T HAVE TO DO THIS. I know that a

remediation can be performed improperly and even cause the situation to be

worse than before, however, 2 spores or even a few more (in my humble opinion)

is not indicative of a botched or poorly performed remediation.

This issue is much deeper with many

different things we could look at and analyze, but I do think that we can be so

focused on 2, 3, or 10 spores that we loose sight of the fact that these

consumers are paying a considerable price

to get the levels from 2,000 spores to 10 spores and then depending on who

performs the post, they might have to pay more to get it to 2 or even 0 spores.

I am tired of seeing the “less qualified” or “less caring”

not so professionals in this industry continue to thrive while some haggle over

a couple of spores in a very clean area meanwhile charging hefty prices to do

so.

I’m done ranting. I can’t

speak in any more laymen terms than this. I am sure many of you will misunderstand

or turn this into something else, however, I would like to continue to hear

some practical responses, especially from those of you who are in the field

every day performing pre & post fungal inspections/testing.

I’ll also accept some tough

responses as well. I have no problem hearing I am wrong as long as there

is a good, loving explanation along with it.

Josh

ask this question. Focusing ONLY on MOLD assessment

and remediation (KEEP THIS IN MIND). At what point are we so close to the

trees that we can’t see the forest? Several people in this industry

are trying to stop the “hysteria” people and promote assessments by

qualified people as well as remediations by qualified and insured remediators. Granted

there are more “less qualified” than “qualified”,

especially when compared to many people on this iequality group.

Considering this to be the fact, when do

we become more practical when looking at the overall reason we should care….the

customer and the people who inhabit the places we are working on. Again,

mold only!

I am sure that the cost is not cheap to

have many of you come out and perform post remediation inspections and testing.

To conclude my ranting, in my mind I am asking at what point do we at least

consider reasonable expectations

Our company prides ourselves on our

remediation techniques. I am sure that there are many who can perform one

better, but I see a lot of different remediations and companies who do not use

the proper techniques, who don’t have the right equipment, and quite

frankly are more interested in the money than doing a good job (I admit, like

many of you, I like money). We carry the right insurance and the right

workers comp, all of which state MOLD, not just “construction liability”.

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Chuck Reaney

Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006

1:38 PM

To: iequality

Subject: Re: Clearance

testing & " standards "

Josh,

For what it's worth, I also would have failed the area. My clearance

criteria is as follows:

1. No significant difference between indoor & outdoor airborne spore

counts (> 1 spore of any type, raw count), & no (0) Stachybotrys.

2. Less than or equal to 25 spores of any type per cm2 on surface

samples. There's a loophole in the surfacial requirements that surficial

counts can be as high as no greater than 30 spores per cm2, provided

that no more than 50% of collected samples show counts in excess of

25 per cm2, AND that the average of all surficial sample results is no

greater than 25 spores per cm2, and again, NO Stachy. This gives a

contractor who has done a good job a little bit of " wiggle room " .

These levels are based upon many factors, which are too complex and

numerous to explain here, but include consideration of the results of

hundreds of acceptance criteria samples that had previously passed.

According to this particular acceptance criteria, approximately 15% of

previously acceptable samples would have failed.

These acceptance criteria ARE quite achievable, but in order to be

achieved the contractor must do an excellent remediation job, which

includes " overkill " use of both negative air (exhausting to the

outside)

as well as work area " air scrubbers " , several blow-downs with leaf

blowers of all surfaces within the work areas at certain stages of

progress by the contractor during the remediation process, as well as

very thorough cleaning.

I've found that successful remediation results are not so much a matter

of what is done, but how it's done and it what order, and keeping

cleaning buckets out of the work area, using sprayers, rags and wire

brushes instead, in order to accomplish multiple surface cleanings

without spreading contamination around from use of dirty cleaning

solutions in buckets. Of course changing cleaning rags rigorously is a

key component along with diligent use of HEPA vacuums. A little trick I

have been known to use is to suggest to the contractor that they do a

final wipe down with clean rags & Endust.

Regarding the Stachy in particular, as it is a very heavy and sticky

spore with relatively poor aerodynamic properties, as well as the fact

that it doesn't compete well with other types of fungi, in my humble

opinion, if two spores showed up on an air sample, I would bet that

there are hundreds or thousands somewhere still in the building,

assuming that there were none in the outdoor counts. This could be

because of either the presence of a missed colony or colonies, or due

to less than thorough remediation techniques.

Every job is different, and I'm speaking in generalities here, so some

adjustments may be necessary depending upon the particular project

and or building.

The bottom line is that if it were my responsibility to decide whether the

area would pass, based upon the info you've given us, I'd somewhat

politely suggest that you stop whining and start thinking & recleaning.

Cheers,

Chuck Reaney, CIAQC, CIAQP & part-time grump

To: iequality

From: " healthyiaq " <josh2cureit>

Date sent: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 22:03:10 -0000

Subject: Clearance testing & " standards "

Send reply to: iequality

[ Double-click this line for list subscription options ]

Our company performs both investigations and remediation. We only

do

both if it is a smaller residential project but on commercial projects

we call in a third party inspection company (We are located in a rural

area). I have used a different company for the first time on a

commercial remediation project and they wanted to fail me for 2 (two)

stachybotrys spores that showed up in an air sample post remediation.

They found the area cleaned and remediated properly. Investigation

showed no other signs of contamination in other areas. Our

remediation

supervisor runs a tight ship. Am I to think that this should not

pass? Especially given that there was ONE air sample taken?

I want to take a quick minute to say that for the last year or two I

have been one of those " silent lurkers " . I do appreciate the

different posts and I do think (most of the time) that this is a great

site. Josh

FAIR USE NOTICE:

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not

always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are

making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding

of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy,

scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this

constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided

for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title

17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed

without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in

receiving the included information for research and educational

purposes. For more information go to:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.

If you wish to use

copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go

beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright

owner.

[Guest guest]

Josh,

" We removed down to the metal

studs and brick building. "

Where was the stachy swab taken? Metal studs and bricks do not support

mold growth unless there is a biofilm.

Was the roof wood or metal?

Bob

[Guest guest]

Bob,

The only swab sample that showed stachy

was the pre swab. The post swab was clean and the air sample showed 2

spores. Sorry if I did not make that clear.

Josh

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Bob s

Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006

4:52 PM

To: iequality

Subject: Re: Re:

Clearance testing & " standards "

Josh,

" We

removed down to the metal

studs and brick building. "

Where was the

stachy swab taken? Metal studs and bricks do not support mold growth unless

there is a biofilm.

Was the roof wood or metal?

Bob

[Guest guest]

Chuck:

While I see merit with your clearance air testing criteria, I want to ask a question that warrants consideration.

You mention that your clearance criteria is: No (zero) stachybotrys. When Stachy colonizes on a substrate (e.g., wet sheetrock), that Stachy came from somewhere – it was not immaculate-colonization. Those Stachy spores probably, more often than not, came from an outdoor source. I know that stachybotrys is a very common soil organism here in the southwest U.S., and when the dirt is disturbed (e.g., excavation, grading, landscaping, ag operations, etc.), Stachy spores can be detected downwind, and sometimes in significant concentrations (e.g., 3 to 6 spores (raw count) in a typical 75-liter AOC sample is not uncommon). This said, if a remediation contractor is not supplying the negative pressure enclosure with HEPA filtered make-up air, how is a remediation contractor expected to keep out all Stachy spores?

This question is open for the group to opine on, and I hope they do, because it is a significant source of debate here where stachybotrys is prevalent and common.

PS I’ve got several project examples where sampling showed Stachy spores, and there was no Stachy in the building.

--

Geyer, PE, CIH, CSP

President

KERNTEC Industries, Inc.

Bakersfield, California

www.kerntecindustries.com

Josh,

For what it's worth, I also would have failed the area. My clearance

criteria is as follows:

1. No significant difference between indoor & outdoor airborne spore

counts (> 1 spore of any type, raw count), & no (0) Stachybotrys.

2. Less than or equal to 25 spores of any type per cm2 on surface

samples. There's a loophole in the surfacial requirements that surficial

counts can be as high as no greater than 30 spores per cm2, provided

that no more than 50% of collected samples show counts in excess of

25 per cm2, AND that the average of all surficial sample results is no

greater than 25 spores per cm2, and again, NO Stachy. This gives a

contractor who has done a good job a little bit of " wiggle room " .

These levels are based upon many factors, which are too complex and

numerous to explain here, but include consideration of the results of

hundreds of acceptance criteria samples that had previously passed.

According to this particular acceptance criteria, approximately 15% of

previously acceptable samples would have failed.

These acceptance criteria ARE quite achievable, but in order to be

achieved the contractor must do an excellent remediation job, which

includes " overkill " use of both negative air (exhausting to the outside)

as well as work area " air scrubbers " , several blow-downs with leaf

blowers of all surfaces within the work areas at certain stages of

progress by the contractor during the remediation process, as well as

very thorough cleaning.

I've found that successful remediation results are not so much a matter

of what is done, but how it's done and it what order, and keeping

cleaning buckets out of the work area, using sprayers, rags and wire

brushes instead, in order to accomplish multiple surface cleanings

without spreading contamination around from use of dirty cleaning

solutions in buckets. Of course changing cleaning rags rigorously is a

key component along with diligent use of HEPA vacuums. A little trick I

have been known to use is to suggest to the contractor that they do a

final wipe down with clean rags & Endust.

Regarding the Stachy in particular, as it is a very heavy and sticky

spore with relatively poor aerodynamic properties, as well as the fact

that it doesn't compete well with other types of fungi, in my humble

opinion, if two spores showed up on an air sample, I would bet that

there are hundreds or thousands somewhere still in the building,

assuming that there were none in the outdoor counts. This could be

because of either the presence of a missed colony or colonies, or due

to less than thorough remediation techniques.

Every job is different, and I'm speaking in generalities here, so some

adjustments may be necessary depending upon the particular project

and or building.

The bottom line is that if it were my responsibility to decide whether the

area would pass, based upon the info you've given us, I'd somewhat

politely suggest that you stop whining and start thinking & recleaning.

Cheers,

Chuck Reaney, CIAQC, CIAQP & part-time grump

To: iequality <mailto:iequality%40yahoogroups.com>

From: " healthyiaq " <josh@... <mailto:josh%402cureit.com> >

Date sent: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 22:03:10 -0000

Subject: Clearance testing & " standards "

Send reply to: iequality <mailto:iequality%40yahoogroups.com>

[ Double-click this line for list subscription options ]

Our company performs both investigations and remediation. We only

do

both if it is a smaller residential project but on commercial projects

we call in a third party inspection company (We are located in a rural

area). I have used a different company for the first time on a

commercial remediation project and they wanted to fail me for 2 (two)

stachybotrys spores that showed up in an air sample post remediation.

