Re: Re: Particle Counting for Mold

[Guest guest]

,

You were either responding to someone else's post or are just missing my point entirely. For the record, I think the S520 is a great guidance document for remediation contractors, especially with regard to "coaching them" on how to minimize their liability exposure. I never said anything to the contrary.

My very narrow focus was on IEPs and identifying Condition 1. There is a problem with the IICRC defining (and copywriting) terms that others are supposed to use and then saying it isn't their job to work out the details. They created the terms, defined them, and now are leaving the job of interpreting the inadequate definitions to others.

I do realize that this is a difficult position for IICRC to be in. There is agreement that there needs to be a line between the contractor and IEP. The trouble is that sometimes it is a broad, fuzzy gray line that moves around with the type of project. I'm a real world guy and I get it.

IICRC has started something it can't finish with the definitions of IEP and Condition 1. Very significant consequences will stem from how these terms are defined (or not) in S520. If I don't agree with it, I will not use it or refer to it. If others do the same, the document will lose its significance and place in the practice of mold remediation. It will still be good advice for contractors, but that's about all.

You seem to speak with authority on the subject of (toxic) mold but rarely say anything that leads me to believe that you are not just an entrepreneur with a PhD which you use to generate business. You have a right to do so in this country and you certainly aren't alone. On this listserv, that PhD isn't enough to establish credibility. Please don't confuse your opinions with facts or your sales pitches with science. Any real facts and science you would like to bring, and your opinions stated as such, are very welcome.

Steve Temes

S520 is a set of guidelines for mold remediation "technicians" . Most AMRT certificate holders were doing water restoration type of work and they become AMRT certified to make some more money and branch into mold remediation work.

The S520 guidelines are well suited for their intended audience. Mold remediation is not rocket science.

By following S520 an AMRT can do a good job cleaning up the mold except for complex jobs that would need the help of a consultant. Even consumers can do a good job cleaning up mold using the EPA Mold, Moisture and Your Home guidelines.

I don't see where all these discussions are going that try to imply that a technician can't do a good job cleaning up your typical mold problem using S520.

Rosen

Re: Re: Particle Counting for Mold

,

I have had very enjoyable and thought-provoking discussions with Bob s on the subject. BTW, he cited studies about "normal fungal ecology" whereas you just said, " In Canada where there are basements and very tight buildings Normal means there is some indoor mold growth. Normal in Florida in an air conditioned house is no mold growth. But in an older non-air conditioned house Normal will be mold growth." This is merely your unsubstantiated opinion or assumption.

S520 says that an IEP must be able to identify Condition 1. "IEP" and "Condition 1" are both IICRC constructs defined very poorly for practical application. When I wrote, "How about IEP-CERTIFIED CONDITION 1? " as a term to replace "CERTIFIED MOLD FREE", it was my sense of humor dominating the deeply cynical and jaded side of my character. I wanted to point out how nebulous and vague (and funny, to me) the term IEP-Certified Condition 1 actually would be (what/who qualifies as an IEP, and what constitutes Condition 1?). It still beats the crap out of CERTIFIED MOLD FREE.

Let's take a look at Condition 1, "normal fungal ecology", starting from Condition 3:

Condition 3 -- colonization of a substrate, mold amplification

Condition 2 -- airborne or formerly airborne (settled) contaminants which had disseminated from Condition 3 locations

Condition 1 -- anything else.

Those are your 3 choices. Pick one.

This is how I intend to identify Condition 1.

Post-remediation conditions had better be cleaner than Condition 1 because after Condition 3 and Condition 2, the place ain't normal, by definition. Thereafter it contains bioaerosols and microbial stuff that people can be sensitive, or sensitized, to. You can't go backwards from Condition 3 or 2 until you've cleaned up the place. Once it has been cleaned, then it can return to Condition 1.

Comments anyone?

Steve Temes

In a message dated 12/10/2006 11:48:38 AM Eastern Standard Time, garyrosen72652@ yahoo.com writes:

Steve,

Bob s BobB@safety- epa.com has just provided us some very interesting and useful perspective on Normal. Normal depends on many factors. In Canada where there are basements and very tight buildings Normal means there is some indoor mold growth. Normal in Florida in an air conditioned house is no mold growth. But in an older non-air conditioned house Normal will be mold growth.

The S520 leaves the definition to the professionals involved in the remediation which is as it should be. Unfortunately Normal in schools throughout the country is in many cases unhealthful. I don't think that is what they mean by Normal.

Rosen

[Guest guest]

S520 is a set of guidelines for mold remediation "technicians". Most AMRT certificate holders were doing water restoration type of work and they become AMRT certified to make some more money and branch into mold remediation work.

The S520 guidelines are well suited for their intended audience. Mold remediation is not rocket science.

