Ruth Travis Promises to Build Bridges for IICRC

Licensing Efforts Spread to Wisconsin, California

Publisher's Perspective: One Year Later, Unification Triumphs

Breaking the Mold: Kramer vs. Corruption

Ask Dr. Burge: Do Indoor Fungi Cause Fungal Infections?

Radon Corner: NEHA, AARST Clarify Radon Program Structure

Remediation: OSHA Regulations Act as Survival Guide for IEPs

ANSI Accredits IESO as Standards-Making Body
By Steve Sauer

It was something straight out of a fairy tale, only nothing transformed into a pumpkin at the stroke of midnight, and there were no frogs to kiss.

But the timing of an e-mail assuring the Indoor Environmental Standards Organization that its accreditation was to be expected could not have been more apt.

This communication, sent by an official of the American National Standards Institute to IESO technical director Kristy M. Lee, was retrieved – jubilantly – about 15 minutes prior to a general membership meeting of the Indoor Air Quality Association on Oct. 26.

It was members’ first general assembly since October 2005, when they had voted without objection in favor of the unification and consolidation of IAQA with IESO and the American Indoor Air Quality Council. IESO was sometimes perceived as “the weakest link” of the unification over the past year, President David Fetveit said during the session, leading up to the ANSI announcement he said would help to change that opinion.

Fetveit’s announcement was met with resounding applause from those in attendance. The news of the ANSI accreditation was so fresh that few of the IAQA principals on the stage around him had even been alerted beforehand.

Also introduced during a unification update were a new level of IAQ Council certification and corresponding IAQA education track, both tailored toward cultivating beginners in the indoor air quality field. Adam Andrews, assistant director of the IAQ Council, explained that new Apprentice certification programs would be added to the existing environmental investigation and microbial remediation and investigation tracks.

“This program answers the need for broad appeal described above by welcoming all applicants, regardless of their education or field experience, and putting them on a path to accredited, board-awarded certification,” said Andrews.

“Council Apprentice certifications may be renewed only twice. They expire permanently three years from the date of first issue – just in time, that is, for the apprentice to accumulate the field experience necessary for board-awarded certification in his track. At the end of the three year apprenticeship (or sooner, if he has accumulated enough field experience) he may apply for board-awarded certification as a CIE, CMR or CMI – or he may cease to be certified. There is no third option,” said Andrews.

He also announced that the Council-certified Microbial Consultant is to be approved in February for accreditation by the Council for Engineering and Scientific Specialty Boards. This move would place the CMC in a category that already includes the flagship Council-certified Indoor Environmental Consultant, the Certified Safety Professional from the Board of Certified Safety Professionals, the Certified Industrial Hygienist from the American Board of Industrial Hygiene, and the Certified Hazardous Materials Manager from the Institute of Hazardous Materials Management.

Themed “The Power of Association,” the 2006 IAQA Annual Meeting and Expo was IAQA’s largest to date, drawing 1,189 participants and 118 booths in the exhibition hall to the Gaylord Opryland Hotel and Convention Center in Nashville, Tenn. Charles Rumbarger, a certified association executive, delivered the keynote address on Oct. 26, driving home the point that an association of dedicated members can together achieve what individuals working alone cannot.

Involvement from other associations was essential in Nashville. A panel lineup of representatives from a diverse array of groups presented an Oct. 25 workshop on industry standards and guidelines. The panel incorporated committee members and representatives from IESO; the Air Conditioning Contractors of America; the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers; the Institute of Inspection, Cleaning and Restoration Certification; the National Air Duct Cleaners Association; and ASTM International.

IAQA members showed an outpouring of volunteer support, with more than 200 submitting “Committee Interest” forms to volunteer for the association’s committees and workgroups.

A three-and-a-half-hour workshop on Oct. 28 marked the first official introduction of self-proclaimed building science guru Joe Lstiburek to hundreds of IAQA members. The audience reaction, including a warm round of applause after one commenter used an aisle microphone to thank Lstiburek, indicated that Lstiburek had evidently made an overwhelmingly great first impression on the 550 people estimated to have witnessed the workshop, titled “Building Science: IAQ and Pressures.”

Lstiburek’s recurring theme was using common sense to discover the source of indoor environmental problems without expensive instruments. For instance, he explained how licking one’s own hand and placing it on a door can answer some investigations’ questions with more accuracy than any gadget. “Don’t ever let your client see you lick your hand,” he warned, evoking laughter from attendees.

Jim Echols of Springfield Indoor Air Quality in Springfield, Mo., said after the first 90 minutes of Lstiburek’s presentation that his eyes had already been opened enough to solve three mystery IAQ cases that had boggled him for a long time: at a hotel, a manufacturing plant and at a multimillion-dollar home.

Glenn Fellman, executive director of IAQA and publisher of IE Connections, reported that new IAQA memberships in 2006, since the consolidation, numbered 726. He said he expects the figure to exceed 1,000 by year’s end.

IAQA director Michael Casanova reported on Oct. 26 that the association’s overall membership numbered 5,170 at last count. Fellman, who was reappointed to IAQA’s secretary position, said he expects membership to reach 6,000 in a matter of months.

Also during the meeting, Ian Cull of Chelsea Training and IAQcomparisons.com was installed as a new IAQA director. Bob Baker was reelected to his position as president, Tom Yacobellis was reelected to his position as first vice president, and Greg Long was reelected to his position as treasurer. Carl Grimes and Mark DeLisle were both elected to positions as vice presidents.

President’s Interview: Ruth Travis Promises to Build Bridges for IICRC
By Steve Sauer

Ruth Travis has long been known by her peers for her extensive volunteer work within carpet-cleaning and restoration circles. During one of the first weekends after assuming her new position as president of the Institute of Inspection, Cleaning and Restoration Certification, the “Rug Lady” accepted this newspaper’s invitation for a no-holds-barred interview.

At the end of September, IE Connections provided Travis with 12 questions ranging from recent allegations against IICRC to the possibility of an IEP certification. Travis not only met the newspaper’s deadline last month but also responded with thorough and revealing answers that explained IICRC’s positions from a historical standpoint.

“The IICRC is continually working to build bridges within the industry,” she explained in one answer, “and it is certainly my intention to continue this during my presidency.”

IE Connections: Congratulations on your election to the IICRC presidency. How does it feel to have your peers bestow such an honor on you?

Ruth Travis: It feels like the culmination of 12 years working in various capacities as a volunteer for the IICRC. I am honored by the trust that my industry peers on the IICRC Board have placed in me. I have a lot of work to do as I am responsible for the leadership of what has become one of the industry’s most progressive and productive organizations.

IEC: You are the first female president, in a cleaning and restoration industry that is clearly made up predominantly of men, since Wanda York in the mid 1970s. Do you believe that gender affects perceptions of you as a leader?

RT: Wanda York was the wife of IICUC [International Institute of Carpet and Upholstery Certification] founder Ed York, and [she was] the president of IICUC, a for-profit “C” corporation and the predecessor of the current IICRC 501 C6 non-profit corporation. She was a greatly respected contributor to the industry.

I suspect that all leaders encounter challenges, for one reason or another, which they must overcome. But a leader’s performance and track record ultimately triumph over bias. I have also successfully served as president of SCRT, one of the cleaning and restoration industry’s largest and most successful trade associations, for the last five years.

