Some of VA’s professionals (myself included) have spent hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars in professional and college level training and annual continuing education, while there are still others that we come across in VA who clearly do not.   I bear this expense and participate in national level professional organizations (www.IAQA.org, www.nafahq.org., www.acac.org, and others) because I believe in keeping abreast of new developments and scientific learning in the indoor air quality community as I have my whole career.   

I think it a shame to witness poorly trained/educated “professionals” incorrectly evaluating, sampling, interpreting, and remediating water and mold damage in buildings.   Far too often, water damage jobs in VA are not evaluated, dried or remediated to professional industry standards.  The jobs are left improperly completed with physical damages including residual mold growth that can cause structural damage, health issues and degrade property values – even after thousands of dollars have been spent thinking the mold was all cleaned up.

Therefore, raising the level of professionalism for some mold inspectors and remediators in VA is long overdue and some form of regulation, is welcome.  I applaud the VBALH for your work towards that goal and  my hope is that the result will be to raise the “bar” for all professionals in VA up to the level of our industry’s standards for mold inspections and remediation.  There are some folks that are way behind the times in how they practice their trades. To raise the level of professionalism, the VBALH’s regulatory requirements must be both practical and useful to the mold inspection and remediation industries. The VBALH should be familiar with the historical trends that have led to how and why the industry as whole in the US is where it is in this present day.  The VBALH should be really careful to not unintentionally regress:  therefore, I offer a short background perspective for VBALH’s consideration.  

I have watched the industry evolve over the past several years from simply offering a plethora of “weekend warrior” certificate programs, to now offering a select few independently fully- accredited professional certifications. Following the requirements of ASTM Standard E 1929 Assessment and Certification Programs for Environmental Professionals: Accreditation criteria, I encourage the VBALH to become acquainted with the Council of Engineering and Scientific Specialty Boards (CESB) accredited environmental certification programs (see www.cesb.org) as a basis for VA certificants’ educational requirements.   The VBALH board may already be acquainted with some of CESB accredited programs: the Certified Industrial Hygienist (CIH), the Certified Indoor Environmental Consultant (CIEC) the Registered Biosafety Professional (RBP), and the Certified Hazardous Materials Manager (CHMM).  

I, with a background in Mechanical Engineering from ODU, entered the indoor environmental assessment world about 18 years ago. I worked and trained in a VA based company in the field of commercial indoor environmental assessments. I worked under the guidance of a Ph.D level Registered Biosafety Professional (a Clinical Microbiologist) who taught at VCU and NIH, as well as a Ph.D. level CIH and a Ph.D. level Professional Mechanical Engineer.   In the early days, all the mold industry offered us were 1-2 day class certificates presented by various trade organizations, that were presented with a “don’t worry you’ll pass this test at the end” format.  Professionally speaking, these certificates only impressed the uneducated. The industry as a whole was fragmented and learning as we were going. Most turned to CIHs for help, as they are experts in environmental assessments.  The late 90s and around the new millennium saw a huge volume of these certification programs pop up… but there was no unity of focus as to who’s cert program was the best, who’s really was worth the time and money to become “certified”.  Then the term “industrial hygienist” came on the scene and was coined and used as frequently as the word “engineer” is thrown around today.

About 4 years ago, the American Council of Accredited Certification (formerly the American Indoor Air Quality Council) underwent a rigorous examination process to have their mold inspector and mold remediator programs accredited by the CESB. This was a pioneering effort.  

The VBALH should recognize that ANSI/NOCA Standard 1100, published in March 2009, now clearly  distinguishes training certificates (referred to as “assessment-based certificates”) from professional certification programs and explains key differences between the two. The standard clarifies an important point of confusion that has plagued the IAQ industry for years, causing considerable friction between competing industry certification programs.   According to the ANSI/NOCA standard, a training certificate (or “assessment-based certificate”) is awarded to someone who attends a particular course of instruction and passes a test based on that course. A professional certification, on the other hand, is awarded to someone who passes an examination based on broad industry knowledge that is independent of training courses or course providers.  ANSI/NOCA Standard 1100 recognizes the validity of accredited certifications by organizations including the American Board of Industrial Hygiene (which offers the CIH designation), the American Council of Accredited Certification (which offers the CIEC/CIE, CMRS/CMR and CMC/CMI designations), and the Board of Certified Safety Professionals (which offers the CSP designation). None of these organizations develops or requires specific training courses as prerequisites to certification.

