Re: PRV and Sampling - With Air Scrubbers On or Off

March 14, 2007

Hello Chuck,

We are in agreement. Lets discuss how deep the consultant assessment needs to go. This is a "think outloud" on why PRV is not always a simple "well if there is mold at PRV then you did a poor assessment" How much assessment should we expect the contractor to do as they remediate? Our projects in Idaho are offen 100's of miles from the office and we can not conduct numerous repeat visits. Maybe one progress inspection at best. Soooo ..... this is one task - "contractor assessment--tComplete Visual and Internal Investigation--that I put in our protocols- see fifth bullet below (the contractor must be AIAQC or IICRC certified; so I assume they are experienced and honest and want to do a great job; if not I say gruppy things about them in the future). See the last bullet.

Remember, usually the contractor has been there for the flood response, has drying underway, identified mold, visits the site daily, and should have containment in place before I get called. There is old mold growth in various areas due to two old slow leaks in kitchen and then the hot water supply leaked alot and flooded the kitchen and basement. Sort of a no brainer, but the insurance adj. does not want to pull all the kitchen cabinets and the warm water went into basement ceiling and some walls. Some sheet rock is already dry when I get there, so I can't be sure what was originally wet, the framing could still be wet behind the dry sheetrock. The details go on and on, containment is fair but not complete and on and on. How much assessment should we expect the contractor to do as they remediate? They contact us for PRV when they have completed the work.

All comments and ideas welcome. IMHO the contractors have managed to shift much of the project assessment risk to the consultants by demanding huge protocols that restate existing standards or guidelines.

The following are Summit’s recommendations, given the background of the project. They are consistent with the current industry standard of care; there may be other methods to properly complete the work, which the Client / owner may consider. Based on Summit’s professional judgment, this project is considered large in size, risk and scope due to the square footage of the impacted building materials (>3000 ft sq), density of fungal growth (30,000 to 2,000,000 A/P spores / cm sq in visible areas), and a 6 month old infant occupant (EPA, 2001).

Expected Mold Remediation Procedures

These guidelines are important procedures for proper project investigation and mold remediation. These are standard procedures which mold remediation contractors are required to follow with several additions by Summit to help improve the probability of project verification. Given the variability of building microbial projects, some of the procedures may not be specific for the conditions found during the initial assessment, but may be needed after the preliminary investigations are completed. Project conditions can change. The following list of recommendations is not meant to replace the industry guidelines and standards and remediation contractor experience. If the mold remediation contractor wants to propose alternatives (equal to or better), they should discuss it with the Client and provide specific changes in writing and obtain written approval.

Specific Remediation Recommendations

· Established Guidelines—The clean-up work should be performed by an experienced mold remediation contractor. The remediation contractor should follow as a minimum, the standard remediation protocols established in the following guidance documents: EPA March 2001 - Mold Remediation in Schools and Commercial Buildings; IICRC 2003 - S520 Standard and Reference Guide for Professional Mold Remediation; and New York City Department of Health 2002 - Guidelines on Evaluation and Remediation of Fungi in Indoor Environments. It would be prudent to keep the affected areas under negative air pressure during remediation activities to prevent mold contamination from spreading to other areas of the building.

· Occupant Communication and Protection—The Client / owner should consult with the remediation contractor and understand the project scope and schedule. The owner should communicate with any building occupants prior to the mold remediation project. The project tasks and timeline should be presented and all occupant concerns addressed. Occupants and visitors should be restricted from the areas being cleaned and repaired. If there have been health complaints, the Client / owner may want to have occupants in adjacent areas relocate if their concerns are reasonable. Vacating people from adjacent non-impacted spaces is generally not necessary if complete and proper procedures are followed. If occupants are to remain in the non-impacted areas, Summit recommends those areas are evaluated and fungal air testing is completed to ensure and document that the areas are not impacted. For individuals with reduced immune systems, infants, recent surgery patients, people with chronic inflammatory lung diseases, or individuals with respiratory health concerns (asthma, hypersensitivity pneumonitis, and severe allergies, etc.), Summit highly recommends that these occupants be relocated (EPA, 2001; US DOL OSHA; 2003; CDC, 2003). If the remediation is complex or within the HVAC system, or activities result in real discomfort to the occupants, Summit highly recommends that the occupants be relocated to reduce potential health problems.

· Isolate Affected Areas and Use PPE—Microbial remediation work inside affected areas (e.g., bathrooms, laundry, attics, garages, crawlspaces, specific rooms) should be performed inside negative air pressure containment using appropriate engineering controls, personal protective equipment (PPE), and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) approved respiratory protective equipment. Negative pressure in the work area should include a HEPA filter exhaust. Air exchanges are project area specfic and should control work dust emmisions but not create other building problems. The exhaust from the negative air machine should be vented to the outdoors. Summit recommends negative air measurements should be documented in writing at least three times a day to verify proper containment (IICRC, 2003). Seal all penetrations to the living envelope, contain the affected area, seal and protect any HVAC system duct work in work areas. If remediating a crawlspace, ensure that large openings below bathroom fixtures are sealed. A decontamination chamber is needed at the entry point to the work areas for equipment and workers. PPE equipment should include full body coveralls, appropriate gloves, and full-face respirators equipped with P-100 high-efficiency filter cartridges (USDOL OSHA, 2003; EPA, 2001). These are industry standard safety protocols; however, the contractor is responsible for evaluating the project and determining the proper work sequencing and worker safety protocol. Protect all non-impacted areas of the building.

