Re: s 40-80 and 40-20

[Guest guest]

Bradley,

Just to keep this logical. Is coating three sides of a stud against a concrete block wall actually effective???

Is remediating and coating two sides of a base stud acceptable??

No cleaning, remediating, or coating is applied to this third or fourth side so how could you say you "encapsulated" much less remediated the area.

ge .

Hello ,

How good does the mold removal need to be (ie spores / sq cm) before the RC is allowed to coat the wood? Goes to the question of where do you spend the money, on good removal or coating material. Are you testing the surfaces before allowing coating? I like coating on certain projects, but not all. Are we talking about antifugal coating or basic primer?

Bradley HarrSr. Environmental Scientist

-----Original Message-----From: iequality [mailto:iequality ]On Behalf Of GeyerSent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 2:19 PMTo: iequality Subject: Re: s 40-80 and 40-20

EnviroBob:I respectfully disagree, and I believe you are providing Shell with some poor advice!Post-remediation encapsulation is a standard of care within the remediation industry, and there is a lot of value to encapsulation. The foundation of your opinion seems to be focused on the premise that encapsulation is used on poor quality remediation efforts in order to hide a source contaminant. Not true. The purpose of encapsulation is to lock down any remaining contaminant that has avoided being removed, and seal surfaces so new products can be applied and/or the (remediated) space being re-occupied without fear of exposure to workers rehabilitating the work area. If you can claim that all bio-mass has been removed, then you could claim that the space was essentially sterile – not possible! Encapsulants are a standard of care for many types of remediation and construction efforts, e.g., asbestos, LBP, mercury, silica, fiberglass, partial demo, and mold. Moreover, encapsulated surfaces resist new biological infestations, moisture imbibition is slowed, and they are easier to re-clean if soiled. To not use encapsulants post-remediation may be a negligent act; depending upon the circumstance.While I agree that pigmented encapsulants can be used to hide poor quality remediation work, this is not their purpose. Similarly, drywall mud and paint can hide problems with wall assemblies on the inside, and stucco can effectively hide them on the outside; but this is not the purpose of the coating material.In your previous posts, you have positioned yourself as a “total source removal†advocate; however, you have failed to acknowledge the practical aspects that do not always support this position, e.g., budgetary limitations, loss of use restrictions, and/or accessing inaccessible interstitial spaces. (I recall that you were the person that advocated disassembling a wood-framed wall system in order to scrub each piece of wood until it was free of mold, then re-building.) On most mold-related projects, it is practical to remove and/or clean what is readily accessible – acknowledging that some bio-mass will remain behind, mitigate the source of moisture, encapsulate exposed building materials after a PRV visual and sampling regime, encapsulate, then build-back. This is consistent with many other standards of care where contaminant reduction/mitigation is warranted.How is it that you can state: “Additionally, if the framing is encapsulated after the remediation process then the loss has not been restored back to the pre-loss condition.� Huh? This is an unfounded opinion and does not have merit. Moreover, I and A LOT of contractors I know of take exception to your comment: “Normally that procedure is done when the remediation contractor feels they have not done adequate cleaning.†What BS! Based on your comments, I really don’t believe you know what “normal†is. Maybe you should align yourself with some good-quality remediation contractors who are not trying to hide anything, strive to do good work, and provide a clean post-remediation work space. We encapsulate these workspaces after everyone is satisfied with the cleanliness. Encapsulation is often a very minor cost o f the total project effort, it is quick, and its value is well-understood by all involved....except you, it appears.If you can have cleaned to a press-loss condition, all sources of bio-mass and do so with the confidence that you can leave that space fit for re-occupancy without using a method (i.e., encapsulation) whose value has been well-demonstrated for nearly 20-years....more power to you. IMHO, you are also denying the building owners the value that encapsulants provide, and you are not conducting your work within an accepted industry practice.For what it is worth.....On 6/1/07 4:19 AM, "EnviroBob" <BobEnvironmentalAirTechs> wrote:

Shell, If the job is done correctly there is no need to apply anything to the framing. Additionally, if the framing is encapsulated after the remediation process than the loss has not been restored back to the pre-loss condition. Normally that procedure is done when the remediation contractor feels they have not done adequate cleaning. Personally, if I saw a painted surface it would warn me to not buy the home/condo. Put two cars besides one another one had noticeable repairs done the other didn’t. Which would you buy? EnviroBob

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Shell BleiweissSent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 7:47 PMTo: iequality Subject: s 40-80 and 40-20A friend had a bathroom overflow and is remediating mold and wet subfloors, studs, etc. as a result. The contractor proposes to clean and seal studs and concrete subfloors with the two s products in my subject line. Is this needed and a good idea? Any toxic fumes to be concerned about/special precautions to take? This is in a modern high rise building. We have requested the MSDSs but have not seen them yet. Insurance is paying. Shell BleiweissLaw Offices of Shell J. BleiweissEnvironmental and OSHA LawOffices in Chicago and Barrington, Illinoissbleiweissshell-bleiweisshttp://www.shell-bleiweiss.com

[Guest guest]

Hello Again ,

The Idaho standard is 0.1 ug/100 cm2. Lower than CA!! You basically can not clean sheetrock to that level. So if we clean to .5/ 100 cm2, Should we properly coat / seal the wall and move ahead if the surface tests < 0.1 ug /100 cm2 after coating (all other factors OK)?

I bet the sheetrock industry loves the very low meth standards.

FYI none of the studs tested on my projects were over 0.1ug. Did yours get dirty during the demo or was the sheet rock saturated?

Bradley HarrSr. Environmental Scientist

Re: s 40-80 and 40-20Bob,To add to your comment, coatings are often used as a cover up in my neck of the woods and like you I would want to able to see what's there. If anyone thinks mold won't grow thru a coating, I have some great deals on beach front property in Alaska.There is absolutely no good reason for coating in my opinion as well.ge

See what's free at AOL.com <http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000503> .

[Guest guest]



Hello ge,

I don't use the term encapsulate. When we clean, treat, and coat hard to clean areas, the thick coating is sprayed into the cracks and edges so that spore migration is minimized. Not perfect but cost effective. We can't cost effectively remove all the structural wood in a building. Some small areas can be demo'd correctly, but for the most part the thick coating in the cracks is effective if cleaning is not possible. On several jobs the bottom plates had to be calked to stop the spore migration into the air. This remaining mold was discussed in the PRV report.

Bradley HarrSr. Environmental Scientist

-----Original Message-----From: iequality [mailto:iequality ]On Behalf Of geSent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 5:44 AMTo: iequality Subject: Re: s 40-80 and 40-20

Bradley,

Just to keep this logical. Is coating three sides of a stud against a concrete block wall actually effective???

Is remediating and coating two sides of a base stud acceptable??

No cleaning, remediating, or coating is applied to this third or fourth side so how could you say you "encapsulated" much less remediated the area.

ge .

In a message dated 06/06/07 20:33:15 Eastern Daylight Time, bdharrsummitenviroinc writes:

Hello ,

How good does the mold removal need to be (ie spores / sq cm) before the RC is allowed to coat the wood? Goes to the question of where do you spend the money, on good removal or coating material. Are you testing the surfaces before allowing coating? I like coating on certain projects, but not all. Are we talking about antifugal coating or basic primer?

Bradley HarrSr. Environmental Scientist

-----Original Message-----From: iequality [mailto:iequality ]On Behalf Of GeyerSent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 2:19 PMTo: iequality Subject: Re: s 40-80 and 40-20

EnviroBob:I respectfully disagree, and I believe you are providing Shell with some poor advice!Post-remediation encapsulation is a standard of care within the remediation industry, and there is a lot of value to encapsulation. The foundation of your opinion seems to be focused on the premise that encapsulation is used on poor quality remediation efforts in order to hide a source contaminant. Not true. The purpose of encapsulation is to lock down any remaining contaminant that has avoided being removed, and seal surfaces so new products can be applied and/or the (remediated) space being re-occupied without fear of exposure to workers rehabilitating the work area. If you can claim that all bio-mass has been removed, then you could claim that the space was essentially sterile – not possible! Encapsulants are a standard of care for many types of remediation and construction efforts, e.g., asbestos, LBP, mercury, silica, fiberglass, partial demo, and mold. Moreover, encapsulated surfaces resist new biological infestations, moisture imbibition is slowed, and they are easier to re-clean if soiled. To not use encapsulants post-remediation may be a negligent act; depending upon the circumstance.While I agree that pigmented encapsulants can be used to hide poor quality remediation work, this is not their purpose. Similarly, drywall mud and paint can hide problems with wall assemblies on the inside, and stucco can effectively hide them on the outside; but this is not the purpose of the coating material.In your previous posts, you have positioned yourself as a “total source removal†advocate; however, you have failed to acknowledge the practical aspects that do not always support this position, e.g., budgetary limitations, loss of use restrictions, and/or accessing inaccessible interstitial spaces. (I recall that you were the person that advocated disassembling a wood-framed wall system in order to scrub each piece of wood until it was free of mold, then re-building.) On most mold-related projects, it is practical to remove and/or clean what is readily accessible – acknowledging that some bio-mass will remain behind, mitigate the source of moisture, encapsulate exposed building materials after a PRV visual and sampling regime, encapsulate, then build-back. This is consistent with many other standards of care where contaminant reduction/mitigation is warranted.How is it that you can state: “Additionally, if the framing is encapsulated after the remediation process then the loss has not been restored back to the pre-loss condition.� Huh? This is an unfounded opinion and does not have merit. Moreover, I and A LOT of contractors I know of take exception to your comment: “Normally that procedure is done when the remediation contractor feels they have not done adequate cleaning.†What BS! Based on your comments, I really don’t believe you know what “normal†is. Maybe you should align yourself with some good-quality remediation contractors who are not trying to hide anything, strive to do good work, and provide a clean post-remediation work space. We encapsulate these workspaces after everyone is satisfied with the cleanliness. Encapsulation is often a very minor cost o f the total project effort, it is quick, and its value is well-understood by all involved....except you, it appears.If you can have cleaned to a press-loss condition, all sources of bio-mass and do so with the confidence that you can leave that space fit for re-occupancy without using a method (i.e., encapsulation) whose value has been well-demonstrated for nearly 20-years....more power to you. IMHO, you are also denying the building owners the value that encapsulants provide, and you are not conducting your work within an accepted industry practice.For what it is worth.....On 6/1/07 4:19 AM, "EnviroBob" <BobEnvironmentalAirTechs> wrote:

Shell, If the job is done correctly there is no need to apply anything to the framing. Additionally, if the framing is encapsulated after the remediation process than the loss has not been restored back to the pre-loss condition. Normally that procedure is done when the remediation contractor feels they have not done adequate cleaning. Personally, if I saw a painted surface it would warn me to not buy the home/condo. Put two cars besides one another one had noticeable repairs done the other didn’t. Which would you buy? EnviroBob

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Shell BleiweissSent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 7:47 PMTo: iequality Subject: s 40-80 and 40-20A friend had a bathroom overflow and is remediating mold and wet subfloors, studs, etc. as a result. The contractor proposes to clean and seal studs and concrete subfloors with the two s products in my subject line. Is this needed and a good idea? Any toxic fumes to be concerned about/special precautions to take? This is in a modern high rise building. We have requested the MSDSs but have not seen them yet. Insurance is paying. Shell BleiweissLaw Offices of Shell J. BleiweissEnvironmental and OSHA LawOffices in Chicago and Barrington, Illinoissbleiweissshell-bleiweisshttp://www.shell-bleiweiss.com

[Guest guest]



Brad

While I am not a fan of coating previously-moldy wood there are certainly places where it seems to be an intelligent thing to do, if your remember the following things:

1 buildings move a lot with changes in moisture content and temperature, so all coatings and caulkings must stay flexible for the life of the restoration;

2 many of the coatings contain biocides (including fungicides) that are quite toxic to humans as well as to the 'bugs' they were designed to kill;

3 if the coating dries out and the surface 'dusts' then the biocide will be on that dust; this becomes a very effective way of getting those poisons deep into the lung of the occupants if the 'dust' is very fine;

4 many modern low-VOC and no-VOC paints and coatings contain quite toxic compounds so you should be prechecking what you use with your clients in case they react strongly to the ones you would have used (others may be much less toxic);

5 it is possible that up to a third of Americans (this includes Canadian Americans as well as USA Americans) are already sensitized to some VOC and are reacting to SVOC (Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds) without even knowing this reality;

6 manufacturers of many coatings do not know the toxicity of the ingredients, nor the mixes that may be worse, of the coatings that they sell; others know but spread disinformation to try to delay the day of reckoning;

7 any client that has to have a restoration done is likely somewhat more sensitive than normal, just because of the stress of the incident that has led to this restoration process, and,

8 if you do not solve the water and air flows that caused the problem in the first place you will have a re-occurrence.

I would love others to add to this list of concerns and suggest reasonable cost ways of getting around at least some of them.

Jim H. White System Science Consulting systemsa@... 1 877 884-1780

RE: s 40-80 and 40-20

 Hello ge,

I don't use the term encapsulate. When we clean, treat, and coat hard to clean areas, the thick coating is sprayed into the cracks and edges so that spore migration is minimized. Not perfect but cost effective. We can't cost effectively remove all the structural wood in a building. Some small areas can be demo'd correctly, but for the most part the thick coating in the cracks is effective if cleaning is not possible. On several jobs the bottom plates had to be calked to stop the spore migration into the air. This remaining mold was discussed in the PRV report.

Bradley HarrSr. Environmental Scientist

-----Original Message-----From: iequality [mailto:iequality ]On Behalf Of geSent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 5:44 AMTo: iequality Subject: Re: s 40-80 and 40-20

Bradley,

Just to keep this logical. Is coating three sides of a stud against a concrete block wall actually effective???

Is remediating and coating two sides of a base stud acceptable??

No cleaning, remediating, or coating is applied to this third or fourth side so how could you say you "encapsulated" much less remediated the area.

ge .

