Re: fox and the chickens...

[Guest guest]

From a legal standpoint, the fox should NOT be watching the

henhouse. Mold remediators should NOT be performing their own

clearance sampling, and I personally think that they should NOT be even

writing their own protocols, if there is even one written. I would

say that any remediator that is doing its own sampling and protocols have

not been sued yet. I have been called in on several occasions when

a remediator has been sued or has botched a job and gotten the insurance

company sued. Remediators have to ask themselves, how will they

answer when they are put on the stand and asked what their qualifications

are for doing what they did.

That being said, the reality is that most remediation firms believe that

they will save money (or conversely make more money) by not having a

third party involved. In a lot of cases, the money-saving is

motivated by the property owner who doesn't want to spend a lot of money

fixing the problem. I can understand that veiwpoint; but that

doesn't mean I agree with it. What I really cannot understand is

insurance companies not having a third party to protect them. They

can afford to hire a third party and in the cases I have involved with,

they could have saved much more money if I was hired a the start and not

after things got screwed up.

I know that at least one person will respond, saying that they have hired

some unscrupulous so-called professional who wrote an outlandish protocol

that was inordinately more expensive than it should have been or who

performed sampling that was overly ambitious and expensive (at least from

the remediator's veiwpoint). My response is--that is a

problem. In part, the attempts at standards try to at least address

the sampling aspect by specifying types and acceptable concentrations;

but they don't and probably can't say how many, which usually is a major

point of contention.

As far as getting a decent protocol developer, like many other business

decisions, selecting a competent firm or person in an unregulated

business is buyer beware--not much different than the decision a buyer

must go through in selecting the remediation firm, and that choice is

made in a partially regulated business. I don't envy the companies

that have to find a protocol developer, though, because I have reviewed a

lot of very bad protocols. Just as bad, I have seen many what I

consider very non-detailed protocols that basically say find the mold,

remove it and decontaminate. Then again, look at those standards

and see how much discussion is given to who should write protocols, how a

protocol should be written and what it should contain.

The importance of a protocol cannot be understated because it IS a

document of understanding between all parties as to what work will be

performed and what are acceptable criteria. In a lawsuit, it can be

invaluable. Many remediation firms think that a protocol binds its

hands. To me, a protocol can be a flexible, co-operative

plan. No protocol writer can anticipate what a remediation firm

will find when it digs into a wall. Maybe that is why so many

writers write protocols that are so lean. I am surprised at how

many remediators don't seem to know that a cell phone can be used to

discuss protocol changes on the fly, and change orders can be written to

the protocol to assure that the remediation firm's change of plans is

documented. I believe one of the most important functions of a

protocol is that it can be used to protect both the remediation firm, the

insurance firm, if one is involved, and the property owner. Well,

that is the way I write mine at least.

******************************************************

If what is written looks too stupid to be written by me, I disclaim

it. On

the other hand, if it is brilliant, then I have no one to blame but

myself.

Otherwise, whether you choose to accept my opinion is up to you.

******************************************************

K. Klein, PE ME, MBA

Indoor Air Quality Solutions, Inc.

PO Box 7

Bethel, OH 45106-0007

VOICE: FAX:

E-mail: mkklein68@...

*******************************************************

Wouldn't it be nice if common sense were really common?

[Guest guest]

Hi Matt:

I'm pretty sure you meant to say " ...The importance of a protocol

cannot be OVERSTATED because... "

Wane

> From a legal standpoint, the fox should NOT be watching the

> henhouse. Mold remediators should NOT be performing their own

clearance

> sampling, and I personally think that they should NOT be even

writing their

> own protocols, if there is even one written. I would say that any

> remediator that is doing its own sampling and protocols have not

been sued

> yet.

<snip>

> The importance of a protocol cannot be understated because it IS a

document

> of understanding between all parties as to what work will be

performed and

> what are acceptable criteria. In a lawsuit, it can be invaluable.

Many

> remediation firms think that a protocol binds its hands. To me, a

protocol

> can be a flexible, co-operative plan. No protocol writer can

anticipate

> K. Klein, PE ME, MBA

[Guest guest]

Matt,

I have to disagree somewhat even though your points are well taken

and they apply more to each person than to a group in general. I

will put my comments in your text.

Regards,

Greg Weatherman

Aerobiological Solutions Inc.

Arlington VA 22202

gw@...

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

> From a legal standpoint, the fox should NOT be watching the

> henhouse. Mold remediators should NOT be performing their own

clearance

> sampling, and I personally think that they should NOT be even

writing their

> own protocols, if there is even one written. I would say that any

> remediator that is doing its own sampling and protocols have not

been sued

> yet.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

I started doing remediation back in 1997. I started investigating

because I was given incomplete results and deficient work scopes,

remediation protocols, project designs, whatever the phrase du jour

you want to name.

