Re: clearance woes

[Guest guest]

Steve,

I like to point out that if anyone is concerned about occupant exposure to a small area of mold in an attic space, they should be far more concerned about exposure to fiberglass dust which would enter the living space via the same pathway(s) and be present in far greater amounts.

Your story serves to reinforce my own decision to not do residential mold pre-purchase inspection work.

An ironic aspect to note is that you are right and the guy from Texas is out of control, but which one of you can say that you are licensed?

Steve Temes

The other day I received a call from a homeowner who was relocating from Minnesota to Texas. Seems sale of his Minnesota house was held up because the national relocation firm's inspection had observed mold in the attic. It was apparent this mold was the result of condensation from a bathroom exhaust fan duct leak, and covered an area 2" by 24" on an attic truss.

Based on this horrific news, the relocation firm hired a consultant from Texas, who flew to Minnesota to test this fungal hellhole to see if remediation would be needed. The consultant (incidentally whose report displays a large "biohazard" symbol on the cover sheet, and proclaims in bold type that allergenic, pathogenic, and toxic molds had been identified in the property) collected sporetraps in the attic and outdoors, and based on elevated basidiospore and Cladosporium level inside vs. outside came to the conclusion that amplification was indicated, and remediation was recommended.

There are so many pitfalls here I almost don't know where to begin...the most distressing thing is the homeowner has little prayer of passing "clearance" according to this consultant's protocol...at least not until the snow melts and outside counts rise dramatically. I have referred this homeowner to reputable contractors to remediate, but they don't want any part of it because they don't see a way to pass (the contractors were able to make this decision without any conversation with me, by the way). After all, they could clean and paint the visible mold with 40-20, or even physically saw off the wood with the mold on it and still not pass "clearance" because they would be stirring up dust the whole time.

Here are a few of the problems I am seeing:

The very concept of air testing to determine the need for remediation, when the moisture source and extent of mold growth has already been identified is...silly.

Using inside vs. outside comparisons with snow cover on the ground. What works in Texas may not work elsewhere!

The general concept of air testing in an attic, which is vented directly to the outside, and is surely loaded with copious settled dust and spores, and is not a habitable space anyway...why not surface test (if you have a burning need to test what is an obvious problem with an obvious solution)?

Basing a remediation order in part on basidiospore counts. Cladosporium, maybe (again assuming you buy into making remediation decisions based on air samples) ...but basidiospores?

There is more I am sure, but I am running out of steam...let me know if you guys see anything worthwhile, it may come in handy.

What a colossal waste of money.

Thanks,

D. Carlson, CIAQC, CMRS

Liesch Associates, Inc.

[Guest guest]

Hi Mr. Carlson,

I am a real estate agent. This is one of those cases where the mold itself is not the problem. The potential liability for the owner, relo company, IAQ consultant, remediator, listing broker and selling broker is the problem. Nobody wants to be the deep pocket should the buyers move in and have health problems that could be attributed to mold exposure. So, sometimes air samples are not simply required to determine the scope of work. They are required to limit liability.

This is how I would have handled this situation:

1. I would have instructed my clients to take tape samples of the infested wood.

2. I would have instructed my clients to have air samples taken in the attic and in other parts

of the house. If your scenario is correct, then the attic should be much higher than the rest

of the house and will logically become even higher after the dust of remediation. The attic

air samples compared against the tape samples would establish this is the root of the

problem if the airborne count is abnormally high for the undisturbed attic area.

3. I would instruct my clients to hire a reputable remediator who is skilled at setting up a

proper containment area to assure as he is working in the attic, he does not cross-

contaminate the rest of the house.

4. Upon completion of the remediation, I would instruct my clients to have air samples taken

throughout the house to compare against the airborne spore count before the

remediation. This is to assure the airborne spore count has not been elevated

throughout the structure from the remediation process. It is a given the attic will not pass

at this time.

5. I would document everything my clients had done to address the mold as it went along.

6. I would provide this documentation to disclose to the buyers, in writing, what the

problem was and what exactly was done to address it.

7. I would then recommend in writing that the buyers have a mold inspection during the

contingency period of the escrow and through their own efforts, self satisfy as to the

safety of the environment. By that time, the dust in the attic should have settled, and if all

things were done correctly, the attic too, should pass the test.

A seller and the representatives they hire do not get sued for selling a house with mold. What they get sued for is failure to disclose that there was mold and what steps were taken to address it. In a nutshell, the sellers should simply do what they think is right and then tell the buyers what they did!

Sharon Kramer

Hello all - I hope you'll allow me to vent a little. I know we all can share horror stories of shoddy or suspect IAQ consulting, but here is mine.

The other day I received a call from a homeowner who was relocating from Minnesota to Texas. Seems sale of his Minnesota house was held up because the national relocation firm's inspection had observed mold in the attic. It was apparent this mold was the result of condensation from a bathroom exhaust fan duct leak, and covered an area 2" by 24" on an attic truss.

Based on this horrific news, the relocation firm hired a consultant from Texas, who flew to Minnesota to test this fungal hellhole to see if remediation would be needed. The consultant (incidentally whose report displays a large "biohazard" symbol on the cover sheet, and proclaims in bold type that allergenic, pathogenic, and toxic molds had been identified in the property) collected sporetraps in the attic and outdoors, and based on elevated basidiospore and Cladosporium level inside vs. outside came to the conclusion that amplification was indicated, and remediation was recommended.

There are so many pitfalls here I almost don't know where to begin...the most distressing thing is the homeowner has little prayer of passing "clearance" according to this consultant's protocol...at least not until the snow melts and outside counts rise dramatically. I have referred this homeowner to reputable contractors to remediate, but they don't want any part of it because they don't see a way to pass (the contractors were able to make this decision without any conversation with me, by the way). After all, they could clean and paint the visible mold with 40-20, or even physically saw off the wood with the mold on it and still not pass "clearance" because they would be stirring up dust the whole time.

Here are a few of the problems I am seeing:

The very concept of air testing to determine the need for remediation, when the moisture source and extent of mold growth has already been identified is...silly. Using inside vs. outside comparisons with snow cover on the ground. What works in Texas may not work elsewhere! The general concept of air testing in an attic, which is vented directly to the outside, and is surely loaded with copious settled dust and spores, and is not a habitable space anyway...why not surface test (if you have a burning need to test what is an obvious problem with an obvious solution)? Basing a remediation order in part on basidiospore counts. Cladosporium, maybe (again assuming you buy into making remediation decisions based on air samples) ...but basidiospores?

There is more I am sure, but I am running out of steam...let me know if you guys see anything worthwhile, it may come in handy.

What a colossal waste of money.