I don’t believe that my gender will hinder my performance on behalf of IICRC’s 41,000-plus registrants in 33 countries. In the words of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., we all look forward to the day when people will “not be judged by the color of their skin” – or gender – “but by the content of their character.” That says it all.

I will be working hand-in-hand with a strong Executive Committee at IICRC and look forward to a productive and positive term.

IEC: Recently, a manufacturer complained publicly that IICRC’s leaders and course instructors are tied too closely to industry manufacturers, and even hinted that anti-competitive activity was taking place. Do you feel this is a genuine issue for IICRC to contend with, or just a case of sour grapes?

RT: The IICRC has policies and procedures, and investigative techniques for dealing with issues as they arise. While allegations make great controversy for discussions and speculation in the public domain, properly managed organizations engage in fact-gathering and very deliberate consideration of those facts before reaching conclusions.

We all realize that organizations, whether for-profit or non-profit, don’t operate in a vacuum. The IICRC is proud of its affiliations with many fine industry supporters in both the public and private sectors. We have a 29-member board that ensures transparency regarding our activities and relationships.

The IICRC takes its position as a generic training organization very seriously. The instance you mentioned is currently being addressed by the appropriate committees, and it would be improper for me to comment further until they have finished their investigation.

It is important to note that the IICRC volunteer base and the IICRC instructor cadre are made up of independent individuals from all aspects of the Cleaning and Restoration Industry. In their private sector lives some are suppliers, some are manufacturers, and some are technical consultants as well as IICRC volunteers and instructors.

IEC: What do you believe are some of the most pressing issues for people working today in the field of indoor environmental quality, and what is IICRC doing to address these?

RT: All of us should recognize the importance of cleaning and restoration in contributing to IEQ and to the health and safety of occupants of indoor spaces. IEQ issues are discussed, and solutions are built into all IICRC standards and approved-training curricula. And it’s an ongoing process.

Traditionally, the IICRC has developed training programs and standards to fill voids in industry technology and education. We have a very deliberate process for doing this, starting with a task force for investigating industry needs and, when justified, evolving into a technical advisory committee, which creates the structure for a course along with an exam.

Consider the IICRC AMRT [Applied Microbial Remediation Technician] course, for example. This wasn’t something that was decided by three or four people sitting around a hotel room one day. It involved dozens of meetings and a comprehensive job task analysis, which included a mission statement, course objectives, instructor and facility requirements, classroom and hands-on training requirements, and an exam with each question documented and sourced. The process took almost three years to complete.

On the other hand, where other responsible organizations have produced well documented professional programs, the IICRC has chosen not to compete but rather to embrace and support those programs. We keep a close eye on allied industry affiliates, such as the ACGIH [American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists], AIHA [American Industrial Hygiene Association], IAQA [Indoor Air Quality Association], AmIAQ Council [American Indoor Air Quality Council] and many others, to see what they are doing and how their programs can compliment those of the IICRC. IICRC Continuing Education Credit programs embrace most credible programs.

I believe the most pressing issues are the recognition of industry standards and quality, consistent training for technicians. IICRC is continuing to update and maintain standards, seeking ANSI [American National Standards Institute] accreditation wherever possible. We also continue to revise our courses and exams on a regular basis to ensure they are current, accurate and appropriate. We also have task forces in place to review the possibility of additional certifications in areas such as sewage remediation, moisture detection and thermography.

IEC: You’re an active industry volunteer and you have been involved with groups like the Society of Cleaning and Restoration Technicians (formerly the International Society of Cleaning Technicians) for many years. The last two years have seen a movement of associations cooperating more and even consolidating operations and memberships. Do you envision this kind of bridge-building taking place by IICRC under your presidency?

RT: The IICRC is continually working to build bridges within the industry, and it is certainly my intention to continue this during my presidency. The IICRC Board of Directors works together for the betterment of the entire industry.

I served as president of the SCRT for five years. My volunteer board included the president of the Carpet and Rug Institute, the technical director of the world’s largest carpet manufacturer, and management and technical advisers from all walks of those industries. That’s how successful organizations are built.

Similarly, the IICRC Board comprises some of the top leaders in inspection, cleaning and restoration service industries. The Board – not one or two people – controls its decisions. A huge cadre of volunteers implements IICRC programs. That’s key to the success the IICRC has enjoyed over the last 34 years; thus always keeping our guiding principle clearly in mind: doing what’s right for IICRC registrants.

Most people incorrectly view the IICRC as an association. It’s not, and that’s an important distinction. The IICRC is controlled by 16 non-profit trade associations plus directors at large and honorary directors. Long ago, many forces joined to create a much larger consensus body that no single association could create in our industry. Our collaborative effort with IAQA, IEI [Indoor Environmental Institute] and a number of other organizations on the writing of IICRC S520 vividly demonstrates our outreach efforts.

IEC: For its standards-making, IICRC received ANSI accreditation last year. Thus far, IICRC has had one standard ANSI-approved with one other’s approval said to be on the way. Does IICRC intend to update S100 and S300 and submit them for ANSI approval as well?

RT: ANSI accreditation of IICRC took place in September 2005. It’s a very intricate and involved process to achieve ANSI accreditation, and to get a standard approved is even more complicated. But it’s a vital and necessary part of serious consensus-based standard development. The IICRC Board, in its decision to pursue ANSI accreditation, [took] a major step forward in establishing and maintaining IICRC credibility. Further, it was essential to achieve recognition of and participation in our standard-writing process by government and institutional entities.

Specifically, IICRC S500 took several months to produce, simply because of ANSI requirements for openness, consensus and transparency. It’s a great and needed document, which is subject to ongoing review and revision.

It is the intention of the IICRC Standards Committee to seek ANSI approval for future revisions of all IICRC standards. The S100 [“Standard and Reference Guide for Professional Carpet Cleaning,” 2002] is currently slated to begin the revision process sometime next year. The IICRC Standards Committee will likely make the recommendation to work toward ANSI approval once that revision process is underway. The S300 [“Standard and Reference Guide for Professional Upholstery Cleaning,” 2000] is not yet on the calendar for revision.

IEC: IICRC has a long history in making standards for carpet cleaning, upholstery cleaning and water damage restoration. The move into standards making for mold remediation in 2003 seemed like a natural extension of IICRC’s standards-making work. What other new indoor environmental or cleaning standards are on the horizon for IICRC?

RT: Currently, none. The IICRC Standards Committee has its plate pretty full at present. Other entities have approached IICRC to investigate what it takes to become ANSI-approved, but so far, none are from the IEQ industry. The industry itself is pushing for standards regarding sampling methodology and protocols, as well as for black-and-white, either-or specifications for occupant mold exposure. But I think that the ACGIH explanation of that feasibility in its ‘99 edition of “Bioaerosols” still represents prevailing thinking on the issue of exposure limits.

In his recent report to the IICRC Board of Directors, Standards Chairman Barry Costa reported that several possible standards are being considered in the future, including [on] carpet installation, fire and smoke damage restoration, and hard surface flooring cleaning and maintenance. At this time, these are in the very early stages of consideration, and it may be years before any details are available.

IEC: The S520 “Standard and Reference Guide for Professional Mold Remediation” relies on the definition of an “indoor environmental professional.” In the absence of governing laws, who or what entity is to determine whether or not a person is qualified to call himself or herself an IEP?

