Guest guest Posted January 24, 2007 Report Share Posted January 24, 2007 Mark, I will try to explain this in another way ... I do much work for attorneys because we do all aspects of the job and give a warranty. Attorneys at least in FLA want to know who to go after if something goes wrong. They "prefer" a single source. In this state, attorneys do not want to deal with multiple companies just because an IEP says there is a conflict of interest if one guy does all the work. As an example, we just got a job from an attorney that will start Monday. He called 7 other parties to quote on his job before calling us. None would give him any warranty because they quoted with a "team" approach and since there was another party or parties involved ... they would not take responsbility for the other's work. We told him we are completely responsible and got the job. We quoted list price with no discounts. Rosen Re: When do you follow a IEP's Protocol? :Much of what you point-out is very well said. Especially.. .”We never blindly follow an IEP's protocol. It is usually way off the mark.” How true! And it is good that you don’t blindly follow the IEP’s protocol. More often than not, the IEP has no practical construction training or experience, has no clue how to write a construction/ demolition spec, and are themselves blindly following the arcane practice of 48inx48in removal on either side of a mold colony. Most IEPs are hated by the construction industry. Why? Because they have no clue what construction is. Thanks for your comments... Looking for earth-friendly autos? Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center . Be a PS3 game guru.Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games. Don't pick lemons.See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos. 8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no timewith theYahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut. Have a burning question? Go to Yahoo! Answers and get answers from real people who know. Any questions? Get answers on any topic at Yahoo! Answers. Try it now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2007 Report Share Posted January 24, 2007 Re your comment on getting to see another perspective: back when I had just joined CMHC, it was the practice of several Canadian federal government departments and agencies to do a senior technical or middle management trade of personnel, where the industry and government organizations did interacting business. The terms were from 6 months to a year. Each organization paid their own personnel at normal rates. When these people got back to their respective companies/department they were highly-treasured (often both ways). This is a type of "walking a mile in their shoes" that should still be done, but no longer is done much in Canada. What a loss! Jim H. White Re: When do you follow a IEP's Protocol?Ron:I figured some folks would take exception to what I wrote, and you were the first to take the bait!Let me reiterate... ..many IEPs, and probably most of them, have no practical construction training or experience. Some do and they are the gems and some of those gems are on this list, but many IEPs don’t! Mold remediation is often construction- demolition, and few IEPs know how to write a construction spec. Moreover, unless the IEP is a licensed engineer, their spec had better not involve any structural components; otherwise they are guilty of professional negligence. Are you aware that sheetrock, in many structures built prior to 1980, is a structural component of the wall assembly and it requires an engineer’s evaluation and proper sequencing prior to removal? I know of two structures that have collapsed because a remediation contractor (blindly) followed an IEPs spec and remove too much sheetrock at one time. What about the IEP that specifies that dimensional timber needs to be scrubbed free of mold, and if not possible, the member must be removed! I’ve seen this in IEPs specs, and I have seen the remediation contractor blindly follow the spec, and then the shit hits the fan because a structural member is removed without proper shoring and there is structural damage. What about the IEP that specifies drywall and wet insulation be removed from an exterior wall cavity and all other materials that have mold on them, and the remediation contractor removes the vapor barrier from the INSIDE!. The IEP and contractor have just created a HUGE construction defect, and I hear this being done over and over and over. It is just plain negligence!! ! And, more often than not, when the defect/damage is pointed out to the IEP, I hear the IEP say, and I quote, “The remediator is a contractor, and he should have known what to do.” My response is always....Yes, and so should you! Yes....I agree with you, continue to keep your insurance premiums paid up, because many piss-poor IEPs are roaming the streets masquerading as mold remediation professionals, and mandating that the remediation contractor follow their piss-poor construction specs. The good contractors, as pointed out, will do what is right, and not blindly begin demolishing a structure based on poor guidance.For what it is worth.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2007 Report Share Posted January 24, 2007 Bob, I agree. I started another rather lengthy post, getting into details such as why I do what I do the way I do it, the reasoning and experience behind it, etc., and then I stopped and decided to send what I sent instead. It seems that the more I try to educate this guy, the more it turns into a bottomless debate. He's not interested in learning or sharing. He's only interested in being RIGHT. So I decided that I'm not going to waste my time in the endeavor of attempting to educate the ineducable. Chuck Chuck, There are those who when challenged learn and there are those when challenged try to cause you to misunderstand as they do; oh well. As the saying goes let the strong survive and the weak will know their fate (in the end). What gets me is the soup after their name and the practices they employ and when you try to redirect them towards truth they simple don't listen. I hold some of the soup as they do, and I now begun to wonder how they got through. I am sure due to the various disciplines within the accreditations one most likely is not proficient in all (gives me hope). Stick to your strengths, know your weaknesses and call upon those who know what you don't. I am learning who is who and what their strengths are so I can call upon them in the future (when I need them). In the mean time I honor their time as to give the rest of us an education (in our weaknesses) that cost them a lot of money. I have notice some came through education, others through experience (each valuable) and few have both. But the baffling with bull must stop. This is not about acting (or is it Hollywood) but like Wane said, in his earlier post " Please do your homework, and if you need some help, ask the folks on this list. We're pretty good about helping up front, but rather merciless in the face of unsupported, inaccurate claims. " Bob/Ma. _____ From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Chuck Reaney Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 2:04 PM To: iequality Subject: Re: When do you follow a IEP's Protocol? , I don't have the time, energy or inclination to invest any further in discussions with you on this topic. You win. You've worn me out. You are the man, the penultimate expert and we should all do everything exactly the way you do. Contractors who subscribe to your views, misconstrued facts, pretzel logic and the copious use of bleach are all that is necessary in this world for any purpose, including microbial remediation, brain surgery and curing cancer. Consultants (IEPs, CIHs, etc. etc. and any other designation) are nothing but incompetent, dishonest, moronic scroundrels, except of course for Ph.D.s. I give up. Chuck Reaney Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2007 Report Share Posted January 24, 2007 Steve, Good points. Many years ago, when the City of Philadelphia was proposing their own asbestos regs, (which eventually passed), I wrote the Dept. of Health a lengthy letter making many of the same points. What pretty much happened is that the small jobs went underground, and the bigger ones, including commercial properties ended up costing a lot more. Within a year or so after the regs went into effect, I stopped performing asbestos work in the City. I just didn't want to be a part of the situation, nor was I going to pay their annual ransom to be separately licensed in the city and have to pay for and sit through another annual class where I was endlessly reminded that 'asbestos is still a fiber, and can still cause cancer'. While there are many competent individuals and firms to perform that work there, I made a choice to no longer offer my services within the City. I've had the same concerns about bureaucratic involvement in the IAQ industry for quite some time now. Not only can it needlessly drive up the prices, it also has the effect of putting up geographical fences because not every professional will find it practical to become licensed in every area (state) where they have previously been able to provide services. This often results in reducing the pool of available professionals in a state, thereby reducing the competition and ultimately costing the consumer more money. This may not be as much of a consideration in places in the west where the population density is lower and the states much larger, but in the area in the east where you and I practice, it is much more restrictive and potentially problematic. I just wanted to use this opportunity to reinforce my stance that we need to have our house in order as a professional industry, lest the government will do it for us. Thanks for your points. Chuck Reaney Dana, Now that you are back in your seat after your ROFL experience, I have some serious questions for you. What percentage of homeowner-paid-for mold remediation projects do you think are done by licensed professionals according to the regulations? My sense from working with homeowners for many years is that most would consider the cost to be way too high to do it legal-like, IF they had the money. I would guess that more than half of the homeowner jobs are done by folks who have " gone underground " . When the right way or the legal way is cost prohibitive, it will almost always be done some other way. If I were the homeowner who had just received a $5-10K proposal from a licensed assessor or remediator to perform a basic remediation in full compliance with Texas law, I would probably say " Thank you, let me think about it " to him and say " Screw that! " to myself. I might go to the local building supply house for new materials, tape and plastic sheeting and the corner " muster point " to pick up a couple of day laborers. What percentage of proposals issued by Texas mold consulting and remediation firms do you think are accepted by homeowners? Have the regulations actually improved the quality of the mold remediation work being done or just driven the work underground? Have the regulations actually benefitted public health as intended by the legislature or resulted in more mold remediation being performed by unqualifed professionals and homeowners. Maybe " the joke " is on the firms who can't sell their services because of inflated costs due to the regs and on the legislature who has created a legal environment that forces untrained and unqualified homeowners to botch the jobs themselves. Before you talk about the good things the regs have done, let's do a real world review of what the consequences of adopting the Texas mold regs have actually been from an economic and public health perspective. Maybe it's not so funny. Seriously, Steve Temes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2007 Report Share Posted January 24, 2007 Well Steve, The Texas Mold Regulations are NOT about Health Effects, COncern over the Mold Remediation and Consulting Industry. The Reason for the Texas Mold Regulations wwer two-fold. 1.) To stop or to address Fraud and Misrepresentation in the industry and to stop the " Wild West " Mold Rush. No. 2.) was to allow the Insurance Companies to raise their rates and change their pricing matrix, but allow homeowners and building owners who chooses to remediate mold in their homes and buildings to reduce their premimums by wiping the claims for that incurred water damage and mold damage from the DLU database. The TMARR is NOT about health effects or indoor quality or anything higher than that. It is clearly for the purpose of addressing an insurance/policy holder problem. Additionally Texas has no State Income Tax, so it is a " fee for services " state. So they have to charge a pretty hefty licensing " fee " (tax) to support the program. I will answer your questions the best I can. Remember though I had NOTHING to do with the developement or implementation of the TMARR. Hell, I was still in Kansas when this thing was passes in 2003. Our company was one of the first in Texas to start training and by just a rough estimate we have trained probably 5/8's of the professionals and contractors in the State of Texas whom became licensed in the state to do business. I have been VERY fortunate to have met a boatload of very good professionals and have learned as much teaching the class and I have setting around the Bar-B-Que table at Danny Dee's with those clients that have taken the calss. MOST have come back for the Refresher cycles as it is time in 2007 for the 2 year refreshers. So on with the questions: " What percentage of homeowner-paid-for mold remediation projects do you think are done by licensed professionals according to the regulations? " Well that is like a question for asbestos compliance such as " How many of the demolitions are notified in the State of Texas, being such as the NESHAP and Texas TAHPA requires ALL demo's to be notified? My response is those homeowners that have an insurance claim, AND those that are selling the house wil previous water damage. The seller must give the buyer a copy of the STATE