I commend the Board on its efforts in enacting rules to protect health, safety and welfare of the public and consumers through the establishment of licensing requirements for recognized health hazards, such as asbestos and lead. In these cases, practices for the inspection, testing, analysis and remediation, along with clearly defined training requirements and training curricula, were specified in Federal rules and standards; and the Board licensing requirements were consistent with those rules and standards.
However, the recently-enacted regulations titled 18VAC15-60, “Mold Inspector and Remediator Regulations” are not necessary (nor do they provide) for the protection of public health, safety and welfare; there is a serious risk of adversely affecting important government functions; and they place an unnecessary economic impact on small businesses. Therefore, regulations should be terminated and withdrawn.
1. They are not necessary (nor do they provide) for the protection of public health, safety and welfare.
a. Mold is naturally occurring. It can be found anywhere a sample is taken, indoors or out. There are no recognized standards or even universally-accepted criteria for what are considered acceptable levels of mold in indoor air or on surfaces. The regulations have not prescribed any level “safe” or “unsafe.” Therefore, the need for these regulations to protect public health, safety and welfare can not be demonstrated.
b. DPOR regulations establish a minimum competency to practice as a “mold inspector”: a high school diploma and a three-day training class.
Prior to these regulations, the Commonwealth already had vast resources of well-credentialed, highly educated public health professionals who engage in the assessment and control of potential health and safety hazards on a daily basis. Many Professional Engineers (PE), Certified Industrial Hygienists (CIH), Certified Safety Professionals (CSP) and Registered Sanitarians (RS) in the Commonwealth have numerous years of practical professional experience in health hazard assessment and control. These professionals must meet rigorous educational standards, as well as pass nationally-recognized certification exams, maintain continuing education credits and adhere to professional ethics codes. These codes dictate that these professionals practice only in their areas of expertise and competency, or risk lose those credentials.
It is extremely disturbing that the new “mold” regulations have excluded these credentialed professionals and their expertise and replaced them with “mold experts” who attained their credentials by meeting DPOR’s requirements of graduating high school and attending a three-day training class.
As a Board-certified professional who has provided indoor environmental quality evaluations and recommended successful solutions for more than 20 years throughout the United States, I find it perplexing that I am no longer qualified to conduct a “mold inspection” in the Commonwealth until I attend a three-day class.
It is unclear to me how a regulation enacted with the intent of protecting public health, safety and welfare in the Commonwealth fails to acknowledge existing professionals with relevant experience and public health credentials.
2. There is a serious risk of adversely affecting important government functions. The regulations, as written, create the perception of controlling and restricting trade in the Commonwealth for the immediate benefit of DPOR and Board Members. Presently, there is no universally-recognized training curriculum for the inspection of mold in indoor environments. In addition, there is no universally-recognized field testing protocol for the assessment or control of mold. However, this regulation clearly empowers the Board to arbitrarily approve or reject firms offering training on this topic. It is clear from the listing of Board members that a perception of collusion could exist, because the Board is composed of representatives from training and testing firms who would benefit from the regulation. These same Board members have the authority to determine which businesses may participate in providing training. This process gives the appearance of using the Commonwealth’s regulatory mechanism to create a new training and testing specialties that require the services of Board members, regardless of any scientifically-credible need. This is a glaring conflict of interest that compromises the integrity and public perception of DPOR.
3. They place an unnecessary economic impact on small businesses. These regulations uniquely penalize small, independent consulting businesses. To a small business operator like me, the cost to our business to attend the mandated three-day class is staggering. Small businesses like ours would have to pay the cost of the course (approximately $600) and our employees’ wages (and benefits) to attend the class. While attending the class, our employees are not providing services to clients, and are therefore losing revenue. To put the economic loss into perspective, it would cost my business $7,800 for me to attend the three-day class mandated by this regulation in order to apply for a license to provide the same services I have been providing to government and commercial organizations for more than 20 years. It’s obvious that this regulation adds an unnecessary economic burden on small consulting businesses like ours who balance revenue and expenses to make payroll.
A $7,800 expense for an employee to attend a training class for licensure is insignificant to Government agencies and large multi-national firms. But for small Virginia businesses, it requires careful consideration. Our choices are: bear the expense and sacrifice elsewhere; forgo the training and turn down a segment of our business; or continue to provide the expert services that are key to our business at the risk of being penalized by the Commonwealth.
It’s a tough choice.
I have worked in the environmental health and safety industry in Virginia for more than 20 years. I am a graduate of Old Dominion University with a BS degree in Environmental Health, which included studies in Environmental Microbiology; and have a MS degree for The George Washington University. I’ve been conducting assessments for bioaersols, including mold, since 1989. In the past, I maintained DPOR licensure in multiple disciplines; and have concurred with the actions of the Board on matters regarding public health and safety.
However, I feel strongly enough about the recent regulations on mold activities that I I am compelled to comment. In my opinion, these regulations represent bad science, bad business and bad public policy, and must be rescinded to preserve the integrity of DPOR licensing programs and the business environment in the Commonwealth of Virginia.