I feel the Mold License should be coordinated with the other states such as Flordia, Maryland, New York and Arkansas. Thjese states have recognized the ACAC ( American Council for Accredited Certification ) Mold and Indoor Air Quality programs .The ACAC designations require extensive knowledge, field experience and require 40 hours of continuingevery 2 years to maintain the certifications. The ACAC designations are Board awarded by a number of industry peers after proof of passing an exam and proven documented field experience.The ACAC programs are accredited by the Council of Engineers and Scientific Specialty Board. ( CESB ). I think it is redundant to require additional classes , testing and time to get a license for all those people who have obtained those certifications through the ACAC or IICRC ( Institute of Inspection Cleaning and Restoration Certification ). While the IICRC is not as stringent as the ACAC they do require a week long class and passing of an exam . The higest certification in the field , Applied Microbial Remediation Specialst , require proven work experience and passing an exam with additional continuing education credits.

The ACAC can be reached at i-888-808-8381. I don,t think the persons involved with developing the state programs have any idea whats involved with obtaining these certifications. Should you wish to contact me I can be reached at 804-730-6788. Thanks for your time.

Regards,

Malvern Barrow   CMC, CRMI, CIEC, CMRS, AMRS

Mold inspection and remediation companies should definitely be certified and have proper training and qualifications. To provide testing and remediation services one should have certifications which are provided by the ACAC.  These certifications once earned have shown that the inspector, remediator and/or remediation supervisor have attended and passed a very indepth training course which covers all aspects of the specific course subject.  Without this rounded knowledge an inspector or remediation company would be lacking proper training. 

Disallowing mold testing and remediation by the same company is an unrealistic regulation which does not apply to any other industry. Indoor Air Quality Companies should be able to inspect, write a scope of work and provide services for repair if properly qualified.  Disallowing the ability to provide analysis and repair by the same company would make an already complicated process unaffordable to home and building owners. Also a regulation like this would cause legal issues that are not necessary.  Remediation and Testing companies could blame each other if things went wrong.  Leaving the home or building owner with a legal mess trying to pin down who is responsible. This law does not work in TX and it will not work in VA.

Thank you,

William Spearman CMRS, AMRT, WRT

President, Arrowhead Consulting Inc.

240-832-5900

Recently we had a significant remediation at my Moms home.  We had multiple companies inspect and assess the property and all three certified companies came up with a unique approach and proposed scope of work. Because my Mom was suffering from a respiratory condition, deciding on the right company was a very serious decision. The company we selected was able to provide a guaranteed clearance and a warranty. We were very comfortable with the assessment abilities of our selected indoor air quality company and the responsibility they were able to assume on the remediation and its successful completion. One company who was responsible for the assessment and the remediation is definitely the way to go.  Ultimately someone has to be responsible for the outcome of a remediation. We were able to go through the entire plan of action and reasoning with one company and felt very comfortable with that relationship.  If we were forced to consult with two companies I am sure this would be a less comforting experience, would have cost our family more money and would be a complicated transaction consulting with multiple firms.  Homeowners should be able to choose who they wish from a list of qualified companies to provide mold testing and remediation services from start to finish.  It is clear that each company in our case had a completely different approach to providing remediation services and ultimately the selected company is responsible alone for a successful project. Making home owners involve more than one party on a single project would be a nightmare.  Gaining competitive bids and gathering professional opinions from many sources before selecting one company is a normal practice for any home repair. I hope people have the ability to choose as we did.  The company that provides the testing and writes the scope of work should definitely be able to provide the remediation services and stand behind the entire project. The complication of the proposed bill will harm consumers.  A state certified program is a great idea in this industry. Limiting companies on the services they are allowed to provide or forcing them to work with other firms is not practical for anyone involved.  I hope a streamline law is passed in VA.   Our remediation went well and was a great learning experience for our family. 

