Pesticide Registration Review Would Involve Public

Industry Reacts to Veto of Fla. Mold Requirements

Panel Affirms Cancer Risk at Radiation Doses

Water, Water Everywhere...

Word on the Street 

IICRC OFFERS GROUP INSURANCE; IAQA & AMIAQ TO HAVE SAME PROGRAM
Qualified IICRC-certified restoration companies are now eligible for a package insurance policy specifically catered to them. The insurance program, recently approved by the Board of Directors of the Institute of Inspection, Cleaning and Restoration Certification, is sponsored jointly by the IICRC and the American Risk Management Resources Network. Because many restoration companies have found it very difficult to locate proper business and liability insurances in today’s market, the American Risk Management Resources Network developed this insurance package, which is specifically tailored to meet the new insurance needs of the restoration and remediation contracting industry.

The American Risk Management Resources Network program for IICRC restorers is underwritten by Zurich. ARMR has also been working with the Indoor Air Quality Association and American Indoor Air Quality Council on a group insurance program, and qualified restorers belonging to those associations can obtain the same insurance at the same pricing as offered through IICRC. “We are also in pursuit of programs for IAQ investigators and inspectors for G&L and professional liability,” said IAQA Executive Director Glenn Fellman. “With help from ARMR and others in the insurance industry, we hope to have programs in place for all our members by the end of 2005.”

In other insurance-related IICRC news, the group has notably reached out to a broader audience by placing an ad in Claims Magazine encouraging its readership, primarily insurance adjustors, to take part in an ongoing peer review of the S500 “Standard and Reference Guide for Professional Water Damage Remediation.”

JUST AS WE THOUGHT
Dr. Richard Shaughnessy said a new study he will present in China is believed to be the first of its kind to discover “a distinct association between student performance and IAQ.” Using standardized aptitude tests, the study is said to validate the widely believed hypothesis that substandard IAQ in classrooms result in poor student performance. “This has not been directly explored in the past (only indirect associations such as absenteeism),” Shaughnessy told IE Connections in an e-mail last month previewing an abstract of the study, which credits him alongside his wife, Ulla Haverinen-Shaughnessy, and also Aino Navalainen and Demetrios Moschandreas. The paper is being presented at next month’s Indoor Air 2005 conference to be held in Beijing Sept. 4–9. Shaughnessy is slated to make another speaking engagement Oct. 8 during the IAQA-AmIAQ-IESO 2005 Unification Conference.

MULTICULTURAL TRAINING
The Indoor Air Quality Association’s Mold Remediation Worker training course is now being presented in both English and Spanish. The first Spanish-language offering of the MRW took place July 13–14 and was hosted in Dunedin, Fla., by Ductbusters. “We are finally glad to provide this much-needed training to the Spanish-language population, which up to now has not had the benefit of this training,” said Joe Hughes, president of the IAQ Training Institute, IAQA’s sole course provider for the MRW training. The course’s Spanish-speaking instructor, Carlos Gonzalez Boothby, is owner and technical director of In-Viro Care of San Juan, Puerto Rico. He has over 16 years of field experience in the industry and as a trainer at In-Viro Care. IAQTI’s senior instructor, Danny Hunt, added hands-on assistance to the teaching team. The next advertised MRW class presented in Spanish is scheduled for Nov. 3–4 in Pensacola, Fla. This training is also available for on-site classes. For more information, call toll-free (866) 427-2727 or visit www.iaqtraining.com.

AS SEEN ON TV, NEW AND IMPROVED
“Ionic Breeze Silent Air Purifiers have always met U.S. government safety standards for ultra-low ozone by-product in electrostatic air cleaners as well as U.S. standards for indoor medical devices. OzoneGuard reduces indoor ozone levels even further. ...” So says Richard Thalheimer, CEO of Sharper Image, in a July 25 press release teasing a catalyst that converts ozone molecules to oxygen molecules on contact. The surface and materials science company that developed the three-way catalytic converter common to most automobiles won’t let Sharper Image competitors get their hands on this new “ozone-destroying technology”; Engelhard Corp. has agreed to make its PremAir catalyst exclusive to Sharper Image products. Beginning this month, some products in Sharper Image’s Ionic Breeze line will have OzoneGuard built in while others will begin to include front-mounting OzoneGuard attachments. Current owners of models without this feature can purchase attachments separately “at a nominal cost,” according to the retailer.

