Guest guest Posted May 2, 2007 Report Share Posted May 2, 2007 If the Remediation Contractor follows the following protocol for post remediation testing ... does anyone believe there is a conflict of interest? Yes. 1.) Have the homeowner witness the sampling. They won't know what they are witnessing. 2.) Put the serial numbers of the cartridges on the COC. 3.) Have the home owner sign the COC along with the sampler. Who fills out the COC? The sample volume is something the homeowner does not know how to verify. Do they check the calibration and time the sample, too? 3.) Have the home owner mail in the cartridges (in the FedX envelop you give him) to a certified lab. 4.) Have the lab email both you and the client the results. It would be pretty hard to forge these results! What about the sample location and conditions during sampling? This will be a significant variable factor. Will the homeowner know how to interpret the results or will you be doing that? Why don't you just let the homeowner tell you where and how to sample or leave them the pump and cassettes and let them take them themselves. Sorry, . It's still a conflict of interest in my book to do your own PRV. If you want to do your own internal QC checking, I think doing your own sampling is a very good idea for that purpose. Steve Temes Rosen, Ph.D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 2, 2007 Report Share Posted May 2, 2007 , Are you going to train the HO to sample as well? Most HO don’t have a clue of what is taking place so having them sign is only verification that they were there. EnviroBob From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of gary rosen Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 12:22 PM To: iequality Subject: PRV by RC If the Remediation Contractor follows the following protocol for post remediation testing ... does anyone believe there is a conflict of interest? 1.) Have the homeowner witness the sampling. 2.) Put the serial numbers of the cartridges on the COC. 3.) Have the home owner sign the COC along with the sampler. 3.) Have the home owner mail in the cartridges (in the FedX envelop you give him) to a certified lab. 4.) Have the lab email both you and the client the results. It would be pretty hard to forge these results! Rosen, Ph.D. www.mold-books.com Ahhh...imagining that irresistible " new car " smell? Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 2, 2007 Report Share Posted May 2, 2007 , Are you going to train the HO to sample as well? Most HO don’t have a clue of what is taking place so having them sign is only verification that they were there. EnviroBob From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of gary rosen Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 12:22 PM To: iequality Subject: PRV by RC If the Remediation Contractor follows the following protocol for post remediation testing ... does anyone believe there is a conflict of interest? 1.) Have the homeowner witness the sampling. 2.) Put the serial numbers of the cartridges on the COC. 3.) Have the home owner sign the COC along with the sampler. 3.) Have the home owner mail in the cartridges (in the FedX envelop you give him) to a certified lab. 4.) Have the lab email both you and the client the results. It would be pretty hard to forge these results! Rosen, Ph.D. www.mold-books.com Ahhh...imagining that irresistible " new car " smell? Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 2, 2007 Report Share Posted May 2, 2007 , Are you going to train the HO to sample as well? Most HO don’t have a clue of what is taking place so having them sign is only verification that they were there. EnviroBob From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of gary rosen Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 12:22 PM To: iequality Subject: PRV by RC If the Remediation Contractor follows the following protocol for post remediation testing ... does anyone believe there is a conflict of interest? 1.) Have the homeowner witness the sampling. 2.) Put the serial numbers of the cartridges on the COC. 3.) Have the home owner sign the COC along with the sampler. 3.) Have the home owner mail in the cartridges (in the FedX envelop you give him) to a certified lab. 4.) Have the lab email both you and the client the results. It would be pretty hard to forge these results! Rosen, Ph.D. www.mold-books.com Ahhh...imagining that irresistible " new car " smell? Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 2, 2007 Report Share Posted May 2, 2007 , The conflict is INHERENT in a contractor, or anyone for that matter, checking their own work. Everyone should check their own work to be satisfied for themselves that it was done sufficiently. That isn't the same as PRV which really needs to be performed by a qualified professional who is INDEPENDENT of the contractor that performed the work. I'm not saying that every project needs to have a PRV performed, or that an EC is necessary in many basic remediation situations. But when a PRV is needed, it can't be done by the contractor who did the work. PRV testing/sampling is something that should be performed only after a visual/white glove test is performed. Does the homeowner get to inspect all surfaces for dust, too, and fail the project on you when he finds a spot of dust? Here's a question for you. Is there a conflict of interest in the homeowner having the ability to fail your project until s/he is satisfied that there is no dust and the results of air samples are acceptable according to their interpretation? Who gets to say when you are finished, you or the homeowner? Checks and balances....an independent, objective verification by a qualified professional with a duty to the building owner that the work was performed adequately on a given unique project (and they are all unique in some respects). The contractor, no matter how well intentioned, is not in a position to be objective when the findings of the PRV will directly impact his profitability on the job. It's the nature of the beast. You can't get around it. The way I see it is that if it isn't done by an independent party, it can't really be a PRV. An analogy might be when you proof and edit your own writing but don't catch the spelling or grammatical errors that get through even though we know which spelling or phrasing is correct. We all do it. When it really has to be perfect, we prefer that someone else proofread what we have written because another set of eyes can see something we have overlooked or become blind to, even though we genuinely tried to find our own mistakes. You can check your own work to confirm that it meets your own internal standards, but it can never be equivalent to an independent PRV. Steve Temes Where exactly is the "conflict of interest"? No doubt it is not ideal. Ideal would have a "professional" take and analyze the samples. But I am missing what makes the "conflict". Earlier people said the the RC could falsify the data. And that was shy there was a conflict of interest. It would be pretty hard for an RC to falsify data with the procedure I listed. Rosen, Ph.D. www.Mold-Books.com Re: PRV by RC In a message dated 5/2/2007 1:18:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, garyrosen72652@ yahoo.com writes: If the Remediation Contractor follows the following protocol for post remediation testing ... does anyone believe there is a conflict of interest? Yes. 1.) Have the homeowner witness the sampling. They won't know what they are witnessing. 2.) Put the serial numbers of the cartridges on the COC. 3.) Have the home owner sign the COC along with the sampler. Who fills out the COC? The sample volume is something the homeowner does not know how to verify. Do they check the calibration and time the sample, too? 3.) Have the home owner mail in the cartridges (in the FedX envelop you give him) to a certified lab. 4.) Have the lab email both you and the client the results. It would be pretty hard to forge these results! What about the sample location and conditions during sampling? This will be a significant variable factor. Will the homeowner know how to interpret the results or will you be doing that? Why don't you just let the homeowner tell you where and how to sample or leave them the pump and cassettes and let them take them themselves. Sorry, . It's still a conflict of interest in my book to do your own PRV. If you want to do your own internal QC checking, I think doing your own sampling is a very good idea for that purpose. Steve Temes Rosen, Ph.D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 2, 2007 Report Share Posted May 2, 2007 The Home Owner watches while the RC turns the pump on. Rosen, Ph.D. www.Mold-Books.com PRV by RC If the Remediation Contractor follows the following protocol for post remediation testing ... does anyone believe there is a conflict of interest? 1.) Have the homeowner witness the sampling. 2.) Put the serial numbers of the cartridges on the COC. 3.) Have the home owner sign the COC along with the sampler. 3.) Have the home owner mail in the cartridges (in the FedX envelop you give him) to a certified lab. 4.) Have the lab email both you and the client the results. It would be pretty hard to forge these results! Rosen, Ph.D. www.mold-books. com Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos. Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell? Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 2, 2007 Report Share Posted May 2, 2007 Where exactly is the "conflict of interest"? No doubt it is not ideal. Ideal would have a "professional" take and analyze the samples. But I am missing what makes the "conflict". Earlier people said the the RC could falsify the data. And that was shy there was a conflict of interest. It would be pretty hard for an RC to falsify data with the procedure I listed. Rosen, Ph.D. www.Mold-Books.com Re: PRV by RC In a message dated 5/2/2007 1:18:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, garyrosen72652@ yahoo.com writes: If the Remediation Contractor follows the following protocol for post remediation testing ... does anyone believe there is a conflict of interest?Yes. 1.) Have the homeowner witness the sampling.They won't know what they are witnessing. 2.) Put the serial numbers of the cartridges on the COC.3.) Have the home owner sign the COC along with the sampler.Who fills out the COC? The sample volume is something the homeowner does not know how to verify. Do they check the calibration and time the sample, too? 3.) Have the home owner mail in the cartridges (in the FedX envelop you give him) to a certified lab.4.) Have the lab email both you and the client the results. It would be pretty hard to forge these results!What about the sample location and conditions during sampling? This will be a significant variable factor. Will the homeowner know how to interpret the results or will you be doing that? Why don't you just let the homeowner tell you where and how to sample or leave them the pump and cassettes and let them take them themselves.Sorry, . It's still a conflict of interest in my book to do your own PRV. If you want to do your own internal QC checking, I think doing your own sampling is a very good idea for that purpose.Steve Temes Rosen, Ph.D. Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell? Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 2, 2007 Report Share Posted May 2, 2007 , As I indicated, I think you're getting much closer to what you're looking to accomplish, BUT, the other comments were correct in that the average Home Owner isn't going to have a clue as to what they're verifying, and that still leaves you open to potential liabilities. The homeowner also isn't someone with acknowledged, credentialed experience. Keep plugging. Chuck Reaney To: iequality Date sent: Wed, 2 May 2007 13:46:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: PRV by RC Send reply to: iequality Where exactly is the " conflict of interest " ? No doubt it is not ideal. Ideal would have a " professional " take and analyze the samples. But I am missing what makes the " conflict " . Earlier people said the the RC could falsify the data. And that was shy there was a conflict of interest. It would be pretty hard for an RC to falsify data with the procedure I listed. Rosen, Ph.D. www.Mold-Books.com Re: PRV by RC In a message dated 5/2/2007 1:18:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, garyrosen72652@ yahoo.com writes: If the Remediation Contractor follows the following protocol for post remediation testing ... does anyone believe there is a conflict of interest? Yes. 1.) Have the homeowner witness the sampling. They won't know what they are witnessing. 2.) Put the serial numbers of the cartridges on the COC. 3.) Have the home owner sign the COC along with the sampler. Who fills out the COC? The sample volume is something the homeowner does not know how to verify. Do they check the calibration and time the sample, too? 3.) Have the home owner mail in the cartridges (in the FedX envelop you give him) to a certified lab. 4.) Have the lab email both you and the client the results. It would be pretty hard to forge these results! What about the sample location and conditions during sampling? This will be a significant variable factor. Will the homeowner know how to interpret the results or will you be doing that? Why don't you just let the homeowner tell you where and how to sample or leave them the pump and cassettes and let them take them themselves. Sorry, . It's still a conflict of interest in my book to do your own PRV. If you want to do your own internal QC checking, I think doing your own sampling is a very good idea for that purpose. Steve Temes Rosen, Ph.D. __________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 2, 2007 Report Share Posted May 2, 2007 : Sorry, but I agree with Steve on this. It is not a matter of a " professional " taking and analyzing the samples. It is a matter of a " professional " designing the sampling protocol; selecting the locations of the samples; deciding how many samples are to be collected and where; and then interpreting the lab results of the samples. If I may, please let me make a brief comparison: a remediator that attempts to verify the adequacy of his own remediation by air sampling is like a construction company verifying the moisture content of a poured slab (thus showing that the slab has been sufficiently dried for construction) by conducting his own tests of the concrete. This, in construction, is always done by a structural engineer following a specific protocol based on years of experience and knowledge, as well as tests that have proven over the years to be effective. In terms of mold remediation, for a building occupant suffering from mold illness, a post-remediation verification by a third party is just as important as the structural engineer's report on the concrete slab. Don > > Where exactly is the " conflict of interest " ? No doubt it is not ideal. Ideal would have a " professional " take and analyze the samples. > > But I am missing what makes the " conflict " . Earlier people said the the RC could falsify the data. And that was shy there was a conflict of interest. > > It would be pretty hard for an RC to falsify data with the procedure I listed. > > Rosen, Ph.D. > www.Mold-Books.com > > > > > > Re: PRV by RC > > In a message dated 5/2/2007 1:18:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, garyrosen72652@ yahoo.com writes: > > If the Remediation Contractor follows the following protocol for post remediation testing ... does anyone believe there is a conflict of interest? > > > Yes. > > > > 1.) Have the homeowner witness the sampling. > > > They won't know what they are witnessing. > > > 2.) Put the serial numbers of the cartridges on the COC. > 3.) Have the home owner sign the COC along with the sampler. > > > Who fills out the COC? The sample volume is something the homeowner does not know how to verify. Do they check the calibration and time the sample, too? > > > 3.) Have the home owner mail in the cartridges (in the FedX envelop you give him) to a certified lab. > 4.) Have the lab email both you and the client the results. > > It would be pretty hard to forge these results! > > > What about the sample location and conditions during sampling? This will be a significant variable factor. Will the homeowner know how to interpret the results or will you be doing that? Why don't you just let the homeowner tell you where and how to sample or leave them the pump and cassettes and let them take them themselves. > > Sorry, . It's still a conflict of interest in my book to do your own PRV. If you want to do your own internal QC checking, I think doing your own sampling is a very good idea for that purpose. > > Steve Temes > > > > Rosen, Ph.D. > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 2, 2007 Report Share Posted May 2, 2007 : Sorry, but I agree with Steve on this. It is not a matter of a " professional " taking and analyzing the samples. It is a matter of a " professional " designing the sampling protocol; selecting the locations of the samples; deciding how many samples are to be collected and where; and then interpreting the lab results of the samples. If I may, please let me make a brief comparison: a remediator that attempts to verify the adequacy of his own remediation by air sampling is like a construction company verifying the moisture content of a poured slab (thus showing that the slab has been sufficiently dried for construction) by conducting his own tests of the concrete. This, in construction, is always done by a structural engineer following a specific protocol based on years of experience and knowledge, as well as tests that have proven over the years to be effective. In terms of mold remediation, for a building occupant suffering from mold illness, a post-remediation verification by a third party is just as important as the structural engineer's report on the concrete slab. Don > > Where exactly is the " conflict of interest " ? No doubt it is not ideal. Ideal would have a " professional " take and analyze the samples. > > But I am missing what makes the " conflict " . Earlier people said the the RC could falsify the data. And that was shy there was a conflict of interest. > > It would be pretty hard for an RC to falsify data with the procedure I listed. > > Rosen, Ph.D. > www.Mold-Books.com > > > > > > Re: PRV by RC > > In a message dated 5/2/2007 1:18:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, garyrosen72652@ yahoo.com writes: > > If the Remediation Contractor follows the following protocol for post remediation testing ... does anyone believe there is a conflict of interest? > > > Yes. > > > > 1.) Have the homeowner witness the sampling. > > > They won't know what they are witnessing. > > > 2.) Put the serial numbers of the cartridges on the COC. > 3.) Have the home owner sign the COC along with the sampler. > > > Who fills out the COC? The sample volume is something the homeowner does not know how to verify. Do they check the calibration and time the sample, too? > > > 3.) Have the home owner mail in the cartridges (in the FedX envelop you give him) to a certified lab. > 4.) Have the lab email both you and the client the