Thanks,

D. Carlson, CIAQC, CMRS

Liesch Associates, Inc.

[Guest guest]

Sharon:

If I were the seller of the house, I might wet-scrub the mold, let the wood dry and paint over the area with an appropriate coating. I would disclose this and that the moisture source responsible for the 24" x 12" area of mold on the underside of the roof had been corrected. I would then take the position that the house is for sale as-is with respect to mold in the attic.

If my realtor advised me to spend what would easily amount to well over five thousand dollars of testing and remediation (probably enough to cover the cost of a whole new roof) to deal with this small area of growth in an attic space, I would attempt to close the sale with the attic "as-is". If I could not, I would look for a new buyer and a new realtor.

What you have recommended is not consistent with your own well-stated and accurate comment that: A seller and the representatives they hire do not get sued for selling a house with mold. What they get sued for is failure to disclose that there was mold and what steps were taken to address it. In a nutshell, the sellers should simply do what they think is right and then tell the buyers what they did!

How many attic clearance sample results have you actually seen? It is a fool's game and, personally, I won't play it.

Steve Temes

(Veteran of hundreds of attic inspections and still very happy to not do pre-purchase mold work)

Hi Mr. Carlson,

I am a real estate agent. This is one of those cases where the mold itself is not the problem. The potential liability for the owner, relo company, IAQ consultant, remediator, listing broker and selling broker is the problem. Nobody wants to be the deep pocket should the buyers move in and have health problems that could be attributed to mold exposure. So, sometimes air samples are not simply required to determine the scope of work. They are required to limit liability.

This is how I would have handled this situation:

1. I would have instructed my clients to take tape samples of the infested wood.

2. I would have instructed my clients to have air samples taken in the attic and in other parts

of the house. If your scenario is correct, then the attic should be much higher than the rest

of the house and will logically become even higher after the dust of remediation. The attic

air samples compared against the tape samples would establish this is the root of the

problem if the airborne count is abnormally high for the undisturbed attic area.

3. I would instruct my clients to hire a reputable remediator who is skilled at setting up a

proper containment area to assure as he is working in the attic, he does not cross-

contaminate the rest of the house.

4. Upon completion of the remediation, I would instruct my clients to have air samples taken

throughout the house to compare against the airborne spore count before the

remediation. This is to assure the airborne spore count has not been elevated

throughout the structure from the remediation process. It is a given the attic will not pass

at this time.

5. I would document everything my clients had done to address the mold as it went along.

6. I would provide this documentation to disclose to the buyers, in writing, what the

problem was and what exactly was done to address it.

7. I would then recommend in writing that the buyers have a mold inspection during the

contingency period of the escrow and through their own efforts, self satisfy as to the

safety of the environment. By that time, the dust in the attic should have settled, and if all

things were done correctly, the attic too, should pass the test.

A seller and the representatives they hire do not get sued for selling a house with mold. What they get sued for is failure to disclose that there was mold and what steps were taken to address it. In a nutshell, the sellers should simply do what they think is right and then tell the buyers what they did!

Sharon Kramer

[Guest guest]

Hi Ms. Kramer:

It's good to see that at least one real estate agent is monitoring

this list.

In general, I wholeheartedly agree with your logic. There are,

unfortunately, several difficulties with the approach you've outlined.

To begin, you recommend using a " reputable remediator " , but first

describe the task of air sampling in a rather offhand way, as if it

could be correctly performed by virtually anyone.

" I would instruct my clients to have air samples taken... " - by whom?

when, where and how?

First note that we are not sampling for asbestos, lead or a chemical

or other substance of know properties. The rate of release,

off-gassing, or other relationship to airborne concentrations cannot

be accurately described, especially over time. There are simply too

many variables.

To be done properly, even in a home of modest size, definitive air

sampling would cost $$ hundreds to thousands. By " done properly " , I

mean using multiple methods (both spore trap and culture-based) and

multiple media, with more than one sampling event, and duplicate

samples at each point in time. The variability in sporulation of

indoor colonies, and especially outdoor counts, vary more than most

realize. By " definitive " , I mean capable of determining the potential

for occupant exposure over an extended period of time (weeks to months

to years). Without doing so, fungal air sampling will be of limited

value.

Wet buildings are not only afflicted by fungal growth; one must also

consider the Procaryotae, primarily bacteria. In cases of structures

that are very wet over an extended period of time, bacteria can

actually be a larger contributor to occupant discomfort and infirmity

than fungi.

Structural members in wet buildings are oftentimes subject to wood

rot, more so than mold growth. The all too common practice of spore

trap sampling will not accurately identify wood rot organisms, and

they are difficult to successfully culture.

Comparing air samples against source samples (tape lift, swab, contact

plate, bulk material) seems straightforward, but again it's not that

simple. In conducting hundreds of assessments of this type over the

past 15 years, I've rarely seen this approach work. Again, the

science is more complicated than most believe. Even when we identify

the source, the link to results from air sampling is tenuous at best.

Bottom line: air sampling for fungi is more likely than not to

produce the wrong answer, regardless of the question posed. I would

reconsider, or eliminate, steps 2 and 4 in your proposed approach.

Don't misunderstand: we take plenty of air samples, and roughly 80%

of those are for use in litigation. In my experience, the legal

community and medical professionals demand the lab analyses from air

sampling, regardless of its validity or accuracy. But ultimately, if

it's not done rigorously and using good science, it will be discarded

based on the testimony of opposing experts, and as such, won't protect

anyone from liability. Much of my case load over the past half dozen

years has involved pointing out why air samples taken by others are

" not to be relied upon " , either due to improper technique,

insufficient quantity or flat-out incompetence.

In contrast, we've recently developed a cost-effective program of

" Residential Mold Inspections " , and work closely with realtors and

home inspectors. Notably, our " RMI " program does not include air

sampling; rather it is based primarily on performing an " Informed

Inspection " , and deploying a field microscope wielded by a graduate

microbiologist.

For more information on the concept of an Informed Inspection, and a

good summary on some of the fundamental considerations in conducting

air sampling, please review the updated Health Canada guidelines

( " Fungal Contamination in Public Buildings: Health Effects and

Investigation Methods " ) here:

<http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hecs-sesc/air_quality/publications/fungal_cont

amination/toc.htm>

The reasons why this field is so complicated, and who is truly

qualified to perform this type of consulting work, will be the subject

of my presentation as part of the April 13, 2005 ASHRAE

satellite/webcast seminar " Mold in the Building Environment " (see:

<http://www.ashrae.org/moldsatellitebroadcast>).

Again, please don't misunderstand: I truly believe that you're on the

right track, and I wish the process were as simple as you've described

it. Unfortunately, it's not -- and such misunderstandings have led to

the present situation in which legions of so-called " mold experts "

with a $169 certification are running amok.

