Proposed Florida Mold Bill

April 10, 2007

Hi, all:

I like this clause in the proposed Florida mold bill, particularly

Sections (d) through (h). It goes to the heart of what has been

discussed regarding Conflict of Interest. There is a

similar 'Prohibitions; penalties' section for mold remediators.

Anyone else have any thoughts on this?

Don

468.8419 Prohibitions; penalties.--

4 (1) A mold assessor, a company that employs a mold

5 assessor, or a company that is controlled by a company that

6 also has a financial interest in a company employing a mold

7 assessor may not:

8 (a) Perform or offer to perform any mold assessment

9 unless the mold assessor has documented training in water,

10 mold, and respiratory protection under s. 468.8414(2).

11 ( Perform or offer to perform any mold assessment

12 unless the person has complied with the provisions of this

13 part.

14 © Use the name or title " certified mold assessor, "

15 " registered mold assessor, " " licensed mold assessor, " " mold

16 assessor, " " professional mold assessor, " or any combination

17 thereof unless the person has complied with the provisions

18 this part;

19 (d) Perform or offer to perform any mold remediation

20 to a structure on which the mold assessor or the mold

21 assessor's company provided a mold assessment within the last

22 12 months.

23 (e) Inspect for a fee any property in which the

24 assessor or the assessor's company has any financial or

25 transfer interest.

26 (f) Accept any compensation, inducement, or reward

27 from a mold remediator or mold remediator's company for the

28 referral of any business to the mold remediator or the mold

29 remediator's company.

30 (g) Offer any compensation, inducement, or reward to a

31 mold remediator or mold remediator's company for the referral

of any business from the mold remediator or the mold

2 remediator's company.

3 (h) Accept an engagement to make an omission of the

4 assessment or conduct an assessment in which the assessment

5 itself, or the fee payable for the assessment, is contingent

6 upon the conclusions of the assessment.

April 10, 2007

Don,

If it passes Dr. will need to move or change professions

because he will no longer be able to do both anymore.

For ,

I have listened to your defenses over the long term and they waver depending on

your need to defend yourself; e.g. 1) there is not enough money (most of your

jobs; 2) you only get hired by those with money so you can do it right; 3) you

speak as though you were a preferred vendor for the insurance industry; 4) you

say they tell you what to do yet you are never hired by them; which is it? I

could go on and on and on take a look at your remarks just over this subject.

EnviroBob

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

Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 1:47

PM

To: iequality

Subject: Proposed

Florida Mold Bill

Hi, all:

I like this clause in the proposed Florida

mold bill, particularly

Sections (d) through (h). It goes to the heart of what has been

discussed regarding Conflict of Interest. There is a

similar 'Prohibitions; penalties' section for mold remediators.

Anyone else have any thoughts on this?

Don

468.8419 Prohibitions; penalties.--

4 (1) A mold assessor, a company that employs a mold

5 assessor, or a company that is controlled by a company that

6 also has a financial interest in a company employing a mold

7 assessor may not:

8 (a) Perform or offer to perform any mold assessment

9 unless the mold assessor has documented training in water,

10 mold, and respiratory protection under s. 468.8414(2).

11 ( Perform or offer to perform any mold assessment

12 unless the person has complied with the provisions of this

13 part.

14 © Use the name or title " certified mold assessor, "

15 " registered mold assessor, " " licensed mold assessor, "

" mold

16 assessor, " " professional mold assessor, " or any combination

17 thereof unless the person has complied with the provisions

18 this part;

19 (d) Perform or offer to perform any mold remediation

20 to a structure on which the mold assessor or the mold

21 assessor's company provided a mold assessment within the last

22 12 months.

23 (e) Inspect for a fee any property in which the

24 assessor or the assessor's company has any financial or

25 transfer interest.

26 (f) Accept any compensation, inducement, or reward

27 from a mold remediator or mold remediator's company for the

28 referral of any business to the mold remediator or the mold

29 remediator's company.

30 (g) Offer any compensation, inducement, or reward to a

31 mold remediator or mold remediator's company for the referral

of any business from the mold remediator or the mold

2 remediator's company.

3 (h) Accept an engagement to make an omission of the

4 assessment or conduct an assessment in which the assessment

5 itself, or the fee payable for the assessment, is contingent

6 upon the conclusions of the assessment.