REACHING OUT
A newly established Health and Environmental Advisory Board will help the Ashkin Group LLC to “broaden its focus into other fields and industries while remaining true to its original goals and mission,” according to a press release received July 15. “We have engaged respected authorities in areas that might surprise some in the jansan industry,” said Stephen Ashkin, president of the Bloomington, Ind.-based Ashkin Group. “This includes people with expertise in social investment funds, sustainable communities, social/environmental justice issues, and the Internet.” The nine serving on the new board are Michael Arny, chair of the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED-EB; Peter Ashkin, president of MediaWorks at CanWest Global Communications Corp.; Laura Brannen, director of Hospitals for a Healthy Environment; Rochelle Davis, founder and executive director of the Healthy Schools Campaign; Christine Ervin, past president and CEO of the U.S. Green Building Council; Dr. Lloyd J. Kolbe, professor of Applied Health Science at Indiana University; Dr. Richard Liroff, senior fellow in the Toxics Program at World Wildlife Fund; Dr. Barbara Sattler, director of the Environmental Health Education Center at the University of Maryland School of Nursing; and Sheila Sheridan, recently retired director of facilities at Harvard University’s JFK School of Government and past chair of the International Facility Management Association.

Pesticide Registration Review Would Involve Public
EPA’s Proposed Rules Encourage Public Participation
By Steve Sauer

Antimicrobial pesticides, antifoulant paints and other types of products regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency would undergo reviews every 15 years as part of a plan released last month for public comment.

The EPA Office of Pesticide Programs, which administers the registration of such products as mandated by law, issued proposed rules last month for an ongoing process that would review each existing pesticide registration every 15 years. The thinking behind the 15-year review, the agency said, is “to ensure that pesticide registrations continue to meet current health and safety standards.”

Under the proposed rules, products failing to satisfy the standard for registration under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act “may be subject to cancellation or other remedies under FIFRA.” The rules would also permit the EPA to undertake a review of any registered pesticide at any time, “irrespective of the pesticide’s past, ongoing, scheduled, or not yet scheduled registration review.”

Currently, there is no established procedure for the review of pesticide registrations. However, federal law first called for such a review procedure during Bill Clinton’s first presidential administration. The Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 requires a “periodic re-evaluation of pesticide registrations.”

Three years later, the EPA reported that “a process for the periodic review of pesticide registrations, with a goal of review every 15 years” was then “under development.” However, that EPA report, issued in August 1999, also said that the Food Quality Protection Act never called for any “specific deadline for development”; thus, development of the procedure stalled.

In issuing its proposed registration review process, the EPA said one of its aims is to fulfill the legislative intent of the legislators who backed the bill’s unanimous passage in Congress in 1996. That year, the House Committee on Agriculture called for a program of “ongoing scientific look-back procedures” that “creates a continuous re-registration process that both the Agency and the registrant can plan for, rather than creating the need for another complete, resource-intensive re-registration of all pesticide products at one time in the future.”

One meaningful facet of the EPA’s current proposal is the amount of public participation it endorses. For each pesticide’s registration review, the public would be given 60 days to provide feedback about the status of registration reviews and to submit any relevant information on the review case. The EPA’s proposal outlines various rules for the public to follow in submitting comments for review.

In addition, the public would have 30 days to comment on new risk assessments conducted by the EPA. Also, various stakeholders – including registrants, pesticide users, and public interest groups alike – would be involved in consultations with the EPA regarding forthcoming and ongoing registration reviews. For each decision the EPA makes on a registration review case, the public would also have 60 days to submit comments.

Decisions from the EPA could encompass proposals for changes in product labeling, requests for additional data, and requirements for other tasks to be completed as part of a product’s re-registration. The agency would also be permitted to set deadlines for the completion of such required actions.

Public participation, the EPA said, is germane to its goal of making the re-registration review program “credible,” a term the agency uses in the proposed rules and defines as “using an open and transparent process and basing its findings on sound science.” Another virtue the EPA wants its program to embody is “manageable,” it said, defining that term as “using an efficient and flexible process.”

The process of re-registration review cases, as outlined in the proposed rules, commences with the establishment of a review case. The proposed rules would permit the agency to “group related active ingredients” of different pesticide products into one registration review case. Products that contain more than one active ingredient would belong to a registration review case for each active ingredient.