results. > > It would be pretty hard to forge these results! > > > What about the sample location and conditions during sampling? This will be a significant variable factor. Will the homeowner know how to interpret the results or will you be doing that? Why don't you just let the homeowner tell you where and how to sample or leave them the pump and cassettes and let them take them themselves. > > Sorry, . It's still a conflict of interest in my book to do your own PRV. If you want to do your own internal QC checking, I think doing your own sampling is a very good idea for that purpose. > > Steve Temes > > > > Rosen, Ph.D. > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 3, 2007 Report Share Posted May 3, 2007 Bob: Yes, it is a bore test that I was referring to. There is always a potential for bias, which is why an independent inspector is needed. See Steve Temes very well written earlier post on this to . Don > > > > Where exactly is the " conflict of interest " ? No doubt it is not > ideal. Ideal would have a " professional " take and analyze the > samples. > > > > But I am missing what makes the " conflict " . Earlier people said the > the RC could falsify the data. And that was shy there was a conflict > of interest. > > > > It would be pretty hard for an RC to falsify data with the > procedure I listed. > > > > Rosen, Ph.D. > > www.Mold-Books.com > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: PRV by RC > > > > In a message dated 5/2/2007 1:18:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, > garyrosen72652@ yahoo.com writes: > > > > If the Remediation Contractor follows the following protocol for > post remediation testing ... does anyone believe there is a conflict > of interest? > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > 1.) Have the homeowner witness the sampling. > > > > > > They won't know what they are witnessing. > > > > > > 2.) Put the serial numbers of the cartridges on the COC. > > 3.) Have the home owner sign the COC along with the sampler. > > > > > > Who fills out the COC? The sample volume is something the > homeowner does not know how to verify. Do they check the > calibration and time the sample, too? > > > > > > 3.) Have the home owner mail in the cartridges (in the FedX > envelop you give him) to a certified lab. > > 4.) Have the lab email both you and the client the results. > > > > It would be pretty hard to forge these results! > > > > > > What about the sample location and conditions during sampling? > This will be a significant variable factor. Will the homeowner know > how to interpret the results or will you be doing that? Why don't > you just let the homeowner tell you where and how to sample or leave > them the pump and cassettes and let them take them themselves. > > > > Sorry, . It's still a conflict of interest in my book to do > your own PRV. If you want to do your own internal QC checking, I > think doing your own sampling is a very good idea for that purpose. > > > > Steve Temes > > > > > > > > Rosen, Ph.D. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 3, 2007 Report Share Posted May 3, 2007 Well written, Steve! And much better answered than I did! : call what you are doing a 'quality control' check, and that would be fine. It is not an independent third party verification of the work, as a PRV must be. Don > > , > > The conflict is INHERENT in a contractor, or anyone for that matter, checking > their own work. Everyone should check their own work to be satisfied for > themselves that it was done sufficiently. That isn't the same as PRV which > really needs to be performed by a qualified professional who is INDEPENDENT of the > contractor that performed the work. > > I'm not saying that every project needs to have a PRV performed, or that an > EC is necessary in many basic remediation situations. But when a PRV is > needed, it can't be done by the contractor who did the work. > > PRV testing/sampling is something that should be performed only after a > visual/white glove test is performed. Does the homeowner get to inspect all > surfaces for dust, too, and fail the project on you when he finds a spot of dust? > > Here's a question for you. Is there a conflict of interest in the homeowner > having the ability to fail your project until s/he is satisfied that there is > no dust and the results of air samples are acceptable according to their > interpretation? Who gets to say when you are finished, you or the homeowner? > > Checks and balances....an independent, objective verification by a qualified > professional with a duty to the building owner that the work was performed > adequately on a given unique project (and they are all unique in some respects). > The contractor, no matter how well intentioned, is not in a position to be > objective when the findings of the PRV will directly impact his profitability on > the job. It's the nature of the beast. You can't get around it. The way I > see it is that if it isn't done by an independent party, it can't really be a > PRV. > > An analogy might be when you proof and edit your own writing but don't catch > the spelling or grammatical errors that get through even though we know which > spelling or phrasing is correct. We all do it. When it really has to be > perfect, we prefer that someone else proofread what we have written because > another set of eyes can see something we have overlooked or become blind to, even > though we genuinely tried to find our own mistakes. > > You can check your own work to confirm that it meets your own internal > standards, but it can never be equivalent to an independent PRV. > > Steve Temes > > In a message dated 5/2/2007 4:50:19 PM Eastern Standard Time, > garyrosen72652@... writes: > > Where exactly is the " conflict of interest " ? No doubt it is not ideal. > > Ideal would have a " professional " take and analyze the samples. > > > > But I am missing what makes the " conflict " . Earlier people said the the RC > > could falsify the data. And that was shy there was a conflict of interest. > > > > It would be pretty hard for an RC to falsify data with the procedure I > > listed. > > > > Rosen, Ph.D. > > www.Mold-Books.com > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: PRV by RC > > > > In a message dated 5/2/2007 1:18:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, > > garyrosen72652@ yahoo.com writes: > > >> If the Remediation Contractor follows the following protocol for post > >> remediation testing ... does anyone believe there is a conflict of interest? > > > > > > Yes. > > > > >> > >> 1.) Have the homeowner witness the sampling. > > > > > > They won't know what they are witnessing. > > > > >> 2.) Put the serial numbers of the cartridges on the COC. > >> 3.) Have the home owner sign the COC along with the sampler. > > > > > > Who fills out the COC? The sample volume is something the homeowner does > > not know how to verify. Do they check the calibration and time the sample, > > too? > > > > >> 3.) Have the home owner mail in the cartridges (in the FedX envelop you > >> give him) to a certified lab. > >> 4.) Have the lab email both you and the client the results. > >> > >> It would be pretty hard to forge these results! > > > > > > What about the sample location and conditions during sampling? This will be > > a significant variable factor. Will the homeowner know how to interpret the > > results or will you be doing that? Why don't you just let the homeowner > > tell you where and how to sample or leave them the pump and cassettes and let > > them take them themselves. > > > > Sorry, . It's still a conflict of interest in my book to do your own > > PRV. If you want to do your own internal QC checking, I think doing your own > > sampling is a very good idea for that purpose. > > > > Steve Temes > > > > >> > >> Rosen, Ph.D > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 3, 2007 Report Share Posted May 3, 2007 Steve, You made a critical point in your first 4 words by saying the COI was INHERENT. That means a couple of things. 1. The COI was not caused by an action of the RC (or EC), it was already there. 2. A COI is not always the same as an immoral or illegal act. A very honest, ethical person can be in a COI. Which begs the question, if you are in a COI is it always wrong to go ahead and perform the task? What makes it wrong? Or right? Carl Grimes Healthy Habitats LLC ----- > > , > > The conflict is INHERENT in a contractor, or anyone for that matter, > checking their own work. Everyone should check their own work to be > satisfied for themselves that it was done sufficiently. That isn't > the same as PRV which really needs to be performed by a qualified > professional who is INDEPENDENT of the contractor that performed the > work. > > I'm not saying that every project needs to have a PRV performed, or > that an EC is necessary in many basic remediation situations. But > when a PRV is needed, it can't be done by the contractor who did the > work. > > PRV testing/sampling is something that should be performed only after > a visual/white glove test is performed. Does the homeowner get to > inspect all surfaces for dust, too, and fail the project on you when > he finds a spot of dust? > > Here's a question for you. Is there a conflict of interest in the > homeowner having the ability to fail your project until s/he is > satisfied that there is no dust and the results of air samples are > acceptable according to their interpretation? Who gets to say when > you are finished, you or the homeowner? > > Checks and balances....an independent, objective verification by a > qualified professional with a duty to the