In a message dated 06/06/07 20:33:15 Eastern Daylight Time, bdharrsummitenviroinc writes:

Hello ,

How good does the mold removal need to be (ie spores / sq cm) before the RC is allowed to coat the wood? Goes to the question of where do you spend the money, on good removal or coating material. Are you testing the surfaces before allowing coating? I like coating on certain projects, but not all. Are we talking about antifugal coating or basic primer?

Bradley HarrSr. Environmental Scientist

-----Original Message-----From: iequality [mailto:iequality ]On Behalf Of GeyerSent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 2:19 PMTo: iequality Subject: Re: s 40-80 and 40-20

EnviroBob:I respectfully disagree, and I believe you are providing Shell with some poor advice!Post-remediation encapsulation is a standard of care within the remediation industry, and there is a lot of value to encapsulation. The foundation of your opinion seems to be focused on the premise that encapsulation is used on poor quality remediation efforts in order to hide a source contaminant. Not true. The purpose of encapsulation is to lock down any remaining contaminant that has avoided being removed, and seal surfaces so new products can be applied and/or the (remediated) space being re-occupied without fear of exposure to workers rehabilitating the work area. If you can claim that all bio-mass has been removed, then you could claim that the space was essentially sterile – not possible! Encapsulants are a standard of care for many types of remediation and construction efforts, e.g., asbestos, LBP, mercury, silica, fiberglass, partial demo, and mold. Moreover, encapsulated surfaces resist new biological infestations, moisture imbibition is slowed, and they are easier to re-clean if soiled. To not use encapsulants post-remediation may be a negligent act; depending upon the circumstance.While I agree that pigmented encapsulants can be used to hide poor quality remediation work, this is not their purpose. Similarly, drywall mud and paint can hide problems with wall assemblies on the inside, and stucco can effectively hide them on the outside; but this is not the purpose of the coating material.In your previous posts, you have positioned yourself as a “total source removal†advocate; however, you have failed to acknowledge the practical aspects that do not always support this position, e.g., budgetary limitations, loss of use restrictions, and/or accessing inaccessible interstitial spaces. (I recall that you were the person that advocated disassembling a wood-framed wall system in order to scrub each piece of wood until it was free of mold, then re-building.) On most mold-related projects, it is practical to remove and/or clean what is readily accessible – acknowledging that some bio-mass will remain behind, mitigate the source of moisture, encapsulate exposed building materials after a PRV visual and sampling regime, encapsulate, then build-back. This is consistent with many other standards of care where contaminant reduction/mitigation is warranted.How is it that you can state: “Additionally, if the framing is encapsulated after the remediation process then the loss has not been restored back to the pre-loss condition.� Huh? This is an unfounded opinion and does not have merit. Moreover, I and A LOT of contractors I know of take exception to your comment: “Normally that procedure is done when the remediation contractor feels they have not done adequate cleaning.†What BS! Based on your comments, I really don’t believe you know what “normal†is. Maybe you should align yourself with some good-quality remediation contractors who are not trying to hide anything, strive to do good work, and provide a clean post-remediation work space. We encapsulate these workspaces after everyone is satisfied with the cleanliness. Encapsulation is often a very minor cost o f the total project effort, it is quick, and its value is well-understood by all involved....except you, it appears.If you can have cleaned to a press-loss condition, all sources of bio-mass and do so with the confidence that you can leave that space fit for re-occupancy without using a method (i.e., encapsulation) whose value has been well-demonstrated for nearly 20-years....more power to you. IMHO, you are also denying the building owners the value that encapsulants provide, and you are not conducting your work within an accepted industry practice.For what it is worth.....On 6/1/07 4:19 AM, "EnviroBob" <BobEnvironmentalAirTechs> wrote:

Shell, If the job is done correctly there is no need to apply anything to the framing. Additionally, if the framing is encapsulated after the remediation process than the loss has not been restored back to the pre-loss condition. Normally that procedure is done when the remediation contractor feels they have not done adequate cleaning. Personally, if I saw a painted surface it would warn me to not buy the home/condo. Put two cars besides one another one had noticeable repairs done the other didn’t. Which would you buy? EnviroBob

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Shell BleiweissSent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 7:47 PMTo: iequality Subject: s 40-80 and 40-20A friend had a bathroom overflow and is remediating mold and wet subfloors, studs, etc. as a result. The contractor proposes to clean and seal studs and concrete subfloors with the two s products in my subject line. Is this needed and a good idea? Any toxic fumes to be concerned about/special precautions to take? This is in a modern high rise building. We have requested the MSDSs but have not seen them yet. Insurance is paying. Shell BleiweissLaw Offices of Shell J. BleiweissEnvironmental and OSHA LawOffices in Chicago and Barrington, Illinoissbleiweissshell-bleiweisshttp://www.shell-bleiweiss.com

[Guest guest]

Bradley,

Thanks for the reply.

What appears to be the case is that you knowingly leave mold instead of source removal. I think for cost considerations this is done frequently but I would consider this a bandaid approach and not full source removal.

It appears that you are concerned about passing a clearance test instead of complete removal. I can tell you should read the publication- 100 ways to fail a test and 100 ways to pass a test for mold. Passing a test is not in my opinion the only criteria for mold remediation.

Please accept my comments as constructive after 25 years in the business.

ge

 Hello ge,

I don't use the term encapsulate. When we clean, treat, and coat hard to clean areas, the thick coating is sprayed into the cracks and edges so that spore migration is minimized. Not perfect but cost effective. We can't cost effectively remove all the structural wood in a building. Some small areas can be demo'd correctly, but for the most part the thick coating in the cracks is effective if cleaning is not possible. On several jobs the bottom plates had to be calked to stop the spore migration into the air. This remaining mold was discussed in the PRV report.

Bradley HarrSr. Environmental Scientist

-----Original Message-----From: iequality [mailto:iequality ]On Behalf Of geSent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 5:44 AMTo: iequality Subject: Re: s 40-80 and 40-20

Bradley,

Just to keep this logical. Is coating three sides of a stud against a concrete block wall actually effective???

Is remediating and coating two sides of a base stud acceptable??

No cleaning, remediating, or coating is applied to this third or fourth side so how could you say you "encapsulated" much less remediated the area.

ge .

In a message dated 06/06/07 20:33:15 Eastern Daylight Time, bdharrsummitenviroinc writes:

Hello ,

How good does the mold removal need to be (ie spores / sq cm) before the RC is allowed to coat the wood? Goes to the question of where do you spend the money, on good removal or coating material. Are you testing the surfaces before allowing coating? I like coating on certain projects, but not all. Are we talking about antifugal coating or basic primer?

Bradley HarrSr. Environmental Scientist

-----Original Message-----From: iequality [mailto:iequality ]On Behalf Of GeyerSent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 2:19 PMTo: iequality Subject: Re: s 40-80 and 40-20

EnviroBob:I respectfully disagree, and I believe you are providing Shell with some poor advice!Post-remediation encapsulation is a standard of care within the remediation industry, and there is a lot of value to encapsulation. The foundation of your opinion seems to be focused on the premise that encapsulation is used on poor quality remediation efforts in order to hide a source contaminant. Not true. The purpose of encapsulation is to lock down any remaining contaminant that has avoided being removed, and seal surfaces so new products can be applied and/or the (remediated) space being re-occupied without fear of exposure to workers rehabilitating the work area. If you can claim that all bio-mass has been removed, then you could claim that the space was essentially sterile – not possible! Encapsulants are a standard of care for many types of remediation and construction efforts, e.g., asbestos, LBP, mercury, silica, fiberglass, partial demo, and mold. Moreover, encapsulated surfaces resist new biological infestations, moisture imbibition is slowed, and they are easier to re-clean if soiled. To not use encapsulants post-remediation may be a negligent act; depending upon the circumstance.While I agree that pigmented encapsulants can be used to hide poor quality remediation work, this is not their purpose. Similarly, drywall mud and paint can hide problems with wall assemblies on the inside, and stucco can effectively hide them on the outside; but this is not the purpose of the coating material.In your previous posts, you have positioned yourself as a “total source removal†advocate; however, you have failed to acknowledge the practical aspects that do not always support this position, e.g., budgetary limitations, loss of use restrictions, and/or accessing inaccessible interstitial spaces. (I recall that you were the person that advocated disassembling a wood-framed wall system in order to scrub each piece of wood until it was free of mold, then re-building.) On most mold-related projects, it is practical to remove and/or clean what is readily accessible – acknowledging that some bio-mass will remain behind, mitigate the source of moisture, encapsulate exposed building materials after a PRV visual and sampling regime, encapsulate, then build-back. This is consistent with many other standards of care where contaminant reduction/mitigation is warranted.How is it that you can state: “Additionally, if the framing is encapsulated after the remediation process then the loss has not been restored back to the pre-loss condition.� Huh? This is an unfounded opinion and does not have merit. Moreover, I and A LOT of contractors I know of take exception to your comment: “Normally that procedure is done when the remediation contractor feels they have not done adequate cleaning.†What BS! Based on your comments, I really don’t believe you know what “normal†is. Maybe you should align yourself with some good-quality remediation contractors who are not trying to hide anything, strive to do good work, and provide a clean post-remediation work space. We encapsulate these workspaces after everyone is satisfied with the cleanliness. Encapsulation is often a very minor cost o f the total project effort, it is quick, and its value is well-understood by all involved....except you, it appears.If you can have cleaned to a press-loss condition, all sources of bio-mass and do so with the confidence that you can leave that space fit for re-occupancy without using a method (i.e., encapsulation) whose value has been well-demonstrated for nearly 20-years....more power to you. IMHO, you are also denying the building owners the value that encapsulants provide, and you are not conducting your work within an accepted industry practice.For what it is worth.....On 6/1/07 4:19 AM, "EnviroBob" <BobEnvironmentalAirTechs> wrote:

Shell, If the job is done correctly there is no need to apply anything to the framing. Additionally, if the framing is encapsulated after the remediation process than the loss has not been restored back to the pre-loss condition. Normally that procedure is done when the remediation contractor feels they have not done adequate cleaning. Personally, if I saw a painted surface it would warn me to not buy the home/condo. Put two cars besides one another one had noticeable repairs done the other didn’t. Which would you buy? EnviroBob

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Shell BleiweissSent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 7:47 PMTo: iequality Subject: s 40-80 and 40-20A friend had a bathroom overflow and is remediating mold and wet subfloors, studs, etc. as a result. The contractor proposes to clean and seal studs and concrete subfloors with the two s products in my subject line. Is this needed and a good idea? Any toxic fumes to be concerned about/special precautions to take? This is in a modern high rise building. We have requested the MSDSs but have not seen them yet. Insurance is paying. Shell BleiweissLaw Offices of Shell J. BleiweissEnvironmental and OSHA LawOffices in Chicago and Barrington, Illinoissbleiweissshell-bleiweisshttp://www.shell-bleiweiss.com

[Guest guest]

ge:

It appears from your comments that you are a total (full) source removal advocate. This is a position/opinion that I find impractical. ge, given mold growth on a wood-framed wall assembly, how do you go about removing the mold: between the bottom plate and the concrete, between the king stud and the trimmer stud and the cripple, between double top plates, between the end of a stud and the bottom plate, between the edge of a stud and any shear panel nailed to it, etc., etc.? I can only support the “total source removal” advocate who is also of the opinion that a building assembly with mold must be totally disassembled to each of its individual components, those components individually cleaned, then the assembly reassembled. Because if you do not completely disassemble the affected architectural components of the building assembly, you cannot effect total source removal. No how...No way! The alternative is to acknowledge that some source mold will be left behind, and this is not a Band-Aid approach! It is called: practicality.

For what it is worth....

Bradley,

Thanks for the reply.

What appears to be the case is that you knowingly leave mold instead of source removal. I think for cost considerations this is done frequently but I would consider this a bandaid approach and not full source removal.

It appears that you are concerned about passing a clearance test instead of complete removal. I can tell you should read the publication- 100 ways to fail a test and 100 ways to pass a test for mold. Passing a test is not in my opinion the only criteria for mold remediation.

Please accept my comments as constructive after 25 years in the business.

ge



Hello ge,

I don't use the term encapsulate. When we clean, treat, and coat hard to clean areas, the thick coating is sprayed into the cracks and edges so that spore migration is minimized. Not perfect but cost effective. We can't cost effectively remove all the structural wood in a building. Some small areas can be demo'd correctly, but for the most part the thick coating in the cracks is effective if cleaning is not possible. On several jobs the bottom plates had to be calked to stop the spore migration into the air. This remaining mold was discussed in the PRV report.

Bradley Harr

Sr. Environmental Scientist

Re: s 40-80 and 40-20

Bradley,

Just to keep this logical. Is coating three sides of a stud against a concrete block wall actually effective???

Is remediating and coating two sides of a base stud acceptable??

No cleaning, remediating, or coating is applied to this third or fourth side so how could you say you " encapsulated " much less remediated the area.

ge .

[Guest guest]



Hello ge,

I'm short on time, but I agree with you on all statements (other than the bandaid comment) and I know that there are about 10 points to PRV. However, I will not recommend $25,000 or $100,000 of demo to get at 4 sq ft of mold that can be manged in a safe way, as safe as all the other environmental problems in buildings. We do testing to help confirm the mold and fragments are not migrating and impacting the occupants. Mold is only one issue in a flooded building. We recommend removal as the first option where practical. Proper coating after best possible cleaning and testing, is reasonable for those hard / impossible areas, IMHO. Please see my note to Pat M.

Thanks for the discussion. Note that Jeff May likes to coat all cleaned wood to seal in allergens and missed mold.

Bradley HarrSr. Environmental Scientist

-----Original Message-----From: iequality [mailto:iequality ]On Behalf Of geSent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 2:30 PMTo: iequality Subject: Re: s 40-80 and 40-20

Bradley,

Thanks for the reply.

What appears to be the case is that you knowingly leave mold instead of source removal. I think for cost considerations this is done frequently but I would consider this a bandaid approach and not full source removal.

It appears that you are concerned about passing a clearance test instead of complete removal. I can tell you should read the publication- 100 ways to fail a test and 100 ways to pass a test for mold. Passing a test is not in my opinion the only criteria for mold remediation.