There are a number of ways the EPA can modify registration review cases as “new data or information” requires modification. Among other things, the EPA may add new active ingredients to registration review cases, split a registration review case into two or more cases, and move an ingredient from one case to another.

The EPA would announce registration review cases and baseline dates, it said in the proposed rules. To accomplish this, the EPA’s Web site would list registration review cases and baseline dates.

When the EPA proposed the rules, it announced a 90-day public comment period, which will end Oct. 11. For more information on the proposed rules and the public review, visit www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review/.

The agency said after a review of public comments, the final rule would be released in the spring of 2006. Implementation of the rule would begin that autumn.

EPA’s headquarters in Washington, D.C., informed the public about the review of the proposed rules in a number of ways. The proposed rules were published in the Federal Register July 13, and a press release about the public review surfaced a week later. Another week after that, a letter signed by Jim Jones, director of the Office of Pesticide Programs, was distributed to various stakeholders via e-mail.

Also around that time, the EPA announced two public information sessions would be held in two cities in August and September. The first would be held Aug. 23 in Arlington, Va., and the second would take place Sept. 1 in Chicago, Ill., the EPA said. For further information about attending either session, contact Nathanael Martin by e-mail at martin.natahanael@epa.gov or by phone at (703) 305-6475.

Other EPA Notes

Jeff Holmstead, the assistant administrator for the EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation, announced his resignation briefly before the July 20 meeting of the Federal Interagency Committee on Indoor Air Quality. Tom Kelly, director of the EPA’s Indoor Environments Division, spoke of Holmstead as an “EPA champion of indoor air quality and radon risk reduction,” according to minutes of the meeting.

Kelly also announced during the meeting that the nominee for the EPA’s deputy administrator position had named indoor air pollution as a high priority for the agency. Kelly said that when Sen. Jim Jeffords asked Marcus Peacock to name the top five environmental risks, the nominee listed indoor air pollution among those five.

Residents of Florida will wait until at least next year before legislators can vote on a new effort for the state to recognize mold certifications. A June 22 veto by Gov. Jeb Bush prevented a bill from going into effect Oct. 1 that would have given the state authority to recognize existing certifications without having to create a licensing program.

Some in the industry believe Bush’s decision to oppose House Bill 315 creates an opportunity to formulate more attractive legislation within the coming months. Providing direction for a similar bill to be considered next year, Bush prompted the state’s Department of Business and Professional Regulation to work with various stakeholder groups in proposing a new legislative solution to protect Florida residents “from unscrupulous business practices.”

Lawmakers in Florida are scheduled to reconvene for another legislative session beginning in March 2006.

The Florida Coalition on Healthy Indoor Environment, which was set up in 2005 by members of various industry stakeholders, spent months advising state legislators who would influence and ultimately vote on the bill. Coalition volunteers convened meetings, issued position statements and drafted letters in support of the bill.

Coalition Chairman James Ilardi said he views the veto as a temporary setback for state residents. “A lack of legislation leaves an avenue for inappropriate or unscrupulous individuals to do more harm than good,” he said.

However, he and others recognize the opportunity for fashioning a bill in the future that would appear to be less prohibitive.

“It is not in anyone’s best interest to limit the professionals from the industry,” Ilardi added.

This statement reflects Bush’s earlier assertion that the bill should have included language “for the grandfathering of responsible and experienced mold assessors and remediators.” The governor pointed out that a section of the bill pertaining to home inspectors contained a provision for grandfathering, while there was no similar verbiage in the sections relating to mold assessment and remediation.

Bush also stressed that while he believes regulation of mold assessment and remediation is warranted, he feared that “some legitimate and responsible employees” would be put out of business if they could not meet requirements of the law in time to comply fully.

The Florida Coalition was hoping “for a measure to grandfather in appropriate mold assessors and mold remediators,” according to Ilardi.

Because the bill included educational requirements for individuals holding industry certifications that are over and above what is currently required under some certification programs, some member organizations of the Florida Coalition would have been among organizations needing to revise their own applicant prerequisites by October in order to remain in compliance with the state law.

When asked to comment on the bill’s education and experience requirements, Ilardi said, “It is the consensus of the [Florida Coalition] that the education provided in the bill needs to be supplemented by a grandfather clause. We were trying to get an experience exemption added to the education clause allowing the experienced assessor to circumvent the educational requirement. “There should also be an exemption for experience for the assessor in lieu of the college requirement. FCHIE was trying to get this exemption in the bill ...”