building owner that the > work was performed adequately on a given unique project (and they are > all unique in some respects). The contractor, no matter how well > intentioned, is not in a position to be objective when the findings > of the PRV will directly impact his profitability on the job. It's > the nature of the beast. You can't get around it. The way I see it > is that if it isn't done by an independent party, it can't really be > a PRV. > > An analogy might be when you proof and edit your own writing but > don't catch the spelling or grammatical errors that get through even > though we know which spelling or phrasing is correct. We all do it. > When it really has to be perfect, we prefer that someone else > proofread what we have written because another set of eyes can see > something we have overlooked or become blind to, even though we > genuinely tried to find our own mistakes. > > You can check your own work to confirm that it meets your own > internal standards, but it can never be equivalent to an independent > PRV. > > Steve Temes > > In a message dated 5/2/2007 4:50:19 PM Eastern Standard Time, > garyrosen72652@... writes: > Where exactly is the " conflict of interest " ? No doubt it is not > ideal. Ideal would have a " professional " take and analyze the > samples. > > But I am missing what makes the " conflict " . Earlier people said the > the RC could falsify the data. And that was shy there was a conflict > of interest. > > It would be pretty hard for an RC to falsify data with the procedure > I listed. > > Rosen, Ph.D. > www.Mold-Books.com > > > > > > Re: PRV by RC > > In a message dated 5/2/2007 1:18:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, > garyrosen72652@ yahoo.com writes: > If the Remediation Contractor follows the following protocol for post > remediation testing ... does anyone believe there is a conflict of > interest? > > > > Yes. > > > 1.) Have the homeowner witness the sampling. > > > > They won't know what they are witnessing. > > 2.) Put the serial numbers of the cartridges on the COC. > 3.) Have the home owner sign the COC along with the sampler. > > > > Who fills out the COC? The sample volume is something the homeowner > does not know how to verify. Do they check the calibration and time > the sample, too? > > 3.) Have the home owner mail in the cartridges (in the FedX envelop > you give him) to a certified lab. > 4.) Have the lab email both you and the client the results. > > It would be pretty hard to forge these results! > > > > What about the sample location and conditions during sampling? This > will be a significant variable factor. Will the homeowner know how > to interpret the results or will you be doing that? Why don't you > just let the homeowner tell you where and how to sample or leave them > the pump and cassettes and let them take them themselves. > > Sorry, . It's still a conflict of interest in my book to do your > own PRV. If you want to do your own internal QC checking, I think > doing your own sampling is a very good idea for that purpose. > > Steve Temes > > > Rosen, Ph.D > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 3, 2007 Report Share Posted May 3, 2007 Don, In ’s previous statements he concludes that he does quality control sampling to determine progress; than he does the PVR at the end. Now that is where the C of I comes in. QC is not an issue and should not be; nothing wrong with checking your progress. Outside the engineering controls would be a good alternative or included or even suggested to confirm your containment is adequately assembled and functioning as designed. Other than small jobs, if you are doing RC work, don’t clear your own work. EnviroBob From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Weekes Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 12:27 PM To: iequality Subject: Re: PRV by RC Well written, Steve! And much better answered than I did! : call what you are doing a 'quality control' check, and that would be fine. It is not an independent third party verification of the work, as a PRV must be. Don > > , > > The conflict is INHERENT in a contractor, or anyone for that matter, checking > their own work. Everyone should check their own work to be satisfied for > themselves that it was done sufficiently. That isn't the same as PRV which > really needs to be performed by a qualified professional who is INDEPENDENT of the > contractor that performed the work. > > I'm not saying that every project needs to have a PRV performed, or that an > EC is necessary in many basic remediation situations. But when a PRV is > needed, it can't be done by the contractor who did the work. > > PRV testing/sampling is something that should be performed only after a > visual/white glove test is performed. Does the homeowner get to inspect all > surfaces for dust, too, and fail the project on you when he finds a spot of dust? > > Here's a question for you. Is there a conflict of interest in the homeowner > having the ability to fail your project until s/he is satisfied that there is > no dust and the results of air samples are acceptable according to their > interpretation? Who gets to say when you are finished, you or the homeowner? > > Checks and balances....an independent, objective verification by a qualified > professional with a duty to the building owner that the work was performed > adequately on a given unique project (and they are all unique in some respects). > The contractor, no matter how well intentioned, is not in a position to be > objective when the findings of the PRV will directly impact his profitability on > the job. It's the nature of the beast. You can't get around it. The way I > see it is that if it isn't done by an independent party, it can't really be a > PRV. > > An analogy might be when you proof and edit your own writing but don't catch > the spelling or grammatical errors that get through even though we know which > spelling or phrasing is correct. We all do it. When it really has to be > perfect, we prefer that someone else proofread what we have written because > another set of eyes can see something we have overlooked or become blind to, even > though we genuinely tried to find our own mistakes. > > You can check your own work to confirm that it meets your own internal > standards, but it can never be equivalent to an independent PRV. > > Steve Temes > > In a message dated 5/2/2007 4:50:19 PM Eastern Standard Time, > garyrosen72652@... writes: > > Where exactly is the " conflict of interest " ? No doubt it is not ideal. > > Ideal would have a " professional " take and analyze the samples. > > > > But I am missing what makes the " conflict " . Earlier people said the the RC > > could falsify the data. And that was shy there was a conflict of interest. > > > > It would be pretty hard for an RC to falsify data with the procedure I > > listed. > > > > Rosen, Ph.D. > > www.Mold-Books.com > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: PRV by RC > > > > In a message dated 5/2/2007 1:18:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, > > garyrosen72652@ yahoo.com writes: > > >> If the Remediation Contractor follows the following protocol for post > >> remediation testing ... does anyone believe there is a conflict of interest? > > > > > > Yes. > > > > >> > >> 1.) Have the homeowner witness the sampling. > > > > > > They won't know what they are witnessing. > > > > >> 2.) Put the serial numbers of the cartridges on the COC. > >> 3.) Have the home owner sign the COC along with the sampler. > > > > > > Who fills out the COC? The sample volume is something the homeowner does > > not know how to verify. Do they check the calibration and time the sample, > > too? > > > > >> 3.) Have the home owner mail in the cartridges (in the FedX envelop you > >> give him) to a certified lab. > >> 4.) Have the lab email both you and the client the results. > >> > >> It would be pretty hard to forge these results! > > > > > > What about the sample location and conditions during sampling? This will be > > a significant variable factor. Will the homeowner know how to interpret the > > results or will you be doing that? Why don't you just let the homeowner > > tell you where and how to sample or leave them the pump and cassettes and let > > them take them themselves. > > > > Sorry, . It's still a conflict of interest in my book to do your own > > PRV. If you want to do your own internal QC checking, I think doing your own > > sampling is a very good idea for that purpose. > > > > Steve Temes > > > > >> > >> Rosen, Ph.D > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 3, 2007 Report Share Posted May 3, 2007 Carl, That is pretty insightful! A gem. If testing your own work is a COI or potential COI does that make it is wrong or bad to do? Since I test my own work to improve the quality of my work (even though I eat the cost and it reduces my profit) I continue to do so. Clients want it done. They want me to take responsibility for the work I do. And this reduces their cost compared to hiring a consultant to test ... we are already there and it is very cheap to test. (I also am a CRMI & CIEC with $5M in mold E & O). No doubt many or perhaps most RC's are not trained to test ... but that can be added to an RC training program. Actually our training course for TX mold remediators includes training in testing since in TX if you do mold remedation work in schools you can also do assessment (the prohibition about doing both functions does not apply if you work in schools.) Some clients don't hire my firm because a consultant convinces them that they can't use the same company to both test the work and do the remediation work. But that is very very rare at least in S FLA. And I have never had an attorney in FLA object about testing our own work. Generally they will insist that this is how it should be done. If the FLA mold law passes, there is nothing in the law to keep an RC from testing their own work. Carl - thanks again for your little gem! Rosen, Ph.D. www.Mold-Books.com Re: PRV by RC> > In a message dated 5/2/2007 1:18:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, > garyrosen72652@ yahoo.com writes: > If the Remediation Contractor follows the following protocol for post > remediation testing ... does anyone believe there is a conflict of > interest?