April 11, 2007

Envirobob,

Actually the opposite is true. The FLA mold bill permits any remediator to do their own PRV. Assessment is defined as "initial" testing.

And as well the Florida mold bill exempts lic building contractors for the mold licensing law. Since I am a licensed building contractor I can do both initial assessment and remediation on the same water damage restoration job under the new bill.

For me the bill is heaven. 90% of my competitors have no mold insurance which is required. And 90% of my competitors have no technical background or the 4 years experience so they cannot get licensed. Nor do they have any water damage training ... again so they can't get licensed.

In fact it is almost like I wrote the bill!

Rosen, Ph.D.

www.Mold-Books.com

Proposed Florida Mold Bill

Hi, all:I like this clause in the proposed Florida mold bill, particularly Sections (d) through (h). It goes to the heart of what has been discussed regarding Conflict of Interest. There is a similar 'Prohibitions; penalties' section for mold remediators. Anyone else have any thoughts on this?Don468.8419 Prohibitions; penalties.--4 (1) A mold assessor, a company that employs a mold5 assessor, or a company that is controlled by a company that6 also has a financial interest in a company employing a mold7 assessor may not:8 (a) Perform or offer to perform any mold assessment9 unless the mold assessor has documented training in water,10 mold, and respiratory protection under s. 468.8414(2).11 ( Perform or offer to perform any mold assessment12 unless the person has complied with the provisions of this13 part.14 © Use the

name or title "certified mold assessor,"15 "registered mold assessor," "licensed mold assessor," "mold16 assessor," "professional mold assessor," or any combination17 thereof unless the person has complied with the provisions18 this part;19 (d) Perform or offer to perform any mold remediation20 to a structure on which the mold assessor or the mold21 assessor's company provided a mold assessment within the last22 12 months.23 (e) Inspect for a fee any property in which the24 assessor or the assessor's company has any financial or25 transfer interest.26 (f) Accept any compensation, inducement, or reward27 from a mold remediator or mold remediator's company for the28 referral of any business to the mold remediator or the mold29 remediator's company.30 (g) Offer any compensation, inducement, or reward to a31 mold remediator or mold remediator's company for the referralof any business from the mold

remediator or the mold2 remediator's company.3 (h) Accept an engagement to make an omission of the4 assessment or conduct an assessment in which the assessment5 itself, or the fee payable for the assessment, is contingent6 upon the conclusions of the assessment.

Bored stiff? Loosen up...Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games.

April 11, 2007

:

I agree with your first two points, in that this law does does apply

to jobs that are less than 10 SF. Generally IMHO, it is not required

to have anyone, including the remediator, to test the mold in this

situation.

On point 3, the EPA recommendations for not testing visible mold

would not apply to this proposed law. If anyone (including a mold

assessor OR a remediator) does perform sampling, then they need to

comply with the law. That includes the prohibitions I listed

previously, meaning that the remediator cannot test, and then

remediate, where the project is greater than 10 SF.

I agree with points 4 and 5, and I think that these are a good ideas.

On point 6, I think that this is a sop to the licensed building

contractors so that they can contract for mold remediation in water

damaged buildings. However, in my experience, most building

contractors do not have the specific training to do this type of

work, and they would also generally want to avoid the potential

liability. So a mold remediator is likely to be hired as a sub.

I think point 7 is a good idea, and it is likely that the training

providers will modify their mold training to include water damage.

The bill does seem to be a good start on this issue. My main point

remains: A mold remediator cannot perform mold assessment for a

facility with more than 10 SF of mold; a mold assessor cannot

perform mold remediation for a building with more than 10 SF of mold.

A good start on this conflict on interest, and the penalties have

some teeth.

Don

April 12, 2007

and Bob:

Actually, it is not quite true that the bill 'permits' any remediator

to do their own PRV. The bill is silent on PRV's in general, and

therefore, there is no governance on this important issue. Quite an

oversight on the legistators' part! Perhaps that will corrected

in the final bill, and this issue will be addressed.