REQUIRED Certificate of Mold Remediation for all projects that were done on that property within the last 5 years. As for how many are done not under the table, hard to say, becasue there is an exmption for the homebuilders (that I HATE!!!) doing repairs to their homes under warranty with their subcontractors. BUt there is STILL a large enough market to have a LOT of professionals take a refresher and pay their $1000.00 for 2 years licesning fee and all the other stuff. " My sense from working with homeowners for many years is that most would consider the cost to be way too high to do it legal-like, IF they had the money. " I cannot answer to what your " sense " is or not or if it is correct or not, or even if I knew the answer at all as there is a HELLUVA lot of TEXAS, and I cannot answer for the DFW area alone, let alone Houston, E. Texas, W. Texas, Austin and San Antinio. Who the heck knows. We are only 2 years into this thing. Trends need time to develope. " What percentage of proposals issued by Texas mold consulting and remediation firms do you think are accepted by homeowners? " No idea, again, Texas is really BIG and there are LOTS of people and space. Percentage of homeowners(?), hell I do not have a number of homeowners whom call requesting services, and the consultants and contractors do not call me every time a homeowner calls them. If they DID do that, all I would do is answer and talk on the phone. Size of the market DEMANDED that Texas had to do something to protect homeowners. " Have the regulations actually improved the quality of the mold remediation work being done or just driven the work underground? " Hard to tell as well. The biggest problem is the " house flippers " who watch too much of HGTV.The Quality of the mold work HAS increased, although the number of mold jobs compared to pre licensing is down significantly as the consultants are telling me, however, there is apparently enough for many to get re licensed. " Have the regulations actually benefitted public health as intended by the legislature or resulted in more mold remediation being performed by unqualifed professionals and homeowners. " The intent of the legislation was NOT health effects. IT was fraud and insurance rate setting and the rate matrix and the CLU database. " Before you talk about the good things the regs have done, let's do a real world review of what the consequences of adopting the Texas mold regs have actually been from an economic and public health perspective. Maybe it's not so funny. Seriously, Steve Temes " You cannot stay away from the personal attacks, OK, Well I am guilty of getting hip deep in it as well as I have on occasion about asbestos issues with Bob s and Tony Havics, which I have regretted some of my comments. HOWEVER, You are not the only one that lives in the " real world " . ANd you are " NEW JERSEY " , giving Texas hell? (kinda like the Salsa commercial). It is clear you do not know anything about the Texas regs nor the reason for them coming into being. BTW, Gov. Bush was the one that gave the kick in the butt to get this thing going. Ironic isn't it. From the Public health perspective things are better. The Texas DSHS is getting after it, and the very first thing they ask for in a mold remediation is an asbestos inspection (for public buildings) as it is requires. It is also required in a private residence for OSHA Asbestos Construction Standard as it is a " worksite " . I think you have preconceived notions and a COMPLETE lack of understanding of the TMARR, SO, read the regs, then we can discuss WHAT they are and not WHAT YOU THINK they are. Kind of an abrasive and challenging post there Steve, loaded with buck shot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2007 Report Share Posted January 24, 2007 To no one in particular.... This tread, and the comments from all, reminds me of sitting on the side-lines listening to comments/arguments between men and women, engineers and contractors, IEPs and contractors, Mars and Venice. It is quite humorous. It is also apparent from comments from some of the IEPs who are not LICENSED, and not BONDED, as are contractors, that they do not have a clue with respect to what a contractor is burdened with, or why contractors like to get paid quickly, or why contractors get frustrated with weak protocols full of errors and omissions, lousy drawings, and incomplete specs. Contractors have a burden that is much more profound than any IEP has, and it is called the statute of limitations for latent construction defects; 10-yrs in California. Until the IEPs of the world spend some quality time fulfilling the role of a contractor, they will NEVER understand the contractor; and one group will speak from Mars and the other from Venice, and there will not be a consensus, and it will be ugly. For all you on this list that are primarily IEPs....give a break. His comments provide a lot of practicality. Like him or not, he is providing a perspective that you can glean golden nuggets of wisdom from. OK...so he has said some bone-head things like “I don't see the big deal for a remediator to remove vapor barriers to better do their mold remediation work on the wood behind it.” IEPs don’t seem to know the virtues of vapor barriers either! Some IEPs don’t know what they are, where they are or where they should be, or the difference between a vapor barrier and a vapor retarder....but it IS important if you are modifying or altering a wall assembly and want to keep the water out! IMHO, IEPs have forced themselves upon the construction remediation industry with insufficient homework, and an insufficient understanding of building science and construction materials, means and methods. We can thank the AIHA for that. Case in point, I recently posted a very baited question about mold growth between structural members of dimensional timber, and an IEP in this group said “Remove or replace (the double top plate) if blasting is not effective.” Now, I really wonder if he knew what he said and if he practices what he preaches. Blasting has no effect....unless he meant explosives. I assume he does not know what he speaks about because the double top plate in a stick-framed wall assembly is not an easy element to remove without totally demolishing the entire wall. He has no clue! In many instances IEPs provide little merit, they often provide insufficient and/or confusing guidance, and they cost money that could be better spent on the restoration effort. (Oh!..I can feel the tempers getting warm.) It is the conscientious contractor who is going to restore the structure back to a pre-loss condition with much more finesse and diligence than most IEPs can or will. Granted, there are some damn good IEPs practicing today, and they do a good job and provide a good service. But like the unethical contractors that seem to be in abundance, there are many more unqualified IEPs, or persons who call themselves IEPs. The IEP, assuming they are worth their salt (which is a big assumption) provides merit when factors are complicated and/or when the contractor is less than conscientious or ethical. seems to be very ethical. So is Pat Moffit. says most IEPs he encounters are incompetent; I will agree. Most IEPs on this post feel that most contractors are unethical cheats; and I agree that some are. Are IEPs really necessary when Suzie Q’s dishwasher busts a gut and floods the kitchen? Maybe yes....and maybe no. Moreover, since when does mold clean-up REQUIRE an IEP? Some states (e.g., Texas) seem to feel it does, and I find this humorous and frustrating at the same time because I have yet to demolish a structure that didn’t have some evidence of mold growth and amplification somewhere within the structure, and I feel that all structures have mold. According to Sharon: “If in doubt, rip it out.” I ask...and who is gonna pay for it? I foresee every roofing tear-off in Texas now being a mold abatement effort, because most roof systems in Texas have a lot of mold on the surface, way more than 100-sq-ft (except in El Paso). What is the overall effect?.....It becomes much more costly to and Suzie Q Public to maintain their home, and restore their roof (to keep out the water), because now they have to hire a mold-IEP and a mold remediation contractor, in addition to their roofer; which is going to cost them plenty more money. Will and Suzie pay for and hire the best IEP available to them...Hell no!, they are going on the cheap. Which brings us back to ’s comments of doing work on the cheap. Tis the nature of construction and contracting, i.e., too many Owners have champagne tastes but a beer budget. But this is life as we know it. Contractors cannot perform miracles, and the IEP community needs to understand this. One IEP on this post recently said in relation to IICRCs recommendations based on source removal “No where do you see the IICRC say or stating it depends on the cost.” EXCUSE ME! Everything depends upon cost, and to state differently is to be blind to the practical aspects of life! It is also why I feel IICRC’s S520 lacks some practicality. Because of this discord between the environmentalists and the contractors, and the cost associated with it, the insurance industry is now excluding all water losses from our insurance policies; coverage that we used to have and rely on. All because of the mold panic that exists today. Again, thank you AIHA. It is a vicious cycle, and the perpetuation of which is going to harm all of us if we don’t restore the practicality and common sense. Why can’t people remove their mold without and IEP? Will it boil down to calling an IEP when the bread gets moldy?, the orange in the fruit bowl has a spot of penicillin?, when a mold colony of Stachy develops around a drip from an angle valve under the kitchen sink? I hear analogies of justification using sewage events, or radon, or asbestos. I am one to disagree....mold is different. Yes...IEPs and contractors speak in different tongues and have different agendas. Until we cohesively begin to work together, to understand and to compliment each other’s practice AND to lower the cost of mold remediation, we are all going to be at each other’s throats and continue the finger pointing of who is to blame for the mess we are now in. OK...I said my piece. Time to go to bed. It been grand, thanks. , My point exactly…. Look at what you stated: That's why on page 31 of S520 it says (paragraph 6) " Deciding if and when an IEP is required on any mold remediation project is subject to the sound professional judgment of the remediator ... Myself being the IEP when the walls are open and prior to any alterations being attempted, I want to personally inspect the opened cavity(ies). How often have you heard of a remediation contractor just wanting to get paid? Therefore has the Remediator have any bias? Absolutely, being paid quickly. Some have informed the owner the mold is all cleaned up. I have one right now where the Remediator did not even follow protocol never mind the specifications drawn up by the former IEP (who appears to be in too tight a relationship with the Remediator). Should we say no independent IEP is required here? It could have been a simple remediation job, but due to no one watching (except the owner and their camera) who would have known? The Remediator never installed the negative air, adequate containments, nor did he monitor the engineering controls to determine the overall effectiveness. Are these conditions rare; I doubt it due to the low bids going on out there. The company will make money some way or another and you can be sure something will be eliminated. The “sound judgment” of the Remediator is what needs to be confirmed. Bob/Ma. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2007 Report Share Posted January 24, 2007 , Seems to me as though you have an obsession with testing...like it's the answer to everything. Or am I just having a vuja-de (reverse deja- vu)? Chuck Reaney To: iequality Date sent: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 14:29:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: When do you follow a IEP's Protocol? Send reply to: iequality Mark, At our remediation company, we take pre-remediation baseline testing for all jobs no matter how small and then post-remediation testing and send to an independent lab. Does the client need to hire an IEP to turn on a sampling pump? We can do this ourselves without an IEP's help. Rosen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2007 Report Share Posted January 25, 2007 Dana, Thanks for the response. My questions did not have to do with why the regulations were created or what the administrative code specifies. I followed each of the proposed iterations of the draft regs with disbelief and even commented directly to Quade Stahl about my concerns for the consequences of the regulations. I understand that you are mostly a "regulatory guy". After all, the law is the law. My post was intended to be sobering, not a personal attack. If the consequences of the Texas regs are that most people do not comply them because services are cost-prohibitive, let's not be promoting the same thing elsewhere (especially in New Jersey). I find your comment that the regs proposed by the TDH were "NOT about health effects or indoor air quality" a bit disturbing. I would hope that this would be the primary reason for having them. This is probably not something that the residents of your state would want to learn and it would only encourage less compliance if they knew this. Texas wound up being "ground zero" for the mold and insurance industry crisis. Now that carriers all over the country have all got their mold exclusions and policy limits in place, the same reasons wouldn't apply in other states at this point in time. The insurance crisis is over. Mold regulations should be about ensuring quality assessment and remediation work for the purpose of improving public health. They should not be for the purpose of protecting corporate interests in the insurance or real estate marketplace, in my opinion. I think it only makes sense to study how the regulations have improved things for the residents of Texas, or not. Have they helped