> > > > Yes.> > > 1.) Have the homeowner witness the sampling.> > > > They won't know what they are witnessing.> > 2.) Put the serial numbers of the cartridges on the COC.> 3.) Have the home owner sign the COC along with the sampler.> > > > Who fills out the COC? The sample volume is something the homeowner > does not know how to verify. Do they check the calibration and time > the sample, too?> > 3.) Have the home owner mail in the cartridges (in the FedX envelop > you give him) to a certified lab.> 4.) Have the lab email both you and the client the results.> > It would be pretty hard to forge these results!> > > > What about the sample location and conditions during sampling? This > will be a significant variable factor. Will the homeowner know how > to interpret the results or will you be doing that? Why don't you > just let the homeowner tell you where and how to sample or leave them > the pump and cassettes and let them take them themselves.> > Sorry, . It's still a conflict of interest in my book to do your > own PRV. If you want to do your own internal QC checking, I think > doing your own sampling is a very good idea for that purpose.> > Steve Temes> > > Rosen, Ph.D> > > > > > > Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell? Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 3, 2007 Report Share Posted May 3, 2007 Steve, Aha. A key issue is your last statement. If you do your own testing it can never be an INDEPENDENT PRV. No doubt. Rosen, Ph.D. www.Mold-Books.com Re: PRV by RCIn a message dated 5/2/2007 1:18:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, garyrosen72652@ yahoo.com writes: If the Remediation Contractor follows the following protocol for post remediation testing ... does anyone believe there is a conflict of interest?Yes. 1.) Have the homeowner witness the sampling.They won't know what they are witnessing. 2.) Put the serial numbers of the cartridges on the COC.3.) Have the home owner sign the COC along with the sampler.Who fills out the COC? The sample volume is something the homeowner does not know how to verify. Do they check the calibration and time the sample, too? 3.) Have the home owner mail in the cartridges (in the FedX envelop you give him) to a certified lab.4.) Have the lab email both you and the client the results. It would be pretty hard to forge these results!What about the sample location and conditions during sampling? This will be a significant variable factor. Will the homeowner know how to interpret the results or will you be doing that? Why don't you just let the homeowner tell you where and how to sample or leave them the pump and cassettes and let them take them themselves.Sorry, . It's still a conflict of interest in my book to do your own PRV. If you want to do your own internal QC checking, I think doing your own sampling is a very good idea for that purpose.Steve Temes Rosen, Ph.D Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell? Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 3, 2007 Report Share Posted May 3, 2007 Steve, Aha. A key issue is your last statement. If you do your own testing it can never be an INDEPENDENT PRV. No doubt. Rosen, Ph.D. www.Mold-Books.com Re: PRV by RCIn a message dated 5/2/2007 1:18:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, garyrosen72652@ yahoo.com writes: If the Remediation Contractor follows the following protocol for post remediation testing ... does anyone believe there is a conflict of interest?Yes. 1.) Have the homeowner witness the sampling.They won't know what they are witnessing. 2.) Put the serial numbers of the cartridges on the COC.3.) Have the home owner sign the COC along with the sampler.Who fills out the COC? The sample volume is something the homeowner does not know how to verify. Do they check the calibration and time the sample, too? 3.) Have the home owner mail in the cartridges (in the FedX envelop you give him) to a certified lab.4.) Have the lab email both you and the client the results. It would be pretty hard to forge these results!What about the sample location and conditions during sampling? This will be a significant variable factor. Will the homeowner know how to interpret the results or will you be doing that? Why don't you just let the homeowner tell you where and how to sample or leave them the pump and cassettes and let them take them themselves.Sorry, . It's still a conflict of interest in my book to do your own PRV. If you want to do your own internal QC checking, I think doing your own sampling is a very good idea for that purpose.Steve Temes Rosen, Ph.D Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell? Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 4, 2007 Report Share Posted May 4, 2007 Chuck said ... "I therefore invite you broaden your perspectives beyond Florida, beyond EC vs. RC, and to join others who are capable and honest, regardless of what particular function they perform, to assist in identification of real problems that face the entire industry, and in seeking meaningful and effective solutions." Okay. End of any emails from me on the subject. The other day I asked for help in defining the job of a mold assessor but got zero response. Can you help me out on this definition? Here's what I have so far ... "Mold assessment" means a process performed by a mold assessor. Activities should always involve: investigation, or survey of a dwelling or other structure to provide the owner or occupant with information regarding the presence, identification, or evaluation of mold contamination determining if any mold contamination present reflects indoor mold growth; reflects normal fungal ecology; or reflects elevated mold spores that could be remediated by routine cleaning. (This activity may a require a Mold Analysis). documenting if the cause of mold growth was clean water; gray water; or black water interviewing occupants to determine their sensitivity to mold and chemical cleaners prior to developing any recommended mold remediation protocol. Activities may involve: collecting samples to be sent to a qualified laboratory the development of a Preliminary Mold Remediation Protocol including the proper use of disinfectants; recommending destructive testing such as baseboard removal; opening walls; pulling back carpets, etc. in order to find sources of hidden mold and/or in order to determine the amount of mold contamination for the purpose of developing a Preliminary Mold Remediation Protocol building inspection, including HVAC and duct work, as to the cause of the mold contamination and/or mold growth Mold analysis--The examination of a sample collected during a mold assessment for the purpose of: (A) determining the amount or presence of or identifying the genus or species of any living or dead mold or related parts (including spores and hyphae) present in the sample; ( hypothesizing whether the analyzed material reflects indoor mold growth; reflects normal fungal ecology; or reflects elevated mold spores that could be remediated by routine cleaning. Rosen, Ph.D. www.Mold-Books.com Re: PRVby RC > > In a message dated 5/2/2007 1:18:42 PM Eastern StandardTime, garyrosen72652@ yahoo.com writes: > > If the RemediationContractor follows the following protocol for post remediation testing... does anyone believe there is a conflict of interest? > > > Yes. >> > > 1.) Have the homeowner witness the sampling. > > > They won'tknow what they are witnessing. > > > 2.) Put the serial numbers ofthe cartridges on the COC. > 3.) Have the home owner sign the COCalong with the sampler. > > > Who fills out the COC? The samplevolume is something the homeowner does not know how to verify. Dothey check the calibration and time the sample, too? > > > 3.) Havethe home owner mail in the cartridges (in the FedX envelop you givehim) to a certified lab. > 4.) Have the lab email both you and theclient the results. > > It would be pretty hard to forge theseresults! > > > What about the sample location and conditions duringsampling? This will be a significant variable factor. Will thehomeowner know how to interpret the results or will you be doing that?Why don't you just let the homeowner tell you where and how to sampleor leave them the pump and cassettes and let them take themthemselves. > > Sorry, . It's still a conflict of interest in mybook to do your own PRV. If you want to do your own internal QCchecking, I think doing your own sampling is a very good idea for thatpurpose. > > Steve Temes > > > > Rosen, Ph.D. > > > > > > >____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ __ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 4, 2007 Report Share Posted May 4, 2007 Chuck said ... "I therefore invite you broaden your perspectives beyond Florida, beyond EC vs. RC, and to join others who are capable and honest, regardless of what particular function they perform, to assist in identification of real problems that face the entire industry, and in seeking