They found the area cleaned and remediated properly. Investigation

showed no other signs of contamination in other areas. Our

remediation

supervisor runs a tight ship. Am I to think that this should not

pass? Especially given that there was ONE air sample taken?

I want to take a quick minute to say that for the last year or two I

have been one of those " silent lurkers " . I do appreciate the

different posts and I do think (most of the time) that this is a great

site. Josh

FAIR USE NOTICE:

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not

always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are

making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding

of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy,

scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this

constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided

for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title

17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed

without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in

receiving the included information for research and educational

purposes. For more information go to:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use

copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go

beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright

owner.

[Guest guest]

Josh:

Your post is practical and relevant, and provides quite a bit of common sense.....something lacking in some folks!

I wholeheartedly agree with your perception that some folks get so damn focused on 2 or 3 spores, that they loose sight of the bigger picture. I recall being called into a project where the remediator could not get acceptable “clearance” due to the IH overseeing the project and some restrictive clearance criteria. The criteria was overly conservative in my opinion, i.e., no Stachy and indoor concentrations had to be 10-times lower than outdoors. Outdoors concentrations were high (avg 16K-m3) because of mold-covered vegetation growing in nearby planters. This affected indoor concentrations and some, but not all, air samples showed 1 stachy spore. Indoors, the post-remediaiton effort resulted in a visibly squeeky clean area. And prior to abatement, the walls were black with colonization and the average indoor spore concentration exceeded 50K-m3. The plane and simple fact was, the space was much cleaner due to the efforts of the remediation contractor, but the IH would accept nothing less than his, unreasonable in my opinion, clearance criteria. After discussing the bigger picture with the owner, the IH was dismissed so re-construction could begin.

For what it is worth Josh...be practical.

This said, some of the earlier posts have merit.....Sample before you begin, to demonstrate removal, and agree to clearance criteria before starting the job. If you agree to No stachy, then clearance means: no stachy.

--

Geyer, PE, CIH, CSP

President

KERNTEC Industries, Inc.

Bakersfield, California

www.kerntecindustries.com

I appreciate the posts to my question. There are several people here who speak VERY frankly, which I appreciate. So, let me be frank, rather than “technical” and try to prove how much I know (or show how much I don’t J).

I have been in this profession for less than 6 years, and even though my degree is not directly related to this profession, I do have a fair amount of secondary education coupled with a decent amount of experience performing many assessments on residential and commercial buildings. (I might even understand more if I would have been able to attend the iequality after hours extravaganza I missed.) I do work hard on furthering my education and understanding while keeping open to teaching, which is why I enjoy this group. All right, now that many of the more “qualified” people on the group can attack me for not being as intelligent and educated as they are………….. That said, and trying to be practical, how many end consumers can afford (with respect to mold only) to have enough tests ran to get a good picture of the environment (pre remediation), the remediation itself by an insured and qualified remediation company, post inspection/testing with enough samples to get another good picture of the environment, & possibly have to pay for another round or two of inspection/testing because the remediation company didn’t get the remediated area to a zero or “trace” (which can be 3 spores or 100 spores depending on who you talk to and if there background is in microbiology or engineering).

And, before anyone attacks, FYI, I recommend to the customers our company performs remediations for that they have a third party come in and perform post remediation inspection/sampling. I DON’T HAVE TO DO THIS. I know that a remediation can be performed improperly and even cause the situation to be worse than before, however, 2 spores or even a few more (in my humble opinion) is not indicative of a botched or poorly performed remediation.

This issue is much deeper with many different things we could look at and analyze, but I do think that we can be so focused on 2, 3, or 10 spores that we loose sight of the fact that these consumers are paying a considerable price to get the levels from 2,000 spores to 10 spores and then depending on who performs the post, they might have to pay more to get it to 2 or even 0 spores. I am tired of seeing the “less qualified” or “less caring” not so professionals in this industry continue to thrive while some haggle over a couple of spores in a very clean area meanwhile charging hefty prices to do so.

I’m done ranting. I can’t speak in any more laymen terms than this. I am sure many of you will misunderstand or turn this into something else, however, I would like to continue to hear some practical responses, especially from those of you who are in the field every day performing pre & post fungal inspections/testing.

I’ll also accept some tough responses as well. I have no problem hearing I am wrong as long as there is a good, loving explanation along with it.

Josh

ask this question. Focusing ONLY on MOLD assessment and remediation (KEEP THIS IN MIND). At what point are we so close to the trees that we can’t see the forest? Several people in this industry are trying to stop the “hysteria” people and promote assessments by qualified people as well as remediations by qualified and insured remediators. Granted there are more “less qualified” than “qualified”, especially when compared to many people on this iequality group.

Considering this to be the fact, when do we become more practical when looking at the overall reason we should care….the customer and the people who inhabit the places we are working on. Again, mold only!

I am sure that the cost is not cheap to have many of you come out and perform post remediation inspections and testing. To conclude my ranting, in my mind I am asking at what point do we at least consider reasonable expectations

Our company prides ourselves on our remediation techniques. I am sure that there are many who can perform one better, but I see a lot of different remediations and companies who do not use the proper techniques, who don’t have the right equipment, and quite frankly are more interested in the money than doing a good job (I admit, like many of you, I like money). We carry the right insurance and the right workers comp, all of which state MOLD, not just “construction liability”.

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Chuck Reaney

Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 1:38 PM

To: iequality

Subject: Re: Clearance testing & " standards "

Josh,

For what it's worth, I also would have failed the area. My clearance

criteria is as follows:

1. No significant difference between indoor & outdoor airborne spore

counts (> 1 spore of any type, raw count), & no (0) Stachybotrys.

2. Less than or equal to 25 spores of any type per cm2 on surface

samples. There's a loophole in the surfacial requirements that surficial

counts can be as high as no greater than 30 spores per cm2, provided

that no more than 50% of collected samples show counts in excess of

25 per cm2, AND that the average of all surficial sample results is no

greater than 25 spores per cm2, and again, NO Stachy. This gives a

contractor who has done a good job a little bit of " wiggle room " .

These levels are based upon many factors, which are too complex and

numerous to explain here, but include consideration of the results of

hundreds of acceptance criteria samples that had previously passed.

According to this particular acceptance criteria, approximately 15% of

previously acceptable samples would have failed.

These acceptance criteria ARE quite achievable, but in order to be

achieved the contractor must do an excellent remediation job, which

includes " overkill " use of both negative air (exhausting to the outside)

as well as work area " air scrubbers " , several blow-downs with leaf

blowers of all surfaces within the work areas at certain stages of

progress by the contractor during the remediation process, as well as

very thorough cleaning.

I've found that successful remediation results are not so much a matter

of what is done, but how it's done and it what order, and keeping

cleaning buckets out of the work area, using sprayers, rags and wire

brushes instead, in order to accomplish multiple surface cleanings

without spreading contamination around from use of dirty cleaning

solutions in buckets. Of course changing cleaning rags rigorously is a

key component along with diligent use of HEPA vacuums. A little trick I

have been known to use is to suggest to the contractor that they do a

final wipe down with clean rags & Endust.

Regarding the Stachy in particular, as it is a very heavy and sticky

spore with relatively poor aerodynamic properties, as well as the fact

that it doesn't compete well with other types of fungi, in my humble

opinion, if two spores showed up on an air sample, I would bet that

there are hundreds or thousands somewhere still in the building,

assuming that there were none in the outdoor counts. This could be

because of either the presence of a missed colony or colonies, or due

to less than thorough remediation techniques.

Every job is different, and I'm speaking in generalities here, so some

adjustments may be necessary depending upon the particular project

and or building.

The bottom line is that if it were my responsibility to decide whether the

area would pass, based upon the info you've given us, I'd somewhat

politely suggest that you stop whining and start thinking & recleaning.

Cheers,

Chuck Reaney, CIAQC, CIAQP & part-time grump

To: iequality <mailto:iequality%40yahoogroups.com>

From: " healthyiaq " <josh@... <mailto:josh%402cureit.com> >

Date sent: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 22:03:10 -0000

Subject: Clearance testing & " standards "

Send reply to: iequality <mailto:iequality%40yahoogroups.com>

[ Double-click this line for list subscription options ]

Our company performs both investigations and remediation. We only

do

both if it is a smaller residential project but on commercial projects

we call in a third party inspection company (We are located in a rural

area). I have used a different company for the first time on a

commercial remediation project and they wanted to fail me for 2 (two)

stachybotrys spores that showed up in an air sample post remediation.

They found the area cleaned and remediated properly. Investigation

showed no other signs of contamination in other areas. Our

remediation

supervisor runs a tight ship. Am I to think that this should not

pass? Especially given that there was ONE air sample taken?

I want to take a quick minute to say that for the last year or two I

have been one of those " silent lurkers " . I do appreciate the

different posts and I do think (most of the time) that this is a great

site. Josh

FAIR USE NOTICE:

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not

always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are

making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding

of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy,

scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this

constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided

for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title

17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed

without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in

receiving the included information for research and educational

purposes. For more information go to:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use

copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go

beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright

owner.

[Guest guest]

Well Don, you struck a chord with me. Can you please provide some justification for your decision-making criteria. Please be patient, these are honest questions that I believe need answers from the industry, not just you. Thanx.

Why? isn't this 'trace' level? why one not two? was 'trace' levels defined prior to the remediaiton so all parties knew what was/wasn't passing? would you pass 500 aspergillus/penicillium group if it was less than outdoors? how do we know it's not different than the outdoor sample with 1000 asp/pen group?

What could be the reason for such stringent criteria? is 2 spores really a hazard? is it worse than 2 spores cladosporium? if so, why? where's the reference and support for such decision-making? what about error in analysis? what about distribution variability? how do we know those 2 were really stachy? why not 2 spores of some aspergillus species? or other pathogenic species?

These are questions that MUST be answered in order to create and use proper PRV protocols.

Armour, M.S.Armour Applied Science, LLCGreen Building Healthy BuildingCleveland, OH

"The problems that exist in the world today cannot be solved by the level of thinking that created them." A.Einstein

[Guest guest]

hey chuck, you write: "These levels are based upon many factors, which are too complex and numerous to explain here"

Why not give us a try - please explain these 'too complex' factors for us. We have the time and space.

Thanx.

Armour, M.S.Armour Applied Science, LLCGreen Building Healthy BuildingCleveland, OH

"The problems that exist in the world today cannot be solved by the level of thinking that created them." A.Einstein

[Guest guest]

,

As I indicated in my post, each project and building is different, and I

was speaking in generalities. Of course geographical considerations

and associated ambient differences also have to be part of the " reality "

of what is possible to achieve. My acceptance criteria and post are

therefore based upon the perspective of my location and familiarity with

ambient conditions in the northeast/mid-atlantic.

