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

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.

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....

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

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

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.

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.

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-