· Identify Moisture Source and Properly Dry Materials—All sources of water leaks and /or high relative humidity must be assessed and repaired / eliminated. Identification of conditions that contribute to microbial growth is an important step in remediation. Affected areas must be dried as quickly as possible and a microbial retardant could be used to limit additional fungal growth during the drying process, if needed (follow all product use requirements and Summit recommends obtaining owner and occupant approval). Water damaged and fungal contaminated materials that obviously require removal should be properly removed as soon as possible, even prior to the drying process, to reduce drying time and limit potential fungal growth and spore generation and spreading (IICRC, 2003; EPA, 2001). If possible, the wetted wood should be dried to ~12% wood moisture as soon as possible (2 days is recommended).

· Complete Visual and Internal Investigation—An internal investigation, while under negative air pressure containment, must be performed on all suspect areas of the building to determine the extent of mold growth on various materials and inside hidden areas. Inspect all water / moisture affected areas. The areas that will require mold removal must be identified so that the proper methods and sequence of work can be planned. If conditions change or new hidden mold is identified, the remediation plan may require amendment and additional containment installed (ACGIH, 1999; IICRC, 2003). There is visible mold in the kitchen wall under the sink and most of the west basement. This is a critical task for the contractor.

· ……….more

Bradley HarrSr. Environmental Scientist

-----Original Message-----From: iequality [mailto:iequality ]On Behalf Of Chuck ReaneySent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 11:13 AMTo: iequality Subject: RE: Re: PRV and Sampling - With Air Scrubbers On or Off

Brad,Thank you for your observations & opinions expressed. I couldn't agree with you more.As this field includes numerous complexities and considerations (far too many to fully explore or explain here), the "no brainer" scenario is, I believe, the type which is most often encountered, and usually include factors such as roof & plumbing leaks, broken pipes, condensate system drainage failures, improper grading/surface water drainage, shallow groundwater, flooding, etc.As such, most of these will involve health concerns, insurance claims, etc. and often involve low-rise structures, including residential, which invariably will bring financial considations into the picture.As such, the impetus for calling in an expert is again, often, but not always, a known or suspected event that has occurred within a reasonably known time-frame.In these often-encountered scenarios, I stand by my statements in my previous post, as it is these kinds of "no-brainers" that most concern me regarding the erroneous assumptions, opinions and resultant conclusions that are often expressed in this group.Also, as I'm sure you realize, but others apparently may have informational processing issues with, not everything is about mold. Sometimes it's about bacteria, CO, CO2, allergens, heavy metals, chemical exposures, toxins, herbicides, pesticides, cleaning agents, construction materials and/or methods, etc., etc., and these considerations may be linked to HVAC systems, groundwater issues, previous usage of the land (usually in new construction), air flow & pressure differential issues, etc.Additionally, as I'm sure you realize, there are often multiple issues that may be contributing to health concerns/symptoms expressed by occupants.Of course, in older, high-rise, commercial, industrial, urban vs. rural settings, (again, etc.), other considerations come into play which may even include (yes, I've encountered this too) what's going on upstream in the direction of prevailing winds, which also vary seasonally.These are the reasons that I make my points about investigative skills. In many of these less encountered scenarios, you had darned well better HAVE investigative skills, and they'd better be finely tuned and developed, or something significant WILL be missed or overlooked. When you're investigating a 100 year old paper mill for example, that a developer has turned into office or residential units, and there's nobody around who worked there 100 years ago, not to mention interim usage of the site, and also not even including usage of neighboring and nearby sites, how many different possibilities are there for what may be making people sick? Ok, maybe there was a roof or plumbing leak, but what ELSE is going on, or went on 10, 30, 60, or 100 years ago?Overlooking some factors certainly is also possible even with the most highly educated and experienced among us, but my real concern is related to those who know NOTHING but mold, and in many cases, only minimally how to remediate it, and little about investigating it alone, to say nothing of the scenarios above.My bottom line here is that there is much ado about everything mold, and we hardly understand even that limited field, yet there are sooo many "experts" who are convinced that their way is the only "right" way to investigate and/or remediate. These people's opinions are being expressed here and too often even their basic logic is flawed to say nothing of their "expertise" which is highly limited and too often causes them to go through life wearing blinders, and espousing their erroneous opinions to trusting, scared clients. Many of these people couldn't find their way out of a cardboard box, yet they are expressing "expert" opinons, based on what?I believe that we all need to step back from time to time and re-examine our methods and opinons, from a perspective of "Do no harm".So yes, Brad, I DO agree with you completely. Unfortunately, too many "experts" in this field aren't even up to speed on the "no brainer" issues.Cheers and Regards,Chuck ReaneyHello Chuck,Only if the real world were so simple. Many projects are in olderbuildings where the owner knows no history and there have beennumerous water losses that confuse the issues. You describe a simpleno brainer scenario.Bradley Harr MS, CMC, CHMM, RPIHSr. Environmental ScientistSummit Environmental, Inc.bdharrsummitenviroinc-----Original Message-----From: iequality [mailto:iequality ]OnBehalf Of Chuck ReaneySent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 8:24 AMTo: iequality Subject: Re: Re: PRV and Sampling - With Air ScrubbersOn orOffSteve et. al.,I agree with Steve. I'm not going to go on another rant here, buthow many of you out there in PRV land really understand the conceptof an ASSESSMENT/INVESTIGATION, if you're worried about findingreservoirs in walls after remediation, during PRV??For those who may not be able to justify the letters after theirnames, here's a mini-primer:1. Visually inspect & interview occupants/owners. Find the moisturesource(s) & correct them. Perform drying.2. Find/develop hypotheses associated with the usually ratherpredictable patterns of growth resulting from elevated moisture forthose microbials that may be "hidden".3. If appropriate, test the hypotheses.4. Develop a Scope of Work.5. Remediate.6. Perform further visual inspection(s) DURING the course ofremediation, in order to allow for minor adjustment of the Scope asmay be necessary.7. Verify the effectiveness of the remediation & attainment ofacceptance criteria (visual inspection & minimal to moderatesampling, depending on situation).8. Upon verification that the remediation is acceptable, minimallyencapsulate only if and when (usually very limited & rarely)necessary.BdthTha...tha...that's all folks! It's really not rocket science.Here's a helpful hint: If you have no investigative skills, get someor find a new profession.Cheers & all that.Chuck ReaneyOn 12 Mar 2007 at 19:52, AirwaysEnvcs wrote:In a message dated 3/12/2007 5:10:09 PM Eastern Standard Time,BobEnvironmentalAirTechs writes:> If there is a reservoir in the walls, there is a better chance of> any emissions becoming detectable. If there is a reservoir in thewalls, the time to find it is NOT in your PRV sampling.Steve Temes