In this area I see very very little ambient stachy, and therefore my

criteria works. I also agree that HEPA filtration of make-up air would

probably be excessive in an area such as yours. I have however, had

to do exactly that (HEPA filtered make-up air) many years ago when I

was an asbestos abatement contactor working within a small portion of

a mechanical room where amosite asbestos was used as sparayed on

fireproofing in the entire room, so in certain situations that may be

necessary and make sense (hospital surgical area, for example).

Therefore, I think you make a good point, and the clearance criteria

would obviously have to be adjusted accordingly for ambient

geographical differences on an " average " project (whatever that is).

As a final point, however, my general philosophy is to attempt to make

the work area as free from residual microbials as possible, within

boundaries of financial reason. That is why I spec jobs to use overkill

air filtration and exhaust. Theoretically, if you're (excessively?) utilizing

air scrubbers, thereby circulating and filtering make-up air within the

work area, along with the other techniques I mentioned, it should be

possible to end the project with the work area recognizably " cleaner "

than ambient conditions would allow, and to do so at reasonable cost.

Most contractors already have sufficient equipment to set up a couple

of additional AFDs, and the time required to do so is minimal, while the

benefits are great.

Again, it is a matter of what is done, how it is done, and in what order,

in the remediation process. And I re-emphasize that every job, building

and yes, location is different, and therefore subject to necessary

adjustments.

Happy Thanksgiving to all.

Chuck Reaney

Chuck:

While I see merit with your clearance air testing criteria, I want to

ask a question that warrants consideration.

You mention that your clearance criteria is: No (zero) stachybotrys.

When Stachy colonizes on a substrate (e.g., wet sheetrock), that

Stachy came from somewhere ­ it was not immaculate-colonization.

Those Stachy spores probably, more often than not, came from an

outdoor source. I know that stachybotrys is a very common soil

organism here in the southwest U.S., and when the dirt is disturbed

(e.g., excavation, grading, landscaping, ag operations, etc.), Stachy

spores can be detected downwind, and sometimes in significant

concentrations (e.g., 3 to 6 spores (raw count) in a typical 75-liter

AOC sample is not uncommon). This said, if a remediation contractor

is not supplying the negative pressure enclosure with HEPA filtered

make-up air, how is a remediation contractor expected to keep out all

Stachy spores?

This question is open for the group to opine on, and I hope they do,

because it is a significant source of debate here where stachybotrys

is prevalent and common.

PS I¹ve got several project examples where sampling showed Stachy

spores, and there was no Stachy in the building.

--

Geyer, PE, CIH, CSP

President

KERNTEC Industries, Inc.

Bakersfield, California

www.kerntecindustries.com

>

>

>

>

> Josh,

>

> For what it's worth, I also would have failed the area. My

> clearance criteria is as follows:

>

> 1. No significant difference between indoor & outdoor airborne spore

> counts (> 1 spore of any type, raw count), & no (0) Stachybotrys.

>

> 2. Less than or equal to 25 spores of any type per cm2 on surface

> samples. There's a loophole in the surfacial requirements that

> surficial counts can be as high as no greater than 30 spores per

> cm2, provided that no more than 50% of collected samples show counts

> in excess of 25 per cm2, AND that the average of all surficial

> sample results is no greater than 25 spores per cm2, and again, NO

> Stachy. This gives a contractor who has done a good job a little

> bit of " wiggle room " .

>

> These levels are based upon many factors, which are too complex and

> numerous to explain here, but include consideration of the results

> of hundreds of acceptance criteria samples that had previously

> passed.

>

> According to this particular acceptance criteria, approximately 15%

> of previously acceptable samples would have failed.

>

> These acceptance criteria ARE quite achievable, but in order to be

> achieved the contractor must do an excellent remediation job, which

> includes " overkill " use of both negative air (exhausting to the

> outside) as well as work area " air scrubbers " , several blow-downs

> with leaf blowers of all surfaces within the work areas at certain

> stages of progress by the contractor during the remediation process,

> as well as very thorough cleaning.

>

> I've found that successful remediation results are not so much a

> matter of what is done, but how it's done and it what order, and

> keeping cleaning buckets out of the work area, using sprayers, rags

> and wire brushes instead, in order to accomplish multiple surface

> cleanings without spreading contamination around from use of dirty

> cleaning solutions in buckets. Of course changing cleaning rags

> rigorously is a key component along with diligent use of HEPA

> vacuums. A little trick I have been known to use is to suggest to

> the contractor that they do a final wipe down with clean rags &

> Endust.

>

> Regarding the Stachy in particular, as it is a very heavy and sticky

> spore with relatively poor aerodynamic properties, as well as the

> fact that it doesn't compete well with other types of fungi, in my

> humble opinion, if two spores showed up on an air sample, I would

> bet that there are hundreds or thousands somewhere still in the

> building, assuming that there were none in the outdoor counts. This

> could be because of either the presence of a missed colony or

> colonies, or due to less than thorough remediation techniques.

>

> Every job is different, and I'm speaking in generalities here, so

> some adjustments may be necessary depending upon the particular

> project and or building.

>

> The bottom line is that if it were my responsibility to decide

> whether the area would pass, based upon the info you've given us,

> I'd somewhat politely suggest that you stop whining and start

> thinking & recleaning.

>

> Cheers,

>

> Chuck Reaney, CIAQC, CIAQP & part-time grump

>

>

>

> To: iequality

> <mailto:iequality%40yahoogroups.com> From: " healthyiaq "

> <josh@... <mailto:josh%402cureit.com> > Date sent: Mon,

> 20 Nov 2006 22:03:10 -0000 Subject: Clearance

> testing & " standards " Send reply to: iequality

> <mailto:iequality%40yahoogroups.com>

>

> [ Double-click this line for list subscription options ]

>

> Our company performs both investigations and remediation. We only

> do both if it is a smaller residential project but on commercial

> projects we call in a third party inspection company (We are located

> in a rural area). I have used a different company for the first

> time on a commercial remediation project and they wanted to fail me

> for 2 (two) stachybotrys spores that showed up in an air sample post

> remediation. They found the area cleaned and remediated properly.

> Investigation showed no other signs of contamination in other areas.

> Our remediation supervisor runs a tight ship. Am I to think that

> this should not pass? Especially given that there was ONE air

> sample taken?

>

> I want to take a quick minute to say that for the last year or two I

> have been one of those " silent lurkers " . I do appreciate the

> different posts and I do think (most of the time) that this is a

> great site. Josh

>

> FAIR USE NOTICE:

>

> This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not

> always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are

> making such material available in our efforts to advance

> understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,

> democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe

> this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as

> provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance

> with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is

> distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior

> interest in receiving the included information for research and

> educational purposes. For more information go to:

> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use

> copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go

> beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright

> owner.

[Guest guest]

Hey ,

I will try to when I get the time. Right now I'm up to my butt in alligators

rather than turkey.

Chuck

To: iequality

From: healthyhouse@...

Date sent: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 11:21:02 EST

Subject: Re: Clearance testing & " standards "

Send reply to: iequality

hey chuck, you write: " These levels are based upon many factors,

which

are too complex and numerous to explain here "

Why not give us a try - please explain these 'too complex' factors for

us. We have the time and space.

Thanx.

Armour, M.S.

Armour Applied Science, LLC

Green Building Healthy Building

Cleveland, OH

" The problems that exist in the world today cannot be solved by the

level of thinking that created them. " A.Einstein

[Guest guest]

,

Well said about a background level of Stach spores. In fact, you will

also find this in EMLab pocket guide book.

There are areas of the country where clearly stachy is a normal mold

spore that is present in the atmosphere infiltrates into buildings and

wall cavities.

This brings up the question of how dirty the wall cavities and building

were prior to the start of the remediation project. As the insurance

industry calls it a " pre loss condition. "

If we find a very dirty leaky building during tear out, we bring this

to the owner attention. He can pay extra money to make the remediate

area very clean, but if the rest of the building is very dirty, it will

accomplish nothing.

In such cases, we recommend buying a HEPA vacuum cleaning and

increasing the level of air filtration effectiveness. Both of these

have a much greater affect on the long term indoor IAQ.

Bob

[Guest guest]

Hi Josh,

What a great question and what a lot of diverse answers. As a CIEC I have the opportunity to consult on my own projects and often review other people's assessments. I see a lot of projects "fail" because of one or two Stachy spores in the containment. My question to them is: "prove to me that you didn't bring them in with you." I firmly believe that those of us who fail a project because of a couple spores are NOT doing their client a service and are just posturing and positioning themselves for their own agenda. With this said, you have to look at the whole picture....was the containment breached? One stage or two? Is the containment clean of dust? Are there rusty metal components on the sill plates? What is the moisture content of the foundation (w/o dehu active)? What is the moisture content of the various substrates within the containment? What were the pre-remediation conditions? Pre Sampling? Clean equipment and tools? Wipe down protocols - same old sponge and rags or new?

These are just a FEW things that can cause a job to go south. Most remediators try to do the best job for their client however don't follow through with the "little things."

With air scrubbing active I wouldn't expect to see 500 spores in a report (especially if the containment had been swept with a leaf blower). If there is negative air pressure, are all containment paths sealed off so you are not sucking from some unknown source? What is the source of the make up air? Is the filter clean...any breaches?

I often hear of remediators failing to bag the contaminated materials BEFORE dragging them through the house. This must include wiping the plastic bags before they leave the containment.

I hope this helps.

Ken Duvall

California Mold Assessment

-----Original Message-----From: iequality [mailto:iequality ]On Behalf Of Josh Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 3:56 PMTo: iequality Subject: RE: Re: Clearance testing & "standards"

Bob,

The only swab sample that showed stachy was the pre swab. The post swab was clean and the air sample showed 2 spores. Sorry if I did not make that clear.

Josh

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Bob sSent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 4:52 PMTo: iequality Subject: Re: Re: Clearance testing & "standards"

Josh, "We removed down to the metal studs and brick building."Where was the stachy swab taken? Metal studs and bricks do not support mold growth unless there is a biofilm. Was the roof wood or metal?Bob

[Guest guest]

:

Thanks for your response. All you saw was a small excerpt of my

clearance document. It is part prescriptive and part subjective. The

prescriptive part is based on my experience performing hundreds of

clearances over a number of years. The subjective part relies on the

experience and professionalism of the consultant doing the clearance,

and on the consultant's evaluation of the site-specific characteristics.