Please accept my comments as constructive after 25 years in the business.

ge

In a message dated 06/07/07 15:38:40 Eastern Daylight Time, bdharrsummitenviroinc writes:

 Hello ge,

I don't use the term encapsulate. When we clean, treat, and coat hard to clean areas, the thick coating is sprayed into the cracks and edges so that spore migration is minimized. Not perfect but cost effective. We can't cost effectively remove all the structural wood in a building. Some small areas can be demo'd correctly, but for the most part the thick coating in the cracks is effective if cleaning is not possible. On several jobs the bottom plates had to be calked to stop the spore migration into the air. This remaining mold was discussed in the PRV report.

Bradley HarrSr. Environmental Scientist

-----Original Message-----From: iequality [mailto:iequality ]On Behalf Of geSent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 5:44 AMTo: iequality Subject: Re: s 40-80 and 40-20

Bradley,

Just to keep this logical. Is coating three sides of a stud against a concrete block wall actually effective???

Is remediating and coating two sides of a base stud acceptable??

No cleaning, remediating, or coating is applied to this third or fourth side so how could you say you "encapsulated" much less remediated the area.

ge .

In a message dated 06/06/07 20:33:15 Eastern Daylight Time, bdharrsummitenviroinc writes:

Hello ,

How good does the mold removal need to be (ie spores / sq cm) before the RC is allowed to coat the wood? Goes to the question of where do you spend the money, on good removal or coating material. Are you testing the surfaces before allowing coating? I like coating on certain projects, but not all. Are we talking about antifugal coating or basic primer?

Bradley HarrSr. Environmental Scientist

-----Original Message-----From: iequality [mailto:iequality ]On Behalf Of GeyerSent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 2:19 PMTo: iequality Subject: Re: s 40-80 and 40-20

EnviroBob:I respectfully disagree, and I believe you are providing Shell with some poor advice!Post-remediation encapsulation is a standard of care within the remediation industry, and there is a lot of value to encapsulation. The foundation of your opinion seems to be focused on the premise that encapsulation is used on poor quality remediation efforts in order to hide a source contaminant. Not true. The purpose of encapsulation is to lock down any remaining contaminant that has avoided being removed, and seal surfaces so new products can be applied and/or the (remediated) space being re-occupied without fear of exposure to workers rehabilitating the work area. If you can claim that all bio-mass has been removed, then you could claim that the space was essentially sterile – not possible! Encapsulants are a standard of care for many types of remediation and construction efforts, e.g., asbestos, LBP, mercury, silica, fiberglass, partial demo, and mold. Moreover, encapsulated surfaces resist new biological infestations, moisture imbibition is slowed, and they are easier to re-clean if soiled. To not use encapsulants post-remediation may be a negligent act; depending upon the circumstance.While I agree that pigmented encapsulants can be used to hide poor quality remediation work, this is not their purpose. Similarly, drywall mud and paint can hide problems with wall assemblies on the inside, and stucco can effectively hide them on the outside; but this is not the purpose of the coating material.In your previous posts, you have positioned yourself as a “total source removal†advocate; however, you have failed to acknowledge the practical aspects that do not always support this position, e.g., budgetary limitations, loss of use restrictions, and/or accessing inaccessible interstitial spaces. (I recall that you were the person that advocated disassembling a wood-framed wall system in order to scrub each piece of wood until it was free of mold, then re-building.) On most mold-related projects, it is practical to remove and/or clean what is readily accessible – acknowledging that some bio-mass will remain behind, mitigate the source of moisture, encapsulate exposed building materials after a PRV visual and sampling regime, encapsulate, then build-back. This is consistent with many other standards of care where contaminant reduction/mitigation is warranted.How is it that you can state: “Additionally, if the framing is encapsulated after the remediation process then the loss has not been restored back to the pre-loss condition.� Huh? This is an unfounded opinion and does not have merit. Moreover, I and A LOT of contractors I know of take exception to your comment: “Normally that procedure is done when the remediation contractor feels they have not done adequate cleaning.†What BS! Based on your comments, I really don’t believe you know what “normal†is. Maybe you should align yourself with some good-quality remediation contractors who are not trying to hide anything, strive to do good work, and provide a clean post-remediation work space. We encapsulate these workspaces after everyone is satisfied with the cleanliness. Encapsulation is often a very minor cost o f the total project effort, it is quick, and its value is well-understood by all involved....except you, it appears.If you can have cleaned to a press-loss condition, all sources of bio-mass and do so with the confidence that you can leave that space fit for re-occupancy without using a method (i.e., encapsulation) whose value has been well-demonstrated for nearly 20-years....more power to you. IMHO, you are also denying the building owners the value that encapsulants provide, and you are not conducting your work within an accepted industry practice.For what it is worth.....On 6/1/07 4:19 AM, "EnviroBob" <BobEnvironmentalAirTechs> wrote:

Shell, If the job is done correctly there is no need to apply anything to the framing. Additionally, if the framing is encapsulated after the remediation process than the loss has not been restored back to the pre-loss condition. Normally that procedure is done when the remediation contractor feels they have not done adequate cleaning. Personally, if I saw a painted surface it would warn me to not buy the home/condo. Put two cars besides one another one had noticeable repairs done the other didn’t. Which would you buy? EnviroBob

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Shell BleiweissSent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 7:47 PMTo: iequality Subject: s 40-80 and 40-20A friend had a bathroom overflow and is remediating mold and wet subfloors, studs, etc. as a result. The contractor proposes to clean and seal studs and concrete subfloors with the two s products in my subject line. Is this needed and a good idea? Any toxic fumes to be concerned about/special precautions to take? This is in a modern high rise building. We have requested the MSDSs but have not seen them yet. Insurance is paying. Shell BleiweissLaw Offices of Shell J. BleiweissEnvironmental and OSHA LawOffices in Chicago and Barrington, Illinoissbleiweissshell-bleiweisshttp://www.shell-bleiweiss.com

[Guest guest]



Hello ge,

I'm short on time, but I agree with you on all statements (other than the bandaid comment) and I know that there are about 10 points to PRV. However, I will not recommend $25,000 or $100,000 of demo to get at 4 sq ft of mold that can be manged in a safe way, as safe as all the other environmental problems in buildings. We do testing to help confirm the mold and fragments are not migrating and impacting the occupants. Mold is only one issue in a flooded building. We recommend removal as the first option where practical. Proper coating after best possible cleaning and testing, is reasonable for those hard / impossible areas, IMHO. Please see my note to Pat M.

Thanks for the discussion. Note that Jeff May likes to coat all cleaned wood to seal in allergens and missed mold.

Bradley HarrSr. Environmental Scientist

-----Original Message-----From: iequality [mailto:iequality ]On Behalf Of geSent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 2:30 PMTo: iequality Subject: Re: s 40-80 and 40-20

Bradley,

Thanks for the reply.

What appears to be the case is that you knowingly leave mold instead of source removal. I think for cost considerations this is done frequently but I would consider this a bandaid approach and not full source removal.

It appears that you are concerned about passing a clearance test instead of complete removal. I can tell you should read the publication- 100 ways to fail a test and 100 ways to pass a test for mold. Passing a test is not in my opinion the only criteria for mold remediation.

Please accept my comments as constructive after 25 years in the business.

ge

In a message dated 06/07/07 15:38:40 Eastern Daylight Time, bdharrsummitenviroinc writes:

 Hello ge,

I don't use the term encapsulate. When we clean, treat, and coat hard to clean areas, the thick coating is sprayed into the cracks and edges so that spore migration is minimized. Not perfect but cost effective. We can't cost effectively remove all the structural wood in a building. Some small areas can be demo'd correctly, but for the most part the thick coating in the cracks is effective if cleaning is not possible. On several jobs the bottom plates had to be calked to stop the spore migration into the air. This remaining mold was discussed in the PRV report.

Bradley HarrSr. Environmental Scientist

-----Original Message-----From: iequality [mailto:iequality ]On Behalf Of geSent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 5:44 AMTo: iequality Subject: Re: s 40-80 and 40-20

Bradley,

Just to keep this logical. Is coating three sides of a stud against a concrete block wall actually effective???

Is remediating and coating two sides of a base stud acceptable??

No cleaning, remediating, or coating is applied to this third or fourth side so how could you say you "encapsulated" much less remediated the area.

ge .

In a message dated 06/06/07 20:33:15 Eastern Daylight Time, bdharrsummitenviroinc writes:

Hello ,

How good does the mold removal need to be (ie spores / sq cm) before the RC is allowed to coat the wood? Goes to the question of where do you spend the money, on good removal or coating material. Are you testing the surfaces before allowing coating? I like coating on certain projects, but not all. Are we talking about antifugal coating or basic primer?

Bradley HarrSr. Environmental Scientist

-----Original Message-----From: iequality [mailto:iequality ]On Behalf Of GeyerSent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 2:19 PMTo: iequality Subject: Re: s 40-80 and 40-20

EnviroBob:I respectfully disagree, and I believe you are providing Shell with some poor advice!Post-remediation encapsulation is a standard of care within the remediation industry, and there is a lot of value to encapsulation. The foundation of your opinion seems to be focused on the premise that encapsulation is used on poor quality remediation efforts in order to hide a source contaminant. Not true. The purpose of encapsulation is to lock down any remaining contaminant that has avoided being removed, and seal surfaces so new products can be applied and/or the (remediated) space being re-occupied without fear of exposure to workers rehabilitating the work area. If you can claim that all bio-mass has been removed, then you could claim that the space was essentially sterile – not possible! Encapsulants are a standard of care for many types of remediation and construction efforts, e.g., asbestos, LBP, mercury, silica, fiberglass, partial demo, and mold. Moreover, encapsulated surfaces resist new biological infestations, moisture imbibition is slowed, and they are easier to re-clean if soiled. To not use encapsulants post-remediation may be a negligent act; depending upon the circumstance.While I agree that pigmented encapsulants can be used to hide poor quality remediation work, this is not their purpose. Similarly, drywall mud and paint can hide problems with wall assemblies on the inside, and stucco can effectively hide them on the outside; but this is not the purpose of the coating material.In your previous posts, you have positioned yourself as a “total source removal†advocate; however, you have failed to acknowledge the practical aspects that do not always support this position, e.g., budgetary limitations, loss of use restrictions, and/or accessing inaccessible interstitial spaces. (I recall that you were the person that advocated disassembling a wood-framed wall system in order to scrub each piece of wood until it was free of mold, then re-building.) On most mold-related projects, it is practical to remove and/or clean what is readily accessible – acknowledging that some bio-mass will remain behind, mitigate the source of moisture, encapsulate exposed building materials after a PRV visual and sampling regime, encapsulate, then build-back. This is consistent with many other standards of care where contaminant reduction/mitigation is warranted.How is it that you can state: “Additionally, if the framing is encapsulated after the remediation process then the loss has not been restored back to the pre-loss condition.� Huh? This is an unfounded opinion and does not have merit. Moreover, I and A LOT of contractors I know of take exception to your comment: “Normally that procedure is done when the remediation contractor feels they have not done adequate cleaning.†What BS! Based on your comments, I really don’t believe you know what “normal†is. Maybe you should align yourself with some good-quality remediation contractors who are not trying to hide anything, strive to do good work, and provide a clean post-remediation work space. We encapsulate these workspaces after everyone is satisfied with the cleanliness. Encapsulation is often a very minor cost o f the total project effort, it is quick, and its value is well-understood by all involved....except you, it appears.If you can have cleaned to a press-loss condition, all sources of bio-mass and do so with the confidence that you can leave that space fit for re-occupancy without using a method (i.e., encapsulation) whose value has been well-demonstrated for nearly 20-years....more power to you. IMHO, you are also denying the building owners the value that encapsulants provide, and you are not conducting your work within an accepted industry practice.For what it is worth.....On 6/1/07 4:19 AM, "EnviroBob" <BobEnvironmentalAirTechs> wrote:

Shell, If the job is done correctly there is no need to apply anything to the framing. Additionally, if the framing is encapsulated after the remediation process than the loss has not been restored back to the pre-loss condition. Normally that procedure is done when the remediation contractor feels they have not done adequate cleaning. Personally, if I saw a painted surface it would warn me to not buy the home/condo. Put two cars besides one another one had noticeable repairs done the other didn’t. Which would you buy? EnviroBob

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Shell BleiweissSent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 7:47 PMTo: iequality Subject: s 40-80 and 40-20A friend had a bathroom overflow and is remediating mold and wet subfloors, studs, etc. as a result. The contractor proposes to clean and seal studs and concrete subfloors with the two s products in my subject line. Is this needed and a good idea? Any toxic fumes to be concerned about/special precautions to take? This is in a modern high rise building. We have requested the MSDSs but have not seen them yet. Insurance is paying. Shell BleiweissLaw Offices of Shell J. BleiweissEnvironmental and OSHA LawOffices in Chicago and Barrington, Illinoissbleiweissshell-bleiweisshttp://www.shell-bleiweiss.com

[Guest guest]



Hello Jim,

Thanks for the input. Great comments and there are lots of issues. What do you think of Jeff May liking dilute elmer's glue for a non-toxic coating material?

Bradley HarrSr. Environmental Scientist

-----Original Message-----From: iequality [mailto:iequality ]On Behalf Of Jim H. WhiteSent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 2:18 PMTo: iequality Subject: Re: s 40-80 and 40-20

 Brad

While I am not a fan of coating previously-moldy wood there are certainly places where it seems to be an intelligent thing to do, if your remember the following things:

1 buildings move a lot with changes in moisture content and temperature, so all coatings and caulkings must stay flexible for the life of the restoration;

2 many of the coatings contain biocides (including fungicides) that are quite toxic to humans as well as to the 'bugs' they were designed to kill;

3 if the coating dries out and the surface 'dusts' then the biocide will be on that dust; this becomes a very effective way of getting those poisons deep into the lung of the occupants if the 'dust' is very fine;

4 many modern low-VOC and no-VOC paints and coatings contain quite toxic compounds so you should be prechecking what you use with your clients in case they react strongly to the ones you would have used (others may be much less toxic);

5 it is possible that up to a third of Americans (this includes Canadian Americans as well as USA Americans) are already sensitized to some VOC and are reacting to SVOC (Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds) without even knowing this reality;

6 manufacturers of many coatings do not know the toxicity of the ingredients, nor the mixes that may be worse, of the coatings that they sell; others know but spread disinformation to try to delay the day of reckoning;

7 any client that has to have a restoration done is likely somewhat more sensitive than normal, just because of the stress of the incident that has led to this restoration process, and,

8 if you do not solve the water and air flows that caused the problem in the first place you will have a re-occurrence.