March 14, 2007

Bradley,

There are a few issues going on and

require addressing separately. See below.

EBob (aka EnviroBob)

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Brad Harr

Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007

6:52 PM

To: iequality

Subject: RE: Re: PRV

and Sampling - With Air Scrubbers On or Off

Hello Chuck,

We are in agreement. Lets discuss

how deep the consultant assessment needs to go. This is a

" think outloud " on why PRV is not always a simple " well if there

is mold at PRV then you did a poor assessment " How much assessment

should we expect the contractor to do as they remediate? Our

projects in Idaho

are offen 100's of miles from the office and we can not conduct numerous repeat

visits.[EBob] being a great

distance and not being able to service the site adequately is a separate issue.- Maybe

one progress inspection at best. Soooo ..... this is one task -

" contractor assessment--tComplete

Visual and Internal Investigation--that I put in

our protocols- see fifth bullet below (the contractor must be AIAQC or IICRC certified; so I

assume [EBob]

dangerous- they are

experienced and honest and want to do a great job; if not I say gruppy

things about them in the future). See the last

bullet.

Remember, usually the contractor has been

there for the flood response, has drying underway, identified mold, visits the

site daily, and should have containment in place before I get

called. There is old mold growth in various areas due to two old

slow leaks in kitchen [EBob] one loss- and then the

hot water supply leaked alot and flooded the kitchen and basement[EBob] could be linked to

original loss if it is (need more info)-. Sort of a no brainer,

but the insurance adj. does not want to pull all the kitchen cabinets [bob/Ma.] did the water

affect cabinets?- and the warm water went into basement

ceiling and some walls. Some sheet rock is already dry when I get

there[EBob] did

contractor do moisture mapping?-, so I can't be sure what was originally

wet, the framing could still be wet behind the dry sheetrock. The details

go on and on, containment is fair but not complete and on and

on. How much assessment should we expect the contractor to do as they

remediate? They contact us for PRV when they have completed the work.

All comments and ideas welcome. IMHO

the contractors have managed to shift much of the project assessment risk to

the consultants by demanding huge protocols that restate existing standards or

guidelines[EBob] smart

contractor(s).[bob/Ma.]

Really what they did was shifted the liability onto the

insurance company if you manage it correctly.

[EBob] I

need to go for now, but if you would like more help, notify me.

The

following are Summit’s

recommendations, given the background of the project. They are consistent

with the current industry standard of care; there may be other methods to

properly complete the work, which the Client / owner may consider. Based on Summit’s professional judgment, this

project is considered large in size, risk and scope due to the square footage

of the impacted building materials (>3000 ft sq), density of fungal growth

(30,000 to 2,000,000 A/P spores / cm sq in visible areas), and a 6 month old

infant occupant (EPA, 2001).

Expected Mold Remediation Procedures

These

guidelines are important procedures for proper project investigation and mold

remediation. These are standard procedures which mold remediation

contractors are required to follow with several additions by Summit to help improve the probability of

project verification. Given the variability of building microbial

projects, some of the procedures may not be specific for the conditions found

during the initial assessment, but may be needed after the preliminary

investigations are completed. Project conditions can change. The

following list of recommendations is not meant to replace the industry

guidelines and standards and remediation contractor experience. If the mold remediation contractor wants to propose

alternatives (equal to or better), they should discuss it with the Client and

provide specific changes in writing and obtain written approval.

Specific Remediation Recommendations

·

Established Guidelines—The clean-up work should be

performed by an experienced mold remediation contractor. The remediation

contractor should follow as a minimum, the standard remediation protocols

established in the following guidance documents: EPA March 2001 - Mold

Remediation in Schools and Commercial Buildings; IICRC 2003 - S520 Standard and

Reference Guide for Professional Mold Remediation; and New York City Department

of Health 2002 - Guidelines on Evaluation and Remediation of Fungi in Indoor

Environments. It would be prudent to keep the affected areas under

negative air pressure during remediation activities to prevent mold contamination

from spreading to other areas of the building.