Trace is purposely not defined to afford the consultant flexibility. Of

course, it must be reasonable and justifiable, and the clearance report

should address those issues. In my experience, there may be one spore of

anything, including Stachybotrys, in a 75 liter sample of air from just

about anywhere. The detection limit is one spore, if a complete trace of

the slide is read, and one spore provides a convenient lower limit on

the concept of trace.

Also in my experience, the occurrence of one spore of Stachybotrys in a

well-cleaned remediation area is rare, in the absence of some source.

The source may well be a hidden cavity that has not been remediated, a

space, such as an attic or crawl space, that has not been properly

isolated from the remediation area, contamination of the HEPA-filtered

air scrubber, outdoor air if negative pressurization is in effect, or an

area that has not been properly cleaned. As we all know, Stachybotrys

spores are difficult to suspend in air and difficult to keep suspended,

and their presence inside a remediation area must be addressed.

Evaluation of Aspergillus/Penicillium spores is more complicated and

depends on the air circulation and cleaning circumstances. I prefer to

have negative pressurization in place with defined supply locations for

outdoor air. That makes the logic of indoor to outdoor comparisons very

clear. It is important to have other potential sources of air such as

attics and crawl spaces sealed.

Comparisons of As/Pn levels between specific locations within the same

remediation area can be very useful. I have found elevated levels of

As/Pn spores numerous times in specific remediation areas, and not in

others, and they have often been indicative of hidden or incomplete

contamination. They are also often the result of leakage of air from

attics and crawl spaces into the remediation area.

The issue, usually, is not whether 2 spores or 2,000 spores are

hazardous. The issue is actual cleanliness compared to achievable

cleanliness. In my experience, my criteria for inspection, relative

humidity and dew point testing, moisture content, surface sampling, and

air sampling work. When the work is done well, the areas pass. When the

work is not done as well, the areas often fail but pass after additional

cleaning. When the work had been done well, but specific locations have

excess airborne spores, hidden contamination often must be found and

remediated. Often air circulation and cleaning have to be changed to fit

the circumstances. Negative air pressurization is problematic when the

outside air is very humid. Even air scrubbing with recycling of the

discharge can cause local negative pressurization and leakage of air

into the remediation area from inconvenient areas.

Errors in analyses are potentially very important. I once had a project

where samples from similar areas of a building were sent to two

different labs. One found Stachybotrys in every sample and one found no

Stachybotrys. I had another projedt where one set of wall cavity samples

had Stachybotrys in every sample and a followup set found one spore of

Stachybotrys in only one of several samples. It is also the

responsibility of the consultant to recognize potential lab errors and

to address them.

Distribution variability is certainly an issue, and here the experience

and judgment of the consultant comes into play. Usually two or more

samples of outdoor air have similar numbers and distribution. Note the

use of the term similar. Sometimes they do not and one has to justify

which outdoor samples to use for comparison to which indoor samples.

Distribution variability can be very great in very clean indoor

environments where there may only be a few spores of each type.

If we were dealing with a specific pathogenic Aspergillus species, then

we should use very stringent criteria and speciation of airborne fungi.

Lacking such specific issues, I have found that microscopic

identification of spores, with all of its limitations, has been

sufficient to evaluate clearance of fungal remediation in a practicable way.

These answers represent some of my thought processes behind my clearance

documents. I expect that none of this group will agree with all of my

answers or positions, I am sure the documents can be improved upon with

input from others. My bottom line position is that my document works and

is reasonably fair to all parties involved. When I do clearance, it is

not unusual for clearance to fail on the first attempt. Usually, there

is a good reason, and subsequent attempts pass. If there is a better way

to do clearance, I am certainly willing to learn and adapt.

Don Schaezler, Ph.D., P.E., CIH

ETC Information Services, LLC

19349 Old Wiederstein Road

Cibolo, Texas 78108

fax

mobile

donald@...

healthyhouse@... wrote:

>

> Well Don, you struck a chord with me. Can you please provide some

> justification for your decision-making criteria. Please be patient,

> these are honest questions that I believe need answers from the

> industry, not just you. Thanx.

> Why? isn't this 'trace' level? why one not two? was 'trace' levels

> defined prior to the remediaiton so all parties knew what was/wasn't

> passing? would you pass 500 aspergillus/penicillium group if it was

> less than outdoors? how do we know it's not different than the outdoor

> sample with 1000 asp/pen group?

> What could be the reason for such stringent criteria? is 2 spores

> really a hazard? is it worse than 2 spores cladosporium? if so, why?

> where's the reference and support for such decision-making? what about

> error in analysis? what about distribution variability? how do we know

> those 2 were really stachy? why not 2 spores of some aspergillus

> species? or other pathogenic species?

> These are questions that MUST be answered in order to create and use

> proper PRV protocols.

>

> Armour, M.S.

> Armour Applied Science, LLC

> /Green Building //Healthy Building/

> Cleveland, OH

>

>

>

> / " The problems that exist in the world today cannot be solved by the

> level of thinking that created them. " A.Einstein/

>

[Guest guest]

Bingo ! Ditto on your questions of Don?

And I love A.E.'s wisdom: "The problems that exist in the world today cannot be solved by the level of thinking that created them."

One of my absolute favorites is B. lin's "we are all born ignorant, but one must work (VERY) hard to remain stupid."

It appears as though some on this list are working VERY hard at remaining (I'll soften it) "uninformed!"

Miles

[Guest guest]

Over the past three summers of about 30 remediations in Eastern Wash, where we can get some hellacious summer dust storms, we have had to used HEPAs on makeup air 3 times to pass. Those were during 30-50 mph storms.

I did the initial preremediation testing and another firm performed all the clearances. Its the only way I will get involved.

Miles

[Guest guest]

When someone is sick from mold and we are hired to remediate... we always take our own samples each day during remediation and cleanup and provide them to the client to compare to pre-remediation baseline tests and outside air. If we get the samples to our lab by 10 in the morning the next day they have them back by 5 that day. Then we know how long to leave the scrubbers and how much cleaning we need to do. We know if we need to add more scrubbers, reposition scrubbers into certain areas and where to focus cleaning.

We tell the client they will not understand the test results on the first day, but they will soon see the downward trend after subsequent days of cleaning and testing. And after a few days of seeing downward trends in the test results, they will understand the process of cleaning and testing to restore the site to pre-loss condition.

In drying a building ... the contractor should monitor the situation and check (test) each day to determine if the drying is going well; when and where to move the machines; etc. If the dryout contractor does not monitor (test) they increase their liability because they cannot possibly know how the job is going.

There is no conflict of interest in such testing. And you are certainly not exposing yourself to liability. You are reducing your liability because you are doing the job right.

The same is exactly the case with mold remediation. The only way a mold remediation contractor can know precisely how the post-remediation cleanup is going is to have the site tested every day. It does not really matter who does this as long as it is done.

Now, IEP's that take a 3-4 day certification course will say ... only they have the knowledge to do testing and interpret test results and that testing by the remediation contractor is a conflict of interest. But many mold remediation contractors are for instance C.I.E.'s and have the same training. If the mold remediation contractor has done hundreds of mold remediation jobs and taken thousands of samples would you expect that they could not understand testing as well as a kid with a 3 day ""consulting" course?

Clients do not understand single point post-remediation testing. And most IEPs do not understand such post-remediation testing and typically are too easy in providing an "all clear". They often base their conclusions on nonsense approaches to interpretation such as "if the indoor total mold count is less than or equal to the outside you are clean". If they were not "easy" they would not get hired again.

How clean is clean is a function of many factors, including the type of air filters used in the home; windows open or not; carpets or not; climate (Las Vegas dry or S Florida wet); season and many other factores. However ...

If in addition to removing all settled dust in the house or office, you take a air few samples everyday and both you and the client see that the spore count goes from thousands to well below the outside air and no Stachybotrys and a reasonable distribution of genus similar to the outside air ... clients (and insurance provideres too) are happy. Acceptable practices vary by state and locale.

(In Texas you can both test and remediate only in a school environment and then only if you have both licenses.)

In 4 years of mold remediation, doing hundreds of jobs, we have never had a client have a third party come in to do post-remediation testing when we test every day. Again, by testing before remediation, during remediation and during cleanup you are able to see a pattern in the reduction of mold spore contaminants that is easy to understand for both clients and the contractor. This is much easier to understand and interpret than a single point post-remediation test regardless of who does the testing.

An insurance provider may not reimburse the client for testing performed by a mold remediation contractor. They are always looking for excuses to not pay. Taking a few samples per day on a smaller job is a cost that you should gladly absorb to know you are doing the job right. And for large jobs, you can easily absorb the required samples needed.

Our people are trained and certified in both mold remediation and assessment and our testing company carries $5M of professional liability coverage for mold and microbial matter. In our case, we bill for testing under the testing company. And bill for remediation under the mold remediation company. We have no problem getting paid for the work.

In our case, we have different insurance providers for each company but we were told by Dybdahl who handles the mold insurance for IICRC registrants that his firm offers a signficant discount if they would write both policies!

Our mold assessment company will not do any post-remediation assessment or certification for other remediation contractors because we are concerned about liability. How do we know that they opened up and remediated all the problem walls? It is never (or rarely) possible to completely determine the true extent of the mold growth until you have the walls opened and see inside and also determine the cause of the water intrusion. How do we know if they contaminated the whole house if we are only paid to test inside the containment or possibly in the immediate areas around the work area?

Rarely will there be funds for adequate testing sufficient to rule out contamination because the cost for the mold assessor to travel to the site eats up such a large part of the available funds.

A mold remediation contractor because they are there on-site can do much more testing much more cost effectively. Again rarely will there be funds available for sufficient for an IEP to come out and rule out problems of mold contamination in both the air; and/or settled dust; and/or in the AC. There is a true conflict of interest and ethics problems. Please see IESO standards on min acceptable testing.

Another true conflict / ethics problem (found in IICRC S520) is that the mold industry in general does not make either the assessor or remediator responsible for making sure the water source causing the mold growth is taken care of before a job is said to be complete. In Texas (were we are a licensed assessor) you MUST certify in writing that the water source is fixed as part of your clearance certificate.

Furthermore none of the industry's mold assessor training or remediator training courses adequately train their students in this important area. Although IICRC requires a mold remediation contractor to first be certified in water damage. Therefore the training and industry may be considered the cause of this conflict and ethical problem.

Rosen, Ph.D.

www.Mold-Free.org

Re: Clearance testing & "standards"

Two questions and two clarifications:1. Who is the decision maker on a mold remediation project? The consultant, the remediator or the owner? Most responses I'm reading assume the consultant or remediator has a duty to be the final decision maker or even to dictate to all others. I'm not sure how we do that in the absence of regulation, law or cognizant authority. 2. How does one decide which outcome critieria will be used in which situation? Possible criteia include cleanliness, spore removal, spore reduction, reduction of other components of mold growth, reduction of bacteria, satisfactory reduction in occupant complaints, return of the structure to one which does not support microbial growth, combinations of the above, or, the ever popular "other."Clarifications: The original statement citing S520 Standard Section 4.2.1 was correct. Somehow all the responses transposed it to read 4.1.2. Small detail,

perhaps, but there is no 4.1.2. For those concerned about IAQA's role and the behavior of their members, I encourage you to go to www.iaqa.org and send your comments and instances of ethics violations to them.Carl GrimesHealthy Habitats LLC

Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.