RT: The reality is that indoor environmental professionals don’t have an “IICRC-type” organization to help establish these guidelines. Organizations defining IEQ issues and representing those industry professionals had not brought that industry together under a separate banner or set of standards, which is what causes the confusion – not the IICRC.

IICRC, IAQA and IEI, along with a host of other associations and organizations, formed a coalition for the purpose of writing IICRC S520. Pre-S520, all we had were guidelines that were never intended to be interpreted as standards for the industry. Their own writers confirm this. The IICRC saw the need; it organized the coalition, underwrote the expense and eventually produced a mold remediation standard.

During the writing of the IICRC S520, a “term of art” was created to better describe the work of those professionals involved in doing assessments and testing. Thus, indoor environmental professionals, or IEPs, were born in the IICRC S520.

IEC: There’s some controversy about the use of the terms “indoor environmental professional” and “IEP” because IICRC has obtained certain trademark rights to them. There is also a lot of speculation about whether or not IICRC will actually launch a program to certify IEPs. Would you care to end the speculation and tell our readers what IICRC has planned in the way of certification for indoor environmental professionals?

RT: The IEP designation is intended to be a generic industry designation that may encompass a number of specific credentialed individuals. It is clear that some type of universally accepted definition is needed to prevent the term from being misused in the marketplace. It is my hope that IICRC can play a part in establishing this definition with help from industry partners such as IAQA.

The registration of the terms “Indoor Environmental Professional” and “IEP” was done to protect these terms used in IICRC Standards from misuse in the marketplace. The IICRC does not have any current plans to create an “IEP” certification like other IICRC certification categories. As stated above, it is my hope that in working with industry partners, IICRC can help define this terminology clearly and maybe even set up some type of structure that would ensure proper use in the industry by qualified individuals.

IEC: Word on the street is that IICRC is going to branch off in separate directions, and possibly create two new organizations: a membership body and a certification body. Is this true? If so, why is IICRC taking these actions?

RT: Speculation isn’t reality, and I’m sure that in your position as a newspaper editor, you’ve proven this many times. The IICRC Board, consisting of some of the finest minds in the industry, will make decisions regarding the future of the IICRC. I don’t think readers need to be reminded that “word on the streets” hardly constitutes IICRC policy, any more than it does for other organizations.

It is critical that this point be clear to everyone. For the IICRC to venture into other organizational areas, it would take consensus action on the part of 16 regional and international trade associations, with voting input from a lot of other highly competent and respected people.

There has not been any official discussion in creating new organizations out of the current IICRC. There is a task force currently in place to discuss a restructuring of IICRC into a model that would change the status of our shareholder associations into chapters and allow IICRC to more easily achieve recognition as a third-party accredited certification body through groups such as NOCA [National Organization for Competency Assurance].

IEC: What is your vision of the future for IICRC?

RT: Glad you asked. Both before and after the election, I shared my vision with the IICRC Board. I thought they needed to know what my vision for the organization was before they voted. I think the same should be true for an officer of any non-profit organization.

Rest assured that the vision incorporates many of the points we’ve discussed herein. Over the next year, I will continue share that vision with IICRC registrants through the IICRC newsletter and through my actions.

It is my goal to see IICRC continue to grow and serve the entire inspection, cleaning and restoration industries in as many ways as possible. Included in that vision are efforts to provide accurate current training and standards in every area and discipline needed, and to promote the concept of certification everywhere. Ultimately, we will do what is best collectively for the industry and, in doing so, manage to do a better job servicing the consuming public as well.

IEC: Our readership is primarily made up of consultants who diagnose IAQ problems and contractors who fix them. What are the most important things about IICRC you want this audience to understand?

RT: Foremost, on any microbial remediation project, be it mold or sewage, for the consumer’s sake, there needs to be a distinct separation drawn between those who inspect, evaluate and do the work – restorers or remediators – and those who assess the type and extent of the problem, and its potential impact on occupants. As IICRC standards reflect, these are two different but mutually dependent entities. While some remediators may choose to do limited assessment for quality-control purposes, ultimately, separating the two entities is a consumer protection issue.

IICRC is now and will continue to be working in every way we can to bring consensus, consistency and professionalism to our chosen field of business. I maintain an open-door policy and am open to all constructive and positive comments on how we can work together as a team to reach this goal.

Legislative Update: Licensing Efforts Spread to Wisconsin, California
By Steve Sauer

Efforts to introduce regulatory programs for professions related to the indoor environment are taking shape in at least two states, as California and Wisconsin lawmakers gearing up for next year’s legislative sessions prepare to introduce bills that would require the state to license new fields.

Under draft legislation previewed last month in Wisconsin, those engaging in mold remediation and assessment would be required to obtain state-issued licenses. A similar rule would apply in California to home inspectors under a bill that is expected to hit Sacramento in early 2007.

In the mold arena, the only states to have successfully promulgated rules for licensing were Texas and Louisiana, while other states’ attempts in recent years have earned varying degrees of support from government and industry. Florida, Georgia, Illinois, New Jersey and Virginia were among the states to have considered bills since 2005, and some lawmakers are looking to such legislation to guide them in crafting their own.

The draft legislation in Wisconsin is based on a 2005 bill in Georgia called the Microbial Contamination Licensing Act, said Tom Powell, a research assistant for state Rep. Terese Berceau (D). The Georgia bill, which died without a hearing during the same month it was introduced, would have required licensure of individuals and firms engaged in “the practice of microbial testing, microbial contamination evaluation, or microbial remediation.”

In adapting the language, Berceau’s staff dealt with public comments debating whether the word “mold” should be substituted for “microbial” in such contexts. Despite comments from industrial hygienists who preferred “microbial,” Powell said, the representative’s staff ultimately decided on “mold.”

Powell also distinguished between the types of bill he refers to as “credentialing bills” and “licensing bills.” According to his definition, a credentialing bill paves the way for the state government to recognize existing certifications available within an industry, rather than establishing a new set of procedures for licensing.

Some argue that licensing bills are unnecessary when industry-approved certifications amply demonstrate the competence and professionalism of the individuals who carry them. Powell said Berceau’s staff prefers the approach of a licensing bill to the alternative. “Licensing says that anyone practicing in the field has to meet certain requirements,” he said. “Ultimately, we decided that in mold remediating and assessing, there should be one baseline that all people have to meet in order to practice in that field.”

The Florida House of Representatives passed a credentialing bill related to mold remediation and assessment earlier this year, but the bill failed to go before the Senate, where the sponsor of an earlier bill to regulate the same industry preferred the licensing approach that is currently utilized in Texas.

In California, Assembly member Bill Maze (R) has drafted licensing legislation that would expand the scope of the existing state Office of Real Estate Appraisers to include regulation for home inspectors as well. Maze’s draft bill comes with the stated goal “to assure that the inspections are conducted competently and professionally.”

Anyone wishing to comment on the Wisconsin legislation should contact Berceau’s office in Madison by phone at (608) 266-3784 or by mail to Rep. Terese Berceau, Room 208 North, State Capitol, P.O. Box 8952, Madison, WI 53708.

Anyone wishing to comment on the California legislation should contact Maze’s office in Sacramento by phone at (916) 319-2034 or by mail to Assemblyman Bill Maze, State Capitol, Room 4051, Sacramento, CA 94249-0034.