·

Occupant Communication and Protection—The Client / owner should

consult with the remediation contractor and understand the project scope and

schedule. The owner should communicate with any building occupants prior

to the mold remediation project. The project tasks and timeline should be

presented and all occupant concerns addressed. Occupants and visitors

should be restricted from the areas being cleaned and repaired. If there

have been health complaints, the Client / owner may want to have occupants in

adjacent areas relocate if their concerns are reasonable. Vacating people

from adjacent non-impacted spaces is generally not necessary if complete and

proper procedures are followed. If occupants are to remain in the non-impacted

areas, Summit recommends those areas are evaluated and fungal air testing is

completed to ensure and document that the areas are not impacted. For

individuals with reduced immune systems, infants, recent surgery patients,

people with chronic inflammatory lung diseases, or individuals with respiratory

health concerns (asthma, hypersensitivity pneumonitis, and severe allergies,

etc.), Summit

highly recommends that these occupants be relocated (EPA, 2001; US DOL OSHA;

2003; CDC, 2003). If the remediation is complex or within the HVAC system, or

activities result in real discomfort to the occupants, Summit highly recommends that the occupants

be relocated to reduce potential health problems.

·

Isolate Affected Areas and Use PPE—Microbial remediation work

inside affected areas (e.g., bathrooms, laundry, attics, garages, crawlspaces,

specific rooms) should be performed inside negative air pressure containment

using appropriate engineering controls, personal protective equipment (PPE),

and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) approved

respiratory protective equipment. Negative pressure in the work area

should include a HEPA filter exhaust. Air exchanges are project area

specfic and should control work dust emmisions but not create other building

problems. The exhaust from the negative air machine should be vented to

the outdoors. Summit

recommends negative air measurements should be documented in writing at

least three times a day to verify proper containment (IICRC, 2003). Seal

all penetrations to the living envelope, contain the affected area, seal and

protect any HVAC system duct work in work areas. If remediating a

crawlspace, ensure that large openings below bathroom fixtures are

sealed. A decontamination chamber is needed at the entry point to the

work areas for equipment and workers. PPE equipment should include full

body coveralls, appropriate gloves, and full-face respirators equipped with

P-100 high-efficiency filter cartridges (USDOL OSHA, 2003; EPA, 2001).

These are industry standard safety protocols; however, the contractor is

responsible for evaluating the project and determining the proper work

sequencing and worker safety protocol. Protect all non-impacted areas of

the building.

·

Identify Moisture Source and Properly Dry Materials—All sources of water leaks

and /or high relative humidity must be assessed and repaired /

eliminated. Identification of conditions that contribute to microbial

growth is an important step in remediation. Affected areas must be dried

as quickly as possible and a microbial retardant could be used to limit

additional fungal growth during the drying process, if needed (follow all

product use requirements and Summit

recommends obtaining owner and occupant approval). Water damaged and

fungal contaminated materials that obviously require removal should be properly

removed as soon as possible, even prior to the drying process, to reduce drying

time and limit potential fungal growth and spore generation and spreading

(IICRC, 2003; EPA, 2001). If possible, the wetted wood should be dried to

~12% wood moisture as soon as possible (2 days is recommended).

·

Complete Visual and Internal Investigation—An internal investigation,

while under negative air pressure containment, must be performed on all suspect

areas of the building to determine the extent of mold growth on various

materials and inside hidden areas. Inspect all water / moisture affected

areas. The areas that will require mold removal must be identified so

that the proper methods and sequence of work can be planned. If

conditions change or new hidden mold is identified, the remediation plan may

require amendment and additional containment installed (ACGIH, 1999; IICRC,

2003). There is visible mold in the kitchen wall under the sink and most

of the west basement. This is a critical task for the contractor.

·

……….more

Bradley Harr

Sr. Environmental Scientist

Re: Re: PRV and Sampling - With Air Scrubbers

On or

Off

Steve et. al.,

I agree with Steve. I'm not going to go on another rant here, but

how many of you out there in PRV land really understand the concept

of an ASSESSMENT/INVESTIGATION, if you're worried about finding

reservoirs in walls after remediation, during PRV??

For those who may not be able to justify the letters after their

names, here's a mini-primer:

1. Visually inspect & interview occupants/owners. Find the moisture

source(s) & correct them. Perform drying.

2. Find/develop hypotheses associated with the usually rather

predictable patterns of growth resulting from elevated moisture for

those microbials that may be " hidden " .

3. If appropriate, test the hypotheses.

4. Develop a Scope of Work.

5. Remediate.

6. Perform further visual inspection(s) DURING the course of

remediation, in order to allow for minor adjustment of the Scope as

may be necessary.

7. Verify the effectiveness of the remediation & attainment of

acceptance criteria (visual inspection & minimal to moderate

sampling, depending on situation).

8. Upon verification that the remediation is acceptable, minimally

encapsulate only if and when (usually very limited & rarely)

necessary.

BdthTha...tha...that's all folks! It's really not rocket science.

Here's a helpful hint: If you have no investigative skills, get some

or find a new profession.

Cheers & all that.