meaningful and effective solutions." Okay. End of any emails from me on the subject. The other day I asked for help in defining the job of a mold assessor but got zero response. Can you help me out on this definition? Here's what I have so far ... "Mold assessment" means a process performed by a mold assessor. Activities should always involve: investigation, or survey of a dwelling or other structure to provide the owner or occupant with information regarding the presence, identification, or evaluation of mold contamination determining if any mold contamination present reflects indoor mold growth; reflects normal fungal ecology; or reflects elevated mold spores that could be remediated by routine cleaning. (This activity may a require a Mold Analysis). documenting if the cause of mold growth was clean water; gray water; or black water interviewing occupants to determine their sensitivity to mold and chemical cleaners prior to developing any recommended mold remediation protocol. Activities may involve: collecting samples to be sent to a qualified laboratory the development of a Preliminary Mold Remediation Protocol including the proper use of disinfectants; recommending destructive testing such as baseboard removal; opening walls; pulling back carpets, etc. in order to find sources of hidden mold and/or in order to determine the amount of mold contamination for the purpose of developing a Preliminary Mold Remediation Protocol building inspection, including HVAC and duct work, as to the cause of the mold contamination and/or mold growth Mold analysis--The examination of a sample collected during a mold assessment for the purpose of: (A) determining the amount or presence of or identifying the genus or species of any living or dead mold or related parts (including spores and hyphae) present in the sample; ( hypothesizing whether the analyzed material reflects indoor mold growth; reflects normal fungal ecology; or reflects elevated mold spores that could be remediated by routine cleaning. Rosen, Ph.D. www.Mold-Books.com Re: PRVby RC > > In a message dated 5/2/2007 1:18:42 PM Eastern StandardTime, garyrosen72652@ yahoo.com writes: > > If the RemediationContractor follows the following protocol for post remediation testing... does anyone believe there is a conflict of interest? > > > Yes. >> > > 1.) Have the homeowner witness the sampling. > > > They won'tknow what they are witnessing. > > > 2.) Put the serial numbers ofthe cartridges on the COC. > 3.) Have the home owner sign the COCalong with the sampler. > > > Who fills out the COC? The samplevolume is something the homeowner does not know how to verify. Dothey check the calibration and time the sample, too? > > > 3.) Havethe home owner mail in the cartridges (in the FedX envelop you givehim) to a certified lab. > 4.) Have the lab email both you and theclient the results. > > It would be pretty hard to forge theseresults! > > > What about the sample location and conditions duringsampling? This will be a significant variable factor. Will thehomeowner know how to interpret the results or will you be doing that?Why don't you just let the homeowner tell you where and how to sampleor leave them the pump and cassettes and let them take themthemselves. > > Sorry, . It's still a conflict of interest in mybook to do your own PRV. If you want to do your own internal QCchecking, I think doing your own sampling is a very good idea for thatpurpose. > > Steve Temes > > > > Rosen, Ph.D. > > > > > > >____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ __ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 4, 2007 Report Share Posted May 4, 2007 Steve, Aha. A key issue is your last statement. If you do your own testing it can never be an INDEPENDENT PRV. No doubt. Rosen, Ph.D. The point being that you are "checking your own work" and all that this implies in light of the inherent conflict of interest when you do so. It is laudable that you assure for yourself that you have met your own standards. It is laughable that you think an attorney might consider it legitimate that you have cleared your own project. Steve Temes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 4, 2007 Report Share Posted May 4, 2007 Carl wrote: Which begs the question, if you are in a COI is it always wrong to go ahead and perform the task? What makes it wrong? Or right? Good questions, Carl. I never considered it a matter of wrong or right. It is a matter of mitigating or avoiding the conflict of interest -- potential, perceived or actual. If, as a contractor, you disclose fully to the owner that they might want to hire an independent consultant to do post-remediation verification and the owner chooses not to, the owner now has made an informed decision to accept the contractor's work "as is". If the contractor does their own post-remediation testing for quality assurance/quality control purposes or internal documentation, this is good documentation for the contractor's file. If the contractor gets sued for allegedly performing the work negligently, his internal documentation will not be worth much because the inherent conflict of interest takes credibility away from the weight of the documentation. (i.e., The sample results show good levels but can we believe the results taken by a party who benefits from the results they obtain and has the opportunity to "falsify" the sampling by multiple means?). To address your conflict of interest questions and questions about the levels of critical review of the remediation work that you point out in your accountant analogy, it gets back to the discussions we have had in the past about each project being different and having different criteria for cleanliness and a different need for the documentation assuring that the cleanliness criteria have been met. It gets back to the subject matter in Bob s' PRV book and the Las Vegas "Advanced Perspectives" conference (unpublished) "proceedings". The need for an independent PRV assessment and the degree of documentation required varies with the building type and its occupants and the facts and circumstances surrounding the particular building problem and the people affected or potentially affected by it. In short, I would say that the greater the liability exposure on the part of any of the parties involved, the greater the need for independent documentation that a set of cleanliness criteria has been met. Steve Temes Steve, You made a critical point in your first 4 words by saying the COI was INHERENT. That means a couple of things. 1. The COI was not caused by an action of the RC (or EC), it was already there. 2. A COI is not always the same as an immoral or illegal act. A very honest, ethical person can be in a COI. Which begs the question, if you are in a COI is it always wrong to go ahead and perform the task? What makes it wrong? Or right? Carl Grimes Healthy Habitats LLC Steve, I also like your example of proof reading to find your own errors vs having someone else also check. Years ago when I wrote a book I had 3 others proofread it and then a professional editor. After publication we still found over 100 mistakes. (Which reveals the embarrassment of errors before any proofing was done!) Another example might be balancing your business bank account, vs a review by an accountant, vs an audit by a CPA, vs a certified audit by a CPA. In our industry, which level am I asked to perform, which SHOULD I perform, and which am I Qualified to perform? Carl Grimes Healthfy Habitats LLC ----- > >, > >The conflict is INHERENT in a contractor, or anyone for that matter, >checking their own work. Everyone should check their own work to be >satisfied for themselves that it was done sufficiently. That isn't >the same as PRV which really needs to be performed by a qualified >professional who is INDEPENDENT of the contractor that performed the >work. > >I'm not saying that every project needs to have a PRV performed, or >that an EC is necessary in many basic remediation situations. But >when a PRV is needed, it can't be done by the contractor who did the >work. > >PRV testing/sampling is something that should be performed only after >a visual/white glove test is performed. Does the homeowner get to >inspect all surfaces for dust, too, and fail the project on you when >he finds a spot of dust? > >Here's a question for you. Is there a conflict of interest in the >homeowner having the ability to fail your project until s/he is >satisfied that there is no dust and the results of air samples are >acceptable according to their interpretation? Who gets to say when >you are finished, you or the homeowner? > >Checks and balances....an independent, objective verification by a >qualified professional with a duty to the building owner that the >work was performed adequately on a given unique project (and they are >all unique in some respects). The contractor, no matter how well >intentioned, is not in a position to be objective when the findings >of the PRV will directly impact his profitability on the job. It's >the nature of the beast. You can't get around it. The way I see it >is that if it isn't done by an independent party, it can't really be >a PRV. > >An analogy might be when you proof and edit your own writing but >don't catch the spelling or grammatical errors that get through even >though we know which spelling or phrasing is correct. We all do it. >When it really has to be perfect, we prefer that someone else >proofread what we have written because another set of eyes can see >something we have overlooked or become blind to, even though we >genuinely tried to find our own mistakes. > >You can check your own