As noted in another post, in my reading of the bill, I don't think it

is the intention, or the letter, of the bill to 'exempt' licensed

building contractors from mold licensing, either as a mold remediator

or as a mold assessor. I believe the language is stating that, if

you call yourself one of these licensed occupations (mold assessor or

mold remediator), even if you are a licensed building contractor, you

will be required to also have a license to be a mold assessor or a

mold remediator. Double licensing, in effect! However, it may

require a lawyer to sort the language out, and to understand what is

required. It does appear that the intent was to allow licensed

building contractors to remediate water damaged buildings with

regards to any water damage. It remains to be seen whether or not

that includes mold damage as well.

Finally, I checked with my professional organization's legislative

manager, and he indicates that this bill is unlikely to pass, due to

the combination in the bill of provisions regarding home inspectors

and other provisions regarding mold assessors and remediators. But

he is keeping an eye on it, and will report to the members if it

seems likely to voted on in this session. Of course, the previous

governor vetoed the previous mold bill, and it is possible that the

new governor will do the same. Time will tell!

Weekes

>

> Envirobob,

>

> Actually the opposite is true. The FLA mold bill permits any

remediator to do their own PRV. Assessment is defined as " initial "

testing.

>

> And as well the Florida mold bill exempts lic building contractors

for the mold licensing law. Since I am a licensed building

contractor I can do both initial assessment and remediation on the

same water damage restoration job under the new bill.

>

> For me the bill is heaven. 90% of my competitors have no mold

insurance which is required. And 90% of my competitors have no

technical background or the 4 years experience so they cannot get

licensed. Nor do they have any water damage training ... again so

they can't get licensed.

>

> In fact it is almost like I wrote the bill!

>

> Rosen, Ph.D.

> www.Mold-Books.com

>

> RE: Proposed Florida Mold Bill

>

> Don,

>

> If it passes Dr. will need to move or change professions

because he will no longer be able to do both anymore.

>

> For , I have listened to your defenses over the long term and

they waver depending on your need to defend yourself; e.g. 1) there

is not enough money (most of your jobs; 2) you only get hired by

those with money so you can do it right; 3) you speak as though you

were a preferred vendor for the insurance industry; 4) you say they

tell you what to do yet you are never hired by them; which is it? I

could go on and on and on take a look at your remarks just over this

subject.

>

> EnviroBob

>

April 12, 2007

FROM GARY:

" 2.) In TX you need to have assessment and remediation on all jobs

no matter how small. In FLA there are no such requirements for any

size jobs. A remediator can always remediate and does not need an

assessor. "

NOT TRUE. You only need the Assessment and protocol under the 25

square feet if you want a Certificate of Mold Remediation Damage, and

with that you can have the insurance premiums reduced from claims on

those particular events associated with this cause and mold damage.

I cannot believe you are a certifeied TMARR accredited trainer! The

regulations do not apply below the de minimus levels UNLESS you are

selling those services.

AGAIN:

" 3.) If there is plenty of visible mold, there is generally no

reason to test according to EPA recommendations so I am not sure if

this law will benefit assessors or not. "

This is conditional, if there is a health effect or legal EPA does

recommend samples. ACGIH also recommends Pre remediations samples

for another comparison.

GARY SAYS:

It appears to be a good bill to protect consumers. It also protects

FLA mold workers from competition by unlicensed people from TX. Many

of the Texas mold assessors and remediators that could not get

licensed there, show up here and take our business. "

From what I see and read in your posts if you represent the

contractors ans asessors in Florida (which I highly doubt), those

with Texas training SHOULD take away these jobs with the conflict of

interest and all. DO NOT IMPUNE THE ENTIRE STATE OF TEXAS, because

of your crazy POV on the industry. This may come as a shock to you,

but there are a lot of people on this site that think you are FOS

based on what you are posting. Usually you conflict with your

previous posts in order to " win " an argument based on minutia!

Dude, Don't mess with Texas, ... at least until you get YOUR state's

house in order.

You are quick to critisize those around you, and are not here to

learn anything, but you are here to apparently " champion mediocrity "

and erode the need of our Industry, and impune our entire

professional borthers and sisters in this field of industry to

justify your shortcomings, shortcuts, and lack of vision.

You do more to damage your professionalism and professional standing

posting here, than anything anyone could post in a counter argument.