I would love others to add to this list of concerns and suggest reasonable cost ways of getting around at least some of them.

Jim H. White System Science Consulting systemsamagma (DOT) ca 1 877 884-1780

RE: s 40-80 and 40-20

 Hello ge,

I don't use the term encapsulate. When we clean, treat, and coat hard to clean areas, the thick coating is sprayed into the cracks and edges so that spore migration is minimized. Not perfect but cost effective. We can't cost effectively remove all the structural wood in a building. Some small areas can be demo'd correctly, but for the most part the thick coating in the cracks is effective if cleaning is not possible. On several jobs the bottom plates had to be calked to stop the spore migration into the air. This remaining mold was discussed in the PRV report.

Bradley HarrSr. Environmental Scientist

-----Original Message-----From: iequality [mailto:iequality ]On Behalf Of geSent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 5:44 AMTo: iequality Subject: Re: s 40-80 and 40-20

Bradley,

Just to keep this logical. Is coating three sides of a stud against a concrete block wall actually effective???

Is remediating and coating two sides of a base stud acceptable??

No cleaning, remediating, or coating is applied to this third or fourth side so how could you say you "encapsulated" much less remediated the area.

ge .

In a message dated 06/06/07 20:33:15 Eastern Daylight Time, bdharrsummitenviroinc writes:

Hello ,

How good does the mold removal need to be (ie spores / sq cm) before the RC is allowed to coat the wood? Goes to the question of where do you spend the money, on good removal or coating material. Are you testing the surfaces before allowing coating? I like coating on certain projects, but not all. Are we talking about antifugal coating or basic primer?

Bradley HarrSr. Environmental Scientist

-----Original Message-----From: iequality [mailto:iequality ]On Behalf Of GeyerSent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 2:19 PMTo: iequality Subject: Re: s 40-80 and 40-20

EnviroBob:I respectfully disagree, and I believe you are providing Shell with some poor advice!Post-remediation encapsulation is a standard of care within the remediation industry, and there is a lot of value to encapsulation. The foundation of your opinion seems to be focused on the premise that encapsulation is used on poor quality remediation efforts in order to hide a source contaminant. Not true. The purpose of encapsulation is to lock down any remaining contaminant that has avoided being removed, and seal surfaces so new products can be applied and/or the (remediated) space being re-occupied without fear of exposure to workers rehabilitating the work area. If you can claim that all bio-mass has been removed, then you could claim that the space was essentially sterile – not possible! Encapsulants are a standard of care for many types of remediation and construction efforts, e.g., asbestos, LBP, mercury, silica, fiberglass, partial demo, and mold. Moreover, encapsulated surfaces resist new biological infestations, moisture imbibition is slowed, and they are easier to re-clean if soiled. To not use encapsulants post-remediation may be a negligent act; depending upon the circumstance.While I agree that pigmented encapsulants can be used to hide poor quality remediation work, this is not their purpose. Similarly, drywall mud and paint can hide problems with wall assemblies on the inside, and stucco can effectively hide them on the outside; but this is not the purpose of the coating material.In your previous posts, you have positioned yourself as a “total source removal†advocate; however, you have failed to acknowledge the practical aspects that do not always support this position, e.g., budgetary limitations, loss of use restrictions, and/or accessing inaccessible interstitial spaces. (I recall that you were the person that advocated disassembling a wood-framed wall system in order to scrub each piece of wood until it was free of mold, then re-building.) On most mold-related projects, it is practical to remove and/or clean what is readily accessible – acknowledging that some bio-mass will remain behind, mitigate the source of moisture, encapsulate exposed building materials after a PRV visual and sampling regime, encapsulate, then build-back. This is consistent with many other standards of care where contaminant reduction/mitigation is warranted.How is it that you can state: “Additionally, if the framing is encapsulated after the remediation process then the loss has not been restored back to the pre-loss condition.� Huh? This is an unfounded opinion and does not have merit. Moreover, I and A LOT of contractors I know of take exception to your comment: “Normally that procedure is done when the remediation contractor feels they have not done adequate cleaning.†What BS! Based on your comments, I really don’t believe you know what “normal†is. Maybe you should align yourself with some good-quality remediation contractors who are not trying to hide anything, strive to do good work, and provide a clean post-remediation work space. We encapsulate these workspaces after everyone is satisfied with the cleanliness. Encapsulation is often a very minor cost o f the total project effort, it is quick, and its value is well-understood by all involved....except you, it appears.If you can have cleaned to a press-loss condition, all sources of bio-mass and do so with the confidence that you can leave that space fit for re-occupancy without using a method (i.e., encapsulation) whose value has been well-demonstrated for nearly 20-years....more power to you. IMHO, you are also denying the building owners the value that encapsulants provide, and you are not conducting your work within an accepted industry practice.For what it is worth.....On 6/1/07 4:19 AM, "EnviroBob" <BobEnvironmentalAirTechs> wrote:

Shell, If the job is done correctly there is no need to apply anything to the framing. Additionally, if the framing is encapsulated after the remediation process than the loss has not been restored back to the pre-loss condition. Normally that procedure is done when the remediation contractor feels they have not done adequate cleaning. Personally, if I saw a painted surface it would warn me to not buy the home/condo. Put two cars besides one another one had noticeable repairs done the other didn’t. Which would you buy? EnviroBob

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Shell BleiweissSent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 7:47 PMTo: iequality Subject: s 40-80 and 40-20A friend had a bathroom overflow and is remediating mold and wet subfloors, studs, etc. as a result. The contractor proposes to clean and seal studs and concrete subfloors with the two s products in my subject line. Is this needed and a good idea? Any toxic fumes to be concerned about/special precautions to take? This is in a modern high rise building. We have requested the MSDSs but have not seen them yet. Insurance is paying. Shell BleiweissLaw Offices of Shell J. BleiweissEnvironmental and OSHA LawOffices in Chicago and Barrington, Illinoissbleiweissshell-bleiweisshttp://www.shell-bleiweiss.com

[Guest guest]



Hello Jim,

Thanks for the input. Great comments and there are lots of issues. What do you think of Jeff May liking dilute elmer's glue for a non-toxic coating material?

Bradley HarrSr. Environmental Scientist

-----Original Message-----From: iequality [mailto:iequality ]On Behalf Of Jim H. WhiteSent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 2:18 PMTo: iequality Subject: Re: s 40-80 and 40-20

 Brad

While I am not a fan of coating previously-moldy wood there are certainly places where it seems to be an intelligent thing to do, if your remember the following things:

1 buildings move a lot with changes in moisture content and temperature, so all coatings and caulkings must stay flexible for the life of the restoration;

2 many of the coatings contain biocides (including fungicides) that are quite toxic to humans as well as to the 'bugs' they were designed to kill;

3 if the coating dries out and the surface 'dusts' then the biocide will be on that dust; this becomes a very effective way of getting those poisons deep into the lung of the occupants if the 'dust' is very fine;

4 many modern low-VOC and no-VOC paints and coatings contain quite toxic compounds so you should be prechecking what you use with your clients in case they react strongly to the ones you would have used (others may be much less toxic);

5 it is possible that up to a third of Americans (this includes Canadian Americans as well as USA Americans) are already sensitized to some VOC and are reacting to SVOC (Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds) without even knowing this reality;

6 manufacturers of many coatings do not know the toxicity of the ingredients, nor the mixes that may be worse, of the coatings that they sell; others know but spread disinformation to try to delay the day of reckoning;

7 any client that has to have a restoration done is likely somewhat more sensitive than normal, just because of the stress of the incident that has led to this restoration process, and,

8 if you do not solve the water and air flows that caused the problem in the first place you will have a re-occurrence.

I would love others to add to this list of concerns and suggest reasonable cost ways of getting around at least some of them.

Jim H. White System Science Consulting systemsamagma (DOT) ca 1 877 884-1780

RE: s 40-80 and 40-20

 Hello ge,

I don't use the term encapsulate. When we clean, treat, and coat hard to clean areas, the thick coating is sprayed into the cracks and edges so that spore migration is minimized. Not perfect but cost effective. We can't cost effectively remove all the structural wood in a building. Some small areas can be demo'd correctly, but for the most part the thick coating in the cracks is effective if cleaning is not possible. On several jobs the bottom plates had to be calked to stop the spore migration into the air. This remaining mold was discussed in the PRV report.

Bradley HarrSr. Environmental Scientist

-----Original Message-----From: iequality [mailto:iequality ]On Behalf Of geSent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 5:44 AMTo: iequality Subject: Re: s 40-80 and 40-20

Bradley,

Just to keep this logical. Is coating three sides of a stud against a concrete block wall actually effective???

Is remediating and coating two sides of a base stud acceptable??

No cleaning, remediating, or coating is applied to this third or fourth side so how could you say you "encapsulated" much less remediated the area.

ge .

In a message dated 06/06/07 20:33:15 Eastern Daylight Time, bdharrsummitenviroinc writes:

Hello ,

How good does the mold removal need to be (ie spores / sq cm) before the RC is allowed to coat the wood? Goes to the question of where do you spend the money, on good removal or coating material. Are you testing the surfaces before allowing coating? I like coating on certain projects, but not all. Are we talking about antifugal coating or basic primer?

Bradley HarrSr. Environmental Scientist

-----Original Message-----From: iequality [mailto:iequality ]On Behalf Of GeyerSent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 2:19 PMTo: iequality Subject: Re: s 40-80 and 40-20

EnviroBob:I respectfully disagree, and I believe you are providing Shell with some poor advice!Post-remediation encapsulation is a standard of care within the remediation industry, and there is a lot of value to encapsulation. The foundation of your opinion seems to be focused on the premise that encapsulation is used on poor quality remediation efforts in order to hide a source contaminant. Not true. The purpose of encapsulation is to lock down any remaining contaminant that has avoided being removed, and seal surfaces so new products can be applied and/or the (remediated) space being re-occupied without fear of exposure to workers rehabilitating the work area. If you can claim that all bio-mass has been removed, then you could claim that the space was essentially sterile – not possible! Encapsulants are a standard of care for many types of remediation and construction efforts, e.g., asbestos, LBP, mercury, silica, fiberglass, partial demo, and mold. Moreover, encapsulated surfaces resist new biological infestations, moisture imbibition is slowed, and they are easier to re-clean if soiled. To not use encapsulants post-remediation may be a negligent act; depending upon the circumstance.While I agree that pigmented encapsulants can be used to hide poor quality remediation work, this is not their purpose. Similarly, drywall mud and paint can hide problems with wall assemblies on the inside, and stucco can effectively hide them on the outside; but this is not the purpose of the coating material.In your previous posts, you have positioned yourself as a “total source removal†advocate; however, you have failed to acknowledge the practical aspects that do not always support this position, e.g., budgetary limitations, loss of use restrictions, and/or accessing inaccessible interstitial spaces. (I recall that you were the person that advocated disassembling a wood-framed wall system in order to scrub each piece of wood until it was free of mold, then re-building.) On most mold-related projects, it is practical to remove and/or clean what is readily accessible – acknowledging that some bio-mass will remain behind, mitigate the source of moisture, encapsulate exposed building materials after a PRV visual and sampling regime, encapsulate, then build-back. This is consistent with many other standards of care where contaminant reduction/mitigation is warranted.How is it that you can state: “Additionally, if the framing is encapsulated after the remediation process then the loss has not been restored back to the pre-loss condition.� Huh? This is an unfounded opinion and does not have merit. Moreover, I and A LOT of contractors I know of take exception to your comment: “Normally that procedure is done when the remediation contractor feels they have not done adequate cleaning.†What BS! Based on your comments, I really don’t believe you know what “normal†is. Maybe you should align yourself with some good-quality remediation contractors who are not trying to hide anything, strive to do good work, and provide a clean post-remediation work space. We encapsulate these workspaces after everyone is satisfied with the cleanliness. Encapsulation is often a very minor cost o f the total project effort, it is quick, and its value is well-understood by all involved....except you, it appears.If you can have cleaned to a press-loss condition, all sources of bio-mass and do so with the confidence that you can leave that space fit for re-occupancy without using a method (i.e., encapsulation) whose value has been well-demonstrated for nearly 20-years....more power to you. IMHO, you are also denying the building owners the value that encapsulants provide, and you are not conducting your work within an accepted industry practice.For what it is worth.....On 6/1/07 4:19 AM, "EnviroBob" <BobEnvironmentalAirTechs> wrote:

Shell, If the job is done correctly there is no need to apply anything to the framing. Additionally, if the framing is encapsulated after the remediation process than the loss has not been restored back to the pre-loss condition. Normally that procedure is done when the remediation contractor feels they have not done adequate cleaning. Personally, if I saw a painted surface it would warn me to not buy the home/condo. Put two cars besides one another one had noticeable repairs done the other didn’t. Which would you buy? EnviroBob

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Shell BleiweissSent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 7:47 PMTo: iequality Subject: s 40-80 and 40-20A friend had a bathroom overflow and is remediating mold and wet subfloors, studs, etc. as a result. The contractor proposes to clean and seal studs and concrete subfloors with the two s products in my subject line. Is this needed and a good idea? Any toxic fumes to be concerned about/special precautions to take? This is in a modern high rise building. We have requested the MSDSs but have not seen them yet. Insurance is paying. Shell BleiweissLaw Offices of Shell J. BleiweissEnvironmental and OSHA LawOffices in Chicago and Barrington, Illinoissbleiweissshell-bleiweisshttp://www.shell-bleiweiss.com

[Guest guest]

Curtis:

No apologies warranted and I appreciate you joining in; especially since you provided such good stuff with which to dialog about.