By following S520 an AMRT can do a good job cleaning up the mold except for complex jobs that would need the help of a consultant. Even consumers can do a good job cleaning up mold using the EPA Mold, Moisture and Your Home guidelines.

I don't see where all these discussions are going that try to imply that a technician can't do a good job cleaning up your typical mold problem using S520.

Rosen

Re: Re: Particle Counting for Mold

,I have had very enjoyable and thought-provoking discussions with Bob s on the subject. BTW, he cited studies about "normal fungal ecology" whereas you just said, "In Canada where there are basements and very tight buildings Normal means there is some indoor mold growth. Normal in Florida in an air conditioned house is no mold growth. But in an older non-air conditioned house Normal will be mold growth." This is merely your unsubstantiated opinion or assumption.S520 says that an IEP must be able to identify Condition 1. "IEP" and "Condition 1" are both IICRC constructs defined very poorly for practical application. When I

wrote, "How about IEP-CERTIFIED CONDITION 1?" as a term to replace "CERTIFIED MOLD FREE", it was my sense of humor dominating the deeply cynical and jaded side of my character. I wanted to point out how nebulous and vague (and funny, to me) the term IEP-Certified Condition 1 actually would be (what/who qualifies as an IEP, and what constitutes Condition 1?). It still beats the crap out of CERTIFIED MOLD FREE.Let's take a look at Condition 1, "normal fungal ecology", starting from Condition 3:Condition 3 -- colonization of a substrate, mold amplificationCondition 2 -- airborne or formerly airborne (settled) contaminants which had disseminated from Condition 3 locationsCondition 1 --

anything else.Those are your 3 choices. Pick one.This is how I intend to identify Condition 1.Post-remediation conditions had better be cleaner than Condition 1 because after Condition 3 and Condition 2, the place ain't normal, by definition. Thereafter it contains bioaerosols and microbial stuff that people can be sensitive, or sensitized, to. You can't go backwards from Condition 3 or 2 until you've cleaned up the place. Once it has been cleaned, then it can return to Condition 1.Comments anyone?Steve TemesIn a message dated 12/10/2006 11:48:38 AM Eastern Standard Time, garyrosen72652@ yahoo.com writes:

Steve, Bob s BobB@safety- epa.com has just provided us some very interesting and useful perspective on Normal. Normal depends on many factors. In Canada where there are basements and very tight buildings Normal means there is some indoor mold growth. Normal in Florida in an air conditioned house is no mold growth. But in an older non-air conditioned house Normal will be mold growth. The S520 leaves the definition to the professionals involved in the remediation which is as it should be. Unfortunately Normal in schools throughout the country is in many cases unhealthful. I don't think that is what they mean by Normal. Rosen

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Mark,

Got it.

There was a recent post about painting a remediated area with encapsulant. I have extensive experience as an IEP providing clearance certifications for a certain contractor that bleaches structural wood until it is clean, photographs it; then paints it white with or DP encapsulant and then photographs it. When extensive remediation work is done, this approaches does use photography to show an area is clean .... and it dramatically reduces the cost to do clearance testing. You don't do any lift tapes. You know the job is done right. You basically just spot check the job.

When you replace water damaged drywall with new, I always take pictures of the clean looking wall before I hang the drywall. If the job is small I never provide a report but if big I always send the client a PDF of pictures summarizing the work. They like it and it is useful for getting referral work.

Rosen

RE: Re: Particle Counting for Mold

,

Thanks.

I didn¢t say that I didn¢t photograph the job. I take photos throughout the entire process. What I generally don¢t do is provide photos as proof that the place was clean, as was suggested in the original post. Maybe I wasn¢t very clear about that.

I do sometimes provide photos to the client. For instance, if they want a scientific report at the conclusion of the project, they would get photographs as part of that report. I choose photos that are applicable to the point that I am making. I just don¢t think I would use the photos to prove it was clean. I would use the description of the visual inspection and the analytical data to make that point.

Mark Doughty

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

,

Passing an exam does not prove you are competent.

It does prove you can pass the test you’ve challenged. Not every test can

address variable conditions a tech may come upon let alone the test would

require days (not hours) to complete if it did.

You stated: >Mold

remediation is not rocket science

Culturing of mold may not require rocket science although controlling it

(establishing and maintaining engineering controls) prior to and during remediation

is a science and the understanding of building science is quite helpful to

determine extent and type of containment required.

I believe the AMRT is an IICRC entry level

mold/sewage remediation certification surrounding the mold/sewage aspect. That

would mean the tech would not be expected to handle or understand all aspects

of the project he/she may encounter. The project may actually require a team

effort.

