Re: When do you follow a IEP's Protocol?

[Guest guest]

:

Very good question! Since I am both a PE and a licensed contractor, I fall outside of your question; but am still interested in the results.

FYI, I know two IEPs that have E & O insurance for microbials...both are CIHs and both have identical E & O coverage from the same carrier. One has a reasonable level of construction knowledge and does a reasonable level of mold work, and the other doesn’t have adequate constr. knowledge and does mold work. The later is a damn good IH, and he should stay in industry because he has a number of people very unhappy with his mold and remediation practice.

For what it is worth...

With few exceptions, money spent on an IEP is wasted money and would be better spent hiring a better experienced mold remediation contractor. One of the problems with the IEPs is that rarely, very rarely, do they have adequate professional insurance coverage (E & O) for the work they perform. Their insurance is written to cover errors in testing/ sampling and not errors in protocol development or errors in inspections. Why. Because they have no formal training or knoweldge of construction that would warrant insurance coverage outside of sampling. Their knowledge, experience and training is generally nothing more than turning on/off of the sampling pump. They are usually not even insured for interpreting the sampling results!

Lets do a poll. How many IEPs out there reading this post have E & O insurance (including microbial coverage) for protocol development and for interpreting sampling results ... outside of those IEPs that are also PE's and/or licensed building contractors. Are they any?

I have never met one.

Rosen, Ph.D.

www.Mold-Free.org <http://www.Mold-Free.org>

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....

[Guest guest]

Pete:

I could not even finish reading your post because I took significant exception and umbrage with your speculation that I, being a consultant and a licensed contractor, breech a professional ethic such as S520's Section 4.2.1. I do not recommend my own work! What I really want to say to you would be censored by this post’s moderator. You are pathetic!

Dear Mr. Geyer:

I haven't posted lately, partly because I have been reminded lately that this is a scientific post where scientific data is brought into play, bantied about and debated, so as to assist IEP's and other Indoor Environmental practitioner's when they ply their trade in the field. (...and I ain't no scientist, that's fo' sure)!

So, with all that in mind, I will respectfully suggest the following " scientific statement " for your future postings (though it surely won't be understood in the field!):

" ...when the proverbial defacation hits the rotating oscillator... "

As I stated, a suggestion, so as some of our more sensitive colleague's sensibilities are no longer offended.

In addition, I have restrained myself from commenting on any post written by someone who so blatantly follows the practice of representing the client/customer as both the consultant and the contractor in direct contradiction to S520's Section 4.2.1, but alas, you and many others seem to have no such qualms. (Especially one who is so obviously trolling for both " clients " who may be in the market for an " expert " and book sales).

But I will say this, the IEP's who generally post here are worth their weight in gold for our entire industry, and it's an unwise contractor indeed who would shoot for less or more than the protocols established by any one of them without first having direct consultations. But most of our esteemed colleagues here on this list don't venture too far in the residential field, due to the fact that more often than not Harry & Helen Homeowner either can't or won't pay the fees associated with such, true Professional representation. So, this vacuum was filled with the three day wonder variety of IEP that typically go (at least here in the Northeast) by the nickname, " testers " !

These folks have been lured into our industry by those offering such courses and their proprietary credentials, starting in about 2002 or 2003, often with (if you listen hard enough, you may still here it being faintly chanted in the background) the mantra, " Mold is Gold, Mold is Gold, ... " . Alas, building science and proper " client " representation are often foreign terms to these newly minted IEP's. However, terms such as " lawsuit " and " liability " are usually not, and these terms often can awake newfound sensibilities.

Or at least one can always hope.

One last item, if I may; I have an extremely succesful Uncle-in-Law who, being a Doctor of Economics, once explained to me the varioius meaings that could be applied to the credentials, BS and MS. He then went on to tell me that the credential PHD often was really just more of the same, or as he so eloquently put it, Piled High & Deep.

Just some more food for thought.

As always, I remain....

at your service.

- Pete

[Guest guest]

,

You have pin pointed the problem as it exists in our very real world. This is an ever increasing frustration for us all. I would be interested in hearing from the group about how they feel these sort of issues could be remedied.

Danny Joyce

President

Technical Environmental Services, Inc

www.tesconsult.com

Re: When do you follow a IEP's Protocol?