First - “What consensus document on mold remediation describes encapsulation as a standard of car?” Well, this really depends upon what construes a standard of care for mold and what constitutes a consensus document for mold. If we were all in consensus, would we be having this dialog?, would there be so much current disagreement and discontinuity regarding mold mitigation if there were a consensus?....I think a consensus has not yet be achieved. The moldy standards of care seem to get published at the rate of one to two per year, and several purport to be consensus documents. Yeah right!?! Like the IICRC S520 document was a consensus document. Granted, S520 is good, but there were a lot of folks on S520’s committees that were not in consensus with the final draft. Right now, at my last count, I believe there were 16 moldy “standard of care” documents that have been published. For mold, this represents a flavor of the month sort of thing going for it right now – IMHO. Some of these documents recommend encapsulation, some recommend against it, some are neutral, and some say nothing. Take your pick.

Second - “As you well understand, there are significant difference between " locking down " fibers vs. down " locking down " organisms, so there can be no comparison there.” No, I am sorry, I do not understand. Question – Just what is the difference in locking down fibers versus locking down particulates? Not much. But you used the term “organisms” therefore, this opens to dialog-door a bit further. I generally think of organisms as living, respiring critters, and mold spores do not generally fall into this category, nor to hyphal fragments. While there may be no comparison between fibers and living, respiring critters, I believe that fibers and fungi residue have a lot in common.

Regarding AIHA Guidance 3-2004.....yeah, I know of it. It is one of the 16.

All this said, lets not get to myopic. Take for example the value and merit that encapsulants have provided mitigating other hazardous materials (e.g., asbestos, lead, mercury, PCBs, etc.) and other mitigation standards that recommend encapsulants. Encapsulants have a track record, demonstrated effectiveness, and there is a whole industry of manufacturers supplying encapsulants to meet the need of the situation. There are bridging encapsulants, penetrating encapsulants, encapsulants with high-solids, encapsulants with low PERM ratings and some with high PERM ratings. There are encapsulants mixed with biocides, and there are those that seal so good that they are water replants coatings when applied 4 to 6-mils thick. There are expensive ones, and really cheap ones, e.g., water-down Elmer’s white glue; which I like as well as others. Given all of these attributes, do you not believe that encapsulants have merit in mold mitigation? And if not, what makes mold so different that it merits something entirely different? I, for one, see very little difference, and a lot of comparisons.

Granted, if you can clean every moldy surface such that there is nary a hint of the moldy bio-mass, then encapsulation is superfluous. However, this level of cleaning is founded upon to concept of total source removal; which I believe is impractical in most instances and not achievable in many. Given the situations where total source removal is not achievable, and acknowledging that some source will remain, then next logical question is....Just what are you going to do to lock down the remaining bio-mass so it cannot become airborne? In order to help the folks suffering from exposure to mold-related aerosols, don’t encapsulants represent an warranted method of mitigation?

Regards,

Geyer,

Your reply caught my eye - What consensus document on mold remediation describes encapsulation as a standard of care? As you well understand, there are significant difference between " locking down " fibers vs. down " locking down " organisms, so there can be no comparison there. Furthermore, there has been ample discussion on this List and elsewhere that addresses the fallacy of " mold resistant " surfaces.

AIHA Guideline 3-2004 (Assessment, Remediation, and Post-Remediation Verification of Mold in Buildings) does describe possible scenarios where real-world situations may indicate the need for an " alternative approach " that involves coating surfaces that can not otherwise be adequately remediated (pg. 6-7), but that hardly constitutes a blanket endorsement of encapsulation, much less establishing a " standard of care. "

I just now picked up on this thread, so perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. If so, please accept my apology for jumping in like this. If not, could you please clarify?

Curtis Redington, RS

Environmental Quality Specialist

City of Wichita Dept. of Environmental Health

Re: s 40-80 and 40-20

EnviroBob:

I respectfully disagree, and I believe you are providing Shell with some poor advice!

Post-remediation encapsulation is a standard of care within the remediation industry, and there is a lot of value to encapsulation. The foundation of your opinion seems to be focused on the premise that encapsulation is used on poor quality remediation efforts in order to hide a source contaminant. Not true. The purpose of encapsulation is to lock down any remaining contaminant that has avoided being removed, and seal surfaces so new products can be applied and/or the (remediated) space being re-occupied without fear of exposure to workers rehabilitating the work area. If you can claim that all bio-mass has been removed, then you could claim that the space was essentially sterile – not possible! Encapsulants are a standard of care for many types of remediation and construction efforts, e.g., asbestos, LBP, mercury, silica, fiberglass, partial demo, and mold. Moreover, encapsulated surfaces resist new biological infestations, moisture imbibition is slowed, and they are easier to re-clean if soiled. To not use encapsulants post-remediation may be a negligent act; depending upon the circumstance.

While I agree that pigmented encapsulants can be used to hide poor quality remediation work, this is not their purpose. Similarly, drywall mud and paint can hide problems with wall assemblies on the inside, and stucco can effectively hide them on the outside; but this is not the purpose of the coating material.

In your previous posts, you have positioned yourself as a “total source removal” advocate; however, you have failed to acknowledge the practical aspects that do not always support this position, e.g., budgetary limitations, loss of use restrictions, and/or accessing inaccessible interstitial spaces. (I recall that you were the person that advocated disassembling a wood-framed wall system in order to scrub each piece of wood until it was free of mold, then re-building.) On most mold-related projects, it is practical to remove and/or clean what is readily accessible – acknowledging that some bio-mass will remain behind, mitigate the source of moisture, encapsulate exposed building materials after a PRV visual and sampling regime, encapsulate, then build-back. This is consistent with many other standards of care where contaminant reduction/mitigation is warranted.

How is it that you can state: “Additionally, if the framing is encapsulated after the remediation process then the loss has not been restored back to the pre-loss condition.”? Huh? This is an unfounded opinion and does not have merit. Moreover, I and A LOT of contractors I know of take exception to your comment: “Normally that procedure is done when the remediation contractor feels they have not done adequate cleaning.” What BS! Based on your comments, I really don’t believe you know what “normal” is. Maybe you should align yourself with some good-quality remediation contractors who are not trying to hide anything, strive to do good work, and provide a clean post-remediation work space. We encapsulate these workspaces after everyone is satisfied with the cleanliness. Encapsulation is often a very minor cost o f the total project effort, it is quick, and its value is well-understood by all involved....except you, it appears.

If you can have cleaned to a press-loss condition, all sources of bio-mass and do so with the confidence that you can leave that space fit for re-occupancy without using a method (i.e., encapsulation) whose value has been well-demonstrated for nearly 20-years....more power to you. IMHO, you are also denying the building owners the value that encapsulants provide, and you are not conducting your work within an accepted industry practice.

For what it is worth.....

[Guest guest]

Bradley,

Please understand we find the general practice of coating to include cover up by a number of contractors. For example, contractors routinely coat attic sheathing with only a "sanitizing" as a remediation technique.

I refer to partial remediation (ie 2 sides of a wood base plate)) as a bandaid purely to illustrate that this process is not under a standard definition of remediation that I am familiar with as remediation to me is defined as removal.

Here is my remediation definition.

The application of containment or decontamination technologies to eliminate existing public hazards or to render the property acceptable for conditional or unconditional uses.

I am well aware that other definitions may include reduction as opposed to removal, however I would think that leaving viable mold in an area where there is no moisture control may only be a temporary solution. Caulking to me is not a permanent solution especially with the expansion and contraction of two materials varying in thermal expansion properties. Just out of curiosity what would a contractor do if the EC removed the base-plate for clearance testing?

..

I believe it would be great to see some document on the justification of coating as you describe, which by the way I agree with in general. I do believe that there should be some caveat excluding coating without independent validation/clearance and no firm that is both a contractor/remediator should be be able to coat without an independent third party verification.

ge See what's free at AOL.com.

[Guest guest]

,

You make some great points.

I believe the economics of this industry dictate some compromise but it is my experience that the compromise often is far short of resolving the issue. A good portion of our current business is performing work after legal claims or the ineffective work of another contractor.

First, as a contractor and not a consultant, we are often told the scope of work and must perform to such standards.

Second, as a contractor who has some pretty significant experience, I have learned that one should approach a mold remediation project as if he will be in court defending his actions against experts in his industry.

Third, I do not believe I am an absolute purist but I do believe based on my experience that all to often too little is being done to remediate to effect adequate results.

WE can discuss the minutia in any amount of detail but I feel the overall performance of the industry is not representative of what either you or I would consider acceptable.

ge See what's free at AOL.com.

[Guest guest]



Brad

Any coating that surrounds the remaining loose 'stuff' and prevents it from becoming airborne is useful. Diluted Elmer's glue would do a great job. It contains no toxins as far as I know.

It is usually a poor idea to criticize Jeff may, although he takes criticism well. it is just the problem of 'egg on face' after his reply.

Jim H. White SSC

RE: s 40-80 and 40-20

 Hello ge,

I don't use the term encapsulate. When we clean, treat, and coat hard to clean areas, the thick coating is sprayed into the cracks and edges so that spore migration is minimized. Not perfect but cost effective. We can't cost effectively remove all the structural wood in a building. Some small areas can be demo'd correctly, but for the most part the thick coating in the cracks is effective if cleaning is not possible. On several jobs the bottom plates had to be calked to stop the spore migration into the air. This remaining mold was discussed in the PRV report.

Bradley HarrSr. Environmental Scientist

-----Original Message-----From: iequality [mailto:iequality ]On Behalf Of geSent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 5:44 AMTo: iequality Subject: Re: s 40-80 and 40-20

Bradley,

Just to keep this logical. Is coating three sides of a stud against a concrete block wall actually effective???

Is remediating and coating two sides of a base stud acceptable??

No cleaning, remediating, or coating is applied to this third or fourth side so how could you say you "encapsulated" much less remediated the area.

ge .

In a message dated 06/06/07 20:33:15 Eastern Daylight Time, bdharrsummitenviroinc writes:

Hello ,

How good does the mold removal need to be (ie spores / sq cm) before the RC is allowed to coat the wood? Goes to the question of where do you spend the money, on good removal or coating material. Are you testing the surfaces before allowing coating? I like coating on certain projects, but not all. Are we talking about antifugal coating or basic primer?

Bradley HarrSr. Environmental Scientist

-----Original Message-----From: iequality [mailto:iequality ]On Behalf Of GeyerSent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 2:19 PMTo: iequality Subject: Re: s 40-80 and 40-20

EnviroBob:I respectfully disagree, and I believe you are providing Shell with some poor advice!Post-remediation encapsulation is a standard of care within the remediation industry, and there is a lot of value to encapsulation. The foundation of your opinion seems to be focused on the premise that encapsulation is used on poor quality remediation efforts in order to hide a source contaminant. Not true. The purpose of encapsulation is to lock down any remaining contaminant that has avoided being removed, and seal surfaces so new products can be applied and/or the (remediated) space being re-occupied without fear of exposure to workers rehabilitating the work area. If you can claim that all bio-mass has been removed, then you could claim that the space was essentially sterile – not possible! Encapsulants are a standard of care for many types of remediation and construction efforts, e.g., asbestos, LBP, mercury, silica, fiberglass, partial demo, and mold. Moreover, encapsulated surfaces resist new biological infestations, moisture imbibition is slowed, and they are easier to re-clean if soiled. To not use encapsulants post-remediation may be a negligent act; depending upon the circumstance.While I agree that pigmented encapsulants can be used to hide poor quality remediation work, this is not their purpose. Similarly, drywall mud and paint can hide problems with wall assemblies on the inside, and stucco can effectively hide them on the outside; but this is not the purpose of the coating material.In your previous posts, you have positioned yourself as a “total source removal†advocate; however, you have failed to acknowledge the practical aspects that do not always support this position, e.g., budgetary limitations, loss of use restrictions, and/or accessing inaccessible interstitial spaces. (I recall that you were the person that advocated disassembling a wood-framed wall system in order to scrub each piece of wood until it was free of mold, then re-building.) On most mold-related projects, it is practical to remove and/or clean what is readily accessible – acknowledging that some bio-mass will remain behind, mitigate the source of moisture, encapsulate exposed building materials after a PRV visual and sampling regime, encapsulate, then build-back. This is consistent with many other standards of care where contaminant reduction/mitigation is warranted.How is it that you can state: “Additionally, if the framing is encapsulated after the remediation process then the loss has not been restored back to the pre-loss condition.� Huh? This is an unfounded opinion and does not have merit. Moreover, I and A LOT of contractors I know of take exception to your comment: “Normally that procedure is done when the remediation contractor feels they have not done adequate cleaning.†What BS! Based on your comments, I really don’t believe you know what “normal†is. Maybe you should align yourself with some good-quality remediation contractors who are not trying to hide anything, strive to do good work, and provide a clean post-remediation work space. We encapsulate these workspaces after everyone is satisfied with the cleanliness. Encapsulation is often a very minor cost o f the total project effort, it is quick, and its value is well-understood by all involved....except you, it appears.If you can have cleaned to a press-loss condition, all sources of bio-mass and do so with the confidence that you can leave that space fit for re-occupancy without using a method (i.e., encapsulation) whose value has been well-demonstrated for nearly 20-years....more power to you. IMHO, you are also denying the building owners the value that encapsulants provide, and you are not conducting your work within an accepted industry practice.For what it is worth.....On 6/1/07 4:19 AM, "EnviroBob" <BobEnvironmentalAirTechs> wrote:

Shell, If the job is done correctly there is no need to apply anything to the framing. Additionally, if the framing is encapsulated after the remediation process than the loss has not been restored back to the pre-loss condition. Normally that procedure is done when the remediation contractor feels they have not done adequate cleaning. Personally, if I saw a painted surface it would warn me to not buy the home/condo. Put two cars besides one another one had noticeable repairs done the other didn’t. Which would you buy? EnviroBob

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Shell BleiweissSent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 7:47 PMTo: iequality Subject: s 40-80 and 40-20A friend had a bathroom overflow and is remediating mold and wet subfloors, studs, etc. as a result. The contractor proposes to clean and seal studs and concrete subfloors with the two s products in my subject line. Is this needed and a good idea? Any toxic fumes to be concerned about/special precautions to take? This is in a modern high rise building. We have requested the MSDSs but have not seen them yet. Insurance is paying. Shell BleiweissLaw Offices of Shell J. BleiweissEnvironmental and OSHA LawOffices in Chicago and Barrington, Illinoissbleiweissshell-bleiweisshttp://www.shell-bleiweiss.com

[Guest guest]

ge:

Let me jump in here....because you said something that warrants perspective.