work to confirm that it meets your own >internal standards, but it can never be equivalent to an independent >PRV. > >Steve Temes > >In a message dated 5/2/2007 4:50:19 PM Eastern Standard Time, >garyrosen72652@... writes: >Where exactly is the "conflict of interest"? No doubt it is not >ideal. Ideal would have a "professional" take and analyze the >samples. > >But I am missing what makes the "conflict". Earlier people said the >the RC could falsify the data. And that was shy there was a conflict >of interest. > >It would be pretty hard for an RC to falsify data with the procedure >I listed. > > Rosen, Ph.D. >www.Mold-Books.com > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 4, 2007 Report Share Posted May 4, 2007 Carl wrote: Which begs the question, if you are in a COI is it always wrong to go ahead and perform the task? What makes it wrong? Or right? Good questions, Carl. I never considered it a matter of wrong or right. It is a matter of mitigating or avoiding the conflict of interest -- potential, perceived or actual. If, as a contractor, you disclose fully to the owner that they might want to hire an independent consultant to do post-remediation verification and the owner chooses not to, the owner now has made an informed decision to accept the contractor's work "as is". If the contractor does their own post-remediation testing for quality assurance/quality control purposes or internal documentation, this is good documentation for the contractor's file. If the contractor gets sued for allegedly performing the work negligently, his internal documentation will not be worth much because the inherent conflict of interest takes credibility away from the weight of the documentation. (i.e., The sample results show good levels but can we believe the results taken by a party who benefits from the results they obtain and has the opportunity to "falsify" the sampling by multiple means?). To address your conflict of interest questions and questions about the levels of critical review of the remediation work that you point out in your accountant analogy, it gets back to the discussions we have had in the past about each project being different and having different criteria for cleanliness and a different need for the documentation assuring that the cleanliness criteria have been met. It gets back to the subject matter in Bob s' PRV book and the Las Vegas "Advanced Perspectives" conference (unpublished) "proceedings". The need for an independent PRV assessment and the degree of documentation required varies with the building type and its occupants and the facts and circumstances surrounding the particular building problem and the people affected or potentially affected by it. In short, I would say that the greater the liability exposure on the part of any of the parties involved, the greater the need for independent documentation that a set of cleanliness criteria has been met. Steve Temes Steve, You made a critical point in your first 4 words by saying the COI was INHERENT. That means a couple of things. 1. The COI was not caused by an action of the RC (or EC), it was already there. 2. A COI is not always the same as an immoral or illegal act. A very honest, ethical person can be in a COI. Which begs the question, if you are in a COI is it always wrong to go ahead and perform the task? What makes it wrong? Or right? Carl Grimes Healthy Habitats LLC Steve, I also like your example of proof reading to find your own errors vs having someone else also check. Years ago when I wrote a book I had 3 others proofread it and then a professional editor. After publication we still found over 100 mistakes. (Which reveals the embarrassment of errors before any proofing was done!) Another example might be balancing your business bank account, vs a review by an accountant, vs an audit by a CPA, vs a certified audit by a CPA. In our industry, which level am I asked to perform, which SHOULD I perform, and which am I Qualified to perform? Carl Grimes Healthfy Habitats LLC ----- > >, > >The conflict is INHERENT in a contractor, or anyone for that matter, >checking their own work. Everyone should check their own work to be >satisfied for themselves that it was done sufficiently. That isn't >the same as PRV which really needs to be performed by a qualified >professional who is INDEPENDENT of the contractor that performed the >work. > >I'm not saying that every project needs to have a PRV performed, or >that an EC is necessary in many basic remediation situations. But >when a PRV is needed, it can't be done by the contractor who did the >work. > >PRV testing/sampling is something that should be performed only after >a visual/white glove test is performed. Does the homeowner get to >inspect all surfaces for dust, too, and fail the project on you when >he finds a spot of dust? > >Here's a question for you. Is there a conflict of interest in the >homeowner having the ability to fail your project until s/he is >satisfied that there is no dust and the results of air samples are >acceptable according to their interpretation? Who gets to say when >you are finished, you or the homeowner? > >Checks and balances....an independent, objective verification by a >qualified professional with a duty to the building owner that the >work was performed adequately on a given unique project (and they are >all unique in some respects). The contractor, no matter how well >intentioned, is not in a position to be objective when the findings >of the PRV will directly impact his profitability on the job. It's >the nature of the beast. You can't get around it. The way I see it >is that if it isn't done by an independent party, it can't really be >a PRV. > >An analogy might be when you proof and edit your own writing but >don't catch the spelling or grammatical errors that get through even >though we know which spelling or phrasing is correct. We all do it. >When it really has to be perfect, we prefer that someone else >proofread what we have written because another set of eyes can see >something we have overlooked or become blind to, even though we >genuinely tried to find our own mistakes. > >You can check your own work to confirm that it meets your own >internal standards, but it can never be equivalent to an independent >PRV. > >Steve Temes > >In a message dated 5/2/2007 4:50:19 PM Eastern Standard Time, >garyrosen72652@... writes: >Where exactly is the "conflict of interest"? No doubt it is not >ideal. Ideal would have a "professional" take and analyze the >samples. > >But I am missing what makes the "conflict". Earlier people said the >the RC could falsify the data. And that was shy there was a conflict >of interest. > >It would be pretty hard for an RC to falsify data with the procedure >I listed. > > Rosen, Ph.D. >www.Mold-Books.com > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 4, 2007 Report Share Posted May 4, 2007 , I don't have a problem with your definition (I think it's pretty good) but since I don't know who it is intended for or how it will be used, I can't begin to edit it for any specific or universal purpose. I suspect that it will probably somehow be used to market yourself or your services rather than be any sort of "consensus" definition. Where do you intend to put this definition? Maybe you can throw it up on Wikipedia and see what happens to it. I don't see anything wrong with it, per se. My concern is how it might be used by someone to justify doing more than is necessary. Steve Can you help me out on this definition? Here's what I have so far ... "Mold assessment" means a process performed by a mold assessor. Activities should always involve: investigation, or survey of a dwelling or other structure to provide the owner or occupant with information regarding the presence, identification, or evaluation of mold contamination determining if any mold contamination present reflects indoor mold growth; reflects normal fungal ecology; or reflects elevated mold spores that could be remediated by routine cleaning. (This activity may a require a Mold Analysis). documenting if the cause of mold growth was clean water; gray water; or black water interviewing occupants to determine their sensitivity to mold and chemical cleaners prior to developing any recommended mold remediation protocol. Activities may involve: collecting samples to be sent to a qualified laboratory the development of a Preliminary Mold Remediation Protocol including the proper use of disinfectants; recommending destructive testing such as baseboard removal; opening walls; pulling back carpets, etc. in order to find sources of hidden mold and/or in order to determine the amount of mold contamination for the purpose of developing a Preliminary Mold Remediation Protocol building inspection, including HVAC and duct work, as to the cause of the mold contamination and/or mold growth Mold analysis--The examination of a sample collected during a mold assessment for the purpose of: (A) determining the amount or presence of or identifying the genus or species of any living or dead mold or related parts (including spores and hyphae) present in the sample; ( hypothesizing whether the analyzed material reflects indoor mold growth; reflects normal fungal ecology; or reflects elevated mold spores that could be remediated by routine cleaning. Rosen, Ph.D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 4, 2007 Report Share Posted May 4, 2007 , I don't have a problem with your definition (I think it's pretty good) but since I don't know who it is intended for or how it will be used, I can't begin to edit it for any specific or universal purpose. I suspect that