[Guest guest]

Chuck,

I agree with you. And that is why sampling

is not needed along the way. I do hope you state in your specifications that if

the additional remediation is beyond the original scope (certain ceilings

and/or walls etc.) the contractor is not responsible for this additional work.

This work is beyond the scope and is outside of the original bid.

Bob/Ma

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Chuck Reaney

Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006

1:55 AM

To: iequality

Subject: Clearance

testing & " standards "

Bob,

You're not disagreeing. You're saying the same thing. My post

indicated " the consultant has the ultimate responsibility in representing

the interests of the owner " .

That statement was meant to convey that the consultant & owner had

already come to a meeting of the minds with regard to the

requirements for the contractor's performance to be considered

successful, and that presumably, if all steps are taken to cover

everyone's behind, a spec was prepared that included in writing, the

what (scope of work) when, how, and clearance criteria, as well as the

responsibilities of the owner, consultant and contractor.

Again, presumably, this infers that other related information has been

conveyed and steps taken to provide a budget estimate, etc. to the

owner by the consultant.

Typically, on moderate to larger jobs, the spec is distributed to several

contractors during a pre-bid meeting & site inspection, and competitive

bids are received by the owner, or by the consultant representing the

interests of the owner, so there really is a chain of command with the

owner of course being ultimately responsible, but without micro-

managing the project and everyone involved.

On moderate to larger jobs, I normally have a consulting agreement

(contract) executed by the owner that provides details of our

relationship, along with the responsibilities of each specified and

defined, which includes hold harmless and indemnification clauses.

The agreement also specifies that the owner may relieve me of my

duties at any time, and that I may end my participation in the project if,

in my sole opinion, I believe that the owner is not acting in their own

best interest.

Now that those points are made, I can't remain well behaved any

longer, so here we go. And Bob, this is not directed at you, but here

comes my acidity again, fired up by a previous statment made by

someone else...

To clear up an earlier point made by another participant in the

discussion, if a work area fails to meet the acceptance criteria, the

CONTRACTOR is responsible for subsequent consulting, testing and

laboratory costs, not the owner. This important point, along with the

specific requirements of the acceptance criteria is in writing and

included in the spec, so the contractors are therefore expected to bid

the project accordingly.

And how can a capable and experienced contractor NOT be familiar

with such basic elements of their business such as project specs,

scope of work, performance requirments, competitive bidding

processes, and contractors being financially responsible to bring the

project into conformance with the requirements of the spec AT THEIR

OWN EXPENSE, should they happen to fail to meet the requirements?

What kinds of projects have you all been involved in that would lead to

making such a ridiculous statement that the contractors failure to meet

the performance criteria leads to the owner incurring additional costs

for re-testing? Are all of your projects limited to residential where you

are acting as both contractor and consultant and therefore there is no

spec, no competitive bidding process?? Do you are operate in Bizarro

World?

I don't know...maybe it's just me....

Ok, , yes, I'm being semi short tempered again. But you all

got my annual apology. I'm fresh out. You'll have to wait til sometime

next year for another one, so don't bother pointing out my flaming

someone again. Actually I prefer torching. It's much more colorful and

doesn't infer anything to do with " lifestyle " preferences that could

be

misconstrued as being politically incorrect. Jeeze.

Chuck Reaney, CGFNC (Certified Grouch & Flaming Nut Case)

To: iequality

From: " Bob Hawley " <BobEnvironmentalAirTechs>

Date sent: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 19:14:04 -0000

Subject: Re: Clearance testing & " standards "

Send reply to: iequality

[ Double-click this line for list subscription options ]

Chuck,

May I disagree (at least in part)? IMHO I think it may actually be the

owner who should have the finial word. If the IEP doesnt agree have

the owner sign a release and seeya! Even the IEP may be bias to

making

a living. Therefore because it all comes back to the client it is

their call. They pay the bills, they called the IEP and contractor,

they have the limited dollars, etc. If I was the client that the way I

would want it besides, the client can fire everyone.

With that said, we do come to another issue. I do believe it is

important that the client be informed of each aspect of the process

and notified of any changes most importantly when additional dollars

are in the mix.

Bob/Ma.

> > [ Double-click this line for list

subscription options ] > > Two questions and two clarifications: >

>

1. Who is the decision maker on a mold remediation project? The >

consultant, the remediator or the owner? Most responses I'm reading >

assume the consultant or remediator has a duty to be the final >

decision maker or even to dictate to all others. I'm not sure how we >

do that in the absence of regulation, law or cognizant authority. > >

2. How does one decide which outcome critieria will be used in which >

situation? Possible criteia include cleanliness, spore removal, spore

> reduction, reduction of other components of mold growth, reduction

of > bacteria, satisfactory reduction in occupant complaints, return

of the > structure to one which does not support microbial growth, >

combinations > of the above, or, the ever popular " other. " >

>

Clarifications: The original statement citing S520 Standard Section >

4.2.1 was correct. Somehow all the responses transposed it to read >

4.1.2. Small detail, perhaps, but there is no 4.1.2. For those >

concerned about IAQA's role and the behavior of their members, I >

encourage you to go to www.iaqa.org and send your comments and >

instances of ethics violations to them. > > Carl Grimes > Healthy

Habitats LLC > > > > > > FAIR USE NOTICE: > > This site

contains

copyrighted material the use of which has not > always been

specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are > making such

material available in our efforts to advance understanding > of

environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, >

scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this >

constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided

> for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title

> 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed >

without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in >

receiving the included information for research and educational >

purposes. For more information go to: >

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.

If you wish to use >

copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go >

beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright >

owner.

[Guest guest]

,

Please understand I am not busting you just replying and offering

additional thoughts. Your post in blue;

When someone is sick from mold and we are

hired to remediate... we always take our own samples each day during

remediation and cleanup and provide them to the client to compare to

pre-remediation baseline tests and outside air.

Who pays for the samples? We do not complete sampling each day because

we feel if you know what your doing there is no need to sample and resample.

The only way a mold remediation contractor

can know precisely how the post-remediation cleanup is going is to have the

site tested every day.

Do the remediation correctly and locate the moisture and reservoir and

you will know the job is going well without completing all the extra samples.

In that case I would not speciated the samples.

Now, IEP's that take a 3-4 day

certification course will say ... only they have the knowledge to do

testing and interpret test results and that testing by the remediation

contractor is a conflict of interest.

IMHO that comment appears to illustrate a strong bias much like someone

is taking money out of your pocket by allowing the others to enter this field. For

a few years now the CIH’s were saying they were the only qualified. The

AIHA was promoting this mindset in the states that were moving towards mold licensing.

Want to know something funny? They needed to take the same three day

wonders you appear to downplay to get up to speed. please tell the group where you received

your training on mold remediation? How many have you personally done? Where did

you get your training on sampling? Your degree is concentrated in what area(s).

But many mold remediation contractors

are for instance C.I.E.'s and have the same training.

,

please provide the statistics to support that statement. As I have seen it most

remediators are either CMR’s, MRT’s Etc or not certified at all.

If the mold remediation contractor has done

hundreds of mold remediation jobs and taken thousands of samples would you

expect that they could not understand testing as well as a kid with a 3 day

" " consulting " course?

Again as stated in the S520; the industry as a whole as made a

statement that if you are doing the remediation work, you should not be doing

the post remediation sampling.

If in addition to removing all settled dust

in the house or office, you take a air few samples everyday and both you and

the client see that the spore count goes from thousands to well below the outside

air and no Stachybotrys and a reasonable distribution of genus similar to the

outside air ... clients (and insurance provideres too) are happy.

Are you saying you do a good portion of your work for the insurance

companies? Now that would explain how you are able to bill for sampling each

day. Is this eating into the 10-15K policy limits? Or would it be better

to save that money and complete all of the remediation and than sample to

confirm your remediation skills were effective?

Our people are trained and

certified in both mold remediation and assessment and our testing company

carries $5M of professional liability coverage for mold and microbial

matter. In our case, we bill for testing under the testing company.

So you bill the carrier for all this extra sampling? Maybe we should

not debate you on this but we should all adapt your billing practices. Lets all

sample every day and say we might not be doing a very good job so we will need

to test every day. Please pay for the extra samples.

In our case, we have different insurance

providers for each company but we were told by Dybdahl who handles the

mold insurance for IICRC registrants that his firm offers a signficant discount

if they would write both policies!

Be careful on that. You will get a discount and be sure less coverage.

It will have a combined limit for both companies. And if you are ever in a

defensive position I would rather have the separate coverage limits.

Our mold assessment company will not do any

post-remediation assessment or certification for other remediation contractors

because we are concerned about liability. How do we know that they opened up

and remediated all the problem walls?

Sampling to species level and experience. With proper techniques

it is possible to test the wall cavities.

It is never (or rarely) possible to completely

determine the true extent of the mold growth until you have the walls opened

and see inside and also determine the cause of the water intrusion. How do we

know if they contaminated the whole house if we are only paid to test inside

the containment or possibly in the immediate areas around the work area?

Who is in charge of the sampling protocol? If they are “never”

do the sampling; you could be being set up.

Rarely will there be funds for adequate

testing sufficient to rule out contamination because the cost for the mold

assessor to travel to the site eats up such a large part of the available

funds.

How much do you charge for traveling? Besides it really doesn’t matter,

you are there each day to sample for the daily sampling.

Another true conflict / ethics problem

(found in IICRC S520) is that the mold industry in general does not make either

the assessor or remediator responsible for making sure the water source causing

the mold growth is taken care of before a job is said to be complete.

Again not true, see the S500 & the S20. Also, if the IEP has considered

the two documents the IEP should include these provisions in pertinent part in its

specifications prior to sending out for the bidding process.

Furthermore none of the industry's mold

assessor training or remediator training courses adequately train their

students in this important area.

Disagree, it is one of the first issue brought up. Even the IICRC deals

with this issue in its water damage certifications. The various drying schools also

deal with this issue up front. It might be a good idea to consider taking one of

those three day wonders and see they also deal with the elevated moisture and/or

moisture intrusion fist of all. NO MOISTURE, NO MOLD!! I have noticed a majority

of the CIH’s have begun to take the trainings.

Hope this helps,

Bob/Ma.