Respectfully submitted,

Wane

<><><><><><><><><><><><>

Wane A. Baker, P.E., CIH, RPIH

Director, Air Quality Services

" Bad air gets you down "

MICHAELS ENGINEERING INC.

811 Monitor Street, Suite 100

PO Box 2377

La Crosse, Wisconsin 54602

Phone , ext. 484

Cell

Fax

On the web at: <http://www.michaelsengineering.com/>

" To love what you do and feel that it matters - how could anything be

more fun? "

- Graham

NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential

information. Use and further disclosure of the information by the

recipient must be consistent with applicable laws, regulations and

agreements. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the

sender; delete the e-mail; and do not use, disclose or store the

information it contains.

>

> Hi Mr. Carlson,

>

> I am a real estate agent. This is one of those cases where the mold

itself

> is not the problem. The potential liability for the owner, relo

company, IAQ

> consultant, remediator, listing broker and selling broker is the

problem.

> Nobody wants to be the deep pocket should the buyers move in and

have health

> problems that could be attributed to mold exposure. So, sometimes

air samples

> are not simply required to determine the scope of work. They are

required to

> limit liability.

>

> This is how I would have handled this situation:

> 1. I would have instructed my clients to take tape samples of the

infested

> wood.

> 2. I would have instructed my clients to have air samples taken in

the

> attic and in other parts

> of the house. If your scenario is correct, then the attic

should be

> much higher than the rest

> of the house and will logically become even higher after the

dust of

> remediation. The attic

> air samples compared against the tape samples would establish

this is

> the root of the

> problem if the airborne count is abnormally high for the

undisturbed

> attic area.

> 3. I would instruct my clients to hire a reputable remediator who

is

> skilled at setting up a

> proper containment area to assure as he is working in the

attic, he

> does not cross-

> contaminate the rest of the house.

> 4. Upon completion of the remediation, I would instruct my clients

to have

> air samples taken

> throughout the house to compare against the airborne spore

count before

> the

> remediation. This is to assure the airborne spore count has

not been

> elevated

> throughout the structure from the remediation process. It is a

given

> the attic will not pass

> at this time.

> 5. I would document everything my clients had done to address the

mold as

> it went along.

> 6. I would provide this documentation to disclose to the buyers, in

> writing, what the

> problem was and what exactly was done to address it.

> 7. I would then recommend in writing that the buyers have a mold

inspection

> during the

> contingency period of the escrow and through their own

efforts, self

> satisfy as to the

> safety of the environment. By that time, the dust in the attic

should

> have settled, and if all

> things were done correctly, the attic too, should pass the

test.

>

> A seller and the representatives they hire do not get sued for

selling a

> house with mold. What they get sued for is failure to disclose that

there was

> mold and what steps were taken to address it. In a nutshell, the

sellers should

> simply do what they think is right and then tell the buyers what

they did!

>

> Sharon Kramer

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Mr. Carlson,

I agree with you that such a small area of mold should not require such drastic measures to address. If this were simply an owner eradicating mold for their own occupancy of the home, this probably would not be required.

But that is not the scenario you provided. This is a property that is for sale. The testing of the air has little to do with physical safety or proper IAQ procedures for such a small amount of mold. Under this scenario, the testing and all the extra measures taken have to do with protecting everyone involved from liability.

Sure, it is more expense that what would be necessary. But far less expensive than the cost of litigation. Or the cost of the owners being forced to carry two house payments because the relo company cannot be satisfied and the house can't be sold.

This is one of the biggest problems I see in setting hard and fast remediation guidelines. Every situation is different. Sometimes there are more things to consider than just taking out a little bit of mold to protect everyone involved in the situation.

[Guest guest]

Steve,

What you say is true. But that is not the scenario Mr. Carlson presented. There is a relo company now involved. They can't simply scrub, etc. The web of miscommunication is already being spun in this case. And if it is not solved soon, it will end up in the courts like many others.

But you are absolutely right with you evaluation. If they could go back, before the relo company and do what is logical to take out a minimal amount of mold, then DISCLOSE, DISCLOSE, DISCLOSE, they would be fine.

Now, liability is too much of an issue (the remediator won't even touch it). They are going to have to shell out the bucks to prove it all being done correctly.

Sharon

[Guest guest]

Hi Ms. Kramer:It's good to see that at least one real estate agent is monitoringthis list.

Thank you. I wish more of my fellow agents understood the pitfalls of this issue. It scares me when someone is recommending "Bubba the Remediator" because it leaves us all open for liability. Also, I know first hand, what can happen when a remediator is not competent. I had it in my own home and my daughter has cystic fibrosis. To make a rather long, terrifying story short, 34,000 pages of litigation documents later, the matter was settled.

I have also seen fellow agents get sued for not understanding all the intracies of this issue and depending on the wrong "expert". This matter Mr. Carlson presented is a prime example of how many times, the mold isn't the problem. The way it is being handled is the problem. Logic, not only from the remediation aspect itself, but from the liability aspect needs to come into play. This scenario that Mr.Carlson presented, you can easily see might be headed to the path of litigation between the owners and the relo company. (and the IAQ and the lender and the.....)

In general, I wholeheartedly agree with your logic. There are,unfortunately, several difficulties with the approach you've outlined.To begin, you recommend using a "reputable remediator", but firstdescribe the task of air sampling in a rather offhand way, as if itcould be correctly performed by virtually anyone. "I would instruct my clients to have air samples taken..." - by whom?when, where and how?

I would provide my client (in this case, probably the relo company) the names of three CIH's who do not analyze their own data. CIH's who are insured for their work and have no lawsuits in their background. It's easy to check. And let my client pick one of these or one of their own choosing..

First note that we are not sampling for asbestos, lead or a chemicalor other substance of know properties. The rate of release,off-gassing, or other relationship to airborne concentrations cannotbe accurately described, especially over time. There are simply toomany variables.

True

To be done properly, even in a home of modest size, definitive airsampling would cost $$ hundreds to thousands. By "done properly", Imean using multiple methods (both spore trap and culture-based) andmultiple media, with more than one sampling event, and duplicatesamples at each point in time. The variability in sporulation ofindoor colonies, and especially outdoor counts, vary more than mostrealize. By "definitive", I mean capable of determining the potentialfor occupant exposure over an extended period of time (weeks to monthsto years). Without doing so, fungal air sampling will be of limitedvalue.

Limited value from what standpoint? $2K for testing of mold spores is nothing compared to being stuck with a property that you can't sell because everyone is so freaked out about the mold.