It was less than two years ago that the president of IESO, David Fetveit, contacted the president of IAQA, Bob Baker, and me, to say that the leadership of the American Indoor Air Quality Council was open to talking about working together. Within a few short months, our initial discussion of vague concepts of cooperation gave way to creating a comprehensive proposal for the unification and consolidation of the organizations.

The reason it was so easy to agree to unify the organizations is because the need to do so was blatantly obvious. No one could argue that the concept of developing a stronger membership organization, an independent standards-making body, and an accredited certification body was bad for the IAQ industry. Twelve months ago, when the organizations’ members agreed to the unification proposal, that statement rang true.

Not long after the unification agreement between IESO, IAQA and the IAQ Council was signed, the real work began. I made a comment in an editorial earlier this year that getting the parties to agree to unify was the easy part but that the hard part was implementing the agreement, dividing the responsibilities of the organizations, and moving forward to grasp the opportunities that unification brought.

Last month, at the IAQA Annual Meeting and Exposition, evidence of the success of the three organizations in fulfilling their objectives was apparent at every turn.

For IAQA, the benefit of unification was tangible through the sheer size of the convention: a record number of attendees – nearly 1,200 – a sold-out exhibit hall featuring 120 booths, and a technical program featuring more than 30 presentations, workshops and sessions. IAQA used the convention as a platform to launch a massive volunteer recruitment campaign and attracted more than 200 to the call to duty.

Other signs the unification has positively impacted IAQA came through its membership report, showing 5,170 dues-paying members and the addition of 726 new members post-unification. The successful adoption of the IAQ Council’s chapter program and the growth of that program to include dozens of new chapters in 2007 were also evidence that IAQA has blossomed into a dynamic, renewed organization under unification.

The announcement by IESO that it has achieved ANSI accreditation as a standard-making body, for me, was a crowning achievement of the unification project. Of all the unknowns in the plan, this was the biggest. Could IESO become ANSI-accredited, and could it be done fast enough so that the progress of the other unification partners didn’t outpace the standards-making group? With its ANSI accreditation now secured, IESO is clearly prepared to step boldly into the standards making arena to fill the void in standards for indoor environmental professionals.

While IESO and IAQA have plenty to boast, the IAQ Council presented equally impressive reports at the convention. The IAQ Council’s Certified Indoor Environmental Consultant designation received accreditation by the prestigious Council of Engineering and Scientific Specialty Boards, and the IAQ Council has submitted its top-level microbial remediation and microbial assessment certifications for accreditation too. The IAQ Council has “raised the bar” for IAQ, assessment and remediation certification higher than any organization, bar none. Couple that with the announcement in Nashville of a brand-new program to certify apprentices in the IAQ industry, and the IAQ Council has produced a series of programs fitting the needs of virtually every industry segment, from the entry level to the most qualified professional.

IAQA, IESO and the IAQ Council demonstrated that they could put their differences aside and agree to unite. They confirmed that they could set high standards for how they would conduct their organizations and their respective programs and meet those standards. The future has never looked brighter for the organizations representing the consultants, contractors and professionals who make up the world of IAQ.

Sharon Kramer has become one of the more active participants on the Yahoo! IE Quality discussion board, much to the outspoken chagrin and outrage of a few and the background cheers of others. Her basic complaint is quite simple: Despite increasing evidence to the contrary, the courts, public health and mainstream Western medicine have taken the position that severe and debilitating health effects from indoor exposure to mold is not plausible.

Her investigations have led her to what she claims is an intentional campaign by the principal drafters of the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine “Evidence-based Statement” of Oct. 27, 2002, “Adverse Human Health Effects Associated with Molds in the Indoor Environment.”

IE Connections: Sharon, what do you mean by “not plausible”?

Sharon Kramer: It’s not what I mean. It’s what the ACOEM means. They are the ones that are making the claim of “not plausible.”

IEC: Okay, so what does the ACOEM mean by “not plausible”?

SK: They mean by “not plausible” or “implausible” as “highly unlikely at best, even for the most vulnerable of subpopulations.” Specifically, they are claiming that their review of the scientific literature leads them to deduce that it is implausible that mycotoxin exposure within an indoor environment could ever reach a threshold level that would cause human illness.

IEC: What is wrong with that? That’s what I’ve been hearing for several years now.

SK: What is wrong with it is that this position is not based on science or a review of scientific literature by any stretch of the imagination. None of the 40 papers cited within the toxicity section of their report make[s] this conclusion. No other document before or since the ACOEM mold statement purports to be able to make this conclusion. No other experts that I have read or talked with before or after the ACOEM statement even implies that conclusion.

IEC: If none of the papers that are the basis of the ACOEM mold statement makes the “not plausible” conclusion, then where did it come from?

SK: It did not come from any of the studies supposedly being reviewed. The authors of the ACOEM mold statement reached the conclusion all on their own.

IEC: Again, I don’t see a problem. Did the research they conducted meet contemporary scientific standards?

SK: That’s one part of the problem. The authors did no scientific research on their own. Instead, they selected a single rodent study conducted by other researchers and, after the fact, applied mathematical calculations to the data. Then, while referring to the original study, they state, “The preceding calculation suggests lower bound estimates of airborne S. chartarum spore concentrations corresponding to essentially no-effect acute and subchronic exposures.”

IEC: I’m confused. Which calculation are you referring to – the original or their retroactive calculation?

SK: I am referring to the ACOEM mold statement authors’ math calculations. No calculations within the supposed reviewed papers make the findings of “not plausible.” ACOEM is the one that is making the claim. And they word it in such a way that it appears the conclusion is based on the calculations of the original study. So, I went back to the original study, and it made no such calculation or claim. I looked through all of the papers being reviewed. None make[s] that claim. In fact, the concluding sentence of the study that the authors’ chose to base their math upon, reads quite to the contrary to what the authors claim to have scientifically concluded.  The ending sentence of the foundation study reads: “The consequences of low-level chronic exposure remain to be investigated, as does the relevance of the rodent data to human exposure.”

It is the later calculations, retroactively applied by the ACOEM authors, that [are] the basis for their conclusion of “not plausible.” That is it. Nothing else.

It takes a careful reading to detect the intentional interweaving of evidence. Most doctors just trust the conclusion because it is coming from a reputable medical academy. Defense lawyers and defense expert witnesses tend to take it at face value for the same reason. No one has carefully analyzed the two documents to detect the subtle subterfuge.

IEC: I want to go back to another phrase you used in your first statement of the problem. The phrase, used as a qualifier, was “within an indoor environment.” Is that your phrase or theirs?

SK: That qualifier is used by ACOEM. They don’t refute that mycotoxin exposure sufficient to cause illness in humans is possible. Extremely high levels have historically occurred in agriculture and with foods. But ACOEM concludes, based on their calculations, that it is not plausible that humans can be exposed to enough mycotoxins within an indoor environment to cause illness.

In other words, the determining factor of causation is the location of the exposure.

IEC: Your statements on the IE Quality group have alluded to a connection to the tobacco industry and the methods they used quite successfully for years. Are you claiming the same tactics are being used in the debate about health effects from mold exposure?

SK: Absolutely. The tobacco industry tried to limit proof of causation by attacking and distorting scientific studies. Also, they funded research and reports to defer and distort factors other than secondhand smoke, such as allergies to cockroach and dust mites, as responsible for health complaints and illness.