I found I could do a better job than most if adequate testing and

investigation could be used. I moved away from remdiation for a while

and stuck to investigation, project design and post tesing.

I was subsequently asked to do remediations that are legal and

medical in nature. My insurance (CGL, Pollution and E & O) allows me

to investigate, design projects and perform the remediation if I

don't perform the post testing. If I do post testing, I can't

remediate. I sent a very thick SOP's document to cover my methods.

the SOP was reviewed by the insurance carriers and they changed their

minds after reading my SOP's.

I am putting myself in a more favorable postion to be sued but, there

are ways to avoid the trouble. a good project design and contract

are first and foremeost.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

I have been called in on several occasions when a remediator has been

> sued or has botched a job and gotten the insurance company

> sued. Remediators have to ask themselves, how will they answer

when they

> are put on the stand and asked what their qualifications are for

doing what

> they did.

>

> That being said, the reality is that most remediation firms believe

that

> they will save money (or conversely make more money) by not having

a third

> party involved. In a lot of cases, the money-saving is motivated

by the

> property owner who doesn't want to spend a lot of money fixing the

> problem. I can understand that veiwpoint; but that doesn't mean I

agree

> with it.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

I have seen this too many times. I can say what I knew in the

beginning versus now is lke day and night. I would say a person

should not interpret lab results (unless the lab does it for them)

until they have taken samples for 1 or 2 years. They can't possible

write a protocol or project design if they can't interpret results.

I was very apprehensive in the beginning and I'm only slightly less

apprehensive now. I pass on several remediation jobs and just do the

investigation, project design and post testing.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

> The importance of a protocol cannot be understated because it IS a

document

> of understanding between all parties as to what work will be

performed and

> what are acceptable criteria. In a lawsuit, it can be invaluable.

Many

> remediation firms think that a protocol binds its hands. To me, a

protocol

> can be a flexible, co-operative plan. No protocol writer can

anticipate

> what a remediation firm will find when it digs into a wall. Maybe

that is

> why so many writers write protocols that are so lean. I am

surprised at

> how many remediators don't seem to know that a cell phone can be

used to

> discuss protocol changes on the fly, and change orders can be

written to

> the protocol to assure that the remediation firm's change of plans

is

> documented. I believe one of the most important functions of a

protocol is

> that it can be used to protect both the remediation firm, the

insurance

> firm, if one is involved, and the property owner. Well, that is

the way I

> write mine at least.

>

>

> ******************************************************

> If what is written looks too stupid to be written by me, I disclaim

it. On

> the other hand, if it is brilliant, then I have no one to blame but

myself.

> Otherwise, whether you choose to accept my opinion is up to you.

> ******************************************************

> K. Klein, PE ME, MBA

> Indoor Air Quality Solutions, Inc.

> PO Box 7

> Bethel, OH 45106-0007

> VOICE: FAX:

> E-mail: mkklein68@a...

> *******************************************************

> Wouldn't it be nice if common sense were really common?

[Guest guest]

I was struck by your comments regarding over specifying or conversely

under specifying a job in this rather unregulated industry. One

thing that has struck me over and over is in my area of

California I was the only person who was both an inspector and a

licensed general contractor. In addition, I was one of the few who

had the requisite asbestos inspector certifications (and other

stuff). I have read protocols that specified removal of a lot of dry

wall, floors, ceilings, framing, and on and on. In my experience an

architect, an engineer and a general contractor are about the only

ones who can make these decisions with some legal standing. For

example, when I specified, " Remove this drywall, " I was not

specifying some odd piece of material, I may be specifying the

firewall, or not. If the building burned down during the work, well

I was acting within my professional capacity. Same with removing a

stud or a post, or a shear wall panel and having a section of the

building collapse. A CIH, or a biologist, or some guy off the street

making the same calls is acting outside his professional capacity,

and may have greater exposure in a lawsuit.

[Guest guest]

Thank you for bringing up this very interesting point. This is why it is so important to surround yourself with a strong team when dealing with IEQ problems. It goes to the heart of the problem of people proclaiming their expertise on IEQ problems. At the beginning of every course we teach I go over a slide that explains you will not leave here an expert unless you came here an expert and I have yet to meet an individual that is an expert in ALL of the various fields that relate to IEQ.

This is not to say that there aren't some truly wonderful, brilliant knowledgeable and caring individuals working in this industry it just goes to show none of us can possibly be an expert in every facet of this industry and we all need to have a tremendous support group to rely on when issues come up that we are better off getting help with. This IEQuality group is one of the best support groups available and I am for the most part encouraged by the discourse to date between the various members