or hindered the real estate property transfers? Have they benefitted public health or driven homeowners and others to skirt the regulations and resulted in more mold remediation being done by unqualified people? Before the bureaucratic inanity spreads further, lets find out what has worked and what hasn't with regard to government intervention in a professional field. I'd hate to think that the reason you want others to consider the Texas regs as a model is because misery loves company. Steve Temes Well Steve, The Texas Mold Regulations are NOT about Health Effects, COncern over the Mold Remediation and Consulting Industry. The Reason for the Texas Mold Regulations wwer two-fold. 1.) To stop or to address Fraud and Misrepresentation in the industry and to stop the "Wild West" Mold Rush. No. 2.) was to allow the Insurance Companies to raise their rates and change their pricing matrix, but allow homeowners and building owners who chooses to remediate mold in their homes and buildings to reduce their premimums by wiping the claims for that incurred water damage and mold damage from the DLU database. The TMARR is NOT about health effects or indoor quality or anything higher than that. It is clearly for the purpose of addressing an insurance/policy holder problem. Additionally Texas has no State Income Tax, so it is a "fee for services" state. So they have to charge a pretty hefty licensing "fee" (tax) to support the program. I will answer your questions the best I can. Remember though I had NOTHING to do with the developement or implementation of the TMARR. Hell, I was still in Kansas when this thing was passes in 2003. Our company was one of the first in Texas to start training and by just a rough estimate we have trained probably 5/8's of the professionals and contractors in the State of Texas whom became licensed in the state to do business. I have been VERY fortunate to have met a boatload of very good professionals and have learned as much teaching the class and I have setting around the Bar-B-Que table at Danny Dee's with those clients that have taken the calss. MOST have come back for the Refresher cycles as it is time in 2007 for the 2 year refreshers. So on with the questions: "What percentage of homeowner-paid-for mold remediation projects do you think are done by licensed professionals according to the regulations?" Well that is like a question for asbestos compliance such as "How many of the demolitions are notified in the State of Texas, being such as the NESHAP and Texas TAHPA requires ALL demo's to be notified? My response is those homeowners that have an insurance claim, AND those that are selling the house wil previous water damage. The seller must give the buyer a copy of the STATE REQUIRED Certificate of Mold Remediation for all projects that were done on that property within the last 5 years. As for how many are done not under the table, hard to say, becasue there is an exmption for the homebuilders (that I HATE!!!) doing repairs to their homes under warranty with their subcontractors. BUt there is STILL a large enough market to have a LOT of professionals take a refresher and pay their $1000.00 for 2 years licesning fee and all the other stuff. "My sense from working with homeowners for many years is that most would consider the cost to be way too high to do it legal-like, IF they had the money."I cannot answer to what your "sense" is or not or if it is correct or not, or even if I knew the answer at all as there is a HELLUVA lot of TEXAS, and I cannot answer for the DFW area alone, let alone Houston, E. Texas, W. Texas, Austin and San Antinio. Who the heck knows. We are only 2 years into this thing. Trends need time to develope. "What percentage of proposals issued by Texas mold consulting and remediation firms do you think are accepted by homeowners?" No idea, again, Texas is really BIG and there are LOTS of people and space. Percentage of homeowners(?), hell I do not have a number of homeowners whom call requesting services, and the consultants and contractors do not call me every time a homeowner calls them. If they DID do that, all I would do is answer and talk on the phone. Size of the market DEMANDED that Texas had to do something to protect homeowners. "Have the regulations actually improved the quality of the mold remediation work being done or just driven the work underground?" Hard to tell as well. The biggest problem is the "house flippers" who watch too much of HGTV.The Quality of the mold work HAS increased, although the number of mold jobs compared to pre licensing is down significantly as the consultants are telling me, however, there is apparently enough for many to get re licensed. "Have the regulations actually benefitted public health as intended by the legislature or resulted in more mold remediation being performed by unqualifed professionals and homeowners." The intent of the legislation was NOT health effects. IT was fraud and insurance rate setting and the rate matrix and the CLU database. "Before you talk about the good things the regs have done, let's do a real world review of what the consequences of adopting the Texas mold regs have actually been from an economic and public health perspective. Maybe it's not so funny. Seriously, Steve Temes" You cannot stay away from the personal attacks, OK, Well I am guilty of getting hip deep in it as well as I have on occasion about asbestos issues with Bob s and Tony Havics, which I have regretted some of my comments. HOWEVER, You are not the only one that lives in the "real world". ANd you are "NEW JERSEY", giving Texas hell? (kinda like the Salsa commercial). It is clear you do not know anything about the Texas regs nor the reason for them coming into being. BTW, Gov. Bush was the one that gave the kick in the butt to get this thing going. Ironic isn't it. From the Public health perspective things are better. The Texas DSHS is getting after it, and the very first thing they ask for in a mold remediation is an asbestos inspection (for public buildings) as it is requires. It is also required in a private residence for OSHA Asbestos Construction Standard as it is a "worksite". I think you have preconceived notions and a COMPLETE lack of understanding of the TMARR, SO, read the regs, then we can discuss WHAT they are and not WHAT YOU THINK they are. Kind of an abrasive and challenging post there Steve, loaded with buck shot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2007 Report Share Posted January 25, 2007 Dana: The first paragraph of your post was VERY well stated, i.e., Texas’ mold regs are not about reducing the health effects due to mold exposure on their citizens, and have a lot to do with saving the insurance industry’s bacon. If everyone will recall, the Ballard case was in Texas, because of the Ballard case (and a few others) the insurance industry stopped selling homeowners insurance policies in that state for three months; which brought the real estate industry to its knees, and the Texas DOI had to do something very quickly to save face. And low and behold, the Texas mold regs were slammed through the State’s legislature. Well Steve, The Texas Mold Regulations are NOT about Health Effects, COncern over the Mold Remediation and Consulting Industry. The Reason for the Texas Mold Regulations wwer two-fold. 1.) To stop or to address Fraud and Misrepresentation in the industry and to stop the " Wild West " Mold Rush. No. 2.) was to allow the Insurance Companies to raise their rates and change their pricing matrix, but allow homeowners and building owners who chooses to remediate mold in their homes and buildings to reduce their premimums by wiping the claims for that incurred water damage and mold damage from the DLU database. The TMARR is NOT about health effects or indoor quality or anything higher than that. It is clearly for the purpose of addressing an insurance/policy holder problem. Additionally Texas has no State Income Tax, so it is a " fee for services " state. So they have to charge a pretty hefty licensing " fee " (tax) to support the program. I will answer your questions the best I can. Remember though I had NOTHING to do with the developement or implementation of the TMARR. Hell, I was still in Kansas when this thing was passes in 2003. Our company was one of the first in Texas to start training and by just a rough estimate we have trained probably 5/8's of the professionals and contractors in the State of Texas whom became licensed in the state to do business. I have been VERY fortunate to have met a boatload of very good professionals and have learned as much teaching the class and I have setting around the Bar-B-Que table at Danny Dee's with those clients that have taken the calss. MOST have come back for the Refresher cycles as it is time in 2007 for the 2 year refreshers. So on with the questions: " What percentage of homeowner-paid-for mold remediation projects do you think are done by licensed professionals according to the regulations? " Well that is like a question for asbestos compliance such as " How many of the demolitions are notified in the State of Texas, being such as the NESHAP and Texas TAHPA requires ALL demo's to be notified? My response is those homeowners that have an insurance claim, AND those that are selling the house wil previous water damage. The seller must give the buyer a copy of the STATE REQUIRED Certificate of Mold Remediation for all projects that were done on that property within the last 5 years. As for how many are done not under the table, hard to say, becasue there is an exmption for the homebuilders (that I HATE!!!) doing repairs to their homes under warranty with their subcontractors. BUt there is STILL a large enough market to have a LOT of professionals take a refresher and pay their $1000.00 for 2 years licesning fee and all the other stuff. " My sense from working with homeowners for many years is that most would consider the cost to be way too high to do it legal-like, IF they had the money. " I cannot answer to what your " sense " is or not or if it is correct or not, or even if I knew the answer at all as there is a HELLUVA lot of TEXAS, and I cannot answer for the DFW area alone, let alone Houston, E. Texas, W. Texas, Austin and San Antinio. Who the heck knows. We are only 2 years into this thing. Trends need time to develope. " What percentage of proposals issued by Texas mold consulting and remediation firms do you think are accepted by homeowners? " No idea, again, Texas is really BIG and there are LOTS of people and space. Percentage of homeowners(?), hell I do not have a number of homeowners whom call requesting services, and the consultants and contractors do not call me every time a homeowner calls them. If they DID do that, all I would do is answer and talk on the phone. Size of the market DEMANDED that Texas had to do something to protect homeowners. " Have the regulations actually improved the quality of the mold remediation work being done or just driven the work underground? " Hard to tell as well. The biggest problem is the " house flippers " who watch too much of HGTV.The Quality of the mold work HAS increased, although the number of mold jobs compared to pre licensing is down significantly as the consultants are telling me, however, there is apparently enough for many to get re licensed. " Have the regulations actually benefitted public health as intended by the legislature or resulted in more mold remediation being performed by unqualifed professionals and homeowners. " The intent of the legislation was NOT health effects. IT was fraud and insurance rate setting and the rate matrix and the CLU database. " Before you talk about the good things the regs have done, let's do a real world review of what the consequences of adopting the Texas mold regs have actually been from an economic and public health perspective. Maybe it's not so funny. Seriously, Steve Temes " You cannot stay away from the personal attacks, OK, Well I am guilty of getting hip deep in it as well as I have on occasion about asbestos issues with Bob s and Tony Havics, which I have regretted some of my comments. HOWEVER, You are not the only one that lives in the " real world " . ANd you are " NEW JERSEY " , giving Texas hell? (kinda like the Salsa commercial). It is clear you do not know anything about the Texas regs nor the reason for them coming into being. BTW, Gov. Bush was the one that gave the kick in the butt to get this thing going. Ironic isn't it. From the Public health perspective things are better. The Texas DSHS is getting after it, and the very first thing they ask for in a mold remediation is an asbestos inspection (for public buildings) as it is requires. It is also required in a private residence for OSHA Asbestos Construction Standard as it is a " worksite " . I think you have preconceived notions and a COMPLETE lack of understanding of the TMARR, SO, read the regs, then we can discuss WHAT they are and not WHAT YOU THINK they are. Kind of an abrasive and challenging post there Steve, loaded with buck shot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2007 Report Share Posted January 25, 2007 " I foresee every roofing tear-off in Texas now being a mold abatement effort, because most roof systems in Texas have a lot of mold on the surface, way more than 100-sq-ft (except in El Paso). " No that would NOT be the case. The TMARR is for mold that affects " Indoor Air Quality " . The roof and attic may not be part of anything that affects Indoor air. IF it is outdside it is outside. IT is also not a 100 sq. ft. in Texas, it is 25 contiguos square feet of mold affected area that must be cleaned or removed, that affects indoor air. Indoor air is defined as air in the occupied areas, and spaces like crawl spaces and attics that are " vented to the outside " are not indoor air. This leads some to believe that the interior portions of interiou walls are NOT " occupied spaces " but IMO it is not the intent nor the wording of the law here. This is EXACTLY what I am talking about, people whining about the Texas Mold Regulations and haveing NO CLUE as to what they are complaining about. Obviously you have not read the regulations, have not been