,Please see my reply to .I'm truly amazed by the apparent rampant ineptitude of the IEPs that you have had contact with. If they have no experience or knowledge of construction, they have no business in this business.This provides even more reason for credibile certifications, and for the issuing industry organizations to continue their efforts to ensure that those that apply for and are granted certifications have the necessary expertise.This will help greatly in elimination of the certification mills that have been so problematic for so long a time. Also, I repeat my strong suggestion that certifications by the AmIAQC and IAQA be segmented by demonstrated contractor or consultant expertise and designations, and that none be issued that cross over.Use of the term "IEP" itself should be eliminated, as it lends an element of confusion and false credibility to anyone performing this work, yet who hold no legitimate certifications.Chuck Reaney:Much of what you point-out is very well said. Especially.. .²We neverblindly follow an IEP's protocol. It is usually way off the mark.² How true! And it is good that you don¹t blindly follow the IEP¹sprotocol. More often than not, the IEP has no practical constructiontraining or experience, has no clue how to write aconstruction/ demolition spec, and are themselves blindly following thearcane practice of 48inx48in removal on either side of a mold colony. Most IEPs are hated by the construction industry. Why? Because theyhave no clue what construction is. Thanks for your comments..On 1/20/07 3:04 PM, "gary rosen" <garyrosen72652@ yahoo.com> wrote:> > > In general, when an IEP does an assessment they do not open walls,> remove baseboard, cut open AC ducts ... they usually only sample and> take other measurements. Then when the test results come back from> the lab they (some how) come up with a mold remediation protocol.> > The question is how often does a remediation contractor follow the> IEP's recommendations?> > As a remediation contractor I find that less than 5% of the time is> the IEP protocol on the money. Usually they tell you to take out> too much drywall. If you assume that the protocol is on the money> and you quote a job based on it, you will probably lose the job> because your quote will be too high.> > The only way to tell how much mold is hiding in the walls is to open> the walls. At that point you can develop the mold remediation> protocol that makes sense for the job.> > Often times there is only mold behind the baseboard but the walls> above the base are clear? Why remove 4 feet of wall board in that> case?> > Quite often we see false positives on wall cavity sampling. There> is zero mold elevation in the living spaces and a few dozen Pen/Asp> in a wall cavity test (perhaps being sucked from the attic) and the> IEP recommends removing 4 feet of wall.> > We never blindly follow an IEP's protocol. It is usually way off> the mark. We are up front with the homeowner about this issue before> we start. Once in a while we lose a job because of it, but almost> always the client understands that you will know best about these> issues once the baseboard is off, or the walls are opened.> > We provide a final remediation certificate based on remediating the> areas mentioned in the IEP report.> > Rosen, Ph.D.> AmIAQC C.I.E.C> www.Mold-Free. org <http://www.Mold- Free.org>> >

Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.

[Guest guest]

,

I agree with you. You would have to be a

doe-doe to remove both the interior and exterior layers at one time. But trying

to explain that to an insurance company after an inexperienced IEP disagreed

with you is a difficult task. I have a back-up plan if I run into it.

Yeah, and the vapor barrio is another issue

yet to be addressed and should be considered even on this listserv. How many

IEP’s are aware of the vapor barrier codes? Believe it or not, this

represents the very reason we all need one another.

Bob/Ma.

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Geyer

Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007

5:09 PM

To: iequality

Subject: Re: When do

you follow a IEP's Protocol?

Bob:

I am most familiar with west-coast framing techniques and the Uniform Building

Code (UBC) used here. Based on the UBC, up to about 1980 (I’m not

sure of the specific date and it may be 1983), 1/2in sheetrock nailed on two

sides of a 2x4x16OC interior wall provided 220lbs per ln.ft. lateral

resistance; on exterior walls with sheetrock on one side, 110lbs per ln.ft..

In the 1985 UBC, this was reduced 50%. After the Northridge

Earthquake in Los Angeles

County in (I believe)

1994, sheetrock was no longer allowed for shear resistance. Please note

that this is not because sheetrock did not offer good shear resistance.

It was a matter of dynamic and cyclic loading instead of static loads,

and earthquakes impart a dynamic and cyclic load on a structure. Most of California is in a

Seismic Zone 4 and sheetrock does not perform well when shaken due to localized

crush around the nail shank.

I hope this provides some basis of my contention that sheetrock is a STRUCTURAL

member in many buildings constructed prior to 1980, and ANY structure member of

a structure being altered or removed warrants an engineer’s involvement.

Most IEPs here have no clue.

I am aware of two structures that raked due to excessive amounts of the lateral

resistive members being removed at one time. I got involved in one of the

two. The one was was called out to, albeit briefly, involved a

significant second floor water leak that flooded the first floor of a detached

SFD to about 6in while the homeowners were away for some time (I don’t

know the reason). The IEP on the job provided written specifications

stating that all interior drywall was to be removed from the floor, up to 48in.

Some, but very little, of the exterior stucco was also removed.

Note, this was a two-story home. It also had a high-mass roof system

consisting of red clay spanish tiles. Also note, removing the sheetrock

interrupted the load path from the roof to the foundation. What I

understood happened, was at the end of the day (thank God) a laborer backing-up

a large utility truck to load demolition debris smacked into a corner of the

garage, and the whole house raked sideways. Since I have experience

picking up entire houses with cranes and steel beams and placing them back onto

their foundations, I was asked to assess the house to determine if it was

salvageable. After penciling things out, it wasn’t. Bottom

line and lesson to be learned.....In whole-house waster loss events, one

cannot assume that all the interior finishes can all be removed at one time,

and that sheetrock is non-structural; properly sequencing the mold remediation

effort in this one structure would have prevented the loss. Moreover, the

excuse the IEP gave.....”The remediation firm is a licensed contractor

and should have known what to do, regardless of what my spec said.”

Maybe not an exact quote, but I hope you get the jist. Also, I hear

this often from IEPs when something bad happens.

I hope this answers your questions. Thanks for asking.

PS Don’t get me started on IEPs specifying the removal of the

vapor barrier from a wall cavity from the inside of a structure. This is

SO STUIPD!, and it happens all the time.

On 1/22/07 11:58 AM, " Bob/Ma. " <BobEnvironmentalAirTechs>

wrote:

,

You point out some good issues in this post.

The wind and vapor barriers are being removed and not properly replaced (or

secured) making them of lesser or no affect. This violates building

codes. As far as structural timbers, in some states a contractor is licensed to

remove and/or install structural timbers (or steel) up to 35,000 CF. Some

(depending) cities want an engineering stamp on some steel components or when

the building is over 35K CF.

I agree that the drywall is considered part of the structural integrity

(against wind load) although if I knew that the removal of the drywall would

allow the assembly to collapse, I would not hire that engineer. In the

northeast most of the techniques used in 17 & 18 hundreds have hurricane

bracing timbers (including barns with no drywall).