Wet buildings are not only afflicted by fungal growth; one must alsoconsider the Procaryotae, primarily bacteria. In cases of structuresthat are very wet over an extended period of time, bacteria canactually be a larger contributor to occupant discomfort and infirmitythan fungi. Structural members in wet buildings are oftentimes subject to woodrot, more so than mold growth. The all too common practice of sporetrap sampling will not accurately identify wood rot organisms, andthey are difficult to successfully culture. Comparing air samples against source samples (tape lift, swab, contactplate, bulk material) seems straightforward, but again it's not thatsimple. In conducting hundreds of assessments of this type over thepast 15 years, I've rarely seen this approach work. Again, thescience is more complicated than most believe. Even when we identifythe source, the link to results from air sampling is tenuous at best. Bottom line: air sampling for fungi is more likely than not toproduce the wrong answer, regardless of the question posed. I wouldreconsider, or eliminate, steps 2 and 4 in your proposed approach.Don't misunderstand: we take plenty of air samples, and roughly 80%of those are for use in litigation. In my experience, the legalcommunity and medical professionals demand the lab analyses from airsampling, regardless of its validity or accuracy. But ultimately, ifit's not done rigorously and using good science, it will be discardedbased on the testimony of opposing experts, and as such, won't protectanyone from liability. Much of my case load over the past half dozenyears has involved pointing out why air samples taken by others are"not to be relied upon", either due to improper technique,insufficient quantity or flat-out incompetence.

Are we still talking about a house with 2" x 24" of mold on a board in an attic? Because my intent would be to get my clients from point A to point B and demonstrate that, in good faith, we did what was more than necessary to address a problem. Thereby limiting their potential liability. If the buyers would like to test more extensively, they are provided all the info and they are welcome to do so.

In contrast, we've recently developed a cost-effective program of"Residential Mold Inspections", and work closely with realtors andhome inspectors. Notably, our "RMI" program does not include airsampling; rather it is based primarily on performing an "InformedInspection", and deploying a field microscope wielded by a graduatemicrobiologist. For more information on the concept of an Informed Inspection, and agood summary on some of the fundamental considerations in conductingair sampling, please review the updated Health Canada guidelines("Fungal Contamination in Public Buildings: Health Effects andInvestigation Methods") here:<http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hecs-sesc/air_quality/publications/fungal_contamination/toc.htm>The reasons why this field is so complicated, and who is trulyqualified to perform this type of consulting work, will be the subjectof my presentation as part of the April 13, 2005 ASHRAEsatellite/webcast seminar "Mold in the Building Environment" (see:<http://www.ashrae.org/moldsatellitebroadcast>). Again, please don't misunderstand: I truly believe that you're on theright track, and I wish the process were as simple as you've describedit. Unfortunately, it's not -- and such misunderstandings have led tothe present situation in which legions of so-called "mold experts"with a $169 certification are running amok.

Thank you again, Wane. I know you all on this board have a good understanding of proper mold remediation. As a listing real estate agent, my number one job is to protect my clients, my broker and all involved in a transaction from liability. As a selling real estate agent, my job is to assure my buyers are not getting stuck with a big problem on their hands. And if that means spending $2K for air testing for mold, even if it is a 2" x 24" board in an attic, then so be it!

Sharon

[Guest guest]

Thanks, . I agree, and

just wish I had more power to do something about it. Even if I am hired to

refute the other consultant's clearance criteria, it is still my opinion

against his. Or is this a Texas state rule? I

frankly haven't paid much attention to the Texas rules...

D. Carlson, CIAQC, CMRS

Liesch Associates, Inc.

Re: clearance

woes

Steve,

I do

feel for the homeowner here. They are very much caught in the middle.

Once again, good science takes a back seat to panic and charlatans. Let

the consultant get sued once for recommending a large scale remediation when a

more common sense approach would do and perhaps that might help.

Sounds

to me like once the wood is cleaned or removed, a good old " visual "

would be just fine for a " post remediation verification " and some

pictures to document the removal. As you pointed out, air sampling is a

waste of time, money and effort.

Look on

the positive side, at least the consultant didn't recommend an ozone treatment

or a " miracle fogging agent " for remediation.

C. Underhill, CIH, CSP

Trident Environmental Services, Inc.

[Guest guest]

Thanks, Dan. For

what it's worth, the Clad in this case was only 300...but since it

was 34 outside, well obviously "amplification" is taking place (in

below freezing temps no less, assuming this attic is properly vented).

D. Carlson, CIAQC, CMRS

Liesch Associates, Inc.

Re: clearance

woes

Wow, sounds like you got your hands full with that

one. We all have our horror stories (unfortunately). The one we are

constantly dealing with here on the Eastern Shore is over- zealous home

inspectors (they try) taking a lift sample and condemning a house as unliveable

and a certain consultant who recommende removal of all wallborad in a house due

to either a few tape lifts or air o cell samples with " clado " in the

3,000 range (oh yeah she also recommends the same contractor (actually cc's them

on her report) to her client for all the clean up and put back (can anyone say

" kick back " ). Sometimes the client comes to their senses and we

get a call and refute the initial findings, but more often than not the

" psychogical damage " has occurred and the work gets done and quite a

few builders have gone belly up because of the $$$. Real sad and it

really gets to me because I have been involved with some serious health related

IH/IAQ issues over the last 16 years (not mold related) and I am

always hesitant to tell a client that they should seek a " cleaner

environment " to stay for awhile until the matter gets abated.

Good luck & remember the good science and comon

sense will always prevail oh yeah " venting " is always good.....

except in a crawlspace .

Dan S, IH/CRMI, CMR

Director of Environmental Services

HES Environmental, Ocean City, MD

Carlson

wrote:

Hello all - I hope you'll allow me to

vent a little. I know we all can share horror stories of shoddy or suspect IAQ

consulting, but here is mine.

The other day I received a call from a homeowner who was relocating

from Minnesota to Texas.

Seems sale of his Minnesota house

was held up because the national relocation firm's inspection had observed mold

in the attic. It was apparent this mold was the result of condensation from a

bathroom exhaust fan duct leak, and covered an area 2 " by 24 " on an

attic truss.

Based on this horrific news, the relocation firm hired a consultant

from Texas, who flew to Minnesota

to test this fungal hellhole to see if remediation would be needed. The

consultant (incidentally whose report displays a large " biohazard "

symbol on the cover sheet, and proclaims in bold type that allergenic,

pathogenic, and toxic molds had been identified in the property) collected

sporetraps in the attic and outdoors, and based on elevated basidiospore and

Cladosporium level inside vs. outside came to the conclusion that amplification

was indicated, and remediation was recommended.

