Regulation of activities associated with mold assessment and remediation projects remains viable because the regulations do require a minimum knowledge and expertise for individuals in all catagories of mold-related work. There are health risks for workers and other building occupants who are routinely exposed to microorganisms with inherent allergenic properties and which unlike asbestos and lead can recur after remediation. In my opinion, regulation should remain; however, the language of the regulations requires reconsideration and some revision.

Licensing requirements for mold inspectors, supervisors, and workers should continue to remain in effect.  State regulatory codes need to be established for  conducting these activities to allow for uniform application and enforcemtn by the DOLI.  As it stands, there is no regulatory reference except for the licensing requirement.  Current requirements remain an important first step to establishing some format for this activity. 

The newly-enacted regulations titled 18VAC15-60, “Mold Inspector and Remediator Regulations” should be terminated and withdrawn for the following reasons:

1. They offer no measureable benefit to public health –The spores, colonies and species classified as “mold” can be found virtually anywhere a sample is taken, indoors or out. There are no recognized standards to define what levels of “mold,” if any, represent a true hazard to health. Consequently the Commonwealth, through these regulations has not and can not prescribe any achievable level of control which may be defined as either “safe” or “unsafe.”  The regulations are baseless.

2. There was no existing shortage of well credentialed professional expertise knowledgeable in the control of moisture, mold and sanitation concerns available to the citizens of VA.   Prior to these regulations, the Commonwealth already had vast resources of well-credentialed, highly educated professionals who are engaged in the assessment and control of potential hazards associated with the stated concerns regarding “mold.” These professionals include:
   1. Professional Engineers (PE)
   2. Certified Industrial Hygienists (CIH)
   3. Registered Sanitarians (RS)

These professionals typically have many years of practical professional experience and meet rigorous educational standards in problem assessment and control as well as passing nationally-recognized certification exams, maintaining continuing education and adherence to professional ethics codes to only practice in their areas of expertise and competency.  Ironically, the new Virginia mold regulations have excluded over 1000 established professionals from their proven area of practice to require the use of and undefined roster of newly-created “experts” with a 3-day certificate.  If control of mold does warrant competent professional services, imposing this state-created obstacle doesn’t make any sense.

3. The Regulations will create an economic drain on the Commonwealth.  Since the need for the training and licensing services imposed by this regulation is artificially-created, not meeting any recognized scientific standard or accepted enforcement limits, there will not be sufficient sustainable market demand to support the DPOR resources required for program administration. 

4. They disproportionately target and penalize small businesses   These regulations uniquely penalize small, independent consulting businesses.  Our cost to follow this regulation is staggering, requiring 3 days away from work and 3 days of lost billing revenue – and those costs are CUMULATIVE if you are paying employees for their time to attend, plus payment of class fees of $600.  For a senior technical professional who bills project time at $150 per hour that represents a total cost of $7800 per person in pay and lost revenue before you can apply to the state for a license to do the same hazard assessment work you may have done for 20 or 30 years.  That’s a hard reality when your income for groceries, children’s’ clothing, gas and house payment depends on balancing revenue and expenses to make payroll.  People who work for government agencies or large multinational firms won’t experience that hard, painful, personal but preventable penalty.

5. They are vague and unworkable subject to selective and arbitrary enforcement  As written, these regulations expose Virginia to legitimate claims of regulatory buffoonery and ridicule on late night television.  The term “mold” and “mold inspector” as broadly defined in this regulation could impose a regulatory trap to include:

·        Restaurant workers cleaning cooking surfaces

·        Janitors who may encounter mildew in a mop closet

·        Biology teachers and their students

·        Boy Scout leaders taking kids for a campout

·        Bakery and grocery workers checking day-old bread

·        Dermatologists

·        Gardeners and groundskeepers

·        Nail salons working around toenail fungus

·        Air conditioning mechanics checking ductwork for cleanliness

·        Auto mechanics replacing air filters that trap spores, etc…..

If the regulations cannot be enforced on a University Biology Department Chair who leads a graduate-level class on assessment of mold -and good luck with that - they are unworkable and absurd.

6. They create an impression of collusionary intent to use government to endorse restriction of trade in the Commonwealth for the immediate benefit of DPOR and Board Members.  There is no standardized or accepted training curriculum or universally-recognized field testing protocol for the assessment or control of mold; however this regulation empowers the Board to selectively approve or reject firms offering training on this topic. Close examination shows that the DPOR Board who promoted and adopted these regulations is composed of training and testing firms who are first in line to offer these services and determine who and what firms may participate in this work through DPOR approval, rejection or stalling of competitors’ training programs and license applications.  This process gives the appearance of using the state’s regulatory mechanism to create a new training and testing specialty which requires their services in the absence of any scientifically-credible need.  In addition, the field of potential service providers is controlled by gatekeepers with a vested interest. This is a glaring conflict which is ripe for abuse.

I have worked in the environmental health and safety industry in Virginia for 35 years.  I am a graduate of the state’s first nationally-accredited Environmental Health degree program, I have worked as a Health Department inspector and I have maintained numerous VA DPOR professional licenses and nationally-recognized board certifications for over 20 years.  This is the first time that I have been sufficiently outraged at the conduct of DPOR to submit written comments to request immediate action.

These regulations are bad science, bad business and bad public policy.  The Mold Inspector and Remediator Regulations under 18VAC15-60 should be rescinded to preserve the integrity of DPOR licensing programs while meeting their responsibilities to the citizens of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

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.