Chuck Reaney

On 12 Mar 2007 at 19:52, AirwaysEnvcs

wrote:

In a message dated 3/12/2007 5:10:09 PM Eastern Standard Time,

BobEnvironmentalAirTechs

writes:

> If there is a reservoir in the walls, there is a better chance of

> any emissions becoming detectable. If there is a reservoir in the

walls, the time to find it is NOT in your PRV sampling.

Steve Temes

March 14, 2007

What do the training providers on the list think constitutes best practice with regard to PRV testing? Or are you all just faking it and teaching nothing useful?

I guess I have my answer. How sad.

Someone should set up a website called www.trainingcomparisons.com so we can get feedback on who really teaches people what they need to know.

Steve Temes

To your question, in a PRV scenario, the air scrubber should have removed airborne contaminants after surfaces have been thoroughly cleaned by the contractor. After the scrubbing period, with the scrubber running, the turbulent air currents in the work area will keep the remaining spores suspended so that you are able to find them using air sampling. These spores should not be (significantly) present at this time in the work area. It is important to remember that fungal spores are A SURROGATE for all microbial contaminants that would be remaining in the area that was supposed to have been cleaned. Therefore, you are actually assessing potential future occupant exposure to abnormal contamination by assessing whether contaminants have been thoroughly removed, not whether remaining spores are at acceptable levels.

I hope that explains the distinction well enough.

Since there has recently been much griping about who is contributing useful information on this list, I would like to ask the lurkers who purport to teach PRV in their training classes to explain just what it is that you are teaching. I would take a training class offered by or by Bob s before I would take one offered by the usual trainers because I know that they know how to explain what they think is, or should be, best practice. What do the training providers on the list think constitutes best practice with regard to PRV testing? Or are you all just faking it and teaching nothing useful?

Steve Temes

March 14, 2007

Hi BobB,

As Geyer and I have both clearly articulated, the air scrubbers would be used to suspend remaining spores in the work area after you are finished scrubbing. If you try to aggressively stir them up from surfaces and then don't find them in your PRV air samples, that's a good thing.

Rather than answer your question about what levels and genera, lets start with the concept that aggressive sampling and turbulent air flow create higher, not lower, levels of airborne spores in the contained work area. The spores don't know that the turbulence is created by the exhaust/discharge from a filtering device. This is irrelevant after you have completed your scrubbing period.

If I got the levels you ask about in aggressive PRV sampling, as long as it wasn't "genera/species of concern" (which I would consider to be, in part, project specific depending on what was there pre-remediation), I would be very happy.

Again, the hypothesis being tested is whether you can find remaining microbial contamination, measured as spores and hyphae, where it should no longer be by trying to suspend the invisible particulate from surfaces in the cleaned (has passed visual inspection) work area so that you can find them using air sampling methods. The alternative would be to take lots of surface samples after letting spores settle under quiescent conditions.

Steve Temes

If you are going to test with scrubbers on ( and some people do this

for various reasons),

then your passing criteria has to be very strict. e.g. 10 times lower

than with the scrubbers off for an extended period of time. Many

people I know

who do, do this, due use very strict criteria.

What I would like to know from the group is?

If you do test with the scrubbers on, What are your acceptance

criteria? <100 spores? <500 spores? What genera?

March 14, 2007

Brad,

Man, I thought I wrote long posts! lol

I skimmed over most of what you wrote, but want to get to it in detail,

when I'm not in the middle of a 'long month this week'.

I'll get back to you after I've re-read your post and absorbed more info.

Thank you, though, for your detailed reply. On first run through it, there

certainly seem to be some interersting and valid points.

Regards,

Chuck Reaney

Hello Chuck,

We are in agreement. Lets discuss how deep the consultant

assessment

needs to go. This is a " think outloud " on why PRV is not always a

simple " well if there is mold at PRV then you did a poor assessment "

How much assessment should we expect the contractor to do as they

remediate? Our projects in Idaho are offen 100's of miles from the

office and we can not conduct numerous repeat visits. Maybe one

progress inspection at best. Soooo ..... this is one task -

" contractor assessment--tComplete Visual and Internal

Investigation--that I put in our protocols- see fifth bullet below

(the contractor must be AIAQC or IICRC certified; so I assume they

are

experienced and honest and want to do a great job; if not I say

gruppy things about them in the future). See the last bullet.

Remember, usually the contractor has been there for the flood

response, has drying underway, identified mold, visits the site daily,

and should have containment in place before I get called. There is

old mold growth in various areas due to two old slow leaks in kitchen

and then the hot water supply leaked alot and flooded the kitchen and

basement. Sort of a no brainer, but the insurance adj. does not want

to pull all the kitchen cabinets and the warm water went into basement

ceiling and some walls. Some sheet rock is already dry when I get

there, so I can't be sure what was originally wet, the framing could

still be wet behind the dry sheetrock. The details go on and on,

containment is fair but not complete and on and on. How much

assessment should we expect the contractor to do as they remediate?

They contact us for PRV when they have completed the work.

All comments and ideas welcome. IMHO the contractors have

managed to

shift much of the project assessment risk to the consultants by

demanding huge protocols that restate existing standards or

guidelines.

The following are Summit's recommendations, given the background

of

the project. They are consistent with the current industry standard

of care; there may be other methods to properly complete the work,

which the Client / owner may consider. Based on Summit's

professional

judgment, this project is considered large in size, risk and scope due

to the square footage of the impacted building materials (>3000 ft

sq), density of fungal growth (30,000 to 2,000,000 A/P spores / cm sq

in visible areas), and a 6 month old infant occupant (EPA, 2001).