IEC: So, it appears that somebody observed the tobacco tactics and adapted them to mold. How did you discover this?

SK: I’ll explain my expertise and my discovery in a moment, but first I want to say that the comparisons are much more than imitation. I have found that some of the people and companies deeply involved with the tobacco defense are now involved with the mold defense.

Further, this is an intentional and very deliberate campaign. But it is not a conspiracy. It’s more of a well orchestrated marketing of a concept that exploits the unwary and the trusting.

IEC: Before we get into those details, how did all this start for you?

SK: My family and I had a two-year nightmare that is all too familiar with an increasing number of people. In 2001, we had a leak in the water line to the icemaker. Our insurer sent to us an untrained and uninsured remediation company. They let the water sit for six weeks before drying it out. Mold grew.

The remediation company had no clue as to how to set up a proper containment area. Instead of repairing our home, their large blowers spread airborne mold spores all over our house. We were living elsewhere during the remediation and knew nothing about water damage and mold. For all we knew, they were doing a professional job. When they said they were finished, the insurer hired a lab that said our home was clear. We moved back in.

IEC: What was that like?

SK: At first, it was great. We were glad to be back home! But after just a few days, we all started having problems. My husband and younger daughter complained of a stuffy nose. No big deal. I am a normal, healthy person but was having difficulty breathing and concentrating, which concerned me. But not as much as what was happening to our older daughter.

She is not a normal healthy person. She has been medically diagnosed with cystic fibrosis and allergic bronchiopulmonary aspergillosis. CF is a potentially fatal illness, often from aspergillosis. She was extremely vulnerable.

IEC: Were her health complaints similar to those of the rest of the family, or were they an intensification of her medical condition?

SK: Both. She had similar complaints such as sinus problems, but also headaches and lethargy. Then, she became more and more ill. During our ordeal, she was hospitalized three times and had sinus surgery. I was extremely concerned for her, and our doctors were not well educated as to the dangers our home posed for her health. I began doing my own research and asked them about our water damage and mold problem. I was told mold could not be responsible and I should just go home and take some Prozac.

IEC: You mentioned during our phone conversations that you eventually sued the insurance company, the lab and the remediator. Surely, your daughter’s obvious illness helped your case.

SK: Yes and no. Yes, because through the litigation process, it became blatantly obvious her symptoms were resultant from the excessive exposure to Aspergillus within our home. But no, because the increased financial liability from the matter caused the insurer to dig in their heels farther and try to run us through an endurance contest so they would not have to pay as much money for their errors.

Let me tell you how she was treated. She was forced to give her deposition two days after being released from the hospital. She still had an IV PICC line in her arm because she needed an IV drip every two hours.

IEC: What evidence did you have that the remediator, insurer and lab were at fault?

SK: The insurer’s broker or agent selected and sent the remediator and the company collecting mold samples. The remediator did not use proper procedures to prevent cross-contamination. When we asked for the lab report that confirmed the clearance, no one could find even the chain of custody. The person who said she did the testing couldn’t remember being at our house. The additional testing conducted a week after clearance – because we had moved back in and had become aware that something wasn’t right – measured mold levels that were twice as high as the initial testing used as the basis for remediation.

IEC: How did your case turn out?

SK: We had never been in litigation before and have never thought the courts were the best route to resolve problems. So, we continued trying to work with our insurer. After nearly a year with no progress, they sued us for not accepting a $30,000 settlement. We had to get an attorney and we countersued. Our two-year nightmare finally concluded with a confidential settlement from all three parties.

IEC: How is your daughter now?

SK: We are all better, and she is much improved. But I had to find a fungal specialist before we found treatment that helped. That was a considerable expense because he was outside of our HMO and we had to travel a considerable distance to another part of the state.

But the greater cost was the degradation at the hands of the traditional medical community. It was an inexcusable insult to an already devastating injury.

IEC: How did you decide to become an advocate? Caring for yourself and your family is one thing, but taking on an entire industry complex is quite another.

SK: While going through our nightmare, I began researching and communicating with others who were experiencing much the same thing. As I heard the stories of those that were having much greater struggles, I came to understand that we had been quite lucky. We had a strong marriage, wonderful children, lots of supportive friends and family, and the financial means to weather the storm. I came to appreciate that if they could wreak such havoc on our family, what damage were they capable of against those less fortunate?

I had no intention of becoming a long-term advocate, but I knew I had to do something. If I just walked away after learning what I knew, I would be just as guilty as those that had mistreated, misled and harmed us.

IEC: Is that when you went to Washington, D.C.?

SK: Yes. In the summer of 2004, my intent was to go to D.C. with other advocates, tell our legislators what was occurring – because surely they just didn’t know – and then walk away. We went to D.C. We told our legislators our experiences. They did nothing.

[Kramer participated in a press conference on Sept. 22, 2004, calling attention to this topic. The conference also brought human rights advocate Bianca Jagger to the Rayburn House Building at the conference, organized by the staff of Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D.-Mich.)]

IEC: You said earlier that you would tell us your expertise and discovery. Is this when you learned the science necessary to understand the ACOEM statement?

SK: My expertise is not science, and it isn’t the science I’m questioning. That is best left to the scientists. But many assume I’m attacking the science, so they attack me with statements that I’m just a victim that wants revenge, I have no scientific credentials, so I have no right to speak. They want me to just shut up and go away.

I don’t make scientific claims, and I don’t evaluate the science itself. What I evaluate is the marketing and spin within the ACOEM statement, how the document is being used and the verification of sources.

I have a marketing degree with graduate level training from NCR Corp. and 25 years of experience. I have learned how to verify claims within documents by tracking them back to the original reference. Unscientific or unsubstantiated claims and spin sentences are revealed when they cannot be verified by the expressed or implied source.

IEC: What has your training and experience revealed about the ACOEM statement?

SK: I have read thousands of newspaper articles, court documents and peer-reviewed papers regarding the mold issues. While the vast majority of documents are indicative that mold is causing some very serious health and financial ramifications, there is a strain of documents authored by a small number of the same names that take the opposing view.

They characterize their work as position statements derived from a critical review of documents written by thousands of members of medical associations. Therefore, they carry great weight with busy doctors who trust their authoritative sources. Defense lawyers and expert witnesses appreciate the authoritative support of their position.

These types of documents, written by the same small group of people, are not derived from a broad base of scientific literature. They all rely on the ACOEM conclusion derived from a retroactive math calculation, and are usually written by several of the very same people who wrote the ACOEM statement.

IEC: Are there clues that help initially identify potential spin that should be subjected to closer scrutiny?

SK: Once you know what to look for, they become easier to find. They project themselves as the last word, state of the art, the result of extensive research. They tend to [imply] that what they promote is sound science and others with different conclusions are junk science. They tend to be very aggressive in their intent and manner of writing.

Their citations are by and large other review papers. But even when they cite actual studies, they tend to pull out key phrases they find beneficial and oftentimes disregard the true focus of the paper cited.

Legitimate papers with verifiable sources tend to look at actual studies to form their conclusions. They more readily note the shortcomings of where more research is needed. They do not call out specific papers as junk science. They are not aggressively promoting one school of thought. These types are science. They others are courtroom defense.

IEC: You have made some very strong statements. What is the basis for your claims, especially that they are intentional rather than appear intentional?