We had testing, and remediation by one company which included duct cleaning, home wipedown, air scrubbing and crawlspace encapsulation. Clearance preformed by the same company with a warranty. Third party confirmation on our end just to make sure. It was a simple process.  I agree the choice of company should be up to the consumer.  Making consumers hire two companies to provide one home improvement will be complicated and cost additional fees and create headaches if problems arise.  Good Idea to have regulations though.  I work as a HUD approved renovation consultant as well. I understand contracting and consumer needs.

I had an expert witness case today for a client which I had tested a home for about a month ago.  The case was in Fairfax county court.  The occupants had rented a home and the discovered it had mold in it.  The landlord apparently knew about the mold issue prior to renting the home. When the renter complained, the landlord came in and wiped all the basement walls down with chlorine bleach and told the pregnant occupant to stay upstairs for a few days.  Later the occupants started having respiratory issues, headaches, dizzy spells.  We were called to provide testing and a remediation protocol.  The house was loaded with potentially toxigenic mold.  The occupants moved out because the landlord refused to remediate the mold.  In court today I found out that the landlord if he does not own more than 10 homes in VA then he has little resposibility to disclose or fix the mold problem. Is this true?  My testimony seemed to help a lot and the tennants prevailed in court.  There should be better laws to protect families from renting homes with indoor air quality problems.  In this case the occupants including a new born baby suffered serious reactions according to the client.  This case was under Mo Hamdan.  They were able to recoup fees but still believe they are having health related problems.  Protections should be in place.  John (CIE) 

Do you plan to recognze out of state licenses, experience and training certifications

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

.

Regulation is much needed and overdue. However, a fair and reasonable approach that allows for an affordable service to the consumer as well as a reasonable registration process and cost for licensing to the service provider is also needed.

PBI has long taken the position that third party testing and clearance by a licensed and certified Industrial Hygienist is the professional way to assure a project has been properly remediated. This method provides a check and balance system to the company doing the work vs. the company inspecting the work. This does not preclude the company doing the work to perform their own inspection and preliminary clearance testing to assure a quality job. Also, not all projects neccesarily have a need to be cleared by third party. The IICRC S520 provides excellent direction on this matter.

We at PBI participate in the IICRC and RIA training programs. Both of these trade associations have offered excellent training and certification for our industry for years and are flagship organizations with an excellent track record. ACAC is a new organization that was developed in conjunction with new regulations in the State of MD. ACAC's history is a bit muddled.

Certifications such as the AMRT or AMRS in conjunction with water damage certification  WRT from the IICRC for technicians or supervisors performing work on a remediation project. should be required. This ensures safety for both the worker and the client and provides asurance that an acceptable standard of knowledge is imparted by the company providing services.

My opinion is that the regulation provide language for firms to have certification by recognoized trade associations, but not requiring homeowners to obtain third party inspections. Rather. allow the homeowner the option. If the homeowner chooses, then testing and clearance should be provided by a licensed and certified Industrial Hygienist that is independant of the firm providing the remediation services. Regulations can requiure language in remediation firms contracts that explain this requirement and that the consumer must be informed of their right to have third party testing.

Mold Licensing in Viginia. 

Consumer protection is a very important issue.  The reason any profession or trade has a licensing program is for the safety of the public, to make sure the vendors claiming to be professional, really are, and although no one wants to talk about it there is some financial motivation by the state to license  individuals, or groups.

Companies that do poor work or are out right commiting fraud will be weeded out by the market place or the the plaintifs bar. Regulating all vendors in this profession won't stop these people from commiting wrongful acts or shoddy work. 

The market place has already set a very high standard for work quality and competency in the form of very high standards of training that already exist in the industry.  Training, very exclusive insurance policies for liability, and warranty of work, as well as nationally set standrds with consistency within our franchise system already exist and have been in place for some time. These high standards have helped to eliminate non performers from the market place, even those operaters in our own system who could  not meet the standards. 

This issue is not new, and I would dare say it is a non issue compared to 4 or 5 years ago. At the time mold was "HOT" we all became accutely aware of just how bad a mold job could go. Any operator with any common sense got the right training and insurance. If not  they got out, or sued, or both.