Now if you are talking about balloon framing, removal of all the drywall (or

plaster and lath) this may allow movement but not enough to collapse the

dwelling unless a hurricane came alone. And that would require a total gut

including outside sheathing. , are you referring to techniques utilized

in other parts of the country?

Bob/Ma.

From: iequality

[mailto:iequality ]

On Behalf Of Geyer

Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 12:35

PM

To: iequality

Subject: 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....

[Guest guest]

Danny,

Of course you know there is no simple answer ....

Neither insurance providers nor consumers are typically willing to pay for a qualified assessor to spend sufficient time and money to adequately perform the assessment in a way that is sufficient to do the assessor's job right.

There are any number of non-qualified assessors that will take the $$ and write up some nonsense protocol. Thye have no insurance. And no assets. They have nothing to lose if something goes wrong. Or as we heard today, there are unethical people that will write up a very general useless protocol that can only be used if you pay them additional money to elaborate / extend the protocol.

I started our doing assessments. I'm a C.I.E.C with $5M in E & O insurance that includes microbial converage. But I mostly do mold remediation and reconstruction as clients and insurance providers appear willing to pay well for for such services and there is limited competition as you need to know what you are doing for this line of work. A 3-4 day course that awards you a mold assessor certificate is not going to cut it for quoting as well as completing anything but the simplest remediation and build backs.

I do assessments for attorneys when they need expert witnesses and will only hire qualified people for such work.

Rosen, Ph.D.

www.Mold-Free.org

Re: When do you follow a IEP's Protocol?

,Please see my reply to .I'm truly amazed by the apparent rampant ineptitude of the IEPs that you have had contact with. If they have no experience or knowledge of construction, they have no business in this business.This provides even more reason for credibile certifications, and for the issuing industry organizations to continue their efforts to ensure that those that apply for and are granted certifications have the necessary expertise.This will help greatly in elimination of the certification mills that have been so problematic for so long a time. Also, I repeat my strong suggestion that certifications by the AmIAQC and IAQA be segmented by demonstrated contractor or consultant expertise and designations, and that none be issued that cross over.Use of the term "IEP" itself should be eliminated, as it lends an element of confusion and false credibility to anyone performing this

work, yet who hold no legitimate certifications.Chuck Reaney:Much of what you point-out is very well said. Especially.. .²We neverblindly follow an IEP's protocol. It is usually way off the mark.² How true! And it is good that you don¹t blindly follow the IEP¹sprotocol. More often than not, the IEP has no practical constructiontraining or experience, has no clue how to write aconstruction/ demolition spec, and are themselves blindly following thearcane practice of 48inx48in removal on either side of a mold colony. Most IEPs are hated by the construction industry. Why? Because theyhave no clue what construction is. Thanks for your comments..On 1/20/07 3:04 PM, "gary rosen" <garyrosen72652@ yahoo.com> wrote:> > > In general,

when an IEP does an assessment they do not open walls,> remove baseboard, cut open AC ducts ... they usually only sample and> take other measurements. Then when the test results come back from> the lab they (some how) come up with a mold remediation protocol.> > The question is how often does a remediation contractor follow the> IEP's recommendations?> > As a remediation contractor I find that less than 5% of the time is> the IEP protocol on the money. Usually they tell you to take out> too much drywall. If you assume that the protocol is on the money> and you quote a job based on it, you will probably lose the job> because your quote will be too high.> > The only way to tell how much mold is hiding in the walls is to open> the walls. At that point you can develop the mold remediation> protocol that makes sense for the job.> > Often times there is

only mold behind the baseboard but the walls> above the base are clear? Why remove 4 feet of wall board in that> case?> > Quite often we see false positives on wall cavity sampling. There> is zero mold elevation in the living spaces and a few dozen Pen/Asp> in a wall cavity test (perhaps being sucked from the attic) and the> IEP recommends removing 4 feet of wall.> > We never blindly follow an IEP's protocol. It is usually way off> the mark. We are up front with the homeowner about this issue before> we start. Once in a while we lose a job because of it, but almost> always the client understands that you will know best about these> issues once the baseboard is off, or the walls are opened.> > We provide a final remediation certificate based on remediating the> areas mentioned in the IEP report.> > Rosen, Ph.D.> AmIAQC C.I.E.C>

www.Mold-Free. org <http://www.Mold- Free.org>> >

Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.

TV dinner still cooling?Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.

[Guest guest]

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.

[Guest guest]

,

Interesting ...

I should have added CIH's to the list of PE's and contractors that can get microbial insurance even though most CIH's have no formal training in mold unless they took the 1 week ACGIH mold training course. And very few have any construction knowledge.

I took that 1 week course in Cincinnatti about 3 years ago. Here's how they taught clearance testing ... always "inside" the containment with the air scrubbers "on". You don't ever test outside the containment and you don't ever test with the scrubbers off. Wow. I learned so much at the training. How other people cheat the system and how people stay sick from mold contamination after remediation work.

Now AIHA in their Guideline 3 - 2004 in Appendix 2 provides "Guidance on Minimum Qualifications and Professional Competencies" (for Mold assessment and remediation). This includes construction knowledge of HVAC systems and Building Science.

Rosen

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....

Don't pick lemons.

See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.

[Guest guest]

In our state (Florida) you don't need a contractor license to remove drywall or insulation (vapor barriers or other). A non-licensed mold remediator will be able to pull all this stuff out. But in our state you have to be a licensed contractor to put it back. So 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.

Rosen

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....

It's here! Your new message!Get

new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar.