instructed properly on what they say, or have not ever had a class on the regs. One thing about regs., is to get someone whom knows and understands them to explain them to you. If you are ignorant on the regulations, understand that and whip that ignorance with fact and understanding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2007 Report Share Posted January 25, 2007 , I am working with a customer and his representative to invalidate the testing and scope of work protocol of an IEP. Poor judgment based on limited science; and the IEP is attempting to direct the scope of work for which he is not qualified, are some of the issues we have been talking about in this thread. Because of the issues of this claim and their direction, the IEP may be brought into the lawsuit. Moffett From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Geyer Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 8:10 PM To: iequality Subject: Re: When do you follow a IEP's Protocol? To no one in particular.... This tread, and the comments from all, reminds me of sitting on the side-lines listening to comments/arguments between men and women, engineers and contractors, IEPs and contractors, Mars and Venice. It is quite humorous. It is also apparent from comments from some of the IEPs who are not LICENSED, and not BONDED, as are contractors, that they do not have a clue with respect to what a contractor is burdened with, or why contractors like to get paid quickly, or why contractors get frustrated with weak protocols full of errors and omissions, lousy drawings, and incomplete specs. Contractors have a burden that is much more profound than any IEP has, and it is called the statute of limitations for latent construction defects; 10-yrs in California. Until the IEPs of the world spend some quality time fulfilling the role of a contractor, they will NEVER understand the contractor; and one group will speak from Mars and the other from Venice, and there will not be a consensus, and it will be ugly. For all you on this list that are primarily IEPs....give a break. His comments provide a lot of practicality. Like him or not, he is providing a perspective that you can glean golden nuggets of wisdom from. OK...so he has said some bone-head things like “I don't see the big deal for a remediator to remove vapor barriers to better do their mold remediation work on the wood behind it.” IEPs don’t seem to know the virtues of vapor barriers either! Some IEPs don’t know what they are, where they are or where they should be, or the difference between a vapor barrier and a vapor retarder....but it IS important if you are modifying or altering a wall assembly and want to keep the water out! IMHO, IEPs have forced themselves upon the construction remediation industry with insufficient homework, and an insufficient understanding of building science and construction materials, means and methods. We can thank the AIHA for that. Case in point, I recently posted a very baited question about mold growth between structural members of dimensional timber, and an IEP in this group said “Remove or replace (the double top plate) if blasting is not effective.” Now, I really wonder if he knew what he said and if he practices what he preaches. Blasting has no effect....unless he meant explosives. I assume he does not know what he speaks about because the double top plate in a stick-framed wall assembly is not an easy element to remove without totally demolishing the entire wall. He has no clue! In many instances IEPs provide little merit, they often provide insufficient and/or confusing guidance, and they cost money that could be better spent on the restoration effort. (Oh!..I can feel the tempers getting warm.) It is the conscientious contractor who is going to restore the structure back to a pre-loss condition with much more finesse and diligence than most IEPs can or will. Granted, there are some damn good IEPs practicing today, and they do a good job and provide a good service. But like the unethical contractors that seem to be in abundance, there are many more unqualified IEPs, or persons who call themselves IEPs. The IEP, assuming they are worth their salt (which is a big assumption) provides merit when factors are complicated and/or when the contractor is less than conscientious or ethical. seems to be very ethical. So is Pat Moffit. says most IEPs he encounters are incompetent; I will agree. Most IEPs on this post feel that most contractors are unethical cheats; and I agree that some are. Are IEPs really necessary when Suzie Q’s dishwasher busts a gut and floods the kitchen? Maybe yes....and maybe no. Moreover, since when does mold clean-up REQUIRE an IEP? Some states (e.g., Texas) seem to feel it does, and I find this humorous and frustrating at the same time because I have yet to demolish a structure that didn’t have some evidence of mold growth and amplification somewhere within the structure, and I feel that all structures have mold. According to Sharon: “If in doubt, rip it out.” I ask...and who is gonna pay for it? I foresee every roofing tear-off in Texas now being a mold abatement effort, because most roof systems in Texas have a lot of mold on the surface, way more than 100-sq-ft (except in El Paso). What is the overall effect?.....It becomes much more costly to and Suzie Q Public to maintain their home, and restore their roof (to keep out the water), because now they have to hire a mold-IEP and a mold remediation contractor, in addition to their roofer; which is going to cost them plenty more money. Will and Suzie pay for and hire the best IEP available to them...Hell no!, they are going on the cheap. Which brings us back to ’s comments of doing work on the cheap. Tis the nature of construction and contracting, i.e., too many Owners have champagne tastes but a beer budget. But this is life as we know it. Contractors cannot perform miracles, and the IEP community needs to understand this. One IEP on this post recently said in relation to IICRCs recommendations based on source removal “No where do you see the IICRC say or stating it depends on the cost.” EXCUSE ME! Everything depends upon cost, and to state differently is to be blind to the practical aspects of life! It is also why I feel IICRC’s S520 lacks some practicality. Because of this discord between the environmentalists and the contractors, and the cost associated with it, the insurance industry is now excluding all water losses from our insurance policies; coverage that we used to have and rely on. All because of the mold panic that exists today. Again, thank you AIHA. It is a vicious cycle, and the perpetuation of which is going to harm all of us if we don’t restore the practicality and common sense. Why can’t people remove their mold without and IEP? Will it boil down to calling an IEP when the bread gets moldy?, the orange in the fruit bowl has a spot of penicillin?, when a mold colony of Stachy develops around a drip from an angle valve under the kitchen sink? I hear analogies of justification using sewage events, or radon, or asbestos. I am one to disagree....mold is different. Yes...IEPs and contractors speak in different tongues and have different agendas. Until we cohesively begin to work together, to understand and to compliment each other’s practice AND to lower the cost of mold remediation, we are all going to be at each other’s throats and continue the finger pointing of who is to blame for the mess we are now in. OK...I said my piece. Time to go to bed. It been grand, thanks. On 1/23/07 10:46 AM, " Bob/Ma. " <BobEnvironmentalAirTechs> wrote: , My point exactly…. Look at what you stated: That's why on page 31 of S520 it says (paragraph 6) " Deciding if and when an IEP is required on any mold remediation project is subject to the sound professional judgment of the remediator .... Myself being the IEP when the walls are open and prior to any alterations being attempted, I want to personally inspect the opened cavity(ies). How often have you heard of a remediation contractor just wanting to get paid? Therefore has the Remediator have any bias? Absolutely, being paid quickly. Some have informed the owner the mold is all cleaned up. I have one right now where the Remediator did not even follow protocol never mind the specifications drawn up by the former IEP (who appears to be in too tight a relationship with the Remediator). Should we say no independent IEP is required here? It could have been a simple remediation job, but due to no one watching (except the owner and their camera) who would have known? The Remediator never installed the negative air, adequate containments, nor did he monitor the engineering controls to determine the overall effectiveness. Are these conditions rare; I doubt it due to the low bids going on out there. The company will make money some way or another and you can be sure something will be eliminated. The “sound judgment” of the Remediator is what needs to be confirmed. Bob/Ma. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2007 Report Share Posted January 25, 2007 , I am working with a customer and his representative to invalidate the testing and scope of work protocol of an IEP. Poor judgment based on limited science; and the IEP is attempting to direct the scope of work for which he is not qualified, are some of the issues we have been talking about in this thread. Because of the issues of this claim and their direction, the IEP may be brought into the lawsuit. Moffett From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Geyer Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 8:10 PM To: iequality Subject: Re: When do you follow a IEP's Protocol? To no one in particular.... This tread, and the comments from all, reminds me of sitting on the side-lines listening to comments/arguments between men and women, engineers and contractors, IEPs and contractors, Mars and Venice. It is quite humorous. It is also apparent from comments from some of the IEPs who are not LICENSED, and not BONDED, as are contractors, that they do not have a clue with respect to what a contractor is burdened with, or why contractors like to get paid quickly, or why contractors get frustrated with weak protocols full of errors and omissions, lousy drawings, and incomplete specs. Contractors have a burden that is much more profound than any IEP has, and it is called the statute of limitations for latent construction defects; 10-yrs in California. Until the IEPs of the world spend some quality time fulfilling the role of a contractor, they will NEVER understand the contractor; and one group will speak from Mars and the other from Venice, and there will not be a consensus, and it will be ugly. For all you on this list that are primarily IEPs....give a break. His comments provide a lot of practicality. Like him or not, he is providing a perspective that you can glean golden nuggets of wisdom from. OK...so he has said some bone-head things like “I don't see the big deal for a remediator to remove vapor barriers to better do their mold remediation work on the wood behind it.” IEPs don’t seem to know the virtues of vapor barriers either! Some IEPs don’t know what they are, where they are or where they should be, or the difference between a vapor barrier and a vapor retarder....but it IS important if you are modifying or altering a wall assembly and want to keep the water out! IMHO, IEPs have forced themselves upon the construction remediation industry with insufficient homework, and an insufficient understanding of building science and construction materials, means and methods. We can thank the AIHA for that. Case in point, I recently posted a very baited question about mold growth between structural members of dimensional timber, and an IEP in this group said “Remove or replace (the double top plate) if blasting is not effective.” Now, I really wonder if he knew what he said and if he practices what he preaches. Blasting has no effect....unless he meant explosives. I assume he does not know what he speaks about because the double top plate in a stick-framed wall assembly is not an easy element to remove without totally demolishing the entire wall. He has no clue! In many instances IEPs provide little merit, they often provide insufficient and/or confusing guidance, and they cost money that could be better spent on the restoration effort. (Oh!..I can feel the tempers getting warm.) It is the conscientious contractor who is going to restore the structure back to a pre-loss condition with much more finesse and diligence than most IEPs can or will. Granted, there are some damn good IEPs practicing today, and they do a good job and provide a good service. But like the unethical contractors that seem to be in abundance, there are many more unqualified IEPs, or persons who call themselves IEPs. The IEP, assuming they are worth their salt (which is a big assumption) provides merit when factors are complicated and/or when the contractor is less than conscientious or ethical. seems to be very ethical. So is Pat Moffit. says most IEPs he encounters are incompetent; I will agree. Most IEPs on this post feel that most contractors are unethical cheats; and I agree that some are. Are IEPs really necessary when Suzie Q’s dishwasher busts a gut and floods the kitchen? Maybe yes....and maybe no. Moreover, since when does mold clean-up REQUIRE an IEP? Some states (e.g., Texas) seem to feel it does, and I find this humorous and frustrating at the same time because I have yet to demolish a structure that didn’t have some evidence of mold growth and amplification somewhere within the structure, and I feel that all structures have mold. According to Sharon: “If in doubt, rip it out.” I ask...and who is gonna pay for it? I foresee every roofing tear-off in Texas now being a mold abatement effort, because most roof systems in Texas have a lot of mold on the surface, way more than 100-sq-ft (except in El Paso). What is the overall effect?.....It becomes much more costly to and Suzie Q Public to maintain their home, and restore their roof (to keep out the water), because now they have to hire a mold-IEP and a mold remediation contractor, in addition to their roofer; which is going