When given the opportunity, many consumers will go with the cheap guy, not realizing what they are exposing themselves to. Our company adheres to the highest possible standards. If the goal is to protect the public, then do so. Find that cheap guy and put him where he belongs, out of business.  

Perry Harrison   President,   P  & R Envirnmental Services, Inc.  

I think that the state of Virginia should approve applications for persons that are already licensed by other states that have similar licensing requirements.  The state of Florida's licensing requirements are similar to Virginia's.  A reciprocity path for licensing should be included for application appoval 

Virginia Register of Regulations, November 8, 2010, Page 539:

ype over this text and enter your comments here. You are limited to approximately 3000 words.

Disallowing mold testing and remediation by the same company is an unrealistic regulation which does not apply to any other industry. Indoor Air Quality Companies should be able to inspect, write a scope of work and provide services for repair if properly qualified.  Disallowing the ability to provide analysis and repair by the same company would make an already complicated process unaffordable to home and building owners. Also a regulation like this would cause legal issues that are not necessary.  Remediation and Testing companies could blame each other if things went wrong.  Leaving the home or building owner with a legal mess trying to pin down who is responsible. This law does not work in TX and it will not work in VA.

I have been through the process as a homeowner.  If I would have known then what I now know, I would have hired a testor who was independent of the remediation company.  It is clearly a conflict of interests.

I would also like to note that 4 of the comments in this forum supporting the allowance of one company to take on both roles are from people connected to the same company, which happens to be the company that I dealt with.  I feel like this is a method of "stuffing the ballot box", giving the impression that four companies have this view, when it is in fact, one company (or affiliated companies.) 

Seperating these two roles is clearly advocated by the IICRC.

Although remediation companies might find concern in the financial impacts this could bear, this would not serve as a punishment to reputable companies. However, it would weed out the remaining unethical and incompetent companies who continue to thrive in this industry. It would be a shame to allow companies to continue to provide clearance on their own inept work, while leaving consumers in an unsafe indoor environment that could ultimately prove hazardous to their health and financial well-being. 

Another aspect to consider is the new legislation passed in the Tenant Landlord Act. This is based upon good intentions within the legislation however places tenants in a precarious situation. It allows mold companies and a residential landlord to complete remediation and then pass along responsibility to the tenant upon signing of lease including property and belongings of the tenant. A third party clearance test could also prove beneficial in this scenario should future disputes arise regarding the success of the initial remediation. 

Mr. Spicer's comments from 12/15 are particularly interesting, from a consumer's standpoint.  Our family had problems with our home.  The inspectors gave us information, mostly of a mathematical standpoint.  There were some pictures, but upon further examination by us and those in the industry, no particularyly helpful.  Nothing in those reports gave us any basis of what the numbers meant, other than that they were "high."

We were told to almost a degree of certainty  that they had identified the problem and that they would solve the problem.

We were then given a bid to remediate.  It was a lot of money, but at that point we were desperate and signed a contract.

The job as it was explained was not delivered.  Direct questions were not answered.  We have done a lot of work researching what transpired in our dealings with this company, and we conclude that there was an intentional effort to sell the job up front for financial gain.  We have had another company, who we find to be knowedgable and responsive, to come in and assess our situation.  They are appalled at the sequence of events in our dealings with the first company.

The principals involved in the company that we dealt with are represented in this Town Hall as favoring allowing the testing company and the remediating company to be the same company.  They are posting seperately, but two of the individuals were in my home representing the same company and one other is clearly listed as an associate (unless he has left the company.)  A fourth posting on the Town Hall simply cut and pasted the comments of the third individual.

You should not have the people who the legislation is aiming to control dictating what the regulations will be.

All parties involved with mold need to have and show proof of  proper insurance prior to being licensed. This would include but is not limited to Workers Comp, Auto, General Liability, Errors and Omission and Pollution Liability insurance.