[Guest guest]

,

Because there is no one to confirm you did

the work correctly. We are talking about two different issues. One conflict of

interest when an IEP is on the insurance carrier’s puppet strings and two

the issue you are speaking about is PRV.

I will not clear my companies own work. If

the client can’t afford the clearance cost (I do not know that prior) I

will have them sign off stating they choose not to hire a separate IEP to conduct

PRV and the remediation effectiveness can not be verified without further testing.

I had some paperwork come through today

where the sampling company used its own lab to conduct the analysis. Now that’s

a conflict of interest. The IEP (so called) was hired by the remediation

contractor, took the samples and sent them to his lab. PRV was to be conducted

in the same manor. Problem is the remediation company really messed up.

Sampling company has a conflict and the attorneys will work out the remaining

issues.

Bob/Ma.

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

Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007

8:21 PM

To: iequality

Subject: Re: When do

you follow a IEP's Protocol?

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.

[Guest guest]

I had to pick myself up off the floor from a hysterical laughing

attack brought on by reading these posts and the bandying about for

and against. WHY was I left in a fit of laughter? TEXAS REGS!!! Ta

DAA! For all the crap I heard reaped on the Texas Mold Regulations,

and all the criticisms of said regulation and the KNOWN shortcomings

ot the Texas regulations, it left me laughing wildly. THANK YOU for

that.

IN short, and after attending a couple of conferences and hearing how

bad the Texas Regs are, it showed me how VALUABLE some form of

regulation is. I have also learned from clients that have taken our

Texas Approved set of courses that do work out of state that their

clients now use the Texas Regs as a guideline. I suggest that you do

as well as the topic is " WHEN DO YOU FOLLOW A IEP'S PROTOCOL? Well,

in Texas ... always. All the stuff stated here on the incompleteness

of the professional's assessment in terms of clearance or estimation

of size and types of remediatin methods to employ in each room must

be done BY THE LICENSED MOLD ASSESSMENT CONSULTANT prior to the

remediation AND develope a MOLD REMEDIATION PROTOCOL delivered to the

client prior to the remediation. the LICENSED MOLD REMEDIATION

CONRTRACTOR must then write a MOLD REMEDIATION PLAN based on and

addressing the Mold Remediation Protocol.

All is spelled out BEFORE actions are taken. ALL the mold AND the

SOURCE of the water needs to be addresses as well.

I suggest someone start looking at the good things in the Texas Mold

Rules, instead of knocking them just because Professionals do not

want to take another class or pay a state licensing fee to do

business. That my friends it the cost of doing business. At least

Texas gave us some horizon to shoot for. I suggest that the indoor

air quality associations take another look at the Texas Regs, instead

of dismissing them outright.

>

> In general, when an IEP does an assessment they do not open walls,

remove baseboard, cut open AC ducts ... they usually only sample and

take other measurements. Then when the test results come back from

the lab they (some how) come up with a mold remediation protocol.

>

> The question is how often does a remediation contractor follow the

IEP's recommendations?

>

> As a remediation contractor I find that less than 5% of the time is

the IEP protocol on the money. Usually they tell you to take out too

much drywall. If you assume that the protocol is on the money and

you quote a job based on it, you will probably lose the job because

your quote will be too high.

>

> The only way to tell how much mold is hiding in the walls is to

open the walls. At that point you can develop the mold remediation

protocol that makes sense for the job.

>

> Often times there is only mold behind the baseboard but the walls

above the base are clear? Why remove 4 feet of wall board in that

case?

>

> Quite often we see false positives on wall cavity sampling. There

is zero mold elevation in the living spaces and a few dozen Pen/Asp

in a wall cavity test (perhaps being sucked from the attic) and the

IEP recommends removing 4 feet of wall.

>

> We never blindly follow an IEP's protocol. It is usually way off

the mark. We are up front with the homeowner about this issue before

we start. Once in a while we lose a job because of it, but almost

always the client understands that you will know best about these

issues once the baseboard is off, or the walls are opened.

>

> We provide a final remediation certificate based on remediating the

areas mentioned in the IEP report.

>

> Rosen, Ph.D.

> AmIAQC C.I.E.C

> www.Mold-Free.org

>

>

>

>

______________________________________________________________________

______________

> Never miss an email again!

> Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives.

> http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/

>

[Guest guest]

TEXAS Requirements for licensure:

§295.312. Mold Assessment Consultant: Licensing Requirements.

(a) Licensing requirements. Unless exempted under §295.303 of this

title (relating to

Exceptions and Exemptions), as of January 1, 2005, an individual must

be licensed as a mold

assessment consultant to perform activities listed under subsection

( of this section. A licensed

mold assessment consultant who employs two or more individuals

required to be licensed under

this section or §295.311 of this title (relating to Mold Assessment

Technician: Licensing

Requirements) must be separately licensed as a mold assessment

company under §295.313 of this

title (relating to Mold Assessment Company: Licensing Requirements),

except that an individual

licensed as a mold assessment consultant and doing business as a sole

proprietorship is not

required to be separately licensed under §295.313 of this title.