to cost them plenty more money. Will and Suzie pay for and hire the best IEP available to them...Hell no!, they are going on the cheap. Which brings us back to ’s comments of doing work on the cheap. Tis the nature of construction and contracting, i.e., too many Owners have champagne tastes but a beer budget. But this is life as we know it. Contractors cannot perform miracles, and the IEP community needs to understand this. One IEP on this post recently said in relation to IICRCs recommendations based on source removal “No where do you see the IICRC say or stating it depends on the cost.” EXCUSE ME! Everything depends upon cost, and to state differently is to be blind to the practical aspects of life! It is also why I feel IICRC’s S520 lacks some practicality. Because of this discord between the environmentalists and the contractors, and the cost associated with it, the insurance industry is now excluding all water losses from our insurance policies; coverage that we used to have and rely on. All because of the mold panic that exists today. Again, thank you AIHA. It is a vicious cycle, and the perpetuation of which is going to harm all of us if we don’t restore the practicality and common sense. Why can’t people remove their mold without and IEP? Will it boil down to calling an IEP when the bread gets moldy?, the orange in the fruit bowl has a spot of penicillin?, when a mold colony of Stachy develops around a drip from an angle valve under the kitchen sink? I hear analogies of justification using sewage events, or radon, or asbestos. I am one to disagree....mold is different. Yes...IEPs and contractors speak in different tongues and have different agendas. Until we cohesively begin to work together, to understand and to compliment each other’s practice AND to lower the cost of mold remediation, we are all going to be at each other’s throats and continue the finger pointing of who is to blame for the mess we are now in. OK...I said my piece. Time to go to bed. It been grand, thanks. On 1/23/07 10:46 AM, " Bob/Ma. " <BobEnvironmentalAirTechs> wrote: , My point exactly…. Look at what you stated: That's why on page 31 of S520 it says (paragraph 6) " Deciding if and when an IEP is required on any mold remediation project is subject to the sound professional judgment of the remediator .... Myself being the IEP when the walls are open and prior to any alterations being attempted, I want to personally inspect the opened cavity(ies). How often have you heard of a remediation contractor just wanting to get paid? Therefore has the Remediator have any bias? Absolutely, being paid quickly. Some have informed the owner the mold is all cleaned up. I have one right now where the Remediator did not even follow protocol never mind the specifications drawn up by the former IEP (who appears to be in too tight a relationship with the Remediator). Should we say no independent IEP is required here? It could have been a simple remediation job, but due to no one watching (except the owner and their camera) who would have known? The Remediator never installed the negative air, adequate containments, nor did he monitor the engineering controls to determine the overall effectiveness. Are these conditions rare; I doubt it due to the low bids going on out there. The company will make money some way or another and you can be sure something will be eliminated. The “sound judgment” of the Remediator is what needs to be confirmed. Bob/Ma. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2007 Report Share Posted January 25, 2007 , I am working with a customer and his representative to invalidate the testing and scope of work protocol of an IEP. Poor judgment based on limited science; and the IEP is attempting to direct the scope of work for which he is not qualified, are some of the issues we have been talking about in this thread. Because of the issues of this claim and their direction, the IEP may be brought into the lawsuit. Moffett From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Geyer Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 8:10 PM To: iequality Subject: Re: When do you follow a IEP's Protocol? To no one in particular.... This tread, and the comments from all, reminds me of sitting on the side-lines listening to comments/arguments between men and women, engineers and contractors, IEPs and contractors, Mars and Venice. It is quite humorous. It is also apparent from comments from some of the IEPs who are not LICENSED, and not BONDED, as are contractors, that they do not have a clue with respect to what a contractor is burdened with, or why contractors like to get paid quickly, or why contractors get frustrated with weak protocols full of errors and omissions, lousy drawings, and incomplete specs. Contractors have a burden that is much more profound than any IEP has, and it is called the statute of limitations for latent construction defects; 10-yrs in California. Until the IEPs of the world spend some quality time fulfilling the role of a contractor, they will NEVER understand the contractor; and one group will speak from Mars and the other from Venice, and there will not be a consensus, and it will be ugly. For all you on this list that are primarily IEPs....give a break. His comments provide a lot of practicality. Like him or not, he is providing a perspective that you can glean golden nuggets of wisdom from. OK...so he has said some bone-head things like “I don't see the big deal for a remediator to remove vapor barriers to better do their mold remediation work on the wood behind it.” IEPs don’t seem to know the virtues of vapor barriers either! Some IEPs don’t know what they are, where they are or where they should be, or the difference between a vapor barrier and a vapor retarder....but it IS important if you are modifying or altering a wall assembly and want to keep the water out! IMHO, IEPs have forced themselves upon the construction remediation industry with insufficient homework, and an insufficient understanding of building science and construction materials, means and methods. We can thank the AIHA for that. Case in point, I recently posted a very baited question about mold growth between structural members of dimensional timber, and an IEP in this group said “Remove or replace (the double top plate) if blasting is not effective.” Now, I really wonder if he knew what he said and if he practices what he preaches. Blasting has no effect....unless he meant explosives. I assume he does not know what he speaks about because the double top plate in a stick-framed wall assembly is not an easy element to remove without totally demolishing the entire wall. He has no clue! In many instances IEPs provide little merit, they often provide insufficient and/or confusing guidance, and they cost money that could be better spent on the restoration effort. (Oh!..I can feel the tempers getting warm.) It is the conscientious contractor who is going to restore the structure back to a pre-loss condition with much more finesse and diligence than most IEPs can or will. Granted, there are some damn good IEPs practicing today, and they do a good job and provide a good service. But like the unethical contractors that seem to be in abundance, there are many more unqualified IEPs, or persons who call themselves IEPs. The IEP, assuming they are worth their salt (which is a big assumption) provides merit when factors are complicated and/or when the contractor is less than conscientious or ethical. seems to be very ethical. So is Pat Moffit. says most IEPs he encounters are incompetent; I will agree. Most IEPs on this post feel that most contractors are unethical cheats; and I agree that some are. Are IEPs really necessary when Suzie Q’s dishwasher busts a gut and floods the kitchen? Maybe yes....and maybe no. Moreover, since when does mold clean-up REQUIRE an IEP? Some states (e.g., Texas) seem to feel it does, and I find this humorous and frustrating at the same time because I have yet to demolish a structure that didn’t have some evidence of mold growth and amplification somewhere within the structure, and I feel that all structures have mold. According to Sharon: “If in doubt, rip it out.” I ask...and who is gonna pay for it? I foresee every roofing tear-off in Texas now being a mold abatement effort, because most roof systems in Texas have a lot of mold on the surface, way more than 100-sq-ft (except in El Paso). What is the overall effect?.....It becomes much more costly to and Suzie Q Public to maintain their home, and restore their roof (to keep out the water), because now they have to hire a mold-IEP and a mold remediation contractor, in addition to their roofer; which is going to cost them plenty more money. Will and Suzie pay for and hire the best IEP available to them...Hell no!, they are going on the cheap. Which brings us back to ’s comments of doing work on the cheap. Tis the nature of construction and contracting, i.e., too many Owners have champagne tastes but a beer budget. But this is life as we know it. Contractors cannot perform miracles, and the IEP community needs to understand this. One IEP on this post recently said in relation to IICRCs recommendations based on source removal “No where do you see the IICRC say or stating it depends on the cost.” EXCUSE ME! Everything depends upon cost, and to state differently is to be blind to the practical aspects of life! It is also why I feel IICRC’s S520 lacks some practicality. Because of this discord between the environmentalists and the contractors, and the cost associated with it, the insurance industry is now excluding all water losses from our insurance policies; coverage that we used to have and rely on. All because of the mold panic that exists today. Again, thank you AIHA. It is a vicious cycle, and the perpetuation of which is going to harm all of us if we don’t restore the practicality and common sense. Why can’t people remove their mold without and IEP? Will it boil down to calling an IEP when the bread gets moldy?, the orange in the fruit bowl has a spot of penicillin?, when a mold colony of Stachy develops around a drip from an angle valve under the kitchen sink? I hear analogies of justification using sewage events, or radon, or asbestos. I am one to disagree....mold is different. Yes...IEPs and contractors speak in different tongues and have different agendas. Until we cohesively begin to work together, to understand and to compliment each other’s practice AND to lower the cost of mold remediation, we are all going to be at each other’s throats and continue the finger pointing of who is to blame for the mess we are now in. OK...I said my piece. Time to go to bed. It been grand, thanks. On 1/23/07 10:46 AM, " Bob/Ma. " <BobEnvironmentalAirTechs> wrote: , My point exactly…. Look at what you stated: That's why on page 31 of S520 it says (paragraph 6) " Deciding if and when an IEP is required on any mold remediation project is subject to the sound professional judgment of the remediator .... Myself being the IEP when the walls are open and prior to any alterations being attempted, I want to personally inspect the opened cavity(ies). How often have you heard of a remediation contractor just wanting to get paid? Therefore has the Remediator have any bias? Absolutely, being paid quickly. Some have informed the owner the mold is all cleaned up. I have one right now where the Remediator did not even follow protocol never mind the specifications drawn up by the former IEP (who appears to be in too tight a relationship with the Remediator). Should we say no independent IEP is required here? It could have been a simple remediation job, but due to no one watching (except the owner and their camera) who would have known? The Remediator never installed the negative air, adequate containments, nor did he monitor the engineering controls to determine the overall effectiveness. Are these conditions rare; I doubt it due to the low bids going on out there. The company will make money some way or another and you can be sure something will be eliminated. The “sound judgment” of the Remediator is what needs to be confirmed. Bob/Ma. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2007 Report Share Posted January 27, 2007 Thanks Steve, I will respond to your concerns one at a time: " If the consequences of the Texas regs are that most people do not comply them because services are cost-prohibitive, let's not be promoting the same thing elsewhere (especially in New Jersey). " Well PRE-TMARR, the services WERE cost prohibitive, such as $200,000 mold remediation in a $450,000 house say, just because the insurance was paying for it. We used to have " hourly rates " on containments and neg air's. THAT has stopped. I think that now the costs are down as a result of the insurance companies not paying anymore, and the remainder of those wanting mold remediation done now want it done properly. " I find your comment that the regs proposed by the TDH were " NOT about health effects or indoor air quality " a bit disturbing. I would hope that this would be the primary reason for having them. This is probably not something that the residents of your state would want to learn and it would only encourage less compliance if they knew this. " Yes it is disturbing, but the other route that the Mold Statutes DID cure was the Insurance companies not paying for anything, while at the same time raising their premiums to cover the losses on thos inflated mold remediations done prioor to the TMARR. I am not defending it, but " it is what it is " . Health effects officially in Texas from mold is allergenic. " Texas wound up being " ground zero " for the mold and insurance industry crisis. Now that carriers all over the country have all got their mold exclusions and policy limits in place, the same reasons wouldn't apply in other states at this point in time. The insurance crisis is over. Mold regulations should be about ensuring quality assessment and remediation work for the purpose of improving public health. They should not be for the purpose of protecting corporate interests in the insurance or real estate marketplace, in my opinion. " It was not to protect the insurance companies, it was to allow the consumer to take claims off the CLU database IF they followed the TMARR regulations. The " insurance crisis " is NOT over, as you can look to our neighbor states in LA, AL, and MS. The insurance companies collected premiums for years form folks in the Hurricane zone, and then when one hit, the adjusters and the insurance companies went out of control, because they will have to pay our of pocket. " I think it only makes sense to study how the regulations have improved things for the residents of Texas, or not. Have they helped or hindered the real estate property transfers? Have they benefitted public health or driven homeowners and others to skirt the regulations and resulted in more mold remediation being done by unqualified people? " Actually, the " wheat has been separated form the chafe " with respect to mold remediation. Before the regs, ANYONE and I mean ANYONE with ANY protocol could do whatever they wanted. While the licensing was going into effect, the Insurance adjusters and House Inspectors whom were taking the classes were lagging behind. Often all they looked for was a " way around the regs " . That is NOT a good thing, when the professionals and inspectors are looking out for the insurance adjuster, or the bank. It usually leaves the mortgage holder left holding the bag. THAT is what this has stopped. Charletons. IT is simpy expensive to hold the license. That keeps out the majority of the schisters, and those that have no business doing the work or being in the industry. What the regs have done is made the restoration contractors in commercial buildings pay attention to the asbestos federal and state regulations. These guys usually tear out entire buildings with no asbestos inspection and no abatement or notification. THAT is the problem with the IAQ and Mold Remediation Industry: they only pay attention to their particular speciality and IGNORE federal regs, and a lot of them at that. Consequently, nost of the mold remediation and consulting has returned to the Environmental Health and Safety professionals, and has taken on a " microbiology " bent. MEaning that, the specialists in mold are drying up, and being absorbed into the asbestos, lead based paint, and HAZMAT companies, whom protect people properly and have a strong base and knowledge in ALL APPLICABLE federal rules. What I get from a lot of conversations with those involved with IAQ and mold exclusively is the ignoring of the asbestos regs as if they do not apply to this speacialty sector. That is wrong. I have a real problem with a Mold or IAQ contractor or COnsultant that makes a statement like " we don't mess with or address asbestos or yada yada " In my estimation from feedback from our contractor and Consultant clients I think on the whole it is a better thing for our business sector and it is better for our clients than no regulation at all. If Texas did not take the action they took, we would still be cussing over the different standards and about whether onc can call themselves an IEP or other such nonsense. Additionally, haveing something that makes some attempt to standardize the qualifications, and the minimum work practices is a GOOD THING in this land of certification mills, BS associations, and no concensus. IF you wish to do business in a state you must abide by thosd regulations, if you do not like that, then bid adieu, and don't look back. But there are many advantages to the Texas regulations, for all her faults. You seems biased against them because of a few things. SO my questions to you Steve are this: " What do you like about the Texas Regulations? " , and " What specifically do you NOT like about the Texas Regulations? " Dana Browqn GEBCO Hurst, Texas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2007 Report Share Posted January 27, 2007 Steve/Dana, Here's my 2 cents on the Texas Regs. I'm a Florida resident but a Texas Licensed Mold Assessor and a Texas Accredited instructor for both assessment and remediation .. altough I don't do anything at all in Texas at this time. Texas had a large bureaucracy built up to regulate asbestos. As the asbestos stuff wound down all these people needed work. Mold came along and the government developed a program along the lines of how things worked in the asbestos industry. They charge a lot of money for the licenses. They charge a fee for each remediation. There is all sorts of paper work and the government people are busy. So what if it costs too much. Texas is not a consumer driven state. I don't think it is alot more complex than that. Rosen, Ph.D. Re: Re: When do you follow a IEP's Protocol? Dana,Thanks for the response. My questions did not have to do with why the regulations were created or what the administrative code specifies. I followed each of the proposed iterations of the draft regs with disbelief and even commented directly to Quade Stahl about my concerns for the consequences of the regulations. I understand that you are mostly a "regulatory guy". After all, the law is the law. My post was intended to be sobering, not a personal attack. If the consequences of the Texas regs are that most people do not comply them because services are cost-prohibitive, let's not be promoting the same thing elsewhere (especially in New Jersey).I find your comment that the regs proposed by the TDH were "NOT about health effects or indoor air quality" a bit disturbing. I would hope that this would be the primary reason for having them. This is probably not something that the residents of your state would want to learn and it would only encourage less compliance if they knew this.Texas wound up being "ground zero" for the mold and insurance industry crisis. Now that carriers all over the country have all got their mold exclusions and policy limits in place, the same reasons wouldn't apply in other states at this point in time. The insurance crisis is over. Mold regulations should be about ensuring quality assessment and remediation work for the purpose of improving public health. They should not be for the purpose of protecting corporate interests in the insurance or real estate marketplace, in my opinion.I think it only makes sense to study how the regulations have improved things for the residents of Texas, or not. Have they helped or hindered the real estate property transfers? Have they benefitted public health or driven homeowners and others to skirt the regulations and resulted in more mold remediation being done by unqualified people? Before the bureaucratic inanity spreads further, lets find out what has worked and what hasn't with regard to government intervention in a professional field. I'd hate to think that the reason you want others to consider the Texas regs as a model is because misery loves company.Steve TemesIn a message dated 1/25/2007 1:50:02 PM Eastern Standard Time, dana3of52000@ yahoo.com writes: Well Steve,The Texas Mold Regulations are NOT about Health Effects, COncern over the Mold Remediation and Consulting Industry. The Reason for the Texas Mold Regulations wwer two-fold. 1.) To stop or to address Fraud and Misrepresentation in the industry and to stop the "Wild West" Mold Rush. No. 2.) was to allow the Insurance Companies to raise their rates and change their pricing matrix, but allow homeowners and building owners who chooses to remediate mold in their homes and buildings to reduce their premimums by wiping the claims for that incurred water damage and mold damage from the DLU database. The TMARR is NOT about health effects or indoor quality or anything higher than that. It is clearly for the purpose of addressing an insurance/policy holder problem. Additionally Texas has no State Income Tax, so it is a "fee for services" state. So they have to charge a pretty hefty licensing "fee" (tax) to support the program.I will answer your questions the best I can. Remember though I had NOTHING to do with the developement or implementation of the TMARR. Hell, I was still in Kansas when this thing was passes in 2003. Our company was one of the first in Texas to start training and by just a rough estimate we have trained probably 5/8's of the professionals and contractors in the State of Texas whom became licensed in the state to do business. I have been VERY fortunate to have met a boatload of very good professionals and have learned as much teaching the class and I have setting around the Bar-B-Que table at Danny Dee's with those clients that have taken the calss. MOST have come back for the Refresher cycles as it is time in 2007 for the 2 year refreshers. So on with the questions:"What percentage of homeowner-paid- for mold remediation projects do you think are done by licensed professionals according to the regulations? "Well that is like a question for asbestos compliance such as "How many of the demolitions are notified in the State of Texas, being such as the NESHAP and Texas TAHPA requires ALL demo's to be notified? My response is those homeowners that have an insurance claim, AND those that are selling the house wil previous water damage. The seller must give the buyer a copy of the STATE REQUIRED Certificate of Mold Remediation for all projects that were done on that property within the last 5 years.As for how many are done not under the table, hard to say, becasue there is an exmption for the homebuilders (that I HATE!!!) doing repairs to their homes under warranty with their subcontractors. BUt there is STILL a large enough market to have a LOT of professionals take a refresher and pay their $1000.00 for 2 years licesning fee and all the other stuff."My sense from working with homeowners for many years is that most would consider the cost to be way too high to do it legal-like, IF they had the money."I cannot answer to what your "sense" is or not or if it is correct or not, or even if I knew the answer at all as there is a HELLUVA lot of TEXAS, and I cannot answer for the DFW area alone, let alone Houston, E. Texas, W. Texas, Austin and San Antinio. Who the heck knows. We are only 2 years into this thing. Trends need time to develope."What percentage of proposals issued by Texas mold consulting and remediation firms do you think are accepted by homeowners?"No idea, again, Texas is really BIG and there are LOTS of people and space. Percentage of homeowners(? ), hell I do not have a number of homeowners whom call requesting services, and the consultants and contractors do not call me every time a homeowner calls them. If they DID do that, all I would do is answer and talk on the phone. Size of the market DEMANDED that Texas had to do something to protect homeowners."Have the regulations actually improved the quality of the mold remediation work being done or just driven the work underground? "Hard to tell as well. The biggest problem is the "house flippers" who watch too much of HGTV.The Quality of the mold work HAS increased, although the number of mold jobs compared to pre licensing is down significantly as the consultants are telling me, however, there is apparently enough for many to get re licensed. "Have the regulations actually benefitted public health as intended by the legislature or resulted in more mold remediation being performed by unqualifed professionals and homeowners."The intent of the legislation was NOT health effects. IT was fraud and insurance rate setting and the rate matrix and the CLU database."Before you talk about the good things the regs have done, let's do a real world review of what the consequences of adopting the Texas mold regs have actually been from an economic and public health perspective. Maybe it's not so funny.Seriously,Steve Temes"You cannot stay away from the personal attacks, OK, Well I am guilty of getting hip deep in it as well as I have on occasion about asbestos issues with Bob s and Tony Havics, which I have regretted some of my comments.HOWEVER, You are not the only one that lives in the "real world". ANd you are "NEW JERSEY", giving Texas hell? (kinda like the Salsa commercial). It is clear you do not know anything about the Texas regs nor the reason for them coming into being. BTW, Gov. Bush was the one that gave the kick in the butt to get this thing going. Ironic isn't it. From the Public health perspective things are better. The Texas DSHS is getting after it, and the very first thing they ask for in a mold remediation is an asbestos inspection (for public buildings) as it is requires. It is also required in a private residence for OSHA Asbestos Construction Standard as it is a "worksite". I think you have preconceived notions and a COMPLETE lack of understanding of the TMARR, SO, read the regs, then we can discuss WHAT they are and not WHAT YOU THINK they are.Kind of an abrasive and challenging post there Steve, loaded with buck shot. Don't get soaked. Take a quick peak at the forecast with theYahoo! Search weather shortcut. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2007 Report Share Posted January 27, 2007 , So true about Texas and Illinois. Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2007 Report Share Posted January 27, 2007 Mr. Rosen, " Texas had a large bureaucracy built up to regulate asbestos. As the asbestos stuff wound down all these people needed work. Mold came along and the government developed a program along the lines of how things worked in the asbestos industry. " That may be your take, but it is not reflected in the reality of the situation as asbestos jobs are at their highest notification rate in Texas in the history of the program. Additionally, there is no " end " with asbestos containing materials, and shows the IAQ bias I have been takling about til I M blue in the face. THERE IS NO BAN ON ASBESTO MATERIALS!!! We are getting brand new ceiling tiles, drywall, joint compound, textures, and a host of other materials with asbestos in them. The only ban is speacialty papers, spray applying inuslation and decorative materials and the application of pre-molded pipe insulation. These " new " materials also join the host of " legacy materials " and with the additionconcedrn over libby vermiculite and all the products made with it, there is no end and it is FAR FROM WINDING DOWN. Those that think so, need a reality check, and review the rate of notifications. You also ned to be aware that the EPA, OSHA, and other regulatory entities are in the 3rd year of their re-emphasis on the regulation of Asbestos with the vermiculite additions. They have followed the Asbestos Strategies Report, and the Asbestos Project Plan to the letter. EPA neds to be commended about that as well. It appears that you Dr. Rosen do not recognise the impacts and ongoing problems of asbestos in construction. In a mold remediation, most of these materials ARE supsect materials, there is no cut off date. In commercial buildings this MUST be addressed under ASHARA as well as the OSHA components. It appears as if there are a majority of Mold professionals and contractors whom choose to IGNORE the asbestos issues and laws. Texas DSHS Asbestos Program is BUSY. They have inspected a majority of the schools for AHERA compliance, and the regulate HEAVILY asbestos. IN fact in the DFW area the TDSHS local added an additional inspector, bring the total to four, and an additional one for AHERA and MOld compliance. They are getting after it and doing their jobs as well. Simply put, your " take " is in error, and not representative of the facts and data of the situation. Additionally, the TMARR is similar to the TAHPR, but most state laws " boiler plate " for instate consistency between state laws. JUst the way things are. Dana Brown GEBCO LLP HUrst, TX Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2007 Report Share Posted January 27, 2007 Dana: I want to echo what said. I too was once licensed and certified for asbestos and mold in Texas. Why did I let it lapse? Too expensive, too much paperwork, TARR makes small-scale short-duration projects much more expensive than they have to be, no reciprocity for licensees or certifications in other states, requirements for refreshers classes in that state (again, no reciprocity between states), etc., etc. And I echo Steve’s comments, all this bureaucracy does not appear to be based on a foundation of doing what is best for the citizens of Texas to improve their health. Like mentioned, it just keeps government workers employed, it is overly provincial, and it drives costs up. For what it is worth.... Steve/Dana, Here's my 2 cents on the Texas Regs. I'm a Florida resident but a Texas Licensed Mold Assessor and a Texas Accredited instructor for both assessment and remediation .. altough I don't do anything at all in Texas at this time. Texas had a large bureaucracy built up to regulate asbestos. As the asbestos stuff wound down all these people needed work. Mold came along and the government developed a program along the lines of how things worked in the asbestos industry. They charge a lot of money for the licenses. They charge a fee for each remediation. There is all sorts of paper work and the government people are busy. So what if it costs too much. Texas is not a consumer driven state. I don't think it is alot more complex than that. Rosen, Ph.D. Re: Re: When do you follow a IEP's Protocol? Dana, Thanks for the response. My questions did not have to do with why the regulations were created or what the administrative code specifies. I followed each of the proposed iterations of the draft regs with disbelief and even commented directly to Quade Stahl about my concerns for the consequences of the regulations. I understand that you are mostly a " regulatory guy " . After all, the law is the law. My post was intended to be sobering, not a personal attack. If the consequences of the Texas regs are that most people do not comply them because services are cost-prohibitive, let's not be promoting the same thing elsewhere (especially in New Jersey). I find your comment that the regs proposed by the TDH were " NOT about health effects or indoor air quality " a bit disturbing. I would hope that this would be the primary reason for having them. This is probably not something that the residents of your state would want to learn and it would only encourage less compliance if they knew this. Texas wound up being " ground zero " for the mold and insurance industry crisis. Now that carriers all over the country have all got their mold exclusions and policy limits in place, the same reasons wouldn't apply in other states at this point in time. The insurance crisis is over. Mold regulations should be about ensuring quality assessment and remediation work for the purpose of improving public health. They should not be for the purpose of protecting corporate interests in the insurance or real estate marketplace, in my opinion. I think it only makes sense to study how the regulations have improved things for the residents of Texas, or not. Have they helped or hindered the real estate property transfers? Have they benefitted public health or driven homeowners and others to skirt the regulations and resulted in more mold remediation being done by unqualified people? Before the bureaucratic inanity spreads further, lets find out what has worked and what hasn't with regard to government intervention in a professional field. I'd hate to think that the reason you want others to consider the Texas regs as a model is because misery loves company. Steve Temes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2007 Report Share Posted January 28, 2007 SO my questions to you Steve are this: "What do you like about the Texas Regulations?", and "What specifically do you NOT like about the Texas Regulations?" Dana, I'll have to reserve answering fully until I know what the consequences have actually been in terms of public health benefit. I suspect that for every Texas Mold Rush contractor who had no business being in the mold business that decided not to get licensed, there was a qualified professional who decided not to enter or stay in the game. I've seen how new, overly burdensome regs impact qualified professionals in an industry. When all you need to do and know is boiler-plated, the playing field is leveled so that the whole industry is dumbed down. That's why CIHs, CHPs, and radiation measurement experts are no longer doing radon testing in NJ. You would need to compete with licensed technicians who are home inspectors who have taken a two-day course and passed a test and are going to the property anyway. There's no point to being in the business even if you offer the best service. One licensed guy is as good as the next and the cheaper the better. Who better to perform virtually all of the radon lung cancer risk assessments in a state than home inspectors who let sellers cheat on radon tests? One reason so many people renew their mold licenses in Texas now is that things are still shaking out. There is a "winner take all" phenomenon occurring. The larger firms or firms that offer services that subsidize their mold consulting can outlast the small guys, who are often much more qualified than the field techs for the larger firms. The pie is shrinking due to excessive costs created by the regs that consumers see little value in. The most qualified people will be able to find another field of endeavor to earn a living in. Their superior service will be lost to residents of Texas. You might like the fact that everything is standardized and regulated. I think it dumbs down the whole process and makes the services unaffordable at the same time. It's a lose-lose as I see it. When a true building scientist and problem solver can't offer a superior service of great value to a client because he has to follow nonsensical statutory rules, he won't play that game. You have just created another bureaucracy managed and enforced by career bureaucrats who's mission is to make sure i's are dotted and t's are crossed. I find it disgusting and insulting as a thinking individual and a business owner. I'd like to know about how the Texas mold regs have impacted real estate transactions and homeowners. Do they make criminals of poor people who can't afford to hire licensed professionals just to be in compliance with a badly written law? Do the high costs force people to hire unqualifed people to do the work or to do it themselves? If so, they are very bad regulations. Steve Temes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2007 Report Share Posted January 28, 2007 Mold is not asbestos and should not be treated like asbestos. If you treat mold like asbestos you are overcharging and hurting consumers and not helping them. Rosen Re: When do you follow a IEP's Protocol? Mr. Rosen,"Texas had a large bureaucracy built up to regulate asbestos. As the asbestos stuff wound down all these people needed work. Mold came along and the government developed a program along the lines of how things worked in the asbestos industry. "That may be your take, but it is not reflected in the reality of the situation as asbestos jobs are at their highest notification rate in Texas in the history of the program. Additionally, there is no "end" with asbestos containing materials, and shows the IAQ bias I have been takling about til I M blue in the face. THERE IS NO BAN ON ASBESTO MATERIALS!!! We are getting brand new ceiling tiles, drywall, joint compound, textures, and a host of other materials with asbestos in them. The only ban is speacialty papers, spray applying inuslation and decorative materials and the application of pre-molded pipe insulation. These "new" materials also join the host of "legacy materials" and with the additionconcedrn over libby vermiculite and all the products made with it, there is no end and it is FAR FROM WINDING DOWN. Those that think so, need a reality check, and review the rate of notifications.You also ned to be aware that the EPA, OSHA, and other regulatory entities are in the 3rd year of their re-emphasis on the regulation of Asbestos with the vermiculite additions. They have followed the Asbestos Strategies Report, and the Asbestos Project Plan to the letter. EPA neds to be commended about that as well. It appears that you Dr. Rosen do not recognise the impacts and ongoing problems of asbestos in construction. In a mold remediation, most of these materials ARE supsect materials, there is no cut off date. In commercial buildings this MUST be addressed under ASHARA as well as the OSHA components. It appears as if there are a majority of Mold professionals and contractors whom choose to IGNORE the asbestos issues and laws.Texas DSHS Asbestos Program is BUSY. They have inspected a majority of the schools for AHERA compliance, and the regulate HEAVILY asbestos. IN fact in the DFW area the TDSHS local added an additional inspector, bring the total to four, and an additional one for AHERA and MOld compliance. They are getting after it and doing their jobs as well. Simply put, your "take" is in error, and not representative of the facts and data of the situation.Additionally, the TMARR is similar to the TAHPR, but most state laws "boiler plate" for instate consistency between state laws. JUst the way things are.Dana BrownGEBCO LLPHUrst, TX Don't get soaked. Take a quick peak at the forecast with theYahoo! Search weather shortcut. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2007 Report Share Posted January 28, 2007 Dana, I am a licensed mold assessor in Texas and TX accredited to train both Texas mold assessors and mold remediators. You can look me up on their web site ( Rosen - Certified Mold Free.) I do know something about Texas regs. And yes wall cavities and attics are outside space. All have mold in them. It is just a matter of degree. If mold is measurable in the inside space during any season of the year due to mold in walls and attics ... then it can be a problem. If not, it is not. So mold should not be treated like asbestos. It is always around us in the air we breath, in the food we eat and in the walls and attics of the homes we live in. That's why asbestos trained people with no mold experience nor training can't get much mold work outside of TX! Rosen, Ph.D. www.Mold-Books.com Re: When do you follow a IEP's Protocol? "I foresee every roofing tear-off in Texas now being a mold abatement effort, because most roof systems in Texas have a lot of mold on the surface, way more than 100-sq-ft (except in El Paso)."No that would NOT be the case. The TMARR is for mold that affects "Indoor Air Quality". The roof and attic may not be part of anything that affects Indoor air. IF it is outdside it is outside. IT is also not a 100 sq. ft. in Texas, it is 25 contiguos square feet of mold affected area that must be cleaned or removed, that affects indoor air. Indoor air is defined as air in the occupied areas, and spaces like crawl spaces and attics that are "vented to the outside" are not indoor air. This leads some to believe that the interior portions of interiou walls are NOT "occupied spaces" but IMO it is not the intent nor the wording of the law here.This is EXACTLY what I am talking about, people whining about the Texas Mold Regulations and haveing NO CLUE as to what they are complaining about. Obviously you have not read the regulations, have not been instructed properly on what they say, or have not ever had a class on the regs. One thing about regs., is to get someone whom knows and understands them to explain them to you. If you are ignorant on the regulations, understand that and whip that ignorance with fact and understanding. It's here! Your new message!Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2007 Report Share Posted January 28, 2007 It is interesting to note that in Texas you don't need to have mold insurance to be licensed in either assessment or remediation. Just GL. I would assume that if a program wanted to protect the public the program would expect you to be insured for the work you do .... like a building contractor has to have building contractor insurance; or a P.E. needs professional liability coverage. Rosen Re: Re: When do you follow a IEP's Protocol? In a message dated 1/27/2007 7:47:01 PM Eastern Standard Time, dana3of52000@ yahoo.com writes: SO my questions to you Steve are this: "What do you like about the Texas Regulations? ", and "What specifically do you NOT like about the Texas Regulations? "Dana,I'll have to reserve answering fully until I know what the consequences have actually been in terms of public health benefit.I suspect that for every Texas Mold Rush contractor who had no business being in the mold business that decided not to get licensed, there was a qualified professional who decided not to enter or stay in the game. I've seen how new, overly burdensome regs impact qualified professionals in an industry. When all you need to do and know is boiler-plated, the playing field is leveled so that the whole industry is dumbed down. That's why CIHs, CHPs, and radiation measurement experts are no longer doing radon testing in NJ. You would need to compete with licensed technicians who are home inspectors who have taken a two-day course and passed a test and are going to the property anyway. There's no point to being in the business even if you offer the best service. One licensed guy is as good as the next and the cheaper the better. Who better to perform virtually all of the radon lung cancer risk assessments in a state than home inspectors who let sellers cheat on radon tests?One reason so many people renew their mold licenses in Texas now is that things are still shaking out. There is a "winner take all" phenomenon occurring. The larger firms or firms that offer services that subsidize their mold consulting can outlast the small guys, who are often much more qualified than the field techs for the larger firms. The pie is shrinking due to excessive costs created by the regs that consumers see little value in. The most qualified people will be able to find another field of endeavor to earn a living in. Their superior service will be lost to residents of Texas.You might like the fact that everything is standardized and regulated. I think it dumbs down the whole process and makes the services unaffordable at the same time. It's a lose-lose as I see it. When a true building scientist and problem solver can't offer a superior service of great value to a client because he has to follow nonsensical statutory rules, he won't play that game. You have just created another bureaucracy managed and enforced by career bureaucrats who's mission is to make sure i's are dotted and t's are crossed. I find it disgusting and insulting as a thinking individual and a business owner.I'd like to know about how the Texas mold regs have impacted real estate transactions and homeowners. Do they make criminals of poor people who can't afford to hire licensed professionals just to be in compliance with a badly written law? Do the high costs force people to hire unqualifed people to do the work or to do it themselves? If so, they are very bad regulations.Steve Temes Cheap Talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2007 Report Share Posted January 28, 2007 Steve that is a cop out. The TMARR does the things specifically that you want to be done. It limits those whom do the mold consulting and remediation to those that are going to pay the price in terms of dollars and education, and backing it up with insurance requirements. " I suspect that for every Texas Mold Rush contractor who had no business being in the mold business that decided not to get licensed, there was a qualified professional who decided not to enter or stay in the game. " Conjecture on your part. You have no clue that is happening. IT is just your opinion. " I've seen how new,overly burdensome regs impact qualified professionals in an industry. When all you need to do and know is boiler-plated, the playing field is leveled so that the whole industry is dumbed down. That's why CIHs, CHPs, and radiation measurement experts are no longer doing radon testing in NJ. You would need to compete with licensed technicians who are home inspectors who have taken a two-day course and passed a test and are going to the property anyway. " MAN!, First you are pissed you have to take a class now you are complaining that a 2 day wonder can do the job. Well NOT IN TEXAS!! Why? The TMARR. So I chock that up for one for on your part as it ends that 2 day wonder. As for " dumbing down " the field. NO way. The field was wide open and plenty dumbed-down before the regulations. The regulations " dumbing down " the woudl make it cheaper. I don' t know where you get your Texas Mold news, but I interact with probably 50-60% of the professionals in Mold in Texas and they are QUALIFIED, and they are ETHICAL. Criticising that from far away without direct knowledge of the professionals involved and painting them with the broad brush that you have shows you do not respect other professionals. " One licensed guy is as good as the next and the cheaper the better. Who better to perform virtually all of the radon lung cancer risk assessments in a state than home inspectors who let sellers cheat on radon tests? " Well that is what licensing does NOT do. Licensing is an agreement not a right. The TMARR has chased the home inspectors out of mold assessment and consulting. So I will Chock that one up as a pro TMARR from You. " One reason so many people renew their mold licenses in Texas now is that things are still shaking out. There is a " winner take all " phenomenon occurring. The larger firms or firms that offer services that subsidize their mold consulting can outlast the small guys, who are often much more qualified than the field techs for the larger firms. The pie is shrinking due to excessive costs created by the regs that consumers see little value in. The most qualified people will be able to find another field of endeavor to earn a living in. Their superior service will be lost to residents of Texas. " That is only occurring in your mind, not in the reality called TEXAS. Remember dude, I train and work with 50-60% of those in the state licensed to do mold abatement and assessment in the State, and DUDE, you are WAY off base. You are guessing and imposing your opinion on a situation and trying to pass it off as fact. You are wrong about Texas. " You might like the fact that everything is standardized and regulated. I think it dumbs down the whole process and makes the services unaffordable at the same time. It's a lose-lose as I see it. " I agree. As I do not like any state regs in the Environmental Health and safety arena. If it is bad in Chicago it shold be bad in Dallas and LA. Should have the same laws to deal with asbestos etc et al. But licensing does winnow out the loosers and those looking for the fast budk. In fact most of those whining loudest in the class were those looking for the fast buck and finding their fast budk market drying up. " When a true building scientist and problem solver can't offer a superior service of great value to a client because he has to follow nonsensical statutory rules, he won't play that game. You have just created another bureaucracy managed and enforced by career bureaucrats who's mission is to make sure i's are dotted and t's are crossed. I find it disgusting and insulting as a thinking individual and a business owner. " I too am an " open markets " kind of person. However when there are regulations passed, it islikely due to the fact that a lot of somebodies were screwing up. That is what generates regulations. For industries that cannnt or will not regulate themselves, the governments have every right to pass regulations to address those issues. " I'd like to know about how the Texas mold regs have impacted real estate transactions and homeowners. Do they make criminals of poor people who can't afford to hire licensed professionals just to be in compliance with a badly written law? Do the high costs force people to hire unqualifed people to do the work or to do it themselves? If so, they are very bad regulations. " All conjecture on your point. You still cannot point to anything here that you concrete do not disagree with or agree with, you are just whining. You don't like the Texas Regs,... fine, don't work in Texas. But all your posting here is not anything like the reality I am seeing. Dana Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2007 Report Share Posted January 28, 2007 You missed the point. Well I guess that is not accurate, you IGNORED THE POINT. ANd are very dishonest in responses. I was not daying that mold WAS like asbestos. But the asbestos guys can isolate airborne particles everyday, why would they not be good for this? OH, that's right, now the asbestos boys are competeing with you, and they have always needed to be licensed, and now you do to. Dana > > Mold is not asbestos and should not be treated like asbestos. If you treat mold like asbestos you are overcharging and hurting consumers and not helping them. > > Rosen > > > Re: When do you follow a IEP's Protocol? > > Mr. Rosen, > > " Texas had a large bureaucracy built up to regulate asbestos. As the > asbestos stuff wound down all these people needed work. Mold came > along and the government developed a program along the lines of how > things worked in the asbestos industry. " > > That may be your take, but it is not reflected in the reality of the > situation as asbestos jobs are at their highest notification rate in > Texas in the history of the program. Additionally, there is no " end " > with asbestos containing materials, and shows the IAQ bias I have > been takling about til I M blue in the face. THERE IS NO BAN ON > ASBESTO MATERIALS!!! We are getting brand new ceiling tiles, > drywall, joint compound, textures, and a host of other materials with > asbestos in them. The only ban is speacialty papers, spray applying > inuslation and decorative materials and the application of pre- molded > pipe insulation. These " new " materials also join the host of " legacy > materials " and with the additionconcedrn over libby vermiculite and > all the products made with it, there is no end and it is FAR FROM > WINDING DOWN. Those that think so, need a reality check, and review > the rate of notifications. > > You also ned to be aware that the EPA, OSHA, and other regulatory > entities are in the 3rd year of their re-emphasis on the regulation > of Asbestos with the vermiculite additions. They have followed the > Asbestos Strategies Report, and the Asbestos Project Plan to the > letter. EPA neds to be commended about that as well. It appears > that you Dr. Rosen do not recognise the impacts and ongoing problems > of asbestos in construction. In a mold remediation, most of these > materials ARE supsect materials, there is no cut off date. In > commercial buildings this MUST be addressed under ASHARA as well as > the OSHA components. It appears as if there are a majority of Mold > professionals and contractors whom choose to IGNORE the asbestos > issues and laws. > > Texas DSHS Asbestos Program is BUSY. They have inspected a majority > of the schools for AHERA compliance, and the regulate HEAVILY > asbestos. IN fact in the DFW area the TDSHS local added an > additional inspector, bring the total to four, and an additional one > for AHERA and MOld compliance. They are getting after it and doing > their jobs as well. Simply put, your " take " is in error, and not > representative of the facts and data of the situation. > > Additionally, the TMARR is similar to the TAHPR, but most state > laws " boiler plate " for instate consistency between state laws. JUst > the way things are. > > Dana Brown > GEBCO LLP > HUrst, TX > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ ______________ > Finding fabulous fares is fun. > Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains. > http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097 > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2007 Report Share Posted January 28, 2007 I know who you are, you are the guy that thinks he can do 20 hours on a Texas course at home or online! That's you right?! That is A Serious violation, " conducting training not in compliance with this section " , and is $2500 per violation. Plus the Civil Adminsitrative Penality (fines lite as we call it, for $2500 the first time to $10,000 the second. That's why you don't like the TEXAS regs, they told you to stop what you were doing, didn't they. Well, I am going to invite some of Austin's finest from Texas DSHS to have a gander at your little tantrum you have thrown. I will have to let them know as well, it is a responsibility of a licensee to report illegal activities to the department under the Texas " snitch rule " in the TMARR. (Same one in the TAHPA) Dude you need to get out of the business. People like you are the proplem with this business. Again for yu slowley there , I DID NOT SAY ASBESTOS WAS LIKE MOLD. You make too many assumptions. " That's why asbestos trained people with no mold experience nor training can't get much mold work outside of TX! " MORE ignorance of the reality. We have clients working all over the country. The world is not Fl or Texas with a fence around it. Your assertion that the Texas folks aren't working outside of Texas is more of a matter that TEXAS is REALLY BIG!!! They do not HAVE to go outside the state for other markets. TEXAS is the place to be. The market is great, money is here, and there is a lot of it. , You need to be quiet about things you know nothing about. I don not know where you work in Texas, but it must not be that often. Your negative remarks about the Texas Mold Professionals and remediators I take umbrage to. They are fine ethical and committed people for the most part. You have no right to paint them with a broad brush as mediocre just because you are bitter or pissed off for some unknown reason. When it gets down to it, the only thing professionals do not like about the TMARR is the fact they will have to sit in a class, and pay a licensing fee and have insurance. BTW, my boss is the one that turned the Training from " Certified Mold Free " in to the folks down in Austin. I showed him your website with the " 20 hours of at home and online training " qualifying for TMARR accreditation. He sent a letter to , asking if we could do that too, as our clients would like to do that and not spend time in a training class. The response was very straight forward ... NO! So you had better stop that and get that crap off your website. I will be turning them on to you as Monday morning rolls around. Dana Brown GEBCO LLP Hurst, Texas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.