But, PLEASE stop stating laws and regulations Aw *you would like them

to be*, and start explaining them in terms of *what they are* or

*what the intent of the regulation* is at this time.

The discussion in our industry is EXACTLY 180 Degrees from your

position there , and it is time for you to recognise and " fly in

formation " or get nailed in the courtroom, and the court of public

and professional opinion.

I personally think with all the BS posted her on this site by you is

MORE THAN AMPLE info to pull all your IAQA certifications, just on

MISREPRESENTATION ALONE!!!

Just like the asbestos regs., we had guys like you making the same

argument you have made every time here: " saving money " . Well here is

news for you, health effects and health determinations affecting the

public health and public health policy is not soley on economics, nor

is it a " Major " criteria. Your argument of " saving clients money "

was also used in areans where entire structures were comtaminated

wiht lead and asbestos because of contractors/consultants. You

cannot wear all the hats, and arguing that point is pointless, and

shows lack of professional judgement, when it does not stand up to

professional and peer scrutiny.

AND THEN DON POSTS IN RESPONSE TO GARY DENYING MY POST ON WHAT THE

NEW FL REGS REQUIRED:

> I like this clause in the proposed Florida mold bill, particularly

> Sections (d) through (h). It goes to the heart of what has been

> discussed regarding Conflict of Interest. There is a

> similar 'Prohibitions; penalties' section for mold remediators.

> Anyone else have any thoughts on this?

>

> Don

>

> 468.8419 Prohibitions; penalties.--

> 4 (1) A mold assessor, a company that employs a mold

> 5 assessor, or a company that is controlled by a company that

> 6 also has a financial interest in a company employing a mold

> 7 assessor may not:

> 8 (a) Perform or offer to perform any mold assessment

> 9 unless the mold assessor has documented training in water,

> 10 mold, and respiratory protection under s. 468.8414(2).

> 11 ( Perform or offer to perform any mold assessment

> 12 unless the person has complied with the provisions of this

> 13 part.

> 14 © Use the name or title " certified mold assessor, "

> 15 " registered mold assessor, " " licensed mold assessor, " " mold

> 16 assessor, " " professional mold assessor, " or any combination

> 17 thereof unless the person has complied with the provisions

> 18 this part;

> 19 (d) Perform or offer to perform any mold remediation

> 20 to a structure on which the mold assessor or the mold

> 21 assessor's company provided a mold assessment within the last

> 22 12 months.

> 23 (e) Inspect for a fee any property in which the

> 24 assessor or the assessor's company has any financial or

> 25 transfer interest.

> 26 (f) Accept any compensation, inducement, or reward

> 27 from a mold remediator or mold remediator's company for the

> 28 referral of any business to the mold remediator or the mold

> 29 remediator's company.

> 30 (g) Offer any compensation, inducement, or reward to a

> 31 mold remediator or mold remediator's company for the referral

> of any business from the mold remediator or the mold

> 2 remediator's company.

> 3 (h) Accept an engagement to make an omission of the

> 4 assessment or conduct an assessment in which the assessment

> 5 itself, or the fee payable for the assessment, is contingent

> 6 upon the conclusions of the assessment.

Good Job there Don. did not address it when I posted it, I

doubt he will acknowledge it a second time.

Dana Brown

GEBCO

Hurst, TX

April 12, 2007

Don,

I did not write that statement, had. I was

suggesting that if the bill passes as I understood it would be out of most of his business income

by being limited as to which position he would undertake. He was replying back

to a remark I made stating the following:

Don,

>

> If it passes Dr.

will need to move or change professions

because he will no longer be able to do both anymore.

>

> For , I have listened to your defenses over the long term and

they waver depending on your need to defend yourself; e.g. 1) there

is not enough money (most of your jobs; 2) you only get hired by

those with money so you can do it right; 3) you speak as though you

were a preferred vendor for the insurance industry; 4) you say they

tell you what to do yet you are never hired by them; which is it? I

could go on and on and on take a look at your remarks just over this

subject.

>

> EnviroBob

Please do not lump me with Dr. Rosen.

EnviroBob

From: iequality

[mailto:iequality ] On Behalf

Of Weekes

Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007

6:32 PM

To: iequality

Subject: Re: Proposed