You stated: “Just out of curiosity what would a contractor do if the EC removed the base-plate for clearance testing?”

To answer your question specifically......If I were the contractor, and this probably goes for most contractors I work with, I would have a Prozac moment if you, the EC, removed the based-plate of a wood-framed wall assemble, for clearance testing. Why? Because most based-plates are a structural load-bearing architectural elements that cannot be removed without shoring up the wall system from whence it came. And the shoring would require the services of a civil/structural engineer to design it and sign-off on its adequacy. Removing the base-plate would require a permit to do so, and a method of restoring the wall system back to a like condition would also be necessary. Bottom line.....If the EC is not a licensed engineer and the EC removed a base-plate for clearance testing, there would be a whole host of issues that would drive any contractor to begin drinking and popping Prozac.

Removing the base-plate is NOT a good idea.

For what it is worth.....

Bradley,

Please understand we find the general practice of coating to include cover up by a number of contractors. For example, contractors routinely coat attic sheathing with only a " sanitizing " as a remediation technique.

I refer to partial remediation (ie 2 sides of a wood base plate)) as a bandaid purely to illustrate that this process is not under a standard definition of remediation that I am familiar with as remediation to me is defined as removal.

Here is my remediation definition.

The application of containment or decontamination technologies to eliminate existing public hazards or to render the property acceptable for conditional or unconditional uses.

I am well aware that other definitions may include reduction as opposed to removal, however I would think that leaving viable mold in an area where there is no moisture control may only be a temporary solution. Caulking to me is not a permanent solution especially with the expansion and contraction of two materials varying in thermal expansion properties. Just out of curiosity what would a contractor do if the EC removed the base-plate for clearance testing?

..

I believe it would be great to see some document on the justification of coating as you describe, which by the way I agree with in general. I do believe that there should be some caveat excluding coating without independent validation/clearance and no firm that is both a contractor/remediator should be be able to coat without an independent third party verification.

ge

[Guest guest]

ge:

Let me jump in here....because you said something that warrants perspective.

You stated: “Just out of curiosity what would a contractor do if the EC removed the base-plate for clearance testing?”

To answer your question specifically......If I were the contractor, and this probably goes for most contractors I work with, I would have a Prozac moment if you, the EC, removed the based-plate of a wood-framed wall assemble, for clearance testing. Why? Because most based-plates are a structural load-bearing architectural elements that cannot be removed without shoring up the wall system from whence it came. And the shoring would require the services of a civil/structural engineer to design it and sign-off on its adequacy. Removing the base-plate would require a permit to do so, and a method of restoring the wall system back to a like condition would also be necessary. Bottom line.....If the EC is not a licensed engineer and the EC removed a base-plate for clearance testing, there would be a whole host of issues that would drive any contractor to begin drinking and popping Prozac.

Removing the base-plate is NOT a good idea.

For what it is worth.....

Bradley,

Please understand we find the general practice of coating to include cover up by a number of contractors. For example, contractors routinely coat attic sheathing with only a " sanitizing " as a remediation technique.

I refer to partial remediation (ie 2 sides of a wood base plate)) as a bandaid purely to illustrate that this process is not under a standard definition of remediation that I am familiar with as remediation to me is defined as removal.

Here is my remediation definition.

The application of containment or decontamination technologies to eliminate existing public hazards or to render the property acceptable for conditional or unconditional uses.

I am well aware that other definitions may include reduction as opposed to removal, however I would think that leaving viable mold in an area where there is no moisture control may only be a temporary solution. Caulking to me is not a permanent solution especially with the expansion and contraction of two materials varying in thermal expansion properties. Just out of curiosity what would a contractor do if the EC removed the base-plate for clearance testing?

..

I believe it would be great to see some document on the justification of coating as you describe, which by the way I agree with in general. I do believe that there should be some caveat excluding coating without independent validation/clearance and no firm that is both a contractor/remediator should be be able to coat without an independent third party verification.

ge

[Guest guest]

,

Did I see you on "Dancing With The Stars"? That's some pretty fancy footwork! (I'm just jealous because I've got two left feet!)

Seems like there must be consensus for a protocol to become a "standard of care". Otherwise, anyone could claim whatever they were selling at the moment was a "standard of care". Of course the nature of consensus is such that not everyone agrees with everything, but at least there is pretty much agreement on the major points. The biggest disagreements involve the fuzzy little details. And, as the folks who are really good know, it's the details that make the difference. Hence the necessary reliance on "professional judgment". So now it just got even more complicated because in addition to trying to achieve consensus on "how", we also need some consensus on "who". That's why this List is so much fun - it's like the Abbot & Costello "Who's On First" routine every day! Who is right? No, What is. What is right? Yes! Could someone explain this to me? Surely - I don't know. Don't call me Shirley. If you don't know, who does? Yes!

The standard of care for mold remediation is to return the indoor environment to a "normal" condition. That involves a thorough job of removing fungal contaminants and their associated microbiological neighbors. But, since we live on a moldy, dirty planet, we don't have to achieve a sterile condition. We do have to achieve moisture control, though. Do we have consensus so far? OK, but what is "normal" and how do we define what is a "thorough job"? Depends on who you are talking to and what is motivating them.

Here are some reasons why I don't think encapsulation would be described as a "standard of care". First, there are all the contractors who think that if they spray everything white, then you don't have any more "black mold" (because now it's all white, and everyone knows that you only have to worry about "black" mold!). Second, the consultant is trying to determine if the area is free of any visible dust/debris/mold, but now everything is white and fuzzy from overspray. In addition, any moldy odors that could be a clue are masked by the odor of the encapsulant. Nice buzz if you get if fresh enough, but not exactly helpful when you're trying to document clearance. Third, mold sprayed with encapsulant can still grow if the water problem wasn't fixed. It just has to work at it a little harder. Fourth, mold grows (at least the viable parts), asbestos doesn't. Nor does fiberglass, lead paint, mercury, or other non-living stuff (i.e., organisms - both with and without lungs).

So, I'm saying that we shouldn't routinely paint everything as part of a mold remediation (just like we shouldn't routinely use bleach and water). But, there certainly can be circumstances where encapsulation would be useful as part of some mold remediation plans. In these situations, the encapsulant need only be applied to the specific areas where sealing or "locking down" of the surface is necessary (because it can't otherwise be remediated). A classic example could be applying a sealant/encapsulant at the joint between sole plate and sub floor. This would also help to keep moisture out, should another water problem develop.

So, who's on first?

Curtis

Re: s 40-80 and 40-20EnviroBob:I respectfully disagree, and I believe you are providing Shell with some poor advice!Post-remediation encapsulation is a standard of care within the remediation industry, and there is a lot of value to encapsulation. The foundation of your opinion seems to be focused on the premise that encapsulation is used on poor quality remediation efforts in order to hide a source contaminant. Not true. The purpose of encapsulation is to lock down any remaining contaminant that has avoided being removed, and seal surfaces so new products can be applied and/or the (remediated) space being re-occupied without fear of exposure to workers rehabilitating the work area. If you can claim that all bio-mass has been removed, then you could claim that the space was essentially sterile – not possible! Encapsulants are a standard of care for many types of remediation and construction efforts, e.g., asbestos, LBP, mercury, silica, fiberglass, partial demo, and mold. Moreo ver, encapsulated surfaces resist new biological infestations, moisture imbibition is slowed, and they are easier to re-clean if soiled. To not use encapsulants post-remediation may be a negligent act; depending upon the circumstance.While I agree that pigmented encapsulants can be used to hide poor quality remediation work, this is not their purpose. Similarly, drywall mud and paint can hide problems with wall assemblies on the inside, and stucco can effectively hide them on the outside; but this is not the purpose of the coating material.In your previous posts, you have positioned yourself as a “total source removal” advocate; however, you have failed to acknowledge the practical aspects that do not always support this position, e.g., budgetary limitations, loss of use restrictions, and/or accessing inaccessible interstitial spaces. (I recall that you were the person that advocated disassembling a wood-framed wall system in order to scrub each piece of wood until it was free of mold, then re-building.) On most mold-related projects, it is practical to remove and/or clean what is readily accessible – acknowledging that some bio-mass will remain behind, mitigate the source of moisture, encapsulate exposed building materials after a PRV visual and sampling regime, encapsulate, then build-back. This is consistent with many other standards of care where contaminant reduction/mitigation is warranted .How is it that you can state: “Additionally, if the framing is encapsulated after the remediation process then the loss has not been restored back to the pre-loss condition.”? Huh? This is an unfounded opinion and does not have merit. Moreover, I and A LOT of contractors I know of take exception to your comment: “Normally that procedure is done when the remediation contractor feels they have not done adequate cleaning.” What BS! Based on your comments, I really don’t believe you know what “normal” is. Maybe you should align yourself with some good-quality remediation contractors who are not trying to hide anything, strive to do good work, and provide a clean post-remediation work space. We encapsulate these workspaces after everyone is satisfied with the cleanliness. Encapsulation is often a very minor cost o f the total project effort, it is quick, and its value is well-understood by all involved....except you, it appears.If you can have cleaned to a press-loss condition, all sources of bio-mass and do so with the confidence that you can leave that space fit for re-occupancy without using a method (i.e., encapsulation) whose value has been well-demonstrated for nearly 20-years....more power to you. IMHO, you are also denying the building owners the value that encapsulants provide, and you are not conducting your work within an accepted industry practice.For what it is worth.....On 6/1/07 4:19 AM, "EnviroBob" <BobEnvironmentalAirTechs> wrote:

[Guest guest]

,

Did I see you on "Dancing With The Stars"? That's some pretty fancy footwork! (I'm just jealous because I've got two left feet!)

Seems like there must be consensus for a protocol to become a "standard of care". Otherwise, anyone could claim whatever they were selling at the moment was a "standard of care". Of course the nature of consensus is such that not everyone agrees with everything, but at least there is pretty much agreement on the major points. The biggest disagreements involve the fuzzy little details. And, as the folks who are really good know, it's the details that make the difference. Hence the necessary reliance on "professional judgment". So now it just got even more complicated because in addition to trying to achieve consensus on "how", we also need some consensus on "who". That's why this List is so much fun - it's like the Abbot & Costello "Who's On First" routine every day! Who is right? No, What is. What is right? Yes! Could someone explain this to me? Surely - I don't know. Don't call me Shirley. If you don't know, who does? Yes!

The standard of care for mold remediation is to return the indoor environment to a "normal" condition. That involves a thorough job of removing fungal contaminants and their associated microbiological neighbors. But, since we live on a moldy, dirty planet, we don't have to achieve a sterile condition. We do have to achieve moisture control, though. Do we have consensus so far? OK, but what is "normal" and how do we define what is a "thorough job"? Depends on who you are talking to and what is motivating them.

Here are some reasons why I don't think encapsulation would be described as a "standard of care". First, there are all the contractors who think that if they spray everything white, then you don't have any more "black mold" (because now it's all white, and everyone knows that you only have to worry about "black" mold!). Second, the consultant is trying to determine if the area is free of any visible dust/debris/mold, but now everything is white and fuzzy from overspray. In addition, any moldy odors that could be a clue are masked by the odor of the encapsulant. Nice buzz if you get if fresh enough, but not exactly helpful when you're trying to document clearance. Third, mold sprayed with encapsulant can still grow if the water problem wasn't fixed. It just has to work at it a little harder. Fourth, mold grows (at least the viable parts), asbestos doesn't. Nor does fiberglass, lead paint, mercury, or other non-living stuff (i.e., organisms - both with and without lungs).

So, I'm saying that we shouldn't routinely paint everything as part of a mold remediation (just like we shouldn't routinely use bleach and water). But, there certainly can be circumstances where encapsulation would be useful as part of some mold remediation plans. In these situations, the encapsulant need only be applied to the specific areas where sealing or "locking down" of the surface is necessary (because it can't otherwise be remediated). A classic example could be applying a sealant/encapsulant at the joint between sole plate and sub floor. This would also help to keep moisture out, should another water problem develop.

So, who's on first?