SK: The e-mails from when the statement was drafted were subpoenaed and are in court transcripts. I have read them. I have read how this ACOEM document is being used by defense attorneys and expert witnesses in the courtroom as a scientific finding that these illnesses are not plausible. I have read medical documents with the “not plausible” claim based solely on the ACOEM statement. Within the courtroom, the finding of “not plausible” often gets translated to “could not be.”

According to subpoenaed e-mails from the overseer of the peer review process, it had been decided during the drafting of the document that the ACOEM statement would be a defense argument. The ACOEM brought into their organization a former Phillip Morris expert witness for the defense and his business partner to write the toxicity section. Both have a Ph.D. but not an M.D. or other medical public health degree. Neither has experience diagnosing and treating people nor do they have a laboratory background in mycotoxin research. Yet they are quite adept at creative math and experience defending Big Tobacco.

The UCSF Tobacco Legacy Library and the recent RICO [Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act] case against Big Tobacco [United States v. Philip Morris USA] reveal the deceit and marketing used. Similar techniques by some of the same people were used to write the ACOEM statement of Oct. 27, 2002, and subsequent position papers.

IEC: Have you compared the ACOEM position with the National Academy of Science’s Institute of Medicine report “Damp Indoor Spaces and Health”? As a governmental body, they would carry quite a bit of authority.

SK: Yes, I have, and the contrasts are astounding. In addition to the above noted selection process, tone, and lack of accusations that contrary opinions are junk science, the IOM contains these concise statements:

In vitro studies, as explained below, are not suitable for human risk assessment. Risk can be extrapolated from animal studies to human health effects only if chronic animal exposures have produced sufficient information to establish no-observed-adverse-effect levels (NOAELs) and lowest-observed-adverse-effect levels (LOAELs). Extrapolation of risk exposure from animal experiments must always take into account species differences between animals and humans, sensitivities of vulnerable human populations, and gaps in animal data.

The ACOEM statement does exactly what IOM says is not suitable.

Except for a few studies on cancer, toxicologic studies of mycotoxins are acute or short-term studies that use high exposure concentrations to reveal immediate effects in small populations of animals. Chronic studies that use lower exposure concentrations and approximate human exposure more closely have not been done except for a small number of cancer studies.

The ACOEM statement uses a single rat study with a conclusion that includes low-level, long-term exposure not related to cancer. Two years later, the IOM report says no such studies have been conducted.

Thus results of animal studies cannot be used by themselves to draw conclusions about human health effects.

The ACOEM statement uses an animal study by itself – a single study no less, rather than a body of science – and they do draw a conclusion about human health effects, that they are not plausible.

Even more egregious is the promotion of the ACOEM mold statement as consistent with the IOM “Damp Indoor Spaces and Health” report.

IEC: What last words would you like to leave with our readers?

SK: Mold is not the problem I’m fighting. The manner in which the mold issue is being addressed is the problem. Those defensors, who intentionally stifle the progress of science, are the root cause of the contention and confusion over the issue. Their actions fuel the misunderstanding, the fear from both the physical and financial aspects and keep this issue in the courts where the defensors generate the most income. They actually increase the costs to those they are hired to protect by obstructing timely and appropriate medical care that will eventually catch up with them in the form of greater court awarded damages. That’s what happened with exploding gas tanks on cars and to Big Tobacco.

The way to solve this problem is to train the physicians how to recognize, diagnose and treat mycotic diseases so that the physical damages are lessened by early detection and treatment. But we first must dispel the unscientifically founded myth that serious illness is not plausible from excessive exposure to mold within an indoor environment. It may be not yet determined, but that is not the same as not plausible.

IEC: One last question, Sharon. What if the ACOEM calculations and conclusion eventually prove to be correct?

SK: Great! But that’s the point. They haven’t been. Should someone choose to, it could be done quite simply by subjecting the ACOEM conclusion to the appropriate scientific scrutiny afforded any other scientific or medical claim. Until it has been independently challenged and verified, it should not be granted a status any greater or less than any other working hypothesis.

But, again, my point is that nothing justifies the marketing a litigation defense argument disguised as science. The serious harm from propagating misrepresented and distorted scientific facts is not limited to the victims who are turned away. It corrupts and violates the most basic trust for the professionals we rely on for life-and-death decisions.

Carl Grimes is president of Healthy Habitats LLC, an indoor-environmental consulting firm in Denver, Colo. He is the author of the book “Starting Points for a Healthy Habitat” and serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of IE Connections. Grimes can be reached by e-mail at grimes@habitats.com or by phone at (303) 671-9653.

The answer, of course, is yes, but rarely. Very few of the kinds of fungi commonly recovered from indoor environments can invade human tissues. Those that do invade human tissues require that the human immune system be severely compromised. The most infamous of the opportunistic fungal pathogens are Aspergillus fumigatus and Cryptococcus neoformans.

Aspergillus fumigatus and some other common aspergilli are true opportunists and will not infect a normal person. Even those who smoke heavily, leading to susceptibility to opportunists such as Legionella pneumophila, are not at risk from the aspergilli. Occupationally, some people are exposed to millions of A. fumigatus spores without developing infection (although hypersensitivity pneumonitis can result). On the other hand, Cryptococcus neoformans is more like Legionella. Very high exposures can lead to infection in normal people, as can direct damage to the lung from smoking.

Another interesting opportunist is Candida albicans, which is occasionally isolated from indoor environments. Candida is a yeast-like fungus that is commensal, meaning it is always present on human body surfaces. Under some conditions, it can cause local infections called candidiasis. These infections occur in the mouth (thrush), vagina and in other persistently damp places (skin folds). Systemic candidiasis is very rare and occurs only in severely immunocompromised people (e.g., people on high-dose immunosuppressive therapy or with advanced HIV/AIDS).

There continue to be those who believe that systemic Candida infections are common, despite evidence to the contrary. When someone says that you have mold circulating in your blood, be very cautious and get a second opinion (unless you are severely immunosuppressed). On the other hand, a doctor may say you have mold antibodies circulating in your blood. We all have these antibodies as a result of normal outdoor mold exposure. A special kind of antibody (immunoglobulin E, or IgE) may indicate that a person is allergic to mold. Other types of antibodies (IgG, IgM, etc.) are not in themselves indicative of any disease process, and also have not been shown to be useful to estimate exposure. Studies have been done that clearly show the lack of correlation between exposure and concentrations of these antibodies in blood.

Some fungi can colonize mucus in the lung and sinuses of people with chronic asthma or sinusitis. These colonization illnesses (allergic bronchopulmonary mycoses, allergic fungal sinusitis) are not true invasive diseases because the fungus does not invade the tissue itself. However, the response of the body to these colonial fungi causes sometimes severe symptoms. Treatment of these illnesses involves preventing the immune reactions leading to the symptoms (steroids).

Several different kinds of drugs are used to treat invasive fungal infections. The most commonly used is amphotericin B., a compound with some severe side effects. Other drugs with fewer side effects are now available. The treating physician will decide which to use based on the kind of fungus, the site of infection and the state of the patient.

The Web site www.doctorfungus.org provides extensive information on fungal infections that is presented in an accessible form.

Dr. Harriet Burge is director of aerobiology at Environmental Microbiology Laboratory Inc. and associate professor and director of the microbiology laboratory at the Harvard School of Public Health. Widely considered the leading expert in IAQ, Burge pioneered the field more than 30 years ago. She has served as a member of three National Academy of Sciences committees for IAQ, including as vice chair of the Committee on the Health Effects of Indoor Allergens.