© Qualifications. In addition to the requirements for all

applicants listed in §295.305 of

this title (relating to Credentials: General Conditions) and §295.309

of this title (relating to Licensing: Insurance Requirements), an

applicant must:

(1) meet at least one of the following education and/or experience

requirements:

(A) a bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university with

a

major in a natural or physical science, engineering, architecture,

building construction, or

building sciences, and at least one year of experience in an allied

field;

( at least 60 college credit hours with a grade of C or better in

the natural

sciences, physical sciences, environmental sciences, building

sciences, or a field related to any of

those sciences, and at least three years of experience in an allied

field;

© a high school diploma or a General Educational Development (GED)

certificate and at least five years of experience in an allied field;

or

(D) certification as an industrial hygienist, a professional

engineer, a

professional registered sanitarian, a certified safety professional,

or a registered architect, with

at least one year of experience in an allied field;

(2) if a complete application for an initial license is submitted to

the department

before January 1, 2005, as evidenced by a postmark or shipping

paperwork, satisfy the training

requirement under §295.305(e)(1) of this title by either:

(A) successfully completing an initial mold assessment consultant

course

offered by a department-accredited training provider and receiving a

course-completion

certificate; or

Texas Requirements for a Mold Remediation Protocol:

(e) Mold remediation protocol. An assessment consultant shall prepare

a mold

remediation protocol for each project and provide the protocol to the

client before the

remediation begins. The mold remediation protocol must specify:

(1) the rooms or areas where the work will be performed;

(2) the estimated quantities of materials to be cleaned or removed;

(3) the methods to be used for each type of remediation in each type

of area;

(4) the PPE to be used by remediators. A minimum of an N-95

respirator is

recommended for all mold remediation projects. Using professional

judgment, a consultant may specify additional or more protective PPE

if he or she determines that it is warranted;

(5) the proposed types of containment, as that term is defined in

§295.302(9) of

this subchapter (relating to Definitions) and as described in

subsection (g) of this section, to be used during the project in each

type of area; and

(6) the proposed clearance procedures and criteria, as described in

subsection (i) of

this section, for each type of remediation in each type of area.

AND CLEARANCE REQUIREMENTS:

(i) Clearance procedures and criteria. In the remediation protocol

for the project, the

assessment consultant shall specify:

(1) at least one nationally recognized analytical method for use

within each

remediated area in order to determine whether the mold contamination

identified for the project has been remediated as outlined in the

remediation protocol;

(2) the criteria to be used for evaluating analytical results to

determine whether the

remediation project passes clearance;

(3) that post-remediation assessment shall be conducted while walk-in

containment

is in place, if walk-in containment is specified for the project; and

(4) the procedures to be used in determining whether the underlying

cause of the

mold identified for the project has been remediated so that it is

reasonably certain that the mold will not return from that same cause.

[Guest guest]

Bob:

Thanks for the reply. You are so PC to use the term: doe-doe. I believe I was quoted with a much more profound outburst when I grasped what happened to that house; being the potty-mouth contractor I resemble. However, the principal reason I am responding to your post is something you triggered in a spare brain cell of mine.....and it involves this issue of vapor barriers. Given a hollow-cavity exterior wall assembly, vapor barriers under the weather barrier can only be installed from the outside; not the inside. (At least I know of none that can be installed form the inside.) This said, and I especially want to hear from the source removal advocates (for example Sharon who stated: “If in doubt, rip it out”), upon removing the wet moldy sheetrock from the inside of an exterior wall, and removing the wet insulation in that wall, and upon eyeing the vapor barrier with mold all over it.....just what is your next step? Do you remove the moldy vapor barrier, or leave it in place? Just wondering........

,

I agree with you. You would have to be a doe-doe to remove both the interior and exterior layers at one time. But trying to explain that to an insurance company after an inexperienced IEP disagreed with you is a difficult task. I have a back-up plan if I run into it.

Yeah, and the vapor barrio is another issue yet to be addressed and should be considered even on this listserv. How many IEP’s are aware of the vapor barrier codes? Believe it or not, this represents the very reason we all need one another.

Bob/Ma.

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Geyer

Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 5:09 PM

To: iequality

Subject: Re: When do you follow a IEP's Protocol?

Bob:

I am most familiar with west-coast framing techniques and the Uniform Building Code (UBC) used here. Based on the UBC, up to about 1980 (I’m not sure of the specific date and it may be 1983), 1/2in sheetrock nailed on two sides of a 2x4x16OC interior wall provided 220lbs per ln.ft. lateral resistance; on exterior walls with sheetrock on one side, 110lbs per ln.ft.. In the 1985 UBC, this was reduced 50%. After the Northridge Earthquake in Los Angeles County in (I believe) 1994, sheetrock was no longer allowed for shear resistance. Please note that this is not because sheetrock did not offer good shear resistance. It was a matter of dynamic and cyclic loading instead of static loads, and earthquakes impart a dynamic and cyclic load on a structure. Most of California is in a Seismic Zone 4 and sheetrock does not perform well when shaken due to localized crush around the nail shank.

I hope this provides some basis of my contention that sheetrock is a STRUCTURAL member in many buildings constructed prior to 1980, and ANY structure member of a structure being altered or removed warrants an engineer’s involvement. Most IEPs here have no clue.

I am aware of two structures that raked due to excessive amounts of the lateral resistive members being removed at one time. I got involved in one of the two. The one was was called out to, albeit briefly, involved a significant second floor water leak that flooded the first floor of a detached SFD to about 6in while the homeowners were away for some time (I don’t know the reason). The IEP on the job provided written specifications stating that all interior drywall was to be removed from the floor, up to 48in. Some, but very little, of the exterior stucco was also removed. Note, this was a two-story home. It also had a high-mass roof system consisting of red clay spanish tiles. Also note, removing the sheetrock interrupted the load path from the roof to the foundation. What I understood happened, was at the end of the day (thank God) a laborer backing-up a large utility truck to load demolition debris smacked into a corner of the garage, and the whole house raked sideways. Since I have experience picking up entire houses with cranes and steel beams and placing them back onto their foundations, I was asked to assess the house to determine if it was salvageable. After penciling things out, it wasn’t. Bottom line and lesson to be learned.....In whole-house waster loss events, one cannot assume that all the interior finishes can all be removed at one time, and that sheetrock is non-structural; properly sequencing the mold remediation effort in this one structure would have prevented the loss. Moreover, the excuse the IEP gave.....”The remediation firm is a licensed contractor and should have known what to do, regardless of what my spec said.” Maybe not an exact quote, but I hope you get the jist. Also, I hear this often from IEPs when something bad happens.