From: iequality

[mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of gary rosen

Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006

7:05 AM

To: iequality

Cc: gary@...

Subject: Re: Re:

Clearance testing & " standards "

When someone is sick from mold and we are

hired to remediate... we always take our own samples each day during

remediation and cleanup and provide them to the client to compare to

pre-remediation baseline tests and outside air. If we get the samples to

our lab by 10 in the morning the next day they have them back by 5 that

day. Then we know how long to leave the scrubbers and how much cleaning

we need to do. We know if we need to add more scrubbers, reposition

scrubbers into certain areas and where to focus cleaning.

We tell the client they will not understand

the test results on the first day, but they will soon see the downward trend

after subsequent days of cleaning and testing. And after a few days of seeing

downward trends in the test results, they will understand the process of

cleaning and testing to restore the site to pre-loss condition.

In drying a building ... the contractor

should monitor the situation and check (test) each day to determine if the

drying is going well; when and where to move the machines; etc. If the

dryout contractor does not monitor (test) they increase their liability because

they cannot possibly know how the job is going.

There is no conflict of interest in such

testing. And you are certainly not exposing yourself to liability.

You are reducing your liability because you are doing the job right.

The same is exactly the case with mold

remediation. The only way a mold remediation contractor can know

precisely how the post-remediation cleanup is going is to have the site tested

every day. It does not really matter who does this as long as it is done.

Now, IEP's that take a 3-4 day

certification course will say ... only they have the knowledge to do

testing and interpret test results and that testing by the remediation

contractor is a conflict of interest. But many mold remediation contractors

are for instance C.I.E.'s and have the same training. If the mold

remediation contractor has done hundreds of mold remediation jobs and taken

thousands of samples would you expect that they could not understand testing as

well as a kid with a 3 day " " consulting " course?

Clients do not understand single point

post-remediation testing. And most IEPs do not understand such post-remediation

testing and typically are too easy in providing an " all clear " . They

often base their conclusions on nonsense approaches to interpretation such

as " if the indoor total mold count is less than or equal to the outside

you are clean " . If they were not " easy " they would not get

hired again.

How clean is clean is a function of many

factors, including the type of air filters used in the home; windows open or

not; carpets or not; climate (Las Vegas dry or S Florida wet); season and many other factores.

However ...

If in addition to removing all settled dust

in the house or office, you take a air few samples everyday and both you and

the client see that the spore count goes from thousands to well below the

outside air and no Stachybotrys and a reasonable distribution of genus similar

to the outside air ... clients (and insurance provideres too) are happy.

Acceptable practices vary by state and locale.

(In Texas

you can both test and remediate only in a school environment and then only if

you have both licenses.)

In 4 years of mold remediation, doing

hundreds of jobs, we have never had a client have a third party come in to do

post-remediation testing when we test every day. Again, by testing before

remediation, during remediation and during cleanup you are able to see a

pattern in the reduction of mold spore contaminants that is easy to understand

for both clients and the contractor. This is much easier to understand

and interpret than a single point post-remediation test regardless of who does

the testing.

An insurance provider may not reimburse the

client for testing performed by a mold remediation contractor. They are

always looking for excuses to not pay. Taking a few samples per day on a

smaller job is a cost that you should gladly absorb to know you are doing

the job right. And for large jobs, you can easily absorb the required

samples needed.

Our people are trained and certified

in both mold remediation and assessment and our testing company carries $5M of

professional liability coverage for mold and microbial matter. In our

case, we bill for testing under the testing company. And bill for

remediation under the mold remediation company. We have no problem getting paid

for the work.

In our case, we have different insurance

providers for each company but we were told by Dybdahl who handles the

mold insurance for IICRC registrants that his firm offers a signficant discount

if they would write both policies!

Our mold assessment company will not do any

post-remediation assessment or certification for other remediation contractors

because we are concerned about liability. How do we know that they opened up

and remediated all the problem walls? It is never (or rarely) possible to

completely determine the true extent of the mold growth until you have the

walls opened and see inside and also determine the cause of the water

intrusion. How do we know if they contaminated the whole house if we are only

paid to test inside the containment or possibly in the immediate areas around

the work area?

Rarely will there be funds for adequate

testing sufficient to rule out contamination because the cost for the mold

assessor to travel to the site eats up such a large part of the available

funds.

A mold remediation contractor because they

are there on-site can do much more testing much more cost effectively.

Again rarely will there be funds available for sufficient for an IEP to come

out and rule out problems of mold contamination in both the air; and/or settled

dust; and/or in the AC. There is a true conflict of interest and ethics

problems. Please see IESO standards on min acceptable testing.

Another true conflict / ethics problem

(found in IICRC S520) is that the mold industry in general does not make either

the assessor or remediator responsible for making sure the water source causing

the mold growth is taken care of before a job is said to be complete. In Texas (were we are a

licensed assessor) you MUST certify in writing that the water source is fixed

as part of your clearance certificate.

Furthermore none of the industry's mold

assessor training or remediator training courses adequately train their

students in this important area. Although IICRC requires a mold

remediation contractor to first be certified in water damage. Therefore

the training and industry may be considered the cause of this conflict and

ethical problem.

Rosen, Ph.D.

www.Mold-Free.org

Re: Clearance testing & " standards "

Two questions and two clarifications:

1. Who is the decision maker on a mold remediation project? The

consultant, the remediator or the owner? Most responses I'm reading

assume the consultant or remediator has a duty to be the final

decision maker or even to dictate to all others. I'm not sure how we

do that in the absence of regulation, law or cognizant authority.

2. How does one decide which outcome critieria will be used in which

situation? Possible criteia include cleanliness, spore removal, spore

reduction, reduction of other components of mold growth, reduction of

bacteria, satisfactory reduction in occupant complaints, return of

the structure to one which does not support microbial growth,

combinations of the above, or, the ever popular " other. "

Clarifications: The original statement citing S520 Standard Section

4.2.1 was correct. Somehow all the responses transposed it to read

4.1.2. Small detail, perhaps, but there is no 4.1.2. For those

concerned about IAQA's role and the behavior of their members, I

encourage you to go to www.iaqa.org and send your comments and

instances of ethics violations to them.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

Everyone is raving about the

all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.

[Guest guest]

Bob,

Yes, that is exactly how I deal with the scope and associated bid. On

rare occasion, where necessary & appropriate (again, every job is

different), I will simply ask for a lump sum for the entire area & indicate

that the contractor should assume the worst case once walls are

opened up, etc.

On other occasions, I will ask for an add/deduct number, per square

foot (surface square foot, the contractor has to include factors for

surface areas of studs, rafters, joists, etc.) if the specified quantities in

the scope of work vary significantly (a difference of greater than +/-

10% of spec'd quantities, I hate splitting hairs, it's too time and energy

consuming).

Regards,

Chuck Reaney

--------------------------------------

Chuck,

I agree with you. And that is why sampling is not needed along the

way. I do hope you state in your specifications that if the additional

remediation is beyond the original scope (certain ceilings and/or

walls etc.) the contractor is not responsible for this additional

work. This work is beyond the scope and is outside of the original

bid.

Bob/Ma

_____

From: iequality

[mailto:iequality ] On

Behalf Of Chuck Reaney Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 1:55 AM

To:

iequality Subject: Clearance testing &

" standards "

Bob,

You're not disagreeing. You're saying the same thing. My post

indicated " the consultant has the ultimate responsibility in

representing the interests of the owner " .

That statement was meant to convey that the consultant & owner had

already come to a meeting of the minds with regard to the

requirements

for the contractor's performance to be considered successful, and that

presumably, if all steps are taken to cover everyone's behind, a spec

was prepared that included in writing, the what (scope of work) when,

how, and clearance criteria, as well as the responsibilities of the

owner, consultant and contractor.

Again, presumably, this infers that other related information has been

conveyed and steps taken to provide a budget estimate, etc. to the

owner by the consultant.

Typically, on moderate to larger jobs, the spec is distributed to

several contractors during a pre-bid meeting & site inspection, and

competitive bids are received by the owner, or by the consultant

representing the interests of the owner, so there really is a chain of

command with the owner of course being ultimately responsible, but

without micro- managing the project and everyone involved.

On moderate to larger jobs, I normally have a consulting agreement

(contract) executed by the owner that provides details of our

relationship, along with the responsibilities of each specified and

defined, which includes hold harmless and indemnification clauses.

The

agreement also specifies that the owner may relieve me of my duties

at

any time, and that I may end my participation in the project if, in my

sole opinion, I believe that the owner is not acting in their own best

interest.

Now that those points are made, I can't remain well behaved any

longer, so here we go. And Bob, this is not directed at you, but here

comes my acidity again, fired up by a previous statment made by

someone else...

To clear up an earlier point made by another participant in the

discussion, if a work area fails to meet the acceptance criteria, the

CONTRACTOR is responsible for subsequent consulting, testing and

laboratory costs, not the owner. This important point, along with the

specific requirements of the acceptance criteria is in writing and

included in the spec, so the contractors are therefore expected to bid

the project accordingly.

And how can a capable and experienced contractor NOT be familiar

with

such basic elements of their business such as project specs, scope of

work, performance requirments, competitive bidding processes, and

contractors being financially responsible to bring the project into

conformance with the requirements of the spec AT THEIR OWN

EXPENSE,

should they happen to fail to meet the requirements?

What kinds of projects have you all been involved in that would lead

to making such a ridiculous statement that the contractors failure to

meet the performance criteria leads to the owner incurring additional

costs for re-testing? Are all of your projects limited to residential

where you are acting as both contractor and consultant and therefore

there is no spec, no competitive bidding process?? Do you are operate

in Bizarro World?

I don't know...maybe it's just me....

Ok, , yes, I'm being semi short tempered again. But you all

got my annual apology. I'm fresh out. You'll have to wait til sometime

next year for another one, so don't bother pointing out my flaming

someone again. Actually I prefer torching. It's much more colorful and

doesn't infer anything to do with " lifestyle " preferences that could

be misconstrued as being politically incorrect. Jeeze.

Chuck Reaney, CGFNC (Certified Grouch & Flaming Nut Case)

To: iequality@yahoogrou <mailto:iequality%40yahoogroups.com>

ps.com

From: " Bob Hawley " <Bob@EnvironmentalAi

<mailto:Bob%40EnvironmentalAirTechs.com> rTechs.com> Date sent:

Fri,

24 Nov 2006 19:14:04 -0000 Subject: Re: Clearance testing

& " standards " Send reply to: iequality@yahoogrou

<mailto:iequality%40yahoogroups.com> ps.com

[ Double-click this line for list subscription options ]

Chuck,

May I disagree (at least in part)? IMHO I think it may actually be the

owner who should have the finial word. If the IEP doesnt agree have

the owner sign a release and seeya! Even the IEP may be bias to

making

a living. Therefore because it all comes back to the client it is

their call. They pay the bills, they called the IEP and contractor,

they have the limited dollars, etc. If I was the client that the way I

would want it besides, the client can fire everyone.

