...professionally trained with the techniques to erect engineerning controls to help prevent cross contamination during the mold remediation.
...should be made when mold contamination is
discovered, a building moisture inspection should be conducted promptly. Normally done by a 3rd party IEP or IH.
...can require a multi-disciplined approach involving specialized experts from various fields.
Also includes but is not necessarily limited to gathering information for
moisture problems and potential mold contamination.
WORK PLANS & PROTOCOLS
...performed by the contractor and IEP
provide the basis for developing plans for containment, hazardous or regulated materials, safety and health provisions, contaminated material removal and handling; and ect.
post remediation evaluation
...should be conducted
by remediators to evaluate whether or not remediation has been completed.
involves implementing internal quality control
post remediation verification
...should be performed by an independent IEP. If the IEP conducting any
activity such as assessment or post-remediation verification is not independent from the
remediator, they should disclose in writing to the client that they are
deviating from the Standard.
SAFETY & HEALTH
When it has been determined that an indoor environment is contaminated with mold, remediation workers shall be protected from exposure. Engineering controls, administrative controls, and
work practices are the primary means for preventing exposure. Appropriate respiratory protection
or other personal protective equipment (PPE) shall be used
in conjunction with engineering
controls to protect workers when engineering controls are insufficient, as
indicated in 29 CFR 1910.134(a)(1). Reasonable efforts should be made to inform occupants of and protect them
from similar exposure as a result of investigation and remediation activities.
DOCUMENT CONDITIONS & WORK PROCESS
In circumstances where an entire building or system is fully involved as a result of Condition 3 mold contamination or
when the scope of work can be determined without sampling or independent IEP inspection and assessment, engagement of an IEP for assessment may not be necessary. Furthermore, some
mitigation services may be initiated before or during assessment of conditions or performance of remediation processes. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if health issues are discovered or
apparent that seem to be related to the actual or suspected mold contamination, an IEP or other appropriate professional should
be engaged by the property owner and the extent and Condition
(1, 2 or 3) to which areas of the structure, systems and contents
are potentially mold-contaminated should be assessed, documented, and reported to the client. To avoid all conflict of interest during a mold remediation, the home or business owner should always have a 3rd party non biased IEP involved in the process. Having this documented by a 3rd party IEP is the best way to protect all parties involved.
The spread of mold contamination should be controlled as close as practical to its source.
Methods of controlling the spread of contamination can be by use of containment and air filtration.
Initial moisture mitigation services may be performed
to control amplification, while ensuring that
mold contamination does not spread from more-contaminated to less or non-contaminated areas.
Erect containment in a manner that mitigates the potential for
and exposing workers and occupants
Consider whether floors, walls, and ceilings require a polyethylene barrier erected
over them; or if they can be le
ft uncovered for later cleaning
Physically removing mold contamination is the primary means of remediation. Mold contamination should be physically removed from the structure, systems and contents to return them to Condition 1. Attempts to kill, encapsulate or inhibit mold instead of proper source removal generally are not adequate. Remediated structures, systems, and contents
can be considered clean (post-remediation evaluation) when contamination, unrestorable contaminated materials, and debris have been removed, and surfaces are visibly free of dust. The term “visibly” can include direct and indirect observation (e.g., using a white or black towel to wipe a surface to observe for cleanliness).
Also, remediated areas should be free of malodors associated with microorganisms. At that point, it is probable that the structure,
systems, and contents have been returned to Condition 1.
After a post-remediation evaluation, the remediated structures, systems,
and contents are ready for post-remediation verification. When verification that the structure, systems, and contents have
been returned to Condition 1 and when it is requested or required, a post remediation verification should be performed by an independent IEP. If
the IEP conducting any activity such as assessment or post-remediation verification is not independent from the remediator, they should
disclose in writing to the client that they are deviating from the Standard.