“IAQA was hoping to see passage of legislation in Florida that would protect consumers by imposing fair requirements for competence without being anticompetitive. HB 315 met that desire in several regards but fell short in some places,” said Glenn Fellman, executive director of the Indoor Air Quality Association, a member organization of the Florida Coalition.

“I look at Bush’s veto as an opportunity to help craft even better legislation,” Fellman continued. “IAQA is a Florida non-profit corporation, and we have been a state-approved provider of continuing education for licensed engineers and contractors since the 1990. We also have more members in Florida than any other state. IAQA will have a significant role in the legislative process in Florida in the coming year.”

“FCHIE is merely a representative of the professionals in our industry and a vehicle for expressing what they are asking for,” said Ilardi. “We hope to use this collective influence to work with the Department of Business and Professional Regulation. The goals of the FCHIE closely mirrors what lawmakers and customers are looking for. Due to this fact, we are confident that a consensus can be reached with little resistance.”

In addition to the above, the bill would have required all mold assessors and remediators to carry liability insurance policies specifically for mold, effective Oct. 1.

Mold assessors, the bill said, “must maintain a mold-specific insurance policy in an amount of not less than $1 million.” Mold remediators, it said, “shall maintain a general liability insurance policy with a mold insurance pollution rider in an amount of not less than $1 million.”

In opposing the bill, Bush said such insurance policies may not have been available to all otherwise qualified and certified individuals by October.

Ilardi said such coverage is currently available and generally necessary for survival in the highly litigious fields of mold work.

“Mold-specific insurance policies with mold insurance pollution riders are available to appropriate professionals as we speak. If anyone has chosen to engage in our industry, it is only a matter of time before a lawsuit is brought against them. If these professionals do not have mold-specific insurance, they will be put out [of] business, despite their innocence,” said Ilardi. “General liability insurance specifically excludes coverage for mold issues; therefore, no legitimate company can survive without mold specific coverage.”

Over the last couple of decades, there have been heated debates surrounding the question of the ability of the human body to absorb low levels of radiation without health consequences. This debate has focused on what is referred to as the “linear no threshold model” that is used by many radiation regulatory programs as well as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s radon program as a basis for making health risk estimates. In essence, this model states that the potential for radiation induced cancers are a direct function of exposure (linear) and there is no exposure level, below which no risk is associated (i.e., no threshold).

After five years of study, including reviews of updated data from atomic bomb survivors, a distinguished panel of researchers chaired by Dr. Richard Monson of the Harvard School of Public Health concluded that “the current scientific evidence is consistent with the hypothesis that there is a linear, no-threshold dose-response relationship between exposure to ionizing radiation and the development of cancer in humans.”

Conclusions from lengthy studies rarely have as concise a conclusion as was provided in this 600-page tome, but there it is, for all to see in the findings of the National Academy of Sciences’ “Health Risks From Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation” issued in June.

Of course, this will not curtail further discussions and studies about the health effects of low level radiation, but it will certainly have a large impact on regulatory programs as well as non-regulated programs such as radon.

How Does this Affect the Radon Industry?

First and foremost, the report by the Committee on Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation, or BEIR, supports the health risk posed by exposure to ionizing radiation such as radon. Although this recent report, referred to as BEIR VII, focused on the effects of other types of ionizing radiation than the alpha particles produced by radon and its decay products (radon addressed in an earlier report BEIR VI), its results and conclusions are applicable to radon and support the current thinking about health risks from radon exposure.

Ionizing radiation is a category of radiation types that cause the atoms they strike to become ionized, causing cellular damage. This category of ionizing radiation is subdivided into groups depending upon the amount of energy imparted per unit distance of penetration. The Low Energy subcategory is comprised of radiation like gamma rays and X-rays, whereas the High Energy subcategory is comprised of radiation such as alpha particles released from radon and its decay products. Although this most recent report focused on the effects of the Low Energy category, it was quick to point out the large exposure and risk that comes from exposures to the High Energy category, with its major source being from naturally occurring radon. The graph printed with this article, adapted from data in BEIR VII, illustrates this point.

Certainly, when one views the various contributions to ionizing radiation one can see that radon is a large and controllable portion of the overall risk. It is also interesting to note that the data used for this graph is based upon average indoor radon levels (U.S. average of 1.25 picocuries per liter) rather than what individual homeowners can be exposed to when underlying soil presents much higher radon exposures that are several multiples higher. Also, when one considers the precautions taken when administering X-rays, or operating nuclear facilities, and compares the overall exposure shown in the figure relative to radon, one can certainly understand the emphasis that is being placed on radon testing and mitigation.