How much understanding do you really feel

the class will address as to how the HVAC units (Residential/Commercial/Industrial)

play into and will potentially impact your project? Not much! How much do you

think the class will educate the test challengers surrounding pressure differentials

and communication between spaces? Doesn’t this all have a part to play

surrounding microbial migration/or cross contamination from environment to environment,

cavity to cavity, and/or space to space?

Your statement arouses concern. There is

far more to remediation than passing a simple 3 hour test. Critical thinking is

a must and I feel should be considered before just handing out a passing grade.

I have run across some of these “experts” to the end they back out

of the project before their misunderstandings are more fully exposed.

I only touch on a very few,

Bob/Ma.

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of gary rosen

Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006

4:06 PM

To: iequality

Subject: Re: Re:

Particle Counting for Mold

S520 is a set of guidelines for mold remediation " technicians " .

Most AMRT certificate holders were doing water restoration type of work and

they become AMRT certified to make some more money and branch into mold

remediation work.

The S520 guidelines are well suited for their intended audience.

Mold remediation is not rocket science.

By following S520 an AMRT can do a good job cleaning up the mold except

for complex jobs that would need the help of a consultant. Even consumers

can do a good job cleaning up mold using the EPA Mold, Moisture and Your Home guidelines.

I don't see where all these discussions are going that try to imply

that a technician can't do a good job cleaning up your typical mold problem

using S520.

Rosen

Re: Re: Particle Counting for Mold

,

I have had very enjoyable and thought-provoking discussions with Bob s on

the subject. BTW, he cited studies about " normal fungal

ecology " whereas you just said, " In Canada where there are

basements and very tight buildings Normal

means there is some indoor mold growth. Normal

in Florida in

an air conditioned house is no mold growth. But in an older non-air conditioned

house Normal

will be mold growth. " This is merely your unsubstantiated

opinion or assumption.

S520 says that an IEP must be able to identify Condition 1.

" IEP " and " Condition 1 " are both IICRC constructs defined

very poorly for practical application. When I wrote, " How about IEP-CERTIFIED

CONDITION 1? " as a term to replace " CERTIFIED MOLD FREE " ,

it was my sense of humor dominating the deeply cynical and jaded side of my

character. I wanted to point out how nebulous and vague (and funny, to

me) the term IEP-Certified Condition 1 actually would be (what/who qualifies as

an IEP, and what constitutes Condition 1?). It still beats the crap out

of CERTIFIED MOLD FREE.

Let's take a look at Condition 1, " normal fungal ecology " , starting

from Condition 3:

Condition 3 -- colonization of a

substrate, mold amplification

Condition 2 -- airborne or

formerly airborne (settled) contaminants which had disseminated from Condition

3 locations

Condition 1 -- anything else.

Those are your 3 choices. Pick one.

This is how I intend to identify Condition 1.

Post-remediation conditions had better be cleaner than Condition 1 because

after Condition 3 and Condition 2, the place ain't normal, by definition.

Thereafter it contains bioaerosols and microbial stuff that people can be

sensitive, or sensitized, to. You can't go backwards from Condition 3 or

2 until you've cleaned up the place. Once it has been cleaned, then it

can return to Condition 1.

Comments anyone?

Steve Temes

In a message dated 12/10/2006 11:48:38 AM Eastern Standard Time,

garyrosen72652@ yahoo.com writes:

Steve,

Bob s BobB@safety-

epa.com has just provided us some very interesting and useful perspective

on Normal.

Normal depends

on many factors. In Canada

where there are basements and very tight buildings Normal means there is some indoor mold

growth. Normal in Florida in an air conditioned house is no

mold growth. But in an older non-air conditioned house Normal will be mold growth.

The S520 leaves the definition to the professionals involved in the remediation

which is as it should be. Unfortunately Normal in schools throughout the country is

in many cases unhealthful. I don't think that is what they mean by Normal.

Rosen

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Bob,

>>Passing an exam does not prove you are competent. It does prove you can pass the test you’ve challenged. Not every test can address variable conditions a tech may come upon let alone the test would require days (not hours) to complete if it did.

That's right. The point I was trying to make is that S520 is targeted toward exactly the tech that may have limited experience.

>>I believe the AMRT is an IICRC entry level mold/sewage remediation certification surrounding the mold/sewage aspect.

Not true. There is very little focus in the AMRT course on sewage. It is a good practical course on mold remediation. The best one I know of ... but far from perfect.

..

>>How much understanding do you really feel the class will address as to how the HVAC units (Residential/ Commercial/ Industrial) play into and will potentially impact your project? Not much! How much do you think the class will educate the test challengers surrounding pressure differentials and communication between spaces? Doesn’t this all have a part to play surrounding microbial migration/or cross contamination from environment to environment, cavity to cavity, and/or space to space?