Expected Mold Remediation Procedures

These guidelines are important procedures for proper project

investigation and mold remediation. These are standard procedures

which mold remediation contractors are required to follow with several

additions by Summit to help improve the probability of project

verification. Given the variability of building microbial projects,

some of the procedures may not be specific for the conditions found

during the initial assessment, but may be needed after the preliminary

investigations are completed. Project conditions can change. The

following list of recommendations is not meant to replace the industry

guidelines and standards and remediation contractor experience. If

the mold remediation contractor wants to propose alternatives (equal

to or better), they should discuss it with the Client and provide

specific changes in writing and obtain written approval.

Specific Remediation Recommendations

.. Established Guidelines-The clean-up work should

be performed by an experienced mold remediation contractor. The

remediation contractor should follow as a minimum, the standard

remediation protocols established in the following guidance

documents:

EPA March 2001 - Mold Remediation in Schools and Commercial

Buildings;

IICRC 2003 - S520 Standard and Reference Guide for Professional

Mold

Remediation; and New York City Department of Health 2002 -

Guidelines

on Evaluation and Remediation of Fungi in Indoor Environments. It

would be prudent to keep the affected areas under negative air

pressure during remediation activities to prevent mold contamination

from spreading to other areas of the building.

.. Occupant Communication and Protection-The Client

/ owner should consult with the remediation contractor and understand

the project scope and schedule. The owner should communicate with

any

building occupants prior to the mold remediation project. The project

tasks and timeline should be presented and all occupant concerns

addressed. Occupants and visitors should be restricted from the areas

being cleaned and repaired. If there have been health complaints, the

Client / owner may want to have occupants in adjacent areas relocate

if their concerns are reasonable. Vacating people from adjacent

non-impacted spaces is generally not necessary if complete and

proper

procedures are followed. If occupants are to remain in the

non-impacted areas, Summit recommends those areas are evaluated

and

fungal air testing is completed to ensure and document that the areas

are not impacted. For individuals with reduced immune systems,

infants, recent surgery patients, people with chronic inflammatory

lung diseases, or individuals with respiratory health concerns

(asthma, hypersensitivity pneumonitis, and severe allergies, etc.),

Summit highly recommends that these occupants be relocated (EPA,

2001;

US DOL OSHA; 2003; CDC, 2003). If the remediation is complex or

within

the HVAC system, or activities result in real discomfort to the

occupants, Summit highly recommends that the occupants be

relocated to

reduce potential health problems.

.. Isolate Affected Areas and Use PPE-Microbial

remediation work inside affected areas (e.g., bathrooms, laundry,

attics, garages, crawlspaces, specific rooms) should be performed

inside negative air pressure containment using appropriate engineering

controls, personal protective equipment (PPE), and National Institute

for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) approved respiratory

protective equipment. Negative pressure in the work area should

include a HEPA filter exhaust. Air exchanges are project area specfic

and should control work dust emmisions but not create other building

problems. The exhaust from the negative air machine should be

vented

to the outdoors. Summit recommends negative air measurements

should

be documented in writing at least three times a day to verify proper

containment (IICRC, 2003). Seal all penetrations to the living

envelope, contain the affected area, seal and protect any HVAC

system

duct work in work areas. If remediating a crawlspace, ensure that

large openings below bathroom fixtures are sealed. A

decontamination

chamber is needed at the entry point to the work areas for equipment

and workers. PPE equipment should include full body coveralls,

appropriate gloves, and full-face respirators equipped with P-100

high-efficiency filter cartridges (USDOL OSHA, 2003; EPA, 2001).

These are industry standard safety protocols; however, the contractor

is responsible for evaluating the project and determining the proper

work sequencing and worker safety protocol. Protect all non-impacted

areas of the building.

.. Identify Moisture Source and Properly Dry

Materials-All sources of water leaks and /or high relative humidity

must be assessed and repaired / eliminated. Identification of

conditions that contribute to microbial growth is an important step in

remediation. Affected areas must be dried as quickly as possible and

a microbial retardant could be used to limit additional fungal growth

during the drying process, if needed (follow all product use

requirements and Summit recommends obtaining owner and occupant

approval). Water damaged and fungal contaminated materials that

obviously require removal should be properly removed as soon as

possible, even prior to the drying process, to reduce drying time and

limit potential fungal growth and spore generation and spreading

(IICRC, 2003; EPA, 2001). If possible, the wetted wood should be dried

to ~12% wood moisture as soon as possible (2 days is recommended).

.. Complete Visual and Internal Investigation-An

internal investigation, while under negative air pressure containment,

must be performed on all suspect areas of the building to determine

the extent of mold growth on various materials and inside hidden

areas. Inspect all water / moisture affected areas. The areas that

will require mold removal must be identified so that the proper

methods and sequence of work can be planned. If conditions change

or

new hidden mold is identified, the remediation plan may require

amendment and additional containment installed (ACGIH, 1999;

IICRC,

2003). There is visible mold in the kitchen wall under the sink and

most of the west basement. This is a critical task for the

contractor.

.. ....more

Bradley Harr

Sr. Environmental Scientist

Re: Re: PRV and Sampling - With Air Scrubbers

On or Off

Steve et. al.,

I agree with Steve. I'm not going to go on another rant here, but

how many of you out there in PRV land really understand the concept

of an ASSESSMENT/INVESTIGATION, if you're worried about finding

reservoirs in walls after remediation, during PRV??