18 VAC 15-60-60. Training reciprocity. The section states that the ALMHI Board may approve training courses offered by vendors approved by other states provided they are substanially equivalent to the requirements set for Virginia. DPOR has no stadard by which to assess "substantially equivalent" which leaves an opening for unfair assessment by the ALMHI Board. My understanding of the regulations is that a training provider MUST provide instruction on Virginia regulations or the training cannot be considered substantially equivalent, although I consider the training requirements for a Mold Assessment Technician to be equivalent, if not more stringent than those for Virginia.

18 VAC 15-60-70. Licensing reciprocity. The section states that the ALMHI Board may approve an application for licensure by mold remediation workers and supervisors, as well as Mold Inspectors licensed in other states provided the licensure requirments are substanially equivalent to the requirements set for Virginia. DPOR has no stadard by which to assess "substantially equivalent". My understanding of the regulations is that an applicant must provide proof of training that includes instruction on Virginia regulations or the training cannot be considered substantially equivalent, although I consider the training requirements for a Mold Assessment Technician in Texas to be equivalent, if not more stringent than those for Virginia. The training required of a Mold Assessment Consultant is definitively more stringnet than required by Virginia, but neither have instruction on Virginia regulations; hence should not be considered substanially equivalent.

I suggest those licensed for mold work in other states (Arkansas, Florida, and Texas) be considered IF they provide evidence of satisfactory participation in, and examination score on, a DPOR approved class on virginia regulations and jurisprudence.

18 VAC 15--60-50. The regulations for qualifications for a training instructor should be revised to include specific requirements such as level of experience as an instructor, level of education for the instructor (instructors for Mold Inspectors should have a BS in engineering or the biological sciences), and experience in this industry.

I find it interesting that my learned colleagues with ABIH certifications as industrial hygienists feel that Virginia does not need regulations to protect citizens of the Commonwealth, including mold remediation workers, from recogized health risks and unscrupulous consultants and contractors. Granted fungi, including those categorized as moulds (molds) have been part of the natural environments for many millenia; however, modern man-made buildings and the penchant for society to spend more than 8 hours in any given day create health concerns and property damage not encountered on a routine basis until the 1950's.

The federal Institute of Medicine, the American Industrial Hygiene Association, the American Conference of Government Industrial Hygienists, the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, the Virginia Department of Health, OSHA, and the CDC (to list a few) have published reports on health concerns related toexposure to moulds in the indoor environment and standards of care for those involved in mould assessment and remediation. IF the presence of mould, and the associated causal factors, were not a concern, why publish the documents?

As seven other states have determined, there is a need for regulations that set a baseline for knowledge related to mould in the indoor environment and a baseline for standards of care and work practices. Investment bankers, insurance companies, propertymenagement firms, and home owners have lost millions of dollars in this state because of ineffective remediation of water damage and subsequent mould growth. Only tort lawyers prosper where there is no regulation.

I do agree that the current regulation need to be revised for clarity and that those with licenses from other states or certifications from the ABIH or ACAC should be accepted by DPOR, with instruction in state regulations. In my opinion, the current mechanism of training is inept and the cost for training unjustified for the quality of current instruction (in many cases), but can be rectified. 

Evelyn W. Woolf, CSP

Etc.  Inc.

P. O. Box 726

Independence, VA  24348

Email: etc.csp@gmail.com

October 17, 2011

Mr. David E. Dick

Executive Director

Virginia Board for Asbestos, Lead, Mold and Home Inspectors

Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation

9960 Mayland Drive, Suite 400

Richmond, VA  23233

RE: Public Participation in Periodic Review of Regulations; Mold Regulations

Dear Mr. Dick:

This letter is in response to the announcement dated September 23, 2011 requesting public comments on the review of DPOR regulations, specifically the newly enacted Mold Regulations (18VAC15-60, “Mold Inspector and Remediator Regulations).  In the announcement, public comment is requested on whether the regulations:

 (i) are necessary for the protection of public health, safety, and welfare or the economic performance of important government functions;

(ii) minimize the economic impact on small businesses in a manner consistent with the stated objectives of applicable law; and

 (iii)  are clearly written and easily understandable.   

I would like to address numbers (i) and (ii) below:

(i)               These regulations are not necessary for the protection of public health, safety and welfare or the economic performance of important government functions.

There are no health or safety standards for acceptable levels of mold indoors from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or the Center for Disease Control (CDC) or any other federal or nationally-recognized institution.

Also, DPOR has excluded from their competency criteria, professionals who hold Board certifications such as Certified Industrial Hygienists (CIHs) and Certified Safety Professionals (CSPs).  These individuals are required to have college degrees and numerous years of experience prior to taking certification exams.  Professional Engineers (PEs), Registered Sanitarians (RSs), CIHs, CSPs, etc. should not be required to take a three-day mold inspector class.

(ii)               The economic impact on small businesses can be astounding. As a small independent safety and health consultant, it would cost me over $5000 to attend the initial class.   

To recap those losses, I would have to raise my rates to my clients, which would impact their bottom line as well.

The Commonwealth of Virginia has, in the past, operated under Executive Order 25 (98) and 58 (99) by not promulgating environmental safety and health regulations more stringent than federal regulations.  There are no federal regulations regarding mold.  Therefore, the newly-enacted mold regulations should be rescinded.

Sincerely,

Evelyn W. Woolf, CSP

Submitted online: http://www.townhall.virginia.gov/L/Forums.cfm

Via email: alhi@dpor.virginia.gov

cc:       Bill Carrico, Delegate, 5^th District

            Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, II, Attorney General of Virginia