There are so many pitfalls here I almost don't know where to

begin...the most distressing thing is the homeowner has little prayer of

passing " clearance " according to this consultant's protocol...at

least not until the snow melts and outside counts rise dramatically. I have

referred this homeowner to reputable contractors to remediate, but they don't

want any part of it because they don't see a way to pass (the contractors were

able to make this decision without any conversation with me, by the way). After

all, they could clean and paint the visible mold with 40-20, or even physically

saw off the wood with the mold on it and still not pass " clearance "

because they would be stirring up dust the whole time.

Here are a few of the problems I am seeing:

·

The very concept of air testing

to determine the need for remediation, when the moisture source and extent of

mold growth has already been identified is...silly.

·

Using inside vs. outside

comparisons with snow cover on the ground. What works in Texas

may not work elsewhere!

·

The general concept of air

testing in an attic, which is vented directly to the outside, and is surely

loaded with copious settled dust and spores, and is not a habitable space

anyway...why not surface test (if you have a burning need to test what is an

obvious problem with an obvious solution)?

·

Basing a remediation order in

part on basidiospore counts. Cladosporium, maybe (again assuming you buy into

making remediation decisions based on air samples) ...but basidiospores?

There is more I am sure, but I am running out of steam...let me

know if you guys see anything worthwhile, it may come in handy.

What a colossal waste of money.

Thanks,

D. Carlson, CIAQC, CMRS

Liesch Associates, Inc.

[Guest guest]

Sharon, perhaps for a

larger area of mold I would take such an approach, but for 1/6 square foot of

mold even that is overkill in my opinion. Air sampling is fraught with problems

in the best of circumstances, in this case I would

avoid it if at all possible.

The most

important thing here (and in most cases) is to determine the root cause of the

moisture that encouraged the mold to grow...since this has already been

done (faulty bathroom exhaust vent) and presumably fixed, then just scrub off

the mold, paint with 40-20 if desired, and move on!

D. Carlson, CIAQC, CMRS

Liesch Associates, Inc.

Re: clearance

woes

Hi Mr.

Carlson,

I am a

real estate agent. This is one of those cases where the mold itself is

not the problem. The potential liability for the owner, relo company, IAQ

consultant, remediator, listing broker and selling broker is the problem.

Nobody wants to be the deep pocket should the buyers move in and have health

problems that could be attributed to mold exposure. So, sometimes air samples

are not simply required to determine the scope of work. They are required

to limit liability.

This is

how I would have handled this situation:

1.

I would have instructed my clients to take tape samples of the

infested wood.

2.

I would have instructed my clients to have air samples taken in the attic

and in other parts

of the house. If your scenario is correct, then the attic should be much

higher than the rest

of the house and will logically become even higher after the dust

of remediation. The attic

air samples compared against the tape samples would establish this is the

root of the

problem if the airborne count is abnormally high for the undisturbed

attic area.

3.

I would instruct my clients to hire a reputable remediator who is skilled at

setting up a

proper containment area to assure as he is working in the attic, he does not

cross-

contaminate the rest of the house.

4.

Upon completion of the remediation, I would instruct my clients to have air

samples taken

throughout the house to compare against the airborne spore count before the

remediation. This is to assure the airborne spore count has not been

elevated

throughout the structure from the remediation process. It is a given the

attic will not pass

at this time.

5.

I would document everything my clients had done to address the mold as it went

along.

6.

I would provide this documentation to disclose to the buyers, in writing, what the

problem was and what exactly was done to

address it.

7.

I would then recommend in writing that the buyers have a mold inspection

during the

contingency period of the escrow and through their own efforts, self satisfy as

to the

safety of the environment. By that time, the dust in the attic should have

settled, and if all

things were done correctly, the attic too, should pass the test.

A

seller and the representatives they hire do not get sued for selling a house

with mold. What they get sued for is failure to disclose that there was mold

and what steps were taken to address it. In a nutshell, the sellers

should simply do what they think is right and then tell the buyers what they

did!

Sharon

Kramer

In a

message dated 2/26/2005 5:58:17 PM Pacific Standard Time, dschworn@...

writes:

Hello all - I hope you'll allow me to vent a little. I know we all

can share horror stories of shoddy or suspect IAQ consulting, but here is mine.

The other day I

received a call from a homeowner who was relocating from Minnesota

to Texas. Seems sale of his Minnesota

house was held up because the national relocation firm's inspection had

observed mold in the attic. It was apparent this mold was the result of

condensation from a bathroom exhaust fan duct leak, and covered an area 2 "

by 24 " on an attic truss.

Based on this

horrific news, the relocation firm hired a consultant from Texas,

who flew to Minnesota to test

this fungal hellhole to see if remediation would be needed. The consultant

(incidentally whose report displays a large " biohazard " symbol on the

cover sheet, and proclaims in bold type that allergenic, pathogenic, and toxic

molds had been identified in the property) collected sporetraps

in the attic and outdoors, and based on elevated basidiospore

and Cladosporium level inside vs. outside came to the conclusion that amplification

was indicated, and remediation was recommended.

There are so

many pitfalls here I almost don't know where to begin...the most distressing

thing is the homeowner has little prayer of passing " clearance "

according to this consultant's protocol...at least not until the snow melts and

outside counts rise dramatically. I have referred this homeowner to reputable

contractors to remediate, but they don't want any part of it because they don't

see a way to pass (the contractors were able to make this decision without any

conversation with me, by the way). After all, they could clean and paint the

visible mold with 40-20, or even physically saw off the wood with the mold on

it and still not pass " clearance " because they would be stirring up dust

the whole time.

Here are a few

of the problems I am seeing:

· The very concept

of air testing to determine the need for remediation, when the moisture source

and extent of mold growth has already been identified is...silly.

· Using inside vs.

outside comparisons with snow cover on the ground. What works in Texas

may not work elsewhere!

· The general

concept of air testing in an attic, which is vented directly to the outside,

and is surely loaded with copious settled dust and spores, and is not a

habitable space anyway...why not surface test (if you have a burning need to

test what is an obvious problem with an obvious solution)?

· Basing a

remediation order in part on basidiospore counts.

Cladosporium, maybe (again assuming you buy into making remediation decisions

based on air samples) ...but basidiospores?

There is more I

am sure, but I am running out of steam...let me know if you guys see anything

worthwhile, it may come in handy.

What a colossal

waste of money.

Thanks,

D. Carlson, CIAQC, CMRS

Liesch Associates, Inc.

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]

Jeez, the scaremongers are out again. The thing that really got me is flying

a consultant from TX to MN for 48 in2 of mold. Ludicrous.