Again, although the most recent report focused on radiation exposures other than radon, since radon had been dealt with in the previous BEIR VI report, it provided validation to the linear no-threshold model that is used in estimating radon related risks. Furthermore it was able to look at populations that had been exposed (atomic bomb survivors) to be able to reach its conclusions, rather than relying solely upon theoretical models.

A Double-edged Sword?

At the time the BEIR VII report was issued, a number of message boards carried comments from individuals in the radon field heralding the report as an additional validation of the health risks associated with ionizing radiation including radon. Although this report did accomplish this by strongly stating that ionizing radiation presents a credible health risk even at low doses, the lack of a threshold provides another edge to the sword.

That second edge of a no-threshold model is that radon levels less than the EPA guidance of 4 pCi/L represents a significant radiation exposure compared to other sources. However, many individuals interpreting radon test results as well as practitioners have fallen into a mindset that if the radon levels are less than 4.0 pCi/L, no risk exists. Given the no-threshold model, this is a dangerous practice, and especially since it has been indicated by several researchers that roughly two-thirds of the radon-induced lung cancers come from long-term exposures to less than 4.0 pCi/L. So, in essence, the radon measurement professional should be extremely careful in how they interpret results (including those below 4.0 pCi/L), and the radon mitigation professional should look to gauging there success to as low as reasonably achievable rather than just reducing the home to less than 4.0 pCi/L so it can sell.

As always, who says there is nothing new in radon?

Douglas Kladder is director of the Center for Environmental Research and Technology Inc. He can be reached by e-mail at dougkladdr@aol.com or by phone at (719) 477-1714.   

Water, Water Everywhere...
Michael S. Greene, Esq.
Shareholder
Akerman Senterfitt
West Palm Beach, Fla.

Perhaps it is most apparent to those of us who live and work in South Florida, where humidity and rain are everyday events, that weather can inhibit the construction process. While severe weather events, such as last year’s train of hurricanes, are clearly seen to cause widespread water damage, ordinary weather events can also cause real damage to building components, particularly those susceptible to mold and microbial growth.

In South Florida, you can generally set your watch by the 3 p.m. thunderstorms. Over two recent months, the amount of rain has been significant, well beyond that anticipated for this time of the year. In addition, the humidity reaches levels at which, as one pundit suggested, you could “pass a glass through the air and come back with it full.” Many other Southern or Gulf Coast states also enjoy wild and wet seasons. What does this have to do with construction?

One of the causes of mold is construction materials and products that are installed wet, that are already moldy, or that can provide a source for future “building bloom” if humidity should increase or water intrude.

The lack of insurance coverage for mold and the damage that mold may inflict on the economic viability of a building, whether commercial, residential, or industrial, has caused developers’ and contractors’ focus to shift from a reactive approach to prevention. If building components can be assured to be appropriately clean, and if the potential for water intrusion can be reduced, then the likelihood of mold damage will also be reduced. The measures for protection during construction require several levels of care: maintaining dry materials and components; ensuring that during construction, the building remains dry; and taking appropriate steps to reduce the likelihood of later water intrusion.

Let’s first tackle wet building components, such as drywall. Following the life cycle of drywall in the construction process, the drywall may have also started its journey to becoming a full-grown wall by sitting in a distributor’s or local supplier’s yard. Most such yards are not climate-controlled, enclosed buildings – and, in fact, the drywall may be lucky to have a roof over its young head.

Next, our intrepid sheet of gypsum must find its way to the jobsite. I cannot count the times that I have been driving on one of our clogged South Florida highways to pass a lo-boy or other trailer truck loaded with pallets of drywall, a thin sheet of plastic wildly flapping in the wind (at least on better traffic days), with a soaking rain coming down. The condition of the drywall upon arrival will not look much different than installed drywall after a building flood. Drywall being the key lime pie of the Stachybotrys world, mold will be growing before the drywall is even installed.

After its potentially wet and wild ride to the jobsite, the drywall may be stacked out in the open or in a portion of the building that is yet to be “dried in.” The drywall can be exposed to weather even if the building is not “dried in,” particularly with our frequent sideways rainstorms. What is the likelihood of the wet drywall being inspected for mold before installation? Generally, pretty slim.