Curtis

Re: s 40-80 and 40-20EnviroBob:I respectfully disagree, and I believe you are providing Shell with some poor advice!Post-remediation encapsulation is a standard of care within the remediation industry, and there is a lot of value to encapsulation. The foundation of your opinion seems to be focused on the premise that encapsulation is used on poor quality remediation efforts in order to hide a source contaminant. Not true. The purpose of encapsulation is to lock down any remaining contaminant that has avoided being removed, and seal surfaces so new products can be applied and/or the (remediated) space being re-occupied without fear of exposure to workers rehabilitating the work area. If you can claim that all bio-mass has been removed, then you could claim that the space was essentially sterile – not possible! Encapsulants are a standard of care for many types of remediation and construction efforts, e.g., asbestos, LBP, mercury, silica, fiberglass, partial demo, and mold. Moreo ver, encapsulated surfaces resist new biological infestations, moisture imbibition is slowed, and they are easier to re-clean if soiled. To not use encapsulants post-remediation may be a negligent act; depending upon the circumstance.While I agree that pigmented encapsulants can be used to hide poor quality remediation work, this is not their purpose. Similarly, drywall mud and paint can hide problems with wall assemblies on the inside, and stucco can effectively hide them on the outside; but this is not the purpose of the coating material.In your previous posts, you have positioned yourself as a “total source removal” advocate; however, you have failed to acknowledge the practical aspects that do not always support this position, e.g., budgetary limitations, loss of use restrictions, and/or accessing inaccessible interstitial spaces. (I recall that you were the person that advocated disassembling a wood-framed wall system in order to scrub each piece of wood until it was free of mold, then re-building.) On most mold-related projects, it is practical to remove and/or clean what is readily accessible – acknowledging that some bio-mass will remain behind, mitigate the source of moisture, encapsulate exposed building materials after a PRV visual and sampling regime, encapsulate, then build-back. This is consistent with many other standards of care where contaminant reduction/mitigation is warranted .How is it that you can state: “Additionally, if the framing is encapsulated after the remediation process then the loss has not been restored back to the pre-loss condition.”? Huh? This is an unfounded opinion and does not have merit. Moreover, I and A LOT of contractors I know of take exception to your comment: “Normally that procedure is done when the remediation contractor feels they have not done adequate cleaning.” What BS! Based on your comments, I really don’t believe you know what “normal” is. Maybe you should align yourself with some good-quality remediation contractors who are not trying to hide anything, strive to do good work, and provide a clean post-remediation work space. We encapsulate these workspaces after everyone is satisfied with the cleanliness. Encapsulation is often a very minor cost o f the total project effort, it is quick, and its value is well-understood by all involved....except you, it appears.If you can have cleaned to a press-loss condition, all sources of bio-mass and do so with the confidence that you can leave that space fit for re-occupancy without using a method (i.e., encapsulation) whose value has been well-demonstrated for nearly 20-years....more power to you. IMHO, you are also denying the building owners the value that encapsulants provide, and you are not conducting your work within an accepted industry practice.For what it is worth.....On 6/1/07 4:19 AM, "EnviroBob" <BobEnvironmentalAirTechs> wrote:

[Guest guest]

,

You are correct, if it is load bearing, you are correct.

But in the vast majority of our work it is nothing more than a base framing member which has no bearing on the structure and to cut and sister a two inch area between 16" on center studs is not a big deal. Most of this occurs in unfinished basements which have been finished.

Maybe I am using the wrong language.... Thanks for the correction

ge

ge:Let me jump in here....because you said something that warrants perspective.You stated: “Just out of curiosity what would a contractor do if the EC removed the base-plate for clearance testing?â€To answer your question specifically......If I were the contractor, and this probably goes for most contractors I work with, I would have a Prozac moment if you, the EC, removed the based-plate of a wood-framed wall assemble, for clearance testing. Why? Because most based-plates are a structural load-bearing architectural elements that cannot be removed without shoring up the wall system from whence it came. And the shoring would require the services of a civil/structural engineer to design it and sign-off on its adequacy. Removing the base-plate would require a permit to do so, and a method of restoring the wall system back to a like condition would also be necessary. Bottom line.....If the EC is not a licensed engineer and the EC removed a base-plate for clearance testing, there would be a whole host of issues that would drive any contractor to begin drinking and popping Prozac.Removing the base-plate is NOT a good idea.For what it is worth.....On 6/9/07 9:06 AM, "davidgeaol" <davidgeaol> wrote:

Bradley,Please understand we find the general practice of coating to include cover up by a number of contractors. For example, contractors routinely coat attic sheathing with only a "sanitizing" as a remediation technique. I refer to partial remediation (ie 2 sides of a wood base plate)) as a bandaid purely to illustrate that this process is not under a standard definition of remediation that I am familiar with as remediation to me is defined as removal. Here is my remediation definition.The application of containment or decontamination technologies to eliminate existing public hazards or to render the property acceptable for conditional or unconditional uses. I am well aware that other definitions may include reduction as opposed to removal, however I would think that leaving viable mold in an area where there is no moisture control may only be a temporary solution. Caulking to me is not a permanent solution especially with the expansion and contraction of two materials varying in thermal expansion properties. Just out of curiosity what would a contractor do if the EC removed the base-plate for clearance testing?. I believe it would be great to see some document on the justification of coating as you describe, which by the way I agree with in general. I do believe that there should be some caveat excluding coating without independent validation/clearance and no firm that is both a contractor/remediator should be be able to coat without an independent third party verification. ge

[Guest guest]

Jim,

Do we know what the life expectancy of the

encapsulants will be? Secondly, can we predict the out come of the eventual

breakdown as well the associated risk of the particulates becoming aerosolized?

Additionally, according to the IICRC S520

encapsulation is not recommended due to other impacts i.e. Encapsulation is not a cleaning method and is not recommended as

standard practice, unless items are irreplaceable, have significant value, or

as may otherwise be determined and agreed upon by materially interested parties

in the mold remediation project.

Somewhere one of the documents states: encapsulants

should not be applied prior to cleaning. If the area is cleaned than there is

no purpose to apply an encapsulant. Does anyone out there remember where it is?

I thought it was in the ACGIH Bioaerosols Assessment & Control.

Jim, the way I see is clean the

contaminated area(s), if they can not be cleaned remove and replace. If the

owner can not afford this process determine if the risk is reasonable for the

cost of the project, if not disclosure is highly recommended or simply walk

away.

EnviroBob

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Jim H. White

Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 7:54

PM

To: iequality

Subject: Re: s

40-80 and 40-20

Curtis

What if all encapsulants had to be both transparent and free

of toxins & toxic solvents. then we could still see the materials that had

been cleaned and also avoid that nice buzz (due to brain cells incapacitated or

killed).

Jim H. White

System Science Consulting

systemsamagma (DOT) ca

Re: s

40-80 and 40-20

EnviroBob:

I respectfully disagree, and I believe you are providing Shell with some

poor advice!

Post-remediation encapsulation is a standard of care within the

remediation industry, and there is a lot of value to encapsulation.

The foundation of your opinion seems to be focused on the premise

that encapsulation is used on poor quality remediation efforts in order

to hide a source contaminant. Not true. The purpose of

encapsulation is to lock down any remaining contaminant that has avoided

being removed, and seal surfaces so new products can be applied and/or

the (remediated) space being re-occupied without fear of exposure to

workers rehabilitating the work area. If you can claim that all

bio-mass has been removed, then you could claim that the space was

essentially sterile – not possible! Encapsulants are a

standard of care for many types of remediation and construction efforts,

e.g., asbestos, LBP, mercury, silica, fiberglass, partial demo, and mold.

Moreo ver, encapsulated surfaces resist new biological

infestations, moisture imbibition is slowed, and they are easier to

re-clean if soiled. To not use encapsulants post-remediation may be

a negligent act; depending upon the circumstance.

While I agree that pigmented encapsulants can be used to hide poor

quality remediation work, this is not their purpose. Similarly,

drywall mud and paint can hide problems with wall assemblies on the

inside, and stucco can effectively hide them on the outside; but this is

not the purpose of the coating material.

In your previous posts, you have positioned yourself as a “total

source removal” advocate; however, you have failed to acknowledge

the practical aspects that do not always support this position, e.g.,

budgetary limitations, loss of use restrictions, and/or accessing

inaccessible interstitial spaces. (I recall that you were the

person that advocated disassembling a wood-framed wall system in order to

scrub each piece of wood until it was free of mold, then re-building.)

On most mold-related projects, it is practical to remove and/or

clean what is readily accessible – acknowledging that some bio-mass

will remain behind, mitigate the source of moisture, encapsulate exposed

building materials after a PRV visual and sampling regime, encapsulate,

then build-back. This is consistent with many other standards of

care where contaminant reduction/mitigation is warranted .

How is it that you can state: “Additionally, if

the framing is encapsulated after the remediation process then the loss

has not been restored back to the pre-loss condition.”? Huh?

This is an unfounded opinion and does not have merit.

Moreover, I and A LOT of contractors I know of take exception to

your comment: “Normally that procedure is done when the remediation

contractor feels they have not done adequate cleaning.” What

BS! Based on your comments, I really don’t believe you know

what “normal” is. Maybe you should align yourself with

some good-quality remediation contractors who are not trying to hide

anything, strive to do good work, and provide a clean post-remediation

work space. We encapsulate these workspaces after everyone is

satisfied with the cleanliness. Encapsulation is often a very minor

cost o f the total project effort, it is quick, and its value is

well-understood by all involved....except you, it appears.

If you can have cleaned to a press-loss condition, all sources of bio-mass

and do so with the confidence that you can leave that space fit for

re-occupancy without using a method (i.e., encapsulation) whose value has

been well-demonstrated for nearly 20-years....more power to you.

IMHO, you are also denying the building owners the value that

encapsulants provide, and you are not conducting your work within an

accepted industry practice.

For what it is worth.....

On 6/1/07 4:19 AM, " EnviroBob " <BobEnvironmentalAirTechs>

wrote:

[Guest guest]

Jim,

Do we know what the life expectancy of the

encapsulants will be? Secondly, can we predict the out come of the eventual

breakdown as well the associated risk of the particulates becoming aerosolized?

Additionally, according to the IICRC S520

encapsulation is not recommended due to other impacts i.e. Encapsulation is not a cleaning method and is not recommended as

standard practice, unless items are irreplaceable, have significant value, or

as may otherwise be determined and agreed upon by materially interested parties

in the mold remediation project.

Somewhere one of the documents states: encapsulants

should not be applied prior to cleaning. If the area is cleaned than there is

no purpose to apply an encapsulant. Does anyone out there remember where it is?

I thought it was in the ACGIH Bioaerosols Assessment & Control.

Jim, the way I see is clean the

contaminated area(s), if they can not be cleaned remove and replace. If the

owner can not afford this process determine if the risk is reasonable for the

cost of the project, if not disclosure is highly recommended or simply walk

away.

EnviroBob

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Jim H. White

Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 7:54

PM

To: iequality

Subject: Re: s

40-80 and 40-20

Curtis

What if all encapsulants had to be both transparent and free

of toxins & toxic solvents. then we could still see the materials that had

been cleaned and also avoid that nice buzz (due to brain cells incapacitated or

killed).

Jim H. White

System Science Consulting

systemsamagma (DOT) ca

Re: s

40-80 and 40-20

EnviroBob:

I respectfully disagree, and I believe you are providing Shell with some

poor advice!

Post-remediation encapsulation is a standard of care within the

remediation industry, and there is a lot of value to encapsulation.

The foundation of your opinion seems to be focused on the premise

that encapsulation is used on poor quality remediation efforts in order

to hide a source contaminant. Not true. The purpose of

encapsulation is to lock down any remaining contaminant that has avoided

being removed, and seal surfaces so new products can be applied and/or

the (remediated) space being re-occupied without fear of exposure to

workers rehabilitating the work area. If you can claim that all

bio-mass has been removed, then you could claim that the space was

essentially sterile – not possible! Encapsulants are a

standard of care for many types of remediation and construction efforts,

e.g., asbestos, LBP, mercury, silica, fiberglass, partial demo, and mold.

Moreo ver, encapsulated surfaces resist new biological

infestations, moisture imbibition is slowed, and they are easier to

re-clean if soiled. To not use encapsulants post-remediation may be

a negligent act; depending upon the circumstance.

While I agree that pigmented encapsulants can be used to hide poor

quality remediation work, this is not their purpose. Similarly,

drywall mud and paint can hide problems with wall assemblies on the

inside, and stucco can effectively hide them on the outside; but this is

not the purpose of the coating material.

In your previous posts, you have positioned yourself as a “total

source removal” advocate; however, you have failed to acknowledge

the practical aspects that do not always support this position, e.g.,

budgetary limitations, loss of use restrictions, and/or accessing

inaccessible interstitial spaces. (I recall that you were the

person that advocated disassembling a wood-framed wall system in order to

scrub each piece of wood until it was free of mold, then re-building.)

On most mold-related projects, it is practical to remove and/or

clean what is readily accessible – acknowledging that some bio-mass

will remain behind, mitigate the source of moisture, encapsulate exposed

building materials after a PRV visual and sampling regime, encapsulate,

then build-back. This is consistent with many other standards of

care where contaminant reduction/mitigation is warranted .

How is it that you can state: “Additionally, if

the framing is encapsulated after the remediation process then the loss

has not been restored back to the pre-loss condition.”? Huh?

This is an unfounded opinion and does not have merit.

Moreover, I and A LOT of contractors I know of take exception to

your comment: “Normally that procedure is done when the remediation

contractor feels they have not done adequate cleaning.” What

BS! Based on your comments, I really don’t believe you know

what “normal” is. Maybe you should align yourself with

some good-quality remediation contractors who are not trying to hide

anything, strive to do good work, and provide a clean post-remediation

work space. We encapsulate these workspaces after everyone is

satisfied with the cleanliness. Encapsulation is often a very minor

cost o f the total project effort, it is quick, and its value is

well-understood by all involved....except you, it appears.

If you can have cleaned to a press-loss condition, all sources of bio-mass

and do so with the confidence that you can leave that space fit for

re-occupancy without using a method (i.e., encapsulation) whose value has

been well-demonstrated for nearly 20-years....more power to you.

IMHO, you are also denying the building owners the value that

encapsulants provide, and you are not conducting your work within an

accepted industry practice.

For what it is worth.....

On 6/1/07 4:19 AM, " EnviroBob " <BobEnvironmentalAirTechs>

wrote:

[Guest guest]

Envirobob

Great comments!

I do not see encapsulation as a primary method but only as a secondary approach when surfaces will still be in contact with the indoor air. I like the idea of any supposed encapsulant being transparent (as water-thinned Elmer's glue would be). I also think that consideration of the break-down products of any coating is vital. when I attempted to talk to some of the makers of encapsulants they just got angry at me for doubting their infinite wisdom. Hey; I even doubt my own infinite wisdom, several times a day! That its an inherent problem of trying to be a good researcher.

I am a strong proponent for separating the indoor AND outdoor AND hidden-cavity air masses. I also have strongly pushed to have moisture process control seen as the dominant process in any cleanup.

Walking away is something I seldom do; usually I am sorry when I do not skip the light fantastic; my wife says I do not learn very quickly!