it will probably somehow be used to market yourself or your services rather than be any sort of "consensus" definition. Where do you intend to put this definition? Maybe you can throw it up on Wikipedia and see what happens to it. I don't see anything wrong with it, per se. My concern is how it might be used by someone to justify doing more than is necessary. Steve Can you help me out on this definition? Here's what I have so far ... "Mold assessment" means a process performed by a mold assessor. Activities should always involve: investigation, or survey of a dwelling or other structure to provide the owner or occupant with information regarding the presence, identification, or evaluation of mold contamination determining if any mold contamination present reflects indoor mold growth; reflects normal fungal ecology; or reflects elevated mold spores that could be remediated by routine cleaning. (This activity may a require a Mold Analysis). documenting if the cause of mold growth was clean water; gray water; or black water interviewing occupants to determine their sensitivity to mold and chemical cleaners prior to developing any recommended mold remediation protocol. Activities may involve: collecting samples to be sent to a qualified laboratory the development of a Preliminary Mold Remediation Protocol including the proper use of disinfectants; recommending destructive testing such as baseboard removal; opening walls; pulling back carpets, etc. in order to find sources of hidden mold and/or in order to determine the amount of mold contamination for the purpose of developing a Preliminary Mold Remediation Protocol building inspection, including HVAC and duct work, as to the cause of the mold contamination and/or mold growth Mold analysis--The examination of a sample collected during a mold assessment for the purpose of: (A) determining the amount or presence of or identifying the genus or species of any living or dead mold or related parts (including spores and hyphae) present in the sample; ( hypothesizing whether the analyzed material reflects indoor mold growth; reflects normal fungal ecology; or reflects elevated mold spores that could be remediated by routine cleaning. Rosen, Ph.D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 4, 2007 Report Share Posted May 4, 2007 , I didn't mean for you to totally abandon your pursuit of solutions to what you are obviously passionate about accomplishing. I apologize if that was what came across. In fact, I believe, as I had stated, that you are in fact, making substantial progress, particularly in your most recent proposals, AND that progress can be applied to certain situations where, for example no PRV would actually be appropriate for whatever reasons. In fact, in that particular case, and I'm sure that there are others, I feel your most recent proposals are quite good for enhancing the validity of the information collected, even if there are concerns in calling it " PRV " . For the average job where a homeowner has a minor to moderate relatively clear cut problem, and no health concerns or litigation is involved, I think your recent proposals have great merit. As I stated previously, the two major remaining problems that I see with it are that the homeowner is not an expert, therefore the validity of their verification is questionable, and; an acceptance criteria should, IMHO be established that both RC and HO agree on at the beginning. There are still problems with that, but at least that approach attempts to address what I feel is one of the important remaining issues. The advantage to using an EC in the latter situation, is that someone ELSE, another, supposedly 3rd party disinterested, objective professional can alter the acceptance criteria (raise the acceptable levels) if it becomes apparent that it is appropriate to do so due to some type of inherent mitigating factors. That would be MUCH better for the RC, than the RC saying, alone, " I can't achieve the previously agreed upon levels without charging you more, or losing my shirt on this job " . Even the most honest and ethical RC in that situation, has a great chance to raise the APPEARANCE, regardless of how unfounded, that they haven't done what was previously agreed upon as achievable. In that case, all kinds of PERCIEVED questions of honesty, capability, etc. would likely occur to the HO, as the statement is being made by the RC with NO independent 3rd party opinions. As Steve noted, there are INHERENT problems with a contractor performing their own PRV, not the least of which is a natural bias, that even the most honest and ethical RC cannot humanly escape entirely. As Carl also noted, in response to Steve's statement, just because a C of I exists, it does not equate to their actually BEING any impropriety...only the possibility of the appearance of it, which I don't think is really in anyone's best interest. EVERY job is different. That's why it's SO damned difficult to come up with any " one size fits all " solutions to ANY scenario. There's ALWAYS going to be a valid " yeah, but... " question hanging out there. I invited you to BROADEN your perspectives, . I did not mean to infer in any way that in doing so, you should totally abandon your current quest from which much in the way of valuable thought processes, information and meaningful debate has resulted. Keep plugging. What you have to say IS helpful and important, perhaps just not in every situation. I hope that clarifies that I have gained enough respect for you to recognize that you have much to offer to the identification and suggestions for solutions for the problems of the industry, beyond those that might exist for RCs and in FL. Sincerely, Chuck Reaney Chuck said ... " I therefore invite you broaden your perspectives beyond Florida, beyond EC vs. RC, and to join others who are capable and honest, regardless of what particular function they perform, to assist in identification of real problems that face the entire industry, and in seeking meaningful and effective solutions. " Okay. End of any emails from me on the subject. The other day I asked for help in defining the job of a mold assessor but got zero response. Can you help me out on this definition? Here's what I have so far ... " Mold assessment " means a process performed by a mold assessor. Activities should always involve: investigation, or survey of a dwelling or other structure to provide the owner or occupant with information regarding the presence, identification, or evaluation of mold contamination determining if any mold contamination present reflects indoor mold growth; reflects normal fungal ecology; or reflects elevated mold spores that could be remediated by routine cleaning. (This activity may a require a Mold Analysis). documenting if the cause of mold growth was clean water; gray water; or black water interviewing occupants to determine their sensitivity to mold and chemical cleaners prior to developing any recommended mold remediation protocol. Activities may involve: collecting samples to be sent to a qualified laboratory the development of a Preliminary Mold Remediation Protocol including the proper use of disinfectants; recommending destructive testing such as baseboard removal; opening walls; pulling back carpets, etc. in order to find sources of hidden mold and/or in order to determine the amount of mold contamination for the purpose of developing a Preliminary Mold Remediation Protocol building inspection, including HVAC and duct work, as to the cause of the mold contamination and/or mold growth Mold analysis--The examination of a sample collected during a mold assessment for the purpose of: (A) determining the amount or presence of or identifying the genus or species of any living or dead mold or related parts (including spores and hyphae) present in the sample; ( hypothesizing whether the analyzed material reflects indoor mold growth; reflects normal fungal ecology; or reflects elevated mold spores that could be remediated by routine cleaning. Rosen, Ph.D. www.Mold-Books.com Re: PRV by RC > > In a message dated 5/2/2007 1:18:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, garyrosen72652@ yahoo.com writes: > > If the Remediation Contractor follows the following protocol for post remediation testing .... does anyone believe there is a conflict of interest? > > > Yes. > > > > 1.) Have the homeowner witness the sampling. > > > They won't know what they are witnessing. > > > 2.) Put the serial numbers of the cartridges on the COC. > 3.) Have the home owner sign the COC along with the sampler. > > > Who fills out the COC? The sample volume is something the homeowner does not know how to verify. Do they check the calibration and time the sample, too? > > > 3.) Have the home owner mail in the cartridges (in the FedX envelop you give him) to a certified lab. > 4.) Have the lab email both you and the client the results. > > It would be pretty hard to forge these results! > > > What about the sample location and conditions during sampling? This will be a significant variable factor. Will the homeowner know how to interpret the results or will you be doing that? Why don't you just let the homeowner tell you where and how to sample or leave them the pump and cassettes and let them take them themselves. > > Sorry, . It's still a conflict of interest in my book to do your own PRV. If you want to do your own internal QC checking, I think doing your own sampling is a very good idea for that purpose. > > Steve Temes > > > > Rosen, Ph.D. > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ __ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.