Most legislation, no matter how well intended, will never please everyone. Legislation over mold testing and remediation in Virginia is no exception.  I do not envy the group charged with designing the framework for this legislation.  I am firm believer that legislation for the mold industry is a very good thing. Protecting consumers from irresponsible, poorly trained, and/or ethically challenged businesses is clearly something I think we all support.  Providing clarity and uniform standards to responsible, moral business owners and workers is a good thing. Legislation may at least offer the public some protection as well as some clarification on acceptable standards and practices.

I lived in Texas for nearly four (4) years and within the last year opened an indoor air quality firm in Virginia.   Texas was among the first states to put mold laws on the books. Texas got a lot of things right:  training and certification requirements; insurance requirements; experience level requirements for business owners; direct oversight by the state. These things have provided protection to Texans and I believe Virginians will see similar protection from new mold regulations provided these key areas are included.

I have also seen first hand the unintended ways that law has ultimately harmed consumers.   As I am sure the committee and Governor’s office are aware, Texas enacted laws with provisions similar to those in this proposal that restrict the same company from performing testing from doing remediation work on the same project.  These “conflict of interest” provisions, while well intentioned, seem to replace as much if not more conflict than they replaced for consumers. One example of a very common problem in Texas is when the remediation company needs to expand the scope of work to address additional areas that were inaccessible and not visible to the mold assessor.  In Texas, the job is stopped and the testing firm returns to collect additional tests in order to revise the scope of work - all at the additional expense of the consumer and adding to the time the consumer is impacted by the project. 

Assessors who want to avoid this complication now collect 2 to 3 times more samples in unaffected areas to better identify hidden pockets of mold, many of which would otherwise be unneeded.  The result is higher testing costs for the consumer.   The Texas law also places additional burdens on consumers to shop and select BOTH a testing firm and a remediation firm – lengthening the time they and their kids with asthma or allergies are exposed to mold or increasing their out of pocket costs for hotel stays. Consumers who can afford to temporarily relocate to a hotel are shelling out a lot more money due to the time it takes to coordinate all these companies.  The end result has been higher costs to consumers and significantly extending both the time it takes to complete a project and the stress levels of consumers. 

It is also important to place the “conflict of interest” clauses from states like Texas, Lousianna, and Florida into their historical context.  Most are the outgrowth of hurricane induced mold booms that brought an influx of “fly-by-night” opportunists to the area from out of state.  These individuals and firms made huge profits quickly, often times never truly resolving the mold problem, and then moved out of state after the boom subsided.  These individuals and firms did not have to rely on referrals or industry reputation for ongoing business.  That said, they left enough disgruntled consumers in their wake that the states took regulatory action to prevent this from happening in the future.  Now, the remaining honest businesses and newly impacted consumers are left to wade through the consequences of those long-gone opportunists.

I respectfully ask the group to consider the unintended impact the current proposal would have on consumers in the Commonwealth.  If your desire is to protect consumers then training and education standards paired with licensing and insurance requirements should provide them adequate protection without limiting their freedom of choice and/or increasing the stress and expense of an already emotionally charged situation.  Provide consumers with resources to better understand the best practices and standards established by Virginia.  Encourage consumers to obtain third party confirmation at the end of the project that the desired results have been achieved through clearance testing.  Lastly, provide consumers with a path and process to bring grievances forward and a forum for the businesses to address the allegations – similar to what, I believe, is already in place for home inspector, realtors, and appraisers.

Respectfully yours,

Shayne Cardwell – CIE, WRT, AMRT

The Cardwell Group, LLC

.