A few years ago, when IAQA was still putting out their mold exposure “guidelines”,

they deliberately stated that Clado was not to be included. This is probably because Clado is the

most commonly detected mold in outdoor air (even in Antarctica, according to a

paper I found some time ago!), and has a tendency to appear in all samples,

including those collected from “clean” environments. According to what you’re describing, the elevated spore

counts inside could be artifact!

This is further suggested by the presence of elevated levels of

basidiospores (which, although I’ve seen a few reports describing as

allergenic, I doubt cause any detectable health issues), which are much more

often detected outdoors than in.

A. Walsh MS, CIE

-----Original

Message-----

From: Carlson

Sent: Friday, February 25, 2005

5:19 PM

To: 'iequality '

Subject: clearance

woes

Here are a few of the problems I am seeing:

·

The very concept of air testing to determine the need for

remediation, when the moisture source and extent of mold growth has already

been identified is...silly.

·

Using inside vs. outside comparisons with snow cover on the

ground. What works in Texas may

not work elsewhere!

·

The general concept of air testing in an attic, which is

vented directly to the outside, and is surely loaded with copious settled dust

and spores, and is not a habitable space anyway...why not surface test (if you

have a burning need to test what is an obvious problem with an obvious

solution)?

·

Basing a remediation order in part on basidiospore counts.

Cladosporium, maybe (again assuming you buy into making remediation decisions

based on air samples) ...but basidiospores?

There is more I am sure, but I am running out of steam...let me

know if you guys see anything worthwhile, it may come in handy.

[Guest guest]

Sharon,

I still don't see why the common sense remediation which you acknowledge would be acceptable under other circumstances wouldn't be acceptable to everyone in this scenario.

You seem to be implying that it is OK for the homeowner to be blackmailed into spending many thousands of dollars for no good reason by the realtors, relo company, attorneys, etc. People often do pay when they are being blackmailed because it is their best option. I might advise the homeowner to do remediation and some kind of testing, myself, but only for the sake of "cutting his losses" if this is what had been demanded of him in order to close the deal. I consider it a form of extortion, nonetheless, and do not condone it.

As others have said in one way or another, "proving" that everything was done "correctly" using air sampling is not as simple as the uninitiated might expect. How many times is the remediation contractor going to come back to re-clean and who is going to pay for all of the post-remediation re-testing each time it fails? I wouldn't want to be the contractor or the IEP trying to clear an attic space on the basis of air sampling results. The closing could also be delayed for weeks trying to achieve clearance this way.

Wouldn't it be better to try to establish good communication rather than over-react foolishly and wastefully after miscommunication has spun out of control?

Steve Temes

Steve,

What you say is true. But that is not the scenario Mr. Carlson presented. There is a relo company now involved. They can't simply scrub, etc. The web of miscommunication is already being spun in this case. And if it is not solved soon, it will end up in the courts like many others.

But you are absolutely right with you evaluation. If they could go back, before the relo company and do what is logical to take out a minimal amount of mold, then DISCLOSE, DISCLOSE, DISCLOSE, they would be fine.

Now, liability is too much of an issue (the remediator won't even touch it). They are going to have to shell out the bucks to prove it all being done correctly.

Sharon

[Guest guest]

I should clarify this a little bit - the report did not list basidiospores as toxic/allergenic/pathogenic, but these

qualities were attributed to other fungi detected for which amplification was

not "indicated".

It is difficult

not to exceed outside air levels when there is only 121 s/m3

outside...not an uncommon level in the winter here. In my experience

little stock can be placed in inside/outside comparisons with snow cover on the

ground.

D. Carlson, CIAQC, CMRS

Liesch Associates, Inc.

clearance

woes

Here are a few of the problems I am seeing:

·

The very concept of air testing

to determine the need for remediation, when the moisture source and extent of

mold growth has already been identified is...silly.

·

Using inside vs. outside

comparisons with snow cover on the ground. What works in Texas may not work

elsewhere!

·

The general concept of air

testing in an attic, which is vented directly to the outside, and is surely

loaded with copious settled dust and spores, and is not a habitable space

anyway...why not surface test (if you have a burning need to test what is an

obvious problem with an obvious solution)?

·

Basing a remediation order in

part on basidiospore counts. Cladosporium, maybe (again assuming you buy into

making remediation decisions based on air samples) ...but basidiospores?

There is more I am sure, but I am running out of steam...let me

know if you guys see anything worthwhile, it may come in handy.

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]

No, that is not at all what I am saying. What I am trying to tell you is that because of all the misinformation and the self professed professionals involved with this matter, sometimes, such as Mr. Carlson's situation which is headed down the wrong path, you have to jump in and head it off at the pass!

I am not insulting to you in my correspondence. I am not really appreciative of your insults. I am not out to "blackmail" anyone. And wonder why real estate agents are so difficult for you to deal with! All I am trying to get through your head is that some situations require more than simply removing the mold. Some situations required diplomacy in order to allow the sellers of a property to move forward.

If you choose to respond, I would greatly appreciate that you do not include insults in your response.

Thanks,

Sharon

[Guest guest]

Mr. Carlson,

You are absolutely correct. But that is not the scenario you presented. What you have is a relo company involved in the transfer of ownership of real property. A written IAQ report requiring more. And some sellers who are stuck in limbo. At this point, just going back and taking out that tiny bit of mold is not going to satisfy the potential liability of the situation.

I can just envision the deposition of the president of the relo company:

"Sir, you were told to have the mold removed and air tests taken, yet you chose not to, is that correct.?"

These poor sellers are already pawns in the mold game. To get them out of the game at this point is going to require some strategy beyond simply removing a little bit of mold.

Sharon

[Guest guest]

These poor sellers are already pawns in the mold game.

Being sacrificed by the relo company, attorneys and realtors to deflect their own perceived liability.

There should be no perceived liability over a small area of mold in an unfinished, ventilated and otherwise unoccupiable attic space (or crawl space). That is what is wrong with this picture.

ST

[Guest guest]

Being sacrificed by the relo company, attorneys and realtors to deflect their own perceived liability.There should be no perceived liability over a small area of mold in an unfinished, ventilated and otherwise unoccupiable attic space (or crawl space). That is what is wrong with this picture.

Why would the relo company and the realtors not want these people to be able to move forward? That doesn't even make sense. The only way the relo co and realtors get paid is if the ownership of this property transfers. There are no attorneys involved in this at this time. But keep down the wrong path and soon there will be.

What's wrong with picture? Some people have trouble coming out of their little box in order to help others find a solution. This situation is more than "Me see mold. Me clean mold." That's what is wrong with this picture.

Sharon

[Guest guest]

Why would the relo company and the realtors not want these people to be able to move forward? That doesn't even make sense. The only way the relo co and realtors get paid is if the ownership of this property transfers. There are no attorneys involved in this at this time. But keep down the wrong path and soon there will be.