In looking at building components, the first step in prevention is to ensure that, throughout the chain of storage, delivery and onsite storage, the materials are maintained in an adequately dry condition. Often, the materials are of such a nature that they really would not harbor mold even if wet. The problem with ignoring the water impact on such materials is that in a dispute over the source of mold in a constructed building, often judges and juries with no experience in the construction process are asked to decide the facts surrounding the cause of the mold.

In one real-world lawsuit, a mechanical contractor was being sued for its air-conditioning equipment being the source of mold growth in a retail center. While, after expert analysis, the likelihood of such being the case was insignificant, the developer of the shopping center had several “thousand-word” photographs showing the status of the construction at the time the air-conditioning components were delivered to the project site. Several of these photographs showed the building half “dried in” and half still open to the elements.

You can guess in which section the photographs showed the stored air conditioning equipment. Yes, that’s right, under a lovely moon roof, open to the stars and, of course, sitting in a puddle of water. The photographs evidenced a lack of concern on the part of the mechanical contractor for the proper storage and protection of the building components. Not even one of those previously mentioned thin plastic sheets was protecting the equipment.

A plan for control of storage and weather protection for the project site could have easily eliminated a significantly harmful argument against the mechanical contractor. As you can see, control of materials and prevention of exposure to water and humidity on a jobsite can eliminate significant issues and claims for later mold contamination.

As noted above, protection of materials is not the sole step to be taken to reduce the likelihood of mold and microbial growth in a building. Often, the design elements themselves, such as wall details, window selection and air conditioning design, can significantly impact the likelihood of later water intrusion and excess humidity. While it is impossible in an article of this length to review the appropriate design choices for typical buildings, suffice it to say that design professionals have often not focused on the weather-tightness of the designs. Often, components that are successful in one climate do not work well in wet, rainy climates. Before materials are even delivered, choices and selections must consider the appropriateness or design details of those building components to avoid the water intrusion.

The last general category of prophylactic measures deals not with the protection of the materials themselves or even the design elements but ultimately with workmanship. Despite having a bachelor’s degree in building construction, I had always thought my carpentry skills to be somewhat lacking. That is, until visiting some recent jobsites, where it seemed my skills were far better than those of the hired carpenters. I know of several homebuilders who elect to counter this workmanship issue by the use of “preemptive” air sampling to identify whether there is mold growth. I am not a proponent of preemptive air testing, as I do not believe such guaranties a genuine baseline for future reference. The real issue is whether dry conditions have been maintained and has water has been banned from entry to the building envelope. A far better approach would be to make a visual inspection for water damage and mold growth (preserving the clean condition with photographs) and to determine whether windows, flashing, roof penetrations and other typical sources of water leaks are indeed water tight. Water spray and similar tests, properly performed, are far more effective.

I find it interesting to note that on many projects with leak problems, the windows are often the primary culprit. I cannot tell you how many times I have heard the comment from the builder that the window subcontractor is out of business after a serve installation problem has been discovered. Despite the roaring residential construction market, it seems that window contractors are either suffering from many claims or periodically change entities to provide lawsuit protection. Therefore, providing appropriate testing before the particular subcontractor is off the job site and out of business is far more effective at preventing mold than air testing.

So, what steps should be taken in the construction process to reduce the likelihood of mold being generated? Here are my recommendations:

1.  Engage an appropriate water intrusion professional to assist with the development of design and construction protocols and to provide monitoring during the construction process.

2. The water prevention plan must be agreed-upon in contracts throughout the chain of parties involved, with all agreeing to abide by the decision of the water intrusion professional with respect to rejection of wet materials.

3. Design elements should be reviewed to reduce the likelihood of intrusion through the riskiest building components.

4. All materials coming to the job site should be first inspected and stored in a designated “dry” storage area.

5. Documentation of the job site and water sources should be made both photographically and by written record-keeping.

6. Post-completion testing of windows and other potential water sources should be implemented.

7. A post-completion monitoring period to be established to review and identify potential leaks and humidity issues.

These protocols, while not inexpensive, can reduce the chance of costly, uninsured, repairs and replacements after the fact.

Michael Greene is a shareholder in the West Palm Beach office of Akerman Senterfitt. He can be reached by e-mail at MSGreene@Akerman.com or by phone at (561) 653-5000.