 

 

a.       Mold assessments require careful, sensible, knowledgeable, and “court defensible” professional judgment – going far beyond taking a surface or an air mold test to confirm mold. When testing is determined appropriate (and there can be no one protocol for when and why to sample), the process is highly subjective and requires an equal amount of training and experience to determine an appropriate sampling plan/strategy.  There are volumes written on developing scientific mold sampling strategies.   Microbial remediation projects (large scale) have to consider safety issues to workers and occupants, technique and efficacy issues, cost issues, sensitive time line issues in which wet buildings can get worse by the day as remediation costs and scope escalate, and more. Since mold hazards and health impacts remain uncertain and remediation costs are closely watched by national insurance companies, extensive experience is required on both the part of the inspector and the remediator to help the project go safety and correctly the first time. A critical component of the inspection process, per the US EPA, is fixing the source of the problem. Therefore, understanding building science, moisture transport through structures, the role of mechanical systems in creating or controlling mold in occupied buildings, and many other issues that arise is also paramount - require hours and hours of education and years of experience. As it stands now, the current proposed regulations appear to could regress VA’s educational requirements to what the industry had 15-20 years ago.  

b.      The required experience to make correct judgment calls for inspectors and remediators goes far beyond the minimal requirements the VBALH is proposing.  A very real scenario, that even now presents itself from time to time, is one where the remediation firm is highly experienced in both inspection and remediation and finds itself in the unfortunate situation where the “industrial hygienist”/inspector has less experience and is not well trained. Sadly, these inexperienced “industrial hygienists” (that is their term, and not to be confused with a CERTIFIED Industrial Hygienist), could probably easily pass the prerequisites for the proposed VA regulation and if the VBALH is not careful, this legislation may well be (unintentionally) perpetuating a problem that results in increased public expense due to inexperienced advice, or poor workmanship.   Inspectors need to have more knowledge than the remediators in most cases.  

 

2.       Extensive Current Training Programs are Currently Available – I fail to see or understand how a one day training course could supplement years of experience, knowledge and professional training.   How do you teach building science in a day? How do you teach structural drying in a day?   How do you teach carpet drying or care in a day?   How do you teach duct cleaning in a day? How do you teach microbial remediation or inspection in a day? Many of the prep/training courses for the accredited certification programs are weeklong extensive classes, with hands on work-shops that teach more than just inspecting and cleaning mold. They are virtual boot camps for structural drying, building science, carpet care, duct cleaning, environmental sampling and inspections, safety, liability, ethics, etc.  Microbial and environmental inspection tracts should require a background in collegiate level applied science.  Many individuals performing water damage restoration take multiple classes to become educated as professionals in their fields. States such as Maryland, Florida, New York and Arkansas all recognize accredited certification programs from the ACAC and others for mold inspection and remediation professionals.  I would be shocked if Virginia’s proposed regulations did not as well.  

 

3.       Under the paragraph labeled Purpose on pg. 535, the following sentence should read “Minimum competency licensees will benefit the public by ensuring that licensed mold inspectors and mold remediators will have met established “INDUSTRY” Standards and thus be able to render the service for which they are hired.”   While I agree that the mold inspection and remediation industry is presently unregulated in VA, there is scientific based consensus in the industry as to the standards that must be met. These industry guidelines have found their way into federal documents, litigation, and now hopefully legislation at the state level. 

 

4.       Minimum competency should focus on qualifications, not just to discourage unscrupulous work practice. Under the paragraph labeled issues on pg. 535, I suggest you should revise your first sentence to read similarly to the following: “The primary advantage to the public includes the assurance of a universal standard of minimum competency for professionals so as to discourage inadequacy and inappropriate work practice in the sciences of mold and moisture evaluations and in the service of mold and moisture remediation, as well as to discourage the solicitation of unscrupulous work practices in the mold industry.” If the VBALH holds its inspection and remediation professionals to current, accredited industry standards, you will largely accomplish the above objective by pushing the rest of the inadequately trained inspectors and remediators in VA to come up to current industry standards of personnel education for their respective industries. 