Of course they want the deal to move forward, no matter how much it costs the seller. I am saying that everyone involved wants the seller to go overboard and hire remediators and consultants to assure the world that there isn't a mold problem -- for their own liability concerns. This is all predicated on the finding of a small area of mold in an attic which was not a problem in the first place. It was only made into a problem because of perceived liability.

Would the relocation company take title or just get power of attorney? I would expect that it is still the seller's house. Both the prospective buyer and the seller would have their respective closing attorneys, wouldn't they?

In many (or most) instances, the relo company is the party to hire the mold expert and make the demands on the seller before they try to get the property sold. The relo company may even walk away from the seller because they don't want to try to move a house with a mold problem. There's an escape clause in the fine print somewhere.

What's wrong with picture? Some people have trouble coming out of their little box in order to help others find a solution. This situation is more than "Me see mold. Me clean mold." That's what is wrong with this picture.

In this particular example, cleaning the mold responsibly IS the solution. Some people don't know how to distinguish a negligible mold problem from a real one. I'm not in a little box. I have been the consultant to inspect a house that the relo company wouldn't accept because of their inspector's mold test results. I have seen first-hand what the seller is put through when a mold problem is "declared" by someone who just tests or sees a spot of growth. Now, to satisfy the buyers, you need a Certified Industrial Hygienist (who can provide a certificate of insurance for mold E & O and has never been sued) to pre- and post-test and oversee a remediation contractor with the best credentials and references to scrub a spot of mold in the attic and document it for a cost of about $5-10K and maybe a week to a month's time if it needs re-testing using culture methods. Maybe this a good solution only because it wasn't your money that was spent and now you can get paid and have no liability exposure. How good was it for the seller? I consider these sellers to be mold victims in their own right.

But hey, I guess the money ultimately comes out of their huge capital gains so it won't be missed and the consultants and contractors have kids to feed, too. Come to think of it, mold is great for the economy. It doesn't even have to be a problem and you can make lots of money. You've opened my eyes. Mold is gold. What was I thinking?

Steve Temes

(Outside of the box)

[Guest guest]

'Why would the relo company and the realtors not want these people to be

able

to move forward?'

Perhaps they have a poor understanding of the risks associated with this

level of water damage and subsequent mold amplification?

'This situation is more than " Me see mold. Me clean mold. " '

No it isn't.

[Guest guest]

Dear Mr. Terms,

You are really bugging me! lol. Your perspective is a prime example of how a small bit of mold on a two by four in an attic can lead one down the path to litigation.

Why do you feel it necessary to attack? This approach is what leads to confusion, contention and places the sellers and all else at greater financial and liability risk.

Let's start over here:

There is a house offered for sale with a 2 x 4 with mold on it in an attic.

The sellers have a relo company involved in the transaction.

Relo companies are not mold experts, but are scared of the potential liability of the matter.

They hire an IAQ professional to advise them.

Based on what I understand of the scenario, the IAQ professional made an incorrect evaluation and necessary scope for the removal and clearance of the minor mold, calling for air quality clearance in an attic, upon completion of the remediation.

This is a physically impossible task.

No remediation company will touch it.

What should have cost minimal, posses no probable health threat, and could have simply been addressed by sealing off the area and removing the mold, now has an IAQ report calling for air quality clearance attached to it. This report MUST be disclosed to any potential buyer.

For the seller and relo company to go back now and just remove the 2 x 4 without air testings, leaves them and all else involved wide open for liability down the road should the new buyers have any health problems that could be attributed to mold exposure. This is because there is an IAQ professional report saying they should have done this. Relo companies cannot simply pretend this report does not exist. They cannot say, "Well, we know better than the IAQ".

So now, what was a moldy 2 x 4, is a potential lawsuit.

So how does one address, not the mold so much, as the liability? You bring in another IAQ to explain that the attic cannot possibly clear. You go above and beyond to assure cross-contamination has not occurred from the remediation process. You have to do some air testing at this point to support your position. You provide all of this documentation to the buyers. You advise the buyers to have their own testing performed. And you document and disclose everything.

Unfortunately, this is going to cost the sellers (probably the relo company) around $2K more than it should have in the first place. But $2K more is a minute amount when compared against the inability to transfer the ownership of this property or the potential liability of not addressing the situation with extreme caution.

Does that make sense, why at this point, one cannot simply go back in and remove a moldy 2 x 4?

Sharon

[Guest guest]

That's wonderful and makes much sense. But how does a law in Texas protect a seller in Minnesota from liability?

[Guest guest]

I just thought of something that may help Mr. Carlson's clients. The IAQ consultant that the relo company hired to write the remediation scope in Minn, was brought in from Texas. Maybe they could get the hygenists to rewrite the scope according to the laws of the state that the hygenist holds a license. And explain in writing the error so to limit all's liability.

[Guest guest]

From the Texas Department of State Health Services new Mold Assessment and Remediation Licensing regulations.

FYI.

§295.302. Definitions. The following words and terms within this subchapter shall have the following meanings, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise.

(16) Indoor air - Air within the envelope of a building, including air in spaces normally occupied by persons in the building but excluding air in attics and crawl spaces that are vented to the outside of the building.

Stevan

-----Original Message-----From: snk1955@... Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 11:50 AMTo: iequality Subject: Re: clearance woes

Dear Mr. Terms,

You are really bugging me! lol. Your perspective is a prime example of how a small bit of mold on a two by four in an attic can lead one down the path to litigation.

Why do you feel it necessary to attack? This approach is what leads to confusion, contention and places the sellers and all else at greater financial and liability risk.

Let's start over here:

There is a house offered for sale with a 2 x 4 with mold on it in an attic.

The sellers have a relo company involved in the transaction.

Relo companies are not mold experts, but are scared of the potential liability of the matter.

They hire an IAQ professional to advise them.

Based on what I understand of the scenario, the IAQ professional made an incorrect evaluation and necessary scope for the removal and clearance of the minor mold, calling for air quality clearance in an attic, upon completion of the remediation.

This is a physically impossible task.

No remediation company will touch it.

What should have cost minimal, posses no probable health threat, and could have simply been addressed by sealing off the area and removing the mold, now has an IAQ report calling for air quality clearance attached to it. This report MUST be disclosed to any potential buyer.

For the seller and relo company to go back now and just remove the 2 x 4 without air testings, leaves them and all else involved wide open for liability down the road should the new buyers have any health problems that could be attributed to mold exposure. This is because there is an IAQ professional report saying they should have done this. Relo companies cannot simply pretend this report does not exist. They cannot say, "Well, we know better than the IAQ".

So now, what was a moldy 2 x 4, is a potential lawsuit.

