COMPANIES JOIN FORCES TO SOLVE IAQ
PROBLEMS
(From
“Indoor Environment Connections” Volume 3, Issue 9 – July 2002)
If a remediation company
performs the investigation, writes the protocol, remediates and does its
own final clearance, the client may think that would be like asking a rat
to guard the cheese. I’m
sure that there are companies that operate this way and are highly
ethical. However, the client
sometimes has a different perception.
Typically, when a client has his mold contaminated home remediated,
he relies on getting a fair price and having only the property that is
contaminated remediated. He or
she is counting on not having to discard all their possessions if they do
not have to. They would not
want their home taken to the outer walls if it was not necessary.
Nor would they want to move into a hotel if it was not necessary.
Having two independent companies with one overseeing the other
gives the client a sense of comfort. The
investigative lab should be working on behalf of the client.
The client looks to the investigative laboratory to protect them
from unscrupulous remediation companies.
The remediation company should be directed to what and how much
should be remediated. Together
both companies, if working together, can provide the customer with the
best solution to his problem.
Dirty Harry (Clint
Eastwood) once said “A man has to know his own limitations”.
The investigative laboratory specializes in knowing what mold is,
where it grows, and how it is transmitted.
They are knowledgeable of health hazards they present, and
quantities that can be harmful. Other
concerns besides mold are carbon dioxide levels, sewage problems resulting
in bacterial contamination, dust mites, and a host of other potential
considerations that can effect indoor air quality.
The investigative lab specialist which can also be known as the IH,
CIH, field investigator, CIE, etc. is responsible for doing the survey to
determine what is contaminated and to what extent.
A good and complete investigation / survey should contain the
findings, recommendations or remediation protocol, cause and effect,
supporting lab analysis, environmental measurements, and moisture
readings. Most import, are the
remediation instructions or protocol.
This limits the scope of the work performed to the damage that
exists. No other remediation
should be performed unless the testing lab is informed and approves the
extension of work. This
protects the client from unnecessary work performed. When the remediation
protocol is written it provides the remediation company with guidelines as
to what is removed and replaced, what is discarded and what can be cleaned
and reused along with safety and containment guidelines.
Once the remediation is performed, the investigation lab does a
final clearance that determines if all work was done professionally and
the facility is safe for occupancy.
Both these companies have
a high degree of expertise. Keeping
the companies independent yet combining their services provides the client
the ultimate and secure solution. This
solution gives the client the best possibility of successfully remediating
the contamination at the lowest possible cost while protecting valuable
possessions. However, I cannot
stress enough that both companies must remain independent of each other or
they will be perceived by the client as one large operation that is
looking out for their own best interest rather than the clients.
An example of a project
both my laboratory and the remediation company worked on together was a
State Park historical building. This
was a turn of the century art theater on the grounds of the state park.
The state had contracted to have a new roof put on the structure.
During the installation, the contractor failed to cover the roof
with temporary sheeting. There
was a rainstorm with approximately ten inches of water that entered the
building through the roof causing water damage to the attic area.
Additionally, through an error of communication, the park turned
the air conditioning up rather than down thinking it would dry things out.
Rather, it caused extensive condensation and mold growth to the
lower seating area of the theater. Assuming
that mold growth did occur, the park administration called Microscope, a
remediation company, to have the problem taken care of.
Brian L’Hommedieu, of Microscope, informed them that they should
contact an investigative laboratory service to do the investigation to
determine the extent of the mold growth and write the protocol to be used
as the guideline for remediation. The
report would also be used for recovery of the costs incurred.
This report would go to the insurance company or the roofing
contractor for recovery of costs. Wolfgang
Paltian, of Air Quality Environmental, Inc., was contracted for the
project. They confirmed that
mold growth did occur and the protocol that was written gave the client a
couple of options. It was
found that the attic insulation and wood planked ceiling did get very wet
and remained wet causing mold growth on the attic side as well as coming
through the joints and appearing on the interior ceiling side in several
places. The remediation
protocol stated that the insulation should be removed and the planking
allowed to dry out. Once the
planking dried, mechanical scrubbing or light sanding of the planking
would be done along with running negative air pressure.
The other option was that the architects involved with other
renovations would consider the cost feasibility of the mechanical
scrubbing verses removal of the planking and replacing with new planking.
This would eliminate contamination that could be lying between the
boards that could later be exposed if moisture was reintroduced.
The lower part of the building would need to have the planked walls
mechanically scrubbed with negative air pressure applied to the
containment area. Once Air
Quality Environmental presented the protocol and lab / testing results to
the client, the client called Microscope Remediation Company back to do
the cost quote for remediation. Once
Brian was at the facility there were some questions that concerned the
project but were not necessarily covered in the written protocol report.
One was discussing the options of mechanically scrubbing verses the
removal. Another was that
there may be a cost advantage to the client if they replace the chairs in
the facility verses cleaning / sanding and refinishing.
Also, there were questions regarding the locations where mold was
found and was easier to locate once Brian was in the building.
All of the questions and locations of contaminations that were
confirmed and verified made quoting the remediation costs far more
accurate than if Brian and Wolfgang had not discussed it.
Therefore, the client got an estimate that had less chance of being
amended later.
Construction Project
Another unique project we
worked together on was a construction site that had its project halted for
three months after the foundation, crawl space and first floor were
completed. The site was a 3.5
million dollar resort club house that was 30,000 square feet.
During the construction halt, several heavy rains occurred flooding
the crawl space and causing severe mold growth to the flooring support
lumber and structural beams. Additionally,
the first floor plywood sheeting and framing also had heavy mold growth.
Microscope Remediation was consulted and Air Quality Environmental
was given the job of inspection and writing the protocol.
Because we were both involved we were able to work together on the
solution. Air Quality
Environmental had limited knowledge of what would work in that type of
situation and the client felt that just spraying it with something would
work. Microscope on the other
hand was unclear of how extensive the cleaning process should be in the
crawlspace with its limited accessibility and some of the first floor
framework once it would be enclosed. Questions
regarding water activity and how it could affect mold that had not been
removed were a great concern. Our
combined knowledge and experience proved to give the client the best
solution at the most feasible cost.
Solution
The ultimate goal
combining our knowledge and efforts on a project are to design the perfect
solution for a sensible and economical cost that passes final clearance.
If final clearance is passed then it can be said that the protocol
that was written and the remediation was successful in removing the
contamination without contaminating other areas or other property.
In conclusion, it is
usually in the best interest of the client that there remains a distinct
separation between the remediation company and the investigating lab
service. The two must never
get too close or risk compromising the presumed honesty of the analysis of
the client’s project. The
remediation company’s role is to take instructions from the
investigating lab service knowing what the intent is but being allowed to
do what is within his abilities to get the job done.
The investigating lab service on the other hand, should be able to
guide the client to the type of contractor or Remediation Company that is
best suited for the situation. The
client should have all options open to him so he can choose the one that
fits his budget and still provides him with a safe place to live.
The client must always feel that one is watching the other to make
certain that the job is done correctly, efficiently, and at the lowest
possible cost to the client and still pass final clearance.
If done properly, the client can be assured that his property is a
safe place to inhabit.
Wolfgang Paltian is the President and Microscopist at Air Quality
Environmental, Inc. located in St. Petersburg, Florida. His
Company provides indoor environmental consulting with in-house (EMPAT
participant) laboratory services throughout the state of Florida. He
has been in the IAQ industry for 6 years.
For more information, you can browse our web site at www.AirQualityEnvironmental.com.
You may also reach me by phone, (727) 327-7477 or email, wpaltian@AirQualityEnvironmental.com.