I hope this answers your questions. Thanks for asking.

PS Don’t get me started on IEPs specifying the removal of the vapor barrier from a wall cavity from the inside of a structure. This is SO STUIPD!, and it happens all the time.

,

You point out some good issues in this post.

The wind and vapor barriers are being removed and not properly replaced (or secured) making them of lesser or no affect. This violates building codes. As far as structural timbers, in some states a contractor is licensed to remove and/or install structural timbers (or steel) up to 35,000 CF. Some (depending) cities want an engineering stamp on some steel components or when the building is over 35K CF.

I agree that the drywall is considered part of the structural integrity (against wind load) although if I knew that the removal of the drywall would allow the assembly to collapse, I would not hire that engineer. In the northeast most of the techniques used in 17 & 18 hundreds have hurricane bracing timbers (including barns with no drywall).

Now if you are talking about balloon framing, removal of all the drywall (or plaster and lath) this may allow movement but not enough to collapse the dwelling unless a hurricane came alone. And that would require a total gut including outside sheathing. , are you referring to techniques utilized in other parts of the country?

Bob/Ma.

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] <mailto:iequality %5d> On Behalf Of Geyer

Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 12:35 PM

To: iequality

Subject: 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....

[Guest guest]

In addition to Wane's suggestion to read Barney Burrough's mind

blowing and exciting (to me, anyway) article

http://www.ieconnections.com/archive/jan_07/jan_07.htm#article

may I offer another suggestion:

Since S520 is being bantered about, how about also utilizing Section

8 " Limitations, Complexities, Complications and Conflicts. " This is

one of the most powerful and useful sections of the standard.

I suggest we (regardess of the initials after our name) first define

the problem with a comprehensive inspection. THEN offer our

recommendations (scope) BUT irrespective of ANY contingincies,

especially including who may or may not be liable and who may or not

pay for it. Then discuss with the relevant parties what you recommend

according to S520 (or whatever guidance you prefer).

If they don't want to or can't pay for what you say ought to be done

then document their exclusions as a limitation to compliance. A

remediator that disagrees with the scope may still decide to accept

the job but with the limitations clearly noted, discussed and

documented (for his protection). If the limitation becomes too

burdensome, don't accept the job.

In other words, before before we begin shooting at a target, arguing

about which weapon is the most appropriate and how we know we got a

" hit, " we first have to determine the target with an objective,

comprehensive inspection. Forget " ready, aim, fire " until you have

identified and defined what you are aiming to shoot. Then protect

yourself with disclosure and documentation of limitations.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

>

> not sure what would prompt one to submit apost of this type.

> based upon your apparentcontemptfor IEPs,it's clear that you

> haven't worked with a good one, and/or you simplymiss the point

> (i.e., the mutually beneficial and complementary roles of the

> consultant and the contractor).

> this is a good example of the mindset that we as an industry have to

> get past in order to truly unify.

> why? for the answer, I'd like to encourage everyone to read Barney

> Burrough's article " Unfinished Business: State of the Industry

> Address " inthe Jan issue of IE Connections, here:

> http://www.ieconnections.com/archive/jan_07/jan_07.htm#article9

> thanks.

> Wane

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

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

> Division Manager, Indoor Air Quality

> MICHAELS ENGINEERING

> " Real Professionals. Real Solutions. "

> Phone , ext. 484

> Cell

> Fax

> mailto:wab@...

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

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

> more fun? "

> - Graham

>

> >

> > In general, when an IEP does an assessment they do not open walls,

> remove baseboard, cut open AC ducts ... they usually only sample and

> take other measurements. Then when the test results come back from

> the lab they (some how) come up with a mold remediation protocol.

> >

> > The question is how often does a remediation contractor follow the

> IEP's recommendations?

> >

> > As a remediation contractor I find that less than 5% of the time is

> the IEP protocol on the money. Usually they tell you to take out too

> much drywall. If you assume that the protocol is on the money and you

> quote a job based on it, you will probably lose the job because your

> quote will be too high.

> >

> > The only way to tell how much mold is hiding in the walls is to

> open the walls. At that point you can develop the mold remediation

> protocol that makes sense for the job.

> >

> > Often times there

>

>

[Guest guest]

Bob/Ma.

I am a builder. I can build an entire house and provide a warranty. That is the way it is all over the country. But according to an IEP, if a contractor removes some water damaged drywall and replaces it with new material, a independent consulting IEP needs to come out and inspect the work to make sure of what exactly? That the drywall was replaced with new drywall?

So the contractor can only warranty his work if he builds an entire house but not if he replaces some drywall?

Some times jobs are complex and no doubt a 2nd opinion is useful. But most mold remediation work is not brain surgery. You remove water damage drywall, cabinets, carpets ... and replace with new.

The home owner can verify that the work is done properly. Or you can document the work with picturesd during the remediation.

Integrity and insurance cover you for such work. 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 ...

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.