 

5.       Exemptions from Licensure: Having exemptions is risky as well. The goal of licensure should be safe and effective remediation. Why exempt anyone from that responsibility?   For example, one of the VBALH’s proposed exemptions is for persons applying chemicals to wood structures for the sole purpose of controlling wood destroying pests. As a professional inspector, I can attest that this technique is usually temporary at best. It does not remove mold, and does not address root moisture issues that cause the microbial problem to occur in the first place. Also the fungicides wear off with time.  Mold remediation means mold removal, nothing less.  If there is mold on crawlspace framing, first the source of moisture (be it humidity, a leak, etc. ) must be understood and fixed (per the US EPA), before remediation can be considered effective. Also, many crawlspaces in VA are mechanically coupled to the home, because we put our ventilation systems down in the crawlspaces and poke all sorts of holes in our subflooring. It’s a misnomer that what happens in a crawlspace stays in a crawlspace and does not affect the indoor air quality of a home, because it does. Mold in crawlspaces is not normal if the structure is designed well, maintained well, and there is effective moisture control and precipitation drainage away from the foundation.  While spraying a crawlspaces for “wood destroying pests (i.e. mold)” may be sufficient for mortgage companies who may require mold to be “treated” before closing on property, “treating” in this method is not in line with any other industry standard or federal guideline regarding effective microbial remediation, and should no longer be an acceptable alternative to proper mold remediation in crawlspaces.

 

As another example, I have met several excellent professional engineers that were experts at diagnosing water pathways in buildings, but were somewhat clueless about  the possible health and safety issues regarding microbial damage in buildings. This is not intended in any way to insult their profession. I would expect it would be the minority of registered professional engineers in VA that would admit to being qualified to do a mold investigation or define steps for remediation.

 

Rather than having a long list of exemptions, permit grandfathering of other accredited certificants.

 

6.       How will the insurance world respond to VA proposed mold regulations as they are now? Currently, much of the work regarding mold inspection and remediation approved and paid for by insurance providers who use the industry guidelines as their benchmark for processing claims in VA.  The introduction of a “Licensed inspector or remediator” with only minimum knowledge may give insurance companies or property management companies an opportunity to form relationships with those inspectors who will then have a “recognizable credential, a state license” but who have gained no additional education to better themselves to identify or remediate mold issues safely and properly. VBALH may be setting the stage for some (but certainly not all) short cuts rather than what industry standards recommend as the best approach. Lowering the bar on inspector and remediator qualifications to below industry standards, may well lead to a trend of property value decline in VA homes due to poorly inspected and remediated water/mold damage restoration. IN CONTRAST, Raising the standards of all mold professionals in VA will no doubt help encourage insurance and property management firms to accept the fact that VA’s regulations are holding solid with industry standards.    

 

7.       Who can say how much square footage is “safe” to not properly remediate? Deciding on how much mold contamination requires professional intervention, requires both science and experience. Usually surface mold less than 1 ft² can be easily cleaned off. However, more extensive mold growth or conditions where uncertainty over hidden damage exists, may well require both a qualified inspector and a qualified remediator. Usually visible surface mold in one area of less than 100 ft² is straight forward for a qualified remediator. Usually over 100 ft² of mold, especially if hidden conditions may exist, could well require the guidance of an independent environmental professional (the mold inspector). Mandating a number such as 10 ft², to be the defining point of when to bring in a licensed inspector/remediator, seems both impractical and risky. A visible 10 ft² of surface area on one side of a wall may result in opening up the wall to find a much larger area of previously hidden mold. On the other hand, 20 ft² of mold on a wooden panel in a semi-vacant warehouse area may pose little risk and require no special remediation methods.  Perhaps VBLAH should consider setting a criteria for required action, not solely based upon square footage, but including other important parameter like: presence of excessive moisture, length of time that the area has been wetted, the type/category of water that caused the damage, whether the environment will be occupied during remediation or not, etc.

 

8.       The fees seem the least concern of all. Most professional mold inspection and remediation firms spend thousands of dollars yearly in training. The fees would only be surprising to persons not used to spending money on education.

 

9.       I would encourage the VBALH to lean heavily on the experience and wisdom of those persons in the Commonwealth who are highly trained in these two fields that you propose to regulate.  They should be the backbone of your board.   Reading through the comments previously posted, you have some good input and I hope you see what a resource you have at your disposal. Other Lists of VA professionals in this industry can be found on www.iaqa.org, www.acac.org, www.iicrc.org.  I too offer my time to assist the VBALH if you would like my further input.

Eric McKee, ME, CIEC, CIE, CMR

McKee Environmental, Inc.

757-333-3363 (office)

757-971-0441 (mobile)