With that said, we do come to another issue. I do believe it is

important that the client be informed of each aspect of the process

and notified of any changes most importantly when additional dollars

are in the mix.

Bob/Ma.

> > [ Double-click

this line for list subscription options ] > > Two questions and two

clarifications: > > 1. Who is the decision maker on a mold remediation

project? The > consultant, the remediator or the owner? Most

responses

I'm reading > assume the consultant or remediator has a duty to be the

final > decision maker or even to dictate to all others. I'm not sure

how we > do that in the absence of regulation, law or cognizant

authority. > > 2. How does one decide which outcome critieria will be

used in which > situation? Possible criteia include cleanliness, spore

removal, spore > reduction, reduction of other components of mold

growth, reduction of > bacteria, satisfactory reduction in occupant

complaints, return of the > structure to one which does not support

microbial growth, > combinations > of the above, or, the ever popular

" other. " > > Clarifications: The original statement citing S520

Standard Section > 4.2.1 was correct. Somehow all the responses

transposed it to read > 4.1.2. Small detail, perhaps, but there is no

4.1.2. For those > concerned about IAQA's role and the behavior of

their members, I > encourage you to go to www.iaqa.org and send your

comments and > instances of ethics violations to them. > > Carl

Grimes

> Healthy Habitats LLC > > > > > > FAIR USE NOTICE: > > This site

contains copyrighted material the use of which has not > always been

specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are > making such

material available in our efforts to advance understanding > of

environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, >

scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this >

constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided

> for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title

> 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed >

without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in >

receiving the included information for research and educational >

purposes. For more information go to: > http://www.law.

<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.>

cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use > copyrighted

material from this site for purposes of your own that go > beyond

'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright > owner.

[Guest guest]

Chuck, et al,

This is an interesting

thread if you have kept up with it. I believe it was Chuck who wrote: “To clear up an earlier point made by

another participant in the discussion, if a work area fails to meet the

acceptance criteria, the CONTRACTOR is responsible for subsequent consulting,

testing and laboratory costs, not the owner. This important point, along with

the specific requirements of the acceptance criteria is in writing and included

in the spec, so the contractors are therefore expected

to bid the project accordingly. And how can a capable and experienced

contractor NOT be familiar with such basic elements of their business such as

project specs, scope of work, performance requirements, competitive bidding

processes, and contractors being financially responsible to bring the project

into conformance with the requirements of the spec AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE, should

they happen to fail to meet the requirements?”

My reply: Look to the contract, because it is the contract that

sets the tone an attorney will look at: The contract should have clear

upfront language such as: (1) “when the project is expected to be micro-managed

by an environmental professional, they must be present at the time of creating

a scope of work and help establish the scope of work. We will agree to follow their scope of work, because it is the scope

of work which our billing will be based.” (2) “When the

environmental professional takes samples and their analysis does not meet their

acceptance criteria, we will either re-clean or provide additional remediation

services at our customer’s cost.” (3) “Additional cleaning or

remediation services will be in a supplemental scope of work, created by the

environmental professional, as a change order to the contract. (4) Billing up

to this point of the remediation project will be due and payable. (5) The

customer must agree to all additional services and costs before any additional

work proceeds. If the customer does not agree with the additional work, all

services to this point are considered complete based on the contract and they are

now due and payable.”

I

am not an attorney, but this language is typical of what is found

in some contractor’s contracts. Your attorney should help modify these

statements.

Moffett

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Chuck Reaney

Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006

6:21 AM

To: iequality

Subject: RE: Clearance

testing & " standards "

Bob,

Yes, that is exactly how I deal with the scope and associated bid. On

rare occasion, where necessary & appropriate (again, every job is

different), I will simply ask for a lump sum for the entire area & indicate

that the contractor should assume the worst case once walls are

opened up, etc.

On other occasions, I will ask for an add/deduct number, per square

foot (surface square foot, the contractor has to include factors for

surface areas of studs, rafters, joists, etc.) if the specified quantities in

the scope of work vary significantly (a difference of greater than +/-

10% of spec'd quantities, I hate splitting hairs, it's too time and energy

consuming).

Regards,

Chuck Reaney

--------------------------------------

Chuck,

I agree with you. And that is why sampling is not needed along the

way. I do hope you state in your specifications that if the additional

remediation is beyond the original scope (certain ceilings and/or

walls etc.) the contractor is not responsible for this additional

work. This work is beyond the scope and is outside of the original

bid.

Bob/Ma

_____

From: iequality

[mailto:iequality ]

On

Behalf Of Chuck Reaney Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 1:55 AM

To:

iequality

Subject: Clearance testing &

" standards "

Bob,

You're not disagreeing. You're saying the same thing. My post

indicated " the consultant has the ultimate responsibility in

representing the interests of the owner " .

That statement was meant to convey that the consultant & owner had

already come to a meeting of the minds with regard to the

requirements

for the contractor's performance to be considered successful, and that

presumably, if all steps are taken to cover everyone's behind, a spec

was prepared that included in writing, the what (scope of work) when,

how, and clearance criteria, as well as the responsibilities of the

owner, consultant and contractor.

Again, presumably, this infers that other related information has been

conveyed and steps taken to provide a budget estimate, etc. to the

owner by the consultant.

Typically, on moderate to larger jobs, the spec is distributed to

several contractors during a pre-bid meeting & site inspection, and

competitive bids are received by the owner, or by the consultant

representing the interests of the owner, so there really is a chain of

command with the owner of course being ultimately responsible, but

without micro- managing the project and everyone involved.

On moderate to larger jobs, I normally have a consulting agreement

(contract) executed by the owner that provides details of our

relationship, along with the responsibilities of each specified and

defined, which includes hold harmless and indemnification clauses.

The

agreement also specifies that the owner may relieve me of my duties

at

any time, and that I may end my participation in the project if, in my

sole opinion, I believe that the owner is not acting in their own best

interest.

Now that those points are made, I can't remain well behaved any

longer, so here we go. And Bob, this is not directed at you, but here

comes my acidity again, fired up by a previous statment made by

someone else...

To clear up an earlier point made by another participant in the

discussion, if a work area fails to meet the acceptance criteria, the

CONTRACTOR is responsible for subsequent consulting, testing and

laboratory costs, not the owner. This important point, along with the

specific requirements of the acceptance criteria is in writing and

included in the spec, so the contractors are therefore expected to bid

the project accordingly.

And how can a capable and experienced contractor NOT be familiar

with

such basic elements of their business such as project specs, scope of

work, performance requirments, competitive bidding processes, and

contractors being financially responsible to bring the project into

conformance with the requirements of the spec AT THEIR OWN

EXPENSE,

should they happen to fail to meet the requirements?

What kinds of projects have you all been involved in that would lead

to making such a ridiculous statement that the contractors failure to

meet the performance criteria leads to the owner incurring additional

costs for re-testing? Are all of your projects limited to residential

where you are acting as both contractor and consultant and therefore

there is no spec, no competitive bidding process?? Do you are operate

in Bizarro World?

I don't know...maybe it's just me....

Ok, , yes, I'm being semi short tempered again. But you all

got my annual apology. I'm fresh out. You'll have to wait til sometime

next year for another one, so don't bother pointing out my flaming

someone again. Actually I prefer torching. It's much more colorful and

doesn't infer anything to do with " lifestyle " preferences that could

be misconstrued as being politically incorrect. Jeeze.

Chuck Reaney, CGFNC (Certified Grouch & Flaming Nut Case)

To: iequality@yahoogrou <mailto:iequality%40yahoogroups.com>

ps.com

From: " Bob Hawley " <Bob@EnvironmentalAi

<mailto:Bob%40EnvironmentalAirTechs.com> rTechs.com> Date

sent:

Fri,

24 Nov 2006 19:14:04 -0000 Subject: Re: Clearance testing

& " standards " Send reply to: iequality@yahoogrou

<mailto:iequality%40yahoogroups.com> ps.com

[ Double-click this line for list subscription options ]

Chuck,

May I disagree (at least in part)? IMHO I think it may actually be the

owner who should have the finial word. If the IEP doesnt agree have

the owner sign a release and seeya! Even the IEP may be bias to

making

a living. Therefore because it all comes back to the client it is

their call. They pay the bills, they called the IEP and contractor,

they have the limited dollars, etc. If I was the client that the way I

would want it besides, the client can fire everyone.

With that said, we do come to another issue. I do believe it is

important that the client be informed of each aspect of the process

and notified of any changes most importantly when additional dollars

are in the mix.

Bob/Ma.

> > [

Double-click

this line for list subscription options ] > > Two questions and two

clarifications: > > 1. Who is the decision maker on a mold remediation

project? The > consultant, the remediator or the owner? Most

responses

I'm reading > assume the consultant or remediator has a duty to be the

final > decision maker or even to dictate to all others. I'm not sure

how we > do that in the absence of regulation, law or cognizant

authority. > > 2. How does one decide which outcome critieria will be

used in which > situation? Possible criteia include cleanliness, spore

removal, spore > reduction, reduction of other components of mold

growth, reduction of > bacteria, satisfactory reduction in occupant

complaints, return of the > structure to one which does not support

microbial growth, > combinations > of the above, or, the ever popular

" other. " > > Clarifications: The original statement citing S520

Standard Section > 4.2.1 was correct. Somehow all the responses

transposed it to read > 4.1.2. Small detail, perhaps, but there is no

4.1.2. For those > concerned about IAQA's role and the behavior of

their members, I > encourage you to go to www.iaqa.org and send your

comments and > instances of ethics violations to them. > > Carl

Grimes

> Healthy Habitats LLC > > > > > > FAIR USE NOTICE: >

> This site

contains copyrighted material the use of which has not > always been

specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are > making such

material available in our efforts to advance understanding > of

environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, >

scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this >

constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided

> for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title

> 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed >

without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in >

receiving the included information for research and educational >

purposes. For more information go to: > http://www.law.

<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.>

cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use > copyrighted

material from this site for purposes of your own that go > beyond

'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright > owner.

[Guest guest]

Pete,

Oklahoma passed a law back in '04 seperating the practice of remediation and consulting on all projects over $250. One of the legislatures commented about not being able to remediate a trash can for $250, but the law passed without much opposition. This law came about from recommendations made by the Joint Task Force on Mold and Mold Remediation. The entire bill was 51 words long, but it has done wonders in keeping the industry "honest", at least in that state.

Nothing ticks me off more than to see someone go in and "find" $200,000 worth of remediation work without any visible mold.