[Guest guest]

: You are very sensitive man! That can be a good thing. But alas, my statements have been misunderstood and taken personally, at least by the wrong individual. If I thought you were anything but Professional, I would not have taken the time to respond to you. However, the "gentleman" who started the thread of this particular post is who I was referring to and who I will not respond to directly. He has used half truths, while posting in an authorative manner, and has misquoted IICRC S520 in order to "grind his axe" and promote himself shamelessly as the "expert" in all things moldie. I apologize, Mr. Geyer, if I offended you. I had no such intention. I actually was attempting some satire in regards to your statement "##it hits the fan". I, when younger, worked

in Construction around all male colleagues and I picked up the habit of using filthy lanquage. Since 1988, I have worked with women colleagues as well and they have let me know in no uncertain terms that they did not appreciate it. As such, I try to practice speaking, and writing, using lanquage acceptable to all. I thought it was beneath you, as a Professional, to use such lanquage on this post; that is all. There are differences of opinion in regards to the experiece and the motives of the players necessary in this field; my experience is that I've been a Sales Professional involved in IAQ since 1995 and my motivation is to be of Service to God, Country and Family. I'm sure each of us has their own. IMHO, too many of the players in this field seem to have Mammon as their sole motivation; in my book, you are not among them by any stretch of the

imagination. Sincerely, Pete Geyer wrote: Pete:I could not even finish reading your post because I took significant exception and umbrage with your speculation that I, being a consultant and a licensed contractor, breech a professional ethic such as S520's Section 4.2.1. I do not recommend my own work! What I really want to say to you would be

censored by this post’s moderator. You are pathetic!On 1/22/07 12:35 PM, "Pete Carkhuff" <cincinnatussc> wrote: Dear Mr. Geyer: I haven't posted lately, partly because I have been reminded lately that this is a scientific post where scientific data is brought into play, bantied about and debated, so as to assist IEP's and other Indoor Environmental practitioner's when they ply their trade in the field. (...and I ain't no scientist, that's fo' sure)! So, with all that in mind, I will respectfully suggest the following "scientific statement" for your future postings (though it surely won't be understood in the field!): "...when the proverbial defacation hits the rotating oscillator..." As I stated, a suggestion, so as some of

our more sensitive colleague's sensibilities are no longer offended. In addition, I have restrained myself from commenting on any post written by someone who so blatantly follows the practice of representing the client/customer as both the consultant and the contractor in direct contradiction to S520's Section 4.2.1, but alas, you and many others seem to have no such qualms. (Especially one who is so obviously trolling for both "clients" who may be in the market for an "expert" and book sales). But I will say this, the IEP's who generally post here are worth their weight in gold for our entire industry, and it's an unwise contractor indeed who would shoot for less or more than the protocols established by any one of them without first having direct consultations. But most of our esteemed colleagues here on this list don't venture too far in the residential field, due to the fact that more often than not Harry & Helen

Homeowner either can't or won't pay the fees associated with such, true Professional representation. So, this vacuum was filled with the three day wonder variety of IEP that typically go (at least here in the Northeast) by the nickname, "testers"! These folks have been lured into our industry by those offering such courses and their proprietary credentials, starting in about 2002 or 2003, often with (if you listen hard enough, you may still here it being faintly chanted in the background) the mantra, "Mold is Gold, Mold is Gold, ...". Alas, building science and proper "client" representation are often foreign terms to these newly minted IEP's. However, terms such as "lawsuit" and "liability" are usually not, and these terms often can awake newfound sensibilities. Or at least one can always hope. One last item, if I may; I have an extremely succesful Uncle-in-Law who, being a

Doctor of Economics, once explained to me the varioius meaings that could be applied to the credentials, BS and MS. He then went on to tell me that the credential PHD often was really just more of the same, or as he so eloquently put it, Piled High & Deep. Just some more food for thought. As always, I remain.... at your service. - Pete

Finding fabulous fares is fun.Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains.

[Guest guest]

,

No, to the best of my knowledge, nothing has changed in PA in that

regard.

Chuck Reaney

Sorry Mr. Reaney. I also hold several state contracting

certifications ( Fl, Ga.) along with the CIEC, ASHREA member,

International Code Council..... I see you are in Pa. I did a lot of

commercial work at North way Mall just West of Pittsburgh. Both

mechanical and Construction. It cost me $15.00 it register as a

contractor with nothing except an official asking me if I had ever

done this before. I can understand your frustration with the trades,

as I had to put up with it for two years. Has it changed since 1989?

Valin

Fl. CAC032404

Fl. CBC051232

Ga. CN209932

CIEC

and Sams club member

[Guest guest]

,

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.

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

Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007

11:36 AM

To: iequality

Subject: Re: When do

you follow a IEP's Protocol?

Bob/Ma.

I am a builder. I can build an entire house and provide a

warranty. That is the way it is all over the country. But according

to an IEP, if a contractor removes some water damaged drywall and replaces it

with new material, a independent consulting IEP needs to come out and inspect

the work to make sure of what exactly? That the drywall was replaced with

new drywall?

So the contractor can only warranty his work if he builds an entire

house but not if he replaces some drywall?

Some times jobs are complex and no doubt a 2nd opinion is useful.

But most mold remediation work is not brain surgery. You remove water

damage drywall, cabinets, carpets ... and replace with new.

The home owner can verify that the work is done properly. Or you

can document the work with picturesd during the remediation.

Integrity and insurance cover you for such work. 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 ...

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.

[Guest guest]

,

I agree with you that

this issue of when to use an IEP, to the expertise of an IEP, is poorly

understood. Right now, we are in the Wild West, where everyone makes up his or

her own IEP inspection, remediation direction and clearance criteria.

