Monday, October 29, 2007
Mold Clearance Protocols
Not All Mold Clearance Protocols Are the Same!!!
Normal Protocol
A couple of situations were recently brought to the attention to Duraclean Central that break the “mold” in regard to clearance procedures in mold remediation projects. Normally, “clearance,” the verification that mold spore levels are at safe levels, usually involves several common factors. First, and most obvious, is that is no visible mold left. This is a fairly easy one to confirm. Second, one or more tests are performed to confirm actual remaining spore counts. Surface tests by an industrial hygienist of items such as drywall, ductwork and carpet may be done through lift tape, swabs or vacuuming of the surface where the spores may go into a spore trap or onto a slide. Acceptable levels as a result of the lab results are determined by the industrial hygienist since there are no “safe” levels established by the EPA. Air sample tests may be conducted comparing inside air to outside air. This is done with a vacuum type system. What an industrial hygienist looks for, in general, is that there are lower spore counts of the various mold types in the structure compared to outside and that there are no mold types that are in the structure that aren’t outside. Following are two surprising examples that deviate from this standard.
Unusual Protocols
The first situation involves a large structure that was heavily water and then mold damaged as a result of exposure to a hurricane. The lengthy remediation protocol by the industrial hygienist gives very specific directions in regard to containment, demolition and cleanup. The clearance protocol, on the other hand, is very simplistic: no visible mold remaining. No surface tests, no air tests. The other variant in the remediation process outside of the clearance portion is that if any additional problems are found outside of the protocol, then they should be brought to the attention of the owners who will accept or reject the additional work. The industrial hygienist won’t be part of the variance where, usually, they will authorize a change type order and a revision of the project protocol.
The second situation involves a home where the residents complained about being sick. When they saw mold in the attic they contacted an industrial hygienist. As part of the inspection mold was also found in the HVAC system. The owners had a remediation company come out and clean the attic surfaces, then apply Kilz to the surface. Note: Kilz makes no claim as to its effectiveness in dealing with mold and has no EPA registration. The only advantage is that it does cover discoloration and is much less expensive to apply than Fosters or Fiberlock encapsulants. The company replaced the HVAC system. Within a short time after the completion of the project the residents complained again about feeling sick.
Another industrial hygienist came onto the scene. First, he specified removal of the roof. He didn’t believe in soda or ice blasting saying that it was the worst thing to do so although the residents thought that the problem was caused by the application of the Kilz, he felt the best thing was the roof removal. Note: soda and ice blasting is widely accepted as a means to remove mold from surfaces. He also recommended that all cloth furnishings be discarded, other furnishings temporarily removed and all surfaces be cleaned. Once that was accomplished he proposed that the people move in and that the furnishings be gradually reintroduced to ensure that if anything that was potentially causing the sick reaction with the residents could be readily identified. If the structure and contents were totally reintroduced without a problem, then the job site was considered to pass clearance.
At times you may find the most unusual protocols specified. The important thing to note that you are not performing protocol that you know to be wrong, not in compliance with EPA and the IICRC S520 mold standards. Otherwise, just follow the protocol as specified.
Normal Protocol
A couple of situations were recently brought to the attention to Duraclean Central that break the “mold” in regard to clearance procedures in mold remediation projects. Normally, “clearance,” the verification that mold spore levels are at safe levels, usually involves several common factors. First, and most obvious, is that is no visible mold left. This is a fairly easy one to confirm. Second, one or more tests are performed to confirm actual remaining spore counts. Surface tests by an industrial hygienist of items such as drywall, ductwork and carpet may be done through lift tape, swabs or vacuuming of the surface where the spores may go into a spore trap or onto a slide. Acceptable levels as a result of the lab results are determined by the industrial hygienist since there are no “safe” levels established by the EPA. Air sample tests may be conducted comparing inside air to outside air. This is done with a vacuum type system. What an industrial hygienist looks for, in general, is that there are lower spore counts of the various mold types in the structure compared to outside and that there are no mold types that are in the structure that aren’t outside. Following are two surprising examples that deviate from this standard.
Unusual Protocols
The first situation involves a large structure that was heavily water and then mold damaged as a result of exposure to a hurricane. The lengthy remediation protocol by the industrial hygienist gives very specific directions in regard to containment, demolition and cleanup. The clearance protocol, on the other hand, is very simplistic: no visible mold remaining. No surface tests, no air tests. The other variant in the remediation process outside of the clearance portion is that if any additional problems are found outside of the protocol, then they should be brought to the attention of the owners who will accept or reject the additional work. The industrial hygienist won’t be part of the variance where, usually, they will authorize a change type order and a revision of the project protocol.
The second situation involves a home where the residents complained about being sick. When they saw mold in the attic they contacted an industrial hygienist. As part of the inspection mold was also found in the HVAC system. The owners had a remediation company come out and clean the attic surfaces, then apply Kilz to the surface. Note: Kilz makes no claim as to its effectiveness in dealing with mold and has no EPA registration. The only advantage is that it does cover discoloration and is much less expensive to apply than Fosters or Fiberlock encapsulants. The company replaced the HVAC system. Within a short time after the completion of the project the residents complained again about feeling sick.
Another industrial hygienist came onto the scene. First, he specified removal of the roof. He didn’t believe in soda or ice blasting saying that it was the worst thing to do so although the residents thought that the problem was caused by the application of the Kilz, he felt the best thing was the roof removal. Note: soda and ice blasting is widely accepted as a means to remove mold from surfaces. He also recommended that all cloth furnishings be discarded, other furnishings temporarily removed and all surfaces be cleaned. Once that was accomplished he proposed that the people move in and that the furnishings be gradually reintroduced to ensure that if anything that was potentially causing the sick reaction with the residents could be readily identified. If the structure and contents were totally reintroduced without a problem, then the job site was considered to pass clearance.
At times you may find the most unusual protocols specified. The important thing to note that you are not performing protocol that you know to be wrong, not in compliance with EPA and the IICRC S520 mold standards. Otherwise, just follow the protocol as specified.
Labels: IICRC S520, Mold, Protocol, Technical
# posted by Unknown @ 12:01 PM 
Subscribe to Comments [Atom]