Larkin

Re: Clearance testing & "standards"

Hey Chuck:

You've put another smile on my face!

Speaking of Philly; City Council was looking at passing a mold testing requirement for Real Estate transactions whenever a Home Inspector had a suspicion of mold. From what I understand, the home inspectors were up in arms against this as they did not want to have the liability & their E & O insurance would not cover them in this area. As a result, the ordinance never passed.

What was most interesting to me though, ( & perhaps Mr. Temes or Mr. Whitesell could help me out here with), was that the ordinance included a section on Conflicts of Interest.

Basically, it stated that a firm or individual could perform only one of the three services that could conceivably be required; the initial home inspection, the mold investigation/ PRV and and the remediation work.

It went on further to outlaw the practice of referral fees between any or all of the three parties. Maybe some of our State Governments (or a hope to be soon enlightened Association) could learn something from our City of Brotherly Love!

As always, I remain...

at your service.

Sincerely,

Pete

Chuck Reaney <creaneyicdc (DOT) com> wrote:

Pete,I had occasion to go to the IAQA website recently, and remembered your post (below) about IAQA not being as supportive as they could be about the conflict of interest issues as addressed by S520.I went to their 'find an IAQ professional' web page, and looked for ANY segmentation of consultants vs. contractors and found absolutely none. All you can get is a listing by name, geographical location, etc. of "iaq professionals" . Just a list. Not even a mention or a column to identify which services are performed by the member professional.On their 'consumers' page they offer general advice, but again, no mention whatsoever about consultant services vs. contractor services, and the pitfalls of hiring either to perform both functions.So I finally did a search for the word "Consultant" , and here is what I got for a result:SEARCH RESULTSSearch time was 86.59 seconds.0 files found.

Again, maybe it's just grumpy old me, but IMHO, until the industry organizations (who I was praising in a post last week), and in this case, the AIQA in particular, stop being afraid of stepping on someone's toes, and step up to the plate instead, in order to legitimately and forthrightly educate consumers looking for services, point out the difference between consultants and contractors, the areas of expertise of each, and the conflict of interest issues associated with using either to provide both types of services, we're fighting quite an uphill battle.How can we expect our fellow list members to take a stand, which would have an unwanted financial impact on many of them, when the leading membership organization in the entire industry doesn't have the gumption (to be somewhat polite) to take the lead in doing the same??In many jurisdictions and in particular, in the City of Philadelphia, asbestos

contractors for example are forbidden by law to perform any consulting or testing services on their own projects. In fact, they take it a step further, and mandate that they may not be ANY financial link between the contractor and the consultant.There are very good reasons for this, as we know. It's the one thing that the bureaucracy got 100% right.I'm sick to death of Political Correctness, of the priorities being to not upset anyone, of the greed that drives so damned much of all industries, of the whole damned system where money is the god, rather than simply doing the right thing, and people and organizations using vagueness, generalities and smoke & mirrors to keep the focus off of genuinely important issues and of the few becoming wealthy at the expense of the many by bending the rules and perceptions instead of simply doing things right.What's IAQA so afraid of? Losing members? Why were my

annual membership dues to the AmIAQC $80., and for IAQA now $125.? What the hell are any of us really getting for our membership fees anyway? Certainly and obviously not an organization who will forthrightly address one of the current most important issues in this industry.Maybe it's time that we start an IAQ Consultants organization AND an IAQ Contractors organization limited solely to those who have picked a side of the fence and who stay on it, in order to TRULY bring the credibility to this business that we so desperately need. THEN IAQA would have to pick a side of the fence also, since they seem unwilling or unable to successfully straddle it by PROPERLY representing both sides, and TRULY educating the consumers, or face being deafened by the sound of the vacuum of their members leaving.Regulations and standards (and many organizations) for the most part seemingly serve only to establish boundaries

so that the greedy and dishonest know exactly what they have to find a loophole for, and so that the inept have an instruction book to be able to hold themselves up as equal to the truly capable.And all the while the organizations sing their own praises, sweep the problems under the rug, refuse to rock the boat, and continue "business as usual" with their top priority obviously being their own prosperity and ultimate survival. Seems to be more like the RNC than the AIQA. Maybe that'll be the next great unification.Aaaaaaaagggggghhhh! I can't take much more of the B.S.Ranting on...Chuck ReaneyThat's, in fact, my biggest problem with the IAQA; that they arequick to acknowledge and lay claim to being a ContributingOrganization to S520, yet they turn a blind eye to the fact thatperhaps as much as 40% to 50% of their membership violate

thatparticular section of S520. As I have stated before privately, andnow publicly, the membership of the IAQA should at least beencouraged by the leadership, perhaps with a position paper, tofollow the entire Standard, including Secton 4.1.2, and not justthose sections the particular member finds convenient.Pete H. Carkhuff, ASCS, WRTFlamer Extraordinaire

Cheap Talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.

Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.

[Guest guest]

Copy of the law can be reviewed at:

http://www.sos.state.ok.us/documents/Legislation/49th/2004/2R/HB/2554.pdf

And here is the write up from the paper at the time it was passed:

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-7100602_ITM

After re-reading it, it was a limit of $200 not $250, sorry for the mistake. It's been a while since I've read it.

Re: Clearance testing & "standards"

Hey Chuck:

You've put another smile on my face!

Speaking of Philly; City Council was looking at passing a mold testing requirement for Real Estate transactions whenever a Home Inspector had a suspicion of mold. From what I understand, the home inspectors were up in arms against this as they did not want to have the liability & their E & O insurance would not cover them in this area. As a result, the ordinance never passed.

What was most interesting to me though, ( & perhaps Mr. Temes or Mr. Whitesell could help me out here with), was that the ordinance included a section on Conflicts of Interest.

Basically, it stated that a firm or individual could perform only one of the three services that could conceivably be required; the initial home inspection, the mold investigation/ PRV and and the remediation work.

It went on further to outlaw the practice of referral fees between any or all of the three parties. Maybe some of our State Governments (or a hope to be soon enlightened Association) could learn something from our City of Brotherly Love !

As always, I remain...

at your service.

Sincerely,

Pete

Chuck Reaney <creaneyicdc (DOT) com> wrote:

Pete,I had occasion to go to the IAQA website recently, and remembered your post (below) about IAQA not being as supportive as they could be about the conflict of interest issues as addressed by S520.I went to their 'find an IAQ professional' web page, and looked for ANY segmentation of consultants vs. contractors and found absolutely none. All you can get is a listing by name, geographical location, etc. of "iaq professionals" . Just a list. Not even a mention or a column to identify which services are performed by the member professional.On their 'consumers' page they offer general advice, but again, no mention whatsoever about consultant services vs. contractor services, and the pitfalls of hiring either to perform both functions.So I finally did a search for the word "Consultant" , and here is what I got for a

result:SEARCH RESULTSSearch time was 86.59 seconds.0 files found. Again, maybe it's just grumpy old me, but IMHO, until the industry organizations (who I was praising in a post last week), and in this case, the AIQA in particular, stop being afraid of stepping on someone's toes, and step up to the plate instead, in order to legitimately and forthrightly educate consumers looking for services, point out the difference between consultants and contractors, the areas of expertise of each, and the conflict of interest issues associated with using either to provide both types of services, we're fighting quite an uphill battle.How can we expect our fellow list members to take a stand, which would have an unwanted financial impact on many of them, when the leading membership organization in the entire industry doesn't have the gumption (to be somewhat polite) to take the lead in doing the

same??In many jurisdictions and in particular, in the City of Philadelphia , asbestos contractors for example are forbidden by law to perform any consulting or testing services on their own projects. In fact, they take it a step further, and mandate that they may not be ANY financial link between the contractor and the consultant.There are very good reasons for this, as we know. It's the one thing that the bureaucracy got 100% right.I'm sick to death of Political Correctness, of the priorities being to not upset anyone, of the greed that drives so damned much of all industries, of the whole damned system where money is the god, rather than simply doing the right thing, and people and organizations using vagueness, generalities and smoke & mirrors to keep the focus off of genuinely important issues and of the few becoming wealthy at the expense of the many by bending the rules and perceptions

instead of simply doing things right.What's IAQA so afraid of? Losing members? Why were my annual membership dues to the AmIAQC $80., and for IAQA now $125.? What the hell are any of us really getting for our membership fees anyway? Certainly and obviously not an organization who will forthrightly address one of the current most important issues in this industry.Maybe it's time that we start an IAQ Consultants organization AND an IAQ Contractors organization limited solely to those who have picked a side of the fence and who stay on it, in order to TRULY bring the credibility to this business that we so desperately need. THEN IAQA would have to pick a side of the fence also, since they seem unwilling or unable to successfully straddle it by PROPERLY representing both sides, and TRULY educating the consumers, or face being deafened by the sound of the vacuum of their members leaving.Regulations and

standards (and many organizations) for the most part seemingly serve only to establish boundaries so that the greedy and dishonest know exactly what they have to find a loophole for, and so that the inept have an instruction book to be able to hold themselves up as equal to the truly capable.And all the while the organizations sing their own praises, sweep the problems under the rug, refuse to rock the boat, and continue "business as usual" with their top priority obviously being their own prosperity and ultimate survival. Seems to be more like the RNC than the AIQA. Maybe that'll be the next great unification.Aaaaaaaagggggghhhh! I can't take much more of the B.S.Ranting on...Chuck ReaneyThat's, in fact, my biggest problem with the IAQA; that they arequick to acknowledge and lay claim to being a ContributingOrganization to S520, yet they turn

a blind eye to the fact thatperhaps as much as 40% to 50% of their membership violate thatparticular section of S520. As I have stated before privately, andnow publicly, the membership of the IAQA should at least beencouraged by the leadership, perhaps with a position paper, tofollow the entire Standard, including Secton 4.1.2, and not justthose sections the particular member finds convenient.Pete H. Carkhuff, ASCS, WRTFlamer Extraordinaire

Cheap Talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.

Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.

Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.

[Guest guest]

, group,

I agree, with no visible mold, how do you justify remediation costs.

What about 'finding' big bucks worth remediation with not even settled spores/fragments being present, or typically and worse, without any sampling to show what might or might not be on the surface. Which is typical of contractors (and consultants) pushing and 'requiring' content and surface decontamination (aka bio-cleaning, sanitizing, biocid-ing, 'shocking with ozone, bathing with UV, boy the list goes on, eh?) Then, what about pushing these cleaning "requirements" or "recommendations" without any justification with regard to exposure, risk, and the reality or lack thereof for associated health effects?

Armour, M.S.Armour Applied Science, LLCGreen Building Healthy BuildingCleveland, OH

"The problems that exist in the world today cannot be solved by the level of thinking that created them." A.Einstein