For example, in a sewage

project under a crawlspace, the CIH said, “all soil is to be removed.”

I am sure they did not mean “all soil.” In fact, further

investigation of the project found expansive clay soil where to month-long

sewage overflow in a 1,000 square foot crawlspace was in the matrix of the clay-base

soil to about 2-4 feet deep. The clay-base soil could not be

removed. The general expertise of the CIH was not in question because

they provided some valuable information. However, their training and experience

for managing this type of loss was severely lacking.

Currently,

my company as an IEP, assumes the “risk and liability” for “all”

scope writing; direction to the customer, contractor and insurance adjuster; baseline

environmental characterization; project management and oversight of the demolition,

cleaning and disinfection required; to written reports about how we gained

closure on the project.

I would expect no less from

any other environmental or third party IEP.

Moffett

From:

iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of gary rosen

Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007

8:36 AM

To: iequality

Subject: Re: When do

you follow a IEP's Protocol?

Bob/Ma.

I am a builder. I can build an entire house and provide a

warranty. That is the way it is all over the country. But according

to an IEP, if a contractor removes some water damaged drywall and replaces it

with new material, a independent consulting IEP needs to come out and inspect

the work to make sure of what exactly? That the drywall was replaced with

new drywall?

So the contractor can only warranty his work if he builds an entire

house but not if he replaces some drywall?

Some times jobs are complex and no doubt a 2nd opinion is useful.

But most mold remediation work is not brain surgery. You remove water

damage drywall, cabinets, carpets ... and replace with new.

The home owner can verify that the work is done properly. Or you

can document the work with picturesd during the remediation.

Integrity and insurance cover you for such work. 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 ...

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.

[Guest guest]

,

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

[Guest guest]

Thank you, Dana.

Chuck Reaney

I had to pick myself up off the floor from a hysterical laughing

attack brought on by reading these posts and the bandying about for

and against. WHY was I left in a fit of laughter? TEXAS REGS!!! Ta

DAA! For all the crap I heard reaped on the Texas Mold Regulations,

and all the criticisms of said regulation and the KNOWN shortcomings

ot the Texas regulations, it left me laughing wildly. THANK YOU for

that.

IN short, and after attending a couple of conferences and hearing how

bad the Texas Regs are, it showed me how VALUABLE some form of

regulation is. I have also learned from clients that have taken our

Texas Approved set of courses that do work out of state that their

clients now use the Texas Regs as a guideline. I suggest that you do

as well as the topic is " WHEN DO YOU FOLLOW A IEP'S

PROTOCOL? Well,

in Texas ... always. All the stuff stated here on the incompleteness

of the professional's assessment in terms of clearance or estimation

of size and types of remediatin methods to employ in each room must

be

done BY THE LICENSED MOLD ASSESSMENT CONSULTANT prior

to the

remediation AND develope a MOLD REMEDIATION PROTOCOL

delivered to the

client prior to the remediation. the LICENSED MOLD REMEDIATION

CONRTRACTOR must then write a MOLD REMEDIATION PLAN

based on and

addressing the Mold Remediation Protocol.

All is spelled out BEFORE actions are taken. ALL the mold AND the

SOURCE of the water needs to be addresses as well.

I suggest someone start looking at the good things in the Texas Mold

Rules, instead of knocking them just because Professionals do not

want

to take another class or pay a state licensing fee to do business.

That my friends it the cost of doing business. At least Texas gave us

some horizon to shoot for. I suggest that the indoor air quality

associations take another look at the Texas Regs, instead of

dismissing them outright.

[Guest guest]

Do you know how often I see fine cleaning in an IEP's protocol? Almost never. You know why because they can't get any mold remediation referrals if they do. IEP almost always overlook fine cleaning.

What??!! EVERY scope I have ever seen prepared by an IEP calls for damp-wiping and/or HEPA vacuuming of surfaces. I thought this was the whole purpose of using a remediation contractor rather than a handyman to remove mold. IEPs should not be getting mold remediation referrals at all, that's the remediation contractor's job. The whole idea is to maintain the independence of the two for better quality assurance.

Steve Temes

[Guest guest]

Bob/Ma.

That is another issue. And I agree with you completely. Documentation of the remediation work in progress is important. In Texas, as I recall, it is required as part of the documentation remediation. Having a third party do this does protect the client from dishonest mold contractors.

However, if the mold remediation contractor is honest, he can do his own documentation to protect himself. When I do mold remediation work I do pre-remediation baseline testing and then I do post-remediation testing. I send to an independent lab ... always. If there is complex cleaning involved, I test during the remediation work on a daily basis. I take pictures of all the equipment that is set up and the containment. And I take pictures of inside all the walls before and after remediation.

This is done on all my jobs many of which are $2K. There is absolutely no $$ for an indoor IEP on many jobs and these cheap jobs are simple and really don't require any consultant.

If the assumption is that the remediator is a crook then an IEP is needed.

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.

Cheap Talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.

[Guest guest]

,

You said:

But most mold remediation work is not brain

surgery. You remove water damage drywall, cabinets, carpets ... and

replace with new.

The home owner can verify that the work is done

properly. Or you can document the work with picturesd during the

remediation.

You missed the most important part, the part

about fine cleaning: which is not uncommon for contractors, and why someone may

want an IEP.  The stuff you can see isn’t

the problem, hopefully.

Mark Doughty

 

[Guest guest]

,

You are one of the gems in the industry. How many IEPs out there ...

assume the “risk and liability” for “all” scope writing

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 time with theYahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.

[Guest guest]

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