For those who may not be able to justify the letters after their

names, here's a mini-primer:

1. Visually inspect & interview occupants/owners. Find the moisture

source(s) & correct them. Perform drying.

2. Find/develop hypotheses associated with the usually rather

predictable patterns of growth resulting from elevated moisture for

those microbials that may be " hidden " .

3. If appropriate, test the hypotheses.

4. Develop a Scope of Work.

5. Remediate.

6. Perform further visual inspection(s) DURING the course of

remediation, in order to allow for minor adjustment of the Scope as

may be necessary.

7. Verify the effectiveness of the remediation & attainment of

acceptance criteria (visual inspection & minimal to moderate

sampling, depending on situation).

8. Upon verification that the remediation is acceptable, minimally

encapsulate only if and when (usually very limited & rarely)

necessary.

BdthTha...tha...that's all folks! It's really not rocket science.

Here's a helpful hint: If you have no investigative skills, get some

or find a new profession.

Cheers & all that.

Chuck Reaney

In a message dated 3/12/2007 5:10:09 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Bob@... writes:

> If there is a reservoir in the walls, there is a better chance of

> any emissions becoming detectable. If there is a reservoir in the

walls, the time to find it is NOT in your PRV sampling.

Steve Temes

March 16, 2007

The fan dust not clean the air of mold spores that are possibly coming out of the walls just remediated. It just stirs up the dust (if any).

Rosen

I'm not looking for mold in the walls with PRV air sampling. I look for that before or during the remediation. I want to know if there is remaining Condition 2 contamination in need of cleaning in the work area. That's what I use PRV testing for after the job has passed my visual inspection.

Steve Temes

March 16, 2007

Steve,

That's the reason we as remediators do our own testing and don't use consultants. We as the contractor are responsible for the qualiity of the work and the health of our clients.

We don't just test for condition 2 when we do final testing. We have to certify that the place is fit for reoccupancy.

If the area you remediated was heavily contaminated and produced elevated mold spores, there is NO WAY to know if there are also secondary (smaller) but yet significant contaminations due to contaminated carpets, hidden mold in walls, mold coming from attic thru leaky recessed light, mold coming from the AC ducts ... without further testing after the main problem is fixed.

The larger problem masks the smaller problems. But the smaller problems are still significant especially for sensitive people.

This is not a game. People's health are at stake. We take responsibility that the place is safe and can be reoccupied. No way we are doing post remediation testing with air scrubbers on. To me that is unethical.

Rosen, Ph.D.

www.Mold-Health.org

Re: Re: PRV and Sampling - With Air Scrubbers On or Off

In a message dated 3/16/2007 6:37:29 PM Eastern Standard Time, garyrosen72652@ yahoo.com writes:

The fan dust not clean the air of mold spores that are possibly coming out of the walls just remediated. It just stirs up the dust (if any). RosenI'm not looking for mold in the walls with PRV air sampling. I look for that before or during the remediation. I want to know if there is remaining Condition 2 contamination in need of cleaning in the work area. That's what I use PRV testing for after the job has passed my visual inspection.Steve Temes

Don't be flakey. Get Yahoo! Mail for Mobile and always stay connected to friends.

March 16, 2007

Steve,

That's the reason we as remediators do our own testing and don't use consultants. We as the contractor are responsible for the qualiity of the work and the health of our clients.

We don't just test for condition 2 when we do final testing. We have to certify that the place is fit for reoccupancy.

If the area you remediated was heavily contaminated and produced elevated mold spores, there is NO WAY to know if there are also secondary (smaller) but yet significant contaminations due to contaminated carpets, hidden mold in walls, mold coming from attic thru leaky recessed light, mold coming from the AC ducts ... without further testing after the main problem is fixed.

The larger problem masks the smaller problems. But the smaller problems are still significant especially for sensitive people.

This is not a game. People's health are at stake. We take responsibility that the place is safe and can be reoccupied. No way we are doing post remediation testing with air scrubbers on. To me that is unethical.

Rosen, Ph.D.

www.Mold-Health.org

Re: Re: PRV and Sampling - With Air Scrubbers On or Off

In a message dated 3/16/2007 6:37:29 PM Eastern Standard Time, garyrosen72652@ yahoo.com writes:

The fan dust not clean the air of mold spores that are possibly coming out of the walls just remediated. It just stirs up the dust (if any). RosenI'm not looking for mold in the walls with PRV air sampling. I look for that before or during the remediation. I want to know if there is remaining Condition 2 contamination in need of cleaning in the work area. That's what I use PRV testing for after the job has passed my visual inspection.Steve Temes

Don't be flakey. Get Yahoo! Mail for Mobile and always stay connected to friends.

March 17, 2007

:

An air scrubber is a fan with a filter at the inlet. So.....to stir-up dust...what’s the difference?

Steve,

There should be no dust to be stirred up. But if you want to stir dust up use a fan and not an air scrubber.

Rosen

www.Mold-Books.com <http://www.Mold-Books.com>

Re: Re: PRV and Sampling - With Air Scrubbers On or Off

Hi BobB,

As Geyer and I have both clearly articulated, the air scrubbers would be used to suspend remaining spores in the work area after you are finished scrubbing. If you try to aggressively stir them up from surfaces and then don't find them in your PRV air samples, that's a good thing.