From an ethical standpoint the company doing the inspection should not do the remediation . The remediation company should not be involved in any way with the inspection or clearence company.

Mold inspection or remediation companies should not be allowed to sell any type of equipment to the consumer other than their service. Selling of filters, air fresheners,

Overall cost per job will increase due to required courses, licensing, insurance, paper work, record keeping and testing etc. that is needed.

We support the mold licensing.  We are a remediation firm who does not and will not do any testing because it is a conflict of interest.  We have always believed that an independent IH or IEP should do the pre-screening, provide a protocol and/or do the post remediation evaluation.  The IHs and IEPs are the best people to do that; not just a mold inspector.  They provide more than just a lab report.   We work with most of the independent IHs and IEPs.  Each of them look at the situation a little differently.  We do have to adjust to their specifics especially for the clearance test.  You do learn new things or ideas with dealing with different ones.  No one can provide a protocol and/or estimate that is complete.  There will always be hidden damages that you will find during any remediation.  The key is communication between the IHs, the remediator and the customer.   Everyone has to be in agreement before you start a project.  The potential to the find the hidden damage and additional cost have to be address to whomever is paying for the remediation.  We perform all remediation projects the same way reguardless if there is or will be testing done.  The third party evaluation confirms a remediation done well.  Most failed clearances occur because some thing was missed by the IH or the remediation company or there is an on-going problem.  As a professional, you have to admit if the problem was yours and fix the problem.  The remediation firms are the ones who have the most responsibility to not have a failed clearance.  They have to make sure that any issues or omissions have to be fixed prior to calling for a clearance test. 

Licensing strenghtens this industry and provides for consumer protections and determines a set of methods and practices which will benefit both consumers and contractors alike.

RTS provides both inspections and remediation services.  We provide honest, objective inspections with simple meaningful reports with lots of customer service and support during and after the services we provide.  We are povicient in perfotming air quality and mold inspections and remediation which benefits our clients greatly given we can instruct them and give them insight to the scope of a mold or air quality issue.  We have performed thousands of inspections and remediation services in the N. VA area and in Maryland and DC.  Our mode of operation is one of objectivity and honesty.  If you do not have a mold issue we tell you that.  We issue a report and we do not issue any scope of work or proposal as part of the inspection process unless it is specifically rerquested of us to do so.

These practices are important to understand given a conflict of interest is only created when the people performing the inspection are dishonest, lie, cheat, and scare their clients into believing they have a problem when in fact they do not.  Hence the industry is looking to regulate this issue because there are players (even ones purporting to be professional) who are creating conflicts by virtue of their lack of virtue.  For example, they may provide an inspection which creates a confusing and lengthy report which generalizes the actual scenario and confuses the client into thinking they have a significant mold issue when in fact they do not.  Then they issue a 35+ page report part of which is a quotation for remediation services issued without request from the client.  This is a conflict of interest.

Howerver, an objective inspection without scare tactics which provides for fact and a straight forward report without any estimate for remediation repairs is not a conflict.  If actual problems exist which are worthy of remediation, and the client requests a scope of work / estimate / quotation for work, then this represents an ethical path to a mold firm switching to the role of remediator (No conflict of interest given the clients have requested these services demonstrating their understanding).  These practices occur everyday in industries and services throughout our lives such as with physicians, auto repair shops, termite inspections, etc.  We as consumers need to be aware of who is honest and who is not.  The means to determine who is honest and who is not is so much more accessible now then ever before with consumer advocacy services such as Angies List, or the Consumer Check Book, or by simply searching the web for complaints repoprted on businesses which are fraudulant in their practices.  The mold industry is generally a good group of contractors, but their are a few players which obviously work in unethical fashion close at hand.