To submit a question to Dr. Burge, write to her by e-mail at askdrburge@emlab.com. All questions posed to Burge will receive a reply, although space limitations prevent us from publishing them all. By submitting a question, you agree to have your question and its answer published in a future edition of IE Connections.

Confusion over the status of the National Environmental Health Association’s National Radon Proficiency Program has spread over the past year, after a singular announcement regarding the program’s administration was made, according to participants of this year’s National Radon Meeting, which was held Sept. 17–20 in Kansas City, Mo.

When the president of the American Association of Radon Scientists and Technologists made an announcement at the 2005 National Radon Meeting regarding AARST’s purchase of a company contracted with NEHA to administer its National Radon Proficiency Program, the announcement took many meeting participants by surprise.

Confusion has reigned among state regulators and radon professionals since this announcement, caused by misinterpretations and, quite frankly, a lack of definitive communication. For instance, one incorrect interpretation of this initial declaration held that the industry-based AARST, rather than the National Environmental Health Association, was now controlling the credentialing program.

Couple this with new standards being proposed by AARST, new standards being developed by ASTM International, and old standards being retired by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and there is little cause to wonder why there has been a lot of confusion in the industry lately.

Status of the NEHA-NRPP

As a part of the 2006 National Radon Meeting in Kansas City, the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors sought clarification to the structure of the NRPP by hosting a panel comprised of state radon program directors and representatives from NEHA and AARST. Since panels such as these have turned into grilling sessions in the past, section chair Bob Stilwell sought a more structured approach by allowing each representative to make a presentation before fielding questions from the audience.

Ohio radon program director Marybeth Rich and her Connecticut counterpart, Francesca Provenzano, made it apparent during their presentations that they believed last year’s announcement had been “dropped on us at a national conference,” which they said they did not appreciate. They also said they did not appreciate what they perceive as a “lack of communication since then” and complained that the promise of transparency of the revised program had not occurred.

Participants also expressed concerns over a credentialing body that is an industry association was responsible for policing its own members. Phrases like “the fox guarding the henhouse” made it apparent that some doubts existed about the new structure or ownership of NRPP and how AARST would address non-compliant service providers.

These remarks and others were addressed by a joint presentation given by Heidi Shaw, credentialing coordinator for the National Environmental Health Association, and Peter Hendrick, executive director of AARST.

Shaw began by describing NEHA as a non-profit association that has been in existence since 1937, with a long history of providing credentials to environmental health professionals. The radon credential NEHA began offering in 1998 was when it operated a pilot project for the privatization of EPA’s radon proficiency program, she explained. Shaw went on to point out that NEHA continued to operate its National Radon Proficiency Program after the pilot program was concluded and, following a lengthy submittal and review in 2001, the EPA deemed the program equivalent to its own former credentialing program.

With respect to the current status of the program, Shaw emphasized both verbally and in her presentation materials that “the NEHA-NRPP is the same program as originally submitted by NEHA for EPA review on February 28, 2001 – which ... was deemed to be equivalent to (and exceeding) EPA’s Proficiency Program.”

She reinforced this point and also in direct response to some of the concerns expressed by the previous speakers by making the following statements with respect to the policies and procedures of the NRPP: “Policies and Procedures are recommended by the NEHA-NRPP Policy Advisory Board”; “Policies and Procedures are documented in the NEHA-NRPP Policy Manual”; and “Policies and Procedures are reviewed and approved by NEHA as to be executed by NEHA-NRPP.”

These clear statements certainly provided what many state program directors were looking for, which was that NEHA was still the credentialing authority for the NRPP. In fact, AARST’s Hendrick reinforced these strong statements when he firmly stated that although AARST has entered into a partnering arrangement to assist in the administrative tasks of the NRPP, “NEHA remains the credentialing body for the National Radon Proficiency Program.”

Hendrick went on to point out that the policies of the NRPP are not set by AARST but rather from recommendations made by the Policy Advisory that continues to have the same balanced stakeholder make-up of industry, states, and consumer groups it did when reviewed by CRCPD in 1999 and subsequently by EPA in 2001. These recommendations are then subject to approval by the National Environmental Health Association and, again, not the AARST Board.

Following the presentation, the floor was opened for questions, and the anticipated grilling session never materialized. Perhaps this was because many of the representatives were satisfied with the clarifications provided, or perhaps it was because of the accountability that Hendrick assumed in referencing the announcements made at last year’s annual meeting by saying, “AARST had created the controversy by not being clear in their previous communication a year ago.”

Measurement and Mitigation Standards

During their presentations, state radon program directors Rich and Provenzano also expressed the concerns some state representatives have as to the confusion of what standards are being followed. Referencing the EPA’s retiring of the Radon Mitigation Standards and the introduction of ASTM E2121 to replace it, as well as the introduction of AARST standards for measurement and mitigation, they felt as though they were in a bind with respect to what regulatory changes may need to be made and, if so, what standard should be used or perhaps in the confusion a state may elect to create alternate standards.

The entire standards issue – including processes being followed and the extent of involvement by various entities – is an intricate subject that bears further investigation. Accordingly, IE Connections is collecting information regarding the various standards that are in place, retired or are being proposed, the result of which is to be published in this column at a later date.

However, NEHA-NRPP Executive Director Angel Price was able to provide some updated information for this column. “NRPP individuals are still required to comply with the protocols/standards listed in the NRPP application (available online),” Price states in an e-mail dated Sept. 22. A review of the NEHA-NRPP Web site and the current certification application forms provides the following cited protocols for adherence to be NEHA-NRPP certified service providers:

·        “Indoor Radon and Radon Decay Product Measurement Device Protocols,” EPA 402-R-92-004, July 1992

·        “Protocols for Radon and Radon Decay Product Measurements in Homes,” EPA 402-R-92-003, June 1993

·        “Radon Mitigation Standards,” EPA 402-R-93-078, October 1993 (revised April 1994)

In other words, for states with certification programs, individuals operating in those states follow the standards specified by state regulation. For individuals certified by NEHA-NRPP and operating in states not having certification programs, it is business as usual: Follow the same standards you have used for several years, regardless of the content of other proposed or interim standards. That does not mean that new standards will not be proposed for adoption, but, according to comments from Shaw and Hendrick, standards proposals will be brought before the Policy Advisory Board for consideration and presented for final adoption by the National Environmental Health Association and also, I trust, with opportunities for additional comment from states and certified individuals.

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.

You have taken on a mold remediation project as the indoor environmental professional. You have assessed the extent of contamination. You have written the remediation protocol based on what you found in your assessment. You are now tasked with overseeing the remediation project, and doing the post-remediation verification inspection and sample set.

You are meeting with the owner to review the bids for remediation and you see a bid submitted by Bubba and Billy Bob’s Lawn Care, Drywall and Mold Experts Inc. This is a bid that was solicited by the owner. Bubba is the friend of a friend who highly recommends them based on the work done in the past. None of those jobs had to do with mold remediation. Bubba is the low bidder.

It gets better.