The AMRT training is taught by different schools. There is a signficant variation in content. None provide any hands on training regarding HVAC. I think that is a big mistake as in my experience with my client base most people that get sick from mold get sick from mold contamination in the AC. And by the way ... clearance testing by air sampling will most often miss this problem unless it is massively severe.

>>Your statement arouses concern. There is far more to remediation than passing a simple 3 hour test. Critical thinking is a must and I feel should be considered before just handing out a passing grade. I have run across some of these “experts” to the end they back out of the project before their misunderstandings are more fully exposed.

No doubt. But experience along with some basic formal training can result in good work. I don't think you need to be a rocket scientist to do a good job at mold remediation work. I don't think every job requires an IEP to help guide the trained and experience mold contractor. Rosen

Re: Re: Particle Counting for Mold

,I have had very enjoyable and thought-provoking discussions with Bob s on the subject. BTW, he cited studies about "normal fungal ecology" whereas you just said, "In Canada where there are basements and very tight buildings Normal means there is some indoor mold growth. Normal in Florida in an air conditioned house is no mold growth. But in an older non-air conditioned house Normal will be mold growth." This is merely your unsubstantiated opinion or assumption.S520 says that an IEP must be able to identify Condition 1. "IEP"

and "Condition 1" are both IICRC constructs defined very poorly for practical application. When I wrote, "How about IEP-CERTIFIED CONDITION 1?" as a term to replace "CERTIFIED MOLD FREE", it was my sense of humor dominating the deeply cynical and jaded side of my character. I wanted to point out how nebulous and vague (and funny, to me) the term IEP-Certified Condition 1 actually would be (what/who qualifies as an IEP, and what constitutes Condition 1?). It still beats the crap out of CERTIFIED MOLD FREE.Let's take a look at Condition 1, "normal fungal ecology", starting from Condition 3:Condition 3 -- colonization of a substrate, mold

amplificationCondition 2 -- airborne or formerly airborne (settled) contaminants which had disseminated from Condition 3 locationsCondition 1 -- anything else.Those are your 3 choices. Pick one.This is how I intend to identify Condition 1.Post-remediation conditions had better be cleaner than Condition 1 because after Condition 3 and Condition 2, the place ain't normal, by definition. Thereafter it contains bioaerosols and microbial stuff that people can be sensitive, or sensitized, to. You can't go backwards from Condition 3 or 2 until you've cleaned up the place. Once it has been cleaned, then it can return to Condition 1.Comments anyone?Steve TemesIn a message dated 12/10/2006 11:48:38 AM Eastern Standard Time, garyrosen72652@ yahoo.com writes:

Steve, Bob s BobB@safety- epa.com has just provided us some very interesting and useful perspective on Normal . Normal depends on many factors. In Canada where there are basements and very tight buildings Normal means there is some indoor mold growth. Normal in Florida in an air conditioned house is no mold growth. But in an older non-air conditioned house Normal will be mold growth. The S520 leaves the definition to the professionals involved in the remediation which is as it should be. Unfortunately Normal in schools throughout the country is in many cases unhealthful. I don't think that is what they mean by Normal . Rosen

____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ __

[Guest guest]

Reply;

I think this should be a new issue and titled

for future review.

If an area or areas determined to be condition

“3”, one must assume spores and also potentially any body fragments

have disseminated from “3” into remaining area(s) due to pathways,

etc. Therefore remaining (not “3”) areas would potentially be “2”

unless sampled to prove otherwise. If area(s) have been sampled and results

determine no differences between inside and outside as well no water indicators

are present in remaining area(s) area(s) shall be condition “1”.

Sampling to determine comparables must be speciated

as genus will not always reflect enough information to conclude there are no

unusual differences exist between the samples. Also, As long as I have watched

the list I also feel that samples (though similar species) should be less

inside than out due to the fact IT DOES NOT NORMALLY RAIN INSIDE. Now saying

that; pen doors and windows can and will impact the two samples. Again; the

samples should be similar in numbers and species.

I also understand that due to leakage the outside

contaminants will migrate inside. The migration process will be impeded as the

air migrates inward and will slow down thus allowing the aerosolized particulate

to settle out potentially (more so than not) allowing levels inside to be lower.

The area(s) of accumulation may be greater and that is where I have an issue

with the dust sampling regiment(s) for RMI. Over long periods of time due to accumulation

is that truly representative of the indoors or simply an accumulative sample of

infiltration (or accumulative outside conditions) over time?

To keep it simple there are more variables

but I had enough for now.

Bob/Ma.

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Mark Doughty

Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006

12:24 PM

To: iequality

Subject: RE: Re:

Particle Counting for Mold

You can't go backwards from Condition 3 or 2 until you've

cleaned up the place. Once it has been cleaned, then it can return to

Condition 1.

Comments anyone?

Steve Temes

That’s my understanding.

You either test or assume condition 2.

Mark Doughty