Whats my point..........Regulate the industry to provide for contractors to be proficient in both areas of expertise if they wish.  Afterall, remediation expertise is a great benef to my clients in order to inform them.  Let the consumer make the informed decision as to who to hire to inspect and / or remediate. Give the consumer the tools to make informed decisions by directing them to internet services, reports and consumer advocates which provide real feedback in the voice of other consumers.  Above all, this will regulate the legitamcy of the industry, and consumers can make an informed choice.

As a contractor, we will end of charging for "estimates" regardliess of what the regulations end up being.  We take a lot of time and expertise to provide for the standard of care in remediation services.  Separating a mold inspection firm from the remediation firm is not going to o anything but cause those who do not have real expertise in both areas of practice  to cause confusion and misinformation.

• Regulate the industry, but do not constrain the industry. 
• Provide information to the consumer so they understand what the definitiion of a Conflict of Interest is.
• Pay attention to what the consumers are saying or are reporting about those who are providing mold services in your state.
• Investigate those who are less than ethical in how they conduct their services.
• Notifiy the public of those firms who have a track record of unethical business practices.

Paul R. Ramsey

CMC and CMRS

RTS Environmental Services, Inc.

There are many well thought out comments on this page.  In regard to required certifications and training it’s simple: 

There is no way to provide a residential or commercial clients with a proper indoor air quality assessment to include a detailed report, discussion of contamination, location of cause and a remediation protocol without having  at minimum the following training:

WRT, AMRT, CIE and Home/ Building Inspection Certifications

Providing a certified scope of work takes a lot of knowledge which includes:

Understanding of the water restoration industry

Understanding of microbial contamination

Understanding of building science, construction and inspection techniques

Each one of these categories are already a stand alone industry and a person that has a combined knowledge of all three is the only person that should be advising I.A.Q. clients about where mold is growing in a dwelling, what is causing the contamination and how to remediate the problem so that it does not return.

I think everyone agrees the S520 is the manual that this industry follows and knowledge of the S500 is required to fully understand it.  Which means you must have a WRT and AMRT for an understanding of industry standard.  These certifications touch on building science however everyone knows full home or building inspection training is required to fully understand systems, structures and building maintenance and failures that can lead to I.A.Q. problems. There are many environmental certifications but the one that seems to be the most rounded is the CIE. 

No one should inspect, test and make recommendations on a home or building without having all four of these trainings:  WRT, AMRT, CIE and Home and Building Inspection Certifications. 

The debate about one or two companies having to provide these services is preposterous.  One company needs to manage the inspection, scope of work and implementation of that scope of work for a project to run smoothly and be affordable.   Consumers can have independent companies provide clearance when necessary. Forcing two companies to run a single project  is ridiculous.   

Certifications for Remediation Should Include The Above as well for supervisors.   Workers should know how to protect themselves and any certification comperable to a CMP or CMT is adequate for a worker.  Companies should be properly insured and there should be regulations protecting consumers from mold during real estate transactions. 

There is your regulation.  Its not complicated. Anything more or less will create industry problems. Good Luck.

As a consumer who has had the extreme misfortune of hiring a company that both "remediated" a portion of my home and provided a post remediation clearance, I am making a heartfelt plea to this board asking that you make third party testing mandatory. Upon stepping foot into my home, not a single independent post-remediation testing firm would have passed the remediation due to the fact that contaminated debris was left strewn throughout my home. Yet, the remediation company cleared it. They did not live up to their contractual obligations. The promised mode of testing was not performed, and the results of testing were not made available to me, even upon request. It remains in question whethet testing was actually performed.

I hired a third party to take air samples. Lab analysis of the samples proved the job a failure. When I tried to amicably resolve this issue with the company President, I was verbally abused. He referred to his company's clearance letter and told me the job was complete. Just recently, additional areas of mold were discovered. They were definitely an issue when this company performed work in my home. Air fresheners were placed in these areas to mask any odors that might have occurred. Again, a knowledgable third party would have questioned these tactics and investigated further. The nightmare this company brought into my life is indescribable.

Third party clearance is a must. It will quickly and effectively rid this industry of charlatons and bullies.