Bubba says he is qualified to do the job because he has a certification that he bought on the Internet: Certified Mold Cleaner Upper. He provides a long list of jobs that you can’t verify. The owner likes the fact that Bubba’s bid is about half the amount of the other bids that were received from highly qualified, credentialed remediation contractors that you have worked with in the past. And Bubba has told the owner, “There ain’t no reason for the job to cost that much; they are all trying to rip you off!”

Sound far-fetched?

I actually had a variation on this theme earlier this year. The owner called the remediation company out of the yellow pages. The company had a big ad and a fancy name. Its list of projects was long and not verifiable. When I walked onto the site, the remediator was taking an air sample with the Air-O-Cell lying in the floor, directly on the mold; I guess he wanted to justify cleaning the contents. He had the low bid based on his own protocol. I guess he did his own “clearance” too.

I’ve been around construction long enough to know that when you have three or four bids in a tight range and one bid very low, the low bidder is leaving something out. But what? How can I prove it? How do I protect the owner from himself? How could I justify removing him from the bid process without leaving myself open to allegations of favoritism, or bid rigging, or worse?

What to Do?

This caused me some difficulty until I applied the information from an IE Connections article from this May in which Michael Greene discusses Occupational Safety and Health Administration guidelines as they apply to the remediation process. His article focuses in great detail of technical OSHA requirements and personal protective equipment.

Most remediation contractors and IEPs know the IICRC 520 “Standard and Reference Guide” for mold cleanup and the guidelines from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (Editor’s note: The NYC guidelines were updated last month.). Most states have no laws to license remediation contractors or IEPs. But I would guess that most contractors and IEPs aren’t as familiar with how OSHA applies to mold remediation as they should be. This can be daunting because OSHA requirements are written in such a way as to defy logic. They redefine commonly used words to have specific technical meaning. Based on the word choice, some of there regulations are suggestions while others are law. And, as we are taught, ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

OSHA says that every contractor is required to have a safety program. The regulation doesn’t say that the plan must be in writing, but common sense says that if it isn’t in writing, it is hard to prove you have one. This safety program must take into account all hazards that could be present on a job and how to address them. In other words, they must do a risk assessment for all your company’s projects. For example, roofers must address fall protection, excavators must address cave-ins, and mold remediators must address PPE, among other factors.

The company’s safety program must be administered by a competent person. This is OSHA talk for someone in your company that has knowledge of OSHA regulations and the responsibility to see that they are enforced. They do the risk assessment. If OSHA comes onsite to investigate an accident, they will start by asking to speak with your competent person and to see your safety program. If you don’t have them, you are starting with three strikes against you.

This safety program must have what is often called a right-to-know book. This book must contain the material safety data sheets for all products used on the site, even distilled water and canned air. Each MSDS has the directions for the proper handling of the product and appropriate PPE. It must be onsite so that workers can protect themselves with the appropriate PPE. The risk assessment must take the MSDS into account.

Please note that each MSDS lists the PPE required for the safe use of a product. If the MSDS calls for long sleeves and long pants, you shouldn’t see T-shirts and shorts on the job. Similarly, it will have the level of respiratory protection needed for the safe use of a particular product. If the MSDS calls for a particular level of VOC protection, you shouldn’t see dust masks. Often, the contractor is not aware of this requirement and does not require the appropriate PPE. This is the fault of the competent person’s risk assessment. The contractor is liable.

A good safety program must have documented, regular worker training. The workers must understand good safety practices and know what is expected of them. The must understand PPE and why it is required. The rules are to be enforced by the company. If the workers refuse to wear the appropriate PPE, they should be terminated as the company is liable should they be injured on the job. Be careful to document every aspect of your program so you can’t be charged with discriminatory work practices.

Once the competent person does the risk assessment, he or she will determine the appropriate level of respiratory protection called for on the job. He or she is not done, though; as Michael Greene points out in fuller detail, whether or not you provide respirator, you have specified responsibilities for their use. You are responsible for the adequacy of the of the risk assessment that sets the required level of PPE. You are responsible to train your employees on the wearing, cleaning and storage of the respirator, even if they don’t speak English. You are responsible to keep records to help determine if they can wear a respirator, or if they have a medical condition that prevents them from wearing a respirator, and that the respirator fits properly. And you will be required to keep records of a medical questionnaire.

You don’t want to be the contractor who has a worker die of a heart attack and then find out that he had emphysema and would have been barred from wearing a respirator on the job by the process of the medical fit test that you were supposed to do. OSHA would take a dim view this situation and it could cost you dearly!

OSHA is part of the U.S. Department of Labor, which is obviously part of the federal government. If they were to show up onsite and ask you about your safety program or for the medical fit test records for your respirators, it is important to have them. OSHA can and does levy fines. For a non-serious violation, they can levy fines up to $7,000 per violation. For a serious violation, they can levy a mandatory fine of up to $7,000 per violation. For a willful violation, they can levy fines between $5,000 and $70,000 per violation.

With many employees on the job, this can add up fast as each employee can be considered a separate violation. The largest construction-related fine of which I am aware here in Ohio was $1.5 million. If you think you will just fold the company to avoid the fine, then think again; the statute is written in such a way that they can hold the officers and directors of a corporation personally liable. It is rare, but it has been done.

How to Get Rid of a Contractor without Even Trying

If you, as the IEP, have ever wondered how to remove an unqualified contractor from the bid process, it can be easy. Just ask them about their company’s compliance with OSHA regulations – with OSHA law!

When I asked the contractor in the situation above about the records for his company’s respirator program, he exploded. The conversation was very short and went something like this:

IEP: “We will need to see the fit test records for your respirators.”

Contractor: “I’ve been doing mold remediation for over 20 years and I’ve never heard of such a thing!”

IEP: “Well, it is required by OSHA.”

Contractor: “Well, that is between me and the owner. It will be in my contract.”

IEP: “Because there are no laws on mold remediation in Ohio, the owner has tasked me with the responsibility of making sure that all bids comply with known laws that affect mold remediation. For your bid to be considered with the others, I’ll need to see these records as well as a copy of your written safety program.”

Contractor: [An expletive-laced phrase that ends with “... and the horse you rode in on!”]

The contractor rode off into the sunset leaving a trail of expletives. I’ve not seen him since. No loss.

The Logic

My logic is simple. If the contractor won’t follow OSHA regulations that have the status of law, then what assurances do I have that he or she knows and will follow known industry guidelines? How can I have confidence that he or she will follow a remediation protocol that I have written? What shortcuts will they take when they are on the job? What will they do behind my back? How do I protect my client and myself?

I now have specific language in my protocols that states all contractors bidding the project must be in compliance with OSHA regulations and, upon request, they will provide copies of the documents requested. This does not make me the responsible person for the owner, but it does mean that only the honest contractors – those who comply with the laws of the land – get on our bid list. The dishonest and the quick buck artist will not bid. They cannot stand up to this level of due diligence.

The owner is relying on the IEP to guide the remediation of his building. He is relying on our knowledge, experience and judgment. Knowledge of OSHA’s laws and guidelines can help indoor environmental professionals to do a better job for our client.

Frank B. Dean, CIE, CRMI, is the CEO of The PDF Group, LLC in Columbus, Ohio. He is active as an IEP in Ohio and surrounding states. He is also an approved course provider and certified instructor for the Indoor Air Quality Association, delivering the prep course for the American Indoor Air Quality Council’s CRMI designation. Dean can be reached by e-mail at pdfgrp@earthlink.net or by phone at (614) 846-7100.