Jim

Re: s 40-80 and 40-20EnviroBob:I respectfully disagree, and I believe you are providing Shell with some poor advice!Post-remediation encapsulation is a standard of care within the remediation industry, and there is a lot of value to encapsulation. The foundation of your opinion seems to be focused on the premise that encapsulation is used on poor quality remediation efforts in order to hide a source contaminant. Not true. The purpose of encapsulation is to lock down any remaining contaminant that has avoided being removed, and seal surfaces so new products can be applied and/or the (remediated) space being re-occupied without fear of exposure to workers rehabilitating the work area. If you can claim that all bio-mass has been removed, then you could claim that the space was essentially sterile – not possible! Encapsulants are a standard of care for many types of remediation and construction efforts, e.g., asbestos, LBP, mercury, silica, fiberglass, partial demo, and mold. Moreo ver, encapsulated surfaces resist new biological infestations, moisture imbibition is slowed, and they are easier to re-clean if soiled. To not use encapsulants post-remediation may be a negligent act; depending upon the circumstance.While I agree that pigmented encapsulants can be used to hide poor quality remediation work, this is not their purpose. Similarly, drywall mud and paint can hide problems with wall assemblies on the inside, and stucco can effectively hide them on the outside; but this is not the purpose of the coating material.In your previous posts, you have positioned yourself as a “total source removal” advocate; however, you have failed to acknowledge the practical aspects that do not always support this position, e.g., budgetary limitations, loss of use restrictions, and/or accessing inaccessible interstitial spaces. (I recall that you were the person that advocated disassembling a wood-framed wall system in order to scrub each piece of wood until it was free of mold, then re-building.) On most mold-related projects, it is practical to remove and/or clean what is readily accessible – acknowledging that some bio-mass will remain behind, mitigate the source of moisture, encapsulate exposed building materials after a PRV visual and sampling regime, encapsulate, then build-back. This is consistent with many other standards of care where contaminant reduction/mitigation is warranted .How is it that you can state: “Additionally, if the framing is encapsulated after the remediation process then the loss has not been restored back to the pre-loss condition.”? Huh? This is an unfounded opinion and does not have merit. Moreover, I and A LOT of contractors I know of take exception to your comment: “Normally that procedure is done when the remediation contractor feels they have not done adequate cleaning.” What BS! Based on your comments, I really don’t believe you know what “normal” is. Maybe you should align yourself with some good-quality remediation contractors who are not trying to hide anything, strive to do good work, and provide a clean post-remediation work space. We encapsulate these workspaces after everyone is satisfied with the cleanliness. Encapsulation is often a very minor cost o f the total project effort, it is quick, and its value is well-understood by all involved....except you, it appears.If you can have cleaned to a press-loss condition, all sources of bio-mass and do so with the confidence that you can leave that space fit for re-occupancy without using a method (i.e., encapsulation) whose value has been well-demonstrated for nearly 20-years....more power to you. IMHO, you are also denying the building owners the value that encapsulants provide, and you are not conducting your work within an accepted industry practice.For what it is worth.....On 6/1/07 4:19 AM, "EnviroBob" <BobEnvironmentalAirTechs> wrote:

[Guest guest]

My concern with glue (any type) is that it is a food source for many molds. What do you guys think about that aspect? Dawne"Jim H. White" wrote: Envirobob Great comments! I do not see encapsulation as a primary method but only as a secondary approach when surfaces will still be in contact with the

indoor air. I like the idea of any supposed encapsulant being transparent (as water-thinned Elmer's glue would be). I also think that consideration of the break-down products of any coating is vital. when I attempted to talk to some of the makers of encapsulants they just got angry at me for doubting their infinite wisdom. Hey; I even doubt my own infinite wisdom, several times a day! That its an inherent problem of trying to be a good researcher. I am a strong proponent for separating the indoor AND outdoor AND hidden-cavity air masses. I also have strongly pushed to have moisture process control seen as the dominant process in any cleanup. Walking away is something I seldom do; usually I am sorry when I do not skip the light fantastic; my wife says I do not learn very

quickly! Jim Re: s 40-80 and 40-20EnviroBob:I respectfully disagree, and I believe you are providing Shell with some poor advice!Post-remediation encapsulation is a standard of care within the remediation industry, and there is a lot of value to encapsulation. The foundation of your opinion seems to be focused on the premise that encapsulation is used on poor quality remediation efforts in order to hide a

source contaminant. Not true. The purpose of encapsulation is to lock down any remaining contaminant that has avoided being removed, and seal surfaces so new products can be applied and/or the (remediated) space being re-occupied without fear of exposure to workers rehabilitating the work area. If you can claim that all bio-mass has been removed, then you could claim that the space was essentially sterile – not possible! Encapsulants are a standard of care for many types of remediation and construction efforts, e.g., asbestos, LBP, mercury, silica, fiberglass, partial demo, and mold. Moreo ver, encapsulated surfaces resist new biological infestations, moisture imbibition is slowed, and they are easier to re-clean if soiled. To not use encapsulants post-remediation may be a negligent act; depending upon the circumstance.While I agree that pigmented

encapsulants can be used to hide poor quality remediation work, this is not their purpose. Similarly, drywall mud and paint can hide problems with wall assemblies on the inside, and stucco can effectively hide them on the outside; but this is not the purpose of the coating material.In your previous posts, you have positioned yourself as a “total source removal” advocate; however, you have failed to acknowledge the practical aspects that do not always support this position, e.g., budgetary limitations, loss of use restrictions, and/or accessing inaccessible interstitial spaces. (I recall that you were the person that advocated disassembling a wood-framed wall system in order to scrub each piece of wood until it was free of mold, then re-building.) On most mold-related projects, it is practical to remove and/or clean what is readily accessible – acknowledging that some

bio-mass will remain behind, mitigate the source of moisture, encapsulate exposed building materials after a PRV visual and sampling regime, encapsulate, then build-back. This is consistent with many other standards of care where contaminant reduction/mitigation is warranted .How is it that you can state: “Additionally, if the framing is encapsulated after the remediation process then the loss has not been restored back to the pre-loss condition.”? Huh? This is an unfounded opinion and does not have merit. Moreover, I and A LOT of contractors I know of take exception to your comment: “Normally that procedure is done when the remediation contractor feels they have not done adequate cleaning.” What BS! Based on your comments, I really don’t believe you know what “normal” is.

Maybe you should align yourself with some good-quality remediation contractors who are not trying to hide anything, strive to do good work, and provide a clean post-remediation work space. We encapsulate these workspaces after everyone is satisfied with the cleanliness. Encapsulation is often a very minor cost o f the total project effort, it is quick, and its value is well-understood by all involved....except you, it appears.If you can have cleaned to a press-loss condition, all sources of bio-mass and do so with the confidence that you can leave that space fit for re-occupancy without using a method (i.e., encapsulation) whose value has been well-demonstrated for nearly 20-years....more power to you. IMHO, you are also denying the building owners the value that encapsulants provide, and you are not conducting your work within an accepted industry

practice.For what it is worth.....On 6/1/07 4:19 AM, "EnviroBob" <BobEnvironmentalAirTechs> wrote:

Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows.Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.

[Guest guest]

Dawne

I do believe that the glue will be a food source since it has a biological origin. If things get wet, both the dust on the surface over the glue and the glue itself may become food. If the glue were not food there would still be the dust. Keeping things clean and dry is always necessary to avoid mold growth. With most of the things that we build with, however, the structure or coverings are food, so keeping things dry is vital; wet-enough for long-enough = mold growth!

Jim H. White SSC

Re: s 40-80 and 40-20EnviroBob:I respectfully disagree, and I believe you are providing Shell with some poor advice!Post-remediation encapsulation is a standard of care within the remediation industry, and there is a lot of value to encapsulation. The foundation of your opinion seems to be focused on the premise that encapsulation is used on poor quality remediation efforts in order to hide a source contaminant. Not true. The purpose of encapsulation is to lock down any remaining contaminant that has avoided being removed, and seal surfaces so new products can be applied and/or the (remediated) space being re-occupied without fear of exposure to workers rehabilitating the work area. If you can claim that all bio-mass has been removed, then you could claim that the space was essentially sterile – not possible! Encapsulants are a standard of care for many types of remediation and construction efforts, e.g., asbestos, LBP, mercury, silica, fiberglass, partial demo, and mold. Moreo ver, encapsulated surfaces resist new biological infestations, moisture imbibition is slowed, and they are easier to re-clean if soiled. To not use encapsulants post-remediation may be a negligent act; depending upon the circumstance.While I agree that pigmented encapsulants can be used to hide poor quality remediation work, this is not their purpose. Similarly, drywall mud and paint can hide problems with wall assemblies on the inside, and stucco can effectively hide them on the outside; but this is not the purpose of the coating material.In your previous posts, you have positioned yourself as a “total source removal” advocate; however, you have failed to acknowledge the practical aspects that do not always support this position, e.g., budgetary limitations, loss of use restrictions, and/or accessing inaccessible interstitial spaces. (I recall that you were the person that advocated disassembling a wood-framed wall system in order to scrub each piece of wood until it was free of mold, then re-building.) On most mold-related projects, it is practical to remove and/or clean what is readily accessible – acknowledging that some bio-mass will remain behind, mitigate the source of moisture, encapsulate exposed building materials after a PRV visual and sampling regime, encapsulate, then build-back. This is consistent with many other standards of care where contaminant reduction/mitigation is warranted .How is it that you can state: “Additionally, if the framing is encapsulated after the remediation process then the loss has not been restored back to the pre-loss condition.”? Huh? This is an unfounded opinion and does not have merit. Moreover, I and A LOT of contractors I know of take exception to your comment: “Normally that procedure is done when the remediation contractor feels they have not done adequate cleaning.” What BS! Based on your comments, I really don’t believe you know what “normal” is. Maybe you should align yourself with some good-quality remediation contractors who are not trying to hide anything, strive to do good work, and provide a clean post-remediation work space. We encapsulate these workspaces after everyone is satisfied with the cleanliness. Encapsulation is often a very minor cost o f the total project effort, it is quick, and its value is well-understood by all involved....except you, it appears.If you can have cleaned to a press-loss condition, all sources of bio-mass and do so with the confidence that you can leave that space fit for re-occupancy without using a method (i.e., encapsulation) whose value has been well-demonstrated for nearly 20-years....more power to you. IMHO, you are also denying the building owners the value that encapsulants provide, and you are not conducting your work within an accepted industry practice.For what it is worth.....On 6/1/07 4:19 AM, "EnviroBob" <BobEnvironmentalAirTechs> wrote:

Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows.Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.

[Guest guest]

Dawne

I do believe that the glue will be a food source since it has a biological origin. If things get wet, both the dust on the surface over the glue and the glue itself may become food. If the glue were not food there would still be the dust. Keeping things clean and dry is always necessary to avoid mold growth. With most of the things that we build with, however, the structure or coverings are food, so keeping things dry is vital; wet-enough for long-enough = mold growth!

Jim H. White SSC

Re: s 40-80 and 40-20EnviroBob:I respectfully disagree, and I believe you are providing Shell with some poor advice!Post-remediation encapsulation is a standard of care within the remediation industry, and there is a lot of value to encapsulation. The foundation of your opinion seems to be focused on the premise that encapsulation is used on poor quality remediation efforts in order to hide a source contaminant. Not true. The purpose of encapsulation is to lock down any remaining contaminant that has avoided being removed, and seal surfaces so new products can be applied and/or the (remediated) space being re-occupied without fear of exposure to workers rehabilitating the work area. If you can claim that all bio-mass has been removed, then you could claim that the space was essentially sterile – not possible! Encapsulants are a standard of care for many types of remediation and construction efforts, e.g., asbestos, LBP, mercury, silica, fiberglass, partial demo, and mold. Moreo ver, encapsulated surfaces resist new biological infestations, moisture imbibition is slowed, and they are easier to re-clean if soiled. To not use encapsulants post-remediation may be a negligent act; depending upon the circumstance.While I agree that pigmented encapsulants can be used to hide poor quality remediation work, this is not their purpose. Similarly, drywall mud and paint can hide problems with wall assemblies on the inside, and stucco can effectively hide them on the outside; but this is not the purpose of the coating material.In your previous posts, you have positioned yourself as a “total source removal” advocate; however, you have failed to acknowledge the practical aspects that do not always support this position, e.g., budgetary limitations, loss of use restrictions, and/or accessing inaccessible interstitial spaces. (I recall that you were the person that advocated disassembling a wood-framed wall system in order to scrub each piece of wood until it was free of mold, then re-building.) On most mold-related projects, it is practical to remove and/or clean what is readily accessible – acknowledging that some bio-mass will remain behind, mitigate the source of moisture, encapsulate exposed building materials after a PRV visual and sampling regime, encapsulate, then build-back. This is consistent with many other standards of care where contaminant reduction/mitigation is warranted .How is it that you can state: “Additionally, if the framing is encapsulated after the remediation process then the loss has not been restored back to the pre-loss condition.”? Huh? This is an unfounded opinion and does not have merit. Moreover, I and A LOT of contractors I know of take exception to your comment: “Normally that procedure is done when the remediation contractor feels they have not done adequate cleaning.” What BS! Based on your comments, I really don’t believe you know what “normal” is. Maybe you should align yourself with some good-quality remediation contractors who are not trying to hide anything, strive to do good work, and provide a clean post-remediation work space. We encapsulate these workspaces after everyone is satisfied with the cleanliness. Encapsulation is often a very minor cost o f the total project effort, it is quick, and its value is well-understood by all involved....except you, it appears.If you can have cleaned to a press-loss condition, all sources of bio-mass and do so with the confidence that you can leave that space fit for re-occupancy without using a method (i.e., encapsulation) whose value has been well-demonstrated for nearly 20-years....more power to you. IMHO, you are also denying the building owners the value that encapsulants provide, and you are not conducting your work within an accepted industry practice.For what it is worth.....On 6/1/07 4:19 AM, "EnviroBob" <BobEnvironmentalAirTechs> wrote:

Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows.Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.