To Test or Not To Test
By James Holland, CR
The California Department of Health Services has stated in a consumer brochure
that they do "not recommend testing as the first step to determine if you
have a mold problem." It makes sense that if you see mold, you don't need
to sample to prove that it is there. However, the old adage "what you don't
know won't hurt you" doesn't always hold true. If you see mold, you can
then assume that there has been a dissemination of spores that are not visible
without the aid of a microscope. Depending on the amount of fungal spores that
have spread to the air space and therefore to other parts of the indoor environment,
sampling may be appropriate.
Here's a good example -- a restoration firm, with a trained staff, was asked
to perform restoration services on a water damage that resulted in a severe
mold problem. The insurance company agreed to pay for the mold remediation services
including the clearance sampling; however, they did not agree to pay for the
additional cost of sampling at the beginning of the job.
The firm performed the necessary remediation services and clearance sampling
was subsequently performed in the immediate area of the remediation. The sample
results indicated that the remediation services were unsuccessful. Sampling
performed outside the contained work area, throughout the remainder of the home,
further indicated that the levels of mold spores in the indoor air was unacceptable.
The Problem
Was the spread of the mold spores a result of the remediation firm's failing to
adequately contain the remediation work area, or were the elevated mold spore
levels present prior to the work being performed?
Had samples been taken prior to starting the job, it would have helped to establish
a more accurate scope of work indicating the need to perform additional cleaning
of settled spores or that there was a need for further investigation of the
home to determine if there were other areas of water intrusion that might have
resulted in mold growth.
If sampling, at the beginning of the project, did not show an elevated level
of molds outside of the original work area, then the clearance sampling might
have indicated that the spread of mold spores was the restorer's responsibility.
For the restorer, the situation was complicated by the fact that if he submitted
the cleanup costs to his insurance company, they may not have extended coverage
under the pollution exclusion. In this case, the restorer recognized the dilemma
and decided to bear the cost of cleaning up.
The subsequent cleanup effort was also unsuccessful. The follow-up sampling
indicated that the mold spore levels continued to be unacceptable. Later, hidden
pockets of mold were discovered in various locations in the home. This would
explain the failure of an otherwise successful remediation process and would
have absolved the restorer of responsibility for the spread of spores.
Two years later, the house remains unoccupied and the case is in the hands of
attorneys. We cannot be sure that the proposed initial sampling would have changed
the ultimate outcome, but it would have reduced the delay and the potential liability
exposure to the restoration firm.
Copyright Restoration Consultants 2001