Rather than answer your question about what levels and genera, lets start with the concept that aggressive sampling and turbulent air flow create higher, not lower, levels of airborne spores in the contained work area. The spores don't know that the turbulence is created by the exhaust/discharge from a filtering device. This is irrelevant after you have completed your scrubbing period.

If I got the levels you ask about in aggressive PRV sampling, as long as it wasn't " genera/species of concern " (which I would consider to be, in part, project specific depending on what was there pre-remediation) , I would be very happy.

Again, the hypothesis being tested is whether you can find remaining microbial contamination, measured as spores and hyphae, where it should no longer be by trying to suspend the invisible particulate from surfaces in the cleaned (has passed visual inspection) work area so that you can find them using air sampling methods. The alternative would be to take lots of surface samples after letting spores settle under quiescent conditions.

Steve Temes

In a message dated 3/12/2007 7:49:48 PM Eastern Standard Time, BobB@safety- epa.com writes:

If you are going to test with scrubbers on ( and some people do this

for various reasons),

then your passing criteria has to be very strict. e.g. 10 times lower

than with the scrubbers off for an extended period of time. Many

people I know

who do, do this, due use very strict criteria.

What I would like to know from the group is?

If you do test with the scrubbers on, What are your acceptance

criteria? <100 spores? <500 spores? What genera?

March 17, 2007

:

An air scrubber is a fan with a filter at the inlet. So.....to stir-up dust...what’s the difference?

Steve,

There should be no dust to be stirred up. But if you want to stir dust up use a fan and not an air scrubber.

Rosen

www.Mold-Books.com <http://www.Mold-Books.com>

Re: Re: PRV and Sampling - With Air Scrubbers On or Off

Hi BobB,

As Geyer and I have both clearly articulated, the air scrubbers would be used to suspend remaining spores in the work area after you are finished scrubbing. If you try to aggressively stir them up from surfaces and then don't find them in your PRV air samples, that's a good thing.

Rather than answer your question about what levels and genera, lets start with the concept that aggressive sampling and turbulent air flow create higher, not lower, levels of airborne spores in the contained work area. The spores don't know that the turbulence is created by the exhaust/discharge from a filtering device. This is irrelevant after you have completed your scrubbing period.

If I got the levels you ask about in aggressive PRV sampling, as long as it wasn't " genera/species of concern " (which I would consider to be, in part, project specific depending on what was there pre-remediation) , I would be very happy.

Again, the hypothesis being tested is whether you can find remaining microbial contamination, measured as spores and hyphae, where it should no longer be by trying to suspend the invisible particulate from surfaces in the cleaned (has passed visual inspection) work area so that you can find them using air sampling methods. The alternative would be to take lots of surface samples after letting spores settle under quiescent conditions.

Steve Temes

In a message dated 3/12/2007 7:49:48 PM Eastern Standard Time, BobB@safety- epa.com writes:

If you are going to test with scrubbers on ( and some people do this

for various reasons),

then your passing criteria has to be very strict. e.g. 10 times lower

than with the scrubbers off for an extended period of time. Many

people I know

who do, do this, due use very strict criteria.

What I would like to know from the group is?

If you do test with the scrubbers on, What are your acceptance

criteria? <100 spores? <500 spores? What genera?

March 18, 2007

Steve,

That's the reason we as remediators do our own testing and don't use consultants. We as the contractor are responsible for the qualiity of the work and the health of our clients.

Since when do contractors want to be held responsible for the health of occupants? Are you a contractor or a health professional?

We don't just test for condition 2 when we do final testing. We have to certify that the place is fit for reoccupancy.

I don't know of any remediation contractor, other than yourself, who will certify that the place is fit for reoccupancy. They just clean.

If the area you remediated was heavily contaminated and produced elevated mold spores, there is NO WAY to know if there are also secondary (smaller) but yet significant contaminations due to contaminated carpets, hidden mold in walls, mold coming from attic thru leaky recessed light, mold coming from the AC ducts ... without further testing after the main problem is fixed.

The larger problem masks the smaller problems. But the smaller problems are still significant especially for sensitive people.

This is not a game. People's health are at stake. We take responsibility that the place is safe and can be reoccupied. No way we are doing post remediation testing with air scrubbers on. To me that is unethical.

What don't you get about the exhaust air stream from a scrubber being the same thing as using a fan to suspend settled spores so you can find them in an air sample? The scrubber has been running in the work area anyway. And why wouldn't you still be able to ID a secondary problem with aggressive sampling? There will either be significant remaining contamination or not. How would you know if your method of PRV sampling is detecting an additional hidden source or an inadequate cleaning procedure anyway?

If you find additional mold amplification sites after you have finished remediating, you would have to admit that your initial assessment was inadequate or that your remediation procedure was inadequate. Since it is apparent to me that you are incapable of admitting when you are wrong, I cannot believe that you would ever find a problem that reflects negatively on your own assessment or remediation AND would cost your money. I think you would probably rationalize and justify to everyone involved in the project that your original assessment and remediation work was done properly, just as you attempt to rationalize and justify that your opinions are correct on this list.

It IS a game, , and you have it totally rigged when you do the initial assessment, the remediation and the PRV. This is what is unethical to me. It is also illegal in some places now.

Steve Temes

Rosen, Ph.D.

March 18, 2007