So how does one address, not the mold so much, as the liability? You bring in another IAQ to explain that the attic cannot possibly clear. You go above and beyond to assure cross-contamination has not occurred from the remediation process. You have to do some air testing at this point to support your position. You provide all of this documentation to the buyers. You advise the buyers to have their own testing performed. And you document and disclose everything.

Unfortunately, this is going to cost the sellers (probably the relo company) around $2K more than it should have in the first place. But $2K more is a minute amount when compared against the inability to transfer the ownership of this property or the potential liability of not addressing the situation with extreme caution.

Does that make sense, why at this point, one cannot simply go back in and remove a moldy 2 x 4?

Sharon

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]

Why do you feel it necessary to attack? This approach is what leads to confusion, contention and places the sellers and all else at greater financial and liability risk.

I am not attacking, I am defending. I am defending the poor seller who is being manipulated (essentially being extorted) into paying an exorbitant fee for something that has been deemed necessary based upon the (mis)perception of liability. What is the real liability associated with a small area of mold in an attic? If you think that it is because someone may get sick and blame the spot of mold in the attic and sue, this a statement about mold plaintiffs and their attorneys -- not mold health risk.

Let's start over here:

There is a house offered for sale with a 2 x 4 with mold on it in an attic.

The sellers have a relo company involved in the transaction.

Relo companies are not mold experts, but are scared of the potential liability of the matter.

They hire an IAQ professional to advise them.

Based on what I understand of the scenario, the IAQ professional made an incorrect evaluation and necessary scope for the removal and clearance of the minor mold, calling for air quality clearance in an attic, upon completion of the remediation.

In my opinion, yes.

This is a physically impossible task.

It is not feasible or necessary but, for all practical purposes, yes, consider it impossible to clear an older, ventilated, fiberglass-filled attic using air sampling methods. This is when contractors would start to plasticize the attic floor, but that's for another discussion.

No remediation company will touch it.

No smart one will touch it.

What should have cost minimal, posses no probable health threat, and could have simply been addressed by sealing off the area and removing the mold, now has an IAQ report calling for air quality clearance attached to it. This report MUST be disclosed to any potential buyer.

For the seller and relo company to go back now and just remove the 2 x 4 without air testings, leaves them and all else involved wide open for liability down the road should the new buyers have any health problems that could be attributed to mold exposure. This is because there is an IAQ professional report saying they should have done this. Relo companies cannot simply pretend this report does not exist. They cannot say, "Well, we know better than the IAQ".

So now, what was a moldy 2 x 4, is a potential lawsuit.

So how does one address, not the mold so much, as the liability? You bring in another IAQ to explain that the attic cannot possibly clear. You go above and beyond to assure cross-contamination has not occurred from the remediation process. You have to do some air testing at this point to support your position. You provide all of this documentation to the buyers. You advise the buyers to have their own testing performed. And you document and disclose everything.

I like it. This is what I would generally advise and what Mr. Carlson is probably attempting to do. I would do the air testing in the occupied space and maybe identify the type of growth in the attic to rule it out (hopefully) as a source of indoor contamination. The results and conclusions of the professional are provided to the buyers who are welcome and encouraged to do whatever testing they want. I agree that this should be sufficient to address the (perceived) liability concerns.

It really becomes a game of who will pay to get rid of the visible attic mold, the current seller or the prospective buyer who will be the next seller. It is reasonable to request that the current seller pay the cost if you are buying the house so you don't get stuck paying on the back end when you sell.

Unfortunately, this is going to cost the sellers (probably the relo company) around $2K more than it should have in the first place. But $2K more is a minute amount when compared against the inability to transfer the ownership of this property or the potential liability of not addressing the situation with extreme caution.

My understanding is that the relo companies these days are only getting power of attorney and not actually purchasing the property the way they had in the past. The seller gets the bill. More than likely, the relo company will not want to get involved with selling the property at all if there is a mold problem discovered. This is why they have the most thorough inspections and some even do air sampling for mold routinely for every house, regardless of whether visible growth was found.

If remediation demands had been made by the buyers, I would not hesitate to advise my client to offer a $2,000 credit to the selling price to address the mold concerns because of the time savings, logistical headaches, and uncertainty of where remediation problems and additional testing may lead.

I would bet that most buyers would take the $2,000 credit for the small area of mold in the attic needing remediation and use it to buy a bottle of Clorox.

Does that make sense, why at this point, one cannot simply go back in and remove a moldy 2 x 4?

I would not have recommended this at any time. Technically, you would want to properly remove the mold from the wood or encapsulate the mold before removing the wood. I would not advise removing wood with mold on it unless it is within a containment.

I had always understood your points about liability concerns. I am saying that one has to distinguish between a situation where there is a small spot of mold in an attic and a situation that represents occupant exposure and health risk. This distinction isn't being made within the real estate marketplace. The professionals (inspectors, realtors and closing attorneys) are paranoid (sometimes justifiably) and advise excessive remedies at great expense to the seller to cover their own butts. It is mainly liability driven and oftentimes isn't rational, health-based or scientific at all. Wouldn't you agree?

Steve Temes

[Guest guest]

It is mainly liability driven and oftentimes isn't rational, health-based or scientific at all. Wouldn't you agree?Steve Temes

I wholehearted agree with this statement. Check out the US Chamber of Commerce website telecast from July 17, 2003 regarding mold. The "commissioned work" that they are talking about is the one GlobalTox was paid $40K for to simply change eight words from the ACOEM Evidence Based Re: mold. But that is a whole 'nother story!

As a real estate agent and someone who has been through the nightmare of a botched remediation, is see both sides of the matter. This is what is so frustrating about this issue. All the misinformation, fear, and different opinions on this are driving the liability concerns.

And what is the most troublesome to me, as someone whose family has actually experienced the serious health aspect of this, is all this confusion and CYB from a liability aspect is making it much more difficult to make certain, things are properly addressed when health really is an issue.

It is ridiculous that a moldy 2 x 4 in an attic should require such extensive measures to cover everyone from liability. But think about it. When these kinds of scenarios occur, they also make it more difficult for situations to be taken seriously when health risks are legitimate.

Did you see today's CBS Early Show? Apartment complex. Mold. Two year old dead. Several children hospitalized. They called it a "bizarre incident." There is nothing bizarre about this. People are getting gravely ill from this everyday all over the US.

Yet others are fighting quite hard to downplay the ill health effects from the "toxic mold issue" because the potential liability of the matter is so great and it's so confusing to address.

Wish there was one, national mold who could have the final say so on everything regarding is matter! When you take everything into account, this issue is costing us billions of dollars and devastating many lives along the way. I don't see it getting any better in the near future. Do you?